Please write to us at letters@atimes.com

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

October 2004

[Re] Sultan Shahin's Resolving Kashmir with a Musharraf model [Oct 29] ... What makes the Musharraf model so revolutionary? Essentially, the idea that all parts of the original pre-1947 Jammu and Kashmir state, including those at the moment held by Pakistan, should be demilitarized and their status changed in such a way that they do not belong to either India or Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has finally accepted the independence option for Kashmir without actually putting it in those terms. Pakistan has traditionally demanded the implementation of the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which could not be implemented partly because of Pakistan's unwillingness to pull out troops and thus demilitarize the occupied territories. These resolutions envisioned the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to either India or Pakistan, as per the wishes of the people to be ascertained in a plebiscite. Pakistan was never agreeable to the demand by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front that independence from both countries be included in the options at the time of plebiscite. India considers the UN resolutions obsolete. The Musharraf model appears to take away the option of accession to any of the two warring states altogether and offers different degrees and forms of autonomy or independence, though he doesn't quite say that in so many words. He is proposing to "identify the region, demilitarize the region forever and change its status [which can then have] independence, condominium where there can be a joint [India-Pakistan] control or there can be a UN mandate". Obviously this implies that even a region as dear to the heart of the Pakistani army as Gilgil and Baltistan in the Northern Areas of Kashmir will either have independence or joint India-Pakistan control or a UN mandate, if the Musharraf model is to be followed. The option of any country controlling any territory independently is just not there, unless [President General Pervez] Musharraf is employing Orwell-speak, in which independence means the freedom to be occupied by the country of one's choice. Mistrust of Musharraf is so high in India's strategic community that most analysts are not even prepared to give deep thought to any of his proposals before rejecting them. But for this, Musharraf might have been seen to have done precisely what Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked him to do - think outside of the box. Indian analysts have mostly focused on the misdemeanor of Musharraf dividing Kashmir state into seven parts, two on the Pakistani side and five on Indian side, even though generally Kashmir is understood to have five regions: the Northern Areas, the so-called Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. For them, this merely smacks of a narrow-minded regional and communal approach, though it can also be interpreted as encouraging ethnic and linguistic minorities in the state to have their say in the final solution of the long-festering dispute. Indian analysts do not even appreciate that the Musharraf model seems to finally bury the argument that Jammu and Kashmir should be a part of the Islamic state of Pakistan by virtue of its overwhelming Muslim majority. It also for the first time opens up the possibility of the status of the Northern Areas - Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan - to be determined afresh. Musharraf divides the state into seven regions: Buddhist-dominated Leh; Shi'ite-dominated Kargil; the Kashmir Valley; Hindu-dominated Jammu, Kathua and parts of Udhampur districts; Muslim-dominated Rajouri, Poonch and Doda districts; Pakistan-occupied "Azad" Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. These divisions, however, are not so neat on the ground. People living in Rajouri and Poonch, for instance, have linguistic and ethnic links with the people across the LoC [Line of Control]. Similarly, the people of Karnah in north Kashmir's Kupwara district share similar bonds with the people living across the Neelum Valley.
Arun Joshi, PhD
Chief of Bureau (Jammu and Kashmir)
Hindustan Times
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (Oct 29, '04)


Sultan Shahin pays glowing tributes to [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's new "off the cuff" offer, categorizing it as "out of the box" thinking [Resolving Kashmir with a Musharraf model, Oct 29]. What's new about this offer? Nothing is the answer, and yet the author makes it sound like Musharraf has outwitted policymakers in Delhi. "Outwitted" may be the wrong word. "Frustrated" perhaps is the right one. Every newspaper recently reported the Indian prime minister's words in New York requesting "out of the box" thinking on Kashmir. What does Musharraf do? He dusts [off] Nawaz Sharif's idea that was ruled out by India years ago. Mr Shahin's research obviously did not include a proposal made in 1993 by Nawaz Sharif, a democratically elected leader of Pakistan. He offered the same proposal, with a quid pro quo demilitarization of POK [Pakistan-occupied Kashmir] if India does the same in Kashmir. Musharraf also insists on delusional, off-the-cuff negotiations through the media. The Indian establishment is rightfully tired and frustrated with Mr Musharraf. Mistrust comes a close third. Even The Economist in [a] recent editorial indicated that for Mr Musharraf to voice thoughts to the media on strategic negotiations indicates the lack of attention of policymakers in Delhi. Mr Shahin's worries about Indian analysts are misplaced. Why should they waste time when the Hurriyat, so-called Pakistani representatives of Kashmir, have not appreciated the general's proposal? Ditto for the opposition in Pakistan and its members who have rightly been against the new outbursts of the general. What's there to worry about a previously discredited proposal? Brownie points from international media may be good for Musharraf's standing in Pakistan, but do not affect institutional negotiations which have been going on for 50 years and may go on for another 50.
DD
San Francisco, California (Oct 29, '04)


[Re The WMD-lite scandal, Oct 29] Looters got nearly everything of value while our guys [US military] guarded the Oil Ministry and [Ahmad] Chalabi took care of the banks and Treasury Department. Saddam [Hussein] had long been ... contained. How could we possibly re-elect this odious incumbent, architect of disaster?
R T Carpenter
Florida, USA (Oct 29, '04)


Dennis Castle [letter, Oct 28], you indulge yet another self-centered absurdity: "Strong leadership on America's part would certainly have sought to make amends with nations harmed during that struggle [against 'communism'], but ... the Cold War really was a zero-sum game." Strong leadership (whatever that means) would have prevented harm to innocent bystanders, thus have nothing for which to make amends - which, in reality, it has never intended to make. But according to you, the US has always been passive and helpless to prevent harming the innocent - and at least as passive and helpless when it comes to actually making amends. The lame lip-service of the powerless must suffice. In fact, the US has not only never been concerned with preventing harm to others, it has never been passive when inflicting harm. The harm is more often than not at very least predictable, but usually deliberate; examples are [Ronald] Reagan's illegal wars in Central America, which included support of right-wing death squads which terrorized and murdered innocent civilian men, women and children. (Much of that prevented them voting in democratic elections for candidates "strong leader" Reagan happened not to like, even though it was none of his - or the US's - business.) You continue your excuse-making, now with combined extremist oversimplification and exaggeration: "Either the world would have been lost to a Stalinist nightmare or we would have the opportunity to pursue freedom as we do today." What you mean "we", ideologue? Most democratic nations do not restrict the kinds of political parties which can exist, campaign for election, and if elected, govern. That is, of course, the excuse exploited by such as Reagan: though the US doesn't attack Italy, France or other powerful nations for allowing "communists", as example, to not merely organize as political parties, but also to campaign for election, and when elected to govern, it doesn't tolerate such political freedom and diversity within the US. Nor, in fact, in, as example, Central and South America, when it can prevent it, even though not the US's business, and even as it preaches "self-determination". I remind of the democratically elected democratic government of Guatemala overthrown by president [Dwight] Eisenhower in 1954. And of the democratically elected government of Chile overthrown in 1973, premised upon [Henry] Kissinger's view that the people "cannot be trusted with democracy", and followed by the US appointment of fascist mass murderer/dictator Augusto Pinochet. According to you, Mr Castle, all those deliberate acts were the "inadvertent" consequences of the US's passive helplessness. You continue: "Yes, the [US] took questionable action that may ['may'? - didn't you admit it as fact?] have harmed ... other nations and no excuse will seem good enough. [Can one say "Abu Ghraib" and "no excuse will seem good enough" in the same breath?] America's imperfect response [act aggressively with condescending superiority; but when amends are demanded plead 'imperfection'] is that the alternative [non-suppression of political diversity in the US and, as example, Central and South America?] ... would have harmed [those other] cultures and religions and everyone else [except in such as Italy and France?] to an incalculable magnitude ... Of course it appears arrogant to take ownership of the responsibility to stop [that which the US selectively labels] totalitarianism [even when it is not]but, frankly, nobody else was in a position to take the lead in doing so." And those sovereign peoples who would choose political forms of which the US selectively disapproves would wish the apologists for US hypocrisy and harm would genuinely take responsibility by being intellectually honest and responsible instead of smugly rationalizing a fake passivity which fails to mask an offensive condescension based upon "the supreme confidence of a Christian - with four aces" (Mark Twain). "Because the Cold War was won by the [US], we live in a world where most can freely believe whatever we [in the US will decide others may] like." What you mean "we", ideologue? "We can work together in as positive [as defined by the US] a light as possible." What you mean "we", ideologue?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 29, '04)


Dennis Castle in his letter (Oct 28) asked, "What is India's solution to defeat global terrorism today?" The answer is: eradication of poverty through fair trade (not the so-called free trade), which is not a priority at all for Western countries - in fact they are forcing developing countries to enforce a rigid, anti-poor economic agenda. Terrorism stems from a combination of injustice and poverty, both of which go hand in hand. There can be no social progress without economic progress. Considering how the poor are being ground into the dust with increasing severity, we can expect global terrorism to worsen. It is also worth remembering that the majority of poor countries landed in that position due to colonial exploitation. The Cold War was not the only zero-sum game - modern economics also fit that bill. It's like a jungle, where for one animal to eat some other animal must be eaten. For one country to become rich, several countries must become poor. Letter writer Frank [Oct 28] mentioned that comparing India to Africa is not racism. Actually it is - because your implication was that India had culturally degenerated to the level of Africa, which is pretty racist towards Africa. The DNA study you (Frank) mentioned was conducted by a private institution (a US university), not by the Indian government. Please don't spread such outright lies.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 29, '04)


I have to agree with Rakesh [letter, Oct 28] that most of the people who enjoyed colonization and those who suffered are no longer around. However, that colonization mentality still exists. We can still tell from the way they write their letters at ATol. Just as Chrysantha Wijeyasingha indicated [letter, Oct 13], many white people still view India the same as Africa. I heard it in America too. However, I do not think that is racism. For those Indians who think that they can be equal by just wiggling their tails, the master may let you jump on the driver's seat or get a law degree from time to time [but] when they are not in the mood, they will still throw you out of the train. For example, Indians including some high-level Indian officials are much more likely to be strip-searched by security guards. Do Indians like that? It is true the world has moved on. However, if you pay attention to history, it often moved in circles. Historically, white people use Indian slaves as solders, police and opium growers. Those Indians brought more destruction to Asia-Pacific than whites do. Many of the English-speaking Indian elites are actually the descendants of those servants for [the] English. They like white people's colonization. Fiji is one of the examples. If Indian people cannot learn from the past, we have no idea that they will do that again. I do not hate white people. Most of the white people treat yellow people as equal in the Pacific states of America. However, I think both yellow and white Americans should speak up against those people who are still dreaming about the good old days either as masters or as servants. Otherwise, the world will move into another circular track.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 29, '04)


ATol always pretends to have a moral high ground by dismissing the mainstream Chinese view of peaceful reunion with Taiwan as the rhetoric of the Communist Party, the campaign toward war, and the menace to human rights, without even bothering to look into China's real peace propose for Taiwan, since (I guess) the translated copies from Taiwan separatists are already very satisfying for ATol. I admit that my claim that "all 1.3 billion Chinese view Taiwan as part of China" is off the mark somehow (maybe only 1.2 billion). Nevertheless, it [is] still much closer to the truth than ATol's self-righteous declaration that most Chinese do not care a whit about Taiwan one way or the other. ATol also claims to have no position for or against de jure Taiwan independence. However, it does raise a few suspicions to know that ATol has meticulously documented China's threat against Taiwan and, [at] the same time, painstakingly tries to hide the provocative actions consistently made by the racist Taiwan government, even these had been already openly acknowledged by the neo-con elements of Bush administration. It will be very interesting to see how ATol referees a fair game when it has its own interest in the game.
Liu X
New York, New York (Oct 29, '04)

It was not a "declaration" - we used the word "likely", a qualifier. That is the whole point: you don't know what some peasant in Hebei province thinks about Taiwan or anything else, and neither do we, or the Chinese Communist Party (if it even cares). We can only surmise from available facts, which would be a lot easier to do with some accuracy if there were freedom of speech (and thought) in China. - ATol


It seems that the Colin Powell quote in J Zhang's letter (Oct 28) has touched on some raw nerves at ATol. Why else would the ATol retort to J Zhang that the "Official US policy on the de jure status of Taiwan ... is not relevant to the de facto status of Taiwan"? Powell's point man for Asia and the Pacific, assistant secretary of state James Kelly, also testified in the US Congress not long ago that the Taiwan independence claim is merely "a political statement". The consistency and importance of such a longtime US foreign policy is utterly obvious and beyond any disputes now. One key problem in Taiwan is that the option for people to have any future reunification with the mainland is being stubbornly pushed off the table by Chen Shui-bian's government. This unilateral attempt to change the status quo is a major cause for alarm and warning by Powell and others from the US. The de-sinification programs currently ongoing in Taiwan are so vastly pervasive and so immeasurably insidious that people who consider themselves to be both Chinese and Taiwanese, a majority only a couple of years ago, are on their way to becoming one of the endangered species. Where is ATol to ensure that their opinions are heard loud and clear? Please do not insult the intelligence of ATol readers again by repeating the oft-used excuse that nobody stood up for their positions. Gee, I wonder why.
Jay Liu
USA (Oct 29, '04)

It's not an excuse - pro-unification Taiwanese are welcome to express their views on Asia Times Online. Few if any have bothered to do so. You can argue that they have not done so because they assume they would not get a fair airing, but that itself is an excuse easily discredited by the widely varying opinions ATol runs on other subjects, and by the fact that writers from the mainland have often appeared on our site supporting Beijing's line on Taiwan, Hong Kong democracy and many other issues. Taiwan, unlike the mainland, allows its citizens to form and express their own opinions, whether or not they toe the Chen Shui-bian line. For an analysis of those opinions, see the new ATol story Taiwan reels from Powell's anti-sovereignty 'goof'. - ATol


Responding to the ATol comment on J Zhang's letter (Oct 25), ATol states "Not [to unite with China] if you believe in the principle of self-determination - for others as well as yourself." This is certainly not the first time ATol raised the issue of self-determination. Yet ATol and the Western mainstream media as well willingly ignore the other equally if not more important issue - sovereignty. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to China; cessation of Taiwan can only be determined by 1.3 billion Chinese people. The so-called de facto independence is not recognized either by the majority of the world community nor by the UN and is only a transitional stage. Either unification or independence will occur in our lifetime. Regardless of the situation in mainland China, the destiny of Taiwan should not be determined by people on Taiwan only. The rule of law and the sovereignty of China require so. My question to ATol is: Why can't a community in the US, say members of Waco Branch Davidians, vote themselves and their compound into independence from the US (for that matter, the native Americans on the reservations, or the Mexicans on a farm they bought in the US)? [Are] they entitled to self-determination as you mentioned above? The one-sidedness of ATol on the Taiwan issue indeed betrays ATol's self-proclaimed objectivity as an alternative news source.
GongShi
USA (Oct 29, '04)

You misread the context of the note under J Zhang's letter (and you also apparently do not understand the difference between "de facto" and "de jure"). The "not" in the note was in reference to Zhang's claim that solving the Taiwan question was "easy". Of course the sovereignty issue is crucially important; our argument is that self-determination is also important, and that until Beijing accepts that fact, the Taiwan question can never be resolved amicably. As to China's position on sovereignty, under the current political system, this is not "determined by 1.3 billion Chinese people" but by the minuscule fraction of those people who have influence in the Chinese Communist Party. - ATol


I agree with Liu X's sentiment in the reply [letter] on October 28. During those years in the school funded by Taiwan, we students were bombarded with patriotic propaganda and vowed to retake mainland China "by force", and Taiwan was then the representative of all 1.3 billion Chinese in the United Nations as well as the Security Council. The majority of the world communities seemed to agree that it is within Taiwan's right to do so. Now it is mainland China that is the representative in the UN, China should have the same right to unite the country - by force if necessary, as Taiwan has always advocated - because both sides have long agreed that they wanted one China. If Taiwan had the military capability during these six decades, it would have invaded and retaken the mainland by now. So it is not up to Taiwan now to change the rules in the middle of this dispute, because that island belongs to China, and whether it is democracy is not the question. I believe it has annoyed "the West" no end that China did not break up [in] the Soviet Union's way and would not let the so-called "expert economists" from "the West" to tell her what to do during her transformation to a market economy; she also refused to allow herself to come under the control of the World Bank and the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. And for the first time in modern history, a substantial number of the world "non-white" population are coming for a much bigger share of the world resources and "the West" does not like it. So it would use any excuse to weaken China. By the way, to those who never let go any opportunities to wag China with the Tiananman Square incident, I would like to ask these questions: Can anybody tell me how come the protesting students in the Square were so well organized? They were well catered for for weeks, they had tents, bedding for the nights and plenty of materials for banners, megaphones, music and big sculpture. They did not seem to lack anything, and we are talking about thousands of people in a huge area. Where did they get all those resources from and who were the financier? We all know that Margaret Thatcher was most unwilling to relinquish the Hong Kong colony. If the protesters could start something chaotic and tear the country apart, whom do you thing would gain from it? I am just asking the question. Perhaps some investigative journalists would be interested in an in-depth probe into this "incident".
Caral
Western Australia (Oct 29, '04)


Time and again, the Chinese propaganda death squad simply misses the point altogether. I refer to the latest ream of missives from our friends J Zhang and Liu X. First J Zhang [letter, Oct 27] gives us an earful about the divine destiny of the Han race and how "Taiwan does not deserve self-determination, because they are not a different people or nation, but part of the Chinese nation". What Zhang and his ilk fail to understand is that what we in Taiwan want is simply the freedom to decide our own destiny, not some rabble-rousing Neitzschean fantasy about the brotherhood of the race. The reason no progress is being made regarding the cross-Strait question is quite simply because Beijing has crushed all discussion of this issue, and paints self-determination as "separatism". Considering the number of times this word is bandied about by Zhang and Liu, one might think they are paid per usage. For Taiwan's part, both the pan-greens and the pan-blues are failing their people, because of their inability (or lack of willingness) to take the domestic political argument beyond the realm of "unification" or "independence" and establish the issue as it truly stands: as a question of morality. Liu illustrates the failings of this clearly when he blasts us with the intellectually infantile "power of numbers" speech so often relied on by Beijing to drill its message home. "Why do you [Asia Times] ignore the opinions of 1.3 billion Chinese who view Taiwan as part of China?" Liu writes [letter, Oct 28]. Well, Liu, I suppose if you believe that superiority of numbers creates the moral justification for one party to impose its will on another, you will have no problem if I and three of my friends gang-rape your sister. After all, if the three of us want to, and only she doesn't, we must be right. So do you mind? Furthermore, let me address Zhang's inspiring closing words: "I do have faith in the integrity and the wisdom of the Beijing government. If that makes me a 'cheerleader' overseas, then I proudly say, so be it." Well that's just great, Zhang. None of us would have guessed that you would be so willing to toss aside your capability of reason so you could toe the party line. For my part, I have to say I would much rather be an individual and think for myself, and be skeptical about any and every government's plans for the world, than be a parrot and put my faith in the all-too-fallible schemings of greedy and intemperate humanity. I pray that reason will prevail in the end, before thousands of the sons and daughters of families on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have to give their lives for the egos of bitter old men and the empty slogans of partisan dreams.
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Oct 29, '04)

In a letter above, though, GongShi makes a good point about the apparently uneven application of the principle of "self-determination". - ATol


I waited with bated breath to hear of the blood-and-guts version of Indian scientists' connivance in the nuclear-arms trade Indian scientists sanctioned for assisting Iran on nukes. Alas, not even a mention. I'm pretty sure the likes of [B] Raman and [Syed Saleem Shahzad] would have been all over this story, had Pakistani scientists been involved. Can ATol please explain? Meanwhile I notice that ATol, in the latest articles written by Raman, has dropped reference to his being the "head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, from 1988 to August 1994". Does your newspaper not think that this information is necessary to understand why Raman has such a putrid hatred towards Pakistan? Raman's background as head of RAW explains the tripe he writes. If you are not willing to remove this obviously conflicted individual from your editorial staff, I would request you at least keep this information in his bio so that your readers take his articles with a pinch of salt.
Kamran Ali (Oct 29, '04)

They do anyway. - ATol


Regarding your submarine facts debate [letters, Oct 28], I believe submerged submarines can be detected by side-scanning radar satellites like Canada's Radarsat (or better military ones), because they produce a wake disturbance which shows up clearly on the satellite image. If the submarines run very deep their wakes probably become undetectable, but I do know the specifics on how deep they have to be to accomplish this. My hunch is submarines remain formidable weapons.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Oct 29, '04)


... I must express my disappointment in the exchange [among] Sri, Kannan and T Kiani [six days away] from our US presidential elections ... As I read T Kiani's letter [Oct 27], he wasn't saying India had belonged to Pakistan, he was saying the word "India" has its roots in the language of the people of Pakistan and not in the language of Hindi or any of the other 32 languages that have been spoken in India. He was not giving a geography lesson. While we are on the subject of history, after my studies of Advaitism in India, I conclude that just as in Christianity, much of the teachings of Hinduism have not been understood by Hindus, but that is a personal opinion just like the personal opinion that no one outside of a given country can know much about any country other than their own ...
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Oct 29, '04)


I simply have to write this letter after reading the articles on submarines by Phar Kim Beng and Eric Koo. The two articles contain too many factual errors. Eric states that submarines are easily detected by radar, but if a submarine is submerged it can only be detected by sonar [Submarines: Obsolete symbols of national pride, Oct 28]. A radar can only detect a surfaced submarine. And contrary to most belief, it is very difficult if not impossible to detect a submarine that has not given away its position by transmitting or firing. The US Navy has over 50 submarines traveling the globe at this moment; detecting and hitting one is like tracking a needle in a haystack. If the submarine is obsolete, the US Navy or Russian, French, British, Chinese, Indian navies won't be spending billions developing next-generation submarines. The latest SSN [ship, submersible, nuclear] of the US Navy, the Virginia class, will become operational [this month]. If everything goes as planned the US Navy will built 30 of these ships. And contrary to the author's belief, modern technology has made the submarine deadlier than surface ships. The Virginia has a unit price in excess of US$2 billion. If one day the submarine becomes obsolete, it is because of the price tag ... Mr Phar's article states, "In addition to its one nuclear-powered submarine, which has been ridden with troubles that confine it to the port, China is building two new U-boats" [The Chinese Dragon submerges, Oct 28]. Nonetheless, in the same article the following was listed: "According to Sid Trevethan, an Alaska-based specialist on the Chinese military, Beijing has deployed 57 submarines, including one Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, five Han-class sub, four Kilo-class subs, seven Songs, 18 Mings, and and 22 Soviet-designed Romeos." This showed that the author did not know that the five Han-class subs are nuclear-powered SSNs. The phrase "U-boat" is also a misnomer nowadays, because a nuclear sub can easily be bigger that a destroyer or even cruiser. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I believe it would be a disservice to your readers by publishing articles on subject matters by authors who only have passing knowledge (in this case totally wrong). Mr Koo and Mr Phar obviously did some research before writing the articles but they are touching on very technical issues here. If you want to know more, a useful link is www.naval-technology.com.
Ray (Oct 28, '04)

"U-boat", which was used colloquially in the article, is an angicized abbreviation of the German Unterseeboot (undersea boat). Although obviously modern subs can be much larger than their World War forebears, the word itself does not imply small size. - ATol


I am a frequent reader of Asia Times Online, and appreciate its high-quality articles very much. That's why I was rather surprised and disappointed to see the article The Chinese Dragon submerges [Oct 28] by Phar Kim Beng to contain some major mistakes, which, if left uncorrected, would give readers misleading information and damage the credibility of Asia Times. First of all, China has more than one nuclear submarine in service. Under the command of Admiral Liu Huaqing, whose achievement in building up China's nuclear submarine forces helped him rising to the vice chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (CMC), China developed two classes of nuclear submarines, the Han and the Xia. The Han was designed to be a nuclear attack submarine, while the Xia was a modified version of the Han capable of launching ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. There have long been disputes over whether one or two Xia submarines were built, but it has been fairly established that PLAN [the People's Liberation Army Navy] operates five Han-class nuclear submarines ... In addition, the notion that "the Taiwan Strait is narrow and relatively shallow because of the continental shelf, making it difficult for submarines to operate and hide" is also highly questionable. While it is certainly true that the Taiwan Strait's shallow water would be difficult for large-scale nuclear subs, the noisy sound background and interference of currents may very well make it an ideal operational environment for quiet conventional submarines, such as the Kilo and the Yuan. For instance, the shallow water means the smaller subs can "sit" on the seabed for days without being detected. This has been repeatedly confirmed in naval exercises conducted by various nations. Finally, Mr [Phar] failed to maintain the proper balance in his article by neglecting to inform the readers that Japan has one of the largest and most advanced submarine fleets in the world, and the Pentagon is in the process of deploying several nuclear submarines at Guam. Thus the scenario of submarines chasing one another in western Pacific Ocean is by no means a slim chance as Mr [Phar] suggested at the end of his article. It is a distinct possibility as China is not the only country expanding its subsurface capability today.
Jun (Oct 28, '04)

You say China has five nuclear submarines that are operational. This could well be true, although Western sources have not nailed down a figure. Even you seem unsure. As for your point that Japan's submarines are far stronger and more numerous, well, that's because they have North Korea to contend with, whereas China is building them to counter Taiwan. And Taiwan only has five submarines, and is still having trouble buying the next eight from the US. - Phar Kim Beng

Both of the above letters did point out some errors in the article and, after consultation with Phar Kim Beng, these have been corrected. - ATol


The Thai government needs to show a higher degree of responsible behavior in containing unrest within Thailand [Protesters' deaths raise fears of attack, Oct 28]. Thailand is now a member of ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and is proud of being a responsible nation. It cannot behave in a manner that the Burmese government and the Chinese government continue to behave [in]. Thailand is a land of beauty and the people are peace-loving people, admired all around the world. Thai Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra rushed to Narathiwat province when the news about the police massacre hit the news. But he congratulated the police force for having acted responsibly and he was seen on TV having snacks and drinks with the police officers in uniform. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra visited the southern region briefly late Monday, where he praised the security forces and vowed tough action against suspected Islamic separatists. The photographs and reports we have received indicate that the Thai police treated the protesters as animals. They tied them up like hogs ready for slaughter. Then at least 78 people were suffocated or crushed to death after being arrested and packed into police trucks. Thailand needs to take action against insurgents, but arresting 1,300 people [and] piling them into six trucks, one on top of the other, is inhuman. No wonder such a large number of people were crushed and suffocated. Thai Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra needs to take responsibility and apologize for this massacre.
Kim Singh
Executive Director
Asian American Public Policy Institute
Los Altos, California (Oct 28, '04)


[Re] Missing explosives add fuel to Iraqi fire [Oct 28]. There are actually two ways only that the scenario as encapsulated by the author can be viewed. One is paralleled to the great bard's Much Ado About Nothing and the other parallels a cartoon series of the Roadrunner and his sidekick, Wile E Coyote. Where at one time the talk was of "shock and awe", the most "wanted Iraqis" deck of cards and assorted other tidbits (whatever happened to the Abu Ghraib episodes?), we are again reminded that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not quite completed yet since there over 340 metric tons of unaccounted-for miscellaneous types of bombs. The bombs, we are told, were properly tagged by the responsible UN agency just before the start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. And that sometime before April 9, 2003, 340 metric tons of bombs "disappeared". Did all those bombs disappear at one time? Or were they moved in several bits and pieces of tons? Is it possible that they could have been sold? And to whom? Given "all those nasties", ie, Iranians, Syrians and assorted others, it's possible they could have just taken them. Could the same be said of the Israelis, the Kurds or even Bin Laden Inc? Could it also be that the UN agency responsible for oversight did not want to inform the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" coalition of the willing that there were 340 metric tons "just lying around"? Could it also be that the head of the responsible UN agency wanted to make the two time-consuming and costly investigative efforts, the first under Dr [David] Kay, look incompetent? One can only conclude by saying "give me a break" or call for the likes of an Hercule Poirot.
ADeL (Oct 28, '04)


When US forces first started bombing Afghanistan in this "war on terror", I studied the maps of Afghanistan and its adjoining countries [How Bush blew it in Tora Bora, Oct 27]. Assuming I was OBL [Osama bin Laden], where would I go if the things got really tough? The answer was plain as day: the Muslim areas of China. The US will not mess [with] or intrude on Chinese territory like they do in the other neighboring countries of Afghanistan. The Chinese will turn a "blind eye" toward harboring OBL as he is a hero in western China, and the Chinese don't want to upset their Muslim-area Uighurs. (They have been beating independence drums from time to time.) If the many think-tank "experts" in the US haven't figured this out by now, OBL could apply for a job as stable hand on George Bush's ranch and get the job.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Oct 28, '04)


"American hegemony today would be infinitely preferable to a contending mob of nuclear-armed states. Premature hostilities and a general mopping-up of the nuclear pretenders is the least horrible alternative" [Ask Spengler, Get it over with quickly, Oct 26]. Now I know this quote is partly just rhetoric, but it still speaks to an unfortunate tendency of Spengler's to simplify and reduce complex questions to sound bites. Firstly, a general mopping up means what exactly? Mass bombing of innocents? Ten H-bombs dropped on Tehran and the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]? Least horrible? Second, imagining an all-out nuclear war with, say, Iran or North Korea is disingenuous. Neither could really launch much of an assault, even if they had bombs. Not to mention that American hegemony won't mean resistance stops. It's this reductive thing again. Mop them up and we have a stable empire. Nonsense. American hegemony is a myth, as we see in Iraq. Cultural hegemony maybe - but US military efforts, despite that $1.7-billion-a-day budget, is quite threadbare and illusory. The US has bases all over the world, and wants to build more - mostly because the US economy needs the business. The Empire likes to bomb small developing countries - those who can't fight back - and thereby use up its weapons and Bradley Vehicles, and hence justify building more. Waste economy at work. Afghanistan is largely back where it started prior to US bombing, and Iraq is in chaos. American Imperialism started with the founding fathers - and has never ceased. Yet to propose, even as a rhetorical flourish, that US hegemony (which doesn't exist) is better than this imagined race by small countries to develop nukes is simply a wrong-headed template for discussion. The US has, by far, the largest stockpile of nukes - something like 1,600 ready-to-fire missiles - and nobody else even comes close. Israel has 200, unmonitored. This new arms race seems a bit of a mirage. I will add that, of course, nobody wants anyone building nukes. The hegemony Spengler refers to mystifies the real issues, I would argue. There is no chance of total hegemony. What we have is a dying empire clutching at a hyper-militarized economy to stay afloat. It hasn't the means nor will to impose itself on the world, and to even (is it irony?) suggest this as a better scenario than a fantasy threat from small, dirt-poor countries is fatuous.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Oct 28, '04)


I commend Sudha Ramachandran for her lucid delineation of the favorable neighborly relationship that is developing between India and Myanmar [Myanmar power play leaves India smiling, Oct 21]. She summarizes, "India's heart might beat for [Aung San] Suu Kyi, but its head has led it to court the generals in Myanmar in recent years. And that appears to have paid off - at least for now." The Indian government deserves all the credit for putting the interests and the security of the nation ahead of its philosophical obsessions in its reactions to the happenings next door. It is to be hoped that it will persist in conjunction with the Myanmar government to develop a long-term strategy to eradicate insurgency in India’s northeast. It is to be hoped as well that the two neighbors will successfully develop joint initiatives to improve trade and commerce between their countries, and also open the land route through Myanmar to the Southeast Asian countries. If this is the beginning of India accepting its rightful place as a regional power, not hesitant to take bold initiatives, then it is a great start and deserves to be celebrated as a wise deviation from the dreamy mindset of the past.
Giri Girishankar (Oct 28, '04)


Re: Letter from Dan Piecora (Oct 26) Parachanar is very rightly called mini-Iran as its original majority population is Shi'ite. Afghan immigrants disturbed the balance but Shi'ites still live as a sizable community in Parachanar. Firebrand slain Shi'ite leader Arif Al-Hussaini also hailed from that area. With this kind of ethnic division it is quite difficult for Osama bin Laden to dwell in Parachanar, and it is not the 1980s when both the US and Pakistan were supporting militants - that's why Gulbadin Hikmatyar had a residence in Parachar near the Pakistani-Afghan border. The reason for keeping residence in that area is it was very well connected with the Afghan province of Paktia. The difficult mountain terrain starts from the areas that are part of Afghanistan, not Pakistan. Unlike Pakistani Parachanar areas, which offer broad valleys and access routes to travelers, the adjacent mountainous belt in Afghanistan provides perfect shelters and sanctuaries to everybody. Mr Hikmatyar used that area to access his command centers in Paktia and Sarobi near Kabul. US intelligence knows that bin Laden is in Paktia, but where exactly - they have no idea and they cannot easily find out.
Syed Saleem Shahzad
ATol Bureau Chief
Karachi, Pakistan (Oct 28, '04)


I've resisted writing many times in the past. I fear, though, that ATimes may soon prove to become unreadable. While most of your writers reply to critics under letters specifically pointed out as "Spengler replies" or "Syed Saleem Shahzad replies", I notice that B Raman is replying much as he was part of the editorial staff (letters, Oct 27). Is that why the Pakistan-bashing seems to be continually rising in pitch? I have yet to see any article on Pakistan that could be even remotely suggesting even that "Hey, they're not all bad." Even S S Shahzad seems to have a weird appreciation and admiration for the tribals in comparison to the GoP [government of Pakistan]. Mr Raman, of course, seems barely able to conceal his delight at the fighting in Wana (yes, I'm sure he'll have a snide reply to that comment). Speaking of Mr Raman, it's interesting that he says that the Shi'as will avenge themselves on [Osama] bin Laden and his cohorts and not a mention of vengeance on [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf. In his (oh so many) papers on the SAAG [South Asia Analysis Group] website, Raman has held Musharraf responsible for massacres of the Shi'as in Gilgit that are apparently now being avenged. While I couldn't find the article where he went into extensive detail on the issue (after all, there are just so many titled Pakistan and terrorism), I did find his paper 484 where he says: "Pervez Musharraf, who was asked by Zia [ul-Haq] to put down this revolt, inducted bin Laden and his tribal hordes into Gilgit and they carried out a large-scale massacre of the Shi'as. Musharraf also encouraged the SSP [Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan] of Punjab to open an office in Gilgit to rally round the Sunnis against the Shi'as." Presumably Musharraf is the next target. Actually, he's probably easier to reach than bin Laden, no? Of course, for Mr Raman, Pakistan is like an amalgamation of SMERSH, SPECTRE and Thrush. Azam Tariq a friend of Musharraf? Egad.
A Khaishgi
Cleveland, Ohio (Oct 28, '04)

The letters you refer to with responses from B Raman were sent to him directly, not to Asia Times Online; Raman forwarded them to us to run in the Letters column, along with his replies. That is why their format was slightly different from the way the responses from some other writers usually (but not always; see the Phar Kim Beng response above) appear. - ATol


T Kiani ([letter] Oct 27), thanks for sharing your version of history. India (or Bharat), even during the Maurya period, was as big as the present state. It stretched from Afghanistan, included your homeland (Pakistan), and extended up to the Deccan. When Mughals were at their peak their empire was almost similar in size to that under the British occupation (apologists of the British rule call it colonial India). India is not the gift of the British. The English, of course, looted every corner of India, thereby uniting the people all over the country. Pre-British empires in India had their moment of glory and then went into the history books. And yes, you may not find it in the doctored Pakistani textbooks. If present day Pakistan is entitled to the legacy of ancient India (which is partly true), why it is not reflected in your textbooks? Why does the story of your nation begin with the advent of Islam and not before? Why do your historians erase anything before the Muslim period? By indoctrinating the students with a jaundiced view of the world, Pakistan is producing more and more volunteers for jihad. Why cannot they understand a simple fact: there is more to the world than just Islam? I don't expect anything better from a nation where it is a capital crime to question the ideology of Pakistan (I do not know why they feel so insecure about their history). Kiani, history is not a sacred faith to be blindly believed. It is a collection of events that happened in the past leaving behind some evidence. A true historian will not be bound by national/religious constraints.
Kannan (Oct 28, '04)


[T] Kiani, as always you seem to have everything backward [letter, Oct 27]. Is that because your comprehension is tuned to the direction you read? [Mohammed Ali] Jinnah fought to split India to secure an exclusive homeland for Islam. India did not split from Pak. It is strange that the owner of a land would break away his own property and allot himself a small corner while giving away the rest of it to the "enemy". Fortunately for Pak, even Jinnah did not make such outlandish claims. In fact, there is scriptural reference in Hindu texts to areas currently under Pakistan. While the Koran is full of "don’t spare the kafirs", I don’t think it contains references to present-day Pak to give some basis to your warped interpretation about India belonging to Pakistan. Don't pop a blood vessel in your eagerness to seize upon the statement that "India" never existed until independence. Maybe as a country in the modern context, no. But as a land of the Hindus, it existed, with its culture and philosophy, extending into today's Pak and beyond, even before your ancestors were pulling the sands of Arabia from their beards. You clearly seem to suffer from a heady cocktail mix of half-baked fact, fiction, imagination, fantasy and wishful thinking. Here are my rejoinders to some of your earlier noteworthy quotes: "Who are the Taliban?" Was that a confused cry for help or Shakespearean rhetoric? Not worth an answer. "What is the Taliban ideology?" Go to rawa.org and you will see what their ideology is. "How any of us is different from them (the Taliban)?" Clearly you need help. You are right - the world is black and white - but not to me, but your interpretation of Islam - believer or kafir. Your response to RR about Islam's generous propensity to erect homages to its belief in alien lands was truly amusing. So Spain had a glorious 400 years under Islam, Muslims treated Jews and Christians with tolerance and attempted to create a land of wisdom. Too bad the ungrateful Spaniards didn't want to continue living a glorious life. I do have some friends from Spain and but somehow they don’t recollect studying about that "golden age" in Spanish history that you refer to. Is that history from your madrassa class? But that still does not explain why there are so many mosques in India or the recital of your prayers while performing unwanted neck surgeries or imitating firecrackers amidst [an] innocent populace. You need to spend more time with your converted sheikh and learn to answer questions, or is it Abu Hamza you are actually listening to? And you compare the Spanish Inquisition [to] "what some Hindus would have mirrored in India today". Now that is an engaging thought. Unfortunately, it was the Muslims who tried that in India and are still trying in Kashmir, to resist which the axes, the swords and the rifles you mentioned were needed.
Sri
New York, USA (Oct 28, '04)


It is very disappointing to see that ATol jumps at every possible chance to attack China and promote Taiwan independence [note under J Zhang letter, Oct 27]. ATol assumes that Taiwan's reunion with China ensures denial of human rights, suppression of free speech and democracy, religious and political persecution (in Taiwan) and more. Then it is very confusing for readers to notice that, after Hong Kong has returned to China for seven years, ATol editors are still spreading Taiwan separatism there and admit that Hong Kong enjoys more freedom than the most parts of Asia. If the protection of these rights is the only concern of Taiwan, do you think Taiwan separatists will agree to reunite with China if the Chinese government gives Taiwan the guarantee that China will never do so? If you are so concern about human rights, why do you ignore the opinions of 1.3 billion Chinese who view Taiwan as part of China? China does have a bad human-rights record. However, if ATol editors bother to take a look at the history of Western industrialization, Western countries had much worse records when they were at the same comparative economic development stage in which China is now. After decades and decades of economic development, Western countries have built such a high living standard that they believe that everybody should enjoy the same, regardless of you make $10,000 a day or just $1. It must be really disheartening for ATol editors to see that people who are making $1 a day probably do not care about the rights you are preaching about, because they are struggling to make a living. While ATol turns a blind eye to the vast human-rights and economic improvements in China over the last three decades, the Chinese people do know that they live far better now and believe in an even better future to come. It is pitiful that ATol editors cannot convince 1.3 billion Chinese people that Taiwan should be independent, because, well, you are too poor.
Liu X
New York, New York (Oct 28, '04)

ATol has no position for or against de jure Taiwan independence. But we do challenge the fantasy promoted by Beijing that Taiwan is not, in every practical sense, already independent, a status it has enjoyed for six decades. We further note that Beijing's approach to the "Taiwan problem" is based primarily on threats rather than diplomacy and negotiation. As for your view that all 1.3 billion mainland Chinese "view Taiwan as part of China", that is pure Xinhua-speak. It is much more likely that, as you hint, most Chinese are primarily concerned about how to support their families and do not care a whit about Taiwan one way or the other, apart from parroting the party line. Furthermore, far from "turning a blind eye" to China's remarkable achievements over recent decades, we report on them frequently and will continue to do so. - ATol


ATol is distorting my letter [Oct 27] and the point I made. [It] says that I say that Taiwan does not [have] the self-determination right, because Beijing says so. I sarcastically say that this is one very good reason, but probably more convincing reasons are the ones listed in my previous letter. Then ATol goes on telling that Taiwan should not go for reunification, because Beijing does not offer good incentives. "One country, two systems" is a very good deal for reunification. Compare that with the Spaniards and French who won't even bother offering anything to the Basques. The result would be a formalized ending of the Chinese civil war and eternal peace, so no hostilities between both sides. Also Taiwan will benefit hugely, because of this stability and unrestricted access to the mainland, just to mention a few incentives. This is what most people want. Taiwan can choose peace; the more it moves towards independence, it's choosing for war. This is basically the choice Taiwan has to make in the upcoming years. [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell has recently said on Hong Kong's Phoenix TV that "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." This has been long-standing US policy throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. It's time Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian recognizes this and that time is running out for him to exploit the current situation by upholding the myth that Taiwan is a "country". If he's a wise leader, he should prepare Taiwan for eventual peaceful reunification. I'm afraid he's doing the opposite and that is leading Taiwan to war.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 28, '04)

If there is war, it will be started by China, not Taiwan. You are probably justified in accusing Taiwan of provocation, a la Saddam Hussein versus Washington: Did Saddam "start" the Iraq war, or did Washington? Official US policy on the de jure status of Taiwan is based on politics and the need to maintain good relations with Beijing. It is not relevant to the de facto status of Taiwan, nor does it prohibit the Taiwanese people from having their own opinions about whether or not they should be part of China. - ATol


Karan Awtani and several other letter writers (Oct 27) express deep animosity towards the United States, believing that America had been hostile toward India during the West's Cold War against communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. Strong leadership on America's part would certainly have sought to make amends with nations harmed during that struggle, but please understand that the Cold War really was a zero-sum game. Either the world would have been lost to a Stalinist nightmare or we would have the opportunity to pursue freedom as we do today. Yes, the United States took questionable action that may have harmed the good people of India, Iran and several other nations and no excuse will seem good enough. America's imperfect response is that the alternative would have harmed India, Iran, their cultures and religions and everyone else to an incalculable magnitude. Of course it appears arrogant to take ownership of the responsibility to stop totalitarianism but, frankly, nobody else was in a position to take the lead in doing so. What is India's solution to defeat global terrorism today? I understand many on this forum do not believe that Iraq or Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden or suicide bombers were or are part of that concern. Perhaps for them the best solution to stop terrorism is to break the will of the American people, outlaw all her businesses and corporations and disarm her military. I am not certain that is in the best interest of India but, because the Cold War was won by the United States, we live in a world where most can freely believe whatever we like. Karan Awtani concludes that America is on a downward spiral to oblivion. Although I dare not argue with immutable laws like inertia or entropy, we seem to be kicking along at a pretty good rate. I believe India is a big part of a better tomorrow for all of us, it is critical that these hard feelings be addressed so we can work together in as positive a light as possible.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Oct 28, '04)


In response to Frank's letters to AToI (Oct 18, 19 and 25): Frank's anti-Indian prejudice seems to continue unabated. Frank in one of his letters tells us, "I just want to point out that it is a natural reaction for human beings to pay attention to the masters only." I guess it is too hard for Frankie boy to let go of his distorted vision of today's India and Indians. Seventy percent of the people of today's India have never even witnessed colonial rule, most couldn't care two hoots about where democracy or English came from, but yet that doesn't prevent him from clinging to his self-comforting theories. Maybe the only way he and people like him can feel secure about China (which they see as the undisputed flag-bearer of all Asia and the only worthy rival to their pet peeve, "the white master") is by putting down the inhabitants of the next-biggest country, India. I guess we Indians are now supposed to choose sides in the yellow-versus-the-white war (the same, now infamous, "with us or without us" paradigm). As far as Indian languages go, Frank's pitiful lack of knowledge is only too visible. Instead of naming the Indian language that he laments is no longer in vogue, he gives a highly evasive reply ("The holy Indian language I am referring to is the one worshipped by billions of Chinese people in the last one thousand years"). Duh!? If he is talking about Sanskrit, well, true, that is a rich classical language. Although still used in Hindu religious ceremonies, it wasn't really a mass language for most of the historical past (during the Buddha's period it was already being seen as an elitist language by the poorer commoners). As far the ancient languages Pali and Pakrit go, although they were more widely used than Sanskrit, they died out way before the British rule (they were already partially dead during the Mughal era). In any case, there are (and thankfully and hopefully so) much more important priorities for India than trying to re-establish a virtually defunct language. I would rather see the government improve public infrastructure than have its propagandists yell day and night about the beauty of India's ancient language/culture. One only hopes that similarly Frank and his pals have better priorities than trying to shame India and Indians by digging up ancient relics of history and contrasting them with the present. In his [Oct 25] letter he points out how India is another Africa in white man's eyes. Clearly, he wants 1 billion Indians to be preoccupied with some rather elusive "white man's" view, and curiously he never tells us the name of the Indian author who he claims said so. I think the real reason behind Frankie boy's periodic anti-Indian outbursts is some kind of overwhelming shame and insecurity. Yes, European colonization of Asia was bad, no doubt - but most of the people that colonized and most of the people that suffered the miseries of colonization are no longer around. Perpetually envisioning the world in terms of "white master" versus the rest is definitely not a healthy mentality for progress. The world has moved on, and so must India and China.
Rakesh (Oct 28, '04)


Other than personal attacks, can our Indian friends [letter writers] offer something better? India and Africa are both [former] colonies. Both of their people regard English as their language. England granted both India and Africa independence after the war. I do not think comparing India with Africa is racism. The Indian government spent millions of dollars to prove Indians' DNA is much closer to their white masters' than other colonial victims', while millions of Indian children are starving. That is racism. On another subject, none of the Indian friends explained why China is making friends with its neighbors had anything to do with India. China and Vietnam settled their land-border disputes in peaceful negotiation. Why cannot India do so?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Oct 28, '04)

Border negotiations between China and India have taken place, with some success. Britain colonized only parts of Africa, not the entire continent. Other colonizers included the French, Portuguese, Germans, Belgians and Arabs. - ATol


This is in response to RR's letter (Oct 25). In my initial response to you, I did not suggest that you're either "with us or against us" (you seem to interpret things in a very black-or-white fashion, don't you?). I just find your insistence on the caveat "non-practicing Muslim" in every letter rather odd, that's all. If you don't fast or pray or don't do whatever (as prescribed by Islam), there are plenty of Muslims out there who don't either (join the club). And you're right, it's between them and their Lord (as it is between you and yours). They, however, don't display the perpetual and vehement animosity towards their creed or co-religionists that you do. You seem to take self-loathing to new heights. And for a person who hasn't read the Koran and claims not to be an "authority" on the religion, you sure make bold and concrete statements in its ridicule. Don't get me wrong, criticism is always a welcome, but not when it always comes laced with not-so-subtle bitterness and unqualified derision. Yes, Islamic history has had its share of atrocities and excesses. So has every other major religion. Some Muslims misinterpret the Koran and act like savages, some Christians misinterpret the Bible and turn genocidal, while some Jews have made the good Lord their personal real-estate broker vis-a-vis Palestine. After all, weren't Hindus chanting "Jai Ram" when they sliced open pregnant women in Gujarat? Why did they do that, RR, pray tell? What is the point you so miserably fail trying to make? Yes, the Taliban did destroy those statues. It was a heinous act, and was soundly condemned by Muslims in public and in private. Perhaps Muslim leadership worldwide should have been more vocal in their combined outcry, but given their paltry and disunited state of affairs, one shouldn't be surprised that this didn't materialize. For over a thousand years prior to the Taliban, those statues remained untouched and unharmed. It's unfortunate that this act of depravity made that millennium irrelevant. And lastly, RR, please don't compliment yourself by calling this a "discussion". I don't think you know the meaning of that word given your propensity for disinformation and absurdity. As for Kannan (letter, Oct 27), I should have expected such a cheap shot from such an avid hatemonger. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.
Omar K
Ottawa, Ontario (Oct 28, '04)


If Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi genuinely wishes to steer Japan on an independent course, he should do so by pulling Japanese troops out of Iraq now - and by doing so save an innocent Japanese youth. Bowing to Uncle Sam - especially when Uncle seems to have grown violently insane - is most definitely not the way to assert Japanese independence, not the way to protect the people of Japan, and not the way to retain international respect.
Zeljko Cipris
USA (Oct 28, '04)


Re How Bush blew it in Tora Bora [Oct 27]: One could say [US President George W] Bush's "war on terrorism" is a laudable concept. Unfortunately, the war has been planned and conducted with inadequate understanding of the terrorists in general and the local cultures of the breeding grounds of terrorism in particular. The war in Iraq has given terrorism a major cause and opportunity to spread. It is clear from the experience of the last three years that Bush and his political advisers have been driven by the following predispositions, among others: 1) A supreme sense of arrogance and overconfidence; 2) anyone who tries to harm Americans and American property must be hunted down and dealt with decisively; 3) an underestimation of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world; 4) Pakistan's military strongman can be manipulated to be an ally in the war on terror; 5) a mindset that Saddam Hussein and his regime must be dismantled. A combination of some or all of these dispositions led the American administration to take its eyes off [Osama] bin Laden and divert its energies against Saddam. The strongman in Pakistan has not been able to deliver the world's No 1 terrorist to his masters.
Giri Girishankar (Oct 27, '04)


Kathleen Ridolfo's Iraq's media in lively election mode [Oct 27] is quite antipodal to Spengler's forum comment in the thread "Why can't the US democratize Iraq?" Ridolfo's optimistic, almost cheery outlook is limited to the appearance in the Iraqi news media of diversity of opinion amongst those allowed to publish. She admits that amongst these the moderate independents are underrepresented. She quotes Ali al-Basri as to why. The Americans tolerate moderate independents almost as little as extremist independents, so the election will be American even though it is held in Iraq. The Americans need a compliant democracy if they are to maintain a military/industrial presence in the future. Kathleen is a voice for Radio Free Europe, based in Washington, DC, and would like us all to believe that the elections will result in a representative government that somehow will cast opposition to the continued US presence in Iraq as criminal and undemocratic. Look what happened to Muqtada al-Sadr and his newspaper. The US reaction to this renegade's political organizing and diversity of opinion was an attempt to destroy him militarily, and this gave him even more influence. At the same time, Spengler points out the human and cultural factors that will make the appearance of any democracy at all unlikely. His one slip-up is in portraying the US as the paradigm of democracy from which others appeared throughout the world. Many newer democracies have more than two parties, and no electoral college, so their democracies are more representative than the US two-party system with its electoral college. If the diversity celebrated by Ridolfo is not smothered by the US occupation forces dedicated to preserving US preeminence in the field of fossil fuels, some sort of real democracy is not as out of the question in the near future as Spengler suggests. In 2000 the US Supreme Court appointed by former president Ronald Reagan and the father of one of the candidates [in the presidential election of that year] rendered the popular vote, as unrepresentative as it is, superfluous, with the outright appointment of the president. President Reagan showed his disregard of the opinion of the American people who elected him when he supported the Contras in their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s. When the American people and Congress, through the Bolen Amendment, tried to prevent the US financing of the Contra terrorists, Reagan's people turned to cocaine trafficking and gun-running to get money. John Kerry brought this to light in investigations which lasted from 1986 to 1989. He is now up against George [Bush] the Younger in a struggle for control of the [US] executive. John Kerry is pro-war, and understands the need for the US military/industrial presence in Iraq. Kathleen Ridolfo is a dreamer if she thinks the appearance of limited diversity in the Iraqi media justifies optimism about Iraqi elections managed by the US.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Oct 27, '04)


The comment by reader Mr Chrysantha [letter, Oct 26] on the article China boosts India's bid for UN council seat (Oct 26) shows the kind of dream world that he lives in. Mr Chrysantha, please understand that India's anti-US feelings are as a result of the roughshod [treatment] that it got from the US in the past. India's anti-US orientation is a reactive correction towards the mindless anti-India policies followed by the US. I need not highlight the innumerable past instances where [the] US had acted inimical to India's long-term interest. The not-so-favorable role played by the US during both the 1965 and 1971 wars [is] deeply etched in the minds of every Indian. Going back even earlier, John Foster Dulles' (former US secretary of state) "If you are not with us you are against us" kind of foreign-policy orientation was not palatable to Indian leaders of that generation. Incidentally, India like China is a civilizational state with a long memory. The earlier generation of Indian leadership was quite conscious of this fact and did not like to be trampled upon to become camp followers of any grouping. This in a way gave momentum to the now defunct NAM [Non-Aligned Movement] concept ... As for terrorism, India is one of its earliest victims, having suffered as a result of the mindless US policies of the late '70s and '80s. The Kashmir insurgency is directly related to mindless policies adopted by the US in collaboration with Pakistan. India has been a victim of terrorism, and still continues to be a victim like the US ... Friendliness towards the US is definitely not a criterion for UN Security [Council] membership. Ideally, other valid criteria such as being democratic, having [a large] population, being a repository of ancient culture and civilization, contribution to world peace and prosperity, economic power, defense strength, imperial record, handling of minorities, continental representation, etc should be used to decide on who gets into the council. The very fact that such criteria do not exist goes to show the intention behind those in power to keep the membership exclusive ...
Kalyan Kumar (Oct 27, '04)


Mr Chrysantha in his letter [Oct 26] has accused India of not supporting the US in its war on Islamic terror, and of generally being anti-US. Well, consider this: the US has never supported India, or any other country, in its struggle against terrorism. The current war on terror is just a political gimmick. It is really a war on American freedoms and voters. Sure, I feel sorry for the 3,000 US citizens that died in the 2001 attacks; but what about the approximately 100,000 Indians that have died in terrorist incidents over the last 20 years? Do the lives of black, brown, and yellow people have no value compared [with] those of white people? Sadly, India can take no action against those engaging in violence against it because these people are your [the United States'] loyal allies, and nobody can mess with the world's sole superpower. Thank you for keeping the world so secure, Mr UN Security Council Member. As for the possibility of India becoming a member of this great undemocratic council, my view is the same as that of B Raman [response to Scott's letter, Oct 26] - if it works out, great, we will get pushed around less; if not, no big deal, we'll continue managing as before.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Oct 27, '04)


In response to Mr Chrysantha's ignorant letter [Oct 26], I have the following things to say. The Indian navy is one of the largest in the world and rather respected, so much so that the US requested the Indian navy to patrol the Straits of Malacca with them after September 11 [2001], so even the mighty US Navy needs our help at times. The Indian navy as it stands today is more than capable of fighting off any threat in the Indian Ocean, excluding the full force of the US Navy. Same with our air force - a comparison of quality and quantity show its real strength. Even in the recent Cope India air force exercises conducted jointly by the IAF [Indian Air Force] and the USAF [United States Air Force] at Gwailor [air force base in India], the IAF pilots actually defeated the USAF. Judging one's strength by bombing "great powers" like Iraq and the Taliban can be self-defeating - do not start believing your own propaganda. The reason India does not want to support the US on its war on terror in the Middle East is because there is no war on terror in the Middle East. Iraq wasn't a country where the IIF [International Islamic Front] was actively involved; Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were, but as we all know these are your [US] "allies". Well, with friends like this, who needs the Soviets to fight? The difference between India and the US is that we know our history [while] you prefer to ignore history. We have been fighting radical Islam for hundreds of years. My family is from Sindh and first faced Arab invaders in the 8th century. For over a millennium we resisted conversion and kept our culture alive. Do not tell us how to face this threat, we know how to deal with them very well. With an attitude like yours my theory on American power is the following: You are like a star that is about to go supernova. Just before its explosion, a nova star is at its most magnificent and largest in terms of size. And then everything goes horribly wrong really, really fast. Do yourself and humanity a favor: switch off Fox News and and go read a real history book. As for the UN, if it doesn't adapt to the new millennium, then it will find itself becoming like the League of Nations, no doubt eventually leading to another great conflict. This is inevitable. The Greek thinker Thucydides figured out the cycle of rise and fall of powers thousands of years ago during the Peloponnesian war when democratic Athens did lose even with its magnificent navy. My ancestors knew it too, thus the swastika (yes, go read a history book and learn what it really means) itself represents the inevitable circle of history. Just [as] it is inevitable that the sun will rise, it is inevitable that it must sink as well. Hubris and pride are the first sign of decline. When you are [at] the top there is only one way left to go. India and Indians have never been against friendship or alliances, but we will no longer be exploited to carry the white man's burden in Iraq or anywhere. This is one outsourcing order that we will reject. Enjoy your war, sir.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Oct 27, '04)


Brother Frank, I guess I agree with you [letter, Oct 26]. But just like India, China also problems with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam ... I guess the day China will have peaceful relations will these, India will buy peace with China and Pakistan too. By the way, our ancestors (Indian's ancestors) were African, so we are Africans (well, economically too). And I guess unlike your Anglo name "Frank", my name is still Nitin. So at least something we have preserved in White India (and I thought [the] Chinese obsession with white color [was] why they didn't like dark-skinned Indians or anyone else - that's from my very own first-hand experience in China). And by the way, China is a rising star, so it will be really unfair to compare it [to] India. And for Chrysantha [letter, Oct 26], I think you are too harsh on India. Just think, in the 1960s China was just like today's India but it still became a permanent member [of the United Nations Security Council]. And trust me, with this awesome military the USA cannot dare attack India, so at least we Indians don't have to worry like Iraq or Iran. And why [are] you so pissed that India was not with the "bloodsucker" USA? After all India, was a socialist country, so how [could] it even dream of saying Yes to any dimwitted dream of the United States of America? And a few things are quite true: unlike Japan, the USA cannot make India do things (how surprising it is, knowing that Japan is so [far] ahead of India in every sphere). Sometimes what you need more than any military power is "ass power" (as we say in India), and you cannot buy that (though China now has more ass power than India and it's serving the USA very well - at least something good from China).
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Oct 27, '04)


The response from our resident Xinhua censor (Frank, letter [Oct 26]) took me by surprise since he professes to be quoting me ("India is just another Africa in most white people's view"). For one, [letter writers] Aruni Mukherjee and Kannan were questioning why there are a few million illegal economic migrants from Bangladesh to India (but not to the other way around or to China). That is a legitimate question. Along with the links of Bangladeshi agencies with al-Qaeda, Pakistani intelligence and organized crime, any responsible Indian government agency would be wise to do a background check before granting a Bangladeshi a visa. If Frank would like to show a better way, perhaps he should be debating with some facts regarding the treatment of Tibetan or Korean refugees in China. Furthermore, can you expand on what you mean by "another Africa"? This prejudicial mindset suggests you are assuming Africa is a land to loot and plunder, [or] explore for oil, to benefit the great Chinese empire. I looked for the word that would describe this behavior on Google, and that word is "racist". Now that the last colonial outpost in Africa has been dismantled, the world has a new wanna-be colonial master. That imitator is called [the] Chinese. Frank, Congratulations!
AP (Oct 27, '04)


[The Oct 26] Letters section in ATol saw some strange and absurdly bizarre claims and comments by many Indian readers in response to Habibul Haque Khondker's article China through a Bangladeshi's eyes [Oct 23]. Most were trying to prove India's moral high ground by statements like "if India is corrupt then China is more corrupt", and "if Indians are nationalists than the Bengalis are more so", etc. The list was very long with statements like "China has major border issues with almost all of its neighbors" (amusing coming from an Indian, of all people), words, history and facts were twisted at will, but one interesting comment that really took the biscuit was made by Aruni Mukherjee: "India has never invaded another country in its long history of 5,000 years". What 5,000 years? Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, Aruni, but India's history as a unit only goes back to the time of the British Raj, if even that. Before that, there was no India and no question of invading anyone. The land that is now India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan was divided and ruled amongst lots of different people at different times. "India" was a name given to the South Asian people by their white colonial masters, which the people of India decided to stick to as their own. Try reading Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History and see what he has to say on the matter. If ATol [will] permit me, I would like to post an extract from an article by John Keays called "'Ancient India' was Pakistan region, not present-day India!" as a taster, and I can put the whole thing on the message board for everyone to read (if I ever get around to signing on to it):

Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as "India" but as "Bharat". The word derives from Bharata-varsha, "the land of the Bharatas", these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism. In the first flush of independence "Bharat" would seem preferable, because the word "India" was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an "India consciousness" were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called "India" is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any [of] South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically "India" belonged anywhere, it was not to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.

T Kiani
London, England (Oct 27, '04)


[Dennis] Castle writes [letter, Oct 26]: "U Thant [letter, Oct 25] contends there is a connection between United Nations corruption in the Oil for Food Program and UN reluctance, for example, to administer serious consequences in accordance [with] its own unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1441." I asked you about the "specific language", to which you alluded, in that resolution, but you've so far "overlooked" the question - I assume because on second look you witnessed your literal reading of a vague and inconclusive phrase crumble into the vague and inconclusive. But here you offer richer territory for exploration; I knew it wouldn't be long until the "faith-based" muck-and-mire mindset would reveal its underlying conspiratorial paranoia, and malice. (I envision you imitating a well-known world "leader", looking under your desk for WMD [weapons of mass destruction], and in your closet for "terrorists".) Absent evidence that two facts relate to a third element - in this instance the UN - does not mean the two facts are related to each other. As for the first - corruption in the Oil for Food program - there have been news reports about that corruption, and the involvement in it of US corporations, including some in the oil "bidness". It shouldn't surprise, of course, that US corporations would make illegal deals with Saddam Hussein; all things considered, they would be emulating the business model established by the Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis in its dealings with Hussein (you've doubtless by now seen the film or photos of [Donald] Rumsfeld delivering the goods and smilingly shaking hands with Hussein; if not, you can see them in Fahrenheit 9/11). The same business model [was] emulated also by Halliburton under CEO Dick Cheney - opponent of the sanctions on Iraq - as he rebuilt Iraq's oil infrastructure, via offshore shell corporations in order to get around the legal prohibitions against doing so, after Gulf War I and before he arranged Gulf War II and the rebuilding of Iraq's oil infrastructure, once again by Halliburton. Without being conspiratorial, it can be reasonably suspected that among the US oil corporations with corrupt hands in the contemporaneous Oil for Food program was Halliburton, under CEO Dick Cheney. None of which has anything to do with the UN, or with the Bush-Cheney lies about Iraq having WMD.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 27, '04)


First of all, I'd like to respond to Carl Hershberger [letter, Oct 25], who says that "the Beijing government has a long track record, and I'm talking thousands of years here, of doing immoral and unwise acts". It strikes me often that these foreign apologists of Taiwan separatists know little about China's history. The Communist Party came to power in 1949. Beijing was made capital of China in 1153 during the Jin Dynasty. Clearly Hershberger needs to do more research, instead of parroting Taiwan separatists' lines. China's emperors may have done a lot of immoral and unwise acts, but they did moral and wise acts as well. A coin has two sides. Secondly, again the letters editor of Asia Times Online disappoints me very much. We know that ATol is not neutral, but biased in favor of anti-China Taiwan forces. I got some hints when I saw staff reporters of the separatist Taipei Times reporting for ATol, but ATol's comments on my letters tell everything. Taiwan does not deserve self-determination, because they are not a different people or nation, but part of the Chinese nation. Even for practical reasons, it can't get it. Remember Chechnya, Kurdistan, Corsica, Northern Ireland, the native Americans or the aboriginals in Australia. Clearly they have more right for self-determination than Taiwan. Besides, its destiny has already been decided. The question is not if, but when Taiwan really joins China again. I also forgive him for spelling "cheerleader" wrong, but I don't forgive him for calling me a "cheerleader" in his response to my letter [of Oct 25]. I won't be intimidated by such labels, because there is nothing wrong with advocating a better China and dispelling slanderous prejudices against this country. I do have faith in the integrity and the wisdom of the Beijing government. If that makes me a "cheerleader" overseas, then I proudly say, so be it.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Oct 27, '04)

Thanks for pointing out the typo, which has been fixed (we fix quite a few of yours, by the way - no need to send money). As for your argument, it is tautological: Taiwanese do not "deserve" self-determination because (Beijing says) they do not deserve it. Yet they have enjoyed de facto independence for more than half a century, and Beijing continues to offer them no incentive to "rejoin" the mainland fold - unless of course they self-determine that "a better China" entails denial of human rights, suppression of free speech and democracy, religious and political persecution, deterioration of the environment, uncontrolled economic growth that threatens energy security, and a growing disparity between rich and poor. - ATol


This is in response to T Kiani's reply to Carl Hershberger [letter, Oct 15]. Prior to September 11 [2001] there is no record of the USA or any Western country materially supporting the Northern Alliance in an active manner. The Northern Alliance got help primarily from Iran, Russia and India. To the degree the Northern Alliance got any political and moral support from the West, it was the ideology, the stupidity and the barbarism of the Taliban and their Pakistani backers. Keep in mind [that] countries like France, Germany [and] Russia which opposed the Iraq invasion never opposed US military strikes in Afghanistan. In fact you have German and French peacekeepers under the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] umbrella in Kabul. Just as the Northern Alliance was a motley collection of ex-communist, Shi'ite, Tajik and Uzbek militias, the Taliban is a motley collection of Pashtun militias controlled by Pakistani generals. The Taliban ban on photograph