Republican News · Thursday 13 February 2003

Disperse aid, not cluster bombs

A Chairde,

It is widely accepted by the great mass of ordinary people around the world that Bush and his groupie, Blair, want to bomb the Iraqi people for their own narrow ends.

Is it about bringing Democracy and Freedom to Iraq? Chance would be a fine thing. The US props up some of the most oppressive regimes on earth - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Colombia, etc - and are not shy about toppling democratic governments to get their own puppets installed, remember the disgraceful overthrow and murder of President Allende in Chile? And they replaced him with one of the most evil dictators of the 20th century - Thatcher's soulmate -Pinochet.

Let's remember that Saddam too was put in power by the West to serve their interests. They had no problem supplying him with all the weapons of mass destruction he could use when he was at war with his Iranian neighbours. Only when he tried to go his own way did the little matter of him being a despicable despot become a problem for Washington.

Surely, the millions spent on the impending war would be better used to alleviate world poverty and tackle the scourge of Aids.

Let's have a look at one Third World country, Malawi. 10% of its 13 million people are HIV positive. A tiny fraction of the dollars in George Bush's war chest would surely go a long way to tackle this problem.

In Eritrea alone, in the horn of Africa, 11 million souls are starving. It is completely clear that Western leaders care nothing for the suffering of the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet.

Instead of dropping huge, indiscriminate bombs on the civilian population of Baghdad, it would be much better to bombard places like Malawi and Eritrea with food, medicine and other humanitarian aid.

Jim Gavin (Councillor)
Smarmore
Co Louth

ti-Americanism

A Chairde,

Why is it that in almost every debate regarding this impending war, the issue of "anti-Americanism" - in some form or other - is levelled at those who take issue with US foreign policy?

Why is that people who support the war or the use of Shannon Airport for war activities are not questioned on their possible "pro-Americanism"? After all, both positions - base anti-Americanism or base pro-Americanism - are equally crass and ignorant.

The charge of anti-Americanism is a blunt instrument applied against one side in the debate while those who are quite clearly un-critical, or indeed, openly supportive of the US do not have to explain any possibility of base pro-Americanism.

Furthermore, the anti-war people have to explain their position on anti-Americanism as well as on the specific issue of the war, while those who are pro-war or pro-American are allowed to argue their case without any diversion into possible pro-Americanism and without having the motive for their position questioned.

As opponents of the current war build-up and of the use of Shannon for illegal military purposes, we are labelled anti-American. How can this be? How could we possibly be anti those Americans who oppose war, who oppose US interference in other countries, who oppose savage embargos and economic blockades, or the Americans who have been disenfranchised, the old, or American children?

It may surprise many to learn that there is a sizeable Cuba solidarity movement in the US - and has been since the 1960s. Despite charges of anti-Americanism levelled at us, we manage to cooperate quite successfully with our friends in the US.

ti-Americanism and anti-American foreign policy are two distinct issues. Surely this is not so difficult to understand.

Declan McKenna
Co-ordinator
Cuba Support Group
Dublin 2

Iraic

A Chairde,

Ní cóir baint ar bith a bheith ag Neodracht le claidhreacht, ach i gcás na hÉireann, tá an chosúlacht air go bhfuil! Ní claidhrí muid ar an ábhar go bhfuil eagla orainn ár gcur féin mar sprioc do Œsceimhlitheoirí‚ach go bhfuil eagla ar ár dtaoisigh roimh fhearg Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá agus Shasana.

Ní cóir go mbeadh eagla ar mhuintir na hÉireann roimh íomha na Œsceimhlitheoireachta faoin leaba‚ atá cruthaithe go healaíonta ag Bush agus Blair lena gcuid impiriúlachas a cheilt. Go dtí le gairid, ní raibh baint ná páirt againn leis.

Is é athair baistí na sceimhlitheoireachta George Bush agus a chéile coirpeach Príomhaire na Breataine a bhí i gceannas ar an olldhúnmharú dheireanach san Iaráic: sa chéad Œcogadh‚ sin in aghaidh Saddam (an deachtóir a chuidigh an C.I.A. leis cumhacht a shealbhú a‚ chéaduair), maraíodh 148 saighdiúirí Meiriceánach (cuid mhór acu i dtaismí eatarthu féin) agus 0 sibhialtach Meiriceánach!

Maraíodh 100,000 saighdiúir agus 150,000 sibhialtach neamhurchóideach Iaráiceach!!

Leagadh 88,500 buamaí gan idirdhealú, gan rabhadh ar an tír ˆ oiread cumhachta is a bhéadh i seacht mbuama cosúil leis an cheann a leag SAM ar phobal bhaile mhór Hiroshima! Níl an focal 'sceimhlitheoireacht' láidir go leor do sin!

Cuirtear i leith Saddam Hussein go bhfuil armlón ceimiceach aige. Tig an líomhain sin ó na daoine céanna sin a scaoil thar 300 tonna úráiniam ídithe san Iaráic agus atá anois ag diúltú cabhair leighis a ligint isteach san áit: cinemharú a dhéanamh acu faoi scath an fhocail cleasaigh 'smachtbhannaí'. Cosúil le Chernobyl, ach é bheith déanta d‚aonturas! Tá na mílte páistí ag fáil bháis ann achan seachtain. (tig na fíoraicí seo ón leabhar scanrúil 'The New Rulers of the World' leis an iriseoir taighdeach John Pilger). Níl fíoraicí na hAfganastáine ar eolas go hiomlán go fóill; is í an Iaráic an chéad sprioc eile arís; do bhárúil gur sin an deireadh?

Dár ndóigh, cuirfear 'Daonlathas Iartharach' i réim sna tíortha sin ansin nuair atá an chuid is mó de na daoine marbh agus an chuid eile faoi sceimhle. Cuirfear rialtas lofa nua dílis do mhanaí Mheiriceá i réim go luath ina dhiaidh sin sa dóigh is go mbeidh daoine saibhir na n-ollnáisiúin abalta éirí níos saibhre as ola agus as acmhuinnní nádúrtha eile na tíre. Le duine saibhir a chothú, caithfidh daoine eile bás a fháil!

Tá suas le 1,000,000 daoine marbh san Iaráic go dtí seo, sibhialtigh neamhurchóideacha a bhfurmhór agus tá sé de dhánacht acu 'sceimhlitheoir' a thabhairt ar Saddam! Bhéadh an focal 'Núíosach' níos foirstinní!

Tá na hOllchumhachtaí céanna ar tí ár eile a dhéanamh ar an Iaráic gan mhoill, tír atá ar a glúine cheana féin ag an ár agus ag an léirscrios ainshrianta claidhreach dheireannach a rinneadh orthu in ainm na fíréantachta.

mbeidh sé de mhisneach againne seasamh suas agus rud ar bith a dhéanamh fá dtaobh den scannnal seo a bhfuil muid ag cuidiú leis? Nó an cuma linn fá dhaoine anaithnid ag fáil bháis má tharlaíonn sé fada go leor uainn? Má thugaimid tacaíocht ar bith d‚fheachtas ollmharfach mar seo, tá ionsaí sceimhlitheoireachta tuillte againn féin! Mura ndéanann muid gaisce éigin leis an ár seo a chosc, is claidhrí muid mar náisiún!

Tá mórshiúil agus imeachtaí eile in aghaidh an Œchogaidh‚ seo ag dul ar aghaidh i mBéal Feirste, i mBaile Átha Cliath agus in áiteacha eile ar fud na tíre ar an 15ú den mhí seo. Tosaimis ar chogadh in aghaidh na sceimhlitheoireachta ansin. Seasaigí suas don daonnacht!

Proinsias Mac Bhloscaidh,
Croithshlí,
Tír Chonaill

Kings or queens

A Chairde,

Your lead article about changing the name of Derry to Derry(!) contained a gross inaccuracy.

It was stated that the Queen of England put the London into Derry back in 1641. Now I'm not much of a royalist myself but the King of England in 1641 was Charles the First. He was later publicly beheaded for treason on the orders of Cromwell but, as far as I'm aware, this was nothing to do with the renaming of Derry.

However, I'm sure there are some ultra-loyalists out there who would accuse the current Queen of England of treason, were she to give royal assent to the restoration of Derry's ancient, non-imperialist name. Maybe they are sharpening their axes as I write.

FG,
Limerick

Mea culpa, FG, whoever you may be. This just goes to show that even the best of us make mistakes, although those of us with history degrees really should have copped that one. The correct story, for those who strive for accuracy, is that Derry was named 'Londonderry' in 1613 by James I as a gesture to the 12 companies of the Corporation of London, to whom he officially 'granted' both the city and county. - Ed

Strabane Memorial Flute Band Parade

A Chairde,

We would like to take this opportunity to invite any bands or interested groups to attend the forthcoming 17th Anniversary parade of the Strabane Memorial Flute Band.

The parade will commence from Drumrallagh Estate (Head of the Town) at 2pm on Sunday 23 February. Events will include a band competition, a quiz, musical entertainment and a hot buffet. This year's parade will highlight the case of The Castlerea Five, therefore we would appreciate the bands and groups bringing along any banners or placards relating to this issue.

For further information please contact Tomai on 02871880903.

Tomai Diver
Strabane

Sanctions debate

A Chairde,

I wish to thank Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD for his prompt response to my letter of 30 January, as I do realise he is quite busy.

In his letter of 6 February, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin argues that sanctions are a "justifiable option" for the EU to employ against Israel, and thinks now would be a good time to do so. This time around, however, he appears to temper that call with the proviso that they be "limited" economic sanctions, the better, presumably, to avoid the kind of widescale devastation that is experienced by Iraq.

But why call for any sanctions against Israel at all? After all, limited sanctions are hardly likely to cause the Israeli government to change course, and harsher sanctions are a non-starter, particularily as many European countries would likely be quite squeamish on the issue in light of their own recent history. Besides, without the US on board, they simply wouldn't bite, unless the matter is nothing more than political opportunism, or a 'feel-good' ploy.

Let's be honest here, putting the boot into Israel is not exactly frowned upon in certain republican circles, and isn't going to alienate too many voters. It doesn't carry a very hefty political price tag either. On the other hand, as Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin points out, Israel is sponsored by the US, so why not call for sanctions against them, cutting out the middle man, so to speak? You know, "just to make the political point" that their support of Israel is totally unacceptable. At least it would be consistent, if somewhat politically inept. It would not, however, come quite so cheaply.

Mr Ó Caoláin correctly points out that sanctions are applied inconsistently, and much of this is to do with the shenanigans of the UN Security Council.Fair enough. So why compound the problem by clamouring for more of the same? Why not simply acknowledge that sanctions, as a rule, may not be a great idea (South Africa being an exception, where the people there were actually supportive of them). Why not move beyond the rigorous ideology that appears to demand the same old staid response at every turn?

Mel Grimes,
Woodside,
New York