Asia Times Online

Letters

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.)

February 2005

My! My! One must be surprised by some sensible policies coming from the present Indian government (Open house in India [Feb 26] by Kunal Kumar Kundu). This makes eminent sense and one wonders why it took so long to do that. For one, housing and construction industries are one of the largest in the world and affect all parts of economy, from the steel and cement industries to consumer goods to labor markets. Furthermore, it will allow for expansion of mortgage and insurance markets. Finally, it will take some hot money chasing the limited stocks the public (or foreign funds) are allowed to buy on the stock markets. In the absence of large-scale privatizations of the government companies, expansion of real estate will prove to be a real liberalizer of the Indian economy.
AP (Feb 28, '05)

In his article The global warming scam [Feb 25], Dr Derek Kelly raises the issue of previous warming and cooling trends on the planet. The process he describes is one of oscillation towards a homeostatic mean global temperature. This process is indeed natural as all systems tend towards homeostasis (see Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics). However, what Dr Kelly overlooks is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics that make systems dynamic rather than static. Dr Kelly also ignores hypotheses regarding global oscillations in temperature because, for the sake of his argument, they would be inconvenient. As scientists we all understand that correlation is not causation. Yet in all of the instances of warming and cooling cited by Dr Kelly there exist correlational properties to the phenomenon of global shifts in temperature that at the least offer partial explanations. For every instance of cooling one can find a significant volcanic eruption or meteor impact that produced such quantities of particulate matter into the atmosphere that would affect the passage of sunlight to the Earth's surface, for example. In every instance the warming following such periods seems to be adequately explained by the eventual precipitation of that matter back on to he Earth's surface. These are events that virtually all scientists and a great number of lay persons are familiar with from elementary school or the Discovery Channel. Yet what marks the present global warming trend as significant is its rate and lack of correlation to other natural phenomena aside from mankind's unintended intervention. Dr Kelly forwards a proposition championed by a number of prominent critics of technology: it is not possible for us to deliberately control the climate's mean temperature. Unfortunately he makes the mistake of assuming we can't control our own behavior when it inadvertently affects the environment upon which we depend and within which we evolved. He even takes the radical step of suggesting we shouldn't even attempt to restrain ourselves. He argues that life has always existed regardless of what extreme existed on the Earth's surface; but tends to favor the warmer one. It might be adequate at this point to remind Dr Kelly that he should discriminate between minor and major fluctuations in the Earth's temperature and note that during major fluctuations the dominant life forms tended to disappear. At present that is us. Certainly he is right in assuming life will find a way. The outstanding question is, "Will we continue to be a part of it?" It might also be worth reminding those who are like-minded with Dr Kelly and his radical prescriptions that the responsibility for establishing a case for continued activity that leads to warming lies in their hands. It is often assumed by global-warming skeptics that responsibility lie with those who call for restraint. This position couldn't be more backwards. What Dr Kelly and industrial-minded people forget is that mankind's default setting does not include "progress". Like the Earth and its ecosystems, the true default is a trend towards homeostasis. Deviations from that balance must be explained and justified. When contemplating behaviors that even may pose a risk to our species it is incumbent upon us to err on the side of caution. We have survived millions of years with spears and animal skins. Unrestrained technological activity is not a right - it is a luxury. If that luxury cannot be pursued without it detrimentally effecting our long-term prospects as a species, then I can see no reason to continue the risk. Industry's bottom line that there are "acceptable" amounts of excess CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere is like a tobacco company's saying there is an acceptable amount of cigarettes one can smoke and still be able to avoid the risk of cancer. In both cases neither seem to know precisely the limit. I for one wouldn't suggest we risk exceeding it when we are perfectly capable of abstaining from the behavior in the first place.
Kenneth McDonald
published researcher in behavioral genetics (Feb 28, '05)

The opinion piece by [Derek] Kelly on climate change ([The global warming scam] Feb 25) was sadly uninformed. A likely result of global warming is, in fact, the triggering of an early glacial period. The point behind the Kyoto Protocol is that the Earth's climate is a delicately balanced system. We are affecting that system in large ways now and need to take responsibility for its wise management. It is unfortunate that Mr Kelly's flat-Earth mentality is so prevalent. You would think that by the time one achieved a doctorate in any field (even computer science) one would have learned to clean up after [oneself].
Sean
USA (Feb 28, '05)

Derek Kelly's article on global warming - he's in favor of it - has numerous errors [The global warming scam, Feb 25]. Coming from a person with a PhD, I would expect an article that had been tirelessly researched and with a biography to back up his thesis. For instance, Kelly's contention that 1816, the "year without a summer" in the US and other parts of the world, was part of the Earth's cycles of warming and cooling. [The cool weather of] 1816, the year without a summer, was caused by the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano complex in Indonesia. It was a series of massive explosions that sent enough dust into the atmosphere that lingered well into the summer of 1816. This volcanic cloud was able to affect the world's climate on a global scale. Kelly's whole article reads like a paper submitted by high-school junior [11th-grader], not someone with a PhD. Or maybe Mr Kelly is in the pay of either ExxonMobil or the Republican-controlled White House and US media. The first two are in favor of global warming and the large majority of the latter are still snoozing. With the recent revelations that the Bush White House pays so-called journalists to spread their propaganda, it would not be a surprise to learn Mr Kelly is beholden to Karl Rove.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Feb 28, '05)

I think that your publishing of Derek Kelly's deceptive article [The global warming scam, Feb 25] damages the credibility of Asia Times [Online]. It is the consensus of serious scientists who do research in the area of climate change that global warming is occurring and that it constitutes a clear danger of our economies, our citizens' lives, and the welfare of other species. Only the oil corporations will profit since the melting of polar ice caps will open new areas for oil exploration. Yes, I know that there are people like Derek Kelly who ignore the mountains of scientific evidence which document that global warming is occurring and will be harmful to many, but I'm not surprised because there are still people who claim that the world is flat. What surprises me is that Asia Times Online would publish such nonsense.
Paul Haemig, PhD
Sweden (Feb 28, '05)

There was a time when scientists defended their theories by defending their theories. The unfortunate modern tendency to say "believe us because we have a mountain of evidence, but don't ask us what it is because you are too dumb to understand" is, perhaps, the attitude that has permitted the world's greatest polluter to snub the Kyoto Protocol and cavalierly dismiss global-warming theory as so much hype. Occasionally it behooves the scientific community to climb down from its mountain of evidence and offer sound scientific arguments refuting those of Dr Kelly et al, in terms we dummies can understand. - ATol

Derek Kelly [The global warming scam, Feb 25] is not getting his Rhodes Scholarship this year.
Marty Blue
Maine, USA (Feb 28, '05)

None of the followers of the "human-induced global warming" scare nor the scaremongers using the "ozone hole" can be bothered to crack open a geology text nor, in the case of the ozone hole, their high-school chemistry texts. They are a perfect example of a Chinese saying (oh, Frank from Seattle, you will love this one): "One village dog barks at a shadow. A thousand village dogs bark at the bark." You are perfectly right, [Derek] Kelly [The global warming scam, Feb 25], there is not a single environmental activist including our [Canada's] own David Suzuki who has been able or willing to explain the cause of massive global warming that started 15,000 years ago and melted a circumpolar ice cap that covered all of Canada and was 600 meters thick right here in what is now Calgary. Nor are these bandwagon scientists (and their mindless followers) ready to explain the remains of temperate-climate tree fossils on Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic. Sadly, "environmental science" is now an oxymoron and is more correctly to be named "politically correct environmental politics". Men and women with PhDs who have families to raise and mortgages to pay are scrambling to generate research-project money. Unless they are wealthy, they need to be aware of the bandwagon that gives them the greatest chance of obtaining research funding. And which PhD can afford to bite the hand that feeds him/her? And who can deny that when I piss in the Pacific Ocean that I contribute to raising the sea level and that the mindless multitudes would hysterically pronounce me guilty of contributing to the flooding of Tuvalu? In the current politically correct climate everyone gets drowned out by the cacophony of the mindless barking of the village dogs (with a bow to Frank from Seattle).
AL
Canada (Feb 28, '05)

Thanks to everyone who responded [letters, Feb 25] to my perhaps overly enthusiastic essay [The global warming scam, Feb 25]. Here is a more sober response to your concerns. Doug: I did not call global warming a scam; I said Kyoto is a scam. Let's assume global warming is occurring as claimed and that its causes are known. There surely can be (and is) disagreement over how to respond, which is what Kyoto is about. As far as the Arctic is concerned, sea ice has been variable over the years. The Arctic has not been continuously covered in ice for 15 million years. It comes and goes. And, yes, the poor polar bears would be affected, but then the fabled "Northwest Passage" would be opened up. But then again, poor Panama would lose all those revenues from the Canal. Tom: Yes, there is nothing wrong with wanting future generations to have the best tools possible to control "short term" swings in their environment. The thing is, we don't have the tools now and we may not have them in the future. No one knows how to control the weather; no one knows how to control the climate. Some models for possible control and prediction have been developed, but none are beyond question. Our climate is affected by at least some or all of the following: sunspots (solar variability), lunar effects, Earth's orbit and inclination, ocean circulation and salinity, volcanoes, water vapor, methane and many others. Maybe some day we'll have a controllable climate, but it's not going to be within our lifetimes. Kaj: You say that the hothouse effects are accelerating the melting of glaciers here and now, and you ask if the polluters will pay the damages to those who have to move to higher ground. But again, glaciers, which contain a minute fraction of the total supply of water on Earth, have melted and grown for ages long before we came on the scene - and they have negligible effects on sea level rising. Suggesting that alleged polluters should pay people to move to higher ground is as ludicrous as having the cigarette companies pay me for having gotten lung cancer from smoking. Fabricio: You say that you don't think you can say anything that will change my mind about the reality of global warming, yet that is precisely what I think about your "argument." Global warming, caused by anthropogenic fossil-gas emissions seems to be an article of faith, something like the Virgin Birth, or the 72 virgins of the jihadist, something that cannot be questioned. Either you agree with the global warmers or you are some sort of evil, profit-making, polluting, numbskull from hell. Only the infotainment media in the US, of which you seem to have been watching and reading too much, seems convinced of the certainty of global warming. Every scientific item I read mentions uncertainties, inadequacies of models, and the need for more research and so on. For example, it is by no means certain that the terrible hurricanes of last year had anything to do with global warming. If you look at the record of hurricanes, you will see that the period of 1930-60s was very active, with many severe hurricanes, followed by a lull, which is now being reversed. I lived through many severe hurricanes in some of those years (yes, I was born just a few miles south of your beautiful Cuba). And I still prefer the tropics to the mainland USA. Yes, I feel terrible about the devastation of hurricanes, or cyclones, or tornadoes, or volcanoes - but these things have been going on long before the infernal combustion machine. The implications of global climate change are frightening and are of great concern to everyone. The great mystery, however, is whether the change is permanent or transitory, and whether the role of humanity in this change is central or peripheral.
Derek Kelly (Feb 28, '05)

David Isenberg, in Bush's 'priceless' war [Feb 25], neglects to note the fact that the "Cato Institute", when it must, describes itself sometimes as a "conservative" "think-tank" and at others as "Libertarian". Regardless how it represents itself, its "thinking" is confined solely to how to propagandize against "excessive" regulation ("excessive" being any amount whatsoever) and for "free market" economics. One measure of the Cato Institute's "legitimacy" is its aggressive advocacy for the National Rifle Association's falsehood that the Second Amendment to the US constitution protects an "individual" right, which - characterized by US Supreme Court Justice Berger as "a fraud on the American people" - it flatly does not do. In a US with ... objective, professional media, the Cato Institute would be recognized for what it is: a well-funded extreme fringe minority of anti-liberal cranks, thus [it] would not be solicited for its opinion on matters which concern the moderate majority. To solicit their opinion imputes to them an undeserved credibility. Daniel McCarthy writes: "If any readers are unaware of ... China's belligerence, they should consider ... China's 1979 invasion of Vietnam ..." It is clear that Mr McCarthy has neither learned how to mind his own business - the US invasion of and involvements in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia violated international law, US treaties and founding principles, and killed at least 1 million civilians - or how not to be a groundlessly smug, chest-pounding and prattling hypocrite.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 28, '05)

In response to my letter of February 24, ATol wrote, "A list of 'belligerent' threats and actions at least as long as this one could be compiled regarding the US. Guess you won't object then if, say, Cuba 'sees the threat and wishes to curb it'." Cuba is certainly free to take any actions necessary to defend itself from invasion or other interference. However, notwithstanding Washington's periodic vitriol toward Cuba, there has been no hostile action taken against it, and no substantial preparations for hostile action have been made. In fact, Washington did not object at all when [then Chinese president] Jiang Zemin wanted to fly directly from the continental US to Cuba to hug the very handsome Fidel Castro. How would China react if [US President George W] Bush wanted to fly from Beijing to Taipei to hug President Chen [Shui-bian]?
Daniel McCarthy (Feb 28, '05)

Hostility is in the eyes of the beholder, but at the very least China's attacks on Taiwan, unlike America's on Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc etc, have so far been verbal only. As for proxy wars and sponsored terrorism against, for example, Nicaragua; assassination campaigns and economic terrorism ("embargo", in US parlance) against, for example, Cuba and the former Soviet bloc; economic threats against nations such as Canada and Venezuela who do not kowtow to US foreign policy - well, no one wants to get all warm and fuzzy about China, but it becomes clearer that there aren't too many "hugs" in this picture. - ATol

The obvious reason why Nepal has traditionally bought arms from India is the convenience factor [India hits Nepal where it hurts, Feb 24]. [Since Nepal borders] India, India would be the natural source to buy arms. Now that New Delhi has stopped this process completely, New Delhi will lose a very strategic instrument with Kathmandu, since Nepal can easily buy arms from dozens of arms-selling nations across the world and her dependence on India may be irrevocable and Nepal will gain greater autonomy in this key sector. I believe it was a bad move by India. What if Nepal turns to China to supply arms? What leverage will India have over China? And what influence will China gain in Nepal due to this decision?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 28, '05)

The article by Bashdar Ismaeel, Democracy, act 1 (Feb 24), is an interesting analysis on the latest developments in Iraq. As a result of these elections there is every likelihood that Dr Ibrahim Jaafari would be the new prime minister of Iraq and that he and his coalition could bring much desired stability in that war-ravaged country. A lot of toil and effort [are] to be concluded, as the election by itself is not the ultimate answer. The political structure of Iraq is to be put in place, through a complicated scheme of compromise, accommodation and appropriate representation to all the ethnic and sectarian groups of Iraq. Most important of all, the people of Iraq must feel that they are sovereign in their homeland. In other words, the question of legitimacy, for the Iraqi leadership becomes vital. The United States needs an honorable exit from Iraq. There is no other view that only an acceptable and effective future Iraqi government can provide that. This remains the only pragmatic approach for the Iraqi riddle.
Professor Dr S Farooq Hasnat
Columbia, Maryland (Feb 28, '05)

While perusing this publication on the Internet, I was greatly disappointed by the vacuity and peevish nature of the journalist Spengler, whom I will hereafter refer to as Mr Spengler, presuming the title solely for the purposes of respect and ease of reference. In the article entitled Why America is losing the intelligence war [Nov 11, '03], Mr Spengler makes several excellent and entirely correct points, not least among them the various errors of America's abysmal foreign policy. However, this journalist's laudable reputation is undercut and rendered laughable by other articles, such as What is American culture? (Nov 18, '03), a piece which, one hopes, is intended to be amusing and merely fails. Mr Spengler loses credibility when his research skills are used to impersonate the same jingoistic xenophobia that created the villains of his "proper" Italy. [Benito] Mussolini, I am sure, would love to read a poorly written invective against the narrow range of personal frustrations Mr Spengler, in throes of self-importance bordering on psychosis, seems to take as a culturewide endemic pattern - an axis, if you will, of Western evil. How long will this magazine have until Mr Spengler finds a few choice physical characteristics to hate? How long until he whips up prejudice against an entire population based on his time in the USA (I would not be surprised to find he himself is a citizen) and a jaunt in Italy? How long will it be before he is fired? I hope to God he isn't getting paid for this tripe. Aside from this writer I find your publication refreshing and enjoyable, as well as excellently written. Please tender my apologies to Mr Spengler's no-doubt-disappointed mother, and consider continuing this enterprise without his poor writing impeding your success.
Benjamin Winter (Feb 28, '05)

About Spengler's choice of T S Eliot, here is a poem for Joseph Nagarya that is obscure but I hope not overrated.
Brooding over the ills of the world
Intrepidly pursuing truth
In a labyrinth of torture, lies, fantasy and conspirabunk
Like Sisyphus
Ceaselessly rolling the boulder of the uninformed masses
Up the mountain of ignorance, war crimes, Neanderthals and sneaking suspicions
Only to have it roll back down
Nobody gives a crap what he thinks about poetry.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 28, '05)

You're right, Geoff (letter, Feb 25), we will stick the subject of Rafik Hariri assassination, though some of my previous post mysteriously ended up on the editor's cutting floor. I will restrain my desire to post inflammatory remarks about US history. Two major groups may have had their hand in the Rafik Hariri assassination. I will not examine rogue elements such as but not limited to Syrian or Israeli intelligence agencies. Neither will I will examine the possibility of Lebanese involvement due to the fact that their political workings are too Byzantine for even my subtle mind. I will stick to national entities. The two groups of course are the Syrians and the American-Israeli (A-I) faction. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Syria has suffered worldwide condemnation and the current Lebanese prime minister, a Syrian favorite, is threatening resignation. Additionally the Bush administration has pulled its ambassador, issued a stern demarche and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops and intelligence operatives, omitting the Israeli troops in the Sheba Farms area. The Americans have sufficient air and sea power in the area to teach the Syrians a lesson, if they are convinced of Syrian involvement. Curiously, after several weeks of this tragic affair, no military action has been taken against Syria. Considering that [US President George W] Bush never needed much evidence for military action, this is the strongest piece of evidence of non-Syrian culpability or they do not have a clue. Additionally, nations from the EU have called for an international investigation, which leads me to assume that the European intelligence agencies are in doubt [as] to the perpetrators. The A-I faction have gained the high moral ground in Lebanon and stand to gain influence in Lebanon in the future. If the removal of Syrian troops ever does occur, the A-I faction influence will soar with economic, political and military gains. This will tighten the noose around Syria and force a possible regime change and strengthen the American forces flank in Iraq. Additionally, the Hezbollah will be weakened in southern Lebanon to the benefit of Israel. This will also weaken the new Iran-Syria connection. So would you agree that the entire affair has been a gain for the A-I faction and a loss for the Syrian faction? Would the Syrian government not have foreseen the consequences of the assassination? They may have been able to pull this off during the chaos of the '80s; but now, with direct US military involvement in Iraq. Also notice the recent Russian agreement to sell SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] to Syria; the A-I faction will use this affair to pressure the Russians to limit if not eliminate their military sales to Syria, another benefit to the A-I faction. What did Syria gain? Nothing, nothing at all. Would the future election of Rafik Hariri reduce the influence of Syria in Lebanon after over 30 years of direct involvement? Considering the influence that Syria has with the Hezbollah, a growing military and political power in Lebanon; did the Syrians really lose any power over Hariri's defection? Common sense eliminates the Syrian government from involvement, unless you insist that the Syrians are devoid of common sense. Now the only way to eliminate the A-I faction from the equation is to insist that they stand on a higher moral platform and would never use assassination to achieve their goals. History shows otherwise, as my list in the previous letter demonstrates. Therefore the A-I faction has a higher probability of involvement in the Rafik Hariri assassination. If neither the Syrians [nor] the A-I faction [are] involved, it may point to an [internal] Lebanese affair, which is another matter that we may explore in future posts. I will not again provoke editorial wrath by a long letter. So please, Geoffrey, send us your analysis of the two groups' involvement and we may continue this encouraging exchange of views. And Geoffrey, I am neither pro or con. I just don't want to see a widened Middle East conflict based on a misjudgment. If Syria's involvement is proved, I will eat crow in this esteemed international publication.
Ernie Lynch (Feb 28, '05)

A reminder that debates of this nature may be more appropriate for The Edge, ATol's forum, where long arguments and digressions are more likely to avoid our "cutting-room floor". - ATol

I have been following your Taiwan coverage for a while, since I live in the region. It's a pity that such a respected publication as yours almost solely relies on sources close to the government or the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] for its coverage. Surely you must be aware that the Taipei Times belongs to the Liberty Times group, which is rabidly pro-independence and anti-KMT [Kuomintang]. The same line is followed in the Taipei Times. You do your readers a disservice by such lopsided reporting and it puts in question your reporting on other topics. You owe it to your readers who may not all be familiar with the politics of Taiwan to explain a bit more where your writers come from politically.
Alex Shi (Feb 28, '05)

While it is true that our top contributor on Taiwan politics is Laurence Eyton, deputy editor-in-chief of the Taipei Times, and that his personal politics and therefore the focus of his writing may lean a bit further from the KMT line than you would prefer (we at ATol, on the other hand, believe that his reporting is fair and factually based), he has as much right to a voice on Asia Times Online as anyone else. By the same token, writers who disagree with Eyton are just as welcome to contribute, as long as their articles meet the same standards of fairness and factual basis. - ATol

I am a regular reader of ATol articles. I ... appreciate the work being done by all the writers. Even though I don't [have many] skills of journalism, I feel like being part of the team ... (Feb 28, '05)
Murali

The global warming scam [Feb 25] by the enthusiastic and generous Derek Kelly (he's now helping Chinese to speak English, gee! Frank, you should do something about that) makes ... a celebration of heat. In a style that [calls] for exclamation marks (his article ends: "Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter." I just love that part about the "icy fingers of death", it's so wonderfully outdated, and if you like descriptive prose you will enjoy his moving sketch about Cretaceous), he insists that we should pay to those generous men [who] fill the Earth's atmosphere with CO2 [carbon dioxide] and ask the Chinese to depend on coal (it doesn't matter that coal is not a renewable resource) and forget those Westernized, tech-savvy nuclear plants. Who need them anyway? His strong argument is that climate has never been stable, but I don't think that anyone has ever said that, at least anyone serious. What Derek "enthusiastic" Kelly seems to miss is that there is a difference between natural changes in climate and man-induced changes. Anyway, I don't think I can say anything that will change his mind; enthusiastic people must be listened to for courtesy's sake and then just ignored. I will just recommend him to move to Florida, to the Atlantic shore. You see, I live in a tropical country (Cuba), an island that is now affected by a drought. It hasn't significantly rained for more than a year in the eastern part of the country; the central part is already affected and the western part (where I live) is the next. Global warming for me is a reality. In fact, last year's summer was so hot that four hurricanes came in a row during August and September, a period when no hurricane usually comes to Cuba (in that time of the year they usually go to the [Gulf of Mexico] or pass north [of] the island). Fortunately, the more powerful hurricanes spared Cuba, or at least its more populated cities. Florida wasn't so lucky and people living there suffered the four hurricanes. And what did they do the next November? They voted for [President George W] Bush, the champion of global warming. If Cuba were not in the middle, I would say they deserved all the hurricanes of the world. Unfortunately, we're in the middle and, thanks to the irresponsible climate policy of the Bush government and its consequences, we have to deal with more hurricanes than what may be considered "normal". Bush [did not invent] hurricanes, but global warming is helping to make hurricanes far more powerful than what they used to be (in August of 2004 the Caribbean Sea was so hot that hurricane Category 4 was not strange, but the usual, and that's bad). Asian people, familiarized with typhoons, will understand my plight. And people like Derek, who seems to be a nice guy in spite of his style, are asking for more heat and celebrating global warming because "all life glorifies warmth". No, Derek, not all life (plankton, for instance, doesn't) glorifies in warmth, and if you would live near shore in a hurricane zone, well, neither will you glorify in warmth. On the contrary, you will be asking for a colder world.
Fabricio
Cuba (Feb 25, '05)

Re The global warming scam [Feb 25] by Derek Kelly, PhD: I am curious as to the source of the information in his chronology of climate change. At least one section seems to be strongly contradicted by current research. He claims that from 8,000 to 4,000 years ago the Arctic Ocean was ice-free. Findings from a major study as reported in the New York Times on November 30, 2004, show this is not at all true. The article states, "The preliminary analysis reveals that the Arctic Ocean has been constantly icy for at least 15 million years." An ice-free Arctic Ocean, as predicted by 2050 and due mostly to man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, is a truly ominous event. Arctic wildlife has come to depend on this ice for millions of years, not thousands, and is seriously threatened. Its impact on climate is unpredictable and possibly catastrophic. To be so casual about the impact of man-made atmospheric changes as to call global warming a scam is to be in denial of a huge body of scientific evidence for the sake of shortsighted economic growth.
Doug Davis (Feb 25, '05)

Re The global warming scam [Feb 25] by Derek Kelly: Those who live a mere 10 meters above the present sea level and still have enough oxygen to think straight cannot be much consoled to know that over millions of years sea levels have varied from 90 meters lower to more than 200 meters higher than the present-day level. The hothouse effects are accelerating the melting of glaciers here and now. Will the polluters pay the damages to those who have to move to higher ground?
Kaj Krinsmoe (Feb 25, '05)

I agree with Derek Kelly's analysis of global warming, especially the bikini part [The global warming scam, Feb 25]! Maybe not so much the two North Dakotas part. But what is wrong with wanting future generations to have the best tools possible to control "short term" swings in their environment? Seems selfish to assume they will not be able to use both.
Tom Sullivan
Kauai, Hawaii/Victoria, British Columbia (Feb 25, '05)

It is quite obvious that Dr Derek Kelly, an American, does not need to live in the tropics when the Earth warms up. More greenhouse gases will not affect him too badly [The global warming scam, Feb 25].
David Chiu (Feb 25, '05)

Re The remaking of al-Qaeda [Feb 25] by Syed Saleem Shahzad: I found your recent piece on Asia Times [Online] very informative. I have a few comments. I was profoundly upset by the events of [September 11, 2001] and the US response in the aftermath of these attacks. What has been the result of this? We have been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for over two years. This conflict has cost over $300 billion so far and killed and maimed thousands of soldiers and many more innocent civilians. From what I can see, the US has made little if any progress in either of these countries. Opium production has skyrocketed in Afghanistan over the last two years, strengthening the influence of warlords and private militias. I have read that the US barely controls Kabul. The situation in Iraq is equally bleak. We have an expensive, deadly war that appears to be rapidly progressing into a military, political and economic disaster for the US and Middle East. I cannot see any easy way out of Iraq for the US. Next door, the situation in Pakistan is unstable. Should General Pervez Musharraf be overthrown, a very real possibility, we could well end up with a government in that country that is sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and having control of nuclear weapons. It the world is going to survive, I think that we have to start addressing the root causes of problems giving rise to conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. The US needs to address its energy use head-on. We need to stop supporting repressive governments in the Middle East and provide a realistic framework for a just and equitable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. If we cannot do this, then I fear that the world is headed for an economic crash and more devastating military conflicts.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Feb 25, '05)

David Isenberg's Bush's priceless war [Feb 25] deserves a longer view. It is an open secret that the Bush administration is straining at gnats in pursuit of its domestic agenda and foreign policy. It is waging war on both fronts. On February 22, the central Bank of Korea announced that it might switch [its] reserves out of dollars. This simple statement unsettled world financial markets, forcing the Dow Jones Average to lose 1.7%. The markets have recovered, and the East Asian exchanges have made formal announcements that they [are] not going to remain uncommitted to a weakening United States dollar. In spite of this, the world markets are sustaining on a daily basis US$2 billion to prop up the weak dollar and America's ballooning debt. And this simple, stark reality makes bankers very edgy, and strains taut nerves. For the moment it reminds one of Lord Keynes' aphorism, which runs more or less like this: You owe the bank US$1 million, you are its prisoner. You owe the bank US$100 million and the bank is your prisoner. Yes, the world financial markets are in chains to Washington's madcap war spending. However, just [as in Ludwig van] Beethoven's Fidelio, as the prisoners are let out to the sunlight, they yearn and earn their freedom. The European Union which [US President George W] Bush has tried to make shoulder the financial underpinning of his adventurous, preemptive war in Iraq, is [champing] at the bit. It will, contrary to Washington's warnings, open military sales to China for hard currency to offset the deleterious effect a weak dollar is having on their exports. Asian central banks are looking to diversify holdings, especially in euros, to cushion any shock coming from the American dollar zone. Although [US Federal Reserve chairman] Alan Greenspan, in his convoluted hocus-pocus, reminiscent of Dean Swift's alchemic pursuit of scholars looking to turn human feces into gold on the island of Laputa, may assure markets that the American economy is on course, it is becoming clearer to one and all that the United States is chronically ailing. Mr Bush is doing something unintended in his narrow pursuit of bringing the bells of freedom within everyone's hearing: abroad, he is loosening the binds that tie countries to Washington's apron strings, and domestically, he is preparing the ground for political quietism and further impoverishment of the middle and working classes. So to put it in a context Mr Bush can understand, [while] straining out gnats as [the Gospel According to St] Matthew says, this sitting president has swallowed camels whole, and has seriously hocked the future and welfare of his own people and country.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 25, '05)

In China seethes at US-Japan 'meddling' [Feb 24], author Jing-dong Yuan seems to miss to crucial points: (1) Japan has finally awakened from her long slumber and is not on the road to rearmament and transformation into a global political power; (2) the reason for Japan's awakening is 50 years of PRC [People's Republic of China] belligerence culminating recently in China's nationalistic hostility toward Japan and submarine provocation; and (3) Japan and the US have finally decided to draw the line at Taiwan. The message is quite clear: China cannot have Taiwan. If any readers are unaware of the 50 years of China's belligerence, they should consider China's encouragement of Kim Il-sung's invasion of South Korea in 1950 followed by China's entry into the war, China's invasion of Tibet in 1950 (no, Tibet was not already part of China), China's creation of Taiwan Strait crises in the 1950s and in 1996, China's 1962 invasion of India as a ploy to establish a boundary line favored by China, China's 1979 invasion of Vietnam, China's outrageous claim to sovereignty of the entire South China Sea, China's naval clashes with Vietnam in the South China Sea, China's express threats of war against Taiwan and the US, intense Chinese hostility towards Japanese including at sporting events even though the Japanese at such events are not the people who committed war atrocities against China during World War II, China's attempt to claim sovereignty over some of Japan's territorial waters, China's provocative sending of a submarine into Japanese waters, and China's use of North Korea as a nuclear pit bull with which to threaten Japan, South Korea and the US. Only a fool would fail to see the threat and wish to curb it.
Daniel McCarthy (Feb 25, '05)

A list of "belligerent" threats and actions at least as long as this one could be compiled regarding the US. Guess you won't object then if, say, Cuba "sees the threat and wishes to curb it". - ATol

Praful Bidwai's comparison of India's economic [relationship] with its small neighbors to that of North-South dialogue is stupid [India talks down to its neighbors, Feb 24]. Bidwai, when it comes to trade within SAARC [the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] everyone knows that economics and commerce (and almost everything else) always take a back seat and are foolishly linked to political disputes. Otherwise, why does Pakistan have to import tea all the way from Kenya when it can get it from across the border at a cheaper rate and faster? What is the economic reason for Pakistan's unwillingness to grant most-favored-nation (MFN) status to India even when the latter has unilaterally accorded the same to the former decades back? Why should these two countries conduct their trade either through peddlers or via Middle East? Can you explain the logic to me? Bangladesh freely allows [use of] its land to terrorists and fundamentalists (even al-Qaeda) but is hesitant in allowing transit routes for India. Now that quota restriction in textiles trade is lifted, Pakistan and Bangladesh (textiles constitute more than 70% of their exports) will find it very hard to compete in an open market. What is going to be the social dimension of the economic fallout of these changes in these two nations? [Are] Islamabad and Dhaka equipped to handle the crisis? Bidwai, the roadblocks to realizing SAARC's vision are not economic but are political in nature. In comparison to other regional forums SAARC remains a mere talk shop and there is more emphasis on empty theatrical gestures by the leaders. SAARC will remain a useless body that drains precious resources until it meets the urgent economic, social, political needs of the people of the region. The neighbors are not willing to be part of one family even when the vast economic potential stares at them. The ruling elites of these small nations fear that they would soon be marginalized if they relaxed the barriers. These powerful coteries are in search of an identity to define their nations. No wonder they have not been able to do it even after decades. None of these small nations have developed a peaceful mechanism to resolve disputes arising from the differences among them. Invariably, any dissent within their borders meets the same response ...
Kannan (Feb 25, '05)

The article written by [Bashdar] Ismaeel [Democracy, act 1, Feb 24] was very informative and factual. I enjoyed reading it. My take on the Iraqi election is a little different. Being an American and being raised in America I know what it has been like in America since George W Bush was put into office by the United States Supreme Court in 2000. Up until 2000 I had always believed that the elections in the United States were honest even though the political ads placed in the media were not. In the year 2000 ... in the state of Florida, where George Bush's brother was governor, the elections were far from honest. People were sent to the wrong polls, names were removed from the registrar's list and everything possible [was] done to assure that Bush would carry the state of Florida. When the recount began Bush and his political party went to the Supreme Court to have the counting stopped. After Bush was installed in the office of president numerous news organizations paid with their own money to have access to the votes in Florida, they counted all of the legitimate votes not the ones in dispute. After the count was completed it was discovered that Al Gore won the election in Florida by thousands of votes. Had Bush allowed the votes to be counted he would not have been president the last four years and it is doubtful that he would have been elected in 2004. I believe in a democracy where the majority wins. I believe in an honest government where the leaders tell the people the truth. I do not know how long the leaders in the United states have been lying to the people but I do know they were lied to about the reasons for invading Iraq. I do not believe that you have to invade a country and destroy huge portions of it, kill over 100,000 of the country's citizen's and torture prisoners the way the United States and the other countries assisting in this war have done to bring democracy to a country. I believe it can be done by example and by bringing all allies together to find a way to rid a country of a leader who they think is a tyrant to the people without going to war. Also just as I believe that a house of straw cannot stand, I do not believe that a war based on lies where the reason for going to war changed every day will ever come to fruition. The Iraqi people have shown great courage and I wish them well but until the foreign forces get out of their country there will never be peace. I believe that the only reason this war was ever started was because of the oil beneath the Iraqi sands.
Valerie Harrison
Greenville, Alabama (Feb 25, '05)

Sergei Blagov (Russia torn [Feb 23]) as always makes incisive and subtle observations. However, one can't quite agree with his "warning" that Russia might politically alienate the main market for its oil and gas exports - the West. First of all oil and gas [are] not the types of commodities you'd want to slap import sanctions on, to put it mildly. Second, it is the US, not Europe - whose energy security is to a large degree as tied to Russia as Russia's energy exports are tied to Europe - that is pressuring and threatening Iran. The latter's main exports are likely to continue to go to Asia - India, China, and even Japan - so Russia should not expect much competition to its energy exports to Europe; even Libya is being pressured by the US to direct a substantial part of its exports across the Atlantic instead of Europe. With the construction of the Russian pipelines to the Pacific and to the Barents Sea, Russia will be able to export oil to East Asia and the US, in addition to Europe. And on a larger scale, sovereign states - and today as in the past, the most sovereign states are the Powers - do not make it a practice to abandon their strategic or tactical interests and relationships with one side in order to achieve some incremental improvement - and that's the most that can be expected between Russia and the US - with another power, albeit a superpower. If Russia abandons its cooperation with Iran, the latter will lose some measure of its ability to withstand US pressure, which would only increase the chances that in the end Russia's interest in a measure of strategic balance in the region will come under a serious threat, a goal she shares with China and a goal which both states seem to be pursuing in Iran.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Feb 25, '05)

Dear Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-conservative mind, Feb 23]: Far from "fighting political and cultural battles of a past generation which neither were won nor lost, but merely became irrelevant", the Jewish neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are the 21st-century equivalents of the European Court Jews of the 16th to 19th centuries. These very bright men let themselves be known to the robber barons (kings, princes, electors) of small independent statelets, then they were invited to manage the financial affairs of the courts, and to arrange for the purchase of supplies and weaponry. As an important sideline, they arranged for safe houses for their families in case of pogroms, and to arrange for strong gates for the Jewish ghettos to be locked at night and during Christian holy days to protect their people from being savaged by "Christian" hoodlums. The hard-working and exploited citizens of these little kingdoms had absolutely no say in the appointment of the Court Jews. I see a parallel in the function and strategies of the Jewish neo-conservatives of the Bush administration. Using the wealth created by the American meshuggene goyim, they are protecting "The Realm", which is Israel. And something strange has taken place there lately: Israelis are busy creating their own ghetto with its own security wall and protected gates because, sadly, they have moved again into an area where they are not wanted, this time by the Asian citizens of western Asia. So you see, Spengler, you can wipe out the entire third paragraph of your latest essay.
AL
Canada (Feb 25, '05)

Follow-up to Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-conservative mind, Feb 23], who writes: "The obscurantism of [T S] Eliot's poetry [has] eroded the popular audience for modern poetry ..." The view of the US publishing industry has long been and continues to be that there is no market for poetry. If true, it is at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy: because it "doesn't sell", they don't publish it, and don't promote it, therefore it "doesn't sell". However, though most bookstores provide only the tried-and-true "classics", poetry does sell sufficiently for bookstores to devote substantial extremely valuable shelf space to it. As for "obscurantism": as poetry need not "make sense" - it is foremost a celebration of language - those most responsible for the "obscurantism" have been academics (and those usually formalists, which would be Spengler's preference). Indeed, the modernism in poetry against which Spengler inveighs was in part a reaction against "obscurantism" (and formalism) - thus the ordinariness of language, and accessibility, of such as William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and Denise Levertov. And, though my view is that poetry is composed (of silence) by an individual in solitude, so is therefore to be absorbed by an individual in solitude (and silence), there is a large number of enthusiastic young in the US who attend what they call "poetry slams" - public competitions of individuals spouting "poetry", similar to "rappers" but without the rappers' pretense to be "music". (I believe competition is anathema to and the destruction of poetry.) Moreover, the ... audience for popular poetry (a whole other issue) - partly because of such "slams" - may be larger than it has been historically, as it has not had a large audience for centuries (in large part because composed for and read by those who could afford higher education, and that thing called "leisure"). See The Place of Poetry: Two Centuries of an Art in Crisis (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky 1981), Christopher Clausen.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 25, '05)

John Parker's assertion that the US should restore nuclear weapons to South Korea is both foolish and dangerous [Restore US nukes to South Korea, Feb 23]. Does Parker think that redeploying nuclear weapons will reduce the anti-US sentiment in South Korea which he admits is "rampant"? Parker states that he "enthusiastically supported" the decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991 because these weapons were "considered particularly risky". He fails then to mention that the same reasons for not deploying them now still hold true, ie, that tactical nukes are difficult to store securely and are also more likely to be used by frontline commanders in the heat of battle without orders from Washington. The Bush administration has stated that it has war plans which include targeting North Korea with nuclear weapons. The US maintains more than 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads on high-alert status, all of which can be launched in a matter of minutes. A single Trident sub cruising off the coast of North Korea could hit almost 200 separate targets in less than three minutes with close to as much firepower as was used in all of World War II. North Korea knows this. Sending nuclear weapons back to South Korea would turn the clock back to 1951, not 1991.
Steven Starr
New Bloomfield, Missouri (Feb 25, '05)

James Chou got a little emotional (letter, Feb 24) when he accused China of "insisting on Taiwanese people kowtowing to its stubborn and self-serving agenda". Kowtowing? What agenda? It has been publicly stated, time and again, that Taiwan could keep its government, army, police, etc with no official coming from the mainland to Taiwan, should unification occur. On the other hand, Taiwan could send some people to take up official positions in Beijing. Negotiations will be open and every item can be discussed. The overriding condition is that there will be eventual unification. It is fruitless for the diehards to spend billions of dollars to purchase arms. It is equally ridiculous to believe that Japan can make a real difference. All these are just temporary noisy background which will disappear in due course.
Li (Feb 25, '05)

Re Ernie Lynch (letter, Feb 24): The topic is the assassination of Rafik Hariri and who stands to gain or lose from it, not America's crimes in Vietnam, not Israel's in Shatila. You are trying your darnedest to change the subject to "Americans shouldn't comment on the sins of others because America itself has sinned." In my original letter I did not defend the war in Iraq, or any other American policy. Yet you assumed as much simply because I pointed out some of the rhetorical tricks of the trade used by Pepe Escobar. You tout "balance" and "scholarship" while offering neither. Many consider themselves "balanced" and "scholarly" after reading Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, or Noam Chomsky. They can memorize a list of real and imagined American crimes, as you do, while ignoring the other side of the ledger. You mention Hariri's failure as prime minister to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah, yet ignore what could clearly be more relevant to the motives of the murderers - his most recent public statements, his switch to the opposition, and significantly, his endorsement of demands for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. You should learn to think more like the Syrians that you claim to admire so much. If they are "coldly, calculatable" (sic) people, as you say, their attitude toward Hariri must have been - "What have you done for me lately?"
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Feb 25, '05)

At first, I did not believe ATol accepting articles from Xinhua. I thought you hate Xinhua and Chinese communists. Did you obtain the article legally? Then, I read it again. It does sound like soft-landing propaganda. And there is no mentioning of India or elephant. Now I believe you. [I] apologize for mistakes. However, I still doubt that India's cars can zip ahead without freeways. Can you explain how they can do that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 25, '05)

As we suggested under your letter of February 24, who needs freeways when India can send Narain Karthikeyan to Shanghai's state-of-the-art racetrack to compete for the World Driving Championship? And we are still waiting to hear whether you will be joining ATol in the stands to cheer him on next October or, more to the point, if you are buying the Tsingtao. - ATol

Re China seethes at US-Japan 'meddling' [Feb 24] by Jing-dong Yuan: The entire article paints a simple and rosy picture that the so-called security architecture in Asia can be easily achieved through collaborations and bargainings among three major powers, namely the US, China, and Japan. Everything else is dispensable, let alone the well-being of the 23 million flesh and souls in Taiwan. Dr Yuan emphasizes that China has pretty much resolved all [its] historical and territorial disputes with almost all its neighboring countries. We should all congratulate the People's Republic of China [for] such amicable achievements. But I am just wondering, if China had such a willingness and capacity to resolve them, then why [does it have] no wisdom and willingness to resolve the disputes with Taiwan on equal footing? After all, China does not have to seethe at the US-Japan security alliance or anyone else at all. The threat from the US-Japan security alliance can be easily overcome overnight should China find the courage and wisdom to listen to the calls of Taiwanese people of what their aspirations are. I bet you that the US and Japan would find it a huge nightmare should China and Taiwan find a way of ending the hostility and move on toward cordial ties economically, socially, culturally, and politically regardless of the shape or form of political affiliation. Why can't China do it? Why did China insist on Taiwanese people kowtowing to its stubborn and self-serving agenda? As an old saying, you get what you pay for. Nobody else to blame but yourself.
James Chou
Vancouver, British Columbia (Feb 24, '05)

Kosuke Takahashi has offered a clever conceit in his dubbing Japan a putative Britain of the Far East [Japan to become 'Britain of the Far East', Feb 24]. Is the recent accord between Washington and Tokyo for further strengthening military ties and more coordination in regional geopolitical matters, an avatar of the 1902 Anglo-Japanese military alliance, which had the effect of raising Imperial Japan to the status of world power, and of trying to checkmate Czarist expansion in Central Asia and the Far East, in what Rudyard Kipling's Kim called the great game, this three years before the humiliating defeat of Russian at the hands of the Japanese army at Mukden, and the destruction of Russia's imperial navy at Tsushima? Mr Takahashi buries in his article the determining event which moved the inertia of Japanese military and geopolitical thinking: the launching of Pyongyang's rocket over Japan. Grafted on to the leaps and bounds of North Korea military technology came the question of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) admission of having a nuclear arsenal. These are serious developments indeed. But the shock and awe which accelerated movement towards tighter relations with the United States and gave more urgency for a revision of the American-imposed Peace Constitution, and the eventual raising of an army, navy, and air force, was Chinese penetration into Japan's territorial waters. Japan has a strong, trained officer corps, otherwise known as the Self-Defense Forces (SDF). A standing army would, with minimum training, remind Tokyo's neighbors [that] they have a formidable opponent in a revived Nippon military. In the longer run, tighter military coordination with Washington is a signal to Beijing, the more especially since Tokyo is committing itself to the defense of its former colony, which China ceded after its defeat in the 1894 Sino-Japanese war fought on the Korean Peninsula, and which we know as Taiwan. Junichiro Koizumi is not playing to ultra-right-wing galleries. He is realistically assessing Japan's options in rapidly evolving and unstable geopolitical realities. Confrontation with China is possible since oil-poor Tokyo is intent in offshore drilling [on] a continental shelf which Beijing has staked out as belonging within its territorial waters. Then there is the unleashing of exasperated Chinese nationalism against Japan, most notably in Japan's soccer teams of China's team. In spite of intense investment in mainland China, there are potential problems of trade friction. Although there are other factors in the equation, Tokyo's moves are more defensive than offensive. It is dangerous to see in today's Japan a looming shadow of past imperial behavior. Eyes should look further west to the Northeast Asian continent.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 24, '05)

Regarding the US-Japan regional security declaration, one wonders if it is brilliant US diplomacy or utter Japanese stupidity or probably both that succeeds to solidify a hostile relationship toward China and Russia. Facing no prospect of expansion and stiffening competition from other Asian countries such as China, India and Korea, Japan is falling into a trap like Taiwan, looking toward America as its protector and savior. Sadly, the technological success of [the] country has not produced political leaders with foresight and wisdom.
Li (Feb 24, '05)

From the article India zips ahead [Feb 24], we can guess who is the author of China in reverse gear. Both articles follow the same logic. The slight reduction of automobile production indicates a good, planned, soft landing of China's superheated economy. India may have [had a] higher rate of increase of automobile production last year. That does not [mean] "India zips ahead". Indrajit Basu proves my theory was right on the target. By blowing a stream of hot air, India's automobiles on their poorly paved roads zip ahead of the Chinese cars on their new freeway system ranked the second in the world. What an amazing mouth! Indrajit Basu must be proud of his achievement. NASCAR should hire him right away.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 24, '05)

The article "China in reverse gear" was supplied by Xinhua. As for the US National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, we doubt that it has much of a following in India (or anywhere in Asia), but we are sure you are thrilled that Narain Karthikeyan has been selected to drive for Jordan in the upcoming Formula One World Championship series, and that you will tear yourself away from ESPN to be in Shanghai on October 16 to cheer him on. - ATol

Great to have you back, Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-con mind, Feb 23]. You were losing me for a while. I agree that the ideas of the neo-cons are irrelevant to thinkers, but they are not irrelevant to Red America. While the big-money elite Republicans don't agree with the neo-con garbage, they cynically exploit it because it helps the further their interests (securing and expanding hegemony) and Red America believes it. Red America hasn't had its faith shattered the way Europe did in the early to mid-20th century. We haven't seen the results yet of these neo-con ideas, which are irrelevant in Europe and have been for 50 years or more. After the US empire implodes (which the neo-cons are greatly accelerating, in my opinion) you might be writing about why America doesn't believe in itself anymore, like you do about Europe now. To Joseph J Nagarya: I agree with everything you say in your Dirty Dog letter [Feb 23]. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you are a Democrat. While I agree with what you say about Republican ideology, I don't understand how it is any different than the Democrats'. During the presidential election [Democratic candidate John] Kerry simply said, "Vote for me, I will out-Bush Bush." The Republicans could not have achieved anything without Democratic complicity. [President George W] Bush could have never passed the Patriot Act or gone to war in Iraq without Democratic support. They agree on pretty much everything save how to sucker votes and they only disagree marginally there. As far as your unproven "theory" that the US doesn't have free elections (which I agree with), what "objective standard" of substantiated fact can you provide to support that assertion? You should hold yourself to the same standards [to which] you hold others. When will you admit that you are just a guy standing on a soapbox and yelling like the rest of us? There is nothing wrong with that. That is what the Letters section is for. If you would like to hold these letters to the standard of research, I suggest citing all of your sources and staying away from the shrill and emotionally toned language. If not, don't limit others to "objective standards", because you certainly don't limit yourself to them.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 24, '05)

Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-con mind, Feb 23] is not one who thinks outside the box [cf ATol comment under John Steppling letter, Feb 23]; though outside the "mainstream", nothing he asserts is new, or unique in perspective - his choice of artists to attack (T S Eliot is not obscure; he is hugely overrated) demonstrate that fact. Most of it is, in other words, old hat; reactionary. "Popular religion has found its own art forms" makes no sense if it is intended as a recommended alternative - unless it is evidence of "playing at faith", which the apologists for hypocrisy do. Though I've about had my fill of yet another translation of [Rainer Maria] Rilke, views of such as William Carlos Williams and Marianne Moore would break new ground - would be outside the box - and be refreshing. To Paula King, Nick Gaylord [letters, Feb 23], and Pablo Escobar [Hunter S: The trip goes on forever, Feb 23]: Much as I enjoyed Hunter Thompson's writings in Rolling Stone during the 1970s (I much prefer Norman Mailer - able to keep the fiction and fact clearly distinguished), he, and his lesser imitators, have contributed much to corrupting the US media. The extreme right wing has exploited [its] example of blurring the lines between fact and fiction, and calling it "journalism", and built a cesspool propaganda machine which we are learning has penetrated the mainstream media they bash as "liberal" with paid hacks. There was a time when media were careful to keep fact and opinion separate, and to reject falsehood altogether; now those in the US who seek reliable factual reporting must find it outside the US, in such as ATol, the UK's Guardian and Independent, and news sources in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. (And Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was disappointingly weak.)
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 24, '05)

Joseph Nagarya [letter, Feb 23]: I agree that Frank, more often than not, enthusiastically barks up wrong trees and after non-existent cats (or shall we say dogs). I don't think you are doing any better with your uninformed detour into US elections and the China/Taiwan impasse. The US election bit sounds like you have an overdose of Noam Chomsky. I will leave it at that. Let me comment on the China/Taiwan issue, which is another example of China weaving folklore into history to help make irredentist claims on neighboring countries. Taiwan may be the central issue of Chinese foreign policy, but the cry for "reunification" is shaky when it comes to history. Why? The first significant Chinese settlements in Taiwan did not begin until the first half of the 17th century, when southern Taiwan was under Dutch control and the north under Spanish domination. This was much after the discover of the island in 1590 by the Portuguese, who named it Formosa. Even as imperial Chinese rule was facilitated by the new Chinese settlers (just like in Tibet) who swamped and dispossessed the native Malay-Polynesian people over 100 years, Taiwan was not declared a province of China until 1886, barely nine years before the Manchu, defeated in the Sino-Japanese war, ceded it to Japan in perpetuity through the Treaty of Shimonoseki. I hope the United States and the rest of the world don't let China get away with their nonsense claim on Taiwan, as they did with Tibet. The model for territorial claims for China is [to] send more Han and claim the land. What will it be next, San Francisco, which has over 50% Chinese?
Dirty Doggie
San Francisco, California (Feb 24, '05)

Since Geoffrey Sherwood (letter, Feb 23) persists on discussing "reputation" and refutes my analogy on Hama and Kent State merely on a numerical analysis, I will add the following US blemishes for his edification.
1) Bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict.
2) Not to mention the whole Vietnam affair.
3) East Timor during the mid-1970s.
4) Chile in the 1970s.
5) Greece's right-wing regime in the 1970s.
6) Invasion of Cyprus in 1974.
7) Central America in the 1980s.
8) Iraq at present.
9) Gitmo.
Notice how I gratefully [sic] spared you the task of justifying the actions of Israel in Sabra and Shatila so that you may continue to focus your concern on the terrorized Israelis. Based on the sample list above, any diligent historian could easily add more than 10,000 deaths attributed to US actions in Cambodia alone. Therefore, the reputation of the US should be listed well below Syria. Geoff easily falls into the glass-house syndrome with a pocketful of stones by forgetting that reputation is in the eye of the beholder. He, Geoff, can no longer use the "past history, we have reformed" excuse due to the ongoing killing in Iraq, so I am curious [about] his justification. Since [Rafik] Hariri was previously a prime minister and did nothing about the Hezbollah, his re-election would of maintained the status quo in southern Lebanon, which is all you need to know about Mr Sherwood's ability as a Lebanese political analyst. Even the Christians in Lebanon do not want the Israelis back in town and the Hezbollah plays a vital role in that regard ... Hariri acquired many enemies during his political tenure, as his armored convoy and multiple decoy motorcades assert. With many different religious factions in Lebanon - Christian, Druse, Sunni and Shi'ites - power sharing is the rule of law and Hariri played both ends against the middle. I am amazed that he survived this long. True, Syria is no China doll, but neither [are] Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon ... But I am a realist, Geoff, and I'll never expect the lion to lie down with the lamb, so please add a little balance and scholarship in your future Middle East geopolitical analysis. If you banished all the malcontents from Lebanon, you [would] have a deserted land.
Ernie Lynch (Feb 24, '05)

Why is Europe, mainly the Franco-German combo, downgrading the NATO alliance and endorsing the emergence of China as healthy for the geopolitical climate, even as Europe gets more cohesive and stronger than ever? It's because Europe finds less in common with America and also because she has entered a new golden age of post-imperialism. While America, especially white America, looks for an alliance of a white master race that is sworn to domination, the Europeans see nationhood on broader terms: biological, geographic, and cultural. From this perspective of triple heritage, an African-American, Hispanic-American or Asian-America visiting Africa, Latin America or Asia can make the same claim as [US President George W] Bush did in Europe that "no power on Earth will ever divide us". Keeping in mind this triple heritage, the Europeans do not want to be pushed around by this American amalgamation with whom they have limited commonality. But why is Europe accepting a stronger unified China? Clearly, Europe has taken a turn away from her more imperialist past. Live and let's live.
Roy
USA (Feb 24, '05)

Commenting on Pepe Escobar on Hunter S Thomson [The trip goes on forever, Feb 23]: We Hunter S fans follow you, Pepe, and reckon you are the new Hunter S, not so crude but just as "inside the story". Keep the good work going, the world is watching. Love and peace from Australia.
Paula King (Feb 23, '05)

Your obituary of Hunter S [The trip goes on forever, Feb 23] is beautiful Gonzo poetry. I suspect he would approve.
Nick Gaylord (Feb 23, '05)

Interesting to read Spengler's latest mind-numbing sophistries [The unmaking of the neo-con mind, Feb 23]. It is a reliable rule of thumb that when a critic (sic) resorts to broad generalizations - spoken ad hominem, that said critic (sic) is really hiding behind a lack of knowledge and perspective. Here is Spengler: "Modernism no longer matters. The obscurantism of [T S] Eliot's poetry, the cacophony of Arnold Schoenberg's music, the random idiocies of Jackson Pollock's painting and their ilk have eroded the popular audience for modern poetry, music and painting. Popular religion has found its own art forms, and has simply left the High Modernists behind like the bleached bones of oxen at the side of the trail westward. Those who play at faith, like Eliot, or for that matter the neo-conservatives, simply are not part of today's discussion. " Hmmm. Modernism no longer matters? Schoenberg is cacophony? Pollock random idiocies? Such are the defensive ... well ... idiocies of the Philistine class today. I will point Spengler (again, why doesn't he use his real name? Just, you know, asking) toward [Theodor] Adorno's essays on music if he needs to understand the revolution that was atonal composing. As for Pollock, this attack is part of a trend (on both the left and right) to discredit Pollock and the other abstract expressionists. I suspect it is a symptom [of] the sound-bite mentality that needs quick takes on all matters, both political and cultural. Pollock isn't easy to write about - but more "realistic" painters are - hence let's attack Pollock. Calling Eliot obscurantist speaks more to Spengler's lack of education than to anything else. Spengler seems to know very, very little about anything cultural. As is usually the case with his articles, it is hard to know what the point is. What is clear is [that] the de-culturing of the masses was not and is not the result of Clement Greenberg or the High Modernists - but is (and this is pretty obvious) the result of the rise of marketing and having the plug pulled on funding for education. Spengler confuses cause with symptom. The Postmodern tropes of irony and the world of kitsch are the results of concrete conditions - something Spengler simply is incapable of seeing. The wrong end of the democratization of culture leads one to Harvard courses on The Love Boat. This has to do with television and the endless need for cultural product. It has nothing to do with T S Eliot and the Partisan Review. I wonder who Spengler thinks is a serious artist worthy of attention. He doesn't say, which is telling. Eliot was a great poet - he was also an anti-Semite and many other things, but this hardly negates his creative talent. Pollock changed modern art, but he didn't just fall from the sky, he and [Mark] Rothko and [Willem] de Kooning and the rest were the result of historical conditions and influences stretching back hundreds of years. This is how culture works. Spengler is, as always, profoundly ahistorical. A final note on neo-cons. Moronic they might be, but not irrelevant. Since guys like [Paul] Wolfowitz and [David] Wurmser et al are still in power, "irrelevant" is a dangerous way to talk about them. Really, I keep asking, why does such a simpleton keep his job? Asia Times [Online] deserves better.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Feb 23, '05)

We could be crass and say we keep Spengler because he is consistently one of our most-read writers, but it goes far beyond that. In many ways, Spengler is what Asia Times Online stands for: outside-the-box thinking, stimulating writing on subjects hard to find elsewhere, and fuel for fiery but intelligent debate. Rarely do we get a letter commending Spengler or his opinions, but his critics have obviously read and absorbed every word. Our most loyal followers read ATol not just to have their own views salved, but to have them challenged. Sometimes they change their minds because of what they read; sometimes they get upset and return to the mainstream; often they throw it back in our faces with a thoughtful and well-written counter-argument. Spengler contributes to all this not only through his articles, but by participating personally in our forum, The Edge. - ATol

Sergei Blagov (Russia torn, Feb 23) writes: "By reaffirming ties with Iran and Syria, Russia risks alienating the West, a major market for its hydrocarbon exports. On the other hand, Iran appears to be Russia's competition, rather than partner, in terms of the global energy game. As the Russian economy remains firmly based on the inflow of petrodollars, courting competitors and alienating customers could prove counterproductive." It's not clear why Blagov believes it's Russia that's playing a dangerous game. In today's world of increased demand for what may be increasingly dwindling oil supplies, Russia's position as a major oil exporter is quite strong. The Middle East is in ever greater turmoil, and Russia's relative stability and advantageous geostrategic position make it unlikely that it will lose many customers. The US doesn't buy oil from Russia as it is. As for Europe, the other component of "the West", who else will it buy oil from - Russia's competition, Iran? If Europe is alienated by Russia's nuclear aid to Iran, would it not alienate itself by thinking of buying Iranian oil? Lastly, it seems highly unclear that it is any longer possible to speak of "the West" either as a geopolitical entity or an integrated market. "The West" has, in recent years, become highly alienated from itself, as the Europeans have moved away from the US over [President George W] Bush's invasion of Iraq, over the US and Israeli policy toward Iran, over arms sales to China, and, with the introduction of the euro, from the dollar as the single global reserve currency. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, in upping the stakes in an increasingly competitive US-Russian relationship, realizes this perfectly well. With Russia, and now possibly, China as well, abandoning the dollar as reserve currency, the US is running out of options in its quest to remain the "sole superpower". Diplomatically, the US has taken a great hit to its credibility in the wake of Iraq. Its military supremacy is its last remaining card. This is why, as Bush and [Secretary of State] Condi Rice swing through Europe on their latest charm offensives, the US is in fact turning up the heat on Iran and Syria. It is also significant that Bush has stepped up the critique of Russian democracy and leveling demands on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon in the wake of [Palestinian President] Abu Mazen's asking Putin to play a greater role in the Middle East peace process. The intended effect is to pressure both the EU and Russia to change their positions vis-a-vis these two countries without forcing the US to resort to military force to get its way (or to do so through its Israeli client). If the Iraq war is any indication, the outcome of war, especially against Iran, is likely to have negative effects on the US ability to project global power. This is why it is the US, not Russia, which is playing a very dangerous game in the Middle East.
B Stremlin
US/Kazakhstan (Feb 23, '05)

[Re] Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism go hand in hand [Feb 18]: The time might be nigh [when] just before an American service person expires, before military actions such as those [currently] under way in parts of Asia, that he or she be asked whether they are practicing "liberals" or "conservatives" and that such notations be appropriately noted on their last resting places. A notation that they gave their lives against anti-Americanism as well as anti-Semitism may also be added as an acknowledgement of a hand-in-hand motto. One is left to inquire from ATol whether similar lucubrations will be made by contributors from other acknowledged religions.
ADeL (Feb 23, '05)

In response to Ernie Lynch (letter [Feb 22]): When I said [letter, Feb 18] that it is pointless to speculate who killed Rafik Hariri, that was not secret code for "Syria did it." Lynch quoted my hypothetical comment that if Syria did it, then here is what they might hope to gain. Distinguishing between a hypothesis and an assertion of fact can help avoid incoherence. Lynch is confused by my reference to Syria's "reputation". According to Lynch, the only blemish on Syria's record is Hafez Assad's 1982 massacre of tens of thousands of residents of the city of Hama, which he likens to the Ohio National Guardsmen's killing of four anti-Vietnam War protesters at Kent State University (which is all you need to know about Mr Lynch's ability to analogize). Syria has a reputation as an undemocratic, illiberal, sham republic. Did you have some other reputation in mind, Mr Lynch? Based on Amnesty International's annual indictments of Syria's human-rights record, and European Parliament criticisms, it appears that it's not just war-happy Americans [who] believe that Syria is a dangerous place for dissent. Or maybe the view from your yurt is that Bashar Assad really did win 97% of the popular vote in the last election? Isn't Syria just like those other authoritarian regimes that people like you love to whine about America supporting? Well, wake up and smell the hypocrisy - you can't have it both ways. As for Israel's desire to destroy Hezbollah, or at least banish them from Lebanon - why would they not have preferred to allow Hariri to achieve peacefully what Israel has failed to achieve militarily? No Israeli leader is pollyannish enough to dream of what you say they dream - the utter destruction of Hezbollah. Their realistic goal is Hezbollah's banishment from southern Lebanon so that Hezbollah can no longer easily terrorize Israeli men, women, and children. Hariri's election could have been a huge step in that direction.
Geoffrey Sherwood
Montville, New Jersey (Feb 23, '05)

I am not surprised that Gautam Das [letter, Feb 22] is not used to free expressions. Many Indian letter writers also relentlessly demand censorship from ATol. If I were a Muslim in India, I would be censored for sure. Gautam Das does not understand fairness either. If you paid attention to the previous letter exchanges, you would know who spewed more venom than debating. So far, most of the Indians were wasting time attacking me. Their choices of not to debate my theories and observations indicated that I am right on the target. My observations are as following. In the last 400 years, the colonial rulers of India had bred a new human race and made them wealthy elites of India. The new human race had no dignity, respect, pride [or] sense of equality. They had no connections to that ancient, divine, peace-loving country located in the same place for the previous 6,000 years. These new human races were bred to hate their neighbors, and hate the poor natives living in India, Africa, China and the Pacific islands. Despite the empty talks, they hate the freedom of expressions, which will reveal their true identities. The only thing they like to do is to please their white masters. They know how to blow a lot of hot airs too.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 23, '05)

To Dirty Doggie [letter, Feb 18]: It is true that Frank, more often than not, enthusiastically barks up a strange tree, excited and triumphant at having trapped a non-existent cat. It is then I take a break to dream of being a turtle lazily sunning myself on an August log in the middle of a calm pond. Or take off for Tierra del Fuego for formal cocktails and canapes with the penguins. Daniel McCarthy [letter, Feb 18] quotes a US congressman, Tom Tancredo, as asserting that "Taiwan is a free, sovereign, and independent country that elects its own leaders". Tancredo must be a Republican, ideologically constructed to overlook, suppress, or lie about reality. Taiwan is "free, sovereign, and independent" so long as it can depend on the superpower US to defend its "sovereignty" with weaponry and US troops, and thereby cause mainland China to be cautious in its intentions vis-a-vis Taiwan. Now, if only the US could have free elections, as Taiwan is alleged to have, it could potentially be a genuine, instead of fraudulent, beacon to at least Iraq as to the actual meaning of democracy. Who next will Daniel McCarthy drag in as hollow effort to back up his paranoid 1950s jingoistic McCarthyite fictions? The "freely" elected "sovereign" Torturer-in-Chief Bush War Crimes Family, Fantasy Factory, and racist Jim Crow Neanderthal perpe/traitor of "independent" lunatic hate-mongering? Probably, as Bush has finally shown himself to be a "uniter, not a divider", by having brought together in alliance, against the US, Syria, Iran, and Russia - and none of the three "communist".
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 23, '05)

As Ambassador [K Gajendra] Singh rightly puts it, Lebanon is seen through the past darkly [Feb 19]. The waters of the recent past are indeed muddied. Yet it is easy enough to see the American hand that eased then Syrian president Hafez Assad into Lebanon. At a time when Anwar Sadat went to Tel Aviv to settle old scores peacefully with the Israelis, Henry Kissinger in his assumed role as the 20th-century heir to [Austrian statesman Fuerst von] Metternich persuaded Assad that the Israelis would not [compromise] with Syria, and instead he offered Damascus a lesser but nonetheless valuable prize: determining and influential political and military presence in Lebanon, which the Sykes-Picot Treaty lopped off from the greater Syria. In this way, the sly old German would maintain a high degree of tension in the Middle East, relieve Israel of a second front in case of war, and yet maintain the goodwill of all parties, instead of using Washington's full and complete influence on the Israelis to reach a global agreement with Syria, Egypt, and the kingdom of Jordan. Kissinger's game of musical chairs has failed. Ronald Reagan learned a hard, sad lesson by sending troops to Lebanon. The United States decamped before you could say "Jack Robinson", and with a loss of military lives. And now Bashar Assad has inherited the consequences of his father's sin of believing Kissinger. Washington wants Syria out of Lebanon, yet it has less than forceful leverage. Peace will come only when the question of the Golan Heights is resolved; Tel Aviv makes peace with Lebanon; and America settles the war in Iraq by eating crow.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 22, '05)

[Re] Rabbi Moshe Reiss's Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand [Feb 18]: Would the valued rabbi like to write about [the] condition of the Jews or for that matter Christians during the heyday of the Muslims, up to about the 18th century AD? It would be interesting to have his analysis of earlier history. Vital buffer is lost by Michael A Weinstein (Feb 19) is very illuminating on politics in Lebanon. However, three points needed elaboration. How much does money play its part in political maneuvering and the effect of [Rafik] Hariri's wealth no longer being available for that purpose, at least for the time being? [What is] the effect of the loss of Riyadh's indirect influence that came with Hariri and which must have been an asset for him in his political moves? And how would the emergence of a Shi'ite government in Baghdad affect events in Lebanon? [It] would be highly useful if Michael could comment on them.
Iqbal F Quadir
Karachi, Pakistan (Feb 22, '05)

[Re] Anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism go hand in hand [Feb 18]: Rabbi [Moshe Reiss], it is possible to love America and Americans and disagree and oppose American foreign policy; it is possible to love and admire a Jewish person while disagreeing with Zionism, Israel and all that it stands for. Rabbi, the line of innocent America and ever-persecuted Jew might have been very effective propaganda but is wearing extremely thin. A mere Gentile like me cannot indeed argue with a rabbi, but talking about the effect, with an innocent "oh perfect me" attitude while not making the slightest effort to think about the cause, is hypocritical and dishonest at the best. Rabbi, one has to agree with you on the hypocrisy of white Christian Europe. When they commit genocide or steal land it is all in the name of progress and good of whoever they are killing or stealing from. But when stuff gets stolen back (in Zimbabwe for example), then they start whining and all the hell breaks loose. But is Israel any different? [Have] the Ashkenazi been any different from their Christian brethren? Ashkenazi discriminate against the Sephardim and Arab Jews, and together they discriminate against other Jews, and all of them together discriminate and terrorize the Arabs. Rabbi, you say Jews have a vision of globalization and modernity. Do the Orthodox Jews with their black robes and top hats in the sweltering heat of Jerusalem share the same vision of globalization and modernity? Recognizing that the bell curve passes through all sections of the society on almost all aspects is probably the first step towards "live and let live". Rabbi, wasn't anti-Jewishness a purely European phenomenon till Zionism managed to export it all over the world? Anti-Jewish behavior in Europe and white Christendom might have had economic and religious origins, but what do you think is the reason in other parts of the world? It surely is not globalization and modernity. Rabbi, you claim that Arab culture is a culture of death and that [US President George W] Bush and [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon have protected Arabs from themselves. How is this demonization of Arabs and Arab culture any different from the demonization of Jews in Europe? Zionists have definitely achieved their aim of creating a Europe for Ashkenazi Jews, and in exactly the same way - by brutality, theft, racism, colonization, plunder, exploitation and human suffering of people who were at a trough in their history.
Santosh (Feb 22, '05)

It is the mainstream left, with its rejection of religious extremism of all types (and with its unwavering insistence that a secular government must never privilege any religion over any other) that is, politically, the most removed from the aspirations of Islamist, Christianist, and Zionist fanatics. It is those on the American right, in their enthusiastic embrace of religious extremists, who most resemble the deluded, demented members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, Rabbi Moshe Reiss claims, without so much as a single quote or reference, that the left is somehow "joining hands" with Islamo-fascists, Islamic terrorists, or whatever the term currently approved by the Bush administration may happen to be this week [Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand, Feb 18]. This, to be polite, is malicious nonsense. There is no one I know of on the left who has a good word to say about [Osama] bin Laden or his goals, or his travesty of Islamic beliefs. Maybe some powerless and obscure moron has written something somewhere that bin Laden is really a modern-day Marxist, but I doubt even that. For Rabbi Reiss quotes no references from the left of "hand-joining" with al-Qaeda, for the simple reason that there are none. Furthermore, despite the unsupported claims of Pentagon consultants like Thomas Y M Barnett, there are no links between groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the al-Qaeda gang. Nor, at least in the US, did any but the party-line communists - all three of them - have a good word for Baader-Meinhof back in the '60s, let alone [Josef] Stalin before then. American liberals, and the American left, were very much opposed to Stalinism and all forms of totalitarianism. Hopefully, I need not remind the good rabbi that the playwright he so admires, Arthur Miller, was by all accounts quite to the left of the center and was never a Stalin apologist. Rabbi Reiss, like so many paid and unpaid shills for the current US government, conflates anti-Bushism with anti-Americanism. In my travels abroad over the past few years, I've encountered unanimous disgust for Bush administration policies and behavior but deep admiration for Americans and for much of our culture (music, art, dance, film, literature). It is the general opinion of the people I've met that it is the Bushites, with their cultural arrogance, exceptionalism, and utter lack of moral character, who are the true anti-Americans - not the millions of people in the US and all over the world who oppose Bush. (I fully agree.) Disgracefully, the rabbi then tries to conflate anti-Americanism with anti-Semitism. Now to the extent that cynical ideologues like [Richard] Perle, [Daniel] Pipes, and [Paul] Wolfowitz dare to presume to talk for all Jews, they encourage such a confusion. But the reality is that just as the neo-cons represent only themselves and not the Jewish people, the Bush administration does not represent all of America and the world knows it. Opposition to the neo-cons' hallucinations is not anti-Semitism; only a willfully dishonest observer would try to link contempt for the politics of Paul Wolfowitz with support of bigotry.
Richard Einhorn (Feb 22, '05)

To Rabbi Moshe Reiss: Though eloquent, in your article [Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand, Feb 18] you wholly miss the point as to much of the "anti-Americanism" and "anti-Semitism" you perceive; it's everyone's fault except that of the US and Israel that the US and Israel are hated. If only the rest of us could so subtly rationalize the actions of such as [US President George W] Bush as reaction rather than cause. Nor can all of the rest of us so glibly excuse [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's provocations in land illegally occupied and claimed by but not belonging to Israel as being instead self-defensive reactions. Neither Israel nor the US is perfect; not being perfect, each is imperfect; each being imperfect, each does wrong - and not all of their wrongs are accident or inadvertence. Each doing wrong, each is therefore justly subject to criticism when its policies and actions are wrong. Or are we to instead pretend that Israel's presence in northern Iraq, training the Kurds to destabilize Iran and Syria, well knowing they will also destabilize Israel's ally Turkey, is an expression of friendship, affection, and love for the Kurds - and the Turks? Some of us ... are able to distinguish between each country, on one hand, and, on the other, its policies. Revulsion at and criticism of actions by Israel and the US are not ipso facto hatred of Israel and the US as countries, systems, or peoples. Unfortunate as you may perceive it, some US citizens who speak to the fact that the US was founded on genocide do not instead avoid that fact by pointing away from ourselves at everyone else who has committed the same crimes. Whining that everyone else is savage is not an excuse to oneself continue to be savage.
Joseph J Nagarya (Sephardic)
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 22, '05)

The loss of Iraq's archeological treasury is tragic [but] in reality it is not a real loss as the article compared it to the pillagings of Genghis Khan in 1258 [The plunder of Iraq's treasures, Feb 17]. Most of them are being sold to collectors across the world who after paying hefty sums of money for them would not literally destroy them. Secondly, tell me of a war where archeological treasures were not lost? World War II? Entire historic towns along with their museums, libraries [and] cathedrals were leveled to the ground. Same can be said in the East when Japan invaded China. What about the 6,000 ancient monasteries along with all their manuscripts and art that were destroyed by the Chinese? The list just in the 20th century alone is endless. Let's not forget what the Taliban did to the site of ancient Buddhist Taxila university, where the Bhamiyan Buddhas once stood - now that was willful destruction of a major world heritage site. Even when war is not occurring one just has to ask the representative of the Italian Archeological Department on how much archeological loot is being stolen from Italy during peaceful times. India ranks second on the list of artifacts being stolen again during peaceful times. I conclude that this article is just another way of condemning the US's role in the war in Iraq and bringing democracy, something tangible to the lives of the people of Iraq, by comparing this to Genghis Khan.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 22, '05)

So because the Taliban, Imperial Japan and the combatants in World War II destroyed historic artifacts, it is not worth reporting when it happens in 21st-century Iraq under the eye of the world superpower? - ATol

I've been a regular visitor of ATol [for] about two years. I found a lot of high-quality views here, and I wouldn't have any problem to rate ATol as one of the best sites on international affairs. But I do have a problem now. The article US fights back against 'rule by clerics' [Feb 15], written by Syed Saleem Shahzad, is indeed very troubling. Not because of some surprise about US arming militias - it obviously makes sense as a preventive measure. The problem is in the article itself. The wording is consistently vague, leading to serious doubts about the real facts behind the story. In fact, I quoted it only once, and with a clear warning about possible lack of credibility, because I was unable so far to find any other references to the subject, and I searched in a lot of places. So, as unpleasant as it might seem, I must ask you to state clearly if the sources behind this story are credible and to provide some alternative references to the subject. For everyone out there trying to do some serious political work on the Iraqi crisis, unfounded rumors are one of the worst enemies, so if this article is nothing more than the result of some kind of wishful thinking, then please remove it ...
Helder M Vieira (Feb 22, '05)

I have just read an article ... titled Pakistan leaves arms calling card [Feb 10] by Kaushik Kapisthalam. I have noticed that the writer has made many false claims; the one that caught my attention the most was the claim that Pakistan accepted that the attacks on the Indian Parliament originated from Pakistan. This is totally false! Please fix this error as soon as possible.
Fahad Burney (Feb 22, '05)

See Kapisthalam's letter of February 16 in which he justifies this claim. - ATol

I'm not sure if I should be amused or alarmed at what seems to be a concerted campaign to prevent my articles from being published in ATol by the likes of readers Manzer Durrani [Feb 17, 18] and Ihsan Kamal [Feb 18]. Firstly, I find it curious that while Dr Durrani accuses me of being a "propagandist", he simultaneously demands that ATol publish pieces by some Pakistani "scholars" who are known to be paid by the government of Pakistan to propagate certain views. I admit that I'm not a "scholar" of South Asia studies, but I can say with some pride that my views not paid for by anyone. I also urge Dr Durrani to recheck the definition of the word "propagandist" and see whether it fits freelancers like myself or some of his favorite "scholars". Secondly, I'd like to point out to Dr Durrani that just because a correspondent has a series of pieces critical of a certain country [it] doesn't translate to bias. I urge him to point out specific claims of mine that he thinks are not corroborated by facts and offer any evidence to the contrary. For instance, I certainly did not make up the series of Pakistani military officials' presentations that I reported on in my latest piece (Pakistan leaves arms calling card, Feb 10). I just observed some seemingly unrelated events, contacted some of the key players and filed a report weaving the threads into a single piece. Also, I submit that the very fact that so many reputed media outlets including ATol have seen fit to publish my work should tell one that my efforts are likely based on factual events and logical analyses thereof, unless one subscribes to a global conspiracy theory. I also note that Ihsan Kamal offers ATol some editorial advice about checking facts on submission. It is rather presumptuous of Mr Kamal to believe that such a process doesn't exist already. In my personal experience ATol does not publish every submission as is and I have had to offer substantiations many times. This is not a case of a "cunning" Indian hoodwinking a trusting news organization. Finally, I urge ATol readers who disagree with any article, regardless of their "scholarship" level, to put pen to paper and make use of the golden opportunity to contribute to ATol. Shutting people up for putting forth inconvenient and controversial views is not the way to go. Let's add to the debate. That's the civilized way.
Kaushik Kapisthalam
Atlanta, Georgia (Feb 22, '05)

As a US resident and longtime Asia Times Online reader, let me add a note disagreeing with a series of e-mails by Pakistani readers protesting against "bias" by Kaushik Kapisthalam. I carry no brief for Mr Kapisthalam but commend Asia Times Online for bucking the recent trend towards political correctness in international media and publishing edgy but very readable pieces like Mr Kapisthalam's. What is the point of free media if everyone agrees with everyone else? I for one disagree with certain Pakistani viewpoints in Asia Times Online but I'd not want to shut them up simply because they might offend some Indian readers. I challenge the critics of Asia Times Online to find another media outlet, even a paid one, which has the length and depth of coverage over Asian affairs as Asia Times Online does. Don't take my word for it, just read a few Asia-related policy papers in Western think-tanks and see the number of Asia Times Online articles being given as reference. Pieces by Spengler, Aidan Foster-Carter, Saleem Shahzad, Pepe Escobar, Kaushik Kapisthalam, B Raman and others provide more than any Asia-watcher could ask for. Please keep up the good work. Let us Asians agree to disagree and keep debating!
Dr V G Reddy
Columbus, Ohio (Feb 22, '05)

Geoffrey Sherwood (letter, Feb 18) claims that Syria is responsible for the [Rafik] Hariri assassination: "sacrifice their non-existent reputation in exchange for the elimination of a formidable political opponent". Sherwood does not explain the meaning of "reputation" in a geopolitical sense, but for the sake of argument let's suppose the lad meant "influence", since reputation among nations is like the pot calling the kettle black. [In] the next sentence or two, Geoff does mention "gain", so we can safely assume that he is just being provocative by using the word "reputation", probably after having his senses assaulted by [Fox News commentator] Bill O'Reilly. So who has the most to gain in the Hariri assassination? Syria, with the US breathing down their necks, looking for any deviance, not to mention the Syrian Accountability Act or UNSC [United Nations Security Council Resolution] 1559. Or Israel who longs for the olive and orange groves along the Litani, not to mention the water, to deliver to the parched nation. Syria gains from a stable Lebanon because as the '80s civil war has shown, too many international actors in Lebanon spoil the soup. Israel on the other hand gains from an unstable Lebanon for two reasons. It allows Israel to intervene for national-defense reasons into southern Lebanon and attempt to destroy the Hezbollah for once and for all. Second, it allows [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon to halt any peace attempt with the Palestinians and re-assert [Israel's] might over the West Bank and Gaza under the guise of Hamas assisting the Hezbollah who are assisting the Syrians who are destabilizing Lebanon. Crespular thinking yes, but under [US President George W] Bush all you need is a checkered scarf and you are an evil one. Also the situation begs for the US intervention into Syria, which can only favor Israel. Geoff may believe that the Syrians are whisker-faced mad dogs as he sees in the political comics in the US, but they are coldly calculatable [sic] realists [who] have survived for many decades not because of their good looks. And do remember who was responsible for Sabra and Shatila. The best you can pin on Syria is the destruction of Hama, which was an internal matter - see Kent State for a similar analogy. But Geoff, indulge yourself if you like, invade Syria, or perhaps a high-level bombing run which destroys some date trees and a village or two to assuage your outrage and demonstrate your manly courage. What will happen to your embryo democracy in Iraq? Will Russia fly into Damascus their latest portable SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] and distribute to the Hezbollah or even slip them over to Iraq? Will Iran close the [Persian] Gulf down and raise the price of oil to $100 barrel now that it has become chummy with Syria? What will be Turkey's response? What will the Kurds do? I know that it is hard, but do think [about] the implications of your "significant" accusations. You are clueless of the Byzantine political arrangements in the Middle East and should stick to what you know best, which is basket-weaving.
Ernie Lynch (Feb 22, '05)

I must blame the government of Taiwan for not bestowing honorary citizenship on Daniel McCarthy for his untiring effort to promote the status of Taiwan. His letter (Feb 18) praises a congressman for introducing a resolution to seek US recognition of Taiwan on equal footing with China. In fact Mr McCarthy should run for Congress so he would have the fun job of introducing similar resolutions. I would surely help his campaign to the extent I can.
David (Feb 22, '05)

With regards to [S] Ismail ([letter] Feb 16), allow me to quote from my previous letter (Feb 7): "It is our concern when the rules are not equitably applied. That is the crux of the matter, not whether you are Muslim or non-Muslim." Let me place this up front and center just in case the objective is not clear. Have I disparaged the religion of Islam as Mr Ismail claims? What I have written and stated are recorded facts about the practices in Malaysia, a country that claims to hold its citizens in equal regard. Or perhaps some citizens are more equal than others (a la Animal Farm)? I commend Mr Ismail [for] stating "that discrimination, no matter who practices it, should not be acceptable". Unfortunately, Mr Ismail chooses to read in the reason of not hiring hijab wearers as being the fault of the minorities. Is he unwilling to recognize the root cause - the institutionalized discrimination against the minorities? I am not saying that quid pro quo (something for something) is right, but if you were in a position that you saw the economic, social and political rights of your community being constantly eroded, wouldn't it be the instinctive thing to circle your wagons? Let's start with an honest discussion about Article 154 of the constitution and the Rukunegara (nationhood). Why is there a need to have religious police in the first place, if there is no compulsion in religion? Or do you not trust the common people's conscience and have the need to impose one on them? Or will you even impose beliefs not shared by others upon them? It is not just a few overzealous officers but rather an institutionalized mindset that I am concerned about ...
DVeri (Feb 22, '05)
Malaysia

To Joseph J Nagarya [letter, Feb 15]: I do not assert that Osama bin Laden was not a CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] asset. I have no evidence of it. I also do not have a "sneaking suspicion" that I am not an idiot for arguing with you. I do not assert that this could not go on forever. I also do not assert that ATimes readers will not be happy when this ends.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 22, '05)

The discussion does seem at times to be more appropriate for the Asia Times Online Forum. - ATol

The analogy between English-speaking Indian elites to dogs is just an attention catcher. So you are all reading my letters and waiting to read my next one. I am not here to fight. I mentioned many times in my letters. I only voice my own observations. My personal life and choices have nothing to do with what my personal opinions are. To me, dogs, elephants, snakes, rats, tigers and peacocks are all the same. They are just animals with different characteristics. If Indians prefer to be regarded as big fat elephants with large mouths, so be it. Elephants cannot use pen or keyboard. They surely can blow a lot of hot airs. With the help of their large mouths to blow hot airs, they increased India's FDI [foreign direct investment] from $5 billion to $50 billion overnight. What an amazing animal.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 22, '05)

Having a meaningful debate is one thing, simply using Asia Times [Online] to spew venom is quite another, which is what [letter writer] Frank seems to doing. His stupid, fanatical arguments and half-baked theories are too puerile to merit a discussion. (No, Frank, I don't know the language Hiuen Tsang was translating from.) Maybe Asia Times [Online] might give Frank a well-deserved break - he needs time off to visit his psychiatrist.
Gautam Das
Noida, India (Feb 22, '05)

May I use your site to express a few comments on the recent Japan-US joint declaration on Taiwan? With Russia's response to back China, and the EU set to lift the arms embargo on China, either Japan is really stupid to provoke China or she has a death wish. A small, densely populated country like Japan seeking to face off with China? To be sure, it's America's grand design to conquer and divide China, but not a single Asian country has signed on to this demise, except Japan. I guess high-tech brilliance does not translate to geopolitical intelligence.
Roy
USA (Feb 22, '05)

Asia Times Online has an analysis of the Japan-US move, The Dragon roars over US-Japan accord. - ATol

I was out shopping Thursday morning for my Shabbat food when you published my article in Speaking Freely on anti-Americanism and anti-Judaism [Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand, Feb 18]. When I returned home I saw it on my e-mail as well as a diatribe against Jews. The authors apparently responded instantly. [A link to] my website (with my permission, of course) appeared at the end of the article. I reprint the penultimate paragraph: "Germany did a piss poor job of liberating their people from the tyranny of Jews. Let's hope Islam does a better job." I do not reprint their name since I choose not to seek their permission to quote them. I can surmise from the names they were not Muslims. To receive such a "St Valentine's Massacre" Card (an analogy to murdering criminal activity in the Unites States in the 1920s) during the week when many memorialized the 60th year of the liberation of Auschwitz is indeed remarkable. Most Jews, at least western Jews, including this author, had relatives whose bodies (although not necessarily souls) were turned to ash in this kingdom of hell. I thought you might care to share this with your other readers. May God forgive their souls; I cannot and will not.
Rabbi Moshe Reiss (Feb 18, '05)

In From Baghdad to Beirut [Feb 17] Pepe Escobar writes that "significantly" one of Rafik Hariri's consultants blames Israel's Mossad for Hariri's assassination. What is "significant" about blind conjecture? Do any of Hariri's other "consultants", interior decorators or manicurists have a different reading of their tea leaves? Are those readings also "significant"? Or am I making this too complex, and overlooking the simple, overriding rule: An opinion that implicates the Mossad or CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] is "significant"; one that doesn't isn't? Escobar claims that "an array of Arab Middle East analysts, as well as the Lebanese government, point out that the blast [that killed Hariri] was eerily similar to previous Israeli-orchestrated bombings against former Palestinian leaders". Unquestioning, unthinking mimicry of others is a trait of the cockatoo. Identifying the exact nature of the "eery" similarities and to which specific bombings they are referring is a trait of a journalist. In Escobarese, Hezbollah is merely "aligned with Iran". In that case, Bonnie was only guilty of having "common career goals" with Clyde. In case you're living in a yurt or reading only Escobar, Hezbollah, and the clerics in power in Iran, dream of the extermination of Israel. Escobar's main point is that Syria loses and the US neo-cons and Israel gain by Hariri's assassination. The exact opposite is true. If Syria had Hariri murdered, it was a huge bargain for Syria to sacrifice their non-existent reputation in exchange for the elimination of a formidable political opponent. Israel and the US neo-cons lose because Hariri at least had the potential of removing terror-sponsoring Syria from Lebanon through the force of popular will. One can speculate endlessly and pointlessly on the identity of the murderers. The only certainty is that the bloodthirsty opponents of a permanent peace with Israel - Hezbollah, Syria and Iran - all gain, in the short run, from the death of Hariri.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Feb 18, '05)

To letter writer Frank of Seattle: I think your last statement about the article Two ways to cook the books [Feb 17] is largely true. However, sometimes, silence is golden. Pick your fights, because not all fights are worth your while.
Roy
USA (Feb 18, '05)

This is my last comment on whole Indo-China thing. First of all [It takes two to tango, Feb 17] by George Zhibin Gu was a nice break after all those stupid articles. Also for [letter writer] Frank, earlier I thought you were some anti-India, "got kicked in ass by an Indian" type of Chinese-American (I am putting stress on "American") but now I realize that you really are just plain stupid and you really need help. Because when you don't have anything to write you start talking about animals and become "expert" on India (more than people who really have seen India)! Can't blame you. Too much pressure is the cause. And on that Asia Times [Online] staff once said that you make "interesting" comments! Funny what they were drinking at that time.
Shekhar Nitin (Feb 18, '05)

A heady cocktail of Singha, Chang and Tiger beer, if you must know. - ATol

Dear Frank: First of all, thanks for marketing the dog cause. Given my name, I appreciate it. I have no idea what the ATol editors meant by saying that occasionally you send intellectually stimulating [letters]. Perhaps they meant emotionally charged letters like your last one [Feb 17], in which you expressed a strange idea of friendliness and neighborhood [sic]. There used to be a saying in India post-1962 that there is nothing straight in Chou except his hair. Great communist friend he was and great hair. Chou Enlai's invasion of India, for [Jawaharlal] Nehru's defense of China's sovereignty in the UN, was the biggest back-stab in political history, and Nehru never recovered from it. Using your theory of neighborliness, Indians need to learn Chinese. Let me ask you the question, are our communist friends moving to learn Hindi? I rest my case.
Dirty Doggie
San Francisco, California (Feb 18, '05)

Frank from Seattle seems to be coming apart at the seams. His tired ranting about dogs, Indians and white masters in semi-literate English either reflects his poor abilities or an incomplete education. However, what comes across starkly is his hypocrisy in plonking his sorry ass in the US while hating everything about the Western world in every grammatically incorrect sentence that he struggles to form. He sounds like a tormented individual for having "succumbed" to the charms of the white man's land and seems to salve his guilty conscience by raving against it. He casts stones at Indians who have settled abroad as having capitulated to the white man while living in a "glass house" himself. And in a typically shameless way he resorts to self-gratifying comparisons of Indians with animals that have qualities far superior [to what] he can ever aspire for. He arrogates to himself the authority to speak for all Chinese (old commie habits die hard!) and Taiwanese people, even all Asians. He seems to be a boiling cauldron of conflicting ideas, confused emotions and opinions gathered from half-baked understanding of articles in a language that he staunchly associates with colonialism and oppression to where he makes for hilarious reading if not for the fact that this gent takes himself rather seriously. His knowledge of history comes straight from the People's Daily (example, Tibet always belonged to China) and his own fantasy (same thing) [rather] than facts and nothing he says stands up to scrutiny. For example, if India were to use the same metrics as China does in reporting FDI [foreign direct investment] then according to him it is "using two lips to increase India's FDI tenfold". He is unable to differentiate between pen and lips, but, to his credit, he at least got the number of lips that can vocalize a word right. One supposes that one needs only one lip in China to articulate anything since the Communist Party provides the other lip and the sentence as well. ATol provides this unique forum where intelligent, educated, global-minded people, repressed individuals (like Frank), grandiose armchair generals, religious fundamentalists, neo-cons, liberals and people of other varied hues meet and froth over the same issues from different perspectives without the site losing its balance and perspective. For this, you (ATol) must be congratulated. Very few sites or newspapers can hold court to an audience with such diverse political opinions. What would become of Frank and so many others if they could not relieve themselves here of their emotional digesting of the ATol daily specials?
Sri
New York, USA (Feb 18, '05)

I would like to ask Gautam Das [letter, Feb 17] a question. Can you speak, read and write the language, which Hiuen Tsang was translating from? If not, stop claiming your relations to that China's ancient neighbor. I bet Gautam Das does not even have a clue of where Hiuen Tsang was visiting. He could be visiting Pakistan. The current India's history starts at 1947. Before that, it was a colony for English and Mongols. In reality, today's Indian elites are still mentally in the colony status. Religion is part of the culture. That is why I am asking Karan Awtani if he understands the principle of mutual treatments and co-existences. Apparently, he does not. Whatever Karan Awtani mentioned about Tibet or Taiwan independence movements can also be used for Kashmir, Jammu, Goa, Sikkim, Assam, Nagaland, Punjab, Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands independence movements. Karan Awtani should understand India cannot have peace by promoting troubles in its neighbors. Peace needs mutual agreements and understanding.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 18, '05)

I don't recall now how I first came across www.atimes.com, but since then I access your online magazine almost daily. Asia Times [Online] offers undoubtedly the best media coverage on Asia in terms of content, style, and depth. You are different from other media publications in that you are truly Asia-centric. I think you are doing a great service by providing a fine platform for the expression of such a wide spectrum of opinions from the Asian region. Unlike some of the other magazine portals you don't have a humor section, but I suppose Asia Times [Online] editors feel there is no need for one as long Frank keeps writing (Frank of the Middle Kingdom, you know). By the way, in AToI's rebuttal to Manzer J Durrani's accusation [letter, Feb 17] that you are anti-Pakistani, you write, "[Pakistani writers] prefer to pen letters to the editor accusing our writers of 'bias' without offering convincing counterpoints." But isn't this natural if you happen to be citizens of a state whose only claim to fame is setting up the world's first (clandestine) nuclear MNC [mutinational corporation] (CEO Dr [Abdul] Q Khan)?
Gautam Das
Noida, India (Feb 18, '05)

It seems that you are not very happy with Pakistanis, especially the ones who write to you. I deem myself not to be a scholar on South Asia. Therefore I dare not write for a premier publication like ATol. But as a lay person from South Asia, I can differentiate journalistic bias from balanced journalism, even when emanating from a "moonlighting journalist". As for Pakistani writers, they do contribute to many online forums, eg Counterpunch, Z-Net and others, where there is a fair chance of getting their views aired. However, they write balanced articles about South Asia, which tend to build bridges and promote peace and harmony among the nations of South Asia, instead of carping on hackneyed themes based on nihilistic oxymorons like "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic bomb", "jihadists" and other forces of darkness. I have yet to read an article with a positive view of Pakistan and its people on ATol, for example one highlighting the work of Mr Edhi, the "Saint of Indigent and Poor in South Asia", or on Ms Asma Jahangir, who has blazed a glorious trail in fighting for human rights not only in Pakistan but in the world. I understand your frustration for the dearth of Pakistani writers but due to obvious reasons given above you have not had many articles by leading online Pakistani writers like Dr Saeed Shafqat, Dr Muqtedar Khan, Dr Ghulam Haniff, Dr Moeed Pirzada, Aroosa Alam, Dr Shireen Mazari, Dr Hassan Iqbal, Dr Riffat Hassan, Anjum Niaz and Professor Adil Najam, to name just a few, who are scholars and not moonlighting propagandists with hidden agendas. And as far as "convincing counterpoints", I did make an effort of attaching several articles of Mr Kaushik Kapisthalam (Pakistan leaves arms calling card, Feb 10), which show his virulently ant-Pakistan bias and had requested you to be the judge. I still await your judgment.
Manzer J Durrani, PhD
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Feb 18, '05)

Simply providing a list of other articles by the same author you are maligning is not "counterpoint". If you have evidence that the writer is incorrect, provide examples and evidence of the true facts as you understand them. If we have not run articles by the Pakistani writers you mention, it is because they have not submitted anything to us. Unlike certain other websites we could name (but will not because we are too polite), we do not simply pilfer copyrighted material for our own use. - ATol

I appreciate your response to a letter [from Manzer J Durrani, Feb 17] complaining about the blatant propaganda of Indian writers against Pakistan. You mentioned, "As for 'South Asian rivalries', what would you have us do - ignore them? Pakistani writers are welcome to contribute articles to ATol offering a Pakistani perspective; with few (very welcome) exceptions, they prefer to pen letters to the editor accusing our writers of 'bias' without offering convincing counterpoints." I totally agree with your contention about Pakistanis contributing to ATol and I intend to do something about it. But I guess the responsibility of an editor is not just to edit the articles he/she receives for grammatical mistakes or typos. It is also incumbent on the editorial staff to see whether an article is logical and fact-based or whether some Indian just had some problems at home and is now venting his anger on Pakistan cooking up "facts". Of course, everyone has a different viewpoint, but the problem arises when these viewpoints are projected as universal truths. I simply cannot understand how can Indian writers somehow manage to drag Pakistan into their writings even when they are writing about tsunamis or plague in India or civil war in Sri Lanka. But I am sure it's a very interesting topic for psychological analysis. I refer you again to my previous suggestion regarding the opening of a new section called "fiction", where the fairy tales of all the Indian writers obsessed with Pakistan can be combined. At least this will make sure that these "pearls of wisdom" will then be read in their true perspective.
Ihsan Kamal
Islamabad, Pakistan (Feb 18, '05)

We are pleased that you, unlike Dr Durrani, intend to help us address a perceive imbalance on India-Pakistan issues. You and others who are similarly interested in contributing to Asia Times Online should go to this link and read the instructions, or simply click the "Write for ATol" button on any of our index pages. - ATol

Roy (letter [Feb 17]) sums it up pretty well in saying "India must do what China does and not what some Chinese dude [says]. By this I mean national development must be comprehensive: the service sector, manufacturing sector, and infrastructure sector all complement one another to make the nation strong." To that I would like to add education as well. Unfortunately, all these sectors you mention are dominated by the government, and thus hostage to the left-wing unions. The previous government was less beholden to these interests and was more willing to shake things up. However, it lacked political savvy to market these actions as beneficial to all rather than just a few. The rest is history. Unfortunately for Indians, the wait will be a little longer. However, the system, however imperfect, is a much better alternative than the Communist Party running tanks in Tiananmen Square.
AP (Feb 18, '05)

Ratna Bahadur Rai [letter, Feb 17] seems to apologize for King Gyanendra's actions and it is interesting to see how he portrays the usurper as the savior. Rai happily blames everyone for the chaos (even the neighbor) except the person who is in the middle of all these things. Maybe Rai is living in a blind spot that makes him oblivious to the impact of the successive dismissals of governments engineered by Gyanendra. While the king can fire the political parties for mismanagement, who is going to boot him out if he fails to live up to his promise? Will he bow out of office voluntarily if he could not solve the Maoist problem? He should be judged by the same yardstick by which he judges the politicians. It looks like Gyanendra wants to grab all the rights without any responsibility. It is clear that the king was not comfortable in sharing power with the political parties and frequent changes of government indicate that he did not trust them either. The political parties in Nepal enjoyed power at the pleasure of the palace: 14 governments in as many years. The Shah dynasty (along with Ranas) was in the seat of power for a very long time. Are they not responsible for the abysmal social, economic and political conditions that breeds militants? The politicians are conveniently punished for the mistakes of the royals and treated like scapegoats. Rai's charge of India supporting the militants is imaginary and ridiculous. The Indo-Nepal border is very open and porous and it is difficult to filter a few bad elements from the people crossing it. In addition, India itself faces Maoists problems in areas bordering Nepal. If international opinion irks the Nepalese king he should make his nation less dependent on external aid and support. When more than half of the budget money comes from overseas, naturally the external players will be concerned with the developments in Nepal. There are also divergent thoughts on India's reaction to [the] crisis in Nepal. When India can handle dictatorship the world over, why not another despot? No other authoritarian-ruled nation is as closely linked to India as Nepal.
Kannan (Feb 18, '05)

Beth Bowden writes [letter, Feb 16]: "My question to Joseph J Nagarya is, does the fact that the official US governmental investigation into the assassination of US president John F Kennedy was sealed by the US government for a hundred years dispute your assertion that there is no evidence that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination?" No. First: Almost all doubts, questions, and conspiracy "theories" concerning the assassination trace back to Mark Lane's first book, Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry into the Murders of John F Kennedy, Officer J D Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett World Library, 1967). There are two central facts about that book which JFK assassination-conspiracy true believers do not know, or do not understand: (a) Mark Lane (according to his own claim) was to be Oswald's lawyer; then Oswald was murdered; and (b) that book is Lane's "defense brief" - ie, a legal brief is not objective; rather, it presents the legal theory of only one side of the case. Thus it is predictable that Lane would endeavor to point attention away from his client by doing that which trial lawyers do: raise questions and doubts against the other side's legal theory. Second: Not having seen any of the alleged "evidence" allegedly "sealed by the US government for a hundred years", neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can determine what that alleged "evidence" is or is not, or what it might mean. Third: Much was made of the "fact", as example, that JFK's brain was "missing", and the bronze coffin in which he was placed in Dallas "disappeared" - "facts" that were [the] result of "obvious" effort to hide "evidence" of conspiracy. And on those "facts" were spun numerous conspiracy "theories", and millions of books sold. Turns out - this directly asserted by a decades-long intimate of the Kennedys - that Bobby Kennedy, fearing that future exhibits concerning the assassination would include brain tissues and bodily fluids gathered during autopsy, had the coffin, and all those materials, dumped at sea. It isn't nature alone that "abhors a vacuum". So do conspiracy theorists. Roostercockburn writes [Feb 16]: "It takes me a long time to learn. I really think I understand this time." Actually, you do not; note this you wrote: "When you say, 'I do not, as example, assert that there was no conspiracy behind the JFK assassination; but I do say there is no evidence that there was." In fact, putting aside the conspirabunk - which is not evidence of conspiracy but "theory" about, by and large, absence of evidence which would support the conspirabunk - there is no evidence that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. Therefore, "there is no evidence that there was" such a conspiracy. At the same time, I do not assert that there was no conspiracy because one cannot prove a negative. Those who believe otherwise - "sneaking suspicions", that there are "witches", that [Saddam] Hussein's lack of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] meant that he had WMD - refuse to accept that principle of reason.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 18, '05)

Many thanks to US Congressman Tom Tancredo for his resolution in favor of equal diplomatic recognition of China and Taiwan. According to Mr Tancredo, "Our current 'one China' policy is a fiction. Taiwan is a free, sovereign and independent country that elects its own leaders. It is not, nor has it ever been, a local government of communist China - and everyone knows that. It is time to to scrap this intellectually dishonest and antiquated policy in favor of a little consistency and honesty. There is absolutely no good reason that the United States cannot maintain the same kind of normal relationship with the democratically elected government in Taiwan that it maintains with the autocratic regime in Beijing."
Daniel McCarthy (Feb 18, '05)

To Zhibin Gu on It takes two to tango [Feb 17]: While I applaud your good sense to bring both China and India into the "superpower club", I think you're mistaken to think that India and China should just complement one another. India must do what China does and not what some Chinese dude [says]. By this I mean national development must be comprehensive: the service sector, manufacturing sector, and infrastructure sector all complement one another to make the nation strong. Until India recognizes this basic fact, India will never rise up to its potential. China already knows this formula. I want to see Tata of India do business in India and in China, not just Infosys doing IT [information technology] stuff. I am Afro-American and proud to be American, but I wish China and India success to help end the unhealthy domination of the planet by the US and Europe, who want no competitors to their corporate brands.
Roy
USA (Feb 17, '05)

I am wondering why no Indians protested when ATol editor regards India as an elephant. Are Indians discriminating against one kind of lovely animal versus another? Two ways to cook the books, by Priyanka Bhardwaj, and It takes two to tango, by George Zhibin Gu [both Feb 17], are two interesting articles. Zhibin Gu is apparently not very familiar with India. Just like a typical Chinese communist, he is trying to be friends with them by mentioning [that] both China and India [have been] neighbors for over 5,000 years. However, if he paid more attention to Priyanka Bhardwaj's article, he would understand [that] today's English-speaking Indians are closer to [the] English than to China's old neighbor who lived in the same place before. By moving two lips, India's FDI [foreign direct investment] increased by tenfold overnight. That must be the greatest achievement India ever achieved. Priyanka Bhardwaj must be very proud.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 17, '05)

I refer to the article From Baghdad to Beirut [Feb 17] by Pepe Escobar. Escobar has an excellent understanding of the Middle East. He has again brilliantly analyzed the situation and dared write what others will not do. The assassination of Rafik Hariri has Mossad written all over it, and only Israel benefits from chaos in Lebanon or, for that matter, in any Arab country. An extract from an essay titled "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" written by Oded Yinon published in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No 14-Winter, 5742, February 1982, had the following to say: "Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short-term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present-day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today." Israel will go to any lengths to ensure that (a) there is no stability in any Arab or for that matter Muslim country and (b) perpetual internal conflicts and ethnic infighting, such as their backing of the Kurds in Iraq, and Phalangists in Lebanon.
Vincent Maadi (Feb 17, '05)

After reading Dhruba Adhikary's write-up King readies for a new game in Nepal that appeared in your online edition of February 16, I was prompted to make the following observations and make some efforts to dispel Mr Adhikary's apprehensions. Being a leading journalist it was natural for Adhikary to express concern for the suspension of fundamental rights, particularly the restrictions on news items, articles and other reading materials after the declaration of emergency in the country. However, in view of the unrestrained media spectacle, occasionally teetering on the verge of yellow journalism, it was, I think, essential to impose a certain degree of restriction so that people's right to be correctly informed is also protected and bring home to the fourth estate that freedom of expression is not synonymous to irresponsibility. The recent action by King Gyanendra seems to have been forced upon him by the country's political forces. Nepal is facing formidable challenges internally as well as externally. Internally the unabated bloody insurgency carried out by the Maoist rebels is posing a serious threat to the country's existence itself. The disunited political outfits could not transcend the mundane cupidity for wealth and detestable avarice for power. Sense of personal security among the people and a permanent peace have been irretrievably lost. So the only savior for the country appeared to be the institution of monarchy. Externally, Nepal has been time and again duped by the duplicitous behavior of of its big southern neighbor, India, whose credentials as a democracy-friendly country are of highly questionable authenticity. [It] is still possessed by the colonial hangover, as far as its relations with Nepal is concerned. This is appropriately pointed out by Adhikary citing India's continued patronage accorded to [authoritarian] Bhutan and Maldives. If India had had any semblance of honest neighborliness towards Nepal she would not have given unrestrained mobility to the Maoist rebels throughout India for over eight years during which they built up their war machine against the establishment in Kathmandu. In that sense India is equally responsible for the growth of the terror web laid out by the Maoists throughout Nepal today. Nepali people have already had the experience how they can breathe [the] fresh air of freedom under a democratic regime. They do not like to lose it permanently. Nor is the international political environment favorable to an anachronistically absolute and repressive monarchy. But today Nepal is facing an atypical situation. If they [Nepalis] are given the options [of] unrestrained freedom or peace and security, they would go for the latter for the time being. Therefore, the international community should not be swayed away by the hullabaloo created by a few countries who want to have a firm foothold in Nepal by ultimately establishing a dysfunctional republican state.
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Feb 17, '05)

While you are correct to point out that Nepal is in a difficult situation that might demand extraordinary measures, one cannot know with any clarity which "options" the Nepali people would favor so long as their democratic voice is stifled and their media shackled. Every democracy has to cope with the problem of irresponsible journalism; the long-term solution is not to curtail democratic freedoms or legitimate reporting. - ATol

Thanks for the great Middle East coverage (Assassination: All eyes on Syria [Feb 16] by Syed Saleem Shahzad).
Paul Templeton
USA (Feb 17, '05)

Referring to the comments made by Chrysantha Wijeyasingha from New Orleans, Louisiana [letter, Feb 16], on Syed Saleem Shahzad's Assassination: All eyes on Syria [Feb 16] that "if anyone is exploiting this situation it is this journalist and the media that support his point of view", I want to ask Chrysantha Wijeyasingha: What about the Western and pro-Israel media as well as the governments [that] are exploiting this situation by accusing Syria? Is there any investigation [that has] been done and [that has proved] Syrian involvement?
Afaq Sher
Toronto, Ontario (Feb 17, '05)

Chrysantha Wijeyasingha writes [letter, Feb 16]: "[Syed Saleem] Shahzad's headline of the assassination of that Lebanese who has consistently opposed the presence of Syria's military in Lebanon as 'see how the US exploits the situation' is blatantly biased and he sounds like a paid pawn of Syria ... Mr Shahzad's obvious hatred of the US is plain to see by saying that the US is going to 'exploit the matter." Please, Chrysantha! The US, under Torturer-in-Chief Bush, engages in the prohibited act of "extreme rendition": sending individuals to friendly client-states which will perform torture in Bush's behalf. The list of willing partners of the US that do so includes Syria. The bias, Chrysantha, is your false pretense that the US is oh-so-innocent, constantly being falsely accused - which requires that you give silent assent to the unkept secret that the US simultaneously both has Syria do its dirty work, in the form of torture, and accuses Syria of sponsoring terrorism. Is torture not terrorism? It is bias which refuses to recognize that double-standard/hypocrisy as being exactly that because engaged in by the can-never-do-wrong US. It is also bias, Chrysantha, to ignore the fact that not only has the US repeatedly threatened Syria with invasion (even while having Syria commit torture in the US's behalf), but also that such an invasion of a country which is not a threat to the US would be yet another violation of international law - and the US's founding principles against colonialism. Yes: [President George W] Bush will exploit any pretext - or lie one into being if necessary - to do as he pleases, including against its [the United States'] ally-in-torture Syria.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 17, '05)

I am disappointed that Asia Times [Online] has provided a forum for propagandist writers like Kaushik Kapisthalam. His articles are openly obviously biased and fuel hatred and malignancy prevailing in relations between India and Pakistan. Articles like Pakistan leaves arms calling card (Feb 10) project an Indian viewpoint as reflected in the writings of Mr Kapisthalam, who claims to be a freelance journalist, but in reality he is an expatriate Indian IT [information technology] professional living in the United States. His commentaries mainly focus on Pakistan; projecting it as a "rogue nuclear state", the source of India's misery, a haven for terrorists, and ready to be put on the list of nations to be dealt with by the United States in its war on terrorism. By allowing such commentaries to continue, you are tarnishing your image as an independent and neutral journal of Asian news, views and commentaries ... I hope that you will not let South Asian rivalries cloud your independent judgment and journalistic fair play.
Manzer J Durrani, PhD
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Feb 17, '05)

Many freelancers, including several who write for Asia Times Online, have "day jobs" in other fields. As for "South Asian rivalries", what would you have us do - ignore them? Pakistani writers are welcome to contribute articles to ATol offering a Pakistani perspective; with few (very welcome) exceptions, they prefer to pen letters to the editor accusing our writers of "bias" without offering convincing counterpoints. - ATol

I just read the article by Kaveh Afrasiabi Demonizing Iran: Another US salvo [Feb 5]. I thought it was an excellent article for the American public to read.
Ron Vidra (Feb 17, '05)

[Re] The failed-state cancer [Feb 4]: [Henry C K] Liu's opening salvo to a multi-part brief encompassing politics, economics et al [World Order, Failed States and Terrorism] certainly does justice to his being acknowledged ATol's best. The questions that come to mind relate to his "world order is a network of economic and strategic pressures that ... holds a system together". In this regard, how does one explain in classical terms the fact that the leading "capitalist" state's (USA) economy is in large measures dependent on an ever-increasing debt to a so-called "communist" (China) state? Are classical terms applicable in the 21st century? As an example, does the US dollar or for that matter the euro determine the value of a barrel of oil, or is it more pertinent to now state that a barrel of oil determines the value of the dollar? The invasion of Iraq is but another effort to hold a "failed" system of economic and strategic pressures in a world where those who have the "actual resources" are gaining leverage at the expense of those who do not have them. Maybe a young 10-year-old in a classroom (in an unnamed Middle East country) on being asked by his teacher, "How much is 2 plus 2?" answered, "It depends on whether you are buying or selling."
Armand De Laurell (Feb 17, '05)

In response to Frank, who bought up the issue of religion [letter, Feb 16], I must ask Frank, when did I ever mention Hinduism? What does religion have to do with what I said in my letter? Why can't you seem to understand that maybe, just maybe, China is not the center of the universe? People in India and in other countries do think of other issues besides their relations with Beijing. Sure, China is factored in during the decision-making process, but it isn't the be all and end all of international relations. And if you are even thinking of comparing the Free Tibet movement of the Dalai Lama with the jihadi sort, then you have some real issues with which I cannot help you. You need professional help. Since you seem intent [on] picturing Hindus in the same manner as the Nazis pictured the Jews, then let me just tell you one thing. As a Hindu [it] is always my duty to give the best advice that I can, and for you I suggest that there has to be some sort of psychological explanation to your views - please seek professional help. Once you are fixed, please write a book about your condition. I mean after all, who wouldn't want to read an amazing piece of fiction which involves a new breed of men who are part Hindu/Buddhist/Tibetan/canine part white/part Asian super-villains that seek to dominate all of mankind? I suggest you call it The Protocols of the Elders of Hind.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Feb 17, '05)

This is regarding the series of [letters] on India versus China. To some extent rivalry between these two countries is inevitable. Coming down to the historical part of it, there is absolutely no proof that Chinese civilization is older than India's. Frank writes that "Sue and Tan Dynasty ruled Xinjiang longer than the history of the India republic" (Feb 14). Does he mean that records of China's rule over Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan are older than India's history? This is absolute rubbish, as [is] much of what comes from Frank. I am sure Frank is reading the hyper-nationalistic history of China fabricated by the Communist Party. In case he means India post-1947, then the PRC [People's Republic of China] is even more recent, 1949 if I am correct. Prior to 1911, China was under Manchu rule, who made the conquered Chinese wear pigtails. This kind of approach is typical of a lot of Chinese. I remember hearing a Chinese scholar on TV in Singapore make a passing comment that "it is believed that Buddhism came to China from India". (Hello, maybe it came from North Korea!) As regards Tibet, China has been able to colonize it due to the stupidity of the Nehru government and the, at that time, ill-prepared Indian army. Going by Frank's logic India should lay claim to, apart from Pakistan and Bangladesh, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and much of Southeast Asia. Indians, unlike the Chinese, are neither "shy" nor "not talkative", but we are definitely far less aggressive and xenophobic. Traditional Indian literature is replete with references to the hoary antiquity of India and to the spread of Indian culture in lands other than modern day India. Frank, as usual, has forgotten all about Chinese travelers like Hiuen Tsang who came and studied in India and took back tons of manuscripts, which [were] then translated into Chinese. Incidentally, there are no records of a reverse trend (we can depend upon China's Communist Party and Frank to fill up this gap!). The trouble is (1) research in Indian history still largely follows the pattern set by the British rulers and the clique of Marxist historians in India who for a variety of reasons prefer to ignore anything further back than the Muslim period in India and (2) Indians are not so good at fabricating history. Frankly, we need more Franks.
Gautam Das
Noida, India (Feb 17, '05)

Just to clarify, though this detail does not detract from your main points, you missed a few decades in your overview of recent Chinese history. While it is true that the founding of the current People's Republic was later than that of the independent Republic of India, the first Republic of China (whose government is nominally in exile on Taiwan) was founded in 1911. - ATol

Jaewoo Choo sees rain in the wrong places [Pyongyang rains on 'Sunshine Policy', Feb 16]. Kim Jong-il has rained on President George W Bush's parade. He has let loose an ice-cold, Scottish shower on Washington's shadow games, otherwise known as the six-party talks. South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun will not relax much the opening towards North Korea that his predecessor Nobel Peace Prize laureate Kim Dae-jung began. The hesitant, tentative steps leading to an entente cordiale between the two halves of a divided Korea is not up for sale. (If Pyongyang possesses nuclear weapons, that boast may be idle or it may be true, but no one can say for sure. It strikes a proud beat, I am willing to suggest, in the hearts of South Koreans that Koreans have the bomb, and thus [are] a member of the big-powers club.) China, though with much forgiving, will not antagonize its North Korea ally. It will not abandon the standpoint behind the much-touted northern Sung aphorism which Deng Xiaoping used to characterize China's solidarity with North Korea: China's the lips to North Korea's teeth. President Hu [Jintao] has less leverage with Kim Jong-il, and this despite China's exports of food and fuel to the sick man of Northeast Asia. As Mr Choo rightly states, the Blue House's soft policy towards the North has loosened ties with Washington. And Washington has itself to blame. For, with no consultation, the United States announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing a third of its troops stationed in the Republic of Korea, to prop up its faltering war in Iraq. This ukase has been drastically altered. This if anything, I suggest, was a signal to Seoul to begin looking towards more independent options, and has resulted in broadening ties with China and North Korea. America's options for resolving thorny issues with its ally in Seoul and for finding an opening with Pyongyang diminish day by day. In the end, it will neither be Pyongyang nor Seoul who will be dragged screaming and kicking to the bargaining table but, to slip into a Richard Nixonism, the weakened giant who is the United States. [President George W] Bush and his hard-nosed wonks have raised a big stone, and it has dropped heavily and painfully on their collective foot on the question of Korea.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 16, '05)

Once again Syed Saleem Shahzad has his finger on the pulse of the imperial masters. In his article Assassination: All eyes on Syria [Feb 16], the only eyes on which he is reporting are those of the AngloAmericanZionist consortium. Who gains from chaos in the Middle East? Who has been out to control Syria and Lebanon? Who has the sophisticated explosives technology that appeared in this attack? Whose signature is always "overkill" so that the world will know it is involved? Who has declared preemptive strikes and assassinations as formal public policy? "Uncle Tom" was the name given by African-Americans to those who sold out their integrity to their white masters. It appears that "Uncle Syed" might be evolving into just such a caricature. I can understand the seduction - no limits, no laws, no integrity - just money and power, and playing with the big boys!
Diane Jacobs-Malina (Feb 16, '05)

[Syed Saleem] Shahzad's headline of the assassination of that Lebanese who has consistently opposed the presence of Syria's military in Lebanon as "see how the US exploits the situation" is blatantly biased and he sounds like a paid pawn of Syria [Assassination: All eyes on Syria, Feb 16]. It is not just the US but the UN, [which] Mr Shahzad failed to mention, who is putting pressure on Syria. Syria's bloodstained hands are now seen across the world and Mr Shahzad's obvious hatred of the US is plain to see by saying that the US is going to "exploit the matter". If anyone is exploiting this it is this journalist and the media that [support] his point of view.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 16, '05)

The word "exploits" does not appear in the article. You are probably referring to the index-page summary, which concludes, "Now watch Washington exploit the situation." Index-page summaries are written by editors, not the reporters. While the "Washington" remark was a valid point drawn from the story, the article itself actually referred more to the United Nations than to the United States, contrary to your assertion. There is nothing "biased" about observing that the US, which obviously has strong interests in the region, will likely make every effort to turn the Rafik Hariri assassination to its advantage somehow, as will the Israelis - why would they not? - ATol

Dhruba Adhikary (King readies for a new game in Nepal [Feb 16]) does a fairly good job of questioning the consistency of Indian response. For instance, India has not been bothered too much by non-democratic Maldives. In fact, the Congress dispensation in New Delhi that was questioning the king of Nepal to behave like, er, a king was busy throwing out an elected government of Goa in western India. However, that does not excuse the king's behavior of throwing out an elected government or show a whole lot about his "vision". Maybe it was okay to play the Chinese/Pakistani card against India, but then what? Is annoying India by the Shah of Kathmandu sound strategy or good realpolitik? And what about the Maoist's real agenda to replace the monarchy with a republic? Perhaps it is time for Nepalese journalist to debate these issues.
AP (Feb 16, '05)

In response to US fights back against 'rule by clerics' [Feb 15], we see, once again, the US's failure to grasp the importance of long-term, proactive policy as opposed to short-term gain. Just as past Republican administrations were eager to jump into bed with the likes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan (only to have both become perceived as among the US's greatest present threats to security), we're once again hopping into bed with none other than the Ba'ath Party. And for [what]? The same reason why the US and Britain toppled the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s; the same reason why the US supported the Taliban against the former Soviet Union; and the same reason why the US eagerly supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq (before he used his Western-provided force against US interests): because of the need to control the flow of oil. If the Asia Times [Online] report is correct, then the US has used untold billions to do what the Bush administration is calling "democracy building" to then turn around and fight the democratically elected government's direction with [a] US-funded guerrilla insurgency using as an ally the same former ruling (undemocratic) party the US just toppled. A truly proactive approach would take notice of the failure of a policy to use one's enemy's enemy to further a nation's interests. However, the Bush administration is bent on keeping the blinders on and continuing to repeat the same policy from over 50 years ago, to use whatever means necessary to secure control over Middle Eastern oil, while trumpeting its assumed role as the defender of freedom and democracy - an assumption that is becoming increasingly dubious in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Eric Reagan
Brattleboro, Vermont (Feb 16, '05)

[Syed Saleem] Shahzad: I have some questions about the story you wrote on February 15 entitled US fights back against 'rule by clerics'. 1) What country is the "military analyst" from? 2) Why would the US fight for democracy in Iraq only to fight against it, risking our own troops? 3) What is wrong with the US sending arms to Iraq, to arm Iraqi forces, so that our forces can leave? 4) Calls for separation can last a long time without actually happening - upper and lower Michigan, northern and southern California, Quebec and English Canada, etc. Why do you give more credence to this one?
Tony Sullivan (Feb 16, '05)

1) It is narrated in the story that the military analyst is from Pakistan. 2) It has washed away the contradiction built by its own authorities in the shape of communal divisions which have given birth to religious extremism in Iraq. Rearming the private militias is just to keep America's own troops protected from direct clashes. 3) The arms procured from Pakistan and other countries are not meant for Iraqi forces. They are exclusively for private militias, and the reason for this procurement from other countries is to prevent their own identification as a supplier. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Re US fights back against 'rule by clerics' [Feb 15] by Syed Saleem Shahzad: Interesting piece on Asia Times [Online]. It appears that the US has gotten more than it bargained for in the Iraqi elections. Do you see the de facto annexation of southern Iraq by Iran?
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Feb 16, '05)

In your article US fights back against 'rule by clerics' [Feb 15] you state that the US is arming militias with arms procured from Pakistan and other foreign countries and intends to use these militias to "nip evil in the bud". Are you saying that these US-supported militias are going to start assassinating selective clerics in order to prevent a "rule by clerics" system in Iraq?
David Bay
Lexington, South Carolina (Feb 16, '05)

That's true. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Dear [Syed] Saleem Shahzad: I really enjoy and learn from all your beautiful articles. Keep on writing.
Cindy Carter (Feb 16, '05)

You [Spengler] are being provocative again (The Dead Peoples Society, Feb 15) and I think I have you pegged. You are a German Jew with a love/hate relationship with European cultural and linguistic history. You pump your head full with the ideas of European philosophers and then you use your knowledge as a weapon against contemporary Europeans. You tell Europeans that they should be ashamed of their pre-Christian past: "Rome itself was a casket in which the ghosts of extinct tribes were interred. We still hear the undigested remains of dead peoples banging on the inside of the casket called Rome, demanding to get out" and "Europe still languishes in nostalgia for the mud and stink of barbarian tribes long since faded into obscurity." Such empty, provocative words! What seem to be disastrous to you is super-interesting to millions of Europeans. Christian dogma has always been merely skin-deep. What did you expect? An offshoot of Judaism, a Judaism that was shaped by brilliant rabbis, returnees from Babylonian exile, whose world was the monotonous sandy desert stretching barely from Egypt to Mesopotamia and who plagiarized the Sargon myth to create a mythological Moses greater than life? Pre-Christian Europeans lived in rich environments and were surrounded and overwhelmed by extremely varied flora and fauna. It is no wonder that they were polytheists and that monotheism has always been a thin veneer. Don't be so afraid of change. No doubt you have studied classical Greek in high school, so you have heard of Heraclitus and his take on the mysteries of life: Panta rei, everything flows, everything is constantly changing. What mankind observes in his lifetime is ephemeral. When young and full of energy and hope for a better future, men and women the world over, but particularly those of us who were ground up and vomited out of the concentration camps, contributed enthusiastically to change. In old age we cannot keep up with change and must step aside and hold our tongues and seek out our own subcultures with contemporaries who have similar philosophies, interests and values as our own. I recommend that you embrace Heraclitus and accept change. It is inevitable, and it will hopefully lift you out of your dark moods. Having said this, keep it coming, every one of your ideas is food for thought. You might say that, I have a love/hate relationship with your contributions.
AL
Canada (Feb 16, '05)

Another Spengler elegy to Europe [The Dead People's Society, Feb 15]! Spengler's articles are a classic example of how a brilliant mind can be used to justify and put across as the truth just about anything. In this case it is Spengler's ceaseless glorification of Pax Americana and its loony brand of Christianity. Spengler seems to be following in the footsteps of Marxist/communist historians who give their own interpretations to history and events based on their ideological leanings and of course [Josef] Goebbels - keep harping on the same thing till it becomes the truth. Spengler is eminently qualified to be appointed ideologue-in-chief for the Bush administration. He'll give their ideology the intellectual sheen which it so clearly lacks.
Gautam Das
Noida, India (Feb 16, '05)

Questions fall like rain for some of us. My question to Joseph J Nagarya (Feb 15) is, does the fact that the official US governmental investigation into the assassination of US president John F Kennedy was sealed by the US government for a hundred years dispute your assertion that there is no evidence that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination? To Spengler on his essay Dead People's Society (Feb 15): Can someone please translate my admiration into the newest popular language? Bravissimo!
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Feb 16, '05)

I am e-mailing you in regards to Pepe Escobar's excellent article Before the breakup, the breakdown [Feb 15]. It was a very objective and all-too-scarce analysis of the situation in Iraq and of all the players involved.
Muhammad (Feb 16, '05)

The February 15 article by Sultan Shahin about India's failing neighbors, India grapples with specter of failing states, is full of inaccuracies and outright fantasies. I am hard pressed to see how such a piece can be considered seriously if the basic facts of it are wrong. I can only speak of what relates to Bangladesh and hope my friends from Nepal would take a look at their section. The first paragraph of his article states that Bangladesh is an "Islamic republic" whereas it is not and it never was. It is still a "people's republic". As for the "National Awami Party" or NAP, it is not in power in Bangladesh and is more or less a spent force. The party in power is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. It is still not proven whether or not rebels form India operate in Bangladesh with the government's knowledge. When are the Indians going to realize that they have real economic, political and racial issues that fuel these rebellions? Blaming Bangladesh for everything is not going to solve their problems. As for Bangladesh becoming a failed state - there is no such possibility any time soon unless the Indians implement their "river linking" project, thereby turning large parts of Bangladesh into deserts. Also his point about "Bangladesh being wholly dependent" [of] India is a complete fantasy. Bangladesh imports about $2 billion worth of goods form India and exports about $85 million to India. So who is benefiting form this arrangement? If Bangladeshis were hostile to India, why would they buy so much of Indian products? There are other countries, notably China, that can and will supply us the same goods if we [so decide]. The article is very much representative of what we get these days from the Indian press. Jingoistic and "India is the greatest" mantra all over it. This is not going to solve any issues. The Gujral Doctrine was one of the best things that ever came out of India. But [it] looks like Indians and their government at this point want "full spectrum" domination, not friendship. Well and good, but don't expect the other side to just agree and obey.
Rakib Iftekher
Dhaka, Bangladesh (Feb 16, '05)

ATol readers Mustafa Shabbir (Feb 14) and Mohammed M Farooq (Feb 15) wrote in response to my article Pakistan leaves arms calling card (Feb 10) alleging that Pakistan never accepted that the Indian parliament attack was carried out by Pakistani militants as I had claimed in my article. I beg to differ. On March 5, 2004, the former head of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant-General (retired) Javed Ashraf Qazi, who is currently the education minister, told the Pakistani Senate on the record that the Pakistani group Jaish-e-Mohammad was responsible for the Indian parliament attack on December 13, 2001. He went on to urge his fellow lawmakers not to hide this fact. One would think that a statement on the record by a senior Pakistani minister who also happens to be a former spy chief would form a reasonable basis to conclude that Pakistan accepts the role of its home-grown militants in the parliament attack.
Kaushik Kapisthalam
Atlanta, Georgia (Feb 16, '05)

I am ... writing to tell the editors, writers and staff of Asia Times [Online] that I truly appreciate your work. The media in the US [are] so tightly controlled and full of propaganda that it is impossible to determine what is happening in Iraq. The following four articles from Asia Times [Online] are examples of excellent journalism: US fights back against 'rule by clerics' (Feb 15); The Shi'ites' Faustian pact (Feb 11); Coming to terms with Sistani (Feb 10); Sistani begins on his true agenda (Feb 8).
A Citizen of the US (Feb 16, '05)

In reference to one reader's [Jakob Cambria, Feb 14] response to my article Betting on the next Lenovo (Feb 12): It is very wise for the reader to look at the picture about the Chinese economy at large. Having this said, however, there is a need to go beyond the usual chat. To me, China stands at a cross-point from a state-run economy to a competitive market economy. Making such a transition is never easy. Rather, it is like a land animal learning how to live in the ocean and be alive still. It just can't be straightforward. But China has made a big step in this new direction. Due to the sharp rise of Chinese manufacturing power and its [low costs], the entire global market is affected. But China's business development is only at the very beginning. Even so, its massive manufacturing capability has no equal in the world. As a result, multinationals in the developed markets are forced to partner with the Chinese for mutual benefits. As a matter of fact, China is becoming a dumping ground for low-value-added business. Examples are plenty - deals between Thomson and Alcatel and TCL, Galanz and its numerous OEM (original equipment manufacturer) clients, and joint ventures between Huawei and 3Com and several others, etc, which all happen in this very context. But there is more to it. To see a more detailed and much wider argument, may I venture to suggest this paper, The China Factor and the Overstretch of the US Hegemony.
George Zhibin Gu (Feb 16, '05)

Karan Awtani wrote [letter, Feb 15], "India shouldn't demand more than it deserves, but we should never ever be ashamed to demand our rightful share, and asking for peace within our lands is not asking too much." I hope China's demand for peace within their lands of Tibet is not asking too much for India too. I am wondering if Hinduism includes the treating others as you want to be treated principle.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 16, '05)

To Joseph J Nagarya [letter, Feb 15]: I am sorry. It takes me a long time to learn. I really think I understand this time. When I say, "I have no physical evidence. I just looked at the limited information available to me and made a judgment," I should be more "sheepish" because that is conspirabunk and doesn't contain any "objective" truth. But when you say, "I do not, as example, assert that there was no conspiracy behind the JFK [US president John F Kennedy] assassination; but I do say there is no evidence that there was," That is okay because you are obviously a "pursuer of truth" and are qualified to make a judgment without "evidence". I know now that there are some conspiracy theories I can talk about and some that I can't until you define that they are acceptable to talk about. I feel confident that I can speculate about JFK's assassination. Thanks for your permission to do that. Wait, maybe I am wrong? Probably you can talk about it but I can't. I know that I do not base my opinions on "objective standards" of absolute truth like religion or law. I know that I don't have to be "sheepish" about conspiracy theories backed by the "objective standards" of the United States government and media that some guy who lives in a cave, hates freedom, and hates modernity taught some Islamofascists to hide out under cover and outsmart the whole defense establishment of the US by ramming planes into buildings (because they hate the way we let women walk around without veils) after they left the topless bar. We know this conspiracy is true because Colin Powell told us it was the day it happened. And we have to be vigilant because those guys are still hiding out there and it is only a matter of time before they strike again. We know that they are out there. Be scared but trust the government to protect you against this evil conspiracy, even though we can't find the evildoers. There is a whole civilization out there just waiting and planning to get us but some of the governments that let our oil multinationals do business with them aren't in on it. Hell, judging by "objective standards" and the "evidence", this war could never end in our lifetimes!
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 16, '05)

Beth Bowden writes [letter, Feb 14]: "I disagree with [Joseph J Nagarya] when he said in his letter (Feb 11), 'Conspirabunk is corrosive, destructive, pollution - and a convenient distraction from the befogged pursuit of the truth. The antidote is substantiated fact, and the discipline of sticking strictly to that.'" Try it from this angle: Conspirabunk is destructive of trust and social cohesion - even when falsely dignified with the term "theory". Second, if there were an actual conspiracy, it would be near-impossible to find it among all the absurd conspirabunk (an example being that the planes which hit the World Trade Center shot themselves down with missiles from themselves a split second before hitting the Towers) - which conspirabunk is also handy means by which to discredit all conspiracy "theories," including any that might be actual, and those who believe them. But Ms Bowden considers the "antidote" to conspirabunk the "testing" of "sneaking suspicion", then gives examples of disproven conspirabunk - an example that WMD [weapons of mass destruction], which were proven not to exist, were nonetheless moved to, say, Libya (others insist Syria). Thus she proves my point: there are those who will believe conspirabunk no matter how thoroughly disproven - because the irrational "sneaking suspicion" trumps reason, and all evidence. Another instance is Ms Bowden's assertion that Texas "is the only state in the Union that has the right to secede". Refutation of that bunk using Texas legal documents is too lengthy for a letters column; but one need only note the process for a would-be state to join the Union: apply to Congress; if it says yes, the applicant becomes a member; if it says no, it does not. A state "right of secession" would supersede the US constitution's supremacy clause - a legal impossibility. And when that "right" was asserted anyway, it was refuted by the US Civil War and its outcome. "Sneaking suspicion" is not "evidence"; it is unfounded effort to argue one's way around either actual evidence or absence of evidence.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 16, '05)

In response to the letter by DVeri (Feb 7) regarding the raids by the Religious Affairs Department in KL [Kuala Lumpur] and Selangor, they are supposedly doing their duties as dictated by the department. But if overzealous and corruptible police step over the bound of their duties, then the fault lies in the enforcer and not the religion. You have, time and time again, confused the issue of the beauty and purity of Islam versus the corrupt nature of humans. From the way you are responding to my letters, you show that you are not willing to see anything good about Islam, a rather bigoted point of view, one might say. And your remark about "KL, Selangor, to have the moral police on the loose again makes one wonder if we are becoming an Iran" is a particularly ignorant statement. Have you been to Iran and is your knowledge of life there based on your experience or is it based on what is reported in CNN or other Western-biased media? With respect to your other statement about "employers who will not hire because of the hijab" and your response which is "they [reason that], after all, the government will not accept us (the minorities), so we should take care of our own first" seemed to indicate that you are condoning discrimination if it is to your advantage. Let me say that discrimination, no matter who practices it, should not be acceptable. Regarding your rather victimized response to my statement of "if you know our history [S Ismail's emphasis]" and quoting your response "as if to say that I am not part of the country" - if you were to look at the [italicized phrase], it shows that I am talking about "our history", not "your history" or "my history", and to quote you again, "Therein lies the mental state of some." Finally, according to you, Dr [Mahathir Mohamad] had "used the bogeyman of the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) to tell the non-Malays that if they didn't vote for UMNO [United Malays National Organization] or their partners, PAS would impose syariah (Islamic) law on everyone". First of all, the Barisan Alternative (BA) was not just PAS but also comprised other secular and non-raced-based parties. And since when do we look to political parties to be totally truthful about their political opponents' view?
S Ismail
Malaysia (Feb 16, '05)

In the [Feb 15] article by Sultan Shahin about India's failing neighbors [India grapples with specter of failing states] one is forced to draw some rather curious conclusions about the intellectual balance of the author's mind. Mr Shahin urges multilateralism to defeat the forces of Maoism and jihad. What difference does it make that the gun was made in India, or Europe or the US as long as it does its job? Why should any sympathy be shown to these regressive forces? They shut down schools and attack the innocent unprotected segments of society. They seek to rule through fear and brainwash the masses in the areas of their control. Is it India's fault that Bangladesh is going to the dogs? This was a country [whose] founding fathers were killed by the Islamic fundamentalist groups shortly after independence. The current Bangladeshi government is directly linked to these fanatics - why is India being treated as the guilty party? Why should we be magnanimous? Every time someone screws up in the neighborhood is it our duty to dig them out of their hole? No it isn't! The time has come for India to start being proactive. The average Nepali and Bangladeshi has no love for either the Maoist or the jihadi - India should actively combat these forces while showing a attractive alternative lifestyle. Enough is enough, the so-called journalists who scream from the roofs blaming India for every little thing that goes wrong in the subcontinent need to open their eyes. Democracy will not always win through purity of ideas. Look at ancient Athens in the end of the Peloponnesian War, look at the Rajput Confederacy, look at history and learn. There are moments for diplomacy, and there are moments for action. Now is the time for direct strong action. India shouldn't demand more than it deserves, but we should never ever be ashamed to demand our rightful share, and asking for peace within our lands is not asking too much. This diplomatic international extortion racket as run by the Bangladeshi government and the Maoists must come to end for once and for all.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Feb 15, '05)

Sultan Shahin's article [India grapples with specter of failing states, Feb 15] describes self-introspection of India's ties with its problematic neighbors. Irrespective of the status of India's relationship towards the failing states, aren't these nations solely responsible for the messy state in which they find themselves now? It is important to bear in mind that the Gujral doctrine neither attempted to rescue nor addressed the growing cancer in these states. The Gujral doctrine is a self-administered local anesthetic and it implied turning a blind eye to the activities of these neighbors. In fact these states are themselves pursuing the Gujral doctrine in their internal affairs: they refuse to intervene in the processes that would take them to dire straits in future. Gujral doctrine, instead of curing the disease, would kill a patient. Is this what India and their neighbors should pursue?
Kannan (Feb 15, '05)

[Re] Foreign banks, ethos in Korea [Feb 15]: Andre Petty has a sour take on the coming of foreign banks to the Republic of Korea [ROK]. He misses an important reason for the not-so-overwhelming invasion of foreign financial institutions. South Korea is awash in private savings. The Roh government is at sixes and sevens in economic planning, giving cross-signals. This is causing a hemorrhage of monies towards safer havens, primarily in the United States. Yet this rush on capital markets notwithstanding, the ROK is an attractive market for the foreign banks hungry to manage private wealth amounting to billions of US dollars. Korea's knee-jerk reaction to foreign presence does pose problems: corseting foreign directors to declare Seoul a primary residency. This is a minor obstacle which should be easily overcome. The coming of foreign banks to South Korea is a tactical positioning for penetration through a Korean bank into the enticing China market, and towards Mongolia, and the Central Asian former Soviet republics, and of course towards the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] or North Korea. Let's look at Citibank: It has of late received a public slap on the knuckles for strong arming its private clients. Tokyo has forced them to apologize publicly and a la japonaise which is an act of swallowing swaggering Yankee pride. And Citicorp's days in Japan ... are over. Korea offers more opportunities. By buying KorAm, Citicorp looks for a heft profit in asset and wealth management in South Korea, through correspondent banks in China contact with Pyongyang, and of cutting a wide wedge for future opportunities in northeast Asia. Consequently foreign investment in South Korea opens brisk competition, which is not unwelcome for a middle-market hub which Seoul is. Mr Petty shouldn't look at the infusion of foreign capital in South Korea's banking institution through [a] turtle's eyes. South Korea is no longer, and has been for a long time, a business kingdom of hermits. For after all, South Korea's the world's 12-largest economy.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 15, '05)

Regarding China's influence on Myanmar, this is a situation where India and China don't have to be rivals [Yangon still under Beijing's thumb, Feb 11]. Obviously India's relationship with Myanmar will grow with India's growing power and China will hold on to control over Myanmar's military. Since Myanmar is sandwiched between these two giants, it would be futile to be antagonists over who really has the ultimate influence over the government of Myanmar. It would be better that India and China discuss the growing influence of both powers over Myanmar and see complementary areas ...
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 15, '05)

I read the article Pakistan leaves arms calling card by Kaushik Kapisthalam dated February 10. The author has taken a lot freedom in stating the facts which are quite extraordinary. First of all, Pakistan has never accepted that the Indian parliament attack was carried out by Pakistani militants. As a matter of fact, just last week [the] Indian High Court released one of the suspects on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The writer should state the facts and not patriotism when writing in [a] reputable publication. The author only talks about Pakistan buying conventional weapons from the US. What about the Indian arms spree worth $96 billion in the next 10 years from Russia, Israel, the US and England? It is a fact that India is an arrogant bully in South Asia. Show me a neighboring country which has good relations with India. Only difference is that Pakistan challenges the bully, which causes heartburn to Indians. Let us not forget the fact that it was the Indian army who trained the Mukti Bahani to fight against Pakistan's army, resulting in a split of the country in 1971. But when Pakistan supports the freedom cause of Indian-Occupied Kashmiris, India cries foul. My advice to Mr Kapisthalam is to stick to facts ... Pakistanis read this publication also.
Mohammed M Farooq
Richmond, Virginia (Feb 15, '05)

Paul Rath (letter, Feb 14) may believe that the continuing nuclear saga in North Korea is a Chinese problem but he forgets a few other parties that have a national interest in the crisis, namely South Korea and Japan. If South Korea and Japan decide to go nuclear, which will be very easy for Japan, the nuclear genie is truly out of the bottle and a new international arms race will begin. The Bush administration did not merely "inherit the festering sore", but actually inflamed it by pulling out of the Clinton agreement by accusing the North Korean government of trying manufacture nuclear weapons. The result [is that] North Korea abandons the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and reprocesses its fuel rods into nuclear materials. Rath's second point is nonsensical because the goal of diplomacy is to have influence on another nation. [US President George W] Bush lost influence along with the ability to control events which are now out of the Americans' hands. Bush pressures China to find a solution while not understanding that China has gained face in the Far East along with the ability to pull the entire Korean Peninsula under its influence. If Korean unification ever occurs, it will be under Chinese terms, not American. South Korea will not be amused. Despite Rath's hyperbole about the nuclear dagger to Beijing's throat, China is under no threat from North Korea and the statement is laughable and is a neo-con fantasy. The Bush solution will be to continue the hardline approach and pressure the international community to institute additional economic sanctions as the news out of Washington today indicates. This displays that it is an American problem rather than a Chinese problem, which demolishes Rath's thesis. The true solution lies in returning to the Clinton-era accords and re-establishing normal diplomatic relations with North Korea. This will allow the Americans to supply "carrots" which can be used as bargaining chips to moderate North Korean behavior, instead of waving a stick around which everyone knows is being used in Iraq. Of course, this means that Bush will have to admit that he made a mistake. And that he will never do. Ken Arok continues under a similar vein with his sophomoric analysis. North Korea, like Israel, will find that nuclear ambiguity is more powerful than the weapons itself.
Ernie Lynch (Feb 15, '05)

Roostercockburn writes [letter, Feb 14]: "As far as your 'antidote' to 'distraction from the unbefogged pursuit of truth' and the 'discipline' you use to speculate that [US President George W] Bush is a war criminal, I agree with it but it's not true. Right? The fact is, he has never been convicted of war crimes. Isn't saying that Bush is a war criminal befogging the truth and 'external reality'? Show me the fact where Bush has been convicted of war crimes." I consistently point to the difference between speculation and fact: evidence. As to your speculation that there is some sort of conscious and collusive connection between Bush and Osama bin Laden, there is no evidence for it. Between that speculation and mine - "theory" is the correct term, as it is based in part upon evidence, and in part upon objective standards - is a clear distinction: (1) both US federal law and [the] Geneva Conventions are objective standards which (a) prohibit, and (b) define torture, in particularity and as a war crime; and (2) we have as evidence memoranda authorizing torture, as defined so by those standards, which are signed by, among others, Bush; and (3) we have photographic and credible testimonial evidence that the torture prohibited, defined, and authorized, was imposed upon, as example, detainees in Abu Ghraib. The conclusion to which those standards and that evidence leads is that those involved in authorizing and imposing torture are war criminals. That is sufficient upon which to base charges of and trial for commission of war crimes. Note that (as [Beth] Bowden indicates) in all instances I "stick to" both objective standards - law and evidence - whether refuting the lie that the US is a "Christian nation" or substantiating that Bush is a war criminal. It is not that I am "possessor of the truth" - no one is - but a pursuer of truth, which requires scrupulous attention to objective standards, evidence, and careful reasoning therefrom. I do not, as example, assert that there was no conspiracy behind the JFK [US president John F Kennedy] assassination; but I do say there is no evidence that there was.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 15, '05)

Having just scanned the ATol letters section upon returning from holiday I was completely dumbfounded by these two questions posed to me by the ATol editor [under Laosuwan's letter of Jan 24] and someone in Australia named Omega Lee [letter, Jan 25]. The editor wants to know, "Why is it that Thailand's blanket discrimination against non-Thais in such matters as home ownership, voting rights etc cannot be compared to the discrimination found in Malaysia? In what sense is discrimination on the basis of country of birth superior to religious discrimination?" I never imagined a "newspaper" editor could pose such a ridiculous question. What country in the world allows non-citizens to vote in its elections? All persons who hold Thai citizenship have the right to vote regardless of race or religion, unlike many "Islamic" countries whose religious discrimination you don't seem to object to. Look at the massive turnout in the south [of Thailand] to vote for the Democratic Party instead of Thai Rak Thai. How can you claim there is discrimination here? What country in the world has no rules against foreign ownership of its land? First of all you are wrong to claim there is a blanket restriction of ownership by foreigners in Thailand. That is not true. Foreigners can own houses outright with long-term leases on the land, they can own freehold condominiums and they can own land by inheritance or through the board of investment. But, from Mexico to France, to Singapore to the United States, all countries in the world control foreign ownership of land within their borders, to some extent. The word for this is sovereignty, not discrimination. Do you really mean to assert that a non-citizen has a human right to own land in a country he is not a citizen of even if that country does not wish to allow it? That is not even an argument. You are really losing what credibility I may have once thought you once had. To Omega Lee, another expert on Thailand, it seems, you dismiss the lovingkindness of one-half of our entire population who took time to make a gesture of peace as symbolic. Yes, it is symbolic, of a true desire for peace, and what is so trivial about that? You also demand that I clarify the quote about Malaysia refusing to extradite the terrorists it has arrested by Western media sources. I suppose Thai sources like the Bangkok Post and The Nation is not good enough? Or don't you read Asian papers? A few recent headlines would include: "'PM confirms arrest of top rebel; Kuala Lumpur angry': Chae Kumae Kuteh, a leading member of the separatist Mujahedeen Islamic Pattani party (MIP), who has been in refuge in Malaysia for the past decade, has been arrested in Malaysia." "'It didn't have to be like this': The fallout between Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur over the arrest and detention in Malaysia of a suspected separatist leader has many veteran security officers shaking their heads in disbelief." "'Abdullah: Top rebel suspect might not be handed over': Malaysia's prime minister has indicated his government may not allow extradition of a man Thailand says is a mastermind of separatist violence in the South." Do a keyword search if you need more ... [This week] we had two schoolteachers murdered in cold blood. The shooters fled in a car with Malaysian license plates. Of course, the victims' lives are merely abstract to you as they were Thai, and Buddhist. By the way, I am not a he, I am a she. Laosuwan is a woman's name - as a Thai expert you should know that.
Laosuwan (Feb 15, '05)

The ATol comment you mention referred to foreign residency in Thailand, not citizenship, although it is a fact that it is extraordinarily difficult for an immigrant to Thailand to become a citizen; under the Thaksin administration it has also become much more expensive and difficult for retirees and other lower-income foreigners to achieve any form of long-term residency, eg under spousal sponsorship. You are correct that all countries, including Thailand and Malaysia, exploit their "sovereignty" in different ways to deny certain rights to non-citizens; our point was that when criticizing the "sovereign" practices of one country, one should take care to remember that one's own country probably has very similar practices. Whether one country's "sovereignty" is practiced more benignly than another's depends rather a lot on whose ox is being gored. - ATol

I certainly respect [Aidan] Foster-Carter's views on North Korea, but I believe he is incorrect in a number of areas [North Korea's long, subtle game, Feb 12].

He focuses on the West's view of the situation, and the "failures" of the Bush administration, when in fact 1) The Bush administration simply inherited a festering sore of the last 50 years, and 2) in fact the Americans have traditionally had very little direct influence on, or contact with, the regime in the North.

He focuses on the sparks put off by the public pronouncements of the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] Foreign Ministry and the likes of [US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice, but the real "heat" that will shape events is silently taking place in Beijing. The communist Chinese government does not resort to "bullhorn" diplomacy. Their relative silence on the matter may mean, in fact, that there is intense debate and action taking place regarding North Korea.

A nuclear North Korea is not ultimately a US problem. It is a Chinese problem. The Chinese fully understand that regimes in Korea may come and go, but nukes are forever. Do the Chinese really want a nuclear-weapons-possessing country on their border, only several hundred miles from Beijing? Such a thing would be like a dagger at their throat, and will never be accepted.

The Chinese view is: What do the Americans really have to lose? They are separated from the North by the world's largest ocean.

The Americans realize this. [President George W] Bush and his team have long understood their lack of real control and influence with the North, and will up the ante and pressure on North Korea, which will achieve the actual goal of raising the pressure on China to act.

China is in a very difficult position [on] North Korea. Nonetheless, as we saw in 1950, they [the Chinese] will take action in North Korea to protect their interests - and this time it will not be under the flag of supporting a fellow communist regime.

China harbors many defectors from the Kim regime. They are likely at least partially viewed (in both China and equally in North Korea) as future agents of change, or possible members of a future North Korean government more friendly to China. Therefore, Kim [Jong-il] fears the Chinese as much as, or more than, he fears the Americans or Japanese.

Like the Americans, China also probably does not know the real extent of the North's nuclear program, but any action taken that further destabilizes the situation, such as an actual nuclear test, will set in motion regime change, initiated by China.
Paul Rath
New York, USA (Feb 14, '05)

Bruce Klingner touches on a crucial aspect of this whole six-party mess, and that is China [Pyongyang ups the ante - again, Feb 12]. China has been anxious in the recent past to assert itself on a larger stage, the so-called "big-state diplomacy" of the Jiang Zemin era. The inclusion of China in the six-party talks has forced it to take sides and as a result it has invested national prestige and "face" in a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. China must be so frustrated with the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] (if not downright enraged) for the loss of face that it will support, for example, action in the UN Security Council. Consider this "preemptive diplomacy" as now China will have to take sides in order to not lose face. Hence a very influential veto member of the Security Council (China has pull with France and Russia as well) will certainly be voting against the DPRK. The bigger question in this matter is, now that Kim [Jong-il] has alienated his staunchest supporter in China, where does he go from here? If the world responds with a yawn, will he ratchet up the pressure? Will the world eventually cave in to his demands, or will the remaining five participants in the six-party talks unify against Kim? If the DPRK is tuned out, will there be an atomic test to show the world they're serious or could the US be seen as goading Kim into testing a bomb in order to galvanize support against the DPRK? Kim has put himself in a corner where he cannot go much further. If he tests a bomb, what little support remaining will evaporate. Japan will accelerate its remilitarization, China will be even more furious because it will have to deal with the Japan it fears and South Korea will be nervous because many people still don't quite trust Kim. In other words, the weapons cannot be used in any capacity and are in essence useless. The world may desire to give into his demands and put this mess behind them, but thought of Kim's predicament will force them to consider the alternatives. Japan could decide it is fed up with living in fear and China could decide that Kim is not worth the trouble anymore, so this course of action may be more possible (and realistic) than we think. Kim has worked as hard as possible to alienate his "friends" and those "friends" may finally decide to deliver the knockout punch.
Ken Arok
Brattleboro, Vermont (Feb 14, '05)

Asia Times Online plans to run an analysis soon concentrating on the China aspect of the North Korea situation. - ATol

George Gu Zhibin waxes eloquent about China's emergence on the world's stage as an economic giant [Betting on the next Lenovo, Feb 12]. Lenovo's acquisition of IBM's personal-computer business is a bellwether of things to come, he says. However, this is not a done deal yet. Voices of concern are heard in the well of the United States Congress against the deal. Primarily, the plaint is potential sophisticated-technology transfer, and not necessarily for peaceful purposes. It is a forceful argument, and on which are daily reports of the deleterious effects of outsourcing American jobs to China. Let's look at the rumors of China eyeing Union Oil of California (Unocal) as a potential target, the better to feed Beijing's thirst for a larger share of the world's petroleum supply. This will raise a bigger clamor than the Lenovo deal. Unocal originally proposed the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan's ports, as a conduit for the former Soviet Asian republics. Geopolitically speaking a Chinese presence in Central Asia works against Washington's global designs. The so-called [Chinese] economic miracle has undermined the melioration of the living conditions of the peasants and working people. It is exacerbating the divide between the coastal cities and the agricultural hinterland. It has nurtured corruption and revealed the venality and the malfeasance of China's ruling Communist Party. Additionally, the sharp practices of state enterprises are bearing rotten fruit: defaults, huge debts, and yes, the bilking of these companies' purses for private gain. And one has to wonder if a highly protected economy can truly survive in the everyday tug and pull of the free market. All that glitters in China is not the gold of much-boasted-about progress. A little more modesty is certainly called for, the more especially since sustained growth is not assured.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 14, '05)

Demonizing Iran by the US and placing sanctions while a host of nations are lining up to strike major oil deals with Tehran seems an absurd game [Iran the thorn in EU-US ties, Feb 12]. I don't understand why the US does not recognize [that] sanctions with Iran will not work when major nations are signing multibillion-dollar deals with Iran for her gas and oil.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 14, '05)

Pepe Escobar's interesting article The Shi'ites' Faustian pact, dated Feb 11, is marred by at least two substantial errors. This is to bring about a correction of those errors. One is an error of fact. This is in the first paragraph, where "al-marajiyyah" is explained as being the "source of infallible authority on all religious matters". A marja, for example Ayatollah [Ali] al-Sistani, is not believed by his followers to be infallible - they believe that that quality is limited only to God and to those made infallible by God, for example prophets like Mohammed and Isa (Jesus). Nor does a marja's authority encompass "all" religious matters. Specifically, all marjas maintain that their authority excludes the most important religious matter of all: usool-al-din (the principles upon which Islam is founded) - unitarianism, [sic] justice, prophethood, the imamate, and the hereafter. It is incumbent upon every believing Muslims to understand and embrace these principles with the aid of his/her own intellect. Thereafter, if the Muslim is limited by his/her knowledge (most people would be) to derive substantial rulings himself, he/she is required to submit to the authority of a marja in matters of practice - eg: how to pray, how to divide inheritance and draw up contracts, and where available, even how to organize legitimate government. The other is an error of bias in the latter half of paragraph 3. It implies that Sharia law is essentially repressive and unjust, especially to women. Note the phrases "women may not shake hands with men" and "daughters inherit less than sons". These phrases betray that the author is afflicted by the bias against Sharia law that is widespread among non-Muslims. This bias mainly feeds off the selective reading of Sharia rulings - a cherry-picking of sorts - and so must be corrected by offering a broader understanding of the topic. Specifically, in the case of the phrases used in para 3, it is instructive to consider that (1) it's not just that women may not shake hands with men, but also that men may not shake hands with women, and that (2) the fact that daughters inherit less than sons is complemented by the fact that in every relationship, Sharia law places upon the man (father/husband/son) the responsibility of meeting all the material needs of the woman, even if the woman is fabulously wealthy herself. This may be quaint, but we ought to concede that it is not unjust ...
Akif
Singapore (Feb 14, '05)

I wonder if one of your writers would care to comment on the following thesis: The Iraqi insurrection is heading for defeat. It is doing so for two reasons: 1) It is apparently increasingly impotent to take the fight to the American occupation forces. 2) Its continuous assault on fellow Iraqis will inevitably erode the indispensable support of the general population. The imperialists in Washington and London must be very pleased.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Feb 14, '05)

Reference the article Pakistan leaves arms calling card by Kaushik Kapisthalam dated February 10: Apart from the anti-Pakistani slander of the writer, I would like to ask him, Where did Pakistan accept responsibility of the group which bombed the Indian parliament, for which India on the first hand moved half a million troops [on] the pretext of military exercise and only calmed down after nine months of outing when Pakistan showed off its missile power by five tests of different missiles the same number of days. The fact remains that the case of the Indian parliament bombing was held in India, under Indian laws, with Indian judges, witnesses [and] lawyers, and after all the crap of one year, a verdict was given against three or five Indian-held Kashmiris who were up to recent news waiting to be hanged. India refused any third-party investigations even though the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency and] Mossad all have active offices in India, which sure shows that India did not want a foreign source to see its own RAW [Research and Analysis Wing] involved in a cooked-up drama just like the one seen at the time of the hijacking of an Indian airliner, which after three to six hours was accepted as miscommunication between a pilot and the communication tower.
Mustafa Shabbir (Feb 14, '05)

Shekhar Nitin (letter on Feb 11) has provided a much-needed sane perspective on the 1962 China-India war. The whole point of looking at history is not to play childish games of the "it was all their fault" or "we kicked your butt and we are better than you" type, but to make sure that past mistakes are not repeated. I can't speak for China, but it's hard to tell whether India has learned from past experience. During the post-independence years India totally neglected defense based on the naive assumption that it was going to be friendly/peaceful towards everyone, so it would not need a military. However, weakness and vulnerability (even if only perceived) invite attack ... Had India given the appearance of military strength, a totally unnecessary war that soured relations could have been avoided ... Since 1962, China and India have been busy trying to check-mate each other, and both have lost. Their trade is nothing compared to what it should be, and they are both having a rough time because of Western-imposed free trade. In the short run China has gained the upper hand by tying down India through support of anti-India regimes surrounding the country, but this is liable to fail in the long run. If terrorists in Xinjiang ever get their hands on a dirty bomb, the trail will almost certainly lead to Pakistan, which was helped in acquiring nuclear technology by China.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Feb 14, '05)

All right Brij [letter, Feb 11], you want answers? Here you go: "Would the natives of the 'autonomous' lands agree?" First, please define "the natives". In the case of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, the natives are not limited to just the Uighurs and Mongolians, there are also many other ethnic groups calling them home, including the Kazakhs, Manchurians, Hui and Han people. Are you suggesting only the Uighurs and the Mongolians are the natives of these two regions respectively? Secondly, do you have any proof or evidence suggesting the natives of these regions don't agree? "Do they rule themselves?" To some extent, yes. There is no denying that the PRC [People's Republic of China] is a totalitarian state; given this fact, one must have realistic expectations when it comes to self-determination and self-rule. One can even argue, do the Han Chinese rule themselves? Yes and no. "Are their demographics safe from Han invasions?" What do you mean by "Han invasions"? The Han people are Chinese as well as the Uighurs, Tibetans and ethnic Mongolians, aren't they? Then why can't they move to part of their own country? Correct me if I am wrong, ethnic Hindus [sic] don't have any problem moving to Punjab, or Jammu and Kashmir, correct? "Is the elite in the 'autonomous' regions ethnically native or imported Han from the east?" Both. Just to name a few: Abulait Abudurexit, an ethnic Uighur, is the chairman of Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region; Legqog, chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Regional People's Government, is a Tibetan; Raidi, also a Tibetan, is the party chief of Tibet Autonomous Region; finally, Yang Jing, the chairman of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, an ethnic Mongolian. Again, China is not an ethnically and culturally homogenous country. Claiming the Han Chinese are invading these regions and subsequently implying that only the Han people are considered Chinese is like claiming only the Hindus are Indians [and that] the Muslims, Christians and the Sikhs are not Indians. Any questions? Go to the forum.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Feb 14, '05)

To Brij (et al): The constant back-and-forth between this person, and faction, and that, and another, each bogged down in his supremacist view of the same, tired, old details, is apparently that which makes the world go 'round. Or at least provides sufficient entertainment to allow escape from boredom. And calm contemplation. Yet reality is elsewhere and otherwise: "Patriotism ... is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive 'owners', who each in turn, as 'patriots', with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of 'robbers' who came to steal it and did - and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn." From "Mark Twain's Notebook", in Mark Twain & The Three R's: Race, Religion, Revolution and Related Matters (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co Inc, paper, 1973), edited and with introduction by Maxwell Geismar, p 174.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 14, '05)

I am wondering if ATol editor's encyclopedia includes China's Sui and Tan Dynasty (around AD 600). Sue and Tan Dynasty ruled Xinjiang longer than the history of the India republic. I agree that Mongols and Han Chinese are different. However, It was [the] Mongols' king [who] volunteered to join China in 1300. He claimed to be the emperor of China and Yuan was the only legal successor of the China's previous dynasty, Song. It was Mongols who volunteered to join China and brought with them a large amount of land. Nobody forced them. As soon as they joined China, they will need to ask Chinese people's approval before depart. China is not a hotel, you can [not] come and go as you wish. Chinese government agreed to let Mongolia depart. Not Tibet. Not Xinjiang. Not Taiwan. If you tried to force that, there [would] be wars. Chinese people traditionally are shy and not talkative. Their warnings were often ignored because of that. That is why their attacks were usually mistaken as surprise attacks or back-stabbing by other ethnic groups of people. I hope people with other ethnic backgrounds can learn from history and do not ignore the desperate crying coming out China in the issues of Taiwan. They are cornered on Taiwan now. History will repeat itself soon. My letters only represent my observations. If you do not like them, you can always ignore them. However, I beg you not to ignore the warnings from China again. If you do, another war is at the door of Asia soon.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 14, '05)

I know it may sound insincere when I give Joseph J Nagarya a compliment before I bring up my bone of contention with him but, so be it. I admire those like Mr Nagarya who always stick to the highest ground, and Mr Nagarya rests a lot of his arguments on the high ground of the [US] constitution, which is commendable. I disagree with him when he said in his letter (Feb 11), "Conspirabunk is corrosive, destructive, pollution - and a convenient distraction from the befogged pursuit of the truth.The antidote is substantiated fact, and the discipline of sticking strictly to that." I have found that the reason why facts are ignored is because of the sneaking suspicions which evolve into firmly held theories. The antidote I have found to be most effective for this problem is to pursue the problem of negation of fact from its root, the sneaking suspicion. There's nothing more pleasing than having a sneaking suspicion and then seeing a way to test your theory. Bush supporters had their WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq theory tested but they still hold firmly to the suspicion that they are right and either the WMD were moved or are still there hidden in the desert somewhere ... Why don't we [the US] invade North Korea? Because they have WMD? Does this mean that [President George W] Bush knew Iraq didn't have WMD when he invaded it? What other reason besides the safety of our soldiers would inspire the US to stick to the letter of the law in this case and ship said conspirabunk WMD to Libya, a country that was subjugated to US air strikes because of [its] support of terrorists at the same time that the US overstepped the letter of the law in Iraq? Who is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world?
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Feb 14, '05)

To Joseph J Nagarya [letter, Feb 11]: I understand now. It's okay for you to speculate, because you are the sole possessor of the truth. However, if anyone else speculates, it is "corrosive". As far as your "antidote" to "distraction from the unbefogged pursuit of truth" and the "discipline" you use to speculate that [US President George W] Bush is a war criminal, I agree with it but it's not true. Right? The fact is, he has never been convicted of war crimes. Isn't saying that Bush is a war criminal befogging the truth and "external reality"? Show me the fact where Bush has been convicted of war crimes.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 14, '05)

[Aidan] Foster-Carter warns his readers that it is "crucial to see the big picture and take the long view" of what to do with North Korea ['We have nukes': The six-party failure, Feb 11]. The question that readily comes to mind is "whose big picture and whose long view?" And one has to presume that was the prime reason the party of six failed. A given that is yet to be admitted by those nations that have and/or are attempting to acquire nuclear capabilities is that once the Rosenbergs shared the technical knowledge of the atomic bomb with one other nation the cat, so to speak, was out of the bag and nuclear diplomacy became of age. Continued attempts to prevent any nation willing or able to have nuclear arms is almost a Sisyphean task in this the 21st century. And in a logical way it should make for better diplomacy. If I were Korean my "big picture and long view" would be that I would want a "unified" nation. If I were Chinese I would consider my main role as wanting to bring Taiwan back into the fold. The excuse that the mainland Chinese do not dress like the people in Taiwan is not a valid reason for continuing to consider Taiwan as a potential Hawaii. If I were Japanese I would be worried as hell. If I was Russian I would probably have a couple of vodkas prior to any meeting. If I was an American I would try to keep everyone guessing. All in all Murphy's Law rules whether it's a party of two, three, four, five or six and whether it's poker or diplomacy. Some gotta win and some gotta lose.
ADeL (Feb 11, '05)

[Aidan] Foster-Carter may take the long view as to how and when the Kim dynasty will fall, but that is not for tomorrow ['We have nukes': The six-party failure, Feb 11]. Although he gives a cogent analysis as to the failure of the six-party talks to bring Pyongyang to heel, he passes under silence the reason why it was precisely now that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) announced that it had atomic bombs. May I suggest an answer? Mr Henry Green, a member of Condoleezza Rice's inner circle at the [US] State Department, met with [Chinese] President Hu Jintao last week. For a middle-level diplomat he was immediately swept into the Mr Hu's presence. Mr Green, it seems, was carrying information to the Chinese that proved that the DPRK had developed its own nuclear arsenal. So, taking the bull by the horns, and without seeing any positive signs from Washington, the North Koreans simply owned up to the truth, and what is more, poured ice-cold [water] on the on-and-off six-party palavering. The ball is now in Washington's court. As Mr Foster-Carter clearly states, we have come to a perilous situation owing to [US President George W] Bush's bungling. And [it is also] owing to the amateurishness and tin-soldier posturing of his claque in the Blair House, the Department of Defense, and the unimaginative conservative think-tanks. Washington has the choice of launching a war, which it cannot, since it would be nuclear, or come to its senses by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat: give face to Kim [Jong-il] a la [US president Richard] Nixon going to China, and seriously resolving the festering problems which the 1954 Geneva conference on Korea left on the green carpet. This requires an act of political courage and will, which, alas, is seemingly lacking in the ranks of the 43 American president's entourage and in Mr Bush's own narrow view of the world.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 11, '05)

I didn't know Kannan was a wise man who could predict the future. He wrote [letter, Feb 10], "The world has seen the collapse of mighty empires. The question is not if but when this would happen in the case of China. When communist power weakens in Beijing, then its boundaries will be redrawn." What is such a prediction based upon? Many Chinese might not adore the [Communist] Party that much, but I am sure they will do everything they can to let your wish of redrawing China's boundaries remain a wish. Don't expect them to yield an inch. By the way, I also found [letter writer] Frank of Seattle very immature. If you have a problem with him, go ahead, just don't drag the Chinese along the way. Who is going to win the Super Bowl next year?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Feb 11, '05)

G Travan ([letter] Feb 10) writes: "The message of people like Brij is simply, 'My race is better than yours because it has more weapons and more wealth.'" And Frank writes: "It amazed me to read letters and articles [by Indian] writers at ATol. The sour [sic] losers can find all kinds of excuses for their defeat in the area of economy, sports, technology and military." Just who is doing the comparisons here, Travan? [Letter writer] Frank perhaps is doing that thing psychologists call "transference" - he feels so humiliated by, say, Japan, that he thinks can make India feel about China, the way China feels about Japan. BTW, Frank, "the Chinese-made H-5 first flew on 25th June 1962 and entered service in 1967". If you're talking about the Russian Il-28, what good would a bomber do without fighter escorts? Lucidity is not one of your strong points, Frank. Now about Tibet: I notice that none of my questions were answered. As I had anticipated, the response was "all are Chinese!" (It seems that China, and CCP [Chinese Communist Party] supporters, have what can be called "the Lady Macbeth Syndrome". They just can't seem to get rid of the blood spots and it drives them to paranoia - they didn't do anything wrong but the whole world is out to get them!) The red flag serves to hide the blood stains of its victims. I will repeat my questions again: Would the natives of the "autonomous" lands agree? Do they rule themselves? Are their demographics safe from Han invasions? Is the elite in the "autonomous" regions ethnically native or imported Han from the east?
Brij
Chicago, Illinois (Feb 11, '05)

Well, G Travan [letter, Feb 10], your biased comment is not surprising. For Indians, take a chill pill. For David, you are damn right. Past is past. It is time Asian countries, especially India [and] China, should mend fences to stop the hegemony of their common enemy the USA. For [letter writer] Frank, you are worse than a dog [because] Indian dogs at least retain their "culture" and "name" - you have abandoned both. Any day I will give more respect to those Chinese who go by the name of Hu Jintao instead of slaves like you who change their name at the drop of hat to get acceptance in a white, Anglo-Saxon Christian country. But I guess you have crossed that line where you feel those kind of things. For my Indian friends, stop crying for India because you don't live there. You have no right to do that. And finally, cheers for all the sane people who think India and China should work together. Also by the logic of China (aka 1.3 billion Chinese people) India should capture Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Thailand [and] Cambodia. Maybe Chinese people even after coming to the USA don't "understand" the choice to "choose". And whatever mess India is in is because of British [government]. India doesn't claim sovereignty over countries it ruled even 100 years back [let alone] 1,000 years back.
Shekhar Nitin (Feb 11, '05)

I think all of ATol editor's interpretation of the history [of China, under Juchechosunmanse's letter of Feb 10] relies on one question. [Was the] Mongol ruler of China's Yuan Dynasty Chinese? That question was answered by the Mongol king himself in the 11th century. At least he tried to be Chinese at that time when [the Mongols were the rulers] of China. The same can be said about the Mongol ruler in India. Indians are still proud of the Mongols' achievement in India. They also regard their Mongol rulers as Indians. If so, why do we change the rule? To make China look bad? [Letter writers] Kannan and Brij were right about Chinese people being cornered. Because China is cornered, extremists took the control. Indian solders, policemen and opium growers were partially responsible for that. Luckily, that cornered China is moving away from that cornered status. If everybody can leave China alone, there is no need to worry about China. To corner China again, you are not going to like what you are creating.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 11, '05)

The comment was not meant to be an interpretation, but merely a citation of facts as recorded in an encyclopedia. Mongols and Chinese are different ethnic groups. You are right to remind us, however, how such a bare-bones summary of "historical facts" may fail to take into account the nuances of invasion, occupation, assimilation, and interaction among diverse peoples. - ATol

"Roostercockburn" writes [letter, Feb 10]: "Read [Fyodor] Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground. You might learn something about yourself." What do you suggest I need learn in that direction - and how would it be relevant to external reality, and your "faith-based" speculations? As for the "link between Washington (CIA) and Osama bin Laden", most of that you note - concerning Afghanistan, and the US-funded mujihideen efforts against the Soviet Union - is relatively well-known general knowledge and fact. But, as you say, the remainder of your speculation is "faith-based". It can be said, based upon general historical realities, that "Washington" - [President George W] Bush - and bin Laden are "linked", as is often the reality concerning extreme opposites, in mutual hatred. As for specifics, however (I can speculate along the same lines as you, including the idea that Bush wants bin Laden loose so as to remain a convenient bogeyman), you provide none; it is that which is needed to render your speculations more substantive than relatively cliched conspirabunk. That is the point I am making: an assertion, an allegation, a ("faith-based") speculation does not constitute evidence. We continue to get more than enough speculation - and out-and-out lies - palmed off as fact and truth from the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory, and from their taxpayer-paid fake journalists in the US media. Conspirabunk is corrosive, destructive, pollution - and a convenient distraction from the unbefogged pursuit of truth. The antidote is substantiated fact, and the discipline of sticking strictly to that.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 11, '05)

Re Islamic law called 'indecently' vague [Feb 10] by Baradan Kuppusamy: One may assail Islamic values and injunctions by ingenious words and phrases but surely the beauty and purity of Islam will still shine through.
Iqbal F Quadir
Karachi, Pakistan (Feb 10, '05)

No doubt, but the point of the article was that a small group of religionists in Malaysia is trying to force upon moderate Muslims its narrow interpretation of what those "values and injunctions" mean in a modern society, and is exploiting a poorly written man-made regulation to do so. - ATol

[M K] Bhadrakumar's analysis of the United States taking a new tack towards Iran is good [Washington takes a new tack, Feb 9]. However, he has omitted a salient point: America's major European allies are pursuing negotiations to resolve the question of Iran's nuclear ambitions. This has put a damper on Washington's options in the wake of the disastrous war the Bush administration is waging as the self-appointed trustee of Iraq. [Condoleezza] Rice's tour d'horizon with Washington's NATO allies has once again shown a degree of professionalism in pursuing diplomatic solutions which was markedly absent during [President George W] Bush's first term in office. Yet, in weighing Ms Rice's words, it is important to note that the United States has presently retreated tactically. Secretary of State Rice may huff and puff, but Iran's house of bricks will not blow down. In fact, Uncle Sam's pointing a finger of blame and shame at Tehran has had the unfortunate effect of reviving an anti-Americanism which had diminished over time, and which has brought back to popular consciousness the days when the Iran's masses held American Embassy personnel hostage. The Bush administration has contempt for history, and for its own Republican Party's legacy. It might prove beneficial to learn from Theodore Roosevelt, whose very words were once taught in high-school history courses: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 10, '05)

To Joseph J Nagarya [letter, Feb 9]: I agree with a lot of the things you say in your letters. However, let me give you some unsolicited advice. Read [Fyodor] Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground. You might learn something about yourself. Now, for my hypothesis: There is a link between Washington (CIA) and Osama bin Laden. Here is my evidence linking Osama and Washington. I will quote this article from the BBC: "Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security training from the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian." I realize I have cherry-picked that article, and further on in the article it states that Osama turned on the US. I believe that is propaganda. I do not believe that the US cannot find Osama. How can a man [who] supposedly needs dialysis hide? Does he drag a dialysis machine around with him in his cave? Isn't it a coincidence that every time [US President George W] Bush is in trouble Osama comes out with a new video? Like my fearless leader Bush, I am making a faith-based assertion. I have no physical evidence. I just looked at the limited information available to me and made a judgment. I very well could be wrong. However, if I am wrong, the Bush administration is extremely incompetent. I don't believe Bush is incompetent (a sociopath, yes). He found Saddam [Hussein] but couldn't find Osama? I think he knows exactly what he is doing. If he found Osama, what would happen to his war on terror? To me, Osama is the USA's Emmanuel Goldstein (from the book Nineteen Eighty-Four for those who aren't familiar with the name). These are my opinions about the extent of the link between Osama and Washington and they can be wrong, but regardless of what I think, there is an irrefutable link between Osama and Washington. By the way, I recommend a bowl of milk after you wolf this down. It might be hard for a poodle to digest.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 10, '05)

Oh boy. Brij [letter, Feb 9] opened a can of worms with his remarks about China. I really don't want to take up the precious space here in the Letters Section to launch a comprehensive rebuttal, but I want to answer a few questions that Brij raised. I promise I will keep it simple and short: Tibet was not a neighbor of China, rather it was part of China and it still is; that also applies to Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. And I would like to know if you have any proof or evidence suggesting the majority of the residents in these regions believe otherwise. Like India, China is not an ethnically and culturally homogeneous country, it is a nation made up of 56 ethnic groups and diverse cultures. It is not CCP [Chinese Communist Party] propaganda, it is reality. If Brij wants to have an intelligent discussion or debate on this topic, please meet me in the forum.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Feb 10, '05)

Tibet gradually came under Chinese suzerainty in the 18th century, having been under Mongol rule previously. The Tibetans briefly ousted the Chinese in the early 20th century, but partial Chinese suzerainty was tentatively recognized internationally in 1914. That agreement was never ratified by China, which claimed all of Tibet as a "special territory". China finally asserted its claim by way of an invasion in 1950. China's influence over Xinjiang was far earlier - the 1st century BC - but that rule was rather brief, and Xinjiang did not become a Chinese province again until 1881. Inner Mongolia became an integral part of the Republic of China after the 1911 revolution. - ATol

Again a slew of Indian hypernationalism on Asia Times [Online]. This hypernationalism is embarrassing. At least American warmongers live in America. These Americans of Indian ancestry who foment hate against Pakistan and China have already abandoned India. If you believe India is so great and powerful, Brij [letter, Feb 9], why have you settled in Illinois? If the conquest of natives by Chinese bothers you, why aren't you bothered by the exterminated tribes Illinois is named after? The truth is that to these people, the white race, and especially America, is the pinnacle of civilization, for these people worship at the altar of power. The message of people like Brij is simply, "My race is better than yours because it has more weapons and more wealth." Let us all laugh at this idiocy and keep in mind that India is a nation of many races. All nations will have obnoxious warmongers and hateful people. The model of India as a democratic, multilingual and multi-ethnic state is an important one for many nations wary of "democracy" as preached by Western imperialists. I hope that other Indian and Chinese readers will resist the temptation to engage in hatemongering and refrain from ridiculous nationalism. Every nation has its faults and virtues. Let's be honest about it, and not pretend that one nation is better than another. Virtue, not power, should be what people seek for their nations.
G Travan
California, USA (Feb 10, '05)

The best result of the 1962 India-China war is that there has not been another one ever since and hopefully never will be one. The letters of Brij and Srikanth (Feb 9) amount to crying over spilled milk. One has only to read the book India's China War that I recommended last week. The latter traces the historical background [of the] burden on India because of British colonial design that set up the so-called McMahon Line which incorporates Chinese territories into then British India. In that book there are detailed diplomatic messages between [Jawaharlal] Nehru and Zhou Enlai and also the details of military dispatches and strategies, including maps of the battleground. The British author of this book professed his [surprise at what his research found] and admitted to initial belief that China was the one to blame. India has always been "neutral" in world affairs and is respected for such in the face of other powers that would like to cozy up to exert leverage on others. Reviving discussion of this war serves no one except those who want to ruin India-China relations.
David (Feb 10, '05)

Frank [letter, Feb 9], when did you appoint yourself as communist China's unofficial spokesman? How do you know what a billion Chinese like/dislike? Have you done a survey sitting in Seattle? How can you blindly impose your opinion on billion people? By the way, I don't care if anyone compares India with the United States or Britain or for that matter even China. Will it change anything? Regarding the McMahon Line controversy raised by my friend Frank, whether China accepts/rejects this it is Beijing's headache. But it is an issue between India and Tibet. Communist China is a Titanic heading towards the iceberg. How long can the communists suppress the rights of its people? Can Beijing continue its economic miracle with [its] abysmal record in the social, cultural and political fields? The world has seen the collapse of mighty empires. The question is not if but when this would happen in the case of China. When communist power weakens in Beijing, then its boundaries will be redrawn. Frank, when you run out of arguments and are cornered (as Brij said) you threaten to use your dirty weapon. Surely it is not a sign of mature, decent conversation that I am looking for.
Kannan (Feb 10, '05)

It amazed me to read letters and articles [by Indian] writers at ATol. The sour [sic] losers can find all kinds of excuses for their defeat in the area of economy, sports, technology and military. Backstabbing? China's leaders including the generals visited India and hand-delivered the final warnings of the war. It looks like an honorable fight to me. It is India [that] refused to move its troops out of China's territory. India did not use [its] air force during the war. That is because India was afraid of China would retaliate with the bombing of Calcutta. In 1962, China [was] producing its own F-5 jet fighters and H-5 mid-range bombers. Both airplanes could reach Calcutta and would create chaos there. A bombing of India's major cities would cause much larger losses in India side than losing 20,000 solders. When Indians throw rocks [at] China about China's minority problems, I am wondering if they realize India had much larger minority problems in its northern provinces. Instead of returning the captured weapons, China could leave those weapons to the people seeking self-determination in north India. A sense of India being defeated will make many people in north India stand up for themselves. India has much larger enemies inside its borders than two of its large neighbors. By the way, why would India accept the returning of those captured weapons?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 10, '05)

China, Inc: Have any of you picked up a copy of this new book? This book boggles the mind. The author is an American and does a good job of presenting the Chinese side vis-a-vis the American side. For example, in the chapter on "Pirate Nation", he discusses "reverse colonialism; how sweet it is". He seems to realize the role of Western colonization in the under-development of Asia and Africa. However, he still tries to argue for Western or American hegemony, even as he concedes that a new superpowered China is inevitable. For example, he argues as though the Pacific Ocean is some American lake and Asia-Pacific is for America to colonize.
Roy
USA (Feb 10, '05)

We have asked the publishers to send a copy of China, Inc to one of our reviewers, and we hope to have a review online soon. - ATol

[Molly] Corso (Moscow alienating its near abroad [Feb 8]) mostly restates the same polemics produced in the Western media, albeit in a more subtle and somewhat sophisticated genre ... It would have made a better and a more interesting analysis to consider the US activism in Georgia and Ukraine rather than interpret Russian policies and adjustments as some sort of heavy-handed initiatives. It is unfair to Russia, and debilitating to the article, to depict Georgia's domestic economic, social, and political problems as somehow the work of Russia. It is beginning to appear that Georgia under [President Mikhail] Saakashvili is entering a political crisis while the budget is being refurbished by sell-off of Georgian industrial and transport property - it is an apt time to pin the blame on Russia. As for Georgia's external relations, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been the target of increased pressure and provocation by the Georgian forces, as have been the Russian peacekeepers there. In the end, it has been Russia that acted calmly as Saakashvili seemed to manufacture spats on a weekly basis. In Ukraine, the Yushchenko camp includes rabid nationalists and atavists whose driving force is a Russophobic pathology, supporting such questionable elements and then preemptively blaming Russia for any possible future deterioration in relations is little more than another journalistic "wizardry". Russia has been charging Ukraine only half the world oil and gas prices, lowered the VAT [value-added tax] for oil exported to Ukraine for 2005, and cooperated with and assisted Ukraine during [its] recent grain crisis. Russian involvement in Ukraine's elections was never as large financially as that of the West, and it is very justified to try to influence the course of political events in one's important neighbor. In Armenia, if any noticeable resentment of Russian influence is observed - and so far there [have] only been tendentious reports on ... Eurasianet.org, unless one can believe that fully understandable measures after the Beslan tragedy are taken as anti-Armenian or being too selfish on Russia's part - it would likely be from the organizations funded and staffed from abroad and then given coverage by the Western media. Meanwhile, in Central Asia one notices growing economic and political ties between Russia and Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Should they be warned of "Russian imperialism" too? Or are they more concerned with the US efforts to politically sabotage the growing trade and improved relations with Russia and the subsequent economic growth over the past several years that has in no small part been achieved? It seems these countries are more concerned with US-financed demonstrations and staged unrest, perhaps reminding them of the not-too-distant US tacit cooperation with the Taliban.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Feb 9, '05)

In regards to your article [Lenovo says IBM deal on schedule, profits flat, Feb 8], specifically the quote from the Lenovo president, Yang Yuanqing: "We are receiving an enthusiastic response from employees, of both Lenovo and IBM Personal Computer Division, to their future with the new Lenovo." This is definitely not the clear truth. I work for IBM and have for quite some time now. I'm actually one of the people [who] have been forced to move to Lenovo. The choices I was given were simple - go to Lenovo or be fired from IBM. Lovely, huh? Okay, so maybe some people are happy and excited about this whole deal. I'd guess that the vice presidents who will get nice fat bonuses, along with the managers, must be pleased. But I can tell you that the regular employees are not. We found out about our sale just over a month ago and to date, we have not heard anything further about our futures. We do not know of any salary changes, location changes, benefits - so what do we have to be excited about? Should we be excited about an uncertain future? Or maybe the fact that we can walk into some different building - and be told we're being downsized because IBM's PC [personal computer] division hasn't made any money for several years now? Say goodbye to job security! You'd figure that maybe Lenovo would provide some incentive for us to make this leap of faith for all 10,000 employees it just purchased, right? So far, no news on that. How are they going to keep all of us happy and productive if we're pissed off about being kept in the dark? A lot of employees who are going and not in a management-type position [are] clearly unhappy. Hopefully this letter sparks something from the higher-ups in Lenovo and they finally fill us in on what our futures will hold.
Disgruntled IBMer (Feb 9, '05)

As usual, Frank [letter, Feb 8] writes like a cornered animal, rather than as a debater. It is not "humiliation" (only 24,000 Indian troops fought the invading Chinese in the 1962 treachery), but rage at the backstabbing. The Indian army was concentrated at the Pakistan border (which was getting US weapons because of SEATO [South East Asia Treaty Organization] participation). The Cuban missile crisis came and China decided to strike with maximum force. Both sides lost about 500 troops. India had clear air superiority and would have massacred the Chinese who had penetrated deep inside near the foothills. Winter snow would have closed all Chinese supply lines absolutely. Chinese ammunition dumps were exposed. The Chinese had few aircraft and none could operate well at the heights of their two Tibetan airbases. India had Hunters, Mysteres, Gnats, Vampires and Toofanis, besides Canberra bombers. The Chinese had superior small arms but Indian heavy artillery was available at lower altitudes. If the US joined in the bombing after painting their planes [in] IAF [Indian air force] colors, the massacre would have become much quicker. Due to the sudden invasion, there was confusion and panic among the leaders (those who imagined the rabid Chicoms to be civilized even after having seen the brutalization of Tibet). That is normal. The Chinese withdrew before a counter-attack was organized. Is this war? Or a case of hitting and running, and then shouting "truce"? Now for the question of "peace with neighbors". Well, Tibet was a neighbor of China and look what happened to it. East Turkestan? Inner Mongolia (now Han-dominated)? Before Frank starts shouting "all are Chinese", I have to ask: Would the natives of these lands agree? Do they rule themselves? Are their demographics safe from Han invasions? Is the elite in the "autonomous" regions ethnically native or imported Han from the east? The shame of China cannot be hidden from the world by abusing the imperialists of the century past.
Brij
Chicago, Illinois (Feb 9, '05)

Santosh [Feb 7] has written that [fellow letter writer] Frank has to address his delivery problem. It does not matter how you pack and deliver garbage. You cannot just prevent the bad smell. I would like to add some comments to the Indo-China war debate in the Letters Section. First of all, the Henderson Brook report, which looked at the war, was not a full-fledged commission. The inquiry did not the have the power to question the major players who handled the war, including the army chief at the time of war. When the decision makers are missing in the picture, to what extent the report may tell us the truth can be judged only when it is declassified. Nevertheless, it is up to the Indian government as to why they cannot reveal the contents even after the lapse of 40 years. Coming back to the war, there are still some things that are not clear. Why did India not employ [its] air force when the ground conditions were not conducive for the army? Did Jawaharlal Nehru or Krishna Menon (the then defense minister of India) consult the army commanders and have prior knowledge of the infrastructure support (or lack of it) for the army in the border regions? It perplexes me how India is termed aggressor. Let us take a hypothetical scenario to understand it. If India would have captured Tibet in the '50s and demanded negotiations with China for the settlement of the border, then India would have been the aggressor. Nehru was naive in foreign policy. It took some time for the Indian National Congress to graduate from a freedom-fighting party to a government capable handling crisis on its own. He slept while China grabbed Tibet and woke up only when they [the Chinese] were knocking on the [door] of India. By then it was too late to react. As for Frank's hilarious statement that China does not have problem with its neighbors: How can you have border problems when you occupied some of your neighbors and annexed them against the will of the people? Imagine if every country in the world adopts communist China's policy of grabbing territory. The world will be in chaos.
Srikanth
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 9, '05)

ATol editor's comments to Li's letter [Feb 8] are funny. The five-star flag is CCP's [the Chinese Communist Party's] flag. You are not going to accept their interpretation of their own flag? I hope the hate of CCP does not blind you to see straight. Kannan [Feb 8] commented that we have to live with the constant comparison between China and India regardless of the feelings of Chinese people. I have one question to ask. Why cannot India compare itself with the No 1 runner of the world, the USA, or its formal owner, England? I have an answer for that. However, you may find my answer offensive.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 9, '05)

If you cannot accept the meaning of the design of a national flag by the appropriate government, there is no debate whatsoever. A non-American can say that the 50 stars represent 50 distinguished Americans of the past, and the stripes some important historical events. Why don't you consult the Xinhua Press in Hong Kong or any Chinese Liaison Office just by a phone call ? The five-star flag replaced the one which still flies in Taiwan after the Nationalists were ousted and when the present government was established in 1949. The government in control gives meaning to the flag. What you are saying is anyone on Earth is free to create a theory of the meaning ...
Li (Feb 9, '05)

Your main points are well taken, but our main point all along has been that when it comes to historical facts, especially in a system such as China's that relies heavily on propaganda put out by a single political party, these can become blurred in time. Therefore the interpretation of the "meaning" of the Chinese flag, mentioned in a throwaway line that had little relevance to the article itself (The emperor's new clothes, Feb 5), apparently accepted by Pepe Escobar cannot be summarily dismissed simply because mouthpieces of the Chinese Propaganda Department (eg Xinhua) wish it. A good overview of the history of the flag can be found at Wikipedia; while that article concludes more in favor of Li's interpretation than Escobar's, it does note that although the large star almost certainly stands for the Chinese Communist Party, "there is no official interpretation for the four smaller stars". - ATol

To Roostercockburn: Not to be catty (or Frank, or too excited), yet as I jump in I hope to land on my feet. You write: "If Tori Chan [letter, Feb 7] believes that Osama [bin Laden] says or does anything without checking with his masters in Washington first, then he has been 'duped by the propaganda of a corporate world' ... They [ie, Osama and Washington/'corporate world'] are business partners. They have the same agenda, which is managing the herd. Until we in the herd stop mistaking sheepdogs for wolves, we will always think we need the shepherd." To be frank: If you have evidence for that invisible linking of Osama and Washington/corporate world, please provide it, and I'll wolf it down. Otherwise, if one cannot substantiate such assertions, one should be sufficiently sheepish not to make them.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 9, '05)

[Syed] Saleem [Shahzad]: I regularly read your editorials in Asia Times Online. I respect and admire your ability to maintain a focused and objective view of South Asian topics. While I am very pro-American (I am American), I am most interested in a world where peoples of all races, ethnic groups, and religions can and co-exist on a basis where we all "get along" as friends.
Jim Six
Painesville, Ohio (Feb 9, '05)

I often read your online edition and although I agree with little of the geopolitical analysis, I always consider it time well spent.
Brad Lena (Feb 9, '05)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict the outcome of the Iraqi election. The Asia Times [Online article] regarding the Sistani group gaining authority in the country is naive at best [Sistani begins on his true agenda, Feb 8]. It is obvious that the Kurds and the Allawi ticket will have nearly enough votes combined to challenge the Shi'ite cleric ticket. As per classic Western-style democracy, there will be some easily swayed members of the Shi'ite cleric ticket (whether through bribery, blackmail, etc) that will be a constant threat to counterbalance true Shi'ite rule. It is so disheartening that the Iraqi people, in one day, have endorsed the American invasion, disarmed all opposition to the invasion both in America and other Western democracies, and sealed the fate of Iraq as an American puppet state. America will never allow Iraq to be governed by a religious Shi'ite majority while it has troops in the country.
Doug Webster (Feb 8, '05)

John Steppling [letter, Feb 7] says of Mark Erikson's view of the US-conducted election in Iraq in the latter's So, who really did win? [Feb 1]: "Erikson is a typical liberal of the sort who desires to be even-handed and reasonable, but ends up simply wrong." Mr Steppling is confused about political labels. In the US, the mainstream media [have] for so long been falsely accused of "liberal bias" that [they have] adopted that "even-handedness" - to appease the extremist anti-liberal right-wing accusers - of false equivalency: giving equal status to fact and lie and pretending the lie is an alternative "point of view" "as likely true as" the fact. The result of that falsehood is, of course, as Mr Steppling asserts: wrong, because anything to which the extremist right wing objects is labeled "liberal", even when that being labeled is a neutral fact: if they don't like even a fact, it is automatically labeled "liberal". The constant result is the falsification of reality in behalf of a right wing which spouts "religion" while at the same time rejecting the ethical measure of ends and means: any lie - including that of "liberal bias" - will do against any fact they don't like.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 8, '05)

Dear ATol [re comment under Li's letter of Feb 7]: Do not try to patch over a mistake when you made one regarding the "theory" of the five-star flag. There are 56 ethnic groups recognized in China. The idea of the five "main groups" is old stuff. The person who advised [Pepe] Escobar simply did not know and used the five main ethnic groups as the only answer he could think of [The emperor's new clothes, Feb 4]. There are no "competing" theories. Any person who has lived or studied in China after 1949 knows the meaning, not theory, of the flag.
Li (Feb 8, '05)

Well, that was our point: People living in China "know" one "meaning" that is favored by the establishment, and are not taught that other theories exist. A quick Google search will show otherwise. The official Chinese Communist Party version may well be the "correct" one, and Pepe Escobar might have got it wrong, but we're not going to accept one version of the "facts" just because the CCP says we should. If you have independent corroboration of your accusation than Pepe was in error, pass it along and we will correct the article. - ATol

Frank and Santosh [letters, Feb 7] seem to resort to blind generalization of an entire community based on their myopic observation of a few. To Frank's eyes every English-speaking Indian is a culturally transformed Englishman (you may be accused of the same too, Frank). Indians have not lost their heritage by learning English (have you?). They learn English as it is becoming the language through which most of the world (especially business, science and technology) communicates. Frank, I was surprised to learn that India-China comparisons are "offensive" to Chinese. But unfortunately, you will continue to hear these "offensive" statements more often in future in almost every place. If that annoys you, get some filtering tips from Xinhua. I am not sure it will work to your satisfaction. Anyway, it is better to get used to it. By the way, how do shady events that happened about a century ago in Shanghai or India affect the events that are happening now? The world, and Shanghai in particular, has moved on. Shanghai itself has forgotten it and has embraced foreigners with capital openly. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp (HSBC), which funded the Opium Wars, is in China in a major way. What do you say to that? You may be living alone in your time capsule for a long time. It is time you get out of it. Santosh, I don't agree with you when you say that Indians ignore their own culture. If that were the case they would have culturally merged with the local community wherever they went and disappeared. How come the Indian expatriates still retain some of the roots even after centuries of migration? How does one define the boundaries of a culture anyway? Indian culture is itself the result of [a] thousand years of amalgamation of people from different backgrounds. Does it mean [Indians] will be accused of aping if [they use] products of Western science and technology over their own? What about the followers of "alien" religion in India? Santosh, we are getting into a gray area here. One cannot blindly say that Indians have forgotten their culture. You are free to practice what you believe to be Indian values. But expecting others to follow your interpretations or enforcing the same on others interferes with their freedom. After all, no one wants self-proclaimed cultural police watching him or her.
Kannan (Feb 8, '05)

Amit Sharma [letter, Feb 7] blames India's loss of the 1962 war on the lengthy, difficult supply line of India's army. Brij [Feb 4] claims that it is the Chinese army that had a longer and much more difficult supply line. That tells us the Indian people had very little knowledge of that war. However, each of them felt humiliated by the defeat. I would like to ask Brij why China returned all of the captured weapons back to India. Why did none of India's rich friends extend a helping hand to those starved-to-death Indian solders? The English always used the difference among Indians to control them. So some day they can talk about those gladiator shows in South Asia in a bar. Unfortunately, Indians hate the other gladiators, not the people who made them put up the bloody show. If India's leadership still cannot wake up and face the truth, Indian people's desire of living in peace with their neighbors cannot be fulfilled. In the last 50 years, China progressively made friends with all neighbors except India. Why is that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 8, '05)

If Tori Chan [letter, Feb 7] believes that Osama [bin Laden] says or does anything without checking with his masters in Washington first, then he has been "duped by the propaganda of a corporate world". When he says, "I pity these people who, like Osama, do the very exact same thing that the US does to preach its agenda," he is not following his train of thought to its logical conclusion. They are business partners. They have the same agenda, which is managing the herd. Until we in the herd stop mistaking sheepdogs for wolves, we will always think we need the shepherd. I am sorry for the dog analogy. I don't want to get Frank too excited.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Feb 8, '05)

[Re] Demonizing Iran: Another US salvo [by] Kaveh L Afrasiabi [Feb 5]: At this time in its history, it cannot be reasonably denied that the American government is under pretty tight Zionist control. This situation has been partly brought about with the fervent political and financial support of some 45 million apocalyptic devil-chasing savages (ie Christian evangelicals) residing in the rural Midwest and in the Deep South. These constituencies are now decisively dictating American foreign policy. Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever studied American history will well know, nothing much has ever come out of these populations other than intolerance, ignorance and superstition. Given the likely stability of this political scenario, Iran's only road to safety lies not in the procurement of "security vouchers" from the faithless Europeans, but in a demonstration of its capacity to respond in a sufficiently devastating manner to aggression by either the USA or Israel.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Feb 7, '05)

This is in regard to your article by Ranjit Devraj, Out comes the China card, in the South Asia Section of February 5. The article is a true manifestation of the past and present situation of the country [Nepal] that has been recently victimized by the undemocratic steps of King Gyanendra. This article is really helpful in giving some insights about the kinds of help that the king has amassed to carry out such bold steps in this age of democracy. But I was really disappointed to see a critical error in such a good article, which I would like to draw your attention upon. The last paragraph mentions that [Sher Bahadur] Deuba, the prime minister who was sacked recently, as a pro-monarchy politician, which is absolutely not true, and such mistakes not only provide false information to unaware readers but when noticed will impart a negative impression to the prestige of the newspaper like Asian Times [Online]. In fact, Deuba is one of the politicians [who were protagonists] of the democracy that saw its inception during the early '90s ...
Daman Bhattarai (Feb 7, '05)

Being pro-monarchy and being pro-democracy are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, many democracies have constitutional monarchies. Sher Bahadur Deuba has demonstrated support for the Nepalese monarchy in the past. - ATol

Ranjit Devraj's article [Out comes the China card, Feb 5], while highlighting the ... anti-democratic blitzkrieg launched by King Gyanendra and the external reactions to it, seems to be totally blind to the conditions of people who bear the brunt of these drastic measures: the Nepalese. It is like going to sleep under democracy and walking up under dictatorship rule for them. The current monarch has a dubious record as an administrator: he dismissed four prime ministers in three years and now [has] placed all the senior politicians either in custody or under house arrest, and the common people are deprived of their freedom of speech and assembly. This king assumed total control of Nepal (albeit [he] has a kitchen cabinet consisting of sycophants to help him) in order to "save" it from Maoists. The royal coup, not the first in Nepal, has frozen the democratic machinery in the state. This extreme step can only push the people towards the militants, who are already calling the shots in most part of the country. This king was in direct control of the Nepalese army, which was fighting the extremists. He is as culpable to the chaotic situation as the dismissed administration. What prevented him from taking steps to solve this crisis, then? Medieval military solution cannot cure Nepal from this unrest. Only a combination of economic and political solutions can bring peace and prosperity to the unruly region. The king is trying to play the neighboring giants against each other while the Nepalese caught in the ... act of this ... monarch are suffering. India has reasons to worry and remain wary of this event since violence can trigger demographic shift in the border regions. It would be better for the world if some of the royals restrict themselves to outdoor games and not indulge and make a mess as administrators in the modern world. Even in parts of India where the royal family wields power locally the area is deliberately kept backward so that the people remain loyal to them. In Nepal only two powers grow amidst the poverty: Maoists and the Royals. It is time the Nepalese decide whether they can afford the luxury of having a dysfunctional monarchy system.
Kannan (Feb 7, '05)

[Re] Syria caught in Iraqi blame game (Feb 4): While nobody can really assert or deny neighbors' involvement in helping their supporters in Iraq, as no proof has come forward, by now it should be clear to the whole world as to the war strategy adopted by Saddam [Hussein] against foreign invasion; a strategy that has produced far greater results than if his army had taken the invading forces head-on. From the way the Iraqi war of attrition is going on unabated in the so-called Sunni triangle even when the area is surrounded by almost 200,000 troops of various nationalities, it is fairly certain that Saddam's army just dissolved itself into a well-prepared and well-knit guerrilla force with ammunition dispersed in suitable places that the occupying forces have not been able to locate. How long ... Saddam's guerrilla war will continue depends now on the state of logistics of his forces and [whom] the differing Iraqi people will support in the coming days. Remember, the non-American Iraqi Shi'a people have not yet to spoken what is there in their minds.
Iqbal F Quadir
Karachi, Pakistan (Feb 7, '05)

Pepe Escobar (The emperor's new clothes, Feb 4) should consult more knowledgeable sources in his writing on China or Chinese politics. "The five stars in the Chinese flag are said to represent the Han, Manchu ... ethnic groups" is simply incorrect. The big star represents the Communist Party membership, and the four other smaller stars represent the workers, the farmers, the soldiers, and the rest, which cover members of other parties, students, scholars, etc.
Li (Feb 7, '05)

That is the theory generally favored by the Chinese Communist Party. The competing theory cited by Pepe Escobar is that upon the foundation of the People's Republic, the five stars of the new flag took on the same symbolism as the five horizontal stripes of the original republican flag, and it is understood that the stripes did stand for the main ethnic groups of China. It is likely that the originally intended symbolism of the PRC flag changed over time to accommodate more politically correct themes. - ATol

[Re] US bill aims to shake China off the peg [Feb 4]: To answer Roostercockburn's rhetorical question about whom the US will blame (Feb 4), I have a feeling that it will still blame China.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Feb 7, '05)

Marc Erikson's fantasy analysis of the sham Iraqi elections speaks volumes about US media (and Western media) and the lack of historical perspective shown to colonial wars [So, who really did win? Feb 1]. These stage-managed elections were forced upon the US to a certain degree - but since they control the country (Iraq) they really didn't have to worry too much about controlling the elections. There were no monitors and in many areas no polling stations. The populace mostly had no idea who or what they were voting for. The resistance remains the most supported element in the country (contrary to Erikson's fairy tale) - its made up, clearly, of various factions, but the goal for all of them is to drive out the occupier. This is true of all wars of resistance; first get rid of the oppressor. It would be wise for Erikson to read up a bit on France/Algeria for a start. As Rick Salutin put it in The Globe and Mail, if the two issues of military bases and oil are not addressed by this election, then the election has no meaning. Of course the bases will remain (how else will Halliburton make money?) and the US will hardly allow Iraq to control its own oil. Erikson is typical of those who buy into the sentimental blather about brave Iraqis making their way to the polls despite Islamic fascists ... yada yada yada. The reality is a country still under the control of the US military - and that isn't about to change. This wasn't a step toward democracy because you cannot have democracy under occupation. It was nothing, a meaningless bit of stagecraft - and Erikson might also want to check the interim policies of Jerry Bremer to see just what is possible for the next Iraqi "democratic" government. Bremer made sure that foreign business will own the country (read Naomi Klein on this one). Erikson is a typical liberal of the sort who desires to be even-handed and reasonable, but ends up simply wrong.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Feb 7, '05)

Daniel Barenblatt and your readers deserve a more knowledgeable reviewer than you provided for A Plague Upon Humanity: The Hidden History of Japan's Biological Warfare Program [The horrors of Unit 731 revisited, Jan 29]. Your readers would be best served by going directly to Barenblatt's book. Touting a US military/industrial linesman like Milton Leitenberg as a "crack" historian for dismissing the idea of US/Japanese biological warfare in Korea after looking at Chinese documents as a Chinese propaganda hoax is like claiming "depleted" uranium is not harmful. It is a problem of the few and the many. Small countries population-wise have always resorted to [equalizers], which in modern times have been ABC - atomic, biological and chemical, now called WMD, weapons of mass destruction. The heavyweight champion of the world with WMD ... is the USA ...
Doug Baker
Alameda, California (Feb 7, '05)

Milton Leitenberg has provided more detail than the review did on the nature of the documents that led him to his conclusions. His letter is below (Feb 3). - ATol

In the article What Osama might have told America [Nov 2, '04] I was horrified by the comments of Osama [bin Laden] and what others like him may think about America (ie the USA). Not because of the things he is saying, but rather I was shocked at the open acceptance of the rhetoric that Osama's beliefs require one to adhere too which themselves stem from the same problem. My first point being: Not all Americans watch TV. I don't even own a television myself. Those who openly condemn America solely on the artistic merit of the media are themselves being duped by the propaganda of a corporate world. Osama and those who believe in like ideologies should be careful in their own folly to believe that all Americans are robots following the beliefs instilled by a corrupt government and immoral media. To make that claim, that those of us are not free because of such, is to also fall victim to the same fate. It seems Osama and others believe our own media's propaganda and coarse rhetoric more than we Americans do. Shame on them, to then use the same medium to sponsor their cause. A medium in which they say has corrupted us, and which they [say] defines the parameters of freedom. How can they themselves be free, when they also submit to the power of media [such as] television when sponsoring their cause? Corruption for them, it would seem, is in the eye of the beholder, and not in the man-made dogmatic principles they so blindly follow. Or rather, power is in the television and those who control it control this power - and so too the world. Why is Osama then any different than corporate America? When can men of the world see that it's not about conversion, power, who has the most media billing, or who has the sharpest swords and biggest armies? None of this matters when such people have enslaved themselves and their followers by their own impenetrable egos, inflexible lack of tolerance, and no love or compassion for anyone different than themselves, which bind them to their own ideological tyranny. A fate far worse than any death, even if sworn on holy names or godly crusades, they will forever suffer each and the same fate, and to argue over dogmatic means to any such point of total conversion of one ideal over another is only self destructive. We cannot impose our viewpoints upon anyone else without becoming openly intolerant and prejudice against those beliefs which may differ from our own to the extent of bigotry and hate. I pity these people who, like Osama, do the very exact same thing that the US does to preach its agenda. It appears that everyone is walking in small circles and not making any real ground towards a mutual acceptance. Peace only will come from the purity of love.
Tori Chan (Feb 7, '05)

With regards to S Ismail ([letter] Feb 4), perhaps the Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (Jawi) religious police raid on January 20 in Kuala Lumpur might be instructive, where the officers acted in the manner of street thugs and lechers. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "fascism" means a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. How much trust can we place in the law of the land when it was the authorities that gave them the power in the first place? History also acts as a guide. There was a voluntary enforcement body of the Selangor Religious Affairs Department (JAIS) called Badan Amal Makmur Nahimunkar (Badar). Oh, and what a fine mess they created. In October 1994, a group of them broke into a house in Shah Alam because they suspected the people inside were committing khalwat (inappropriate proximity). At other times, Badar members indiscriminately approached couples and asked for their ICs [identification cards] as if they were criminals. A few months after that, eight Badar members were arrested for extorting money and impersonating the police in Bandar Sungai Buloh. Thankfully, they were disbanded in early 1995. Now in 2005, in KL, Selangor, to have the moral police on the loose again makes one wonder if we are becoming an Iran. Muslims and non-Muslims alike are getting wary of where this will all lead to. Pastor Martin Niemoeller's poem about speaking out comes to mind. With regards to the imposition of rules, I am not sure if you are unable to see the point or are you unwilling? There are some employers who will not hire because of the hijab - they [reason that], after all, the government will not accept us (the minorities), so we should take care of our own first. So isn't [it] the institutionalization of the discriminatory practices of the government that you should look at first? The minorities feel that they are living in a siege environment. It is our concern when the rules are not equitably applied. That is the crux of the matter, not whether you are Muslim or non-Muslim ... It is also telling that you mention "if you know our history" as if to say that I am not part of the country. Therein lies the mental state of some. Dr Mahathir Mohamad used the bogeyman of the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) to tell the non-Malays that if they didn't vote for UMNO [United Malays National Organization] or their partners, PAS would impose syariah (Islamic) law on everyone. No much of a choice between a rock and a hard place.
DVeri
Malaysia (Feb 7, '05)

Tino Tan Hai San (letter on Feb 3) has correctly stated, as I had mentioned earlier, that until the Indian government releases its official inquiry into the China-India war of 1962 we will not know for sure what really happened. The government's refusal to declassify this report surely implies that it has something to hide. The books India's China War by Neville Chamberlain (letter by David on Feb 4), and Himalayan Blunder by Brigadier John P Dalvi also suggest that the war was precipitated by Indian soldiers being ordered to pitch their tents at forward positions (ie, territories surreptitiously grabbed by China while their disputed status was still in the process of being diplomatically resolved) by the Indian political leadership. At the same time the sheer limitations imposed by geography, the ridiculously inadequate funding of defense pre-1062, the lack of roads even 100 miles from the border, etc, preclude the possibility of a belligerent India flexing its muscles on a friendly China. I wouldn't go as far as calling Mao Zedong xenophobic - but he was definitely opportunistic, like any other politician. China in the early 1960s faced pressing domestic problems and dissent against Mao within the Communist Party was growing (http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/15chin.htm). Mao urgently needed to prove his strength and show that he was in control. What better way to do this than to find an easy enemy to beat? This kind of attitude is common to politicians all over the world. The Republican administration in the US chose to beat up poor Saddam Hussein, who pathetically hid in a hole, and claim "Mission Accomplished" instead of going after the terrorists who really attacked the US. Similarly, in the corporate world they went after Martha Stewart (who profited by at most $50,000) instead of going after the CEOs who stole billions.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Feb 7, '05)

With reference to Brij's letter (Feb 4), I have to ask: Were the dates in error? Or the facts perhaps? I have been curious about the circumstances of the 1962 war. I had stated that China and India should reconcile. One step forward would have been the release of the report by Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat. Its been almost 43 years yet it has not seen the light of day. By the way, how did Tibet ever get into the discussion? If you are talking about conventional means of resupply (via trucks, helicopters etc), China was very inadequate in this area. However, with experiences gained from their civil war, against the Japanese and the Korean War, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) utilized unconventional means such as using soldiers as human mules. This was in line with how little regard the communists gave to human life. The PLA had used human waves where countless lives were thrown directly into enemy fire. What more if only hundreds of men had to be sacrificed along the mountains to support the logistics? We can only speculate as to the febrile intentions of Chairman Mao [Zedong]. Rich world willing to provide all kinds of support? India would have been used as a cat's paw to keep both China and India diminished and exhausted. Or have you forgotten the Imperial British Raj?
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Feb 7, '05)

Referring to David's letter (Feb 4), I have found this link to "Part III - India's Shameful Debacle". Neville Maxwell is the author of India's China War. Since this book was the result of the investigation commissioned by the Indian army and written by an Englishman, I can take it to be quite impartial. So this should clear up once and for all who was to blame for the war.
Caral (Feb 7, '05)

"Spengler" writes [letter, Feb 3], "we have Bill Kristol claiming the Bush second inaugural for Leo Strauss, Joseph Bottum (in the Weekly Standard) claiming the speech for St Thomas Aquinas, and so forth". In fact, neo-con[artists] William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer gave rave reviews to that speech - then it was revealed that Kristol and Krauthammer had large parts in writing it. Doubtless that is why it was overblown, excessive, over-the-top, and as irrational as the nutcases (the term used by Christy Todd Whitman for that wing of "her" party) who wrote and read the demented, bellicose, and unprovoked belligerent anti-democratic Neanderthal chest-thumping stench it will forever remain. Kristol and Krauthammer, also, want civil war in Iraq, for as long as Iraq remains in chaos, Israel is safe. That's all that matters: that Israel is safe. The 15 military bases (falsely called "embassies") the US is building in Iraq are certainly not being built with the permission of the Iraqi people; and they are not for the establishment of democracy and defense of the Iraqi people (especially the unfortunates who found themselves in Abu Ghraib). What sort of ugly, evil horror shrills with swollen out-of-control ego glee over being a torturing war criminal who falsely views himself as being above the reach of all law, while at the same time