I WELCOME Pat Kane’s call (What does Confucius say about our attitudes to modern China?, April 14) for Scots to have “rich and full conversations” with Chinese people over “what a good and supportive human society might look like”.

The Scottish Centre for China Research at the University of Glasgow plays an important part in such conversations. Indeed, only last week we contributed to an event in Beijing, organised with Unicef as part of the First Minister’s visit, that brought together experts from Scotland and China to discuss approaches to tackling child poverty in both countries.

We did so because of the centre’s strengths in research on poverty and social policy in China. Our research on other major topics of mutual – indeed global – importance, such as urbanisation and the environment in China, are similarly part of ongoing exchange.

Let me also set the record straight on three assertions in the article. First, the Scottish Centre for China Research sits within the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow, and is completely independent of the university’s Confucius Institute. Second, as the centre’s webpages show, it has held numerous events across a wide range of topics including those that Pat Kane calls “off-limits”. Third, the centre’s research agenda and activities are determined by its researchers, who have complete academic freedom, and not by any external Scottish, Chinese or other body.

Professor Jane Duckett
Director, Scottish Centre for China Research, University of Glasgow

AGREEING with Michael Fry is harder than disagreeing with him and can involve, I find, imperiling a few principles (Why I support the UK’s role in the Syrian air strikes, April 17). When he extols the audacity of Margaret Thatcher in taking on the ousting of the Argentine junta forces from the Falkland Islands in 1982 there are some factors that aren’t on his radar, such as Britain’s right to dominate territory far outwith its homeland. Never mind that we in Scotland strongly dispute the UK’s right to dominate Scotland and us on its very doorstep!

Not that the far-right rule of the generals in Buenos Aires was any recipe for happy living, but the Conservatism practised by Mrs T was something on the same wavelength though less severe. Until the regime of the generals invaded the Falklands, Mrs T had been unprotesting about their regime, and later the same Mrs T was cordial enough with the equally brutal dictator of Chile, Pinochet, to have him as an honoured guest in London.

Britain has peopled far-off lands with its own people and then claimed that in the event of such people choosing to stay attached to Britain rather than claimant countries closer to the disputed territory (as has been the case with Argentina and the Falklands), this justifies Britain’s rule over such territories. The viewpoint derives from Britain’s imperial past.

Something akin to this also applies to Michael Fry’s agenda on Syria where three imperial powers – the United States, Britain, and France – have acted, imperiously one might say, in attacking a sovereign country without UN authorisation. This has simply been a re-run of Iraq 2003.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

The illegality of the use of chemical weapons is well established in international law: the purported legitimacy of an attack on a sovereign nation on humanitarian grounds is not.

Yesterday, when asked by Joanna Cherry QC MP to cite legal authority in international law for the proposition that the attacks on Syria were legitimate, the Prime Minister was unable to present any case beyond the vague and questionable argument that there was precedent for such attack. The humanitarian argument hinges on prevention of the future use of such abominable weapons.

The illegality of the possession, let alone use, of nuclear weapons is well established in international law. According to the logic of the UK Government’s legal case, any nation or group of nations would, on humanitarian grounds, have international warrant to eradicate the UK’s capacity for future use of its nuclear weapons of mass destruction. While common sense indicates that such a conclusion is preposterous, it is the rational conclusion to be drawn from the legal argument presented for the Prime Minister’s position.

If, on the other hand, the reasons for the attacks were punitive or demonstrative of intent to intervene in a civil war, the legal position is quite clear. Such an infringement of sovereignty is contrary to the Law of Nations.

If, by some happenstance, humanity and world peace have been well served by these attacks, I will rejoice and grant credit. I fear the contrary, and despite the laudation from western allies, I suspect that another deficit has accrued to the credibility of the United Kingdom.

K M Campbell
Doune