|
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.
February 2004
If only [Richard W] Hartzell's argument, that Taiwan can claim to be a USA
protectorate or colony, was true, that would be the most fervent wish of the
imperialist USA [Taiwan
poll should ask about US sovereignty, Feb 27]. Alas, that is
a pipe dream of fools. I know a better way for the USA to achieve its aims -
conquer Africa, then claim the entire world because humanity started in Africa.
Lennard Lee (Feb 27, '04)
In his article [Pakistan
after India's 'Osama', too, Feb 27], Siddarth Srivastva
weaves a tale of fantasy that couldn't be further than the truth. Dawood
Ibrahim is not even in Pakistan according to reports, he's in India. The Indian
government is still constipated with anger and heartburn over his moral support
to the people who took revenge on the militant Hindus in the [Mumbai] riots. It
was the Hindu militants who started the riots, just as they did in Gujarat. I
think it's only fair that if India expects any help in fighting terrorism, it
needs to start at home and arrest the thousands of RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak
Sangh] terrorists who are trained in the terrorist training camps all over
India. Dawood Ibrahim is an Indian national, as is his entire family. India has
yet to produce any evidence of his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai riots/bomb
blasts. It is sadly only rumor-mongering as usual, and that hurts India's
credibility. As if it ever had any to begin with.
Hugh Jackson
Pittsburg, USA (Feb 27, '04)
This is with regards to Pepe Escobar's
Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden article
[Feb 26]. Funny thing is these peshmerga don't look very peshmerga.
I have tried biting my tongue for a long long time about the accuracy of Mr
Escobar's articles. He has a long history of using alternatives to provable
fact (call it what ever you like) in his articles. It really makes for a
low-brow style of anti-American writing. It couldn't be that there isn't enough
legitimate material out there for him to use?
Jie Gu (Feb 27, '04)
Pepe's take reads like a semi-action thriller [Bring
me the head of Osama bin Laden, Feb 26]. I term it "semi"
because there is an absence of the 007 gizmos. On the other hand ex-secretary
of state Madeleine Albright of "even if it takes the killing of over 500,000
Iraqi children we have to remove Saddam Hussein" fame has been quoted as saying
that Osama bin Laden has already been captured by the Pentagon and is being
held in a secret base. She intimated that he might be appearing at the
Republican Presidential Convention in New York at an opportune time.
ADeL
USA (Feb 27, '04)
Albright has since claimed that her remarks about bin Laden's capture were meant
to be in jest. - ATol
I just read and reread [Henry C K] Liu's column of February 26, which despite
its title [Blaming
'undervalued' yuan wins votes] focused on US monetary policy
and productivity. It is the most insightful column I have read in months and
months, a brilliant analysis. It was terse, forceful, clear and well reasoned.
Excellent!
Bertrand Clarke (Feb 27, '04)
Piyush Mathur's
Unveiling of America: Women in war and politics [Feb 25] is
interesting, but the honest answer to the central questions (which he
stubbornly placed at the end) is never. America plays "catch-up" to no
one; women are out! Color is killed! I actually expected the
foolish "dawg" Bush to "win" ("steal" is a better word) the November elections
precisely because he (and the white men he leads) takes pleasure in killing.
Tall white men are preferred (as Piyush implied) as leading killers, and if
women and "others" have the gall to stand in their way, then they are killed.
The wretched bastards have the world by its horns and have no intention of
easing up. Do we honestly think that soldiers who [rape] the women whose men
they killed will ever answer for their actions? Not when Amerikka rules.
Kenoy Walker (Feb 27, '04)
Your various articles by Macabe Keliher and Stephen Blank on the "rivalry"
between the USA and China in Asia are illuminating - not for their analysis but
because they reflect the paranoid insecurity of American imperialists and their
sundry media hacks. What Blank and Keliher are implicitly trying to do is to
invoke the Yellow Peril hysteria that is always applied to any challenger to
the USA in Asia. Thus, in his February 10 article [SE
Asia the focus of potential Sino-US rivalry], Blank's
comparisons between Japan and China are revealing in that it was Japan which
was demonized by the USA during the 1980s before being supplanted in this role
by China today. Even some of the claims and assumptions made by Blank are
Orwellian in their logic. For instance, Blank asserts that the economic
dimension of this rivalry is heating up in the USA in part because of "a sense
that China is exploiting the United States". This is utter bullsh*t that the
world's only superpower with an annual GDP [gross domestic product] of US$11
trillion claims to be "exploited" by a developing nation - albeit an emerging
one - like China. Like most pro-American demagogues, Blank censors the fact
that the majority of Chinese "exports" to the USA come from corporations which
are either wholly or partially owned by America. As such, China essentially
functions like a glorified Mexican maquiladora in which American corporations
exploit low-wage Chinese labor to produce products which are ultimately shipped
back and consumed by the USA, with the profits flowing back to American
corporate hands. Blank also whines about American "job losses" but ignores the
fact that tens of millions of Chinese workers have been thrown out of work and
made jobless thanks to capitalist "market reforms" and privatization of
state-owned industries which the USA effectively imposes on China and other
developing nations through the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Keliher's
articles are not much better and betray the same insecurity that the American
hyperpower apparently feels today. In his
Dragon seizes market share [Feb 10],
Keliher repeats Ross Munro's hypocritical complaint that China is attempting to
undermine the American Empire and "create a modern version of the [ancient]
Tributary State System". Munro and other American nationalists should read the
foreign-policy statements issued by the US government and US think-tanks which
advocate and indeed gloat about expanding American domination over the entire
planet - including Asia. As expressed by the 2002 US National Security
Strategy, the Bush Doctrine, as well as influential neo-con think-tanks like
the Project for a New American Century and American Enterprise Institute, it is
the USA that is driven by a grand strategy to impose a "Pax Americana" on the
world. This is the thinly disguised geopolitical vision that is fueling
America's wars of aggression from Afghanistan to Iraq, and is a naked power
grab that eerily resembles that of the Nazi Third Reich, which had similar
delusions about a Manifest Destiny to rule the world.
XOY
Texas (Feb 27, '04)
As most of us would look forward to creation of a new peaceful history between
the various communities of South Asia, it continues to amaze me that [Asia
Times Online] publishes garbage letters by chauvinist Hindus like AP and Kannan
who either have no education and were only educated at the extremist Hindu
terrorist organizations, because it seems historical fact has no relevance for
them. For the record: [Mohammed Ali] Jinnah believed in equality of all races
and didn't differentiate between Hindus and Muslims. He was the president of
Congress and it remained a peaceful multiethnic national organization until
Hindus like [Mahatma] Gandhi hijacked it and started calling Jinnah the great
Muslim leader even when there was no Muslim League and Jinnah was still in
Congress. Jinnah didn't appoint any [Briton] the governor general of Pakistan
and he wasn't sleeping with the wife of the viceroy to win concessions, unlike
some Hindu politicians. Pakistan lost several majority regions because of the
British backing of Hindus and not Muslims. M A Jinnah was a man of unquestioned
integrity and principle and even prejudiced Hindus hired him as a barrister. If
you look at the prominent Hindu leaders (Gandhi, [Jawaharlal] Nehru) their
behavior and personal lives were an open question unlike [Jinnah], who acted
and lived as a great leader. It wasn't religious Muslims who sided with Gandhi
and were not for Pakistan but rather it was the educated elite who were fed up
with Hindus treating Muslims as second-class citizens. Don't pretend to be a
minority, ask a Sikh, a Muslim or a Christian [about] life under the BJP
[Bharatiya Janata Party] and they will tell you the real truth and it is not
what you say.
RA
USA (Feb 27, '04)
This is in response to the letter from Frank (Seattle) [Feb 26]. Being an
optimist, I would love to believe in what he says about the US not being
interested in creating more war and mayhem in Asia. Sadly, as an Asian in the
US, I would really have to close my eyes ears and brains to believe that this
is the case. On one hand, we have George W in the White House, vowing to create
"US-style democracy" in the Middle East, by supposedly removing existing
dictatorships that the likes of [him], his father and generations of US
presidents have created. From providing Saddam [Hussein] the support and
material to mount a chemical offensive on Iranians, to reinstating Hirohito in
Japan out of fear of the Socialists running away with an election, and down to
encouraging and establishing puppet regimes in Afghanistan, Latin America and
the Middle East by all means necessary including assassination of
democratically elected leaders, the US has not stopped at anything in the past.
And even now, Dubya's line of reasoning and his interests read like a map of
the "oil-density index" of the world. And at home, he is busy curbing the last
few remaining democratic rights that are not related to selling SUVs
[sport-utility vehicles] or Cialis or something of the sort. And the average
American (one can really use that term for an overwhelming majority of
Americans - average) lives a life of blissful ignorance and proudly shows off
the regular bumper stickers - "9/11, we're gonna get you [expletive]", without
knowing who he is going to get and why. And when confronted with news of
Iraqis' opposition to the war, their simple answer is, "To hell with them, we
ought to nuke them." I recently heard General [William] Boykin when he came
touring the Pacific Northwest, and he does indeed maintain the "my God is
stronger than his God" line. So Frank, if the Americans are really done with
Asia in terms of their killing interests, then I have just one request: "Leave
us in peace, and go back home, and please clear those mines and unexploded
bombs at the cost of your men and money, if you please."
Vivek (Feb 27, '04)
Dear Frank [letter below, Feb 26]: No, I do not prefer killing anyone. I would
be very happy if good people were not dying in Iraq right now. I spent a year
in Korea from October 1975 to October 1976. While I was there, North Korea
almost caused a war by killing American soldiers who only wanted to trim a tree
in the Demilitarized Zone. The following Saturday, faced with massive force
brought into South Korea from the United States, the tree was cut down. For the
next two weeks, we were prepared to repel an invasion at a moment's notice. Not
a very comfortable thought. Frank, let me assure you that you that war is the
last thing on my mind. But it is not the last thing on other people's minds and
ignoring the threat to the United States and our allies will not make the
threat go away. It is unfortunate that all disagreements cannot be settled by
negotiation but they can't. The way that you prevent or deter war, to the
maximum extent possible, is to be so strong that potential enemies make a
rational decision not to attack you or your allies. However, there are times
when no amount of deterrence will convince a person not to attack you or
prevent another country from attacking us. It is then that those of us who have
chosen to wear the uniform of the United States go out to die to defend the
country. General [George] Patton said that it is not our job to die for our
country, it is to make the enemy die for his country. But we do die for our
country and sometimes in large numbers. We choose to wear the uniform of the
United States because we believe that there are some things worth fighting for
and worth dying for in this world. One of those things is your freedom to
disagree with my positions. But the thrust of [my] letter [Feb 25] was this:
The overriding objective of all diplomatic and military moves by the People's
Republic of China is the acquisition of Taiwan. All things that occur in East
Asia must be interpreted with this objective in mind. I have also visited
Taiwan. It is a beautiful island populated by fine people. They live daily
under the threat of 496 missiles aimed at them the same way that we lived under
the threat of a whole lot of missiles from the Soviet Union during the "Cold
War". The only difference here is that the Taiwanese do not have an equal
number of missiles to fire back. That is where we come in, as we did by
providing the nuclear shield for Europe as part of our contribution to NATO
[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. We provide a shield for Taiwan so that
they continue to exist as a free nation. Be assured that it will not be the
Taiwanese or United States that starts any conflict in the Taiwan Strait. It
will be the People's Republic of China (PRC) that starts that conflict. Yes,
there are other "stakeholders" in the conflict. But while removing any
nuclear-weapons capability from the North Koreans is paramount in our minds
now, it may not be paramount in the minds of the leadership of the PRC. May I
suggest that you do two things that will help you understand what I have said.
First, read Sun Tzu. His principles of war have been the leading influence on
the Chinese conduct of affairs since they were written in 300 or so years BC.
Second, read the People's Daily (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn) and see
what the leadership of the PRC is saying about Taiwan and the upcoming
elections. And, of course, continue to read Asia Times Online.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
Apple Valley, California (Feb 27, '04)
I must agree at least in part with Captain Richard Radcliffe [letter, Feb 25].
The People's Republic of China is using North Korea as a pit bull in its front
yard in order to taunt the United States and hopefully keep the United States
preoccupied while China attempts to annex Taiwan. The Chinese strategy is to
create a crisis in North Korea and then obtain concessions (regarding Taiwan)
in exchange for assistance in mitigating the crisis. Hopefully the White House
will not reward this type of diplomatic terrorism.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Feb 27, '04)
I would like to ask Michael [Wahrman, letter of Feb 26] what constitutes
religious fanaticism. General [William] Boykin has said the enemy come from
"the principalities of darkness", that they are "demonic" and they hate [the
US] because "we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are
Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan". Our "spiritual enemy",
Boykin continued, "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of
Jesus". The general also recounted the time he was chasing down a Somali
warlord who was bragging that the Americans would not capture him because his
God, Allah, would protect him. "Well," General Boykin responded, "my God is
bigger than his God. I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol." He has
also said that "George Bush was placed in the White House by God." Surely,
there is very little difference between [Osama] bin Laden and General Boykin.
The president saw fit to repudiate his comments.
Aly-Khan Satchu
London (Feb 27, '04)
Could you please filter your letters more effectively? I don't believe it
serves any purpose to publish all these hateful letters you receive, personally
attacking people without effectively attacking their argument. As the alleged
resident China-hater, could I ask you to block all postings from "Chinese
Americans" or "American Chinese" or whatever Frank, Roy and their lot call
themselves?
S Kumar
Sydney, Australia (Feb 27, '04)
But then in the interest of being "fair and balanced" we would have to "filter"
your letters, too. - ATol
It's true that American media [are] full of spin and hype, including US
military adventures abroad. I would only argue that lack of partiality exists
because the American public wants to be [spun]. The majority of people in this
country are hungry to teach the "ungrateful" world "a lesson" and, generally
speaking, Americans are starved for good news these days. If it takes a lot of
hot air, then they'll take all the hot air they can in order to feel better for
even a split second. Living an illusion is a long American tradition. That's
why Hollywood is called a "Dream Factory". There is more money in happy endings
- so news media [are] now in the business of dream manufacturing too.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Feb 27, '04)
Pepe Escobar states in
Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden [Feb
26] that General [William] Boykin is a "Christian fanatic" and that
[concerning] Saddam Hussein, "in fact the former dictator was arrested by
Kurdish peshmerga" and not by American troops. This kind of reporting
forces new readers, such as myself, to consider the rest of your reporting as
worthless. General Boykin is Christian, but hardly a fanatic, and Saddam was
not only arrested by American troops, he was verifiably arrested by American
troops in front of hundreds of other American troops, making it hard to keep
such things a secret. It may be that in the eyes of some people any Christian
is a fanatic and it may well be that Kurdish intelligence and support may lie
behind the arrest, although I have heard no supporting evidence for this, but
the fact is that your baseless assertions merely diminish your credibility.
Michael Wahrman
Los Angeles, California (Feb 26, '04)
Shah's letter (below [Feb 25]) mentions that [the Indian political party]
Congress refused to share power with the Muslim League. How could the Muslim
League demand power when they were wiped out in the elections held in the
pre-independence India? In any democratic society is there an instance where a
loser demands power on the strength of his perceived share of votes that he
could not get? That is the reason why the very idea of democracy was anathema
to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He realized the futility of competing with Congress on
equal terms and so raised the bogey of Islam in danger. Then Jinnah took
advantage of the fear of the minority to carve out a territory so that he can
have secure power without the necessity to beg the voters. Even as a founding
father of a new nation he was least concerned about establishing democracy or
institutions that would usher in democratic rule. When he "fought" for
independence in colonial India he was always on good terms with the British so
that he never [would] have to go to jail. He was always playing games with the
Congress and tried to score points with arguments. In his speech to the
constituent assembly of Pakistan he said religion of the people is not the
business of the state and they are free to go temples, mosques or churches.
Here is a person who divided a nation and made a mess of it (a million dead and
tens of millions displaced; I am not talking here about the colossal loss of
property) on the basis of religion and after grabbing the elusive power he had
the audacity to claim that he is secular. Isn't this an oxymoron?
Kannan (Feb 26, '04)
Shah (letter below [Feb 25]) uses issues totally out of context to justify the
Muslim League's actions. To begin with, Shah tacitly agrees that Muslims are a
foreign race and would like to retain their distinct Turkic, Arabic or whatever
ancestry. Secondly, there is nary an acknowledgement about the
destruction/looting of Hindu temples and property, forcible conversions of
Hindus to Islam or mass rape of Hindu women. If anything, comparing rights of
minorities in Pakistan (and Bangladesh) to India is cruel joke to those
Hindus/Jains/Sikhs/Buddhists/Parsees who lost everything in Punjab, Sindh and
Bengal or to the Hindus who lost their lives at the hands of a Muslim mob in
Gujarat (remember that?). In fact, that was precisely what my letter [Feb 23]
was about. Partition has happened. Perhaps India is better off without those
"foreign" races and we will all better if we are looking at the future. So what
is future about? I certainly (like many others) proscribe to the BJP's
[Bharatiya Janata Party] vision of the future unlike Congress of Sonia/Priyanka
Gandhi (or General Zia [ul-Haq] or [Aslam] Beg or Zia ur-Rahman [Khan] or
[Hussain Muhammad] Ershad and their junta). A mature writer would understand
the reasoning behind it. If you wish to be stuck in the rut (of the past), feel
free to do so. Just don't use out-of-context issues (my letter) or some bogus
arguments to buttress your claims.
AP (Feb 26, '04)
Retired [US Air Force Captain] Richard Radcliffe is shaming his country here.
He indicated in his letter [below, Feb 25] that all Asian countries want peace
in Asia. The only country that would prefer killing Asians is the United
States. This world has changed since Captain Richard Radcliffe's killing trip
in Vietnam. If Richard Radcliffe were an army captain, he would [have learned]
that lesson 30 years ago in Vietnam. Richard Radcliffe is on his way to hell.
Now he wants to drag other people with him.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 26, '04)
[Retired US Army Reserve] Colonel Piers Wood (letter below [Feb 23]) tells us
that on the one hand China can "handily" invade Taiwan, but on the other hand
that an invasion would be so easy to defeat that the US Navy could do so
surreptitiously without detection. Being at a loss to understand that
contradiction, I read Colonel Wood's article "How China Might Invade Taiwan"
with rapt attention. The article states that before invading, China would need
a painful and wrenching reallocation of resources to prepare the airfields and
port facilities necessary to launch an invasion. Then the article states that
China would need an invasion force of 250,000 men just to take Quemoy (Matsu)
in a mere river crossing. It goes on to state that China would need complete
air superiority, complete sea control, transport for millions of troops, and
use of submarines to create a safe sea corridor to Taiwan, and that even then
coherent integration of Chinese forces would be necessary for success. Although
Colonel Wood's concept of using Peng Hu as a staging ground from which to
invade Taiwan is academically interesting in a vacuum, the article ignores
important considerations such as immediate trade sanctions against China that
would shut down its export/coastal economy and lead to mass unemployment and
social unrest, US interdiction of oil tankers bound for the PRC [People's
Republic of China], which [currently] imports 40 percent of its oil, and the
economic chaos that would result, and likely involvement of both the US and
Japan in any conflict. Consequently, although it is theoretically possible that
all of the stars could align for China to launch a successful invasion of
Taiwan, Colonel Wood's own article points to the gross improbability of it. I
would be interested to read a new article by Colonel Wood analyzing the
complete cross-[Taiwan] Strait military, political and economic situation,
taking into consideration all of the players, their economic and military
circumstances and capabilities, and each of their vested interests.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Feb 26, '04)
You have, wisely, dropped Daniel Pipes' racist rants (or so it seems, as I
haven't seen his twaddle in your publication of late). May I ask you also to
drop Mr Spengler's column? His smug, inane drivel lowers dramatically the
quality and standing of your otherwise sterling publication.
John L Robinson
Los Angeles, California (Feb 26, '04)
Spengler's many fans can read his archived articles by clicking
here. - ATol
Rudranath Talukdar maintains in his letter below (Feb 24) that "The pandits
would not have left their homes and hearth were it not for the fact that their
lives, their women and their livelihood were in mortal danger. The call from
the mosques was 'go, you Hindus, but leave your wives and daughters behind'. To
pin the blame on Jag Mohan does the pandits a grave injustice. It also strains
the credulity of any thinking person." In fact, the initial movement of the
Kashmiri uprising in the late 1980s was led by the left-wing Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation Movement (JKLF) and the starting point of the movement was the
Hindu-dominated Jammu area. The JKLF has nothing to do with any religious
institution, whether it is a mosque, temple or church. This was the period when
Jag Mohan was installed as governor and he evacuated the Kashmiri pandits from
the Valley to pave the way for the operations earmarked with rapes and genocide
of Kashmiris (I do not use words like "Hindu" or "Muslim") by the Indian
security agencies and army and was widely reported by international
human-rights groups and even the Indian press.
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Feb 25, '04)
With his latest masterpiece,
Spengler's Universal Law of Gender Parity [Feb 24], Spengler
has demonstrated yet again that he is the master essayist of the web. With its
unmistakable mixture of wit and wisdom, Spengler's latest essay has, once
again, revealed the unvarnished (and very nasty) truth about all sorts of nutty
left-wing groups. No doubt legions of overly delicate (and politically correct)
Lefty-Kookburgers are well on their way to hospital emergency rooms, suffering
from uncountable heart attacks and strokes brought on by Spengler's latest
work. The truth really can hurt!
Bravo Spengler!
Michael Mak
Republic of Korea (Feb 25, '04)
The six-way talks on the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs
have now begun in Beijing. The chances of a positive outcome from the United
States position are very slim. But let's review the six nations and their
desired outcomes.
First there is Russia. Russia wants no war and the trains running.
Russia wants a stable "Korea" that it can run gas and oil pipelines to and make
lots of money selling raw materials to. Russia really wants to collect all
those transport fees for all those containers that can go from Busan to Berlin
on the Trans-Siberian railway. If the United States eats a little crow, so much
the better.
The South Koreans don't want a nuclear-armed North Korea. They already
live under the threat from some 8,000-11,000 artillery pieces and rocket
launchers sitting just north of the Demilitarized Zone. They also don't want a
war that would force them to kill their relatives. On the positive side, they
too would like to see the railroads running and lots of containers passing
through Busan.
The Japanese don't want a war because they are within missile range of
North Korea. The Japanese have already been the recipients of nuclear weapons
and don't want to [be] again. They also want the kidnapped Japanese and their
families back in Japan.
The North Koreans want to be supported. Their economy and their country
are dying. While there have apparently been no figures released on the success
or failure of North Korean agriculture since 2000, the only question is how
many North Koreans died of malnutrition last winter. Anything less than 10
percent should probably be considered a successful winter. Without the support
of the People's Republic of China, North Korea would have self-destructed long
ago. Ah, but then there are those artillery pieces and rocket launchers to
threaten South Korea and extract support from them as well as any one else with
a stake in the success of South Korea.
The United States simply wants Kim [Jong-il] and associates to go away.
Mr Kim is unpredictable and he might just still try to unify Korea by force.
That would mean another major war for the United States while [it has] two
other major wars under way. That would probably mean that the United States
would use nuclear weapons on North Korea. As with the war in Iraq, the end of
another phase of the Korean War would be a very nasty guerrilla campaign by the
remnants of the Korea Worker's Party.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) has one distinct goal: the conquest
of Taiwan. As long as the United States supports a free and independent Taiwan
via the Taiwan Relations Act, the PRC will attempt to use North Korea as
leverage to distract the United States. Sun Tzu reputedly said that the best
way to win a war was not to fight it. That is, present your enemy with a
Hobson's choice: a no-win situation where the only question is how much do you
want to lose. As long as the Taiwan Relations Act stays in place and as long as
the majority of the Congress of the United States supports a free and
independent Taiwan, the Chinese can be counted on to support an unstable and
unpredictable North Korea. They can hold hostage South Korea. They can stifle
economic growth in Russia. The can keep the Japanese eye on Pyongyang and not
the various disputed islands in the China Sea. And Mr Kim and his successors
will continue to mistreat their people and make nuisances of themselves. If you
do not see the direct linkage between Taiwan and North Korea, you should reread
Henry Liu's series of articles [US-China:
Quest for Peace; see Henry C K Liu's page] that appeared in
Asia Times [Online]. There could not be a much clearer tracing of the history
of the "Taiwan question". Liu also did a fine job of advocating the position of
the PRC. These articles should be mandatory reading for those who don't have
access to or choose not to read the People's Daily of China. Also, consider the
timing of the six-way talks: just before the Taiwanese presidential election.
But more important than that to the PRC is the referendum that appears on the
same ballot. Once the precedent is set of asking the people what they believe
should happen in a particular situation, then pretty much all hope of the
peaceful conquest of Taiwan is gone. Remember Hong Kong and the Article 23
controversy from last summer? The six-way talks may go on for a while. There
may occasionally be hopeful statements issued by the participants. But absent
the abrogation of the Taiwan Relations Act and the active support for Taiwan by
the United States, the best outcome that can be expected is more talks.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (retired) (Feb 25, '04)
Ap's letter of February 23 (below) is a good illustration of why the Muslim
League had to demand an independent Pakistan over 50 years ago and why the
anguish of the Muslim community in Hindu-majority India continues until today
(Ayodhya, Gujarat etc). The Cabinet Mission Plan was an attempted compromise
drawn up by the British colonial authorities which created three groups of
states from British-administered India consisting of Muslim-majority areas
(roughly present-day Pakistan), Hindu-majority areas, and Bengal and Assam in a
third group. A central interim government (with equal Hindu and Muslim
representation) was also proposed as part of the plan, which was kept
deliberately weak and confined to certain areas (rather like the original
relationship between the state of Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian Union) and
the individual groups of states were to be given the opportunity to secede and
become fully independent after 10 years. The Muslim League accepted this plan
reluctantly and only as a stepping stone to independence because of Congress's
intransigence over power-sharing in any form. Ap's letter's combination of
quoting out of context and veiled threats shows that he (like certain elements
of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party]) is a true heir to the RSS [Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh; National Volunteer Corps] leader [Madhav Sadashiv]
Golwalkar, who wrote in 1939 that "the foreign races in Hindusthan must either
adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in
reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification
of the Hindu race and culture, ie of the Hindu nation, and must lose their
separate existence to merge in the Hindu race; or may stay in the country,
wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights".
Shah
United Kingdom (Feb 25, '04)
Ms Elizabeth Mills (Coca-Cola
going flat in India, [Feb 24]) attaches undue importance to
culture and politics on some very simple issues. First is the issue of
contamination. [The fact that] pesticide residue was found in bottled water
made by Coke and Pepsi should have been an eye-opener. Instead, both Coke and
Pepsi seemed oblivious to the fact that their other drinks probably drew water
from the same well and used the same filtration plant. Moreover, the same toxic
components were found [in quantities] several times the amount found in the US
or Europe. The second issue pertains to water rights and environmental
disposal. You yourself [report] that due to water mining by the Coke plant in
Kerala, the water tables have fallen, affecting agriculture. Moreover, giving
the sludge to farmers as fertilizer was absolutely boneheaded. Perhaps [if] Ms
Mills did a little more research [she] would have found that Kerala is rich in
minerals ... of the radioactive type. Concentrating that is more likely to make
it a toxic waste rather than a fertilizer. It seems that this is a cultural
issue after all. It is mega transnational corporations giving absolutely zero
considerations of their actions to native populations or their environment or
the consumer that they are selling to. We know about Enron. We know more about
the oil companies. We know even more about the East India Company. It simply
shows that these companies at best protect the interests of their shareholders
who live in New York and London. Maybe if Coke and Pepsi were forced to divest
in the Indian market, they might show better manners and more of what Ms Mills
calls cultural sensitivity.
Ashesh Parikh (Feb 24, '04)
I am glad that [Syed Saleem Shahzad] now feels that all groups in Kashmir and
Jammu should be party to the "Kashmir" dispute between India and Pakistan
(response to readers below, Feb 18). Mr Shahzad feels that one person, [former
Kashmir] governor Jag Mohan, was entirely responsible for isolating Kashmir
pandits from the "mainstream". The pandits would not have left their homes and
hearth were it not for the fact that their lives, their women and their
livelihood were in mortal danger. The call from the mosques was "go, you
Hindus, but leave your wives and daughters behind". To pin the blame on Jag
Mohan does the pandits a grave injustice. It also strains the credulity of any
thinking person.
Rudranath Talukdar
USA (Feb 24, '04)
As regards Roy's response [letter below, Feb 23] to my suggestion that moving
the United Nations to Hong Kong would be a good thing, I rest my case.
Tom Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Feb 24, '04)
Let me steal a quote from Afzaal Mahmood which Sultan Shahin used [Skeptical
Indians begin to come around, Feb 21]: "Pakistan's obsession
with being treated as equal to India ... the Muslim League demanded 50 percent
share for 30 percent Indian Muslims at the [center] ..." Of course, in the rump
of the old Bharat which is now called India, Muslims make up 15 percent of the
population and want 100 percent power. And that led to the creation of Jan
Sangh and now the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] to oppose it. Now that
Pakistanis have received wisdom, let that thought spread to the rest of the
so-called Muslim intellectuals in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and so on. That
day will come when commentators will stop referring to the BJP as a Hindu
nationalist party.
ap (Feb 23, '04)
It was with great disappointment I read Pepe Escobar's article about the Afghan
elections [Holdup
at the ballot box, Feb 20]. I have no argument with his
general appraisal of the current Afghan situation, but do take issue with the
following: "He is blamed by Kabul for the killing of an El Salvadorian Red
Cross worker in May last year, and worse still the destruction of the two giant
Bamiyan Buddhas in March 2001." I may be a little old-fashioned in this day and
age when I say that I believe one human life is actually worth a lot more than
a pile of stone carved in the likeness of a human being - even one who attained
the status of a Buddha. I sincerely hope the family and colleagues of the slain
Red Cross worker did not happen to read the above lines.
Warron Conroy
Spain (Feb 23, '04)
I thought the investigative article by Indrajit Basu (India's
diamond trade reveals flawed side, [Feb 19]) was interesting
and exposed the underworld of diamond trade. However, Mr Hugh Jackson
purportedly of Pittsburgh has different ideas. In his letter to the editor [Feb
20] he seems to be intent on indicting India for the dealings of a single or a
few corrupt businessmen. Mr Jackson, who appears to be an alias for someone
sitting in a madrassa in Pakistan, forgets that his countrymen are
making out a case absolving the greatest nuclear laundering by their military
to be done solely by one mad scientist and Islamic fanatic. You can't have it
both ways - blaming an entire country for one individual and absolving a
military by blaming it on one individual.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Feb 23, '04)
In response to a reply sent by Hugh Jackson in relation to the article
India's diamond trade reveals flawed side [Feb
19], by Indrajit Basu, I'd like to remind the world the use of the term "Hindu
terrorist groups" is most inappropriate. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion
besides Buddhism that has not terrorized people of other religions in the past.
Our [Hindu] armies never invaded any country, and are never accompanied by a
priest/maulvi etc. As far as the presence of an Indian businessman in
Angola is concerned, this cannot be equated to any country/culture. Now may I
know what the US is doing with Iraqi oil?
Aseem Johri
Toronto, Ontario (Feb 23, '04)
Hugh Jackson's latest venomous outbursts [letter below, Feb 20] confirm that he
is a cross-product of America's dreaded fanatic KKK [Ku Klux Klan] and
Pakistan's Hindu-hating jihadi factories. He doesn't seem to have anything
better to do than fish around for every morsel of India-related information and
twist it to support his anti-India paranoia. He is either a super-frustrated,
and mentally unbalanced, laid-off American who has been brainwashed by the
recent anti-outsourcing demagoguery in the US, or he is another
frustrated, vehemently anti-Hindu jihadi from Pakistan, consumed by jealousy
arising out of the recent, and rather modest, economic successes of India.
Suggestion to Asia Times Online: by publishing such letters that are utterly
baseless, ridiculous, and full of hatred and with barely concealed racism,
while you may be successfully exposing the minds of such letter writers, I feel
that you are lowering the dignity of your own publication. I like your website
because of its balanced, well-analyzed, and objective opinions and the unique
Asian perspective - please don't disappoint me!
Rakesh
India (Feb 23, '04)
Whoever is this Hugh Jackson [letter below, Feb 20]? I guess he has a lot of
potential to write simple facts, and seems much better than a couple of regular
writers. I will request ATol to give him a chance to write on regular basis.
Alikhan
Canada (Feb 23, '04)
I was moved to write given the extraordinarily intemperate comments that Hugh
Jackson has made in this [below, Feb 20] and past letters. Mr Jackson (possible
a pseudonym?) has made a huge jump from an Indian diamond trader being killed
in Angola to financing of so-called "Hindu fundamentalist groups" who
apparently (according to Mr Jackson) have nothing better to do than "terrorize"
minorities. I have no knowledge of such groups and if Mr Jackson does, he has
not enlightened us. He has just suggested that there are groups like that. His
frequent use of the word "Hindu" in derogatory terms exposes his mindset, which
seems to be: if you are Hindu you must be evil. Sad, in this day and age.
Rudranath Talukdar
USA (Feb 23, '04)
I would like to emphasize to [Asia Times Online] not to publish such ignorant,
racist, overall stupid letters like the ones of Mr Hugh Jackson. He is
anti-India and anti-Hindu to the extreme in every letter he writes about Hindu
fundamentalists, terrorists etc. It seems to be true like others mentioned, he
is being brainwashed by some racist Catholic priest or by some mullah in the
USA. He keeps crying about outsourcing, and H1B visas. It seems he was kicked
out, ie laid off, and is jobless because of some well-qualified and smart
Hindu, so he [vents] his anger in a most ugly way in a public forum.
Well-qualified and educated people are always welcome anywhere in the world. If
Hindus cause problems in Africa and India, what do some of your countrymen do
to African-Americans and other minorities in the USA and in other countries
around the world? Indians or Hindus do not go scot-free and drop bombs on poor
sleeping innocent human beings. There is respect for every soul in Hinduism,
not to kill in name of religion. I really [wonder whether] Mr Hugh Jackson is a
bona fide US citizen from Pittsburgh or a crazy, Hindu-hating maniac from
neighboring countries of India. If he is an American citizen by mistake, I
recommend that 1 million or above Indian-American residents to sponsor for his
rehabilitation in a mental hospital in the USA. If it does not help to cure him
in the USA, we can do it in India by Ayurvedic medical treatment in a true
traditional Hindu method. Finally it's not healthy for a democracy like America
to have such racist citizens like Mr Hugh Jackson. People like him will degrade
the land of freedom and the land of Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy etc.
Krishna Kumar (Feb 23, '04)
Sweden
This is in response to Mr Hugh Jackson's letter [Feb 20]. First and foremost,
this is coming from an American and asking for UN sanctions. The irony beats me
completely. I am reminded of the saying,"People who live in glass houses should
not throw stones at others." Let us say we do consider the whole issue and slap
India with UN sanctions for what "Hindu terrorists" are doing to fund their
activities. Surely any nation which is using unscrupulous means for profit
while allowing millions of innocent women and children to die deserves to be
condemned and persecuted. I agree to that bit. The point is that these
so-called Hindu terrorist groups aren't really being egged on by the government
... But yes, something needs to be done to stop all this. And also, something
needs to be done to stop the havoc that America has been wreaking for almost
200 years now, over the whole world - starting from its dollar diplomacy, the
banana republics of Latin America, [and] the appointment of puppet governments
and dictators by deposing, assassinating or using other means to get rid of
legitimate, often democratic governments. And with the US, it is not about
diamonds maybe, but so many other things, namely oil, oil, oil and power. The
trend continues even to this day when a half-witted US president defies the UN
and the world and bombards and ruins Iraq because his "intelligence" tells him
that there are WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq, or another president
who saw Vietnam as a "potential threat", went to war, and massacred the
Vietnamese by the thousands, and there is one more who has the unique
distinction of being the only man to obliterate and evaporate a million souls
in the blink of an eye. This is just the damage the US wreaks through war, but
even in peace, its big businesses are busy carving out their pounds of flesh
like Shylock. So although the pharmacy giants record profits to the tune of
hundreds of billions of dollars, they are reluctant to bring down the price and
prevent the humanitarian disaster that AIDS has brought to Africa. And then
there are the "fair trade" laws, which have left about a billion-odd people
unemployed and destitute in the Third World. If there is one nation in this
world that really needs to be chained and slapped down by sanctions, it is the
USA. So, please look in the mirror the next time, Mr Jackson.
Vivek
Corvallis, Oregon (Feb 23, '04)
Reference the Speaking Freely article
Ignore the rhetoric, China won't attack Taiwan
[Feb 11]. Daniel McCarthy's understanding of combat operations in general and
amphibious operations in particular is superficial. Any detailed analysis of a
carefully phased amphibious operation by the PLA [People's Liberation Army] to
invade Taiwan would reveal that a cross-Strait assault would succeed quite as
handily as did the Normandy Invasion, 1944. The only serious military obstacle
to a successful PRC [People's Republic of China] conquest of Taiwan is the US
Navy. Its attack-submarine force could sink enough of the invasion flotilla to
defeat the attempt and the US might even plausibly deny that it did so. See the
article I co-authored with Dr Charles Ferguson in the Autumn 2001 issue of the
Naval War College Review entitled "How China Might Invade Taiwan". It should
help you to appreciate the stark difference between a professional military
assessment and the conventional "bean counter" approach that seems to enthrall
so many editors in the media.
Piers M Wood
Lieutenant Colonel, USAR (Ret) (Feb 23, '04)
I shall attempt a brief response to Mr Raymond Ong's lengthy letter (below,
[Feb 19]). First, with respect to the flight range of US planes, Mr Ong should
note air-to-air refueling, which is standard practice among US forces. I hope
Mr Ong is aware that the US Navy fought the war in Afghanistan from the Indian
Ocean, and that in Gulf War II, planes from Diego Garcia (south of India) and
from Missouri participated in the action in non-stop round-trip flights.
Second, the launching of 500 ballistic missiles would cause damage to Taiwan
but would in no way accomplish China's hoped-for annexation of Taiwan.
Annexation of Taiwan in the face of a resisting Taiwanese military would take
in the range of 1 million troops. Mr Ong should also note that China's
ballistic missiles are generally only accurate within 100 meters, and thus may
entirely miss the military bases where their targets are located. But even if
those missiles damage airfields, Taiwan is prepared for that and will have the
airfields operating again in short order. Third, although a coup d'etat in
Taiwan is one of the many fantasies indulged in by communist Chinese leaders,
there is absolutely no evidence on the ground that the Taiwanese military,
regardless of ancestral heritage, would be interested in assisting a communist
Chinese invasion. Mr Ong also seems to not know that the vast majority of
Taiwan's soldiers are ethnic Taiwanese who view China as the enemy that China
professes to be. Finally, if China is indeed to rely on merchant ships
(container ships and oil tankers?) and even sailboats to mount an attack as Mr
Ong suggests, then I would like to offer my condolences in advance to the
families of those brave PLA [People's Liberation Army] soldiers whose leaders
would send them to a senseless death.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Feb 23, '04)
I disagree with this notion of moving the UN headquarters to Hong Kong, or
anywhere else for that matter [letter from Tom Sullivan, Feb 19]. Let's be
clear about one thing, and that is Hong Kong is only special relative to China.
It is not special to the rest of the world despite what some Westerners
might say for politically dubious reasons. America, on the other hand, is a
true multicultural nation. Close to half of the US population are minority
groups (blacks, Latinos, and Asians), who are not just some first-generation
immigrants but rather institutional citizens. The American nation is the
closest embodiment of the United Nations. The UN headquarters ought to stay
here, not for hegemonic reasons, but as a reminder to our nation's and the
world's potential.
Roy
US (Feb 23, '04)
The UN has no legitimacy in Iraq and even now is stealing from the Iraqi
people. Under US/UN sanctions more than one-third of the money from the
food-for-oil program (US$46 billion) went to Kuwait for war reparations.
Despite the fact that Iraqis are desperate for money as thousands die in their
hospitals and their war-ravaged country needs to be rebuilt, the UN has just
given Kuwait another $2 billion for Łľ˘Xenvironmental
damageŁľˇÓ during the Kuwait war. Under UN sanctions more than
500,000 Iraqi children died because they were denied food and medicine. So why
aren't those responsible facing charges?
Peter Smernos
Australia (Feb 23, '04)
The brilliant article by Indrajit Basu (India's
diamond trade reveals flawed side, Feb 19) exposes the real
face of India as a hub of money-laundering for Hindu terrorist groups by
trading in African conflict diamonds. The slaughtered Indian who had over a
million dollars' worth of conflict diamonds in his possession brings to light
the role Indians play in illegal operations all over the world. India should be
bought under UN sanctions for being responsible for the killings of an
estimated 3 million women and children, not counting the millions who have been
maimed and mutilated as a result of these unscrupulous Indian traders who help
finance wars in Angola, Liberia, Congo and Sierra Leone ... The UN needs to
investigate the links Indian diamond traders have with the conflict-diamond
areas and how the illegal trade finances terrorist Hindu fundamentalist
organizations that kill and terrorizes the Muslim and Christian minorities and
the smuggling of illegal Indian immigrants to the US, Canada, the EU and
Australia. The UN Security Council should apply the relevant sanctions on India
for trading in "blood diamonds".
Hugh Jackson
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Feb 20, '04)
US
diplomacy needs Chinese characteristics [Feb 19] is a dumb
and vapid analysis. Asia-Pacific belongs to China, Korea and other Asians, just
like North America belongs to America, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. The
USA had no business there in the first place and America will have to decide
whether to leave in dignity and in disgrace. A Pan-Asian economic and political
cooperation is long overdue, and so go home, Mr and Mrs Yankee.
Roy
USA (Feb 19, '04)
I simply had to write in response to Daniel McCarthy's article
Ignore the rhetoric, China won't attack Taiwan
[Feb 11]. In this article, one can see a lawyer pretending to be a military
expert. I will only comment on his inability to grasp the military situation in
Taiwan. Daniel McCarthy made too many one-sided assumptions on a possible
conflict. If hostilities were to break out, the mainland would have the ability
to launch 500+ ballistic missiles against military targets on the island. All
airfields would be instantaneously rendered unusable for hours. This does not
include the number of cruise missiles in the mainland's arsenal. The Taiwanese
forces would not be able to post any meaningful responses unless they launched
SSMs [surface-to-ship missiles] of their own, of which Taiwan has denied having
any. He also failed to take into the consideration the mindset of the Taiwanese
military high command and the average soldier. If war erupted, it would most
likely start with a saturated attack by the mainland. Would the Taiwanese
generals fight? Even in time of peace, if he has any personal relationship with
generals and colonels of the Taiwanese forces, he would have realized that the
Taiwanese dread any conflict with the mainland. If a coup did not happen, a
dramatic switchover of the Taiwanese military could be expected. Ninety percent
of the Taiwanese generals and colonels are of mainland descent and consider
Taiwan part of China. The average conscript Taiwanese soldiers would not risk
their lives for anything, this is a fact. China does not have to land millions
of troops for a victory, although a million troops would be mobilized for
various support operations. Although the PLAN [People's Liberation Army Navy)
only has ability to ship three divisions across the Strait, the merchant marine
under the control of the government possess over 1,800 ships. During the
Normandy invasion [in World War II] only five divisions were landed in the
first wave by sea, not to mention that the British evacuated over 300,000
troops from a beach in nine days by sailboats, yachts etc. The question simply
boils down to how many divisions are needed for victory. Any military move by
the mainland that forces the "head of government" of Taiwan to go into exile
would be a total victory for the mainland. He also mentioned that US carriers
would be stationed 1,000 miles east of Taiwan totally out of harm's way.
Obviously, he has done no research on this subject. The F-14A/D and F-18C/E
from the carriers can only fly effective strike missions to 400 nautical miles
maximum. During both Gulf wars these missions were done at a distance of 300
nautical miles or less. The only weapon in the [US] navy that can have that
striking range is the Tomahawk cruise missile. Unfortunately, in a missile
shooting contest off the shores of China, there can be only one winner, and it
is not the US. A lot of doubts have been cast upon the average Chinese soldier,
sailor, pilots etc. However, it simply amazes me that a country that produces
top-notch athletes cannot produce competent soldiers. I have yet to come across
any evidence that Chinese military training is below par. Chinese commandos
taking part in special-forces competition in Turkey a few years ago outranked
most NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] entries. The conception that
Chinese pilots are badly trained is also unfounded. From what I can find,
Chinese combat pilots fly 200 hours a year, which is equal to NATO's pilots.
Although the method of training is unknown and can never be found on any
declassified publication, most Western observers simply assume their training
is substandard. Their attitude can be summarized by this phrase: "I don't know
how they train but it must be pretty bad." The Chinese high command already
knew they have the military advantage since the mid-'90s. The only reason no
action is taken is because they want a peaceful unification.
Raymond Ong
Georgetown, Malaysia (Feb 19, '04)
When the United Nations was first established in the late 1940s, New York City
was chosen as its headquarters because the geopolitical climate at that time
made it the best choice. Indeed, New York is still a wonderful city with a
diverse population and too many outstanding cultural and educational
institutions to list here, but it also has come to be perceived by some,
perhaps unfairly, as a source of bias against non-Western values. Whatever the
truth, I propose that a serious review of the costs vs benefits of relocating
those headquarters might now be worth consideration. If such a process is
initiated, I believe the best current choice for a new United Nations
headquarters would be Hong Kong, a city built on the notion of pragmatic
compromise, and now in search of a new mission. It is unique in its history,
already has superior infrastructure, and has far less "baggage" than any other
choice that comes to mind. A new facility, perhaps, located on a new, man-made
island incorporating symbolic contributions from member states to its
foundation? Such a move would obviously take several years, but, I submit, the
geopolitical benefits would be immediate in terms of the world's continuing
perception of Asia as a reliable source of peaceful geopolitical dialogue. If
Hong Kong's "parents" present a joint resolution to the United Nations Security
Council, the debate could begin. An Olympics-like process, perhaps, but on a
longer time scale, might even be instituted to help keep the UN from becoming
"stale", positively motivate prospective host countries, promote
multilateralism, and sufficiently amortize new infrastructure. Given the
organization's many friends, I have no doubt that sufficient funds would be
made available if the process is seen to be equitable.
Tom Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Feb 19, '04)
Li YongYan responds:
I appreciate Mr Tony Tang's letter [below regarding
Red lights flashing for economy, Feb 13]
and wish to make the following comments:
1) Without an independent source of stats from, or on, China's economy,
analysts have to rely on Beijing's own spiel, with a kilo of salt of course. It
takes a full-length thesis to tackle the issue of credibility, or lack thereof,
in the government-released numbers. More often than not, the Central stats
bureau has to cut down by an arbitrary percentage point on the figures supplied
by each province. So observers will find that the national total is always less
than when you tally up original numbers by provinces.
2) Yes. When it comes to crunching the national income numbers, a trade
surplus, or net export occurs when the savings in a country is greater than
investment. By the same token, a deficit results when the savings are less than
total investment. That is because the excess of savings over domestic
investment is lent to overseas importers who spend the borrowings on goods and
services ex the country in question.
China's trade surplus over the years is attributable to the high savings rate,
which in turn is resultant from a number of reasons, notable among which are
the lack of government subsidies and commercial insurance covering such outlets
as hospitalization, education, retirement, and the investment-incentive savings
by non-state-owned enterprises who have no other channels for financing. Above
notwithstanding, I stand by my analysis, which really says that the PRC's
[People's Republic of China's] economy will lose steam in 2004, as there is no
other engine as powerful, when the government financed investments dry up. That
said, it would be better if I had also given a rough estimate on just how much,
in percentage points, the economy will shrink. But then, it will probably be
too expansive, and dry, for the general readership. Thanks.
Li YongYan (Feb 18,
'04)
Syed Saleem Shahzad responds:
Re Mr Rudranath Talukdar's letter (below). Kashmiri pandits are the sons of the
soil, as are any other Kashmiris, Hindus or Muslims. It was Mr Jag Mohan,
former governor in Kashmir, who managed to isolate pandits from mainstream
Kashmiri politics. Now, once again, Indian hardliners, led by Deputy Prime
Minister L K Advani, aim to bring Kashmiri pandits into the dialogue process,
but again not into mainstream Kashmiri politics, but as a separate entity.
Whenever and wherever authorities deal in politics with entities in isolation,
whether they are Shi'ites in Iraq or pandits in Kashmir, it sets off
controversy and conflict. The successful solution of any problem only comes by
dealing with mainstream popular movements, irrespective of their cast, religion
or ideology.
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Feb 18, '04)
Once again Spengler has demonstrated that he is the greatest writer on the web.
Keep up the good work! Particularly, the anti-American humor, as I'm sure it
attracts more readers than it repels. Accordingly, ignore all the
Yankee-bumpkins who will, no doubt, write in to complain. I'm sure that
Spengler's latest masterpiece,
Ask Spengler [Feb 18] will raise the hackles
of Yahoos across America and the globe. Michael Mak
Republic of Korea (Feb 18, '04)
Spengler, you have no idea what you are talking about [Ask
Spengler, Feb 18]. I am disappointed that a news
organization that I have come to depend on for unbiased reporting would stoop
to the level of attacking the followers of Howard Dean. The majority of us are
hard working, responsible adults who are determined to take back our country
from the special interest, neo-cons that are destroying our nation and the
world. Not only is Howard Dean not going to give up, neither are we. He has
more money that any other Democratic [presidential] candidate because we
sacrifice to support him with our small donations. Therefore, he will be
beholden to no one but us - the American public. Please reconsider your
position and give a fair analysis of Howard Dean and his supporters. That was a
really cheap shot. Unworthy of you.
Judith Ewen (Feb 18, '04)
Regarding
Ask Spengler [Feb 18]. Terrific! Spengler has at last found
her/his forte.
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Feb 18, '04)
After reading
US-China: Quest For Peace by Henry C K Liu, I want to ask
Liu: Would the PRC [People's Republic of China] attack Taiwan if the island's
military had nuclear warheads? (They would be stupid if they didn't). Will the
PRC sacrifice Shanghai or Hong Kong to get Taiwan under its control? It's also
worth remembering that Napoleon Bonaparte came to Paris from the island of
Corsica to create the French empire, but the French republic is still fighting
separatists on that island "province". Should Taipei loose to Beijing, you can
be sure of separatism on Taiwan, even after the matter is settled.
Sydney (Feb 18, '04)
I read with interest and thankfulness Bilal Saqib's letter [below] of February
12 on his outlook of the extremism now rampant throughout the world, and in my
country [the US], exceedingly so. He was on the mark stating: we have come to
the point of being so negative about political subjects, it has detracted from
the social contracts to make this country what it was originally. His outline
struck me as the best written critique read in your publication. I commend his
astute vision.
J Dale Russell
Texas, United States (Feb 18, '04)
As a white, Anglo-Saxon non-Christian and non-Muslim, I worship the
pre-Christian faith. Christians would say I am Pagan, but I think your Asia
Times Online is one of the few papers that write the truth, and without
reservation. This I like very much, so keep up the good work. You are a breath
of fresh air.
AB (Feb 18, '04)
Either Hugh Jackson from Pittsburgh (letter below) was too close to the Three
Mile Island nuclear power plant when the leak happened, or was thoroughly
abused by a Catholic priest when he was young. What else can explain his
ranting? Anyway, IMHO [in my humble opinion] this is America's problem: most of
the hijackers on the two planes [that crashed into the World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001] were Saudis. What gives America the jitters about Pakistan
and its bomb is not that it has sold it to North Korea, Iran or Libya. In two
words, it is Saudi Arabia. What else can explain the heart and soul (Pentagon
and Wall Street) of the mighty empire taking a hit and the emperor not lifting
even a finger? Maybe, Dr Khan just proved that the emperor has not clothes, and
now he is busy looking for scapegoats. ap (Feb 18,
'04)
Hugh Jackson's blatantly racist, xenophobic, and plain wrong views on India
leave me shocked and amused. In his letter [below] he claims that India itches
whenever Pakistan is given aid. Well of course we do because we know that money
finds itself to such "respected" groups as Jaish-e-Mohammad and
Lakshar-e-Taiba, who roam freely in Pakistan under new names. The money is used
to fund nuclear proliferation to dangerous countries like North Korea who
threatened our large trading partners such as South Korea and North Korea.
Indians don't steal American jobs, it is merely capitalism, the system that the
US itself so illustriously used to get where it is today. Indians have one of
the highest, if not the highest, income levels in the US, UK etc. We do not
live off anyone's welfare. Forgive us for supporting the Northern Alliance
against the noble warriors of virtue, who were the Taliban, who were better at
fighting and beating women than a real enemy. Jackson forgets to mention that
before the Gujarat riots it was the Muslims who torched alive 60 Hindus in a
train and many other activities of these groups. The consequences were terrible
indeed, but no side was innocent. The filth he [Jackson] spewed about Hindu
temples just further shows his ignorance. I won't go into the history of the
destruction of over 50,000 temples during Islamic rule in India. And I wouldn't
be surprised if Jackson was indeed not in Pittsburgh but in some madrassa
in Peshawar.
Karan Awtani
London, United Kingdom (Feb 18, '04)
In response to
Kashmir at the heart of the problem [Feb 16], Syed Saleem
Shahzad writes: "And in January India played a controversial card for the first
by time bringing Kashmiri pandits (indigenous people) formally into the
dialogue on Kashmir. Delhi did this by giving representation to the pandits,
even though they are strongly against the division of Kashmir and represent
only a minority in the region." I did not realize that Kashmiri Hindus, and for
that matter Buddhists, Shi'ites, Gujjars etc could not be party to a dispute
that affects their land! After all, it is still their land, their livelihood,
their way of life that will be affected by any settlement to the dispute.
Shahzad seems to suggest that just because a group happens to be a minority,
their views need not be taken into account. Of course, that is exactly how the
state of Pakistan functions. That, however, is not how India functions, nor
should it.
Rudranath Talukdar (Feb 17, '04)
In regard to Jim Lobe, his reports on US politics are great. Keep it up.
Albert Jackson
USA (Feb 17, '04)
It is ironic that the Japanese are so horrified by the abductions of Japanese
nationals by the North Koreans [Japan,
N Korea stumble over abductions , Feb 16]. Perhaps they will
now understand the immense distrust and animosity they face in the Far East.
During their brutal occupation and colonization of the Korean peninsula, the
Japanese abducted and killed many Koreans in the name of their emperor. The
lack of sincerity in their so-called remorse only adds to the distrust of the
Japanese government. Until Japanese youngsters are taught the truth about their
country's atrocities and crimes, no nation can trust the Japanese people or its
government. They deserve no sympathy or empathy in their outrage over the
abductions of a few people.
Tae Kim (Feb 17, '04)
While reading part two of David Isenberg's, The Costs of Empire:
Counting the dollars and cents, [Feb 14],
in my view, a sober indictment of the government's inept and irrational
planning, I almost started laughing when I considered how tenuous the neo-cons'
hold on empire really is. And how easy it is for Iraqi resistance to the
occupation to frustrate the American military presence there. Talk about "deja
vu all over again". Here we are, draining our economy, sending our young on a
fool's mission, raising fear and suspicion, if not outright hatred, in
countries once considered our friends, and all a few Iraqis have to do is plant
a few small bombs, snip a few electric lines, and disable a few water pumps to
create the chaos that has our military acting like a middle school teacher who
has lost control of his classroom. Talk about efficiency. It's true that oil
has changed the quality of life in the Gulf states, but let's not forget that
the addiction to the so-called convenience of a petroleum-based lifestyle is
not quite as firmly established in the Gulf as it is in the West. There are
still plenty of people who remember life without oil revenues, who are fully
capable of maintaining societal cohesion in the face of incredible hardship
and, whether we agree or not, whether we are even capable of comprehending it
or not, whose culture, centered as it is on struggle of one kind or another,
has prepared them for this. In fact, were it not for the daily horror of
physical and [psychological] destruction taking place, I could imagine the
Iraqis sitting around joking about it in a manner not so different from that of
the CEOs [chief executive officers] of companies like Enron, Viacom,
Halliburton and ExxonMobile congratulating one another on another successful
fleecing of the American taxpayer. For all the talk of "freedom and democracy",
I doubt very seriously that a majority of Iraqis have any illusions about what
that means. All they have to do is examine what is happening in the homeland of
the occupier [the US]. Our infrastructure is crumbling; our education and
health systems are failing; income disparity is at an all-time high; our food,
water and air are poisoned; our airwaves are saturated with idiocy and
propaganda; our bodies are bloated; our minds are numbed; and what passes for
public discourse is the parroting of 10-second sound bites, reducing democracy
to a once-told fable, lost in the past when people could read and presidents
could speak extemporaneously in complete sentences. Even though Tim Russert
[host of MSNCB's "Meet the Press"] spent his hour with the president letting
him off the hook, it was apparent that, as some have suggested, [George W] Bush
either didn't understand the questions, or can't tap dance. In any case, it was
a performance so pitiful that, if they weren't more concerned with ridding
themselves of the occupation, the Iraqis would still be laughing in incredulity
as is, I would assume, most of the world.
Steve Church
Harbor Springs, Michigan (Feb 17, '04)
David Isenberg's
Starting with a solid base, [Feb
13] and
Counting the dollars and cents [Feb 14] are excellent essays
and appropriate sources for a future historical expose on the madness of our
times. But fiscal considerations and the economic misery and suffering
inflicted upon a nation's own masses have never before entered into the
thoughts and actions of a nation's rulers. And though I understand the doctrine
of "imperial overstretch", it's far too early to tell by inferring if that
limitation can apply to the US. My perceptions and judgments here are not in
terms of minutes or days that is the common attention span of the US masses,
it's in terms of years, decades and globally. The US is currently on a path of
total war against the whole world, and not just these petty skirmishes in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The tempo and intensity of conflict will escalate as the
world's underlying causes (petroleum depletion) exponentially ignites greater
competition within the world community. The world, in its various emerging
coalitions not under US rule, will fight the US to the death for access to
strategic natural resources. The timeline when all hell breaks loose is when
regional peaks of energy production finally coalesce into the expected world
peak around 2010 or some time shortly thereafter. Only the Gulf, Middle East
and Central Eurasia will possess the last remaining pockets of recoverable
petroleum in the world. It's no coincidence the US finds itself deeply enmeshed
in Southeastern and Central Eurasia. My view is that the forces of history will
dictate the evolution, direction and fate of the US empire. That if the US is
going to survive, it's going to have to transform itself culturally, socially
and politically, as well as militarily. The US economy has long been
transformed and successfully militarized, known as the "Military/industrial
complex" ([Dwight D] Eisenhower deleted congressional and corporate from the
phrase). The critical question for America and the world community is, can the
US institute the reforms and transformations necessary to attain its imperial
pretensions and ambitions? The hard answer is either the US changes or the US
dies. Can the US get off this insane merry-go-round ride it finds itself on? If
that happens, it will be a first in the annuals of history. The track record of
imperial aspiration of the nations and people attempting it is that either they
succeeded, or were destroyed in the prospect. It's not something nations can
just dither around with and dump if everything goes to hell and doesn't work
according to plan. Some, of course, think, pray or hope it's different with the
US. Personally, I don't think so. In recklessly goose stepping across
Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe the US has inadvertently splashed across the
puddles of its Rubicon. I believe the "die is cast".
Robert Koehler
Michigan, USA (Feb 17, '04)
At the outset, I doubt Siddharth Srivastava's credentials as a serious
journalist since his perspectives are faulty [Now
you're talking, Feb 16]. I don't understand why we read too
much in the proverbial "much ado about nothing"! Basically, the whole episode
seems strange when [Dr Abdul Qadeer] Khan and [Pakistan President General
Pervez] Musharraf are trying to hush up or are passing the buck over something
which is plainly not child's play. Secondly, the studied silence maintained by
the [George W] Bush administration may secretly indicate something neither
palatable nor favorable from an Indian point of view. As a lay person, I can
observe that the whole saga has been fabricated to corner India to sign the NPT
[nuclear non-proliferation treaty]. Pakistan is the trusted ally and is
currently in the US's fist on the issue of terrorism after 9/11 [September 11,
2001], and is that way easy to handle, whereas India, being a huge country with
its motley population, is quite difficult for the US to handle. In brief, it
might be aimed at stalling the continuously soaring image of India both
economically and scientifically. Moreover, the comparison in terms of
corruption in India and Pakistan is also a bit wayward. Pakistan was desperate
since its inception on getting the bomb in "come-what-may fashion". The
corruption in Indian polity is something of a very serious nature, though the
public keeps crying itself hoarse with visibly negligible impact on the
politicians. Scores of culprits are [going] scot-free, even those in the
administration, no matter how the media are playing it day-in and day-out with
every sensational twist and turn. In a nutshell, no party can draw satisfaction
over the political state of affairs, while the US, being the tricky mediator,
each time steals the show with an ingenious, ulterior game plan.
S Patel (Feb 17, '04)
In response to India:
Still fighting the hyphen, [Feb 14]. Thanks
to Asia Times Online and Sultan Shahin for the excellent article. Unbiased and
pragmatic articles like this will help create understanding on the actual
international scenario and also help bring like-minded people of different
countries closer.
Abhik Ray Chaudhury (Feb 17, '04)
In Li Yong Yan's article,
Red lights flashing for China's economy,
[Feb 14] he makes the argument that the high level of investment relative to
GDP [gross domestic product] in the PRC [People's Republic of China] economy is
too high and not sustainable. True, in 2003 fixed assets investment grew 26.7
percent, and in 2003 investments accounted for about 44 percent of the PRC's
GDP, surely an unhealthy proportion. But the investment data that Li is looking
at are probably the worst quality of all the questionable data published by the
PRC. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Li pays so much attention to them, and
even worse, uses them to make assessments about the PRC economy. The PRC
investment data is flawed because: it does not appear to be constructed on a
value-added basis; it includes land sales, which do not necessarily involve any
development and which can occur more than once in any year (ie, double
counting); and, it makes no sense when taken together with other information we
have. It is axiomatic in national income analysis that national current account
surplus is equal to the excess of savings over investment. But the PRC was
running a small current account surplus in 2003. We can estimate total savings
by adding change in M2 as a percentage of GDP, plus net capital account inflow
as a percentage of GDP. This yields an estimated savings as a percentage of GDP
at around 31 percent for the PRC. But given the the fact that the PRC is
running a surplus in its current account, the level of investment as a
percentage of GDP must be around 30 percent of GDP or so, not the 44 percent as
published and used by Li. This percentage is around the same level as Japan and
South Korea and lower than Malaysia. In around two years, the PRC will roll out
GDP numbers produced for the first time according to the international Systems
of National Accounts. Already, the PRC admits that it overstates industry in
its accounts at the expense of services. The same is true for investment and
consumption. We will know in 2006. But until then, analysis like that made by
Li should be held as suspect.
Tony Tang (Feb 17, '04)
Hugh Jackson [letter below], most likely a pseudonym, appears incensed at the
uncovering of truth and has resorted to outlandish charges against India. India
is not a party to the evil exposed from Pakistan soil. If there is a rogue
nation - actually mother of rogue nations - it happens to be Pakistan.
Individuals like Jackson, consumed with hatred against India, need to cleanse
themselves of the evil notions they harbor against a state that has acted
responsibly and never supported terror. As for Afghanistan, it was Pakistan
that created the Taliban. As for Kashmir, it was Pakistan that invaded Kashmir
first and has ever since caused havoc through mercenaries. Mosques and temples
are mere symbols, if any terror emanates from their portals - they should be
smashed. No amount of bogus persuasion of 72 virgins hereafter should persuade
sensible humans to cause terror acts. As for H1 visas and job transfers, these
are legal activities. There are legal ways to challenge these. By the way,
recent figures show that Asians are least likely to end up on welfare. So
please, get facts first.
Romesh Khardori (Feb 17, '04)
In her article titled
Bush's Pakistan contradiction [Feb 13],
[Seema] Sirohi makes a case that the US administration beeped not a word of
censure watching the charade on Pakistani TV of [Abdul Qadeer] Khan being
indicted, pardoned etc, implying the US believes the cockamamie story that is
being put out. What is not revealed to your readers is, "Why should the US
censure this script when it is written in Washington, DC?" According to many
publications, the US threatened Pakistan with sanctions after discovering its
proliferation activities in order to force the military leader [President
General Pervez] Musharraf to act against its own national hero A Q Khan.
According to intelligence circles and their quotes in a number of newspapers,
Musharraf lost his nerve after being confronted with evidence last October ([US
Secretary of State] Colin Powell and [Deputy Secretary of State Richard]
Armitage had made back-to-back trips there last October) after being told that
Pakistan, if named by the US, would be in the dock internationally as the prime
axis of evil, and [would] invite congressional sanctions and risk losing all
aid and might even invite the wrath of the US military. Despite all this and a
flurry of disclosures, each time more serious, Musharraf and [Foreign Minister
Khurshid Mehmood] Kasuri have tried to deflect all criticism with lines such
as: it happened and we did not know about it, others are doing it and it's an
internal matter etc. None of this is being bought by the US media, which have
had an unprecedented number of editorials denouncing Pakistan's role and its
nuclear crimes.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Feb 13, '04)
It seems as if Seema Sirohi is breaking out in hot flushes over the [Abdul
Qadeer] Khan controversy [Bush's
Pakistan contradiction, Feb 13]. She and other Hindu
journalists should instead concentrate on focusing on India's outdated nuclear
power structure and frequent radiation-leakage accidents. Pakistan is a
non-signatory to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] just like India and is
under no obligation to answer to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]
about its ongoing investigations. It is an internal matter. India always gets
the itch whenever Pakistan gets any American aid, but this time it seems like
it's breaking out in rashes. She should report on how India steals American
jobs and pushes its citizens into the American mainland through misusing H1
visas and illegal immigration, who end up collecting welfare from the
government. Or that India forms strategic military alliances with Iran and
shares nuclear/chemical technology with it, arms Northern Alliance terrorists
in Afghanistan and carries on massive human-rights abuses in occupied Kashmir,
kills its own Muslim population in Gujarat, demolishes mosques and churches to
build Hindu temples with statues of monkeys and elephants and cleansed with cow
urine ... in fact qualifies for the title of a "rogue nation" or a "terrorist
state". It is India that [US President George W] Bush should concentrate on
applying sanctions and cutting of all outsourcing and high-tech agreements. I
think that Indian reporters should cover these issues instead of worrying about
Pakistan.
Hugh Jackson
Pittsburg, USA (Feb 13, '04)
While ATol readers (including this writer) still have to read the second
installment of the series [The Costs of Empire] about "dollars and cents", as a
taxpayer I am already fearful of doing so at what this "fantasy" will cost
present and future generations [Part 1:
Starting with a solid base, Feb 13]. Recent
pronouncements by [Vice President] Dick Cheney as to how "deficits do no really
|
![Southeast Asia - Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore](/images/f_images/southeasta.gif){kind=small}
