In response to Hans Jurgen Kary's letter of July 28 regarding Groupthink and the slide into fascism (Jul 27), I can only say I agree with Mr Kary's opinion of Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. While The Crowd was written in 1897, the inner workings of humanity appear to have remained essentially the same, with a reading of Le Bon's work indeed helping to appreciate much of the present US administration's style, its seeming pursuit of Le Bon's theories of mass manipulation as gospel. But as regards serializing the work, I personally would prefer two of Erich Fromm's: his 1941 Escape from Freedom and 1968's The Revolution of Hope. It is in the latter work where Fromm depicts man's future as a cross between George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, an unpleasant fate that increasing numbers are seeing as of pressing and legitimate concern.
Ritt Goldstein (Jul 30, '04)


In his July 26 letter, J Zhang says that "Taiwan" is a politically loaded phrase, and advises me to use the term "Taipei" when referring to Taiwan. He later states in another letter (Jul 28) that I embed my opinions in my writing. This is interesting, because so far as I know, I have never met J Zhang, and I have certainly never expounded my opinions to him (or her, as "J" does nothing to clarify the writer's gender). But back to the use of "Taiwan", I will continue to use "Taiwan" and "Taipei" interchangeably, much as I use "China" and "Beijing" or "Washington" and the "United States" interchangeably when I am talking about the respective governments. My reason for this is not to champion any political cause, but for the sake of clarity and style. Furthermore, it is not clear to me why calling Taiwan "Taiwan" necessarily implies a pro-independence - or separatist, depending on your view - stance. After all, in Mandarin, the only thing that is consistent in the various appellations that are applied to Taiwan is "Taiwan". For example, to call Taiwan "Taiwan province", as the unificationists would have it, is to say Taiwan sheng. To call Taiwan "Taiwan, Republic of China", as the Kuomintang (KMT) does, is Taiwan zhonghua mingguo. And to say "Republic of Taiwan", as the independence faction would have it, is Taiwan gonghe guo. Aside from these, there are any number of names that are bandied about, but the point is that if I say "Taiwan", you know I am talking about the self-governing entity (as the European Union refers to it) of Taiwan, whereas if I say "Taipei", I could mean the city or simply the seat of government of the entity we call Taiwan. Therefore, I think it is best to stick with "Taiwan" for the present, and I don't think it unnecessarily precludes any room for interpretation. On the contrary, I think by calling it simply "Taiwan" and leaving the rest out of the names out of the matter, it helps to clarify what is, as J Zhang notes, a very complicated issue that has not yet been resolved.
Mac William Bishop
Taipei, Taiwan (Jul 30, '04)


In response to the letter from Babagul Khan de Afghan (Jul 26): I appreciate your angle. I just mean to say that everybody has his own perspective to look at things. However, there are several ground realities that cannot be ignored. There are facts that imply that the "criminal" communists you talk about were the major force in the urban centers before 1991 who tried to transform traditional Afghan society into a modern society. It is the strong tribal-based traditional rural class that revolted against the call of modernism and called it jihad. These were internal contradictions of Afghan society. As a universal rule in this kind of a situation, external forces automatically play their role. The Afghan nation took on a fight against Soviet Russia. The leaders of the resistance were Ahmed Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hikmatyar, and both were iqwani (an Afghan term for members of the Muslim brotherhood). Retired army officers tell how Ahmed Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hikmatyar were brought to Peshawar and trained and their influences were expanded from campuses to ordinary Afghan citizens. This was all set up by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence with the support of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Interviews of the late Dr Najeeb are still available in archives in which he claimed that except for a handful of iqwani Afghans such as Sayyaf, Rabbani, Masood, Hikmatyar and their followers, it was Arabs and Pakistani Punjabis who waged war against the Afghan nation. It is not Afghans alone, it is the problem of all underdeveloped nations, whether Pakistan, Iran, countries of Latin America or others, who blame external forces like the USA, Israel and others for their woes but refuse to look at the internal contradictions of their own society. Instead, they cry about their vulnerability, and when the external forces come to their rescue with their own style of thinking, they cry that they have been victimized. Your statement "today the chicken is coming back to the rooster and I am delighted to watch these operations and fight in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] while eating my popcorn and drinking my Coke" is the fantastic reflection of a mindset under which developed nations are sinking and shows why Pashtuns on the both sides of the Durand Line are under the thumb of external forces.
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Jul 30, '04)


The [article] by Tang Leijun [US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals, Jul 29] on the possible scenarios on Taiwan is both objective and exhaustive. I want to add that not just the mainlanders yearn for reunification but also people across the spectrum in Hong Kong who may disagree with the central government in other respects. So do many millions of overseas Chinese wherever they may be. As long as Taiwan professes to be part of China, eventually negotiations can start as to the pace and extent of mutual accommodations. If war breaks out (heavens forbid), the outcome may not be predictable, but it is certain countries will be in serious or total ruins. Animosity of more than 1.3 billion Chinese will linger for a long, long time. All hinges on clear heads in Taiwan.
S P Li
USA (Jul 30, '04)


Tang Leijun's article US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals [Jul 29] is based on a false assumption, ie that Taiwan is not already independent. Taiwan is not governed by or part of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan has governed itself for the past 55 years. So if Mr Tang wishes to "prevent Taiwan independence", I am afraid he will need to turn the clock back 55 years, since Taiwan independence from China has been the status quo for that period of time. As for the further letter [Jul 29] of J Zhang of the Netherlands, if he wishes to argue treaties then I remind him that in 1895 China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, but there is no document by which sovereignty was ever transferred back to China. No such document exists, contrary to the propaganda of CCP [Chinese Communist Party] representatives. Even if it did exist, it would not matter since there is no court that could enforce it. The bottom line is that China wants Taiwan, but Taiwan does not want to be part of China. And the US will protect Taiwan. So will Japan. So that is pretty much the end of it.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 30, '04)


Brushing aside the distasteful and nonsensical editor's comments to [J] Zhang [Jul 29], which seem to ignore the fact that Mr Zhang is obviously of Chinese heritage, and thus has some knowledge of Chinese people's thinking, I would like to make an appeal to people like Mr Zhang and Frank of Seattle, who often debate issues related to China and Taiwan with Asia Times' resident China-bashers (to which I assume your editorial staff wholeheartedly belongs). Although the cause of Taiwanese sovereignty, independence or self-rule is loudly championed by Americans foaming at the mouth to start a war in Asia, this is no reason to ignore history and the actual situation in Taiwan. I have no interest in esoteric legalistic debates about Taiwan's sovereignty. However, no one can deny that Taiwan has not been ruled from Beijing for over a hundred years. How can we expect a people who have made their own decisions and, in recent times, have made those decisions through a democratic political system to accept orders from Beijing, like other Chinese provinces? I state this not only as a practical matter, but as a matter of principle. Is not Taiwan, in its internal politics, living up quite well to the "Three Principles of the People" formulated by Sun Yat-sen (does Asia Times claim that Sun Yat-sen knew nothing of the Chinese people since he lived abroad for many years?)? If the accomplishments and feelings of the Taiwanese people, half of whom are immigrants from the mainland, are given real respect by China, then the mad dogs of the world will have no cause to foment war, and a peaceful resolution will be possible. However, one need only look at the official announcements by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] on the Taiwan issue to realize how little Beijing acknowledges Taiwan's legitimate interests. Taiwan houses many Chinese national treasures in its museums, and many living treasures in its universities. The Chinese culture and virtues that these treasures represent are not merely unity and strength, but also justice and peace. China's greatness cannot be reclaimed by a military takeover of Taiwan. Quite the contrary, only Taiwan's willing reunification with China can restore national unity. Neither technology, military might, nor economic wealth will lift China out of its centuries-long humiliation. Rather, China must live up to its own values, both communist and traditional, in respecting the welfare of its people, and respecting the vast diversity of its own culture. Always remember that the warmongers' worst nightmare is seeing peaceful reforms in China and a brotherly embrace between Taiwan and China. Only by treating the Taiwanese as your brothers and sisters, deserving your full respect, can you hope to defeat the hopes of those who wish for China never to be reunified.
G Travan
California (Jul 30, '04)


ATol's letters editor calls my claim that ordinary Chinese want reunification a "nonsensical claim". Yes, there have been no real opinion polls among the 1.3 billion Chinese and millions overseas and their opinions are often omitted or forgotten in this whole issue. But don't you think I talk with many Chinese about this issue overseas and online? It has become a hot issue even for those who previously didn't care. Whatever our political leanings, whether it be CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or KMT [Kuomintang], many oppose Chen Shui-bian and his separatist movement on Taiwan. Perhaps not all Chinese feel this way, but I bet many Chinese do. And if you think most Chinese support Taiwan separatism and oppose reunification, then the burden of proof lies with you. Why don't you intervene when there are real "nonsensical claims" posted by readers such as Richard Radcliffe, who claims in his latest letter that PRC [People's Republic of China] citizens are "slaves" and the choice for Taiwan is "freedom or death"? ... Probably ATol is being run by one biased man in a room in Hong Kong only posting articles and responding to letters under the name of "letters editor". So instead of "laughing off the Internet", it would be better to get serious indeed.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 30, '04)

Finally, you understand our point (even if G Travan does not). We have no disagreement that the Taiwan issue is of great importance to many Chinese, be they on the mainland, in the special administrative regions, or overseas. Territorial integrity is of course important to people of any nationality, as has been argued often and eloquently on this page. Our point is that all you (or we) can do is take a sampling of people's opinions, as you now tell us you have done, and draw a broad conclusion. To claim that there is total unity among all Chinese on this or any other matter, as you have done in previous letters, is baseless. Chinese are not mindless automata; those who have the opportunity to do so form their own opinions, and it is quite possible, even likely, that some of those opinions differ somewhat from those of J Zhang, or of the Chinese Communist Party. - ATol


As a youngster [growing] up in Hong Kong, I went to a boarding school that was run by a group of educators [who had] retreated from the mainland with the KMT [Kuomintang] armies on the eve of their defeat by the communists. The school was funded by Taiwan, all the classes were conducted in Mandarin (while the rest of the colony's school classes were taught in Cantonese or English) and all the textbooks were printed in Taiwan, all the staff and teachers were sympathizers of the KMT and of course we were taught the KMT's partisan view of Chinese history. And I remember we were taught to hate the communists and vowed to take back the mainland one day and reunify China. Years later I still wish Taiwan could reunify China. Now I only wish for a unified China.
Caral
Western Australia (Jul 30, '04)


If I may, I would like to qualify Frank's letter [Jul 29] about India and English. During my time in China, I frequently met up with other foreigners, including some Indian businessmen and their families. They told me that in China that although dialects vary, the script does not change. However, in India, they said, you move an equivalent distance that would mark a change in Chinese dialect and not only would there be a different dialect/language, but the script would be different. The most widely spoken "Indian" language is Hindi, and only 40% of people speak that. To get around more than just one region, one must speak English, according to them. I would be interested to know where Frank originates from, as he might be able to shed new light on a phenomenon I noticed in Shanghai: Chinese not able to speak Shanghai dialect are looked down on, regardless of whether they come from a farm in Anhui or teach at Qinghua University.
Peter Mitchelmore (Jul 30, '04)


I find Captain Richard Radcliffe's logic funny [letter, Jul 29]. He said that the North Koreans have not the power to overthrow that government, so they do their best to leave. If he reads the news, that is exactly what the Taiwanese people are doing right now. They are leaving for China! I hope Richard can pay more attention to what is happening now instead of dwell to what had happened years ago.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 30, '04)


Despite the many mainly critical articles on Malaysia [in Asia Times Online], I find it puzzling that there are no similar articles (or journalists) to be found on the Republic of Singapore, which is equally authoritarian; if not more due to its absolute state monopoly on media, censorship, and its propensity to sue (and win) in Singaporean courts any foreign media which would deign to write a damning article on Singaporean democracy (or the lack thereof) or on, some may say, dynastic and cronyist practices of the ruling party. Given that Singapore may be a small state in world politics, surely recent events should have merited comment at the very least - such as the succession of the country's founding father's progeny to the highest office in the land or acquisitions made by the Singaporean state of another country's public utilities or having the world's greatest per capita capital-punishment rate. On another point, "The irony we see, like Y J Wu, is that someone who, as you say, lives far away from China in the Netherlands knows with such certainty what has 'been decided by the Chinese people', when mainland China not only has failed to establish a functioning democracy to determine and enact such popular decisions (unlike Taiwan), but suppresses free speech on the Internet and elsewhere" [ATol editor's note under J Zhang letter, Jul 28]. Surely the greater irony is that many non-Chinese or non-"Taiwanese" foreigners who have no familial ties whatsoever, nor were born there and probably have just spent a few years in mainland China or Taiwan (worse still have never set foot in either of them and simply read about the issue), claim to speak for either the "majority" of mainland Chinese or "Taiwanese". For example, for any non-Irish foreigner who does not have any Irish relatives who were involved in the Northern Irish conflict cannot claim to speak for either side of the conflict, no matter where their sympathies lie. Also, despite the "democracy" that the ROC [Republic of China] enjoys, there are many domestic political and legal problems and issues associated but nevertheless not highlighted to the foreign press. For example, if Taiwan was to pursue an independent democratic state with "Chinese characteristics", what should its relationship with Western powers be? What should its relationship with China be? How does the system accommodate conflicting political ideologies? What sort of democratic system does it want - a Western Westminster style of government? Is a civil society part of the political agenda? What language should be the official language - Taiwanese (or Hokkien, a "dialect" of Chinese, which it is otherwise known), Mandarin, or English? How is the judiciary supposed to function? These are only a few examples of a myriad issues [that] look innocuous enough at face value, but will have profound effects on the society in which Taiwanese citizens live in. Ultimately both sides have to agree that the onus is on Taiwanese citizens to resolve the issue and the issue has to examined on an intellectual basis apart from the emotive reasons and political interests that both sides have.
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Jul 30, '04)


The killing of the two Pakistanis in Iraq is very sad indeed and my heart goes out for their poor families back home, but it surprises me [that] anyone would want to go get a job in Iraq in the first place. It's not like they were there and suddenly war broke [out]. As for the many other families that have sent their loved ones out there for some financial gain, how can they sleep at night knowing that they have sent their sons and fathers out to die for a few dinars? On the flip side, the Iraqis [who] committed this awful and savage crime have put their whole nation to shame. Pakistani people have always felt the pain, and been active in support of their oppressed Muslim brothers and sisters around the world in whatever form or manner that permits them. But by committing this horrific act of violence, a few Iraqi (or foreign) so-called mujahideen have literally broken the bond that holds our two nations together as Muslims, and now which Pakistanis would seriously oppose their government should [it] decide to send tens of thousands of troops in?
T Kiani
London, England (Jul 30, '04)


In response to the letter by Johannes [L D'Armstrong, Jul 29], the allegations in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that Iraqi Prime Minister [Iyad] Allawi shot six prisoners in cold blood do clearly merit investigation. I agree with him that the story may have been planted, although journalist Paul McGeough claims the two apparent eyewitnesses didn't know about each other but told similar stories. Still, I think Johannes would agree that the truth would be of interest either way. Incidentally, so does former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, who has urged the Red Cross to examine the charges. The ABC Online article Johannes mentioned did not criticize the original story, and the Newsweek article was [cursory] about it and offered no contradictory facts (other than ready-prepared comments from US government sources). John Negroponte, the US ambassador to Iraq, refused to comment on the allegations. His office replied to the SMH in an e-mail: "If we attempted to refute each [rumor], we would have no time for other business. As far as this embassy's press office is concerned, this case is closed." A cynic might say this isn't unlike his efforts to evade answering questions about US-sanctioned human-rights abuses in Honduras. Readers may notice that nowhere in the e-mail is there a denial of the story, although Negroponte would presumably have been privy to what really happened, thanks to the four US bodyguards present at the alleged shooting. The Christian Science Monitor writes that the execution story is "widely believed because of Allawi's past". Early in his career, Dr Allawi was a fairly senior member of the Ba'ath Party. In the 1970s, he accepted a scholarship to study in London, but continued to work for the regime. He was the head of Iraqi Student Union in Europe and was almost certainly involved in reporting back information on Iraqi dissidents in the UK and continental Europe. Since his break from the Ba'ath Party, much of his time outside Iraq was spent plotting with intelligence agencies (including the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and MI6) against the Iraqi regime, as foreign intelligence services channeled money to Allawi's Iraqi National Accord (INA). Many of the false claims used by US and UK governments to justify the war originated from the INA or its sources, including the UK government's dossier that Iraq could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes. According Patrick and Andrew Cockburn's book Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, the INA backed a series of terrorist attacks in the 1990s, on a cinema, the offices of the Ba'ath Party newspaper, and a mosque, which together killed dozens of civilians. Yet strangely [US President George W] Bush's "war on terror" seems to have passed the INA by. If any ATol readers are interested, blogger David Peterson (aka Rocinate) has collected and reviewed the key articles written about Paul McGeough's story on Allawi (a search on Google will turn up his site). Incidentally, Johannes, I wasn't having a go at you personally earlier, but thought you were a wee bit pedantic in your criticism of Armand [De Laurell]'s letter [of Jul 26]. And I was actually referring to Don [Kennedy]'s future employment status, not yours, as you seemed to think knowledge of idioms critical in this area, and the incoherent Don [letter, Jul 27] managed to get the relevant idiom correct. Still, thanks for the amusing reply. Don't fret; I'm sure the future is indeed bright for a man with your witty and incisive mind: maybe next you can start writing a book on sarcasm.
Jim Sadler (Jul 30, '04)


Dear Don Kennedy [letter, Jul 27]: You are obviously a kind person who lacks any cruel bone in your body. I'm quite sure if American power were limitless, the horrors of Sudan etc would not occur. What is sad about your country (I cannot blame your people for ignoring Rwanda, your own president refused to call the three-month slaughter of 800,000 genocide) is that you fail miserably in understanding the world in which you live. The world is an incredibly complex place, and I do not even come close to understanding it. The problem many of us non-Americans have with America (and I'm not talking about the ultra-stupid types who feel out of place in the world without Darth Vader) is that your good intentions might well help cause World War III (of course there are many Americans who are morally disabled, take for example Dick Cheney). While it is apparent you were lied to about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq, the whole notion that you could just invade another country and set along a democratic path with little effort was completely insane. Really, did no one in the public, the media, the government consider that they could fail? While the positive consequences were made apparent to all, no one talked about the negative issues. Do you really believe that you, sort of Christian America, can bring about a reformation in the world's second-largest religion, because it is desirable? Do you not realize the brutality you have seen in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg of what horrors could be paraded on the Internet (check out Algeria for real brutality)? Do you not realize the corruption simple good-intentioned human beings suffer in war? The Crusaders, trying to live a virtuous life yet still be knights, ended their victory in Jerusalem with the senseless slaughter of thousands. I joined the army believing I could retain the moral goodness in my heart; I quit when I realized that the function of the job made me embrace my evil side, I was getting excited about killing. Out of all the things soldiers sacrifice, it is the life and their heart for which they are owed. In short, you are the world's most powerful country, and as they say in Spiderman Part 1, with great power comes great responsibility, and the good-hearted stupidity on the part of much of your electorate is obscene. America is like a middle-aged man suffering from bad eyesight and bad hearing - he might give a lot to charity, but he has a slight problem in respect to not seeing red lights or stop signs, leaving numerous accidents and pissed-off motorists in the wake of his SUV [sport-utility vehicle]: go get some glasses! And you prove my case: I've read a fair amount of criticism of America on [Asia Times Online], but very little hatred -again you [cannot] see the forest for the trees.
DH
Canada (Jul 30, '04)


I discovered your online paper via Yahoo News' inclusion of links to your articles on the Middle East. I just want you to know how useful I find them. I have now bookmarked your homepage and plan to be a frequent visitor to your site. As a retired professor of international studies (University of California, Santa Barbara), I find your coverage and perspective invaluable.
Robert C Noel, PhD (Jul 30, '04)


I just wanted to take this time to thank you for all of your informative articles. It is a pleasure to go on your site and know that I am going to read a well-articulated and informative article about today's political climate.
Faheem Zia
Jacksonville, Florida (Jul 30, '04)


Summer Pulse '04 is the name of the exercise that brings large portions of the United States Navy to the Far East. This exercise is about more than the Taiwan Strait or North Korea. It is to see if we [the US] can put large groups of naval forces into areas of trouble in a short time to hopefully prevent conflicts from occurring. But if there is to be conflict, we will be prepared to support our friends. Both the articles by Aidan Foster-Carter [N Korean refugees beginning of a flood?, Jul 29] and Tang Leijun [US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals, Jul 29] point out the basic yearning of the human soul to be free. Both Taiwan as a nation and North Koreans as individuals are risking death because they do not want to join or live under totalitarian systems. True, the People's Republic of China [PRC] is much less totalitarian these days than President Kim [Jong-il]'s North Korea. But there are few degrees of freedom. You are free as here in the United States or you are not, as in the People's Republic of China and North Korea. I have not seen any statements that indicate that Taiwan will never become part of a greater China. The Taiwanese simply don't want to become part of a national-socialist China run by the Chinese Communist Party. While Taiwanese "democracy" isn't perfect, the individual Taiwanese lives in a much freer society than his perhaps more economically affluent "cousins" in Shanghai. And every time that the PRC government "redefines" the freedoms of the citizens of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Taiwanese become more wary of "one country, two systems". Hence the dilemma facing both the citizens of Taiwan and the citizens of North Korea: freedom or death. The argument on Taiwan is how to stay as free as possible and alive. The Kuomintang wish to keep the status quo ad infinitum and let the mainland mature into a multi-party democracy similar to Taiwan. The party of President Chen [Shui-bian] sees de jure independence as the solution to remaining free. As to the new constitution proposed for Taiwan, let's see what actually gets written before we "go to guns". For the people of North Korea, there is no argument. The have not the power to overthrow that mini-Stalin so they do their best to leave. The Demilitarized Zone is not only there to keep the United Nations Forces out, it is, like the Berlin Wall before it, designed to keep the North Korean people in. Mr Kim: Tear down that wall. Fat chance! So the United States must prepare to put additional forces into the Korean area should North Korea implode and humanitarian aid be required on a massive scale, or should North Korea explode and military force be required on a massive scale. The fact is that in regard to Taiwan or North Korea, the United States is the only country with the ability to project enough power into an area of conflict to be able to effect the outcome. We projected that power into Iraq and 25 million people are no longer living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. We are proving to ourselves through Summer Pulse '04 that we can project power, in this case multiple carrier battle groups, into areas of conflict hopefully so that conflict doesn't occur. It is unfortunate that all disagreements between peoples cannot be solved peacefully. But tyrannies of the political left or the political right cannot long sustain themselves when their people can see examples of freedom in their neighbors. That is why the Soviet Union built the "Iron Curtain". They had to keep their slaves in. Ditto North Korea. Nor is a little freedom enough. Once a totalitarian government grants its slaves a little freedom, political or economic, the slaves want more. They don't want to be slaves. This is the problem facing the government of the PRC. To convince Taiwan to peacefully become part of a "greater China", the Chinese Communist Party must give up its totalitarian rule. In other words, it must self-destruct. That is not likely to happen in the near future. It took the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 52 years to figure out that communism is unsustainable. How long will it take the Chinese Communist Party to come to the same conclusion? But there is no convincing the despot of North Korea. He is a true son following Daddy's lead and creating for his people the hell on earth that is communism. He will be convinced to free his people when he is dead. Let us hope that the "Dear Leader" soon suffers a fatal accident (too bad the exploding train missed) and that the next member of the Kim family to rule does a better job of instituting freedom than his father and grandfather. We can only hope.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired) (Jul 29, '04)
bigbird@kwamt.com


[Re N Korean refugees beginning of a flood?, Jul 29] Has anyone ever had the suspicion that the South Korean leaders are not the group of good-hearted fools we all take them for? What could be worse for the South Korean economy than the collapse of their demonic neighbor to the north?
Dave Henderson
Canada (Jul 29, '04)


The article Behind the facade of Indian subsidies [Jul 29] presents in sober terms what is wrong with the state of subsidies in India and indeed many other developing nations of the world. Unfortunately, the political system in India rewards such irrational behavior to benefit the few at the expense of the many. In the most recent assembly elections, the Indian National Congress won a smashing landslide in Andhra Pradesh running on the platform of free electricity for farmers. The ruling AIADMK [All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam] of Tamil Nadu, in the aftermath of a rout in the most recent federal elections, has opted to copy this scheme in an attempt to avoid a similar fate as the former ruling TDP [Telugu Desam Party] of Andhra Pradesh when assembly elections come due in 2006. Funny how a political system that claims to represent the majority based on one-man-one-vote repeatedly produces policy decisions that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Wen-Kai Tang
Brooklyn, New York (Jul 29, '04)


Indians like to compare India with China. However, Siddharth Srivastava in the article Speaking English, like Indians [Jul 29] never mentioned a word [about] China. A major difference between the two countries is the altitude towards their own language. Chinese people overseas, in Taiwan, and in China spend billions of dollars or yuan to teach their children Chinese language. They do that for culture and economical reasons. From poor shepherd to multibillionaire, most Chinese people are proud of being able to speak, read and write Chinese. India is also a culture-rich country. Chinese monks [who] visited India 1,200 years ago [were] very impressed with India's culture. Chinese people thought India was a western heaven where gods lived, until the Opium War started. If you visit China now, you can still find precious stones, large bronze bells, and many other expensive materials carved, forged and engraved with India language. Indian people should be just as proud as Chinese people of their language. Giving up India language would be India's largest loss.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 29, '04)


[Re Turkey, Israel aim to forgive and forget, Jul 28] Can you not appreciate the historic State of Israel and its 5 million people, or do you feel that the Middle East is for Muslims only? Do you honestly feel that Yasser Arafat and his $1 billion in Europe stolen from donors is your best friend? God help the people of Turkey with representatives like you and [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.
Alec Gabe (Jul 29, '04)


Dear Gajendra Singh: I took the time and read [Turkey, Israel aim to forgive and forget, Jul 28] top to bottom. I am sorry for wasting my time by doing so and not just skipping to the "conclusions" sections to look for the Israel-bashing crescendo. Being biased and anti-Israeli is OK, just admit it and let us all move on instead of hiding behind long paragraphs.
Amir Stamper
Plantation, Florida (Jul 29, '04)


Esam Sohail (Disturbing colors of anti-globalization, Jul 28) and letter writers Bob Hu and John Stimmel [Jul 28] fail to grasp the historical context of the economics of globalization and labor. Labor demands - an integral part of human development - and free trade can only clash if there huge inequalities to begin with. Globalization, labor and colonization can go hand in hand and cannot be understood by focusing on any two of the three (see Loot: In Search of the East India Company, the world's first transnational corporation, by Nick Robins; Environment & Urbanization Vol 14 No 1 April 2002). There is nothing wrong with the American labor "demanding" better living standards - that's what life is about: create demand so that a market to supply the needs arises, and thereby improve quality of life - isn't that what we all want? The misallocation of resources (through colonialization) that happened in the past centuries is showing its ugly face, and globalization is its unintended victim. The massive geographic misallocation of the world's resources and infrastructure that were created by the ugly forces of colonialism cannot be turned around by restricting free trade. In "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", author and leading macroeconomic historian Angus Maddison shows that the British with less than 2.9% of the world GDP [gross domestic product] in the 1700s went on to colonize the massive economy of India (GDP 24.4% [around] 1700). By the 1940s the British managed to improve their share of GDP (by curtailing free trade to a one-way phenomenon) to [about] 7% but reducing India's to [approximately] a mere 4%. So a combined GDP of 27% gets reduced to 11% due to colonialism. Now is free trade or the labor movement to blame? Also, this drop (in India's GDP) created the greatest holocaust the world has seen in terms of the sheer number of lives lost/expectancy reduced. Remember, no apologies [or] reparations are even spoken [of] regarding this, and we are fighting over the merits of free trade and labor? Wrong focus, I guess.
Rudy Banerjee
Berkeley, California (Jul 29, '04)


Responding to Armand De Laurell's letter of July 28, he may refer to me as a "Canadian", since he pretends to speak as an American, and I am at least as Canadian as he is an American. And if I were really a Canadian I would discourage his type from moving here - we know what he's done with those Utah sheep. As to [Jim] Sadler [letter, Jul 28], doesn't he realize the alleged murdering of six Iraqis by [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi was reported by a single reporter from the Sydney [Morning] Herald based on two anonymous sources? Though Mr Sadler finds this "persuasive", ABC online and Newsweek, [which] covered the report, did not. Tim Blair, an excellent Australian blogger, speculated that the story was planted by Mr Allawi to acquire what I might idiomatically term "street cred with his peeps. know wut i'm saying?" If I wasn't Canadian. Which, ironically, I am. Thank you for the interest in my employment situation. Currently I am between jobs while I finish my two books, The Ironical Use of the Word "Irony" by Pseudo-Intellectuals, Incorrectly, Ironically and Europe's Love/Hate Affair with Fat, Arrogant and Uneducated Americans: Michael Moore Gets Sucked up to by Eurotrash American Haters in Cannes. I expect to finish up next month, and would be interested if he knows of any leads.
Johannes L D'Armstrong
Vacationing in Paris (still wearing a Canadian flag) (Jul 29, '04)


First of all, I was expecting Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jul 28] would call me a "representative of the Chinese Communist Party" [CCP], while my opinion is in fact independent. McCarthy should study the position of the CCP and PRC [People's Republic of China] more clearly. That position is that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. Clearly I do not say that, because the CCP has no jurisdiction over the ROC-controlled [Republic of China] territories. Nevertheless, you can't conclude then that Taiwan is not part of China. There is no single treaty or legal document that says that Taiwan is a "sovereign nation separate and independent from China" as McCarthy claims. The opposite is true, however: there are legal documents that say that Taiwan is part of China and that the Chinese people are sovereign. The most important document in Taiwan is their basic law: the ROC constitution. McCarthy claims "we" would have wished that "we" lost the civil war. This is just hilarious, to be honest. In my view, the civil war has not ended. It will be ended when either the CCP has jurisdiction over all of China (including Taiwan) or the ROC. Another third solution may be political reconciliation between the two sides with peaceful reunification. Secondly, Frank [letter, Jul 28] stresses that the Taiwan people should stick with the "status quo". I wonder how one can stick with the "status quo" when each side has a different interpretation of it? The way I see it, the "status quo" is rather a hollow term used by both the Americans and the Taiwan separatists to block China's reunification indefinitely. Last but not least, ATol's letters editor talks about "democracy and freedom", once again. He has often edited, censored or refused my letters. I wonder when we can democratically elect the letters editor? In the meantime, it would be better if he didn't intervene in letters between readers in order to maintain the image that ATol is neutral and objective to all readers.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 29, '04)

We do strive to be neutral, but that does not mean we need to tolerate nonsensical claims on the Letters Page (at least not ad nauseam). If we claimed that we sitting in Hong Kong or Thailand know what is in the minds of all Dutch people, we would rightly be laughed off the Internet. Yet you wish to claim that you know, sitting in safety behind the dikes amid the aroma of tulip fields and without the fear of thought police, that hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants think exactly the same as you do about the Taiwan issue, without offering any evidence for your contention (extrasensory perception, perhaps?). - ATol


This refers to your editorial comment "Sudan is in Africa, and therefore not part of our regular coverage area." Given the fact that most of your contributors are freelancers, nothing short of journalistic racism on your part explains why Africa is excluded - while many non-Asian regions, such as the US and UK, are included. Suppose this were not a case of intended racism, it is still baffling why Asia Times would dare not venture in non-Asian regions. Do you expect the New York Times to restrict itself to New York? You can't just say that a certain region is not part of our regular coverage area and leave it at that. You have to figure out how to cover that area, and in fact develop, if possible, even an Asian journalistic perspective on those areas ...
Choa Noa (Jul 29, '04)

Every news organization has a policy on what it does and does not cover, and our coverage policy is based on geography. No one should expect an organization that calls itself "Asia Times Online" not to concentrate on Asia. We do venture beyond the Asian continent occasionally, when the area thereby covered concerns Asian affairs. As it happens, we now have online a story (Darfur: The case for intervention ) that makes just such a link between the Darfur tragedy and an Asian issue - Iraq. - ATol

I would like to thank you for publishing the article Disturbing colors of anti-globalization [Jul 28]. I enjoyed reading its clear message and brief but pithy commentary. I would also like to congratulate the writer, Esam Sohail. Too often I find the articles published in your Speaking Freely column run on in a confused ramble that cannot be read in under 20 minutes, which for many makes it inaccessible due to the time constraints of a busy lifestyle. Perhaps the free speakers can also be a bit freer with their editing?
Bob Hu (Hu Bob for the traditionalists)
Sydney, Australia (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] Disturbing colors of anti-globalization [Jul 28]. It's enlightening to hear a Kansas City banker sound off on the conscience of the American working class. Am I to assume that he earns far less than minimum wage being that he merely watches over the money of others, 9-to-5, Monday through Friday, and he is probably outclassed by his Asian counterparts in global-national trade (noting the stark US trade and currency imbalance)? Is he going to speak this critically of the Asian workforce when they are developed, organized and demand a less modest slice of what we once referred to as "The American Dream" for their hard work and massive profit-generating? Obviously, the propaganda spewed by elitist groupthinkers like [Esam] Sohail is intended to make people around the world believe the American working class is greedy and selfish, not wanting to share the spoils with our global counterparts. The truth is, Americans believe 10-year-old children, regardless of race, creed or color, deserve better than to stand in a hot factory for 12-16 hours a day making golf shoes so that Kansas City bankers can court business from multinational corporations. We also believe working people in India, China [and] Singapore deserve a bigger slice of the pie, American workers deserve fair competition on a level playing field and working people around the world deserve the opportunity to better their own lives based on their individual hard work and ingenuity. Mr Sohail has obviously observed the education gaps in the US workforce. Does he offer any suggestions on education reform to help bring Americans up to academic par with the global competition or does he believe we should be discarded, herded into tents or exploited as cheap manual labor or lab rats? It's almost certain Mr Sohails' obtuse and inaccurate statements are either based on complete ignorance or just plain elitist groupthink and delusions of grandeur.
John Stimmel
Michigan, USA (Jul 28, '04)


In dragging India [in], is Syed Saleem Shahzad (US paints Pakistan further in a corner [Jul 28]) trying to divert attention from [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's inability to deliver terrorists? To begin with, most September 11 [2001] hijackers seemed to have some Pakistani/Saudi connection. Furthermore, the top Pakistani military leadership seemed to have some kind of contact with them, if not actively outsourcing their dirty work to them. Moreover, every arrested terrorist belonging to al-Qaeda worth his salt happened to be in Pakistan under some military-sponsored hideout. The issue before, today and in future is that of terrorism and Pakistani complicity in it. Pakistan and Musharraf have juggled but not given up this path. Why drag India into your quarrel with your colonial masters?
AP (Jul 28, '04)


Excellent article (The Chinese audit that went nowhere [Jul 28]) by Wang Chu. Several friends of mine in China try to avoid trouble by being low-key and avoiding talking politics altogether. But when they have needed to go to a government department for something they have found officials who seem to see no point in listening. The system doesn't work and the only way to pull the rug from under such officials' feet is to take a significant shift towards proper democracy. A free press to start with would get people talking to each other once again rather than concentrating on their own narrow self-interest, something that Deng Xiaoping once claimed wouldn't happen under socialism. The central leadership must know almost everything that everyone else does, but their own interests come first which involves trampling on others, often the most powerless. Officials' treatment of many in China is nothing short of insulting and I fear that Zhao Ziyang's warning is coming true: Economic reform without political reform will lead China down a blind alley.
Peter Mitchelmore (Jul 28, '04)


Y J Wu [letter, Jul 27] criticizes my letter [of Jul 26] and calls it "overreacting", while in fact I just made some innocent suggestions on how to improve reporting without offending any parties or supporters in this controversial issue. Clearly calling the relevant parties "China, Taiwan and the US" is biased in favor of those who want to separate Taiwan from China. I have responded to articles by Mac William Bishop before and it's very clear he usually embeds his opinion in his articles - an opinion I do not agree with. The future of Taiwan has already been decided by the Chinese people. On the mainland it's part of China. On Taiwan it's also part of China. Clearly the ROC [Republic of China] constitution, the basic law of the ROC-regime-administered territories, states that the Chinese people are sovereign and that they have the sovereignty over Chinese land, such as Taiwan. Rights such as "self-determination" do not count for Taiwan, if not just for practical reasons. Remember the Kurds, Chechens, Corsicans, Basques, etc who deserve that right more than a few separatists on Taiwan. This is not about what the "caprices" of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or PLA [People's Liberation Army] think, what old men in Beijing want or other outdated unimpressive rhetoric, it's rather what the Chinese people think and want. And that is reunification. It's also quite ironic that an ordinary Chinese living so far way from China still considers himself Chinese, while one living so close to the mainland does not.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 28, '04)

The irony we see, like Y J Wu, is that someone who, as you say, lives far away from China in the Netherlands knows with such certainty what has "been decided by the Chinese people", when mainland China not only has failed to establish a functioning democracy to determine and enact such popular decisions (unlike Taiwan), but suppresses free speech on the Internet and elsewhere. - ATol


I agree with Alex Chiang and Y J Wu that Taiwanese people know more about what will make their society successful. KMT [the Kuomintang] had kept Taiwan in peace and prosperity for 50 years. As Alex indicated, Taiwanese people would like to be left alone and continue their peaceful daily business. Why do other outside people want to change that? Why can't Taiwan keep the status quo and live in peace?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 28, '04)


The letter of J Zhang [of] the Netherlands (Jul 26) is representative of the position of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that Taiwan is mystically somehow part of China and cannot be separated from China, even though Taiwan was separated from China on October 1, 1949, by Mao Zedong's founding of the People's Republic. It is a queer irony that J Zhang and the CCP somehow regret winning the civil war, because if only they had lost then both Taiwan and China would be governed by a single government. Probably Vietnam and North Korea also regret that they did not lose their wars against the imperialists as well. Regardless of the logical contortions that CCP supporters use to justify the fiction that Taiwan has somehow remained part of China these past 55 years, all countries in the world (including China) respect Taiwan's sovereignty by respecting her borders, recognizing her passport, and trading with her. China even goes so far as to impose punitive tariffs on some goods from Taiwan, and to impose immigration and customs controls on persons entering China from Taiwan. Nothing could speak louder to China's real view that Taiwan is a sovereign nation separate and independent from China.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 28, '04)


Too often Spengler has a nose for grandiose theories that do not approximate well to reality, and his contention that Russia is going to send 40,000 troops to Iraq sounds like one of those [When Grozny comes to Fallujah, Jul 27]. True, a rumor to that effect has circulated, but not only have the Russians vehemently denied it, but consistently Russia has opposed the war in Iraq and the occupation of that country since the very beginning. Moreover, Russia, which has significant investments in Iraq and economically and politically a strong hand to play with the emergent Iraqi government would be quite foolish to not only risk its own military in a faraway engagement in that nation, but also to risk the credibility and leeway it has gained in Iraq today. Today, whether the current Iraqi government holds [on] after elections, presuming elections are actually held as planned, a government that is less beholden to the United States and more Islamicist holds out, Russia will be in a good position, as it is seen as impartial in the internal conflict in Iraq, and as staunchly against occupation. These positions mean that Iraqis of all stripes in the long term should be far more willing to deal with Russia than with some of the nations in the coalition. Moreover, Russia quietly has been rebuilding her economic and political ties in Iraq, working especially diligently with influential Shi'ites and paying close attention to the powerful clerics. US companies could only wish for that kind of strategy from their country. Sending troops in would undermine long-term Russian economic and political interests. Sending troops in would be costly and unpopular. Sending troops in would deflect resources that Russia is using not only in Chechnya but also to put pressure on many of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, which Russia hopes to control through puppets and possibly reabsorb in the long term. Lastly, sending troops in would be providing support to the United States in a region where the Russians are quite hopeful that the US will fail, so that Russia can reassert her influence and fill the vacuum left behind. Consequently, for Russia sending troops to Iraq would be a calamitous move. Spengler's mistake is to assume that the Russians are not only humbled by the collapse of the Soviet Union but that Russian power has waned so much that it is ready to and needs to play lap dog to the United States. He apparently has not noticed how Vladimir Putin, in addition to rebuilding autocratic power for the executive within Russia, has been steadily increasing Russia's regional power and working to reassert de facto control over much of the former Soviet Union in Central Asia and even over Ukraine. Belarus is already firmly within the Russian orbit. Still, such a mistake on Spengler's part is not so surprising. His analysis often seems to rely more on conspiracy theories, opinion, and his own hopes and desires than on any objective measure of fact.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC (Jul 28, '04)


Dear Ritt Goldstein: I read your article [Groupthink and the slide into fascism, Jul 27] with interest ... I humbly suggest that you and your co-workers and friends read the book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon, originally written in French, first translated into English in 1896. It has remained the preeminent study of crowd, or groupthink, psychology. After reading this book you will feel satisfied, delighted and awed as one who brings into sharp focus a subject that is blurred and unintelligible by carefully twisting the lens of his camera or telescope. If I were a newspaper editor I would print this book in serialized form for the enlightenment of the readers. Please secure a copy of this book, read it and be awestruck with clear insight and understanding of the present-day USA leadership, or groupthink crowd mentality.
Hans Jurgen Kary (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] US lessons on India and Pakistan by Seema Sirohi (Jul 27). It looks like this author never learns. At the first opportunity, all the articles churned out by him/her (or probably both) consistently badmouth Pakistan. Has this author not got anything better to do? His/her attitude is tainted by the animosity held by extremists on both sides. Words used to describe the subject (Pakistan) are common with personal opinion. A direct appeal to the editor: Please can you save us from reading this trash? News organizations are supposed to inform people. When the articles consistently slant in a predictable direction, ie inflating the negatives, accusations of churning out propaganda become real. Do you want your good offices to be used in this manner? You can decide.
Tony (Jul 28, '04)


I have short-cut your Asia Times site to my desktop. What a great find! I am sorry it took me so long to get around to you. I want especially to thank you for the Nir Rosen articles on Fallujah. I have sent the links to these articles to all my friends. Thank God for the Internet. It is so hard to find reporting like this in newspapers. Mr Rosen is to be thanked and congratulated for his daring as much as for his honesty and insight. I pray he will not return to Fallujah, however. To do so would be to tempt fate severely and, believe me, we cannot afford to lose good journalists.
Heather MacDonald
Toronto, Ontario (Jul 28, '04)

Interest in Nir Rosen's series "Fallujah: Inside the Iraqi resistance" is still running high, so for the convenience of readers, we have put it on its own page. There is a link on our Front Page, or you can click here. - ATol
 

I am mildly surprised that you printed the garbled letter [Jul 27] from Don Kennedy, which managed to avoid anything remotely resembling a fact or coherent argument. Still, his knowledge of idioms is clearly much superior to Armand [De Laurell]'s, which presumably will keep Johannes [L D'Armstrong, letter, Jul 27] happy and ensure his future employment status in the US. On a more serious note, I am wondering if the recent investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald, which persuasively claims that Iraqi Prime Minister [Iyad] Allawi summarily executed six Iraqi prisoners last month, has the remotest chance of ever leading to an independent investigation. Surely the Bush administration would be very disturbed to find it had helped to install an unelected thug with a track record of violence to run the country. But irony aside, I wonder if any international organizations or journalists will have the tenacity to expose the full truth behind this story. Here's hoping.
Jim Sadler (Jul 28, '04)


Responding to J L D'Armstrong (letter of Jul 27): Pleez, pleez no caling emmigration. Shall I call you Massa or Herr D'Armstrong? Pleez, pleez forgive zee bad edyom. Amma learning, Herr D'Armstrong. Amma good boy. eye heard sheep in utah. no wanna loos green card. then eye have to move to canada.
Armand De Laurell (Jul 28, '04)


I thoroughly enjoyed Mike's letter [Jul 27]. The image of the lumbering giant Pillsbury Doughboy is a good one for Francis Fukuyama's vision of the end of history. However, even Francis may be having second thoughts. I read somewhere that he has become highly critical of his former neo-con buddies.
Francis (not Fukuyama)
Quebec, Canada (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler's When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27]. Mr Spengler's analysis of the rumors surrounding George Friedman's prediction (in his www.Stratfor.com online publication) of three to four divisions of Russian troops deploying in the Sunni triangle as the "October surprise" in our [US] election cycle is missing one salient point: how their prospective action in Fallujah will play back in Russia. As I sit here watching Hillary Clinton speaking at the Democratic lovefest in Boston, it's quickly apparent what is not mentioned by Spengler: the politics in Russia. President [Vladimir] Putin has a 70% approval level among the electorate: How would sending troops en masse into Iraq affect these poll numbers - polling that President [George W] Bush would throw [Vice President Richard] Cheney "under the bus" to get? For a possible scenario, one need only look as far as the genius behind the political success of Bill Clinton: Dick Morris. In an extended Izvestia interview 14 months ago on the Russian translation of his book The New Prince, he counseled President Putin to return to a modern version of the World War II "Big Three" of [Winston] Churchill, [Franklin] Roosevelt and [Josef] Stalin; and more importantly, cast aside "the days when Vladimir is content to join Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder in toasting their shared impotence over vodka, champagne and beer ..."
Dan Schwartz
Cherry Hill, New Jersey (Jul 27, '04)


Re: When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27]. Your "analysis" evidently equates Grozny with Iraq, at least in your estimation of Russian thinking. May I suggest you take a look at a map? Grozny is closer than Russia's back yard and is crucial to Russian security, including part of its existing crude-oil-pipeline network. Tell me, please, what existing pipelines does Russia own in Iraq, which does not even border Russia? You proclaim what a "master stroke" it would be for Russia to occupy Iraq, and proceed to list the supposed geopolitical benefits, as if Russia cannot obtain such benefits unless America grants them. However, you utterly fail to list the sure costs Russia would incur if it sent troops to Iraq. They would be massive and prohibitive. Your thinking is clearly one-dimensional, constrained to the principles of power and geopolitical "benefits" resulting from military invasions in the pursuit of colonial-style empire. Tell me, have you been associating too closely with the Bush administration? Russia tried such an empire, and it didn't last. America is trying it, and has fallen on its face at the first step, Iraq. Grozny was not an attempt at empire, but sending troops to Iraq certainly would be. In case you haven't noticed, the Russians are playing much smarter these days. They are working hard to establish a network of strategic regional and global alliances, for cooperation in all spheres. They know what the US should know, but doesn't - colonial-style empire doesn't work. The Russians are rapidly gaining the geopolitical benefits you list in your article, without stupid and costly invasions and occupations. "Grozny" will not be exported outside Russian borders. It most likely won't be tried again inside Russian borders either. I found your article fanciful and incoherent. Emotional and bubble-headed. You're slipping.
W Joseph Stroupe (Jul 27, '04)


Dear Spengler: In your essay When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27] you suggest that what motivates the suicide bomber to fling himself against America is America's own inexorable nature: "... the creative destruction and cultural amnesia that define US society threaten to tear apart the sinews of traditional Islamic life". We are like a good-natured, giant Pillsbury Doughboy lumbering across the world, arms outstretched, gathering all within reach and smushing them into its soft, white breast where all are kneaded till smooth. Our vision of the future is best described by the Star Trek society where cultural difference can exist, side by side, without rancor because our ethnicity has been subjugated to a higher purpose and mission. Ethnic differences, religion, etc, are now amusing and entertaining and almost completely without relevance or meaning because we are now focused on our higher purpose, our common mission, to smush the world into our soft, white breast. A scary prospect, indeed, especially for the mullah who dreams about waking up tomorrow morning wearing Britney Spears' body.
Mike
USA (Jul 27, '04)


In response to J Zhang's letter [Jul 26] about the article Military might and political messages [Jul 24], I think J Zhang is overreacting and making unnecessary generalizations about the author's intent. Try as they might, no one can use grammar to impose a political message, and J Zhang's seems to be pretty straightforward: Taiwan is a province of China, period. But as recent events have indicated, there is no consensus about the status of Taiwan in the one place that really matters: Taiwan. To say that "the concept of China goes beyond political boundaries" is simply a rhetorical fallacy, and to point out that Taiwan "is part of China to most ordinary Chinese" illustrates precisely why there is no dialogue between China and Taiwan. Perhaps "most ordinary Chinese" believe this (and I question how one can be in touch with "ordinary Chinese" when one lives in the Netherlands), but certainly most ordinary Taiwanese don't. Again, it seems what Chinese nationalists fear more than anything else is seeing a successful community with a latent Chinese cultural heritage that is not dominated by the autocrats in Beijing. It may be that "self-determination of peoples" is a concept that has lost its currency over the years, but it is still an ideal of great value. Whether or not the people of Taiwan wish to "unify" with China should be left up to the people of Taiwan, and not simply the caprices of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or PLA [People's Liberation Army]. Certainly the Taiwanese know more about what will make their society successful than the old men in Beijing.
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Jul 27, '04)


Leslie Davis correctly points out the domestic political consequences President Gloria Arroyo-Macapagal would have faced were she to have kowtowed to the US and Australia and sacrificed Angelo de la Cruz [Arroyo basks in hero's aura, and keeps her job, Jul 24]. The country would have exploded and only martial law would have saved her. She is an astute neo-liberal economist. The US$18 billion in annual foreign-exchange remittances to the Philippines provided by its overseas workforce is precisely what services the country's enormous foreign debt. The impact of these remittances on the domestic economy are consequently less significant - and the country remains in an ever-growing debt trap. So while the politicians and pundits in the Anglo-American world openly condemn the Philippines, privately, we can be sure, their bankers have set them straight. In the grand scheme of things the major creditor countries and institutions would prefer the millions of Angelo de la Cruzes to be alive and laboring abroad to fulfill the Philippines' debt obligations over some symbolic beheading in Iraq and mass uprisings and instability in Manila.
Robin Abaya
New York (Jul 27, '04)


I would like to personally thank Nir Rosen for risking his life by going to Fallujah to gather the most important reportage to come from Iraq since the insurgency began. From the very beginning of his seven-part series [Fallujah: Inside the Iraqi resistance], I was apprehensive for his safety. After watching the New York Times' [Jeffrey] Gettleman on The Charlie Rose Show a few nights ago talk about the extreme dangers of being a journalist in Iraq, and expressing his fear and reluctance to return there, it reinforced even more the admiration I felt for Mr Rosen's work. Some might call you a foolish hero, Mr Rosen, but "heroic" is the right adjective, and the readers of Asia Times know that. We are grateful for your courage and the indispensable information you gathered to enable our understanding of the Iraqi resistance. Good work.
David Sheegog
Paoli, Oklahoma (Jul 27, '04)


[Armand] DeLaurell advises [us] Americans to "wake up and smell the roses", after the usual apology/justification of the actions of the [September 11, 2001] death-freaks [letter, Jul 26]. Perhaps Mr DeLaurell should wake up and work on his idiomatic English. Or better yet, perhaps the American immigration authorities should wake up and take his green card.
Johannes L D'Armstrong
Vacationing in the Pyrenees (wearing a Canadian flag) (Jul 27, '04)


I have [written] a few times with no reply of my letter ever being posted, and as ... such, I am posting you on my site as a [prejudiced] paper, full of lies and fairy tales! Never have I read anything positive about America or our people. Never how we give freely aid, feed and [support] those in need. Never how we as a nation, the best still in the world can have mistakes, but still have good intentions. Because we are human like the rest of the world. Islam is shown by you as always being right, when it's [worse] than the Crusades of the past by Christians. By your reporting, they are shown as just and right, [heroes] for freedom, when all they are are just evil, misguided and misinformed about the truth. I read Iraqi news, and all you say is wrong about [Iraqis]. I am sure that they would say so, and we have not blocked freedom of expression! Yes prejudice against America is in your paper, and you promote it, and [against] anyone who are friends or allies with us! My goal now is to bring to light all the [falsehoods] and prejudice by those like you and to help those [who] are [concerned] about Islam to reform it! To show these terrorists as [the] non-Islamic infidels they are! Wake up and smell the coffee, before you and those like you start World War III, with your prejudice and hate that is really unjustified!
Don Kennedy
USA (Jul 27, '04)


After reading [Marc] Erikson's commentary of the failings of the 9-11 report titled A failure of imagination [Jul 24], one is tempted to come to the same conclusion that he has regarding the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Policies followed by actions that reflect the simplistic splitting of hairs as to whether one is a good manager or a good intelligence chief betrays the realities of a society such as the US in its relations to other nations. For better or for worse successive administrations have, especially in the Middle East region, followed dysfunctional and to a certain extent irrational (given the present standing of the US in that part of the world as also elsewhere) and harmful policies that contributed to the acts of September 11, 2001. The blame is a shared one by all. The plain citizen. The ignorance and arrogance of responsible individuals. The unwarranted influences of certain lobby groups. And the belief that the world we now live in is circa 1940/1950/1960. What is at least to this writer astonishing is that as a society we spend the time and the effort to determine who is to blame for [September 11] and no one ever asks the question as to what justified and/or what did the USA gain from the number of dead Americans whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam Memorial. Did the millions of chemicalized Vietnamese and the 65,000 or so American military personnel die due to poor management or poor leadership? We Americans really need to wake up and smell the roses.
Armand DeLaurell (Jul 26, '04)


Congratulations to David Scofield for his fine article on the aversion of young Koreans to the less-than-prestigious job opportunities abounding in their country [The human factor in Korea's economic woes, Jul 24]. The same mentality appears to permeate their counterparts abroad. Recently a good-looking young plumber in New York complained to me that Korean women will not date him, the fact that he earns over $100,000 a year not withstanding. Evidently he is, alas, a ... laborer.
John Hallinan (Jul 26, '04)


In reading Macabe Keliher's China's waters of life are the waters of death [Jul 24], which reviewed Elizabeth Economy's recent book [The River Runs Black], I detected something similar to many of my own reactions to the material available on the Council of Foreign Relations' website covering her work. Economy is right to point out that China's economic growth and overall well-being are linked to environmental policies being taken seriously and implemented. Boiled down to essentials, however, Economy is almost surely interested mostly in how such unattended environmental problems in China will impair economic growth in the region in general and US trade, credit needs and investment opportunities in particular. For her, "free-market democracy" is the goal; environmental ethics is but a means, although she might believe she is seeing things differently. Fact is, economic growth in China will be much like economic growth has been in the US, Europe, Japan, etc - at the expense of the environment somewhere. Greater power and sophistication allow a people or nation to force some environmental costs of economic growth on to others, but as only the last hundred years makes starkly visible, the paradigm that equates growth with well-being is generally insane. If China could perfect this formula within its own territory, it would necessarily devastate the region and draw upon more distant areas for the resources it needs to produce the goods it needs or wants for its trade, development and consumption a mere delaying tactic. As just one example of what this looks like, examine China's consumption of wildlife for food and traditional medicine, which is absolutely emptying all of Asia of a huge range of species as its economy grows and people enjoy increased discretionary spending. In a report that focused on trade in wildlife in Laos but covered the region (Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Thailand; including some statistics from Indonesia and the Philippines), IUCN's [International Union for the Conservation of Nature] 2001 report was appropriately titled "The End of the Game". The country of destination for most of this trade is China, where obscenely people pay more as the animals become increasingly rare. SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] gave conservationists some small hope that Asia will wake up to the disaster it is creating, but all hope is really just wishful thinking. Macabe Keliher got it right on two main points: The US has no model to offer China to salvage itself from environmental ruin, and without an altogether new paradigm for mankind, the rest is futile.
Joe Nichols
USA (Jul 26, '04)


Andrew Tully's article US now linked to 'vigilantes' in Afghanistan [Jul 24] implies that there is no one at the Pentagon named Heather Anderson: "Idema, a former US soldier, said his group was in direct fax and e-mail contact with the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with his top aides. He said a four-star official in the Pentagon named Heather Anderson 'applauded our efforts'. But AP [Associated Press] reported that there are no four-star female officers in the entire US military, and that no one by that name is listed in the Pentagon telephone book." In fact, Ms Anderson is currently employed by the DOD [Department of Defense] as director for strategic integration and acting director for security. Her boss is Stephen Cambone. Her job includes responsibilities regarding security clearances for personnel hired by the DOD. Here, she testifies before the House Government Reform Committee on May 6, 2004. Perhaps Ms Anderson needs to testify under oath regarding any contacts she may have had with Jack Idema.
John Seal
Oakland, California (Jul 26, '04)


[Raju] Bist has done well to cover some major if quiet changes in how Indians, especially the middle class, shop, eat and entertain (The great Indian mall boom, [Jul 24]). Now Mr Bist could do better if he could report on the status of the supply-chain management in agriculture. Improvements there will go a long way in helping India's long-suffering farmers and middle classes as well.
AP (Jul 26, '04)


In [Military might and political messages, Jul 24] by Mac William Bishop, you call the three [interested] parties China, Taiwan and the US. This, however, is not very accurate and it suggests Taiwan being separated from China. Although this is probably precisely what Mac William Bishop is thinking, many actually disagree with it. It would be better to be more precise, such as calling them Beijing, Taipei and Washington. It gives more room for more interpretation in this controversial issue. In the case of Taiwan, the concept of China goes beyond political boundaries. Whether it be administered by the PRC (People's Republic China) or ROC (Republic of China) governments, it is part of China to most ordinary Chinese. Equating China to PRC, but leaving Taiwan out of it, may suggests otherwise.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 26, '04)


Wow, I just read the [Ask] Spengler column [Of butterfly priests and Spengler's Chaos Theory, Jul 20]. Remind me not to in the future, I can only stomach so much hate. And he really doesn't understand much about either empire or Israel. So far as empire goes, he doesn't realize that America doesn't actually want to own anything, just control it (just like Nike doesn't own any of its sweatshops). And with regard to his disgusting anti-Palestinian diatribes, maybe you can ask him to explain what he would do if, say, the American government gave somebody billions of dollars every year so that they could demolish his house and kick him off of your property (after shooting your grandparents with attack helicopters). That's not to say that [Yasser] Arafat's a saint, but I'm going to side with the guy who uses a Molotov cocktail to protect his people against an attack helicopter any day. I am thoroughly disgusted.
Lindsey Walsh (Jul 26, '04)


I've come to realize something about the current world situation. The average Westerner (again, I know little or nothing about non-Westerners) does not live in a temporal reality. For the West, time, history, no longer exists. Quite strange, since Spengler made a point of commenting how the Faustian spirit of the West was limitless, history or temporal reality being part of the West's basic consciousness [America is not an empire, Jul 13]. But consider, I, a true Faustian in a sense which is almost scary, look upon the current developing conflict or tragedy between the West and Islam as a simple occurrence in the history of the world, I just happen to be alive today. What I have noticed about most commentators is that they are incredibly present-minded. They see Christianity as it exists today, and say this is Christianity. They see Islam, and say this is Islam. Islam is hateful towards the Jews. Christianity loves the Jews. Remember 700 years ago, Christianity had major problems with the Jews (what is truly amazing is not Christian Europe's persecution of the Jews, but its tolerance of the Jews, from the Cathars, to "Pagans", to the religious wars, Christianity had a tendency to eliminate what it saw as demonic manifestations leading souls to hell), and Islam tolerated the Jews. How many people have even a basic knowledge of the historical development of Christianity? (Of course, their interest may be in heaven, rather than in knowledge.) My point is that very few people see the human existence in a historical temporal view. The West, it appears, has become more like the other cultures of the world, and in some sense has lost its uniqueness. But in truth, maybe this is because the West is a culture of a whole society, it is very inclusive. From the fattest rich guy to the welfare/TV-watching type, they for the most part share the same pop culture. Spengler said that the Faustian West was elitist, in every sense of the world, so maybe the culture which allowed someone to write "decline of the West" excluded itself into hell. What I am whining about is that in this democratic age ... declining literacy, would it not be a good thing to push a temporal consciousness on to people? Alas, I sound like an elitist snob saying it would be a good idea to try to pick up an ocean, or try to "create a reformation in Islam".
Dave Henderson (Jul 26, '04)


Syed Saleem Shahzad claims in a response to Jamal Jahid's [Jul 22] letter: "Ask any communist sitting in exile in Pakistan, Russia or France - he would tell you that it is not the Afghan nation that defeated Russia, but the bunch of Arab and Pakistani fighters organized by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States" [letter, Jul 23]. The maximum number of Arabs and Pakistanis who joined the Afghan jihad could not exceed 20,000 at most, compared with 2 million Afghans who got killed fighting the Soviets. These fanatic Arabs and Pakistanis amount to nothing. Indeed, Syed Saleem Shahzad should not forget that these Arabs and Pakistanis did not join the Afghan fight for their love of the Afghan nation or for any noble cause; both Arabs and Pakistanis had their own agenda and evil plan and saw the Afghan struggle against the Soviets as an opportunity to further their evil plans. Arabs joined the Afghan jihad so they could use Afghanistan as a base for their future fight - to re-establish Arab imperialism using Islam. While Pakistanis had their own evil agenda, first Pakistanis knew that they were enable to [resist a Soviet invasion]; especially when the ultimate purpose of Soviet Afghan invasion was to reach the warm waters of Indian ocean. Second, the Pakistanis got a God-given chance to eliminate the righteous and legal demand of Pashtunistan, which unfairly and against all the norms and logic after the British departure went to Pakistan - a country with which Pashtuns had no correlation with. Historically, racially, culturally and religion-wise Pashtuns belong in Afghanistan. Indeed the words Pashtun, Pathan and Afghan are synonymous. Thus Pakistan deployed her full energy to radicalize and brainwash Pashtun youth; usual illiterate village folks into Dewbandi, Wahhabi (Talibi) dogmas; using holy Islam to carry their evil and despicable plan of "Kabul must burn" and "strategic depth". And today after the betrayal of the Taliban and other fanatics, the Pakistanis are engaged in a half-hearted fight against the same people that they spent all their energy and resources to create (to keep the Afghan nation backward). Thank God today the chicken is coming back to the rooster and I am delighted to watch these operations and fight in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] while eating my popcorn and drinking my Coke since, as in the famous Pashto saying, "Death on any side is in the benefit of Islam!" All in all, I advise Mr Shahzad to not put too much emphasis on a criminal and traitor gang like communists and their hot air. History is written by people who sacrifice their life for their country and nation's cause, and Afghan history, especially the history of the Soviet-Afghan war, is written by the blood of 2 million brave Afghans. In addition Mr Shahzad writes: "There is no doubt that like the people of the entire world, Afghan people are nice and friendly. However, it is always internal contradictions of the society that help external forces to use their ground." I wonder what Mr Shahzad means by "internal contradictions", but whatever he means it does not justify the cowardice and despicable interference of Pakistan, Iran and other outsiders, special after the Soviet defeat which left Afghanistan weak and vulnerable. Mr Shahzad's argument is the same as blaming a victim for a crime just because the victim was vulnerable.
Babagul Khan de Afghan
Kandahar, Afghanistan (Jul 26, '04)


Would it be possible to have [Pepe] Escobar visit Darfur in Sudan and provide a first-hand account of events there, after he recovers from his long road trip in America?
Sir Rogers USA (Jul 26, '04)

Sudan is in Africa, and therefore not part of our regular coverage area. As well, the ongoing tragedy there is, at least at the moment, finally being paid attention to by other media. When they lose interest again, perhaps we can find a way to put Pepe on the case, as we did recently for the Roving USA series you mention. Until then, we - and he - have our hands full here in Asia. - ATol


In response to Jamal Jahid (letter, Jul 22):

I used to enjoy Asia Times, but I worry your Spengler is turning into an embarrassment. Am I the only reader who noticed that "Red-faced in Rome", "Puzzled on the Potomac", "Muddled in Mesopotamia" and "Worried in Waziristan" [are] just a joke? And that your star columnist is too infatuated with his/her own sagacity (or too smug) to get it? And right smack on the front page [Ask Spengler: Of butterfly priests and Spengler's Chaos Theory, Jul 20]. Oops.
Martin Schonfeld (Jul 20, '04)

Congratulations on getting the joke, but shame on you for thinking anyone took it seriously. It would be nice if people like the Pope ("Red-faced in Rome") and Osama bin Laden ("Worried in Waziristan") really wrote to ATol, but they're much too busy, so sometimes Spengler writes for them. - ATol
PS That's not Spengler's real hair-do either.


"Americans are too generous and too ignorant to run an empire" [Ask Spengler: Of butterfly priests and Spengler's Chaos Theory, Jul 20]. Hmmmm. A very intriguing statement. I understand the "too generous" part, but the "too ignorant" part of your statement needs further explanation. What would we Americans need to learn to run an empire, besides Muslim poetry, a recommendation you made in my last inquiry? When in your "Dear Spengler phase", I admit some of your sly answers go right over my poor little American head. Please spell out in concrete terms what you mean and perhaps include a reading list for the instruction of ignorant Americans. You can call the course syllabus "Empires 101". I'm still looking for that Muslim poetry, but all that I have found is a recent poetry fest held in Fallujah [Inside the Iraqi resistance Part 2: The fighting poets, Jul 17]. Their congratulatory verses were entertaining, but they didn't stand up to the next day's American bombfest. Pity. Is that what you would call "American poetry", or have I misinterpreted your definition of poetry? I enjoy reading your essays, and have even learned a thing or two.
Eleanor P Garriga (Jul 20, '04)


Spengler says [Yasser] Arafat only kills Jews - unlike Israelis, who kill anybody who stands in their way [Ask Spengler: Of butterfly priests and Spengler's Chaos Theory, Jul 20]. Take Rachel Corrie, for instance - but American politicians grovel before [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, so [US] taxpayers like me are stuck subsidizing West Bank settlements whether we like it or not.
Harald Hardrada
New York, New York (Jul 20, '04)


In response to Joe Nichols' letter of July 15 on my article Patriotic pride and fear (July 8), he eloquently states: "But to imply that the slide towards fascism in the US is a deviation from a norm is, I believe, to infer the reality of an ideal based on an illusion, or is one conceived and recommended either naively or with some dishonesty and often for an ulterior purpose, at a time when what is really needed is an intrusion upon theory and analysis with frank observation, propagated in such a way as to alarm the powerful and the weak - parochial locals and media monopolists." While I cannot help but note that the second half of this statement is quite progressive and considered, the first segment effectively attempts to legitimate US fascism as a "norm", diminishing the severity of present circumstances in so doing. Frankly, it almost sounds as though any who protest the descending madness, claiming it as an illicit aberration from America's certainly imperfect democracy, are either naive or darkly manipulative. And while I can agree to much of what his letter so ably says, his text effectively weaves a beautiful and certainly stylish cloak about an argument to accept US fascism as fact, not to consider present events as extraordinary, and to consider those who might say otherwise as potentially untrustworthy ... but that doesn't sound much like a defense of democracy to me, and certainly not very progressive as I understand the term's proper use. And while I agree with Mr Nichols' conclusion upon the absolute necessity of pursuing a global ecological balance, I hope he can accept that - in a very real way - today's US political circumstances are extraordinary. Aside from the vast usurpation of power by the current executive branch of government, never in the history of the republic has there before been an effort to seek authority for postponing elections - on a number of fronts, America's constitution is eroding and under extreme assault. And will denying this crisis of government serve to protect or expand what democracy may remain, or rather does Mr Nichols invite more of the all too dominant apathy serving the US republic's decline? I'll add that there has been a considerable body of literature depicting that a sense of the inevitable, and the apathy it bred, proved 1930s fascism's allies. But, for my part, I have seen far too much of US democracy and what I knew as America already destroyed, and I cannot but observe that it was little more than eloquent rationalizations masquerading as "high-minded virtue" and the inevitable that helped sweep so much of freedom's legacy away. So while Nero may have fiddled an extraordinarily beautiful interlude while Rome burned, I personally would neither have listened nor applauded, but merely pursued what I could to fight the inferno, urging all who still had their wits about them to do similarly.
Ritt Goldstein (Jul 20, '04)


With each letter from GongShi, I am progressively more disappointed as I learn how few tools he possesses in his meager tool chest. He now bases his arguments on the tripartite combination of fiction (of his own making as well as the fictions promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party), deceptive misdirection, and unfounded allegations of bigotry (is that the same as racism?). For example, he falsely states that I wrote that "the sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred back to China in 1945". Untrue. Sorry, GongShi, but home cooking with the facts will earn you nothing but scorn. Then GongShi engages in an inartful gymnastic dance through post-World War II history with the false premise that the ROC [Republic of China] was China. As of October 1, 1949, China was and is the People's Republic of China (PRC), and even the most devout member of the one-China religion would not dare to argue otherwise outside of their efforts to convince themselves that there is hope for China taking over Taiwan. GongShi's misleading statements regarding UN resolutions can probably be left alone, except to note that before the UN recognized the PRC there were no CCP shills arguing that the PRC was not a country, so there is no reason for us to listen when they argue that Taiwan is not a country now. The facts on the ground are that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country separate from the PRC, and will remain so for the future. The historical and legal basis for such status has already been discussed, but as the one-China dogma is impenetrable to facts, I will not bother repetition of the same. China may choose to fall on its sword over Taiwan's disdain for it, but that is only likely to carve up the melon. In the 1960s, the likes of GongShi were screaming anti-imperialist rants because the CCP asked them to. In the 1980s, the likes of GongShi were asking if the cat caught mice, not whether it was black or white, because that was what Deng Xiaoping asked them to do. Now the likes of GongShi have worked themselves into an ultra-nationalistic frenzy seen before only in Nazi Germany because the CCP asks them to. But tomorrow when the CCP abruptly changes direction and comes up with a new political campaign (aimed at remaining in power), the mindless CCP sycophants will once again change direction as their memories are rather short and they generally do not believe in what they are saying for the most part. Regarding GongShi's allegation of bigotry, perhaps he considers everyone in Taiwan a bigot as they generally have a dim view of the CCP and its Taiwan policy as well. Or perhaps GongShi simply believes that everyone who does not agree with the CCP is a bigot, including Wei Jinsheng, Cai Ling, etc. And as for whether GongShi was educated in the US (other than a graduate degree), one can only wonder whether that is another "fact" from his cookbook.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 20, '04)


Some of your freelance writers are either prejudiced or in need of consulting the dictionary more. First you used the words "Beijing regime" rather than "Beijing government". Then you don't recognize the difference between "nemesis" and "competitor". As both are related to China, and Asia Times Online is located in Hong Kong, China, you do certainly reveal your thinking to your host.
S P Li
USA (Jul 20, '04)

Fortunately our host is not as thin-skinned as you. - ATol


I have a suggestion for your correspondent Frank: Walk down the street in Seattle with a T-shirt saying "down with the Washington dictatorship". You may receive some abuse or congratulations from the odd crank, and you'll be ignored by the police. Want to prove me wrong? Try it and document what happens, with witnesses and a hidden camera. Now try the same thing in China, with Chinese text, and substituting "Beijing" for "Washington". You'll probably be shot in the back of the head for sedition, or at least "re-educated" for a few years, but I'll bet you don't get ignored unless you stage the whole thing with your police-state buddies. That's why most of us don't like China's current government, and that's why a huge proportion of Taiwanese - regardless of the exact percentage, and regardless of our opinion of [President] Chen [Shui-bian] - are less than eager to be assimilated into that regime. Democratic government is not a preserve of white folks, as India demonstrates, however clumsily, and those of us who favor greater democracy in Asia are not slaves to our "white masters" or whatever other hysterical charge you want to level at us. As for your endless protestations against Western imperialism and veiled threats against America, it's pretty plain to see that they're motivated more by jealousy and a desire to be the top dog yourself, rather than any genuine desire for justice in the world. Why don't you head down to California, where you and Captain [Richard] Radcliffe can annihilate one another in a nationalist orgy of violence, and leave the rest of us in peace?
Alex Chiang (Jul 20, '04)


Responding to the letter by Jeff Imada [Jul 19], I have the following observations. The disappearance of jobs is not due entirely to China embracing a market economy. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, about three-quarters of the world population were not participating in the global trading system, and that included not only all the socialist/communist countries but also countries such as India, some South American countries and many countries in Africa. Now almost the entire 6 billion-plus world population with the exceptions of probably Cuba and North Korea are all actively looking for trade, investment, jobs for their citizens, etc. I think Japan at this stage is not suffering from destabilization due to the growth of China, [and neither] are South Korea and Australia. In fact they are booming due to the complementary nature of their economies, Japan and South Korea (high-tech products) Australia (resources). the countries that actually are suffering are countries that have competitive economic structures compared [with] China. In East Asia we can see quite clearly the different paths of development adopted by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and now China. The former three all started off with domestic market protection and possibly domestic subsidies, giving them the time and space to develop their own domestic brands. The results today are Sony, Hitachi, Samsung, LG, etc, which are now truly global brands and which actually managed to destroy some previously well-known Western brands. China started off with investment from MNCs [multinational corporations]. All the Western manufacturers which I worked for before are now making their products in China. Compared [with] other domestic China brands, their prices are very competitive. So I suspect that for China it [will] be a vastly different growth path. It is probably not correct to say what Japan and South Korea did, China can and will do. It might turn out to be different. One can make a general statement that China is now producing about 50% of the world's laptop computers - but do not forget it is all part of the global supply-chain management. I know for a fact that Singapore still produces about 40-50% of the hard disks used in the computers. Actually today the structure of the American economy is already very different from the other G8 [Group of Eight] countries. It is indeed the first country to master global supply-chain management. As a result America still has many global brands, but most of their products are not made in-house, be it plants in the USA or elsewhere, but by their subcontractors such as Flexitronics. The American firms retain the critical elements such as design, software, marketing and most importantly international brand management, which is really a software and very difficult but not impossible to duplicate, as Sony and Samsung both did brilliantly. The major problem facing the USA is its twin deficits, which have been managed through the de facto status of the US dollar as a global trading currency. It is very difficult to see any changes to this arrangement in the [near] future. I tend to agree that EU countries would have more difficulties in managing this transition. In addition to the problems mentioned they have a very serious aging-population problem which will greatly hamper their flexibility to adjust ... I am not in a position to say whether America is an empire, but America has many advantages compared [with] the rest of the world, such as top [notch] human capital through the continued infusion of talents from all over the world, flexibility, confidence and trust by the rest of the world (I can't imagine Russia [doing] what the USA is doing now, for example), their global corporations, which are still lean and hungry, etc, etc. Their biggest problem is their over-consumption, but this has been mitigated through the use of the US dollar as the currency of global trading, and have their foreign liabilities denominated in US dollars, unless this arrangement can be changed somehow, but I can see no one [who] can alter this delicate balance.
Dell
Singapore (Jul 20, '04)


It becomes pretty difficult to get hold of some of your older articles (unless they belong Spengler). Is it not possibly to have it so that the author's name in every article is a link to all the past work the author has ever done for ATol? I would also like to thank you for your reply to my letter dated July 16. I understand what you are trying to say about people wanting to move on, but could someone give this hint to Sudha Ramachandran?
T Kiani
London (Jul 20, '04)

An archive such as you suggest would be pretty unwieldy, especially for our more prolific writers. You should be able to find old articles by searching on the writer's name, either via Asia Times Online's own search feature or through Google. - ATol


Except for a few (thank the god of every religion on this planet), the letters published in ATol reflect a respectful and dignified comment and or criticism. One of the few exceptions is Sud Voleti's [Jul 19] use of labeling and possibly libeling other letter writers who have made comments and/or critiques of a retired pilot who preferred flying a la Hollywood for over four years [at taxpayers' expense] instead of having sex. Maybe the US Air Force can use that slogan for enticing young buckaroos to enlist. It may be true after all that the truism that ignorance is bliss is as true for liberals, conservatives, Marxists, Nazis, Zionists, Islamists, atheists, pagans, et al. As far as Sud Voleti is concerned, his joining the ramblings of a retired air force captain speaks for itself.
ADeL (Jul 20, '04)


An excellent article by [Indrajit] Basu (Clouds over India-Singapore accord [Jul 17]) on the damage this clueless Congress government is doing to India's economy. While it cuddles to the left, the biggest danger is its own, or rather lack of, ideology. By the time it figures out that throwing freebies costs money, the treasury full of money due to the relatively good economic management of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] will have run out. But that might not be bad for Congress, it will be an opportunity to do what it knows best. Take a begging bowl and get some money from whoever is willing to give. Singapore's Prime Minister Goh [Chok Tong] should be patient, Kamal Nath followed possibly with Sonia or Rahul [Gandhi] in tow might still land up on his door.
AP (Jul 19, '04)


The summary of Clouds over India-Singapore free trade accord [Jul 17] reads "its [India's] ... nemesis, China". Since when did China become a nemesis and is China aware of such a status? Of all the Chinese literature that I've come across none has mentioned such a status. Or is this a one-person tango on India's part? It is most intriguing to see that almost every India-related article written by a supposed Indian person invariably makes reference to China as a "nemesis" while the opposite never happens. This kind of obsession doesn't seem too healthy.
FS (Jul 19, '04)

The word you chose to replace with an ellipsis was "economic". The phrase "economic nemesis" was used in the sense of "major economic rival". That's a simple statement of fact that could be applied to many Asian nations, not just India, and is hardly indicative of unhealthy obsession. - ATol


As an American who "supports the troops" - though that phrase has taken on an air of [meaninglessness] through sheer rote repetition - I find the situation with [Charles Robert] Jenkins, the Korean War army deserter, and our government ludicrous at best and narrow-mindedly intolerant at worse [A human touchstone for Japan-US ties , Jul 17]. It is simply ridiculous to think that the US has anything to gain by putting a sickly, deluded old man on trial for desertion, a 40-year-old crime. It would be different if he was an accomplice to war crimes or somehow aided and abetted the enemy to the extent that he demonstrably caused other American soldiers to die - even 40 years ago - but nothing we've seen in the accounts so far even suggest that. So if he is merely some sickly old man who made a foolish decision decades ago, there is no reason for the US to pursue some vindicative policy. We should not abrogate the law, but instead the current administration should issue a pardon to Jenkins, in the interest of US-Japanese (and even US-North Korean) relations. America can be a merciful country. Let us demonstrate that, bolster our ally in Japan, and perhaps open the door to North Korea a smidge wider. It would do go a long way, I think, to impair sometimes strained US-Japanese relations. And even more, the real issue here is not what some foolhardy private did 40 years ago. It's a nuclear-armed North Korea with missiles pointed at Japan and South Korea. America has already dropped A-bombs on Japan and has in a de facto sense occupied it ever since. Let us not be culpable in even a small way in yet another humanitarian disaster. Pardon Jenkins, and do it at the time and place and in the manner of [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi's choosing. Let us reward one of the few actual friends in the world the US has left.
Jason (Jul 19, '04)

Just to clarify, Jenkins is accused of deserting his post at the Demilitarized Zone, Korea, in 1965; although technically the Korean War had not at that time (and still has not) been declared at an end, Jenkins did not serve in the de facto 1950-53 conflict. - ATol


Dear Spengler: I have read your article, the latest on the America is not an empire [Jul 13] question. I agree with some of what you have assigned to the topic. However, in other areas, I can disagree with what you propose. My disagreements are as follows:
1: For every job disappearing out of the [United] States, four are created in China, India and elsewhere. Many of the manufacturing jobs are disappearing to China. China is rapidly catching up the United States in terms of technology hegemony. Further to this, the amount of competition China gets from the Pacific Rim makes it fight even harder to retain its investments. Only four years ago in 2000, China was making no laptop computers; now China makes 50% of the world's laptop computers. They have a very high-quality manufacturing system, and are absorbing factories faster than America absorbs petroleum. Further to this, in the high-tech fields of aerospace [and] advanced electronics, as well as fast-moving consumer goods, they are enabling vast expanses of their population to engage in the manufacturing process. This means [that] soon they will be able to pass the savings on to the consumer in the form of very cheap, high-quality, quick-delivery goods. There is a current downside to this as you have stated in your article "America is not an empire" in the form of products which are cheap. But the upsides are too many to list, the main one being, for every factory that opens up in China, four have to close in the West, because on average, [China's] products are 25% of the cost of a Western product. This will undoubtedly affect the operating costs of a country, forget an industry. It is said that China will absorb 30% of industry from every country in the world over the next decade, on average. My theory is this: Take Japan, multiply it by 100, and you will have China in 2010. Japan is suffering destabilization, India is suffering destabilization because of these massive growth factors. All of the world will soon experience the disappearing-jobs syndrome, as many countries in the West are experiencing. Trust me Spengler, I know, I see it every day. There is a Chinese product for every Western product.
2: India: India is absorbing back-office work at a rate faster than it can control, and this is fueling its economy in greater and greater numbers - 7-8% growth is phenomenal. The Pacific Rim is also fighting for this business. It is not going to stop. Anything to do with computers and data support, India wants to absorb. All of the communications industry, India wants to dominate. China wants to challenge these business models, and so do the other Pacific Rim countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, [the] Philippines [and] Thailand, as well as all of the other countries involved in the competitive capitalist race.
3: Arms Industry: The developing countries, as well as Russia, are developing their own arms, it is easy in today's Autocad, CNC-driven manufacturing environment. A little understanding of these things and before you know it, you're well on your way. All of them can manufacture, it's easy. Very easy. So what am I talking about, Spengler? I'm talking about competition. If a person buys the cheapest, highest-quality, fastest-delivery, well-supported product, they win the game. Capitalism has won, demand has won, products have won, corporations have won. They will move to the best place that supports them, they [couldn't] give a monkey's about democracy, rule of law, or anything else. Its all about winning, it's all about greed. The most profits win. And so China, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and all of the others in the Pacific Rim, Africa, Russia, Central Asia, line up behind the corporations to help them into their country. Who won? Not the Taliban, not al-Qaeda, not the Americans, not even the British, the truth is the corporations won. Value won, and value is pushing migrations of industry, and where industry goes, power goes. The places where they leave become corpse towns. I know, I see it all of the time in Britain where I live. These corpse towns are the growth industry in Britain, and they are becoming the most challenging problems in society today. Nobody can stop the shift. You're correct, Spengler, America is not an empire, and it will never become one. But you need an empire to control business, and if empire does not exist, then those things which make an empire great, namely economics, will be happy to leave and go elsewhere. This is not some dream theory, this is absolute fact. I don't see what else is the option. After teaching students for so many years, I have seen my engineering students fall to a trickle, I have seen my computing colleagues' students trickle down to nothing. We often ask the reasons for this taking place here in Britain, and it's always down to one thing: the corporations are moving, and they will go where they are safest from being competitively closed down, cheap, high-quality, highly educated countries where they can exploit skills and create new homes. Well done on an interesting article. I hope my contribution helps.
Jeff Imada (Jul 19, '04)

In my view most "empires" had one or two tricks, and collapsed when they were exhausted; Rome had the latifundia system of agriculture; Spain had the New World's gold in exchange for Chinese silks and Dutch manufactures (and collapsed when the Dutch revolted); England had cheap textiles bought by Indian opium, which was then shipped to China. America has no "empire" in the same sense; it is a magnet for the talented immigrants of the world. Its power will erode if and when China and India can keep their most talented people at home. - Spengler


Couldn't help but smile to see so many "right-thinking" liberals debunk Captain [Richard] Radcliffe's views on tackling the growing cancer of Islamist terror [letters below]. I guess it is indeed easier to portray Islamists as victims of US-UK aggression, decry the latter and emerge smelling sweet 'n' reasonable than to seriously evaluate the rightist viewpoint of the Islamist threat (as that risks making one look like a heartless monster). I can't help but agree with the captain when he implies that Islamism (of the political and/or radical variety) enjoys tremendous popular support amongst mainstream Muslim masses, is not amenable to reason or negotiation (the Koran is the word of God - immutable and inherently superior to any potential argument against its in toto implementation - like majority democratic opinion or the principles of natural justice or all-are-equal-under-the-law argument whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim etc). I can't understand the blind support of most of the leftist-socialist-liberal forces in Europe, and now even in the US, for Islamists' rights despite everything the Islamists stand for being in direct opposition to all that the liberals claim to hold dear (gay rights and women's liberation being easy examples). Perhaps it is because "no one is ever so blind as one who doesn't want to see". Witness what happened to Iran's Marxists who foolishly supported [the late Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's revolution - they were among his auto/theocratic regime's first victims. Will the liberal left wake up and learn its lessons? No. They'd rather blindly carry on disparaging the "grand capitalistic conspiracies" of the Western establishment and tie up with an "enemy's enemy" - ie assertive and increasingly violent Islam. Well, they'll get what's certainly coming for them. Finally, I'd like to thank Captain Radcliffe for belling the cat, for calling a spade a spade and daring to ask questions that most folks would rather not hear. Like a [diarrheic] elephant inside the living room that everyone pretends hard doesn't exist, global Islamic terror is today fighting with '70s weaponry. How long before they scale up to '90s weaponry? Germ/chemical or, worse, nuke arms against civilian targets? Does anyone really believe these terrorists can be reasoned with? negotiated with? appeased? If Spain and France think appeasement is going to work against Islamism, they're probably in for a rude shock. Carry on the beacon of sanity, captain! Not everyone is blind to what is staring the civilized world in the face.
Sud Voleti (Jul 19, '04)


The issue at hand, Captain Richard Radcliffe [letter, Jul 16], is not whether you soil your taxpayer-funded pants twice a day; it is whether you are a true warrior. A true warrior does not incinerate millions of innocent civilians just to affect a personality change in a foreign culture. You are not a warrior, you are a terrorist. And you are rather booring [sic].
Ernie Lynch
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Jul 19, '04)


I am not surprised that [letter writers] Captain [Richard] Radcliffe and Daniel McCarthy are playing war games every day. There is a computer game called Colonization. In that game, if you attack the natives, your money count will increase. That is exactly what these two are trying to play in Asia. Have you played that game before? Do you know the same game is renamed to "Democratization" now? If the people at the receiving end do not want to be played, there are no alternatives but to be united. Unity brings power, safety and prosperity. The more we can unite together, the less likely we will be attacked or be played in their gambit. The logic is very simple. The practice is extremely hard. I hope the Chinese people in Taiwan can understand that simple principle. So we can all prosper in peace. We all need to learn lessons from the mishaps of other people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 19, '04)


There are many interesting commentaries in your Letters section. However, it would be very useful if paragraph breaks that the writers include in their submission appeared on the website. Without them, the letters appear to run on and on, making them unnecessarily difficult to read.
Patrick Cummins (Jul 19, '04)

When writers keep their letters down to a reasonable length, our single-block style is readable and esthetic. If they run on and on, they run on and on. We avoid cutting letters if we can, but we appeal again to writers to keep their comments short, and also to refrain from repeating old arguments (such as on the Taiwan debate) over and over. Help us keep this page lively and interesting. - ATol


[Daniel] McCarthy is still allowing his political sympathies towards the Taiwan lobby to shade the legal conclusions of his [Asia Times Online] letters. The Taiwan lobby has a real knack for manipulating the gullible American mindset. Mr McCarthy states the TRA [US Taiwan Relations Act] treats Taiwan like a foreign country. He clearly omits the TRA fact that Immigration and Nationality Law 202(b) includes trust territories or self-governing dominions. These two noted examples are foreign-state equivalents for purposes of international law. Both are subjected to administrative authority of a peace treaty and both are not sovereign or juridical entities of the Montevideo Convention. Taiwan is not a foreign state, but can be specifically defined as a separate customs territory under SFPT [San Francisco Peace Treaty] administrative authority of an exiled government. Taiwan is a wanna-be country, but the TRA does not ordain the Taiwan lobby's propaganda of foreign state status. Mr McCarthy has mischaracterized the UN Charter issue of non-self-governing territory, or Taiwan interim status in SFPT, as a US Trust Territory. If this were true, then the UN Trusteeship Council should be restored by the Permanent Seats at the UN Security Council. Then Taiwan could be most expediently handed right over to the PRC [People's Republic of China] for their Chinese trusteeship under UN auspices. The American commissars of the one-China policy would find this most appealing if the folks in Beijing were amenable ...
Jeff Geer (Jul 19, '04)


[Letter writer Daniel] McCarthy [seems to be] growing desperate and has resorted to confusing tactics. Yet his letter [Jul 16] again proves Taiwan was never a sovereign country. As McCarthy noted, Taiwan's sovereignty was ceded to Japan by China after the Sino-Japan war in 1905 and the sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred back to China in 1945 at the end of World War II according to the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation Article 8. To address the confusion in your letter: 1) "Taiwan ratified SFPT" [the San Francisco Peace Treaty]. Please show me the signature of Taiwan's representative on SFPT. No, you can't. In fact, there was never any treaty signed by "Taiwan", current or expired. Every such treaty was signed by ROC [the Republic of China] (in the case of SFPT, ROC didn't even sign it). ROC claims to be the sovereign government of entire China including Taiwan, just like PRC [the People's Republic of China]. This fact proves Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China (either ROC or PRC). 2) Did ROC sign the Potsdam Proclamation? Yes, it did. And Potsdam Proclamation Article 8 establishes Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan. 3). Through UN resolutions 1668, 2025, 2159, 2389, 2500, 2642 and 2758, PRC replaced ROC for the right to represent China. 4) So Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to PRC. This is recognized by the UN and enforced in all UN documents. 5) The US does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation and opposes Taiwan independence. So please wake up from your fantasy, McCarthy, the support you provide in TRA [US Taiwan Relations Act] is irrelevant and extremely weak. It's already hard pressed to say TRA recognizes "Taiwan" as a sovereign country. In any case TRA is a domestic law; it has no effect whatsoever beyond US borders. 6) Sovereignty and governing are totally separate issues. China is still in a state of civil war that has never officially concluded. Both civil-war parties (ROC and PRC) belong to the sovereign nation of China until war is concluded, even though PRC is recognized by the UN to represent China. In any event, Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China. 7) McCarthy, attacking my education background (which was provided by the good old US of A) only shows your bigotry. Sadly it is you who have brought the sorry state of US education to the spotlight.
GongShi
USA (Jul 19, '04)


Is there such a thing as a free press? I think we give the press far too much credit. Every article ever written was written by somebody with an opinion. Our lives color everything we say and write. The old Chinese belief of truth being something without real substance should always be borne in mind when we read the news. I subscribe to various newspapers around the world and am always astonished by how the same story can be told in several different ways without compromising the "truth". [Ali al-]Sistani in Iraq was quoted recently as saying he hasn't read a newspaper in 10 years to try and remain pure. A brave and clever man, I thought. Could you imagine a Western politician ignoring the media for 10 years, then running for office ...
John Paul Keogh (Jul 19, '04)


On a lighter note, I would like to make a comment about cricket and the Asia Cup that has just started, as everyone in our office has been falling off our chairs in laughter. [Virender] Sehwag is definitely a class batsman, but his comments in the run-up to the Asia Cup were just pathetic and lacked class completely, saying, "I will break the world record against UAE [United Arab Emirates] and make 200 runs" and "I think I can do it if I can bat for 50 overs." Well helloooO ... wouldn't most people be able to do that if they could just bat 50 overs? But there [lies] the problem. Well anyway, check out the scorecard now. He fell for a big fat 0. Just 200 behind target! Maybe his record can now wait until if he ever gets to play against Ghana or something? Having said that, it's definitely good to see UAE and Hong Kong do better than many would have expected.
T Kiani
London, England (Jul 19, '04)


The total absence of any critical reports of Burma [Myanmar], its democracy movements and in contrast the established military dictatorship is questioning the impartiality of Asia Times Online. What are you going to do about it?
Alfred Stangelmayer Camberwell, Australia (Jul 19, '04)

You must have us confused with someone else. We report on Myanmar when there is something fresh to report that has not been thoroughly analyzed by the mainstream media. - ATol


Asia Times has lots of facts under their belt presented, but with the most horrible logic ... you people are dumb.
Michael Baez (Jul 19, '04)

Sometimes it is difficult to match the articulate intelligence and wit of others. - ATol


This letter refers to the article [UNseemly debate in Nepal] by Dhruba Adhikary which appeared in your online edition of Asia Times on July 15. Adhikary has no doubt very professionally dealt with the topical issue that has kept a larger section of the Nepali intelligentsia preoccupied for several months now. However, I would like to point out a factual error which the author seems to have glossed over, wittingly or unwittingly. Sher Bahadur Deuba's first tryst with the prime-ministerial position was in September 1995 and not August 2001. Similarly, I beg to disagree with Adhikary when he considers Nepal as a small or tiny country. How can Nepal be considered small when its physical size is bigger than a number of countries in Eastern Europe and its population stands at 24.8 million as of July 1? It simply reflects a "small-nation mentality".
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Jul 16, '04)

Everything is relative, and in comparison to its neighbors China and India, Nepal is small both geographically and in terms of population. The word "tiny" was used in comparison to the United States, also a much larger country than Nepal. With regard to Sher Bahadur Deuba, the article intended to convey that it was his first term as an appointee of King Gyanendra. - ATol


[Ernie] Lynch [letter, Jul 15]: ... Playing war is lots of fun. Think of going out and doing what "Maverick" did in the movie Top Gun. I did that every day and sometimes twice a day for almost four years. Air-to-air is almost as exciting as sex. War [itself] is different. In a real war you bury friends and get buried, and that is no fun. Those of us who practice the skills of the warrior and who have been to war and come back know the horrors and really, really don't want to do it again. But we took an oath and we live by it, come what may. We are the people who go out and die so that you have the right and the opportunity to demean us. I look in the mirror every day and I still like whom I see.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Jul 16, '04)


GongShi's recent letter (July 14) is an excellent example of the myopic and conclusory non-logic produced by the educational system of the People's Republic of China. At first he argued that the San Francisco Peace Treaty [SFPT] was not binding because neither China nor Taiwan were parties to it. Then he argued that the SFPT, ratified by the ROC [Republic of China], was overruled by the earlier Potsdam Proclamation and Cairo Declaration to which Taiwan was not a party either (Taiwan was part of Japan at that time). So if the SFPT is not binding on China because China was not a party, how would the Potsdam Proclamation and Cairo Declaration be binding on Taiwan when it was not a party, and in fact was part of Japan at the time? Although GongShi may know something of comparative literature, I fear he is falling short in his understanding of international politics or even the meaning of sovereignty. If indeed Taiwan's sovereignty were held by China, as GongShi asserts, then China would already be governing Taiwan and there would be no need for the planned invasion. Jeff Geer [July 15] argues that Taiwan is in the legal custody of the US under the Taiwan Relations Act, but he needs to know that Taiwan Relations Act states: "Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan." Thus US law treats Taiwan as a foreign country, not as a US trust territory.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 16, '04)


Like some of your other users, I have often noted and wondered why you seem to have so many Indian writers with seemingly a sole mission in life to write anti-Pakistan materiel, while there are only one to two writers of Pakistani origin. This letter is not meant as a complaint, but just a query as to whatever happened to Hussain Haqqani? Is he not talking to ATol anymore, or you to him? Another columnist I haven't seen for a long time is [Francesco] Sisci. I must say, I miss his non-stop rant about an India-China-US nexus against "the Islamic World". Every now and then I read a Spengler article that I do not fully see eye to eye with, but I still respect him for fearlessly saying what he really believes, and also for his knowledge and intellect, but I do not think it suits him to put his colleagues down to prove that.
T Kiani
London, England (Jul 16, '04)

Nearly all of our writers are freelancers, and that is a profession that comes and goes, continually seeking greener pastures. - ATol


The recent e-mails accusing Kaveh L Afrasiabi of anti-Semitism are preposterous. It is high time that this practice stop. These accusations are designed to curtail the freedom of the press. One only need observe the press in the "land of the free", we have to turn to overseas sources for our news. The cheerleaders that the US press has become for the government is evidence of that. Journalists who seek the truth and stray from the pack are chastised with such [slanderous] charges as [that] of "anti-Semitism".
John Motu
New York, USA (Jul 16, '04)


Dear Spengler: The problem with your America is not an empire [Jul 13] analysis is that you mistake effect for cause. Empires get started because the imperial power has too many energetic young men, or just too much energy, to use profitably within its own boundaries. The energy escapes into new lands, is put to good use, and results in greater prosperity for the imperial power. That prosperity in turn enables people in the home country to become fat and lazy, thereby producing less imperial types. The empire then crumbles. England is a perfect example of this. The United States was in fact only an offshoot of British imperialism, and its people have the imperial spark even more than the English. After all, we [Americans] conquered the best part of a continent during our first 300 years (1600-1900). International American imperialism began around the same time the frontier closed and intranational American imperialism ended. I am surprised that in your world-historical musings you seem to ignore the frontier and its significance. (I would like to see at least an occasional idea from Turner among all your overly German references. In fact, the entire history of Great Britain, the British Empire, and the United States, from the Saxon invasions to the Pilgrims, may be seen as part of the great Volkerwanderung, which ultimately will extend into outer space if it does not waste itself in other less wholesome efforts.) Even your beloved American Civil War proves the "empire as effect of excess energy" thesis. That war was not the story of Southern dreams of empire, but rather the story of excess Northern energy. The fact is that the South had changed very little from the time of the establishment of plantations along the Charles River by the newly rich of Barbados. The North, meanwhile, had experienced explosive economic growth and industrial development, an incredible flowering of the intellect, and significant religious innovation. All of these factors caused a militant reform movement to take hold in the North, which simply boiled over into the South. The South fought hard to protect its ancient way of life from the changes imposed by the North, not to establish some kind of Mexi-Confederacy. There may have been a few Aaron Burr-style maniacs who held such hopes, but the great majority of Southerners merely wanted to preserve Sir Walter Scott-land in the South. Since you like cultural illustrations, consider the anthem of each side in the Civil War. The Southern song "Dixie" talks all about the South - it is self-centered - and is explicitly nostalgic. It does not say "O I wish I was in the Amazon jungles!" The Northern "Battle Hymn of the Republic", on the other hand, is just that - a hymn. It is a prayer to God that he will use the North, or the re-United States, to carry out his righteous will on Earth. It is not about the North at all - it is completely outward-looking, as the most mystical and highest form of American Calvinist Christianity has always been. You could tell who was going to win that war just by listening to each side's song. At any rate, I thoroughly enjoy your commentary even when I disagree.
J James DeCamp
New York, New York (Jul 15, '04)


Dear Spengler: You're wrong in both your main contentions: that the desire for idle luxury "accounts quite well for the sin of imperialism", and that America is not an empire (Jul 13). The fact that Americans work more hours on average than their European or Japanese counterparts is quite compatible with the existence of an American rentier class, a significant portion of whose wealth derives from overseas land value, particularly mineral and other natural resources, but also telecommunications licenses, railroad rights of way, and other fruits of land monopoly. Whether the individual rentier be idler or workaholic, sybarite or ascetic - two quite different matters, incidentally - has no bearing on the issue. The question is not how such people care to occupy their time, but why Washington sends in the Marines, orchestrates coups, promotes quislings and pliant despots, etc. Cui bono? Better to put imperialism down to the desire for wealth and power - accomplishments that make idle luxury possible, rather than inevitable; better still to put considerations of psychology aside and focus on how imperialism actually works. America has now had a century of experience at foreign conquest for the benefit of corporados, much of that benefit achieved with minimal labor simply by holding land out of use, keeping supply low and rents high, and driving down wages through long turnaround cycles (on which, see Mason Gaffney's excellent essay The Triangle of Global Power. Rents, of course, are not to be confused with profits; the former flow from natural resources, the latter from production. With regard to imperialism, the point is not that it's easier to accumulate vastly disproportionate wealth by rent-taking than by honest toil, but rather that it's impossible to do so by honest toil alone. If the yen for idle luxury vanished once and for all, that might be nice, but it wouldn't much impede the march of imperialism. By contrast, rational tax reform keyed to land value would stop imperialism in its tracks. That's why those who shape public opinion on behalf of American-based cartels have found it wise to expunge all memory of the nation's greatest social thinker, tax reformer, and once and future hope, Henry George.
JHT (Jul 15, '04)


Responding to Ritt Goldstein (letter [Jul 14]): Since the key to my criticism of Mr Goldstein's article (Patriotic pride and fear, [Jul 8]) is that there is no norm to which the current patriotic madness in the US can be compared and found deviant, I perhaps owe the author something more on this perspective. Reading, traveling, working and living abroad over the years and then returning to the US - where I work with my hands and back amongst "the people" - has left me with a strong sense of the surreal, and of the absurd, when assessing the end result of the overwhelming majority of people's approach to the world, reality, truth, cause and effect, meaning, purpose and significance or how to connect objectives to goals, especially within an arena of ideas. And I have noticed that as an "appropriate" response to any given situation increasingly depends upon broadening one's field of reference, whether in time or space or with a view towards competing interests, again the vast majority steadily peel away from the "big picture" and settle down with protecting their own interests to the extent that they can see or feel them. In part, I relate these observations to my experience managing an integrated conservation and development (ICDP) project in the Philippines, but I apply them every bit as much to the political economy in the US and to the human condition as a whole. I strongly recommend managing an ICDP for every idealist. I fully agree with Messrs Goldstein, [Daniel] Burston and [Michael] Parenti that in the US, powerful forces with fascistic tendencies are seeking a more complete and overt expression of their basic wills, these being primarily business culture, Zionism, fundamentalist "Christianity" and nationalist identity, and there is a strong probability that they will soon succeed to bring the nation to crisis or the world to war, and possibly both. Competing against these are liberal social principles on the domestic front, such as multiculturalism and political pluralism, gender equality/confusion and church-state separation; and with respect to the nation-state as a whole, multinational corporations and finance capital are wavering in their confidence between dependence on a strong national base - with appropriate class alliances within other nations - to project sufficient power and influence to preserve the necessary conditions for economic growth and profit - or - to go full-tilt in their commitment to an international capitalist order that abandons the nation-state as an insignificant entity. But to imply that the slide towards fascism in the US is a deviation from a norm is, I believe, to infer the reality of an ideal based on an illusion, or is one conceived and recommended either naively or with some dishonesty and often for an ulterior purpose, at a time when what is really needed is an intrusion upon theory and analysis with frank observation, propagated in such a way as to alarm the powerful and the weak - parochial locals and media monopolists. When contemplating and fiddling with formulas targeted to arrive at a politically optimal scientific design across a plethora of irrational differences, we run the risk of misunderstanding the US in its specific condition and mischaracterizing the nation-state in general, the latter by its nature requiring a degree of violence against its own population and a measure of hostility to everything beyond its borders, both of which characteristics are also useful to call upon in the face of a nation's decline - America's predicament. What we have in the US is the abstract nation-state, which with naked and latent force, liberal principles selectively applied, jingoistic slogans and indoctrination with national myths, constitutes a largely fascist state already, ie narrow, elite, private interests in collusion with state authority parading as a people's agenda. This process also attacks or elevates group identities according to a body of ideas that have purchase to the extent that circumstances have allowed, but which ideas can be challenged and (probably) overthrown when circumstances compete against them; circumstances have been very favorable to preserve the appearance of liberal tendencies and democratic institutions in the US, but that is changing rapidly. Favorable circumstances have included the whole, huge territory this spinoff of European civilization conquered, rich, vast and fertile; the initial need for a steady flow of immigrants in order to occupy the space, and then to exploit the resources and to build itself; and a protective distance that allowed it to choose when, whom and how to fight: the reversal of these conditions was inevitable, and many illusions and contradictions that have been suppressed or diverted elsewhere are coming to light now. Identifying the tendency towards or tolerance of liberal social values or democratic culture as the norm in the US also underestimates the beneficial effects to preserve these by the ability to export great violence and subversion, racism and reaction, through America's "missionary" project that began with its foundation and has yet to be seriously interrupted (excepting perhaps Vietnam, from which a core constituency has recovered), as well as how the flows of wealth these practices have returned to the nation have forestalled a reckoning with its own internal contradictions, tendencies and drives. I would argue that this missionary process has also become a structural necessity rather than any innate social or principled compulsion or a consciously held collective excuse or idea (which could be at least contested by information campaigns), and is driven instead by capitalism itself, manacled to a culture of consumption, although explained in essentially benevolent, ideological terms. Class warfare, as well, has been a prominent feature of all societies of significant scale, even in the absence of private wealth or hereditary privileges - an intellectual, technological, bureaucratic and authoritarian elite will emerge, and this too has had many partial reprieves in the US, often enabled by the opportunity (and necessity) to build, expand and to extend its force outwards. Class war, ever-present in the US but manageable, is also on the rise and hovers ominously above the country's false equanimity and national ideals, and is a state of affairs far closer to any observable norm in societies of large scale throughout history than any set of principles, articulated causes or collectivist themes. Even if local, cultural and group identity could be completely eradicated and national distinctions erased, class antagonisms would persist and possibly even be strengthened. So here's the deal as I see it. Simply being human involves a degree of madness, perversion and doubt, and there is no self-referential or intra-comparative analytical basis for us to determine normative human conditions according to either theory or principle. Therefore, we must look beyond our ideas and deal with the facts, and these indicate that human population growth, environmental degradation and competition for resources will push every inclusive humanist principle and fine sentiment to the background in the struggle to come. Without a solid ecological paradigm as a basis for discussing social, cultural, economic or political issues, everything that is said will be merely gas and nonsense.
Joe Nichols
USA (Jul 15, '04)


Either the retired US Air Force captain in the desert of California [Richard Radcliffe] aspires to becoming part of a TV (pseudo) reality show like Fear Factor or Survival or writes philodoxically. The choice as to which is left to others. His latest, though, "nations or rules who do not want to respect the will of the United Nations, such as in Dorfur, could be shown the error of their ways, if, say, half of Khartoum was to disappear in less than a minute" [letter, Jul 14], [applies] his favorite formula of stopping the Muslims from invading the world. His previous proposals of how America and Israel can stop the Islamic invasions of the world recommended the incineration of Mecca and Medina as a starter. One presumes that by quoting General [George] Patton in his latest letter the inference is that such views are worthy of being shared by deceased four-star generals. While the Muslims are organizing to shock and awe the world we are forced to ask the good captain, "What was the 'will' of the United Nations vis-a-vis the liberation of Iraq?" And in a lesser sense, how many times has Israel complied with "the will" of the United Nations? In the meantime, given that the Muslims have already occupied a couple of nations on their drive to invade the world, it may be advisable to keep those missiles and carpet bombs at the ready.
ADeL (Jul 15, '04)


Dear [Richard] Radcliffe: With all due respect, I think you are just as confused today as you were yesterday [letter, Jul 14]. If you are being attacked by some "terrorist groups" (call them [Islamist] terrorists if that helps), then why would you want to ignore them and attack the whole of the Islamic civilization? Let's for a second pretend it doesn't matter that you will be killing millions of innocent people around the world whose only fault is that they happen to be Muslims or live in areas where there are mostly Muslim people. For argument's sake I would pretend it's a worthwhile sacrifice if you can save America by doing so. As you pointed out, it's the country whose constitution says that "All men are equal under God", but we can always amend that to read "All American men are equal under God". But just how do you think turning into the American version of Osama bin Laden would do anything at all to protect America? I've always thought that Osama bin Laden is actually far more dangerous for Islam then he is or ever can be for the Americans or the West. This leads me to believe that converting Americans to his ideology in reverse (turning the whole world non-Muslim) would be more dangerous to the Americans than it ever will be to Islam ... I do, however, think that Fred from Seattle points out the obvious when he says that attacking the Muslims would do nothing but to unite them. I really do not understand the argument that if you bomb Mecca then the Muslims will get up and say, "Right, where did we go wrong? Let's vote!" You think a lot like Osama bin Laden, as I am sure this is what he thought the Americans would do when the Twin Towers went down. But little did he know, the exact opposite was true. As for your last sentence about Saudi Arabia, all I can say is you still chose to ignore my point from the last letter. Neither I nor the people of Saudi Arabia love the government of that country, but we do not wish to see it bombed either. All we want is for the American government to stop supporting it. And as for the Algerians and democracy in that country, well, not accepting democratic results and the wishes of the people of that country is how the whole mess started. Only the people's wish was not the American life, but Islam. And that's where democracy had no answers and Europe and especially France decided they didn't want to play ball anymore. Just like the situation in Iraq today.
T Kiani
London, England (Jul 15, '04)


I have become quite concerned about Captain [Richard] Radcliffe's recent lapse into normality. Perhaps he had his cable TV service disconnected due to an overlooked bill and could not receive his daily dose of Faux News. Now I am happy to report that he is back in good nick and urging us all to join his "Nuke the Kaaba" association [letter, Jul 14]. The Big Bird has ask the Great White Father if he, Captain Radcliffe (retired), can lead the Pavlov mission to the Muslim masses. Then he chastised poor Frank for not knowing the difference between "carpet bombing" and "arc light" strikes. Frank, a carpet-bombing operation is performed at low altitude, white-knuckled over a hostile terrain inhabited by enemy combatants, whereas an "arc light" strike is safely performed at 40 and 100 klicks while munching on a baloney sandwich and slurping down a Big Gulp. The intended victim is a high-level hostile political type; the actual victims are average civilians trying to get through another day. The former serves a military purpose while the latter enhances [US President George W] Bush's re-election odds. In full stride, the captain warns us of the evil goal of the modern Islamic movement, "nothing less than the Islamization of the planet". Lucky for me I am already circumcised. But maybe the captain, at his advanced age, does not want to go under the knife. As Bill would say, "I feel his (future) pain." But I am confused by his call to hang up the Kalash. Do you really want to turn the Muslim warriors into a bunch of tame house cats and enroll them into the National Health Service? To settle them in the cookie-cutter suburbs with nothing more dangerous than a mosquito? Resistance, captain, tunes the muscles. As a warrior (and I assume that you are one) you should relish the fact that your adversary still exists so that you may practice your noble arts. Or are you, as you state, retired from the arena? "You dare call these curs warriors who blow up helpless women and children ... who behead foreign workers whose only crime is bringing democracy into their shallow world." Look into the mirror, captain.
Ernie Lynch
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Jul 15, '04)


The UN recognition of the PRC [People's Republic of China] as the one government of China is reality. The one-China policy of the 1972 Shanghai Communique was part of the process of getting there. The SFPT [San Francisco Peace Treaty] is framed by the laws of war. These laws are a series of multilateral treaties like the Geneva Conventions. The US and PRC lacked diplomatic relations, so they used the peace treaty frameworks of the laws of war for their own bilateral communications. The Korean Armistice of 1954 is a prime example of how this legal process eventually leads to a peace treaty or perhaps does not. But the noted laws of war will facilitate bilateral communications because an official state of war also means there are no diplomatic relations between the combatants. The bilateral Treaty of Taipei was also signed between Japan and the ROC when the SFPT came into international legal effect on April 28, 1952, but it was subsequently rescinded by the bilateral treaty clause of SFPT after 1972. The SFPT legal concept of the USMG [US Military Government], as principal occupational authority over former Japanese territory, also played a significant role in this. When the PRC and USA agreed to the one-China policy, their 1972 civil-affairs agreement was also an SFPT directive of the USMG to Japan for the unfinished business of Taiwan. The bilateral Treaty of Taipei was abrogated by Japan but under SFPT authority. With the Japanese abrogation, the ROC nationality law of Article 10 was also effectively nullified by SFPT. In the Treaty of Shimonoseki, customary law was effective for two years in Article 5. For SFPT, the USMG comparisons with other Pacific Islanders sees their interim status continue from 1952 to 1986. The SFPT legal concept of US Trust Territory saw customary law continue their interim status until they got their full sovereignty or a territory was acquired by the USA. In the case of Okinawa, [it] reverted to Japanese sovereignty in 1972. The SFPT interim status of Taiwanese islanders is left unanswered under customary law of SFPT. An exiled government has conducted the civil-affairs administration of territory liberated during World War II. The Free French were a prime example of civil-affairs administration in North Africa but that exiled government was later de-recognized as not constituting the legitimate government of France. There was an implication for civil-affairs agreements and USMG liberated territory, which has seen General [Charles] de Gaulle under the supreme command of General [Dwight] Eisenhower. Normally, a civil-affairs agreement is a permission by the legitimate government for the civil-affairs administration of territory by USMG, and an exiled government will loudly object for obvious reasons. Taiwan has not yet reverted to China but the one-China policy is a lien on SFPT. For the civil-affairs administration of Taiwan after SFPT, an exiled government has a delegated authority to administer but the ROC has not taken the sovereignty for itself. Self-determination is a political prerogative of the powers-that-be, but in the case of Hong Kong, it was never an option for the people of Hong Kong. The Taiwan independence movement is not going to achieve any faits accomplis with their arguments for self-determination without any bona fide referendum. However, that right to self-determination is not a "civil right" of the United Nations Charter. For technical reasons of SFPT administrative authority, the Taiwanese are perhaps qualified as a non-self-governing territory. The reality of self-government is not to be confused with non-self-governing territory. The undetermined political status of Cuba in the 1898 Treaty of Paris is illustrative. The islanders were not Spanish nationals after the treaty, but they were not American citizens under customary law of "islander status". After 1902, they created their Cuban republic with the blessings of the USMG. Before that, however, the Cubans were much like a British self-governing dominion, but Cuba territory was stuck in an undetermined political status of a peace treaty. While their political status was undefined by USMG and Congress, their basic civil rights were clearly defined by the US Supreme Court. The TRA [Taiwan Relations Act] human-rights clause is really hiding something with respect to the SFPT and one-China policy. Despite the PRC's objections, the SFPT territorial exclusivity of the USMG makes room for the TRA legislation. This reality is deeply reflected in the one-China policy of "Chinese on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait". However, after the 1972 abrogation of the Treaty of Taipei, are the Taiwan islanders still ROC Chinese under SFPT? Japanese nationality was lost on April 28, 1952. The ongoing exclusion of the PRC from Taiwan territory is even further reflected in the WTO membership of Taiwan under "autonomous separate customs territory". As a British crown colony, Hong Kong was elevated to the same WTO [World Trade Organization] status in 1986. But Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region] definitely is not a British self-governing dominion reminiscent of the 1867 British North American Act or the 1927 Statute of Westminster. Taiwan's status was not [that of] a "Hong Kong" under SFPT despite any similar trade powers [under the] WTO. The political status of Taiwan is not yet finished for SFPT but the TRA human-rights clause has treated it like a self-governing dominion for the last 20 years. This is consistent with the customary law of Article 9, Treaty of Paris. Were the TRA "undefined" civil-rights rooted in customary law created as a USMG byproduct of SFPT status? Any Taiwan independence from the SFPT is not very likely to happen outside of the civil-affairs framework of the Shanghai Communiques and TRA.
Jeff Geer
Manaus, Brazil (Jul 15, '04)

I notice that ATol, in reply to Neil Marck [letter, Jul 14], states that "given the Beijing regime's continued penchant ..." To use the word "regime" instead of "government" conveys a sense of condemnation or intentional disrespect. Do you agree?
SPLi
USA (Jul 15, '04)

It can do so, and some media ban the word "regime" for the very reason you suggest. Perhaps that is a wise policy. - ATol


Responding to Joe Nichols' July 8 criticism (letter below) of US: Patriotic pride and fear (Jul 8),  some might say Mr Nichols' comments are quite learned, but naively cynical in his criticism of what he termed my "monstrosity". Key to his analysis was that there is, in fact, no such thing as societal norms, Mr Nichols noting: "[Ritt] Goldstein's formulas and references want to imply that the current period of madness is a deviation from a norm - and yet there is no norm. It's all a matter of perspective." However, while one may philosophize upon such questions, perhaps certain periods of history can indeed be accurately seen as deviations from normative human behavior, eg the 1930s pursuit of fascism and its tragic consequences. While certainly I will acknowledge that a certain level of societal "madness" will always exist, is it not the degree to which something exists that determines its normality or not? My piece presented the perspective of psychologist Dr Daniel Burston (with two PhDs from Canada's York University, and work that has been acclaimed by print media such as The New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, the Boston Sunday Globe, the Boston Book Review, The New Republic, the Washington Times, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Guardian, The Economist, The New Statesman, The New Scientist, The Financial Times, The Globe and Mail, the Jerusalem Post, Library Journal, MacGill's Literary Journal, the Journal of the History of the Human Sciences, Radical Philosophy, the Australian Journal of Psychotherapy, the Canadian Journal of Psychology and the Canadian Journal of Sociology, to name but some), whose credentials Mr Nichols disparaged, perhaps doing so as this was certainly easier than meaningfully refuting the observations Dr Burston provided upon the psychological deterioration feeding global strife, eroding "the viability of democratic decision-making systems across the board, around the world". Burston saw certain similarities between the present period and the 1930s, noting that there were indeed "some social psychological parallels". As highlighted by the ever-breaking revelations of the chicanery leading to the Iraq war, my article outlined that "Burston spoke of a 'conscious dissimulation and trickery' on the part of today's leaders, he emphasized that what's occurring is 'a kind of dance, a kind of a tango between the leaders and the led'", adding that many find ways to pursue a "rationalization" of the difficulties at hand, though, this is not to say I am accusing Mr Nichols of this. However, on Monday, July 12, most of the world learned that inquiries had been pursued by the administration of US President George W Bush regarding postponing the presidential election in case of terrorist activity. And paradoxically, my piece noted that political scientist Dr Michael Parenti (who received his PhD in political science from Yale and is the award-winning author of 18 books) warned that an agenda "not dissimilar to that of fascism appeared to be ongoing [in the US], but 'without having to go all the way and destroy every little shred of democracy'". My piece also noted that Dr Parenti's forthcoming book, Super-Patriotism, "explores how patriotic pride and fear is exploited". Beyond this, the piece noted: "Burston warned of the potential for a 'corporate fascist regime' in the US, saying the country could be 'poised on the verge' of such an event." And on July 9, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote of "the creeping fascism that has threatened this country [the US] since the World Trade Center attack." It added that "'fascism' is not an exaggeration". And, perhaps most important, it observed: "Some liberals suggest that the administration is capable of canceling the November election on the grounds of national security if it looks like Bush would lose. I doubt this." While the Sun-Times piece appeared immediately after my own, it broke just before news of the Bush administration's election-postponement request. And so circumstances do appear to indicate that there are indeed periods in which a pervasive, virulent societal madness can exist, and I, for one, do not consider them within the norm.
Ritt Goldstein (Jul 14, '04)


Ian Williams' comments [Israel up against the wall, Jul 14] about the ICJ [International Court of Justice] ruling and Israel are as far removed from reality as is the UN itself. The UN has done nothing in the past 50 years to merit the false and baseless claim that it [is] an arbiter of international law in any meaningful sense, other than perhaps some trade issues. One only has to look at the UN record against Israel as opposed to, say, the Sudan or China, to understand why Israel and its many supporters don't consider the UN much more than a glorified opinion magazine. The fact is, Israel is going to take whatever measures it deems necessary to its existence with little concern for the Arabs [who] have tried for decades to exterminate the Jewish state. This is well within the framework of international law and fundamental justice, attempts to use the corrupted and subverted UN against Israel notwithstanding.
Andrew Berman
New Jersey, USA (Jul 14, '04)


It's always fun to act outraged at the despicable, brutish, ignorant and undeserved US hegemony. However, I see no evidence in the article [India 'stripped' of its dignity, literally, Jul 14] of anyone checking out the story's validity. But I guess it doesn't matter. The truth has little value when it comes to outrage. Some people need it and will take it where they can. There [are] two parts of this tale that need to be looked at a little more closely. Strobe Talbott is an old-time Soviet-loving liberal who did some interesting things in the [US administration of president Bill Clinton]. Surprisingly (or maybe not) Siddharth Srivastava failed to mention that he's a good friend with [former Clinton vice president] Al Gore. If [Senator John] Kerry is elected [US president] he will get a job. I wouldn't call him impartial. The other interesting player is [George] Fernandes, "with a known predilection for trying to attract the media as well as a deep-rooted anti-US disposition". His story is not suspect? I have no way of knowing what the real truth is here but I'm guessing that what happened is that INS [US Immigration and Naturalization Service] officers were ordered to "service" Fernandes and asked him to drop his pants to make it easier. The INS is certainly incompetent, like any bureaucracy, but not to the point of strip-searching a defense minister of India. It's absurd to think that he didn't have a Department of State, Department of Defense, CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] escort that already had "bugs" planted in every orifice. They would have ensured that he slipped past "security" without a hitch ... while I waited. I'm sure that Fernandes, who's not exactly known for his thrifty ways with the Indian treasury, was flying tourist out of Dulles without an escort. The way this story was written should embarrass any journalist.
Emery Nelson
California, USA (Jul 14, '04)


Dear Spengler: Your article [America is not an empire, Jul 13] struck a chord within me, that America is in no danger of decline, and part of the reason is the regular infusions of the best and most enterprising immigrants from all parts of the world. The entire human race would have to yield to pessimism for America to decline, because America concentrates and enables the energies of restless and active people from everywhere. I've been a believer in America ever since I came here, in the mid-'80s, when Japan Inc was going to take over; instead America went on to defeat communism and experience a decade of exuberance (well, we're still cleaning up for that, but that's a different matter). There seems no reason why the traditional American advantages, flexibility and innovation, should not continue to sustain us indefinitely, and immigration serves as a vital refresh.
Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jul 14, '04)


"Of all the silver wrung from American mines after the Spanish conquests, not a penny remained in Spain, observed the historian Fernand Braudel. It went to China for silk and spices." (Spengler,  America is not an empire [Jul 13]. Actually, a very large share of New World silver went to hire soldiers, who Philip II hoped would force the rest of the world to be good Spanish Catholics. Bush the Younger and his fans would do well to learn a lesson from Philip's failure, but probably they won't.
Lester Ness (Jul 14, '04)


Asia Times Online is my "first read" every day, not only for excellent coverage of every conceivable topic, but for entertainment as well. Therefore I eagerly awaited Henry Liu's reply to Spengler's America is not an empire (Jul 13). I wasn't disappointed. Henry's deft and complete skewering of Spengler [letter, Jul 13] was the neatest I've seen in a long while. Walter W Robinson's response [Jul 13] was equally valid. Spengler, if you want to cross swords with Henry Liu, you had better get up a lot earlier in the morning.
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Jul 14, '04)


While Spengler and Henry Liu argue back and forth on whether America is an empire (America is not an empire  Jul 13; [letter from Henry C K Liu, Jul 13]), I'm reminded of the old grade-school argument of whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. I just don't know if it matters. Pax Americana exists just as its predecessor, Pax Britannica, existed and its predecessor, Pax Romana, existed. End of subject. The rest of the opinion was more or less agreeable but I found three major problems with Henry Liu's assertions, starting with "it has been said with justification that New York is not America." To be honest, I wouldn't have quibbled with that statement had he inserted "narrow" before "justification". But without the proper qualifier, the statement demands a rebuttal. There were some who very much believed on September 11, 2001, that New York City represented everything there is about America. Perception, as is often said, is everything. If anything is American, it's gotta be the Big Apple. If you've never taken a taxi from Midtown to Battery Park, you have not seen America. (The same can be said if you've never traveled on any stretch of Route 66, but I'll let you imagine the purple mountains on your own). The second problem is Mr Liu falling for Spengler's trap by saying, "I'm here because ... I want to save it [US] from its own self-indulgence." Besides responding to Spengler's poor attempt at mimicking Merle Haggard's "Love It or Leave It" refrain, I think most of us normal human beings have a heck of a time trying to save a child from "self-indulgence", much less a country of millions of adult human beings. I'm doing a "'twas brillig and the slithy toves" jig here. Third, what does being "optimistic about ... discovering its moral compass" mean? Did Mr Liu mean that he was glad he didn't have to worry about the local constabulary, gendarmes, or gong'anju breaking down his door to put him in an Orwellian jail cell? Or did he mean that by expressing his opinion, a few people in Washington, DC, will change their minds and their constituency's minds on what benefits US welfare and interests, both locally and nationally? I somehow doubt it was either and, once again, I don't know if it matters.
Yiming Tung
Colorado, United States (Jul 14, '04)


[Henry C K] Liu states that foreigners who invest in dollar-denominated assets "do so not because the US economy is more stable or secure, but because the dollar is a dominant reserve currency in international trade for historical and geopolitical reasons" [letter, Jul 13]. Is there really that much difference? In other words, aren't the historical and geopolitical reasons closely related to anticipated stability and security? He also states: "If China ever wakes up to the insight that if it were to 'produce for the home market rather than for US shopping malls, a great transformation will occur in the world economy'". Mr Liu is a very intelligent man, but he must think his audience is much less so. Certainly the Chinese political and business leadership is aware of this point, Mr Liu, if not because they are intelligent, educated and sophisticated, like yourself, then for the simple reason they read your columns. I've ... enjoyed many of your articles, but now that I know they are motivated by your desire to save America, in the spirit of Karl Marx and St Paul, in the future I will be certain to read them before I read Spengler's.
Johannes Admirioso
Canarsie, New York (Jul 14, '04)


I was thinking of writing to ask when Henry C K Liu would be contributing another article, as I enjoy reading him immensely, when I saw his letter to Asia Times Online [Jul 13]. Let me take this opportunity to encourage him write another piece.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Jul 14, '04)

Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article Fahrenheit 9/11: Factual or Saudi-bashing?  [Jul 2] is astonishing in its anti-Semitism. Afrasiabi accuses [Michael] Moore of not being able to "realistically afford to antagonize the Jewish population, not to mention the pro-Israel Hollywood executives", while at the same time asserting that his film, which tears apart the rationale for the Iraqi war, does exactly that. Recall that Michael Eisner's Disney refused to distribute the film. Dr Afrasiabi imputes motives to Moore that are unsupportable given the intention and effect of his film. Dr Afrasiabi has, in fact, no basis for believing that Mr Moore did not make exactly the film he wished to make. What Dr Afrasiabi does have, however, is a demonstrable desire to blame the war on the Jews. In point of fact, at the grassroots level, most Jews remain (perhaps passively) against the war, relative to the population at large, and most definitely anti-Bush. And at the level of the "so-called neo-conservatives of Bush's inner circle, almost entirely Jewish, who plotted the invasion of Iraq long before September 11", we must once again express our disgust and shock at Dr Afrasiabi for his slippery and mendacious language and reasoning. [US President George W] Bush's inner circle is not "almost entirely Jewish", or anything like it. The people "plotting" the war prior to September 11 [2001] were not primarily Jewish. Dr Afrasiabi cites "Representative James P Moran, who dared to suggest at one point that the American Jewish community was pressing the White House to go to war in Iraq", as evidence of Jewish pressure to invade Iraq, when in fact Moran is - sorry, Dr Afrasiabi - a garden-variety anti-Semite, and his "daring" something quite less. The American Jewish community was doing no such thing. It is also typical of anti-Semitic propaganda to refuse to distinguish between Israel and its government and the Jewish people in general, for example those Jews in France or the United States. The assumption that all Jews and Israelis think alike and have the same position on foreign-policy issues is typical of the most banal yet pernicious kind of anti-Semitism.
Bryan Lurie
New York, New York (Jul 14, '04)


In [Fahrenheit 9/11: Factual or Saudi-bashing?, Jul 2], [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi makes the usual sort of unsubstantiated Israel-bashing. Firstly, [Michael] Moore is strongly anti-Israel himself. He has bashed the country numerous times on his speaking tours, and even dedicated his most recent book to someone who tried to prevent the destruction of Palestinian tunnels used for terrorist movement and supply. [Afrasiabi] then goes on to state that Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't mention Israel out of some fear of supposed "pro-Israel" movie executives. Never mind that Afrasiabi doesn't present a shred of evidence to support this contention. And in fact, the Hollywood studio in question, Disney, told Moore over a year ago they weren't going to distribute it, giving him plenty of time to add anti-Israel material if he so felt. The film in fact was distributed by a European company. The fact of the matter is, whatever you think of the Iraq war, it was supported by the vast majority of those within the Bush administration, the great majority of [whom] are not Jewish. Afrasiabi has engaged in the usual anti-Semite's trick of focusing on the Jews he feels are engaging in some behavior he depicts as negative, ignoring all the other non-Jews who are engaging in the same behavior. Finally, he resorts to one of the oldest rhetorical tricks, the false claim of persecution. There is nothing brave about writing anti-Israel books. Nothing happened to the authors he mentions, and others he didn't. If anything, writing an anti-Israel book will get you much support, financial and otherwise, from the Israel-hating public. If anything, it is brave these days to write a book defending Israel. Your magazine owes more to its readers than to publish this sort of garbage.
Richard Sol
Los Angeles, California (Jul 14, '04)

Kaveh L Afrasiabi has already responded, in a letter published here on July 6, to similar accusations of "anti-Semitism". - ATol


I am honored to communicate through these pages with such fine gentlemen as Frank from Seattle, Washington, and Mr T Kiani from London, England (letters below). I appreciate the editors printing these letters and hope they will allow them to continue. Based upon what is printed in these pages by the regular contributors, we react to them and to each other in honorable discourse. But Frank has missed my entire meaning. First, "carpet bombing" works in certain situations. We call them "arc light" strikes and they are extremely effective when you really want to destroy something. However, they also make a great "attention step". Nations and rulers of nations who do not want to respect the "will" of the United Nations, such as in Darfur, could be shown the error of their ways if, say, half of Khartoum was to disappear in less than a minute. I would suggest to all in this unrelated comment that the genocide happening in Darfur will not be solved by sanctions and other pious remonstrances, but by the exercise of severe penalties upon the government of the Sudan for failing to protect all of its citizens. Yes Frank, I do know the difference between the Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party. Nor do I want to attack either the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China (or the Republic of Taiwan, whichever they choose to call themselves). But it is not my decision to make. As for detonating a very large nuclear weapon right on top of the Kaaba, that is a means, and only one of many, that might be used to convince the Islamic world that it is time for them to police themselves and get the "jihadis" under control so that another major jihadi-made disaster does not occur in the United States, especially around election time. Mr Kiani: To paraphrase George C Scott in Patton: "I read your book." I even have my own, annotated, copy of the Koran ... It is your last sentence that really got my attention. Muslims are not the Borg. We will not be assimilated and resistance is not futile. In fact, as we discover more and more about all of the Islamist organizations, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the World Association of Muslim Youth, and their associations with known terrorist groups, we are becoming more aware that the goal of the modern Islamic Movement is nothing less than the Islamization of the planet. None other than Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi says so in his book Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase. And we wonder why the Lord Mayor of London was not happy to have him as a guest? I am not intimating that the good sheikh is other than an honorable and learned man. I simply disagree with his goals and methods. But then he is reputed to be the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood. As for the statement, "But what has democracy ever given the Algerians?", I don't know the answer to that. But I suspect that democracy will give them much more when the Salafist Group for Call and Combat hangs up its Kalashnikovs and duly elected officials are not living in fear for failing to be sufficiently "Islamic" for these people. Democracy, like Islam, has rules. One of them is that you abide by the choices of the people. Neither side has been good at following that rule. Another rule of democracy is that individual freedom is paramount. But then Islam is just about the current penultimate in subjugation to the group. There are lots of Muslims and other immigrants from Muslim countries who live in America. Those who choose to integrate into American culture do as well as anyone else. But it continues to surprise me how many ex-Muslims there are in America. Yes, renouncing Islam is apostasy and the Koranic penalty for that is death. But in this non-Islamic land, you can renounce or ignore Islam and the Religious Police don't come to visit you in the night. Could that happen in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? ...
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Jul 14, '04)


Daniel McCarthy's reply [Jul 13] is indeed very interesting. 1) He raised a diversion to my assertion [letter, Jul 12] that neither China nor Taiwan entered SFPT [the San Francisco Peace Treaty]. Yet such uncontested fact is conveniently left untouched by him, even his letter indicates he knew this fact. 2) The so-called "Treaty of Peace Between the Republic of China and Japan" (April 28, 1952) has no legal binding power anymore since Japan ceased to recognize the ROC [Republic of China] as a sovereign nation in 1972, and Japan switched its recognition of China to PRC [the People's Republic of China] since 1972. The "Treaty of Peace Between the Republic of China and Japan" (April 28, 1952), too, ceases its binding power to Japan. 3) UN Resolutions 1668, 2025, 2159, 2389, 2500 [and] 2642 recognize the fact that the PRC and ROC were competing for the right to represent China in '60s and early '70s. At the end in 1971, in UN Resolution 2758, the right to represent China was vested to the People's Republic of China. 4) The fact that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China was established in the Cairo Declaration and confirmed in Potsdam Proclamation Article 8. 5) Therefore, without a shred of doubt Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to PRC (the rightful government of China). 6) In conclusion, why [has] McCarthy spent so much time pondering on the legal status of Taiwan, but never dares to disclose the most obvious and relevant documents from the source of authority - the UN? McCarthy and [Jeff] Geer [letter, Jul 9], you may argue Taiwan independence from other angles but definitely not the legal point of view, unless new resolutions in support of Taiwan independence be passed in the UN.
GongShi
USA (Jul 14, '04)


I just cannot help [but] to comment on Daniel McCarthy's July 13 nerdy letter. Any treaty needs to be honored by the people from both sides to become a legal treaty. Otherwise, it is an invalid treaty. Instead of attacking other countries' education systems, Daniel McCarthy may need to read some books himself. Instead of demanding other people's tolerance ... Daniel McCarthy needs to learn to respect others. Unfortunately, that is never taught in American schools.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 14, '04)