Asia Times Online

Letters

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.

Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as a forum for readers to debate with each other. The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct debaters away from the Letters page.

As is his wont, Spengler wanders far and wide in his musings [No true Scotsman starts a war, Jan 31]. He missed a pertinent example of Algeria, where a corrupt FLN [Front de Liberation Nationale] was facing a militant Islamic party which would have won an election, which the army canceled. That suppression of the vox populi resulted in a brutal civil war which is not over completely yet. Washington and Tel Aviv misread the pulse of the [Palestinian] people in wanting a change and a homeland. The surprising draw of Hamas exposes [US President George W] Bush's bankrupt policy using the Israeli pawn, and the unleashed terror of Israel against the Palestinians. As Spengler says, Mr Bush has painted himself in a corner; he raised the mighty rock of democratic change and it fell mightily on his toe ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 31, '06)

Spengler, your comments truly insult not only Islam but the intelligence of Muslims and others alike [No true Scotsman starts a war, Jan 31]. Humans are incapable of survival without change or reform. It was the advent of Islam that heralded massive change in the unlettered people of Arabia, who then led a movement of change throughout the world known up till now as the Golden Age. Islam is about reform, [and] the principle of jihad is about struggle and reformation of the self without which there is certain spiritual death. If Islam was incapable of reform, then it would not have survived for 1,400 years. The fact that there are around 73 sects within Islam points to disagreement resulting form the various movements of reform and change within Islam. Please educate yourself about Islam before misinforming readers.
Mahmood Ahmad (Jan 31, '06)

Sanjay Suri's report on organic agriculture (Organic produce growing in China, India, Jan 31) is most welcome. This is the industry of my principal (and principled) involvement since the '70s, and I should like to note the generally superior quality of products arriving in recent years from China (as well as Latin America, also mentioned in the article; we unfortunately yet see little from India, probably attributable, as the article mentions, to growth principally being in its domestic markets). I believe it was author Gene Lodgson who commented that the Chinese have forgotten more about agriculture than people in Western lands have ever known. May they and others quickly succeed in recovery of the forgotten, so urgently required by us all. When the smoke clears from all the ongoing and impending wars on which ATol is obliged to publish reports, it is almost above all this international effort in organic agriculture and food production, even if at times less collaborative than competitive, that is to command most interest. It should never be out of place to report on the finest pumpkin and sunflower seeds, adzuki and garbanzo beans, walnuts, buckwheat (examples per my acquaintance with Chinese excellence), quinoa and sesame seeds (ditto for South America).
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (Jan 31, '06)

With the wide speculation on the Internet that the Iranian showdown is connected to the Iranian oil bourse scheduled to come online in March, it is striking that [F William] Engdahl, in his otherwise extensive survey of the Iranian showdown (A high-risk game of nuclear chicken, Jan 31), never mentions it. This is unfortunate, because those who point to the bourse as the underlying motivation of the Americans must demonstrate how an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will also scuttle the bourse, given the unlikeliness of regime change. It would appear possible that Conplan 8022-02 was designed with this in mind; that "electronic warfare and cyber-attacks [designed] to cripple an opponent's response - cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks" would also destroy the information infrastructure needed to launch the bourse, and would at the very least delay its implementation. Given the stakes, the more important question is: How will the citizens of the world react in the face of an impending nuclear attack on Iran? Will we, once again, be passive spectators to this horrifying drama, or will we decide it's time to "stop the insanity"?
Thomas Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia (Jan 31, '06)

For some background on the Iranian oil bourse, see What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about (Jan 21). - ATol

Pallavi Aiyar [It's a dog's life, Jan 31] probably does not understand China's culture and history well. Chinese prefer equal humans to be their best friends. Many Chinese businessmen worship Guan Gong, an ancient warrior with bravery, pride and dignity. He was also very loyal to his best friends regardless [of whether] they were poor or rich, up or down. Dogs' behaviors were usually related to those humans who did not have much pride and dignity. Although dogs are friendly to their masters, they are mean to the poor and weak person. If that poor person stands up to that barking dog, that dog will run away with its tail between its legs. That is not the kind of behavior Chinese people can respect. The Chinese individuals love their dogs just as their golden fish, cats, horses or ducks. However, I cannot imagine common Chinese will respect a person who only has dogs as best friends. I hope ATol can allow discussion about dogs to promote an understanding about the myths of those dog-eating demons in East Asia. There is nothing wrong with eating dogs. Of course, East Asians also should respect other people's culture and law not to eat dogs, pigs, cows, etc inside those countries that ban eating them.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jan 31, '06)

Here we go again. One of our frequent China critics, Gunther Travan, wrote [letter, Jan 30], "Uighur is not used as a language of instruction in any university in China." Haven't we talked about this already? A couple of months ago, in a thread on The Edge forum that was posted to dispute Travan's preposterous claim that Uighur is not taught in any university in Xinjiang, I listed three universities and colleges in Xinjiang that offer quite extensive Uighur programs and Uighur curriculums. I haven't heard from Travan ever since. This is the same guy who claimed that there are no more Uighurs in Beijing [letter, Oct 13]. People should really take his opinionated observations with a grain of salt.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jan 31, '06)

[Francesco] Sisci's commentary [Why the West must reOrient, Jan 28] proposes an understated albeit requisite modus operandi for a "livable" world of dissimilar ideologies in the 21st century, while pointing to the pain of accepting things we do not like. The pain wrought by not accepting [them], one would imagine given the world of nukes in suitcases, would be more painful. Still, it's a start in overcoming what Lord Cromer (aka Evelyn Baring), a proconsul of the UK during its heyday in both India and Egypt, stated with a smirk, "We control those who control," in reference to the local governors of those areas. Evelyn Baring was made a lord for his service to the empire on which the sun never [set]. Let's hope that the process of reorienting the West ends with everyone in control of themselves.
Armand De Laurell (Jan 30, '06)

Francesco Sisci harbors illusions [Why the West must reOrient, Jan 28]. A good many years ago the respected China scholar Jonathan Spence wrote To Change China; in it, he had vignettes of Westerners, mainly American, who came to transform the heathen. Spence dealt with the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci, whom the Ming court welcomed; in fact, Spence devoted an entire book to Ricci. The hook of Spence's research shows that China changed the "foreign devil" as well. In the last generation the West has become enamored with yin and yang, the dialectical process which energizes change. Today the West is fueling change in China with huge infusion of capital and setting up factories there. It is trying to rope Beijing into the world capitalist system. Western capitalism fears not a whit that billions of dollars are propping up government enterprises, something they rarely would do at home, short of a global financial crisis like the years of the Great Depression. Mr Sisci's thoughts remain superficial. China's rapid growth blinds eyes to the reality: the glaring uneven development and the growing social crisis and the intractable totalitarian proclivities of the communist leadership. On the other hand, Western capitalists know the game: money is flowing into India as a countervailing move to check China. After all, this new age of finance capital flows the flow of quick returns and high profits to the detriment of its own citizens and to the trembling ground of its own candy-caned Christmas trees. And the Chinese wax joyous as they welcome in the Year of the Dog, each dreaming of sugar plums of gain.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 30, '06)

Martin Schell's excellent, nuanced review of Braj B Kachru's book Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon [Whose English is it? Jan 28] expresses a healthy skepticism about the author's puzzlingly high claims of the numbers of English speakers in China, Japan, India and Singapore (far more than half a billion). Indeed, in my own extensive travels in Asia as an American, I have been surprised recently not by the numbers of English speakers, but by the remarkable resiliency and growth of the indigenous languages in the region. While the picture is complex, and varieties of English do function as trade languages in much of the area, if anything East and South Asian countries seem to be moving more away from English rather than toward it as a standard. I found this especially the case for India, which is not an "anglophone nation" by any respectable standard. English has a role there (as it does in China), but native Indian tongues such as Hindi and Tamil are showing the fastest growth (both serving as link languages to some degree), often at the expense of English. A number of TV channels (such as MTV), radio stations, and newspapers have recently been founded initially in India as English-language media, only to fail and later succeed only when broadcasting in Hindi or other indigenous tongues. Indeed, India in particular seems to have an especially vibrant indigenous culture that produces films, music and television in the local languages (especially Hindi), with resistance to dominance by [imported American] popular culture. The book publisher Penguin in India has been transitioning to Hindi from English, while the Fox network opted for Hindi and some South Asian tongues for its broadcasting instead of English. English films are generally dubbed in Indian tongues, and recently computer networks and screens have been getting Hindi and Tamil interfaces instead of English. Even the outsourcing business in India is no longer English-exclusive; French- and German-language outsourcing [is] taking higher priority. So English will probably maintain some role in India, but as a common standard first language, the future is with the country's indigenous tongues, not English. Elsewhere, in South Korea for example, Chinese is displacing English as students' favorite foreign language, a phenomenon also evident in Thailand and other neighboring countries. As for Singapore, you may be surprised to visit the shopping meccas these days and listen to the conversations of the young people - increasingly in Chinese, no doubt in part a function of China's growing clout. Even in the USA, Spanish is fast becoming an American language itself, alongside English. So English will stay important, but it will no longer be a single global standard. It's now sharing that pedestal with others.
Tom Price
USA (Jan 30, '06)

I found [Spying and lying in 21st-century America, Jan 27] interesting, but I do have some observations of the current situation that are tangential to the article. The basic premise of [US President George W] Bush acting as commander in chief in a time of war has never been challenged on the most obvious grounds - only Congress has the power to declare war, and it has not done so. Further, while I cannot remember the provenance, an evidently sensible jurist stated, "While the courts are in session, it is a time of peace in the land." Consider that throughout the late 1960s until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US could have been obliterated over a period of hours to days, depending on the strike/response scenario. [The Soviets] maintained large numbers of well-trained and effective spies, assassins and saboteurs for many years prior to the late 1960s ... They had a large, secure base in the former East Bloc countries. In short, they had the capability to inflict damage al-Qaeda could only dream of. The US government did not respond to this threat by de facto repealing the US constitution ... "The US is still far from the extreme of tyranny." I'm not so sure ... We have the NSA [National Security Agency] surveillance controversy. We have "renditions" and Gitmo. We have a wide and rapidly growing gulf between the relatively few rich and the large number of working poor - a condition abetted in no small measure by the current administration's policies concerning taxes and business. The tyranny is still soft, still stealthy, but this administration exhibits a will to power that is dangerous - politically, economically, and physically ...
GR
USA (Jan 30, '06)

David Gosset's paean to the magnificence of Chinese rule in East Turkestan (the Chinese word Xinjiang, or "new frontier", is indicative of Beijing's imperialist attitude) seems to have been dictated by the Communist Party's Propaganda Bureau [Xinjiang and the revival of the Silk Road, Jan 26]. This rosy scenario is belied by the intense hatred and fury that the typical Uighur feels towards Beijing. This enmity stems from the communists' deeply unenlightened philosophy of government, stated best by Mao Zedong himself: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Mr Gosset is particularly offensive when he boasts of the teaching of Uighur to foreigners. A few Westerners learning a smattering of Uighur is nothing. Uighur is not used as a language of instruction in any university in China: it is an exotic specialty for linguists, tourists and hobbyists only. The Qing and Nationalist governments went to great lengths to respect and appease the border peoples of China. Even when military force was used, there was never a concerted effort to erase the culture of minority peoples. Beijing today has turned Uighurs into outcasts in their own land.
G Travan
California, USA (Jan 30, '06)

As a longtime admirer of Spengler's work, I am sympathetic to his pessimism regarding the international community's confrontation with Iran [Why the West will attack Iran, Jan 24]. How dare an oil-producing nation plan to consume its own resources rather than trading them for rapidly depreciating US scrip! Even worse to team up with neighbors, by alliance, influence or conquest (more likely buffer states, puppet regimes) to use their own energy supplies. Surely they must be ... destroyed? Or something? Perhaps a new SUV-seeking missile would reduce their energy demand. Having correctly analyzed the demographics and geography of the situation, Spengler fails to follow through. The conclusion is obvious: the oil that the West is greedily investing so much capital, blood and steel to control simply won't be there in 20 years. No military or political strategy can change this. The folly of trying to prevent Iran and other producing nations from using the resources that nature or their deities have endowed them with is self-evident; as foolish as trying to hold back the tide. We have been fortunate to enjoy the economic benefits of oil while their populations and economies didn't need it. What we are building are not castles in the air, but empty pipelines on the graves of goodwill between great peoples. How sad. The sooner the West runs out of imported oil, the better off we will all be.
J Opy
San Francisco, California (Jan 30, '06)

Ehsan Ahrari: Thank you for your informative article [US shows India its iron fist, Jan 27]. I have a couple of questions. Is the US the only source of nuclear technology to which India can turn? Condoleezza Rice did not pull her punches with the Indian government recently on the subject of the proposed pipeline between Iran and India. India, in response, more or less told the US to back off. Are the issues of nuclear technology and the gas pipeline related in some way? Personally, I have not been able to figure out how the US can offer nuclear technology to a country that has nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas Iran has no such weapons and is a signatory to the treaty and, therefore, has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Michael A Hill (Jan 27, '06)

The US is not the only source of nuclear technology for India. Russia is another source. The issues of nuclear technology and gas pipelines are not related. What US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to do is put constant pressure on India to create a distance vis-a-vis Iran. It may be less of a litmus test of the fledgling US-India strategic ties and more of an endeavor to isolate Iran. I am not sure how carefully the US has studied the intricacies of India-Iran ties and India's own aspirations in Central Asia. The US decision to offer nuclear technology to India is a clear violation of America's commitment to global non-proliferation. However, the Bush administration is just as capable of violating its own rules as the preceding administrations. - Ehsan Ahrari

US shows India its iron fist states that if India does not vote against Iran, the nuclear deal [between the US and India] will die. Unfortunately this threat is a double [edged] sword. The US is very serious in grooming India as a counterweight to China, which the US sees as a major military and economic rival, and cannot afford its alignment with India to suffer, and if India were to side Iran it too will suffer the consequences. First, at this time Iran is looking out for itself and not its past friends and allies. A nuclear-armed Iran will only add to the problems of India's national security. India has signed a broad and comprehensive strategic deal with the US and its allies that far surpasses the nuclear deal, a deal that India cannot afford to lose. At the same time India's rapidly growing economy needs the infusion of massive amounts of energy. India has two choices: either side with a renegade state like Iran for the gas pipeline, a precarious move since the world body now wants to put sanctions on Iran, and that will include the destruction of this gas pipeline to the detriment of Pakistan, India and China (no matter how much they may protest); or side with the US coalition and reap rewards that go far beyond the civilian nuclear deal between the US and India. It is time that India, now a mature nuclear nation, identify her potential regional rivals, assesses the validity of spending billions on a pipeline that stands to be destroyed if international sanctions are imposed and balance the gains India will achieve by aligning itself with the US coalition, whose strategic consequences Iran can barely match.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 27, '06)

Re US shows India its iron fist [Jan 27]: The Bush administration in diplomacy has the tact of a wounded bull elephant. America's ambassador to India, David Mulford, has worked himself into a snit over New Delhi's reluctance to cast a vote against Iran at the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. His counterpart in Seoul, Alexander Vershbow, exhibits the same sturm und drang in dealing with Pyongyang. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, mad as a wet hen, has issued harsh words for Hamas, [which has] just won a roaring victory in Palestine's first free election in 10 years: an election Washington pushed for in the floating world of self-delusion that Fatah would win. Which all goes to show, [US President George W] Bush and Co are in a world of their own ... Mr Bush's diplomacy has a distinct odor of turning everything the current administration touches into a self-filling desire for failure.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 27, '06)

Regarding Xinjiang and the revival of the Silk Road (Jan 26), I am delighted to say that China has been a good student taking lessons from Westerners in colonization. The job is done by force, definitely not so [brutal] as practiced in India, Australia, Africa and America, then migration, construction and development. In the old times, the Middle Kingdom used to fight back, subdued, and withdrew after making treaties. It then closed doors to itself. Now the vast real estate of Tibet and Xinjiang keeps arousing intense envy and mouth-watering of some foreign countries and people. Too bad, the die is cast.
S P Li
USA (Jan 27, '06)

Re The Iranian neo-cons love to hate [Jan 26] by Jim Lobe: Very interesting piece ... I think your article further highlights the military, political and economic disaster the US is facing in Iraq. Not only is the occupation going nowhere, it is costing billions and billions of dollars, a lot of which is borrowed. The US imports over 50% of its energy needs and requires an infusion of [US]$2 billion a day of foreign capital to subsidize our trade imbalance and government deficits. Not a pretty picture.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Jan 26, '06)

David Gosset is too close to his subject [Xinjiang and the revival of the Silk Road, Jan 26]. Beijing's expansionist policy to tame Xinjiang [autonomous region] through massive internal migration of Han Chinese and the use of brute force to quell national and religious aspirations of the [Turkic] population is hardly a recipe for stability.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 26, '06)

Pakistan on the spot over Iran nuclear secrets [Jan 25] states that, first, the US is tired of hearing excuses from Pakistan and, second, Pakistan can still play the "Dr Khan" hand. At this level [Abdul Qadeer] Khan, even though he is the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, has scandalized Pakistan and, now under house arrest, is disposable. It would be a cunning tactic if Dr Khan was to "suddenly" die and the Pakistani propaganda feeds to its people that it was an act by the US. In one stroke it [would] eliminate US pressure to hand over Dr Khan and all the dirty secrets he may have and use the US as a scapegoat for his death. Once cleansed of this "black mark", Pakistan then can proceed to deny any nuclear proliferation and demand that the US keep off its territory and have a similar deal as India regarding the use of nuclear technology for "peaceful" means.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 26, '06)

[Kaveh L] Afrasiabi may be correct that there is little strategic reason for Iran to attack Israel [The Iran-Israel misconception, Jan 25]. The perception that Iran would, in fact, make good on the words of its president may be a mistake on the part of Israel and the US. But any misconception of exactly what type of response such threats will cause to be visited upon Iran by Israel and the US exists solely with the Iranian leadership. Israel, largely due to the millennium of persecution lavished upon its [Jewish] people, has decided that it is sound policy to take leaders at their word, especially if those words threaten the destruction of the country. The US is currently on a war footing and, historically, that means that US leaders speak the truth. They usually do not threaten, or promise, military action unless they firmly intend to use it. While Mr Afrasiabi seems to suggest that Middle Eastern leaders routinely lie, to both international and domestic audiences, they must be very careful not to ascribe similar practices to Western leadership. While Western politicians have long been noted for speaking out of both sides of their mouths, during hostilities, or pending hostilities, they usually project a higher level of veracity. Regardless of the true intentions of the Iranian leadership, if they continue to make threats and take steps that would seem to indicate that their threats are truthful, then they will most probably reap the whirlwind. A man who always speaks the truth never gets shot by mistake.
Michael Tobias
USA (Jan 26, '06)

I am surprised that I find agreement with Shafiq Khan (letter [Jan 25]). He says, "Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are no more than trump cards for Pakistan ... The only reason the Americans cannot find them and their accomplices [is that] they must be living under a foolproof roof of some powerful hands in a safe haven." This cannot be closer to truth. Every terrorist worth his salt [who] has been found in Pakistan has been in the luxury of Islamabad, Karachi or rural Punjab. Seems to me the drones in NWFP [Northwest Frontier Province] are a bit off course, or are they? Maybe then the fireworks in Balochistan might be the safety valve.
Rocky (Jan 26, '06)

Kaveh L Afrasiabi (The Iran-Israel misconception [Jan 25]) does well to emphasize the role of misperception among would-be belligerents, but does less well in selective appeal to an Iranian historical role regarding Jewish people. Centuries post-Cyrus, thus that much nearer to us, there is record of significant religious-based Iranian persecution of Jewish people. To this day, most celebrants of the traditional Jewish eight-day light-kindling period, Hanuka, retreat from the originally prescribed fully public display of lights to the semi-public, this revision of ritual originally a protective response to Iranian religious zealotry and persecution, albeit pre-Islamic. This too "forms an irrefutable dimension of Iran's outward outlook". The actual specific threat long passed, the enduring restricted public illumination attests less to overly keen Jewish sensitivity than to religious symbolic assimilation of the ongoing stifling of beneficial self-expression in so many avenues. One should not want to foster yet more misperceptions, as in the all too common erroneous declarations of how free of persecution and threat Jewish people have historically been in and around Islamic lands as well, not only Zoroastrian.
D Vernon
Canada (Jan 25, '06)

The problem with Kaveh L Afrasiabi's propaganda piece on The Iran-Israel misconception [Jan 25] is [that] he fails to mention the funding of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization responsible for many of the deaths of innocent Israeli (and Arab) citizens. This shows his bias, because he is an educated man and deliberately left this out of his superficial analysis. Second, when a sworn enemy like Egypt commences to take military actions [and] not communicate with Israel beforehand, you expect Israel to sit around and react. Of course they are going to take a preemptive strike to preserve their nation. You are such a hypocrite: if Israel took military actions whether planning troop movements or a strike you would be defending the right of the Arab country. The dialogue cannot continue with people [who] ignore the facts, it's only a farce.
Max M (Jan 25, '06)

Re The Iran-Israel misconception [Jan 25]: Let experts like Shahram Chubin say that [there] is no historical conflict between Iran and Israel, but surely today with [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's pronunciamentos about the very existence of Israel, Tel Aviv has wool to thread. Unlike the 1980s when the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist State of Israel cooperated sub rosa with the Reagan administration against Saddam Hussein's Iraq during Iran-Contragate, a more militant, muscular Islamic Iran with claims to entrance into the nuclear club thereby [threatened] Israeli dominance in the Middle East. [That opened] the floodgates of potential military activity on Tel Aviv's part to bring Tehran to heel ... As yet neither in Washington nor Tel Aviv is there consensus as to how to handle Iran. [US President George W] Bush is bogged down in a disaster of his own making in Iraq; he is on the defensive for violating the American constitution that he swore to uphold; and [he] sees the Republic Party mired in serious scandal which rivals the Teapot Dome of the 1920s. Israel's ruling class is equally divided as to how to find an exit from the Palestine question and restore a workable social peace within.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 25, '06)

Re Pakistan on the spot over Iran nuclear secrets [Jan 25] by Syed Saleem Shahzad ... As you point out, the US is frustrated and between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The war in Iraq is a military, political and economic disaster. The US is spending billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using expensive missiles to attack people on the Afghan-Pakistani border, no doubt mostly killing innocent civilians and creating more hatred for the US. Besides being counterproductive, these military adventures are further destabilizing [General Pervez] Musharraf's presidency. I think we can count on continued instability in the Middle East and beyond.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Jan 25, '06)

This refers Syed Saleem Shahzad's article Pakistan on the spot over Iran nuclear secrets [Jan 25] ... Every person on this planet knows that retired General Hamid Gul, who is ex-director general of ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) of the Pakistani forces, is a diehard Pakistani mullah without a beard under camouflage. Gul is the main character of Taliban fundamentalists in Afghanistan, madrassas in Pakistan and the so-called war of independence in Kashmir. He retired from the Pakistani army two decades ago but [is] still believed to be the de facto and de jure chieftain and supreme commander of the Jamat-e-Islami and other fundamentalist parties in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azad Kashmir ... Two things are always evident from Syed Saleem Shahzad's articles: discounting and downgrading of the Pakistani government along with Americans and disguised support of fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In my view, Gul is more dangerous for Americans and the peaceful world than the Pakistani nuclear mighty man [Abdul Qadeer] Khan, the pioneer of the Pakistani nuclear bomb. Dr Khan was a scientist and whatever he did, he has already been castrated [against performing] a function in future. [Meanwhile] Gul is not only very much alive but active in politics unofficially and privately. He regularly attends political gatherings, seminars and conferences arranged by mullahs, issues statements to media and comments zealously on Pakistani and international politics. No wonder he might have masquerade support by the Pakistani government in doing so ... Everyone knows that in poker, trump cards are always saved to outrank at the end to win the game. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are no more than trump cards for Pakistan ... The only reason the Americans cannot find them and their accomplices [is that] they must be living under a foolproof roof of some powerful hands in a safe haven ...
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Jan 25, '06)

This is in reference to Why the West will attack Iran (Jan 24). We are forgetting the fact that the fertility in the West is falling whereas in the Islamic world there is a tendency to grow and especially since the 1979 Iranian Revolution the tendency is more pronounced: lowering the age of marriage and prohibiting contraception and encouraging a population boom by the mullahs because of the high mortality of young men during the Iran-Iraq War. There is a surplus of young men now in Iran who are willing to take up arms against the USA, whom they call Shitan-e Azam. Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are well aware of that and it has boosted their fighting morale tenfold. Since coming to power Mr Ahmadinejad has been very bold in his statements regarding the illegality of Israel's creation and [illegitimacy] of its existence on Arab soil, which he blames [on] European Christians' guilt, shame and lament for procreation of a tumor in the bellies of Arabs in the Middle East, as well denying that the Holocaust ever existed. With regard to extinction of Israel, he is not the only one who has said it; he is only reaffirming Iran's position since the mullahs took over Iran. Ahmadinejad is also not the first Iranian who is so determined that his country must have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes: it was the Shah of Iran who started Iran's nuclear program and the mullahs are continuing with his ambitions to make Iran a power to be recognized in the region. The irony and the hypocrisy of the West [are] mendaciously self-manifesting: it was okay for their friend the Shah to have nuclear technology for all purposes during the Cold War to combat the Soviet Union's expansionism but the mullahs cannot be trusted with their fingers on the red button. It is perfidious assumption when it is a known to all that it was the United States that dropped not one but two atomic bombs on Japan. The shameless double standard of the USA and the Europeans in allowing Israel to have a nuclear arsenal and technology without constraints so [as] to control the jugular vein of the Arabs and their oil wells is the most ugly partially bent foreign policy ever adopted ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jan 25, '06)

With regard to Spengler's article Why the West will attack Iran [Jan 24], it appears as though the writer has, like many in the West (more specifically Americans) chosen to bury his head in the sand when it comes to an open discussion of US involvement in the Middle East. His claim that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-weapons program for imperial purposes shows just how selective the West is when it comes to owning up to its shameful history in the region. An open discussion on events such as the Balfour Declaration, the 1953 overthrow of Iran's government by the US and UK, open support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, or France's invasion and slaughter of Algerians would shoot holes in an already soggy assertion and, if you really want to discuss imperialism, hypocrisy and bigotry, how about an open and honest discussion on the origins and goals of those who participated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-85? Or perhaps a more pertinent example [is] America's own history and what happened to its indigenous population. I would suggest that Spengler do a little more research when posting such opinions or at least find it within himself to own up to the many atrocities committed by the West in its desires to "spread freedom and democracy" in the Middle East.
Timothy Stinson (Jan 24, '06)

If there is an ingredient that has never been missed out in Spengler's articles, it's his Islamophobia. Of course, he has the right to express his hatred and fears of Muslims. However, in his [Jan 24] piece Why the West will attack Iran, he has really gone too far. He is clearly calling for the nuclear destruction of a country for hallucinatory reasons. Iran has never invaded any of its neighbors and never tried to do so. It doesn't have nuclear weapons according to IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency], which has been given access, with no restriction whatsoever, to all its nuclear facilities, and there is no proof that it is looking forward to acquire them. It is a signatory of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], unlike Israel, which refuses to sign it, which does have nuclear weapons, which aggressed its neighbors not just once, which has imperialist ambitions and which threatened, through the mouth of its defense minister, to use those weapons against Iran and its people, without any single protest in the West. [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinedjad is a religious fanatic, for sure. And so is George W Bush, the guardian of the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, that of the USA, the only state that used atomic bombs against another country - Japan - and is preparing to use them again against another country - Iran - with the full support of Spengler. How sad!
Daniel Mazir (Jan 24, '06)

Regarding the article Why the West will attack Iran [Jan 24], the method of attack seems to favor non-conventional weapons or nuclear-tipped missiles. Depending on the nuclear payload I fear that not only Iran but all the areas and nations east of Iran may get the after-effects of nuclear fallout. Since the prevailing winds in the Middle East travel west to east, all of Iranian territory east of the attacks as well as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the northern parts of India may be affected. If this happens the political fallout could also be devastating.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 24, '06)

On the "nuclear threat from Iran", nobody mentions that Iran has not attacked anyone since the mid-1700s, when Nadir Shah invaded India and took away the Peacock Throne. Can the same be said for Israel, which has attacked and occupied all of its neighbors for 60 years and driven millions of people into exile? The same Israel, a nuclear power, that saw fit to threaten "every European capital within reach of our nuclear weapons", a grotesque threat not uttered by the Soviets at the height of the Cold War? The same Israel that has been in glaring defiance of every UN resolution for the same 60 years, and whose ministerial agendas include "whom shall we assassinate today" items? Can the same be said for the USA, which has overthrown every elected government in Latin America at least once, and is currently in military occupation directly or by proxy of dozens of other countries? The same USA that accuses others (Iran, Syria) of "meddling" in Iraqi affairs, while the US has an occupying army of over 150,000 in Iraq? I wonder if the words "journalistic integrity", "perspective" and even "sanity" mean much when such blatant enormities go by as normal.
Rasena (Jan 24, '06)

Henry Liu, in an article about the United States of America [Cold War links Korea, Taiwan, Jan 7, '04], said: "In the process, not only did the US create untold misery and destruction around the world for half a century, but the malignant policy also transformed the US itself into an oppressive regime in betrayal of its own founding ideals." That statement proves Liu is a world-class idiot!
Neil C Reinhardt (Jan 24, '06)

The quote in question was referring to the early Cold War policies of the early 1950s in the US, policies that helped give rise to such things as McCarthyism, the Korean War, the suppression of social reform in Latin America, and global nuclear proliferation. - ATol

Ayush [letter, Jan 23] used another typical Indian debate strategy. That is when you are out of arguments, start to [attack] the person, not the message. If Ayush implies that Indians are better off than Chinese overseas, then maybe he can explain why overseas Chinese [have] contributed a lot more to China than Indians do to India. I guess the talkative Indians do not care much about their poor siblings who cannot speak much English. If English is the only parameter to make Indians strive to get ahead of others, then India can never be ahead of the real English-speaking countries. However, Ayush is right about one thing. None of the Mongol invaders [could] destroy China's culture, pride and dignity. They destroyed India's.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jan 24, '06)

I agree with Ayush [of] Orlando, Florida (letter, Jan 23) in a lot of ways. I am a Chinese working in the US. I've done outsourcing to both China and India. I do it in China because I have many natural ties there, and I do [it] in India because there I can get good bargain. A classic example I experienced was [when] I asked two Chinese companies and five Indian companies to bid a website construction project. The quotes I got from China were twice as expensive as the Indians'. Regarding the Chinese and Indians' performance in corporate America, the problem with the Chinese was not the inability to communicate in English; rather it is a cultural thing. This is rather bad news to the Chinese people who want to move up the corporate ladder. The Indians are very sweet and have good observation of what the company wants. The Chinese are less flexible and have strong will [about] what they want. This is certainly also good news for many Chinese who want their own world. But history will tell, or didn't it already?
Jim
California, USA (Jan 24, '06)

I just [read] Pepe Escobar's article It's all about the voice [Jan 21] and found it very sad. The writer clearly [trusts] a person who is willing to kill thousands. Clearly the writer has no understanding of the Middle East or of the use of terror. Maybe the writer should spend a little time getting educated before being allowed to write in a public forum.
William Moore (Jan 23, '06)

Pepe Escobar has traveled widely in the Middle East, Afghanistan and other fronts in the "war on terror" and retains numerous contacts throughout Asia. - ATol

I just finished reading The Roving Eye by Pepe Escobar. He ignores facts, and must be intellectually dishonest. It's not the Americans blowing up pipelines in Iraq, or gas tankers, setting bombs off in marketplaces, abducting journalists, or using suicide bombers in the marketplaces and funerals. The Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan for years and their only achievement was destroying statues of Buddha the world cherished. We are rebuilding those countries in spite of al-Qaeda, against their best efforts to maim, kill and destroy. The US may not be perfect, but until Pepe is able to face real world facts, how can anyone carry on a dialogue of real value?
Roger Russell (Jan 23, '06)

If nothing else, the recent Osama bin Laden appeal for a truce reveals that he is quite privy to daily events in the US and has paid very close attention to the opinion polls, which he alludes to as a sign that the American people are not fully supporting his enemy in this endeavor. He has accurately discerned that an overwhelming majority of Americans would like an eventual withdrawal of the troops from Iraq, and argues that most recent polls are a reflection that many people in the US feel George Bush should surrender to their wishes; a move which Osama fully endorses. It is indeed a curious thing to see Osama, the raving jihadist, advocating for the democratic ideal of heeding to the calls of the majority. Perhaps the war against terrorism is changing some unlikely minds after all.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts(Jan 23, '06)

Re Thailand's disjointed protests [Jan 20]: Disjointed they may be, but the protests have had an impact on their target. He first went into total silence claiming that the planets were aligned against him. Soon afterwards he broke his silence by calling a meeting of taxi drivers. In the meeting he belittled the protesters as just so many barking dogs with a bone to pick. The meeting was attended by more than a thousand people who were hoping to win door prizes that included new cars and homes. The winners prostrated themselves before their benefactor, who was quick to remind them that they now owed him their votes. He then convened a five-day cabinet meeting in a poverty-stricken village where he taught his government officials how to eradicate poverty by handing out money, land, homes, and cattle to individuals in need. He ordered this meeting to be broadcast around the clock in the style of a reality television program with himself as the star of the show. His students duly took notes on these lessons and the recipients of his largess duly provided adulation. If all of this seems somewhat surreal to you, it may be because you don't live in Thailand. It's politics as usual here in the Land of Smiles.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jan 23, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I think that you gave a rather moderate tone for your article over the missile strike in your country by my country's intelligence agencies [Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire, Jan 18]. I salute your objectiveness, given the area of the world where you live. We are getting used to hearing radical language from the Al-Jazeeras from your part of the world. However, I would not classify that strike as a misfire. The people that inhabit that part of your country are aiding and abetting these terrorist and Taliban leftovers, and as a result of their decisions to do so, they put themselves at risk of being "collateral damage". I know that these were real people with real lives, but until they realize that looking the other way when these people inhabit their towns may get them killed, then it's not a misfire. We killed four terror figures. It sounds like we hit our target.
Aaron Borowitz
Pennsylvania, USA (Jan 23, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I just read your article [Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire, Jan 18] and really enjoyed it. Do you think it is very probable that a Pakistani intelligence official sympathetic to al-Qaeda passed on the information that the US would be hitting that village? Many here in the US do not understand how [Osama] bin Laden, Mullah Omar, [Ayman] al-Zawahiri have been able to elude the US for so long.
Zach (Jan 23, '06)

I mentioned in the story that both parties shared information on the movement of al-Qaeda people. However, it has been a matter of conjecture who was invited to the party in Bajur and who was not. Even the recent claims by the US about the killing of four al-Qaeda members are not confirmed so far. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your articles US turns against Musharraf [Jan 12] and Al-Qaeda's man who knows too much [Jan 5] and found your analysis both interesting and informative. Where do the weapons come [from] that you mention in your statement [in the Jan 12 story], "The Baloch insurgents have traditionally received weapons via Kandahar in Afghanistan, and via sea smuggling routes"? What country or countries supply the weapons? Where are they offloaded? If the source of weapons can be stopped, then perhaps the insurgents can be stopped. Along with this idea is the source of funding to buy these weapons. If the funds can be stopped, then the weapons cannot be purchased. I believe the funds are outside Afghanistan/Pakistan and probably in England or some other country far removed from the area of contention in order not to draw attention.
Louie M Valdivia
Hong Kong (Jan 23, '06)

There are more than 100 deserted points along the Pakistani coastline, especially in Balochistan. These have provided routes for smugglers for all sort of things, including drugs and arms. The tribal structure of Balochistan prevents any action against unscrupulous elements. Until complete urbanization, this trafficking cannot be stopped. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

I would like to comment on [the Jan 13] letter from Frank of Seattle. During my stay in China, I realized that Chinese people are very smart, [are] great analyzers and have respect for others. However, dramatic changes in the second half [of the] 20th century have a big impact on their thinking, classical humility and firmness and process of innovation. I have rather big sympathy that how a great culture was poorly treated and sort of destroyed in such a [short] span of history, which none of the Mongol invaders could do. China appears a great power today (has [this] been tested yet?) but has lost a lot in this bargain. While back in the USA, [I] have seen smart Chinese people struggling with language and accent, which have crippled their progress [up the] corporate ladder and business (except in Chinatowns). [Meanwhile] Indians, quite late [additions to the] US landscape, have climbed much faster thanks to better control of language and communication skills. This has led Chinese scholars to jobs where communications skills are not needed much. This seems to be the real frustration of Frank [when] he always comments on "English-speaking Indians". I have seen the rush in China for English courses and can understand this zeal. The caste system is bad, but [is the] heritage of long India culture. How it became evil is a matter of analysis. It will end eventually. But the world will never be equal. There will always be parameters to make us [strive to get] ahead of others ... Some old traditions will end and some new [ones] will take [their] place. Welcome to the cruel world.
Ayush
Orlando, Florida (Jan 23, '06)

Re I want you to pay [Jan 20]: Whether the rest of the world acknowledges it or not, the threat of terror from the Islamists is real and is growing. Many countries aside from the United States have been victimized. [For] 50 years, the United States carried the brunt of defense against the Soviet threat. No other nation has spent more or spilled more of its own citizens' blood to protect the rest of the world. Now another threat is growing and yet surprisingly the rest of the world does not seem to care. It apparently wants the United States to bear the brunt again. It's only fair that the rest of the world pay the fair share for reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why should the United States carry the entire burden? Isn't the Islamists' threat against everyone?
J Chua
Montville, New Jersey (Jan 20, '06)

In this "war on terror" there seems to be a clear winner. I'm sure that Osama bin Laden and George Bush both consider their fight a war to contain the terrorists. George Bush thinks that every person who is at odds with the US government and/or US special interests is a terrorist. Osama bin Laden feels that every person or corporation or country who exploits Arab land, Arab resources, or Arab people is a terrorist. So the US government fits Osama bin Laden's description of a terrorist and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization and its tributaries in Iraq and Afghanistan fit correspondingly in the mind of George Bush. Osama bin Laden has spent a few hundred million [US] dollars on his war. George Bush has spent a few hundred billion on his war. Osama bin Laden is still clearly in control of a major guerrilla war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. George Bush is in control of the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and a few secure US bases and prisons in both countries and not much else. Osama bin Laden has not been a source of burden on the average Arab citizen except for the high loss of life in this conflict, whereas Mr Bush has loaded at least three generations of US citizens and their offspring with high taxation and reduced social benefits as well as 15,000 dead [or] maimed veterans. Most of the deaths in this war have been the result of US action, not Osama bin Laden's. The rights and liberties of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been curtailed under US occupation and the social infrastructure as well as the industrial base have been destroyed by US action. Also, the rights and liberties of all US citizens have been severely cut by Mr Bush and his administration. Mr bin Laden has had no such far-reaching affect on the average Arab citizen. About 80% of the world's population now considers the US an aggressive, evil nation and about the same percentage hopes that Osama bin Laden will give the US at least a great "black eye" and teach [it] to mind [its] own business and leave the rest of the world alone. Do you detect which is the winner yet?
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 20, '06)

Re Taking care of business [Jan 20]: Kim Jong-il is not averse to modernization. True to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's tradition, he will adapt economic transformation to the reality as Pyongyang sees it. Juche is an adaptation of Marxism-Leninism with a founding in traditional Buddhism. The Dear Leader's unofficial trip to neighboring China will bear fruit in that it will reaffirm the oft-repeated Southern Sung adage "lips to teeth", meaning China will protect the DPRK against high winds and rough seas. It is reasonable to speculate that [during] Kim Jong-il's eight-day stay in China Beijing raised the issue of moving forward with the six-power talks. [Whether the] discussions prove fruitful only the next few weeks will show. Nonetheless, the current campaign to tar the DPRK with feathers of counterfeiting, drug-running [and] money-laundering touches a prickly nerve in Pyongyang. And one wonders whether Washington's latest diplomatic tack has but one objective in mind: to stall the talks and wage a burned-earth offensive against Kim Jong-il and Co, thus embarrassing China and signaling its displeasure with Seoul's unflappable will to pursue its Sunshine Policy. In the current war of words, it may very well prove more profitable for Pyongyang to make an opening to Japan on the matter of kidnapped Japanese, thereby isolating Washington. Settlement of that issue with Tokyo might bring the Koizumi government into the camp of detente with the DPRK; it would find company with Beijing, Moscow and Seoul, thereby leaving Washington as odd man out. And presto, the United States would find itself outmaneuvered and isolated. Thus [US President George W] Bush would have to find a face-saving ploy to bring the six-power talks to come to an agreement on outstanding issues.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 20, '06)

Dmitry Shlapentokh's wonderfully level-headed January 19 article [Kissinger, the inconvenient adviser] squarely puts him in the shoes of the boy who exposed the emperor's nakedness in H C Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes". Please convey my respect to Mr Shlapentokh.
Dr V L Velupillai (Jan 20, '06)

As much as I agree with your assessment [Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire, Jan 18] of the foreknowledge of the Pakistanis in regard to the air strike [by the US on Pakistani territory on January 13], it also appears, according to the news services, that actual terrorists were killed along with a few innocent people. And in the claimed group killed was, it is said, a person who may have assisted in the attempts on the life of [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf. Doesn't that, if true (and it is a big "if"), make it even more likely that the Pakistanis knew about the attack, and may have even welcomed it? One would think that Musharraf would be getting a bit testy about people trying to kill him. The other issue is that the Pakistanis may be pleased enough to discourage the locals from welcoming the al-Qaeda folks in for dinner, even if it causes a few innocents to die. The only other truth, from my own personal experience, is that almost all news reports contain significant errors, even when those reporting are competent and have the best of intentions. In this event all sides have points to make and facts to hide and agendas to maintain, so who can be believed?
Richard Stone (Jan 20, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad, the writer of the article, has indicated (under Ted Weaver's letter, Jan 19) that although militants may have been among the victims of the air strike, it is unlikely they were big names. - ATol

I do hope that Myanmar got its pound of flesh from China (in hidden promises of aid and investment) before signing the deal with PetroChina [India losing the gas war, Jan 19]. China has been manipulating India for a long time now. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that China paid a large sum over market value for the gas. If China wanted to restrict India's energy options, in order to force India to look at Iran favorably and thus strain Indo-US relations, then China would have willingly paid a high price for the Myanmar gas. That way, China slightly strengthens the future security of its gas deal with Iran and the blame for supporting Iran gets placed on India. India will always have many options to circumvent the Chinese strategies, but whether it will have the courage and the perspicacity required for this, only time will tell.
Brij (Jan 19, '06)

Dmitry Shlapentokh simply says in his article Kissinger, the inconvenient adviser [Jan 19] that there is a divide between the old school and the new thinking in a post-September 11 [2001] world. The elders rally around George Herbert Walker Bush, the not-so-young tyros around George Walker Bush. Mr Kissinger is not loath to offer his advice were it taken seriously - which it is not in the Oval Office. Still, it is unreasonable to say he has no access to the corridors of power in Washington. He does. His recommendations to his clients, whom he serves slavishly, are an "open sesame" to the doors of the powerful. The board of his Kissinger Associates is a who's who of the establishment, and has a long reach into the stratosphere of power brokers and key players at home and abroad. Many times has Mr Kissinger publicly stated that he found the Vietnamese worthy opponents and skillful negotiators. And he falls all over the Chinese leadership, who pay him a princely retainer. An admirer of [19th-century Austrian statesman] Prince Metternich, he looks for equilibrium, quid pro quos, and balance, which he finds little of in President Bush's pursuit of foreign policy. Mr Kissinger is not a radical like those in Mr Bush's coterie; he pursues a more traditional, conservative policy of the status quo. Today in his early 80s, Mr Kissinger stands in the wings of events, but were a presidential finger to beckon, he would undoubtedly enter center stage for a star turn in world affairs.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 19, '06)

Sami Moubayed's article on Iran and Mahmud Ahmadinejad [Iran and the art of crisis management, Jan 19] strikes me as both perceptive and well balanced. However, when he writes, "[Neville] Chamberlain appeased [Adolf] Hitler because the bloody memories of World War I still haunted the people of Europe. Britain was very reluctant to go to war against Hitler because of the psychological trauma that resulted from the vast number of deaths in World War I," he is perpetuating a self-serving myth regarding the British (and French) leadership of the time. In order for the British and French to have stood their ground at Munich, they would have had to accept an alliance with the Soviet Union to stop Germany (the alliance for which Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister, had been arguing for years). This they were unwilling to do, for their strategy was rather to defend Western Europe by turning Hitler towards the east and the Soviet Union, which they regarded as a greater danger than Nazi Germany. Indeed, pursuing this strategy, Chamberlain (and [Edouard] Daladier) failed to meet their clear-cut treaty obligations to defend Czechoslovakia not once but twice, at Munich in September 1938 and when the remainder of Czechoslovakia was invaded in March 1939. Why then did both these men reluctantly go to war [with] Germany in September 1939, when that country invaded Poland, which was most definitely not a democracy, and even less in a position to defend itself than Czechoslovakia had been a year earlier? Because, with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a week earlier, the strategy of getting Hitler to attack the Soviet Union first was shown to be the bankrupt illusion it was. Hitler was, indeed, to attack the Soviet Union less than two years later, but only after first conquering the whole of western continental Europe with the exception of his fascist ally Italy, the fascist countries of the Iberian Peninsula, and a desperately maneuvering Sweden. Bad faith in negotiations rarely pays.
Henri Day (Jan 19, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your article [Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire, Jan 18], and am I correct that you believe that no terrorists were killed in the raid?
Ted Weaver (Jan 19, '06)

As is mentioned in the piece, Pakistani and US intelligence agencies spoke in their dispatches of the presence of any high-profile person among those who had been moving between Kunar and Bajur. It was reported that among these high-profile people were the likes of Mullah Omar or Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri. This was conjecture. However, a movement of militants was rightly quoted in the intelligence report. Therefore, when the missile hit there were foreign militants, including some Pakistanis, there and they were among those who were hit by the missile, but certainly they were not "the most wanted figures". - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Oleg Beliakovich states in his January 18 letter regarding the article Russia's Iran gamble [Jan 18] that "Iran - and its sympathizers - are unpleasantly surprised, maybe even shocked, by Russia's recent lack of accommodation". I assume Mr Beliakovich refers to widely reported, supposed Russian willingness to back a referral of Iran to the United Nations Security Council. However, as usual, most of the press at large has gotten Russia's position and stance wrong. In [their] zeal to report a story quickly, the media [have] generally muffed the story itself, not taking the necessary time to analyze developing events sufficiently. Russia has clearly signaled, and it is finally being accurately reported [now], that it does not favor an escalation of the Iran crisis such as referring Iran to the Security Council would represent. Russia made that clear early this week when it counseled the West to go slow and avoid thoughtless escalations that would come back to bite. China has also made it clear it does not favor a referral of Iran to the Security Council. As the week has worn on, the media slowly came to realize that the West and the "East" are divided on this issue - contrary to reports early in the week that trumpeted the supposed global unity on the Iran issue. If Iran's file does get placed before the Security Council, neither Russia nor China would allow significant, meaningful sanctions to be placed upon Iran. Besides, such talk of sanctions is very premature at this juncture anyway. Hence I think Mr Beliakovich in his letter proceeds from a false premise - that Russia's alliance with Iran is "weak", that it is only a "marriage of convenience" and that Russia is unwilling to stand by its ally in concrete terms. Russia is, in concrete diplomatic and economic terms, standing by Iran. So is China. But neither Russia nor China are given to emotion, threats and quick tempers, as are the US, Britain, Germany and France, in this crisis and in others ... Both Russia and China support Iran for an array of reasons and interests - economic, energy, and geopolitical. The geopolitical reasons are ones of great importance. The geopolitical issue at hand in the Iran crisis is whether the West in general, and the US in particular, can be allowed unilaterally (that is, without full international backing) to pressure and collapse - whether diplomatically, economically, or even militarily - any regime it deems a threat to its interests. The "East" (Russia and China and a growing array of aligned powers) challenges unipolarity, and Iran is one focus where the challenge is being made ... This is how the unipolar fabric of the world order gets changed - adroit challenges to the status quo are made, dominant powers overreach and geopolitical costs are paid, and power flows incrementally from the dominant pole to other rising poles. The Iran "vortex" where Western and "Eastern" powers collide and interact plays an important role in this process. Iran is, therefore, of major importance to the side that seeks a change from unipolarity to multipolarity.
W Joseph Stroupe (Jan 19, '06)

The article Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire [Jan 18] points correctly to the secret dealings between Pakistani intelligence and the US, but the ire of the people led by politicians may well be a face-saving move by the Pakistani government and an attempt of the opposition parties to use this as a ruse to blacken the leadership of Pakistan. It also reflects Pakistan's iron grip over the media. The average Pakistani would not and cannot know what is really going on between these two governments and [what is] being used for political gains by the opposition parties. One cannot blame the common man for misplaced information. The government of Pakistan is walking that thin rope of being an ally to the US while at the same time trying to cater to the misinformed public. If these secret actions continue, [President General Pervez] Musharraf will find himself losing his control, and there is little he can do without some fallout, either from the Pakistani people or the US government.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 18, '06)

Re Russia's Iran gamble [Jan 18]: Not to be too tough on the author's credentials, I nevertheless would volunteer an idea that Moscow probably gave immeasurably more thought to its actions with regard to Iran than Kaveh Afrasiabi allowed in his own intellectual output. While it's absolutely clear that Iran - and its sympathizers - are unpleasantly surprised, maybe even shocked, by Russia's recent lack of accommodation, it's much less apparent why Tehran would take Russian love and devotion for granted at all. Sure, Moscow would like to see Iran keeping it up with the status quo, but would it ever go into all-out confrontation with the West for it? Of course not. Russo-Iranian entente is a "marriage of convenience" and by definition is weak and opportunistic. In short, Russia's policy seems to be based on four simple and straightforward assumptions. First, Kremlin strategists see Iran's position as untenable and [its] present path as unsustainable, if even in the long term. Thus Russia isn't all that eager to hitch its wagon to another sinking ship. Second, Russia must be really tired by now of seeing India and China - both of which would lose far more than Russia if sanctions are ultimately imposed - literally hiding in geopolitical bushes, counting on Moscow's resolve to spare them from the onset of extremely unpleasant realities. Putting energy-starved Asian giants on the spot just feels like a fun thing to do, particularly as Russia rarely gets their help in matters important to Kremlin lately. The Muslim world's gratitude - always apathetic and curiously combined with support for Chechen militancy - is also insufficiently appealing this time around. Third, of all the countries in the world, Russia would be the biggest direct beneficiary if Iran follows up on its threat to withdraw or reduce supplies of its hydrocarbons to the world market. Moscow would be amply compensated within one to three weeks for all of its lost commercial opportunities inside Iran, depending on the scale of ensuing panic in the global energy trade. Has anyone ever protested against gushing extra revenue? And fourth, Iran itself doesn't shy away from infringing on Russia's commercial interests when afforded an opening. Kaveh Afrasiabi might have missed it, but Iran has already held conversations with Ukraine on potentially supplying it with natural gas, although since then Kiev appears to have endured spanking by Washington for being overly smart. Iran is also building a pipeline to Armenia. All in all, one cannot help but admire Iranian resolve in defending its "inalienable right" to the nuclear fuel cycle, although too much of it can be just as self-defeating as too little.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jan 18, '06)

The interesting article Russia's Iran gamble [Jan 18] by Kaveh Afrasiabi shows how treacherous and cowardly is the Kremlin mafia, absolutely corrupt pro-American lackeys, [untrustworthy], dishonest, not serious partners to deal with. Nothing but Judases, and Judases never get the coveted ends as the result, they turn into doormats and trash. There are only several reliable countries in this devilish world: Iran, China, Belarus, North Korea, Malaysia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and some others - the rest just serve [a] criminal axis of evil, growl and bow down before the genuine bandits, terrorists and warmongers, the USA and Israel.
Sam Dudic (Jan 18, '06)

As Todd Crowell suggests [North Korea, the 'Sopranos' state, Jan 18], the United States is not having its way with North Korea. In consequence, Washington has dusted off old rumors and suspicions which are decades old about the invidious, wily, untrustworthy, duplicitous, evil North Koreans. The Bush administration is frustrated. It has enrolled South Korea, Japan, China and Russia to corner North Korea into a deal on the nuclear option. Its efforts have borne little fruit. It has tried the carrot, but that has not worked because the carrot is made of lead; now it is resorting to the tough approach, which will not work short of threatening war. Which is unacceptable. You would think that after more than a decade of meetings on and off the record with Pyongyang, the United States would have a good read on how to read North Korea in diplomacy. Under [President George W] Bush's stewardship, it apparently has not learned anything. The Bush administration's diplomacy is blinded by its own contemplation of its navel. Perhaps a reading of Matthew 23:24 may be instructive in the present stalemate: straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 18, '06)

Re Thailand, US inch ahead on trade agreement [Jan 14]: Free-trade agreements are normally about reducing or eliminating barriers to trade such as excise duties, subsidies, quotas, and exclusionary technical specifications; but not so with the Bush administration. They see free-trade agreements [FTAs] as tools for the implementation of their peculiar political and economic agenda highlighted by intellectual-property rights and the war on terror. It is part of the American economic agenda that wealth generation in the post-industrial world comes not from making widgets, an activity now mostly ceded to the Third World, but from information, services, and intellectual property. In its global FTA blitz, America is picking on small and weak export-oriented economies who view the American consumer as the Holy Grail of economics and who see their wealth in terms of access to that market. The American trade negotiation follows a carrot-and-stick format. Access to the American consumer is the carrot. The stick is actually a shaft that is used to implement America's war on terror and its version of the new world order. One needs only to study the USA-Chile FTA to see what's in store for Thailand.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jan 18, '06)

The question of good "accounting practices" and "methodology" is raised concerning China's economic growth [China's economists grapple with higher GDP; letter, Jakob Cambria, both Jan 13). It is naive to think that the accounting practice of any nation, particularly in military spending, is the same everywhere, fully accurate and honest. Those doubting heads need to be examined if they think they have uncovered something important.
S P Li
USA

I refer to Spengler's article [When even the pope has to whisper, Jan 10] and the pope's comments. If the pope wants Islam to stick to its so-called construction of the "word of Allah", he has full liberty to interpret the theological aspect as he pleases. But the essence of interpretation of the Koranic word of Allah has been understood and explained and abided by billions of Muslims over 14 centuries, in all its diverse human subjective meanings. How [can] that free-thinking practice within the broader context of Koranic texts be so summarily rejected? The strict position of adhering to the literal meaning of Koranic injunctions is always maintained, emphasized, adhered to and stuck to, more in times of the outsiders' attack on Islam and consequently closing of the ranks against the adversary. The more the West tries to force Islam to "reform", the more [Muslims will draw up defenses]. The more Islamic scholars and Muslims are secure and feeling at peace, physically and intellectually, the more they will be willing to settle the matter of accommodating other strains of thinking in matters Koranic. Islam is like a vast ocean. Waves, currents, undercurrents and all sorts of movements are always present and active. It is not a small river that can be dammed and converted into tributaries to serve some predetermined objective. At times, the sea of Islam is in turmoil and it creates tsunamis. But most times, it is pacific ... The pope is thinking more in terms of confrontation. Islam cannot be addressed in that manner. The essence of all religions, including Semitic religions, is more or less the same. The worldly interests force people in power to hijack or demonize each other ... in pursuance of their own self-interest. It is unfortunate, but a fact of life. The pope should have an open mind to accommodate Islamic fundamentals as indicative and not as sacrosanct - at least as a working arrangement. Unless of course [he believes as] all Muslims in the inviolability of the word of Allah that was conveyed to the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).
Ghulam Muhammed
Mumbai, India (Jan 18, '06)

F William Engdahl's China lays down the gauntlet in energy war (Dec 21, '05) displays Asia Times [Online's] penchant for manipulating reality according to the Western world view. In particular, the very premise of Engdahl's article is an example of political projection, as he accuses China of what the Anglo-American nations are guilty of. The so-called "gauntlet" in Engdahl's energy war is not being laid by China but by the USA, England, Australia, and other criminals in the coalition of the willing. What do you think the entire USA-led war on terrorism is really about? Terrorism? WMD [weapons of mass destruction]? Freedom and democracy? Only the well-trained shills of the capitalist media believe these lies. As should be obvious even to ATol, the Anglo-American war on terror and global coups d'etat (ie, the colored "revolutions" that Engdahl refers to [in] his piece) are Machiavellian lies. The agenda behind these Anglo-led wars and coups is about expanding US global domination, replacing sovereign governments with pro-Western puppet regimes, and seizing control of energy deposits from Iraq to Central Asia in order to control or deny these resources [to] other nations. In short, this agenda is nothing more than a disguised form of Anglo-American economic blackmail and (economic) war that the USA and its allies are waging against the world. All the rhetoric about fighting terrorism or promoting liberal democracy is a criminal deception, dutifully peddled by the corporate free press. What seems to implicitly upset Engdahl is the fact that China is making counter-moves in response to this Anglo energy war to insure its energy independence [against] American disruption, as he himself admits when he writes, "China will for the first time have secured a source of imported energy not vulnerable to US aircraft-carrier battle groups, as is the case with present oil deliveries from the Persian Gulf and Sudan." Apparently, it is considered a political transgression to act outside of Anglo-American-dictated energy grids and transport systems. This is why the USA is whining about the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India energy corridor, why it is so desperate to push the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline over more economically sensible routes through Russia, and why people like Engdahl somewhat hysterically cry about China's energy deals. As always, Anglo-Americans and their media have only to look in the mirror to find the cause of the energy wars and conflicts they spawn.
DP
USA (Jan 18, '06)

In response to Saqib Khan (letter, Jan 12), I want to point out a few historical facts. (A) During almost 800 years of Muslim era in India beginning from AD 1000, all Muslim rulers except Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan (the Taj Mahal was built during his reign) imposed jizyah tax on the non-Muslim population ... It is an example of forced conversion. (B) During the rule of Ala-ud-Din Khilji ... (1296-1316), India faced numerous Mongol attacks. He successfully defeated them. In the last war with [the Mongols] (1306), in order to demoralize them, as a part of agreement, a large number of Mongol prisoners (not all - a fixed number) had to convert to Islam. (C) The following statement in one of your commentators' [Skanda, Jan 17] letter is not true: "[When] Genghis Khan conquered present-day Bulgaria, it is said that he forcibly converted millions of Bulgarians in Sofia to Islam." The fact is that Genghis Khan was not Muslim. He was an animist, worshipping the Eternal Blue Sky. He embraced religious freedom as a principle, for Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and others. His grandson Kublai Khan followed a Tibetan type of Buddhism.
Shekhar
Chicago, Illinois (Jan 18, '06)

This is in response to the letters by D Veri and Skanda (Jan 17). To say that conversion to Islam has mostly been by force is an attempt to rewrite history. May I ask the two writers why despite 500 years of Muslim rule in India the majority of the Indian population is still Hindu? Why despite centuries of Ottoman rule in Central and Eastern Europe the majority of the population there is still Christian? The majority of conversions to Islam were done by Sufis (mystical branch of Islam). There are significant numbers of instances where conversion was done by force. But this was motivated more by a desire to gain political legitimacy than to spread Islam. We need to distinguish between the message of Islam and how it has been exploited by political leaders (even to this day). Can we say that the Babri Mosque incident represents Hinduism or official Indian government policy towards Muslims? Surely no. Can we say that IRA [Irish Republican Army] terrorism in Northern Ireland represented Christianity? Again no. Similarly, we should be careful in equating Islam to whatever was (or is being) done in the name of Islam. I am surprised that one of the writers considers Genghis Khan as an Islamic leader. In fact he was responsible for destroying most of the Islamic world (from Alamut in Iran to Baghdad to the eastern edge of Africa, where he was stopped by Saladin). Poor knowledge of Islamic history is partly responsible for ill-informed comments we read about Islam almost every day these days.
Amir Ali
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Jan 18, '06)

Neither letter said "conversion to Islam has mostly been by force". Both were in response to Saqib Khan's remark (letter, Jan 12), "At no time in Islamic civilization was compulsion employed to convert the subjugated peoples." But before this debate deteriorates into yet another "my religion is better than yours" slanging match, writers are invited to take it to The Edge forum. - ATol

Syed Saleem Shahzad: It now makes sense why the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] would blow up a family and kill [18] people who had nothing to do with [Ayman al-]Zawahiri. If we can turn the population against [President General Pervez] Musharraf, then the last paragraph of your article [US turns against Musharraf, Jan 12] wraps up the puzzle. This geopolitical war for control of the global resources (oil, natural gas) is getting more deadly by the day. Man's inhumanity toward man is exceeded only by its inhumanity toward animals, the environment and the planet ...
Gerald Wadsworth (Jan 17, '06)

And therefore there is no wonder that the strongest coalition partner in the government, the most pro-American and pro-Indian party, the Muttahida Quami Movement, joined a protest rally against the killings in Bajur on Sunday and categorically said that if in a matter of minutes they can gather thousands of people on the street, in the same way they can topple the government as well. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

A new analysis by Syed Saleem Shahzad on the Bajur incident is now online; see Pakistan's misplaced ire over US misfire. - ATol

Spengler responds
Bruce J Malina (letter, Jan 11) chides me for "the ploy of ranking the Hebrew Bible and the Christian scriptures of the Koran", adding that "the Israelite and Islamic traditions are nearly identical in theory of revelation". Pope Benedict XVI, as I reported in When even the pope has to whisper (Jan 11), believes the opposite, namely that the Judeo-Christian concept of revelation as a mutual act of love between God and man is radically different from the Islamic concept of revelation. Professor Malina is an authority on the subject of revelation, and I am not; it seems fair to observe in my defense that his quarrel is with Benedict XVI, whose academic specialty is revelation, as well as myself. Regarding the Jewish view of revelation, interested readers might consult a recent publication, A J Heschel's Heavenly Torah (Continuum: London 2005), summarizing the classic rabbinical literature on the subject. Unlike the Koran, which is a final revelation from the mouth of the Archangel Gabriel, the definitive Talmudic statement is that "without Sages [rabbinical interpreters] there is no Torah". Heschel (p 663) writes that "the giving of the written Torah is the beginning, not the end, of Torah", and quotes a Talmudic saying, "When the Holy and Blessed One of Israel gave the Torah to Israel, it was given as wheat or flax are given to have flour or garments produced from them." One cannot imagine any mainstream Muslim source making a similar statement about the Koran. Heschel, however, does document considerable variety, even contradiction, among the classic Jewish sources, such that it is possible to find some Jewish source to justify almost any position. Nonetheless, Heschel's treatment shows that the Jewish mainstream is much closer Christian than to the Muslim view. On this subject I would refer readers to Franz Rosenzweig's The Star of Redemption, which, although surely not authoritative, provides a very convincing account of the difference between the Judeo-Christian and Muslim view of revelation.
Spengler (Jan 17, '06)

I wonder if [Saqib Khan, letter, Jan 12] is truly unaware or if he chooses to believe only in things that are soothing to him. Many Muslims have drawn reference to the famous passage in Surah 2:256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion." What does he then say about "And fight with them until there is no fitnah [sedition, perfidy] and religion should be only for Allah" Koran 2:193)? Islamic civilization never forced anyone to convert? The pre-Islamic Arabs, Arabian Jews, Iberians, Slavs, Armenians, Persians and Dravidian Indians and countless others would probably beg to differ. The genocidal pogroms of the Islamic empires over the centuries have put to pale what other civilizations could come up with. Islamic empires made their non-Muslim subjects accept Dhimmitude and pay the jizyah tax with humiliation in accordance to Koran 9:29 (after its revelation in 630, this verse is used as canceling virtually all prior Koranic verses calling for patience or forgiveness towards other People of the Book). In addition, Muslim conquerors in Europe made their Christian subjects wear blue bands while the Jews were to wear yellow ones (reminiscent of the Nazis forcing the Jews to wear yellow Stars of David). Even recently, under the Taliban, Hindus in Afghanistan were made to wear identifying symbols. The Muslims imposed a state of civil inferiority (too many to list here) on the non-Muslims till one by one they either converted or left to escape a life of perpetual discrimination ...
DVeri (Jan 17, '06)

Saqib Khan's letter of January 12 where he states, "At no time in Islamic civilization was compulsion employed to convert the subjugated peoples" is an exercise in delusion and fabrication. Such statements with no authority to back it are a waste of anyone's time. It is a well-accepted fact that Islamic conquerors forcibly converted the subjugated people to Islam and in fact forcible conversion is advocated by the Koran. The Koran does advocate that the non-believers should be put to the sword, unless Saqib has conveniently forgotten it. Ask the Indians and they will tell you of the countless number of Hindus who were put to the sword for not converting to Islam. In fact forcible conversion of Hindu girls to Islam is a day-to-day affair in present-day Pakistan, as articles in the Dawn, a Pakistani paper, claim. When Genghis Khan conquered present-day Bulgaria, it is said that he forcibly converted millions of Bulgarians in Sofia to Islam and put to the sword millions who resisted ...
Skanda
USA (Jan 17, '06)

Antoaneta Bezlova [China's economists grapple with higher GDP, Jan 13] puts her finger on the stubbed toe of China's higher GDP [gross domestic product]: a changing methodology. Although banner headlines proclaim the seemingly unstoppable roaring train of China's spectacular growth, more doubting heads worry about the absence of good accounting practices.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 13, '06)

Re US turns against Musharraf (Jan 11): The tribal areas of Pakistan appear on the map as part of Pakistan but conventional ideas about the territory of a nation-state do not apply to these regions. These are fiercely independent autonomous areas and no government, British or Pakistani, has ever tried to challenge this arrangement. The idea that [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's inability to rein in the tribals is some kind of failure of governance or that a change in leadership could achieve greater control over the tribal areas is not consistent with historical reality. As for [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai, he may well want to make peace with the Taliban and it may be a rational response to Afghan realities, and if so, Afghanistan should be free to pursue such a policy, but the relevance of that policy to Musharraf is not clear.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jan 13, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your article [US turns against Musharraf, Jan 12] with great interest. What is not clear from it is why the US would like to have a weak Pakistani army when a strong army would be helpful changing stakes with India, China, Afghanistan and even Iran. Pakistan has blamed foreign powers in the past for every debacle and at present [it is] saying the same about Balochistan. India's name comes on the top in the political circles in Pakistan. We may be heading for the breakup of Pakistan into two or three independent states as was done in Yugoslavia. The Pakistani army's greatest mistake, I think, [was] to go against the Pathans and Balochis in the current political climate at the behest of the US. The frontier was a buffer against the north for ... 100 years and this has now been shattered. Afghans will never accept us [Pakistan] as a good neighbor. This they have never done in the past will never do it in the future. Afghans basically hate Pakistanis, especially in Australia. They are bitter about Pakistanis betraying them again and again.
Dr F Wasti (Jan 13, '06)

A book published by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and written by Husain Haqqani, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, is a must-read in this regard. The author says that no matter whether the Pakistani army sided with the US, Islamic fundamentalist policy remained central in its strategy. Even now under President General Pervez Musharrraf the facts are the same. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Chrysantha Wijeyasingha writes [letter, Jan 12]: "Finally the rose-colored glasses by which the US saw Pakistan have been removed as reported in the article US turns against Musharraf [Jan 12] and [President General Pervez] Musharraf's double-standard game between Washington and the Taliban has come home to roost." Though the constant ethnicist back-and-forth bashings between (as example) Indians and Pakistanis is tiresome, the selective "truth"-telling by its participants at times demands rebuttal. The idea that the US - and in particular the Bushit War Crimes Family and Liarium - did not know that Musharraf (and Saudi Arabia) has been a primary supporter and funder of the Taliban (and al-Qaeda) is absurd on its face. Those facts were only secret to those who wished to ignore them in order to support Bushit et al without regard for such inconvenient facts ... But let's not allow such facts to be of concern until no longer "secret" - at which point they become [an] opportunity to engage in yet another round of ethnicist bashing.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 13, '06)

Aruni Mukherjee [letter, Jan 12] used a typical Indian muddy-water strategy in his debate. That is to pick on a few trivial issues in order to create confusion so other people cannot see the major problems with logic. The major issues debated at ATol are that there is no pride and dignity in India; India's democratic system only works for the rich and powerful. To most of the common Indians, India is anarchy. It is not just some Indians with disjoined views of the less fortunate. The majority of English-speaking Indian elites possess that caste mentality. It is the caste mentality towards the poor plus the servitude towards the rich [that] make them seem dirty. So far, nobody [has disproved] this theory. Indian letter-writers' efforts to argue on that equality issue vindicated my points.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jan 13, '06)

Just as the human body excretes filth, so does the human mentality emit hate, antipathy, jealously and ignorance as has Joseph J Nagarya done in his letter of January 12 when he implied with sordid logic that the Prophet Mohammed was an imperfect human being. God is transcendent and beyond all physical perception of man and it is through the medium of a celestial messenger that God causes his will and command to be revealed to his human messenger for the sake of mankind. The messenger is only an intermediary for the reception and communication of the revelation; his role is neither of an author nor a compiler. Muslims believe that the Prophet Mohammed is neither an angel nor any other kind of supernatural being, having been born into this world of a human mother, just like any of his fellow men. What truly distinguishes him from the rest of mankind is his having been chosen by God as his messenger. In the Prophet, God saw a man in whom the passion of human nature shone bright, and in whom there was no contradiction of thought, word and deed ... Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God, revealed to his messenger Mohammed ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jan 13, '06)

The operative word is "believe", which was Joseph Nagarya's point. According to the secular view he was apparently expounding, there is a difference between faith and empirical fact. - ATol

Finally the rose-colored glasses by which the US saw Pakistan have been removed as reported in the article US turns against Musharraf [Jan 12] and [President General Pervez] Musharraf's double-standard game between Washington and the Taliban has come home to roost. Mr Musharraf has burned his bridges behind him in his "chess game" politics. Now not only the people of Pakistan but also the Balochis are sick and tired of Pakistan's high-handed treatment from its army. Even if Mr Musharraf changes to a civilian post his future looks doomed and Pakistan's army may have to pay a heavy price for [its] brutal actions [against its] own people. One more black mark has not been mentioned in the article, and that is [that] Pakistan continues to be the underground "nuclear bazaar" even after the scandal caused by [Abdul Qadeer] Khan. Finally the true colors of Pakistan's actions are being revealed to the world at large and, most important, to the US administration.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 12, '06)

John Feffer [ 'Poisoned carrots' and North Korea, Jan 12] gives a fairly good summary of America's carrot-and-stick approach to dealing with the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]. He suggests a more savvy, utilitarian sensibility in rewards and punishments. Practically speaking, Pyongyang has been on the outs with the United States since the division of the Korean Peninsula in 1945. It has survived thanks to the umbrella which the Soviet Union offered, and especially China's volunteers who drove the United Nations troops under America's command back across the 38th parallel during the Korean War. Zoom forward to today: time is on Pyongyang's side. Beijing and Seoul guarantee its survival as a state for fear that its collapse would push Northeast Asia into a political and economic tailspin. North Korea has dealt with the United States with the coolness of a seasoned poker player in on-again, off-again negotiations. It knows full well that Washington sends mixed signals and among its policy advisers there [are] dissension and infighting. Appeals to human rights run like water off a duck's back. Were Washington more Machiavellian, it would shift the six-power meeting to Geneva, thereby raising the ending of the 52-year-old armistice, and cut the Gordian knot of outstanding issues between China and the DPRK, the United States representing the United Nations and the Republic of Korea. Such a conference would deal with cross-diplomatic recognition, ending the state of war [and questions on the economy] and peaceful use of atomic energy. The agenda would be open and flexible in dealing with other issues.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 12, '06)

I'm afraid Stephen Zunes made a very weak case in his opinion piece Israel not to blame for Iraq mess (Jan 11). Instead of surveying actual facts, his entire position was based on tenuous postulations that Israel did not profit from the invasion [of Iraq], and that therefore could not have been involved, and any "blame" on Israel can be attributed to anti-Semitism. This argument is fallacious because it is only in hindsight that the entire Iraq enterprise [proved] not to bear the desired fruits - it doesn't mean that Israel did not play a part in its realization. I won't even dignify Zunes' "anti-Semitism" card with a reply. Here are the actual facts: Israeli intelligence played a huge and significant role in proposing to the Bush administration "intelligence" about Iraq, including "evidence" that Iraq [was] behind al-Qaeda's attack [on the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001], as well as Iraq's "massive stockpile" of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. The documentation of this is quite widespread by reputable sources, including Janes and even the Israelis themselves, eg the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. It was even documented that the Bush administration preferred the "intelligence" from Israel over the recommendations of the US's own CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] analysts. Even now, certain Israelis are continuing to provide "intelligence" on Iran, Syria and other countries to the Bush administration. As I am not allowed to post links, I would simply recommend a Google search. As to the whys and hows, I suspect it was a strategy of political convergence between the neo-cons in the US and their close allies in Israel at that opportune time post-September 11. So certain were they of America's omnipotence, they did not even bother to disguise it on the website of the Project for the New American Century. Of course this "strategy" turns out to have backfired badly, at least for the foreseeable future.
L Kirchhoff (Jan 12, '06)

It should be noted that in their responses to [Stephen] Zunes' competent article Israel not to blame for Iraq mess (Jan 11), R Davoodi and Jakob Cambria [letters, Jan 11] deal with nothing substantive in rebuttal. They recall merely associative matters. Strauss, Balfour, pipelines, dollars and euros, how does mention of these rebut Zunes? Broad associative issues, including historical and religious, definitely must be aired and discussed. But to impugn by bare simplistic stringing together nears crossing into irresponsibility, precisely what the article is intended to forestall on honest reading.
D Vernon
Canada (Jan 12, '06)

Re When even the pope has to whisper [Jan 10] by Spengler ... Responding to Veri's letter of January 9, I should say it to him that and would say once again to Spengler that lack of knowledge about Islam emanates from their ignorance, and being ignorant is no excuse for anyone to sully Islam. The Koran says, "If an evildoer brings you a piece of news, inquire first into its truth, lest you should wrong others unwittingly and repent of what you have done." To Veri, I say that it would be wrong to attribute the rapid expansion of Islam to any single cause. The weakness of the Byzantine and Sassanids empires as a result of their mutual territorial conflicts and political conflicts was not the only reason that allowed [a] few Arabs to defeat them; and the Muslims could never [have] spread en masse from Medina to China to Spain, as there were not many Arabs to be distributed over all the immense territory. In the beginning, these wars were rather political and there was absolutely no desire on the part of the Muslims to impose religion by force, which also is totally prohibited in Islam. At no time in Islamic civilization was compulsion employed to convert the subjugated peoples. Islamic law recognizes liberty for the non-Muslims to preserve their beliefs and forbids all recourse to compulsion for converting others to Islam. The simplicity and reasonableness of Muslims' religious doctrines, together with practical example of life of piety and righteousness, attracted proselytes to Islam. It was the dynamism of Islam, which began spreading rapidly to all corners of the globe.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jan 12, '06)

Amir writes [letter, Jan 11] of Spengler's When even the pope has to whisper [Jan 10]: Since the Holy Koran is the word of God ..." If the Koran (or any other "religious" scripture) is "the word of God", then objective evidence for that claim, beyond that of the word of imperfect humans such as Mohammed, can be provided. If not, then that claim is not a fact but a matter instead of belief and "faith". From mistaking mere belief for objective fact, and asserting it as being such, arise "religious" intolerance and fanaticism. One would think the obviously intelligent would be not only able but willing to realize that fact, and thus not confuse unfounded belief for objective evidence.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 12, '06)

Finally, Frank [letter, Jan 11] concedes that many individuals not only from Hong Kong but from the mainland have prejudices against some of their own populace. This has been my point all along - that some people in both India and China have such disjoined views, but that it is incorrect to generalize. Urban legends about "rags to riches" stories are rife in India, and people admire such individuals, many of whom are in the top rungs of business today. Albeit in different areas of society, oppression and discrimination is dished out to the downtrodden in both China and India. My point stands vindicated by Frank's own words, although he may not have been able to see it.
Aruni Mukherjee (Jan 12, '06)

Aruni Mukherjee in his letter to editor (Jan 10) cited Hong Kong residents' discriminatory attitude toward mainland Chinese. Being an individual from Hong Kong, I am scratching my head as to the source of his allegation. British colonial education might have bred racist attitudes in Hong Kong society years ago. Some elements in Hong Kong society may still hold prejudice against people that are different, but how in the world can he compare that [to] the discrimination suffered by the Dalit and other lower-caste individuals? To many Indians, the Dalits are considered not only untouchable, but also unseeable, unapproachable, unshadowable and even unthinkable. His argument demonstrates a lack of empathy among certain Indian letter-writers and may explain why, despite [the] recent economic boom, over 200 millions Indian are still mired in dire poverty, virtually unchanged since the start of the boom a decade ago.
Terry Tam
Toronto, Ontario (Jan 12, '06)

Stephen Zunes' knee-jerkily nervous article instructing us on how not to blame Israel or Jews for America's mess in Iraq (Israel not to blame for Iraq mess, Jan 11) is interestingly written from a decidedly left-liberal American perspective. However, Zunes ignores the fact that, immediately after America's invasion of Iraq in March 2003, plans for building a pipeline from Iraq to Israel were restarted after a near-30-year lull in such ambitions (In the pipeline: More regime change [Apr 4, '03]). Said opportunism on the part of Israeli officials and their presumed neo-conservative sponsors in the US can hardly be divorced from the general American energy sector's lusting for control over Iraqi oil and natural gas. Too, considering Saddam Hussein's switch from dollars to euros for the brunt of his energy trading in 2000, a move that would have posed dire eventual consequences for the New York and London financial circles if not for his removal from power, it would stretch credulity to presume that the general Western "political and economic elites" that Mr Zunes wishes to shift focus to - the same elites, the familial and cultural predecessors of which, essentially financed the very beginnings of the modern Jewish state through the Balfour Declaration early last century - are entirely distinct from the "powerful Jewish interests" that he readily attests the existence of today. Finally, the very tangible intellectual roots of neo-conservatism as a deployed political ideology reside with the disturbingly ultra-right-wing Jewish emigre of the German genocide, Leo Strauss. Many modern neo-conservatives with choice access to the highest rungs of the American political power structure not only look up to Strauss and his tragically ironic (considering what he fled from) philosophy as a blueprint for tacit domestic and geopolitical influence, but are also admittedly as affected by the Holocaust in their points of view as was Strauss. As retired lieutenant-colonel and former staff officer in [Donald] Rumsfeld's Defense Department Karen Kwiatkowski attests to, there was a sudden urgency to become familiar with Strauss's philosophy in her division at the Pentagon once [President George W] Bush came into office. It would be much more cathartic [to have] a novel sense and approach of honesty regarding the true nature of the issues involved above, free not just from manic, racist conspiracy theories, but also from the subtleties of ... media distractions. Doing otherwise, especially in times of increasing economic and political tensions globally and within the US, only serves to drive suspicions further.
R Davoodi
Tehran, Iran (Jan 11, '06)

Stephen Zunes' article [Israel not to blame for Iraq mess, Jan 11] brings to mind the punch line of an old joke on blaming the Jews for the woes of the world: blame the bicycles! Why the bicycles? Then why the Jews? Israel is not to blame for the mess in Iraq, true. Yet Israel's dragging its feet on coming to an agreement with the Palestinians festers the open sores of past wrongs. Israel's doggedness in not agreeing to a two-state solution on an equitable basis has breathed new life in that ... hoax which is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Its demeaning and draconian policies of 37 years of rule in the West Bank and the implanting of colonies of messianic Jews in what Ariel Sharon calls "Judea and Samaria" have inflamed the Arab masses and have soured the goodwill of friends abroad, and spawned an anti-Israel feeling which the Israeli right wing has parlayed into the bogeyman of anti-Semitism. Which has left a bad taste in the mouths of old friends, and aroused a sense of a pox on your house. On the other hand, [US President George W] Bush has given a blank check to Mr Sharon in pursuing a bankrupt policy of coming to a rapprochement with the Palestinians and with Arab countries. This carte blanche has allowed Washington to pursue a disastrous war in Iraq. The United States' inability to strike a more balanced attitude towards the question of Palestine and the Arab world has skewed Washington's approach to a more rational diplomacy ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 11, '06)

In the article Much ado about Russia-Iran ties [Jan 11], Andrei P Tsygankov makes a peculiar suggestion. He states, "Even the call by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' does not seem to have made Russia move closer to the US position." Why should it? Just because the US fights Israel's wars and puts Jewish interests before America's is no reason to expect other nations will do the same. Perhaps Russia is actually more concerned with Russian interests and sees no reason to sacrifice itself to Zionist destruction.
Shahi (Jan 11, '06)

Spengler [When even the pope has to whisper, Jan 10] uses the ploy of ranking the Hebrew Bible and Christian scriptures over the Koran. In point of historical fact, the Israelite and Islamic traditions are nearly identical in theory of revelation. God to Moses or Gabriel to Mohammed work in the same way. Not so the Christians and their authors of scriptures.
Bruce J Malina (Jan 11, '06)

In his article When even the pope has to whisper [Jan 10], Spengler quotes the following from the Holy Father: "In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is ..." Since the Holy Koran is the word of God, it opens itself up to endless interpretations by human beings based on their circumstances, environment, culture, geography and tradition. Every human being is free to interpret the Koran based on his understanding of the subject. Thus there is complete freedom in Islam and no central authority to impose its ideals and interpretations upon the believers. On the other hand, the Holy Bible is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah or Mark. It is the word of God as understood by Isaiah or Mark. It is the word of God as understood by the Church. This gives the Church a central authority in a Christian's life and forces individuals to seek guidance from the Church rather than use his personal reasoning and seek his own explanation of the Holy Bible. Why is God's word to Mohammed not open to interpretation but God's word as understood by Isaiah or Mark open to interpretation? One would think that God's word should be more open to interpretation than God's word as understood by Isaiah or Mark as it is not already tempered by human understanding.
Amir
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Jan 11, '06)

Harald Hardrada [letter, Jan 9] writes of Jephraim Gundzik's Options running out after Iran snub [Jan 7] and Spengler's Victor Davis Hanson goes to the seashore [Jan 4]: "Without universal conscription America's leaders are free to toy with American lives. Charlie Rangel is about the only [congressional] representative ... who wants to bring back the draft. Generally, America's leaders would never send their own offspring to Iraq. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman ... want to send more Americans to Iraq provided their own precious bloodlines aren't at stake ... Setting aside the merits of statism, a state needs armaments and universal conscription in order to defend itself ..." First, John Kerry was among the very first - preceding even John Murtha - to offer a plan for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning over the recent holidays. Second, among the "elitists" who won't send their offspring to fight in Iraq are Bushit's party-hearty twin daughters; by contrast, Kerry, even though an "elitist" at the time, served in Vietnam. As to the assertion that the Roman Empire "started to decline [when] the elite stopped serving in the military": in fact, it would be practically impossible to determine when [the] elite's not serving in the military began - or when it will end. America has never been different in that regard: during the framing of the US's "Bill of Rights", debates of that which became the Second Amendment included the individual right of the "religiously scrupulous" to be exempt from bearing arms (militia duty) - and suggested as [an] adjunct that such person be required to pay a fixed amount of money for that exemption. Those suggestions were voted down (thus there is no "individual right" in that amendment), but nothing changed: later during that era, and during the US's Civil War, as examples, the children of the wealthy often paid their way out of military service. And conscription had little effect on that reality. As for "elitists" not wanting their children to serve in their wars, I suggest Mr Hardrada look at that assertion by political party: from Bushit on down, it is nearly impossible to find a current Republican't congressperson who served in the military when s/he had the "opportunity"; and from Kerry on down, nearly impossible to find a Democratic congressperson who did not serve when s/he had that opportunity.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 11, '06)

Aruni Mukherjee's gypsy crystal ball is apparently not working well [letter, Jan 10]. Chinese mainland astronauts received the same respect in Hong Kong as in the rest of China. Just like those arrogant English-speaking Indians, there are individuals in Hong Kong as well as in the mainland [who] look down upon their less fortunate siblings. However, they can never have the same social and political status in China as those English-speaking Indians do in India. In today's China, they can never become the elites of Chinese society. Historically, Chinese people admired those who worked their way up through hardships. Today, Chinese people believe that all people are born equal. Equality has nothing to do with the socialism. It is the advancement of humanity ...
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jan 11, '06)

While seldom agreeing with Spengler's conclusions, I had come to respect his intellectual sophistication and breadth of knowledge. Now doubts about these apparent virtues result from the very premise of his [Jan 10] When even the pope has to whisper. There he posits: "US foreign policy ... proceeds from the hope that a modern and democratic Islam will emerge from the ruins of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Through democratic institutions, Washington believes, the long-marginalized Shi'ites will adapt to religious pluralism. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Islam, fixed in amber since the High Middle Ages, will metamorphose into something like American mainline Protestantism." This is indeed what the Bush administration professes, but that Spengler should mistake such propaganda for the real basis of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq and West Asia is shocking. Everything the US has done in this area as well as all credible analyses I have encountered indicate that the hope from which that policy proceeds is that with a solid military base in Iraq the US can secure control of the vital energy resources of the region ... I believe the intractability Spengler identifies is regarded by US policymakers as a secondary issue possibly, but not necessarily, obstructing the primary hegemonic objective.
Kent
Connecticut, USA (Jan 10, '06)

Re When even the pope has to whisper [Jan 10]: The Bavarian pope won't whisper for long. All he awaits is the right time to promote the "Coming Man" and help restore Germany as the "Protector of Europe". Germany and the Jesuits are intent on reviving the unholy Roman empire of the German nation. With Islamic provocations to the south, they'll have an excuse and a rallying cry for their new crusade. I don't doubt the pope (with his symbol of the Moor) knows Islam must be subdued by any means possible to save Europe and the world.
David Ben-Ariel
Author, Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall
Toledo, Ohio (Jan 10, '06)

Re When even the pope has to whisper [Jan 10]: Spengler will be well served by starting out on Wikipedia, which has a brief, annotated article on the late professor Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago. He keeps on flouting the common wisdom that it always helps if you know what you're talking about.
Usman Qazi
Palo Alto, California (Jan 10, '06)

Re The Kremlin and the world energy war [Jan 10] by W Joseph Stroupe: As the author demonstrated in painstaking detail, Russia without any doubt came out a decisive winner in the gas standoff with Ukraine. The fact that [the] overwhelming majority of Western media keeps on insisting otherwise serves as a credible testimony of increasing "Sovietization" of the West, with information simply serving ideological objectives of policymakers. In simple terms, any North American or European news agency/newspaper/radio station or TV outlet that presents Ukraine as a winner must have completely lost its marbles, as well as any pretension of objectivity. It's a pitiful exhibition. As for Russia, if it keeps "losing" like that, it will be well on its way to becoming the world's richest country on a per capita basis no later than the middle of this century.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jan 10, '06)

Re Nude gaffe exposes Malaysian press [Jan 10]: China Press has gotten a bloody nose. It has had a shock of recognition that in the future it had better get its facts straight. Its gaffe of misidentifying the race and nationality of the victim of police sexism gave the Abdullah Badawi government a much-sought-after opportunity to clamp down on the opposition party's press. Still in the overall scheme of things, China Press got off lightly. Were this to happen across the causeway in neighboring Singapore, the consequences would have been onerous if not dire. [Freedom] of the press has suffered a hard slap on the knuckles, but China Press has learned a lesson for its sloppy reporting. It will gird its loins for battle on another day.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 10, '06)

Anna Greenspan (Shanghai, the becoming thing: Believe the hype?, Jan 7) is also misinformed by stating: "The city is inherently unstable; the very name 'Shanghai' means 'on the sea'. the proper translation is "above the sea". The earliest reference is placed at approximately 200 BC, when it was called liu-tuh, translating into "fishing station". At about AD 1280, it acquired it present name, Shanghai. In 1554 Shanghai attained the status of a "walled town". The wall is stated to have been from 3-4 miles [about 5-6 kilometers] long and 23 feet [7 meters] in height, with six gates and 20 arrow towers, rather similar to Vienna, Austria. Its principal purpose was to ward off attacks by Japanese pirates, who at that period frequently raided and the coastal towns of China. The Shanghai of the 16th century was notable in another way. It was the birthplace of Lu Tsih and Wang Ke, two of China's greatest writers, and Hsu Kwang-ch'i, friend and pupil of Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary. Friction over trade relations at Canton culminated in a conflict between Great Britain and China, the so-called "Opium War", 1840-43, and one result of this war was the birth of modern Shanghai. In the course of their operations the British sent a combined naval and military expedition to the north, captured Amoy, Ningpo and Chapoo, forced the Woosung forts, and a landing party entered a district now included in the international settlement.
Leo Berger
Bern, Switzerland (Jan 10, '06)

Pallavi Aiyar [letter, Jan 9] offers a lengthy - but inadequate - defense of her article [In the men's room, China leaves India standing, Dec 6, '05]. She idealizes the technocratic urban middle class in China. For example, individuals from Hong Kong have a blatant superiority complex and look down with disdain at the mainlanders. For them, all the Chinese are capable of doing is dirty manual work. Does this not seem a parallel to the "servant" example given by Aiyar? It is laughable to suggest that urban middle classes in India do not "rub their shoulders" with others in public transport - and the overwhelming majority do use the buses, metros, etc. If there is an in-built prejudice against some types of work, then it has similar examples in both China and India.
Aruni Mukherjee
University of Warwick, England (Jan 10, '06)

Hisane Masaki [Year of the Rooster nothing to crow about, Jan 7] describes [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi's lament with regard to his visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni war shrine: "I do not understand why foreign governments interfere with a spiritual issue and try to turn it into a diplomatic issue." The time is long overdue to point out that currently only those Japanese born before 1927 who served in the military in any capacity at all between 1937 and 1945 know from personal experience what the Japanese have on their conscience. They are not talking. They participated in or witnessed the torture and murder of 36 million Chinese men, women and children, including the 250,000 "logs" who were "sacrificed" in Ping Fan in biological-warfare experiments. These are just the murders in China. Additional millions were murdered and tortured in the rest of the Japanese-occupied Pacific Rim countries. These Japanese veterans are now older than 78. Prime Minister Koizumi is 63. Koizumi knows nothing about Japanese military history other than the drivel taught out of textbooks written after the war by directors of education, who had been transferred laterally from high positions in the administration of the fascist Tokko or thought police. The Tokko was disbanded by General [Douglas] MacArthur, who declared that a fascist ideological secret police had no place in a parliamentary democracy. When it became clear that the Cold War with Russia required the full cooperation of the Japanese in the late 1940s, both General MacArthur and his second-in-command Major-General [Charles] Willoughby, who worked out of the Dai-Ichi Building in Tokyo, MacArthur's HQ, stopped all Japanese war-crime investigations, and forced the Allies to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, absolving the Japanese of all war crimes. And finally: until all Japanese politicians fully understand the enormity of their war crimes, there is no place for Japan on the UN Security Council. The world cannot risk being subjected to such abysmal ignorance.
AL
Canada (Jan 9, '06)

As Hisane Masaki archly remarks [Year of the Rooster nothing to crow about, Jan 7], the incoming lunar new Year of the Dog has the snapping jaws of China and South Korea nipping at Japan's heels. Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi is riding high on a wave of popular approval. Flush with an important election victory, a reviving and strengthening economy is consolidating the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) on power. Mr Koizumi's visits to the shrine at Yasukuni [are a response first] to an instinctive acknowledgment of the Japanese people's reverence to the million souls for the dead who died in wars Japan fought, the 13 Class A World War II [criminals] notwithstanding; [second] to an expression of sovereignty which will not brook outside interference. As for correcting the course with Seoul and Beijing, time and patience will out. China and South Korea are intertwined with Japan on economic, cultural and political ties ... Nonetheless China's dragon dances of indignation about Japan's war in China have accelerated the LDP's long-desired wish to jettison the clause in the "Peace Constitution" [against] a standing army. Beijing's obviously staged demonstrations have pushed Tokyo into publicly assuming the defense of Taiwan in the case of China's forceful military action to join Taipei to the "motherland". Additionally, Tokyo has begun a push to invest in India, China's economically blossoming rival. And [it has] reinforced Japan's alliance with the United States, which its token military forces in Iraq simply underscore. Looking at the lack of progress in the six-power talks with North Korea, Pyongyang's dragging of its feet has little to do with the Kim regime's less than forthright fessing up to the kidnapping of Japanese citizens for espionage purposes, [and more with] Washington's unrealistic foreign policy. On the people-to-people level, Japan has been having a "love fest" for things Korean, which is in sharp contrast to a downturn in tourism to China. On the whole the Year of the Dog, in spite of the yapping of Japan's neighbors, looks favorable to Mr Koizumi and to the Japanese.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 9, '06)

Ehsan Ahrari: I read your excellent analysis of the current Iranian nuclear situation [Diplomacy stalled, Jan 7]. Perhaps I might ask a question: the current regime has espoused an inherently dangerous posture vis-a-vis nuclear arms (in general) and provocative statements directed towards Israel (in specifics). From my perspective, this serves as a catalyst to military action and, in fact, this was called for in an editorial featured in [a recent] issue of the Jerusalem Post. My question is: Why do you think the Iranian regime is engaging in brinksmanship of this sort, particularly given the potentially devastating consequences of a misstep?
Keith Comess (Jan 9, '06)

Iran's behavior under Mahmud Ahmadinejad is hard to explain. It is as if Iran is constantly waving a red flag in front a fuming bull that is perfectly willing to charge and hurt it badly. If US President George W Bush wanted to attack Iran, its new president is making sure that such an action happens, and happens soon. At best, Iran is on a collision course. If it is attacked, it will be war of choice, except, unlike the US invasion of Iraq, it will be Iran's own choice to be attacked or invaded. It is a sad development of a country that was the center of one of the great civilizations, the Persian civilization. - Ehsan Ahrari

[Anna] Greenspan (Shanghai, the becoming thing: Believe the hype?, Jan 7) is misinformed. While former colonial powers like to pretend that they built Shanghai ex nihilo, it is not the case that "until colonial powers began using it as a commercial hub, Shanghai was little more than a fishing village". As early as late Ming times, Shanghai had already become the largest center of cotton spinning in China ...
Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jan 9, '06)

[Jephraim] Gundzik [Options running out after Iran snub, Jan 7] talks about America's possibly attacking Iran unless Israel does. In [Victor Davis Hanson goes to the seashore, Jan 4], Spengler said those who urge restraint cavil. The same thinking that led up to America's going into Iraq is now coming back with beating drums. Held hostage are America's troops serving in Iraq: even if [President George W] Bush brings a few home, the rest will be sitting ducks, since Iran already controls Iraq far more than [the US] does. But nobody cares because without universal conscription America's leaders are free to toy with American lives. Charlie Rangel is about the only [congressional] representative in Washington who wants to bring back the draft. Generally, America's leaders would never send their own offspring to Iraq. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, just to name a few, want to send more Americans to Iraq provided their own precious bloodlines aren't at stake. America's leaders no longer think [the US] is worth fighting for, although they delight in hoodwinking other folks' girls and boys into doing their dirty work. Setting aside the merits of statism, a state needs armaments and universal conscription in order to defend itself. Rome started to decline [when] the elite stopped serving in the military.
Harald Hardrada
New York, New York (Jan 9, '06)

The article [A rising power called India, Jan 5] is wonderful. I thank Ehsan Ahrari. But I wish to clarify the point related to Kashmir. Kashmiris hold different views. There is one section who appear to be pro-Pakistani. Another section want that the entire Kashmir should be an independent state. A third section is obviously pro-Indian. Thus in the first place, as of now Pakistan can't gain anything new and will have to remain content with holding [its portion of] Kashmir. There is a talk of the LOC [Line of Control] becoming the permanent border. Any move in this direction will be opposed by many Kashmiris and this will not work for a long time unless Article 370 [of the Indian constitution, giving special status to Jammu & Kashmir] is removed. Even if the UN gives a mandate, it will be difficult for India to remove this article. If the entire Kashmir becomes an independent country, it will become the real paradise of the Taliban and another Afghanistan will be created. This is the most dangerous possibility for the entire subcontinent. Currently India is trying to win the heart of Kashmiris. This is cornering the pro-Pakistani elements. If the move succeeds, it will bring new hope for the entire subcontinent. However, Pakistan has to be convinced that by encouraging militants/terrorists it [will] became both a perpetrator and victim. So while India is taking a positive attitude, it's important for Pakistan to change its policy which was followed since the time it lost Bangladesh.
D Kanjilal (Jan 9, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Armed and dangerous: Taliban gear up (Dec 22, '05) [was an] extremely interesting analysis. We are following all acts and threats from various terrorist sources such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam], especially on their airborne and seaborne technical capabilities. The suicide bomber was an innovation of the LTTE and during many decades the LTTE [has] perfected this into an art and exported into many countries. Another area ... is the use of seaborne containers for transporting a "dirty bomb" or poisoning the food chain. With over 250 million containers afloat, the risk is enormous. Do you have any opinions on this matter?
Hudson McLean (Jan 9, '06)

The LTTE is quite a world of its own kind. It developed lot of expertise in terror tactics. If the Tigers' expertise were clubbed with a real global organization like al-Qaeda, one can image a unique combat between states and independent groups. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

This is in response to the spate of letters pertaining to my article In the men's room, China leaves India standing (Dec 6, '05). The crucial point that is being missed is the distinction between attitudes to "dignity of labor" and the fact of socio-economic inequalities. There is no debate on the issue that in China there is an enormous gap between the urban yuppie and the migrant worker and that no one anywhere in the world likes to do back-breaking labor for little pay if given the choice. The point I was making was not that everyone in China is equally well off and that no one faces discrimination, but that work that in India is considered demeaning and dirty is often simply seen as a job in China. Perhaps not the job of choice (hence one of the toilet cleaners mentioned in my article revealed she wanted to be a hairdresser), but nonetheless an honest way of making a living. In China migrant workers rub shoulders with middle-class IT [information technology] geeks and journalists in buses and subways every day. In contrast, in India when I worked at NDTV several years ago, not a single colleague traveled to work by bus. Professors over the age of 40 at the prestigious Peking University have all at one point or the other worked as laborers in farms. Most professors at Delhi University have never even spent one day doing manual labor. My maid in Beijing takes me out to lunch once a month and eats with my family at the table every day. In contrast, in India our "servants", as they are still called, would be as uncomfortable at the suggestion of sitting down to eat with us at the same table as we would be. The communist revolution, for all its manifest ills, did breed a certain belief in the dignity of labor which is absent in India. This was my point, not that socio-economic disparities are worse in India than in China. They exist in every country in the world. And the poor everywhere have harder lives.
Pallavi Aiyar
China (Jan 9, '06)

The rhetoric from Muslims like Saqib [Khan] ([letter] Jan 6) might be better received if their status in history were like the long-suffering sub-Saharan African or the South American empires. Truly, they can say that they were the victims of unbridled imperialism. The Islamic empires can make no such claim as they have since their inception in the 7th century behaved like expansionist powers. Attacks against the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire began in 672 by the Arabs, followed by a body blow in 1071 with the loss of Manzikert to the Seljuk Turks. On the western end, Spain, under Visigothic rule, was invaded in 711 by the Islamic forces of the Umayyad Empire. The [Muslim conquest proceeded] northwards till it was halted at Tours, France, in 732. Was it Christendom pushing Islam or was it Islam pushing Christendom to the wall? Further east, we find the Islamic conquest of India from the 7th till as late as the 18th century, resulting in what historian-philosopher Will Durant called "probably the bloodiest story in history". From 1000-1500, based upon Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, it is argued that the population of Hindus decreased by about 80 million. Therefore, for Muslim apologists to claim that they were the victims of imperialism is like the pot calling the kettle black, or they are suffering from a massive case of selective amnesia. Yes, there are many problems with modern Western civilization, but it is recognized that it is due to the [embracing] of hedonism in the 20th century as opposed to morality. In addition, unlike other civilizations which have done self-analysis, such critiques in Muslim societies (regardless of the shade of Islam) are silenced with fatwas (edicts) promising harm or death.
D Veri
Malaysia (Jan 9, '06)

Ayush (letter, Jan 6) should be thankful for having the chance to smell the toilets now that he is comfortably retired in Orlando, Florida. "Hot girls" are available everywhere, but not cheap skilled labor. Thousands of investors, from East or West, are still flocking to the Middle Kingdom. As time passes the new investors are losing the privilege of that smell.
S P Li
USA (Jan 9, '06)

[Re] Risky business in China's west [Jan 5] by David Nguyen: The disappearance of communism and annihilation of Soviet Union have reactivated and revived Islam in many regions of the world, and those who fear Islam take the view that it is threatening Western society and its enriched inculcated lewd morality. Since World War II and with the decline of colonialism many Islamic countries gained independence. For long Muslims were pushed against the wall under Christendom and greedy imperialism, which made many Muslims seek salvation in their deen of Islam: a code of conduct as well as [a] goal for a puritanical way of life with intolerance to the absurdities of Western propensity to [lax] immoral values, lewdness plus unbridled capitalism. Materialism and imperialism have fallen, leaving finer and puritanical teachings of Islam to fill the gap which humanity so eagerly awaited. Even many Christians now say that their god of the Bible is back but for the Muslims, Allah has always been there in their hearts throughout the history of European occupation and overstretched imperialism and greed. Islam is no more or less a monolithic force today than Christianity: both are ideological forces and find themselves in competition for followers as well as influence, as we see in China and Central Asian republics and many region of the world ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jan 6, '06)

Spengler, in urging President [George W] Bush to get tough with Iran [Victor Davis Hanson goes to the seashore, Jan 4], reminds me of the demogogues who urged the Athenians to get tough with Syracuse in Sicily.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Jan 6, '06)

I wonder if Frank of Seattle [letter, Jan 5] has ever been to China. In my long career, I have worked many years in China (Taituan, Wenzou, Jianxi, Fuzou, etc, etc) and have seen thousands of Chinese girls kissing and appeasing white people who come to invest in China. No prizes for guessing why "white masters" and "Japanese" masters come to invest in China; for the brilliance of Chinese people or to exploit cheap labor and hot girls? ... And don't ask me about toilets. On my first day in one of the offices I inquired where [the toilet was], and the apt reply was, just smell and go, you will find it.
Ayush
Orlando, Florida (Jan 6, '06)

Dignity is not hampered merely by the distorted caste hierarchies, but also by economic inequities. It is a laughable fallacy to suggest that the Tibetans and Uighurs (whose culture is being systematically eroded from the public domain) are not losing their dignity. An individual must have freedom of movement - that some poorer section of the people do not have that in China punctures their self-respect. Articles about how Chinese laborers who are forced to migrate are dished out maltreatment in various factories are rife. Statistically, China is far more unequal than India as my earlier letter highlighted. Prosperity often supersedes caste differences. In any case, the day I can see a Tibetan woman as president of China or a Uighur Muslim head of the PLA [People's Liberation Army], I can perhaps buy into Frank's [letter, Jan 5] utopia of socialist brotherhood. India, a country with over 80% Hindus, has, however, had a lower-caste prime minister, Muslim president, Sikh prime minister and woman prime minister.
Aruni Mukherjee (Jan 6, '06)

It is very unusual to see any positive articles on India by writers of Pakistani origin; therefore, A rising power called India [Jan 5] by Ehsan Ahrari was mildly refreshing in its balance. The author, however, was guilty of a couple of fallacies. Primarily, the conditions he found in Agra and Lucknow (in the state of Uttar Pradesh) could be better, and I could not agree more with him. However, Uttar Pradesh ... is governed by an elected government in Lucknow and the central government in New Delhi has nothing to do with what happens in the state, including roads, pollution, grime and crime. Moreover, no government in UP has been elected without the support of the Muslim community, so Muslims themselves share some blame in electing bad leadership. Secondly, in visiting ... Islamic seminaries in Lucknow and finding no change there, he seems to be missing the obvious. If he saw progress in all the shopping malls in Gurgaon and the modern mass transit in New Delhi, then perhaps he might have realized that if the Indian Muslims are to abide by the dictates of the ... seminaries of Lucknow/Hyderabad (or even Aligarh), then their future does not look to bright in a modern India. Finally, he rightly brings up the issue of infrastructure and India's misplaced priorities. By focusing his trip [on] Lucknow, Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir, he seems to have missed an opportunity to visit India where the real action is ... He might also have done well to note that during his stay in India, the state of Bihar (unarguably the most backward of Indian states) held an election and politicians who tried to divide the electorate on religious lines rather than promising good governance were soundly defeated. Perhaps this is the true color of "A rising power called India".
Rocky (Jan 5, '06)

Why didn't an analysis about popular culture and religion get a place in Ehsan Ahrari's article (A rising power called India, Jan 5)? A discussion on Islamic sects is hardly adequate for a country which hosts the world's largest film industry and where more than 80% of the population is Hindu. The changes in the dynamics of popular tastes in the entertainment sector as well as the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in the 1990s do indeed deserve serious consideration for a fuller analysis of India in transition. The crux of the matter, however, has been identified by Ahrari when he argues, "One wonders whether most of the shopping being done is to satisfy personal needs, or merely to satisfy the desire of being seen in trendy shopping centers." India, like China, is fast losing the battle in the realm of ideas, as it juxtaposes itself on the linear model that the world has been following ever since the little island in Europe's northwest experienced the Industrial Revolution.
Aruni Mukherjee (Jan 5, '06)

The cause of the spread of radical Islam in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan lies in China and not, as David Nguyen suggests [Risky business in China's west, Jan 5] as a ripple effect of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Muscular Islam is what [Yale political-science professor] James C Scott would call "a weapon of the weak"; it is reaction to the overwhelming waves of internal migration of the Han majority into the western border areas, and the marginalization of the Muslim minorities. It is well to point out that as the Chinese Communist Party abandoned the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought, and with the rapid pace of capitalist production and market forces and commercialization, the Chinese masses have found emotional or spiritual consolation in Christianity, Falun Dafa, Buddhism, or Taoism. It is an act of quietism which nonetheless the CCP in an attempt to maintain the party's iron grip will deal with harshly. One has but to think of the persecution of Falun Dafa. Radical Islam refuses to keep a low profile and confronts Beijing in armed struggle. It is a defensive strategy, to maintain an identity of a people with long attachment to Islam from being submerged by the Han majority. It may receive funding from abroad and fight alongside fellow believers of the faith in Afghanistan or Iraq, yet it cannot challenge head-on the CCP nor topple the central regime. In the end, it has to [compromise] with Beijing ... So if anyone is going west to make his way in the world ... it is the Han population.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 5, '06)

[M K] Bhadrakumar's piercing political analysis The Russian bear trap [Jan 5] places the Russian-Ukrainian gas conflict [into] the global interstate struggle. Yet I feel that the EU, or more specifically Germany among others, [was] overlooked. Key European players like Germany and France do not want the US to control their energy supplies - US bases will be opened in Poland and the Balkans, right along the gas exports routes from Russia. Hence the projects to create routes that first do not pass across Ukraine (Yamal-Europe, Blue Stream), and then those that pass directly to the EU's most important state, Germany. The latter case is the goal of the North European Gas Pipeline that can later be extended to Belgium and France, [affecting] three EU states that opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Not one of these projects would be possible without the agreements from importer states. Though I do not wish to speak against Bhadrakumar's political experience and ken, I nevertheless am more inclined to assume that the Russian leadership have thought through the different hypothetical stages before putting Ukraine out as an unreliable transporter of Russian gas to Europe, of course this time more convincingly and painfully. No realistic Russian leader can have any delusions about the likely reaction of the Western press: cliches, half-truths, and the "Russian boogeyman". Trying to please US and European media is a hopeless and useless task. It is better to reach a quiet understanding with key EU states, have them communicate to Ukraine their concern, and establish agreements more favorable to Russia. For some years [Russian president Boris] Yeltsin's government tried the former approach; the [Vladimir] Putin team prefers the latter.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Jan 5, '06)

I refer to the article Russia's lethal gas weapon [Jan 4] by Federico Bordonaro and would comment that President [Vladimir] Putin has caused a deliberate new-year rumpus. Demanding that Ukraine should start paying 400% more than before for Russian gas and oil ... a basic commodity and a dire necessity for 50 million people on the north coast of the Black Sea for subsistence and particularly in the harsh months of winter, is nothing more than holding them high by the neck and throwing [them] from a tower. Even the energy price rises in the UK [have] sent shivers to the rib cages of many and in particular the old and vulnerable of the society. The consequence of this kind of Russian imperialistic attitude is probably meant to warn its former dependencies that Russian imperialism is still alive and threatening. In the Baltic states, with many new members of the EU and politically drifting towards the West and some looking across [to] the USA, President Putin could not restrain himself but had to use his oil/gas-laden whip to assert his authority on ... Ukraine and his many neighbors: if you overstretch your relations and dealings with the West I will use my best card and switch off your heating until you shiver for the last breath. It is nothing but a political-blackmail and economic-monopoly game for the Russians. In the short term, it could be popular for his domestic consumption but globally would encourage rebellion by the suppliers of fuel, and that would be very a dangerous trend for the rest of us ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jan 5, '06)

The runaround experienced by the Moorthy family in Malaysia in upholding their rights is quite shocking and very sad [see Islam becomes hot topic in Malaysia, Jan 4]. Although it is worrying, I can see a very clear solution for this. Maybe all of us should just convert [to Islam] and enjoy all the benefits that come with it. And in one or two generations we all can be classified as bumiputera and there will not be any more racial or religious tension. We can then fully abolish the civil courts as they will no longer have any use if all of us are Muslims. Surely my suggestion is worth considering, as soon as I finish writing this letter I am going to look for a bumiputera so that I can convert and marry and my kids can enjoy all the goodies that are dished out by Malaysian government all year long. Hopefully I will have male kids only as female kids may fall prey to the ill-thought-out laws that [were] rushed through Dewan Negara [and] which the government promised will be amended if not fair and just. Wonder why no one ever suggested it before. Isn't it a brilliant idea?
Brainwave
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Jan 5, '06)

After reading some of the posts on Pallavi Aiyer's article [In the men's room, China leaves India standing, Dec 6, '05], I feel that some people are missing the point. This may be a case of "those hills over there look so smooth". All countries have problems of their own; they are not the same problems the world over. The Jews were hounded in Europe and in the Middle East, whereas they found a safe haven in India. Being a Japanese [citizen] is great unless you are an ethnic Korean. Over here in the US, racism is rampant but brushed underneath the carpet ... We as Indians have much to be proud about our country - leave the India-bashing to outsiders.
Jayanti Patel
Chicago, Illinois (Jan 5, '06)

Aruni Mukherjee [letter, Jan 4] apparently sees China through his gypsy crystal ball. He has no knowledge of what is dignity. Dignity and economic inequality are two completely different things. If Aruni thinks the poor should not have dignity, then the Indians may not have any. Regardless of how rich those Indians are; there is always a richer one above them. It is time for Indians to think more of equality [than] caste. Regardless of our wealth, job, fortune, we are all the same. The wealthy ones [who] make good livings by licking their master's boots do not have more dignity than those toilet cleaners in China or in America. If anybody wants to compare India [to] China, compare their spirits. Dignity and pride are what made, makes, will make these two different.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jan 5, '06)

Regarding Yogi's letter (Jan 3), I'd like to add that there is a fundamental difference between the Western (Abrahamic) and Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist) perceptions of "God". The latter regards various deities/divinities/gods as vehicles of a divine cosmic energy; various manifestations of the Ultimate Divine or an Ultimate Reality that has a strong impersonal aspect. Throughout history this basic difference has frequently led to some people not knowledgeable enough about Eastern religions to incorrectly brand the latter as "polytheistic". Add to this often deliberately cultivated misperception military power and political ambition, and that obviously leads to bad things. The recurrent attacks on Hindu/Buddhist temples at the hands of various Islamic invaders during the medieval ages is an example.
Rakesh (Jan 5, '06)

As the Western press seems to be overflowing with the kind of ideological, one-sided and patently anti-Russian drivel that Federico Bordonaro's piece [Russia's lethal gas weapon, Jan 4] represents so well, it must be noted that every story has normally two sides to it. This one is no exception. I'd like to illuminate the Russian position, the way I see it. First of all, the US government characterized the Russian cutoff [reduction of gas supplies to Ukraine] as an "abrupt" one. That's an unfortunate and willful distortion, aka a simple lie. Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine [had been] ongoing on for some nine months at the time, with Ukraine all but stalling any possible progress. Unless [US] State Department officials were soundly asleep for almost a year, it's hard to see any logic in the claim of abruptness. Second, at first Russia offered Ukraine a price some 30% below the market level - namely [US]$160 per 1,000 cubic meters, which Ukraine promptly rejected. Only then did Gazprom dig in its heels with insistence on full market price. Third, it's getting increasingly hard for the Russian government to justify to its populace the continuation of a $5 billion annual subsidy of an increasingly belligerent and hostile neighbor, particularly as all the noises and actions emanating from Ukraine for almost a full year now carry explicitly provocative undertones. And fourth, despite Ukrainian protestations of price gouging by the Kremlin, Ukraine re-exports Russian gas at a 400% markup, thus abusing Russian charity in a rather egregious manner. In the end, I believe Federico Bordonaro is flat wrong in his "analysis" of Russia's motives. If Russia's moves were purely politically motivated, Moscow would have waited for the outcome of Ukraine's parliamentary elections - which up until now had a high probability of victory of ostensibly pro-Russian forces - and only then have chosen its way of dealing with the eventuality. The fact that Gazprom went for [the] "nuclear option" at the dawn of the year tells of altogether different calculations. It says that Russia simply wants to dump Ukraine off its nearly pristine balance sheet, and do it at almost any near-term cost, while at the same time challenging the West to begin subsidizing its new-found "friend" itself. Moscow knows full well that Russia won't improve its reputation in Kiev by withdrawing its check, and it appears that it couldn't - and shouldn't - care less. In [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's eyes, Ukraine is a total failure, a basket case, an incurable dependency, whose support only weakens Russia in the long term. Thus he calls for the US and EU to prove their love of the "orange revolution" with something more tangible than press releases. Far from fighting for Ukraine, Russia seems plenty eager for comprehensive separation from Kiev. Russian actions are nothing more than a parting kick for Ukraine. It's also an invitation for the West to "put up or shut up" - and either start with the much talked [about] but never acted upon diversification of its energy supply (Moscow has alternatives beyond Europe), or cease its mentoring tone and start cooperation in a meaningful partnership of equals. Simply put, Russians are not in a mood for [a] doormat role anymore. And who could blame them?
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jan 4, '06)

[Re Russia's lethal gas weapon, Jan 4] The [US media have] reacted in essentially two ways to the Russian-Ukrainian gas squabble. On the one hand, the New York Times and other publications maintain that turning off the spigots was precipitate and ill-advised; an action that will have disastrous consequences for Russia's credibility as a gas supplier with its Western customers. On the other hand, there has been a strident chorus of moral indignation at the terrible humanitarian impact implicit in such an action. I for my part fully believe that the Russians acted with complete premeditation; they've sent precisely the message they intended to send and at precisely the most dramatic possible time - the dead of winter. They have thereby served notice to Ukraine, to their remaining client states, to the EU and to the USA that there will be consequences if Russia is pushed too far. Talk of loss of credibility with their EU customers is completely illogical given that the Europeans have nowhere else to go to buy their gas. As for the second type of American media reaction: no country in the history of the world has used economic blackmail as consistently and as brutally as has the USA. To site merely one of many possible examples, approximately half a million Iraqi children were officially reported to have died as a result of the embargo imposed on that country during the [Bill] Clinton presidency. The American secretary of state at the time, Madeleine Albright, is on record to have said that this appalling number of dead infants was a perfectly acceptable price to pay. I very much doubt she would have remained of that opinion had the children in question not been Arab but Jewish-American like herself. Regretfully, the USA has no moral legs to stand on when it criticizes other countries for using their economic power to savage their geopolitical opponents.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Jan 4, '06)

Spengler [Victor Davis Hanson goes to the seashore, Jan 4] conveniently forgets that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and [Muqtada] al-Sadr (like his father) rose in response to the oppression and vicious colonialism that systematically looted, controlled and suppressed their respective societies. His biased denial of this fact and his obvious admiration for governments that colonize, oppress, torture, murder, and loot in the name of spreading democracy shred his credibility and decency (as do his comments about fancying descriptions of killing mechanisms - I guess he loves reading about aerial bomb destruction and suicide bomber methods as well? Or does it depend on who's doing the killing?). He also ignores the fact that, according to recent surveys, a majority in the world consider President [George W] Bush the real evil menacing the globe today. In fact, one could argue quite convincingly, as Martin Luther King did nearly 18 years ago, that the US "is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" (not to mention weapons pusher) and as such deserves to be resisted at all cost.
Aaron David
USA (Jan 4, '06)

Well, it had to happen: [Mark] LeVine has trotted out George Kennan for a wide historical sweep to today's Bush and Co misadventure in Iraq [Democracy, and all that talk, Jan 4]. Kennan's objective ... was to contain Soviet expansion, not to objectify Europe's imperialism; in fact the seamless cloth of Europe's colonial empires were beginning to unravel at that time. On the other hand, LeVine is spot on in saying that [US President George W] Bush and his ilk enjoy aggressive fantasies. [They are] but acting out hostile feelings to the world around them, and thus the ill-timed and ill-fated war which is being fought today in Iraq. Mr Bush's diplomacy is cartoonish but tragic for the amount of cannon fodder of American casualties and dead on the battlefield, and the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. The 43rd president fancies himself as the reincarnation of [25th president] William McKinley. His is a pipe dream and a recipe for disaster.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 4, '06)

Re Pakistan comes out fighting [Dec 21, '05]: Pakistan is dealing with a territory (Balochistan) that even in the heyday of British rule was kept semi-autonomous, because Balochistan was a challenge even for the British Empire. Now Pakistan, under heavy pressure from the US to round up terrorists who are using that area for safety, is beginning to [see its policy] backfire. If the Pakistani military increases its engagement with the Balochi tribes, I wouldn't be surprised if a Sri Lankan-type civil war broke out between that region and Islamabad.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jan 4, '06)

Cha-am Jamal [letter, Jan 3] judges dignity of labor per se in India and China based on partial evidence. Yes, social hierarchy is visibly present in India, as is inequality. However, the richest 10% in India are 7.3% better off than the poorest 10%, whereas in China they are 18.4% richer. India ranks 32 in the UN Human Development Report 2005 in terms of inequality vis-a-vis 89 for China. Would the poor who are refused access to China's "shining" cities to maintain their aura of first-worldliness agree with Jamal about dignity of labor? What about the farmers whose living space recedes further and further as the construction boom continues? Are migrant workers toiling in Chinese and foreign factories, working and living in inhuman conditions (being paid a pittance), feeling good about their jobs? Tibetans and Uighurs have already been degraded to second-class-subject status. But then again, this picture of misery is not all that China is about. It has its share of successes too, just like India. We should be moderate in our speech about such sensitive issues.
Aruni Mukherjee (Jan 4, '06)

Pepe Escobar's The ultimate quagmire [Dec 23, '05] should be required reading for all of us who love [the United States of] America. Another "quagmire" is the cancerous national debt which costs [US]$1 billion per day in interest alone.
R T Carpenter (Jan 3, '06)

It is irrelevant whether Chinese workers know who Santa Claus is [Santa's Chinese elves, Dec 23, '05]. Outsourcing has put in their hands a way of eking out a living. China is not exactly the world's workshop as some pundits would want us to believe. It is a sweatshop for an ever-expanding global capitalist universe. It offers an almost endless supply of cheap labor. To the West, China is a bright bauble on a Christmas tree. It dazzles and bewitches and feeds dreams of sugar plums, for its demographics boggle the minds of investors: a market of [more than] a billion shoppers. And so we witness the rank sentimentality that sent Standard Oil to light up every household with oil for the lamps of China during the early part of the 20th century, or the British American Tobacco Co [that] succeeded in making cigarettes an addictive habit and making the farmers abandon agricultural staples for BAT's tying them to endless debt. However, this time investors itching for putative profits think nothing of abandoning the workers in the own countries as they chase profits, thereby hollowing out the foundation on which they made their own fortunes at home ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jan 3, '06)

This is with reference to What to believe in the 'war on terror'? [Dec 21, '05] by William Fisher and Jim Lobe. It amazes me that my countrymen [Americans] are shocked at civil-rights abuses and what has been reported in the world press for years. ATol has diligently reported all of this. In the aftermath of the murder of Julius Caesar, Roman Emperor Augustus created the Praetorian Guard to help protect the emperor. However, the Praetorian guards became so powerful that they moved beyond their original task. First they became kingmakers, and then they removed and placed Roman emperors at will. Ultimately in AD 193, the guards got so powerful that they auctioned off the "mighty" Roman Empire to the highest bidder, one Didius Julianus, who promptly proclaimed himself emperor. It was not until the year 284 that the power of these guards was broken by Emperor Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus. However, it was done at great cost. He established an autocratic regime. This led first to the bifurcation of the empire and [ultimately] its total destruction. Today my sweet land of liberty has been hijacked by a coterie of crafty neo-cons. These self-propagating and selfish individuals think that they are omnipotent and all-powerful. As the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us, they certainly do not have America's best interests at heart. In hubris and arrogance they are attempting to auction off America to the highest bidder; to commercial interests for corporate profits, to foreign interests running proxy wars. President [Dwight] Eisenhower saw this coming. He said: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." President [George] Washington warned us against "foreign entanglements" ... Today we face severe limitations on our freedoms and extensive foreign entanglements that jeopardize the future of my children, disparage the name of my country, and endanger world peace. The American people are fed up with this nonsense and will not tolerate this anymore. We have to take our country back.
Moin Ansari (Jan 3, '06)

Stuart L Perkins writes [letter, Dec 20, '05]: "In his article When self-immolation is a rational choice [Dec 20], Spengler speaks with authority about democracies and their proclivity for war. Indeed, the USA is a case in point. Yet in my judgment, the US is not a democracy; rather it was created as a constitutional republic. Not the people but the constitution rules. Political rhetoric about democracy overshadows this fundamental historical point." The essence of democracy is elections - which are expressly incorporated in the US constitution. Thus, despite constant attacks on and denials of democracy by extreme right-wing supporters of rule by a minority - itself, of course - the US is a democratic republic.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Jan 3, '06)

Re In the men's room, China leaves India standing [Dec 6, '05]: I have lived in India and for a short time in China and there is no question that there is a dignity of work in China no matter the social strata; and no question that such dignity is totally absent in India, where the privileged lord over the laborers and the poor and treat them like beasts. The beasts in turn have adapted to their predicament by adopting a form of servile behavior that would be foreign to the Chinese poor. An Indian rickshaw puller offered a glass of water on a hot day may not drink out of the family tumblers but out of a tin cup used for servants and beggars, and he may not sit on a chair but on the floor. You won’t find this kind of social hierarchy in China. It's flatter there.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jan 3, '06)

This is in response to the letter [Dec 22, '05] by Du Ren. I would disagree with the characterization of Hinduism as a polytheistic religion (not that that is necessarily a bad thing). Religion is a form of ideology (fascism, capitalism, etc). As such religion seeks to present itself as a better ideology in comparison to others. Taken in this context and comparatively, one would expect the best idea or ideology to be successful (especially in this day and age when there is proliferation of information). Monotheism presents itself as a better ideology than polytheism. The basis of this [is] purely arbitrary. When there is better understanding of the various ideologies and religions, their comparative advantages/disadvantages will differentiate them. One day hopefully the best set of ideas will be adopted. Hinduism ... is not polytheistic. There is a central universal god and everything in the universe and its hierarchical structure [are] qualitatively and proportionally part and parcel of God. The Bhagavad Gita (translated "The Lord's Song") clarifies this in no uncertain terms. A book that allows for excellent understanding of the religion is Bhagavad Gita as It Is by A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
Yogi
Madison, Wisconsin (Jan 3, '06)

Between countries and even among people, there can be no permanent friends or enemies. Jakob Cambria is indeed innocent in his letter of December 6. Richard Nixon was disgraced by his electoral campaign tactics, but that does not distract from the fact that he was a visionary leader in world politics. Yes, honoring John Rabe can be seen as a gesture to embarrass Japan, but is it better late than never? I suppose what John Rabe did deserves universal praise. Remember how Americans reacted to the Pearl Harbor attack and the Japanese economic expansion in the '80s? Look, are the US and Japan not good friends now? Let us see through historical events rather than continue to gripe.
S P Li (Jan 3, '06)

I've begun reading your website recently and am finding it very informative, way beyond what I can get via BBC, Financial Times, or other lesser media. My puzzle is to grasp US policy in Eurasia and to see the larger picture that might explain what is happening inside the US. Your articles are helping me significantly in this.
John ODonnell
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jan 3, '06)

December Letters

All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd.

Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110