|
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.
December 2004
Pepe Escobar [First
we vote, then we kick you out, Dec 24] suggested that Iraqi nationalism
might act to discharge any Shi'ite confessionalism, and that this hinted at a
better strategy for the Sunnis to achieve the expulsion of the occupation
forces, a strategy which favored political involvement rather than armed
struggle. This is naive. The US is not there to spread democracy, but instead
to establish a military presence to guarantee its corporate backers a cheap
energy supply. It doesn't matter who wins or takes part in the election. The US
will not leave. Even [Prime Minister] Tony Blair intends the British occupiers
to remain at least another decade, at least until the oil supplies start to run
out. The Russians and Chinese know this, and are starting to train together to
counter this US presence in the region. All three have or will use the
presumptuous war on Islamic terrorism to intervene militarily in the region.
The US already has permanent military bases near the Caspian that were not part
of the war on terrorism in any way. The only way to get the Americans out is to
make it so unpleasant and costly, as Osama bin Laden points out, that imminent
economic collapse and an upswelling at burgeoning casualty figures stays the
hands of the neo-cons by removing them from power. There will be no power
vacuum. Enlightened influences in Iran will see to a peaceful development of
trade in energy in the Middle East, not dominated by any single power, and not
inimical to any confessionalist sect. Dream on.
Gregorio Kelly (Dec 24, '04)
In his professionally [presented] article
Nepal jittery over king's India visit [Dec 23], Dhruba Adhikary has
touched upon a number of highly sensitive issues that Nepali people have always
been tormented with over the years, as far as Nepal's relations with India is
concerned. There is no doubt that King Gyanendra's visit to India (the third,
to be exact, after his accession to the throne after the royal massacre) is
taking place at a time when the nation is virtually standing at a political
crossroads. The Maoist insurgency is taking a heavy toll on security forces and
civilians by every passing day and the the rebels' unrelenting onslaughts on
the establishment, schools, hospitals, food-transporting vehicles, basic
infrastructure, journalists, teachers and so on, have further diminished the
hopes for [peace], at least in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding the
postponement of King Gyanendra's visit to the nuclear southern neighbor due to
the demise of P V Narasingha Rao, a former prime minister of that country and a
mentor of the current prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh, Nepal's relations with
India are unquestionably entering a crucial phase and the leaders of the
country have no choice than to undergo a litmus test of their professed flair
of nationalism. The king appears to be rescheduling the visit at the earliest
possible date. As far as the apprehensions highlighted by Mr Adhikary in his
write-up, they seem to be based more on journalistic tantrums than the ground
realities that the monarch cannot ignore altogether. King Gyanendra is
constitutional monarch as per the constitution that is partially operative: he
does not enjoy any latitude to make any momentous decisions during his goodwill
visit that would have far-reaching consequences, and the Indian leadership is
quite mature [enough] to take note of it. Mr Adhikary [would] have done more
justice to his article if he had made some attempts to dissect Nepali politics
that have been polluted by corrupt politicians ...
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Dec 24, '04)
As much as I admire Spengler's articles, I cannot fail to see an apparent
contradiction in his article
Santa Clausewitz, a minor Chinese god [Dec 21]. In the last paragraph,
he writes, "Europe has less to fear from Chinese competition than from the
shrinkage of its own labor force, however. The biggest losers will be countries
with young and growing populations that need light manufactures to absorb
migrants from the countryside but cannot compete with Chinese efficiency." So,
low population growth is bad for Europe, but countries with growing populations
will do badly, too. Is population growth good or bad? I suppose his answer
would be that the ideal situation would be moderate population growth, but
since Spengler often stresses how bad the future looks for the West because of
its low demography, it seems strange that he also chastises countries with
growing populations.
Andres
Buenos Aires, Argentina (Dec 24, '04)
Juchechosunmanse (letter, Dec 23) is an unwitting victim and tool of Beijing's
propaganda concerning Taiwan when he/she wrote, "Chiang Kai-shek was not
'foreign' because Taiwan was returned to China (then represented by the
Republic of China) after the surrender of the Japanese." Jushechosunmanse's
statement is completely false. Japan surrendered in 1945 unconditionally (ie,
not returning Taiwan to anywhere). In 1950 Japan entered into the San Francisco
Peace Treaty in which Japan gave up claims to Taiwan, but Japan did not purport
to "return" Taiwan to China in that treaty. And in 1952, Japan entered into a
peace treaty with the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's
Republic of China (China), but that treaty does not purport to "return" Taiwan
anywhere either. So there is absolutely no historical support for the specious
claim that Taiwan was somehow "returned" to China. Sovereignty of Taiwan fell
to the Taiwanese people, where it still lies today. Chiang Kai-shek was a
foreign dictator because he entered Taiwan from China with permission or
consent of the Taiwanese people. And for Gunther (letter, Dec 23), I have a
question: What do you mean?
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 24, '04)
Let me guess, Cyrus [letter, Dec 23] is another white person who has strong
opinions about yellow people. Seems like it does not really matter where they
live. If Cyrus can tell those great achievements of yellow people are actually
done under the guidance of white men, you should already know the answers of
your questions. About reparations I mentioned: May I suggest an easy form of
reparations from white people which will be highly appreciated from those
yellow folks? Leave them alone!!! If you think whites or Caucasians can build
better cities, then leave yellow people alone. Stop giving them guidance for a
few years; yellow people will show you what they can do to their cities by
themselves. Is that fair?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 24, '04)
Re [Dec 23] responses to my letter of December 22: [Nitin] Shekhar, there's not
really any argument about Pakistan's support for the Taliban. I would, of
course, argue against that support being out of either the pan-Islamic empire
theory (given that Pakistan itself does not "enjoy" Taliban-style rules) or out
of a pure desire to be evil. Given the choice between an odious government that
is nonetheless not overtly anti-Pakistan (ie the Taliban) and an odious
government that is very much anti-Pakistan (the later-to-be-called Northern
Alliance, under whose rule lawlessness, murder and rapine was pretty much the
order of the day), there's only one choice that would make any sense.
Similarly, supporting Osama bin Laden at one point makes sense, but it's
unlikely that Pakistan would have encouraged him to launch the 2001 terror
attacks on the US, or indeed any attacks on US interests. It is odd, though,
that Indian history books should not have more information/discussion on
Pakistan, given the deeply intertwined history of the two countries. While
perhaps somewhat healthier than the paranoiac anti-Indianism in most (not all)
Pakistani textbooks, it again doesn't seem completely sensible - and,
interestingly, the new revisions to Pakistani textbooks seem to be trying to
adopt a similar viewpoint of not talking about India, even when discussing
Pakistan's wars. Also interestingly, the absence of discourse on Pakistan from
Indian textbooks has in no way reduced the fulminant anti-Pakistani bent of the
average Indian, which is more than comparable to the anti-Indian bent of the
average Pakistani. Except, of course, when we actually visit each other's
countries. Weird. [Amit] Sharma, I'd refer you to [Richard] Sisson's and [Leo]
Rose's War and Secession, rather than argue the myths and truths,
hyperbole or otherwise, of 1971. Flame wars are all too easy on the 'Net.
Assad K
Cleveland, Ohio (Dec 24, '04)
Full marks, Beth (letter, Dec 23), you figured it out. Contrary to public
opinion, you must destroy the village before you save it. Otherwise the
sleeping donkeys will never leave their stalls. Look at history, such as great
depression. Labor suppression turned into labor rights and now into labor
suppression. Life is a circle, a continuing war between Yin and Yang, never a
middle ground. You must see evil before you recognize good. One cannot exist
without the other. Donkeys must continuously experience the carrot and the
stick until they are docile. It is sad that millions must die before Americans
figure what the rest of the world already knows, but that is the nature of the
donkey. [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [President George W] Bush
must continue their destructive policies until they are totally discredited.
Any middle ground will yield half-measures and the seed of neo-con policies
like Nazism will sprout again. You will probably ask for solutions, so the only
one I can think of is mass forced migration of all Americans to the rest of the
world to experience what the rest of the world experiences.
Ernie Lynch (Dec 24, '04)
As most of the Christian world prepares to celebrate, an anxious appeal for
peace was issued [on December 22] by eight church-based organizations in the
oft-forgotten land of West Papua. The churches, along with 27 traditional
tribal councils, human-rights institutions and other organizations, are making
a Christmas plea for international attention and support. Without this, they
predict an imminent repeat of East Timor-style massacres in West Papua,
masterminded by the same individual. In May 2004, Franciscans International
urged the UN to put pressure on Indonesia to disband terrorist-run,
government-supported paramilitary groups, stating, "The presence in Papua of
Eurico Guterres, one of the architects involved in organizing terror wrought by
militias in East Timor in 1999, is a cause for grave concern." Mr Guterres,
indicted by an Indonesian court for crimes against humanity, has remained free
while he appeals his jail sentence. Recent reports from coastal towns in West
Papua indicate that shipments of guns are arriving and being distributed to
local militia recruited and organized by Mr Guterres. His organizing activities
in West Papua have been well known for more than a year. [The December 22]
appeal also stated that an additional 25,000 Indonesian troops have arrived in
West Papua since 2000. Also, more than a million Indonesian migrants have been
relocated there, and will soon outnumber the 1.5 million native Papuans. It is
a recipe for disaster for Papuans, who are a loosely organized set of highly
diverse tribal cultures. (West Papua contains 15% of the world's known
languages.) An escalating military operation in the highlands has displaced
more than 6,000 indigenous Papuans over the past few months. These people are
prevented from returning to their sources of food and medicine, and
humanitarian organizations are not allowed access to the area. It is a slow but
steady genocide. The region has virtually been under siege for 40 years, but
governments of developed nations have just recently started to acknowledge
this. Although smaller nations and members of parliaments worldwide have
denounced Indonesia's forced integration of its easternmost "province", on
December 20 the British House of Lords was the first to openly admit that
Papuans were forced into Indonesia against their will. Earlier this month, the
US government extended their human rights-based decision to withhold military
assistance. Efforts over the past few years to establish a "zone of peace" have
failed and the Christmas appeal calls the situation a "time bomb waiting to go
off". Protests have become larger, more frequent, and more violent as Papuans
are pushed to the brink. Sadly, the church groups and their allies are sounding
the trumpet in a world deafened by explosions in the Middle East. They have
tried to warn us before, yet the situation has only deteriorated as a result of
global neglect. It often takes an extreme situation for the Church to speak
out, let alone band together with other denominations. This is a desperate
appeal from desperate people. They cling to the hope that international
pressure will result in a reversal of direction imposed by Indonesia's new
president, [Susilo Bambang] Yudhoyono, who plans to visit December 26. The man
who sang John Lennon's "Imagine" after winning the election three months ago
has expressed his intent to rein in the military. Papuans are hoping he will
take this opportunity to demonstrate a true commitment. As unlikely as many
believe that may be, it is their only hope to see Yuletide peace, and
ultimately to avert a grand-scale disaster.
Tom Benedetti
WestPAN (West Papua Action Network)
Canada (Dec 24, '04)
I find most of the articles written by Ioannis Gatsiounis very biased and
without total understanding of the Malaysians, especially the Muslims in
Malaysia as a whole [No
invite for Jesus to Malaysian Christmas, Dec 23]. His articles about
the poor tolerance of the Malaysians (Muslims) towards other religions are
especially erroneous. And even though he is currently residing in Malaysia, I
don't think that he has actually mingled with Malaysians outside of the urban
area of Kuala Lumpur. His slant of looking at the Malaysian government as being
unfair to other religions other than Islam is very simplistic. Where in the
world (let's take the USA) can little praying temples sprout just about
anywhere except in Malaysia? Certainly not in the USA! However, in Malaysia,
you can find them at construction sites, close to public buildings, under trees
on public land, even in parks. And let's look at the festivities - on radios
and TVs you hear Christmas songs, Christmas shows and offers all the time and
in malls, grand decorations such as huge Christmas trees and lights are being
displayed. In fact I can state for a fact that two years ago in Kuala Lumpur,
when Christmas was celebrated with the Eid celebration (after a month of
fasting by the Muslims), it was almost as grand with Christmas trees and lights
almost overshadowing the Eid festivities and displays. This is despite the fact
that an only a small part of the population (15-20% at the most) is Christian.
If this is not tolerance to the different religions practiced by Malaysians,
please correct me. Furthermore, to state that a slim majority of Malaysians are
Muslim is misleading. Having more than 60% of the population being Muslims is
not a slim majority. Personally, it is indeed a great "to do about nothing"
when writers like him write on issues about Jesus not being invoked during
official ceremony. Jesus has always been revered by the Muslims as one of our
prophets and "Jehovah" is just another name for Allah. The fact that Allah is
invoked during official government ceremonies just reflects that Islam is the
official religion of Malaysia but does not preclude the practice of other
religions. It is disheartening that Ioannis Gatsiounis, who is living in
Malaysia, does not take the time to look at the other side of the coin on this
issue of "religious intolerance in Malaysia".
S Ismail
Malaysia (Dec 23, '04)
[Assad K (letter, Dec 22):] What Amit Sharma has stated [letter, Dec 21] is his
personal view. It's certainly not in history books of India and neither is the
name of Pakistan (1971 is too late, in Indian history Pakistan is not even
mentioned after 1947). I studied history till 10th standard and I don't
remember use of the word "Pakistan" even once. So be assured Indian history is
quite clean (though imperfect) towards Pakistan and Muslims ... Amit Sharma is
accusing the USA because the USA was favoring Pakistan (like the USSR on the
Indian side). But if Osama bin Laden is actually alive either he is in the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border area or in Pakistan (if you don't believe the
gossip of him being in the USA itself). And it's not a wrong assumption that
the Taliban got patronage from ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] and
so does Osama bin Laden. And to Shahab [Mushtaq, letter, Dec 22], trust me,
India still has to arm Nepal (the only Hindu country in the world) with [a]
nuclear weapon. There is no justification for Pakistan supplying nuclear
weapons to North Korea much to the chagrin of the USA just because India pushed
Pakistan for development of nukes. Why not start supplying them to Cuba because
of India? Nukes are not some sweets Pakistan is supplying to everyone because
it's not a signatory of NPT [the Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Some logic - and
please, India still doesn't spend that much on [its] military (the total budget
is not enough to even built a single highway ...). So please don't buy the crap
your administration supplies to you. Make a visit to India and learn it
first-hand.
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Dec 23, '04)
In reply to Assad K (letter, Dec 22): Dismissing any reasoning unpalatable to
oneself as the hyperbole of someone with vested interests is an old trick. The
fact that the US Navy actively protected Pakistani ships carrying troops for
the genocide in Bangladesh (1971) is quite well known - just visit any
Bangladeshi website dedicated to the memory of those who died at the hands of
the Pakistani army. It is not some hyperbole or allegedly biased history
preached in Indian schoolbooks. You know what really is hyperbole? Contending
that B Raman finds the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agencies behind the
ozone hole. A basic Google search using combinations of the keywords
"Bangladesh, genocide, 1971, Pakistan, Kissinger, Nixon, etc" will turn up
plenty of articles that you can happily dismiss as Indian propaganda. In fact a
while back there was a movement among liberals in the US who wanted to bring
Henry Kissinger to trial for war crimes. Among the many atrocities he was held
responsible for aiding/masterminding were the aid given to Pakistan while it
was conducting a genocide in Bangladesh, and the 1975 military coup that
derailed Bangladeshi democracy. Of course Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize,
so that says a lot about the world we live in.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 23, '04)
Daniel McCarthy wrote [letter, Dec 22]: "Taiwan would already have [United
Nations membership] if it had not been run by foreign dictator Chiang
[Kai-shek]." May I remind him that first, Chiang Kai-shek was not "foreign"
because Taiwan was returned to China (then represented by the Republic of
China) after the surrender of the Japanese (by what standard does he consider
Chiang Kai-shek "foreign"?); secondly, Chiang was a dictator supported by the
United States. Hmmm, one would wonder why the US supported a dictatorship ...
As to letter writer Jakob Cambria [Dec 22], who referred to China as "a country
which has very little respect for international law", may I suggest that it was
not China who campaigned hard against the recently [founded] International
Criminal Court (not only did it snub it, the US signed treaties with more than
20 nations giving its citizens immunity from the ICC); it was not China who
balked at the Kyoto Protocol; it was not China who invaded a sovereign state,
Iraq (who knows how many international laws the US broke by invading Iraq),
despite strong opposition from the UN and the international community, and it
is not China who is planning to invade another sovereign state, Iran. Do I need
to go on?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Dec 23, '04)
I assume Daniel McCarthy and Jakob Cambria [letters, Dec 22] are enthusiastic
Bush supporters. It is no surprise then that they are frothing at the mouth
waiting for the green light to bravely turn on CNN and watch evildoers be done
away with. I'm afraid their macho attitude, although quite good for political
campaigns, has no hope of confronting the subtle intricacies of the Taiwan
issue. The mainland [China] and Taiwan must deal with each other openly and
reasonably. This indeed would be the nightmare scenario for American
warmongers, whose thirst for conquest and carnage is still unsated by their
adventures in the Muslim world. I see only two positions on Taiwan, supporting
the status quo or wishing for a dramatic climax to shatter it. Taiwan
separatists and mainland hotheads both can't tolerate the status quo, and they
do have a quite vocal American cheering section. The majority of people in
power on both sides seem to have much more balanced views and are willing to
live with the status quo, despite the loss of exciting CNN coverage of a brutal
civil war, which, let's face it, would have been tremendously entertaining, and
which would have made the whole thing worth it (at least for those reclining
comfortably in their couches in the US). But I do appreciate how much people
like McCarthy and Cambria love their country. That they are willing to make
America hated in the Muslim world, in China, in Europe and almost everywhere
else, and leave this legacy to future generations is quite touching. I just
have one question for them. Do you ever regret that you're too old to fight in
all these wars your hate is sparking, or are you just happy having the luxury
of gambling with lives not your own? I would also like to note that Sohrab
[letter, Dec 22] missed one small point in concluding that the US had not been
aggressive towards Iran in the wake of the 1979 revolution. There was that tiny
bit about supporting and arming Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran. And we all
know what a bloody, evil tyrant Saddam was. How can you blame Iran for taking
so much offense at being bitten by that mad dog, when the US was holding the
leash? Moreover, the revolution was aimed against the brutality, torture and
oppressiveness of the US-installed Pahlavi regime, which may explain the latent
anti-American feeling which was exploited by radical Islamists to take over the
revolution.
G Travan
California, USA (Dec 23, '04)
Jakob Cambria's and Daniel McCarthy's anger towards China's anti-secessionist
initiative reveals the true "moral values" of imperialist America and its
cheerleaders. Both of these Americans react with not-so-concealed outrage that
China has the nerve to pass legislation supporting national integrity.
Apparently, this is a crime in the eyes of a global American empire that has
its meddling interests everywhere. What will China do next? Kick out American
corporations? Pass legislation opposing America's criminal war against Iraq?
LOL. Cambria even claims that this new law is a "warning" to various minorities
in China and reinforces "great Han chauvinism". Hypocrisy also is an
all-American value, as this comment comes from an American whose nation is
based upon a thinly disguised form of white supremacy and the occupation of
native and Mexican lands. Emulating the British and their conniving "divide and
conquer" tactics, Americans like Cambria predictably seek to promote ethnic
disharmony in "disobedient" Third World nations like China - justified by a
piously insincere concern for minority rights. I doubt if Cambria is so
sympathetic to minorities in the USA, like La Raza radicals or Black
Nationalist activists. Most twisted of all are Cambria's and McCarthy's remarks
about China's "imperial pretensions". Last time I checked, it is their American
hyperpower that has committed aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Yugoslavia in the past five years alone - slaughtering [hundreds of thousands]
of people and rationalized by lies that even Pentagon mouthpieces probably
don't believe. This is not to mention the fact that the USA has military
outposts in hundreds of nations around the world (including in Asia) and has a
Bush Doctrine legitimizing American aggression, or "preemption" to use US
Newspeak. Ultimately, Cambria and McCarthy are suffering from a classic
American pathology in which they project America's own imperialist nature on to
its (Third World) opponents. Today America's objects of hate are China and
Islam. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Guaranteed. In the 1980s and early
1990s, it was Japan that the USA demonized as the "Yellow Peril". Now Japan is
touted as America's helpful regional enforcer, with its remilitarization and
"Self-Defense Forces" (sic) occupying Iraq. It was also during the 1980s that
America proclaimed the Afghan jihadists and Mr Osama bin Laden as great freedom
fighters. A decade later, these generous freedom fighters would share some of
this US freedom on [September 11, 2001] with the Twin Towers and Pentagon
attacks. And try as they might, Cambria and McCarthy cannot whitewash away this
tradition of bloody wars and crimes committed by their self-styled "Land of the
Free".
A Quan (Dec 23, '04)
There are many occasions at ATol, white people expressed their desired of
seeing an independent war in East Asia. I had always pointed them out before.
If you want example, check your records. I have no problem with Jakob Cambria
or Daniel McCarthy [letters, Dec 22] expressing their feelings about East Asia.
However, based on their attitude towards Asia, I bet both of them are white.
Shouldn't East Asians' opinions be more important to the life and death of
their loved ones? Instead of repetitively publishing the same opinions from
white people about Asia, your Asian readers would like to read more articles
from Asian writers. I hope your agreement with me on that issue is sincere. We
had enough white men's hypocrisy.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 23, '04)
Wow Frank, someone has put a bug up your backside. Please let everyone know a
few things about yourself. Where are you from? How old are you? Are you an
immigrant in the USA? Or if not, were you born there? If you where born outside
China, have you ever been to China/Taiwan? Do you speak Chinese? Ni shi bu shi
laowai? "Chinese people are no longer living under the guidance of
white men. They have their own ideas and opinions about their own homes. There
is no demand from white men to help out. Chinese can sort out things
themselves." I have been in China for over two years and the Chinese do live in
the past - and this is very detrimental to their societal growth. And they
don't really have their "own" ideas - they are taken from other countries. No
longer living under the guidance of white men - do you mean men like [Karl]
Marx, [Josef] Stalin [and] Lenin ... ? Oh, and if you want to be politically
correct (PC), then you need to say "Caucasian", not "white people", just as you
would have people say "Chinese" and not "yellow people". And what the hell is
"hybrid white"? Beige? And if you think about it (not to be racist in any way -
just factual), if you look at the "developed/prosperous" countries in the
world, it would generally tilt towards those countries whose populations [are]
predominantly Caucasian. The notable exceptions in Asia would be Japan, South
Korea, Hong Kong, and ... mmm ,what else? And all of those have a heavy
"Western" influence. So maybe, just maybe they should consider what these other
"prosperous" countries have done and try to make some adjustments to their own
development plans, instead of outright rejecting everything solely based on the
origin of the idea. By the way, being developed or prosperous has nothing
to do with what color of you skin is - it is the way you think. Oh, one last
thing. As far as you message about "a sign linked Chinese to dogs, slavery of
blacks, genocide of Indians and Pacific aboriginals by white men were century
old. No one was found accountable. No apologies or retributions were made. The
white editors want us to forget about all of that." What do you want me to
do? I know about it, I had nothing to do with it, nor did my parents or their
parents or their parents, etc. I have no responsibility or guilt about what
happened 50-100-plus years ago. I would be mad as hell if anyone - today -
apologized for something that we (people of today) had nothing to do with it.
And reparations - please, I am so tired of hearing this. To whom do we give the
money to? And why should I have to pay? What if a Chinese immigrant has to pay
some tax to pay for reparations? They were not even in the USA when this
happened. Anyone that was victimized by these events has long since passed
away. Remember it, learn from it, but you have to move on. Don't forget,
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao [Zedong]).
Cyrus
China (Dec 23, '04)
I'm wondering if letter writer Ernie Lynch (Dec 22) is trying to emulate
[Ehsan] Ahrari because, Mr Lynch, you did the same thing I complained of in the
article Why Rummy should go. You point out what many people call failures
([and] I call atrocities) of the Bush administration, as did Mr Ahrari, and
then [you] advocated along with Mr Ahrari that Secretary of Defense [Donald]
Rumsfeld stay. Your reason for this is so that the neo-cons don't awaken the
sleeping donkey and thereby are able to continue with their neo-con dynasty.
Guessing again (I hate guessing), your reason and the reason you guess for Mr
Ahrari is that America's conservatives need to stay in power and they need the
incentive of utter and complete downfall under the neo-cons so that the
neo-cons can be overthrown and the Republican Party can be reconstructed? If
so, what would you call this plan? Nation rebuilding, rebuilding nation
rebuilding democracy?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Dec 23, '04)
China's legislative anti-secessionist initiative is indeed a defensive measure
[China's
defensive realism, Dec 22]. For a country which has very little respect
for international law, Beijing's move is going through the motions to save
face. Although Wang Yiwei may surely not agree, it signals that the People's
[Republic of] China has given up on the use of excessive posturing and
bright-red blustering to frighten Taiwan to return to the motherland. It
signifies that Beijing is willing to go through the shadow play of laws, to
gird its loins for future skirmishes in the political arena. Beijing's
saber-rattling has brought a weak, unstable coalition of parties to head the
government in Taipei, and most likely under the aegis of the KMT [Kuomintang].
More than a half-century of separation from the mainland and the protection of
America's military umbrella will make the new law a dead-letter piece of
legislation for Taiwan. The new law will, on the other hand, ring a warning for
the Tibetans, the Uighurs, Hong Kong, and other minorities on the mainland.
China's rapid economic growth has reinforced what Mao [Zedong] would call
"great Han chauvinism". Beijing flexing its military muscles has set Japan on a
course which China may rue. Tokyo will receive former Taiwan's former president
Lee [Teng-hui] with great consideration; it will ultimately encourage movement
towards revision of its peace constitution, and the creation of a standing
army. And a re-militarized Japan will act as a countervailing power in East
Asia, to a China with imperial pretensions. Consequently China's defense of the
integrity of the motherland, points to a regional response which it may not
[have] foreseen, and a rearrangement in the balance of power which it may yet
regret.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 22, '04)
China's
defensive realism by Yiwei Wang [Dec 22] is based on the false premise
that Taiwan is part of China. No one contests the fact that China is the
People's Republic of China. And it is both historical fact and present-day
reality that Taiwan is not now and never has been part of or governed by the
People's Republic of China. As a self-governing entity with all of the indicia
of nationhood except membership in the United Nations (which Taiwan would
already have if it had not been run by foreign dictator Chiang [Kai-shek]),
Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign state. The only advice that I
can offer Yiwei Wang and other "one China" enthusiasts is this: Get used to it.
Also, letter writer Frank's continual chanting of the chorus "Asia for Asians"
is remarkably similar to the slogan used by the Empire of Japan to justify
invasion of multiple Asian countries. Perhaps Frank is trying to prepare us for
another series of invasions by an Asian country. But this time who will be the
invader?
Daniel McCarthy (Dec 22, '04)
[B] Raman: I have been reading your articles in Asia Times [Online] for some
time now and have found them to be generally well written and informative. In
your [Dec 22] article [Khan's
nuclear ghost continues to haunt], you address the issue of Pakistan's
nuclear proliferation once more. At the closing of the article you mention,
"People were told not to take my articles seriously because of my intelligence
background. I was projected as an anti-Pakistan analyst, who misses no
opportunity to have Pakistan discredited." While I don't think that your
articles have been anti-Pakistan as such, I do feel that they neglect a big
part of the overall scenario in the region, namely the role of India in all of
this. Your articles never address the Indian nuclear establishment and weapons
purchases and what their effect has been on Pakistan. There is a direct link
between the development of nuclear weapons in India and their subsequent
development in Pakistan. This no excuse for the proliferation that has
occurred. However, this proliferation has broken no international laws or
treaties that Pakistan is a signatory to. It is not a signatory to the NPT
[Non-Proliferation Treaty] ... similar to India. It can, however, be
legitimately argued that the onus is on India to develop an environment in
which both countries can be free of nuclear weapons. In the past few weeks we
have seen [US Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld visiting India to peddle a
wide range of American military systems and then on the same trip make a trip
to Pakistan to offer them a slightly smaller list of the same weapons systems.
When will the governments of our two countries wake up and see the insanity of
spending billions of dollars on weapons systems that are only going to continue
a never-ending game of one-upsmanship? Both countries have massive social
issues that they need to be addressing and which badly need the resources that
are currently being diverted to support the massive armed forces in both
countries. As someone who has been in the Indian government ... I really
believe that you should work towards advancing a methodology where the two
countries can advance their relations, rather than enhancing the siege
mentality in Pakistan.
Shahab Mushtaq (Dec 22, '04)
Apart from the objective facts of whether or not the A Q Khan network has or
hasn't provided nuclear materials and data to all and sundry, isn't suggesting
that they may have done precisely what the US imperialists want us to do [Khan's
nuclear ghost continues to haunt, Dec 22]? We are providing them with
perfect pretexts to harass all sorts of antagonistic regimes and organizations,
starting with Iran, and this is why they actually do not demand rendition of
Khan to the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency]: he is much more useful where he
is, being used to "authenticate" the desired suspicions against the "usual
suspects".
Rowan Berkeley
London, England (Dec 22, '04)
Re [Korean
sex trade 'victims' strike for rights, Dec 22: Sealing] Cheng's point
about sex workers not necessarily feeling they are victims is not a new one.
Indeed, it has even been claimed that sex work allows some workers to escape
the feeling of victimhood and instead exert some control. These are points made
by others, such as Margo St James, founder of COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired
Ethics) who, during the 1970s in San Francisco, sponsored the yearly Halloween
event The Hookers' Masquerade Ball. COYOTE sought to decriminalize
prostitution. Margo and her coterie preached that a good deal of sex work was
therapeutic for the john, involved role-playing, and was taken seriously in
this regard by the worker. Although Ms Cheng says that prostitution is "only
the expression", not the cause, of the inequalities of social institutions, it
is doubtful if the practice would die out if these institutions were altered.
Something else is involved, something more fundamentally animal. It is not a
question so much of inequalities as of asymmetries of nature that are
complementary.
Gregorio Kelly (Dec 22, '04)
Indrajit Basu (India
and Japan cozy up [Dec 22]) seems to be a little generous to the
Japanese. While I am not defending the Indian government class, the Japanese
might do well to take a moment and reflect [on] the situation in their own
country. I for one would not find [the] Japanese easy to deal with if I was
trying to sell agriculture, textiles or software for instance. Japanese labor
policies or immigration policies are probably no better. In other words, Japan
suffers from similar "red tape" [to what it is] accusing India of. Moreover,
the best example of Indo-Japanese cooperation used, that of Maruti-Suzuki, was
extremely one-sided. The Indian government gave numerous tax advantages only to
Suzuki (to the detriment of local Indian companies) to make this venture
successful. Time has shown that without this largess, this venture might not
[have been] as successful ([compared with] Hyundai or Tata Motors). Where the
government largess was not so generous, the Japanese did not show as much
success (eg Allwyn Nissan, DCM Toyota, HMT Isuzu). The example of Kirloskar
Toyota is noteworthy because this was one example where the Japanese and Indian
partners played to their respective strengths and thus created a win-win
situation. Finally, the rise of low-cost high-quality suppliers of Indian
origin in the steel industry might have served [as] a wake-up call (Tata Steel,
Ispat Group). This two-way partnership is a far cry from the situation when
[Indian prime minister] Indira Gandhi went begging to Tokyo bearing gifts of
Indian elephants called Asha (hope) and Daya (mercy) and good for both
countries.
AP (Dec 22, '04)
Beth Bowden (letter, Dec 21) displays her open Texan candor and declares that
she is missing something after analyzing Ehsan Ahrari's article
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21]. Or perhaps she has been engrossed in
the novel The Da Vinci Code and its ilk. Snickers and guffaws are heard
around the world. Mr Ahrari is not a Freemason but only pointing out the facts
of life to you, child. Recalling Ahrari's previous articles on criticizing the
current US administration foreign policies would lead one to conclude that he
will not get a front-row seat at the upcoming inauguration. On the contrary, he
states that the Iraq operation is a quagmire, thus giving up any chance of
being the new national security adviser. Ahrari tosses you some bones to chew
on like Abu Ghraib knowing very well that only Americans believe that after
they defecate the odor of lilacs fill the stalls. In essence he is saying that
removing [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld will not lift the US out of the
quagmire. Only Rummy has the power and can undo what Rummy has created. A new
secretary of defense will not suggest to the president that we [Americans] cut
our losses and pull out of Iraq. What would the ghost of the Alamo say? This
must be done with stealth and subtlety so the American donkeys will not angrily
awake from their slumbers. After all, Iraq accomplished the first goal of the
Bush administration; get re-elected. With luck, [White House political adviser]
Karl Rove and Syria, we will have the beginnings of a new worldwide neo-con
dynasty. And you will foot the bill. Rumsfeld's failings are similar to [those
of] most egotistical men, he believes that he can safely piss into the wind.
Only when he tires of changing his clothes will the tragic-comedy of Iraq end.
And the easiest way to lower a swamp is to expand it. Americans love parades,
heroes, saving virtuous maidens and spreading freedom through out the world.
So, love, forget the moral of the story and concentrate on the hard, cruel
application of international geopolitics.
Ernie Lynch (Dec 22, '04)
Ehsan Ahrari in
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21] forgot to mention that [the aim of
the] US occupation of Iraq is to plunder the oil resources for the Bush cabal's
benefit. We should not forget [that] the contract to expand Um-Qasr port was
awarded before the invasion began. The invasion was not to remove Saddam
[Hussein,] either. Remember, [US Vice President Richard] Cheney said the Iraq
invasion will not stop even if Saddam leaves. WMD [weapons of mass destruction]
were not found either. Finally, US claims to bring democracy? Yeah, right. If
that was the case, why it did [the Americans] not do it to the friendly regimes
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Egypt or Jordan first? The US
did it to crush Islamic fundamentalists (Wahhabis)? Yeah, right. These are the
same Wahhabis Britain and the US used during World War I to tear apart the
Turkish empire and [they] used the same Wahhabis against the Soviet Union. It
is okay to use them against others to achieve US aims but not against the US.
Wahhabis had the same ideology in 1917 to today. So what has changed? Think
about it. It is the height of hypocrisy, isn't it?
Shab
USA (Dec 22, '04)
I agree that he [US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] should not be removed
from office, at this time [Why
Rummy should not go, Dec 21]. However, I think his physical office
should be moved into the Baghdad Green Zone. Maybe that might make him less
aloof [and] a bit more sensitive to the situation. The cost in Iraqi and
American lives [for] this ill-conceived and poorly planned war is truly
immoral. As a human being and military veteran, it saddens [and] sickens me.
Monroe Pastermack
USA (Dec 22, '04)
The main reason
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21] is that any replacement would likely
be worse.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Dec 22, '04)
Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article
How Iran will fight back [Dec 16] portrays Iran as the victim and US as
the aggressor. This line of logic, although popular with the left and seemingly
most of the world opinion, is not factual. The United States from the very
beginnings of the 1979 revolution has had no intentions of animosity toward
Iran. In fact, given the realities of the Cold War, the formation of a moderate
Islamic Republic was a reasonably welcomed change. It was the aggressive and
hostile moves by the Islamic Republic that created the atmosphere that shaped
the confrontational relationship with the US to date. First Iran violated
international law by forcefully occupying an official embassy of a legitimate
government and taking all of its personnel as hostages. It was the Islamic
Republic [that] escalated the hostage-taking by so-called "students" to a
sanctioned act approved by the "spiritual" leader of the revolution lasting 444
days. IRI [the Islamic Republic of Iran] then consolidated power and hijacked
the entire Iranian revolution by intimidating and eliminating all opposition to
its "Islamic" rule as spies for the "Great Satan". The resulting brutal
militant dictatorship set its lofty goals at destabilizing the region by
exporting revolution and terrorism to enlarge the rule of Islam and eventual
liberation of Jerusalem and destruction of Israel. Of course nowadays the
Islamic Republic's external image has been softened by a more pragmatic and
economically entrenched ruling elite which has a lot to lose. But the same
drive to portray the US as the Great Satan is shown every day in Iran. The
"revolutionaries" still march to chants of "death to USA" and US-flag burning.
Iranian TV is filled with anti-US propaganda. The lesson of consequences for
actions should not be lost on the irresponsible ways the Islamic Republic has
acted for 25 years. The ruling elite of the Islamic Republic has made its own
bed and now must sleep in it.
Sohrab
USA (formerly of Iran) (Dec 22, '04)
I read with much interest Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article
How Iran will fight back [Dec 16], but I believe that he missed a key
(and largely undiscussed) element of Iran's arsenal that he may not be privy
to, namely the Russian "Sunburn" missile. This is a weapon that naval power has
no known defense for, and I believe it will prove most pivotal if an attack on
Iran is prosecuted ...
Peter (now a regular online reader) (Dec 22,
'04)
Your article by Alan Boyd
ASEAN, China all smiles for now [Dec 3] was illuminating - not for its
insight, but for inadvertently revealing the insecurity which Anglo-American
imperialists fear with regional integration in Asia in particular and the end
of the unipolar American world in general. Like much of ATol's coverage, Boyd
displays a thinly disguised hostility to the idea of an (Asian) regional bloc
not subservient to traditional Anglo-American imperial "leadership" from
Washington, DC, or its Australian henchman. Boyd at [one] point frets that
China will replace American ascendancy in the region due to US troop
withdrawals, "preoccupation with counter-terrorism", or "Asian backlash over
the mishandling of the Iraqi and Afghan military interventions". This statement
is pure Anglo-American propaganda and euphemism. The Anglo-American-led "war on
terrorism" itself is a big lie and has nothing to do with terrorism but rather
control over energy resources (like in the Caspian Basin or Middle East) and
strategic encirclement of strategic competitors like Russia and China. In fact,
the USA and its allies have used their phony war on terrorism to increase troop
deployments in Central Asia, Pakistan, and Southeast. Asia no less. Secondly,
the backlash against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is not because of
their "mishandling" but because they are wars of aggression. You have a hard
time admitting the fact of Anglo-American aggression or even using this "A"
word, don't you? Boyd even suggests that ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian
Nations] free-trade agreements with China will make it "an economic subjugate
of Beijing", Once again, Boyd reveals his paranoia and warped world view. The
true economic subjugation in not only Asia but around the world is the
capitalist free-market system that the USA and First World attempt to impose
through "international" organizations like the IMF [International Monetary
Fund], World Bank, and WTO [World Trade Organization]. Indeed, the
US-controlled IMF has been used to enforce the Washington Consensus on ASEAN
nations like the Philippines and loot it accordingly. You should read John
Perkins' new book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which documents
the literally murderous nature of Boyd's beloved Anglo-American world order and
its free-market system in particular. Let's see if ATol or Boyd has the guts to
answer the damning charges documented in this book, which has created quite a
stir in the USA.
DP (Dec 22, '04)
Granted, Amit Sharma [letter, Dec 21] validly questions [letter writer Hamdan
Azhar] Yousuf's assertion of B Raman being anti-Islamic by virtue of his
articles. It certainly can't be denied that whether talking about terrorism in
Delhi or the hole in the ozone layer, Mr Raman finds the long arm of the ISI
[Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] behind it all (personally, I feel he's
just an article or two away from stating that Osama bin Laden is in the
gardener's cottage of Army House in Rawalpindi), but it's a bit of a stretch to
go from that to the broader anti-Islamic accusation. That said, I found Mr
Sharma's statement that the US Navy was actively defending Pakistan naval troop
carriers steaming from Karachi to Dhaka quite fascinating. I'm not sure if this
is the same sort of hyperbole that Mr Yousuf was engaging in or an accurate
reflection of history as taught in India (if the latter, I feel reassured that
it's not just in Pakistan that we have a remarkably unique view of history).
Assad K
Cleveland, Ohio (Dec 22, '04)
I agree with Y J Wu [letter, Dec 21] that the ATol editor should not debate
with readers in the Letters section. I do not think that is ethical behavior.
To answer Y J Wu's question honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough to speak
for all Asians. There are many people who live in Asia who do not call
themselves Asians. Other Asian people I failed to mention in this letter and
calling themselves Asians should speak up for themselves. The Asians I am
familiar with are the people [who have lived] in East Asian countries for
thousands of years. Asia is their homes, their roots, their history and their
souls. They have affections, feelings and opinions about their own homes. Many
of them are just like you [and] can speak and write good English. There is no
need for white people to be their spokespersons, protectors, behavior advisers,
or masters. Historically, white men would not provide protections for Asians.
Whenever there was a war, white protectors were the first to leave the
battlefield. Asians were the ones left to be slaughtered and to provide buffers
for whites to escape. East Asians would rather be their own masters.
Noticeably, all of them had those opium dealers and occupiers kicked out of
their land. Not too many of them at ATol would like to wage an independence war
in East Asia. Strangely, most of those people who are promoting wars in the
peaceful East Asia at Asia Time Online are white. Do we have to tolerate that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 22, '04)
You wouldn't, if it were true, but it is a figment of your imagination - unless,
of course, you can offer an example of an Asia Times Online article that has
advocated war in East Asia. Note the word "advocated", which does not mean
"failed to parrot the Beijing line on Taiwan". - ATol
The letter of Hamdan Azhar Yousuf (Dec 20) reveals a great problem of Muslim
elites today. These Muslim elites pursued Westernized, liberal education for
them, and grabbed all jobs [and] vacancies in the government [and] private
sectors in their countries. Many of them have gone to the West and become
successful, like Mr Yousuf himself. But they systematically organized a
second-grade, underfunded, inferior educational system with antique syllabus (madrassas)
for the poor masses. There is a "soul" inside the mujahideen of [Pakistan's]
tribal northwest, which had equal ability to be successful like Mr Yousuf. But
it's the criminal statecraft, coupled with the Muslim elite, who has sent them
to those roads. Why was a single educational system not developed in Pakistan?
Mr Yousuf talks about the Indian-American alliance now. Where was Mr Yousuf
when leader after leader, army generals of Pakistan, actively cooperated with
America and China to bring harm to India? Did they understand they sold the
"Islamic spirit" of Pakistan [down] the drain, and pocketed money for
themselves and their families? Mr Yousuf's letter proves that there are no
greater evildoers to the poor Muslim masses than their own elite. To perpetuate
their hegemony, these elites take the name of Islam, which was largely a great
religion.
Bhaskar Chattopadhyay
Bridgeport, Connecticut (Dec 22, '04)
Ehsan Ahrari writes in regard to the crime at Abu Ghraib in his article
Why Rummy should not go [Dec 21]: "No one wants to admit it, but a
great body of American decision-makers is responsible for it - some by being
direct party to it, but a whole lot of others by either remaining silent or by
tepidly criticizing it. The punishment of the soldiers at the lowest level is a
gross under-implementation of justice, and a sorry example of ensuring that the
'big enchiladas' largely remain free of blame. In this instance, the denial of
justice has also become a wholesale commitment of injustice." Then Mr Ahrari
concludes his article with his opinion that [US Defense Secretary Donald]
Rumsfeld should stay and complete the job in Iraq. One of us, Mr Ahrari, has
not imbibed enough coffee or tobacco to think clearly. If it is myself, then I
can only guess that I am missing something. I naively hope that the something I
am missing is a desire on the part of Mr Ahrari for Rumsfeld to assist
[President George W] Bush in hanging themselves with their own rope. If I don't
perceive his article as a secret message to those who hope for the sanity of
American vision, then I can only perceive it to have been written with the
intent of perpetuating the false hopes of the Bush supporters who think America
has anything to gain by the invasion of Iraq. If the latter is the case, Mr
Ahrari cannot be helped by imbibing more coffee and tobacco. If the former is
the case, then I would encourage Mr Ahrari to keep himself better stocked in
coffee and tobacco so that his writings can continue on in their normal fashion
of lucidity and fluidity. If Mr Ahrari is interested in writing in a subtle
fashion which few have the knack for but can be a great read, I suggest he take
some creative-writing classes which will teach him how to make the subtle
points stand out like a sore thumb.The bottom line is, doesn't Mr Ahrari
realize that the citizens of the world have enough guesswork to do without
having to guess at the meaning of articles meant to inform?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Dec 21, '04)
Why does Israel sell weapons to China to the detriment of the US [US
up in arms over Sino-Israeli arms ties, Dec 21]? Is not the US the
biggest, best friend Israel has ever had (next to God, of course)? Think
strategically! While the current US administration is very pliable in Israeli
hands, the same might not be said of all future US administrations. A unipolar
world is not in Israeli interests, as a global hegemon may one day compel a
dour peace between Israeli and Palestinian - and the lion most certainly
doesn't want to lie with the lamb. Whereas a multipolar world order - probably
a triumvirate of the US, Europe and China - would not dare jeopardize itself
merely to save the Palestinians. So kill two birds with one stone. Finish off
Iran: in one swoop weakening the US, eliminating a dangerous nuclear adversary,
and ensuring a multipolar triumvirate. All roads lead to Tehran ...
Merry Christmas
Santa Clausewitz
Canada (Dec 21, '04)
After reading Spengler's
Santa Clausewitz, a minor Chinese god [Dec 21], I found the closest
American colleague nearby and got down on my knees and told him: "O my great
American friend, I owe my life to you!" Spengler reminded me that China owes
everything to the United States, [that] China would be nothing if not for the
greatest country in the world - America. So I would like to suggest that all
Chinese (1.3 billion of them) all get down on their knees to show their
gratitude toward the great, great United States. Next time when the US invades
China, I am sure the Chinese will not resist - why would they resist their
American saviors? After all, the Chinese are a bunch of low-lifes without the
United States, right? The Chinese will give up their houses and their wealth as
a small token of appreciation so that the American soldiers will have a place
to stay at night [and] have money to spend on armoring their Humvees. Yeah,
right! One suggestion for my dear American friend Spengler, though: Take
Economics 101 and Introduction to Finance at your local community college, pick
up a book on the WTO [World Trade Organization] and find out what free trade
means.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Dec 21, '04)
Two articles of opposite opinions from two mainland Chinese, Li YongYan from
China [Anti-secession
bill reveals China's fears] and Zhiqun Zhu from the USA [Secession
bill shows China's wisdom, both Dec 21], indicate that China is no
longer living in the past. Chinese people are no longer living under the
guidance of white men. They have their own ideas and opinions about their own
homes. There is no demand from white men to help out. Chinese can sort out
things themselves. They do not want to rash [sic] things in the same way white
people prefer them to do. Eventually, they will be there. Give them some time
for the sake of peace, would you?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Dec 21, '04)
I have only one question in response to Frank, and if he can answer it to the
satisfaction of all of Asia Times [Online's] readers, I think you should stop
responding to his letters. It is this: What is an Asian?
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Dec 21, '04)
On China's pending anti-secession law, Li YongYan has again found something to
cast Beijing in an unfavorable light [Anti-secession
bill reveals China's fears, Dec 21]. He hinted that the law revealed
China's fear. He used the word "fear", but the latter was actually better
suited for Taiwan. I still recall the late Chou En-lai's warnings before the
Korean War and also the India war. When fundamental national principles are
involved, grave warnings should not be taken lightly. Earlier this month the
voters in Taiwan came to their senses and refused to give the pan-green camp
[coalition led by the Democratic Progressive Party] a majority in the
legislature. China is right in going one step further in giving one final
warning to the "pro-independence" or secessionist group.
David (Dec 21, '04)
Hamdan Azhar Yousuf (letter, Dec 20) has criticized B Raman [for] being
anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam in his [Dec 18] article [Bin
Laden: An open letter], going so far as to say "because whenever you
attack Pakistan, it is evident to us all that your real attack is on Islam, as
Pakistan is only a manifestation of the Islamic spirit". I have read plenty of
articles by B Raman and I have found that his criticism is always reserved for
the military establishment of Pakistan, which maintains a perpetual
state of war/terrorism for its own benefit. This is not the same as criticizing
the people/culture of Pakistan, and definitely not the same as attacking Islam.
For you to claim an almost direct mathematical relationship of military
dictatorship of Pakistan = Pakistan = Islam is pretty ridiculous. For your
information, the Republic of Pakistan has almost nothing to do with Islam. As
late as 1947 (the year India and Pakistan were created) the Muslim League, the
political party credited with establishing a homeland for Muslims where they
would be free from Hindu domination, was trying to bargain a trade with India:
they wanted to swap Muslim-majority East Bengal (now Bangladesh) for the rich
agricultural region of East Punjab. So even before it came into being Pakistan
was trying to trade away 60% of its Islamic population for a prime piece of
land. Subsequent mistreatment of East Bengal caused it to break away in 1971 -
the Pakistani army slaughtered up to 3 million people in trying to suppress
this independence movement. I don't know what India-US alliance you are talking
about, but the US Navy actively protected Pakistani ships bringing troops for
this genocide from being attacked by the Indian navy. If this is the Islamic
spirit that you claim Pakistan is a manifestation of, then you seriously need
to educate yourself about true Islam.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Dec 21, '04)
Looks like the emissary of Osama bin Laden has spoken. I'm referring to Hamdan
Azhar Yousuf's letter (Dec 20) to ATol in response to B Raman's article
Bin Laden: An open letter (Dec 18). Rather than read and look at the
facts as to the present situation in the Islamic republics, Hamdan Yousuf goes
on to paint the Muslims as the victims. Haven't we all seen that somewhere
before, particularly with Kashmiri Muslims and yet another champion of the
Muslim cause, Saleem Shahzad? Amazing, these people come out of the woodwork in
the defense of these poor victims, every time without fail. Now let's analyze
this. Who is to blame when these brainwashed Muslims blindly follow many of
these Saudi Wahhabi-indoctrinated mullahs who preach nothing but hate and if
[they] die for "the cause" they are promised paradise hereafter? Then there are
the state/religion (yes, no separation there) sponsored schools (madrassas)
in these Islamic republics ... In Pakistan this has pretty much taken over
basic education, as there is no state-sponsored education system. Most of the
national budget goes to fund the military, mullahs and corrupt politicians and
very little is left for anything constructive. These schools, with ready
manpower and funded by the Saudis, continue to graduate young people to hate
Kafirs and send young men to fight in India and other parts of the globe. I'm
told that this problem is also growing in many of the coastal towns of India
(Mr Raman, can you tell us more about this growing problem in India?). Now the
educated ones like Mr Yousuf, rather than condemn these fanatics in Pakistan,
[have] come out attacking the messenger. Next, Mr Yousuf goes further to call
the Indian Muslims to jihad in India, precisely what the Pakistani ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] wants and has been covertly supporting since
partition. I wonder if he [has] the same solution in mind right here in the
USA. I think the Indian Muslims know better - they have seen their brethren
getting killed every day in Pakistan in the name of Islam, and if you notice,
they have not been involved in any of the terror activities around the world. B
Raman, keep up the good work ... It's time somebody stood up and called the
Pakistan (ISI)-Osama bin Laden-Taliban nexus for what it is: a web of terror.
M Ramnath
San Francisco, California (Dec 21, '04)
B Raman's article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] speaks for what B Raman is worth. Peter
Bergen is a so-called expert on terrorism who has been projected by neo-cons
and Bushites for their resource grab of Third World countries. Bergen is as
lousy an expert as [Daniel] Pipes is. They have less intelligence than a
10th-grader in [a] developed country ... I have read enough of Bergen, Pipes
and Raman. Looks like they are all prejudiced against Muslims ... not just
[Osama] bin Laden. Read their articles and figure it out yourself.
Shab
USA (Dec 21, '04)
The article on the Saudi government response to the latest terror attacks in
the kingdom and their response to anti-government demonstrations [House
of Saud shows its colors, Dec 18] was excellent. The author rightly
[says] that the failure to reform and give people more freedom to voice their
opinion against the government will lead to more bin Ladens turning up. This
[Osama] bin Laden may be captured, but unless there is a process of reform and
giving more civil rights to the people, the problem of terrorism and extremism
will not go away. It will continue to haunt the nation and the world forever.
Ramya Shyam (Dec 21, '04)
I have heard it said that this is the "age of non-nuance" - "nuance" being a
resonance and consequence of actual thought. J W McGill [letter, Dec 20] writes
a string of superficial name-callings - but no refutations - of whatever it is
to which he objects in
Evildoers, here we come [Dec 17]. Amid that he asserts: "Every sentence
of it was totally [nothing can be 'total' unless perfect] wrong or an
anti-American propaganda lie." Mr McGill: The US, not being perfect, is
imperfect; being imperfect, it is therefore properly subject to criticism;
criticism of the US is not "totally" and forever and always and in every
instance "anti-American". Either you have yet to learn of the First Amendment
to the US constitution - it protects unpopular speech (indicating that such is
not "anti-American") - or you oppose it, and all speech which is not your own,
or in "total" agreement therewith. None of that is obscured or obviated by your
arrogant, chest-thumping boasting of having nothing but contempt for not only
what the US tells the world it represents, but for the rule of law itself.
Being a loud-mouthed bully, Mr McGill, is being "Neanderthal". You then repeat
the current fodder yelled at the world by fake Fox "news" and its brethren in
the unevidenced hate-speech industry: "[President George W] Bush is very
popular [among his gullible True Believer supporters], most Americans believe
in what our armed forces are doing in the Middle East [so long as they are
denied the facts about actual conditions there, including the US's war crimes,
and its negligence as concerns the lives and limbs of its own troops], our
forces are in no way strained [contrary to which nonsense are the statements by
Republican Senators (Chuck) Hagel and (John) McCain - both of whom are, unlike
Bush, actual, not fake, veterans - and such generals as (Norman) Schwarzkopf
and (Anthony) Zinni], Iraq is succeeding and is not a quagmire [keep your
fingers crossed while whistling by the graveyard, contrary to the statements of
the actual conditions by even some neo-con(artists)], Afghanistan is a great
success [primarily for those in the heroin trade], and we look forward to
remodeling the entire fetid slum that is the Arab/Muslim world" - by what right
does one country, the US, impose its will, contrary to the will of the majority
in the world, on one or more other countries? In law one only finds prohibition
of such anti-democratic bullying - "and turning it into a civilized and
trustworthy [in keeping with anti-American and rule of law Torturer-in-Chief
Bush and his War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory?] neighbor." So long as the
Arab/Muslim world has no say in the matter, eh, lover of freedom and democracy
and liberty? When will you be enlisting, and demanding to be sent to Iraq so
you can put your conviction where your mouth is? "This may take a while," you
continue, "but we have a good start" - even though wholly in contempt for and
violation of US and international law - "and the job needs doing desperately."
And who "hired" the US to illegally invade and occupy Iraq, a country which had
never threatened and was no threat to the US? That is a central question, Mr
McGill; you ignore that as consistently as you ignore both the rule of law and
the fact that democracy cannot exist without it. No matter the lies painted on
its face, Mr McGill, your anti-American totalitarianism gives you away.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Dec 21, '04)
A few points on [Kaveh] L Afrasiabi's article [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16] and on the readers' comments. Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan, and to a good extent Uzbekistan, are unlikely to be one of the
staging grounds for a hypothetical attack on Iran as Russian and, slowly,
Chinese influence in these countries - and a certain rapprochement between
Russia and Uzbekistan, with Chinese participation - exert a positive,
stabilizing influence on these states and allow them leverage in dealing with
and resisting the US, so they don't become an appendage to aggressive American
policy and end up kowtowing to the latter's interests, as the "coalition of the
willing" members are doing now in the Iraq debacle. I'm not aware of any US
bases in Azerbaijan, so unless Afrasiabi might know something secret, there are
no US bases in the Caucasus at all so far, therefore the military-political map
in the article is incorrect. If a major attack came it would be from the west
and south of Iran: neither Azerbaijan nor the Central Asian countries are at
all willing to submit to US interests, especially given Russian and Chinese
political and economic presence. Iran has some influence in Tajikistan and
Azerbaijan; both countries have Russian bases on their territory and receive
several billion dollars a year from their workers in Russia. Overall I agree
with Afrasiabi's emphasis on Iran turning to the relative panacea of missile
technology. Among the many differences between attack on Iraq and possible
aggression against Iran is that with a certain number of submarines as well as
anti-ship missiles and coastal defenses, Iran can blockade and disrupt a large
share of the military and tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf and in the Strait
of Hormuz. It is also manufacturing Konkurs, a potent anti-tank missile. Though
Iran probably would benefit from more than just a couple of the Russian-made
S-300 air defense batteries as well as Pantsyr and Tunguska close-range and
low-level air-defense systems, a worthy arsenal of short- and medium-range
missiles can have a very sobering influence on potential aggressors. It is
still a question, however, whether the US is seriously considering an attack on
Iran, given the quagmire in Iraq. Invasion and conquest of the large and
populous Iran is hardly a realistic scenario. Selective air strikes and
cruise-missile strikes will not do, since Iran actually has the means to reply
in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Dec 21, '04)
One doesn't often find articles on military preparedness and strategy written
by political-science teachers. [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi's article [How
Iran will fight back, Dec 16] clearly demonstrates why this is the
case. If the day ever comes when it will be necessary to eliminate a nuclear
threat from Iran, it will be done entirely by naval and air forces, after the
Iranian air defenses are suppressed. To suggest that the Iranian army would
play a role is preposterous. Mr Afrasiabi might just as well argue that
Napoleon [Bonaparte] could have defeated [Horatio] Nelson at Trafalgar if he
had only sent the army rather than the navy.
Patrick West, DSc
Toronto, Ontario (Dec 21, '04)
[B Raman:] I read with much dismay your [article] in Asia Times [Online] in
response to [Osama] bin Laden's latest tape [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]. In lieu of addressing the content of
his message, you rather take the opportunity to further bash the Pakistani
government. After, as you mention, 29 tapes of bin Laden's having been
released, is that all you can talk about? That Pakistan must be complicit in
bin Laden's activities? Surely there are more important issues we must discuss,
first and foremost, that this is not about bin Laden at all. This is about a
growing number of [disfranchised] frustrated young Muslims who have responded
to the growing persistence of anti-Islamism with explosive violence. These are
the cadres of the Islamic movement, which can no longer be ignored by us as
academics. Nor can we dismiss this group, millions strong, as being madrassa-educated
(also blame that on Pakistan), ignorant fanatics. I would truly wish that as an
officer of the Indian government, with such a large Muslim population in your
own country, you would be more respectful of Islam. Because whenever you attack
Pakistan, it is evident to us all that your real attack is on Islam, as
Pakistan is only a manifestation of the Islamic spirit. As America learned to
its dismay, what we must keep our eye on is this subclass of young Muslim men,
and how to alleviate the conditions which facilitate their growing hatred for
the West. Even your own country will derive no benefit from its American
alliance if the 200 million-strong Muslim minority of India revolts.
Hamdan Azhar Yousuf
Department of Economics
Pennsylvania State University (Dec 20, '04)
Re Bin
Laden: An open letter by B Raman ... Is it possible that it is better
for Bush and Co to have Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on the loose running
around in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc than captured? Looking at all of the
intelligence failures preceding [September 11, 2001], one wonders. Also, for a
long time, I have been thinking that it is a mistake for the US to be propping
up Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. I think the short-term gains
of this policy will be overshadowed by far more severe problems down the line.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: Who says either the US or Pakistani government wants to catch
[Osama] bin Laden [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]? He is the best probable hypothesis both
the US (read [President George W] Bush and his party) and Pakistan (read
[President General Pervez] Musharraf) need to execute their agenda. It also is,
to say the least, to determine if either of these two leaders [is] going to
exist in the long run. History is a great teacher but has so far spectacularly
failed to teach a bunch of bad students, viz leaders of the US and Pakistan.
They have repeatedly played with a live fire - religious fundamentalism - which
in my opinion is going to burn the whole world some day. Do you really believe
Hamid Gul and so on do not know where these al-Qaeda leaders are living (I
intentionally refrained from using the term "hiding")? If you do, you are the
most naive person on the face of Earth. And both the US and Pakistani
governments are absolutely aware of these facts. Actually I would have thought
they are actively giving him protection so that the the current US and
Pakistani regimes survive for the time being. Be it a messy atmosphere in the
Middle East and oil production and pricing remain within US control, be it a
messy world and arms production and pricing remain within US control. Or be it
sectarian violence, ghost of the Indian army etc etc. This is a classical
marriage of convenience for both the US and Pakistan, albeit very inconvenient
for the rest of the world. Be sure of this menace of bin Laden hanging over us
at least till he outlives his renal failure or the news of his death does not
percolate to the world media. Also be sure another ghost will appear when bin
Laden dies ...
Sanjay Sen (Dec 20, '04)
[B Raman:] You Indians take every opportunity to attack Pakistan. [In] your
article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] in Asian Time Online, you tried to tie
up [a relationship] between [Osama] bin Laden and ISI [the Pakistani
Inter-Services Intelligence]. For your kind information, [bin] Laden has direct
relations with [US President George W] Bush and he also has a business
relationship with Mr Bush and company. So go and check the White House, you may
find Mr bin Laden inside. Please come out of your hatred against Pakistan for
no reason. Just to inform you, I am not Pakistani nor have I any love for those
idiotic [Pakistanis] who love to kill their own people in some of their
provinces and a city called Karachi or something like that.
CECSJ (Dec 20, '04)
Dear [B] Raman: I found your article
Bin Laden: An open letter (Dec 18) ... very impressive and I am very
excited to find you lambasting the Pak ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] and
[its] allied agencies [for] helping [Osama] bin Laden. You rightly pointed out
the modalities and partial attitude of Pak ISI in letting bin Laden followers
live free and do [whatever they] wish with [ISI's] support. I will not be
surprised in future [if], as you said, "another catastrophe overtakes the US".
Thanks for the valuable article and I will keep following your articles.
Dr Suresh (Dec 20, '04)
According to [B] Raman, the American intelligence agencies or other
intelligence agencies consciously close [their] eyes to the trail [of Osama bin
Laden] and do not keep asking the right questions to find the truth; the truth
is nobody in Pakistan wants to stop and search serving and retired ISI
[Inter-Services Intelligence] officers, who are the couriers of the al-Qaeda
tapes [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18]. I see another possibility here. The
Americans and the Pakistanis want to keep prolonging the time before they would
track the source of the tapes, eventually leading to the capture of the No 1
terrorist in the world. The Bush administration has maintained, however
unrealistic it may be, that [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein was in cahoots
with bin Laden in the promotion of world terrorism. A bin Laden in hiding,
periodically releasing video and audio tapes, is an excuse to keep the Iraq war
going till a result favorable to the USA is achieved. [US President George W]
Bush's goal is to install democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
capture of bin Laden at this time would be an anticlimax and initiate an
extensive call for the immediate termination of the war.
Giri Girishankar (Dec 20, '04)
The article [Bin
Laden: An open letter, Dec 18] by B (The Matrix) Raman was hilarious. I
love his thinking (or lack of) process. I wonder, if he [were] prevented from
writing anything anti-Pakistan, how often [would] we see his articles on ATol.
Keep us all laughing, "The One".
A Shabbir
Sydney, Australia (Dec 20, '04)
Whenever Indians write about Pakistan, their hatred spews into their writing. A
case in point is the series by the Indian journalist Sultan Shahin about Azad
Kashmir (Free Kashmir) or Pakistani Kashmir, which is as usual woefully short
on facts and full of propaganda [Across the Divide
Part 3: Gilgit Valley searches for identity, Dec 18]. I would not argue
here about his propaganda tactics but ... would like to point out some facts
which he misrepresented or conveniently ignored. There is an elected assembly
in Pakistani Kashmir which has executive powers. The Kashmir Council comprises
the elected official of Kashmir and nominees of Pakistan. No decision of the
Kashmir assembly has ever been overturned by the Kashmir Council. The
bureaucracy in Pakistani Kashmir is not on deputation from Pakistan. The
federal government of Pakistan nominates only the chief secretary, as is the
procedure in the provinces of Pakistan. All the other members of the
bureaucracy are nominees of the Kashmir government. People of Pakistani Kashmir
cannot take their grievances to the Pakistani Supreme Court because according
to the Pakistani constitution, Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan and cannot be
so until a UN-sponsored referendum is held in the whole of Kashmir to ascertain
the will of the Kashmiri people regarding which country they want to join, as
per UN resolutions. Therefore, Pakistani Kashmir has its own supreme court.
There are some political parties in Pakistani Kashmir who advocate a united
Kashmir becoming a separate country. They have full political freedom to
operate, as is evident from Sultan Shahin's report, and in spite of the
so-called clause of allegiance to Pakistan, they have always participated in
elections and have always been comprehensively defeated by the people. The two
most popular political parties, the Muslim Conference and the People's Party,
both advocate accession to Pakistan and as their clear electoral support
suggests, this is also the view of the people. Only those Kashmiris are not
allowed to vote or hold elected office in Pakistan who maintain an exclusive
residence in Kashmir, which makes sense as Kashmir is constitutionally not a
part of Pakistan. Still, any Kashmiri is free to reside in Pakistan and then
register as a voter there, as most Kashmiris actually do. This way they get the
same rights in Pakistan as other Pakistanis. Even today, the Speaker of the
Pakistani National Assembly is a Kashmiri. On the other hand, Pakistanis are
not allowed to have a permanent residence in Pakistani Kashmir or to vote or
hold any office there nor can they buy any property in Pakistani Kashmir. When
talking about the Northern Areas, the writer has conveniently forgotten to
mention that the Northern Areas Council is an elected body whose members are
chosen by votes of the people of these areas and the chief executive of the
Northern Areas is elected by this council. It is common knowledge that people
of the Northern Areas do not like to be amalgamated with Pakistani Kashmir and
have strongly resisted any such efforts in the past. Sultan Shahin has a right
to propagate his viewpoint and maybe even to reflect his biases in his
writings, but he certainly has no right to twist the facts.
Ahmed Zaheer
Islamabad, Pakistan (Dec 20, '04)
I just waded through the hip-deep pile of manure titled
Evildoers, here we come [Dec 17]. I have to admit I found it
entertaining, but only because every sentence of it was totally wrong or an
anti-American propaganda lie. It amused me to imagine the Neanderthals who
might actually believe this drivel. As disheartening as it is for Muslims and
other enemies of the US to believe, President [George W] Bush is very popular,
most Americans believe in what our armed forces are doing in the Middle East,
our forces are in no way strained, Iraq is succeeding and is not a quagmire,
Afghanistan is a great success, and we look forward to remodeling the entire
fetid slum that is the Arab/Muslim world and turning it into a civilized and
trustworthy neighbor. This may take a while, but we have a good start, and the
job needs doing desperately. We are not going to quit until the job is done,
thanks to [Osama] bin Laden and his supporters.
J W McGill (Dec 20, '04)
The letter by Arturo Giraldez (Dec 17) expresses disagreement, based on the
reality of the current US and world situation, with the predictions of Pepe
Escobar's article (Evildoers,
here we come, Dec 17). My question is this: Since what moment has the
current regime in the USA paid any attention to reality, common sense, respect,
truth, civil rights, morality, human life, treaties, or any other trait
associated with honor and decency?
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Dec 20, '04)
[Re] Jim Lobe's
Neo-cons on the road to Damascus (Dec 17): An old and common Arab
saying is becoming the most perceptive comment regarding the United States of
America's actions that took the title of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the
further adventures that the neo-cons are at the present promoting. Given what
has been happening in Iraq, from Abu Ghraib to the destruction of Fallujah, the
legalization of a puppet government, the continued death and destruction, the
cost to the US alone estimated now around $4 billion a month and record federal
deficits, one is hard put to justify any further shock-and-awe operations under
the guise of liberation and freedom. The ongoing attacks on Donald Rumsfeld
might be caused not by the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq but by possibly his
reticence to march into Damascus and his refusal to approve an Israeli nuclear
attack on Teheran. Whatever the real reasons might be, that old Arab adage says
it best when it states, "It's much easier to lead a donkey up a minaret than it
is leading it down."
Armand De Laurell (Dec 20, '04)
This refers to your Pakistan correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad's article
Why the general begs to differ [Dec 17] ... Please don't be tempted and
carried away by the conjecture that every general, cricketer or celebrity in
Pakistan could be brilliant, intelligent and successful in politics too ...
Pakistan's 57 years history is witness that 99% of its politicians and leaders
are dishonest, opportunists, covetous, complacent, inconsiderate ...
hypocrites, crooks |
![Southeast Asia - Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore](/images/f_images/southeasta.gif){kind=small}
