Trump has betrayed values of US’s people
DONALD Trump’s obscene comments are a disgraceful slur on developing nations, and a fundamental betrayal of the core values of the American people.
They belie the interconnectedness of our world and the US’s own contribution to the state of global poverty.
We at Concern can say from firsthand experience that the US government has been an indispensable contributor to some of the most important efforts to save and safeguard the lives of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
But clearly, it’s time for a frank conversation. A five-minute history lesson would highlight the fact that despite being a powerful force for good, the US also continues to pursue policies that play a huge role in causing the very problems that force people to emigrate in the first place:
Despite having just more than 4% of the global population, the US is responsible for almost a third of the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere, contributing disproportionately to the global climate crisis, where drought, floods and starvation now grip the least offending nations as a result.
Rising levels of global conflict, forcing millions to flee and seek safety are being fuelled by global arms sales, of which the US is the largest exporter. Arms sales from the US to Saudi Arabia – which has been investigated by the UN for war crimes in Yemen – amounted to more than four times the amount spent on overseas aid last year.
For decades, US agricultural and food aid policies were accused of ‘crop dumping’ – distributing food to countries such as their beleaguered neighbour, Haiti. Directly benefiting American farmers, these policies completely undermined local production and exacerbated Haiti’s economic development.
The President’s comments portray a disgraceful lack of solidarity with the world’s poor. Perhaps more worryingly, these remarks from Donald Trump indicate that the current administration has no ambition to continue America’s role as a genuine leader on the world’s stage. If true, this is a tragedy. DOMINIC MacSORLEY , CEO Concern Worldwide,
Dublin 2.
Hook harshly treated
I TOTALLY agree with Síle Seoige’s criticism (Mail, Friday) of George Hook’s trial by social media by which no one has a chance to defend themselves.
It is good that Hook is now back on radio and I hope that his experience will not inhibit him in telling things as they really are and not adjusted to the PC agenda. It should be pointed out that trial by social media also affected journalist Kevin Myers and, in fact, left him without a job and, seemingly, no support from colleagues.
It really is unacceptable that people can have their careers ruined by unaccountable persons and without any right of defence. Why has there been no outcry about this? After all, if it hap- pened to George Hook and Kevin Myers, how many others are now in line for the same treatment, and who is there to defend and protect them from such unjust treatment? MARY STEWART, Donegal town.
Free TV? Hardly!
WE constantly hear the term ‘free to air’ applied to terrestrial television. I recently received my TV licence renewal notice requiring me to pay €160 on, or before, February 1.
This money, among other things, goes towards keeping some seriously overpaid individuals at our national broadcaster in the luxury to which they have become accustomed.
We are frequently reminded during threatening advertisements that having no TV licence is an offence that is punishable by a hefty fine and/or a term of imprisonment.
So, not alone are we paying for this supposedly ‘free to air’ television service, the full rigours of the law are being deployed to make sure that we don’t default.
What I would like to know is: precisely which part of €160 is considered free?
EUGENE CASSIDY, Co. Cavan.
Demolish Trinity
DUBLIN’S population could very well increase to five million by 2030, so planners will have to change the model they are working with and come up with a new way of making the best use of space and sites.
Buildings and even whole streets will have to go so that Dublin will work efficiently, difficult decisions will have to be made and we may lose landmark buildings because we can make better use of the ground that they stand on.
One such building that should go because it is causing a problem is Trinity Collage. I appreciate that this is a very beautiful building visually but the ground that it sits on could be put to better use. If it was to be redeveloped, how much better it would be for the city. For instance, the tram line could run straight through Trinity from Dawson Street.
The benefits would outweigh any historic or nostalgia value it may have. Trinity could be moved to a green field site in Mullingar it does not need to be in Dublin.
By demolishing Trinity we would be making a statement that we are ready to embrace a future that puts people first, not buildings. NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS
SUPPLIED.