|
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.
Ehsan Ahrari's Democracy: Iraq
votes, Bush vetoes [Mar 31] was ambiguous. The
Bush administration has made it very clear from
the beginning that the Iraq war is an essential
component of the war on terrorism and it will be
until future presidents decide a relevant course
of action. Stated differently, Iraq is a war zone
to kill terrorists and to loot oil, and it is
neither a place to vote nor a country for
democracy. Associated with this thinking is the
issue that President [George W] Bush was ordered
by God to invade and occupy Iraq. Therefore,
President Bush is the sole decision-maker of the
country and he is free to fire, hire, approve, and
disapprove. Iraqis voted and a prime minister was
elected, but this election, while it was a
historical joke, has to be approved by the [US]
president whom God spoke with. Even if the Iraqi
people had voted for a person who was acceptable
to the Bush administration, President Bush would
not have approved his election either. The reason
is to remind the Iraqi people that whomever you
voted for, you are not the people who decide the
outcome; President Bush is the leading authority
for the result of the Iraqi vote. From this
perspective, President Bush, while in violation of
Iraqi ... democracy, is logically consistent with
his imperialist beliefs, suggesting that the Iraqi
people are not yet ready to determine the voting's
outcome: the White Man's Burden. With respect to a
national-unity government, I have never really
understood this cohesive unity. This is because
the country has been disintegrating in many
aspects and the government cannot control a mile
out of the Green Zone. Therefore, this current
government and the future one will not be able to
control an area larger than the Green Zone, nor
will it be able to eradicate the Iraqization of
the war. It follows that Iraqization and Bushism
are anti-democracy, and the Iranian mullahs are
the victors no matter who will be the prime
minister in Iraq.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 31,
'06)
Singapore has a no-nonsense
approach to business. It prides itself as being
eminently practical and commonsensical. Jaya
Prakash [Aerospace show
flees Singapore for HK, Mar 31] gives a good
account as to Reed Exhibitions' reasons for
shifting Asian Aerospace to Hong Kong by 2008.
That year is a red-letter year, for China will
host the Olympics. Moreover, Airbus has expressed
much interest in setting up assembly plants on the
mainland for short-distance carriers which will
satisfy China's internal needs. So it stands to
reason Reed's move is well timed. On the other
hand, [the aerospace industry] also caters to
military applications. China is modernizing its
armed forces and is eager to upgrade military
technology and to lay hands on technology
transfers. For this reason, some Western vendors
will not participate. Already, America's Secretary
of State [Condoleezza] Rice and Secretary of
Defense [Donald] Rumsfeld have warned of the
military buildup of Beijing and the future
problems that accelerated and forced march may
portend. Singapore has also rung a tocsin of
worry. One may dismiss this [as] a case of sour
grapes since the island state is losing a valued
client. Yet if attentive eyes follow Beijing's
hard-nosed attitude towards foreign investment in
what are essentially government-owned industries
and joint ventures, as well as market flexibility
for the private sector ... Singapore's warning is
not so unsettling, the more especially [as] it has
had it fingers burned badly with investments in
China.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 31,
'06)
The
reason the US has been so successful at home and
so incompetent at getting its way in the Middle
East is not obvious if you are not an American [Talking with
the 'terrorists', Mar 31]. In US politics, if
a major personage has some "secret mistake" in
[his or her] past, the person of the opposition
who "has" that secret knowledge can control the
other person's actions (assuming it's of a
career-ending nature). The present administration
has full access to all
the background information of every political,
military and government functionary. [Former
president George] H W Bush owns the company that
owns the files. With that weapon at your disposal
- well, you get the idea. Because of the attitudes
of US politicos towards members of Hamas and even
friendly governments in the Arab world, they have
no weapons other than - well, weapons. Add the
fact that most prominent US politicos are covertly
biased against anyone not "a 'Merican" and you
could create a chaotic condition for the whole
globe. Oh that's right, that's what we have! This
all may sound extremely cynical - reality is often
like that.
George in PA
USA (Mar 31,
'06)
A
reader [Jayanti Patel, letter, Mar 30] has
observed regarding Spengler's The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28] that Islam,
Christianity and communism have a lot in common.
Through the years Muslims have confessed that
"there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his
Prophet". It took me many years to realize that
the bottom line of communists was, "There is no
god but No-god and [Karl] Marx is his prophet." In
less time and to complete the symmetry, the
neo-cons and "voodoo" economists are saying,
"There is no god but profit, and give it your
all-uh." Peace be upon all true prophets only.
Arch
Davis
USA (Mar 31,
'06)
As
if it wasn't bad enough to write a goofy article
[The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28], Spengler compounds the
mistake by trying to defend his ideas [Spengler
responds to readers, Letters, Mar 30]. This whole
idea of "America is rich because it has faith"
makes sense in maybe a la-la land where you have
to put the facts aside. The facts are that Europe
is pretty well off and Christianity is almost dead
over there. How about Afghanistan during the
Taliban times or even now? How come they are poor
if they have all this faith? What about India? Why
are we poor? How about China, the fastest-growing
country in the world? The reality is that if you
allow freedom to flourish [and] make products that
one can [be] proud of, eventually a country will
become rich. You can have all the faith in the
world in a country like Mexico and watch your
countrymen flee north. [As to] the comparison
between Islamic and Christian gods, are we talking
about the same guy who will send me to eternal
hell because I am Hindu? He'll push me into hell
but he'll be real nice about it? Until I came to
the US, I didn't realize I was supposed to be
scared of God. I guess I need to suspend reality
when I read these kinds of articles.
Jayanti Patel (Mar 31,
'06)
Spengler has a right to
defend himself, though his chameleon-like change
of stance is disheartening. In his column [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28] Spengler clearly
appreciates the hazards of apostasy per se; in his
response [letter, Mar 30], he clamors to
ameliorate Western insecurities by almost
divorcing his earlier assertion. Regarding [the
US], undeniably there is a stark problem:
representing only 5% of humanity, we [Americans]
consume nearly 28% of Earth's natural and
synthetic resources. There is, of course, not a
lack of productivity and efficiency here, but a
hyperactivity of consumption whose proliferation
our planet cannot logically sustain. My criticism
is not that of an outsider, being a
third-generation born and bred American, nor do I
advocate socialist solutions. I only expect those
who ambitiously propose answers to be sincere. Not
coincidentally, the way of Mohammed (peace be upon
him) is only too unknown, not to mention too
consequential, to be treated with the foppish
contempt of our anonymous philosopher-friend. [It
is to be hoped that] most Westerners will digest
his message with a good amount of salt.
Zaheer Akmal
USA (Mar 31,
'06)
Re
Spengler (The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28]): Because Western
society has evolved, eg they don't execute
apostates anymore, some would like us to believe
that Christian beliefs are inherently superior to
those of Islam. Yet judging by the comments on
message boards and Christian TV programs, I am
inclined to believe that were it not for the
secular citizens in Western societies,
fundamentalist Christians would still be drowning
witches and burning dissenters at the stake.
Fundamentalist Christians pray for the final
showdown with Islam after which a Christian
theocracy will be established on Earth. They
believe that Islam is the false prophet of
Revelation 19:20 that is to be hurled into the
"lake of fire" and destroyed eternally. Such views
are confirmed by R Lafontaine in his letter to the
editor [Mar 29] when he says: "Since the 'god' of
Islam is a god of fanaticism, Christians must come
back to fanaticism in order to counter the spread
of this 'false god'." Indeed, the Christian god
exacts exclusive devotion, takes vengeance and is
disposed to rage against his adversaries (Nahum
1:2). Fundamentalist Christians empower their
state to engage Muslim nations in horrific
warfare. They see the killing of a 100,000 Muslims
as a prelude to the final destruction of apostate
Islam. Western society is quick to denounce Islam
on account of fanatics who use violence for
political ends. Why does Western society not
denounce these insidious beliefs and ploys of the
Christian fanatics who are just as intent in
spreading their hate and committing violence?
Ramon
Canada (Mar 31,
'06)
If
someone knows, please tell us [whether] in the
past or present any Muslim government sentenced to
death a Muslim convert to Christianity and carried
out the death penalty or [Abdul] Rahman's case is
the only known case in occupied Afghanistan.
Salman Saiyed
USA (Mar 31,
'06)
Kaveh L Afrasiabi is
absolutely right (Iran: Nuke
treaty mess reaches critical mass, Mar 25).
The United States must engage Iran in a real
strategic dialogue leading to a regional alliance
making all of the Middle East nuclear free. The
question is why it has not. Whether it is because
of ignorance, hubris or the influence of the
neo-cons within and outside the Bush
administration, its record in this regard is
abysmal at best. In the early years of [the
current US] administration, Iran, on several
occasions, tried to engage the US in negotiations
to resolve differences for better relations and it
was rebuffed every time. Surely the Bush
administration knows that without Iran's
cooperation, nothing can be resolved in the
region. Surely the administration knows that
schoolyard threats and intimidation on both sides
will resolve nothing. The neo-cons and their
allies' dream of regime change is nothing but just
that - a dream. Twenty-six years of enmity and
separation have left both countries without
knowledge and experience about each other. To
change that, the Bush administration must get
real, face the facts and engage Iran in talks that
will benefit both countries and the region.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Mar 31,
'06)
Spengler responds to
readers
Several readers took
exception to my March 28 essay on the subject of
apostasy (The West in an
Afghan mirror) on the grounds that inflicting
physical death upon an apostate is quite different
from imposing a spiritual death. That goes without
saying; when European society was fragile and
chaotic, St Thomas Aquinas thought it perfectly
reasonable to kill the whole population of
Provencal towns in order to suppress heresy, and
it is not surprising that a fragile and chaotic
country like Afghanistan might do the same. But
that is beside the point. The comparison that
should make everyone most uncomfortable is between
the murder of heretics in the Islamic world, which
of course is barbaric, and the slow-motion suicide
of most industrial nations, which is appalling. As
I have contended for years, humankind cannot live
without faith. This is true whether one attempts
to preserve a traditional faith against the
onslaught of secular culture by barbaric means or
one loses sufficient interest in life to bother
having children. The bell does not toll only for
Abdul Rahman. It tolls for the West as well. Of
course I favor legal protection for free exercise
of religion. But I abhor the smugness of
Westerners who deplore the barbaric behavior of
the Muslims, but fail to notice the slow but
relentless extinction of their own cultures. I am
quite critical of Americans, but it is completely
misguided to think (as does Zakeer Ahmal; letter,
Mar 28), "We know full well that the personal
consciousness of Americans, Christian or
otherwise, is a direct consequence of the
perpetual affluence Americans enjoy at the expense
of the rest of humanity." The United States of
America is productive and efficient, and most
other countries are corrupt and feckless. That is
why the US is wealthy, and also why the world puts
its savings into US rather than Iranian capital
markets. But America's religious character never
was stronger than when a few hardy Puritans
created the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Spengler (Mar 30,
'06)
Re
The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28]: Mr Spengler, stop
living in the past. The whole article was about
historical incidents - who cares what happened a
while back? We certainly cannot change it; all we
can do is to change what is happening now. The
treatment of the Christian exposes the Muslim
double standard of asking for freedom in other
countries while denying the same in their
countries. By the way, has anyone noticed that
Islam (and Christianity too) and communism have a
lot in common? Both say there is only one way,
their way or else! They instill fear in their
followers. Freedom of choice is not allowed.
Jayanti Patel (Mar 30,
'06)
Professor Michael Schwartz'
What went wrong
in Iraq? Wrong answer (Mar 30) is indeed a
very penetrating analysis of what has gone wrong
in Iraq over the last three years of the US
occupation. His methodology is very illuminating
and powerful, and his evidence is overwhelming.
But this logical approach is really ineffective
toward determining the basic cause of Iraq's
calamity. First, Arabs know the neo-liberal
economic model of privatization and government
support of business enterprises before the
Europeans in centuries. Second, if the Bush
administration had provided the Iraqi people with
flowers, money, security and democracy that had
never been seen before, they still would not have
accepted the US imperialist invaders. The problem
with US imperialism is its ignorance of sentiment,
emotion, and cultural respect for others. It
thinks that bombs and killing are the optimal
means of domination and submission of other
people. Essentially, the Iraqi people are well
educated, have great dignity, and do not want to
submit to foreign invaders. It is indeed a very
simple reason that requires neither theoretical
analysis nor statistical data to substantiate it
in order to develop efficient policies for solving
the Iraqi crisis. What went wrong in Iraq is the
US occupation of the country itself, a situation
that can only be corrected if the occupation ends
and if the Iraqi people are accommodated with
their heavy loses. Indeed this solution would make
US more popular in the Middle East and the world
community. Otherwise, those Iraqis and foreign
nationalists as well as terrorists will fight the
US occupiers for centuries to come, making the
benefit of the occupation far lower than its cost
and preventing the achievement of any form of
foreign democracy in Iraq. I am not exaggerating
the situation but I am applying a very simple
sentimental analysis, suggesting that Arabs do
have the Bedouin mentality that they like to be
free and unoccupied by the gentiles. And if this
mental habit is linked to religion, the outcome
becomes deadly. (Please see the great Joseph
Schumpeter, Imperialism
and Social Classes, Kelley, New York 1951)
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Mar 30, '06)
Re Different beat
to Iran war drums [Mar 30]: Coalition forces
certainly did not go into Iraq looking for WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] or for the freedom
of Iraqi people. Every one knows this now. [US
President George W] Bush and [British Prime
Minister Tony] Blair both knew well before the
invasion that in multi-ethnic Iraq (where since
becoming semi-autonomous in the protected zone the
Kurds had been organizing in the north and Shi'ite
militias had been training in Iran) there [would]
be bloodshed and civil war in the aftermath of
sudden "liberation" of the Iraqi people and that
that would be an ideal situation and excuse for
them to continue to stay there indefinitely to be
able to "mediate" between the warring factions and
control the country's affairs. It is true that
they probably underestimated the resolve and
professionalism of the Sunnis and the Sunni
insurgency, but they never totally discounted it.
On the contrary, they openly expected the Iraqi
theater to attract "terrorists" from all over the
Middle East, who were to converge to be netted by
American forces in Iraq. [The] British have been
sitting quietly in the south allowing Shi'ite
forces to get organized and prosper to a level
where they are sufficiently competent to fight
against the Sunnis and if necessary take part in
the eventual carving up of Iraq if the coalition
is unable to control Iraq en masse. The US's
hesitations [on an] Iranian invasion are of a
tactical nature. An American invasion of Iran will
not only open further fronts for America but also
it will be invading a cohesive nation where over
90% of the population belongs to the same sect.
[The US] military has recently been searching for
useful wider community divides in Iran (that can
be widened to facilitate [an] invasion and
occupation of Iran), but such attempts by the US
or its army [are] unlikely to return any promising
results. At the same time I don't believe Iranians
would ever go to the extent of bargaining at the
expense of Hezbollah's nuisance capabilities with
an enemy whom they brand "great Satan" and
"deceptive".
Rashid Hassan (Mar 30,
'06)
Delhi fears
only jihadis as Maoists rampage [Mar 30]
hardly raises an eyebrow. It doesn't take much to
delve the depths of India's worries. It has
hundreds of millions of citizens who are Muslims,
and [if communal discontent broke out], the Indian
subcontinent would implode. On the other hand,
Maoists have little appeal as a caste or a formal
religious adherence. Consequently, they are easier
to isolate and destroy. Still, Maoists also have
held the reins of power in various states, and as
such have, through piecemeal reform and petit bourgeois
production as a Lenin or a Mao might see it,
become integrated into the normal scheme of
things.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 30,
'06)
Asia
Times Online is the world's best online newspaper.
All my congratulations! By far you dominate
Western newspapers by the quality and diversity of
your writings.
Guy Courtois
Canada (Mar 30,
'06)
A
great website - congratulations, Asia Times
[Online], success to you.
W S
Seetharam (Mar 30, '06)
Re Money meets the
missiles [Mar 29] by Federico Bordonaro: With
the remarkable benefits of hindsight, we all know
how pacifism worked for Japan and how militarism
did. If I was Japanese, I'd stick with
pacifism.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Mar 29,
'06)
Richard Armitage is traveling
along a well-worn road of former high-ranking
State Department employees. He has opened his own
consulting firm. Mr Armitage is a plain-spoken man
when it comes to Asia. Yet in his interview [How the
US-Japan alliance will shape Asia, Mar 29], he
keeps saying, "We've clearly come a long way." A
long way from where? And to where? During his
years with the Bush administration, he put a
kinder face on aggressive diplomacy when it came
to North Korea. He politely sidesteps diverging
attitudes between South Korea and the United
States on approaching Pyongyang. He says little
about China. And given the brief account of the
question-and-answer format, the reader cannot
expect more than the standard emptiness of intent.
What is very clear, however, is that Washington
has fallen back to a traditional fortress-like
strategy when it comes to East Asia. By
strengthening traditional ties with Japan,
Washington has more or less withdrawn from the
East Asian mainland. (American troops in South
Korea [have been] under the umbrella of the United
Nations since 1950, and so a distinction is made
in this case.) Mr Armitage is less than sanguine
when it comes to dealing with Pyongyang. He has
dealt with North Koreans in Beijing and in
Pyongyang. Those contacts may prove fruitful after
[US President George W] Bush has left office.
Nonetheless, overtures to and from North Korea
should provide back-street discussions and future
options. In brief, Richard Armitage says little;
he proffers the usual bromides. Saying this, caveat emptor: the
Armitage Group has broad access to the inner
sancta of governments and will yield a degree of
influence for the right price.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 29,
'06)
Spengler's article The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28] begins by stating,
"Death everywhere and always is the penalty for
apostasy, in Islam and every other faith," yet the
body of his article concentrates on the three
monotheistic Western faiths of Islam, Christianity
and Judaism and completely neglects to include the
other major faiths of the world. The Buddha
founded Buddhism in 500 BC, and in 300 BC Emperor
Ashoka (India's version of [Constantine]) spread
Buddhism across Asia without raising a sword. At
the same time, Mahavira founded Jainism, the most
non-violent faith known to man. [In] neither of
these religions [was death] the penalty for
conversion to other faiths. With a few exceptions
even Hinduism does not apply this penalty. The
followers of the above faiths number above a
billion but [are] not once mentioned in his
article to support his opening statement. If Mr
Spengler only intended to speak of Western
religions he should have said so. Instead, he has
failed to prove [the] point in his opening
paragraph.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 29, '06)
The anonymous "Spengler" is
brilliant as usual, sparing neither Christian nor
Muslim (The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28). He must have an
unusual education, for commentators in the US
media seem to understand neither. Sanctions for
apostasy may be prevalent, but where is the place
in Islamic practice for the Koranic verse "There
should be no compulsion in religion"? My
correspondent in Afghanistan seems to find a
spiritual life in Islam for himself. But he sadly
reports to find "plenty of Islamics, but few
Muslims"; a tiny percentage seem to be seriously
spiritual. Those contacting Western "culture" wish
only to be the best yuppies they can be.
Ari
BenDavid (Mar 29, '06)
It is wholly appropriate that
Spengler instigated a debate about apostasy [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28], because Adam of Canada
and Mahmood Ahmad of somewhere [letters, Mar 28]
dance dangerously close to it. Infantile impulses
- ie, attraction to crude reductionism, love of
pedestrian literalism, rehashing of tiresome,
orientalist cliches - must remain strictly under
wraps; children, or adult ignoramuses with the
brain power of children, should know better than
to speak up in a serious conversation. To give the
gentlemen the benefit of the doubt, they are most
likely not aware how unequivocally established the
death penalty is - across all time and,
remarkably, all sects - for open apostasy in
Islamic lands. And their attempts are to present
apologias for an apparent unsightliness of Islamic
jurisprudence. However, Messrs Adam and Ahmad, and
all Muslims infected with one mutation or another
of Wahhabism, fail to see that their own hearts
stand in the greatest need of immunity from waswasa (doubt). God is
the absolute Just whose mercy encompasses and
overtakes all of existence, but we humans are
oppressors to ourselves.
Zaheer Akmal
USA (Mar 29,
'06)
In
his article The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28], Spengler made some
rather sweeping assumptions. Apparently 1826 in
his view is just as recent and relevant as 2006. I
see 180 years' difference. I am "moderate" enough
to accept that there are different times and
different places, customs and creeds in this world
as well. It is certainly easy to criticize the
other - whoever or whatever it may be. In defense
of moderation one does not have to defend the
Christian Crusades and every other abuse that has
ever happened in the name of religion - the
Christian religion or any other. There is plenty
of blame to go around. But what Spengler and the
clerics of Afghanistan fail to admit or don't want
to see is that their reactions are made from a
state of weakness and fear - not strength. If
Islam is the stronger, better religion, why do
nations like Maldives have to forbid even the
presence of a Bible inside their borders? It
sounds like weakness and fear to me. The United
States does not outlaw the Koran. Let all faiths
stand side by side everywhere and let people
choose for themselves. But many Islamists can't do
that. They fear too much and as a result they show
that they are actually coming from a position of
weakness - not strength. Fear is not the way to
success. Fear is not the way to overcome anything.
Whether it is terrorist acts or marching in the
streets shouting "Death to Christians!" those
things are merely masks of fear. Islam is much
better served by a moderate "live and let live"
philosophy than by violence. If someone wishes to
wipe out Christianity, violence is not the way to
accomplish it. As your example of Europe shows,
when you let conviction die on the vine of its own
accord, it is much more effective ...
Theophilus
India (Mar 29,
'06)
Spengler is a great theorist,
but in his commentary The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28], he describes today's
Western reality as if it was two centuries and
more in the past. He is nothing but an apologist
for the abhorrent practices of modern-day
Islamists in his attempt to compare them to
practices of Christendom of the 18th century and
earlier. I defy him to identify any "Christian" or
Western nation which, as a matter of course,
executes apostates today as is done in Islamic
countries such as Afghanistan, poor economic times
notwithstanding. Let's compare apples to apples.
Spengler, your argument stinks.
Drew
USA (Mar 29,
'06)
While Spengler is correct
that a century and a half ago, and prior thereto,
Christianity dealt in an un-Christian manner with
apostates [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28], no prominent existing
Christian faith that I know of currently
encourages governments or the faithful to murder
heretics or apostates in the name of the Lord.
Southern Baptists don't do so. Russian Orthodox
monks do not do so. Catholic priests and nuns do
not do so. Other Western nations may not have
embraced the separation of church and state that
the founding fathers of the United States of
America enshrined in the First Amendment to its
constitution, but they have come to subscribe to
the idea of freedom of conscience, and to the idea
that the power of religious organizations ought to
be limited to the ability to determine who will
and who will not be allowed full fellowship within
the religious congregation, with attendant
spiritual and post-mortal consequences. Christ
said it best when he told Pilate that his kingdom
was "not of this world, else would my disciples
fight". When Constantine embraced Christianity,
and melded it with the secular power of the Roman
Empire, and began (perhaps with the best of
intentions) to exercise unrighteous dominion over
the souls of men, he corrupted the religion that
Christ had founded. The embracing of freedom of
conscience has not enfeebled Christianity.
Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are all
devout proponents of the concept, having suffered
their share of persecution, and all of these
Christian faiths grow vigorously. The attempt by
Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan to murder
[Abdul] Rahman for choosing another religious path
horrifies modern Christians, and that horror is
not at all hypocritical. We may have been as
arrogant and intolerant 150 years ago, but to us
it seems horribly wrong that such attitudes should
persist in a world that has harvested such bitter
fruit from such attitudes, over and over again.
Also, Spengler is absolutely wrong in his attempt
to paint all Muslims with the same medieval brush.
There are many Muslims who were as horrified with
the Afghan spectacle as we are in the Christian
West. So many of them are the immediate targets of
these medieval throwbacks. [Egyptian president]
Anwar Sadat was devout in his Islamic beliefs, and
he believed in freedom of conscience, and paid for
that belief with his life. He was not murdered by
Christians.
Gregory S Hill
Richboro, Pennsylvania (Mar 29,
'06)
It
may be true that most Christians have moved on
from the view that apostasy is a capital offense,
but many of them, especially in the US, still
enthusiastically support the concept of capital
punishment for other crimes. Hence while Muslims'
demanding the death penalty for an apostate is
viewed with "horror", America's imposition of the
same penalty against a black teenage murderer is
not. Some, especially in developed secular
democracies other than the US that have abolished
capital punishment, might suggest that US
Christians' moral outrage is rather selective. -
ATol
According to Spengler [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28], if you're not burning
witches at the stake you are not truly religious,
and if you are not truly religious then you are
"soul dead"; therefore nothing you say you believe
in counts for anything and you may as well be
dead. The only people who matter are fanatics and
since they have "different" gods they must
inevitably make war upon each other to affirm
their faith and fulfill their religious duty.
Since the "god" of Islam is a god of fanaticism,
Christians must come back to fanaticism in order
to counter the spread of this "false god". So the
message is: Religion, only fanatics need apply. Or
rather: Life, only fanatics need apply. The rest
of you are already dead.
R
Lafontaine
Youngstown,
Ohio (Mar 29, '06)
The columns written by the
columnist(s) who writes (write) under the nom de plume "Spengler"
sometimes ring rather hollow, which makes the
column shrill and irritating. But his/her/their
article The West in an
Afghan mirror (Mar 28) rang true. Whatever the
point of view, the article spoke with the
authority of long exposure to the subject matter
and was a pleasure to read, even if one disagreed
with some of the argument. I would be interested
to learn more about who writes under the byline of
"Spengler". I don't always read the articles, but
I don't ever recall seeing a biography of the
author(s). My suspicion is that the opinions and
perspectives come from a religious or
philosophical background or even a religious
think-tank. I don't say this to be critical or
denigrate the column. I appreciate well-written
columns no matter what the provenance. When
peeping through the Spengler archives, I noticed
an e-mail, purportedly from ATol, that had the
sentence, "I'm the editor who has to put your
column into Asia Times Online. I really need to
know, are you a real person or not?" [Ask
Spengler: The agony aunt
and the eggstacy, Mar 20, '04]. I was really
taken aback by this. Is it true that ATol
regularly publishes Spengler but doesn't know who
is behind the mask?
Jonathan
United Kingdom (Mar 29,
'06)
As
you know if you read all of the letter to which
you refer, and Spengler's response, it's his
hairdo, not his mask, that really has us
baffled. - ATol
I'm writing on the Islamic
cartoon controversy and just had a few questions.
Looking at the article, I was hoping to get an
understanding for why drawing the Prophet is such
a taboo. regardless of the content. Would the
Islamic community be offended if it was [a] less
racist image, or is the image enough by itself to
set off tensions? Also, has anything been done in
terms of arrests in Denmark or any other European
cities due to publishing the cartoons?
Pat
Blye (Mar 29, '06)
We have run numerous articles
on this subject, and you neglect to say which one
you are referring to. If you had read them all,
you would probably have found answers to most of
your questions. A good place to start your
research is Cartoons and
the clash of 'freedoms' (Feb 4), or use our search
tool at the top of this page. - ATol
[When a civilization
professes to be greater than others,] the
intellect is deliberately [dissociated and] sanity
is interned so that greed may proceed and allow
the savagery of the greater to prey upon the less.
While mankind strives for nobility, there are some
among us who contemplate such base decisions that
would threaten the existence of another nation.
Those same powers ... would refute that man is
born under one law, and so they ... [target] him
with nuclear weapons. Alarmed at such baseness,
Philip [Giraldi], a former CIA [US Central
Intelligence Agency] officer, in [the] August 1,
2005, issue of The American Conservative warns
that [US Vice President] Dick Cheney has issued a
request for using tactical nuclear weapons against
Iran. More troubling is that the use of nuclear
weapons is not conditional on Iran being involved
in the act of terrorism against the United States.
Otherwise stated, Iran is being set up for "an
unprovoked nuclear attack". [US Secretary of State
Condoleezza] Rice, who is rather smug about having
earned herself a major victory by getting everyone
on board in referring Iran to the United Nations
Security Council, can also invite these same
nations to share this crime against humanity. Dr
Jorge Hirsch, professor of physics at [the
University of California] San Diego, in his
remarkable video emphasizes the consequences of a
US nuclear attack on Iran. Each bomb would deliver
an incalculable number of corpses, [with] the
radiation fallout, both immediate and residual,
unparalleled in magnitude to the tragedy witnessed
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago.
Subsequently, as each country races to acquire an
A-bomb to protect itself against an attack by a
nuclear-armed aggressor, we watch the dwindling of
our civilization. It is said that when a rich man
declares war, the poor man dies. Today, with the
mockery of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy
Agency] and the UN Security Council and, above
all, with the United States' issuance of nuclear
tactical standby, it is not just a single nation
that is at risk of demise, but man's progress. The
hideous claws of war have gripped Western
political leaders and, motivated by greed, they
are committing cultural genocide/suicide. Apathy
fuels this madness ... If Americans wish to be a
law-abiding nation, then they must protest the use
of tactical nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear-armed
NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] signatory. The use
of these weapons will be defined as a war crime
under the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949
Geneva Conventions - an indiscriminate attack in
which the attacker does not take measures to avoid
hitting non-military objectives, that is,
civilians and civilian objects. There is no doubt
that the radiation from these nuclear weapons
would kill civilians. US citizens must determine
their future. Will Americans be known as a nation
that put out the lights of civilization by
enabling [their] elected officials to commit
heinous crimes and kill en masse in their name?
Will we stand by and allow mushroom clouds to be
the legacy that [the current US] administration
will leave our children, or will we realize that
we should put a stop to genocide and call on this
administration to recall its despicable policy of
nuking innocence?
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Middle East Center,
University of Utah (Mar 29, '06)
This is with reference to the
article The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28] by Spengler. I had to
pinch myself into reality. Kudos to Spengler for
splendid writing. The question is, if Spengler is
capable of writing fantastic and unbiased
articles, why does he focus on the negative in his
other articles? One pearl of wisdom doesn't make a
trend. However, if Spengler is headed towards
positive [writing] and reconstruction, may God
bless Spengler. We have a saying Pakistan and
India: "If a lost person comes 'home', we don't
call him 'lost' anymore."
Moin Ansari (Mar 28,
'06)
In response to the
Spengler article on the Afghan convert [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28], it must be clarified
to all readers that the Koran, as the supreme
authority of Islamic law, does not call for the
death penalty in the case of apostasy. Numerous
Koranic verses advance the notion that individuals
are free to believe in Islam or not to believe in
Islam. No penalties are incurred for not believing
in Islam. Furthermore, the alleged Prophetic
saying that calls for death by apostasy must be
classified as inauthentic. In Islamic law, if
there is a conflict between the Koran and a report
of a Prophetic saying, the former must prevail.
Spengler should realize that Islam should not be
defined solely by the actions of Muslims but
defined by the the Koran's universal teachings of
justice, peace, and mercy.
Adam
Canada (Mar 28,
'06)
Again, Spengler needs to
differentiate between Islam as outlined in the
Holy Koran and practiced by the Holy Prophet (SAW)
and the one interpreted by mullahs [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28]. Clearly mullahs are a
threat to Islam on whose bandwagon Spengler
appears to be riding. Islam does not impose death on an
apostate, and the Holy Prophet of Islam never
imposed the death penalty on apostates. Death for
apostasy made its way into Islam after the
Khilafat of Hazrat Ali (AS). I will quote but a
few verses of the Holy Koran that relate to
apostasy: "O ye who believe, whoso from among you
turns back from his religion let him remember that
in place of such a person, Allah will soon bring a
people whom He will love and who will love Him,
who will be kind and considerate towards the
believers and firm and unyielding towards the
disbelievers. They will strive hard in the cause
of Allah and will not at all take to heart the
reproaches of fault finders. That is Allah’s
grace; He bestows it upon whosoever He pleases.
Allah is the Lord of vast bounty, All-Knowing"
(5.55). "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then
again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go
on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never
forgive them, nor guide them to any way of
deliverance" (4.138). "Mohammed is but a
Messenger; of a surety, all Messengers before him
have passed away. If then, he dies or be slain,
will you turn back on your heels? He who turns
back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit.
Allah will certainly reward the grateful" (3.145).
I have yet to find a verse here that mentions
killing ...
Mahmood Ahmad (Mar 28,
'06)
Spengler's otherwise
informative if somewhat rambling essay on apostasy
starts with a Eurocentric assumption, "Death
everywhere and always is the penalty for apostasy,
in Islam and every other faith" [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28]. This has often been
literally true only in the Semitic traditions of
Islam [and] Christianity. It is perfectly
explicable from a consideration of the concept of
God in these traditions - where God is jealous and
given to psychotic rages where he murders his
chosen people over trivia of form and burnt
offerings. Obviously such a god needs placation
with especial wariness of apostates who would
disrupt his good humor. The contest between an
Islam that kills for duty and, I suppose, a
[Christianity] that lays waste to Baghdad for love
is only the continuation of the contest of the
jealous gods.
Aql Sharma (Mar 28,
'06)
Regarding Spengler's
article The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28] and his condensed
viewpoint of two competing religions, namely:
"Islam differs radically from Christianity, in
that the Christian god is a lover who demands love
in return, whereas the Muslim god is a sovereign
who demands the fulfillment of duty": The author
severely misrepresents the teachings of Christ.
His comparison of Christ's teachings to Mohammed's
may be Spengler's entitled opinion, but that's all
it is, and a bit reckless at that considering the
size of his audience. Christ teaches that he,
himself, is the truth and that mankind should
know, love and serve God with all their heart, and
to love one's neighbor as oneself. Those are
Christian "duties" and they are what Christ did
while on Earth, even to the point of setting the
supreme example of laying his life down for
mankind. If that is not "duty" then I don't know
what is, but surely Spengler does.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington
(Mar 28, '06)
Spengler again heaps
philosophical dung upon hapless readers as
scholarly analysis [The West in an
Afghan mirror, Mar 28]. White Americans are
European peoples and every bit as susceptible as
[Europeans] to religious intolerance, bigotry,
racism and murderous anti-Semitism, which in both
Europe and [the United States of] America became
politically incorrect after the horror of the
Holocaust (Spengler confesses this much). Yet
Spengler exaggerates the uniqueness of American
Christianity and how it alone has weathered the
hurricane of faithlessness. We know full well that
the "personal consciousness" of Americans,
Christian or otherwise, is a direct consequence of
the perpetual affluence Americans enjoy at the
expense of the rest of humanity. Pull the rug of
material overabundance from under the feet of
America and observe all this spare goodwill, the
romanticism, evaporate. It is no mystery why the
strongest responses to socialism and unionism in
America were during the Great Depression. In the
same vein we understand the current obsession of
the American middle class with reforming
immigration law, in not a few quarters to the
pitch of plain racism - "culture" here, as in
Europe, doubling as the handmaiden of the bigoted.
As for Islam and all the howling about its
barbaric essence, let us be content that Spengler,
no friend of Islam, appreciates the dire impact of
apostasy as a door to spiritual, and ultimately
physical, death. In light of unadulterated
traditional Islam, the Abdul Rahman case
specifically is a toss-up at best, for Afghanistan
is by no stretch of the imagination an "Islamic"
state, and therefore the execution of hadd’, or capital
punishment, is dubious and more an expression of
political defiance against America than anything
else. But still, the torrents of xenophobia that
gush forth from the West at each unsightliness of
non-European traditional society betray the utter
hatred - the condescending "humanitarianism" only
a slight veil - the West continues to have for the
world outside itself: that all the masterful
twisting of Christianity, on either side of the
Atlantic, has alas not cleansed the heart of the
West.
Zaheer Akmal
USA (Mar 28,
'06)
Spengler: I just read your
article The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28], which you closed with
this sentence: "'Moderate Islam' is an empty
construct; the Islam of the Afghan courts is the
religion with which the West must contend." I'm
afraid that you are gifted with too much honesty
to uphold your own beliefs. One has only to read
this latest article of yours to see that the West
is not fit to accomplish this task that you ask of
them.
Beth Bowden
USA (Mar 28,
'06)
Spengler never fails to find
a baroque way to look at things. And The West in an
Afghan mirror [Mar 28] has a musty odor to it.
Were this a college paper, Spengler's essay could
pass muster. Spengler is a moral relativist who
finds parallels which are anachronistic at best.
It is a very dim and distant mirror he sees the
West's reflection in. Let's face it, the West, by
which he means Christendom, has not burned or
lopped off heads for apostasy for centuries.
Islam, however, does. There is no moral
equivalence [to be found by Spengler] unless he
rolls back time in centuries. Nonetheless, he adds
with a flourish [of the] pen Kevin Phillips'
latest book American
Theocracy to say that we have everything to
fear from the rise of evangelical Christians in
the United States, which, for him, is but a
precursor of a fanaticism which will not hesitate
to slay the miscreant, the unbeliever, the
atheist, so on and on. Spengler is an idealist who
delights in leaps of faith, if not of logic.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 28,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad ... I found your article Losing faith in
Afghanistan [Mar 25] more than a bit
perplexing. Almost half of your column space was
dedicated to the comments by Shahnawaz Farooqui,
defending the execution of Abdul Rahman in a less
than logical format. "If somebody at one point
affirms the truth [belief in God] and then rejects
it or denies it, it would jeopardize the whole
paradigm of truth. This is such a big offense that
the penalty can only be death," [said] Farooqui.
Truth [is] subjective; the idea of a god is
subjective. Religion serves only as a guidepost
for moral living, and there are plenty of immoral
religious people and moral atheists. Who is the
better person, the man who gives food to the poor
because God demands it, or the man who gives food
to the poor because he believes it is the right
thing to do? There is no god, only the choice to
believe in one or not. If an individual raised in
Islam chooses not to believe, will his neighbor's
house suddenly come crashing down in flames
because Farooqui believes The Truth has been
refuted? No. Faith may be an ontological debate,
but the life of a human being is not. Yes, the
Western world has made mistakes, terrible ones.
What does Islam prove by repeating those mistakes?
Above all else, we have learned to accept this:
you cannot kill a man for what lies in his heart,
[if] those beliefs do not endanger the lives of
others. Abdul Rahman has threatened to kill no
one, and yet he should be executed for an
unsubstantiated, illogical argument the likes of
Farooqui's? Why does Islam demand unquestioning
faith? Why can it not be enough to simply be a
good person? Kindness, intelligence, compassion
and honesty; these traits are universal of [good
people] no matter what god they recognize. I guess
my biggest question of all is why you had only
Westerners in poor standing with the world
defending Rahman, and only Muslims seeking his
death. Is there no one from Islam who will speak
for this man's right to live?
M K Yost (Mar 28,
'06)
Emad Mekay's Study blasts US
pro-Israel lobby (Mar 24) has informed readers
of ATol about the essence and the significance of
this study, and I thank him for his honesty and
for removing the cloud of our ignorance.
Personally, I would approach the case differently.
Essentially, the issue is that US imperialism has
invaded, looted and occupied a defenseless Iraq
with the support of other imperialist and
previously fascist nations, destroying every
aspect of this beautiful country except oilfields
and pipelines. US imperialism has killed thousands
of Iraqi men, women and children that had neither
threatened nor even killed one single American.
The calamity of Iraq would not have happened if
Iraq had not had oil, no matter how powerful and
influential the Israeli and the Christian
conservative lobbies were. Historically US
imperialists do not sacrifice funds, soldiers and
security for anyone except the financiers, the oil
corporations, and the military complex. It is
absolutely true that influential American
politicians talk about the security of Israel and
other allies in the Middle East, but this is an
appearance, not an essence, designed for
attracting some voters and for packaging their
disastrous decision in Iraq with humanistic cover.
Similarly, US imperialists are responsible whether
there is peace in the Middle East or not. It is
the US financiers who call the shots, not the
recipients of public transfer payments. All other
peripheries are trying to demonstrate their
importance to the world through such studies, but
they are really not. It is extremely difficult for
me to believe that Harvard and Chicago scholars
are worried about retaliation, because if they
were, they would not have conducted such a study.
It must always be remembered, however, that the
Bush administration and the American taxpayers are
all responsible for what has been taking place in
Iraq, and I am very sure that the Iranian mullahs
are very thankful for getting their Western
boarders secured for many years to come.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 28,
'06)
It
seems that in order to belittle Sonia Gandhi,
Sandeep [Khurana] and Rocky (letters, Mar 27) have
made absurd arguments. They presume that it was
Sonia Gandhi who personally engineered a ploy to
remove Jaya Bachchan. Had it been her ploy she
must have done her homework well and realized that
all political parties would fall victim for it. I
guess an over-enthusiastic Congress party man,
knowing the animosity between them, would have
thought that [by] putting Jaya Bachchan in a fix
he can impress Sonia Gandhi, but squarely end up
causing more harm to his own party. And it is also
virtually impossible for Sonia Gandhi to monitor
every issue related to her party so she can veto
it before it creates controversy. Still, by
resigning, she has not lost anything to call it a
sacrifice. But the very fact that many politicians
will never give up their power easily (I have not
heard in the recent past [of] someone doing so)
makes Sonia Gandhi's decision exemplary. In other
words, we Indians are proud of our democratic
credentials, but that doesn't mean ours is a noble
democracy; ours only seems to be much better than
others (Third World countries). And what is wrong
if government tries to bring an ordinance to
correct an anomaly? Parliamentary debate [is
required] only when there [is] ample time to
debate or there are serious differences between
parties ... Finally, this so-called foreign lady
is not thrusting her or her own country's ideals
upon us, but as it is a duty of any
daughter-in-law to fulfill the wishes of her
husband's family, she is simply doing her duty. If
Indians prefer family strongholds in political
parties, as witnessed in many other parties, it is
our fault, not hers.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore,
India (Mar 28, '06)
The rescue of [British
hostage] Norman Kember and two colleagues raises
some thought-provoking challenges, such as those
with which the eminent Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz has recently grappled. Two members of
the [Iraqi] kidnap/murder gang were captured and
talked. Or were got to do so. On reflection, I
consider that if official limits for such
interrogation excluded "lasting serious mental
harm" as well as "lasting physical harm", and any
"excruciating" treatment, but authorized "measures
extremely unpleasant or distressful for the
victim", then you are back in a balanced and
proportionate moral calculation. Coercive
elements, such as being naked, doused with water,
deprived of sleep, or other similar elements of
pressure, such as noise, cold, odors, lights,
total darkness, hooding, handcuffs or chains,
isolation, food or drink deprivation, loss of
exercise, daylight, or, as I recall from Israel at
one point, shaking, when supervised and limited in
both duration, purpose and intensity, seem to me
to be reasonable pressure to use in dealing with
utterly ruthless mass murderers such as [Osama]
bin Laden and his lot. If what is permitted is (a)
strictly specified, (b) excludes anything not
specified, (c) is supervised in implementation,
(d) is restricted to serious suspects, (e) is duly
authorized in advance, and (f) each suspect is
medically and psychologically assessed both before
and after such procedures, then a formal,
standardized, controlled environment and mechanism
like that seems to avoid the risk of abuse or
excess. The US Army Field
Manual point about inherently unreliable
information being yielded from torture may not be
valid if limited coercion as outlined is what is
involved. And if even "water-boarding" is (a) as
publicly described, but (b) so terrifying that
most people crack within seconds, and (c) cannot
drown the suspect, then perhaps it is not inhuman,
even if cruel, and not to be excluded in all
circumstances. Normal people can scarcely imagine
those who can readily behead innocents like Dublin
woman Margaret Fitzpatrick (Hassan), or incinerate
a passenger train, and so we react with the unreal
assumption that we are not here facing a savagery
and true evil that is rare in history. To defeat
such evil we need to know exactly what we face,
and how ruthless and fanatical the enemy is, and
nice liberal assumptions should not prevent our
consideration of new approaches. After all, the
first priority in any such interrogation is not a
criminal conviction, after due process, and based
on guilt being established "beyond reasonable
doubt", but simply "actionable intelligence" to
prevent the next atrocity. The successful rescue
of Kember and colleagues, due particularly to
effective questioning of suspects, convinces me,
for the first time, that there actually may be a
decent middle way between inhuman brutality and
ineffective, traditional "light" questioning of
suspects. And I write as someone disgusted by
reading Dr Sheila Cassidy's story from Chile some
years ago, or the harrowing book Mayada about Saddam
[Hussein]'s Iraq.
Tom Carew
Dublin, Ireland
(Mar 28, '06)
Note: On March 25,
Asia Times Online ran Losing faith in
Afghanistan by Syed
Saleem Shahzad. The article, which dealt with the
case of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who converted from
Islam to Christianity and came under threat of the
death penalty (the case was dropped by an Afghan
court for "lack of evidence" on March 27),
attracted a large number of readers, several of
whom sent responses to the writer. A selection of
their letters appears here,
along with some comments
by Syed Saleem Shahzad. - ATol
(Mar 27, '06)
Sami Moubayed has drawn a
good Balance sheet
for America's Iraq [Mar 25]. It says what it
has to say save one thing. It does not take into
account the way [US President George W] Bush and
Co record and analyze America's investment in time
and materiel and monies and manpower in Iraq. Mr
Bush is a good disciple of Jeremy Bentham. He is
utilitarian in his view of the war in Iraq, which
he equates with bringing happiness overall to a
country which has known nothing but the villainous
rule of Saddam Hussein. Mr Bush's "open sesame" of
Iraq he calls "democracy" and, as such, democracy
justifies America's sacrifices in blood and iron
and steel there. What Mr Moubayed discounts is
that Mr Bush and Co are betting on long-term
results, and so expense in materials and lives,
Iraqi and American, count for little as long as
they are consistent with a world view which many
question. It might come as no surprise that Mr
Moubayed overlooked another simple point: Mr Bush
has a mindset which is not different in kind than
that of the mullahs but in style.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 27,
'06)
Sami
Moubayed's A balance sheet
for America's Iraq (Mar 24) is disturbing and
offensive. America does not own Iraq but has
occupied the nation. It follows that Iraq has
never been liberated, nor has America courted some
social groups besides there own, because all
policies of the ruling class are always directed
toward the destruction of one side by using the
other side. In other words, policies of the US
ruling class tend to create a fragile imbalance by
which the dominated side is always very weak. Mr
Moubayed's analysis understates the Iraqi death
[toll], because other studies have estimated the
deaths to be more than 150,000. In addition, he
points out that Iraq is in need of stability and
dictatorship rather than instability and
democracy. Unfortunately, Iraq has had neither
stability nor democracy, and the election was
indeed a fragile part of the imperialist
democracy, but democracy is an institution
requiring many other components that cannot be
accomplished under the imperialist occupation of
Iraq such as human rights, freedom of people from
submission, participation of all citizens in
decision-making, religious tolerance, freedom of
speech, equal income distribution, national
control of oil wealth, social programs offering
unemployment compensation, heath care, and
financial assistance to the needy people. Iraq is
in desperate need of such a cohesive participatory
democracy to bring all people together, a need
that can be achieved only if the occupation ends.
Since President [George W] Bush has left it to
future presidents to decide what to do about Iraq,
the civil war and the destruction will continue no
matter who is in charge of Iraq. I am sure that
the president has realized that the Iraq war will
continue for at least the next three years, but he
has surprisingly ignored the spiritual issue that
God may ask him to leave Iraq. A nonsense
proposition in Mr Moubayed's analysis is the
increase in the troop level in order to win the
war in Iraq, which neglects the fact that his war
is not winnable, because a permanent war's
outcomes are uncertain. Certainly, we now know
that the Iraqi people, as the Americans did, do
not want to be occupied, nor do they want to
forget the revolutionary holiday of July 14, 1958,
when they defeated the British Empire.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Mar 27, '06)
In your article A balance sheet
for America's Iraq [Mar 25], Sami Moubayed
correctly points out the lack of knowledge of the
US administration regarding the Middle East, and
he is right in pointing out Iran's interference in
Iraq, even fostering the now-growing civil war.
But he mentions [that] "inasmuch as some Arabs
want democracy, they will always vote for
stability as a high priority". My question is,
what example is he using to back up this
statement? The Palestinians were given the option
to elect a government and they individually chose
to elect a known terrorist organization, Hamas, to
lead their country. As for his comments regarding
the "domino effect" of neighboring Arab states, he
is right that the US failed in creating an ongoing
democratic process with the fall of Iraq. But the
"domino effect" will still occur, not because of
US failure alone but from another sector, the
rising nuclear-weapons status of Iran, [which]
will definitely use this new-found power to
leverage deals and even topple governments [that]
may not toe the line of Tehran's foreign
policy.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 27, '06)
Re A balance sheet
for America's Iraq [Mar 24]: The only real
beneficiaries of the current situation in Iraq are
Zionists, regardless of whether they are Israelis
or neo-conservatives, wherever they may be in
North America or Europe. All those participating
in the current chaos in Iraq are not the players
but rather part of the game. For sure coalition
forces did not go into Iraq for eradication of
weapons of mass destruction or the introduction of
democracy. It is anybody's educated guess that in
a multi-ethnic country where a determined minority
rules with an iron fist, there will be chaos after
forceful dismantling of the minority regime. In
fact former British prime minister John Major
openly predicted the present-day picture of Iraq
(in the event of an invasion) in the weeks and
months leading up to the coalition invasion of
Iraq. Neo-conservatives and Zionists are least
unhappy about what is currently happening in Iraq.
To many the present situation in Iraq is in
conformity with their vision and a step forward in
proving the truth of the Bible. Some of them are
openly saying present-day Iraq gives a pretty good
picture of how the region would look like in the
event of a caliphate. Iraq was invaded with the
very possibility of creating chaos by setting
everyone suddenly free and then using the
resulting chaos and anarchy to stay indefinitely
to "mediate" between warring factions. Evidence to
that effect came to light recently when it
transpired that, faced with the prospects of
invading Iran, the United States military hired in
the past few months the services of a firm to
assess the depth of community conflict in Iran and
how it can be deepened and exploited to facilitate
the work of the military in the process of
"democratization" there.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 27,
'06)
This
is in response to the article Sonia's 'inner
voice' silences critics [Mar 25]. Is it just
the author's imagination or Indian National
Congress propaganda at full swing that this act
[Sonia Gandhi's resignation from parliament], what
should have been done before, is being projected
as sacrifice? In fact a case should be filed
against her and other politicians who are holding
such positions of benefit. As the author points
out, Congress was hell-bent on saving her by
bringing an ordinance in the parliament. It
reminds me of the time when her late husband was
prime minister and movies were getting censored
because of having sarcastic remarks against him
and his government. The only news on TV at
[government-run channel] DoorDarshan was shown
after getting a clean chit from Rajiv Gandhi or
his chamchas
[yes-men]. I am ashamed of such Congress culture
where all of its leaders sit at the foot of a lady
whose only qualification is that she is the
[widow] of someone ... Sometimes I wonder what she
would be doing if she were in Italy instead of in
India. We Indians are being made fools by such
foolish gimmicks every now and then, mainly from
Congress. I dream of the day when Congress
[members] will just grow up and instead of
worshipping and touching the feet of a foreigner
will get some self-respect and provide the nation
a true "son/daughter of the soil" leader.
Sandeep Khurana (Mar 27,
'06)
Some
of us have seen Siddharth Srivastava write
articles that conform to the looney-left ideology
for a while. However, in Sonia's 'inner
voice' silences critics [Mar 25] he seems to
have gone totally overboard. To begin with Jaya
Bachchan, nee Bhaduri, was an accomplished
actress. I am not sure anyone in India or anywhere
in the world knew much about one Sonia Manio. So
in my opinion, comparing Jaya Bachchan to Sonia
Gandhi is really an insult to Jaya Bhaduri (and
all other Indian women) who have accomplished
things in their lives other than marrying into the
Nehru family. Second, what is good for the goose
is surely good for the gander. So the fact that
Congress decided to go after Jaya (and the
Samajwadi Party) in this manner shows a total lack
of understanding in the party. [Didn't] anyone in
the party with a bit of intelligence realize that
what goes around, comes around? That meant not
only Sonia Gandhi, but several Congress ... MPs
[members of parliament] from Maharashtra who are
also chairpersons of sugar mills, private
colleges, cooperative banks and so forth. Not only
that, several MPs from the Communist Party are
lifelong chairpersons of several government
organizations or companies. Remarkably, Mr
Srivastava has managed not to mention a line about
a significant chunk of the UPA [United Progressive
Alliance] MPs. However, what is galling is Mr
Srivastava's outright dishonesty when he writes,
"To the credit of Sonia, she has been taking up
causes that do reflect her quest for moral values.
It was at her request that the Jessica Lal case
(in which the model was allegedly shot by the son
of a powerful politician) was reopened, with the
government planning a revamp of the Criminal Act."
I am surprised that Mr Srivastava somehow forgot
to mention the political affiliation of this
"powerful politician" and why it took Sonia's
"conscience" such a long time to do such a thing.
Moreover, this lady Sonia can subvert the Indian
constitution and laws at a drop of the hat (shut
down the parliament, changed rules to suit her
situation etc). How does such a person's
conscience not [bring] her to "expel" this
politician or any other politicians with criminal
records in her party? Is it just the good karma of
these politicians, or am I missing something here?
Finally, how did you forget Gujarat? Remember, the
people accused of setting the train on fire were
Congress office-bearers. How did the Railway
Ministry manage to completely exonerate them? ...
Rocky (Mar 27,
'06)
Re
Sonia's 'inner
voice' silences critics [Mar 25]: Everybody
knows that if there is a rule then there must be
an exception. It is up to our wisdom to discern
between enforcing rules [while] giving exception
to some. The law which prevents people from
holding two offices is good in nature but, I
think, that can hardly be applied to Sonia
[Gandhi]'s case. It is quite practical that a
leader of a party, which governs India, wants to
be in parliament to represent/defend her party
[while] holding offices like chairman [of the]
National Advisory Council to guide her colleagues.
Even if it is legally wrong to hold two offices,
Sonia must be unaware of such law. I guess she has
simply followed what is in vogue. And once
realizing there is legal ambiguity in her case,
she has taken the right decision to resign. Had
someone advised her [of] such a law and in spite
of that advice if she had preferred to hold two
offices, the opposition [might have had] some
justification politicizing the issue. But since
that is not the case, the need of the hour is
identifying such an absurd law and reforming it.
But the sad part of the story is, Indian
politicians always wake up at the eleventh hour to
make corrections.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Mar 27,
'06)
I
read The Kurdish
defection [Mar 25] by Iason Athanasiadis with
great interest because [it] reveals some issues
which are not discussed in the US mainstream media
about Kurdistan. But the Kurdish official's
remarks that "drugs are a new phenomenon in our
society" are just as incredible as saying that
hotdogs are a new type of food in the US. I
empathize with Kurdish aspirations for statehood.
The fact is that none of their neighbors want
Kurdish statehood to become a reality for a
variety of reasons which are beyond the scope of
my letter. My main goal for writing this letter
... is to point out that commodities, weapons and
narcotics smuggling has for a long time been the
main means for a lot of Kurds to make a living and
as a matter of fact smuggling has been a Kurdish
specialty for a long time. I am not here to defend
what the Iranian government does as far as its
neighbors are concerned. But the Iranian people
have been the victims of the Kurdish smuggling
activities for a long time. I think Iason
Athanasiadis should write an article about the
subject ...
Anooshirvan Ghazai (Mar 27,
'06)
Re
Reheating the
Cold War [Mar 24]: [The United States of]
America cannot exist without enemies. In one of my
books I ask the question, When has the American
economy not survived on war production? The answer
is never. In the book The
Genes of Gregoria the central figure, a war
hero of the Great Patriotic War, is almost
destitute and, as a dying old man in the [Russian
president Boris] Yeltsin years, shouts at his
wife, who scolds him for going to a communist
demonstration, "Is that what my comrades died for
... so a few men can get rich?"
David
Truskoff (Mar 27, '06)
[Re Study blasts US
pro-Israel lobby, Mar 24] I am a little
confused as to why American taxpayers have to
support Israel with so much funding when they seem
to come up with enough funds to influence US
politicians to do their will. This arrangement
reeks of American taxpayers sending money to
Israel and Israel sending it back to the private
bank accounts of politicians disguised as campaign
contributions.
Sandy (Mar 27,
'06)
Re
America's
options for Iran [Mar 18] by Scott Bohlinger:
"As the nuclear standoff between the US and Iran
escalates, American leaders would do well to look
at the range of options that exist for them. The
options consist of sanctions, military strikes,
and a change in policy. The United States does not
want a nuclear Iran, but it cannot bear failed
states in Iraq and Afghanistan." The nuclear
standoff is just the latest smoke-and-mirrors
farce from Washington, which gave us [Iraq's links
to the attacks of September 11, 2001],
non-existent WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and
Saddam [Hussein's] "threats" among myriad other
lies. Ask yourself, why would the US break its
neck to increase India's nuclear capacity while
saber-rattling about Iran's? The former is not party to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the latter is. The answer is that
whereas the Indian nukes don't cause any headaches
in Israel, the Iranian ones do. Therefore Iran has
to be attacked, just like Iraq was three years
ago. None of this has anything to do with American
interest, safety or well-being. On the very
contrary, the present policy will inevitably lead
to the eventual collapse of the US. China will see
to that if no one else will. America's No 1 option
is to stop being a two-faced liar and stop
threatening Iran, Venezuela, and any country that
fails to do the neo-con bidding. The second option
is to stop constantly interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries, stop playing the CIA
[Central Intelligence Agency] regime-changes game.
The third option is to impeach the present
administrator and his deputy, pull out of the
Middle East and get rid of AIPAC [American Israel
Public Affairs Committee] as the supreme US
policymaker. The third option is definitely the
most desirable for America and the world.
Eve
Metz
Melbourne,
Australia (Mar 27, '06)
It's hard to discern the
West's logic in turning to megafon diplomacy with
Russia [Reheating the
Cold War, Mar 24]. Not only do none of these
"assaults" have any chance of working, but the
effects may actually [be] more or less the
opposite of what their authors had in mind. All
this campaign does is anger Russian people,
marginalize the internal opposition as stooges of
America, and boost [President Vladimir] Putin's
popularity to stratospheric levels. Fixing the
damage may take years, if [it is] possible at all.
Russians still vividly remember the humiliation of
the 1990s and they blame the West ... for most of
it. An almost sadistic pleasure that US and
European media took in gloating over Russia's
travails in those days turned millions of Russia's
early liberals into nationalists unresponsive to
Western pleas and threats. America's credit is all
but empty in Moscow. Washington should take a
closer look at President Putin - he may well be
the best interlocutor it will get for a long
awhile. Since Russia is militarily impregnable,
and any other kind of raw pressure only produces
more backlash, I would only join Anatol Lieven -
and probably [M K] Bhadrakumar - in being amazed
at the West's desperate gamble.
Oleg
Beliakovich
Seattle,
Washington (Mar 24, '06)
Re Reheating the
Cold War [Mar 24]: The only right place for a
great nation like Russia on the world stage is as
a distinct entity and a world power in its own
right, superpower or no superpower doesn't really
matter. The world does not necessarily have to be
bipolar or unipolar. It seems extremely likely
that the coming days are the days of a multipolar
world and extremely unlikely that international
community will go back to the era of a bipolar
world. Ever since being knocked out by the United
States in the battlefield of Afghanistan and
suffering the trauma of disintegration of the
former Soviet Union, Russia has been lurching back
and forth and right and left to regain
consciousness and ... redefine its role and
identity on the world stage. Things like ...
attempts to get closer ... to the European Union,
pursuance of economic improvement at the expense
of its former standing against the West, courtship
with China and acceptance of evaluation and
criticism of its human-rights record by the State
Department of United States have only dwarfed the
stature of Russia as a former heavyweight. Russia,
it seems, is trying to regain consciousness and
reidentify itself, but it will not be able to do
so without getting rid off these tags that have
seriously damaged its status as a world power and
have made it look more like an underdog of the
West and the United States. Russia can regain
consciousness and balance on the world stage as a
heavyweight in its own right (if not a superpower)
if it accepts the principle that the world does
not necessarily have to be bipolar and that
yesterday's enemies can be today's friends. As a
Russian president in 2006, I (if I were [Vladimir]
Putin) would be making a very focused attempt at
reconciling with the Muslim world unconditionally
instead of lurching here and there. But I (as
Putin cannot) wouldn't expect to do that without
cutting and running in Chechnya. Putin, as
president of Russia, can bring the Muslim world a
lot closer by getting rid off his Chechen problem.
In doing so he will only enhance the prospects of
revival of Russia as an independently powerful and
heavyweight entity. One more republic in the
parameters of the former Soviet Union will not
make a huge difference and it is unlikely to be of
any significant challenge or threat to Russian
authority for at least a century to come.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 24,
'06)
It
seems that Patrick G Moore (China gets its
pound of Russian flesh [Mar 24]) considers the
strategic importance of agreements, in this case
the Russia-Chinese agreement, via the
"influential" Far Eastern Economic Review (why,
after all, this particular magazine?), and not via
the actual implications of the agreement. For
example a well-informed and influential magazine -
Asia Times Online - has recently devoted three to
four articles to the energy and investment deals
between Russia and China. Whatever the percentage
today's Russia occupies in Chinese trade - a
number that is bound to advance - the oil and gas
agreements have a greater significance for Chinese
security than is reflected in the 2-10% range, a
fact that for some reason doesn't really figure in
Moore's article. Neither does Moore mention the
current projects for the Russian nuclear industry
in China, Chinese investments in the second
Moscow-St Petersburg highway, pipeline
construction - which benefits Russia - and
negotiations to build a Chinese car plant in
Russia. Neither do we hear of the recent contracts
for Russian Tupolev and Ilyushin civil and
transport aviation sales to China, and the
developing container shipments between China and
Europe via the Russian rail network ... No doubt,
Russia does not occupy a large share of Chinese
trade, that is one of the reasons for President
[Vladimir] Putin's visit - a fact Moore overlooks.
But Russian exports to China have been growing
over the last five years ... What also binds China
and Russia is American behavior, a fact that US
analysts ignore because they prefer to cast other
states in a negative light. Consider this list:
The US is attempting to build a missile defense,
it finances "color revolutions" that either leave
their victims in chaos and provide no benefits to
the population, it has shown a disturbing avarice
in going after energy resources, it has been
rather inconsistent in deciding who is a terrorist
and who is not, its plans in Central Asia have
been shown to go well beyond policing Afghanistan
... and its presence in the [Persian] Gulf, the
Indian Ocean, and the Far East threatens Chinese
energy supplies while its plans for military bases
in Eastern Europe and on the Black Sea coasts
(Romania) ignore Russian concerns.
Leon
Rozmarin
Hopedale,
Massachusetts (Mar 24, '06)
Emad Mekay's Study blasts US
pro-Israel lobby [Mar 24] needs more context.
Nowhere in his article does he mention the trial
of Steve Rosen, former policy director of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
and of Keith Weissman, a former Iran specialist at
AIPAC, in the US District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia. Both men have been indicted for
conspiring to communicate United States classified
documents to three Israelis at the Israeli Embassy
in Washington ... Rosen and Keith allegedly passed
on information about Iran. The three Israelis have
diplomatic immunity and so are out of the reach of
American justice. The two men on trial, if found
guilty, run the risk of spending long years behind
bars. Not since the Jonathan Pollard treason trial
has the spotlight shone on Israeli spying in the
United States. With this in mind, little wonder
the New York Sun has led a campaign to smear and
attack John Mearsheimer's 83-page study, The
Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Mekay is
remiss here too for not pointing out the
cheek-to-jowl relationship of the Sun with the
Jerusalem Post and of the newspaper's substantial
Israeli funding, and the heavy presence of
right-wing Israelis whose articles appear
regularly in its pages. So far coverage of the
former AIPAC staff remains at a low key, as does
the Sun's brouhaha on Mearsheimer's study. Time
will only tell if the usual bogeyman of
anti-Semitism will play its time-honed role in
tarring and feathering Mearsheimer. Although in
Israel political opinion is sharp and divergent,
in [the United States of] America one either
marches in lockstep with the Israeli lobby or is
put in stocks with a sign [saying] "neo-Nazi" or
"anti-Semite" or worse.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 24,
'06)
The
Rosen-Weissman case, and the related conviction of
ex-Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin, were
mentioned in A high-risk
game of nuclear chicken (Jan 31). - ATol
Re Study blasts US
pro-Israel lobby [Mar 24]: Is this study
available online? I did a search on Google but
couldn't find anything.
Amir
Ali
Powerteam -
Informatica resource (Mar 24, '06)
Harvard University's John F Kennedy
School of Government has the study available in a
pdf file. - ATol
Tom Engelhardt's two-part
interview with Chalmers Johnson [Part 1: Cold
warrior in a strange land (Mar 23) and Part 2: What
happened to Congress? (Mar 24)] was simply
amazing. Thank you, ATimes.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Mar 24,
'06)
Julian Delasantellis' US living on
borrowed time - and money (Mar 24) furnishes
readers of ATol with solid information surrounding
the idea of empire-building, but the analysis has
intellectual ignorance and some logical gaps.
First, the idea of military overstretch is
attributed incorrectly to Paul Kenney. This is a
clear case of ignorance, because the great
historian Ibn Khaldun introduced this idea before
1377 when his the Muqaddimah: An Introduction
to History (published by Princeton University
Press in 1967 and translated by Franz Rosenthal)
was completed. (Please see also Adil Mouhammed,
"Ibn Khaldun and the Neoliberal Model", History of Economic
Ideas, Vol 12, 3 (2004), pp 85-109.) ...
Second, I am not sure that all Americans are
engaged in consumerism. The leisure class and
other wealthy people are involved in conspicuous
consumption and others are emulating them, but a
large percentage of Americans do not have savings
and medical insurance, because we pay (1) sizable
taxes, including income taxes, sales taxes, excise
taxes, import taxes, real-estate taxes, and the
list goes on ... (2) insurance premiums and rising
costs of health care, and (3) increased education
tuition. In addition, many Americans people have
been living on inexpensive imported items.
Delasantellis writes about the "avaricious
middle-class consumerist lifestyle", but this
class has been squeezed a long time ago due to
corporate mergers and government and corporate
downsizing, to mention a few. Third, it is true
that selling dollars by foreign holders will
reduce [the US dollar's] value, making US imported
items very expensive, but this result will
increase US exports and domestic production, which
will increase employment. If wages do not increase
significantly and productivity rises, then the
rate of exploitation and profits will increase.
This optimistic outcome increases the rates of
inflation and interest but does not generate a
recession. Fourth, the issues raised in the
article can occur whether there is an
empire-building or not. I really do not take the
argument that the US tries to build an empire very
seriously, because building empires also means
falling empires, and many Americans may agree with
this proposition. All that has recently happened
is that some elected officials have been trying
very hard to provide opportunities for oil
corporations, financiers, and the military complex
to make money at the expense of the underlying
population by using pretexts such as democracy and
"God told me".
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 24,
'06)
The
wish [that] Taiwan gets
tough on investments in China [Mar 23] has
been, and is still, just a wish, which is also
turning into a useless slogan. The rich Taiwanese
businessmen are smart and resourceful, and are
helped by loopholes in banking laws and corruption
in government. Just look at the trade surplus
between the mainland and Taiwan. Only an inept
observer will believe the words of [Taiwanese
President] Chen Shui-bian. The day will soon
arrive when China's sneeze will cause Taiwan
pneumonia.
S P Li (Mar 24,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad: I very much enjoyed your article
[Revolution in
the Pakistani mountains, Mar 23]. It
significantly enhanced the material which,
coincidentally, is published on the same topic in
the recent Economist magazine. [I am] a member of
a study group for retired professionals, [and] we
have over the last couple of years spent a good
deal of time educating ourselves and participating
in study groups about the Middle East. A
particular issue has come to the surface about
which I would very [much] appreciate your
comments. You are likely familiar with Samuel
Huntington's Clash of
Civilizations. Do you see the radical Islamist
movements (including but not limited to the recent
Taliban resurgence which you write about) as
evidence of the validity of Huntington's theory or
not? Is there really a clash of civilizations
reaching a crisis point - or is there another
explanation for what is going on that more
adequately describes what's happening than the
ideas of Mr Huntington? ... I will continue to
enjoy reading your articles, which are of great
interest to all of us.
Michael Howard
California, USA (Mar 23,
'06)
I do
not have strong opinions on this but have made a
few observations based on my personal interactions
with people in the US State Department and the
Pentagon and those hiding in the mountains. I
think nobody is ready to give up and both sides
are exploring new ways to defeat each other. Just
in past five years the war has changed its face,
and will change further in the near future. There
are many more fronts, big and small, that will be
opened up, beside Iran. - Syed Saleem
Shahzad
Syed
Saleem Shahzad seems to have been keeping a sharp
eye on the changes in tribal regions [Revolution in
the Pakistani mountains, Mar 23]. The dreams
of Islamic revolution starting from the north have
long been seen by leaders of Islamic movements in
the subcontinent. Long [ago] there was a person
called Syed Ahmed Shaheed, who along with his
companions from other areas of the subcontinent
had moved into the tribal Pashtun belt and tried
to impose Islamic sharia by force, as the Taliban
did in Afghanistan. He and his companions were
vomited out and routed by the local tribes, who
had been ill-prepared for the change. His failure
left important lessons for the intellectuals of
the Islamic movements around the globe, except
Taliban of Afghanistan. The seeds of current
Islamic revolution in the Pashtun belt of Pakistan
and Afghanistan were sown by successive foreign
invasions, first by Soviets and then the
Americans. In the late '70s and '80s millions of
Afghans fled the Soviet invasion and they settled
everywhere including the tribal regions of
Pakistan, many among their own or friendly tribes
on the Pakistani side of the border. Many (not
all) locals shared the pain and suffering of the
refugees. Hundreds of thousands settled in refugee
camps around Peshawar. These millions of refugees
had younger children and many were actually born
in the camps. These millions of children mixed
with local children and went to madrassas and [other]
schools together. There wasn't much of a
linguistic or cultural gap and therefore
interaction was easy and fruitful. Common problems
and pain brought them all together. This all
happened naturally - but not quite. The message of
change was written on the face of massive
immigration emanating from the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. The Afghan Islamic leaders of this
change that is now visible were the ones who
already had strong ideological and tribal ties
with their counterparts in Pakistan ... Change was
bound to happen and was seen coming by the Islamic
movements some quarter of a century ago ... This
change is irreversible because this is a change
from within and no Syed Ahmed has come from
outside to define the rules for local
populations.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 23,
'06)
Ting-I Tsai [Taiwan gets
tough on mainland investment, Mar 23]
describes the shadow play that is going on between
Taiwan and China. Many think President Chen
[Shui-bian] is playing with a weak hand, which may
be true. But [as with] the green of a carrot above
ground, the edible root lying beneath provides
sustenance and gives strength. In consequent
tightening [of] laws governing Taiwan's
investments in China, Mr Chen is signaling to
Beijing [that] he too can play hardball. Taiwan
has a margin of maneuver, and it is using it to
its advantage. China is going through a period of
dislocation and sharpening class differences and
the growing cancer of endemic corruption, subjects
which [Communist] Party leaders devoted long hours
to during a gathering of the People's Congress.
More, Taiwan has begun to stake out fertile areas
for investment which will bolster its ability to
hold its own against the threats and menaces of
China to reattach the Republic of China to the
mainland manu
militari.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 23,
'06)
Your
article [How to beat US
trade barriers, Mar 22] is right on the mark
and is very disturbing. Inasmuch as Indonesia has
refused to join the Proliferation Security
Initiative and [seems] to be rather free in
passing out certificates of origin, I wonder what
this says about the security of US ports. I think
we need to worry less about Dubai World Ports and
focus on Indonesia.
Tom Snitch
Bethesda, Maryland (Mar 23,
'06)
Purnendra Jain comments
diplomatically on the trilateral security dialogue
among the US, Japan and Australia that it "will
not be be taken kindly in many capitals around the
region", and that "it is not necessarily sensible
for a select group of nations to band together and
exclude others - a Cold War response" ([A 'little NATO'
against China] Mar 18). It would perhaps be
less diplomatic but just as accurate to observe
that the essential pattern of Australian foreign
policy for the last decade has been to do what is
necessarily not sensible, in terms of practical
Australian interests ... There is ... every
practical reason to believe that Chinese economic
power and consequent influence will continue to
increase so as to fulfill Stephen FitzGerald's
prediction in his book Is
Australia an Asian Country?, first published
in 1997, that by the 2020s at least "the United
States will not be the power in East Asia that can
enforce its will. That will be China." There is
all the more reason to believe this to be the case
in that it is a matter of empirical fact, not of
belief, that the public and current-account
deficits of the US are unsustainable and that the
decline of US economic power is therefore even
more inevitable than the rise of Chinese. Even
more to the point, it is also a fact that the
continuing economic prosperity of Australia
depends absolutely on continuing Chinese economic
expansion and consequent continuing Chinese demand
for Australian commodities. Anything that might
retard Chinese growth would therefore have the
most serious implications for Australia. One has
only to note that Australia is still the only
significant economic power in the region, apart
from the US, to run an increasing
balance-of-payments deficit, despite the resources
boom fueled primarily by Chinese demand. The
economic policies of the US have by contrast done
more practical harm to Australia than all the
policies of all other countries in the world put
together, and have been doing increased harm since
the Australian government achieved its free-trade
arrangement with Washington. And the foreign
policies of the US have been directly responsible
for involving Australia so far in two wars, highly
unrewarding from any point of view, based on
wholly misconceived assessments and generally
condemned by most of the rest of the world.
Nothing could therefore on the face of it be more
contrary to every Australian interest than to be
party to any endeavor by Washington to contain,
let alone impede, the return of China to regional
predominance, quite apart from the basic
consideration that concepts of containment or
balance of power are quite alien to Asian
historical experience and diplomatic thinking ...
The question that is never answered, in part
because it is almost never asked, is exactly who
or what it is that Australia needs to be protected
against by the US. The simple truth is that the
only conceivable way that a military threat to
Australia could arise would be as a consequent of
Australian participation in a conflict initiated
by the US, just as any threat to Australians from
terrorism has arisen solely because of Australia's
participation in the US-led invasion and
occupation of Iraq ...
Glen StJ Barclay
Visiting Fellow, Humanities
Research Center
Australian
National University (Mar 23, '06)
Adil Mouhammed (letter, Mar
22, in response to Coral Bell's article The rise and
rise of the un-West [Mar 22]) described the
Chinese contributions as being "grounded in their
social institution of Maoism", but Bell imputed
Maoism as a discarded a political or ideological
assumption. Mouhammed went on to say that
"industries, education, infrastructure,
technologies, or communications" are rooted in
their culture. This (except education) makes no
sense: technology and its natural derivatives are
not cultural but scientific. Is Boolean logic
Chinese or British? Has multiculturalism turned
global? Many in the West would find the Islamic
dominant presence in a major part of the
"un-West", as Bell alluded, rather disturbing.
Jeff
Church
USA (Mar 23,
'06)
Letter writer Jeff Church
[Mar 21] remains insistently wedded to an
uneducated view of how the language of diplomacy
works. In particular, he seems to entirely miss
the concepts of intentional vagueness and
acknowledgement without agreement which allow
nations to gloss over differences and move ahead
with their relationship, as the US and China did
in 1973. Further, he seems to think that the Three
Communiques carry some sort of legal weight, but
they do not, as they are neither treaty nor law.
In contrast, the Taiwan Relations Act is US law
which binds all branches of the US government, and
employees of the State Department are obligated to
comply with it. China expresses continued
frustration on this matter as well, since China
would like to enforce the Three Communiques as
law, but the US government views them as mere
window-dressing intended to placate an irrational
foe.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 23,
'06)
Coral Bell's The rise and
rise of the un-West (Mar 22) is enjoyable to
read but ambiguous in some parts. It has been
historically documented that the United States of
America made a regime change in Iran when it
replaced [prime minister Mohammed] Mossadegh
[with] the shah [Mohammad Reza Pahlavi], because
the former nationalized the Iranian oil whereas
the latter gave the oil back to the American oil
corporations. That move was a really swift and
sleazy accomplishment but very costly. The US and
the shah were very busy eliminating the
revolutionary movement in Iran but ignoring the
Islamic political movement. That ignorance by the
US and the shah turned out to be deadly against
both. The shah became history after the Iranian
Revolution in 1978, and the US became enemy No 1
to the Iranians. If things are sifted properly, it
can be found that the US has lost the Iranian
people. This is why the Iranians will back the
mullahs to produce their ... bombs and will
threaten the world. If the US attacks Iran with
missiles and bombs, the Iranian people will be
unified cohesively against the attackers, and
historical facts and the Iran-Iraq War
substantiate my point. The power has been
distributed globally towards India, China, and
other countries in the world, because these
countries want to develop and to be on equal
footing with other nations. They have done so by
using their productive labor and innovations
without looting small, defenseless nations. In
other words, they have earned their power. Coral
Bell must understand that India and China are two
essential sources of our civilization and are
interested in contributing effectively, as the
others do, to human civilization. These Chinese
and Indian contributions are grounded in their
social institutions of Maoism, Fabianism, and
other cultural elements. These sources constitute
the social environment where their economic and
technological greatness has started. Direct
foreign investments have been going to India and
China, because foreign investors know the
potential productive capacity of these two
nations. That is, the transformations in China and
India, whether in industries, education,
infrastructure, technologies, or communications,
are rooted in their culture rather than in Western
capitalism. If they relied on the latter they
would be far behind, because the Western
capitalist way of development is very long and
time-consuming.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 22,
'06)
I am
an investment consultant with additional training
and experience in the field of demography and
sustainable development, and thus it was [with]
great interest that I read Antoaneta Bezlova's
outstanding article China's choice:
Baby boom or bust [Mar 21], in which China's
economists and demographers disagree on how to
modify the one-child policy. My response: China
has everything to gain and little to fear from a
small, controlled baby boomlet (over the short and
long term) - and lots to lose from continuing the
one-child policy much longer. The rough consensus
is that China has in fact benefited economically
and ecologically from the one-child policy up to
now, but that the policy should now be
discontinued and replaced with a more nuanced,
voluntary policy, or it will hurt China. The
fundamental issue here is that the absolute numbers in
China's population are far less important than the
structure of that
population (age distribution, productivity,
income, health, [and] education in particular).
Specifically, population growth can be either
helpful or harmful, depending on the nature of the
growing population. In most developing countries,
uncontrolled population growth damages their
economies, since it adds people at a rate far more
rapidly than the poor country's public health
system, schools and industrializing economy can
absorb ... As investment consultants, we will not
encourage significant investments in these
countries until they bring their population growth
under better control. China, however, has the
potentially opposite problem now. Its overall
economy, public health system and especially its
educational system have grown at a rapid clip,
sufficient to absorb the rapid rise in the working
population. In a country like China, the greatest
danger is that its population growth will slow
down far too abruptly, leading to an unmanageably
rapid growth in the population's median age such
that the country "grows old before growing rich".
If China allows this to happen - by, say,
continuing the one-child policy for longer than
two or three years - then we as investors and
consultants will lose confidence in China's
long-term economic prospects, and we will take our
money elsewhere. At the end of the day, we as
consultants must make a cold, hard decision about
economic potential when advising companies where
to invest, and a rapidly aging China with an
excess of elderly versus working-age citizens
appears to be a poor investment to us. I will put
it more bluntly: If China continues the one-child
policy for more than two or three years, then
China will lose tens of billions of dollars and
euros in foreign investment, because we as
investors and consultants will lose confidence in
China's economic prospects. We understand that
population cannot grow infinitely in a world with
finite resources, but the solution is to gradually stabilize the
Chinese population - with mild reductions and
occasional baby boomlets - down to replacement
fertility so that it does not age too quickly. A
sort of consensus recommendation: China should
adopt a more flexible, voluntary family-planning
policy that encourages smaller (two or
occasionally three children) families by means of
policies that naturally stabilize population while
increasing economic growth and technological
innovation, as has happened in the West. Universal
education, maximal literacy, investment in science
and technology, encouragement of renewable energy
and reforestation, and voluntary access to
contraceptives are the keys to this. Selective
immigration with skilled laborers from neighboring
countries (such as Vietnam, the Koreas, Burma
[Myanmar], Thailand and especially the
Philippines) can help to meet emerging economic
needs as they arise. Many urban Chinese opt to
have only one child or two children anyway, due to
crowding, so such voluntary measures will enable
China to grow wealthy even as its population
stabilizes, while technological investment will
yield improvements in areas such as renewable
fuels and inexpensive desalination of seawater, to
help minimize the ecological strain. Such a
"responsible family initiative" would deftly meet
China's challenges of both population growth and
economic expansion as China becomes a global
powerhouse - and a magnet for foreign investors to
send our money, financial expertise, and most
talented innovators and researchers.
Jim
Irving
Salzburg,
Austria (Mar 22, '06)
Axel Merk's Neo-protectionism puts US
dollar at risk (Mar 21) has brought [up] some
unfair issues that require some explanations.
Thorstein Veblen and Joseph Schumpeter realized a
long time ago the following features of European
and American capitalism: protective tariffs,
merger and collusion, big business, inefficiency,
cooperation between government and corporations,
sabotage, corruption and misinformation, patents,
a very high inequality in income distribution,
restriction of international movement of labor and
capital, alienation, and inhibition of Third World
development. These features are not compatible
with the competitive capitalism that most
economists and Ibn Khaldun's Introduction to History
have taught, nor will they help achieving
Pareto optimality. Yet imperialists and their
cronies have misled and manipulated people and
made them believe that the current capitalism is
the competitive capitalism that will develop
humanity. Indeed, these features have given rise
to imperialism according to which the ruling class
can loot economic resources of helpless nations by
using a variety of pretexts such as liberation,
civilization, democratization, and the like. It is
totally unfair to argue that a neo-protectionist
trend has appeared in the United States, because
the American economy has historically been based
on internal and external protection. Monopoly
capitalism is not efficient and [is] costly, and
many large corporations cannot compete against
some efficient and competitive firms from China,
India, and other developing countries.
Accordingly, American and European monopoly
capitalists have created many pretexts to blame
rising nations, rather than their own system of
monopoly capitalism, for their problems in order
to justify tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of
obstruction. For the investors from the UAE, I am
sure they have more opportunities to invest their
funds elsewhere, but the decision preventing them
from controlling the US ports was based on racism
rather than national security. Those Arab
investors can protect the US ports better than
other foreigners. Keep in mind that one Arab
government, or [it] might have been more, did
inform the Bush administration about some Arab
terrorists trying to use airplanes to attack
important targets in the United States of America
before September 11 [2001]. It is fair to state,
however, that some US senators are trying to tell
the UAE investors indirectly to use their dollars
to purchase military hardware, improved F-16s,
real estate, and other conspicuous-consumption
commodities [rather] than buying the US ports. If
I were the UAE investors, I would try it again and
again until I got the deal approved.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Mar 21, '06)
Informative as The
Sino-Russian romance [Mar 21] is, the article
omits an angle. [President Vladimir] Putin is
reclaiming Russia's hold on the Romanoffs' sphere
of influence in Eurasia; China is spreading again
claims of dominance in the former Celestial
Empire's aerie. There is, however, a fly in the
ointment, and that ... is the United States,
[which] has staked out claims in Central Asia. And
consequently, [it is] a spur to hasten the new
honeymoon between Moscow and Beijing.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 21,
'06)
Re
America's
options for Iran (Mar 18): Iran's leadership
is determined to acquire nuclear technology not
just to generate electricity but also to have the
option to build a nuclear bomb. They already have
the Shahab-3 ballistic missiles capable of
reaching Israel and beyond, and that probably
makes [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad bold as ever
to quote the late ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini's
saying that he wanted to see Israel "off the map".
What should not be underestimated by the West and
in particular by President [George W] Bush is that
for the Iranians, it has become an issue of moral,
legal and legitimate rights, and they would
willingly assert martyrdom to get it. Death from
martyrdom runs deep into the psyche of all
Iranians, and that is the most worrying prospect
that should be seriously considered by the
Americans. Iranians will take war to the enemy's
doorstep and already, fiery Muqtada al-Sadr and
the chief of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hassan
Nasrallah, have held separate secret meetings with
leading officials in Tehran deliberating how to
give America maximum "harm and pain" in the event
[that the] Bush administration in collaboration
with the Israelis decides to attack Iran's nuclear
targets. Iran's mullahs have drawn up a military
plan to wage a coordinated attack with their Shi'a
brothers in Iraq and Lebanon; as well, there will
not be shortage of Shi'a fighters from all over
the world to give their lives against the West,
making it a [worse] nightmare than Iraq for
President Bush and his hatchet men. Ahmadinejad is
a very shrewd and clever manipulator of his
people's minds: in his election campaign last year
he targeted 19 million poor living below the
poverty line and women, offering them fairer
distribution of the country's oil wealth and
better benefits for the women, but also the whole
of his country stands shoulder to shoulder with
him, facing condemnation and the military threat
from their arch-enemies, the USA and Israel. The
majority of Iranians believe that the West is
ganging [up] against them to bully them into
submission with fake military threats, economic
sanctions, etc, but they know for a fact that [the
United States of] America will not attack Iran as
long as it is embroiled and badly bogged down in
Iraq. Economic sanctions will not work because
they will hurt not only Iran but more so the rest
of the world. Iran has several hundred miles of
coastline and land borders with sympathetic
Islamic countries, and that would be a big
headache for the West to patrol ... How about [US
Vice President Richard] Cheney and Mr Ahmadinjad
going quail-shooting together [on Bush's] ranch to
decide a winner?
Saqib Khan
London, England (Mar 21,
'06)
In
response to [Daniel] McCarthy's letter (Mar 20), I
would say that while the USA's attitude toward
Taiwan is multi-faceted, the USA's diplomatic
position in regard to Taiwan is clearly stated in
the second and third Shanghai Communiques. My
letter of March 16 simply discussed the logical
interpretation of these two diplomatic documents
... The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is a
domestic [US] law; diplomats throughout the world
are not obliged to observe it professionally. Any
practical contradictions between the TRA and the
Shanghai Communiques do not vitiate the latter's
diplomatic meaning. The practical implication
could be that the USA would not be able to achieve
consensus at the UN on Taiwan's behalf. The phrase
"the US acknowledges the Chinese claim that Taiwan
is a part of China" is not ambiguous whatsoever.
Clearly, the definition "to recognize" exists in
all dictionaries for the word "acknowledge"; many
state it as "to recognize the claim or authority
of". Why would diplomats faithful to their
profession not use this obviously apt definition
on a diplomatic document? Countries declare their
diplomatic position on diplomatic documents; they
do not declare the health of their senses. The
"Chinese claim" obviously existed. The USA merely
stating that a claim existed would have been
tantamount to stating that it was neither blind
nor deaf; a proclamation of the health of [the
United States'] senses could not be a US
diplomatic position and could not have appeared on
a diplomatic document.
Jeff Church
USA (Mar 21,
'06)
Scott Bohlinger's excellent
article [America's
options for Iran, Mar 18] outlining a more
rational approach to the current situation between
Iran and the US over the nuclear standoff will
unfortunately go [unheeded]. The underlying
reality of this manufactured "dispute" is the fact
that the US administration hardliners (the
neo-cons) and Israel have always had another
agenda: regime change. The nuclear situation is
merely the most powerful and convenient pretext to
attaining that goal. This is just another piece
(albeit a critical piece) of the neo-cons'
"endgame" puzzle. As they have spelled out
consistently in policy papers such as "PNAC"
[Project for the New American Century] and "A
Clean Break", the agenda here is to "redesign" and
mollify the entire Middle East region to better
facilitate Western interests, ie, strategic or
direct control of its energy resources. With
Iraq's oil resources now firmly in "Western"
control (the actual reason for the invasion), and
with the rest of the region being [composed]
mostly of compliant "client" states (Saudi Arabia,
UAE, Oman, etc), the only remaining obstacle to
"total" US and Western domination is Iran. No
amount of "negotiations" will dampen or diminish
this neo-con juggernaut. That the US and its
proxies are threatening to actually use [weapons
of mass destruction] (tactical nuclear bunker
busters) against Iran clearly demonstrates the
fanatical resolve of these "endgamers". They are
not ultimately concerned with further regional
instability that this course of action will
inflame. In fact, to many of the neo-cons and
energy titans, it suits their long-term interest.
[It is] a kind of "divide and conquer" strategy.
If only we had more responsible, rational minds
like Scott Bohlinger as Western policy architects,
then maybe, just maybe there would be a molecule
of hope. What we have instead is "endgame".
Stevie Lee (Mar 20,
'06)
Re
America's
options for Iran [Mar 18]: Congratulations for
such a well thought [out] article. What amazes me
most is how come analysts such as the writer are
not contributing to the formation of America's
foreign policy. Why [is it that], in recent eras,
always the wrong type of people occupy the
positions of power and planning? I grew up with
American food help of the Eisenhower government. I
had and still by and large have the greatest
respect for the US because of [its] being
generous, practical, honest and above all ready to
give a helping hand to those who wanted to advance
themselves (as I did). There was nothing wrong
with that policy. The US would be itself again
only if it would stop listening to Europeans
(particularly the UK), which all use the US to do
their wretched acts and then wash their dirty
laundry. I wish the US would wake up soon and
realize that it is still enjoying the goodwill of
a right policy practiced 50 years ago. I hope US
policymakers will start to spread the good seeds
again and make the US the idol of progress and
generosity. May God always guide and protect the
US.
Jamashid Dashtgard (Mar 20,
'06)
This
is with reference to Scott Bohlinger's snide
remark about Pakistan in his otherwise
well-written article titled America's
options for Iran [Mar 18]. Pakistan never
signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and
had a clandestine nuclear program meant for
survival. Pakistan was the only country after
World War II that was dismembered in spite of the
fact that it was a founding member of two defense
pacts, SEATO [South East Asia Treaty Organization]
and CENTO [Central Treaty Organization], and
despite the fact that Pakistan had two executive
defense agreements with the USA. It turned out the
words of US presidents and solemn treaties and
agreements were not worth the paper they were
written on. After the nuclear explosion [by] India
in 1974, and after the events of 1971, Pakistanis
pledged "never again" and decided to create
nuclear deterrence for defense purposes. Pakistan
helped the USA during the Cold War and the war in
Afghanistan. As a reward, it got five layered
sanctions, economic and military. Pakistan needed
nuclear technology and money. It [used] whatever
means necessary to build the bomb for survival.
Two million Muslims, mainly Pakistanis and
Afghans, died in defeating the USSR and forcing
them to retreat from Afghanistan. Today, like
yesterday, nuclear technology is being offered to
those who opposed the USA for half [a] century.
Scott Bohlinger's remarks about Pakistan are
typical [of an administration] of ingrates. Then
they wonder "why they hate us".
Moin
Ansari (Mar 20, '06)
Re Irreversible
Iranians (Mar 18): The standoff between the US
and Iran is truly disturbing. While I don't
believe that either the US or Iran [has] any
imperial designs, some of their actions do make
other countries worry about their security. Let us
analyze the US stand first. After defeating
imperial Japan and entering a nuclear era, the
Americans firmly believe (I too) that it will
dearly cost us to let a dictator emerge and have a
devastating nuclear war. But ironically, in the
process of eliminating a possible threat, the
Americans themselves end up being called an
imperial force. And it is also true that the US
backed and is backing some dictators because it
cannot achieve its twin objectives of defeating
its enemy and promoting democracy at one go. Hence
it had to adjust with some dictators to some
extent, but the world calls it double standard.
The trouble with the Americans [is that] they want
to give their citizens nuclear-protected security
but [are] advising all of us to have faith in
life, and they want the entire world to turn
democratic the very next day but if we talk about
democratizing the UN and giving up [the US veto in
the Security Council], they will tell us that time
is not rife for it, we will have to wait a few
more decades. I firmly believe a fully democratic
... UN will make many countries [want] to give up
nukes. If we analyze the Iranian cause, they seem
to be entertaining, to large extent, an imaginary
threat. First, they don't have a nuclear neighbor
(Pakistan's willingness to sell nuclear technology
makes it a friendly country) to worry [about and
are] surrounded by only fellow Muslim countries.
Only the US is driving Iran toward nukes. But why
should the US attack Iran if it were a democracy
and a non-nuclear state? If Iranians think they
deserve nukes since the Americans have them, [do
not the Iranian people deserve] to have democracy
as the Americans have? In these cases both are
playing a foul game. If Iran turns true democracy
and gives up the nuclear option it will deprive
the US of a [reason] to attack Iran. And also I
doubt the US will ever dare to attack a democratic
country since not only the world but the American
citizens too are staunchly opposing a (Iraq) war
to dethrone a dictator. Iran is justified in only
one count. However noble the world may be,
practically every country wants to have a security
net. For that there is only one solution. The
friendly countries [toward] Iran (including India)
which are asking Iran to give up nukes must
publicly pledge that should Iran were to be
attacked by a third country without a UN sanction,
then they will support Iran even if it leads to a
nuclear war.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Mar 20,
'06)
[Purnendra] Jain is a little
too quick to jump to conclusions [A 'little NATO'
against China, Mar 18]. Washington and
Canberra consult each other often. And the United
States has that right, for Australia is and has
been an ally in good standing since the Second
World War. It is hard to believe Dr Jain's
assertion that Japan will join Australia and the
United States in a NATO-like alliance. Is he not
aware that NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization] is a military alliance and that
Japan is forbidden to have a standing army [by] an
American-imposed constitution. On the other hand,
Professor Jain apparently has not read newspapers
during Secretary of State [Condoleezza] Rice's
visit to Canberra. She put a little spice [into]
business as usual by bringing up the growing
military shadow that China is casting over the
region. Now, Mr Jain does know that Prime Minister
[John] Howard was caught off guard by Dr Rice's
remarks, the more especially since Australia is
enjoying a remarkably healthy balance statement
thanks to China's purchase of the minerals which
Australia is selling China. Her strong words may
very well [have] embarrassed him. It stands to
reason that here Washington and Canberra are at
odds, and this difference in standpoint is pivotal
in making a "little NATO" shaky, and any
suggestion that it might is ingenuous. If
anything, it is not in Canberra's interest to rock
the boat with a neighbor with deep pockets.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 20,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad: I read your article about the
Waziristan takeover [Iraq-style
spring is sprung, Mar 15] and I liked it very
much. Can you tell [me] where I can get the
Taliban CD showing the Waziristan situation?
Zohaib Anees (Mar 20,
'06)
Many
television channels have shown the clips. Recently
History Channel and the British Broadcasting Corp
showed the footage. - Syed
Saleem Shahzad
Letter writer Jeff Church
[Mar 16] proved himself the greatest fool of all
when he typed, "Moreover, the diplomatic
definition in most dictionaries of the term
'acknowledge' is ... 'to recognize the claim or
authority of'. I believe most every diplomat
faithful to his or her profession has to agree
that the US recognizes that Taiwan is a part of
the PRC." If the world were as flat as Mr Church
states, then there would be no [US] Taiwan
Relations Act, and battle plans of the USA, Japan
and Australia would not be in place for the
defense of Taiwan against a PRC [People's Republic
of China] invasion. And perhaps more to the point,
if Taiwan were a part of the PRC as Mr Church
claims, then an invasion by the PRC would by
definition be impossible as the term "invasion"
implies entry into foreign territory. Perhaps Mr
Church would benefit from the study of diplomacy
and statecraft, where words are parsed very
carefully, and where acknowledging that a claim
has been made is a world apart from recognizing
the validity of any such claim. As an example, for
Mr Church's benefit, let it be said that I
acknowledge his fantastical views of Taiwan's
status, and I recognize the blatant invalidity of
such views.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 20,
'06)
One
of your letters written by Jeff Church [Mar 16]
states, "I believe most every diplomat [has] to
agree that the US recognizes Taiwan is a part of
the PRC." This is incorrect. The United States is
certainly not committed to make such a promise,
even if it's beneficial for its long-term
diplomatic relation with the PRC [People's
Republic of China]. When it comes to issues
between the [two sides of the Taiwan Strait], the
US government exhibits a rather vague, ambiguous
policy toward mainland China and Taiwan to avoid
tension with either entities. Washington has made
it clear that the PRC is the sole legitimate
government of China and understands the PRC's
position that Taiwan is a part of China. The US
government refrains from making frank statements
declaring PRC's legal position of Taiwan, which is
governed by the Republic of China. The US
government also provides weapons to the self-ruled
island and is committed to protect the country, if
the status quo is intruded [upon by a PRC]
invasion, as stated in the Taiwan Relations
Act.
Jacob Wakesfield
Washington, DC (Mar 20,
'06)
Ian
Williams [The Bolton
archipelago, Mar 17] misses the point. [US
Ambassador to the UN] John Bolton has a nuisance
value. His brusque, in-your-face,
shoot-from-the-hip [style] has a harshness which
rubs the objects of his contempt with studied
rudeness. Let's face it, he has a mission to carry
out at the behest of President [George W] Bush,
and he does it well. Ambassador Bolton disconcerts
and his tongue has a razor-like sharpness. It is
irrelevant if he does not win every battle. He
carries an unequivocal surliness to a degree that
impresses friends and foes alike.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 17,
'06)
Professor Peter Morici's The spiraling
costs of Uncle Sam's deficits and John
Berthelsen's US$: Forget
Iran, the problem's at home ([both] Mar 17)
provided a stimulating analysis, but both
overlooked the social nature of the deficit
problems. Under American monopoly capitalism, the
government creates changes in its expenditures and
taxes, changes that form the fiscal policy.
Changes in the quantity of money and the resulting
variations in interest rates are called monetary
policy, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve
Board (Fed), or the central bank. The Bush
administration, as a result of the wars on
terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan and for policy
reasons, has increased government expenditures and
cut taxes, an outcome that has created the budget
deficit, which represents [to] some fiscal
irresponsibility. The logic, however, shows that
the fiscal policy of the Bush administration is
rational from the perspective of the ruling class.
Government spending is partly used for militarism
and interest payments to holders of government
securities. Similarly, [the] tax cut has been
enriching the wealthy Americans. Accordingly, both
means of fiscal policy do help the military
complex and financiers, and the Bush
administration would [do] the same thing even if
the situation [were] different, because this
policy distributes income towards the wealthy and
assists the ruling class to privatize public
institutions. But when the public budget is in
deficit, as has been case, the government borrows
from the public, the Fed, and foreign governments
such as the Chinese, the Indian, and the Saudis,
to mention a few ... This deficit financing
increases interest rates ... In short, since the
dollar is just a piece of paper, which is not
backed by [a] precious metal such as gold, the
budget and trade deficits are connected,
reflecting responsible and rational policies for
the ruling class. I can state that those dollars
which are available everywhere in the world
represent American ownership everywhere. Even if
the dollar collapses, foreign holders of those
dollars will use them to purchase American assets
and commodities.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 17,
'06)
I
had my nose pressed against the screen door on
Pepe [Escobar's In the heart of
Pipelineistan, Mar 17], a profound study on
the players and the snake routes; the pipelines
that feed the profits and the profiteers bonded by
time and place - a meeting that surely will
involve numerous oily handshakes among a diversity
of politicians and their attendant political
gamery. I may have shared the same looking-in
"screen space" with a few other outsiders like [US
Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice, [Defense
Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [President George
W] Bush in particular - at least it looked like
that "trinity" standing in the shadows looking in
from the outside also. However, they were
grumbling viciously among themselves as outsiders
do, and probably didn't absorb the words exchanged
in Escobar's incisive critique. What impressed me
most were the words of one Maqsud Hassan Nuri,
research fellow at Islamabad Policy Research
Institute, who certainly understood Bush doctrine
and later qualified another's remarks with,
"Nuclear weapons take care of the strategic ego,
they don't solve our economic problems. Forty
percent of South Asia still lives below the
poverty line."
Beryl
Minnesota, USA (Mar 17,
'06)
I
have for a long time not heard the term "Red
China" on TV or read it in print, in the way
[letter] writer M Tobias (March 16) kept using so
freely and naturally. This indicates to me that he
must be an old fogy of the pre-[Richard] Nixon era
whose ears and eyes are not functioning normally
to know about present-day China. Let us hope that
mutual understanding between nations is not
limited by a few persons like him.
S P
Li (Mar 17, '06)
The authors of Who's afraid of
the new Japan? [Mar 16] are very optimistic
and far from the realities of current Japan. The
ideal picture they drew represents the Japan of
1986, not 2006.
Shirzad Azad
Tokyo, Japan (Mar 16,
'06)
Who's afraid of
the new Japan? [Mar 16] is an excellent
article. It says what it has to say, and is very
much to the point. The Japanese chrysanthemum is
beginning to flourish economically again and soon
will flower politically and militarily. Japan's
neighbors should take note of the transformation
Malcolm Cook and Huw McKay limn. They should learn
to put the past where it belongs - in the past -
and deal with today's realities. South Korea may
hold its own with Japan, but China is now entering
the turbulent waters of a maturing economy where
labor costs are rising and social unrest is
spreading, and what's more, the costly machinery
of an archaic Communist Party apparatus is showing
more and more cracks and signs of decay. As for
North Korea, in spite of advanced rocketry, the
level of economic development is at the age of the
horse and buggy, and so in the longer term, it
will have to work out differences with the new,
vigorous Japan as a countervailing power to
China.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 16,
'06)
Malcolm Cook's and Huw
McKay's Who's afraid of
the new Japan? (Mar 15) provides worldwide
readers of Asia Times Online with a fair
description of the various foundations of the new
Japan. Honestly, I am not taking the authors'
analysis seriously. Basically, most of the
political indicators suggested do not generate a
strong and new Japan. What is required for Japan
to be new and powerful is popular cohesiveness
with strong group feeling. When the Japanese
people die for the glory of Japan under unique and
respected leadership, that social feeling, the
great historian Ibn Khaldun argues, will create
the first mental foundation for a rising great
power, which will be more stronger than having
spying satellite and ballistic missile defense
system. The latter may be able to destroy
buildings but it does not eliminate enemies.
Without offending the great Japanese people, no
country can be new and transformed if it is under
foreign military occupation. Nor does a country
[become] new if it does not have the military
might and the required supportive technologies.
Economically, the new Japan, according to the
authors, will depend heavily on economic expansion
which will enhance business confidence and other
economic indicators such employment and economic
growth. In fact, the economic analysis provided by
the authors is contradictory, because the economic
expansion, which is not stimulated by tax cuts ...
is a transitory or a cyclical, not permanent,
issue depending on what is called the business
cycle, whose duration is temporary. Similarly,
while it is correct that high interest rates will
make the yen stronger and Japanese savings will
stay home, it is very difficult to keep private
consumption and investment expenditures on the
rise when the interest rates are increasing,
because the higher the interest rates, the higher
the cost of loans, and hence the lower the private
expenditures on consumption and investments.
Moreover, a stronger yen due to high interest
rates will reduce Japan's exports and will
[worsen] the trade balance, or net exports. This
in turn will slow down any economic expansion. In
short, the economic argument does not create
strong economic conditions upon which the
political level can depend on. It follows that
there shall be no new Japan. It is reasonable to
state that there is an urge by the United States
of America to make Japan stronger in order to use
it to threaten and contain North Korea and China.
It is indeed a form of "taking the fight to the
enemy". Rightfully, and this the best [part] of
the article, the authors state, "The US-Japan
alliance would be stronger, more externally
focused ... [to counteract the uncertain situation
of Japan] with the rise of China and continued
North Korean belligerence." But this imperial
alliance is very fragile and weak because the cost
of each punch thrown on the other side will exceed
its benefit by far no matter how brilliant the
Japanese defense minister will be.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Mar 16, '06)
Stephen Zunes (US Democrats in
dry dock over ports, Mar 15) misinterprets
American politicians' opposition to the US-Dubai
port deal as racism. It is actually the oldest
play in the political playbook: fear-mongering.
Fear is a powerful political weapon in any
society. During the Cold War, America's Manichaean
view of the world as either anti-communist or
communist (or as we say nowadays, "either with us,
or against us") produced a tragic litany of
perfidies. US senator Arthur Vandenberg warned
president Harry Truman that if he wanted
congressional support for action in Greece and
Turkey against the communists, he would have to
"scare the hell out of the country". Ronald Reagan
conjured up images of Marxist Nicaraguans only a
two-day drive from Brownsville, Texas. More
recently, George W Bush's justification for
invading Iraq was, "We don't want the smoking gun
[proof of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD)] to be a mushroom cloud." Bush
apologists, like J Chua (letter Mar 15]), make
clever use of the term "WMD". The justification
for war never involved chemical or biological
weapons, which nearly everyone acknowledges Iraq
possessed. It was about nukes. "WMD" was, and
still is, the smokescreen. Only the specter of
nuclear mushroom clouds could have created the
fear necessary for a majority of Americans to
support an invasion of Iraq. It was a phony
purchase of yellowcake uranium, not anthrax, that
Bush and his minions foisted on us. It was a CIA
[Central Intelligence Agency] nuclear expert's
opinion that Saddam [Hussein]'s purchases of
aluminum tubes were intended for use in a nuclear
centrifuge that was sold to a gullible public. The
opinions of other experts, notably in the US
Department of Energy, which oversees the American
nuclear industry, were not acknowledged by the
Bush administration. Nor did they see fit to
conjure up stories of secret Iraqi purchases of
Bunsen burners for the manufacture of neurotoxins.
It was nukes or no war.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 16,
'06)
Who
is this Spengler [How I learned
to stop worrying and love chaos, Mar 14? Why
is this bloodthirsty, power-hungry person allowed
to preach hate for all humanity? I think he must
an agent of Osama bin Laden to spread hate and
love of war.
Alex (Mar 16,
'06)
Taiwan's President Chen
Shui-bian recently presented a childish play,
carried to the absurd, in announcing abrogating or
abolishing [of] the National Unification Council,
and then later changing the wording to ceasing or
stopping the function of the council, on receiving
a reprimand from his you-know-whom daddy from the
outside [When Taiwan
dared say 'no' to Washington, Mar 14]. This
little act pleased a few, but did not cross the
line for China to invoke its Anti-Secession Law.
It shows his head still retains a modicum of
adolescent maturity. Instead of trying to address
the huge problems of flagrant corruption, a
downward economy, and social order and security,
he opted to jeopardize the well-being of the
entire population. The people would gladly settle
for continued success of his wife playing the
internal stock market, rather than having him play
dangerous tricks in the external world.
Hoi
Ming (Mar 16, '06)
In response to JM's letter of
March 15 on Ting-I Tsai's comment When Taiwan
dared say 'no' to Washington, [Mar 14], I
would like to cite from the second and the third
Shanghai communiques. They contain the phrase "the
US acknowledges the Chinese claim that Taiwan is a
part of China". JM seems to assert that "China"
here is a geographical term. It can't be. First,
there is absolutely no reason why a geographic
term for China would be used in this phrase in
these two diplomatic documents. The first
document, in particular, was signed when the USA
severed diplomatic relations with the ROC
[Republic of China] and recognized exclusively the
PRC [People's Republic of China]. The USA could
not be establishing diplomatic relations with a
geographic entity. The documents bear the name of
the city, Shanghai, in the diplomatic entity PRC.
Second, independently obvious, the term "Chinese"
in "the Chinese claim" derives from the stem word
"China". "Chinese" cannot be derived from a
geographical entity since a geographical entity
cannot have a claim. "China" in "the Chinese claim
that Taiwan is a part of China" is therefore
certainly the PRC, where Shanghai is located. I
believe every diplomat with professionalism has to
agree, irrespective of ideology. Moreover, the
diplomatic definition in most dictionaries of the
term "acknowledge" is ... "to recognize the claim
or authority of". I believe most every diplomat
faithful to his or her profession has to agree
that the US recognizes that Taiwan is a part of
the PRC.
Jeff Church
USA (Mar 16,
'06)
In
regards to the article Pakistan-India
nuclear rivalry heats up [Mar 7], there is the
palpable possibility that Pakistan will strike a
similar deal with China. If this happens, it will
legitimize the "cold war" scenario in South Asia.
Neither India nor the US would be pleased by
China's actions. If China steps in to meet
Pakistan's nuclear ambitions just after the US
turned Pakistan down for various concrete reasons,
it will definitely lead to a cold war, but the war
would be between the US and China and not, as
commonly perceived, between India and Pakistan.
Both China and Pakistan have a lot to lose with
India (in the case of Pakistan) and China (in the
case of the US) if they match the Indo-US nuclear
deal.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 16, '06)
An interesting editorial
response to my letter of March 15. It is true that
most of the signatories to the NPT
[Non-Proliferation Treaty] have failed to live up
to their obligations under the treaty. That is
beside the point. The point was that Iran's total
disregard for any of the provisions of the treaty,
coupled with the clandestine manner in which they
pursued their nuclear research is sufficient to
call into question the benevolence of their
intentions. That serves as one reason for the
fears concerning their future use of nuclear
technology. The second point you make, an
implication that the US is the only country
exhibiting "expansionist ambitions" in Asia, is
also spurious. If you have been keeping up with
the Western media, particularly that based in the
USA you may have noticed that the US is trying
very hard to remove itself from the domestic and
military affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly
the direction chosen by empire builders. While it
is true that Iran has made no major military
incursions into any other nation in the region
(I'll ignore the not-insignificant presence of
Iranian military personnel, material and
surrogates presently in Iraq), that does not
invalidate my point concerning the desire to
expand into other territories on the part of the
Iranian leadership. This is a matter of great
concern among the independent nations of the
region - so great that the leadership of these
nations will publicly side with the US against
Iran on the subject of nuclear arms. They do this
at risk from a large segment of their populations
who have no love for the US and have, in fact,
been educated to believe the US is their enemy.
Let me more clearly state my main point once
again. It must be understood that the US
leadership is firmly convinced that there are two
countries whose future actions could draw America
into armed conflict in the very near future. Those
countries are North Korea and Iran. Unfortunately,
North Korea already has a small nuclear arsenal
and is a client state of Red China, also a nuclear
power. [North] Korea has a limited ability to wage
effective conventional warfare and poses little
threat to US desires for peace in that area. Their
nuclear threat, if directed against an ally of the
US, would trigger an American military response.
This in turn could trigger a Chinese response
leading to a major regional conflict possibly
involving nuclear weapons. Hence the attempts on
the part of the US to elicit the active assistance
of Red China in the control of the North Korean
leadership. Iran is another matter. As yet, Iran
has no functional nuclear threat. There is no
patron nation that can be used to bring pressure
to bear Iran or that would automatically come to
Iran's assistance in the event of military
conflict. Yet the US goes out of its way to
achieve a reduction in what it perceives to be a
threat to its security in the near future. Many
proposals have been made that would allow Iran to
have access to peaceful civilian nuclear
technology and all have been rebuffed by the
Iranian leadership. It has become clear to the
entire world that Iran wishes to have domestically
produced nuclear weapons. Given their current
posturing, this is something that the US is
extremely concerned about. Should Iran, under
cover of its nuclear umbrella, take military
action against any nation in the region engaged in
defensive treaty relations with the US, the US
would be duty-bound to respond. Should this come
to pass, it is unclear what other nations may
become involved and to what extent. This is not a
case of oppression, or of good versus evil. This
is simply reality and must be understood as such.
The fears and motivations of the US are simple and
clear. Neither the American people nor the
American leadership wish empire. They simply wish
to be secure within their borders. If this desire
for security increases stability in the rest of
the world, so much the better. They will do what
they believe is necessary to control a perceived
threat to achieve that security. That they choose
to approach these concerns in a non-violent manner
should be acknowledged to their credit. This
response is not meant to be the opening of a
discussion, but is merely to clarify the position
that I attempted to make in my previous letter.
These situations are complicated. There are no
good guys and bad guys here. But each side must be
evaluated clearly. And it must be remembered that
these two nations do not exist in a vacuum. Their
actions will have serious repercussions for
multiple nations in the world. There aren't any
sidelines in a nuclear confrontation.
M
Tobias
USA (Mar 16,
'06)
Why
is the failure of the main nuclear-weapons powers
to live up to the NPT "beside the point"? Surely
the arrogance of those states and the proven
belligerence of some of them (even if we accept
your rosy view of US war aims) are factors driving
paranoid dictatorships such as Pyongyang and
nationalist regimes such as Tehran toward a
dangerously defensive stance, including the
pursuit of terrible weapons that the US wants to
have but does not want governments of which it
does not approve (at the moment) to possess. - ATol
Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thank
you for your insightful article [Taliban's
Iraq-style spring is sprung, Mar 15]. It is
indeed a very dangerous development that the
Taliban are getting "top-quality" training in
Iraq. Afghanistan is just beginning to emerge from
a 30-year war in which foreign intervention was a
major factor. Now that democratic institutions are
in place in Afghanistan as approved by an absolute
"silent" majority of Afghans, it begs the question
as to the real forces behind these well-crafted
stratagems to instigate chaos and fear which will
inevitably lead to undermining of the
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. It also
leaves room for speculation as how the
semi-illiterate Taliban travel freely from
Afghanistan to Iraq (and back) and who provides
financial and logistical support for such an
extensive operation on the ground ...
Aryan
Arghandewal (Mar 15, '06)
Re Taliban's
Iraq-style spring is sprung [Mar 15]: The ...
difference between the Iraqi insurgency and the
Afghan insurgency has been the difference between
a professional army and a conscripts' army and
reflected the ... difference between the Taliban
army before their regime fell and the Iraqi army
before Saddam [Hussein] fell. The Taliban army was
raised only to provide "strategic depth" to the
Pakistani army and the Iraqi army was raised to
sustain Saddam's regime and defend the country
against foreign invasions. The ideological
difference between the two insurgencies has been
due to the fact that the Iraqi insurgency is made
up of well-educated military officers while the
Afghan insurgency is more likely ... made up of
madrassa students (Taliban), and further, the
divine original message of Islam, which is in
Arabic, vibrates hearts and souls better [in
people who] can understand it in its original
language and rhythm. The geographical difference
between the two insurgencies is the difference of
geography. Iraq is at the heart of the energy
world in the [vicinity of] holy lands ... with
Israel situated next-door. So stakes are much
higher in respect of the Iraq insurgency. That
explains the US pumping hundreds of billions [of
dollars] to stay put in Iraq simply by defending
itself. The strategic difference between the two
insurgencies is that Iraqis had more resources,
they knew the West would come to attack them
sooner or later, they saw Westerners coming and
planned for their reception and were therefore
able to mount an insurgency almost as soon as they
were occupied. It is the advance planning that
makes Iraq's Sunni-based insurgency's survival,
sustenance, efficiency and effectiveness look
miraculous because Shi'ites and Kurds, who form
almost 70% of the Iraqi population, were keen to
get rid off the Sunni dominance of Iraq when
[foreign] forces arrived and occupied the country.
The survival and effectiveness of the Iraqi
insurgency in the face of very complex and
profound adversity points towards greater
dedication and military discipline. The Afghan
insurgency did not have comparable resources, did
not see Westerners coming a long time before they
actually arrived, and there was therefore no
advance planning or definitive established
discipline to receive and sort out the invaders in
the immediate aftermath of the Taliban's fall from
power. Further, the Taliban's defense system was
deeply tangled with the Pakistani army, which
abandoned them in the heat of the battle in
"national interest", and therefore the Afghan
insurgency had to take time off to recoup, regroup
and retrain as forces independent from the
Pakistani army. It seems to me that the planners
of the Afghan insurgency [have] been working on
the professional, ideological and strategic
segments of the differences between the two
insurgencies because by reducing the gap in those
areas the Afghan insurgency can be turned into a
force as lethal [as] and more effective than the
Iraqi insurgency, because the areas where the
Afghan insurgency is going to be based and mostly
conducted appear to be Pashtun areas. Pashtuns
form the majority population of Afghanistan, and
the overwhelming majority of Afghans are Sunnis,
compared [with] the 20-30% [Sunni population] the
Iraqi insurgency is drawn from.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 15,
'06)
I am
always amazed at the mindset of Western
commentators. Ian Williams [Iran: Here we
go again, Mar 15] grieves [for] the death of
2,300 American soldiers. Any unnecessary death is
tragic. At least these soldiers volunteered in the
American army and laid [down] their lives in the
call of duty. [More] shocking is that most Western
writers do not even think of mentioning more than
100,000 Iraqis who lost their lives because of
American and British aggression or due to
conditions this aggression created.
Zafar
Hussain (Mar 15, '06)
I just finished reading Iran: Here we
go again [Mar 15] by Ian Williams. It was
total balderdash. Get this straight: the United
States will not allow Iran to develop nuclear
weapons, period. The reasons for this are simple.
The Iranian president has publicly stated, on more
than one occasion, that not only should Israel be
wiped from the face of the Earth, but that Iran is
going to do it. The Iranians, signatories to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are now, and
have been since their signing of said treaty, in
violation of it. Iran officially declared war
against the US in 1979 after deposing the
government of the shah. And finally, Iran has
displayed expansionist ambitions in the Persian
Gulf and Caspian Sea areas for years. The
independent countries in those areas greatly fear
Iranian expansion, enough to support the US in an
effort to protect themselves. Mr Williams should
applaud the US for attempting to enlist
international support for non-violent means of
curtailing Iranian efforts to defy the
Non-Proliferation Treaty that they [Iranians]
signed, rather than criticizing them. Should Iran
arm itself with nuclear weapons and carry out its
stated aim to destroy Israel, the US would be
duty-bound, by treaty, to retaliate on behalf of
Israel. Only, in that case, the response would
almost certainly be nuclear and could spread to a
large portion of the world. Yes, any action
against Iran by the US will have "blowback" in the
region. But most of the region would much rather
cope with a conventional blowback rather than a
nuclear one. If this was not an anti-American
piece, than it was certainly written through an
anti-American filter. The Iranian leadership
cannot be allowed to have access to weapons as
powerful as fission bombs. The US has gone to the
most inept body in international relations for
assistance with this problem. The UN membership
can either step up to the plate and lend their
support to forcing Iran to live up to its
obligations, or they will prove themselves to be
superfluous. If the latter, then the US will act
unilaterally or with a small coalition and the UN
will slip away into world history right alongside
the League of Nations. Oh, one last thing. There
is no Iranian electorate. All presidential
candidates must be approved by the Guardian
Council, all members of which are appointed by the
Supreme Leader. Doesn't sound very democratic,
does it?
M Tobias
USA (Mar 15,
'06)
The
US signed the NPT as well, but has done very
little to fulfill its own obligations
under the treaty to reduce its huge nuclear
arsenal (nor have most of the other declared
nuclear-weapons states). As for "expansionist
ambitions", only one nation has invaded and
occupied any countries in Asia in recent years,
and it's not Iran. - ATol
It is surprising that Stephen
Zunes, with his credentials and his experience,
keeps repeating the same [falsehoods] made up by
partisan press agencies and politicians [US Democrats in
dry dock over ports, Mar 15]. The existence of
Saddam Hussein's WMD [weapons of mass destruction]
program was in virtually every intelligence report
in Europe. The French, German, Italian, English
and Russian intelligence agencies all arrived at
the same conclusion. So did the CIA [US Central
Intelligence Agency]. It's disingenuous to keep on
blaming President [George W] Bush for the
yet-missing WMD. As for the connection between
Saddam's government and the al-Qaeda, contacts
[were] made. One of Saddam's top aides even
attended an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia. This was
reported also in the 9-11 Commission. This was
conveniently kept out of print by the biased major
media here in the United States and in Europe.
Those of us in the public who paid close attention
to the 9-11 Commission report know better. Mr
Zunes should not try to support his opinion by
injecting false information. It's beneath him.
J
Chua
South Plainfield,
New Jersey (Mar 15, '06)
The Rolling Stones are coming
to the People's Republic of China three weeks
after the closure of the National People's
Congress, Beijing's rubber-stamp legislature [Rolling Stones
to rock Shanghai, Mar 15]. There delegates got
marching orders to struggle to overcome the
growing maw of income disparities between city and
farm, and to create a "new socialist countryside".
Appearing in the fleshpot which Shanghai has
become, the Rolling Stones belie the ability of
China's communist rulers to reform a dying system.
The aging Stones come at a time of bread and
circuses for the hip, upwardly mobile Chinese and
the insatiable appetite of expectations of urban
youth. The countryside is laboring and suffering
under the weight of land confiscation without
compensation, cancerous Communist Party
corruption, high unemployment, pollution and the
like. In many respects, today's communist China
exhibit the habits and the attitudes of the
much-maligned Chiang Kai-shek China of the 1930s.
[Film director] Zhang Yimou's Shanghai Triad captures
those times well.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 15,
'06)
Beijing's position on Taiwan
province is that "both Taiwan and the mainland
belong to the same China". However, Ting-I Tsai
(When Taiwan
dared say 'no' to Washington, Mar 14) replaces
"the mainland" with "China" when quoting Beijing
as saying that "Taiwan and China [sic] belong to
the same China". Ting-I Tsai should cite the
source of the quotation in question; otherwise
[she] should rewrite [her] article. The difference
between a geographical name and the name of a
country should not be lost in translation.
Moreover, no one is allowed to make false
accusations based on a misquotation.
JM
USA (Mar 15,
'06)
Please redirect the likes of
Frank [letter, Mar 14] and other hate-mongers to
the forum. Perhaps Frank needs his
underdeveloped/one-way mind to be told that a Sikh rules almost a
billion Hindus in its democracy as its prime
minister. Which might not be perfect, but it works
in its unusual ways.
Tarun
Dallas, Texas (Mar 15,
'06)
Done.
To all the others who responded to Frank's latest:
Please go to The Edge forum if you wish to continue
taking Frank's bait. As Shekhar of Chicago pointed
out in one of today's unpublished letters, that
particular debate outwore its welcome some time
ago. - ATol
Carl Senna's review of my
book Saudi Arabia Exposed:
Inside a Kingdom in Crisis contains so many
factual errors that it is difficult to know where
to begin in attempting to set the record straight
for your readers [His kingdom for
a book, Mar 11]. But the opening sentence is
probably as good a place as any: "John R Bradley
worked for two and a half years at the only
English-language daily in Saudi Arabia, where he
was the first non-Arab editor." Arab News is one
of two English-language dailies in Saudi Arabia.
The other is called the Saudi Gazette, which is
very well known, and is mentioned in my book. I
was not appointed "the editor", but rather the
news editor. Later, I was promoted to managing
editor. There have been a number of other non-Arab
news editors and managing editors of Arab News in
recent years, although among them only I was
properly accredited as a journalist by the Saudi
authorities. On the other hand, there has never
been a non-Arab editor in chief of Arab News. "As
the first Westerner to edit a Saudi newspaper,
Bradley largely had a free hand in what was
published," Senna plunges on with an utterly
preposterous suggestion that I could,
single-handedly, circumnavigate both the
restrictions imposed by the Saudi editor-in-chief
and his boss at the Ministry of Information. In
fact, I write in the book about the constant
battles I faced in trying to publish what I
wanted. "As editor he was presumably targeting
Saudi readers while at the Arab News, we might
assume," Senna remarks. But why should this be
"assumed"? I state very clearly in the book that
the overwhelming majority of the readers of Arab
News were Westerners and Third World expats, not
Saudis. Then there is this: "Bradley estimates
that before the September 11 [2001] attacks,
American and British expats numbered about 50,000.
(But when I was in Jeddah a year earlier, I was
informed by a local chamber of commerce member
that the number was twice Bradley's figure, though
it did not include Western military personnel
secretly based in the kingdom.)" On page 119 of Saudi Arabia Exposed, I
write: "Prior to September 11, there were nearly
50,000 Americans, 35,000 Britons, as well as
smaller numbers of French, Germans, Italians, and
other Europeans in Saudi Arabia." In other words,
I estimate not that there were 50,000 Americans
and Britons, as Senna writes, but rather 85,000.
So the total figure for Western expats, when we
add in the remainder I mention from other
countries, seems to be pretty much exactly the
figure that Senna was trying to offer by way of a
correction. "Drawing on Seven Pillars of Wisdom
(1926) by T E Lawrence, Bradley seems to approve
of its orientalist prejudice," your readers were
told. Up to a point; but with a huge
qualification, which Senna should have discussed.
Immediately after I quote the passage from Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Senna cited, for instance, I write in the book
that "this is, of course, a simplification and a
generalization, as critics of Lawrence and other
'Orientalists' argue". Things just get worse and
worse. "A graduate of London University, Bradley
found an interest in Arabia and Arabic studies. He
traveled to Cairo after graduation to further his
mastery of Arabic ..." After graduating from
London University, I did graduate work at Oxford
University, meaning I only traveled to Cairo four
years after graduating from London. And I did not
go there to "further my mastery" of Arabic: at
both London and Oxford I studied English
literature; when I arrived in Cairo I knew only a
little Arabic, although I had briefly studied the
language in Morocco. There are other crude,
factually challenged summaries. "All the features
associated with Third World slums existed in
al-Ruwais - drug dealing, male and female
prostitution, black markets, bootlegging, illegal
immigration, abusive work conditions, pornography,
exploitation of women, etc, Bradley writes." This
is a dreadful error that - along with all of the
other of Senna's mistakes - reveals an
unforgivably rushed reading of Saudi Arabia Exposed. The
part of al-Ruwais I lived in is described in the
book as a "working-class district" that was
"merely unpleasant". Most of these "features"
(sic) listed by Senna are described after a visit
I made to a completely different part of Jeddah, a
slum called Kerantina. Finally, while criticizing
me for not giving enough information about Saudis
I encountered, Senna cannot even properly convey
the information I do give in the book. "For
instance, a promising meeting Bradley has with a
Hejazi, Western-educated teenager ..." This
teenager was not Western-educated, and nowhere in
the book do I say he was Western-educated. I could
go on (and on), but I think you have got the point
by this stage. I might perhaps add, however, that
these glaring errors render both Senna's criticism
and praise of the book meaningless beyond measure.
John R Bradley
Reviewer Carl Senna has read
John R Bradley's response and made a
counter-response, which follows. - ATol
On
John R Bradley's first point: I was confused by
his introduction. He states that he was "news
editor and then managing editor ... Other
Westerners had previously gotten jobs as copy
editors on local newspapers in Saudi Arabia,
including Arab News. But they were typically
part-timers who worked officially as English
teachers; and, even if they were not, they usually
had 'researcher' or 'lecturer' written on their
residence permits, generally did not write
articles, and were limited ... to traveling in
approved areas ... And so, a few months before
September 11 [2001], when everything in the
kingdom was pretty much bumbling along as normal,
I found myself the only permanent, accredited
Western journalist in" Saudi Arabia (p xii)
Forgive my confusion, but if Bradley's residence
permit was the only one "officially" stamped
"journalist", then it seems to me that he is the
only full-time editor of an English-language daily
in the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]. What other
Western English-speakers were there in the kingdom
then writing for another English-language paper?
Bradley doesn't tell us. But then, to pump up his
editorial authority at Arab News, Bradley writes:
"At the Jeddah-based Arab News, the newspaper I
worked for, sub-editors were often amused to see
columns of Middle East 'experts' - Thomas
Friedman, Daniel Pipes, and the like - quoting the
newspaper's anonymous editorials because they
seemingly reflected 'a change in the Arab
mindset.' In fact, they were written by me, a
British chap who lives in the south of France, and
- when we were not available - by another British
chap, who lives in the north of England." (p 188)
If that kind of editorializing is not "a free
hand", then I would like to know what restrictions
were specifically placed on Bradley's freedom to
write for the Arab News. Again, he doesn't explain
to [the] reader. We simply don't know how he was
restricted. Instead, he leaves our impression of
his freedom or his restrictions up to our
imagination. As for the status of Arab News as the
"only" English-language daily, it depends on when
the statement was made. When I was in Saudi Arabia
in the 1990s, an English-language daily was often
hard to find in the places I traveled; on one or
more occasions, I was informed that the
English-language paper (my Saudi handler didn't
say which one) had folded or had ceased
publication, only ... for me to find it somewhere
many weeks after publication. I have read the
Saudi Gazette only online. And I know of other
English-language Saudi news websites. But when one
reads in Bradley that "After September 11, the
[Arab News] newspaper would for a time be one of
the - if not the
[italics Bradley's] - most quoted in the world
..." (p xii), it may be his exaggeration that
misleads his readers, since he is obviously
speaking of Arab News being the most quoted
newspaper in the world in the context of Western
English-language newspapers. As for what I wrote
about "targeting" Saudi readers, I stand by my
statement. Bradley may have written in Arab News
for Saudi English-speaking readers and expats, but
his book is really addressed to English-speaking
Westerners. And his premise - his book's thesis -
is to prescribe actions for the West to take in
dealing with the Saudis. Although he may think so,
he is in no way really prescribing actions for the
Saudis to take in dealing with the West. And
that's fine. But let's be clear. As Andre Malraux
once wrote, "Every priest knows that confession in
the abstract costs nothing: Hence the concrete
questions from behind the grill: With whom? How
many times? In what manner?" His book is not a
confession. It's not even an expose. On the
contrary, Bradley conceals or does not reveal a
great deal about himself in Saudi Arabia, and he
knows it. As for the number of expats that I
quoted from his book, the numbers are anyone's
guess, but Bradley is here correct in one respect:
he does state that his guesstimate is 50,000
Americans and 35,000 British, though he doesn't
say where he got those figures. I concede this
point to him. My published version of my review,
in the editing process, used only his figure for
the Americans and omitted his figure for the
British, but neither my figure nor his, then, is
reliable. And the Saudis have been vague about the
exact numbers for some time. Regarding Bradley's
quote from T E Lawrence on the Semite mind: If
Bradley is critical of the quote, why does he
include it, when raising such a prejudice merely
to disprove it is a standard rhetorical device to
circulate it, much as a trial lawyer mentions
something to prejudice a jury, knowing that the
judge will strike the remark and ask the jury to
disregard it? Of course, the jury can't cast
something prejudicial out of its mind, anymore
than some readers. But there are plenty of quotes
from Lawrence that are even more repulsive and
glaringly racist than the bland one Bradley
quotes. Why not include those? My interpretation
is that Bradley's quote from Lawrence is
gratuitous. It serves no useful purpose unless it
is intended to rather facilely establish Bradley's
credentials as an anti-orientalist, who have
little or no credibility. Although I do not share
Lawrence's bigotry, I deeply admire, as
literature, his Seven
Pillars of Wisdom, one of the several sources
that Bradley actually names as a source. But there
are plenty of other quotes from that book more
appropriate to Bradley and his book. And I gave
what I believe was a very apt one in my review. As
for Kerantina vs al-Ruwais being places where
there is vice, does it really matter? I witnessed
vice in both places on the street. But I was in a
van driving through the districts. I didn't hang
out in them as did Bradley, so the extent of the
deprivations he describes in Kerantina may be
true. Like me, speaking from foreign ignorance,
when he arrived in Saudi Arabia in 2001, the
country, he writes, "still was relatively
crime-free". (p 145) I find it contradictory for
Bradley also to write, anecdotally: "Only in
Kerantina can one find banned substances being
sold in the middle of the street in the middle of
the day - and without fear ..." (p 148), which I
find quite amazing. So I am not surprised when, a
little farther along in this chapter, Bradley
states, "Heroin, hashish, and speed are the most
commonly used drugs in Saudi Arabia ... and there
are three specialist hospitals in Riyadh, Jeddah,
and Dammam to treat addicts and reintegrate them
back into mainstream society." (p 149) Not only
are illicit drugs sold openly elsewhere in the
kingdom, but I witnessed other kinds of vice in
the eastern oil patch, in expat communities. One
need only read the reported charges published for
arrests in other parts of the kingdom to see that.
So what Bradley finds exclusive to Kerantina is
not true.
Carl Senna
Canada (Mar 15,
'06)
Spengler [How I learned
to stop worrying and love chaos, Mar 14]: A
few years ago, someone suggested that you spend
six months working in a diner in Des Moines [Iowa]
to learn how real Americans think. It's still a
good idea. The idea that pessimism has only
recently gone out of fashion is quite false, for
example. Optimism has been mandatory for Americans
for centuries. Even the Puritans believed that
they were the Elect. More recent Americans go
along with the "American Adam" theme, the idea
that [the United States of] America and Americans
are without Original Sin and unable to do wrong,
like Adam in the Garden of Eden. Also false is
your claim that Christianity is about agape (love), while Islam
is about worldly success. Spengler, there is no
religion in human history more focused on "health
and wealth" in this world and the next than
US-style Protestantism. When you're not busy at
Denny's [US restaurant chain], I suggest you watch
a lot of Christian TV, particularly the TBN
network. Note all the preachers promoting the
Health and Wealth Gospel. (Give your money to the
preacher and [God] will make you rich; G W Bush
may be hoping that this will pay his deficits.) Go
to church a couple times a week, the sort of
church your immigrant co-workers will invite you
to. Who knows, maybe you can start your own
ministry.
Lester Ness, PhD
Changchun, China (Mar 14,
'06)
What
I learned from the latest article from Spengler
[How I learned
to stop worrying and love chaos, Mar 14] in
Asia Times [Online]: He is (unlike his namesake)
just a bombastic jingo figuring as a wise man.
Joseph Bodenhofer
Austria (Mar 14,
'06)
Re
Inside the US's
regime-change school [Mar 14]: It surprises me
a bit that Americans have not sought assistance of
former European colonialists, particularly
Britain, because they are best for this kind of
thing. Turning brother against brother and driving
wedges in a coherent society is not a very easy
task. There are lot of Iranian Bahais outside Iran
who can be groomed to serve Western interests as
long as neo-conservatives can bring themselves up
to reconciling with Bahai ideas. Bahais, whose
headquarters are in Israel, are the most fertile,
coherent and committed Iranian West-based
community that can serve Western interests very
well in Iran. There is a lot of potential there
for exploration and exploitation. They are the
readily and freely available "Iran experts" who
can be deployed with immediate effect.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 14,
'06)
Ting-I Tsai's article When Taiwan
dared say 'no' to Washington [Mar 14] says a
lot in a few words. In spite of a public rebuke by
President George W Bush, Taiwan's President Chen
Shui-bian abolished the National Unification
Council. Washington thought that its stern
reprimand had made Mr Chen lose face. Far from it;
if anything, weighing the Bush administration's
weaknesses and its carrot-and-stick approach to
China, Mr Chen did what he say that he would. In
the end, Washington acquiesced to Taiwan's boldest
mood to strike a posture of independence. It is
useful to recall that ... Richard Nixon's trip to
China pulled the United States from the fateful
decision to abandon the fate of Taiwan to Mao
Zedong and his Gang of Four. Mr Nixon and his
adviser Henry Kissinger, in a bold diplomatic
move, were looking to extricate America from a
failed war in Indochina and at the same time
exploit Beijing's cold war with the Soviet Union.
In their haste, and with a burning desire to curry
China's favor, the two men had not fully thought
out the consequences of abrogating without advice
and consent America's obligations and
understandings with Taipei. And so was born the
uneasy "one China" policy. On the other hand, the
question of Taiwan offers any administration in
the White House in Washington a strong hand in
dealing with a growing, aggressive China with a
large standing army and a growing, hungry economy.
It is a wedge, and a useful one at that, to move
Beijing to reform [its] monetary policy, for
example. Still, in the longer run, Taiwan has the
right of self-determination, which even the
Communist Party of China recognizes as a worthy
heir of Lenin despite the mouthing of empty
phrases and promises.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 14,
'06)
It
is very funny for an Indian, Rakesh [letter, Mar
13], to say that [some think] repeating a
convenient lie or a half-truth without any
supporting evidence will automatically convert it
to a fact. That seems to apply to the claim that
India is the birthplace of many of the algebraic
concepts. Saqib Khan [letter, Mar 13] seems [to
be] saying that India learned those math concepts
from Muslims. Besides, what did Indians do with
those math concepts? Zero. Was that where the
concept comes from? Rakesh told us that Indian
calendar is only useful in blowing hot air, is
another proof to that stolen Indian algebraic
theory. [Chinese] zodiac animals are very useful
for those poor to remember important years. I
doubt if poor Indians could remember their birth
years before the English conquered them. If Sikhs
enjoy being ruled by Hindus, that is fine with me.
However, if Sikhs are demanding their country
back, shouldn't India listen to them? If Indians
are so concerned about the Tibetans, they should
return the historic Tibetan territories of Ladakh,
Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim back to the Dalai
Lama's control. These lands used to be Tibetan
territories before India's master took them. [Most
residents] there are still Tibetans. Otherwise,
please save your crocodile's tears.
Frank
of Seattle
Washington,
USA (Mar 14, '06)
For almost five years every
single television and radio channel in Thailand
has been ruthlessly and systematically reduced to
an inefficient carcass by what once was the
country that enjoyed the most liberal press
freedom in this part of the world. Critics were
silenced one by one, either by direct or indirect
influence from concerted efforts of the Ministry
of Communication, the Public Relations Department,
the Ministry of Interior or even the Police
Department. Accusations and excuses were that
particular programs undermined national interest
or national security. The People's Alliance for
Democracy led by Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong
Srimuang first rallied on February 13 and got
almost no coverage from any of the "free
television channels" or the various radio stations
across the dial. This was very unusual because
during any fire or natural disaster, there was
continuous coverage but when more than 100,000
people gathered in Sanam Luang [the public field
across from the Grand Palace in Bangkok], nothing
was reported, as if the event has never taken
place. The following day, the story appeared as
the hourly news saying a few thousand gathered to
hear Sondhi and the Alliance speak. There was no
soundtrack of these events, as opposed to lengthy
soundtracks of [Prime Minister] Thaksin
[Shinawatra] and the various ministers saying as
much as they wanted and for as long as they
desired. A dramatic transformation has occurred
since then. There is more and more uncensored
television coverage and radio reporting covering
the anti-government activities live. Thaksin is
complaining about unfair media coverage. This is
being echoed by Suranan [Vejjajiva], the minister
of the Office of the Prime Minister, who is
responsible for all media and the Public Relations
Department. We are witnessing a turn of events and
very interesting history in the making. To give a
brief background of media censorship in Thailand
for those who did not follow these developments in
Thailand, I have divided the different methods of
suppression into three general categories:
1. Outright purchase of the
media. Direct control is exercised to block any
negative news coverage of the people in power.
2. Partial control by
recruiting major shareholders of particular media
to join the government. This curtails favorable
press coverage of anti-government groups or
opposition parties.
3.
Leverage control by not buying advertising space
in anti-government media. Most if not all of
advertising budgets will go to pro-government
media. This deprives anti-government press of the
extra cushion of easy money they could have
received if they would have "behaved well".
Thailand's constitution gives
top priority to press freedom because of the loss
of life that occurred as a result of the press
cover-up of the May 1992 massacre of peaceful
demonstrators. It is the primary task of the prime
minister to form the first independent body,
called the National Broadcasting Commission, to
make certain that we [Thais] have fair and
unbiased news coverage. I and the other elected
designates to serve on the National Broadcasting
Commission have officially stated that we are
going to allow total press freedom and let the
press form their own self-governing body. There is
no end in sight to the delays that have prevented
the National Broadcasting Commission from being
established. Freedom of the press is the most
effective weapon for combating corruption in
Thailand (as has [proved] to be the case in
Norway, Sweden and Denmark), but somewhere,
somehow, by someone or some party, it successfully
gets blocked time and time again. This is why
Thailand is losing its war on corruption. Our
politicians have no political will to punish those
who siphon money from our coffers and no watchdogs
in the press to blow the whistle. The most that
happens is a slap on the wrist for a few junior
bureaucrats. The real politician-culprits are
never punished.
Dr Supong Limtanakool
National Broadcasting
Commissioner (Kor Sor Chor) designate
Bangkok, Thailand (Mar 14,
'06)
For
the latest on the Thai political impasse, see the
new article Thailand's
calm before the storm. -
ATol
In
order to accelerate its economic engine, India
needs to capitalize on a melange of energy
sources. Until thorium reactors come online the
country's dependence on imported uranium remains
an obstacle. Consider the fact that Australia has
refused to sell uranium to India and that Canada
has shown very little eagerness. Consider also
that the [US] Congress could easily kill the
[nuclear deal with India]. Should this occur, the
Iranian-Pakistani-India gas-pipe project will
truly remain no more than a pipe dream. What now?
We can travel the same road as Brazil. Like India,
Brazil produces [much] sugar [and] produces ...
ethanol as well. Brazil has succeeded in cutting
back its consumption of oil dramatically by using
gasohol, a blend of ethanol and gasoline.
Consequently, Brazil is primed to export ethanol.
In contrast, India's distilleries are working
below capacity. While there is a glut of sugar,
ethanol plants are rusting in Bijar. The situation
can be easily rectified through land reforms and a
political will to do so. India can use a
two-pronged approach to increasing the production
of ethanol by increasing distillery capacity and
by using cellulosic ethanol. Waste material can be
converted into ethanol through [employing]
specific enzymes. The first breakthrough was made
by Nancy Ho of Purdue University, who made a
particular genetically engineered yeast. This
particular yeast has the potential to increase the
production of ethanol by at least 40%. India has a
reserve of biomass available to feed the
bio-refineries in order to produce alcohol. There
is current multinational interest in cellulosic
ethanol. It is currently [US President George W]
Bush's pet project and notable figures such as
Bill Gates and Vinod Khosla are lining up to
channel their venture capital into this
industry.
Jay Jolly
Edmonton, Alberta (Mar 14,
'06)
While the Chinese are to be
wished much success in careful development to
fuller potential throughout China of TCM
[traditional Chinese medicine]-related industry
(Yunnan finds a
cure for ailing TCM industry [Mar 11]), it is
to be suggested that such Chinese expertise be
directly exported as well in an organized way more
than it is. To lead and invest in similar
development outside of China [in] a major way,
China can spend some of its greatly accumulated
foreign reserve currency without antagonism.
Whatever Chinese can teach about cultivation,
collection and processing for [medicine] is ever
more urgently required, without which eventual
critical shortages are to be feared. This would be
China's greatest export. As well, the wide world
of healing substances and processes awaits
assimilation into the world of TCM. Plastic toys
and cheaper cars are playing their role in China's
integration into the wider world, but the role to
be played by TCM would dwarf all of that. Better
that Chinese energies and resources be put to
balancing and healing throughout the world than to
further contribute to that which has us all
require the healing and balancing. The article
[says] that "the legal system should be
transparent, and regulations for foreign
investment should be standardized; this factor is
no less important than the standardization of the
products themselves". Canada for one has much of
what China needs in this. Canada has no Yunnan,
but awaits more of China's teaching and investment
in TCM to complement the already impressive if
still inchoate body of TCM practitioners here.
D
Vernon
Toronto,
Ontario (Mar 13, '06)
[According to] your article
China frets
over nuclear double standard [Mar 11], the
Chinese media and [the country's] leaders are
suddenly "worried" over nuclear proliferation. Yet
it was China that proliferated its nuclear
technology to Pakistan, which in turn through
[Abdul Qadeer] Khan spread this deadly technology
by setting up his notorious "Nuclear Bazaar",
causing the biggest proliferation in
nuclear-weapons history. Thanks to China and
Pakistan, now Iran has this technology and God
only knows who else. China is the least nation to
be complaining about the possibilities of rampant
nuclear technology due to the recently signed
Indo-US nuclear accord.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 13, '06)
Brendan Taylor puts it
plainly [Ignore North
Korea at your peril, Mar 11]. Refusal to take
Kim Jong-il seriously is a political peril. He is
not a doomsday peddler of nuclear holocaust ...
Rather his article is not a rude analysis; it
displays a commonsensical view of the ostrich
posture [that US President George W] Bush and Co
assume in dealing with North Korea. Listen to the
language Washington uses: "irrational", "crazy",
qualifying adjectives which for the United States
have not gone out of fashion since the days of
Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles. Time
therefore for President Bush remains frozen, and
he luxuriates in the past like Rip Van Winkle. As
Dr Taylor [suggests], Pyongyang's moves on the
diplomatic chessboard are deliberate and thought
out. Generally speaking, they are defensive in
nature. Recently Asia Times [Online] printed a
piece by Kim Myong-chol, the officious [sic] voice
of North Korea in Japan [Sanctions on
Pyongyang will backfire, Feb 16]. Pyongyang's
position as he put it could not be clearer. But as
usual, although intelligence agencies may have
read it, the message got lost in Washington's
version of a black hole. It has been often
suggested that revisiting the 1954 Geneva Accords
on Korea would open a road to resolving
long-standing and present issues with Pyongyang
and Seoul and China and the United States on
ending a state of war which is in search of a
peace treaty. Washington's fit of temper and
frustration [over the] stalled six-power talks and
its fevered and escalating name-calling and acting
as though it were Jacob wrestling a fallen angel
will lead to ... failure. North Korea has seen
American presidents come and go, and [it is]
willing to see Mr Bush fall on his own sword as a
lame duck and failed administrator. The Clinton
administration began negotiations with North
Korea. They brought a degree of easing of tension
on the divided Korean Peninsula. They allowed the
equally isolated Washington to become familiar
with North Koreans. Secretary of state [Madeleine]
Albright's visit to Pyongyang gave hope to a true
thaw in relations, but alas, that was not to be.
Mr Bush's amateur approach to Pyongyang has tolled
the knell of decline in America's influence in
Northeast Asia, the more especially since he has
proved to be incompetent, and has ceded the
initiative to a China very anxious to reassert its
traditional hold on former vassal states.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 13,
'06)
[Why Iran's oil
bourse can't break the buck, Mar 10] argues
that [a] new Iran oil bourse that accepts only
euros is not a threat to the US dollar. Asia Times
[Online] states the case for a threat [thus]: "The
argument by those who believe the Tehran oil
bourse would be the casus
belli, the trigger pushing Washington down the
road to potential thermonuclear annihilation of
Iran, seems to rest on the claim that by openly
trading oil to other nations or buyers in euros,
Tehran would set into motion a chain of events in
which nation after nation, buyer after buyer,
would line up to buy oil no longer in US dollars
but in euros. That, in turn, goes the argument,
would lead to a panic selling of dollars on world
foreign-exchange markets and a collapse of the
role of the dollar as reserve currency, one of the
'pillars of empire'. Basta! There goes the
American Century down the tubes with the onset of
the Tehran oil bourse." And Asia Times [Online]
states the case against [thus]: "The denomination
of oil sales is merely a transactional issue: what
matters is in what assets (or, in the case of the
United States, liabilities ) these proceeds are
then invested." Asia Times [Online's] case against
is flawed because, by accepting euros in exchange
for goods, one has already invested in Euroland
assets; only a fool would then trade those
Euroland assets for US (or anybody's) liabilities.
The threat is real. Asia Times [Online] must have
a political motive to obfuscate it.
Pete
Eriksen (Mar 13, '06)
Asia Times Online has no
"political motives" regarding the Tehran oil
bourse or anything else (we have no assets, in any
currency). The latter quote is from What the Iran
'nuclear issue' is really about (Jan 21), a Speaking Freely
submission by Chris Cook, former director of the
London International Petroleum Exchange, who was
involved in an early proposal for the Iranian
bourse. - ATol
I do not believe and there is
no reason to believe that [Russian President
Vladimir] Putin considers Hamas and Iran to be
"moderates" in comparison with the Chechen jihadis
[Putin's war
with radical Islamists, Mar 8]. I am not sure
about Iran but as far Hamas and Chechen jihadis,
there cannot be a difference in the ideology
because even including Iran, the actual ideologues
of the entire global Islamist movement are the
same. [The] Taliban of Afghanistan are a different
story and [are] sort of isolated, illiterate and
rough members of the same family (global Islamic
movement), and even they, due to common problems
and frequent interaction arising out of facing the
common friends and foes, will gradually ... learn
from the ideologically sharpened and hardened
elements of the global movement. The real
difference between various chapters of the world
Islamist movement is the difference of
local/regional circumstances in which they have to
operate. In embracing the "outcasts" like Hamas
and Iran, Putin basically has all or one of
[these] four objectives in mind: (1) to search
[for possible] reconciliation with Chechen jihadis
via Hamas via the global Islamic movement; (2)
driving wedges in the global Islamist movement;
(3) disconnecting the supply lines of Chechen
jihadis; (4) gaining leverage as a global player,
specifically in the background of Western interest
in Chechnya and the republics of the former Soviet
Union. How much partial (and limited) success
Putin is going to achieve will depend upon how far
the West is prepared to go in squeezing Hamas.
Rashid Hassan (Mar 13,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad's article Pakistan
battles the forces within [Mar 7] tells us
that Pakistan is facing some very dark days ahead.
Imran Khan may be the future of the leadership in
Pakistan; however, as has been the case since its
independence, Pakistan, sadly, has never ... had a
selfless leader [who] has put the people ahead of
other things. Granted [President General Pervez]
Musharraf is America's "boy" and he has failed in
some key areas in the governance of Pakistan;
unfortunately there is no other leader [who] can
govern Pakistan as it should be [governed]. A
majority of the population remains below normal
education levels, perhaps illiterate even, and
once again a "landed gentry" of Punjab is
attempting to take over. The Islamic parties, just
[like] the others, only want a piece of the power
pie, including Imran Khan. One has to wonder if
there is a deliberateness to this mass lack of
education. This man was a professional sportsman;
he has no knowledge of governance, perhaps no more
than the next person. I see Pakistan slipping back
into [the] Dark Ages and thus oblivion. I am sure
India is waiting in the wings for this country to
fall apart so it can pick up choice pieces for its
benefit. Perhaps Pakistan should take lesson from
China and, just like Mao [Zedong did], seal its
borders for the next 10-15 years and develop
itself educationally, financially, militarily,
etc. Short of such a radical and extraordinary
measure, Pakistan is destined either to implode or
become a "bitch" state of India or such. Good
luck!
Redauqs (Mar 13,
'06)
Frank from Seattle [letter,
Mar 10] seems to believe that repeating a
convenient lie or a half-truth without any
supporting evidence will automatically convert it
to a fact. That India is the birthplace of many of
the [algebraic] concepts has been maintained by
most historians, with supporting evidence. If
Frank bothered to do some research he would
realize it. But Frank will never be able to digest
this fact. His assertion that the Indian calendar
was never as popular or useful as the Chinese
calendar is a typical Frankonian lie, and a rather
amusing one. First of all, the Indian calendar and
astrology are widely used in most Hindu religious
ceremonies, even today. Second, I refuse to accept
that the Chinese system that assigns a year to
every animal is somehow more "useful". Last,
yelling about a separate homeland for Sikhs makes
Frank look ridiculous. Most Sikhs are very
patriotic Indians and have their own state with
all requisite freedoms. They are a dynamic
community that has enriched India just like
various other communities. They don't need Frank's
fake and purely politically motivated sympathy. In
sharp contrast, it is Tibetans that aren't free to
elect their own representatives and make their own
policies. It is Tibet that needs freedom.
Rakesh
India (Mar 13,
'06)
I
refer to the letter of Frank of March 10 and would
like to comment on the unsurpassable and
remarkable achievements of the Muslim scientists
and mention just few. Muslim scientists led the
world in anatomy, physiology, zoology, botany,
astronomy, mineralogy, physics and chemistry. The
Kitab al-Nabat (Encyclopedia Botanica) of
[Abu Hanifah] al-Dinawari (died 895), the first
[of its] kind, in six thick volumes remarkably
surpasses [similar works] in erudition and
extensiveness. Medicine also made extraordinary
progress under the Muslims in the branches of
anatomy, pharmacology, physiology, organization of
hospitals and trading of doctors, who were to pass
examinations before [being] allowed to practice.
The works of Razi (Rhazes), Ibn-Sina (Avicenna),
Abu'l-Qasim (Abucasis) and many others remained
until recently as the basis of all medical study
even in the West. We Muslims know that circulation
of blood was also known to them, thanks to the
writings of Ibn al-Nafis, but how ridiculous
[that] the Europeans credit it to William Harvey,
who only learned it from the Arabs' writings.
Under the influence of great Muslim scientists
like Khalid ibn Yazid, Jafa al-Sadiq and Jabir ibn
Hayyan, ancient alchemy [from Arabic al-kimiya, from Greek khemeioa] was transformed
into an exact science based on facts and capable
of demonstration. Jabir also knew chemical
operations of calcination and reduction; it is he
who developed also the methods of evaporation,
sublimation, crystallization, etc. In mathematics,
Muslims are well renowned for algebra, zero and
cipher and the names of al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni
and others remain as famous as those of Euclid.
The Greeks knew trigonometry but credit goes to
the Muslims for its discovery and advancement [as]
in logarithms. Muslims continued with their work
in advancing science until the Mongol barbarians'
invasion of Baghdad in one day burned and
destroyed all libraries, housing hundreds of
thousands of books of knowledge gained and
constructed over the centuries by the Muslim
scholars and scientists. Their wholesale and
loathsome massacre did not even spare the learned,
and the Muslims suffered the greatest intellectual
calamity and disaster in [the history of Islam]. I
should mention the fact that the great Muslim
scientists were devout and received their
inspiration from the Koran. It was because of
their contributions to science that the West
became civilized and saw the light of knowledge
when from time immemorial they [had] lived in dark
ages ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Mar 13,
'06)
I
want to comment on Adil Mouhammed's analysis
([letter] Mar 10) on the scenario of [a] US attack
on Iran. Mouhammed has very easily tried to prove
through a table map that Iran would have no
impediment and substantial damage done in case of
[a] US attack as Iran's situation is totally
different than Iraq's. Mouhammed's stress was on
the point that the USA is already deeply involved
in the Iraq war (Afghanistan too) and thus has no
guts to mess with Iran. People [have] to
understand two things: (1) Every war has its own
specifications and strategies, and the USA might
not necessarily fight a soldier-to-soldier war in
Iran [as in] Iraq if it takes place. (2) The USA
could simply destroy Iran's nuclear facilities
from any of its aircraft carriers in the Persian
Gulf or any other ocean under US control. The USA
could also use long-range intercontinental
ballistic missiles from thousands of miles [away]
to target the Iranian nuclear facilities. If this
happens, Americans might not lose a single soldier
and get their work done. I am sure Americans must
have learned a lesson from the Afghanistan and
Iraq wars not to enter someone's house no matter
how small and poorly built the walls are. Second,
after the Second World War, the United States of
America has flattened several leaders who bragged
of their intrepidity and challenged Americans with
their phony roars. Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam
Hussein, the Taliban, [Zulfiqar Ali] Bhutto,
Muammar Gaddafi [and] the Soviet Union are some of
them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is
behaving exactly like Saddam Hussein and Mullah
Omar, who in return couldn't sustain one full
punch of the USA and took refuge in holes,
abandoning Kabul and Baghdad.
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Mar 13,
'06)
Kudos to Jim Lobe on his
story on the "comedy of the US human-rights
report" and especially for bringing out the fact
that the US has not ratified the UN bit on
people's "cultural rights" and such [US on human
rights: Laugh yourself to death, Mar 10]. If
people could indeed have these rights, they'd be
more immune from exploitation from big corporate
multinationals, be it the US infotainment complex,
the drug companies, the supra-corporatized
Christian missionaries, etc ...
Karigar
USA (Mar 10,
'06)
The
recent fuel [price hike in Malaysia] has
yet again put Petronas in the spotlight. Your
article Petronas
profits create friction [Mar 10] covers the
rest. There have been many quarters who have
sought to silence the rest of us in relation to
[discussions about] our country's oil wealth. I am
sure many others like me would never question the
role Petronas has played in the development of the
nation and its society, as to do so would be
tantamount to being ungrateful to the God-given
rich resources entrusted to Petronas. Are the
petrodollars actually being [used] for nation
development, or wasteful efforts such as the
national service, sending people to space [or the]
moon and other silly endeavors? The complaints
people have in coffee shops and elsewhere are
mainly on the fact that Petronas' wealth and
assets are actually the nation's wealth, and
Petronas is just the trustee entrusted in ensuring
all is well. Therefore it does not mean that
Petronas has the sole and exclusive right to do
what it wants with the nation's oil revenue or how
much it rewards its employees [because of] a good
year financially, which could be attributed mainly
to rising prices rather than any increase in
efficiency or productivity performance. The
complaints are also about the general discomfort
that the nation's wealth is not being distributed
equally among all Malaysians and is being used for
purposes that are not exclusively nation-building
and beneficial to all, but for other reasons.
Whether those complaints are valid or not can only
be resolved by having adequate, sensible
intellectual discussions, not merely chest-beating
diatribes. Therefore there is a valid concern
among Malaysians, and not only in the coffee shops
but at the various other more posh watering holes
and so on. Just don't dismiss these concerns by
saying how much the [nation has] benefited; people
such as me would counter that by saying we could
have benefited more. We can have very good
intellectual discussions on this rather then
merely regurgitating the feel-good diatribe
without looking at all angles.
Oil
Leak
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia (Mar 10, '06)
Several recent articles on
Asia Times Online have looked at the issue of the
mosque bombing and the danger of civil war in Iraq
(Iraqis fight
talk of civil war [Mar 10], Blaming the
victims as Iraq disintegrates [Mar 9], etc).
One dimension of the problem that should not be
overlooked is that the descent of Iraq into civil
war and its permanent weakening or dismemberment
will make imperative a US attack on Iran.
Historically, the existence of a unified Iraq as a
counterweight to Iranian power has been in the
interests of the US. The removal of this
counterweight makes attacking Iran a geopolitical
necessity for the US. A conspiracy theorist would
say dominos are definitely being lined up, most
probably by the usual suspects.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Mar 10,
'06)
I
wish to comment on the article Blaming the
victims as Iraq disintegrates [Mar 9] by
Stephen Zunes. There is no doubt that the illegal
invasion and illegitimate occupation of Iraq
[have] helped to radicalize the Muslim world and
pushed many doubters [into] the arms of Osama bin
Laden. The stupid and idiotic vision of [US
President George W] Bush and [British Prime
Minister Tony] Blair of direct military
intervention in Iraq based on lies, deceptions and
deceits as a catalyst for a democratic revolution
across the Middle East has given way and resulted
in mass sectarian atrocities, kidnapping and
killing of the innocent Sunnis recently ... It is
only the beginning of the democratization vision
of Bush and Blair, and what a horrible delusion:
the end is nowhere in sight but things will get
nastier, gloomier and bloodier with four more
years of Shi'a majority rule. The Shi'a police and
militia groups supported by the Shi'a leadership
[are up to] their necks in the blood of innocent
Sunnis and they are looking for the liquidation of
their Sunni brothers because of ancient
deep-rooted animosities and rivalries ... [Bush]
is not finished yet, and the next target of his
administration is Iran, but Iranians are not as
stupid as was Saddam Hussein. Saddam had all his
nuclear installations in more or less one place,
but the Iranians have spread them around the
country and would be a tough match for the
Americans or Israelis.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Mar 10,
'06)
F
William Engdahl's Why Iran's oil
bourse can't break the buck (Mar 9) [is] a
pessimistic and exaggerated analysis of the war
consequences of the Iranian bourse. First of all,
the United States cannot attack Iran militarily,
because it does not have enough troops and is too
occupied by the Iraq war. It is also reasonable to
contend that Iran will respond as a united and
cohesive country against any military attack, a
situation that is different from the Iraqi case,
where Iraq has been divided into a variety of
social groups. In addition Iran has not been under
embargo, as Iraq was before the US invasion ... If
the Iranians are interested in exchanging oil for
euros rather than dollars by establishing their
exchange oil market, the Iranian bourse, then the
argument has to be based on the 2.7 million
barrels of oil per day [that Iran produces]. Will
this production be compensated by other oil
producers? The answer is yes, because it is easy
to pump more oil from the south of Iraq. The worst
possibility is that no one can find the required
alternative for the Iranian oil. Under this
condition, Iran can sell oil for euros. Demand for
euros will rise, and the euros will have to
[appreciate] ... Europeans' imports will rise, and
their exports will decline. Many exporting
countries to Europe, including the United states
of America, will increase their exports to the
euro area because, for the US, the dollar will be
significantly depreciated against the euro. US
imports will decline; hence the balance of US
international trade will be improved. In addition,
let [us] make the argument that other countries
decide to dump [their] dollars and their holdings
of American securities, because the Iranian
mullahs have established their bourse: the
bandwagon effect. Under this condition, the dollar
value will decline (depreciate) further, and many
dollar holders will lose billions of dollars.
Interest rates will have to increase in the United
States such that a severe recession will occur,
because higher interest rates will reduce
investment and consumption expenditures.
Particularly, the increased long-run interest
rates will destroy the real-estate sector. This
will in turn create a world recession. Will these
sacrifices be rational justifications for the
Iranian bourse? If the world becomes too
emotional, not rational, against the United States
of America, then the dollar will collapse and the
world will take a hard economic hit, and new
alternative currencies to the dollar as world
reserves must be found. If they are found in the
near future, will the world trust these new
alternative currencies? Not really, because no
country is better than the [US] in protecting
foreign investments and properties. In the United
States nationalization is not a habit of thought,
or institution. Once again, oil corporations have
many influential friends in the world, who can
create excellent opportunities for them to make
huge money, and the Iranian bourse is a case to
remember.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Mar 10,
'06)
Since S P Li has already
answered Mohan's question, I will answer Aruni's
[letters, Mar 9]. Nobody knows for sure [that]
India is a birthplace of so many things claimed by
Indians. None of the so-called Indian math
achievements can be verified other than the
concept of zero. The Indian calendar was never as
popular or as useful as the Chinese lunar calendar
is. Perhaps not even Indians are using it today.
Judging by the boasting features of many Indian
elites today, those so-called India achievements
may very well be the same kind of hot air as that
Indian boy's fabricated NASA [US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration] championship
(The Indian boy
who cried 'NASA' [Mar 17, '05]). [By
contrast], China's mathematics, science and
engineering achievements can be visited, studied
and touched. Many of them are still being used
today. Feng shui was
started as a way of binary calculation. In the
last 4,000 years, I am sure there were
superstitions added. Sikhs treat everybody
equally. They would build a much cleaner and
better country physically and culturally if Sikhs
could have their own country back. By then, I am
sure I will try to visit that beautiful Republic
of Punjab.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Mar 10,
'06)
The
author of this article [Blaming the
victims as Iraq disintegrates, Mar 9] salutes
the Iraqis for their "long-standing history of
secularism and a strong national identity ...
despite sectarian differences". He goes on to
blame the US for stirring up sectarianism and all
the discord in Iraq today. Perhaps Iraq was a more
"peaceful" place under Saddam Hussein [and his
sons] Uday and Qusay, but at what price? I am
reminded of the quote regarding the ancient
Romans: "They make a desolation and call it
peace." No doubt the author of this article would
try to turn this description around to use against
the American presence, but the fact is the US has
spent billions rebuilding the infrastructure of
Iraq, building schools, hospitals and
water-treatment facilities - money not spent by
Saddam, who instead built pleasure palaces for
himself and his family. Perhaps the author of this
article would do well to go to Iraq and stand over
one of the many mass graves created by Saddam's
secularism and "non-sectarianism". Sectarianism
was brutally suppressed under Saddam, and the
legacy is the bitterness and hatred unleashed in
that country today. The author of this article may
wish for the "good ol' days" in Iraq, but he might
find that would not go over well with the Shi'ites
or Kurds. Maybe he needs to go read his article to
them too. I imagine this author would find some
way to blame Islamic sectarianism on the US even
though it predates the creation of the US by well
over a thousand years. That would be a neat trick,
but well within the power of such people as this
writer who refuse to see the world as it is and
would rather write lies and distortions to justify
their bankrupt world view.
Dave
Anthony (Mar 9, '06)
[Stephen] Zunes' Blaming the
victims as Iraq disintegrates (Mar 9) is a
very rigorous analysis demonstrating how many
Iraqi political factions are blaming the United
States for the destruction of [their] country,
including its religious places. I would like to
argue that the war in Iraq should remind the world
[of] the Philippine-American war. When the US
forces were resisted by the Filipinos, the forces
"responded by resettling populations in
concentration camps, burning down villages ...
mass hangings and bayoneting of suspects,
systematic raping of women and girls, and torture"
(the editors, 2003, "Kipling, the 'White Man's
Burden', and US Imperialism", Monthly Review, 55,
(6): 5). In addition, the [Moro] Massacre [of]
Muslim people left many men, women and children
dead. Many American soldiers were killed as well.
The war was indeed very costly on both sides.
Similarly, not only has the Iraq war been costly
to Iraq and to the United States of America, but
it has created a strong anti-imperialist movement.
Most people of the world are rejecting this
imperialist war for many reasons. One of these
reasons has been very convincing to me. Although
the Iraq war is aiming at plundering (or looting)
of Iraqi economic resources, particularly oil, for
dominating Asia, Europe, and other important
developing countries, racism is a very powerful
cause and should not be overlooked.
Americanization, civilization, liberalization and
democratization of Iraq and the Middle East are
all concepts reflecting the essential idea of the
White Man's Burden: either the white man's culture
or the highway. The Iraq war clearly demonstrates
power relations [in] the form of domination of
[another] nation, the Arabs, by the white race. I
know for a fact, and historical evidence
substantiates my point, that people of the Middle
East do not submit whatever the forces and the
consequences may be. A clear case was Algiers,
when the Algerians fought the French for about 130
years for their own independence, and they
succeeded. It follows that the Iraq war reflects
two extreme incompatible mentalities under which
it is very difficult to find a compromise that
saves faces. It is either [that] the US forces
have to leave or the Iraqi people have to depart
their own country. I totally agree with Professor
Zunes' conclusion that the ruling class in the
United States should decide to withdraw from Iraq
and try to find alternatives for oil in North
America.
Adil Mouhammed
Springfield, Illinois (Mar 9,
'06)
The
Algerian example was actually unusual in its
ferocity and determination, and in any case the
indigenous Berbers of what is now Algeria were
themselves conquered by Arab invaders in the 7th
and 8th centuries. The history of the Middle East
(and the Maghreb, of which Algeria is more
accurately a part) has been one of violence by the
strong and submission by the weak; even in modern
times ordinary people living in many Middle
Eastern states, while they are no longer under the
thumb of European or Ottoman colonizers, instead
languish under Arab dictatorships that tolerate
little dissent. - ATol
George W Bush toppled Saddam
Hussein. He went where the angels of his father
George Herbert Walker Bush [feared] to tread.
Father Bush recognized the danger of removing
Hussein, and the consequent chaos that would
ensue. Stephen Zunes [Blaming the
victims as Iraq disintegrates, Mar 9] makes a
good case for an American withdrawal from Iraq.
Yet too much is at stake in time and effort and
money and natural resources and ideological
tilting at windmills for that. [US President
George W] Bush holds a strong hand, and if the
badgering of the Republican majority on the matter
of illegal wiretapping is proof of the White
House's power, he will continue to go along his
rose-strewn path of one disaster to another.
Change has to wait for Mr Bush's successor.
Nonetheless, if history be a guide, it took
Charles De Gaulle four years in office to end the
brutal war in Algeria, and Richard Nixon six years
to extract the United States from the quagmire
that was Vietnam.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 9, '06)
Here we go again. [Letter]
writer Saqib Khan (March 8) while dwelling on the
economy of China and its problems could not resist
at the end mentioning Tibet being "occupied with
barbaric force". Could it be that Tibet in his
mind should be part of his native land? We see
tourists by the hundreds every day visiting and
enjoying Tibet, where communications are improved
by new infrastructure, temples have been restored
and refurbished, and people live better, carrying
cell phones, doing business, and working for local
government. Slowly but surely Tibet will be
integrated into Greater China, while being able to
retain its distinct characteristics. It is well
for the Dalai Lama to return as a true spiritual
leader, keeping the "state" and his "church"
separate. Then he will not be courted by outside
hostile forces and the cry over Tibet may subside.
S
P Li (Mar 9, '06)
With respect to Frank's
letter dated March 8: Hello, Frank, I appreciate
your keen interest in Indo-[Chinese] relations and
your interest in one of India's ancient religions
[Sikhism] and cultures. And Frank, let me be
frank, I would take this pleasurable moment to
inform you and the thugs ruling China and
rampaging Tibet that we too have great respect for
Tibet, its people and His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
And Frank, frankly, when are you thugs going to
let Tibetans breathe some fresh air? Please
enlighten us on this issue too.
Mohan
Hanover, Germany (Mar 9,
'06)
Frank [letter, Mar 8] would
be advised not to stress the mathematical genius
of feng shui, since
for most people it is just plain superstition. The
Indian counterpart is vastu shashtra. He would
also be advised to note that Hindus had both a
solar as well as a lunisolar calendar since Vedic
times. He can further note that India was the
birthplace of mathematics, including the zero,
decimal system, numeric system, negative numbers,
cosine, etc. I could add an [extensive] list of
achievements in astronomy, medicine, navigation,
irrigation and of course erotica. The point for
Frank - and other condescending readers who
believe that Indian architecture is
European/Chinese and 600 years old - is that India
and China share a very rich and long history.
Comparisons are irrelevant. Oh, and as far as his
unflinching support for the Khalistan movement,
perhaps he'd like to come do some interviews in
Punjab to find out where the Sikhs stand on the
issue. The beauty of democracy, eh Frank?
Aruni
Mukherjee
University
of Warwick, England (Mar 9, '06)
I want to [direct] a very
simple and straight question to every writer of
ATol. In the Third World countries, an enormous
portion of the population, if it does not go to
bed without a meal every night, then surely finds
it too hard to earn it every day. Having said
that, could someone please tell me, after
September 11, 2001, how the Taliban, who are in
the hundreds and thousands, are not only surviving
but fighting the most vicious and expansive war in
the modern world? Where do they (Taliban) get all
those weapons to fight thousands of coalition
forces, who are not only organized but equipped
with the world's most advanced war materiel? I
mean, there are hundreds and thousands of American
and coalition forces in Afghanistan, thousands of
Afghan troops and militia, and [more] than 80,000
Pakistani troops stationed on the Pak-Afghan
border. It is kind a weird and not understandable
how the Taliban are managing the whole love
affair. The Taliban are not only stranded, [they]
live in hiding and are unorganized. They have all
kinds of adverse situations but they are killing
dozens of innocent Afghan civilians [and]
coalition soldiers and [have] never allowed a day
of relief to coalition forces in the last four
years. The Afghan government and the coalition
forces have administrative control only of Kabul.
Otherwise, the entire country is a parading-ground
of Taliban. No human being would agree that the
Taliban knew in advance before September 11, 2001,
that they would be fighting such an extensive and
never-ending war for decades and thus they stocked
up food and arsenals for 10-20 years. It is
absolutely unbelievable what the Taliban have done
so far and didn't flinch for a day to lose [their]
grip in Afghanistan. There is definitely something
fishy in the kitchen. Who is providing what?
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Mar 9, '06)
Influential sections of
liberal opinion in the US say the Indo-US nuclear
pact goes against a basic objective of US policy:
mobilizing international diplomacy against the
spread of nuclear weapons and encouraging
President [General Pervez] Musharraf in the war
against terrorism. But that does not mean shutting
your eyes to reality. India is a country of 1
billion people whose economy is taking off, and
which could become a major world power within a
few years. It already has nuclear weapons, in
spite of which it has acted responsibly and,
according to unanimous world opinion, has not
proliferated. Pakistan is a country based on
Islamism, a philosophy which permeates its
military, and has permitted fundamentalism to
flourish. This military rules the country,
occupies all the positions of power, including
that of the president, a position grabbed from a
democratically elected prime minister through a
coup d'etat and bogus elections. In its pursuit of
Islamic philosophy it has, in the past, supported
the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and has sold its
illicitly acquired nuclear technology to other
Islamic countries like Iran. President [George W]
Bush's offer of nuclear technology to India would
only recognize its status as an emerging world
power, and would help it to become a counterweight
to that other emerged power, China. Pakistan's
record obviously rules it out as a recipient of
such favors. What can Pakistan do to counter the
newly forged pact between the US and India? There
is already, in effect, a pact between the US and
Pakistan. In return for Pakistan's assistance in
the war against terrorism, both on and within its
borders, it gets American aid which has helped the
country to achieve a dramatic increase in GNP
[gross national product], it gets US protection
(in the unlikely event that India [attacked]
Pakistan - in the past it has always been the
other way), and military aid to help win that war.
At the same time, knowing too well its record, the
US keeps a close watch on Pakistan's nuclear
weapons and research. If Pakistan strays from the
straight and narrow path, it will be back to where
it was when [the events of September 11, 2001]
happened - at the wrong end of the US shotgun
...
V L Rao
Bangalore, India (Mar 9,
'06)
Any
time US policymakers - or their wanna-be's, like
the current Democrat-led "task force" - decide to
publicize their findings (US, Russia
moving apart [Mar 8]), one ought to take it as
propaganda. The very definition of [a state] as
"democratic" or "open" appears to be suspiciously
tied with its it willingness to accommodate US
plans and forgo its own legitimate interests -
domestic and foreign. For Russia to be more "open"
and a better partner would perhaps require the
administration of President [Vladimir] Putin to
allow the sale of Yukos to ChevronTexaco or
ExxonMobil, to ignore US interference in Russia's
domestic affairs via the "NGO" [non-governmental
organization] tunnel, among others, to continue to
subsidize Ukraine and Georgia even while the US
hijacks their foreign policies, to look the other
way [from] US actions [to] destabilize Central
Asia, to apply pressure on the new democratically
elected government in Palestine, to help the US in
the Iraq fiasco. The "task force" analysis is
predictable and is poorly disguised
finger-pointing: Russia is to blame. I doubt that
had this report and this team had influence with
the current [US] administration - a fact Jim Lobe
could have educated us about - it would [have
promoted] conflict management and resolution
between two major geopolitical players. The
hopeful message of the report, however, is that
while Russia might not be perfect, it is
influential and is an important player on key
issues. One might conjecture that the Russian
leadership views the United States in the same
light, notwithstanding the latter's behavior in
the Middle East [and in] Central Asia, and its
position on space-based weapons, torture, and the
utter insensitivity towards other cultures. As for
G8 [the Group of Eight] turning into G7, they can
always ask a stagnant European state to vacate.
Leon
Rozmarin
Massachusetts, USA (Mar 8,
'06)
Regarding the article Musharraf
caught in an arc of turmoil [Mar 8], I have to
place the blame squarely on the shoulders of
[Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf.
The current chill between the US and Pakistan
emanates from two factors: the first is that
Pakistan harbors some of al-Qaeda's top henchmen,
and that includes the Taliban resistance, and has
failed to deliver to the US the leaders of these
terror networks. The second problem is that
Pakistan continues to refuse to hand over [Abdul
Qadeer] Khan, who is now under house arrest in
Pakistan, to the US for interrogation to find out
the full [extent of the results of] these
nuclear-weapons-technology sales. As for the
domestic front, after harboring this many
extremists [within] his own borders, he
[Musharraf] now sees a direct threat to his own
life from them and is cracking down hard in
Waziristan and Balochistan, creating local
dissent. He could have engaged the Balochs at an
early stage [by offering them] a larger portion of
the gas revenues and/or developing the local
economy in exchange for them helping him capture
the ringleaders of these terror networks and
handing them over to the US. This one single
stroke, had it been done at the onset, would have
maintained the status quo between the US and
Pakistan and Mr Musharraf's own power structure
within his nation.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 8, '06)
I was reading an article
titled Syria in US's too-hard
basket by Ashraf Faheem published on
your site on March 1. While I commend very much
your analysis of the political situation in the
Middle East and your thorough understanding of the
deadlocks facing the US administration in its
handling of the problems there, allow me also to
express my disappointment, as I noticed that you
described Michel Aoun, the head of the Free
Patriotic Movement, by the term "Christian
leader". Your exact quote was: "Hezbollah recently
withdrew from the government to demonstrate its
ability to derail the Lebanese political process
and has found allies in powerful Christian leaders
such as Michel Aoun." This statement is very
inaccurate and I ask you to rectify it because I
as a Lebanese would like you to deliver a very
accurate image of the political situation in my
home country. Michel Aoun is not a Christian
leader. Yes, the majority of Christians in Lebanon
[have] voted for him, but he has also been voted
for by many non-Christians. The parliamentary bloc
led by Michel Aoun consists of legislators [of]
Muslim and Christian faith. Moreover, Michel Aoun,
although Christian by birth, leads a secular
national movement (Free Patriotic Movement) that
calls for the separation of religion from politics
and the abolition of sectarianism in Lebanon. He
has been voted for by many Muslims and his
movement includes many Muslims among its ranks ...
Mehyar Yahfoufi
Lebanon (Mar 8, '06)
China's [premier] was very
candid when he gave a very gloomy assessment of
his country's booming economy and fast-changing
society in a recent address to the Chinese
parliament [National People's Congress]. The
Western governments' euphony and euphoria among
the businesses about the pace and expectation of
Chinese economic health and growth sounded alarm
when Wen Jiabao said that all was not as rosy on
the economic front while the society faced
deep-seated conflicts. It has always been said
that [a growing wealth gap] between the expanding
cities and the rural interior is creating a lot of
worries for the Chinese communist leadership
because of the inequities emerging on the surface,
not only because of the sudden leap forward but by
epidemic corruption by the officials [and] illegal
expropriation of land by the top officials
followed by nepotism, bribery and exorbitant
accumulation of wealth by the privileged few. The
sudden speed of Chinese growth turned out to be a
wonder for the outside world but has created a
fundamental economic issue for the Chinese
leadership. [The daughter of a friend,] who is an
architect, went to work in China last year and was
so astonished at [the speed of construction of]
buildings, roads, highways [and] bridges ... that
she could not believe her eyes that the whole
skyline around her changed overnight. The change
in China is so vast and rapid that it makes a
contradiction from the times of Mao [Zedong], and
how long [is] this biggest economic transformation
is going to last? China is still a workshop
economy, with over 170 million people working in
small factories getting on average 34 pence [59 US
cents] an hour and working long hours. Most of the
goods that China exports are low-cost ... and more
than two-thirds are clothes, shoes and toys and
cheap tools. It also makes 60% of the world's
bicycles but its own citizens are increasingly
driving cars. Its banking system, financial
institutions [and] stock market have a lot of
catching [up] to do ... The Chinese government is
also one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth,
clinging to power by ruthless suppression of its
people and any sort of dissent; occupying Tibet
with barbaric force and crushing aspirations of
its minorities with ruthless demonstration and use
of its power beyond repulsion.
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Mar 8, '06)
For an analysis of Premier
Wen Jiabao's speech and unrest in rural China, see
the new article China
goes back to the land. -
ATol
[Re
Manjeet S Pardesi's letter, Mar 7] The reason I
mentioned that the 4,000-year-old feng shui is still
gaining international attention is to prove the
math knowledge from ancient China is still alive.
Feng shui is also
related to the Chinese lunar calendar. That
4,000-year-old calendar is still accurate and used
by almost all East Asian countries. About 4,000
year ago, Chinese also developed a mechanical
compass; a very accurate differential gears
mechanism demonstrated high-level mathematical
skills. All these mathematics achievements were
accomplished 2,000 years before the Han Dynasty
was founded. I am not surprised that China knew
about India in the Han Dynasty through their
provinces in today's Xinjiang. The awareness of
India in Han does not prove that Chinese acquired
knowledge of Indian mathematics. [To the]
contrary, it might be the other way around,
because Indians never learned the knowledge of the
abacus. That is the main idea of my letter, not
the learning of feng shui
or the discovery of India ... I have great
admiration of Sikhs. I hope [that] one day, Hindus
will allow them to have their own country back.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Mar 8,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad: [I] read with interest your [Mar
7] article [Pakistan
battles the forces within]. I wonder whether
Imran Khan, if he comes to power with the backing
of the sharia crowd, would ban cricket and other
haram [forbidden]
things like music and dancing and put women in
sacks. Seems like Pakistan is on the brink of
turning into a Taliban-style society. A tragedy!
In your opinion, would this scenario be a matter
of time?
Sesha (Mar 7, '06)
Imran Khan is still a
clean-shaven person comfortable with the Western
lifestyle. He feels more comfortable speaking
English rather than any local language. He still
regularly appears on television to comment on
cricket events and recently went to a stadium to
teach a left-arm fast bowler how to improve his
bowling skills. He cannot be termed fundamentalist
by any standard, but he is against the growing
influence of the US in Pakistan. Islamists see in
him a serious "Muslim nationalist" and therefore
want to use him as an attractive face for their
campaign. Talibanization of Pakistan is not
possible. The biggest province of the country,
Punjab, and at least half of Sindh and North West
Frontier Province are on the path of
industrialization with rapid growth. Therefore,
settled areas of Pakistan cannot go back to the
Stone Age. Talibanization is the problem of the
tribal region between Pakistan and Afghanistan,
and at the utmost this kind of influence would
help radicals to establish themselves as an
entity. At maximum, Pakistan could go back to an
"Islamization" system like that enforced by
General Zia ul-Haq during the 1980s. - Syed Saleem
Shahzad
For
a Pakistani-origin author writing about India,
Ehsan Ahrari seems to be fairly knowledgeable and
objective. However, in Pakistan-India
nuclear rivalry heats up [Mar 7] he seems to
be missing the essential point. The US has already
embargoed and "banned" India from receiving any
material related to nuclear technology. India's
nuclear program seems to have progressed in spite
of that. Not only that, India's second-generation
(fast breeder) reactors get around the "embargo"
by using a cycle that uses thorium, of which India
has significant amounts of the world deposits. In
choosing to sign the deal with India, besides
acknowledging the obvious, [US President George W]
Bush is using this opportunity to sell India
significant amounts of safety equipment for the
plants using the enriched-[uranium] reactors, more
fuel for them and possibly new power plants of the
same. This is a win-win [solution] since it will
divert significant amounts of fossil-fuel energy
sources towards nuclear sources and enhance the
security of the existing nuclear plants. The
counter-question then is, what does Pakistan offer
the US? Perhaps the author might consider a
follow-up to that to silence the critics and
skeptics like myself.
Rocky (Mar 7, '06)
Re Seoul and
Washington closer to divorce, Mar 7]: Seoul is
sticking with the Sunshine Policy. It makes good
won and sense for South Korea. It has brought a
semblance of glasnost
with Pyongyang on a divided Korean Peninsula.
South Koreans of all stripes welcome the thaw in
relations with the North, although they have no
illusions as to the sinuous ins and outs of
dealing with Kim Jong-il's regime. Before George W
Bush, Washington godfathered [former South Korean
president] Kim Dae-jung's bold opening to [the
North]. Mr Bush's policy towards Pyongyang is well
known, and it has poisoned the wells of goodwill
which the Clinton administrations began digging,
out of a sense of realpolitik. [Bush]'s moves on
the diplomatic chessboard have produced little
result but volumes of heated rhetoric on both
sides. At least they are stillborn but they are
buying time for a lame-duck [US] administration,
and are an exercise [for] doing nothing but
churning bile in North [Korea]'s stomach. Saying
this, in spite of Seoul's differences with
Washington on the question of how to approach and
deal with Pyongyang, it is quixotic to talk of the
collapse of [the] Korean-American alliance and a
significant withdrawal of American troops. Read
the financial pages. American business sees in
South Korea a hub for investing in East and
Northeast Asia. It is beginning to invest
significantly in the Republic of Korea's economy.
The inflow of capital from the United States
surely is not an indication of a break-up of a
long-standing marriage. Venture capitalists see a
bargain in South Korea. They know the value and
worth of a dollar. Adventuresome as they may be,
they [would not be throwing] money away hand over
fist had they feared aggressive signs coming out
of Pyongyang. Infusions in South Korea offer a
channel of stabilizing a divided Korean Peninsula,
and ownership in China's banks and industries
opens a back door to establishing lines of
communication with North Korea. Thus appearances
belie the subtle game being played out in the two
Koreas.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 7, '06)
Thomas Palley's analysis [The US and the
politics of outsourcing] (Mar 7) is very
provocative, clearly demonstrating several
elements of the issue outsourcing. Outsourcing is
not a new issue, because global capitalism has
been using it for a long period of time. All of us
know that capitalists are driven by one single
goal, which is profitability, because without
profitability there is no capital accumulation.
One way to increase profitability in a global
economy is to minimize production cost. American
capitalists have been cutting their costs by
technological progress, low wages, high
productivity, lower taxes, and less regulation
from the Bush administration. An additional source
for cutting cost of production is outsourcing,
where many corporations contract outsiders to
produce complementary parts of commodities and
services. This is possible on the assumption that
the cost saving from outsourcing is more than the
cost of transportation and other costs arising
from the outsourcing process. These outsourced
activities imply in the short run lower employment
and income in the outsourcing economies, but
higher employment and income in the receiving
countries. For example, if a corporation
outsources 25% of its operations to Indian
producers, the latter will be able to create more
jobs and income to Indian workers. The same
process may be applied to other countries in the
world. Simply, many poor people will benefit form
these outsourced activities. They will have income
to purchase food, clothes, and other necessary
items. These expenditures will help domestic
producers to produce these items poor people want
to buy. That is to say, if corporate outsourcing
continues, these developing countries will develop
efficient industries and create more income and
employment for their working people. If income
increases in these developing countries due to
corporate outsourcing, people will purchase more
items from corporations that may be located in the
advanced imperialist countries. Eventually, those
countries will benefit from prosperous developing
countries. This feedback process will continue to
benefit the global economy, particularly if the
advanced capitalist countries allocate more funds
for innovations. Innovations, according to the
great Joseph Schumpeter, will increase investments
and develop high-paying jobs for workers of the
advanced capitalist nations. That is, it is
beneficial for the capitalist countries to
innovate and to induce their young people to study
mathematics and science in order to compete. For
the Third World, the hope is that outsourcing will
develop the working class. Manufacturing process
creates high-skilled workers who are interested in
education and intellectuality. These workers will
demand efficient learning and services from
domestic producers. In addition, they can demand
new rules of law and democracy. Workers who are
subject to capitalist exploitation will be able to
have a chance for developing democratic societies,
and by democracy I mean more equitable
distribution of income. At this point [Karl] Marx
is correct when he states that capitalists dig
their own graves. Although outsourcing may
generate negative effects on workers in advanced
nations, it is beneficial to all workers in the
long run: workers of advanced and developing
countries. Analysts should aim at the creation of
unity of world workers rather than emphasizing a
division between them ...
Adil
Mouhammed
Springfield,
Illinois (Mar 7, '06)
Some letter writers are
getting long-winded again; this one in particular
had to be severely slashed by our editors, and is
still longer than we would prefer. At least Adil
Mouhammed's original was well-written, so we took
the time to edit it down to a reasonable length,
an indulgence we cannot afford when a letter is
both long and poorly written. In any case, the
best way for letter writers to ensure that their
pertinent points are published, and not chopped
out by an overworked editor, is to stick to those
points and keep their letters brief. - ATol
Re
The US's
nuclear cave-in [Mar 4]: Like many authors,
Joseph Cirincione has shown the penchant of
revealing only the facts which he wants to reveal
while conveniently hiding other important facts to
strengthen his case. The author just mentioned in
passing that while all five nuclear countries
agreed to stop the production of nuclear-weapon
material, India is refusing to do so. But the fact
that he did not reveal here is that all the
countries (Big 5) had enough nuclear tests and
stockpiled more than necessary nuclear weapons or
material before proclaiming [a] moratorium. It is
like a robber [who has] robbed more than enough
money suddenly claiming that he [has] realized his
folly and henceforth he will be a law-abiding
person. If India tries to stockpile more weapons
than its adversary, then only it can be accused of
setting [a] wrong precedent for other. Until then,
India's desire for nuclear weapons is completely
legitimate. In other words, it is also not
uncommon in many countries [that] citizens are
allowed to have guns if they have no criminal
background. India's credentials are well known to
the world. And about his [Cirincione's] other
comment that India cheated the US and other
countries to obtain nuclear technology, I would
say that history often proved that when a country
faces severe threat from other countries it hardly
honors any commitment given to others. Look what
the US has done when terrorists attacked it on its
own soil. Did the US care about the fact that it
was one of the countries which founded the UN? By
sidestepping the UN, did not the US fail to
fulfill its commitment to the august body? I
justify India and the US stand of breaching their
words simply because they have not voluntarily
initiated this foul game but the terrorist attack
and China's possession of nukes left little option
[to them]. I appreciate his [Cirincione's] desire
of seeing the world nuclear-free. But since half
of the world is still ruled by dictators and
fanatics, and not knowing what kind of weapons
they have and how they will fight in future, I can
hardly find an alternative to nukes.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Mar 7,
'06)
I
would have thought that since ATol is a
publication heavy on analysis, the same principle
would have applied to its selection of letters
from readers. But I am disappointed that this is
not so. A case in point is Jakob Cambria's [Mar 6]
letter commenting on the [Mar 4] article The US's
nuclear cave-in by Joseph Cirincione. If it
had been somebody else I wouldn't have bothered to
raise such an issue. But I expect more from Mr
Cambria as he is obviously capable of better work.
Regurgitating material from US propaganda brings
no credit to Mr Cambria or this publication ...
Chan
Ah Tee
Malaysia (Mar 7,
'06)
I
wish to comment on the article The US's
nuclear cave-in [Mar 4], and [on] my letter of
March 3, which appeared to have proved to be
hypersensitive to the health of many of my Indian
contemporaries ... I agree with Partha [letter,
Mar 6] that India is being courted by many other
countries other than the USA, [of which] the best
analogy that I could offer would be of a whore who
is courted by many men but ends up with one who
has the fattest wallet; or of a bitch who is
followed and courted by many males but ends up
with the one with the best genes, and the most
powerful in the pack; and the at end, DNA can only
determine who was successful. The USA has
succeeded where others have failed because it has
the power and wealth which attracted the Indians.
For the Bush administration, the nuclear deal
brings the world's most populous and the poorest
democracy into a strategic partnership that also
could form a challenge to Chinese political
influence in the region and, most importantly,
open a new trade market to American
multinationals. The Bush administration has also
achieved with the Indians what it could not with
other NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] countries, to
have made it subject to the IAEA [International
Atomic Energy Agency] regime and inspection, which
is worse than bending over backwards to have
surrendered its virginity and honor for the sake
of few dollars and for gaining access to fuel and
technology offered by the Americans ...
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Mar 7, '06)
I'm not sure what Frank of
Seattle [letter, Mar 3] is trying to prove when he
talks about white people learning about feng shui. While we are
at it, Indians too are interested in feng shui today (even
though they have their own Vastushashtra). The
India of today is also very interested in Chinese
astrology for that matter. Chinese food is
particularly popular in India and is found
everywhere, whether in the form of street food or
in posh restaurants. I think that this is a result
of the rise of China, which has given a boost to
Chinese soft power (broadly defined). Importantly,
Indians are making no attempt to resist it.
Indians are also awed by China's phenomenal
economic growth, and are looking for lessons which
could perhaps be applied to Indian settings. Lest
I be misunderstood yet again, let me clarify my
points. First and foremost, China is a distinct
civilization with its own indigenous genius. The
fact that it has survived for over 4,000 years is
proof enough. In my original article [India and
China: Neither friends nor foes, May 18, '05]
I claimed that the Indian civilization, which is
as old as the Chinese, influenced the Chinese
civilization through the medium of Buddhism. In my
[Mar 2] letter, I mentioned that through the links
opened up by Buddhism, India also influenced other
aspects of China's civilization in addition to
religion/tradition. This included art and
mathematics among other things. I am neither
saying nor have I made a claim that Chinese
mathematics or Chinese art is of Indian origin.
That would be a travesty of truth and a dishonest
claim. What I am saying is that India "influenced"
Chinese mathematics and art (among other things)
through the links opened up by the flow of
Buddhism ... Frank is wrong when he says "[the]
Chinese only discovered India in the Tang
Dynasty". There is evidence that the Han Dynasty
generals knew of India in 1st/2nd centuries BC.
And Fa Hsien, a famous Chinese scholar-pilgrim,
visited India in the 5th century (much before the
Tang period). Read the brilliant work done by the
Chinese scholar Xinriu Liu to learn about cultural
contacts between India and China (especially
between AD 1 and AD 600). Also read Tansen Sen,
who has written a brilliant book on Sino-Indian
relations between AD 600 [and] 1400 ...
Juchechosunmanse [letter, Mar 3], I am afraid I
can't write or reproduce what [Nicholas] Ostler
described in his work. What I can say is that
according to Ostler, Sanskrit had an impact on
Chinese phonetics. Please read his book
(especially pages 209-210) for the same ... I do
not believe that civilizations grow in cultural
insularity. It is through interactions with other
civilizations near and far, and through
absorption, rejection, modification etc of their
influences within one's own cultural settings
(which also change with time), that civilizations
grow and flourish. Contemporary India is a perfect
example of this, which is the product of the
interaction of influences of the ancient
Hindu-Buddhist-Jain period with Islam, which in
turn had an intimate contact with the Christian
West through the agency of colonialism. Numerous
other contacts, large and small, also made their
impact felt. ... It is preposterous to call me
pro-Hindu. To begin with, I was talking about
Buddhist influences on China (not Hindu).
Secondly, I am not Hindu ... How can I be
pro-Hindu when I am an agnostic who was born into
a Sikh family? Sikhism, by the way, is the product
of an intercourse between Islam and Hinduism in
the subcontinent.
Manjeet S Pardesi
Singapore (Mar 7, '06)
Aman Khan's letter on March 6
made depressing reading. I already ignore some
known Islamist letter writers, but this one
started out well, deploring the loss of life in
the war on terror. Unfortunately, it seems that
the writer wants Pakistan to grow strong in order
to help the "oppressed minorities of India and the
US". This politics of hate, jealousy and religious
fundamentalism will only hurt Muslims in the end;
for the rest of us, it is a kind of tax that we
pay, and a war expenditure of a couple of hundred
billion dollars is not much for the US, a $10
trillion economy. The contest between India and
Pakistan has already been decided: the CIA
Factbook shows the purchasing-power-parity GDP
[gross domestic product] of India as [US]$3.7
trillion, and of Pakistan as $385 billion (the
official-exchange-rate figures are $735 billion
and $92 billion respectively). India's military
expenditure is 2.9%, and Pakistan's is 4.9%, on a
base that is about one-tenth the size. Where have
we seen this movie before? Answer: in the way that
[US president] Ronald Reagan crushed the former
Soviet Union, by outspending it and causing it to
implode. This is the logical end of the road for
Pakistan unless it chooses to set aside
fundamentalism and joins the productive economy.
Jonnavithula ("Jon")
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (Mar 7, '06)
The letter of Aman Khan [Mar
6] impelled me to respond. As an Indian, I firmly
believe that there is a serious flaw in Mr Khan's
perception that Muslims in India are "oppressed";
instead, they are more privileged than any other
religious group. Only Muslims in India are
entitled to a subsidy for pilgrimage (Mecca),
which no other religious group gets. Over and
above that, every Muslim is treated at par with
any Hindu or fellow Muslim, unlike in Pakistan,
where Shi'a-Sunni [strife] is rampant. Yes, there
are some rotten elements in the Hindu community,
and the Muslim community too is not an exception
to it. We do have some terrible fights, but that
surely doesn't mean that they [Indian Muslims] are
oppressed. People must keep things in perspective
before making ridiculous statements about other
countries and their nationals.
Mayank Raina
India (Mar 7, '06)
I would like to make contact
with anyone that served on the Heng Yang DD-902.
This was the USS Samuel N Moore DD-747 in the US
Navy. I served on her from June 24, 1944, to June
2, 1946. We have an association of previous crew
members of the "Rammin Sammy".
Bob
Culver
TM2/c 1944-46
USS Samuel N Moore DD-747
Lincoln, Nebraska
Torpedoman@alltel.net
(Mar 7, '06)
There is something sad about
Pakistanis doing America's bidding, first
sponsoring jihad and killing Afghans for their
Pentagon paymasters and now killing God-fearing
Muslims in the war on terror, on demand; nay, as
the dog-and-pony show of the recent murders in
Waziristan demonstrates, on cue before President
[George W] Bush even took off for the Indian
subcontinent [see Fiery Pakistani
welcome for Bush, Mar 4]. Unfortunately, life
in Pakistan is cheap enough that suicide bombings
are seen by the cynical as a way of keeping the
jihadi population in control. Pakistan needs to
get its house in order so that it can be a beacon
for all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.
Once its economy is stabilized, Muslims will flock
to it from every corner of India, Bangladesh,
Nepal and Sri Lanka. With a doubled population and
[Muhammad Ali] Jinnah's vision to guide it,
Pakistan can then champion the rights of the
oppressed minorities of India and the United
States.
Aman Khan
Canada (Mar 6, '06)
President [George W] Bush may
well have a battle royal on his hands with the
houses of Congress when it comes to endorsing his
agreement on the nuclear question with India [The US's
nuclear cave-in, Mar 4]. Saying this, [author
Joseph] Cirincione does call it a foreign-policy
victory for a troubled [US] administration, and it
is. Like the industrious spider, Mr Bush is
weaving a web which will contain the obstreperous
Islamic Republic of Iran and furnish ballast to a
restive and troublesome Arab Middle East. It will
stabilize Central Asia and bring in a non-nuclear
ribbon of countries through which runs the old
Silk Road. Quibble as Dr Cirincione may, India is
a long-standing member of the nuclear family. With
a firm handshake, Mr Bush has brought India into a
new arrangement on the Indian subcontinent. He
thereby brings India closer to Pakistan, and to a
lessening of tensions between these two nuclear
powers, on what looked a mere three years ago
[like] a tripwire to an atomic confrontation.
Let's put it this way: George the bumbler and
fumbler has pulled off a stunning diplomatic coup,
and it is not too much to say that he, in his own
way, as president of the United States and the
sole superpower, is rebuilding the old Cold War
consensus of fear of mutual destruction and thus
staking out the ground for a newer balance of
powers.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 6, '06)
After reading the title The US's
nuclear cave-in [Mar 4], the first thing I did
was scroll down to the bottom and read about the
antecedents of the author. So, it was written by
the director for the non-proliferation movement at
whatever. Now how impartial is this lackey going
to be? Immediately I lost all interest in reading
the article, for it obviously cannot be very
objective but is merely giving byte-time to
someone who is wetting himself with dreams of a
nuclear-free world. Now that is fine with me.
People from all spectrums should have their say on
issues, but I don't see how it measures up to the
"unbiased, impartial" horse wind that is the
staple of ATimes. If you had followed this article
with the take from someone who was not from the
"Cinderella" world of the non-proliferation
movement but examined the realpolitik of India's
requirements and concerns and why the Bush
administration went for it, then it would have
balanced out that ATimes is for objective news
reporting and analysis and giving voice to a
variety of views, and not into promoting the
editor's personal biases. Perhaps that is asking
for too much from a "Hong Kong-based" newspaper?
...
Sri
New York, USA (Mar 6,
'06)
Asia
Times Online is an analysis site and does not,
like mainstream news organizations, strive for the
elusive (and perhaps illusory) "balance" in every
article; however, we often do offer counterpoints
in alternative articles. Readers are reminded to
check out the "related articles" linked on the
right-hand side of new pieces; those stories often
put a different "spin" on the issue at hand and
provide valuable background. - ATol
Axel Merk's article Bernanke's
yield curve fallacy [Mar 3] is very
interesting and informative for many readers.
There is a clear demonstration of the forces that
will create [a] slowdown in economic activity in
the United States of America. The emphasis was on
the growth of consumer spending, which is
sensitive to the interest rate. It follows that if
the interest rate increases, consumer spending
will decline. This in turn will slow down the
economy, because consumer spending has been an
essential force for generating the past and the
current economic expansions. What was interesting
in the article is the fact that Merk has stated
that wages are stagnating. This is correct because
labor compensations have not gone up reasonably
well over the last four years. Associated with
this wage stagnation is the increased growth rate
in labor productivity. One can conclude,
therefore, that once there is wage stagnation and
growth in labor productivity, capitalist
exploitation is on the rise, [and] so is
profitability. Under this condition, the economy
will be expanding even if the short-term interest
rate is on the rise. Another point [that] can be
emphasized is the fact that lower long-term
interest rates will keep the real-estate sector
booming. In sum, these two issues will increase
investments and hence employment and income. But
if wages and short-term interest rates rise and
labor productivity slows down, then exploitation
and profitability will decline; hence an economic
slowdown or a new recession will appear.
Adil
Mouhammed
Springfield,
Illinois (Mar 6, '06)
I refer to the article Syria in US's
too-hard basket (Mar 1). You have labeled
[Michel] Aoun as a Christian leader. This
sectarian categorization of Aoun is inaccurate for
the following reasons: Aoun is the head of the
Free Patriotic Movement Party. First, a movement
formed in 1989 by Lebanese citizens from all sects
and creeds to openly resist and denounce the
Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Free Patriotic
Movement was later organized into a party in
September 2005, with a chief aim to transform
through a gradual transition the current
confessional Lebanese system of government into a
secular liberal one, which will allow Lebanon to
move past its sectarian-based [strife] and
progress into becoming a modern functioning
democracy. The Reform and Change bloc, the
parliamentary bloc headed by Aoun, is [composed]
of Muslim and Christian deputies. It is worth
noting that the recent elections were held under
the unanimously regarded flawed 2000 election law
(modified by Ghazi Kenaan, the late Syrian
interior minister in charge then of the Lebanese
portfolio), where many factors prevented a correct
representation of the Lebanese electorate such as
the tolerance for sectarian interferences by
religious figures that demanded support to the
[Rafiq] Hariri-backed list through fatwa, or the flagrant
divisions of constituencies, tailor-made to [suit]
specific political leaders. The Reform and Change
bloc has never adopted a [stance motivated by
Christian interests]; its political program, which
seeks to reform and develop the Lebanese
institutions, is addressed to and concerns all
Lebanese citizens regardless of their religion. I
kindly ask you to refrain from referring to
[Michel] Aoun as a "Christian" leader, for this
classification, as demonstrated above, will convey
a false impression to the readers.
Ms
ABD (Mar 6, '06)
Henry C K Liu's piece The need for a
labor cartel [Feb 25] is another work by the
author getting to the crux of the structural
imbalances and injustices of the global economy.
However, while he succeeds at identifying the
consequences of global labor arbitrage, his
solution, a global labor cartel, only enhances the
... tendencies toward centralization toward which
trade globalization necessarily gravitates.
Moreover, it fails to elucidate the true sources
of corporate power, namely the corporate legal
framework, which, to quote Norman F Cantor in Imagining the Law
(HarperCollins 1997), is "a judicial structure
founded in the temperament and discourse of the
medieval landed classes". Specifically, the
corporate structure, built upon the corporate
charters recognized by nation-states, is an
inherently anti-labor and anti-democratic
structure, for the simple reason that corporate
charters allocate votes to shareholders based upon
shares rather than upon personhood ... Creating a
global labor cartel, while having the virtue of
attempting to create for global labor the
"countervailing power" which John Kenneth
Galbraith described in the 1950s for American
labor power, is destined to fail for the same
reason that labor's countervailing power in [the
United States of] America ultimately failed: it is
too easy to do an end-run around it or to subvert
it (cartels are historically anything but
monolithic). Of course, if corporate globalization
succeeds in creating the fascist one-world
government which global capitalism seems hell-bent
on creating ([US President George W] Bush's
American exceptionalism aside), then a one-world
labor union is all but a given - but where will
labor be then? There is no question that if wages
were rewarded around the world at a rate at least
commensurate with capital - and taxed at least as
gently - that the glut of "savings" [former US
Federal Reserve chairman Alan] Greenspan and
[current chairman Ben] Bernanke go on about would
not be a problem, because the capital glut (too
much money chasing too little value) would be a
real economy supported by wages, not a [vampiric]
financial economy supported by endless credit
creation. Credit, by definition, sends money to
people (shareholders) who have too much of it,
from people who do not have enough. Wages are a
flow of value for value. Arguably, a global labor
cartel would be an improvement from the status
quo. But it seems highly unlikely in that in the
current international situation, where desperate
nation-states wrangle for strategic advantage in
an increasingly unstable environment, that the
same [contending] nation-states will suddenly
agree to throw a bone to labor at the expense of
their richest corporations (and the Dukes of
Equity that own them). No, the solution to the
mistreatment and mispricing of labor, and the glut
of credit trying to impersonate real purchasing
power, is not a global labor cartel, but
democratized corporations. At the very least, by
changing the anachronistic medieval power
relationships of corporate charters from "one
share, one vote" to "one shareholder, one vote",
the structural logic of corporations will be
transformed from "What can we do to make the most
money for our biggest shareholders?" to "What can
we do to benefit all shareholders, big and small?"
With many American workers dependent upon their
employer's stock for their retirement capital, and
with Enron as an example of how [small]
shareholders are screwed by the current structure,
it is obvious that democratizing corporations
would tend to democratize capital flows, and
possibly politics in ostensibly democratic
republics. It also would tend to decentralize
corporate power and internationalize politics ...
There is probably room for both in a world in need
of vast structural economic reforms, but it is
doubtful that a labor cartel would be allowed to
exist so long as corporations are structured the
same way they were in the 15th century.
Robert Huber
Felton, California (Mar 6,
'06)
Part
2 of Henry C K Liu's series on his proposed
"Organization of Labor-intensive Exporting
Countries" cartel, Rising
wages to right historic wrongs, is now online. - ATol
Just
to thank you, and Sreeram Chaulia, for a
perceptive and timely review [East Asia's
black sheep, Feb 18] of our just-published
book on North Korea. I shared your thoughtful
piece with each of our contributing authors.
Young
Whan Kihl
Co-editor
North Korea: The Politics of
Regime Survival (Mar 6, '06)
It is typical of certain
Pakistani expatriates settled in the UK to
proclaim outright lies about poverty levels in
India. Saqib Khan seems be one of those. In his
latest India-bashing letter [Mar 3] he claims 90%
of Indians cannot afford a second meal in the day.
Wow! While no economic analyst has denied the
poverty levels in India (25-30%), India also has
[a 300-million-strong] and growing middle class
(by conservative estimates). But why would Saqib
Khan think about such details? The problem with
people like Saqib Khan is that they are so
intoxicated by their dogmatic vision of Islam that
they cannot digest even the most modest successes
of non-Muslim societies. His previous letters
clearly demonstrate that he believes in
inferiority of all other religions and cultures
other than Muslim. Saqib Khan also makes
ridiculous sweeping claims such as [that] only
Hindus are considered Indians and about 7 million
Kashmiris live in fear, where in reality one finds
minorities successful in all spheres of life and
Hindus being butchered in Kashmir at the behest of
hateful jihadis. And, Mr Saqib Khan, we'll talk
when Pakistan and certain other Islamic countries
let Hindu religious groups construct Hindu
temples. We Hindus will not take lessons of
inclusiveness from dogma-driven, intolerant and
exclusivist establishments. Coming back to the
nuclear issue, India's nuclear neighbor must stop
promoting terrorist activities to achieve its
political establishment's evil jihadi designs,
because these efforts are doomed to failure. The
talk of an arms race is nothing but a devious
trick to stop democratic countries from
collaborating to achieve mutually beneficial
goals. I think China is wiser and realizes the
dangers inherent in getting its hands into the
jihadi swamps of Pakistan.
Rakesh
India (Mar 6, '06)
Saqib Khan (letter, Mar 3)
reacts like a jealous jilted (Pakistani) spouse
[at seeing] the relationship between India and the
USA grow to its highest level since India's
independence. The India-USA deal is a two-way
street between two [of the] largest democracies,
unlike Pakistan, which is a two-faced failed
puppet dictatorship. Yes, India is not rich, but
it did not steal or beg for any nuclear
technology. Saqib also complains about minorities
in India being "crushed". He conveniently forgets
to mention that the leader of the ruling Congress
party in India is an Italian Christian woman, the
president of India is a Muslim, the prime minister
is a Sikh, and if his fellow Muslims feel
"crushed" in India after nearly 60 years of
independence, then they have not yet made an
exodus to Pakistan or Bangladesh that I know of. I
also challenge him to provide evidence that "90%
of [the] Indian population" eats only one meal a
day or that most of them walk miles for drinking
water, etc. Perhaps he is talking about the former
Indian territories, which are now called Pakistan
and Bangladesh.
Chetan Tanna
California, USA (Mar 6,
'06)
According to Saqib Khan
(letters, Mar 3), [India's] prime minister, [its]
president and its richest man are not Indians,
since they happen to be non-Hindus. India is
marching ahead with its development, and needs
more energy to overcome poverty, disease and many
of the problems that Khan mentions. In this world
of realpolitik, as Pakistan is finding out to its
dismay, India is being courted by most countries,
including China, while Pakistan is viewed by all
with suspicion and fear.
Partha
Australia (Mar 6, '06)
I think Jakob Cambria
[letter, Mar 3] should get his facts right first
before writing rubbish on this site. China is not
... drilling for gas in Japanese sea territory.
Also, what right has Japan or the USA to interfere
in Chinese affairs? Taiwan is part of China and
that is a Chinese problem. These two countries
should keep their noses out of Chinese internal
affairs.
Ming (Mar 6,
'06)
Re
Beijing steps
up 'Koizumi bashing' [Mar 3]: Beijing may be
stepping up pressure to smear Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi, but how much more can they do
after treating him with contempt and disrespect?
Mr Koizumi is a lame duck; in a half-year, he is
going to step [down] and hand over the functions
of his office. China's orchestrated attack on
Japan will more [likely] than not bring to the
premiership a member of the Liberal Democratic
Party with strong nationalist leanings. Already
the [Japanese] foreign minister has called upon
the emperor to visit the [shrine] at Yasukuni - a
daring move meant to thumb Japan's nose at China,
and what's more to restore the glow to the
imperial family and breach the strictures of a
toothless monarchy. The two Koreas are moving
closer to each to resolve military issues in
fearful expectation that Japan will abrogate de
jure the clause in the Peace Constitution
prohibiting a standing army. Such an army will be
led by a tried and seasoned officer corps
currently known as the National Defense Force, and
that force can quickly whip into fighting
readiness raw recruits armed with the latest
military materiel. Beijing is hoping that a sop to
Tokyo on the contentious issue of China's drilling
for gas in Japanese waters might bring Japan to
salute at its orders. Nonetheless China is fishing
in troubled waters to impose its fiat. It might
not have forgotten that Japan and the United
States, although each gives lip service to a
one-China policy, have warned Beijing against
military adventurism against Taiwan. Additionally,
Japanese markets are emerging from a decade of
lackluster [performance], and Tokyo is beginning
to flex its economic muscles. In spite of the fact
that Japanese have heavily invested in mainland
China, Chinese diplomacy of making Japan lose face
has had the effect of a tectonic shift of
investing elsewhere in Asia, and particularly in
India, as a foil to the looming shadow of
domination of Beijing in Asia. Beijing may think
that it is in the catbird's seat, but China has
[thrown] a rock into a large pond and the
expanding concentric circles may lead to
consequences to its own detriment ...
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Mar 3,
'06)
Mark
Engler [When the
dollars stop making sense, Mar 2] was correct
that the Iraq war is similar to the Vietnam War,
but he does not understand Vietnam very well. [The
year] 1968 was indeed a turning point, but not
because of events in Vietnam. This would be a good
time to review 1968, because 2008 will be a rerun
with modifications to fit Iraq. Politics itself
has not changed in 40 years - it is still a
full-contact sport. Events in Vietnam were always
driven by events in Washington, never the reverse.
The limit of Vietnamese action was to resist the
occupation and hope to survive until America
decided to leave. [The year] 1968 was a turning
point in the American War because it was [a]
presidential-election year. President [Lyndon]
Johnson had started the war right after his
inauguration, and had used it to increase taxes
unseen by the public, but incumbent Johnson
advertised that that he would end the unpopular
war. US Intelligence reported [incorrectly] that
VC [Viet Cong] manpower was almost zero and that
the NVA [North Vietnamese Army] had lost its will
to fight ... 1968 was [the Americans'] last chance
to end the war until the following 1972 election,
because no US president would ever end the war in
mid-term when it was a valuable positive event
that could win the election. Johnson now said the
war was unwinnable (to retain votes of the pro-war
Americans), and that the Vietnamese had given up
and it was time for a ceasefire (to retain votes
of anti-war Americans, because in reality he could
have ended the war any time). Johnson's campaign
needed a losing situation in Vietnam to produce a
winning situation for Johnson in America. The year
began with a major victory at Khe Sanh followed by
another victory in the Tet Offensive. The VC were
reduced to zero and the NVA was cut 50%. General
[William] Westmoreland could not possibly have
done better. This victory in Vietnam became a
defeat in Washington when US media supported
Johnson by ignoring Khe Sanh after the USMC
[United States Marine Corps] victory and by
focusing very closely on the intelligence failure
to predict Tet ... Johnson refused to run again
and remained behind White House security. He sent
vice president Hubert Humphrey in his place.
Ceasefire talks were arranged exactly in time for
the [US presidential] vote but opponent Richard
Nixon covertly broke the peace talks by persuading
South Vietnamese president [Nguyen Van] Thieu to
walk out just before the election. Nixon won. The
cost of president Nixon's new job was 20,000
American lives, plus other losses for a four-year
extension of the war. Our costs in Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia had zero importance in America, and
formed no part at all in the American decision
process in 1968 or at any other time.
Vinh
Lee
Cambodia (Mar 3,
'06)
Re
When the
dollars stop making sense [Mar 2]: A plethora
of numbers ... in the end do justice to the topic
of making sense of dollar amounts ostensibly
allocated to eradicating terrorism and promoting
democracy as well as capturing Osama [bin Laden],
as George Bush reminded his hosts in Afghanistan.
One wonders what percentage of the [US]$244-odd
billion spent so far actually left the shores of
the USA. Still, as an aside, I began reading
[Mark] Engler's commentary when the clock showed
$244,580,732,411 and finished when the clock
ticked $244,581,248,565. Whoever said "[tempus] fugit" is spot
on.
Armand De Laurell (Mar 3,
'06)
Mark
LeVine's article Iraq: The wages
of chaos [Mar 1] puts all the blame of the
impending civil war in Iraq squarely on the
shoulders of the US, yet he deftly avoids
mentioning Iran's meddling in Iraq's future. There
will be a civil war in Iraq, [of] that I have no
doubt. [Having come] from Sri Lanka just before
that island exploded into chaos, I see the
tale-tale signs so reminiscent [of] Sri Lanka in
the '70s: first the curfews to stop the atrocities
now taking place between the Sunnis and the Shi'as
and then the civil war, which no government,
whether [local or foreign], will be able to
control. Looking at Sri Lanka's almost 30 ...
years of civil war, one sees the determination of
the Tamil Tigers, whose cadres wear a necklace
with a cyanide pill in case they get caught. They
have managed to beat back India's military
intervention, assassinate a leader of a major
nation, Rajiv Gandhi (done by a female Tamil
suicide bomber), and [break] any solutions for
peace, whether it emanates from the Sri Lankan
government or international mediators. The current
statistics of 65,000 killed in this civil war are
grossly underestimated, as this statistic was done
many years ago and the killings have continued. As
for Iraq, the situation is even worse. Iraq and
Iran fought an eight-year war and the wounds of
that war seem to have not healed. Like Sri Lanka's
Tamil Tigers' demand for an independent nation
named [Tamil] Eelam, the volatile situation in
Iraq will follow suit with Shi'ites, Sunnis and
Kurds demanding their own homelands. Dark days are
ahead for Iraq and the region and there is nothing
anyone can do about it. Believe me, it has been
tried over and over again in Sri Lanka with utter
failure. Of course unlike [with] Sri Lanka, the
implications of a full-scale civil war in Iraq
will spill across that most important region and
have global implications. Civil wars are fought by
the average person and all reason and common sense
fly out of the window, especially when another
nation (Iran) is fanning the flames. I have no
doubt [that] sooner if not later the US military
will be forced to pull out of Iraq.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 3, '06)
Regarding [Mark] LeVine's Iraq: The wages
of chaos (Mar 1): He makes some good
speculation and observation about who benefits
from extended crises in the Middle East. But he
neglects [to] call the region's authoritarian
regimes on why they perpetuate the Palestinian
crisis too, beyond what Israel does. These
authoritarians get to distract their press and
public from their domestic problems by ... uniting
their public on the Palestinians' plight.
Meanwhile, Palestinians who have settled decades
ago in rich nations like Kuwait, many who were
born there, are not allowed citizenship or the
right to own land. They are kept in a state of
permanent refugeehood and statelessness so as to
perpetuate grievances exacerbating the Arab-Jewish
conflict. On the other hand, many Arab nations
deported their ancient-times-linked Jewish
populations from their nations after Israel was
born. Those Jews were integrated into Israel as
equal citizens. Even Israeli Arabs have more
rights in Israel than Palestinians in Kuwait, or
perhaps even most native-born Arab citizens in
Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Enzo Titolo (Mar 3,
'06)
I
would write a letter in response to Craig Meer's
article Diminishing
status of Taiwan's status quo (Mar 1) and
about Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian's
jettisoning of the National Unification Council
and National Unification Guidelines if there were
something substantive to be said. However, there
is not much to say because the NUC and Guidelines
have always been irrelevant. At no time that the
Kuomingtang was in power in Taiwan was there any
chance of China agreeing to the Guidelines, and
since the KMT has been sidelined except to act as
a gadfly, there is no chance of Taiwan agreeing to
the Guidelines either. So what is the harm in
tossing out something that neither side would ever
agree to? However, I think that President Chen is
missing an important opportunity to emphasize
Taiwan's status as an independent and sovereign
nation. Each time Chen states that Taiwan is not
changing the status quo, he should state it as
follows: "Taiwan has no intention of changing the
status quo; Taiwan will continue to remain a free,
independent and sovereign nation which is not
under the jurisdiction or sovereignty of any other
nation." And as for the title of Mr Meer's
article, it could be said that Taiwan's status quo
is diminishing as China builds up its offensive
military capabilities. However, as Mr Meer is
referring to President Chen's recent action, a
more appropriate title would be "Reinforcing
Taiwan's status quo".
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 3,
'06)
I am
not sure why ATol publishes a letter [Mar 2]
regarding last year's article [India and
China: Neither friends nor foes, May 18, '05].
However, it is [hard] to say that Manjeet S
Pardesi is not pro-Hindu. Today, many white people
are learning feng
shui. The symbols and foundations of feng shui were developed
4,000-5,000 years ago as a method of calculation.
Chinese also developed the abacus in the Han
Dynasty 2,000 years ago. An abacus is an ancient
fast calculator used for over 2,000 years by many
Chinese accountants until computers [became]
widely available just a few years ago. For a
comparison, Chinese only discovered India in the
Tang Dynasty 600 years later. However, China's
advanced math and geometry knowledge allowed them
to build much longer-lasting constructions. The
2,600-year-old Dujianyan irrigation system,
2,200-year-old Great Wall and 1,800-year-old
Zhaozhou Bridge are still standing. India's
greatest ancient building was built by Mongols
assisted by Italian architects and possibly
Chinese engineers and technicians only 600 years
ago. It is [not true] that Chinese acquired
knowledge of Indian mathematics.
Frank
of Seattle
Washington,
USA (Mar 3, '06)
Manjeet S Pardesi's letter
was published at his request, as he only recently
had the May 19, 2005, letter of Lan Tran brought
to his attention. - ATol
I find Manjeet S Pardesi's
letter [Mar 2] very interesting. According to him,
Sanskrit had some linguistic impact on the Chinese
language. He wrote, "Perhaps you'd be surprised to
learn that even the word 'Mandarin' derives from
the Sanskrit word mantri (which means an
adviser or a minister)." This doesn't make any
sense to me. The word "Mandarin" is an English
word, not Chinese. In Chinese, "Mandarin"
(Putonghua or Guoyu) |
