The response of President Michael D Higgins to the alleged threat posed by Israel to Irish soldiers is comprehensible, predicated no doubt on profound worry for these soldiers’ wellbeing. Nonetheless, it may not be judged as prudent or entirely correct. It’s worth revisiting articles 13.9 and 13.11 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which staunchly regulate how presidential powers can be exerted. Furthermore, Article 29.4.1 delegates foreign relations to the executive body. Any President, in their capacity as the protector of the Constitution, should avoid overstepping its boundaries.
It appears the President has infringed upon this in his recent remarks, unless these were sanctioned or advised by the Government. Based on the latest denial from Unifil that any such threat was made, the President’s intervention may have been informed by a skewed understanding of the situation.
All parties involved in the current Lebanese conflict, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), indeed pose a risk to all Unifil soldiers. The force has sustained casualties, including Irish soldiers, from hostile engagements with Hizbullah and the IDF since 1978. The IDF’s current positioning near an Irish Unifil post indeed represents a significant danger. This is a technique also commonly utilised by Hizbullah and it is equally reprehensible when deployed by the IDF. It warrants objection and denouncement from those in possession of all the facts, including Unifil, the Taoiseach, the Foreign Affairs Minister, and relevant Defence Forces authorities.
The President, however, might contemplate adhering to the limitations of his office. Should he find this impossible or chooses not to, he should certainly verify his information prior to voicing concerns.
Subject: Tramore’s Metal Man – Two centuries of solitude on the coast of Waterford
from: Michael O’Dwyer, Clogheen, Cork.
Dear Editor,
Even though it is clear that Michael D Higgins holds favour with the majority of the Irish population, my concern, along with an increasing number of others, is growing regarding his recent forays into politics. I admittedly might not remember correctly, but my impression was that Higgins appeared less politically verbose during his inaugural term as president, a term he previously assured us would be his only one. His subsequent, and current, term seems to be saturated with his reflections on a range of political issues, including those of both internal and international concern.
As someone who is aware of the subtleties in his statements, I note their roots in Higgins’s previous roles as a Labour TD and Minister. My apprehensions are now centred around the key position of the presidency and the conduct of individuals potentially assuming this role in the future. I worry that they may follow the path of our current president, blurring the traditional borders with politically-filled narrations.
Yours truly,
Frank Walsh, Coolballow, Co Wexford
Editor,
I propose that the government think about the possible elimination of the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, seeing that it appears President Higgins has unofficially bestowed this role upon himself.
Yours truly,
R Whelan, Greystones, Co Wicklow
Ed,
The Unifil forces are positioned along the border between Lebanon and Israel, their purpose being to bring about and maintain peace and security in that area. However, given the risk to our troops, isn’t it reasonable now to acknowledge that this mission is failing, and as a protective measure, should be terminated as soon as possible?
Yours truly,
Simon Blake, Munich, Germany