Sir, – What is the UK’s justification, legal or moral, for the air strikes on Syrian bases?
If it was to wipe out sites where chemical weapons were allegedly stored, what can the effect of bombing be but to damage poisonous gas containers which would leak and affect human life and health in the vicinity? Does such irresponsible action not make the UK, the US and France as culpable as the Syrian regime?
If, as we are told, sufficient time was given to allow the Syrian regime to move poisonous gas canisters or the means of making poisonous gas, what is the purpose of bombing empty army bases?
It is simply not enough to say that collateral damage to civilians was minimised by ‘pinpoint’ attacks.
As I understand it, there are three reasons recognised at international law for launching armed intervention against a foreign power:
- When a state is under immediate threat of armed aggression by an enemy belligerent
- When the UN Security Council authorises such an attack
- For humanitarian reasons when a population is being massacred by its government, which is internationally recognised as a murderous regime and such intervention is authorised by the United Nations.
Regarding the last two points, the position of the US, the UK and France, I understand, is that authority was sought from the UN Security Council by first seeking an international investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria in Douma.
This was blocked by the Russians who pointed out just such an investigation was under way by the internationally recognised body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Russian position appears to have been seen as correct by Germany and the Netherlands.
Nevertheless, the UK apparently takes the view that Security Council permission is not necessary in an emergency. This view is without legal basis.
We have already intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (and by ‘we’ this includes Russia) and all we have achieved is to make life even more intolerable for the unfortunate people who live there.
Alexandra MacRae.
8 Jubilee Park,
Letham,
Forfar.
Unprovoked act of aggression
Sir, – The attack on Syria by Washington and her puppet states of Britain and France was a flagrant breach of international law.
It was an unprovoked act of aggression against a sovereign state who had not attacked or threatened any of the belligerents. According to the Nuremburg tribunal, the supreme international crime is aggression.
An utterly corrupt and dishonest Western media promoted the government claims without producing any evidence to substantiate them.
US officials and the media tell us that the illegal US missile attack on Syria destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured.
If this were true, would not a lethal cloud have been released that would have taken the lives of far more people than claimed in the alleged Syrian chemical attack on Douma? Would not the US missile attack be identical to a chemical weapons attack, and thus place the US and its vassals in the same category as Washington is attempting to place Assad and Putin?
There is no question that had any Russian personal been killed it would have brought about relation and escalation.
The world should understand that because of the insane Trump regime, the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.
Alan Hinnrichs.
2 Gillespie Terrace,
Dundee.
Step too far for Mrs May
Sir, – By participating in the strike on Syria, Theresa May has placed our forces under the effective control of an erratic US President.
She justifies her actions with the pre-democratic doctrine of royal prerogative.
Yet it’s only legitimate for a prime minister to act without parliamentary endorsement when Britain is directly threatened, and this was manifestly not the case in regard to the Syria strikes.
For Theresa May to participate in this act of puerile militaristic machismo was an abuse of her office.
Trump’s infantile tweet, taunting Russia to “get ready” for his missiles because “they will be coming, nice and new and smart” was almost beyond belief.
For the de facto leader of the West to talk like Joe Pesci in “Goodfellas” not only brings the American democratic process into question, but undermines the entire post-war geo-political settlement which was premised on law and rules-based international relations.
Rev Dr John Cameron.
10 Howard Place,
St Andrews.
Pedestrianise the city centre
Sir, – St Andrews Space for Cycling (SASC) fully supports Councillor Thomson’s perceptive request to review the case for pedestrianisation of the centre of the town (“Views wanted on idea to pedestrianise part of busy town centre”, The Courier, April 13).
SASC is strongly of the view that the rate of traffic increase in St Andrews is damaging to the fabric of the town as well as the health of the inhabitants, through air pollution, accidental injury risk and the creation of obesity.
When the roads are thick with traffic it becomes unpleasant and dangerous to cycle and walk and people feel they have to drive.
Yet cities across the world are tackling this problem through promoting the use of efficient public transport and making it safe to walk and cycle on spaces separated from cars.
There is abundant evidence such a change benefits the local economy. It is natural that shop owners fear the loss of custom if parking spaces are removed – but St Andrews will always attract tourists and visitors and probably more so, if the centre of the town is safe and pleasant to walk. This will require the development of alternative parking provision.
We ask the council to carry out a feasibility study including the building of a new car park at Petheram Bridge with an electric shuttle bus connection to the centre.
We also propose a series of car-free days as has been tried in Perth, so that residents and visitors can experience the joy of walking in a street without traffic.
Tony Waterston.
St Andrews Space for Cycling,
9 Tom Morris Drive,
St Andrews.
Fife schools and Easter Monday
Sir,– Who sets the school holidays in Fife as they do not seem to be planned very well?
This year Fife Kids got Easter Monday off, but have not done so in previous years and it looks like in April 2019 Fife kids will yet again be in the classroom on Easter Monday.
This is scandalous, especially when our neighbouring councils of Perth and Kinross, Clackmannanshire and the City Of Edinburgh are giving kids Easter Monday off in 2019. Schools in these areas all resume on April 23 2019 but in Fife they start on Easter Monday, April 22.
The Easter period is a major Christian holiday/festival and as such should be respected. Institutions such as the National Trust and Historic Scotland have special Easter events on, but kids in Fife will be denied the opportunity to attend.
It is high time this discrepancy was sorted out and Fife Council should close the local schools on Easter Monday every year.
All that needs changed is when the in-service days are held or the start/end dates of terms need to be tweaked slightly – again something our neighbouring authorities seem to manage well.
Alastair Macintyre.
18 Webster Place,
Rosyth.
