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.)

June 2005

It was a pleasure to read F William Engdahl's article Revolution, geopolitics, and pipelines [Jun 30] and not a surprise to find it and similar pieces in Asia Times [Online]. Though I agree with Mr Engdahl's arguments and interpretation of developments, there are a few tenuous points and important omissions in the article. Engdahl, for example, considers Tajikistan the only republic not to undergo a successful "color revolution". One wonders, when did successful color "revolutions" take place and succeed in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan? The comment that Washington in one degree or another potentially controls Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan [and] Kyrgyzstan cannot be valued as anything more than an offhand remark, unless a great emphasis is placed on "potentially". On the subject of energy routes: gas pipelines from Iran or Turkmenistan to Ukraine are as realistic as any of the former two building a gas pipeline to China, in fact, perhaps even less so, as China would timely pay world prices for the gas, something Ukraine has not done. Engdahl also doesn't seem to think that any conflict of interest between Russia and Iran resulting from the chimera of Iran-Ukraine-Europe pipeline - and why not Iran-Turkey-Europe, instead? - would likely be preempted by Washington since Ukraine's interests would be decided there and the US actively works to isolate Iran. Engdahl's interesting and extensive article has for some reason ignored the expanding transportation capacity outside of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline: for example, the ongoing upgrades to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium sending Kazakh oil across Russia to the Black Sea. At the May 2005 shareholders meeting it was agreed to raise the capacity from 32 million tons in 2005 to 52 million tons in 2008 - more than the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline - and eventually 67 million tons by 2010-11, while the putative Kazakh oil for the 14-million-tons-a-year Odessa-Brody pipeline in Ukraine would in all likelihood be shipped from Russian Black Sea ports. Russia, however, has began to allot quotas for Kazakh oil in the Baltic Pipeline System, along with the Atyrau-Samara pipeline expansion, an easier and faster way to transport oil to the Baltic. No mention is made about the building of the 20-million-ton pipeline from Kazakhstan to China, including the agreed-on input of Russian oil. It is not at all clear just how the encirclement of Russia would deny China access to Russian oil and gas reserves, especially looking at the map of the region, which Engdahl urges readers to do. If the above issues were addressed a bit more, a more complete picture of the direction of the power struggle, which Engdahl aptly discerns, would emerge.
Leon Rozmarin (Jun 30, '05)


Re Revolutions, geopolitics and oil pipelines [Jun 30]: [F William] Engdahl carefully articulates the case for how strategic energy interests determine geopolitical developments and strategies and effectively demonstrates the existence of a Great Game that is currently being played out, with the winner to take de facto global dominance by virtue of control and dominance of Eurasia and its strategic resources. These matters have been evident to careful observers for a few years now, and I applaud the fact that they are so widely coming to light. However, I disagree with his assessment that Russia and China are falling behind in the Great Game. I think Mr Engdahl makes the commonly seen mistake of assuming US efforts to create meaningful pro-US regimes are actually resulting in successful creation of such regimes. This is far from assured, in spite of the fact that in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and elsewhere governments now exist that are showing a measure of support for US goals and interests. The US cannot count on the level of support and cooperation from these regimes that would be required to make its Eurasian strategies a success. For example, Iran and Azerbaijan have recently signed a non-aggression pact which specifically forbids the presence of any third-party military bases used for aggression against either party to the agreement. The importance of this development is that it demonstrates the tilt of the Azeris toward Iran and their willingness to place significant constraints upon the US military. The Uzbeks have recently done similarly, preventing nighttime operations at the US military base there. And SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] members are increasingly tilting away from the US, toward Russia and China, and signaling that US military bases and activities associated with recent democratic revolutions are becoming unwelcome. In the cases of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia still retains enormous influence over their economies by virtue of its energy monopoly. The current dispute between Russia and Ukraine over "missing" gas, in which Russia is playing hardball, demonstrates that before Ukraine and Georgia might be permitted to follow through on any plans with the US to cut deeply into Russia's de facto energy monopoly, Russia itself will not be afraid to wield its influence to radically increase the economic and political costs to those states of any such plans. Additionally, Kazakhstan is looking seriously at the very desirable proposed export pipeline that would run south through Turkmenistan into Iran, to connect with Iran's Persian Gulf export network. If this pipeline gets built, the BTC [Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline] would be seriously affected in a negative way as Kazakh oil moved south rather than west. In actuality, the US is squandering its once-close relations with the oil-rich Central Asian states, doing so by its insistence on democratic reforms and by otherwise threatening the existing regimes by the spread of its democratic revolutions. In the aftermath of the unrest in the region, the SCO grouping has tightened its joint cooperation and this is occurring at the expense of the US. When one considers also the factors of the deepening of Iran's relations with the Central Asian states, with Russia, with China and with India and even with Pakistan in the spheres of energy, economics and security, the deepening alliance between Russia and China, Asia's economic realignment toward China, and many similar developments, it isn't Russia and China that are falling behind. Rather, it is the US that is failing to turn its post-September 11 [2001] strategic opportunities across Eurasia into lasting strategic alliances that it can exploit to control the supercontinent. And the alliances it does have are pointedly weakening - take the Transatlantic Alliance and the alliance with South Korea as notable examples. Hence while the US certainly plays a good game on the surface, a deeper examination reveals that its game isn't significantly overcoming the geopolitical, geographical, political, cultural, ideological and economic realities inherent on the Eurasian supercontinent - nor is it likely to any time soon. And if Russia is pushed too far by the US in this Great Game, it merely has to work with a few of its key partners (like Iran and Venezuela) to moderately decrease oil production, quickly driving up the global price of oil to a level that threatens to strangle the debt-ridden, imbalance-ridden US economy. This is Russia's trump card - one that cannot be overcome by the US any time soon.
W Joseph Stroupe
USA (Jun 30, '05)


William Engdahl's article Revolution, geopolitics and pipelines [Jun 30] explains [US President George W] Bush's unstated Eurasia policy, and if it were believed by China, [it] would dispel the myth that the US is attempting to "encircle" China. China has completely blundered in its counter-moves, however. Although China has invested heavily in development of Kazakhstan in order to pipe Kazakh oil to China, the people of Kazakhstan are irritated with the Chinese approach and are outraged that a map has been circulated in government offices in Beijing showing the "Kazakhstan province" of the People's Republic of China. Likewise, China's bid for Unocal was executed in a typically inept manner, raising ire in Washington. Meanwhile, the US is signing military-cooperation agreements with India and Vietnam, both of [which] view China as their primary security threat for the long term. All of this leaves China in a very lonely position, with only Burma [Myanmar] and North Korea as its potential allies in the region.
Daniel McCarthy  (Jun 30, '05)


Re China 'fails' test over North Korea [Jun 30]: Francesco Sisci repeats the Northern Sung poetic turn of the watchword that Deng Xiaoping used to characterize China-North Korean relations: closer than lips and teeth. Alas, the South Sung did not come to the rescue of its northern rival as the Ming forces first defeated one, and then the other dynasty. Sisci is wrong in saying the lips of Beijing are no longer protecting the teeth of Pyongyang. Beijing is a model of forbearance when it comes to dealing with North Korea. The Chinese do not see it in their interests to force the hand of Kim Jong-il, to further America's foreign policy. Lest we forget, strategically speaking, Washington remains the putative and ever growing enemy. The Chinese can live with an obstreperous Kim Jong-il, and so can the South Koreans. Again, it is not in the interests of either country to see North Korea implode. Sisci re-stirs the pot of history's what ifs? Neither [US presidents Harry] Truman nor [Dwight] Eisenhower put much faith in early-warning signals of Chinese intervention during the war in Korea, the more especially since neither administration trusted the messenger, which was neutral India, nor the plain-spoken words of Zhou Enlai, nor the infiltration of easily captured Chinese volunteers in the late fall months of 1950. Both administrations wanted regime change and a rollback of the bamboo curtain. So his [Sisci's] conjecture remains an exercise for the history class. A more telling example is the spurning of the Bush administration of an offer by Kim Jong-il in 2002 to come to agreement with Washington about nuclear proliferation. This missed opportunity was brought to light three years after the bearers of the message, the ex CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] operative and former US ambassador Donald Gregg's and his sidekick the journalist Don Oberdorfer's op-ed appeared in the June 22 Washington Post. Thus we see one more time the current White House's intransigence, lack of flexibility, and imperious will to solve problems on its own terms. Equally disturbing is the silence of Gregg and Oberdorfer at a time when [President George W] Bush & Co have done nothing but whip up warlike hysteria and mis- and disinformation as to the motives of Pyongyang. This is a formula for disaster any way you look at the matter.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 30, '05)


Your article The Saudi oil bombshell [Jun 29] claims "Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer and there is no major supplier ... capable of making up for the loss in Saudi production if its output falters". As I have stated before, the three states of Nevada, Wyoming and Colorado hold enough oil in slate that the number of barrels is not judged in billions but in trillions. It is claimed that these three US states alone contain as much oil as the entire Middle East. The only problem is that it is shale oil and to extract that will need further technology ... As I said before this does not count the still-undiscovered reserves in Alaska and the discovered reserves in Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, California and offshore. In addition to that the US has vast gas reserves which with new technology it can [make] into LNG (liquefied natural gas) [allowing] large amounts [to] be transported. For the last 30 years the US administration has not built one single nuclear power plant, which now is changing as [President George W] Bush is pushing for the peaceful use of nuclear technology and research into alternative energy sources: hydrogen, solar/wind, hybrid or electric cars or mass transportation. Finally, [Russia] has proven oil that is second only to Saudi Arabia and [Russia] has not exhausted her vast territory in finding new oil. If the Saudi oil fails it will definitely shake the stock exchanges of the world but there [are] too many other options either in commercial use or under research and development. After the initial shock from Saudi Arabia one will be amazed at how developed and developing economies will scientifically figure a way around the complete dependence on oil.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 30, '05)


Re Speaking Freely - Hobbesian hell in the making [Jun 29] by Gaurang Bhatt: I noticed a rather unfortunate mis-quotation by the writer in his comparison of Christianity and Islam. The offending quote [regards] "Christ's statement that 'there are many paths to my father's mansion'." The quote he might have had in mind is "In my Father's house are many rooms" (John 14:2). Given that Christ says later in the same chapter, "No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well," it appears there is a significant misinterpretation within the article about Christ's statement. That said, the writer's original point concerning the comparative militancy of Christianity and Islam still holds true, at least where the founders are concerned.
Bob Hu
Sydney, Australia (Jun 30, '05)

The passage in the Gospel of John you cite has caused a lot of confusion over the ages, largely due to the King James (Authorized) Version's translation of the Greek word monai as "mansions". Some modern translations render it as "rooms", and the KJV itself renders it elsewhere as "abodes". In any case, your point is well taken - although some liberal Christians embrace the concept of "many paths" to God, it is difficult to see how that is backed up by the writer of the fourth Gospel, at least in this instance. - ATol


DirtyDog of San Francisco told us that India was at its weakest point in civilization during the 500 years of Mughal rule [letter, Jun 29]. I am wondering what DirtyDog thinks of the years of English rule after the Mongol ruler. I am afraid this DirtyDog will tell me that when English ruled the Indians, that was the highest civilization Indians had ever achieved. That surely explains DirtyDog's screen name, doesn't it?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 30, '05)


This is with reference to the mail of Fabricio (Jun 28) in response to the letter of Saqib Khan [Jun 27]. I am happy to learn about the agnostic views relating to the existence of God. I wish to inform the writer that what lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival". Most people think Charles Darwin, [relying] on scientific evidence, observations and experiments, first proposed the Theory of Evolution. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator, neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although no scientific evidence backs it up, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy. This fanaticism has resulted in many disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who used to answer: "Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches" have now begun to think, "Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception. Darwin legitimized violence by claiming that humans are, in essence, animals struggling for life. Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: "The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion." Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. According to that claim, "favored races" were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the "struggle for survival" entirely, and thus disappear. Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus' book An Essay on the Principle of Population. A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologies. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selected mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races: "History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself." Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival". As for those of us who believe in God, we can see the proof of His existence in life and death, in day and night, in sufferings and happiness and in the whole textbook of nature, the handiworks of God, the Almighty.
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jun 30, '05)

While your example of Hitler's perversion of certain elements of Darwinism to justify his genocidal mindset has some merit, your main point that evolutionary theory breeds violence conveniently ignores the many, many wars and other acts of brutality committed throughout the ages, and even today, in the name of religion. - ATol


Saqib Khan (Jun 27) evades the questions posed and holds forth a desultory discourse on [the Theory of] Evolution. Lest your myopic eyes did not see it, I repeat, my first question was, without so much as risking certain death whether Islam would allow the casuistry of the sort that [the] Bible was subjected to by Christians or which other religions of the East always permitted its followers to indulge on their respective sacred texts. Second, can secularism be genuinely part of the ethos of Islam, notwithstanding all your tall claims on this fastest-growing religion? Your answers actually digress from the point. The fastest growth, as Fabricio pointed out in another mail [Jun 28], could be among the poor and illiterate and could not be held as an attribute of wider acceptability. The majority of Europe's traditional inhabitants are busy with their "creative" self-destruction through non-procreation, as Spengler would have pointed out to you. Like other fundamentalists you have a tendency to go on the defensive when being pointed [to] the errors in your specious reasoning, and quick to brand me as an Islamophobe. You contradict yourself on your stance on secularism by admitting that you do enjoy your stay in a secular place like London and being allowed to pray at will. Will this be possible if you happen to do it in, say, the streets of Karachi in Pakistan, where there is a good chance that you may get caught in the sniper fire between holy jihad warriors of Sunni and Shi'ite causes? Just as the idea (and it will be forever an idea, nevertheless useful) of a Maker is a matter of faith for you, the Theory of Evolution is not a matter of faith but an ongoing and engrossing affair for science. If you choose to mix it up in the shambolic ways you did, you should have used the same yardsticks and methods to judge, and in failing to do so, you present a miserable picture. Even by the laws of thermodynamics there is a theoretical but slim probability that a crashed plane broken into pieces can actually get back into its original shape, so if you are ignorant, which you showed you are, never trivialize the methods of science. The Theory of Evolution or, for that matter, the enterprise of a scientific spirit never concerns itself with refuting the Creator, if any; instead it works on probing the "mind" of the Creator. And in that intriguing and fascinating saga of self-discovery and inquiry, there is always room for improvements and startling discoveries, which while producing awe and humility may even transcend and conflict with conventional faith. You chose to close your eyes to that fact and atrophy yourself, but then the least favor you can do yourself is not to indulge in dishing out such crap on a public forum like this. Blind faith, as articulated by you, is simplistic and does not fit into the rubric of the 21st-century world, nor does it appeal to the rational self. That your world view is in conflict with a rational scientific view is understandable as you make personal insinuations. Mind you, there is no one single way to reach the destination and your Semitic indoctrinated world view will not find this truth palatable, to say the least.
Sree
India (Jun 30, '05)


I have been a regular reader of your publication. [I] have noticed a consistent increase in articles by Indian writers, with the notable exception of the ones written by M K Bhadrakumar, which are simply aimed at somehow maligning Pakistan with the standard Indian propaganda and rhetoric. While quoting atrocities committed by [Pakistan's] army in the now Bangladesh and playing with extremely exaggerated figures, they have comfortably forgotten the role of massive infiltration by Indian agents, the so-called Mukti [Bahini] who entered East Pakistan with the sole mission of creating major disturbances, riots and further weakening the limited Pakistani military strength in East Pakistan. This major infiltration and its role in destabilizing East Pakistan [have] been admitted by the Indian military establishment on several occasions and was never denied by [prime minister Indira] Gandhi. I seriously believe these columnists should focus on India's huge problems. Today, India has the biggest share of the world's poor, yet it continues its romance with its huge defense expenditure. India's continued failure to abide by clear-cut UN resolutions of granting the right of self-determination to the poor oppressed Kashmiris would always remain a blot on its so-called democratic credentials and so would the target killings of thousands of innocent Muslims in the Babri mosque incident and the Gujarat carnage. On the foreign-policy front India has poor relations with nearly all of its neighbors, mainly on account of its hegemonic designs, yet these columnists are unperturbed, which, though disturbing, is not the least surprising considering their orientation in Indian intelligence and establishment. It's about time your publication comes up with a balanced coverage of viewpoints and retains its high-quality, non-partisan status.
Faraz
Denmark (Jun 30, '05)

So our writers should only report on India's problems and not Pakistan's, is that your definition of "balanced coverage"? If our articles about Pakistan contain inaccuracies you are welcome to point them out. That would carry more weight than merely disparaging the nationality of our writers. - ATol


Gaurang Bhatt's [Hobbesian hell in the making, Jun 29] clearly shows which political-theory class President [George W] Bush slept through.
Michael
Los Angeles, California (Jun 29, '05)


Gaurang Bhatt writes in Hobbesian hell in the making [Jun 29], "Ever since Winston Churchill and Gertrude Stein drew a map of the current Iraq, supposedly on a breakfast napkin ..." Gertrude Bell was the mother of modern Iraq; Stein was an American expatriate in Paris more interested in Alice B Toklas than the tribes of Mesopotamia.
Ian Clark
Danville, California (Jun 29, '05)

A rose is a rose is Iraq ... the howler has been corrected. - ATol


Dear Spengler: I like reading your articles and Iran: The living fossils' vengeance [Jun 28] was no exception. It was a great mixture of facts and philosophy. I read and reread the section in which you state, "Islam is the vengeance of tribal society upon the cosmopolitan empires," and you list the empires. I found your list incomplete. You have listed the Sassanids, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, and the West. But you have overlooked the death and disorder that Islam wreaked on the Vedic/Hindu empires and civilization of the Indian subcontinent. This is all the way from 9th century to the 16th. There is a reason why the mountains in the northwest are named Hindu Kush or "Hindu Killers". India perhaps was at its weakest point in civilization during the 500 years of Mughal rule that came after the Guptas. Further, Islam was the cause of a bloody bifurcation of the Indian subcontinent in the 20th century which is still to heal today. I hope you can make some corrections to your list in your next edition.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Jun 29, '05)


Quote: "In brief, Mr Howard and Mr Bush are blowing smoke in spite of high-minded rhetoric and hollow words of principle" - Jakob Cambria, USA [letter, Jun 17]. It is difficult to believe, but I actually agree with Cambria that [Australian Prime Minister John] Howard and [US President George W] Bush only have "hollow words of principle". However, it is difficult to understand why he bothered to write. So China has spies in Australia (who hasn't anywhere?), but 1,000 of them? In Australia? Why? The answer is probably [that] the 1,000 spies include each and every contact of any kind. Who in their right mind would spend so much resource in Australia?
Frank Yeo (Jun 29, '05)


Spengler's analysis of Islam and Iran is the best I have read anywhere [Iran: The living fossils' vengeance, Jun 28]. We need this person in our State Department.
George Bedway (Jun 28, '05)


The least and most that can be said about [Sami] Moubayed's plaintive and partially factual commentary [Rice and the Middle East dream, Jun 28] is that it's futile to dream and expect someone "else" to turn them [dreams] into reality on your behalf. The Middle East has in the past contributed as well as witnessed/enjoyed many lyric referencing dreams. It is the awakening from its dreams that one needs to give much attention to.
ADeL (Jun 28, '05)


Thank you for the article by Debasish Roy Chowdhury titled 'Indians are bastards anyway' (Jun 23) about the long-ignored genocide in East Bengal in 1971. Mr Chowdhury fails to mention that the Hindu minority was an especial target of the Pakistanis. I have read estimates that over 70% of the 3 million East Bengalis murdered were Hindus. This is also reflected in the disproportionate numbers of Hindu refugees who fled to India. In addition, the Pakistanis destroyed hundreds of Hindu temples and antiquities including the 1,000-year-old temple of Durga in Dacca. When will the world take note?
Radhika Rajan (Jun 28, '05)


With reference to Rob's comments (letter, Jun 24) regarding 'Indians are bastards anyway' [Jun 23], it was quite amusing to read [the] subsequent reply by Debasish Roy Chowdhury. Because of his apparent habit of not fully reading what he is replying to, Debasish Roy is left with egg all over his face. Rob was clearly having a dig at blatantly exaggerated numbers quoted by Debasish. Indians are always reciting the mantra of genocide of Bengalis in 1971 while conveniently forgetting what they are doing themselves. Interestingly, whenever Pakistani and Indian teams play each other in Dhaka in Asian Cup hockey or cricket, the behavior of the Bangladeshi crowd clearly shows whom they consider a friend and whom an enemy.
Ahmed Zaheer
Islamabad, Pakistan (Jun 28, '05)


I have come across various articles in many publications, including Asia Times [Online], and from letter writers that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in many parts of the world. What does it mean? Is it a matter of pride? Population growth in poor and illiterate segments of society is highest and it is true for any nation and demography. So such claims need [another] point of view. Many religious leaders encourage population growth among their fellow followers. I have seen this in the Philippines (in [the] case of Roman Catholics) [and] India (Dalits converted to Buddhism). recently, VHP (World Hindu Forum) called [on] Hindus in India for such growth. There are numerous examples, but Muslim mullahs exceed in such examples to encourage such mindless population growth and they are very proud of that. That is not a surprise, because [that demographic sector produces] fierce followers for such mullahs. What is surprising is that people who are readers of publications like Asia Times [Online] and live in so-called civilized nations are flaunting such figures. Such population growth (biggest contributor) or conversion requires introspection [rather] than being proud of that ...
Ayush
Orlando, Florida (Jun 28, '05)


To Saqib Khan ([letter] Jun 27): Glad to know that Islam is doing so well, really. But I don't agree with you in what you say about [Charles] Darwin. There are so many wrong assumptions intermingled in your statement that is difficult to answer you, but I'll try anyway. First, mainstream science considers Darwin's theory a fact, proved beyond doubt, though probably they will need to make some corrections in the future as they have made some corrections in the past; but that's how science works. Evolution is considered the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth, at least by now. So be careful what you say, because your statement shows your ignorance of the subject and your prejudices at the same time. Second, evolution does not deny the existence of a deity. Darwin, [Thomas] Huxley and the rest were not atheists. They were called so because they were arguing against persons who read the Bible literally and affirmed, against all biological and paleontological evidence, that God created Earth in six days and that we were all descendants from Adam and Eve. Huxley, to explain his position, created the word "agnostic". He explained that science speaks about facts and that one can only make judgments about facts. As no facts prove or disprove, so far, the existence of God, science has nothing to say about it. Of course, everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, but opinions don't count from a scientific point of view. So religious belief was a personal matter that cannot affect or be affected by science. In the end, even the Vatican understood this and in the 20th century they accepted evolution as the more probable explanation of the origin of life on Earth. Third, your attitude "life is so complex, it must have been created by someone" can't be sustained from a logical point of view. It is just the same attitude of those guys who can't understand how the Egyptians built their pyramids or how the Mesoamerican civilizations built their temples or how the Indians invented the concept of zero and say: "It is just so difficult; I could have never done or thought anything like that; then, it must have been an extraterrestrial intelligence who made it." Though a humble recognition of their inability, it remains a pretty unjustified inference. You're so dazzled by the complexity of nature that you see the Hand of God behind everything. But be careful, nature is full of horrors, mistakes, faults and bizarre creatures, so one can end [up] wondering about the true nature of a god who created all that. Believers in intelligent design have no other argument to support their explanation than this: it's so complex that there must be a god out there. But that is not a proof, it is just a petitio principii, and that isn't science but quackery ...
Fabricio
Cuba (Jun 28, '05)


Just like to say that I love the articles on your site and look forward to reading them every day.
Ramin Saremi (Jun 28, '05)

What [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee of India and [Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani of Iran have learned is that the rich have the money but the poor have the vote [Iran's 'street sweeper' sweeps into power, Jun 27]. Their political fortunes might have turned out differently if they had learned what the Thais have known for some time. The Thais know that if the rich have the money but not the votes and the poor have the votes but not the money, a mutually beneficial trade is possible in a market economy. To pour salt into that wound, the rich, if they are really clever, may even leverage their buyout with tax revenues.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 27, '05)


Pepe Escobar's article [The first, not the last throes, Jun 25] is the best article I have read about flight-suit, "Mission Accomplished", "Bring 'em on" King George II's Vietnam-Iraq War. Been there, done that. Pepe, keep up the great work. I read a good bumper sticker you might like: "Iraq - Arabic for Vietnam."
Bill Kibble(Captain, retired) Vietnam veteran
Boise, Idaho (Jun 27, '05)


I realize that you require a certain amount of verbosity in your articles in order to fill out the publication, but I think I can condense [Ehsan] Ahrari's article [What the US wants from Iran, Jun 25] without contradicting or shrinking it too much. Having lived and worked, on married status, in Ahwaz, Iran, during the blossoming of the [Islamic] Revolution (1977-78), and having been a Far West first-timer on that side of the globe, I absorbed a feel for the people, their country, its history, their religion and their socio-political situation, which causes me to have a somewhat pragmatic view of that country's current position in the universe ... As for arming itself - conventionally or otherwise - Iran is doing precisely what it must in order to resist the open threats from the Bushie madmen and the kill-crazy Israelites. If it were not surrounded by American lackey-states, at least two of which are nuclear-armed, the atom thing would not be an issue. The US position in this regard is laughable, and we can be sure that the Iranian people are aware of this. If I were their leader, I would be ramping up, in spades, to prepare a second Iraq for the would-be global hegemon ... After a working life in the oil/gas industry, I say that the simple truth of all this is that the USA is on the verge of doing just what old Nik Khrushchev said it would eventually do - smother itself - and, of course, pull down the rest of the Western world with it. We have followed the "American Way" to the point where we have almost exhausted the staff of our way of life - hydrocarbon energy - and the animal among us that is the most desperate to sustain its "lifestyle" has decided, as it always has, to take with a gun, rather than trade with a pen. How different the world would be today, if, a half-century ago, our current wanna-be hegemon had gone to what are now the OPEC nations (and Canada) and struck a deal beneficial to all - one that included anticipation of energy depletion and the needs of the underdeveloped countries. In any case, America's manners have almost bullied it away from the table in the Middle East. Iran, Russia, China and India have been talking and planning mega-trade in oil and gas for many months. Rail and pipelines to the Pacific and South Asia are in the wind, and deals will soon be struck [among] Iran, Russia and China that could, eventually, put the US in the waiting line for its energy needs. No doubt, as China's needs accelerate and South Asia comes into the market, this trend will also spread to include the oil-[and]-gas-producing republics of Central Asia. From what I learned of them, I suspect that the great majority of the 66 million Iranian people are quite aware of all this and are mentally prepared to defend themselves and go their own way - with or without their current regime.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Jun 27, '05)


I refer to the interview with the HT chief dated June 24 [Revolution without bullets or ballots]. In the interview the Hizb ut-Tahrir leader in Pakistan conveniently avoids the question on whether India was conquered by Muslim invaders and instead takes pains to explain the nature of the Islamic state. It behooves [Naveed] Butt to remember as well as understand that India has progressed through Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and British periods in her 5,000 years of checkered history. In this historical dialectic and narrative, one set of rules invariably give way to another and produces seminal changes. Does he mean the "caliphate" nature of India was something inviolable as much as the British rule, which superseded the Mughals', was unlawful? It is preposterous and amounts to wishful and naive thinking coming as it is from a Western-educated suave person, talking of reviving bygone eras frozen in time, and founded on theocratic principles, to be thawed back and imposed on a country which is even now 85% Hindu. Why cannot he assign legitimacy to the pre-Muslim period of Hindu rule dating back to the Mauryan kings or even the golden period of Hindu rule, the Gupta period? What makes the HT chief think that the Islamic period alone (more a military occupation considering that [most] of population remained Hindu and followed its feudal ways) is "legitimate" in being revived simply because the rulers of a certain period happened to be subscribing to [the] Islamic credo? Pray, what was so salient and majestic about this 1,000-year rule in India which the HT craves to re-establish? If anything, we don't hear [of] any rapid transformation of Indian society by this Islamic rule even from the most sympathetic account of those times. Nor [were] the Turkish sultans and later the Mughals, save for Akbar, known for having done anything significant which really mattered to the masses at large. The author's ignorance shows through when he says the educational system and legal system was Islamic. Forget the Brahmins, does he mean the ordinary folks started queuing up in madrassas, the only avenue of education for Muslims in those times? And if the Sharia was so entrenched and strictly followed, why was it so easy for the British to displace it, leaving no apparent traces of it on present Indian civil laws?
Sree
India (Jun 27, '05)


Dear Spengler: May I make a reply to your Why is good dumb? [Jun 21]? First, "There is no one good but God," according to Jesus. Second, if George Bush the younger had higher university grades than expected, there is a chance this due to guanxi [connections]. He has exploited guanxi quite cleverly throughout his life. Third, if the Iraq war has not turned out as expected, perhaps the reasons ought to include ignorance, based upon overconfidence or inexperience. For example, President Bush the younger is reputed to have told noted televangelist Pat Robertson that there would be no casualties in his upcoming war. Reverend Robertson tried to tell him otherwise, to no avail. Robertson was somewhat closer to combat in the Korean War than Bush was in Vietnam, hence he has more experience. Another example: the orgy of looting and crime that broke after the fall of Baghdad was completely predictable. Such things happen at the end of every war, but can be countered by a large occupation force which restores the rule of law quickly. General [Eric] Shinseki knew this, but Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld did not, and declined to learn. Overconfidence? Dr [Paul] Wolfowitz was stunned to learn that US oil companies did not want to run Iraq's oilfields, had not run foreign oilfields in decades. I know other people with University of Chicago PhDs, some of them also students of [Leo] Strauss, and they know how to do research. Dr Wolfowitz did not bother to do his research. Overconfidence? I am sure that examples could be multiplied at length, by those less ignorant than me.
Lester Ness, PhD, History
Quanzhou, China (Jun 27, '05)


Dear Spengler: Have you seen the 1993 film Tombstone with Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer? If not, I think you would enjoy it as I believe it's your kind of movie. Watching this film today, I was wondering if you could see Tombstone as a kind of allegory for our war on terror?
Jesse Derber
Lee, Illinois (Jun 27, '05)


The question of why [US President George W] Bush would use Saudi pilots instead of Iraqis is a good one [see editor's note under Pescadoroloco's letter of Jun 24]. That would be good to include in an article exploring the question I asked, whether Bush is complicit in the September 11 [2001] attacks or not. Notice the question is not why Bush is complicit, but whether or not he is. If I am not mistaken, your point is that this question has already been proven ridiculous, so there is no need to explore it any further. In that case, I apologize for wasting your time with ridiculous questions. At least I have performed the service of enabling you to put to rest any questions of this nature in the future by others, who are hounded by the same doubts. One thing to remember, however, is that at one time, it was considered ridiculous by some to ask if the war in Iraq was on Bush's agenda when he was first elected. Not to say it was, but just to ask.
Pescadorloco (Jun 27, '05)


This is in reference to the mail of Rob (Jun 24), [who] says, "Bangladesh was created by Indian state terrorism." This is sheer disrespect to the millions of martyrs who died in the war of liberation of Bangladesh. I would like to point [out] to the writer that Indian terrorism didn't help Bangladesh to get independence but Pakistani terrorism at its best. India helped us gain independence from a country whose hatred for Bengalis knew no bounds. The racism, terrorism and anti-Bengali feelings in West Pakistan increased Bengali nationalism. [After] gaining independence from Britain, Pakistan always tried to abuse the dignity of Bengali people.
Mohammad Salim
Chittagong, Bangladesh (Jun 27, '05)


Reply to Sri's letter of June 23: I live in Britain and it is no dar-al-harb [domain of war] to me. My dar-al-Islam is my state of mind, as I live in peace and harmony amongst the believers and non-believers. There is no doubt that the Muslims here do indeed enjoy freedom of worshipping and we value it with all our hearts and [minds]. It is not a perfect society we live in but we accept it with its imperfections. We are often victims of religious discrimination, physical as well as verbal violence and abuse by a few dim hacks but we the Muslims stay on the path of Islam. But I would like add that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the United Kingdom and Europe; over 50,000 people of various beliefs are voluntarily converting to Islam every year despite vehement anti-Islam propaganda in the press and media. We find to our immense delight that most converts are women - an added bonus. We are instructed in the Koran not to veer to extremes but adhere to ummatum wassatun (middle path) and refrain from excess of any kind and 99.99% earnestly strive to attain this middle ground, which is the most fertile ground in which to practice our Deen as Allah intended for us: an Islam of peace, compassion, mercy, tolerance and justice for all. Sri appears to be suffering from the ailment Islamophobia, which has become an epidemic plague amongst a lot of his Hindu friends ... As far as [Charles] Darwin's theory is concerned, it has serious fatal flaws and [is] discredited by modern science and falls down flat on all levels. It is as idiotic a theory as to say, if you find a watch in a desert and claim that it was not made by a watchmaker but all its components by some hook or crook got together in million years and became a watch. It would be the biggest insult to the watchmaker. Or [worse], a plane found crashed in a jungle with all its parts broken into pieces would in billion years become a plane and fly in the air... etc. Every living thing is made up of cells about a hundredth [of a] millimeter in size and from a single cell, yet even these single-celled organisms are remarkably complex in composition and [use] complicated functions to survive. Darwin did not have modern-day powerful microscopes to look into the genetic make-up of living organisms and could not have known that a living cell [composed] of thousands of microscopic parts that work in perfect harmony, and their miraculous intricate and complex functions could not have emerged as a result of coincidence or at random, but still, and regrettably, the evolutionists believe it is a coincidence ... It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. Such a miraculous structure cannot be a product of blind coincidence but it tells us that there a Designer, Maker or Allah, Rabul-Almeen, who is behind all this ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jun 27, '05)


Though I agree that Daniel McCarthy's comments [letter, Jun 22] about the Chinese educational system are clearly too simplistic, I am not at all impressed by the response of Steven from Toronto (Jun 23). While criticizing Sun King [letter, Jun 21] and Daniel McCarthy for being presumed mouthpieces of Western hegemony, he implies that they ought to shape up because they might have to live with Chinese hegemony in the years ahead - in which case the former two are not wrong, merely imprudent. Steven's words appear to be characteristic of those elements of the Western intelligentsia befuddled by vulgarized post-modernism. Objective truth is indeed an elusive quarry, but Steven finds himself in the ridiculous position of dogmatically asserting an extremely relativistic world view. Chinese should not see Westerners as gods, but neither must they lean on the crutch of opportunistically constructed defensive rhetoric that tries to pretend Western inadequacies justify Chinese self-complacency. For all his supposed "sensitivity" to Chinese culture, Steven's willingness to draw an intellectual wall across the middle of the Pacific is the very antithesis of the teaching in the Analects that called for goodness to be respected wherever it might show itself, even in the company of barbarian peoples.
Jonathan X
Shanghai, China (Jun 27, '05)


Frank and Lloyd Lan [letters, Jun 23] have let their sense of cultural or ethnic inferiority get in the way of clear vision as they react with pure emotion and charges of racism to a legitimate criticism of the way the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propagandizes the educational system in China, and the attendant result in the muddled thinking and intolerant behavior of many persons educated in that system. Perhaps if Mr Lan had greater powers of either observation or understanding he would have seen more than some shiny skyscrapers built with third-rate materials, construction techniques and workmanship.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 27, '05)


I would like to comment on AP's assessment [letter, Jun 22] of the role of Islam and Christianity in India. He [says,] "To most of us ... who subscribe to neither of these [two] faiths, please leave us alone." I disagree [with] his stand. As a Christian ... from South Asia I have learned that Christians, though a minority, have played a major cultural role in India. [After] the [inception] of Christianity 2,000 years ago St Thomas came to India to meet the king in Kerala, who is believed to be one of the Magi who visited Jesus Christ when he was born. Furthermore, St Thomas brought Christianity to India a few years before St Peter and St Paul brought it to Rome. India has an illustrious list of Christian saints from St Thomas to St Xavier to Mother Teresa. In addition, India [after] the mid-19th century was ruled by the largest Christian empire the world has ever known, the British Empire, and got plenty from that empire, [from] the English language that is now helping India's economy to her judicial system. Indian Christians have a long and powerful chapter in the world's Christian community. As for Islam, I would be redundant in speaking about the Mughal empire and her legacy, which includes India's architectural jewel the Taj Mahal and the negative side that caused the split of India into three pieces (due to sectarian issues between Muslims and Hindus). AP is right that most Indians don't subscribe to either faith but all Indians have in one way or another been deeply effected by Christianity and Islam.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 27, '05)

According to tradition, St Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles and known to many mainstream Christians as "Doubting Thomas", made a missionary journey to India, landing in Kerala in AD 52. He is said to have founded seven churches before his martyrdom in 73. His tomb is in Mylapore, the oldest portion of present-day Chennai. An alternative tradition has it that Thomas's missionary journey was not to India but to Parthia, in what is now Iran. - ATol


Peter Bollington said [in Making the case vs fixing it, Jun 24], "On gaining office, the Bush presidency had immediately placed preemptive attack on Iraq on its agenda and moved deliberately to accomplish it. It did so in violation of international law, riding the pretext allowed it by September 11." Why can't he, or anyone else in the mainstream media including the ATimes, ask the next logical question? If [US President George W] Bush needed a pretext for his war on Iraq, is it possible that he allowed or planned [the events of] September 11 [2001]? I have my own views on the answer to that question, which is not the point. The point is, why has that question not been asked? Why are there no articles in ATimes asking that question? Regardless of what the answer to that question is, it should be asked.
Pescadorloco
Nacogdoches, Texas (Jun 24, '05)

And we guess the next logical question would be, why didn't Bush use Iraqi pilots instead of Saudi ones? There never was any evidence linking either al-Qaeda or the September 11 attack to Iraq, and Bush knew it. - ATol


'Indians are bastards anyway' [Jun 23] by Debasish Roy Chowdhury is one of the [most] thoroughly analyzed articles I [have] had the privilege of reading. Hats off to Asia Times [Online]. I [didn't] know that there [was] an online newspaper called Asia Times. I [will] definitely read this paper regularly from now on. Hats off!
Kris (Jun 24, '05)


[US president Richard] Nixon's remark that Indians are "slippery, treacherous people" is a clear indication that some white people do not think Indians are equal to them ('Indians are bastards anyway' [Jun 23, by] Debasish Roy Chowdhury). However, I hope some Indian extremists can wake up from their boot-licking moods by reading Nixon's remarks. If you cannot make peace with your neighbors; if you cannot love your blood-related brothers and sisters with different faith; if you cannot respect your own mother's language and culture; if you cannot be proud of who you are, how can you expect other people to think you are equal to them? I am sure some of them will mistake your butt-kissing efforts with the kisses from Judas. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is little difference between the two.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 24, '05)


I have had the misfortune to read an article by [Debasish Roy] Chowdhury which was nothing but utter propaganda on behalf of India ['Indians are bastards anyway', Jun 23]. I have watched and listened to many so-called independent analysts of Indian background and one thing they have in common is a hatred for Pakistan, and I think president [Richard] Nixon's description of Indians is correct. Bangladesh was created by Indian state terrorism, the same terrorism that has so far killed 1 million Kashmiris in their struggle since 1948. The brutal and sadistic occupation of Kashmir by 600,000 Indian soldiers of all services against a population of 8 million is unknown anywhere in the world. it seems Mr D R Chowdhury believes if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. If 3 million people died in [the] Bangladesh war, then 1.5 million Sikhs were butchered in 1984 in India, 300,000 Muslims were butchered in India in 1992 and 200,000 were butchered in Gujarat in India. During the creation of Pakistan and India, 6 million Muslims were exterminated by Indians.
Rob (Jun 24, '05)


First, get your numbers right. A total of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the Gujarat riots (the rioting Hindus were shot by the cops) while 223 more people were reported missing and another 2,500 injured. This is according to the records of the government of India, for which, evidently, you don't have much respect. No problem with that, but even if the number seems understated, double or triple it. It still doesn't come anywhere near 200,000, does it? As for your statement, "During the creation of Pakistan and India 6 million Muslims were exterminated by Indians" - I suppose not a single Hindu was killed in the partition. Let's stop counting human lives like cattle. Incidentally, 80% of the women raped in Bangladesh were Muslims. This is not about Hindus and Muslims. This is not about India and Pakistan. It's about people who have so little respect for human life and yet so much power over it. - Debasish Roy Chowdhury


Gavan McCormick is showing his sleight of hand in Bones of Japan-North Korea discontent [Jun 23]. As an academic with a soft head on the question of North Korea, judging by his books, he broadens the subject of abductions by raising the issue of Imperial Japan's policy of forcefully bringing Koreans to Japan during the Pacific phase of the Second World War, to plug gaping holes in Japan's workforce as millions of soldiers left to fight for the Showa emperor. Dr McCormick thus darkens the issue of Pyongyang's kidnapping of Japanese nationals for the purposes of espionage. Japan has the right to demand explanations, the more especially since Kim Jong-il openly admitted North Korea did in fact kidnap unsuspecting Japanese under questionable circumstances. Although Tokyo has lamely apologized for its brutal colonization of Korea [and] for the forceful importation of Korean labor, Pyongyang has not been forthcoming in providing a complete, clarifying explanation of the whereabouts of missing kidnapped Japanese. Instead, this Australian scholar overwhelms readers with a scholarly paper, peppered with footnotes, to mitigate Pyongyang's responsibility and accountability.
Jakob Cambria
USA  (Jun 24, '05)


I have read ATimes for a few years now and I can't stress enough the difference in perspective (or lack there of) between [it and the Western mainstream media]. Often critical of the US and sometimes more left than some of the alternative press in Los Angeles, but usually very insightful nonetheless. The article by Syed Saleem Shahzad The making of a terrorist [Jun 18], however, stands out to me as an exceptional piece of journalism. An excerpt, which quotes a man ("Akhtar") in a terrible spot, I found haunting: "The law-enforcing agencies created a hellish situation. Many people who did not have the money to bribe their way out of trouble knew that they could be killed in a fake encounter [police have a reputation for extrajudicial killings in which suspects are shot in what is officially termed as 'retaliatory fire']. Therefore, many choose to become suicide bombers, because they know that either way their fate is death." This article, I hope, will inspire a posture from the powers (Western) that be, to consider more the blowback of bad policies. A documentary on this topic is not a bad idea, as folks like me had no idea of such plight on a human individual level. [White House political adviser] Carl Rove argues like the devil for a tunnel vision lately. Maybe he hasn't read this article. Hey - it's quite possible.
Mark Jetmir
Los Angeles, California (Jun 24, '05)


The series World Order, Failed States and Terrorism by Henry C K Liu is excellent. The Canadian news media [do] not print anything like that. Perhaps you may consider printing a book?
Gord (Jun 24, '05)


Re 'Indians are bastards anyway' [Jun 23]: I'm not sure if ATol or [Debasish Roy] Chowdhury has read many of the Nixon transcripts. I strongly recommend them, as they are great sources of outrageous comedy. In them, you can hear [US president Richard] Nixon saying nasty things about gays ("I mean Christ, we all have our weaknesses, but you don't have to glorify it"), blacks ("lazy"), Jews ("distrustful"), the Irish ("The [nastiest] goddamn people around, no wonder the Brits have so much trouble with them. Hell, we've got Ted Kennedy"), and everyone else. In short, the man was nuts. He was also racist and a criminal. The sycophants around him tried to tell him what he wanted to hear. Perhaps Mr Chowdury takes these absurd rants a little too much to heart. PS: All quotes are not exact; they are as I remember them. For the best Nixon transcripts, look for the ones where he's complaining about the "Jewboy" (Henry Kissinger) and the television show All in the Family.
Ben Silverman
Kaifeng, China (Jun 23, '05)


In writing ['Indians are bastards anyway', Jun 23] Roy Chowdhury seems to go way overboard in digging out skeletons. Let us put this in perspective: a bunch of Pakistani generals decided to annul an election (where the Awami League won), put Sheikh [Mujibur Rahman] in prison and went around murdering people. So what is new? There are a whole host of countries from South America to Africa to East Asia where the US actively pursued such policies. In any case, the present Bangladeshi government's new best friend is a similar military dictator from Pakistan. What I fail to understand is, why should some Indian writer take it upon himself to dig out all this dirt during the approach to the Indian prime minister's visit to the US? In reality, India chose not to do much when the USS Enterprise showed up. India has not done much to protect its own people from US-aided terrorism. So why worry [about] what Pakistanis do in some third country? On the contrary, using this visit to strive [for] what is possible will go a long way in balancing America's interest in that region.
AP (Jun 23, '05)


James Kelly's arguments for Democratic Republic of North Korea to sincerely rejoin the six-party talks in order to work out a plan to de-nuclearize North Korea may happen eventually, but will not happen before 2009 [Pyongyang talks the talk, Jun 23]. The sad history of Washington's mistakes dealing with the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] since 2001 have left the North Koreans distrustful enough of the Bush White House to simply wait for the next administration and hope for what they would judge to be a more dependable and less dangerous negotiating partner. The present US administration has no credibility with Pyongyang as a reliable partner to negotiation primarily because of [President George W] Bush's State Department's initial approach to the DPRK (of which James Kelly was a part) in which the US canceled the Agreed Framework [and] militarily threatened and psychologically bullied the DPRK, demanding [that the] DPRK give up [its] nuclear-weapons program as a precondition of talks. Secondly, after President Bush invaded Iraq, the North Koreans had reason to believe, in lieu of early threats the Bush administration had made toward them (indeed, are continuing to be made by key neo-conservatives both inside and outside of government), that if they gave up their nuclear weapons or were perceived by the US to be as weak militarily as Iraq, they, too, would be invaded. The Bill Clinton administration's plan for dealing with the North Korean threat was judged by the Bush team to be inadequate (cheating was suspected), or perhaps not involving enough military threat - "too sissy" as one of my colleagues put it. However, the Clinton effort, flawed though it may have been, was cobbled together by realists; it had the advantage of engagement with the DPRK in order to live to negotiate another day. It was a beginning. James Kelly helped the Bush team throw it away with the effect of North Korea spending the last four years re-doubling its nuclear weapons effort. Now, it appears Mr Kelly would like to salvage his place in history by wishing "a strategic decision by Pyongyang to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions and to negotiate in earnest" - same deal as four years ago - "give up; then negotiate". Upside down, Mr Kelly. An intelligent and humble approach to foreign policy has not been a mark of the George W Bush presidency to date. The US "walk" is a militarily aggressive superpower, so our "talk" doesn't count for much. And there is little evidence that the Bushies "get it", so Mr Kelly should not hold his breath that anything substantive will come of DPRK disarmament talks under the present US regime.
David Sheegog
Paoli, Oklahoma (Jun 23, '05)


James A Kelly lays out the United States standpoint on talks with Pyongyang [in Pyongyang talks the talk, Jun 23]. It is reasonable and measured. Nonetheless, Mr Kelly, who has had his hand in talks with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), neglects to say that the signals coming out of Washington are mixed, alternating with a carrot-and-stick approach to Kim Jong-il. Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican representative from the Seventh District of Pennsylvania, has had ... discussions with North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations and has led a bipartisan delegation twice to Pyongyang. He has publicly stated that tensions lessened when the White House has put a damper on the harsh rhetoric and insults about Kim Jong-il. Mr Kelly knows full well that any headway that he may have made at the six-party talks were crudely sabotaged by the fiery invective of [Under Secretary of State] John Bolton. And of course, Vice President [Richard] Cheney has waded into the battle of insults and the war of words. This bravado advances not one whit the purpose and aims of the six-power talks. Despite Mr Kelly's dispassionate approach, it is all for naught, the more especially since [President George W] Bush is little persuaded that unless Pyongyang acquiesces to his wishes, he will not budge from his high-mindedness. Such is the wishful thinking prevalent in Washington, back-door approaches to Mr Kim notwithstanding.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 23, '05)


[Re] Tom Engelhardt's Withdrawal on the agenda (Jun 23): It requires an appropriate assortment of words to do justice (in fact the author states a couple; paralyzing fantasies) to Mr Engelhardt's lengthy commentary. Words such as dilemma; ignorance, naivety, mental lapses; miscalculations; gross incompetencies; comic-book solutions, not to mention lies; etc. The overriding issue in scheduling a withdrawal agenda [of US troops from Iraq] is not time. Whether withdrawal occurs within the next two years or the next 50, the die was cast when the so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom decision was made, [with] its consequent evolution. Operation Iraqi Freedom reflected faulty strategic analysis and execution by a global power that was principally seduced (according to General Brent Scowcroft) by a foreign leader. It is almost a given that Mr Engelhardt will have further judicious commentaries in the future on the subject - a subject that had all the time in the world to be decided prior to the "Iraq cakewalk" promoted by the neo-cons. It remains for Americans with sons, daughters, husbands, brothers, fathers and other family members to determine when the escalating costs in human terms, now running close to 2,000 US personnel dead and around 40,000 crippled and maimed in addition to close to 150,000 "liberated" but dead Iraqis must stop. In the last analysis one is left wondering if by invading Iraq the US may have made a misstep in occupying, albeit temporarily, a country, and started losing its long standing among the major powers of the world.
ADeL (Jun 23, '05)


[Re] your article US plays spoiler in India-Pakistan pipeline accord [Jun 17]: I believe that in this situation India should be very careful where she treads. Iran's foreign policy for decades has been virulently anti-Israel. As a matter of fact this anti-Israel agenda in Tehran dominates her foreign policy. Now Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power. If diplomatic actions by other nations fail with Tehran the next step would be sanctions, and if by chance that fails, the next step is a direct intrusion into dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. If Iran faces this aggressive move there is a strong possibility that she will strike Israel first, the reason being if she can deliver a severe enough blow on Israel, Iran will win the hearts and minds of the Arab world. If Tehran manages that, then she has acquired powerful allies who may use the "oil card" against the West if they put into plan a military attack on Iran. It gets tricky here. If the West caves in, they will be forced to the table for a possible compromise. But following the US rhetoric and her commitment to Israel, that option would not take place. If a full-scale war [broke] out against Iran the first targets would be the oilfields and, yes, that oh-so-precious oil pipeline, thereby severing Iran's flow of income. India [would] then be caught in a very difficult situation. If she goes against the West (namely the US) she stands to sacrifice her economic growth on the altar of defiance. If she goes along with the West, then she suffers the possibility of the Arab states including India in their "oil block" strategy. In either case, if India goes through [with] this oil pipeline and the above scenario were to take place, India [would] have no maneuvering power left.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 23, '05)


Sun King [letter, Jun 21] fails to see his own glaring inconsistency. The ability to grasp English comprehension and deciphering of name origins are neither his forte. His giant step to say [letter writer] Frank can criticize him but [ought] to be confined to the Chinese section http://www.atchinese.com/ smacked of his brand of snobbery. It seems only Sun King can spout his musings at will the others who disagree with him check their views elsewhere. Daniel McCarthy's assumption [letter, Jun 22], without facts and [with an] obvious lack of innate expertise in this area, is the cause of many misunderstandings in our society. Not unlike stereotyping, he concludes that it must be the Chinese posters who are guilty [of causing forums to be closed] because their educational is defective. They do not know how to disagree like him. It behooves you, Daniel, to be more circumspect and sensitive to other cultures that you do not understand. You seriously think that our [Western] educational system is better than the East's. Think again, because neither is perfection. We are in a constantly changing world and beliefs will change with dominant powers of the day. What you deem correct now can be wrong tomorrow.
Steven
Toronto, Ontario (Jun 23, '05)


Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jun 22] surely demonstrated his white opinions well about Chinese. Like ATol editor indicated, "most of the serious abusers who caused the temporary Edge shutdown were not Chinese and were not commenting on Chinese issues". However, some white men will still hold Chinese people responsible for any problems they see in this world. Why? Can Daniel give us another honest answer to my question? By the way, I appreciate Daniel McCarthy's honesty and hope to hear from him from time to time. Despite my disagreement with Daniel, I would not demand [that] people with different opinions move to another site. I hope [letter writers] Sun King and Terry can learn a little more about what is called tolerance.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 23, '05)


Daniel McCarthy's letters have always been good examples of brainwashed China-bashing. China and the Chinese people are convenient punch bags for every bad thing that's happening around the globe. The abusers on the ATol forum China section were shouting the exact same thing to the Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians and Thais. The China section is not the only one on the ATol forum. India and the Middle East sections are also very much alive. If one gets to know it for several days, one will realize that those provoking others and picking fights in the China section are usually not Chinese. And even the provocative ones know the difference between criticizing the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] and blunt racial discrimination against the people, unlike McCarthy. "If a person persists in deviating from the official 'facts' of the PRC government, he/she is subject to detention without trial, beating in the police station, and prison time." Whom is he kidding? Has he ever been to China for real? Has he ever have a friend who's living in mainland China? From this I can tell he never checked the China section because there was a civil and very helpful discussion about the real political situation in the daily life of the Chinese between a mainlander and a Canadian right before the shutdown. For someone who's been saturated in the Western media, the image of a bad China and her people is too precious to lose.
Lloyd Lan (Jun 23, '05)

Daniel McCarthy's letter of June 22 referred primarily to forums on other websites. While the exchanges in the Greater China section of The Edge have been relatively civil and were not the primary reason for the Asia Times Online forum's one-day "cooling-off period" this week, the experience elsewhere appears to have been different. - ATol


I refer to the mail from Sakib Khan on June 21. The author writes that Christians got disillusioned after a critical examination of the Bible and hence later took to atheism, communism etc. Has such a critical examination on the lines and levels of the Bible been undertaken by Muslims, leave alone permitted, for the Koran? He mentions about religious persecution in India of Muslims and other minorities but forgets to mention about the same in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, to name a few. If the Theory of Evolution was a Western capitalist "propagation" idea, can we not look at the creation myth of Adam and Eve as just another idea of Semitic propagation? After all, the Theory of Evolution has a lot going for it in the form of paleontological and genetic evidence, whereas the belief in the former is more a question of the degree of faith one possesses. He then flits to blaming secularism and materialism of the West. Secularism seems incompatible with Islam, at least in practice, if one goes by the zeitgeist in most Islamic countries. Ironically, secularism of the West has in fact helped people like Sakib to pray to his chosen God with peace and dignity and without any fear of persecution at the place where he resides (London), and the materialism of the West has precisely made such places an attractive destination for people like him to live in.
Sree
India (Jun 23, '05)


Sun King, thank you for your comments [letter, Jun 20] on my letter of June 17. It is my view that Mani Shankar Aiyer, as a public official, has in fact demonstrated enthusiasm, imagination and perseverance in negotiating the pipeline deal. Looking at India's energy situation and its present and projected requirements, a visionary deal like the one being discussed is valid. His vision includes also benefiting from the planned pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan through Afghanistan and a pipeline as well from Myanmar to India through Bangladesh. He would even broaden his vision to include an extended pipeline to China. All this is exciting indeed in the context of the difficult energy situation of the region. However, I was not blind to the obstacles that need to be overcome before finalizing and inking an accord. I have no crystal ball to let me see how and when these obstacles will be resolved. This is where the US's role is crucial. In the meantime, Aiyer's efforts have resulted in a deal, which will set up a Joint Working Group that would thrash out the "issues and modalities for getting the project" off the ground by January 2006. The JWG will bring to the table broad parameters and structure including technical, commercial, financing and legal issues related to the pipeline. This is good preparatory work pending the resolution of even more thorny issues like pipeline security.
Giri Girishankar (Jun 23, '05)


You [have] seen fit to shut down the ATol forum for a cooling-off period. To the best of my knowledge it was [because of] "those who have abused it". Now I know there are many right-wing miscreants [who] flood the site [whom] we tolerate with humor, but that was no reason to punish legitimate academic users. Since you have demonstrated fairness and tolerance in the past I was wondering whether there was another reason, maybe political, for the outage. Are you under pressure by extremist regimes, such as the Bush administration, to [censor] your forum? If so, please let us know and we the free loving citizens of liberty will come to your defense. Just send me a round-trip ticket to Hong Kong with a stopover in Fuji and I will defend your right to free speech. Seriously, I suspect that your webmaster blew away the forum's database after yet another wild night at the Good Luck Dancehall. Happens to the best of us.
Ernie Lynch (Jun 22, '05)

The Good Luck Dancehall (or its equivalent in Hua Hin, Thailand, where the forum is moderated) had nothing to do with the temporary shutdown of The Edge forum - not this time, anyway. The forum was closed temporarily because a certain sector of its users had become incorrigibly abusive not only to one another but to the moderator who had been trying to keep it civil. The forum is back online, and we apologize for the inconvenience to the majority of forum participants who have been using it as it was intended to be used. - ATol


I [was] thoroughly disappointed to see that the forum at AT Online [was temporarily] closed to discussion. While I know the reason for this action, the administrator should permanently ban people who make hate posts.
Mohan Prasad (Jun 22, '05)


I take note that the forum which ATol established in good faith for the benefit of readers [was temporarily] closed. The message posted by ATol says, "This forum has been turned off temporarily to provide for a 'cooling session' for those who have abused it and to remind you all that we can take away this feature of our website at any time. For those genuine posters and contributors we apologize for the inconvenience and hope you will return soon. Asia Times Online." Sadly, the China forums of the New York Times and CNN were also turned off due to personal attacks, insults, vulgar language, and threats of physical violence. Although such behaviors tend to be the mainstream in China forums, they are not common in forums which discuss regions other than China. Personally I see this as a byproduct of the educational system of the People's Republic of China, which does not teach students discussion or analytical tools. Instead, the PRC educational system teaches students to memorize so-called facts which are just a distorted and politicized version of history. If any student deviates from the official "facts", that student is subjected to intolerance, shouting down, public criticism and ridicule. If a person persists in deviating from the official "facts" of the PRC government, he/she is subject to detention without trial, beating in the police station, and prison time. Sadly, many persons who are educated under the PRC system bring such behaviors with them out of the country, which is what we have observed in the ATol, New York Times and CNN China forums.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 22, '05)

In our case, most of the serious abusers who caused the temporary Edge shutdown were not Chinese and were not commenting on Chinese issues. - ATol


On the day the moderators were compelled to shut the forum, the quote from [former Inter Services Intelligence officer] Khalid Khawaja [The pawns who pay as powers play, Jun 22] sums it up for me: "Indian Muslims enjoy more rights than Muslims enjoy in Pakistan ... We ask, okay, don't give us the rights that free nations have, but at least give us those rights people had during the time of the British Raj." What really concerns me is the following: "Many of us call it a battle between East and West, between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian world, but it is neither of these." Hello? Isn't there a problem here? If you are having a fight between [the] Islamic and Judeo-Christian [worlds], why don't you take it there? More appropriate locations for that fight would be Turkey, the Balkans, North Africa. To most of us in South Asia who subscribe to neither of these two faiths, please leave us alone.
AP (Jun 22, '05)


I have just read your article [The pawns who pay as powers play, Jun 22]. The story hangs together. Thank you for it. I would, however, like to know why Nawaz Sharif agreed with [US president Bill] Clinton to try [to] catch Osama [bin Laden] in 1997-98. [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf canceled this agreement after the coup d'etat. Was it purely the money that [Sharif] could get out of Clinton or did [Sharif] believe by then that Osama was a dangerous person for Pakistan and should be eliminated? If [former Inter Services Intelligence officer Khalid Khawaja's] argument is to be followed to its logical end, Nawaz Sharif made a U-turn much earlier than Musharraf; but their motives were similar. [Sharif] wanted money and more money than Osama could provide. And Mush[arraf] wanted money and support to remain in power for longer than [Muhammad] Ayub [Khan] and Zia [ul-Haq] (perhaps as long as both put together!). Unfortunately [George W] Bush will not be there [in the White House] after 2008.
Shafaat Rasool (Jun 22, '05)


I am an American and I have just read your opinion piece by Spengler [Why is good dumb?, Jun 21]. It is a very thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. I liked it very much. Thank you for publishing it and allowing me to read it on the Internet. I am a retired newspaper editor now, but I would have liked to have had this Spengler in my newsroom. He is true quality.
James Wallace Liddell (Jun 22, '05)


Regarding the [Jun 21] article of Spengler [Why is good dumb?], I have to wonder if I am missing a trope of irony here, or something, because on the face of it this is the single stupidest article you've allowed this man to write. Let's start with "[US President George W] Bush is a good man". Spengler says [this is] because he wants the world to have what Americans have. Does this mean no health care, racism, colonial wars and an increased prison population? Bush does not believe he is building democracy in the Middle East; rather, as any even halfway-intelligent person knows, he is extending the empire, controlling what oil is left, and building a lot of military bases. These bases, of course, secure the empire too. "Bush is dumb." Okay, agreed. However, this entire reductive ... and ahistorical notion of terrorism, as trotted out by Herr Spengler, needs a little analysis. The war on terror is simply a convenient prop (ideology - in the old sense) for using up all those bombs and planes and tanks and Hummers that Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Sperry, and whoever, build - and then employing Halliburton and Bechtel to build up what those bombs destroyed. This is the waste economy, simply put. If Spengler thinks Islam is a doomed culture, then he is exhibiting a simple-minded Western paternalism - the same kind found on both the right and left (from Nicholas Kristoff and Timothy Garton Ash to Bill Kristol and Richard Perle). The patronizing tone is perilously close to outright racism, actually. What exactly is doomed about Islamic or Arab culture? The US supports tyrants when it's convenient - and business-friendly. Let's examine the track record: The Shah, [Ferdinand] Marcos, Papa Doc and Baby Doc [Duvalier, Manuel] Noriega, Mobutu [Sese Seko] etc. Now it's [Islam] Karimov (who should be advised he will be the evildoer du jour probably within a decade. That's how it works). Look at Saddam [Hussein]! And, uh, "the US is the last Christian country in the industrialized world"? Maybe, since I live in Poland, but this seems so absurd that I know I must be missing something. Visit Spain or Poland or even Mexico, though maybe the latter isn't considered industrialized. I don't know what Spengler is talking about ... Would that America were good, or even tried to be - but history shows otherwise.
John Steppling
Krakow Poland (Jun 22, '05)


I hope Sun King [letter, Jun 21] can understand that comprehension of English for Asians is not that important as long as their opinions can be understood. I think Sun understands my opinions so far. Is that the reason you hate them? ... When Ehsan Ahrari boasted that "in most categories, India is running neck-and-neck with China", I pointed [out that] the mileage of India's rail is running 10,000 [kilometers] short. The rest has to be filled with a 10,000km neck. Whether or not Mehul and Ahrari are Indians is not important. The most important part is that there are many Indians like them. Are those numbers not hard facts and figures, Mr Sun King? What more do you want? I will be very glad to provide all those figures and facts to you. Actually, they are readily available at ATol. You just have to open your mind to find them.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 22, '05)


I will throw in my support to Sun King's motion [suggesting letter writer Frank move his comments to ATol's Chinese website, letter, Jun 21] if he or she is also willing to confine his or her musings in New York Times instead of Asia Times [Online].
Terry
Toronto, Ontario (Jun 22, '05)


Many thanks to Spengler for bringing up crucial issues underlying the international scene, and to ATol for publishing such important material. In Why is good dumb? [Jun 21], Spengler lays out a sentimental and heartfelt paean to the pure hearts and fuzzy logic driving the current power brokers in Washington. In embracing a broad concept of rationality (the notion that one can be truly smart, yet act at apparent cross-purposes to one's own "objective interests"), Spengler is on solid ground. It's only irrational to court mass destruction in the name of religion and money if one thinks ordinary peoples' lives are worth more than religion or money. And such beliefs are not in vogue in the Imperial Capital these days. However, I would suggest that Spengler is too shortsighted in his definition of "victory" in the [George W] Bush war on terror. To imagine suicide bombers driving the US military out of Iraq is naive. [Former secretary of state] Colin Powell's warning to the president - "You break it, you buy it" - was from one tough cookie to another; the administration well knows that there can be no fleeting occupation of strategically vital real estate. Like Germany and Japan, this is a 50-year affair. There is no plan for withdrawal because there is no need for one. For a clue as to the real timetable of the occupation, just keep in mind three words: "Iraqi Air Force". When you see Iraq capable of defending itself against hostile neighbors, with full armor, air forces, and air defenses, then you may see a meaningful withdrawal of US forces. Think in terms not of years, but of decades. Such a timeline is conveniently coincident with the most likely scenarios for the decline of petroleum as a world energy source. Now, how dumb is good again? Perhaps the truly good still haven't got a clue.

"If we're dumb, then God is dumb - and maybe a little ugly on the side." - Frank Zappa, "Dumb All Over"

PS: I would appreciate Spengler's take on the rise of white teenage suicide in the United States as it relates to his theses regarding the relative value of life in Christian and Islamic cultures.
Jopy T
San Francisco, California (Jun 21, '05)


Regarding Spengler's piece Why is good dumb? [Jun 21], it's always amazing to see the naivety of even the United States' wry intellectuals when it comes to the myth of the country's virtue. America is good? George Bush is a "good man?" Spengler infers that the United States is losing the war on terror because it's the good superpower. How ridiculous. Perhaps he can explain to me exactly what was the circumstance through which Americans came to believe in their moral superiority. I suspect it's a combination of the genuinely enlightened Declaration of Independence and its role as rescuer in the two World Wars (although president [Woodrow] Wilson distorted the Great War through the morality lens by saying it was a war ... against empire and autocracy, imperial England being their ally). What the United States has done better than most empires is [treat its] homogenous white majority relatively well. Have you forgotten that the creation of the United States of America was basically a genocidal occupation? Or [that] what many intellectuals call the stain of slavery was in fact a vital industry for the growth of this great good nation? "Stain" implies a blemish on an otherwise clean garment; slavery and its aftermath are the very fabric of this blessed nation. "Good people cannot understand wicked people," you say, but your black minority, brutalized, marginalized, and consigned to the ghettoes understands evil very well I'm sure. As do the victims of your foreign policy. I will admit that Americans' belief in their inherent virtue does serve to temper their imperial maneuvers. Any president must justify [the United States'] foreign-policy expeditions on the grounds of self-defense and spreading the benevolent American way. Thus its actions will always be constrained, unlike [those of] the British, who could say their goal was to civilize, or the Spanish, whose goal was to Christianize. America's goal is always tied up in [its] direct actions. How can your goal be to be "good" to people and you're slaughtering them and dispossessing them of their land? So they try to limit casualties and go for the soft imperialism of behind-the-scenes economic and political control. But as in all vicious empires, American foreign policy is dominated by the urge to defeat rivals [and to] control wealth and resources, and domination of the world. The "good" masses, a racist lackadaisical bunch, will follow along as long as they are given a plausible moral justification for their leaders' actions. As the 21st Century Empire, the United States is certainly constrained by both its internal morality myth and the development of Western ideals of democracy and peace, but this shouldn't be mistaken for "goodness". It is, however, a schism that has and will continue to hurt them [Americans] and will most surely lead to their defeat in Iraq.
Hollis Henry (Jun 21, '05)


I read this in the June 21 article by Spengler Why is good dumb? "Good people cannot as a rule understand wicked people. They do not wish to be wicked, and cannot understand why anyone else would wish to do so. American Christians cannot fathom the kind of wickedness that accounts for the bulk of the butchery in world history, born of the pessimism of dying races who will kill without compunction to delay the hour of their demise." I am guessing that Mr Spengler's insight into wickedness must be due to his own wicked nature. That is the implication of his statement, is it not? I also see that Mr Spengler feels it is Christianity that has blinded Americans with goodness. This seems to imply that the Jewish people must be evil because they possess no such blindness to wickedness. That makes sense to me, actually. Doesn't "the pessimism of dying races who will kill without compunction to delay the hour of their demise" describe the actions of the inhabitants of Israel exactly?
Tony Hathaway
USA (Jun 21, '05)


Spengler misuses the qualifier "dumb" in referring to George W Bush [Why is dumb good?, Jun 21]. As president of the only superpower, he has shown a dangerous tendency to underestimate the daring and the desperation and the military imagination of a so-called lesser country like Iraq. Mr Bush's proconsul Paul Bremer, acting on the orders of his superiors, disbanded Saddam Hussein's army hardly a month after toppling the Iraqi dictator. With the arrogance of the self-satisfied, the United States publicly thumped its chest with sweeping claims of superiority and of bringing to a so-called captive people the cheeriness of an exalted American democracy with its Republican virtue, its dedication to human rights, its proud heritage of opposing tyranny and its fight for the oppressed and the denied. Such moral blind spots hid from view its own overwhelming power. In consequence, Mr Bush and his advisers woefully underestimated the surprising robustness of a defeated army to resist what many Iraqis see as an avatar of British colonial rule, and occupation by an army and advisers and hired guns who understand neither their culture or their ways. So like Lyndon Baines Johnson 40 years before in the debacle that was Vietnam, Mr Bush finds that he is sinking in the moving sands of Iraq, and that slowly but surely the specter of war in Indochina is haunting his sleep despite his upbeat public face. It would be a giant leap to compare Mr Bush to Napoleon, but after snatching victory at Borodino, the little corporal's Grande Armee met humiliating defeat before the burning walls of the Kremlin, thereby beginning [a] long retreat with heavy casualties to France. Will Iraq be Mr Bush's Stalingrad or maybe his Dien Bien Phu?
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 21, '05)


So now it appears that the Downing Street memos which liberals have been gleefully claiming imply that the [George W] Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in order to justify the attack on Iraq are as reliable as a Dan Rather special report. What a surprise! I guess that puts to rest my ongoing assertion that the media [are] just chock full of conservative spinmeisters. But then again, I can always go on the "extraterrestrial's control of the Bush administration" bandwagon.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Jun 21, '05)

Michael Smith, who broke the story of the "Downing Street memos" in the British media, said recently that he destroyed the originals of those memos to protect his source. This is being interpreted in some circles as indicating that the memos never existed or cannot be trusted. There is no evidence as yet for this conclusion (and nothing of the kind has been claimed by the British or US governments). Even if there were, the memos were unusual only in the starkness of their revelations and the personalities contained in them, as numerous non-US-mainstream media including Asia Times Online have long reported. The actual evidence they offered that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" was public knowledge months or even years ago. See Smoking signposts (Jun 21). - ATol


Re Henry C K Liu's article [The coming trade war and global depression, Jun 16]: There is no evidence for the economic advantages from "free trade". All present-day highly developed economies are protectionist. Post-World War II, the Asian Tigers were all protectionist. At the start of the 19th century, Britain was the world's greatest economic power. In the 1830s, with the adoption of the Corn Laws, ie, free trade, Britain began the long slump which removed her as an economic world power. Conversely, America used protectionism, in the phrase of Henry Clay "The American System", and by the end of the 19th century was the largest economy in the world. Where is the historical evidence for free trade?
Richard J Johnson (Jun 21, '05)


I hope Ehsan Ahrari [Guiding hand in India, China ties, Jun 15] can understand that China and India are all in the same boat called Asia. Both countries are victims of white colonists in the past. Both countries are trying to become masters of their own. It is completely unnecessary to fight for dominance. And I hope Ehsan Ahrari can understand that it is wrong to think that you can behave like your previous masters when they are absent. I agree with Roy [letter, Jun 20]. Ehsan Ahrari surely fits the description of that metaphor I used in my previous letters. However, many other Indian letter writers who disagreed with Ehsan Ahrari indicated that people like Ehsan Ahrari are just small minorities in India. We (Indians, Chinese, and colored Americans) all hope that India's government is not going to hire creatures like Ehsan Ahrari to be their strategic planners ...
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 21, '05)


It is quite obvious from Frank's [Jun 20] letter that his comprehension of the English language is questionable. He is either lacking comprehension of English or he is in a permanent state of denial or defiance. My reasons to feel so are:
1. I highlighted his penchant for assumptions and for writing fiction and believing in them as gospel truth. Yet he calls them accusations. ATol is not a court of law to make accusations. He may have to come up with a better word.
2. Even after I mentioned that he assumes that "Mehul and Ahrari" are Indians, Frank writes once again to say that "Mehul and Ahrari" are Indian names. Seems like he has not understood a word of what was written.
3. He has every right to criticize me or anyone as long as he is rational and provides some facts and figures. No one questioned his right to criticize anyone.
It is time he confined his musings to the Chinese [version] of ATimes. Frankly, Frank is very tiring in the English section.
Sun King
New York, New York (Jun 21, '05)


I refer to Rakesh's letter [of] June 20 and wish to point out to him that secularism was born in response to Christianity, as people began to examine their Bible in more detail and became disillusioned. The only alternative to believing in the "God of Bible" for many people was to drop the idea of God and adopt atheism, secularism and communism etc. The nail in the coffin was the Theory of Evolution propagated by the capitalists in Europe (Jews played a significant role) to colonize the world and to rob the colonies of their wealth and rich heritage. European invaders and pirates became ... civilized and the peoples of their empires became beggars, uncultured and uncivilized in the eyes of the Europeans. It is such a pity and irony that the State of Israel refuses to live in peace with its neighbors in order to further [its] so-called Jewish biblical dream of 2,000 years ago. Yet Israel operates on a secular basis, with Judaism having no say in legislation and running of its government, and that is also true for the Western world, but at the same time religion plays a dominating role in Israel and America in the people's lives but not to a large extent in Europe. India claims to be a secular state with its caste system and persecution of the Muslims and minorities. The slogans of secularism, democracy and liberty that are being preached by the US and the West [do] nothing but [make] a mockery out of misery of the Muslim world. The fact of the matter is that the new crusader, President [George W] Bush, is behaving like the European Christians of July 1099 who conquered Jerusalem and killed over 70,000 in one day and turned the city into a charnel house. It makes the massacre [of September 11, 2001] look puny in comparison. Yet in Europe scholars and monks hailed this as the greatest event in world history. President Bush wants to conquer the Muslim world but we do not wish to be conquered by him. He wants to impose the West's vulgar moral values and traditions on us, which the West has lost to materialism and so-called secularism. As a matter of fact, it is pure capitalism and economics that [determine] his foreign policy and the ignorant optimism that what he is doing politically, economically and environmentally is good for the Middle East and for the Muslim world. He is losing his grip and pursuing his ignorant philosophy of bullying the weak to his grave rather than listening to their oppressed voices ... Saqib Khan
London, England (Jun 21, '05)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Very sad story of Akhtar [The making of a terrorist, Jun 18]. The poor guy is trying to find a better path of life and chose his faith to guide him but in return he found himself caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Unfortunately the youth of Pakistan and youth of other Islamic nations have no guidance, either by the government or by the society. Poor youth find themselves helpless in a feudal/capitalist society dominated by both with the help of [armies] and mullahs. I wish and pray that one day, I hope soon, the situation will change and justice will be served to all. The youth of the Islamic world is more aware than in the past and will not allow [itself] to be played into the hands of selfish politicians/monarchs/military dictators or feudal lords or capitalists. A change is on the horizon - if not in Pakistan first [it] could be somewhere else. An honest journalist like you is an asset of humanity.
M A Sheikh (Jun 20, '05)


Bruce Klingner has his finger on the pulse of the yawning divide in approaches to North Korea by Washington and Seoul. Allow me to put a post scriptum to his article At odds over Pyongyang [Jun 18]. President [George W] Bush is now riveting more passionately his attention on the evil nature of Kim Jong-il's regime. He has found grist for his axis-of-evil mill by reading the bone-chilling account of Kang Chol Kwan's The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten years in the North Korean Gulag, at the suggestion of Henry Kissinger. So taken by Mr Kang's memoir, Mr Bush with Vice President [Richard] Cheney and National Security Adviser [Stephen] Hadley allotted Mr Kang 40 minutes of his time in the Oval Office. [That] is approximately five minutes less than [South Korean] President Roh Moo-hyun had during his [visit] to Washington earlier in June. Seoul sent Chung Dong-young, the Republic of Korea's unification minister, to Pyongyang, marking a further step in South Korea's Sunshine Policy or opening to the North. Minister Chung [was the] bearer of a message from President Roh urging resolution of the nuclear standoff, and the resumption of Pyongyang's [representation] at the six-party talks in Beijing. This journey to Pyongyang bore fruit: Kim Jong-il met with the Chung delegation for many hours. The South Koreans left with Mr Kim's promise to resume the suspended talks if the United States recognizes [North Korea's system and institution. This appears unlikely. Armed with Mr Kwan's book, Mr Bush has more ammunition in his moral arsenal against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [This] bodes ill for the six-power talks or even back-alley confabs with North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations in New York and the likes of Representative Kurt Weldon, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. On the other hand, pursuit of the Sunshine Policy by the Republic of Korea will widen the ever-growing gulf between pretty words in Washington and the reality of what is happening in the thaw between Seoul and Pyongyang. It is not a secret for anyone that Mr Bush is wrestling a monkey on his ideological back on the question of North Korea. On the other hand, Seoul has begun a journey which will in spirit more than fact achieve a unification of equals, an aspiration which Koreans on both side of the 38th parallel desire.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 20, '05)


[Re] the article Fueling mistrust [Jun 18]: The US is still under the gun [because of] the Middle East's vast holdings of oil. But there is another chapter emerging. The states of Colorado, Nevada and Montana are considered the "Middle East" in oil deposits. It is claimed that those three states alone have more oil in the form of "shale oil" than the entire Middle East. That is not counting offshore oil, Alaska, Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, etc. America has plenty of oil, it just needs the technology, which is currently being developed, to get that oil from the ground and cut the umbilical cord connecting American industry with the Middle East. Once the Middle East loses that trump card they will have very little leverage over Washington, DC.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 20, '05)

Henry C K Liu spoke to this issue in detail in The real problems with $50 oil (May 26). - ATol


[Giri] Girishankar's letter [Jun 17] on the Iran-India natural-gas pipeline does raise valid questions about Pakistan's unreliability in ensuring a sustained, undisturbed transit of gas through its territory. When Giri's questions and doubts are so valid I fail to understand his unqualified, unwarranted praise for Indian Oil Minister Mani Shanker Aiyer. His very words: "It is even more remarkable that Mani Shankar Aiyer was able to negotiate a successful deal with Pakistan and Iran. It was a demonstration of tremendous enthusiasm, imagination and perseverance by Aiyer." It seems to me that Mr Aiyer is neither pragmatic nor clever for he has raised none of the same valid doubts that Giri and most people have, or he may have succumbed to Pakistani charms. If that is so, why does he deserve any praise, unless Giri has some communal affection for Mr Aiyer? It is a fact that the oil pipeline is a non-starter and a dead deal and the US has told the Indian PM [prime minister] in no uncertain terms to drop the matter. Yet Mr Aiyer, without any consultation with the Foreign Office or the [Prime Minister's Office], has been conducting negotiations on his own. His behavior has led to the PM censuring the cabinet for conducting national affairs without consultation with the PM's office. Several articles relating to this has been in the press lately. Mr Aiyer's only claim to fame is that he is a crony of Rajiv Gandhi and is close to Sonia Gandhi. As to the pipeline deal, it is a dead duck - it can be successful when we see the first drop of oil come out of it.
Sun King
New York, New York (Jun 20, '05)


Please let me address a few accusations from Sun King [letter, Jun 17]. I always welcome white people to express their white opinions about Asia as long as they are honest. In the same time, I was hoping the white people will also listen to Asians about what they have to say about their own home. What is wrong with that? I mentioned that I agree with [every word letter writer] Mehul said. I hope that addresses the accusation that I think everyone is wrong. Mehul and Ehsan Ahrari have Indian names. Therefore, it is logical to say that they are Indians. By the way, I would like to hear about your opinions. However, I reserve my rights to criticize them. That is my right of freedom of expression. If that is a sign of kowtowing to China, so be it.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 20, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari writes [under Guan's letter of Jun 17]: "They [China and India] both have to compete for closer ties with the United States." If there is any doggish obsequiousness that Frank from Seattle has alluded to, then Dr Ahrari fits the bill. I am certain that the Chinese leadership sees its relationship with the US as two-way street. After the China-EU textile deal, China made it clear that she returns respect only when she receives it. Ahrari further reveals his misunderstanding of China by claiming that "they [China and India] both have to compete for spheres of influence in Central Asia, and in the Indian Ocean and in the Strait of Malacca and in the South China Sea". The fact of the matter is that China will increasingly run the South China Sea, with no competition from India, Japan or even the US. In return, China will increasingly back off the "Pakistan my friend, India my enemy" ideology. China will not compete with India for the control of South Asia and the Indian Ocean as she has demonstrated in Nepali and other matters. To be sure, there will be some borderline areas of conflict. However, there will be clearly marked territories for both nations to respect. Ahrari's reference to oil is completely irrelevant as both nations lack the resource. It's conceivable that both nations will lure Iran to install a pipeline that runs through Pak[istan], India and China ...
Roy
USA (Jun 20, '05)


Reply to Mohammad Salek Noor [letter, Jun 15]: He questions where was my (I assume by implication, my countrymen's) tolerance when Muslims in the Balkans were at the receiving end of atrocities. Let me say that we have never sanctioned this violence, although being geopolitically far from the Balkans our Indian government (perhaps mistakenly) didn't pay enough attention. It was a terrible tragedy, but we, being a developing country with fairly limited resources, had much more immediate needs and issues to be addressed. May I pose a counter-question now - where were the Arab elites when this was happening? Was there a single secular humanitarian aid mission from these countries? I guess those elites were too busy either funding the madrassahs that were fostering hate against the infidels, so that they could retain power and influence on their home turf, or striking rich oil deals with America and other Western countries for their selfish gains. Mohammad claims that freedom cannot be won without using bombs and bullets, but yet again forgets that the bombs and bullets that are being used in Kashmir, Chechnya and Southeast Asia are directed against innocent civilians. There is also a strong intention of many of the groups involved to carve theocratic states in which non-Muslim minorities would have [few] constitutional rights. Further, the claim that it is a fight against "oppressors" is highly dubious, to say the least, because the "freedom fighters" are at least as oppressive as the "oppressors". Mohammad's disdain for secularism is obvious. He laments that secularism is being imposed on Muslims, yet forgets that Muslims that are minorities in other countries want secularism. Non-Muslims that are minorities in predominantly Muslim countries also want secularism, greater freedom to worship and a fairer opportunity to participate in affairs of the state. In an illogical manner he compares imposition of secularism to imposition of his religion's dogma on people of other faiths. Clearly he does not seem to comprehend what secularism means. The very purpose of secularism is to ensure that theocrats do not impose laws of one religion on the followers of others. To imply that secularism is as exclusivist or stifling as rigid theocracy is preposterous. Lastly, comparing [Mahatma] Gandhi and [Jawaharlal] Nehru to jihadis is a grave insult to both these leaders because their thinking, approach and actions were polar opposites of those of Mohammad's pet jihadis. One only hopes that there will be greater introspection and a momentum for reformation in countries in which the democracy-hating elites have been encouraging jihadis for so long.
Rakesh
India (Jun 20, '05)


Reports in [the June 17] Guardian suggest the Iraqi resistance is developing armor-piercing technology. It doesn't take too vivid an imagination to realize that some small development such as the use of Teflon-coated bullets by the resistance (which Internet urban legend claims can pass right through an engine block) [could] quickly and dramatically alter the tenability of the US occupation. G[eorge] W Bush has often been likened to Napoleon in neo-con circles. They would be wise to recall that Napoleon entered Russia with 280,000 French troops, but exited with only 10,000.
Armchair General
Canada (Jun 20, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari responds to readers
My essay Guiding hand in India, China ties (Jun 15) was not meant to be a comprehensive analysis that also includes Japan-India interactions or China's views of such exchanges. I completely excluded that subject very important subject from my focus. It deserves another essay, preferably by an analyst that knows Japan and China well. I am afraid I am lacking in my knowledge and expertise of Japan. Sino-Indian interactions by themselves are so complex that, I believe, I barely scratched the surface in that very short essay. I am sure Asia Times Online readers have noticed - even though I did not see any evidence of it by glancing through their responses - that I had little to say about America's views of it. For those who have doubts about my comment regarding the close competition between India and China, please go to my website and read my original essay. It gives further details about where China and India are lagging. Alternatively, they may Google ATKearny management consultants' in-depth study on economic competition between the two giants of Southern Asia. I must forewarn them that it is not an easy read. The Sino-Indian strategic competition is a story that will get increasingly complex as these countries continue their journey on the road to becoming regional and world-class powers. I urge serious readers to pursue this subject by cross-referencing and by reading various perspectives on it, and then making up their mind. Agreeing with one analysis and praising it, or disagreeing with another and then berating it, without acquiring ample knowledge on the subject, will not help the matter.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD
Independent Strategic Analyst
Alexandria, Virginia (Jun 17, '05)


[Ehsan] Ahrari, re your article Guiding hand in India, China ties [Jun 15]: I respect you as a longtime observer of Sino-Indian strategic competition. Even I prefer the word "relationship" over the "strategic competition". [Times have] changed. Could you image that China took a neutral position in the recent India-Pakistan skirmish and even encouraged Pakistan to engage with India? What do you think if it happened 10 years ago? I have talked with many Indian friends about the relationship between India and China. Some of them are very positive, while others still live in the 1962 era. We live in the 21st century, please. Think how to make this pie big rather than just think the pie is the same and we need to compete for it. India and China both have a long history and people in both countries have suffered a lot in modern history. Why could not two countries work together and improve the living standard for their own people rather than compete to become a big power? The USSR was a big power, so what? What did the USSR [leave for its] own people? Let me come back to business. Would you please give me a specific phrase that the Chinese government is against India's [bid] for [a permanent seat on the] UNSC [United Nations Security Council? I read [much] English news and Chinese news, [and] I did not see any article [mentioning] that China is against India's [bid] for the UNSC. If you do follow China's foreign policy, I am sure you have noticed those changes in recent years. All I want to say is that China is trying to make peace with India and is focusing on economic development to try to improve people's living standard. Let two countries live peacefully together and people from both countries respect and appreciate each other.
Guan (Jun 17, '05)

"Strategic competition" is not a pejorative phrase. It only reflects geopolitical reality. China and India are rising powers. They have to work on their respective spheres of influence. They both have to compete for closer ties with the United States. They both have to compete for spheres of influence in Central Asia, and in the Indian Ocean and in the Strait of Malacca and in the South China Sea. The realities of the 21st century are not going to change the fact that both these giants are competing. The pie that you are referring to will not get bigger. Just look at the energy sector. Both India and China are competing vigorously for favorable concessions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and even in South America, where China has made considerable inroads. - Ehsan Ahrari


I am wondering if Michael Mackey ever bothered to compare China's railway system with India's. According to Michael Mackey (China's workin' on the railroad [Jun 17]), ["in 1949] China had only 21,800 kilometers of railway lines, of which only 11,000 was open to traffic". India had a 50,000km rail system by then. Now, they [China's railway network] are the third-largest in the world at 75,000 kilometers. Besides the length, large sections of China's rail system have a speed of 100 miles [160km] per hour. India has around 60,000km [of railways] with a speed not even half of what China can do. Is that what you call a neck [and] neck race, Ehsan Ahrari [Guiding hand in India, China ties, Jun 15]? If so, you must have a very long neck.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 17, '05)


I read the [Jun 16] letter from Frank with increasing annoyance with the editors at ATimes for publishing his silly pronouncements and racist generalizations. Frank again makes the following biased assumptions without any rational basis.
1. He assumes [letter writer] Mehul is from India, although there is no reason from her correspondence to assume so.
2. He further assumes and pronounces that the majority of Indians are like Mehul.
3. He thinks he speaks for the 1.4 billion people of China while he sits in Seattle, USA, and spouts racist stuff.
4. He assumes that Ehsan Ahrari is a Indian strategic analyst or analyst for India, while there is no indication that he is Indian or an analyst for India.
5. He assumes in a grandiose manner that he represents all Asian people and has repeatedly said that all Asians are with him in denouncing white people - I wonder where he gets these delusions from.
6. He assumes that only Asians can write about Asia and no whites can.
7. He completely kowtows to the communist republic of China and has nothing to offer in terms of rational analysis, facts or statistics to support anything that he writes.
8. Everyone is wrong except him.
I am beginning to wonder why you are continuing to publish this racist, raving, delusional individual's blather.
Sun King
New York, New York (Jun 17, '05)


If, to use a boxing metaphor, the [Jun 17] articles by Jonathan Schell [The bright, shining lie] and Tom Engelhardt [Down the rabbit hole]  read like a stunning one-two punch right to the gut of the Bush administration, then the headlines in the New York Times and other American newspapers are beginning to foreshadow the coming knock-out punch. It looks like I may not, after all, have to live out the rest of my life in a bloody military empire run by rapacious oilmen, rabid Zionists and their allied backwoods Evangelical World-Enders.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Jun 17, '05)


Re US plays spoiler in India-Pakistan pipeline accord [Jun 17]: A [US$4] billion three-nation pipeline project with the goal of feeding the Indian economy its voracious energy needs is by all accounts a crucial one. It is even more remarkable that Mani Shankar Aiyer was able to negotiate a successful deal with Pakistan and Iran. It was a demonstration of tremendous enthusiasm, imagination and perseverance by Aiyer. Unfortunately, there are a couple of obstacles on the way to the inauguration ceremonies, and those are Pakistan and Iran. Can Pakistan provide an inviolable guarantee that the pipeline will not become a victim in the hands of domestic saboteurs or willful acts of supply interruption by the Pakistani government? Can Iran satisfactorily demonstrate to the US its peaceful nuclear intentions? Neither of these obstacles can be easily resolved. As for Iran's nuclear burden, it is not going to be easy for that nation to yield on its position that its nuclear development is only for peaceful purposes; but that is not going to be acceptable to the US. America sees the huge revenues from the gas deal will be used by Iran for nuclear-weapons development. As for Pakistan, the provisions of the Pakistani guarantees must be fully revealed to the Indian public for open debate before the agreement is finalized and inked. As much as India's energy bill is a big burden on its finances, India cannot expose itself to the vagaries of Pakistan's collaborative intentions without a thorough analysis of the safety guarantees. Additionally, how can India be certain that the revenues from the transit fees (that India will be paying Pakistan) will not be used for training terrorists against India? These hurdles are not easy to cross.
Giri Girishankar (Jun 17, '05)


Re Canberra wakes up to China 'spies' [Jun 17]: Chen Yonglin won't get much satisfaction from the likes of Australia's Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard is not a generous host: he is denying Mr Chen asylum even though he has handed the prime minister a plum of a story that the People's Republic of China has a network of a thousand spies in Australia. But the stern Mr Howard prefers to turn a blind eye to this gift. For him trade with Beijing overrides any consideration of espionage and interference in the in the internal affairs of Australia. Nor will Mr Chen find refuge in the democracy which [US President George W] Bush peddles like snake oil at home and abroad at the drop of a hat. For, Mr Chen is an embarrassment, and realpolitik demands that Washington needs Beijing in forcing Pyongyang back to the conference table. Mr Bush, like his father before him, sees in China an open sesame to the riches of a market of [more than] a billion people. When it comes to China they are rank sentimentalists, a malady which Winston Churchill diagnosed in America's presidents. Washington, like Canberra, hasn't the political fortitude to force the issue of spying with the Chinese. In brief, Mr Howard and Mr Bush are blowing smoke in spite of high-minded rhetoric and hollow words of principle.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 17, '05)


I was actually enjoying The coming trade war and global depression [Jun 16] by Henry C K Liu until I got to the line, "The boots and uniforms worn by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were made in China." That is completely false; I know - not only was I there the first time, I have a detailed knowledge of where they are actually made, in the US, per US law. It is extremely unfortunate when failure to verify easy facts throws doubt on the veracity of the entire article. By the way, some berets were made in China, and as soon as that was determined, they were recalled and our troops do not use them.
John Friedson
USA (Jun 17, '05)


In the June 16 edition of the Asia Times [Online], the cover story The coming trade war and global depression by Henry C K Liu included a reference to the Great Depression. Mr Liu stated in his article that the Depression lasted from 1929 to 1941, and that the US economy did not recover until it was being fueled by the war effort against Japan. It's obvious that Mr Liu was raised in a Far East setting that provided him with this propaganda information, but I imagined the editor for such a distinguished publication as the Asia Times Online would make efforts to repress this misinformation. This is a common story told in Asian schools that the US created World War II to drive its economy. I would like the article to be corrected. Any economist knows that the period from 1933-1941 was the fastest-growing in America's history. The economy doubled from [US]$635 billion in 1933 to $1.21 trillion in 1941. That's in just eight years, and the average growth rate was above 8%.
Matthew Lanier (Jun 17, '05)

Anyone who denies the existence of the Great Depression as Asian propaganda is the one spreading misinformation. The real misinformation was supplied by Mr Lanier: "Any economist knows that the period from 1933-1941 was the fastest-growing in America's history. The economy doubled from $635 billion in 1933 to $1.21 trillion in 1941." US gross domestic product did not cross the trillion-dollar line until 1969. The GDP in 1929 was US$103.6 billion and bottomed at $56.4 billion in 1933, the first year of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By 1940, US GDP was still $101.4 billion, below the 1929 level, and unemployment stayed above 9% and wages stayed below 1929 levels despite the New Deal. By 1945, US GDP more than doubled to $223.1 billion. War production was the only explanation. - Henry C K Liu


I enjoy reading Pepe Escobar at your site if only to see how the perpetually embittered against America think. His latest rambling [How much is a hostage worth, Jun 16] about the French paying up to free their hostage in Iraq was noteworthy. Pepe says this: "For the George W Bush administration, any hostage is a dead hostage. As far as Europe is concerned, one may never know how much a hostage is worth." Well, that's a wild and inaccurate conclusion typical of Pepe. He obviously missed the recent return of the Australian hostage Douglas Wood, who was freed without any ransom payment as a result of effective military action by Iraqi special forces. The cost? Priceless. Pepe also chooses to ignore the glaring reality that regardless of French opposition to coalition action in Iraq, French citizens appear just as vulnerable to kidnapping and ransom demands as anyone else. If France pays the kidnappers - are they discouraged from doing it again? As far as Europe is concerned (to borrow Pepe's phrase) - and "old Europe" actually - how much is a hostage worth? What is the cost for deliberately enabling thugs working to violently defeat the most democratic Iraqi government in recent history? What is the cost for paying ransom demands for crimes of kidnapping and terror? Just how much is that worth? Well, for the French government it appears it's worth the price of both the hostage and the added benefit of thwarting American goals for Iraq. I can only hope that as Iraqi special forces continue to improve their effectiveness - the price demanded for any French hostage will go up exponentially. Then perhaps the French government will see the wisdom of negotiating with terrorists properly. That means not at all, by the way, Pepe.
SierraSteve (Jun 17, '05)

It is premature to put all the credit for Douglas Wood's rescue on Iraqi special forces; all the players, including the Australian government, the Australian Muslim clergy, the US military and the Iraqi army itself, are still trying to get their stories straight. As usual, the relevant occupation force, in this case Australia, is putting a glorious spin on the operation, while the grunts on the ground, in this case lowly Iraqi and US soldiers, suggest Wood was found by accident in a routine weapons search. And as usual, the obfuscation, exaggeration, deliberate disinformation and sheer ignorance on all sides will probably conspire against the full truth ever being known beyond the good news that Douglas Wood is safe. - ATol


[Re] Koizumi follows his heart [Jun 15] by J Sean Curtin: This is an excellent if chilling read. Thank you.
Louise Low (Jun 17, '05)


In claiming that the "the Chinese attitude to Japan has been very shortsighted", B Raman [The hype behind India's Japan ties, Jun 16] fails to realize the startling contrast between Germany and Japan when it comes to dealing with the war crimes of their predecessors. Germany completely de-Nazified and made sure new generations of Germans understand what really happened during World War II. We saw Willy Brandt kneeling down and apologizing to the Poles, we also witnessed [Japanese Prime Minister] Junichiro Koizumi repeatedly paying tribute to Japanese war criminals at Yasukuni despite protests from China and the Koreas; and now some Japanese politicians and lawmakers are calling the postwar prosecution of Japanese war criminals "illegal". Given everything that has happened, how can anyone expect the Chinese and the Koreans to show "mental generosity" toward the Japanese, Mr Raman? Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Jun 15]: Yes, India can choose to confront and arm-twist China as you proposed; of course, that will have to be accomplished at the expanse of Sino-Indian relations. You see, the problem is Taiwan is not an independent sovereign nation, not as far as the Indian Foreign Ministry is concerned. If India chooses to form an alliance with Taiwan, its relations with mainland China are bound to collapse. Of course, that's no big deal. It's really your call.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jun 16, '05)


Sometimes Henry Liu is merely good, and sometimes Henry Liu is merely brilliant and superbly insightful, as is the case with The coming trade war and global depression [Jun 16]. Keep up the good work, Henry and ATimes.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Jun 16, '05)


A footnote to Ehsan Ahrari's The ghost of LBJ [Jun 16]: Irony of ironies, Walter Jones, the Republican congressman from South Carolina who rebaptized french fries as freedom fries, has called upon George W Bush to make a full apology to the American people for dragging them into the Iraq war. As the Pew poll shows, Americans think that Mr Bush's war is not worth the candle. They want out. As public opinion goes against Mr Bush, his foot soldiers in the lower house of Congress are beginning to realize that they might not be returned for another two years in the mid-term elections of 2006. So, here and there, we are seeing fissures and cracks in the Republican tight-fist control of Congress. More, as Senator Joseph Biden mused on the failure of the armed services to meet quotas that it might become necessary to reinstitute a national draft. Such a step would bring the current administration face-to-face with the dilemma LBJ [president Lyndon B Johnson] faced during the ill-fated expeditionary war in Vietnam. A careful reading of the European press allows a fuller understanding that the insurgency in Iraq has here and there escalated from hit-and-run attacks or suicide bombings to battalion-sized confrontations in the desert and border areas. In consequence, we are witnessing the classical ramping up of guerrilla warfare which General Nyguen Vo Giap so eloquently described in his People's War, People's Army as testimony of the defeat of the French during the first Vietnam War. Mr Bush is a man who says, it seems, fie to history, and such arrogance spells defeat and doom.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 16, '05)


I read [Rude awakening for Iran, Jun 15] closely, but there's another likely possibility that was not discussed; that is, this is apparently a CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] black-ops maneuver. [US President George W] Bush has pushed relentlessly for regime change in Iran. He continues to engage in anti-Iran propaganda, exaggerating the extent of Iran's nuclear capability ... Think back to Bush's recent remarks about providing aid to dissidents within the country seeking to overthrow the current regime. He did not limit any "aid" strictly to funding anti-government militants. It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Combined with the knowledge that the Shi'ites predominate in Iran and [Osama] bin Laden is Sunni - making him an unlikely ally at best - to posit the notion that bin Laden is now "hiding" in Iran is preposterous on its face. It is disingenuous and merely a figment of the US psyops/propaganda arsenal aimed at the American public in an attempt to utilize US animus toward bin Laden to further turn it against the Iranian regime and thereby prime it for the invasion of another Islamic oil-producing nation.
SherAn
USA (Jun 16, '05)

Good point about US black ops. Please refer to our article Stirring the ethnic pot (Apr 29). - ATol


[Re] Collaborators serve Seoul's cause [Jun 15]: [Sheila Miyoshi] Jager seems to believe that Koreans' examination of collaboration with Japan is nothing but a trip down memory lane. She fails to analyze the main reason why Japan is hated by all its neighbors today. This is not because Japan hasn't apologized for its actions in World War II, but because it has the same chauvinist, ultra-nationalist attitude today. More practically, Japan is armed to the teeth and is in lockstep with a rampaging US. The parallels to imperial Japan are obvious. Could you imagine German leaders constantly visiting the graves of leading Nazis and then saying this was an internal matter of the German nation? In short, the Japanese regret World War II because they lost, not because they regret waging aggressive war and enslaving their neighbors. In Korea, Japanese collaborators weren't just trying to survive. These traitors worked to eradicate Korea. The Japanese occupation went to insane lengths to destroy the ancient Korean identity, including the destruction of feng shui at sacred sites by driving metal spikes deep into the ground (these spikes are still being extracted today). These traitors profited handsomely by becoming yes-men to the Americans after World War II. Today, many South Korean politicians' sons are US citizens and have renounced their Korean citizenship to avoid performing their required military duty in Korea, continuing the tradition of treachery. Korea is perhaps the most fiercely patriotic nation on the face of the Earth. Thus it is natural that the strong influence of unpatriotic politicians inspires such violent emotions. Korea, with its strong culture and deep respect for learning, would have developed an advanced economy with or without the "help" of collaborators like Park Chung-hee at the helm. While Ms Jager points to the need to "understand" the "historical causes" of Korea's colonization by Japan, she seems happy to give credit for Korea's advanced economy to Park and, by implication, Japanese colonization, instead of examining the "historical causes" for Korea's success. Japan's vast crimes are to be dismissed in favor of historical understanding, while Korea's success is attributed solely to Japan and its henchmen.
G Travan
California, USA (Jun 16, '05)


I agree with every word in Mehul's letter [Jun 15]. Indian people like Mehul [are] exactly the reason that China is supporting India's well-deserved bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. People like Mehul [are] exactly the reason that most people inside China still think India is a friendly country to China. I think the majority of Indians are like Mehul, who prefer to see peace with China than compete for regional dominance. Unfortunately, people like Ehsan Ahrari [Guiding hand in India, China ties, Jun 15] are still occupying the import positions like strategic analysts in India. That is the reason India cannot make true friends with most of its immediate neighbors. If India cannot throw out those incompetent strategic planners who cannot analyze the facts, read history and use logic, sooner or later history will repeat itself. I do not think that Chinese people want to see another shipment of Indian opium [showing] up in Hong Kong again.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 16, '05)


Pepe Escobar's article [Exit strategy: Civil war, Jun 10] was one of the best analyses of the situation in Iraq. What a mess. There must [be] some sort of united front here in the [United] States to oppose these policies and get to the truth. Someone has to step up and offer a peace plan. What a monumental task that would be. Thanks for your extremely informative, astute, and clear writing.
Todd C (Jun 16, '05)


There is such a thing [as] rule of the majority, which Mohammed Saleh [letter, Jun 15] seems unaware of. India is a secular country because the majority of Indians wished it to be that. If he finds secularism absurd and unholy, as long as he does not break the law of the land, he can always choose to practice Sharia [Islamic law] or whatever it is within the confines of his house.
Harish
India (Jun 16, '05)


Is it possible that Ehsan Ahrari wrote his commentary Guiding hand in India, China ties [Jun 15] on behalf of some Hindu extremists, or paid by the Japanese? Any fair journalist won't ignore an important fact: China's opposition to Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. No doubt India deserves a permanent seat. However, the Indian government decided to link its own bid with the Japanese bid. Shouldn't they rethink their strategy? I am sure the US, UK, and many EU countries [would] publicly [oppose] Germany's bid if the German chancellor [kept] visiting [Adolf] Hitler's grave. The Chinese won't change their opposition to Japan's bid in any near future. Countries [whose] leaders openly worship war criminals do not deserve to represent the world. Yes, all those have nothing to do with India. Still, if you associate yourself with evil, you will be haunted one way or another. Finally I hope Ehsan Ahrari could stop promoting hatred between China and India. Can anybody name two giant neighbors which have more than 2,000 years of peaceful relationship excepting a brief small-scale war? That's India and China, nobody else.
Mehul
Maryland, USA (Jun 15, '05)


The article Guiding hand in India, China ties [Jun 15] laid out a complex relationship between the rising powers of China and India. The sore point of the article is China's "Pakistan card" being used to contain India. India has a strong hand to counter China's Pakistan card by opening up dialogue with Taiwan on all fronts, from trade to military cooperation. Since Taiwan [and] Pakistan are independent nations and both nations either came from the major country (Pakistan's breakaway from India) or claims [are] made that a nation belongs to another nation (as in Beijing's claim over Taiwan), [it] leaves the playing field level. China can [no more] cry foul over India's overtures to Taiwan than India can cry foul over China's overtures to Pakistan. It would send a strong message from New Delhi to Beijing that, yes, we can cooperate and be "friends" but as independent nations we can choose bilateral ties with any other nation, even if it may be a sore point to either China or India. Basically if India draws closer to Taiwan, as the US has done, while keeping an open "friendship" with Taiwan, India will basically have checkmated China's foreign policy and can arm-twist China as China is doing to India concerning the eligibility to the UNSC [United Nations Security Council].
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 15, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari (Guiding hand in India, China ties [Jun 15]) apparently learned a different history and read different news in his obedience school. China is not opposing, but supporting India's UN quest. China is not becoming a regional power. China has been a regional power for more than 2,000 years. Ehsan said [that], in most categories, India is running neck-and-neck with China. That is a lot of hot air. India is behind China in all categories other than their traditional lip-service sector. We could all have good laughs if India is guided by hands (or lips) of those so-called strategic analysts like Ehsan Ahrari. However, I would appreciate if those Indian strategic analysts can leave China out of their boasting.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 15, '05)


[Ehsan Ahrari:] I read your article Guiding hand in India, China ties [Jun 15]. I do not think you based your story on truth. "China's opposition to India's UN quest ..." You are kidding! Please read how Premier Wen [Jiabao] answered this question when he was in India. The journalist from The Times of India [asked], "What is China's position on India's appeal to become a permanent member of the United Nation Security Council?" [Answer]: "We pay high attention to India's important role in the international affairs. India is a country with a large population and an important developing country. We fully understand and support India's wish to play bigger roles in the international affairs as well as in the United Nations." The only reason China is against the G4 [Group of Four] resolution is Japan. I assume that you must know about the annual pilgrimage to the war-tainted Yasukuni Shrine by [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi. One New Komeito lawmaker, Junichi Fukumoto, told Koizumi in parliament, "I want you to think about how Jewish people would feel if the German chancellor visited the grave of Adolf Hitler." I do not consider what you wrote to be independent analysis.
Guan
Pennsylvania State University (Jun 15, '05)

I did base my story on "truth". Please see the CNN story China warns on UN expansion (Jun 2). Even in the Chinese premier's response that you quoted below, please note that he did not say that China would support India's quest for membership in the UN Security Council. He merely used the general diplomatic gobbledygook to paper over China's continued opposition to India's membership. Yes, I know all about the continued diplomatic skirmish between China and Japan. That has nothing to do with China's opposition to India. - Ehsan Ahrari


Your article Learning to read India [Jun 15] is factually incorrect. You state that the president of Purdue [University] "is probably also the first head of a US university who came to India to network personally to talk to leading Indian institutes and identify subjects for study". I personally traveled with president Jared Cohon of Carnegie Mellon University to Mumbai in November 2004 and Delhi and Bangalore in March 2005. During this period we met with many business leaders, including a visit to the Infosys campus in Bangalore and personal visits with both Prime Minister [Manmohan] Singh and President APJ Abdul Kalam.
Tamburro
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania (Jun 15, '05)

The president of Purdue was in India in the first half of November as well. Maybe the president of CMU [Carnegie Mellon University] beat him to it but it is a close call. - Siddharth Srivastava


I would like to comment on the mail of Rakesh (Jun 14): I wish to ask the writer, where [were] your religious tolerance and [guardianship] of cultural heritage when mosques, libraries, schools, historic buildings, and museums, many of them great historic monuments, were being destroyed in the Balkans? The European fanatics known as Serbs destroyed more than 1,200 mosques in Bosnia. More than 200 were destroyed in Kosovo. Of course, unlike the Taliban, they also killed the imams and the rest of the population with the historic monuments they were destroying. Of course they committed other crimes so grisly that their cultural vandalism appeared to be a non-issue in comparison. And of course, the guardians of cultural heritage, of religious freedom, and of humanity were happily strolling through their art galleries when the butchery was going on ... By the way, all the nations of the world didn't win freedom solely based on the tactics of non-violence; many won independence using bombs and bullets against the oppressors, the USA being the prime example of that.
Mohd Salek Noor
Fujairah, UAE (Jun 15, '05)

This debate is another iteration of the "my religion is better than yours" argument that finds its way on to this page from time to time, which is fair enough except that it tends to go on for, quite literally, an eternity. It also tends to become abusive, and some letters in that category have been rejected. The more appropriate place for such sparring is The Edge forum. - ATol


I would like to clarify the misunderstanding people have about the Palestinian people who fight for the freedom of their motherland from the Zionist regime. Many in the West and also in Asia think Palestinians are terrorists, or else why would they prefer suicide bombing or any other means of attacking Israelis? Day after day, Palestinians witness virulent atrocities of vagabond Israeli soldiers. Well over 2,000 have been killed in the past two years. If Palestine had the same population as America and the same percentage of those murdered held true, there would be over 200,000 people murdered. In fact, these unchecked murders there effect all Palestinians; all have been directly effected by having their loved ones or friends murdered or, at the least, injured. In response to this, many Palestinians have given up all hope. They have become suicide bombers. Not many people in the world would approve of their actions; I personally do not. And the same might be said there with respect to these suicide bombers: No one wants to see their children die. But we must ask ourselves how these suicide bombers can exist. The answer is not a pretty one: It has become so utterly futile for so many, so utterly hopeless, that they have nothing else to lose ... The world brags about dignity of humanity but when it comes to the sanctity of lives many innocent Muslims they seldom raised their voices and would rather prefer bombing them till death ultimately embraces them. The Zionist terrorism would well match with US terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US terrorists are randomly killing innocent Muslims in Iraq in the name of insurgents. Why should so many innocent people die without having done anything wrong? This reminds me of the maxim of Mahatma Gandhi, "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" And the Muslims who fight these brutal occupying forces are not terrorists but freedom fighters the like of George Washington or Bhagat Singh.
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jun 15, '05)


The world's second-fastest-growing economy after China is no longer India. It's Pakistan. According to figures released by Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, the [US]$110 billion economy is estimated to have grown 8.4% in the current fiscal year that ends June 30. That compares with 9.5% expansion in China's gross domestic product last year, while India recorded 6.9% GDP growth in the 12 months ended March 31. Now that Pakistan is within striking distance of China's growth, it aims to catch up. The growth target for the next fiscal year, as set out in the nation's annual budget ... is as much as 8%, the same as Beijing's goal for the year. Still, another year of strong growth is eminently achievable in Pakistan, provided the central bank can maneuver deftly to suppress inflationary expectations, even as the government goes ahead and steps up investments in public works.
Zeeshan (Jun 15, '05)


E San Juan Jr's article Asian-American melting pot [Jun 14] is filled with ideas repeated ad nauseam about the neo-con reshaping of America and the American mind against non-white peoples as job-stealers, terrorists, miscreants, opportunist non-patriots, dispensable heathen, et al. Wonder why such study so quickly concludes that the neo-cons transformed the landscape so profoundly, while their Democrat brethren stood by horrified, doing what little they can to salvage lost ground. The article equates racism and Christian fundamentalism as well. Fundamentalisms are of several kinds. The one that is ready to kill, as far as I can perceive, is a very fringe minority in America. The other is an evangelistic kind, an exclusivist religion that some perceive as dangerous to their own faith, and some as ill-informed dogma, some others as a logical faith. I do not see their influence as being racist as much as seeking to convert people to Christianity. Unfortunately, the American people are far less likely to face the truth behind the prejudice - their own truly revered social institutions, such as cinema, pop idols, political leadership (including the liberals) and, most often, their homes. Evil, as charity does, begins at home. Moving on from the well-beaten (and correctly assessed) track record of [Richard] Nixon and [Henry] Kissinger, consider these: John Kerry's pronouncement of outsourcers as Benedict Arnolds, politicians such as David Duke, who turned Republican recently after a long history of membership in the Democratic Party (head of the Ku Klux Klan), television personalities such as Dennis Miller, whose silly humor makes daily fare for the masses, slick Willy (Clinton), who had the chutzpah to first impose sanctions on a newly nuclear India, and then stride into the Indian parliament, praising the leaders lavishly, Hollywood's propaganda machine promoting lust without love, video games that show wanton violence (that could be at least part of the reason why the US troops are behaving so shamefully in Iraq). Neo-cons and liberals do not differ much in that sense. The US culture, unlike [what US President George W] Bush thinks, is not one of liberty, but [of] license. George Orwell once feared that what we hate will ruin us, as that will be imposed on us. Aldous Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us, that we will be a trivial culture, fed a barrage of unedifying lies so that the truth gets obliterated. Neil Postman once wrote a book comparing these views, and concluded that Huxley, and not Orwell, was right. It sure seems to be playing out that way.
Vijay
Cochin, India (Jun 14, '05)


Re A US ear if the price is right [Jun 14]: Jim Lobe should know better. The United States is a capitalist country. It serves the business class two ways: either by subsidies or by tax breaks. Ronald Reagan through radical tax cuts and supply side economics blew up the myth of the farmer and the corner business, favoring the managers and the professional classes who serve the system well. And the monies flow endlessly into the coffers of politicians. However, Jim Lobe has a point: [President George W] Bush in foreign affairs has a tin ear. Tony Blair, like [British] prime ministers before him, energetically [firms] up the Atlantic alliance, thereby downplaying a European vocation. Lobe is wrong: Prime Minister Blair was well rewarded, and besides, he also came to Washington to work out a common Anglo-American strategy for the forthcoming G7 [Group of Seven] meeting in Scotland. Turkey's Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan got a photo-op, which will play well back home. Since France and the Netherlands torpedoed the EU's constitution, Ankara's hope for joining Europe is put off to the Greek kalends. So, for Turkey, Washington is its most trustworthy ally. Poor President Roh [Moo-hyun], summoned to Washington, went away with little but a sour taste in his mouth. Mr Bush is not moving on the question of North Korea, despite the formulaic identity of views, and a frank discussion, which is always a giveaway that Mr Bush and Mr Roh didn't see eye to eye on approaches to Pyongyang. A nuanced reading of the meeting reveals that the Bush policy towards North Korea is [doomed] to failure, and on the other hand, Mr Roh will continue his opening to North Korea, and aligning himself with Beijing's reading for stability in Northeast Asia.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 14, '05)


There is a deliberate long-term strategy that the suicide bombers in Iraq seem to have adopted that Spengler doesn't acknowledge [in Why Sunnis blow themselves up, Jun 14] - to make the cost of US occupation so high that it threatens the survival of the US itself. It's the same strategy that the Afghan mujahideen employed against the Soviet Union, and it eventually succeeded. The cost of the occupation grew higher and higher, but since the [Soviets] couldn't admit failure, they persisted until their empire collapsed. If commentators in the US were to examine the real costs of this war, we'd see the extent to which the Iraqi resistance is succeeding. The $300 billion appropriated so far by Congress, which is the number most often bandied about as the cost of the war, is only the tip of the real iceberg. It doesn't include off-the-books intelligence spending, long-term costs of veterans' benefits to the wounded, nor the economic costs of higher gas prices, and their ripple effect. My guess is that the cost is already in the trillions of dollars, and at the point that it expands into the tens of trillions, many of the basic institutions of society would begin to crumble - as they did in the Soviet Union. Spengler seems to feel that the Iraqi resistance will eventually wither away: "I continue to argue, as I have for two years, that the meat grinder of civil war will reduce the numbers of those who would rather die than accept the mediocrity of their circumstances. Washington will make gestures to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi Sunni resistance to no avail; the latter will demand that America fight them to the death. Reluctantly, Washington will have to oblige." I see a different outcome. Each time we hear about economic distress in the US - General Motors' bonds downgraded to junk status, massive pension liabilities that can't realistically be met, America's airlines poised on the brink of collective bankruptcy, Social Security under attack - the insurgents are encouraged further and there are more suicide volunteers. The real front in this war is economic, and I see the US losing, locked into an economically devastating situation that it can't extract itself from, with its world adversaries lending it the money at very low interest rates to continue. This is the greatest disaster in American history.
Russ Winter
Washington, DC (Jun 14, '05)


As usual, while writing about Islam, the pseudo-Spengler has exposed his complete and utter ignorance yet again [Muslim anguish, Western condescension, Jun 7]. It is ridiculous beyond belief to say that "Unlike Christianity or Judaism, worldly success is the ultimate testimony of Islam ..." On the contrary, worldly success is of least importance to most Muslims. In fact many Muslim intellectuals have berated their fellow religionists about being too focused on the afterworld and completely ignoring [the need] to make their worldly lives more successful. Islamic history is full of examples where people have themselves chosen to live very Spartan lives, discarding worldly pleasures in the hope of salvation and success on judgment day. Similarly, in the Islamic call to prayers, "Come to prayer. Come to success," the success is the success on the day of deliverance or salvation. In fact in most English translations of prayer call, the words "salvation" or "deliverance" are used instead of "success". This is the level of pseudo-Spengler's understanding of Islam and based on this (lack of) understanding of the concept of "success" in Islam - this guy has written so many articles saying that the best way [to defeat] Muslims is to humiliate them more. This "genius" does not even know that according to Islamic beliefs, the more one suffers and is tortured for one's beliefs, the more will be his reward in heaven. God help Americans if they start reading and implementing pseudo-Spengler's advice.
Ahmed Zaheer
Pakistan (Jun 14, '05)


It's a delight reading Spengler. I could not agree with him more on his article Why Sunnis blow themselves up [Jun 14]. I agree with his assessment that Sunnis would rather die than accept the mediocrity of their circumstances. May I add it's not by any means restricted to mediocrity of life in Iraq. Sunnis from Pakistan regularly blow themselves [up] in sectarian bombings. Sunnis from Palestine do the same. Sunnis from Saudi Arabia did the same in the [September 11, 2001] bombings. It speaks of the mediocrity of life in all of these countries. May I also pose a question to Spengler? What about the 72 virgins that are awaiting these Sunnis? Don't they also [play] a part? John Daniel [letter, Jun 13]: Your use of labels to describe [letter writer Aryan Singh] Rathore indicates your lack of comprehension or vocabulary or both. My shorthand response is to call you a jihadi apologist under a Christian name, but let me not fall into your pit. I write this letter not to defend Mr Rathore. He writes cogently and eloquently and does not need me for defense. I write to tell you that you his letter was right on the money and since we have a count of two versus one, it's not demeaning to all Indians. Further, Mr Daniel, can you represent yourself and your views and not Indians? I can guarantee you there is no support amongst Indians for the Islamic radicalism that you implicitly support in your letter.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco (Jun 14, '05)


With Indians like John Daniel [letter, Jun 13], India does not need a Pakistan to watch out for. India should have no nuclear weapons according to [Daniel], who obviously does not feel any sense of belonging in India, and hence would prefer a weak and pliant India. Such largess with what is not one's own shows the religious bias and lack of national esteem in this character since India, for all its kowtowing to its minorities, is still seen as a Hindu country that needs to be "shown the light" by Daniel and that is not possible if she is strong and confident, right, John? I am sure he has double bolts on all doors and grilled windows in his house but the country should have none of that. Perhaps in his vacuous mind he lives in a biblical world of harmony where the milk of human kindness overflows, or is he too thick-headed to see the reality of the day? And he ties himself up in knots of contradiction that shows how blind hatred is decoupled from reason. He attacks India for taking the military approach to liberating Goa from his "brethren" but in the same breath ridicules her for "Indians never had the courage to fight their British occupiers". And he wonders why Indians abroad are concerned about their country, knowing as they do that there are turncoats like him back home. What stands out in all his letters is his virulent attack on Hinduism and a traitorous attempt to sell his country short. He hobbles along the well-beaten road of attack by labeling any Hindu [who] asks questions a "fanatic" and his "facts" are full of fiction (example: Sikhs were killed by Congress goons in 1984 and not "Hindus" as he fantasizes). Refuting his cliched, recycled attacks on Hinduism is an utter waste of time as he is too poisoned in his missionary hatred of his own country. A being who would rail against his own country is beneath contempt and truly a "dead soul", to quote Walter Scott's famous poem on patriotism.
Sri
New York, USA (Jun 14, '05)


John [Daniel (letter, Jun 13):] your comparison of Israel to Portuguese-occupied Goa is incorrect, and you know it. The Portuguese had no prior claims to that land, whereas Jews in Israel have older, and at least as valid, claims as the other parties. This is a neutral historical fact, and there is no prejudice implied against any group in pointing it out, whereas you seem to be prejudiced against Israel by denying it a right to exist. Your timing is also interesting, because the Arab countries actually affected by this are beginning to work out some agreement acceptable to all parties, while you, as an outsider, seem to want to encourage more rigid attitudes and possibly continued violence.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jun 14, '05)


[Fabio] Scarpello: Thank you for your good article in Asia Times [Online of] June 11 [Indonesia's hot spots heat up]. I am very pleased that more journalists are alert on the situation in Indonesia. Just [as] your [article] says, the hot spots are heating up in Indonesia. But this is not [only] from this time, but [has occurred since] the start of the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia is now supposed to be a democratic country, but unfortunately this is still a fairytale. The [many] human-rights atrocities in the country and especially in Aceh, Papua, Sulawesi and the Malukus proves there are still elements in Indonesia who don't want the nation to become a democracy. The international community is still backing the nation despite all these atrocities, despite the example what was happened in East Timor, now Timor-Leste. It is time that the people in this world who believe that every human has the right to live freely and safe in this world react to the situation [of deprivation] in Indonesia.
N Pattinama
Supervisor, Maluku Masa Depan (Jun 14, '05)


I thank all who responded to my mail regarding Bhagat Singh and the so-called Muslim terrorists. In the [letters] one calls Bhagat Singh an atheist while another finds him a Sikh. One would allow the painting of Mecca and posters bearing the name of Allah in Arabic on his house wall while other would dread to entertain the idea. Your [letters] vacillate from thoughts to thoughts, obfuscations to obfuscations - I did not exactly discern what you people want to imply. Your hatred towards Muslims blinded you to the extent that you forgot Muslims fought along with Hindus to free your country from the British Raj. People like Ashfaqullah Khan and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan actively supported Mahatma Gandhi in his struggle against the occupying forces from Britain. One says Hindus allowed Muslims to proliferate giving them freedom of speech and right to worship etc. I would like to ask the writer, why would Muslims need Hindus' permission for proliferating, worshipping or divorcing in [their] own motherland? Isn't India a democratic country and all the citizens, irrespective of caste and creeds, equal? The other opines [that] Muslims "surround themselves with superstitious conspiracy theories". That might be the idea you have about the faith of Muslims. Unfortunately, I find you among those who were/are victims of biased Western media. We find your secularism absurd, unholy, lascivious, worldly, anti-God, wicked and full of ill principles that have least respect for moral clarity, and we want to impose the sacred law (Sharia) of God on Indians. I would like to know your reactions to my suggestion. If [others] can forcefully impose their laws on us, which we abhor, why can't we suggest laws of God [for] them? When [someone] fights for the freeing of [his] land from the clutches of evil forces that have been persecuting, torturing and executing [him] for [his] faith, I think he ought to be called a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. Saudi Arabia has a large number of non-Muslim expatriates. If you think the Saudi government has the least regard for their right to worship, you are more than welcome to Saudi Arabia so that verification of your hypothetical ideas regarding Saudi society would be more easy (than from far-off places). Muslims might be bad, they might be following a religion that breeds terrorism, but they don't forcefully impose their principles on others the way the USA and her stooges are currently doing in the Middle East. Those who accept the doctrines of the USA and promise to abide by them are exempted from ruthless invasion and those who don't (like Iraqis or Afghanis) [are] attacked and brutally massacred. We are not using force on others to make them Muslims; rather, we are using our weapons to defend our dignity. (And the banner of the freedom of Muslims ... streams like the thunderstorm against the wind.) You say laws of Saudi Arabia unsatisfactory to the non-Muslims and make lots of hue and cry yet object to Muslims' unwillingness to accept the laws of jungle [forcibly] imposed upon them by secularists from different parts of the world. The Muslims in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq want only that which had been given naturally to all peoples of the world, to be masters of their own fate, only of theirs, not of others. "L'homme est ne libre, et partout il est dans les fers." And Muslims are merely breaking that chain which you call terrorism.
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jun 14, '05)


Mohammed Saleh [letter, Jun 9] says Islam does not force conversions. There is probably some truth in what he says, but there is equal truth in that orthodox and fundamentalist Muslims have in the past used forced conversions and similar repressive tactics, especially after military victories, to impose their religion on others. He claims 1,000 years would have been enough to convert Hindus to Muslims. Well, with all due respect, I wish to remind him that the Indian subcontinent does have almost 500 million Muslims (40% of the total population - not a small minority at all). The number of Muslim invaders that established their "holy" kingdoms by destroying Hindu temples and butchering Hindus is not very small, in spite of what some would like us to believe. Mr Mohammed justifies the hideous acts of the Taliban by asking whether a Hindu would allow a painting of Mecca in his/her home. What he seems to completely miss is that there is a difference between a country/state and one's home. What one does in his/her home is simply his personal matter. The state simply cannot have any right to dictate what theology a person follows in his/her home. That "idol worshipping" is or is not the "greatest sin" a Muslim can commit is hardly the point here - the point is tolerance and whether or not one respects other people's religions and, most importantly, their right to follow religions, philosophies and theologies of their choice. As far as Bhagat Singh goes, yes he did take to violence, but let us not forget that he did not kill innocent civilians. And neither did he murder for religion. Therefore there is a significant difference between Bhagat Singh and Mohammad Saleh's wonderful foreign jihadis in Kashmir whose favorite occupation in the past decade has been murdering Hindu civilians in Kashmir so that they can establish an exclusivist Muslim state by unraveling the Indian Union. As far as [Mahatma] Gandhi and [Jawaharlal] Nehru go, it is utterly ridiculous to compare these two figures to today's jihadis. India won independence from the colonial power in large part to the purely non-violent socio-political revolution of Gandhi and Nehru and certainly not because of Bhagat Singh's violent ways. There's one lesson that some can draw from.
Rakesh
India (Jun 14, '05)


I found that picture of a naked Kim Jong-il sitting on a rock with a cobra around him very disturbing [Why North Korea isn't talking, Jun 11]. I don't know from which famous painting this picture got an idea like that, but people should learn to respect even murderers. This is tragically biased. It kind of reminds me how the Western media were and still are treating the Chinese in a fairly negative light. I disagree with most parts with the article written by An Song Nam, but please don't be so malicious to make fun of other people's photos.
Lloyd Lan (Jun 13, '05)


Re US Congress moves to squeeze UN (Jun 10): The proper response to US bullying of the UN is to suspend voting and veto rights of members who willfully default on their membership assessment. Modern history is chock-a-block full of evidence that the US rarely plays by rules, from slavery extending up to modern torture, and international nuclear treaties to trade disputes. The rabid right wing's motto, not surprisingly, is "If we don't get our way, we change the rules." Fine, but then you don't play, just sit on your hands and observe. If you have an idle moment, conjure up images of a new UN without [US President George W] Bush's unceasing vetoes, fewer double standards on Israel and Palestine, a World Bank headed by a non-American, a new world of treaties and high standards, all war criminals being charged, a weapons inspector allowed to do a proper job - a new shining age. And all it takes is to link membership dues to voting rights. Ah, Utopia so close at hand.
PenDragon
Sleepy Hollow, New York (Jun 13, '05)


Yun Fan's article China's border barometer [Jun 9] teaches us that China is indeed not putting any pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. If China wanted to apply pressure it would be quite easy - just close the border to tourists, oil, and food movement and North Korea would feel the pain immediately. But why should China do so? After all, China has funded North Korea's nuclear program, and provided North Korea with necessary technology and materials for the program, as well as providing missile technology for delivering nuclear warheads. The current standoff, where North Korea acts as an aggressive pit bull in China's front yard, is exactly what China wants. Unfortunately, China's leaders are not wise enough to understand that this antagonism will result in the rearming and nuclearization of Japan, and inclusion of Taiwan in a US-Japan-Taiwan defense alliance, which are events contrary to the interests of a belligerent China.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 13, '05)


Dear [Syed Saleem] Shahzad: I read with interest your excellent piece [Hot on the trail of al-Qaeda, Jun 7] and wanted to offer a personal view of where I think [Osama] bin Laden has been and why the search has not been a success. I believe that the Michael Hirsh article on the failed hunt that was recently released by Newsweek on the web comes the closest to describing what I think is really going on as any reporting on the subject thus far. The key to a successful capture may lie in what steps are now taken in light of information from articles such as this one and yours and I hope Asia Times Online will actively investigate the possibility of a fixed bin Laden base and expand on the reportage in the Hirsh piece. I believe that bin Laden is not so much "on the run", as President [General Pervez] Musharraf and the Pakistani foreign minister allege, as hiding semi-permanently in a compound or "base" as the Taliban sources cited in the Newsweek article call it. As your piece suggests and as ex-CIA al-Qaeda expert Gary Schroen has publicly noted, bin Laden's location is probably north of Peshawar and not in North or South Waziristan (though I do believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] spent a considerable period of time in or near Dir after he left Tora Bora). The fact that Mr Hirsh's Taliban sources say he's been at this base for "more than a year" is a matter for great concern to me. I believe that bin Laden reckons correctly that moving all the time from place to place, even at night, will open him up to aerial observation and leave a trail of witnesses and has opted instead to hole up in a place to which only his most trusted aides and allies had access. He probably leaves the base for occasional meetings, including possibly the one you cite in Afghanistan, and this would give the impression that he is "on the move" and make it even harder to determine his location. In my estimation, this permanent base is either the pre-existing compound of a sympathetic Pashtun warlord or a bin Laden-created hideout (which would be extremely well defended and difficult to locate). Either way, little movement and no electronic communications from the top leader means the base will have to be located by searchers on the ground. I hope that the US and Pakistani governments will work diligently to investigate this base and I wish you the best of luck in continuing to report on this most critical topic.
Ian Wilkie (Jun 13, '05)


I cannot believe that you posted an article written by Alexander Bukh [The West rewrites history, too, Jun 2] regarding the Soviet Union's contribution to the World War II war effort - and the West's rewriting of history - and his proof is in the responses of four students? Four students? Did the gentleman even bother to pick up a Western textbook? In any country? I cannot believe a doctoral candidate would not even try to prove his point with facts. It's stunning that you'd publish such an article.
Eric Dunn (Jun 13, '05)


The mindless bigotry directed at Muslims by Hindu fanatics such as [Aryan Singh] Rathore [letter, Jun 10] is demeaning to all Indians. He seems to forget the history of riots such as Bhiwande, Babri Masjid, Bombay, Gujarat and against the Sikhs in which tens of thousands of innocent people were killed by blood thirsty Hindu mobs. I don't recall any jihadis attacking people to convert them to Islam. Though I see secularists such as Mr Rathore supporting the bombing of Muslims to make them accept secularism. As for destruction for the sake of destruction, why does India have nuclear weapons? A nuclear bomb has no use on the battlefield, but is only used to annihilate a country's infrastructure - a perfect example of destruction for the sake of destruction. His dementia reaches its peak when defending Israel. Didn't India liberate Goa by military force from the Portuguese ... ? Why should the Arabs accept the racist Zionist state of Israel? Their land ... was given to the European Jews by the British occupiers. Would [people] like Mr Rathore accept it if Britain had presented Mumbai to a group of Europeans, who then claimed that the land had been allotted to white people by God and drove out the non-whites? Indians never had the courage to fight their British Occupiers; don't demean other people who have the courage to fight for their freedom. The thing that the West has truly excelled at has been organized violence, the attack on Iraq being an example of that. Study your history before looking to slander a people you hate because of their beliefs.
John Daniel
Thana, India (Jun 13, '05)


I would like to raise some comments in reference to the letter by Mohammad Saleh (Jun 9). Let me ask you one question, Mohammad. Do you think that there is no terrorism at all now on Earth and all that's happening is the fight for freedom ? How do you define terrorism? You say the violence that [is] happening in Kashmir, Chechnya and so on [is] freedom-fighting. Well, if you reread your own letter you can find weakness in your own arguments. Let's take an example, Kashmir. The people of Kashmir [are] not ... Muslims only; they [belong to] other religions too, like Hindus, and earlier it was a Hindu kingdom. So Muslims are not the sole owners of Kashmir. But the "heroes" you call "freedom fighters" kill those Hindu Kashmiri pundits in order to make a separate Muslim country. These "fighters" are killing other Kashmiris other than Muslim people. Is it freedom-fighting or terrorism ? Bhagat Sigh fought not for any particular religion or ethnic group but for all people of India. Given that, how can you call the violence for a separate Muslim country assassinating other religious groups "freedom fighting" and compare it to what Bhagat Singh did for India? Islam may not support forcible conversion and [neither] do Hindus but it is a historical fact that under the 400 years of Muslim rule [many] Hindu temples were destroyed and looted simply because they weren't Muslim. To be secular is not believing and worshipping what [another] religion does; it's all about understanding and living amiably and amicably with other religious groups. You need not worship Allah and Jesus Christ at the same time to be secular. What we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban's rule - destroying everything that was not Muslim - and what happens in Saudi Arabia right now - not allowing other religious groups there - is the perfect opposite of these. One interesting point is that wherever there is a Muslim-majority area in any non-Muslim country there is a cry for a separate state for Muslims. Take the case of northeast India, where a large migration of people from Bangladesh happened in the last decade or two. Now some of those areas are dominated by Muslims and it has become a big security issue and analysts predict there will be a call for a separate country for Muslims (and later may turn into "freedom-fighting", as you call it). So how do you explain these? Muslims come to a place where there were no Muslims, claiming ... a separate Muslim nation, arguing they are the "true owners" of that place by massacring other religious groups in that place and later calling it a freedom struggle. And then [they] cry that Muslims are oppressed all over the world and call any nation trying to tackle these situations anti-Muslim and a denier of freedom. Maybe we should call whatever violence is done by Muslims a "freedom struggle". Do you know the financial support for all these "freedom fighters" mainly comes from Saudi Arabia?
Hari
Kochi, India (Jun 13, '05)


Jim Lobe tells a sad tale in US Congress moves to squeeze UN [Jun 10]. It is no surprise that the unilateralist George W Bush's moss-backed Republicans in the houses of Congress are unhappy with the United Nations. The United Nations [is] not doing the bidding of the United States, which pays a princely US$438 million in obligations. Like the [Ronald] Reagan administration, Congress [is] ready and willing and able to cut off funding till the United Nations follows America's marching orders. It is equally of little surprise that the Bush administration [has] put forth the nomination of the controversial John Bolton to assume the empty chair of the United States ambassador to the United Nations. As Mr Bush never tires of saying, he wants a man of Bolton's temperament and iron-fisted approaches to problems to reform that institution on New York's east side. What is even more sad is that 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. And it looks as though Mr Bush has deemed it not worth the bother to attend the meeting in San Francisco to commemorate this milestone. To a man of Mr Bush's small view of the word ... the occasion [is] of small consequence. Saying this, the threats and tantrums of a petulant, mean-spirited Bush administration frighten no one. That is not to say Washington lacks clout, but its influence has diminished owing to its inept foreign and fiscal policies and the shifting kaleidoscope of alliances. Mr Bush is a lame-duck president. Time is running out for him and his cohort of rabid right-wing Republicans. Thus the urgency of bringing institutions like the United Nations to heel.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 10, '05)


[Adolf] Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels said once, "Tell a lie that is big enough and repeat it often enough and the whole world will believe it." Mahan Abedin's Iranian exile group strikes back (Jun 7) has followed that advice to the letter. Far from being a "review of both sides of the argument", the article is a litany of gross misrepresentation of obvious historical facts. As someone who has followed the People's Mujahedeen (MEK) since 1972 and written about the group extensively, I would like to set the record straight.
1. There are [not] "dozens of former members" of the MEK who "have consistently complained of gross human-rights abuses ... since 1991". Human Rights Watch refers to the "testimonies" of four such self-styled witnesses. The other eight acknowledge to have gone to Iran after 2001. German and Dutch security services had warned several of them about their extensive ties with the Iranian Intelligence Ministry.
2. If these individuals were, as they claimed, mistreated, why would the MEK arrange for their travel abroad at its own expense. Surely, one would think that any group torturing its own members would want to make sure they never get the opportunity to tell others about it.
3. The MEK does not "insist that it should lead a US-backed effort to bring what it has termed democratic rule to Iran". The convention organized in Washington was not organized by the MEK and was not held in May, but in April. It was attended not by just "powerful Republican lawmakers" but [by] democratic lawmakers as well.
4. The article fails to take note of one of the most obvious aspects of the Iraq war: the heavy bombing of MEK camps by US and British warplanes ...
5. The inclusion of the MEK in the [US] State Department list of terrorist organizations was a "goodwill gesture" by the [Bill] Clinton administration to then newly elected President Mohammad Khatami ..."
6. The MEK played no role in the assassination of US military officers and civilian contractors in Iran 30 years ago. An investigative report in 2002 by the Council on Foreign Relations concluded that the assassination of the Americans was the work of a Maoist splinter group not under the control of [Massoud] Rajavi. Nor did the MEK "participate in the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran". Ironically, those who took US diplomats hostage were the very same people the Clinton administration reached out to and the Europeans are continuing to appease today.
7. The "protected persons" status of the MEK was not the result of "a year-long tug-of-war between two US agencies". After an exhaustive 16-month investigation by seven different US agencies, including the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and the State Department, the US government concluded "there was no basis to charge any member of the group with the violation of American law or links to terrorism", according to the New York Times (Jul 27, 2004).
8. It was not the MEK [that] "prosecuted a serious campaign of violence against the Islamic republic". It was ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards that turned a peaceful demonstration by half a million Iranians in Tehran in June 1981 into a bloodbath. Hundreds were executed the same night, some without their identities being established, according to the state-run Ettela'at daily on June 21, 1981.
9. The MEK never "promoted an ideology based on Marxism-Leninism and Shi'ite theology". A mixing of the two would be an oxymoron. Nor was there "wholesale feminization of the organization and the placing of females - irrespective of competence - in all top positions". Had that been the case, the MEK would not have overcome all the schemes and attacks against it by the Iranian regime and its foreign interlocutors in the past 25 years.
10. Massoud Rajavi's move to Baghdad was not the result of MEK's decision to "ally itself with the former Iraqi regime". It was the French government, and ironically Jacques Chirac, who struck a deal with Tehran to secure the release of the French hostages in Lebanon and who declared Mr Rajavi persona non grata. Similarly, there is no truth to the charge that "MEK forces played a role in the suppression of the so-called Safar Intifada of March 1991". Reuters of May 22, 2002, quoted a senior official of a leading Iraqi Kurdish group, who is today a minister in the new Iraqi government thus: "[We] can confirm that the Mujahedin [sic] were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan."
11. Human Rights Watch's report was based merely on telephonic interviews, hardly the type of testimony that a "credible and high-profile human-rights organization" would lend credence to. Several of these individuals had previously approached Human Rights Watch, the UN special rapporteur on Iran, Professor Maurice Danby Capithorne, and Amnesty International, but to no avail.
12. The MEK has always invited international human-rights organizations to visit its camps in Iraq. In a letter on October 28, 1994, Massoud Rajavi personally invited Human Rights Watch to send representatives to Iraq to investigate any abuse allegations. In the past 11 years, HRW has not taken up that offer.
13. In the past quarter-century, Tehran and its apologists in Europe and Washington have consistently written off the MEK. If one were to take that assertion at face value, why then is the Iranian regime devoting so much time, energy and resources to demonize it? Why not leave it to wither into oblivion?
Ali Safavi
President, Near East Policy Research
Washington, DC (Jun 10, '05)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your article Armageddon: Bringing it on [May 20] gave me the impression that Islam was at a crossroads with Christianity. If you were to look at the fundamental basis upon which Hizbut Tahrir and all of the other groups that you mentioned are established upon, not one has claimed that Islam is at war with Christianity. Rather, all have categorically stated that Islam is at war with capitalism, which some have translated as meaning the West. For us as Muslims, the clash of civilizations is inevitable, [but] not that of Islam and Christianity; rather that of political Islam through the Islamic state (Khilafah) and Western secular democracy. The recent events that unfolded in Guantanamo Bay involving the desecration of the Koran outraged the Muslim ummah. We did not hold protests and demonstrations outlining our hatred towards Christians, fundamentally because we don't have any. Rather, we undertook these actions to send a strong message to the cowardly rulers in power: We demand an end to your tyranny - we want Khilafah. The desecration of the Koran was one of many incidents that [have] finally awoken the Muslims to the reality that Islam is being attacked by the West and that the only solution is unity from the Islamic Khilafah, a state which will finally protect Islam and Muslims.
Jazakallah Khair (Jun 10, '05)

You may be right but what we discussed in the piece was general perceptions. Iraq was invaded by the US because of its Ba'athist ideology. However, the US attack on Iraq was perceived as an attack on a Muslim country. Similarly, if political Islam challenges Western capitalists and the secular system, some quarters take it as challenge to a society inhabited by the people who believe in Christianity. The same happened in the case of Koran desecration. Hizbut Tehrir's concepts are too intellectual and I agree that their target would not be Christianity but Western secularism. However, what I discussed in the piece was the perceptions among masses, media and some quarters. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Apropos to Mohammed Saleh's write-up (letter, Jun 9), the writer seems to imply that Bhagat Singh fought on behalf of Hindu or any religious beliefs and hence Muslim fighting in Chechnya other part of the world is justified on the same grounds. This is sophistry at its best. Bhagat Singh was an avowed atheist and he was fighting on behalf of Indians, and not on behalf of any particular religion. Going by this logic, since Muslims outnumber Hindus in many enclaves inside India itself, will they be justified to fight for "liberating" their "homeland" against fellow Indians who otherwise profess different religions? Why should Kashmiri Muslims alone fight for "liberating" their land purely on religions grounds when their brethren elsewhere in India don't seem so inclined? After all, India's Muslims are second only to Indonesia in numbers, and do you mean they (Muslims) reserve their right to fight for "liberating" homelands based solely on their religious persuasion? If Muslims don't force their religion on others, can you explain why is it that the Hindu population in Pakistan got reduced from 20% in 1947 to less than 1% now? Why are separate electorates present for Hindu and Christians in Pakistan? True, Hindus don't "permit a painting of Mecca or a poster bearing the name of Allah in Arabic on their house walls or a Muslim eating [beef] in their homes", but they have allowed them to proliferate to become the second-largest religious denomination in that country with full freedom of speech and worship, a separate personal law of conduct which even Muslim countries don't permit, government subsidy for hajj voyages and the right to divorce their wives with triple Talaq, which even the Koran forbids. If Islam was so tolerant, why should Saudi Arabia not allow every religion to be practiced on its soil? What is it afraid of? The Taliban did not allow the age-old Buddha statues in their midst, but bombed them out, citing idolatry. How do you say they permitted them? You are scuttling the issue of Islamic terrorism by citing heroes who happened to be Sikh or Hindu by birth (not by conviction, mind you) and who fought for secular causes, to legitimize wars waged purely on religious grounds, be it Chechnya, Kashmir, the Philippines, or southern Thailand.
Sree
India (Jun 10, '05)


[Mohammed] Saleh [letter, Jun 9] makes some good points yet fails to see the larger picture. The difference between Bhagat Singh and the current crop of terrorists is that for many of the current terrorists, terrorism is not just a tool to achieve an end but an end on itself. Violence is not only a means to achieve some objective; instead, violence is the objective itself. Bhagat Singh always tried to minimize the casualties and most often there were no deaths. For Singh, violence was just to raise an issue, while for the jihadis, violence is war. The higher the death toll the better for the jihadis as they celebrate a big attack and want to hurt the other side as much as possible. Revenge, hatred, racism, divisions are constantly created. Many of these groups want to see the total destruction and subjugation of Israel, the US, Russia, the UK, India etc, while Singh only wanted to see freedom for India. He didn't want to see the UK totally annihilated or destroyed, and thus the death toll in his form of "terror" [was] low, while if one looks at Islamic Jihad, Lashkar-e-Toiba [and] Jaish-e-Mohammed then they will see that they have all killed thousands just for the sake of killing someone. If jihad ends they will be out of jobs since they are not capable of doing anything else ... Mr Saleh spoke of whether I would allow a picture of Mecca in my house. Yes, I would I have no problem with that. Why should I object to a symbol of the almighty? If I am traveling in Europe I do go to see the magnificent churches and I do pray in there if I feel like it. When in Asia you can't wonder and admire the dedication that it took to make the temple complex of Angkor or Ayutthaya and you do feel like these are places of God and faith. So why be afraid to pray there just because I am not officially part of that group? Isn't God one? So what difference does it make if I pray in a church, temple or mosque? Isn't God everywhere? ... Muslims claim that Islam brought order and logic out of chaos and superstition, but when I look at Islam and Muslims today I see a faith in chaos and a people who surround themselves with superstitious conspiracy theories ...
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Jun 10, '05)


I appreciate the clarification in Spengler's letter to the editor (Jun 7). Spengler, perhaps not envisaging the spirit of the actual Reformation, was at least hoping for the higher criticism of the 19th century, if not wishing for a substantive attempt to deconstruct the Koran. As expressed in the last passage of his essay Muslim anguish, Western condescension [Jun 7]: "The Koran desecration affair, with its parallels to medieval Christian violence, reinforces the conclusion I drew in my November 22 essay: Jews and Christians had centuries to accomplish the transition from public and political religion to private and communal religion, whereas circumstances press moderate Muslims to do this on the spot. The two older religions did so under duress, chaotically, and with limited success. Whether Islam can make such a transition at all remains doubtful."
Nara (Jun 9, '05)


This is in reference to the mail of Aryan Singh Rathore (Jun 6). I would like to ask the writer, what is the difference between Bhagat Singh and the people currently forcefully linked with terrorism? Bhagat Singh fought against the occupying forces to free the land of India from them and the so-called terrorists are fighting occupying forces in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya to liberate their illegally occupied land from the enemies of peace. Muslims fight with Jews in Palestine or communists of Russia in Chechnya or Hindus of India not because of their faith or beliefs but for the liberation of their land from these people the way [Mahatma] Gandhi, [Jawaharlal] Nehru or Bhagat Singh did for India. If Bhagat Singh could use violence as a means to increase awareness and guilt about an occupation, why can't Muslims do the same? ... If Muslims used the method of forced conversion, the writer would have been a Muslim by now, not Hindu, because Muslims ruled India for [a] thousand years and I think a thousand years was enough to forcefully convert the population of [a] certain region into Islam. Islam does not force the Christians, Jews or Hindus to become Muslims, as in the Holy Koran it is said: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" (2:256). The Taliban were very religious and they wanted everyone to follow the rules and regulations of God, but they seldom realized that God never allowed Muslims to forcefully impose the laws of God on anyone because those who obey God will certainly follow his rules. Would you allow a painting of Mecca or a poster bearing the name of Allah in Arabic on your house wall or a Muslim eating [beef] in your home? If not, why did you think the Taliban would allow [statues] of Buddha in their midst despite knowing the fact that they were fiercely following the rules of God (and idol-worshipping is the greatest sin for the Muslims)? Saudi Arabia imposes one strict form of religion or ideology on the rest of the Muslims, not Hindus or Christians or Jews, and it is better for the so-called protector of freedom of [the] right to religion [to] mind their own business rather than poking their nose into what others follow. Gandhi firmly held the view of secularism; that was why fanatic Hindus massacred him, and we all know how secular your India is. "The current generation of terrorists/freedom fighters aren't fighting for democratic ideals; they represent the worst of humanity, not the best, like Gandhi and Bhagat Singh did." ... Why did you think freedom-fighting was/is exclusively reserved for Indians, and others who execute that idea should or must always be terrorists? Didn't Bhagat Singh represent the worst of humanity when he threw bombs in the Central Assembly Hall? ...
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jun 9, '05)


I read English-language online papers from around the world on a regular basis but I find ATimes' the best reporting/writing by far. Thanks for the great info on a routine basis.
Richard (Jun 9, '05)


Recent events have caused dilemmas to countries that have large trade and diplomatic ties with China. In the case of Australia, there have been two attempted defections from two Chinese officials purportedly in charge of collecting information on behalf of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]. However, Australia appeared to be hamstrung, despite its commitments to human rights and democracy, at least in the Iraqi context, under the [John] Howard government. Media coverage has been quite extensive and, astoundingly, [seems] to indicate that Australia's intelligence agency is not very interested. I hope that this does not give license to the communist hardliners who increasingly appear to take bolder stances in suppressing journalists and democratic activists.
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Jun 9, '05)


Finally, a beautiful, well-written, well-thought-out and balanced article from someone in Pakistan [Amir Mir, Pakistan's sectarian monster, Jun 8]. Hope to see more of them. Thank you ATimes. I read you every day. Mir describes eloquently the dilemma Pakistan faces of riding the tiger of jihadi terrorism while trying not to fall off and get devoured.
Rudranath Talukdar
Johnson City, Tennessee (Jun 8, '05)


Ralph Cossa's Carrots and sticks for North Korea [Jun 8] makes for interesting reading. He is spot on in pointing out that it is in the best interests of Pyongyang to continue refusing to rejoin the six-[party] talks. With nothing much to offer to induce the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to return to the green-carpeted table for serious, substantive discussions, Washington is offering what proverbs call a choice of rotten apples. [US President George W] Bush has only himself to blame for his inept strategy in dealing with North Korea. Instead of [boldly] trying to resolve matters between Washington and Pyongyang, he has resorted to the use of surrogates. In consequent, he has allowed China to fill the vacuum of power in Northeast Asia to the detriment of America's interests there. And what is more, he has grown to undervalue and mistrust his ally in Seoul, Roh Moo-hyun. Even if Kim Jong-il decides to send his representatives back to the six-party talks, it is doubtful that Japan or China or Russia or Seoul or, yes, even Washington will find common ground for hard bargaining with Pyongyang.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 8, '05)


Nara (letter, Jun 7) mistakenly asserts that I think Koran desecration might spark an Islamic Reformation. Nowhere did I suggest any such thing. On the contrary, I consider the whole "Islamic Reformation" project an exercise in futility, and to the extent that agencies of the US government attempt to meddle in religious matters, an exercise in self-delusion. This is plainly stated in my essay of June 7 (Muslim anguish, Western condescension). Islam will not "reform", but either expand or recede.
Spengler (Jun 8, '05)


[Re] Muslim anguish, Western condescension [Jun 7]. Dear Spengler: Don't underestimate the importance of success in George Bush-style Protestantism. Investigate the health and wealth movement, you'll find it very enlightening. In general, you need to watch more US religious TV.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Jun 8, '05)


I feel sorry when I read Spengler's mutterings [Muslim anguish, Western condescension, Jun 7]. His articles further reinforce his total lack of knowledge of Islam ... People in the Muslim world protested the desecration of the Holy Koran with civil protest, albeit with injuries resulting from police action and sporadic violence. [The protests were] probably more civil than the soccer violence experienced in Europe or World Series victories in the US or Montreal. (I would love to see the reaction of Harry Potter fans after the flushing of The Prisoner of Azkaban.) Perhaps the West expected Muslims to react by burning or flushing the Bible or the Torah. Muslims have more respect for holy books than people in the West. To Muslims, the desecration of the Koran is as torturous as watching their child's limbs being cut off in front of them, but they did not react by cutting off the limbs of others. "An eye for an eye" is reserved for Jews. [This] goes against the claims by many in the West about Muslims being inherently violent and uncivil. So why would Christians in the West not care too much about desecrating a holy book? Simple: because they don't care about or respect their own faith or holy books to begin with. Christianity and Judaism are both old, worn-out, outdated faiths. That is why their so-called followers, especially in the West, don't really care [about] the essence of the teachings. The church-[going]population is quite old and shrinking, while newer strategies such as rock music and bingo (wasn't gambling detested by Jesus?) are being used to lure or keep the faithful. Most of the guys love the church rock 'n' roll because half of the girls come dressed (for the party) with little left for the imagination other than the oversized cross on their chest (neck). Regarding Judaism, of which the major populace resides in the so-called State of Israel, the youngsters are no better than the predominantly Christian, belly-buttoned teenyboppers found in Europe or the US. How many go regularly to the synagogue? Last time I was in Haifa, the weekend clubbing scene was no different from New York or Paris. But that's okay, because a loving father dwells beyond the clouds and since Jesus has washed their sins with his blood, there is no need to worry, they have a blank check (looks like the so-called Islamic terrorists have stolen a few blank checks to cause mayhem). In contrast, the majority of Muslims live in relative poverty, compared [with] the West and Israel. As I mentioned in a prior letter, the Palestinian boy comes home from school and goes out to lob a few rocks at the occupier while the Israeli child is licking ice cream in an air-conditioned mall. Poverty or less materialism is a blessing and is a saving grace for the Muslim community at large. Poverty has taught them of their weakness and the need to continue to ask for help from Allah, their creator, in order to succeed. This brings me to Spengler's gross misrepresentation of the Muslim call to prayer asking the faithful to "come to prayer, come to success" as opposed to "come to church, come to rock 'n' roll [and] bingo". Do you now see how success of the Muslim ummah lies in their close ties to prayer and the mosque? Success in uplifting and maintenance of the moral and spiritual values of the Muslim ummah as opposed to competing with the West in vice. The West is ... encouraging the deformation of Islam rather than reformation. The West needs to look in their own spiritual back yard before attempting to meddle in other faiths. The Koran is a code book of human reformation; no superpower can cause reformation. Only God gives his messengers and Prophets mandates for reformation of a people; no superpower or leader thereof has been given a mandate by God. To succeed, the Muslim ummah needs to follow the promised reformer of the time and enhance their animal and moral states towards a spiritual state so they can endure humiliation for the sake of Allah and ignore Western condescension. Only then will they see Allah's thin patience with the humiliators of his book and people as he showed to his people in the past.
Mahmood Ahmad (Jun 8, '05)


Vincent MacIsaac, re your article about the potash development in Udon Thani [Thai mining conflict feared fatal, May 26]: I have spent some time in Thailand and traveled to Udon and area. Have you? I also live in Saskatchewan, Canada, and have some mining experience. The economic benefits from potash in Canada are outstanding. Northeastern Thailand is extremely poor and underdeveloped. Most young people are forced to leave the area for work elsewhere, as they are in my province in Canada. I am also an ex-farmer and fully understand that situation as I have had to do just that to find work. The mine in Udon would help the area and its people. Would you rather have people be hookers in Pattaya or work in an industry that could radically improve their lot in life and help maintain and support a wonderful culture? Perhaps you should do a little more research before you write what I see as a very biased article, or are you only interested in the byline?
Wayne McLeod (Jun 8, '05)

Yes, I have spent quite some time in Udon Thani. I, too, believe the project could be a potential economic boon for the area, but that was not the focus of the article. The views of Asia Pacific Resources (APR) were not represented, but company officials were given precise details about the allegations made as well as who made them. They were also given several days to respond and I held up publication of the article for almost one week while waiting for a response that never came. The volatile situation in Udon Thani has been reported in Thai-language newspapers. Effigies of the leaders of the Conservation Group were set aflame by pro-mining groups during a recent march in Udon Thani. I am surprised that you feel more affronted by my report on this situation than by the allegations made by the leaders of the Conservation Group. These allegations are the subject of a high-level police investigation. I will continue to report on them. - Vincent MacIsaac


I find Faraz's comments [letter, Jun 7] on Giri [Girishankar]'s response as amusing as Faraz's amusement with Giri's response. The standard and tested Indian formula for blaming Pakistan for exporting terrorism into India is not without foundation. The current sectarian killings in Pakistan are a direct result of the Pakistani governments (both military and civilian) riding the jihadi tiger into Kashmir. As to his charge of human-right violations in India, he starts by cherry-picking riot events out of a long list of them. Riot events are a blot on the security provided by the Indian state, regardless of the religion of the victims. How is it a human-rights abuse? If it is, then why have a problem with Indians blaming the Pakistani government's sponsorship of terrorism under the banner of "freedom fighting", [which] has resulted in the death of over 100,000 civilians in Kashmir, both Hindu and Muslim? He makes a point about self-determination for Kashmiris while forgetting there is no self-determination in dictator-ruled Pakistan for anybody, including those in Pak-occupied Kashmir. Perhaps he should put that demand in cold storage until the General trades in his khakis. Psychoanalyzing one individual is tough business; Faraz's extrapolation for 1 billion Indians is nothing but a wet dream.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Jun 8, '05)


I am convinced Iran and Syria have a secret mutual defense pact. These treaties should be made public, but we are not dealing with Westerners. This is crucial now that the American military is operating near the Syrian border. If the Pentagon attacks Syria to solve its Iraq problem, I believe they will be opening a war with Iran. This will result in the cut-off of Persian Gulf oil, the collapse of the [US] dollar, domestic terror beyond [September 11, 2001] and World War III. The world must act now to determine the extent of the Iran-Syria alliance before the US military is allowed to move against Syria.
Daniel Fey (Jun 8, '05)


Spengler in his article Muslim anguish, Western condescension [Jun 7] very callously seems to suggest that desecration of the Koran may be the spark needed to initiate Koranic/Islamic reformation like the Catholic and Jewish acts of earlier centuries. It can be argued that hoping for an "Islamic reformation" makes little sense because Islam already has so many Protestant features. First, Islam is a reformation, or perhaps the Puritan phase of a reformation ... Second, Islam has already tried moving in a "central authority" direction. Shi'ite Islam (once a larger part of the Muslim world than it is today) already has a hierarchy and a "magisterium". These features, however, do not always serve to mitigate jihadist tendencies, since there are still those intent on interpreting the Koran for themselves. It is not ultimately the religion that dictates action but rather the hopelessness of the miserable living conditions that dictate how religion is interpreted and acted upon.
Nara
USA (Jun 7, '05)


[Jim] Lobe's conclusion in Engaging talk (Jun 4) cites both [Fareed] Zakaria and Richard Haass as somewhat disenchanted "neo-cons" who seem to believe that a reaffirmation of the principles of "preemptiveness" may provide the opening of "engagement talks" with the two remaining members of the "axis of evil". Are not Mr Haass' recommendations that US policy be verbalized to state in essence that any government that uses or threatens to use [weapons of mass destruction] opens itself to the threat of being attacked or removed from power a variation of the theme used in Operation Iraqi Freedom? One would think that by undertaking Operation Iraqi Freedom the US has in unequivocal terms made clear to the world (and potential opponents) its parameters for future interactions. The overriding problem for the rest of the world as well as the US is that future interactions meet clear, credible and tolerable principles as well as actions acceptable to all.
ADeL (Jun 7, '05)


Congrats to Alan Boyd for a balanced article on the different media reactions to the [Schapelle] Corby verdict and that on the Australian of Vietnamese descent, both of whom got 20 years each [Indonesian trial for Australia, Jun 4]. There was a time in the '70s and '80s when I would consider Western news reports as truth and mainstream Malaysian, Singapore or Indonesian news reports as lies, but especially since the Anwar [Ibrahim]/Mahathir [Mohamad] issue and the Asian currency crisis, I've begun to see things more in shades of gray, rather than black and white. The different media (and reported public) reactions to Corby's and the Vietnamese man's cases reveal a racial double standard on the part of the media (and/or public) and it reminds me of the protests over the judicial caning of American Michael Fay for vandalism back in 1994, while there was hardly a mention of one or two Asian accomplices who received the same punishment. Also, while some may feel that marijuana is not a dangerous drug and shouldn't merit heavy sentences or [that] possession of [it] should be decriminalized or even legalized, the law is the law and there's no point being a hero and violating it, however daft it may seem. At the same time, I'm not protesting a Malaysian woman's arrest for allegedly bringing opium into Australia, and if she'd been caught in Malaysia, she'd most probably be facing a death sentence. Bali's Ngurah Rai Airport has signs prominently displayed all over that the trafficking of illegal drugs can carry the death sentence upon conviction. So people should know and respect that. Also, expecting Indonesia to practice double standards in sentencing of a white Australian versus other Asians or their own people just because Australia donated A$1 billion in aid to the tsunami victims is tantamount to expecting the Indonesians to treat the donation as a bribe. Can any honest person condone that?
Charles
Malaysia (Jun 7, '05)


I found very amusing the views expressed by Giri Girishankar [letter, Jun 6] while commenting on Ragu Raman's South Asia's peace pipe dream (Jun 1). He follows the standard and tested Indian formula: blame Pakistan for all ills while comfortably forgetting India's complete failure to grant its citizens basic human rights (Babri Mosque riots and the Gujarat carnage being prime examples) and the fundamental right of self-determination to the poor and oppressed Kashmiris while continuously trying to destabilize Pakistan, a country barely one-seventh its size. With its huge gaping poverty and continued passion with major defense expenditures, the Indian dreams of economic prosperity are very far away. Giri's comment "India's neighbors, including China, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, are not prepared to accord India the respect and regard that are due a major regional power" reflects the frustration and inferiority complex which [are] the root cause for India's desire for regional hegemony.
Faraz
Copenhagen, Denmark (Jun 7, '05)


I think Syed [Saleem] Shahzad's [Jun 4] article [The living legacy of Bhagat Singh] treads towards difficult terrain. The debate over who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter is unlikely to be resolved any time soon, but I think it is wrong to call Bhagat Singh a terrorist in the term that one currently associates terrorism with. Bhagat Singh didn't really want to use terrorism as a means of force to eliminate an enemy; instead, he wanted to use violence as a means to increase awareness and guilt about an occupation. The current crop of "freedom fighters" are fighting for religious reasons and they seek to eliminate all presence of anyone different to them from a certain region. Be it the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues of Afghanistan or religious extremism in Saudi [Arabia], in all cases the state or the moral crusaders seek to impose one strict form of religion or ideology on the rest of the people in the area. This includes forced conversions, religious courts, [and] ethnic or religious cleansing through intimidation and violence. Bhagat Singh and the Indian freedom fighters struggled for inclusion of all aspects of societies as opposed to exclusion. [Jawaharlal] Nehru and [Mahatma] Gandhi wanted "unity in diversity" as opposed to "unity in a singular (insert radical ideology here)". It is great to struggle ... to build a state that will accept all and give opportunit[ies] and rights to all without imposing a state religion or religious courts on its own peoples. The current generation of terrorists/freedom fighters aren't fighting for democratic ideals; they represent the worst of humanity, not the best, like Gandhi and Bhagat Singh did. Equating Bhagat Singh with the likes of [Maulana Masood] Azhar, who has been responsible for the deaths of so many Indians and Pakistanis, is ridiculous and insulting to all those who struggled to free the Indian subcontinent.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Jun 6, '05)


Jim Lobe deserves a loud round of applause for his Engaging talk [Jun 4]. Like Emilia in [William] Shakespeare's Othello, he soundly shows that the Bush White House is, in the words of the immortal Bard, "O gull! O dolt! As ignorant as dirt!" Lobe takes the wind out of the sails of flummery which say [Vice President Richard] Cheney or [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice or a host of Bush minions when it comes to dealing with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Never since the dark days of the [Richard] Nixon administration has the United States appeared to the world at large as a helpless giant. This realization is causing unease among the movers and shakers of America's elites, who timidly suggest that Bush & Co have lost their bearing on the North Star in [their] goals. Bluster and false anger are indeed poor substitutes for sound policy. Jim Lobe's article simply shows that George W Bush's administration is long on rhetoric and high-mindedness, but short on substance and honest intentions.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 6, '05)


Mac William Bishop declared in his article (Taiwan's gangs go global [Jun 4]) that Hakka Taiwanese are descendents of Chinese from Fujian province who came to Taiwan nearly 400 years ago. That is untrue. Hakka used to live along the Yellow River area. When north China was occupied by foreign forces, they refused to cooperate and moved to the south, mostly to Canton province, not Fujian. Mac Bishop's ignorance of Chinese history and culture leads him into many wrong conclusions. He does not deserve to be a reporter for Taiwanese. However, he is welcome to express his white opinions about Chinese people, so we all know what they are up to. Why doesn't Mr Bishop support the self-determination rights of Hakka Taiwanese? Hakka are like the rest of the Chinese people. They will never accept foreign rulers, especially those Japanese Taiwanese gangsters.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 6, '05)

The Hakka migrated from northern China some 2,700 years ago and are found all over the south, especially Fujian and Guangdong. - ATol

A very timely article on the vulnerability of agribusiness to oil prices and availability [Oil and food: A new security challenge, Jun 3]. Asia would be able to handle such a crisis better than Uncle Sam, who is close to going under a sea of bankruptcy anyway. China holds the fate of America in its hands as the brainless multitudes there believe their own propaganda machine that tells them America is winning, when in fact they have already lost. China can pull the rug from under the feet of Uncle Sam when the time is right.
Kangaroo Jock (Jun 6, '05)


Everyone likes to whip the top dog. If the US military is in the twilight zone (Jun 1), it is only because no other country is brave enough to take a stand on human rights and dignity. One look around the world and about all you can see is war, disease, corruption, and a steady decline in human freedoms. People sitting on safe islands are always the first to accuse someone of messing things up. So, as the US stumbles and becomes a cowed and politicized military establishment, once hailed as invincible just two years ago, now marches steadily down a demoralizing but all-too-familiar path, is it likely that another country is ready to step forward and take on the role of world policeman? I dare not think so.
Walter
Hong Kong (Jun 6, '05)


Ragu Raman's analysis [South Asia's peace pipe dream, Jun 1] almost convinced me that India should give up Kashmir. But it did not. Pakistan has fought two wars with India over Kashmir and failed to achieve its objective. It continues to fight a proxy war in Kashmir in an effort to bleed India to death. Here again it will fail, only because the military rulers of Pakistan are losing a more important battle inside their own country. There are increasing signs of instability in the provinces and there are growing fears of dismemberment of Pakistan as a unit. Pakistan has spent too much of its energy and time in creating and sustaining an environment of hatred and animosity toward India [such] that it neglected taking concerted steps to improve the quality of life for its people. Obviously, this attitude has driven the people to their limit of patience and acceptance, though a little too late in coming. Consider this situation in association with the relatively significant developments that are taking place in India; patience and acceptance are likely to lose their elasticity at some point of time. The current talks and discussions to strike peace between India and Pakistan may not turn out to be successful in the near future because India is not backed by a status of formidable economic and strategic military strength. India is seen as not having achieved the high standards that it really is capable of. Indeed it has not, thanks to its politicians. The atmosphere of quarrelsome and opportunistic politics has placed too many hurdles in the path of development. India's neighbors, including China, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, are not prepared to accord India the respect and regard that are due a major regional power. It is due [in] a large measure [to] the appearance of a lack of solidarity among its political leaders and the lack of will to forge ahead in its national endeavors. India should pursue the peace path in its relations with Pakistan because that is the quality of a gracious neighbor. But at the same time, it should demonstrate its one-pointed pursuit of accelerated growth of economic and strategic military strength. If China can command the respect of the world for its awesome economic growth within a short period of time, there is no reason why India cannot replicate it if its politicians can find a way to come together, casting away their pettiness. Pakistan should be made to realize that India's pursuit of peace is from a position of strength and fully backed by its determination to use its strategic military strength.
Giri Girishankar (Jun 6, '05)


I am very glad to read the very true articles on the situation of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir [POK] unveiled by your esteemed online magazine. Continue so that [the] people of POK can get rid of [the] oppression, slavery, backwardness, illiteracy and ignorance imposed on them by Pakistan.
Jamil Maqsood
Brussels, Belgium (Jun 6, '05)


The article Keep your (made-in-China) shirt on ... [May 27] by Brian Wingfield has expanded on how China has increased its exports and accumulated a lot of foreign exchange in the last 10 years or so. Reading this article one gets the sense that China is getting fabulously rich while driving the Americans into the poorhouse. But what is the reality? Are the Chinese people really getting richer and the Americans poorer by the importation of cheap textiles into America? Here are some numbers and figures that shed a very different light on the Chinese people's benefit or lack thereof from all the foreign trade. China's GDP [gross domestic product] increased from 362.4 billion yuan in 1978 to [13.65 trillion] yuan [US$1.65 trillion] in 2004, for an increase of some 37 times. The per capital annual net income of rural household increased from 133 yuan in 1978 to about 2,800 yuan in 2004, for an increase of some 20 times. The inflation rate in the intervening period was anywhere from 350% to more than 400% depending on various sources. The net increase in the purchasing power of the rural household was only some five times after the very "impressive" increase of 37 times in the GDP [gross domestic product] growth. Considering the very low income of only 133 yuan in 1978, the [fivefold] increase in purchasing power by 2004 was not really very much. Furthermore, in [dollar terms] the net purchasing power of the rural household increased only some 20% in the entire period due to the very large devaluation of the yuan. When the exchange rate dropped from 3.72 to 5.22 from 1988 to 1990, for a change of 40%, the Chinese inflation rate surged 18% in 1988 and another 18% in 1989. When the exchange rate again dropped precipitously from the last day of 1993 to the first day of 1994 from 5.76 to 8.72 [yuan to the US dollar], for a change of 51%, the Chinese inflation rate surged 24% in 1994, 17% in 1995, and another 8% in 1996. While the lower yuan gave a big boost to Chinese exports and the Chinese GDP in terms of yuan, Chinese people's purchasing power got reduced by a corresponding amount. On the other hand the purchasing power of the Americans increased significantly due to all the cheap imports from China. Obviously, the Chinese people are the big losers and the American people are the big winners even while the Americans are "losing" the trade war ... In the final analysis, China must stop the current obsession with exporting cheap low-tech products such as cheap textiles that relies on low labor and raw-material costs. It does not enrich China but is actually impoverishing the Chinese people. Only through rapid technological advancement enabled by research and development done by more than a million genius-level scientists and engineers of the doctorate level and through the rapid expansion of the internal economy enabled by the urbanization of the farmers will the Chinese people be able to increase their purchasing power meaningfully.
Liang
USA (Jun 6, '05)


In response to Fabricio [letter, Jun 3] regarding US fights Iraq fire with street fighters [May 25], firstly ... war is the worst form of human relationships. Guns, tanks, missiles, bombs, etc are weapons to kill, which contradicts the high notion that you state: "we are above that now". Whether it was mustard gas in World War I, the atom bomb in World War II, the napalm bombs in the Vietnam War, the precision guided missiles by the US or the sawing off of heads of victims by the Middle Eastern terrorists, neither party included high moral standards. No general planning strategies of war include "high moral" issues in their equation. This [has been] true since Caesar, Alexander the Great, the czars of Russia [and] Napoleon to the terrible world wars of the 20th century. Neither Machiavelli of Europe [or] Kautilya of India in their treaties of war ever included "high moral standards" as part of war. In every case the warring nation's main goal is to win at any cost and once they win they impose their rules and regulations upon the loser. This is our past, present and undoubtedly our future when war breaks out. I am sure if the Taliban and Iraq had won the war they would [have imposed] their rules and regulations upon the nations that lost, and yes, that would include the USA. The only time in history that two nations faced each other [and] morality, respect to the adversary etc [were an issue] was the Satyagraha movement by Mahatma Gandhi, which was a non-violent movement to achieve victory, which the Mahatma won. But in regular war, from the soldier to the equipment he carries, all are aimed at violence. Yes, we have "civilized" ourselves by creating the Geneva Conference [which] created treaties that dealt with POWs [prisoners of war], and yes, that included banning the use of mustard gas and nerve gas. But [none of those] treaties spelled out exactly how modern warfare is to be conducted [or] set any paradigms [that] the victor should follow after a war. A famous American general, [William Tecumseh] Sherman of the Civil War in the US, stated, "War is hell," and that goes for the after effects of it. Currently the terrorists in Iraq who are hell-bent on toppling the interim government have ratcheted up the scale of killings. This has only resulted in the extension of the US occupation of Iraq. If the interim government of Iraq [elected] by her people were left to formulate their nation's history (even if they are taking orders from Washington, DC), the US would have pulled out by now.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 6, '05)


Andrew Oplas' letter [Jun 2] describing the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Gitmo [Guantanamo Bay, Cuba] and Abu Ghraib as genteel simply defies sanity, logic and common sense. Mr Oplas, if you consider sodomizing detainees with light sticks and broom handles genteel, then sir, you must have a different dictionary, one that the majority of the world doesn't use or even know exists. If you don't believe Iraqi prisoners were treated brutally to the point of torture, then go online and check into Major-General Antonio Taguba's investigative report on the sadistic treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. As far as the US being the "uncontroversial human-rights leader", more than a few people worldwide will disagree with this opinion. Especially the ones - if they were still alive - who get boiled alive on orders from Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan and one of the US's allies in its so-called "war on terror". But since the Pentagon considers Karimov an ally, they turn a blind eye towards horrendous violations of human rights. And the only rights [US President George W] Bush and company have been promoting are right hooks, using the Pentagon as a boxing glove to invade Fourth World countries and spread fear and mistrust around the world. Sir, it will take the US decades to recover from the pounding the Bush White House has been doling out both to our reputation and the rest of the world. Maybe by then, the definition of "genteel" will change again.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Jun 6, '05)


In respect to Miguel A Guanipa and Andrew Oplas [letters, Jun 2], I have never heard that the American government [complains about] the supposedly leftist ideology of Amnesty International when [it criticizes] a Third World country. So it doesn't look good, the lack of self-critical spirit of the American government, [especially] when American officials usually travel around the world criticizing everybody. But the US has never been too much interested in human rights anyway (at least in real life, [rather than] in speeches), as history proves in [its] relations with Latin American governments, where the US supported all the tyrannies that have afflicted the continent, except [Cuban President Fidel] Castro, but not because he's a tyrant, but because he nationalized all the American properties. The US supported [Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet, the Argentine junta, [Paraguayan dictator Alfredo] Stroessner, [and] the Brazilian, Venezuelan and Colombian dictators. [The US] supported all the dictatorships in the Caribbean and genocidal governments of Central America, even when, [as] in El Salvador, US citizens were killed. Officials of the US government suggested (and provided the intelligence necessary to do this) to the Nicaraguan Contras to attack "soft targets" (a euphemism that describes civilian and economical targets) in order to topple the Sandinista government and to [ensure] that, by attacking people who couldn't defend, the Contras could not be defeated by the Sandinista army. [The US] Invaded Guatemala in 1954 to topple the democratically elected government of [president Jacobo] Arbenz and helped to organize the conspiracy that toppled the democratically elected government of [Chilean president Salvador] Allende in 1973. And now [the US is] conspiring to topple the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez, whom I personally do not admire, but he was elected by the Venezuelan people and I have to respect that, though the US government seems to think otherwise and consider that a "democratic government" is one that [it supports] and not the one that people elect. So the US government had no problems in the past supporting and training assassins and torturers in Latin America, and has never been too much worried about violations of human rights. And that's in Latin America only. The role as human-rights leader of the US is more than controversial, it's completely implausible. Only persons wholly ignorant of the US demeanor can sustain something like that. I think the American government capable of anything in order to maintain [its] interests (as a government, not the interests of the American people) and [its] supremacy in the world. That they're torturing people? Of course they are. That they're killing innocents and violating the human rights of thousands of persons? Of course they are (please, don't think I'm just anti-American; I think every government capable of anything to assure its survival and achieve its objectives; it's an intellectual fallacy to link the survival of nation or the survival of its population to a specific government). Empires have always acted that way. And as Chrysantha Wijeyasingha pointed out [letter, Jun 2], that's how victors treat the defeated.
Fabricio
Cuba (Jun 6, '05)


Interesting how [Mark] Felt is being lionized by the press nearly everywhere [America needs you, Deep Throat II, Jun 3]. In reality I think he was just another fascist in the style of his benefactor and mentor, J Edgar Hoover. It took a presidential pardon to keep our hero out of prison for trampling on the civil rights of American citizens. I believe he turned on [US president Richard] Nixon only because he was passed for a promotion and not from a genuine desire to do what was right. I suspect that had he been promoted, he would have been perfectly content to do the Nixon administration's dirty work in the company of its other fascist luminary, Henry Kissinger.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Jun 3, '05)


Could not open the article [ America needs you, Deep Throat II, Jun 3]. What is going on? Is W after you guys?
Joe Lugo (Jun 3, '05)

Such a suggestion is absurd, and if you make it again, we'll recommend you be given a one-way ticket to the nearest gulag. The link has been fixed. - ATol


You know liberals are getting worried when the adolescent name-calling and outlandish comparisons start cropping up fast and furious. When you hear public officials like [US Senate minority leader] Harry Reid calling the [US] president a loser, humorless utopians at moveon.org comparing Senate majority leader Bill Frist to Darth Vader or President [George W] Bush to the late fuehrer, Amnesty International progressives drawing a parallel between Gitmo [Guantanamo Bay, Cuba] and the Soviet gulag labor camps, and the average unemployed anti-war-sign-carrying lefty comparing Iraq to Vietnam or evangelical Christians to the Taliban, then you know that liberals are starting to fear that nobody may be listening to them anymore, hence they must quickly resort to such desperate measures. Who knows; maybe they're on to something.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Jun 3, '05)


To Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Jun 2]: I don't know if George Washington ever said anything like that, but it sounds like the old Latin adagio Si vis pacem, para bellum. And Saddam [Hussein] did not "blatantly ignore" the UN resolutions. In fact, he complied with some - at least he destroyed his programs for [weapons of mass destruction], as the American investigators have proved, or do you ignore the news and still pay attention just to what Dick "Big Liar" Cheney says? And though history supports your reasoning (vae victis is the Latin phrase that comes to my mind) about how the victor treats the defeated, we usually consider ourselves to be above that kind of behavior from a moral standpoint, or at least one would think that if one is going to believe in the good intentions of President George W Bush. You seem more cynical and realistic than him, so I recommend you tell the same to the Poles, the Estonians, Ukrainians and the rest who were complaining a few weeks ago against the ex-USSR during the celebration of the anniversary of the Soviet victory [over] the Nazis. These countries were the losers (and lost twice, first with the Germans and next with the Russians), so there are no reasons for complaint. They should have gladly accepted the tyranny of the USSR because the victor can always impose their conditions. You must consider too that, as the Americans [are doing] today, the Russians were liberating these countries (in fact that liberation was far more sincere, justified and important than the "liberation" of Iraq) and so, as we now should not say anything against American policies in Iraq because that's the way victors always treat the defeated, we must abstain from saying anything against the USSR, so we can avoid being labeled as hypocrites, don't you think?
Fabricio
Cuba (Jun 3, '05)


This letter is in regards to the [May 24] essay ... Aftershocks in Southeast Asia by [Eric Teo Chu] Cheow. He mentions that new relationships are emerging in East Asia with Japan and the US further strengthening their relationship whereas the Koreas and China are now strategically more in tune with each other. On the surface, this may be true. Both South Korea and China would rather help their North Korean neighbors instead of watching it collapse and pay the consequences. Japan and the US are more hardline. Fine. All true. Yet while he mentions the historical issue, World War II, and Japanese military aggression as a main reason why mainland Asia can't see eye to eye with Japan, he fails to mention the fact that China itself is distorting ancient Korean history in regards to the kingdom of Koguryo. The old province of Gando, which now lies in [northeastern] China's Jilin province, is originally Korean. China has been excavating Koguryo sites in this region and rebuilding them in Chinese fashion, very inaccurately I might add, to reinforce [its] claim that this land is Chinese. Koreans want to cooperate with China, and had no problems as its so-called "tributary" state centuries ago, but with this historical distortion, as blatant as Japan's own distortions, there can never be true understanding between the nations. After Korea is unified, there will definitely be a push for the repatriation of Gando, and this is what China fears. In fact, the Chinese know that all those ethnic Koreans in northeast China aren't all refugees. The majority of them have been living there for centuries because, yes, the land was and should still be all part of Korea. In addition, China is still not a democracy, though it may be practicing free-market principles to the abhorrence of its North Korean allies. This world is still sadly divided by ideological principles. Until China joins the free world, there will be no true partnership with South Korea, save on an economic level alone. I liked the article, but I think Dr Cheow is viewing recent events in East Asia in black and white only. There are, in fact, many shades of gray which paint a picture far different from the one he has presented.
David Rhee, MD
> San Diego, California (Jun 3, '05)

For an analysis of the Koguryo issue, see China shock for South Korea (Sep 11, '04). - ATol


This is in reference to the letter from Faraz [Jun 2]. I am surprised to find the comment from him [about] "state propaganda" in India. I do agree that Indian democracy is far from perfect, but there is state propaganda? Nah. The quality and quantity of independent newspapers [and] independent television news channels are as good as even in [the] United States. The kind of debate and open information shown on TV in India, even while living in US, I miss. Mr Faraz, on the contrary, I think even while living in Europe, you receive limited information about India. Don't try to read about India in Pakistani newspapers.
Ayush
Orlando, Florida (Jun 3, '05)


In my opinion you are probably the best and most truthful Internet news organization online. I depend on your fine reporting and editorials for much of the information I get to better understand the world. Thank you for being the best of the best and for the honor you demonstrate in presenting the truth.
Don Plummer (Jun 3, '05)


Jim Lobe's Jailhouse rock commentary on June 2 is laughable. Amnesty International continually undermines its own laudable goals when it criticizes the United States for human-rights violations. Amnesty prefers to trust the word of murderous terrorists than the US government, the world's uncontroversial human-rights leader and liberator. Instead of trying to find fault with the US military's genteel treatment of captives at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, Amnesty should write thank-you letters to Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the architects of US foreign policy, who have done more in four years to promote human rights than Amnesty has done with its weighty left-wing political agenda over its entire existence.
Andrew Oplas (Jun 2, '05)


It's rather kind of President [George W] Bush to discredit the statement released by Amnesty International comparing the Soviet Gulag [to] Guantanamo Bay by merely calling it absurd [Gulags: Shooting the messenger, Jun 2]. Such a statement not [only] demonstrates a dreadfully abysmal ignorance of history, it clearly indicates that Amnesty International is really an organization whose credibility has been seriously hampered by an ideology which is at odds with the Bush administration. What could possibly have possessed anyone to make such a misleading and utterly unconscionable parallel is beyond understanding, not to mention indicative of the fact that Amnesty International can no longer claim to be an organization that operates with unfettered neutrality when it comes to addressing the facts concerning any issue of international import.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Jun 2, '05)


Francesco Sisci ( China and India fall into step, Jun 2) is right about the Taiwan problem in Asia. He mentioned that [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian and his DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] have on a number of occasions over the past few years put the US on the spot by raising tensions in the Taiwan Strait. I do not understand why some white Americans support such troublemakers for the USA, unless they are still dreaming about those good old days of white colonies in Asia.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jun 2, '05)


I have constantly observed [B] Raman picking on Pakistan, even when there is no need. Let's [look at] his [June 1] piece [ Al-Qaeda poised in Saudi Arabia]. He wanted to focus on Saudi Arabia but indeed, for the inherent anti-Pakistan bias inculcated in him, he also chose to single out Pakistan too in the story. Indeed being a former Indian civil servant, he has been trained that way and his aging mind could not see anything beyond Pakistan. I think you should give a rest to the aging Mr Raman. He needs a break and needs to play around with his grandchildren rather than polluting the minds of your readers. Even from a journalistic point of view, as a newspaper you should try [to] avoid biased minds using your pages to spread stories from [their] aging minds, living in another era. For the sake of your readers and for the sake of Mr Raman himself, give him a break ...
Syed Rashid Husain (Jun 2, '05)


I find Hari K's letter [May 31] in response to my comments on B Raman's article A skeptic's take on Indo-Pak Relations (May 25) very amusing and again reflective of a typical Indian mindset bred on state propaganda. Why can't we forget Kargil and begin anew as being stressed by leadership from both countries even though Kargil was nothing but a reaction to India's continued domination of the [Kashmir] Valley by force and blatant violation of UN resolutions. If Mr Hari is so keen on discussing old issues, perhaps we can go back to India's attack on Pakistan, a country one-seventh its size, on the [night] of September 6, 1965; the 1971 war; the initiation of the nuclear race in South Asia in 1974 and again in 1998; and of course the Siachen attack in 1984. We in Pakistan have never supported the act of terrorism regardless of whether those suffering are Hindu Kashmiri Pundits or the innocent Muslim children of the Valley. But yes, we will continue to oppose Indian state-sponsored terrorism and denial of the basic right of self-determination to the poor and oppressed Kashmiris. It's time we bury old issues and broaden our minds to work collectively for sustainable peace in South Asia.
Faraz
Copenhagen, Denmark (Jun 2, '05)


If the US military is in the twilight zone [Jun 1], Southeast Asia is in another universe. Everyone who joins our [US] military [is] proud to be there. No amount of bashing from the cowards of the world can change the bravery of the men and women who serve in the US armed forces. The next time your country is threatened, [whom] will you call on? France?
R Johnson (Jun 2, '05)

Depends who's doing the threatening. If it's the US itself, whom will we call on? In fact, no one is threatening any Southeast Asian country at the moment, and the last time US military intervention was invited in this region, other than humanitarian missions such as the recent tsunami relief, it was by South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem four decades ago. - ATol


A reader [Ben, letter, May 31] labels me a neo-classical economist. Anyone who reads any of my articles cannot help but come away with the impression that I have been a persistent critic of neo-classical economics. The very foundation of neo-classical economics is built on the notion of scarcity. The alleged scarcity of oil gives birth to conventional oil economics. The "peak oil" crowd, with their preoccupation with premature oil depletion, falls right into the same scarcity trap, not to mention the problem of mismatched time frames between human development cycles and geological eras. The point of my article [The real problems with $50 oil, May 26] is that for practical purposes, oil will run out of usefulness long before it runs out of supply. Currently, only 5% of the energy produced from the burning of gasoline in the internal-combustion [engine] is utilized for the [propulsion] of the motor vehicle; the rest is dissipated as unused heat. The same is true with most other types of engines, the most inefficient being jet engines. As I pointed out in my article, price has an inverse relationship with supply. The higher the price, the greater will be the resultant supply. On the consumption side, the lower the price, the more will be the resultant waste and abuse. The greens should applaud high oil prices, as that is the most effective incentive for conservation in a money economy. My article is an attempt to point out that high oil prices, while not a problem of economics, present a political problem for capitalistic democracy. The last two centuries were the era of fossil fuels; first coal, then oil and gas, [whose] large-scale consumption leads to damaging impacts of global warming, melting of the polar ice caps and rapid shifts in climatic regions. Research on alternatives to fossil fuel has been held back by the uneconomic low price of oil. For example, nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gases and its proponents continually argue that the problems such as waste, military applications and safety, are solvable. Technological problems are always solvable, but the flawed plumbing of politics frequently presents insurmountable obstacles. Market democracy, much touted by the US as the savior ideology, promotes short-term myopia that obstructs planning for progress. Fusion offers the possibility of high power density, no high-level radioactive waste and no greenhouse gases. It is the process that powers the sun, ultimately providing all the energy to support life on Earth. But fusion cannot be developed with $25 oil ... For fusion to work commercially, $100 oil may be necessary. The world can afford $100 oil, but only if the trend of growing income disparity is reversed. Henry C K Liu (Jun 2, '05)


The article US fights Iraq fire with street fighters [(May 25) alludes] to US "imperialism and US occupation" of Iraq. When Saddam Hussein blatantly ignored UN demands and cleverly manipulated the [oil-for-food program] implemented by the UN after sanctions were applied on Iraq, thereby leading to the US-coalition invasion of Iraq and the defeat of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam's rule, [which] meant that Iraq lost the war and the US and her coalition won the war. Since the dawn of history any kingdom or nation that loses the war pays the penalty imposed by the victor. There is no difference in the current situation with Iraq. If US intelligence feels that the ultimate military power stays with the US and the interim government is supplied with secondary equipment at this time, it is the US's prerogative to do that since it was mainly the US and her coalition that won the war. If the military changes tactics from armies facing decentralized many-faced terror groups from within Iraq and from abroad entering Iraq, that is a normal military tactic. To repeat the same thing over and over again when it proves fruitless is a sign of madness. If the terrorists change tactics, then so should the defending forces do the same to beat them at their game. Iraq is a conquered nation and as a conquered nation she, even the interim government, will report and be beholden to Washington, DC, until the US deems it fit for the Iraqis to run matters on their own completely independent of the US. Remember after World War II Japan, Italy, and Germany were all defeated and to this day, 60 years later, there are US military outposts in all these defeated nations. Their economies were built by US taxpayers and their political structures were formulated by US politicians. As history has always proved, after a war the defeated take their rules from the winner. As George Washington said, "To ensure peace the state should be prepared for war."
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 2, '05)


Ragu Raman's article [ South Asia's peace pipe dream, Jun 1] is interesting but incomplete in its analysis of the situation. India isn't actually suffering because of Kashmir. The Indian economy has shown that is capable of continuing growth regardless of terrorism in Kashmir. Indeed it is up to the Kashmiris to decide whether they want to take part in that growth and revive their tourist industry or continue their misery. The fact that a large majority of the terrorists operating within Kashmir aren't even Kashmiris (they are Afghans and Pakistani Punjabis) shows which way the wind is blowing. India will never give up Kashmir for many reasons, and going into all of them will make this letter too long. Yet one reason is clear, the fact that if India is to be seen as rising it cannot compromise on this one key issue. It can at most agree to turning the Line of Control into a border, but no more than that. The UN Security Council seat is irrelevant - either India gets it now or it will get it in the coming decades when its economic and military strength grows further. Sooner or later it will become too hard for the UN to ignore India, and New Delhi knows this. The UN itself is going through an identity crisis and it hardly has the resources to save India from all its problems. The problem of Kashmir and the gun-jihadi culture that is associated with it is actually hurting Pakistan more than India. Look at the trouble that groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, etc cause within Pakistan. In India we can shoot them and enjoy a drink afterwards; in Pakistan you can neither shoot them and most certainly not enjoy a drink, unless you are a higher-up in the army or terror groups that claim to "defend Islam". Punjab's troubles were solved when the army gave its duties to the local police, who ended the militancy there; the same must happen in Kashmir. A local population will find it easier to cooperate with a policeman from their own community than a fully decked-out soldier from a faraway province. The good news is that the responses to the police recruitment drives in Kashmir recently have been very encouraging and hopefully the economic upswing in Kashmir will continue as the people understand that things such as a good jobs, schools, security, etc are more important than killing the "infidel" and the "infidel state". Indeed, I think most students of the topic will agree that India has bigger problems with the growing Maoist threat and northeastern issues than Kashmir. I doubt that the peace process will do much, and I know that Pakistan just can't give up on Kashmir since it is addicted to the issue for a variety of reasons; but the insurgency in Kashmir is clearly getting tired. There might be upswings in violence from time to time but for any government in New Delhi to think about giving away any land in Kashmir would be not only domestic political suicide but also against every grain of common sense left in Indian civilization.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Jun 1, '05)


Once again, it took the French to mount the barricades and stand guard against an evil way [ French-fried Europe, Jun 1]. The French "non" vote on the EU constitution was a repudiation of embedded US-style cowboy capitalism. The French proved that the world, from the Andes to Asia, is slowly, but surely, rejecting the Anglo model of free-market warfare in favor of quality of life. Neo-liberals in Washington must avoid being smug. The coup de grace was Article I-41, forever tying European defense to NATO. "Non thank you" was loud and clear; the European model first. All we can add is "Merci."
PenDragon
Sleepy Hollow, New York (Jun 1, '05)


Regarding the rants in The Force is with the conservatives (May 27), author Yoel Sano and other neo-conservatively inclined cultural illiterates should note that besides being a historically informed and on-the-record liberal (in the best sense of the word), George Lucas offers periodic gems to the Zeitgeist which command the kind of mass fiscal and recreational fidelity that the modern [US Republican Party] can only drool at. His latest opus [Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith] serves as a shrewd polemic to today's neo-cons in American's government and think-tanks. Sano's article is disingenuous to say the least, considering that neo-cons wish to use religion simply as a front for controlling the masses whilst their vision of the elite rule. The point of Lucas' concept of "the Force" is "awareness" and "preparation", and not "faith", because Jedi Knights are trained to use the Force. Faith doesn't imply tactical training, but simple submission. Too, Sano should heed that "faith" can be manipulated by governments, and that's a wider message now in this age of Straussian faux-pious nationalistic revivalism in America than ever before. Star Wars is precisely the description of good vs evil that is allegorically adaptable to modern America, for "the Force" can represent the enlightened use of liberalism and true democracy, whereas "the Dark Side" represents the deceitful retarding of such enlightenment, solely for the purpose of gaining absolute power. Neo-cons should know a bit about that, as they represent the Dark Side in their alien, Schmitt-Heideggerian views of government. Thus the last installment of Lucas' sci-fi epic is especially poignant and relevant to this neo-conservative-infested age ... Lastly, Sano lamely and with palpable paranoia insinuates that Lucas himself, with his left-leaning artistic and political visions, is perhaps gearing up to run for the White House in 2008 whilst being the true "Lord of the Sith". Suffice it to say that Lucas is a filmmaker and social commentator in an age where those two roles can become increasingly interdependent ones for conscience-ridden artists. Lucas is responsibly, and quite exquisitely, fingering modern trends in American government that he deems most analogous to his classic visions of good vs evil. By delivering his vision so magnificently on film, Lucas shows why his last film was the best of the six, and why it's resonating with his fair-minded suburban audiences whilst ruffling nervous neo-conservative feathers.
R Davoodi
Tehran, Iran (Jun 1, '05)


In regard to Kaveh Afrasiabi's article US media and Iran's nuclear [May 11], I must say thank you. It is refreshing to hear the words of a real journalist. I am a student in my senior year studying visual journalism, so much of my time and energy is dedicated to current rhythms in media. I am utterly disgusted and outraged at the insolent behavior of Fox News. America has done many good and many bad things in the world (unfortunately for everyone involved the bad is most recent), but with the childish wailings of Bill O'Reilly dictating the concerns and affirmations of our citizenry, I fear greatly that America will lose its unique opportunity to offer the world true peace and compassion. Afrasiabi's report gives me hope that we may still have a chance, if only we can see more of the truth. Thank you again.
Rob Clement (Jun 1, '05)