Dear Sir, Russia had offered the rebels in Chechnya an amnesty if they would lay down their arms and instead of the West encouraging them to do so, they began to threaten Russia.

Thus the rebels thought the world was on their side. Furthermore, intending rebels elsewhere will start up. If sanctions were to be put on Russia, they would risk Russia going communist again since their experience of capitalism (unpaid people everywhere) is not good anyway. Back to the cold war again with China's billions allied to Russia. Do we really want a nuclear war? Why can't the West see beyond the tip of their noses? If they can't be sensible...they should mind their own business. Look at the mess they have made in Kosovo, substituting one lot of bad people for another.

GEORGE GAIL PAGET Such a welcomed letter February 11, 2000 Dear Sir, I would like to sincerely thank M.B. for his/her letter of February 10.

Reading it was a definite breath of fresh air.

G.D.A.B.

Pembroke Errors need addressing February 8, 2000 Dear Sir, The article on page 2 of The Royal Gazette , Tuesday, February 8, 2000 concerning St. Mark's Church and Father William (Billie) Hayward is so full of inaccuracies, errors and omissions that I felt that I had to respond.

My entire family and I have been members of St. Mark's congregation for twenty years. I take strong exception to Mr. Junior Dunstan's entire account of events at St. Mark's Church. He does not speak for my family or me, nor does he speak for everyone in the congregation. He does not speak for the vestry; he does not speak for the Anglican Bishop and he does not speak for the Anglican Church or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The following errors need to be addressed: 1. 90 signatures to a petition out of an active congregation of approximately 175 is not a "small percentage''. It is a majority of the active congregation willing to publicly express their concerns.

2. The Rector-elect did not meet all of the criteria for selection as set out by the congregation to the vestry. Meeting some of the criteria does not make him qualified, just because he is Bermudian. Being Bermudian is not and should never be the main criteria for a job -- qualifications and experience are equally as important.

3. The petition is not and never has been a `vote for a Rector of St. Mark's.

It is a petition against the installation of an individual who does not meet the qualifications of the job as set out in point No. 2.

4. Contrary to the implied impression that the protest against the Rector-Elect started with the choir, it started with the majority of the congregation expressing their dissatisfaction to each other over the choice of the Rector-Elect. The choir felt strongly enough to express their individual dissatisfaction with the present choice of Rector, as do the signatories to the petition.

5. If Mr. Dunstan does not want "to become involved in a slanging match'' (as he calls it), why is he attempting to distort the good intentions of members of the congregation? He is entitled to his opinion, but so is the rest of the congregation.

6. As to Mr. Dunstan's question concerning an application by Jesus Christ for the job at St. Mark's church, I would whole-heartedly support His installation as Rector of St. Mark's Church. He would have all of the qualifications and would be able to rectify all of the divisive attitudes being expressed by individuals.

7. The Rector-Elect has not been "filling in for several months after the departure of father Robert Thacker'' as Mr. Dunstan states. Several priests have been "filling in'' over the last several months.

If the Rector-Elect is the best choice for St. Mark's church, here are a few questions that I would like to have answered: 1. Why did the congregations of St. John's Church, St. Paul's Church and Christ Church Devonshire protest so adamantly against the installation of the St. Mark's Rector-Elect? Is there a shortfall in the experience and qualifications of the Rector-Elect that St. Mark's should ignore? 2. Why has the number of attendees at St. Mark's Sunday school dropped from an average of 25 to its present level of 8 to 10? 3. Why have so many of the congregation of St. Mark's Church already left the congregation? Are they protesting something or just changing churches? 4. Which criteria did the Rector-elect meet and which criteria did he not meet when he applied for the job of Rector of St. Mark's Church? 5. How much influence does the Board of Immigration have in the appointment of any rector and why? What happened to the separation of the offices of church and state or is this just a blurred line of present day authority? 6. Why hasn't the Anglican Bishop or any of the other Anglican clergy spoken out about this and clarified the Anglican Church's position -- giving reasons for their decisions? 7. Does the Archbishop of Canterbury have anything to say on this matter? Hopefully, all of these errors, omissions and questions will be either rectified or answered prior to the installation of a new Rector at St. Mark's.

An error is easy to rectify before it has been made, but is extremely hard to correct, once it has been made.

EX-ST. MARK'S CONGREGATION MEMBER Smith's Parish A clear-cut issue February 10, 2000 Dear Sir, It is always encouraging to receive a response to a letter, but it is a pity that the comments by Kirk Kitson and "Just Another Bye'' (JAB) criticise me for things I did not say in my recent letter, which concluded that the Castle Harbour project was a fleecing of the Bermudian taxpayer.

First, I do not know why Kirk should conclude that I oppose the development because it would be an exception to the 60/40 rule. I have opposed the 60/40 for years. I am not against the development either -- I just want Bermuda Properties to do it on their own nickel, not on the back of the taxpayer. In addition, the nonsense about prospective revenues being used instead of current revenues still means the public gets shafted if it goes wrong.

JAB says Bermudians only lose money if the project turns sour. If it is a great project no guarantee would be required from Government, or anyone else.

This is not a hotel development project, but a real estate speculation guaranteed by the Bermuda taxpayer. He (or she) also says international business gets tax concessions. Not true. The key issue for international business is the absence of corporate or income taxes, a smart policy which Bermuda has always pursued.

I quite agree with both that tourism is in trouble and that something has to be done to remedy the situation. In my time, I have made many recommendations such as privatising the Department of Tourism which has been a black hole into which we have poured the taxpayers' money. Providing a subsidy means quite simply perpetuating the bad practices which got tourism into trouble in the first place.

Because people like Mr. Kitson and JAB tend to think of jobs as ends rather than means, they are easily fooled into supporting Government policies on the basis that jobs will be created. This is a fallacy. The question is not whether government action creates jobs, but whether the workers in those jobs will create more wealth than they would in other occupations or industries.

I could recommend some stimulating reading for both but the issue is quite clear-cut. Government should stay out of the business of business. Business be it hotels, or selling peanuts, should be governed by the principle that if you do not make profits you are not pleasing the customer; and if the customer is not happy no amount of government subvention will cure the problem. Siphoning off taxation to help corporate lame ducks (or fat cats) does not make sense, and never will.

ROBERT STEWART Sir John Swan's legacy February 5, 2000 Dear Sir, There are those who still wish that we would "forget the past'. Yet ninety per cent of our problems have their roots in either the immediate or distant past. That includes the dire predictions of potential economic problems by the former Premier.

In the late forties when Dr. Gordon's supporters began protesting Bermuda's racist practices the then- power structure began to displace black Bermudians whose gracious manners had built up the tourist trade-in favour of white expatriates. The results are the attitudes towards the hotels that we bemoan today. As our economy shifted towards financial investments and reinsurance the policy remained the same. Moreover, as late as the thirties and forties, the white power structure was overt in declaring that Blacks should be educated for second class citizenship. Later the policy was less overt but just as determined.

At the ascendancy of Sir John Swan a great many black Bermudians were euphoric because they assumed that the would act as a bridge between the two communities. They were soon disillusioned as they realized that while he wanted a "wealthy'' Bermuda he did not care that, increasingly, they were expatriates who were the primary beneficiaries while more and more blacks were sitting on the wall or selling drugs to get their "piece of the pie''. I do not believe in the "trickle down'' theory so I have never understood the logic of an ever-expanding economy that must be serviced more and more expatriates who reap the rewards while the majority of local Bermudians are excluded for all kinds of racist and other reasons. These international companies, about which Sir John is so concerned, operate in other jurisdictions where they knew from the outset that the locals were to be a part of the economy and their operations. If they are shocked and flee Bermuda because they are now expected to behave in the same way in Bermuda, Sir John Swan is responsible just as he is responsible for making them believe that this racially divided society is "integrated''. Without his propaganda it would have been evident enough to them that we are anything but "integrated''.

Sir John now says that people should speak out but when he was in power he ensured that I paid a very heavy penalty in more ways than one for doing just that.

Let's not fool ourselves: Sir John Swan is no "Jack Sharp'' -- no matter how often he involves his name! EVA N. HODGSON