|
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 ti |
