|
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.
December 2004
Pepe Escobar [First
we vote, then we kick you out, Dec 24] suggested that Iraqi nationalism
might act to discharge any Shi'ite confessionalism, and that this hinted at a
better strategy for the Sunnis to achieve the expulsion of the occupation
forces, a strategy which favored political involvement rather than armed
struggle. This is naive. The US is not there to spread democracy, but instead
to establish a military presence to guarantee its corporate backers a cheap
energy supply. It doesn't matter who wins or takes part in the election. The US
will not leave. Even [Prime Minister] Tony Blair intends the British occupiers
to remain at least another decade, at least until the oil supplies start to run
out. The Russians and Chinese know this, and are starting to train together to
counter this US presence in the region. All three have or will use the
presumptuous war on Islamic terrorism to intervene militarily in the region.
The US already has permanent military bases near the Caspian that were not part
of the war on terrorism in any way. The only way to get the Americans out is to
make it so unpleasant and costly, as Osama bin Laden points out, that imminent
economic collapse and an upswelling at burgeoning casualty figures stays the
hands of the neo-cons by removing them from power. There will be no power
vacuum. Enlightened influences in Iran will see to a peaceful development of
trade in energy in the Middle East, not dominated by any single power, and not
inimical to any confessionalist sect. Dream on.
Gregorio Kelly (Dec 24, '04)
In his professionally [presented] article
Nepal jittery over king's India visit [Dec 23], Dhruba Adhikary has
touched upon a number of highly sensitive issues that Nepali people have always
been tormented with over the years, as far as Nepal's relations with India is
concerned. There is no doubt that King Gyanendra's visit to India (the third,
to be exact, after his accession to the throne after the royal massacre) is
taking place at a time when the nation is virtually standing at a political
crossroads. The Maoist insurgency is taking a heavy toll on security forces and
civilians by every passing day and the the rebels' unrelenting onslaughts on
the establishment, schools, hospitals, food-transporting vehicles, basic
infrastructure, journalists, teachers and so on, have further diminished the
hopes for [peace], at least in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding the
postponement of King Gyanendra's visit to the nuclear southern neighbor due to
the demise of P V Narasingha Rao, a former prime minister of that country and a
mentor of the current prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh, Nepal's relations with
India are unquestionably entering a crucial phase and the leaders of the
country have no choice than to undergo a litmus test of their professed flair
of nationalism. The king appears to be rescheduling the visit at the earliest
possible date. As far as the apprehensions highlighted by Mr Adhikary in his
write-up, they seem to be based more on journalistic tantrums than the ground
realities that the monarch cannot ignore altogether. King Gyanendra is
constitutional monarch as per the constitution that is partially operative: he
does not enjoy any latitude to make any momentous decisions during his goodwill
visit that would have far-reaching consequences, and the Indian leadership is
quite mature [enough] to take note of it. Mr Adhikary [would] have done more
justice to his article if he had made some attempts to dissect Nepali politics
that have been polluted by corrupt politicians ...
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Dec 24, '04)
As much as I admire Spengler's articles, I cannot fail to see an apparent
contradiction in his article
Santa Clausewitz, a minor Chinese god [Dec 21]. In the last paragraph,
he writes, "Europe has less to fear from Chinese competition than from the
shrinkage of its own labor force, however. The biggest losers will be countries
with young and growing populations that need light manufactures to absorb
migrants from the countryside but cannot compete with Chinese efficiency." So,
low population growth is bad for Europe, but countries with growing populations
will do badly, too. Is population growth good or bad? I suppose his answer
would be that the ideal situation would be moderate population growth, but
since Spengler often stresses how bad the future looks for the West because of
its low demography, it seems strange that he also chastises countries with
growing populations.
Andres
Buenos Aires, Argentina (Dec 24, '04)
Juchechosunmanse (letter, Dec 23) is an unwitting victim and tool of Beijing's
propaganda concerning Taiwan when he/she wrote, "Chiang Kai-shek was not
'foreign' because Taiwan was returned to China (then represented by the
Republic of China) after the surrender of the Japanese." Jushechosunmanse's
statement is completely false. Japan surrendered in 1945 unconditionally (ie,
not returning Taiwan to anywhere). In 1950 Japan entered into the San Francisco
Peace Treaty in which Japan gave up claims to Taiwan, but Japan did not purport
to "return" Taiwan to China in that treaty. And in 1952, Japan entered into a
peace treaty with the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's
Republic of China (China), but that treaty does not purport to "return" Taiwan
anywhere either. So there is absolutely no historical support for the specious
claim that Taiwan was somehow "returned" to China. Sovereignty of Taiwan fell
to the Taiwanese people, where it still lies today. Chiang Kai-shek was a
foreign dictator because he entered Taiwan from China with permission or
consent of the Taiwanese people. And for Gunther (letter, Dec 23), I have a
question: What do you mean?
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 24, '04)
Let me guess, Cyrus [letter, Dec 23] is another white person who has strong
opinions about yellow people. Seems like it does not really matter where they
live. If Cyrus can tell those great achievements of yellow people are actually
done under the guidance of white men, you should already know the answers of
your questions. About reparations I mentioned: May I suggest an easy form of
reparations from white people which will be highly appreciated from those
yellow folks? Leave them alone!!! If you think whites or Caucasians can build
better cities, then leave yellow people alone. Stop giving them guidance for a
few years; yellow people will show you what they can do to their cities by
themselves. Is that fair?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 24, '04)
Re [Dec 23] responses to my letter of December 22: [Nitin] Shekhar, there's not
really any argument about Pakistan's support for the Taliban. I would, of
course, argue against that support being out of either the pan-Islamic empire
theory (given that Pakistan itself does not "enjoy" Taliban-style rules) or out
of a pure desire to be evil. Given the choice between an odious government that
is nonetheless not overtly anti-Pakistan (ie the Taliban) and an odious
government that is very much anti-Pakistan (the later-to-be-called Northern
Alliance, under whose rule lawlessness, murder and rapine was pretty much the
order of the day), there's only one choice that would make any sense.
Similarly, supporting Osama bin Laden at one point makes sense, but it's
unlikely that Pakistan would have encouraged him to launch the 2001 terror
attacks on the US, or indeed any attacks on US interests. It is odd, though,
that Indian history books should not have more information/discussion on
Pakistan, given the deeply intertwined history of the two countries. While
perhaps somewhat healthier than the paranoiac anti-Indianism in most (not all)
Pakistani textbooks, it again doesn't seem completely sensible - and,
interestingly, the new revisions to Pakistani textbooks seem to be trying to
adopt a similar viewpoint of not talking about India, even when discussing
Pakistan's wars. Also interestingly, the absence of discourse on Pakistan from
Indian textbooks has in no way reduced the fulminant anti-Pakistani bent of the
average Indian, which is more than comparable to the anti-Indian bent of the
average Pakistani. Except, of course, when we actually visit each other's
countries. Weird. [Amit] Sharma, I'd refer you to [Richard] Sisson's and [Leo]
Rose's War and Secession, rather than argue the myths and truths,
hyperbole or otherwise, of 1971. Flame wars are all too easy on the 'Net.
Assad K
Cleveland, Ohio (Dec 24, '04)
Full marks, Beth (letter, Dec 23), you figured it out. Contrary to public
opinion, you must destroy the village before you save it. Otherwise the
sleeping donkeys will never leave their stalls. Look at history, such as great
depression. Labor suppression turned into labor rights and now into labor
suppression. Life is a circle, a continuing war between Yin and Yang, never a
middle ground. You must see evil before you recognize good. One cannot exist
without the other. Donkeys must continuously experience the carrot and the
stick until they are docile. It is sad that millions must die before Americans
figure what the rest of the world already knows, but that is the nature of the
donkey. [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [President George W] Bush
must continue their destructive policies until they are totally discredited.
Any middle ground will yield half-measures and the seed of neo-con policies
like Nazism will sprout again. You will probably ask for solutions, so the only
one I can think of is mass forced migration of all Americans to the rest of the
world to experience what the rest of the world experiences.
Ernie Lynch (Dec 24, '04)
As most of the Christian world prepares to celebrate, an anxious appeal for
peace was issued [on December 22] by eight church-based organizations in the
oft-forgotten land of West Papua. The churches, along with 27 traditional
tribal councils, human-rights institutions and other organizations, are making
a Christmas plea for international attention and support. Without this, they
predict an imminent repeat of East Timor-style massacres in West Papua,
masterminded by the same individual. In May 2004, Franciscans International
urged the UN to put pressure on Indonesia to disband terrorist-run,
government-supported paramilitary groups, stating, "The presence in Papua of
Eurico Guterres, one of the architects involved in organizing terror wrought by
militias in East Timor in 1999, is a cause for grave concern." Mr Guterres,
indicted by an Indonesian court for crimes against humanity, has remained free
while he appeals his jail sentence. Recent reports from coastal towns in West
Papua indicate that shipments of guns are arriving and being distributed to
local militia recruited and organized by Mr Guterres. His organizing activities
in West Papua have been well known for more than a year. [The December 22]
appeal also stated that an additional 25,000 Indonesian troops have arrived in
West Papua since 2000. Also, more than a million Indonesian migrants have been
relocated there, and will soon outnumber the 1.5 million native Papuans. It is
a recipe for disaster for Papuans, who are a loosely organized set of highly
diverse tribal cultures. (West Papua contains 15% of the world's known
languages.) An escalating military operation in the highlands has displaced
more than 6,000 indigenous Papuans over the past few months. These people are
prevented from returning to their sources of food and medicine, and
humanitarian organizations are not allowed access to the area. It is a slow but
steady genocide. The region has virtually been under siege for 40 years, but
governments of developed nations have just recently started to acknowledge
this. Although smaller nations and members of parliaments worldwide have
denounced Indonesia's forced integration of its easternmost "province", on
December 20 the British House of Lords was the first to openly admit that
Papuans were forced into Indonesia against their will. Earlier this month, the
US government extended their human rights-based decision to withhold military
assistance. Efforts over the past few years to establish a "zone of peace" have
failed and the Christmas appeal calls the situation a "time bomb waiting to go
off". Protests have become larger, more frequent, and more violent as Papuans
are pushed to the brink. Sadly, the church groups and their allies are sounding
the trumpet in a world deafened by explosions in the Middle East. They have
tried to warn us before, yet the situation has only deteriorated as a result of
global neglect. It often takes an extreme situation for the Church to speak
out, let alone band together with other denominations. This is a desperate
appeal from desperate people. They cling to the hope that international
pressure will result in a reversal of direction imposed by Indonesia's new
president, [Susilo Bambang] Yudhoyono, who plans to visit December 26. The man
who sang John Lennon's "Imagine" after winning the election three months ago
has expressed his intent to rein in the military. Papuans are hoping he will
take this opportunity to demonstrate a true commitment. As unlikely as many
believe that may be, it is their only hope to see Yuletide peace, and
ultimately to avert a grand-scale disaster.
Tom Benedetti
WestPAN (West Papua Action Network)
Canada (Dec 24, '04)
I find most of the articles written by Ioannis Gatsiounis very biased and
without total understanding of the Malaysians, especially the Muslims in
Malaysia as a whole [No
invite for Jesus to Malaysian Christmas, Dec 23]. His articles about
the poor tolerance of the Malaysians (Muslims) towards other religions are
especially erroneous. And even though he is currently residing in Malaysia, I
don't think that he has actually mingled with Malaysians outside of the urban
area of Kuala Lumpur. His slant of looking at the Malaysian government as being
unfair to other religions other than Islam is very simplistic. Where in the
world (let's take the USA) can little praying temples sprout just about
anywhere except in Malaysia? Certainly not in the USA! However, in Malaysia,
you can find them at construction sites, close to public buildings, under trees
on public land, even in parks. And let's look at the festivities - on radios
and TVs you hear Christmas songs, Christmas shows and offers all the time and
in malls, grand decorations such as huge Christmas trees and lights are being
displayed. In fact I can state for a fact that two years ago in Kuala Lumpur,
when Christmas was celebrated with the Eid celebration (after a month of
fasting by the Muslims), it was almost as grand with Christmas trees and lights
almost overshadowing the Eid festivities and displays. This is despite the fact
that an only a small part of the population (15-20% at the most) is Christian.
If this is not tolerance to the different religions practiced by Malaysians,
please correct me. Furthermore, to state that a slim majority of Malaysians are
Muslim is misleading. Having more than 60% of the population being Muslims is
not a slim majority. Personally, it is indeed a great "to do about nothing"
when writers like him write on issues about Jesus not being invoked during
official ceremony. Jesus has always been revered by the Muslims as one of our
prophets and "Jehovah" is just another name for Allah. The fact that Allah is
invoked during official government ceremonies just reflects that Islam is the
official religion of Malaysia but does not preclude the practice of other
religions. It is disheartening that Ioannis Gatsiounis, who is living in
Malaysia, does not take the time to look at the other side of the coin on this
issue of "religious intolerance in Malaysia".
S Ismail
Malaysia (Dec 23, '04)
[Assad K (letter, Dec 22):] What Amit Sharma has stated [letter, Dec 21] is his
personal view. It's certainly not in history books of India and neither is the
name of Pakistan (1971 is too late, in Indian history Pakistan is not even
mentioned after 1947). I studied history till 10th standard and I don't
remember use of the word "Pakistan" even once. So be assured Indian history is
quite clean (though imperfect) towards Pakistan and Muslims ... Amit Sharma is
accusing the USA because the USA was favoring Pakistan (like the USSR on the
Indian side). But if Osama bin Laden is actually alive either he is in the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border area or in Pakistan (if you don't believe the
gossip of him being in the USA itself). And it's not a wrong assumption that
the Taliban got patronage from ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] and
so does Osama bin Laden. And to Shahab [Mushtaq, letter, Dec 22], trust me,
India still has to arm Nepal (the only Hindu country in the world) with [a]
nuclear weapon. There is no justification for Pakistan supplying nuclear
weapons to North Korea much to the chagrin of the USA just because India pushed
Pakistan for development of nukes. Why not start supplying them to Cuba because
of India? Nukes are not some sweets Pakistan is supplying to everyone because
it's not a signatory of NPT [the Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Some logic - and
please, India still doesn't spend that much on [its] military (the total budget
is not enough to even built a single highway ...). So please don't buy the crap
your administration supplies to you. Make a visit to India and learn it
first-hand.
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Dec 23, '04)
In reply to Assad K (letter, Dec 22): Dismissing any reasoning unpalatable to
oneself as the hyperbole of someone with vested interests is an old trick. The
fact that the US Navy actively protected Pakistani ships carrying troops for
the genocide in Bangladesh (1971) is quite well known - just visit any
Bangladeshi website dedicated to the memory of those who died at the hands of
the Pakistani army. It is not some hyperbole or allegedly biased history
preached in Indian schoolbooks. You know what really is hyperbole? Contending
that B Raman finds the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agencies behind the
ozone hole. A basic Google search using combinations of the keywords
"Bangladesh, genocide, 1971, Pakistan, Kissinger, Nixon, etc" will turn up
plenty of articles that you can happily dismiss as Indian propaganda. In fact a
while back there was a movement among liberals in the US who wanted to bring
Henry Kissinger to trial for war crimes. Among the many atrocities he was held
responsible for aiding/masterminding were the aid given to Pakistan while it
was conducting a genocide in Bangladesh, and the 1975 military coup that
derailed Bangladeshi democracy. Of course Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize,
so that says a lot about the world we live in.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 23, '04)
Daniel McCarthy wrote [letter, Dec 22]: "Taiwan would already have [United
Nations membership] if it had not been run by foreign dictator Chiang
[Kai-shek]." May I remind him that first, Chiang Kai-shek was not "foreign"
because Taiwan was returned to China (then represented by the Republic of
China) after the surrender of the Japanese (by what standard does he consider
Chiang Kai-shek "foreign"?); secondly, Chiang was a dictator supported by the
United States. Hmmm, one would wonder why the US supported a dictatorship ...
As to letter writer Jakob Cambria [Dec 22], who referred to China as "a country
which has very little respect for international law", may I suggest that it was
not China who campaigned hard against the recently [founded] International
Criminal Court (not only did it snub it, the US signed treaties with more than
20 nations giving its citizens immunity from the ICC); it was not China who
balked at the Kyoto Protocol; it was not China who invaded a sovereign state,
Iraq (who knows how many international laws the US broke by invading Iraq),
despite strong opposition from the UN and the international community, and it
is not China who is planning to invade another sovereign state, Iran. Do I need
to go on?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Dec 23, '04)
I assume Daniel McCarthy and Jakob Cambria [letters, Dec 22] are enthusiastic
Bush supporters. It is no surprise then that they are frothing at the mouth
waiting for the green light to bravely turn on CNN and watch evildoers be done
away with. I'm afraid their macho attitude, although quite good for political
campaigns, has no hope of confronting the subtle intricacies of the Taiwan
issue. The mainland [China] and Taiwan must deal with each other openly and
reasonably. This indeed would be the nightmare scenario for American
warmongers, whose thirst for conquest and carnage is still unsated by their
adventures in the Muslim world. I see only two positions on Taiwan, supporting
the status quo or wishing for a dramatic climax to shatter it. Taiwan
separatists and mainland hotheads both can't tolerate the status quo, and they
do have a quite vocal American cheering section. The majority of people in
power on both sides seem to have much more balanced views and are willing to
live with the status quo, despite the loss of exciting CNN coverage of a brutal
civil war, which, let's face it, would have been tremendously entertaining, and
which would have made the whole thing worth it (at least for those reclining
comfortably in their couches in the US). But I do appreciate how much people
like McCarthy and Cambria love their country. That they are willing to make
America hated in the Muslim world, in China, in Europe and almost everywhere
else, and leave this legacy to future generations is quite touching. I just
have one question for them. Do you ever regret that you're too old to fight in
all these wars your hate is sparking, or are you just happy having the luxury
of gambling with lives not your own? I would also like to note that Sohrab
[letter, Dec 22] missed one small point in concluding that the US had not been
aggressive towards Iran in the wake of the 1979 revolution. There was that tiny
bit about supporting and arming Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran. And we all
know what a bloody, evil tyrant Saddam was. How can you blame Iran for taking
so much offense at being bitten by that mad dog, when the US was holding the
leash? Moreover, the revolution was aimed against the brutality, torture and
oppressiveness of the US-installed Pahlavi regime, which may explain the latent
anti-American feeling which was exploited by radical Islamists to take over the
revolution.
G Travan
California, USA (Dec 23, '04)
Jakob Cambria's and Daniel McCarthy's anger towards China's anti-secessionist
initiative reveals the true "moral values" of imperialist America and its
cheerleaders. Both of these Americans react with not-so-concealed outrage that
China has the nerve to pass legislation supporting national integrity.
Apparently, this is a crime in the eyes of a global American empire that has
its meddling interests everywhere. What will China do next? Kick out American
corporations? Pass legislation opposing America's criminal war against Iraq?
LOL. Cambria even claims that this new law is a "warning" to various minorities
in China and reinforces "great Han chauvinism". Hypocrisy also is an
all-American value, as this comment comes from an American whose nation is
based upon a thinly disguised form of white supremacy and the occupation of
native and Mexican lands. Emulating the British and their conniving "divide and
conquer" tactics, Americans like Cambria predictably seek to promote ethnic
disharmony in "disobedient" Third World nations like China - justified by a
piously insincere concern for minority rights. I doubt if Cambria is so
sympathetic to minorities in the USA, like La Raza radicals or Black
Nationalist activists. Most twisted of all are Cambria's and McCarthy's remarks
about China's "imperial pretensions". Last time I checked, it is their American
hyperpower that has committed aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Yugoslavia in the past five years alone - slaughtering [hundreds of thousands]
of people and rationalized by lies that even Pentagon mouthpieces probably
don't believe. This is not to mention the fact that the USA has military
outposts in hundreds of nations around the world (including in Asia) and has a
Bush Doctrine legitimizing American aggression, or "preemption" to use US
Newspeak. Ultimately, Cambria and McCarthy are suffering from a classic
American pathology in which they project America's own imperialist nature on to
its (Third World) opponents. Today America's objects of hate are China and
Islam. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Guaranteed. In the 1980s and early
1990s, it was Japan that the USA demonized as the "Yellow Peril". Now Japan is
touted as America's helpful regional enforcer, with its remilitarization and
"Self-Defense Forces" (sic) occupying Iraq. It was also during the 1980s that
America proclaimed the Afghan jihadists and Mr Osama bin Laden as great freedom
fighters. A decade later, these generous freedom fighters would share some of
this US freedom on [September 11, 2001] with the Twin Towers and Pentagon
attacks. And try as they might, Cambria and McCarthy cannot whitewash away this
tradition of bloody wars and crimes committed by their self-styled "Land of the
Free".
A Quan (Dec 23, '04)
There are many occasions at ATol, white people expressed their desired of
seeing an independent war in East Asia. I had always pointed them out before.
If you want example, check your records. I have no problem with Jakob Cambria
or Daniel McCarthy [letters, Dec 22] expressing their feelings about East Asia.
However, based on their attitude towards Asia, I bet both of them are white.
Shouldn't East Asians' opinions be more important to the life and death of
their loved ones? Instead of repetitively publishing the same opinions from
white people about Asia, your Asian readers would like to read more articles
from Asian writers. I hope your agreement with me on that issue is sincere. We
had enough white men's hypocrisy.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 23, '04)
Wow Frank, someone has put a bug up your backside. Please let everyone know a
few things about yourself. Where are you from? How old are you? Are you an
immigrant in the USA? Or if not, were you born there? If you where born outside
China, have you ever been to China/Taiwan? Do you speak Chinese? Ni shi bu shi
laowai? "Chinese people are no longer living under the guidance of
white men. They have their own ideas and opinions about their own homes. There
is no demand from white men to help out. Chinese can sort out things
themselves." I have been in China for over two years and the Chinese do live in
the past - and this is very detrimental to their societal growth. And they
don't really have their "own" ideas - they are taken from other countries. No
longer living under the guidance of white men - do you mean men like [Karl]
Marx, [Josef] Stalin [and] Lenin ... ? Oh, and if you want to be politically
correct (PC), then you need to say "Caucasian", not "white people", just as you
would have people say "Chinese" and not "yellow people". And what the hell is
"hybrid white"? Beige? And if you think about it (not to be racist in any way -
just factual), if you look at the "developed/prosperous" countries in the
world, it would generally tilt towards those countries whose populations [are]
predominantly Caucasian. The notable exceptions in Asia would be Japan, South
Korea, Hong Kong, and ... mmm ,what else? And all of those have a heavy
"Western" influence. So maybe, just maybe they should consider what these other
"prosperous" countries have done and try to make some adjustments to their own
development plans, instead of outright rejecting everything solely based on the
origin of the idea. By the way, being developed or prosperous has nothing
to do with what color of you skin is - it is the way you think. Oh, one last
thing. As far as you message about "a sign linked Chinese to dogs, slavery of
blacks, genocide of Indians and Pacific aboriginals by white men were century
old. No one was found accountable. No apologies or retributions were made. The
white editors want us to forget about all of that." What do you want me to
do? I know about it, I had nothing to do with it, nor did my parents or their
parents or their parents, etc. I have no responsibility or guilt about what
happened 50-100-plus years ago. I would be mad as hell if anyone - today -
apologized for something that we (people of today) had nothing to do with it.
And reparations - please, I am so tired of hearing this. To whom do we give the
money to? And why should I have to pay? What if a Chinese immigrant has to pay
some tax to pay for reparations? They were not even in the USA when this
happened. Anyone that was victimized by these events has long since passed
away. Remember it, learn from it, but you have to move on. Don't forget,
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao [Zedong]).
Cyrus
China (Dec 23, '04)
I'm wondering if letter writer Ernie Lynch (Dec 22) is trying to emulate
[Ehsan] Ahrari because, Mr Lynch, you did the same thing I complained of in the
article Why Rummy should go. You point out what many people call failures
([and] I call atrocities) of the Bush administration, as did Mr Ahrari, and
then [you] advocated along with Mr Ahrari that Secretary of Defense [Donald]
Rumsfeld stay. Your reason for this is so that the neo-cons don't awaken the
sleeping donkey and thereby are able to continue with their neo-con dynasty.
Guessing again (I hate guessing), your reason and the reason you guess for Mr
Ahrari is that America's conservatives need to stay in power and they need the
incentive of utter and complete downfall under the neo-cons so that the
neo-cons can be overthrown and the Republican Party can be reconstructed? If
so, what would you call this plan? Nation rebuilding, rebuilding nation
rebuilding democracy?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Dec 23, '04)
China's legislative anti-secessionist initiative is indeed a defensive measure
[China's
defensive realism, Dec 22]. For a country which has very little respect
for international law, Beijing's move is going through the motions to save
face. Although Wang Yiwei may surely not agree, it signals that the People's
[Republic of] China has given up on the use of excessive posturing and
bright-red blustering to frighten Taiwan to return to the motherland. It
signifies that Beijing is willing to go through the shadow play of laws, to
gird its loins for future skirmishes in the political arena. Beijing's
saber-rattling has brought a weak, unstable coalition of parties to head the
government in Taipei, and most likely under the aegis of the KMT [Kuomintang].
More than a half-century of separation from the mainland and the protection of
America's military umbrella will make the new law a dead-letter piece of
legislation for Taiwan. The new law will, on the other hand, ring a warning for
the Tibetans, the Uighurs, Hong Kong, and other minorities on the mainland.
China's rapid economic growth has reinforced what Mao [Zedong] would call
"great Han chauvinism". Beijing flexing its military muscles has set Japan on a
course which China may rue. Tokyo will receive former Taiwan's former president
Lee [Teng-hui] with great consideration; it will ultimately encourage movement
towards revision of its peace constitution, and the creation of a standing
army. And a re-militarized Japan will act as a countervailing power in East
Asia, to a China with imperial pretensions. Consequently China's defense of the
integrity of the motherland, points to a regional response which it may not
[have] foreseen, and a rearrangement in the balance of power which it may yet
regret.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 22, '04)
China's
defensive realism by Yiwei Wang [Dec 22] is based on the false premise
that Taiwan is part of China. No one contests the fact that China is the
People's Republic of China. And it is both historical fact and present-day
reality that Taiwan is not now and never has been part of or governed by the
People's Republic of China. As a self-governing entity with all of the indicia
of nationhood except membership in the United Nations (which Taiwan would
already have if it had not been run by foreign dictator Chiang [Kai-shek]),
Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign state. The only advice that I
can offer Yiwei Wang and other "one China" enthusiasts is this: Get used to it.
Also, letter writer Frank's continual chanting of the chorus "Asia for Asians"
is remarkably similar to the slogan used by the Empire of Japan to justify
invasion of multiple Asian countries. Perhaps Frank is trying to prepare us for
another series of invasions by an Asian country. But this time who will be the
invader?
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 22, '04)
[B] Raman: I have been reading your articles in Asia Times [Online] for some
time now and have found them to be generally well written and informative. In
your [Dec 22] article [Khan's
nuclear ghost continues to haunt], you address the issue of Pakistan's
nuclear proliferation once more. At the closing of the article you mention,
"People were told not to take my articles seriously because of my intelligence
background. I was projected as an anti-Pakistan analyst, who misses no
opportunity to have Pakistan discredited." While I don't think that your
articles have been anti-Pakistan as such, I do feel that they neglect a big
part of the overall scenario in the region, namely the role of India in all of
this. Your articles never address the Indian nuclear establishment and weapons
purchases and what their effect has been on Pakistan. There is a direct link
between the development of nuclear weapons in India and their subsequent
development in Pakistan. This no excuse for the proliferation that has
occurred. However, this proliferation has broken no international laws or
treaties that Pakistan is a signatory to. It is not a signatory to the NPT
[Non-Proliferation Treaty] ... similar to India. It can, however, be
legitimately argued that the onus is on India to develop an environment in
which both countries can be free of nuclear weapons. In the past few weeks we
have seen [US Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld visiting India to peddle a
wide range of American military systems and then on the same trip make a trip
to Pakistan to offer them a slightly smaller list of the same weapons systems.
When will the governments of our two countries wake up and see the insanity of
spending billions of dollars on weapons systems that are only going to continue
a never-ending game of one-upsmanship? Both countries have massive social
issues that they need to be addressing and which badly need the resources that
are currently being diverted to support the massive armed forces in both
countries. As someone who has been in the Indian government ... I really
believe that you should work towards advancing a methodology where the two
countries can advance their relations, rather than enhancing the siege
mentality in Pakistan.
Shahab Mushtaq (Dec 22, '04)
Apart from the objective facts of whether or not the A Q Khan network has or
hasn't provided nuclear materials and data to all and sundry, isn't suggesting
that they may have done precisely what the US imperialists want us to do [Khan's
nuclear ghost continues to haunt, Dec 22]? We are providing them with
perfect pretexts to harass all sorts of antagonistic regimes and organizations,
starting with Iran, and this is why they actually do not demand rendition of
Khan to the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency]: he is much more useful where he
is, being used to "authenticate" the desired suspicions against the "usual
suspects".
Rowan Berkeley
London, England (Dec 22, '04)
Re [Korean
sex trade 'victims' strike for rights, Dec 22: Sealing] Cheng's point
about sex workers not necessarily feeling they are victims is not a new one.
Indeed, it has even been claimed that sex work allows some workers to escape
the feeling of victimhood and instead exert some control. These are points made
by others, such as Margo St James, founder of COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired
Ethics) who, during the 1970s in San Francisco, sponsored the yearly Halloween
event The Hookers' Masquerade Ball. COYOTE sought to decriminalize
prostitution. Margo and her coterie preached that a good deal of sex work was
therapeutic for the john, involved role-playing, and was taken seriously in
this regard by the worker. Although Ms Cheng says that prostitution is "only
the expression", not the cause, of the inequalities of social institutions, it
is doubtful if the practice would die out if these institutions were altered.
Something else is involved, something more fundamentally animal. It is not a
question so much of inequalities as of asymmetries of nature that are
complementary.
Gregorio Kelly (Dec 22, '04)
Indrajit Basu (India
and Japan cozy up [Dec 22]) seems to be a little generous to the
Japanese. While I am not defending the Indian government class, the Japanese
might do well to take a moment and reflect [on] the situation in their own
country. I for one would not find [the] Japanese easy to deal with if I was
trying to sell agriculture, textiles or software for instance. Japanese labor
policies or immigration policies are probably no better. In other words, Japan
suffers from similar "red tape" [to what it is] accusing India of. Moreover,
the best example of Indo-Japanese cooperation used, that of Maruti-Suzuki, was
extremely one-sided. The Indian government gave numerous tax advantages only to
Suzuki (to the detriment of local Indian companies) to make this venture
successful. Time has shown that without this largess, this venture might not
[have been] as successful ([compared with] Hyundai or Tata Motors). Where the
government largess was not so generous, the Japanese did not show as much
success (eg Allwyn Nissan, DCM Toyota, HMT Isuzu). The example of Kirloskar
Toyota is noteworthy because this was one example where the Japanese and Indian
partners played to their respective strengths and thus created a win-win
situation. Finally, the rise of low-cost high-quality suppliers of Indian
origin in the steel industry might have served [as] a wake-up call (Tata Steel,
Ispat Group). This two-way partnership is a far cry from the situation when
[Indian prime minister] Indira Gandhi went begging to Tokyo bearing gifts of
Indian elephants called Asha (hope) and Daya (mercy) and good for both
countries.
AP (Dec 22, '04)
Beth Bowden (letter, Dec 21) displays her open Texan candor and declares that
she is missing something after analyzing Ehsan Ahrari's article
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21]. Or perhaps she has been engrossed in
the novel The Da Vinci Code and its ilk. Snickers and guffaws are heard
around the world. Mr Ahrari is not a Freemason but only pointing out the facts
of life to you, child. Recalling Ahrari's previous articles on criticizing the
current US administration foreign policies would lead one to conclude that he
will not get a front-row seat at the upcoming inauguration. On the contrary, he
states that the Iraq operation is a quagmire, thus giving up any chance of
being the new national security adviser. Ahrari tosses you some bones to chew
on like Abu Ghraib knowing very well that only Americans believe that after
they defecate the odor of lilacs fill the stalls. In essence he is saying that
removing [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld will not lift the US out of the
quagmire. Only Rummy has the power and can undo what Rummy has created. A new
secretary of defense will not suggest to the president that we [Americans] cut
our losses and pull out of Iraq. What would the ghost of the Alamo say? This
must be done with stealth and subtlety so the American donkeys will not angrily
awake from their slumbers. After all, Iraq accomplished the first goal of the
Bush administration; get re-elected. With luck, [White House political adviser]
Karl Rove and Syria, we will have the beginnings of a new worldwide neo-con
dynasty. And you will foot the bill. Rumsfeld's failings are similar to [those
of] most egotistical men, he believes that he can safely piss into the wind.
Only when he tires of changing his clothes will the tragic-comedy of Iraq end.
And the easiest way to lower a swamp is to expand it. Americans love parades,
heroes, saving virtuous maidens and spreading freedom through out the world.
So, love, forget the moral of the story and concentrate on the hard, cruel
application of international geopolitics.
Ernie Lynch (Dec 22, '04)
Ehsan Ahrari in
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21] forgot to mention that [the aim of
the] US occupation of Iraq is to plunder the oil resources for the Bush cabal's
benefit. We should not forget [that] the contract to expand Um-Qasr port was
awarded before the invasion began. The invasion was not to remove Saddam
[Hussein,] either. Remember, [US Vice President Richard] Cheney said the Iraq
invasion will not stop even if Saddam leaves. WMD [weapons of mass destruction]
were not found either. Finally, US claims to bring democracy? Yeah, right. If
that was the case, why it did [the Americans] not do it to the friendly regimes
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Egypt or Jordan first? The US
did it to crush Islamic fundamentalists (Wahhabis)? Yeah, right. These are the
same Wahhabis Britain and the US used during World War I to tear apart the
Turkish empire and [they] used the same Wahhabis against the Soviet Union. It
is okay to use them against others to achieve US aims but not against the US.
Wahhabis had the same ideology in 1917 to today. So what has changed? Think
about it. It is the height of hypocrisy, isn't it?
Shab
USA (Dec 22, '04)
I agree that he [US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] should not be removed
from office, at this time [Why
Rummy should not go, Dec 21]. However, I think his physical office
should be moved into the Baghdad Green Zone. Maybe that might make him less
aloof [and] a bit more sensitive to the situation. The cost in Iraqi and
American lives [for] this ill-conceived and poorly planned war is truly
immoral. As a human being and military veteran, it saddens [and] sickens me.
Monroe Pastermack
USA (Dec 22, '04)
The main reason
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21] is that any replacement would likely
be worse.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Dec 22, '04)
Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article
How Iran will fight back [Dec 16] portrays Iran as the victim and US as
the aggressor. This line of logic, although popular with the left and seemingly
most of the world opinion, is not factual. The United States from the very
beginnings of the 1979 revolution has had no intentions of animosity toward
Iran. In fact, given the realities of the Cold War, the formation of a moderate
Islamic Republic was a reasonably welcomed change. It was the aggressive and
hostile moves by the Islamic Republic that created the atmosphere that shaped
the confrontational relationship with the US to date. First Iran violated
international law by forcefully occupying an official embassy of a legitimate
government and taking all of its personnel as hostages. It was the Islamic
Republic [that] escalated the hostage-taking by so-called "students" to a
sanctioned act approved by the "spiritual" leader of the revolution lasting 444
days. IRI [the Islamic Republic of Iran] then consolidated power and hijacked
the entire Iranian revolution by intimidating and eliminating all opposition to
its "Islamic" rule as spies for the "Great Satan". The resulting brutal
militant dictatorship set its lofty goals at destabilizing the region by
exporting revolution and terrorism to enlarge the rule of Islam and eventual
liberation of Jerusalem and destruction of Israel. Of course nowadays the
Islamic Republic's external image has been softened by a more pragmatic and
economically entrenched ruling elite which has a lot to lose. But the same
drive to portray the US as the Great Satan is shown every day in Iran. The
"revolutionaries" still march to chants of "death to USA" and US-flag burning.
Iranian TV is filled with anti-US propaganda. The lesson of consequences for
actions should not be lost on the irresponsible ways the Islamic Republic has
acted for 25 years. The ruling elite of the Islamic Republic has made its own
bed and now must sleep in it.
Sohrab
USA (formerly of Iran) (Dec 22, '04)
I read with much interest Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article
How Iran will fight back [Dec 16], but I believe that he missed a key
(and largely undiscussed) element of Iran's arsenal that he may not be privy
to, namely the Russian "Sunburn" missile. This is a weapon that naval power has
no known defense for, and I believe it will prove most pivotal if an attack on
Iran is prosecuted ...
Peter (now a regular online reader) (Dec 22,
'04)
Your article by Alan Boyd
ASEAN, China all smiles for now [Dec 3] was illuminating - not for its
insight, but for inadvertently revealing the insecurity which Anglo-American
imperialists fear with regional integration in Asia in particular and the end
of the unipolar American world in general. Like much of ATol's coverage, Boyd
displays a thinly disguised hostility to the idea of an (Asian) regional bloc
not subservient to traditional Anglo-American imperial "leadership" from
Washington, DC, or its Australian henchman. Boyd at [one] point frets that
China will replace American ascendancy in the region due to US troop
withdrawals, "preoccupation with counter-terrorism", or "Asian backlash over
the mishandling of the Iraqi and Afghan military interventions". This statement
is pure Anglo-American propaganda and euphemism. The Anglo-American-led "war on
terrorism" itself is a big lie and has nothing to do with terrorism but rather
control over energy resources (like in the Caspian Basin or Middle East) and
strategic encirclement of strategic competitors like Russia and China. In fact,
the USA and its allies have used their phony war on terrorism to increase troop
deployments in Central Asia, Pakistan, and Southeast. Asia no less. Secondly,
the backlash against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is not because of
their "mishandling" but because they are wars of aggression. You have a hard
time admitting the fact of Anglo-American aggression or even using this "A"
word, don't you? Boyd even suggests that ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian
Nations] free-trade agreements with China will make it "an economic subjugate
of Beijing", Once again, Boyd reveals his paranoia and warped world view. The
true economic subjugation in not only Asia but around the world is the
capitalist free-market system that the USA and First World attempt to impose
through "international" organizations like the IMF [International Monetary
Fund], World Bank, and WTO [World Trade Organization]. Indeed, the
US-controlled IMF has been used to enforce the Washington Consensus on ASEAN
nations like the Philippines and loot it accordingly. You should read John
Perkins' new book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which documents
the literally murderous nature of Boyd's beloved Anglo-American world order and
its free-market system in particular. Let's see if ATol or Boyd has the guts to
answer the damning charges documented in this book, which has created quite a
stir in the USA.
DP (Dec 22, '04)
Granted, Amit Sharma [letter, Dec 21] validly questions [letter writer Hamdan
Azhar] Yousuf's assertion of B Raman being anti-Islamic by virtue of his
articles. It certainly can't be denied that whether talking about terrorism in
Delhi or the hole in the ozone layer, Mr Raman finds the long arm of the ISI
[Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] behind it all (personally, I feel he's
just an article or two away from stating that Osama bin Laden is in the
gardener's cottage of Army House in Rawalpindi), but it's a bit of a stretch to
go from that to the broader anti-Islamic accusation. That said, I found Mr
Sharma's statement that the US Navy was actively defending Pakistan naval troop
carriers steaming from Karachi to Dhaka quite fascinating. I'm not sure if this
is the same sort of hyperbole that Mr Yousuf was engaging in or an accurate
reflection of history as taught in India (if the latter, I feel reassured that
it's not just in Pakistan that we have a remarkably unique view of history).
Assad K
Cleveland, Ohio (Dec 22, '04)
I agree with Y J Wu [letter, Dec 21] that the ATol editor should not debate
with readers in the Letters section. I do not think that is ethical behavior.
To answer Y J Wu's question honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough to speak
for all Asians. There are many people who live in Asia who do not call
themselves Asians. Other Asian people I failed to mention in this letter and
calling themselves Asians should speak up for themselves. The Asians I am
familiar with are the people [who have lived] in East Asian countries for
thousands of years. Asia is their homes, their roots, their history and their
souls. They have affections, feelings and opinions about their own homes. Many
of them are just like you [and] can speak and write good English. There is no
need for white people to be their spokespersons, protectors, behavior advisers,
or masters. Historically, white men would not provide protections for Asians.
Whenever there was a war, white protectors were the first to leave the
battlefield. Asians were the ones left to be slaughtered and to provide buffers
for whites to escape. East Asians would rather be their own masters.
Noticeably, all of them had those opium dealers and occupiers kicked out of
their land. Not too many of them at ATol would like to wage an independence war
in East Asia. Strangely, most of those people who are promoting wars in the
peaceful East Asia at Asia Time Online are white. Do we have to tolerate that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 22, '04)
You wouldn't, if it were true, but it is a figment of your imagination - unless,
of course, you can offer an example of an Asia Times Online article that has
advocated war in East Asia. Note the word "advocated", which does not mean
"failed to parrot the Beijing line on Taiwan". - ATol
The letter of Hamdan Azhar Yousuf (Dec 20) reveals a great problem of Muslim
elites today. These Muslim elites pursued Westernized, liberal education for
them, and grabbed all jobs [and] vacancies in the government [and] private
sectors in their countries. Many of them have gone to the West and become
successful, like Mr Yousuf himself. But they systematically organized a
second-grade, underfunded, inferior educational system with antique syllabus (madrassas)
for the poor masses. There is a "soul" inside the mujahideen of [Pakistan's]
tribal northwest, which had equal ability to be successful like Mr Yousuf. But
it's the criminal statecraft, coupled with the Muslim elite, who has sent them
to those roads. Why was a single educational system not developed in Pakistan?
Mr Yousuf talks about the Indian-American alliance now. Where was Mr Yousuf
when leader after leader, army generals of Pakistan, actively cooperated with
America and China to bring harm to India? Did they understand they sold the
"Islamic spirit" of Pakistan [down] the drain, and pocketed money for
themselves and their families? Mr Yousuf's letter proves that there are no
greater evildoers to the poor Muslim masses than their own elite. To perpetuate
their hegemony, these elites take the name of Islam, which was largely a great
religion.
Bhaskar Chattopadhyay
Bridgeport, Connecticut (Dec 22, '04)
Ehsan Ahrari writes in regard to the crime at Abu Ghraib in his article
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21]: "No one wants to admit it, but a
great body of American decision-makers is responsible for it - some by being
direct party to it, but a whole lot of others by either remaining silent or by
tepidly criticizing it. The punishment of the soldiers at the lowest level is a
gross under-implementation of justice, and a sorry example of ensuring that the
'big enchiladas' largely remain free of blame. In this instance, the denial of
justice has also become a wholesale commitment of injustice." Then Mr Ahrari
concludes his article with his opinion that [US Defense Secretary Donald]
Rumsfeld should stay and complete the job in Iraq. One of us, Mr Ahrari, has
not imbibed enough coffee or tobacco to think clearly. If it is myself, then I
can only guess that I am missing something. I naively hope that the something I
am missing is a desire on the part of Mr Ahrari for Rumsfeld to assist
[President George W] Bush in hanging themselves with their own rope. If I don't
perceive his article as a secret message to those who hope for the sanity of
American vision, then I can only perceive it to have been written with the
intent of perpetuating the false hopes of the Bush supporters who think America
has anything to gain by the invasion of Iraq. If the latter is the case, Mr
Ahrari cannot be helped by imbibing more coffee and tobacco. If the former is
the case, then I would encourage Mr Ahrari to keep himself better stocked in
coffee and tobacco so that his writings can continue on in their normal fashion
of lucidity and fluidity. If Mr Ahrari is interested in writing in a subtle
fashion which few have the knack for but can be a great read, I suggest he take
some creative-writing classes which will teach him how to make the subtle
points stand out like a sore thumb.The bottom line is, doesn't Mr Ahrari
realize that the citizens of the world have enough guesswork to do without
having to guess at the meaning of articles meant to inform?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Dec 21, '04)
Why does Israel sell weapons to China to the detriment of the US [US
up in arms over Sino-Israeli arms ties, Dec 21]? Is not the US the
biggest, best friend Israel has ever had (next to God, of course)? Think
strategically! While the current US administration is very pliable in Israeli
hands, the same might not be said of all future US administrations. A unipolar
world is not in Israeli interests, as a global hegemon may one day compel a
dour peace between Israeli and Palestinian - and the lion most certainly
doesn't want to lie with the lamb. Whereas a multipolar world order - probably
a triumvirate of the US, Europe and China - would not dare jeopardize itself
merely to save the Palestinians. So kill two birds with one stone. Finish off
Iran: in one swoop weakening the US, eliminating a dangerous nuclear adversary,
and ensuring a multipolar triumvirate. All roads lead to Tehran ...
Merry Christmas
Santa Clausewitz
Canada (Dec 21, '04)
After reading Spengler's
Santa Clausewitz, a minor Chinese god [Dec 21], I found the closest
American colleague nearby and got down on my knees and told him: "O my great
American friend, I owe my life to you!" Spengler reminded me that China owes
everything to the United States, [that] China would be nothing if not for the
greatest country in the world - America. So I would like to suggest that all
Chinese (1.3 billion of them) all get down on their knees to show their
gratitude toward the great, great United States. Next time when the US invades
China, I am sure the Chinese will not resist - why would they resist their
American saviors? After all, the Chinese are a bunch of low-lifes without the
United States, right? The Chinese will give up their houses and their wealth as
a small token of appreciation so that the American soldiers will have a place
to stay at night [and] have money to spend on armoring their Humvees. Yeah,
right! One suggestion for my dear American friend Spengler, though: Take
Economics 101 and Introduction to Finance at your local community college, pick
up a book on the WTO [World Trade Organization] and find out what free trade
means.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Dec 21, '04)
Two articles of opposite opinions from two mainland Chinese, Li YongYan from
China [Anti-secession
bill reveals China's fears] and Zhiqun Zhu from the USA [Secession
bill shows China's wisdom, both Dec 21], indicate that China is no
longer living in the past. Chinese people are no longer living under the
guidance of white men. They have their own ideas and opinions about their own
homes. There is no demand from white men to help out. Chinese can sort out
things themselves. They do not want to rash [sic] things in the same way white
people prefer them to do. Eventually, they will be there. Give them some time
for the sake of peace, would you?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 21, '04)
I have only one question in response to Frank, and if he can answer it to the
satisfaction of all of Asia Times [Online's] readers, I think you should stop
responding to his letters. It is this: What is an Asian?
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Dec 21, '04)
On China's pending anti-secession law, Li YongYan has again found something to
cast Beijing in an unfavorable light [Anti-secession
bill reveals China's fears, Dec 21]. He hinted that the law revealed
China's fear. He used the word "fear", but the latter was actually better
suited for Taiwan. I still recall the late Chou En-lai's warnings before the
Korean War and also the India war. When fundamental national principles are
involved, grave warnings should not be taken lightly. Earlier this month the
voters in Taiwan came to their senses and refused to give the pan-green camp
[coalition led by the Democratic Progressive Party] a majority in the
legislature. China is right in going one step further in giving one final
warning to the "pro-independence" or secessionist group.
David (Dec 21, '04)
Hamdan Azhar Yousuf (letter, Dec 20) has criticized B Raman [for] being
anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam in his [Dec 18] article [Bin
Laden: An open letter], going so far as to say "because whenever you
attack Pakistan, it is evident to us all that your real attack is on Islam, as
Pakistan is only a manifestation of the Islamic spirit". I have read plenty of
articles by B Raman and I have found that his criticism is always reserved for
the military establishment of Pakistan, which maintains a perpetual
state of war/terrorism for its own benefit. This is not the same as criticizing
the people/culture of Pakistan, and definitely not the same as attacking Islam.
For you to claim an almost direct mathematical relationship of military
dictatorship of Pakistan = Pakistan = Islam is pretty ridiculous. For your
information, the Republic of Pakistan has almost nothing to do with Islam. As
late as 1947 (the year India and Pakistan were created) the Muslim League, the
political party credited with establishing a homeland for Muslims where they
would be free from Hindu domination, was trying to bargain a trade with India:
they wanted to swap Muslim-majority East Bengal (now Bangladesh) for the rich
agricultural region of East Punjab. So even before it came into being Pakistan
was trying to trade away 60% of its Islamic population for a prime piece of
land. Subsequent mistreatment of East Bengal caused it to break away in 1971 -
the Pakistani army slaughtered up to 3 million people in trying to suppress
this independence movement. I don't know what India-US alliance you are talking
about, but the US Navy actively protected Pakistani ships bringing troops for
this genocide from being attacked by the Indian navy. If this is the Islamic
spirit that you claim Pakistan is a manifestation of, then you seriously need
to educate yourself about true Islam.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 21, '04)
Looks like the emissary of Osama bin Laden has spoken. I'm referring to Hamdan
Azhar Yousuf's letter (Dec 20) to ATol in response to B Raman's article
Bin Laden: An open letter (Dec 18). Rather than read and look at the
facts as to the present situation in the Islamic republics, Hamdan Yousuf goes
on to paint the Muslims as the victims. Haven't we all seen that somewhere
before, particularly with Kashmiri Muslims and yet another champion of the
Muslim cause, Saleem Shahzad? Amazing, these people come out of the woodwork in
the defense of these poor victims, every time without fail. Now let's analyze
this. Who is to blame when these brainwashed Muslims blindly follow many of
these Saudi Wahhabi-indoctrinated mullahs who preach nothing but hate and if
[they] die for "the cause" they are promised paradise hereafter? Then there are
the state/religion (yes, no separation there) sponsored schools (madrassas)
in these Islamic republics ... In Pakistan this has pretty much taken over
basic education, as there is no state-sponsored education system. Most of the
national budget goes to fund the military, mullahs and corrupt politicians and
very little is left for anything constructive. These schools, with ready
manpower and funded by the Saudis, continue to graduate young people to hate
Kafirs and send young men to fight in India and other parts of the globe. I'm
told that this problem is also growing in many of the coastal towns of India
(Mr Raman, can you tell us more about this growing problem in India?). Now the
educated ones like Mr Yousuf, rather than condemn these fanatics in Pakistan,
[have] come out attacking the messenger. Next, Mr Yousuf goes further to call
the Indian Muslims to jihad in India, precisely what the Pakistani ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] wants and has been covertly supporting since
partition. I wonder if he [has] the same solution in mind right here in the
USA. I think the Indian Muslims know better - they have seen their brethren
getting killed every day in Pakistan in the name of Islam, and if you notice,
they have not been involved in any of the terror activities around the world. B
Raman, keep up the good work ... It's time somebody stood up and called the
Pakistan (ISI)-Osama bin Laden-Taliban nexus for what it is: a web of terror.
M Ramnath
San Francisco, California (Dec 21, '04)
B Raman's article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] speaks for what B Raman is worth. Peter
Bergen is a so-called expert on terrorism who has been projected by neo-cons
and Bushites for their resource grab of Third World countries. Bergen is as
lousy an expert as [Daniel] Pipes is. They have less intelligence than a
10th-grader in [a] developed country ... I have read enough of Bergen, Pipes
and Raman. Looks like they are all prejudiced against Muslims ... not just
[Osama] bin Laden. Read their articles and figure it out yourself.
Shab
USA (Dec 21, '04)
The article on the Saudi government response to the latest terror attacks in
the kingdom and their response to anti-government demonstrations [House
of Saud shows its colors, Dec 18] was excellent. The author rightly
[says] that the failure to reform and give people more freedom to voice their
opinion against the government will lead to more bin Ladens turning up. This
[Osama] bin Laden may be captured, but unless there is a process of reform and
giving more civil rights to the people, the problem of terrorism and extremism
will not go away. It will continue to haunt the nation and the world forever.
Ramya Shyam (Dec 21, '04)
I have heard it said that this is the "age of non-nuance" - "nuance" being a
resonance and consequence of actual thought. J W McGill [letter, Dec 20] writes
a string of superficial name-callings - but no refutations - of whatever it is
to which he objects in
Evildoers, here we come [Dec 17]. Amid that he asserts: "Every sentence
of it was totally [nothing can be 'total' unless perfect] wrong or an
anti-American propaganda lie." Mr McGill: The US, not being perfect, is
imperfect; being imperfect, it is therefore properly subject to criticism;
criticism of the US is not "totally" and forever and always and in every
instance "anti-American". Either you have yet to learn of the First Amendment
to the US constitution - it protects unpopular speech (indicating that such is
not "anti-American") - or you oppose it, and all speech which is not your own,
or in "total" agreement therewith. None of that is obscured or obviated by your
arrogant, chest-thumping boasting of having nothing but contempt for not only
what the US tells the world it represents, but for the rule of law itself.
Being a loud-mouthed bully, Mr McGill, is being "Neanderthal". You then repeat
the current fodder yelled at the world by fake Fox "news" and its brethren in
the unevidenced hate-speech industry: "[President George W] Bush is very
popular [among his gullible True Believer supporters], most Americans believe
in what our armed forces are doing in the Middle East [so long as they are
denied the facts about actual conditions there, including the US's war crimes,
and its negligence as concerns the lives and limbs of its own troops], our
forces are in no way strained [contrary to which nonsense are the statements by
Republican Senators (Chuck) Hagel and (John) McCain - both of whom are, unlike
Bush, actual, not fake, veterans - and such generals as (Norman) Schwarzkopf
and (Anthony) Zinni], Iraq is succeeding and is not a quagmire [keep your
fingers crossed while whistling by the graveyard, contrary to the statements of
the actual conditions by even some neo-con(artists)], Afghanistan is a great
success [primarily for those in the heroin trade], and we look forward to
remodeling the entire fetid slum that is the Arab/Muslim world" - by what right
does one country, the US, impose its will, contrary to the will of the majority
in the world, on one or more other countries? In law one only finds prohibition
of such anti-democratic bullying - "and turning it into a civilized and
trustworthy [in keeping with anti-American and rule of law Torturer-in-Chief
Bush and his War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory?] neighbor." So long as the
Arab/Muslim world has no say in the matter, eh, lover of freedom and democracy
and liberty? When will you be enlisting, and demanding to be sent to Iraq so
you can put your conviction where your mouth is? "This may take a while," you
continue, "but we have a good start" - even though wholly in contempt for and
violation of US and international law - "and the job needs doing desperately."
And who "hired" the US to illegally invade and occupy Iraq, a country which had
never threatened and was no threat to the US? That is a central question, Mr
McGill; you ignore that as consistently as you ignore both the rule of law and
the fact that democracy cannot exist without it. No matter the lies painted on
its face, Mr McGill, your anti-American totalitarianism gives you away.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 21, '04)
A few points on [Kaveh] L Afrasiabi's article [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16] and on the readers' comments. Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan, and to a good extent Uzbekistan, are unlikely to be one of the
staging grounds for a hypothetical attack on Iran as Russian and, slowly,
Chinese influence in these countries - and a certain rapprochement between
Russia and Uzbekistan, with Chinese participation - exert a positive,
stabilizing influence on these states and allow them leverage in dealing with
and resisting the US, so they don't become an appendage to aggressive American
policy and end up kowtowing to the latter's interests, as the "coalition of the
willing" members are doing now in the Iraq debacle. I'm not aware of any US
bases in Azerbaijan, so unless Afrasiabi might know something secret, there are
no US bases in the Caucasus at all so far, therefore the military-political map
in the article is incorrect. If a major attack came it would be from the west
and south of Iran: neither Azerbaijan nor the Central Asian countries are at
all willing to submit to US interests, especially given Russian and Chinese
political and economic presence. Iran has some influence in Tajikistan and
Azerbaijan; both countries have Russian bases on their territory and receive
several billion dollars a year from their workers in Russia. Overall I agree
with Afrasiabi's emphasis on Iran turning to the relative panacea of missile
technology. Among the many differences between attack on Iraq and possible
aggression against Iran is that with a certain number of submarines as well as
anti-ship missiles and coastal defenses, Iran can blockade and disrupt a large
share of the military and tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf and in the Strait
of Hormuz. It is also manufacturing Konkurs, a potent anti-tank missile. Though
Iran probably would benefit from more than just a couple of the Russian-made
S-300 air defense batteries as well as Pantsyr and Tunguska close-range and
low-level air-defense systems, a worthy arsenal of short- and medium-range
missiles can have a very sobering influence on potential aggressors. It is
still a question, however, whether the US is seriously considering an attack on
Iran, given the quagmire in Iraq. Invasion and conquest of the large and
populous Iran is hardly a realistic scenario. Selective air strikes and
cruise-missile strikes will not do, since Iran actually has the means to reply
in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Dec 21, '04)
One doesn't often find articles on military preparedness and strategy written
by political-science teachers. [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi's article [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16] clearly demonstrates why this is the
case. If the day ever comes when it will be necessary to eliminate a nuclear
threat from Iran, it will be done entirely by naval and air forces, after the
Iranian air defenses are suppressed. To suggest that the Iranian army would
play a role is preposterous. Mr Afrasiabi might just as well argue that
Napoleon [Bonaparte] could have defeated [Horatio] Nelson at Trafalgar if he
had only sent the army rather than the navy.
Patrick West, DSc
Toronto, Ontario (Dec 21, '04)
[B Raman:] I read with much dismay your [article] in Asia Times [Online] in
response to [Osama] bin Laden's latest tape [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]. In lieu of addressing the content of
his message, you rather take the opportunity to further bash the Pakistani
government. After, as you mention, 29 tapes of bin Laden's having been
released, is that all you can talk about? That Pakistan must be complicit in
bin Laden's activities? Surely there are more important issues we must discuss,
first and foremost, that this is not about bin Laden at all. This is about a
growing number of [disfranchised] frustrated young Muslims who have responded
to the growing persistence of anti-Islamism with explosive violence. These are
the cadres of the Islamic movement, which can no longer be ignored by us as
academics. Nor can we dismiss this group, millions strong, as being madrassa-educated
(also blame that on Pakistan), ignorant fanatics. I would truly wish that as an
officer of the Indian government, with such a large Muslim population in your
own country, you would be more respectful of Islam. Because whenever you attack
Pakistan, it is evident to us all that your real attack is on Islam, as
Pakistan is only a manifestation of the Islamic spirit. As America learned to
its dismay, what we must keep our eye on is this subclass of young Muslim men,
and how to alleviate the conditions which facilitate their growing hatred for
the West. Even your own country will derive no benefit from its American
alliance if the 200 million-strong Muslim minority of India revolts.
Hamdan Azhar Yousuf
Department of Economics
Pennsylvania State University (Dec 20, '04)
Re Bin
Laden: An open letter by B Raman ... Is it possible that it is better
for Bush and Co to have Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on the loose running
around in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc than captured? Looking at all of the
intelligence failures preceding [September 11, 2001], one wonders. Also, for a
long time, I have been thinking that it is a mistake for the US to be propping
up Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. I think the short-term gains
of this policy will be overshadowed by far more severe problems down the line.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: Who says either the US or Pakistani government wants to catch
[Osama] bin Laden [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]? He is the best probable hypothesis both
the US (read [President George W] Bush and his party) and Pakistan (read
[President General Pervez] Musharraf) need to execute their agenda. It also is,
to say the least, to determine if either of these two leaders [is] going to
exist in the long run. History is a great teacher but has so far spectacularly
failed to teach a bunch of bad students, viz leaders of the US and Pakistan.
They have repeatedly played with a live fire - religious fundamentalism - which
in my opinion is going to burn the whole world some day. Do you really believe
Hamid Gul and so on do not know where these al-Qaeda leaders are living (I
intentionally refrained from using the term "hiding")? If you do, you are the
most naive person on the face of Earth. And both the US and Pakistani
governments are absolutely aware of these facts. Actually I would have thought
they are actively giving him protection so that the the current US and
Pakistani regimes survive for the time being. Be it a messy atmosphere in the
Middle East and oil production and pricing remain within US control, be it a
messy world and arms production and pricing remain within US control. Or be it
sectarian violence, ghost of the Indian army etc etc. This is a classical
marriage of convenience for both the US and Pakistan, albeit very inconvenient
for the rest of the world. Be sure of this menace of bin Laden hanging over us
at least till he outlives his renal failure or the news of his death does not
percolate to the world media. Also be sure another ghost will appear when bin
Laden dies ...
Sanjay Sen (Dec 20, '04)
[B Raman:] You Indians take every opportunity to attack Pakistan. [In] your
article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] in Asian Time Online, you tried to tie
up [a relationship] between [Osama] bin Laden and ISI [the Pakistani
Inter-Services Intelligence]. For your kind information, [bin] Laden has direct
relations with [US President George W] Bush and he also has a business
relationship with Mr Bush and company. So go and check the White House, you may
find Mr bin Laden inside. Please come out of your hatred against Pakistan for
no reason. Just to inform you, I am not Pakistani nor have I any love for those
idiotic [Pakistanis] who love to kill their own people in some of their
provinces and a city called Karachi or something like that.
CECSJ (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: I found your article
Bin Laden: An open letter (Dec 18) ... very impressive and I am very
excited to find you lambasting the Pak ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] and
[its] allied agencies [for] helping [Osama] bin Laden. You rightly pointed out
the modalities and partial attitude of Pak ISI in letting bin Laden followers
live free and do [whatever they] wish with [ISI's] support. I will not be
surprised in future [if], as you said, "another catastrophe overtakes the US".
Thanks for the valuable article and I will keep following your articles.
Dr Suresh (Dec 20, '04)
According to [B] Raman, the American intelligence agencies or other
intelligence agencies consciously close [their] eyes to the trail [of Osama bin
Laden] and do not keep asking the right questions to find the truth; the truth
is nobody in Pakistan wants to stop and search serving and retired ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] officers, who are the couriers of the al-Qaeda
tapes [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]. I see another possibility here. The
Americans and the Pakistanis want to keep prolonging the time before they would
track the source of the tapes, eventually leading to the capture of the No 1
terrorist in the world. The Bush administration has maintained, however
unrealistic it may be, that [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein was in cahoots
with bin Laden in the promotion of world terrorism. A bin Laden in hiding,
periodically releasing video and audio tapes, is an excuse to keep the Iraq war
going till a result favorable to the USA is achieved. [US President George W]
Bush's goal is to install democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
capture of bin Laden at this time would be an anticlimax and initiate an
extensive call for the immediate termination of the war.
Giri Girishankar (Dec 20, '04)
The article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] by B (The Matrix) Raman was hilarious. I
love his thinking (or lack of) process. I wonder, if he [were] prevented from
writing anything anti-Pakistan, how often [would] we see his articles on ATol.
Keep us all laughing, "The One".
A Shabbir
Sydney, Australia (Dec 20, '04)
Whenever Indians write about Pakistan, their hatred spews into their writing. A
case in point is the series by the Indian journalist Sultan Shahin about Azad
Kashmir (Free Kashmir) or Pakistani Kashmir, which is as usual woefully short
on facts and full of propaganda [Across the Divide
Part 3: Gilgit Valley searches for identity, Dec 18]. I would not argue
here about his propaganda tactics but ... would like to point out some facts
which he misrepresented or conveniently ignored. There is an elected assembly
in Pakistani Kashmir which has executive powers. The Kashmir Council comprises
the elected official of Kashmir and nominees of Pakistan. No decision of the
Kashmir assembly has ever been overturned by the Kashmir Council. The
bureaucracy in Pakistani Kashmir is not on deputation from Pakistan. The
federal government of Pakistan nominates only the chief secretary, as is the
procedure in the provinces of Pakistan. All the other members of the
bureaucracy are nominees of the Kashmir government. People of Pakistani Kashmir
cannot take their grievances to the Pakistani Supreme Court because according
to the Pakistani constitution, Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan and cannot be
so until a UN-sponsored referendum is held in the whole of Kashmir to ascertain
the will of the Kashmiri people regarding which country they want to join, as
per UN resolutions. Therefore, Pakistani Kashmir has its own supreme court.
There are some political parties in Pakistani Kashmir who advocate a united
Kashmir becoming a separate country. They have full political freedom to
operate, as is evident from Sultan Shahin's report, and in spite of the
so-called clause of allegiance to Pakistan, they have always participated in
elections and have always been comprehensively defeated by the people. The two
most popular political parties, the Muslim Conference and the People's Party,
both advocate accession to Pakistan and as their clear electoral support
suggests, this is also the view of the people. Only those Kashmiris are not
allowed to vote or hold elected office in Pakistan who maintain an exclusive
residence in Kashmir, which makes sense as Kashmir is constitutionally not a
part of Pakistan. Still, any Kashmiri is free to reside in Pakistan and then
register as a voter there, as most Kashmiris actually do. This way they get the
same rights in Pakistan as other Pakistanis. Even today, the Speaker of the
Pakistani National Assembly is a Kashmiri. On the other hand, Pakistanis are
not allowed to have a permanent residence in Pakistani Kashmir or to vote or
hold any office there nor can they buy any property in Pakistani Kashmir. When
talking about the Northern Areas, the writer has conveniently forgotten to
mention that the Northern Areas Council is an elected body whose members are
chosen by votes of the people of these areas and the chief executive of the
Northern Areas is elected by this council. It is common knowledge that people
of the Northern Areas do not like to be amalgamated with Pakistani Kashmir and
have strongly resisted any such efforts in the past. Sultan Shahin has a right
to propagate his viewpoint and maybe even to reflect his biases in his
writings, but he certainly has no right to twist the facts.
Ahmed Zaheer
Islamabad, Pakistan (Dec 20, '04)
I just waded through the hip-deep pile of manure titled
Evildoers, here we come [Dec 17]. I have to admit I found it
entertaining, but only because every sentence of it was totally wrong or an
anti-American propaganda lie. It amused me to imagine the Neanderthals who
might actually believe this drivel. As disheartening as it is for Muslims and
other enemies of the US to believe, President [George W] Bush is very popular,
most Americans believe in what our armed forces are doing in the Middle East,
our forces are in no way strained, Iraq is succeeding and is not a quagmire,
Afghanistan is a great success, and we look forward to remodeling the entire
fetid slum that is the Arab/Muslim world and turning it into a civilized and
trustworthy neighbor. This may take a while, but we have a good start, and the
job needs doing desperately. We are not going to quit until the job is done,
thanks to [Osama] bin Laden and his supporters.
J W McGill (Dec 20, '04)
The letter by Arturo Giraldez (Dec 17) expresses disagreement, based on the
reality of the current US and world situation, with the predictions of Pepe
Escobar's article (Evildoers,
here we come, Dec 17). My question is this: Since what moment has the
current regime in the USA paid any attention to reality, common sense, respect,
truth, civil rights, morality, human life, treaties, or any other trait
associated with honor and decency?
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Dec 20, '04)
[Re] Jim Lobe's
Neo-cons on the road to Damascus (Dec 17): An old and common Arab
saying is becoming the most perceptive comment regarding the United States of
America's actions that took the title of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the
further adventures that the neo-cons are at the present promoting. Given what
has been happening in Iraq, from Abu Ghraib to the destruction of Fallujah, the
legalization of a puppet government, the continued death and destruction, the
cost to the US alone estimated now around $4 billion a month and record federal
deficits, one is hard put to justify any further shock-and-awe operations under
the guise of liberation and freedom. The ongoing attacks on Donald Rumsfeld
might be caused not by the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq but by possibly his
reticence to march into Damascus and his refusal to approve an Israeli nuclear
attack on Teheran. Whatever the real reasons might be, that old Arab adage says
it best when it states, "It's much easier to lead a donkey up a minaret than it
is leading it down."
Armand De Laurell (Dec 20, '04)
This refers to your Pakistan correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad's article
Why the general begs to differ [Dec 17] ... Please don't be tempted and
carried away by the conjecture that every general, cricketer or celebrity in
Pakistan could be brilliant, intelligent and successful in politics too ...
Pakistan's 57 years history is witness that 99% of its politicians and leaders
are dishonest, opportunists, covetous, complacent, inconsiderate ...
hypocrites, crooks and incompetent. They have proved by their character and
actions that they entered the political arena with some personal agenda and
always preferred personal gains and benefits over national issues and did not
mind for a moment if the country suffered irreparable loss [because of] their
behavior. General (retired) Aslam Beg, Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan,
cricketer Imran Khan, former president Farooq Khan Laghari and so on are a few
who entered Pakistani politics with personal agendas and even after 10-15-20
years could not even win a single national or provincial assembly seat because
people never liked them. These leaders ... even after two to three decades
could not give one solid program for the poor people of Pakistan other than
empty slogans and hollow statements in the media. For me it's not a problem but
I am feeling sorry for your paper, which is not only wasting space online but
bringing a mediocre name to your prestigious paper by printing interviews of
people like General Aslam Beg. Please tell your correspondent if he has nothing
to write, he could go to hoi polloi of any locality in Karachi or any
other part of the country and take an interview of a rickshaw driver or
push-cart man and know what difficulties he and his family face every day for
their survival. Pakistan is a hub of problems and your correspondent might need
1,000 years life to cover those miseries and injustices prevailing in the
society ...
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Dec 20, '04)
ATol keeps getting better and better. I really enjoyed Professor Kaveh L
Afrasiabi's lucid analysis of the way Iran might deal with an American/Israeli
attack on its military and industrial infrastructure [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16]. If this level of clear-headedness and
intelligence pervades the Iranian leadership, Iran will be an enormously
influential country in the not very distant future. Anyhow, I'm confused on one
aspects of his analysis. Given the anomalous (indeed bizarre, if one factors in
the Christian-Zionists) influence of Israeli-Jewish interests on American
foreign policy, why would Iran not target predominantly, or even exclusively,
Israel during such a confrontation? The way I see it this strategy would have
the following psychological and practical consequences: It would mobilize the
vast influence of well-endowed political lobbies and their surrogates in the
mainstream American media (eg the Wall Street Journal, Fox and others) in
averting a conflict in which Israel may actually get fatally mauled. After all,
while the limited conventional and nuclear capabilities of Iran are unlikely to
provide much deterrence against a rampaging superpower like the USA, how many
nuclear strikes (in theory, of course) could a small country like Israel
sustain before it passes forever out of history? One, two? It's unfortunate,
but it has to be admitted that the current American leadership is a clear and
present danger to world civilization. Other countries will have to sooner or
later face it down using its own chosen weapons.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Dec 20, '04)
Re How
Iran will fight back (Dec 16) by Kaveh Afriasabi: There is a certain
arrogance and presumption in the claim that Iran will "fight back". Iran does
not need to "fight back". It is already committing aggression in Lebanon, Gaza,
Iraq and a wide variety of other places throughout the world. Iran is the
principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been using surrogates
to kill Americans, Israelis, Arabs and others ever since the present Tehran
regime came into power two-and-one-half decades ago. Moreover Tehran's secret
nuclear-weapons program is directed not simply against Western interests but
once it comes into effect will have considerable blackmailing power over its
[Persian] Gulf and other neighbors. Iran's posture, in short, is falsely
presented as "defensive". One other warning word. Iranian conventional forces
would oppose no real threat to a - at this point very unlikely - US invasion.
And the sophistication of US and even Israeli systems of warfare [is] such that
any major Iranian aggression would result [in] the overwhelming destruction of
the military and economic resources of the Iranian side.
Dr Shalom Freedman
Jerusalem, Israel (Dec 20, '04)
Who will be next? I sure hope it will be Iran. These slobs of the Middle East
have some or had some but now it [is] time to slap them around a little. You
see, we in America really don't like Iran and ... it is time [for] revenge. I
really would like to see Iran fight a man's war rather than a hostage thing
like the true cowards they really are. If they are making anything other than
cookies enriched with flour it's time to teach [them], no, you may not play
with uranium. We must take it away, and then it's on to Korea with a little
unfinished business to wrap up. One thing for sure is we got the best forces
and leadership to put a end to all [these] evildoers that really hate us. They
are the infidels. President [George W] Bush is doing a terrific job. If we have
to go door to door in Iraq to clean house we will and we are. I never have seen
such crazy people willing to blow themselves up, for what? A one-way ticket to
hell. We have to start teaching "no". Iran must be shaking in the sand and
tiptoe no less. We will not forget what these people did.
Rl (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: I just finished reading your two articles
Beware al-Qaeda watchers and
Fallujah, Iraq's Tora Bora published in Asia Times [Online on Dec 14].
They were splendid and refreshingly informative as much as analytical.
Hopefully, the first one will thoroughly expose the notoriety of embedded
journalistic works disseminated through selective spokesmen masquerading as
"fearless writers of great courage" and their apparent success in fooling the
world at large. Real truth eventually would catch up with these planted
"truths" and the world would see the consequences it had to bear as a result of
these nefarious schemes hatched by some arrogant and ruthless power mongers.
Please keep up the banner of truth and hold it aloft to outshine the lies.
M A Qader (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: I read with great interest your superb Asia Times [Online]
article titled
Thai dilemma over Muslim anger [Nov 3]. I have been following the
violence in southern Thailand since January for an investor client and found
your article to be the most cogent assessment of the evolving characteristics
of the situation as well as providing an excellent counter-terrorism summary
... I would appreciate any additional insight you might be able to provide on
several aspects of the southern violence:
How likely do you see the potential for the PULO [Patani United Liberation
Organization] or other groups conducting an attack on Thai or foreign targets
in Bangkok?
Does [Thai Prime Minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra]'s apparent vacillation on
implementing promised development programs in the south reflect reaction to
tactical events, a split amongst advisers, or indecision on whether to
implement a hard or soft strategy?
Will Thaksin's actions lead to increasingly strained relations with Malaysia
and Indonesia and would that have any impact on foreign investment in Thailand?
What events or trends would impact investor confidence in Thailand?
Is the situation in the south deteriorating or will the military be able to
maintain a status quo condition?
Thank you for any assistance you could provide.
Bruce Klingner
Director of Analysis
Intellibridge Corp
Washington, DC (Dec 20, '04)
I am planning to attempt an update on Thailand in which I will try to answer
some of the questions posed by you. - B Raman
I just came across this article [Spain,
and why radical Islam can win] dated March 16. Spengler argues that
Spain's lack of popular support for the US in Iraq is a symptom a Spanish death
knell. I want to know how Spengler can assume that a thriving country would
want to help the US. That's a pretty hefty presumption. Without it, his
argument has no business getting published.
Daniel
A sign linked Chinese to dogs, slavery of blacks, genocide of Indians and
pacific aboriginals by white men were century old. No one was found
accountable. No apologies or retributions were made. The white editors want us
to forget about all of that. Otherwise, we are intolerant. I do not think
colored people have to tolerate those treatments, do they? Respect of Asians'
opinions about their Asia is the foundation of any universal human respect. If
you continue to look for excuses publishing white men's propaganda about Asia
at Asia Times online, I do not see a passage to that goal. Let Asians voice
their own opinions about Asia at Asia Times online.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 20, '04)
Who said the many peoples who have endured oppression by ethnic-European
colonizers over the centuries should forget those atrocities? Certainly not
Asia Times Online. On the contrary, many of our articles cite the lessons of
history as explaining why new forms of colonization, whether under the guise of
"globalization" or the "war on terror" or various scams, meet resistance from
their would-be Asian victims. By the same token, surely it is foolish to live
in the past and refuse to acknowledge and endorse genuine progress, refuse
to move toward the goal of a world in which all are equal and no one,
whatever his or her skin color, enslaves or abuses anyone else on the basis of
race. - ATol
I quote ATol: "The hope embraced by many of us is that those shames are being
relegated to history" [note under Roy's letter of Dec 17]. Who told you and
where have you been reading or hearing that white folks are shameful of their
colonial and war crimes? Did Daniel McCarthy, Fox News, the Washington Post and
the college textbooks tell you that? Far from being ashamed, the majority of
whites, especially white America, want to maintain their colonization,
hierarchy, hegemony and economic-political supremacy. The majority of whites
continue the path of their forebears in the 21st century. The only difference
is in the use of subtleness and hypocrisy: self-righteousness, democracy, human
rights, divide-and-conquer policy. And so, ATol, you should be careful when you
write "the intolerance continually voiced by some of our letter writers, most
blatantly by Frank". If Frank is a racist and declares that he wants to
vanquish all non-Asians, then we should all confront him. But Frank is simply
delivering the painful truth. In American history, blacks who have been
"intolerant" of white racism like [Martin Luther] King were accused of being
the bad guy? Is Frank really the bad guy? On the contrary, your method of
achieving "universal human respect" is spurious. There ain't no "First World"
shame, apology or reparations coming. Being pacifist got nobody anywhere. The
victim must stop playing that role and make 360 [degree] turn. True power and
freedom is in how big your wallet is and how big your gun is. I won't say
"shame on ATol" for your retort, but let go of your delusions.
Roy
USA (Dec 20, '04)
It may have been a Freudian slip, but a 360-degree turn is going around in
circles. Or maybe that is what you are advocating by pooh-poohing the life work
of people such as Martin Luther King Jr and dismissing the potential value of
rejecting war, hatred and intolerance. - ATol
After visiting your site a few times I'm disgusted by your anti-American
articles. Everyone knows that America is not the best country in the world -
though the most powerful. In fact, I find that most of your articles focus on
America. Can't you find countries and topics to write about? With your
anti-Americanism, you make America appear superior [to] any other nation on a
whole range of issues. With these words I'm about to delete your "favorites"
link from my system. So long.
Richard Austin (Dec 20, '04)
Before you go, make sure you are complaining about the right website. The US is
indeed the most powerful nation in the world, and for that reason it is
mentioned in some of our articles, especially those regarding global economics
and the "war on terror". But the great majority of our articles are about Asian
countries, not the US. - ATol
I am deeply saddened to read that Thailand has decided to repatriate
pro-democracy activists Lu Decheng and Zhao Wendong to China. It is a cruel and
inhumane act. I can only hope and pray that Thailand will find that line that
surely exists between friendship and kowtowing, particularly when fundamental
principles such as democracy, freedom and human rights are involved.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 20, '04)
It is amazing to read political analysis completely devoid of economic
considerations [Evildoers,
here we come, Dec 17]. Pepe Escobar, usually lucid, depicts an atomic
Armageddon in which atomic bombs will be used following "neo-cons'" promptings.
The USA today has record federal and current-account deficits; the war in Iraq
is costing billions of dollars and the USA is losing it. Afghanistan is far
from being pacified and the USA as a power is being confronted by Europe,
China, India, and small countries like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Who
is going to pay for a war against Iran? Who is going to occupy the country?
With what American troops? Iran now has investments from Russia, China and
countries in the EU. The most plausible scenario is a war of words, in which
the Europeans are going to play the role of referees and in the medium [term]
Iran is going to be a nuclear power ... Europeans, Chinese and Russians agree
with it. Apocalyptic articles give all of us a measure of perverse excitement,
but the relationship with reality is non-existent.
Arturo Giraldez (Dec 17, '04)
Syed Saleem Shahzad's interview of General Mirza Aslam Beg gives an indication
of the depth of denial that the former army chief seems to be foolishly living
in [Why
the general begs to differ, Dec 17]. Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was merely an
errand boy who carried out the agenda set by the Pakistan's army. This general
was the head and a source of inspiration for these adventures and naturally
would be a prize catch to the international investigations to unearth
Pakistan's nuclear (both pre- and post-detonation) activities around the globe.
The Pakistani army's haste to put on a lid to protect the junta on this sordid
saga and to escape scrutiny has not truly taken world's focus off the scandal.
As long as Iran/North Korea's nuclear ambitions occupy the limelight, Khan's
adventures would hog the news. General Beg was one of the architects of the
hare-brained "strategic depth" initiative (Pakistan's involvement in
Afghanistan) that aims at a perpetual battle against its eastern neighbor.
Pakistani civilians had no say on these programs and after blindly pursuing
these foolish policies for decades, Islamabad was forced to see reason and
abandon these plans. Pakistan, in order to save itself, deserted
Taliban/Afghanistan and to safeguard its nuclear weapons disgraced the father
of the nuclear program itself. Is there any way to beat the Pakistani military
back into barracks? When Pakistan gets its freedom from its army (which
hijacked the constitution and steals the precious resources of the state to
bring defeats in wars and misery to the region) only then South Asia would make
a giant step towards peace and progress.
Kannan (Dec 17, '04)
Referring to
The Dragon battles back to beat Nike [Dec 17] by Benjamin Robertson, I
quote: "the infamous 'no dogs' and 'no Chinese' sign that marked the entrance
to an early-20th-century park in Shanghai". For those of you who don't believe
you are the equivalent of dogs when white folks colonize you or when you fawn
on them, here is one more proof. Letter writer Frank was right on the mark.
Roy
USA (Dec 17, '04)
The hope embraced by many of us is that those shames are being relegated to
history. The example you (and Robertson) use is, after all, a century old. The
intolerance continually voiced by some of our letter writers, most blatantly by
Frank, is of little or no help in accomplishing the goal of universal human
respect. - ATol
I am not asking for any sort of Taiwanese writers. What I am asking for is
Asian voices for Asia. Asians do not appreciate Kent Fields and you use English
capability or resources as an excuse to block Asian people [from] expressing
themselves directly. Asians can read white people's opinions from their media
source. There is no need for Asia Times [Online] to propagate their agenda
here. We all know what their agenda is. Just like Dennis Castle indicated that
the decision to defend Taiwan has been white people's military doctrine for
over 50 years and it has never been part of the plan to use American soldiers.
So, who will be the soldiers? Asians of course. The plan is always to use
Asians against Asians. What Asian people want was never under consideration.
Asian people living in Taiwan, Tibet, the Chinese mainland, and overseas want
development and progress. They do not want to see independent wars in Asia.
Asia is their home. They do not need a crystal ball from eBay or more frequent
visiting to Chinese buffet to know that. They know that just by looking at the
eyes and hearing the voices of their loved and respected ones. Peace and
development [are] far more important to most Asians than [to those] who are the
heads of their government. Asian people expressed their desires of being left
alone and sorting out things themselves. Outsiders, white people
[specifically], just cannot appreciate that kind of harmony. That is why I am
asking you to let Asians express their opinions about Asia at Asia Times
[Online] directly.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 17, '04)
Many of your points are well taken, but we cannot deny the fact that we are an
English-language publication and do not have large translation resources,
although our Chinese-language department does handle that for us from time to
time. Don't forget, by the way, that we do have a
Chinese-language website that might be more to your tastes if you
continue to insist that only people of a certain race, or who do not see the
value of cultivating good English writing skills (a view not shared, for just
one example, by Henry C K Liu, or by some who write for both of our websites
with equal facility) are capable of observing facts and making valuable
analysis. - ATol
Peter R Moody Jr's remarks deserve a colder eye [US
should recognize North Korea, Dec 16]. Surely, as an instructor of
political science, he should know that a state of war exists between North
Korea and the United Nations, a state of affairs which remains in limbo since
the ink dried on an armistice agreement in Geneva in 1954. War in Korea, begun
on June 25, 1950, by North Korea's preemptive attack on South Korea, resulted
in a stalemate. A half-century has gone by with some movement on the question
of Korea. Mr Moody's call for Washington's recognition diplomatically of the
DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] betrays his frustration with the
Bush administration [more] than [being] a dispassionate analysis of a divided
Korea. It has the odor of wishful thinking, of the biblical metaphor of the
lion lying down with the lamb. Yet he cannot resist mouthing Pyongyang's
perennial crying wolf: an American invasion. [US President George W] Bush and
Co are not in a position to invade North Korea, something their strategic ally
China won't countenance, let alone South Korea, Japan, and Russia. The Kims and
the North Korean military can never forget the utter destruction the war they
initiated brought to the North ... Mr Moody mentions the KEDO [Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organization] agreement which, by Kim Jong-il's own
admission, the North broke before the ink dried. He is wrong to say that
relations between Seoul and Washington had suffered. On the contrary, [US
president Bill] Clinton and Co, with the election of Kim Dae-jung as president
of the ROK [Republic of Korea], encouraged a Sunshine Policy with the North,
for which Mr Kim was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. North Korea's decaying
regime grasped a straw to remain in power, thereby opening possibilities and
movement on the peninsula ... Now we have a more muscular, triumphant foreign
policy with President Bush. North Korea belongs to the "axis of evil", and Mr
Moody is perhaps right in saying positions on Pyongyang's and Washington's
sides have frozen again. Nonetheless ... both sides are talking, albeit
reluctantly, through the medium of the six-power talks. Scholars from North
Korea visit the United States; Cornell University has opened its door to
students from the [DPRK]. American scholars, businessmen, lesser diplomats and
former high-ranking ambassadors go regularly to the [DPRK]. The door is not
closed as Mr Moody suggests. As an instructor in international affairs, it is
hoped that he knows international law. Nations do not out of the blue recognize
belligerent states. Negotiations go on for a long time before a breakthrough.
We have before our eyes the Libyan example and the de-demonization of the
[Muammar] Gadaffi regime. In many ways Mr Bush and Mr Kim [Jong-il] share
similar hard attitudes, but sooner or later, realization has to come that in
the words of President [Dwight] Eisenhower, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw, then
war, war, war.
Jakob Cambria (Dec 17, '04)
The quote "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war" is usually attributed to
Winston Churchill, not Dwight Eisenhower. - ATol
I want to thank ATol for this forum. In regard to what ASB writes [letter, Dec
9] in criticism of the article
All at sea over 'the Gulf' (Dec 9), he tries to play down the
importance of historical facts, and events in order to suite his desire.
Persians have a proverb that says, "There is enough to read and learn, I and
you just don't read enough." I would like to suggest to ASB to start doing some
reading to learn the significance of history and facts before trying to deny or
alter it, or call it not practical anymore. Of course it is understandable
given the historical events in relation to Arabs and Persians. many such
criticisms toward Persian civilization stems not from historical facts or
evidence supporting their criticism, but from jealousy, frustration, grudges
and animosity, [which] has been flowing in the Arab countries for some time.
Nobody in his right mind would deny any nation or take away [its] historical
rights, especially in the case of Persians, whose 10,000 years of history and
contribution to world civilization is well known to everyone ...
M Hashemi (Dec 17, '04)
Dear Spengler: You identify a trend whereby religions which once were tied to
particular cultures and thus expressed themselves politically have evolved into
or been supplanted by universal, personal, and "religionless" creeds. As St
Augustine might put it, the City of God has been disentangling itself from the
city of man, and I think he would be as pleased as [Soren] Kierkegaard to see
it. At the same time it seems that even personal religions are incapable of
resisting the temptation to use temporal means to accomplish their spiritual
ends. This pattern is cyclical, because shortly after the faithful have made
their Faustian bargain they find that their message and their organization have
become identified with the elite and the powerful: like Wotan, they sow the
seeds of their own destruction in their attempts to build paradise. Only after
all their works are destroyed can a pure faith reappear from the ashes. So
while it's clear that Americans have less of an incentive to identify
Christianity with the peculiarities of any one culture, they are still just as
intent on building a city on a hill as ever, and it seems that the capitalist
elites of the Republican Party are more than willing to accept the evangelical
vote in exchange for some vague promises of overturning Roe vs Wade. If
American Christians are willing to make these bargains, how can they avoid
re-enacting the same tragedy as Europe's Christians? Don't they remember what
happened when King David decided to count his fighting men rather than trust in
Jehovah? On a similar note, I think the jury is still out on whether
rationalism of Protestant theology represents a step in the right direction -
toward a more universal religion - or if it is yet another hubristic attempt to
accomplish by human effort what only faith can do. As you've pointed out, the
conflict between original sin and free will is intractable to rationalist
philosophy. Protestants may have hitched their cart a little too tightly to
this particular horse, who has a troublesome tendency to jump into abysses. The
Catholic Church may have made the right choice in letting this one remain a
mystery. Perhaps you would be interested in a friendly wager: in 200 years, or
whenever French and German are being spoken exclusively in hell, it's going to
be the Catholics that matter, not the evangelicals.
Dan Meliza
Berkeley, California (Dec 17, '04)
[Kaveh L] Afrasiabi analyzes Iran's present military posture with great clarity
and detail [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16]. I would be very glad to see a similar
analysis of the political and diplomatic strategies that Iranian leaders are
considering. In my mind, the only true defense against US aggression is
democratization within Iran and strong relations with neighboring states as
well as India and China. Regardless of the courage and determination of
Iranians to resist US and Israeli aggression, Iran can be turned into a
battlefield, and its roads, cities and people bombed into rubble almost with
impunity. Iranian technology and military strength may have made great strides,
but I believe these can stand no match against the most likely scenario of
crippling US air strikes. As an Iranian watching the chaos of Iraq, I admire
the bravery of the Iraqi people, but don't envy their situation. A military
confrontation with the US would be a disaster for Iran, no matter what.
However, I was encouraged that British Foreign Minister Jack Straw publicly
renounced any possibility of attacks against Iran the day after the US
election. This "red light" from the British stands in stark contrast to British
behavior before the Iraq invasion. Similarly, Chinese Foreign Minister Li
Zhaoxing was in Iran recently and later communicated his nation's support for
Iran directly to the US. It seems that Iran has prepared its diplomatic
defenses well. Have Iranian leaders considered a defense pact with India or
China? It is my understanding that Iranians don't count on Russia for much
support despite their reliance on Russia for nuclear technology. If Iran were
to liberalize its politics, and perhaps hold a referendum on the nuclear issue,
I believe the US would find it impossible to launch an attack. Iran's
diplomatic hand would be greatly strengthened by such a move. European nations
would find it impossible not to vehemently oppose a US attack on a budding
democracy. Therefore, Iranian leaders must decide if they are willing to part
with some of their own power for the well-being of Iran. I am eager to read
Professor Afrasiabi's response, and to know whether any of my comments are in
line with thinking in Iran today. I am encouraged by his knowledge and wisdom,
as I honestly did not expect such a high quality of analysis to be openly
published in Iran (much less in English).
G Travan
California, USA (Dec 16, '04)
[Re
Indian beauty talks up the Taj, Dec 16] The last time I read about this
"seven wonders" list the Meenakshi Temple in Madhurai was one of them. What
happened? Did the Indian diaspora just forgot about that temple and [go] for
the same old stuff, the Taj Mahal? Everyone and their grandmother knows about
the Taj Mahal but few have heard of the elegant and beautiful Meenakshi temple.
Sad to hear that this temple is off the list already.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Dec 16, '04)
James [Borton, re
Magazine licensing red-hot in China, Dec 16]: I started reading iLook
in the very beginning because of [Hung] Huang. She told me that she [was] going
to do a local fashion magazine, not like any other ones [in] which 60-70% [of
the] photos and content [were] from overseas. I admired her [ambition and]
started to buy iLook, but in the beginning iLook seemed to have no clear
direction, using foreign girls as cover girls, not too many Chinese faces in
it, but some articles were quite interesting. I forgot when I saw the big
change of iLook: they started using Chinese celebrities as cover girls, telling
readers how they dress up, [and] their life. I really like the sex column,
history of luxury brands, interviews of celebrities, 80% content really related
to the local market, quite conversant. Now iLook has a clear image, is
different from all other fashion/lifestyle magazines ...
Sophie (Dec 16, '04)
In his [Dec 10] article on the [Ali al-]Sistani-brokered United Iraqi Congress
list [The
grand elector Sistani], Pepe Escobar said that Sadrists "movement will
have 28% of the seats in the united list, the lion's share". But the Financial
Times on December 10 said that Muqtada [al-Sadr] had "issued a fiery attack on
parliamentary politics, the day after Shi'a parties unveiled an electoral
alliance that reportedly does not include his movement" ... I am trying to
figure out how the Sadrists are relating to the election, and this is yet
another instance of contradictory indications. Perhaps [Pepe Escobar] has a
good sense of what is going on, or how to find out.
MS
Director, Undergraduate College of Global Studies
Professor of Sociology
University at Stony Brook, New York (Dec 16, '04)
We reported last week on the Sistani-backed United Iraqi Alliance before the
official announcement, based on our sources in Baghdad. But then Muqtada
al-Sadr, who had been negotiating with Sistani for weeks, backed off at the
last minute. He had managed to get 28% of the seats on the list, but not the
top ones (the list is hierarchical). Muqtada in the end decided that the
Sadrists were not a political party. Last week Iraqi papers were saying Muqtada
was in favor of supporting the list. But the Sadrist position vis-a-vis the
elections is extremely fluid. The official position, as of today, December 16,
is neutrality: they don't support them and they don't oppose them. Earlier this
week, though, some of Muqtada's spokesmen were still calling for a boycott.
According to Iraqi papers and our sources in Baghdad, Muqtada last spoke about
the elections less than a week ago, writing a sermon that was read aloud at the
Mushin Mosque in Sadr City. He listed all the reasons the Sadrists won't be
part of the elections: the Iyad Allawi government keeps arresting Sadrist
clerics and supporters; they cannot open (rather, reopen) their office in
Najaf; and they cannot hold Friday prayers at the Kufa Mosque as usual (Kufa is
a Muqtada stronghold). They cannot get back the dozens of mosques they used to
control. They are in fact being constantly harassed by the Allawi government -
and that's the main reason Muqtada pulled out. Muqtada is worried that the
elections will lead to ethnic and sectarian chaos and will "separate Iraqis
from their religion". He also explicitly said, "Do not let the marjaiya [the
Shi'ite clerics] support the elections." But the situation remains fluid: many
Sadrists in Baghdad are said to be willing to vote. - Pepe Escobar
I agree that [racism] is constantly assigning a particular point of view to a
particular race. Is not that most Taiwan independence supporters do? They
always accuse the Chinese people who do not share their view as communists,
Muslims as terrorists. What I did is just point out that most people who
promote splitting another Asian country are white at ATol. I also pointed out
[letter, Dec 15] that most white people in my state can treat Asians equally.
If these whites agree with me that East Asians should decide what is the best
for East Asia, then please shut up and give East Asians a chance to speak their
minds. We have Chinese people from mainland China expressing their opinions, we
have white men expressing theirs. Now, let us hear some voices directly from
the Chinese people who live in Taiwan. There are tens of thousands of
US-educated KMT [Kuomintang] people living in Taiwan and overseas. You have an
office in Taiwan. Why is it that hard to find one KMT person who can write
English? Asians are tired of hearing what white people have to say about their
homes. They want to speak up for themselves. If they do not agree with me or
you, so be it.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 16, '04)
We do not have an office in Taiwan. We also do not have the resources to scour
Taiwan for KMT supporters articulate in English; primarily our recruitment
relies on writers approaching us. The fact that Taiwanese writers of the sort
you crave have failed to do so was plausibly explained to some extent by Taiwan
resident Kent Fields in his letter of December 14. - ATol
I thank ATol for giving readers the opportunity to give feedback and response.
Furthermore, ATol is doing an excellent job in offering readers a platform to
interact and share their views for better common understanding. I cannot resist
responding to the letter written by Sang Wong [Dec 14]. Looking at that name, I
suspect this letter writer is nothing more than a troll, but it's a great
opportunity to respond. Sang Wong's letter is a perfect example of a Taiwan
separatist view. They are blind, [are] deaf and hate themselves, because they
hate us. Taiwan separatists hate Chinese people, hate China. It's nothing more
than hating themselves, because they are Chinese and their country is China.
This reason alone is good enough to fight for reunification. More Chinese
should know what they are up against. George W Bush is just like former [US]
presidents, but under his administration China-US bilateral ties have never
been better in recent years. He warned explicitly that Taiwan leader Chen
[Shui-bian] should not change the status quo, which he is constantly doing. [US
Secretary of State] Colin Powell has said that Taiwan is not independent and
not sovereign and that is firm and long-standing US policy. Powell also said
that reunification is the ultimate goal and that a resolution should be
acceptable to both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and not only the 23 million
inhabitants of Taiwan, something Taiwan separatists and their hired lobbyists
often say. What message don't you get, Song Wong? With stronger US-China ties,
the chance for Taiwan independence is getting slimmer and the recent eruptions
are nothing more than some futile, desperate attempts. The rest of China moves
on, while Taiwan seems to be standing still. This leads me to progress. I'd
respond to ATol questioning me [about] "imposing" progress on others [under J
Zhang letter of Dec 14]. This is a classic debate. I believe that all men want
to have good, free and prosperous lives. This is the ultimate goal, for now it
would be great if everyone would get a decent humane life that is worth being
lived. You can't avoid it, money is the means to make it happen. That's why
Deng Xiaoping, in my opinion the greatest Chinese leader of the 20th century,
once said that "to get rich is glorious". In my opinion, cultures that behead
people, cut off hands of thieves, stone women etc are totally backward. They
need to get a piece of the cake that is called globalization. Standing still is
no progress [and] is ultimately backward. Times goes on. This is what happened
to China at the end of the 18th, 19th and parts of the 20th century. We know
what happened then. Things can change for the good or for the worse, but doing
nothing is always worse.
J Zhang (Dec 16, '04)
I think that Li's comments [letter, Dec 15] tend to simplify the Tibet/religion
issue somewhat. The Beijing government, more than "upholding separation of
church and state", suppresses all religion to this day despite gradually easing
up since the passing of Mao [Zedong]. Also, "they don't have to kneel to the
Dalai Lama and his court of monks" may be technically true. However, if a
Tibetan chooses to do so, this is not permitted. Tibetans risk arrest by merely
possessing a photograph of the Dalai Lama. A large number of temples were
actually destroyed after the liberation/invasion of 1950. The modernity spoken
of is largely enjoyed by the Han Chinese, and there have been accusations of
discoveries and mining of mineral deposits the benefits of which have not come
the Tibetans' way. The system in place prior to CCP [Chinese Communist Party]
involvement was far from democratic or fair, but what Tibet and the rest of
China has also matches that description.
Peter Mitchelmore (Dec 16, '04)
While I don't believe ATol editors are racist, I think the editors will be
better off shutting up than to keep ranting about [letter writer] Frank. One
does not have to go and meet all these anti-Frank letter writers to know their
background. In the US, it is invariably true that all politicians,
congresspersons [and] newspaper editorials cheer for Taiwan independence, Tibet
separation, and even Hong Kong separation. They don't cheer for the choice of
the electorate of Greater China. And they certainly don't cheer for "united we
stand" when it comes to China in the same way they do for America's countless
wars of aggression. And who are the vast majority of these people? You bet,
white people. Just look at how angry they were when Colin Powell (a non-white)
mentioned "reunification" in China a few months ago. As for Frank's residence
in the USA, let's make it clear once and for all. America is not a strictly
white man's property in the same way Europe belongs to whites. American
minorities (blacks, Asians, Latinos now close to 50%) are just as [much]
American citizens as the white majority. Now on the issue name-calling, I
cannot for the life of me understand why people, including ATol, keep calling
China communist. Maybe these persons are just as foolish as the CCP [Chinese
Communist Party] for calling themselves communist when they've abandoned the
ideology since Deng Xiaoping declared "it's glorious to be rich". A more
deserving criticism is the need to democratize China because it's in her best
interest.
Roy
USA (Dec 15, '04)
To [answer the] ATol editor's question [under Frank's letter of Dec 14],
typical white racists like to tell Asians to behave in a certain way they
learned from the Asian buffet stores overseas. That is how I can tell them from
the crowd a few thousand miles away through the wire. If there is one person
mentioned in my previous letters [who] is not white or hybrid white, I will
apologize for my mistake. However, I do not think I need to do so. [Letter
writer] Chris Townsend (a white man of course) has a great deal of
misconceptions about Chinese people. I have mentioned many times in my previous
letters regarding white people [that] as long as white people can treat colored
ones equally, I really do not have any problem with them. In my state of
Washington, most white people treat Asians equally. They even elected a
Chinese-American as their governor. Should we all [be] proud of that? However,
there are still many whites [who] think Asians are incapable of speaking their
own minds, therefore Asians need their protection and guidance. That is
absolute rubbish. East Asians can handle East Asia themselves. I failed to
understand why asking for some East Asian voices [is] racism. I think most
Asian readers would like to learn other Asians' opinions at Asia Times [Online]
directly. If Asians disagree with each other, that is their freedom. If KMT
[Kuomintang] people disagree with me, so be it. Let them speak for themselves.
Is that too much to ask for? Is that racism?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 15, '04)
No of course it is not, and we have never said it is. In fact, as we have
said countless times, we need and want more indigenous Asians of all points of
view to write for us. What is racist is assigning a particular point of
view in a blanket way to a particular race or ethnic group, which you do
constantly. The whites you routinely disparage, many of whom agree with your
general points, especially the right of East Asians to decide what is best for
East Asians, most likely find your anti-white invective insulting and unfair,
just as you would quite rightly reject a white person's disparagement of you
based solely on your skin color or the shape of your eyelids. - ATol
ATol is correct [comment under Joseph Nagarya's letter, Dec 14] that the word
"communism" has negative connotations by Americans in general. This has to do
with Americans' approach to language (which will assist letter writer Mohammed
Sheikh [Dec 14] in understanding our interpretation of the word jihad).
The verb "to Google" is impossible to understand if approached etymologically;
however, I can safely assume everyone on this forum knows precisely what it
means. Words to Americans mean whatever the empirical, practical application
proves them to mean. Therefore "communist government" means that a small group
of individuals (we'll call them "thugs") arbitrarily dictate their whim without
interjection from the masses and those under their rule have no value except
what they ascribe. Therefore jihad means the cowardly slaughter of the
defenseless on behalf of Islam. In the midst of Joseph Nagarya's random
assortment of negative adjectives he [sneaked] in the point that the United
States lacks the ability to repel an invasion by the communist Chinese against
Taiwan. Please note [that] the decision to defend Taiwan has been American
military doctrine for over 50 years and it has never been part of the plan to
use soldiers. Americans have a low opinion of [their] enemies, communism and
jihad, and are willing and able to escalate [their] response to whatever is
necessary to defeat them.
Dennis Castle (Dec 15, '04)
Dear ATol: Your comment on J Zhang's letter (Dec 14) is thought-provoking. "Who
has the right to impose 'progress' on people who wish to keep their old ways of
doing things?" How about imposing "democracy" on foreign countries? The Dalai
Lama is the most ardent proponent of the principle of "coalition of church and
state", while the Beijing government upholds the separation of church and
state. Regardless, the Tibetan people are living a "better" life now, as can be
judged by foreign visitors. They don't have to kneel to the Dalai Lama and to
his court of monks which used to control everything. His Holiness is finally
realizing the futility of his "independence" efforts and is trying to make some
sort of [rapprochement] so he can come back to grace the magnificent temple at
Lhasa and still direct the numerous temples which are being lavishly upgraded
and preserved. The Tibetan people are still worshipping Buddhism but enjoying a
more modern and less drudgery [filled] life.
Li (Dec 15, '04)
I found Laurence Eyton's [Dec 14] article
Taiwan's Chen a lame duck hard to disagree with in general but will
disagree with specifics. First, as pointed out by Asia Times [Online], Mr Eyton
is the deputy editor-in-chief of the Taipei Times. This paper is ... pro-Taiwan
independence and is highly supportive of the pan-green [Democratic Progressive
Party and allies] cause. We need to take his opinion like we take the opinion
of the editor of the People's Daily or Central Daily (KMT-published
[Kuomintang] paper). Mr Eyton claims that the pan-greens' 101 seats to the
pan-blues' [KMT and allies] 114 seats from 100 and 115 respectively shows that
the pan-greens did not really lose, especially given the fact that the
pan-greens actually gained vote shares. What he misses is that almost all
independents elected this time, 10 in all, are pro-pan-blue, whereas last time
around it was much more evenly split. The pan-blues this time really control up
to 123 seats. The main reason that pan-greens gained vote share is for the same
reason that [they] did not do as well [in] this election: they nominated too
many candidates. Each extra pan-green candidate pulls in more votes. Of course,
in some places, the pan-greens got more seats than they deserved. In Taipei
city, [they] captured nine seats to the 10 of pan-blue despite the fact that
pan-blue strength is much stronger in Taipei city. Low turnout should have
helped the pan-greens, but in this case it was not enough. Three hundred
thousand votes from businessmen living on the mainland did not turn out,
convinced they cannot stop the pan-greens (almost all of them pan-blue), as in
March. Everything was there for the pan-greens to sweep the election. But in
the end it just did not happen.
Wen-Kai Tang
Brooklyn, New York (Dec 14, '04)
Let me offer a more convincing argument than Laurence Eyton's [Taiwan's
Chen a lame duck, Dec 14] on last week's Taiwan Legislative Yuan
elections. Some pan-blue voters stayed away because they [were] frustrated by
the last two presidential elections, and despair at the seemingly downward
spiral of the state of affairs led by [President] Chen Shui-bian. Many
pan-green voters also stayed away because they see the absurdity of their party
in pushing for "independence" which will only bring war and bloodshed. The last
straw is the desire to change all names of government missions and business
companies with the word "China" replaced by "Taiwan". In case readers who read
English only do not know of the joke, Chen was asked by his opponents to change
the name of his son because the latter bears a word "China". The pan-greens are
world-class in election trickery. Just before [the] elections, some
self-exploded cars were staged in Taipei, which is the pan-blue stronghold,
with the hope of scaring people away from voting. Their skills are continually
sharpened, but to no avail.
Li (Dec 14, '04)
The character Frank seems to have developed into a subject for discussion. He
is ... unusual, I'll admit. At least I know nobody like him personally. It
occurs to me that reading Frank's "thoughts" is sort of like a trip to a
Chinese buffet. I haven't the slightest idea what I'm eating most the time and
that's probably for the best. I'm a "white man" and am mystified as to why he
keeps talking about me in that manner. I think I'm okay and practice the Golden
Rule most of the time. But I'm curious: I'm guessing Frank is a
first-generation Chinese immigrant here in America? Why, Frank, why? America,
Seattle ... white people everywhere ... you're surrounded! It must be
horrifying! You could've stayed in China and probably never seen a "white guy"
your entire life. I'm concerned for your happiness, Frank, and am somewhat
mystified.
Chris Townsend (Dec 14, '04)
First I would like to thank Frank for his polite response [letter, Dec 13] to
my [Dec 10] letter. Please continue on this path and I believe that your
perspective will have greater success at an honest debate. I am afraid that he
has a misconception of the KMT membership. In his response he wrote, "Many KMT
[Kuomintang] people were educated in the USA. They can speak and write perfect
English. They have no problem expressing their opinions in English if given a
chance. " It all depends on how one defines the key word "many". Does Frank
mean to use "many" as a hint at majority or a large minority, or does he simply
mean the leadership of the party and their children? If he intends to use
"many" to mean a majority or even a significant number, than his statement is
inaccurate. It would appear that this ties into the belief that most of the
"Wai Sheng Ren" were of the elite class. While it is true that in the
KMT-controlled non-democratic years (ie White Terror) the leadership class sent
their children overseas, a majority of members were from the military class.
The military KMT members did not have the resources to educate their children
overseas. Their children were educated in Taiwan and did not receive a lot of
English education. As a person living here in Taiwan, I can tell you,
high-level English is not very common. In my children's school (a very
well-respected local school) there are only about 10 children [whom] one could
define as having proficient English. Most of the children are simply able to
recite the dialogues that they were taught at their bushiban ["cram"
school]. The belief [in] all KMT members flying overseas for education is in
part what has helped contribute to some of the ethnic divisions in Taiwan. The
popular perception is that all of the Wai Sheng Ren and Ben Sheng Ren in
the KMT had resources and did not suffer during the oppressive years. Frank
(and many others ) seems to believe that the KMT is the pro-China party. Now in
Taiwan neither party is truly pro-China. The divisions (as shown in the latest
election on December 11) are mainly in how the government should handle
economics and how far to push China. In my local election the biggest issue was
reforming our health care and how to keep our lao bao funded. Most
members of the KMT are against the arms package, not because of irritating
China, but the price of weapons that will not be received until 10 years from
now. Eighteen billion [US] dollars is a lot to pay for an arms package that
will likely never arrive! The key difference on the China is issue is simple.
The KMT/PFP [People First Party] is in favor of the status quo (de facto
independence), the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] is pro-moving towards
eventual de jure independence. It is simply a matter of paths. The KMT feels
that China will eventually become democratic and will be more likely to give
Taiwan freedom to decide her own destiny, and the DPP feels that it is not
worth waiting for something [that] may never happen. In reality both parties
support separation from China. Neither of the main parties [is]
pro-unification. I am glad to see that Frank claims to be pro-status quo. That
is the majority opinion of Taiwan, with independence being second and
unification under any circumstances a very distant third. Frank and many
of the letter writers who seem to support China's claims on Taiwan seem to live
in the US or in other societies that allow for an open debate. Could they do
this in the PRC [People's Republic of China]? I do not believe so. I am sure
that if they traveled to Taiwan they would have a wonderful time, since freedom
of speech is also allowed here. Most of us in Taiwan (locals and outsiders)
love that about a place we lovingly call "The Rock". The last time I was in
China, this was not allowed. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that this
has changed. My in-laws choose to stay here in Taiwan as KMT members for the
simple privileges of freedom of faith, [of] speech, a free press and the right
to vote. When my father-in-law was unhappy with the results of the March
election, he went out in front of the presidential palace for two weeks and
expressed himself. This was not a sign of chaos, but a sign of what it is to
live in a democratic society. If these rights were extended to the people of
China, then who knows, unification may occur - or it may not.
Kent Fields
Keelung, Taiwan (Dec 14, '04)
[Letter writers] Dennis Castle, Jakob Cambria, Mike, Daniel McCarthy, and Kent
Fields are all either white or hybrid white men. They all support Taiwan
independence. Although I do not have crystal balls, I am familiar with their
debate tactics, [their] arguments and what they want in Asia. Too many of your
East Asian readers expressed their desires of peace and pro-reunification
dialogue at ATol. They (including many Taiwanese readers) would like to be left
alone and deal with their problems by themselves. These are just some simple
observations. I do not have a problem with white people expressing their
opinions about how Asians should behave. That is their freedom. However, if the
white people are trying to deny Asian people's chance of free expression
through blocking, ignoring or intimidation, that is racism. In this case, the
Chinese people in Taiwan had been denied a chance to express their opinions
about their own fate. I am just trying to speak up for them. Is that racist? Is
it more appropriate for Asians to speak through white representatives or
protectors? Is that ethical for a moderator to debate with your readers?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 14, '04)
You still haven't explained how you know what color these people are. If it
isn't a crystal ball, is it a high-tech gizmo of some kind? Can we get one on
eBay? - ATol
I am referring to Zhiqun Zhu's article
Taiwan's tragic delusion which appeared [on Dec 10] in Asia Times
[Online]. I am not sure who gave this guy a PhD ... He needs to do a little
background reading on Taiwan. They [Taiwanese] are a distinct group of people
with their own history and identity. They even have their own language. Of
course it would take a little research and travel to find that out, which Zhu
has obviously not been able to accomplish as he wallows in ignorance and is
imprisoned by academic delusion. Professor, the Taiwanese want to be on their
own, and the United States has pledged to help them do that. I hope that you,
Professor Zhu, do not make yet another stupid mistake, that of underestimating
President George Bush's commitment to helping the Taiwanese remain a free
people. We will fight the Chinese if the need arises and we will defeat them.
The Chinese had better not get too arrogant just because they can make iron and
steel or buy the PC [personal computer] division of IBM or have a large army or
have learned how to use the Internet or sent a man into space decades after
others sent their people to the moon. They can still be soundly defeated on the
battlefield. They had better keep what little they have - leave the high-stakes
game and brinkmanship to those who can afford to lose. Leave Taiwan to the
Taiwanese people, just as the Taiwanese leave China to the Chinese, otherwise
you will face the might and wrath of the United States of America. If you have
doubts, ask the Japanese, the Russians, the Iraqis - don't delude yourself.
Sang Wong (Dec 14, '04)
From within his smugly self-satisfied triumphalist dreamworld, Dennis Castle
writes [letter, Dec 13]: "Zhiqun Zhu [Taiwan's
tragic delusion, Dec 10] ... confuses the diplomatic statement of [US]
President George W Bush reaffirming the 'one China' policy with a lack of will
to defend Taiwan from a communist [sic] invasion, despite his and his
administration's repeated assertions to the contrary." The notion that Bush is
capable of "diplomatic statement" is beyond the most egregious abuse of reason
and imbecilic intellectual dishonesty. Bush is known by the world, including a
majority in the US, as being a "frankly speaking", belligerent, loudmouthed
bully - none of which is "diplomatic". His "Jesus is my philosopher" "my way or
the highway" hypocrisy does not constitute "diplomacy"; it constitutes a
refusal to cooperate, without which latter there can be no diplomacy. Neither
does Bush's absolute disregard for UN and world opinion - and the rule of law -
in his drive to illegally invade and occupy Iraq constitute diplomacy. In
short, in the latter instance, flouting international law in order to engage in
the war crimes, including that of torture even after the revelations about Abu
Ghraib, is undiplomatic to the extreme. No one genuinely concerned with
diplomacy likes a bully. As for Mr Castle's constant name-calling of China as
"communist": when I was growing up, I was taught that nothing a "communist"
says is to be believed, because absolutely everything they say is a lie.
However, at the very same time, one can unimpeachably believe them when they
claim to be "communist". Only the irrational don't grasp that contradiction;
perhaps because their hateful will to name-calling leaves no time for thought.
Mr Castle also writes: "He [Zhu] then laughably suggests that Americans would
be willing to sit back and watch such an atrocity take place." Not only would
the vast majority in the US "sit back" under such circumstances (even if the
invader was not "communist" China but instead capitalist Japan), in part
because they do not care; but mostly because they could not do much else: under
the best of circumstances - as these are clearly not - the US would not have
sufficient troops and military power to defend Taiwan against invasion by
"communist" China. The present is even worse: the US military is spread so
thinly it cannot fulfill its obligations in Iraq, let alone fulfill its
neo-con[artist] fantasy of also invading Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
What is laughable - or would be if it were not so out of touch with
inconvenient reality - is the unconscious joke which Mr Castle has allowed to
escape his nonsensical dreamworld in which, it is again obvious, no informed,
critical thinking occurs: a fact compounded by his consistent ignoring of
critiques of his ideological nonsense which expose it as being exactly that.
Vercingetorix [letter, Dec 13] writes to "Spengler": "What does it matter if
Europe or Japan do choose extinction, or any other country for that matter? If
people don't want to have children, then why should they? It's not like we have
a shortage of warm bodies in this world." Note that "Spengler", so obsessively
concerned with an allegedly falling birthrate in white Western Europe, has yet
to decry the falling birthrates in such as Iraq, Palestine, and Africa. Perhaps
that peculiar disregard is based upon the fact that the deaths of children in
such places are the result of war and war crimes, and famine. Or perhaps it is
based upon the fact that they are not greedy "Christian" capitalists, and
white.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 14, '04)
While you are probably correct that the word "communist" still carries negative
connotations for many Americans due to decades of anti-leftist propaganda, for
those with a broader world view the word is not "name-calling" when the ruling
party calls itself "the Communist Party". A better argument might be that while
the Chinese Communist Party clings to its old name, it has abandoned much of
the Leninist/Maoist philosophy that has traditionally alarmed capitalist
ideologues. - ATol
I urge letter writers Dennis Castle and Jakob Cambria [letters, Dec 13] to read
David's excellent letter and rebuttal [Dec 13] to their rather ignorant but
perhaps mainstream American views. If both of them want to continue upholding
their offensive myth about China, they are only fooling themselves. Fortunately
the world recognizes China's rapid achievements in a very short time and sees
its potential in the future. Jakob Cambria talks about Tibet in his letter.
Tibet, as part of China, has witnessed the ups and downs of China's
development. Nobody can deny that Tibetans are enjoying increasingly
prosperous, free and modern lives compared [with] the backward days of the
Dalai Lama with his repressive court of monks and nuns. That kind of Buddhism
is more backward than the Islam Osama bin Laden is supporting. Fortunately
Tibetans, like other Chinese, are catching up and making progress. We are
living in the 21th century. New round, new chances.
J Zhang (Dec 14, '04)
Who decides what is progress? Who has the right to impose "progress" on people
who wish to keep their old ways of doing things? Hu Jintao? George Bush? J
Zhang? - ATol
Was classical Greek civilization just a hand-me-down from Egypt and the Near
East? Is Europe in the throes of cultural death? Will America and its version
of "Western civilization" eventually sink under the weight of tens of millions
of illegal Latin American ... immigrants? These are some of the intriguing
questions raised by - or provoked in response to - Spengler. The shrill and
churlish portrayal of Spengler as a closet racist is predictable, and
hypocritical, coming from the same people who castigate Americans for not
commiserating with Muslims who feel that their cultures and religion are under
siege from the West. A Muslim with a siege mentality must be coddled and
caressed; a Westerner in his cultural bunker is just a racist getting his
comeuppance. Martin Bernal's two-volume masterpiece Black Athena provides
hope for those who worry that fallow Europe will be overwhelmed by fecund
Islam. Bernal's audacious synthesis of archeological, cultural, literary and
linguistic evidence convincingly shows that much of what we in the West call
"Classical Greek civilization" gained its inspiration from Egypt and, to a
lesser degree, the Near East. Philology and etymology are fuzzy sciences, to be
sure. There is plenty of room for argument over many of Bernal's linguistic
hypotheses. But the combined weight of the prodigious amount of circumstantial
and corroborated evidence that he compiled makes it very difficult to find
fault with his conclusions. What his detractors fail to realize is that their
arguments are less with Bernal than with Herodotus, Plato, and other ancient
Greeks who, in their writings, readily admitted that Egypt was the fountainhead
for much of Greek philosophy, mythology, and science. The experience of
pre-Classical Greece is a fairly typical example of a dominant culture (Egypt)
not destroying a weaker culture (Greece), but rather replacing some of its
features, melding with others, and - most instructive for those who suffer from
cultural angst - spawning something entirely new. It may appear on the surface
that Islam's gain is Europe's loss. But beneath the surface it is not a
zero-sum game. The weak aspects of modern-day Arab/Islamic culture - ready
belief in violent, defensive jihad; oppression of women; ignorance born of
failed educational, governmental, media and religious institutions - will be
overwhelmed by the strengths of Western culture - its openness and liberal
democratic ideals. As JPL of the Netherlands pointed out in his letter of
December 13, the grandchildren of Muslim immigrants to Europe will be far more
Europeanized than their grandparents. America and Europe will accept Islam, but
discard its many backward traits, just as liberalism has defanged Christianity.
On September 11, 2001, the Islam of the Saudi desert began to be exposed to the
somnolent West. That day marked the beginning not of the destruction of desert
Islam, but of its transformation.
Geoffrey Sherwood
Montville, New Jersey (Dec 14, '04)
Being a regular reader of Asia Times Online from Canada, I would like to bring
[up] a matter of propaganda against Muslims and Muslims' beliefs (jihad). Jihad
means a resistance against evil such as suppression, oppression, injustice etc.
Nowadays the word "jihad" is being used for "terrorism" by powerful Western
media. I would suggest you take a personal notice in this matter. As I have
noticed myself, many articles written by Hindu writers, Indian descendants, in
which they call [terrorism] "jihad", such as B Raman, Siddharth Srivastava,
Kaushik Kapisthalam and many more. We Muslims are very upset by the media which
[are] not presenting the true face of Islam. Don't forget every fourth person
on this planet is Muslim and [the majority of] Muslims are criticizing all
kinds of terrorism, not only [September 11, 2001] but in Chechnya, Kashmir,
Iraq [and] Palestine ... I hope Asia Times [Online] will not relate jihad with
terrorism and [will] respect the feelings of Muslims.
Mohammad A Sheikh (Dec 14, '04)
Tomas Jones and Mark Erikson have written a "gossipy" commentary of a
bureaucracy whose "intelligence/operations/conclusions" at best is judged
guilty of being tailored to fit preconceived policies and notions [Twelve
years of CIA discontent, Dec 11]. On an elemental level an individual's
participation in an "intelligence" endeavor is [composed] of the amalgam of
what he/she sees and hears to produce an image and/or a narrative. Spengler
(the original Oswald) is known to have considered "sight" to be the decisive
sense. Given the dynamics of Western societies, the proper equilibrium between
the "hearing" and the "seeing" is unbalanced. Until the balance between the
seeing and the hearing senses regains its equilibrium, the intelligence factor
will remain suspect. That equation is as valid for an individual, as well as
the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] regardless of who is in charge
(although admittedly that balance must also include those in charge). It may
also be past time for the CIA to include in its intelligence divisions
individuals [who] may be bearded as well as being un-Spenglerian in their
philosophies.
Armand DeLaurell (Dec 13, '04)
[Re] Free
trade at a heavy cost for India [Dec 11]: The problem with
liberalization has always been the presence of a regressive taxation system in
India. It started with the Nehruvian Congress which shackled private industry
with every possible legislation one can imagine. Just take the textile industry
for example. Aside from agriculture, it employs the highest number of people in
India, exports more than the fabled IT [information technology] industry (which
by the way pays no taxes), indirectly employs many more (textile machinery,
chemicals etc, Intel still does not make chips in India) and does not require
government-subsidized engineers to run it. Moreover, it consumes a high degree
of inputs that are overpriced because of state control like electricity, coal,
cotton and internal transportation. Finally, it is hobbled by archaic laws that
one government ministry will penalize the industry for while the other will do
the same if the industry tries to change. Then in 1991 a sardar called
Manmohan Singh comes and talks about liberalization (all he did was pawn his
grandmother's jewelry) and allows free imports! Great! Free imports are fine.
However, if you do not want to allow industries like textiles (like in Europe)
then allow them to be shut down. At least it will free up lots of space in
cities like Mumbai and Ahmedabad. However, has the sardar questioned
what the alternative is? The hobbling of [the] organized textile industry has
caused growth of [an] informal or segmented industry which is on a small scale,
therefore inefficient and more polluting, and thrives because of massive tax
evasion and shoddy working conditions. Has the eminent sardar and his
Italian aunt and communist cousins thought how they will provide jobs to
millions of people who may not be employable by the IT industry?
AP (Dec 13, '04)
Zhiqun Zhu confuses the international community's universal desire that there
be no more war with a willingness to see the people of Taiwan fall under
communism (Taiwan's
tragic delusion, Dec 10). He confuses the diplomatic statement of [US]
President George W Bush reaffirming the "one China" policy with a lack of will
to defend Taiwan from a communist invasion, despite his and his
administration's repeated assertions to the contrary. He [Zhu] then laughably
suggests that Americans would be willing to sit back and watch such an atrocity
take place. It is true that most nations wish for the relationship between
Taiwan and communist China to remain peaceful and would encourage Taiwan not to
escalate any friction. However, that is based on the hope that communist China
will someday become a democracy. The bottom line is that our [US] longstanding
policy is that the United States of America will never allow China to force
Taiwan to become communist and we are willing to do whatever it takes to that
end. The odd thing is that if China were to become a democracy [it] would soon
gain everything [it] could dream of, including becoming the pre-eminent nation
in the world by the end of the current century.
Dennis Castle (Dec 13, '04)
Allow me to add a rejoinder to Zhu Zhiqun's opinion piece on Taiwan [Taiwan's
tragic delusion, Dec 10]. Taiwan is not alone. He forgets that the
American Congress has voted a law which allows the stationing of the American
[naval] fleet there. The mainland's exercising of military muscle by venturing
into Japan's territorial waters is resulting in a step forward to its eventual
remilitarization, the beefing up of its armament program, and an increase in
its military budget ... Dr Zhu mistakes the lack of diplomatic support from the
international community [for] weakness or the inability of a country to
survive. He forgets the example of Turkish Cyprus. President [Richard] Nixon
and his adviser Henry Kissinger almost gave Taiwan away in their eagerness to
arrange an exit from America's debacle in Indochina and beard the Soviet bear.
Happily, wiser and cooler heads in Nixon's entourage saved the day, reminding
those crafty but clever-by-half realpolitikers of Washington's commitment to
Taiwan. Consequently, to snatch victory from excessive shortsightedness on the
White House's part, the US Congress passed the Taiwan law. Saying this,
Washington has the option of not intervening if Beijing declares war on Taiwan.
But I wouldn't count on that. Professor Zhu should know that in the diplomatic
chess game Washington has and will continue to mate the mainland's move to
forcefully take over Taiwan. Moreover, though Secretary [of State Colin] Powell
has issued a warning to Taipei to not push for independence, it doesn't follow
logically that Washington's China policy might not change. The United States is
fully aware [from] reading the Chinese press, analyzing governmental reports
and press releases, [and from] China's scholarly writings and pulp novels
[that] America is often pictured as the "strategic enemy". However, there is
identity of views between Beijing and Washington, more especially since the
mainland is leapfrogging through an industrial revolution, and lives off the
influx of American capital - and, yes, Taiwanese money and expertise. However,
the communist leadership in Beijing, worshippers at the altar of history,
should take note that 55 years of Taiwan's "independence" from the "motherland"
has forged a national self-consciousness. They should also [take] cognizance
that 55 years of brutal rule has not shaken national pride and identity of
Tibetans, nor the centuries-old oppression of the people in Xiangjiang of their
own birthright, and dare I say Mongolians in Inner Mongolia, who given the
much-touted Leninist principle of self-determination would prefer separation to
the present state of affairs.
Jakob Cambria
New York, USA (Dec 13, '04)
In US
tied over nuclear kingpin and
The damage done [both Dec 10], both Kaushik Kapisthalam and Ehsan
Ehrari are saying the same thing and accusing the same parties, but one of
these two learned gentlemen seems truer to his journalistic integrity, while
the other clearly has some hidden agenda. Anyway, I would like to ask them what
is it that upsets them more, the fact that now the "white master" is not the
only one in possession of nukes or fact that nukes were ever invented in the
first place and can now never be "un-invented"? And similarly, what is the
cause of their anxiety, the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, or the fact
that they may not have made them themselves but got hold of them by clandestine
means? Any government of any sovereign country in the world has a
responsibility to its people to provide them national security and make damn
good sure to have enough of a military deterrent to give any aggressors a
reason to think twice or 10 times before they make a move to take away that
most basic of rights of a nation. With the world stability gone right out the
window due to the US acting like a mad bull in a china store, especially when
it possesses the biggest and most devastating military any nation has ever
possessed in the history of the planet (something that gives the likes of
Spengler the pride and motivation to come up with all his fabulous writings),
conventional military deterrents are no longer sufficient deterrents and
guarantee for peace. Do you not understand what the "real world" is going
through? The best of our writers are prepared to overlook the worst of American
crimes because apparently they "understand what America has gone through" after
September 11 [2001]. Well, do you not understand the needs of your own people?
Do you not understand that the whole world is actually being terrorized by one
nation gone out of control? Take away all the nukes outside of the US - and now
show me one single country in the world whose citizens can feel safe and 100%
sure that they have nothing to fear from the US in the next five or 10 years,
even if its leaders were to sometimes make decision according to their own
national interests and not act like Tony "the poodle" Blair all of the time?
Apart from Pakistan, every Muslim nation is sitting on the edge right now
because they are not sure what America might do next. And what do you think it
is that gives Pakistan a bit of certainty? Do you think it's the fact that it
is an ally of the US that gives it a bit of peace of mind, or the fact that it
possesses nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Take away those nukes
and the people of Pakistan would be sure that they would be the next target -
even before Iran - if not by American directly then by India (these concerns
may be totally uncalled for and exaggerated, but we cannot pretend that they do
not exist). And what about China? How safe would China be without nuclear
weapons? India? Always weary that a "solution" to the Kashmir problem might be
enforced on it from out side - do you think India could afford to not have
nuclear weapons? Heck, even developed Western states like France would not have
a leg to stand on had it not been for nuclear weapons. Iran has faced [much]
aggression from outside forces in the past, which has always been with some
kind of US support, and now with American troops sitting on either side or Iran
and the US government sending threatening messages on a daily basis, what other
option do you think Iran has, short of handing over national sovereignty to the
US, but to try to gain nuclear weapons ASAP? Tell me, if someone in your
neighborhood had the know-how, and he spent 10 months making a gun, and when he
got that gun he attacked your house and put your wife and children under risk,
in the name of sport and good manners - would you then start making your own
gun in hope that in 10 months' time you would be able to have a Mexican
standoff with this aggressor, or would you use all means to grab the nearest
weapon you could get hold of and get rid of the threat posed to your family?
T Kiani (Dec 13, '04)
There are many nations that manage to live in peace and prosperity without
nuclear weapons. Moreover, the enormous destructive power of such weapons tends
to make their proliferation, in the eyes of many, so dangerous to global peace
and environmental integrity as to negate their deterrent value. It has also
been observed, however, as you suggest, that the Western nuclear powers have
demonstrated extraordinary hypocrisy in condemning proliferation outside
America and Western Europe while failing to live up to treaty and moral
obligations to reduce their own stockpiles. - ATol
Dear Spengler: On December 7 you were
Writing off Europe in the name of the US. Maybe you talk too much about
it as a doomsday scenario? Old Lady Europe in fact died at the end of World War
II, and with it most of its pagan mythology and Christian hysteria that also
caused the Holocaust. Young native European kids watch MTV, chat on MSN and
primarily care about their education and future careers, much less about
classical literature and history. They don't indulge in the diaries of the Sick
Old Lady that passed away already anyway. All that is progress, don't you
think? Sure, we have a problem with Islamic extremism, but that problem is
worldwide. Islamic immigrants in Europe don't cause [and won't] cause problems
by definition. Later Islamic generations born here are usually well adapted, ie
have lifestyles that don't [conflict] with civil law at all. Most like the
taste of democracy and free speech. Also, most European countries are changing
their immigration policies - they become more pragmatic and less tolerant. New
regulations disallow imams to preach unless they are educated into a moderated
and modern Islam at European universities. Yes, Europe is changing and has
changed a lot already, but don't write it off yet. The anti-Bush sentiments in
Europe will also just be an incident and gone when [US President George W] Bush
ends his last term.
JPL
Netherlands (Dec 13, '04)
Spengler ... [Re] the population crisis of Europe and Japan [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7] ... What does it matter if Europe or Japan do
choose extinction, or any other country for that matter? If people don't want
to have children, then why should they? It's not like we have a shortage of
warm bodies in this world. We can't lament the future of those that are yet
unborn, and may never be born. Do you feel it is a moral imperative to attempt
procreation by all those capable and able? ... I believe these trends we see in
Europe and Japan point to something underlying and fundamental:
People don't "need" kids as much as they used to in Western society. As most
people have moved off the farm and have reasonable amounts of disposable
income, time, retirement finances, etc, the necessity of children has been
greatly diminished.
People are being more selfish and see kids as interfering with their quality of
life. I came across an interesting study on happiness recently where they
measured the impact on happiness of various lifestyle elements. Notably wealth,
health, family and children. I think health came out on top, but what was most
interesting was how children scored on the happiness meter This study found
that children had a net impact on happiness of zero! Not a negative and
not a positive.
Could it be that the Europeans and Japanese have simply grown tired of living?
Are we seeing the scars of the war-torn countries? Destroyed collective
psyches? Perhaps in some of your future writings for ATol, you could delve a
bit deeper into the root causes for this depopulation boom, and address whether
it makes any difference at all?
Vercingetorix (Dec 13, '04)
Spengler [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7] rarely goes into the cause of the low birthrates of
Western countries. Perhaps it would touch too closely to the roots of Western
civilization as he understands it. Consider that in an advanced [capitalist
system], a man is in his 30s before he can responsibly contemplate courtship.
Can such a man marry a woman his own age? If he does, such a couple will be
hard pressed to balance their careers with the responsibilities of one or two
children. As women age, their eggs accumulate more and more genetic errors.
Large, robust families cannot be the norm under such an economic system. How
have women responded to their access to both career and family? They embrace
the former and reject the latter. If, when the dreaded age of 30 comes and they
hear the tick-tick-ticking of the biological clock, they relent to male demands
and squeeze out the obligatory child to assuage their instincts, but usually no
more. Government policies cannot elegantly reverse the central fact of Western
civilization: technology makes it possible for any individual, male or female,
to make a living. The economic modes of the nomad, the farmer, or the
industrial laborer all made women to some degree beholden to a man to support
her and her offspring. Today an effective woman can raise her children alone,
though perhaps without too much luxury. Genetic engineering hasn't even begun.
When it does, technology may exist that allows women to breed independent of
men, and men to breed independent of women. What vain egoist wouldn't want a
clone, rather than a "compromise creature" born of traditional intercourse? One
weakness of Spenglerite scare tactics is that he presupposes that the brown
people can continue their birthrates ad infinitum without any major correction.
I doubt that.
Omid Zehtab (Dec 13, '04)
To my request for more penguins [letter, Dec 10] (I believe that brief,
necessary identifying reference is in the category of "fair use"), the ATol
editors write: "We understand that Monty Python's Flying Circus has copyright
on penguins." Thus being barred the invocation of the penguin (doubtless barred
even were I to point out that Ronald Reagan walked with a waddle identical to
that of the penguin), in the alternative I request as substitute the sparrow -
which invocation has its advantages: they are equivalent in stature but, being
smaller, occupy much less space. (Please be certain to not include the sparrows
in the same column as the cat, as the latter's fondness for them tends to be
messy.) "Spengler": The only people I've encountered during the last 15 years
who lie awake nights worrying about population declines of whites of European
descent are white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and associated extremist "Christian"
"fundamentalists", all of whom claim to have "God" on their side [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7]. Though racism comes in innumerable disguises, it is
not difficult to recognize its obsessing and polemics.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 13, '04)
Reporters like Syed Saleem Shahzad only tell you a one-sided story: His article
Talk of peace, and war [Dec 7] is full of half-truths. Well, that is
expected from a country ruled by military despots. He has failed to address the
core issue at hand, which is the rise of radical Islamic militancy, that too
"Made in Pakistan" and spreading like wildfire worldwide and fanned by Saudi
Arabia. How ironic, his article tries to portray the Kashmiri Muslims as the
victims, when thousands of Kashmiri Pandits (the original inhabitants, before
the Muslim invasions) are living in horrid conditions in tent cities in Jammu
and Delhi. Then he has the gall to shows us a picture of that gorilla-face mass
murderer Syed Salahuddin funded by the Pakistani ISI [Inter-Services
Intelligence] living the high life in Pakistan as a "freedom fighter". Pakistan
or "Land of Pure" was founded on an intolerant doctrine like most of the other
Islamic republics that [are] "lands for Muslims only", all other religious
minorities "may leave now or die". This rule applies to every single despotic
Islamic republic and in present-day Kosovo. After 50 years of Indian and
Pakistani Independence and violent separation, Pakistan's Hindus/Sikhs are now
less than 1% of the population, whereas the population of Muslims in India has
gone up threefold, yet the Pakistanis continue to sing the same tune,
"Muslim-majority Kashmir belongs to Pakistan." Now let's put this in
perspective: the Muslims who went over to Pakistan from India are now treated
like second-class citizens - sectarian strife between Muttahid Muslims (Indian
Muslims in Pakistan), Shi'a and Sunni is practically an everyday killing
affair. Ahmedias are not even considered Muslims and [are] routinely treated
like garbage, including the only Ahmedia-Muslim Nobel Prize winner, Abdus
Salam. Now coming to Kashmir, I suggest he [Shahzad] do some more research,
starting with a good book by Swami Abhedananda, Journey into Kashmir and Tibet.
The Swami of the Ramakrishna Order traveled through Kashmir in 1922 and has
given a good account of hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist temples that were
destroyed by the invading Muslim conquerors [who] erected mosques right on top
of these ancient temples. The once-majority Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist population
is now reduced to a mere minority by continued killings and terrorism by these
Muslim fanatics, just like in Kosovo where hundreds of ancient Orthodox
Christian churches are reduced to rubble every day and Serbs are now a minority
in their own homeland. Additionally, these Kashmir Muslim terrorists continue
their killing spree every year when the Hindus visit Amarnath, but demand free
passage to visit Mecca and continue to get free subsidies and special minority
status in the Indian Union. Furthermore, in a thinly veiled disguise, what
Saleem and his masters, the Pakistani military dictators, are suggesting is
once again a partition of India based on religion. If there is a solution, the
Kashmiri Muslims who want to go over to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir should be
allowed to do so freely with a one-way bus service from Srinagar to
Muzaffarabad. ATol, keep up the good work: articles like these expose this
ignorant, intolerant bunch.
M Ramnath
San Francisco, California (Dec 13, '04)
Kent Fields [letter, Dec 10] is right about one thing. He cannot speak for
anybody else but himself. The majority of those "men" who promote the change of
Taiwan's status quo and start a war are white or hybrid white men at ATol. That
may also include Kent himself. You can prove to me if I am wrong. These white
men or hybrid white men always tried to portrait themselves as protectors and
speak men [sic] of the people who live in Taiwan at the excuse that they cannot
master the English. Many KMT [Kuomintang] people were educated in the USA. They
can speak and write perfect English. They have no problem expressing their
opinions in English if given a chance. Why cannot ATol at least give them one
chance? Is that too much to ask? Contrary to what Kent Fields may believe, I
support keeping the status quo of Taiwan. Status quo kept the peace of Taiwan
Strait for 55 years. And it will keep the peace for at least another four more
years. That is what the majority of the people in Taiwan and in this world
want. Why can't you leave them alone and have a peaceful time with yourselves?
The Anonymous and the person who hides behind the editor's mask want to have
some prospects in China [and] at the same time hate China to the guts. They do
not seem to have any integrity of themselves. If China is such an evil country
as you described, why would you want to trade goods with that evil? Integrity
and moral value are the key elements missing from those Taiwan Independents
supporters. Strangely, most of them are white at ATol.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 13, '04)
Once again, Frank's crystal ball does the miraculous: From thousands of
kilometers away in Seattle, he can tell not only "what the majority of the
people in Taiwan and in this world want", but the skin color of Asia Times
Online staff. But then, judging by the frequency of his racist comments, he may
be the only one of our thousands of readers who cares. - ATol
Thank you, Kent Fields, for your measured and reasonable view regarding
Taiwan's relationship with China [letter, Dec 10]. I lived in Taiwan in the
1950s when my father was a military adviser to Chiang Kai-shek, so I have paid
attention to the issue over the years. I have also had the honor of being
invited to tour the Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square. I visited
some of the rooms that are dedicated to the provinces, including the one
dedicated to Taiwan. I was struck by the fact that they regarded Taiwan as just
one of their ... provinces. There was no distinction that I could perceive
between this one, lavishly decorated with Taiwanese art and furniture, and the
others I saw adorned with their provincial products. The message was clear:
Taiwan is perceived to be part of China by most of the Chinese, and Taiwan is
perceived to be independent by most of the Taiwanese. I hope we can continue to
honor both of these perceptions.
Mike
USA (Dec 13, '04)
I rejoice at reading the numerous letters bashing China, from writers who hurl
words like "communists", "corrupt", "dictatorial", "repressive", etc, while
meantime I see China rising peacefully, economically and militarily, and
foreign capital rushing in, foreign companies setting [up] shop, foreign
tourists enjoying their visits, and the whole world eager to learn the Chinese
language. China, being such a vast country with 1.3 billion people to feed,
with 56 ethnic groups and dialects, after being war-torn, plundered, and
underdeveloped, simply has to put economic progress first and paramount, under
a harsh, competitive global economy. She just has to slowly feel her way in her
own political development, given her own historical background. So, to the
accusers, sit back and watch. If you can't bear with what you see, jump into
the ...
David (Dec 13, '04)
Enam (letter, Dec 10) has written a long, emotional rant full of totally
baseless/unsubstantiated claims about how India is always bullying Bangladesh.
As proof of India's bullying of smaller neighbors, consider the following
relatively recent incident: In April of 2001, the bodies of 15 personnel
belonging to the Indian BSF (Border Security Force) were handed back to India
by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR). All the bodies bore marks of horrible torture
and most had classic execution-style single bullet holes into the brain. The
mutilation was so bad that bodies were not returned to their families, to
prevent trauma - instead they were quickly buried or cremated. The BDR
initially claimed that these men had crossed the border into Bangladesh and
attacked its security personnel, who killed them in an exchange of fire. Later,
when confronted with evidence of torture (which they had not even bothered to
try to hide as a form of showing the middle finger to India), the BDR claimed
that the Indian "invaders" had been killed by enraged mobs of villagers who had
been incensed after years of being mistreated by the Indian military. Local
villagers have testified to the media on numerous occasions that they witnessed
the BSF men being captured alive by the BDR, so its quite clear that the men
were deliberately tortured and executed by the BDR. Besides, if the Indians
really were invading Bangladesh, why would they send only 15 men? The
Bangladesh-India border is long, mountainous, and heavily forested. Border
patrols from one side routinely stray onto the other side. These are normally
taken into custody and then later returned. Considering the number of people
that go missing in thick jungles, the BDR could easily have disposed off the
bodies after torture and execution and pretended that they didn't know anything
about any stray patrol. Why bother to return bodies that clearly tell a tale of
horrible torture at the hands of the returner? Because it soothes the
Bangladeshi ego to know that they can slap a much bigger country in the face
and get away with it. This is a classic Pakistani trick that the Bangladeshis
have picked up - taunt your enemy, and then when he responds beat your chest in
front of the international media about how horribly inhuman the Indians are. A
basic Google search will reveal hundreds of articles about this incident. And
do you know what was India's bullying response to this incident? The Indian
prime minister "expressed dismay" and declared that he would "seek an inquiry
from Bangladesh". Nothing ever happened after that. India is surrounded by so
many small countries with fragile egos, chips on their shoulders, and chronic
crises of identity that it cannot afford to speak firmly lest it make any more
enemies than it already has. So much for Indian bullying! Can you imagine
Mexico or North Korea ever pulling such a stunt on the US or China? Enam needs
to figure out who is really bullying whom.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 13, '04)
Re Spies,
terrorists and Pakistan [Dec 10] by B Raman: Mr Raman has done well to
highlight the implications to Pakistan, and as a result to India, of "the
implementation of the diplomatic strategy for the future conduct of the 'war
against terrorism' in general, and Islamist terrorism in particular", as a part
of the United States' "9-11 National Commission Recommendations Act". This is
likely to evoke a variety of emotions in India, but it will be worthwhile to
let all of the nuances and subtexts to emerge and take the time to absorb them.
According to the Act, the United States should, over a long-term period, help
to ensure a promising, stable, and secure future for Pakistan. This includes a
number of areas in which US assistance should be forthcoming. The overall
effect is to encourage [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf to
vigorously implement the policy of "enlightened moderation" in his country. Of
particular interest to India is the assistance "to resolve any outstanding
difficulties with its neighbors and other countries in its region". This will
very well mean US pressure on India to resolve the J&K [Jammu and Kashmir]
stalemate. Pakistan deserves to receive so much attention in the Act only
because, along with Saudi Arabia, it was one of the two main epicenters of
jihadi terrorism. The question is, are the religious extremists in Pakistan
ready to oblige the general to implement a policy of "enlightened moderation"?
Are the diehard extreme elements in the Pakistani military and the ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] prepared to give up their position of power and
their proclivity to create mischief, inside Pakistan and in the neighboring
countries, in order to see Pakistan become a nation of "enlightened
moderation"? If that happens it is for the good of the South Asian region and
the US would have accomplished a great deal. It may even be America's hope that
Pakistan's success in implementing a policy of "enlightened moderation" could
inspire a number of Arab countries to emulate that example. As a neighboring
country, India has been at the receiving end of Pakistani jihadism for too long
a time. While supporting America's efforts to transform jihadism into
enlightened moderation, India cannot afford to drop its guard. Finding the
changing atmosphere in Pakistan too hot and uncomfortable for their beliefs and
lifestyle, the jihadists will most likely infiltrate India by a variety of
means and settle down in areas which are ripe for communal conflicts. India has
to start tightening its border security from now onwards. Afghanistan faces a
similar situation from the Taliban believers and enthusiasts.
Giri Girishankar (Dec 10, '04)
[Ehsan] Ahrari in
The damage done [Dec 10] raises some troubling points about Pakistan
and probably a host of other countries such as North Korea. It would be
interesting to hear from him on, for instance, what could be done to control
this proliferation in Pakistan. The Pakistani rulers will cite the "India" word
in public or the "Islamic" word in private. But neither [is] the real reason
for the bomb. The worst part is that there is no oversight from a non-military
body.
AP (Dec 10, '04)
Zhiqun Zhu's column of December 10 [Taiwan's
tragic delusion] is a joke. Taiwan is a free society where the courts
work and freedom of speech and expression thrive under a multiparty democracy.
Moreover, except for the four years from 1945 to 1949, the island has been
completely separate from China since 1895. China, on the other hand, is a
corrupt, one-party dictatorship whose government's sole objective is to
preserve absolute political and economic power for a few trusted individuals.
Having lived for years in both countries, I am qualified to make this
statement. I know that merely signing my name to this letter would jeopardize
my future prospects in the China. So tell me, Professor Zhu, how exactly is
"one China" in Taiwan's best interests? What rubbish.
Anonymous (and not by choice) (Dec 10, '04)
We are letting this "anonymous" slide for reasons that are made apparent by the
letter itself, but we have not changed our policy of not accepting anonymous
letters. Pseudonyms are okay, however. - ATol
What did ATol do after I pointed out (letter, Dec 9) the utter failure of ATol
to provide readers genuinely objective and balanced reporting with journalistic
integrity? The editor essentially blamed me for seeking only "analysis that
props up your own view of the China-Taiwan question and makes you feel nice and
warm inside, rather than challenging you with a different point of view" and
then, as was done frequently and fruitlessly before, showed me the way to
ATol's Speaking Freely for yet another opinionated analysis (Taiwan's
tragic delusion, Dec 10, by Zhiqun Zhu). Hello? Did you not read what I
wrote before ("besides zealous promotions by hardcore ideologues on both
extremes for their own agenda, there is hardly any true journalistic reporting
at all on major issues facing both sides of the Taiwan Strait")? It is quite
easy for ATol to be a plain collecting bag of either pro-Beijing or pro-Taipei
opinions, but it is entirely irresponsible and negligent not to offer readers
all of the existing information essential to contemplate significant issues at
hand. Would Professor Zhu still believe that Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian and the
DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] are delusional if he does not ignore the
fact that hawks like [US Vice President Richard] Cheney, [Defense Secretary
Donald] Rumsfeld, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, [Under Secretary
of State John] Bolton and [Cheney chief of staff Lewis] Libby, all affiliated
with the Project for the New American Century or other right-wing think-tanks
like it before, are staying in the second Bush term while moderates like
[Secretary of State Colin] Powell are leaving? Besides what Laurence Eyton
could come up with in his one-sided commentaries time and again, are there any
truly impartial reports or analyses in ATol for the mysterious shooting of Chen
Shui-bian based on all of the evidence uncovered so far? Is it too much to ask
for some missing objectivity when ATol constantly blasts People's Daily for not
having "balanced reporting"?
Jay Liu
USA (Dec 10, '04)
I thank Jay Liu for his letters. I agree with him. For the last five decades,
the old Kuomingtang (KMT) has build strong [institutions] in the US and the
rest of the world to support its claim on China and to keep [its] Republic of
China alive. Now the KMT is getting infiltrated, transformed and eventually
defeated by Taiwan separatists. [Its] foundations and organizations are being
taken over by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), ironically mostly
supported by extremely conservative foreign forces. If the KMT doesn't regain
power any time soon, [it] won't make it and cross-strait peace will not be
certain. About ATol, I have to give credit where credit is due. ATol is posting
my critical letters and doesn't refuse them. I don't consider ATol to be a
serious news source, it's rather a moderated online forum where different
writers can post their own lengthy opinions. However, if you want to be a good
editor, you need to balance things off. If you start to only publish opinions
of John Tkacik and Taipei Times' Laurence Eyton then you seem to be quite
one-sided. So I suggest putting different views forward on the same topics.
John Tkacik, Laurence Eyton, etc certainly don't present the full story. I find
[letter writer] Frank's "white man" rhetoric funny and it may annoy people.
However, it may be a way to hit back against racism against Chinese people.
Talking about that, I would also like to thank Joseph J Nagarya. How refreshing
is it to hear his perfectly formulated letter. I quote him: "When you are
Chinese, and living in China, [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy, the domestic
affairs of that sovereign country will be your business. Until then you'll
remain a smugly arrogant supremacist who preaches an undisguised contempt for
your 'inferiors'." I couldn't have said it any better, thank you.
J Zhang (Dec 10, '04)
I would like to respond to letter writer Frank's (and others') endless call for
a KMT [Kuomintang] voice and the number of "white men" that answer Taiwan's
call. I cannot speak for others, only myself - but I will try to address both
issues. First, my Taiwanese in-laws do not speak or read English, so ATimes is
not a forum they are able to participate in. At times I translate articles for
them, and I respond per their instructions. They all voted KMT, as did my wife.
So this letter and my previous ones are somewhat of a KMT voting-bloc response.
Contrary to what Frank may believe, most KMT members are not in favor of
unification, they simply support the status quo (that Taiwan is separate from
China, and that hopefully the situation can be solved in the long run). Even my
father-in-law and grandfather-in-law (who both came from China in 1949) see no
need to unify until China is democratic. If China reforms, then
unification will become a popular movement in the KMT again. The KMT's backbone
now is based on economics, not unification. Look at the last election. Lien
Chan dropped the KMT's traditional unification stance. Look at Taipei Mayor Ma
[Ying-jeou]. Although he is originally from Hong Kong, he does not support the
need for immediate unification. Much of the Taiwan-versus-China debate was
based on how far to push, not on the need to unify. My Taiwanese family simply
wants Taiwan to be left alone and get help when needed (SARS [severe acute
respiratory syndrome], 9-21 [October 12, 1999] earthquake, etc). If China is
unwilling to offer help, then they (as KMT members) are willing to go
separately in a moderate stance. The move away from China is in all the
parties, not only the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party]. On the white issue,
Frank, I am not white. I am not certain of the others who frequently write (as
I have not seen them, nor their ethnicity "membership" cards). You need to
evaluate your own racist views when you assume that any person who disagrees
with you is the man. If you want to compare oppression by the man,
I would bet my ancestors suffered more at the hands of white imperials than
yours (hint - America belonged to half my family, some were pushed from China
into Laos, and the rest came to America in chains). It would seem that the man
is not the only group that has oppressed others. Any group that gains power
tends to oppress anyone in their way. My Hmong and Tibetan friends have a lot
of issues with the Han Chinese. Back off the race-baiting - it serves no
purpose but to destroy your own arguments.
Kent Fields
Keelung, Taiwan (Dec 10, '04)
Henry Ting expresses a noble wish for China [Democracy,
the best Chinese medicine, Dec 8]. Deng Xiaoping bought off the Chinese
masses with a revisionist "it's all right for [some people] to be rich".
Economic dislocation brought hope and tucks and pulls in Mao [Zedong]'s
paradise. [The year] 1989 was a watershed, and a perceived challenge to the
Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) hold on power. And Deng & Co responded by
the use of brutal force, crushing any differing voice. Rapid economic
development doesn't spell ... democratic freedoms. It may and can bring the
loosening of [the] tight cord around the Chinese collective neck. Saying this,
let us not forget, China, revisionist as it might be, is a Leninist state.
Lenin in his State and Revolution thought the [Communist] Party, as a
vanguard party of the working class, had to become not only red but expert. And
to him "expert" meant the example of the arch-capitalist Henry Ford. Today,
China is a pale pink and an apprentice in the ways in capitalism. The CCP is
not ready to share power, and it controls the army to stay in control. The
party never loses sight of the sad days of 20th-century Chinese history: the
years of a fractured country ruled by warlords and foreign armies. Any tendency
the CCP sees as "splitting" the nation will be dealt with harshly. Dissidents
are put in jail; others in psychiatric hospitals; still others killed; and the
lucky few exiled. More to the point, the Chinese masses remain quiet: they
embrace Christianity or the trappings of rising expectations. They have no
political outlet, save the almighty corrupt, debased CCP. China has long
suffered cruel regimes, but the CCP is now capable of offering bread and
circuses, and the gold rush of Western capital will keep it afloat.
Jakob Cambria
New York, New York (Dec 10, '04)
[Daniel] McCarthy [letter, Dec 8], please explain to me again how "the
Taiwanese people retain the right to choose their own destiny, and ... that
their future will not be with China" works. So the wise man said, "You have the
right to choose 1 or 2 and 2 is definite not it." As I understand [it] there
are people in Taiwan who wish unification. Are they not true "Taiwanese
people"? How [is it that] their "future will not be with China"? How [can] Mr
McCarthy, not being a Chinese (assuming from his name), declare that people
living in Taiwan now will not have their future linked with China "no matter
whether China is free or communist"? Is it from any democratic equation? Time
changes. The iron hand of Chinese Communist Party dictatorship had evolved
throughout the 50 five years of its history. Nowadays, I feel that "communist
China" is communist in name only. Looking back at China in 1911 and/or 1949,
China has come a long way. Instead of pushing for an idealistic nation, can
people just stand back a bit and give China a chance?
Tony S
California, USA (Dec 10, '04)
In response to my plea [letter, Dec 9] against the doggedly doggish
doggerelization of the ATol letters column, the editors well ask, "Are cats
okay? We like cats - except when they have hissy-fits." References to cats are
not only acceptable but, under the circumstances, mandatory - the more the
better! And as I indicated, I share their "hissy-fit" (a propagandist's smear)
umbrage at their exclusion in an effort to advance the diabolically
unconscionable agenda of their oppressive tormenters (ie, dogs). Moreover - and
I realize I risk being banned from this column for being so bold - I object
that there are far too few references to penguins and polar bears. Especially
penguins. And what, I demand to know, have the editors against turtles? More
turtles! I say, as the symbol of fertility - and exemplary lesson in thoughtful
caution - they are. Roy [letter, Dec 9] writes to Daniel "Tailgunner" McCarthy:
"You ... use lawyerly-speak to arrive at a desired conclusion." In fact,
McCarthy does not use "lawerly-speak" - such an assertion insults lawyers.
Rather, he is simply, and basely, intellectually dishonest, as shown by his
ranting against China while making no mention whatsoever of the Bush War Crimes
Family and Fantasy Factory's subversions of democracy within the US, its
illegal occupation of and war on Iraq, and the lie that its war crimes
perpetrated against the Iraqi people constitute "liberation" of those very same
people - which string of facts wholly negates his "pro-democracy" preachments.
Were McCarthy to stop living in a paranoid, fictional past, he might be living
instead in the present - and insisting that torture is always a war crime,
except when the "pro-democracy" "pro-human rights" US does it. And boasting his
approval of the election outcomes in Florida and Ohio, and the means by which
achieved: subversion of democracy through massive disenfranchisement based upon
racism.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 10, '04)
We understand that Monty Python's Flying Circus has copyright on penguins. - ATol
So, it has come to that: The respected Asia Times [Online] has posted another
[piece of] Indian propaganda, [under] the title of
Bangladesh treads fine terror line [Dec 9], written by an Indian,
Sudha Ramachandran. The first thing about Bangladesh is it is an extremely free
country, in some sense freer than the USA (I lived in the US for more than 10
years). Here [in Bangladesh] you can openly hurl obscenity at the sitting prime
minister, express your opinion, but you can also hire a killer for a few
dollars. I can give the equivalent of 10 cents to someone who would deliver a
box of feces to the Indian Embassy - let alone a letter. India has the biggest
propaganda machine in Asia, and has Bangladesh wrapped around its fingers -
well, almost. Since the independence of Bangladesh from the oppressive grip of
West Pakistan, in which India helped us tremendously (because it serves its
major interest, severing a big chunk off its arch-enemy, Pakistan), India has
been heavy-handing Bangladesh. It probably wanted a puppet regime and more
advantages, but the fiercely independent Bangladeshi people have always
resisted that. India has built more than 13 major dams on international rivers
(Farakka is the biggest one, which is destroying large swaths of their lands
now - 20-some years after being built, poetic justice?), before they enter
Bangladesh, disregarding international law, thus reducing the flow at will. In
the dry season, because of [withheld] water, our water level goes down, crops
die, trees wither, [and] rivers get shallow with the accumulation of thousands
of tons of silt. In the rainy season, when Indians don't need all that water,
they open the dams, and our flood situation worsens by orders of magnitude. The
older Bangladeshi generation of politicians are supine, media- and
technology-unsavvy, and thus could not stand up to India for much of anything.
So much so that world doesn't know how India tries to dominate Bangladesh. For
more than 20 years, India has aided, abetted, sheltered, armed and trained the
infamous "Shanti bahini" ("peace army"), tribal terrorists in the
southeast part of Bangladesh (evergreen mountainous region, porous borders with
India) that many Indian articles now [cite] as lawless. I had friends fighting
these terrorists for many years. A blatantly pro-India government in Bangladesh
a few years ago made a big compromise and made peace with these terrorists, and
gave them autonomy. As you sow, so shall you reap. As India's helping these
"terrorists-insurgents" made the whole area lawless, it has made that area
(inside India, alongside Bangladesh) a haven for Indian insurgents. The Indian
government's oppression of its own people in the peripheries has flamed
insurgencies in Indian provinces east of Bangladesh (home of tribal people).
Now we are to blame! This is because the Indian government wanted to get a
hundreds-of-miles-long corridor through mainland Bangladesh to carry
unannounced troops, armors, whatever, to troubled northeastern India.
Bangladesh has refused this proposal, which it deems as a clear breach of her
sovereignty. The strong Indian Border Security Force (BSF) kills hundreds of
people of Bangladesh each year with impunity, [and] Indian air force planes
regularly violate our airspace. The author Sudha Ramachandran (also B Raman,
another Indian who writes anti-Bangladesh propaganda at Asia Times [Online]),
sitting pretty in south India, original home of the Tamil LTTE [Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam] who invented suicide bombing, is writing [that]
Bangladesh is full of "Islamist terrorists" and ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services
Intelligence] spies. Well, Sudha, come visit us in Bangladesh, you will find
hundreds of Indians working, doing business, making money in Bangladesh,
openly. Will you find any Pakistanis? Almost none (except embassy people, and
probably cricketers playing in local sport [leagues]). For every ISI agent,
there are hundreds of RAW [Indian Research and Intelligence Wing] agents in
Bangladesh. It is not so surprising that none of the media talk about India's
pervasive and ruthless intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing. I
urge the international community to intensely look at this agency and its
doings all over South Asia. The fine Indian cricketers are always welcome to
Bangladesh. They are the direct antithesis to the Indian terrorists who
mercilessly hacked down thousands of innocent men, women and children in
Gujarat, with active local-government support. Terrorists of any brand, color,
nationality, Pakistani, Indian, Arab or Western are not welcome. As for
Bangladesh, there is a new generation rising here who are pro-Bangladesh, and
would not cut corners with either Pakistan, India or whoever when our interest
is concerned. India, watch out!
Enam (Dec 10, '04)
[Re Voices
of Kashmir, a series by Syed Saleem Shahzad] It's very obvious that Mr
Shahzad has never been to the other side of Jammu and Kashmir. Saleem, did you
not apply or were you refused a seat on the bus that recently took Pakistani
journalists on a tour of the other side? You mentioned details and interviews
of approximately 20,000 refugees on the Pakistani side but did not even mention
the 300,000 refugees on the other side. I read your response in one of your
previous letters that blamed ex-governor Jag Mohan for Kashmiri Pandits leaving
the state. If it was that simple why have they not returned long after Jag
Mohan is gone? The reason is obvious: the circumstances which were really
responsible are still there. You claim that all the terrorist camps are closed,
did you even mention that they were once operating in your articles? Did you
even read reports of the horrendous acts including beheadings, which make
international headlines in Iraq nowadays, have been happening in Jammu and
Kashmir for long? Acid-throwing on uncovered faces of young girls and cutting
of ears, noses and tongues of 12-year-olds a frequent affair? A large number of
moderate leaders and voices have been systematically silenced by these
well-trained killers. That they want to establish an Islamic caliphate of
Kashmir like the ideology of other so called "pure" states cleansed of
minorities? A democratically elected government rules in Indian-administered
J&K, whereas the president of "Azad" Kashmir is an appointed retired
general from the Pakistani army. The prime minister answers to him and has no
real executive powers. In your addendum at the end, why don't you make it clear
that the maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir did not accede to India or Pakistan
under the ... British Empire, and decided to remain independent just like
Nepal. He was forced to accede to India and ask for its protection when
Pakistan invaded it under the garb of tribals. He did that legally as the
sovereign. You must make a trip to the other side and balance your Jammu and
Kashmir series with a few additional articles, or your credibility stands
seriously compromised ...
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (Dec 10, '04)
I refer to
Writing off Europe (Dec 7) by Spengler and the reactions. Now I know
for sure that Spengler belongs to the tribe, the only tribe that is arrogant
and believes in [its] superiority over others and that will go to any extreme
to make sure that [its] views prevail. On December 8 nearly all of the letters
were condemning Spengler for his above article (one letter corrected his input
on American military semantics). Lo and behold and just as I suspected, the
tribe will never allow one of [its] fellows to be proven wrong - they
orchestrate a letter-writing campaign in support of Spengler. They use these
tactics to intimidate anyone daring enough to challenge and expose their lies
and fraud. They never allow people with opposing views to theirs to have the
final word. But they have overdone this so much that despite the media power
and writing skills they employ, they are getting exposed and the world no
longer believes them. We are not fooled and neither are we cowed by such
tactics. If Spengler writes something stupid, we will expose it.
Vincent Maadi (Dec 10, '04)
Terence Redux (letter, Dec 9) asks why Europe's population decline should be
attributed to secularization, considering that low birthrates in France were a
concern a century ago. French secularization began with the 1789 Revolution.
Robespierre briefly abolished Christianity in favor of a "cult of the supreme
being". What worried the French before 1914 was not the specter of absolute
population decline, or Islamicization, but rather the relative growth of the
French population. Germany was growing much faster, and a case can be made that
France was eager to begin World War I in 1914 because it knew that one
generation later Germany could not have been beaten. Rapid absolute decline in
the population of prosperous and peaceful nations is something new under the
sun. My observation that it is associated with the collapse of religious faith
is not unique. Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle, which I
reviewed in these pages (Faith,
fertility and American dominance, Sep 8), makes the same point. By the
way, I disagree with your Roman namesake about flattery and truth; sometimes
telling the truth does not makes enemies, but makes unexpected friends.
Spengler (Dec 10, '04)
Mahan Abedin's attempt in his article
All at sea over 'the Gulf' [Dec 9] to advance the cause of sticking to
"Persian Gulf" was harmed by turning his article into a screaming piece of
propaganda. Mr Abedin also neglected to explain the political implications of
the name as far as Iran is concerned. For many ayatollahs and others, the
Persian Gulf is not simply a name for a waterway, but an Iranian sphere of
influence. For this, and other reasons, the three Islands of Sharjah (UAE) were
occupied by Iran, and claims over Bahrain and Qatar and UAE oilfields persist.
Mr Abedin should also think of practicalities for both Arabs and Iranians. For
example it would unusual to say, "Oil produced by the United Arab Emirates from
its oilfields in the Persian Gulf." Things have changed a little bit since
Greek travelers claimed to have visited the Gulf. Persia then was the dominant
power and the Arab coastline was sparsely populated, which is not the case now.
Mr Abedin should have pointed out that Arabs have suggested calling the
waterway the Islamic Gulf and Iran refused. Moreover, Arabs have never asked
Iran to stop calling it the Persian Gulf and, to my knowledge, no publication
was ever banned for using "Persian Gulf". Lighten up and call the Gulf whatever
you like, but don't force others to do the same. Amerigo Vespucci was not the
first to discover America but is credited not just for one America (North) but
two. What's in a name?
ASB (Dec 9, '04)
My fellow Iranians' fury at the renaming of the Persian Gulf by National
Geographic reflects the worst of Iran's culture [All
at sea over 'the Gulf', Dec 9]. It reflects the narrow-mindedness of
Iranians today that they even care what the NGS [National Geographic Society]
calls the Persian Gulf. Those Arab nationalists who aspire to conquest by
cartography reveal that Middle Eastern elites today are happy enough fighting
over useless issues in blogs and petitions while Israel and the US shatter
their nations and ravage their people. I recently came across an article
http://www.payvand.com/news/04/dec/1014.html by an Iranian professor discussing
this issue. The article features a satellite map of the Persian Gulf produced
by American satellites, with the words "Persian Gulf" in tacky yellow lettering
superimposed. The learned professor did not pause to think that Iranians today
are not capable of doing much more than imposing tacky lettering on satellite
images. The Arab sheikhs who started this row may not even be capable of this
much. For all the talk of history, Iranians and Arabs today are a shame to
their ancestors, squabbling over names on maps while the actual places are run
over by the US.
G Travan
California, USA (Dec 9, '04)
Just to clarify, the NGS did not "rename" the gulf, but has accepted "Arabian
Gulf" as an alternative name. - ATol
Concerning Spengler's most recent sermon [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7] and Dr Pardinas' hotheaded reply [letter, Dec 7], I
would like to say the following: Regardless of how you wish to interpret
Spengler's arguments - the numbers speak for themselves. Barring genetically
engineered clones or another round of ethnic cleansing, Europe may be largely
Muslim 100 years from now. Not due to war, not due to conversion, but due to
the same sort of "values" that won George Bush another four years at the
feeding trough. Spengler has argued that this is a bad thing for Western
civilization. Dr Pardinas might be a little torn, for although this would be a
manifestation of the democracy he appears to cherish, I'm quite sure that
classical music would soon fall out of style. He might also feel conflicted as
to whether he prefers woman-hating porn or woman-hating in general. With the
potential for a hostile Europe around the bend, major superpowers developing
across Asia, and a local population that, for the most part, doesn't care one
way or the other, the American Empire is facing a very uncertain future. What
does one do in such a situation? Two options come to mind: do nothing, and
simply allow the balance of power to swing one way or the other, or take action
to ensure continued dominance. The latter appears to be what America's brains
have chosen, with Iraq simply the lowest-resistance, highest-reward target that
could safeguard that dominance. Everything else is just peripheral - including
the oil barons, the pro-Likud stance and the Jesus rhetoric. At heart these are
just means to an end. The wisdom of America's choice remains to be seen. By
resurrecting the Christian fundamentalists and empowering big business they may
have irreversibly altered the fabric of their democracy. But who knows, maybe
the current phase will only last as long as it needs to. Crusty old men enjoy
invoking the classics. It gives them an edge over other people that they would
not be able to enjoy in any other way. It's also a lot easier than forming
their own opinions. Spengler revels in his incessant name-dropping (he is in
fact a name himself) - with the "greats" of "Western civilization" having the
answers to everything. Dr Pardinas implies stupidity on the part of the average
American for not listening to a handful of [disparaging term for "Germans"
deleted] [who] died a few centuries ago. I suppose it is beyond them, huh, not
having those three little letters after their names. Shame on you both. There
are any number of truths to be found in the collective knowledge of generations
of Western thought, but it won't stop them from being put to the torch. Instead
of spouting arrogance and widening the gap between you and your fellow man, why
not try to use this knowledge to do something constructive? Write a book.
Become a politician. Become a teacher. Have a child. Start a movement. Hah!
Brim Shinto (Dec 9, '04)
O how the cruel the world is that now I must once again defend Spengler, whose
attempts to understand the causes and complexities of European demographics
seem better fitted to his favorite protagonist, Faust. The ATol man with the
Cassandra complex writes brilliant conjecture as to how the most secular and
prosperous nations have developed a nightmare of a low birthrate. Once again
the readers of ATol have lashed out at a fact they don't want to discuss. The
backlash against Spengler exemplifies an old proverb from my pen-namesake, "Hoc
tempore obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" ... I happen to own a
book, Inside Europe, circa 1938, written right before World War II broke
out. The book discusses how low the French birthrate had been up to that point.
It would appear the low French birthrate is a situation that developed long
before massive secularization occurred in 1905 and then under [Charles] de
Gaulle as a reprisal against the Vichy government. How then is it
chronologically possible that the loss of spirituality is the cause of this
lack of children? Spengler, given the historical information, how can you
assert that secularization is the cause for the modern European low birthrates
and the habit of siphoning off children from other cultures and ... turning
them into dishwashers?
Terence Redux
USA (Dec 9, '04)
Without "Spengler", ATol contributors would be nothing more than a group of
innocent happy rabbits. A group of happy rabbits living in a utopian pen
unknowingly awaiting their future slaughter. Before death their minds would
atrophy in mutual groupthink. Understanding your adversary is the first step
toward political victory. Consider all the adversarial deep thoughts that would
have gone missing without "Spengler". Common sense is an uncommon virtue.
Oldigerdowski
Houston, Texas (Dec 9, '04)
Spengler tends to get walloped for anything he says. But I disagree with some
of the letter writers about him being anti-West, and anti-Muslim, and
anti-everything else. I doubt very much whether he is any of these things; he
is just an opinionated writer who has some intellectual tenacity which some
readers cannot comprehend. I guess he has a tendency of saying things as they
are, and if he feels that there is a subject of importance worth covering. He
will repeat it to ensure that it gets coverage in the minds of people. A lot of
writing is done these days, but little is actually written. Spengler actually
writes stuff which makes sense to a large degree. His take on the world is
relevant, to a large degree, and is based upon analysis which is backed up by
strong mathematical and intellectual opinion. For those of you out there who
are emotionally charged to seeing the truth, who respond by killing the
messenger, leave the Spengler and analyze the Spengled message. I am afraid
that he has been right on more than a number of occasions, and through his
rose-colored "natural born killer" glasses explains things exactly as they are.
I have pondered time and time again at the impact of his writings, and have
found them to be very strong, even though I personally disagree with some of
his traits on the demise of Islam. The rest of you, go back to sleep, and
remember that morning will soon break.
Jeff Imada (Dec 9, '04)
Hey Spengler: Your articles are thought-provoking, and you are a fine writer,
so I offer this advice in a friendly manner. "Hooah" is what US Army troopers
say, and you are correct in that it means the rough equivalent to "amen". It
can also mean "Yes, Sir," "Roger that," "Oh, hell yeah!" or "Understood, Sir."
It's a bit like the US Italian Mafias "Forget about it." Marines, in contrast,
say "Ooh-rah", which means about the same thing as the army's "Hooah." They
also say, "Semper Fi," short for the Latin term semper fidelis, or
"always faithful". The operation to take Fallujah was joint, and there were
army and marine units working in close coordination, so there were, no doubt,
"Hooahs" and "Ooh-rahs" flailing all about. For future reference, US Navy
seamen, especially those in the Special Warfare community, say "Ooh-yah" as
their military mantra. I'll sign off with Santa's mantra, "Merry Christmas ...
and Happy New Year!"
J
Annapolis, Maryland (Dec 9, '04)
This letter was delayed by technical glitches, but although Spengler has
already acknowledged (letter, Dec 8) his linguistic faux pas in the Dec 7
article
Writing off Europe, we are running this anyway because of the valuable
extra info. - ATol
Reading through Syed Saleem Shahzad's [Talk
of peace, and war, Dec 7] a few things are striking: For all the
horrible deeds the army in Jammu and Kashmir (as the state is properly known)
is supposed to have committed, there are but 23,000-odd refugees in Pakistan's
portion of Jammu/Kashmir. That is very low for a state of [more than] 15
million people. There are more Biharis (people from the state of Bihar in
India) displaced out of their anarchic state every week. There are far
more Hindus displaced out of the Kashmir Valley, torn from their hearth and
home and their women raped - almost 300,000, 10 times the number of refugees
that Mr Shahzad found. I did not notice any interview by Mr Shahzad about these
... Perhaps reading a view of a Kashmiri Hindu might enlighten Mr Shahzad. I
recommend Sumer Kaul's writing (rediff.com). The poor souls were egged on to
leave by loudspeakers from mosques with the suggestion they leave their women
behind. At its core, Jammu/Kashmir is a Muslim theocratic state versus secular
state struggle, a fact that Mr Shahzad chooses to ignore, and that is why, even
if the "Kashmir problem" is resolved, the core problem will not go away and
will continue to fester. If the Pakistanis were really interested in the
"freedom" of Kashmir, then they would not force candidates for elected office
(in the Pakistani portion of the state) to sign a declaration saying Kashmir
was a part of Pakistan. Even the highest elected representative in Pakistani
Kashmir has to answer to the government representative from Pakistan. Lastly,
where did the Hindus of Pakistani Kashmir go? There were many before 1947 ...
Rudranath Talukdar
Johnson City, Tennessee (Dec 9, '04)
John Tkacik [Polls
highlight Taiwan's identity crisis, Dec 7] and any other white men are
entitled for their opinions of how Asians should behave. The majority of East
Asians do not agree with them in many cases. If ATol is independent of all
other media, how come you never publish any articles from the Chinese people
who voted for KMT [Kuomintang] and live in Taiwan today? Every time there are
disagreements from East Asians about white people's views of Taiwan, ATol
editor jumped out attacking them from behind. If you want to debate with East
Asian people about Taiwan, step out and bring it on. There is no need to hide
behind an editor's mask. You are entitled for your opinions too. However, a
true independent news medium should be an unbiased one. Your prejudiced views
about Taiwan undermined your ability to report the news correctly.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 9, '04)
Once again, ATol tried to put words that I never said into my mouth in response
to my letter (Dec 8) as it did to J Zhang (letter, Dec 7) exactly. Our letters
stated neither that John Tkacik's affiliations should have been "a
disqualification for publishing his views" nor that his views were not his own
but "merely the paid-for parroting of someone else's opinions". So why does
ATol keep propping up these fake straw men and then knocking them down knowing
that they were not even there in the first place? As I already pointed out in
my letter, readers should know that indisputable evidence does exist (eg,
current Under Secretary of State John Bolton's own testimony at his US Senate
confirmation hearing in 2001) to support the statement that individuals
advocating the Taiwan separatist agenda are in fact funded, at least in part if
not all, by organizations on the island. The problem with ATol is that, besides
zealous promotions by hardcore ideologues on both extremes for their own
agenda, there is hardly any true journalistic reporting at all on major issues
facing both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latest example is provided once
again by Laurence Eyton (Taiwan elections curiouser and curiouser, Dec 8) who
refers to himself as "this reporter". However, he is not at all a reporter as
one would expect from any other major media news outlets because he doles out
ample amounts of his own personal opinions, commentaries, analyses, judgments,
criticisms, and even advice, all of which one could [not] care less if anything
[about], on all sorts of things he writes about. I will never accuse ATol of
promoting war as one other reader did before, but it is often rather difficult
to get all the facts straight by reading ATol. Tell me I am in the wrong place,
and I will gladly go elsewhere to find them.
Jay Liu
USA (Dec 9, '04)
It depends what you want: if you want analysis that props up your own view of
the China-Taiwan question and makes you feel nice and warm inside, rather than
challenging you with a different point of view, perhaps you should go
elsewhere. Before you do, though, be sure to check out the new Speaking Freely
feature Taiwan's
tragic delusion. Remember, Speaking Freely is available to readers who
want to help us expand our coverage and analysis. Just click on
this link and follow the instructions. - ATol
Penelope Bryan-McQueen writes [letter, Dec 8]: "American youths who fight in
senseless wars ... are taught to hate and manufactured out of whole cloth
without a chance to see other than their brainwashing. It is not their fault."
Of course it's their "fault": they have the same opportunities as every other
US citizen to inform themselves of the facts. During US involvement in Vietnam,
while still in high school, I read books - not a popular activity, but not
prohibited to those who did not - so learned the underlying facts of that
involvement and became a pacifist before being graduated therefrom. Another in
my class, and a good friend, enlisted in the marines, and went off to his
"glory" in Vietnam immediately after being graduated. A month later he came
home in a box. Not because [he was] brainwashed but because he declined to see
through the propaganda. But that's not the only consideration: if a war is
illegal, then all who advance it are morally complicit in that illegality. That
includes the troops who advance the war - whether because they are contemptuous
of the rule of law, or "merely" negligently irresponsible about distinguishing
fact from lie. Daniel "Joseph" McCarthy writes [Dec 8]: "Freedom and the right
to select their own government are basic rights the Chinese people deserve."
When you are Chinese, and living in China, Mr McCarthy, the domestic affairs of
that sovereign country will be your business. Until then you'll remain a smugly
arrogant supremacist who preaches an undisguised contempt for your "inferiors",
based upon both a paranoia which was not founded on reality even before it was
obsolete, and a rude inability to mind your own business. The US is currently
engaged in an illegal occupation and war in Iraq, premised upon a long train of
knowing lies, with daily commissions of war crimes in violation not only of
international law but also US domestic law which are lied about as being
"Freedom on the march" toward "democracy". Clean up your own back yard before
yapping your racist "superiority" at the rest of the world. A note of umbrage:
I have always held, as an ethical principle, that letters columns which allow
mention of dogs are sub-par - have, when descended to that heinous level of
debasement, as it is said, "gone to the dogs". Indeed, such columns are morally
offensive. But I did not anticipate it could be worse than even that: now we
witness mention of "dogs of war" [Gregorio Kelly letter, Dec 8]. I'd always
believed dogs to be pacifists; now I'm rudely disabused of that lovely but
obviously fatuous illusion. Please! No more dogs! Unless attention to them is
limited to beagles.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 9, '04)
Are cats okay? We like cats - except when they have hissy-fits. - ATol
Response to Daniel McCarthy's letter [Dec 8]: Since democracy in China is not
your ultimate delight, but rather balkanization, which other provinces do you
dream of breaking themselves away from China? My next question is a repeat of
an earlier letter writer. Can the state of Hawaii unilaterally decide to break
away from the USA? Or is that decision to be made by the entire USA? Have you
ever studied the American Civil War? Do you have any knowledge of violence
expanded 13 colonies expanded into 50 states? You are a hypocrite. The neo-cons
explicitly say how they want to bring down China by any means possible. You, on
the hand, use double lawyerly-speak to arrive at a desired conclusion. You are
also a coward. Pick up your arms and head to liberate Iraq, that may prepare
you for a future liberation of Taiwan.
Roy
USA (Dec 9, '04)
I am a regular visitor to your website. I find it very informative and
unbiased, quite unlike many of the typically biased opinion expressed by
websites from the developed countries including the country of my current
residence. Being an NRI [Non-Resident Indian], of course I do like reading
about developments in India, articles on which your website offers in plenty.
In this connection, I must compliment one of your contributors, [Kunal Kumar]
Kundu, who is a senior economist. I find his articles very well researched and
presented. Also he is not afraid of calling a spade a spade while exposing the
fallacies. I do wish your website all the best and many more years of such
wonderful information dissemination.
Swapan Lodh
London, England (Dec 9, '04)
Democracy,
the best Chinese medicine [Dec 8] is a fine piece of work by Henry
Ting, if the reality [were] as rosy and as idealistic as theory ... In a
perfect world the communists would already have their utopian Marxist society
and the East [would be] already buried in "evil Western capitalism". But we
live nowhere near perfection. Henry Ting made the same argument many
intellectuals, youths and planners had already argued about the benefits of
democracy: that is recognition from the Western world and the possibility of
reconciliation with Taiwan based on that fact alone, in the best-case scenario
of course; an argument that would've been more convincing 10 years ago. As any
observer can now see, Taiwanese politics these days uses communist autocracy
only as a side show to [its] main agenda, to gain international recognition for
[Taiwan's] de facto independence. The emergence of the People's Progressive
Party reflects the reality [that] even if China becomes democratic, it is
unlikely that Taiwan will seek unification. Of course there will be dialogue
since Chen Shui-bian counted on a democratic China to grant Taiwan formal
independence. While I do not understand Chinese "face mentality" as well as
President Chen Shui-bian and I cannot comprehend why de facto independence
isn't enough (give Asian peace a break, Mr President), I can infer from the
current situation that a generation of Chinese youth spoon-fed the idea of a
unified Chinese nation from Mongolia to the Nan Sha Islands and those who still
live in the shadow of 1840-1945 will not accept [Taiwan independence] no matter
how democratic China becomes. It is safe to rule out conciliation with Taiwan
base on above. As for Western recognition, sure, why wouldn't the Western world
recognize the aura of a democratic China? I am sure a lot of the Chinese ruling
elite and intellectuals would feel very lofty about the recognition and
acceptance into the Western order. But what's in it for the average Joes? Does
that mean rice with steamed carrots for them each meal? Is Western acceptance
supposed to put food on the table? And looking from the sidelines [at] what's
happening in Eastern Europe, I can see how and why it is in the best interest
of the Western world to promote democracy in China so they can bend ... Chinese
leaders in the direction of their design. I can only feel sorry for Ukrainians
- they have a choice between a Moscow-backed dictator or a Western-backed Mafia
boss/big business crony. Neither is in their best interest. Even from an
American standpoint, Europe overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry, and Americans
voted for [George W] Bush just to spite their attempt to get involved. (No my
cheesy British fellows, 50 million Americans aren't dumb, 25 million voted for
Bush because they believe in him and the other half just wanted to piss off the
Brits and the French.) So Western recognition set the way for Western
manipulation of the Chinese democratic process, and seeing how many Chinese
factions are already in bed with numerous Western interests even [though] the
communist autocracy persists, I can only imagine how a free-for-all would go in
future Chinese politics: take your pick and send in your cash and we will do
what you want. Who cares what the people want? Let's probe the corruption
issue. Whenever I pick up a Duo Wei paper, I can only lament how the officials
prey on the sweat and blood of the people, how [duplicitous] the communists
were by bringing back the "absolute evil old society" that was used to
emphasize the superiority of their "honey-sweet new society", and how backward
their intellectual philosophies are. And then Professor Henry Ting et al pop in
saying that if we hold elections today everything will be fine and dandy; a new
period of "honey sweetness" should be brought forth and the old wicked
communist society will be spat into the trash can of history. I do agree that
democracy makes the foundation to convey the messages of the [masses] and to
make policies that are in phase with the needs of the people, assuming the
officials remain firm to the ideals of democracy and stewards of law and order
- the very same assumption that the communists held for their Marxist paradise.
And we have all see how this plays out, a champion of the lowly peasants
transformed into this gigantic autocratic bureaucracy that tormented the
peasants and workers they so shamelessly proclaim to serve and had liberated
from the "hellish old society" and the "evil imperialists". Even in America,
democracy works if the leaders and constituents work. It is already three years
and three months after September 11 [2001], and yet what has America got other
than some lame airport security check and empty [promises] from the
commander-in-chief? ... This only serves to demonstrate that if leaders ... are
half-hearted and never intended to get things done, the system will fail the
people. Even Americans are capable of this - what makes Professor Ting so sure
that the Chinese are so determined to make democracy work? So Professor Ting's
solution to corruption is centered around an "if", a very big if. I might have
to turn to God if this is the best intellectuals can come up with to solve the
Chinese problems.
Z Z Zhu
New Jersey, USA (Dec 8, '04)
[Re] Democracy,
the best Chinese medicine [Dec 8, by] Henry Ting: [I] totally disagree
with the author. He just hollowly discussed democracy and said it can solve the
social problems of China. But he has little knowledge of [modern] China and
less understanding of Chinese. Democracy is respected and needed, but not [if
it is] just simply copied from the USA. US democracy is [effective] only in a
stable society with a high economic standing. There is no big difference among
US people and between east and west, but China is [very] diverse ... You can
see all the East Asian countries which copied the US democracy, all [these]
countries are not developed [as] well as China, at least on the economy;
moreover, corruption ... still exists, even worse in these democratic
countries. You can also compare Russia and China: Russia is a "democratic
country", but what democratic living are normal people enjoying? Much worse
than Chinese! Western democracy seems really [a dead end for] China. Chinese
people and the Chinese government never stopped the development of democracy.
But Chinese must test [their] own model and need time. In fact, the Chinese
government is setting up many tests in tens of places with several models.
China is on the way of development, both on economy and politics.
Ling Guan (Dec 8, '04)
While China's economic development has been remarkable over the past decade or
so, it is not true to say that East Asian democracies, especially Japan, South
Korea and Taiwan, "are not developed [as] well as China" economically. China
still has far to go in terms of per capita gross domestic product, poverty
eradication, social safety nets, equitable employment and other economic
opportunities, etc. - ATol
Henry Ting's article [Democracy,
the best Chinese medicine, Dec 8] rightly calls for democratic
reform in China. Certainly freedom and the right to select their own government
are basic rights that the Chinese people deserve but which they have been
denied under the iron hand of Chinese Communist Party dictatorship. However, Mr
Ting confuses himself when he links dreams of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan with
greater freedom and democracy in China. Regardless of whether China is free or
communist, the Taiwanese people retain the right to choose their own destiny,
and it is clear to all but the most obtuse that their future will not be with
China.
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 8, '04)
Humble apologies to the US marines for confusing "Oo-rah" with the army's
"Hooah" [in
Writing off Europe, Dec 7], and thanks to several former marines who
wrote in to correct the error.
Spengler (Dec 8, '04)
Every day I check out [Asia Times Online] to see if Pepe [Escobar] has an
article. Today I was disappointed but I delighted in the many negative letters
castigating "Spengler". Unlike one of the other readers, I find it unacceptable
that you give voice to this arrogant advocate of death and destruction. First I
want to thank R Winter, Fabricio, AL from Canada, Vincent Maadi and especially
Jose R Pardinas, whose [letter, Dec 7] caught my eye due to ATol's layout. I
agree with their spirit if not everything they say. I must take exception to Mr
Pardinas' assertion, although his letter echoes my own thoughts, that the
American youths who fight in senseless wars are fit only for cannon fodder
because they are nurtured on a diet of ugliness. No no no - please,
everything you say is true except for this - these youths are taught to hate
and manufactured out of whole cloth without a chance to see other than their
brainwashing. It is not their fault [that they are] brainwashed in superstition
any more than it is the fault of Middle Eastern believers brainwashed in their
superstition. We must try those responsible. I do not believe anyone is fit
only to be cannon fodder, although I must admit, in the confines of my home, I
wish that idiotic men like [US President George W] Bush, [Vice President
Richard] Cheney, Osama [bin Laden, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz,
Saddam [Hussein, Defense Secretary Donald], Rumsfeld [and] Spengler (man or
woman or it) ... could be tried for war crimes against all humanity, as they
sit in their obscenely luxurious offices in their Armani suits signing or
supporting the death warrants of innocents ...
Penelope Bryan-McQueen (Dec 8, '04)
Thank you for your "clarification" of my criticism [letter, Dec 7] of
Spengler'sWriting
off Europe [Dec 7]. It seems to me that the article I refer to was over
Spengler's signature so to speak, and not someone else's. Any reference by
Spengler to other authors for support material may be considered as his means
to reinforce his own opinion, and may therefore be quoted. For clarification
please reread Spengler's Spain, and why radical Islam can win and also the
letter from R Winter, USA. The whole point of my letter was, once again, what
an absolute load of nonsense! It doesn't even matter who wrote it.
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Dec 8, '04)
Our clarification was exactly that - a clarification, as you did not specify in
your letter that the citation was a quote by Spengler from someone else. That
Spengler was using that particular quote to bolster his own point was clear
from the article. - ATol
In [the Dec 7] letters, the first two pretty well illustrated the heuristic
worthlessness of reading Spengler. Steve's letter was either from someone who
apparently shared Spengler's Manichean view of world culture, or from someone
with a droll sense of humor trying to match Spengler's attempt at scholarship
with a well-written piece on the barking of the dogs of war. I think he may
have accepted Spengler's Weltanschauung because such a breathtaking
disregard for the spirit of the article, if serious, is what one would expect
to see from people who see the world this way. In bold contrast was the next
letter by Dr Pardinas, who points out with beautiful reasoning expressed in
disapproving terms that Spengler is inveighing against the occurrence of the
very thing he champions, democracy, and that he is doing this by decrying the
increasing influence of minority populations on European culture and
government. This sounds very Western, yet it upsets the staff Cassandra, who
overturns reason to express his fears. And that is why Spengler is worse than
irrelevant.
Gregorio Kelly (Dec 8, '04)
I agree with the thrust of R Winter's argument (letter, Dec 7), but must take
issue with his claim that Greeks had their "roots in Egypt". This theory,
advanced a decade or so ago by Martin Bernal, a linguistically inept hack, has
been thoroughly debunked by experts on the Mediterranean in the volume Black
Athena Revisited. However multiculturally satisfying the notion may be,
there is little basis for calling Egypt the mother of Greece (a few odd
mythological stories notwithstanding - the conceptions of the "Aryan" current
in the early 20th century would be apposite) unless perhaps we take that
statement in a weak technological sense, in which case every culture that uses
zero has its roots in India. If Winter is actually referring to more recent and
legitimate scholarship, I would appreciate a citation.
Miles H Chewley
Chicago, Illinois (Dec 8, '04)
Vincent Maadi writes [letter, Dec 7] in response to Spengler's latest
fourth-beer rant [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7]: "It was Muslims who civilized it [Europe] to begin
with and it will be Muslims who will save it again." I kind of doubt that
latter part of his assertion, but his first has a lot of truth in it - that
Muslims civilized Europe. It's a fact that those Knights of Western
Civilization should take the time to learn about before they embark on another
Great Crusade. Those familiar with the writings of the real Oswald Spengler, as
opposed to those who appropriate his good name for their own murky purposes,
would know this. The real Spengler posited that there was no connection at all
between what he called the Classical Civilization of Greece and Rome and that
of post-Renaissance Europe, which he called Western. Instead, he felt, like
[Friedrich] Nietzsche, that Christianity pretty much killed off a classical
civilization that was collapsing anyhow and ushered in 1,000 years of darkness.
The little that remained of Greek and Roman civilization shifted back to Egypt
and Mesopotamia where it all came from in the first place. High Arab
civilization eventually evolved from it and many other influences, including
India. Slowly Europe reacquainted itself with the thread of civilization
through contacts with the Islam - through Spain, through the Venetian Empire,
through the Crusades. I'm sure what Vincent said will raise hackles with many
of those Knights of Western Civilization, but it happens to be true.
Russ Winter (Dec 8, '04)
Spengler's aberrations are becoming trite examples of Cervantes' comment that
"what is maddening is that one is forced to view life as it is, rather than
what one would like it to be". In this regard ATol should consider sparing its
readers Spengleranianism for, at the very least, an unending period of time.
And as a make-up reward, bring back the sorely missed Henry C K Liu.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 8, '04)
Henry C K Liu, after a hiatus, has been back for a while now.
China steady on the peg, the concluding article in his four-part series
on the Chinese economy, went online on December 1. Spengler, like Liu, ranks at
or near the top of our readership statistics, so we anticipate keeping them
both. - ATol
The Taipei Times is the semi-official organ of Taiwan's ruling party - DPP
[Democratic Progressive Party], just like the Washington Times is the organ of
US neo-conservatives. Don't trust anyone who works at the Taipei Times to tell
any truth about Taiwan. It is always ... biased.
Hopeless in Taipei (Dec 8, '04)
One wonders why ATol is so malicious in response to J Zhang (letter, Dec 7).
Zhang never said anyone is necessarily paid in order to hold certain
viewpoints, as ATol tries hard to put these words into his mouth. It was merely
suggested by Zhang that John Tkacik and his Blue Team have been funded, even if
only in part, by Taiwan separatists. The evidence for such a suspicion does not
need to come from People's Daily at all, as ATol reverts to the old and tired
tactic of discrediting critics with the commie-pinko link. One simply needs to
look in the US Congressional Records for testimonies under oath by John Bolton,
the present-day firebrand under secretary of state and Tkacik's old Blue Team
buddy at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), at his own confirmation
hearing in 2001 that he was indeed paid by Taiwan institutions to publish
essays advocating, among other things, UN membership for the island.
Individuals like Tkacik in these institutions like the Heritage Foundation are
not just "someone who happens to have a different view from the Beijing party
line about Taiwan", as ATol would have readers believe. They are zealous
ideologues with a publicly professed agenda against China. If ATol really does
not wish to follow the People's Daily, then it should have itself offered a lot
more truly "balanced reporting" with journalistic integrity instead of
narrow-minded commentaries espoused by predisposed extremists who frequent
partisan outfits like the Washington Times and Taipei Times already. Come to
think of it, maybe ATol should let readers know, if not already, whether Asia
Times [Online] has any connections to these other Times (and I certainly don't
mean the New York Times or Los Angeles Times).
Jay Liu
USA (Dec 8, '04)
Asia Times Online is independent of all other media. As for John Tkacik's
affiliations, we are well aware of them, but do not see them as a
disqualification for publishing his views - which we are confident are his
own, and not merely the paid-for parroting of someone else's opinions. By the
same token, we have no compunction about publishing the pro-Beijing views of,
for one recent example, Tang Liejun. - ATol
Spengler [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7]: I think some translational assistance from a
retired marine might help. The marines in your most recent essay definitely,
certainly, unquestionably, did not say "Hooah." "Hooah" is a multifaceted US
Army sound, ie, patois, that can be used by the speaker as not only a cheer but
also as a response in conversation, greeting, good-bye, agreement, comment,
etc. It is a ubiquitous noise among the US Army. Marines have what is known as
a "marine cheer" or "oorah" that is more guttural. It sounds like "oooorah",
but comes from the throat. It often sounds something like a bark. Female
marines can never quite get it right, no matter how hard they try. It also is
not as ubiquitous as the US Army "hooah". The marine "ooorah" is most often
heard at large unit gatherings such as the one you reference. In my 21 years'
experience, the "oorah" had no direct religious significance. "Ooorahs" are
purely the external signs of a marine's motivation. In my opinion, the "Hooah,
King David" was most likely "Ooorah! King David," and any resulting confusion
with the US Army's "Hooah" or "Hua" was entirely unintended. We marines fight
hard to keep our separate identity from the soldiers, lest we some day be
swallowed whole by the US Army. I enjoy your work and, unfortunately, concur in
your pessimisms.
Steve (Dec 7, '04)
[Re] Spengler's
Writing off Europe [Dec 7]: Is this what we have come to? An ex-CIA [US
Central Intelligence Agency] spook telling us how to safeguard Western
civilization? First, Europeans should fear the USA. This is a country that has
demonstrated no qualms about obliterating any number of foreign cities with
either conventional (incendiary bombs) or nuclear weapons. Spengler goes on to
say that Herbert Meyer produced his video for an audience more attuned to the
television screen than to the printed text. How can these people protect that
of which they have not conception (ie Western civilization)? The average
American, as has been well documented, reads less than one book a year and
listens to essentially no classical music. On the other hand, take a look at
the TV trash they indulge in day in and day out; which, by the way, they
supplement with oodles and oodles of woman-hating Internet porn. Such people
are fit for nothing but to be what they have become: cannon fodder; to
relinquish their ignorant pathetic lives so that the rich and the powerful can
carve themselves out a lucrative bloody empire in Iraq or somewhere else.
Spengler then continues to say that Muslim immigrants in Europe have an
inordinate influence on European political decision-making. Well, as I
understand it, that's the way democracy is supposed to work: it's all about
competing constituencies fighting for their own peculiar interests. Here in
America we have the Jewish constituency with its agenda on behalf of Israel. No
American politician (or newspaper) would dare to raise a peep against this
group's disproportionate influence on American foreign policy. Should we then
not say that American politicians are afraid of the American Jewish minority?
Of course they are! Why, then, should it be different for European politicians
dealing with their Muslim minorities? The only salient difference between these
two situations is that in America the side that you champion has very cleverly
conscripted (through a lot of pseudo-theological mumbo-jumbo) the dead-heads on
the "Christian" right on behalf of Israel's territorial ambitions and military
pre-eminence. And, to wrap up, Greek civilization was inherited by the Romans
(a people alien to the Greeks), and Roman civilization was inherited by the
"barbarians" east, north and west of Rome. I would not worry too much about the
survival of the best of Western civilization - it will survive, if not in
Europe or America, then somewhere else. However, I suspect that's not quite
what you're worried about. Is it?
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Dec 7, '04)
Spengler, I'm growing tired of your continued harping on this issue of European
population decrease and the inevitable decline of Western civilization it
implies [Writing
off Europe, Dec 7]. It's way too simple. It's just possible that in the
future there will be real advantages to a stable, or even slightly declining,
population. For one thing, you don't have to keep adding jobs and growing the
economy just to break even - just recently we learned that the US added 112,000
jobs last month but that that wasn't enough to keep up with population growth.
Also, the population density is much higher in Europe than in the US; perhaps
in their collective unconscious Europeans realize that they've reached carrying
capacity, while we [Americans] have a long way to go. There [are] way too many
uncertainties about the future long-term implications of a stable or even
declining population to jump to your conclusion about the inevitability of the
death of Western civilization. And I'm also finding this "Western civilization"
rant of yours a little old. It's a concept that's overripe for deconstruction,
and seems to have degenerated lately into little more than philosophical cover
for white racism. It certainly is strange to hear the same people insist with
one breath that our sacred mission is to defend Western civilization, while
with the other that we should dismiss all things European. But the concept of
Western civilization is a pretty flexible one that just about anyone can use
for any purpose - that was the last defense for apartheid in South Africa,
defending Western civilization. You, Spengler, seem to limit your definition of
"Western civilization" to Christian Europe - "the heritage of St Augustine, St
Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and Goethe" - and seem only to
include thinkers and writers and ignore some of the darker sides of European
history - the Crusades, witch-burning, concentration camps. You seem as well to
exclude the traditionally classical component - Greece and Rome. But to include
them brings along a lot of inconvenient facts - they weren't European powers as
much as Mediterranean ones, their roots were in Egypt, they weren't even what
we'd consider "white". Syria and Lebanon and Libya were parts of the Roman
Empire long before northern Italy, never mind Britain, and so have at least as
legitimate a claim to be heirs of Rome as we do, if not more. Yet it is an
incontrovertible tenet of some patriotic Americans that America is the last
bastion of Western civilization, as if there were some direct line of descent
from Socrates to [William] Shakespeare to Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan and
that we are the only true heirs. But why shouldn't India make that claim
instead? - the gymnasia that Alexander started there continue to this day. Why
not Egypt and the city that was founded in his name? As someone who was fully
indoctrinated in "The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason" (a required
undergraduate course) but who has had the opportunity to live outside it and
learn from other traditions, I'd say it's time to bury this concept of Western
civilization once and for all.
R Winter
USA (Dec 7, '04)
[Re] Writing
off Europe [by] Spengler (Dec 6). As a faithful admirer of [St Thomas]
Aquinas, Spengler continues talking as a realist (from a philosophic point of
view, of course) about America, forgetting that America is an abstraction and
that abstractions are no reality, but just words. Only because language is so
lazy, we shouldn't think that there exists something like "American policies"
or "American values" or that "Europe hates America". There are not American
policies, but just the policies of the US government, which are composed by a
number of men and women with this or that interest and idea that can be traced
with some accuracy. And there is nothing like Europe, but a bunch of countries
very different one from another inhabited by persons who are not caricatures,
as the simple-minded and caricaturesque Spengler put them. People who hate
America are just stupid, because America is too complex and diverse to be hated
as a whole, and not many people are so stupid or have the narrow-mindedness to
hate that illusion called America, that politicians try to sell when
campaigning. Most of the people I've met in Europe do not hate America, though
they may feel contempt or be worried about the American government, which is
not exactly the same. And I will recommend [that], better than suggesting
Americans lock up their women to force them to have children, [Spengler] might
suggest [that they] learn how to live from at least some decadent European
countries. The quality of life available to the average citizen in Europe (the
great amount of leisure time, the quality of their system of health care, the
quality of the food - Europeans have less problems with obesity and junk food -
et cetera) is something that their counterparts in America should envy. I, for
one, find the European and Canadian way of life more humane and worthier of
imitation that the American way of life, though I don't perceive those
countries as perfect. And as you're so worried about the future of the Western
world, let me tell you that the Western world doesn't end in the US and Canada
in this part of the world, but includes, though you as many other people tend
to ignore it, Latin America, a vast region mostly populated by descendants of
Spaniards, who speak Spanish (a dialect of Latin) and who are, [like] you, the
direct and legitimate heirs of Greece, Rome and Israel. Perhaps that can
relieve you, taking into account that, generally speaking, the birthrate in
this region is very high. You should be glad, maybe those bad Muslims will not
win in the end.
Fabricio
Cuba (Dec 7, '04)
Dear Spengler: Thank you for your provocative essay
Writing off Europe (Dec 7). I laughed out loud at your outrageous
opening sentence. If Heinrich Heine actually did write "Every German schoolroom
should display a stuffed Dutchman as a horrible example to youth", I would
suggest that 20th-century history in Europe was indeed a horrible example to
German youth - of the consequences of the murderous home-grown racism implicit
in Heinrich Heine's metaphor. Why on earth you are so afraid of cultural
change, death, not being remembered by your descendents etc, I cannot imagine.
Isn't it time for you to respect every living human being on this planet
whether or not his/her skin color, language, culture or religion is the same as
yours? "Writing off Europe" is a ludicrous concept. Give the Muslims in Europe
a few generations and the European Muslim women will shake off the straitjacket
that is the Sharia. All Europeans are a mix of numerous tribes and all of them
eventually pulled together to produce cultures that every wealthy American just
loves to get a taste of. All your readers are dying to find out who or what you
are, male or female. I think you behave like a super-intelligent, well-meaning
outrageously campy transvestite, wallowing in Weltschmerz and with a
Paul Bunyan-size ax to grind. Oh and yes, the language you express yourself in
so brilliantly did not exist 1,000 years ago. Call me an appreciative Spengler
fan - you always make my day.
AL
Canada (Dec 7, '04)
I refer to the article
Writing off Europe [Dec 7] by Spengler. It would appear that Spengler
is an addict. Addicted to Islamophobia or anti-Muslimism. Week after week, like
a vampire who must get his regular shots of blood, he sucks on Muslim blood. I
guess Christian or Jewish blood will be poison for him, besides too costly as
he may lose his job. It's amazing to note that while he mentions how the
American soldiers are prepared by their priests, he does not see fanaticism in
that. He totally ignores the Zio-Christian extremism that will destroy America.
Europe will be saved by Muslims. It was Muslims who civilized it to begin with
and it will be Muslims who will save it again. It is America that is in decline
because they have adopted the Jewish Talmudic laws, which have time and again
destroyed civilizations and brought about the destruction of Jews themselves.
As sure as the sun rises I predict that America will go the way of the Soviet
[Union] in less than five years.
Vincent Maadi (Dec 7, '04)
I can't help wondering if the editorial staff of ATol ever read a Spengler
article before publication. Maybe you do but are too doubled up with laughter
to be able to stop his hilariously opinionated distortion of facts which
attempts to defend an outdated political thought (neo-conservatism).
Writing off Europe (Dec 7): "Europeans hate and fear the United States,
but Americans barely can summon the energy to ignore Europe, which they have
written off as a decadent and soon-to-disappear civilization ... Europe is
dying ... [quote from Herbert Meyer:] 'We are not replacing ourselves with
children, and the economic implications of this are staggering - so staggering,
in fact, that if we don't change course they will lead inexorably to our
political collapse ... Europe has tried to solve the [birthrate] problem by
immigration - by importing workers to fill in for the European children who
weren't born ... most of these imported workers are Moslems, who aren't being
absorbed into the Western culture and who now pose a political threat to the
European countries in which they live and work - which, by the way, helps
explain why our erstwhile allies don't support us in the war on terrorism. They
are afraid of their own immigrants ...'" What an absolute load of nonsense!
Spengler, rather than the British army grunt "Hua", I give you the English
archers' salute before Agincourt. Or, as a Canadian might say, "Get yer head
outta the snow."
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Dec 7, '04)
Just to clarify, most of the quote you cite was not written by Spengler but was
quoted by him from Herbert Meyer's video The Siege of Western
Civilization. - ATol
With the [Dec 7] article on Kashmir [Talk
of peace, and war], Syed Saleem Shahzad's authenticity has taken a
nosedive for the worse. Syed, with misleading quotes from dubious sources, how
do you expect your article to carry even a semblance of credibility? The chief
of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Major-General Sardar Mohammed Anwar, was
hand-picked by the junta in Rawalpindi and appointed to the post in haste even
before the customary two years' grace period following his exit from military
service. Has this general contested in [an] election for the post that he now
occupies? How could a person who has no legitimacy (and rather knows more about
bullets than ballots) can question the standing of duly elected
representatives? During the last Kashmir polls only in Srinagar the voter
participation was low due to combination of factors including opposition to
elections and fear of terrorist strike. To the surprise of everyone (including
the All Party Hurriyat Council, APHC), in the countryside and elsewhere
elections evoked great interest. Breakaway factions of APHC participated in the
elections and were voted to power. The national and international media closely
monitored the elections indicated that the polls were fair but were not free
due to the militant threat. Elections and peace are a threat to the existence
of these extremist forces and their backers across the border. It is time
disillusioned Kashmiris introspect and question the ability of Jihadi elements
to represent their cause. Except for Pakistan, Taliban and al-Qaeda, no sane
nation supports their modus operandi. The Kashmiris cannot afford to leave
their destiny in the hands bloodthirsty radicals or clueless APHC leaders. APHC
ceased to exist as a valid entity to the dispute when they were mortally afraid
to stand in the elections fearing the wrath of the militants. Without a popular
mandate from the people, how can they claim to be their representative?
Enforcing bandh cannot be a criterion for popularity since even
criminals/terrorists can threaten the people to shut the shops. APHC [members]
care more for their paymaster's view across the border than what their own
people, whom they claim to represent, think on any major issue. Kenneth Tellis
[letter, Dec 6], Sikkim became the 22nd state of India after a resolution
seeking merger with India was passed unanimously by the Sikkim state assembly
with the approval of both the houses of Indian parliament. If Sikkim was
annexed by force (as you claim - I do not know where you get this ridiculous
information), how come Sikkimese have participated and exercised their
franchise in the general elections held since the annexure with one of the
highest voter turnouts? If they were opposed to the merger with India they
would have certainly expressed their displeasure at the polls. In fact Sikkim
is one of the most peaceful states in northeastern India. Tellis, thanks for
exposing your ignorance, and before you care to comment, can you get your facts
right?
Kannan (Dec 7, '04)
It was nice to see that Syed Saleem Shahzad rediscovered some fraction of his
objectivity during the last sentence of the concluding article of his series on
Kashmir [Talk
of peace, and war, Dec 7], where he mentioned with regard to the
president of Pakistani Azad ("Free") Kashmir (who, of course is a retired army
officer) that "notably, when he visits Pakistan he stays next to the army's
general headquarters in Rawalpindi and takes regular briefings from the
Inter-Services Intelligence, Kashmir cell, and the directors general of
military operations and military intelligence". Other than that, the article
series was quite disappointing considering Shahzad's past work. There were
several glaring errors - too many to be refuted here. For a more accurate
analysis of problems in South Asia I would recommend the work of M J Akbar
(www.mjakbar.org). Kenneth T Tellis (letter, Dec 6) stated that India
officially changed its name to Republic of Bharat in 1950. That is an outright
lie. Bharat is an ancient name for India favored by right-wing Hindus and
Tellis is obviously trying very hard to make us believe that Hindu extremists
took over India right in the beginning. Tellis also questioned, "Why else would
the Coolie Republic of Bharat need nuclear weapons?" He should explain the
meaning of the word "coolie" for those not familiar with it. That would tell us
a lot about Tellis. As for nuclear weapons - after what happened to Iraq, every
country that doesn't want to be trampled by the US should consider getting some
serious WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. I don't know what massacre of
Belgians and Katangese Tellis is talking about, but Indian troops are some of
the most highly regarded by the UN for their past service.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 7, '04)
I was wondering whether John J Tkacik Jr [Polls
highlight Taiwan's identity crisis, Dec 7] has become a staff reporter
for the Taipei Times ... oops, I mean Asia Times Online. It's no secret that he
supports Taiwan independence, and instead of writing objective analyses on
geopolitical issues, he's doing politics himself. The Heritage Foundation,
where he works, is a political right-wing neo-conservative lobby group. I
suspect Mr Tkacik is directly or indirectly paid by the Taiwan separatist
movement. If he responds to my letter and denies, I'll offer my apologies. I
just would like to remind the readers that the picture ATol is portraying is
biased and is only one half-side of the story. For the other side of the story
I suggest reading the opposite of Asia Times Online/Taipei Times: the People's
Daily.
J Zhang (Dec 7, '04)
Why is someone who happens to have a different view from the Beijing party line
about Taiwan necessarily "paid" to hold that point of view? Did you read it in
the People's Daily, that internationally renowned paragon of balanced
reporting, bold commentary and lively debate? - ATol
I was pleased to read Tang Liejun's excellent analysis of the six-party talks
concerning North Korea [US
games under N Korea's 'nuclear cloud', Dec 4] as he added a number of
ideas to those I've been kicking around in my head for the past few weeks. Far
be it from me to celebrate Bush "diplomacy", but [US President George W] Bush
has succeeded in the six-way talks, for the reasons Tang mentions and one more.
In order for the talks to have any hope of succeeding, it was necessary to
enlist the aid of China, and China, anxious to increase its diplomatic
prestige, readily agreed. If the talks fail, not only will the US appear
multilateral, but it will be a blow to China's growing diplomatic prestige in
the region. If, however, the talks succeed, China will gain "face" in the
international community, but part of that "face" will have been through the US
(the US would have asked for China's help with a difficult diplomatic situation
and China will have succeeded, therefore gaining face). My understanding of
Chinese culture says that if there are two parties of equal status and one
party gives the other "face", then to a certain degree, that party is beholden
to it because they have forged a relationship. In this case, if the outcome is
successful, the US will have deepened its relationship with China and will be
in a position to ask for something in return (leave Taiwan alone; devalue the
yuan?). If the talks fail, a large portion of the blame can be dumped on China.
This puts China in a no-win situation, which, although not catastrophic, might
explain why it has not been overly enthusiastic about resolving the situation.
Keep up the good work, ATol.
Ken Arok
Brattleboro, Vermont (Dec 6, '04)
Tang Liejun sees Washington's dark hand in preventing reunification of Taiwan
with the Chinese motherland [US
games under N Korea's 'nuclear cloud', Dec 4]. His long-winded
explanation reminds me of [Jean de] La Fontaine's story of a mountain giving
birth to a mouse. Tang's argument is old hat. The independent American reporter
I F Stone, among others, in his articles and The Hidden History of the Korean
War looks for the simplest argument for blaming the war in Korea on the
United States. One of his arguments suggests that on a divided Korean Peninsula
would bring a windfall for Chiang Kai-shek in the soybean futures market!
[North Korean leader] Kim Il-sung's troops crossed the 38th parallel on June
25, 1950, in a preemptive move to conquer the South. The North's war brought an
immediate response from [US president] Harry Truman. He sent the 6th Fleet into
the waters separating Taiwan from mainland China [and] rallied the United
Nations to send troops to repel North Korea's invasion. That war resulted in a
stalemate even though Mao [Zedong] sent in his troops to come to the aid of Kim
Il-sung, and to keep the United Nations (read the United States) from the Yalu.
Today that war is in want of a peace treaty, after a half-century since the
signing of an armistice. Positions in a 1954 Geneva agreement remain hardly
modified. Tang forgets that America's military might has remained strong and
constant in East Asia since the defeat of Japan in 1945. Today in spite of [US
Secretary of State] Colin Powell's warning to Taiwan about independence, that
island remains of strategic importance to the United States. It might be
impolite of me to suggest that Tang Liejun read more widely about the war in
Korea and the role of the United States in East Asia. On the other hand, since
six nations are discussing, more or less, ways of defusing nuclear arms in
North Korea, it might be worth recalling that Beijing looks at Pyongyang as an
ally, but hardly a strategic partner. In fact, a [Grigori] Potemkin
village-like film on China's Korean minority, shot during the Great Proletarian
Revolution, fades out on a surprising and shocking frame: armed border guards
on China's boundary with North Korea, and with an Olympian narrator's voice
saying the motherland is safe because of the watchful eyes of its military
against foreign aggression.
Jakob Cambria
New York, New York (Dec 6, '04)
In US games
under North Korea's 'nuclear cloud' [Dec 4], Tang Liejun stated, "If
some day Taiwan becomes independent ... it would not surprise the world." Mr
Tang should be reminded that Taiwan is already independent, with its own
borders, populace, government, currency, military, passports, treaties, etc.
Taiwan governs itself and is not governed by any other nation. Indeed if Taiwan
were not already independent, China would not be talking about war to take over
Taiwan. So if Mr Tang had hoped to prevent Taiwan independence, unfortunately
he is 55 years too late. Unfortunately Jay Liu [letter, Dec 3] persists in his
fantasy that shooting a head of state, in this case Taiwan's President Chen
Shui-bian, cannot be considered an attempted assassination. The assertion is
laughable. The only support for the Liu fantasy is that Mr Liu has not seen any
evidence to disprove an allegation that the shooting was "staged". But there is
not a scintilla of evidence that the shooting was staged. And since it is
impossible to prove a negative, this discussion can go nowhere until Mr Liu and
the Kuomintang learn the basics of logic and reason. Apparently, "truth" for
both Mr Liu and for the Kuomintang is whatever story they need to make up in
order to seize political power. That behavior reminds me of a political party
on the other side of the Taiwan Strait ...
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 6, '04)
I was amused by Li YongYan's article
China's resistance war revisited, revised [Dec 4]. First he pointed out
Mao [Zedong]'s strength grew 20-fold, to 1.2 million strong - unexposed - at
the end of the war. He then stated that more than 3 million Nationalist troops
as well [as] 200 general-rank officers laid down their lives in some 40,000
battles of various scales. By comparison, half a million communist casualties
were recorded. [I] am not a mathematician, but don't these facts tell [that]
the communists did a better job and fought harder considering that the
Nationalist army was 20 times bigger than the communist army at the beginning
of the anti-Japanese war, and controlled 95% of the Chinese-controlled areas? I
could forgive Li's illogical thinking as he did [the same] in many of his
articles. However, Li made an unforgivable statement: "That explains why
China's demands for Japan to be truthful in the latter's history books meet
with only sneers." Nothing can explain these sneers, Mr Li.
Will Do
California, USA (Dec 6, '04)
Li YongYan condemns the distortion of history by the communists in China for
their own ends [China's
resistance war revisited, revised, Dec 4]. However, I believe this
article's view of history is even more distorted than that produced by
communist propaganda. Li essentially exercises in a piece of counter-propaganda
without citing any meaningful historical sources to justify statements like:
"So Mao [Zedong] retracted his claws and sat out the war in the caves. But if
he didn't do much, he certainly talked a lot." Li fails to give any reasons why
the communists may have been so hateful towards their erstwhile Nationalist
allies. Perhaps it had something to do with Chiang [Kai-shek]'s many campaigns
to annihilate the Communist Party, especially during the civil war after 1945.
Li also fails to mention the massive popular admiration in China today for the
communists' role in resisting the Japanese. The Nationalists were even
abandoned by their staunchly anti-communist allies in the US, as their
corruption and tyranny were already legendary. Though the communists would
prove a great disappointment to many who wished to see justice and democracy in
China after World War II, one must remember the alternative at the time was a
ruthless dictatorship which had kowtowed to Japan for decades before full-scale
invasion. The communists may have failed to live up to their own Marxist
principles, but the Nationalists did no better in upholding Sun Yat-sen's
"Three Principles of the People". Glorifying the role of communists in World
War II while belittling that of KMT [Kuomintang/Nationalist] soldiers who gave
their lives for their nation is simply propaganda. But what use is another
piece of propaganda glorifying the Nationalists and belittling the communists?
Balanced scholarship is the only counter to propaganda. One must give both the
communists and Nationalists some credit and point out both their faults.
G Travan
California, USA (Dec 6, '04)
Li YongYan sure knows how to revise modern Chinese history [China's
resistance war revisited, revised, Dec 4]. The problem is, most of his
previous predictions and analysis have turned out to be wrong. I hope at least
he would have an revisit of what he has written on numerous occasions and
learned something from them.
David
Victoria, British Columbia (Dec 6, '04)
In case readers are wondering, this letter was not edited. It indeed contains
not a single example of how "most of [Li's] previous predictions and analysis
have turned out to be wrong". - ATol
[Re]
The fight for self-determination [Dec 4]: I am sorry to say that in his
series on Kashmir, Syed Saleem Shahzad is reflecting mostly Pakistan's and
terrorists' point of view. It is too bad that he is doing this in the name of
objective journalism ... It is true that Kashmiris were manipulated and
neglected by some Indian governments. But one can find many such examples with
other states and other regions in India as well. For example, the former Indian
prime minister Indira Gandhi manipulated Sikh extremists in Punjab for
political gains and this along with some other causes ultimately resulted in
large-scale terrorist movement in the state. There are more examples like this.
India is a very diverse country and there are thousands of interest groups and
political parties in India. Most of the time, the democratic process
self-corrects and self-balances most of the conflicting situations. It is no
more than the case of a crying baby getting more food and attention. However,
it must be noted that most of the secessionist movements in India are active in
the border areas. This is no accident, especially for a relatively new republic
which is also very diverse, like India. India has strategic reasons to keep
Kashmir. But much more importantly, it is also a matter of India's very own
identity and character. In 1947 most majority-Muslim areas were separated from
India. Most Hindus and other non-Muslims from these regions were driven from
their homes. The Indian system didn't ask any Muslims to leave India because
India is a republic for anybody who considers himself/herself Indian. In fact
today India claims to have more Muslims than Pakistan has. Today, the only
Muslim-majority state in India is Kashmir. If some people want to join Pakistan
or split away from India because of this status, what becomes of the Muslim
minorities scattered around India? Should India continue to wait for more
secession of Muslims like this, if and when Muslims become a majority in these
areas? Needless to say, Kashmir remaining in India is in the interests of
Muslims in India. Consider the fact that out of the 140 million or so Muslims
in India, [fewer] than 10 million live in Kashmir. If Kashmir seceded from
India on religious grounds, that would be bad news for the identity and welfare
for the rest of Muslims in India, despite all the politically correct talk
otherwise. What about the case of lost rights of minorities in both Pakistan
and Bangladesh? The first thing most Muslim-majority countries do is to
proclaim themselves "Islamic" and make Islam their official religion, making
other religious minorities second-class citizens. This is a sad but hard
reality. Which country (other than Turkey) can claim otherwise? Even the
self-styled modern Malaysia touts itself as Islamic. Today Pakistan has less
than 3% religious minorities. What happened to all the other minorities? The
same will happen to Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist and even Shi'a minorities in
Kashmir if it becomes part of Pakistan or becomes independent. There are
already several hundreds of thousands of Hindu Pandit minorities living in
various parts of India after fleeing from Kashmir due to terrorism ... India is
not keeping Kashmir because Kashmir has a lot of oil or other natural
resources. In fact, successive central governments in India have been spending
a lot of money in Kashmir. So this is not an issue of exploiting resources from
a region. Despite some occasional blemishes, India gives tremendous respect
when it comes to people's religions and customs. Anybody who knows India will
know that India is a very free country. The argument that Kashmir's identity
will be destroyed by India is bogus at best. In organic societies like India
people give to and take from other cultures and religions. Nobody forces others
to do or not do anybody else's customs and traditions. India, despite all of
its faults, is a liberal and secular society. People have their space. People
have fundamental rights. But as a republic India also wants to keep its
interests in mind. Secessionism is not tolerated by any republic. As mentioned
earlier, India also has strong moral grounds to argue that nobody needs to
secede from India. Most of the arguments of the Islamists' arguments are bogus
and extremely hypocritical. Syed Saleem Shahzad may be able to sweeten the same
ideas a bit, but that doesn't sweeten the content as such. For example, no
Islamic country that I can think of gives equal rights to other religious
minorities in their own country. In fact religious minorities in these
societies are constitutionally second class citizens. But the same Islamic
countries and Islamists blast Christian-majority countries and Hindu-majority
India for occasional excesses against Muslims in the latter countries. The
golden rule is "treat others at least the same way as you would like to be
treated by them".
Haridas Ramakrishnan
California, USA (Dec 6, '04)
I am a political refugee from Burma living in France since 1989. I have read a
lot of books and articles on the subcontinent since my childhood. Regarding the
articles by Syed Saleem Shahzad, I don't agree at all with his views. I am not
pro-India nor pro-Pakistan. As an independent observer I would like to put it
as I see it. Pakistan is, first of all, a [terrorism-sponsoring] state. The ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] not only sends terrorists to Kashmir but also
tried to invade Kargil illegally in 1999. They smuggle nukes to North Korea,
Iran and Libya to make dirty money to buy arms. Besides, [President General
Pervez] Musharraf is not a saint, but simply a liar and a megalo-dictator. The
Indian leadership [are not saints] either. But at least Prime Minister
[Manmohan] Singh is an honest person. We the Burmese suffer a lot under the
military dictatorship. The Lady is still under strict house arrest. The Tibetan
Buddhists also suffer under the Chinese dictatorship. But there is no Buddhist
terrorist. There is only Islamic terrorist in this funny world.
Henry Aye (Dec 6, '04)
[Syed Saleem Shahzad:] Many congratulations on your excellent writing about
Kashmir.
Brian Cloughley (Dec 6, '04)
The concluding article in Saleem's four-part report Voices of Kashmir,
Talk of peace, and war , is now online. - ATol
Jim [Lobe] always has great articles and many of us here in the [United] States
love reading his stuff. In his [Dec 4] story
More troops in Iraq, more trouble, [regarding] his sentence about the
"soldiers it already has in Iraq [having] put an abrupt end to the fleeting
sense of triumph that followed November's 'victory' by US marines who regained
control of Fallujah", I know the use of the all-too-familiar word "victory" is
not a word Jim would use to describe the Fallujah fiasco. It is this word
"victory" that has caused a lot of concern for many of us Americans as there
hasn't been one single victory in Iraq since the Americans have been there. But
[President George W] Bush and his cronies have to make it seem much better then
it really is. I am ashamed to live in a country where this can happen and we
the average people seem at a loss as to what can we do to change it. Too many
Americans are too stupid to know they are being used before elections - and
after. I've tried to tell many that. If you can't trust them before they are
elected, how can we trust them after?
Jeffrey Irving
Portland, Maine (Dec 6, '04)
When I read Jim Lobe's
More troops in Iraq, more trouble [Dec 4], especially about fears for
morale after too many extensions of the tour of duty, I remember my own Vietnam
experience, and the Kitty Hawk Mutiny of 1972, which I witnessed. It took place
after our six-month cruise had been extended for the third time.
Lester Ness, AQ3 (retired)
Quanzhou, China (Dec 6, '04)
I have been reading Asia Times Online for more than two years. I know of no
other publication that has as brilliantly exposed the activities of the
so-called neo-cons who have infiltrated the highest levels of the Pentagon.
Their successful Likudification of American foreign policy has brought on a war
that must surely represent one of the first times in history that a major power
has been duped into fighting a proxy war on behalf of the strategic aims of a
minor power. This war, and the other "tough guy" policies championed by [US
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas] Feith, [Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul] Wolfowitz, [former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard] Perle,
[National Security Council official Elliot] Abrams, [Vice President Richard
Cheney's chief of staff I Lewis] Libby etc all clearly tend to advance, not to
suppress, the prospects for the "clash of civilizations" which these thinkers
pretend to dread. This effect of their policy choices is all too obvious. It is
hard, then, to escape the notion that such a clash, pitting the military
resources of the proxy against those of the patsy Islamic world is what these
strategists desire, apparently believing it will reduce the Muslim
civilizations to the condition of the occupied Palestinians and thus advance
the strategic ambitions of Israel. If this is true, Asia Times and particularly
Jim Lobe are among the bulwarks of resistance to their scheme. Keep it up.
Robert F Buckman Jr (Dec 6, '04)
Dear [K Gajendra] Singh: The Ukraine election disaster is not simply the [US
President George W] Bush regime trying to gain influence in Russia's near
abroad [In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution, Dec 2]. The fact that there was a
popular uprising against the incumbent party speaks volumes about [Russian
President] Vladimir Putin's miscalculations in the catastrophe. Furthermore,
the incumbent party in Ukraine engaged in the same sort of shenanigans that the
party in power here in the United States engaged in, save the e-voting scams
that went on in several US states. Yet the Bush regime had the chutzpah to call
the Ukraine election stolen! Had the Bush people ever realized their hypocrisy
was going to be exposed, they would have congratulated the same Ukrainian
candidate that Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin congratulated.
Edward Miessner (Dec 6, '04)
Indrajit Basu [Hedging
bets with India, Dec 1] conveys a feeling of excitement at the
partnership agreement between India and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) that "allows India to forge strong economic relations with the
ASEAN that could catalyze trade between the two sides from the current US$13
billion to $30 billion by 2007". Also, "it brings India closer to the region's
economic powers, such as Japan, China and South Korea". But there appears to be
a psychological barrier that the Indian Industry and business have still to
cross in order to make the best of the agreement. It is inevitable that India
must modernize its equipment and installations in a number of sectors in order
to increase its productivity and competitiveness. Going forward [on] that is
the only way. This agreement with ASEAN may even be the catalyst to achieve a
better distribution of labor between agriculture and manufacture.
Giri Girishankar (Dec 6, '04)
It is amazing to read that Sri [letter, Dec 3] blames [letter writer] HS for
"masking his identity behind initials", while he himself uses just "Sri" to
identify himself. It is shocking to read the hatred expressed against Pakistan
by a lot of writers with Indian-sounding names.
Nasir Hafeez (Dec 6, '04)
Rodney Pinkham [letter, Dec 1], after a harshly judgmental "Christian" critique
of those who do not meet his "religious" test of marching lock-step at his
order - those who do not deserve or earn his generous and gratuitous
"Christian" tolerance - writes: "Continual renewal is ... the essence of the
Christian life. It does not only confound most Europeans, but all without true
faith" - those being the theocratic "religious" elites of the "Thou shalt not
judge" "Christian" gang - "including many Americans. An elitist of course would
never embrace a philosophy of continual renewal ..." Faith is risk, courage; it
is to act without evidence and yet with alert, equanimous trust. Having no
ground, it is a state in which it is impossible to not evolve through a
constant renewal. The enemy of that is the smug elitist status quo certitude
which presumes to have the exclusive - elitist - view on who has "the true
faith" and who does not. Christ is alleged to have said, "Judge not lest [ye]
be judged." That doesn't so much condemn "judging others" as to warn that those
who judge others can expect the same in return. He might instead have said,
"What goes around comes around." Or: "It takes an elitist to see an elitist."
Increasingly I am persuaded that "hypocrisy" is an alternative spelling, even a
synonym, for "Christian". Jim Calvert writes [letter, Dec 1]: "[Jim] Lobe, the
[United Nations] oil-for-food scandal is about more than the UN or the present
secretary general ... It involves perfidy and double-crossing on the part of
some European governments - and all in an attempt to garner oil supplies for
themselves." But none can truly compete with US oil companies, some of which
headquarter in Texas, and at least a few of which were - you know - "in on the
trading" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with Saddam Hussein. He "owed us" for
keeping dark - you know, silent - about his allegedly "gassing his own people".
"Us" being "God's" Chosen Prophets of Profit. There is no way the EU, or the
rule of law, could possibly compete with those who provide manna from heaven
for the Bush War Crimes Family, Fantasy Factory, and Snake Oil Circus, in
return for which he grants his Divine Right protection from any limits to their
"free enterprise" plunder of the unsecured pocket of those needing "liberation"
from the oppressive burden of their oil riches. Paradoxically, there is nothing
more isolating ... than minding others' business in order to avoid one's own.
Put down the defensive finger and clean up your own back yard.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 6, '04)
Instead of focusing on problems in India, Terry [letter, Nov 30] would be
better off looking in the mirror and seeing how Quebec has been shackled to
Canada, first by the British, and then by the oppressive policies of the
English majority who from Day 1 have been either forcibly assimilating the
French, or looking the other way when in happens. Clearly he was not on the
streets of Montreal when [prime minister Pierre] Trudeau became a dictator and
imposed the War Measures Act, jailing thousands of innocent civilians, almost
all of them French. As for the referendums [on Quebec sovereignty], they are a
sham, as the full power of the federal government is employed to
psychologically intimidate French people into brainwashing them into believing
they would be incapable of having their own country. Also, let's not forget
that he is living on native land, which was forcibly taken away from the
indigenous natives by his ancestors. And as for his alleged claim of separatism
in Uttar Pradesh, what is he talking about? Furthermore, Tamil Nadu does not
have a separatist problem, he is confusing the Tamils in Sri Lanka with the
Tamils in India. As for Punjab, 500,000 Hindus were evicted by Sikh militants
before the full wrath of the army ravaged the state - not exactly a protest
worthy of Martin Luther King or [Mahatma] Gandhi. Violence breeds violence. If
you have grievances about your nationality, do it non-violently. Because if you
pick up a gun, expect bullets to be fired back your way.
Jacques
Montreal, Quebec (Dec 6, '04)
I find the letters to Asia Times [Online] hilarious. You are accused of being
being pro-Bharati (Indian), and then some fanatical Bharati named Kannan seems
to want to rewrite history so as to make his country (Bharat) seem like a
peace-loving country. Kannan forgets that truth always overrides propaganda.
Sikkim was annexed by a Bharati military force, not by the choice of the
Sikkimese people. Even in the days of the British Raj in India, they did not
annex Sikkim, but allowed it to stay independent. Bharat actually annexed it in
its drive to re-create the mythical Asokan Empire that supposedly stretched
from Iran [and] Afghanistan to Bali. Why else would the Coolie Republic of
Bharat need nuclear weapons? ... Perhaps the massacre of Belgians and Katangese
attending Midnight Mass at a Catholic Church in Jadotville, Katanga, on
December 24, 1962, by Bharati troops that were part of the United Nations
Peacekeeping Force in the Congo comes to mind. That surely must be the peace
Kannan is talking about. Before closing this letter, I would like to remind you
and your readers that the official name of the Indian Union, which came into
being on August 15, 1947, changed to the Republic of Bharat on January 26,
1950. Please keep that in mind when wrongly calling it "India".
Kenneth T Tellis
Mississauga, Ontario (Dec 6, '04)
"Republic of India" is the officially recognized English name of the country
known in Hindi as Bharat. It is no more "wrong" to call that country India
than to call Deutschland "Germany" or Nihon "Japan". - ATol
As a reader who enjoys the series of articles penned by Henry Liu, I would like
to offer a suggestion. It would be extremely helpful if he could provide an
executive summary with key findings, so that non-economists like me who have
difficulty following his detailed economic analysis can still enjoy the nuggets
of wisdom buried therein.
Sir Rogers (Dec 6, '04)
I love Gavin [Coates'] weekly cartoons - very incisive and funny! I am glad
that India is now being portrayed as a tiger, instead of the snake that was
used earlier.
Kersi Katgara
Mumbai (Dec 6, '04)
Gavin Coates is launching a new book this week titled One Hand, Two
Fingers that features his best work for Asia Times Online and The Standard, Hong
Kong. For more information, visit his
Earthy Cartoons website. - ATol
Syed Saleem Shahzad's articles highlight the human side of the Kashmir conflict
on the other side of the border. The toll on the masses by this decades-long
battle is no doubt depressing. But Syed's account is deliberately silent on
certain aspects. If Syed could furnish the figures about the amount allocated
by the Pakistani government towards maintaining its jihadi infrastructure/force
with respect to the money spent on the refugees, then the intention and the
emphasis of the policies of the government [would] be clearer to the readers.
India will address the legitimate demands of the Kashmiris when the latter
sincerely believe in securing peace through talks. If Kashmiris think that they
can force demands on New Delhi by resorting to violence, they are mistaken.
Their goals will never be achieved through terrorism. Kashmiris have two
options: they can either continue the armed rebellion and suffer for another 50
or more years or renounce violence and start direct talks with the Indian
government. Former Pakistani premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was able to secure the
lives of 90,000 captured Pakistani jawans not in a battlefield but on a
negotiating table. [That] Pakistan never learned anything from the defeat is
another story. Indira Gandhi's generous gesture did not result in a change of
heart/mind of the prisoners of war in spite of the fact that they owed their
life to her. She did not throw these men to the liberated Bangladeshis, who
would have made mincemeat out of them. The defeat and the capture infuriated
the Pakistani military and once they were free in their country they were back
to business with more sinister plans. The ongoing Kashmir conflict is a part of
this agenda. Besides Kashmiri Muslim refugees, Pakistan is home to several
well-known "migrants" from India (Dawood Ibrahim, Tiger Memon, Chota Shakeel,
etc) enjoying the hospitality and patronage of the Pakistani government. Will
Syed be able to get information about the plight these "refugees" as well? HS
[letter, Dec 2] has no arguments to counter Sri. That is why he opted [for] the
easy way out: attack him personally. HS, Islamic terrorism and the Pakistani
intelligence service [Inter-Services Intelligence] are not bogeys to beat
Pakistan. They are real. Why don't you ask your bunker-resident president about
these elements? He will be more than happy to give a discourse on them to
anyone willing to hear him. It is after all these friends-turned-foes who
forced him to take a secluded life. Years after sowing the seeds of Islamic
jihad Pakistan is reaping the fruits of its labor. Terry [letter, Nov 30], I
would be more than happy if you could point out Tamil Nadu on the global map.
Yes, Tamils are fighting for a separate state, not in India but in Sri Lanka.
The Sri Lankan Tamils were estranged by the policies of Colombo. Even there
after years of internecine warfare the separatists have come back to the
negotiation table with an intention of honorable settlement. Terry, Can you
substantiate your point about secession problem in Uttar Pradesh? It is news to
me. The separatist problem probably exists in the corner of your brain.
Kannan (Dec 3, '04)
Ashok K Moza (letter, Dec 2) correctly pointed out that there are several
glaring holes in the article series on Kashmir by Syed Saleem Shahzad. However,
it is ridiculously childish of him to conclude that this simply underlines the
fact that fair reporting cannot be expected from Muslim journalists. If you are
unable to view the world through anything other than your black-or-white
religious glasses, how can you demand fairness from anyone else? In case Moza
didn't know, some of the best books on India and Kashmir have been written by a
Muslim journalist - M J Akbar. Details can be found on his blog:
www.mjakbar.org. In the past Shahzad has not hesitated to expose the breeding
of terrorism by the Pakistani military, and I was disappointed to see that his
articles on Kashmir were written almost as though they came from the pen of
General [Pervez] Musharraf himself. It was definitely informative to read about
the personal experiences of Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan, but Shahzad could
have provided much-needed perspective by mentioning numbers from the other side
of the border. Considering the population of Kashmir and the number of Hindu
refugees driven out from there, the number of refugees in Pakistan pales to
negligible in comparison. Also, it is true that India now opposes any
third-party involvement (including the UN) but Shahzad should have mentioned
that it was India that took the matter to the UN in the first place to settle
the dispute through arbitration rather than fighting. However, the UN is a
political arrangement between the major powers and so cannot give a neutral
judgment when the interests of those powers (which span the whole world) are
involved. So India has learned to steer clear of this body. Once bitten, twice
shy. There are several other inconvenient details, detrimental to the Pakistani
establishment's propaganda, that Shahzad failed to mention. Details can be
found at M J Akbar's blog.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 3, '04)
Isn't it strange to speak of a "Christian reporter", a "Muslim reporter" or a
"Jewish reporter" instead of discussing the content [Ashok K Moza letter, Dec
2]? Isn't journalism beyond these boundaries and more related to universal
human issues? I live in Pakistan and Kashmiri refugees living in Pakistan are
accessible to me, so I cover them. I have not visited India at all, therefore
did not cover Indian issues. Had I visited India I would have loved to
interview Kashmiri refugees in India as well. For your information, in my
pieces published in Asia Times Online in the past concerning Kashmir I raised
issues concerning the role of Kashmiri Pandits with former Inter-Services
Intelligence director general Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul and Kashmiri Hindu
refugees with a Hizbul Mujhahadeen spokesperson. The issue will be further
dealt with in coming articles.
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Dec 3, '04)
Part 3 of the Voices of Kashmir series,
The fight for self-determination, is now online. - ATol
I am enjoying your series Voices of Kashmir on the Asia Times website and would
like to commend you on your work. By the way, do you have any plans to visit
"freedom fighter" training camps in "Azad" Kashmir as well?
Susmito (Dec 3, '04)
All training camps in Muzzafarabad have been closed. - Syed Saleem Shahzad
HS, in a typical unimaginative way, when you find yourself unable to contradict
someone's statements, you resort to inane insults. Masking your identity behind
initials, you launch words with no supporting argument in guerrilla fashion.
Are you afraid revealing your name will expose your infirmities or guilt? If
you want to challenge my statements, you need to do better than just taking
words out of my letter and imitating a parrot. Merely repeating them is not
sufficient proof of your having punctured my statements. Or does that describe
your frustration with yourself in not having much to say?
Sri
New York, USA (Dec 3, '04)
[Re]
In Ukraine, a franchised revolution, [K Gajendra] Singh: I just read
your article on atimes.com ... Your article is simply brilliant. I read some
good info in The Guardian by Jonathan Steele, some in other places. Still I was
left with a picture with too many holes in it. Thank you for writing this
article - I got a complete picture.
Khalil Qureshi
USA (Dec 3, '04)
Dear Spengler: I want to commend you on the series of articles dealing with
Christianity in America. I find the references of blue state [versus] red state
a bit overwrought, though, mainly because I worked for the Kerry campaign in an
area that is very "red" [Republican] though located in New York state.
Religious situations here are pretty simple. Catholic families can trace
membership to the diocese here probably from the time their ancestors arrived
from Europe. Irish-, Austrian- and Italian-extraction Americans can indeed
trace their membership to Catholic churches here as far back as 1825 in some
cases, which around here was still virtually "the forest primeval", excepting
the recently completed Erie Canal, of course. I find it amusing that you infer
that somehow [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry supporters are not
in touch with the Midwest and western populations. Spengler, there is no
blaming of evangelicals for the defeat of Kerry, though here, Kerry won
handily. What defeated Kerry was inconsistency, not religion, not Bush
adoration, nor was it love for the orgy of mass murder in Iraq, nor were the
hysterical rantings of the right-wing media to blame. Inconsistency beat Kerry.
Wedge issues aside, what won the day for [President George W] Bush was
[September 11, 2001] and consistency. Here in New York we have heard and seen
Bush's talk, but have seen little of substance. Bush shortchanged us here, and
badly. Bush lost mightily because of that, not because of eastern cultural
elitism. But Spengler, the impact of September 11 shattered the interior far
worse than it did us right here. Let us take Indiana for example. Having lived
there for several years, I can attest to a strong sense of nativism, a quiet
sort of xenophobia, and a powerful sense of American-style isolationism.
Religion does not play a big part in this mindset at all. Granted religion is
quite important, but I think you overlook the massive number of folks who do
not go to church, even in Indiana. September 11 shattered the accepted norm
that isolationism ensured safety. I cannot overstate the shock and horror that
19 angry men caused in the middle of America; it was literally "How dare they!"
Left at a loss for ideas about what to do to return to normality, the so-called
red states turned to the leaders, ie, Bush and the administration which made
the middle of America feel safe, so they stuck with Bush. Spengler, we can
fence all day about religion, debate to ad nauseam about why Kerry lost, and
niggle about Iraq and the gruesome occupation which is something like a violent
and bad movie like I Come in Peace, at this point. But one thing is
certain, America is more united than you might want to think. Bush is
transitory, at least for now, though stories about flirtations with
Spanish-style fascism seem to be getting some coverage of late. Birthrates are
good here, though the economy has caused many to move away. But the red
state/blue state issue is so much mumbo-jumbo for political purposes. As for
me, I side with the founders, I like deism, it works for me. Others need more
religious structure. On Iraq, I think the original purpose of the war was of
questionable merit, and has degenerated into an international embarrassment.
Spengler, the lies that Bush spread are what makes the issue odious. Saddam
[Hussein] is gone but we are tied down in a sandy quagmire of loss, disaster,
and ruin. I fear that the neo-cons want more ...
Stephen A Ruffalo
Syracuse, New York (Dec 3, '04)
It is very amusing to see Chunhui Yang and Daniel McCarthy (letters, Dec 2) so
worked up after some simple facts are presented to them. They personify the
true extreme partisan warriors who see anyone disagreeing with them as their
opposite extreme out to get them (commies, pinkos - take your pick). They
simply don't want to face the unpleasant fact that a home-made gun would not
have been the weapon of choice by assassins with intend to kill. Most of the
mainstream media in fact described the March 19 incident as a mysterious
shooting. It is such a misfortune that ATol is relying on a demonstrably
prejudiced viewpoint time and again to portray events unfolding on the Taiwan
island. Previously in my letters, I have repeatedly indicated that the
investigation on the JFK [US president John F Kennedy] assassination, carried
out by an independent commission, uncovered mountains of evidence for all to
see and judge. There are no independent investigations of [Taiwanese President]
Chen Shui-bian's shooting to offer any credible evidence to discount the
possibilities of (1) a staged event to win sympathy votes and (2) underworld
mob manipulation for ill gains. Yang and McCarthy don't want to rule out
assassination attempts even with the plain evidence available so far, but that
weighted burden is theirs to carry. Brother, the truth shall set you free.
Jay Liu
USA (Dec 3, '04)
Now that Peter Falk is getting too old to play Columbo, I recommend [Taiwanese
President] Chen Shui-bian to succeed him as he is so clever as to devise his
own assassination, planned to enter a more distant hospital from the scene of
shooting and walked without help into the operating room. He looks like Columbo
and has about the same height. The only problem is that any producer may not be
able to pay him enough as his wife is so skilled in stocks trading and has
amassed a fortune.
David (Dec 3, '04)
A Quan's letter of Dec 2 caught my attention on several points. China applied
to join the WTO [World Trade Organization] in the 1980s (1986 I believe) and
did all it could to gain membership. Upon signing an agreement with the US, the
Chinese trade minister described it as a "win-win" situation. New situations
create new problems for sure, but China's difficulties are more a combination
of overpopulation, a shaky banking system and government finances, and a
political system that makes corrupt behavior on the part of officials all too
easy. Furthermore, while Iraq is a mess that is largely the result of US
government incompetence, I take issue with the statements about Afghanistan and
Yugoslavia. I doubt that many want the Taliban back, and former president of
Yugoslavia Slobdan Milosevic was brought down because of protests mounted by
the general population.
Peter Mitchelmore (Dec 3, '04)
[Re] From
Guernica to Fallujah [Dec 2]: As I noted before, Iraq is on its own.
The West is simply too preoccupied with either making money or surviving the
negative side of those who are making the money. We are also, I suspect, a
little distrustful of these foreign "terrorists". If the Americans succeed in
splintering the Middle East, then I would suggest that the Middle East must
accept the blame. They have a choice as a pan-Arabic/Muslim "state" to either
fracture and reduce their effectiveness or to unite and increase their
effectiveness. After all, they are fighting one force only. The strategy and
tactics I leave to the generals and politicians. My observations are that of a
historian. Pepe Escobar draws parallels with Guernica, Vietnam, Cuba and
Algeria. In each of those cases the native population rose up to expel the
existing regime. In all but Spain that regime was a colonial power at the end
of its time. The point, however, is that the native population "rose up to
expel the existing regime". A question therefore has to be, "Why did not the
Iraq people rise up to expel Saddam Hussein?" They did not, and now they face
an invading foreign military power of overwhelming might. How will history look
back on this conflict? Have the Iraq people the focus, cohesion and long-term
commitment of the Vietnamese, Cubans and Algerians, which is what will be
required if they are to win this war? Or will they succumb, as the communists
did in Spain? Will Fallujah, like Guernica, simply become an impotent symbol of
how a superior military force can triumph over a people, a people who
ultimately did not really have the focus, cohesion and commitment to win? Will
Fallujah become just another iconic painting to be hung in a rich Western art
gallery?
Graeme Mills
Australia (Dec 2, '04)
[Re In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution, Dec 2] Gee, you [K Gajendra Singh]
really are an old Cold War Indian "Third World" neutral. Are you wearing your
Che [Guevara] T-shirt? You did forget one oligarchal, quite corrupt country
which you so well represented. Did you speak up against anything while you were
a member of the Indian power establishment? Look at the mote in your own eye
first. You have learned well from the [US President George W] Bush election
people. You reduce the complexity of a whole country with cross-currents of
blocs to dig up the anti-Semitism which does exist in Ukraine and try to pin it
all on the Orange opposition. Now you work in another clean democracy, Turkey.
You forgot them also ...
Paul Schwartz (Dec 2, '04)
Re In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution [Dec 2]: I enjoyed reading your
editorial even though I do not agree with roughly a half. I think you forgot to
emphasize the frustration of Ukrainian people about their miserable lives and
widespread corruption in their country. If you noticed that most of the
protesters in Donetsk are either ethnic Russians (19% of population in that
region) or miners and workers of the factories belonging to the corrupted
[Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovich-supporting oligarchs. Do you think you would
continue having a job in Donetsk if you dared support Yuschenko? A lot of those
workers [are] afraid to express their true beliefs, like during old communist
times. Don't forget that the richest [billionaire] in Ukraine is a son-in-law
of [President Leonid] Kuchma who owns these factories in Donetsk. Kuchma is
afraid of investigations of his crimes as the president; thus [he is] trying to
preserve the status quo. As far as US involvement, I think the US needs to
support [its] interests in this region, considering Russia has recently stepped
back from democracy. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin was not shy about
supporting his interests. You also forgot to mention the amount of money Putin
has sent to support Yanukovich.
Vitus Lask (Dec 2, '04)
Dear K Gajendra Singh: The article about Ukraine [In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution, Dec 2] seemed brilliant to me. You
display tremendous background knowledge, perspective, scholarship, and insight.
Much that is going on to promote [Prime Minister Viktor] Yushchenko's
"democracy" now appears as dubious, ambiguous, and clearly objectionable
conduct. Your reports and comparisons regarding Serbia, Georgia, and Belarus
added invaluable documentation and depth to the article. I am a typical
disenchanted American-born US citizen who despises our current administration.
Here at home, [President George W] Bush, [Vice President Richard] Cheney,
[political adviser Karl] Rove et al rule by, for, and of the rich, the moneyed,
and mega-corporations and their lobbyists. They continuously invoke the
drumbeat of fundamental biblical Christianity to enlist the rural religious
right, with tremendous success. We all understand what is going on in Iraq
here, but I was unaware of the extent to which our administration manipulates
Eastern Europe ... You are the best source of political insight and knowledge
of this region I have ever found.
Tom O'Connor
California, USA (Dec 2, '04)
Re In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution, dear [K Gajendra] Singh: I just
finished reading your most excellent, in-depth, analysis of events unfolding in
Ukraine. (Would that we could get this kind of analysis in US mainstream media,
but the condition of our media speaks for itself.) It's interesting to note
that in my own discussions with educated people from across the US, most
believe that what is happening in Ukraine is a real revolution of the people,
and in spite of my efforts to educate them that this is nothing more than a
very dangerous farce being manufactured by the Bush administration's gang of
thugs, they refuse to listen. It seems to me that these people so desperately
want to believe that "democracy" still prevails somewhere in the world (if not
here at home), the will of the people will win the day and all will be right
with the world. An opposition victory in Ukraine would be a victory to the
despondent Kerry voters in the US, who feel let down by the recent presidential
election. I did not support [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry and
from the very beginning I questioned and argued what his true intentions were.
Most of the people I know supported him and are hopeful that recounts will some
how provide them with a Kerry victory, a Kerry miracle. This kind of thinking
is not reality-based any more than believing that what is happening in Ukraine
is about a struggle for democracy, but it is interesting how even educated
people delude themselves - it's also dangerous. Thank you for your excellent
and helpful analysis.
Donna J Volatile
Truchas, New Mexico (Dec 2, '04)
Re In
Ukraine, a franchised revolution [Dec 2]: As a Ukrainian-American I
enjoyed reading the above article. Glad to hear US intelligence and other
agencies are so efficient. Forty-two million dollars for one revolution in
democracy, US$14 million for another. Why do you think they decided to spend
billions in Iraq and how much will it cost to bring a democratic vote to
Kashmir?
Andy Kozak (Dec 2, '04)
Terry ([letter,] Nov 30): please forgive Sri for his December 1 letter. He just
enjoys making a fool of himself. For example, read the article
On the road, halfway to Srinagar [Dec 2] by [Syed] Saleem Shahzad. I am
not sure what the exact contents of his letter tomorrow would be, but I am
willing to bet that words like "Islamic terrorism", ISI [Pakistani
Inter-Services Intelligence] and jihadis would be a part of it.
HS (Dec 2, '04)
On the
road, halfway to Srinagar [Dec 2] by a Muslim journalist from Pakistan,
Syed Saleem Shahzad, [tells] about the conditions of Muslim refugees from
Indian Kashmir who have moved to Pakistani Kashmir. Readers not familiar with
the refugee situation in Kashmir would get the impression that there are only
Muslim refugees from Kashmir and they are living in miserable conditions in
Pakistani Kashmir. While it is true there are Muslim refugees from Indian
Kashmir living In Pakistan, that is not the whole story. The truth of the
matter is that there are at least 350,000 Kashmiri Hindu refugees living in
refugee camps in India. They were chased out of Kashmir by the
Pakistani-trained jihadis since 1989. Their stories are no different from
[those of] the Muslim refugees that Syed is writing about. However, you will
not find any mention of such refugees in this article and this is typical of
Muslim journalists. When Muslims are at the receiving end from non-Muslims, all
hell breaks loose for Muslim reporters. They grossly exaggerate the stories,
blow them out of proportion and at times purely fabricate them. However, when
the roles are reversed and it involves atrocities by Muslims against
non-Muslims, it is not newsworthy for Muslim reporters. This theme is repeated
over and again by Muslims reporting events whether these occur in the US, or
India, or Iraq, or Israel, or Thailand, or the Philippines, or Russia, or
Europe. That is propaganda and not journalism.
Ashok K Moza (Dec 2, '04)
The series Voices of Kashmir is not yet complete. Part 2,
It's just a military exercise ..., is online now, and there are two
more articles in the works. - ATol
James [Borton]: I liked your article [English
press hard-pressed in Asia, Dec 2]. A better article, if you have not
already written it, is how Dow Jones [DJ] emasculated FEER [the Far Eastern
Economic Review] - turning it from a must-read for people seriously following
Asia into a glad bag trying to appeal to all market segments. DJ thought it
could get twice as much efficiency from its staff [by] having them report for
both FEER and AWSJ [the Asian Wall Street Journal]. The idea of FEER as a
monthly is quite bizarre. News and commentary in our cyber-time cannot wait 30
days! ...
Michael Mann
President, RMIT Vietnam (Dec 2, '04)
I wish to point out a minor error in [Siddharth] Srivastava's thoughts on India
and China at the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] meeting [China
and India steal the show, Dec 2]. He states that "the prospect of
hitching a ride on a growing Indian economy seems to make everyone more
accommodating". The trouble with commentators like Srivastava is that he is so
late in recognizing events. China argued for increased trade with India when no
one else did, and that was many months ago, when China did not [have] this
"growing Indian economy" to hitch on to. Since then India has even achieved a
surplus with China that a few Indians have boasted about in various
publications. The new interest flowing toward India now is a result of this
Chinese engagement with India. People like Srivastava should acknowledge such
facts if he is going to make sweeping statements.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Dec 2, '04)
Re Delhi
deaf to Islamabad's overtures [Nov 23]: Admittedly, it will be for the
good of the Indian and Pakistani peoples if the Kashmir issue could be resolved
peacefully through negotiations. But that doesn't seem to have a decent
probability. Both sides have stuck to their own paradigms and do not want to
shift from there. "Continuation of the de facto status quo without making it de
jure, and at the same time working for an improvement in bilateral relations
through confidence-building measures and normalization and strengthening of
economic ties" can keep the talks going but do not change the bases of either
side's mindset. Unfortunately, that has to do with communal beliefs. Only when
the two sides get off that plank can there be a chance of a settlement. I
believe that there is a real chance of a paradigm shift when one country forges
significantly ahead of the other in economic and quality-of-life terms that the
people of the other country will notice and yearn to emulate rather than
plodding along at a lower standard of life. India, with a longer experience in
economic development, has a much greater chance to achieve such heights. This
is especially true of the J&K [Jammu and Kashmir] area and India's
northeast. It is true of other areas of the country as well. [Indian] Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh has certainly climbed on this wagon and is prepared to
invest significantly in those regions to bring about economic uplift as well as
social and political empowerment of the people. Having set about on a journey
of economic development, he must closely monitor it and make sure that the
projects are completed effectively and efficiently. He should also inspire all
the other political parties to fully cooperate with the plan. He should explore
all possibilities, without being impeded by ideological predilections, to raise
the necessary investments and discard unnecessary regulations. While this is
ongoing, border security and homeland security should be modernized and
intensified. In an open country like India, the sneakiness of the terrorists
should never be underestimated.
Giri Girishankar (Dec 2, '04)
Paul Mooney's article
China faces up to growing unrest [Nov 16] obscures a basic point about
the unrest plaguing China. The underlying problems with labor issues, wealth
disparities, etc mentioned by Mooney are ultimately caused by the free-market
reforms that the West just loves to push via the WTO [World Trade Organization]
and other avenues. By not addressing this broader market agenda, all the
rhetoric about democratic reforms espoused in the article becomes so much
disingenuous noise. In fact, some of the commentators in the piece like Thomas
Bernstein sound more like vultures hoping that this unrest will destabilize
China and lead to so-called "regime change". In Western double-speak, "regime
change" is just a euphemism for the overthrow of Third World governments and
their replacement by puppet states that are more subservient to Western
dictates in both foreign policy and in the economic exploitation of a targeted
nation. The current situations of Afghanistan, Haiti, [former] Yugoslavia, and
Iraq all show the misery that the West inflicts on a country when this type of
neo-liberal "democracy" is imposed.
A Quan (Dec 2, '04)
Again, Jay Liu "uncovered" himself and did a little skit of ritualistic CCP
[Chinese Communist Party] song and dance in his latest diatribe ([letter,] Dec
1) against Laurence Eyton. The song, however, is woefully out of tune and the
dance is embarrassingly awkward. Listen: "... knowing that, after examining
evidences provided by the Chen administration itself, independent international
forensic experts already concluded assassination attempts can be ruled out as
the cause of Chen [Shui-bian]'s wound". What does the lyric "knowing that"
mean? The singer is obviously convinced that his favorite butt, Laurence Eyton,
would recognize it as soon as it is pumped out of his air-chamber. But I am
afraid it has fallen on deaf ears. It is because the lyric following "knowing
that" is only recognizable to the singer and the audience who has been trained
to the music aired out of People's Daily. As far as the dance goes, it is
awkwardly presumptuous and rigid. Watch: "definitely", "still did not get it
straight", "knowing", "already concluded", "Dear Abby", "Buyers beware". The
first four syntactic movements are too presumptuous to be appreciated. The
choreographer seems to be trapped in a hallucinatory bent, and it is not
far-fetched to surmise that a CCP seance is probably behind the scene. And, as
though afraid his little commie skit is not going to win applause, he adds the
last two outlandish and seemingly cute moves to cheer up his audience. Jay Liu,
save us the embarrassment when you sing and dance next time, for each time
you've done it we have seen that your "buttock is branded with the Dragon
icon", as a disillusioned poet from Shanxi province used to say. And each time
we see it we always have the urge to give it a spanking.
Chunhui Yang (Dec 2, '04)
Only in the most extreme instances of partisan politics could the shooting of
the leader of a nation using a firearm with live ammunition be considered
anything other than an assassination attempt. Yet in the world of Kuomintang
self-delusion inhabited by Jay Liu [letter, Dec 1], the person who shot Chen
Shui-bian apparently intended for [Taiwanese] President Chen to live rather
than to die as a result of the shooting. If Lee Harvey Oswald had been tried
for the assassination of US president John F Kennedy, Mr Liu would probably
expect Mr Oswald to testify, "I shot President Kennedy so that he might live."
Mr Liu should read the expert report on which he relies for the conclusion that
the shooting of President Chen was not an assassination attempt. In the report
the expert remarked that if the shooting had been an assassination attempt,
then a larger-caliber weapon would have been used. But this is pure
speculation. There is absolutely no evidence in the case that suggests the
shooter was not trying to kill President Chen, and ordinarily it is reasonable
to infer an intent to kill when one person fires a bullet into the torso of
another. Also, perhaps the shooter did not have access to a larger-caliber
weapon, so he used the best that he had. Private ownership of firearms is
prohibited in Taiwan, so the shooter used a home-made gun. Finally, perhaps
there were some words inadvertently omitted from the expert's remark, such as
"if the shooting had been as assassination attempt by the government of another
nation, then ..."
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 2, '04)
[Re Neo-cons
jump on anti-UN bandwagon, Dec 1] What great fun! Neo-cons? One has not
heard labeling such as this since the demise of the John Birch Society. What a
way of blackening those with whom you do not agree without using substantive
arguments! It is so short form! Mr Lobe, the oil-for-food scandal is about more
than the UN or the present secretary general - you know, what's his name. It
involves perfidy and double-crossing on the part of some European governments -
and all in an attempt to garner oil supplies for themselves. (Isn't it great
how they then apply their label to the United States? A labeler such as
yourself will appreciate their tactics.) It appears this was done with the
complicity of highly placed individuals in the United Nations. Should not the
individuals responsible be brought to account on the world stage? Let's see,
what should we label such people? How about Elitist One Worlder Fascists? Or,
Elitist Oil Grab? Or, Simp-Elitist-US-Bashers? Darn, this labeling is fun! It
is so much easier than investigating and reporting responsibly!
Jim Calvert
Citrus Heights, California (Dec 1, '04)
Laurence Eyton (Taiwan's
'post-election stress syndrome', Dec 1) has definitely entered his own
"realm of denial from which" he himself has "yet to emerge" - quoting in his
own words. The so-called "post-election stress syndrome" and "adjustment
disorder" with which Eyton is trying to diagnose for many others free of charge
seem to suit himself rather appropriately. Why else could Eyton still not get
it straight and continue to describe the March 19 Chen Shui-bian shooting
incident earlier this year as "an assassination attempt on the president"
knowing that, after examining evidences provided by the Chen administration
itself, independent international forensic experts already concluded
assassination attempts can be ruled out as the cause of Chen's wound? In
addition to assuming more leadership PR [public relations] responsibilities for
DPP [the Democratic Progressive Party] at its mouthpiece Taipei Times, Eyton
seems to feel more comfortable now to take on a new role of Dear Abby and
dispense free psychoanalytical advice for the public. Buyers beware!
Jay Liu
USA (Dec 1, '04)
Sam Brody (letter, Nov 29) asks whether I am "aware that most modern followers
of Franz Rosenzwieg ... consider his views on Islam to be nothing more than an
embarrassing footnote", Indeed I am, and I addressed the debate in a review of
Gesine Palmer's and Yossef Schwartz' compendium of Rosenzweig's writings on
Islam (Oil
on the flames of civilizational war, Dec 2, '03). Most modern followers
of Rosenzweig cling to his catastrophically wrong prediction (in 1921!) that
the world would evolve into a brotherhood of universal religious understanding,
but ignore his startling and original investigation of the basis for religious
differences. St Thomas Aquinas' views on divine love, contrary to Mr Brody's
assertion, owe nothing to Aristotle, for whom God is the unmoved mover; to love
is to be moved, and the notion that human suffering might move the creator of
the universe would seem absurd to the philosophers of classical antiquity. This
"absurd" notion we owe to the Jews, not the Greeks. Rosenzweig's understanding
of Islam, incidentally, is quite close to that of St Thomas, which in turn
derived from Maimonides.
Spengler (Dec 1, '04)
I have to confess that I have tried not to read Spengler's articles. I find
him/her narrow-minded, boring and having a lack of humility that any Christian
but Spengler would be ashamed of showing it publicly. Moreover, his/her
articles remind me of that [which] Granma (the official newspaper of the
Communist Party in Cuba) publishes every day. The content is different, but the
tone and the attitude are the same. But then I go to the Letters section and I
have such a good time reading the letters about Spengler's articles that laugh
at him/her that in the end I read the articles so I can continue in this
cheerful mood. I'm sure I will miss Spengler if he/[she] disappeared from your
site. Please, keep him/her. I'm not an expert in foreign policy and less in
China or Chinese-American relations, but I found
US should play 'one China' card - and mean it [Dec 1] by Henry Ting
very naive. He seems to mean well, at least from an American point of view, but
I find very improbable that Chinese leaders will leave power, abandon their
desire of becoming the next world superpower, give in to the US economic
pressures and create a democracy that satisfies the US government just to get
Taiwan ... In a moment when traditional allies of the US are beginning to
rethink their alliance, why would China want to join forces with the US? Why
not simply wait patiently [for] the waning of US power and influence, no matter
how much that could take (in the end it will happen: no empire can last
forever)? And I'm afraid that Chinese leaders may think that in the end they
will get Taiwan one way or the other. The Panglossian future that Henry Ting
proposes doesn't seem plausible to me. But perhaps I'm wrong. I leave for the
persons really interested in this issue the question of [whether] trading with
Taiwan independence in order to secure America's policies is fair or not. PS:
Just one reference to dogs today [Nov 30] in your letters! I miss those happy
days when so many people used to explain to us the behavior of those good
friends of man. Well, I hope Frank and the rest have not drained their
knowledge on this issue. They were so instructing for us, the owners of cats.
Fabricio
Cuba (Dec 1, '04)
You might know this: Does Castro own a dog? - ATol
Dear Spengler: I am one of those whom European papers dubbed "stupid" in voting
for President [George W] Bush. I am a father, a husband, a small-town
politician, an American, a member of an independent Baptist church and above
all a Christian ... In regard to your November 30 article
What makes the US a Christian nation: First and least important, I
disagree with your assertion that no traditional Christians can be found
amongst America's (the United States part) founding fathers. I would not argue
Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin (at least not in his younger days) of
course, but I will claim Christian kindred with George Washington, John Adams,
James Madison, John Jay and many others. That is not to say that I practice the
form of their religion, but the faith of their religion (the same can be said
of the Jews). Abraham Lincoln by his own admission was not born into the
Christian faith until after his visit to the Gettysburg battlefield, which
explains his later speeches (love the second inaugural address) that you
mentioned. The point: True faith is in the heart's attitude, the outward forms
and expression of which have had their seasons and now are in the evangelical
Protestant community. It is there that God's Word is embraced, that the Bible
(not worldly enlightenment) provides commentary as to its own meaning - to
those who are open to receive it ... You seem to view Christianity as a
political force or a societal anomaly and thus fail to give credit for its
continual renewal to the power of God. Continual renewal is biblical and the
essence of the Christian life. It does not only confound most Europeans, but
all without true faith - including many Americans. An elitist of course could
never embrace a philosophy of continual renewal because to do so would cause
him to repudiate his status quo as elitist and his ego would disappear in a
puff of logic ...
Rodney Pinkham
Waterford, Connecticut (Dec 1, '04)
Re What
makes the US a Christian nation [Nov 30]: Thanks for your interesting
article. The United States is not a spiritual country, but it is a
predominantly an economic and sometimes religious country. The distinction
between religion (based on scriptures, ritual, etc) and true spiritual
experience (of the soul within and the divine reality) is not understood in the
wider US community. It is locked in dogma, or a very narrow view of the
spiritual reality. There is no spiritual country on Earth; certainly not the
US. India is trying to regain the spirit she knew thousands of years ago, but
also lost to dogma. The world is currently evolving out of the age of religion.
Fundamentalism of all stripes is the last gap of an outmoded reality that
religion represents. A future column of yours or others that makes the
distinction between spiritual experience and realization and religion would be
very helpful for the wider community. Otherwise, the religious will never find
a way out of the superstition. I personally believe the US will be the country
that will change from its current mindless materialism and surface mentality
(and narrow religious view) to a new spiritual view. It is likely to happen
amongst the more educated members of the "blue" regions, rather than the "red"
ones, who would first need to shed shed their anachronistic and often harmful
religious superstitions. Then the US can spread goodness, not just its current
combination of good and bad.
Roy Posner
President, Growth Online (Dec 1, '04)
Not only a fellow admirer of The Simpsons but also a surgical analyst of
ATol's wigged evangelical commentator, [Beth] Bowden [letter, Nov 30] strikes
me as someone who would have asked her daddy, say at the age of 10 or so, if
she and he were watching Buddy Hinn's (the healer) laying [on] of hands, "If he
can heal people, Daddy, why is he not working in a hospital?" The least that
one can say to Ms Bowden is "Go for it, girl." I for one am in your corner.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 1, '04)
This is in response to your November 30 article
Anti-Semitism peddled in Southeast Asia by one Keith Bettinger.
Inasmuch as a great deal of the article focused on my recent lectures in Kuala
Lumpur, I would hope you would permit me the opportunity to respond. There is
much that could be said about Bettinger's meandering article, but what made it
most interesting was that Bettinger started off by referring to me as a
"journalist", putting quotes around the word as if to suggest that anyone who
writes critically, as I do, of the power of the Israeli lobby in the United
States is somehow denied the esteemed title "journalist". So be it. There are
enough people in the United States and around the world who do respect my work,
even if it does cause concern for Mr Bettinger and sources among my critics
such as Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the worthies at the
Anti-Defamation League, both important lobbies for Israel in America. Although
Mr Bettinger made an attempt to contact me by e-mail, claiming that he was
working on a story about "alternative media" in Malaysia, I was out of town and
unable to respond. As it was, I was actually in Japan, lecturing there for the
first time ever, despite the false statement by Bettinger in his article that
my August trip to Kuala Lumpur included a stop-off in Japan. Bettinger claims
my writings "have disputed recognized historical truths" as though this is
something quite sensational, when, in fact, disputing recognized historical
truths - however defined - has been the task of independent-minded individuals
throughout history, and actually, quite a tradition. Perhaps Bettinger finds it
subversive, but that's a rather authoritarian way of thinking. Although
Bettinger never cites the recognized historical truths disputed in my writings,
he adds gratuitously that, in addition, I have written that Zyklon B used in
the World War II concentration camps was used exclusively for delousing
clothing. This is obviously based on a quick Internet scan by Bettinger. Had he
been more careful, Bettinger would have discovered that my purported writing in
that regard was a passing reference to a brief article written by another
person about that topic. Bettinger claims that I say the Anti-Defamation League
is "out to get" me. I have never said that. I have pointed out, quite
correctly, that the ADL has been critical of my work, just as they have
criticized scores of writers, public figures and others - such as former
Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad - for being less than worshipful
toward Israel and the powerful Israeli lobby in America. The list of persons
accused of being "anti-Semitic" or critical of Israel seems to grow by leaps
and bounds as the days pass. Bettinger makes the claim that I use the terms
"Jews" and "Israel" interchangeably in my writings and in interviews. This is
simply not true. I understand the distinction and am careful to draw the
distinction when writing and speaking. I also understand - as Mr Bettinger
apparently does not - that many Jews, both in the United States and Israel, not
to mention in many other places around the world, have very serious concerns
about the activities of Israel and its lobby in America. According to
Bettinger, an unnamed "media watcher" claimed that "nobody takes [Piper]
seriously in the United States". This claim is interesting, if only because of
the fact that two major endorsements for the thesis of my book Final Judgment
(regarding Israeli involvement in the JFK [US president John F Kennedy]
assassination) came from a former high-ranking Pentagon official and a former
high-ranking US State Department official whose review of my book can be found
at the Internet at amazon.com. In addition, the fact that the ADL and the
Wiesenthal Center seem to be so anxious to discredit me and advise Asian
audiences that I should be studiously ignored might well raise the question as
to why they go to such lengths to discredit someone who they say is not to be
taken seriously in the first place. Evidently I must seem "credible" to
somebody somewhere or they wouldn't be so concerned. Bettinger also quoted
unnamed "Western journalists in Kuala Lumpur" as saying that if would stand to
reason that if Piper was "as dangerous as he claims to be" that Israel's Mossad
would have killed me long ago. First of all, I have never claimed to be
"dangerous" to anybody. In fact, I often refer to myself as a "fat middle-aged
guy with glasses who has written a couple of books". It is my critics such as
the ADL and the Wiesenthal Center who seem to consider me "dangerous" because,
they seem to think, Asian audiences might take my writings seriously. Bettinger
claims that I have been "the darling of white supremacist bulletin boards".
This is just not true. My work has received little, if any, recognition in
those forums, primarily, I am told, because the introduction to my book on the
JFK assassination was written by a veteran African-American activist on behalf
of reparations for the descendants of slaves, a point Mr Bettinger fails to
mention in his effort to paint me as some sort of racist. While I did speak at
a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, what Mr Bettinger does not
mention is that I criticized that group in both of my books, in particular the
council's bitter antagonism toward Muslim immigrants into America. Furthermore,
it is not true that I was a guest at a reunion held by David Duke. I speak
before any forum that invites me. My presence does not imply my endorsement of
that forum's point of view (if any) nor does it imply that such a forum
endorses my point of view. However, for the purposes of Bettinger's conspiracy
theory, he is able to draw "links" that sound quite exciting. In closing, I
take great issue with Abe Cooper's claim, in reference to my work, that "there
is a market for Americans who are prepared to say nasty things about America".
The truth is that I have never said "nasty things about America", although
spokesman for Israel have worked overtime during the past several years to
equate criticism of Israel with criticism of America. Years ago (before
flag-waving became fashionable in America) one of my pro-Israel critics called
me a "flag-waving super-patriot" because I said that I was for a foreign policy
that placed "America First", and the fact is that my point of view has never
changed.
Michael Collins Piper (Dec 1, '04)
Keith Andrew Bettinger's article
Anti-Semitism peddled in Southeast Asia, which was published online in
the November 30 issue of Asia Times [Online], is unfortunately typical of many
reports that wrestle with the rising popularity of provocative independent news
outlets, such as American Free Press, and candid reportage on issues related to
the Middle East. As was the case with Mr Bettinger's account, the problem is Mr
Bettinger takes the easy way out by pigeonholing a number of individuals and
groups whose views on a variety of subjects are about as different as the
beliefs of volunteers with Israeli human-rights groups are to those held by
members of the Likud Party. Simply put, Mr Bettinger would just have Asia Times
[Online] readers take his word for it that writers at American Free Press are
all just a bunch of crude, uneducated bigots, who share the same overly
simplistic view of things and try desperately to sell a veiled agenda to any
audience that will listen. Anyone who reads American Free Press with any
regularity knows this is not the case. A true journalist - at least one who
purports to be objective - would rarely stoop to seeding his own article with
such personal invectives and observations to the extent that Mr Bettinger has
and still call it journalism. Nor would they unfairly string together
individuals, groups and quotations from unnamed sources to try to convey that
there is some global conspiracy against a certain group of people being
advanced by a publication he has obviously not read. While we cannot comment on
others mentioned in his report, we can say that the difference between the
writers at American Free Press and Mr Bettinger is that we would never
speculate in print on what motivates Mr Bettinger without talking to him first,
though we have some ideas. Unlike Mr Bettinger, we would not claim to know
about his true personal feelings, nor would we fashion a guess about what is
going on in his head, as he does about ours, claiming to know that "... writers
at American Free Press have learned to tone the language a bit, but the message
remains the same". How would Mr Bettinger know this? He never even spoke with
anyone at American Free Press. Our guess is that the readers of Asia Times
[Online] know full well why independent media outlets like American Free Press
and controversial books are growing in popularity. It is because journalists
like Mr Bettinger continue to underestimate the ability of average people to
read what they want and to make up their own minds as to what they believe is
true regardless of what men like Mr Bettinger think.
Christopher J Petherick
Managing Editor, American Free Press
Washington, DC (Dec 1, '04)
ATol is routinely accused by various people of being an anti-US communist rag,
a pro-US neo-con publication; an anti-Pakistan Indian mouthpiece, an
anti-Indian Pakistani publication; an anti-Chinese capitalist propaganda
outlet, a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party; etc. How can any two such
contradictory assertions be true? For this we have to remember the words of the
historian Will Durant, who said that if you walk down the middle of the road
you will be hit by traffic going both ways. Keep up the great work, ATol -
since you are often accused of being two opposite things we can bet that you
must be pretty close to the truth. As a side note, this ties into the recent
letters about Jewish domination of the world. The Jews have often been
witch-hunted for being two opposite things at the same time. During the Cold
War they were targeted as communist agents in the West and as capitalist spies
behind the Iron curtain. We need to remember that 99% of the genetic material
(DNA) is common between humans and apes. If the difference across species is so
small, what is the difference between different humans? The Jews are like any
other people - they just happen to be classic scapegoats because they stick out
like sore thumbs and they are usually small in number, making them practically
defenseless.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 1, '04)
Terry's [letter, Nov 30] ability to rattle off the names of Indian states is
impressive, especially if he is a Westerner. It is surprising he has omitted
all the other states of the Indian union from his list since factual accuracy
is not what he had in mind when he spouted the garbage about the states wanting
to secede from India. The only worthies involved in this "freedom struggle" are
Maoists, jihadi Muslims and "baptized" terror groups in the northeast abetted
by Christian funds. The struggle of the underprivileged in India is a fight for
social equality that is guaranteed by the constitution, and to which end great
progress has been made - not secession. If one goes by his list, India is
falling apart and struggling to hold together. If such were indeed the case,
then India should be in a constant state of civil war. Strange that such news
is emanating from India, where the press is not a mouthpiece for the
government, unlike China. A good index of a country's stability and global
image is the amount of foreign investment that it attracts, and judging by
India's economic growth and the number of multinational companies setting up
shop in India, the reality is far from Terry's wishful fancy. India is a
genuine functioning democracy with a cultural and religious diversity without
equal and has progressed despite being shackled by Islamic terrorism. Indians
can authoritatively lecture on democracy just as the Chinese government can on
authoritarian rule and communism. Canada is a benign home to many anti-India
movements and it is easy to see where Terry is getting his schooling.
Sri
New York, USA (Dec 1, '04)
Jeff Alexander writes [letter, Nov 30]: "The constitutions of Connecticut and
Pennsylvania ... were written by what would be considered today Christian
fundamentalists with an explicit reliance on the Bible as a source of
principles." You do note that there were actually 13 colonies, thus,
apparently, 13 constitutions, but leave out the majority of them. And you err
in your selection: Connecticut's first constitution was ratified in 1956. And
prior to both of those, the Rhode Island colony was founded upon the principle
of freedom of conscience/"religion" by a person banished from Massachusetts-Bay
Colony by its fanatic "Puritan" theocracy that not only believed in "witches"
but convicted and executed "witches", in keeping with the "Bible", based on no
evidence but the unsubstantiated accusation that they were "witches". (One of
those accused and imprisoned was a five-year-old girl.) That, Mr Alexander, was
not only lunacy, but contrary to the views of the Framers of the subsequent US
constitution. You further write: "They served as models for the US constitution
in many respects." Again you leave out the majority of colony constitutions,
including that of Massachusetts-Bay (1780), from which was directly derived the
US's bicameral Congress and separation of powers (which latter did not exist
under your preferred theocratic tyranny). You also have neglected to read the
first Georgia and North Carolina constitutions, of 1776-77, which prohibited
the clergy from holding public office. That prohibition was called by the
Framers of the US Constitution "separation of church and state". Indeed, even
the religio-tyranny of Massachusetts-Bay conceded a freedom in its Militia Act
of 1645 by including a clause exempting from militia duty those "religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms". Was that a nod to "religious" scruples? Yes. Was
it also an acceptance of freedom of conscience and belief? Yes. It was also a
separation of church and state. And you write: "Far from being an example of
secularism, the US constitution was an organic development from radical
Protestant antecedents [you leave out the Baptists, who demanded such as
Massachusetts-Bay's constitution include protection of freedom of conscience].
Enlightenment concepts and references to ancient Greece [what has this to do
with "religion"?] and Rome as found in the Founding Fathers were retrofitted on
to a system of government derived from Puritan and Quaker ideas and English
traditions." Most of that is, of course irrelevant - and false: the US
constitution supercedes all foreign law, including that of England. And, of
course, radically inaccurate. Between the "religious" muck-and-mire to which
you resort, and the US constitution, were the Declaration of Independence (from
English rule, which was done through law) and the Articles of Confederation.
And, incorporated into the body of the US constitution itself is this clause:
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States" (Art VI). And as that was not enough for
some, that separation of church and state was repeated in equally express terms
in the First Amendment. Thus, Mr Alexander, the Framers (1) repudiated
"religion" as a means of governance, and (2) expressly separated "religion"
from the government they framed and established. It is a mistake, Mr Alexander,
to confuse "Bible" and "religion" for law; not only are they not the same (law
applies, enforceably, to everyone in a democratic polity; "religion" does not),
the written statements by both Founders and Framers make abundantly clear their
hostility to "religion". I especially recommend those of James "Father of the
Constitution" Madison and Thomas Jefferson on this point; and you'll find the
same in the debates of the Second Amendment. The even more radical error you
make, Mr Alexander, is to place "religion" above the US constitution, in effort
to dictate your erroneous history (also not law) and groundless subjectivism
(also not law) to everyone else, in violation of the express stipulation in the
constitution that it is the "supreme Law of the Land". "Supreme", Mr Alexander,
as the fuller clause makes absolutely clear, means there is no law in the US
higher, or above, the US constitution. I can, if you wish, provide you more
refutations of your anti-US constitutionalism.
Joseph J Nagarya
Legal Professional, Constitutional Scholar and Ethicist
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 1, '04)
|
![Southeast Asia - Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore](/images/f_images/southeasta.gif){kind=small}
