|
|
|
|
Please provide your name or a
pen name, and your country of residence.
Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.
Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for
readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as
a forum for readers to debate with each other.
The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one
or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct
debaters away from the Letters page.
October 2009
[Re Europe stoops
to conquer the Uzbeks, October 29] M K Bhadrakumar is a wise observer
of all things Central Asian. The war in Afghanistan has forced the European
Union to reassess its high-minded approach to Uzbekistan. At the same time, it
is willing to accommodate Russia's traditional role in the former Soviet
Republic and in Central Asia. It is about time, as Ambassador Bhadrakumar's
analysis suggests. A dose of realism in the EU's approach will, if conditions
continue deteriorating in Afghanistan, erect a wall against the spread of
Islamic radicalism into neighboring states. The US would do well to recognize
this. Preaching normative regime change without a clear alternative is folly.
The EU has realized that Uzbekistan is its dictatorship. It has echoes of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's stinging reply to detractors who challenged the US
president's backing of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: "He's our
bastard". In other words, hands off, he is serving our foreign policy purposes.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 30, '09)
[Re Strong messages
in Pakistan, October 29] The message couldn't be any stronger! American
policies in the Middle East have been catastrophic because we do not understand
the enemy. The situation is going to worsen rather than improve, and this will
decide the political future of many in Washington, the president included. I
understand that the world needs more America, not less America, but the people
writing the scripts in Washington are out of touch with reality. The people
that we are trying to aid in Pakistan and Afghanistan are corrupt, rotten
"politicians", and that's why the Taliban hates them. As a writer in the Asia
Times Online reported some weeks ago, the Taliban is not an organized,
uniformed force and they do not have a political manifesto. That tells anyone
with common sense that the Taliban is a movement rooted in the people of those
countries. America is fighting a war with rules and schemes against an enemy
who knows no rules or schemes. I was laughing so hard when the American media
was reporting on the Afghan elections. The problems in such places are not
solved through elections. Elections without strong institutions result in
chaos. Democracy cannot be sustained if the acting society does not have a
culture of lawfulness. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about
democracy in Pakistan, I see a woman who is not there, she absolutely ignores
reality! She could not even come up with a good interpretation of the attacks
as she got to Pakistan. Instead, she came up with some college professor
statements, the ones that you hear on campuses full of hippies in Southern
California. As an American who loves his country and democracy, I am appalled
that we are sacrificing wealth, soldiers and energy on a lost cause. The world
needs more America, but we should also be willing to turn the back on lost
causes and people who will never assimilate our high culture and sense of
freedom.
Ysais Martinez (Oct 30, '09)
A terse clarification to my letter of October 28, and a brief response to Hank
of Australia, [letter, October 29], is that, for the purpose of allaying
Western fears about the rise of China, traditional Chinese culture can be a
means to present 21st-century Chinese humanity. The diversities of traditional
cultures, in facets like performance arts and different cuisines, are often
intriguing attractions that could advertise modern Chinese humanity. But in the
end, if Chinese modern humanity is not more palpable, fears will likely not be
allayed. My letter centers on the means by which China can allay fears, not on
righteous obligation. Moreover, as my letter suggests, mutual cultural
influence is a part of modernity. Most urban Chinese are much more Westernized,
especially in popular culture, than many care to admit. And yes, at the present
time, the West is more advanced in human individual development than China. One
should ask how Confucius' familial and social hierarchies alleviate gender
inequality and racism, for example. As much as China has significant modern
cultural values, in addition to palpable delights, to offer the world, one
should not have the righteous idea of equality in mutual influence - emerging
global culture will gravitate toward what best suits human development.
Jeff Church
USA (Oct 30, '09)
[Re Taliban take
over Afghan province, October 28] The withdrawal of United States
troops from "four key bases in Nuristan" is a sure-fire signal that the Afghan
Taliban smells victory. The US military announced that it intends to defend "10
top population centers", thereby abandoning the hinterland to the Taliban and
its allies. Doesn't this "strategic withdrawal" remind us of the French and
American wars in Vietnam. General McChrystal and his North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies may control cities and towns by day, but they are going to
be at the mercy of raids and attacks at night. The Taliban will control the
roads into and out of these "centers", which means they can collect taxes and
tolls, strengthening the Taliban's ability to fight. US President Barack Obama
is caught in the amber of former president George W Bush's neglect, as well as
the sting of Obama's own boast that prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is
the right thing to do.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 29, '09)
It seems that Willy Lam, in his
Beijing runs a diplomatic marathon [October 27], writes as an adroit
mind-reader. First, it is really speculative to state that "the Hu Jintao
administration is eager to play up the country's status as a
'quasi-superpower'", and "insisting on full equality in what it sees as a
developing Group of Two (G-2)". In fact, there is a greater reason to suggest
that China wants to promote a multi-polar world order and shuns the
connotations of "quasi-superpower" status and a bi-polar world order. Second,
the reason that United States President Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai
Lama may not be because "the Obama administration seems anxious to impress on
China that it is being treated as America's equal". Obama may have declined to
meet the Dalai Lama because the racially mixed US president does not have
sympathy for the Dalai Lama's cause of segregation. In fact, it is illogical
for Obama to view ethnic purity as essential for human happiness. Moreover,
ethnic purity by segregation, advocated by the Dalai Lama, could have prevented
the existence of many human beings with Obama's racial mix. Obama may have
understood the history of the Tibetan region and concluded that serfdom was by
far the greater vice.
Jeff Church
USA (Oct 29, '09)
Jeff Church, in his letter [October 28] about the article
China's culture offensive hits a wall [October 27], raises some good
points regarding modern China's need for more political transparency and the
undercurrent of Sinophobia that "stems from uncertainty about the future and
from Western distrust of and antipathy for the current Chinese political
system". However, I find it appallingly arrogant for him to blithely assume
that the Chinese people as a whole - some 1.3 billion of them - should "be
exposed to Western influence and become Westernized, particularly but not only
politically", as though Westernization was the very apex of human developmental
achievement. Seeking to replace another's cultural values with one's own is no
different to imperialism and/or neo-colonialism. It is as if Church expects the
Chinese to conform to his idea of Western values and subsequently ignore their
own Confucian or Chinese cultural values for the sole purpose of allaying fears
in the West. It is arrogance on the part of Westerners to expect the Chinese to
follow Western values (which are so often open to debate) and to dismiss
indigenous Chinese cultural values as being somewhat inferior to their other
cultural contributions on offer. Perhaps the ideal approach to addressing
Western Sinophobia would be to address insecurities on the part of Western
society towards China from a perspective of pluralism, acceptance,
understanding and common ground. It's really not that hard, you simply have to
empty your cup.
Hank, Australia (Oct 29, '09)
One can certainly be excused for feeling perplexed after reading Willy Lam's
article Beijing runs a
diplomatic marathon [October 27]. Lam makes wild claims such as "the Hu
Jintao administration is eager to play up the country's status as a
'quasi-superpower'", and that "Beijing ... insists on full equality in what it
sees as a developing Group of Two (G-2)". Of course, Lam couldn't even
substantiate these claims if he wanted to, as they come merely from his
imagination. Does Beijing see itself as a "quasi-superpower"? That's an
argument I suppose that could go both ways, with the official Chinese
government stance heavily leaning towards a big "no". As for the absurd concept
of G-2, it is a Western creation that few Chinese take seriously. Lam then went
to full-length listing all the Chinese diplomatic endeavors that took place
since October 1, abruptly reaching the conclusion that somehow China "may also
have rendered the 'China threat' theory more credible", without caring to
explain why. Why? China is a threat because China has the strength to carry out
its independent (of Western interests) diplomatic agenda with China's own
interests in mind? Blasphemy! How dare China? It is said that China is expected
to be a responsible stakeholder, and when it tries to do something it is
accused of "rendering the 'China threat' theory more credible"? China just
can't win. Lam, what do you want China to do? Do nothing at the risk of being
labeled an "irresponsible stakeholder" or do something and being considered
some sort of a threat? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Oct 28, '09)
The news content on your website is excellent, informative, and a needed change
from most Western news sites reporting on Asia. I just wanted to mention that
the visual presentation of the website really leaves something to be desired; a
clean, visually-pleasing layout is a huge attraction for readers and lends
credibility to the website. I hope you won't mind my suggestion that you
consider updating the look of the website.
Allie Johnson (Oct 28, '09)
Our updated website is available for subscription at -
www.atimes.net - ATol
I had to smile at the last line of Dennis O'Connell's letter [October 27],
"There are tough problems in the world that need good solutions, but hugging a
tree and singing Kumbaya is not the solution and neither is bashing the
[United States]." Since recorded history, the US has been trying the methods of
force, war, rape, pillage and burn as a means of influencing others. We are
still at it, with no peace in sight for another 10,000 years. Maybe we should
try hugging a tree and singing. It surely could not be any more unsuccessful
than our current methods.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 28, '09)
[Re Baghdad blasts
echo far and wide, October 27] It is so ironic to see this author try
to blame Shi'ite parties for the Baghdad blasts. Sami Moubayed writes,
"Although al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, it is by no means clear that the
group did it it - some even believe a Shi'ite party was responsible ... ". I
have not heard or read one single other news item that blames Shi'ite parties
for the bombings. The Shi'ites do not carry out suicide bombings and I don't
believe they did this for one second. This shows this author's bias against
Shi'ites.
Shab Mir
USA (Oct 28, '09)
[Re Baghdad blasts
echo far and wide, October 26] The two suicide bombs in Baghdad on
Sunday makes a lie the United States claim that the war in Iraq is winding down
and the withdrawal of US troops on schedule. The "surge" was at best a stop-gap
measure. If the Barack Obama administration cherishes the illusion that lessons
learnt in Iraq will serve its war in Afghanistan, the US president is in for a
serious disappointment.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 27, '09)
I am stunned by the complete political naivete displayed by Nick Turse in
Failed war president or prince of peace [October 26]. He makes a
15-year-old Pollyanna with rose-tinted glasses seem like a hard-nosed,
well-informed political realist. United States President Barack Obama's choices
in Afghanistan are not between war and peace, but between fighting the Taliban
or a Taliban victory. ... Turse's views on Korea are even more insane. He
writes that Obama "could help make a lasting peace on a de-nuclearized Korean
Peninsula and so begin earning his recent award". In case Turse has not been
paying attention for the last 15 years, the US along with four other parties
has been trying to negotiate a de-nuclearized North Korea, but North Korean
leader Kim Jong-il does not want to give up his nukes. The billions of dollars
in foreign aid Kim Jong-il has received in the last 10 years have only helped
him to stay in power and ruin the lives of 20 million North Koreans. Turse may
view the Korean War as a failure, but the sacrifice of over 50,000 US lives
prevented the Kim family from having another 46 million people to torture at
will. Turse's ideological allies in the 1950s were the ones who helped ensure
the enslavement of the North Korean people. There are tough problems in the
world that need good solutions, but hugging a tree and singing Kumbaya is
not the solution and neither is bashing the US.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Oct 27, '09)
In China's culture
offensive hits a wall [October 27], by Antoaneta Bezlova, Wu Wei [the
head of a Chinese literature project] misses the mark when she states, "the
West knows little about China's culture and ideas, and ignorance breeds fear".
Such fear of the rise of China is certainly not caused by a lack of
understanding of Chinese culture; rather, it stems from uncertainty about the
future and from Western distrust of and antipathy for the current Chinese
political system. All great nations have an expansionist past; most of southern
China today is testimony to Han expansionism more than 2,000 years ago.
Historians even praise the Roman Empire's cosmopolitan flair and political
inclusiveness. But in today's global political context, Rome would represent
hegemony. Today, a nation has to project itself as one that abides with
internationally recognized conducts, sometimes even measured with an
ideological touchstone. The presentation of Chinese culture, such as its
cuisine and performance arts, is an attempt to use soft power to create
affinity for China. But what would really allay fears of China in the West
would be a demonstration of greater transparency by China, especially in the
military sphere, and a willingness to be exposed to Western influence and
become Westernized, particularly but not only politically. The extent to which
China is willing and able to do so will be the extent to which China can allay
fears in the West - not through the vague concept of promoting an understanding
of Chinese culture. China can only be expected to do its best; some Western
fear of China will likely linger. Conversely, it seems that many Chinese
superficially shun being Westernized, but in deeds - especially for Western
popular culture - they don't. Perhaps there is a mirror image in the West.
There seems to be reciprocity in the touting of reluctance but actual
cross-cultural acceptance. Tight-fitting jeans and sweet-and-sour pork are both
accepted with relish.
Jeff Church
USA (Oct 27, '09)
[Re Prevention
better than cure?, October 23] I would like to commend Mahan Abedin for
conducting a very informative interview with Dr Abdul Wahid. Wahid is
absolutely correct to point out that the major terrorism of our time is the
foreign policy of the Anglo-American alliance. However, I would contend that
Anglo-American policy towards Islamist groups is not the pure repression that
the good doctor describes. Washington and London wish to keep the Muslim
countries weak and divided. This is best done not through brute force, but by
promoting sectarianism and fanaticism so that those countries consume
themselves in turmoil. Islamists such as the Taliban, the Iranian ayatollahs,
and Hezbollah are classed as enemies, not because they are too religious but
because they have wandered off the geopolitical reservation that has been
assigned to them by the Anglo-Americans. Despite all the public demonization of
Islam, the Saudi royals and [militant group] Jundallah continue to be coddled
because they continue to play their assigned spoiler role. As for [pan-Islamic
political party] Hizbut Tehrir (HT), I suspect the British government's
attitude towards it will depend to a great extent on whether Uzbekistan
reconciles with the Anglo-Americans. ... Ysias Martinez [letter, October 26]
misses the point. Yes, the British government permits the fragmentation of
British society through massive immigration despite popular opposition, but
that is because the true constituency of the British government is not the
people of Britain but rather the ruling oligarchy, and not because of any pinko
soft-headedness on their part. Such immigration is not meant to create a Muslim
majority, that is impossible, but rather to create a substantial and
permanently disaffected Muslim minority perpetually at odds with other groups
in British society. The more the hoi-polloi are divided among themselves, with
knives at each others' throats over headscarves, Koran burnings etc, the more
easily the oligarchy pauperizes them all. It is the divide-and-conquer policy
used abroad applied to the home front.
Jonathan X
Canada (Oct 27, '09)
I realize that you need to generate income in order to continue your excellent
work; nonetheless, I would suggest that your alliance with Infolinks is
probably as annoying to readers as it is useful to you. Apart from generating
constant annoying pop-ups, the service is largely useless. Here's just one
example: in a recent article, a reference to China's "no-strings attached"
policy of aid to Myanmar, the "Infolink" pointed me to information about an
N'Sync album called No Strings Attached.
Teymoor Nabili
Al-Jazeera Anchor
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Oct 26, '09)
I have three points to make re
China trumps Taiwan's 'democracy card', by Erdong Chen, October 24.
First, the Chinese mainland has an even more potent "democracy card". This card
bears the picture of the "tank man" in Tiananmen, Beijing, 1989, and the slogan
"In Hope We Trust". Is it that the (Western) international community has a
greater desire to see an enormous Chinese mainland creeping toward acceptable
democracy than a tiny Taiwan exceeding some expectation in democracy
development? Second, what is this Taiwan democratic development? The author
uses the term "liberal democracy" for Taiwan, but is it? While democratic
structure is one leg of democracy, the other is democratic culture. Is the
hallmark of democratic culture well-developed in Taiwan? Do people in Taiwan
truly respect and embrace pluralism in ideals, thoughts, and opinions? If there
remains a sizeable pro-eventual unification populace in Taiwan, democratic
culture in Taiwan will likely continue to be stymied, under greater and greater
pressure from the mainland. ... Thirdly, Taiwan's political status has to be
settled before it can have an impact on the democratic development of the
Chinese mainland. Taiwan can have influence on the mainland's democratic
development only as a special part of China. The great desire for reunification
has to be satisfied before any democratic virtues in Taiwan can become salient
to the Chinese on the mainland. In this perspective, Hong Kong has value in
promoting democratic culture on the Chinese mainland.
Jeff Church
USA (Oct 26, '09)
[Re Prevention
better than cure?, October 24] I was appalled to read Abdul Wahid
accuse the British government of trying to gain control over Muslim communities
and of forcing them to adopt Western values. The British government is one of
the softest countries on the threat of Islam in the West. It surrendered to
Muslim madness a long time ago and I see only darkness and disaster in Great
Britain. Tolerance? Acceptance? Assimilation? The other day, the ban on
[controversial Dutch politician] Geert Wilders entering the United Kingdom was
lifted, and in the news I saw riots of Muslims screaming things like "death to
the UK", "sharia law for the Netherlands and the UK", "Islam will dominate
Europe", and other despicable slogans. Is this the world that you want to live
in? Is that the kind of immigrants we want in our countries? If you want to
live in Rome, do as the Romans do. I strongly, absolutely believe that the
guests should behave as guests if they want the hosts to behave as hosts. The
West cannot afford to host guests that want to kill our people, destroy our
culture, and impose their discriminatory, hateful, backward laws. It is a shame
that a country with such a long history of high culture (the UK) is rolling
over to people that hate everything that is British and who would kick every
Englishmen out of England. The madness must be stopped!
Ysais Martinez (Oct 26, '09)
Shawn W Crispin's article (Thailand
mulls royal succession, October 19) raises a few issues that need to be
clarified. First, it tries to make the issue of royal succession in Thailand a
mysterious one, full of questions and uncertainty. There is, in fact, nothing
to speculate about. Those knowledgeable about Thailand would know that there
are clearly stipulated rules, both in the Palace Law on Succession and the Thai
constitution regarding the issue. Indeed, the relevant provisions in the
current constitution - similar to previous ones, including the 1997
constitution - lay out the specific roles of the Privy Council, National
Assembly and cabinet. Second, the Thai lese-majeste law is not
accurately understood. As part of the country's criminal code, the law is there
to protect the monarchy which is one of the Thailand's principal institutions
and integral to the country's national security. It is necessary also because
Thai law and convention do not provide for the monarchy to take legal action
against the people nor allow them to act in their own defense. While the
Criminal Procedure Code allows anyone who finds a suspected lese-majeste
act to lodge a complaint, such a complaint must be handled in accordance with
due legal process. To ensure its proper enforcement, the government is also in
the process of providing clearer guidelines on its application. As it is
though, the law is not aimed at curbing freedom of speech and expression nor
the legitimate exercise of academic freedom including the debates about the
monarchy as an institution. Amidst the on-going intense political differences,
apparent attempts to politicize the monarchy for political ends seem to have
unduly gained momentum. Those who follow developments in the country are
therefore asked to be more careful in differentiating facts from rumors.
Vimon Kidchob
Director-General
Department of Information
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand (Oct 23,
'09)
We would be deeply grateful if Asia Times Online would establish a Twitter
account for its South Asia
page . The account would be more effective than RSS news feeds, and let
us keep up with ATol's South Asia reporting and analysis without having to
remember to check in several times a day. The Twitter account could
include headline information and links to your articles. I hope you will do
this; it would be a great service to people who use Twitter who want to keep up
with your coverage of this area.
Jim Pivonka USA (Oct 23, '09)
Twitter feeds are more suited to publications that
are constantly updated with live information and news, as we publish only once
daily at the same time all of our daily articles are included in our
newsfeed. We will look into syndicating this feed with social
networking sites such as Twitter, thanks for the suggestion - ATol
[Re Islamabad
dismayed by 'dithering' US, October 22] Thursday's assassination of a
Pakistani brigadier general in Islamabad has nothing to do with Washington's
"dithering". Zahid U Kramet can and does rely on foreign sources, mainly
American, to lay the blame on US President Barack Obama's shoulders for
Pakistan's internal troubles. Anti-Americanism is part of the Pakistani
discourse. Washington has long relied on and supported a strong military there.
The Pakistani military has hedged its bets by playing both sides of the street.
It has gladly paid lip service to Washington for America's largesse in filling
its pockets; on the other hand, it has fostered, trained, and nurtured the most
retrograde religious elements in order to carry out, underhandedly, Pakistan's
aims in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. In a sense, the George W Bush
administration equivocated; it did not press Islamabad for the arrest of
Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who is living quietly in Quetta, nor over the safe
haven offered to al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden. Pakistan's internal disorder has
its origins in the nation's own pandering to rogue elements which now are
challenging the very life of this corrupt state. If Pakistan is to save itself,
it is the task of the Pakistanis themselves, not foreigners.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 23, '09)
In the article China's
navy sails past India's dock[October 21] , Peter J Brown talks about
the influence of China's Navy (PLAN) from a military and confrontational
viewpoint. The dispatch of three frigates of the PLAN to help guard shipping
lanes does not constitute overt or covert militarism. I know that
"China-bashing" is very popular in Western media, but let's keep some semblance
of reality. Then there is the statement, "When compared to the PLA Navy's
[PLAN's] situation and activities in East and Southeast Asia - active maritime
territorial disputes; snooping in territorial waters; tangling with US vessels
in exclusive economic zones [EEZs] - the PLAN's current IOR [Indian Ocean
region] activities are relatively benign." This implies that the naval activity
on China's coast is not reactionary, but somehow Chinese generated. If one
wants to write an article about militarism and confrontational naval presence
in the Indian Ocean, I can think of at least one other country which would
provide a rich trove of data upon which to base your writings.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 22, '09)
Peter J Brown's China's
navy sails past India's dock[October 21] makes for interesting reading.
It is true China's "games" in Central Asia give New Delhi much cotton to
thread, but the emergence of a nascent, modern Chinese navy is more a statement
that China has a vocation as global naval power. China also has an interest in
patrolling troubled sea lanes which threaten its trade and in making
humanitarian gestures to countries plagued by natural disasters - in order to
further its "soft power". On the other hand, a strong Chinese navy is a signal
to the United States that Beijing is willing to challenge Washington's hegemony
in the open seas, particularly in East and Southeast Asia. As such, India is of
secondary concern. Brown does note that India has more to fear from Pakistan in
the wake of terrorist attacks on Mumbai coming from the sea. Furthermore, China
is not in a position to take on America's dominance in the Indian Ocean, nor
for that matter, India's.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 22, '09)
[Re From
killing fields to fields of dreams, October 21] This article is really
touching. As an American, one rarely thinks of the circumstances of the less
fortunate. That's why I hate Third World mentalities. Third World leaders
oppress people instead of providing them with decent living conditions. Joe
Cook is doing an amazing job and God bless him for that. Hopefully, through the
spread of baseball and the fraternity of sports, Cambodian children will have a
happy face at last. For every smile Joe Cook puts on a Cambodian child, he is
creating a treasure for himself in heaven. John Perra, my hat goes off to you
sir for providing this refreshing article amidst difficult, wary, times.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Oct 22, '09)
I strongly condemn New Orleans' Ken Moreau [letter, October 19] for his attempt
to rationalize Ysais A Martinez's letters with his theory of "separate
evolution". Those of us reading Spengler, the letters and the forum for a while
have became accustomed to this mentality, which is the sum of a person's
intellectual capabilities, that is subject to many factors including
upbringing, education and even diet, but not subject to evolution. Ken, I urge
you to keep your faith in humanity as a whole and classify them according to
their mental state. However, if it is insult that you are trying to inflict, I
think publishing Martinez's letters for all of us to read is to say the least,
insulting enough for him.
Luay Ashadawi
AL-Khobar, Saudi Arabia (Oct 22, '09)
Everyone is strapped for cash. I humbly suggest your artistic staff attach
classic art in support of articles, like you did with
Gloating with Wall Street's goodfellas [October 21]. Tell us the artist
and the name of the print. Suggest to administrative staff they offer
reproductions, I'd purchase a few.
RT
USA (Oct 22, '09)
We don't do calssic art, but you can buy one of our posters, Mr Baked Potato
Head, by clicking here.
- ATol
[Re When the cat's
away, the mice kill each other, October 19] I am not sad to see the
decline of the United States that is unfolding in front of our eyes. United
States interventions have cost hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives.
Examples are its interventions in Vietnam and Cambodia and its role in
supporting military dictators and undemocratic governments in Central and South
America. Then there was the US support of Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the war
against Iran, and later the invasion of Iraq without United Nations support. It
is also still unclear to me what they are doing in Afghanistan. I do not see
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's intervention helping democracy or
ordinary Afghanis. In summary, I will not miss the US, its decline will be
rather welcomed.
Manuel de la Torre (Oct 21, '09)
[Re Saudi-Iranian
hostility hits boiling point,
Jundallah versus the mullahtariat, and
Iran's nuclear talks also hit, October 20] Your three articles touching
on the Iran bombings gave a comprehensive understanding of the many dimensions
of this development. Each article covered an important aspect and I found all
three to be balanced and objective. Thank you.
Tim
Toronto (Oct 21, '09)
[Re China opens a
new front in Kashmir, October 20] China issuing special visas to Indian
Kashmiris is yet another wrinkle in the seemingly unending trench warfare of
words and diplomatic stealth between China and India. Beijing has shot another
harpoon over New Delhi's bow. Kashmir, for India, has the exalted status of a
sacred cow. And Beijing knows very well how to spread salt on India's open
wound on the question of Kashmir. New Delhi can and will denounce China for
involvement in its own internal affairs, no doubt. On the other hand, China's
quick shift on Kashmir could be interrupted as growing fears of India becoming
a rival for influence in Central Asia. India has arrows in its bow to "wound"
China's pride. It will more forthrightly talk up Tibet and highlight China's
"cultural cleansing" and suppression of Uyghur rights in Xinjiang province. It
might even revive the qualifying adjective of Turkmen instead of Uyghur. The
war of words has endless variations, it seems.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 21, '09)
[Re Jundallah
versus the mullahtariat and
Iran's nuclear talks also hit, October 20] The moment I heard the news
of the Pishin attack in Sistan-Balochistan, [Israel's intelligence service]
Mossad jumped to my mind. One cannot pay as much attention to events in the
Middle East as I have over the past eight years and not come to this
conclusion. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to pose a question to
a news correspondent who had spent a good deal of time in Iraq. I asked him
whether there was any sign of Mossad over there and his answer was, "Yes, they
are all over the ground". I was not even a little bit surprised. So, when you
look at the big picture - as Kaveh L Afrasiabi and Pepe Escobar have done - you
must wonder how the president of the United States could be caught off-guard by
such an event. There are two possible answers: he was not caught off-guard or,
the real powers behind the throne are still calling the shots, independently of
him. I have never felt comfortable with the coming of President Barack Obama. I
believe that he was put there by a "greater power" that was playing on the
naivete of the American people, and that he will accomplish nothing that his
handlers do not want him to. Afrasiabi's article quotes a voice with a
pessimism similar to mine. Hamid Reza Taraghi, a deputy executive of the
powerful Iranian group, Hezbe Motalefeh Eslami, told the press that, "Iran has
no confidence in any promises by the US and cannot count on its commitments in
the international arena. There has been no change of US policy toward Iran." In
other words, the Israeli lobby and the "Christian" right are still in charge -
doing the bidding of the military-industrial complex. To really put the light
on this latest event; to get the big picture, readers should go to
The best of Pepe Escobar on this site and read all he has to say about
"Pipelineistan". This is what it's all about over there. This is what (or who)
our young men are dying for.
Keith E Leal
Canada (Oct 21, '09)
[Re Saudi-Iranian
hostility hits boiling point,
Jundallah versus the mullahtariat and
Iran's nuclear talks also hit, October 20] M K Bhadrakumar seems to
imply it was not Jundallah that carried out the attack that killed the Iranian
officials, but United States special forces. Would Bhadrakumar provide a source
for this information beyond speculation? He states that the US is not providing
arms or money to this militant group, just encouragement and advice. Does
Bhadrakumar realize how crazy this sounds? The US trying to advise the Taliban
or its allies about how to conduct terrorist attacks is like my grandmother
trying to tell Michael Jordan how to play basketball. Also, Jundallah probably
hates the US more than Shi'ites, so why would they meet with the Central
Intelligence Agency? Any CIA agent going to a meeting with Jundallah would be
putting his life at risk just to tell them they are doing a good job against
the Iranians - this concept is insane. Any CIA agent dumb enough to accept this
assignment would be too dumb to read a map and get to the meeting, besides,
anyone that dumb would have already been made a supervisor. Kaveh L Afrasiabi
in his article also blames the US for this attack, writing that it "could not
possibly have taken place without the knowledge and perhaps complicity of
Western and/or Israeli intelligence". Again this is an insane idea, why would
Jundallah need the blessing or need to inform the CIA of this attack?
Bhadrakumar, Pepe Escobar and Afrasiabi are blinded by their hatred of the US,
and this has blocked their ability to access their own common sense or logic.
Any CIA agent needs to think about how his actions will appear when they are
written about on the front page of the New York Times, as they always are, and
giving aid to Muslim extremists is never a good idea. Iran believes the US is
aiding Jundallah because they are aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, so they
assume the US must be aiding Jundallah. The world does not work that way.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Oct 21, '09)
United States special forces ...? If you read the article again, you will see M
K Bhadrakumar says nothing of the kind. - ATol
Is the title of Ian Williams'
Goldstone as a touchstone for Obama [October 19] conveying a hint of
post-modernist whimsy? United States President Barack Obama's ambassador to the
United Nations, Susan Rice, who is president of the UN Security Council at
present, will end up casting a veto on any action against Israel based on the
findings of Judge Richard Goldstone's report. It cannot be otherwise. Were the
US to abstain, it would signal a break with its tradition of shielding Israel
from any substantive blame.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 20, '09)
[Re UN's caste
declaration riles India, Oct 19, '09] Laudable as this "rhetorical
salvo" by the United Nations Human Rights Council may be, it will be as
ineffective as the paper and verbal declarations by Indian politicians - past
and present - in making a significant difference to the lives of Dalits at the
lower level. The UNHRC has not chosen to deal with the larger (160 million) and
even more severely discriminated community, the Muslims of India - not
withstanding constitutional and other rhetorical flourishes by the Indian
elite. Much of this is well known and even borne out by long suppressed
official studies. The UNHRC has also ignored the plight of other minorities
like Christians and more recently of the Buddhists. Even the left-wing
governments of south and east India have treated these problems with benign
neglect. As the facts of the situation are well known, I need add no data to
substantiate this disgraceful state of affairs. For an apparently enlightened
publication, you are remiss in not pointing out these other equally egregious
violations of human rights. India is an emerging economic and military
superpower, but a human-rights midget. The fact that other nations may behave
like cretins does not absolve India.
Fazal ur Rahman
Bridgewater NS Canada (Oct 20, '09)
[Re When the cat's
away, the mice kill each other, October 19] Once again Spengler
explains why America represents balance and harmony in the entire world. Let me
put it in simple words: if I was a soldier, I'd rather be caught by our
American marines than anyone else (or would you like to be interrogated by
Hamas or the Syrian police?) If I was to be tried, I'd rather be tried in the
United States courts than anywhere else in the world. Why? Because we have
strong institutions and a developed mentality. I don't accuse the Barack Obama
administration of all of our flaws in foreign policy. This calamity started in
the George W Bush administration. America seems to have lost its will to
dominate and the stomach to engage in a war where violence and death are
necessary. I also think that America's foreign policy experts live in
dreamland. These people just don't get it. What intrigues me the most is that
Spengler explains with facts how America is surrendering its influence to
dictators and Third Worldists. And still Washington doesn't get it. The
American people don't want anything to do with the Middle East. We despise the
values of that region, and we hate the systematic discrimination against women
and other minorities. However we want our country to work closely with its
allies there to keep things kind of balanced. This doesn't mean direct
involvement though.
Ysais Martinez (Oct 20, '09)
I have been reading with appalling interest the letters of Ysais A Martinez.
The only conclusion which makes any sense to me is that there had to have been
two lines of the evolutionary chain. The one that produced Martinez and his
kind, and the other which produced the group to which I belong. What is more
surprising is that both groups look the same physically!
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 20, '09)
Having read Spengler's
When the cat's away, the mice kill each other [October 19] today, I
fully agree with his opinion about the changing balance of power with the F-35
[Joint Strike Fighter] as a factor. Western (air) defense is in danger. The
F-35 will burn North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense budgets. Russian and
Chinese competition and fast rising other Asian aviation firms will become
challengers for the United States aviation industry. The era of the F-4 Phantom
and F-16 will not come back. It may be interesting for you to know my opinion
about the long-term estimates for the important JSF program. As an independent
Dutch JSF expert, this week I have offered a report that examines in detail the
various figures provided by Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office to
prospective JSF partners, including the Netherlands, to support the JSF's
business case in these countries. It demonstrates that, while Lockheed and the
JSF Program Office are still using figures based on the state of the fighter
market in the late 1990s, these are no longer credible. The report ... shows
that a "likely estimate" of about 2,500 aircraft [will be procured], including
450 foreign sales aircraft (outside JSF partner countries) ... compared to the
optimistic 4,500-6,000 aircraft still claimed by Lockheed and the JPO [Joint
Program Office]. ... This undermines the business case on which individual
countries will base their decision on the JSF. ... It will effect the
possibilities within the defense budget of the involved countries. Lower
production quantities will not only cause higher procurement prices, but also
more expensive later upgrades and higher exploitation costs with important
impacts on long-term defense budgets.
Johan Boeder
The Netherlands (Oct 20, '09)
[Re Al-Qaeda's
guerrilla chief lays out strategy, October 14] Dear Syed Saleem
Shahzad, Thank you for your courage, professional dedication and service to
humanity displayed in your successful efforts to interview Ilyas Kashmiri and
report it to the world. As an American trying to think clearly about the United
States having a more constructive role in the world, it is helpful to gain the
insights you provide. It shall be interesting to see how the competing visions
and strategies play out over time. I'm just wishing for calm and peace sooner
rather than later.
Larry Piltz
Austin, Texas (Oct 19, '09)
[Re The Dragon
spews fire at the Elephant, October 16] The back-biting between New
Delhi and Beijing has heated up this year after China allegedly violated the
frontier almost 3,000 times, and India has beefed up its military presence
there accordingly. China is growing impatient, especially since the role it
envisions as a "referee" in Asia is being eclipsed by an India allied with the
United States.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 19, '09)
Maoists go on
pilgrimage in China [October 15] presented the Maoist viewpoint in a
positive manner. It details the thoughts and visions of Nepal's Maoist leader
Prachanda and China's attitude towards Nepal and the Maoist party of Nepal. All
may sound good and impressive, but what cannot be forgotten is that the Maoists
nurture a very dangerous policy, which they make clear time and again by
threatening to start another civil war. Nepalis are yet to forgive them for
those thousands of lives they took in very the recent past. Nepal needs a
stable government and many people still think the Maoists should not be part of
it.
N Pradhan
UAE (Oct 19, '09)
[Re Maoists go on
pilgrimage in China, October 15] I wish to thank Dhruba Adhikary for
his intriguing article on Nepal's Maoist leader and former prime minister,
Prachanda. Today there are many giants on the world stage, dancing very
predictably. Once America's defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan became clear, the
machinery of world events took on a dreary, uninteresting, character. There is
little United State President Barack Obama, that great man of peace, can do to
roll the tumbling boulder back up the mountain. Now Nepal is a small country,
but perhaps there lies something refreshingly new, perhaps even a political
class ready to think deeply about the nature of man in society. The past two
centuries threw up several such thinkers, and the world shook. The present
century, admittedly young, has only yet thrown up limited technocrats, who can
nevertheless steer a straight course. In one way that's fine. Sometimes boring
is good.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Oct 16, '09)
[Re Obama beset by
America's far right, October 14] There is a great misunderstanding as
to who the American far right is. First of all, former US president George W
Bush and his "pupils" don't represent the American conservative movement. In
fact, the administration of Bush ended up being too liberal for some of us who
are truly conservatives. So President Barack Obama is not beset by
conservatives, Obama's weakness and incompetence are his main threats. There
are factions of the American conservative movement who want nothing to do with
the Middle East. We don't care what they think of Americans in the Arab
streets. They should be concerned what we think of them. We love our wealth,
our enviable lifestyle, our freedoms, our great country and we absolutely
despise anything that has to do with the Islamification of our country. We do
not want to import backwards values to our land. So the invasion of some
so-called countries or the war in Afghanistan is not necessarily supported by
the conservatives. They could all kill each other as far as we are concerned.
The kind of war that we want to fight is the war where we are allowed to
dehumanize and demonize the enemy. If we can't hate the enemy, then it's not
our war. So please, understand one thing, Karl Rove, the so-called
neo-conservatives, and the Republican National Committee are not the American
right. Those are sell-outs who bow down to the United Nations and other
anti-American, anti-church, anti-life groups.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Oct 16, '09)
[Re Al-Qaeda's
guerilla chief lays out strategy, October 14] I would like to caution
Haridas Ramakrishnan (Letters, October, 15) in alleging that Syed Saleem
Shahzad could be "unwittingly or otherwise" acting as a propaganda agent for
al-Qaeda. Human experience teaches us that nobody likes to know what their
enemy really thinks, because when their enemy is targeted for extermination it
would cause far too inconvenient a distraction to have one's own conscience
brought into question. When al-Qaeda's Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri sees the
September 11, 2001, terror attacks as prompting America's retaliatory
involvement in the "swamp" of Afghanistan, he confirms that al-Qaeda has not
created anything new, but that it is built on a mutual enmity between Islam and
Judeo-Christendom. Moreover, while Hinduism may outwardly be characterized as
benignly syncretistic, it is inwardly susceptible to a virulent strain of
Indian nationalism. None of these observations are meant to justify the killing
of innocents by al-Qaeda. But unless we engage in the kind of rapprochement
attempted by Syed Saleem Shahzad, all sides to this conflict will have the
blood of innocents on their hands.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Oct 16, '09)
[Re India takes off
against 'Red Taliban', October 15] New Delhi is desperate. It has not
been successful in taming, let alone defeating, its own Maoists, some who
believe that "power comes from the barrel of the gun". So, in a time-honored
fashion, India has resorted to labeling them as the "Red Taliban", to guarantee
victory in its long struggle against them. Will this "incantation" bring India
good luck? More likely than not, since this facile appeal to mass advertising
will not erase with a wave of a magic wand the underlying social ills which
gave rise to India's Maoists.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 16, '09)
[Re Al-Qaeda's
guerrilla chief lays out strategy, October 15] I would like to caution
Syed Saleem Shahzad that in the name of "hot stories" which many journalists
would be excited about, he should not become a propaganda agent of al-Qaeda -
unwittingly or otherwise. Syed Saleem Shahzad was chosen for the interview by
al-Qaeda precisely because al-Qaeda thought he would do a good job for them.
But lionizing hardcore criminals and terrorists like Ilyas Kashmiri - who can
justify pretty much anything in the name of religion or the alleged injustices
of "non-Muslims" - won't take him anywhere.
Haridas Ramakrishnan (Oct 15, '09)
If you read the article again, you will see that never once does it express
support or otherwise for the ideas put forward. This is called reporting, and
it offers an alternative insight into the world to which many people are
unaccustomed. - ATol
[Re Turkey won't
play with Israel, October 14] Israel is getting a taste of its own
medicine. Its long-time ally Turkey is administering a large spoonful of castor
oil. Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler omit a significant detail: Israel's
President Shimon Peres' argument with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan at the Davos economic summit. Erdogan criticized Israel's war in Gaza.
This was too much for Peres. In spite of Peres' apology and Israel's attempts
to kiss and make up, the harm was done. And Gaza remains a sore point between
Ankara and Jerusalem. On top of that, Israel's attacking the Goldstone report
does not sit well with Turkey. For although Judge Goldstone cites Hamas and
Israel for crimes of war, he documents Israel's overwhelming responsibility in
waging a war of collective guilt against a civilian population and the
deliberate destruction of Gaza's infrastructure. As long as Israel persists in
its campaign of being above international law, its rift with Turkey will remain
an open sore.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 15, '09)
[Re North Korea begins
'Plan C', October 13] Kim Myong Chol, the unofficial voice of Pyongyang
in Japan, always tells us what is in the mind of North Korea. In this article,
he presents a way out of the nuclear stalemate on the Korean Peninsula. It
should be pointed out that even before former United States president Bill
Clinton went on his "private mission of mercy" to Pyongyang in July 2009, the
George W Bush administration had reluctantly given tacit acceptance of North
Korea as a nuclear power. In fact, Pyongyang's testing of a nuclear device
brought Bush to abandon his hard-line approach to dealing with North Korea.
Now, as Kim suggests, it is time for US President Barack Obama to give North
Korea de jure recognition as a nuclear power. ...
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 14, '09)
[Re Arab world
befuddled by Obama's prizeOctober 13] I wish to say that United States
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize not for bringing peace
to the Middle East but in the anticipation that he will. As long as Israel is
the only nuclear power in the Middle East, it will not agree to any peace terms
other than those it can dictate. President Obama can put political pressure on
the Israelis, but as long as the Israel Lobby rules the US, the present, the
past and future president of the US is, was, and will be helpless in bringing
peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Saqib Khan (Oct 14, '09)
[Re Beijing hires a
media guru, October 9] China has taken a media page from the West's
book. The Chinese Communist Party is moving on many fronts to create a media
empire of its own. As Cristian Segura notes, in spite of the hip face of its
media spokesmen, the CCP remains in full control of content and programming.
While it does not shy away from allowing foreign private media companies to
produce music, film, dance or theater in China, they must sign contracts with
state-owned enterprises that stay within party guidelines. In this way, China
burnishes its image by fostering an illusion among eager foreign media
companies eager to break into a lucrative China market. Nonetheless, the CCP's
control of the media has an Achilles' heel. The party cannot stop its citizens
from using the Internet to challenge its monopoly on information.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 13, '09)
[Re Heads or tails,
Obama loses, October 8] On the eve of sending possibly thousands of
extra troops to Afghanistan, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to United
States President Barack Obama places him in the midst of a time-honored
contradiction that only highlights how peace remains the most elusive of all
human endeavors. Despite its many pitfalls, Obama's greatest hope lies not in
the escalation of a war that is seen as an affront to the civilizational and
religious identity of the Muslim world. Rather, it lies in the example set by
former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger and former North Vietnamese chief
diplomat Le Duc Tho, who were the two joint winners of the 1973 Nobel Peace
Prize. Both of these men helped forge a lasting ceasefire in the Vietnam War.
They also stood at opposite ends of an ideological spectrum, set against what
the US perceived at the time to be the spearhead of a globally orchestrated
communist threat. The historic parallel between this and Obama's war in
Afghanistan cannot be dismissed. Nor can the fact that if Obama is to emerge as
a peacemaker, he will need to follow in the footsteps of his two predecessors
by forging a similar agreement with the Taliban.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (Oct 13, '09)
[Re When 5+1 = 1+1
in the Iran equation, October 7] Kaveh L Afrasiabi is right to point
out the significance of direct one-on-one dialogue between the United States
and Iran. But the thought of Iran-US dialogue has sparked an apocalyptic
reaction by US neo-conservatives, as well as by the editorial pages that
support them and commentators who should know better. The neo-conservatives'
collective amnesia conveniently allows them to forget their numerous policy
blunders over the last eight years. You would think that US diplomats meeting
with their Iranian counterparts after 30 years of bitter enmity would be a
singular achievement for US diplomacy. After all, what has the policy of trying
to isolate 70 million people in Iran, a nation that sits at the strategic
crossroads of East and West, actually achieved? It has achieved nothing but to
isolate the US. Ignorance about Iran is a national embarrassment, but to the
neo-conservatives and their followers, it is a badge of courage. ... The
message of the US's allies on Iran is music to the ears of Iran haters, but at
the same time their business people are all over Iran buying and selling
anything and everything with the US frozen out. Iran could help the US in many
ways, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as fighting terrorism
and narcotics. Why have these cynics invested so much in the US failing to
engage Iran? The Obama administration's policy of dealing respectfully with
Iran, while at the same time being strong, is right. For the first time in a
long time, there is hope.
Fariborz S Fatemi
Virginia, USA (Oct 13, '09)
[Re Dollar exit
for oil trade?, October 8] This is certainly going to happen; it's just
a matter of time. All the signs are there. The United States has not shown any
signs or will to start to saving, like for example downsizing its military or
military engagements. On the contrary, the spending is going on seemingly with
no end, particularly for places like Afghanistan or South America. The US is
still creating money out of nowhere to bail out troubled banks, companies and
"help" other governments where the US wants to exert influence, like Pakistan
or Colombia. The US will have to show some fiscal discipline - but this may
never happen since it is run by arrogant madmen from the military, oil, and
media industries.
Manuel de la Torre (Oct 9, '09)
[Re Yemen: A
slogan and six wars, October 8] The civil war in Yemen is almost a
half-century old. It began after the British retreat from the Middle East and
pits south against north. Khaled Fattah draws a fine timeline of the conflict.
The anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans disguise a war that is seemingly
without end. In a broader context, at the time of the United States war in
Vietnam, Egypt's president Abdul Gamal Nasser weighed in on the side of a
"Marxist", progressive south Yemen with men and arms. Aid for the north came
from the Saudis. Nasser withdrew after many months of getting bogged down,
leaving the Yemenis to work it out among themselves. Any halt in fighting will
be temporary since the most important issues have not been resolved. In a sense
it is a fight to the death. As a result, the once proud port of Aden has become
a backwater of sorts.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 9, '09)
[Re Obama trapped
behind wall of containment, October 7] The problem with the Barack
Obama administration is not its policy of containment, its biggest problem is
its weakness. The Middle East is a place where you have to make deals with the
devil, and extort, lie, deceive or murder. Extremists in the Middle East smell
fear. They know how to exploit weakness and in Obama they see their wildest
dream come true. The Obama White House doesn't know how to exercise power,
especially ruthless power if it is necessary. Exercising power is not just an
essential aspect of politics but also in business. People will trust the leader
that understands and exercises power. People will trust the leader who doesn't
hesitate in making tough decisions and using force. Obama's America is weak and
guilty of everything wrong under the sun. So I'd say that Obama is not trapped
behind the wall of containment, Obama is trapped behind the wall of weakness
and incompetence.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Oct 8, '09)
The story by Ira Chernus,
Obama trapped behind wall of containment [October 7], is propaganda
that is full of untruths. In the story Chernus says "In reality, [United States
President Barack] Obama's troubles are not caused primarily by 'the bad guys',
nor by Israel's supposed power or that of the domestic 'Israeli lobby'."
Chernus says on his own website, "I've been a Jewish peace activist for over 30
years". Isn't Chernus stating that "Obama's troubles are not caused by ... the
Israeli Lobby", a bit like a blood-covered murderer claiming he did not commit
the crime? Chernus also tries to make it sound like President Obama's call for
a settlement freeze in Israel was stopped as part of some strategy to contain
Iran," ... the US relies on Israel as a major weapon in its Iranian containment
policy. ... So the US backed off a total freeze". Those statements do not
reflect reality. Obama stopped pressuring Israel for a settlement freeze
because of the US Israeli Lobby's pressure on him. First the Israeli Lobby blew
the arrest of the black professor Henry Louis Gates Jr by a white policeman
into a media circus, which threatened to focus the country on racism. Then the
Israeli Lobby spent months attacking Obama's health plan. The message was
clear. As long as Obama kept pushing for an Israeli settlement freeze, the
Israeli Lobby in the US was going to keep using its control of the US media to
cause trouble for Obama personally and for his programs. After giving Spengler
a forum for years for his calls for the death and destruction of innocent
people, and giving people like Chernus a forum to say things that can be proved
to be false or ludicrous in minutes, I am beginning to wonder if Asia Times
Online should be renamed Zionist Times Online.
Woodrow Gillian (Oct 8, '09)
Strange, others call us apologists for Iran, Taliban
sympathizers, communist-lovers, pro-Muslim ... - ATol
[Re China
stands firm against US market scramble, October 7] The growing economic
force that is China considers the United States an adversary in trade.
Furthermore, Beijing has not been shy in its own pursuit of market share.
Consider its aggressive reach for oil and gas, copper, iron, gold, uranium and
precious metals and gems. China's appetite is gargantuan, to say the least. It
sees in US economic might a reflection of its own ambitions.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 8, '09)
It is amusing to read reviews of Michael Moore's latest indictment of
capitalism [the documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story] from such
citadels of Western orthodoxy as The Economist, a stolid British magazine. They
manage to actually comment about the film between guffaws and scoffs at the
very idea that capitalism has an alternative, as if Moore was advocating
replacing oxygen with vanilla ice cream for respiration. And, of course, it's
old hat here in Blunderland (the successor state to Wonderland, which was way
more rational than what exists today) to accuse everything and anything venal
and evil as being "socialist". Obama merits this denunciating slander simply
because he's non-white and non-American in the eyes of the racist GOP, but even
things that are innocuous and trivial are painted with the socialist brush -
which is OK with me. Although I live in a conservative, evangelical,
independent-minded state proud of its orneriness and cantankerousness that
worships capitalism as a God-given gift, I identify myself proudly as a
socialist. That almost boastful admission on my part recognizes that the term
itself is almost meaningless and is really just a buzz word or trip-wire of
political-racial-religious affiliation than a socio-economic ideology. (But
then again, there's that cantankerous part!) However, having said that, this
distinction of socialism as a philosophy akin to my belief in "The Golden
Rule", that Jesus Christ and all other purveyors of human values make the
moniker of "socialist" more apt than the alternative. If socialism for me is
analogous to those things I treasure about being human, then, if capitalism is
the opposition to those values, how can I not loathe capitalism? I have long
doubted that true capitalists could ever be true believers of any faith other
than that which placed Mammon [pagan demon of love of money] as their deity, so
that I had no alternative but to be a socialist. This does not mean that
socialism has its faults and failures, but then the capitalists bemoaning their
trashed 401ks [state pension plans] and foreclosed homes are in position to
cast stones, are they? When the socialist world crumbled in the late 1980s, I
knew that it would come roaring back eventually, not out of any exemplary role
model that it offered but simply because the excesses of capitalism would
always pave the road anew for its resurgence. Though the word may always be a
pejorative here in Blunderland (despite the numerous socialist programs that
have been in effect for the last 60 years and that benefited millions), it
emphasizes what is important to mankind, society, as opposed to what its
alternative emphasizes, which is money. Perhaps when Blunderlanders run out of
the latter they'll start worrying about the former, when all along it should
have been the other way around.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Oct 8, '09)
[Re How to
disarm the liquidity bomb, October 6] Even if the Barack Obama
administration agreed with Martin Hutchinson's prescription for returning the
United States financial system and overall economy to better health, with the
mid-term elections coming up in a year and the next presidential election
looming not long thereafter, one can't help but wonder whether the Obama team
could/would muster the political will and dexterity to march the nation through
a multi-year period of painful, albeit necessary, correction in order to embark
on genuine economic recovery.
John Chen
USA (Oct 7, '09)
[Re Give and take on
North Korea, October 6] The visit of China's Premier Wen Jiabao to
North Korea is the final piece in the puzzle of whether or not Pyongyang will
engage in discussions aimed at de-nuclearizing the divided Korean peninsula.
United States President Barack Obama is willing to initiate "direct talks" with
North Korea, but North Korea looks more and more likely to take its seat at the
six-party talks in Beijing. Signs of movement on issues with North Korea have
been clear since the "private visit" of former US president Bill Clinton to
Pyongyang in early July. The kernel of resistance in Pyongyang and Washington
has given way to the tried and true channels of diplomacy, which rely more on
persuasion and give-and-take than threats. Wen is not playing the role of
referee, since Washington holds the key to unlocking this stalemate. He has
simply reassured his North Korean ally that Beijing was not going to withhold
support.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 7, '09)
[Re Obama's
permanent depression, October 5] Thank you for this excellent analysis.
Now I understand better what's going on in the United States economy. Nothing
in the US media has explained this like Asia Times Online. I am grateful for
this independent source of news.
John Everhart
Elko, Nevada (Oct 7, '09)
[Re Obama's
permanent depression, October 5] The so-called "experts" in the White
House should read Spengler's analysis on the United States economy. I must
confess that the current administration is not to be blamed totally for the
crash of the market in 2008. However, the strategies that the US government is
implementing are catastrophic! They are suicidal for the long-term objectives
of the US economy. The economy is suffering on two fronts: the refusal of the
US leadership to win wars and from poor economic decisions. There are billions
of dollars being drained for wars that the US could win in two weeks if it
committed to killing the enemy ruthlessly. The White House is plagued with
theorists. Men and women who never ran a business, who have never generated
wealth, and who are now running the largest economy in the world. I also have a
hard time understanding the logic that big spending is the solution to the
financial crisis.
Ysais Martinez (Oct 6, '09)
There is guarded optimism in hopes of a thaw in United States-Iran relations,
though the October 2 edition of the New York Times Online's lead article seemed
to throw cold water on the ideas of Kaveh L Afrasiabi's
October surprise in US-Iran relations". According to the New York Times
article, in spite of the Pentagon's assessment of 2007 and Tehran's denials,
the Islamic Republic of Iran has the capability to build a nuclear bomb. This
assertion is based on an International Atomic Energy Agency report which has
not been made public. The Times covers itself by saying, in the opening
paragraphs, that further investigation is called for. On closer examination of
the article, the reader finds that the Times reporters only talked to sources
who claimed to have seen the report. So, the article's claims are more hearsay
and gossip than fact; its intent is to question "dialogue" with Iran. General
James L Jones, the National Security advisor, has firmly stated that the US
stands behind its two-year-old report that states Tehran is not yet able to
make a nuclear bomb. The Barack Obama administration is intent in pursuing
discussions, the first in 30 years, with Iran. Thus, it immediately and
forcefully acted to quash unfounded rumors. However, it nevertheless
underestimates the forces seeking to undermine any diplomatic initiatives to
deal with Iran's nuclear program.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 6, '09)
Perhaps the most salient fact in
Uyghurs face an education dilemma [October 6] by Paloma Robles, is the
very existence of the "two school systems". It seems to repudiate the charge of
the Han Chinese majority's total insensitivity to minority cultures. There is
respect for minority cultures in China. Certainly, some in the present
generation of Uyghur parents may have a dilemma, but future offspring will
likely have less of one. The Chinese government may not even consider its
declared policy of minority cultural preservation a charade, but sociologically
it has to be. The reason is simple. The more respected by the majority a
minority feels, the more it wants more than respect. More of the minority
offspring want to be socially included completely, especially in courtship and
marriage. If a majority is progressive enough to respect a minority, more in
the minority offspring view the majority's progressive respect as foreboding of
what they really relish: complete social inclusion with the majority. While
ethnic parents may think that majority respect leads to cultural preservation,
the opposite actually results. What maintains traditional cultures is
discrimination, as segregation or, euphemistically, self-rule. Declaration of
policy based on respect for minority culture is in effect a progressive charade
that aids assimilation, as long as such policy includes exposure, and not
segregation.
Jeff Church
USA (Oct 6, '09)
[Re New doubt on
US's Iran plant claim, October 5] I want to ask these three fools,
United States President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who were they trying to fool with that
hastily arranged press conference on September 25? Do they really think people
have not learned from the eight years of the George W Bush presidency how to
distinguish lies from the truth? If these leaders had any information in regard
to a secret Iranian facility, why did they not leak it to the public before
Iran reported it to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and then create an
uproar? This has been the procedure they have followed for many years when
putting pressure on countries they don't like. Furthermore, was the United
Nations Security Council meeting held on September 24 (a day before their
foolish revelation) not the best forum to reveal their discovery, since its
agenda was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction? Or at the UN General
Assembly, where the world was watching? It is obvious that they lied on
September 25. They did not have any information regarding this facility, so
they tried to make a big deal of it and embarrass Iran by claiming it was
secret. This they hoped would strengthen their hand in negotiations and cover
up their inability to gather good intelligence on Iran.
Mohammed Hashemi
Dallas (Oct 6, '09)
Thank you for the excellent article by Kaveh L Afrasiabi,
October Surprise in US-Iran relations [October 2]. I agree with his
superb analysis that the revelation about a second uranium-enrichment facility
has improved Iran's "negotiation posture" rather than weakened it. Many
"experts" in the West got that wrong and I am glad to see Asia Times Online was
not one of them. Keep up the good work.
Tim
Toronto (Oct 5, '09)
I have just read a recent Iran article posted on your site,
October Surprise in US-Iran relations [October 2] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
I found it excellent with clear analysis and a rare, in-depth comprehension of
the subject. I then did a search for additional articles and was delighted to
read more views of this knowledgeable writer. I do hope you will forward this
comment to the writer with my compliments for such a fine job. Keep up the
great coverage of United States-Iran relations.
Eleanor L Ommani
USA (Oct 5, '09)
I'm sure Bailout Nation, reviewed by Muhammad Cohen [Named
and shamed , October 2], will not be armchair reading for the leaders
of the United States. But it shows there are two systems of justice in America:
one for the powerful and one for everyone else. While average Americans go to
jail for drug possession or minor thievery, the rich and powerful can defraud,
exploit, and demean for money with little or no consequences. Witness lobbyists
like Richard Berman, a hired gun for companies whose unregulated products can
do harm to millions of people, or pundits like Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs -
whose smears and slanders could bring down United States President Barack
Obama. Then there are Wall Street CEOs who go from one reckless scheme to
another without punishment. Barry Ritholtz is absolutely right, but American
leaders are too compromised and the American people too ignorant, flustered or
distracted to notice who the real culprits are.
Jim
Southern California, USA (Oct 5, '09)
[Re The case for
Iran, October 1] Another timely and truthful article. In having been
right there at its bedside during the last months, (October 1976 to December
31, 1978), of the birth of the Iranian Revolution, I consider myself fortunate
to have been "vaccinated" against this pandemic that I have come to call
"Brainwashus Americanus". This disease consists of a softness of the brain that
renders it submissive and receptive to any sort of information which is
delivered to it at the appropriate intensity and frequency. Iranian-Canadian
friends mentioned to me, several years ago, that at least two nuclear power
generation plants were planned in addition to the long-delayed Bushehr pair.
There was no secret about these projects - in Iran or abroad. This information
came to me in a discussion of the urgent need for Iran to have electrical power
generation other than hydrocarbon-fueled with a non-renewable resource, which
was meant for export. The Shah had recognized this many years earlier and, by
the time civil unrest was showing, he had contracted German and American
companies to build six of these plants. Here is a remark by Iranian professor
Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh delivered in his speech in the meeting of the European
parliament in Brussels in 2007: "Iran's nuclear history pre-dates the current
Islamic government. It originated in the mid-1970s, when, encouraged by the US,
the last Shah of Iran unveiled plans to purchase several nuclear reactors from
Germany, France and the United States to generate electricity. The Shah's
government awarded a contract to a subsidiary of the German company Siemens to
construct two 1,200-megawatt reactors at Bushehr". Something else to consider -
which you will never find in the American media - is the Pentagon's "Defense
Planning Guidance" draft (1992) which urges the United States to continue to
dominate the international system by "discouraging the advanced industrialized
nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger global or
regional role". For anyone who is sincerely interested in what might be going
on in the heads of the anti-Iran camp in "The Land of the Free and the Brave",
and their lackeys in "the free world", the answers are all there, on the World
Wide Web, if they care to do just a little research. In fact, they need look no
further than the archives right here in Asia Times Online. Just read the
pertinent articles over the past 10 years, then put two and two together.
Having done this and more since 1996, my simple, proletarian "view from the
street" is that the United States has become a hegemonic monster, over which
it's erstwhile keepers (it's people) have lost control - and, indeed, over
which even it's handlers seem to have lost the reins. Nevertheless and
inevitably, as time has passed, the schoolyard "Lilliputians" have begun to
buck up; and two of them in particular, (Cuba and Iran), have actually "jumped
the traces". Cuba, as a consequence, has, for half a century, been sanctioned,
harassed and vilified by the US and its Miami-based descendants of the Havana
mafia from the [president Fulgencio] Batista days. The self-appointed global
master of all that is pure and good gave precisely the same treatment to the
Iranian people, when, after 25 years under the brutal heel of their
American-made shah, they too gave Uncle Sam the boot. They are now accused by
Washington and its "Christian" media of everything from bad breath to putting
sand in the Vaseline. And let's not forget the poor already-forgotten
Palestinian people and the holocaust that has been laid on them by America's
Middle East enforcer, Israel. I could go on for pages, but the essence of the
whole diatribe would still be: America has become a frustrated, desperate,
dangerous, wannabe hegemon and Iran is one of the schoolyard kids that refuses
to knuckle under (again). It is standing in a key position in the path of the
big and little monsters' route to becoming masters of the planet Earth -
through control of the energy resources in the Caspian Basin, the Middle East
and Central Asia. Furthermore, unfortunately for the US, more of the
"unaligned" little guys, vis-a-vis South America, and some African states - are
getting up out of the dust and taking positions on that same path. Manufactured
crises such as communism, (they're still using it), the Gulf of Tonkin, Osama
bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction , al-Qaeda and the September 11, 2001
attacks have made these wannabes masters of the world's miseries, but one has
to wonder how many more of them the rest of the kids out here in the schoolyard
will swallow. As Pete Seeger wrote about these wannabes some 40 years ago: "
... when will they ever learn?"
Keith E Leal
Canada (Oct 5, '09)
[Re It's sanctions or
bust , October 1] Jack A Smith's logic that Israel also possesses
nuclear weapons while Iran is not trying to build nukes is questionable. First
of all, Israel is a democracy and Iran is a religious dictatorship where women
are oppressed, dissidents are tortured and murdered, and the press is heavily
suppressed and manipulated. ... Free, responsible, democratic nations (Israel,
the United States, Canada, members of the European Union) must have nukes in
case they need to stop a so-called state that threatens our way of life. These
nations must have nukes to protect us from those who hate the freedoms, wealth,
enviable lifestyle and highly advanced culture of the Western civilization.
Iran must be stopped before is too late.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Oct 2, '09)
M K Bhadrakumar has gone to the heart of the matter in
China maps an end to the Afghan war, (October 1). The analysis of the
deputy general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, Li
Qinggong, does echo views of some US policy makers. These policy makers are not
necessarily influenced by changing public opinion against the war in
Afghanistan, but more by the ghosts of waste and defeat in Vietnam. Yet, as
Ambassador Bhadrakumar rightly points out, the US military is calling the
shots. The leak of General Stanley A McChrystal's assessment of the fighting on
the ground in Afghanistan came from the Pentagon. The story broke in the
influential Washington Post, which supports the general's conclusion. United
States President Barack Obama now finds himself in a bind, especially as he has
to give McChrystal the troops he wants. He has no other choice unless he wants
his opponents to denounce him as "weak" and such. It reminds one of former US
president John F Kennedy's ride down a slippery slope to beefing up America's
military over a seemingly unwinnable war. On the other hand, as Li Qinggong,
deputy general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies,
suggests, the US could simply fold up its tent and leave to Afghans the job of
sorting out their divisions. This would not go down well in Washington,
especially since this war is suppoed to avenge the September 11, 2001 attack.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Oct 2, '09)
[Re A new cold war
in Kashmir, September 30] Arundhati Roy's piece in Asia Times Online is
replete with humanity and decency. It's greatly appreciated.
Reginald Massey (Oct 1, '09)
[Re Islam as
politics in Malaysia, September 30] Islam has never been absent from
politics in Malaysia. It informs politics. It seeps into every pore of
political life. Recently Islam in Malaysia has gained attention outside of
Malaysia owing to a cultural war by outspoken Islamic political parties on the
corrupting influence of the West. In Malaysia, Islam is forwarded through the
"bumiputra" policy, which favors Malays [Muslims] over Chinese and Indians in
every facet of national life. "Bumiputra" reworks the old Koranic injunction of
"dhimmi" [non-Muslim minorities] since these latter two Malaysian
minorities are not part of the Abrahamic tradition. They fall under ethnic
profiling, which connotes an inferior civil state. [The 2008 elections, in
which the United Nasional Malaysian Organization, or UNMO, lost its two-thirds
majority in parliament] shuffled the deck on power sharing in Malaysia. Muslim
nations, religious or secular, will not give up without a long struggle to
mitigate the "bumiputra" policy, which favors Muslims. And this is more clearly
seen, not in caning nor in public shaming for transgression of sharia law
(which is enforced in only three states), but in the dominance of Bahasa Melayu
as the national language. This is a stumbling block to Malaysia becoming a
First World economy since it diminishes the study of English as a language. ...
The UNMO elite has hardly bothered to wean the population away from the
centuries-old kompang (village) way of life.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Oct 1, '09)
[Re Off with
their blinkered heads, September 29] While Hyman Minsky no doubt
deserves posthumous acknowledgement for his foresight in predicting the
financial crisis that gripped the world economy during the past year, the
solution he proffered, or at least a major part of it, needs much more vigorous
analysis. An advocate of government regulation and a scholar of the Great
Depression, Minsky believed that by having the United States Federal Reserve
act as the lender of last resort to companies in distress, the much venerated
and oft-misguided institution could stabilize the financial system and in turn
the economy. But that is exactly the course of action being followed by the Ben
Bernanke Fed. Unfortunately, even as the rest of the economy continues to
languish with mounting unemployment and public debt, the bankers beholden to
Fed largesse are blithely concocting newfangled financial contraptions and
laying the groundwork for future catastrophe. Minsky may well have been correct
in placing much faith in capitalism, for it does offer distinct advantages over
other economic systems. Nevertheless, as long as the profit motive remains
capitalism's sacrosanct ideological bedrock and corporate greed is allowed to
run wild, the capitalist economic system will continue its relentless assault
on the well-being of human societies and of nature. Any serious attempt at
repairing capitalism's fatal flaws should perhaps focus more on crisis
prevention (not entirely preventable, to be sure) instead of crisis management.
John Chen
USA (Oct 1, '09)
Once upon a time in Wonderland, one could hope to advance one's lot in life
through hard work and enterprise, the fabled American can-do spirit, where
innovation, creativity and energy forged and welded an empire. The British
could boast of the sun never setting on their global dominions, but we
Wonderlanders were pretty sure that that sun first had to revolve around the
United States. But that seems so long ago. The idea of the US being both a
democracy and meritocracy, where people were free to let their talents take
them as far as they wanted, was at once myth and fact, but now is only the
former. The only thing Americans do well now is lie, cheat and steal. We can't
even include waging war being one of our better abilities, as we have made such
a hash of subduing Third World countries not far removed from the Middle Ages
(maybe some points for starting wars?). But distorting, manipulating,
misinforming, disinforming, twisting, mangling and raping the truth is a
capacity we have mastered, a necessary requisite for the cheating and stealing
part. The last two talents have been amply demonstrated with the collapse of
once mighty and invincible paragons of capitalism that have shown once again
the manifest failures of that bankrupt ideology. Indeed, the ability to lose
billions through massive corruption, ineptitude and theft, accept federal money
to prevent liquidation, and then turn around and smugly defend capitalism while
relying on socialist bailouts, must be a dubious talent in and of itself. Of
course, if one cannot make one's way in life through any talent whatsoever,
what choices are left? We don't make anything anyone wants - including
ourselves - because of slipshod quality and poor designs. All our best
university minds are foreigners who will probably go home when the economy does
its final free fall. Our kids routinely cheat on school tests. These same
cheating children still cannot compete internationally with many Third World
nations in math or science or even English reading skills (and that includes
countries that don't have English as a first language). Our politicians are
little more than prostitutes, selling their wares and their votes to the
highest bidding lobbyist. Our Fourth Estate, the so-called watchdog media,
makes circus hawkers seem dignified and professional. Our voting systems are
archaic, convoluted and designed to make vote fraud and theft easy. Our Supreme
Court continues to chip away at our Bill of Rights and Constitution, doubtless
thinking some kind of monument to failed democracy will emerge from the rubble.
Our principle dream of making money is by winning lotteries, suing deep-pocket
companies or committing some crime that can be turned into a book and movie
deal after the prison release. Our corporations talk about being green and
concerned for the future while they dump toxins into our air and water and
evade already lax standards they constantly try to weaken further. These same
firms proclaim allegiance to the Stars 'n' Stripes while exporting jobs to
other flags. Our military routinely lies about casualties, weapons test results
and the future prospects of doomed conflicts, while turning a blind eye to
shoddy defense contracting work that kills US soldiers and cost-overruns
billions. Wall Street is nothing more than institutionalized fraud, making
casinos look like safe havens for your money. The Federal Reserve exists only
to regularly loot the middle class's dwindling bank accounts. ... What shall we
call this regressed, bankrupt, collapsing, de-evolutionary country? How about
"Dumbocracy?" Maybe "The Un-ocracy." No, let's go for the gold (for you Latin
buffs out there): "Mendo-Cozen-Klepto-ocracy."
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Oct 1, '09)
September Letters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2009 Asia Times Online
(Holdings), Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
