|
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.
Note: On May 27,
Asia Times Online ran an article by Loro Horta
titled As East Timor
burns ... that was
critical of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri.
Alkatiri's son, Lukeno Ribeiro Alkatiri, has sent
a letter to the editor in response. As it is quite
long, we are running it on a separate file;
please click
here to read it. - ATol
Thank you for Spengler's
insightful essay on The Da
Vinci Code, both the book and the movie [The Da Vinci Code's
secret of success, May 31]. The rabbis of the
Talmud taught their pupils about four levels of
commentary: (1) Pashat, the simple meaning of the
text; (2) Remes, what the text alludes to; (3)
DeRash, how the text may be applied to
contemporary situations; and (4) Sod, what the
text may mean at a deeper or spiritual level. When
it comes to religio-socio-politico commentary,
Spengler seldom disappoints, giving his readers a
multi-dimensional gloss on his chosen topic,
buttressed by an encyclopedic knowledge of
history, religion and the geopolitical trends du jour. He stands head
and shoulders above the vast majority of his
contemporary pundits.
Richard Greene
USA (May 31,
'06)
I
usually don't disagree too much with Spengler when
he rants about Islamism and its dangers, yet I see
him falling into the same hole from where the
Islamists sprang [The Da Vinci Code's
secret of success, May 31]. Spengler's raving
against the book and its author would be
considered logical only by those who are blinded
by their belief. Spengler says pretty much what
the Islamists say when after any terrorist bombing
they claim that "this isn't Islam". After every
murder or maiming in the name of Allah they claim
"this isn't real Islam". Spengler attempts to put
the blame for all of Europe's ills on paganism.
Yet one must consider where were these pagans
during the genocide in the new world of the
Americas and during the Imperial Age. When the
British engineered famines in India, or smuggled
drugs into China, or when the Spanish just shot
everyone in Mexico or when the Americans
deliberately spread disease in the Great Plains;
where were the pagans? Be it traditional European
Christians or evangelical Americans, all of this
was done in the name of Glory, Gold and GOD! To
turn around and say that this is the fault of the
pagans is rubbish, since it was mainly the pagans
and non-Christians who were on the receiving end
of the murders. The fact is that we despise the
Islamists because they see fit to commit murder in
the name of spreading their religion or destroying
someone else's, thus we must also hate the sort of
Christianity that was practiced years ago that
tried to do the same precise thing. A resurgent
evangelical sort of Christianity won't help the
world, it will only further damage it. Those
against the book forget that the basic message of
Christ (peace, brotherhood and goodwill to all
humankind) is never challenged by the author. The
message of Christ stands as pure as ever; the
curse of organized centralized religion blurs it
in the name of glory for God. A little bit of
loose, decentralized paganism that doesn't seek to
swallow everyone, impose its will on the planet,
but simply live and let live (like Christ
intended) is the answer to the world's problems,
not the reason behind [them]. Beware Spengler, in
your fight against the Islamist, you might just
become its mirror image.
Aryan
Singh Rathore
Somewhere in Arabia (May 31,
'06)
Thanks, Spengler, your
article [The Da Vinci Code's
secret of success, May 31] is so supremely
shallow and weak-minded that I have passed the
stage of feeling disgusted with you; I simply
cannot take you seriously, and scold myself for
taking you seriously even for the two months that
I've been looking in on Asia Times Online. I feel
that you yourself are snickering as you write any
garbled idea that enters your mind. To ATol I
would only ask, "Why?" I recall the editor giving
a wonderful defense of why he permitted Spengler
to voice himself [The world's
only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11], but at that
time I only read the editor's defense and not
Spengler. Please do not misunderstand; I do not
consider Spengler a racist, or anti-Muslim or
anti-anything. He might or might not be; but this
is not the reason he should be cut. It is simply
that the man is not a thinker in any sense of the
word. How dare he play with real ideas! If ATol
wants to keep a writer on [whom] readers "love to
hate", can you not find a man of a little higher
caliber?
Krischer (May 31,
'06)
Re
Germany's
anthem anathema [May 31]: As a regular reader
of this magazine and a German citizen, I was
somewhat disappointed by this article. Obviously
the author hardly knows anything about the debate
in Germany. [Hans-Christian] Stroebele's
suggestion was not serious in that he really
wanted to get the anthem translated. That was not
his point. In fact the German anthem is highly
unpopular in Germany especially among the youth,
among liberals and among progressives. This is
mainly [because it was used] during fascism as
well, with the only difference that the emphasis
had been put on another verse ("Deutschland, Deutschland
ueber alles", "Germany, Germany above
everything else"). Thus the debate was in no way
about the translation of the text of the third
verse but about acceptance of immigration. In
Germany until recently all leading politicians
have outright denied the fact that Germany is an
immigration country. Still today most
conservatives and some social democrats would not
agree to the most obvious, that millions of people
have come to stay. In these contexts Stroebele
wanted to make a point, to mark the obvious: that
Germany is (not will become) a multilingual (not
bilingual, as the author wrote) nation, which is
as most readers of this international magazine
will agree the global norm. Indeed, there are some
linguistic minorities which already have official
recognition - the Danes, the Frisians and the
Sintis (as the German Roma call themselves) and
the Sorbs (Slavonic-speaking). Besides that there
are many other languages spoken, and not just
Turkish. Among others, a lot of the people
considered Turkish rather call themselves Kurdish,
which Ankara probably does not like very much.
However, it is in no way true that the immigrants,
neither the Turkish nor the others, just keep to
their language. They use both German and their
original language, and their kids are usually not
very good in their mother tongues as they don't
get the proper education in it. In a nutshell: To
write about German immigration policies through
the glasses of Turkish newspapers gives a somewhat
distorted picture, one which is hardly to
recognizable for an insider.
Wolfgang Pomrehn
Berlin, Germany (May 31,
'06)
Regarding Fazile Zahir's
article on Germany's
anthem anathema [May 31], I'd like to point
out that the more precise translation of
Einwanderungtrio into English would be
"Immigration Trio" - "patriotic" is something
completely different. Any chance of Germany being
given an entirely different anthem? Great paper,
though.
Andreas Ardus
Tallinn, Estonia (May 31,
'06)
In
her [May 31] article Germany's
anthem anathema, Fazile Zahir reports on and
praises a suggestion by a German politician, one
Hans-Christian Stroebele of the Green Party, to
formally produce a Turkish version of the German
national anthem, to be sung by the Turkish
immigrant population in Germany. I find this
suggestion to be utterly and absolutely
outrageous. Ms Zahir makes a superficial
comparison to the recent Spanish-language version,
Nuestro Himno, of the
US national anthem, but these two situations are
completely different. In large parts of the United
States - including California, Texas, Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado and Florida - Hispanics are the founding
population of the towns and cities, having been
resident in what is now US territory for many
centuries before those lands became part of the
USA. Most of those resource-rich territories were
transferred from Mexico to the United States as a
result of the incredibly bloody and painful
Mexican War from 1846-48, a conflict that caused
and still causes substantial bitterness.
Therefore, in an effort to reconcile the Latino
population to US rule and to forestall further
fighting in the Mexican War and other conflicts, a
number of important treaties were negotiated by
the United States for the southwestern states (as
well as for Florida and of course Puerto Rico),
which guarantee Spanish-language as well as legal
and property rights for Latinos therein. In fact,
a Spanish-language version of The Star-Spangled Banner
was commissioned by the US government itself
in the early 20th century as a part of this
effort. Therefore, while the Spanish-language
anthem in the US is still controversial, there is
at least a strong legal and historical precedent
for the use and respect of Spanish for official
purposes throughout much of the US, since Spanish
(like English and the native American languages)
is one of the founding languages of the territory
which now comprises the United States. The
situation for Turks in Germany is completely
different. Germany never fought a war against
Turkey which resulted in the seizure and transfer
of significant territory from Turkey to the modern
German nation, and there was never a history or a
prior legal framework of treaties therefore
guaranteeing Turkish language rights on the land
that constitutes Germany. Germany and Turkey have
always been very separate nations with very
distinct histories, and the Turks who have come to
Germany since the 1950s are guests, not original
residents of what today constitutes German
territory. Thus the Turks in Germany are akin to
my Irish Gaelic-speaking ancestors from southern
Ireland who came to Illinois and Indiana in the
19th century - they came as guests to work in a
foreign nation, without any prior territorial
affiliation with their new country. They therefore
learned English and sang the national anthem in
it. The Turks in Germany, similarly, have come as
guests to work in their new home which has
generously allowed them in, and in return, it is
their responsibility to learn German and sing the
national anthem in it. This notion of a Turkish
version of the German anthem is even more
outrageous since other immigrant groups (such as
the Polish, Indian, Chinese and Russian
immigrants), often with an even greater presence
in Germany, have by and large integrated into
German society with much greater ease and are much
more willing to adopt the German culture, identify
as German citizens and sing the anthem in their
adopted language. I hate to be blunt, but I have
to honesty report what I have repeatedly seen, as
I have worked many stints in Germany over the past
five years and witnessed this first-hand: Many
Turks complain loudly about how Germany has failed
to integrate them, but this is largely because
many of them have failed to make an effort to
integrate themselves. Integration is an active
process by the immigrants, not a passive one
handed to them by the government ...
Jeff
Campbell
Indianapolis,
Indiana (May 31, '06)
Gareth Porter in [Khamenei in
control and ready to 'haggle', May 31], states
that the real power nexus in Iran is Grand
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not Iranian President
[Mahmud] Ahmadinejad. He further states that
Khamenei is a "realist" and is now pressing for
negotiations with the USA from a perceived vantage
point of power: nascent nuclear capabilities,
proxies or allies in the Palestinian government,
Afghanistan and Iraq. Is Mr Porter accurate in his
assessment? Is there now a unified power structure
in Iran that is seeking "detente" with the USA?
Have Ayatollah Khamenei's apparently obstreperous
paladins (President Ahmadinejad, specifically)
been sowing disinformation to further confuse and
intimidate the USA by use of the "good cop
(Khamenei), bad cop (Ahmadinejad)" routine? Was
the (yet to be published) April 2003 offer to the
US government sincere or simple disinformation?
None of these questions, at least based on
independently verifiable data from reputable
sources, can be confidently answered, yet Mr
Porter insinuates, based on unpublished and (so
far as I know) unverified reports, that pacific
or, at the very least, thoroughly pragmatic
concerns now drive the Iranian government toward a
negotiated detente with their American
counterparts. My understanding is that a far less
cohesive Iranian governmental structure exists,
one with numerous countervailing tendencies and
power struggles, more than a little tinge of
paranoia and an element of well-founded suspicion
about the US and its intentions in the region.
While the realpolitik strain of Iranian diplomacy
cannot and should not be discarded, there [are
few] data to suggest, as does Mr Porter, that it
is now ascendent. If so, a so-called "Night of the
Long Knives" may be required to eliminate the
advocates of theocratic "continuous revolution" as
embodied in President Ahmadinejad's "faction",
both domestically in "the street" and elsewhere,
such as in the Palestinian Authority and in
Hezbollah. Why? Because, in all probability, a
nuanced understanding of the subtle political
motives of the Iranian government has probably not
been closely reasoned to its logical conclusions
by the average Islamist, to whom it has been
directed. These ideologues will be more difficult
soldiers to discipline. In short, before fully
espousing Grand Ayatollah Khamenei as the [Henry]
Kissinger of Iran, Mr Porter should recall the
observations made by the late US General Samuel B
Griffith II in his insightful comments on another
great practitioner of realpolitik, Mao Zedong, to
wit, "Revolutions rarely compromise: compromises
are made only to further the strategic design.
Negotiation, then, is undertaken for the dual
purpose of gaining time to buttress a position
(military, political, social, economic) and to
wear down, frustrate and harass the opponent."
Keith
Comess (May 31, '06)
In his [May 31] article Singapore makes
an honest bet, Gary LaMoshi quotes Merrill
Lynch Singapore vice president Sean Monaghan
saying: "The Singapore government continues to
make decisions in the best long-term interests of
the majority of citizens rather than for the
benefit of a few." Sadly, the rest of the article
chooses to ignore the significance of this simple
statement of fact, and to indulge in the usual
lazy condescension with which foreigners like to
treat Singapore. To LaMoshi, it seems, the
involvement of Temasek in any deal is prima facie evidence of
conspiracy to defraud the population in favor of
the Lee family; there is apparently no scenario in
which Temasek itself may, in fact, be part of that
long-term plan to benefit Singapore citizens.
Maybe this is a result of how politics and
economics are taught in the West. Who knows? But
may I suggest that, instead of rehashing lazy
[observations], perhaps his next article might
apply the same principles to other countries. For
example, he might dig into the relationship
between President [George W] Bush, [Vice
President] Dick Cheney and dozens of other White
House grandees with corporations like Halliburton,
Bechtel and KBR. Then he might consider, can he
truthfully conclude that the military-industrial
complex in the US is also being managed with a
view to the best interests of the majority? (Hint:
compare the disparity of wealth between the few
and the many in both nations.)
Billy
Zand
Singapore (May 31,
'06)
Gary
LaMoshi is a longtime observer of the
relationships between politics and business in
Singapore; you offer nothing to counter his
conclusions except to suggest he go away and
observe another country instead. - ATol
In the article Carrots, sticks
and the isolation of Iran [May 27, Kaveh L]
Afrasiabi focuses on the economic issue between
Germany and Iran. He also states in a veiled
manner the use (or misuse) of America's sole
superpower status to influence other nations.
Let's gets some facts straight. Yes, the US is
currently the sole superpower in the world and as
the old saying goes, "Use it or lose it." The fact
that the US is "using" its power to its advantage
is a fact that any nation that has the power [of]
the US will most likely do the same. In regards to
the rising nuclear status of Iran posing a genuine
danger not only to the region but to the world at
large, [this] can be backed up by the fact that
Iran has used weapons of mass destruction before,
when it used chemical warfare in its war with
Iraq. This is a nation that has proved that it
will use weapons of mass destruction, not [just]
on the "infidel" nations such as Israel or any
other non-Muslim nation that opposes it but also
on other Muslim nations such as Iraq. The urgency
to stop Iran from becoming a full-fledged nuclear
power cuts across bilateral economic relationships
with Iran. The palpable danger of a nuclear-armed
non-Arab Iran is sufficient for its Arab Muslim
nations to take notice and ultimately "request"
the involvement of the Security Council, even if
some of the members may lose economically when the
sanctions are applied on Iran.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (May 31, '06)
"Shylock" is the name of a
Jewish moneylender in [William] Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice.
He [lends] Antonio money, but requires that
Antonio give him a pound of flesh if the money is
not paid back on time. In the modern world
"Shylock" is a slur that plays on the stereotype
of the cheap and ruthless Jew. I enjoy Asia Times
[Online] because I feel you often have some the
world's most intelligent commentary on Asia. Andre
Gunder Frank's use of the term "Shylock" bespeaks
an ignorance that is unbecoming [Why the emperor
has no clothes, Jan 6, '05].
Michael Armstrong
Beijing, China (May 31,
'06)
It is
true that some anti-Semites dwell on the
side-issue that Shakespeare's Shylock was Jewish
and use the name as a slur, but for most modern
English speakers the word is merely slang for
"unscrupulous loan shark". That is the context in
which the late Andre Gunder Frank - who,
incidentally, as a youngster fled Nazi Germany
with his Jewish father - used it. For more on
Frank, see the obituary we ran on April 27, 2005. -
ATol
US citizens (in general) have
very short political memories. This US
characteristic is the reasoning behind the wanton
and careless imprisonment of so many of our
perceived "terrorists", 99% of [whom] are
innocent. The US government thinks that people
will "get over it" with the passage of time. Add
to this the inhumane treatment and the long-term
incarceration without trial, and you have the
recipe for long-term latent terrorism. In the
years to come, for reasons which will be
inexplicable at the time, old men will commit
terrorist acts against their former captors
because they have not forgotten or forgiven.
Neither will their sons, daughters and
grandchildren. Any reasonable and thinking person
should be able to understand this - which excludes
the leaders of the current US administration.
Ken
Moreau
New Orleans,
Louisiana (May 31, '06)
Re The Chinese are
coming ... to Russia [May 27]: The way things
stand right now, there is a far higher chance of
the American southwest, Texas and California
reverting back to Mexico than of Russia losing
[its] Far East to Chinese shuttle traders. Bertil
Lintner prefaced his opinion (and that's all it
is) by pointing out that tabloids are overstating
the case of Chinese "colonization", then proceeded
to overstate it in his own piece. Unfortunately,
most of [the article] turned out to be a simple
mix of rumors, allegations and wishful thinking,
somewhat tempered by the author's deliberate pace.
If it wasn't [published in] ATol, I'd suspect some
ideological agenda behind it. The facts on the
ground are less alarming. Sure, Chinese dominate
makeshift markets that have sprouted all over
[across] the border, but it doesn't amount to
wholesale domination of all trade and commerce. As
a matter of fact, Russo-Chinese interaction in the
Far East is still rather far away from saturation
point, and will only increase to the benefit of
both countries. Building walls is a losing
proposition, as Chinese know all too well, and
Americans will figure out on their own soon
enough. As Mr Lintner observed, [the] Chinese
aren't terribly visible [in the Russian Far East].
But contrary to his assertions, it's not so
because hordes of them are cowering in some
dormitories afraid of Russian hooligans. It's
because they aren't there, at least not in numbers
sufficient to tip the demographic balance. And
they aren't there because most of potential
migrants in China's northeast dream more about
Dalian and Shanghai than about Vladivostok and
Khabarovsk. There are no Chinatowns in Russian
cities. Plenty of those "Chinese" [who] are on the
streets are actually Koreans. The rest are mostly
commuters with their base in China. If there were
no commercial opportunities on the Russian side of
the border, they'd never go north at all. The
brave souls [who] have decided to settle in Russia
will be "russified" within two generations -
Russia's "melting pot" record is no worse than
that of US. Given the fact that the Chinese birth
rate itself is already below replacement level, a
massive influx of Chinese is not in order. Only a
full-blown collapse of the Chinese economy could
change the equation. As for the projected
"reorientation toward Beijing", the very presence
of China - and attendant fears of being
overwhelmed by it - serves to actually cement the
region's allegiance to Moscow, not to undermine
it.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (May 30,
'06)
Re
Carrots, sticks
and the isolation of Iran [May 27]: It is a
[rare] pleasure to read an article on Iran written
by someone like Dr [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi, who knows
the economics and politics of the region about
which he writes. Would that articles like his were
the rule, and not the exception.
M
Henri Day
Stockholm,
Sweden (May 30, '06)
I can't fully agree with
Farid Bakht (Textile
workers' rage rocks Bangladesh, May 26). I
have been watching the news very closely and
talking to people on both sides of the story and
find there is something much deeper than what is
on the surface. Hasan Mir [letter, May 26] states
very rightly that some of the model factories
became the targets, and what surprised me most
[was that] some of the factories located in
Banani-kakoli, where the conditions are quite
pitiful, have survived. Yes there are
exploitations of the workers by the factory
owners, and many default in paying salaries on a
regular basis, which are all very unfortunate. But
the people who went on a rampage [against] the
factories didn't seem to be the garment workers. I
hardly saw any women in the mob whereas a majority
of the workers are women, and don't tell me they
are not capable of breaking the factories if they
want to. This raises a question of who [did this]
and why this happened. This needs an independent
investigation.
Akku Chowdhury
Dhaka, Bangladesh (May 30,
'06)
Gareth Porter [reports] that
explicit overtures were made to the US by
authorized representatives of the Iranian
government in a document from circa 2003 [Iran offered
'to make peace with Israel', May 26]. This
communication allegedly contains multiple
concessions to the US, Israel and the EU, which I
can only characterize as stunning in their scope.
These include recognition of the State of Israel
and other such, which appear to contravene
fundamental precepts of the present and previous
regimes since the demise of the shah's government.
Interestingly and perplexingly, this earth-shaking
overture has not been reported, at least by my
review of the literature, in sources other than Mr
Porter's article(s). I can only speculate on the
exclusivity of this journalistic coup and further
wonder through what sort of ideological prism the
US government (to whom this epistle was allegedly
directed) viewed the offer: based on Mr Porter's
representations, it appears to essentially concede
every point of contention to the "West", asking
(humbly) only for what the late comedian Rodney
Dangerfield called "a little respect". A recent
article (Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer, Washington
Post Foreign Service, May 24) also made clear that
multiple solicitations have been made by Iran to
the US via intermediaries, but again no mention of
the dramatic 2003 letter with its sweeping
concessions was made. Vick and Linzer also quote
Paul Pillar: "There is no question in my mind that
there has been for some time a desire on the part
of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a
dialogue with the United States," said Paul
Pillar, who was the senior Middle East
intelligence analyst with the CIA [US Central
Intelligence Agency] until last fall. Thus there
does seem to be a broad consensus on the matter of
an Iranian approach, but it should best be
recalled that there are many factions in the
Iranian government, some of which present the
appearance of working at cross-purposes. Mr Porter
reports, "On March 10, President George W Bush
said, 'The Iranian president has stated his desire
to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start
listening to what he has said to their desire to
develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an
issue of grave national-security concern.'"
However, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was not in
office at the time of the 2003 initiative and this
comment is not relevant, therefore, to the main
point of Mr Porter's article. It is, however,
quite relevant to the current regime, which,
inconveniently, now has the populist and publicly
irredentist character of Mr Ahmadinejad to deal
with. Furthermore, Mr Ahmadinejad's credibility
with radical Islamist groups, both domestic and
foreign, would be seriously compromised by an
accommodation with "The Great Satan". Pragmatism
may win out, as is often the case with
post-revolutionary regimes now desiring
international stability, but it's not entirely
clear that the current regime espouses the offers
purportedly made in 2003. In fact, plenty of
representations made by his government suggest the
contrary. It's also not clear how radical elements
would be purged or contained in an effort to
accomplish the "hoped for" reconciliation by
Iranian peacemakers. There are precedents for such
abrupt turns in government policy (eg, the
Stalin-Hitler pact), but Iran's control of its
proxies is less firm than might be expected. In
summary, while it is clear that some elements
within the Iranian theocracy have expressed an
interest, even perhaps a fervid one, in opening
negotiations with the USA, and it is equally clear
that the US government, for one reason or another,
has (at least to my knowledge) failed to pursue
these overtures, the letter [Porter] reports on
requires publication so the full text can be
analyzed. To offer these tantalizing concessions
while representing that they were rejected out of
hand by the [Bush] administration suggests that
either the present US government is dangerously
blinkered (evidently and maybe accurately
[implied] by Gareth Porter) or, perhaps, there are
other unknown variables that might put the
dismissal into clearer perspective.
Keith
Comess (May 30, '06)
A point that is often
overlooked when considering the complexities of
Iranian politics and international relations is
the influence of the country's Supreme Leader,
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. See the new Gareth
Porter article Khamenei
in control and ready to 'haggle'. - ATol
Regarding the article The battle
spreads in Afghanistan [May 26], no matter how
this battle concludes Pakistan will be the biggest
loser. Before [September 11, 2001] Pakistan fully
backed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan but after
September 11 and a stern talk from Washington, DC,
to [President General Pervez] Musharraf, Pakistan
did a 180-degree turn regarding its position with
the Taliban and joined ranks with the US
coalition. The end result was the fall of the
Taliban regime and an elected government in
Afghanistan. This suited India and the US fine but
not Pakistan. As the article points out, terror
groups are springing [up] across Afghanistan to
take on the ANA (Afghan National Army) and the
US-led coalition. In addition to these various
Afghan resistance fighters [there are] "unknown
groups" who turn out to be led by "former
Pakistani army general and director general of the
Inter-Service Intelligence Hamid Gul". Because of
Mr Musharraf's half-hearted attempts to catch key
al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders within Pakistan's
borders and the game of political poker that Mr
Musharraf played with the US, Pakistan has already
lost quite a lot. It has lost the steadfast trust
of the US and it has lost full control of its
western province of Balochistan to the
al-Qaeda/Taliban nexus. If all goes well for the
newly empowered Taliban forces and they are able
to defeat the ANA and if the US coalition is
forced to pull out, Afghanistan will fall back to
Taliban rule, except this time the hand of
al-Qaeda will help them be in power. This
situation will place Pakistan in the most awkward
situation. Instead of pre-September 11 Pakistani
influence over the Taliban government, the newly
emerged Taliban will not forget Pakistan's
betrayal, [and] Pakistan may have to face the
specter of a "Talibanization" of its own country.
It was obvious that the leadership of Pakistan
loathed the thought of a democratic Afghanistan
that is reaching [out] to India and is supported
by the US. Now Pakistan may face a
not-too-friendly al-Qaeda-backed Taliban regime
that just might turn the tables on Mr Musharraf
and his government. The conundrum that Pakistan
may face is worse than just being caught between
the devil and the deep blue sea.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (May 30, '06)
Re [Philippines'
mining down in the dumps] by David Llorito,
dated May 26: Has anyone verified all the figures
being used by both sides, as to their sources?
They sound so precise and authoritative, but I
doubt them. All I know is that there were many
people hurt by the spills; unfortunately, the
people who are siding/fronting for the company(s)
are not the people hurt by the spills. Who are
these people: those with vested interests and
those who have accepted bribes. (This is not a
challenge to the writer, who has limited time and
resources.)
Fluffysummit (May 30,
'06)
Well, I think it's safe to
say that Herr Spengler has finally jumped the
tracks. His [May 23] review of arch-reactionary
Melanie Phillips' book Londonistan [This time the
crocodile won't wait] serves as a platform for
all of Spengler's anti-Muslim rhetoric and, well,
racism. In his efforts to be even-handed (ha) the
good Spengled-one insists England has had a
glorious past - well, if you mean [William]
Shakespeare and [John] Milton and [Isaac] Newton,
and maybe the Spice Girls and Wayne Rooney, then
okay. But failing to mention colonialism is
typical of this apologist for imperialism. A quick
Google of Kenya/British rule will allow Spengler
to get up to speed on the real glories of
[Britain]'s history. And to conflate radical
Islamic fanatics with all Muslims is simply
mendacious. Ask [George] Galloway and his Respect
Party if all Muslims feel revulsion for British
leftists. This kind of half-baked bulls**t is
typical Spengler. A faux
intellect, he should probably be allowed a
nice clean cell in a Somerset asylum, where he
won't be allowed to contaminate the pages of an
otherwise quite fine online paper.
John
Steppling
Lodz,
Poland (May 30, '06)
If D Bhardwaj [letter, May
26] pays attention to the news, he should hear
that China has started the local-election process.
A progressive home-grown democratic system is and
will be a lot better than a democratic system
forced upon the entire population. A forced
democracy worked in some countries where basic
human needs were not problems, like in Japan,
Germany, Korea, etc. In many other cases, forced
democracy is not working, like in India and many
African and Latin America countries. In India in
particular, the democracy only works for the rich
and powerful. Most [of the] Indian population does
not have enough information to make a good
judgment about whom they should vote for. Imagine
those starved Indians living in sheds hot like
hell watching a political debate between two
candidates on a large-screen plasma TV. Sound like
English humor? While the English-educated Indian
elites brag about their elections, they never care
about their own poor brothers and sisters. The
English trained Indians to behave that way so they
could colonize India with ease. I was stunned that
Indian elites are proud of that. Do common Indians
worry about their lives more or political parties
more? No matter where they live, in Seattle, China
or India, most normal human beings need clean
water, food, and shelter to survive. They cannot
live on empty votes. I know I cannot. Can you, D
Bhardwaj?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 30,
'06)
Re
Iran offered
'to make peace with Israel' [May 26]: And the
Iranians did not on their
own establish this "peace" on their own? Hmmm.
Herb
Walker (May 26, '06)
Is GUAM [alliance of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova] reborn? It would
seem so, at least reading a couple of Russian
newspapers and Pepe Escobar's article [The Gazprom
nation, May 26]. Will the new GUAM, minus a
key Central Asian state [Uzbekistan], that is,
have the same bleak political and economic
performance as the previous GUUAM? Ukraine is
experiencing economic stagnation and possibly
heading towards a political deadlock under the
[Viktor] Yushchenko regime. Mr Escobar considers
Ukraine an "alternative integration center" - and
who is integrating with Ukraine? What state will
rush to provide Ukraine with energy security when
the country can hardly pay half of the market
price for gas? Turkmenistan has many times sought
to receive its pay from Ukraine. Nevertheless, all
sorts of projects have been discussed:
Iran-Turkey-Ukraine gas pipeline, LNG [liquefied
natural gas] shipments of Turkmen and Azerbaijani
gas via Georgia to Ukraine - assuming of course,
once again, that expensive LNG plants will be
geared towards Ukraine rather than towards the
lucrative European, Asian, and North American
markets and that the US will let Turkey and
Ukraine help Iran sell its gas. Following the
dichotomy set up in the Western press, Pepe
Escobar believes that Russia uses economic and
energy leverage to punish "pro-EU" states in the
CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States]. This is
a skewed take on the issue: what state today is
willing to subsidize - for that is what Russia has
been doing for the last 14 years via cheap energy
and its open markets - other countries that
actively oppose its interests or take their cues
from the leading NATO members - usually idealized
as "EU"? I guess not only the GUAM states, but
even Mr Escobar, have taken for granted what in
today's context has been a large-scale
humanitarian assistance project: prices for
Russian gas have been at one-quarter to one-third
of the European market prices for years. Along
with virtually free access to Russian domestic
markets, and yearly [US]$250 [million] to $1
billion - depending on the country - of
remittances from nationals working in Russia,
mostly illegally, this boils down to $10 billion
of aid - and this aid doesn't go towards expense
accounts and hotels for the swarms of graduates
and experts seeking to feed hungry minds with
political ideas. Russia's policy actually helps
large sectors of the population in these regions.
That was the norm. As a US consumer, an apartment
resident, and a car owner, I have become used to a
different norm: paying over $3 per gallon [79
cents a liter] of gasoline and having a large
chunk of my paycheck taken out by expensive gas
and electricity prices. So please pardon Russia
when it decides to no longer do for other states
what American companies will not do even for
American citizens: subsidize their energy
consumption. NATO/EU members pretend as if the
Russia-Ukraine gas conflict, and the subsequent
energy shortfall in countries receiving gas via
Ukraine, was not the direct consequence of their
strong interference in Ukraine's elections in late
2004. By financially and politically aiding
Yushchenko, they did away with a regime that had
been, and was planned to be, relatively
cooperative with Russia and, hence, was to
continue to receive cheap gas. Perhaps the
perception, or assumption, was that "Russia will
take it" and will subsidize while NATO decides
policy? This pretense is also seen in Poland,
which has protested the Russian-German gas project
and yet for years stalled and blocked the proposed
Yamal-Europe II, a pipeline that could send up to
60 billion cubic meters from Russia via
Belarus-Poland to Slovakia and the rest of Europe;
how can one stubbornly oppose increased Russian
gas transportation and yet demand it? ... Finally,
Mr Escobar mention's "the new Saudi Arabia", which
makes one wonder, when did Saudi Arabia get an
advanced space program and strategic weapons,
aircraft and nuclear industry, a developed
scientific base and community, and a geopolitical
reach well beyond its borders? As a minor point,
Russia's forex reserves are not "$170 billion",
but as of mid-May 2006, $238 billion ...
Leon
Rozmarin
Hopedale,
Massachusetts (May 26, '06)
The picture Farid Bakht
portrayed in his article [Textile
workers' rage rocks Bangladesh, May 26] is
anything but right ... It sounds like he is very
much willing to bet his credibility to save the
name of [the] "neighboring country". Bangladesh is
one of the largest exporters of garments to Europe
and Asia. The industry flourished in the last
decade or so. It employs millions of workers,
mostly women. I like any Bangladeshi have seen
reports and proofs of how some
garment-manufacturer owners mistreat and exploit
their workers. But ... the abuse is not
widespread. No industry can flourish abusing its
workers. What happened in Bangladesh in the last
couple of days is anything but [accidental] or
"labor unrest" as some would like you to believe.
Every single factory that was destroyed was a
model factory where workers were paid regularly
and much more than average factory workers in the
rest of the country. On top of that, most of the
workers from those factories have distanced
themselves from the whole affair. Intelligence
officials had warned government before this week's
incident that a vested quarter is trying to incite
violence and create havoc in Bangladesh's main
foreign-currency earner. The "neighboring country"
which Mr Bakht tried to save so much has been
using propaganda mostly to get orders away from
Bangladesh to India. This is a well-known fact ...
Hasan Mir (May 26,
'06)
Another timely article by
Kaushik Kapisthalam: India, US fight
to save nuclear deal [May 25]. The fight is
legitimate. There are many positive aspects to
this deal apart from bringing hundreds of billions
of dollars to US businesses and other members of
the NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group]. The most
important reason for me is that it would be a
great benefit to the environment of our planet.
Despite all the fears expressed about dangers of
nuclear reactors, the Chernobyl or Long Island
incidents had minuscule adverse affects [compared
with] the environmental damage and global warming
caused by burning hydrocarbons. Use of nuclear
energy for power production would not only lessen
further environmental damage but also help
conserve and thus reduce the price of this
precious commodity. The deal is a win-win not only
for India and the US but for the whole planet.
Kaushik's mention of comparison with China is also
legitimate, which again shows how biased and
lopsided the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] is,
which has been and can be modified. [Siddharth]
Shrivastava's India shelves
ambitious missile program [May 25] points to
realism accepted by Indian leaders. Missiles and
nuclear weapons are not as pressing an issue as
the economic upliftment of the masses. I cannot,
however, resist sharing my predicament with my
Sinic friend Frank [letter, May 24]. He wonders in
response to Sudha Ramachandra's article India's rite of
summer: Death from the heat [May 24] why poor,
hungry and scantily clad Indians care to vote. I
would have no problem if Frank wrote that from
some Chinese hinterland but, alas, he sits and
writes all this from Washington state. I wonder
why a billion-plus wealthy, well-fed and
well-dressed Chinese don't care to vote and elect
their own government?
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (May 26,
'06)
I
wish to comment on the article India's rite of
summer: Death from the heat [May 24]. It is
such an inglorious shame that at the stroke of
every hour the Indians are frog-marching to
economic glory and claiming astonishing growth but
one has only to look at the outskirts of their big
cities to find abject poverty of the majority of
[India's] people living in no better conditions
than the rats in the sewage. I agree fully with
Frank [letter, May 24] that democracy does give a
poor man a right to vote and elect, but what would
he know about the wretched and incorrigibly
corrupt democracy of India so proudly acclaimed as
unique by its bourgeoisies, "Democracy of the
rich, for the rich and by the rich" ... This
reminds me about a story of a poor Indian farmer
who could only afford to buy one loaf of bread
every week to feed his family. On the other hand
his master could afford to buy many loaves plus
meat, vegetables, rice and cake. Things [got]
worse; the farmer was mad at his master for
sleeping with his daughter and refused to plant
the wheat crop to punish his master, causing the
price of bread to double, [then] treble. The poor
man could not afford a loaf and his children died
of hunger. The master [was] still rich, complained
about the inflationary price but bought a loaf of
bread every day. The farmer's wife got mad at her
husband for not making any money from selling the
crop, so she went to see his master and asked for
a loan. He agreed but on the condition that she
would have to go to bed with him. So the wife
bought two loaves of bread, vegetables and rice
and a cake with the money. At the dinner table,
the farmer told his wife that his decision not to
grow wheat was wise, after all. The wife smiled
and told him to enjoy his dinner because often
decisions have unintended consequences.
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(May 26, '06)
[Re note under Sreekanth's
letter of May 25] Of course, no nation will spend
blood and treasure to correct all possible
injustices in the world: witness the collective
yawn over Darfur. There are two separate points
I'm making: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator,
and no one need mourn his passing. Separately, the
reason for rearranging the pieces in the Middle
East is not just that these are individual nasty
regimes, but the fount of a dangerous ideology
that threatens nations such as Australia,
Indonesia, Thailand, China, India, Russia, various
European nations and the US. The hope is to
control this problem by having representative
governments in the region, especially which do not
subsidize and export terrorism. The fact that you
use the term "rogue superpower" indicates your
preconceived notions, just as this letter
indicates mine, I guess. Would it become less of a
rogue action if the five permanent Security
Council members, two nominally US allies, one a
dictatorship, and one fast becoming that way, were
to act in concert, and wouldn't you then just call
it "rogue superpowers" in the plural? Ultimately,
my contention is that in spite of the obvious
motives of self-interest, the US actions in the
Middle East will profit everyone.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (May 26, '06)
Okay, last word to you. We'd
just add that we appreciate reasoned, rant-free
arguments such as yours attempting to explain a
point of view evidently not favored by most of our
writers (or, most likely, our readers) on
America's imperial ambitions and its perceptions
of moral imperative. Your comments are a
refreshing change from the "you guys at ATol are a
bunch of commies" crowd - as well as their
counterparts in the "Bush is an asshole" camp. -
ATol
Interviewee Andrew Bacevich
(The delusions of global
hegemony, Part 1 , May 25) states that
the most influential people in the US
administration "really believed" in "bizarre
delusions". Delusion unfortunately seems to have
had too important a role throughout US history. It
is only because of the gigantic scope and scale of
tools and methods, at the disposal of rulers so
out of touch with direct dealing with the basic
day-to-day existence of most of humanity that the
delusion has become bizarre. Weaponry, finance,
means of communication and transportation have
become scaled so large as to be nearly beyond
democratic reach. Yet the rulers' sincerity of
belief, however delusional, that the best
interests of the ruled are being pursued should
attenuate the vehemence of criticism of such a
regime, in which we've almost all had at least an
acquiescent part. As most all of us partake of the
destructive and dehumanized network of livelihood
support that the US claims to promote and protect,
deposing the current regime without overhaul of
our livelihood dependencies would itself be only
slightly less bizarre. It is symbolically
appropriate if people from the [US] Army and
marines, bearing the brunt of denigration, are
best placed to speak up in opposition to a regime
that has gone too far. For has the US military
itself not been maybe the world's worst devastater
of earth and polluter of water, even with no
direct intent? Is it not bizarrely delusional to
protect while underestimating harm to the
protected? The earth and the water of all of our
livelihoods seems unable to yield or forgive any
longer, "and we're paying the consequences now".
All eyes should be on the people of the US, from
retired generals to any small person with a voice,
as we hope they dispel our pessimism that the US
can assume the non-delusional role so many of us
wish for their and all of our benefit.
D
Vernon
Toronto,
Ontario (May 25, '06)
In an early upload of this
article, we incorrectly said that Part 2 of the
interview would run in today's edition. We hope to
have Part 2 online in time for the weekend. - ATol
[Re
Iran deploys its war
machine , May 24] The Iranians may be
fooling themselves if they think an asymmetrical
defense can save them. Even our [US military]
Gilbert & Sullivan Joint Chiefs can see that a
conventional attack on Iran would be disastrous
and beyond the reasonable domestic political
limits of our country. The only feasible means to
take out Iran for the foreseeable future as a
"threat" (as defined by the Defense Department and
West Wing [White House] civilian draft-dodgers,
and military G&S stand-ins, who have shaky
knees and gelatinous spines to begin with) is by a
Hiroshima-style holocaust. Such an attack, say 10
[million] or 12 million casualties, or more if
necessary, would leave them [Iranians] so
demoralized that it is unlikely they could scare
even [George W] Bush or [Richard] Cheney for a
decade or two. If properly done it might leave the
southeastern oil facilities and the Strait of
Hormuz available. But with The Gang That Can't
Shoot Straight, who can tell? This [Bush]
administration has shown itself impervious to such
considerations as respect for the decent opinions
of mankind. Bush's kill rate has already reached
and, depending on what reasonably authoritative
estimate you accept, may have exceeded Saddam
[Hussein]'s (over 20-plus years). He has with
perfect equanimity put Saddam's prisons to good
use, but with our slightly less egregious forms of
torture. It is but a short step to Hiroshima
squared. And if they were afraid of Saddam, they
must be really terrified of Iran. It is to the
benefit of both the Bushies and Israel ... to
isolate us so that the former can continue to
terrify a demoralized population, made over into
their own image, to their advantage; and the
latter can finally maneuver us into a position
where it is our only ally ... As a cultural
libertarian I would not presume to counsel the
Iranians as to their best course (a largely
forgotten, but treasured by some, expression in
the United States is "Better death than
dishonor "), but they should be aware that the
America they are dealing with today has little in
common with the America so long admired by so
many.
Anthony J Van Patten
Glendale, California (May 25,
'06)
In
Yellow journalism and chicken
hawks (May 24), Jim Lobe identifies me
as a member of Benador Associates; I am not. Had
Mr Lobe fact-checked his article with reference to
the Benador Associates website, he could have
ascertained this. This error requires a
correction.
Michael Rubin (May 25,
'06)
We
stand corrected and Michael Rubin's name has been
removed. - ATol
I just want to say that our
"Frank of Seattle" has learned a lot from ATol.
[For the] first time in three years or so I saw
that he has made serious comments [letter, May 24]
over Sudha Ramachandran's article of May 24 [India's rite of summer: Death
from the heat ], though it really
surprised to me not to see to see his usual
rhetoric - "white master", "licking master's
shoes".
Shekhar Mehta
Chicago, Illinois (May 25,
'06)
Re
Bob Hoye's The 'peak oil' deja
vu [May 23]: This article is an
argument by analogy and totally ignores the
empirical evidence that we are approaching peak
oil - a concept Hoye does not even define. Nor
does he mention - let alone refute - M King
Hubbert's work on the linearization model that
accurately predicted peak oil in the US lower 48
states, nor does Hoye deal with the empirical
facts of Burgan [oilfield] in Kuwait and Cantarell
in Mexico going into decline, nor the Saudis'
futile efforts to raise production. The list of
declining [oil] fields grows as nothing
approaching them in size is discovered. This is
one of the poorest articles you've ever published.
Typically you have excellent stories, but this is
sheer ignorance.
Dan Bednarz (May 25,
'06)
ATol
editor: Your point is well taken that Saddam
Hussein's tyranny and atrocities were of the
secular kind [note under Sreekanth's letter of May
24]. That being said, the Iraqi people and the
rest of the world are far better off without him.
In terms of reasons, though I agree with President
[George W] Bush's actions, it is indeed a matter
for regret that he did not initially describe his
strategic reasoning to the American public, and
instead relied on WMD [weapons of mass
destruction] innuendo. The clearest big-picture
reasoning on the subject was his little-noticed address in
October 2005.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (May 25, '06)
The world is full of horrible
dictators and other political leaders whom we all,
and especially the people they directly tyrannize
or keep in misery through their negligence,
incompetence or greed, would be better off
without. That is not and never has been the point
as far as many non-Americans are concerned. The
point is, should the US be the only nation
permitted to overthrow any state it happens not to
approve of? Is not such a rogue superpower far
more disruptive to global order than a tinpot
dictator like Saddam Hussein? - ATol
Thank you for Sudha
Ramachandran's [May 24] article India's rite of
summer: Death from the heat. We in the West,
especially the NRIs (non-resident Indians), need
to be constantly reminded that much of what we
hear about India's economic progress, et al, is
propaganda meant to feed the already engorged
Indian ego, both at home and abroad. While India
has certainly taken gigantic economic strides,
these don't amount a "fart in the wind" (to use a
phrase borrowed from the satanic prison warden,
Norton, in The Shawshank
Redemption) when our most vulnerable (who
number in the hundreds of millions) are not just
ignored, but abused and treated as acceptable
"collateral damage" in the insatiable march
towards corporate profits that line the pockets of
a privileged few. Unfortunately, given India's
enormous populace coupled with the callousness of
its elected officials and the minuscule value its
society places on the lives of the downtrodden,
things are likely to remain the same (if not
worsen).
Fareed Zahid
USA (May 24,
'06)
I am
glad that Sudha Ramachandran understands that "it
is not the heat wave per se that is killing
people, but an unresponsive government machinery"
[India's rite of
summer: Death from the heat, May 24]. However,
Sudha should dig a little deeper into the issue.
Why does a democratic government fail to respond
to its people year after year? Were there any
congressional hearings? Probably not. There would
be a lot of empty hearings. At least nobody is
found responsible for ignoring the cry of help
from India's own citizens. India's half-baked
democratic system is apparently not working.
Democracy is not just about voting. It is about
the voices of citizens. Those poor Indian citizens
need the India government to provide them with
clean drinking water, food, shelter and decent
clothes, not just voting rights. When the Indian
government fails to listen to its citizens' basic
survival needs, empty votes do not mean much. When
millions of Indians can barely be alive, whom do
they care to vote for?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 24,
'06)
Thanks for exposing people
like Amir Taheri [Yellow
journalism and chicken hawks, May 24]. It
helps ordinary people like me to understand more
care is needed in reading the news. In Canada, the
National Post is often regarded by many to distort
international news for its own purposes.
Dave
Chiu (May 24, '06)
The article Iran deploys
its war machine [May 24] concludes by stating:
"It is dealing with a country that is
significantly more powerful than Iraq,
Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam and every other
country bar Germany that it has fought." The
paragraph forgot the Japanese Empire that the US
also defeated. In the '30s both Germany and Japan
built their military where it was second to none.
Both nations had advanced air forces and naval
forces that included aircraft carriers, something
that Iran at this moment does not have even one,
yet the US and its allies were able to defeat both
powers. If a war were to break now, Iran would be
facing formidable and highly advanced armies of
the US and its coalition and Israel that do have
aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and
advanced military satellite systems. This group of
nations really doesn't need to deploy vast numbers
of troops on Iranian soil. Quite a lot of damage
could be done by nuclear submarines equipped with
nuclear weapons from these nations. They can
easily secure the Strait of Hormuz and cut Iran's
military oil supply without deploying soldiers to
do the job. In addition, all of Iran's foreign
assets will be frozen, an act that Iran cannot do
to its enemies. It can freeze its oil exports to
these nations but that would amount to cutting
one's nose to spite one's face. One of Iran's
biggest flaws is its confidence in its military
and the assurance that it will win no matter what
the odds are.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (May 24, '06)
Regarding Sreeram Chaulia's
Why all is
quiet on the American home front [May 24],
it's hard to know where to start commenting on it,
because he seems to have started with the
assumption that deposing Saddam Hussein and
jump-starting democracy in Iraq was wrong and
evil, and wonders why right-thinking people don't
protest. Maybe I should pick on the alleged
coupling between minorities and opposition to war,
and in particular that immigrants should be
"stirred" by the effort to restrict illegal
immigration, and therefore also oppose the war in
Iraq. [I] don't quite see the connection there. In
fact, it is patronizing to say that minorities and
immigrants should be opposed to the Iraq war (or
the Vietnam War, for that matter) because it
presumes that they are not able to reason at the
strategic level that the one was a proxy war
against communism and the other is a proxy war
against Islamist extremism. It is also
historically inaccurate to say that US citizens
had no fear of losing life and limb from the
Soviets: during the Cuban missile crisis, there
was actually a very real possibility of nuclear
war on American soil. Similarly now, in spite of
Cindy Sheehan and other "grassroots" protests, the
majority of Americans have seen first-hand after
[September 11, 2001] that our way of life and our
personal security [are] under very real threat,
and are responding accordingly.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (May 24, '06)
But there was little or no
overt Islamist extremism in Iraq before the US-led
invasion. The available evidence is that Saddam
Hussein despised Osama bin Laden and had nothing
to do with September 11 or any other terrorist act
directed at Americans. Surely it's time for
Americans to put that red herring to rest and do
some serious analysis of the real reasons for
taking over Iraq. - ATol
In his ignorance and
provincialism, Spengler cannot see any conflict in
terms others than 1930s Germany [This time the
crocodile won't wait, May 23].
Lester Ness
Changchun, China (May 24,
'06)
I
should be obliged if you would publish my comments
on the article The Israel
lobby: How powerful is it really? [May 23].
The misfortune that plagues the Muslims has the
West as its origin and Israel, who |
