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.

(Or join the The Edge, the lightly moderated discussion board for our global community.)

January 2005

I found [Kosuke] Takahashi's article [China's worsening North Korean headache, Jan 29] a refreshing departure from the stale views one normally reads on the situation in North Korea. These are: that the United States is faced with the greatest risks from either an unstable and/or nuclear-armed North Korea, and that the United States has few if any measures to mitigate this risk. Mr Takahashi rightly points out [that] it is China who is in this position. China faces a much larger threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea than even Japan and certainly the US. To share a long border with a very unstable and nuclear-armed regime is a huge risk for China. One can't foresee under what particular circumstances it could happen - but the risk of a North Korean-made nuclear device someday being exploded in China is, in fact, much greater than the chance of that same device going off in Japan or the USA. Change will come to North Korea eventually, and when it does come, China's bureaucrats and generals (who are much more reactive than proactive) will be surprised to find how the rules of the game in North Korea have quickly changed. If the Bush administration does not realize this, they soon will - and as you point out, they will sooner or later play this card, and severely lever China by the threat of destabilizing the North Korean regime further. It revolves around the Catch-22 that China now faces: continue nominal support for a declining and vicious North Korean regime - due to the momentum of past history - as a continued wedge to use against Japan and the USA, in order to purchase short-term stability. Or in the future, possibly face an extremely unstable, nuclear armed country (with which it shares the culture of millions of Korean-Chinese) that sits on its own porous border, who risks destabilizing the region and China's own economic development. In the latter case, what kind of situation will China be facing? An unfamiliar (and possibly unfriendly) regime in the North? Chaos? A highly proud and nationalistic Korean populace - on both sizes of the 38th Parallel (as well as in China) demanding reunification? An international community, led by the US and Japan, pushing for even greater change in North Korea? More important - what actions could China take? Will it allow a fluid situation run its course, and attempt to influence it indirectly through aid or economic measures? More likely, China will come out with its own "Monroe Doctrine". North Korea will be China's Panama. China will not allow events to spin out of control. In such a case, we would likely see a military coup in the North by China-friendly DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] generals, or on an outside chance, even possible direct Chinese military intervention.
Paul Rath
New York, USA (Jan 31, '05)


I refer to the article Iran's shadow over Turkey, Saudi Arabia [Jan 29] by Jonathan Feiser. Colonialism's divide-and-conquer policy successfully divided up the Muslims for the past 200 years or so. It was possible to achieve this because of rivalries first of all between Britain and Germany and later America and the Soviet Union, when client states turned to one or the other powers. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the Muslims have woken up and realized that they were taken for a ride and there was no true rivalry. Both powers had the same Zionist masters pulling strings from behind. Those in the Muslim world who were still doubting this reality were given a rude awakening when neo-con Zionists openly declared their enmity towards Islam and Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs, remember the "crusade" remark by George W Bush. The illusion that the Muslim world is divided is perceived mainly because the rulers of Muslim countries are caught in the devil's net and not able extricate themselves for fear of losing their wealth and power. But the Muslim ummah has no such hangover and no longer allow themselves to be fooled by carrot-and-stick weapons used by the Americans and Israelis. The achievements of the Iraqi resistance, in the face of massive Zionist technological superiority and overwhelming force, [are] very noticeable and Muslims have begun to lose fear. In less than 10 years the remaining despots will be gone and Muslims will no longer accept the divide-and-rule gimmicks. As much as Feiser would have us believe that Iranians, or the Turks or other Muslim nations, are threats unto each other, we Muslims know that the greatest threats to the ummah are the Zionists. You can fool some of the people ...
Vincent Maadi (Jan 31, '05)


Although Antoaneta Bezlova's [The struggle to mourn Zhao Ziyang, Jan 29] is a fine piece of work seeking to analyze yet again the probability of instability in the Middle Kingdom on account of Zhao's death, [she] has fallen victim to a symptom that has plagued many pundits, trying to hasten the results of his death. Given the Chinese tendency to criticize leaders through mourning, many have sought the signs of the next budding Tiananmen [and are] seemingly disappointed when they have failed to appear immediately. These pundits are forgetting two important elements of Chinese culture: that the Chinese have infinite patience and that events can simmer for ages without boiling, then suddenly boil over and lead to nearly instant change. A good example would be the modern economy, which everyone knows languished for several hundred years and then exploded on the world stage and is reshaping the geopolitical world as we know it. One might be tempted to look back 30 years and say they saw the signs there all along, but that would be deceiving. Likewise, two weeks is not enough time to draw conclusions on the death of Zhao Ziyang. So far, those who predict there will be no unrest on account of his death cite the theory that Chinese are too busy getting rich to care about politics and that the [Chinese Communist] Party has become more skilled at police work and the suppression of information. The first assumption is merely a caricature that was also used to describe Hong Kongers and proved inaccurate during the summer of 2003. The second is simply a matter of increased ability to control people, which may also be exaggerated. The unrest in various parts of China late last year demonstrated that the party is not as powerful in maintaining order as they would have us believe. More significantly, it reveals the enormous discontent pent up in the general population that such seemingly trivial incidents incited massive protests. All that the discontent required to take shape was a tiny spark to light the fire, and Zhao's death is much more than a tiny spark. The fact is the party has not done enough to add legitimacy to its rule or endear itself to the general population, which is why it is relying on its iron fist and the (likely misplaced) hope that people don't notice political events because they are making money. The operative word then is "patience". Given the simmering discontent, the prominence of the Internet and the party's failed ability to exert the control it pretends to have, Zhao's death may prove more significant than we could ever imagine. Without a doubt, the party will be sweating this one out for a long time, seeing if it did in fact dodge a bullet or whether this is the beginning of the storm.
Ken Arok
Brattleboro, Vermont (Jan 31, '05)


Dear [K Gajendra] Singh: I have gone through your article Russian bear makes Israel jittery [Jan 28]. Thank you for writing such a brilliant analysis, which is totally based on realpolitik, not on bias. As you know from your vast experience from the Indian Foreign Service, most nation-states adapt the national policies that suit their national interest. Well, there is nothing wrong in it; but Western media gurus defend themselves in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights. After the demise of the Soviet Union, most of us naively thought that global military competition would end; but our wishful thinking proved wrong. The US expanded NATO into Russia's back yard. In the subcontinent, the US backed Pakistan from Day 1.
Akhtar Hossain (Jan 31, '05)


Same old story. Russia is still trying to get Third World countries to do their dirty work for them [Russian bear makes Israel jittery, Jan 28]. They have supplied the world with more Kalashnikov machine-guns than there are people on this planet. However, if they tangle with Israel they will get their butt kicked but good. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is sneaky but he doesn't fool anyone who possesses two good eyes.
Wayne Antonellis (Jan 31, '05)


[Re] Russian bear makes Israel jittery [Jan 28]: Russia's apparent decision to sell SA-18s to Syria flags a growing perception that the US no longer has control over events - the level of chaos initiated by the US response to [September 11, 2001] now threatens the whole PNAC [Project for a New American Century] strategy. Russia must now understand that its complete marginalization is essential to restoring confidence in the US ability to shape events to its purposes. Ukraine is example of US intent. There will be other well-funded attempts to regime-change former Russian-associated republics. These will have a high priority. Russia, if it wishes to survive intact, can no longer afford to play games with the US. There is no partnership with the US any longer. No illusions. Syria is a way of breaking through the encirclement. Unless the PNAC stranglehold on US policy is broken, the world situation will proceed rapidly toward general world war.
Matt (Jan 31, '05)


I enjoyed your article on the politics of weapons in the Middle East [Russian bear makes Israel jittery, Jan 28]. I have renewed respect for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and his stand on supplying Syria with defensive weapons. I thought the line about "if Israel is making threats against us why can't we defend ourselves" was a classic retort to the dominant Israeli strategy. The Israeli alarmist who tried to tie Syria's weapons purchase to a threat of American troops was typical. "It's not only Israel security that worries us ... it's American troops we are concerned about." Right! As far as a nuclear-free Middle East - I wouldn't hold my breath. Israel doesn't even admit [it has] them.
Don Smith (Jan 31, '05)


I thank you for a most informative article [Russian bear makes Israel jittery, Jan 28]. It is a shame that more articles like this aren't forthcoming and being digested by people. You have clearly explained the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. It is heartening to see the stance taken by Russia to address the balance of power. All we can do now is sit back and hope that some sense will start to prevail on the world scene.
Bill (Jan 31, '05)


I have read the article Vote or no vote, we will kill you by Pepe Escobar in your issue of January 27 with utter dismay. The article is polemical, inaccurate and sympathetic to the viewpoints of the criminal gangsters calling themselves "mujahideen" - the kidnappers and murderers of innocent civilians who have been beheading helpless people in the name of jihad. I would never have imagined that a reputable paper like yours would blindly publish an article that carries false statements and inaccurate reporting. But this is what is expected if the main source of information is close to the terrorists. Everything that is said in the above article [was] refuted by the live reports on election day in Iraq, not only in the Western media but also in the Arab media The report on Abu Dhabi TV said that even in Fallujah the Sunnis [were] participating in the polls. Whereas Pepe Escobar has the audacity of reporting that no Sunni will participate in the polls. He should not have assumed that your readers might be so stupid that they would not realize that the present interim president of Iraq and many of the interim ministers are Sunnis, all of whom [were] taking part in the election. If you continue to publish articles which are so bluntly sympathetic to the terrorists, then your own paper would lose credibility.
M Abdullah Zakir
United Kingdom (Jan 31, '05)


I just read a letter to the editor [Jan 27] in response to Pepe Escobar's article from [the Jan 27] Asia Times Online, Vote or no vote, we will kill you, in which the writer (Vincent Maadi) states, "Until now at least 10,000 American and mercenary soldiers have been sent back in body bags and another 50,000 have been returned ... badly damaged." Question: Is this figure of 10,000 correct? Have you got wind of this? Could it possibly be? In other words, is it possible that Islam Memo's (a website that provides news related to jihad and mujahideen throughout the world) reportage is not so far-fetched? That IM's high casualty count is actually a mix of US soldiers and mercenary or "contractors" hired by and working with/for the US military (all lumped together in their reportage as "US soldiers")? Ten thousand is an absolutely staggering number, but if it is even close to an accurate figure then we have been so grossly misled as to the number of and reliance upon "contractors" in the invasion and occupation of Iraq - and more importantly, to the death toll of "coalition forces", of which the "contractors" are a part. It would seem impossible to hide such enormous numbers of deaths, unless, perhaps, as reported by (JUS) Jihad Unspun (whose journalistic objectivity and credibility I find, for the most part, questionable) in "Further evidence of mass graves of US soldiers in Iraq" (Nov 29, '04), many of these contractors are or were not US citizens and, along with attractive monetary incentives, were promised US citizenship after their tours of duty, for both themselves and their families. Such an arrangement is not at all incomprehensible, but if the number of mercenaries-for-hire were in such numbers, how could this possibly be kept from the public? And if the death toll of 10,000 is indeed accurate, US citizens or not, is it really believable that so many deaths could be hidden? For this long? There is no doubt in my mind that the operations as well as casualty numbers being reported by the US military have no correlation to those that are actually occurring ... but 10,000? If this figure and IM's reportage more accurately reflects the truth of what is going on inside Iraq, the magnitude of the US military's and Bush administration's lies and coverups is so outrageous that I do not understand how, in 2005, this can continue to be kept swept under the rug and; how this reality or even very possible reality, would not mobilize the world community - and especially the American public - to take to the streets in utter moral outrage and unequivocally demand an end to the occupation. If the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilian and legitimate resistance fighters' deaths don't move or persuade us to act, surely this should. And if there is anything to JUS's report about mercenary or contractors' bodies being dumped in rivers, the desert and such (not difficult to believe), why aren't we talking about it? Why aren't more from the independent and alternative media, extremely difficult as it is, investigating this? Same with the numbers, if they are correct (or even in the ballpark), of actual "coalition" casualties. If correct, the cost of this invasion and occupation, in terms of lives lost, is not merely one thousand four hundred and some US soldiers, it is thousands of more under-the-radar residents and citizens that are a part of the American landscape and representing US interests. In other words, if these stories have any goodly validity, the US is in even more disgusting, criminal and desperate trouble, and I fail to grasp how we can continue to be so silent and not force further exposure and accountability. Wars, invasions, occupations are always based on military, strategic, diplomatic and economic interests, but the bottom line, as with any business: it's a numbers game. And in terms of American public opinion with regard to Iraq, it's the numbers - in terms of lives lost (US citizen or not, but fighting in the name of) - when all else fails, that counts, that will inspire the moral imperative to decisively act.
Barbara Ellis
New York, New York (Jan 31, '05)

Probably someone knows the exact numbers of US and other "coalition" casualties in Iraq, and the British Broadcasting Corp (but hardly anyone else) has even published Iraqi Health Ministry figures on Iraqi casualties, a number heretofore even more befogged by disinformation, obfuscation, or simple apathy. It is not surprising that the combatants are using casualty figures more for propaganda than for true reportage (and even less to respect the dead and their families); that is common in war. One only wonders how long it will take for the whole truth to be told, or if it ever will be. - ATol


First, thank you ATol for making it clear for everyone to see what really happened in the early age of the Korean War. Before making a hasty apology to Mr Bill Woll [letter, Jan 28] that he thought he deserved, I would like to have him point out how I "attempted to rewrite the history of that conflict" to suit my purpose. Really look forward to your explanation, Mr Woll.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jan 31, '05)


I must thank ATol for backing up my assertion that China engaged in aggression in 1950 in waging war against South Korea. ATol stated in part [under Juchechosunmanse's letter of Jan 27], "and it was then that the Chinese entered the fray on the side of their communist allies in Pyongyang. A major counter-offensive was mounted jointly by the North Koreans and Chinese on November 26, 1950, and the communists recaptured Seoul in early 1951."
Daniel McCarthy (Jan 31, '05)

The point of the argument seems to have been over the definition of the word "aggression", which was unclear at the time (given the fog of the nascent Cold War) and has become even less clear, and more or less politicized, in the half-century since. - ATol


Kannan [letter, Jan 27] would be very disappointed that he kissed the wrong butt. Upper-caste English-speaking Indian elites regard themselves higher than all other colored people. They only wiggle their tails to white people. Although occasionally they were whacked for misbehavior, they would not complain much about it. Their leader George Fernandes is a good, obedient student. That is why they can become the best friends of white men. White men will also occasionally drop them some bones. However, despite [the fact that] Kannan thinks they have relatively respectable lives, they can never be equal to whites just by wiggling their tails. Can you do that, Kannan?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jan 31, '05)


Doggone it Frank from Seattle, it is time to act like a big boy now and dig yourself out of this mental dog poop. I'm a white man with blue eyes and I was born and raised in Southeast Asia in a predominantly Muslim country. Dogs are an unclean animal in Islam and we as kids naturally used local curses like: "You (filthiest part) of a dog!" and more racist slurs (involving filthiest parts) used by the indigenous kids. It is true that we white people adore most dogs - they give their owners unconditional love, they are protective playmates for children, patiently let themselves be stroked and cuddled by the old and lonely, they save lives, they are highly intelligent and can become working dogs in many fields, you can read their moods by their expressive faces, and their body language is an open book for us dog lovers. Many Chinese love dogs for other reasons. Deep-fried dog with snow peas in black-bean sauce, anyone? I do read your contributions, another point of view is always welcome in this part of the world, but please leave dogs out of your future harangues.
AL
Canada (Jan 31, '05)


The frequent letter writer Frank needs to relax. When Frank stays on track and argues on intellectual lines, he often presents many good points. It is too bad that there are times he veers way off course into emotions and racist paranoia. His [Jan 28] letter condemns Kent Fields and the editors of ATol. If I read Mr Fields' latest letter correctly, he was defending Chinese people against Kannan's letter (which seemed to be a parody of Frank's points in his dog letters). Why would one attack someone who is helping you out? Frank also projects the assumption that the editors of ATol are "white". Again I may be wrong, but is ATol not based in Hong Kong (with an office in Thailand)? If I am correct then it would be safe to assume that a large number, if not majority, of the staff and editors are not "white" (which appears to be backed up by a quick scan of the ATol website and list of senior writers). It would seem safe to assume that the staff of ATol is multi-ethnic (considering the population of Hong Kong and the articles accepted by the editors) with a large representation of "Asians". I find it very interesting that Frank is able to assume who is "white" and who is not. In his previous letters he has proclaimed me to be "Taiwanese" and his "Chinese sibling". His assumptions were false, and I have never claimed to be either one. Nor can I claim to be ethnic-Chinese. It would seem that his "crystal ball" that others have written about is flawed. It is interesting that his responses to my two earlier letters were very polite (when he assumed I was an ethnic sibling), but he has nothing but venom for those he assumes are white. Now that Frank knows I am not "his Chinese sibling", how will he respond to me? I will admit that we are siblings. We are both people who appear to enjoy open debate. I honestly hope that we can keep the debate polite and free of racist poison. I have enjoyed his responses to my letters, and hope to continue to have a good debate with manners and mutual respect.
TKT
Minnesota, USA (Jan 31, '05)


Joseph J Nagarya [of] Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 25), writes, "Unfortunately, the Preamble is a statement of intent, not law - unlike the body of the [US] constitution, and the Bill of Rights." I wish to apologize to Mr Nagarya, as it seems the overall intent of my letter was misunderstood. Unfortunately, in quoting "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union ..." I think [I] left Mr Nagarya with the impression that my statement or the intent thereof was based upon my lack of knowledge of law, history or language. Concurrently, I quoted from letter writer Michael [of] Los Angeles, California (Jan 5), "While those folks in New Orleans are condemning ..." The context of that letter could be taken as "those folks in New Orleans" to be all-inclusive of all us in New Orleans. However, I (not we) assume that "those folks" are not inclusive of all of the people, but limited to only those folks who are condemning others. Contextually, as in other letters on this forum from various peoples and regions around the world, the word "we" extends beyond one person's representation or ideals expressed than that of their entire nation, political affiliation, religious idealism, or geographic location. Again, my apologies to if it was assumed that the intent of my statement was "Christian mud-slinging" when I noted letter writer Ken Moreau's own self-proclamations of his religious preference (atheism), and his political affiliation (liberal). I don't think that I stated my own flavor preference. And, finally, as to Mr Nagarya's comment "Ms Bond stopped reading much too soon - before she learned the constitution does not contain 'God' in any form (blame it on the atheist-liberal framers)," and "She is also invited to read the First Amendment to the constitution, in relevant part stipulating that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [ie, 'faith-based' organization], or prohibiting the free [of government funding, and therefore of government taxation] exercise thereof ..." Hmm ... may I suggest "get your facts straight first, then distort them as you please". The exact quote of the First Amendment to the US constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Facts, not opinions, are in open public records of the history, educational background, Protestant, Catholic and other affiliations, and the various conservatives and liberals of the "Framers" of the original and future documents that establish the laws of the US. The Framers knew they had not created a perfect plan, but it could be revised. The constitution has been amended 27 times and stands today as the longest-lasting written constitution in the world. Thank you, ATol, and letter writers Mr Nagarya, Michael of Los Angeles, and Mr Moreau for participating in our democratic republic in action.
Karen Bond
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 31, '05)


Media manipulation of perception too often results in the demise of truth. Referring to GAM (Free Acheh Movement) as "separatists" and "rebels" promulgates a false and negative bias against the Achehnese legitimate struggle for self-determination and independence. In 1949 the Netherlands illegally handed over a non-existent sovereignty over Acheh to the Republic of Indonesia without Achehnese consent: In 1942 after the expulsion of Dutch forces from Acheh by the Japanese and Achehnese, and in 1945 after the Achehnese drove invading Dutch troops under Allied protection from Acheh and Medan, the Netherlands made no attempt to return to Aceh. GAM is the legitimate army of the Achehnese government-in-exile in Sweden. The 29 years of struggle against the notorious Indonesian military brutality, until the tragedy of the tsunami, received little international notice. It is the responsibility of the international media to meticulously present the truth of the Acheh matter. The spelling of Acheh is also a propaganda tool: "Acheh" is the Acehnese spelling, and "Aceh" is Indonesian.
Dr Vacy Vlazna
Coordinator, Acheh Human Rights Online
Australia (Jan 31, '05)

It is arguable whether the official Indonesian spelling of Aceh is a "propaganda tool"; for most who have no ax to grind one way or the other on the subject of Acehnese autonomy/independence, including Asia Times Online, it is simply a matter of conforming with usage preferred by the current officially recognized government (there is a similar debate over "Myanmar" vs "Burma"). "Acheh" is a more sensible spelling to those languages such as English and Spanish that happen to use "ch" to spell the consonantal sound in the name Aceh/Acheh (a voiceless alveopalatal affricate as in "chew" or "chica"), but under the Indonesian-Malaysian joint spelling system, that sound is spelled "c". The Dutch colonizers spelled the name of the province "Atjeh". It has to be said that when adapting any non-European language to the Latin writing system, as is done with most languages belonging to the Malayo-Polynesian family, including Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia, Acehnese and Tagalog, spelling conventions are often quite arbitrary. - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad [US keeps Iran in its sights, Jan 28]: In this complex world political situation I believe an attack on Iran will result in an out-of-control situation for the US in the region. It may result in a wider insurgency in the region by Iranian-backed groups. Oil prices are already hurting the world economy: $50 a barrel means a slowdown in the economy, $60 a barrel means recession, $70 means a great depression same as in 1929, above $70 means a disaster. I hope [US President George W] Bush will not go for any other adventure. One outcome is established that the US has no credibility being an advocate of civil or human rights ... The smart choice the US can have is to share the oil stakes with other powers like the European Union and China. A cold war was a need for the US to fool the world but this time the foolish US establishment picked an enemy with no face and engaged themselves in a never-ending war with heavy casualties (human lives, economically and politically). In the last Cold War the US eliminated the opposing power with an arms race and better ideology, communism vs capitalism, but never engaged in direct war (Vietnam was not a war against communism). This time a confused US administration changes [its] tone and objectives 24 times a day. The Iraq adventure was a bad investment [that] may result in an end of US tyranny ... B Raman [Explosive situation in Xinjiang, Jan 28]: You [as] a son of Indus (Hindu) have to understand that Islam is a universal religion - Muslims are brown, white, black, Oriental. They are everywhere on the entire planet with their ideology of one God and the only submission they can perform is to submit themselves to God and not to anyone else. If they resist any government policies, including [China's], they have rights to perform that. B Raman, I have found that you are an ex-RAW [Research and Analysis Wing] officer. Whatever you write about Muslims is your task set by some [offensive term deleted] of the Indian government. I suggest you read about Islam - it's a better ideology than [that of] the sons of Indus (Hindus).
M A Sheikh (Jan 28, '05)


Jim Lobe is treading water in his From the Holocaust to hyperpower [Jan 28]. He has [such] a strong distaste for America's neo-conservatives that he misread what hashauwa (holocaust) means for world Jewry. It is a matter to not take lightly. To anyone of say [Paul] Wolfowitz' or [Richard] Perle's or [Douglas] Feith's generation, the destruction to an unthinkable degree meant that it shouldn't ... happen again. It is a standpoint that is shared by American Jewry without exception. For America's Jews, the United States has an edenic caste; for here, they found a land of milk and honey and great tolerance, which [they] called die goldene Medina. It is not for nothing that the questionable politics of the late rabbi Meir Kahane's cry of "Never again" found a resonance not only among Jews but among other oppressed minorities and ethnic groups. Not ever would they not respond to anyone who threatens life and limb and a way of life people cherish and hold dear. To take a line [from] Winston Churchill, should they come to our shores, we shall fight them in the streets, we shall fight them with bottles, with stones. And the Muslim fanatics who attacked New York and Washington, adrenalin kicked in that Western civilization was, and is, under attack. And for those who remember the horrors of World War II, like the neo-conservatives, they are more determined and respond to the call "Never again!" For those who find history with a hazy view, Lord Bertrand Russell, a sworn pacifist during World War I, shed his disposition to peace without a second thought during World War II. For him, [Adolf] Hitler was a danger to be fought and defeated, so that civilization as we know it wouldn't perish. It is not without a sense of irony that Muslim terrorists are called Islamo-fascists, to be opposed strongly by all means. Neo-conservatives and others see a parallel between them and the Brownshirts of Germany 70 years ago. President [George W] Bush's speech may resonate opportunistically on this 60th anniversary of the Red Army's liberation of Auschwitz, but it shouldn't take away from the lessons to be learned from those dire times as Hitler looked as though his boast of heute Deutschland, morgen die Welt would come true. The world is not fooled by Mr Bush, but they are mindful of the significance of what the death camps [meant], and that they should be vigilant that it won't happen again, Rwanda and Darfur notwithstanding.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 28, '05)

There are many events that should never happen again, but that does not mean neo-conservative militarism is the only way to prevent them. Bertrand Russell may have changed his tune on pacifism between the wars, but the dynamics driving those two conflicts were very different, and the challenges facing the world today are different again. Those who want to toss all efforts at diplomacy and war prevention in the bin just because of Neville Chamberlain's famous failure at Munich are being dangerously simplistic. - ATol


Very nice article on the neo-cons and their roots [From Holocaust to hyperpower, Jan 28]. Much previous discussion in this forum has had a subtle anti-Semitism I've found uncomfortable.
Dennis Rogers (Jan 28, '05)


[Re Vote or no vote, we will kill you, Jan 27] Considering the present circumstances and the conditions the upcoming January 30 election is in, to say that the Iraqis have democracy because they can vote is as facile as saying a person has the right to pursue happiness because he can buy lottery tickets.
S K Wong (Jan 28, '05)


It is ironic that people like DVeri [letter, Jan 26] and Raymond [Jan 24] talk about discrimination against minorities but do not even realize that they are doing exactly the same to the Malaysian Muslims (take note that Muslims in Malaysia are not just the Malays). You want people to be sensitive to your needs but you cry "discrimination" when others ask you to be sensitive to their needs. So what if some of the Muslims in Malaysia are wearing flowing Arab robes or purdah, etc - are you saying that this will cause race conflict and therefore should be discouraged? Are we doing a different kind of discrimination now? And what is this about wearing the "trappings of another culture"? As far as I have observed, most Malaysian women are wearing baju kurungs/baju kebayas, cheogsams [and] saris along with ... Western clothes ("trappings of another culture"? ) like miniskirts, halter tops, blouses, suits etc while the Malaysian men are wearing their usual shirt/T-shirt with pants. If your friend is being compelled to wear the trappings of another culture (whatever that means) then he/she chose to be coerced. On Muslims traveling overseas and eating at such grand establishment as McDonald's in the USA or cafes in Argentina", if you understand Islam a little more (not Wahhabis or Sufis, [to] which the majority of Muslims do not subscribe), you will know that Islam does not seek to make life difficult but to guide one to live according to the tenets of Islam. Therefore, Muslims who are traveling are musafirs and rules on eating are more flexible in that they can try to find a halal place but if they cannot do so, they are allowed certain laxity (starving is not an option). On what UMNO [the United Malays National Organization] does - that is a political party, albeit a race-based one. As I have stated in my [Jan 20] letter based on an article written by Ioannis Gatsiounis, The search for the Malaysian race [Jan 15], there are basic things that needs to be addressed. We need to see ourselves as Malaysian first and our race or religion second. What UMNO does it does on the basis of whom it represents, which is the Malays. The same can be said for MCA [Malaysian Chinese Association] and MIC [Malaysian Indian Congress]. This in itself is discriminatory. And where in my letter did I counsel the non-Malays to wait till a threat takes place? You see how divisive this Malays vs non-Malays [issue] is? We are Malaysians. There will always be differences between humans but there are degrees of differences. So pig-based food is forbidden in public schools, are you going to make this into a big issue? Are you deprived from eating this food in restaurants and in your homes? On the other hand, issues like freedom to practice our religion and celebrate our festivals, owning of lands, being employed, educating our kids - are we deprived of this? No! We have to work on this basis - and refine unbalanced practices to achieve a situation that we all can live with. To do that Malaysians of all races must give up some of their rights for us to live in harmony. The solution is in our hands.
S Ismail
Malaysia (Jan 28, '05)


ATol: Thank you for the accurate description of the opening months of the Korean War [under Juchechosunmanse's letter of Jan 27]. The events were exactly as you stated. Having served with the US Army in Korea during the Korean War, it really annoys me when someone attempts to rewrite the history of that conflict to suit their purpose. Juchechosunmanse: Apology accepted.
Bill Woll
USA (Jan 28, '05)


Thank you, ATol, for giving a true, concise account of the early phase of the Korean War, which people like [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy should learn. Perhaps the latter already knows, as I suspect he is an old man living some old dreams. I want to add that as the US-led forces pushed back the North Koreans, then Chinese premier Chou En-lai gave repeated warnings to General [Douglas] MacArthur not to continue the push toward the Chinese border. When the warning was ignored, China entered the war.
David (Jan 28, '05)


Amit Sharma [letter, Jan 24] needs to read the recent history articles published by India itself. Despite the argument of who fired the first shot, both sides agree that Indian troops were inside China when the war broke out. If Chinese solders were picking a good time to attack, they would [have waited] and attacked when Indians were occupied killing their Pakistani brothers. They would not return the land captured along with the weapons either. For the ATol editor's information, I only compared a small portion of those English-speaking upper-caste Indian elites to dogs. I compare those poor Indians who prefer to live in peace with their neighbors to those Indian people who taught this world the beauty of living in harmony. I agree with Kannan that dogs are better friends to white men than many Asian colonial victims. Dogs surely know how to wiggle tails to kiss up [their] masters Kent Fields and ATol editors. Interestingly, they are all white.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jan 28, '05)

Interestingly, we are not. More interestingly, it doesn't matter. - ATol


Pepe [Escobar] ... knows whereof he speaks [Vote or no vote, we will kill you, Jan 27]. It should be quite obvious, though, that the so-called "election" in Iraq is primarily and principally for home (USA) consumption. An election confirms that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has made it possible for the Iraqis to start the process of democratization. The political illusion under which modern man lives is that "the people" control the state through their votes. The most control voters might have is who becomes the "leading man". [US Vice President Richard] Cheney may at least be considered frank in his comments about oil. Mr Escobar is right on in his conclusions. The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, vote or no vote, is but further proof to most of the non-Western world that the USA/Britain duo are still able to engage in colonialism. One can only guess how long their voters will go along with the antics of a political illusion in Iraq. The opposition's stand of "we will kill" provides food for thought.
Armand De Laurell (Jan 27, '05)


I refer to Pepe Escobar's excellent article Vote or no vote, we will kill you [Jan 27]. Escobar states: "The Pentagon has already announced that it is ready to keep at least 120,000 troops in Iraq for the next two years." Until now at least 10,000 American and mercenary soldiers have been sent back in body bags and another 50,000 have been returned ... badly damaged. The 120,000 who will remain will probably be airlifted in body bags or badly injured within six months at the maximum. I predict that the American government will declare the dead soldiers as missing in action, and for home propaganda purposes and covering up the lies, they will send a delegation to Iraq in about 10 years to "search" for MIAs. Vietnam story repeated! The Americans are losing the war and no amount of coverup can hide the fact.
Vincent Maadi (Jan 27, '05)


[Re] Zarqawi vs Sistani [Jan 27] by Ehsan Ahrari: Someone should tell Mr Ahrari that the invasion in Iraq was, is and [will] remain illegal, immoral and unjustified. The war and [the] interim government of [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi are plans by Israeli Zionists sitting in the White House and Pentagon. It's for oil and for Israel. To destroy the Muslims to create divisions between them. To create enmity between Christians and Muslims. Anyone who supports this war after knowing all this is a traitor and a partner of the Zionist murderers. Anyone who is infected with greed will face the punishment. The mujahideen are giving up their lives for Iraq and are well respected and determined and know who the real enemy is. It is not the Christians who wanted to go in Iraq but the pro-Israeli Likudniks/neo-cons who wanted to go to distract the world attention from what Israel is doing with the Palestinians, which is the most serious and direct cause of international terrorism. Israel, oil, death, enmity and destruction. [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani will not win but he along with ... Allawi will lose their lives very soon as traitors if they don't change their ways. Seeing is believing. This is a test for everyone and those who will join the coalition will lose both ways. Seeing is believing. One should stop looking in terms of Shi'a and Sunni and start thinking like a Muslim and not a Shi'a or Sunni Muslim.
Salahuddin Azam (Jan 27, '05)


I want to say that you are by far the best international paper in the world. I have never said this of another publication. Unfortunately, the article Sistani vs Zarqawi [Jan 27] was a disappointment. It seemed to echo the American press and their propaganda. Other than that, thanks for all the intellectually sound writing.
Scott Manesso (Jan 27, '05)


Re China, panacea for the world economy by George Zhibin Gu (Jan 27): After reading articles about China written by Sinoroving [Pepe Escobar] and Spengler, it's refreshing to see a more balanced view from someone who has resided both in and out of China. The malls of Shanghai are full with brand-name products manufactured/assembled with China's cheap labor, but commanding similar prices as in US or Europe. So who [has] benefited the most from China's prosperity? What would happen if China closes its doors again? Will it bring prosperity to Africa and the Middle East like Spengler claims (Santa Clausewitz, a minor Chinese god, Dec 21, '04) or another "Opium War" in Iraq style?
Yen
Shanghai, China (Jan 27, '05)


I must respond to Ehsan Ahrari's comments on [The negative force of anti-Bushism], ATol January 26. In the first place, anti-Americanism is certainly not anti-Bushism, as he puts it. Anti-Americanism has been around for a very long time. I remember seeing it in its most popular form, "Yankee, go home," scrawled on the white- stucco wall of an old, empty gas-station building in a small hamlet near our provincial capital, here in Alberta, circa 1952. And I have continued to see and hear comments on the same theme throughout the remainder of my 76 years on this planet - here in Canada and abroad - regardless of who the US president might have been at the time. A reserve (Canadian) army officer once told me that, when the rank and file tended to rumble, the practice was to "give them somebody to hate", and that this ploy worked every time; not totally, of course (due to the "You can't fool all of the people ..." factor), but adequately enough. [US President George W] Bush is the object that "world opinion" has been given to hate. Not within "Rome" itself, of course; the emperor's creators, along with a national mind-control system, par excellence, have long since seen to that. American presidents, past and present - along with our Canadian prime ministers - have always answered to a much higher power than the partially domesticated, unwashed masses who have elected them. It is the handful of unseen "people in power" within the country (and/or outside it) who really call the shots. To save time and words, let's give these people the tag that Dwight Eisenhower gave them, when he cautioned the American people about them during his farewell address: "the military-industrial complex [MIC]". This was just another reference to the Big Money that, we all must know by now, really owns the world's so-called democracies", particularly the American brand. However, all the principal creatures in a political circus tend to be deviant at times, so they must have "handlers", lest they stray from the MIC agenda; an agenda as important as, say, a plan for a New World Order (total corporate control). This danger is especially true in the case of presidents, who must, at all times, appear to the plebeian throng as their all-knowing, all-powerful, obedient servants, who are ready and willing to kill for their protection, at any time, whether they like it or not. So this base, raw material that is designated to be the "commander-in-chief" is put in the charge of a group of "handlers" who are imbued with the MIC doctrine (in the current case, world domination). It is the job of these "artists" to shape this bundle of rags and sticks into a talking head that is capable of convincing at least half of the nation's voters that anchovies are huckleberries. This is no great problem, because 25% of Americans already believe this and an equal number don't care. So "anti-Bush", "anti-Bushism", [and] "Bush-hate" are meaningless. Poor Dubya is just there in his cage, doing and saying what he has been programmed to do and say; taking his photo-ops, high-fiving to all and trying to stand tall. But does anyone, anywhere, who is modestly aware of the state of the universe really believe that he does his own presidential thinking, or writes his own speeches? Not likely. So if he generates global animosity from time to time, it's not a matter that he has control of. He is just doing his job - as prescribed. Traditional anti-Americanism, however, is entirely another matter. As I have said, this "anti" boil has been growing for decades and is in the process of coming to a head. Up until two decades ago, anti-Americanism was directed primarily at the Washington regime. But since the Balkans intervention and the past 10 years of aggression in the Middle East, the world's people have begun to see that their American counterparts no longer have control of their monster-in-the-capitol. The "blame Jimmy Carter" reasoning that I saw among Iranians in the late '70s, for example, is no longer the rationale. Uncle Sam's little nephews are right over there, on our ground, kicking down our doors, killing us and our families, in our homes ... and calling us "terrorists" when we fight back. So our conclusion is that all of America must be put in the same bag. Therefore, when Americans are puzzled as to "why they hate us", they have only to track back to the people who really put their presidents in place; who spend billions to get just the right bundle of rags and sticks. Then they should determine just how their voters' mandate has weighed out against the agenda of these unseen shakers and makers and finally reconsider that naive question. If they come up with the right answers, they might find that another revolution is in order.
Keith Leal
Canada (Jan 27, '05)


First of all your "comment on this subject" is almost impossible to get into and comment. Why make it so hard to comment on a particular subject? I would like to comment about the 160 million dalits and their plight even today [Dalits create space for themselves, Jan 26]. I am glad to read that the dalits are beginning to find their voice and strength against this archaic and ignorant caste system that persists [among] even educated Hindus. This is one situation where the direct intervention of the government has greatly helped the dalits. Don't the Hindus realize that their intolerance towards the dalits leads many dalits to be ready converts to other religions like Islam and Christianity? And then they complain when the dalits convert. What hypocrites the upper-caste Hindus are. They love to go around the world and put up statues of Mahatma Gandhi and the same in India, boasting about their great Hindu non-violent leader, but they conveniently forget that the Mahatma if he were alive today would not be caught in the company of these upper-caste Hindus who treat the dalits in such a manner, a cause that the Mahatma fought against most of his life.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Jan 27, '05)

There are several ways to comment on an article. Clicking on the "comment on this article" button on the right-hand side of the story takes you directly to The Edge, Asia Times Online's interactive forum. The procedure for registering and logging into the forum is, we believe, straightforward while at the same time giving participants numerous options. The second and longer-standing way to comment is simply to e-mail your observations to letters@atimes.com. A third method recently introduced is to click on the "contact us" button at the top of every index page. This will take you to our Media Kit, where you will find several contact links, including one called "Letters to the Editor". We are sorry if you have found any of these methods confusing or difficult; our aim is to broaden the options available to our readers who want to interact with us. - ATol


I've read Bruce Klingner's Asia wary of new Bush doctrine [Jan 26]. Though he seems to be a bit cynical about the inauguration speech, I found President [George W] Bush's words deeply inspiring and great because the people in North Korea are the very people the US has to help to bring freedom there. They are the most desperate people right now. Have you ever seen the anti-regime video from North Korea, the shots filmed in Hoeryong? They were so daring to let the world know the prison-like conditions under the most cruel tyranny in the world that they put their lives at stake. I was deeply moved by their earnest request for help to have a free society there. It's easy to say something neglectful of the people directly living under the tyranny but if you are one of them, you may have second thoughts.
Gomdori
South Korea (Jan 27, '05)


If my "lack of grasp of fundamental historical facts" amazed anyone, he or she should be more amazed and disgusted by [Daniel] McCarthy's outright shamelessness and double standard. McCarthy wrote [letter, Jan 26], "In 1950 China sent troops into the Korean Peninsula, where they waged war against the forces of South Korea and the United Nations contingent. Chinese troops entered South Korea and fought on South Korean soil. Get it?" Yes, these are historical facts. It is also a historical fact that the US sent troops into the Korean Peninsula, where they waged war against the forces of North Korea and the PRC [People's Republic of China]. American troops entered North Korea and fought on North Korean soil, get it, McCarthy? So what's the point? China was an aggressor but the US wasn't? As to Bill Woll of the United States [letter, Jan 26], you've got to be kidding me if you can't tell the difference between "US-led UN forces declared war against North Korea first" and "it was the North Koreans who started the whole thing". What did I mean by "the whole thing"? The Korean War, of course. It was the North Koreans who started the Korean War by attacking the South. I was merely stating the fact that the US-led UN forces started fighting the North Koreans first, then the Chinese troops came. I didn't mean to say it was the US who started the Korean War. Again, it is a fact that the US-led UN forces waged war against North Korea before the Chinese came, as Bill Woll has illustrated previously. Actually, [if the US] hadn't fought the North Koreans and the North Korean forces quickly collapsed as a result, the Chinese ... forces wouldn't [have entered] the Korean Peninsula. Now get it, both of you?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jan 27, '05)

Hostilities began on June 25, 1950, when North Korea invaded the South. At the urging of the United States, a strong ally of South Korea in that cradle of the Cold War, the United Nations quickly condemned the North's invasion and a 16-country UN force under US command was sent to Korea to aid the Seoul government. But until September the US force contingent in South Korea was small and the North Koreans drove as far south as Busan. Then, on September 15, UN forces landed at Incheon, and the tide was turned. By the end of November, the US-led forces had driven the North Koreans back almost to the Chinese border, and it was then that the Chinese entered the fray on the side of their communist allies in Pyongyang. A major counter-offensive was mounted jointly by the North Koreans and Chinese on November 26, 1950, and the communists recaptured Seoul in early 1951. - ATol


Diana [Morley (letter, Jan 26)]: It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that the Russian Oil and Gas Producers' Union raises red flags about Russia's ability to continue to export oil beyond two years from now. The Union is pleading for funds to be directed its way to help build up the oil/gas infrastructure. So it's in the Union's interests to create a "crisis" that must urgently be addressed with funds. [Yuri] Shafranik's baseless assertions about how near to depletion are Russia's oil resources are completely unsubstantiated by the experts. Additionally, do you imagine that all of Asia, Europe and even the US, all of whom are courting Russia with respect to strategic oil and gas export agreements, are so shallow in their analysis that they would make such efforts for merely "two years" of exports? I suggest you re-evaluate, in accord with the real facts, your view of Russia's global importance as respects energy. May I suggest you start here?
W Joseph Stroupe
Colorado, USA


Kent Fields and ATol, thanks for your comments [Letters, Jan 26]. I felt Frank's letters were often derogatory when it comes to India/Indians. He was immune to words of reason and logic and I wanted to put an end to this meaningless, recycled garbage. I hope we can leave the dog issue to the dogs and move ahead.
Kannan (Jan 27, '05)

Someone suggested penguins a while back. Whatever happened to that idea? - ATol


Richard Ascher writes to "Spengler": "If a Muslim wishes to live in a Western democracy he must abide by the rules therein. Thus if the rule in the Western country is 'Thou shalt not kill,' then he must abide by that rule no matter what his religion says ... Either submit to the rule of law in the country you live in or leave." Tell that to the US-born "Evangelical" "Christians" who, in their war against the United States as constituted in its constitution, endeavor to advance that agenda by means - lying - which violate the rule "Thou shalt not lie." But then you run into a fundamental problem with your anti-democratic "love it or leave it" supremacism. For one, it was by means of civil disobedience, against standing laws, that US slavery was abolished; and civil rights were advanced, and extended to citizens viewed as "lesser". For another, as citizen of a "Nation of Immigrants", thus oneself an immigrant, it is dangerous to tell immigrants to "get out", as one could well be made the first to leave. What would you say if Iraqi Muslims were to act according to your principle by telling the US to either conform to Muslim law or get out of Iraq? The foundations of US law are freedom of individual conscience, and everyone equal under the law; so "religion" is certainly not to overwhelm the law (despite the noted war) - or be given special attention in law, whether positive or negative. Your principle carves out an exception to those foundations: Muslims.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 27, '05)


[Re] When oil peaks ... [Jan 27]: In response to naysayers who cite Russian oil exports as one of the global supplies in the future, according to Interfax, on November 9, Yuri Shafranik, head of the Russian Union of Oil and Gas Producers, [said] Russia is likely to stop exporting oil in two years. Shafranik was quoted as saying, "We are currently producing almost the maximum amount of oil possible. Further growth can happen only if the [world] prices continue to rise, but [since that is unlikely to happen for much longer] Russia's production and subsequent export will be automatically limited in two years' time." So much for Russian oil.
Diana Morley
Ashland, Oregon (Jan 26, '05)


Have been visiting your site every day now for a few months. Excellent journalism. All your articles are based on logic. Nice to see for a change. Especially liked the report on peak oil [When oil peaks ... Jan 26].
Dan (Jan 26, '05)


While concerns over the elections in Iraq have understandably focused on the violence racking the country, another danger to the credibility of these elections has been largely overlooked. Consider remarks made by senior Western officials in Baghdad last month and reported on the Reuters news service. A senior Western diplomat stated, "American officials frankly tell us they favor [current Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi" to rule Iraq. It was said that the US is unwilling to publicly endorse Allawi for fear that this will taint him. In addition, the report mentioned, "A US official, who declined to be named, said he did not know of a deal to bring Allawi back, but said it was clear any [future] Iraqi prime minister would have to be palatable to Washington." Evidently, the Americans believe they have veto power over who will lead Iraq after the poll. This casts another serious doubt on whether these elections can be regarded as a meaningful exercise of self-determination by the Iraqis. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is working to ensure that a friendly client continues to govern Iraq after the elections. [The US administration] may believe that the poll will confer legitimacy on such an arrangement. This is an illusion. Except for the Kurdish minority, the US presence is deeply unpopular. To gain any legitimacy, the future government of Iraq will have to distance itself quickly from the Americans.
Patrick Cummins
Victoria, British Columbia

This point may have been "largely overlooked" by mainstream media, but it has been well covered by Asia Times Online. As the election approaches on Sunday, a reread of Pepe Escobar's First we vote, then we kick you out (Dec 24, '04) may be of interest. - ATol


[Re Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, Nov 23, '04] By virtue of inevitable intellectual evolution, all mankind will eventually accept that, if any one faith (ie, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) was clearly and unquestionably the most valid, everyone would realize it and everyone would embrace it. All others would perish from existence. Peaceful co-existence among brothers requires not just tolerance, but also respect for the differences of others. It's the keystone of Western culture. Muslims who migrate to Western societies with the expectation [of] finding tolerance of their intolerance are foolish indeed. Certainly, the idea that one less-than-sinless individual has the arbitrary right to exterminate another is parallel to Adolf Hitler's ideology. It cannot be permitted and must be extinguished. The sooner the better for all. [Hence] the wisdom of [US President George W] Bush's efforts to spread democracy, which is nothing more than a platform for mutual respect among mankind. The only ones who benefit from inflicting their beliefs upon others are those who use God (Allah) as a source of personal power (clergymen, mullahs, etc), and I suspect that's sin and blasphemy in and of itself.
Alan
USA (Jan 26, '05)


Dear Mr Spengler: It really is quite simple. If a Muslim wishes to live in a Western democracy he must abide by the rules therein. Thus if the rule in the Western country is "Thou shall not kill", then he must abide by that rule no matter what his religion says. If he cannot abide by it then go back to his own country which permits killing for saying something they think is wrong. The rules are laid down in most countries and if you allow your religion to overrule these rules then yes, you have to get out. Either submit to the rule of law in the country you live in or leave. It is really that simple.
Richard Ascher (Jan 26, '05)


Juchechosunmanse [letter, Jan 25], these are your exact words [in a previous letter, Jan 19]: "The US-led UN forces declared war against North Korea first by landing in Incheon; the Chinese came after." How can you now state, "I never claimed that it was the United States who started the Korean War"? Incidentally, [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy was accurate when he stated that the Chinese waged war against South Korea in 1950. They certainly joined in the attack on South Korea by the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]. You can't change the facts.
Bill Woll
USA (Jan 26, '05)


Your misguided and misinformed letter writer Juchechosunmanse said, "I was reputing Daniel McCarthy's absurd claim that China waged war against South Korea in 1950 (as an example of China's alleged aggressions) by stating the fact that the US went to war with North Korea earlier. It was hypocrisy on his part. Get it?" [Jan 25]. This person's lack of grasp of fundamental historical facts is amazing. In 1950 China sent troops into the Korean Peninsula, where they waged war against the forces of South Korea and the United Nations contingent. Chinese troops entered South Korea and fought on South Korean soil. Get it?
Daniel McCarthy (Jan 26, '05)


Kannan's letter of of January 25 reverts back to the racist name-calling strategy that is too common on these pages. Frank and I have had frequent disagreements, but I must say that Kannan writing "I feel dogs and other carnivorous animals lead a respectable life [on] this planet when compared [with] the thick-skinned, Chinese 'communist' genociders. These animals don't walk around proudly with [the blood] of millions of people" crosses many lines. If we must disagree with each other, fine. As my previous letters make obvious, I have my own issues and serious disagreements with the PRC [People's Republic of China] government, but it is not alone in having "the blood of millions of people". Find a government or society that is innocent. I ... doubt anyone can. Power in any society breeds sin, and too often sin becomes intertwined with violence against others. Once we start throwing racist generalizations around, honest debate is shut down. Stick to the issues, please. (Did I just defend Frank?)
Kent Fields
Taiwan (Jan 26, '05)

Not really, since it was Frank who originally compared Indians to dogs, and has lately again brought up that rather tasteless analogy. Your point is well taken, though, that such racist mud-slinging only serves to weaken the debate, whoever is currently wallowing in the mire - the original slinger or the onetime slingee. - ATol


With respect to S Ismail ([letter] Jan 25), perhaps I shall state the matter clearer for you. My observation about the change in clothes was [referring] to the change in mindset, manifested by the change in clothes. Where I once saw a more relaxed attitude towards life in general where the kampung (village) spirit was more prevalent, it has now been replaced by a hardening of the attitudes. This means a greater black and white view towards life and a greater differentiation between us and them. Perhaps an approximation could be seen that "Sufism" has been replaced by "Wahhabism" (again, like approximations, some may take offense at both). Some friends of mine have told me that personally they had no strong desire to wear the trappings of another culture but felt compelled to do so. They felt that their community had become more parochial, and form has become more important than substance. As for the term "Kafir" (plural Kuffar), from the Arabic word kufr meaning "deny" and "conceal", the scholars may have their own interpretation but the man on the street seems to be using its negative connotation to apply it [to] others. One of the most meaningful activities that people can do is the act of eating together. We are not asking the Muslims to eat haram food, but to sit together to eat and talk. You don't see Buddhists ... demand that vegetarian or Hindus non-beef products respectively be eaten when they are present and they sure don't raise a hue and cry when others do, mouthing off some sensibilities about being "sensitive". One gets the feeling that "some are more equal than others". As for the schoolchildren, are the authorities really afraid of children eating forbidden food or do they wish to impose their own rules of religiosity? As for my "emotional" sentence about the adversarial and imperious manner, perhaps some examples may prove enlightening. At last year's United Malays National Organization meeting, UMNO youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein Onn called for the strengthening of affirmative action for Malays instead of cutting it down. In addition, the newly elected UMNO deputy chairperson, Badruddin Amiruldin, warned "other citizens" - obviously referring to non-Malays - not to "disturb the hornets' nest". Moreover, he called Malaysia "our country", [implying] that non-Malays were "guests". He also went on to display a book on the May 13 riots in 1969, warning about the danger of questioning Malay rights. And if that wasn't alarming enough, Higher Education Minister Dr Shafie Salleh told the assembly that he would never allow "non-bumiputras" (sons of the soil) to enter the University of Technology Malaysia. It is ironic to note that your concluding statement asks one to stand up for one's rights yet at the same time counsel the non-Malays to wait till a threat takes place. You forget history, Mr Ismail, when Malays went on a few rampages against the minorities ... Tunku Abdul Rahman (Malaysia's first prime minister) sincerely believed in forging a Malaysia that would be inclusive of all, but sadly that dream seemed to have died with him. There are some Malay/Muslims who share the same sentiments, but they are too few ...
DVeri
Malaysia (Jan 26, '05)


Ken Arok stated in his letter (Jan 24) that changes in the status quo of the Taiwan Strait would "not be in anybody's interest". What a shameless, nonsensical statement! Does he represent the billion Chinese on the mainland, or nearly half the "Taiwanese"? Or he is just speaking for the neo-cons in America and Japan, and the separatists in Taiwan?
David (Jan 25, '05)


Raymond writes [letter, Jan 24]: "In any democracies, no protest is allowed to last for days, not to mention weeks." The exact opposite is the fact - which is why it is correctly termed "democracy". Karen Bond [Jan 24] quotes the Preamble to the US constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Unfortunately, the Preamble is a statement of intent, not law - unlike the body of the constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, in view of her "Christian" mud-slinging (Christ would have turned the other cheek) - "atheist-liberal mind" - she prefers to give the actual "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI) wide berth, as it is based upon freedom of individual conscience, not upon "group-think"; as such it rules out her determinist assertion, "I have sincere appreciation for the freedom God has indeed given all of us in this world, and compassion for those who do not enjoy the same." Wouldn't the latter indicate that those who aren't "enjoying" their freedom don't actually have it? Or could it be that "God"-the-anti-freedom-dictator overlooked the requirement that freedom, to be genuine, must be allowed expression in action? And, as the liberal framers of the constitution recognized and established, be free to exercise their free will in the right to be atheist - without also being subjected to insult from arrogant "turn-the-other-cheek" "Christians"? If all that freedom was given by "God", then it appears the bleeding and sweaty labors of the liberal framers were unnecessary, and the millions of soldiers who died fighting to preserve freedom were atheists, else they would not have worried that such perfect freedom could be lost. Ms Bond stopped reading much too soon - before she learned the constitution does not contain "God" in any form (blame it on the atheist-liberal framers), and before arriving at Article VI, which (also) includes this stipulation against her judgmental, reactionary "Christian" intolerance: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Ms Bond's imagined "God" was and remains irrelevant to the secular US constitution and laws. She is also invited to read the First Amendment to the constitution, in relevant part stipulating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [ie, "faith-based" organization], or prohibiting the free [of government funding, and therefore of government taxation] exercise thereof ..."
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 25, '05)


Frank [letter, Jan 24], I feel dogs and other carnivorous animals lead a respectable life [on] this planet when compared [with] the thick-skinned, Chinese "communist" genociders. These animals don't walk around proudly with [the blood] of millions of people. Evolution from monkey to man may have taken thousands of years, but communist China is proving the reverse is possible and may take considerably less time. Frank, you don't have to prove this theory time and again. George Fernandes went to Beijing when the rest of the world shunned and quarantined China because of contagious SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] virus attack. You should be grateful to him and the Indian delegation which landed in the forbidden land and thank him for undertaking this possibly perilous journey conducted at the [potential] cost of their lives. But alas, Frank, you seem to have lost the ability to see and appreciate these finer points that all normal human beings are endowed with.
Kannan (Jan 25, '05)


OK, Bill Woll [letter, Jan 24], quit talking about how the PRC [People's Republic of China] indoctrinated and brainwashed me with the so-called "own brand of revisionist history". I never claimed that it was the United States who started the Korean War. I was taught by Beijing that both North and South Korea were ready to go to war with each other, but it was the North Koreans who started the whole thing. Are you satisfied? Again, I was reputing Daniel McCarthy's absurd claim that China waged war against South Korea in 1950 (as an example of China's alleged aggressions) by stating the fact that the US went to war with North Korea earlier. It was hypocrisy on his part. Get it?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jan 25, '05)


In response to Laosuwan's letter [Jan 24], I have to admit that the basis of my research is also personal - I have relatives [who] are Chinese Buddhists who own non-bumiputra land. Maybe there is extreme discrimination against ethnic Thais in Malaysia that I would not know about. I could not find any information online regarding land ownership in Malaysia - could someone please point us in the right direction? The ethnic, political and religious unrest in southern Thailand is not going to be resolved by the symbolic gesture of dumping paper cranes. It is up to Thais both north and south to find solutions that have greater political substance. I would also like Laosuwan to clarify his assertion: "Malaysia has arrested a few of them on their side of the border. What have they done? Nothing. In fact they have refused to extradite them in order to protect the sensibilities of fellow Muslims. Those are their words, not mine." I have not come across this in mainstream Western news so I would like to [ask] Laosuwan to reference me to the news story, the reporting agency, the identities of the terrorists involved and the Malaysian governmental figure who made the above-mentioned statement (not taken out of context). With regards to my "myopia", I am not unaware of Malaysia's institutional problems, enlightened by Atimes and various Malaysian opposition publications such as Malaysiakini that highlight the discrimination in almost every facet of Malaysian life faced by minorities in Malaysia, in a relatively fair and balanced way. It is just that I feel that the grievances faced by the Malaysian people should not be hyperbolized in order to excuse any other country's misgovernance or to achieve whatever political agenda. From what I gather from the various Malaysian letter writers to Atimes, a) there is widespread institutional discrimination against minorities in Malaysia, b) Malaysians, despite discrimination against the minorities, live in relative harmony because they either accept the inequality out of resigned acceptance or for the sake of peace and tolerance, c) both Malay and non-Malay groups have made efforts to that effect and d) non-bumiputra Malaysians are increasingly unhappy with Malaysia's discriminatory policies.
Omega Lee aka Clement
Melbourne, Australia (Jan 25, '05)


With respect to DVeri's letter (Jan 21), I don't see how the Muslims in Malaysia wearing a tudung or a baju panjang (as far as I know there [are] baju kuring, baju kebaya, baju kedah but no such thing as baju panjang) has got anything to do with your perception of race discrimination or are you disallowing the freedom of choice for the Malay/Muslim womenfolk to wear the current head wrap or tudung. Are you going into religious discrimination now? And talking about religious discrimination, I have seen incidences where the wearing of a tudung by a candidate at an interview for a sales job in a multinational company is looked on negatively, leading to the person not being hired despite being better qualified. On being called "Kafir", that is a terminology used for non-Muslims, nothing derogatory, just a statement of being non-Muslim, unless you are a Muslim, in which case you have the right to be upset for being called "Kafir". On Muslims finding it unacceptable to sit and eat where haram food is present, this is a matter of choice for the adults as well as consideration on the part of the person(s) who is/are sharing the table. I would think that you as a well-educated considerate person would not like to offend your friend knowing his/her sensitivity towards such matters. In fact having lived in this society, even if the person [with whom] we are sharing the table is someone unknown to us, we should be understanding and sensitive to their feelings. This matter is slightly different for children, who do not know any different and may even sample the food. So please be understanding and not just think about your needs. By the way, your sentence about the "adversarial and imperious manner by which the rules are applied by the powers-that-be" seemed to be an emotional one. For your information, I find people of this kind not reserved to the Malays but to all other races of the world. Now let's go into the subject of work in the civil service. Last year, there was a call for Malaysians of all races for jobs in the police sector. Minimal response was received from the non-Malays, the reason being low pay - so please don't take isolated incidences and start talking about "ensuring dominance in the civil service". On other matters such as the Youth Wing of UMNO [United Malays National Organization] threatening to burn down buildings, that is unlawful and if they do proceed to do so, get the evidence and prosecute them. At the end of the day, there are bullies everywhere. One has to learn to stand up [for] one's rights, though not by ranting about ancestors coming from Madras or Guangzhou, but as Malaysians regardless of our origins.
S Ismail
Malaysia (Jan 25, '05)


While we Asians are busy fighting each other, Europe is slowly poaching on Asian nations like Ukraine and Turkey.
Ramesh Kumar
India (Jan 25, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari, in his The battle of the tyrants (Jan 22), writes of "major struggles" that were "defined and redefined", the main one being the Cold War, and says the current struggle, the "global war on terrorism", lacks the "conceptual or perceptual clarity of the Cold War era". He appears to accept, however, the notion that there is an organization called al-Qaeda in his thoughts on who is the tyrant here, George Bush and the US government, or the terrorists. The fact is that the conceptual underpinnings of the Cold War were just as murky as the war on terror, if not more so, and that what comes through in both "struggles" is the continuing US support of tyrants. The Vietnam War was started to prevent democratic elections, and the US has made it its business to routinely overthrow democratic elected governments wherever US interests, whatever they might be, were threatened or discomfited. A fabulous BBC documentary, now available for downloading on the Internet, entitled The Power of Nightmares: The Politics of Fear, makes clear that the Cold War and the war on terror invoke bogeymen and imaginary hostile capabilities whose existence is doubtful or deceitfully hyperbolized. This sort of deception is possible because the driving force behind the "struggle" against these imaginary tyrants is what former president of the US Dwight Eisenhower called the "military/industrial complex". This complex of arms merchants and military industrialists thrives on lack of clarity and on the spread of paranoia. The idea of John Mearsheimer, cited by Ahrari in Mearsheimer's "excellent essay", is that the Cold War provided order to the "anarchy of international relations". This is absurd, unless one is to take that "order" as top-down dominance of and suppression of movements of national liberation and anti-colonialism. International relations should be anarchic, just as anarchic as the free market, with the "invisible hand" not being any dominating government or political system. Instead we are now faced with a new world "ordure" in which the new boss is the same as the old boss. The bipolarity of the Cold War should not be classified as order, but instead seen as the fear-dependent triumph of military industrialists who encouraged opacity in the portrayal of who the real enemy is.
Gregorio Kelly (Jan 24, '05)


To state that terrorists hate freedom or "our way of life" makes a good speech in Pocatello, Idaho, says Ehsan Ahrari ([The battle of the tyrants] Jan 22). Hey, give 'em a break. I drove through Pocatello once and even stayed overnight. Not even they are that stupid. Next time use Sheepshit, Texas, or Eagle Gulch, Wyoming.
PenDragon
Sleepy Hollow, New York (Jan 24, '05)


[Re] The battle of the tyrants by Ehsan Ahrari: You label both George Bush and [Musab al-]Zarqawi as "tyrants" and then wonder why you have a credibility problem with Americans. Get serious.
Dale Stoy
Saline, Mississippi (Jan 24, '05)

Thanks for setting us straight with comprehensive counter-arguments based on facts on the ground. Or is this comment "faith-based"? - ATol


[Re Bush unclouded by doubt, Jan 22] George W Bush's second inaugural speech had a little less than 2000. It lacked the flourish say of a Lincoln or a Grant or a Roosevelt. Yet it is remarkable in that Mr Bush used "freedom" 27 times. He spoke as though he were a Roman emperor addressing urbi et orbi his subjects and lesser nations. Like the Statue of Liberty, he would raise high the flame of liberty throughout the world in the United States divine mission of "expan[ding] freedom in the world". Who would have thought a God-fearing conservative like him, who should cherish the virtues of stability, patience, and step-by-step progress, turns out to be a closet Trotskyite who preaches endless and incessant turmoil, unending regime change, and permanent revolution? Mr Bush's speech can, in some eyes, be dismissed as eyewash, as mere window dressing, the better to hide a gathering social storm domestically, a burgeoning debt, and an example of the moneyed classes war against the poor. Interestingly, it has frightened allies and has not given a whit of reassurance that the second Bush administration has learned lessons from past mistakes. In Mr Bush's Weltanschauung, he speaks ex cathedra having right and God's might on his side, to bring in "ennobled" gestures the fruits of democracy a l'americaine to every corner of the globe like it or not. Mr Bush's inaugural speech reminds one of the old Chinese saying: "Kill a chicken to frighten the monkeys." Well, he killed Saddam Hussein's chicken but instead of bringing to heel the terrorists monkeys, he has managed to multiply their number and make the world more dangerous in his war against terrorism, in Iraq. And much to his discredit he has strained the fabric of America's military and damaged their ability to fight "one, two, three, or more" Iraqs at the same time. Additionally, the never-ending growing deficit is eroding from within the "land of the free and home of the brave", which Mr Bush in his oath has sworn to protect and fructify. Irony would be wasted on the unflappable 42nd president of the United States, were Dr Samuel Johnson to speak from the grave, reminding him that "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels".
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 24, '05)

Congratulations for managing to insert terms from three different languages in a 46-word (predominantly) English sentence. And thanks for using English for the Chinese proverb. - ATol


[K Gajendra] Singh: Your article [The Kirkuk tinderbox, Jan 22] was very informative. What do you think about any confrontation in the near future between Turkey/Syria with US/Israel over the issue of Kurds in light of [the] new Bush doctrine (end of tyranny)? Liberating Kurds fulfill US/Israel interests.
M A Sheikh (Jan 24, '05)


I thank you for your article [Th