|
|
|
|
Please provide your name or a
pen name, and your country of residence.
Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.
Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for
readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as
a forum for readers to debate with each other.
The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one
or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct
debaters away from the Letters page.
December 2009
Gareth Porter [South
Korea let off for nuclear deceptions, Dec 21] lifts the veil of the
temple of double standards in revealing Seoul's secret uranium enrichment
projects. South Korea got off with nary a slip on the wrist by the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency). Now were it North Korea, well, we full
well know the marshalling of media and government troops to alert the all and
everyone that east Asia is on the eve of nuclear blackmail if not destruction.
The moral of South Korea's getting off scot free is that when it comes to a US
ally, Seoul can do no wrong. In a word, our doxy is our orthodoxy, anyone who
is not with us falls into heresy.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 22, '09)
[Re: Iran has defense
headache, Dec 21] "President Barack Obama reportedly told
representatives of the Chinese government recently that the US may not be able
to restrain the Israelis from launching a massive military strike on Iran's
nuclear and missile facilities". Is it really true after all that President
Barack Obama has just become another lame duck president as many would think? I
would have imagined a much more forceful, statesman like president would be
very well capable of telling Israel, "don't do it or you will face very severe
consequences". Merely permanently closing the checkbook would achieve that. In
any event, I still don't understand the obsession with Iran and its nuclear
potential. Is Iran not a signatory to the NNPT? Israel most certainly isn't.
Have any severe breaches of obligations by Iran been uncovered? The mere fact
some countries do not like Iran for whatever reasons and, panic at the mere
thought that one day in the distant future they just might acquire a nuclear
weapon is no reason whatsoever to attack them. It seems to me all this
posturing in reality is simply to deliberately provoke trouble with Iran. To me
it is perfectly understandable and reasonable for Iran to say "we are acting
within international law, harming no one and pursuing lawful activities, so go
away and leave us alone". Should the Americans, Israeli's and others wish to
pursue dialogue, then diplomatic avenues are always available. These avenues do
not include setting preconditions and holding a gun at Iran's head which seems
to have been the case so far. Richard M Bennett then goes on to tell us
"significant proportion of the munitions that the Israeli Defense Forces would
drop on Iran would be "Made in the USA". It remains a valid point that Iran may
reasonably not be too concerned with who actually drops the bombs and be far
more vengeful against those who made the weapons". Herein lies the seeds for
long term ongoing conflict. Do the USA and its allies seriously believe that
any Israeli action against Iran will not, over a much longer term involve
retaliation from many other potential sources? That the cycle of terrorism will
not simply continue as before? Nelson Mandela is credited with saying "the
tactics of the oppressed are dictated by the tactics of the oppressors". Would
not an attack by Israel on Iran be widely interpreted as a joint attack by
Israel and the USA as a further attack yet again on Islam? Does nobody ever
learn? Doing the same thing over and over again doesn't ever lead to a
different result? It simply confirms congenital insanity from people who refuse
to learn from past mistakes.
Ian C. Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Dec 22, '09)
I found some of the things written by Richard M. Bennet in [
Iran has defense headache, Dec 21], disturbing. The implication that
the United States of America is going to attack a nuclear reactor that is
protected under of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. To do this attack in
collusion with a rogue state that is not an NPT signatory is unfathomable.
Wreck the NPT for the perceived threat of the Apartheid State of Israel, not
likely. Is Mr. Bennet an American? American Intelligence analyst got it wrong
on Iraq, No WMDs. The truth is, that as long as Iran follows the NPT rules
their should be no problems. Iran is not going to attack anyone, they haven't
in 300 years."Smoking gun laptops" and intelligence manufactured in Israel will
not push the rest of the world into conflict with Iran. "It goes almost without
saying that any serious attempt by Iran to launch a military strike on US or
allied forces based in Iraq, the Gulf, Pakistan or Afghanistan, or indeed the
strategically vital oilfields of Kuwait, northern Saudi Arabia and the Gulf,
could be expected to bring an immediate Western military response with
catastrophic consequences for Tehran." This is delusional. What
military forces are you talking about. More drone attacks? The US is innvolved
in 2 wars with no extra troops to spare. US allies are in doubt on extra
troops. Yes a strike is possible, but that is it. And at what cost. Long term
possiblities are dismal for the US and Israel in the middle east after a sneak
attack on peaceful Iran. Iran has a population of over 66,000,000, Israel has
6,500,000, with 7,000,000 Palestineans under guard, concentrated in camps in
Gaza, and the West Bank. Take a swat at the hornets nest AND THEN RUN LIKE
HELL! The US strategic positions in the middle east is dubious. All it would
take is the introduction of SAMs to both wars by the opposition, and the US
would pack it's bags and turn tail. Just ask the Russians. The US economy is
shot, with recovery somewhere in the future. The US is warning the Chinese
about Israel? I would think it would be the other way around. With the Chinese
saying do as we say or we crash your economy. there is a New World ordercoming
and the USA is not leading it Mr. Bennet. The military-industrial complex is
about to lose Your article is in denial, it is similar in context to what is
written in the Jerusalem Post everyday. It might make you feel better about
your position but is not workable in the real world.
Bob van den Broeck (Dec 22, '09)
It seriously cracked me up when I read the part of Raja Murthy’s article [India
is 'thailand' to Asia, say scientists, Dec 18] which suggests that
modern-day Asians, including the Han Chinese, originated in India, according to
a recent genetic study. While not doubting the validity of the said report, I
just find some Indians’ self-serving and self-fooling interpretation and their
jubilation over this extremely juvenile and bordering insane. Sure it is
possible that the ancestors of modern-day Asians did take the southern route,
via southern India and southeastern Asia from Africa some 100,000 years ago,
but to deliberately interpret the findings of the HUGO report as proof that
“India was the motherland of Asia” or “The Chinese evolved from Indians” is
just plain pathetic. There were no Indians 100,000 years ago. There were no
Chinese either. There were simply some prehistoric humans moving in great
numbers out of Africa and spreading all over the place into the Eurasian
continent. India was simply one of the many stops out of Africa. Africa, not
India, is the motherland of all humans, including Asians. For some Indians to
use the findings of the HUGO report as some sort of bragging right is to
reflect nothing but their deep-seated inferiority complex and insecurity.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, P.R. China (Dec 21, '09)
As the fog parts slowly before me, it all becomes clearer now. Long dubious of
the loose conspiratorial talk of "one-world governments" and UN mandated
identity chips, I have gradually come to appreciate the careful strategy being
implemented to effect this very cause. With the destruction of the Eurocentric
dynastic monopoly in the first world war, that wars' tragic sequel paved the
way for a new era of post-European dominion, divided between Bolshevism and
American-style corporo-capitalism. But even this was a transitional stage,
which required the exhaustion of both contenders for hegemony; first the USSR
vanished, and now the USA stands on the brink of bankruptcy, if not
dissolution. To the less discerning, this paves the way for a multipolar world
where the idea of a one-world government would be totally incompatible with the
myriad competing ideologies and economic goals. But one must look closer; the
so-called multipolarity is actually a winnowing of the field, so that a few
banks and key organizations can now focus on controlling fewer and more
compliant players than the two defrocked superpowers were. With China poised to
become the undisputed world leader in manufacture, technology, finance and
capital flows, its role as the nexus of planetary domination will be ideal for
achieving its plutocratic masters' goal of world domination. But one obstacle
stands in the way; the religion of Islam. Whereas the Christian and Jewish
faiths long ago secularized their cultures into willing instruments of
corporatism, thus making their subversion seamless, Islam has stayed resolutely
resistant to being a voluntary accomplice in wealth creation. This obstinent
insistence on subservience only to a non-human authority has made Islam Public
Enemy Number One on the plutocrats' hit list. Their scheme can only work if
they are the only ones recognized as the sole omnipotent agency on earth, upon
which all must depend. Nothing short of the total annihilation of Islam will
satisfy this need, and to this end the concoction of 9-11 and the determined
western war on Islam explains the chasing of Osama bin Chimeras and toothless
Taliban. Odd as it may sound, Islam is fighting for our collective freedom from
this nefarious plan of the one-worlders, while America acts as the
slave-hunting stooges of the pluto-plantation owners. Shoosh. You didn't hear
it from me.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Dec 21, '09)
[Re China injects
'humanity' into death sentence, Dec 15] by Cristian Segura, I've always
questioned how lethal injection can be a more "humane," less terrifying and
less painful way to execute a condemned person than a well-placed bullet to the
back of the head. The whole process of strapping a person down, inserting the
needle and the whole anticipation of impending death, and the risk of mishaps
is certainly more lingering than a bullet through the back of the head and
point blank range, which would knock a person unconscious immediately, although
the result is very messy. Aren't the execution methods such as the electric
chair, the gas chamber, shots to the heart and hanging used in the United
States and elsewhere more lingering and painful than a shot to the back of the
head? Also, wouldn't organs harvested for transplant from a person killed by
lethal injection be already poisoned by the chemicals used, making them unfit
for transplant or a danger to the recipient? The instances described in the
article mention brutality inflicted on the condemned person, such as being
kicked to the ground before being shot are practices which can be outlawed in
professionally conducted executions by a shot to the back of the head.
Sometimes I feel these arguments put forth by proponents or opponents of
something tend to be like a well-rehearsed sales spiel which have become
cliches which are accepted by others at face value and repeated without
question. I do not agree with the use of the death penalty in all cases, though
I feel it still justified in cases such as cold-blooded murder and serious
cases of corruption by government officials, and in all cases the death penalty
should be at the discretion of the judge to impose and never a mandatory
sentence.
Charles F. Moreira
Malaysia (Dec 21, '09)
[ReKazkhstan mulls
China land deal, Dec 18] [The] argument that the Chinese government is
actively attempting to assimilate Kazakh land via farming deals and chinese
workers would perhaps be a little more credible if they actually presented
concrete evidence for their fear mongering other than sinophobic speculation.
Because it is nothing but speculation and 'argument from authority' logical
fallacy when Pannier et al assert: 'One person in Kazakhstan who has a long
history in dealing with China is urging caution. Murat Auezov was Kazakhstan's
first ambassador to China, serving in Beijing from 1992 to 1995. Commenting to
RFE/RL on the possibility of a deal being worked out for 1 million hectares of
farmland, Auezov posed a number of questions. "This is a project that requires
the migration of many people. Who will grow the crops? Who will harvest and
prepare it? Who will get it ready for sale?" Auezov said. "We know what the
strategic aims of China are, and how China can use any kind of terminology to
achieve its goals."' Apart from appealing to a well conditioned sinophobic
response from their audience, Pannier et al's article unfortunately falls short
of true journalism.
Hank,
Australia (Dec 21, '09)
[Re Over Iran,
enemies become friends, Dec 10, '09] I'm not sure where Ysais A
Martinez gathers his foreign policy information [letter, December 11]. First of
all, the religious "madness" in the Iranian election would hardly have changed
had [opposition leader] Hossein Mousavi been victorious, given that his
candidacy was approved by the clerics and his reported involvement in the
deadly 1983 attack on a United States Marines barracks in Lebanon. Secondly,
Martinez worries about "ideologies penetrating the West and destroying our
freedoms". Where in the West has Iranian "ideology" been a threat? If the
problem is the threat that Iran poses to the State of Israel, I suggest that a
definition of the borders of that state would go a long way to defusing any
threat from the Persians. The suggestion that "as of now, we have never bombed
anybody" is nothing short of ludicrous. More than 240,000 cluster bombs were
dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Since the beginning of the war, the 3rd Marine
Aircraft Wing alone has dropped more than 500,000 tons of ordnance. How many
Islamofascists did they kill? Sir, the problem is the neo-cons, and the
Likudists that have neutered your Congress, and the so-called Christian
movement so bent of bringing forth Armageddon.
Miles Tompkins
Antigonish
Canada (Dec 18, '09)
[Re North Korea: Mad as
a hatter?, December 17] US President Barack Obama sent a letter to Kim
Jong-il. No one knows its contents, but it may help throw some light on North
Korea's statement that the three-day visit of US special envoy Stephen Bosworth
to Pyongyang "helped deepen understanding" between the two countries. It seems
an exercise in futility to find relevance to the long outstanding issues
between the US and the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] in Alice in
Wonderland. To label North Korea as "mad or irrational" simply, to me,
is an indication that US policy wonks, past and present, are unwilling to take
North Korea seriously. As long as Washington is unwilling to come to grips with
the issues Pyongyang raises, it is bound to "run faster to stay in the same
place", as the Red Queen in "Alice" famously said. The US dialogue initiated
with the DPRK has to function on trust, on both sides of the bargaining table.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 18, '09)
[Re China reels under a
barrage of criticism, December 17] Fearmongering, or psycho-terrorism
as I prefer to call it nowadays, is as American as an apple-pie manufacturing
monopoly. Apocalypticism, or the fear of end times of the world as we know it,
has always been a favored psycho-terroristic ploy of religions to motivate,
incite and manipulate the masses. Politicians, never ones to forego strategies
to increase their power, are hardly adverse to engaging in such puppeteering,
but with a secular twist. Environmentalism has provided the perfect vehicle to
utilize the fear of the end of the world for the purpose of control and
becoming rich. Its advocates can use science, the modern equivalent of
religion, to massage statistics, distort facts and propagandize spectacular
events in order to provoke fear in an already disoriented people. The
Copenhagen summit on climate change represents yet another effort by the
plutocrats to subvert popular will by forecasting end of times scenarios that
would make John of Patmos blush. Former vice president Al Gore has staked his
reputation, not to mention his money, on the sincerity of such
prognostications, replete with nodding head scientists and wise-looking
Europeans. Little mention is made in the media of Maurice Strong, the wealthy
Canadian who pioneered environmentalism, or his lifelong determination to
create a unified world-state. Less mention is made of the ongoing and planned
racketeering of carbon credits by Gore, Strong and their "Green Gang" to reap
billions of taxpayer dollars, which is really nothing more or less than the
similar bilking maneuvers in the Wall Street bailouts or the Middle East wars.
Mind you, few come as liberal as me, but I am no longer seduced by the siren
song of greenspeaking billionaires who froth at the mouth about rising seas and
famine holocausts while they maneuver themselves into position to become ever
richer. The recent revelation (let's remember that the word "apocalypse" is
Greek for revelation) of Climategate shows that science is no less immune from
any other human endeavor from politics, influence and, yes, even bribery, in
order to promote personal agendas.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Dec 18, '09)
[Re US silent on
Taliban's al-Qaeda offer, December 16] This is an excellent offer to
the United States that the Pentagon should seriously be considering. Anyone
with a brain understands that the Afghan government is a) corrupt b) mediocre
and c) inefficient. The secret to success in Afghanistan is making deals with
the tribes and factions of the Taliban that dominate different regions. The
enemy the US is facing is not organized, they do not have a uniform and they do
not follow a certain political program. This is a golden opportunity for the US
to play the game of "divide-and-conquer", just like Cardinal Richelieu did in
France in the 16th century. Give the Taliban control of the country in exchange
for some guarantees and lay some tough rules on the table. Let the rebels do
the dirty work for us and let's deal mercilessly with those who don't follow
the plan. History has taught us that Afghanistan is "the place where
superpowers collapse" and it's a very complex battlefield. Credit must also be
given to the fierce fighters of the rebel forces. We should be using the energy
of those fighters in our favor rather than fighting them. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are a useless combo. Many
people abroad believe that conservatives in America support the wars in the
Middle East in which our beloved country is involved. However, real
conservatives - the ones who oppose back-room deals regardless of what
political party is in power - oppose these wars because they are only a waste
of money and lives. This is exactly what we should do; accept the deal, get out
of there and let the Taliban or rebels or whatever they call themselves do the
dirty work for us. In the end, we will see that we are better off as friends
than as enemies. As for the government led by Hamid Karzai and his
millionaires, send them to jail or let the rebels execute them. Do so before
they escape to Europe to enjoy their vast fortunes.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 17, '09)
Geopolitics has been likened to a game of chess, and for good reason; its
ancient origins were based on military strategy and the subtle tactics
necessary to conquer one's foes. In this context, the last 40 odd years begins
to make perfect sense. The grand strategy of the global plutocratic class has
been to transfer wealth and power incrementally from the West to the East,
using infant steps (former president Richard Nixon "opening" China), then
progressively more aggressive ones (president Ronald Reagan's borrowing and
deregulation spree), followed by the trauma of the September 11, 2001, attacks
and the subsequent rationale for Middle East war. Parallel to this, in the same
way that a master chess player makes innocuous moves early in a game, only to
see their deadly intent later on, the credit binge and bubblocracy that
Wonderland USA became has set the stage for the collapse of America's domestic
economic viability. While the US from the very beginning of both the Iraqi and
Afghan invasions began constructing numerous permanent military installations
(thus giving the early lie to any hollow pronouncements of withdrawals), the
plutocrats began the systematic looting of the US Treasury and the transfer of
wealth to the East. The military bases will become de facto contraband
entrepots, serving to smuggle, steal, trade, and barter whatever is profitable,
including drugs, weapons, laundered money, food, etc. They will serve as nerve
centers to coordinate cooperation with international networks of criminal
organizations, intelligence operations, banks and greedy governments. They
represent, in effect, recognition that the US as a wealth-creating agency is
deader than a dodosaurus. These bases will be the new plutocratic profit
centers, the new Detroits if you will, that will use Chinese money, American
mercenaries and local corruption to fatten the coffers of the predators that
have left the carcass of America rotting. Check and mate.
Hardy Campbell
Houston Texas USA (Dec 17, '09)
[Re China ends
Russia's grip on Turkmen gas, December 15] Russia does not see China as
a threat to its predominance in Turkmenistan's gas reserves. Moscow holds a
strong card in that it supplies Western Europe with natural gas. There-in lies
its influence and its ability to maintain market supremacy. China is not a
competitor in Europe, so the flow of Turkmen gas means little politically.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 16, '09)
[Re Searching times for
Japan's premier, December 15] Peter J Brown's assessment of the
situation of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is logical, coherent and
intelligent. Right before the elections that Hatoyama and his party won, Japan
felt the "winds of change" blowing its way. Journalists from around the world
flooded the international media with articles about the significance of
Hatoyama's election as premier of Japan. In the domestic arena, Hatoyama
represented "change" and a definite break from some Japanese policies of the
past. Dreams, wishes, aspirations, and emotions took over the people of Japan
that overwhelmingly elected Hatoyama. They say that "the grass is always
greener on the other side of the fence," and the Japanese prime minister is
finally realizing that discussing policy in a forum or campaign is different to
implementing policies once you are in power. Brown mentions some extremely
important factors that Hatoyama and his party cannot ignore. The first one is
Japan's relationship with the United States. When "sticky" issues such as the
Okinawa Military Base were first discussed in regards to Hatoyama's
administration, some experts expected hostility on the issue. And not only this
issue, they expected hostility towards the US as a whole. Even though I am an
American exceptionalist, I never saw Japan as an inferior partner to the United
States, I saw them as two of the most powerful, prosperous nations on earth who
cooperate with each other. Japan cannot ignore its friendship with the US. A
nation cannot afford to sacrifice an strategic ally to engage to an
untrustworthy partner. The ties between the US and Japan should be
strengthened. This favors both sides of the aisle but especially the Japanese
government led by Hatoyama. Second and very important is Japan's relationship
with China. In the last decade, China has become the friend that we all want to
have. China is still extremely sensitive to Japanese atrocities during World
War II and the lack of acknowledgement of these atrocities by the Japanese
angers the Chinese people. I also don't think that it is a good idea that Japan
lectures China on democracy. The Chinese social and political situation is very
complex so it requires a tough leadership. We know that the most difficult time
for a business is when it is growing up. China is experiencing growth and is
going through the most challenging times of its existence. The main point is
that in today's politics certain passions and utopias must be left aside and
strategic thinking and tough action must prevail. Hopefully Hatoyama will
realize this and - like Brown suggests in his article - "make things happen".
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 16, '09)
In reference to Pepe Escobar's
Iraq's oil auction hits the jackpot[December 15]. It would be nice to
believe that Iraq is acting independently, and that the oil auction was somehow
a true picture of future oil operations. However, experience with watching the
workings of the United States government over a period of 60 years tells me
that this whole auction is a facade to legitimize covert US control of the oil
exports of Iraq. It is no coincidence that all of the major, hardened, US bases
in Iraq will be permanent. The Barack Obama administration has been very
careful to word the troop "draw-down" as involving "combat" troops, ie not all
troops. By "combat" they are referring to troops in the countryside and on
patrol outside of these permanent bases. Why is the US keeping these permanent
bases? There are several reasons, but the one we are concerned with in this
instance, is to influence future decisions of the Iraqi oil ministry. As
Chairman Mao observed (especially in the case of the US), "Political power
grows from the barrel of a gun". And those bases will, in the future, insure
that Iraqi decisions favor the guys who are pointing the gun.
Kenneth Moreau
New Orleans, LA (Dec 16, '09)
I'm not sure what the point was of Pepe Escobar's
Iraq's oil auction hits the jackpot, December 15], other than to bash
the United States again. Clearly Iraq's government came out the winner in its
bidding war with international oil firms. Paying as little as US$1.15 a barrel
to the foreign firms after they meet certain production levels. For this the
firms will have to invest billions of dollars in Iraq, whose future Escobar
says is uncertain ... On behalf of the American people I am willing to accept
Escobar's apology whenever he wishes to offer it. However, Escobar knows that
being a leftist means never having to say you are sorry.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Dec 16, '09)
While I have immensely enjoyed Asia Times Online over the years, I was appalled
by the article, Nepal
finally waves away refugees [December 14]. While author Alexander
Casella gives a descriptive history of the origins behind the issue, an overall
picture describing the events as they unfolded has been missed. At best, some
key elements were left out: at worst, historical points were warped to give a
lopsided point of view. It is well known that most of the Bhutanese of Nepali
origin had lived in Bhutan for over five decades. However, once they became
politically active under the king's regime, the government considered them a
liability. Hence, a law "enforcing citizenship papers" was suddenly announced
in the 1980s whereby those without papers would be "expelled". Conveniently,
Bhutan had no citizenship papers at the time and therefore this became a means
by which to "legalize" the mass expulsion of one of Bhutan's largest groups of
citizens. This new law was absurd at best. Any person classified as
"un-Bhutanese" was asked to leave the country under the threat of imprisonment,
torture or death. Casella conveniently forgets to mention this. Casella may
simply wave away this mass expulsion of humanity but the rest of the world
calls it what it truly is: ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, the author's
understanding of Sikkim seems to lack deeper historical research. Sikkim was
once a part of Nepal and hence, the reason why so many Nepalis live in the
region: Sikkim was taken by the British after the defeat of Nepal in 1816.
While Casella may have had the best of intentions, the author may have been
consuming a bit too much from the Druk Kingdom's cup of carefully crafted
propaganda, which has excelled to the point of legitimizing throwing out 33% of
its population.
A concerned reader (Dec 15, '09)
[Uzbekistan
damages power network, Dec 15, 2009] Uzbekistan holds the upper hand in
furnishing power to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Yet, it is unable to resolve
water issues with Tajikistan politically. Erica Marat explains the infighting
well, but it is unclear how the current dispute over a regional power network
will affect broader regional cooperation in Central Asia as Russia and China
try to marshal forces to counter the US and India.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 15, '09)
[Re Osama can run,
how long can he hide?, December 11] In regards to Stephen Herzog's
excellent letter, [December 14]. Stephen, don't try and get that common sense
letter published in mainstream Western media because Osama bin Laden's
importance to the "ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda" is as the cornerstone of the
Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency's strategy. The bogeyman, Osama bin
Laden, is vital to the continued building of the dunghill empires they preside
over. Personally, for my money, I'd look for an unmarked grave somewhere in
Pakistan of a fellow who succumbed to renal failure.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Dec 15, '09)
[Re Osama can run,
how long can he hide?, December 11] I applaud Syed Saleem Shahzad's
skillful journalism, but I expect that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and
the top US commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, may question Osama bin
Laden's importance to the "ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda". Bringing bin Laden to
justice for the September 11, 2001, attacks is clearly important, but his
capture or elimination would create a martyr for thousands of Islamist
militants, and another operative like [al-Qaeda deputy chief] Ayman al-Zawahiri
would continue to provide spiritual guidance for the movement. Additionally,
bin Laden is of decreasing importance to terrorist logistical operations
because al-Qaeda has really transformed from an organized movement into a
transnational ideology. Lastly, eliminating leadership structures will not
extinguish Islamist terrorism. The real center of gravity for violent jihad
does not lie with its leaders but with millions of unemployed and
disenfranchised young males in the Muslim world who could potentially find
solace and purpose through extremism. Perhaps the West should invest in more
development initiatives in the broader Middle East and more civil-military
cooperation activities in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to facilitate
alternatives for members of this critical al-Qaeda constituency. Every dollar
spent in this manner would have a much greater return in fighting terrorism
than the billions of dollars that have been spent on dubious "silver bullet"
solutions like eliminating bin Laden.
Stephen Herzog
Washington DC (Dec 14, '09)
[Re Obama embraces
realist-liberal tradition, December 11] In his speech upon receiving a
"peace" medal, United States President Barack Obama showed that he has learned
to use double-speak. He seems to believe that war is peace. Next will poverty
be riches and slavery freedom?
Ron Mepwith
USA (Dec 14, '09)
[Re Obama embraces
realist-liberal tradition, December 11] Reading Jim Lobe's analysis of
President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, I am reminded of what
Flaubert used to say when faced with evidence of other-worldly stupidity: "Il
faut rever!" One has to dream! A literary critic would also cite the
famous dictum, now already a cliche: truth is truly stranger than fiction.
Reading it, I felt in some parts that Lobe couldn't decide between irony or
shocking unbelief. But I wonder what was on Lobe's mind when he mentioned
Obama's purported nod to president Franklin Roosevelt as the founder of liberal
[internationalism], in his belief that "the battle for human rights should not
be confined to civil and political rights", without making a comment on the
macabre moral schizophrenia that gives rise to such an ideology. Did he find it
difficult to cut through the pompous, murderous propaganda, to pierce that
balloon full of fetid hot air with a single ironic witticism? After all his
article had been rather respectful until then. Perhaps I can help: "The battle
for human rights should not be confined to civil and political rights" ...
because life is cheap south of the Rio Grande, and so the right to life there
is not as important as liberty, equality and freedom of expression. Or as
Republicans used to say during the Cold War, with a much more frank
conciseness: "Better Dead than Red."
Carlos
Ecuador (Dec 14, '09)
[Re Diplomatic deja vu
in Pyongyang, December 11] It is too early to dismiss the talks held
between United States envoy on Korea Stephen Bosworth and North Korea's first
vice foreign minister Kang Sok ju, whom press reports say is "considered the
main architect" of Pyongyang's nuclear policy and very close to Dear Leader Kim
Jong-il. The Barack Obama administration is playing its cards close to its
chest. Bosworth did take a "road map toward disarmament" to Pyongyang, but with
no fanfare. Kang presented his country's concerns, too. Reading between the
lines, differences in approaches, it seems, are narrowing. Furthermore, after
studying the talks, Washington will respond, but no new date has been set yet.
This "fogginess" is calculated, in order to keep things on track, that is, to
bring Pyongyang back to the six-party talks in Beijing, and to not derail
direct US-North Korea dialog. Obama has to hold the hand of a skittish ally in
Seoul. The US is flying under the radar to defuse the North Korean issue.
Mel Cooper (Dec 14, '09)
[Re The hypocrisy
of al-Demoqratia, December 7] In his letter of December 9, Ysais A
Martinez wrote, "We cannot embrace intolerance in the West. We cannot embrace
backward values in the West. We cannot embrace oppression in the West. Our
freedoms and high culture are God-given gifts that we carry in glass
containers." Just how tolerant is the United States? It has had a blockade of
Cuba for 60 years simply because its people have a different system of
government. Just how forward and progressive are the myriad US organizations
and considerable percent of the population who embrace creationism, shun
evolution, and have no patience with anyone who does not accept the Bible
literally? Just how free are we in the US when I cannot walk down the street
without being filmed, cannot talk on the phone without being recorded, and
cannot browse the Internet or use a credit card or have a bank account without
our intrusive government keeping tabs on me. Freedom in the US is perfectly
described by Willie Nelson's lyric "Freedom is just another word for nothin'
left to lose".
Kenneth Moreau (Dec 11, '09)
[Re Rupert,
your slip is showing, December 10] Who better than Rupert Murdoch to
preach to us? Murdoch has a global media empire. He has made dynastic marriages
to corner the newspaper market. His object all sublime is to improve his bottom
line. As such, he can speak in high Tory terms when it comes to his Times of
London or to the world of business and finance in the case of his Wall Street
Journal. But outside he enjoys the right-wing bully pulpit. And at the low end
of holdings, Murdoch pampers to prurience, scandal, insolence, and innuendo and
lies, bordering on the tendencious and slander, as we see in his Sun and The
New York Post. Murdoch sudden high-mindedness is forced upon him by "rapidly
declining circulation", especially in print media.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 11, '09)
[Re Rupert,
your slip is showing, December 10] Thanks for the editorial on the
business model (or moral perversion) of Rupert Murdoch.
Khondakar (Dec 11, '09)
[Re Rupert,
your slip is showing, December 10] Hear, Hear. Kudos to the staff at
Asia Times Online for the balanced coverage of news and modern issues in stark
contrast to the Murdochian press. As a frequent visitor to ATol, I enjoy the
diverse array of articles and differing opinions and contributions. Keep up the
good work.
Hank
Australia (Dec 11, '09)
[Re Over Iran,
enemies become friends, Dec 10, '09] This article is what I call
classical liberalism: portraying the innocent as a criminal and doing all that
is possible to make the criminal look innocent. I assume that Grace Nasri - by
using the term neo-conservative - is referring to anyone who believes in a
strong national defense and the idea that lions do not negotiate with rats.
They crush rats. This article is actually really dangerous because it
aggrandizes the murderous dictatorship running Iran, and it demonizes patriotic
Americans who are fed up with Islamic madness and terrorism world wide. It is
true that America has supported groups that later became the enemy. But those
were the old good days when America made deals with the devil and was a master
in the divide-and-conquer game. Today, all we try to do is avoid collateral
damage by pretending that the world is all harmony and kumbaya. I have bad
news. It is not. In the latest violent assault against Iranians (June 2009
protests), where religious madness was again present, Americans were genuinely
concerned with the development of the violence in Iran. First, because the
fanatics were shooting against unarmed civilians, and second because we cannot
let such ideologies penetrate the West and destroy our culture of freedoms.
Anyone who sides with a regime like Iran is totally denying the lifestyle that
our founding fathers dreamed for Americans. The problems are not the neo-cons,
the problem is the threat that Iran poses to the State of Israel and the
interests of the United States of America in the world. If not, I ask the
question: Who is a greater threat to the West, the Islamofacists or the
neo-cons? As of now, we have never bombed anybody ...
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 11, '09)
United States President Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Stockholm must
represent the nadir of US presidential rhetoric. He said words that could
easily have come from former president George W Bush's mouth, were the grammar
mangled and the smirks uncontrolled. With nary a whit of embarrassment, Obama
proceeded to parrot the same tired mantra of Western, Anglo-Saxon imperialism
and militarism, shrouded in the mythology of faux democracy and alleged
capitalist bounty, to justify his twisted justification for more war. Obama has
listened to so many paeans to his greatness that he actually has begun to
believe them. He believes himself bulletproof and invincible, immune to the
necessity of abiding in principles or promises. The subtle arrogance Obama
demonstrated to the world was, indeed, breathtaking; his method of verbal
subterfuge and convenient manipulation of facts would have made some Austrian
corporals proud. He brushed aside legitimate aspirations of oppressed peoples
by making them beyond the pale, pariahs that could only be dealt with by
eternal violence. He justified American hegemony as the only true beacon of
enlightenment, and insisted at the same time that that hegemony needed the
passive acquiescence of everyone else.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Dec 11, '09)
[Re 'Surge' sends
Obama soaring, December 9] Americans like "strong" presidents, it goes
without saying. And the polls support that. Yet, polls are fickle; they
fluctuate widely, and one day's good news may turn into tomorrow's disaster.
Playing the numbers game is far from scientific. After listening to President
Barack Obama's speech to the cadets at West Point, you come away with the
feeling that the planned withdrawal is an exercise in flim-flam. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates has let the cat out of bag, announcing that the United
States presence in Afghanistan may run until 2024 and beyond.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 10, '09)
[Re The burden
of being Summers, December 9] White House economic advisor Larry
Summers' actions while president of Harvard University were no doubt
indefensible. However, it would be unfair to associate the institution's
reputation with one man's follies; after all, any person possessing Summers'
level of overbearing hubris would inevitably produce similar wreckages and
bring upon himself the same kind of ignominy. Besides, and to be fair, the
positive contribution of Harvard (especially the college) to society should
easily outweigh the detriment caused by the school's occasional quacks. On the
other hand, to dub Summers, [former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan],
and Robert Rubin [special economic assistant to president Bill Clinton], "the
committee that saved the world", now that was funny. Any one of the Three
Stooges had more common sense than those three clowns combined.
John Chen
USA (Dec 10, '09)
Ramzy Baroud, in his article
The hypocrisy of al-Demoqratia [December 7], presents a cogent and
accurate picture of present Islamophobic trends, particularly in Switzerland,
but generally in all of Europe. There are only four minarets in all of
Switzerland and a relatively small Muslim population (330,000 Muslims in a
population of 7.5 million). This should make the majority of Swiss people
voting for a minaret ban a required case study for experts in psy-ops
[psychological operations used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes].
After all, the vote organizers seem to have scared the living daylights out of
the Swiss, making them believe that these "Moslems [sic]" are going to takeover
the country. Great thought must have gone into the design of the campaign
flyers which depicted the mosque minarets as rockets surrounded by sketches of
veiled women. I was a little surprised that the Swiss found the sketches so
offensive, given that they only allowed their women the right to vote in 1971.
Nonetheless, this was a major victory for the far-right fascist forces in
Europe. All the people supporting this referendum as respecting basic
democratic principles should not forget that Adolf Hitler too was
democratically elected. Yusaf Khan
London, England (Dec 10, '09)
I read with appalling interest and astonishment the article
The hypocrisy of al-Demoqratia [December 7] by Ramzy Baroud. I
was overwhelmed by the lack of understanding of democracy exhibited by Baroud.
First of all, yes, this is how democracy works. The power of nations and
government is its people. A referendum is the purest form of power given to the
people. Instead of the discussing the issues with suicide bombings, riots
chanting "death to the West" and the burning of flags, the Swiss people
demonstrated its culture by casting a vote in the ballot. In the West we also
have a strict separation of church and state which is "sacred" to us. That's
why we mock Jesus for example and do not have riots because of it. We simply
have enviable freedoms and a separation from a religion that we still love. I
am an Orthodox Catholic and still understand the importance of having religion
separated from the state's affairs and certain aspects of people's lives.
Baroud also seemed to ignore the barbaric treatment of non-Muslims in the
Middle East and other Islamic countries. He does not refer to the brutal acts
committed in the name of Islam and its prophet. I will not bother to list them
here. I can guarantee one thing to anybody. If such a referendum was conducted
in London, half the privileges of the Muslim community would go down a well.
Many people are sick of the subtle attacks against Western culture, language,
religion, race, and our borders. We can also propose the "Islamic challenge"
which is: We will have the ban of minarets lifted in Switzerland when the first
Christian church opens for worship in Saudi Arabia. How come the Muslim
community demands so much of the Western countries, when we Westerners are
worth less than a piece of garbage in any Islamic country? This is the kind of
question that needs to be asked. We cannot embrace intolerance in the West. We
cannot embrace backward values in the West. We cannot embrace oppression in the
West. Our freedoms and high culture are God-given gifts that we carry in glass
containers.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 9, '09)
Kim Myong Chol's Pyongyang
stage set for Bosworth talks [December 8] gives the reader a sense of
North Korean expectations for the visit of the United States envoy on North
Korea, Steven Bosworth, to Pyongyang. Other media reports left readers confused
as to why such a senior Obama administration official would go there, since
they said he will bring nothing to the table.
Mel Cooper
Guam (Dec 9, '09)
[Re Bah, humbug
and labor statistics, December 8] Living in 21st-century Wonderland USA
is like walking through a Salvador Dali painting of a Hieronymus Bosch
triptych. The landscape is surreal and the imageries fantastic. The citizens
hear palpable nonsense from its demon-headed leaders, its media conjure up
"facts" out of the thin phantasmagorical air, and invisible clothes are haute
couture among its spectacularly naked celebrities. Take Tiger Woods, he
of the formerly pristine, squeaky clean family man image. ... Last night I saw
the once-esteemed network journalist, Dan Rather, appear on a comedy show and
tell falsehood after falsehood about Afghanistan without batting an eye, using
his 11 trips to that hellish place as justification for his mendacity. In his
effort to demonstrate how different America's commitment in Afghanistan was
from Russia's misadventure, he stated with his signature straight face that the
Soviet goal was always absorption into the USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics], whereas America "can't wait to get out". His comment about the
Kremlin's motivation is transparently false, as anyone who has studied the
copious quantities of relevant documents can testify. It is clear that Rather
not only has not done his homework, but is quite simply a paid stooge of the
Pentagon. The Soviet goals were exactly the same as United States President
Barack Obama's, ie, an alien, heretical superpower propping up a corrupt,
unpopular puppet regime under siege by religiously motivated insurgents. ...
The surrealism of the economic news is also a fitting backdrop for the melting
clock mentality in the White House. The unemployment and bailout-created job
numbers are dipped in glitter, run through a food processor and then painted on
a background of optimism, hope and obfuscation. Obama can't paint over the
Truth about the looming commercial real-estate collapse but he can juggle
incomprehensible numbers while putting the pea under the Dow Jones shell. The
rubes always pick the shell labeled "Sucker."
Hardy J Campbell (Dec 9, '09)
[Re Calculated
ambiguity in the South China Sea, December 7] It is difficult to make a
strong case that China's plans for the South China Sea are ambiguous. China's
ambitions are clear. Beijing considers the South China Sea as its "mare
nostrum". Beijing will go to any length, including a shooting match, to enforce
its claims. And in saying that, any notion of ambiguity goes out the window.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 8, '09)
[Re The hypocrisy
of al-Demoqratia, December 7] Yes Ramzy Baroud, the results of a
national referendum in Switzerland with regard to the construction of minarets
is indeed the purest form of democracy and a perfect example of how democracy
works! Government by the people. Rule of the majority. Early in the 17th
century, Albanians converted to Islam under Ottoman-Turkish domination because
that elevated the converts into a privileged stratum of society. Non-Muslims on
the other hand, paid extra taxes and held inferior status. The tragedy of
Muslim-Albanian refugees today is that they choose to seek asylum in Western
countries because of economic advantages. The separation of church and state is
an unfamiliar concept for them, hence they find to their dismay that their
spiritual expectations are unrealistic. Muslim-Albanians would be better off
choosing to seek asylum in Turkey, their spiritual home. In addition, the Swiss
are proud of their patrimony and have strict building codes in large parts of
the country. Al-Demoqratia [democracy] equals government by the people,
which equals the separation of church and state, and in Muslim countries this
must come from the people. It will be a long and hard struggle (as it was in
all of Europe) because the mullahs [clerics] in Muslim theocracies will
not want to give up their power.
AAL
Calgary, Canada (Dec 8, '09)
[Re Obama flat-footed on
rights in China, December 5] Perhaps Chinese lawyer Jiang Tianyong
should have realized that if "talking about human rights is not a sensitive
topic in China any more", then the need "for a president from the leader of the
'free world' [to] talk about it in a big way " is less critical, particularly
with the understanding that "any improvement in China's human-rights situation
has to come from Chinese people themselves". The basic thrust should have been
that the impact of US presidents cannot be seminal and has already been
realistically effective. Second, the author does not mention the often
suggested diminution in credibility of the US as a champion for human rights,
stemming from its military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps such
credibility should be judged on how Americans treat Americans in America, not
how Americans treat foreigners in foreign lands, since the thrust on Chinese
human rights is meant to affect how the Chinese treat each other in China.
Recently, even civil rights within the US have been slightly compromised, but
if one steps back a few decades, one can observe that American civil rights
have been much improved with the amelioration of racism. ... The absolute
virtues of assimilation and the irrelevance of ethnicity to human happiness
should be fundamentally and personally palpable to Obama, whose genuine apathy
towards the cause of Tibetan segregation should be predictable.
Jeff Church
USA (Dec 8, '09)
[Re Obama treads
Soviet road out of Kabul, December 7] The United States' escalation of
its commitment to the Afghan War is a show of resolve to outlast Islamic
malefactors. But there is nothing to say that 30,000 extra sacrifices will do
the trick anymore than the requested 80,000 would have. The USSR had 100,000
troops on the ground in Afghanistan for 10 years, and they made a conscious
decision to not increase that number despite the very likely prospects of
indefinite conflict. Indeed, the Soviets recognized that that number of troops,
while being inadequate for anything resembling "victory", was enough to ensure
a virulent, permanent insurgency. The US troop increase amounts to a
half-hearted nod to the Pentagon, ie, we'll keep the pot boiling, more medals
and promotions and budget increases will keep coming your way. If we really did
try and win this war, Americans would be appalled at what we win, a
kleptocratic, drug-exporting, theocratic state supported permanently by
American taxpayers. The rationale for taxpayers supporting that same level of
support for the ruthlessly criminal government is, quite simply, the war
itself. Victory would be fatal.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Dec 8, '09)
[Re Seoul has its own
fears over US surge, December 4] Seoul has little to fear from the
United States surge in Afghanistan. However, as Andrei Lankov suggests in
South Korea's 'grand' smokescreen [December 2], South Korean President
Lee Myung-bak's "grand bargain" offer to North Korea may be out of sync with US
President Barack Obama's "political surge" toward Pyongyang. In spite of
Obama's assurances to Lee that Washington will not abandon its ally in Seoul,
Lee has proven inflexible in adapting to what is transpiring on the divided
Korean peninsula.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 7, '09)
[Manmohan has the
last laugh, November 25] Raja Murthy's depiction of Sikhs on the Indian
sub-continent is very skewed. It is very clear that Murthy is only familiar
with "jokes" about Sikhs. He makes this more evident by referencing the book on
Sikh jokes by journalist Khushwant Singh. Firstly, it takes a very strong
heart, courage and endurance to create or crack jokes about one's self.
Secondly, Murthy could take time to read Khushwant Singh's book A History of
Sikhs and make a reference to that as well. The author could also
reference the centuries of sacrifice made by Sikhs for India, as well as the
current achievements of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Sikh community.
Harmit Singh Bedi (Dec 7, '09)
[Obama rings the
curtain on Pax Americana, December 3] It's high time that serious
students of geopolitical history helped others cut through all the bovine fecal
products about Afghanistan, the so-called "war on terror" and the even more
so-called enmity between the US and Iran. I gladly volunteer my services to
this end. As reference material, I suggest reading what amounts to a primer on
high-level subterfuge, collusion, corruption and PR slight-of-hand. The book, Unholy
Terror by John R Schindler, describes in detail how the Bill Clinton
presidency tacitly cooperated with the Iranians to arm, finance and Islamify
the nascent Bosnian republic in the wake of Yugoslavia's collapse. Of course,
the Western media, willing stooges to the end, chose to ignore the evidence of
ex-Afghan War mujahideen being ferried into the Bosnian crucible by the
Iranians (as well as Saudis), because there were propaganda points to be lost
in telling the unvarnished truth. However, ideology, jihad and all that aside,
it is equally clear from Schindler's tome that the bottom line, as it is in
almost all modern wars, is still the bottom line; money, corruption and more
money. The Muslim, Croat and even Serbian governments, their security organs
and the notorious Balkan criminal gangs freely liberated much of the outside
financial and material assistance to enrich themselves, while their countrymen
huddled in terror. Flash forward to Afghanistan 2009 for Bosnia redux. With
profits from heroin, smuggling, weapons, non-governmental organization and
North Atlantic Treaty Organization government assistance flowing like gold
plated manna from the terrorism-fighting West, the money being made is way too
tempting for any of the parties involved to cease and desist. In much the same
way that the US bailout of Wall Street demonstrates how taxpayer money can be
diverted into private hands through manufactured crises, the Afghan imbroglio
is merely another vehicle for showering the heroin farmers, local Mafiosi, NATO
military, US Central Intelligence Agency, Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence
agency, Taliban and Iranian Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards Corps] with
Christmas goodies, courtesy of Santa Sam. Since Obama's main job appears to be
looting the US Treasury so that others can profit, he will need, oh let's say,
two to three years to do a thorough job. He'll need help, though, and Iran has
always been willing to lend a helping (and open) hand. US-Iran antagonism is
clearly a myth. Even when examined under a cloudy microscope, both parties have
been cooperating and profiting extensively since the 1979 revolution with
respect to the Soviet Union, Iraq, the Kurds, Afghanistan, the Taliban, drug
smuggling, mujahideen, Islamic charities, Hezbollah, Palestine, and Lebanon,
the list goes on and on. Most Americans, including a few of the more delusional
letter writers to Asia Times Online, prefer the myth of a satanic, evil and
insane Iran, but some of us from Texas, where cow-paddy aromas are not unknown,
know what's being deposited out there in the media. The entire "extremist
Muslim" and "terrorism fighting" imageries are merely mirages that obscure
what's actually out there just beyond the horizon; collaboration, deception and
lots of fattened Swiss bank accounts.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas, USA (Dec 7, '09)
[Re Dangers in
jailing Malaysia's Anwar, December 3] Spot on, Anil Netto. The
political landscape has indeed shifted in Malaysia. It seems that the
government's push to try opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, again for sodomy, is
a desperate measure to shore up its more than 50-year hold on power. Putting
him on trial will simply swell the ranks of protesters who will see a
duplicitous attempt by Prime Minister Najib Razak to discredit an opponent
whose electoral success has shaken the pillars of the political temple.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Dec 4, '09)
[Re Obama rings
the curtain on Pax Americana, December 3] I had been waiting for M K
Bhadrakumar's reaction to United States President Barack Obama's Afghanistan
plan, and I was certainly not disappointed, neither in him, nor in Obama.
Bhadrakumar writes as every writer should, as a scholar, not as a lawyer or as
a preacher. Pity he's too smart to become India's premier. Chapeau again.
Migrant Worker
(now) Frankfurt (Dec 4, '09)
[Re Obama rings
the curtain on Pax Americana, December 3] Can the Nobel committee ask
for its prize back? Or does the sight and sound of a peace-prize winner
increasing the scale and intensity of violence, suffering and mass death not
cause a moment of retrospective doubt in Stockholm? The absurdity of United
States President Barack Obama's earlier award from that august body of
laureate-lauders has now been made nakedly transparent to anyone not residing
in the Swedish capital. But apparently raw egg dripping down their collective
Scandinavian faces is like a local cosmetic, so anyone attempting to impugn,
malign or question the preposterousness of their selecting the new president
will be dismissed as uncultured or ignorant. What's next - Federal Reserve
chairman Ben Bernanke as the economics laureate? I'll bet Iranian President
Mahmud Ahmadinejad will be sorely tempted to nuke Israel now, a sure-fire
incentive for the Nobel committee to lay an olive wreath on his head.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Dec 4, '09)
[Re China sizes up EU's
new face, December 2] Jian Junbo's article is an ocean of common sense
and truth. China must refuse the so-called world values promoted by the
European Union and some weasels in the United States, and stick to its own
culture, national identity, and core values. I believe that the worst legacy of
World War II is that nations are afraid to promote nationalist values and love
their culture, language and country. China demonstrates a vast understanding of
the weakness of the West by recognizing Europe's lack of strength and lack of
will to create a more multi-polar world. While China understands the world
around it, Europe and the US's leadership do not. Why in the world does the EU
compromise its relationship with China because of the troublemakers in Tibet,
the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and in Taiwan? I don't understand this obsession of
the leftists in the EU and the US with these lost causes. China cannot afford
groups of rebels that threaten its existence, public order and internal
security. If the EU has rolled over to those threatening the existence of
Europe, China will not. They understand the threat and the consequences of weak
actions, and won't compromise the core values that make up the Chinese
identity. China will resist fiercely any attempts to destabilize what they have
built with some much effort and strategic planning.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 3, '09)
[Re Pakistan at
odds with Obama's vision, December 2] Pakistan has always been driven
by national interest, no matter who sits in the White House's Oval Office
offering them political favors and millions of dollars in military and economic
aid. Were we to believe former president General Pervez Musharraf's op-ed
contribution in the December 2 edition of the Wall Street Journal, had the US
heeded him, an "Afghan Pakistan solution" would now be in place. The West was
short-sighted after the Soviet withdraw in 1989, ignoring the fruits of its
support of Afghani fighters. Pakistan had every reason to support any regime in
Kabul that would court Islamabad's patronage. Inside Pakistan, Musharraf did
everything to keep the lid on his own Islamic extremists, until they challenged
his authority. US President Barack Obama's increase of troops to Afghanistan
will put Pakistan to the test. Islamabad has to coordinate its military and
political policy with Obama's, or face the further deterioration of its state
power, which is already weakened by its neglect of regional and tribal
tensions.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 3, '09)
[RE Vietnam-lite
unveiled, December 2] Now that the "suspense" about more United States
troops in LoseWar-istan is over, let's get down to the real question of the
day: Who's next? The voracious appetite of the now-ascendant American military
will merely be whetted, not sated, by the theoretically limited contingent of
US forces in Afghanistan for three more years. No, the profits to be made by
additional wars are too tempting for the criminal organizations in the
Pentagon, who know that with a compliant, obsequious president in office, the
opportunities at the trough cannot be squandered. There are, after all, defense
contractors' children who need new Beamers, army officers who need promotions,
and congressmen who need re-electing in states with military bases. So I've
created a list of the next Top Five Operation ProfitPig ops (my own title. I
think the Pentagon wants to use Operation Enduring Delusion.) 1) Colombia -
Drugs, gems, contraband, a chance to stick it to president Hugo Chavez in his
backyard. Come on! A no-brainer.
2) The Philippines - A thriving Muslim insurgency, English speaking
ex-colonials, meddling in China's backyard. Besides, we already have plenty of
"advisors" there.
3) Mexico - precisely because it's a neighbor, with so many of its citizens
here, Mexico is a bit dicey for what would really be a counter-invasion, but
the payoffs are huge. If we own Mexico, the problem of illegals goes away.
4) Turkey - I know, I know, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, a
secular Muslim country, a vibrant democracy, blah blah blah. I can just see the
generals' eyes rolling in their sockets. But their government is becoming
increasingly muscular in its Islamic flexings, its proximity to our enemies is
alluring, and if they look like they're being subverted by anti-NATO interests.
All sorts of defense clauses can be used to justify another illegal US
intervention and if they even whisper anything about enriched uranium, on to
Istanbul!
5) Finally, and least likely, Canada. Our fair-skinned northern cousins with
the exquisite manners have usually faithfully toed the line and danced to
Washington's tune, but they're so close and what kind of army do they have?
Some mounted police in stuffy red jackets, a trained polar bear and some
malnourished huskies? The Pentagon invaded Grenada for a lot less.
So there are my prognostications for our future wars. Scoff if you will, but
imagine the fevered tribulations if the Republicans sweep next year's
mid-terms.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Dec 3, '09)
[Re Beware the
winds of December, December 2] There are two significant points in this
article: the fact that Turkey is distancing itself from Europe and the United
States and the sanctions against Iran. The shift in Turkey's foreign policy is
not surprising at all. In fact, they are moving towards where they belong, the
Middle East. It is not surprising to me either that Turkey is becoming the next
radical Islamic state, which will preaching jihad, the beheading of those who
don't agree with Islam, and suicide bombings. Make no mistake about it,
democracy in Turkey has a rope around its neck. Two years ago, Turkish citizens
viewed favorably the incorporation of Turkey to the European Union. Today,
those numbers have shrunk dramatically. It is in part due to the firm rhetoric
of some European leaders against Turkey being a member of the EU, the demands
of the EU to its members, and what some in Turkey perceive as an anti-Islamic
feeling across Europe. If Turkey embraces Islamic extremism, only the young and
women will suffer. It is also astonishing to me that Turkey wants to follow the
path of failed states. Am I wrong? Can someone tell me the name of an Islamic
state that is an example to follow in science, education, lifestyle, freedoms,
religious tolerance, business, openness, harmony, or the arts? The second point
in this article that is worth discussing is the Iranian nuclear program. I
won't buy the garbage that Iran has peaceful purposes for its nuclear program.
It is naive to believe so. Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and as soon as
it develops them it will threaten the state of Israel. It is that simple. You
don't have to be [former US secretary of state] Henry Kissinger in foreign
policy to figure that one out. To Iran's luck, the West still does not
understand how things work in the Middle East. Lies, deception, extortion,
deals with the devil, treason, hypocrisy, violence, cruelty, and brutality are
the landmark of how things are done in that part of the world. As a Westerner
proud of his heritage, culture, language, and country, it scares me that the
Western leadership is the weakest leadership in the history of the West. The
dominant cowardice in our leadership is a threat to our existence. To put it in
plain words, Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed, the leadership of such
program executed, the power and technology of our weaponry released, and we
must master the art of war as it works in the Middle East. Until the West shows
a firm position and an iron hand, failed states like Iran and North Korea will
threaten the existence of those people who have made this world a better place
to live.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Dec 2, '09)
[Re Drywall can
corrode US-China links, December 1] If tainted dog food, lead-laced
toys or lethal cough medicine did not derail United States-China links, what
makes Benjamin A Shobert so sure that drywall will? An accusing finger should
be pointed at the weakened US regulatory authorities, who if they had the
wherewithal, staff, or will would subject Chinese imported products to rigorous
testing. These imports would have not met good standards of approval, and thus
would have been rejected. This case shows the sloppiness of "globalism" whereby
a US company outsources jobs and products for a quick buck and little concern
for the safety and the health of the US consumer.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 2, '09)
[Re Pockets of
rot, December 1] Though no doubt painful, a correction in China's
financial and stock markets will, paradoxically, be beneficial to the country's
economy. While having brought riches to millions, China's current economic
development, at the heavy costs of social instability stemming from uneven
regional growth and income distribution, frightful environmental abuses by
foreign multinational corporations and corrupt/ignorant local officials, simply
can not last. A temporary setback at this point will provide the central and
provincial governments with the political will to take a much-needed breather,
regroup, and re-orient the country's growth onto a more sustainable course.
Equally important, the coastal elites whose outsized ambitions have been fanned
by decades of spectacular growth will hopefully also see the need to adhere to
a national growth strategy directed by Beijing. Thirty years after paramount
leader Deng Xiaoping embarked China on the path of economic liberalization,
it's time for the country's economy to graduate from the "to get rich is
glorious" phase to a more-balanced growth mode.
John Chen
USA (Dec 2, '09)
[Re The day Beijing
blinked, Nov 30, '09] Reading the Western and non-Western press, it
would seem United States President Barack Obama blinked during his brief visit
to China. Antoaneta Bezlova may be on to something though. The situation drives
home John Maynard Keynes famous saying, which had words to this effect: if you
owe the bank a million dollars, you're the bank's prisoner, but if you owe your
banker billions of dollars, he's your prisoner. Consequently, China has to
stroke Washington's feathers, since its financial health and its export economy
depend on it.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Dec 1, '09)
Connecting dots is a childhood game that teaches our youth to create meaningful
images from seemingly random and disassociated points. Sadly, the skill of
making sense of the apparently nonsensical is sorely lacking from adults. This
is evidenced by the ease with which adults accept the "official" connecting of
dots, when the resulting picture is so much more pleasant than the alternative
but more likely image. Many might connect the dots of United States President
Barack Obama's rescue of Detroit and Wall Street with the dots of sending more
troops to Afghanistan, and obtain a picture of a safer and economically
healthier United States. But I create a monstrous image of an impoverished,
debt-ridden society manipulated and used by plutocrats as a Third World
producer of soldiers, mercenaries and cannon fodder. Other geopolitical artists
may form the picture of an embattled but democratic, peace-loving Israel from
the dots of Arab terror attacks and Jewish lobbyists, but my caricature becomes
a multitentacled maw ruthlessly consuming and destroying justice and freedom
wherever it sows conflict. One of the most popular cartoons results when the
Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspiration dots are connected to the Western
negotiations dots and create the imagery of a world determined to maintain
peace. But my dots show a different picture, one where the defense contractors
on both sides profit from an endless cycle of deals and broken promises. The
most amazing connect-the-dot picture is formed when the dots of the September
11, 2001, attack are strewn across a page and made to look like a band of
disorganized, cave-dwelling desert Bedouin who are able to baffle, fool,
subvert and paralyze the sophisticated intelligence and military apparatus of
the world's mightiest superpower. Try as I might, my dots cannot fashion such
an image. Inevitably, the lines create the outline of a country committing
suicide.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Dec 1, '09)
November Letters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2010 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
|
|
|
|
