Letter: Sandline in Sierra Leone

Sir: Your leading article (9 May) defends Robin Cook's alleged actions with regard to Sierra Leone and asks for "more openness". From your comments it would appear that the UK government should be able to sponsor covertly any armed intervention (regardless of UN / EU sanctions) against "illegal" regimes so long as the minister is "open" about it.

The moral question of whether the UK should have been involved in restoring the "legal" regime is irrelevant; sanctions were imposed to try to stem the fighting and bloodshed within the country. The Foreign Office's apparent decision to throw yet more petrol onto the bonfire cannot be regarded as a serious attempt to restore the legitimate government.

Two "ethical" questions that immediately spring to mind over this affair:

1. If the British government was so confident that the rightful administration had to be restored to power in Sierra Leone, why didn't they use the UK's regular armed forces instead of covertly hiring a group of mercenaries to do some gun-running against UN sanctions?

2. What is the difference between breaking an arms embargo on Sierra Leone and breaking one on Iraq or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

P WILLIAMS

Limassol, Cyprus

Protect the unborn child