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.

May 2008

You have to read Syrian talks offer more than hot air [May 30] with great care. As a Middle East watcher, Sami Moubayed does not rush in where angels fear to tread. Thus, he calls recent back-channel talks between Syria and Israel "sincere, stemming from a mutual desire for peace", which, says he, are a more or less steady stream of messages since April 2007. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may have to overcome US President George W Bush's nay-saying on this muted dialogue, Mr Olmert is under investigation for the fifth time for corruption, and this time it looks as though the authorities have the goods on him. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barrack has called for his coalition to step down until the scandal blows over without naming a date. Although national interests may push Mr Olmert to return eventually the Golan Heights to Syria, legally he is much weakened as a negotiating partner, and may well be unable to deliver the goods. Syria has dispatched an emissary to Tehran with the possible mission to inform Iran of its intentions with the Israelis or to calm uneasiness among Iranian allies; yet, no one can say for sure. One thing is certain, if we believe Sami Moubayed, both Israel and Syria seek closure on the Golan Heights. The New York Times had an article on the Golan Heights and of the determination of the settlers there who have grown fond of this spoils of the 1967 war, to oppose any land for peace deal. Is this newspaper of note telling us something? Commonsense tells us that once the Israeli political powers that be make up their collective minds to deal with Syria, the political die is cast.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 30, '08)

This is regarding Spengler's Life and death in the Bible, May 27. It is very strange that Spengler, who until recently was glorifying the individualistic/personal nature of the Judeo-Christian religion (and denouncing the pagan concepts of social identification based on race/language, etc) is suddenly singing paeans of the social nature of the same. Spengler sure knows how to mince words. Another point in Spengler's analysis is his one-sided view, which probably stems from his lack of study, of the highly rational Hindu philosophy. What he extols as the amazing invention of the Judeo-Christian theologians, ie man dies but the society/culture in which he lives, continues. This is what is intended in the "Samaj-Purush" of Geeta and other Indian scriptures [and other Eastern philosophies]. Thirdly, about the idea of resurrection, Spengler's view that only through the idea of resurrection can a society/human being derive the love-of-life, is again flawed, eg one could argue equally strongly with the Indian idea of "rebirth" of individuals until they attain perfection. In fact the ideas of "karma" and "rebirth" could be stronger forces for "love-of-life" than the simpleton idea of "doomsday resurrection". I think the recent, rational re-interpretations of Judeo-Christian scriptures by scholars (like Spengler) is actually an instance of plagiarisms from Eastern, especially Indian philosophical texts and concepts.
Nagesh Chatekar
Bangalore (May 30, '08)

[Re Japan makes new push to Africa, May 30] The goals of the fourth round of the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) are praiseworthy. The roster of attendees was impressive - 40 out of 52 heads of African countries. Everyone with a large handout of Japan's generous official development assistance in order to develop trade and investment and improve infrastructure. Africa is a continent for growth, proclaim investment bankers, and for almost the last half-century foreign aid has poured into that continent, much of which went to accounts in Switzerland and other safe havens. Recent up-turns in commodities and oil and gas prices make investment in Africa good financial sense. Saying this, there is no guarantee that more billions in aid [will push] African states to carry out reforms which will not only improve the lives of their citizens but seriously attack corruption and impose a rule of law. Unequal development continent-wide, raises more doubts than quick answers. In one sense, African heads of state know that rivalry among the G8 and China and India will fill their empty coffers, but the aid is more of a bribe than any serious attempt at real development and economic and political progress if we judge Africa's record since decolonization.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 30, '08)

Science and the Bible go together like water and oil (Spengler's Life and death in the Bible, May 27). Ever wonder why some Christians insist that the Earth is 5,000 years old? The problem shows up when we look at some pictures of what a man looked like 10 or 20 thousand years ago - a hairy, dirty, unkempt horrible-looking man, short, about 5 feet tall, with horrible yellow teeth and half-naked! This is the image of God? Problem! This same faith insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe, used the Bible to rile against blacks and now turns its wrath against gays. They came up with the idea that you go to a good place if you are good and bad place if you are not? Really? They also insist that heaven is a members-only club, where if you do not belong to their faith, you get tossed out. [Scientist Albert] Einstein got it right, it's hard to see how anyone takes anything in this book seriously. It is called faith for a reason. ATol is embarrassing itself by publishing such drivel.
Jayant Patel (May 29, '08)

South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak has started his presidency on the wrong foot. He has squandered in a little more than three months in office the goodwill and the expectations of his supporters. As Sunny Lee suggests [in Can God save Mr Bulldozer?, May 29] Mr Lee has had a short honeymoon with the electorate who finds him indecisive, and deaf to the issues that worry them. Known as Mr Bulldozer when he was mayor of Seoul, he, it seems, is failing to bring the forcefulness of purpose that his sobriquet implies to the Blue House. He is taxed for being out of step with South Koreans, a charge that he brought against his predecessor Roh Moo-hyun. Even a public apology to the nation at the end of his lackluster 100 days in office has had the effect of increasing doubts the new president. Will Mr Bulldozer meet the same fate as "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap, the American corporate downsizer? Mr Bulldozer and Chainsaw Al both trumpet the virtue of privatization, increased efficiency, and added value to the bottom line. Dunlap cannibalized companies that he bought to increase share prices but in the end poor performance and a steep fall in share price did him in, and forever left him with the reputation of a con artist. Mr Bulldozer is just beginning his mandate, and as a confirmed Christian puts his fate in his God's hand, so it may be too early to write him off. On the other hand, if he continues his misdiagnosis of South Korea's pulse in matters domestic, inter-Korean, or foreign, he will garner opposition from within the ranks of his own party who have dictator Park Chung-hee's daughter waiting in the wings to take his place, and faces a loss of the parliamentary majority for his party at the polls. Mr Lee's public mea culpa might very well be the blinding moment of truth on the road to Damascus when Saul became the apostle Paul.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 29, '08)

America's chattering classes are in a buzz. The news is out at home and abroad that President George W Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan has written a kiss and tell memoir about his three years at the White House. PublicAffairs is publishing What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. Boyish-looking McClellan, who from the podium of the White House press room roundly defended Mr Bush's war in Iraq and his failure to act decisively during the wake of Hurricane Katrina and aroused the Washington press corps to patriot duty in disseminating misinformation about Saddam Hussein's cache of weapons of mass destruction, has gotten religion and is willing to tell all or probably almost all. The usual suspects - Bush, [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [advisor Karl] Rove, and the convicted [Lewis "Scooter"] Libby are on hand. Now, we've an insider who is confirming much the public has long suspected about the hype and glitz and propaganda which Mr Bush and his acolytes used to drum up support for questionable policy and actions. McClellan speaks of the same type of paralysis that gripped the White House when Mr Bush learnt about the widespread damage of life and limb after Hurricane Katrina that the television cameras caught when the president learned of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; a blank stare of incomprehension and inaction, as though the message that he was receiving was in another language unknown to him. McClellan reserves a portion of vitriol for the Washington press corps who gave an easy pass to Mr Bush on mostly what he did, and who almost to a man, sought to curry favor and rarely told truth to power. McClellan most likely is a first in a rosary of sorrow and tragedy of Bush's eight years in power. No doubt, his book will climb quickly to the top of the bestsellers list and provide much grist for the rumor mills. What Happened is tolling the [death] knell of the Bush years as president.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 29, '08)

Oil economy is a spectator sport with faceless human victims but a meaningless by-product? Martin Hutchinson [in Time to do something about oil, May 29] demonstrates a cyclopean focus on oil as commodity and has essentially cloned a soulless monster of determined destiny, which is nothing more than a cold calculus from hell. When all else fails ... he suggests "it's time to prepare the 82nd Airborne for jungle warfare in the Orinoco Basin" to stabilize the market for that monster feeding commodity, oil? "Bismarkian", indeed. Economists and a superpower sans soul have squeezed the human factor out of the 21st century. I may be the fool, but I would rather burn [wood] or economists before heralding Hutchinson's dehumanized, calculated choices.
Beryl K
Gullsgate, Minnesota, USA (May 29, '08)

The article by Mr Hutchinson [Time to do something about oil, May 29] gives me such a warm, cuddly, hugs type of feeling about the citizenry of the US. I get goose bumps and chills basking in the compassion of his words. What a sweet man.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 29, '08)

[Re Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', May 29] I think Muhammad Cohen and his editors are full of BS, and should be sacked, for such a ridiculous article. Check the odds on this happening, in Las Vegas, if in doubt ... This is some of the worst "journalism" I've seen in awhile ... and it'll be the last ATol article I'll read for the foreseeable future ...
Sidney Orr (May 29, '08)

Another imminent attack on Iran? Excuse me while I yawn. Who is this credible source Asia Times Online is speaking of? It wouldn't happen to be Seymour Hirsch from The New Yorker Magazine? Imminent Iran attack has been his storyline for the last few years. Like the boy who cried wolf, it gets a bit tiring. The downside effects from an attack are given in the story by Muhammad Cohen [Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', May 29] but that is only part of the problem. Within 30 minutes of an attack, global markets would lock up. Unless the US is prepared to literally wipe out 95% of Iran's population and have occupational control within a month, the global economic disaster would be quite significant, not to mention geo-politically unsustainable. Just study Iran's recent speedboat charges on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't take much to shut down shipping operations in the region. When the strait is closed, so is the flow of oil. Nice try Asia Times Online. Interesting and somewhat entertaining, but realistically pretty absurd.
Andre Radnoti (May 29, '08)

[Re Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', May 29] Your story on Iran is wrong. Senator Feinstein has not received any briefing, classified or unclassified, from the [George W Bush] administration involving any plans to strike Iran. I am asking that you correct the story.
Scott Gerber
Director of Communications
Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (May 29, '08)

The article has been amended to reflect Senator Feinstein's comment. - ATol

Regarding Earthquake lets China off the hook [May 28] by Antoaneta Bezlova, it might amuse you to note that while the international media lauds China's earthquake relief efforts and "new transparency", China has simultaneously been quite appreciative of the international media's "new truthfulness" on China's earthquake relief efforts. Is it the philosopher Zhuangzi who dreamt he was a butterfly, or rather a butterfly who is now dreaming he is the philosopher Zhuangzi? Anyway, both are dreaming, that's for sure.
Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (May 29, '08)

Here is a 1968 translation of The Butterfly Dream by early Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi (370 to 301 BCE) by Burton Watson:

Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.

According to Alan Fox of the University of Delaware's Philosophy Department, "This image sums up much of Zhuangzi's thought. The butterfly is a symbol of transformation; it follows the breeze yet arrives at the flower; Its actions are spontaneous and free. Thus it doesn't wear itself out fighting the forces of nature. The Wikipedia information website claims that the name of the passage has become a common Chinese idiom, and has spread into Western languages as well. It appears as an illustration in Jorge Luis Borges' famous essay "A New Refutation of Time", and may have inspired H P Lovecraft's 1918 short story "Polaris". - ATol

[Re In the footsteps of Osama ..., May 28] Being a Belgian radio journalist with some experience in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan, and preparing a book about Bush's wars with the Muslim world, I've been reading your [Syed Saleem Shahzad's] latest series about your sojourn in Kunar and Bajaur with great interest. A couple of months ago I, too, became convinced that bin Laden had to be somewhere in Nuristan, north from Kamdesh. But then, I also think that as the noose tightens, he most probably is ready for the next move. I think he is prepared for that. As you suggest, the geography of the region is of the utmost importance. You put it very well that the most remarkable aspect of this confrontation is that it is played on a very basic level, wherein local, accidental, geographical, cultural and a lot of factors interfere with global politics. I thank you for confirming some kind of analysis that I was preparing and please accept my respect for the very interesting work you deliver.
Jef Lambrecht (May 28, '08)
Senior diplomatic correspondent VRT
(Vlaamse Radio en Televisie, Belgian public radio and TV, Flemish section)

"...It [Iran] is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan." I hate to stereotype, but I kind of wonder whether Muhammad Cohen in Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', May 28] realizes that Iran is Shi'ite, the Taliban are a version (not the right word, sorry) of Sunni, Wahabi. With the historic enmity between the two sects, for what possible reason would Iran be helping the Taliban? Is Mr Cohen perhaps reciting from the Bush administration talking-points playbook? It was recently revealed, though many suspected or have "known", that the Pentagon ... was paying the various "news" agencies in the US to hype up the war and generate support for it. Perhaps the US is working on the news angle internationally as well? If they are, it is also against US law!
David Kelley (May 28, '08)

Re Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', May 28, by Muhammad Cohen. In said article, a brief synopsis of US/Iranian relations includes the statement: "President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah." However, according to the book A Century of War by frequent Asia Times Online contributor William Engdahl, the Shah of Iran was more or less removed from power in similar fashion - and due, essentially, to the same reasons - as was his predecessor, Mohammed Mossadeq. The Shah disagreed with British Petroleum in 1978 over energy renegotiations, thus sealing his fate, and the decision for his removal took place without president Carter's formal awareness. Time will tell whether the most recent Bernard Lewis-inspired Anglo-American designs for the future of Iran will transpire similarly as planned.
E Schroeder
New York (May 28, '08)

[Re Time to do something about oil, May 28] At the end of his piece, Mr Hutchinson says, "If that doesn't work or is 'politically impossible', it's time to prepare the 82nd Airborne for jungle warfare in the Orinoco Basin." The American Way is the only way - without any thought given to the fact that if the people of that energy-bearing country decide that they will not let their resources go in that manner, then God and all His angels will not be able to pull ugly America out of the quagmire it has gotten itself into. Deal, rather than steal.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Canada (May 28, '08)

[Re Time to do something about oil, May 28] Indeed, it is high time to do something about oil! Martin Hutchinson's remedy deserves attention. "A sharp rise in US and world interest rates" is one way "to solve the spiraling energy and commodity prices". They would act as a break on speculation and serve as a tax of sorts on the revenues of oil-producing nations and oil companies. Of course a strong rise in interest rates requires political will. Judging by timidity of the head of the US Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and the lack of clout within the houses of Congress to rein in the oil profiteers, Hutchinson's solution will remain a death letter. Let's assume for a moment that the US Fed in concert with other countries agree to a strong push to increase interests rates, President Bush and Vice President Cheney would mount a campaign to oppose such an initiative with the full support of the oil lobby and the willing hand of US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson who favors oil interests. Escalating oil and commodities prices are a source of speculation as long as the US pursues a policy of a weak dollar. A weak dollar may help US exports but it has a boomerang effect globally. It beggars everyone and is destabilizing free trade which erodes social and political stability.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 28, '08)

I cannot believe you'd publish the blood thirsty imperialistic raving of Martin Hutchinson's The Bear's Lair and [the article] Time to do something about oil [May 28]. I'd gladly tell him a thing or two or three if I can. No wonder the US is filled with such a [messed] up people. They want to exploit the world anyway they see fit and who gives a damn what anyone thinks. I'd ask him isn't he ashamed, but I'm sure he doesn't know the meaning of the word. I am truly appalled and disgusted.
Plamen Petkov (May 28, '08)

[Re Time to do something about oil, May 28]. I deeply hope that Hutchinson was being facetious when he suggested invading an oil-possessing country and doing it right. Does he really believe that [it is ever right] for a nation to act like a bandit?
Ron Mepwith (May 28, '08)

Re Time to do something about oil, May 28] and Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August', both May 28. While usurpation of Venezuela's oil could perhaps help arrest surging prices, it would not address President Bush and his neo-con camarilla's grander plans - checking Iranian ascendancy and controlling Middle Eastern oil, a spectacular geopolitical bonanza that would then subsidize the neo-con hegemonic scheme of world domination, a dream too tantalizing to abandon at this stage of the game. However, as evidenced by the Iraq war, the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. In a military conflict, anything could happen. Should things not go America's way, war with the Islamic Republic could well turn out to be the moment of truth for the US, if not for Western civilization as we know it. That said, it's also possible that the US would soundly defeat the Persians, control the vast Mideast oil reserves, capture the Venezuelan energy resources, then thwart the rise of China and India by turning off the oil spigots, frustrate a resurgent Russia by suppressing energy prices, and ultimately spread democracy to four corners of the world. Either way, we'd be witness to history in the making.
John Chen
USA (May 28, '08)

My day is brightened by my own chuckles over the article, Earthquake lets China off the hook by Antoaneta Bezlova (May 28). As China consistently does not publicly lecture or interfere with other countries' internal affairs, advice to admit foreign aid for the natural disaster in Myanmar might have been made quietly. Very soon, if things go from bad to worse, China may be proclaimed by some journalists as ultimately responsible for all eventualities.
Seung Li (May 28, '08)

Regarding How the US dream foundered in Iraq [May 23] and Bush's Middle East policy in tatters [May 21]. If anyone still needs further convincing as to how the George W Bush/Dick Cheney cabal has damaged America's security interest in the Middle East and has left the US with little or no influence, just look at these four recent events. First, who brokered a ceasefire between the Iraqi warring factions in Basra and Baghdad? Was it the US or Iran? And if you said Iran, you would be right. Second, when hostilities broke out in Lebanon, who brokered an agreement between the feuding factions? Was it the US or the Arab League? If you said the Arab League, you would be right. Third, after eight years of lack of contact between Syria and Israel, who brokered the recent talks? And if you said Turkey, you would be right. And finally, who is mediating talks between Israel and Hamas? If you said Egypt, you would be right. Leaving a glaring void, the missing country in all these instances has been the United States. These are all countries or forces the Bush/Cheney cabal has been adamant in having no contacts with or trying to isolate with sanctions, or has been threatening at one time or another. America's role in the Middle East, or lack of it, overwhelmingly affects the daily lives of the people of the region. After eight years of Bush/Cheney policies, the US has been left with little or no role, isolated from and despised by the people. This is the calamitous legacy of the Bush/Cheney years that the next US president will find and must correct.
Fariborz S Fatemi
Former Staff Member
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
McLean, Virginia, USA (May 27, '08)

Regarding How the US dream foundered in Iraq [May 23] Michael Schwartz is suggesting that the Iraqi fiasco was a representative dream shared by all Americans. It was, and is, more like a nightmare. Millions of Americans opposed the military action before it was implemented and knew that the neo-cons were already determined to have their way. At the time we felt that attacking Iraq was always the neo-con plan, even before 9/11. Of course, now we know it was. Furthermore, considering the suspicious events of 9/11, the jingoistic opportunities that it brought neo-cons, and the Machiavellian ways of George W Bush and company, there are a lot of questions about when Bush's forces knew the attack was coming and whether they actually allowed it to happen.
Jim
Southern California, USA (May 27, '08)

[Re How the US dream foundered in Iraq, May 23] I hope that now all of us on this planet who are even modestly aware of world events over the past five years have come to realize that a true holocaust is being perpetrated in Iraq (and in Gaza, as well); that the whole concept of "The New American Century" was a product of the power-hungry minds of madmen. But what has me stumped is that the lumpen proletariat out here allowed this to happen - and that there are those who still applaud it! What has happened in Iraq is a shame on the entire human race, not just the poor, helpless, pickled-brained denizens of "The land of the free and the [home of the] brave". In any case, I predict that "The Empire" will fall and the Iraqi people will struggle back - with the real world's help. The people of the Greater Mesopotamian region must realize by now that good people the world over are willing these two things to happen. I also think it's time that we stopped using the term "war on terror". The first time I heard it, I catalogued it as words from the mouths - and for the minds - of fools. Many readers might remember that Nikita Kruschev once said, in a speech at the United Nations, that Russia did not have to nuke the USA - that it would "smother itself". Walla!
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Canada (May 27, '08)

[Re South Korea's Lee takes a grilling, May 24] South Korea president Lee Myung-bak won a strong mandate in the 2008 South Korean elections. His approach to North Korea and to the United States announced a different road than the one taken by his two predecessors at the Blue House. He came to office with the goodwill of the South Korean electorate. Now, it seems, he squandered it. Once in office, President George W Bush welcomed him warmly when Lee came to Washington. Lee had campaigned on the need to repair relations with the US, and in his eagerness to tighten the loosening bonds of the South Korean-American alliance, he stubbed his big toe by agreeing to importing US beef once more to his country. If there is an issue which would set a match to dry South Koreans passions, it is beef. The old bogeyman of mad cow disease is never far from the surface of South Korean fears when it comes to foreign beef. US beef has never documented a case of this degenerate disease; US beef is genetically modified which adds a layer to arguments against it in South Korea. Call South Koreans worship of beef irrational but they prefer the quality and texture of their own beef to import varieties. You may even say, beef has taken on the nature of a sacrament. With his decision to permit the entry of US beef, Mr Lee antagonized his supporters, and he has enflamed South Korea's anti-Americanism thereby undermining his election promise to strengthen ties with the US.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 27, '08)

F William Enghadhl's technical analysis Oil price mocks fuel realities [May 24] is interesting for what it does not say. The rise in the price of crude oil is directly related to the fall or rise of the US dollar. As OPEC president Chaakib Khelil, who also wears the hat of Algeria's Minister of Energy and Mines, observed that a 1% fall in the value of the American dollar sends the price of a barrel of crude oil up $4, and a strengthening by a single percent of that very same dollar knocks it down by $4. Khelil should know, since he once worked for the World Bank. The price of crude oil is tightly indexed to the American dollar, reserves and futures and refining capacity notwithstanding.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 27, '08)

I find many of your articles informative and useful in understanding the world we inhabit. Engdahl's recent piece on oil prices [Oil price mocks fuel realities, May 24] does not fit this usual bill though. While there is a speculation component to current prices his dismissal of peak oil as a driver is patently absurd. The markets are pricing in scarcity as we speak. To claim otherwise demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on how the oil markets work.
Edmund Brown (May 27, '08)

[Re What a woman wants, May 23] Hillary "obliterate Iran" Clinton will no doubt make a perfect vice president partner to John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain. It is a big mystery to me why she is running at all for the Democrats as a presidential candidate.
Manuel de la Torre (May 27, '08)

[Re A fighter and a financier, May 23] Saleem: Your reports from where it's all happening keep me on top of ATol every day. Tell your hosts out there in the mountains that there are many of us around the world who are wishing them all the best in their fight against the greatest evil that this planet has ever seen.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Canada (May 23, '08)

[Re A fighter and a financier, May 23] Just a quick thanks for the fantastic work on the three-part series. Really looking for the third part. Glad to finally see your picture. It would look great on the cover of a book. Hint Hint. ... Just don't get yourself killed, OK? Keep it up.
J (May 23, '08)

[Re A fighter and a financier, May 23] Impressive story today, sir. Congratulations, not only for the write-up but also for a safe return!
Sitara from ICRC (May 23, '08)

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Part 3 of Fighting with the Taliban will only be uploaded on May 27. - ATol

Not too long ago, shortly after the New Hampshire primary, Julian Delasantellis wrote a petulant little article attacking the numerous pundits who saw the specter of racism in Senator Hillary Clinton's upset win [Clinton's upset not black and white, Jan 12] Now he comes, less certain of the altruism of Americans of a lighter hue, but with more nectar, more honey, more obfuscation. In his most recent article What a woman wants [May 23] Delasantellis accepts the possibility that "pure racism" prevents America's downtrodden whites from voting in his or her economic self interest. In truth the quote is "pure racism and ignorance" but I could find no meaningful distinction between racism and ignorance. But what Delasantellis fails to accept is that Clinton has skillfully played on those sentiments, stoked and massaged them; made them fuel for her sputtering political engine. In a tradition worthy of Richard Nixon in 1968, Clinton shamefully picks at the lingering American racial divide and in the process opens wounds that have barely had a chance to heal. It can scarcely be a coincidence that in the three recent primaries won decisively by the New York senator she played up her appeal to the very people that swear they could never support Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee. Politics? Perhaps. But Clinton's use of politics of a particularly cynical and destructive brand places her firmly in the slash-and-burn camp of the past; an era that unfortunately not all Americans are willing to allow to remain in the past. In his book All too Human George Stephanopoulos wrote "[I was] wondering what might have been - if only this good president had been a better man." I suspect that we will all be left to ponder whether Hillary would have made a good president if only she had been a better person.
D A Bryan (May 23, '08)

[Re What a woman wants, May 23] The telling point in the article is that many American whites are frightened and don't like Barack Obama. Jews living in Florida, according to the New York Times, are solidly against him. This rejection could make all the difference nationally, since Florida is a swing state. The only inference anybody could draw is that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race because she wants to be chosen as vice presidential running mate by John McCain.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, USA (May 23, '08)

[Re History in the making for Hezbollah, May 23] Hezbollah now has a seat at the table in Lebanon. The Doha agreement rights a wrong in search of resolution. It rearranges the kaleidoscope tiles in the delicate balance of power in Lebanon among confessional groups. But Doha has upset US President George W Bush's diplomacy in the Middle East. It simply makes it irrelevant. Israel has been quick to acknowledge the new alignment of forces in the region. It has given body to its ally Turkey's moves to broker peace between Syria and Israel by the retrocession of the Golan Heights which the Israeli army seized during the six-day war 40 years ago, and a piece of real estate that the Israeli military establishment has long considered unnecessary for the security of the Jewish state. The Kadima-led Israeli government has also recognized that its bete noire Hasan Nasrallah will henceforth be more concerned with domestic affairs than border issues with Israel. Prime minister Ehud Olmert is a realist by coming to terms with Damascus and obliquely with Hezbollah, he hopes to wean Syria from its alliance with Iran which Israel considers a greater danger to Israel. Agreement with Syria will undoubtedly benefit the Palestinians and their hope for a Palestinian state; it may result in the uprooting of illegal Israel settlements, and a push back to the 1967 borders of the West Bank. Israeli leaders are if anything practitioners of realpolitik; for agreement with Syria will force the hand of the Arab states' recognition of the Jewish state. So yes, Sami Moubayed is right in saying that we are witnessing history in the making, and the scuppering of Bush's personal diplomacy in the Middle East.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 23, '08)

[Re History in the making for Hezbollah, May 23] This also appears to be history in the making for Saudi Arabia. Is it not possible that, seeing the writing on the wall, the Saudis will begin to disengage from the US? Evidence that this is not a foolish idea can be seen in how Bush came away with egg on his face after pleading for more oil. The Saudis are realists; they can see as well as anyone that there is a sea change in the process in American politics.
Ron Mepwith (May 23, '08)

[Re One hand across the strait, May 23] Ralph Cossa exemplifies the condescending attitude of Western media towards mainland China. As he enumerates what China must do to "make some significant gestures in response to Ma's controversial overtures", I couldn't help but wonder what is so controversial about what Ma was saying in his inaugural address? Ma's policy of "normalization of economic and cultural relations with the mainland" and maintaining the status quo were stated repeatedly during the election and he was voted in overwhelmingly by the electorate in Taiwan so there is really no surprises for anyone except Ralph Cossa. Until Ma invests genuine efforts in reunification, which will bring permanent peace and dignity to Taiwan, instead of doing the bidding of American interests, China should continue to observe and analyze Ma's actions instead of hastening any response to his gestures just because Cossa demands it.
Terry Tam
Toronto (May 23, '08)

Here it goes again. Another China "expert", Ralph A Cossa, One hand across the strait [May 23] suggests "why shouldn't it [Taiwan] just declare itself the Republic of Taiwan now and end the "one China charade". The name, Republic of China, is tied to its own constitution which regards Taiwan and the mainland as parts of China. To deviate from it violates the Secession Law, like it or not, Mr Cossa, and Taiwan dares not defy it. The "shameless" bidding to some small island nations means bread and butter to those nations. It is economics, pure and simple, which all countries subscribe to. It is also silly to state that China "needs" to do this and to do that. About the only sensible point in the entire article is to wonder how Beijing would respond to Ma's call for "dignity" in international affairs. Here is my suggestion: since Ma has used the word "compatriots" in his inauguration address when referring to mainland Chinese, he can send his deputies to join with, and as part of, China's representatives to committee meetings such as the World Health Organization. The outgoing Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian is a smart man to oversee a peaceful transfer of power. He is keenly aware of the wrath of the people toward his eight-year rule by the results of both the recent legislature and presidential elections. Just two days ago, his confidant and general of the air force, once a member of the investigative committee on his alleged attempted murder a day before election in 2004, declared that it was the committee consensus that the wound on Chen's belly was not inflicted as alleged by a gunman on the street at the time. Mr Cossa, "democracy" can "work" in many ways.
Seung Li (May 23, '08)

Ducking and Diving under B- 52s as reported by Syed Saleem Shahzad [May 22] is what journalism is all about - good honest reporting without Western-style propaganda. This is one of ATol's strong points. With such imagery by your journalist, I could have been there, tripping along mountains paths, exhausted, dodging the US war machine and its collaborators. Such a description of resistance gives me the sense that the NATO axis cannot win. Yet Syed Saleem Shahzad is only saying what he sees and feels without being partisan. We in the West rarely have the privilege of such unprejudiced accounts of what is happening to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Wilson John Haire
London (May 22, '08)

[Re China bows in grief, to public demand, May 22] I have read with interest your article on the Chinese governments response to the earthquake in Sichuan province. As a survive of another natural disaster (Hurricane Katrina), this was an opportunity to compare the response of the US government with that of China. China wins "hands down". Yet with all of the opportunity to give the Chinese government and its people their due, Western media never miss an chance to add niggling little bits to articles in an effort to parley the Chinese as inferior. For example, I noticed in Bezlova's article that she referred to China as "communist" China. I have never read a reference to the US as "capitalist" US or to France as "socialist" France. Why the bias? Sure Mao Zedong made mistakes, but to infer that his leadership was a total disaster with no positive is ludicrous. [Bezlova writes] "If China felt divided and isolated then, mourning its dead paramount leader who had inflicted years of famine and chaos on the nation, it seems united now in grieving for the quake victims." Please. Let's have reporting of the facts without all of the embedded bias.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 22, '08)

Regarding the article Hopes fade for a Tiger homeland [May 22] which is a fact, but Mr Sudha Ramachandran also stated "If the LTTE wants a 'Tamil homeland' it will have to militarily obtain it". Ramachandran misses the point when she made that statement. Ever since this conflict started, the Tamil Tigers have used military force and terrorist acts to try to obtain their "Eelam" and though the Tamil Tigers have scored victories and victims for decades, the military option is now back firing on the Tamil Tigers. The Singhalese-dominated government learned the hard way that peace treaties don't work. The Tamil terrorists always used these "peace times" to embolden their artillery. Throughout this long conflict military solutions seem the only option left for the Sri Lankan government. It is because of the use of brute force, coupled with diluting the Tamil population in the east by populating that region with Singhalese people, that the eastern province is now in the hands of the Sri Lankan government. The Tamil Tigers are losing the war and the use of a military option against the government is proving to be the Tamil Tigers "Achilles' heel". To sum it up at this stage, the Tamil Tigers have no options, military or otherwise.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, USA (May 22, '08)

Your article Hopes fade for a Tiger homeland [May 22] may be a little to soon. The east is now under the control of a Tamil Tiger who is demanding full powers under Amendment 13 of the Indo-Lanka Accord. Also reports are that his same party members are linked to the recent explosion in Colombo and rumors of an offensive in the east. [The author writes] "Sitting in jungle hideout, the LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran must be ruing the day he decided to reject the India-Sri Lanka accord. That accord gave him a 'Tamil homeland' on a platter. And while the government has made several gains with regard to the Eastern Province, it might be too early for it to celebrate." Does the LTTE rue the day he rejected the Indo-Lanka accord? Maybe it has now given him a step [towards] the fragmentation of Sri Lanka but appointing Trojan Horses to show the world that India was giving birth to a still-born child. It appears that the story of the east is more than meets the eye and Karuna Amman may still be the LTTE leaders' blue-eyed boy for more reasons than we know.
Raj Karunatnam (May 22, '08)

[Re The day free markets died, May 22] The free market is a myth. Rarely has it ever functioned freely. Its nature is by nature secret, and manipulated by the powers that be. Government regulating of the market is liberal or strict depending on the economy's health, it goes without saying. Government intervention has regulated the market, and at times to save capitalism from itself, the more especially since the Great Depression. The economics of Lord [John Maynard] Keynes [1883-1946] has ever since played an overarching role in spurring on or slowing down markets and the economy. Free marketeers smart at the government's guiding role. Yet, it has proven its salt; the track record of the US economy leaves much to be desired since the founding of the American republic. Wakefield and Hill give us a good understanding of the Fed's hand in nudging the economy, and by using indexes which are not normally cited. It seems surprising, however, that they do not mention the way the bursting of the subprime mortgage bubble in August 2007 in point one. At that moment Bear Stearns in reporting its quarterly earnings announced the foundering and ultimately scrapping of two offshore hedgefunds, and a shiver in financial markets. Thus the first step for Bear Stearns take over by JP Morgan Chase nine months later. It is also good to note that owing to the war in Iraq and the ballooning of governmental debt and the lackluster performance of the markets also played a role. The US Fed now as lender of the last resort to keep the ship of state on course had to act. You may disagree with its moves, but one thing is certain, government intervention is a permanent feature in modern economies.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 22, '08)

[Re M K Bhadrakumar's Bush's Middle East policy in tatters, May 21] Never before has a US president so angered the Muslim world as did US President George W Bush in his address to the Israeli Knesset, which the Israeli Muslim MP, Muhammad Barakei, described as being "tantamount to a declaration of war on the people's of the region". Bush spoke of Israelis as God's "chosen people", who can forever count on US support against enemies like Hamas and Iran. He spoke of the "bonds of the Book" - faith in the Bible shared by Christians, like himself, and Jews - as bolstering an "unbreakable" alliance between Israel and the US. And he concluded with the words: "You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." According to this fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the scriptures, there is absolutely no place in the Promised Land for Muslims, who are the children of Abraham's other son, Ishmael. Indeed, they are the eternal enemy of this Judeo-Christian alliance, and until they are treated and respected as equals before God, there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 21, '08)

There is hardly anything to fault in M K Bhadrakumar's Bush's Middle East policy in tatters [May 21] . His analysis has hit the bull's eye. There is a sidebar to Bush's failed Middle East adventure: King Abdullah, it seems, had promised the American president that Saudi Arabia would increase the flow of oil which might lighten an already burdened American car or truck [owners'] oil purse at the pump. By any calculation, it would not amount to more than a few pennies at that. In return, Bush has promised the Saudi monarch nuclear power plants. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may mean. Saudi Arabia heavily funds a rigid school of Islamic law, which among other things, has spawn Islamic terrorists. Think of the mischief that may occur when the US's nuclear industry, for a bumper crop of cash of petro dollars, bring nuclear energy and technology to the Arabian peninsula, or the havoc that energy will create in the Persian Gulf.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 21, '08)

[Re Money issue needs a champion, May 21] Mr Cohen writes about an issue that long has troubled me. My response has been twofold. First, I always vote against all board nominees and against all board propositions in protest to the Soviet-style ballot. Second, I write to the board protesting their practice. I suggest that all stockholders follow my practice.
Tom Gerber (May 21, '08)

As much as it pains me to say this, I actually hold a divergent opinion on the future price of oil from that of The Mogambo Guru in Cheap oil? Dream on, brothers [May 21]. Improbable as it may seem right now, the price of oil does have the potential to drop dramatically over the next two to three years. The key to arriving at this "absurd" conclusion is that the current ridiculously high oil price is not really driven by the economics of supply and demand, but by rabid speculative forces and the Fed's obdurate and annoying devotion to putting the money-printing machines into hyperdrive. In fact, OPEC was not far off the mark when stating that there is currently enough output to meet world demand. Of course, with the high degree of geopolitical uncertainty currently existing in the Middle East, it may well be a fool's errand to try to predict oil prices a couple of years down the road. But a Middle East upheaval aside (a big "if"), the price of oil does have a chance to come down considerably in the coming years, especially when the US economy hits a rough patch. If not, as the Mogambo has oh-so-softly whispered on rare occasions, we're freaking doomed, doomed, doomed. D-cubed!!!
John Chen
USA (May 21, '08)

Regarding Quake helps mend China's image [May 21], Antoaneta Bezlova like most foreign China experts just doesn't seem to understand how critical and demanding the Chinese public is towards its leaders. Wen Jiabao was already on a plane heading towards the disaster site within an hour after the onset of the quake, but some Chinese netizens still considered that "slow". Compare that with [President George W] Bush overflying the Katrina rampage only two days later, and still in office. One interesting aspect of this disaster is the amount of aid offered by foreign governments. I read that Saudi Arabia gave $50 million, North Korea $100,000, and the G7 economic giants some amount in-between. If true, I find all of this remarkable. Maybe some of your writers would care to check and write about this?
Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (May 21, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 21] Dude, there is aid coming in to Burma [Myanmar[. Just not from the US. The US wants the Pentagon to oversee any aid distribution, and wants Burma to open its doors to the US military. The Burmese government is not so stupid as to allow that to happen. And if it did happen, the Burmese people would fight, despite their weakened condition. So stop being an armchair warrior, okay?
Susan (May 21, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 21] Yes, the US military is the only power capable of saving the lives of millions of disaster victims in Myanmar, just as it was the leader into Southeast Asia after the tsunami. However, there is a bigger picture to consider. One, the United States is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Unlike China, there is no way the United States could ever win the image war. America, despite the billions in humanitarian relief that country contributes around the world, will always be considered the ogre. And second - and perhaps most important - the US taxpayer would have to foot the bill for its military to respond to international relief efforts. Perhaps if the EU (the UN is financially supported by the US almost exclusively) threw in a few dollars to the US military, Americans would be more willing to allow its military to maneuver into deadly areas for humanitarian efforts, even though they know they will still be hated by most the world. Somehow, however, I can't see the French or the Germans footing the bill for much of anything.
Mark Spinelli
Chicago (May 21, '08)

Jim Lobe's article Bush, McCain dream on in war land [May 21], contains a statement in a speech made by John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain that, if elected the next American president, he will have brought home "most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom" by winning the Iraq War by 2013. What McCain didn't mention was that most of those American men and women, in a McCain administration, would be coming home in caskets. The war against Saddam is over, senator, and what is left is an occupation by a foreign power, the US, and one doesn't "win" an occupation, you simply withdraw the troops. To see how a country can't win an occupation, Senator, look west of Iraq towards occupied Palestine. After 60 years, Israel is still trying to "win" that occupation. Senator, this is 2008, not 1968, and try as you might to get revenge for your POW years, you won't be able to bomb Iraqis to the peace table, as former president Richard Nixon tried to do during the Vietnam War. It's time to announce "Mission Accomplished" and bring home our troops from Iraq and let that nation recover from our savagery and predations.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri, USA (May 21, '08)

[ReHow to rule the world after Bush, May 20] Mr Engler's wistful and somewhat nostalgic commentary does little to the presumed assumption to the world being ruled by the future president of the US. Given the tone of the issues that will sway the voter this coming November, for example to talk or not talk to Hamas, the elected representatives of a people living in a compound/prison controlled by Israel. Or, to either talk or nuke the sovereign nation of Iran. And measure success in Iraq with the completion of erecting a 10-foot wall around the entire neighborhood of Sadr City in Baghdad and an occasional missile strike in Somalia. [These issues] do not bode well for any serious consideration of anyone being able to presume ruling the world after [President George W] Bush. An adage said to be of Chinese origin says it best: "The wish for one is to live in interesting times." The world we all live in is not the same world of the Churchills, the Chamberlains or even the present day Bin Ladens dead or alive. Mr Engler and others so inclined will have to "just get along".
Armand De Laurell (May 20, '08)

Quake helps mend China's image by Antoaneta Bezlova [May 20], to the Chinese reader, is nonsensical. The rapid rescue efforts mobilized on a national scale for the earthquake is simply indicative of a genuine compassionate leadership [towards] the general population and a degree of development of national strength. The "international image" bestowed by Bezlova is hardly worth two cents. The tired allegation of "harsh handling of minorities" bespeaks a constant attempt at mud-slinging. China treats all 56 minorities fairly, has improved their living standards and preserved their culture and religion. Their traditional songs and dances in colorful attire are always a feature in national celebrations and tourist attractions. There are also colleges set up specially for minority studies.
Seung Li (May 20, '08)

The mythical post-American era [May 20] is a welcome voice in counterpoint to the loud chorus singing the US's decline as a world power. Ehsan Ahrari is right to challenge this notion. Longer memories may recall that as the long nightmare of war in Vietnam dragged on, similar accounts sprouted like mushrooms about the end of imperial America. It didn't happen. The rise of China as an economic powerhouse has not only to do with the epiphany that Deng Xiaoping had while reading Milton Freedman but also by the roaring flow of private equity and jobs from the US in order to rope a communist China into global capitalism. India is a more complex case but it too began in the early 1990s to wean itself from command economics. Ahrari makes a good point in saying that today's economic malaise in the US is partly due to President [George W] Bush's war in Iraq and his voodoo economics. It, however, is fair to say that the American president has set his country on a permanent war footing which is antithetical to solving America's pressing economic and social woes. ATol readers should read Ian Buruma's review of the last batch of books on the waning of America. His sharp pen reinforce's Ahari's comments.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 20, '08)

Regarding Doug Noland's A red herring article [May 20] vis a vis the US credit market situation. Towards the concluding section of his piece - before the statistics and so forth - Noland offers a "rules-based" prescription in the form of suggestions for Fed policies with the caveat: "I expect the idea of the Fed regulating credit to be unappealing to many if not most. I offer it as food for thought." In response: first, it is my - admittedly layman's - understanding that the Fed is not an official government agency, rather a private consortium which has been granted quasi-governmental powers, functioning as a central bank of sorts. That said, his suggested rules make a great deal of sense. However, my question to Noland is, simply, why can't this kind of monitoring and policy adjustment be done by the Treasury Department? Indeed, why exactly does one need a Fed? He might consider answering these questions in a future article since I suspect I am not the only reader who would greatly benefit from a better understanding of what the Fed is, what central banks are, and how they interface or not with elected governments.
A Howes (May 20, '08)

We suggest you browse through The Complete Henry C K Liu as he has written numerous articles on the role of the US Federal Reserve in particular and central banks in general. - ATol

As stories of horror and despair continue to emerge from the China earthquake and the Myanmar cyclone, I would like to use this opportunity to ask all ATol readers (regardless of your personal views of the two countries) to pray for the disaster victims. Frail as humanity may be against the wrath of nature, tragedies like these give cause for mankind to stand more united.
John Chen
USA (May 19, '08)

The idea of incorporating video on your website is a great addition. As a suggestion to help those of us living a long way from Asia, may I suggest though that you provide a text-only page with links enabled (short descriptions of the type used by other major online newspapers). On a related matter, you would no doubt have noted the moves by UK newspapers to create blogs for their main columnists. That idea has certainly some merit, particularly for your star reporters like Saleem Shahzad, Shawn Crispin and perhaps also for your more edgy commentators like Spengler and Chan Akya. While the latter have their own forums, it appears to me that the interchanges are personal rather than issue driven, with a whole host of name-calling quite the norm. Seeing as you appear to be searching for ways to enhance the profitability of what has become one of my favorite websites in the world, perhaps the above ideas could help accelerate such initiatives.
Salt (May 19, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 17] I'm dismayed that you'd print Shawn Crispin's perspective twice. What is going on at ATol? Crispin wants the US to invade yet another country? No. The show's over. It falls to some other country to do "good". The US has no moral authority left. Again, what gives at ATol?
Grandpa (May 19, '08)

Like the Energizer bunny Shawn W Crispin just can't help writing and writing for a military intervention on Burma (Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 17). Just like agencies like AP and media like the New York Times when it comes to Iran (and when it came to Iraq), many of his factual statements come from anonymous sources - nine in his article. What is worse, he fails to notice what Burma's ethnic heterogeneity, which he describes, could result in if there were a foreign military intervention. What if the minorities get hold of weapons in the chaos of war, and start taking revenge on Burmese Buddhists for decades of oppression? This is what happened in Bosnia, Croatia, Iraq and Kosovo. During the NATO bombing campaign, Kosovo Albanian guerrillas (the KLA) went on a murderous rampage, killing local Serbs and even people of their own ethnicity who opposed them. One of Crispin's anonymous sources says that the junta is trying to ethnic-cleanse the minority Karen people through its inept handling of the crisis and stealing of humanitarian aid, but Crispin is impervious to the possibility that a military intervention would only worsen the ethnic conflict. But what is truly shocking is his insolent naivete when it comes to the recent history of "humanitarian intervention". He just ignores the catastrophes it has brought in the former Yugoslavia (Western governments, just through their quick recognition of the new states, eliminated the possibility of an orderly partition), Somalia and Iraq. Only if his memory had gotten stuck somewhere around 2003, could he come up with phrases like "As the UN dithers ...", and "... for the US to make moral use of its military might, a humanitarian intervention in Myanmar is it." These are worse than quaint now - they sound macabre. And with the US Air Force's careless regard for innocent lives when bombing cities with 1-ton bombs that kill anything in a 350 meter radius, its targeting of basic power and sanitary infrastructure, plus the US government's hypocrisy in supporting ethnic separatists and terrorists, to expect a US military intervention to be moral simply goes against reason and common sense.
Carlos from Ecuador (May 19, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 17] In regard to the line: "As the UN dithers, the fact remains that only the US military now has the power to avert a wider human catastrophe." I question your "facts". Things can always get worse. Military intervention by the world's only financially and morally bankrupt "superpower" can only make things much worse than they already are in Burma. I am astounded that you keep lobbying for the same.
John Francis Lee
Chiang Rai (May 19, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 17] You make a strong case for a forced intervention in Myanmar. I agree with you. It reflects the serious questions I have had myself about respecting a country's so-called sovereignty in the face of their serious neglect of meeting the basic needs of their people in crisis, thus creating a horrific situation of extensive human suffering. Thank you for urging us to think about this matter with all due seriousness and haste.
Leslie Brinkerhoff (May 19, '08)

[Re Myanmar's killing fields of neglect, May 17] It is hard for me to imagine a US "humanitarian" invasion of Burma turning out less disastrously than the elder president Bush's "humanitarian" invasion of Somalia. "Humanitarian" soldiers quickly took up the usual military amusements, Somalis retaliated, and before you knew it, it was another war. God save Burma from such "humanitarianism"!
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (May 19, '08)

Re Myanmar’s killing fields of neglect [May 17] by Shawn Crispin, I wish to comment. I would like to know if Aung San Suu Kyi is safe or not after the natural disaster and if the ruthless military junta who has kept her in detention for over 12 years is in good health and mind? Why has Burma gotten away with the worst crimes imaginable committed against its people? The [UN] Security Council was just an onlooker and failed to apply Chapter VII of the UN Charter as it did in Afghanistan, Yemen, Rwanda and Cambodia, thus allowing the junta to tyrannize the Burmese with impunity. This natural disaster has become a man-made catastrophe, as [British Prime Minister] Gordon Brown rightly said a few days ago. It is inconceivable, incomprehensible and inexcusable that this brutal and oppressive military regime in green uniforms treats its citizen with such contempt and abject concern that it is still preventing thousands of tons of food, water, medicine, blankets and human resources from reaching desperate ... poor and survivors who have lost everything. It is so sordid and insidiously irresponsible that Burmese officials are reported to be selling the aid confiscated from aid workers. I believe that it is imperative that the international community at the moment, instead of considering illegal land invasions, should negotiate with the regime as the Thais and Indonesians have done, and use other peaceful means to get the aid through to where it is desperately needed. China and India are in a position to influence the Burmese junta more than any other nation because China and India benefit enormously in trading with the generals. If the military junta still refuses then the international community has the duty and obligation to help the cyclone victims by violating Burmese air space and dropping aid to the cyclone victims in every field, town and city.
Saqib Khan UK (May 19, '08)

Reading India's real terrorists [May17], no one would have the slightest idea that there are two distinct communist parties in India. The rift occurred at the time of the Sino-Soviet split in 1961. One branch followed Moscow's lead; the other Beijing's. Chan Akya takes his bead on the Communist Party of India [Marxist Leninist] otherwise known as Naxalites. Now the Naxalites to uninformed readers form a loose consortium of groups, some of whom hold power in Kolkata and others who have taken to the bush to engage in guerrilla warfare in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. For example, as reported in the press, Naxalites of either school do fight for land reform, against tenancy laws, corruption, and the miserable plight of the hard-working classes subject to the iron-bound laws of caste, custom, and indentured servitude. Nowhere in Chan Akya's article is mention made of the longstanding rule of India's Communist Party in the state of Kerala. Nor would the non-Indian reader suspect the rise of Hindu nationalism which borders on the edges of communal terrorism be it Muslim or Christian, let alone the responses of the Muslim extremists to Hindu extremism.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 19, '08)

Perhaps the time has come for the Americans to ask a broader question than Jim Lobe (Bush, McCain dream on in war land, May, 17) has in mind. The question the US citizens better start asking themselves is not what the next administration's Middle East policy is going to be. The question they ought to ask themselves is for how much longer and to what level the US can allow Israel to drag them down in such arenas as international power and prestige and also their country's financial health.
Tutu G
Scotland (May 19, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] I found Spengler's article very enlightening and educational. I did, however, take exception to the comment "it is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims." Although Spengler seems to detest the Left he has taken this sentiment right out of the Left's handbook on slavery in the United States. Those who were brought here did not by any stretch of the imagination come here voluntarily, nor were they kidnapped, they were sold by their own people as slaves into slavery. White men did not run through the jungles as portrayed in "Roots" with chains and leg irons capturing the natives to bring here. The winners of warring tribes enslaved the losers and sold them. Blacks in this country have a misplaced resentment; it should be with the Africans. And, furthermore, history tells us that slavery was introduced to the world not by whites but by blacks.
Michael J Williams
Virginia, USA (May 19, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] Dear Spengler, since I live in Nahariya, Israel, I am one of the "happy" ones. Indeed, I class myself as an optimist. I looked at your table (end of your column) of suicide rates versus fertility, and draw a conclusion as follows. Increase of fertility means a larger family group. My wife and I have three children and eight grandchildren; I believe it is the larger family that leads to a greater sense of optimism. Indeed, it would be interesting to see if this also applies to the Arab family situation. When all our family gets together, there is joy and exuberance in the air. There is a unity also during the working days, when each family is trying to make its living. Friends and family of ours in the UK are so much smaller - I fail to imagine a family with just one child, and no cousins, with an uncle in the UK with no children.Yet that is the actual situation that I know. A one-child family is a lonely one. How about determining suicide rates versus family size - not the general one that you show, but a specific one, relating suicide rates of individuals to family size?
Ezra Ben-Meir
Nahariya, Israel (May 19, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] More than one correspondent makes fun of Spengler's decision to measure happiness by fertility versus suicide. However, most common definitions of happiness miss a critical point: it really is a poor goal in the first place. You can, for example, guarantee extreme ecstasy for the rest of your life with a filled crack pipe, a blindfold, a gun, and someone willing to use all of them on you. Spengler is measuring something more important than happiness - love of life itself. He as much says so in his article; he simply should have said so in the title and ignored the ephemeral and ultimately useless term "happiness".
Andrew Berman
USA (May 16, '08)

[Re Australian eggs for a Korean 'basket case'?, May 16] Dr Leonid Petrov gives voice to peripatetic Australia's newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's foreign policy philosophy. Reaffirmation of the US-Australian alliance and strong membership in the UN are traditional goals. What captures our attention is Canberra's "comprehensive engagement in Asia". Australia has reversed rudders in the last half-century, not so much repudiating its European heritage, but also for its embracing of an Asian identity. This is no clearer than in its relationship with China whose appetite for Australia's raw materials has spurred good economic growth while at the same time has brought Australia into Beijing's sphere of influence. And now, as Petrov suggests, Mr Rudd may see an opportunity for expanding relations with North Korea, which is on the verge of a renewed outbreak of famine; he can seize this opportunity through the export of wheat and injections of capital with a view of helping to modernize North Korea's infrastructure. Although such initiatives might run counter to Canberra's conservative standpoint on Pyongyang, they would very much allow Australia to play a more nuanced role as an Asian power, and win respect as a voice of patience and moderation with an American ally whose roller coaster diplomacy with North Korea has delayed opportunities for a rapprochement between two Cold Warriors.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 16, '08)

[Re Bush quick onto Lebanon blame-game, May 15] Apparently, the Bush administration has tried to resurrect the balance of powers game in Lebanon with no success. The same story is going on in Iraq. The problem is the neo-conservative wing drove out the people in the Republican Party who had the best capacity for this task. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is one man in a small boat paddling in stormy seas. His efforts are Herculean and appreciated but due to his late arrival probably futile. The knowledge base was destroyed and along with it the political connections in the region to make it effective. This was due primarily to the abandonment of the honest broker position of US in regards to Arab/Israeli interests. With the destruction of the traditional role of US realist policy comes chaos that is nearly impossible to rectify due to many years of Bush II doctrine. The results are a comedy of errors with real downside implications for the entire region. Once again, thank you Mr President for your direct role in this dilemma and the destruction of the Republican Party that once had the monopoly on foreign policy excellence and execution.
Andre Radnoti (May 16, '08)

Wangchuk Shakabpa of the US-Tibet Committee (letters, May 15), in responding to Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] stated that "PRC authorities historically have viewed Tibetans as backward, lazy and superstitious". "Historically", the PRC was founded only in 1949. One should repudiate any such remarks from PRC authorities if given. The word, "superstitious" does hit a chord. When a Dalai Lama passes away, the next one is chosen as a child by a committee going about in western China, Mongolia, and other Himalayan countries mainly by the sign of familiarity with the possessions or attributes of the previous Dalai Lama. Therein lies the problem of favoritism and personal prejudice. The boy, regarded as the reincarnated last Dalai Lama, is then taken into Lhasa to be trained and groomed by a number of elder officials. Besides the Buddhist texts, the elders' views of world affairs and political thoughts are instilled into an innocent mind until age 18. The development of the child is completely caged. No wonder even the present 14th Dalai Lama in 1969 questioned whether the institution of the Dalai Lama "should continue or not". The continuance of Christianity does not need a reincarnated Christ, nor Islam a reincarnated Mohammad. The necessity for a pope may be discussed but at least when chosen he is already a senior.
Seung Li (May 16, '08)

I write in response to Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2], a title which clearly shows Da Wei's own bias on the issue of Tibet and the West's responses to China's security crackdown in Tibet following demonstrations in March 2008. There are a number of factual claims that Da Wei makes which I disagree with but I'll reserve my comments for his last three points. Was Tibet part of China? Da Wei states that there is no easy answer but a review of the historical facts actually makes it quite clear that Tibet was never an integral part of China. The Yuan Dynasty was a Mongol empire not a Chinese one. The Ming Dynasty had almost no contact with Tibet. The Qing Dynasty was ruled by Manchus who viewed Tibet as a vassal state and even handled Tibet and Mongolia separately through the Lifanyuan (Court of Colonial Affairs). When the Qing Dynasty fell in 1911, Tibet become fully independent and remained so until the PRC [People's Republic of China] annexation in 1951. At no time did the Republic of China have any control or authority over Tibet. While I agree there is a human rights problem in both China and Tibet, the PRC rules Tibet differently from China. The PRC knows Tibetans are ethnically and culturally different from Chinese and that there are many Tibetans who agitate for independence. PRC authorities historically have viewed Tibetans as backward, lazy and superstitious and often treat Tibetans worse than they treat Chinese and certainly are harsher to Tibetan dissidents than Chinese dissidents. In fact, under PRC law the Tibet Autonomous Region doesn't have the right to pass its own laws without central government pre-approval while Chinese provinces can pass their laws and have them reviewed by Beijing later. In the Tibetan language, the word "China" means a country other than Tibet and the word for "Chinese" means a people other than Tibetans. There is now word in Tibetan that means both Tibet and China or Tibetans and Chinese. Thus, Tibetans do not consider themselves Chinese or that the term "China" encompasses Tibet. It is rather arrogant for Da Wei to assume that Tibetans are Chinese.
Wangchuk Shakabpa
US-Tibet Committee (May 15, '08)

The article was headlined "China's pride versus Western prejudice" by the editorial desk, not by the writer. - ATol

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] The author Spengler should note that he does not actually use the self-placement scale of happiness in making his point. According to the World Database of Happiness which has been compiling surveys for decades in which citizens around the world are asked to rank their overall levels of happiness, Israel in fact ranks 34-37, considerably lower than all West European countries, and many developing ones.
Alexander C Pacek
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas (May 15, '08)

I cannot conceive of a sadder event than Spengler quitting writing. His Why Israel is the world's happiest country [May 13] has inadvertently tipped the scales in favor of the United States, due to the spike it caused in my own level of happiness ... which has made me want to breed uncontrollably while at the same time banishing the thought of suicide from my mind: the very hallmark of happiness for Spengler. Pardon me, however, if I put off the move to Israel. I'll take a "trivial" joie de vivre over a "solemn celebration" of life any day. Spengler's pseudo-scientific investigation of comparative well-being not only ignores serious, scientific studies of the same, but is marred by a biased sample, preposterous criteria (over breeding and a taboo against voluntarily ending one's life is equivalent to happiness?), and another rehash of his typically chauvinistic theological critique of another Semitic religion, Islam. A perfect miss from his intended mark, yet a bulls-eye for my funnybone.
Josephus P Franks (May 15, '08)

[Re No foreigners, no cameras for Myanmar, May 15] Why do you not publish the names and photos of these rulers in Burma? Show who they have business deals with so we know where not to buy. How about a deck of cards with their faces and a price on their heads? What they are doing is a crime; people are in jail for much less ... It is time that every sane citizen of the world acts and you need to lead the way and let the people be heard for the sake of the dying women and children ... Please do more..publish the faces of shame every day ... show the world who these heartless killers of women and children are ... they must never rest in peace ever ...
Andy Robinson (May 15, '08)

How about a fresh article in your wistful ATol style, "The case for invading China"? [It might read] "The tardy response of the Chinese government in allowing in foreign aid for its earthquake-devastated population provides a strong moral case for a United Nations-approved, US-led humanitarian intervention ... " Or how about a post-emptive invasion of the US, pointing to the tardy response of president George W Bush following the Katrina disaster? ... Natural disasters just don't seem to kill enough people nowadays. We can do better than that.
Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (May 15, '08)

[Re No foreigners, no cameras for Myanmar, May 15] In prior years natural calamities such as Cyclone Nargis along with the new cyclone that is forming in the Bay of Bengal in Nargis' wake as well as the drought in Spain, the worst in 60 years, would have made global warming headlines. They would have warned us that man-made global warming was to blame and that therefore these weather phenomena were really man-made because we use fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. This time around, however, the global warming alarmists have been rather quiet because over the previous year, even while human activity injected more than 7.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the globe has not warmed. In fact, it has cooled significantly. The average temperature in the six months from November 2007 through April 2008 was 14.523 Celsius compared with 14.827Celsius for the same period one year ago. The allegedly clear causal relationship between carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and global temperature is on thin ice, so to speak.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (May 15, '08)

[Re A deadly miscalculation in Lebanon, May 13] Excellent series of articles on Iran, Hezbollah, and US. Sad commentary that [watching] President George W Bush is like watching a juggler with a neuro-motor disorder: kind of funny, but not really. I hark back to the days, when under James Baker, the US was able to garner troops from Syria to aid in the first Gulf War. Shortly after 9/11, both Iran and Syria were on the US side and cooperating in the "war on terror". Instead, the US invaded Iraq and it's been downhill ever since. The president alienated everyone. The goal for Russia and China was to keep US ambitions in check. Putin was particularly clever by stepping into the void that Bush created in regards to Syria and Iran. He snuggled up to them and they returned the favor as balance to the US/Israeli tag team. Russian arms are ideally suited for Syrian and Iranian capabilities. Small and simple with very impressive effects to counter the US/Israeli war machine. Russia then makes overtures to various militant groups as an in-your-face strategy to US and Israel. All the while Putin smiles behind his dark shades, not revealing his true soul to Bush who was mesmerized by the image he saw in the reflective lenses. ... The guy who put his arms around the fireman on top of the Twin Tower's ash heap vowing to restore US prominence instead ran it into the ground. Thank you Mr President - that is your legacy.
Andre Radnoti (May 15, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] Spengler might be right by calling Israel the wealthiest and best educated nation on earth. There should no question about it. But he crossed all intellectual boundaries by calling it the "freest" nation. Or he might be right ... It all depends on the definition of freedom. Millions of Palestinians are living freely in the only gulag of the modern history, free to be killed, bombed and tortured. If this can come out of the brains of the so-called intellectuals, ignoramuses should not be blamed for any blunder.
Riaz Khan (May 14, '08)

Concerning Spengler's most recent article Why Israel is the world's happiest country) [May 13], he argues that the relative happiness of the Israelis (as indicated by comparative fertility and suicide rates) springs from their belief and faith in the covenants made between God and the Jewish people. While the article is an interesting read, I wonder if there isn't a much simpler explanation. Across centuries, cultures and even religions, there is a pattern of relative vigor following a colonization, or where a large proportion of the population has suddenly died off. You see that vigor celebrated in the American pioneers who headed West and built up their homes - despite the many hardships and hostile natives. The comparison to the Zionist colonization of Palestine is a compelling one. You see a similar vigor arising in Europe following the depopulation of the lands on account of the great plagues. Or even out of the ashes of Japan's fire-bombed cities following World War II. There is, in fact, a similar vigor to be seen in almost any movement that is in its phase of rapid growth - for example, the Muslims in their early centuries of rapid expansion, or the early Roman (pagan) empire. But look at all those ancient empires and regimes, so strong, so compelling in their youth - now dust, or old and frail. In time, the vigor of youth gives way finally to the bitterness and contraction of old age. It is the way of all life. Israel's time will come.
Andrew Langford (May 14, '08)

[Re Spengler's Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13]

"Where is our Hebron - will we forget it? And our Shechem, and our Jericho, where - will we forget them? Every bit of earth belonging to the Lord's land - is it in our hands to give up even one millimeter?"

The speaker was Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook on the occasion of an Israeli Independence Day celebration on May 14, 1967, at Merkaz Harav, the yeshiva his father Avraham Yitzhak Kook had founded in 1924. Rabbi Tzvi Kook was describing how he had felt just 20 years before, when he heard of the United Nation's decision to partition Palestine, leaving parts of biblical Israel under Jordanian rule. As it happened, May 14 was the day Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser had put his army on full alert. Four weeks later, Hebron, Jericho and Shechem (the biblical name of Nablus) had all fallen into Israeli hands in the aftermath of the Six Day War, and Rabbi Tzvi Kook was hailed by his followers as a prophet. He later went on to encourage his students to go out and fight for the settlements, and he himself would take an active part in these struggles. Merkaz Harav is now the most prominent rabbinic college in the religious Zionist world, and it is where, on March 6 of this year, eight young students were gunned down by a lone Arab assassin. For Spengler, the assassin's bullets bear testimony to the fact that Jewish success is an "abomination" for Muslims. But in choosing this particular yeshiva on which to unleash his carnage, the assassin was conveying another message: that Muslim success is an abomination for Jews.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 14, '08)

In reference to Why Israel is the world's happiest country [May 13], by Spengler. Israelis are breeding fast not because they are a happy lot or for the love of life as claimed by Spengler but for the necessity of surviving in Palestinian land grabbed illegally. Orthodox Jews perhaps believe that they are immortals, the chosen people, and consider that Palestine belongs to them as their birthright, and will get away from their sins and crimes committed against innocent Palestinians. Israel's unjust birth constituted historical wrong and its modern incarnation could not be more in danger now than during Yom Kippur in 1973. It cannot bomb to extinction its Arab neighbors who wished to possess nuclear technology and refuse to be bullied by her. Its malevolent portrayal as the illegitimate, colonial usurper is resonating widely and globally as the US's status as the world's supreme power diminishes rapidly because it can not go on subsidizing Israel at the expense of American taxpayers and that should alarm every Zionist Jew. Israel's long-term survival as US economic dependency cannot go on forever as the US's own economy is in ruin because of the Iraq war as well as subsidizing Israel for free. I am quite baffled at Spengler's assumption that the Israelis are the happiest people on Earth. Israel receives about $5 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the US foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This lavish generosity is especially striking since Israel is a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given it access to advanced weaponry. Israel has become a liability and scourge for the rest of the world, and is responsible for many economic and political ills that confront the world today. Israelis know this deep in their hearts that 65 years after Auschwitz, things once again are looking gloomier than ever before for them. Israel will not hesitate [to launch] a pre-emptive strike on Iran and use its nuclear arsenal before President G W Bush vacates the Oval Office. I also believe that [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad is quite right when he says that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is worse than anything Europe experienced under Nazi Germany. He provoked anger and resentment when he denied that the Holocaust ever took place and called for the "tumor" of Israel to be moved to Europe. He depicted Israel as Europe's apology to the Jews by the Christian Europe for the Holocaust. Peace must prevail in the Middle East and Israel must try living in peace with its neighbors not as a warmonger but as a friend ... that is the real recipe for happy life for the Israelis. If it does not happen, every day should bring insurmountable dangers to its survival and bring it closer to demise ... It is absurd to say that the Israelis are the happiest people on Earth when they live and breathe in perpetual danger. Throughout Islamic civilization, Jews were magnanimously treated by the Muslims and as Ben Gurion wrote, the Islamic rule of Spain for over 700 years was the happiest and most prosperous period of Jewish diaspora.
Saqib Khan
UK (May 14, '08)

I entirely agree with Jim Lobe [Hezbollah's shots ring in Bush's ears, May 13] in that during his current Middle East tour G W Bush will be urged "to do something". Going by the policies of this "somewhat intellectually challenged" president and his neo-con string pullers, he will most probably be urged to send American troops to help the Lebanese government. In fact he has already said something on those lines in a radio interview. If the neo-cons have not yet learned the lesson from Iraq, which seems to be the case, the scenario they and their Israeli clients would have in mind is that (1) they get US troops into Lebanon, (2) attack Syria, claiming that it is the backer of Hezbollah, (3) then invade Iran. Let us see how far Robert Gates is persuaded to stretch his dwindling resources as a result of pressure from Dick Cheney.
TutuG
Scotland (May 14, '08)

I am genuinely amazed at the amount of praise for The case for invading Myanmar [May 10], and a little dismayed. I see a lot of beautiful human compassion, but little understanding of what a military invasion could mean for the people of Myanmar. The ruling junta of Myanmar is undeniably in need of change, and I have no doubt that the general population of Myanmar would welcome the US invading forces as liberators ... until the bombs stopped dropping. As the ongoing war in Iraq has demonstrated, US warfare heavily favors air power and various forms of bombardment, often with severe collateral damage to both innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure (which would be quite counter-productive, given the aim of the intervention). The author treats the proposed invasion as a fait accompli, should the US simply muster the will to invade, much as neo-cons predicted the Iraq war would be a cakewalk. And yet nothing in the article leads me to believe that Myanmar's military would not put up a fight, or that Myanmar's civilians would not be further endangered by the war and following resistance. American bellicosity and hostility towards Myanmar's military junta has no doubt contributed to the irresponsible actions of the immature and reactionary generals. That does not shift the blame from the shoulders of Myanmar's leaders, but perhaps it is time for the US to staff the Department of State with genuine diplomats willing to find creative, timely, and realistic solutions to this problem.
Datisa Secret (May 14, '08)

[Re China counts earthquake costs, May 14] Investment banks' economists say that the macroeconomic aftermath of the Chengdu earthquake will be limited; traders albeit less sanguine, fall into step in agreement. The Chinese government's quick response to this natural disaster is exemplary; it puts China's ally Myanmar to more shame for the Burmese junta's cavalier handling of its own tragedy of a killer cyclone. Yet, the earthquake will not derail China's rapid economic development no matter what inflationary pressures might arise in its wake. There, however, is another dimension to this tragedy which is psychological and provides grist for the readers of tea leaves. Take for example the Great Tanshan Earthquake of 1976, a very powerful quake registering 7.8 to 8.2 on the Richter scale. Students of cosmic signs saw in it a bad omen; it came three months after the death of Zhou Enlai and two months before the demise of Mao Zedong, which put an end to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and provided China with a respite from almost two decades of internal turmoil. This year - 2008 - has not begun auspiciously for the Chinese government. Much criticized for its support of Sudan's war in Darfur, its long harsh treatment of Tibet broke out and created a storm of international protest which went as far as calling on the Olympic International Committee to hold the 2008 Summer Games not in Beijing but in Athens, as an expression of China's blatant disregard of the Olympics stated aims of peace, harmony, and friendship. The OIC tapped lightly on Beijing's wrist, but the Chinese authorities are prepared to deal with more protests ... To appease the world's voice on the matter of Tibet, China met the representatives of the Dalai Lama. The immediate mobilization of the PLA [People's Liberation Army], armed police, and paramilitary forces and medical units to be on the spot within hours of the earthquake shows how serious the Chinese leaders are taking the tragedy. Paper Marxist-Leninists they may very well be, but they also have a long sense of history and the events that followed such tragedies, natural or otherwise ... They might interpret this as a test which will stay the withdrawal of the mandate of heaven from China's communist leadership.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 14, '08)

[Re Another D-Day for Pakistan over militants, May 13] Syed Saleem Shahzad's suggestion that it is necessary to take pre-emptive action in the tribal areas with carpet-bombing resembles the neo-conservative strategy that Asia Times Online has spent numerous paragraphs [debunking]. My suggestion is that he get his hysteria under control, go back to the drawing board, and come up with more subtle suggestions that have a realistic long-term answer for a very difficult situation.
Andre Radnoti (May 14, '08)

Surely Mr Afrasiabi should know that the English word for Farsi has always been Persian. (Iran woos Farsi-speaking nations, May 10). Does he say Deutsche, Francais, Elleniki or Italiano when he speaks English? To use Farsi in the context of his argument is self-defeating in that he should know that the intentional differentiation between Farsi, Dari and Tajiki is another Western ploy to weaken the territorial impact and literary influence of one of the world's richest languages, ie, Persian, which was once the literary and administrative language of a large part of Asia, from Istanbul to Delhi. I won't go into the details of the different contexts in which each of the three terms are used for the one and the same language. There are plenty of excellent academic and non-academic articles about the issue. Next time Mr Afrasiabi wishes to discuss this important issue, he would be well advised to read up on the subject and use the correct term.
Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian
Tehran (May 13, '08)

We appreciate your point, but as Dr Afrasiabi is as Iranian as you are, and probably as well read, we'll stick with his preferred usage. - ATol

[Re China's weakness the greater danger, May 13] Chinese readers maybe don't like what Samuel Bleicher said, but he is very right. China is not close to being a superpower. Because China has a lot of internal problems and also challenges from the outside world, it probably will never become a superpower. The China threat was cooked up by the military industrial complex in America to get weapon contracts and the Western media to sell their stories.
Tang (May 13, '08)

Spengler's latest titled Why Israel is the world's happiest country [May 13] and the strong probability that its future happiness is in jeopardy provides two counterpoints. One concerns the reality that not everyone can be as happy as the Israelis for the simple reason that no country the size of Israel has been the recipient of an estimated $150 billion plus dollars in a period of 60 years. US taxpayer cost per each Israeli is about $25,000. While there may be some truth to the saying that money does not buy one happiness ... one can only presume that if other countries where given the kind of financing Israelis have received that they too would be a lot happier. Spengler's latest does read like an epitphium according to the online etymology dictionary. All things must come to an end as an unknown wrote.
Armand De Laurell (May 13, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] It brings me great sympathy that you can continue to publish such filth and lies by this Spengler. I know of many Jews, Muslims, and Christians who have shown disdain for such dishonesty and lies. Please consider dropping this Spengler from your great source of wisdom. This Spengler is the one dark spot on the seeming brightness of your newspaper. He only prints lies and brings deception, nothing more. Please stop this Spengler, we beg of you.
Jason (May 13, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] Spengler has fallen into the mistake common among those who make shallow analyses. I refer to his taking transitory demographic trends as indicative of the future. On cannot reliably extrapolate serial measurements to predict. In other words, Spengler is half-baked.
Yours in Freedom (May 13, '08)

[Re Why Israel is the world's happiest country, May 13] Spengler should read novels by Jewish-American women. [It may] widen his narrow patriarchal view of things as he recommended only Jewish-American male novelists. Believe me, there is a vast difference of view.
Barbara Noble
Key West, Florida (May 13, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] The West's promises of aid to countries never get fulfilled. Just ask the MDG [the UNDP's Millennium Development Goals] program promoters, Afghanistan and others. The US government's help to Katrina survivors was a failure. Yet somehow these parties will save Burma? You've got to be naive in the extreme and also not a reader of information readily available on the Internet. Of the governments promoting help amid sanctions they've already imposed on the Myanmar government, one should look to Somalia, Lebanon and Haiti (mud cakes, anyone?) where Western intervention has only bred more chaos and misery. First improve countries where you are already involved.
May Sage
USA (May 13, '08)

Abacus letter [May 13] in response to Crispin's The case for invading Myanmar , [May 10] was a laugh riot. It reminds me of a phrase from an ironic eulogy of Bob Hope, in the now defunct webzine suck.com, a play on Kurtz's famous dying words from Conrad's Heart of Darkness: "The humor! The humor!" Abacus' quote from Swift and his Texas A&M joke are like the horse sperm pies the guys at exile.ru throw at the self-important hypocrite reporters of the liberal press. Take that you "liberal interventionist" warmongers!
Carlos from Ecuador (May 13, '08)

This letter is referring to Mr Dhruba Adhikary's article Military shadow over Nepal, [May 7]. After the victory on the April 10 poll, it seems that Maoists are now facing a dilemma in regards to what was agreed and what can be implemented. As mentioned by Adhikary, Prachanda's positive side does display the charismatic leader, but people of Nepal cannot easily forget that he has blood-stained hands. So, Prachanda and his associates will need to work very hard to overcome the uncertainties. This is only possible if a new Nepal is established as promised. As per the article, Maoists definitely cannot head a civilian government and keep the rebel force intact. They need to now work towards peace; and also concentrate in writing the new constitution which holds Nepal’s future.
Narendra Shrestha
Nepal (May 13, '08)

It is amusing to read the word "tiptoe" in China and Japan tiptoe into a 'warm spring' by Jing-dong Yuan on May 13. Who are they afraid of and who can prevent their effort in bringing about a more cordial and warm relationship? Recent events only show that Japan is becoming more independent and is embarking on a path more beneficial to itself and the region. As President Hu of China appropriately remarked, one should not forget the lesson of history but also should not perpetuate hatred. There is so much to be gained by deepening economic exchanges and joint exploration of oil in the "Eastern" Sea. Nationalism in each country is not an impediment to a "warm spring" as alleged. Recently in China, it has been aroused by unfair and sinister reporting on Tibet and an attempt to damage the Beijing Olympics. In Japan, it is a response to being unable all along to be assertive in world affairs consistent with its economic prowess. Thus Japan needs no approval from anyone to start "marching" instead of "tiptoeing" into a "warm spring" dialogue with China.
Seung Li (May 13, '08)

[Re North Korea gives a lot, expects more, May 13] In lawyerly fashion, North Korea remitted to US authorities 18,000 documents on its nuclear program. In American jurisprudence, these documents belong to "discovery". It is now up to the US to find that elusive needle in North Korea's haystack of plutonium enrichment. As translators and experts pore over these documents, North Korea can say that it has lived up to its commitment to tell all, even though some analysts do not think so. It has given proof to the US that it is a serious player in resolving the North Korean nuclear problem, and as such, awaits Washington's good faith response by removing Pyongyang from its terrorist list and delivering a half billion tons to emergency food aid to stave off famine. Although North Korea watchers view Pyongyang with a skeptic's eye, Kim Jong il's government has bet on the fact that the long, drawn out negotiations with Washington may accelerate towards a satisfactory solution for the two parties. Maybe yes; maybe no. The process of discovery will take months, and before you know it the Bush administration will be out of office, and Pyongyang may be banking on dealing with a more flexible new American stance on North Korea. Donald Kirk raises an interesting point at the end of his article. Where and what is the role of South Korea in negotiating a peace accord with North Korea and the People's Republic of Korea, in order to replace the 1953 Armistice Agreement? As the record states, General Choi Duk-shin, Syngman Rhee's foreign minister at the Geneva conference which finalized the armistice refused to sign the document, and consequently put Seoul outside the peace process which it clearly foresaw that it wasn't for near future. As long as the Sunshine Policy obtained, South Korea's presence at a future peace conference table became a secondary matter; with the advent of South Korean president Lee Myung-bak to power, and his sidestepping that policy initiated and supported by his two predecessors Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, he has more or less put South Korea out of the loop of direct negotiations on that matter. It may very well be one of the points on the agenda that US deputy secretary of state may raise with Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo during his whirlwind visit to the region. In the Korean scheme of things balance is an overarching principle.
Nakmura Junzo
Guam (May 13, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Surely you jest. We are despised around the world for our aggression. Who would you have run it - Cheney?
Robert
Kentucky (May 12, '08)

Since American leaders like [Vice President Dick] Cheney are hell-bent on shooting at something anyway, why not point him in a useful direction? - ATol

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Very well written, I agree with everything except the lame duck comment. Seriously dude, grow up! Ever think of writing on bathroom walls instead? You might get better reviews. Who the hell reads Asia Times Online anyway?
Matthew Gouwens (May 12, '08)

The letters below should give you some idea. Then there are another 360,000 readers who visited ATol since our Friday upload. - ATol

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] The idea that anything good could come from a US invasion of Burma is absurd. And dangerous. And irresponsible.
John Francis Lee
Chiang Rai, Thailand (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Well, first of all, G W Bush's invasion of Iraq wasn't about terrorism, it was about oil, and wanna-be "imperial" neo-con hubris. The Myanmar junta is pretty awful, but Bush cannot possibly salvage anything from yet another unilateral adventure against a sovereign country in the name of "humanitarianism" or whatever. The USA must now stand down from unilateral military action for any reason. It would just be more Bushite US hubris in action at this point. We've all had enough of this. Also, who can blame the Myanmar government, or any government, for wanting to wave off any US "aid"? It all comes with hooks in it these days. Also the US economy is staggering and further wars of choice for any reason will kill it off.
Steve Chase
USA (May 12, '08)

I wanted to say that I really enjoyed your story The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] and will pass it on to everyone I can. It was well said and very factual ... Since my wife is Thai, I have a deeper understanding of the situation in Burma than the average American and want to do what I can to help ... I wish we had more real journalists like you Stateside.
Marc Medina
San Francisco (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I just wanted to say from an American point of view and neutral point of view I think the article was excellent. I understand how difficult it must be for the Myanmar people to see the "junta" step in and take over all sorts of aid for the country. George W Bush is under extreme pressure for the war in Iraq, but what does seem very unfair from the international standpoint is whenever the US does intervene and help a country with aid and other things other countries either get upset or think the States are trying to prepare for invasion, but whenever the States are either late or don't give any aid the international world starts to criticize. In my opinion most European countries (France and Germany) talk a lot and don't do anything, that's just from my point of view. I have a few questions that I would be grateful if you could answer. In your opinion what are the odds of the US invading and establishing a democracy in Myanmar? Do you see the relief come in first, than invade? ... Thank you and great article!
Carlos Bracero (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I agree wholeheartedly [about] President Bush [and the invasion of] Myanmar. I taught English in China for 13 years and was in Somalia in 1992 working in a hospital with International Medical Corp; and saw many die from starvation. If any country needs help right now it is the Burmese. This emergency gives the US a well accepted excuse to invade, though China may complain publicly, though agree with us silently. I believe the majority of Americans would agree to this proposal ...
Dennis Lowrimore (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] So, in the eyes of you people in the media worldwide, the US president must not uphold his constitutional duty to defend this country from attack without and within, but he must (with UN wind-baggery) invade Burma and remove its military junta that is preventing aid from getting to its people. Pray tell, what is the difference between Burma now and Iraq under Saddam? I don't think the military junta of Burma have rape rooms, do you? I don't think the military junta have invited al-Qaeda in, do you? I don't think Zarqawi and Al Masri fled from Afghanistan to Burma - I do know they ran like hell to Iraq ... to plot how to wreak havoc on the US with help from Saddam and the corrupt bastards at the UN, most of whom were caught up in Oil for Food. I grieve for the people of Burma, but let some other nation do the invading. We in the US don't need any absolution from any country or person who was willing to let Saddam and his sons slaughter Iraqis at will. We don't need our reputation to be restored by any act of humanitarian invasion - after all, that is what Iraq was partly about. But since you journalists never actually read or listened to anything President Bush had to say, you don't know that. We Americans will content ourselves with providing aid to Burma. I suggest you lot from around the world find somebody else to do the grunt work the US has done while the rest of the world dithered, appeased, abased itself ... and then condemned the US for manning up.
CB (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Thanks for writing the Asia Times Online piece. We are kicking ourselves for never learning how to fly a helicopter - if we had one we would just fly in and help. There are so many Burmese migrant workers working throughout the world without visas - it's time they tolerated a few "illegal" aid workers. All of us, Burmese friends included, are screaming: what's taking so long? Why should diplomacy trump humanity?
Debbie Stothard (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I read your article making the case for an invasion of Myanmar to provide aid to the areas damaged by the recent storm. I just wanted to compliment you on the content of the article and the position you put forward.
Don White
Central Texas, USA (May 12, '08)

I read your very thoughtful and impassioned piece The Case for Invading Myanmar, May 10. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you, having worked on both the sanctions and the engagement sides of the change efforts. Neither has worked, nor has there been any potential to deal effectively with the madness institutionalized as SPDC [State Peace and Development Council of Myanmar].
Maung Zarni (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I do not get the opportunity to read Asia Times Online often, however when I do your stories are enjoyed in my household. You have a way with words, my friend. I really enjoy your writing style with a keen appreciation of your skillful observations. Combined, the style and skill equals excellence in journalism.
Dan Owens (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Thank you for producing this piece, Shawn. I hope you stay with the Burmese and update and expand the idea re-phrasing, adding and incorporating language from social discourse - until it is an irresistible idea to the broadest possible audience you can reach. I think you are completely correct. Now is a perfect opportunity that has been a long time in the making and the world could use a good example of how satisfying it can be to ride the white horse.
John Koppa
Madison, Wisconsin, USA (May 12, '08)

Regarding your article The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] by Shawn W Crispin. I am a Filipino, born and raised in the Philippines. Just like any Third World country, life is no better back home. I migrated to the US, to make a story short, this is where I found "life" ... a lot better. I am a US veteran and served this country. I don't know you, [or] where you are from and I sure hope you're are not an American ... You, sir, will say anything to sell your story. Nevertheless, look at you, your life, feeding on other people's despair and triumph. Me, I live in the greatest country in the world. We are secure, free and have built a foundation for our children. Lame-duck? Appropriate for your story, [but] not my commander-in-chief. You come up with your own foreign policy, because ours is to protect the people and our borders. I'll see you someday, down below. A free American [will have] a bright future, better than any of you. Have a bad day.
Kelly Amogawin (May 12, '08)

Well, aren't you the lucky one? But we aren't complaining - we think some Burmese are probably having a worse day than us. - ATol

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] How can the entire world stand by and allow such nonsense? How can anyone in their sane mind not be appalled by the idiotic behavior of the junta in control and not want to immediately expel them from the planet? What in hell is wrong with the rest of the world that they do not send every available ship, plane, etc ... to show these clowns that this is not acceptable? And why should it be just US's planes and ships? Has the rest of the world taken leave of their senses? How about Russia, China, Germany, England, all the new republics, standing up and howling like banshees at this damned bunch of characters [who] think this is how to run a country. These countries mentioned do enough sabre-rattling over stupid nonsense, now's the chance to show what their made of.
Douglas J Ossentjuk (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Mr Crispin, thank you for your article; you are exactly right. I was in Myanmar with a privately run humanitarian team two weeks after the Saffron Revolution was crushed; I know first-hand how careless, cruel, and corrupted the junta is. We literally had to use our local contacts to smuggle us around so we could smuggle simple medicine and food supplies to our target groups. I am all for using any means, including what appears to be the only means: force - right now. These are a people whom I love and have risked my life for; and I support anything that brings them relief.
Ramanda Brockett (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I understand that controversy sells newspapers (and web ads), but can you really be serious about another ill-founded pre-emptive war? After all, our other recent endeavors in that realm have turned out just peachy! I for one don't think that John Adams was crazy or quaint when he warned America against going abroad seeking monsters to destroy ... lest she become the dictatress of the world.
Travis Parks (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Just read your article and can only say that I was, well, amazed! I really can't fathom that anyone could believe that President Bush is so concerned about his presidential legacy that he would commit US forces to fight in such a place in the name of humanitarianism. You and your brethren in the press would be the first to trumpet any accidental deaths of civilians as well as to criticize the US for not pouring sufficient amounts of aid, regardless of how much we might pour, into that country, and in shouldering yet another burden that the world as a whole seems to have ignored for nearly half a century. I think of myself a typical American who would like to help ease the suffering of any people , and while I think the generals in Myanmar are a bunch of scumbags, I'd like to see a few Asians pick up rifles and get into that fray before I shouldered mine and headed for an area that has little real importance in the scheme of things. As President Lincoln once remarked "One war at a time."
David Turner (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] US invades Myanmar and China sits back to watch? Dream on. China is opposing any type of such intervention in the UN Security Council. It would see such US action as a direct threat to its resource security that Myna mer offers and would probably react with some type of overt or covert military response. China is the new Frankenstein of geo-political wrangling and its concern for human life is minimal.
Andre Radnoti (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Thank you very much for your article. It's a huge relief that at last somebody in a position of influence correctly sees the wisdom of invading Myanmar for the good of humanity (particularly for the 50 million people of Burma). I agree with you 100% that American troops will be welcome as heroes by the people of Myanmar. And G W Bush now has a historic chance to leave a legacy of protecting and promoting human rights. If he decides to invade Myanmar on humanitarian grounds his lies and tortures in the name of national security may be more forgivable/tolerable. Please make more cases for invading Myanmar and perhaps some policy makers in Washington will see the wisdom. Thank you for helping us through the power of pen. By the way, I'm a Myanmar citizen currently living in New Zealand. I'm a minister of three churches. God bless.
Jeffrey Pau
Waihi, Thames, and Te Aroha SDA Church
Coromendal Penninsula
New Zealand (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I have read your article on Burma and as a Burmese living in the United States, the notion of intervention on behalf of the tragedy isn't necessarily an unwelcome one. It would be better though to marshal UN approval (unlikely, given expected Chinese and ASEAN veto measures) for such intervention by the US. Burma is writhing in tragedy and one hopes some positive change would grow out of his catastrophe in the long term. I feel the UN must gain a foothold in Burma, and maintain some sort of a troop presence to neutralize the Burmese military. One of the features of Burmese life is the imbalance between military power and civilian power. It is this ambivalent state of affairs that is ensuring such pain and suffering through the passage of time and this is destined to continue in some form or the other unless something changes dramatically.
George Tun Sein (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Very well-written article. "Well written" in the reference that it distilled all the same thoughts me and my colleagues have concerning bringing in aid. I hope to find more articles written by you in the near future.
Joe (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Great work on the article about what US needs to [do] to the Burmese military junta. I applaud you for your braveery and your sharp words ... My question to you is - would it be possible to send your article directly to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President Bush and Mrs Bush? As you already know, Ban Kee-moon, secretary-general of United Nations, is not going to do anything because of Korea's economic relations with the military junta. This is very very sad situation. Please help my country! Thank you again for all your help. Please continue to help [with] anything you can for Burma.
Wah Wah Myint (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I completely agree with everything that you said in your article. Something needs to be done, and if it is a US-led invasion based on humanitarian objectives, then I, as a US citizen, am all for it. Thank you for saying what other people are too "politically correct" to say
Jeremiah Davis (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] I have been following the Myanmar crisis closely and have read and watched many different reports via the Internet. I wanted to take a minute and tell you that I thought your case for US military intervention in Myanmar was presented with a lot of thought. However, in an election year when the Republican nominee John McCain will have a serious fight from the soon-to-be nominated Democratic contender Barack Obama, I don't think Bush will take the chance at another military conflict unless he is sure that the press he receives on the action would be unilaterally positive. McCain will certainly have his hands full during the election process defending the US's need to be in Afghanistan and Iraq. A military intervention in Myanmar would have to be carefully planned and the polls carefully monitored to ensure that this action would have not have a negative effect on the presidential election in November. I feel for the people affected by this disaster and the almost criminal response by the junta. Again, I just wanted to thank you for your insightful article.
Larry L (May 12, '08)
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Thank you for your on-target editorial. As a hurricane survivor from Miami (Hurricane Andrew Category IV and V with multiple tornadoes), I can tell you the reality after a hurricane is far more massive than can be captured on film or television. The destruction, the desperation must be beyond human words in Myanmar where the hurricane hit a heavily populated area. We were lucky in comparison, living in the lap of luxury with a storm center that hit a sparsely populated area. I cry for those mothers and family who are waiting for help from an inhumane government. I hope every citizen of the world expresses their outrage, and that the leaders of the world respond as they should. Please continue to get the word out, but remember, it's much worse than anything you or I can photograph or describe.
Kim Smith
Boston (May 12, '08)

I read with interest your article titled The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] and was both angered and confused as to suggestions made that invading Myanmar was something the US should do, especially to somehow restore faith in George W Bush for mistakes he made in regards to Iraq. While the humanitarian issue is tremendous, I wonder why it should be assumed that the US is somehow more responsible for invading Myanmar to provide the needed relief instead of Myanmar's closer regional neighbors or even the people of Myanmar themselves overthrowing the junta. The US has made a major mistake already by invading Iraq, an act we should never have perpetrated to begin with. To suggest we do it again somewhere else in the world is either done without knowledge of our own history of not preemptively invading any country prior to Iraq and/or having bought into the idea that the role of the US in the world has become to act as the "police" to foreign countries, something George W Bush seems to think, but is not what the American people believe. This is noted in every poll taken in the US that this country is headed in the wrong direction under Bush. Additionally, despite the huge investments the US and its citizens have made in providing humanitarian assistance when needed around the world, our "invasion" of Myanmar would do nothing but further the image that our assistance comes at the price of the US being too involved in a country's politics and self-governance. The sad part of this is that people are suffering needlessly, but it is obviously at the hands of Myanmar's government, which by all rational thinking will not change until the people of Myanmar demand a change. While the world does need to respond to this terrible crisis to alleviate suffering, one has to wonder when is it the responsibility of the people of any country for improving how they are governed in order to prepare for and respond to such disasters, instead of relying on foreign governments, especially in areas where disasters like the one in the Myanmar region occur with some frequency? While the humanitarian reasons for providing assistance can not be argued, the call for an invasion of a country based on humanitarian issues could be cited in regards to numerous countries across the globe where humanitarian aid is needed. But I ask again, why is the US responsible in any way for such interventions more than other world powers? If we are invited as a country to provide assistance to Myanmar, or anywhere else for that matter, we would not hesitate to do whatever we can do on behalf of those who are suffering. But the invitation has not come from Myanmar without extreme limitations, some of which obviously undermine the ability to provide the needed relief. In the meantime to suggest that the US, or any country, invade Myanmar seems a bit blind to the geopolitical situation. Even as I type this I can only imagine how hungry, afraid and in need of encouragement many of the people in Myanmar hit by this disaster must feel. It is sad that politics define how aid is provided at times of crisis, but it is not for the US alone to change the politics of any country if it is not the will of the people of that country.
Steve Carr (May 12, '08)

Your article The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] was the dumbest piece of writing I have seen in a very long time. Your logic, or lack thereof, is stupefying. Your world view is obviously Western-oriented, ignorant of Asian values and cultural norms, and smacks of neo-colonialism. One gets the feeling you have lived in Asia a very short time ... Learn a little about the region while you are living here, OK?
Kururi (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Excellent article! Next time I would re-look at the China capability, it has improved tremendously and possibly could react.
Floyd Holcom (May 12, '08)

Shawn Crispin's article The case for invading Myanmar [May 10], confirms one once again to be woefully wrong that the invasion of Iraq might have taught one a lesson! Although not a sympathizer of the junta, I still believe that "a people deserve its leader" for better or worse. The world has also suffered under the neo-con regime of the United States, but has left it up to its people to change their government or continue with the same policies. Although there is no ballot-box in Myanmar, an uprising is still possible, if that's what the people want. The only contribution of the outside forces would be another mayhem as in Iraq. The correct depiction of the Somali events by Crispin, on the other hand, should actually leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to why even humanitarian aid can at times be something else in disguise. The revamping of colonial measures against all woes don't befit the 21st century.
Shahnaz (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Your endorsing of regime change under any pretext, even against the odious Myanmar junta, is a demonstration of deeply seated imperial tendencies. The Americans have proven themselves to be worse than Saddam, and the warlords in Afghanistan and Somalia. Your credibility took a strong hit with me. All of you are wanna-be imperialists.
Fazal Ur Rahman (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] Don't worry Mr Crispin! Burma is not mentioned in any of the apocalyptic passages of the Bible, hence Bush the younger will not invade. Neither will his likely successor, McCain. His spiritual adviser, Rod Parsley, keeps telling him it is his destiny and that of the United States to eliminate the Islamic religion.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (May 12, '08)

[Re The case for invading Myanmar, May 10] There are times when an event of human tragedy moves the heart. And the havoc that the Cyclone Nagris and the massive [2004] tidal wave have visited on the people of Myanmar is certainly one of them. The military junta's inaction has stirred outsiders to call for forceful action to bring aid and succor to the Burmese woefully neglected by the generals who don't care a tinker's damn about them. It is this sense of outrage that has aroused Shawn Crispin's case for invading Myanmar and throwing the wily rascals who are ruling the country out of office and at the same time relieve the suffering Burmese. A gut reaction for sure. Crispin's deliverer is the United States. A noble idea, but impractical. It goes against common sense. How in the world can the United States marshal a military force strong enough to overthrow the Myanmar junta when it cannot defeat the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq let alone in Afghanistan? Even if Washington entertained such a notion, geopolitics of the region would go against it; for China wouldn't allow it, nor India for that matter. Crispin should be well aware that the Burmese army is a seasoned force which is fiercely nationalistic and engaged in a 60-year hot war against its own ethnic minorities. Laudable as his cry from the heart may be, it goes against reason, sorry to say.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 12, '08)

Shawn W Crispin in The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] argues "a strong moral case for a United Nations-approved, US-led humanitarian intervention". For "intervention" read war. Apart from the oxymoron of a humanitarian war, this is another white boys' fantasy of "creating reality", UN or no UN. No, such warmongering is unlikely to "burnish" G W Bush's legacy which will remain firmly stuck in the humanitarian train wreck of the unjustifiable and lost war in Iraq and devastation of what was once New Orleans. Long suffering people of Burma are unlikely to accept a US imposed puppet regime and Burma's neighbors are equally unlikely to accept US reentry in the region. Since the US lost the war in Vietnam, destabilized Cambodia and Laos, these neighbors, including China, will not stand idly by to let such an idiocy come to pass. Russian and Chinese agreement to this nonsense will not happen and there goes the fantasy of the white boys clinging on to their lost glories in the UN forum. The world will be asking, quite justifiably, [for the] US's credentials for doing anything remotely humanitarian after the fiasco of death squads in Latin America, follies in the Middle East and west Asia and utter incompetence in managing economic and natural disasters in the vaunted "homeland" decorated liberally with flagpins. Oh wait, Burma does have gas and oil reserves that Halliburton and Exxon are excluded from. But Aung San Su Kyi is no Abbas.
Nandini (May 12, '08)

I am appalled by Shawn W Crispin's The case for invading Myanmar [May 10]. His argument is that this is the time for the US to invade. If that is so then let's dispense with the crocodile tears over the cyclone disaster and hope for an even bigger disaster in Myanmar under the cloak of which the US can once more install a puppet government more to its liking. Maybe like in Iraq and Afghanistan? He should know by now that there is no love between nations, only self-interest. Don't forget that Myanmar is a former colony of the UK and also of Japan and is ultra-sensitive to any perceived attack on its national integrity. China, who has Myanmar on its border, recently made a simple statement: Myanmar is a sovereign nation. China is unlikely to let an attack go ahead on Myanmar. US adventures in the region have failed over the years with many millions of innocents dead - Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Maybe they now see Myanmar as the gateway to more imperial adventures. The George W Bush government is a big enough disaster already. Now in its death throes is it willing to take the world with it? The two outstanding rogues nations in the world today are the US and Israel. Maybe if either of them have a natural disaster Shawn W Crispin can advocate an invasion of their territories but do save us the crocodile tears.
Wilson John Haire
London (May 12, '08)

Could it be that ATol's Southeast Asia Editor, Shawn W Crispin, in writing The case for invading Myanmar [May 10] is aspiring to join the pantheon of ironic logic which has at its capstone Jonathan Swift who wrote "A Modest Proposal" in 1729? His logic and delightful prose in support of another George W Bush military adventure is arguably of the same caliber as Swift's ironic logic for solving the problem of child beggars after the Irish famine of the 1720s. Swift proposes that the problem of children beggars be dealt with early before the children become old enough to beg and become a burden to their families, society and country:

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value. I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout....I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work [of providing a market for the meat of children beggars], having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

The George Bush administration of Mr Crispin's essay is Swift's little beggar children. While it is beyond doubt that Swift was writing only "tongue-in-cheek" and his final words disclaiming any personal interest are a masterful literary brush stroke that vividly accentuates the irony in the reader's imagination, Mr Crispin's failure to adds words of disclaimer makes me wonder. Maybe Mr Crispin and I are kindred souls. For several years - and until about a year ago, I lived anxiously with the fear that the US would get out of Iraq too soon: before it had become less of a threat to China and Russia (and the world) than it was before it invaded Iraq. Even though I would be satisfied with the US leaving Iraq now and not invading another country because the US has become significantly less of a threat, I find Mr Crispin's logic attractive. Aside from the phenomenal parallel to Swift's proposal, his logic is appealing because it also reminds me of a Texas Aggie joke that someone like George W Bush would certainly appreciate and hopefully (but you never know) one from which he would derive the "right" didactic lesson. In the 1970s the corps of cadets' dorms at Texas A&M did not have stalls around the toilets, so when sitting on one's "throne" one could see and be seen by others. Well, one Aggie had a quarter drop into the toilet bowl as he was pulling up his pants upon completing his business. He was seen by a second Aggie who noticed that the first Aggie threw a second quarter into the toilet bowl after finishing zipping up his pants. The second Aggie asked the first one, "Why did you throw a second quarter into the toilet bowl after the one that had dropped in there by accident?" The first Aggie nonchalantly and with flair replied, "Well you don't think I am going to put my hand in there for just one quarter do you?" Because life is not a joke and the capacity for strategic thinking is arguably not something of which anyone in the current administration is capable, the foregoing joke's equivalent for invading Myanmar (or Iran) would be the universe suddenly flushing the toilet bowl leaving the George Bush administration and the US short much, much more than two quarters. PS: Is Crispin Spengler?
Abacus
USA (May 12, '08)

Congratulations on adding some video content to your site, but then I took a closer look at the video selection on your home page and was a bit disappointed. The video selection included one on France, [singer Amy] Winehouse, Clinton and Obama, three of Bush and finally a Stallone! Excuse me, but are you Asia Times Online or Western Times? Where are the Asian content videos? I couldn't care less about some stupid singer, and who cares about Stallone? He is a has-been actor (and I use that term loosely). Who cares about France or Bush? I come to ATol to read about Asia, please give me Asia. Do you realize that I could go to a American or European website and have to search to find anything Asian? Nothing says we are second-class citizens, happy to remain a colony, more than your selection of videos. Please show some self-respect. Asia will soon lead the world, let's act like leaders, not followers.
Jayant Patel (May 12, '08)

We could not agree more and hope to be able to provide more and better (exclusive) video content in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, we're stuck with what we can afford. - ATol

The irony of the scenario described by Michael T Klare's An oil-addicted ex-superpower [May 9] is that what hastened the rate of decline of the US from their superpower status is their over eagerness to secure their future oil supply by "conquering" Iraq and installing Ahmed Chalabi in a position to guarantee them total control of oil to such companies as Exxon and Halliburton. According to reports in some newspapers, Rupert Murdoch predicted $35/barrel price of oil post-Saddam! Now, removal of Saddam has strengthen the position of Iran, reduced flow of oil from Iraq, increased the US demand for oil to fight the war in Iraq. The neo-con policymakers have really hastened America's slide along the slippery slope into oblivion.
Tutu G
Scotland (May 12, '08)

[Re What's eating Thai Tesco?, May 3] I have just read your fascinating and detailed article on the Tesco Lotus story. At English PEN [According to the organization's websate: English PEN is the founding center of International PEN, a membership association with 144 branches in more than 100 countries, providing a supportive community for writers and readers around the world], we are among the free speech groups you cite who are opposed to Tesco Lotus' use of intimidating lawsuits to silence opposition. Our campaign is a result of our opposition to criminal defamation laws, which are universally criticized by human rights watchdogs from the UN to the EU, including the Asian Human Rights Commission, which has called on the Thai government to repeal this archaic law. It worries us enormously that a British-based corporation is using, and thereby endorsing, the threat of imprisonment against critics. This endorsement may have a knock-on effect, strengthening other regimes which violate the free speech rights of their citizens. However, we share Tesco's belief that free speech is not an absolute right. We would take very seriously any information which linked [names withheld] to the violent incidents against Tesco Lotus which you note in your opening paragraphs. I would also be interested to hear any evidence which shows that they are simply protecting the vested interests of powerful trading groups, as you intimate. In the absence of any such evidence, we have to conclude that Tesco is acting against mere criticism, using local laws to silence critics who would be free to speak out in the USA, UK and other European states. This disproportionate approach is severely out of step with their own stated commitment to human rights, and, as you conclude, risks damaging their long-term interests in the region.
Jonathan Heawood (May 9, '08)
Director, English PEN

I keep hearing Western media and other ATol contributors and bloggers claim that there was a Chinese "crackdown" on Tibet on March 14. What I saw in the pictures in the periodicals and TV programs were the scenes where Tibetans monks and civilians were kicking down stores (most likely owned by Han or other Chinese), setting vehicles and buildings on fire and beating up people. Can any of you tell me why the term "crackdown" was used and what was the rationale? "Crackdown" means the unproportioned use of force and I only saw much restraint on the part of Chinese police and paramilitary. I personally felt that the Chinese police and paramilitary were too soft on the rioters. If I were the commander, I would have used the same degree of riot control as practiced in Nepal and India during that period of disturbance by the Tibetans.
Wendy Cai USA (May 9, '08)

I think the article Democrats do have a nominee by Muhammad Cohen [May 6] was oversimplistic at best, and biased at worst. As an Indian studying in the US here is what I have observed from the relentless election coverage on all TV channels that is impossible to escape: When Obama says something vague and fluffy, lacking any substance, the media portrays it as a message of hope, and a better tomorrow. When [Hillary] Clinton says something nearly identical we are told that that she is all talk, just a politician, more of the same, old wine in a new bottle, etc. In particular, the conservative sections of the media have attacked Clinton 10 times harder than Obama. I get the feeling that they consider her a far more credible threat, and want to knock her out as quickly as possible. They seem to be quietly confident in their ability to shred Obama to pieces once the real contest begins - and that really worries me. It's pretty much certain now that Obama will be the democratic nominee, and I just hope that he doesn't end up victimized like Al Gore or John Kerry. The last few elections have been pretty much gifted to the Republicans by the media through completely biased reporting. I just hope Obama is not a lamb being fattened for slaughter - so far the media have given him a fairy tale ride (it seems too good to be true for a Democrat), but then the real nastiness of the real election is yet to begin - and that's where the Republicans shine! In the worst case, we may be looking at four or eight years of McCain - and he'll want to make Americans forget the Iraq war by starting another one in Iran!
Amit Sharma
Cincinnati, Ohio (May 9, '08)

Barry Herman's suggestion [in G7 loses grip on global policy, May 9] to the Outreach 5 has merit, but, like all good intentions, it won't bring order to an incoherent and anarchic world economic climate. The subprime virus has spread widely, and with each passing day it is tilting events towards the catastrophic, be it in rising fuel prices or hikes in basic food prices which can and will threaten the stability of nations. According to US Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson the light is at the end of the tunnel of economic turbulence. He makes this pronouncement with a straight face, but economic and market forces turn it into a joke. A forum won't solve matters for the simple and plain reason that the strong will dominate the weak, and the G8 is loathe to cede authority to the oil-producing countries nor to wealthy Southeast Asia and China which are not immune to whimsy of finance capital. Unless there is determined political will and steel resolve to coordinate policy and regulations, little if any good can come out of a laborious process which Herman is envisioning. Or, to put it less finely, a catastrophic worldwide depression obtains.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 9, '08)

In response to letter writer Tang's question of why "a country that is more than 80% Christian loves to invade other countries", I’d like to direct his (her) attention to one Niccolo Machiavelli, who once stated, "He who has once begun to live by rapine always finds reasons for taking what is not his." People reared in an environment of comfort and luxury will not voluntarily give up that lifestyle, a point also observed by Julian Delasantellis in Fuel tax cut running on empty [May 7]. As such, they are more than willing to get behind a government that kills and plunders in order to maintain the easy way of life. No amount of religious teaching will ever be sufficient to make these people see otherwise. (Yes, the majority of Americans are now against the Iraq War, but that's only because it is not going well. The Vatican, on the other hand, has been sternly opposed to the US invasion from day one.) In the end, a bouleversement in American attitudes and behaviors can be affected only when the cost of sustaining profligacy outstrips the "utility" derived from wasteful habits. That cost, however, is rising fast.
John Chen
USA (May 8, '08)

Cinco de Mayo has come and gone, but like many Americans I raised a glass (or two, or was it three?) of Mexican fire water to honor those brave patriots who routed French invaders in 1862. Part of my fascination with stories like this involves that adage "History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes." The story of this dreary attempt at empire can be summarized by the following stages:
1. A popular leader of a rich and powerful nation invents a flimsy excuse to invade a weaker country, racked by civil unrest and dissent.
2. The invading nation's eager populace is told that its conquering heroes will be greeted as liberators.
3. The invaders find native collaborators who help set up a puppet government to welcome the occupiers.
4. Most of the natives, however, violently resist the invasion, and a massive guerilla insurrection begins.
5. The invaded country's largest neighbor is opposed to the unwarranted aggression, but "officially" stays neutral, all the while offering clandestine assistance to the insurgents.
6. The war drags on, consuming more blood and treasure from the invader, whose populace becomes increasingly opposed to this (now deemed ) "reckless adventure".
7. The invader's leader, weary of the political and financial costs, abandons his stooge puppet by withdrawing all troops.
8. The puppet's weak army falls apart, and their leader is executed by the victorious insurgency.
9. A few years later, the invader's leader is captured in a war he once again foolishly precipitated without cause. He is forced to abdicate, and his country experiences a revolution. His empire is finished, and his name disgraced forever.
Of course, the invader in this case was France, its leader the buffoonish Emperor Napoleon III, the puppet was Maximilian of Austria, Mexico the invaded country, and the USA of Abe Lincoln its supportive neighbor. But as my thinly disguised attempt at analogy hopefully demonstrated, there are remarkable similarities with more recent attempts at ill-advised imperialism. That criminal enterprise is now at Stage 6, with the cowboy version of Napoleon ready to turn his stupidity over to his unlucky successor, who will have to agonize over Stage 7 and 8. History will record whether some variant of Stage 9 is avoided. If only our Crawford Emperor could have had his Sedan.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas (May 8, '08)

In reference to "Myanmar courts political disaster by Brian McCartan [May 8]. The Burmese military junta is unconcerned with the sufferings of the people and if it were not for the 120-mph Cyclone Nargis that devastated the country, it would have been the military regime's unending brutal action that lays waste to hundreds of villages every year, creating homeless and displacing people in thousands. These military rulers are ruthless, cruel, incompetent and an irrational lot who because of their lust for power have never made any contingency plan in the event of this kind of havoc and emergency. Even now they are hindering the relief work, refusing or delaying to grant visas to relief agencies, restricting journalists access to affected areas and medical aid reaching [those] stranded in the remotest places. This brutal junta considers this disaster as a serious threat to their rule and their prime concern is probably how to crush any political dissent that lay in awaiting. This brutal regime's self-imposed isolation, later abetted by Western sanctions, has hurt the regime and in consequence the poor people. But it never concerned the military's brutal rulers for the last forty six years. [The] only thing, they are good at is killing innocent Burmese and not providing them with relief work in dire emergencies like this; nor employment or food in normal times. At least, President G W Bush managed to respond after three days of long sleep when hurricane Katrina struck, but these generals faltering response was despicable. They prefer isolation and are more concerned with monks protests, [and the] political consequence of the constitutional referendum - not with the dire humanitarian crisis affecting the poor Burmese living in open skies without food, water, medicine or shelter. If the military rulers have a little compassion, they can come out from their self-inflicted crippling isolationist shell and show a gesture of reconciliation with the people.
Saqib Khan
UK (May 8, '08)

[Re Bait and switch in Russia?, May 8] Why would ATol publish US government propaganda - and it's a domain of public knowledge that Chloe Arnold's employer is merely a State Department and Pentagon mouthpiece - is beyond me. In fact, the whole article is nothing more than a "bait and switch" in itself. The premise of the article was first pioneered eons ago by professional Russophobes, regurgitated by Western media countless times since then, and finally, when everyone else moved on, is getting stove-piped by a US-financed Cold War outlet that should have died along with the Berlin Wall, but didn't. The technique of these writings is also extremely primitive. So primitive, in fact, that Chloe Arnold's being in Moscow is clearly a waste of US taxpayer's money. One can make this stuff up without leaving Topeka, Kansas, or Chattanooga, Tennessee. Just come up with some easily understood anti-Russian idea, then dial the number of two Muscovites on the US payroll - Aleksei Malashenko from the Carnegie Center, and Yevgeny Volk from the Heritage Foundation - and you've got a perfect echo chamber, well suitable for all of your propagandistic needs. The contact data of Malashenko and Volk - and few other "Russian opinions for hire" purveyors - are on every Russia-hater's rolodex. They know exactly what Americans want to hear, and they'll say it every time, without fail. The information value of this article is a big round zero. Even as propaganda it's not all that good anymore. It's too tired. There is no spunk, no oomph, no joy of lying. Only a number of words to be invoiced to US Congress.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle (May 8, '08)

Regarding Beijing treads a Tibetan tightrope [May 8] by Fong Tak-ho, I told you the Dalai Lama would switch sides (my letter, April 1). The riots were a predictable success in garnering Western support, but not where it counts most, in Tibet. The "peaceful protests" became violent after the militants failed to rally the common public, and then the Dalai Lama had no choice but to disentangle himself, threatening to "resign". This threat to resign is precisely the message the Chinese authorities wanted to hear, and it is completely ignored in Fong's article. He does mention however (but without elaboration), that the Dalai Lama's envoys, Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen, are regarded as "traitors" by the militants. Why again? Because they don't yet dare call His Holiness himself a traitor, of course. Tibet is for China far more important than the Olympics. Any boycott will be blamed by the Chinese public on the West(ern media), not on their government. That's the weak point in the whole scheme. Karma always boomerangs, they say. Impressive letter by Reverend Vincent Zankin, May 7, by the way.
Migrant Worker Tiemujin
Luxembourg (May 8, '08)

Tsenam [letters, May 7] is parroting the Western media's line that demonstrations by Chinese are orchestrated by the Chinese government. This view is completely false. Demonstration regarding the deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the one against the constant visitation of [former Japanese prime minister Junichiro] Koizumi to the war shrine, and the protests in front of the Carrefore stores should all but tell you that Chinese protests are spontaneous. By continuing to turn a blind eye, Western media fail to see that China is surely showing it is giving its people the rights to speech, assembly and religious beliefs.
Wendy Cai
USA (May 8, '08)

[Re Beijing treads a Tibetan tightrope, May 8] China's decision to meet with emissaries of the Dalai Lama in Shenzen is an act of desperation. Cloaked in the wooden language of Beijing bureaucrats as step towards contact and consultation, it won't lead to anything of consequence. China wants to save its reputation and not open the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing with egg on its face. And so to spare China from world opprobrium for its colonial policy in Tibet, Beijing chose to swallow hard and mount a dog-and-pony show of its sincerity in wanting to put the Tibetan devil it has created behind it. You'd have thought that such a decision to meet the Tibetans would be guided by caution and a closed mouth. Well, you guessed wrong, for at the very moment that such talks are in progress China's president Hu Jintao who's on a state visit of kissing and making up with Japan, is tarring and feathering with the brush of splittism the Dalai Lama. Which, coming from on high of the Chinese Communist Party's nomenklatura, is a sure sign that Beijing lacks any meaningful desire to deal with the Tibetans. It is pure smoke and blue mirrors to take the heat off Beijing. Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda saw through this ploy for he did criticize to Mr Hu's face China's brutality in Tibet. Like Cain, Mr Hu's China will bear for all to see the Tibetan brand on its reputation.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 8, '08)

[Re The heart has its own unreason, May 6] Spengler suggests Iran is desperately searching for allies in his critique on the joint declaration signed by the Vatican and a group of Iranian clerics attesting to the benefits of reason. However, the other side of the coin is that this declaration does not mean the Vatican has no grand designs of its own. In his 2006 address in Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI made reference to a dialogue on the subject of Christianity and Islam between the "erudite" Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleogus, and an "educated Persian". After explaining how the emperor had reasoned that spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable, the pope then seized on the fact that the emperor, who was "shaped" by Greek philosophy, used the word "logos" when referring to reason. From a Christian standpoint, "logos" is a doubly charged theological term. The pope refers to its usage in the opening verse of the Gospel of John, which states: "In the beginning was the word ["logos"], and the word was with God and the word was God." This verse marks the high point of Christian theology in its polemic against Judaism, whereby the "logos", which is later identified as Jesus Christ, is affirmed as being none other than divine and co-eternal with God (the Father). It is therefore highly presumptuous of the pope to agree with the Iranian clerics that both faith and reason are "gifts to humanity", since human reason is honored by Christians only by virtue of it having as its divine embodiment the second person of the Trinity (deduced retrospectively from the doctrine of the incarnation). It is also why St Paul writes to believers that "we have the mind of Christ". Of course, this is all anathema to the strict monotheism of Islam. But what Spengler and his co-apologists for Christendom's intrinsic superiority want us to believe is that nothing will stand in the way of Iran's eventual obliteration.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 7, '08)

The current crises in Tibet has given Chinese people a fleeting opportunity to fight for their own freedom. The Chinese government has allowed Chinese people to organize, mobilize and in some cases even supported (if not incited) them to demonstrate their frustration. I believe Chinese people should use this opportunity to fight for their own freedom of press, religious freedom, human rights and transparency. These calls in the short run may embarrass China but in the long run it will only strengthen the country. Today, Chinese people in the continual spirit of nationalism have the best chance of being heard. Once the Olympic Games are over and the dust settles it will be again near impossible for the ordinary Chinese person's voice to be heard.
Tsenam (May 7, '08)

Newly elected South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is either a savvy or a foolhardy leader of his nation. He is willing to brave public outcry at his decisions. His agreement with US President George W Bush to allow the resumption of US beef imports to Korea as of May 15 tips the scales one way or the other depending on one's political optic. Donald Kirk's article [South Korean beef overcooked, May 6] does test the waters of public opinion. The issue of mad cow disease is but a smokescreen for the latent, but close to the surface, anti-Americanism that pulsates through South Korea's history.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 7, '08)

[Re South Korea's Sunshine policy strikes back, May 7] The Lee Myung-bak government, Sunny Lee reports, stands on the principles of reciprocity and pragmatism in South-North Korean discussions. To Lee's understanding, the Sunshine policy established 10 years ago by the then president Kim Dae-jung has been more pragmatic and much less than reciprocal. He intends to even the score. By doing so he has shunted the Sunshine policy from its appointed route. He may soon have to downplay his hard-nosed approach, it seems. Mr Lee is very well aware of the slow but fruitful steps the province of South Gangwon has made in opening, thanks to the Sunshine policy, with North Gangwon province. Outsiders do not know that half of that province lies in the South, the other in the North. The much overused phrase "confidence-building measures" applies with a renewed freshness in looking at the relationship of South and North Gangwon provinces in the bright daylight of the momentarily halted Sunshine policy. This meeting of the minds of the split province is based on transparency, mutual benefit, and mutual trust. It is grounded firmly in pragmatism, and has found a reciprocal echo from North Gangwon. In fact, the two provincial governors have met in the North, and have agreed on programs of salmon fisheries, control of forest pests and cultural exchanges. The Gangwon province may ... serve Mr Lee with a template for re-engaging Pyongyang. Sooner or later, he is going to have to reverse gears and talk with Kim Jong-il pragmatically, but with words that will approximate his own motto of reciprocity and pragmatism.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 7, '08)

Dennis O'Connell's most recent letter commenting on Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] ends on a catchy line, but it is unfortunately rigidly ideological and simplistic in its approach to the issue. First, about Tibet itself. Just what is so "fake" about China's choice for the Panchen Lama? The central government of China has had a strong say in picking who is the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama for centuries. After all, these were both political as well as religious positions. They have been imposed and deposed by victorious armies several times throughout their history. Mr O'Connell's writes that China seeks not a partner but a vassal in the Dalai Lama. Of course, China is not going to share sovereignty over Tibet with the so-called "government-in exile". If the Dalai Lama was only interested in the preservation of Tibetan tradition in the face of relentless modernization (an issue that the rest of China also has to deal with), he would drop the whole "government-in exile" business and negotiate solely from his religious position as the most important leader of Tibetan Buddhism, as the Papacy did with the young Italian state. Like many Western intellectuals, Mr O'Connell hangs far too much on the word "democracy" as some magical incantation to dispel evil. Maybe he is not afraid of the Indian state because it has a parliamentary democracy, but apparently sizable numbers of Muslim Kashmiris, Assamese, and the poor farmers and tribals joining the Naxalites seem to believe that they have a great deal to fear from that state, democracy or not. Any Latin American 100 years ago who proclaimed that his people should have nothing to fear from the US because it has democracy, or an Arab or Iranian saying the same thing 50 years ago, would by now have been proven tragically mistaken. The truth of the matter is that what the US has had since the end of World War II is not "democracy" as in "rule by the majority" (the closest modern example being Switzerland), but a mixture of democracy, plutocracy, and militarism with the balance favoring the latter two. Yes, the US generally respects religious freedom, though when the religious get too uppity, as was the case with the early Mormons and the Branch Dravidians, the great "democracy" is no longer so generous. The US has long since changed from the limited union of republican states of its birth to the greedy worldwide military/financial empire that is growing more hated by its restless subjects by the day. The US has an admirable constitution, but words on paper are only meaningful if the power relations of the day still allow them to be meaningful. Mr O'Connell, that day for the US has long since passed into history. Ironically, it is China's foreign policy that hews much more closely to George Washington's warning to seek commerce with all but enmity with none. Mr O'Connell's words remind me of the stereotype of the over-intellectualized Confucian scholar of the past, pining about how the Emperor rules by virtue because that is what the classics teach, while in fact the people groan under oppression. The world has much more to fear from the US than it does from China.
Jonathan X (May 7, '08)

Responding to Democrats do have a nominee [May 6], Mr Cohen suggests that "Clinton's attacks have boosted Obama's unfavorable ratings". This is misleading. Obama has been hurt by his own gaffe, his comment made about voters clinging to guns, religion, people different from themselves, and anti-trade sentiment. Obama has been hurt by Reverend Wright's videos, and his assertion that AIDS was manufactured by the US government to destroy African-Americans. The media is gunning for Obama, and it has little to do with Clinton. In my opinion, Clinton's attacks usually founder, and it probably hurt her ... Mr Cohen is also quite certain that Clinton's continued run is hurting the party. It is true, the math is heavily against her. But over 1 million new Democrats have registered in the last seven primaries. Moreover, we cannot be certain whether the animosity some Clinton supporters hold against Obama will survive until the November general election. Mr Cohen states: "The Clintons and their campaign will mount a convention floor fight to seat [Florida and Michigan's] delegations and count their votes." In my opinion, that is very unlikely. Indeed, only the most anti-Clinton Obama supporters hold such views here. Moreover, Howard Dean recently told Jon Stewart that Florida and Michigan were going to be represented at the convention, but it's only a matter of how the delegates would be tallied.
Big Brown
Louisville, Kentucky, USA (May 6, '08)

Regarding Dennis O'Connell's letter on May 5: "Granted, what China is doing is less immoral than what the United States did to the American Indians; however, those actions where over 120 years ago, not last week ... " wrote O'Connell. Not so, O'Connell! The single most impoverished county in the USA, with a life-expectancy of around 40, is the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation, in South Dakota. Activists there recently declared independence, by the way. (See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/21/5946/) I'll be interested to see how much support they get from US Tibetophiles.
Lester Ness (May 6, '08)

Responding to China's pride versus Western prejudice by Da Wei [May 2], the views of Dennis O'Connell [letters, May 5] appear to be far more simplistic. So, it is the "international norm" to ride a car round and round on public streets to eavesdrop and photograph a certain private house? But the main point of discussion concerns Tibet. The latter used to be governed by a religious-political system headed by the Dalai Lama who was chosen when still a child by some mysterious process as the reincarnation of Buddha. That explains the historical volumes of events of murder and premature deaths in the imperial palace of Lhasa due to intrigue and plotting. The system of serfdom, when the Dalai Lama ruled, is more feudalistic than the caste system in old India. Mr O'Connell is correct on one point: China does intend to rule Tibet just as another province. China intends to assimilate Tibetans like 50-odd other minorities within the country. Historically, so much political and cultural assimilation has been achieved in so many countries that cannot be reversed and is no longer called for. Right now the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile is being supported by the West and plans to toe the middle road for initial limited autonomy. He is being challenged by the Tibetan Youth Congress which is much more eager to attain power quickly by whatever means, including violence and armed revolt, and which is being cheered on by you know whom.
Seung Li (May 6, '08)

Dennis O'Connell's letter [May 5] makes me laugh. The US killed the Indians, but because it happened a long time ago, it's OK and let's forget the whole thing. When he says there is a new morality now, does he mean the morality the US used to invade Iraq for its oil and then one million Iraqis died? And why didn't China have the right to check the US spy plane to see what spy information was collected by the plane? I don't understand one thing, how come a country that is more than 80% Christian loves to invade other countries and kill people? What do Americans like Dennis O'Connell say to their god on Sunday? Please give me the bravery to bring democracy to other people and take their natural resources. [And] if they don’t listen, let me kill them to save their soul. I don't know a lot about things like "do onto others as you would have them do unto you", but I know what goes around comes around, and on Judgment Day, God doesn't play favorites.
Tang (May 6, '08)

[Re How under-the-gun Iran plays it cool, May 3] As ever, Pepe Escobar writes with a degree of knowledge and intellectual curiosity which puts most commentators in the shade. If I might be bold enough to add a few points: In the case of Iran, the Iranian psyche was deeply scarred by the US and its support for every autocrat who preceded the Ayatollah. The average Iranian (and I don't count those in the US who are agitating for the return of the Peacock Throne) is deeply skeptical of the US. It is entirely debatable as to whose feet are being held to the fire and at whose whim - the US in Iraq or the Iranians by US encirclement? An exasperated Winston Churchill, who had taken over the mantle of Britain's colonial policies in the Middle East, was to tell the British government that it was spending millions for the privilege of sitting atop a volcano. Lamenting on the British experience in Iraq, the "last lion" was to write, "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet." Sure, we go bomb Iran a few times and it will look good on the 6 o'clock news and President Bush gets a "Mission Accomplished" sticker and, heck, then its the next president's problem.
Aly-Khan Satchu (May 6, '08)

I saw "Iron Man" last week and joined millions in enjoying the pyrotechnics and CGI wizardry. But I wonder how many Americans appreciated the symbolism inherent in the storyline. An American tycoon, Tony Stark, has made billions in manufacturing and exporting all kinds of non-nuclear weapons. One of his sobriquets is "Merchant of Death," a title he does not eschew. When he arrives in Afghanistan to demonstrate yet another example of American techno-know-how, his reputation as a playboy and cynical military-industrialist has made him a household icon of US profligacy and arrogance. So, when he is captured by non-Taliban, non-al-Qaeda freebooting thugs (curious why Hollywood avoided using extant villains), he is faced with a choice: build a missile in a cave or die. Once again, he shows how resourceful Americans are even in dire circumstances in conjuring up effective anti-bad-guy inventions with hardly more than a hammer and barbecue pit. However, as a nod to America's needs for indigenous assistance, he is provided a Western-educated Afghan assistant, who conveniently knows open-heart surgery, six languages and is pretty handy with electronics. When Stark completes his Iron Man armor, his brave and loyal aide sacrifices himself in order for the man who helped wreck his country to escape. Arriving back in America, Stark reveals, to Wall Street's chagrin, that he is a changed man. He has seen the destructive fruits of his labors and is determined to change his errant ways. While his company's stock plummets, Tony suspends all weapons manufacturing. But the nefarious Obadiah, who helped Tony's father create the Stark empire, has other plans, all of which involve a dead Tony Stark. So the movie concludes with twin Iron Men battling it out, and no one wins any prizes for guessing who wins. It would be too much of a stretch to suggest that Tony Stark represents a repentant Bush or Cheney, eager to correct their foolish and heartless belligerence. But Stark does allow us to see how the results of our indifference to the suffering caused by reckless American actions. He sees it up close and personal (though I might add that even this film sanitizes war and mayhem to that of Saturday morning cartoonery.) And in the image of an "educated" native Muslim giving up his life for Tony, we see the forlorn hope that the Western democratic culture is worth sacrificing for. The least Tony can do is come back in his impressive red-and-gold suit to kick bad guy booty and save the natives who so desperately need a white man's assistance. And herein lies the bankruptcy of Stark's redemption; his solution to redeeming a lifetime of creating instruments of violent death is creating yet another instrument of violence. Perhaps in an unintended ironic comment on the dilemma of being a superpower, Tony cannot envision a world where the alternative to fighting violence is non-violence. What's the use of having all this money and power if you can't use it? Obadiah's treachery is a stark (excuse the pun, I couldn't resist) reminder that capitalism has no morality and will resort to any means to preserve profits. But those means are essentially the same ones Stark employs in his Iron Man suit. The "bad' Iron Man housing Obadiah is bigger and darker than Stark's smaller and shinier "good" Iron Man. But they are both using the same American predilection for violent solutions. At the end, one is a winner, the other a loser, and that's all the morality most Americans need to see in their movies. And wars.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas (May 6, '08)

[Re Al-Qaeda searches for unity in Iraq, May 2] Michael Scheurer needs to further explain how efforts to create a Sunni-Shi'ite civil war by al-Qaeda's former frontman in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, differ from Ayman al-Zawahiri's latest call for unity amongst Iraq's Sunni Arabs. Al-Qaeda's second in command, al-Zawahiri, is quoted as damning all Shi'ites as "Arab apostates" and deriding Muqtada al-Sadr as a "naive boy" who is being used by "Iranian intelligence ... as a puppet". Similarly, just days before his assassination, al-Zarqawi produced a four-hour-long audiotape in which he repeatedly cursed Shi'ites as apostates and as collaborators with the US-led occupiers. Scheurer's problem is his failure to recognize that what is happening in Iraq is part of a much wider picture, consisting of the fateful triangle: al-Qaeda, Iran and the US. All three corners of this triangle are strongly opposed to each other, and there will be no end in sight until there is some sort of strategic coalition forged between two of the parties. Clearly, the only option is for Iran and the US to form a strategic partnership in order to bring al-Qaeda's divisive influence in Iraq to an end. Such a partnership would also address the crises in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and it would help alleviate the need for the US to arm Sunni Arab states with nuclear weapons to counter Iran's current nuclear ambitions.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 5, '08)

[Re Iran moving into the big league, May 3] The much sought after pipeline that will run from Iran to the ports of Pakistan and India will have to be laid partly in Afghanistan, if my sense of geography is correct. Anyone knows that war is raging in that country, and what's more it is historically a patch-quilt of jealously guarded warrior fiefdoms regardless of ideology, not to speak of dagger-drawn ethnic minorities. The idea of a pipeline to the Indian subcontinent has a sugar plum flavor to it; to realize it, it would require not only the absence of war, but the suborning of tribal and religious warlords and leaders, and putting into place a modern viable infrastructure which on one hand would strengthen and extend the hand of the central government in Kabul to all parts of the country, and on the other hand, challenge the power of the tribes. The record level price of a barrel of oil which has fallen a few dollars shy of $115, favors running a pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India. Yet the geopolitical facts on the ground say that it may very well turn out to be a pipe dream.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 5, '08)

Regarding my letter of May 2, I knew my little puzzle would inspire you. Intellectuals love encryption. But instead of "racism", you should have more accurately referred to "apartheid", because the original meaning of "kaffer" (kafir) outside old Afrikaans is just "infidel". That's exactly the point: you can see a new global apartheid evolving, spearheaded by people like Cafferty and now with Chinese instead of blacks targeted.
Tiemujin G (May 5, '08)

[Re Grrrl power Asia, hear it growl, May 3]. The sexual liberation of [the feminist] revolution has in most cases harmed women in the West and globally more than men, and sexuality that has been freed benefits men more than women. In the West, she is a bare commodity for selling and buying not in the stock market but on every street corner, whorehouses and public places. Promiscuity has harmed women more than men as they are biologically and physiological different: women carry the burden of pregnancy ... while the male releases himself unaffected. When the USS Acadia returned from the Gulf War, a tenth of its female crew members had already returned to America because of pregnancy aboard what became known as the Love Boat. Another consequence of the sexual revolution has been an increase in infidelity, and a consequent rise in divorce and single parenthood. Again, it is women who have shouldered most of the burden. One in four British families in 2007 is headed by a single parent; in 1971, it was twelve, 1986 one in seven and it's gotten worse ever since. Another consequence has been the pain of solitude. It is estimated that by 2020, a third of all British households will be headed by a female. Very few now believe in the institution of marriage and prefer to live in sin without a contract and with complete freedom to change and relish many sexual partners. A further area in which women seem to have found themselves commercialized and degraded rather than liberated in the decadent Western way of life is pornography which brings annual revenue of nearly 30 billion pounds ... Pornography is exploited in the fashion industry largely controlled by men who want women to be bare naked for a public spectacle largely for men. Plastic surgeons are making billions out of depressed women who want to look better than any one they see in a woman magazine or walking on the street. As Dolly Parton says, "It costs a lot of money to look as cheap as I do." Every rich woman wants to live longer without wrinkles and the most repellent is the new phenomenon of hormone replacement therapy, known as an anti-aging panacea. The hormone involved, estrogens, is obtained from mares. In America alone 80,000 pregnant female horses are held in battery farms, confined in crates, and tied to hoses to enable their urine to be collected. The foals that are delivered are routinely slaughtered. So and so on, and still, women are so unhappy as always. Islam has never repressed carnal pleasure in lawful cohabitation. According to its medieval wise men, one made love in the name of God, not just to beget but also to get divine or, as I call it, heavenly pleasure. It is important, therefore, that in turn our bodies are not mistreated and the female body honors the principle of beauty and aesthetic enjoyment ...
Saqib Khan
UK (May 5, '08)

It is amazing that there are still people saying the Tibetan riot was peaceful like Mel Cooper intentionally said [letters, May 2]. The Tibetan rioters killed Han and Hui Chinese and burned their shops before the police came. This was even reported by Western tourists. I hope Mel Cooper is not a preacher teaching the Bible in Asia.
Tang (May 5, '08)

The people of Hong Kong are among the most well-informed and balanced in the world. They have access to not just the full spectrum of the "free" commercial media, including Taiwan's, but also the "one-sided" state media from mainland China. With such a wealth of information available they are definitely the most qualified people to voice an opinion on Chinese issues such as Tibet and the Beijing Olympics. While generally supportive of China as a nation they hold a skeptical view of the Communist Party and hold a deep respect for the spirits of democracy and human rights. This is reflected in their annual rally on June 4 to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown and on July 1 rally to protect democracy in the territory. While a number of protesters were present during the torch relay, the sea of humanity witnessing and supporting the relay is a heartwarming reflection that the Olympic movement is to be supported - not hijacked. On this day, May 2, 2008, the people of Hong Kong have spoken resoundingly.
Tommy (May 5, '08)

I believe Da Wei in China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] is far too simplistic in his views towards China's actions in Tibet. He also fails to recognize the ethnic problem of Chinese rule over Tibet. With the Dalai Lama in exile and with the case of a fake Chinese stand-in for the Panchen Lama it's not hard to see why the Tibetans don't trust Chinese beneficence. China seeks complete control over all aspects of Tibetan life, they don't seek a partner, they want a vassal. Granted, what China is doing is less immoral than what the United States did to the American Indians; however, those actions where over 120 years ago, not last week and there is a different morality in the world today. It is also wrong for Da Wei to claim this is because of Western prejudice, people in the West believe in certain standards for governments and particular rights that belong to individuals. They are the basic rights granted in the first amendment to the US Constitution: the rights to free speech, religion and a free press. China does not recognize these rights belonging to people, but insists on the primacy of the Chinese Communist Party. I am not afraid of the Indian government because they are a democracy, however, I am afraid of the Chinese government and its plans for the future. China wants to be the pre-eminent superpower of the 21st century. If China wishes to be thought of better in the world, perhaps they should examine their friendship and support of the worst nations in the world. Those nations would include North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Also in his article Da Wei writes about "the US Navy spy plane that crashed on Hainan Island". Evidently, he does not remember that the US plane was accidentally rammed by a Chinese plane trying to intimidate the US plane in international airspace 70 miles from the Chinese coast. When the US plane was forced to land on Hainan Island to save the plane and its crew, China again violated all international norms and looted the US plane for its intelligence secrets and probably moved Chinese spycraft technology 50 years into the future. China can not rule over the Tibetans with an iron fist and expect to world to see a velvet glove.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (May 5, '08)

Asia Times Online is a great news source. Unfortunately, the recent addition of video on the right side of the page has made the site very difficult to view due to excessive bandwidth use. Your homepage frequently won't load at all.
Bob Calhoun (May 5, '08)

[Re The heat is on Muqtada, May 2] Sami Moubayed gives us yet another outstanding report. Considering that [Abdul Aziz] al-Hakim's followers are individually far more prosperous than [Muqtada] al-Sadr's, it's understandable that the White House treasures al-Hakim despite his continuing allegiance to Iran and al-Sadr's independence from Iran. Contempt for the poor predominates in Washington, where the clowns of Wall Street find unstinted support. For many years it seemed that as China and then Russia shifted toward capitalism, the US was adopting the sort of top-down state planning formerly seen under communism. But as incompetent as the economic planners in China and Russia had been, the foreign policy of each nation often showed signs of shrewdness. In contrast, the US is now bungling its foreign policy to an extreme, while making a shambles of its economy by intervening in markets that would be much better off if left alone ... it now seems the suitable analogy is to look upon China and Russia as recreating the era of the American robber barons, and the US as recreating the final days of the czars. The only mismatch undermining this comparison is that the last czar was much sharper than the current American president is.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA (May 2, '08)

[Re Bernanke takes one more gamble, May 2] Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke sanctioned a quarter point cut in the prime rate to 2%. It did not inspire confidence in the American dollar which sank again after strengthening slightly the day before. Chairman Bernanke and his camp followers are firm believers that inflation is bad, and should be kept firmly under control. There is something to be said for that, but [considering] the way he has chosen in the turmoil of the American and world marketplace, it is legitimate to question his dogged adherence to counterproductive policies. Bernanke is encouraging a weak dollar which as food and fuel prices rise, is causing untold hardship for American families who are struggling to borrow [from] Peter to pay Paul, in order to eat, keep a roof over their head, and ride to work on a $50 tank of gas. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is banking on a sustained continuum of consumer spending which is not in today's cards. Doesn't he read the front page headlines of newspapers which trumpet that consumer spending is tightening fast and the index of consumer confidence is at at lowest in 35 years? Percolating under Bernanke are the lessons of economic theory and practice which fail to meet today's economic realty. A dose of inflation may buoy up an anemic US economy which the pundits have cheered on of late even though it grew at 0.6% but beat, mind you, market expectations. Great expectations indeed! If Bernanke needs a primer in the value of guided inflation, he would do well to read the noted South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective [2002] and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade [2008]. The chairman, alas, has to go back to school and get his sums right.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 2, '08)

Regarding Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] I would rather change the title into "China's pride versus Western virtual reality". Sounds more neutral. Let me give a simple example of "Western virtual reality". When Jack Cafferty of CNN said, "Chinese are goons and thugs", you could see most CNN fans nodding in approval, and only (almost only) Chinese protested. Later, Cafferty said, he meant the Chinese government, not the Chinese people, and your writer Willy Lam (China intensifies war against splittism, Apr 30) appeared quite satisfied with this explanation, though his name shows he is ethnic Chinese. However, you may call all the Chinese leaders since 1949 "a bunch of thugs", but who in his right mind would call them a bunch of goons (as in stupid and silly)? Remember, Satan is smart. On the other hand, you may call ordinary Chinese "a bunch of goons", but who in his right mind would call them a bunch of thugs? Have you ever been mugged in Chinatown? So what Cafferty really should have said was, "the Chinese government is a bunch of thugs and the Chinese people a bunch of goons", but he missed this crucial point altogether. That is even worse than prejudice, it's virtual reality, or opium for the people. With such "prejudice", China doesn't seem to have much to worry about. By the way, "Cafferty" means "goon" in [the South African language] Afrikaans.
Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (May 2, '08)

Our Afrikaans is rusty, but "cafferty" is a not a word we're familiar with. However, it is similar in sound to an extremely pejorative and racist Afrikaans slang word. - ATol

[Re China's pride versus Western prejudice, May 2] Da Wei's plaint is not new. Simply said, blaming the victim, it is a matter of sour grapes. China has a blind spot when it comes to Tibet. Beijing lost the sympathy of world opinion when it brutally cracked down on the Tibetan monks' peaceful demonstration in Lhasa. What the Chinese authorities had not foreseen nor counted on was the of violence of the state was firmly resisted by the demonstrators, and the bloody scenes of repression was, in our cyberspace age, flashed throughout the world, thereby exposing its very media savvy campaign that by organizing the 2008 Summer Olympics Games in Beijing it had ushered in globally a new Chinese spirit of peace, harmony, and friendship. The world's onlookers found out otherwise. The communist government has stoked the fires of what Chairman Mao Tse Tung called Great Han Chauvinism. Beijing uses it for its own purposes. Doesn't anyone remember the students running amok and destroying Japanese owned property? Would Da Wei characterize these acts of vandalism as an example of Western prejudice even though Japan is an Asian nation, and one that China keeps imitating? Da Wei uses the blunt tip of his pen to bolster his national pride and prejudice.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 2, '08)

[Re China's pride versus Western prejudice, May 2] This whole brouhaha about Olympic torch protests and notions of boycotts by politicians and human rights activists has nothing to do with human rights in Tibet, despite the Dalai Lama's claims, nor Darfur, nor Burma, and not even human rights within China proper. To the naive Western simpleton, a Chinese backlash would probably be a confirmation of his claim that China is too uncivilized to host the Olympics. The theme here is the inability of the West to accept China as an emerging superpower, and the inability of the Chinese government, despite 30 years of contact and opening up, to win over the West's suspicions. This Western hostility, or what I say as reluctance to accept China due to differences in values, culture or history, was exploited by the Dalai Lama and his supporters as an opportune time to wreck havoc on Beijing's Olympic plans. This risky move of inciting racial riots was at worst to draw attention to their cause and humiliate the Beijing government, and at best to force Beijing to compromise on Tibetan autonomy just as the world's attention was fixated on China's hosting of the Olympics. Almost everyone in the West believed the Dalai Lama is a Gandhi-like saint who is an all-knowing sage and possessing absolute moral authority. To the gullible West, the Dalai Lama is probably holier than the Pope. All this has to do with the fantastic notion of Tibet as an enlightened civilized and genteel society that was invaded by the brutal Chinese communists. The Nazis even believed that Tibet was the birthplace of an advanced ancient Aryan race, so much so that they sent anthropologists and climbers in the 1940s to study Tibet. Heinrich Harrer, a Nazi Austrian climber who later became mentor to the Dalai Lama was part of one of such missions. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I would probably be branded as a communist apologist, Tibet before the Chinese takeover was not the Shangri-la paradise espoused by the current Dalai Lama and his supporters like Richard Gere. Children as young as two years old died of malnutrition. Serfdom, the European version of it was practiced throughout Tibetan society and children of sharecroppers remained as serfs and were permanently tied to the land. The political-economy of Tibet revolved around a theocratic Lamaist regime which derived its legitimacy as the reincarnation of Buddha, controlling nearly all the estates of the land. Production of agriculture was entirely for the benefit of the clergy. In short, the entity was by Western definition a theocratic feudal state similar to Europe in the Dark Ages. This version of history is an inconvenient truth for gullible Western media and politicians who immediately praised the Dalai Lama as one of them, when he advocated genuine autonomy and democracy for Tibet. History is more nuanced. The Dalai Lama is more of a politician than a monk who used his celebrity status to regain his old position as absolute ruler of Tibet. The Dalai Lama publicly seeks autonomy but he clings to the notion of Greater Tibet which would incorporate 25% of China's current landmass. He continues to head the exiled Tibetan Central Tibetan Administration as the only legitimate government of Tibet, and refuses to recognize the Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama's brother even admits that autonomy is merely a springboard to independence. When I read Time's Simon Elegant pontificating the treatment of ethnic Tibetans and Uyghurs in China, he should read more of his country's history. At least they have an Autonomous Region, while the Apaches, Cheyenne, and Navajo were all stripped from their land and moved to reservations. How many Americans learn the Apache language by the way? And how many American Indian tribes like the Iroquois still exists with their culture and language intact? That was by the Dalai Lama's and CNN's definition, a cultural genocide! By the way, China's claim on Tibet dates back to 700 years while America only annexed Hawaii in the late 19th century. Hawaii and Alaska did not become officially part of the United States before 1950. If Tibet is not part of China, then Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not part of the United States, and Northern Ireland was never part of the United Kingdom! What China needs to do is actively assimilate the Tibetans and the Uyghurs as part of the Chinese nation state and polity similar to what America successfully did with the Indians, and not compromise on human rights and greater autonomy.
Jake Q Bantug Cebu, Philippines (May 2, '08)

[Re Oil in 2012: $200 or $50?, Apr 30] It's interesting that Martin Hutchinson purposely left out Iran in his discussion of likely future oil prices. As a US-Iran war would profoundly impact the world energy market, I wonder what Mr Hutchinson saw in his crystal ball when arriving at his $50-per-barrel prediction, a US victory (and control of Iranian oil) or some other outcome?
John Chen
USA (May 1, '08)

Reading comments from Chrysantha Wijeyasingha regarding the April 30 article Oil in 2012: $200 or $50? by Mr Martin Hutchinson brought much laughter to our household in Canada. Environmentalists are holding up America's vast oil resources? This is a ridiculous notion. The country that practices rendition and torture is afraid to go after a few environmentalists? There must be something in the water they are drinking in the States.
Bob Van den Broeck Canada (May 1, '08)

[Re China intensifies war against splittism, Apr 30] Willy Lam's keen insight into China's thoughts are very helpful to the public at large who are so saturated with Western media bias on anything China. Hopefully, through time better understanding is forged by astute contributors like Willy Lam.
Stevie
Canada (May 1, '08)

[Re US's Pakistan policy under fire, May 1] Recent elections in Pakistan have turned president Bush's Pakistan policy on its ear. The warning signs have been there for many years but the disarming optimism of the American president has been unwilling to encounter new ideas let alone new truths. Jim Lobe admirably gives a good account of the stress of America's embrace of General Pervez Musharref after 9/11, in its war on terrorism. Clothed now in civilian togs, President Musharraf put the interests of his country first which meant accepting debt forgiveness and billions of US dollars in aid; Washington's largesse went to bolster Pakistani defense against India while leaving the country's two porous border provinces with Afghanistan not only hospitable to the Taliban but a safe haven for their renewed strength to fight NATO troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, [there was] such half-heartedness in roping in Pakistani Islamic militants who brought assassinations and terrorism to the very heart of Pakistan. Now the newly elected government is composing with these very same "terrorists" in order to save first and foremost Pakistan from itself, and Washington be damned! The upshot of this is a failed US policy towards Islamabad, and the failing war against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 1, '08)

So Venezuela makes the State Department's "Top Ten of Terror", eh? Of course, in BushSpeak "terrorist" translates to "anti-imperialist" just like "Iraqi democracy" really means "Meso-kleptocracy". But if we were to apply objective definitions, then without a doubt, the United States would be the Number One Terrorist nation on earth. Indeed, we've had that dubious distinction for decades now. Let's start with Dictionary.com's definition of the root word "terrorism":
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Certainly, definition one qualifies the US as a terrorist state, since we routinely use violence to "persuade" countries like Iraq to give up WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] they don't have. And there's no doubt that that violence had a political goal in mind, ie, replacing a government hostile to American hegemony with a stooge puppet amenable to US demands. As for definition two, can there be any doubt about the fear induced by the American proclivity for violence first, followed by more violence? The entire goal of American threats of violence is to ... subvert the will of other sovereign nations. We define a state as democratic as one that does our bidding, either with a gun pointed at their head or with two guns pointed at their head. The only diplomats with any standing in this White House carry carbines. The third definition would appear to let Uncle Sam off the hook, unless one considers that it is by the threat of force that Bush and his gangsters impose their vision of anti-constitutional abrogations of human rights here at home as well as abroad. Violence is the only language the neo-con nutjobs in this lunatic administration understand. There whole mentality is terror, either the clandestine variety in the dark dungeons of Guantanamo, the destruction of whole villages in the Pamir Mountains or the midnight knock on the door of a dissenting journalist here (or an ATol letter writer!). So, hopefully, I've made my case for the US being a terrorist nation using a standard definition. But even if you want to use the killing of civilians as a metric for defining terrorism, well, there too the US ranks far ahead of anyone else. In its efforts to conduct "precision war", scores of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed, though it is only the criminally naive that thinks even a small fraction of these deaths are accidental. Yeah, just like the Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo's firebombings in World War II were "tragic errors". But American terrorism can be covert, too. The aspirations of millions of Third Word citizens have suffered directly as a result of American interference in other countries' affairs, of crippling embargoes that promote starvation and disease, of financing and protecting terrorists here in the US, of training right-wing agencies to torture, imprison and ruin the lives of countless people struggling for justice. I think all that can easily fall under the rubric of terrorism to an extent that al-Qaeda can only dream about. So Arab jihadis and Latin American tinpots would have to rank far, far below a country that has made maintaining its imperial status its number one priority, ignoring its own laws, its much-hyped morality, or even the inevitable ruin of empires. But ancient wisdom knows what's next. As the invisible hand wrote on the walls of Babylon, Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas, USA (May 1, '08)

According to the Biblical Book of Daniel 5:1-31, the mysterious hand that scrawled the original "handwriting on the wall", wasn't exactly invisible. Still, your point is taken and the reference appreciated. Here's a very brief version of the story as it appears on JewishEncyclopedia.com:
Once when King Belshazzar was banqueting with his lords and drinking wine from the golden vessels of the Temple of Yhwh, a man's hand was seen writing on the wall certain mysterious words. Frightened by the apparition, the king ordered his astrologers to explain the inscription; but they were unable to read it. Daniel was then summoned to the royal palace; and the king promised him costly presents if he would decipher the inscription. Daniel read it "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" and explained it to mean that God had "numbered" the kingdom of Belshazzar and brought it to an end; that the king had been weighed and found wanting; and that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
For a more detailed rendition, as well as Talmudical explanations and the views of modern scholars, please visit - ATol

April Letters

All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2008 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