Republican News · Thursday 24 April 2003

Opposition to war not anti-American

A Chairde,

As an Irish-American who opposes the imperialist American policy in the Middle East, I find it necessary to respond to Mr MacSceacain's letter published 10 April. Mr MacSceacain does not speak for all of us.

It should come as no surprise to members of the republican community that many Irish-Americans are not as progressive as your average Sinn Féin member. Mr MacSceacain's simplistic transformation of Sinn Féin's anti-war position into an "anti-American" one conveys that particular Irish-American conservatism I know so well.

Suffice it to say that to be against American unilateralism, disregard for international law, and downright arrogance, is not to be anti-American. On the contrary, understanding and respect for those ideals that Americans are supposed to cherish leads us to criticise the Bush administration's actions.

I believe that Sinn Féin's position against the war more closely resembles "American" ideals than the warmongering hubris of the current US government. I applaud that stance and am anything but "disheartened" by international, and especially Irish, opposition to current US policy in the Middle East.

Brian Sherry
Washington, DC
USA

War on Iraq stance

A Chairde,

I am a supporter of the current war in Iraq for many reasons. With that said, I have read comments both favouring and opposing Sinn Féin's position regarding their opposition to the war. Those finding it difficult to understand Sinn Fein's position are forgetting to look at the broader context of their current position and circumstances.

It came as no surprise to me that Sinn Féin opposed the US/Britain led war in Iraq for several reasons. First, being left of centre, it unified them, politically, with groups of which they have traditionally shared similar interests. Second, taking a pro-war position would have shown tacit agreement with British government policy and likely weakened their overall opposition stance against the government. Third, taking a neutral stance, one advocated by many people I spoke with, would have shown indecisiveness and have opened them to attacks from all sides. Not taking a side in a fight is sometimes worse than supporting the losing side.

Finally, and I would say, most importantly, openly supporting hostility would have made them bait for more UUP, DUP and PUP accusations they do not really support non-violence in the ongoing peace process.

I am certain their decision to oppose the war was not because they supported the Sadaam Hussein regime. In essence, I would expect their position to be in solidarity with the Iraqi people. Their decision to oppose the war was carefully weighed and served the best interests of the party's overall objectives in the current political environment.

Arthur J. Costigan
Philadelphia, PA
USA

Furious at Mel Grimes

I am furious!

Furious at the letter by Mr Mel Grimes from New York. It is nothing but blatant blackmail. In a nutshell, he's saying that Irish republicans had better dance to the tune of the Bush administration or they won't get their money. Outrageous.

Is it now going to be 'regime change' in the republican movement? I assume that Mr Grimes, having written to your newspaper, considers himself a supporter of the Irish republican cause - from his words I would put him more comfortably in the fascist camp of Perle, Rumsfeld and the other one whose name I can never spell... Wolf something-or-other.

Does he not understand that, at root, Irish republicanism is not just about Ireland - it is about universal liberty. A nation that enslaves another can never, itself, be free.

Personally, I've never believed America was a free country anyway - you buy liberty there. The American literary icon, Gore Vidal, made much the same point some weeks ago on TV. To my knowledge he's not been on the media since. I only hope there will be some American supporters of the Irish republican cause who will have the courage to refute the scandalous views of Mr Grimes.

Brian Anson
Cairde Shinn Féin
France

Cutbacks and scams

A Chairde,

I have been reading in our national newspapers that greedy politicians have given themselves §500 a week extra after breaking their pre-election promises and lying through their teeth about the poor state of our economy.

There are drastic cutbacks in our health and education. Is this where the money came from for their pay increases?

Jumping on the gravy train of greed are Dublin City Chamber of Commerce. They want a new sports stadium based in the city so that they can get their greedy hands on the potential cash bonanza, thereby creating more traffic congestion and chaos, and depriving the people of Dublin North West of new business ventures, creating jobs and recreational facilities and the expansion of CIE rail and bus opportunities.

Are we the Irish electorate going to put up with these scams? Hopefully not!

Eamon Gibney,
Dublin

Bertie's no republican

A Chairde,

I would like to voice my dismay over the position taken by our government in the recent talks on the peace process. Bertie Ahern has once again shown that he is more of a puppet than a politician, by insisting on sanctions for those that default during the peace process. This is another more polite way of telling republicans to do what unionists say or else. It should be pointed out that nowhere in the Belfast Agreement were sanctions either mentioned or discussed, so why introduce them five years later? Is Bertie forgetting that this document was endorsed by the whole of the island of Ireland on that occasion?

The unionists, led by the magical David Trimble, who seems to be able to disappoint at will, have time and time again tried to introduce more stumbling blocks that will undermine rather than underpin the Good Friday Agreement.

Bertie Ahern does not want to upset the unionists, not indeed his war ally Tony Blair, and this is the only reason he panders to such unacceptable demands.

Do us all a favour Bertie, when you begin campaigning for the next elections, have the decency to change your party logo, because a republican party you are not.

Pat Carton
Roscommon