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.)

March 2005

Re Siddharth Srivastava's article [India turns its back on US arms] on March 31: So the USA wants to bolster Pakistan's military and then use India against China? And if at some point the USA decides to ally with China, then India will be stuck with two well-armed hostile neighbors, while USA is sitting pretty with both Pakistan and China as "friends". If [US President George W] Bush is so desirous of making the Pakistani military highly powerful (he has also given Pakistan P-3C Orion, Phalanx systems and TOW anti-tank missiles and who knows what else is in store), then let him make Pakistan strong enough to counter China. India should have no part of this geostrategic stupidity. The Indian defense minister has already started shopping for non-USA warplanes, dismissing the USA's promises for now. I guess a bird (of prey) in hand is better than a dozen promised by a Bush.
Brij (Mar 31, '05)


Aruni Mukherjee [Delhi missing the point, Mar 31] blindly compares India-Pakistan rivalry to Cold War opponents and offers the same strategy used by Americans to bring down the rival. Soviets had no external help in financing their gigantic military enterprise. They had to allocate resources from their own budget. Besides military spending, US adopted a multi-pronged strategy to corner the Soviet bear until it buckled down. Can India afford to spend all its time and energy in cornering Pakistan? Does it have the power and influence to make the world capitals toe its policy against Pakistan? Islamabad uses its pack of cards judiciously: it plays its Islamic card to the Middle East to get oil and money, placates Beijing [with its India card] and gets weapons and aid, [and] being the frontline-state ally to the US, every time it wants something from Washington pulls out an al-Qaeda from a rat hole ... Defense and debt servicing of course takes away a major share of Pakistan's budget. But Pakistan has found a way to live beyond its means with external help. If the outside powers refuse to help Pakistan in future, who knows, Islamabad may blackmail the world: give money or I will distribute nuclear technology.
Kannan (Mar 31, '05)


Re the article Delhi missing the point: Aruni Mukherjee has stated his case based on fuzzy facts. He states that Pakistan "literally allowed the US to dictate its foreign policy since September 11, 2001". He failed to mention that Pakistan was a major supporter of the Taliban before September 11 and only after [US President George W] Bush had what one would call "a very strong persuasive" conversation with [President General Pervez] Musharraf that Pakistan did an about-face. What Mr Bush said in that phone call is not public but the result was Islamabad toed the US line on the issue even at [the risk of] Mr Musharraf's personal safety. Mr Bush did not have that type of leverage with New Delhi, for several reasons: India wasn't supporting the Taliban; India wasn't already so dependent on the US for her security and therefore India basically stayed out of the US/Pakistan nexus on the war against the Taliban. Mr Mukherjee states that India missed the issue regarding the promises made by [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice and later by the Bush administration of not only selling these advanced jet planes but transferring the technology along with it and in addition make India into a "major power". They are promises, empty promises that if even realized have to go through the democratic tangle of endless committee meetings, congressional hearings etc. Nothing that Dr Rice or Mr Bush [said] was carved in stone. Both can easily "throw up their arms" to the Indian leadership and say, "It was not approved by the Congress, sorry." Poof, there go their promises "to build castles in the air" for India. Finally but most crucially, [there] is the growing political presence of the US in South Asia. The US has managed to "rope in" Pakistan, whether willingly or kicking and screaming but now the US is more ambitious, she wants the nation of India to become another "junior partner" where the shots will be called from Washington, DC, for both Islamabad and New Delhi. That is the "siren call" from the US that India needs to be vigilant.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 31, '05)


I enjoyed the recent articles on Myanmar, Roland Watson providing interesting insight about the strategy [Taking the generals to the tipping point, Mar 22]. In addition to the five groups that he mentions as the key to democracy in Myanmar which can reach the tipping point, I think there is one more major (in fact, the most important) player - PRC [the People's Republic of China]. I often wonder how can such a highly brutal, highly incompetent regime survive for so long in this modern globalized age, even years after the departure of their first truly military strongman General Ne Win. The answer is of course the PRC. China had Tiananmen in 1989 and that changed the whole power equation for the entire region, which unfortunately prolonged the life span of SLORC [State Law and Order Restoration Council] (now SPDC [State Peace and Development Council]). It is important to work on the PRC for them to understand that their own long-term interest is better secured with an earlier return to normalcy in Myanmar. The day when the PRC moves on board the train is the day when we can all gather to bury the generals from the SPDC.
Dell
Singapore (Mar 31, '05)


First off, this Letters section is getting crazy. Second, while I know Lester Ness was joking [Mar 30], it almost doesn't seem that bad an idea to outsource all of our (the US's) Eurasian adventures to the Chinese. They got hella people, we need hella people. It's basic capitalism ... supply and demand. Next, Frank the nut job from Seattle: I don't even believe that Frank is Chinese, I think he just likes to pick a fight. I'm sure when Asterix was chiding you [Mar 29] for using Seattle's resources - he did not mean you were mining natural resources or overfishing the Pacific. Also, if you are trying to insult Frank, don't call him a rat - in China (if he's Chinese) the rat is sacred or revered or some such nonsense. Plus, generally speaking Chinese aren't so ignorant and quick to throw out stupid insults when they can't back it up. Also, when will we get to see (on pay-per-view TEEVEE of course) Joseph Nagarya vs Roostercockburn? They can start off by debating different ideologies and then get to the fisticuffs. (No worries, Joe, I got your back ... I hate everything about Texas, except the pretty girls in DFW [Dallas-Fort Worth]). I know if this gets printed you will stop it at fisticuffs. Good job, ATol, I love ya! I'm 24 and check this site every day. I implore my peers to read this too ... but they are too busy wasting away. Peace.
John Kiegel (Mar 31, '05)


How dare Lester Ness suggest that Chinese soldiers are for hire [letter, Mar 30]? Do you think Chinese are the same as Indians? From my observations of the history, Chinese solders regard their own loved ones inside China as their masters. They will not fight to keep a border decided by those white masters in the West. I suggest Lester takes a few Chinese history lessons in Quanzhou.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 31, '05)


[Lester] Ness's comments and suggestions [letter, Mar 30] regarding the US outsourcing its military needs to China reminds one of a couple of analogies. The first is about a young man on learning that his wife gave birth to a bouncing baby boy. Visions swirled in is mind about his son growing up to be a baseball player. By the age of of 10 the boy had grown to a height of five feet [152 centimeters]. The vision changed into one where the boy had the potential to become a football player. [That] vision changed when the boy reached the age of 14 and measured close to six feet, three inches [190.5cm]. A perfect basketballer, the father reassured himself. It was at the age of 16 when the boy grew to a height of eight-feet-nine [267cm] that the family, where both dad and mom worked for the minimum wage, realized that they had a problem, a big problem that required special clothing, footwear, bedding, feeding, schooling etc. The second analogy has to do with a deja vu of a deja vu circa Cold War. This time around though, the possibility that every UN member will act as a host nation of a base could become a reality.
ADeL (Mar 31, '05)


Although I don't understand the vitriol Frank has for Indians, as a white Texan, I completely agree with his [Mar 30] letter to the ATimes. We in the West should never lecture anyone about "mooching". In the United States we are sustaining our standard of living by "mooching" off the rest of the world right now. In fact, we are "mooching" mostly from Asia. Henry C K Liu has written voluminously about this in the ATimes. When Asians get tired of being paid with promises that we will pay them in the future (which we have no intention or capability of doing) we are screwed. The rest of the world does not need the United States. Also, after what we have done in Iraq, it is ironic that someone from the United States would talk of "Western standards of decency".
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 31, '05)


The world is certainly a dark and depressing place from where the America haters sit. Take [letter writer] Joe Nagarya from Boston for example. Steven Lee's letter of March 25 was about the China/Taiwan situation, but just happened to have a throwaway line "USA is a country with a very well-educated, prosperous and motivated population". Of course, any suggestion that the US has any positive features draws down Nagarya's wrath, with a tangent into the religious right, militia nuts and so on. And then we have G Travan [Mar 25], who deduces, from the purely human issue of lonely elders, an American moral failing, "outsourcing" of cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc. If he/she has ever been in a developing country, it is pretty much the norm that the more affluent families have maids, nannies, gardeners, drivers and so on, "outsourcing" far more than what is common or possible here [in the US]. Plus, this is actually a consequence of the fact that Social Security/private pensions allow such living apart, as opposed to the joint family with everybody squashed together, which has its own problems. I think ATimes is giving too much space to the perpetually outraged. From the point of view of your Asian readers, you are (i) giving them a skewed picture of everyday America and (ii) not equipping them with solutions to issues that they will inevitably face as economic development progresses.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Mar 31, '05)


Joseph Nagarya writes [letter, Mar 30]: "I don't [watch Canadian TeeVee because "I don't live in Canada." Okay, I get the picture. There are other people out there with different views and they can be right too. Do not be afflicted with the dissenting opinion that wins the day. Politics is like the weather. Views change with circumstances. Presidents come and go. Cesspools are recycled. And we live in a democracy. Life is not that bad if you take a pinch of salt and be glad you are not a peasant in Sudan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Aren't we glad we have the luxury to discuss Terri Schiavo and not about basic survival?
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 31, '05)


Roostercockburn writes [letter, Mar 30]: "Joseph Nagarya is right [sic - 'correct']. There is a thing called separation of powers and only the [US Congress] has the authority to declare war because of it. His hero [Senator John] Kerry [I said no such thing - JN] was derelict in his responsibility to uphold the constitution because there has been no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan." Again: John Kerry did not vote for war against Iraq (Afghanistan is separate in kind and was separate in time). Had Roostercockburn actually paid attention, and listened to Kerry's statement at the time of his Iraq vote, he would know that Kerry did voted to authorize [President George W] Bush to threaten the use of force to ensure [Iraqi president Saddam] Hussein did not interfere with the inspections which were going on at the time of his vote. Period. When Roostercockburn gets his facts straight, I'll respond; until then he puts words in my mouth in order to make assertions both unfounded and false. To David [Mar 30]: A central point made by another letter writer seems to have got lost in the shuffle: the conflict between mainland China and Taiwan is between three, not two, relevant parties. Taiwan was already occupied by the indigenous Taiwanese when Chiang Kai-shek fled mainland China to Taiwan and established his undemocratic governance over all on Taiwan Island. Did the indigenous Taiwanese agree to that governance? Did they agree to be brought into the argument between Chiang and Mao [Zedong]? Most who defend "Taiwan" against mainland China are actually defending the Chiang faction; they are either ignorant of the existence of the indigenous Taiwanese, or view oppression of them as acceptable, though they "oppose" oppression (at least when done by "communists"). Geoffrey Sherwood writes [Mar 30]: "What prevented the [US] Iraq war from being 'legal' was the opposition of France, Germany, and Russia, for self-interested reasons that had nothing to do with high-minded observance of international law." Typical of irrational right-wingers who hold the ideology of bullying as supreme, Mr Sherwood confuses - or deliberately substitutes - politics for rule of law. The two are not the same, or even identical. It's the view that "life is a dog-eat-dog jungle" which that "confusion" makes every effort to ensure. In fact, and to the contrary, Mr Sherwood, the US's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was and remains illegal as a matter of international law, in which it is defined as illegal (as written by the US itself) - not because of irrelevant political views of such as France, Germany, Russia, and yourself ... The profoundest "flaw" of your unreasoning position is that it is a moral bankruptcy based upon a claimed but non-existent moral position - a position that is instead that of the unprincipled bully. Thus everyone else - in this instance Saddam Hussein - must always obey the rules, while you are always exempt from them, outside the lie that you actually respect them, and the lie that you are for seeing them enforced for all.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 31, '05)

Most if not all dictionaries recognize that "right" and "correct" are synonyms in the context used by Roostercockburn. In fact, the two words are related to the same Latin root, regere - "cor-" is a corruption of the Latin prefix com-. - ATol


Geoffrey Sherwood's sudden love affair with the "right of self-determination" is stark [letter, Mar 30]. Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Palestine, Hawaii, even India, Hong Kong? Why did not anyone offer them self-determination? Oh, they did, but only when they could no longer hold on to them. Except for Hawaii, which was annexed a few dozen years ago and is still under US occupation.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 31, '05)


[Re] US scatters bases to control Eurasia [Mar 30]: If the Bush regime is going to keep on scattering bases around Eurasia, and conquering countries, it may need to start outsourcing its military, perhaps hire the Chinese army to make up for the low number of US soldiers.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Mar 30, '05)


Andrei Lankov's Democracy, Pyongyang-style [Mar 30] is a typical exercise in watching Korea from afar. The Australian National University lecturer, in waxing wordy on the role of a parliament in a communist country, has no explanation for the reason why the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Supreme People's Assembly session is put off sine dia. Lankov is honest enough to say no one knows. Yet he is either ironic or ingenuous when he muses over who is Kim Jong-il's constituency. Everyone in North Korea, by gosh! Would that all North Korea watchers possessed a sense of humility. Remember the endless flow of printer's ink at the time portraits of the Dear Leader disappeared on the walls in Pyongyang. No one really can come up with a reasonable answer. Which is all to say, few have any idea of what is really happening in North Korea. Yet there is a cottage industry of experts who at the drop of a hat [are] willing to speak ex cathedra on this or that or still the other thing in the DPRK. And they are not spot on in their observations. There is a commonsensical solution to this reading of tea leaves. Engage in open discussions with the North Korean leadership. Clear the deck of past hand-ups, and tackle head-on outstanding issues, with a clear head, and please leave moral prejudices at the door. [Former US president Bill] Clinton has offered a piece of sensible advice: treat North Korea with dignity, but negotiate firmly. [Charles Maurice de] Talleyrand put it another way 200 years ago, and his advice is worth taking note of, the more especially since this erstwhile aristocrat and clergyman negotiated a career which stretched from ancient regime, the [French] Revolution, Thermidor, Napoleon, and the Bourbon restoration. In diplomacy he wisely suggested surtout pas trop de zele.
Jakob Cambria (Mar 30, '05)


In connection with your article Absolute monarchy to absolute democracy (Mar 30) by Kanak Mani Dixit, it appears to me that some truths are unrevealed to the extent that a line must be segregated between anarchy and democracy. What Nepal was surely going through was an extremity of anarchy. The source of anarchy could be difficult to pinpoint and a debatable theme. Democracy and anarchy are the antithesis of each other. Anarchy must be curbed to protect and sustain the values of democracy, pluralism and civil liberties. Some of the responses of the neighboring nation are outbursts of not seeking their prior approval and exaggeration of state of affairs by some media. Once again Nepal appears to be missing the dispassionate and fair evaluation of the situation rather than getting trapped [in] the old habit of distrust and mutual destructive criticism. [It will be useful to make] an environment ... where the activists can freely make a self-reflection and evaluation as a party and as a leader. The first step could be the release of G P Koirala and Madhav K Nepal. Their call [for] the party cadres not to escape the country and face the difficulties is a call in a right direction. Peace must prevail in this country; the killing of lives must be stopped. Rights of free movement and survival must be restored. Insurgents must be disarmed. The country's situation did call for a state of emergency. A little more patience will be helpful.
Shovan Dev Pant
Kathmandu, Nepal (Mar 30, '05)


Frank Yeo (letter [Mar 29]) perfectly illustrates my point about the reluctance of those who favor Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan to honestly weigh sovereignty vs self-determination. Whether or not I am a hypocrite, as Mr Yeo alleges, has no bearing on the sovereignty-vs-self-determination evaluation. And, yes, I am a hypocrite of sorts. I agree that abiding by international law is generally a good thing. But in the case of the war in Iraq, I think that breaking international law was also a good thing. France and much of Europe violated international law by sanctioning NATO attacks on Kosovo. I wonder if Mr Yeo and others like him have been just as indignant over that episode. What prevented the Iraq war from being "legal" was the opposition of France, Germany and Russia, for self-interested reasons that had nothing to do with high-minded observance of international law. There is nothing wrong with pointing out American hypocrisy. But you're not fooling anyone. It is only American hypocrisy that interests you. There's a big, frequently hypocritical world out there. If you climb down off your high horse, you might even recognize hypocrisy in yourself. So tell me: How do you defend paying lip service to international law and the United Nations Charter on one hand, and then ignoring what they have to say about the right of self-determination on the other?
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 30, '05)


Regarding my letter (Mar 29) ATol shows generosity in saying that the [Chinese] Anti-Secession Law works "under parameters dictated by only one of the affected parties". It is not mentioned that the US professed its own dictates without even being one of the two parties. The usual claim that the Taiwanese are for independence is manufactured, as it is well known by pollings that only 20% of them prefer independence from the mainland. The recent March 26 protest seemed to show a huge crowd. In fact, Chen shui-bian came out with his entire family and so did the premier of Taiwan. Then following their bosses, the cabinet ministers and families did likewise, and so their subordinates, and subordinates of the subordinates. They required over 20,000 plainclothes military police for protection, and the government agencies provided vehicles to coax and bus any willing participants, including children. In Taiwan "democracy" is a hollow word as election corruption and riggings were rampant. To come back to the theme of my previous letter, now that the Anti-Secession Law is in place, there will be no war.
David (Mar 30, '05)

Actually what we said, in answer to your rhetorical question, "Peace, isn't that what everybody wants?" was that there are times when "peace" comes at too high a price, particularly when that price is dictated by only one of the affected parties. Your point here is well taken, however, that any peace process can be (and usually is) complicated by the interference of outside players, for example the US in the China-Taiwan issue and China vis-a-vis democratic progress in Myanmar. - ATol


Let me guess. Asterix [letter, Mar 29] is a white Texan. That is why he always forgets the resources in Seattle and in Texas belong to native American Indians. America's wealth is build on native Indians' resources and the free slave labor of blacks, Irish, and Chinese. I am not afraid of discussions of rats. However, I would rather compare Asterix to a shameless pink racist pig. After slaughtering most of the native American Indians, he dares to claim other people's resources are his.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 30, '05)


Steven Lee writes [letter, Mar 29]: "Joseph Nagarya has a problem with TeeVee in Canada" - actually I don't, as I don't live in Canada. "He failed to realize that what he sees in Boston is also seen in Toronto, most probably simultaneously." In fact, I can no longer stomach the happy talk which is palmed off as "news" on US TeeVee - and I don't refer to the extremist right-wingers on cable; I refer to the small and patronizing well-paid middle-/upper-middle class right-of-center "journalists" who utter no facts which might risk upsetting - ie, waking - the great sleeping unwashed masses, which pleases to no end the advertisers, and the political class. "He thinks that TeeVee is a medium that is lesser in value than print or the Internet." It isn't the [medium] that is of lesser value; it is the bottom-of-the-barrel content which insults the critically aware. Had I responsibility for it, I'd apologize to Canada. "Nevertheless, the points articulated are well known discussed to death on TeeVee and [in] print by both the conservatives [citing 'conservative' Cato Institute fake 'think-tank'] and liberals [also citing Cato Institute; or 'conservative propaganda mill American Enterprise Institute) ..." They discuss ad nauseam the fact that the US population is by-and-large - and obviously - steeped in a tradition of ignorance of which they are so proud they wear it on their sleeve as if their religion? Is the ghoulish Schiavo circus, based upon flat-out lies cesspooled primarily from the TeeVee "news" you so praise, representative of your notion of intelligence and "well educated"? The facts of the case are nothing remotely akin to the spew from the [medium] you praise; they are in the court documents, but those aren't sensational enough to assist in media concern No 1: ratings, ratings, and ratings - and advertising revenues. So we get sensationalism, confabulation, and pandering in place of actual fact - actual news - and the consequences, up to and including death threats against spouse and judges from the "culture of life" looney bin. "You have the freedom to cast your vote without fear." But accompanied by the legitimate fear that the vote won't be counted. Is that your notion of 'freedom'? "Based on any measurement [inches or metrics?] and statistics ['There are lies, damned lies, and statistics' - Mark Twain] published in print or announced on TeeVee, the US is an advanced country" - we love to tell ourselves self-flattering stories; it blinds us to our reality, and the outside world, while my country has demonstrated the most technologically advanced barbarism in history in the illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, where it continues to impose the barbaric war crime of torture; "motivated" by fear of continuing to lose ground economically - "and prosperous". In the form of the largest national debt in world history, and that continuing to grow without restraint or constraint ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 30, '05)


Joseph Nagarya [letter, Mar 29] is right. There is a thing called separation of powers and only [the US] Congress has the authority to declare war because of it. His hero [Senator John] Kerry was derelict in his responsibility to uphold the constitution because there has been no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan. If he believes that Bush's negligence on [September 11, 2001] is grounds for impeachment, then why haven't his Democrats brought up charges? As concerns my absurd Skull & Bones conspirabunk: here is the substantiation for my wild and paranoid speculation. (1) John Kerry is a member of a secret society called the Skull and Bones. (2) George W Bush is also a member of that secret society. (3) Secret societies are conspiracies by nature. A person can read anything into that they would like but the indisputable fact is that John Kerry and George W Bush are involved in a conspiracy. My source is a paper from Massachusetts: Boston.com. Nagarya asks when will there be an alternative to either Republicans or Democrats which can actually win elections instead of draining votes away from Democrats? My answer: when corporations find another party willing to roll over for them more than the Republicans and Democrats. Then the corporations will buy them also and that party will win. If Nagarya needs the delusion of the New York Times version of life to feel his life has meaning, that is fine. When he rabidly tries to place limits (Republican position or Democratic position) on what others may question, that is counterproductive as well as being neurotic.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 30, '05)

This discussion is interesting but has nothing directly to do with Asia or any Asia Times Online articles. We suggest you take it to The Edge, ATol's forum. - ATol


In connection with B Raman's Lollipops and Iran (Mar 29), it is interesting to note that, in view of the fact that the whole affair is such a non-event, the sale of F-16s to both India and Pakistan has raised so much emotion on both sides of the Indo-Pak border. In this situation, with both countries armed to the teeth with short-range nuclear-capable missiles, it is difficult to see how these planes can make any appreciable difference, either in a deterrence or an offensive mode. So why the US gesture at this time? The reasons would appear to be fairly straightforward: A lollipop for [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf, which the general could definitely use as proof that cooperation with the US (for which he has been roundly criticized at home) pays; and creation of jobs in the US for which President [George W] Bush can take credit. As far as the Indian reaction is concerned, this is hardly going to disturb any sleep in Washington and if it does, the Indians can be given the argument above. The Indians on their part have to make the necessary noises (about the arms race in the subcontinent etc) but would not mind the fact that Pakistan is, at the end of the day, going to be out of pocket in a big way.
S Chawla
Montreal, Quebec (Mar 29, '05)


This is in response to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan and America's reasons for doing so. First let me deal with the latter part of my statement [The US comes out fighting with F-16s, Mar 29]. The State Department has come up with three reasons for the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. First, Pakistan needs these aircraft to fight the war against the terrorists along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border; the second is that Lockheed Martin needed these sales to save the jobs of their employees; and the third is that if Pakistan has these aircraft ... the possibility of Pakistan going nuclear is "less likely". What does the State Department think of the Indian leadership? Do they think they are morons? idiots? retarded? Taking the first "excuse", Pakistan may or may not use the F-16s against the terrorists since to date they [Pakistanis] have been lukewarm in delivering the real leaders and their cronies of al-Qaeda to the US while Osama [bin Laden] runs freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But it is absolutely certain these F-16s will be used against India, Pakistan's traditional arch enemy. The second "excuse" is to save the jobs of Lockheed Martin. India has a far larger military budget and [is] capable of buying many times the number Pakistan can buy and save those precious jobs so eloquently put by the State Department of the US. The third "excuse" is that this would deter Pakistan [from] going nuclear. Nobody, not even military analysts, can predict what one nation would or would not do during wartime. Rules are changed as the tide of who is going to lose or win changes. There is no guarantee that Pakistan would not use the "nuclear card", as the old saying goes "All's fair in love and war." The arrogance and ignorance of the State Department of the USA flies in the face of reason, logic and common sense. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the US is playing a dangerous game in South Asia - even an illiterate can see the double standards of the US. [If] the State Department thinks that [its] pathetic, hypocritical, lame and shallow excuses will be bought by the world at large, especially the Indian leadership, then they must think that their "excuses" are beyond world and Indian reproach.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 29, '05)


Re Mark Johnson's US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan (Mar 29): I rather enjoyed Mr Johnson's theory of varying ways in which a revolution or rebellion could be framed until he actually applied it to Taiwan. Discussing the current tension between the PRC [People's Republic of China] and Taiwan in terms of the communist followers of Mao [Zedong] and the capitalist (or thieving) followers of Chiang Kai-shek is a dreadful anachronism and a painful misunderstanding of current PRC obsessions with Taiwan. After 50 years of martial law under Chiang Kai-shek's KMT [Kuomintang], Taiwan is now governed by ardent democrats who happen to be locals; the native Taiwanese population whose ancestors lived on Taiwan prior to the KMT invasion make up 84% of the population. The "renegades" that Mr Johnson spoke of died with the military dictatorship of the KMT in 1991. To characterize Taiwanese patriots as "a group of people who by working with colonial powers made themselves rich" is an insult to the tens of thousands of Taiwanese who were murdered, tortured, and imprisoned so that they could taste freedom and democracy. Though Mr Johnson may be right that outside powers such as the US have their own motives for involvement in the future of Taiwan, to suggest that anyone other than the 23 million people of Taiwan have the most at stake is plain ignorance.
Kevin Hsu
Washington, DC (Mar 29, '05)


This is in regards to the article US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan by Mark Johnson (Mar 29). I hate it when people compare the PRC-ROC conflict [to] the American Civil War. The leaders of the PRC claim that they can reunify Taiwan with the mainland by force just like [Abraham] Lincoln reunified the southern states back to the Union by force. Here's the problem with the analogy: suppose the Confederate States of America won the Civil War and conquered all the Union territories except for the state of Maine. The state of Maine claims to still be part of the United States, but the Confederacy views that territory as nothing more than a renegade state of the Confederacy to be reunified by force if necessary. This is equivalent to the People's Republic of China winning the Civil War and conquering all Republic of China territories except for the province of Taiwan.
Allen Timothy Chang
Berkeley, California (Mar 29, '05)


I wonder if Mark Johnson, author of your article US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan, even knows that Taiwanese were not participants in the Chinese civil war because they were not part of China at the time. Without such an understanding, it is easy to see how he could come to the erroneous conclusion that the US Civil War is somehow a model for the China/Taiwan situation. But even if the US Civil War were relevant, Mr Johnson would need to acknowledge that the war started only when the South attacked Northern troops. If that is the model, then China should be preparing to defend itself against a Taiwanese invasion rather than building amphibious craft to conduct an invasion of Taiwan. And for Ralph Cossa, author of China's 'helpful' Anti-Secession Law, I would like to say that the only inflexible party in this imbroglio is China, which insists on a surrender by Taiwan prior to the commencement of discussions (ie, acceptance of the one-China principle). By passing an Anti-Secession Law, China has hardened its inflexibility even further, making the possibility of meaningful discussion approximately nil. However, since China's domestic laws by definition cannot reach beyond China's own borders, the Anti-Secession Law has no legal applicability to Taiwan, and Taiwan will be free to enjoy its status as a sovereign and independent state, even though Taiwan may continue to lack significant diplomatic recognition or membership in chic clubs like the UN.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 29, '05)


"[By] thinking of Dr Condoleezza Rice as a wen guan the Chinese fell into a trap of their own cultural making [Dragon Lady Rice tackles China, Mar 24]." Jakob Cambria began his letter as above and presumptuously continued to write nothing that was not evident to all. His advice is redundant as if it was ever needed. He should save his scholarly dissertation for [US President George W] Bush, who is in need of any advice that he can get. Dr Rice is just a modern-day Topsy who has learned her lines by rote. Her record in Bush's first term proves it. "To them, if no one granted the Taiwanese that right in some hoary parchment, the right does not exist. They conveniently ignore that other hoary parchment - the United Nations Charter" - Geoffrey Sherwood, New Jersey, USA ([letter] Mar 28). Geoffrey Sherwood forgets that the "parchment - the United Nations Charter" that he holds aloft so triumphantly is the same "parchment" that the USA has been trampling underfoot in Iraq. Such is hypocrisy.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 29, '05)


Jakob Cambria (Mar 24) has made too much of Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice's recent visits to the East. In fact her predecessor Colin Powell has been right. She is just carrying out, in a skillful diplomatic way, the necessary adjustments in facing realities. Cambria's claim that China shot itself in the foot in setting up the Anti-Secession Law is hilarious. As everyone will see, there will be no war in the Taiwan Strait for a long time to come. The law applies; there will not be formal declaration of independence, and there can be only growling and tacit obedience of the law. Peace, isn't that everybody wants?
David (Mar 29, '05)

Yes, but not at any cost or under parameters dictated by only one of the affected parties. The people of Taiwan have indicated that self-determination and democracy are also desirable; the question all along has been whether both sides of the strait can have what they want, ie territorial integrity and face-saving for the mainland side and reasonable autonomy and democracy for the Taiwan side, or whether the two are incompatible. - ATol


Frank writes [letter, Mar 28]: "None of the English-speaking Indians provided solid evidence to contradict my comparisons." ... I am amused at Frank's revulsion [against living] by Western standards of decency on this forum when he himself is mooching Western resources in Seattle, USA. It reminds me of parasitic rats that mooch free food from [unwelcoming] hosts. So in keeping with the supposedly beloved East Asian tradition of comparing people [to] animals, I suppose Frank can be compared to a rat, unless of course Frank provides us all "solid evidence to contradict my comparisons".
Asterix
Houston, Texas (Mar 29, '05)

More to the point, because the dog analogy got out of hand, all such metaphors have been banned - and that includes rats. (We're still not sure about penguins.) - ATol


Joseph Nagarya [letter, Mar 28] has a problem with TeeVee in Canada. He failed to realize that what he sees in Boston is also seen in Toronto, most probably simultaneously. He thinks that TeeVee is a medium that is lesser in value than print or the Internet. To each his own. Nevertheless, the points articulated are well known, discussed to death on TeeVee and print by both the conservatives and liberals and depending on where you sit, right or left, you have the freedom to cast your vote without fear. At any rate, based on any measurement and statistics published on print or announced on TeeVee, the USA is an advanced country, well educated, motivated and prosperous. If the problems as outlined by Joseph Nagarya are the worst or most severe, most if not all the developing countries in the world would like to trade positions with the USA, including China. Remember, do not bite the hand that feeds you so democratically and well.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 29, '05)

We've heard the Great Debate is still raging in Canada about whether to bring in Fox News. Without it, are you really getting the Big Picture about your American cousins? - ATol


Roostercockburn writes [letter, Mar 28]: "Excuse me for being an oversimplifying cynic, but anyone who believes that the election of John Kerry would have changed the direction of the United States at all is a fool. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war ..." The fact is, Roostercockburn, that I have watched Kerry's career up close as a citizen of Massachusetts. You, being from Texas, know nothing much about him - and most of that is false. As example: Kerry did not vote "for the Iraq war"; as you'd know if you'd listen/ed to his statement on the Senate floor at the time he voted, he voted to authorize [President George W] Bush to threaten to use force so [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein would not interfere with the ongoing UN WMD [weapons of mass destruction] inspections. As for Kerry's saying we [US] haven't enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the alleged goals, he is correct. So were the several generals who were "retired" [by] Bush for saying the same thing. As for Bush "allowing" [the events of September 11, 2001] to happen: there is no "conspiracy" "theory" about that fact; as said, I don't "don't do" conspirabunk. First, the first responsibility of the occupant of the White House is national security; that is in the oath he takes. Second, having not prevented the attacks - as was his duty - he allowed them, whether through neglect, carelessness, or deliberation. The first - neglect - has been substantiated, and makes an argument for the second: neither he nor anyone else in his "administration" considered terrorism important (and [attorney general John] Ashcroft told his staff he didn't want to hear about it); and, as [former president Bill] Clinton did consider it important, it was therefore "a Clinton thing", so could not be important. That neglect is sufficient grounds to impeach, considering the circumstances, as it violates the oath of office. One need not imagine up conspiracies to explain the attacks being successful, and demand Bush be held fully accountable. As concerns the absurd "Skull & Bones" conspirabunk: provide substantiation for that wild and paranoid speculation. Or cease the tiresome effort to support your assertions with unproven nonsense. Roostercockburn asks: "How could a United States senator be unaware that the president allowed an attack to justify a war, if that is the case?" Not only is that not what I said, but there is a thing called "separation of powers" - and "executive privilege"; and, (1) the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory doesn't tell Congress anything it doesn't want Congress to know; and, (2) it routinely and regularly lies to Congress. When you know more about Kerry, and it is actually factual, let us know. Likewise, when you find an alternative to either Republicans or Democrats which can actually win elections instead of draining votes away from Democrats, let use know.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 29, '05)


With reference to Sudha Ramachandran's article Japan-India ties under China's shadow [Mar 26], there seemed to be a belief that China wants to encircle India with the string of pearls strategy and so on. Seriously, China's population is 1.3 billion and the subcontinent's population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh [has] exceeded China's already. Both countries have enough problems on their plate [without wanting] to encircle each other like some imperialist powers of bygone years. China's pre-eminent goal is to be a developed country and in the process raise the living standards of her populace. China's efforts to secure her energy needs are done in a peaceful manner, through dialogue and shared economic benefits of willing partners. If Japan wants to invest in India it is because Japan wants to do it in her best self-interests. The reason Japan invests in China so heavily is because it is in Japan's self-interests. To suggest that Japan invests in China and ... Southeast Asian countries because Japan wants to encircle some nations is ludicrous. The concept of encirclement is an imperialist doctrine of bygone years that ended with the fall of the Soviet empire. In this new era of the Internet, globalization of corporate structures and instant communication, we are encircled by thoughts, economics and information. The days of ambition by rogue nations are gone. Nations are now expected to explain and justify their actions on legal and moral grounds. We are now moving to the transparent age.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 28, '05)


[In] the article about Indo-Japanese relationships [Japan-India ties under China's shadow, Mar 26], especially in regards to military cooperation, one key player has been left out ... the United States. Japan after [World War II] basically became a surrogate to the US and still by and large the US dictates Japan's military buildup, some of her foreign policy etc. Japan takes orders from Washington, DC, not just from Tokyo. While India is not shackled the way Japan is, a military alliance will contain the fractures that Japan under the tutelage of Washington, DC, may be forced to change or modify any military alliances according to the dictates of the US. In addition the pressure from the other side - China has and will also influence Japan's foreign policy. Japan is a tricky gamble in military alliances as she does not act fully on her own. Ultimately it may come down to India radically changing to become a self-sufficient nation in military capabilities to realize her full potential. The article by [Siddhardt] Srivastava War and peace, Musharraf style [Mar 24] is exemplary in spelling out the dependence that the US [has] on [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's aid in fighting terror. Mr Srivastava omitted mentioning that Mr Musharraf has not been completely forthcoming in [Pakistan's "aid" to the US against al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. Pakistan still has to deliver [Osama] bin Laden. Pakistan still has to come clear on Dr [Abdul Qadeer] Khan's underworld network dealing with the sale of nuclear secrets. America's dependance on this vacillating nation of Pakistan is both a strength and a weakness in America's battle against terrorism and her "double faced" foreign policy. Between the strengths and weaknesses of the US so linked to Pakistan the weak points are a greater threat to the US's long-term fight against terrorism and her overall international standing concerning her foreign policy. All it would take is for Mr Musharraf to be removed and America will lose her "royal flush" in this world poker game.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 28, '05)


In reading James Goodby and Donald Gross on the six-party talks [Six-party talks will test regional security, Mar 26], it is not difficult to see that America's well-seasoned experts in Northeast Asia do not take the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DRPK, or North Korea) seriously. They do, nonetheless, understand what atomic weapons are; the death and destruction that they cause (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Yet they approach the question of Pyongyang having a nuclear arsenal as though it were a consortium of investment bankers planning a series of stratagems for a leveraged buyout of a hostile target. We know this consortium of nations: the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. Goodby and Gross look to micro-manage the DPRK through pressure brought on it by Beijing principally and peripherally Russia, South Korea, and Japan. And here lies the weakness of [the] approach: the six-party conference has [proved] a weak vessel. The North Koreans simply will not play follow-the-dots to what they rightly perceive as a one-sided American solution. Goodby and Gross search out a quick fix to the matter at hand. They sidestep the need to deal with the root and branch of the question of North Korea ... The six-party talks may obtain something small. It is more to the point if a Geneva conference on Korea be reconvened after 51 years. Geneva is an ideal city for negotiations. It can gather four countries; the United States, China, North and South Korea, and then enlarge [that] to six by inviting Russia and Japan to join the talks. The reconvened conference can (1) deal with outstanding issues from the Korean War, thereby leading to a peace treaty; (2) with Japan and Russia as participants, the nuclear issue will be addressed; (3) it will afford a cover for Washington to talk directly with Pyongyang, something the present administration is loath to do ... So the circle is not squared: the Bush administration has to take back the initiative through patient, firm, and principled diplomacy. It has to treat the DPRK as an equal as it does in the United Nations. Will America be able to swallow conflated pride and deal realistically with North Korea? ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 28, '05)


[Re Falungong stars on Chinese TV, Mar 26] Is it CIA [the US Central Intelligence Agency] that is playing the subversive Falungong card in China? These militant initiatives are not in the indigenous spirit of Falungong. Even 100 million meditating Falungongs would have no impact on satellite carrier waves. And genuine Falungongs would not use electronic chikane [sic]. It is certain that just as Zionism has hijacked Jewry, so there are devious operators who are hijacking Falungong. Who is hijacking Falungong in China? It seems to me that the mass media are cowed by the imperial "shock and awe" that issue from the neo-con Bolsheviks in Washington.
Kaj Krinsmoe (Mar 28, '05)


Steven Lee writes [letter, Mar 25]: "The USA is a country with a very well-educated, prosperous and motivated population." That must be the way it appears on TeeVee in Canada, because it is certainly not the fact within the US. In fact, the so-called "pioneer spirit" is traditionally and radically anti-intellectual; there is a pride in ignorance in the US, and a hostility to education, which is widespread. Take a look, for examples, at the US's "religious right" which makes a "bible" of determined ignorance; at its gun and fake "militia" nuts who insist that "education" is "indoctrination" and "brainwashing"; at the number of dupes who again and again vote for Republicans against their own interests. As for "prosperous": the massive Bush tax cuts give a huge amount of the US Treasury - and the Social Security surplus - paid as taxes by the vast majority of US workers to the top 1% of wealthy - those who need tax cuts the least - to be accounted for by cutting programs, including health care for those who cannot otherwise afford it, needed by middle and lower classes. (There are at least 25 million US children without health care; and [President George W] Bush wants to make that number larger.) As for "motivated": I assure you that middle- and lower-class US citizens who are working two and three jobs (and even then often unable to afford health insurance) are doing so because of outsourcing of decent paying jobs, often regardless their being "well educated", not because enthusiastic about loss and lack of employment benefits. Ira Rosen writes [Mar 25]: "I read your op-ed by Sami Moubayed regarding the Death of the Arabs [Mar 25], and was dismayed to see lies printed as fact. Even the UN has admitted that there were not 'hundreds of civilians' killed in Ramallah, yet [ATol] allowed it to be printed ... Those who allow the dissemination of lies are as guilty as those who actively [originate the lies]." Thanks for the "god" of small things; with his helpful deceit, we can be distracted from the bigger lies, such as those on which the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is premised, and the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis, even if that number does not include those from Ramallah. And even if none would have been killed in Ramallah had the original set of lies, and illegalities, not occurred. It's certain, of course, that were those Ramallah civilians Jewish, or especially Israeli, the "god" of small things, Mr Rosen, would be braying a different harangue.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 28, '05)


Chalmers Johnson [The real 'China threat', Mar 19] says the US is obstructing a China-Taiwan rapprochement, yet doesn't say how. He fails to mention that only China sets preconditions to negotiating Taiwan's status: Taiwan must first agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of it. One can imagine the uproar from California to Houston to Beijing if Taiwan announced that as a precondition to negotiating its status China must first agree that Taiwan has the right of self-determination. The competing rights of sovereignty and self-determination are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Those who favor the right of Chinese sovereignty over the right of Taiwanese self-determination never weigh the one against the other. Those in favor of weighing the two are mislabeled as pro-Taiwan independence. This immediately identifies which side wants honest debate and which side wants to avoid it. Those opposed to honest negotiations set preconditions, pretend the right of self-determination does not exist, ignore the enormous significance of Taiwan's de facto independence, ignore that the people of Taiwan have never freely chosen to join the mainland Chinese polity, and ignore that the current unelected one-party dictatorship in China has never ruled Taiwan. Those in favor of honest negotiations feel that all of those factors should at least be taken into consideration and weighed against China's claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Those opposed to honest negotiations are fond of 60-year-old treaties and agreements, in none of which the people of Taiwan were allowed to participate. Those treaties and agreements do carry some weight under international law. They can't be ignored. They represent, in large part, China's claim over Taiwan. But those who think there can be a definitive legal resolution of the issue based solely on international treaties and agreements are deluding themselves. There is no cleanly analogous legal precedent for the Taiwan situation. Common sense will not prevail because China's domestic propaganda has painted it into a corner. Perhaps there is a way to see the evidence for Chinese sovereignty as weightier than the evidence against. But I have never seen anyone convincingly make the case. Instead, those in favor of China's claims betray their dishonesty by refusing to even consider the evidence in favor of Taiwan's right to self-determination. To them, if no one granted the Taiwanese that right in some hoary parchment, the right does not exist. They conveniently ignore that other hoary parchment - the United Nations Charter.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 28, '05)


The article Pakistan weaves an elaborate web [Jan 19] is biased and ridiculous. As just one example, Pakistan helped [Osama] bin Laden on behalf of the US. Now they are fighting him ... on behalf of the US. So if you want to blame this bizarre flip-flop on someone, blame it on the US. Pakistan is merely a client state.
Cheryl Hutchinson (Mar 28, '05)


[Re letter from Joseph Nagarya, Mar 25]: Excuse me for being an oversimplifying cynic, but anyone who believes that the election of John Kerry would have changed the direction of the United States at all is a fool. [Democratic Senator] John Kerry voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Afghan war, and homeland security. All of the crimes [President George W] Bush has committed have been supported by Kerry, his Scull & Bones frat brother and cousin. As a matter of fact John Kerry says we [US] don't have enough troops in Iraq and need to send more. I feel sorry for Joseph Nagarya and people like him who really believe the Democrats will save them. They probably think peace demonstrations will stop Bush too. If Joseph Nagarya thinks that Bush "allowed [the events of September 11, 2001] to happen, then exploited it to repeat the Vietnam error in Iraq" (now he a conspiracy theorist! Where is the substantiated fact that he so dearly loves?), where is his hero Kerry? Why hasn't Kerry exposed this treachery? Why has he done nothing but use this as an excuse to support all of Bush's war policies? Does that mean he is complicit? How could a United States senator be unaware that the president allowed an attack to justify a war, if that is the case? When will Nagarya allow himself to leave the confines of the left-right dogma he is imprisoned in? As long as people here keep falling for that we will continue to be useful idiots committing atrocities and sacrificing ourselves to support these criminals. Oh wait; the Democrats care and if we could just stop those bad Republicans (never mind that the Democrats had control of the Congress and the presidency for many years), one day we will have universal health care! That day never comes though, does it? But they are for abortion and gay marriage, two things that are way more important than all of our other problems! The same way it doesn't matter [to] many people of below-average means that Bush is impoverishing them and sending them off to die and commit atrocities. They vote for him because he is against flag burning, against abortion, wants to ban gay marriage (these things never get done even though Republicans control the Congress and presidency. I wonder why?) and is a Christian (supposedly). Wake up, Americans. Stop getting distracted. Do you want to try [to] get the republic back or do you want a failed empire? That is the real issue. Democrats and Republicans both support expanding the empire and their only differences are on tactics, not strategy. Thank you, G Travan [letter, Mar 25], for the insight and kind words.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 28, '05)


I believe there is little disagreement that the greatest threat to peace, not just in East Asia but throughout the world, is the current USA foreign policy. I made it a point to take my children to Beijing during July 2004 just so that they could learn that the USA is not the only way. China is a dynamic country with an envious economy that will be greatly boosted with the Olympics in 2008. When the USA uses proxies (Japan, Taiwan, and the Koreas) to justify/rationalize foreign experimentation/"new world order" to maintain the status quo, recognition of the inevitable changes are ignored and friction just increases, enough to ignite war and the "I told you so" syndrome.
John Eyberg (Mar 28, '05)


Comparing certain people's behavior to animals' behavior is an East Asia tradition. Mongols and Tibetans are using such practices in many of their daily conversations, stories, and poems. Western culture may not approve such practices. That is their problem. None of the English-speaking Indians provided solid evidence to contradict my comparisons. All of their letters are just expressing their dislikes. East Asians cannot behave or express to please the Westerners and their Indian servants. Otherwise, they will become English-speaking Indians. That is why comparing China to India is offensive.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 28, '05)


This is for Jim Lobe on his article Too much for Mother Earth [Mar 25]. The immediate solution is very simple: stop wasting and start recycling, not only for the consumers, but more for the manufacturers who produce products not taking into consideration of recycling. This is the major fault of the American citizens and manufacturers. I am disappointed [an] article like this one avoids addressing this issue.
Benjamin Su (Mar 25, '05)


Not surprisingly, a one-sided piece by Rabbi [Moshe] Reiss regarding the Twists and turns in 'Syria first' [(Mar 25) is], after all ... listed under the Commentary section. The rabbi brings up many valid questions with little response. In agreement with some of his statements, Syria does account for many ills in the region. But why? The rabbi quickly hides the evidence by signing off on Zionism at the very beginning of his commentary. Zionism is the direct result of upheaval in the region and there is no denying that. Many "terrorist groups" within these Arab nations pose no global threat other than to Israel. These terrorist organizations have only one mission and that is the destruction of Israel. That would never occur, of course, but at the very least Syria and company want some clout at the bargaining table. If your neighbor was armed with nuclear weapons, would you not react in some way? [That is,] create "terrorist organizations", cooperate with non-nuclearized neighbors. I am not suggesting that such neighbors of Israel would not use such weapons, if acquired, but have we thought of weapons being used as a negotiating tool? Additionally, there is a United Nations Security [Council] resolution (at moments when the UN serves self-fulfilling matters) for the complete withdrawal of Syrian troops out of Lebanon. I urge readers on ATol to access the UN website and read how many outstanding UN Security [Council] resolutions there are regarding Israel and its dealings with its neighbors. This is not about bringing freedom to the Lebanese people, but rather a geo-military positioning that many parties play for a greater control within the region. There is no focus made on the constant offensive threat that Israel poses which inevitably results in these opposing actions (ie Israel's 1982 Lebanese offensive). Invasion of Iraq to find those elusive weapons that would wipe out the planet, Iran and their scheming nuclear proliferation, Syria's hand in holding back Lebanese freedom - three offensives against three enemies. Why, I wonder whose enemies these nations could be? For every action there's a reaction. Deception at its finest.
FK
Israel (Mar 25, '05)


I read your op-ed by Sami Moubayed regarding the Death of the Arabs [Mar 25], and was dismayed to see lies printed as fact. Even the UN has admitted that there were not "hundreds of civilians" killed in Ramallah, yet you allowed it to be printed in your "quality" publication. Those who allow the dissemination of lies are as guilty as those who actively do so. Stand up for the truth - it's your job as a journalist.
Ira Rosen (Mar 25, '05)


I would like to express my complete agreement with the statements by Ken Moreau and Roostercockburn in the Letters section [Mar 24]. I believe what lies at the heart of America's problems can be clearly seen in the much-loved film True Grit, especially its main character, Rooster Cogburn (Roostercockburn's namesake, no doubt). In the film, the weary old adventurer Cogburn saves a stranger who then promises to bury him in her family plot, saving him from an eternity of solitude. Rooster's roommate, an old Chinese man, is his only company. Although this character is now taken as the epitome of American heroism, his lonely, pathetic position in society is more telling. He is just an old man without a family, drifting around in the world with no roots. America today is full of such lonely people, as bonds of family and friendship have withered. To see old people eating by themselves at fast-food restaurants, barely able to hold their trays, is heart-breaking. The sad fact is that Americans begin and end their lives in the care of uncaring strangers, as their family are too busy to raise their own children and [care for their] elderly. But this side of America is just the modern world, taken to the extreme, and we can see it happening everywhere in the world. This "free" American lifestyle, where all the bothers in life (cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc) [are] outsourced to hired help, is the envy of the entire world. Little do people outside America realize the tremendous suffering and despair that come with such "freedom". The fast-food version of life is simply not worth living. Perhaps people around the world will consider their own envy of American "prosperity" when they consider how unsatisfied many Americans are with life in this country. When there are no more American voices like Mr Moreau and Roostercockburn, then this country, and the world, will be in real trouble.
G Travan
California, USA (Mar 25, '05)


Roostercockburn writes [letter, Mar 24]: "The only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is for abortion." While I agree with most of the points he makes in his letter, he is at least doubly wrong on that one. First, [Democratic US Senator John] Kerry is pro-choice, which is not the same as being "for abortion"; no one is "for" abortion. (Or does Roostercockburn know individuals who deliberately get pregnant just so they can have an abortion?) I am opposed to abortion; however, I recognize two facts on that point: (1) not being able to get pregnant, I would never need such; and (2), I don't have the right to impose my views on others, especially in the realm of the profoundly private and life-changing. Second, as a politically engaged and active citizen of Massachusetts, of which Kerry is a senator, and not being oversimplifying cynic, I - as did millions of others - recognize that there are many differences between [President George W] Bush and Kerry. Kerry, unlike Bush, is a "social liberal"; that means he is not limited to being pro-choice, but is also for, as example, government provision of health care to those who would otherwise go without that essential. In short, Kerry is opposed to almost everything for which Bush stands (or avoids standing). The only point of possible agreement between the two is that Kerry is a hawk on defense (a criticism I have always had of him), though Bush is not actually for "a strong defense" - he allowed [the events of September 11, 2001] to happen, then exploited it to repeat the Vietnam error in Iraq - but rather for "a strong defense industry". All in all, the claim that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic parties is only true to those who begin with a rejection of politics, and thereafter allow their rationalizations for the rejection to blind themselves to actual and obvious differences.
Joseph Nagarya (Mar 25, '05)


In response to Jakob Cambria's letter [Mar 24]: Unfortunately, China will continue to do what China feels right for herself. We know China will try to accommodate to her best ability what the USA wants but it is abundantly clear China draws the line with Taiwan. If that's the same line that the USA has drawn, then the USA again has picked the wrong war. The USA should allow China and Taiwan their own space to solve their problems in their own time frame. Let them be without outside interference. You will be surprised, they will overcome their differences amicably. China is a complex country and Taiwan as expected is squeezing as much mileage as it can from whatever the USA affords. Do not forget, in the not-too-distant past Taiwan laid claim to China. The situation changed through course of time. Remember how the USA reacted in the Cuban missile crisis. Expect the same from China. I hope sanity prevails because China has always looked up to the USA as a great model to emulate. The problem is, of course, China has 1.3 billion people, most of them poor and illiterate, and the USA is a country with a very well-educated, prosperous and motivated population. To expect China to behave in the same manner as the USA is just ridiculous. The concept of [modernity] and pride in the eyes of different cultures can be very different.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 25, '05)


I am glad discussions of dog's behaviors are still allowed as long as they are not directly related to a certain people. I would like to clarify a few things about dogs. Dogs are territorial. However, they are only protecting the borders decided by their masters. Another match? Talking about offensive articles, I hope there is fairness here. Many of your Chinese readers indicated in their letters. They find comparing China with India offensive. That is the reason I created my comparisons. If Indians can leave China alone, I will be happy to leave India alone. Chinese people are sensitive to other people's discussions of China. They should be. I do not know why Indians are so sensitive to the discussions of dogs. They should not be. Even their masters in England are regarded as lap dogs of America by many media in the world. Why do we want to ban dog discussions at ATol?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 25, '05)

Because they are in bad taste. Reasoned critiques of, for example, China's policies in Tibet or Xinjiang, or India's in the northeast, may be unpleasant to supporters of such policies, but cannot be dismissed as offensive simply because they do not toe a certain party line. - ATol


Vincent Maadi (letter [Mar 23]) is correct to say that Americans will never be able to convince Muslims of the benefits of secularization. Muslims will have to convince themselves. That will only happen when the Muslim world democratizes, bringing the Islamists to power. Then, sit back and watch the inevitable tidal wave of disgust sweep away the horrid Islamists forever. It is happening already in Iran, where virtually everyone is thoroughly revolted by the theocrats and their brutal thugs - the same theocrats that the French and the moronic left everywhere were swooning over as pure, democratic revolutionaries in ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini's heyday. Iran used to represent the pinnacle of Middle Eastern arts and letters. Culturally, Iran has been carved open and gutted by a theocratic mob. The hilarious yet pathetic irony is that the current crop of angry, restless Iranians blame America for their Thug Theocracy. They think Americans are secretly propping up the mullahs to keep Iran weak. A nation full of Vincent Maadis, incapable of accepting any blame for their wretched state.
Jahiliya (Mar 25, '05)


I'm a working print/TV journalist in the [United] States and a fan of yours. [On Thursday] I was interviewed about Iran and oil/nukes on the Laura Flanders show, on KALW, a National Public Radio station in San Francisco. I used the occasion to tell everyone to read Asia Times Online - they broadcast it, and put a link up on their website.  So what's the point? The point is: Thanks! And keep up your fine work.
Roger Trilling (Mar 25, '05)


[By] thinking of Dr Condoleezza Rice as a wen guan the Chinese fell into a trap of their own cultural making [Dragon Lady Rice tackles China, Mar 24]. Wen guan evokes centuries-old images of the scholar who quietly served the emperors of China. Secretary Rice is not in that mold. In stark contrast to that other scholar Dr Henry Kissinger, who unashamedly and endlessly flatters the Chinese, she has a different take on China. Ms Rice is a purveyor of a triumphal American foreign policy. The tragic events of [September 11, 2001] pushed a rather lackluster Bush administration to pursue a bold, hardline policy in foreign affairs. Consequently, China thought that it could horse-bargain with General Colin Powell's successor. And they got their fingers burned. There are lines which Washington will not cross on Taiwan, on North Korea, on the selling of arms to an awakened Chinese military with an understated military budget which figures in the billions of renminbi [yuan]. By the passage of the Anti-Secession Law, China shot herself in her own foot. The law's implication and President Hu [Jintao]'s calling on the military to prepare for war frightened European nations from wanting to lift the embargo on arms sales imposed in the wake of the massacre at Tiananmen in 1989. China has learned a ... difficult lesson after meeting Dr Rice. She has the spirit of a crusader and the will of a preacher. Although the United States may pour untold billions of dollars into China, export American jobs there, [and] will be soft on trade and to a degree on technology transfer, it will not shed one whit its world view on foreign policy. Dr Rice's visit should be a wake-up call to Beijing to shed its millennia-encrusted ideas of what it means to be a scholar, and look at the world with modern eyes wide [open].
Jakob Cambria (Mar 24, '05)


War and peace, Musharraf-style [Mar 24] by Siddharth Srivastava [would] be [better] titled as "War and peace India/Pakistan style". We see India too working for peace with Pakistan and at the same time maintaining her defense capability. So it is no wrong that Pakistan too wants peace with India and [is] keeping an eye on [its] back.
Afaq Sher
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 24, '05)


Rachel Hassold asks me [letter, Mar 23]: "If dogs didn't prefer the company of man to one of their own kind, we wouldn't be having this discussion." That, I think, goes without saying (therefore need not be said). "Or is it that you think so little of Homo sapiens that we are unworthy of this devotion?" On this point I certainly don't limit my comment to what I "think"; I offer you the objective evidence called history. Alas, and most pointedly, it is unfortunate that humor transplants into humans are not yet possible. Brij [Mar 23] asks me, in essence, "Why shouldn't [dogs] feel good around humans?" Er, Brij: let me introduce to you the facts of human history, and how wonderful humans have all along been and are to other humans, all other species on the planet, and the planet itself. Certainly dogs, had they respectworthy judgment, would make better decisions as to with whom to hang around. Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Burke writes [Mar 23]: "The article by Pepe Escobar [Shocked and awed into 'freedom', Mar 22] on the corruption in Iraq is absolutely a complete corruption of the truth." It is the documented fact that Torturer-in-Chief Bush lied the US - where are the weapons of mass destruction? where he does not invade: North Korea, and possibly, only possibly, in Iran - illegally into invading and occupying Iraq. Lying is corruption. Knowingly violating the law is corruption. Authorizing the war crime of torture is corruption. Shall I continue reminding you of the long list of corruptions we have seen in Iraq, beginning (this time around) with [US President George W] Bush's constant lying about the facts, and including the "missing" $9 billion-plus, and the penalties assessed against such as Halliburton for overcharging and underperforming? What has happened to the [US] military that, under Bush, it will wink and nod and defend corruption by lying that it isn't corruption? Fear of being "retired" for maintaining loyalty to truth, and the necessity that is to the continuation of rule of law, and thus of democracy?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 24, '05)


I am disappointed with the editor's decision to censor the free expression at ATol. I hope you can stop whining about other media's similar decisions. Why is talking about elephant acceptable? Talking about dogs is not. I thought dogs are more lovely, loyal and useful than elephants. To answer my other readers' questions, I support learning from the West or whites. I support coloring the hair, dressing in bikinis, speaking English or living among white people. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if you prefer the company of white men to one of your own, you match Rachel Hassold's description of her dogs. She never regards her dogs equally to herself regardless of how she loves her dogs. Right, Rachel? There is a huge difference between love and equality. Equality and respect have to be earned. Love is given.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 24, '05)

Dogs, cats, elephants, penguins (if Monty Python has no objection) and other fauna are welcome here as previously. But you know as well as we do that using certain animals such as dogs, pigs, rats and snakes metaphorically to slur other people, or other races or nationalities, is deeply offensive to many, if not all, cultures. We don't like to censor, but this particular trend has become annoying and tiresome. As DirtyDog said on March 23, "Let's move on." - ATol


I write to sympathize with Brij [letter, Mar 23] and his outburst about "modern-day Chinese imperialists". It is too unbearable to have such Chinese imperialists in this world, where the only imperialists acceptable to Brij are [the British], who have drawn almost all the borders which are the cause of all the troubles on this small Earth today. That must be clear to [every] Tom, Dick and Brij.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 24, '05)


A great article by Chalmers Johnson (The real 'China threat' [Mar 19]). I am a Chinese living in the US. In my contacts with Americans, I always consider [that] the people in academia represent the best of Americans. They are very intelligent and knowledgeable, fair and moderate. Unfortunately, I don't hear their voices very often in the mainstream media. I am also amused by those usual China critics who jump out whenever there is an article favoring China. My advice to [Daniel] McCarthy [letter, Mar 21]: get a life.
Wan (Mar 24, '05)


Jinnah's unfulfilled vision [Mar 19] is not only true but the story has not yet seen its conclusion. At this very moment the Pakistani army [has] managed to alienate the Balochis, a group [who] even during the British rule were considered barely controllable. Now the Pakistani army and leadership have lost complete face with the Balochis, who have formed a group demanding total autonomy. The Pakistani army now [is] repeating history and trying to subdue the growing unrest in Balochistan with brute force - a pattern that never worked with the British Empire and [is] still to be proved if it will work with the current standoff. If the Balochis manage to get world recognition as in the case with Kashmiri demands of self-rule, this battle will enter the world stage with the media of the globe watching the ebbs and tides of victories and defeats between a growing militancy of the Balochis against the power of the Pakistani army. If this happens the Pakistani army will be hamstrung in using unconventional and inhuman methods to subdue the Balochis and may enter into the halls of the Security Council on [its] legitimacy for independence thereby adding another chapter to [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah's "unfulfilled vision".
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 24, '05)


I don't know where Joeann lives (probably San Francisco) but I live in Houston (the belly of the beast) and I completely disagree with her opinion that [US President George W] Bush is doing everything without the support of the American people [letter, Mar 23]. That is like saying that [German leader Adolf] Hitler did everything on his own. The majority of the people in the United States support the policies of Bush or he wouldn't be able to get away with what he is doing. Is Bush manipulating Americans by appealing to the worst in them (their racism, arrogance, greed and willful ignorance which they seem to be proud of)? Yes. But if Americans didn't possess those qualities, he wouldn't be able to do it. You could say, "What about all the people who voted for [John] Kerry, they don't support Bush's policies?" Wrong. The only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is for abortion. Bush could not appoint the people he has appointed or pass any of the policies like tax cuts for the rich and have budget deficits without the support of the Democrats. I would like to know what representatives Joeann is talking about when she says they are working to defeat Bush's bad policies. If the people didn't support Bush's policies, there would be a revolution Bush isn't the one torturing people and taking pictures of it. He might have ordered it but he isn't doing it. Bush hasn't changed anything about America. He represents what we are. We don't even try to hide it anymore. Just ask native Americans, African-Americans or Mexicans what they think about our "good American values". The constitution is a wonderful document and it would be great if we ever followed it. That document has never gotten in the way of us doing what we need to do. I feel sorry for Joeann because I know it is painful to have your illusions crushed. It was hard for me also. In order to do anything about the situation we are in, we have to look at things the way they really are, not the way we wish they were and were taught they were. The fact is that we Americans are doing bad things and just because others are too doesn't make it right. Blaming the media, Bush or the right wing is the easy way to dodge our responsibility. We all need to look in the mirror. Other countries are not going to help us and it is not their responsibility. They are too worried about protecting themselves from us to think about helping us. The reality of the situation is that either we can appeal to our fellow Americans to really practice what they preach or we will have to be stopped the same way the Nazis were. The problem is that there are not many examples in history where appeals to reason and goodness have worked, and we are way more powerful than the Nazis ever were.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 24, '05)


In response to the letter from Joeann (Mar 23), I offer this insight: In the final years of my employment at a major US defense contractor (Northrop Grumman), I was concerned about the many issues mentioned in Joeann's letter. I worked in an engineering section with over 400 technically educated people and I often took casual conversational surveys of the opinions of my many acquaintances. More than 70% of these people believe in George Bush and his policies. In some cases, such as going to war with Iraq, the consensus was over 90%. These people are typical US citizens and are the result of US education and propaganda. They do not care about anything "foreign" to the US mindset, and are interested only in their wasteful lifestyle and cheap gasoline for their 4x4 [four-wheel-drive] pickup trucks and 300-horsepower bass boats. As much as I would like to confirm Joeann's letter, I'm afraid it just is not so. She is absolutely correct in stating that these people are destroying the USA. But they are doing it with the consent of an ill-informed and culturally deficient population.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 24, '05)


Although I have no issue with Vincent Maadi's personal conviction (letter, Mar 23), I take issue with his view on history and its actors. Before Islam came into being in the 7th century (Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia in 610), large parts of North Africa and Asia Minor were Christian (Catholic and/or Orthodox), animistic or of other faiths. In 711, the Muslim invasion of Iberia (Spain) started at the Battle of Guadalete. By 718, they [Muslims] had conquered large parts of modern-day Spain. Part of the Christian populace was converted by force (called the Muladi), while others embraced the new faith (called the Renegades) and fought against their former brethren. Successive waves of Muslim rulers/invaders came in the form of the Almoravids and the Almohads, each successively more intolerant and suppressive. At the other end of Europe, by force and/or persuasion, the Muslim armies took over nations like Egypt, which was Coptic Christian. By 1094, pope Urban II received an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus for military assistance against the Turks in Anatolia. In addition, the Seljuk Turks were constricting the pilgrimage of Christians to Jerusalem, in part to help heal the rift between the Catholic Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople from 1054, and in part to divert the internal squabbling between the feudal lords - it would be opportune for men-at-arms to help liberate Jerusalem. They reached Jerusalem in June 1099, and after a month-long siege they broke through, massacring the majority of the inhabitants - Muslim, Christian, and Jewish alike. In South Asia (today's Pakistan and India), the Muslim invasion began from the 8th century. When the Mughals finally consolidated their empire, the whole of India was almost completely under Muslim rule, especially during the rule of Aurangzeb (from 1658-1707), who called himself "The Scourge of the Kafirs" (non-believers). After his death, the Mughal Empire soon ended under the guns of a nominal Christian power, the British Empire. Any power, regardless of religion, has [its] megalomaniac moments. When involved parties recognize the futility and barbarity of wars and force, we can then hope for peace and goodwill to humanity. Just as the powers past invoked religion and manifest destiny, Americans now invoke democracy and freedom for their own purposes. They, like others before them, have overlooked their own faults and choose to do only what they deem correct. If you, like them, fail to recognize both the bad and good parts of both your histories, both of you will inevitably be locked in a tragic embrace doomed to repeat the past.
DVeri (Mar 24, '05)


Note: On March 17, Asia Times Online posted a Speaking Freely contribution by Verghese Mathews, a former Singaporean ambassador to Cambodia, titled Cambodian political road show. On March 18, Cambodian Senator Ung Bun-Ang responded on this page to that article. To read Mathews' response to Ung Bun-Ang's response, please click here. - ATol  (Mar 23, '05)


I refer to the article The US vision for Musharraf by Praveen Swami (Mar 23). Look, Praveen, I have just one thing to tell you, we Muslims will never accept secularization, especially not now when Americans are becoming fundamentalist Christians, Jews have become fundamentalist Zionists, Indians have become fanatic Hinduists [sic] (remember Ayodyah and Gujarat), and American ruling classes have become Wild West capitalists. No amount of preaching by these, who are sinners themselves against humanity, is going to convince us to change our beliefs. America can create Musharrafs and keep cloning him over and over but it will not make a dent in our belief. Islam and Muslims did not start the conflicts - forget the history written by gutter journalists in popular newspapers and books - it was Catholic Europe that declared war on Muslims, it was Christian Europe that started the major wars and it is America that has been involved in 40 conflicts around the world since it was born some 200 years ago not including the massacres of the indigenous American people. Call us jihadists, call us fundamentalists, fabricate [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi and al-Qaeda or whatever fancies your mind, we do not feel any guilt because we know who the real warmongers are.
Vincent Maadi (Mar 23, '05)

Well ... there was that little incident involving New York and the Pentagon three and a half years ago. You can make a chicken-and-egg argument that September 11, 2001, did not "start" any conflict, but it is fallacious to claim that extremism and violence have no part in Islam as it is practiced by some, and evidently condoned by many, today. The cycle of violence will never be broken as long as those inside it refuse to accept their portion of responsibility for it. - ATol


Regarding The Jihadis of Penzance [Mar 22]: Priceless! Encore! Encore! Yet altogether too true.
George (Mar 23, '05)


The article by Pepe Escobar [Shocked and awed into 'freedom', Mar 22] on the corruption in Iraq is absolutely a complete corruption of the truth.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Burke (Mar 23, '05)

Thanks for setting us straight. - ATol


A fine article by Chalmers Johnson [The real 'China threat', Mar 19]. Chalmers methodically made his points in a logical and substantive manner. I have always felt that the good old USA has a knack of making [the] wrong friends and propping [up] regimes that seem to come back to haunt them. The USA should recognize that China is a developing country. There is tremendous disparity within China between the urban centers and the rural areas. For the USA and some others, to expect China to manage her affairs like a developed country is to expect a shopkeeper to take on Wal-Mart. Just because China was able to send an astronaut into space or has missiles to protect herself does not made China a superpower. China in the past had been humiliated. All China wants is to regain its self-respect and it is self-serving for some countries to deny China her rightful place in our global village.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 23, '05)


After I read the excellent article by Chalmers Johnson, The real 'China threat' [Mar 19], my immediate reaction is that the usual bunch of China critics will jump on him with all kinds of foolish remarks. I don't think Mr Johnson has to stoop to debate these guys. It is so refreshing to read such scholarly and thoughtful viewpoints that should give food to diplomatic establishments all over the world.
Seung Li (Mar 23, '05)


"The Pakistan-Iran nuclear cooperation saga underscores that countries have neither permanent friends nor enemies - only permanent interests. - Sudha Ramachandran (Mar 17, '05)" So what else is new?
Fred Moore (Mar 23, '05)

We tend to hope that people will read more than the index-page summary to find out what is "new". To do so, click on the link ('Brothers' in arms).  - ATol


I write this letter in response to Frank's letter dated March 22. Frank writes: "If you replace 'dogs' in these sentences with 'English-speaking Indians', it is like reading a history review. Rachel just proved my points of comparison. For some white people who cannot find true equal friends, or who prefer to treat their friends on master-slave bases, dogs may be their best alternatives." I want to ask Frank, why does he hates Indians so much? If according to him "English-speaking Indians" are dogs, what does he thinks of himself, for he himself is using English for writing the most fanciful letters to ATol. Further I want to ask him what he is doing in Seattle in an English-speaking white man's country? I guess Frank does not have any white man as his friend, for they treat their friends in a master-slave basis. If Frank indeed has any white friend, what is his status, like master or slave?
Pushpen
India (Mar 23, '05)


As ATol seems to be getting many letters on dogs, why don't you open a separate section called "Dog's Corner" and place Frank's "musings" in there? You can sanitize the Letters section and allow the patrons of ATol to roam around freely without contracting rabies.
Kannan (Mar 23, '05)


While it is quite entertaining to see Frank (Seattle) so soundly imitating the animals he claims to despise, I am writing to ask something about what Joseph Nagarya wrote in his letter (Mar 22): "'Dogs are the only animals on the planet preferring the company of man to one of their own kind.' And no better illustration and condemnation of a dog's judgment could be uttered." Well, well. Everyone should stick to their own kind, right? What next? A woman marrying outside her race is a traitor to the race? For your information, dogs are pack animals too, like the wolves. And they are just as territorial as the modern-day Chinese imperialists. That is why they fight other dogs - for females and for territory. They don't have any fears of humans stealing their mates or their food supply. Why shouldn't they feel good around humans?
Brij (Mar 23, '05)


I wonder if Frank thinks all of the people buried in the Great Wall of China valued the equal friendship they had with the people who worked them to death while building it?
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 23, '05)


I never thought I would write a letter to "clarify" for Frank. On March 21, Rachel Hassold wrote to criticize Frank for his "racist comments" about the Chinese people. I may have missed something here but it looks to me that Frank was just trying to send a message that although he can be critical of Indians for their perceived "faults", the Chinese will not be exempted from his criticisms as well. Please do not get me wrong, I appreciate Ms Hassold's defense of the Chinese, but her anger [is] misdirected. By the way, I would like to ask Frank if dyeing of hair by Chinese women (including men) to look like "whites" can be considered acts of "dogs"?
DC
Singapore (Mar 23, '05)


Frank, your vision (as well as your views) is as usual myopic. I never use a color - white, green, or purple - to describe people, so your comment about dogs and their "white" masters is ludicrous. If you stood on Chang An with notebook in hand and asked Chinese people who passed by to state their views on this thing or that thing and if you proceeded to share these views on Asia Times [Online], I could at least respect you even if I did not agree. But you spout nonsense instead. One thing that really amazes me about dogs is their heart. I witnessed a mixed-breed dog jump into raging floodwaters during a flood in Houston to rescue a child who had slipped from the roof of a car where she stood with her family hoping for assistance. The dog belonged to no one (he does now), but he put this child's life before his own, and he probably would have rescued your child without caring about color. History is filled with such acts and elevates this marvelous gift of nature to a status achieved by no other creature. 'Nuff said about dogs. Try to get to the Olympics in Beijing to see the real China - not the one you have created in your mind. Joseph [Nagarya, letter, Mar 22], if dogs didn't prefer the company of man to one of their own kind, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Or is it that you think so little of Homo sapiens that we are unworthy of this devotion? Regardless, we celebrate their contribution to those open to receiving it, and I hope now that we can move discussion to the theme of this outstanding forum.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Mar 23, '05)


I take offense not at Seattle Frank but at your editorial review or lack of it. Frank insists on using dog(s) as a default for "English-speaking Indians". Though we may all love dogs and I use it as my pseudonym, there may be very well others who are going to be offended by being labeled dogs. I believe Frank's letters have ceased to be of any intellectual interest and your editor's letter forum has started to become a back street for name-calling. Though you may be ready to publish whatever names I may call Frank, I have no intention of doing so. To other Indians, I say, Ignore Frank's irrelevant rant. Sometimes they say indifference is the best response. Let's move on.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Mar 23, '05)

Agreed. Dogs and similar faunic metaphors designed to offend are now banned from this page. - ATol


I want to assure the world that most of the American people do not agree with anything (US elections, Anwar, Schiavo, World Bank and UN appointments, Social Security reform, wars, world dominance, budget deficits, tax cuts for the wealthy, disrespect for other countries, disrespect for other cultures, torture, science, global warming, Creationism, right-wing religious nonsense, etc, etc - I don't know where to stop) that this administration [of US President George W Bush] is doing or saying. They are deceiving us and you. They are destroying our democracy and our rights as US citizens. They have no respect for our 200-year-old constitution. The biggest problem we face is that we are not heard. The press has abandoned the whole truth and we do not know what to do. Our representatives work very hard at trying to defeat bad policy. The right is somehow stronger, louder, and more able to get agreement on disastrous policy. We do not know what is going on. I ask the rest of the world to declare the USA a rogue state and help us get back our good American values. I think it will take other countries to help us out of this worldwide Bush administration-caused disaster.
Joeann (Mar 23, '05)

The responsibility for the kind of government the US has lies solely in the hands of the American people, and last November they re-elected the current administration. If you are one of those who believe that the blame for this lies in the system, be it voting machines, overly complex or mishandled voter registration, or a dysfunctional opposition party, it is still solely your responsibility to work for change. It's easy to blame the media, but in fact Americans have never had better access to information than they do now. - ATol


Every day I eagerly check your website. It's one of the best in the world for current events and analysis. Spengler's spoof of the Pirates of Penzance [The Jihadis of Penzance, Mar 22] still has me laughing! Henry Liu's columns are among the best I've ever read anywhere. He's stunningly brilliant. Your regular news stories and analysis [are] likewise deep and engaging. Just keep doing what you do!
Bertrand (Mar 22, '05)


I must admit that I had to stop after reading the third paragraph of Spengler's ripoff of Gilbert and Sullivan [The Jihadis of Penzance, Mar 22]. The reason was that even my Eve rib could not contain its guffawing. And as anyone who does not have an Eve rib in his body knows, it hurts to guffaw. Seriously now ATol, did you really pay a stipend to Spengler for that side-splitting lame attempt at opera bouffe?
ADeL (Mar 22, '05)

Yes, but he must give us a cut of the proceeds after the opera hits Broadway. - ATol


I refer to the article Shocked and awed into 'freedom' [Mar 22] by Pepe Escobar. From the day the Americans invaded Iraq, we Muslims were under no illusions that Iraq would become free and prosperous. When even Americans themselves are not free and never were, how could we expect that Iraq would be free under American terrorism? It is the nature of the beast that Iraq or any other Third World country should never have peace and prosperity. America's politics, its economics, its technology and its internal and external policies are based on violence and subjugation. American consumers are subjugated through violence of advertising; the rest of the world too is subjugated through bribery and beatings to accept American dominance and superiority. American capitalism thrives in chaos and disorder. Iraq is an experiment in real life, as darker-skinned people are dispensable and experiments in chaos and its reaction can be carried out without any intervention from other countries. However, this American experiment is also breeding a new generation of Muslims who do not fear American power and are prepared to challenge and fight. The old guard in the Muslim countries, who were appeasing America and were falling over each other to serve American interests, are a dying breed. It may take time but Americans will be defeated ultimately.
Vincent Maadi (Mar 22, '05)


After reading the article The real 'China threat' [Mar 19] by Chalmers Johnson and all the letters regarding it, I see China is doing great in its development, which is step-by-step progress. I personally do not want to see it became anther Russia after the fall of communism with all sorts of problems. Once they (China) achieve [a] better level of progress and [become] financially strong they will be moving away from communism. We have to respect cultural and situation differences of each country of the world and we cannot impose [our] systems and will on each other. Which country in the world is 100% perfect and without problems? China too has problems and issues (ie mining accidents) and they must [work on improving this]. What about the high-school student in Minnesota, USA, [who] went on a shooting rampage on Monday killing eight ... in the best civilized country of the world? Right now it is the USA [that is] a greater threat to this world trying to impose its will. I wish Taiwan and China [would] find a civilized path to solve their differences.
Afaq Sher
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 22, '05)


I am afraid [Chrysantha] Wijeyasingha is suffering a mild befuddlement. Almost every point that he makes [letter, Mar 21] is a non sequitur. For instance, the huge numbers of mining disasters is neither proof for or against China's technological status but just a result of the magnitude of its mining sector, and in any case, China has not hidden the fact. The opposite is true, as China has always called itself a poor developing country. Another of his points is the fact the the USA is part of NATO and apparently has so many allies, but that China has not. It is true that China has no allies, but China has never sought allies. It is also true that the USA has always sought to fight with a retinue of camp followers, but China has not sought any one to fight with her. I would not put too much into the USA's camp followers of the said Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and India or even NATO because the USA will be very disappointed and so will Wijeyasingha. At the time of the collision between the Chinese jet and the US spy plane, the USA was reported to exclaim its disappointment at the support or rather the lack of support it received. The only support the USA received in Iraq was the UK but it may not even receive that the next time. Will NATO support the USA in China when it refused to support the USA in Iraq? I even doubt if Australia will summon up the courage to send troops to fight in China no matter what bribe it receives. I think Wijeyasingha will be well advised to pray for divine intervention ... I quote HL's letter [Mar 21] on [Chalmers] Johnson's article [The real 'China threat', Mar 19]: "Further, Mr Johnson seems to feel that appeasement is the only road." It appears to be the fashion to label anything that remotely favors China as "appeasement". Perhaps his reference to the submarine incident in relation to Japan is appeasement too? Johnson is as entitled to his opinion as HL is. Perhaps HL will correct me if I am wrong.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 22, '05)


I applaud the essay by Chalmers Johnson [The real 'China threat', Mar 19]. It's been a long time [since you had] an essay speaking from the PRC [People's Republic of China] perspective - objections by HL and the likes not withstanding. Mr Johnson is objective and fair in his assessment of China. I have one comment on Mr Johnson's essay: "He pointed out that China had never asked for reparations from Japan and that Japan's payments amounted to about $30 billion over 25 years, a fraction of the $80 billion Germany has paid to the victims of Nazi atrocities even though Japan is the more populous and richer country." The 91% of the $30 billion is in export loans, which China will repay penny for penny. To put the $30 billion in context, as reported by ATol, the US has approved a $5 billion export loan for a single nuclear-reactor deal alone with China. Here is my response to HL: 1) To HL's complain about the submarine issue - in 2002, Japan chased an unidentified vessel into China's territorial waters, opened fire and sank it. This is a deliberate provocation, whereas the submarine was an accident. Which do you consider more likely as declaration of war? 2) Japan has recklessly escalated its territorial demands to all of its North Asia neighbors - Korea, China and Russia in recent months. (Is it time for ATol to do an article on this development?) This is a result of its rearmament and US encouragement. The people of North Asia are vigilant to Japan's remilitarization, observing whether Japan intends to be the Germany after World War I or the Germany after World War II. The signs are very disturbing. Furthermore, given Japan's tenacious hold on its heinous past, talk of Japan's Security Council seat in the UN is certainly premature.
GongShi
USA (Mar 22, '05)

Re your point No 2, be sure to see the new ATol analyses Japan-South Korea ties on the rocks and Japan the spoiler in Northeast Asia. - ATol


The generally balanced piece by Emad McKay and Jim Lobe (Wolfowitz at the World Bank door [Mar 18]) was made unpleasant by the deeply flawed statement "... a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in US history ..." at the outset. This is simply false. I suspect the characterization to be intended propaganda - it diminishes ATol.
Jerry Girard (Mar 22, '05)

In what way is it "false"? Do you have inside information that Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, have nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or can you think of some other major conflicts started, or even joined, by the US that enjoyed less international support than this one? - ATol


Rachel Hassold wrote [letter, Mar 21]: "Dogs are the only animals on the planet preferring the company of white man to one of their own kind. Dogs, who attack other dogs, are usually bred to do so. They hunt for us, fight in our wars." If you replace "dogs" in these sentences with "English-speaking Indians", it is like reading a history review. Rachel just proved my points of comparison. For some white people who cannot find true equal friends, or who prefer to treat their friends on master-slave bases, dogs may be their best alternatives. I suggest Rachel read a Chinese book called Three Kingdoms. Then she will understand the best friends are supposed to be equal partners, not master and slaves. Actually, both Shanghai and Shenzhen are planning to build Guan Gong's statues larger than the Statue of Liberty. That is because Chinese people value the equal friendship more than a master-salve relation. Let me ask you, Rachel: Do you think you are equal to your dogs? Or do you think dogs are always dogs? They cannot be masters.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 22, '05)


Rachel Hassold writes [letter, Mar 21]: "Dogs are the only animals on the planet preferring the company of man to one of their own kind." And no better illustration and condemnation of a dog's judgment could be uttered.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 22, '05)


It is obvious from his [Mar 19] article The real 'China threat' that Chalmers Johnson is blinded by his adoration for the Beijing autocrats and his religious devotion to his "Blowback" thesis. He sides with the Chinese on the 2001 EP-3 incident but, although he does mention it, fails to be critical of China's recent invasion of Japanese territorial waters with a submarine, which is essentially an act of war. Does China have "legitimate claims" to Okinawa? Who is provoking [whom]? Johnson praises China's economic miracle and prattles on bizarrely about its more masculine population but doesn't reveal China's most significant internal challenges, like a rapidly growing gap between rich and poor, the rampant spread of AIDS and hepatitis among hundreds of millions, and the environmental catastrophe that its economy is creating. Johnson lauds China's deals with Iran, Brazil and Venezuela but doesn't reveal that they are by no means sufficient to feed its thirst for energy resources nor fuel its economy to grow to the future economic milestones that he cites. Johnson neglects to even mention Russia's role in the tensions between China and Japan, particularly in regard to the competition for its oil pipeline, which Japan seems to be winning. Of course China is [a] growing power, but let's put in perspective the challenges it faces and that it is indeed capable of doing such "evil" as acting unilaterally to get what it wants.
HL
Hong Kong (Mar 21, '05)


I was disappointed with the quality of the Chalmers Johnson article ATol published [titled] The real 'China threat' [Mar 19]. The article is replete with factual errors and with Mr Johnson's own political views camouflaged as "facts". Perhaps worse, Mr Johnson fundamentally misunderstands or intentionally mischaracterizes the views of Japan, Taiwan and the US. Further, Mr Johnson seems to feel that appeasement is the only road, even though policies of appeasement are substantially responsible for World War II being a conflagration in Europe rather than a minor battle.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 21, '05)


The article about the growing power of China [The real 'China threat', Mar 19] is well written with some glaring omissions. First of all China is a communist nation with no free press. It is easy for the Chinese government to sing about her growth and power but the voices of dissension are not there, thereby leaving the outside observer with half-truths. For one example, given China's technological and economical growth she has the worst mining record in the world. Almost every other day one hears of a mining accident. This just gives a tiny peek into the fortress. Another article records 58,000 major revolts in China, I believe in 2003. But that was not officially reported. Her economy, though growing at stellar rates, is still dependent on foreign markets, the biggest being the US and EU, which [are] part of the NATO alliance. Any major war with the US will bring in powerful allies that the US has been fostering for decades, allies not just centered in the West but forming a "necklace" around China ready to [strangle] her - nations like the rearming of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even India. Does China have any powerful military alliances across the globe like the US? Pakistan for instance? the relationship with Pakistan is a one-way road - it serves Pakistan, but if China was in trouble Pakistan would not be capable of helping her out. North Korea? They are practically starving their citizens in order to prop up their military. Not a very sound nation for a military ally. Russia? I doubt very much if Russia will join China against the Western and Eastern powers who will contribute in their manner to this enormous war. The USA has never gone into a major war without the support of allies. This can be said about World Wars I and II and even the war in Iraq. China's power is not a monolith that wouldn't crumble under a full-scale attack from the US and her allies. Furthermore, after the war there would be a good chance that the business the US does with China will be relegated to other money-hungry nations like India, the rebuilding of Taiwan and even a resurgent Japan. China's factories will be wanting of work from the world and her stellar growth trajectory will see a steep decline. Even her government's iron-hand grip may fail, leaving renegade regions like Tibet and Xianxing to ask for more autonomy and probably get it.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 21, '05)


I have been an avid reader of your newspaper for quite some time. However, it was with mild horror and great amusement that I recently read your article title The real 'China threat' [Mar 19]. I was amused both at the lack of novel news items in this article and at the "objective" commentary sprinkled throughout the body of the text. As I assume your readership avidly follows recent developments in Asian politics, I find it appalling that you would publish an article with accurate facts albeit so obviously biased analysis. Please be more mindful of what you publish in the future. Personal commentaries should not be published as analysis (or unlabelled, as this article was) as they will serve solely to mislead the public, a goal that I assume is anathema to your role as a newspaper. I look forward and hopefully towards more balanced articles in the future.
Christopher Liu (Mar 21, '05)


"No wonder that, behind their angry rhetoric, Taiwan's independence supporters are smirking." Laurence Eyton, having lived in Taiwan for 18 years, must know something. So I am taking his assertion that "Taiwan's independence supporters are smirking" seriously, although it is clear that the said "independence supporters" are truly befuddled if they are indeed smirking [Taiwan independence forces rejoice, Mar 19]. The situation is so serious that it is time the Taiwanese started putting their thinking caps on. What is Taiwan going to gain in stirring the pot at this juncture? Will it gain a place in the UN? Will it gain the support of East Asia, never mind the rest of the world? Will the defeat of China, which must the result if Taiwan is to gain the upper hand, be a good thing for Chinese people everywhere, including Taiwan? The answer is no. Any conflict between the two will only bring more misfortune for all Chinese, as if they have not had enough for 200 years, for a further 200 years. I hope that we will all be patient and think clearly and let time provide the correct solution. Remember, History will never forgive any rash moves by anyone. "[Frank] Yeo goes on to assume that Brij is Christian and is alarmed about India threatening Pakistan by amassing troops near the border." I apologize but I fear that I must refer to the quotation from Sri's letter [Mar 18], which is completely mystifying. If he will read it again, perhaps he will recant, but I fear that he may be muddled and may continue to delude himself. I shall state categorically that I did not write anything like that. As a result of the length of his muddled writing, I am refraining from reading any more of his piece.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 21, '05)


Laurence Eyton in his Taiwan independence forces rejoice (Mar 18) presented his views intended to please the "independent forces" but misconstrued the grand design of [mainland China's] Anti-Secession Law. The present Taipei government can say one thing on a certain day and something else on another day, as evidenced by [the] record over many years. The reason is, it seizes on a deadly fixation on the short-term US interest in the status quo. Beijing, on the other hand, has no alternative but to protect its sovereignty and uphold the fervent desire for reunification on the part of the overwhelming majority of 1.3 billion Chinese people. Of course passage of this law upsets the less than 20% of Taiwanese who then must make some noise in response. However, the rest are smart enough not to join them; nor [will] the lip service paid by some pan-blue legislators (who have an eye for future elections) bring about passage of the weapons-purchase budget. So on the surface, the Anti-Secession Law, as argued by Mr Eyton, is not a "tactful" thing to do. But on something so supremely important for the Chinese people, which many outside observers still fail to appreciate, the factor of tact is the last thing to consider.
David (Mar 21, '05)


Had [Verghese Mathews] delayed his article Cambodian political road show (Mar 17) for a few days, he might have been not so strong in his contention that Cambodia was doing well - [that] it was "freer" than Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. On March 16, the World Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, and the Asian Development Bank jointly released a report, "Connecting East Asia: A New Framework for Infrastructure", which may offer a different picture for Cambodia. In the infrastructure report that assesses the current access of the populations of each country in East Asia to clean water, toilets or latrines, electricity, roads, and the Internet, Cambodia fares the worst - yes, worse than Laos, even though the ranking Mathews relies on may suggest otherwise. It seems there are some people who, perhaps unwittingly, condemn Cambodia to eternal poverty by lowering their expectation on Cambodian government performance. It has been argued, and bragged by the current government, that Cambodia now is better than when it was under the Khmer Rouge. If that is an acceptable excuse, it will be sad for Cambodia - any monkey could have done the same thing, if not better.
Au Maya (Mar 21, '05)


Just [as] Chietigj Bajpaee mentioned in the article India, China locked in energy game [Mar 17], China and India face similar secessionist [movements] inside their borders. I agree with Sri from New York [letter, Mar 18] that non-Indian people should not interfere with the independence movements inside India. I hope Indians can also extend the same courtesy to China. That was what I had been whining [about] for months. Why it is so hard for Indians to understand that they should treat others the same way they want to be treated? Too much Western hypocrisy education?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 21, '05)


A discourse about dogs is not something I would normally post on ATimes, but old Frank from Seattle has really torqued me off in his response to Karan Awtani ([letter] Mar 18). Frank, nothing I can say will make you less negative about just about everything in life because some people are just wired to see the glass as half-empty, and that's your choice. As far as dogs go, I have owned, trained, and shown dogs (and horses) all of my life. I own an International Grand Champion Doberman as well as three mixed breeds, so I know a thing or two about the species. Dogs are the only animals on the planet preferring the company of man to one of their own kind - which is why "man's best friend" has been treasured pet, companion, and protector since the time of King Tut. Dogs in ancient times were mummified and buried in order to accompany their owners to the Kingdom. Don't cast aspersions on Chinese people who love their dogs like everyone else. There are over 153,000 pet dogs in [Beijing] alone and a multibillion-dollar industry to cater to them. Read China Daily where an article appeared two weeks ago describing the burgeoning pet-care businesses. Dogs who attack other dogs are usually bred to do so (pit [bulls]) - and it was humans who developed these instincts for their purposes. Dogs "wagging their tails for a piece of bone"? Dogs wag their tails to show pleasure, and since dogs are domesticated animals and not predators, it is necessary that we feed them. Dogs perform more services to make life better, safer and easier for humans than any other animal. They hunt for us, protect and guard our children, lead the blind and infirm, fight in our wars, detect drugs and bombs, and recently it was discovered that dogs can detect cancer in their owners. The list is endless. If you are the first person in the history of the world to know what dogs dream about, write a book. We'd all like to know. Your racist comments about Chinese people are detestable, and in my humble opinion, so are you.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Mar 21, '05)


G M Fisher [letter Mar 18] is quite correct about Australia and [East] Timor. The reason? We [Australia] are a very racist nation. We never considered at our most recent elections, in 2004. our "invasion" of Iraq, nor our extremely inequitable treatment of Timor. These have never became political issues. People simply do not care. Timor was an Australian first effort at playing heroes. Apart from the Boer War, we've never really attacked anyone before on an unpremeditated basis until recently in Iraq. Moving on to our Timor effort, was Australia motivated by gas deals and the long-term potential or was it a humanitarian effort, as sold to the general populace? Then again, later on didn't we become interested in Iraq because it had energy potential in the form of oil? Wasn't that oil previously priced in euros under Saddam Hussein rather than the sacred and now dying US dollar? Could Australia have been the very junior partner in a deal to capture "energy" at the lowest price possible for the West? As I once read on an informative website, "It's the oil, stupid."
Ian C Purdie
Budgewoi, Australia (Mar 21, '05)


Re Tibet. Neither [did] chauvinism ever attract results nor words ever alter the reality of history. If then Shekhar ([letter] Mar 14) is oblivious [to] the likely results of any future Indian [attack] on Pakistan, I am glad the leaders of that country are not and are moving towards peace and cooperation throughout South Asia. As for Brij (Mar 14), perhaps he can make us wiser as to when and how India got united into one country from a conglomeration of ever-feuding principalities or petty kingdoms. After all, it was not many centuries ago. However, more importantly, in an increasingly interdependent world, would it not be better that apart from intellectual discussions, we actively endeavor to increase areas of mutual understanding, cooperation and interaction rather than try [to] demolish the few bridges that exist between the peoples and governments of the world? I hope my call will not be in vain. As for China, all Pakistanis are grateful to that great country and people, as also to all other nations of the world, including the USA, who have continuously provided economic and or security assistance all throughout our history since independence.
Iqbal F Quadir
Karachi, Pakistan (Mar 21, '05)


I just wanted to let you know that I really love your website and content. Huge applause to everyone at Asia Times [Online]!
Frankie Bishop (Mar 21, '05)

[Re] Maoist deal to sideline Nepal's king [Mar 18]: Please note that the king of Nepal did not remove the elected government on February 1. [Sher Bahadur] Deuba was appointed by the king himself. Deuba was the head of a party, not a parliamentarian, which is must to be prime minister under normal conditions and to head the elected government. I have found that many media, like yours, do not possess correct knowledge about Nepal's reality. They wrote what they heard from deceiving persons. Hope you will attempt to present facts and realities, not [hearsay].
Samal Chandrabanshi (Mar 18, '05)


It is most regrettable that Verghese Mathews chose to change only the title of his interesting article from "Cambodia's continuing crisis" (Straits Times, March 5) to Cambodian political road show when he republished it in Asia Times Online on March 17. He could have used the opportunity to add a better set of statistics to reflect a better picture of Cambodia - then again, they may not support his contention that "... Cambodia has done well, and it is fair to say that for Cambodia, every year since the Paris Peace Agreement of 1991 has been better than the preceding one." No, it is not fair to say that. The Index of Economic Freedom he totally depends on may not suggest at all what he says. First, the latest figure of the Index he refers to does not indicate in any way an improvement in Cambodia year by year. The author could have presented some comparative statistics to back up his claim of the annual advance. Second, if the article is talking about a laissez-faire economy, the Index may be right to indicate that Cambodia is freer than Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. Everyone, including the ex-Singapore ambassador, knows very well that in Cambodia with enough money one can find the right network; and from then on, one is free to do whatever one feels like without facing any consequence. Perhaps the ex-ambassador to Cambodia may like to consider another set of human-development indicators published up to late last year by the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP), the World Bank, the IMF [International Monetary Fund], and the Asian Development Bank; these institutions have been overseeing changes in Cambodia in the past decade, perhaps more closely than the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. According to these indicators, Cambodia has not been benefiting much from foreign grants and loans that have run into US$5 billion for the past 10 years. More Cambodians are now living under the poverty line that has been redefined to make the depressing figures more palatable. For Cambodia, the definition of poverty line was lowered from a generally accepted $1 per person per day to a mere 50 cents. The latest figures suggest 42% of them are living under the redefined poverty line, while the gap between the rich and the poor has been widening. The infant-mortality rate has risen from 136 per thousand to 142 per thousand in the last five years, while the rate for Thailand is estimated to be only about 30-40 per thousand. Adult illiteracy has reached over 60% of the population. The only major indicator that has been traveling down south is the rate of secondary-school enrollment - within the last decade it has dropped from 32% to below 30%. The lesson on not being a donor-funded country Verghese Mathews wisely wants other countries to learn from Cambodia is basically sound, but unfortunately incomplete. Perhaps the public relations machinery of the opposition party could have been more effective to convince the former Singapore ambassador to Cambodia that the [underlying] objective of the opposition's role has been to help make sure that those foreign grants and loans are better used for the benefit of more Cambodians, not just a select few. This may or may not include - as the ex-ambassador puts it - "a collective nationalistic fervor bent on quickly redressing the situation". Even His Majesty the King Father claims Cambodia has become a beggar nation living on handouts. And a fair assessment of the current government's economic and social policies could perhaps suggest that the ruling parties have no real vision to develop the country beyond the beggar-handout mentality. It seems they have only political won't, not will.
Ung Bun-Ang
Senator
Phnom Penh, Cambodia (Mar 18, '05)


Re Canberra bullies Timor over sea boundaries [Mar 17] by Bob Burton: I am Australian and ashamed, deeply ashamed, by my government's bullying of East Timor. It is a national disgrace that a First World country rips off the poorest country in the region. We too are ruled by neo-cons at this time; it ain't gonna (sic) last!
G M Fisher (Mar 18, '05)


Siddharth Srivastava's The Indian boy who cried 'NASA' [Mar 17] suggests that there is an outsourcing backlash in the US because "the Indian media and community have a habit of talking too much about their achievements". Actually, at about this time last year, there was a brief period where US employment was not growing even though the economy was coming out of recession. Must have been a slow news period, because all the major magazines and newspapers joined the chorus of jobless recovery, outsourcing of white-collar jobs, etc. The numbers changed, and the issue dropped out of the foreground. Meanwhile, there is a school of thought that says this made outsourcing respectable and even mandatory for every CEO in the country. A quick Google search pulls up a June 2004 quote by an outsourcing company in New York: "During the last six to nine months, we have received millions of dollars of free advertising."
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Mar 18, '05)


The nut from Seattle and his slightly saner namesake from Halifax must be feeling surprised and thrilled that their crude attack-dog tactics has yielded some success. Siddharth Srivastava took his pants down and bent over to accommodate their viewpoints [The Indian boy who cried 'NASA', Mar 17]. So a kid lied about the NASA [US National Aeronautics and Space Administration] test and the Indian media went to town before verifying the facts? Isn't that the malaise that affects mainstream media in every free (both you Franks note the word - free) country today? Under immense pressure from the "anything goes" Internet, cable networks, blogs, shareholders and barbaric lust for ratings and advertising moolah, factual reporting takes a back seat to crass sensationalism, half-truths and getting out the "breaking news" first. Is this NASA caper remotely comparable to the US media, which campaigned for [President George W] Bush's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq and the cover-up over Pakistan's illegal nuclear black-market dealings which has given terrorists deadly opportunities, the fruits of which we hope never to see but I am sure in the unfortunate future we will? Such pressures are not felt in China, where the media [are] told exactly what to say. How does that prove Frank's whine about Indians was true? Siddharth, have you ever read what this "have pen, will scribble illegibly" lunatic has had to say? He talks about independence movements in Tamil Nadu, Assam, Nagaland, Kashmir fighting an "expansionist", totalitarian, heavy-handed Indian government? If Sudha Ramachandran observes that India should compute investment pouring in using the same equation that China does, then he cannot digest the fact that investment into India jumps up significantly and accuses her of using "two lips" to up India's figures. Obviously no one should come close to dear red China or question "their version of the truth". [Frank] Yeo goes on to assume that Brij is Christian and is alarmed about India threatening Pakistan by amassing troops near the border. The facts that these two gents talk about are the ones that they see through their jaundiced eyes and not what is on the ground. India is facing secessionist movements from fringe elements in the northeast that [have] links to China, Bangladesh and Pakistan and the lovable, all-conquering missionaries, which any fool with an academic interest in facts can find on the Internet. There has never been oppression, subjugation or pogroms by the government in any of these states. What China is doing to Tibet compares to a medieval conquest. No one should question the claims of China over Tibet and Taiwan, otherwise you are pushing China to the brink. Isn't that saber-rattling? They implore that nobody should interfere in an internal matter of China. Isn't that lovely? But they will utter barefaced lies about secessionist movements in India and you should take it ... Siddharth was so easily rattled that he believed that Frank, who until recently kept comparing Indians to an animal which is probably his favorite food, was right on the mark about loud-mouthed Indians, all because of a media incident ...
Sri
New York, USA (Mar 18, '05)


I have not been much interested in the letters between Frank of Seattle and his admonishers until today. As an American, I feel that we meddle far too much in the affairs of others, but something in Frank's letter [of Mar 17] rang true for me. During my two trips to India, there are two Indians who, besides the Indians I was associated with in regards to the purpose of my trip, stand out clearly in my mind. One of the Indians was a young man, barely out of his teens, who managed a McDonald's (with clean ice and coffee!) while at the same time studying at an Indian university under a load of 17 hours in one of India's large cities that I spent part of my time in. His store was kept immaculately clean and efficiently run and he was very friendly and upbeat. I can't tell you the amount of respect I have for him. I asked him if he was going to come to America after he finished his studies, where he could receive a well-paying job and the comforts that such a position would lend itself to. He replied that he would not because India was his home and where his heart was and that he intended to use his education for the benefit of his country.The other Indian who stands out in my mind was the Indian who ran the computer store where I sent e-mails back home from. This young man was also friendly but he had an ulterior motive for his friendliness, as I learned when he asked me if it would be possible for me to sponsor him in America. Looking back on it, if America has even a large handful of young people like the young man working at McDonald's in India, America's future will be bright, and if America's youth as a whole were to adhere to a similar devotion to their own country in the same manner as that young man working at McDonald's in India, America's future will be ensured.
Beth Bowden (Mar 18, '05)


Karan Awtani [letter, Mar 17] was not fair with me. Dogs will attack anybody including their own kinds under the command of their masters. Dogs follow their masters around wiggling their tails for a piece of bone. Dogs mimic their masters all the time and dream about one day they can be masters too. However, none of the dogs can become equal with their masters by just wiggling their tails. Chinese people regard those people without pride, dignity, and self-respect as dogs. Not just those English-speaking Indians, there are many Chinese can also be regarded as dogs. However, those "dogs" in China do not have positions, social or economic status as leaders or elites. Those Chinese are too ashamed of themselves to voice their dog opinions at ATol. If they did, I would not hesitate to call those disgusting Chinese, dogs too. About Santosh's comments [Mar 17] about my micro-celebrity status, I am happy that ATol can give me the opportunities to express my opinions. However, I hope ATol can block my letters and leave more room for articles and letters from those Chinese writers and readers living in China and Taiwan. I will be happy just filling the gaps.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 18, '05)


"China is out of control and efforts need to be made to reel them in, something like the US starting to balance the trade deficit, that would make China cry and then listen." I quote Scott Baker [letter, Mar 17] to make sure t really understand him. It reminds me of [Lord] Balfour's statement to the British parliament just before he embarked on the Opium War, viz that China needs a whack on the shoulder blades now and again. Baker should be flattered that I compare him [to] one of Britain's prime ministers, but I hope that I make myself clear that I also number Balfour among a breed of racists. If China is exporting more fish than Thailand, it is only natural, because China is bigger than Thailand. For Baker's information, the US trade deficit with China is of the US's makings solely. It is the US [that is] chasing lower and lower prices and that is what they get in China. As to making China cry, does not Baker agree that the US should practice making some Iraqis cry to see if it works?
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 18, '05)


Siddharth Srivastava has written sensibly about The Indian boy who cried 'NASA' [Mar 17]. He has mentioned "Frank", which could be a reference to me. I have not written much anywhere, but I have mentioned that Indians tend to "boast", a word I borrowed from someone else in the forum. In the UK, there is constant euphoria from the Indian community about Indian achievement. One BBC newsreader said on BBC-TV, "What would we do without the Indian entrepreneurs?" What indeed - would be we begging humanitarian aid from India and Indians? Another journalist called Alibhai Brown boasted about he jobs created by Indian businessmen, about 35,000 jobs apparently, and got no thanks! So we are to thank the Indian community for making money so easily in the UK? As regards China, which was also mentioned, and Chinese achievements in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore? These are still second-class and I do not and would not boast about them. Japan, the USA, Germany, France, the UK and many other countries are still much superior in their achievements. I am ashamed, in fact. I hope the Chinese remember this and work for and wait for greater achievements before we even start to think about talking about it.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 17, '05)

Siddharth Srivastava was referring to Frank of Seattle. - ATol


I appreciate that Siddharth Srivastava read my letters and replied with a full article, The Indian boy who cried 'NASA' [Mar 17]. I hope other Indian writers can pay more attention to their readers' comments too. I agree with Siddharth mostly. However, I hope Indian kids can have larger dreams than just topping a NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] test. They should be proud of just being Indians, speaking Indian languages and topping an India test. They should not be taught [that a] white people's test is better than an Indian test, white people's system is better than an Indian system, or white people's language is better than an Indian language. Otherwise, they will all grow up happy to be servants for whites.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 17, '05)


[Re] The Indian boy who cried 'NASA' [Mar 17]: What exactly was the point that [Siddhardt] Srivastava trying to convey? Was it about lazy journalists or Indian attitudes or income disparity? If it is about lazy or incompetent journalists, let us start with Mr Srivastava's piece. He writes, "In a matter of days Saurav [Singh] was being feted by the non-resident Indian community, a congratulatory note was sent by Indian President A P J Abdul Kalam, a renowned scientist, with a request that he would personally like to meet the boy." This gives an impression that A P J Abdul Kalam met with the boy. Did the president of India meet with a hoaxer or did he not? The news item in this link seems to indicate that both the president and the prime minister had appointments with the boy but canceled at the last minute. One would have assumed that a piece on media credibility and fact-checking would have at least have facts cross-checked and presented accurately. Is Mr Srivastava too lazy to do basic cross-checking or write text with no ambiguities or misleading statements? If it is about other things, then India is not very different from any other country in the world. The bell curve passes through all sections of the society, all cultures in the world. A parent's aspirations for their children is not very different in US or Russia. Hoaxes are perpetrated all over the world. A majority of journalists all over the world are too lazy to do any actual reporting. They will write up what they are fed (eg Judith Miller, New York Times, [Ahmad] Chalabi and Iraq war). Frank of Seattle should be happy, he is becoming a micro-celebrity. Imagine what some extended whining and ranting can achieve. ATimes editors - hope you would exercise slightly better quality control and spare us silly musings from your columnists.
Santosh (Mar 17, '05)


I think it would be best to get some things clear here. This whole nonsense that was started by Frank's calling Indians dogs has really gone far enough and now the whole issue has been muddled by half-truths and outright lies. DP [letter, Mar 16] said that Assam is trying to fight and get away from Indian rule, and then he accuses India of being a Hindu fascist state. This is really surprising since if India was a Hindu fascist state it would probably be to the Assamese's liking - most people of Assam are not rebelling against India, a small minority is. And that minority is fighting to kick out Muslims and Bangladeshis from Assam. Now you would think that if India was a proto-Hindu fascist state it would be allied with these groups such as ULFA [United Liberation Front of Assam]. Instead ULFA finds refuge and allies in the likes of Bangladesh and the Islamist movement there. How bizarre! The fact is that if India really wanted to unleash a tide of Hindu imperialism then there would be large-scale ethnic cleansing and movement of populations that has never been seen in history. Instead we believe in trying to find a middle path and reach peace. We [India] have never resettled large populations from the Hindi heartland into the northeast or into Kashmir. Some of us believe we should do that because then the problem would eventually end, yet we are trying to be reasonable, we don't want to do it - unlike China, which has moved many Han Chinese into Tibet and Xinjiang. So it isn't imperialism when China does it yet it is unfair when India doesn't do it! I personally don't think that India and China ever have much to disagree about, but if people like Frank continue to call Indians dogs, or whites dogs, then sooner or later there will be a conflict in the world. India didn't cast the first stone, but we no longer believe in turning the other cheek either.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Mar 17, '05)


Pakistan's peaceful moves towards Israel partly aimed at "blunting" the recent advantage India has received by improving ties to Israel is an issue that should not be looked through Indo/Pakistani approaches to Israel [Pakistan seeks relief through Israel ties, Mar 17]. Rather, one should look through the eyes of the Israeli government. First, they are a democracy and have strong influence in Washington, DC, which works both ways. Since the concept of the nation of Israel, the governments had to deal with various bilateral and multilateral relationships with Middle Eastern nations, mostly to Israel's advantage. I am quite sure the Israeli government will be assessing the sudden spurt of "friendship" from dictatorial Pakistan and what impact it will have to the more lucrative Indo/Israeli relationship that is taking place. Simply put, what really does Pakistan have to offer Israel? And the same goes for India.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 17, '05)


I find it interesting that in [China goes fishing, Mar 17] the writer makes it out to be all about China's economic growth at 8% annually and as money gets into more pockets the diet goes upscale, and right after that it mentions that China surpassed Thailand as the world's largest exporter of fish. That sounds like China wants to make money and has nothing to do with diet going upscale. I can't stand BS writing styles to soften the reality. China is out of control and efforts need to be made to reel them in, something like the US starting to balance the trade deficit, that would make China cry and then listen.
Scott Baker (Mar 17, '05)


Siddharth Srivastava (Mumbai struggles to catch up with Shanghai, Mar 16) apparently doesn't read Asia Times [Online] articles. In his opinion Mumbai cannot be Shanghai because democracy renders development hostage to constituency. But, as covered by an article in Asia Times [Online] itself, China responded to protests by moving for policy that addressed the rural-urban divide - that was covered in an article on the China [National People's] Congress published [on Mar 15, 'Humdrum' congress changes China's course]. The new budget of the Indian foreign minister also suggests India is motivated to do the same. So it seems contrary to the understanding of the author: both China and India are equally responsive to public opinion. Democracy is no guarantee of responsiveness to the public, as Latin America amply demonstrates (where bucking the trend the Bolivian Indians [natives] - the majority in the country - are using mass strikes and roadblocks to make the elected government more responsive to their needs), and as revealed by the fact that India has an established policy of demolishing slum dwellings. This was covered even in an international local government website, but the author doesn't seem to really know the dimension of the issue covered in this article. In Mumbai, as covered by ... The Hindu, local government (led by Congress, no less) colluded with elites who moved to [disfranchise] slum dwellers by taking away their voting rights as well. Some respect for democracy in a democratic country!
May Sage
USA (Mar 17, '05)


Siddharth Srivastava's credence as a New Delhi-based journalist is quite visible in Mumbai struggles to catch up with Shanghai [Mar 16]. It might be worthwhile to compare, for a moment, that Shanghai grew to its present fame after Beijing stopped meddling in its affairs. When Srivastava mentions that Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, offered $2 billion for Mumbai's development, in reality it is money that was collected in Mumbai and sent to Delhi as "taxes". Usually, most of that money is pilfered in New Delhi. How radical for an Indian politician to "offer" money for development back to the place it was collected to begin with! But wait, we had another politician not too long ago who came up with some hare-brained schemes. After similar "development" schemes, the slum population grew like crazy and politicians like Gurudas Kamat, Sunil Dutt and now Govinda owe their political fortunes to these "secular" votes. Of course, that politician was Rajiv Gandhi. How naive of Manmohan Singh or Vilasrao Deshmukh to "clear" the very slums created by Rajiv Gandhi! So it seems that the real lesson is not that of democracy but meddling from New Delhi, be it from 10 Janpath (residence of Sonia Gandhi) or 1 Race Course Road (residence of the Indian prime minister). When Indian politicians belonging either the ruling or "sacrificing" kind are willing to allow states and cities to function on their own, it seems that not only Mumbai but Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmedabad etc can dream to be like Shanghai or Singapore or whatever they aspire to be.
AP (Mar 17, '05)


[Re] US jittery over Nepal by Ramtanu Maitra (Mar 16): King Gyanendra is making a very serious mistake by relying solely on China, and by association Pakistan, in his fight with the Maoists in Nepal. These two countries play on both sides of the field in any situation. That is how they seek to gain control over conflict situations, in order to bring about results that suit their purposes. I am not describing a carrot-and-stick policy here. For example, take the case of North Korea. China can keep North Korea safe as long as it wants. The longer North Korea can hold off pressure from the USA, the stronger it gets in negotiations. Overtly, China can sit with the USA on the negotiations table and tell North Korea to disarm. Covertly, it can tell North Korea to make more and more demands that it knows will be rejected by the USA, at least initially. As long as USA is hooked on to the negotiations, the position of North Korea will keep getting stronger. Keep one hooked to a situation and box the other in it. That is what Pakistan does with USA and the Taliban. Now, King Gyanendra is willing to become boxed into the conflict with the Maoists, where his only help will come from a party that has a stronger interest in keeping him in the conflict, rather than extracting him from it. Why does he wish to put his people through this hell?
Brij (Mar 17, '05)


Presbyterianism took deep root in the northern half of Korea; Methodism found very fertile ground in the south. As Andrei Lankov reports [North Korea's missionary position, Mar 16, Kim Il-sung's father and mother were Christians. In fact, they were deacons in the Presbyterian Church. The young Kim Il-sung even learned to play the church organ. It is interesting to note that Marshal Kim Il-sung's mother Kang Bong-suk's given name means "Rock of Ages". The Democratic People's Republic of Korea never completely ripped out root and branch of religion in North Korea. Patriotic Christians or Buddhists notwithstanding, religion went underground. One only has to look at shogunate Japan as an example: there, secret Christians lived hundreds of years under Tokugawa rule without forsaking attachment to Roman Catholicism. Caught, they were crucified. This extreme form of punishment does not exist in the DPRK, but religion is resolutely not encouraged, and religious practice comes with punishment. Protestant missionaries from South Korea and the United States see the DPRK as very promising ground for bringing lost sheep back to the Good Shepherd's fold. They entertain highly inflated hopes, but realistically speaking, those hopes will not be realized in a near future. Pyongyang will allow churches and temples to open, but in a controlled and regulated manner. These dusted-off houses of worship will be for show and propaganda purposes. North Korea's party will not brook any challenge to its monopoly on power and the hearts and minds of its citizens.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 17, '05)


Re The beast that slouches toward democracy [Mar 15]: Since the opposition put nearly 800,000 on the streets [of Beirut], without busing in Syrians, perhaps Spengler would care to reconsider?
Mary McLemore (Mar 17, '05)


The problem of Mumbai catching up with Shanghai is not the comparison of democratic India versus communist China [Mumbai struggles to catch up with Shanghai, Mar 16]. The problem lies in comparing democratic India [to] other major democracies and how they managed to create "skyscraper" cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco etc, and they did not take decades to accomplish this. New York was already a "skyscraper city" before World War II. The problem lies in the method of democratic practices between India and other democracies. [In] India, though it has a vibrant democracy, there is too much self-interest invested in the politicians and there [are] too much bickering and corruption to stall ambitious projects like real urban development [on] the scale of New York, Paris, or London, where politicians put the nation's interest ahead of their own petty issues, thereby allowing a democratically run society to meet her goals in a smooth and cooperative manner.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Mar 16, '05)


I am an avid reader of your publication, and for the most past I love it. The [Mar 16] article entitled Tussling with Tehran was horrible. It was one of the worst articles I had read on Iran in a long while even compared to some American newspapers. What were you guys trying to do, make Iran look like a terrorist state? There was no reference to the Iran-Iraq War where the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq [which] used them on the Iranian people, no mention of Iran's human rights in comparison to the rest of the region - it was horrible and I am ashamed it came from such a good source ... what a shame.
Hossein Haddadi (Mar 16, '05)


[Sami] Moubayed's analysis [Hezbollah power play, Mar 15] opens a window of understanding on Hezbollah. It puts the "Party of God" in a different light. It also shames American media for [their] lack of curiosity about the Middle East, where the United States is waging war. President [George W] Bush's foreign policy demonizes peoples and countries it does not like. It does come as a surprise to Americans that Hezbollah [is] a home-grown movement representing Lebanon's Shi'ites. That party sits in the parliament in Beirut. It has an armed wing which was largely responsible for driving Israel out of southern Lebanon. Saying this, Hezbollah is a reminder to Israel that its land-grabbing policies are not necessarily writ in stone. Hezbollah is a wake-up call to Washington, so bent on regime change, that a country's people will rise up to defend what it sees as a threat to national territory, national identity, and a sense of self. Lebanon has a right to self-determination on its own terms and not to the diktat of a tin-star general in Washington.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 16, '05)


Like Beth Bowden (letter, Mar 15) I abandoned reading the Spengler articles from the time I wrote to tell you that I had found them devoid of value. However, you refused to publish my view. But I have continued to read ATol, nevertheless, because of the fine contributions by some of your other erudite writers.
KA
England (Mar 16, '05)


Jakob Cambria's letter (Mar 15) is truly amusing. He believes the US is afraid to act alone because he cries for help from Japan, South Korea, and even Europe and Russia, in case Taiwan is attacked. He advocates "massive aid" to Taiwan as if the US budget is ocean-deep. (How much federal tax are you paying, Mr Cambria?) The response from the State Department to Beijing's Anti-Secession Law has been a mild "not helpful". Why? Because Washington and Beijing are on the same page: Do not declare independence, or else. The American big daddy has been trying hard to rein in the little adopted rascal son, admonishing him not to cause trouble. Recently the son obliged and abjectly declared that he would not change the flag, the name of Taiwan, etc, etc. However, this little rascal is a well-known liar and can cause trouble any time he sees he can get away with [it]. So the Anti-Secession Law is enacted. Now let us see who has the resolve.
Seung Li (Mar 16, '05)


Brij's letter (Mar 14) is an example of what psychologists call "projection" as he rants about China being an empire, even as this label fits India to an infinitely greater degree. Thus Brij attempts to deny the reality that the Indian Empire is waging pacification wars against occupied lands such as Kashmir, Nagaland, Bodoland, and Assam in a classic colonial campaign. All of these nations are currently engaged in militant independence struggles against Indian occupation - some of which were sovereign lands before they were assimilated into India through the colonial redrawing of borders. In fact, through its attempt to maintain these colonial-era borders, it is India that is imitating the British Empire and "copying every one of its imperial tactics" - including aping Anglo propaganda about liberal democracy to legitimize its rule. The only things missing are the pith helmets and khakis. More revealing are Brij's comments about Pakistan and China. He hysterically rails about Pakistan becoming part of China, yet it is India that has thousands of troops threatening Pakistan, and has waged or threatened war against it for over a half-century, despite its charades of peace. Today, some Indian/Hindu fascists even have delusions about colonizing Pakistan as part of a "greater Hindustan" extending all way to the Kush Mountains. Perhaps this is the underlying motivation for Brij's fantastical complaints? Let us not forget that India's imperialist ally, the USA, has numerous military bases, spy outposts, and actual US military troops stationed in Pakistan and Asia in general. Yet not a peep of protest is heard from Brij. Despite his desire to avoid the topic, the issue very much is the Indian Empire. Like the rogue American superpower that arms and allies with it, India seeks to expand its own imperial designs inside and outside its formal borders, all beneath a pious political mask of liberty and democracy. Indeed, as evidenced by the current wave of global aggression committed by the USA, England, and their allies, the greatest crimes in the world are increasingly committed in the name of this democracy and freedom.
DP
USA (Mar 16, '05)


[Re The beast that slouches toward democracy, Mar 15] First a couple of questions for consideration by Oswald's namesake. Who is "the beast" that is slouching towards democracy? And if it truly is a beast, how is it possible that "it" can slouch towards democracy? Answers would be appreciated by at least this writer. The cult of the image that the Western media [have] become proficient at in making non-news "news" reached its nadir with all those Gucci-dressed young Lebanese waving Lebanon's flag and followed a few days later with the so-called "opposition", which mathematically make up a larger percentage of the Lebanese population, suggestively propounding a pro-Syria demonstration and, voila, " instant democracy" in action, proving the neo-cons were right all along. Some years ago the trademark of a young comic oft repeated was, "what you see is what you get". A Machiavellian prognosis, though, as to the present and future of the Middle East would be one where the goal all along is to support the creation of Islamic states all around the state of Israel. But then [Niccolo] Machiavelli may have been the original creator and manipulator of the cult of the image, which now is unfortunately used and abused indiscriminately by slouches.
Armand DeLaurell (Mar 15, '05)


I refer to Spengler's article The beast that slouches toward democracy (Mar 15). The only terrorist state in the Middle East that calls itself [a] democracy is Israel. Born of terrorism and living in terrorism. All its leadership has at one time or another been involved in terrorism, whether against the Palestinians or the Lebanese or now in Iraq. Discredited frauds like Daniel Pipes seem to be Spengler's co-religionists and feed on each other for anti-Muslim garbage they put out. The greatest danger to world peace escapes Spengler's attention no doubt because of his sympathies for fellow Zionists.
Vincent Maadi (Mar 15, '05)


I don't believe in censorship but I really would like you to consider whether you want to continue to feed the racist monster that lies so cleverly disguised under the insincere philosophical and religious banterings in Spengler's articles. These monsters have a tendency to grow when you feed them and, to one's horror, they eat their own. Whatever decision you make, I will still read your news articles because they are the best.
Beth Bowden (Mar 15, '05)


Common wisdom sees little inflammatory rhetoric in China's recently rubber-stamped Anti-Secession Law. Bruce Klingner is spot-on to point out that the new law will have significant ramifications [The Dragon squeezes Taiwan, Mar 15]. Yet he does not point out that China's top leadership have called on the army to gear up for war. The law lays out belatedly the legal basis for invasion of Taiwan. It is an admission that Beijing has little sway over Taiwan. It can apply draconian economic measures by simply nationalizing Taiwan's assets on the mainland. This, however, is a case of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Nationalization would dry up the never-ending flow of foreign capital into the People's Republic of China. It would send shivers up and down the spine of investment bankers, cause havoc on world markets, so on and on. The soft approach China has used since the communists took control. Look at, say, India's China war, which brought defeat and an end to the illustrious career of [Jawaharlal] Nehru. The Chinese quoted chapter and verse of diplomacy to persuade New Delhi to rectify boundaries in the aerie that is the Himalayas. The Indians refused and crossed the Rubicon by sending ill-equipped troops to those high mountains, to certain death and humiliating defeat. Thus if diplomacy does not bear fruit, China is willing to go to war. The new law has done something which Beijing may not have counted on: it has united and unified a divided Taiwanese opinion and sparring political parties. It has issued a wake-up call to the roar of, for the moment, a paper dragon. It not only gives Taiwan food for thought, but Taiwan time to reinforce defenses and upgrade and strengthen its armed forces. It will reinforce a sense of Taiwan-ness and special status and independence of self and of a people, which may not universally have been shared before. Beijing pulls strings in Hong Kong, which is attached to the mainland; Taiwan has kilometers of water between the Chinese mainland and itself. The new law may make Europe think twice before wanting to lower restrictions on arms sales to Beijing ... On the other hand, the law is a clarion call to China's neighbors. It should prod the snail-like, consensus-bound Japanese to revise the Peace Constitution and build a standing army and navy, since Japan has by treaty committed itself to come to the aid of Taiwan in case of military incursion. It should drive North Korea closer to South Korea, as a China flexing economic and military muscle looms menacing nearby. It should make [Russian President Vladimir] Putin want to conclude the long-awaited and -wanted peace treaty with Japan. Finally Washington, and especially the Bushes, who think that they have a special in with the Chinese, blows hot and cold with China. They confirm Winston Churchill's appreciation of the United States' long love affair with China. He called Americans rank sentimentalists in dealing with China. The Anti-Secession Law should spur America's political [establishment] to close ranks with the Taiwanese through sales of arms, regular visits of battleships to the waters separating Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, vote for massive aid to Taiwan, to make it an impregnable fortress. Sentiment has no place in dealing with a China intent on sowing dragon seeds of distrust, disruption, and military mayhem in Northeast Asia. Beijing calls [its] critics splittists; if anyone is dashing headlong to split China internally and engage in tripwire diplomacy abroad under the guise of legality, it is the leaders in Beijing.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 15, '05)


This is the first time I have read of India's manufacturing sector actually making a difference in India's growth trajectory [India's manufacturing sector catches up, Mar 15]. Almost all news centers on the IT [information technology] industry and the agricultural industry. It would be very interesting if more articles detailing what areas in manufacturing are new, gaining ground, future prospects etc. I hope some journalist would take this issue up.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 15, '05)


I am compelled to refute Brij's letter [Mar 14] almost in its entirety. [The name] "Brij" may not be [anglicized], but it is certainly projected to be more like Ted, Bill, Bob and therefore Brij. It is not I who is obsessed with names, it is Brij himself who has been harping on Frank of Seattle's "Western" and "Christian" name and how it is a loss of culture. I have to point Brij in the direction George Fernandez, the erstwhile defense minister of India, and I wonder if he has ever wondered about this "Indian's" name? There are millions more of them with Western and Christian names in India. If Brij wants to cease this subject, so [do] I. It is an empty subject to be overworking his brain with. As for Tibet's borders, Brij complains that it is not for China to draw its borders. But I must point out again that it is the Indians who wants to fight over the borders that civil servants from thousands of miles away drew for them. I have never heard any Indian object to the borders drawn by Russians or French or British ... Finally, I must reiterate that China's borders are whatever China says [they are]. Why should only Europeans draw the borders in Asia? ... Whether Tibetans want it or not, Tibet is part of China because China says so, just like India is India because the British said so and Chechnya is Russian because Russia says so. And Sikkim and Goa are Indian because India says so ... If Frank of Seattle started this subject, then I apologize for joining in. In my experience it is not the Chinese who start these silly arguments. But it is true that Indians do tend to compare themselves to the Chinese, and [Jawaharlal] Nehru was the first to do this when he told [a] Canadian diplomat to compare India with China. I read it in the diplomat's memoir many, many, many years ago.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 15, '05)


I just want to say a few more words about names. Chinese words are unique. Chinese is the only symbolic language [that has] lasted for thousands of years. You cannot spell a Chinese name. You can only imitate the pronunciation. Therefore, most Chinese people add another name or two for ease of communication with other races. That may be a big deal for those people who are not using symbolic language. It is a practical way of communication for Chinese. Culturally, Chinese people have been using more than one name for thousands of years. That is not something new. From emperors, CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leaders to farmers and scholars, they all had multiple names in [the] old days. Traditionally, not all children's formal names were given at birth. The name used later on were given by their parents, teachers, emperors or themselves. Other people [were supposed] to address the same person with different names (not just the first name or last name) depending on the closeness to that person. In Chinese culture, it is very normal. Actually, sticking to one single name is Western or white culture. Can any other readers contribute their opinions about Chinese names?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 15, '05)

By "symbolic language", we believe Frank is referring to the Chinese writing system, in which each character symbolizes an entity or idea, not a sound. A given Chinese character, though its meaning will be understood by anyone literate in Chinese, will be pronounced completely differently by speakers of different Chinese languages. For that and other reasons (such as the difficulty of the speakers of certain non-Chinese languages to pronounce Chinese words, including names, correctly), it has made sense for members of the large overseas Chinese community to adopt names from the cultures in which they find themselves, sometimes but not always in addition to their Chinese names. It is a perfectly useful device and is not unique to Chinese. As for the use of different names in different contexts, this is quite common in Asia (not just China) and can be compared to how speakers of European languages handle various honorifics. - ATol


I have always believed in India's enormous tourist potential, from her vast and various architectural styles to her many classical dances and her various regional cultures India has something for everyone. But again ... India's corruption is still holding her back [Amid the chaos, travel industry rides a boom, Mar 12]. This may be part of the "chaos" that the traveler doesn't savor. The Indian tourist Industry, with the help of state and central governments, should come down very hard on unscrupulous people and agents who are bleeding the tourism cow. There should be a place in every city and state where the tourist can complain and the complaints taken seriously. There should be strict regulations which are followed by the law ensuring that taxis or other transportation don't cheat the tourist, high penalties or confiscation of the particular property being used [to enforce such regulations]. These "shadow" rogues must understand that the Indian government and law will penalize them if they hurt world visitors to India. Remember the old Hindu saying that the visitor is treated as a god. If this saying has any validity then any person who mistreats foreign visitors dishonors the traditions and customs of the country. End corruption now in any area that locals as well as foreigners see and experience.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 14, '05)


There is much to agree with Bruce Klinger's North Korea: fortune will favor the bold [Mar 12]. However, to me, it is important to stress that China is acting as the United States' messenger boy to Pyongyang. Beijing's recent meeting with DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] authorities disappointed American high-ranking officials in Seoul and in Washington. In fact, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxiang in less than opaque language told the Americans that, to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula, Washington has to deal directly with Pyongyang. This news is hardly earth-shattering. Nonetheless, Washington has turned a deaf ear to this advice. The outsourcing of America's foreign policy has brought meager results. As Bob Dylan sang 40 years ago, "The answer is blowing in the wind." One way or the other, Washington has to make direct overtures to North Korea, in a manner which adheres to diplomatic tact and protocol. In dealing with North Korea, it is Washington, not Pyongyang, that holds low cards. The longer the United States delays the obvious, the more it is going to be brought kicking and screaming to the conference table.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 14, '05)


Your "Roving Eye" Pepe Escobar has made one of the most misleading statements ever about Iraq [IRA and Sinn Fein in Iraq, Mar 11]. He says, "The bulk of the Iraqi resistance is secular, not Islamist; it is powered by Iraqi national fervor and will do anything to expel the occupying power." Is it really? One wonders why that "nationalist fervor" was not evident during the initial stages of the war, when they seemed to melt away like butter in [a] hot desert sun. The fact is that the Sunni Arabs do not represent nationalism in Iraq because they are not the majority among the people. Sunni Arabs are attacking, bombing and cutting heads [off] because they are angry [about] having been removed from power. They thought they [would] be put in charge of running Iraq again once the USA removed Saddam [Hussein]. It is only after the Ba'ath Party and its army and security apparatus were disbanded that the Sunnis thought the government was out of their grasp now and started fighting. What the Sunnis are doing now is the same old Ba'athist fascism, not nationalism. Moreover, if the Kurds have not already declared their independence and expelled "Arabaization" Arabs from their territory, then the Arabs, particularly the Sunnis, should be a little grateful, for they will continue to benefit from Kurdish oil for a long time to come. The Sunnis had better stop fighting and learn a little democracy. The period when they were the unquestionable lords of Iraq and Kurdistan is gone forever.
Ejder Memis
Sydney, Australia (Mar 14, '05)


From his letter [Mar 10] I don't think Vincent Maadi actually read all of Michael Schwartz's piece, The failings of 'the army you have' [Mar 10], as the piece was, in fact, highly critical of US military operations in Iraq. I'm no fan of [George W Bush]'s preemptive war. Like Julius Caesar's murder, which has been described as "not only a monstrous crime but a huge mistake" (because it plunged the Roman world into a 15-year civil war, during which Roman society suffered a grievous, irrevocable, process of attrition), so too GWB's preemptive war is both a crime (a legal wrong - although it is a moral wrong too), as well as a mistake (because it will bleed the Pax America into nothingness). Michael Schwartz's article addresses the latter aspect - the mistake. I enjoy his articles and look forward to seeing more of them in the future.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Mar 14, '05)

Several Michael Schwartz pieces have appeared on Asia Times Online, all critical of the invasion of, war against and occupation of Iraq. Maadi's critique that the article in question toed the "Zionist" line was a bit mystifying. It may be that he felt that Schwartz was only critical of the war because it is being handled incompetently, not because it was wrong. - ATol


Well, here it is: "I do not favor dictatorship, and cannot make that clearer than by defending the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden as means of eradicating dictatorship. My subject (in They made a democracy and called it peace, Mar 8) was the tragic incapacity of societies based on collective identity to make the transition to Western-style democracy. Such societies will not give up their collectivist character willingly; witness the half-million demonstrators brought to Beirut this week by Hezbollah" [letter from Spengler, Mar 9]. First, it beggars belief that any sane human can defend the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But our boy Spengler can, and does (is this that "thinking outside the box" the editors described as a Spengler specialty, at the bottom of my last letter [Feb 23]?). Next, Spengler describes a resistance to colonial influence as the failure of a "collectivist character". What might this mean? I take Spengler to mean (and I'm just guessing, as one is often reduced to doing with this clown) that unless these heathen Arabs embrace Western-style democracy they should be seen as failed states and, uh, well, occupied? The clear assumption ... about Muslim and Arab culture is that it is inferior and to qualify for support must submit to the jackboot of imperialist mandates. It would be interesting for Spengler to define what he means by "dictatorship", and then to also check the authoritarian governments in the Arab world and investigate how many were the result of colonial domination (and how many, today, receive US aid). Saddam [Hussein] was, after all, helped to power by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and later the recipient of over a decade's worth of tax credits and military supplies (including chemical and bio agents). He flew US-made helicopters when gassing the Kurds. Spengler's simplistic analysis is flawed in so many ways I lose track - but its enough to know he supports nuking civilians and thinks Arabs suffer some sort of r(Mar 14, '05)eductive sense of identity. Spengler has often been silly, and at times factually wrong, but this latest bit of racist apology for mass murder is beyond understanding.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Mar 14, '05)


[Re] Treat China with caution [Mar 8]: "US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he hopes and prays China enters the civilized world in an orderly way. This is also the wish of Uighur, Tibetan and other peoples who have suffered under Beijing's authoritarian rule enforced by a military sledge hammer. - Alim A Seytoff." I am intrigued by Alim A Seytoff's little piece. First of all is Rumsfeld capable of hoping and praying as he states? And even more to the point, can Rumsfeld recognize civilization even if it hits him full in the face? The US venture into Iraq proves beyond doubt that neither Rumsfeld nor [President George W] Bush know a thing about civilization and the way they blundered into Iraq shows that Rumsfeld has yet to do anything in "an orderly way". However, I can forgive Seytoff using this headline for his own purposes, even if very loosely. Seytoff should ask the Sioux if the US is civilized in the first place. For a start.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 14, '05)

The passage you quote is the index-page summary of the story. That and the headline, as is normally the case, were written by an editor, not the author of the article. - ATol


The ATol editors write to Rachel Hassold [under her letter, Mar 11], "conspiracy theories about 'vote theft' [and the 're-election' of Bush] notwithstanding ..." In fact, the US constitution places exclusive authority for resolving election disputes such as that of 2000 in Congress; the Framers expressly rejected appointment of the president, or resolution of such disputes, by the unelected US Supreme Court. Those being the law, [George W] Bush's running to the Supreme Court, and the court accepting and ruling upon his groundless claim, violated separation of powers - ie, subverted the constitution. (One definition of treason is "levying war against the United States of America". The United States is first and foremost a system of laws; a legal construct; to levy war against the rule of law is therefore treason.) That means Bush was not elected in 2000; and that, not having been elected in 2000, it is not mathematically possible for him to have been "re"-elected in 2004. Further, concerning the labeling of the 2004 election "anomalies", including deliberate [disfranchisement] of minority voters in Ohio by Republican Secretary of State and Bush campaign chair [J Kenneth] Blackwell, "conspiracy theories": the matter was thoroughly investigated, with public hearings, by the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee (the Republicans couldn't care less about who legitimately won: they put party - and "winning" - before rule of law and country). Not only was the deliberate [disfranchisement] documented, but also found was hard evidence of "vote fraud". The report, and substantiation thereof, is available - to anyone - on the website of Judiciary Committee member Representative John Conyers. Last but not least: because of the "irregularities" in Ohio, there was this time a protest, in keeping with constitutional process, by House and Senate members. As a result, Bush was not "elected" by the people; instead, he was elected by the Congress. Precedent for all the above is found in the tied presidential election involving Thomas Jefferson. Neither he nor his opponent ran whining to the Supreme Court, because they knew it was not the proper forum. Instead, in keeping with constitutional requirement, they took it to the House of Representatives. The Republicans are all for overlooking the niceties - such as constitution and rule of law. But We the People cannot afford to do so if we genuinely intend that democracy survive the current war being waged against it by election-thief and Torturer-in-Chief (torture is prohibited by domestic US federal law; violating that law is a High Crime) Bush and his fellow anti-constitutional extremists.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 14, '05)

Would you consider yourself a pro-constitutional extremist? Our point to Rachel Hassold was that in a democracy, if the people are more interested in staying home and watching television than getting out and voting, that ennui itself needs to be factored in as part of that country's democratic dynamic. Many people besides you have made strong claims about how George W Bush's handlers misused or ignored constitutional precepts and precedents to "steal" the 2000 election, and others have made different claims of malfeasance after the 2004 election (fiddling with the voting machines, manipulating the voters lists etc). If claims such as these were made in a healthy democracy (if such a thing exists) and could be backed by solid evidence, would We the People not rise up in protest? Can we not conclude from the lack of such an uprising (in significant numbers) in the US that most Americans - the "majority" that is so important to US-style democracy - don't care about the constitution anymore? Even if that is an extreme view, it has been plausibly argued that if vote-rigging did occur in either election, the vote would not have been close enough for that to make a difference if the Democrats had not botched both campaigns or had offered a clear alternative to the Republicans. - ATol


I am sorry, ATol. While you keep reminding me to move the discussion to the forum, I have to write my final words on the topic - especially since you keep publishing diatribes of the Franks about me in Letters. Regarding Tibet: There are two reasons money is paid to an authority. First is like a tax paid to the state so that the state can keep you safe from criminals. Second is the money paid to the criminal mafia, so that the mafia will leave you alone. The Franks, and Quadir, are confusing the mafia with a legitimate state authority. If Tibet ever paid tributes to China, it was to be left alone. Tibetan language, script, culture and religious symbolism - all are derived from Indian influences, and have been for more than a millennium. Mount Kailash and Lake Mansarovar in Tibet are religious pilgrimage sites for Hindus as well as Tibetans. [The] modern age came with new ideas and Tibetans thought they no longer had to pay the mafia to be safe. They were proven dead wrong. To Frank Yeo [letter, Mar 11]: Tibetan borders are not for the Chinese to draw. The Chinese disparage the British Empire while copying every single one of the British imperial tactics. As for hot air, I always wondered how that worm-like flying creature flew without wings. Yeo's total ignorance is evident from his remark that "Brij" is an anglicized name. The issue here is not India, it is the Chinese empire - which is based upon a warped definition of the Chinese identity today. To Iqbal Quadir [Mar 11]: If Pakistan keeps paying tributes to China (ceding Kashmiri territory to it; letting it build and use Gwadar port for military purposes), would the Chinese be able to claim, in a hundred years, that Pakistan is a part of the Chinese empire too? And now, ATol, I will leave this topic to the Franks so that they can repeat their CCP [Chinese Communist Party] indoctrination over and over again - after all, anything that doesn't come out of CCP sources is just "hot air" coming from "paper tigers". Right?
Brij (Mar 14, '05)

You are welcome on the Letters page if that is what you prefer. Our suggestion, one that has been accepted rather enthusiastically by several combatants in the China-vs-India debate, was that the forum could be a more satisfactory battlefield for all concerned, with electronic warfare conducted at the pleasure of all, ad nauseam and nearly free from any editor's stern eye. In the meantime, what had become a long and largely unedifying argument could be removed from (or at least reduced on) the Letters page, to the relief of many (including the Letters Editor). - ATol


To Frank Yeo [letter, Mar 11]: Look, this post is not to "fight" but to tell you few things about India. 1) Brij is short form for "Brijesh" and from time immemorial Indians call a guy named "Brijesh" as Brij. Nothing to do with the "West". 2) I doubt Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King are right examples. They didn't choose their names. They didn't have much option. Recent African migrants to the USA don't change their names ... For most people in this world [their] name indeed is their identity. So it matters, if a person is changing his/her name, what were the circumstances that led to name change (like Muhammad Ali ditching Christianity). Isn't it surprising that most Chinese people in the West have "Anglo-Saxon" names? In fact just by name [nine out of] 10 times you can tell that the person is Chinese. But then [one's] name is one's personal thing just like the language one speaks. You can have the first and criticize the second one. 3) Your presumption that Chinese and Tibetans are the same is ludicrous. Who is China to decide the borders of Tibet? Did Tibetans invite China to demarcate their borders? What about India invading Pakistan on same logic? Would you support that? So whatever Brij said was right. Han Chinese are as much alien to Tibetans as whites were to India ... 4) India indeed decided its own border ... After 1947 the Indian Union has added J&K [Jammu and Kashmir], Goa, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagarh ... Finally it will be great if Chinese people realize that their kettle is as black as others'. Don't play holier than thou ... This whole "Indo-China" beef started because of "Frankie the Seattle guy". If you cast the first stone you cannot expect others to keep quiet. Let peace prevail. People make their own choices. No one has a right to criticize them (including holy "Frank the Seattle guy" because he is nobody). Now let the "arguments" roll. So if you guys really are serious about cutting the crap, then rein in the "Seattle bro" and Indians will keep quiet.
Shekhar Nitin (Mar 14, '05)


I would like to express my gratitude to all the white people who speak up against Taiwan independence. I hope a few good Indians will join them soon. That is the way it should be. If all white people and Indians were on one side, Chinese people from all over the world were on the other side, it would be hard to say that the Taiwan debates were not about race. And those white men and their Indians were not trying to split China for their own benefits. Unfortunately, without these few good white guys making comments recently, that was the way of Taiwan issue debate at ATol. I have a question for those who want to split China. Do you expect Chinese people would stand there watching with smiles, when you try to split their home into pieces? For your information, those good old days were over.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 14, '05)

For the latest on this subject, don't miss the new Asia Times Online analysis The Dragon squeezes Taiwan. - ATol


I would like to thank [Daniel] McCarthy for his response ([letter] Mar 10). If stating "generally known" facts and pointing out hypocrisy and double standards are considered anti-US rants, then I am guilty of it. But what about your claims about China, wouldn't they be considered anti-China paranoia? I am no history expert - far from it - but it would be safe to say that every nation on Earth has committed some crimes on other nations or its own people, one way or the other. China is no exception. But the point here is, to paraphrase a biblical line from Jesus: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Of course, I understand this may be too idealistic in the real world. People can argue that nobody is sinless and if nobody else casts the first stone, nobody would ... be discouraged to commit more sins. But why not give it a try sometimes? Regarding Singapore, I have no arguments there. We, like many smaller countries who are dependent on bigger countries, are like vultures eating the leftovers of the lions.
DC (Mar 14, '05)


It is surprised and annoyed [sic] to learn that your news layout has grouped Taiwan under China. With such biased stance how can a reader believe your reports are impartial?
Jeff Lee (Mar 14, '05)

In fact, Taiwan is grouped under "Greater China", a geographical designation that is widely used for convenience and is not meant to carry any political baggage. - ATol


If the US wants to turn a "blind eye" and sell nuclear power plants to China for purely monetary reasons regardless of China's record, then what is good for the goose is also good for the gander [US's $5 billion nuclear gamble with China, Mar 11]. There are other nations who can now fully build nuclear power plants and probably at a cutthroat price. India for instance has just completed building a wholly Indian nuclear power plant. Why can't India too turn a "blind eye" and go for the [money] and beat the US at the cost factor?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 11, '05)


Spengler writes [letter, Mar 9]: "My subject (in They made a democracy and called it peace, Mar 8) was the tragic incapacity of societies based on collective identity to make the transition to Western-style democracy." It seems that the tragic incapacity of such as the US's Torturer-in-Chief Bush to imagine a world not dominated by corporate monopoly and the destruction of all forms of diversity - economic, "religious" and ideological - results in collective resistance by those [US President George W] Bush - and Spengler - bigotedly despise for not adopting the totalitarian view that there is only one "legitimate" form of "democracy": "Western". Is it a lesser tragedy that not even torture by such a "democratic" "savior" as war criminal Bush, even with the ideological support and rhetorical backing of Spengler, can force such "collective identity" "terrorist insurgency" resistances to surrender their critical thinking, and "collective identity", and like good little docile "white man's burden" True Believers swallow the illegal, anti-democratic imposition of "Western-style democracy" as being that it is not: actual democracy? Bush is not building 15 permanent military bases in Iraq based upon the democratic will of the "collective identity" Iraqi people; and it is certain that, should there be an actual democratic vote in Iraq, and it told the US to remove those bases, that vote would be characterized by Bush and Spengler as "the tragic incapacity to make the transition to Western-style democracy" and "terrorist insurgency" - and assaulted with whatever degree of excessive violence were seen as necessary, without distinguishing between the innocent and guilty of that "collective identity". Based upon the facts, Spengler, shall we consider that Syria, as example, has adopted at least such a degree of "Western-style democracy" as Bush's "extreme rendition" - the sending of "terrorists" by Bush to Syria to be tortured by Syria in the US's behalf, even while he threatens "collective identity" "terrorist" state Syria with illegal attack? The actual cause of the tragedy, Spengler, is the continuing lie, by Bush and such as you, that massive, ongoing violations of international (and US domestic) law by fake "Christians" actually constitutes "democracy". Daniel McCarthy writes [letter, Mar 10], "The letter from Daniel (Singapore [Mar 9]) is a typical anti-US rant." Wake up, McCarthy: criticism of US foreign policy is not ipso facto an attack on the US itself - and your use of that "victim thinking" in effort to avoid addressing the substance of the criticism is intellectually dishonest. (Let me guess: your real name is Bill O'Reilly?) Your conscious refusal to make that distinction is not only intellectually dishonest - necessary underpinning, of course, for your groundless 1950s-era paranoid anti-"Commie" rant; it is identical to the "personality cult" psychology - failure to distinguish between country and leader, country and policies - you so hate when "Commies" do it. I think you protest too much; admit it: You're a "Commie" trying to hide behind anti-"Commie" rhetoric in hopes of not being discovered to be a "cult of personality" totalitarian exactly like those you rant against.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 11, '05)


Brad Arnold of St Louis Park, Minnesota, writes [letter, Mar 11] regarding economic integration between Taiwan and China. Certainly there is a large degree of economic integration between the two countries, but not as much economic integration as exists between the US and Canada or the US and Mexico. Yet neither Canada nor Mexico has been taken over by the US under any formula, including the ludicrous "one country, two systems". Nor are they likely to be.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 11, '05)

The many Canadian and Mexican critics of the North American Free Trade Agreement might disagree with you. Yet NAFTA also has many critics within the US, who fear job losses to their American neighbors. Further thought on your analogy might shed light on the different fears on the different sides of the Taiwan Strait - and to what extent they are real, and to what extend paranoid. - ATol


I truly grow weary with Brij [letter, Mar 8] and his cohorts - he is still obsessed with someone's name. He must be short of vitriol if that is the sum total of his insults. As for some people going to Tibet to draw the borders, Brij appears to be mentally deficient in being unable to spot the difference. I am weary of dispensing logic, but I must. It is Chinese who went to Tibet and, if you must, East Turkestan to draw Chinese borders around them. The British civil servants drew India's borders for the British, not the Indians. Brij now claims every inch of that British territory as if it were sacred. I am compelled to confess that it must be sacred, it is British. The point was that this trio are carping about China's borders which were drawn by themselves [the Chinese], but fail to be ashamed of having been unable to draw any of its [India's] borders. Like children, they had to have their borders drawn by a small bunch of British civil servants. Brij may fume at Tibet and East Turkestan, but that is all he can do, blow hot air. He should be ashamed and silence should be his best attack and defense. But I am afraid that he will babble away ... This trio failed to notice that I am imploring that they compare India as an entity on its own. Surely India is worthy of comparison to no one else? As I have written elsewhere, if they must compare themselves to someone, the USA is a worthier country to compare themselves with. This is an advice given in very good spirit with no venom at all, I assure you. But I fear no one will take it. By the way, this is my real name. There is a very well respected man called Nelson Mandela and another equally respected man [was] called Martin Luther King. As for Brij, it is barely Indian and has quite obviously been anglicized just like Ted. My fervent request is: Let's discuss some real issues and let's forget both India and China and talk about human affairs.
Frank Yeo (Mar 11, '05)


Lest I be perceived as a lone wolf crying in the wilderness, reference your reply to my previous post [Mar 8], I humbly submit the following from journalist Bill Moyers ("Welcome to doomsday"), New York Times Review of Books): "There are times when what we journalists see and intend to write about dispassionately sends a shiver down the spine, shaking us from our neutrality. This has been happening to me frequently of late as one story after another drives home the fact that the delusional is no longer marginal but has come in from the fringe to influence the seats of power. We are witnessing today's coupling of ideology and theology that threatens our ability to meet the growing ecological crisis. Theology asserts propositions that need not be proven true while ideologues hold steady to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The combination can make it impossible for a democracy to fashion real-world solutions to otherwise intractable challenges. In the just-concluded election cycle, MarkSilk writes in Religion and the News, 'The assiduous cultivation of religious constituencies by the Bush apparat, and the undisguised intrusion of evangelical leaders and some conservative Catholic hierarchs into the presidential campaign, demonstrated that the old rule of maintaining a decent respect for the non-partisanship of religion can now be broken with impunity.'" A decent number of us not tuned in to American Idol or Survivor Vanuatu festivals while issues of grave concern to all Americans were being discussed prior to the election are deeply offended about the outcome of the presidential election and deeply sorrowful at the degradation of the core values of our nation as we have known and loved her. "Aghast" is putting it mildly.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Mar 11, '05)

No doubt, but the fact remains that President George W Bush was re-elected by a margin that was reasonably comfortable by US standards (conspiracy theories about "vote theft" notwithstanding). In any election the losers are appalled by the ignorance of the winners; the stakes may have been higher this time, but if they weren't high enough to drag sufficient voters away from "reality TV" fluff to bring about regime change last November, so be it. The people have spoken - or couldn't be bothered to do so. - ATol


In the 1940s, as a young student at school, I remember a dinner at my uncle's house in New Delhi for one Captain Goodwin, who had just returned after a trek to Lhasa. While he regaled us with stories of the adventure, it was evident from his conversation that the primary purpose of his hazardous trip through the famous pass located northeast of Shimla (Simla of British days) was to win friends in Lhasa to wean the country away from Chinese influence. Later on, in the '50s as a mid-ranking navy officer in Pakistan, I remember seeing two military-intelligence reports, the first stating that a Soviet military column of about 100 troops had been observed about 100 miles inside Tibet, and six months to a year later that a large column of about 600 armed Soviet troops had been observed near Khotan (Hotan) deep inside Tibet. Since the lamas had owed suzerainty to China for a long period, it was not surprising to see a third intelligence report a little later stating that China has started moving troops into Tibet. Further, during the second half of the '60s, while attending a course in Britain, a retired Colonel Hall attached to the institute once mentioned to me that as a young subaltern in the Political Branch, he was posted to the foothills of Eastern Himalayan Range, where the local rulers used to send annual tributes in the form of local produce to their higher-ups, right up to the lama in Lhasa, who would do the same honor to the Chinese emperor. In return they would all receive gifts of gold and silver according to their position. The colonel added that his task at that time was to create rifts between these rulers and offer British assistance to the ones who were more cooperative.
Iqbal F Quadir
Karachi, Pakistan (Mar 11, '05)


To [Tom R] Burns [and Masoud] Kamali re [The state(s) of Iraq, Mar 10]: I really enjoyed your article. It is refreshing to read something that is cutting, non-jingoistic and reasonably optimistic in the sense that it offers viable solutions. That said, however, I find it highly unlikely that the US powers that be would ever even vaguely consider such a scenario, not only with the EU taking the lead (forget about it!) but also with the state or federation or states being able to own their own resources. The whole purpose of the US regime's takeover [of Iraq] is to control the assets, mainly by mandating and monitoring favorable privatization arrangements. They will never agree to anything as fair and intelligent as what you are recommending. I think all of us have great difficulty in truly appreciating just how determined the US regime is to impose its will on the situation. Any administration that picks someone as non-diplomatic as [John] Bolton as UN ambassador has told us all we need to know - and of course this is just one of countless such signals since they took office. Anyway, thanks for a good piece. Frustrating that it has such little likelihood of playing out the way you suggest. And I hope I'm wrong.
Ashley S C Howes
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (Mar 10, '05)


I refer to the article The failings of 'the army you have' [Mar 10] by Michael Schwartz. First of all I am surprised that Asia Times [Online] would give Schwartz a platform to push his Zionist agenda. I just wonder why Schwartz bothered to write such a long article for his main point, which is "kill all of them" because they are Arabs and Muslims. Zionists have been pushing for war against Muslims with no holds barred, and Schwartz is proposing exactly that, not satisfied with the mass murders and rapes committed against the people of Iraq in addition to the illegitimate war fought on behalf of Israel. This entire fraud of terrorism and catchy names like [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi and al-Qaeda have been created to justify the terrorism by Zionists and their American hirelings. The Muslims are ready to defy and expose this fraud and no amount of diatribe by the likes of Schwartz is going to work to weaken them. Iraqi Muslims have proven that they can stand up to Zionists, and if the Americans are foolish enough to fall into the trap of the Zionists, the Syrians and Iranians will give them a lesson to remember. People like Schwartz are fooling and misleading Americans in getting them do Israel's dirty work. They do not care anything about the suffering of the families of Americans who are getting killed in large numbers in Iraq, as long as their own kids are not affected. Eventually even the American public is going to wake up to this reality and then we will see where the Zionists will run.
Vincent Maadi (Mar 10, '05)


Takahashi Kosuke raises an interesting but no less important topic in Roh reopens Japan's war wounds [Mar 10]. Mr Takahashi is somewhat at a loss as to explain this apparent volte face in the far-reaching socio-cultural exchanges between Japan and South Korea. He has not to look very far in history to find the reasons. Roh [Moo-hyun] has had a rocky first year in office. He fought impeachment by opposition parties. He was not a generous winner. Immediately he began to tar his opponents with the collaboration with the colonial-occupier brush. To put it bluntly, to have his revenge, he dubbed his enemies Japan lovers. As a political ax this tack opens a Pandora's box. For South Korea now is over a half-century old as an independent state. Thus to label someone as a colonial stooge, it means you [are slinging] mud not at the present generations, nor necessarily at the preceding generation, but to a third generation old enough to have lived adult years under Japanese occupation. This means that practically every family in one way or the other had a hand in with the Japanese. Staunch nationalists fled Korea for the safety of Shanghai or the United States or elsewhere. So a mantle of dishonor falls on the shoulders of practically every family, and it is not unreasonable to suggest even on Mr Roh's family. In the context of Mr Takahashi's article, the inflaming of past hatreds lies in the weak foreign-policy hand Mr Roh's government is playing. Territorial claims to Tak-to islands or Takeshima are not new. Whipping up anti-Japan slogans reveals an appeal to unite the South Korean electorate behind the policies of the Uri Party which are subject to much critical scrutiny and complaints. So for internal enemies or the external foe, Mr Roh resorts to the bottom-of-the-barrel [tactics] which betray a sterile exercise in flummery. He does this to keep a tenuous hold on his office and his party's majority in parliament. Mr Takahashi raises another issue: How long has Japan to atone for its imperial past? Given the growing military power of an aggressive China wanting to claim territorial rights, onshore and off, will put steel into Japan's backbone, and Tokyo won't look too kindly [at] being Seoul's whipping post for South Korea's internal matters.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 10, '05)


I am very concerned. I have seen a series of articles in your paper that is "hell-bent" on proving that Bangladesh is a terrorist country. The latest one I have read is by B Raman [Goons or terrorists? Bangladesh decides, Mar 10]. And my concern stems from the fact that all the authors I have seen so far are Indians who naturally will take this position. So please try to balance their views by including articles by Bangladeshi political analysts. I have not seen a single one so far. I am firmly impressed by my readings so far by the likes of Pepe Escobar and I feel that Asian Times [Online] has a very high standard. And I applaud you. But I just wanted to point out that for South Asia you need to include more authors from Bangladesh to balance the views propagated by Indian writers. I hope you will take my observation into consideration.
Shithi (Mar 10, '05)

Bangladeshi analysts are as welcome as anyone else to offer submissions. All they need to do is click the "Write for ATol" button at the top of this or any other page of this website. - ATol


Dear [B] Raman: I enjoy reading you columns, as they are very informative, but I have some disagreement on [Making Iraq out of Lebanon, Mar 8]. Just to be fair, Syria harbored Saddam [Hussein]'s half-brother and dozens of Ba'athists for nearly two years and sat idly by as a flow of men, cash and arms ... went into Iraq to fund the chaos you imply as somehow being the fault of the US invasion. Syria is simply reaping the benefits of [its] own invasion and plundering of Lebanon. I remember the people who touted the "benefits of stability" offered by the Soviet Union in central and eastern Europe and who feared the "chaos" that would ensue if people were given their freedom. Those people always looked the other way when the mass graves and gulags that ensured that "stability" were brought to light. I know that developing order and a nation where there was none before is hard and a big responsibility, but the Lebanese people deserve a chance to try. If the negative energies of the Middle East are not tamed and harnessed for self-betterment, then the cult of victimhood and nihilism that dominates the region will continue to pour its venom over the world ... I think the defeat of terrorism is less inherently linked to making the world happy versus eliminating the state-sponsored incitement, recruitment, funding and arming of such persons.
Ronnie (Mar 10, '05)


[B Raman:] We will see if your doom-and-groom prediction is correct regarding Lebanon [Making Iraq out of Lebanon, Mar 8]. I truly look down on the culture of "suicide bombers" - how stupid these people are blowing themselves up, thinking that there will be 72 virgins waiting for them - it will be a rude awakening for them when they found out that it is actually a 72-year-old virgin waiting for them.
Melody (Mar 10, '05)


[B] Raman: Very good piece, a refreshing change from the endless propaganda we seem trapped in here [Making Iraq out of Lebanon, Mar 8]. And with the Hezbollah demo [on Tuesday] in Beirut, ahead of the news.
Daniel Sneider
Foreign Affairs Columnist
The San Jose Mercury News
San Jose, California (Mar 10, '05)


Robert Juhl's article Bush: The strategist in the shadows (Mar 5) raises some interesting questions. But before everyone gets carried away with vindication and all the self-congratulatory high-fives, one must take a deep breath. The real test for [US President George W] Bush and the neo-cons will come when, as the result of freedom and democracy blossoming across the Middle East, one anti-American government after another comes to power given our historical actions in the area. Democracy is that government which a free people elect freely. If that standard is adhered to, then the president's words about freedom and democracy will have meaning. But the depressing truth, as evidenced by the historical record, is just the opposite. For some 50 years - starting with the 1953 overthrow of Iran's freely elected constitutional government that governed in harmony with Islam and was led by Iranian national heroes, Dr [Mohammad] Mossadegh and Dr Hussein Fatemi, to support for client states governed by authoritarian dictators, to hard-headed support for Israel, irrespective of the facts on the ground - US policy in the Middle East has been the opposite of the president's rhetoric. Furthermore, as long as this administration does not fully throw its support to either imposing a solution or guaranteeing one that provides for a viable homeland for the Palestinians and a secure Israel, then nothing it says or does will matter.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Mar 10, '05)


In replying to Vivian Lewis [letter, Mar 9], Spengler mentions a "Teutonic" sense of humor and a "Western"-style democracy - but then he argues against "collectivist" thinking in societies. While I think that identities should form from the individual outwards to the group, the identity of an individual takes its inspiration from the narrative of the group. I think Spengler is just scared of "Asiatic" crowds in general. He also justifies the carnage in Hiroshima and Dresden as being necessary to defeat dictatorships. How does he choose good and bad when the powers that the dictators were fighting were colonial empires which subjugated and impoverished hundreds of millions around the world? Was the fate of German minorities so much more important than the fate of the colonized people?
Brij (Mar 10, '05)


Spengler's somewhat petulant letter [Mar 9] in response to [Vivian] Lewis's letter of March 8 reminds one of a short comic skit put on by the late Johnny Carson and his sidekick Ed McMahon. In it Carson, dressed a la Hollywood typecast "vizier", would put an envelope to his forehead and provide an answer to the question asked in the envelope. His accusing Ms Lewis of having a Teutonic absence of humor might be better applied to his own insipidness (see Italian Drivers, under War and Terror in ATol's forum). Still one is left wondering whether his vehement anti-dictatorial stance, qualified by his support of the bombings of [civilian populations] in Hiroshima and Dresden, is to be considered a pacifier for the likes of the Hezbollah. Or as he expounds in The Edge on those who may have been killed by friendly fire in Iraq, "You people can't take a joke?"
ADeL (Mar 10, '05)


I am saddened by Spengler's admission [letter, Mar 9] that he retrospectively supports the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima as necessary means to end the German and Japanese dictatorships. I have never understood how supposedly educated and civilized individuals can actually support the perpetration of such atrocities on defenseless men, women and children. Even General [Dwight] Eisenhower was distressed by the decision to bomb Hiroshima and felt that it had been a completely unnecessary and brutal act. There's got to be a better way forward or humanity is truly and thoroughly damned.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Mar 10, '05)


Spengler: Experts tell us that the world's human population is now about 6.5 billion while the Earth - because of the finitude of natural resources, most critically petroleum - can sustain for the long term about 2.5 billion. Please apply these facts to your obsession. Of course experts can be wrong; perhaps you can refute these empirical estimates. But if you cannot, then there appear to be better grounds than you imagine for fear of the demise of cultures, low as well as high, yet less reason than you seem to imagine for encouraging greater fecundity.
Kent Bendall
USA (Mar 10, '05)


The letter from Daniel (Singapore [Mar 9]) is a typical anti-US rant and misses the substantive point. The People's Republic of China wishes to expand its borders to include Taiwan. The next step will be China's attempt to solidify its absurd claim to sovereignty over the entire South China Sea. In contrast, the US has not attempted to annex Iraq, Syria or Iran. Daniel may also wish to consider why his own government has constructed facilities to service aircraft carriers. Perhaps the all-knowing nanny government of Singapore finds security in offering military support services to the US instead of being annexed by the expanding dragon. By the way, I must discount the value of any comment from a person who does not believe in his own position strongly enough to associate his real given name and surname with it. What are you guys afraid of?
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 10, '05)


I am an American, and I am puzzled by the disconnect over Taiwanese independence from mainland China. China dominates Taiwan economically and militarily. Yes, Taiwan can theoretically function isolated from China, but practically, the 250 miles is cyberspace to the relationship. First, China has nuclear-tipped mobile ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] and hundreds of short-range missiles pointed at Taiwan from the opposite shore. Second, Taiwanese currency and industry would collapse if embargoed by the Chinese. Third, the United States - the shining white knight that theoretically will save the day if China commences hostilities - is close to a fiscal crisis and [its] military is strained from commitments in the Middle East. Finally, the rate of improvement of China's ability to invade Taiwan can't realistically be matched by Taiwan. I am puzzled by the disconnect over Taiwanese independence because it is obvious (if considered rationally) that it is a pipe dream that will end in disaster. In my opinion, self-serving politicians may drive Taiwan over the edge of the cliff to the applause of ivory-tower intellectuals and wishful thinkers.
Brad Arnold
St Louis Park, Minnesota (Mar 10, '05)


Brij's response [Mar 8] to my letter reveals another similarity between many Indian and American nationalists. They both live in a Bollywood (or is it Hollywood?) version of reality. Brij comically claims that India "stands for local rule, peaceful development, equality of ethnicities", etc as opposed to China. Yet he carefully ignores all the evidence I cited that rips apart this lie. For example, Brij should try [to] regale the Kashmiris with these Bollywood-style fairy tales - the same Kashmiris who have been fighting against Indian occupation and rule for over a decade. Or he should attempt to peddle his pious cant to the Assamese, Nagas, or Bodos who are also waging armed independence struggles against India. One suspects that they too would be unimpressed by these professions of Indian ethnic harmony and peace. From Manipur to Gujarat, these are but a few examples that expose the (Hindu) fascist face of India that no amount of corporate media spin can deny. Moreover, they illustrate a broader point. Propaganda rhetoric about "democracy and freedom" in general cannot hide the brutal reality of your own capitalist nations, nor should it be used as a cynical political weapon against rival countries. George Bush will learn this lesson with time. Let us hope that Brij does too.
DP
USA (Mar 10, '05)


It has been said that Japan has been reluctant to adopt a large-scale immigration and naturalization policy for two main reasons: (1) It would threaten the cultural and racial homogeneity of the society, and (2) there are concerns that if many immigrants are allowed in, this will lead to widespread crime and terrorism. I believe that these fears are largely unfounded. In regards to the first one, yes, there may well be a reduction in the number of Japanese of pure Mongolian [sic] stock. However, this is the 21st century, and we need to realize that there are only three basic races, which are all 99.99% the same (though the remaining 0.01% does allow for certain real physical differences). As for the second point, it is absurd to say that "immigrants equal crime and terrorism" and that native-born Japanese are themselves immune from such things. Does anyone recall the AUM cult, which released poison gas on a subway, and planned to use it to kill millions of people? Or the late, deranged Japanese man who stabbed and wounded many schoolchildren in 2001? Or the young Japanese hoodlums who went about assaulting (and in some cases even killing) middle-aged salarymen a few years back? Or the fellow (I think his name was Mr Obara) who raped and killed a number of foreign and domestic bar hostesses? Yes, there are concerns about immigrants, but they could be carefully screened and given the opportunity and motivation to assimilate into Japanese society. Finally, a large-scale immigration policy [would] be mutually beneficial for both Japan and the poorer countries which would provide the bulk of the immigrants. The immigrants would keep the population and the median age at a reasonable level, and money from Japanese investment and remittances would help support and develop the immigrants' nations of origin. Of course, this is all up to the Japanese government and people to decide. However, they don't have many years left before an aging society and severe population decrease will take their toll, in the absence of a realistic and practical immigration policy.
Brian Brown
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 10, '05)


Vivian Lewis (letter, Mar 8) remonstrates against my "case for dictatorship". Her demonstrated facility in German appears associated with a Teutonic absence of humor. I do not favor dictatorship, and cannot make that clearer than by defending the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden as means of eradicating dictatorship. My subject (in They made a democracy and called it peace, Mar 8) was the tragic incapacity of societies based on collective identity to make the transition to Western-style democracy. Such societies will not give up their collectivist character willingly; witness the half-million demonstrators brought to Beirut this week by Hezbollah. I predict not a wave of democratic change throughout the Middle East, but a catastrophe of grand proportions.
Spengler (Mar 9, '05)


In responding to letter writer Rachel Hassold (Mar 8) ATol tells her, "Clearly not all Americans are 'open-mouthed in disbelief', as evidenced by the election results in November." ATol, haven't you heard? There has been a coup in America. Everybody in a certain infamous ward of my city knew it when the lights went out at their polling station for several hours. This happened at many polling stations in America. Also, many people were originally sent to the wrong polling stations by mail. Anyone who understands the potential for abuse with the codeless Diebold election machines and as well knows the political preference and clout of the owner of the company that makes Diebold knows it and everybody who participates on local forums and compared the wait between the predominantly poor neighborhoods and the predominantly well-off neighborhoods knows it as do all of the people who didn't vote. Some Bush supporters say, we kicked them out rather than we voted them out so, they know it too. But what do we know? We're just citizens in a "democracy".
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Mar 9, '05)


I have been reading the various letters regarding China, India etc. For a change, it was refreshing to find probably the first letter from Frank [Mar 7] without any vitriolic and very peculiar language about India and Indians. It must have been an effort. Congratulations to Frank for restoring the civility of debate. I hope others will join me in giving credit where it is due. This should aid in objective debate without it getting dragged in irrelevancy.
Dinesh
Irvine, California (Mar 9, '05)


I would like to answer belatedly the question posed by [Daniel] McCarthy to ATol on March 2: "There is only one country threatening war in the Taiwan Strait. What country is it?" The answer is China. But what if we changed the location to Syria or Iran? Guess what? It's the US! But I am sure you have explanations for that. Let me try. Syria, you see, supports the "terrorist" activities in Iraq. Never mind that it has tortured suspected terrorists for Washington. And forget that if the US did not "liberate" Iraq, the problem would not be there in the first place. But don't blame the US. As champion of democracy, it just could [not] stand by and watch Saddam [Hussein] torture his own people; Iraqis had to be "liberated". And never mind that thousands of innocent Iraqis have died or been tortured, and are still dying or being tortured, since "liberation", it is all for the greater good. To paraphrase some God-fearing American Christians who seem to have forgotten the "thou shall not kill" commandment: "If just even one person can be saved, everything would have been worth it." What about Iran? It's the US again. Why? Because the country is trying to go nuclear and it is not democratic. Never mind that 50 years ago, it had a democratically elected president. Thanks to the US, the president [was] taken out and the Shah was installed under a dictatorship form of government which committed atrocities on its people (unfortunately, we did not see the US liberating the Iranians here, but that can be explained), which led to a student uprising and the country's current form of Islamic government. People may argue that the US itself has a lot of nuclear weapons and is even using them now [in] their mini-forms. So what? The US has the right to have them because it has the moral authority, and God speaks directly to its president.
Daniel
Singapore (Mar 9, '05)


First, I want to commend you on your excellent online publication. Next: A one-page document with as much wisdom as all of the religious texts ever written is known as Desiderata. I often think of this document when reading some of these letters. One line in particular comes to mind: "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story." Chrysantha Wijeyasingha seems to be a case in point.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 9, '05)


Herr Professor Dr Spengler [They made a democracy and called it peace, Mar 8]: Um Gottes Wille, was hat Demokratie mit wieviel Kinder eine Frau baert zu tun? You are letting your own obsessions with European demographics and women's liberation get in the way of clear thought. Do you really think Germany would be better off with Kinder Kueche und Kirche backed up by a demand for Lebensraum? Of course you don't. So if people freely choose to breed less you are going to have to live with it. Preach against it if you wish, as did [George Bernard] Shaw or your namesake [Oswald Spengler]. But do not use the lack of Euro Kinder (or the early death of Russians post-Gorbachev) to make a case for dictatorship.
Vivian Lewis (Mar 8, '05)


Iran's influence over the Middle East has been well known for a long time [Iran pulls Syria's strings, Mar 8]. Even in religious terms Iran and Saudi Arabia have been at odds. [Iran's] growing influence and her possession of both missile and nuclear technology only add fuel to the fire. But since September 2001 the US has taken [on] a willful and determined role in the affairs of the Middle East and the US is here to stay. In addition of Israel, the arrival of the most powerful nation on Earth to the shores of the Middle East is a situation that not only the US is taking note of Iran's growing power but Iran obviously sees the presence of the US as a damper to Iran's ambitions.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 8, '05)


[Re] Bush: The strategist in the shadows [Mar 5]: Robert A Juhl is exactly wrong. First of all, Iraq was not strong when [US President George W] Bush took office. If Bush didn't know that - and he claims he didn't - he's incompetent. This information could easily be gleaned from unbiased, expert sources. On the other hand, there were numerous observers who felt that the [United Nations] sanctions had done their job. In fact, in 2002, prior to the passing of UN Resolution 1441, [US secretary of state Colin] Powell had completed a new regimen of sanctions that met the concerns of human rights groups, according to Foreign Affairs. Since Bush chose to push aside this important work in favor of the neo-con plan to invade preemptively, unilaterally, that make him both incompetent and cynical. As to whether Bush duped the neo-cons, please. Immediately after Baghdad "fell" (actually, it was a tactical move of the Ba'athists to melt away and fight a guerrilla war), when [then Defense Policy Board chairman Richard] Perle was predicting there'd be a square in Baghdad named after Bush, the US press was all abuzz over the upcoming invasion of Iran, part and parcel of neo-con planning for some 10 years. What happened was that the great victory turned into a quagmire, no WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were found, and Iraq became a breeding ground for a turbocharged radical Islamism and anti-Americanism. This is not the result of a clever, cynical tactic. Bush was as duped by [Ahmad] Chalabi as the neo-cons. Bush didn't/doesn't know what to do, and thousands have already died, needlessly. Regarding whether Israel would have released hostages with Saddam [Hussein] still in power [in Iraq] but [Palestinian president Yasser] Arafat had died, there is simply no way to tell what Israel would have done under such circumstances. I would also remind Mr Juhl that any suggestion that things are moving in the right direction between Israel [and] Palestine is, at best, foolish. We will know two, three years from now whether the death of Arafat was an important turning point, the beginning of the catastrophic end of the Palestinian struggle for a state, or simply more of the same stalemated horror. As for Bush's role in this, we will learn that, as with every other area, his actions were simply flaky, when they weren't useless and irrelevant. I see nothing contradictory in a portrait of Bush as an incompetent, ignorant, devious, manipulative, and also easily manipulated leader. He has demonstrated this cluster of characteristics not only in Middle East policy, but in every area that a US president has to deal with. Indeed, that is precisely how one would expect a spoiled C+ level intellect from a wealthy family to perform as president. That is precisely how an ex-alcoholic who learned at an early age he could get away with anything, even deserting during wartime, would be expected to act as president. Unfortunately, Bush has exceeded even my expectations. He is, as Helen Thomas of AP [Associated Press] famously said, the worst president ever.
Richard Einhorn
New York, New York (Mar 8, '05)


Jose R Pardinas, PhD: Thank you for your outstanding letter [Mar 7] commenting on [Robert A] Juhl's essay Bush: The strategist in the shadows (Mar 5). When I first read the essay, I couldn't believe that Juhl was serious, but then the Emperor is, in actuality, quite naked, and there are those who continue to choose for one reason or another not to see. You expressed my sentiments exactly, and I would like to see a future comment from you on the theological implications and continuing ramifications of Mr Bush's unequivocal belief that "God" has personally instructed him to wreak the havoc he has wrought upon mankind and the world. If President [George W] Bush were the average citizen, he would be rewarded for his delusions with a padded cell. But here we are - in America - open-mouthed in disbelief, and waiting for the other shoe (boot) to drop. God help us - if ya kin find the time.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Mar 8, '05)

Clearly not all Americans are "open-mouthed in disbelief", as evidenced by the election results in November. - ATol


To Beth Bowden [letter, Mar 7] re Bush: The strategist in the shadows [Mar 5]: Bravo! Chrysantha Wijeyasingha writes [letter, Mar 7]: "If ... India thinks Mrs [Hillary] Clinton and her party have a snowball's chance of becoming the next [US] president ... then the Indian media and upper class haven't a clue about the vast American heartland. They are true 'red' states and firm Bush followers and they [comprise] the majority of the US population and her voting bloc." As typical of many extremist right-wingers, Chrysantha simply ignores all facts, and critique, which do not fit the "religious" fanaticism by which he is controlled. Thus he makes no effort to address facts and realities raised - in the mistaken belief that ignoring reality will make it go away. By contrast with his fact-free and anti-American "religious" brainwashing: The "red" [Republican] heartland is vast in terms of geography, but relatively sparse in population; most of the US population is concentrated in cities, and on the coasts; and much of the northern Midwest is "liberal". In addition, more than 70% of the US population support moderate-"liberal" issues, such as legal abortion and gun control. And - it should go without saying but obviously does not as concerns Chrysantha - the majority of any polity is moderate, not right (or left) wing extremists like [President George W] Bush. Chrysantha, address the overwhelming evidence in front of your face: Bush is not the second coming of Christ; he is a war criminal - in massive violation of "Thou shalt not kill." Bush is not a "Christian" (Bill Clinton and John Kerry each attend church more often than Bush); he has repeatedly been proven a liar - a constant violator of "Thou shalt not lie". And last but not least: torture is not only entirely opposite Christ's message, but is also a war crime - even when imposed by the US.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 8, '05)


Response to Frank's letter [Mar 7]: Frank tells us that it is no big deal that Chinese people change their names to Western names. Well, for a majority of people in the world, names are such an intrinsic part of people's identities that changing one's name, especially when there is no serious rationale, can be considered a rather shameful sellout. Yet I don't see the need to compare the Chinese [to] animals or pests, since changing one's name is after all one's personal choice (one may recall Frankie boy's obsessive rants, invoking comparisons of Indians [to] dogs). As far as Frank's teeth-rattling about English: Apart from business need, there is a strong historical reason for many countries in the world to speak English. Prevalence of English is partly a product of [the] colonial age, and very much a part of the heritage of many countries, whether one may like it or not. When entire generations of people grow up learning in English at schools, English gradually ceases to be a foreign language; but yet people like Frank and his pals continue banging their and others' heads against the wall, foolishly trying to shame others. There is a fundamental difference between the writings of Indian writers [whom] Frank accuses [of being] not fair to China, and Frank's reactionary diatribe. Admittedly, the former might carry an outsider's perception of China, but still, they largely rely on facts and figures, focus on the policies of the governments rather than bad-mouth a large section of population, and hardly ever contain uncivilized and racist language. Frank's reactionary diatribes of course fail all three tests. It is quite amusing to read the writer DP [letter, Mar 7] brand my letter as containing "rabid right-wing rhetoric". I for one will only be happier if all rioters, of all hues and religious affiliations in Gujarat, are brought to justice and if all the poorest of the poor are able to earn decent livelihoods. I would, however, not like to see my government throw out poor people that don't have jobs as if they were undeserving for residing in the world-class cities or live under a regime that steals people's hard-earned money to achieve socio-economic equality. Communist regimes can do something better than exploiting poverty and fomenting anarchy elsewhere by inspiring anti-establishment hatred. How about providing more freedom and democracy to their own people for a change?
Rakesh
India (Mar 8, '05)


Frank Yeo wrote [letter, Mar 7]: "I would be more insulted if I found ... that China's borders were bequeathed by a small bunch of civil servants who traveled many thousands of miles from Britain to sit down and draw the borders." Well, how about a large bunch of armed regiments who traveled thousands of kilometers to sit down in Lhasa and draw Tibet's boundaries (including incorporating Tibetan land into other Chinese provinces)? "Non-existent Indian highways", Frank Yeo? In terms of length of paved roads, China is barely catching up to India today. But how is India's lack of resources or planning in the past relevant to the issues of Tibet, East Turkestan, Taiwan etc? Frank (Seattle) wrote: "Indians cannot have decent livings by speaking their mother tongues in India." Well, Frank, does China let Tibetans make decent livings by speaking their mother tongue in Tibet? Incidentally, did you know that Tibetan script, since the 8th century, is based on Indian Sanskrit? Check this link. DP, from the USA, wants to know what India stands for. I am happy to oblige. India stands for local rule, peaceful development, equality of ethnicities and, belatedly, peace through strength. China, in contrast, stands for CCP [Chinese Communist Party] rule enforced by the brutal PLA [People's Liberation Army], development through political connections, supremacy of the Han ethnicity and peace through intimidation. Any other questions?
Brij
Chicago, Illinois (Mar 8, '05)

Kudos to Kannan, Juchechosunmanse et al for taking our suggestion (under TKT's letter, Mar 7) and carrying on and expanding this debate in the Asia Times Online forum, thereby freeing up the Letters page for other issues. Click this link to go directly to the string A great message: India vs China. - ATol


I am very impressed by the reporting on TV of the Chen-Soong meeting in which Chen [Shui-bian], like a schoolboy having just been punished for misbehavior, declared before the camera that he would not do this and he would not do that anymore during his remaining term [as president of Taiwan]. Of course his past record makes him untrustworthy. The PRC [People's Republic of China] still has to set up a law binding on the Beijing government to act, just in case the bad boy thinks he can drag his big uncle into a fight to help him out, disregarding the well-being of the people living in Taiwan. So letter writers Kannan and Seiko Zeto (Mar 7), please continue to say your piece. Why not encourage Chen to declare independence and see what happens?
David (Mar 8, '05)


Reading Robert A Juhl's essay [Bush: The strategist in the shadows, Mar 5] on the unsung strategic genius of George W Bush reminds me of the satiric motion picture Being There. In it Peter Sellers plays a tabula rasa of an individual whose inappropriate behaviors, arising from an almost complete lack of common sense, ignorance and illiteracy, are constantly misinterpreted by others for an extraordinary perspicacity. After reading Mr Juhl’s article I’m convinced that he must be one of those reality-impaired but happy happy people who are quite certain that noses were wisely designed by the Creator with the anticipation of eyeglasses. The simple truth is that G W Bush has been, and continues to be, an unprecedented catastrophe for his country and for the world. At the start of his presidency the USA was the indisputable leader of global civilization. It spearheaded a solid alliance encompassing the most advanced nations on the face of the Earth. Its armed forces were widely respected for their firm, courageous action on behalf of justice in places like Bosnia and Kosovo. The American economy was flushed with an enormous surplus. What have we now? Certainly none of the above. Instead, close to 2,000 Americans dead and many times that number seriously and/or permanently injured. A country headed for insolvency. A military whose actions have horrified and disgusted civilized peoples all around the world. A government committed to torture and the spread of extrajudicial centers of "interrogation". In fact, a banana republic writ large and run (I suspect) from a psychopathic little country in the Middle East. This is what the great American Republic has become under the leadership of the vast, prescient and subtle political intellect who now makes his home in the White House. Please!
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Mar 7, '05)


Robert A Juhl's opinion piece in the Speaking Freely column strongly grabbed my attention with its title, Bush: The strategist in the shadows (Mar 5), but upon reading his opinion I would have to have a frontal lobotomy to believe it, because it would require ignoring too many facts, like where were the Iraqi terrorist organizations involved in Palestine and where were the Iraqi terrorists involved in Palestine and where are the frozen funds of Iraqi organizations involved in direct support of terrorists involved in Palestine and why would a secular leader like Saddam [Hussein] be involved in a religious struggle? And what threat was a country proven to have no WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to Israel? Are we all supposed to cheer because [US President George W] Bush by his actions has increased terrorism throughout the world but supposedly has lessened terrorism in Israel? Also, how can Bush take credit for something that hasn't happened yet or something that has to happen for the survival of the Palestinian and Israeli people? Are we to believe that the death toll in Iraq, which is continuing on the Iraqi side alone at a count of over 100,000 with no visible slowdown, was all worth it for the sake of the Israelis and Palestinians? If this were true, I suggest the whole world should install pictures of the Iraqi martyrs in their homes.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Mar 7, '05)


[Re] Bush: The strategist in the shadows [Mar 5]: Not likely! More likely it is necessary to close in on all the Middle East oil. But believe what you want; that lying to the people of the US is acceptable as long as you may have some harebrained scheme that can be scraped together from the ashes of history. But here's my theory. Oil has reached a peak of production. What's left in the ground is harder to get out, [of] lower quality, and increasingly scarce. Oil companies ... are determined to maximize profits for as long as the getting is good. GWB [President George W Bush] in an insane lust for Iraqi oil listened to feeble-minded advisers such as Condi [Rice] and [Donald] Rumsfeld, and formulated a plan to murder Iraq and steal [its] oil. Oh well, gosh, that didn't go so well, did it? But not to worry, the bovine US population hasn't a clue anyway, and doesn't really care as long as we continue to prosper on the backs of the rest of the world. Anyway, Congress is locked up tight and the one-party system that is rearing its ugly head has no intention of letting the people of the US know anything. A US-friendly Ukraine has isolated Russia from Europe and a wonderful relationship will now go begging. There is still the problem of Russia selling oil to China and Japan. Japan is good since they [the Japanese] willingly prop up our currency, but China; there is a problem. They're into our front yard and back yard as well as into Iran. [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez is bad enough. He must of course sell his oil to us for the price we set, so there will be no pipeline to the Pacific. Killing him has become more difficult since failure is likely to provoke an unpleasant response. And of course China can't have Iran's LNG [liquefied natural gas] or oil or anything that we want. Of course, we don't want China to collapse (at least not until it is necessary), so the problem is a little sticky. How do we screw China and exploit [it] at the same time? I mean, 1.3 billion slaves must mean a profit can be turned, even in the short term ... We know that we are reliant on oil that must be shipped across oceans. We know that oil is declining. We are not going to go quietly into the night. Heck, even China may have a difference of opinion there. No, while China and Russia and the rest of the world shake in their boots, we know that the empire cannot be maintained as the oil resource declines. We won't wait till resource depletion and crisis strike the US. I mean, the American people might take offense to starving to death. We will strike preemptively. China must go; [it is] our primary competitor for oil and gas and LNG and just about everything else. But what about Russia? Even killing China won't make refinery capacity increase. We must cull the useless in America, so that the rich and powerful can rise anew in the New American Century. We will strike Russia. Hopefully they have equipped some of their ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] with multiple warheads or the culling will require that personal touch. So perhaps we strike Iran, perhaps not. If we do, China can't retaliate militarily, but unless China decides to go quietly into the night so that America can have all the oil we need, they [the Chinese] will do the only thing they can do, which is try to collapse the dollar. This will be the act of war that we need to make a nuclear strike. Russia may or may not see the danger. I expect [it] will. [It] will try to preempt. What will Europe do? Will [it] join? We have nukes for all comers. Check mate ...
Ben (Mar 7, '05)


Taiwan's and China's political status is very clear. Taiwan is neither a part of the People's Republic of China [PRC] nor is ruled by it in all aspects. The "anti-secession law" that is to be passed ... by the National People's Congress of the PRC does not make much sense. When facing the cross-strait issues, the Chinese Communist Party repeatedly asserted that Taiwan belongs to the PRC and the anti-secession law is to prevent the two from splitting apart to keep the status quo. This is incorrect. Since civil war broke the two, Taiwan (ROC [Republic of China]) and China (PRC) are already two separate, independent countries that do not hold jurisdiction over one another. The proposed law that primarily functions as the law to prevent secession should only [be] legal and effective in the People's Republic of China, not Taiwan, the ROC. You can't establish a law and make it work on other countries, isn't it? Instead, the law is to unilaterally change the status quo by symbolically creating a vague impression to foreigners that Taiwan and China are already unified and both belonged to the PRC. This is creating tensions and distrust between the two countries as time goes on. The direct charter flights, cancellation of military exercises, and the recent 10-point consensus proposed by [Taiwan] President Chen [Shui-bian] and James Soong, supposed to create some harmonious and peaceful situation between the two countries, have just been completely ruined by China. By the way, I appreciate ATol's publishing the insightful article Anti-secession bill ups cross-strait tension [Mar 4] by Alan D Romberg.
Seiko Zeto
Taipei, Taiwan (Mar 7, '05)


If [Hillary] Clinton "wooed" India and India thinks Mrs Clinton and her party have a snowball's chance of becoming the next president of the United States, then the Indian media and upper class haven't a clue about the vast average American heartland [Hillary Clinton woos India, Mar 1]. They are true "red" states and firm Bush followers and they compromise [sic, perhaps "comprise" is meant - ATol] the majority of the US's population and her voting bloc. Taking censors [sic; perhaps "census" is meant - ATol] from cities like New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco will give a skewed impression of how the American voter feels and they don't like Mrs Clinton one bit. Mark my words, in the next election it will either be Mr Juliani [sic; perhaps "Rudolph Giuliani" is meant - ATol], or some other Republican candidate, but not Mrs Clinton or her party.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 7, '05)


The letter [Mar 4] by Kannan commenting on Sudha Ramachandran's [Mar 4] article [China's pearl in Pakistan's waters] shows exactly why peace is so illusive [sic] in the subcontinent. Being quite human, subcontinental Muslims have strong spiritual affinities with the Middle East, which is not unusual, as even Indonesians and Malaysians become affected by happenings in the Arab world. Granted, this phenomenon leads many Muslims to ignore the realities of their homelands and effort must be made to instill some balance, but as far as the subcontinent is concerned balance is the rarest species for followers of any religion. Maybe if Hindus would stop reminding Muslims tirelessly that Islam is a "Western" religion and also that Muslims must fit into a social setup inspired by the caste system, peace would be more attainable. Perhaps Kannan should also educate himself (or herself) that ummah is not the name of a locale and that perpetually nursing grudges for others' culture is not a recipe for peace.
Bilal Saqib
USA (Mar 7, '05)


The vitriol spewed by Kannan, Brij, and Rakesh ([letters] Mar 3-Mar 4) only reveals one thing: some of your Indian readers are kin to Americans in rabid right-wing rhetoric. Only the accent is different. Thus, Kannan and Rakesh engage in a contradictory red-baiting diatribe about communism by shedding crocodile tears for Chinese workers - who are suffering the depredations of capitalist market reforms. Never mind that both are also apologists for a capitalist India that is based upon a de facto apartheid caste system. Brij tries to top them by ranting about everything from dragon symbolism, to Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, China as an empire, etc. What's that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black? India itself is waging colonial wars of pacification from Kashmir to Nagaland to Assam - all the while trying to subjugate rebellions in Manipur and crush Naxalite "insurgents" inspired by the Maoists in Nepal. Behind its spin about secular harmony, India is infected by a Hindutva fascist ideology that has spawned ethnic cleansing and religious fanaticism in Gujarat and beyond. Indeed, Brij's comments about an "empire held together by a brutal military" describe India to a T. Better yet, it describes India's "natural democratic ally" of imperialist America, a rogue superpower whose perpetual wars of aggression and belligerence are starting to embarrass even some US citizens. One should ask a better question: What do India, the USA, and other capitalist states really stand for? Cut through their propaganda, and the answer is obvious. Fascist "democracy" disguised behind a liberal secular mask.
DP
USA (Mar 7, '05)


Juchechosunmanse (the longest Chinese name I have ever come across!), if you believe that criticism of the ruling communists' aggressive policies is a denunciation of China, then I can't help you [letter, Mar 4]. When I have difference of opinion about certain policies of Indian federal and state administrations I don't hesitate to express it openly. It is not appropriate to drag in nationalism or patriotism here. The ruling administrations world over, whatever be their professed ideologies, are merely interim custodians of the state's resources, policies and programs. They are dispensable and must subject themselves to the will of the people being governed. In the hands of illegitimate rulers or regimes, the state transforms into a soulless machine where the rights of the individual are suppressed. This is exactly the problem with communist China. Dictators and despots need a political cause for survival. If there were none then they would create one (Taiwan in the case of Beijing). It is difficult to wean China's communist regime away from the violent path (to which they owe their very existence) they have embarked on with respect to Taiwan. Beijing is doing everything that it shouldn't to pull Taiwan into its orbit. How can anyone in the world believe in China's peace gestures when [it has] lined up missiles against every potential opponent? Juchechosunmanse, you claim that Tibet, Xinjiang and even Taiwan are part of China. Then how come people from these states are not visible even in the figurehead positions in Beijing? Occupying territories and giving representation in power are two different aspects. The day a Tibetan/Uighur/Taiwanese is chosen to a high-ranking position then I will believe that these disputed lands are indeed part of the Middle Kingdom. Although China has relaxed the communist policies in the economic sphere, there is no visible freedom in other areas. Going by the practice of communism for more than eight decades all over the world, it is apparent that it is less of an ideology and more of a mental disease depriving an individual's creative and intellectual functions. For example, even during the oppressive British occupation of India, Bengal produced a number of poets, writers, social reformers, freedom fighters and even scientists. In the post-independence era after the communists captured power they have systematically played with the system and the people, and now West Bengal is lagging behind the nation in development indices in spite of having access to the sea, rich minerals and excellent human resources. There are plenty of reports [on the] Internet about abuse of prisoners to construct roads in China. Just try Google. If Xinhua is the only the source of your information, then I doubt you may find it there.
Kannan (Mar 7, '05)


Please let me address some of the attacks to me personally. I always think it is a waste of time. However, I hope the following answers will save other reader some time in the future. First, I respect Indian people. I think India made a right decision to march its troops into Goa to kick those white colonists out of there. I think India made right decisions of not allowing Kashmir, Jammu, Goa, Sikkim, Assam, Nagaland, Punjab, [and the] Andaman and Nicobar Islands to declare independence. There will always be people who do not like their government [and want] to declare independence. We cannot grant everybody the rights to declare independence unilaterally. However, I do not think East Indian writers were fair to China and Chinese people. I do not live in China. Therefore, I am not a worthy representative of Chinese people. What I am expressing here are strictly my personal opinions. I do not give a shit if you do not like them. [The United States of] America is not a white men's country. It belongs to native American Indians. There are still some of them survived the genocide. I talked to a few tribe peoples. They do not mind that I live in Seattle. Chinese people have many names. It is not a big deal for Chinese to change or add a name for communication purposes. English is also a great tool for communication. I think everybody should learn a few words of English. However, if Indians cannot have decent livings by speaking their mother tongues in India, India cannot be regarded [as] a shining independent country. It is laughable to read all those contradictory boastings from India. A few days ago, a 17-year-old Indian boy deceived many Indian leaders (including India's president) by declaring [that] he received an award from NASA [the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration]. Do you find that news laughable? Whom do these Indian writers think they are trying to fool at ATol? I am just trying to share some of my observation of amusement with other readers here. If you do not like them, you can always ignore them.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 7, '05)


A while ago I was reading with some interest the letters dripping with vitriol from Brij and Kannan and [Shekhar] Nitin. Today I find that I am reading the same acidic inaccuracies from the same people. I would like to make a few comments. It must be small minded to insult a man because he has a foreign name, Western in this case. In the USA, there are many millions with similar names who are black. Would they have the courage to put them in the same basket as Frank of Seattle? Furthermore, in China many foreign people have Chinese names. Now they know, are their hackles rising against them? How does demeaning and telling lies about China's highways prove anything, except the paucity of their arguments? Unfortunately Frank of Seattle cannot insult India's highways because they are apparently non-existent or, if they [exist], they were built by those slavedriving British. Brij and company derive such pleasure pointing their fingers at Tibet and East Turkestan (East Turkestan? What is that? Enemies of China are the only people who know and remember this brief episode of China's history). Does this trio really want to point at China drawing her own borders in Tibet and East Turkestan? Personally I would be more insulted if I found as a Chinese that China's borders were bequeathed by a small bunch of civil servants who traveled many thousands of miles from Britain to sit down and draw the borders. Unfortunately for Indians, they have had nothing to do with where their country begins or ends. So unfortunate. I would be in deep depression except that I am reassured that China drew her own borders without any help from anyone, especially anyone from thousands of miles away. It is time to grow up and stop spitting at China and consider India as an entity on its own, independent of comparison with anyone else. I grow weary reading meaningless insults which only demean the writers.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 7, '05)


Daniel McCarthy writes: "ATol's editors continue to miss the point [in comments under Daniel McCarthy's previous letters] regarding China's belligerence ... ATol's talk of Cuba or Iraq is irrelevant to this ... relationship." It was Mr McCarthy who asserted the claim that the US had never been hostile toward or taken military action against Cuba - in doing which Cuba was not "irrelevant" to him. It only became "irrelevant" to Mr McCarthy when his claim was refuted. The only question is whether he is a hypocrite - hypocrisy being the ATol point - or lying, or doesn't "get it". That question remains unanswered because unilateralists are self-centered, smug supremacists (which has no foundation) for which everything runs in one direction from their being [the] center of the universe, and who have no regard for rule of law except when it is to their advantage. Thus Mr McCarthy wants to leave out all those cases - one current being the US's illegal invasion and occupation of non-threatening Iraq - which refute his ideological dishonesty. So OK, Mr McCarthy, let's confront a present example which, though not exclusive to US-China, does exist in that relationship. Perhaps this will penetrate your smug ideological blinders as to how the US, as initiator of illegalities in international relations, gives license - permission - to every other nation to do the same. [US President George W] Bush has bashed China for "human-rights violations" - and now, quite correctly, and truthfully and accurately, China has responded by criticizing the Bush US's human-rights violations, an example being the war crime of torture imposed by Bush in such places as Guantanamo, Cuba (which is not governed by "Commie" Fidel Castro), Afghanistan, and Iraq's Abu Ghraib. What is Bush going to do when countries emulate the US in its application of such as the war crime of torture behind his lies of "free market" "democratic" "freedom on the march"? Call them evil tyrannies?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 7, '05)


I would encourage [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy to join us over in the forum (perhaps he is there under another name - which is great). I personally have found it to be a wonderful place to debate with others and get a better insight into their perspectives. For the most part it is very civil, and when it gets too out of hand the Admin does respond. This debate has helped me expand my own understandings. Many of the topics that he seems to hold dear are frequent topics on the forum. This would allow the letter pages to open up for "less" frequent writers and keep us "loudmouths" over in our semi-isolated booth. Come join us!
TKT
Minnesota, USA (Mar 7, '05)

The Edge forum has been a great success, despite the efforts of a handful of abusers, spammers and other idiots to spoil it for everyone else. You are correct that some of the debates on the Letters page would be more appropriate for the forum; we would recommend that the currently ongoing Indians-vs-Chinese imbroglio, for example, move over there forthwith. Ideally the letters should be for reacting to Asia Times Online articles, not sniping at other letter writers. As with the forum itself, however, we are very reluctant to censor this page - it is your page, and it is up to you to use it intelligently and with self-discipline. - ATol


Letter writer Geoffrey Sherwood [Mar 4] seizes on concerns about global warming and raises the possibility that natural global warming may be inevitable. After this act of climatological hand-waving, Mr Sherwood's point is, to borrow a phrase from Bobby McFerrin, "Don't worry, be happy." Although I would love to share in Mr Sherwood's happy-go-lucky embrace of reggae, I see the dire effects of this indifference to nature all around me, where forests have been turned into paper factories, parking lots replace swamplands, and the water and air are poisoned. Should unbelievable amounts of poisons be pumped into the air, water and land all around the world? Should forests and other natural places be destroyed for profit? Does Mr Sherwood suggest that in the "horrendously complex feedback loops" of nature, there is any question as to the damage caused by human pollution? Some "scientists" reassure us that everything will be fine. Other "scientists" still struggle to accept that women did not originate from a man's rib 7,000 years ago. But regardless of what these scientists are paid to say, who in their right mind wouldn't fear the effects of titanic amounts of poisons fouling the last drop of water and the last breath of air on the planet? Mr Sherwood asks, "Should we be preparing to wage an eternal war with Mother Nature?" How can you prepare for a war that has already been fought and won - by humanity? Nature has been ravaged thoroughly by human greed and technology. Just look around at your surroundings, Mr Sherwood. Strip malls and freeways are the trophies erected over defeated nature. The question of global warming is just one aspect of the pollution and outright destruction of nature wrought by a shortsighted and greedy humanity. The question remains whether humanity will pollute itself into extinction, and give "Mother Nature" a well-deserved rest.
G Travan
California, USA (Mar 7, '05)


If there were to be one good reason for the information highway, the World Wide Web, Asia Times [Online] would be enough. As a citizen of the USA, the news from headline down says one thing but means another. It is like having to know two languages, one reality and the other government-speak. Being critical is easy, and I'm a bit ashamed of doing just that, but I've witnessed a decline in open opposition to government, either out of fear or ridicule - the domino theory is moving right along. The real pity is the hours wasted explaining the press to students ending with the New York Times, only to find the term "liberal press" is but someone's dream. Facts are advertising runs those presses, and liberals don't own the majority of advertising copy. Nor positive press. When capitalism comes in the door, all else goes out the window. A belated Happy New Year and may you remain an inspiration, educating the West with the wisdom of the East.
Chris R Page
USA (Mar 7, '05)


I find it humorous that the Japanese people get excited about a few missing citizens, when the use of "comfort girls" during World War II enslaved thousands of Korean women and girls for the sexual gratification of Japanese soldiers. Simply seems like a case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Tom Derby (Mar 7, '05)

Would you be similarly amused if, say, Israelis perpetrated crimes against innocent Germans, or Arabs miffed about Guantanamo snatched some teenage sunbathers off of the beaches of southern Florida? - ATol


The article by Sudha Ramachandran [China's pearl in Pakistan's waters, Mar 4] mentions Pakistan's desire to shift its strategic assets as far away from India as possible. Their "strategic depth initiative" was a similar attempt to secure Afghanistan as a safe base in any conflict with their "sworn enemy". This strategic plan is in ruins now. Although China has invested millions of dollars in the development of Gwadar port, the significance of it to China remains merely one of strategic value and not a commercially viable one at present. How do they [the Chinese] plan to transport goods to and from Gwadar? The "all weather" friendship between Pakistan and China does not have an all-weather road to boost ties. Traffic through the Karakoram highway is a nightmare and would be disrupted easily as it is prone to frequent landslides. Balochi nationalists rightly question the benefit of Gwadar to them since they are kept out of entire process. Pakistan seeks to cultivate the barren lands of Balochistan and bring investment by inflating the geostrategic importance of the location. Any investor and central Asian states in particular will remain suspect since the transit through Afghanistan is dangerous now. Iran, on the other hand, offers a better alternative to them with its Chabahar port. Nevertheless, Pakistan cannot stop talking about [its] proximity to [Persian] Gulf region. Besides, there is an eternal desire (one-side love story) among the elites of the land of the pure to identify them with the culture and people of the Middle East than to South Asia. Unfortunately, Earth is not kind to them. There are no plate tectonics beneath the Radcliffe line to pull them away from the subcontinent and bring them closer to ummah... Pakistan's destiny is tied to peace and stability in the Indian subcontinent, although Islamabad will never admit it.
Kannan (Mar 4, '05)


Dear [Syed Saleem] Shahzad: I just read your article in Asia Times Online about Nasir Ali Mubarak and the horrible treatment he has received at the hands of criminals masquerading as patriots in my country [Caught in terror's tangled web, Mar 4]. I am not in a position to help Mr Mubarak, much as I would like to. I can only say how sad and sorry and ashamed I am.
Dan O'Connell
Kingman, Arizona (Mar 4, '05)


Dear [Syed Saleem Shahzad]: I am so glad this article [Caught in terror's tangled web, Mar 4] is published. It is strange how many countries have trampled the human rights of an innocent citizen. None of them even remotely seems ashamed about it [or does] something about it even after the San Francisco Journal has published the story. It is really troubling to see that a so-called civilized nation which has the heritage of [Abraham] Lincoln and even two Muslim countries have maltreated an individual and destroyed his life. It is shocking to discover that the corruption is Pakistan is at the same level as India (where also such things happen). The comfortable officers of ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] pocketed his money without a second thought that a fellow Muslim who has suffered so much needs to be helped. I understand that Ms Asma Jehangir is doing a great job towards human rights, and do you think she can help Nasir [Ali Mubarak]? We are too far away to meet Mr Nasir, but if you ever meet him, will you please tell him that our heart cries for him.
Dinesh Solanki
Mumbai, India (Mar 4, '05)


Dear [Syed Saleem] Shahzad: Thanks for your article in ATol [Caught in terror's tangled web, Mar 4]. A couple of weeks ago I requested this type of coverage in the ATol forum, for I find it extremely helpful to get snapshots of individual, human stories amidst all the larger - and urgent - geopolitical issues swirling around today. This story, apart from being sad in a very personal way in terms of Nasir [Ali Mubarak], also shows how the various intelligence services are in regular contact but seemingly without much level of detail. Given this story, it is reasonable to assume there are many thousands of such individuals caught in a system that, like a spider's web, does a good job of catching anything that flies into it, but has little control over what exactly that is - tasty flies or passing garbage and airborne seeds.
Ashley Howes
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (Mar 4, '05)


The article by Alan Romberg, Anti-secession bill ups cross-strait tension (Mar 4), is clearly written by someone who has the economic and strategic interest of the US in mind, and none others. The belligerent stand of Chen [Shui-bian] and his party did not appear just yesterday [but] has [been] building for a number of years. The US Congress's Taiwan Relations Act adds fuel to the situation. The arms merchants have been busy promoting sales. As the "green" party in Taiwan continues the push, the PRC [People's Republic of China] has no choice but to draft the anti-secession law, which is simply to draw the line, once for all. Chen has been known to lie and flip-flop all the time. China's sovereignty and dignity cannot be entrusted to any casual announcement here and there and by anyone. So Mr Romberg is simply naive in thinking that China should pick up the recent lip service by Chen, or Mr Romberg is trying to prepare to put the blame on the wrong spot.
David (Mar 4, '05)


By playing with actual numbers, [Swati Lodh] Kundu ends up distorting the reality (Poverty of reforms in India [Mar 4]) when she blames "reforms" for the inequity. I think we can all agree that the reforms either initiated by Congress or [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee (I deliberately separate BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] from it) have been very selective and half-hearted. Where reforms have occurred, mainly in the service sector, tremendous growth has been seen. Furthermore, this growth has been disproportionate since educated people lacking other avenues, notably industrial opportunities, have all joined the services bandwagon, be it software, BPO [business process outsourcing] etc. Of course, the million-rupee question is [whether the fact] that software and services have outgrown everything else is really fault of reforms or lack of reforms in the industrial sector.
AP (Mar 4, '05)


The Bush administration's possible approach to Syria through [its] military has proven successful in other dictatorial terrorist-supporting regimes [Bush has clear run at Syria, Mar 2]. In World Wars I and II the US was not attacked at first and was reluctant to join the war in Europe. The US was dragged into both these wars, especially World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This time the US was attacked first by the destruction of the Twin Towers [of New York's World Trade Center] and 3,000 lives. If the world thinks the US at this time would be reluctant to wage war on any nation [about which] the US has credible knowledge that the nation in question is a threat and would not do a preemptive strike are living in Never Never Land. It is clearly obvious the US is on a warpath to defend her security whether the corrupt child-molesting UN agrees or not. The disparity among the poor rural population and the rapid growth in the urban population is not unique to India [Poverty of reforms in India, Mar 4]. These same statistics can be applied to China or even the developed world such as the United States. This does not mean we should take it for granted. The new budget that has been released by the Indian government takes into account both urban and rural development. These statistics were true before this budget; now we have to see how the rural population will be impacted by this budget and then take new statistics a year or two from now.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 4, '05)


It seems reasonable to require nations to reduce CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions if there is even a modest chance that global warming is occurring, that the result of the warming could be devastating to mankind's well-being, and that the warming is primarily an anthropogenic phenomenon [Derek Kelly responds to readers, Mar 4]. The Earth's climate and its horrendously complex feedback loops are not well understood by climatologists (thus the disputes), never mind sixth-graders and farm maids. We lay people perhaps have no choice but to defer to the climatologists who say we should be worried. We can't confidently say which climatologists are right, so we should err on the side of caution. Perhaps. But that doesn't exempt us from first challenging some of the unspoken assumptions behind the call to aggressively reduce man-made CO2 emissions, such as: Since Mother Nature has caused temperature fluctuations far greater than the estimated 0.7 degree Celsius for which we now stand accused, and since there seems to be no reason to believe large fluctuations won't continue (with or without man-made CO2), the unspoken assumption is that we should be concerned with all large, long-term temperature fluctuations, not just man-made ones. If so, should we be preparing to wage an eternal war with Mother Nature, a war that we, in all likelihood, could never hope to win? When our descendants are on the verge of the next ice age, will they feverishly pump out CO2 to counteract its effects? Offer tax incentives to burn coal? Penalize drivers of electric cars? Or should we endeavor to spare them that future by learning how to adapt to whatever the current warming may bring, in preparation for the day when Mother Nature, in blatant disregard for the Kyoto Protocol, decides to make it really unseasonable?
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 4, '05)


Responding to DP's interpretation [letter, Mar 3] of my article China fuels energy cold war (Mar 2), it appears he has misunderstood the purpose of my article. As a result of my realist viewpoint of international affairs, I regard an increasing number of powerful states vying for finite energy resources as contributing to greater global insecurity. I am not attempting to pass judgment on the actions of China - it must meet its energy needs. However, China through no fault of its own could contribute to greater global instability in its attempt to acquire energy resources on the world stage. India could do the same. Both are merely pursuing their self-interests. Given the current state of international affairs with rising oil prices and a US administration dominated by "hawks", another player on the energy stage is a destabilizing effect. I believe your interpretation has only highlighted your own biases.
Chietigj Bajpaee
Hong Kong (Mar 4, '05)


"Belarus is also no champion of human rights, but from Washington's standpoint, the fact that its government is tightly bound to Moscow makes it the obvious candidate for a Ukraine-style 'Orange Revolution' regime-change effort. That would complete the US encirclement of Russia on the west and of Russia's export pipelines to Europe, were it to succeed. Some 81% of all Russian oil exports today go to Western European markets." It's part of The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny', Mar 3]. I think your tone is perhaps a little paranoiac, even if I agree with most of your thinking. For example, Ukraine. My wife is Ukrainian, I well know Ukraine and the mood of Ukrainians. You can't say the Orange Revolution was for US supremacy. It's simply not true. Yes, the US is surely pleased that Ukraine is now looking west. But Ukrainians are not looking to follow the US, they are looking for a better way of life. Ukraine is looking to Euro-integration - be sure it's not the US money and intelligence who finally turned the Orange Revolution, but the people [themselves]. Okay, Ukrainians (not all, the west part and most of young of the east) are looking now to America as the main example to get a happy life. But when you [recently went out of an extreme kind of organization and civil society, I mean the USSR, for you America and Europe are the same - [there are] few difference between clear blue and white when you are used to seeing everything in red. The US has a lot of influence and is close to the EU, so having a nice policy with the US helps being closer to Europe (for example with NATO and the WTO). Sure, the US wants to have friendly governments everywhere, but don't think these governments are vassals. The new government is moving back from Iraq, isn't it? So, to conclude, don't think Ukraine went out of red supremacy to fall into US power, don't think the US will have control of Ukrainian oil pipelines: Ukraine will finally be in the EU, and the EU is, I'm pleased to think, more humanist and world-opened than actual US (the word "actual" is important) policy.
Arnaud Viguie
Paris, France (Mar 4, '05)


Re In Sri Lanka, no war, no peace [Mar 3] by Ameen Izzadeen: It is rubbish for him to say that there were two helicopters destined for the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]. According to press reports the two helicopters were not meant for LTTE but to INGOs [international non-governmental organizations]. The LTTE is not foolish [enough] to import helicopters through Colombo port. Out of the two helicopters one was send back by the INGO. Journalists like Ameen Izzadeen have an ulterior motive in demonizing the LTTE. I can understand [his] writing such pieces in the anti-Tamil Daily Mirror where he is working as a deputy editor, but he should not write lies hiding behind Asia Times [Online].
Thangavelu (Mar 4, '05)


Erich Marquardt's The threats looming over Jakarta (Mar 3) lacks the scholarly capacity to discern between [an] Islamic state and devoted Muslims. Yes, the Acehnese are devout Muslims but have never called for an Islamic state. Furthermore Aceh's legitimate struggle for self-determination is dishonored by referring to GAM [Free Aceh Movement] as rebels and insurgents. In 1949 the Netherlands illegally handed over a non-existent sovereignty over Aceh to the Republic of Indonesia without Acehnese consent. In 1942, after the expulsion of Dutch forces from Aceh by the Japanese and the Acehnese, the Netherlands made no attempt to return to Aceh. Mr Marquardt should thoroughly do his homework on the Aceh matter.
Dr Vacy Vlazna (Mar 4, '05)


Regarding the article Restore nukes to South Korea [Feb 23] by John Parker: His scenario presents several questions and I would be happy if Mr Parker could address them for me. 1) You state many times that the goal of [North Korea] is violent reunification. However, there is little evidence presented for this assertion. Granted you mention in one of your responses the 1948 manifesto of the Korean Workers Party, and granted throughout the Cold War this was indeed the North's mission. However, do we have any clear evidence today the North intends or could truly sustain an offensive invasion? There is none given. If the North would be so easily bankrupted by an arms race, would not an actual war just as easily do the same? Indeed, you reference China's leverage with North Korea and the fact it has no desire for war on the Korean Peninsula. Given China's huge leverage via energy supplies, its increasingly warm relations with South Korea, and its huge trade with the ROK [Republic of Korea], I think there are more factors than US might that makes a Kim Jong-il military adventure infeasible. 2) I understand your idea of MAD assuring peace, and it is a reasonable idea. However, I don't see how tactical nukes will introduce MAD [mutually assured destru