Asia Times Online

Letters

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

Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as a forum for readers to debate with each other. The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct debaters away from the Letters page.

December 2007

[Re: Radio Mullah vs Gandhara Buddha, Dec 19] [The article] by Caroline Watson highlights radical Islam's absolute intolarance of the beliefs, icons and religous buildings of other faiths. The destruction of the Buddha of Jehanabad is a terrible tragedy (and in keeping to radical Islamic belief). To quote from the article "TNSM began preaching that the earthquake was a warning from Allah." In the same breath Buddhists would believe that the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas and the Buddha of Jehanabad, statues that represent compassion and peace, will only bring the reverse results to those who were involved in their destruction. My biggest fear is if Pakistan continues her journey to a "Talibanized" state, her museums that contain some of the finest Gandharan statues may face destruction, too, just as the Taliban did to Afghanistan's museums. The result was a great impoverishment of her cultural heritage and the cash that tourists bring. Today Afghanistan's biggest export is opium. What inauspicous events will descend on the Swat Valley?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, USA (Dec 20, '07)

[Re: India adds oomph to its space race, Dec 19] Any sane well-read person can see the obviously erroneous news reporting and anaylsis ...
Arun S (Dec 20, '07)

Unless you point out your problems with the article, we cannot respond - or publish your letter. - ATol

I have waited several days to hear from our usual observers of Far Eastern affairs about Japan's successful missle-interceptor launch. No comments about its militaristic significance or intentions? No sounding of alarm? No treatise on its implications? Not even a congratulatory statement on such technological achievement?
Seung Li (Dec 20, '07)

[Re: China seeks six-party solution on Iran, Dec 20] The six-party model has been a total failure in that it has produced exactly what it was designed to prevent: a nuclear armed North Korea. North Korea is now free to threaten South Korean, Japanese, Russian, American and even Chinese interests in Asia with nuclear weapons as a result of the six-party model. North Korea has increased its bargaining leverage with these countries. North Korea is able now to barter, transfer or sell nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Asia is now less safe than when the six-party talks began. It boggles the mind why anyone would want to apply the six-party model, which has already completely failed in practice, to another more complicated situation like that of Iran. The recent positive developments in the North Korean nuclear standoff have very little to do with China, Russia, Japan, or South Korea. They are the result of more direct communication between the US and North Korea, which is what North Korea wanted in the first place. In the same way, the obvious course of action to resolving the Iranian nuclear question is direct talks between the US and Iran. The UN is useless, the EU won't walk the walk, China wants to buy oil and Russia wants to sell technology. We don't need a table with six chairs to figure all this out. In light of China's shocking diplomatic impotence in restraining North Korea, what can China possibly bring to the table at their proposed six-party talks with Iran, a country over which China has very little influence? China's involvement and interest with Iran is that of a customer, nothing more. Iran has oil, and China needs oil. The suggestion by the author that China makes international policy decisions as the result of some kind of "moral" principal is absurd. China's position on Iran, that nothing should be done to prevent the flow of Iranian oil to China, has nothing to to do with morality. China's leadership does not make decisions based on morality, but for economic reasons. This is why China supports financially and defends politically the the most barbaric, disgusting and immoral regimes on the planet, like those in Myanmar, North Korea, and Sudan, all under the Orwellian doctrine of "non-interference". Morality has nothing to do with it. Finally, at this point it seems obvious that Chinese commentators, deliberately or not, are not going to stop misquoting and misusing Robert Zoellick's "stakeholder" comment anytime soon (and shame on ATol, a news gathering organization, for permitting this on the pages of this website), so let's just remember that the idea of China becoming a "responsible stakeholder" in the international community in the future was a policy goal articulated by the United States, not China.
TaMu
China (Dec 20, '07)

[Re: The plan to topple Pakistan's military Dec 6] A few days ago Asia Times Online published an article by Ahmed Quraish in which he all but accuses the United States of mounting a "color revolution" against Pakistan. I cannot find echoes of these charges elsewhere in the Pakistani press, though admittedly I do not know the Pakistani press too well. Your publication of Quraish says that you have some confidence in his journalism. But if I go to his website www.ahmedquraish.com, I detect a shrillness in his writings that is disturbing. So how much credence are your readers to place in that article?
Yen-Ling Chang (Dec 20, '07)

The article referred to appeared as a "Speaking Freely" column, where guest writers with diverse opinions are allowed to have their say. - ATol

[Re: Kissenger's foggy lens on Iran, Dec 18] Henry A Kissinger's unstated assumption is that Israel, unlike Iran, can be trusted with nuclear weapons because it will adhere to a no first use policy. He has obviously changed his mind. Recently released documents from the US National Archives report Kissinger as saying in 1969 that Israel was "more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons" because it is "one of the few people whose survival is genuinely threatened". He also said that "This is one [nuclear] program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us and may even have stolen from us." More recently, renowned Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld said "We [Israel] have the [nuclear] capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under." Nothing less than a nuclear-free Middle East will do. Maximum pressure, short of bombing and invasion, should be exerted on Israel and Iran to achieve this goal. (Source of Kissinger comments is New York Times, Nov 29, 2007 "Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Vexed Nixon". Source of von Creveld's comments is The Observer/Guardian "The War Game" Sept 21, 2003).
Yugo Kovach
Twickenham, Middlesex
United Kingdom (Dec 19, '07)

I must say that as an American of Indian descent, I find your website to be an excellent non-Western source of news. This website ... [is] making me read Western media less for Asia/Middle Eastern news. This is a world class news source.
Anand Bhat
Texas, USA (Dec 19, '07)

[Re: China deepens business ties with Pakistan, Dec 19] No matter who governs Pakistan, China will maintain good relations. For Beijing, Islamabad offers it a good warm water port in the Arabian Sea. Beijing is following the same policy in the leper country which is Myanmar. The Burmese generals offer there a port of call on the Indian Ocean. The economic engine which is today's China needs good sea and land transportation for raw materials and oil and gas and commodity imports. So, no matter how repressive or unpopular the regime in Pakistan is, China is willing pump in assistance for infrastructure which has for the main objective the economic well being of China. If there are benefits for Pakistan, well, they are of secondary importance.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 19, '07)

Congratulations again to Asia Times Online for soaring to new heights with your unique perspectives on the United States intelligence report on Iran. Your articles have made a significant difference in our understanding of Middle East and global issues.
Tim Bowen
Toronto, Canada (Dec 18, '07)

The recent developments in the United States Congress regarding the Armenian genocide resolution should compel the leadership of Turkey to seek a real and sustainable solution to the Armenian issue as well as adopt some much-desired changes in its policies toward Armenia. The Armenian issue is one of the main foreign policy challenges for the Turkish state today, which emerges not only in its policies toward Armenia but also in its relations with countries on nearly every continent of the globe. The 1915 events have been accepted as genocide by over 20 countries of the world, including such important nations as France, Russia and Canada. In addition, 40 out of the 50 US states have accepted the Armenian massacres as genocide, and this reality should not be dismissed as mere local state politics. These states, covering a huge portion of the country both in terms of geography and population, speak the voices of their people. Given this trend, then, it may be only a matter of time for the remaining 10 states to follow the footsteps of the others - which may eventually compel the United States government to affirm the 1915 events as genocide. A couple of months ago, as the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the genocide resolution to bring it to a vote in the full House of Representatives, it was certain that the resolution would pass the House with a majority of at least 227 co-sponsors. However, with threats of an invasion of northern Iraq as well as a possible halt to military relations with the US, Turkey was successful in convincing the White House to use its acute leverage over several congressmen to pull out their support from the resolution. However, this cannot be interpreted as a political victory for Turkey for several reasons; the most important being that the Congressmen have not argued against the reality of the genocide. They have cited Turkey’s geostrategic importance for the US, and at least one Congressman who temporarily withdrew his support has explicitly stated that "it is a good resolution and horrible timing". In other words, these congressmen have arrived at the conclusion that genocide took place in 1915 and they are ready to support legislation that would set the US record straight on this historical issue, but they will vote on it when their dependence on Turkey regarding Iraq subsides. Hence, the resolution has been postponed to later this year or early next year - but it will undoubtedly resurface. It would be naïve and premature to interpret this development as a final victory for Turkey. Rather, it can be seen as Turkey having indirectly bought some precious time - which should not be wasted. Turkey, foremost, has to use this opportunity to directly communicate with Armenia on this issue in order to avoid third parties such as the US Congress from legislating history. Turkish leaders should immediately consider opening the border with Armenia and establishing diplomatic relations with the country. This move would not only help build bridges between the countries and their societies through economic and cultural contacts, it will also allow the two sides to understand and assess the issues amongst themselves. Without any preconditions, Armenia has already expressed its desire to open the border and establish relations between the two countries. The Turkish leadership has very explicitly expressed its extreme discontent with the Congressional resolution as well as similar preceding resolutions internationally. Doubtless, introduction of such resolutions will not stop here and will only escalate in the coming months and years particularly as the 100th anniversary of the 1915 events nears. I believe Turkey has an important opportunity here to prevent third countries from adopting resolutions on the Armenian issue - by taking on the matter directly and officially with Armenia. Until then, the Armenian diaspora, largely a creation of the genocide and mass deportations of Armenians in 1915, will continue to push for recognition through their home countries. This brings short-term psychological comfort and a feeling of local political victory to diaspora Armenians, who see no results on the issue between their homeland and Turkey and feel compelled to take the matter into their own hands. I therefore challenge the Turkish leadership to adopt changes in its Armenian policy, which will undoubtedly benefit both sides and help build long-overdue bridges between the two nations.
Harout Harry Semerdjian
St. Antony's College, University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom (Dec 18, '07)

[Re: 'Third force' parties to determine polls, Dec 15] Thanks, as always, for [Shawn Crispin's] reporting from Thailand ... I'm a little surprised to find [his] assessment of what's about to take place so well aligned with the official wisdom. I have the feeling that people are scared and really want the military gone. That forced by the military's new charter to side with the one possible majority party for protection from the military, they are going to vote PPP. Of course I think they defeated the charter at the polls. So it all depends on who counts the votes. So maybe [Crispin's] wisdom is received from those truly in the know. My feeling comes only from my old achy bones, or from my heart.
John Francis Lee
Chiang Rai, Thailand (Dec 17, '07)

[Re: Inflation - China's lost battle, Dec 15] Prices go up when a currency is weak. Pretty simple. A weak currency means it takes more of it to buy something. As long as the US currency gets weaker and China pegs its currency to an ever weakening currency, China's currency will get weaker and inflationary pressure from the US will be exported to China. (Eventually it's re-exported.) If so, will China ever get inflation under control?
Steve W (Dec 17, '07)

China leaves the US and India trailing [Dec 15] points only to the acquisition of a copper mine in Africa. After reading the article I was left feeling that the battle has just begun. China may "encircle India" with a trail of military and commercial deals, from Iran, Afghanistan to the Buddhist state of Myanmar. But these are cultural and religious areas alien to communist belief and China may realize that she has committed the cardinal sin that her predecessors such as the USSR committed, and that is biting off more than one can chew.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana
USA (Dec 17, '07)

Wanted to comment that China leaves the US and India trailing [Dec 15] was one of the best articles - and ATol produces a slew of them - I've read in some time. I commented to a coworker over a year ago, based in large part on insight gained from reading ATol, that China was beating the US at its own game, that is, "capitalism". Of course China practices this with an amorality that rivals any US Gilded Age robber baron, but that's a topic for a different time. As an African-American, allow me to indulge a different perspective. In addition to a steroid diet of hubris, the US's declining status ... is due in large part to xenophobia, and not just a fear of different cultures, but also by a general hostility and distrust of them rooted in notions of their own cultural superiority. There is a poisoning in the US polity and intelligentsia, exemplified by culture wars. Funny, America can't reconcile it's own "culture" and the "warfare" and the financial resources - and mass media - committed to this "war" is mind-boggling. The arguments are all reductionist, no nuance, complexity, rationalism, realism, or science-based thinking - all traits Americans like to think they possess in superior quantities to all others, we, the putative standard-bearers of the "Age of Enlightenment". Amusing how we try to instill "culture" in other countries, yet we don't know what the hell ours is comprised of. Look at our indigenous politics, the so-called "values" issues, ignorant rants about whether we are a Christian nation or not, the "War on Christmas", hostility towards science and reasoning, the general crassness, meanness, and unintelligible babble of our political dialogue. We can't police malls and churches, yet we want to forcibly remove 12 million or more Hispanics from our country or render them permanent quasi-citizens, instead of finding reasonable solutions that include stricter border enforcement. People don't even bother to think about what fascistic, draconian state action mass expulsion would require. When the US finally wakes up, if it does at all, and understand the cultural complexity and richness of this world and embrace it, we can stem the decline; however, if we remain stubborn, arrogant, militaristic, and close-minded, our fate is sealed.
Louis Starks
USA (Dec 17, '07)

[Re: China leaves the US and India trailing, Dec 15] I am astonished by how said commentator underestimates the (still high) potential for devastating war between the United States, its key allies, and Iran, which would significantly change the calculus on just about every issue he brings up in his latest article. I, and certainly many in Washington, New York, London and Tel Aviv, would sense that Delhi, too, appreciates this lingering potential for war, to the point of working it into every decision India makes regarding Iran. Separately, it is more than a bit disturbing that such a seemingly seasoned former diplomat (with a conspicuously Indian surname) would so consistently overestimate Iranian - and Chinese - influences in a region that firmly remains heavily influenced by American power.
Dan Johnson
USA (Dec 17, '07)

I immensely enjoy your Asia Times Online, but sometimes I wonder whether you are not just a bunch of hypochondriacs. Much of your articles seem to center on "the imminent collapse of so-and-so ...": China collapse, US collapse, Iran collapse, Pakistan collapse, India collapse, ASEAN collapse, etc. And Spengler immediately reminds me of Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The Fall of the Sunset World). A few decades ago, everybody was aglow about the coming Asian century, and at that time China wasn't even in the picture. So why so morose now? Please gentlemen! Try being a bit more optimistic! After all, Christmas is approaching!
Momentary Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (Dec 17, '07)

[Re: Stop getting mad, America. Get smart, Dec 12]
I thoroughly enjoy reading Asia Times Online. However, the recent posting by Dick Armitage infuriated me. I prefer reality to the fantasies that envelop Dick's mind. His idea that the "US put on an angry face" is a joke. Legalizing pre-emptive war against an innocent country, and then killing 1,000,000-plus of its inhabitants is a little more than an angry face. Please stop advancing the cause of the mass murderers from the US White House. Dick has blood on his hands, and hopefully will one day be prosecuted for his crimes. Dick is also living in the past. America is broke, and the majority of the middle class is indentured to credit-lending companies. America is looking at a bleak future. Current presidential candidates are out of touch with the electorate, with the exception of Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich.
Bob Van den Broeck
Kouchibouguac, New Brunswick, Canada (Dec 14, '07)

Theodore Roosevelt spoke softly and carried a big stick but that luxury is not available to [Cambodia Prime Minister] Hun Sen, a man who is supposedly the leader of a nation, but who finds himself taking orders from donors because his government cannot function and his nation cannot survive without foreign aid. He does not have a stick. He compensates for that shortcoming by speaking as loudly as possible. Many of his utterances appear to be symptoms of insanity but are really the venting of his frustration at having to deal with an international community that carries the big stick of foreign aid, and that stick so emboldens them that some puny United Nations bureaucrat can garner the audacity to call for the people of Cambodia to overthrow their government. I know of no country or government that would tolerate that kind of behavior.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 14, '07)

[Re: The paradox of East Asian peace, Dec 14] John Feffer's article is a breath of fresh thinking. He pushes aside the stale old rhetoric about North Korea, the bomb, and instability on a divided Korean Peninsula. He refutes the political quackery of yore; he acquaints us with new ways of looking at the possibility of peace in a fractured Korean peninsula which have their practical end in reform and stability in East Asia.
Sincerely,
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 14, '07)

[Re: Rape and revision of Nanjing, Dec 11] The research has gone on for a lifetime, now, and there is no reasonable doubt that, wherever the Japanese army [went] in the 1930s and '40s, they committed many atrocities. Nanjing is just the biggest-known example. May I suggest you do some grassroots research yourself? Talk to any ordinary person in the Philippines, Korea, [or] the occupied parts of China, and they will tell you the family atrocity story - of how a dozen or a hundred relatives were murdered by Japanese soldiers. Such stories are as common as can be. Or visit the Unit 731 museum at their old headquarters in Ping Fang, outside Harbin. It is funded by the present Japanese government, so they must approve the rather horrific story it tells. Or look around the streets of Nanjing and note how many Japanese faces you see on Chinese people. No one will hurt you as a Japanese individual. Jilin University, in Changchun, [for example] has many students from Japan. To make childish excuses about how it didn't really happen, or it wasn't so bad, or even, "the Korean conscripts did it to make Japan look bad", only hurts Japan's present-day reputation and makes new enemies.
Yours faithfully,
Lester Ness
Long-time Changchun resident, now in Kunming (Dec 14, '07)

[Re: “Al-Qaeda fights for its mark in Pakistan”, Dec 13 ]. I believe that it would be right to say that the Taliban or al-Qaeda will never achieve or establish "Caliphate" as wrongly perceived by Saleem Shahzad in Pakistan, but they can influence a great change in the way Pakistan is being governed and run for over 60 years mainly by the feudal lords, their progeny, corrupt politicians, generals and the capitalists who are criminally amassing wealth of the nation by every hook and crook. It is not the wish of the Taliban but the majority of peace-loving Muslims who want to get rid of exploitation by the rich of the poor masses, and throw away the immorality and lewdness of secularists, materialists, debauched capitalists and bring [about] the Islamic system of politics, social justice, economics and jurisprudence. Pakistan is an agricultural country and 90% of its land is possessed by feudal lords and their families who have [had] hundreds of millions of peasants and their families working for them for generations, and these poor people can not breathe or open their mouth without the approval of their masters. These lords and their progeny benefit most from the elections in Pakistan; they sit in the provincial and national assemblies and hinder giving basic rights to the poor and improving [the] standard their of lives. The poor are mostly illiterate and told to vote for their masters or lose their wages and jobs, and they have no other option. [If] we do not get rid of hereditary of feudal lords and their cronies (as they did in India sixty years ago) justice, fairness, freedom, equality and the Islamic way of life will never be introduced in Pakistan. Any ideology, philosophy or system that is propounded by man will never work in Pakistan as the majority of its population are adherents of Islam and loathe any other political, penal, judicial, constitutional, economic and social welfare system but of Islam as written down in the Koran. We have seen that Communism offered jobs and loaves but crushed freedom of thought and expression. Capitalism is now failing mankind as it is based solely on the exploitation of billions for the greed of hundreds in the shade of man’s theory of "democracy" of the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Islam, on the other hand negates greed, exploitation and sovereignty of [the] few over the majority.
Yours faithfully,
Jalal Rumi
Pakistan (Dec 14, '07)

[Re: Al-Qaeda fights for its mark in Pakistan, Dec 13] I believe that it is right to say that the Taliban or al-Qaeda will never achieve or establish a "caliphate" as wrongly perceived by Saleem Shahzad in Pakistan but they can influence a great change in the way Pakistan has been governed and run for over 60 years, mainly by the feudal lords, their progeny, corrupt politicians, generals and the capitalists who are criminally amassing wealth of the nation by every hook and crook. It is not the wish of the Taliban but the majority peace-loving 75% of true Muslims who want to get rid of exploitation of the poor, throw away the immorality and lewdness of secularists, materialists and debauched capitalists and establish the Islamic system of politics, social justice, economics and jurisprudence. Pakistan is an agricultural country and 90% of its land is possessed by feudal lords and their families who have had hundreds of millions of peasants and their families working for them for generations. These poor people cannot breathe or open their mouths without the approval of their masters. The poor are mostly illiterate and are told to vote for their masters or lose their wages and jobs. They have no other option. Unless and until we get rid of of feudal lords and their cronies (as they did in India sixty years ago) justice, fairness, freedom, equality and the Islamic way of life will never be introduced in Pakistan. We have seen that communists offered jobs and bread, but crushed freedom of thought and expression. Now capitalism is failing mankind as it is based solely on the exploitation of billions for the greed of hundreds.
Jalal Rumi
Pakistan (Dec 13, '07)

In Stop getting mad, America. Get smart [Dec 12] Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye listed five ways the US government could regain the good will of humanity. They forgot the most important: try GW Bush and the leading members of his administration for war crimes, then convict and punish them.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Dec 13, '07)

Richard Armitage's and Joseph Nye's commentary Stop getting mad, America. Get smart [Dec 12] has caught up with the common wisdom of the American public. Endless articles and the results of polls which appeared in the US newspapers and press releases in the past months document that the majority sentiment among the men and women in the country's main streets have gotten over the shock of September 11, and are wanting to turn away from the byzantine warfare between Republicans and Democrats in the houses of Congress. They want a return to the times of bipartisan policy at home and abroad. In short, Armitage and Nye are simply giving voice to the spirit of the times, no more, no less. Nonetheless, the Bush White House and its allies in Congress are skilful in delaying a change in policy. The bureaucracy that Bush and company have politicized and the powerful lobbies work against Armitage's and Nye's suggestion. These two former US government officials talk big, but offer no program of implementing their agenda. Yet, I cannot help asking what has, say, Armitage been doing since he left the US Department of State, to openly and publicly challenge policies which he is criticizing today? He has set up his own consultancy, that we know. And his name is forever linked to his reckless gossiping with Robert Novak which stripped Valerie Plame of her CIA coverage. Armitage and Nye feel the shift in public sentiment, and so opportunistically they feel that they can say what everyone is whispering in the corridors or in occasional articles in the press.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 13, '07)

[Re: Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye's Stop getting mad, America. Get smart, Dec 12] Who are you talking to when you say "Stop getting mad, America. Get smart?" Is this your newest illusion of reality where all the mistakes you made in the past will be wiped clean as we real Americans take the burden from you so you can get on with your abstemious lifestyle? Or are you subtly asking us not to be mad with you and your ilk. Either way it takes you off the hook. The one obvious aspect of this is that at this point you really should have some kind of apology ready. Maybe something like: "We are sorry we tried to destroy the world but most of all we're sorry you SOB's wouldn't let us complete the process".
Dee Hall
USA (Dec 13, '07)

[Re: British pullout stokes Iraq's southern fire by Sami Moubayed, Dec 12] I think this article is poorly written with no good analysis. The author is jumping from here and there without clearly making his point. "Their bodies were mutilated - and this while the British were there - shedding light on what will likely happen to Basra the minute the British leave." Is this not true that currently British forces are withdrawn and camping near the airport? "Just because it is not carrying out military operations does not mean that the Mahdi Army is gone - or has become peaceful. On November 15 it reminded the world of how strong it is with a massive demonstration in Najaf ..." What is the point here? Does "massive demonstration" mean that they are not peaceful? I am not saying that Mehdi Army is peaceful. The author is not justifying his point with a valid example.
Bahlool Dana
USA (Dec 13, '07)

Jim Lobe's Two countries, one survey [Dec 12] pretty much reflects my reading of the public attitudes in China and the US. The new development is that China can confidently proceed to pursue her national goals regardless of the direction the US wishes for China to take to satisfy American concerns and interests. The US has squandered its international prestige, goodwill, military power and economic strength. She is in no position to dictate policy to anyone let alone China. And China is too smart to let past slights skew her relations with the US or to make an effort to replace the US as the global hegemon.
Kelvin Mok (Dec 12, '07)

[Re: Malaysia's crackdown on dissent widens, Dec 12] Day by Day, it is becoming more obvious that UMNO's domination is unravelling. The growing wave of dissent is proof positive that the measures of repression against the secular forces in Malay society and socio-economic discrimination against Malayasia's Indian and Chinese communities are no longer tolerated. Short of strong reform, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will have to cede power to the country's military to maintain order and UMNO's privileged role.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 12, '07)

[Re: Rape and revision of Nanjing, Dec 11] In my opinion, the most difficult people to understand are those who believe that they are the sons and daughters of Amaterasu, the sun godess (the Japanese) or those who believe that they are the chosen people of god (the Jews), or those who believe that every word in the Old and New Testaments is literally the word of God (the far right Christians). Their reasoning is faith-based, hence is beyond the realm of logic. Nothing logical can be expected from the Japanese with regard to taking reponsibility for the consequences of war atrocities committed by their soldiers during WW II in the Pacific. The Japanese reaction to Nanjing could have been expected and can be filed under "irreconcilable differences". There is no point in continuing any monolog with the Japanese about World War II.
AAL
Prisoner of the Japanese #111 4001
Canada (Dec 12, '07)

Steve Fraser seems to write the obituary for the Republican party in The perfect storm of campaign 2008 [Dec 11], while he might be right about the Republicans he is wrong on many other issues. The first being, anyone looking for meaningful change to come out of the Democrats or Republicans is either insane or very stupid. The damage that George Bush has inflicted on America has been aided by the complicity or silence of most Democrats. One in six US manufacturing jobs have been lost under Bush and I have not seen much of a response from the Democrats. China has a currency that is undervalued by 40% and Washington takes no action as manufacturing is destroyed in America but the bosses on Wall Street take home US$500 million a year. It appears likely that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination while having negative poll numbers in the high 40% range. Some polls have Hillary losing to every major Republican candidate. Does that look like the Democrats have their act together? Many Americans think that the Democratic party has abandoned the working and middle class Americans, to defend gay and minority rights and left the field wide open to the Republicans. Mr Fraser has his left wing ideology showing when he writes "The economics of militarism have been a mainstay of business stability for more than a half century." In 2003 US military spending was 3.7% of GDP, granted it is a much larger share of discretionary spending in the federal budget. Also his writing about "super-exploited immigrants" is complete nonsense, illegal immigrants come to American at great expense to themselves and many illegals make more than $100 a day, more than 10 times what they could make in their home countries. And America spends between $10,000-$15,000 a year educating a single child while in Mexico parents have to pay for schooling. If a global depression starts in the spring of 2008 like I think it will it will not see the Democrats sailing away to a bright new future and a new, New Deal. A collapsing US economy will drag down the world economy and allow all the systemic weaknesses to explode on the world stage. America is far different than in the 1930's and Americans will not go out on a street corner and sell apples for a nickel. In the Great Depression America got an FDR, in the next one I think we will get a Hitler. And you thought George Bush was bad.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Dec 12, '07)

Dhruba Adhikary's article UN's welcome mat in Nepal frays [Dec 11, 007) was indeed an excellent piece of analytical writing that reflects Nepal's current political imbroglio that is being incrementally muddled by external interference, basically by its two big neighbors. External interference in Nepal's internal affairs has always thwarted the country's political stability and economic progress. India's long term strategy to destabilize the tiny neighbor and "Sikkimize" it with a help of a few quislings is showing ominous signs. The political ripples created by the quitting of parliamentary seats and their respective political parties by a number of pro-Indian lawmakers furnishes its proof. Therefore Adhikary is quite right in quoting some analyst's remark that Nepal would prefer to remain a UN protectorate to becoming India's vassal state.
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu (Dec 12, '07)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is reported to have said in Bangkok that his patience with the Burmese junta was running out. Accordingly, he is willing to raise the Burma issue at the UN-ASEAN summit next year and he has received a pledge from Thailand's Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont that guarantees Thailand's full support to UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari. These words are music to the junta's ears. It must make them happy to know that so deep is the lake of patience in Ki-Moon's heart that it has yet to run out and that the river of patience is still flowing like the Irrawaddy and guaranteed to keep flowing for at least another year. Buying time with trickery is their game and Mr Ki-Moon has signaled that he will play. As for Mr Surayud, he was actually given a chance to support Mr Gambari at the ASEAN summit in Singapore but he gave his support to the Burmese junta instead and he reiterated at that time that the internal affairs of Burma were strictly off-limits to ASEAN. The veto powers exercised by Burma at the ASEAN summit show that Burma can change ASEAN but ASEAN cannot change Burma. Mr Ki-Moon's choice of ASEAN and Mr Surayud as his bulldogs to bring democracy to Burma assures the junta that it shall be business as usual and the status quo for the foreseeable future.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 12, '07)

The author Sudha Ramachandran's article In Kunming an exercise in uneasiness [Dec 11] contains certain phrases that may mislead readers. For example, saying China "captured swathes of Indian territory" and "Aksai Chin remains under Chinese control" implies that China robbed India of territory in 1962, when in fact, it could very well be argued that China was maintaining its territorial rights in the face of Nehru aggression. I urge ATol readers to carry out their own independent research on the legality of Aksai Chin and South Tibet (or Arunachal Pradesh) especially into the events of the times (such as Indian-Soviet friendship, Indian incursion into Portuguese Goa and Indian designs on the Tibetan region).
Vigilant Reason
Kuala Lumpur (Dec 12, '07)

******By periodically publishing Spengler's venal invectives [ Iran: The wrong options on the table, Dec 11] on how the Middle Eastern/Islamic/Arab/Iranians must comply to what the Podhoretz's, Dershowitz's, Bolton's and Spengler's own dicta or get their own little posteriors nuked back to the stone age ATol is finessing, albeit in a positive manner, both Spengler and its readers. Spengler comes across as a "Dorian Gray" who sees a world that at one time asked how high when [it was] told to jump. And ATol provides the emerging image of what the world is becoming [in contrast to] the views of Spengler et al. Could that be the subtlety of showing the sinking hat atop Spengler's photo? With the fast-arriving holidays I take this opportunity to extend best wishes and high marks for a literate and highly professional organization.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 12, '07)

[Re: Rape and revision of Nanjing, Dec 11] How many people were killed in the so-called "Nanjing Massacre"? About 300,000, 80,000, 40,000, 3,000 or less? If it happened, how did it happen? Was it another Communist trap .... that dragged China to total war against Japan to protect Stalin's interests? It seems that there are so many open questions (and mixed feelings) about this issue, and so few reasonable answers that it would be wise to let historical researchers do their work to clarify what happened in Nanjing, as stated by [Japanese] government press secretary Sakaba Mitsuo, and don't allow easy-money movies to make up our mind with negative emotions, or fantasies. Also we should be able to see whole historic context, and learn to separate past issues from present ones. Otherwise it will be difficult to overcome past collective traumas - real or faked. So, let's give researchers a chance.
M Murata

A coda to Donald Kirk's article [ At least he didn't call him 'Dear Leader', Dec 8 ]. US President George W Bush sent a letter to Chairman Kim Jong-il. It is obvious that the American president has not stayed his 'righteous course' when it comes to North Korea. Instead he is forced to eat his words to jump-start stalled negotiations. Obviously he has an eye on the future. He desperately needs a 'win' in a long series of foreign policy failures. In his letter, Mr Bush offers Mr Kim a carrot: the removal of North Korea from his list of terrorist states if Pyongyang accelerates its denuclearization program. Although he reaffirm his commitment to the six party talks in Beijing, it is clear that this is a mantra to placate his neo-conservative critics at home. It has always be as plain as the nose on his face that any denouement of the North Korean nuclear issue lies in direct, bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. President Bush has no one but himself to blame for his war of bloated rhetoric and vain threats with North Korea. Mr Kim understood that bring the United States to the table he had to develop a strong response which came in the guise of a nuclear bomb. For Iraq served as a bellwether that Mr Bush would demand nothing but 'regime change '... and the testing of a nuclear device by Pyongyang had the effect of stopping him in his tracks. Kim Jong-il made him sit up and listen to reason if not an imperative for reason. It resulted in a tectonic shift in his hostile posturing toward Kim Jong-il. Mr Bush has proven to be a hollow man in foreign policy, and thus is forced by the logic of his own wrong-headed policy towards North Korea ... to run faster on his treadmill to avoid being classified as one of the worst presidents ever to occupy the White House.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 12, '07)

[Re: The plan to topple Pakistan's military, Dec 6] Ahmed Quraishi's contribution made interesting reading, though I'm unable to determine if "high plausibility" means "reality". I would suggest correcting the following sentence regarding the US-backed "color revolutions": "This recipe proved its success in former Yugoslavia, and more recently in Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan." It cannot be Kazakhstan, the author probably had Khirgizstan in mind? Thank you for the fine and diverse platform you are offering to the public, though the pseudo "Spengler" is a ... case for crass Christo-sionism and Scheuer writes like a CIA operator.
Gabriel Bittar (Dec 12, '07)

By periodically publishing Spengler's venal invectives [Iran: The wrong options on the table, Dec 11] on how the Middle Eastern/Islamic/Arab/Iranians must comply [with] Podhoretz's, Dershowitz's, Bolton's and Spengler's own dicta or get their own little posteriors nuked back to the stone age ATol is finessing, albeit in a positive manner, both Spengler and its readers. Spengler comes across as a "Dorian Gray" who sees a world that at one time asked how high when [it was] told to jump. And ATol provides the emerging image of what the world is becoming [in contrast to] the views of Spengler et al. Could that be the subtlety of showing the sinking hat atop Spengler's photo? With the fast-arriving holidays I take this opportunity to extend best wishes and high marks for a literate and highly professional organization.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 11, '07)

[Re: Rape and revision of Nanjing, Dec 11] How many people were killed in the so-called "Nanjing Massacre"? About 300,000, 80,000, 40,000, 3,000 or less? If it happened, how did it happen? Was it another Communist trap .... that dragged China to total war against Japan to protect Stalin's interests? It seems that there are so many open questions (and mixed feelings) about this issue, and so few reasonable answers that it would be wise to let historical researchers do their work to clarify what happened in Nanjing, as stated by [Japanese] government press secretary Sakaba Mitsuo, and don't allow easy-money movies to make up our mind with negative emotions, or fantasies. Also we should be able to see whole historic context, and learn to separate past issues from present ones. Otherwise it will be difficult to overcome past collective traumas - real or faked. So, let's give researchers a chance.
M Murata (Dec 11, '07)

A coda to Donald Kirk's article [ At least he didn't call him 'Dear Leader', Dec 8 ]. US President George W Bush sent a letter to Chairman Kim Jong-il. It is obvious that the American president has not stayed his "righteous course" when it comes to North Korea. Instead he is forced to eat his words to jump-start stalled negotiations. Obviously he has an eye on the future. He desperately needs a "win" in a long series of foreign policy failures. In his letter, Mr Bush offers Mr Kim a carrot: the removal of North Korea from his list of terrorist states if Pyongyang accelerates its denuclearization program. Although he reaffirm his commitment to the six-party talks in Beijing, it is clear that this is a mantra to placate his neo-conservative critics at home. It has always been as plain as the nose on his face that any denouement of the North Korean nuclear issue lies in direct, bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. President Bush has no one but himself to blame for his war of bloated rhetoric and vain threats with North Korea. Mr Kim understood that to bring the United States to the table he had to develop a strong response which came in the guise of a nuclear bomb. For Iraq served as a bellwether that Mr Bush would demand nothing but "regime change" ... and the testing of a nuclear device by Pyongyang had the effect of stopping him in his tracks. Kim Jong-il made him sit up and listen to reason if not an imperative for reason. It resulted in a tectonic shift in his hostile posturing toward Kim Jong-il. Mr Bush has proven to be a hollow man in foreign policy, and thus is forced by the logic of his own wrong-headed policy towards North Korea ... to run faster on his treadmill to avoid being classified as one of the worst presidents ever to occupy the White House.
Jakob Cambria (Dec 11, '07)
USA

[Re: The plan to topple Pakistan's military, Dec 6] Ahmed Quraishi's contribution made interesting reading, though I'm unable to determine if "high plausibility" means "reality". I would suggest correcting the following sentence regarding the US-backed "color revolutions": "This recipe proved its success in former Yugoslavia, and more recently in Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan." It cannot be Kazakhstan, the author probably had Kyrgyzstan in mind? Thank you for the fine and diverse platform you are offering to the public, though the pseudo "Spengler" is a ... case for crass Christo-sionism and Scheuer writes like a CIA operator.
Gabriel Bittar (Dec 11, '07)

Pity the Pakistani voters in their next elections. They have to choose among a military dictator, a convicted felon who has been found guilty of corruption, and a family with serious criminal charges pending in the courts. Is that all the leadership material 150 million people can muster? Perhaps partition was not that great an idea after all. There are 150 million very happy, free, and democratic Muslims living on the other side of the great divide while the supposedly safe homeland for Indian Muslims teeters on the edge of becoming a failed state.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 10, '07)

Kaveh L Afrasiabi [A smart side to US intelligence, Dec 8] and Trita Parsi [Israel's 'auto-pilot' policy on Iran, Dec 8] both make illuminating comments about how by shifting their view of Iran's nuclear capability the Americans have opened up new paths for international diplomacy to take. These ATol articles are invaluable because within the US we get little such thinking from mainstream news media. Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan might well be the only American commentator to highlight the role the American military played in getting the new intelligence views out to the American public and to the world. Unlike the politicians in Washington, American military leaders understand economics and know that in waging unending war the US is driving itself into the ditch. For instance, China, which has been accepting American IOUs for Chinese goods, is showing the US who's boss by occasionally refusing to let American warships stop at Hong Kong. Meanwhile civilian leaders in Washington are doing all they can to shake the faith of foreign investors: lenders can no longer count on being free to collect contractual interest on loans they've made to Americans. The pressure on Israel is having an effect too, and some American politicians are signaling that it's up to Israel to attack Iran first. They send such a signal when they say they'll impeach the president and the vice president if they launch an attack, but everybody knows that if Israel does, nobody's going to call for impeachment if the US joins in under the banner of saving Israel. Thus it's actually going to be up to the American military leadership to forestall any foolhardiness. The US is undergoing a change to military control, if only because the American people don't want to elect politicians who are willing to deal with the world as it is.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
USA (Dec 10, '07)

Trita Parsi [Israel's 'auto-pilot' policy on Iran, Dec 8] seems to be suffering from irrational optimism when it comes to drawing out what the ultimate implications of the NIE report might be for Iran. But Kaveh L Afrasiabi in his recent article [A smart side to US intelligence, Dec 8] is probably far closer to getting it right. First of all: What voices of reason in Israel is Trita Parsi talking about? The Israelis have for decades been the vicious occupiers and despoilers of the Palestinians. With the full backing of the Americans, they have pursued this role relentlessly despite condemnation by most of the world community - that is, by all other than by militarily-occupied US puppets such as Japan and Germany. An alternative, more realistic, interpretation of what the NIE report holds for Iran can be built on a frank recognition of what the US truly is: a global military hegemony. In a nutshell, the report states that Iran is not now, and cannot soon be, a nuclear power. Therefore, it can no more mount a credibly military response to an attack than can any of the pathetically hapless collection of Sunni states that Israel is free to bomb and strafe at will throughout the region. There is no victory or vindication for Iran in the NIE report. Given the enduring reality of American militarism and the absolute control of the American political system by Israel, war with Iran just became a near mathematical certainty.
Jose R Pardinas
San Diego, California
USA (Dec 10, '07)

ATol, thank you for publishing Trita Parsi's article [Israel's 'auto-pilot' policy on Iran, Dec 8] on Israel and Iran. It should be required reading for all your readers. Mr Parsi knows of what he speaks. In fact, for those lucky to read his book Treacherous Alliance about the secret dealings among Israel, Iran, and the United States, they have come away with a good sense of what has gone on in the Middle East. ATol should encourage Mr Parsi to write more. He has much to say and more to enlighten your readers.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 10, '07)

With regards to The plan to topple Pakistan's military [Dec 6], it's not surprising that a pesky scholarship/fellowship recipient was the source of so much trouble. What is surprising is why so many of them are overlooked by supposedly good intelligence agencies. I had to identify one recently before things got out of hand. With regards to Sami Moubayed's The Syrians are back, [Dec 6] an important point seems to have been neglected. A former "liberal" Israeli strategic analyst made it clear that the US and Israel intend to have a rapprochement with Syria only because they want to break the Shi'ite crescent that runs from Iran to Lebanon, at its most critical point. If that is true, the questions that Syria should be asking itself include at least the following two: 1) Will Syria make a deal with Israel and the US similar to the one that Anwar Sadat's Egypt made with them; and 2) is Syria confident that it will be able to defend against US activities such as those described in "The plan to topple Pakistan's military" and that are almost certain to follow any rapprochement with the US and Israel? I am not a Syrian political analyst, but I hope that Syria understands that it is not going to be treated any differently than Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all of whom were until recently the intended subjects of "soft regime change" and will likely be such subjects again if Iran is isolated. The US and Israel are trying different approaches to a certain strategic goal that has not changed. Failure in Iraq is forcing them to try different approaches. The improved relations which Moubayed describes with glee are simply a minor stepping stone in just another approach to the ultimate strategic goal, Arab governments that can be manipulated as easily as some of the present Eastern European governments or the Italian governments that were manipulated after World War II. The improved relations are likely to become even better without much effort because the approach based on attacking Iran has been fatally damaged after the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate. However, he and Syria should never fool themselves into thinking that the US will choose Syria over the the March 14 Coalition, as he seems to suggest at the end of the article. He might as well have said that the US would choose Muqtada al-Sadr over Zalmay Khalilzad. And he shouldn't expect for the US and Israel to ever be happy because "peace" according to them is a non-mutually beneficial continuum on which there is much more space to travel.
Abacus
USA (Dec 10, '07)

[Re: A new Chinese red line over Iran, Dec 7] I would not be so sure as M K Bhadrakumar, when he writes, "The Middle East 'hell disaster' has just become less hellish. The chances of a United States military strike against Iran have been dramatically reduced." Given the noise that is coming out of the US and Israel, it seems to me that an attack on Iran is imminent. The reason behind my thinking is that both Israel and the neo-cons and their supporters in the White House are no longer sure about the color of the next administration in the US, hence they have only a small window of opportunity during the remaining short period of the Bush presidency. Also, Israel cannot be sure that given the precarious financial position of the US as well as its dwindling political muscle in the world, for how long the US would be in a position to bankroll and protect Israel against the world. For this reason, the Israel lobby would try to force the Bush administration now, before the next administration comes in ...
Dipak Ghosh
Stirling, Scotland (Dec 7, '07)

The actual words quoted above are from the article summary written by ATol staff, not by M K Bhadrakumar. - ATol

A new Chinese red line over Iran, [Dec 7] is an excellent article. It gives a common-sense reason why the US is willing to acknowledge that the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. This type of "double" democracy has been to date played by the US well. The US already has come to agreement on North Korea knowing just as well as Iran that North Korea will not give up her nuclear programs and through most of history talks have seldom succeeded. The only diplomatic maneuver the US has made is to proverbially "place the ball in their court". If even a salvo opens the US has the capability to detect it and take it out before it reaches its trajectory. A recent article stated that the US is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on so called "war satellites". The US will have the capability from striking from space. At the rate in which military technology is going, the atom bomb and the capability of delivering it is becoming less and less a threat - except by terrorist means.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana USA (Dec 7, '07)

[Re: A new Chinese red line over Iran, Dec 7] I was waiting for one of your correspondents to write about the very obvious China factor in the new Iran equation, and just when I thought none of your writers would care or dare stick out his neck, here comes this amazing article by M K Bhadrakumar! Most writers write like lawyers, some (Spengler) like theologians, but it is rare to come across someone who writes as a true scholar should, with intelligence, insight, and common sense.
Chapeau, Mr Bhadrakumar!
(Temporary) Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (Dec 7, '07)

In reading the concluding paragraphs of India reveals flawed Tibet policy, by Abanti Bhattacharya, [Dec 6], many Americans might, I believe, fail to understand the issue of the Tibetan refugees in India. The author writes: "This indicates entanglement of the Tibetan issue with the India-China border dispute. Therefore, the problem of Tibet including the fate of Tibetan refugees in India and the border dispute cannot be solved effectively without a tripartite participation of India, China and Tibet." How does the fate of the Tibetan refugees in India relate to political issues outside India? Is it not a social issue within India? Analogously, how does the fate of the Hmong, Vietnamese, and Russian refugees in the USA relate to political issues outside the USA? Is it not entirely a US domestic social issue? Certainly, I believe. The issue for the USA is how well these refugees assimilate into the mainstream US society. The questions should be whether these human beings have the social inclusion in courtship and marriage across ethnicity, and merely equally important, whether they have equal economic opportunities. It seems that less material political considerations have usurped the real issue, the social one. This leads to question one: Why would the Dalai Lama think the Tibetan region need any autonomy? What is the purpose of such autonomy? The author writes: "After all, the Dalai Lama is not demanding independence but is only legitimately demanding the preservation of Tibetan identity, religion and culture within Chinese frontiers." I ask can one ever legitimately champion for segregation of minority from the majority? Is such segregation foretelling of happiness of these, presently, minority persons? Is equal opportunity in courtship and marriage across ethnicity not a more personally fulfilling experience than isolation and being used as a vehicle to preserve cultural traditions? The Dalai Lama seems to champion "One World", all human beings of one family. How does one family have separate cultures? Does my brother have a separate culture from mine? He has his personality and I have mine, but culture is not an issue within the same family. Why is there a need to deliberately preserve, intact, any traditional culture on earth? Then to question two: after 100 years, would the offspring of the Tibetans in China be better off socially than that of the Tibetan diaspora in India? I tend to think that the one group that has assimilated the better, has become ethnically less distinct, would be the happier human beings. I tend to think that those in China would be happier. There is no strength due to ethnic diversity in a country; there is strength due to intellectual diversity, frequently reflected in personality, in an ethnically homogenous society, as in the American melting pot, hopefully across the racial divide after another 100 years.
Jeff Church
USA (Dec 7, '07)

Ahmed Quraishi's article The plan to topple Pakistan's military [Dec 6] was brilliant! It gives a very refreshing and intelligent look at the current crisis in Pakistan. Pakistan has always had to face a "soft" war from the USA and this is a continuation. If the USA's efforts at a velvet revolution are frustrated, and seeing Pakistan in internal disarray, it may only be a matter of time before a "hard" war is launched. The USA has never been and will never be Pakistan's friend. The sooner Pakistan dissociates itself from the USA, the better. Also, people in Pakistan need to unite to face the danger collectively. Pakistan should quickly sort out its internal problems, especially its corrupt, self-seeking politicians who turn to the USA to reach the corridors of power. Such brilliant analytical investigative reporting by ATol is what keeps it way ahead of all others. ATol - you are the best!
Zaheer Butt
UK (Dec 7, '07)

Ahmed Quraishi's article The plan to topple Pakistan's military [Dec 6] is another earth shaking report by ATol. Your site has some of the best analysis and reporting available anywhere.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Dec 6, '07)

This is an answer to the letter from Batasablind [Dec 5]. First of all, the fact that a Chinese responds emotionally to issues regarding his country’s territorial integrity and it’s relations with foreign powers does not make him a product of "Maoist brain washing". Those kind of issues are met with strong reactions anywhere in the world and it is thus perfectly understandable, especially when looking back at China's tumultuous relations with the West in the 19th century. Secondly, Tibet first became China's vassal during the Tang dynasty (618-907) and was first integrated into China's imperial administration during the Mongol-dominated Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). Later, Qing China's (1644-1911) claim on Tibet was recognized by the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1907, and that claim was renewed by the Republic of China. This does not mean that Tibet's aspirations for greater autonomy or even independence are unfounded, but just that China's territorial claims predate by far the People's Liberation Army invasion of 1949. Third, the modern idea of border was completely alien to imperial China before the late 17th century, when Qing China signed the first border treaty with tsarist Russia. As for China and India, I think the Himalayas are an explicit border enough to explain the lack of conflict between the two. Also, China's territorial expansion was always followed by demographic expansion. It could thus not expand its territory so far as to not be able to partially people it with Han Chinese. In the meanwhile, it satisfied itself of vassal recognition from smaller kingdoms on its periphery. Lastly, NOT a single Chinese dynasty has EVEN considered the Great Wall as a formal border. The Great Wall was conceived as a protective barrier INSIDE Chinese territory to protect the heart of China (the Yellow River valley) from invasions from the north. When a dynasty was strong (Han, Tang, Yuan, Qing), it could expand way beyond the Wall and Han Chinese could migrate there. When a dynasty was weaker (Jin, Song, Ming), it could retreat behind the Wall with its population. There is no “real truth” in history. History is a forum for debate and different interpretations based on facts. And the “real China” is the China of today and it will still be the “real China” tomorrow, wherever its borders are drawn. As an independentist from Quebec, I can witness first hand how emotionally charged territorial issues can be, but that does not give me the right to deride those that have a different opinion than me or that interpret Canadian history differently than me as victims of “Canadian federalist or monarchist brain washing”; nor does it allow me to say what should be the “real Canada”, the “real Quebec” or the “real truth”. However, I think it does give me a perspective on the China/Tibet issue that goes beyond the simplistic anti-China/pro-China discourses or “free Tibet” and “Chinese oppression” slogans.
MaTo
Quebec, Canada (Dec 6, '07)

Batasablind asked Tang Liejun to "acquire some education" [Letters, Dec 5] and gave him a lecture on Chinese history, yet he himself displayed a great deal of ignorance with his comment about what China is supposed to be and who the Chinese are supposed to be. He wrote "History clearly shows that the Chinese kingdoms have attacked every neighboring kingdom, including going across the seas to attack Japan and, that the Chinese have also been attacked by its neighbours and colonialists. The Chinese kingdoms built the Great Wall of China on their border; this wall demarcates the real China. The real China is only to the south and east of this wall, all the land outside the Great Wall is not China and the people outside that wall are not Chinese." I assume the "Chinese kingdom" he referred to which launched an attack on Japan was Yuan dynasty, which would not be considered "Chinese" at all by Batasablind's distorted and misinformed standard. So the question is, was Yuan dynasty "Chinese"? Batasablind just contradicted himself. It looks like he is the one who needs to "acquire some education".
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Dec 6, '07)

[Re: China casting wary eye on North Korea, Dec 5] Ting-I Tsai is on to something. China is indeed casting a wary eye on North Korea. Pyongyang has never felt comfortable in the shadow of larger neighbors and allies. Almost 30 years ago at the tail end of the second oil crisis, geophysical evidence pointed to traces of oil or gas in North Korean water. Kim Il-sung could have called on his Soviet protector like his Vietnamese comrades did, for expert know-how in exploring for the much prized black gold. He didn't. Instead, North Korea entered into negotiations with Tito's Yugoslavia for a drill ship and crew. In this way, Pyongyang preferred to deal with a less threatening, small power than increasing dependency on Moscow. Thus Kim Il-sung remained true to the spirit of Cholima and self reliance. And today, as tensions soften between North and South Korea, and fruitful prospects with the United States loom larger on the horizon, Pyongyang has greater flexibility in exercising independence and freedom of action which hitherto it has not had. As such, it can and will slip easily from the hegemonic grasp of China, which is resorting more and more to imperial pretensions of the dead dynasties of old China.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 6, '07)

I wish to comment on the article Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam [Dec 4] by Spengler. Disbelief (kufr) or atheism is not a form of ignorance; it is ignorance pure and simple and what ignorance could be greater than to be ignorant of God Almighty, the creator, the lord of the universe? I would ask an arrogant atheist: who is controlling the superb and magnificent mechanism that is ceaselessly working, the grand design that exists in the entire Universe from an insignificant crawling organism to the vastest galaxies, and remotest stars whose light takes thousands of nautical years to reach our earth? Does he not look at his body and see its marvellous biological, physiological and anatomical functions and could he look or see beyond his five senses, when animals, birds and lowly insects have this inherent faculties far superior than ours? Allah has blessed man with the faculty of ilmul-biyan tongue to talk & express) that is unique, and that distinguishes man from all other God’s creation. Otherwise animals, birds and insects have far greater abilities to survive on this earth than we have. We are here to observe the vast panorama of nature, its ceaseless superb mechanism, its grand design that exists in the entire Universe and ponder and admire the Creator (Khaliqul-Zaman), who made this unique living being out of lifeless matter: carbon, calcium, sodium and other chemicals? While we observe all the wonderful designs of nature but few amongst are blind to the designer! Kufr (atheism) according to Islam is the worst of all tyrannies. It is an act of cruel, unjust and ignorant use of man’s intellectual power to reject God, which inherently embalmed in his soul (ruh). When the entire Universe and what exists in it is obedient to Allah-God Almighty and why should we disobey God and rebel and become disobedient. As long as we remember that we are only a passing traveller on this earth often taking refuge under a shade of a tree but our final destination in not this life - it is a test our deeds but the purpose of our existence is the eternal life where we will be judged, rewarded and punished according to our deeds on left behind by us on this earth. I was keenly looking forward to reading scholarly comments by your regular writer, Saqib Khan, from UK. Jalal Rumi
Pakistan (Dec 6, '07)

Your wish is granted. Mr Khan did not fail you. See below. - ATol

Re: Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam [Dec 4] by Spengler. Atheism and secularism have been responsible for some of the greatest crimes, barbarities, cruelties, violation of human rights and injustice inflicted on mankind. In this age of modern technology and scientific advancement, it is utter absurd and folly to deny the existence of a Supreme Power, call it Allah or God (less appropriate) who controls the destiny of the universe and who lives in it or exists from the tiniest particle to the vastest galaxies. In Islam, the main theme of the Koran is the relationship between humans and their Creator (Khaliq) and reminds us again and again of the oneness and supremacy of Allah and his worthiness of worship and none other, and eventual fate of every soul to be held accountable for its deeds on the Day of Judgment. Can anyone deny that death will never come to them or explain what happens to us after we die? We have no answers to these metaphysical questions nor can we ridicule them with limitation of our intellect. No description of the Koran can surpass its own description: Alif Lamm Rae. "A Book which we have revealed unto you in order you might lead mankind out of the depth of darkness into light by the leave of their Lord - to the way of exalted in power, worthy of all praises: Allah to whom belong all things in the heavens and on earth." (Ibraheem 14:1). So that is what the Koran is but we should also be sure about what it is not? The Koran makes numerous references to natural phenomena including the movements of heavenly bodies and the behavior of various creatures. These are in perfect harmony with observed realities and this is an amazing fact, the significance of which is not often underlined. The Koran is also scientifically remarkable in another way. It makes statements about natural phenomena that show a foreknowledge of future discoveries and a superior intellect aware of things of which no human in the seventh century could have been. Such verses serve more than one purpose that we can think of. One example of this the verse on the development of the human embryo in the 23rd chapter, which concludes with "So blessed be Allah the best to create!" On another level they provide information or incentives to investigate the wonders of creation. Muslims are told at least 756 times that the author of the Koran is aware of scientific facts that have only recently been confirmed. Since it is impossible that any person could have guessed these things so accurately, it follows that the only possible author of these verses was Allah Himself. I would like to give an example of this poor old lady who was weaving wool on her cartwheel and a Sufi passing by asked her, "Do you believe in God" "Yes I do", she said. But what is the proof and how you do you know that He exists?” “She replied that this wheel tells her everything; if I move it, it moves." Who is responsible for the functions in perfect order of all that exists in this universe? If you find a watch in a desert and claim that it was not made by a watchmaker but all its components by some hook or crook got together in million years and became a watch. It would be the biggest insult to the watchmaker. Or worse, a plane found crashed in a jungle with all its parts broken into pieces would in billion years become a plane and fly in the air... etc. Every living thing is made up of cells about a hundredth of a millimeter in size and from a single cell, yet even these single-celled organisms are remarkably complex in composition and use complicated functions to survive. The genetic make-up of living organisms and it s constituents living cell are composed of thousands of microscopic parts that work in perfect harmony, and their miraculous intricate and complex functions could not have emerged as a result of coincidence or at random, but still, and regrettably, the evolutionists believe it is a coincidence. It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. Such a miraculous structure cannot be a product of blind coincidence but it tells us that there a Designer, Maker or Allah, Rabil-Almeen, who is behind all this. Atheist and the agnostic argue that there is so much injustice, evil, innocents suffering and evil of power in the hands of G W Bush, Tony Blair, Hitler or Stalin could not have the work of good god but it is evil men who commit these barbarities and believe that it is the human who have to establish their social justice and have never got it right in the history. Any ideology that is established by man is to serve his own interest and of his kind: a capitalist will always protect his interest and of capitalism, secularist of secularism etc and a system based on sovereignty of man can never be based on justice because he can not do absolute justice and that is the domain of Allah, our Lord who has created us all.
Saqib Khan
UK (Dec 6, '07)

[Re: Coal clouds over climate change talks, by Andrew Symon, Dec 5] Mr Symon is absolutely correct in saying that Southeast Asia need not follow the developed world's energy-intensive path. What is so good about the wasteful habits and practices we've developed after decades of access to cheap, abundant power and pretending that there were no consequences to its use? When Mr Symon speaks of "acceptable standards of living", does he speak of this thoughtless squandering of electricity and gas power that is the norm here in North America? Alternative patterns of energy use will indeed not be easy to achieve; not because they are difficult or technologically unavailable, but because of a lack of imagination and political will. With ice on Greenland, the Arctic sea, and in inland glaciers melting at an unforeseen pace, we must dismantle these barriers quicker than we had ever imagined, if our societies are to survive in any recognizable form.
Roger L Gagne
Calgary, Alberta
Canada (Dec 5, '07)

In response to Paul Rath's [Dec 4 Letters to the Editor] criticism of my article [ Iran turns the charm on its neighbors] as "apologetic", it would help if Mr Rath would kindly point at specific aspects of my article that he finds so problematic. I have reviewed with favor the new development in cooperative relationship between Iran and its Arab neighbors in the "much traumatized" Persian Gulf, and the events of the GCC summit fully confirm what I penned on the eve of the summit. Moreover, I have highlighted the need for US and Iran to focus on areas of mutual interest such as the free flow of oil from the region, ie, a non-zero sum relations between the two powers, and sadly Mr Rath in his zeal to label me has apparently rushed to judgment and needs to re-read the article.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi
USA (Dec 5, '07)

Iran turns the charm on its neighbors, [Dec 4] is replete with good news about the increasingly cordial relations between Iran and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors. However, their relations and strategic positions can be strengthened substantially. These changes can most probably happen only if the dispute over Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb is resolved very soon in a satisfactory manner. As alluded in an earlier letter, there is little doubt that - due to coercion by both Iran (repeated threats of military force by the Shah) and Britain and Sharjah's reservation of sovereignty - the memorandum of understanding which is the primary basis for Iran's claim to Abu Musa (but not the Tunbs) is extremely weak evidence according to international law. British coercion arises from Britain, even though it was the governing power responsible for security, refusing to defend Sharjah's claims to Abu Musa which it knew to be valid, and putting pressure on Sharjah to accept the memorandum of understanding that has needlessly complicated things. The Iranian claims to the Tunbs which Iran offered to buy or lease is even weaker. Iran, if it is really at the vanguard in the struggle against Western imperialism and Zionist imperialism, should accept the United Arab Emirates' invitation to have the matter decided by the International Court of Justice. If Iran were to do this it would strike an enormous blow against Israel, the US and Britain, all of which have actively or passively stood in the way of having Western and Israeli misconduct and occupation from being substantively addressed by international legal tribunals. Iran should join hands with the GCC and declare that the memorandum of understanding was obtained through the coercion of Britain and the Shah whose threats Iran now wishes to disassociate itself from. They can both work on releasing a book that details the collusion of Britain and the Shah. In return for Iran returning the islands through a legal process, the GCC should work assiduously towards an almost negligible American presence in the region (like the American presence in Hong Kong's harbor), a develpment which should be more than enough to satisfy Iran. The GCC should also develop a significant indigenous military industrial capability and further develop its militaries so it is not at the mercy of the US, Britain or France and can have honest dealings with Iran driven by self-interest only and not the interests of Western powers (Western interests in having good relations with the Shah is what brought about the memorandum of understanding). The GCC and Iran should remember that the Shah - the superlative ally of Israel, the US, and Britain - was used by the US and Britain to threaten the Gulf states so that they would be forced to look to the US and Britain for protection and would have foreign policies that are not as pro-Arab or self-interested as they would otherwise be. Finally, the GCC should understand that if the US were to get a Shah-like regime back in Iran their situation would certainly be far worse than it is now, and that should be enough of an impetus to resolve this matter as just described.
Abacus
USA (Dec 5, '07)

[Re: Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam, Dec 4] Spengler breaking a lance for Hirsi Ali reminded me of the Shrub (Bush Lite) invading Iraq not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims or that by his invasion, he would be handing Iraq on a silver platter to Iran. To better understand nuclear science or brain surgery one would approach a nuclear scientist or a brain surgeon but it seems that anyone "outside" Islam has become an Islamic expert as if Muslims do not have the means to express themselves. The word of an Orientalist carry a lot more weight than that of a contemporary Islamic scholar who have spent decades on his studies. All write of Islam and Muslims as if they are a homogeneous community and nothing can be further from the truth. The laziness of these "academics" cause them to make no distinction between Islam as revealed and Islam as practiced. They do not distinguish between the Sunni (following the companions of the Prophet); and the Shi'a (following the household of the Prophet). They do not know that each follow their own Tafsir (understanding) of the Qur'an, each follow their own volumes of hadith (traditions) and sirah (history) and each follow their own fikh (law). They are unaware that even the rules of succession differs in that the first successor of the Prophet was installed through the Arab tradition of pledging allegiance, the second by appointment and the third by election by consultative assembly whereas the Shi'a believes that it is by the will of God AND the designation of his predecessor only.On the matters of predestination, fate and self determination the divergence of these schools is comprehensive. The separation of religion and politics is entrenched in Sunni by centuries of oppression whereas the Shi'a are politically "emerging". Politics are not mentioned in the Five Pillars of Islam of the Sunni but are explicit in the Five Roots and Ten Branches of Shi'a Islam. Today, everyone speaks of al-Qa'eda as if they are mainstream Muslims not knowing that they are following the Wahabi sect who supplied the "foot soldiers" to King Saud and the British (Lawrence of Arabia) to drive the Turks out of Arabia. This sect of an insignificant minority (less than 0.1% of Muslims) is not recognized by the Sunni or the Shi'a and is as Islamic as the Ku Klux Klan is Christian. On the matter of freedom of expression, please answer the question: What is the most difficult part about castrating a young bull? The answer is very simple: You have to ask the bull!
Akram abu 'Abs
South Africa (Dec 5, '07)
(Akram abu 'Abs is the pen name for Abel Kotze, Islamic activist and student of history, who reverted to Islam during the first Gulf War in 1990. In the early 1990s he published an Islamic magazine and several Islamic booklets and later also published a chronology of Islamic scholars and notables of the first seven centuries. With the proceeds of his publications he visited Iran in 1996 during the months of Muharram and Safar to observe the Ashura commemorations).

Re: Letters to the Editor, Dec 3, by Mr Tang Liejun [re: China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1], Mr Liejun has indicated that he is a teacher at [Qingdao] University [in Qingdao, China]. He owes a duty to himself to acquire some education and undo the effects of Maoist brain washing, especially when it comes to Tibet. History is not something that can be changed. It can be reinterpreted a thousand times with a thousand different conclusions, but the real truth cannot be changed. In the 2,000 years of recorded history there is no evidence of Chinese kingdoms attacking India or Indian kingdoms attacking China, why? Because China never had borders with India. Only when the Chinese invaded Tibet did they develop a border with India and only then did they have a war with India. History clearly shows that the Chinese kingdoms have attacked every neighboring kingdom, including going across the seas to attack Japan and, that the Chinese have also been attacked by its neighbours and colonialists. The Chinese kingdoms built the Great Wall of China on their border; this wall demarcates the real China. The real China is only to the south and east of this wall, all the land outside the Great Wall is not China and the people outside that wall are not Chinese. For that matter none of the countries in the world today existed in their present form in the past. It is a good thing that maps can be redrawn ... Unfortunately warfare to rob others of their wealth has been a part of human history and every tribe, nation, culture, and civilization has been guilty of it ... New wealth is discovered and new excuses are found every day by the rich and powerful, the ignorant and fanatics, and the capitalists and communists.
Batasablind
USA (Dec 5, '07)

Regarding China's show of strength ups military ante, on Dec 1: The letters to ATol are more revealing than the article itself. The situation is analogous to heated squabbles in response to a minor miscall from the referee in a football game with lopsided scores. Even the winning team can be outraged. I think Tang Liejun [Letter, Dec 1], part of the winning team, should be happy that the Chinese leadership is wise enough to trade immaterial humiliation for substantive comprehensive national progress - may one mention access to the most lucrative Western markets? It is difficult for the less cosmopolitan Chinese to accept that the USA responds to China based on both instinctive ethos and rational considerations, thus the ostensible irregularity. Simultaneously, I think Jakob Cambria [Letter, Dec 1], should not be deluded into thinking that China has "snubbed the US at its own peril". There is no peril for China when it issues proportionate and well-measured protests. The USA immediately downplays the incident as a minor disagreement amidst generally excellent US-China relations. The US-China relationship simply cannot be allowed to fail, short of any extraordinary events. Each side registers its dissatisfaction to a measured extent and the relationship progresses nonetheless. Token reception of the Dalai Lama, who is already more than 70 years old, would make no difference. Tibet is a part of China, as Hawaii is a part of the USA. Assimilation would occur as eventually fewer and fewer would want to remain a minority. Does remaining a minority provide a lot of personal social and economic satisfaction? Champions for Tibet are lamenting that many Tibetan parents are speaking Mandarin Chinese to their children. Token sale of arms to Taiwan will also make little difference. Taiwan eventually will not withstand the relentless pressure from the Chinese mainland in the decades to come. The multiplying fulcrum of this pressure will be Taiwan’s energy and trade exposure. Circa 2030, Taiwan would, in theory, need to start the initial major offensive to free itself. It won’t. To avert war, the whole world, including the USA, will accept peaceful coercion on Taiwan to become another Hong Kong . It appears that reunification is inevitable. China can achieve its declared objectives by comprehensive national development if it can overcome problems inherent with rapid economic development. China would become democratic when the Chinese people feel that democracy is better for them, after or when Tibet is assimilated and Taiwan reunification in a stable form is achieved. These are not "puerile" objectives, but rational and quite achievable for China. Jeff Church
USA (Dec 5, '07)

I suggest Walter Tseng Kin-Wah refrain from further protestation at Jakob Cambria’s commentaries [Letters, Dec 5]. We’re already well aware of Mr Cambria’s two obsessions - bashing China and disparaging ATol writer Donald Kirk’s reports. There's a homeless man in the city’s downtown area who likes to gesticulate wildly while hollering invective at no one in particular about social injustices. I don’t believe any passerby has ever complained to the fellow about his histrionics or stopped to ask him for his vision of a better society. Mr Cambria is entitled to express his views.
John Chen
USA (Dec 5, '07)

[Re Dec 4 Letter to the Editor concerning Our dictator gets away with it, Nov 28] Sherry Rehman, Central Information Secretary, Pakistan Peoples Party writes to Asia Times Online. Wow! I wonder if Ms Rehman has read the IRI's recent poll. It seems Mr Sharif is more popular than Ms Bhutto. That being said, one might want to know when intraparty elections will be introduced? One cannot be a pillar of democracy when chairpersons for life persist. Pakistan is in dire need of a movement like Lok Satta in India. At least in India they have figured out that politics needs to be changed if democracy is to be sustainable.
May Sage
USA (Dec 4, '07)

Wow? Politicians will stoop to anything, even writing to ATol. - ATol

[Re Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam, Dec 4] I just wanted to write in to voice my support for your columnist Spengler. While I am a Muslim, I do find his articles amusing - they kind of reminds me of the old adage, "the blind leading the blind". In the current climate of Islam bashing, he undoubtedly has a strong following of blind followers and I would certainly be wasting my limited time arguing against his dribble; nonetheless I have to take my hat off to his constant fortitude in attacking anything Islamic. By the way, Spengler, the reason why the Dutch kicked Ms Hirsi out was because she lied (or "misled") the authorities in order to get a visa. Of course, if someone else was caught out in a similar situation and the Dutch government (or any other government for that matter) had asked them to leave, you'd no doubt be condemning them?
Zafar (Dec 4, '07)

[Re Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam, Dec 4] Spengler states that Islam believes that Allah continually controls all aspects of the world. Why then are human actions rigorously proscribed by sharia? If one does not pray at the appropriate time is this not the will of Allah rather than an individual apostasy? Any action that seems to defy the will of Allah disproves the doctrine that all is controlled by Allah ...
Roy Lofquist
Titusville, Florida USA (Dec 4, '07)

[Re Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam, Dec 4] Spengler's expressions of disdain for Islam are becoming increasingly difficult to control. His writings smack of old-school Orientalist mentality, deeply frustrated by the fact that the uncivilized, backward, supertitious Ishmaelites are stubbornly refusing to "recognize" the superiority of his beloved religion. It would take much more time and space to refute every falsehood he uttered with regards to Islam in his last (and all previous) articles, and I believe that ATol would do its readers justice if it would invite a competent Muslim scholar, who could engage Spengler in a scholarly debate. I myself will only point to one of many mistakes in his new piece, which he repeated many times in the past. He says: "As Rosenzweig observes, 'An atheist can say, "There is no God but God". If God is everywhere and in all things, he is nowhere and in nothing." Rosenzweig's translation, and inevitably, interpretation, of the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, is erroneous. La ilaha illallah, which your idol here translates as "There is no God but God", is not primarily an affirmation of the existence of God, in a sense of a Supreme Being, Creator, Lord of the Universe, etc. The statement defines the relationship between God and his creatures. Ilah is something/anything that is worshipped, and it can refer to human passions and carnal desires as well as YHWH/Jesus/Allah/Rosenzweig. People choose their objects of worship; La ilaha illallah means that only Allah is worthy of such worship, and that is the central theme of that statement and consequently of Islam as a religion. Existence of Allah is something that is taken for granted in the Islamic declaration of faith; therefore, and atheist cannot affirm La ilaha illallah if he understands this statement correctly.
Mustafa
Bosnia (Dec 4, '07)

[Re Neo-cons have it wrong on Pakistan by Najum Mushtaq, Dec 3] Mr Najum Mushtaq’s article makes many valid points. The Pakistani military has either been the king or the "back-seat-driving-king-not-even-in-disguise" throughout Pakistan’s history. Unfortunately much of the Pakistan’s elite civilian society also was in partnership with the Pakistani military in this enterprise until quite recently. Thanks to this nexus, democracy never really got much of a chance to take root in Pakistan. Remember how few people protested when Musharraf ousted the democratically elected Nawaz Sharif some eight years back. Pakistan is in this mess today mainly because of the way the Pakistani military, earlier with the help of the Pakistani elite, controlled Pakistan without respecting any democratic norms. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto may be very corrupt. But there are a lot of corrupt politicians in most countries, especially in developing countries. The cure is to develop civilian institutions to check issues such as corruption. Even then corruption at any level reflects the society in general. But arbitrarily terminating governments and exiling political leaders is not the way to do it. Unfortunately ordinary Pakistanis never have had much of a say in the way Pakistan functions ... One of the underlying reasons why the military is able to do rule Pakistan like this is because of the support America is giving to the military. America doesn’t realize that this is not in the long-term interests of America. A strong belief in democracy, tolerance for others including non-Muslims, and a sophistication in thinking in terms of institution building are necessary for democracies to succeed. Pakistani civil society has started showing some of these traits recently. But one wonders whether it is too late. I genuinely hope not. Because a failed Pakistan is not in anybody's interests, including its neighbors'.
Haridas Ramakrishnan
Monterey, Califorina USA (Dec 4, '07)

[Re Iran turns the charm on its neighbors, Dec 4] ... Mr Afrasiabi is the most obvious apologist for the appalling Iranian regime that I have ever read. According to him, every Iran diplomatic maneuver is wise and far-sighted, every act by the United States is simply part of a long-term plot aimed at control of the Middle East and submission of Iran, and the medieval and corrupt governance of the Iranian people is simply ignored. Unfortunately, his reporting is a good example of what makes Asia Times Online a less than trustworthy news source.
Paul Rath
New York (Dec 4, '07)

So, put your trust in the US intelligence commmunity's reports on Iran. According to them: Iran has a nuclear weapons program; wants a nuclear weapons program; had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it - all of which it has reported at various times with "confidence". - ATol

Kaveh L Afrasiabi's excellent comment concerning the Annapolis summit, Israel's nukes missing from the table, Nov 30] needs further elaboration. He is absolutely correct when he writes that the Muslim population of the Middle East views Israeli nukes not as something benign, but as "evil, constantly threatening them, and even blackmailing them". They also view the Bush Administration, its cronies and apologists, totally disconnected from the truth for so long, with great skepticism and suspicion. Why should anyone believe that President Bush, shackled by his blind convictions, messianic absurdities and the neo-con ideology of "constructive destruction/chaos" toward the Middle East, has all of a sudden decided to become an honest broker between the Palestinians/Israelis? Everyone knows the solution: sustained, even-handed diplomacy, something that has been an anathema to the Bush Administration, and a total commitment to focus like a laser on achieving a two-state solution - a Palestinian state with Arab Jerusalem as its capital along side a secure Israel. Annapolis, seven years too late, should have had all the regional players participating to have any meaning, but it is better late than never. However, the question remains, why has it taken the Bush Administration so long to get to this point and can it break the shackles that have prevented it from bringing an end to this 60 year conflict?
Fariborz S Fatemi
Former Professional Staff Member
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
McLean, Virginia USA (Dec 4, '07)

[Re China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] Childish games are played around the world all the time. Just as China is unable to prevent many countries from warmly receiving the Dalai Lama, these countries are unable to restore the Dalai Lama back into Tibet, whether they truly want to or not.
Seung Li (Dec 4, '07)

[Re China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] China is a sovereign nation and has the right to permit or deny access to its ports to whomever it chooses. That being said, the decision to turn 180 degrees and refuse entry to the USS Kitty Hawk on Thanksgiving after previously granting it permission to make a port call was a complete travesty and Beijing knows it, which is why Beijing tried to save face by reversing their reversal at the last second, although by that time it was too late to do any good. Far from being a "show of strength", as the title of this article asserts, the USS Kitty Hawk incident instead reveals China's pettiness and weakness. Regardless of whether the change was due to Beijing's objection to Washington's recent reception of Noble Peace Prize winner the Dalai Lama (another demonstration of the nonsense of China's "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries), the sale of Patriot missile systems to Taiwan (which Beijing could end today by removing the near 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan from the coast of Fujian province), or Beijing's own diplomatic incompetence, if Beijing wants to "punish" the United States there are more sophisticated and mature ways to do so than taking it out on the sailors and family members of the USS Kitty Hawk. Thanksgiving is a major family holiday in the United States. The idea of having a huge feast with family members is very similar to aspects of Chinese Spring Festival. I would ask how people in China would react had the United States permitted a Chinese ship to make a port call in Hawaii in order to allow Chinese sailors to eat Spring Festival dinner with family members that had flown to Hawaii specifically for that purpose only to have the US government deny port access to the Chinese ship at the last second. They'd be outraged, and rightfully so. "Have you eaten?" is a common greeting in China. The Chinese people and their government should think long and hard about whether they mean it or not.
TaMu
China (Dec 4, '07)

[Re Letters to the Editor, Dec 4 concerning China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] When you read Jakob Cambria's letter, one notes his deep vicarious satisfaction when he raps China for their childish/brainless reaction to the US/Western leaders formal reception of the Dalai Lama. By doing so he not only ignored the feelings of a nation wronged but also overlooks the contradictions in the act. Firstly, he conveniently forgets that these countries recognized Tibet as a legitimate part of China and secondly officially receives (whilst in office) the Dalai Lama, a man famous for his strong crusade for an independent Tibet. In Jacob's eyes, China can do no right. So if China hosted a warm reception for Osama bin Laden in Beijing and started supplying sophisticated weapons to Iran (not that I condone either), it would be interesting to see what vivid derogatory comments would come from this die-hard China-basher now that the roles are reversed? One thing is for sure, the US reaction will be much more than frightening, not only for China but for the rest of the world as well.
Walter Tseng Kin-Wah
Hong Kong (Dec 4, '07)

Bravo! General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani has joined the lucrative American bandwagon [Army defiant despite Pakistan's divide, Syed Saleem Shahzad, Dec 1]. Given the fact that the American dollar is rapidly going down the tubes, General Kiani would do well to demand that he be paid in euros.
AAL
Canada (Dec 3, '07)

Thank you. You're doing a superb job by getting people such as M K Bhadrakumar, Amartya Sen, Jim Lobe and Syed Saleem Shahzad to enrich us with facts and realities.
Khondkar
USA (Dec 3, '07)

[Re China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] I am a Chinese citizen. I am not speaking for the Chinese government, but speaking for what I believe. It is well known to the whole world that China has played a key role in helping the US to resolve the North Korea nuclear problem. The US now again is asking China to solve Iran'a nuclear problem. Unexpectedly, the US treats China'a generous help with repeated insults and humiliations. On October 16, the US congress awarded its highest civilian honor to the Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader who escaped China in a failed uprising and who now seeks political interests and who works day and night for the independence of China's Tibet. On November 15, the US decided to sell advanced Patriot missiles to Taiwan to encourage Taiwanese independence when Chen Shui Bian fought hard to break away from China and felt lonely in the world. On Thanksgiving Day the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk was denied a visit to China's Hong Kong and later the Chinese government changed its decision out of humanitarian reasons to allow the visit of US navy ships to Hong Kong. But the US navy ships didn't return. I was very much angry to see the change of decision by the Chinese government even if out of humanity. Why should China allow the US navy ships to visit a Chinese port for enjoyment and convenience? Why is our government so weak? Why should China still treats the US so politely when China is humiliated by the US again and again? Hong Kong is Chinese territory, not US territory. The US takes China as its enemy and humiliates us repeatedly, why should we still serve the US? Why don't we give stronger retaliation? Ridiculously, the US Navy [admiral] even had the shame to protest against China and blame China for its denial. I would burst into great anger if I saw the US [admiral] in front of me. I think our government should tell the American people exactly what China has done for the US interests and what the US government has done to insult Chinese, and let the American people force their own hypocritical and shameful politicians to shut up. Don't forget the US army is still bloodstained to Chinese. They killed our people in our embassy in the former Yugoslavia in 1998 and they killed our pilot at our door in 2001. I think the Chinese government should have the courage to resist humiliation and to protect its people and its own dignity. We love peace and want peace and we fight for peace but we are not afraid of wars if someone imposes them on us and tries to humiliate us. I sincerely hope that the US can stop its containment of China and its humiliation of China, and respects China. No doubt, peace and cooperation is in the best interest of both countries and the whole world.
Tang Liejun
Teacher, Qingdao University
Qingdao, Shandong province, China (Dec 3, '07)

[Re China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] If nothing else, Willy Lam is doing a good job in fulfilling his employment contract. Writing for The Jamestown Foundation, whose board members past and present include some of the most prominent neocons and cold warriors, Mr Lam displays considerable skill in arraying an ordinary event in the raiment of scaremongering. Reading his tendentious account of the People’s Liberation Army’s recent naval exercises off the southeast coast of China, you would think that the PLA had just committed a major crime. But in fact countries of the world, when they’re capable, regularly hold military exercises in self-perceived interests. Earlier in the year, the US conducted large-scale naval maneuvers off the Iranian coastline and, along with Japan and India, more recently concluded joint naval exercises off the Japanese coast. I wonder if the author would characterize those drills as “provocative” or prefer to view them more simply as prosaic occurrences.
John Chen
USA (Dec 3, '07)

[Re China's show of strength ups military ante, Dec 1] China has snubbed the United States at its own peril. By canceling the USS Kitty Hawk's port call in Hong Kong on the eve of Thanksgiving, it has petulantly shown its puerile displeasure at the warm reception the Dalai Lama received at the White House and the ringling loud applause the Tibetan spiritual leader in exile received in the joint session of the houses of Congress. Beijing hurrumphed at America's sale of sophisticated military hardware to Taiwan, as well. Beijing is learning that the world is more complex than it ... thinks, for although it may very well be the darling of foreign investment and has a roaring engine of economic growth, such considerations count [for little when] other countries' interests trump China's demands. Look at Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, for example, who did not give [in to] the Chinese leaders' [protests] when she warmly received the Dalai Lama ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 3, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad has his anti-Americanism going full tilt in Baptism of fire for Pakistan's army head [Dec 30]. Someone needs to inform Mr Shahzad and the Pakistani army they are in a fight for their lives and the soul of their nation, not in a fight to make America happy. Every day the jihadis grow more powerful and the Pakistani army doesn't want to fight them because they think that is what America wants, how crazy. The Taliban is the bastard child of the Pakistani ISI come home to kill its father. Mr Shahzad quotes General Gul, the former head of the ISI and a man who hates America and loves Osama and the terrorists. Pakistan is a completely corrupt state obsessed over Kashmir and its lost wars. Time to grow up. Pakistan is a nation that does not even educate its children and such a state can make no moral argument for its right to exist. Pakistan has been obsessed with India and the failure to gain control of Kashmir since the first day of its existence. While India is moving into the 21st century, Pakistan is headed towards the 12th century ... For my mind it is not a question of IF Pakistan will fall to the jihadis, only when, and I'm sure when it does the Pakistani middle class will blame the US. I don't know if Mr Shahzad has a wife or daughters but I would like to know how they feel about living under a Taliban-like government, where women have no rights and exist as mindless baby-making, cooking machines. However if Mr Shahzad does find himself under such a government I'm sure he will try to flee to the West. He likes the Taliban as a stick to beat the US but I'm certain he won't like living under their control. However, if he thinks he would, it's time to put down the pen and pick up the sword.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Dec 3, '07)

[Re Dalai Lama cuts little ice in Japan, Nov 28] It's a shame that Japan, a nation of more than 90 million Buddhists, gave such cold treatment to the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately this government does not have enough assertiveness, as the Koizumi leadership had, to give the Dalai Lama the reception deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize winner and great spiritual leader. Let's hope he forgives Japanese lack of spirituality and their weakness against China's cheap threats.
M Murata (Dec 3, '07)

This is with regard to Pepe Escobar's article Our dictator gets away with it [Nov 28] that appeared on your esteemed website last week. While we respect Mr Escobar's opinions, we couldn't help noticing his lack of understanding of the core challenges that impede the country's progress on the path of democracy. In fact, most disturbingly, Mr Escobar's analysis stands out as a typical example of the tendency to see things in sharp stereotypes when referring to Pakistan. The reality is quite complex. First of all, his consistent reference to Ms Bhutto as an "elite" leader who is being "imposed on Pakistan" by Washington is not just unfair, but disregards the aspirations of a heavy majority of Pakistanis who see Ms Bhutto as the only leader who would help the country move back on the path of democracy. The overwhelming response that greeted her upon her return to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, has been widely seen by analysts as a seal of approval by the masses on the PPP's agenda for a democratic order based on equal economic opportunities for all. Secondly, it is also very disturbing to note that the writer makes a series of assumptions on his own without quoting any researched facts. He implies that John Negroponte threatened Retired General Musharraf to cut a deal with Ms Bhutto, which is not true. Thirdly, the writer levels a serious allegation against Ms Bhutto that she enshrined the invention of the Taliban during her term in the office. This is factually incorrect, as the Taliban government was never created by Ms Bhutto. It was instead contained to Kandahar, as a localized entity, and never accorded recognition by her government even after they had dislodged the government in Kabul and claimed to be the rulers of Afghanistan. And fourth, the writer also supports Ms Bhutto's estranged niece, Fatima Bhutto's assertions about Ms Bhutto's role in the murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, Ms Bhutto's brother and Fatima Bhutto's father. This again is false. Not only is it a widely accepted fact in Pakistan that Murtaza Bhutto became a victim to the Pakistani establishment's ploy to remove Ms Bhutto from power, but also well known that an independent judicial tribunal constituted after Ms Bhutto's government was dismissed in 1996, exonerated her from the charges. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto has paid a heavy price for the cause of democracy in Pakistan. She lost almost all her family, including her father and her two brothers, as the military-led establishment zealously pursued the agenda of trying to obsrtuct the Bhutto family from leading mainstream politics in Pakistan. Her husband, Senator Zardari, served in prison for eight long years without any charge, and she brought up her children as a single parent in years of exile, persevering despite the obstacles. Whether the writer agrees with it or not, there is no doubt about the fact that in Pakistan, the voters have a high regard for the Bhutto family and see Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto as the only leader who will take their democratic aspirations forward. The Asia Times Online is a respected magazine and Mr Pepe Escobar is a learned writer who has also produced a book on globalization. One expects a degree of responsibility from both of them as they have a committed readership that takes the opinions expressed by them very seriously. The writer's clear attempts to malign Ms Bhutto is not only unfair with her, it also seeks to mislead the readers and the public at large about the ground realities, and the complexities of the system in Pakistan. We would request you to please check your facts and research your opinions before unveiling them at a widely respected public forum.
Sherry Rehman
Central Information Secretary
Pakistan Peoples Party (Dec 3, '07)

Unlike the nuclear deal, one aspect of Indo-American relations that has received little attention lately is the recovery from Indian soil of the bodies of missing American servicemen from World War II. Estimates are that there are over 400 American missing-in-action on Indian territory. The US and India need to come to an agreement that would allow US military personnel to recover these bodies from the many known locations in India where these remains have been discovered.
Gary Zaetz
USA (Dec 3, '07)

November Letters

All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2007 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.

Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110