Now that Haiti has an urgent need to borrow money because Jean-Claude Duvalier ran off with $400 million, one wonders if there isn't an international mechanism for retrieving funds stolen by deposed heads of countries. Is it fair to require the poor in such countries to repay the money? Perhaps if banks could secure repayment only from those who took or controlled funds, they would be more careful. How about repossessing some of the billions of dollars' worth of military hardware the United States sold these impoverished people? Steve Rennacker Berkeley, Calif.
Why did the United States send a US Air Force jet to Haiti to transport a deposed dictator and his plundered wealth to another country? This does not appear to be an appropriate expenditure of US tax moneys. It also calls into question America's commitment to human rights and to the support of the democratic form of government in other countries. James and Elaine Jackson Mebane, N.C. Ireland
The editorial ``Moderation gains in Ireland'' [Feb. 1-7, International Edition] states, very reasonably, that ``patient negotiation is the only proper course.''
Unfortunately the unionists, who obtained 75 percent of the votes, have been excluded from the Anglo-Irish process. The agreement was imposed upon them; they were not consulted beforehand and have no say in the workings of the agreement. The nationalist SDLP, however, has an input through the Dublin government, whose policies largely reflect the position of the SDLP.
The agreement gives the South a decisive say in the way in which the North is governed. The North gets not only no say in how the South is governed, but the majority community in the North has no say in how it is itself governed. The agreement is so manifestly unfair and one-sided that it has no hope. It can only exacerbate tensions. Paul Rowlandson Limerick, Ireland
Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published, subject to condensation, and none acknowledged. Please address to ``readers write.''