Please write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

October 2004

[Re] Sultan Shahin's Resolving Kashmir with a Musharraf model [Oct 29] ... What makes the Musharraf model so revolutionary? Essentially, the idea that all parts of the original pre-1947 Jammu and Kashmir state, including those at the moment held by Pakistan, should be demilitarized and their status changed in such a way that they do not belong to either India or Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has finally accepted the independence option for Kashmir without actually putting it in those terms. Pakistan has traditionally demanded the implementation of the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which could not be implemented partly because of Pakistan's unwillingness to pull out troops and thus demilitarize the occupied territories. These resolutions envisioned the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to either India or Pakistan, as per the wishes of the people to be ascertained in a plebiscite. Pakistan was never agreeable to the demand by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front that independence from both countries be included in the options at the time of plebiscite. India considers the UN resolutions obsolete. The Musharraf model appears to take away the option of accession to any of the two warring states altogether and offers different degrees and forms of autonomy or independence, though he doesn't quite say that in so many words. He is proposing to "identify the region, demilitarize the region forever and change its status [which can then have] independence, condominium where there can be a joint [India-Pakistan] control or there can be a UN mandate". Obviously this implies that even a region as dear to the heart of the Pakistani army as Gilgil and Baltistan in the Northern Areas of Kashmir will either have independence or joint India-Pakistan control or a UN mandate, if the Musharraf model is to be followed. The option of any country controlling any territory independently is just not there, unless [President General Pervez] Musharraf is employing Orwell-speak, in which independence means the freedom to be occupied by the country of one's choice. Mistrust of Musharraf is so high in India's strategic community that most analysts are not even prepared to give deep thought to any of his proposals before rejecting them. But for this, Musharraf might have been seen to have done precisely what Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked him to do - think outside of the box. Indian analysts have mostly focused on the misdemeanor of Musharraf dividing Kashmir state into seven parts, two on the Pakistani side and five on Indian side, even though generally Kashmir is understood to have five regions: the Northern Areas, the so-called Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. For them, this merely smacks of a narrow-minded regional and communal approach, though it can also be interpreted as encouraging ethnic and linguistic minorities in the state to have their say in the final solution of the long-festering dispute. Indian analysts do not even appreciate that the Musharraf model seems to finally bury the argument that Jammu and Kashmir should be a part of the Islamic state of Pakistan by virtue of its overwhelming Muslim majority. It also for the first time opens up the possibility of the status of the Northern Areas - Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan - to be determined afresh. Musharraf divides the state into seven regions: Buddhist-dominated Leh; Shi'ite-dominated Kargil; the Kashmir Valley; Hindu-dominated Jammu, Kathua and parts of Udhampur districts; Muslim-dominated Rajouri, Poonch and Doda districts; Pakistan-occupied "Azad" Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. These divisions, however, are not so neat on the ground. People living in Rajouri and Poonch, for instance, have linguistic and ethnic links with the people across the LoC [Line of Control]. Similarly, the people of Karnah in north Kashmir's Kupwara district share similar bonds with the people living across the Neelum Valley.
Arun Joshi, PhD
Chief of Bureau (Jammu and Kashmir)
Hindustan Times
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (Oct 29, '04)


Sultan Shahin pays glowing tributes to [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's new "off the cuff" offer, categorizing it as "out of the box" thinking [Resolving Kashmir with a Musharraf model, Oct 29]. What's new about this offer? Nothing is the answer, and yet the author makes it sound like Musharraf has outwitted policymakers in Delhi. "Outwitted" may be the wrong word. "Frustrated" perhaps is the right one. Every newspaper recently reported the Indian prime minister's words in New York requesting "out of the box" thinking on Kashmir. What does Musharraf do? He dusts [off] Nawaz Sharif's idea that was ruled out by India years ago. Mr Shahin's research obviously did not include a proposal made in 1993 by Nawaz Sharif, a democratically elected leader of Pakistan. He offered the same proposal, with a quid pro quo demilitarization of POK [Pakistan-occupied Kashmir] if India does the same in Kashmir. Musharraf also insists on delusional, off-the-cuff negotiations through the media. The Indian establishment is rightfully tired and frustrated with Mr Musharraf. Mistrust comes a close third. Even The Economist in [a] recent editorial indicated that for Mr Musharraf to voice thoughts to the media on strategic negotiations indicates the lack of attention of policymakers in Delhi. Mr Shahin's worries about Indian analysts are misplaced. Why should they waste time when the Hurriyat, so-called Pakistani representatives of Kashmir, have not appreciated the general's proposal? Ditto for the opposition in Pakistan and its members who have rightly been against the new outbursts of the general. What's there to worry about a previously discredited proposal? Brownie points from international media may be good for Musharraf's standing in Pakistan, but do not affect institutional negotiations which have been going on for 50 years and may go on for another 50.
DD
San Francisco, California (Oct 29, '04)


[Re The WMD-lite scandal, Oct 29] Looters got nearly everything of value while our guys [US military] guarded the Oil Ministry and [Ahmad] Chalabi took care of the banks and Treasury Department. Saddam [Hussein] had long been ... contained. How could we possibly re-elect this odious incumbent, architect of disaster?
R T Carpenter
Florida, USA (Oct 29, '04)


Dennis Castle [letter, Oct 28], you indulge yet another self-centered absurdity: "Strong leadership on America's part would certainly have sought to make amends with nations harmed during that struggle [against 'communism'], but ... the Cold War really was a zero-sum game." Strong leadership (whatever that means) would have prevented harm to innocent bystanders, thus have nothing for which to make amends - which, in reality, it has never intended to make. But according to you, the US has always been passive and helpless to prevent harming the innocent - and at least as passive and helpless when it comes to actually making amends. The lame lip-service of the powerless must suffice. In fact, the US has not only never been concerned with preventing harm to others, it has never been passive when inflicting harm. The harm is more often than not at very least predictable, but usually deliberate; examples are [Ronald] Reagan's illegal wars in Central America, which included support of right-wing death squads which terrorized and murdered innocent civilian men, women and children. (Much of that prevented them voting in democratic elections for candidates "strong leader" Reagan happened not to like, even though it was none of his - or the US's - business.) You continue your excuse-making, now with combined extremist oversimplification and exaggeration: "Either the world would have been lost to a Stalinist nightmare or we would have the opportunity to pursue freedom as we do today." What you mean "we", ideologue? Most democratic nations do not restrict the kinds of political parties which can exist, campaign for election, and if elected, govern. That is, of course, the excuse exploited by such as Reagan: though the US doesn't attack Italy, France or other powerful nations for allowing "communists", as example, to not merely organize as political parties, but also to campaign for election, and when elected to govern, it doesn't tolerate such political freedom and diversity within the US. Nor, in fact, in, as example, Central and South America, when it can prevent it, even though not the US's business, and even as it preaches "self-determination". I remind of the democratically elected democratic government of Guatemala overthrown by president [Dwight] Eisenhower in 1954. And of the democratically elected government of Chile overthrown in 1973, premised upon [Henry] Kissinger's view that the people "cannot be trusted with democracy", and followed by the US appointment of fascist mass murderer/dictator Augusto Pinochet. According to you, Mr Castle, all those deliberate acts were the "inadvertent" consequences of the US's passive helplessness. You continue: "Yes, the [US] took questionable action that may ['may'? - didn't you admit it as fact?] have harmed ... other nations and no excuse will seem good enough. [Can one say "Abu Ghraib" and "no excuse will seem good enough" in the same breath?] America's imperfect response [act aggressively with condescending superiority; but when amends are demanded plead 'imperfection'] is that the alternative [non-suppression of political diversity in the US and, as example, Central and South America?] ... would have harmed [those other] cultures and religions and everyone else [except in such as Italy and France?] to an incalculable magnitude ... Of course it appears arrogant to take ownership of the responsibility to stop [that which the US selectively labels] totalitarianism [even when it is not]but, frankly, nobody else was in a position to take the lead in doing so." And those sovereign peoples who would choose political forms of which the US selectively disapproves would wish the apologists for US hypocrisy and harm would genuinely take responsibility by being intellectually honest and responsible instead of smugly rationalizing a fake passivity which fails to mask an offensive condescension based upon "the supreme confidence of a Christian - with four aces" (Mark Twain). "Because the Cold War was won by the [US], we live in a world where most can freely believe whatever we [in the US will decide others may] like." What you mean "we", ideologue? "We can work together in as positive [as defined by the US] a light as possible." What you mean "we", ideologue?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 29, '04)


Dennis Castle in his letter (Oct 28) asked, "What is India's solution to defeat global terrorism today?" The answer is: eradication of poverty through fair trade (not the so-called free trade), which is not a priority at all for Western countries - in fact they are forcing developing countries to enforce a rigid, anti-poor economic agenda. Terrorism stems from a combination of injustice and poverty, both of which go hand in hand. There can be no social progress without economic progress. Considering how the poor are being ground into the dust with increasing severity, we can expect global terrorism to worsen. It is also worth remembering that the majority of poor countries landed in that position due to colonial exploitation. The Cold War was not the only zero-sum game - modern economics also fit that bill. It's like a jungle, where for one animal to eat some other animal must be eaten. For one country to become rich, several countries must become poor. Letter writer Frank [Oct 28] mentioned that comparing India to Africa is not racism. Actually it is - because your implication was that India had culturally degenerated to the level of Africa, which is pretty racist towards Africa. The DNA study you (Frank) mentioned was conducted by a private institution (a US university), not by the Indian government. Please don't spread such outright lies.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 29, '04)


I have to agree with Rakesh [letter, Oct 28] that most of the people who enjoyed colonization and those who suffered are no longer around. However, that colonization mentality still exists. We can still tell from the way they write their letters at ATol. Just as Chrysantha Wijeyasingha indicated [letter, Oct 13], many white people still view India the same as Africa. I heard it in America too. However, I do not think that is racism. For those Indians who think that they can be equal by just wiggling their tails, the master may let you jump on the driver's seat or get a law degree from time to time [but] when they are not in the mood, they will still throw you out of the train. For example, Indians including some high-level Indian officials are much more likely to be strip-searched by security guards. Do Indians like that? It is true the world has moved on. However, if you pay attention to history, it often moved in circles. Historically, white people use Indian slaves as solders, police and opium growers. Those Indians brought more destruction to Asia-Pacific than whites do. Many of the English-speaking Indian elites are actually the descendants of those servants for [the] English. They like white people's colonization. Fiji is one of the examples. If Indian people cannot learn from the past, we have no idea that they will do that again. I do not hate white people. Most of the white people treat yellow people as equal in the Pacific states of America. However, I think both yellow and white Americans should speak up against those people who are still dreaming about the good old days either as masters or as servants. Otherwise, the world will move into another circular track.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 29, '04)


ATol always pretends to have a moral high ground by dismissing the mainstream Chinese view of peaceful reunion with Taiwan as the rhetoric of the Communist Party, the campaign toward war, and the menace to human rights, without even bothering to look into China's real peace propose for Taiwan, since (I guess) the translated copies from Taiwan separatists are already very satisfying for ATol. I admit that my claim that "all 1.3 billion Chinese view Taiwan as part of China" is off the mark somehow (maybe only 1.2 billion). Nevertheless, it [is] still much closer to the truth than ATol's self-righteous declaration that most Chinese do not care a whit about Taiwan one way or the other. ATol also claims to have no position for or against de jure Taiwan independence. However, it does raise a few suspicions to know that ATol has meticulously documented China's threat against Taiwan and, [at] the same time, painstakingly tries to hide the provocative actions consistently made by the racist Taiwan government, even these had been already openly acknowledged by the neo-con elements of Bush administration. It will be very interesting to see how ATol referees a fair game when it has its own interest in the game.
Liu X
New York, New York (Oct 29, '04)

It was not a "declaration" - we used the word "likely", a qualifier. That is the whole point: you don't know what some peasant in Hebei province thinks about Taiwan or anything else, and neither do we, or the Chinese Communist Party (if it even cares). We can only surmise from available facts, which would be a lot easier to do with some accuracy if there were freedom of speech (and thought) in China. - ATol


It seems that the Colin Powell quote in J Zhang's letter (Oct 28) has touched on some raw nerves at ATol. Why else would the ATol retort to J Zhang that the "Official US policy on the de jure status of Taiwan ... is not relevant to the de facto status of Taiwan"? Powell's point man for Asia and the Pacific, assistant secretary of state James Kelly, also testified in the US Congress not long ago that the Taiwan independence claim is merely "a political statement". The consistency and importance of such a longtime US foreign policy is utterly obvious and beyond any disputes now. One key problem in Taiwan is that the option for people to have any future reunification with the mainland is being stubbornly pushed off the table by Chen Shui-bian's government. This unilateral attempt to change the status quo is a major cause for alarm and warning by Powell and others from the US. The de-sinification programs currently ongoing in Taiwan are so vastly pervasive and so immeasurably insidious that people who consider themselves to be both Chinese and Taiwanese, a majority only a couple of years ago, are on their way to becoming one of the endangered species. Where is ATol to ensure that their opinions are heard loud and clear? Please do not insult the intelligence of ATol readers again by repeating the oft-used excuse that nobody stood up for their positions. Gee, I wonder why.
Jay Liu
USA (Oct 29, '04)

It's not an excuse - pro-unification Taiwanese are welcome to express their views on Asia Times Online. Few if any have bothered to do so. You can argue that they have not done so because they assume they would not get a fair airing, but that itself is an excuse easily discredited by the widely varying opinions ATol runs on other subjects, and by the fact that writers from the mainland have often appeared on our site supporting Beijing's line on Taiwan, Hong Kong democracy and many other issues. Taiwan, unlike the mainland, allows its citizens to form and express their own opinions, whether or not they toe the Chen Shui-bian line. For an analysis of those opinions, see the new ATol story Taiwan reels from Powell's anti-sovereignty 'goof'. - ATol


Responding to the ATol comment on J Zhang's letter (Oct 25), ATol states "Not [to unite with China] if you believe in the principle of self-determination - for others as well as yourself." This is certainly not the first time ATol raised the issue of self-determination. Yet ATol and the Western mainstream media as well willingly ignore the other equally if not more important issue - sovereignty. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China; cessation of Taiwan can only be determined by 1.3 billion Chinese people. The so-called de facto independence is not recognized either by the majority of the world community nor by the UN and is only a transitional stage. Either unification or independence will occur in our lifetime. Regardless of the situation in mainland China, the destiny of Taiwan should not be determined by people on Taiwan only. The rule of law and the sovereignty of China require so. My question to ATol is: Why can't a community in the US, say members of Waco Branch Davidians, vote themselves and their compound into independence from the US (for that matter, the native Americans on the reservations, or the Mexicans on a farm they bought in the US)? [Are] they entitled to self-determination as you mentioned above? The one-sidedness of ATol on the Taiwan issue indeed betrays ATol's self-proclaimed objectivity as an alternative news source.
GongShi
USA (Oct 29, '04)

You misread the context of the note under J Zhang's letter (and you also apparently do not understand the difference between "de facto" and "de jure"). The "not" in the note was in reference to Zhang's claim that solving the Taiwan question was "easy". Of course the sovereignty issue is crucially important; our argument is that self-determination is also important, and that until Beijing accepts that fact, the Taiwan question can never be resolved amicably. As to China's position on sovereignty, under the current political system, this is not "determined by 1.3 billion Chinese people" but by the minuscule fraction of those people who have influence in the Chinese Communist Party. - ATol


I agree with Liu X's sentiment in the reply [letter] on October 28. During those years in the school funded by Taiwan, we students were bombarded with patriotic propaganda and vowed to retake mainland China "by force", and Taiwan was then the representative of all 1.3 billion Chinese in the United Nations as well as the Security Council. The majority of the world communities seemed to agree that it is within Taiwan's right to do so. Now it is mainland China that is the representative in the UN, China should have the same right to unite the country - by force if necessary, as Taiwan has always advocated - because both sides have long agreed that they wanted one China. If Taiwan had the military capability during these six decades, it would have invaded and retaken the mainland by now. So it is not up to Taiwan now to change the rules in the middle of this dispute, because that island belongs to China, and whether it is democracy is not the question. I believe it has annoyed "the West" no end that China did not break up [in] the Soviet Union's way and would not let the so-called "expert economists" from "the West" to tell her what to do during her transformation to a market economy; she also refused to allow herself to come under the control of the World Bank and the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. And for the first time in modern history, a substantial number of the world "non-white" population are coming for a much bigger share of the world resources and "the West" does not like it. So it would use any excuse to weaken China. By the way, to those who never let go any opportunities to wag China with the Tiananman Square incident, I would like to ask these questions: Can anybody tell me how come the protesting students in the Square were so well organized? They were well catered for for weeks, they had tents, bedding for the nights and plenty of materials for banners, megaphones, music and big sculpture. They did not seem to lack anything, and we are talking about thousands of people in a huge area. Where did they get all those resources from and who were the financier? We all know that Margaret Thatcher was most unwilling to relinquish the Hong Kong colony. If the protesters could start something chaotic and tear the country apart, whom do you thing would gain from it? I am just asking the question. Perhaps some investigative journalists would be interested in an in-depth probe into this "incident".
Caral
Western Australia (Oct 29, '04)


Time and again, the Chinese propaganda death squad simply misses the point altogether. I refer to the latest ream of missives from our friends J Zhang and Liu X. First J Zhang [letter, Oct 27] gives us an earful about the divine destiny of the Han race and how "Taiwan does not deserve self-determination, because they are not a different people or nation, but part of the Chinese nation". What Zhang and his ilk fail to understand is that what we in Taiwan want is simply the freedom to decide our own destiny, not some rabble-rousing Neitzschean fantasy about the brotherhood of the race. The reason no progress is being made regarding the cross-Strait question is quite simply because Beijing has crushed all discussion of this issue, and paints self-determination as "separatism". Considering the number of times this word is bandied about by Zhang and Liu, one might think they are paid per usage. For Taiwan's part, both the pan-greens and the pan-blues are failing their people, because of their inability (or lack of willingness) to take the domestic political argument beyond the realm of "unification" or "independence" and establish the issue as it truly stands: as a question of morality. Liu illustrates the failings of this clearly when he blasts us with the intellectually infantile "power of numbers" speech so often relied on by Beijing to drill its message home. "Why do you [Asia Times] ignore the opinions of 1.3 billion Chinese who view Taiwan as part of China?" Liu writes [letter, Oct 28]. Well, Liu, I suppose if you believe that superiority of numbers creates the moral justification for one party to impose its will on another, you will have no problem if I and three of my friends gang-rape your sister. After all, if the three of us want to, and only she doesn't, we must be right. So do you mind? Furthermore, let me address Zhang's inspiring closing words: "I do have faith in the integrity and the wisdom of the Beijing government. If that makes me a 'cheerleader' overseas, then I proudly say, so be it." Well that's just great, Zhang. None of us would have guessed that you would be so willing to toss aside your capability of reason so you could toe the party line. For my part, I have to say I would much rather be an individual and think for myself, and be skeptical about any and every government's plans for the world, than be a parrot and put my faith in the all-too-fallible schemings of greedy and intemperate humanity. I pray that reason will prevail in the end, before thousands of the sons and daughters of families on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have to give their lives for the egos of bitter old men and the empty slogans of partisan dreams.
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Oct 29, '04)

In a letter above, though, GongShi makes a good point about the apparently uneven application of the principle of "self-determination". - ATol


I waited with bated breath to hear of the blood-and-guts version of Indian scientists' connivance in the nuclear-arms trade Indian scientists sanctioned for assisting Iran on nukes. Alas, not even a mention. I'm pretty sure the likes of [B] Raman and [Syed Saleem Shahzad] would have been all over this story, had Pakistani scientists been involved. Can ATol please explain? Meanwhile I notice that ATol, in the latest articles written by Raman, has dropped reference to his being the "head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, from 1988 to August 1994". Does your newspaper not think that this information is necessary to understand why Raman has such a putrid hatred towards Pakistan? Raman's background as head of RAW explains the tripe he writes. If you are not willing to remove this obviously conflicted individual from your editorial staff, I would request you at least keep this information in his bio so that your readers take his articles with a pinch of salt.
Kamran Ali (Oct 29, '04)

They do anyway. - ATol


Regarding your submarine facts debate [letters, Oct 28], I believe submerged submarines can be detected by side-scanning radar satellites like Canada's Radarsat (or better military ones), because they produce a wake disturbance which shows up clearly on the satellite image. If the submarines run very deep their wakes probably become undetectable, but I do know the specifics on how deep they have to be to accomplish this. My hunch is submarines remain formidable weapons.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Oct 29, '04)


... I must express my disappointment in the exchange [among] Sri, Kannan and T Kiani [six days away] from our US presidential elections ... As I read T Kiani's letter [Oct 27], he wasn't saying India had belonged to Pakistan, he was saying the word "India" has its roots in the language of the people of Pakistan and not in the language of Hindi or any of the other 32 languages that have been spoken in India. He was not giving a geography lesson. While we are on the subject of history, after my studies of Advaitism in India, I conclude that just as in Christianity, much of the teachings of Hinduism have not been understood by Hindus, but that is a personal opinion just like the personal opinion that no one outside of a given country can know much about any country other than their own ...
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Oct 29, '04)


I simply have to write this letter after reading the articles on submarines by Phar Kim Beng and Eric Koo. The two articles contain too many factual errors. Eric states that submarines are easily detected by radar, but if a submarine is submerged it can only be detected by sonar [Submarines: Obsolete symbols of national pride, Oct 28]. A radar can only detect a surfaced submarine. And contrary to most belief, it is very difficult if not impossible to detect a submarine that has not given away its position by transmitting or firing. The US Navy has over 50 submarines traveling the globe at this moment; detecting and hitting one is like tracking a needle in a haystack. If the submarine is obsolete, the US Navy or Russian, French, British, Chinese, Indian navies won't be spending billions developing next-generation submarines. The latest SSN [ship, submersible, nuclear] of the US Navy, the Virginia class, will become operational [this month]. If everything goes as planned the US Navy will built 30 of these ships. And contrary to the author's belief, modern technology has made the submarine deadlier than surface ships. The Virginia has a unit price in excess of US$2 billion. If one day the submarine becomes obsolete, it is because of the price tag ... Mr Phar's article states, "In addition to its one nuclear-powered submarine, which has been ridden with troubles that confine it to the port, China is building two new U-boats" [The Chinese Dragon submerges, Oct 28]. Nonetheless, in the same article the following was listed: "According to Sid Trevethan, an Alaska-based specialist on the Chinese military, Beijing has deployed 57 submarines, including one Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, five Han-class sub, four Kilo-class subs, seven Songs, 18 Mings, and and 22 Soviet-designed Romeos." This showed that the author did not know that the five Han-class subs are nuclear-powered SSNs. The phrase "U-boat" is also a misnomer nowadays, because a nuclear sub can easily be bigger that a destroyer or even cruiser. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I believe it would be a disservice to your readers by publishing articles on subject matters by authors who only have passing knowledge (in this case totally wrong). Mr Koo and Mr Phar obviously did some research before writing the articles but they are touching on very technical issues here. If you want to know more, a useful link is www.naval-technology.com.
Ray (Oct 28, '04)

"U-boat", which was used colloquially in the article, is an angicized abbreviation of the German Unterseeboot (undersea boat). Although obviously modern subs can be much larger than their World War forebears, the word itself does not imply small size. - ATol


I am a frequent reader of Asia Times Online, and appreciate its high-quality articles very much. That's why I was rather surprised and disappointed to see the article The Chinese Dragon submerges [Oct 28] by Phar Kim Beng to contain some major mistakes, which, if left uncorrected, would give readers misleading information and damage the credibility of Asia Times. First of all, China has more than one nuclear submarine in service. Under the command of Admiral Liu Huaqing, whose achievement in building up China's nuclear submarine forces helped him rising to the vice chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (CMC), China developed two classes of nuclear submarines, the Han and the Xia. The Han was designed to be a nuclear attack submarine, while the Xia was a modified version of the Han capable of launching ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. There have long been disputes over whether one or two Xia submarines were built, but it has been fairly established that PLAN [the People's Liberation Army Navy] operates five Han-class nuclear submarines ... In addition, the notion that "the Taiwan Strait is narrow and relatively shallow because of the continental shelf, making it difficult for submarines to operate and hide" is also highly questionable. While it is certainly true that the Taiwan Strait's shallow water would be difficult for large-scale nuclear subs, the noisy sound background and interference of currents may very well make it an ideal operational environment for quiet conventional submarines, such as the Kilo and the Yuan. For instance, the shallow water means the smaller subs can "sit" on the seabed for days without being detected. This has been repeatedly confirmed in naval exercises conducted by various nations. Finally, Mr [Phar] failed to maintain the proper balance in his article by neglecting to inform the readers that Japan has one of the largest and most advanced submarine fleets in the world, and the Pentagon is in the process of deploying several nuclear submarines at Guam. Thus the scenario of submarines chasing one another in western Pacific Ocean is by no means a slim chance as Mr [Phar] suggested at the end of his article. It is a distinct possibility as China is not the only country expanding its subsurface capability today.
Jun (Oct 28, '04)

You say China has five nuclear submarines that are operational. This could well be true, although Western sources have not nailed down a figure. Even you seem unsure. As for your point that Japan's submarines are far stronger and more numerous, well, that's because they have North Korea to contend with, whereas China is building them to counter Taiwan. And Taiwan only has five submarines, and is still having trouble buying the next eight from the US. - Phar Kim Beng

Both of the above letters did point out some errors in the article and, after consultation with Phar Kim Beng, these have been corrected. - ATol


The Thai government needs to show a higher degree of responsible behavior in containing unrest within Thailand [Protesters' deaths raise fears of attack, Oct 28]. Thailand is now a member of ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and is proud of being a responsible nation. It cannot behave in a manner that the Burmese government and the Chinese government continue to behave [in]. Thailand is a land of beauty and the people are peace-loving people, admired all around the world. Thai Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra rushed to Narathiwat province when the news about the police massacre hit the news. But he congratulated the police force for having acted responsibly and he was seen on TV having snacks and drinks with the police officers in uniform. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra visited the southern region briefly late Monday, where he praised the security forces and vowed tough action against suspected Islamic separatists. The photographs and reports we have received indicate that the Thai police treated the protesters as animals. They tied them up like hogs ready for slaughter. Then at least 78 people were suffocated or crushed to death after being arrested and packed into police trucks. Thailand needs to take action against insurgents, but arresting 1,300 people [and] piling them into six trucks, one on top of the other, is inhuman. No wonder such a large number of people were crushed and suffocated. Thai Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra needs to take responsibility and apologize for this massacre.
Kim Singh
Executive Director
Asian American Public Policy Institute
Los Altos, California (Oct 28, '04)


[Re] Missing explosives add fuel to Iraqi fire [Oct 28]. There are actually two ways only that the scenario as encapsulated by the author can be viewed. One is paralleled to the great bard's Much Ado About Nothing and the other parallels a cartoon series of the Roadrunner and his sidekick, Wile E Coyote. Where at one time the talk was of "shock and awe", the most "wanted Iraqis" deck of cards and assorted other tidbits (whatever happened to the Abu Ghraib episodes?), we are again reminded that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not quite completed yet since there over 340 metric tons of unaccounted-for miscellaneous types of bombs. The bombs, we are told, were properly tagged by the responsible UN agency just before the start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. And that sometime before April 9, 2003, 340 metric tons of bombs "disappeared". Did all those bombs disappear at one time? Or were they moved in several bits and pieces of tons? Is it possible that they could have been sold? And to whom? Given "all those nasties", ie, Iranians, Syrians and assorted others, it's possible they could have just taken them. Could the same be said of the Israelis, the Kurds or even Bin Laden Inc? Could it also be that the UN agency responsible for oversight did not want to inform the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" coalition of the willing that there were 340 metric tons "just lying around"? Could it also be that the head of the responsible UN agency wanted to make the two time-consuming and costly investigative efforts, the first under Dr [David] Kay, look incompetent? One can only conclude by saying "give me a break" or call for the likes of an Hercule Poirot.
ADeL (Oct 28, '04)


When US forces first started bombing Afghanistan in this "war on terror", I studied the maps of Afghanistan and its adjoining countries [How Bush blew it in Tora Bora, Oct 27]. Assuming I was OBL [Osama bin Laden], where would I go if the things got really tough? The answer was plain as day: the Muslim areas of China. The US will not mess [with] or intrude on Chinese territory like they do in the other neighboring countries of Afghanistan. The Chinese will turn a "blind eye" toward harboring OBL as he is a hero in western China, and the Chinese don't want to upset their Muslim-area Uighurs. (They have been beating independence drums from time to time.) If the many think-tank "experts" in the US haven't figured this out by now, OBL could apply for a job as stable hand on George Bush's ranch and get the job.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 28, '04)


"American hegemony today would be infinitely preferable to a contending mob of nuclear-armed states. Premature hostilities and a general mopping-up of the nuclear pretenders is the least horrible alternative" [Ask Spengler, Get it over with quickly, Oct 26]. Now I know this quote is partly just rhetoric, but it still speaks to an unfortunate tendency of Spengler's to simplify and reduce complex questions to sound bites. Firstly, a general mopping up means what exactly? Mass bombing of innocents? Ten H-bombs dropped on Tehran and the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]? Least horrible? Second, imagining an all-out nuclear war with, say, Iran or North Korea is disingenuous. Neither could really launch much of an assault, even if they had bombs. Not to mention that American hegemony won't mean resistance stops. It's this reductive thing again. Mop them up and we have a stable empire. Nonsense. American hegemony is a myth, as we see in Iraq. Cultural hegemony maybe - but US military efforts, despite that $1.7-billion-a-day budget, is quite threadbare and illusory. The US has bases all over the world, and wants to build more - mostly because the US economy needs the business. The Empire likes to bomb small developing countries - those who can't fight back - and thereby use up its weapons and Bradley Vehicles, and hence justify building more. Waste economy at work. Afghanistan is largely back where it started prior to US bombing, and Iraq is in chaos. American Imperialism started with the founding fathers - and has never ceased. Yet to propose, even as a rhetorical flourish, that US hegemony (which doesn't exist) is better than this imagined race by small countries to develop nukes is simply a wrong-headed template for discussion. The US has, by far, the largest stockpile of nukes - something like 1,600 ready-to-fire missiles - and nobody else even comes close. Israel has 200, unmonitored. This new arms race seems a bit of a mirage. I will add that, of course, nobody wants anyone building nukes. The hegemony Spengler refers to mystifies the real issues, I would argue. There is no chance of total hegemony. What we have is a dying empire clutching at a hyper-militarized economy to stay afloat. It hasn't the means nor will to impose itself on the world, and to even (is it irony?) suggest this as a better scenario than a fantasy threat from small, dirt-poor countries is fatuous.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Oct 28, '04)


I commend Sudha Ramachandran for her lucid delineation of the favorable neighborly relationship that is developing between India and Myanmar [Myanmar power play leaves India smiling, Oct 21]. She summarizes, "India's heart might beat for [Aung San] Suu Kyi, but its head has led it to court the generals in Myanmar in recent years. And that appears to have paid off - at least for now." The Indian government deserves all the credit for putting the interests and the security of the nation ahead of its philosophical obsessions in its reactions to the happenings next door. It is to be hoped that it will persist in conjunction with the Myanmar government to develop a long-term strategy to eradicate insurgency in India’s northeast. It is to be hoped as well that the two neighbors will successfully develop joint initiatives to improve trade and commerce between their countries, and also open the land route through Myanmar to the Southeast Asian countries. If this is the beginning of India accepting its rightful place as a regional power, not hesitant to take bold initiatives, then it is a great start and deserves to be celebrated as a wise deviation from the dreamy mindset of the past.
Giri Girishankar (Oct 28, '04)


Re: Letter from Dan Piecora (Oct 26) Parachanar is very rightly called mini-Iran as its original majority population is Shi'ite. Afghan immigrants disturbed the balance but Shi'ites still live as a sizable community in Parachanar. Firebrand slain Shi'ite leader Arif Al-Hussaini also hailed from that area. With this kind of ethnic division it is quite difficult for Osama bin Laden to dwell in Parachanar, and it is not the 1980s when both the US and Pakistan were supporting militants - that's why Gulbadin Hikmatyar had a residence in Parachar near the Pakistani-Afghan border. The reason for keeping residence in that area is it was very well connected with the Afghan province of Paktia. The difficult mountain terrain starts from the areas that are part of Afghanistan, not Pakistan. Unlike Pakistani Parachanar areas, which offer broad valleys and access routes to travelers, the adjacent mountainous belt in Afghanistan provides perfect shelters and sanctuaries to everybody. Mr Hikmatyar used that area to access his command centers in Paktia and Sarobi near Kabul. US intelligence knows that bin Laden is in Paktia, but where exactly - they have no idea and they cannot easily find out.
Syed Saleem Shahzad
ATol Bureau Chief
Karachi, Pakistan (Oct 28, '04)


I've resisted writing many times in the past. I fear, though, that ATimes may soon prove to become unreadable. While most of your writers reply to critics under letters specifically pointed out as "Spengler replies" or "Syed Saleem Shahzad replies", I notice that B Raman is replying much as he was part of the editorial staff (letters, Oct 27). Is that why the Pakistan-bashing seems to be continually rising in pitch? I have yet to see any article on Pakistan that could be even remotely suggesting even that "Hey, they're not all bad." Even S S Shahzad seems to have a weird appreciation and admiration for the tribals in comparison to the GoP [government of Pakistan]. Mr Raman, of course, seems barely able to conceal his delight at the fighting in Wana (yes, I'm sure he'll have a snide reply to that comment). Speaking of Mr Raman, it's interesting that he says that the Shi'as will avenge themselves on [Osama] bin Laden and his cohorts and not a mention of vengeance on [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf. In his (oh so many) papers on the SAAG [South Asia Analysis Group] website, Raman has held Musharraf responsible for massacres of the Shi'as in Gilgit that are apparently now being avenged. While I couldn't find the article where he went into extensive detail on the issue (after all, there are just so many titled Pakistan and terrorism), I did find his paper 484 where he says: "Pervez Musharraf, who was asked by Zia [ul-Haq] to put down this revolt, inducted bin Laden and his tribal hordes into Gilgit and they carried out a large-scale massacre of the Shi'as. Musharraf also encouraged the SSP [Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan] of Punjab to open an office in Gilgit to rally round the Sunnis against the Shi'as." Presumably Musharraf is the next target. Actually, he's probably easier to reach than bin Laden, no? Of course, for Mr Raman, Pakistan is like an amalgamation of SMERSH, SPECTRE and Thrush. Azam Tariq a friend of Musharraf? Egad.
A Khaishgi
Cleveland, Ohio (Oct 28, '04)

The letters you refer to with responses from B Raman were sent to him directly, not to Asia Times Online; Raman forwarded them to us to run in the Letters column, along with his replies. That is why their format was slightly different from the way the responses from some other writers usually (but not always; see the Phar Kim Beng response above) appear. - ATol


T Kiani ([letter] Oct 27), thanks for sharing your version of history. India (or Bharat), even during the Maurya period, was as big as the present state. It stretched from Afghanistan, included your homeland (Pakistan), and extended up to the Deccan. When Mughals were at their peak their empire was almost similar in size to that under the British occupation (apologists of the British rule call it colonial India). India is not the gift of the British. The English, of course, looted every corner of India, thereby uniting the people all over the country. Pre-British empires in India had their moment of glory and then went into the history books. And yes, you may not find it in the doctored Pakistani textbooks. If present day Pakistan is entitled to the legacy of ancient India (which is partly true), why it is not reflected in your textbooks? Why does the story of your nation begin with the advent of Islam and not before? Why do your historians erase anything before the Muslim period? By indoctrinating the students with a jaundiced view of the world, Pakistan is producing more and more volunteers for jihad. Why cannot they understand a simple fact: there is more to the world than just Islam? I don't expect anything better from a nation where it is a capital crime to question the ideology of Pakistan (I do not know why they feel so insecure about their history). Kiani, history is not a sacred faith to be blindly believed. It is a collection of events that happened in the past leaving behind some evidence. A true historian will not be bound by national/religious constraints.
Kannan (Oct 28, '04)


[T] Kiani, as always you seem to have everything backward [letter, Oct 27]. Is that because your comprehension is tuned to the direction you read? [Mohammed Ali] Jinnah fought to split India to secure an exclusive homeland for Islam. India did not split from Pak. It is strange that the owner of a land would break away his own property and allot himself a small corner while giving away the rest of it to the "enemy". Fortunately for Pak, even Jinnah did not make such outlandish claims. In fact, there is scriptural reference in Hindu texts to areas currently under Pakistan. While the Koran is full of "don’t spare the kafirs", I don’t think it contains references to present-day Pak to give some basis to your warped interpretation about India belonging to Pakistan. Don't pop a blood vessel in your eagerness to seize upon the statement that "India" never existed until independence. Maybe as a country in the modern context, no. But as a land of the Hindus, it existed, with its culture and philosophy, extending into today's Pak and beyond, even before your ancestors were pulling the sands of Arabia from their beards. You clearly seem to suffer from a heady cocktail mix of half-baked fact, fiction, imagination, fantasy and wishful thinking. Here are my rejoinders to some of your earlier noteworthy quotes: "Who are the Taliban?" Was that a confused cry for help or Shakespearean rhetoric? Not worth an answer. "What is the Taliban ideology?" Go to rawa.org and you will see what their ideology is. "How any of us is different from them (the Taliban)?" Clearly you need help. You are right - the world is black and white - but not to me, but your interpretation of Islam - believer or kafir. Your response to RR about Islam's generous propensity to erect homages to its belief in alien lands was truly amusing. So Spain had a glorious 400 years under Islam, Muslims treated Jews and Christians with tolerance and attempted to create a land of wisdom. Too bad the ungrateful Spaniards didn't want to continue living a glorious life. I do have some friends from Spain and but somehow they don’t recollect studying about that "golden age" in Spanish history that you refer to. Is that history from your madrassa class? But that still does not explain why there are so many mosques in India or the recital of your prayers while performing unwanted neck surgeries or imitating firecrackers amidst [an] innocent populace. You need to spend more time with your converted sheikh and learn to answer questions, or is it Abu Hamza you are actually listening to? And you compare the Spanish Inquisition [to] "what some Hindus would have mirrored in India today". Now that is an engaging thought. Unfortunately, it was the Muslims who tried that in India and are still trying in Kashmir, to resist which the axes, the swords and the rifles you mentioned were needed.
Sri
New York, USA (Oct 28, '04)


It is very disappointing to see that ATol jumps at every possible chance to attack China and promote Taiwan independence [note under J Zhang letter, Oct 27]. ATol assumes that Taiwan's reunion with China ensures denial of human rights, suppression of free speech and democracy, religious and political persecution (in Taiwan) and more. Then it is very confusing for readers to notice that, after Hong Kong has returned to China for seven years, ATol editors are still spreading Taiwan separatism there and admit that Hong Kong enjoys more freedom than the most parts of Asia. If the protection of these rights is the only concern of Taiwan, do you think Taiwan separatists will agree to reunite with China if the Chinese government gives Taiwan the guarantee that China will never do so? If you are so concern about human rights, why do you ignore the opinions of 1.3 billion Chinese who view Taiwan as part of China? China does have a bad human-rights record. However, if ATol editors bother to take a look at the history of Western industrialization, Western countries had much worse records when they were at the same comparative economic development stage in which China is now. After decades and decades of economic development, Western countries have built such a high living standard that they believe that everybody should enjoy the same, regardless of you make $10,000 a day or just $1. It must be really disheartening for ATol editors to see that people who are making $1 a day probably do not care about the rights you are preaching about, because they are struggling to make a living. While ATol turns a blind eye to the vast human-rights and economic improvements in China over the last three decades, the Chinese people do know that they live far better now and believe in an even better future to come. It is pitiful that ATol editors cannot convince 1.3 billion Chinese people that Taiwan should be independent, because, well, you are too poor.
Liu X
New York, New York (Oct 28, '04)

ATol has no position for or against de jure Taiwan independence. But we do challenge the fantasy promoted by Beijing that Taiwan is not, in every practical sense, already independent, a status it has enjoyed for six decades. We further note that Beijing's approach to the "Taiwan problem" is based primarily on threats rather than diplomacy and negotiation. As for your view that all 1.3 billion mainland Chinese "view Taiwan as part of China", that is pure Xinhua-speak. It is much more likely that, as you hint, most Chinese are primarily concerned about how to support their families and do not care a whit about Taiwan one way or the other, apart from parroting the party line. Furthermore, far from "turning a blind eye" to China's remarkable achievements over recent decades, we report on them frequently and will continue to do so. - ATol


ATol is distorting my letter [Oct 27] and the point I made. [It] says that I say that Taiwan does not [have] the self-determination right, because Beijing says so. I sarcastically say that this is one very good reason, but probably more convincing reasons are the ones listed in my previous letter. Then ATol goes on telling that Taiwan should not go for reunification, because Beijing does not offer good incentives. "One country, two systems" is a very good deal for reunification. Compare that with the Spaniards and French who won't even bother offering anything to the Basques. The result would be a formalized ending of the Chinese civil war and eternal peace, so no hostilities between both sides. Also Taiwan will benefit hugely, because of this stability and unrestricted access to the mainland, just to mention a few incentives. This is what most people want. Taiwan can choose peace; the more it moves towards independence, it's choosing for war. This is basically the choice Taiwan has to make in the upcoming years. [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell has recently said on Hong Kong's Phoenix TV that "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." This has been long-standing US policy throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. It's time Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian recognizes this and that time is running out for him to exploit the current situation by upholding the myth that Taiwan is a "country". If he's a wise leader, he should prepare Taiwan for eventual peaceful reunification. I'm afraid he's doing the opposite and that is leading Taiwan to war.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 28, '04)

If there is war, it will be started by China, not Taiwan. You are probably justified in accusing Taiwan of provocation, a la Saddam Hussein versus Washington: Did Saddam "start" the Iraq war, or did Washington? Official US policy on the de jure status of Taiwan is based on politics and the need to maintain good relations with Beijing. It is not relevant to the de facto status of Taiwan, nor does it prohibit the Taiwanese people from having their own opinions about whether or not they should be part of China. - ATol


Karan Awtani and several other letter writers (Oct 27) express deep animosity towards the United States, believing that America had been hostile toward India during the West's Cold War against communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. Strong leadership on America's part would certainly have sought to make amends with nations harmed during that struggle, but please understand that the Cold War really was a zero-sum game. Either the world would have been lost to a Stalinist nightmare or we would have the opportunity to pursue freedom as we do today. Yes, the United States took questionable action that may have harmed the good people of India, Iran and several other nations and no excuse will seem good enough. America's imperfect response is that the alternative would have harmed India, Iran, their cultures and religions and everyone else to an incalculable magnitude. Of course it appears arrogant to take ownership of the responsibility to stop totalitarianism but, frankly, nobody else was in a position to take the lead in doing so. What is India's solution to defeat global terrorism today? I understand many on this forum do not believe that Iraq or Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden or suicide bombers were or are part of that concern. Perhaps for them the best solution to stop terrorism is to break the will of the American people, outlaw all her businesses and corporations and disarm her military. I am not certain that is in the best interest of India but, because the Cold War was won by the United States, we live in a world where most can freely believe whatever we like. Karan Awtani concludes that America is on a downward spiral to oblivion. Although I dare not argue with immutable laws like inertia or entropy, we seem to be kicking along at a pretty good rate. I believe India is a big part of a better tomorrow for all of us, it is critical that these hard feelings be addressed so we can work together in as positive a light as possible.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 28, '04)


In response to Frank's letters to AToI (Oct 18, 19 and 25): Frank's anti-Indian prejudice seems to continue unabated. Frank in one of his letters tells us, "I just want to point out that it is a natural reaction for human beings to pay attention to the masters only." I guess it is too hard for Frankie boy to let go of his distorted vision of today's India and Indians. Seventy percent of the people of today's India have never even witnessed colonial rule, most couldn't care two hoots about where democracy or English came from, but yet that doesn't prevent him from clinging to his self-comforting theories. Maybe the only way he and people like him can feel secure about China (which they see as the undisputed flag-bearer of all Asia and the only worthy rival to their pet peeve, "the white master") is by putting down the inhabitants of the next-biggest country, India. I guess we Indians are now supposed to choose sides in the yellow-versus-the-white war (the same, now infamous, "with us or without us" paradigm). As far as Indian languages go, Frank's pitiful lack of knowledge is only too visible. Instead of naming the Indian language that he laments is no longer in vogue, he gives a highly evasive reply ("The holy Indian language I am referring to is the one worshipped by billions of Chinese people in the last one thousand years"). Duh!? If he is talking about Sanskrit, well, true, that is a rich classical language. Although still used in Hindu religious ceremonies, it wasn't really a mass language for most of the historical past (during the Buddha's period it was already being seen as an elitist language by the poorer commoners). As far the ancient languages Pali and Pakrit go, although they were more widely used than Sanskrit, they died out way before the British rule (they were already partially dead during the Mughal era). In any case, there are (and thankfully and hopefully so) much more important priorities for India than trying to re-establish a virtually defunct language. I would rather see the government improve public infrastructure than have its propagandists yell day and night about the beauty of India's ancient language/culture. One only hopes that similarly Frank and his pals have better priorities than trying to shame India and Indians by digging up ancient relics of history and contrasting them with the present. In his [Oct 25] letter he points out how India is another Africa in white man's eyes. Clearly, he wants 1 billion Indians to be preoccupied with some rather elusive "white man's" view, and curiously he never tells us the name of the Indian author who he claims said so. I think the real reason behind Frankie boy's periodic anti-Indian outbursts is some kind of overwhelming shame and insecurity. Yes, European colonization of Asia was bad, no doubt - but most of the people that colonized and most of the people that suffered the miseries of colonization are no longer around. Perpetually envisioning the world in terms of "white master" versus the rest is definitely not a healthy mentality for progress. The world has moved on, and so must India and China.
Rakesh (Oct 28, '04)


Other than personal attacks, can our Indian friends [letter writers] offer something better? India and Africa are both [former] colonies. Both of their people regard English as their language. England granted both India and Africa independence after the war. I do not think comparing India with Africa is racism. The Indian government spent millions of dollars to prove Indians' DNA is much closer to their white masters' than other colonial victims', while millions of Indian children are starving. That is racism. On another subject, none of the Indian friends explained why China is making friends with its neighbors had anything to do with India. China and Vietnam settled their land-border disputes in peaceful negotiation. Why cannot India do so?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 28, '04)

Border negotiations between China and India have taken place, with some success. Britain colonized only parts of Africa, not the entire continent. Other colonizers included the French, Portuguese, Germans, Belgians and Arabs. - ATol


This is in response to RR's letter (Oct 25). In my initial response to you, I did not suggest that you're either "with us or against us" (you seem to interpret things in a very black-or-white fashion, don't you?). I just find your insistence on the caveat "non-practicing Muslim" in every letter rather odd, that's all. If you don't fast or pray or don't do whatever (as prescribed by Islam), there are plenty of Muslims out there who don't either (join the club). And you're right, it's between them and their Lord (as it is between you and yours). They, however, don't display the perpetual and vehement animosity towards their creed or co-religionists that you do. You seem to take self-loathing to new heights. And for a person who hasn't read the Koran and claims not to be an "authority" on the religion, you sure make bold and concrete statements in its ridicule. Don't get me wrong, criticism is always a welcome, but not when it always comes laced with not-so-subtle bitterness and unqualified derision. Yes, Islamic history has had its share of atrocities and excesses. So has every other major religion. Some Muslims misinterpret the Koran and act like savages, some Christians misinterpret the Bible and turn genocidal, while some Jews have made the good Lord their personal real-estate broker vis-a-vis Palestine. After all, weren't Hindus chanting "Jai Ram" when they sliced open pregnant women in Gujarat? Why did they do that, RR, pray tell? What is the point you so miserably fail trying to make? Yes, the Taliban did destroy those statues. It was a heinous act, and was soundly condemned by Muslims in public and in private. Perhaps Muslim leadership worldwide should have been more vocal in their combined outcry, but given their paltry and disunited state of affairs, one shouldn't be surprised that this didn't materialize. For over a thousand years prior to the Taliban, those statues remained untouched and unharmed. It's unfortunate that this act of depravity made that millennium irrelevant. And lastly, RR, please don't compliment yourself by calling this a "discussion". I don't think you know the meaning of that word given your propensity for disinformation and absurdity. As for Kannan (letter, Oct 27), I should have expected such a cheap shot from such an avid hatemonger. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.
Omar K
Ottawa, Ontario (Oct 28, '04)


If Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi genuinely wishes to steer Japan on an independent course, he should do so by pulling Japanese troops out of Iraq now - and by doing so save an innocent Japanese youth. Bowing to Uncle Sam - especially when Uncle seems to have grown violently insane - is most definitely not the way to assert Japanese independence, not the way to protect the people of Japan, and not the way to retain international respect.
Zeljko Cipris
USA (Oct 28, '04)


Re How Bush blew it in Tora Bora [Oct 27]: One could say [US President George W] Bush's "war on terrorism" is a laudable concept. Unfortunately, the war has been planned and conducted with inadequate understanding of the terrorists in general and the local cultures of the breeding grounds of terrorism in particular. The war in Iraq has given terrorism a major cause and opportunity to spread. It is clear from the experience of the last three years that Bush and his political advisers have been driven by the following predispositions, among others: 1) A supreme sense of arrogance and overconfidence; 2) anyone who tries to harm Americans and American property must be hunted down and dealt with decisively; 3) an underestimation of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world; 4) Pakistan's military strongman can be manipulated to be an ally in the war on terror; 5) a mindset that Saddam Hussein and his regime must be dismantled. A combination of some or all of these dispositions led the American administration to take its eyes off [Osama] bin Laden and divert its energies against Saddam. The strongman in Pakistan has not been able to deliver the world's No 1 terrorist to his masters.
Giri Girishankar (Oct 27, '04)


Kathleen Ridolfo's Iraq's media in lively election mode [Oct 27] is quite antipodal to Spengler's forum comment in the thread "Why can't the US democratize Iraq?" Ridolfo's optimistic, almost cheery outlook is limited to the appearance in the Iraqi news media of diversity of opinion amongst those allowed to publish. She admits that amongst these the moderate independents are underrepresented. She quotes Ali al-Basri as to why. The Americans tolerate moderate independents almost as little as extremist independents, so the election will be American even though it is held in Iraq. The Americans need a compliant democracy if they are to maintain a military/industrial presence in the future. Kathleen is a voice for Radio Free Europe, based in Washington, DC, and would like us all to believe that the elections will result in a representative government that somehow will cast opposition to the continued US presence in Iraq as criminal and undemocratic. Look what happened to Muqtada al-Sadr and his newspaper. The US reaction to this renegade's political organizing and diversity of opinion was an attempt to destroy him militarily, and this gave him even more influence. At the same time, Spengler points out the human and cultural factors that will make the appearance of any democracy at all unlikely. His one slip-up is in portraying the US as the paradigm of democracy from which others appeared throughout the world. Many newer democracies have more than two parties, and no electoral college, so their democracies are more representative than the US two-party system with its electoral college. If the diversity celebrated by Ridolfo is not smothered by the US occupation forces dedicated to preserving US preeminence in the field of fossil fuels, some sort of real democracy is not as out of the question in the near future as Spengler suggests. In 2000 the US Supreme Court appointed by former president Ronald Reagan and the father of one of the candidates [in the presidential election of that year] rendered the popular vote, as unrepresentative as it is, superfluous, with the outright appointment of the president. President Reagan showed his disregard of the opinion of the American people who elected him when he supported the Contras in their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s. When the American people and Congress, through the Bolen Amendment, tried to prevent the US financing of the Contra terrorists, Reagan's people turned to cocaine trafficking and gun-running to get money. John Kerry brought this to light in investigations which lasted from 1986 to 1989. He is now up against George [Bush] the Younger in a struggle for control of the [US] executive. John Kerry is pro-war, and understands the need for the US military/industrial presence in Iraq. Kathleen Ridolfo is a dreamer if she thinks the appearance of limited diversity in the Iraqi media justifies optimism about Iraqi elections managed by the US.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Oct 27, '04)


The comment by reader Mr Chrysantha [letter, Oct 26] on the article China boosts India's bid for UN council seat (Oct 26) shows the kind of dream world that he lives in. Mr Chrysantha, please understand that India's anti-US feelings are as a result of the roughshod [treatment] that it got from the US in the past. India's anti-US orientation is a reactive correction towards the mindless anti-India policies followed by the US. I need not highlight the innumerable past instances where [the] US had acted inimical to India's long-term interest. The not-so-favorable role played by the US during both the 1965 and 1971 wars [is] deeply etched in the minds of every Indian. Going back even earlier, John Foster Dulles' (former US secretary of state) "If you are not with us you are against us" kind of foreign-policy orientation was not palatable to Indian leaders of that generation. Incidentally, India like China is a civilizational state with a long memory. The earlier generation of Indian leadership was quite conscious of this fact and did not like to be trampled upon to become camp followers of any grouping. This in a way gave momentum to the now defunct NAM [Non-Aligned Movement] concept ... As for terrorism, India is one of its earliest victims, having suffered as a result of the mindless US policies of the late '70s and '80s. The Kashmir insurgency is directly related to mindless policies adopted by the US in collaboration with Pakistan. India has been a victim of terrorism, and still continues to be a victim like the US ... Friendliness towards the US is definitely not a criterion for UN Security [Council] membership. Ideally, other valid criteria such as being democratic, having [a large] population, being a repository of ancient culture and civilization, contribution to world peace and prosperity, economic power, defense strength, imperial record, handling of minorities, continental representation, etc should be used to decide on who gets into the council. The very fact that such criteria do not exist goes to show the intention behind those in power to keep the membership exclusive ...
Kalyan Kumar (Oct 27, '04)


Mr Chrysantha in his letter [Oct 26] has accused India of not supporting the US in its war on Islamic terror, and of generally being anti-US. Well, consider this: the US has never supported India, or any other country, in its struggle against terrorism. The current war on terror is just a political gimmick. It is really a war on American freedoms and voters. Sure, I feel sorry for the 3,000 US citizens that died in the 2001 attacks; but what about the approximately 100,000 Indians that have died in terrorist incidents over the last 20 years? Do the lives of black, brown, and yellow people have no value compared [with] those of white people? Sadly, India can take no action against those engaging in violence against it because these people are your [the United States'] loyal allies, and nobody can mess with the world's sole superpower. Thank you for keeping the world so secure, Mr UN Security Council Member. As for the possibility of India becoming a member of this great undemocratic council, my view is the same as that of B Raman [response to Scott's letter, Oct 26] - if it works out, great, we will get pushed around less; if not, no big deal, we'll continue managing as before.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 27, '04)


In response to Mr Chrysantha's ignorant letter [Oct 26], I have the following things to say. The Indian navy is one of the largest in the world and rather respected, so much so that the US requested the Indian navy to patrol the Straits of Malacca with them after September 11 [2001], so even the mighty US Navy needs our help at times. The Indian navy as it stands today is more than capable of fighting off any threat in the Indian Ocean, excluding the full force of the US Navy. Same with our air force - a comparison of quality and quantity show its real strength. Even in the recent Cope India air force exercises conducted jointly by the IAF [Indian Air Force] and the USAF [United States Air Force] at Gwailor [air force base in India], the IAF pilots actually defeated the USAF. Judging one's strength by bombing "great powers" like Iraq and the Taliban can be self-defeating - do not start believing your own propaganda. The reason India does not want to support the US on its war on terror in the Middle East is because there is no war on terror in the Middle East. Iraq wasn't a country where the IIF [International Islamic Front] was actively involved; Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were, but as we all know these are your [US] "allies". Well, with friends like this, who needs the Soviets to fight? The difference between India and the US is that we know our history [while] you prefer to ignore history. We have been fighting radical Islam for hundreds of years. My family is from Sindh and first faced Arab invaders in the 8th century. For over a millennium we resisted conversion and kept our culture alive. Do not tell us how to face this threat, we know how to deal with them very well. With an attitude like yours my theory on American power is the following: You are like a star that is about to go supernova. Just before its explosion, a nova star is at its most magnificent and largest in terms of size. And then everything goes horribly wrong really, really fast. Do yourself and humanity a favor: switch off Fox News and and go read a real history book. As for the UN, if it doesn't adapt to the new millennium, then it will find itself becoming like the League of Nations, no doubt eventually leading to another great conflict. This is inevitable. The Greek thinker Thucydides figured out the cycle of rise and fall of powers thousands of years ago during the Peloponnesian war when democratic Athens did lose even with its magnificent navy. My ancestors knew it too, thus the swastika (yes, go read a history book and learn what it really means) itself represents the inevitable circle of history. Just [as] it is inevitable that the sun will rise, it is inevitable that it must sink as well. Hubris and pride are the first sign of decline. When you are [at] the top there is only one way left to go. India and Indians have never been against friendship or alliances, but we will no longer be exploited to carry the white man's burden in Iraq or anywhere. This is one outsourcing order that we will reject. Enjoy your war, sir.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Oct 27, '04)


Brother Frank, I guess I agree with you [letter, Oct 26]. But just like India, China also problems with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam ... I guess the day China will have peaceful relations will these, India will buy peace with China and Pakistan too. By the way, our ancestors (Indian's ancestors) were African, so we are Africans (well, economically too). And I guess unlike your Anglo name "Frank", my name is still Nitin. So at least something we have preserved in White India (and I thought [the] Chinese obsession with white color [was] why they didn't like dark-skinned Indians or anyone else - that's from my very own first-hand experience in China). And by the way, China is a rising star, so it will be really unfair to compare it [to] India. And for Chrysantha [letter, Oct 26], I think you are too harsh on India. Just think, in the 1960s China was just like today's India but it still became a permanent member [of the United Nations Security Council]. And trust me, with this awesome military the USA cannot dare attack India, so at least we Indians don't have to worry like Iraq or Iran. And why [are] you so pissed that India was not with the "bloodsucker" USA? After all India, was a socialist country, so how [could] it even dream of saying Yes to any dimwitted dream of the United States of America? And a few things are quite true: unlike Japan, the USA cannot make India do things (how surprising it is, knowing that Japan is so [far] ahead of India in every sphere). Sometimes what you need more than any military power is "ass power" (as we say in India), and you cannot buy that (though China now has more ass power than India and it's serving the USA very well - at least something good from China).
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Oct 27, '04)


The response from our resident Xinhua censor (Frank, letter [Oct 26]) took me by surprise since he professes to be quoting me ("India is just another Africa in most white people's view"). For one, [letter writers] Aruni Mukherjee and Kannan were questioning why there are a few million illegal economic migrants from Bangladesh to India (but not to the other way around or to China). That is a legitimate question. Along with the links of Bangladeshi agencies with al-Qaeda, Pakistani intelligence and organized crime, any responsible Indian government agency would be wise to do a background check before granting a Bangladeshi a visa. If Frank would like to show a better way, perhaps he should be debating with some facts regarding the treatment of Tibetan or Korean refugees in China. Furthermore, can you expand on what you mean by "another Africa"? This prejudicial mindset suggests you are assuming Africa is a land to loot and plunder, [or] explore for oil, to benefit the great Chinese empire. I looked for the word that would describe this behavior on Google, and that word is "racist". Now that the last colonial outpost in Africa has been dismantled, the world has a new wanna-be colonial master. That imitator is called [the] Chinese. Frank, Congratulations!
AP (Oct 27, '04)


[The Oct 26] Letters section in ATol saw some strange and absurdly bizarre claims and comments by many Indian readers in response to Habibul Haque Khondker's article China through a Bangladeshi's eyes [Oct 23]. Most were trying to prove India's moral high ground by statements like "if India is corrupt then China is more corrupt", and "if Indians are nationalists than the Bengalis are more so", etc. The list was very long with statements like "China has major border issues with almost all of its neighbors" (amusing coming from an Indian, of all people), words, history and facts were twisted at will, but one interesting comment that really took the biscuit was made by Aruni Mukherjee: "India has never invaded another country in its long history of 5,000 years". What 5,000 years? Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, Aruni, but India's history as a unit only goes back to the time of the British Raj, if even that. Before that, there was no India and no question of invading anyone. The land that is now India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan was divided and ruled amongst lots of different people at different times. "India" was a name given to the South Asian people by their white colonial masters, which the people of India decided to stick to as their own. Try reading Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History and see what he has to say on the matter. If ATol [will] permit me, I would like to post an extract from an article by John Keays called "'Ancient India' was Pakistan region, not present-day India!" as a taster, and I can put the whole thing on the message board for everyone to read (if I ever get around to signing on to it):

Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as "India" but as "Bharat". The word derives from Bharata-varsha, "the land of the Bharatas", these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism. In the first flush of independence "Bharat" would seem preferable, because the word "India" was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an "India consciousness" were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called "India" is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any [of] South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically "India" belonged anywhere, it was not to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.

T Kiani
London, England (Oct 27, '04)


[Dennis] Castle writes [letter, Oct 26]: "U Thant [letter, Oct 25] contends there is a connection between United Nations corruption in the Oil for Food Program and UN reluctance, for example, to administer serious consequences in accordance [with] its own unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1441." I asked you about the "specific language", to which you alluded, in that resolution, but you've so far "overlooked" the question - I assume because on second look you witnessed your literal reading of a vague and inconclusive phrase crumble into the vague and inconclusive. But here you offer richer territory for exploration; I knew it wouldn't be long until the "faith-based" muck-and-mire mindset would reveal its underlying conspiratorial paranoia, and malice. (I envision you imitating a well-known world "leader", looking under your desk for WMD [weapons of mass destruction], and in your closet for "terrorists".) Absent evidence that two facts relate to a third element - in this instance the UN - does not mean the two facts are related to each other. As for the first - corruption in the Oil for Food program - there have been news reports about that corruption, and the involvement in it of US corporations, including some in the oil "bidness". It shouldn't surprise, of course, that US corporations would make illegal deals with Saddam Hussein; all things considered, they would be emulating the business model established by the Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis in its dealings with Hussein (you've doubtless by now seen the film or photos of [Donald] Rumsfeld delivering the goods and smilingly shaking hands with Hussein; if not, you can see them in Fahrenheit 9/11). The same business model [was] emulated also by Halliburton under CEO Dick Cheney - opponent of the sanctions on Iraq - as he rebuilt Iraq's oil infrastructure, via offshore shell corporations in order to get around the legal prohibitions against doing so, after Gulf War I and before he arranged Gulf War II and the rebuilding of Iraq's oil infrastructure, once again by Halliburton. Without being conspiratorial, it can be reasonably suspected that among the US oil corporations with corrupt hands in the contemporaneous Oil for Food program was Halliburton, under CEO Dick Cheney. None of which has anything to do with the UN, or with the Bush-Cheney lies about Iraq having WMD.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 27, '04)


First of all, I'd like to respond to Carl Hershberger [letter, Oct 25], who says that "the Beijing government has a long track record, and I'm talking thousands of years here, of doing immoral and unwise acts". It strikes me often that these foreign apologists of Taiwan separatists know little about China's history. The Communist Party came to power in 1949. Beijing was made capital of China in 1153 during the Jin Dynasty. Clearly Hershberger needs to do more research, instead of parroting Taiwan separatists' lines. China's emperors may have done a lot of immoral and unwise acts, but they did moral and wise acts as well. A coin has two sides. Secondly, again the letters editor of Asia Times Online disappoints me very much. We know that ATol is not neutral, but biased in favor of anti-China Taiwan forces. I got some hints when I saw staff reporters of the separatist Taipei Times reporting for ATol, but ATol's comments on my letters tell everything. Taiwan does not deserve self-determination, because they are not a different people or nation, but part of the Chinese nation. Even for practical reasons, it can't get it. Remember Chechnya, Kurdistan, Corsica, Northern Ireland, the native Americans or the aboriginals in Australia. Clearly they have more right for self-determination than Taiwan. Besides, its destiny has already been decided. The question is not if, but when Taiwan really joins China again. I also forgive him for spelling "cheerleader" wrong, but I don't forgive him for calling me a "cheerleader" in his response to my letter [of Oct 25]. I won't be intimidated by such labels, because there is nothing wrong with advocating a better China and dispelling slanderous prejudices against this country. I do have faith in the integrity and the wisdom of the Beijing government. If that makes me a "cheerleader" overseas, then I proudly say, so be it.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 27, '04)

Thanks for pointing out the typo, which has been fixed (we fix quite a few of yours, by the way - no need to send money). As for your argument, it is tautological: Taiwanese do not "deserve" self-determination because (Beijing says) they do not deserve it. Yet they have enjoyed de facto independence for more than half a century, and Beijing continues to offer them no incentive to "rejoin" the mainland fold - unless of course they self-determine that "a better China" entails denial of human rights, suppression of free speech and democracy, religious and political persecution, deterioration of the environment, uncontrolled economic growth that threatens energy security, and a growing disparity between rich and poor. - ATol


This is in response to T Kiani's reply to Carl Hershberger [letter, Oct 15]. Prior to September 11 [2001] there is no record of the USA or any Western country materially supporting the Northern Alliance in an active manner. The Northern Alliance got help primarily from Iran, Russia and India. To the degree the Northern Alliance got any political and moral support from the West, it was the ideology, the stupidity and the barbarism of the Taliban and their Pakistani backers. Keep in mind [that] countries like France, Germany [and] Russia which opposed the Iraq invasion never opposed US military strikes in Afghanistan. In fact you have German and French peacekeepers under the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] umbrella in Kabul. Just as the Northern Alliance was a motley collection of ex-communist, Shi'ite, Tajik and Uzbek militias, the Taliban is a motley collection of Pashtun militias controlled by Pakistani generals. The Taliban ban on photography, radio and television has nothing to do with religion. It is more of a Stalinist ploy by Pakistani masterminds to keep the rest of the world ignorant of what went in Afghanistan during their rule. While [President Hamid] Karzai may not survive without American support, the Taliban won't survive without Pakistani support.
Naren Bala
USA (Oct 27, '04)


Dear [B Raman]: Regarding your [Oct 26] article On Kerry, Bush and bin Laden, which states that OBL is most likely not to be in the tribal areas for fear of the Americans easy reach: does that sound like a revolutionary leader? Isn't it much more likely that he would be hiding right under their noses in Parachinar on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, an old headquarters and former base for Pakistani-supported militant activities against the Russians? Pashtun Parachinar is known as "mini-Iran", another diehard stronghold for Sunni elements, and bin Laden is, as you say, worshipped there. He also would be defended to the death which has already happened with jihadi fighters in the neighboring tribal areas to the south near Wana. "Intelligence" available on the Internet, mostly news reports, all points to the city of Parachinar. For example, do a Google search of "bin Laden and Parachinar" and a treasure trove of information springs up. No doubt, to have Osama bin Laden hiding at some mullah's madrassa or mosque in the heart of "Pashtunistan" would be one of the highest honors for bin Laden's host and host city. Shrines for Taliban soldiers escaping from Afghanistan killed in skirmishes with Pakistani forces have been built in Parachinar. Visitors come there to pray for their fallen comrades many of whom were friends and relatives who answered the call to fight the Russian infidels prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan. For bin Laden, Parachinar is the perfect place to live, fight or die.
Dan Piecora (Oct 26, '04)

Thanks for your interesting comments. Why "mini-Iran"? South Waziristan has recently come to be known as mini-Iraq after the bloody beating that the Pakistani army has been getting from the tribals there. - B Raman


Re On Kerry, Bush and bin Laden [Oct 26] by B Raman. It is the stated pledge of the president of the USA to get [Osama] bin Laden dead or alive. The USA would also hunt down the terrorists anywhere in the world to the last terrorist and kill him (or her). So it is one of two possibilities - bin Laden is dead or the president really meant to exclude Pakistan (including [Pakistan-occupied Kashmir]) from the world, any country of which he would have trooped into to hunt down bin Laden. It is Pakistan's good fortune that it has succeeded in slipping away from punitive action every time it has chosen to violate international rules, whether it be nuclear proliferation or harboring terrorists.
Giri Girishankar (Oct 26, '04)


Dear B Raman: I found your article in Asia Times [On Kerry, Bush and bin Laden, Oct 26] to be very informative, yet why did you argue that Senator [John] Kerry's claim [US President George W] Bush "outsourced the job to the Afghan warlords, who let [Osama] bin Laden escape" is incorrect? You backed your argument by saying the US maintained command and control of the Tora Bora operations. Maybe the confusion here is how Americans understand the concept of "outsourcing". For example, as you're an honored official in India, let's take a common example from our private sectors. I could create an Internet-based company, headquartered in California, yet outsource my daily tasks to a team of programmers in your wonderful country. The "command and control" would remain the responsibility of the management, which is located in the US, yet our company would be delegating or "outsourcing" the "groundwork" to Indian programmers. I believe this is the argument Senator Kerry advanced. Yes, American leadership provided satellite technology, intelligence, overall command and control, and some fighting, yet the groundwork was undertaken primarily by troops under the command of warlords, drug dealers and local leaders. They would have individual agendas, and likely, these would not be in line with US interests. I'm not a fan of George W Bush, yet I don't believe I'm biased in my interpretation of Senator Kerry's remarks. We had no need to collaborate with local Afghan troops. Anyone with a basic understanding of the "Great Game" would have preferred to keep this strike a complete American (or international coalition) effort. What do you think? Thanks for your work. I'm sure you've done a great job for your nation. What do we have to do to get India a seat on the Security Council? This is long overdue. We need your country's leadership.
Scott (Oct 26, '04)

Thanks for your valuable comments. There is logic in your analysis. I am skeptical about India's chances of getting into the UN Security Council. Anyhow, heavens won't fall if we don't. - B Raman


India has not supported the USA militarily in the war against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East [China boosts India's bid for UN council seat, Oct 26]. India more often than not is at loggerheads with the US on economics and politics (Kashmir). India does not even have the necessary military might other than to "boast" about its nuclear "power". She has only one battleship cruiser, big deal. America has at least 14 of them and can produce an equal number if she wants to. India is even behind China when it comes to space technology. All it has is 1.1 billion people, most of [whom] are dirt poor and the rest don't give a damn. America knows full well that if India becomes a permanent member of the Security Council she will negate any position the US take to ad nauseam, and most likely meekly follow whatever China decides. Since Mahatma Gandhi, India really hasn't played any major international role that matters. So why waste that seat on India? Japan would be a better candidate. They are far more advanced in every sphere than India. And given the chance she can build a formidable military much faster than India has done and do it better with higher quality weaponry. And Japan would more likely support any decision the US takes in the Security Council than India. I don't blame the US for holding out at all. India needs to work for that seat, not just produce more babies to attain a place in the Security Council. India still is stuck on that hopeless endeavor the "non-alignment" issue, which India never practiced. She was always aligned with the Soviet Union while preaching non-alignment.
Mr Chrysantha (Oct 26, '04)


I find the article by Raja M interesting [Asia's green gold under biopiracy threat, Oct 26]. It raises important points about biopiracy from a developing-nation point of view. But I do have some questions. While seeking intellectual rights on traditional medicines should be opposed, what if someone does painstaking research and isolates the active component in it responsible for the biological activity? They are entitled to seek patent rights for the work they have done and make commercial use of it. Active ingredients in most herbal/traditional medicine [are] not known. Although India has a rich bio-reservoir with a long history of herbal health care passed on from generation to generation, we have not really capitalized on the precious information that our forefathers have compiled over the centuries. Hiding the information/natural resources, as suggested by some of the opponents of biopiracy, will lead us nowhere. Either we conduct research making full use of the knowledge of our ancient health care and the bio-resources that we possess or we collaborate with others to do it. Ultimately, diseases affecting mankind need to be combated. I can't resist replying to the letter of Omar Khalidi (Oct 25). What I find oxymoronic is the fact [of] a pious, gentle, generous, practicing Muslim blowing up buildings to kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam.
Kannan (Oct 26, '04)


I totally agree with Kunal Kumar Kundu's rationale in his article India left in a rut (Oct 22). In fact if any political group has the least credibility as far as the Indian economy is concerned, it's the Indian left. The Indian left has single-handedly destroyed West Bengal, once [the] premier industrialized state of India, which was the "Hong Kong of the East" prior to World War II. It was home to one-third of India's industrial output. They [the left] pursued militant trade unionism which saw a steady plight of capital and industry from West Bengal to other states of India. This totally unwarranted controversy over consultants to the Planning Commission [was] started by Ashok Mitra, a virulent Marxist economist, who was finance minister of the state of West Bengal, which has seen uninterrupted three decades of communist government, albeit in a democratic setup. Mr Mitra himself worked for World Bank at the beginning of his career, and thus should have been least suitable to speak on this. Instead of answering to issues raised by Indian Marxists, we should ask them what they did with their "grand plan" to the state of West Bengal in the last three decades? This state has slipped in almost every social, economic [and] infrastructural development index: education, health, income, income disparity [and the] social development index for example. Even Indian Marxists' claim of mythical effects of land reformation is under serious doubt by analytical economists today. The mood can be gauged very well when a Hindu nationalist organization [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] blasted India's left [recently] at the plight of the state of West Bengal with glaring statistics. There were no convincing counterattacks from the Indian left. Can you imagine, [fewer] students are attending school in rural areas today than in the 1990s? Incredible, but it's true - even after huge population growth.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Oct 26, '04)


There is another painful lesson from the [US] president's Iraq adventure that is exacting a high price and the media [have] missed (Precision-strike democracy, Oct 22). That is, if the insurgency is to be stopped, the people of Iraq desperately need to be convinced and believe that the "US does not have any long-term design" on their country. That is what Senator [John] Kerry said in one of the [presidential election] debates when asked about his plan to win the peace. Most of the insurgency is about occupation and promises unfulfilled. The [George W Bush] administration's plan of more of the same only means those who want to kill us [Americans] will continue to do so with impunity and in turn, we will destroy Iraq in order to save it. The Iraqi people ask, "Where is the promised security, reconstruction, electricity, water, sewer and jobs?" America asks, "How many more of our brave servicemen have to be sacrificed on the altar of this administration's incompetence and ideology trumping common sense?"
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Oct 26, '04)


Dear Spengler: The reason your article In praise of premature war [Oct 19] received so much more criticism compared to that of Marc Erikson [Nuclear genie let loose, Oct 19] (none) is pretty simple: he was not wishing anything, just stating the obvious, whereas you wish war. Anyway, it's not like you don't know the score. I think you actually try your best to be outrageous and get your kicks when the next day you get bombarded with complaints. Whatever does it for you my friend; otherwise, wasn't it Winston Churchill who said, "When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite"? But seriously speaking, I think I understand where you are coming from and I must say that sadly, I agree with some of what you say. Kashmir is one example where the interference of the UN has not solved anything, but delayed a war that was being waged with sticks, swords, axes and rifles in the late '40s to the nuclear generation of today, making it "the most dangerous place on Earth". However, I do not understand some of your points and wouldn't mind clarification. You say that keeping the peace requires a balance of power. First of all, by "peace", I assume you mean peace in the only region of the world that matters for you; your beloved West? Because outside of the West, there is no peace, and there is no question of premature wars, only premature peace at times (I doubt a war and indeed a peace can be more premature than that which was waged by the US on Iraq in search of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and links to al-Qaeda). But anyway, let's take what you said and roll with it. To try and be on the same side, I'll pretend that I care very little for the miserable existence of the barbaric and uncivilized people that live outside of the West. Now presumably, we are going to war because pretty soon all these little countries will have nuclear weapons, and we will either have to treat them as equals, which is truly ridiculous and absurd, or we will have to go to war with them at a time when they can turn around and nuke us? But what do you think would happen if we "kill the chicken and make the monkey watch"? Is Iraq not the chicken, and Iran the monkey? Actually, we have made the monkey watch us kill not one but two chickens, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what is the result? We have truly scared the bejesus out of the mullahs in Iran, but instead of jumping up and down and climbing the first palm tree, Iran has come to the logical conclusion that the only thing that can save it is the possession of nukes - the exact same thing we wanted to get off its mind. The reality is that the West would have to kill all the chickens and all the monkeys to achieve the goal you have set out. And ask yourself this, do they have the stomach for the kind of war you ask from them? In the last 10 years, America has not won a single decisive victory. Iraq war, Somalia, Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq again. With no huge body counts, no stacking of arms, no formal surrenders, no masses of prisoners or war, all of these wars are unfinished business waiting to ignite again. The US goes to war on a tight time frame set by domestic political strategists who estimate how long and costly a war American voters will tolerate - not realizing that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. by the way, Spengler, I don't know who you are. You are probably based in Asia, but there is something very "Western" about you. Is it that you "see the world so clearly" and righteously?
T Kiani (Oct 26, '04)


Re Spengler's In praise of premature war [Oct 19] . Like it or not (I don't), [Edward] Luttwak has a point when he writes that intervention in foreign conflicts changes the only balance of power, resulting in necessary foreign presence to hold the status quo, while the roots of the conflict remain unaddressed. However, I disagree with Spengler's thesis that premature war is a good thing in times of crisis. I find his reference [letter, Oct 20] to the proliferation article [Nuclear genie let loose, Oct 19] remarkable, because proliferation is unavoidable and your enemy will sooner or later acquire all the destructive weapons ever invented. Better strike now from a position of strength - than suffer later when they are strong too - because if we wait the price will be higher. Lying under his view is the thought that war is unavoidable anyway; and not only a war - it's the clash of the cultures, which is unavoidable anyway. Oh really? I dislike this line of thought because it results in a world view that generates a fit-all solution for all political conflicts - war. I don't think it's very wise to blinker oneself that way. The fight at hand against Islamist terror requires nothing of what [US President George W] Bush applied on Iraq; to the contrary. I see militant Islam losing, not because of Bush's intervention in Afghanistan or his resolute yet uningenious detour to Iraq - the Islamist movement is moribund in moral terms, although its military and political energy is not yet exhausted. There is no way in which it seriously threatens the Western industrial nations, other than through sporadic acts of terrorism that won't win it anything. The Islamist slaughter on September 11 [2001] was widely despised in the Arab world. And sooner or later the Islamist slaughter in Iraq will prompt a backlash among the Iraqi population - just as the Islamist slaughter in Algeria failed to destabilize the state. People in Iraq will get sick of being slaughtered by religious zealots fighting for something else but the future of Iraq. All Islamist projects up to date have failed. More, [Osama] bin Laden's quest for the lost Golden Age is a fool's lost cause. The new radical Islamism is a success in the moral and psychological damage it has inflicted on the United States and its allies. For the Islamic world it will inevitably prove still another failure. No great caliphate is going to be re-established. Even if all Islam were converted to the law of Sharia and the Taliban pattern of society, this would produce no great revival in terms relevant to the modern world - militant Islam has no future in the 21th century, it offers no solutions for the pressing problems of the Arab world. So what clash of the cultures is he talking about? As I see it, Spengler is very much - excited and all giddy - hysterical about the perils of Islam. He should try out some light music - like Vivaldi or Mozart - or how about to go fishing on the shores of a quiet lake for a week?
Norbert Schulz
Cologne, Germany (Oct 26, '04)


Today was my first time on your website. I liked much of what I read until I clicked on the Korea section. As a Korean, I'm disappointed to see that you had no Koreans writing any of the cover articles, except for one "comment" article. Additionally, all but the one Korean writer had male, European-sounding names. The description about your website talked about its uniqueness being from the Asian perspective. According to this, the majority of the Korean reporting should be from Koreans (and there are plenty of Korean journalists and sources out there), or at least be majority Korean and other Asian. I hope what I saw today is not your idea of an Asian perspective.
Jinee Kim (Oct 26, '04)

We have always had difficulty finding Korean correspondents who write well in English, and those we do find are often busy with their "day jobs". English-language skills of the high standard demanded by Asia Times Online are at a premium in Korea, so such people apparently have little trouble finding good-paying work elsewhere. We do have a couple of talented Koreans on the payroll whom we are cultivating, and we ask for your patience. In the meantime, rest assured that although the other contributors to the Korea section are not Koreans, their knowledge and understanding of Korean affairs are top-notch. - ATol


The US should not be involved in the talks with North Korea. This rogue nation does not deserve our attention whatsoever. Let their neighbors deal with the threat on their borders. Why should we, the US, give anything to appease this regime? North Korea is nothing to us. South Koreans should be able to defeat [it] in a war by themselves. If Japan, China and Russia pitch in it would be that much faster. North Korea is no friend to anyone. Isolate the bastards and make them make a choice. What does North Korea contribute to the region? Nothing. Why are we wasting our time and energy on a country that means nothing to us? If South Korea, China, Japan and Russia can't deal with the bastard peacefully we will always have the option of bombing [it] into oblivion if [it attacks] either South Korea or Japan. It's time for the four neighbors to put pressure on North Korea. Leave us out of it.
Richard Bisaha (Oct 26, '04)

This is an interesting point that might provoke a good discussion on our Asia Times Online Community forum, if you would like to start a thread. - ATol


Dear [T] Kiani [letter, Oct 22]: I don't think many things in this world are binary. Your and [Omar] Khalidi's [letter, Oct 25] adage "you are either Muslim or you are not" reminds me of another such proverb, "you are with us or ..." To make myself clear, I do not pray five times a day [and] I am not fasting in this month of Ramadan (two of the five pillars of Islam). I also live in the USA and have money in the banks which run on interest and sometimes I do eat fast food. As Kiani does let me and my Lord (God) be my judge, I don't know what makes Khalidi think of this as an oxymoron. If respecting one's parents and being charitable and good to neighbors is Islam, the whole world is Muslim. All religions preach these values. So what sets the Muslims apart? I admit I have not read the Holy Koran as Arabic is an alien language to me. I have read some translations but I don't claim any authority. The reason why the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas was not based on my interpretation. It was theirs of the same book that you read. [If] you think they destroyed those statues for some other reason, may I ask you to tell me then what were those reasons? I wonder how the same book is being recited by beheading squads in Iraq and people massacring children in Beslan and interpreted differently than you. You have not answered my two questions to you. Instead you shifted the focus from Bamiyan and Ayodhya to Andalus. Do you think what Christian Crusaders did to Arab Muslims in Spain was the reason for what Mughals did to Buddhists or Hindus? Does one justify the other? I have not gone, neither [do] I intend to find out how did the Arab Muslims appeared in Andalus. I think the history may have started a bit earlier. I know anyone will like to glorify one's religion and not talk about the dark side. Islam has also spread by peaceful means. But that does not explain or justify the other side. So is the US justified in bombing Afghanistan, which once it saved it from the Soviets? Should or would there be a Church of Bush in Karbala? By your logic it should be and if Muslims try to reclaim it in future it will be wrong? I think all these things were as unjustified then as these are now. What is the harm in acknowledging past misdeeds? I definitely do not blame all Muslims. I think the majority of us are good human beings. As for Omar Khalidi, I am happy that he has closed the discussion. Who would like to get in discussion with such a tightly vaulted mind?
RR
Florida, USA (Oct 26, '04)


"There you go again," [Dennis] Castle [letter, Oct 25]: "If Senator John Kerry wins the US presidential election, [we] can rest assured that neither the US nor the United Nations will lift a finger to prevent Iran from her objective [of developing nuclear weapons]." While those in the anti-intellectual "faith-based" community delude themselves that they can predict the future, "we" in the "reality-based" community know they cannot. As the future cannot be known, Mr Castle, you cannot, beyond wishful fantasy, predict what John Kerry (or anyone else) would do on any issue whatsoever. What we do know, Mr Castle, is that Kerry, unlike the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory, has not only actually experienced war, but also has 20 more years of hands-on foreign-policy experience than that gang - the real consequences of which are present and obvious: that gang's war and foreign-policy disaster in Iraq. It never surprises when a stateside armchair general, all for going to war, loudly cheers the armies on, and pontificates - so long as at no risk of danger himself. You claim that "[US President George W]Bush has stated categorically that Iran will not be allowed to achieve [its] nuclear goal and that no option is off the table toward that end". So what will professional chest-thumping bully Bush do about it? Invade - with what troops? "Flip-flop" on his categorical denial that there will be a draft so he can dragoon the troops necessary for such doubtless-illegal invasion and occupation? Or are the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory members finally going to fulfill the military obligations they repeatedly avoided while Kerry was serving on the front lines? Most likely, Mr Castle, Bush would do exactly as he did concerning North Korea's development of nuclear weapons while he petulantly refused to deal with the issue: nothing. As for Iran being a "terrorist nation": according to whom? The Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis which removed Iraq from the US's "terrorist nations" list in order to provide Saddam Hussein with weapons during his war with Iran - before, during, and after he allegedly "gassed his own people"? Or do you refer instead to the Iran-Contra scandal - the illegal transfer of missiles by that axis to terrorists in "terrorist nation" Iran - which was uncovered and investigated by Senator John Kerry?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 26, '04)


U Thant contends there is a connection between United Nations corruption in the Oil for Food Program and UN reluctance, for example, to administer serious consequences in accordance to its own unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1441 (letter, Oct 25). ATol's response is that one is a non sequitur to the other, even though the former is the largest swindle in the history of the world and enforcement of the latter would bring it to a stop. If ATol's point is that a smoking gun has yet to be discovered linking the two, that is fine, but to call the two a non sequitur reveals more about ATol's presuppositions regarding the UN than perhaps they intend.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 26, '04)

U Thant contended that because the United Nations screwed up with the Oil for Food Program it necessarily follows that it also screwed up on the weapons inspections. The fact that both involved Iraq is irrelevant; the one has nothing to do with the other. If the contention is that both failures prove that the UN is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, fine - provide the evidence. So far, the credible evidence is that Hans Blix's team found no weapons of mass destruction because there weren't any. This is yet another case of if the evidence is inconvenient to the predetermined "faith-based" conclusion, blame it on something other than available facts. - ATol


I am surprised to see letters [Oct 25] from Aruni Mukherjee and Kannan concentrating so much hate of their neighbors. These two Indians apparently forget about the peaceful co-existence concepts introduced by their ancestors. I do not see that the friendly relations between China and its neighbors has anything to do with India. This is not a dating game ... Why can't we be friends to all of our neighbors? If Indians are offended by comparison to China, maybe we should compare India with Africa. Actually, that is a more appropriate comparison. According to [an] Indian letter writer, India is just another Africa in most white people's view. I would appreciate if Indian people can contribute anything better than personal attacks at ATol.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 26, '04)


I read with interest the comments of May Sage [letter, Oct 22] vis-a-vis my article on the leftists (India left in a rut, Oct 22). While I do appreciate the points raised, I surely do not appreciate the direct attack on me. Nowhere in my article have I eulogized the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank. Indeed I am not a great supporter of these organizations. In fact, I myself subscribe to the view that the IMF has failed much more than it has succeeded and these are all reflected in the faulty project dimensions funded by the IMF. The whole issue was that there is no harm in having a different opinion which need not be accepted. In any case, India has achieved much less despite 50 years of planning. In the process of opinion building and designing policy strategies, it is always advisable to have many views rather then restricting oneself to the same old strategies by the same old strategists. On this count, May Sage shows clear lack of prudence and judiciousness. If one believes that only a chosen few have all the intelligence and the right to policymaking (despite their apparent failing), my good wishes are with them. I want my country to progress and not be mired in antiquated economic philosophy and an antediluvian mindset that leads to nowhere. May Sage sitting in the USA can afford to preach from high pedestals because she is not affected by the poverty or illiteracy in India and score some brownie points giving India as an example.
Kunal Kumar Kundu
India (Oct 25, '04)


I find the arguments of Habibul Haque Khondker [China through a Bangladeshi's eyes, Oct 23] ridiculous to say the least. India has genuine concerns regarding the influx of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants into the country. Assam agitation was due to the unchecked large-scale immigration of Bangladeshis. But it is an irony that the government of India or the various political parties having presence in the region have never made serious attempt to check the illegal immigration until recently. Politicization of the infiltration issue has also contributed largely towards the present situation. Political parties even indirectly encouraged the influx for establishing their vote banks from time to time since independence. In spite of all this, India has not closed its doors to the needy Bangladeshis. I have encountered many of them in the train traveling to seek medical attention. But sometime overzealous officials in the consulate/embassy may ask for more proof from the visa applicants. If Habibul feels that China issues visas without any hassle, I have a question for him. How many illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are in China? Let Bangladesh export millions of its people there and then see how China introduces clamps in its immigration policy. To top it all, the Bangladeshi government consistently denies that its citizens are crossing the borders into India. No other nation in the world disowns its own people. There is another misjudgment in Habibul's argument. He seems to link India's stringent visa policies (with respect to the nations from where it expects problems) to its overall low foreign direct investment (FDI). The stark truth is investment from Bangladesh and Pakistan into India is next to nothing. On the other hand, Indians [have] started investing around the globe, including Bangladesh and Pakistan. The recent decision by the Indian conglomerate, Tata, to invest US$2 billion in Bangladesh is an encouraging sign. The largest foreign investment in the history of Bangladesh will go a long way in promoting employment and will have a more positive impact on Indo-Bangladeshi relations. I do not know how Habibul arrived at the theory that India's nationalism stems from its "anti-foreignness" (on the contrary, it is better suited to Bangladeshis). If that were so, India would have collapsed a long time back when the ruling foreigners left Indian shores. The issue of unaccounted illegal foreigners is significant only in the regions surrounding Bangladesh. It is not a magic glue to bind all Indians even in peacetime, let alone a crisis period. The half-baked ideas and the unsubstantiated theories seen in Habibul's column, which do not fit the facts, illustrate his prejudice against India. All is not lost for Bangladesh and its people. The easiest solution for enhancing employment generation within Bangladesh is to act as a corridor between the eastern and northeastern India. By allowing transit facilities, not only it will lead to conservation of time and fuel but it will promote integrated developmental activities en route and in the region as a whole. With the prospect of economic activities coming to where impoverished people live, they do not need to trek the long and treacherous road to India illegally. Instead of all these, Dhaka, by hosting the militant elements or playing the China card versus India, has slid into a hole. [It has] witnessed how the promotion of jihadi elements by Pakistan as an important component of its foreign policy has ruined its internal security. [Pakistani] President [General Pervez] Musharraf lives in a bunker and goes around, if he has to at all, in a decoy surrounded by armored divisions. Would Bangladesh like to have that kind of scenario in future? There are other serious issues that Bangladesh faces which may threaten its very existence. 1) The total absence of countermeasures to avoid loss of lives and property by the periodic floods makes one wonder whether the Bangladeshi government's deliberate inaction is a population-reduction strategy. 2) With global warming and the rise in the ocean level leading to inundation of coastal and low-lying lands, has Bangladesh ever thought of this looming danger?
Kannan (Oct 25, '04)


Dear Professor Khondker: I read your article titled China through a Bangladeshi's eye [Oct 23] on Asia Times, at first with interest that consequently turned to disappointment and disgust following your assertion that "India has democracy; China has accountability and so on. One thing struck me. India is nationalistic; China is patriotic. Indian nationalism is often manifested in its anti-foreign postures. The root of nationalism lies in anti-foreignness." To set the record straight, I am an Indian student (from Kolkata, so we share much in common) in the UK. My objections and alternative suggestions are as follows.
1. Your claim that China has accountability is simply factually incorrect. Yes, China has a very brutal penal code, but that doesn't result in accountability for the higher strata of the communist bureaucracy, most of which is dipped [in] the sea of corruption. Even on the lower rungs, bribing of officials is rife for business contracts and so on. The harsh punishments are only used against petty thieves to remind the Chinese people of the muscle the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] still wields. Was Deng Xiaoping held accountable for Tiananmen Square? Has the same happened for Mao [Zedong] for the Great Leap Forward? When will the officials responsible for hiding details about SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] be brought to justice? Has the whole of the CCP been taken to court over the brutal suppression of minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang? Yes, corruption is rife in India too, but if any country out of these two has accountability, then it is the Union of India, not the People's Republic of China. When our minorities are massacred in Gujarat, there is a three-level investigation process; numerous such high-profile examples of exposing fraud exist. So when you say that India is a democracy, how can you forget that accountability goes hand in hand with this term?
2. What do you mean, "and so on"? Do you intend to indulge in [more] of these generalizations? Let's see for ourselves. India has rule of law, periodic elections at local, regional and national levels, freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion, freedom of association, freedom of movement, a Human Rights Act and a National Human Rights Commission, Minority Rights Commission and the SC/ST [Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes] Act to protect their rights, freedom of information and equality of opportunity. Let's look at China's scorecard in comparable fields - law is what the CCP conceives it to be, so rule of law is actually "rule of the CCP", farce in the name of elections, curtailments on freedom of speech, abandoning of religion (note the atrocities committed against Tibetans, Christians and Muslims), restriction on formation of associations and their activities (note the curtailments on Falungong), an appalling human-rights record, suppression of minorities like the Uighurs and Tibetans, censoring of press and other forms of information, government monopoly on most news items and inequality of opportunity (note the preference given to the Hans over the other ethnic races in China). The picture certainly does look a lot different from your utopian China.
3. Your weak assertion that Indian nationalism is based on anti-foreign sentiments is simply laughable. A country that believes in antar-rashtriya sampriti (international peace and harmony) being labeled with such an accusation! On the other hand stands a country which proclaims itself as the Middle Kingdom of the Earth, inhabited by the greatest race on the planet, apparently. Is this why peaceful and patriotic China has major border issues with almost all of its neighbors? Is this why on one hand India has never invaded another country in its long history of 5,000 years and assimilated all those who invaded us, whereas Chinese have invaded, threatened and subjugated others, namely the Tibetans, Uighurs, Indians and Taiwanese - to name a few? Does India's so-called innate anti-foreignness lead it to maintain a cosmopolitan overseas community when compared to a closely huddled and antisocial overseas Chinese counterpart? Is it China's "friendly" attitude towards its neighbors that leads it to point nuclear missiles at Japan, Taiwan and the US?
4. Perhaps you are making a generalization about us Indians from the narrowness of your personal experience, a dangerous business no doubt. Yes, Indians generally do not look kindly on Bangladeshis, not because of some inherent hatred for outsiders but because your government has failed miserably to uplift your people from poverty and so they flee to India to become a burden on our social-welfare system, contributing nothing but crime and misery to our urban and rural areas alike. Incidentally, terrorist bases in your country operating in our northeast doesn't exactly say "friendly neighbor". Bangladesh has forgotten to be grateful to India, to which it owes its existence.
5. The levels of investment have nothing to do with antagonism against foreigners. Borrowing [former US] president [Bill] Clinton's words, "It's the economy, stupid!" India's economic policy over the last 20 years has been distinctly different from China's. Indeed, we have been a lot slower in liberalizing our economy, which has proved detrimental in some sectors, but it is proving profitable in others, notably the better prospects of Indian companies in the long term compared with MNC [multinational corporation] dominated China. You mention the Forbidden City, yet you forget to mention its sponsors - Coca-Cola and American Express. Thank God, the Taj Mahal is still ours to keep.
6. China does not retain any love for its workers - it's simply a farce. There are daily worker protests in China when the subsidy-dependent white elephants known as SOEs [state-owned enterprises] collapse and thousands become unemployed. In India, the trade unions can take matters to court. In China, rule of law being absent, it's the police [who] brutally disperse the crowd.
7. Finally, please do not remain in the illusion that China is Bangladesh's potential ally. If you do, then you will be in the same position as Pakistan. China merely wants Bangladesh to be part of the wall it wants to build to encircle India, its only potential rival to worldwide clout. I hope Bangladesh realizes this folly and does not let itself be manipulated either by Pakistan or Bangladesh. Its best interest lies in building strong economic ties with India, first of all by signing SAFTA [South Asian Free Trade Agreement], and better relations will follow.
I am sorry to have offended you in any way, which is not my intent. I have merely raised some issues which I believe seriously jeopardize your analysis. It was something that could not be left undone, for a patriotic Indian does exist (who does not hate foreigners).
Aruni Mukherjee
University of Warwick
Coventry, England (Oct 25, '04)


With all my respect to Professor Habibul Haque Khondker (China through a Bangladeshi's eyes [Oct 23]), I would like to point out that the Great Wall of China is a very practical defense complex. Besides its obvious defense functionality, it also [offered] relay-style communication, transportation of horses, weapon storage, as well as providing comfortable housing for the troops. The Great Wall is a very practical and effective tool for passive defense. However, it is not as effective as the preemptive style of defense of the West. That is what Chinese people need to learn from white people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 25, '04)


I am afraid Chanakya Sen's review [First nation tragedies, Oct 23] was hardly one. In his writings it is getting increasingly difficult to ascertain the "point of view" - who is saying what, the reviewer or the author(s) he is reviewing (and what the reviewer's position is and why). Secondly, there is enough element of vagueness (in relation to the arguments offered) - especially in the current review "First nation tragedies." It also does not appear that Sen wishes to lure the reader into his writing, hence the additional aspect of blandness. Other than that, Sen appears to be capable of doing better.
Cho Noa (Oct 25, '04)


As cartoons go, I guess you could say that Gavin Coates' latest - about the 72 virgins - is (a little bit) humorous. However, it does remind me of a story I heard the adults tell when I was a kid in the '30s. The word was that, during "The Great War", the Germans used "saw-bayonets", with which they could disembowel the enemy; and that they made a practice of bayoneting small children and babies and throwing them over their shoulders. Of course, this was all invented by our war sponsors at home in behalf of their "war effort" and the lie was put to it by our veterans themselves. Then, again, there is Jim Lobe's story in this same issue [Bush backers steadfast on Saddam, WMD, Oct 23], advising us that 75% of [US President George W] Bush's supporters and 26% of [rival presidential candidate John] Kerry's still believe the WMD [Iraq weapons of mass destruction] malarkey (not to mention some of the eye-popping beliefs that some of our own Christians have about the universe) - and all this in the most exquisitely informed society in history. (Chuckle). So if there are a few Muslims that have the 72V belief, I say, "Leave 'em be." I'm a born-and-raised WASP [white Anglo-Saxon Protestant] and I'd sure like to believe the same.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Oct 25, '04)


[Re] Pepe Escobar, Precision strike democracy [Oct 22]. I am never less than astounded by the honest brilliance of this reporter of the news and always grateful that he continues his critically important analytical work. Among the subcontracts not let out to competitive bids has been [one] obvious as the elephant in the living room: all US tactics in the phase of "pacification" mirror to a bone-chilling degree the tactics honed in the occupied territories lo these many years by the Israelis against the Palestinians - including the prisons such as Al Ghraib. And the Israeli military has been the prime consultant to the US military on the "pacification" of Iraq. If the US press had not already been "embedded" (which, curiously, sounds like a word that would be used about a concubine in the Bible) some US journalist by now should have published a list of all military contracts to private entities involved with the prosecution of the war in Iraq. But, like civilian casualty figures: "Oops, no time to waste on that." Keep up your good work. There are people all over the world (like me in northern Alaska) who count on you for the truth.
Carol Stock (Oct 25, '04)


The recent abduction of two Chinese engineers and subsequent killing of one of them as covered in the Asia Times article Chinese 'operatives' face Pakistani wrath [Oct 19] by B Raman has highlighted China's 50-year foreign policy of playing with fire. More often than not the Chinese government has supported unsavory regimes that have eventually come to haunt China's security. This year's numerous attacks on Chinese in Pakistan are only the latest in a string of threats posed by China's "allies" against it. The ongoing instabilities on the Korean Peninsula have been fueled by China-ally North Korea. A collapse of the North Korean regime, a war on the Korean Peninsula or even the continued flow of North Korean refugees into China threatens China's internal stability and growth. China-ally Pakistan has granted moral and material support to Islamic fundamentalist groups in South and Central Asia, which has eventually come to haunt China through fueling the Uighur separatist movement in Xinjiang [autonomous region] and attacks on Chinese civilians in Pakistan. Looking further back, the Chinese-backed Vietcong and North Vietnamese government eventually clashed with China in 1979 in a brief border conflict and in 1988 over the disputed Spratly Islands. Vietnam, whose relations with China have improved considerably in recent years, continues to confront China over the disputed Paracel and Spratly islands, as seen recently with Vietnam voicing its discontent over the Philippines and China engaging in joint oil and gas pre-exploration activities in the South China Sea. While these relationships were often forged as a result of genuine security concerns (ie Chinese support for Pakistan to balance India, support for North Korea to balance US-backed South Korea, support for the Vietcong to balance US-backed South Vietnam), it seems that China has yet to learn the lessons of its short-term policymaking. In a bid to secure energy supplies the Chinese government is now granting "blank check" support to unsavory regimes in West Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. It would not be surprising if these same governments eventually use Chinese aid, expertise and weapons to attack Chinese interests.
Chietigj Bajpaee
Hong Kong (Oct 25, '04)


Hear ye, Hear ye! I second Spengler's call to wage wars to keep us safe - the more, the better [In praise of premature war, Oct 19]. Further, I nominate Spengler, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, his parents if they are still living, and all his relatives to be on the front line and lead us into battle. Oh - foolish me! No need to nominate - surely he is volunteering to vacate his armchair and be the first over the top! Spengler is clearly breathing the same rarified atmosphere of theory as the Bush administration who, as reported in the New York Times Magazine this week, are not reality-bound, but rather the new creators of reality. Theory makes for novel parlor games, but most often falls apart in the face of the real world. Putting the families of the hegemonists into the combat battalions would be a much more effective approach to securing world peace.
Richard O'Leary
Brooklyn, New York (Oct 25, '04)


Spengler's In praise of premature war (Oct 19) is right on. In the Iraq war, it is now too late to prepare, to late to court more European allies, too late to withdraw, and too late to ... Spengler appears too late to wise up.
Fung Por
USA (Oct 25, '04)


Please refer to the book review by Piyush Mathur [Exposing a Maharashtra legend, Oct 9] and his letter dated October 22. I have trouble digesting Piyush's rationale for praising foreign scholarship (is it?) on India and obsession with "truthful, useful, thought-provoking, and significant" reporting. Indians don't [take] issue when [their] history, sociology, anthropology [and] events [are] analyzed with proper perspective. But not by translation narrative, which will ultimately privilege the modern, that is Europe. Third World historians feel a need to refer to works in European history; European historians do not feel any need to reciprocate. "They" produce their work in relative ignorance of non-Western histories, and this does not seem to affect the quality of their work (Mr Mathur is so euphoric about this book [Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India by James W Laine]). But "we" cannot even afford an equality or symmetry of ignorance at this level without taking the risk of appearing "old-fashioned" or "outdated". Dipesh Chakrabarty analyzed these issues in detail in his very important work Provincializing Europe. Chakrabarty writes, "the everyday paradox of Third World social science is that we find these theories, in spite of their inherent ignorance of 'us', eminently useful in understanding our societies. What allowed the modern European sages to develop such clairvoyance with regard to societies of which they were empirically ignorant? Why cannot we, once again, return to the gaze?" This anti-historical, anti-modern subject, therefore, cannot speak as "theory" within the knowledge procedures of the Western university even when these knowledge procedures acknowledge and "document" its existence. Nobody is denying James Laine's right to analyze Indian history. But is his account [an] essentially Indian account, or a translation narrative which ultimately privileges the modern, ie Europe? I am afraid it's the latter. The painful part is: you want to wrap it under a cover which itself is tainted by a European fabrication of Enlightenment origin: "truthful, useful, thought-provoking, and significant".
Bhaskar
Connecticut, USA (Oct 25, '04)


This refers to the book review Exposing a Maharashtra legend [Oct 9] by Piyush Mathur and his subsequent e-mail ([Letters,] Oct 22). Firstly, Mr Mathur played big mischief when he completely ignored what was Atal Bihari Vajpayee's (the [former] Indian prime minister from the Hindu right) take during this controversy. He didn't mention it in the book review or in the subsequent letter. Vajpayee famously said: "Thoughts should have been countered by thoughts and if that anyone wanted to make a line smaller, they could have originally drawn a bigger line" ... This is most praiseworthy as he is identified with the Hindu right, [and] is frequently termed as "intolerant" and with many other adjectives. It also doesn't augur well when Congress's (a supposed custodian of liberal, secular values of India) state home minister charged Mr Vajpayee [with] siding with the foreign author, Mr Laine. Approximately at the same time, a book by famous feminist writer Taslima Nasreen was banned in West Bengal to please Muslim fundamentalists. Please note, [there has been] a Communist Party-led government in West Bengal for the last 27 years [that is] supposedly leading an ideological battle against "right-wing Hindus". This fact had to be suppressed by Mr Mathur, as the rest of the book review [was] broadly based on his "argument" of how history is being re-created by the Hindu right. Mr Mathur, do you call this "truthful, useful, thought-provoking, and significant" reporting? We call it distortion.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Oct 25, '04)


On Piyush [Mathur]'s response [Oct 22] to my letter [of Oct 12], I thought I was pretty clear with my analogy, which is that a "scholar", or anyone else for that matter, must necessarily take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Note that I'm not justifying violence, but this present protest seems just the right and dignified way for a group to convey its indignation. After all, nothing was hurt except the scholar's feelings. The story from the Mahabharata is the ultimate example of a person accepting responsibility for their actions/positions/philosophy, and by the way, the story says that these were the stakes voluntarily accepted by the debaters. The reference does actually occur in the Mahabharata, the story is in Rajaji's translation, and if Piyush could take the trouble to review [Exposing a Maharashtra legend, Oct 9] James Laine's book [Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India], it should be simple to read some foundational books of the culture that he comes from. Piyush is going on a deliberate tangent with "government propaganda"; I said the narrative is sustained by the state or a dominant group. At one time, the dominant group was just any one of the small group of people that could read and write; today it is Hollywood and Bollywood. My six-year-old daughter finds great pleasure in Cinderella and Barbie stories; grownups are not that much different, they just have more expensive toys and sophisticated rationalizations to swallow the myths. Some other letter writer here on a different topic recently said that the key story in India today is the growing confidence of the middle class. This is absolutely true. The flow of foreign investment, the outsourcing dollars, observing Silicon Valley Indian success stories, all these might not move the Indian GDP [gross domestic product] per se, but they tremendously add to the "animal spirits". It's a great virtuous loop, and if you (Piyush Mathur, Jim Laine, etc) can't add value, at least stay out of the way.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Oct 25, '04)


I am finding [it] hard to read more than the first two letters. For instance: "The intelligent reader, however, does not view press reports in terms of positive or negative, but whether they are truthful, useful, thought-provoking, and significant" (Piyush Mathur, Oct 22). This logic ignores the fact that about 90% plus of the American press rarely addresses any story questions other than those that will soften up the American public for the controlling government's next dramatic killer decision. We are now hearing lots about "what if terrorists had a [nuclear] device?" Just a few decades ago. One big one was enough to wipe out most of the world. Last year after the media did not ask, 'What would happen if the invaded or preemptively bombed country did not have WMD [weapons of mass destruction]?" [They] asked only, "What would happen if [it] did?" Last year when it was quite clear that there where no WMD in Iraq, the media asked, "Was Bush misinformed?" Point is they did not dare ask, "Did Bush lie to us?" So, knowing this, how can an intelligent reader even believe what he says, "that the state's key function is not to create icons - a matter of politics rather than polity - but to maintain law and order"? When the addition of non-stop Iawmaking creates a social condition where all aspects of life have become totally "ordered" in favor of maintaining a power elite, then I can only conclude that there is little that is "truthful, useful, thought-provoking", in the mainstream media today. The result will be lots and lots more terrorists becoming active. America's mainstream media is question-constrained, "killing us softly" as well as killing the supporters of this system's ability to address the real underlying questions.
Miffed (Oct 25, '04)

Far from "ignoring" the ills of the mainstream US press, Piyush Mathur was pointing out how best to judge the quality of press reports. You are quite right that too often corporate media are more interested in pandering to their readers, advertisers and government than in providing accurate information and sound analysis. Hence the growing popularity of alternative news sources such as Asia Times Online. - ATol


Dennis Castle writes [letter, Oct 22]: "Although we should do all we can to prevent nuclear [weapons] proliferation, it appears inevitable that rogue nations that support terrorists will acquire them." Thank you for finally admitting that Iraq was not connected to terrorists or [September 11, 2001], therefore had neither WMD [weapons of mass destruction] nor programs to produce them. Thank you also for admitting that the US is a rogue nation that supports terrorists. However, the US's nuclear-weapons arsenal was not obtained from terrorists; thus it does not logically follow that it is necessary for a rogue nation to support terrorists in order to obtain such weapons. Nor does it logically follow that terrorists need associate with nations, whether "rogue" or not, or supply them with WMD. Mr Castle also writes: "The (usually reviled, at least in this forum) neo-conservative position is that democracies do not go to war with each other." The reason so-called neo-conservatism is reviled, Mr Castle, is because it is totalitarian. As Thomas Jefferson and many others have noted, democracy relies upon an electorate informed of fact in keeping with reality. By contrast, as the record of the past four years amply demonstrates, neo-con(artists) believe that governing by lie is acceptable in pursuit of their goals, and that they will tell any lie in so doing. The same applies to their totalitarian fusing of country and political leader, and country and political policy, and their efforts to demonize those who, under the First Amendment [of the US constitution], criticize leader or policy as being "anti-American". Without the rule of law there can be no democracy. And as your so-called neo-conservatives have abundantly demonstrated, their contempt for rule of law and democracy is as absolute as the barbarity of their administration of Abu Ghraib prison. Mr Castle next writes: "Those who wish to do nothing [about nuclear proliferation], which is invariably the position of those who consider Spengler's assertion heretical, are being myopic at best." As do all oversimplifying extremists, Mr Castle limits all matters of choice to only two options, in this instance: either do something, or do nothing. By contrast, as reality is complex, most wise actions are a mix of both doing and not doing. For those who claim to oppose terrorism to do that which increases terrorism is not wise; in such instance it would be better they do nothing. And to combine that with doing that which would reduce terrorism, such as addressing its causes; those causes are not US "values", except as implemented by neo-con(artists) as policy. As for Spengler's "assertion" - that the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory should act first, then tell such as the US Congress about it after - it is not "heretical", or even new. It is, however, unconstitutional, a point I have already made - in opposition to which stands the totalitarian. After all the blood shed in the evolution to our democratic constitution, it is beyond merely "myopic" to irrational to defend totalitarianism as being the best means by which to fight totalitarianism.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 25, '04)


Daniel Fey, in a fit of pre-Halloween delight, explains that Iran is capable of destroying the United States Navy and shooting down F-16s (letter, Oct 22). He does not address the far more frightening concern of nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist nation that is the world's most ardent supporter of suicide bombers. President George W Bush has stated categorically that Iran will not be allowed to achieve [its] nuclear goal and that no option is off the table toward that end. If Senator John Kerry wins the US presidential election, Mr Fey can rest assured that neither the US nor the United Nations will lift a finger to prevent Iran from her objective. What effect this will have on other terrorist nations with nuclear ambitions one can only guess. If it comes down to it, I would rather the US Navy test Mr Fey's assessment of Iran's abilities sooner than to try dodging nuclear missiles they would be certain to have later.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 25, '04)


I must commend [T] Kiani on his superb response ([letter] Oct 22) to the letter [Oct 21] from RR, our "non-practicing Muslim" (now there's an oxymoron) friend from Florida. Perhaps RR thinks that his (or her) bitterness (towards Islam) in the guise of constructive criticism sounds a lot more persuasive coming from a supposed former practitioner of the faith (it certainly appeals to those who are dedicated and virulently anti-Muslim on this forum). A word of advice, Kiani: no matter how logical, factual and respectful your responses may be, the likes of RR find a way to twist things around. They always come back to that Neanderthalic argument: all Islam bad, all Muslims bad (except those, like RR, who indulge in pathetic displays of self-flagellation; that is, if indeed RR is or was a Muslim). How can you possibly conduct a meaningful dialogue under such circumstances?
Omar Khalidi
Ottawa, Ontario (Oct 25, '04)


I would like to respond to Frank, HJ and Fung Por [letters, Oct 21]. I think you have made good points. By discussion we enlighten ourselves and learn other perspectives. I apologize for my apparent hot-tempered and harsh response (letter below) and I agree with you that pragmatism is the best and that the Beijing leadership intends to do the best for China. I just hope Beijing didn't sacrifice sovereignty over short-term strategic interests. Chrysantha Wijeyasingha claims that China has everything to lose if she lives up to her threats. I would like to remind you that Taiwan is the one that has everything to lose if the mainland lives up to its threats. It is Taiwan that can choose between peace or war, development or destruction, eventual reunification or separatism. Easy choice, isn't it?
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 25, '04)

Not if you believe in the principle of self-determination - for others as well as yourself. To paraphrase letter writer Joseph J Nagarya (above), pragmatism is not always a case of either-or - sometimes there are more than two choices, and compromise for mutual benefit is a hallmark of modern diplomacy, a fact clearly not lost on the Beijing government (but apparently on many of its cheerleaders overseas). - ATol


Fung Por [letter, Oct 21] states he is "pleased ... with the expected unification (with China) of Taiwan in due course". He also notes that Taiwan was under Chinese rule "for a long time" and the two countries "write and speak the same language". One can quibble with these last statements - relative to China's long history, Taiwan was under its rule a relatively short time, China changed [its] writing after the communists took over and it's no longer the same as that in Taiwan, and few in Taiwan spoke Mandarin until it was forced upon them when Chiang Kai-shek and his thugs took over in 1948. The main trouble with Fung Por's argument is that what pleases him will not please the democratic Taiwanese. I suppose part of why Fung Por is in the USA is for the freedoms provided by a democratic government, and yet it is odd he would want to deny these to the Taiwanese. China had its chance to peacefully lure Taiwan back to its fold; only a few years ago the majority of Taiwanese considered themselves Chinese first and Taiwanese second, but with its belligerent and paternalistic attitude towards the island, China has driven many Taiwanese to reverse their preference. Fung Por concludes with the strangest statement I have yet read on the Internet: "I have faith in the integrity and the wisdom of the Beijing government." I don't think anybody from any country should ever say that about any government. The Beijing government has a long track record, and I'm talking thousands of years here, of doing immoral and unwise acts; and I suspect illegally ruled Tibetans, those ordered to commit cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution, and families of martyred Tiananmen protesters would agree.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Oct 25, '04)


"... There is no reason, based on the information at hand, to believe [Osama] bin Laden is anything other than what he appears: a pious, charismatic, gentle, generous, talented, and personally courageous Muslim who is blessed with sound strategic and tactical judgment, able lieutenants, a reluctant but indispensable bloody-mindedness, and extraordinary patience." I dare not imagine what the likes of the self-righteous [letter writers] Sri and Kannan would have to say ... if I left the above statement as it is. After all, it was just my statement that "Afghanistan was a safer place in the Taliban time than it is now" that created such a fury that still hasn't calmed down some three days later. I have been accused of being an "Islamist" and of sharing the Taliban ideology. What would they have to say after reading the above? Am I now also al-Qaeda? Do I share the bin Laden ideology? Would it at all make any difference if I reminded everyone that I have on many occasions said that Islam is in far greater danger from al-Qaeda than America is? What about the fact that the same Sheikh Hamza Yusuf that I have referred to time and again on ATol is the most open Muslim critic of those (misguided) Muslims who think they are waging jihad on America in the name of Islam, and he is being criticized because he is an official adviser to George W Bush in his "war on terrorism"? Well, what if I said that the above words are not mine but in fact those of a senior US intelligence official who is the author of two of the most important books on al-Qaeda currently available? What if I said that this guy is angry that America didn't hit Afghanistan fast enough or hard enough to do any serious damage to al-Qaeda? Does that change your reaction? Should it? If the above statement is correct, then what difference should it make who said it? With these propaganda wars of the neo-cons in the US and the labeling of everything in the world as "good" or "evil", if you're not saying that the terrorists are losing the war (irrespective of ... whether they are or not), you are evil. If you are Northern Alliance, then you are good, because you are not Taliban, who are evil! If you are good then everything is justified and no evil can occur, but if you are evil then you are unable of good. How simple this world is ... or not!
T Kiani
London, England (Oct 25, '04)


While you were out ... One story that you seem to be neatly dodging relates to the UN "Oil for Food" program. As it turns out, the UN is not, as everyone assumed, merely incompetent. That whole slapstick Marx Brothers effort by the UN inspectors to locate WMD [weapons of mass destruction] (before they were likely carted off to Syria, just prior to the start of the war) now appears to be best explained as a case of Tony Soprano-like gross corruption, rather than simple nitwittery by the Blue Helmets. That whole "can you give us just a few more months?" mantra of [Hans] Blix et al, turns out to have had more to do with how long it takes a check to clear, than any expectation that Clouseau & Friends were just about to turn a corner in their "investigation". Any chance that you guys might tumble to this story? Oh, sorry. Forgot. You don't do journalism.
U Thant (Oct 25, '04)

We have done numerous stories relating to the Oil for Food Program, and if and when there is anything new to report, we will do so. Your conclusion that because this particular United Nations program may have been tainted, then Blix's weapons inspections were as well, is a non sequitur. It's like saying that because the Bush administration stretched the truth about WMD in Iraq, George W Bush must be cheating on Laura. - ATol


Congratulations on an excellent publication. I find the articles thought-provoking and level-headed. As an Australian, I am finding good political and financial commentary harder to find in our daily papers here, as they are "dumbed down" under the guidance of the conservative proprietors. I find the 'Net is very helpful in this respect, but only because of sites like yours. Thank you and your contributors.
Frank Wright
Sydney, Australia (Oct 25, '04)

This is in response to the letters from Jon Sreekanth [Oct 12] and Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [Oct 13] in response to my review of James Laine's Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India [Exposing a Maharashtra legend, Oct 9]. Both the letter writers demonstrate serious logical errors and misconceptions, not to mention a lack of ethics. Jon Sreekanth normalizes violence and humiliation in arguing that "blackening the face of a 'scholar' is part of the normal give and take that a 'scholar' should be prepared for". What makes him single out the scholar (why not the engineer or the president?) for such a voluntary humiliation is the absurd reference to the Mahabharata "that when scholars had a debate, the loser would be compelled to drown himself". Whether or not this reference actually occurs in the Mahabharata is a different issue, but how is it reasonable to make a debater drown himself simply because he lost the debate? Isn't it the purpose of the scholar to improve thought and scholarship by learning through one's errors - which one can't if one drowns himself? (That there is a reference within the Mahabharata doesn't mean anything on its own - one has to apply one's mind to ascertain the validity of such ideas.) Second, where was the error or deficiency on the part of the Sanskrit scholar whose face was blackened? Sreekanth throws all these things together without any rhyme or reason. The marathon of non-reason continues in Sreekanth's letter as he stresses that "Indians have a right to cherish their own illusions". The problem here is that the Brahmin scholar was also an Indian (and had a right to cherish his work as much as his illusions); second, inasmuch as Indians have a right to their own illusions, the Indian constitution provides for the much bigger legal right to the freedom of thought and expression - and Mr Laine was exercising that right within the Indian territory. Then, Indians have a lot bigger right and responsibility to know the truth - instead of wallowing in the ignorance heaped upon them by the extremists and corrupt leaders. Sreekanth is also quite farcical in arguing that state-generated narratives and icons motivate "people to get up in the morning and be productive members of society". No, most people get up in the morning, if and when they do, because of their own little dreams, because they must make a living, and because they must send off their kids to school and because of their friends and families and personal dreams. Whoever got up because of governmental propaganda probably never had a life! And for all that, it needs to be stressed, yet again, that the state's key function is not to create icons - a matter of politics rather than polity - but to maintain law and order. By failing to protect several of its citizens from the vicious attacks by several other of its citizens, the state of Maharashtra clearly failed its key constitutional function. As for Chrysantha Wijeyasingha's assertion of his "complete agreement with the Indian government's suspicions of foreign journalists, historians and writers" - well, he is entitled to his phobias and paranoia, but if he thinks that the Indian state's obstruction of foreign scholarship on India is going to improve India's image outside (his latent justification for that governmental attitude), then he is seriously misguided. India's image won't improve if India continues to cling to its intolerance. Theoretically, if India seriously restricts all foreign scholarship on its soil (which it of course doesn't), then the foreign scholars would be left with even fewer choices in terms of what to say about India - and guess what they would say given what Wijeyasingha (erroneously) has us believe they say. Last, I find it rather childish that somebody - Wijeyasingha - "every day [looks] to see if the US media ever cover India's contributions to the world or her existing high culture". If this is not a hankering for some paternalism, then what is? Moreover, the assertion - that "I always come up with a zero" - is factually incorrect because readers of the American press are liable to encounter appreciative reports of India every now and then. The intelligent reader, however, does not view press reports in terms of positive or negative, but whether they are truthful, useful, thought-provoking, and significant.
Piyush Mathur (Oct 22, '04)


There [have] been quite a few articles in the American and world press of late saying it would be a good idea if Israel were to destroy Iran's 15 underground nuclear sites with an air assault [see The US-Israel tag-team act, Oct 22]. There has been a new development in this media campaign. The Democratic candidate for Senate in Illinois has said it would be a good idea to attack those 15 locations with missiles. Apparently, someone in the US military has explained to the government-media complex that the Iranians have Russian-made Sunburst missiles, which were designed to shoot down F-16s. But the politicians and the pundits need to go back to the Pentagon and get another briefing from them on what else the Sunburst can do. It can also put a hole 160 feet [nearly 50 meters] wide in an aircraft carrier. It is well within Iran's capability to sink every American ship in the Persian Gulf. What we need to do is to start a public dialogue. The next person to advocate attacking Iran must answer the following questions: What do you think the American response would be and should be to destruction of their Persian Gulf fleet? Are you willing to pay $200 a barrel for oil? Are you willing to send the world into an economic depression? What is your plan for economic recovery? Are you willing to raise taxes to pay for the rebuilding of the American navy and for the increase in the military and in domestic security to defend the US against 1.3 billion Muslims? Can you guarantee that America will be a place to live after the conflict settles down in a decade or two? It was said prior to the American invasion of Iraq that there were two superpowers, America and world public opinion. It is now time that the latter power be mobilized to prevent an economic, political, social and military disaster.
Daniel Wyeth Fey
Sunnyvale, California (Oct 22, '04)


Ehsan Ahrari [The US-Israel tag-team act, Oct 22] describes the vise Iranians see the US squeezing them in - American bases threatening them from Iraq and Afghanistan and a ratcheting up of preemptive disarmament rhetoric - but fails to mention the vise Iran has the US in. The longer the war goes on, the higher the price of crude, the richer and more powerful Iran becomes at the expense of the importing nations like the US. The "war premium" on crude alone is sufficient to finance a level of infrastructure development in Iran that we in the West can no longer afford. Yet to overthrow the Iranian regime risks destabilizing their oil production, at which point crude could easily to go to $100 barrel - or more. Perhaps those brilliant American politico-military strategists might have learned in Iraq how difficult it is to stabilize oil production when you're perceived as an unwanted occupier. And the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum products in the American economy. The Iraq war burns through more [gasoline] and diesel than most states, and the cost for it was calculated [at] $25-$30 barrel. So the US is also in a vise - the longer the war goes on, the weaker we get vis-a-vis Iran, yet the cost of confronting Iran may just be too high, so that this slow bleeding will continue. No doubt some of Iran's excess wealth is seeping back over the border into Iraq to help fund the insurgency, but to this point it's been minimal and not very traceable. In fact, for all the US tough talk lately, the Bush government still counts on help from Iran in Iraq - not to directly fund the insurgency, to police the borders with Iraq that the overstretched Americans can't begin to control. So the US is also in a vise, with only bad options to choose from. That's what happens when you start with bad policy - all your choices only make things worse.
R Winter
USA (Oct 22, '04)


I shared [Kunal Kumar] Kundu's article [India left in a rut, Oct 22] with an Indian friend, who had the following to say: "While bashing the leftists Kundu omits to mention that the Planning Commission members are part of a regulatory body and can order confidential files from government bureaucracies. The left did not want them to have that privilege. He also forgets to mention the craftiness of foreign consultants. The poor in South Africa are paying for water to foreign companies who have devised means to control loss of funds due to non-payment of dues by the poor. They sell water meters designed to deliver [a] certain amount of water based on water rates. The meter shuts off water once the limit is reached and the owner has not paid for the next installment. In India the government of Chattisgarh [state] has sold 24 miles [40 kilometers] of a river to an entrepreneur. He has forbidden the tribals living on the banks of the river the use of river for boating, fishing or drinking whose entire life was based on the use of the river. This sale was made on the advice of foreign consultants. In short rich and comfortable [people] like Kundu believe in the goodness of market forces because their children don't go hungry or remain illiterate." How come Mr Kundu didn't also provide the opinion of those adversely affected by the advice he sees as only having a benign effect? In a country where the majority is in poverty, that's not a minority issue. Re Suicide bombing: Theology of death [Oct 22]: Rabbi Moshe Reiss is universalizing a phenomenon that is more specific. In World War II there were the Japanese suicide bombers, including those who rammed Pearl Harbor. I was also told that in Vietnam this weapon was used as well. In fact, when I shared a suicide-bomber article on the Tamil Tigers, who celebrated 241 by the year 2002, with a friend, he told me: "A friend of mine who was in Vietnam told me that in a village a little child with a bunch of flowers was sent forward to greet the American soldiers. When the child was close enough the flowers blew up, killing the child and some of the soldiers." The first Arabs to use this weapon were the Shi'a Hezbollah in 1983. Their reason was political, as is the reason behind the Tigers, the Palestinians, the Vietnamese, the Japanese. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group. [That] may be couching it in religious terms, because al-Qaeda is a militant religious nationalism group that wants to create a totalitarian Islamic state. But, at the core, it is using religion as an excuse - when the real reasoning is political. The rabbi is right that the Koran doesn't condone [suicide bombing]. But extremists can read any scripture to create religious reasoning as the Christian fundamentalists have illustrated as well, since their messianic interpretation isn't shared with other Christian readings of the scripture.
May Sage
USA (Oct 22, '04)


[Re Battle royal over Taiwan arms deal, Oct 22] This is precisely what Taiwan needs to do. For decades China has threatened Taiwanese independence with military action. Many of China's missiles are aimed directly at the heart of Taiwan. But one thing is for sure, China's position in the world has grown on the back of its capitalistic-run economy - an open economy that heavily depends on exports, especially to the United States. Second, even if China is willing to sacrifice this "golden economic egg" to get Taiwan, she will still face a full-scale war with Taiwan and the USA. Japan and other regional powers will most likely help the US cause before they help China. China has everything to lose if she lives up to her threats.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Oct 22, '04)


The chief lesson we [Americans] learned from the attacks on September 11, 2001, is that we should have done more earlier. Spengler insists (In praise of premature war, Oct 19) simply that we heed that lesson. Although we should do all we can to prevent nuclear [weapons] proliferation, it appears inevitable that rogue nations that support terrorists will acquire them. Remember, the (usually reviled, at least in this forum) neo-conservative position is that democracies do not go to war with each other. The hope is that the world still has a window to become free before proliferation becomes rampant. Those who wish to do nothing (I include those who wish to turn these concerns over to a committee in the United Nations), which is invariably the position of those who consider Spengler's assertion heretical, are being myopic at best.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 22, '04)


"Spengler": you quote General Douglas MacArthur [letter, Oct 21] in effort to defend your In praise of premature war [Oct 19] view. I remind you yet again that, in keeping with the US constitution, the commander-in-chief of the US military is a civilian, as the US is not a military dictatorship or society. Based upon that fact, the military stays out of politics. So whatever General MacArthur or any other general said or says has no official or legal authority. As well, I remind you that MacArthur was fired by president [Harry] Truman for insubordination, which included his meddling in politics. In short: MacArthur is not a credible source of support for a view which remains contrary to the US constitution.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 22, '04)


Here is my reply to Spengler's letter (Oct 21): I remember three facts about [General Douglas] MacArthur. 1) He did not have the courage to tell his mother he kept a Filipino mistress. 2) He declined, out of personal pique, to commute the death sentence on General [Tomoyuki] Yamashita, who had "out-generaled" him in the Philippine war and was innocent of the "Philippines Charge". (3) He got the sack, summarily, from his own president. Perhaps a fourth also: that Mao Zeong, resigned to losing a million of his Chinese population, was eager to accept/meet MacArthur's challenge/threat to nuke China. MacArthur may be worshipped in the USA, but he had warts which disfigured his public countenance.
KA
United Kingdom (Oct 22, '04)


Spengler amusingly tries to deflect criticism of his writings by writing, "Trouble yourself first about the message first, and only afterwards the messenger" [letter, Oct 20]. People have no problem accepting that proliferation is a major concern. The excrement that fills Spengler's "chamberpot of cavils" (a term which in modern English would be translated as roughly "toilet of insults") comes from digesting the ridiculous, half-baked, faux grandiose historical "theories" [he] flings about wantonly. I often disagree with many of ATimes' writers, but it is only Spengler who calls his own sanity into question with every article. I believe most objections to Spengler's articles have little to do with his point of view, but with his very person. While the world is grappling with a reasonable way of addressing the perplexing issue of non-proliferation, Spengler is sitting in his armchair, dreaming of chamberpots and constant war. So noble of him to commit countless American soldiers to so noble a cause as Armageddon. I know Spengler doesn't value the lives of the non-Western peoples whose nations he wishes to crush and demilitarize, but doesn't he feel some sorrow for the children of the "New Israel" whom he wants to see scattered amongst a dozen wars across the world? But I thank Spengler's bitter, scatological response to his readers, as it confirms my theory that he is an angry, confused and offensive old man. I realize Asia Times benefits from printing Spengler's outrageous rantings, but I feel certain your other writers don't appreciate having their serious articles on the same site as such "pretentious hackdom", as another reader put it so well. Perhaps you can put Spengler on a companion site called "Asia Times for Dummies".
G Travan
California, USA (Oct 22, '04)


In the article The sick man of Asia [Oct 1], Pepe Escobar stated, "The Philippines, as is well known, spent more than three centuries as a Spanish colony before its half-century under the Pentagon/Hollywood axis." Pepe left out the wonderful years the Philippines spent under Japanese rule. I guess it's easy to forget those halcyon days.
Tim Nolan (Oct 22, '04)


In response to the letter [Oct 21] by RR from Florida, USA: First of all, I would suggest you reconsider your description of yourself as a "non-practicing Muslim". Because I propose that there is no such thing. You are either a Muslim or not, and it is only for you to decide and your lord to judge, but every Muslim is a practicing Muslim, whether consciously or not. That is because Islam is not just growing a beard and saying your prayers. You practice Islam when you are kind to your parents, or when you give charity or are kind to your neighbors etc. This term (non-practicing Muslim) makes as little sense as does a "fundamental Muslim", or even an "Islamist". But anyway, coming to your question, "Why are there many mosques built on sacred lands claimed by other religions and not vice versa?" I suggest you travel to Europe on your next holidays and visit the south of Spain. Muslims ruled that land for about 400 years (711-1130) and wrote some of the most glorious chapters of the Islamic history. They called it al-Andalus and built a civilization that was far superior to anything Spain had ever known. Attempting to create a land of wisdom, they treated Christians and Jews with tolerance (this might be very difficult for our Indian friends to swallow). They established the [cities] of Gharnata (Granada) ... and Qurtaba (Cordoba), which was at its time the most sophisticated city in the whole of Europe ... Relating to your question, the city housed some 700 mosques, but only one remains today, which was exactly one more than the number of Muslims left after the infamous Inquisition (which some Hindus would have mirrored in India of today) by the early days of the 17th century. No man-made empire or kingdom can survive forever, but few are as tragic as this. The Catholics demolished every single mosque they came across and built in their place churches and cathedrals, but when they came to the grand mosque of Cordoba, with its 850 pillars and Moorish arches, they were so taken aback by its beauty and grace that they could not bring themselves to demolish it, and instead they built a cathedral smack in the middle of it, and it stands today. So, RR, having ruled most of Spain for hundreds of years and having established brand-new cities there, now you will find not a single mosque as their reminder. This is no isolated case and it was in fact a norm in those days that the conquerors would take over the religious sites of the conquered and make mosques or churches or what not over them. In all honesty, this was the way of the land at the time. It would be unfair of us to look back at centuries-old history and judge those people by the norms of today's society. These were wars of religion, and temples, mosques and churches were symbols of power; when the conquered took over these buildings they did not take over a place of worship, but a symbol of power, and hence declared the land to be "conquered". It's more like today when American troops have gone to Iraq and taken over Saddam Hussein's palaces and made themselves at home, because in Iraq, it was these palaces that were the symbol of power and not the mosques. You say that the Koran advocates "destroying idols"? I wonder if you are aware of the context of any such reference? Maybe one day we can discuss that too. While reading the Koran, did you get to where it tells us, "Do not curse [the idols] of those who call on other than Allah, thus causing them to curse Allah out of animosity [toward you] and without knowledge"? Let alone destroying idols, we are being told not even to curse them. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf says that with reference to this verse, the Koran forbids us from even burning of flags of other countries, and yet day after day we see our angry and ignorant Muslim brothers burning American flags on their streets. This is ignorance and intolerance that [have] no roots in Islam, the religion of peace and submission.
T Kiani
London, England
Kiani_99@hotmail.com (Oct 22, '04)


Kudos to RR (letter [Oct 21]) for asking some common-sense questions like, "A fellow though non-practicing Muslim may I ask, why are there many mosques built on sacred lands claimed by other religions and not vice versa?" I would like to add two more sites to his list: Kashi and Mathura. One can clearly see idols of Hindu gods carved in stone blocks taken from the temples to make the walls of the mosque. To top it off, you will have Muslims protesting in Mumbai and Hyderabad demanding better treatment for Palestinians or against Salman Rushdie or bombing of Sudan by Americans. Well, how about protesting against treatment of Hindus in Kashmir (or Pakistan or Bangladesh)? When this is the ground reality, one must wonder why it took so long for Hindus to defend their interests after they were slaughtered in Godhra after returning from Ayodhya (just like Imam Hussein). While it does not make sense to right all the wrongs (ie, replace every mosque with a temple, reconvert every Muslim to a Hindu or Buddhist who was forcibly converted), or repeat the process seen in southern Europe, at least some sites that are extremely holy to Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists or Jains should be returned back to their respective faiths.
AP (Oct 22, '04)


In a letter published on October 21, Sylvia Joslyn claims that as a pacifist and an idealist mother she has the right to "premature" defense/attack to protect her children. Strange as it may sound to Ms Joslyn, the same sentiments are expressed on a daily basis by - possibly not quite as idealistic or as pacifist as Ms Joslyn - mothers in Fallujah, Najaf and the Sunni geometrically designated area somewhere in Iraq. The one difference between Ms Joslyn as a caring mother and her many Iraqi counterparts (aside from the insinuation that Iraqi mothers encourage their offspring to kill themselves for the benefit of their god) is that Ms Joslyn does inadvertently encourage her children to travel to other people's lands to kill others' children on behalf of their own god. One is left to wonder whether the tears of an Iraqi mother can compare with the tears that Ms Joslyn might shed.
ADeL (Oct 22, '04)


To all the Burmese who have been waiting in vain for so long that perhaps they dare not even care what is going on in their country, I will ask them to cheer up after the ouster of General Khin Nyunt. General Khin Nyunt is no democrat; in fact, he is the chief of the one of the most notorious secret police [forces] worldwide since ex-MI [Military Intelligence] chief General Tin On was sacked by dictator General Ne Win several decades ago. The situation in Myanmar has been in a stalemate for so long that any new development is better than nothing. Despite the best efforts by communist China to hold up the thuggish generals for whatever reasons known only to themselves, the end is nearer. Many Burmese often ask why the world is standing by while they suffer for so long, especially their so-called Asian brothers and sisters. My answer is that you have to depend on your own people. No doubt Uncle Sam is doing a little but still strategic interest counts. It would be wise for Burmese not to hope for the self-righteous Asian leaders to lift their fingers and offer a hand. Many people who are not familiar with Myanmar often wonder how can such a regime last for so long. One of the main reasons is that ex-general Ne Win was a really smart man who knew how to retain his power - and General Khin Nyunt is probably one of his best pupils. The countdown has already begun.
Dell
Singapore (Oct 22, '04)


In my travels and in the meetings and conversations with nationals of other countries, most people have said that they like individual "Americans", but dislike President [George W] Bush and his government. If President Bush is re-elected, this will change, because the people of the world will see through the facade of the citizens of the US and then know that the average US citizen supports all this madness which has been going on for the past four years. This election will be the turning point at which the US will either repair some of its damage or continue on its decline. In either case, the future doesn't look bright.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 22, '04)


[Re] Iran's need for nuclear engagement [The dangers of playing hardball, Oct 21]: I can see nuclear power for electricity or medicine. But when you use it to make weapons that is totally different. The cold hard fact is that no one, absolutely no one, wins a nuclear exchange. As my grandmother was so fond of saying, what goes around comes around. If people build and use them, then the entire world suffers from radiation poisoning to massive mutations of all kinds. It's just not worth it. [Re] So, did Saddam really try to kill Bush's dad? [Oct 21] by Jim Lobe: I would just like say that as far as I am concerned whether he did or not is no reason to go to war. I mean, come on. [What do] we have a secret service or military for? It's their job to protect the president. Since the Bush family is so tight with the bin Laden family I figure they wanted to get the scrutiny off of them and put it on someone more convenient. If you think about it, it does make sense as one possible explanation.
Jesse Carpenter (Oct 21, '04)


Regarding letters written with respect to Beijing hands Moscow a long rope (Oct 20) I want to say how wonderful it is that a long argument is at last settled at a table instead of a battlefield, and how pleased I am, as many, many others, with the present land holdings of China, with of course the expected unification with Taiwan in due course. The vast real estate of Tibet, Xinjiang, Gansu, and Qinghai call for incredibly huge and exhausting investment in their development which will take many decades or more. There is therefore no need to absorb more land, not to speak of the harsh climatic condition and non-strategic value. Taiwan, on the other hand, has been under Chinese rule for long years in history, and the people there write and speak the same language. The argument that China once owned the land which is now under Russia and therefore should fight for it will lead to similar conclusions about part of the Middle East and Eastern Europe as the Mongolians conquered those countries during the Yuan Dynasty. In short one should be pragmatic and careful to be able to chew and digest what is already in the mouth. Who knows what other promised, hidden "goodies" are coming as a result of the land settlement? Still, a note of thanks is in order to those who lament the "loss" of territories while simultaneously trying to ridicule the deal. I have faith in the integrity and wisdom of the Beijing leadership.
Fung Por
USA (Oct 21, '04)


In response to the Oct 20 articles Beijing hands Moscow a long rope by Yiwei Wang and China's feet of clay by Li YongYan, I noticed there [are] a lot of letters criticizing the PRC's [People's Republic of China's] decision to recognize Russia's current territorial borders and put aside the dispute over large amounts of territory in the far east. They suggest that this is weakness on the part of the PRC. I, however, do not share that view. Being Chinese, I too am disappointed in the fact that China lost out on so much territory in its weaker years. However, putting aside this dispute is the right thing to do for the Chinese people, for the alternative would be much worse. After all, what do these critics think China should do instead? Invade Russia and retake what is rightfully China's? Everyone knows what that would lead to. Even if China were to succeed in reacquiring these lost territories (through peace or war), can anyone imagine the ethnic strife that would surely follow in a PRC-governed territory with such an overwhelming ethnic-Russian majority? Should we conduct an ethnic cleansing of these territories if we ever reacquire it? Honestly, does anyone really think a war (possibly nuclear) and an ethnic cleansing of a new province will help China grow stronger economically? After all, this would be the only way if the PRC ever wanted to retake these lands from Russia. The best thing to do on China's part at this point would be to promote free trade with Russia and make use of the abundant resources available in the Russian far east, for that would help China's growth much more than any futile attempt to retake it. Pragmatism is not weakness.
HJ
El Paso, Texas (Oct 21, '04)


China's feet of clay [Oct 20] portrays a peaceful China actively seeking border settlement with neighbors. That is an example of China's intention of peaceful rising. Chinese people and their leaders will be practical and will pursue peace and economic expansion at the expense of sovereignty in [the] form of mutual agreements. [While] Chinese leaders are in the mood, it is the best time for India to settle the border with China now. However, they will still fight to [the] death to defend their land if other people [are] trying to force the issue.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 21, '04)


A poster [on the ATol Community forum], www.brothersjudd.com, responded to In praise of premature war [Oct 19] with this citation from General Douglas MacArthur: "The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too Late. Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realizing the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with one's friends."
Spengler (Oct 21, '04)


[Re In praise of premature war, Oct 19] As a mom who is ideally a pacifist, I too would act preemptively to protect my children in any way I thought necessary. I would rather die trying than die a coward/pacifist. I hope that is the stuff that I am made of if, God forbid, I would have to act. I think that our mistake as a secular nation is thinking that others are not serious about their beliefs about what they think that their god wants of them. To kill for God is not a new belief. What is new is that secularists can't accept the fact that people sincerely act on their religious beliefs rather on material comforts/peace. Christians have always been called to die for their faith in the Savior. Heretics and fanatics deceived them into killing, but it is not the example of [the] leadership, Christ. However, it is written for the Muslim and demonstrated in [Islam's] leadership, Mohammed, that it is God's interest to kill for the faith. Personally, I love the Muslim people and I respect their culture, but I don't want to be forced to accept their faith or, by rejecting it, to become their enemy. Their faith then allows them to kill me in order to "defend the faith". We have to learn to respect that they believe this and at the same time be their "enemy" and love them and try to survive their religious beliefs. It's a new game. The Muslim gains if he kills for God. The secularist loses two ways. He has nothing worth dying for, as this life is all he has, and he cannot talk faith out of committed believers, Muslim or Christian. Laws that he tries to impose will be powerless. He fears the Muslim and he hates the Christian. That is why we see so much fear and rage. His peace is to get rid of both, and it won't happen.
Sylvia Joslyn (Oct 21, '04)


To Beth Bowden [letter, Oct 18]: In your note on the "Spengler" article In praise of premature war [Oct 19] you write, "It was a sound argument." "Was" is, of course, past tense; I'll leave it to the historians to tell us whether it was "sound" in the past. However, the premise of his "argument" has always been and remains squarely against the requirements of the US constitution, which is expressly the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI). So too his false presumption concerning "America" and its purported "moral/religious core"; Article VI again: "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 21, '04)


Since Spengler asked [letter, Oct 20] ... Marc Erikson's article [Nuclear genie let loose, Oct 19] told us nothing we didn't already know. And it contains a wide hole in its case for alarm: an assessment of the competence of the bad guys. Does the current generation of Islamist terrorists possess the hardware, technology, training and infrastructure, and personnel, to set off an atomic bomb? Based on an analysis published in Foreign Policy magazine of notebooks kept by students in terrorist training camps, the answer can only be no. Even if they were handed a workable atomic bomb by an evil state, an attack would almost inevitably fail, given the current capability of known Islamist terrorist groups. Remember: We are talking about people who know next to nothing of Western science. As the notebooks made clear, even their knowledge of Islam is poor. Indeed, some in the elite have some engineering or chemical expertise. And "some" is far too many. But so far, the highest technology radical Islamists have deployed effectively [is] coordinated suicide attacks and slamming planes into skyscrapers. Horribly impressive yes, but light-years removed from the competence needed to deploy a nuke. Is it impossible? No. Is it easier than it should be? Of course. Is it likely to happen? Put it this way: The more wars of the sorts that Spengler [In praise of premature war, Oct 19] so cavalierly advocates, the more likely a nuclear terrorist attack will come. Because more wars breed an ever-increasing, ever-radicalized population of living victims. Some of those victims will be traumatized, violent, vindictive and - the most important part - smart. No doubt, radical Islamists possess the will to use nukes. They're just not capable of doing so yet. But if the West continues down Spengler's path, with war after stupid war against an enemy they are too ignorant and arrogant to understand, the next generation of terrorists will almost certainly have the skill.
Richard Einhorn
New York, New York (Oct 21, '04)


Perhaps Jim Lobe (We report, you get it wrong, Oct 4 ['03]) got it wrong. He spoke of "misperceptions" of Americans polled about Iraq. Since the polls, reports indicate that even though Saddam [Hussein] did not have stockpiles of WMD [weapons of mass destruction], he did have the capability of regenerating those programs rapidly. But that is not the point. Mr Lobe's point had to do with accurate reporting by the media. ABC, NBC, CNN, and maybe Fox (which Mr Lobe obviously holds in disdain) all present only the sensational side of Iraq which will "sell newspapers". How much coverage have they given the discoveries of mass graves or schools being opened or the accomplishments in rebuilding water facilities or power plants? All that is usually reported on those subjects is how much isn't done. How about one of you news organizations reporting on the accomplishments being made? When servicemen return to my local area they are appalled at the one-sided reporting by the major American media. Is Asia Times any better or [are] you busy playing "blame America first" like the major media in America?
Harold Tanner
USA (Oct 21, '04)

Asia Times Online's philosophy about "selling newspapers" is to report accurately and factually, and to spurn government-generated spin. We gain nothing from "one-sided reporting"; in fact, most of our readers are American, and many of them tell us they come to us because they are sick of Fox-style sugarcoating of the news. People with first-hand information about positive developments in Iraq, such as the servicemen you mention, are welcome to send us their reports. We cannot help but wonder why, in the more than a year that has passed since Jim Lobe wrote the article you cite, no one has done so. - ATol


I thank ATol for another stimulating discussion in the Letters section. Again I find some readers, mainly T Kiani, Sri and Kannan, locking horns and I could not desist from making some comments. I want to state that destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues and Babri Masjid were similar in the sense that both were driven by religious beliefs. But that's where the similarity ends. The Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed by the Taliban as the Koran advocates such an act. One of the names of the Prophet is "Destroyer of Idols". Many before the Taliban have tried to emulate the Hadith, or the ways of the Prophet. The demolition of Babri Masjid was, on the other hand, belief of the Hindus that the mosque was built after destroying a temple built at the birthplace of one of their deities, Ram. I know, Kiani, you would question me for the proof of that, like many others. Let me tell you this much: What would one expect to find in Ayodhya, a temple for the Hindu deity Ram or a mosque for a marauding invader from Uzbekistan? On my recent visit to New Delhi I went to see Qutub Minar. In the compound there is a mosque called Quwatul Islam, meaning "Power of Islam", which was built by demolishing 11 temples. Any proof? Yes, there are still idols of Hindu gods carved in stone blocks taken from the temples to make the walls of the mosque. As a fellow though non-practicing Muslim may I ask, why are there many mosques built on sacred lands claimed by other religions and not vice versa? Since you are so learned and have such deep understanding of aberrations such as the Taliban, please come up with an intelligent and credible answer. Lastly, wholeheartedly, I condemn the killing of innocents in Gujarat.
RR
Florida, USA (Oct 21, '04)


Not one reader's comment about Marc Erikson's Nuclear genie let loose, but a chamberpot full of cavils about my essay In praise of premature war [both Oct 19]. Something is drastically wrong here. The cavillers are deep in denial (or in de' Mississippi, as the case may be). Ericson's argument should shock you far more than mine. If he is right that non-proliferation is a dead dog, and that nuclear weapons soon will find their way to ill-tempered states, everything we have heard about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] from one side or another becomes moot, and the world looks quite different. Trouble yourself first about the message first, and only afterwards the messenger.
Spengler (Oct 20, '04)

A few more kicks at the messenger first ... - ATol


I thought ATol could sink no further into pretentious hackdom, but then Spengler's In praise of premature war [Oct 19] appeared. Kudos for probing further into the abyss!
Miles H Chewley
Chicago, Illinois (Oct 20, '04)


In his In praise of premature war [Oct 19], "Spengler" writes: "The West should be thankful that it has in ... Bush a warrior who shoots first and tells the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to ask questions later." Unfortunately, not only does "Spengler" have the process backward - the CIA is to assess realities and advise the president so he can determine whether or when to act or not - but, most important, reveals his contempt for rule of law and democracy, and persisting ignorance of the US constitution. Knowing the history, and destructiveness and waste, of war under an absolute sovereign, the Framers of the constitution were careful to break up the war-making powers. They placed the "sword" - the military - under the civilian head of the executive branch; the president. But they placed the power to declare war, and of the "purse" - the funding for war - exclusively in Congress. That system of checks and balances is to prevent a president acting alone, as had monarchs and tyrants, by ensuring such a decision be debated by We the People's elected representatives; and, if they saw no reason for it, to withhold authorization and funding. For a president to act without consent of Congress is to violate the constitution. Obviously, therefore, it is unconstitutional for a president to lie to Congress to obtain authorization and funding for war, as it was unconstitutional for [George W] Bush to divert $700 million designated by Congress for the Afghanistan war to his preparations for his illegal Iraq invasion for which it had not been authorized. Thus, as a result of Bush lying to Congress about such as intelligence, and thus tricking it into giving him authorization and funding, we would not now have the destabilizing adventurist disaster in Iraq, which as many saw beforehand was premised only upon lies.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 20, '04)


Fresh from his wise declarations on the history of language and the specter of extinction, Spengler now turns his vast faculties to the history of Western war [In praise of premature war, Oct 19]. Spengler's sprinkling of freshly Googled historical trivia is a truly pathetic attempt to prop up his pet theory of the day. Spengler reveals his true colors when he writes: "It hardly matters which one you attack first, so long as you attack one of them." What this mean is that every non-white nation must be disarmed and crushed. He starts by singling out North Korea and Iran, but make no mistake, Spengler's true wish is to subjugate South Korea, Japan, India and China, which are the real threats to the West's dominance, not the tin-can despots of the "axis of evil". The evil of a man like Spengler who, merely to satisfy his own insanity, prepares a cataclysmic war for future generations is unspeakable. I, and I hope many others, don't care about any of these weird theories of war, or of the Laws of Inevitable History, which Spengler purports to reveal. I must simply rely on my own moral judgment of what is happening in the world today, and of the people making it happen. Only a fool would judge [US President George W] Bush and his cronies to be anything but arrogant sons of privilege, taking the world to the brink of disaster for their own amusement and profit. As for Spengler, I judge him to be a lonely, frustrated old man, desperate to drag the world into the same darkness he inhabits.
G Travan
California, USA (Oct 20, '04)


[Re In praise of premature war, Oct 19] History can be cherry-picked to support almost any argument, so I will will do it also. The South attacked the North to start the [American] Civil War, not the other way around. The Civil War with the South in the USA, which had been brewing since Andrew Jackson's time, was not started by [Abraham] Lincoln. The preemptive attack of the South on the North would be a good example of your "go to war too soon" doctrine. Needless to say, it didn't turn out well for them. Another example of that doctrine not working would be World War II. The Germans, as well as the Japanese, tried that and failed miserably. [Adolf] Hitler used the same logic you espouse to justify his attack on Russia. That was a bad move. In my opinion, if the USA continues to use this doctrine, ultimately it will fail also. In fact, some would say we already have in Iraq and Afghanistan. To "go to war too soon" and prevent Iran, for example, from gaining nuclear weapons would be a disaster. Yes, the USA could bomb Iran, but with what troops would you invade and conquer the country? We don't even have enough troops to secure Iraq. Iran has plenty of troops to overrun our forces in Iraq after we bomb them, however. If I were a neo-con, I would consolidate my gains by having a draft and getting more troops trained. The invasion of Iran would be a few years away. Right now "going to war too soon" would be a disaster for neo-cons. Thankfully, I am sane and not a neo-con. Hopefully, my people will come to their senses and get rid of the neo-cons and [President George W] Bush before they can do more damage. Go Astros!!
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Oct 20, '04)


Re Spengler: In praise of preventive war (Oct 19) - is this your contributor who is touted so much as a writer of "genius"? In this piece his thinking, I submit, is puerile, because, arguing on his own thesis it follows then that it must be "right" for any country in the world, eg North Korea or China or Iran, to wage a preventive war against the USA. I am confident that any good "A" level student in this country will be capable of exposing the inherent fallacy of this argument and quickly demolishing it. May I suggest, in all seriousness, [that] Spengler spend sufficient time reading some of the standard (recognized) texts on international law and about its development and practice between the civilized nations of the world; it is with infinite sadness I have to record that the English-speaking Anglo-Saxon countries, led by the USA, have contemptuously consigned nearly six centuries of international law into the dustbin of history and have, thereby, themselves reverted to barbarism. So much for "Western civilization".
KA
United Kingdom (Oct 20, '04)


Being such an enlightened being, I'm sure Spengler will volunteer to become the first horrific casualty in the next premature war.
Ahmad Al Abdallah
London, England (Oct 20, '04)


Spengler [In praise of premature war, Oct 19] should drop his current pseudonym. Dr Strangelove would be more appropriate.
Mike MacDonald
USA (Oct 20, '04)


[Yiwei] Wang's Beijing hands Moscow a long rope [Oct 20] suffers from several flaws. First of all is the author's hidden, yet implicit, ire that China - whom he for some reason considers in a stronger position - has not settled its border disputes with Russia to the former's liking nor received the pipeline it has been asking for over six years now. This is a peculiar [example of] realist thinking indeed, when a "superior power" doesn't get its way; unfortunately Mr Wang doesn't give any empirical or theoretical evidence as to why China is "the stronger player" - or "Russia is weak vis-a-vis China", as he writes. Then there's another murky statement of "China's dominance". There's a further problem with loose terminology - Wang speaks of US "unipolar hegemony". Though it shows he is in vogue with the current misnomers, there's still a problem with the political implications of the term: a hegemon should be able to lay down the law, to dictate; and while the US is the only superpower, it has nowhere the ability to dictate to Russia, or lay down the law to even Iran etc. Wang's analysis further suffers from unsubstantiated assertions: "Russia is a declining empire" - neither the six years of economic growth averaging around 6.8%, including industrial expansion, increased military budgets, increased combat training, and large-scale strategic military exercises seem to get in the way of the analysis; apparently the Chinese are still trying to figure out who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is and what his two terms mean for Russia and its world position. Using Wang's futuristic approach, will China be able to, for example, conduct similar strategic exercises in 20 years, shall we say? Currently Beijing has enough trouble sailing its one strategic submarine, while Russia is building a yet another generation of SSBNs [ships, submersible, ballistic, nuclear]; and if China ever hopes to counter the US missile shield that is to be extended to Japan and perhaps other Asian states, its only path is through Moscow, even in 20 years. Some of the insecurity vis-a-vis the Great Northern Neighbor shows in Wang's branding Chinese textiles fabrics and clothes - the biggest share of Chinese exports to Russia - as "value-added industrial products"; yet, to consider this relationship, Russia can find plenty of other takers for its energy exports and find other sources of textile fabrics and manufacturers. China needs Russia more, in this instance. One must also remember - especially since Wang neglects this in his analysis - that the US and its allies will increase their presence in the Malacca Strait, Southeast Asia, and continue to control the waters of the Persian Gulf. If China is not to become dependent on the West's political goodwill - as [it is] becoming on its economic goodwill - it will either need Russian oil or more advanced Russian warships; but apparently in 20 years these and numerous other problems, including Taiwan, will simply fall off in the face of China's economic growth. There is also a questionable handling of the recent developments in the SCO [Shanghai Cooperative Organization]: Wang asserts that it's Russia that wants to combat the Three Evils, while China prefers to see an economic development of the SCO; yet wasn't it China that coined the Three Evils concept? And wasn't it Russian Prime Minister [Mikhail] Fradkov who recently called for an economic development of the SCO? Mr Wang also forgets that five of the six SCO members are in the Russia-sponsored CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), and that Russia has opened military bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, worked for Russian to be recognized as the official language in the latter and in Kazakhstan, and also has build a cosmodrome right on the border with China - at Svobodnyi. China will surely continue to grow in importance; whether it will have the geopolitical reach Russia exercises even now, never mind in Soviet times, and the military technology to keep up with the latest developments, is yet to be answered, and might still be in question in 20 years.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Oct 20, '04)


The piece by Yiwei Wang [Beijing hands Moscow a long rope, Oct 20] is why I read [Asia Times Online]. Great article, illuminating not only [the] Chinese perspective, but also offering Chinese spin and highlighting Chinese hopes. I think Mr Wang has it partly right and partly wrong. He's right about the contemporary rise of China. But he may be wrong in predicting continuing Russian misery, since these two trends appear incompatible. The Chinese "miracle" - if it's to endure - [will] probably arrest Russia's decline, as it does already. On top of that, it would trigger alarms ringing in the Western capitals. That alone would make Russia a crucial swing player in [an] upcoming West-China rivalry. As China played a great role in dissipating Soviet strength and the demise of the USSR, Russia will be a decisive factor in picking a victor of the future Sino-American economic and military standoffs. So far, China is playing its diplomatic card masterfully. If it refrains from taking on Mr Wang's advice and insisting on Russia "recognizing China's dominance" (Russia never recognizes such things) and pays at least lip-service to Russian concerns about its territorial integrity ([an] all-overriding obsession of Moscow), then Russia will stick with China through thick and thin, thus ensuring Beijng's strategic depth. After all, [the] West comes and goes, while Russia and China are neighbors for good. But if China starts displaying delusions of grandeur, then Russia has plenty of space for political maneuvering, by exploiting Sino-Japanese, Sino-Korean, Sino-American, and Sino-rest-of-Asia tensions. That [is], of course, if we assume that China has self-sustaining power at all, which is far from established fact. Up to now, China's ascent seems to be more a function of American appetite for imports and over-accommodating monetary policy than of autonomous internal economic dynamics. Once the dollar spigot is turned off, China will have an opportunity to prove that its rise is not just a run-of-the-mill boom destined for eventual bust. At this point in time, all the talk about China becoming a full-fledged superpower may be tragically premature.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Oct 20, '04)


I have read Li YongYan's excellent article called China's feet of clay [Oct 20]. Li YongYan catches the feelings of many Chinese, including me, perfectly. I must say I feel saddened, powerless and quite angry about what the Beijing leadership has done this time. The entire so-called "Russian far east", parts of Siberia, Central Asia and Outer Mongolia were once parts of China. All of these territories were lost because of Russian aggression. I accept that these territories are gone, probably for good, but China should defend what it still [has]. Ceding land again, such as the islands on the Amur River, is not part of that plan. How can the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] be credible about its claim on Taiwan while it's at the same time ceding large chunks of land to Russia? I don't find it credible and I am resolutely opposed to it. To be honest, I'm very mad and I can't find any words to [express] it.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 20, '04)


ATol reported that China has handed over to Russia the bulk of 1.45 million square kilometers of territory that was previously Chinese [China's feet of clay, Oct 20]. The Chinese weakness concerning its national sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of a weak and declining Russia is in stark contrast to the sharp rhetoric pouring out of China concerning plans to annex Taiwan. But on the subject of Russian sovereignty over Chinese territory, Chinese leaders were merely being practical and pursuing peace and economic expansion at the expense of sovereignty. We can expect they will do the same with regard to Taiwan in a few years' time.
Daniel McCarthy (Oct 20, '04)


Five score and twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I first started reading philosophy and political/economic theory, but never, man or boy, have I read such pretentious geopolitical nonsense as Professor Arno Tausch's offering published by Asia Times [Waiting for the next tsunami, Oct 20]. Oh, I know, he'll probably say I'm too ignorant to recognize his pearls of wisdom. Well, could be, but "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". Just where does the good professor go wrong? It's futile to count the ways as he flutters as a pigeon flies, dropping his wisdoms in like manner. So let us start with Europe's initial expansion into the Western Hemisphere of 1492, which Professor Tausch calls the "Reconquista", apparently confusing it with the term applied to Hernan Cortes' conquest of central Mexico of 1519-21. Correction, Professor, reconquista means "reconquest". It is what certain ambitious Mexican-Americans of the western United States call their present effort to claim the land for their imaginary state, Aztatlan, which, I must suppose, means themselves as most Mexicans coming from the south have no desire whatsoever to resubmit themselves to such politico/economic misfortune. I hesitate to say "reclaim" because in truth Spain, not Mexico, and certainly not the Aztecs, conquered and held these territories and provided titles to lands owned largely by hidalgos who supported the American takeover that ended in February 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. But, more to the point, those who see the Tobin tax as a vehicle for infusing their economies with great wealth, apparently via the political agency of the UN, are making a grave error. True, the Tobin tax is an excellent device for raising enormous revenues at little individual burden from a vast stream of wealth that is [now] entirely untaxed. But those who [currently] control and prosper from that Amazonian flow are the very individuals and institutions who dominate and control the politics and economies of all the Western European, Asiatic, and North and South American countries. They will never surrender the power to tax to the United Nations, and only with the greatest of effort can their greedy fingers be pried from the throats individual nations. This misguided effort to solve the problems of the world's poor can only result in providing ammunition to those who are opposed to modifying the oppressive tax systems of their own nations, to the instituting of a method of raising revenue which would which produce an abundance of wealth in which the poor of the world would share.
Marie Pangloss (Oct 20, '04)


Thanks to Arindam [letter, Oct 19] for an informative ... response to Gajendra Singh's article [Curing what ails India's Hindu hardliners, Oct 19] about the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] in India. Mr Singh needs to move away from using labels that mean nothing or [are] vacuous at best. Its like George Bush calling [John] Kerry a liberal - what does that mean? Mr Singh's best articles are about Turkey, and I hope he sticks to writing about that country and leaves India's polity to people who follow and analyze it and give your readers a better insight that they have come to expect.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Oct 20, '04)


The letter by Sri [Oct 19] is not very dissimilar to that of Kannan [Oct 15]. I would not like to go into the reason they insist on putting words in my mouth just to than go and criticize those words in the next sentence, but it is reassuring for me to know that for every Kannan and Sri, there is a Beth [letter, Oct 18] somewhere out there in the USA. It confirms my belief that despite in spite of criticism and questioning the mental ability of Americans by many readers (including myself at times), Americans are no less clever or logical than the rest of us. In fact, judging from letters published by ATol, some of the most intelligent letters have been sent from those either living in or belonging to the USA. As a Muslim too, I have noticed that some of our great Muslim intellectuals of today are American converts, and these include the likes of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, both born and educated in the US. Going back to Sri, I would say that the demolition of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan was a great tragedy, and had nothing "Islamic" to do with it. But I would not compare this tragedy to the "human tragedy" in Afghanistan of both today or the Taliban era ... Israel seems to be able to earn lots of brownie points in the world media by its "human gesture" of saving a Palestinian zoo, while at night they send their warplane to kill ... innocent Palestinian zoo goers? The world protested (well, kind of ... probably not Sri?) at the demolition of the ancient Babri Mosque in India, but turned a blind eye at the 2,000-plus Muslims butchered ... on the streets of Gujarat. It's sad yet true that our perception and perspectives of what is important and truly sacred in life has taken a sharp turn for the worst in these "interesting days" of ours. Sri wants to know how I am remotely different to the Taliban. I want to know how any of us is remotely different to them. Sri won't believe me when I say I don't share the Taliban ideology; I ask him: What is the Taliban ideology? I think it's Sri's own insecurity that forces him to define the world in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil so that he knows where he fits in and he can sleep better at night. As for my lack of shame Sri talks about, I chose to ignore that and other related sentences because I think he says that as a final judgment on me and there's little I can say to change that. I would like to tell Sri, though, that the work of most of the scholars I follow in Islam is barred from the Arabia of the Sauds because they too seem to believe in absolute good and absolute evil. I'm sorry to say that, like Sri, they too do not consider my scholars absolute good, so maybe he has that in common with both [US President George W] Bush and [Osama] bin Laden? Ie, intolerance?
T Kiani
London, England (Oct 20, '04)


This is in response to Beth Bowden and T Kiani [letters, Oct 18]. First of all, Beth's assumption is wrong. I am an Indian. I believe that instigating violence/killing needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms even if a holy book sanctions it. It is well known that certain verses in the Koran continue to be a source of inspiration for some of the fundamentalist elements. The fanatical Islamic cult of death needs a political cause for growth. Like a Frankenstein monster, it swallows the rest of the problems and spreads the message of terror without bringing solution to the conflict. For example, just compare how the East European and Central Asian nations seceded peacefully from the erstwhile Soviet Union to that of the ongoing struggle in Chechnya. The latter still remains part of Russia even after all the bloodshed. Islamic militants have a perception: as long as the cause is just, any means to achieve the goal can be justified, thanks to the Koran. This is true in other parts of the globe as well wherever Islamic radicals are doing social engineering. There is only one field that Islamic militants embraced science and technology without any hesitation: violence/killing. If Beth would like to respond to this letter I expect [her] to answer the Koran-inspired crimes/terrorism that we see in the world even now. If the perpetrators of violence use the Koran for criminal acts, then why is the Muslim world keeping mum? I don't think any right-thinking person will accept Kiani's admiration for "safer" (yes, Kiani, I do understand the difference) conditions during the Taliban's rule. The world treated these fanatics as pariahs for their horrible acts and only three countries in the world recognized them. Even the United Nations did not admit this regime into the assembly. There is a myth circulating in the Muslim world: mujahideen defeated the erstwhile Soviet Union when it was a superpower. Well, if the West would have turned a blind eye to the conflict in Afghanistan I am sure mujahideen would still be fighting the Soviet Union. The West outsourced the dirty and dangerous job of fighting to the "freedom fighters" by supplying them with the latest weapons. If the Taliban (the victors of the mujahideen, as claimed by Kiani) were so powerful, why did they run to the desolate mountains? While I admire ordinary Afghans' ability to ... live in the face of calamity, they have to seriously address one issue that is haunting them again and again: they can no longer remain a mute pawn in other power's conflict on their territory. They are the ones getting killed and their land is getting destroyed as a result of the great game. Even after all the mayhem that the Taliban [caused] they can still join the civilized world if they apologize to the Afghan women for the hardship they brought on them and join with them in the reconstruction of the war-torn nation. There is an important lesson for the "frontline" neighbor as well. Pakistan cannot hope to live in peace as long as conflict is brewing in Afghanistan. If there is trouble in the west, naturally Pakistan will be sucked into it.
Kannan (Oct 20, '04)


This has reference to [K] Gajendra Singh's article Curing what ails India's Hindu hardliners [Oct 19]. He used terms like "Hindu fundamentalism", "Hindu nationalist", "Hindu hardliners" in the same essay when referring to same group of people, ie, the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and its Sangh Parivar. "Hindu right" or "Hindu nationalist" should have sufficed. This clearly shows his lack of clarity and skewed concept of Westernized elite version of India's official "secularism". It's not the vision of even the nation's "father", Mahatma Gandhi. Lately, a great many noted historians, sociologists [and] commentators like Partha Chatterjee, T N Madan, Ashis Nandy, U Baxi and many others have disagreed with it in many fundamental ways. Secularism in their view has long faced an internal threat in the sense that the conceptual and normative structure of secularism is itself terribly flawed. In different ways, each argues that secularism is linked to a flawed modernization, to a mistaken view of rationality, to an impractical demand that religion be eliminated from public life, to an insufficient appreciation of the importance of communities in the life of people and a wholly exaggerated sense of the positive character of the modern state. The Hindu right is perfectly at peace with institutional procedures of the "Western" or "modern" state, separation of state and religion. The Hindu right doesn't demand legislative enforcement of rituals or scriptural injunctions, neither has it demanded a role for religious institutions in legislative or judicial process, compulsory religious instruction, state support for religious bodies, and censorship of science, literature, and art in order to safeguard religious dogma, or any other similar demand undermining the secular character of the existing Indian state. Can we say the same about the Islamic or Christian right, Mr Singh? Even with [the] Turkish variant? In fact, as Chatterjee noted, the campaign of the Hindu right often seeks to mobilize on its behalf the will of a modernizing state, in order to erase the presence of religious or ethnic pluralism from the domain of law or public life. Is there any country where Islamic/Christian fundamentalists pursue these goals? Unless you understand what they stand for, what perspective will your column bring out, except partisan bickering?
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Oct 19, '04)


Whew! I know Spengler is really going to get a lot of flak over his article In praise of premature war (Oct 19). It was a sound argument. I only have one question. Why is it that every time someone has an unpopular point that they want to prove, they frequently tell their audience that they only have or had two choices in the matter? Don't you know, Spengler? Just because there is more than one way to skin a cat doesn't mean there are only two ways.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Oct 19, '04)


Re Spengler, In praise of premature war [Oct 19]: "George W Bush ... is willing to go straight to war, no questions asked. That is precisely what the world needs." How sad that people like Spengler, Dubya and Rummy in a lifetime have learned nothing. What a disservice these rabid fanatics do to the decency of the average American. Had these chicken-hawk (political connotation) ideologues ever learned anything, they might have heard of The Art of War by Sun Tzu. In James Clavell's version, Chapter II, "On Waging War", "When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength, and if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain ... [and] other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war who can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on." And in Chapter III, "The Sheathed Sword", "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good ..." Spengler, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld = flea-brained cowboy diplomacy. Will these dumb Judeo-Christians ever learn anything from the East? Oh, and if you believe Eric Arthur Blair, Oswald Spengler was a fascist too.
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Oct 19, '04)


Spengler lets slip a number of questionable postulates about war, and then searches history to support them [In praise of premature war, Oct 19]. We are to think this is a rational reason for supporting George Bush morally. Let's look at some of those postulates. "Among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late." And there is, "Once powers truly are balanced, however, neither side can win, except by a devastating war of attrition." And finally we have, "Postponing war therefore creates equally matched opposing blocs who eventually annihilate each other." Our man then applies these "principles" to nuclear explosive devices and seems to suggest that to prevent war we must wage it quickly and decisively. Does this sound vaguely familiar? Why are we being asked to see the world of nations and ethnic groups as composed of combatants? In his subsequent historical review of great alliances and conflicts, from ancient Greece to 19th-century Europe, he offers none which clearly illustrates any of these principles. When speaking of the Civil War he implies that the war came just in time to prevent the expansion of European influence into Mexico, influence that would be pro-slavery, despite [the fact] that England had outlawed [slavery] decades earlier. We are left to extrapolate that if the war had indeed come later, the ensuing hypothetical events would have illustrated one of the principles. Poor show, Spengler. You're losing it. But then you support Bush, and take religious and intellectual mentalism seriously, [so] I guess we can expect this.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Oct 19, '04)


[Re] In praise of premature war [Oct 19]: Why do war at all? Look at tiny little Switzerland, making no enemies yet armed to the teeth against invasion, all the while taking each side's money. Looks like a perfectly sane idea to me, and it's worked since the armies of the French Revolution conquered them in 1798.
John French (Oct 19, '04)


In his piece titled In praise of premature war [Oct 19], Spengler bases his argument on the premise, "Once powers truly are balanced, however, neither side can win, except by a devastating war of attrition. Postponing war therefore creates equally matched opposing blocs who eventually will annihilate each other." The situation that Spengler outlines was, during the Cold War, known as mutually assured destruction (MAD). But as we saw with the Cold War, MAD actually prevents war instead of encouraging it. Moreover, a doctrine of preemptive war merely spurs countries to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible. After all, in Spengler's view the whole world wants nuclear weapons, therefore the US (and whoever else resides on Spengler's list of morally superior countries) must attack the whole world. What choice does the rest of the world have but to arm itself in the face of global preemptive war? Of course, people with Spengler's world view argue that MAD only succeeds in preventing war if all parties involved are rational, and that countries which are "reprobates" may very well be led by people who are not rational. The glaring problem with this argument is that it assumes that the US and its allies will themselves only have leaders which are rational. This assumption is fatal for Spengler's argument. If it's true that an irrational maniac will inevitably get his or her hands on nuclear weapons (or other [weapons of mass destruction]), then clearly the only solution is global nuclear disarmament, not a war against the world.
JD
USA (Oct 19, '04)


Spengler ends his In praise of premature war [Oct 19] with promising President [George W] Bush "moral support" in the upcoming election. Is one to conclude from the pedantic Spengler that there are "wars" that birth on time? Or that his disdain for Muslims and/or Arabs equals the oft-quoted Israeli slur that the Arabs are like cockroaches and should be treated as such? A nation that everyone now admits had no WMD [weapons of mass destruction] is in Spengler's morality deserving of annihilation while a nation such as North Korea which does have WMD deserves jaw-jawing? It's amusing to read that Spengler believes that his moral standing is worthy of being in support of premature wars principally by the West. Wonder if his moral support translates in volunteering for service in Fallujah or Abu Ghraib?
Armand De Laurell (Oct 19, '04)


Spengler is becoming predictable, like Madonna or Howard Stern trying to shock to entertain. He's quite wrong in his assumptions about war's inevitably [In praise of premature war, Oct 19]. But if he is right, then we're doomed. The technology of this era rules out World War I and II scenarios; sooner or later, if Spengler's "let's get it on" reasoning prevails, a real hot war - not the invasion of a cream-puff like Iraq, Afghanistan or Grenada - will occur.
Dan Bednarz, PhD
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Oct 19, '04)


[Re In praise of premature war, Oct 19] Why give voice to this raving lunatic? Your publication is better than that.
Irene White
Rochester, New York (Oct 19, '04)


Spengler: Your reply to Bliss on October 13 [Christianity and creative destruction] was interesting: "With all of this extinction going on, does it not seem woefully unfair to you that the descendants of a tribe of shepherds speaking a minor West Semitic dialect are the only people left whose ancestors walked the green earth 3,500 years ago, and the only people who still speak the same language their ancestors spoke?" You claim that this is "the" source of hatred towards Jews: envy for their status as an eternal people. To me, this seems a little strange: Firstly, in order to believe that the Jews are an eternal people, one must also accept the religious doctrine that that status is based upon. Is this not an impossibility for European secular humanists? Secondly, there are other nations which have existed upwards of 3,500 years, whose language and culture [have] been passed down continuously. The Chinese are only one example, yet as far as I know nobody envies the Chinese for being "eternal". One would think that there would be far greater grounds for doing so: in the case of Chinese, their language has been spoken continuously for thousands of years, whereas Israel deliberately revived the "dead" language of Hebrew as their country's official language.
Peter (Oct 19, '04)


[T] Kiani, in your letter [Oct 18], you peek out of your Islamic garb when you say that the demolition of the statues of Buddha by the Taliban in Afghanistan can be compared to the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya. Instead of worrying yourself over squeezing knickers, you could have actually gone into why indeed did your Taliban "brothers" (your words, not mine) demolish the statues. That would have shown where you ideologically stood relative to those that you extol. You cannot accept that the Taliban did it because they are the Taliban. How are you remotely different from them? The statues of the Buddha were not built by destroying anything, while the mosque in Ayodhya was built at a site claimed by Hindus as being sacred to them. Deny all you want. But when you yourself talk about your kinship with the Taliban and can find something to admire in them, you lie when you say you do not share their ideology. It is difficult to admire someone without an underlying commonality in outlook. Only fascists can admire [Adolf] Hitler and only pinkos would worship a Mao [Zedong] or [Josef] Stalin. If you can find no shame in seeing a "brotherhood" with the likes of the Taliban, it would be well nigh impossible to goad your medieval conscience into modern times. Au contraire, sitting in London, it is you who [have] escaped reaping the "safety and comforts" that other Afghans "enjoyed" under the Taliban.
Sri
New York, USA (Oct 19, '04)


I would like to respond to [all of] my Indian friends' [letters] with this one. First of all, I agree with all of you that China is in the same [pitiful] situation as India. Like Indians, Chinese are victims to white people's aggression and colonization. They have to do many less respectable things to survive. However, unlike Indians, none of the Chinese are proud of what they have to do to survive. Most of the Chinese people are proud of whatever other people can do; they can do the same by themselves. They are ashamed of being colonized. That is why I am so surprised that some people ... actually like it. I take no pleasure [in trading] insults with another colonization victim. It is some Indians' altitude [that] disgusts me. Ancient India introduced the concept of harmony and peaceful co-existence to humankind. I have great respect [for] India's culture and history. I hope the so-called elite Indians do not forget them.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 19, '04)


DP from the USA [Oct 18] suggests that some Indian letter writers are insecure for responding to [letter writer] Frank's flame bait. Some readers might remember the flood of responses from Americans to Spengler's column where he suggested that flyover-country Americans are ugly, fat or stupid (note, I'm paraphrasing Spengler, these are not my opinions, so please don't flame me now). But I never suggested that Indians, either in the past or the present, are angels, or that the imperialistic impulse does not exist among them. Since recorded civilizations in the Indian subcontinent are very ancient, it is safe to speculate that local rulers who acted upon such impulses pre-date those in Europe or the Americas, so it's not as if Indians had to learn it from their "masters" (there's another gratuitous flame bait from DP). So what it really comes down to, for me at least, is the attitude behind a person's comments. If there is a fair and balanced acknowledgement of strengths and weaknesses, that is one thing, but not a negative, one-sided and semi-coherent rant.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Oct 19, '04)


I found Daniel Griswold from the right-wing Cato Institute who reviewed Lou Dobbs' book to be misleading [A misguide to outsourcing, US economy, Oct 16]. Mr Griswold argues that free trade is good because it leads to lower prices. That is true, but you would get similar results if slavery was adopted. Dobbs may have a point about the reduced production since 1976. According to a measure called the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), an index which takes into account not only a country's outputs but subtracts costs like pollution, health care, and crime, the US has steadily declined since the 1970s. It's correct for Dobbs to measure the size of corporations by the total sales and compare it to the gross domestic product of other nations, because they both measure all total money transactions. It would be okay for Mr Griswold to compare corporate profits to a country's GPI, not the GDP. The author uses Japan and Germany as examples of the failures of countries that have trade surpluses. Japan suffered because there was an artificial demand created during the Cold War that no longer existed since the 1990s. Germany has struggled with the reunification of a successful Western European democratic socialism and a failed Eastern European communist system. Finally, the author writes about job creation, but the US has had a net loss of jobs over the last four years. Today, not enough jobs are being created to keep up with population growth. The real unemployment rate is much higher because more Americans are unable to find a good-paying job after their unemployment benefits run out. The jobs that are being created are low-wage jobs. To me, this shows that globalization is a failure.
Eric Grabowski
Buffalo, New York (Oct 18, '04)


[Daniel] Griswold misses the point when he trots out the textbook answers on trade policy [A misguide to outsourcing, US economy, Oct 16]. Lou Dobbs is for the middle class. The middle class gets its income from labor. Yes, trade increase the total income for a nation, but [it] does not guarantee the distribution of that income. What good is it to the middle class of America if the nation's income increases, but theirs decreases? Are they going to say, "I lost my job, but I know it is for the good of the country, so I'm happy?" Get real! Moreover, the American middle class derives much of its economic share from government intervention in the labor markets, through a minimum wage, education subsidies, and direct and indirect hiring. Free-market theory may say that is wrong, but history tells a different tale: a strong middle class makes for a strong country. Americans will drop their opposition to competition with foreign labor when that foreign labor is as free and independent as they are. The disparity between American and Chinese wages would not be so great if 1) the Chinese government didn't interfere in currency markets, and 2) the Chinese people weren't communist slaves. I have not read Lou's book, but I watch his show; I presume they are similar in style as well as substance. Lou is not against trade, he is for policies that benefit the American worker at the expense of the other two classes in America, the rich and poor.
Omid Zehtab (Oct 18, '04)


[Re] Ugly row over Tibet beauty contest [Oct 16]. "Beauty contests" are, by their conception, discriminatory and superficial. But for [the] Tibetan cause, it is wonderful. It puts Tibet in the news, and besides, how does a pageant compare to invasion, deforestation and persecution? Millions of people all over the world watch these sorts of programs, and millions of people can put a stop to invasion, deforestation and persecution. If the Tibetans living in exile are so outraged by this "bawdy" display, it could be taken as a sign of compliancy. I would like to see Ms Oklahoma cross the Himalayas.
H Hobson
Taipei, Taiwan (Oct 18, '04)


Dear Spengler: Thank you for your incredibly informative and stimulating column, which I look forward to reading every week. There is one issue I am confused about regarding your claim that the Jews are the only people who have preserved their ethnic (linguistic/cultural/racial) identity since ancient times. For example, you wrote [on Oct 13]: "With all of this extinction going on, does it not seem woefully unfair to you that the descendants of a tribe of shepherds speaking a minor West Semitic dialect are the only people left whose ancestors walked the green earth 3,500 years ago, and the only people who still speak the same language their ancestors spoke? The Indians and Chinese, whose languages also are very ancient, do not make much of this" [Christianity and creative destruction]. What [are] your criteria for ethnic or tribal continuity that only the Jews satisfy? Is it the continuity of language? Continuity of culture, traditions and historical memory? Genetic continuity? If your criteria are any or all of these, don't you think the Chinese can be considered to have the same longevity and continuity as a people as the Jews? If not, on what points do they differ?
Bruno-Ken Shiozawa
Tokyo, Japan (Oct 18, '04)


Dear Spengler [Christianity and creative destruction, Oct 13]: Could higher levels of atheism in Western countries contribute to a lack of political and popular will to send soldiers off to hot wars? Could the reason why the US military is much more effective and readily deployed than other European countries be because the average American soldier is more religious than his nominally Christian European counterpart? Japan (Yasukuni Shrine and all that), Germany (pagan Nazism), Soviets (another pagan-mother-country deal), Khmer Rouge (animist; communism was an excuse to liquidate the upper classes) - all those belligerents from the 20th century were fiercely religious ... if for all intents and purposes, religious = indoctrination in some kinda transcendent eschatology. Most of the threatening non-Western countries today fit this definition of "religious". Therefore we have no choice but to train apes to fight for us. Yet that conclusion fills me with foreboding. PS - [I would] love to hear your take on Canada. I believe we attract better-quality immigrants than our southern friends do and have less ghettoized Muslim communities than Europe does. It would be interesting to see what North America looks like in another couple of generations (assuming we still have our independence).
A MacDonald (Oct 18, '04)


I see that Spengler has reverted to his more natural mode of harping about how terrible it will be when "time will eradicate all memory of us", when we die and our children speak Swahili instead of the beautiful tongue of their God-fearing ancestors (this, of course, does not apply to the Jews, as Spengler assures us that God protects them). I suspect Spengler is a lonely, childless old man, who is struggling desperately to justify his own sad existence. Death and suffering are inevitable in life. The nature of this world is temporary. Our own existence is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Life and death are a cycle, and are both necessary. If you doubt it, watch some nature documentaries and you may be surprised by how every small animal is part of a much greater whole, even in death. Spengler, at his advanced age, is bewildered by these simple ideas. He is not driven towards a grander view of the world, which seeks to escape the cage of individual and tribal identity. Instead, like a little child having read too many comic books, Spengler invents a preposterous notion that unlike everything else in the universe, one tribe, the Jewish people, will last forever under an omnipotent being's protection. But the most insidious part of Spengler's ideas is that there is nothing to live for except survival as a race. This total lack of concern for morality and the obsession with racial survival is a throwback to the Nazis, who, much like Spengler, were terrified by the prospects of their race's impending doom. The world, happily, has moved beyond these childish games, and Spengler's half-baked notions will indeed be forgotten by following generations. A quite happy outcome, I might add. By the way, I'm still waiting on those letters in Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Italian ...
G Travan
California, USA (Oct 18, '04)


Dear Spengler: I really appreciate your honesty and willingness to talk about issues which no one else dares to touch. I'm referring to your [Oct 15] letter response about God, the Holocaust and death. I live in Canada, which is for the most part a secular humanist country. Death for me is an ever-present reality. I personally have developed an inner dialogue, and I try to deal with this incredible issue. Yet I find my society to be one which brings me to despair. Why? Most people are extroverts (to use Karl Jung's language). In a secular humanist society, the culture does not, and simply cannot, deal with death. There have been various times when in normal conversation the topic [of] car crashes or whatever comes up, and I will mention the obvious fact that any of us could die at any time. The response I get is one of anger, horror, etc etc, that I would dare put such a horrible idea forward. It's almost like it is an issue which does not exist for them, because it is not in the popular discourse, so when someone like myself brings it up, it's like I am the crazy person swinging a hammer to destroy their lives. This is and has always been my central hatred of secular humanism: the vast majority of people need a culture which can deal with death, and it does not, because it cannot. So instead it ignores it. My dilemma has always been, centrally, [that] I do not know if the promises of religion are true, for they are based off of faith. I believe in God due to experience. But I really do not know if life goes on after death. So I'm not sure if my hatred of secular humanism would lead me to embrace the growing Christian movement, or even Islam as better alternatives (culturally I think both are really [stagnant]). As I know from Job, I cannot say things about God unless I know they are true. This was the error of his friends, for whom he had to sacrifice and pray for at the end of the book. But all the same, it is wonderful to actually read someone talking about one of the most avoided, yet obvious and infinite, realities in human life.
DH
Canada (Oct 18, '04)


Response to Jose R Pardinas, PhD [letter, Oct 15]: Thank you for your kind feedback. I certainly agree with your examples and of their dynamics both for the Civil War and for Scotland. This is precisely why I entered the debate on the "perpetual" war on "language" and "ideas" after some considerable contemplation. It needed new perspectives such as the one you have pointed out here. What I was reading recently (in the last two years) was old, worn out, rehashed and irrelevant theory and commentary. There were some bright moments. The recent contribution by [Noam] Chomsky was refreshing. But for the most part all I read were old ideas framed in new settings for a new age. We don't go forward by rehashing the past if we don't learn something from it. The present is new, it's exciting and slightly dangerous. I welcome all feedback, whether positive or negative. I don't have answers but I can offer many questions. My latest articles offer questions - I hope.
Toni Momiroski (Oct 18, '04)


Chrysantha Wijeyasingha really hit the nail on the head in his letter (Oct 13) regarding US attitudes towards China and South Asia. I too found similar attitudes when I was studying for a master's degree in the US. I once checked out a Chinese folk music CD from the library and the very first song turned out to be titled "People Love Chairman Mao". The rest of the songs had titles on similar themes ("Welcome to the People's Liberation Army", "Commune Members Are Sunflowers", etc). I was really amused to find that the music had been compiled by some people sent to China by the US government in the '70s. The leaflet inside was full of glowing praise about how the Chinese national slogan of the time was to make the past serve the present - ie, folk music was being reworded to please The Great Leaders of The Glorious Party. The leaflet had more information about how sincerely the people loved Chairman Mao [Zedong], and with what vigor they sang his praises, than about Chinese folk music, which was what I was interested in hearing in the first place. Even the Chinese Communist Party could not have spun such amazing propaganda for itself as the Americans managed to do. To many observers in South Asia and the rest of the world, communist-capitalist China and democratic-capitalist USA do seem to be two sides of the same coin in many ways. Quite Orwellian. Which brings us to [letter writer] Frank's obsession with wiggling tails and white masters. Even more Orwellian! But in a world where truth is false, right is wrong, and all information is blurred to suit powerful corporate interests; where monsters who gas their own people are taken out by former masters who Agent-Oranged millions; where former colonial powers rail against the atrocities of the new superpower while doing nothing to uplift the continents they raped for centuries; where rich countries subsidizing their farmers by $2 billion per day force poor countries to stop supporting their [malnourished] peasants so that the latter may progress according to the principles of free trade; where Islamic countries that butchered up to 3 million people on their own territory wage jihad/terrorism to free Muslims in neighboring countries; where victims of genocide by Europeans use that as an excuse to do the same to Palestinians and stifle any criticism by reminding everyone of their eternal victimhood; in such an upside-down world I guess it's perfectly okay to expect sanctimonious advice on self-respect from a Chinese guy named Frank who is wiggling his tail in Seattle.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 18, '04)


The flurry of [letters, Oct 15] from Rakesh, Kannan, and Jon Sreekanth in response to a brief letter [Oct 14] from "Frank" criticizing India reveals how insecure Indian nationalists truly are. All three of these letters launch into predictable tirades about China, Afghanistan, or Pakistan while offering up self-congratulatory nonsense about the virtues of the "world's largest democracy". These guys would like to pretend that the ongoing independence struggles in Kashmir and Assam, or recent rebellions in Manipur, don't exist - for the reason that they give lie to the image of India as some kind of liberal democracy. Moreover, given Asia Times' refusal to cover these last two issues and its hostility towards the Kashmiri struggle, this is not surprising. Unfortunately, all the propaganda rhetoric about democracy and religious freedom in the world cannot cover up the facts on the ground and the truth in these territories. This is true of the Anglo-American subjugation of Iraq and Afghanistan, just as it is true in India. Indeed, on this particular point, perhaps Indians resemble their Anglo-American masters all too well, more than they wish to admit.
DP
USA (Oct 18, '04)


Frank [letter, Oct 15]: You are entitled to your personal view of disrespect for India and your letter shows that. But your chutzpah to make an opinionated statement about a billion Indians deserving neither respect nor dignity takes the cake. It's almost like what Chou Enlai did some 60 years ago paying first [Indian prime minister Jawaharlal] Nehru's plea on behalf of China with an invasion. Nehru pleaded at the UN that a billion people (China) of a great civilization cannot be ignored even under authoritarian rule. It was called the biggest back-stab then, and it's the same now coming from a fellow Asian. Your entire [letter] reads like a Communist Party article exhorting the comrades to hate the white man because in that hate, the communists see the way to unite China. Chauvinism may work within a communist autocracy like China but not within a multicultural country with a system of government called democracy. A system which can be traced to the Panchayati System mentioned in the early Hindu texts. It is described as a system of rule by elected aldermen working together with the monarchy. Sounds like the parliamentary system of the UK, doesn't it? So it may have been inherited from the Indian system, not the other way around as you allege. Your rich tribute to "past India" does not synchronize with brick-batting "present India". The India of the past was not a single federal country as it is today. It was a huge multitude of rajahs. The Indian Union today is not a simple feat for a land with 23 official languages and many more dialects - many more states and languages than the European Union, which itself is no small feat. India uses Hindi as the official language and English as the non-official link language and regional languages just like Europe with a combination of local language and a non-official link language of English. Would you argue then that the Europe of today has sold out to Britain and is bereft of culture, respect and dignity? Come on, Frank. You accuse India's IT [information technology] industry of being a big coolie factory, forgetting the fact that China is the sweat factory of the world employing machines and design for things like shoes from the white man (Nike). Does that mean the Chinese are incapable of even designing shoes? Not at all. It's a matter of time and integration. The time lost in not being in the path of the industrial revolution cannot be simply replaced by ham-handed Chinese attempts at imposing standards in wireless and operating systems. Why? Because they were driven by jingoism and not real technological edge. Patience, Frank. I hope you would agree that India and China, regardless of what language they use, have the need to focus on building a global state-of-the-art industrial base. That takes time. Japan has done it, and with very little jingoism and hatred of the West or Americans. Have you considered the fact that we are in a knowledge-based economy without borders in which a billion Chinese due to their lack of English and due to censorship have far less access to real-time information? Is that a plus? Your point about pride in civilization and heritage is a good one for many Indians who seem to eschew it instead of inculcating their kids in it. It is a lesson for the ruling Congress government, which is busy destroying the heritage and self-image of India. However, India should always look to its rich and tolerant past for inspiration, but not for chauvinism or jingoism directed at the West as you prescribe.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Oct 18, '04)


Frank [letter, Oct 15], India produced a Mahatma Gandhi, China a Mao [Zedong]. Gandhi used non-violence as a weapon to win freedom. Mao helped the Earth's environment (temporarily) by enthusiastically reducing his own country's population. Since your eyes are slanted towards China, I presume you are Chinese but your name is Frank. I have heard of Yin and Yang from China but I guess the Chinese revolution must have passed on the names of "reviled white masters" to your generation of Chinese. Or did you sneak out quietly one night in Seattle and change your name because you were so ashamed of it in the "white master's" land? The only thing that seemed clear in your traumatized outpouring against Indians is the unfortunate city of which you are a resident. I did not know that Asia Times Online was accessible in asylums for the mentally unhinged.
Sri
New York, USA (Oct 18, '04)


I am amazed to see that any comments from Chinese people are linked to [communism]. Contrary to what you believe, I am a capitalist and I do not hate white people. I have many white friends. Chinese people do not hate white people either. Yellow people can be friends with white people on equal bases. Many white people in America regard yellow people as equally dignified and intelligent people. Both white Americans and yellow Americans are proud of having a Chinese-American governor in our state. I am not trying to tell Indian people what to do either. I just want to point out that it is a natural reaction for human beings to pay attention to the masters only. Many Indian writers from ATol are not paying much attention to India either. If you like your current status, stop complaining about being ignored. The holy Indian language I am referring to is the one worshipped by billions of Chinese people in the last one thousand years. If Indian people do not know what it is and are not interested in your own culture, who will?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 18, '04)


I [implore] those interested in understanding why language is becoming so ineffective at communicating thoughts these days to look at the letters of Kannan and T Kiani (Oct 15). In Kannan's reply to T Kiani, it doesn't matter to Kannan what T Kiani stated, it only matters to Kannan that T Kiani's words projected the right feeling which Kannan expects should be projected to him. Because they did not, Kannan replied to a feeling that he gives to T Kiani which was neither stated [nor] implied in words by T Kiani in the letter Kannan is replying to. Kannan, you have inspired me to add another theory to the present pile of theories as to why America invaded Iraq. I have to admit an assumption on my part to arrive at my theory, which is that Kannan is American. I support my assumption by my belief that no one but an American would make the suggestion to someone of another religion that they should change their holy scripture to keep up with the times, as Kannan suggested in another letter here a few weeks ago. Theory No 9 - In America, the English language has devolved to such a point that it is no longer deemed a necessary part of the thinking process. Feelings are now the "thinking" man's tool for understanding. In the [US presidential election] debates, President [George W] Bush said, "I felt like it was the right thing to do." There you have it. We [US] went to war because we felt like we should. For those of you who still appreciate language, I'm sure you see the implication of the word "like" in this sentence.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Oct 18, '04)


T Kiani [letter, Oct 13] claims that the Taliban were actually democratically elected into power by Afghans. I wish to see his (I use "his" because I assume T Kiani is a male, since I cannot imagine a female writing supporting letters regarding the Taliban) source for this strange statement. Sorry, dude, last I heard the embittered Taliban were impotently trying to derail democratic elections - they just don't like 'em, too "Western", you see. He concludes that after the US leaves, "most of the Taliban" will be in the new government. My prediction is different: I believe the Afghans will find they actually prefer the same basic rights of freedom of speech, religion. etc that T Kiani enjoys, and that the Taliban will go down in history as one of humanity's most loathsome governmental experiments; and its horrible founder, Mullah Mohammed Omar, will not be welcomed back with open arms but will spend his remaining shunned years flitting from cave to cave, occasionally demonstrating his peculiar form of Islam to the world by killing a few people here and there.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Oct 18, '04)


Dear Kannan [letter, Oct 15]: Be as amused as you wish, it's only at your own peril. I wasn't going to write on this topic again, but you force me. First of all, please don't twist my words around - how about you contribute your own points of view and let me deal with mine? I never said Afghanistan was a "safe" place under [the] Taliban, I said it was a "safer" place, understand the difference? As for the statue issue, well, I could go into that, but then this debate will just go on and on, and you might especially get your knickers in even a tighter twist when we talk about certain other religious fanatics who were around about the same time, demolishing another religious sight ... over in India! In reply to your other point, the Taliban might be hiding in caves, but the cousins that are supporting them are Pushtuns, whereas I am not. And neither do I share their ideology, but if you want to relate me to them by force, I would say I am their brother, not cousin, as are all Muslims. I do not wish or imagine seeing a Taliban-like government in Pakistan or any other country, and indeed I have on several occasions in the past written against them and their interpretation of Islam and their way of "justice", but the difference between [you and me] is that unlike you (and most Americans), I do not see things in black or white, nor do I say, "You are either with us or against us," and I do not call anyone I don't agree with "evil" just because I don't agree with them. A bit like Forrest Gump, I would prefer to think that "evil is as evil does", and that's what forces me to be the devil's advocate at times. I did not write my earlier letter to defend the Taliban, but I wrote it merely to say that the current Afghan setup is perverse and unsustainable. Being emotional or shouting out at what you don't agree with does not help change the situation or even to understand it. You may not like the Taliban, but trust me, cowards they are not. [The] Taliban are Afghans, and Afghans are brave people who are used to a life so tough you cannot even begin to imagine. It's easy to call them cowardly while you sit in your cozy armchair in the comfort of your centrally heated house, but these are the ones that fought and defeated the mujahideen who in turn defeated the mighty Russians. If, at some point, you do want to create a list of war crimes and others committed by the Taliban, I suggest you let me know and I might be able to contribute to it, but for the sake of objectivity, let's at the same time not forget about those in the Northern Alliance, who were given a piggyback straight into Kabul by the US.
T Kiani
London, England (Oct 18, '04)


I just wanted to take a moment to applaud your incredibly thoughtful and well-written essays about today's events on www.atimes.com. Repeatedly, I have found your articles to expand on ideas that stretch my own thinking and bring two and two together more frequently. If I could subscribe, I would. But it appears I can't. So my only concern is, being in Hong Kong, what will you do with this clarion for understanding you've created if threatened with censorship from the Chinese government? Or is that not a problem? Thanks for making me a more educated person.
Kjell Stenberg
San Jose, California (Oct 18, '04)

In fact you can subscribe to the Asia Times Online newsletter, free of charge (click on the link). As for censorship threats, Hong Kong still enjoys more press freedom than many other places in Asia; if that changes in the future, we will deal with it at that time. We already have bureaus in place outside of Greater China. - ATol


Living as a Canadian I have learned that war is something that is not looked upon very highly in this country. You can see Canadians do not feel this way when you look at our military, for there is not much of one there. Living as a Canadian I fear the United States for they are going war-crazy. There is only one world and war is what will be its final destruction, as we all learned in World War II. Russia and China along with France are three superpowers in the world. Instead of the US telling North Korea to get rid of its WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and killing innocent people as they are doing now, why [do] not the United States along with all countries get rid of [their] WMD? China, Russia and North Korea along with France are the only countries that can protect the others of us against the United States - together you can make sense. Together you can put them in line. Other countries are being sanctioned for things such as having a few weapons. Why then is the United States not being sanctioned for their illegal war?
K Cottreau (Oct 18, '04)


Dear AL [letter, Oct 14]: Your tale is harrowing, and I honor your willingness to recount it. The murder of a million Jewish children along with another 5 million adults persuades many, perhaps even most, Jews to take your side of the argument "How can you believe in a God who let the Holocaust happen?" I have heard innumerable times. Most Israelis profess no religious faith. But that is not the worst of it. If there is a god in heaven to whom Hebrew Scripture bears witness, He killed not only the 6 million Jews who died during World War II, but also every Jew who ever lived, and will kill every Jew who lives today, along with all the Gentiles. He will kill you, and He will kill me. Not only religion, but the reigning alternative to religion begins with the certainty of death. Being only can be understood as "being-towards-death", wrote the odious Martin Heidegger, the unrepentant Nazi with whose thought begin the worst philosophical diseases of the 20th century - the Existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the Deconstructionism of Jacques Derrida, even the political philosophy of Leo Strauss. Even worse than our own death, I have argued before, is the prospect that time will eradicate all memory of us; if our physical offspring survive, they will speak no words, sing no songs, and think no thoughts that bring to mind our presence on the Earth. We may go bravely to our death, but our soul cringes before the prospective death of memory. Religion, whether it is revealed truth or a delusion, offers hope beyond the collective grave; without it, human society loses the will to reproduce, just as Phillip Longman argues in his book The Empty Cradle (see review, Faith, fertility and American dominance, Sep 7). For my part, I believe in a supernatural God, but even those who do not (I suspect Longman does not) must acknowledge the facts. The dating of the Bible is ancillary to your concerns, but the archeological evidence suggests that some parts of Hebrew Scripture are much older than the 4th-century BC return from Babylonian exile; in his History of the Jews, Paul Johnson provides a concise summary. Recently a silver scroll from the 7th century BC was discovered in Jerusalem containing the familiar Priestly Blessing in Hebrew, the first undisputed quotation from the Pentateuch of such ancient dating. As for Jews who reject their god in consequence of the Holocaust: I advise them to read carefully the fine print of their contract, which does not promise that each and every Jew will have a pleasant life, but only that the Jewish people will become great and endure indefinitely. The Jews recall every injury in excruciating detail, and seem to think that they have been singled out for special suffering. Other peoples do not complain so much, because they forget all past injuries when their men were killed, their women raped, their children sold into slavery, their culture extinguished, their language forgotten. As they say in New York: Get a life.
Spengler (Oct 15, '04)


[Re] America's identity crisis by Toni Momiroski [Oct 15]: Your Speaking Freely column is one of your best concepts - it infuses new blood, so to speak, into tired old debates. I want to add to Momiroski's observations something that may be easily overlooked but which I think is quite important: namely, the need for national reconciliation following the American Civil War as a motor driving the US to find external enemies and, thus, perpetuating its tendency to go to war. The animosity of Southerners toward the Union following their sound trashing by the Federals waving the Stars and Stripes has never really fully abated. American governments have found it expedient (either instinctively or by premeditation) to engage these angry vanquished populations emotionally and physically in the struggle against foreign foes; to paraphrase that old saying: if America did not have enemies, it would have had to invent them. This is precisely what the English did following their devastation of Scotland - the Scots were conscripted en masse and found themselves fighting for the interests of the British Empire all over the world.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Oct 15, '04)


[Re America's identity crisis, Oct 15] The writer states that Americans find it necessary to "create situations" to justify war. Three thousand dead in an hour in New York and DC, hundreds dead in the African embassy bombings, 17 in the Cole bombing - I could go on through the last 40 years, but what's the point showing paintings to a blind man. [US President George W] Bush sees the elephant in the living room. For those who wish [John] Kerry to become president, meaning a passive, easily conned USA, don't count on it. There is a great divide between the mainstream media's reporting and the average American. Get ready for four more years of YeeHaw USA. We still love cowboys who shoot the villain and save the town.
Greg McClure
Missouri, USA (Oct 15, '04)

It's when you blow up the town and miss the villain that people get a bit upset. - ATol


Probably [Pepe] Escobar's opponent [letter writer Paul Smith, Oct 14] meant Hades, that is, Hell. However, there is a country called Haiti which would probably be worth a visit from Mr Escobar. Like the Philippines, it was occupied and "civilized" by the US for several decades in the 20th century. Like the Philippines, it might give a hint of the future Iraq.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Oct 15, '04)

Pepe has made us aware of his keen interest in Haiti, especially since the ouster of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but we strive to keep his Roving Eye from straying outside Asia. Maybe in his "spare time" ... - ATol


Pepe Escobar suggests Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a semi-literate thug or a CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] operative or a national liberator or dead but [that] he is definitely not an al-Qaeda terrorist (Zarqawi - Bush's man for all seasons, Oct 15). How he afforded to travel from Jordan to Afghanistan to Iraq, assassinated a Jordanian diplomat before the Iraqi war, moved freely about the police state while Saddam [Hussein] was in power and paid for the hostages he later beheaded is all left unexplained. His chief argument that Zarqawi isn't al-Qaeda is that it too conveniently proves America's assertion that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists. Mr Escobar is at his rhetorical height when he implies that photos and video clips and radio messages are being faked by the Americans, even calling into question the beheadings themselves ("where mysteriously little blood flows ..."). I suppose the Americans faked the grief of their families and the angst of the nations involved as well? Such genius knows no end; perhaps Mr Escobar himself is a CIA fiction and his continual defeatist insistence to never fight back against the terrorists or to blame ourselves for their actions (his article informed us that we are the terrorists) is in actuality a counter-plot of unfathomable conspiracy? If I understand him correctly, we are always at fault and the only proper response to the atrocities of the terrorists is acquiescence and appeasement. I would hate to see the kind of world we would have if people with a mindset like Pepe Escobar's were in charge (though he does have a cool name).
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 15, '04)

When in Haities, he will be known as Pepe Faust. - ATol


Americans like me will find this article [Zarqawi - Bush's man for all seasons, Oct 15] pretty amusing. The writer ascribes a full range of cleverly devious, lying, disinforming deceptions and successful conspiracies to the US government. What a hoot! You have been watching too many James Bond spy movies. In real life, the government in an open society like ours [US] is a big, fat, loud back-fence gossip that can't keep a secret or make any story believable no matter how hard it tries. When a US president can't even keep a two-bit burglary under wraps and has to resign over it ([Richard] Nixon), and another finds it impossible to hush up a lunch-hour tryst with a woman in his locked office, and is impeached over it ([Bill] Clinton) - your storyline is just plain laughable! You folks are naive, maybe even more like gullible, proving that when people don't have information, they will make up something they want to believe. But I had a good chuckle at it, anyway! (Psst: Tell us all about Roswell, Area 54 and the Martians next!)
Jim McGill
Manzanita, Oregon (Oct 15, '04)

We thought it was Area 51, but Pepe will be sure to check it out on his way to Haities. - ATol


I was on the verge of complimenting [Pepe] Escobar on his essay [Deconstructing the war on terror, Oct 14] with the added comment that the old adage that "truth hurts" is still valid when for some unknown reason I went to the Letters to the Editor section. There I read [Dennis] Castle's as well as [Paul] Smith's critiques [Oct 14]. The first suggested that Mr Escobar's mental condition may be due to pseudo-hermeneutism and Mr Smith suggested Mr Escobar travel to some quixotic place with which Mr Smith is obviously quite familiar. Since I started to compliment Mr Escobar's perceptiveness I will do so by again writing the obvious, that truth hurts.
Armand De Laurell (Oct 15, '04)


[Kunal Kumar] Kundu (Forex boost to India's infrastructure [Oct 14]) raises some very valid points when he questions the very reasons India's infrastructure is in a mess. Granted, it would be wonderful to put the money in the bank to work if it can reduce the cost of doing business. However, infrastructure development by Congress (whether previously as garibi hatao or now reforms with a human face) really mean hiring 10,000 workers to dig a hole and then hire another 10,000 to fill it up. Just go check any number of state-owned enterprises that are essentially utility services like electricity, transport or finance. At least the user pays [most] of the NDA [National Democratic Alliance] government-created useful infrastructure in terms of toll roads. With that record in mind, perhaps the best thing the money could be used for would be to pay down the government debt. This in itself would lower the rate for borrowing and thus reduce the cost of the project. On another note, I am surprised to find agreement with letter writer Frank (Oct 14) for his criticism of Indians suffering from an English colonial hangover. He actually is incorrect. Indians suffer from two hangovers, one from the past Muslim rule and then from the European colonial rule. You thus find lot of convent-educated Indians who profess themselves to be secular (ie, love Muslims even when Muslims are taking them to the cleaners) and the ability to speak English (ie, behave as English sahibs). In fact, the ability to speak better English is sometimes confused with the ability to think creatively. Of course, when some people challenge this notion, they are promptly dubbed Hindu nationalist or communalist!
AP (Oct 15, '04)


This is in response to the preposterous letter to ATimes [Oct 14] by Frank - (a character that loves to throw brickbats at Indians whom he uniformly, consistently and rather adamantly looks down upon). As expected, he has rather promptly pounced upon the letter by Chrysantha Wijeyasingha and twisted its message to suit his own prejudiced and ignorant views. He proclaims that "if every Indian was like Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Oct 13], India [would] be a completely different country - a country with respect and dignity." For Frankie boy's information and perhaps to his surprise, we Indians are comfortable with our identity and do not require any kind of a stupid certificates of "dignity" and "honor" from narrow-minded people, be they of any race. If he needs an apt example of lack of "honor" and "dignity" he may in fact find it useful to turn his gaze at the millions of Chinese citizens who one may opine are busy rampantly aping Western culture like their Southeast Asian and Japanese cousins. The Chinese regime itself has quietly dumped its much-vaunted communist ideology purely to attract "Western" investments. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Chinese college kids will blindly cram English word-lists to get into US universities, hundreds of thousands would perhaps attempt to flee their motherland out of communist persecution and poverty, and hundreds of thousands of others would attempt to throw off their Chinese names, adopt an Anglo-Saxon name, make English their first language, and enjoy the nice, free, relatively prosperous life in Seattle. Gee, why do I suddenly feel so sure that Frank would be able to relate to the last type? Frank's repeating the words "white master" umpteen times tells much worse about himself (his own obsessions and prejudices) than it does about Indians against, whom he levels all sorts of ridiculous accusations, en masse. The first of such accusations is the implication that Mahatma Gandhi "only got mad because of his discovery that he was not a white man in his master's eyes". Here is a figure who is widely revered all over the world for his epic non-violent and morality-based struggle against British colonialists for the right of ordinary Indians; one who almost single-handedly held the moral mirror against and weakened a greedy, land-grabbing empire that was rampantly busy exploiting millions of poor people under the garb of industrialization, progress and whatnot. Yet only a race-obsessed individual can manage to trivialize Gandhi the way Frank has. The second accusation is that Indians don't know "Indian language" and are proud of their democracy. Yes, democracy we are proud of, and for his information we don't give two hoots as to who invented it (it may well have been ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, India or perhaps even China). We adopted it because it was good for us, and we ain't apologizing to our "brothers" across the Himalayas for it. As far as language goes, millions of Indians grew [up] being bilingual. English is one of our languages, and is part of our identity - so excuse us for not seeing that as a rationale for sitting in a dark room and crying out of shame - perhaps something that Frankie boy would want us to. And I am still wondering what "Indian language" he is talking about. Quite clearly, Frank's contorted world view is that of Earth as a permanent battleground between the whites and non-whites. The non-whites, it seems, must be led by the yellows, and the browns, cinnamons, etc must clearly fall in the line of yellows. Clearly, Frank needs to get some real education, a psychologist, and a vision defect (specifically, colorblindness).
Rakesh (Oct 15, '04)


Frank from Seattle [letter, Oct 14] must be trying to get Indian readers all riled up with his comments. Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography traces his radicalization to the incident in South Africa when he was thrown out of a first-class train compartment; one assumes the lesson he drew was not that he was not white, but that he was not treated equal to a white person. The Chinese border problem is one example of colonial powers drawing up arbitrary boundaries, which get redrawn, adjusted, or expanded as the former colonies grow into their own strength. Oh, wait, this also happened in North America, where the present US boundaries derive from purchase (Louisiana) or wars of aggression (Spain/Mexico). Should the US have stuck to its colonial boundaries? The rest of his comments are unparseable: would it be better if India was not a democracy, and instead a dictatorship like the China that he so admires? Does dignity consist of not speaking English? And so on, though it seems like a well-intentioned rant.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Oct 15, '04)


I was amused to read T Kiani's letter [Oct 13]. After all the destruction that the Taliban brought to Afghanistan and the world, here is a person feeling nostalgic about the medieval regime and claims shamelessly that it was "safe" during their rule. If there was an eerie peace during the barbarians' rule it was the silence of the graveyard. These unruly fanatics could not even tolerate a statue of an "alien" culture practiced in their own land centuries earlier. Even after they were chased out by the world they are hiding in the caves (protected and supported by Kiani's ideological cousins in Pakistan) and are mounting cowardly raids against innocent people who are fed up of violence and wish to live a normal life. The Taliban, monkey-brain morons "educated" by shady madrassas, show their strength and valor only to unarmed civilians, women and children. The moment they see an Armageddon they run for their life and go into rat holes. It is a pity that this sick person while enjoying the comforts of the civilized world glorifies the acts of the despicable morons. The free world has given its inhabitants fundamental rights to express their thoughts fearlessly. There are some, like Kiani, who [would] rather use these rights to honor intolerant religious fanatics. Frank [letter, Oct 14] should rather advise his "elitist" friends in Beijing than Indians. The latter can take care of them. Indian democracy, however imperfect, has been periodically endorsed by close to half a billion [voters]. They don't need any certificate from a racist. Even if they have problems they have a built-in mechanism to take care of themselves. Beijing's "communist" oligarchy, on the other hand, does not have any confidence in [its] own people. Indians have the freedom to practice a religion of their choice and express in a language of their liking. Almost all educated Indians are at least bilingual. But controversy creeps in the moment a language/religion is forced on other fellow Indians. In the globalized world that we live in there is no gain in isolation. Just as India is a back office to the world, China is a global manufacturing hub. Why doesn't Frank ask his comrades in Beijing to stop trading with the white nations? Well, if Frank hates the white men and their system, what the hell is he doing in Seattle? Why doesn't he take the first flight to China and tell his loved oligarchies to launch Cultural Revolution II to get rid of all the white men's industries? He will have to take a one-way ticket to China if he wants to do that.
Kannan (Oct 15, '04)


Dear Carl Hershberger (letter, Oct 14): You ask how "safe" those people felt who were "rounded up" to fight the Northern Alliance (was it a bit like the good people of America were rounded up to fight the yellow man?), or indeed how safe were those who were in the Northern Alliance? Well, I ask you this, who were the Northern Alliance before they were an alliance - or limited to the north [of Afghanistan]? They were a bunch of thugs and bandits who were roaming around Afghanistan looting and raping helpless people, and they did that for years on end, kidnapping young girls and keeping them at their fortress-like compounds for months before killing them and throwing their bodies out to rot. These people were protected by the false Western image and aura of one Ahmad Shah Masood and financed by Russia, Tajikistan, Iran, Turkey and India. Ahmad Shah Masood himself was a good man, not much different to [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyaar or some of his other contemporaries, apart from the fact that he knew how to play the Western media like no one else in Afghanistan (save Osama bin Laden, but in a different context). This Northern Alliance and what it had done to the country was the only reason that the Taliban were able to take over the country so easily, because they provided people "security" against anarchy. And the Taliban were the only reason that the Northern Alliance is called that - the "Northern" alliance, holding on to the last 10-15% of land. But even Masood knew they could never take back the land on their own. Anyway, it is pointless to argue over the past when the future is so much more interesting. You say if the Afghans really think that life was better off under the Taliban then they will now be able to vote for them. Well I say, they do and they have. Despite who you like or dislike, there are some ground realities that cannot be ignored. As a rule of thumb, just remember the following: 1) Afghanistan is not Japan, and the Americans cannot stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. 2) Karzai is a dead-man-walking; unless the Americans take him with them when they leave Afghanistan. As he has no tribal or military base to fall back on once the US bayonets have disappeared. 3) Elections or not, democracy or not, Afghanistan will only be ruled by the Pushtuns who constitute some 70% of the population and have almost always ruled over this land. 4) After the US has gone, the government of Afghanistan will probably be just as tribal and Islamic [as], if not more [than], the Taliban government. And most of the Taliban movement will be in this government, by whatever name you want to give them.
T Kiani (Oct 15, '04)


[Dennis] Castle [letter, Oct 13]: in your response to various critics you write: "The ... letter ... by the now famous Joseph J Nagarya (Oct 12), who should be one of the unhinged characters on the animated show South Park, I respond to only because greater minds that I ... chose to do so. [Except that you do not respond to it.] I find Mr Nagarya difficult to read (due to the continual sharp intakes of breath induced by his hyperbolic rants, making it difficult to exhale; I simply lack the lung capacity). His most coherent point was that my salvation would be jeopardized unless I genuflect to his hate-America, hate ... Bush rhetoric (so extreme it would make Michael Moore blush). His arguments would be more intellectually stimulating, compelling and eloquent were he simply to respond with 'O huh.'" By now, we are well aware of your habit of substituting name-callings and personal attacks upon critics for reasoned response to, and attempted refutation of, what the critic actually said. Though you likely view as "clever" that irrationality and avoidance of the actual substance of my letter, it is in reality irresponsible, tiresome, and childish. So we continue to wait for you to actually engage and attempt to refute the factual case I have made against your repeated use of the refuted Bush lies as if they remain true even though demolished by Bush and Cheney appointees [David] Kay and [Charles] Duelfer.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 15, '04)


The letter by Dan Piecora (Oct 14) reminds me of one of Mark Twain's one-liners: "A lie will get half way 'round the world before the truth gets its shoes on." Thank you, ATol, for some of the best journalism on the Internet. Also, the Letters section gives insight to the perception of the world's events by English-speaking people everywhere.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 15, '04)


Pepe Escobar (Deconstructing the war on terror, Oct 14) defines the late Jacques Derrida's concept of "deconstruction" as the ability to criticize acutely what's occult behind words, to take an idea, an institution or a given value and understand its mechanisms. Others have defined Derrida's "deconstruction" more clearly: the theory that communication is impossible. In a clash of philosophy versus reality, Derrida then goes on to blame terrorism on a lack of communication (and nowhere is there an implied fault directed at the terrorists). One sees the true nature of "deconstruction" when Derrida addresses the concept of terrorism. Using his method of definition by "deconstruction", he believes that purposefully killing the innocent and defending them are indistinguishable ("... we are the terrorists"). With this creative language tool, he can equate the Islamic terrorists (a group that violently demands absolute submission to Islam from the infidel) with the United States (a country with freedom of religion, speech, thought, etc) as though America's goal is to convert them to Christianity. Derrida's "deconstruction" may be nothing more than a pseudo-hermeneutic to rationalize words and concepts his followers find inconvenient, but there may be something more sinister at work. A method to make words mean something other than their definition, to blur the distinction between truth and lies, especially given Derrida's preoccupation against a particular religion and tradition, seems ultimately directed at the one introduced "in the beginning was the Word".
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 14, '04)


Tell Pepe to leave the US. I would gladly pay his way out of our country ... far as I'm concerned he can go to haities!
Paul Smith (Oct 14, '04)

We're not sure where "haities" is, but we're confident Pepe Escobar would be happy to visit it if you could forward directions (and the promised airfare). He is not in the US at present but here in Asia, by the way. - ATol


Dear Spengler: In your reply to [Joseph] J Nagarya ([Christianity and creative destruction,] Oct 13) you advise him to go back to Sunday school to get up to date on the current and new interpretations of the Old and New Testaments. In particular, you mention that Vatican Council II now declares that the old "eye for an eye" concept must henceforth be interpreted to mean that the Hebrew God limited revenge, that is to say, the victim may gouge out one metaphorical eye for one gouged out eye, no more. So now the Hebrew God is a "loving" God after all. I suppose the bishops in the Vatican voted on it just like the bishops voted on the nature of Christ in Nicea - Yes or No. "Christ is three Persons in one, begotten not made ..." which resulted in every intelligent, thinking pope, cardinal, bishop, priest and minister being tongue-tied. Now use your imagination: Imagine a city of 1 million people with all its infrastructure, political, economic and cultural activities. Now imagine that these 1 million are children, from newborn to about 12 years old. Now imagine that the Hebrew god has planned to exterminate these innocents who are His chosen people, and turns His head away while they die, crying, in gas chambers, on the edge of execution pits, burned to death in Jewish Schule, their heads smashed against rocks and brick walls (excuse me please for raging against this "loving" Hebrew god). Now I'm a "Christian" who also happens to be a survivor of World War II fascist concentration camps, in which I and 900 Christian boys aged 10-15, who didn't know where our fathers and/or mothers were, had to carry more than 900 decomposing corpses of old men to the gate of the camp in the last 12 months of captivity. In my family one after the other died and my mother vanished in fascist captivity in December of 1944. Yet our fate was nothing compared to that of God's chosen people. As I understand the origins of the Old Testament, all the books were written by Jerusalem priests who had returned from Babylonian exile. Their conceptual god knew as much about the world and the people He created as these priests. They, and therefore He, knew nothing of the Inca, the Aztecs, the Maya, the Toltecs, the Olmecs and their religions. But they, and therefore their conceptual Hebrew god, did know the names of dozens of Middle Eastern tribes, naturally. You can quote the Old and New Testaments chapter and verse as if they are divine truth, but in light of our own life's experiences and those of millions of innocent children in Europe and Africa, Iraq, Palestine and Israel, please spare us from Judeo/Christian sermonizing.
AL
Canada (Oct 14, '04)


Dear Spengler: You wrote: "Capitalism arose from the exchange of South American gold mined by slaves for silks and spices during the 16th century, tobacco and rum raised by slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries, and opium during the 19th century" [Christianity and creative destruction, Oct 13]. Cannot we therefore conclude that capital is the reincarnation of Christ? It is stored servitude: the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest. What better way to redeem evil and turn it into a force for good? I would be happy to elaborate.
Luke Lea (Oct 14, '04)


Dear Spengler: I find your insights to be as stimulating as the late Eric Hoffer's in relation to the "nature of mass movements". Yet, as I follow your writing, I don't quite understand your choice of pseudonym. Oswald Spengler was the cynical type with a personality repulsive to the Nazis (as yours would most definitely be), but he was a socialist with an affinity for the state. You seem to favor the American model with its Judaic roots [and] individual freedom and have a recognition of the disastrous end in store for the pagan true believer. You give me a laugh and ideas with each of your columns. Keep it up.
Rob Lechleiter
New Jersey, USA (Oct 14, '04)


Now that Spengler has established that all peoples today except the Hebrews are not speaking the languages of their ancestors, could he use his universal and unmatched knowledge of all the world's languages throughout history to write the Chinese, Arabs, Persians, Italians, Greeks, Australian aborigines, Koreans, Japanese, Armenians, Assyrians, Indians and the various other peoples who claim to have an ancient language that was spoken by their ancestors, and gently inform them of the fact that they are totally misinformed about their own language, culture and history. Of course, this letter will be translated into each recipient's own language, which should be no trouble for the all-knowing Spengler. On the other hand Spengler could simply admit that he knows next to nothing about the Western world, Judaism, and America, and exactly nothing about the history of all languages everywhere throughout history.
G Travan (Oct 14, '04)


Thank you for this article [Sidelined neo-cons stoke future fires, Oct 9]. I have not read anything in American or British online sites that explained the situation so clearly. I live in America, so perhaps you can understand what I believe to be censorship of our media by the Bush regime. Keep up the good work.
Eileen Mahler (Oct 14, '04)


T Kiani responded [letter, Oct 13] to my letter [of Oct 12] on the Afghanistan election with the unusual statement: "Afghanistan was a much safer [place] from 1998-2001 than it ever has been since." The 3.5 million Afghan refugees who have returned to Afghanistan since that time would probably disagree. How safe does T Kiani think Afghanistan during those horrible Taliban years? Those rounded up to fight against the Northern Alliance, those in the Northern Alliance, those tortured or killed for their political disagreements, those who were denied banned Western medical treatment, and widows forbidden to seek employment were definitely not safer. I suppose those in the higher echelons in the Taliban itself would consider themselves better off from 1998-2001, but few outside that hideous group would. Afghanistan will remain poor and will be fractured by tribal conflicts for the foreseeable future, but if the Afghans really think, like T Kiani, that life was better of under the Taliban they will now be able to vote for them, and I predict that will never happen.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Oct 14, '04)


If every Indian [were] like Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Oct 13], India [would] be a completely different country - a country with respect and dignity. However, today's Indian elites are more interested in imitating their white masters. India's founding father Mahatma Gandhi only got mad because of his discovery that he was not a white man in his master's eyes. Indian people are proud of their political system, which was the leftover tools of their white master to control Indians. Instead of creating their own computer operating systems, Indian people are proud of providing services to white people's software. India is the only country which cannot settle its land border with China because there is a piece of land in China their white master trekked through once, a hundred years ago. Indian elites are extremely proud that they can speak their white master's language. And they are not ashamed of admitting the language their [ancestors] used was forgotten. Chinese people used to regard India as a place where God lives. You can find many ancient temples in China decorated with Indian language. Chinese people treated the people who can read those words with great respect. It is a shame that Indians cannot read those words today. If India is just another country [that] follows its masters, why shouldn't other countries just talk to [their masters]? India was a great civilization with a rich culture and many innovations. However, today's India is no longer that ancient divine country. It does not deserve respect until its people find their dignity. Please accept my salute to Chrysantha Wijeyasingha.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 14, '04)

Chrysantha Wijeyasingha indicated that he is originally from Sri Lanka and is now resident in Louisiana. - ATol


President [George W] Bush hung [John] Kerry's liberal life-long record around the senator's neck at the Tempe, Arizona, debate. Quoting numerous facts and figures to impress, Kerry came across as lecturing America and then promising to heal it with a socialist health-care system that would actually fall short, leaving out more than 20 million Americans. President Bush compared the other ultra-liberal from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, as a conservative in comparison to Kerry and defined Senator Kerry and his past 20-year career as lackluster and a portent of things to come, namely higher taxes and cutbacks on military spending, which is the last thing we need to do in a time of war. The battle of the partisan titans may have divided America, but one thing is for sure: America is going to get what it votes for. Either it stays the course with a commander-in-chief from Texas who takes the war on terror back to the murderers' homelands or we trade him in for new a president from Massachusetts who as a US senator voted for our nation to stay at home and not free Kuwait in 1990 from the "Butcher of Baghdad", Saddam Hussein. The choice is clear and consequences are dark with the wrong decision.
Dan Piecora
Kirkland, Washington (Oct 14, '04)

Come on, fess up: Your real name is Karl Rove, isn't it? - ATol


Dear Spengler: Your oft-repeated statement that "mortal existence is intolerable without the promise of immortality" appears again in the discussion of Christianity and creative destruction [Oct 13]. It is more a confession of personal angst than a statement deserving philosophical or anthropological analysis. Only an effete and self-centered, fey intellectual could be troubled by the fact that he/she is going to die one day, and finds this fact intolerable to the extent that it shadows any realistic Weltanschauung or removes a smile from the face. It was funny when Woody Allen did it, and movie-goers thought it was cute. The quest for immortality free of the deterioration of the body is the pursuit of a chimera. The confabulation of spirits, spirituality, souls, and all the baggage of Christianity to make life tolerable bespeaks more nearly a profound psycho-pathology than a dedication to the understanding of empirical reality. By wallowing in vaporous theology you detract from your otherwise perceptive comments about the state of the world.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Oct 13, '04)


Several critiques in this forum of my rebuttal (letter, Oct 9) to Jim Lobe's attack on America's rationale for the war on terror (Bush's case for war in ruins, Oct 8) provide an opportunity for clarification. My points were that the reason we [the US] fight the war on terror is because we were attacked and that we had a large number of carefully enumerated, legal rationales for going to war against Iraq. ATol immediately pointed out that "no one asked the US to invade Iraq". Not to be quaint, but my response is that by his actions Saddam Hussein not only asked but begged us to remove him. I understand ATol's point in reference to the maneuvering on the floor of the UN Security Council. Please note that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (Nov 8, 2002) authorizing severe consequences in response to Saddam Hussein's refusal of compliance did not require a further resolution. ATol's further point that the US selectively adheres to UN resolutions and whimsically violates international consensus is almost flippant; it can equally be pointed out the organization itself does not adhere to her own resolutions and "international consensus" is an arbitrary and unwieldy tool that can be used by anyone for nearly any cause. A critique of the UN by one of ATol's fine writers would be both timely and welcome. ATol's final point that the US is a serial assassinator therefore we should disregard attempts by the world's tyrants to assassinate our leaders convinces me that ATol was not entirely serious, therefore I will take it in jest. In a second letter, Greg Bacon (letter, Oct 12) argues that the rationale for the war on terror be used by the United States to attack Israel. Although Mr Bacon brings up valid areas of concern, it must be pointed out that America recognizes Islamic terrorists, not Israel, as an ongoing threat to her citizenry and national security. The final letter, this one by the now famous Joseph J Nagarya (Oct 12), who should be one of the unhinged characters on the animated show South Park, I respond to only because greater minds than I (notably Spengler, Ask Spengler, Oct 13, and Arnold Toynbee, Jr, letter, Oct 13) chose to do so. I find Mr Nagarya difficult to read (due to the continual sharp intakes of breath induced by his hyperbolic rants, making it difficult to exhale; I simply lack the lung capacity). His most coherent point was that my salvation would be jeopardized unless I genuflect to his hate-America, hate-President George W Bush rhetoric (so extreme it would make Michael Moore blush). His arguments would be more intellectually stimulating, compelling and eloquent were he to simply respond with "O huh."
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 13, '04)

Your conclusion that Resolution 1441 "did not require a further resolution" but gave the United States and the United Kingdom carte blanche to invade Iraq is an interpretation not adopted by the majority of Security Council members, and one that has been termed "illegal" by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. That does not mean the US/UK interpretation was not logical or correct, but it does mean that the right course would have been to go back to the Security Council to hammer out the matter, since it was clear even at the time (and has been reconfirmed many times since March 2003) that there was no urgent (if any at all) need to go to war. The fact that the intent of Resolution 1441 was not clarified first is what made the invasion "unilateral" and outside the will of the world community at large. You again jump to an erroneous conclusion by equating our observation that the US is a "serial" assassin with justification for such malfeasance by others against US leaders. The whole point, one apparently lost on many Americans, is that most non-Americans do not buy the philosophy that there should be one set of rules for Americans and a different set for the rest of us. - ATol


To Arnold Toynbee, Jr ([re] your letter, Oct 12): Wow! You are saying that US Catholics (I try not to use the term "American" because that includes all of North and South America) are not really Christians in the "American" sense of the word. And you are telling me that "American Christianity" has evolved into a doctrine that doesn't really need to follow the Ten Commandments and supports all of this criminal activity of our government. And that the "Bible" is the word of God and that Constantine, the council at Nicea, the Essenes, and all of the early Gospel modifiers had no real input to Christian writings. To use the vernacular of my grandchildren, "You are one messed-up puppy." Also I might add, I'm an atheist. My wife is Catholic and a manager at the very Catholic Loyola University of the South. We understand the US very well. It is you, my friend, who does not understand Christianity.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 13, '04)


Carl Hershberger from California [letter, Oct 12] wants to know of a "time in Afghanistan's history when it was better off than it is today". Well, better off how? Because if we look at it in terms of security, which has by far been the most basic problem for most Afghans in recent history (more so than "free and fair elections" or even poverty if I may say so), then I would say that we would not have to go too far back in time. I am sorry to say, but Afghanistan was a much safer place from 1998-2001 than it ever has been since. With their country rampant with private armies and people that the US would now like to call "warlords" (but who are in some sense national heroes for fighting and defeating the mighty Russians in a two-decade-long bloody war), sadly, Afghans have been forced to pin their hopes on a president who is too afraid to leave Kabul in fear of attack on his own life; who needs foreign troops to protect him against his own people; does not trust any Afghan in his security circles; is escorted around by an all-American band of security personal and still gets an odd rocket thrown his way every now and then. The president of a very tribal, conservative and Islamic country in its nature, he has, in someone else's words, "no Islamic credentials [and] minimal tribal support. The Indian-educated [Hamid] Karzai was and is a man clearly adept and comfortable hobnobbing with US and British elites, far less so at chewing sinewy goat taken by hand from a common bowl with an assembly of grimy-fingered Islamist insurgents and tribal leaders and their field commanders." Let's not get too complacent with these current elections and keep in mind lessons learned from Afghan history. A look into the first Anglo-Afghan war (1838-42) might be very useful, as if you take away the dates and the interchange certain characters like Karzai and [Shah] Shuja you would be amazed at the striking similarities. You could argue that this was a lifetime ago and that a lot has changed since then, but has it really? Some former Soviet generals would surely beg to differ.
T Kiani
London, England (Oct 13, '04)


I am in complete agreement with the Indian government's suspicions of foreign journalists, historians and writers. [After] I arrived in the United States in 1971 when I was a boy, I was exposed to [an innumerable] number of classes that always attached Indian history with Africa (Indian and African studies). Almost always China is placed as the "great cultural power" in Asia. Never mind the fact that India gave birth to Buddhism and cultivated it till the 4th century AD before it reached China and eventually to the rest of Asia, influencing every cultural aspect of the societies that accepted Buddhism. Never mind India's contribution in science, art, language etc etc. India is always presented by its caste system. The West just loves to talk themselves to death about India's caste system. In the many classes that I have taken on the subject of Asian studies, when it comes to India the caste system is the beginning, the middle and the end of the topic. Nothing about her architecture or her wondrous history, nothing. The same goes for books that are published by Western authors who dwell with utter glee on India's poverty, corrupt government and of course her caste system. If there is anything redeeming they have to say they will cloak it in the context of British contribution to this pagan, backward, ignorant people who have contributed nothing to the world culture. But oh, there is the "golden dragon" China, the great innovator, the builder of the Great Wall, and its exemplary communist system which India's democracy does not have a chance to compete against, nor her father Mahatma Gandhi. Yes, praise is grudgingly given to him, but we all must note that he was educated in Britain and had British high culture in him; without that he [might] just as well be swinging from tree to tree. If the books fail and the teachers fail, then one can at least turn to the television. Now we have cable and satellite TV that gives us hundreds of channels. Surely there must be at least one channel that covers the subcontinent, an area that has a population well above 1 billion (India 1.1 billion, Pakistan 160 million, Bangladesh 130 million, Ceylon [Sri Lanka] 19 million, Nepal 20 million etc). An area where the Indian ... constitution recognizes 17 major languages, a nation that has given birth to four religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism). No other nation has given birth to so many religions in the world. Of these 17 languages two are now recognized as classical languages (Sanskrit and Tamil). Again no other nation in the world has two classical languages born in her soil. One British archeologist commented about India's architecture as a "galaxy of monuments" because there are so many and so many of very high-quality workmanship. To date I can count maybe three brief [television] programs that cover India's culture. In these programs they never cover India's classical dances which were the mother to Javanese, Thai, Cambodian, Sri Lankan, and Balinese dancing. On the other hand the history stations and the international history stations play ad nauseam about Egypt's death culture and her innumerable mummies, the Mayans and Aztecs, and China, China and China. When it comes to the West it is predominantly occupied with Nazi Germany in all its forms and US history to the very boring minute-by-minute narration. Believe me, every day I look to see if the US media ever cover India's contributions to the world or her existing high culture and I always come up with a zero! Yes, I do believe that the Indian government has just cause to view these foreign journalists and writers who come to India so they can write a nice little ditty about the horrors of Kolkata and get their PhD (Pin-headed Dolts).
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (originally from Sri Lanka)
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 13, '04)


While reading the current news, opinion polls and expert analysis on the US elections, I wonder why we are bothered by an internal democratic exercise in a well-developed and educated nation. Let them decide what they want and just keep on watching the newest Hollywood releases. Every democratic country goes to elections and picks up the most approving candidate for their own country. They have to choose the best among a list of probable candidates. But this reminds me that there are many things to talk about in the US elections. First there has to be a choice of candidates to select among, which I doubt is ... the case with the US. It's a pity that we see [George W] Bush and [John] Kerry fighting for survival in the most talked-about event of the current year, apart from the fireworks in Iraq and violence in Middle East. I have to feel sorry for the people, that they have to choose a one-eyed prince from a lot of blind conquerors. Secondly, a strange phenomenon: the decision in the US elections is not confined to one country. The US president is supposed to be the savior of the whole world community and messiah of the universe. Which reminds me of the Spiderman or Superman comic stories. Who decides that one person (or his aides) makes decisions on behalf of the rest of the world? Even the people of the US are fed up with this and they want their president to listen to them, solve their problems, create new jobs, reduce taxes and provide education and cheap health-care facilities. They don't care what happens in Iraq, who rides in Afghanistan and which political party is elected in Spain. This is what an election demands: a true spirit, an impartial constitution, meaningful conviction and nothing else. We don't know who is going to win. [Whether] Bush or Kerry, for the rest of the world the policies remain the same, and might get a bit complex too. The last four years have seen a deadly aggregation on Iraq and Afghanistan. The next four could involve mischief with Iran, Syria, Pakistan or even [an] African Muslim country. If the US nation had a choice to vote for Bush, Kerry or [neither], the result would have been interesting.
Addy Bhai
United Arab Emirates (Oct 13, '04)


[Re] Hand it to the warlords [Oct 9]. There was a democratic election in Afghanistan! Were there controversies about the election process? Will the results be contested? Of course, these are predictable consequences of elections. The fact of the matter is that, despite Pepe Escobar's wishes (who, ATol has reasoned with us, is anti-USA because he's "from Latin America"), Afghanistan has held a presidential election, a rare event in history. Moreover, Islamic women have voted - quite a contrast when the Taliban were stoning them for attempting to work to support their families. Afghanistan is a poor country and will always have more than its fair share of problems in the future; but the fact of the matter is that, like Japan, it is a hell of a lot better off after US military intervention than before. For all those like Pepe Escobar who have hoped for a worsening of the lives of Afghans since the fall of the Taliban, please point to a time in Afghanistan's history when it was better off than it is today.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Oct 12, '04)


With all due respect to Jeffrey Robertson [China, Asia issues in Australian polls , Oct 9], China and Asia were not issues in the recent election campaign. I certainly never saw it mentioned in the media even once over the course of the six weeks. The issues were the economy, health, education, the environment, and security. In Australia the voting public have accepted that if the economy is strong then all these other issues can be addressed. Not surprisingly, after sustained long-term prosperity in Australia at a time when the rest of the world's economy has been struggling, the current government has been returned.
Chris Hudson
Australian Voter (Oct 12, '04)


From the general tone of Piyush Mathur's review of Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India [Exposing a Maharashtra legend , Oct 9], it seems that he is critical of the Indian/Maharastrian reaction to the book. This surprises me. While actual destruction of rare manuscripts, artifacts, etc is to be deprecated, blackening the face of a "scholar" is part of the normal give and take that a "scholar" should be prepared for. In one of the stories in the Mahabharata, it says that when scholars had a debate, the loser would be compelled to drown himself. That's intellectual rigor for you. So I look upon this blackening as the equivalent of, say, throwing eggs at Tony Blair, which Piyush doubtless thinks is a harmless, quaint custom among the British, but is horrified by the Indian equivalent. Anyway, switching to the bigger picture here, of course Indians have a right to cherish their own illusions. The way I understand it, 30% of Americans did not support the fight for independence from the British, but that's not usually part of the triumphal story of the American Revolution. History being written by the winners, Indians in India have every right to change "Sepoy Mutiny" to "First War of Indian Independence", or "Bombay" to "Mumbai", or enlist Shivaji as an Indian patriot (though I have misgivings about the Hindu aspect, only insofar as it is directed against current-day Muslims in India). Reality is always infinitely nuanced, but that is not the mainstream story, just as you have to dig a few levels deep to know that many of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence were slaveholders. Piyush thinks it is "myopic" for a state to create icons, but that is actually one of the key functions of either the state, or some dominant group, otherwise there is no narrative that motivates people to get up in the morning and be productive members of society. If simplification or downright rewriting of history is required, so be it.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Oct 12, '04)


Response to the article India, the US and nuclear proliferation by Sultan Shahin (Oct 8): Not a single investigation has taken place to prove otherwise, the mentioned scientists have indeed not been involved in passing sensitive technologies which would further Iranian nuclear ambitions. In fact these scientists have been visiting Iranian nuclear facilities on a number of occasions, at times without official documents, ie no official record of visits. This information has always been known to capable intelligence agencies of the region. However, to keep good relations with Iran, this knowledge was kept under wraps, especially after the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] probe into Iran's nuclear program. Nobody knows why this cooperation existed, but an insight was given by the analyst Henry Sokolski (executive director of the Washington-based Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center), where he mentioned India competing for influence in Iran against rival Pakistan. While [Abdul Qadeer] Khan was involved in ... the world's biggest nuclear-proliferation scandal, the actions of the Pakistani government have ground this operation to a halt. Further, new legislation has been introduced since, with tough penalties for any proliferators of any nuclear technologies. Although IAEA officials have stated that they would like to interview A Q Khan, Pakistan is under no obligation to allow them access, since it is not a signatory to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and no other legal framework exists to accommodate such a request. Pakistan instead provided them with any information "gleaned" from the interrogations. IAEA should be happy with the intelligence provided. They should learn to put up or shut up! Frequently having read reports from your news organization, I cannot recall a moment of criticism of bad policies emanating from the Indian government. Further, your news and media articles seem centered on India and any event affecting it, but yet your title, [Asia Times Online], [implies] a bigger continental outlook. Please remove this contradiction!
Tony (Oct 12, '04)


David Aldridge's article Time the best healer, except in North Asia [Oct 6] is partly right. Yes, time is the best healer, which is obvious. However, the huge scale of devastating atrocities committed by Japan toward China requires a very long time to heal. The healing process is not helped, but delayed, by the refusal to write true history in textbooks, the absence of a formal national apology (as contrasted with Germany), and the repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine by a silly prime minister. Such a situation points to a geopolitical, cultural conjecture that says that a country of small size tends to produce more small-minded politicians. The present prime minister certainly belongs to this category. To be fair, his actions are protested by some of his countrymen, though the latter are a tiny minority.
Fung Por
USA (Oct 12, '04)


Frank Smyth [on Sep 24] posted a piece on Asia Times (Left, right, the US out of step in Iraq) which has a lot of important things to say, including his critique of the guiding politics of the guerrillas (not the terrorists) in Iraq. In particular, he focuses on Muqtada al-Sadr, who [is] a real problem. Muqtada is the sole authentic representative of the poorest urban sections of the Shi'a community ([Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani's base is decidedly middle-class); he is also the backbone of the armed resistance among Shi'a; and he advocates fundamentalist politics of the sort that lead to Islamist governments with any number of problems, most particularly the oppression of women. This combination can be lethal, as the Taliban demonstrate. But instead of confronting the contradictions of a national-liberation struggle with Islamist politics, Smyth chooses to distort the picture of Iraq so he can call Muqtada an unadorned "bad guy". Then he moves to the next step of denouncing the people who have looked at Muqtada with a more nuanced view, and have tried to sort out a position (for the non-Iraqi left) that would make sense within the reality of the situation. (Specifically, he says that [commentator] Naomi Klein has "naively ... fallen for the Mehdi militia", which he denounces for advocating "explicit repression of gays and women".) I can't work up a complete critique to demonstrate this point, but let me just point to what I see as the key problems in Smyth's account. It is very strange that Smyth speaks so little about Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the key moderate in Iraq and the one with the largest following. He acts sort of like Sistani doesn't exist, probably because he has no way of dealing with the fact that Sistani is a moderate Islamist and shares Muqtada's sexist views of domestic relationships and other obnoxious ideas - though Sistani does not believe in imposing them on the rest of society, as Muqtada may (he has actually been ambiguous on this point). But Smyth acts like Sistani does not exist, thus offering a much cleaner portrait of the political landscape - one without Islamist moderates. But Smyth simply ignores Sistani and focuses our attention on the communists and the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution. These groups have very little base among the poor that Smyth has so much concern with and have had almost no role in the resistance ... Most significantly, these two parties have been participating in the puppet government that the US appointed (Smyth seems to like this). In fact, their main claim to fame appears to be that they have occasionally been denounced by the US. But the real nub of the problem comes when Smyth points to the anti-Saddam resistance as an exemplar for judging the current resistance. In doing so he inadvertently reveals the logic of his argument. He gives the communists equal credit - with the Kurds and the radical Shi'a - for the anti-Saddam resistance. (He says that the "anti-Saddam groups [were] organized along Shi'ite Islamic, Kurdish nationalist, or Communist Party lines. Each of these groups lost tens of thousands of adherents ...") This is a gross exaggeration of the role of the communists, but so be it. The big problem is something that Smyth simply doesn't mention: the key force in the a "Shi'ite Islamic" resistance was the same Sadrist movement that Smyth condemns the left for supporting today. This earlier Shi'a anti-Saddam movement was just as antagonistic to gay and women's rights as the current one (and maybe a lot more). So we end up with this: it is okay to hail and support (as Smyth does) an Islamist revolution that advocates the "explicit repression of gays and women" when it was directed against Saddam Hussein; but it is not okay to give measured support (as Naomi Klein does) to an Islamist revolution (that also advocates the "explicitly repression of gays and women") when it is directed against the American occupation. Smyth doesn't realize that he is implicitly supporting the occupation. His recipe for the Iraqi people is this: Saddam was the worst that they could have, so Muqtada's Islamist revolution (with its ferocious sexism) would have been an improvement over Saddam. But that same sexism means that we must oppose Muqtada in the current context. This means - though I am sure Smyth would deny it - that he thinks that the US occupation is more humane than Saddam and than what Muqtada is fighting for. And this leads to one final problem with his argument. He says that Muqtada does not represent the majority of the Iraqis. But in fact even American-run opinion polls testify that a majority of Iraqi respect and admire him, far more than any other leader except Sistani - who is also an Islamist. Smyth and other [critics] who think they know what Iraqis want should take note of this, and realize that maybe Islamism is a majority viewpoint in Iraq, sexism and all. This makes it a much more complicated issue than Smyth appears to be able to handle. As informed and insightful as Smyth can be, the article is simply not a good reflection of Iraqi reality. I prefer the analyses of Naomi Klein and other independent journalists who are trying to actually figure out what is going on in Iraq. For another critique of Smyth, see this excellent commentary by Louis Proyect. For a more nuanced view of Muqtada al Sadr, see Naomi Klein's Nation article. 
Michael Schwartz
Professor of Sociology
State University of New York at Stony Brook (Oct 12, '04)


[Re] Why radical Islam might defeat the West [Jul 9]. The terrorist attack upon innocent American lives in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, has unveiled the fault line between the West and the Muslim world. They will not win, it is just the devil and his kids trying for the last time to win, but they will get the last blow to the head now that we know what they're all about. Anyone who has come to know the almighty God knows he is not a killer of innocent people. The radical [Islamists] are just like their father the devil ... they talk of peace but in their eyes there is death. Radical Islam ... will die.
JJack (Oct 12, '04)


I read the letter by Ratna Bahadur Rai [Oct 8] with disbelief. Nepal has to address the issues that confront it. Blaming India or courting China will not resolve the crisis. In Nepal, lack of grassroots movements to channel the expressions of people gave way to the formation of Maoist groups. These militants breed on poverty and bring more disaster to the people without offering anything good. If one looks at the political history of the South Asian nations [one sees] an interesting trend. The nations/regions that fought for [their] freedom against the colonial masters have enjoyed democracy. On the other hand, countries gifted with independence on the platter have squandered it and are in a state of turmoil even now. The rulers of these autocratic regimes have circulated any number of theories to justify their legitimacy. I am just giving here a few examples: 1) Democracy does not suit the intelligence of the masses and they are designing democracy to fit with the culture of the country (first of all, democracy embodies the exercise of fundamental rights by people with the founding of free and independent institutions - executive, judiciary and press - that oversee it. The democratic values and principles are as universal as the laws of science. There are no Western or Eastern versions of it). 2) Democracy did not last long because of the bad politicians (politicians alone do not constitute the system. They are just one component of it. One cannot derail the entire democratic process because of a few bad elements. It takes some time for the system to take root and evolve). 3) Democracy cannot survive in an environment of external and internal threats/alternative centers of power (the clever rulers often use threats as an excuse to divert peoples attention and grab power). Finally, If Nepalese are allowed their right to exercise their aspirations without periodic interference from the palace, then there is a hope for a better future.
Kannan (Oct 12, '04)


[Dennis] Castle's reasons for America engaging in a so-called "war on terrorism" after [September 11, 2001] seem misleading [letter, Oct 8]. But let's play the game using Castle's reasons and see where it leads. Mr Castle, if your reasoning says that America must respond militarily to a nation that has attacked us, resulting in loss of life and the suspect nation ignores UN resolutions, then shouldn't the US be attacking Israel? Israel has ignored close to 100 UN resolutions over the last several decades. In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel brutally and repeatedly attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, resulting in the deaths of 34 US personnel - an attack that former secretary of state Dean Rusk said was deliberate. Plus, she routinely engages in spying on the Pentagon. Check out the Jonathan Pollard case. And unless I missed the reference, you failed to mention the main reason for [US President George W] Bush to invade Irag, namely the WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. Israel has an active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program that one could safely make the case that is the reason various Arab states area seeking WMD, to counter the threat from a hostile Israel. When one figures in Israel perpetuating genocide - shades of Nazi Germany - against the Palestinians, then Mr Castle, doesn't the US have a case for invading Israel? Mr Castle, maybe you should write President Bush a letter filled with these facts and ask George when the B-52s are heading to Tel Aviv.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Oct 12, '04)


There you go again, [Dennis] Castle [letter, Oct 8]. Remember: we have you on record claiming that you are an "evangelical Christian," and we know that means you are required comply with the Ten Commandments, including "Thou shalt not lie." Let's compare your latest assertions with those ground rules. First, you write: "Jim Lobe nearly suggests [but falls short of doing so?] that unless America caught Saddam Hussein handing a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden our case for removing him was a fraud." Regardless ... of the red herring you introduce, the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory claims for invading Iraq have all been refuted - beginning with the unequivocal claim that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. He didn't, therefore the claim that he did was - as many recognized before the illegal invasion - a lie. In addition, the long-known history, and all official investigations to date, have also found that there was no connection between atheist Saddam Hussein and anti-atheist religio-fundamentalist Islamist terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. And: Osama bin Laden, [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi, and Iran - all, separately or otherwise - wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown. [US President George W] Bush, being the sworn enemy of all three, obliged them by overthrowing Saddam Hussein on proven-false grounds. Why would Bush aid and abet enemies of the US? To continue to assert refuted lies, Mr Castle, not only risks exposing you as a liar, but also that your claim to be an "evangelical Christian" is also a lie. Keeping that fact in mind, you next write: "... there was a ceasefire with specific terms [which 'specific terms'?] and 17 UN resolutions broken by Saddam Hussein over a decade ..." That's no big deal, nor unique, Mr Castle: other nations have ignored UN resolutions for varying lengths of time. One of those, Israel, has ignored many more than 17 resolutions, and for more than 10 years. When will your objective view of reality shift to advocating the overthrow of Israel's recalcitrant contempt for the UN? Oh, right: the US doesn't attack nations that can put up a reasonably stiff defense - especially those which actually possess WMD. And tell us, Mr Castle: What should the UN do when one of its member nations ignores the verdict of the Security Council and launches an unprovoked attack, based upon lies, against a nation which was not a threat to the attacker? And what should the UN do when that nation's leader replaces Saddam Hussein as Torturer-in-Chief? You continue: "... not to mention an assassination attempt against a former US president ..." You should have obeyed the plain sense of the phrase, "not to mention". The former president to [whom] you refer is Pappy Bush, and the alleged threat to assassinate him was announced immediately after he visited Saudi Arabia to see the damage to the marine barracks which was bombed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. As for that alleged assassination attempt I'll ask you one simple question, in hopes this time you will choose reason and logic over your fact-free, faith-based, unreasoning belief in and support for proven liar and Torturer-in-Chief Bush: Where is the evidence to support the allegation that there was an assassination attempt against Pappy Bush, while he was in Saudi Arabia, by Iraq's Saddam Hussein? And please, in your effort to answer, you cannot revert to relying upon the refuted lie that there were links between atheist Saddam and anti-atheist religio-fundamentalist Osama, etc - because to do so would again violate the Commandment "Thou shalt not lie," and undermine your claim to be an "evangelical Christian". And please don't yet again repeat the emotionally loaded mantra, "America was attacked," because in response a whole host of citizens of the world will respond correctly, "America was not attacked by atheist Saddam Hussein. It was attacked by anti-atheist religio-fundamentalist Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda."
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 12, '04)


I do not intend to debate what "true" Christianity is, or who is a "true" Christian, but [Joseph J] Nagarya is a bit confused [letter, Oct 7]. His Christianity is pseudo-scholasticism and sophistry, set up on purpose so that no one can actually be a Christian - it is an unattainable goal that "true" Christians aspire to by achieving perfect passivity and self-denial, a rather Eastern distortion of a distinctly Western creed. Nagarya's Christianity is basically a misunderstood and selective reading of Roman Catholic theology, which itself, even if correctly understood, has very little to do with American Christianity. Perhaps Mr Nagarya has been hanging around the same Paulist "Center" that [Senator John] Kerry frequents up there in Boston. The Paulists are an order of Roman Catholic priests founded by a fringe member of the Transcendentalist movement who couldn't handle the post-Calvinist self-reliance doctrine of [Ralph Waldo] Emerson and company and so reverted to the womb of Rome, thus getting to keep a radical liberal ideology while staying huddled up inside a medieval cocoon. Nagarya makes a fundamental mistake in confusing his distinctly un-American conception of Christianity with Christianity as it is actually practiced by millions of Americans - that is to say Evangelical Protestant Christianity. Today's American Evangelicals are the spiritual descendants of the Puritans and the original generation of Reformed Protestants. Several of their doctrines run directly against Mr Nagarya's conception of Christianity. First, Reformed Christians believe that whole Bible is the word of God - that no one part can be read apart from the rest, something non-Christians love to do in order to point out the supposed hypocrisy of practicing Christians. The idea that there is one god in the Old Testament and a different one in the New is simply not a part of Reformed theology, and there is ample scriptural support for the Reformed view. Second, the Bible most Americans read (try the King James Version) is the result of the efforts of various Christian Reformers, who looked not only to the Roman Vulgate but to Jewish scholars (for their Old Testament canon) and original texts (for translation). As for the process not being democratic, what has that got to do with anything? Third, American Christianity has no concept of "mortal sin" - in the Reformed view sin is better understood as a condition or a state of being rather than any particular act. If Nagarya and T Kiani [letter, Oct 8] want to understand America, they would do well to read a history of the Reformation (Diarmaid McCullough's recent one is a good start), which is where it all began.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Oct 12, '04)


This is not on the subject of Asia, but it does portray a characteristic of one of the major players on the Asian scene. The US, in another fit of "anti-Castroism", has banned the importation of Cuban cigars. This is maybe understandable when you consider that the US is hell-bent on destroying the socialist government of Cuba and is doing everything it can to make the people of Cuba suffer enough to riot or give the US an excuse to intervene. But consider this addition to the ban: No US citizen may purchase a Cuban cigar in a third country and is forbidden to smoke a Cuban cigar in a third country! How's that for insanity on an international scale? I can just picture a highly paid US agent walking the streets of Paris, Casablanca or Hong Kong to report on US citizens seen smoking a cigar! We are definitely lost.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 12, '04)

Well, they're bad for you anyway, especially if you accidentally get one of those exploding versions the CIA tried to slip Fidel. - ATol


I read the article by Sultan Shahin on nuclear non-proliferation and Indo-US relations [India, the US and nuclear proliferation, Oct 8]. Sultan while watching the United States presidential debate must have been carried away by the unison shown by the two contenders on the nuclear non-proliferation issue. Senator John Kerry has failed to inform the audience as to how he will "achieve" his goal of seizing all the nuclear materials in Russia within a few months with no action plan in place. It rather looks like Kerry wanted to push President George Bush on the defensive and win debating points. Whoever wins the polls already has enough issues to worry about: Iraq and Afghanistan. Any enthusiasm that the winner may have for non-proliferation will be pushed aside by the ever-rising price of oil. In addition, with two of the axis-of-evil nations working their way diligently to develop weapons programs, proponents of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a tough task in their hands. The workability of the treaty in the present format is questionable given the fact that it gives a free hand for the nations that possess the weapons while punishing the new entrants and deliberately ignoring the undeclared nations that has a secret pile of it. The determination of countries that pursues/pursued the weapons program needs to noted here. North Korea has shown that it will sell whatever technology it has to whoever pays for it to get its "prize". Its collaborator [is] Pakistan, where a nuclear-arms bazaar "headed" by [Abdul Qadeer] Khan escaped without any scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a toothless spectator to this nuclear scandal. Khan was made a scapegoat for all the handiwork for his masters, including the "elected" president of Pakistan. The success of the NPT is questionable, especially in conflict-prone regions. Decades after the enactment of the NPT it has shown its limitations and has highlighted the fact that enforcement by sanctions or force or ad hoc measures will not help. It has to be a collective effort based on willing cooperation by all nations to destroy these weapons. Any unequal imposition of the treaty is poised to hit the dust.
Kannan (Oct 8, '04)


I just read a letter by Joseph J Nagarya (Oct 7) and must say it is one of the most original things I have read in ATol recently. That is to take nothing away from ATol, which is a great source of information, news and views that other news media dare not publish. However, maybe ATol could give Mr Nagarya a job - even if you must fire the biased and hell-bent-on-badmouthing-Pakistan-at-every-breath-he-takes [B] Raman [US spy vs Indian spy, Oct 8]. In any case, surely Spengler the Great is not going to ignore this letter and we can see a reply coming up soon?
T Kiani
London, England (Oct 8, '04)


ATol overstates its case in response to my letter on October 7. [Pepe] Escobar went into great detail (Stretching Cheney, Oct 7) mocking America's reasons for fighting the war on terrorism. My point was in reference to the reasons we fought back (we were attacked), not that "the scourge of international terrorism" was obvious and easy to understand. Jim Lobe (Bush's case for war in ruins, Oct 8) nearly suggests that unless America caught Saddam Hussein handing a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden our case for removing him was a fraud. In fact there was a ceasefire with specific terms and 17 UN resolutions broken by Saddam Hussein over a decade, not to mention an assassination attempt against a former US president as well as weekly attacks against US and British patrols over Iraqi no-fly zones that refute Mr Lobe's main point. ATol points out that terrorism was not invented on September 11, 2001. One thing is certain, America's response to terrorism changed at that point.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 8, '04)

As others have pointed out repeatedly, no one asked the US to invade Iraq and topple its government because it violated United Nations resolutions; on the contrary, the UN Security Council did not sanction the invasion. It has also been pointed out repeatedly that the US favors adherence to UN resolutions very selectively, and itself violates international consensus whenever it suits the whims of the US administration of the day. As for Saddam's alleged involvement in an attempt to assassinate former US president George H W Bush, well - don't get us started on all the assassinations and attempted assassinations perpetrated by the US over the years. Would it be okay with you if Cuba invaded the US to avenge the attempts to do in Fidel Castro? - ATol


I am writing to express my debt of gratitude to Pepe Escobar for his fine piece Stretching Cheney (Oct 7), a cogent, succinct analysis indicating the power wielded by "corporate America" to impel a nation into war. But I have also asked myself, "Why has he overlooked the dominating role played by Israel in this study?" Or is it [that] he disagrees with my reading of the facts: that one of the principal reasons, if not the main one, for the Iraqi invasion was the need, as projected and encouraged by the likes of [Richard] Perle, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Douglas] Feith et al to neutralize Arab countries which repulsed Israel's illegal expansion of her territorial boundaries? I would very much like to know his answer, if he cares to reply. ATol is a great read; it surprises me that the US has not tried to shut down or censor your Internet publication by now.
KA
United Kingdom (Oct 8, '04)

We trust your last statement was in jest - the US has its faults, but its commitment to media freedom and access to information is not one of them. In that regard and in others, the US continues to set a high standard that many other countries fail to attain, including not a few here in Asia. Let's give credit where it is due. - ATol


It was highly revealing to read Dhruba Adhikary's article In Nepal, it is the king to move that appeared in Asia Times [Online] on Oct 7. As far as understanding the complicated internal politics of the tiny Himalayan kingdom is concerned, Mr Adhikary's article acts like a beacon. There is no doubt about it. If viewed against the total political spectrum of South Asia, Nepal's political dilemma is no doubt a typical example of a clash between a democracy bungled by its own architects and a staid institution of monarchy [that] is not prepared to part with its feudal legacy. This is the case with the present de facto ruler, King Gyanendra, who seems to be more inclined to rectify the political image of his late brother King Birendra, who was totally discredited by the royal coterie as an "inactive king". It will be a fatal mistake on the part of the present monarch if he continues to rely heavily on the hordes of opportunistic politicians. Nor can he entertain a fallacy that an absolute monarchy can be restored in Nepal. Adhikary has mentioned [that] the Western media, maybe because he himself is a media man, have always enjoyed making some sensational and bizarre news items about developing countries because their domestic audiences are prone to relish it. By the same token I dismiss the contention of Wayne Madsen, [whom] Mr Adhikary has quoted, as simple Western paranoia. It is the ultimate reality that Nepal cannot afford to harbor any elements that are against the People's Republic of China, not because it is a superpower in the making but because she has always been a friendly neighbor even during difficult times, unlike India.
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Oct 8, '04)


Nepal's situation seems to be at a dangerous stage now (In Nepal, it's the king to move, by Dhruba Adhikary, Oct 7). It seems that Nepal has come beyond the point of being able to help itself and therefore now requires assistance. I think the government should agree to the Maoists' view about involving the UN or any other credible international organization in the proposed negotiation process. This will be better than direct involvement of any particular country, because countries such as China and India will have strong and direct interest over Nepal, and the US, being a democratic country, seems to be helping the king, who is a ruler who wants to be a dictator. Hence the UN's urgent contribution is required to stop the bloodshed in Nepal.
Sammantha Lois
Sydney, Australia (Oct 8, '04)


I have a better suggestion to Mary Chang's question [letter, Oct 7]. Instead of asking Henry Liu for help, I think Chinese should hire Jayanthi Iyengar [China strives for its own global mega-brands, Oct 5] to be their trade representative to the USA. Jayanthi Iyengar will tell Americans the so-called RMB [renminbi, or yuan] overvalue is nothing but lies. According to Jayanthi Iyengar, China's economic progress is not real. The RMB should devalue instead. India actually has more trade advantage than China.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 8, '04)


I read with some disdain the various views submitted by "learned" contributors on the subject of North Korea. So I shall attempt to give the view of a layman citizen of the world on this subject. North Korea has been the subject of US provocation and spying since the truce of 1953. (I know this because I was part of the US military in Korea and I helped do some of this in 1955.) The US rigged commercial jets with spy cameras and overflew North Korean airspace whenever a plausible excuse presented itself. (I think a Northwest Orient airliner was shot down in Korean airspace back in the '60s.) During the [Bill] Clinton years, a dialogue with North Korea resulted in a treaty which was supposed to supply North Korea with oil and power plants in exchange for their dismantling their nuclear-energy research and weapons programs. Inspectors were allowed in the country and everything was going well until there were delays on the part of the US-led consortium about providing the nuclear power plants. Then in came the administration of George W Bush, which promptly declared North Korea an "axis of evil" member, quit supplying oil and reneged on the treaty. We [US] saber-rattle with threats of various kinds, attack Iraq with no provocation, and tell North Korea to stop its nuclear-weapons programs. North Korea says "give me a guarantee that you won't attack us and I will stop the program". The US says "no way" will we give you anything and we won't even talk to you. In the meantime, while all [these] threats are going on, North Korea says to itself, "If they won't talk and won't give us a guarantee of not attacking us, we have no choice but to go ahead with our nuclear-weapons program and hope we can get enough weapons ready to act as a deterrent so that they do not attack us." I know that North Korea has sold weapons to Third World countries; so has the US. If another country demanded [that] the US stop its nuclear programs, I don't really think that they would comply - so why should North Korea? When people tell you that you should not sit down and talk about your problems, and that military solutions are best way of doing things - run like hell! To Dan Piecora (letter, Oct 7): Surely it must have been a completely random accident that you wound up on the ATol website.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 8, '04)


[Pepe] Escobar should be applauded for the fantastic and informative five-part series on the Philippines [Part 5: All quiet on the second front, Oct 7]. It was a penetrating look at the Philippines from a perspective I could not get from anywhere else. I was riveted to my seat for five days and wished for more. I am a newcomer here having recently married a fine Filipina from Cebu. I wish Mr Escobar's series could be required reading for every Filipino. Great journalism, Mr Escobar! I am now a regular reader of Asia Times [Online].
Jame Gist
Washington, DC (Oct 7, '04)


Thank you, Pepe Escobar, for the series on the Philippines [Part 5: All quiet on the second front, Oct 7]. My last visit there occurred 35 years ago. Is that shocking ghetto on the road from the airport in Manila still there? The series reminds me of Colombia. About 100 powerful families own the whole country and the continuous war of that place is about land reform. The US is naturally supporting the powerful families, but in the end the poor people of Colombia will win. I hope it comes about before I die so that I can smile like I do whenever I read of the exploits of Hugo Chavez next door [in Venezuela]. Let's hope by some miracle the Philippines can find a Chavez.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 7, '04)


Pepe Escobar believes the war on terror is a fraud perpetrated by the current US administration on behalf of oil barons (Stretching Cheney, Oct 7). The truth is that Islamic terrorists went to extreme measures to challenge the USA to a fight, and America is not inclined to wait for a second invitation. Regardless of the nuance of Saddam Hussein's personal involvement with events of a particular day, he was sufficiently involved with the overall trouble in the Middle East to be a part of settling the score. Mr Escobar misleads the readers of ATol into the most convoluted, moveon.org, least flattering conspiracy theory for America's response, when the truth is much more obvious and easy to understand.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 7, '04)

The fact that you find something as complex and widespread (news flash: terrorism was not invented on September 11, 2001) as the scourge of international terrorism "obvious and easy to understand" should ring alarm bells, especially as most non-Americans and a growing number of Americans disapprove of how the Bush administration has conducted the "war on terror". As for Saddam's non-involvement, for the latest in the barrage of information debunking the Bush-Cheney rationale for dragging your country into a costly and unnecessary war see the new Asia Times Online article Bush's case for war in ruins by Jim Lobe. - ATol


For all the reasons that Stephen Zunes mentions [Kerry endorses Bush's unilateralist agenda, Oct 7], this may be a very good time for the civilized among us to consider relocating the headquarters of the United Nations from New York City to Hong Kong. I believe that such a move would be good for the UN, certainly good for Hong Kong, good for multilateralism and, in the long run, even good for the United States.
Tom Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Oct 7, '04)

So you have said on this page before, without explaining why. May we suggest that you start a thread on our Asia Times Online Community forum and see what happens? - ATol


In his "replies to readers" [letter, Oct 6], Spengler writes: "... America remains profoundly Christian ... America is by its nature Christian ..." As I've noted before, Spengler mistakes his fantasy of "America" for that which is actually America. His notion that the US is "profoundly Christian" is as profoundly superficial as the "Christianity" to which he refers. I've detailed elsewhere that the US is not in any sense "Christian" where it most matters; its system of laws - as exemplified in its constitution - is based upon individual freedom of conscience, thought, belief and expression - which includes the right to believe and espouse views "Christians" oppose and hate. But let's examine his latest claim as it compares with the facts:
1. The "Bible" was written in the Middle East, not America. It was assembled by an anti-democratic "religious" hierarchy in Rome, not America.
2. The "Old Testament" is pre-Christian. Its theme is "eye for an eye", and depicts a vengeful, totalitarian "God" that acts on whim without regard for reason or justice.
3. "Christianity" begins with Christ, and the "New Testament". The "New Testament" supersedes the "Old", and changed the theme from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek". The latter is why Christ is called "Prince of Peace".
4. The rules required of Christians are the Ten Commandments. As "faith without works" is false faith, saying one thing while doing another is not an allowed option. The word for the latter is hypocrisy, which Christians view as sin, a "Christian principle" Mark Twain defined as "Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
5. The overwhelming history and image of "Christianity" in the US is of a profoundly corrupt rationalization for actions which Christianity condemns. Christianity condemns, as example, lying and killing.
We've seen those corruptions in Asia Times Online letters. As example, in a recent letter, Dennis Castle said he is an "evangelical Christian" [Oct 1]; but in prior letters he has shown not merely that he is bogged down in [the] pre-Christian "Old Testament" but also that he has no concern with the Ten Commandments. He supports [US President George W] Bush's illegal war against Iraq. Christ was opposed to war. And the Commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill." And he has repeatedly asserted lies even after they have been repeatedly refuted by, as example, the Republican-controlled US Congress via its 9-11 Commission, Bush himself (before he flopped back to telling the lie), [Secretary of State] Colin Powell, and - most recently - [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. One lie has been that Saddam Hussein had WMD [weapons of mass destruction] - known to be false even before the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - on which Mr Castle based detailed speculation that those non-existent WMD might be hidden in Syria. (One cannot hide that which does not exist.) Another lie - also repeatedly refuted by the bare facts of history, and experts - he has perpetuated is that Saddam Hussein had connections with the [September 11, 2001] attacks, and/or with fundamentalist Islamist terrorists. Not even the fact that Saddam Hussein was the equivalent of an atheist, and the fundamentalist Islamists were his sworn enemies for that reason, could dissuade Mr Castle from asserting a lie he favored over truth, as excuse for war and killing. Another rule also applies: there are two kinds of lying. To lie by commission is to tell a known falsehood. And to lie by omission is to withhold a known truth. Both are viewed by Christians as mortal sins - they earn one a ticket straight to hell, "don't pass Go, no $200". Usually those forms of lying are mixed together, as Mr Castle did in weaving his unfounded and repeatedly refuted lies concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq. There, Spengler, you have a paradigmatic portrait of how "profoundly Christian" the US is not. There's an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words." An update was given us by Manfred Mann: "I can't believe what you say/'Cause I see what you do." A profession of religiosity is not the equivalent of action in keeping with the profession. But perhaps you are so profoundly superficial that you believe a person is a Christian even though he said so while picking your pocket.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 7, '04)


Spengler replies [letter, Oct 6] to the concerns of two of his readers [Arnold] Toynbee [Jr] and [Jose] Pardinas and assures them that the "New Israel [USA]" will never succumb to Islam or Muslims the way Europe has. Still, if one were to ensure such a non-event and in thinking "out of the balloon" (out of the box is becoming somewhat declasse) the following alternative might be in order: Some time before the US election of 2008, legislation should provide that US voters be allowed to vote in Israel's election and Israelis be given full voting rights in US national elections. It may be time, as Nike claims, to "just do it".
ADeL (Oct 7, '04)


Dear Henry Liu, Please help with your thoughts on solving the RMB/dollar problem: please propose the best policy alternatives for the renminbi [RMB; aka yuan] in future? The present picture appears to be a stampede (at US instigation): Chicago Mercantile Exchange is setting up machinery for derivatives etc, culminating presumably in hedge-funds activity; a hostile US Congress [is] demanding (prematurely) a floating [yuan]; US textile, steel and labor unions [are] claiming a "trade disadvantage". What should be China's policies and plans to best help the unemployed and underemployed in China? Many thanks for your thoughts on the matter, which will surely be insightful as always. (Also a wonderful change from the daily dyspeptic/apoplectic belchings of retired captains, dinosaurs etc).
Mary Chang (Oct 7, '04)

Henry C K Liu is working on an article, or more likely a short series, relating to the Chinese economy. We expect to have it in hand by next week, though admittedly plans change at ATol more often than John Kerry's war stance. - ATol


Many people do not seem to realize that the world has changed very drastically over the last few decades. For example when they mention ethnically diverse countries several Asian countries come to mind, such as Sri Lanka, Singapore [and] Malaysia. Many other countries have become ethnically diverse. I can think of Australia, the USA and many European countries. I saw many North Africans in Paris, although I do not know the exact percentage. We need to keep our information updated so that all of us get the right perspective and make only informed decisions and not be manipulated by politicians whether from East, West, North or South - almost all of them are out to con the common folk.
Dell
Singapore (Oct 7, '04)


Why was the sky red over Cleveland the night of the [US] vice-presidential candidates' debate? It was from the red glow of John Edwards' behind after being taken to the woodshed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Dan Piecora
Kirkland, Washington (Oct 7, '04)


Spengler replies to readers
Jose Pardinas (letter, Oct 5) compares Islamic immigration into Europe with Jewish immigration of previous centuries, quite inappropriately in my view, for Jews never arrived in large numbers. Where they formed a large proportion (over 5% of the population), eg Spain in the 15th century or Poland in the early 20th, natural increase of populations resident for many centuries accounted for large numbers. For reasons never fully explained, the rate of increase of the Jewish population in Poland was far greater than that of Christian Poles. As for possibility that America might fall to Islam in the wake of Western Europe, Arnold Toynbee Jr (letter, Oct 5) raises an issue that appears to worry a number of commentators, such as Daniel Pipes (www.danielpipes.org). This seems most unlikely to me, although it is quite possible that America may make accommodation with radical Islam. Unlike Europe, America has a growing population. Muslims are the majority of new immigrants to Europe, but a small minority of immigrants to the United States. The sort of Muslims who come to the US, moreover, tend to be better educated. I do not mean to suggest that educated people are less inclined to radical Islam than ignorant people, but a significant proportion of the Muslims who arrive on American shores wish to live quietly and prosper. That is quite a different situation than the suburbs of Paris. Most important, America remains profoundly Christian, while Europe abandoned Christianity a generation ago. America is by its nature Christian; it is the Ecclesia, those who are called out from among the nations to become a new Israel (Mel Gibson's lethal religion, Mar 9).
Spengler (Oct 6, '04)


One has to feel sorry for Spengler [When you forget why you hanged yourself, Oct 5]. Impelled by his nature to look upon the naked face of life as it is, but utterly lacking the emotional resources to handle the implications of the truth his eyes behold, he is reduced to kicking sand. Norse mythology is based on a thoroughly realistic understanding of the universe, in particular the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A popular restatement is "life sucks, then you die". A broader view adds the codicil "life sucks and it's getting worse". To an adherent of the Norse gods, a hero is someone who slows the rate of decay. Indeed, Wotan sold an eye to obtain a book which would give him knowledge to do exactly that. It is a great pity that Spengler, having looked into the abyss and seen what every Viking warrior saw, cannot then rise to their level of aspiration - to be transported to Valhalla for eons of endless war culminating in sure and certain defeat and annihilation. By contrast, all belief in a Great Daddy in the Sky who will make things be other than they are, who will snatch his supplicants off to a universe where the Second Law does not apply, is what [George Ivanovich] Gurdjieff described as "self-calming". A pathetic, moth-eaten security blanket for frightened children.
Grumpy_and_the_other_six
Central Valley, California (Oct 6, '04)


Well, always entertaining, but this piece [When you forget why you hanged yourself, Oct 5] seems to show that you [Spengler] really are a vicious old tart and Malthus' nemesis to boot. Don Rumsfeld in disguise and probably also a descendant of the Swaben hog farmers as well. Lighten up and take your scalpel to work on the degenerate character of US fundamentalist Christianity with its satanic rituals and sick parody of the original teachings.
Allen Jay (Oct 6, '04)


[Re Will the last one leaving please turn off the lights, Oct 6] I do find it in extremely bad taste to degrade a person who allows you to work without thinking about such mundane chores as cleaning the bathroom or cooking meals for your children. I lived in Central [Hong Kong] from '90 to '92. Every day after school I saw [Filipino] maids carrying the books of their boss's children. This I found infuriating. These tubby little children will grow up wrongfully thinking they are superior, when actually they are just fat and spoiled.
H Hobson
Taipei, Taiwan (Oct 6, '04)


I consider Pepe Escobar's series on the Philippine socioeconomic crisis to be highly valuable and a must-read for Filipinos, both in the Philippines and abroad. I once considered the problems of the Philippines to be solely the fault of corrupt leaders like [Ferdinand] Marcos but, as Escobar explains, other nations like South Korea had corrupt leaders but were still able to become "tiger economies". I fully agree with Escobar's assessment that land reform is key, and that wealth and land must be distributed in a much more egalitarian manner, rather than having a tiny minority control the vast majority of wealth. I further agree that American neo-imperial policies are severely damaging to the Filipinos; the orders from the WTO [World Trade Organization] and the IMF [International Monetary Fund] (which are religiously followed by the Philippine governing elite) are only further devastating the Philippines. It was reported in the news recently that a majority of Filipinos and Filipino-Americans support [US President George W] Bush. As an American of Filipino descent, I am very embarrassed of the ignorance of many Filipinos on US-Philippine relations. Filipinos must get rid of the colonial mentality that was injected into the Filipino psyche by over 400 years of foreign colonial domination. Too many Filipinos still consider white skin and everything European to be superior, that all non-Christians are going to hell, and that the United States is a benevolent and wonderful "Big Brother" (President [Gloria Macapagal-]Arroyo recently referred the USA as this after the dramatic hostage crisis). I think most Filipinos would be surprised to learn that the United States committed genocide in the Philippines during the US's invasion of the islands at the beginning of the 20th century (I certainly was when I found out, since American high-school textbooks mysteriously omit or downplay this event). Escobar's series is very valuable.
B Cardozo
Undergraduate Student
Cornell University (Oct 6, '04)

The concluding article of Pepe Escobar's series The Philippines: Disgraceful State is now online: All quiet on the second front. - ATol


[Re] US pays a price for Samarrah [Oct 6]. Over the past eight years, I have done a great deal of reading about world affairs and have found that the title of a book or news-media article is usually my first positive (or negative) inspiration for reading it. I have also found that, once you have read and chewed the material (before swallowing it), it is best to give close consideration [to] its source. The subject article, from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (an American entity), is the sort of thing I refer to. The title made sense to me, since the majority of information I have taken in has given me the impression that the [United States] of America will, indeed, pay a terrible price for its world-bullying over the past half-century. However, the subject article attempts to give the impression that Islam has suddenly jumped out of the bushes, simply intent on pushing the world to chaos. The facts are that America's profligate lifestyle of corruption and greed has finally driven it to an insatiable appetite for more of what other peoples have; and the (ordinary) people of (the oil-producing) nations of the Middle East (who happen to be Muslim) have said "no more". Having lived in the Middle East and knowing something of the character of the people there, I am sure that they, more than any of their counterparts here in the West, are aware that they are the last bastion of resistance to American hegemony over the hydrocarbon resources in their region; and that the US aggressions in the Balkans and Afghanistan were/are all about pipeline corridors to carry those resources to the rapidly starving US and European markets. This is not to mention the huge stake the Israelis have in the mess.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta


[Marc] Erikson is now the latest installment of reactionary and delusional writing to grace your pages [Kerry dead wrong on North Korea, Oct 5]. His critique of US foreign policy in East Asia (seen through the lens of Kerry-Bush debates) leaves out rather a lot of essential detail. Let's start with nukes in general. Last I remember the US had around 1,600 ready-to-fire nuclear warheads. Nobody has any idea how many Israel has (probably around 200), and then we have Russia, etc. Mr Erikson seems to think this is just fine. A lot of noise has been made of late about Iran and its development (alleged) of nuclear weaponry. Its okay for Israel, but not for Iran. I wonder why? The US has failed to abide by Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (you know, getting rid of nukes). By failing this stipulation the US encourages any sensible sovereign nation to step up its nuke building - or face invasion (think Iraq). Beyond that it's hypocritical to demand others respect this treaty and then fail to live up to it yourself. The Bush team has, from the start, threatened the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]. [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld in particular is looking at low-yield nukes and bunker busters for use in Korea. The implied threat is not lost on the DPRK. They see only China as a possible escape route - and they are probably right. Whatever direction talks take, one should start to examine the cloud of unreason that hangs over topics like nukes (and especially when demonizing North Koreans or Muslim nations). "Gook" was a term invented by the US military during the Korean War. Such stigmatizing continues. Articles like Erikson's are just so much empty rhetoric unless they start their critique with an examination of US weapons of mass destruction. Until this is done, Erikson and the rest of the crypto-colonialists who natter on about the evils of the DPRK (or Iran or Iraq or Cuba, etc etc etc) are simply extending the imperialist propaganda.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Oct 6, '04)


Seems that Malaysia has issues any ethnically diverse country would have. Unless there was an economic shortcoming more than anything else, I don't make sense of racial criticism of a government of an ethnically diverse people and a positive and well-distributed economic outcome [Abdullah stirs a hornets' nest, Oct 2].
Luay
Saudi Arabia (Oct 6, '04)


[I] have read your articles many times and find them absolutely both-sided. In Europe and the US there is a huge liberal slant in the media. Not so in your publication. I am currently in Iraq and know first-hand how good the occupation is for the Iraqi people. I talk about it [to] them every day. Please keep up your outstanding reporting.
Daniel
Mosul, Iraq (Oct 6, '04)


Catholics supported the war against ungodly commies. Christian fundamentalists support war in the Mideast to have Bible prophecies and promises of the Judeo-Christian God fulfilled. Thus their religious beliefs are affirmed. Some of [US President George W] Bush's pro-war advisers are pro-Israel hardliners. Bush is susceptible to their string-pulling because of his own fundamentalist "Christian" beliefs. Bush once called the attack on Iraq a "crusade". Today's fundamentalist "Christians" support Israel because through Israel, Bible prophecy will be fulfilled. Turn-of-the-century (19th) "Christians" in Britain also believed that the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine would fulfill Bible prophecy. The fundamentalist Christians kill for temporal secular purposes through the apparatus of the state they have empowered. The Christian has devised high-tech impersonal warfare and conscience-soothing conventions for waging war. The low-tech suicide-bomber Muslim is vilified as a coward and fanatic. Given the choice between smart bombs and blowing themselves up, I suspect the fanatic Muslim would prefer to use the smart bombs that the Christians use. Will America, heeding the call from God, lead the world into the great conflagration that has been prophesied - the final conflict between nations - Armageddon? The fundamentalist Christians pray so - believing that their lives will be spared as the heathens are destroyed. That's God's will and in God they trust. Assemble the nations! Bring on the warfare! Re-elect the leader of the Christian forces.
Ron Mattmer
Tiverton, Ontario (Oct 6, '04)


I've read Marc Erikson's Kerry dead wrong on North Korea [Oct 5] and I agree with him 100%. [US presidential candidate John] Kerry's return to the old, outdated and seriously dangerous method of the [Bill] Clinton era that has [proved] to be a failure deeply worries me. The bilateral approach Kerry prefers, in which the US was shamefully cheated, will give the US two chances: being cheated once again and the all-out war the US can't handle, unlike the Iraq war. The Bush administration's North Korea policy is very sophisticated and advanced, [and] as a result peaceful.
Gomdori
Jeju, South Korea (Oct 5, '04)


I was surprised to see that the [Sergei] Blagov analysis of Moscow's decision to support the Kyoto Protocol [Russia backs Kyoto, for now, Oct 5] ignored the most critical point. Namely, it will provide a foundation in international law for the restriction of the amount of oil that the United States is allowed to import. As for coal, I invite you to review a new process that has recently been developed by Intellergy Corp of Berkeley, California, called Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Combined Cycle. Already economically viable in Hawaii, it converts coal, biomass and solid waste into electricity plus a mix of transportation fuels to replace oil, is twice as efficient as existing technologies, and does not produce greenhouse gases.
Tom Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Oct 5, '04)


I have followed (or tried as best I could) Spengler's "series" on the Islamization of Europe [When you forget why you hanged yourself, Oct 5]. While I understand, given the current political situation in the Middle East, why Jews (European and otherwise) would be alarmed at a growing Arab population in Europe, I fail to see how this process is any different than what went on in Europe during the Diaspora of the Jews themselves. I don't pretend to know the demographics then or now, and I don't have the time to research it; however, I do know that large Jewish populations migrated and settled throughout Europe and that these 1) came to contribute significantly to what is considered genuine European culture (philosophy, music, literature, etc); 2) never really displaced the autochthonous populations, even though Jewish families tended to be quite large; 3) were never really assimilated due to racial/ethnic and religious differences and were, in effect, eventually "regurgitated" in various ways by European society. I predict that the same will happen with the growing Islamic populations in Europe - some of its members will be assimilated and will contribute to the mainstream culture; the others will end up in ghettos (as did the Jews) and will be tolerated for a while, maybe even for centuries, as were the Jews, before their strange ways and allegiances prove excessively irksome to the natives.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Oct 5, '04)


Question for Spengler: As an avid reader [of] your commentary, which is quite brilliant, I wonder whether you have considered the possibility, or indeed the inevitability, of human beings establishing permanent settlements on another planet, and whether those settlements might be distinctly Western and thus the survival of the West in the same way that America, at least for a time, was and is the survival of the West. To elaborate: Given your thesis that the West is a new and distinct civilization from the Roman, do you think that the vigor and vitality of the US is a result of its more clean break with the old, dying Roman Empire, and that Europe's decay is related to its inability ever to break completely with the Roman past? Additionally, America's movement out of Europe and into hostile and wild country seems to have been responsible for its more successful maintenance of traditional Western norms. These norms are unraveling in the US just as they have in Europe, and it may be that the US is only a few years behind the Europeans in pursuing the degeneration and disintegration of its own culture. Finally, is not the absorption of post-Christian Europe (as the remnant of the old Western Roman Empire) into the Maghreb really just a natural progression - Part 2 of the old Eastern Roman Empire's fall and absorption into Islam? Given this, why won't the US be Part 3? I hope you are able to respond.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Oct 5, '04)


Taiwan's Foreign Minister Mark Chen is apparently ignorant in foreign relations. He forgets that all of those beggar countries that recognize Taiwan are much smaller and less relevant than Singapore. Taiwan is depending on those tiny beggars to approve its existence. Except the leaders from those beggar countries in South America and Africa, Singapore is actually the only normal country sending its leader to Taiwan. Singapore's leaders spent many days meeting with all the Taiwanese leaders before they went to UN. Do they know something we don't? I am wondering why Laurence Eyton [Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat, Oct 1] cannot see those facts.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 5, '04)


B Thomas [letter, Oct 4], you are a bigger embarrassment for the USA than George Bush. At least he is lying. You, however, really believe the garbage you spout. Iraq had nothing to do with [the attacks of September 11, 2001]. It has never been documented anywhere that Iraq committed acts of terrorism against the USA. How can you believe that garbage when you read ATimes? You should know better. Now go sit in the corner with ATimes and don't come back until you have learned something.
David Lyons (Oct 5, '04)


To Mr B Thomas [letter, Oct 4]: Which terrorists are you referring to - the ones fighting for their homes and country or the ones occupying the country and killing their wives and children?
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 5, '04)


To B Thomas [letter, Oct 4]: You write: "Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one less to carry a bomb to your home, your business, your school, your church, and your future." The problem being, of course, identifying "terrorists" who are not instead Iraqi patriots who are working to drive out the US's illegal occupation, with the additional problem that you overtly reject [President George W] Bush's lie that the US's intent is to bring democracy to Iraq. By contrast, democracy would include due process, in accordance with US standards. You know: innocent unless and until proven guilty, trial by one's peers, etc. Obviously you aren't too concerned with that form of justice, so have no regard for democracy. And, of course, we know you hold the same views toward the citizens of your own country. I warn you that such a norm would not allow you to be an exception to it. You further write: "Anyone have an answer as to how to deal with a suicidal murderer other than death by violence?" Every hear of jail? (Thankfully, it isn't up to you to determine who is a "terrorist" or who "deserves" to be "nuked".) A recommendation: reduce your addiction to FOX TeeVee's fake "news" and its deliberate appeal to the basest of irrational, antisocial passions such as fear and racist hatred. If you choose to respond, please endeavor to deal with the real world, which you do not occupy alone, and include in that endeavor cognizance of the fact of law, and that ours is a system of laws, not of men. Thus we do justice to others in order that we also be dealt with justly. Blowing everyone up because they happen to be in a particular location may feel good, in an oversimplistic childish way, but as it is a rejection of reason and reality, it is not an adult approach to other human beings and such as US foreign policy.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 5, '04)


Please refer to Mr Shah's letter dated October 1, where he wrote, "Unless Congress makes a real hash of the economy, the only platform the BJP will therefore have to fall back on is the one which originally brought it to prominence - [Madhav Sadashiv] Golwalkar's vision" ... I really don't understand what makes Mr Shah so euphoric about [the Indian political party] Congress's economic policies. Is there any difference between the economic policies pursued by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and that of Congress for all practical purposes? [Didn't] Dr Manmohan Singh, current prime minister [of India], rightly introduced liberalization during his earlier incarnation as finance minister? The decibels were raised by "left fundamentalists". I think the Indian left should be asked why its uninterrupted 30-year rule of the once-prosperous state of West Bengal has rendered it as state where the highest number of educated jobless live today. The situation in health care [and] education is pathetic, which is regularly pointed out by Dr Amartya Sen. Now, Indian politics is at a very interesting crossroads: Anti-BJP-ism is the glue which sticks the UPA [United Progressive Alliance] coalition [together]. Issues raised, however, have boomeranged on Congress more often than not ... What makes Mr Shah believe that should the economy prosper, the BJP will lose its appeal? [Aren't] Hindu nationalists more of an urban force? Bangalore, the high-tech capital, now has a BJP member of parliament. What does it say: in the deep south, a party from the Hindi heartland, which is perceived to be prejudiced against women's rights, making so much headway? It's not a surprise at all, because those attributes are misplaced in the first place ... BJP support is more amongst educated ones than others. It's a no-win situation for Congress. Should the economy prosper, it's the BJP which wins, because its base is expanded. If it fails, it's the BJP which wins, because of the non-performance of Congress. Mr Shah's take on the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] is simply on false grounds as indicated by others already. Nazi policy was based on racism, and not religious purity. RSS's take on the Aryan race issue is completely opposite to that of Nazis ...
MC
Stratford, Connecticut (Oct 5, '04)


Indonesia has recently made public its desire for permanent membership of the [United Nations] Security Council. This is timely. In order for the international community to bestow such a powerful role upon a state, that state must demonstrate a firm commitment to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Respect for and protection of basic human rights is one of these objectives. Indonesia's success in moving from dictatorship to democracy must now be matched by a demonstrated commitment to human rights. Given the extent and seriousness of the crimes committed by Indonesians in East Timor, and the failure of the legal process in Jakarta, the UN must make clear to Indonesia the prerequisites for its consideration for a permanent seat on the Security Council. These must include: 1) The arrest of all of those persons in Indonesia who have been indicted by UN investigators for serious crimes in East Timor. 2) A demonstrated commitment to human rights throughout Indonesia. 3) The payment of reparations to the victims of the serious crimes in East Timor. 4) A public apology for the role of the TNI [Indonesian armed forces] in the serious crimes in East Timor throughout the occupation. The governments of East Timor, Indonesia and the USA have recently stated that they do not support the establishment of an international tribunal for East Timor. It is clear that this position is grounded upon "national interest", with justice or accountability for crimes being sidelined. International human-rights law does not recognize national interest as an excuse for failing to ensure justice in the wake of serious human-rights violations. Instead it requires justice for victims and their families, and payment of reparations where state responsibility is established. One cannot expect East Timor, a nation that remains reliant upon Indonesia for imports of basic foodstuffs and fresh water, to be in a position to exercise an independent view on this issue. It is clearly constrained due to economic and political pressures applied by Indonesia. If the government of East Timor is unwilling or unable to protect the rights of its citizens, the international community must afford this protection in its place. It should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of East Timorese people want an international tribunal, and continue to press for one through organizations such as the Timor Leste National Alliance for an International Tribunal. Indonesia's new president must weigh the question of accountability for human-rights violations carefully. If no action is taken on this front, many will ask themselves: If Indonesia is not willing to confront its past, what guarantee is there that it will respect human rights in the future? What guarantee is there that Indonesia would not use its power of veto in the Security Council to block action by the council to address human-rights violations in East Timor, Indonesia and beyond in the future?
Ben Clarke
Senior Lecturer in Law
University of Notre Dame Australia (Oct 5, '04)


Your writers Anil Netto [Money politics rears its ugly head] and Ioannis Gatsiounis Abdullah stirs a hornets' nest, both Oct 2] hit several nails on the head with gratifying accuracy, from a non-Malay perspective. Very few visitors to Malaysia, visually seduced by the appearances of a successful and moderate Muslim democracy, are able to recognize the police state that lurks menacingly beneath this veneer of harmonious multiracial co-existence. Dissent is dealt with promptly by the state, which is equipped with the wide net of the Internal Security Act. Most non-Malays, cowed ... by this and other prospects of retribution, are content with continuing to serve their Malay masters and suffering the blatant abuse of the affirmative action provided for by the "New Economic Policy". A social and economic apartheid is kept in place alongside with fear of instability. Complacent and spoon-fed Malays who control the government, the judiciary and the guns have no real incentive to rock the status quo. As long as there are sufficient numbers of non-Malays around to fix their problems at any scale, and as long as there is oil money to pay foreign expertise and labor to build their phallic monuments (such as the Petronas Twin Towers), Malays will find no reason to take the risks inherent in the journey to becoming a more robust race. A classic case in point is the denial that the main reason for the brain drain from public institutions is the frustration experienced by non-Malays who are forced to report to mediocre Malay leadership in these organizations. This drain is instead attributed to poor remuneration. This could not be further from the real truth. Most striking however is the idiocy of the belief held by Mahathir [Mohamad] and other Malay leaders, that affirmative action would create a stronger Malay race. Even my grandmother could teach us in simple terms: "No pain no gain!" Malaysia must be about the only country in the world where the ruling majority race controls the armed forces while giving itself the right of affirmative action while protecting it as sacrosanct.
Ajay V
Canada (Oct 4, '04)


Alexander Casella's article The intelligent answer to the Iraqi problem [Oct 2] was very good. It also goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that Pepe Escobar is a must read, and his series on the Philippines is no exception. Kudos to your excellent publication, which only seems to be getting better and better with time. It would be interesting to know if your readership has been growing and what your current readership numbers are.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Oct 4, '04)

Our readership continues its steady climb, and we were pleased to note good numbers even during the normally slow months of July and August. It's the support of loyal readers like you that enables us to grow and keep improving our website, such as last week's introduction of the Asia Times Online Community forum. The latest in Pepe's series on the Philippines is also now online: Poverty and corruption, the ties that bind. - ATol


I am bilingual but only through Laurence Eyton's [Oct 1] article Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat [did] I really understand [Taiwan Foreign Minister] Mark Chen's remark. In short, I agree with Mr Chen that Singapore is giving Beijing a hand job. Their subservient attitude towards Beijing reminds me of the tributary states bearing tributes to the imperial court in Beijing. I think Taiwan is quite safe unless and until Beijing has the military might to knock out the US carrier battle groups in the Pacific in one stroke. That will take another generation, assuming the communists are still in the dragon throne in Beijing, which I doubt.
Francis
Hong Kong (Oct 4, '04)


Spengler: Well, the times seem to have caught up with us [Squeegee men and suicide bombers, Sep 28]. Some people in the world may think that we (USA) export democracy (see the T-shirt "democracy, we deliver"), but in truth we export capitalism. Historically, since the days of [president Richard] Nixon (and that monster, [Henry] Kissinger), we haven't cared one iota for democracy, and in fact our foreign policy seems bent on economic reform (economic theory) without regard for political theories. Some Rockefeller along the way was quoted as saying (paraphrased, concerning capitalism) "those who are intelligent enough to understand that the system is basically inimical to the people will be too enticed by the great potentials for wealth to buck the system". It is interesting that in the presidential debates, both candidates said that the most important issue for the next four years is anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Bullshit! The crisis facing the world is energy shortage, or specifically "oil shortages". Neither one of these bozos will touch this scorpion egg, because it would kill their electability. Oil is at $50 [a barrel] on its way to $60. Shortly after $60, China's economy will see a reckoning, and the world financial institutes will shuck the responsibility on to the taxpayers of the world courtesy of our elected officials. What a joke! Too bad they won't escape the consequences of their own greed. If they gave two cents for their children they might step back and take a more philosophical view of their actions, but greed in the guise of capitalism knows no bounds ... I am convinced that Americans like to murder so that they can steal from other nations. We can't be so stupid that assholes like Kissinger are today's heroes, are we? So there must be something in the Bible that Republicans can twist and pervert to make the actions of George Bush seem like a good and noble thing. So murder and theft must be a good thing in the eyes of most flag-waving Republicans. By the way, my father is in this category. I can only guess that he hates my grandchildren, and wants to kill them for his own comfort. But such is life, especially in America. But then there is John Kerry. I don't imagine that Bush has closed the military to volunteers, and yet we don't have a mad rush to war by our 18-year-olds. So how is Kerry going to man these two new divisions that he has called for in his first debate? Don't say "draft"!!? Oh okay, go ahead and say it. If Bush was actively pursuing the draft, then yes, this is what it will take to create the new divisions that Kerry has promised us. Bush will too, but he is an accomplished liar, and wouldn't have hung his intentions out for others to see. So my guess is draft in 2005, Iran in year 2006, and global economic meltdown in 2008. Hallelujah, ain't capitalism grand? But then what?
Ben (Oct 4, '04)


Dear Mr Shah [letter, Oct 1]: Your response is far removed from the debate that was happening [among letter writers] Fareed [Zahid], Sri, Kannan and myself. The debate was about India's historical heritage of an Islamic rule by the sword, to which you have responded with some of your pet theories. The first theory, about the ethnic diaspora being more extreme than [residents], is an interesting one. Muslim immigrants being more violent than the ones at home has some currency. For example all the terrorists involved in [the attacks of September 11, 2001] were Muslim immigrants (diaspora) into non-Islamic countries. Owing to the soundness of your theory I would imagine you would have no problem with the USA Patriot Act, which will target mostly the Muslim diaspora. Next time you visit the USA I hope you enjoy the skin strip and cavity search. Your second theory unfortunately is contradictory to the first one. [Madhav Sadashiv] Golwalkar advocated a spine to all Hindus to be proud of their heritage. He was against the traditional Hindu habit of eschewing their glorious civilization and past. It was for those who live in Hindu Rashtra and not meant for the diaspora. He had no use for them. So, if your first theory is right, then Golwalkar failed to communicate to the home-resident. Why complain? You mentioned that the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] failed for want of India shining for everybody. That was just one reason for their loss at the hustings. The other reasons were they failed the Hindu majority by not pushing what they were elected for in the first place. They failed to push for a secular government with a common judicial civil code removing personal laws for religious groups. Second, they failed to secure the borders of India with infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan and illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh. Three, they talked peace with an adversary that has no interest in India's progress. So what is else left for the BJP than to get some good sense and subscribe to a democratic secular government that rules by wants of the majority and protects the rights of the minority in the next election. After all the Muslims have both the Muslim League and the Congress. What other party do the majority population in India have other than the BJP? The equivalent is the Republican right in the United States political spectrum. Your statement about Indians not settled with the existence of Pakistan is so invalid. Except for the Punjabiyat, all other groups in India are indifferent to Pakistan. As Stephen Cohen pointed out, north of the Vindhyas only Muslims care, south of the Vindhyas no one cares about Pakistan. Peace with Pakistan is not an imperative for India's progress. Peace with China and a partnership with it is of importance to India. As Lester Thurow once famously remarked, "you do business with countries richer than you". It's perhaps in Pakistan's best interest to do business with India but its fixation with Kashmir has negated any interest in pursuing a meaningful policy with India. So please, Mr Shah, quit giving unsolicited advice to India and to Indians. They have done well without it so far, so why take a chance?
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Oct 4, '04)


Shah in his [Oct 1] letter mentioned that "the Muslim League won 90% of the Muslim vote in the 1946 elections" in colonial India, and that Muslims "thus exercised their democratic right in favor of Pakistan. Many in India have still not reconciled themselves to these events and this continues to poison relations ..." This is only half the story - favoring a very convenient viewpoint that leads to statements such as "The rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 by [Jawaharlal] Nehru and the Congress was, in my view, the greatest tragedy which inexorably led to Partition" of India. The fact is that the Muslim League did not create Pakistan nor did it represent Muslims. Pakistan was created by the British for the purpose of dividing India to enable divide-and-rule manipulation of the soon to be independent countries. Till today Pakistan is simply a tool used by anyone wishing to hurt India, and this is what really poisons relations between the two countries. To understand this you have to ask who have been Pakistan's most consistent allies for the last 57 years. The answer is: the US and China. There is an eerie resemblance to the final act of George Orwell's famous novel Animal Farm, where the humans and pigs sit down to share dinner while the horrified animals look on helplessly. The world's most capitalist democracy and the most capitalist communist-dictatorship are shaking hands and sitting down to eat at the Pakistani table while the horrified Indians look on helplessly. The League won less than 5% of the Muslim vote in the 1937 elections while the Congress and its allies won even in Muslim majority regions that eventually went to Pakistan in 1947. Congress leaders were thrown into jail by the British during the Quit India movement of 1942, and in this vacuum right-wing Hindu and Muslim parties were encouraged by the British administration to create irreconcilable differences. By the time Congress leaders came out it was too late to avoid partition. For details please read Gandhi vs Jinnah: The Debate over India's Partition by A H Merriam and India: The Siege Within by M J Akbar. The Muslim League, and the state it helped to create, had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. As late as 1946-1947 they were trying to bargain with the Congress that India could have all of Bengal in return for entire Punjab. For those not familiar with South Asia, East Bengal (now Bangladesh) and West Punjab were Muslim majority regions that eventually went to Pakistan. Punjab is a rich agricultural region populated by tall, fair people who consider themselves superior to the poor, dark Bengalis. So the self-appointed representatives of Indian Muslims were willing to trade away a Muslim region that made up 60% of Pakistan's population for a prime piece of real estate!
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 4, '04)


Actually, if Shah (letter, [Oct 1]) bothered to check a few facts before his conclusion, he might have found his theory full of holes. To begin with, the [percentage of the] vote both the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and Congress received in the last elections are very similar ([about] 25%). BJP probably lost a few seats (Mumbai, Delhi) because of voter apathy or in Delhi's case because of the Bangladeshis voting for Congress. Having said that, the problem in India is that of allocation of capital. If Lalu [Prasad Yadav] (probably his favorite politician for playing to the Muslim gallery) used all the money to improve Bihar's infrastructure, we would not be talking about India and its "Hindu" rate of growth. Further on, he points to the example of Germany/France and Greece/Turkey. Isn't there some irony in that? For instance, Germany invaded France a couple of times and is now paying reparations in terms of agricultural subsidies to the French farmers. When was the last time a Hindu nation or kingdom invaded a Muslim kingdom? I can't recall that. In reality, we have Muslims who invaded India for wealth and women, subjugated the native population (mainly Hindu), destroyed most of its heritage and ruled for a few hundred years. Now, their principal skill of killing, destroying, raping and looting being out of vogue, they find themselves as an educationally and socially backward underclass. Isn't it ironic that Shah (using his Germany/France model) expect Indian taxpayers (mostly Hindu by default) to subsidize them (Pakistan and Bangladesh)?
AP (Oct 4, '04)


This has reference to some comments made by Mr Shah in his October 1 [letter]. He writes, "The centrality of [Madhav Sadashiv] Golwalkar's 1939 concept of religious 'purity' (similar to that of the Nazis in Germany in 1939) to BJP/RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] ideology is undisputed". Mr Shah, you are making the same mistake, actually prodding the rhetoric of "left fundamentalist" here. This comparison between the Indian right and Nazis [was] long discarded by contemporary historians, analysts like Partha Chatterjee [and] Ashis Nandy. Mr Nandy went ahead and boldly pronounced [that] the rhetoric of the Hindu right is not religious but political in nature. Even the Ayodhya Temple episode is not a religious one, and noted Indian Muslim activist Syed Sahabuddin accepted that. Nazis didn't persecute Jews because of some concept of "religious purity" or out of some sacred text of Christianity (like "infidels" [and] "ideal Islamic state" used by Islamists). But Nazis believed Jews [to be] non-Aryans. Nazi policy was based on supremacy of the "Aryan race", which claimed it was the mother of all civilizations and thus destined to rule the world. In [Adolf] Hitler's Germany it was narrowed to refer to certain "pure" Germans. Writings of Joseph Gobineau, Houston Chamberlin, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, which clearly laid the foundation for Nazism, are testament of that. Now, the Hindu right's take on "Aryan race" is just the opposite to that of Nazism. They believe that Aryans are indigenous to India. To them all Indians, whether black or fair-skinned, belong to Indigenous Aryan race. If there is similarity [among] Indo-European languages, it’s because Indian Aryans went westward from India, not the opposite. There is no concept of "religious purity" amongst the Hindu right. You probably would be surprised to note, amongst those who attended the inaugural session of the much-maligned Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) were the Dalai Lama [and] leaders of all religion of the "old World". Mr L K Advani (leader of the BJP) talks every day about "cultural nationalism", and not of "pure Aryan race" or "pure Hindu". The only similarity between Nazis and the Hindu right is [that] they believe in a strong nation-state. Mr Shah, you need to read recent articles from Partha Chatterjee, Ashis Nandy, Madan and many others, not just the rhetoric [of] left fundamentalists.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Oct 4, '04)


This refers to the letter of Dennis Castle [dated] October 1. Mr Castle commented about "poor readability" of Bhagavad Gita. Sri Aurobindo wrote some excellent commentary of the Gita which [is] very readable. However, to understand Hindu (more appropriately Indian) philosophy [and] religion, the best way is to deal with the history of Indian thought [is] as an undivided whole or continuous development, in the light of which alone different thinkers and views can be fully understood. I can refer you to Indian Philosophy, written by Dr S Radhakrishnan, the great Indian philosopher-statesman of the last century. Mr Castle also asked about the future destiny of India. This is a very interesting but loaded question. To find an answer to it, Indians would have to come out of their British colonial history first. Most people know colonialism as a political oppressive system which denies the colonials their rights. But there [is a] much greater aspect where colonialism affects [or] distorts people's psyche, history [and] literature. Two very important events in Indian history are [the] Aryan question and when Rig-Veda was written. Unfortunately both were developed by Europeans with notions of white supremacy over dark-skinned natives. In the 19th-century [the] emergence of "race science" in Europe couldn't tolerate the spectacle of dark-skinned "civilized" Indian people, challenging Victorian ideas. Race science responded to the enigma of India by redefining the Aryan concept in narrowly "white" racial terms, thus [servicing] the Euro-centric notions of White supremacy. A whole set of arguments were developed just based on the structure of noses of aboriginal Indians, frequently quoting from the Vedas. Now, when we re-read the Rig-Veda, we find it has only one reference to structure of noses. Similarly, the Rig-Veda couldn't have been written earlier than 4000 BC, because God created the world precisely at 4004 BC. How could something be written earlier than that? Mr Castle, India's history is a living testament [of] how colonialism affected, distorted [and] produced knowledge in the name of "Indology" which [was] nothing but racist, white-supremacist, Christian political commentary. We are immensely indebted to Edward Said, Ashis Nandy, Thomas Trautmann and host of others for pointing it out. Did Karl Marx, the champion of downtrodden, support British colonialism in India? Oh yes. India's 350 million-plus and growing middle class is gradually understanding all these and in the process of returning from exile. It's a new awareness, and most importantly we now understand the politics of it. Lastly, the role of evangelical Christians in all of these distortions is far from honorable. Basically, they drove much of those. When we read [of the] Somnath Temple being destroyed several times by Muslim Invaders, we understand it. But it took us 200 years to understand how evangelical Christianity did more harm to India, [and] distorted its history, which is surely far worse than destroying temples. Mr Castle, you call that European Enlightenment and Victorian values. To us they are very hollow.
BC
Connecticut, USA (Oct 4, '04)


As a favor, at least, Dennis Castle has the humility to "confess ignorance" (letter, Oct 1); he and others like him must be told the core problems besetting our "modern world" arise from the crass ignorance of his own political masters who have for over seven decades continued to inflict genocide upon the poorer nations of the Earth whose national aspirations were regarded as anathema. It does not surprise this writer that Mr Castle finds the Bhagavad-Gita "unreadable", which is a beautiful book whose religious philosophy and political testament have endured for over three millennia, because most of the "graduates" produced by the US universities are intellectual dwarfs. This writer has read and digested the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, the teachings of the Buddha, the Bible and the Koran (copies of them all adorn his library) and found the same redeeming message in each. As to the rest of the letter "America ... we ... pay the best and brightest", just compare for example what she did, and had done in collusion with the British, to the entire population of Diego Garcia, a peaceful people who are, even now, fighting through the English courts for their right to return to their own territory. But then Mr Castle was probably "ignorant" of this crime also. How does one forgive the USA for such repeated, international, criminal conduct? The present US depends wholly on its vaunted military strength to survive. It thinks its empire will last forever, but there are precedents which prove that it won't; in historical terms the signs of decay are already discernible and when her empire perishes the price demanded of her by the innocents in this world will be terrible. Let there be no doubt about it.
KA
United Kingdom (Oct 4, '04)


In reply to G Travan's letter (Sep 30): To begin with, I would like to apologize if I came off arrogant or vitriolic in my previous missive. I reread what I sent and I still don't know which part is vitriolic (to Islam or Travan) or arrogant ... I raised two questions and neither were rhetorical. Taj Mahal hardly represents the positive side of Islamic history; it is a tomb to [the wife of an emperor who] did precious little for the common folk of any religion ... It might sound quibbling to distinguish between the cultural enrichment due to individuals and "doing something for the ruled" by the then rulers. Of course, you might say "that's how monarchy used to work in those days whether it was Hindu or Muslim", but then why did we have carnage and conquering in name of a religion (and I am not making this up on my own)? I am Hindu by birth, and if anyone asks me what religion I am that's what I invoke; still, I find it difficult to feel sorry for my forefathers who took it lying down, first from the invading Mughals and then the British. But then, if you expect me to glorify them (the conquerors, that is), we just will have to disagree. I haven't been to a temple for ages, I eat stuff that is not kosher in Hinduism, so that's the extent of my "hiding behind Hindu identity". Just because I raise uncomfortable questions [that] qualifies me as "one resembling [a] right-wing fanatic"? I can see the positive side of Islam when it comes to uniting the people of Middle East, providing this wonderful bridge between Eastern and Western sciences, supporting scholarship and arts in their Middle Eastern empires, but doesn't my civilizational experience count for anything? Except for Akbar's rule the rest of the Mughal emperors were only into collecting taxes, waging wars, and doing whatever it is that emperors do with their harems. Do note that I always try to be a very context-conscious person. Coming back to my question on the "positive side of Islam in India", it is not a rhetorical question: allow me to rearrange it as "What good came of those ruling in name the of Islam?" I might be informed only by my ignorance, and am open to be enlightened.
V Lotke
Utah, USA (Oct 4, '04)


Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one less to carry a bomb to your home, your business, your school, your church, and your future. Anyone have an answer as to how to deal with a suicidal murderer other than death by violence? They deserve to be nuked.
B Thomas
USA (Oct 4, '04)

Who knows, you might get your wish after November 2. - ATol


I want to congratulate Pepe Escobar and Asia Times Online for starting the current series on the Philippines [Part 1: The sick man of Asia, Oct 1]. Besides being important in [its] own right, the Philippines is also an example of a country which has gotten the "full makeover" treatment from the US. It's not unlikely, either, that a post-George Bush America will resemble the Philippines closely.
Lester Ness, onetime Subic Bay resident
Quanzhou, China (Oct 1, '04)

Part 2 of this five-part series is now online: Goodfellas, with Tagalog subtitles. - ATol
 

I want to correct the translation by Laurence Eyton in his article Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat (Oct 1) of the "earthy Taiwanese" lecture delivered by the esteemed foreign minister of Taiwan, Mark Chen, in the latter's blast of Lee Hsien Loong, now prime minister of Singapore. The word "snot" means nasal mucus, according to the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. But the foreign minister, Mr Chen, actually used the word "booger", which means solidified nasal mucus. This brings up a reminder of the type of behavior of many Taiwanese politicians who are often seen fist-fighting on TV during legislative sessions. One other point comes to mind. The government of Taiwan seems to favor their own diplomats using English names, such as Mark Chen now, and James Chien before as ambassador to the US. Even the former Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui, who loves to kowtow to Japan, did not use a Japanese name. To make Mr Chen even more endearing to his Western counterparts, I suggest he change his name to Mark Cheney (just adding two letters), thereby linking himself to the US vice president.
S P Li
USA (Oct 1, '04)


[Laurence] Eyton forgot to mention that Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan was trained as an officer of the Japanese Imperial Army in Japan during World War II [Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat, Oct 1]. His brother was killed while fighting for the Japanese Imperial Army during the Japanese imperialist war.
David Chiu
Canada (Oct 1, '04)


Responding to Laurence Eyton [Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat, Oct 1], I am not too sure whether ex-president Lee [Teng-hui of Taiwan] really didn't believe in Asian values because it is too convenient and useful a tool for any Asian politician to disregard. I would like to recall an incident between ex-president Lee and ex-prime minister Lee [Kwan Yew of Singapore] in one of their meetings. When prime minister Lee was pushing the line that Taiwan really had no other alternative but to be reunited with China, president Lee asked him why Singapore became independent and did not stay as a state of Malaysia, or be reunited with Malaysia. Prime minister Lee replied that he did not seek independence from Malaysia but Malaysia did not want Singapore. The fact of course was that the leaders of Malaysia then were worried about the problems that were generated with Singapore [as a] member of the federation. Perhaps president Lee learned a good lesson from that conversation he had with prime minister Lee. The democratic reforms that he subsequently introduced for Taiwan were sure to create problems for China should Taiwan join back as a province, but whether these would prove to be so unpalatable that China might want to puke - time will tell.
Dell
Singapore (Oct 1, '04)


There is much that Media fail to report for duty (Sep 29) failed to report about American media. It failed to report how small the sales of dailies are in America and where the majority of Americans are getting their news. I don't have the stats to prove my assertions but my work allows me the freedom to sit in coffee shops in the daytime where people formerly read the newspapers. I can walk out my door and see how few of my neighbors have the local daily delivered. I also contribute to a forum [composed] mostly of locals who put their sources out for review. The forum consists of people who get their views from talk radio, mostly Clear Channel shows ... late-night talk shows, and published opinions from dailies on the Internet. Most of these articles from the 'Net are opinion pieces which bash political parties and their candidates that still leave the reader in the dark about the facts. I'm the only one who posts foreign newspaper articles but I rarely do that. I prefer to argue from my own rationale because the forum participants distrust anything foreign. They are on the whole immensely uninformed and I have won just about every debate largely due to my daily readings of ATol (thanks, ATol) and my own scouring of the 'Net for facts related to the issues and my penchant for respected historiographers' books. Most of the forum participants have a distrust of any fact reported from findings on the 'Net unless it is a domestic [US] newspaper opinion piece which backs up their point of view. I have yet to read on the forum that anyone got their opinion from the evening television news. I believe on the whole, Americans are getting their political viewpoints from talk radio as they drive around in their cars. In big cities that's a lot of time spent listening to talk radio, as the traffic situation is horrendous. Also, parents spend a lot of time in their cars driving their children around to their extracurricular activities. The other majority favorite is the late-night talk shows that inform with humor and feature guests such as John Kerry and leading congressmen. Mr Kerry recently read the comedy portion of the [David] Letterman show featured on every show called the Top Ten List. Americans love these shows because they bash each candidate equally and they love seeing politicians in a relaxed setting. I recently was told by the participants on the forum that I am not considered by them to be either a liberal or a conservative. They declared that I was a contrarian. Perhaps a good title for a new political party in America?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Oct 1, '04)


I have been reading Spengler for a long time now, and I have always thought that contrary to what he would like to believe, he knows very little about Islam and what it means for Muslims. Yes, he believes himself qualified and loves to talk for the Muslims on one hand while he also goes on a lot about how the US should first know its enemy if it is to defeat it, but in reality I think Spengler is no different to the average American he so enjoys bashing in his articles. And if there is any difference, then it is more like the difference he pointed out between Osama bin Laden and Tariq Ramadan [Squeegee men and suicide bombers, Sep 28]. Both [US President George W] Bush and Spengler seem to be fighting the same Crusade but with different approaches. Spengler has often gone on about how the mere existence of the US is a threat to Islam and the Islamist (read Muslims) way of life because of what it stands for. This point of view has no solid evidence to support it, but if you keep repeating a false statement enough times, then people start believing it to be true. This is also what the Bush administration has been attempting when [it stresses] that "they do not hate us for what we do but for what we are and for what we stand for" and that "they hate our democratic way of life". That is just an absurd lie with nothing in reality to support it. I have just started reading a book by an anonymous US intelligence officer (Imperial Hubris ), and just in the first few pages I have found the author to have shown more understanding and appreciation of his enemy and his country's than what I have heard from Spengler in the past couple of years. Please let me quote a few lines from the synopsis for the benefit of your readers and Spengler (if only he would put his own hubris to one side):

According to the author, the greatest danger for Americans confronting the Islamist threat is to believe - at the urging of US leaders - that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. Blustering political rhetoric "informs" the public that the Islamists are offended by the Western world's democratic freedoms, civil liberties, inter-mingling of genders and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has fomented jihad to destroy, for example, participatory democracy, the national association of credit unions or coed universities.Instead, a growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific US policies and their attendant military, political and economic implications. Capitalizing on growing anti-US animosity, Osama bin Laden's genius lies not simply in calling for jihad, but in articulating a consistent and convincing case that Islam is under attack by America. Al-Qaeda's public statements condemn America's protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden's supporters thus identify their problem and believe their solution lies in war. "Anonymous" contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities and their religion. Unless US leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will join the bin Laden camp.