Letters To The Editor 2005-07-15

Attack on London

Remember too those killed in Palestine, Iraq

The London bombings remind me of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, where innocent civilians were deliberately targeted at bus stops without any attempt at warning. My friend, Eddie O'Neill, was seriously injured and his father was killed.

We should also remember the thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Palestine by US, British and Israeli forces. This is making the terrorists stronger.

Dr Seán Marlow

School of Electronic Engineering, Dublin City University

West must have dialogue with Muslim world

Your Editorial entitled 'End the War on Islam' was worthy at least for the fact that it addresses an issue absent from most of the official condemnations issued in the aftermath of the London bombings of 7 July. The issue is the need for world leaders to address the Islamic world and bring people of this background and culture into dialogue with the so-called western world and western values, which Bush and Blair claim to represent. Sermons about the "true meaning of Islam" do not suffice in this regard. They don't convince me, hence I sincerely doubt that they will convince any Islamic believer in the world today.

It has to be said also that the response of An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, similarly betrayed an unwillingness to grapple with the overall world context in which events like the London bombings are occurring. Speaking after his meeting with Pope Benedict, an Taoiseach seemed phased and he struggled to find anything meaningful to say. Yet here is a politician who has had numerous occasions to respond to terrorist atrocities in the course of his career. This is the same politician who led the country in mourning in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing. So why all this reticence to address the issues that are so glaringly obvious? Bertie Ahern must come clean and reveal to the Irish people to what extent we are embroiled in the Bush/Blair agenda and how can we disengage ourselves from it. If the current Government is not up to the task, then we must do what Spanish people did and find a government that is.

An impression is being created that it is simply enough to de-contextualise the issue of terrorism while condemning it. I seem to recall that during the years of the armed conflict in the north of Ireland the official response to terrorist acts were invariably along the lines of unequivocal condemnation of the act itself, followed by appeals to the men and women of violence to refrain from further acts, followed by appeals to the various forces to engage in dialogue that could alleviate the causes of anger and hatred. In short an effort was made to fill the void with politics, hence limiting the sphere in which terrorism and anarchy could operate.

In the world today there is no such effort to engage with the Islamic world in this kind of dialogue. In short there is no political response emanating from the "war on terrorism" camp. In this respect the response of people like Bush and Blair cannot even be called a response at all. Certainly not of the kind that will heal wounds and divisions. Their response to acts of terrorism is more attacks, more invasions, more encroachments on peoples' rights in the name of "security" precautions. And ultimately of course all this will lead to more terrorist attacks.

It may sound defiant to urge Londoners to re-invoke the spirit of the Blitz, but this is not the same world context as that prevailing in 1940. Moreover, Winston Churchill (whom purportedly both Bush and Blair would wish to emulate) didn't confine himself to making speeches – he went out into the world and forged war-time alliances – primarily with Roosevelt and Stalin. As well as defeating the Axis powers it was this alliance which was able to establish the basis for a peaceful settlement of a sort in the post-war context, the most important aspect of which was the creation of the United Nations.

Bush and Blair by contrast have alienated themselves on the international stage and created deep divisions within their own countries. They offer no vision as to what kind of world we will have should their wild adventure defy all odds and succeed. They do not even offer a definition of success. And what in any case is meant by repeated references to 'the British way of life' that the terrorists won't disrupt? Historically for a great many people the British way of life has meant the right to interfere anywhere in the world and plunder the wealth of nations. It is this 'way of life' that has stoked the fire and famed the flames of terrorism.

So how can Bush, Blair and the entire western world respond to the new challenge to create a peaceful world? Clearly they must address the Islamic world directly and re-assure these people that "the west" does not constitute a threat to their existence. For this to have credibility Bush, Blair et al must renounce their 'war on terrorism' (which you correctly characterise as merely a euphemism for war on the Islamic world); disengage from Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East respecting the sovereignty of the people of this region including sovereignty over resources they possess such as oil; work constructively for a solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict; return to the UN and work to build and strengthen the UN as the sole authority for use of armed force in resolving disputes between nations and peoples. The UN could also be an appropriate forum to initiate a campaign for co-ordinated international disarmament – involving not only states but also paramilitary groupings, terrorist cells etc.

Nothing in any of this implies the adoption of a soft attitude in dealing with the perpetrators of attacks such as that seen in London last week. Justice must prevail in the world. But clearly a consensus is needed whereby Islamic peoples will also become allies in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism along with other scourges that we have heard much about lately and were discussed at the recent G8 summit.

Oscar Ó Dúgáin

Fionnghlaise, Baile Átha Cliath 11

We must not let madmen dictate foreign policy

Listening to the analysis offered by a number political commentators in relation to the London bombing, I couldn't help but note that the abhorrence expressed has often been offered with a certain amount of reservation.

The gist of their comments runs along these lines: "These attacks are inexcusable, but if it wasn't for British involvement in Iraq this would never have occurred" or some other notable caveat.

This is the same type of argument that appeared in the wake of the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. Although these types of analyses are as inevitable as they are true, I believe they are often not helpful in the broader sense.

There is unquestionably a correlation between the foreign policy decisions of the US, Britain and Spain and their subsequent singling out for terrorist attacks, but these attacks should not provoke debate on the macro-geopolitical issues of the day, be they Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc.

Although recent terrorist attacks are intrinsically linked to Middle Eastern politics, it is counterproductive and unwise to let Timothy McVeigh-type characters dictate the agenda of politics or indeed the agenda of the media. All that can be done to prevent these attacks should be done, but debate of macro-political issues of foreign policy should not be conducted at the behest of a group of madmen.

The frequency of these attacks can be reduced by good intelligence-gathering, security measures etc. but terrorism can never be completely eradicated.

In the wake of each attack therefore, the inevitable media debate on the motives of such terrorists takes place, besides being absolutely pointless these analyses merely give the terrorists a certain credibility, while also providing a platform for the spouting of their insane, quasi-religious rhetoric.

The enormity of terrorist acts means they will continue to receive massive media coverage, but this coverage should always be placed in the context of madmen who will never tell us what to think, what to say or what to do.

Shaun Gavigan

Phibsborough, Dublin 7

Health insurance

Harney not trying to do down VHI

In arriving at his conclusions ("Unhealthy Competition", 1 July) about what he terms the Department of Health's "unconvincing" and "disingenuous" explanation of the decision not to trigger risk-equalisation in the health insurance sector, Fergal Keane got it wrong on a number of important points which your readers deserve to have corrected.

His contention that "everyone in the business of health in this country expected that the Tanaiste would ask BUPA to pay the VHI (€16 million)" would only be true of those who expected the Tanaiste to see her role in this important decision as nothing more than to rubber stamp the recommendations of the Health Insurance Authority.

That was never the Tanaiste's intention. Three weeks ago the Tanaiste invited, as required under Section 12 of the Health Insurance Acts, representations as to why a "proposed determination" ought not to be made. The legislation states: "The Minister shall take into account any such representations made ... before finally deciding whether to make the said determination." Therefore, this is a statutory obligation on the Minister to consider representation received before making a final determination. So given this obligation as set out in the Act it is not the case that the Tanaiste reversed her decision as stated by Mr Keane.

Furthermore, it is not the case that the VHI has been building its reserve fund in "the knowledge that the Government will sell them off whenever they can". The building of reserves has nothing to do with this, but is a prudential requirement on insurers generally. The VHI Acts state that the Board shall maintain reserves as it sees fit. However, while VHI is currently exempt from normal prudential requirements applied to insurers in relation to maintaining reserves, this derogation (under EU Insurance Directive) is not sustainable in the long term and the VHI Board has been building up its reserves towards the level normally required.

It is clear that the Tánaiste took account of views expressed in the representations received that the VHI should not have discretion in relation to its reserving but should be required to attain appropriate solvency levels. And in case it is assumed that it was Bupa ("a British company", as characterised by Mr Keane) which raised this issue it should be noted that the views expressed in the representations received that focused most strongly on the reserves issue were received from VIVAS, which is currently obliged to maintain a reserve ratio of 50 per cent (VHI currently has reserves of about 30 per cent).

Rather than any motive to do down VHI as speculated by Mr Keane, the Tanaiste made it very clear that her obligation is to promote the interests of consumers, not the interests of any particular insurer, irrespective of its ownership. She was influenced by the fact that there is a dominant insurer in the market, VHI, with an 80 per cent market share, conferred with the advantage outlined above in relation to reserving and she was determined to avoid the possibility of a return to a market with only one real participant. This would not be in the interest of consumers in general or even of the members of the VHI of which she is one. So much for "unhealthy competition".

It also turns out that your speculation that risk equalisation would play a part in any VHI application for an increase in the cost of premiums was premature and wrong. VHI has now sought an increase of 12.5 per cent but has made it clear that this application has nothing to do with the Tanaiste's decision not to introduce risk equalisation.

Finally, it is very clear that the Government is fully committed to community rating, supported by provision for risk-equalisation. It is currently defending related regulatory provisions in the Irish Courts and has intervened in support of the EU Commission's decision not to raise objections to risk equalisation in Ireland in the EU Court of First Instance.

Derek Cunningham

Press Officer, Department of Health and Children, Dublin

Dublin City Council

Hot air and empty rhetoric

Councillor Joan Collins' self-serving letter (8 July) is typical of her actions since her election to Dublin City Council last year – convoluted and completely failing to grasp the realities.

Joan is however correct to say that Fianna Fáil was given a "political hammering" in the last local elections. Yet she fails to admit that she allied herself to them on the election of Lord Mayor. She was elected as an "Anti-Bin Tax" Councillor yet failed to vote on the Estimates when they came before the Council in January last – her first opportunity to cast a vote on the city budget.

Since the election Labour has sought to include all parties in a new dynamic towards reforming what we can on the Council, and pushing for reform in areas where others have responsibility. Joan Collins' knowledge of this in relation to Council committees is similarly at odds with the reality. The Strategic Policy Committees are chaired on a proportionate basis with Labour, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin all chairing one or more. On the new Council, Labour through the City Development Plan, the Waste Management Plan, the Estimates process and numerous motions has delivered real, lasting and fundamental change. Cllr Collins, when she does bother to contribute, has delivered nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric.

Cllr Dermot Lacey

Donnybrook, Dublin 4

1916 Rising

A conspiracy to commit murder

In Village of 8-14 July, Jack Lane presents an apologia for a pre-meditated conspiracy to commit murder: the 1916 insurrection. His reference to the 300 civilians killed as a result of this act as a "handful of people" is reprehensible.

His intention is not only to excuse the insurrection, but through sophisticated reasoning to advance the idea that the Rising can be seen as having a "utilitarian," presumably, humanitarian value; in that it saved the lives of "thousands" of would-be volunteers; effectively dissuading them from involvement in the Great War. Even if this were true – which it certainly is not – it would represent an accidental moral justification for the insurrection, similar to that of Garret FitzGerald's pseudo-economic rationale which, to his embarrassment, he was forced to revise and qualify some time ago.

Both of these arguments seek to achieve exactly what Lane accuses revisionists of attempting to do; that is to "decontextualise" the insurrection. The factor that militated against a constant flow of Irish recruits into the ranks related to the volunteer status of Ireland's participation in the war; the insurrection had only a minimal, if any effect, on volunteering.

Those involved in the insurrection had one objective: to take over the country with German help and to impose a totalitarian dictatorship and brutally suppress all opposition. This is the real context of the rising.

Far from being based on contemporary politics, the insurrection destroyed an existing political consensus, ultimately succeeding in accomplishing what all good terrorists seek to achieve: that of bending and breaking the will of the majority to their determinations.

However, one might profitably add that after Redmond's terribly misjudged decision not to accept an offer of Home Rule in May 1917 from Lloyd George, and the mishandling of subversion by the British from 1919 to 1921, left open a clear path to power, enabling a violent nationalist elite, enhanced by a propagandist providentialist image of 1916, to take power in 1922. Hence the reason why we end up elevating someone such as Sean Clancy onto a pedestal, and consigning heroic and patriotic men such as Willy Redmond to a lonely grave.

Pierce Martin

Celbridge, Co Kildare

Bin tax

Unions failed to fight against double taxation

At a recent IMPACT union conference in Waterford, national secretary Tom Brady said that due to spare capacity in the system, green recycling bins should be collected by council workers in two years' time when the current contract expires. I think what Mr Brady means is that due to people opposing double taxation and having to pay bin tax, they only put their bin out every few weeks. As a result there isn't enough work for his members now. What a hypocritical twisting of the truth: if people like him in the unions had fought against the bin tax, he wouldn't have to grovel for extra work. Bureaucrats in IMPACT and SIPTU, the Labour Party union, did very little to oppose the bin tax and those of us opposed to double taxation won't forget that fact.

Simon Lleggett

Greenhills, Dublin 12

Haughey documentary

Boycott the TV licence fee

RTÉ's series of documentaries on Charlie Haughey were an abuse of the licence fee, an attempt to write his obituary before the embarrassment of a State funeral, where all his former colleagues will line up behind the cortege after taking communion. The Fianna Fáil faithful will have the received version: Haughey was a bit of a rogue, but he saved the country. If the people who made the programmes did not understand the utmost seriousness of Haughey's abuses of power, and that seriousness cannot be overstated, and the implications for how this State is run, then they should be working on children's programming. If they did, but didn't raise them, as they could by examining them in the light of what is best international practice and really probing what these things mean, then they are complicit in corruption: taking money for dishonest purposes. Either way, people are entitled to ask whether they, on the lines of the bin protests, should not boycott the licence fee until there is a full independent evaluation of the national broadcaster, which seems to have forgotten – if it ever knew – the distinction between being a State broadcaster and a public service broadcaster.

Eoin Dillon

160 Ceannt Fort, Mount Brown, Dublin 8

West Papua activist in Dublin

"Violence by the Indonesian military forces has increased. West Papuan people have been pursued, detained, terrorised, intimidated, imprisoned, tortured, raped, killed and disappeared." A prominent advocate of human rights in West Papua will visit Ireland from 15-19 July to highlight the tragedy of his homeland, which has suffered more than 40 years of Indonesian rule, and build support for the struggle for peace and justice.

Revd Socratez Sofyan Yoman, President of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches of West Papua, has been invited to Ireland by West Papua Action to raise awareness of a brutal occupation.

At a public meeting on Saturday, 16 July at 2pm in Carmichael Hse, Nth Brunswick Street, Dublin 7, Revd Yoman will reveal how efforts to promote West Papua as a "Land of Peace" are being thwarted by ongoing military operations, which claim many lives, and the failure of the Indonesian government to engage in peaceful dialogue. New members very welcome.

West Papua Action

134 Phibsborough Rd, Dublin 7

Tel: 087-2969742 ://westpapuaaction.org