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.)

Presumably you are trying to imply that our attempt to keep the Taiwan debate on track by repeating a portion of Daniel McCarthy's July 25 letter was "taking a position". The crux of the Taiwan debate is whether the principle of self-determination (vigorously defended by McCarthy and others) should or should not trump the principle of Greater Chinese sovereignty (vigorously defended by you, Gongshi and others). ATol has no position except that both views have merit and, when argued intelligently, should get a fair airing on our website. - ATol


I agree to large extent with the contents of Faraz's letter of July 27 and would like [to add more]. India was the one which tested a nuclear weapon for potential use against Pakistan. India and Pakistan have already fought three inconclusive wars over Kashmir, and a fourth one was narrowly averted because India accused Pakistan of aiding terrorism in Kashmir. Indian generals are always itching ... to launch an attack on Pakistan. As both sides now possess nuclear weapons, a ... war must be avoided at all costs; yet terrifyingly, neither population seems to understand what nuclear war really means. Indian military and politicians as well as a large majority of the population certainly seem to believe that they can defeat Pakistan on a mathematical advantage of 10:1 in reference to their land area [and] military power and amazingly are oblivious of the horrendous consequences of a such a war; or if they are [not], they [do not] give a damn as long as they can kill 10 times more Pakistanis. Arrogant and ignorant Indian generals are under the impression that it is a sort of kabadi match, which they must win. The masses have no proper education about the meaning of mushroom clouds, blasts, and radiation sickness and bomb shelters but they would be willing to go along with the wishes of their politicians and generals to erase Pakistan from the world map. It was a measure of ignorance at the top of the Indian establishment that when the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] government was in power, it let off what they called its "Hindu bomb" in 1998. There were serious proposals debated then in the party's leadership to build a Hindu shakti temple at the site of [the] explosion at Pokran, and to make it a center of national pilgrimage. Pakistan's existence is safe as long as it has nuclear capability, and the day it compromises or gives an inch to India, its sovereignty will be [endangered]. India does not want to settle the Kashmir dispute because as long as she can blame Pakistan for helping Kashmiris struggle for the liberation of their land and freedom of their people, it will have an excuse to attack Pakistan and settle her old score. Only a plebiscite among Kashmiris on both sides of the border, as ordered by a United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948, can hope to resolve the issue. Today to be a Muslim in Kashmir and in other parts of India makes them feel like a Jew in the late '30s in Germany; their status is no better that those of untouchables. As far as the ills of Pakistan are concerned, I say this with total honesty that Pakistani society is also stained and riddled with corruption and greed of many [who want] to get rich quicker and to hell with the country. Power and justice [lie] in the hands those who claim to be protectors and defenders of the law of the land but are often themselves its violators. It is still a feudal society, no doubt, where the big fish eats the small fish and the rich walks over the poor with merciless arrogance. And the reason for this slump is the rise of [a] secular middle class, which has jeopardized Islam and adopted many vulgar Western values.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 28, '05)


There is no justification whatsoever for killing innocent people, no matter who they are and where they are. Hurt and anger are natural outcomes in such cases and manifest in many ways, more so when the horrific tragedy is at home and in view of the threat that faces all of us in Britain today. Violence is disliked by any society - modern or ancient - as a way to express or resolve political or religious differences. Unfortunately, some people under the colonial influences have internalized the trends of violence set by the colonialists and oppressors. It is important to have effective measures to contain the threat that we British face but what is more important is to address the political violence. Talk about ["brainwashing"] and "evil ideologies" simply obscure the real issues involved. Let us also not forget the fact that people say all kinds of things, in local, national and international settings, to protect themselves or to gain recognition. Muslims are no exception. If it would be that easy to "brainwash" well-educated young British, the [House of] Commons would be full of young MPs [members of parliament]. Let us be honest and admit that the British socio-political conditions cultivate the sort of "ideological conditions" that people like [Prime Minister] Tony Blair wish to defeat but promote by the implication of their actions. Let us also be honest and acknowledge that the British and US policies in Middle East have been a failure, causing death and destruction and alienating billions of people around the world. It might be that the oil is now safe and more secure but are we, the British?
H Akhtar (Jul 28, '05)

Spengler has done well to support the Rumsfeld argument that Iraq today is different than Vietnam in the '60s [Dien Bien Phooey, Jul 26]. The essential factor is the lack of a real superpower to support the Iraqi insurgency. I have long recognized this missing key ingredient in comparing and contrasting Vietnam and Iraq. This was the reason the hawks in the White House won the argument against the realists in the first place and were able to execute the invasion. Opposed to the realists who invoke the painful memory of Vietnam, the neo-conservatives remind us that there is no Soviet technology production machine to oppose our own in Iraq. We need not have one hand tied behind our back like [US president Bill] Clinton in Somalia - we need merely exercise the full extent of the power that we have and we should be able to have our way. The neo-conservatives' calculations were correct insofar as American casualty numbers are concerned when we compare them to the [dog] days of Vietnam. Perhaps the most important of all conditions that differentiate Vietnam from Iraq in terms of American popular opinion is that conscription has not yet reared its ugly head. But [while] such contrasts, among others, cannot be denied, certain essential comparisons do stand. Our [US] soldiers, insofar as they must come into contact with the body politic in Iraq, have [few] criteria on which to differentiate their friends from their enemies. The enemy the Americans fight [is] determined, unrelenting and constantly adapting. And despite the extraordinary military technology gap between the opposing forces, the insurgency employs a brilliant strategy of Mafioso-style target killings of civilian and military leaders within the government that is attempting to root itself into Baghdad and beyond. The targeting of foreign diplomats essential to the legitimization of the new government is more than a small annoyance to American strategy. The Achilles' heel of the neo-con vision might be in the "unknown unknowns" that result from the government they are trying to establish. Our goal being to make the new Iraq strong enough to crush the insurgency, this will require the forging of an iron hand as strong as Saddam [Hussein] once exhibited. One danger among many is our own bringing into reality of a powerful ally of Iran. The limit of America's power in the Middle East might be conditioned by the same power that defined Rome's limit 2,000 years ago: Persia.
Adam Archetype
Orlando, Florida (Jul 27, '05)


Well it had to happen, I suppose. The armchair leftist hatchet man and apologist for North Korea, Gavan McCormack, has taken his swipes at Kang Chol-hwan's The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag [A North Korean at the White House, Jul 26]. Why? Because President George W Bush invited Mr Kang to the White House, and for riding his neo-conservative hobby horse of human rights ... But [this] does not take a whit away from the bone-chilling account of the 10 long years Kang spent in a North Korean labor camp. McCormack is reduced to left-wing smearing of Mr Kang. He is a class enemy, being "born into a well-to-do 'Korean in Japan' family". Well, that should damn the book, should it not? But this cheap discrediting does not work outside of the diminishing circle of rocking-chair "Marxists". Not only is he a class traitor but he was encouraged and aided and abetted by another leftist turncoat, the French academic Pierre Rigoulet, a co-author of The Black Book of Communism, which catalogued the brutal rule of [Josef] Stalin et al. And if that is not reason enough to smell a rat in Mr Kang's account, McCormack [damns] him for waiting 10 years after his arrival in South Korea to write the book. If we use this measure, what would this good professor from Australia say about Primo Levi publishing his If This Is a Man (better known to American readers as Survival in Auschwitz) almost 15 years after his liberation [from] a German death camp? And finally, as a foil, McCormack praises another book written long after Mr Kang's. He finds it more to his taste, the more especially since its author meets his class preference. The Aquariums of Pyongyang deserves wide reading, no matter to what purposes America's Christian and neo-conservative right make use of it. Lest we forget, the Soviets [made] much of John Dos Pasos' condemnation of American capitalism even after Mr Dos Pasos had become a confirmed Republican who stoutly supported America's war in Vietnam. Moreover, moral indignation has not stopped the White House from affirming the territorial integrity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or engaging in bilateral and back-alley talks with Kim Jong-il. Dr McCormack's rule of thumb can best be summed up by the old leftist adage: "My doxy is orthodoxy, yours is heresy!"
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 27, '05)


In Sean Curtin's [Jul 22] article Yasukuni Shrine: Old wounds still fester, the nationalist justifications for [Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi's visits to the shrine are meticulously described. However, Mr Curtin forgot some important points when describing the moral justifications for China and Korea (and the rest of the world) to oppose these visits. Regardless of how many apologies Japanese prime ministers and others have made, the country of Japan has never made a formal, national apology for the actions taken from 1910 to 1945. Germany and Italy have both made national professions of their guilt, and have passed laws making it a crime to deny that. Japan continues to disregard world opinion, and local Asian sentiment, and hopes that people will just forget that Japan was the perpetrator, not the victim, of World War II. Japan also manages to keep its people, and especially its children, ignorant of the war. Many Japanese know nothing of Japan's aggression, and cannot understand why China and Korea feel upset. Most young Japanese (under 30) believe Japan was a victim of Western imperialism, as a result of being taught that Japan was a victim of the nuclear holocaust of 1945. When Nagasaki mayor Hitoshi Motoshima stated that Emperor Hirohito had responsibility for the war, his own party, the LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] (also Koizumi's party), discouraged prefectural political leaders from cooperating with him. In January 1989, mayor Motoshima narrowly survived an assassination attempt by right-wing hoodlums. Japan has tried to hide Yasukuni, and its own responsibility for actions during and before the war, from its own people and from the international community. It is the moral responsibility of everyone, especially Japan's victims, to keep the pressure on until Japan truly issues a national apology and teaches its children the truth.
Leung Shu Ren
USA and Tokyo, Japan (Jul 27, '05)


The article by [Daniel] Smith was right on the mark [Let's talk about war, Jul 22]. I hope that American historians will rightly label Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld one of the worst in American history. He will also rank up there as one of the most arrogant, and certainly one who has plenty of blood on his hands. His continued resistance to sending more troops to Iraq has caused terrible carnage. By now, any calls for more troops is out of the question. The American people want their troops home, not over in Iraq, serving as targets of opportunity. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice have had their turn and they've squandered goodwill, lives, and [treasure] on Iraq [and] Afghanistan. Had the United States stuck with rehabilitating Afghanistan, the entire "war on terror" would have had quite a different set of results. One might have been the capture of Osama bin Laden. The recent spate of attacks against British and possibly Egyptian targets may mean that Pakistan itself is turning into one of the safe havens for al-Qaedists. Pakistan is probably more than happy to see its own malcontents and jihadists die in Iraq. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) agency has been a master of playing all sides in such a labyrinth of groups, agendas, tactics [and] policies. There may be a warning from Pakistan's intelligence and military leaders, to [President General Pervez] Musharraf in the recent bombings: Be careful. You've run out your rope on how long we will tolerate your kissing up to George Bush. This could have a massive effect on the hunt for bin Laden and other al-Qaedists. It could also add a new infusion of radical Muslims into the mix who haven't been there before. It's time to set a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. During the Vietnam War, from 1962-75, had we [the US] withdrawn at the end of any of those 13 years, the outcome would not have been any different than it was in 1975. I fought there as an infantryman in 1966. I predicted in a letter to my home-town newspaper that the South [was] going to lose the war; that the North Vietnamese and Vietcong were more dedicated and willing to fight and die than their Southern cousins; and that the desire for freedom cannot be jammed down someone's throat. I believe the Iraqi people do want democracy, but they don't want the US to be the one to force it on them. More and more Iraqis do hate Americans. Time to give everyone a timetable. Maybe then, those Iraqi troops will understand that they have to learn how to defend themselves, and fight "insurgents" and "resistance fighters" themselves.
Jerry Eagan
Silver City, New Mexico (Jul 27, '05)


This is with reference to S Ehtisham's letter dated July 26. The situation in Pakistan does seem challenging for the moment and a lot needs to be done, particularly in the area of social-economic reforms. It is easy to blame the madrassas for the social ills, but they are in a way playing a positive role in a poverty-struck society, providing food and shelter along with basic education to millions. There might be a few institutions promoting militarism but for the sake of [that] handful it would a big mistake to alienate thousands of these madaris. The right step would be to regulate these and the present Mushurraf government is doing exactly the same while taking stern action against those promoting extremism, something the previously so-called democratic and corrupt leaders have failed to do. The growth of these madaris is definitely due to the rise in poverty and the rising cost of education, something the government has failed to provide [for], but what exactly are the causes? Yes, [an] extremely high level of defense spending and debt-servicing expenditures. These expenditures were totally unavoidable considering Pakistan's geopolitical situation. With arch rival India failing to accept Pakistan as an independent state since its very inception and launching continuous hostilities read (three full-fledged wars), what option did Pakistan have? The only reason Pakistan has spent billions on its nuclear program and in acquiring missile technology is the basic reality of Indian military superiority, which has haunted this nation for half a century. That India has failed to fulfill its ... promises on Kashmir resolution, has divided Pakistan into two and constantly threatened Pakistan with its military might is something that has petrified Pakistanis day in and out. The West is quick to blame Pakistan for the prevailing extremism, but then these jihadis were darlings of the West until the late '80s, with Pakistan serving as the base camp for the great jihad against the communists. How the West turned its eyes after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is no secret, leaving Pakistan to settle with all these foreigner jihadis. Looking at the impressive economic growth and the institutional reforms I can see light at the end of the tunnel and can see Pakistan moving in the right direction. We have to be patient. President [General Pervez] Mushurraf is walking a tightrope with mounting external pressures and constant blackmailing from the Indian side and needs all support and encouragement.
Faraz
Denmark (Jul 27, '05)


This letter is in response to [Daniel] McCarthy's disinformation [letter, Jul 25]. McCarthy asserted, "The Potsdam Conference makes no mention of Taiwan or Formosa." This is grossly false. The Potsdam Proclamation states in Article 8, "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out ..." Here [are] the terms of Cairo Declaration: "All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China ..." Now, after presenting all the facts, we can see the Potsdam Proclamation didn't mention Taiwan in name, but did set the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China as a condition of Japanese surrender. As all can see, McCarthy's statement uses technicality to intentionally mislead readers; he is indeed intellectually dishonest. On McCarthy's second assertion, "At the end of World War II, Japanese forces on Formosa surrendered to the troops of Chiang Kai-shek, but that did not transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to China," is again grossly false. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender stated, "[Japan accepts] the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the Heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam ..." The signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender completed the legal process of returning Taiwan's sovereignty to China. McCarthy is entitled to his opinion, but he is wrong to distort the facts to suit his political views.
Gongshi
USA (Jul 27, '05)

Perhaps the more salient comment in Daniel McCarthy's letter was this: "But it would not matter in any event, since no Taiwanese were represented at the Potsdam Conference." - ATol


Thank you AL of Canada ([letter] Jul 25) for your timely and sensitive intervention. [Letter writer] Jakob Cambria suffers a delusion of superior morality and lectures us ad nauseam et ad infinitum. For his information we are in need of no lectures, especially from his ilk. If Cambria wants to forget "the hour that will live in infamy", he may do so with my permission.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Jul 27, '05)


Dear AL [letter, Jul 25]: I am not sure [of] the reason for your indignation at the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese population before and during the Second World War, but can empathize with the same. But before you go about tomtomming the righteousness of Chinese, just open your eyes about what the Chinese Han people have done to, or are currently doing to, China's far-western provinces and Tibet. Even worse, what has happened in China during the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square, or what was shown on TV networks a few weeks ago, Chinese goons clubbing away terrified residents of a rural settlement to make way for land development. Occupiers killing the occupied is bad, but why do you keep your mouth shut when it comes to the Communist Party in China? These anti-Japanese postures are nothing but a song-and-dance show arranged by Chinese communists to ensure that the anger of [the] people can be directed outside ...
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Jul 27, '05)


Referring to Kangaroo Jock's letter [Jul 25], since he has been good enough to provide his age (63), that places him in his 20s during the 1960s. That explains a lot. We're still digesting the fallout of that period: the good (civil rights and openness in sexual mores), the bad (a narcissistic desire to create and be surrounded by chaos), and the ugly (a free-floating sympathy for tyrants, despots, terrorists and communists). He should also remember that unlike the naive idealists of the '60s, this present band of "revolutionaries" are authoritarian, imperialistic, intolerant, misogynistic, and anti-gay. I suspect he would not enjoy living under their rule.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jul 27, '05)


Further to the letter of Afaq Sher of July 25, I would like to comment. I strongly believe that President [George] W Bush is playing a puppet in the hands of the capitalists who hold his strings. The big business giants are a bigger threat to humanity than Osama bin Laden and the terrorists because it is the lust of their worldwide dominance, greed and desire to control natural resources of the Earth that lies behind their philosophy. These capricious capitalist are conspiring, hoping and looking forward to control our movements; how we spend our money; what we buy; what we say and where we go and whom we meet etc. They would like to make us into microchip humans so that they could find out everything about us any time by a remote-control button. Even nowadays, as soon as we come out of our homes, we are watched by CCT [closed-circuit television] cameras, plainclothes officers of the law, FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], MI5; our phones are bugged and conversations taped; e-mails are checked, but a lot of people are oblivious of the fact that we have become a target of [prying] eyes. American and Western capitalists ultimately desire to take away our liberty and freedom and turn us into credit- and debit-card robots so they become fatter and fatter with our money. Big oil companies, banks, and American arm manufacturers are making more profit than ever before; they are more in charge of the world economy now than ever before since the American and Western illegal and unjustified invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We see every day what is happening in Iraq because of premeditated chaos by the big powers. It was a conspiracy cooked up by the capitalists, Christian Right and the Zionists, first to crush communism from the face of the Earth and then attack Islam with the American mighty force under G W Bush's leadership along with the support of Western nations. The conspiracy is working: terrorism gave birth worldwide and is being used as an excuse to re-colonize the oil and natural resources of the Middle East and Africa. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the best of buddies of America and the West fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but soon after the collapse of communism, they became the worst of enemies. It was this treachery that made Osama bin Laden more virulently against the US and others [he] considered the US's cronies. America became enemy No 1 of al-Qaeda and because of their [Americans'] dirty politics and games, thousands of innocent human beings all over the globe have been killed and are being killed in hundreds every day while people in power wear blinkers to see suffering of innocents. And why should they when they have terrorists to accuse for everything and not their own economic and foreign policies? The US has other designs in Afghanistan, to control the oil-rich northern provinces and dump Saudi Arabia; and they [Americans] are very good [at] doing that once they have in their pockets what they want. I would not be surprised if in the very near future Pakistan suffers the same destiny.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 27, '05)

[Re] A North Korean at the White House [Jul 26] by Gavan McCormack: While it will be easier (and the fashion of the day) to advise Messrs Bush, Cheney and Co to brush up their knowledge of world history, let's be honest [about] what kinds of governments oppress their own populations in the name of past foreign occupation. Is it a US soap-opera trial, with a person claiming parental abuse as an excuse for murdering his children? Korea was under Japanese occupation for [about four] decades of the first half of the last century and has been forced to pay [for] its sins [by] acquiescing to the rule of Kim [Jong-il]'s ilk ever since ... [Yet] most North Koreans wouldn't have been born then [when Japan occupied Korea]. Going by that logic all former colonies may be justified in having a dictatorship to atone for [their] sin of being under occupation. [US President George W] Bush may be an idiot in matters of state and I for one do fret about his ham-handedness (pig-headedness), but [on] one thing he's right: that some regimes are simply evil. Kim Jong-il, a bloodsucking maniac, may be worst of the kind, only he does not have the right tools or the brains to deal with them. [It is] about time ATol stopped being an apologist for despots of the world and campaigned for building a larger complex at ICC [the International Criminal Court at The] Hague (no help from Bush and Co needed).
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Jul 26, '05)


I have been writing to Muslim countries, asking them to speak out against world atrocities committed by evil. Just who's emboldening terrorism [Jul 26]? Satan, not the Muslims. If you care about humanity and how this is affecting all of us, please speak up. We must show we love our brothers and sisters, not condemn them. Those of you who make up your own rules will be judged by God. Let us all come together and fix the hurting and the suffering we have been witnessing. Don't forget we are to serve and there is no other way.
Cheryl
California, USA (Jul 26, '05)


I read the article titled US on Nepal's case [Jul 23] by Ramtanu Maitra. While there were some interesting insights into India's concerns about NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], I was very annoyed by the following statement: "There is little doubt that Bangladesh is fast becoming a center of orthodox, if not violent, Islamic activities. Many reports suggest that a large number of al-Qaeda and Taliban have been settled in Bangladesh, possibly with the help of Pakistan" ... Just where is Maitra getting this information from? This kind of uninformed claim does no justice to what is otherwise an informative article.
Shithi (Jul 26, '05)

It's all very well to accuse the writer of being "uninformed", but you provide no alternative information to counter his conclusions. Asia Times Online has been following for some time the shadowy activities of al-Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence inside Bangladesh. See for example Goons or terrorists? Bangladesh decides (Mar 10) by B Raman and India looks at Bangladesh in alarm (Feb 1) by Sultan Shahin. - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your article [Pakistan: United militants, divided leaders, Jul 23] with a great deal of interest. Pakistan's successive governments have consistently failed to tackle any of the social/economic problems besetting the people. When there is no recourse, when the alternative to a madrassa is starvation, no education, no job, no hope, no future, what choices do the parents or their children have? Successive governments have spent 75% or more of the budget on armed forces and debt servicing - read "interest" - incurred mostly for the self same forces, in the name of national security, which the forces have abysmally failed to provide. Education, jobs, health, and all social services have been neglected and continue to be put on the back burner. Whatever little development the country has been able to achieve has been more than negated by the quadrupling of the population in the last 58 years. Since education has not been available to the vast majority of the people, mullahs have had the field to themselves, raving and ranting against family planning. Bigoted, obscurantist, irrational elements, marginalized because they opposed the creation of Pakistan, have surged ahead, because the governments have failed in their primal task of looking after public interest. How can General [Pervez] Musharraf tackle the Neanderthals in the madrassas ... when his intelligence service, his officers, his ministers, and members of the so-called national assembly come mostly from the feudal class? ... Pakistan needs structural change. Pakistan needs abolition of the feudal system. Pakistan needs downsizing of the armed forces to perhaps 50,000 soldiers, in all, to deal with natural disasters, earthquakes, floods etc, instead of the current 1.5 million ... Once we have a truly national government [in Pakistan], which can concentrate on issues of public interest, it will be able to sideline the fire-breathing mullahs. People will not listen to them because the lure of a luxurious afterlife will be less enticing. But that is the stuff dreams are made of. Reality is grim. Pakistan is in the stranglehold of the feudals, administered by, for, and in their interests, by their minions, in the army, bureaucracy, and the mullahs.
S Ehtisham (Jul 26, '05)


Kevin Mok [letter, Jul 25] made a good point over David Lenard's article Rocky waters for China's US acquisitions (Jul 21). I would like to add one more point. Any bid from a Chinese company is a success regardless of the results. We do not see many large Indian companies [make it] to American headline news, do we? At least by now, many Americans know about Haier, Lenovo, CNOOC, and TCL. Soon they will learn [of] more Chinese firms similar to [how] they know about Sony, Toyota and Samsung. Should all Asians be proud when whites and yellows are exactly equal in any area and any capacities? Should we be proud [that] whatever white people can do, yellow people can do exactly same or better?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 26, '05)


Raymond Cui's letter [Jul 25] has a few glaring holes that I'd like to point out ...
"1. Whatever political system Taiwan chose to have, it is not a country - at least governments representing 99% of the world's population think so." If the election was not sanctioned by Beijing, it doesn't matter what 99% of the world's population thinks.
"2. Until today, Taiwan's constitution and map still declare itself part of the Republic of China, which is made up of the territories of PRC [the People's Republic of China], Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, etc." However, if Taiwan rewrites its constitution to declare its independence, it will be under attack. What do you think the DPP has been trying to do since it came to power?
"3. Taiwan has had a trade surplus of over US$20 billion for many years with China and every major Taiwanese company is making money in mainland China." China carries a $162 billion trade surplus with the US. What's your point?
"4. Do you mean any country, city, town, village or even a household in Taiwan can declare independence from Taiwan if they so determine?" Nope. It's just that the majority of Taiwan's voters, if not under threat of bombardment back to 1949, would probably rather have a bigger say in their government.
"5. For most of the last half-century, Taiwan not only wanted to govern itself, it also wanted to govern mainland China, as stated in its National Unification Program, which had been in full force until at least the late 1990s, before the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party took power." Your last phrase shows that a majority of Taiwanese residents had sense enough to dump the KMT [Kuomintang] for a party that more realistically reflected the will of the people.
"6. When over 150 sovereign governments representing 99% of the world's population say Taiwan is not an independent country, that is a good reason it is not." If 99% of the neighborhood you lived in didn't recognize that you had bought and paid for your house, would that make them right if you indeed had?
"7. A country does not become a country because one part of it takes care of another part; they take care of each." Mainland China has never taken care of the Taiwanese except in the brainwashed minds of the mainland Chinese and the thugs [who] accompanied Chiang Kai-shek.
"8. An American living in San Francisco is an American regardless of the order of him calling himself a San Franciscan, Californian or American." Yup. If you are Chinese and live in the US with a US passport, does that still make you Chinese? Be careful how you answer that.
"9. Do you think people in the UAE speak a different language than people in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?" I'm not sure; do they? Hey, I don't know everything.
"10. The vast majority of mainland Chinese may not want to be ruled by 'China' either, if you mean the communist government by 'China', but they will certainly oppose Taiwan officially breaking away from the Greater China family." That's pretty hypocritical, don't you think? It's like saying, "We don't like our government either, but since we have to live like this, you should too." What a joke.
This whole mess is about nothing more than pride. Until there is a debate on this among nations that includes only facts and not the desire for economic gain at the expense of a fledgling democracy or threat of military force, any ramblings in this forum are simple nonsense, including this one.
JB
Greenville, Alabama (Jul 26, '05)

Dhruba Adhikary's article Monarchy stands firm (Jul 23) is no doubt a very interesting piece of writing on the thematic issue that the intelligentsia of Nepal confront today. Incidentally, the same edition also carried another article by [Ramtanu] Maitra which deals, though obliquely, with the ongoing crises in Nepal. These two authors have obviously covered a wide ... political spectrum that the country is currently [grappling] with. However, the scribes could have done more justice to their writings if they had delved a little deeper into the factors that prompted King Gyanendra to undertake [his] highly perilous political journey. Any assessment of the current political dilemma in Nepal remains incomplete if it does not shed light on the despicable scramble for power among the responsible political actors in addition to the following facts:
1. It is not the king who effected the dissolution of the elected body of the people's representatives; it is the prime minister ... Sher Bahadur Deuba, who exercised his prerogative to dissolve it under the provisions of the constitution.
2. Just for perpetuating their hold on power all the "democratic forces" of the country recommended the indefinite postponement of the general elections, which should have been held within six months from the date of the dissolution. It was a flagrant violation of the spirit of the constitutional provision under any democratic regime.
3. Prime Minister Deuba did not even extend the tenure of the elected local bodies, [to] which they were entitled under the existing laws.
4. The last but not the least is the fact that the king assumed executive powers when the Maoist rebels were virtually knocking at the door to mount their so-called "final assault" to topple the government and impose their political option on the destiny of the nation. Under such circumstances it is unfair to heap all the blames on the king for the nation's woes primarily brought about by the national politicians.
The Royal Nepal Army has a larger responsibility to fulfill than being "heavily mobilized to salvage the palace". If they were not there the country would have witnessed enormous human tragedy with more bloodshed and atrocities than what the people are experiencing today. Against all odds, the security forces are definitely committed to dismantling the war network of the heavily armed rebels and give some solace to the alarmed people. They are trying their best not to let these [Bolshevist] radicals realize their dream of establishing an anachronistic totalitarian republic in Nepal. The widely speculated but never substantiated nexus between the Maoists and the Royal Palace appears to be a fallacy cooked up to discredit the institution of monarchy. Mr Adhikary has cited the example of what the incumbent foreign minister Ramesh Nath Panday had said some years ago. Pandey is widely considered to be a big-mouthed creep [and] the country's intelligentsia never lent any credibility to what he says. Besides, the unfolding political developments in the country do not support the thesis that there could be any "working relation" between the country's two "armed forces" for the simple reason that the rebels are hell-bent on abolishing the institution of monarchy itself. Involvement of the UN for conflict resolution in Nepal has its pros and cons and could entail wider ramifications than what appears on the surface. The problem is still an internal conflict and has not taken the shape of a full-fledged civil war because the civil society has not accepted the Maoist political option. United Nations involvement could open up a Pandora's box and the rebels might go for a far-reaching political transformation which the country is not yet prepared for. As for Ramtanu Maitra's write-up US on Nepal's case, the scope of the "National Endowment for Democracy" appears to be a far-fetched proposition in the Nepali context. The scribe could have done more justice to his write-up if he had unreservedly pointed out the double standard maintained by the Indian establishment in New Delhi by always winking at the Maoist perpetrators who roam about the Indian capital with total impunity. Human rights, democracy and national interests should all go hand in hand and cannot be dealt with as separate entities. This is what the international community, including India, should bear in mind while making any assessment about Nepal. Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Jul 25, '05)


[Re] Jihad without borders [Jul 22]: "This global franchise of resistance is a truth of the day." Methinks this quote of yours [from the former director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul], will roll around the world for a long time to come. You have pronounced in this sentence the sentence pronounced on the new-old fascists in the West by the East. Not only does the franchise extend to the youth of the East opposed to the West, but it extends to all youth who have had enough of the lies and control tactics of their elders. Viva la revolucion of the youth against both the West and the East! (I am 63 years young.)
Kangaroo Jock
Australia (Jul 25, '05)


David Lenard (Rocky waters for China's US acquisitions [Jul 21]) presumes that if a Chinese firm bids to buy a US firm and is unsuccessful, it has failed. I would like to take another view. When a Chinese firm makes a bid to buy an established but shop-worn name in the US or elsewhere in the world, the first consequence is that competing firms will be forced to pay a much higher price than they would have preferred. For Unocal probably the returns to Chevron will still be profitable though much less so because of the much higher price paid. For Maytag I believe that Whirlpool made a business error in the class of HP's purchase of Compaq. The business fundamentals that put Maytag on the block in the first place had not changed. Maytag wasn't making money. Maytag's product line is not that much different from Whirlpool's and certainly sells less well than Whirlpool's. Maytag brings nothing to Whirlpool except perhaps [to] let Whirlpool suffer one [fewer] competitor. Expect job losses and factory closures. All things considered, the Chinese firms had not really lost anything, for neither the Unocal [nor] the Maytag [bid was] in their original business plans. They were business opportunities that happened to come into the market. A successful bid for either firm made good economic sense as their acquisitions would have fit very well into CNOOC's and Haier's expansion plans. But the failure of their bids will certainly not cause either of them to fail, as overpaying for an asset or the demise of a pricey but inappropriate asset would have done. Unocal is a disappointment. Maytag is certainly an overpriced poisoned fruit Haier did well not to bite. There should be some lessons from the consequences of Lenovo's purchase of IBM's PC [personal computer] division and TCL's purchase of the Thompson-RCA group. Neither [purchase is] making money. For anyone else other than a [Chinese] company to buy them would have spelled an early demise for the bought companies plus a loss of investors' money, closed facilities and job losses.
Kelvin Mok
Alberta, Canada (Jul 25, '05)


Regarding M Ramdas [letter, Jul 22] and the article Tug-of-war over the Taj Mahal [Jul 16], although I fully agree with his suggestions about a neutral party and the welfare of Hindu refugees, I must add this regarding the plight of the Dalits and adivasis of India. Even if someone dreams [of] this proposition of collecting revenue from Islamic buildings, I would argue that before the first Hindu temple is built the vast number of Dalits, which is close to a 100 million, should be allowed into all Hindu temples, [and] they should be taught the highest and noblest philosophies of Hinduism and modern technology. Great luminaries of India have tried and failed, whether they be the Buddha 2,500 years ago or the Mahatma in the 20th century; Hinduism has absorbed from them many noble elements but has still refused to budge when it comes to the plight of the Dalits. All the treasures of India cannot equal the treasure of the minds and intellect that is lost due to tradition and even apathy towards the Dalits. If 100 million minds are given the chance that the rest of India has, it would unleash a wealth that would surpass any revenue collection from Islamic buildings and raise India's stature to a higher level in the eyes of the world. I am sure the Mahatma would agree with me that all men are equal under the eyes of God.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 25, '05)


My question to Mohammed Hussain (The dehumanizing factor [Jul 16]): Can you write another article to answer the question why most Westerners simply do not understand "why they hate us"? I was brought up in China during the Cultural Revolutionary years (1966-76) when kids were taught nothing but Chairman Mao [Zedong]'s quotations, one of which I still remember: There is no love or hate without a cause. If Taiwan's independence activists have Mohd Salekun Noor [letter, Jul 22] as one of their allies, I am afraid the independence movement is doomed. How can you get it wrong on every single one of the points you chose to elaborate on as your favorite arguments for Taiwan independence?
1. Whatever political system Taiwan chose to have, it is not a country - at least governments representing 99% of the world's population think so.
2. Until today, Taiwan's constitution and map still declare itself part of the Republic of China, which is made up of the territories of PRC [the People's Republic of China], Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, etc.
3. Taiwan has had a trade surplus of over US$20 billion for many years with China and every major Taiwanese company is making money in mainland China.
4. Do you mean any country, city, town, village or even a household in Taiwan can declare independence from Taiwan if they so determine?
5. For most of the last half-century, Taiwan not only wanted to government itself, it also wanted to govern mainland China, as stated in its National Unification Program, which had been in full force until at least the late 1990s, before the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party took power.