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.

June 2006

The article Why Iran is taking its time [Jun 30] by Sanam Vakil is far from reality. There is not a single Muslim country whose majority of youth is pro-American, not even that of Iraq, which has been "liberated" by the American forces. And now everyone has come to realize that regime change in Iran is out of question, at least for the time being. Some of your guest writers are very balanced, but some are extremely absurd, like this one. I think you should suggest your guest writers maintain a balance and stay in touch with reality. Otherwise, I fear your guest writers' page [Speaking Freely department] could become merely a tool of outrageous propaganda.
S Imam (Jun 30, '06)


I read the thoughtful news analysis by Jason Motlagh titled The US proxies who haunt Washington on June 29. However, Mr Motlagh has got one fact wrong. In the analysis, he wrote, "Although the Cold War was over and Ethiopia defeated, experts say grassroots Somalis never completely forgot their ousted ruler's harmful links with the United States." Ethiopia has never lost any war with Somalia, and this statement is misleading if not outrageous. Such an act of ignorance would certainly tarnish your reputation, and I request prompt correction to the error. One final note: What does Saharan Africa mean according to ATol?
Abebaw (Jun 30, '06)

In 1977, Somalia attempted to make the Ethiopian region of Ogaden part of "Greater Somalia", triggering a war between the two countries that lasted into 1978. The Soviet Union backed Ethiopia in that conflict, prompting the US to switch its own allegiance from Ethiopia to Somalia. While it is true that the Somalis were eventually driven out of Ogaden, the "defeat" in the sentence you quote refers to the Cold War (in which nominally pro-Soviet Ethiopia was on the "losing" side), not the Ogaden War. "Saharan Africa" refers to the African countries wholly or partially in the Sahara, and the article identifies those affected by the US Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative. - ATol


Jakob Cambria's comments ([letter] Jun 29) on Ting-I Tsai's No winners in Taiwan's recall campaign [Jun 29] are truly superficial, comments that can be made by anyone with no understanding of the situation. The KMT [Kuomintang] faction knew full well that there would not be a two-thirds vote for a successful recall before it was initiated. That they still pressed on was to show by a majority vote (over one-half) to set a historical record and to embarrass Chen [Shui-bian], prompting the latter to defend himself, culminating in admitting taking "indirect" gift coupons by his family. Likewise his accountant has been "lax" in not reporting his wife having received precious jewels worth tens of millions of dollars. In the roll call in the legislature, all DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] legislators did not show up to cast a vote. Why? They would not cast a vote against recalling a corrupt president before the eyes of the people, lest they will be remembered as supporting corruption in the next election. The smaller party led by Lee Teng-hui, part of the "green" faction, all cast voided votes for the same reason, but more clearly with an intent to chastise Chen. So Mr Cambria's statement, "That is a victory in itself" for Chen, is an understatement of superficial observation.
S P Li (Jun 30, '06)


The reason that Jakob Cambria [letter, Jun 29] thinks [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian is a winner in his recall campaign is because Jakob does not know that Chen played the race card to keep his job. He segregates Taiwanese people to Chinese and non-Chinese. Therefore, Chen can no longer declare that he represents 23 million people in Taiwan. To his surprise, [fewer] than 20% of Taiwanese support him. Most of them are non-Chinese peasants in south Taiwan. Some of them even talk about breaking the southern seven counties away from Taiwan simply because of their high non-Chinese concentrations. How can this split house stand for long? Therefore, there is no need for Chinese to attack those non-Chinese as Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jun 29] wanted to see. I do not think those people like Jakob Cambria and Daniel McCarthy really care about Taiwan or any other part of Asia. That is why when Chinese siblings from both sides of the Taiwan Strait [are] shaking hands, discussing permanent peace, they want to watch the killings and chaos through their TV screens in the bar, so they can have good laughs [at] them. However, I think Chinese people will put on a different show which may disappoint them eventually. Maybe it is time for them to find a different subject to laugh [about]. How about India? Nobody cares about India?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 30, '06)


I agree with the analysis by Francesco Sisci in his article Hu Jintao's reform tightrope [Jun 29]. Enough Marxist teachings have sunk into the consciousness of even the greediest and most corrupted ex-communists for them to realize that the so-called model, "primitive capital accumulations", which the [Chinese Communist] Party has followed for the last three decades or so, can only go so far and no more if it still wishes to hold on to power. With this presupposition in mind I can say that Hu will in time force his "comrades" to see that their long-term interests actually lie in having the necessary economic and political reforms, be it private-property rights or democracy. On the other hand I fail to see how, according to Mr Sisci, events or development in the province of Taiwan can have much impact on the reforms on the mainland. Nearly every thinking Chinese realizes that Taiwan is a card which the US will continue to play against the interests of the Chinese people. Some optimistic foreign observers see the recent KMT vs DPP [Kuomintang versus Democratic Progressive Party] anti-corruption episode as the strengthening of democratic culture of the Taiwanese and the setting up of Taiwan as an example of democracy to wake up the democratic instinct of the mainlanders. Other pessimistic observers think this continuing episode is a prelude to a political upheaval on the island leading to a declaration of independence and a military response from China before 2008 as envisaged by David Fullbrook in his article China treated to a sight of US might [Jun 28]. To most thinking Chinese, those politicians in Taiwan are no more than puppet-clowns. However, this is not to say that they agree with Jeff Church that Chinese need do little by way of unification effort, and that unification would simply come when China achieves its economic growth and augments its national strength. Will the US allow China to rise? That is the question. Chinese understands what the US means by "integrating China into the world community as a responsible stakeholder". Chinese do not see its [China's] prospect in a Pax Americana. The US will continue to feature prominently in China's efforts to achieve reformation and unification, but the timetable and the strategy will be entirely China's own.
Harry Lee
UK (Jun 30, '06)


Michael Scheuer's commentary Al-Qaeda's nuke plot: Facts and failures [Jun 28] suggests that the al-Qaeda is seriously considering using a nuclear weapon on the US. Such an attack will change the entire scene of the current war which is being waged using conventional weapons. A nuclear strike on the US would change all of this. First the war will be ratcheted up where non-conventional weapons will have a legitimate use. Second, unlike after [September 11, 2001], President [George W] Bush will declare that the US is in a state of war and enforce the "war powers act" which will give him the power to control the media and arrest those [who] oppose the war. Finally, the US will have the "moral authority" to use nuclear weapons if it deems it necessary and all local dissent on that decision will be stopped. It would be the biggest mistake for al-Qaeda to play the "nuke" game with a seasoned nuclear power like the US [that] has large stockpiles of this weapon and has proved that it will use it as in the case with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If there is anything that will unite the opposing elements in the US it would be a nuclear strike on US soil by al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda will regret such a move.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 30, '06)

What if the al-Qaeda operatives were working out of the United States itself, as they did on September 11, 2001? Is Bush going to nuke Logan International Airport in Boston? Al-Qaeda is a movement, not a state as Japan was in World War II. You can't nuke a movement. - ATol


Maoists' objective to make Nepal a democratic country with a civilized society (Nepal makes way for the comrades, Dhruba Adhikary [Jun 20]), sounds very appealing, but how can one be guaranteed that [they] will be better than the autocratic monarchy or any other political parties? The incidents that happened during the Maoist insurgency should not be forgotten. The addition of another communist country in this democratic world will definitely be disturbing.
Tanya White
Perth, Australia (Jun 30, '06)


In the article Myanmar: Missing the wood for the trees [Jun 9], Samuel Blythe criticizes Global Witness's advocacy efforts to halt the destructive cross-border timber trade between Burma (Myanmar) and China. Unfortunately, he bases his conclusions on a flawed analysis of Global Witness's approach. He narrowly focuses on the "legality" aspects of Global Witness's work on Burma while bypassing the in-depth analysis and recommendations provided in our reports (available from GlobalWitness.org). Furthermore, he misrepresents our analysis of legality/illegality in Burma, leaving the reader with a skewed impression of our position. Global Witness does not seek to have the regime monopolize logging in Burma. To the contrary, we have called for a halt to all unsustainable logging in the country and are working with different actors to achieve that end. The situation is grave and, rather than just waiting on regime change, we are seeking to promote incremental changes within Burma's notoriously difficult political landscape. Without factoring in the role of China, which is the largest importer of timber from Burma, any international efforts to halt the forest destruction in Burma would be at best very limited, [and] at worst in vain. In order to get the Chinese government to take its responsibility seriously, we have exposed the fact that almost all of the timber trade between the two countries, in addition to being unsustainable and having negative impacts for long-term sustainable development in the region, is illegal according to both Burmese and Chinese laws. Legality is a murky issue in Burma, which we have discussed in detail in our reports. Nevertheless, the fact that government and army officials systematically disregard, breach or misuse the law in their own favor does not render unlawful acts "legal" or irrelevant. We are fully aware that "legal" does not always mean "sustainable". Equally, slowing down the timber trade on the China-Burma border does not solve the problem in itself. It is one step which buys time for Burma's northern forests. As a result of work by Global Witness and others, illegal and unsustainable logging in Burma is now a high-profile issue both inside and outside the country. It is crucial that this is now accompanied by efforts from all stakeholders, in particular the Burmese government, to promote genuine sustainable forest management and - importantly - include local communities in this process. Like the health crises, we don't think that the logging issue can simply be ignored until the situation is terminal.
Mike Davis
Campaigner, Global Witness (Jun 30, '06)


The inability of Taiwan's Kuomintang to oust President Chen Shui-bian shows its weakness. And so it is rather grand of Ting-I Tsai to say that there were No winners in Taiwan's recall campaign [Jun 29]. The KMT's campaign failed. Mr Chen emerged bruised but still in office. That is a victory in itself. It is not a Pyrrhic victory. As Tsai points out, there are two years remaining in Mr Chen's mandate. A lot can happen in those 24 months, and in the twists and turns in Taiwan-China relations, his fortunes may very well see brighter days, and therefore point to more encouraging results for the Democratic Progressive Party and its standard [bearer] in the next general elections.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 29, '06)


There is one missing element in Ting-I Tsai's No winners in Taiwan recall campaign (Jun 29). The statement "while none of the accusations have been proved and Chen hasn't been directly linked" is misleading. The reason is [that] serious investigation is stalled. There have been no searches in the house of the son-in-law of Chen [Shui-bian] for the last two months up to now. There has been no interview with Chen's wife to clear up the Sogo gift-coupons question. The president's spokesman dangled some vouchers but would not allow the media to examine whether they were fake, to clear the accusation that someone's expense receipts at a five-star hotel have been collected and used by Chen's wife to claim from the government treasury as legitimate expenses in the president's office. One can go on and on. To sum it up, there is no independent judiciary [or] investigation.
S P Li (Jun 29, '06)


In reference to the article The US proxies who haunt Washington [Jun 29]: This is a recap of just some of the snafus which haunt the sensible, caring, and peace-loving minority in the US. Which, I might add, is also a declining minority. Washington could [not] care less whether or not their policies [engulf] the whole world in flames as long as the "interests" of their supporters is promoted. The following is the conclusion of a discussion at a recent family gathering of seven teachers and educators. Since the Reagan administration, the US education system has been churning out ever more conservative and isolationist educators who train students to pass qualification tests instead of imparting true knowledge. This is why the likes of Rush Limbaugh [are] so popular. And as these students come back into the education system as teachers, it becomes an ever decreasing font of knowledge. Most US citizens couldn't find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map if their life depended on it. It is also the driving force behind these poor souls who are promoting Intelligent Design. This dementia has now matriculated to our members of Congress and all levels of our government. So the powers behind the scenes in Washington can rest assured that as long as they keep feeding their propaganda to this ever more receptive population, they will have the control necessary to keep haunting this decreasing minority. It is a sad time.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 29, '06)


Re India on power trip as nuke deal advances [Jun 29] by Siddharth Srivastava ... Has he even read the agreement/bill making its way (now passed) through the [US] Congress or does he just rely on statements made by anti-national-government officials and politicians (what an irony!)? As many well-read, informed, patriotic commentators have suggested (M K Bhadrakumar, Brahma Chellaney), it's a sellout of India to the US as a client state by accepting the terms in this treaty. Among other things (playing against Iran etc), it stipulates that India cap its fissile-material production ... What self-respecting nationals would agree to such a clause but the Indian wimps?
Gailabh (Jun 29, '06)


In my opinion, Francesco Sisci, in his article Hu Jintao's reform tightrope (Jun 29), exaggerated Taiwan's political impact on Chinese mainland reform and mischaracterized the Ma Ying-jeou person and factor. "China must change because of Taiwan and because of Ma Ying-jeou ... Meanwhile 'pro-unification' Ma Ying-jeou is rolling in ... But Ma, chairman of Taiwan's opposition Kuomintang (KMT), is a different kettle of fish." While I certainly believe that Taiwan will continue to have populace-driven influence on Chinese mainland reform, it would be unlikely to heavily influence directives from top mainland Chinese leadership on reform. In the future, Taiwan would be far too vulnerable and have too few options to have such direct role on the mainland. If Taiwan really had such power and options, it would not opt for reunification. As much as reunification is inevitable (in my opinion contingent only on the mainland's continual economic success and social stability), it is also not imminent, since the mainland would need decades to achieve lopsided commercial and military advantages over the island. Mr Ma would not be pro-unification; he would be too early a person for reunification. He would try to ameliorate the damage that his predecessors Lee [Teng-hui] and Chen [Shui-bian] have done by recklessly placing Taiwan under the stoplight of mainland politics, and he would only deploy dilatory tactics. It might even be true that Mr Ma's concept of one-China resembles that of the Chinese mainland being a part of Taiwan, ROC [Republic of China]. I tend to think that the mainland side does not - and also cannot - face a tightrope in reunification. In addition to one-China with Taiwan as a part of the PRC [People's Republic of China] being inevitable in the decades to come, there appears to be no other alternative, any other version of different or greater accommodating patience from the mainland side, which would lead to an eventual unitary government consisting of both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. If the mainland were to retract from the objective of an eventual unitary Chinese government, what other arrangement would Taiwan be willing to enter into? Reunification has to be based on peaceful coercion, it seems, so the mainland side cannot and need not aim for any objective other than such eventual unitary Chinese government, in my opinion.
Jeff Church
USA (Jun 29, '06)


Andrei Lankov's June 28 article North Koreans turned on but tuned out contains several misleading claims about Voice of America's broadcasts to North Korea. First, he's wrong to say that VOA "focuses on promoting America's image" and then to conclude that "because the topics of VOA programs are largely about the US, its appeal is somewhat limited". In fact, while VOA provides comprehensive news about the United States and the world, the main focus of our Korean broadcasts is on North Korea and on news and information that would be of interest to North Koreans. Every day, nearly half of VOA's daily Korean-language broadcast is devoted to fresh, in-depth news and information about what is happening inside North Korea. Independent research as well as reports from defectors have shown that our shows focusing on news and developments about North Korea are our most popular programs. And when we report news about the rest of the world, including the United States, we start with stories that would be of particular interest to North Korean listeners. Lankov also errs in implying that VOA's listenership in North Korea lags other international broadcasters. The fact is, research over the last few years has shown that VOA's audience in North Korea is larger than any other international broadcaster except South Korea's KBS Radio Liberty, which airs 24 hours a day compared to VOA's three hours. In 2005, the most recent data available, VOA's estimated audience share was 10%. The newly established Radio Free North Korea was not even a factor. Finally, Lankov's assertion that North Koreans think the United States is "the embodiment of evil" is not supported by many North Korean defectors. Last month, one of them told the Wall Street Journal that she decided to flee North Korea after hearing a VOA broadcast. In a later interview with us, she explained: "I started listening to VOA Korean in 2000 when I was in China. I was so happy to hear Korean-language broadcasting. There were a lot of stories about North Korean defectors and they really touched me. One particular report talked about a defector who went to South Korea through Mongolia, and I began to have a hope that I might do that some day too and I began seeking help. I just can't imagine how important VOA Korean was in leading me into the US." Was the US "the embodiment of evil" to her? It doesn't sound like it.
David Jackson
Director, Voice of America (Jun 29, '06)

People who risked life and limb to flee to the US don't agree that the US is "the embodiment of evil" - doesn't that kind of go without saying? - ATol


Regarding China treated to a sight of US might (Jun 28), letter writer M Henri Day, PhD, MD (Stockholm, Sweden [Jun 28]) may be correct that neither the government nor military has given any consideration whatsoever to attempting a military takeover of Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. But I doubt it. Anyone who has paid any attention to the Chinese press at all knows that the concept has been analyzed in fine detail up through the highest echelons of the Chinese government. Eventually, however, consensus was reached that if China is to attempt to implement a military takeover of Taiwan, it should be done a couple of years after the Olympics, not before. After all, such timing worked well for [Adolf] Hitler. Berlin 1936 ... Beijing 2008. Poland 1937 ... Taiwan 2009.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 29, '06)


I really think President [George W] Bush should re-evaluate his friendship with Japanese Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi. Imagine if President Bush's twin daughters had been raped, tortured and murdered. Then, suppose that his "friend" publicly honors and even worships the main ringleaders behind the crime. Well, that is what Koizumi is doing by worshipping the 14 Class A war criminals who are included at Yasukuni Shrine. As many people have pointed out, it is no different than if [former German chancellor] Gerhardt Schroeder and [current Chancellor] Angela Merkel were to include and worship the 14 top Nazis at a German war memorial.
Brian Brown
Toronto, Ontario (Jun 29, '06)


Re China treated to a sight of US might [Jun 28]: No dispassionate observer of the situation in the Taiwan Strait can reasonably doubt that the present Chinese leadership seeks to preserve the status quo there, and has no intention whatever to engage in any adventure designed to forcibly reunite the island with the mainland. Signals have indeed been sent to both the United States and the Taiwanese authorities (and to the Japanese) that Beijing would consider an attempt to unilaterally change the present situation a casus belli, but that is a very different matter, and seeks rather to discourage than encourage adventurism. So serious an allegation as David Fullbrook's to the effect that "China's leaders might believe the American public will not stand for another conflict, strengthening the case for attacking Taiwan before the election and the Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008" certainly ought to be backed by more evidence than he presents, which is none at all.
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jun 28, '06)


As I read China treated to a sight of US might by David Fullbrook (Jun 28), I was perplexed by the author's complete lack of appreciation for the key features across the Taiwan Strait: Taiwan's size and geography, the ultimate grand objective of the USA for Greater China, and the patience and resourcefulness of the PRC [People's Republic of China]. He states, "Despite its bluster, mainland China's military is far from being able to launch a massive amphibious invasion across 100 miles of sea to Taiwan's beaches. Instead, a rapid buildup of missiles in Fujian province, opposite Taiwan, would allow Beijing to crush Taiwan's will to resist by attacking its leaders, generals and command networks." First, I think that the PRC leadership has no plan, ever, and no anticipated need to attack Taiwan with comprehensive force, even if it might feel compelled to do so very reluctantly by Taiwan's declaration of independence, which now seems less and less likely. Second, Taiwan is an island without energy [and] very vulnerable to mere sporadic harassment of its energy supply in the decades to come, as the mainland achieves completely lopsided commercial and military advantages over the island. In the decades to come, mainland China would likely be able to, with almost no bloodshed, apply mounting pressure as gradually erosive threats of the threats on the island to compel it to negotiate for autonomy within the one-China design. Taiwan's theoretical alternative would be to start an attack on the mainland to draw the USA into a conflict; the island won't have such resolve. Third, while the USA's immediate fear is devastation on Taiwan, which it makes clear as the red line it will not brook, it also fears bloodshed on the Chinese mainland, as its required ultimate grand objective is the permanent globally salubrious solution to the problem of the rising populous China. The ultimate grand objective is the global integration of the PRC, as long as such integration appears hopeful irrespective of Taiwan's political future. Incidentally, it is also concerned about Taiwan's long-term benefits, which would be negated by a festering injured mainland China. In addition, the USA has no procedure to confirm that most people in Taiwan prefer to lose life and property, to jettison the niche of autonomy within the PRC, which Hong Kong would continue to enjoy and broadcast to the world. Therefore, it would find it very difficult to start a war without the inexpressible approval of the people of Taiwan. Last, that mainland China's own energy supply could also be vulnerable in theory, even well into the 2010s, would likely be irrelevant because of the third reason stated. The USA would have ample reasons to acquiesce to peaceful coercion on Taiwan, as the alternative of protracted suspense would be increasingly dreadful, perilous, and detrimental to Taiwan's economy, its last bargaining chips. Besides, the mainland would have alternative energy sources, alternative energy routes, and also huge petroleum reserves (due to its size and the absence of NIMBY ["not in my back yard" syndrome]). Taiwan's growing economic dependence on the mainland would also make it very vulnerable. It seems to me that eventual reunification across the Taiwan Strait is inevitable if the PRC is patient and could overcome the many serious problems inherent within the Chinese mainland.
Jeff Church
USA (Jun 28, '06)


Reading Francesco Sisci's article Hu Jintao and the new China [Jun 28] makes me wonder [whom] he is working for. His unquestioning belief that increased consumption equals a "better life" for rural people [reflects] the same growth-at-all-costs mentality that has gotten the planet into the environmental mess it is [in] today. Disingenuous is his claim that privatization will result in companies using the savings from lower interest rates to purchase "cleaner equipment". When has that happened anywhere?
Emanuel Draviso (Jun 28, '06)

Part 2 of Francesco Sisci's report, Hu Jintao's reform tightrope, is now online. - ATol


I wish to compliment you and Sudha Ramachandran for a balanced view of the Myanmar situation [India embraces Myanmar on its own terms, Jun 28]. I am happy that India decided to do something sensible, at least now, and both sides need to be complimented ... You can never rebuild Myanmar for its people unless you are interested in engaging with whatever are the structures to engage. If it is generals, let it be ... Hysterical paranoia that the US policy spreads is hardly the way ...
Dr Venkat Pulla
Brisbane, Australia (Jun 28, '06)


Dr Andrei Lankov has a donnish way of tackling his subject in North Koreans turned on but turned out [Jun 28]. Let him take off his scholar's gown and reflect on what he said. Professor Lankov posits that listening to the radio is "the easiest and cheapest way" of bringing about change in North Korea. He has taken an ahistorical approach to the question of change in society. Were his view to obtain, then his former homeland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, would have fallen to the sound waves of Radio Free Europe, or Fidel Castro's iron grip on Cuba would have relaxed to the broadcasts of Radio Marti. Surely the scholar that Andrei Lankov [is] must needs realize that he is voicing a deep-felt hope for rapid change in North Korea. It is a use of verbal enchantment of wishing that it were so.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 28, '06)


As usual, Spengler just doesn't get it (Prisoner's dilemma in Tehran, [Jun 27]). Anyone who fails to understand how much Iran and the US have in common right now, how much they need each other, is likely to not get it. Iran is getting ready to enter the "club" - the WTO [World Trade Organization], the nuclear-power elite, foreign direct investment by major corporations, particularly the oil multinationals, and diplomatic normalization with the US - that's what is on the negotiation table, and none of the parties to this negotiation want to lose this chance. They need it and the world needs it. It is not hard to imagine a conversation between [US] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President George Bush, in which she tells him that he has the opportunity to open up Iran as [president Richard] Nixon opened up China. This is nothing less than Bush's one last opportunity in his presidency to salvage his place in history. Spengler's pontificating about "US military action against Iran by Halloween" reminds me of his column in which he predicted that the Russian military would be coming into Iraq to help the US win the occupation [When Grozny comes to Fallujah, Jul 27, '04]. Now as then, it's not going to happen, Spengler. How about "an opening to Iran" by Halloween?
David Sheegog
Paoli, Oklahoma (Jun 28, '06)


Commendations to the editors of ATol for deciding to promote a new Spengler's Forum as well as an updated photo, that admittedly looks a bit Frankensteinish. As a sometime contributor to ATol's The Edge,  one can attest to the popularity of Spengler's present forum. It has since its original inception attracted a constant number of posters. It has to be pointed though that in recent weeks the tone of some contributors has stretched the decorum of the forum [as] in several instance posters have been threatened by other posters to the effect that their names will be provided to the Mossad and/or diaries will be kept of their postings. Hopefully the decision to provide Spengler with a singular and special niche courtesy of and hosted by ATol will lessen the vulgarity that detracted from the caliber of discussions that had become de rigeur. Good move, ATol.
Armand DeLaurell (Jun 27, '06)


Re Spengler's Forum: Considering the fact that Spengler's main obsession seems to be "death and destruction" and the fact that in his last few articles he appears to be salivating at the prospects of a fresh conflict in West Asia (Iran) [Prisoner's dilemma in Tehran, Jun 27], your choice of the image of a skull is indeed apt. The only thing missing is the crossbones.
Gautam
Noida, India (Jun 27, '06)


Francesco Sisci says much but not enough in Pyongyang's antics catch out Beijing [Jun 27]. He forgets [late Chinese leader] Deng Xiaoping's use of the ... aphorism that Beijing is to Pyongyang as the lips are to teeth, on a state visit to [then North Korean leader] Kim Il-sung. It is true the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [DPRK] is secretive, but it does not mean that Beijing has no avenues of communications with [Pyongyang]. Pyongyang has signaled more than once that it is ready to talk to the United States, but Washington has turned a deaf ear to North Korea. In fact, for [US President George W] Bush, it is to his designs that a protracted "dialogue of the deaf" endures. Beijing is aware of America's designs. It finds itself in a difficult position: the profusion of billions of dollars is accelerating its industrial revolution. On the other hand, it remains a steadfast ally of the DPRK, for geopolitical and knee-jerk-reflex reasons as a failed communist state. It is very much in China's interest to calm muddy waters, but Washington is not cooperating. It may even remember those pre-Nixon years when the United States threw thunderbolts of threats in Beijing's direction, as [it is] doing today with Pyongyang. Mr Sisci thinks that Pyongyang has caught Beijing off-center. It has not. Anyhow, Pyongyang's saber-rattling is but a response to the bellicose Bush policy towards North Korea. Beijing is not unaware of Pyongyang's baby steps in either rocketry or in its development of nuclear weapons ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 27, '06)


Pallavi Aiyar should dig a little deeper about the China-India border issue (China, India: No ground given in border talks [Jun 27]). Indian people should understand that Chinese people can never accept the borders forced upon them by India's master, England. How can they accept that border forced upon them by England's servant? English masters did not leave Asia for their Indian servants. They were kicked out of Asia by Asians. If those English servants insisted on setting up tents inside China, then they should not complain that Chinese people broke their backs. The so-called argumentive Indians normally do not argue logically. They normally either attack the messengers or cut, paste and pile [on] long, boring, nonsense information ... That is why, out of 14 neighbors, India is the only country that cannot settle its borders with China. Actually, India cannot settle its borders with any of its own neighbors. As long as Indians think they are entitled to replace their English masters to rule South Asia, there is no way that India will settle its border with any normal country. Of course, that is all other people's fault.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 27, '06)


By what stretch of the imagination does the US government feel that it has the right to be critical of another nation's missile tests [Hollow US defense for an empty threat, Jun 24]? The US tests missiles out over the Pacific and Atlantic frequently and has been doing so for decades. I wonder what would be our [Americans'] reaction if (for example) New Zealand decided to shoot down one of the US tests. What is more disconcerting is the fact that the worldwide media [are] asking none of these questions.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 27, '06)


The article Iran: US opts for regime change, not force [Jun 22] points to the vacillation of US policy regarding Iran. One moment the US is willing to preemptively strike Iran with or without the UN's agreement, an argument that Israel has also threatened; the next moment the US is willing to back off from such actions in the name of a more diplomatic approach. This back-and-forth rhetoric is not because the US government cannot make up its mind but because the situation in Iran and the surrounding areas keeps changing, either for the better as in the Karzai government [of Afghanistan] or the worse as in the rise of the Taliban-al-Qaeda nexus. Any reference that this is being done because the US's demand for oil surpasses its own stocks and [that it has] sinister plans to take over Middle Eastern oil is false. Please let me make this clear. Just in the triangle states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah (dubbed the middle east of oil) [the US] has enough oil to surpass the entire Middle Eastern reserves. Of course this oil is in shale and the process of extracting it is expensive and highly technical, but as the cost of oil continues to rise this option becomes viable. There are many other areas of the US with immense reserves of oil ... America's coastline also contains vast reserves of oil and gas. This goes for the US friend and ally Canada. Furthermore the US has not built a nuclear power plant in decades (which is going to change). The only thing holding back the US from tapping this oil is the powerful environmental lobby. But if the US is pushed against the wall, the environmentalists may have to take a back seat. To constantly make outrageous remarks that the US involvement in the Middle East is only to capture the oil is simplistic and false. The main reason the US is involved in the Middle East is that the area has become a feeding ground for terrorism al-Qaeda and Taliban style that has global security issues. The Middle East cannot bring down the US on oil embargoes as the US has too many options for its energy needs. If an embargo is issued by Iran or any other Middle Eastern nation it will have a global impact but it will be short-lived and may backfire as the world of nations will seek other options to meet their energy needs.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 27, '06)

Not even the Bush administration denies that its primary interest in the Middle East, notwithstanding its commitment to protecting Israel and the recent "democracy" crusade, is energy security. The available evidence is that the rise of al-Qaeda is due to US policy in the Middle East, especially oil-rich Saudi Arabia, not the other way around. - ATol


What happened to Jack Crooks column? Has it been discontinued?
Raymond A Jorgensen
USA (Jun 27, '06)

No, but because of his other commitments and the difficulties arising from the time difference between the US east coast where Jack Crooks operates and Thailand where Asia Times Online is edited and uploaded, it has turned out that a daily column is not always feasible. Instead, we run his forex column when he files one, several times a week.- ATol


Sudha [Ramachandran] has been writing anti-Bangladeshi articles for some time now in Asia Times [Online] and other online magazines. I tried to show how factually wrong each of [her] articles are every time. I will make another earnest attempt to do that here. First, Sudha mentioned the serial blasts [that] took place all over Bangladesh in July 2005. [She] went on and on about how it is so ominous and dangerous for Bangladesh but forgot to mention that the government so far [has] arrested more than 1,000 members of the part responsible for that attack. Not only that, every single member of the policymaking body of that group has been arrested along with a huge cache of arms. After that Sudha again mentioned the bombings of August 21 [at a rally being addressed by] Sheikh Hasina [The Talibanization of Bangladesh, Jun 24]. Funny [that she] mentions that. Police have already arrested at least four members of that group (no association with Islamists whatsoever) and all of them confessed [that] the masterminds of that attack now reside in Kokata, India. The Bangladeshi government [has] been appealing to the Indian government for the handover of those terrorists whom the Indian government arrested once and let them go. I hope Sudha can answer these two questions: Why without any proof [has she] mentioned this as an act of Islamists, and why does [she] not mention the Indian government's unwillingness to hand over those terrorists? Sudha's article is full of wrong information about our [Bangladesh's] history. [She] totally ignored (I bet intentionally) that every single party after our independence in 1971 either tolerated or looked away while some of the anti-independence forces gained ground. Not only that, first president Sheikh Mujibor Rahman gave blanket amnesty to all those criminals in 1974 ...
Hasan Mir (Jun 26, '06)


I would like to respond to Cha-am Jamal's question to me [letter, Jun 22]. Thailand and Sri Lanka have the same type of Buddhism - Therevada Buddhism - but Sri Lanka does not have a functioning monarch. When I left Sri Lanka the unfortunate were not supported by the government. They would gather around sacred buildings and rely on the donations the pilgrims make. Here in the US there is a welfare system in which the poor are given housing (many having most of the luxuries a lower-middle-class person would have such as television, refrigerator, central heating and cooling, etc). Most of these people take the US largess for granted and usually have a disparaging attitude towards the government. They love to play the "blame game" that means if anything in their lives are wrong it has to be the government's fault. This scenario is quite different than Thailand or even the Sri Lanka I knew. David Isenberg's article Hollow US defense for an empty threat [Jun 24] assumes that the entire US military R&D [research and development] and its arsenal are public knowledge. No nation "publicizes" all its secrets for the world to know. The US population does not know every aspect that is going on in the Pentagon nor what secret military R&D is taking place. To assume that we know every aspect of the US military production is a shortsighted, foolish thing to do. This goes for North Korea too. But factoring in the US military spending, which is the largest in the world, one can assume that the US may have some tricks up its sleeve that the world will know only if a war were to break out, and even then secret weaponry and covert actions may not reach the US population nor the world at large. Instead of jumping into any assumptions it is best to wait and see.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 26, '06)

And we may not have long to wait if Spengler is right. See the new article Prisoner's Dilemma in Tehran. - ATol


[Muslims, Westerners - same, same, Jun 24] is pitiful. One of the main theses of Islam is that all infidels should be put in the fire. Does that sound like they think things are okay? Pew is a slanted concern with a myopic perspective of the situation. That would have been like asking Mao [Zedong] if everybody was happy in Bejing. This is far from a realistic piece.
John Diehl (Jun 26, '06)


I would like to react to the recent article by Henry C K Liu (The lame duck and the greenhorn, Jun 23), specifically to the formulation, "In many ways the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] as currently constituted is a functioning representative democracy within the context of socialist politics." Could the author please provide an example of a senior political figure in the CCP hierarchy which actually represents some constituency by its own supreme will? As far as I was able to find out from the publicly available information, appointments in the party still proceed according to the Leninist principle of democratic centralism. Although the members of various bodies are chosen in proportions to "represent" (and appease) various groups such as national minorities, women, regions, even different opinion camps and power centers or factions within the party, these groups have no direct say on who is going to represent them and what policies he or she pursues. The decision process is very consensual and a lot of feedback is surely gathered to keep the steam under the lid, yet this is not democracy but consultative dictatorship. Negative connotations aside, even ordinary people may feel involved in this kind of regime. Occasionally one hears here in [this] former Soviet satellite that you actually had more say under the communist rule than under the present democracy: if you had a substantiated complaint, some official would probably listen to you and have the means to resolve the problem (provided, of course, that you didn't attack his colleagues or superiors or the foundations of the party rule). In a democracy, you may exercise your freedom of speech but no one will notice unless you make it big. But in the final analysis, the consultative fashion of governing makes the system very slow in responding to the world. The permanent frustration of Chinese people that even when a policy is decided upon at the top it often gets marred by the lower ranks of cadres stems precisely from this consensualism and the lack of truly democratic mandate of the leaders. After all, their authority depends solely on the allegiance of the same unyielding cadres. Perhaps the fact that [President] Hu Jintao, with his first term due to expire next year (one whole year ahead of US President [George W] Bush), is still considered a "greenhorn" and has to keep a neutral position in crucial policy matters is the best illustration of this point.
Jiri Hudecek
Prague, Czech Republic (Jun 26, '06)


There are a number of fallacies in Henry C K Liu's The lame duck and the greenhorn [Jun 23]. Mr Liu has a tendency to offer up anecdote as fact. For example, I would love to see him substantiate any claim that begins with "There is no disagreement among the youth" (paragraph 18), but I digress. No fallacy in Mr Liu's article is greater than calling President Hu Jintao a "greenhorn". I find this to be not simply mistaken but rather disingenuous. Perhaps Mr Liu is frustrated with the PRC's [People's Republic of China's] shift away from the traditional communist agenda and is denouncing the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] with a New Yorker's consummate arrogance; or perhaps Mr Liu is trying to describe the CCP as innocuous in an effort to promote communism as a model for developing nations. The latter may be achievable; but if the latter is Mr Liu's goal, I would suggest Mr Liu refrain from describing China as militarily weak, geopolitically naive, sociologically shortsighted and now, with President Hu Jintao at the reins, politically inept. As obtusely innocent as that makes the CCP sound, it does not advertise well as a model of government. After reading the wild embellishments so prevalent in Mr Liu's writing, I feel I must quote the editor of ATol for Mr Liu's benefit: "One struggles to name a country whose dealings with developing nations are wholly altruistic, or to say why they should be" [note under Jakob Cambria's letter of Jun 23]. This one quote says it all. I'd like to thank the editor of ATol for summarizing Mr Liu's critique of the "US neo-liberal trade system" and any "model" of any sort available for export to developing nations, including the one that Mr Liu may be advertising.
Terence Redux
USA (Jun 26, '06)


I read in The lame duck and the greenhorn (Jun 23) by Henry C K Liu, "An appeasement policy toward belligerent US moral imperialism, especially on the issue of interference in China's internal affairs, most glaring in the question of Taiwan on the pretext of enhancing democracy, will only prevent fundamental improvement of relations between the two countries." I cannot help but to suggest anger management to those overly fervent for the mainland cause on the Taiwan issue. Once their anger is controlled and their detraction of the USA is less knee-jerk, they would realize that the mainland cause on Taiwan has already been strategically won. The energy-dependent and more and more vulnerable island is not moving away. As the mainland achieves lopsided commercial and military advantages over Taiwan, the island has little hope of withstanding the mounting pressure in the decades to come, especially on its energy supply but also on its economic dependence on the mainland. It is Taiwan that would need to start an attack on the mainland in the hope of setting itself free by drawing the USA into a conflict, but it would not have the resolve to do so. Peaceful coercion to negotiate with diminishing bargaining chips is the most likely conclusion. When the time comes there will be moral left in the "moral imperialism" of the USA to not start a war that would completely destroy Taiwan. There would be no procedure to confirm that most people on the island prefer to sacrifice life and property, to jettison autonomy within the PRC [People's Republic of China], one that Hong Kong in the decades to come would still enjoy. Some need anger management to the same extent that others in Taiwan need reality check. All should entertain the thought that while Taiwan is more democratic and has been ruled separately for decades, it once vowed to reclaim the mainland, and diplomatic recognition favors the mainland claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
Jeff Church
USA (Jun 26, '06)


Once again you've got your finger on the pulse, [Syed Saleem] Shahzad. In fact, after reading your [Jun 23] article [The changing face of resistance], I'm convinced you're the only guy writing in the English language who truly understands where the jihad is going. I read all of your articles without fail and greatly look forward to the latest edition. Though the news from the perspective of "the West" - I'm in Canada - is not at all encouraging (I should really characterize it as "deeply distressful"), it's satisfying to be able to read the unvarnished truth for a change. My compliments to your highly insightful work.
Jason Rodham (Jun 26, '06)


Re US: Danger, danger everywhere [Jun 23]: A telling example of [how] the perversion of political discourse in a United States where Franklin Roosevelt's dictum that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" seems to have been successfully extinguished from the consciousness of the people [is] a military budget which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined - and yet it is the Other who is dangerous!
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jun 26, '06)


As I was reading prolific [letter] writer Jakob Cambria's response (Jun 23) to China's soft-power diplomacy in Africa [Jun 23], I was struck by Mr Cambria's unrelenting bashing of China at every opportunity and on every topic possible. My urge to respond to his "thesis" quickly disappears at the end when two lines from the editor of ATol appear. Thank you for your concise and eloquent statement.
S P Li (Jun 26, '06)


Re Ralph Cossa's Pyongyang will shoot itself in the foot (Jun 22): I fully agree with Mr Cossa that North Korea has a right to conduct missile tests or "satellite launches" whether the United States likes it or not. Indeed the real question that Cossa should have focused on is what gives the United States the right to judge which countries can and cannot undertake such tests. The United States says that such a test would be a "provocation". But why aren't US missile tests into the western Pacific and constant spy-plane incursions over North Korea's maritime space not "provocations"? The US position is just more of the hypocrisy and arrogance one has come to expect from the Bush administration's foreign policy. But Cossa welcomes a North Korean test not because of an objective and non-partisan recognition of its right to do so. Rather, his rationale is that a North Korean missile test will result in a firmer unified approach by the other members of the six-party talks toward North Korea and thus push the denuclearization process forward. This of course assumes that North Korea is totally wrong to want to defend itself with nuclear weapons against threats of aggression by a nuclear power. While I support denuclearization in general, Cossa's conclusion is based on several contentious premises. First, it is not at all clear that China, South Korea and Russia would all consider a North Korean missile test significant enough to overcome their differences with the United States regarding its arrogant and belligerent approach to North Korea. Second, even if a North Korean test did help forge a firmer united front vis-a-vis North Korea, there is little evidence that it would make North Korea's response any more positive. In fact, there is more evidence from North Korea's past statements and actions that it would more likely lead to a more negative attitude and actions by North Korea. Cossa then goes on to argue that by Bush administration criteria a North Korean missile test requires a preemptive strike by the United States. The work of the Pacific Forum/CSIS of which Cossa is president is purportedly "objective and non-partisan". This piece was disseminated on its website. But having read Cossa's rants and ramblings on the general topic of North Korea's nuclear ambitions for many years, I suspect that despite his protestations, a preemptive strike or a more forceful approach by the other members of the six party talks is what he prefers. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this preference, it is hardly "objective and non-partisan".
Mark J Valencia
Kaneohe, Hawaii (Jun 26, '06)


"We wonder how much comfort 'freedom' is to a father who can't feed his family. - ATol" [note under Vipin's letter of Jun 23]. I respect you for the fact that you do come up with well-researched articles. But [I] would prefer the paper to take a stand on issues rather standing behind anonymous names like ATol. Normally the snippet mentioned above deserve no reply but coming from ATol it must be answered ... I guess in North Korea or Tibet, you [would] be staring inside a barrel of a gun or the wrong end of a club. That's why freedom is important and absolutely non-negotiable.
Vipin
Mumbai, India (Jun 26, '06)

That's not an answer. Most Indians are not free from poverty - why isn't that freedom non-negotiable? Why can't Indians have an equitable economic system as well as the right to vote? - ATol


Vipin [letter, Jun 23] is right that democracy is just a means for people to have better lives. Better lives is what majority of the people want. Otherwise, people will vote with their feet like many upper-caste Indians or poor Chinese did. India made a lot of progress in economics recently. However, a large number of the GDP increases become filthy motels and stingy gas stations in Nevada or Texas. A fisherman's son can be the president in many countries. Only in India, most fisherman's sons cannot even have clean water to drink. Oh, I forgot: Indians prefer fruit juice. Many people do, only if they can afford them. Only in India, 99 cents McDonald burgers have to be protected by armed guards for the limited few, not to mention the combo meals with super-sized Coke (Coke still floundering in India [Jun 23]). Vipin wanted us to believe that there is hope for those poor Indians simply because India is a democracy. Well, they have hoped for 60 years now. What is the difference [between] India's democracy in 1947 and in 2006? More freedoms of bribery? To compare the dirtiest country in Asia with the cleanest one, Vipin also forgets that Singapore has direct elections too. Indians may not have the freedom to piss on Singapore's beautiful clean streets. They do not have that freedom in the USA, either. Does that mean India is freer than the USA? Perhaps only in the freedom of urination? I hope other readers can have a good laugh by following my comic reading guide.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 26, '06)


It seems that ATol editors are either Christian or Muslim, otherwise how else can one continue to see bigotry and hatred against India by people like Saqib Khan and Frank continue to get their thoughts aired? Again, we get a lecture on how letters should be referring to the articles, but yet these tirades against India somehow continue. Saqib Khan's letter (Jun 16) referred to the article [India, US: The natural partnership, Jun 13], and then went ahead with a tirade against India. I am sorry, but that's not "referring" to an article - you have to discuss the article, not just mention it and then go off and abuse an entire country. Referring to his comments on democracy, it is interesting that this guy lives in the UK, a democratic country; so does our Frank, so much in love with communism. Why don't these hypocrites relocate? Saqib Khan obviously is a Pakistani, so hey, why not move to Pakistan? Somewhere in Balochistan? North Korea would be a fine place for Frank. Showing bigotry against one country and its religion is beneath ATol.
Jayanti Patel (Jun 26, '06)

Are the opinions expressed by Saqib Khan and Frank truly bigoted, or do they hit too close to the mark? The debate they have been carrying on, as encouraged by the responses of Indian letter writers and related ATol articles, concerns the documented fact that a country that brags about its economic growth and its democratic traditions has been a remarkable failure when it comes to improving the lot of its millions upon millions of poor. Several Indian writers have responded to that criticism honestly, while others merely say "oh but they have freedom" (shades of Marie Antoinette) or accuse the critics of bigotry. However, you are probably correct that this particular debate has run its course, and further discussion of the subject should take place in The Edge forum. - ATol


"In fact, as a fan of Spengler you will be happy to learn that there are many other things he is aware of but hasn't gotten around to doing an article on yet. Stay tuned. - ATol" [editor's note under Lester Ness's letter of Jun 21]. "Fan" is not quite the right word. I am both fascinated and appalled by Spengler's bigotry and ignorance, the way I might be by a horrid car accident. Still, I suppose it's good that ATimes' readers know what kind of people advise America's Fearless Leaders, the better to protect themselves.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Jun 26, '06)


I am compelled to write this letter and consider it necessary to refer to the letter of Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth of June 20 and express my total revulsion at his illegitimate and demonical criticism of some of the distinguished ATol writers who contribute richly to this platform with their immense knowledge and intellect. I found the contents of Sreekanth's letter reflecting Dravidian inferiority complex with a Shudra [worker caste] rage. In fact, he made a fool of himself with his silly humor. If he has not got the guts to stand the heat, then I would recommend that he should either find the tallest building in his home town to shout his Shudra anger or go shark-hunting. Sreekanth's idiotic, gutless and scornful comments about Adil Mouhammed's letters (always brilliantly written) deserve condemnation, which demonstrated his deprived intellect as well as inherent prejudice against Islam and its adherents. I request [of] you, editor sir, that this kind [of] personal grudge by some Hindu writers especially against Muslim writers should be prohibited for the sake of free expression, fair play, protecting ATol's integrity and discouraging good writers abandoning your platform at your great loss.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 26, '06)


The SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] is a must organization for that region and to the developing countries to counter the intervention of the US and EU [in the] internal affairs of nations. I'm very glad [about] the creation of SCO ... It should play a major role in world affairs such as peace and stability in the region ... including economic and military cooperation, neutralizing terrorists, [and] stabilizing oil prices by not joining OPEC [the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries]. SCO members should be required not to allow US military bases in their territories, as this could create a conflict of interests and that country with US bases in its soil could go against policies of SCO, causing division among its members. Another world organization that needs to close its ranks in that region is APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation]. APEC members in Asia and ... the Pacific should work closely to help each other in their economies. Weaker and developing Asian APEC members like the Philippines ... Vietnam and Indonesia should be further developed by wealthy members like China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. A successful APEC in Asia means peace and stability. Each member country should cooperate in trade, currency, peace and order, regardless of religion, politics and culture, avoid conflicts among each other like between China and Japan, to make the region neutral and eliminate poverty, as poverty breeds rebels and terrorists. APEC, SCO and emerging economies of Asia can be a very influential and powerful [and the] region and can sustain its own economies, as many of these countries have oil, technology and agriculture. Combine these natural resources together, then you have sustainability and power to reckon with. A divisive Asia with conflicts and war will only benefit the arms dealers and the West.
Tom Lasam
Los Angeles, California (Jun 26, '06)


According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the total expenditure for war in 2005 exceeded US$1 trillion. About half of that came from the Americans, the very people who seem particularly eager to point fingers at other countries and accuse them of possessing or even just planning to possess weapons of mass destruction or of being overly militaristic. Incidentally, President [George W] Bush may be dumb but he is smart enough to know that the American voters are even dumber. Right on the heels of being found out that he had fabricated the case for war with Iraq, he is doing it all over again to take his country to war with Iran.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 26, '06)


It is refreshing - and not a little shocking - to read Henry C K Liu [The lame duck and the greenhorn, Jun 23], because he so obviously does not share the Weltanschauung almost inevitably embraced, implicitly if not explicitly, by commentators from the US or Europe, no matter what their declared political color; ie, that the United States is the center of the planet, if not the universe ("the indispensable nation" in [former US secretary of state Madeleine] Albright's memorable phrase), and that the rest of the world is mere periphery.
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jun 23, '06)


Henry C K Liu, in The lame duck and the greenhorn (Jun 23), gave a litany of illustrations depicting the PRC [People's Republic of China] leadership as a greenhorn that depends on the fake goodwill of the USA. I beg to differ on both the assertion and the premise. I believe the current Chinese leadership has the essential understanding of the USA and is shrewd in its policy toward the USA in achieving its long-term objectives. While one may want to talk about containment, one should consider the precise means by which the USA could contain the PRC. First, I believe any ultimate means has to be the hindrance of Chinese economic growth, and any even interim means has to be military curtailment. Second, in order to contain China it has to have the need to expand. It does not have to expand, in diplomatic parlance, to achieve its objectives. In just one year, between the IISS [International Institute for Strategic Studies] gathering and Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld has softened his tone, nearly to an anti-climax, toward steady and gradual Chinese military advancement. Demystifying China (Jun 5 [pdf file]) by Ralph A Cossa of CSIS [the Center for Strategic and International Studies] gave a contrast and elucidated the idealized Chinese response, which involves transparency and cooperation with the USA. Lastly, Henry C K Lin wrote, "The reality is that those in the US policy establishment who are realists on China do not expect to see communism receding, and thus any rapprochement between China and the US cannot be fundamental, only based on temporary expediency, such as the current need to cooperate on the US 'war on terrorism'." I think since there is nothing temporary in world affairs that will continue to require US-China (and Russia) cooperation, there would not be temporary expediency. The future would be permanent recurrent expediency and US strategic provision for it, as long as the PRC does not cross any red line, such as using brute force on Taiwan. It won't, as it has no need to.
Jeff Church
USA (Jun 23, '06)


Re China's soft-power diplomacy in Africa [Jun 23]: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is hardly like Carl Sandburg's "Fog". He has not come to Africa on soft cat's feet. He came with a well-rehearsed script for furthering China's hunger for primary resources and for extending China's trade arm to sub-Saharan Africa. China never does anything which profits not Beijing. Premier Wen may honey China's bald designs with "selfless", generous in its desire to serve as a model of development for the poor countries. Let's scratch the surface of such noble intentions. Purchase of raw materials may fill the coffers of African countries, but will it hasten economic development? Flush treasuries may in fact incite more widespread corruption. Trade accords on importation of textiles in Southern Africa will weaken if not destroy local textile mills and increase unemployment and underemployment, which is analogous to the way the mills of Manchester killed the Indian textile industry in the 19th century. As for acting as a model of a disinterested party, China's actions [belie its] words. Its backing of the Sudan regime against resolving the crisis in Darfur is but one striking example. Beijing's thirst for oil and the participation of its national oil company in prospecting, drilling, and production in situ is reason enough to discount and find suspect the altruistic posture of Beijing.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 23, '06)

One struggles to name a country whose dealings with developing nations are wholly altruistic, or to say why they should be. - ATol


Gareth Porter's article Iran: US opts for regime change, not force [Jun 22] was an interesting piece that tried to show that the Bush White House will be using a "kinder and gentler" way to induce Iran to drop its perfectly legal nuclear activities, instead of bombing Iran with either MOAB [massive ordnance air blast] type bombs or even nukes. I would like to humbly submit a couple of additions to Mr Porter's article. First, after experiencing the mendacious track record of nearly every comment coming from the Bush White House, does Mr Porter truly expect to believe - and also have his readers [believe] - any comment made by the White House warmongers? There might be a grain of truth to be gathered here, and that is you can count on the Bush White House to do the exact opposite of what they are espousing. And what about the previous comments by the shadow president, Vice President Dick Cheney, that any type of terrorist attack upon the US will be grounds for an immediate and massive reprisal upon Iran, regardless of who was behind the attack? Considering the illegal, immoral and brutal actions the US has visited upon the Middle East, all in the name of its so-called war on terror, it would be naive to think that no defensive or vengeful actions aren't being contemplated by aggrieved individuals or nations. Throw in the fact that retired General Tommy Franks - Pentagon architect of the Iraq invasion - stated that when the next terrorist act takes place on US soil, martial law will follow. Completely shredding the [US] constitution and the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop, instead of a death by a thousand cuts, would delight certain individuals who gather for meetings at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let's not forget the perennial wild card, Israel. Never the one to worry about negative public opinion, Israel, already the recipient of several hundred bunker-buster bombs courtesy of the Bush White House, definitely has a say in this drama. To leave out the military actions of Israel, a country that has stated over and over that what Iran is doing is totally unacceptable, is to go whistling past the graveyard. Last but not least, there will be the time-honored "October Surprise" coming due just before the US November mid-term elections in November. Whether or not the US public can again be duped into illegally invading yet another country remains to be seen. My guess is that the wizard behind the curtain, [White House deputy chief of staff] Karl Rove, has more than a few tricks left up his sleeve and will be more than willing to use them, regardless of the bloodshed, misery or woe they bring. After all, bringing bloodshed, misery and woe - whether to Fallujah, Ramadi or New Orleans - is what the Bush White does in an exemplary manner, and that is the truth you can count on.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Jun 23, '06)


I refer to the article Iran: US opts for regime change, not force [Jun 22] by Gareth Porter and would like to comment. President G W Bush and the American neo-cons, the manipulators and architects of illegal wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, have to, at the end of the day, have something to say to the American people for all the blood, fury and money, over [US]$350 billion that the United States has spent in these misadventures. How could these shameless looters explain to their people that the real intention to invade Iraq was greed [for] oil [and] war booty and not the so-called vision of imposed new democracy as the president calls it, at the point of a gun or dropping megatons bombs on Iraqi cities and towns. The answer of course is oil, as every man with a little wisdom would say it. The profits of five oil companies combined (American ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco and British Shell and British Petroleum) in 2005 were $111 billion, and these profits are about to go through the roof depending what action President Bush would take after two months of grace period allowed to the Iranians to ponder. The reason? Production cannot keep up with demand, and even if it could, there isn't enough oil to satisfy all, at present prices. Iraq and Iran combined have over 20% of the world's total proven oil reserves, and that is real motive of the Americans, and imagine [what] having access to those reserves will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention their profits. There is also this matter of consumption. The United States consumes fully 25% of world oil supplies. China and India are growing rapidly and their economies consume more and more oil. China currently consumes 8.2% of the world's oil production. Soon it will increase to 10% or even 14%. Where is that oil going to come from? Is the United States willing to reduce its share for China? Not so. So, it must be another act of violent terror to capture oil reserves of Iran by invasion or regime change ... Now that the war in Iraq has gone badly wrong, and the threat to Iran has pushed oil prices to above $70 per barrel, Americans and the Europeans are thinking that maybe it will not be a bad idea for the US to do something to bring the prices down. If the United States can occupy Iran, or at least change the regime in Iran to something that is subservient to American interests, then the US can have over half of the world's oil reserves under its control. There are four countries in the Middle East that combined have over 50% of the world's proven oil reserves. These countries are Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The United States directly or indirectly controls three of the four countries, and if it can get the fourth then it has its cake and can eat it to a full belly. But to control means to be close enough to be able to protect or threaten the governments in these countries. This necessitates the presence of American bases on these territories or close by. The United States has bases in ... Persian Gulf countries such as Qatar, Bahrain [and] Kuwait, and now is building permanent bases in Iraq.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 23, '06)


Spengler's response of June 22 is definitely a presumptuous and a didactic bit of sermonizing while lecturing Reverend [Stephen W] Scott on his (Spengler's) being happy to hear that the Presbyterian leadership will remedy the problems of being fiercely pro-Palestinian. While apologizing for the use of the word "embrace" in his original commentary, Spengler's comments reflect ... condemnations of views by individuals and/or organizations that do not seem to conform to the statements best exemplified by Gary Bauer of the organization named American Values and supported by the Reverends [Pat] Robertson, [Jerry] Falwell and others to the effect [that] Mr Bauer is quoted as informing [US President George] W Bush that "the land of Israel is originally owned by God and God is the one who gave it to Israel". While Spengler is free to his partisanship, one trusts that he has the intellectual integrity to accept that others may have theirs.
Armand DeLaurell (Jun 23, '06)


Dear [letter writers] Frank and ... residents of various sheikhdoms: ... Democracy is just a means, not an end (which may construed as economic and social welfare of citizens) ... Many dictatorships have better standards of living than India (or Europe [and the] USA at some point in their lives); but they [India et al] didn't choose to exchange their freedom for a piece of bread. I am not claiming that Indian democracy is perfect either; but how many systems permit a fisherman's son to become president of the country? Agreed, many people have to live in squalor; but there is hope. If you love prosperity more than your freedom; please be a guest in North Korea or Singapore; the only difference between the two is that they chose two diametrically opposite camps in the Cold War; otherwise their systems of governance have nothing to distinguish [them] from each other. Wondered what would have happened to Singapore had [Mentor Minister] Lee [Kuan Yew] been closer to chairman Mao [Zedong].
Vipin
India (Jun 23, '06)

We wonder how much comfort "freedom" is to a father who can't feed his family. - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Is it wrong and far-fetched to say that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the No 3 person of al-Qaeda worldwide?
Du Ren (Jun 23, '06)

It is absolutely wrong. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not even directly linked with al-Qaeda, nor was he bound to its discipline. He had his own organization, Jamaatul Toheed wal-Jehad. As well, after September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda lost its vertical structure. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I can never miss reading your excellent articles on Asia Times Online and I have always referred them to my friends. So far, everything you predicted about Afghanistan happened accordingly. Your pieces are almost devoid of emotional statements but full of facts and quotations from first-hand sources. Yours is journalism at its best. Keep up the great work.
Daniel Mazir
Perth, Australia (Jun 23, '06)


It is a great pleasure for me to read Asia Times Online every morning. Most of the Western world hegemonized the world mass media for generations; but that monopoly subsided when Third World mass media flourished everywhere, led by Asia Times [Online], Al-Jazeera and ArabNews ... So far the only hateful article I ever saw in your website [was in the series] Islamism, fascism and terrorism by Marc Erikson (Nov-Dec '02). I don't know why this [series] is still hanging around, because this [series demonizes the] Islamic faith, and I believe that it is unfair to allow hate articles on your website written by a few Zionists who planned to built huge walls between the faiths and understanding of mankind wherever they live. God bless you; keep [up] the great work.
A M Nur (Jun 23, '06)


If the world governments and the people of this planet let the trial of Saddam Hussein proceed as legitimate after all of the interference, murder, and behind-the-scenes manipulation, we shall all be guilty of destroying one of the last protections of civil society.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 23, '06)


Re the letter from Reverend Stephen W Scott (Jun 21): Nothing would delight me more than to learn that Reverend Scott is correct, and that my report (You don't need to be apocalyptic, but it helps, Jun 20) was inaccurate. He is correct that the date of the disinvestment decision was 2004, not 1994 (the article has been amended), and his qualifications regarding the program also are correct. My report, though, drew on Presbyterian sources. Writing in the June 15 Wall Street Journal, for example, Jim Roberts of the Presbyterian "Committee to End Disinvestment Now" had this to say: "My denomination, once revered as an icon of socially progressive thinking, is now tainted by perceptions of anti-Semitism and naive support of Islamic terrorists. The Presbyterian bureaucracy seems unwilling to confront difficult problems in Africa and the Middle East that do not fit its hardline, pro-Palestinian political viewpoint. Interfaith relations with Jewish friends are also in shambles after decades of efforts by Presbyterians to reach out and create healthy working relationships based on mutual respect." Mr Roberts added, "In the fall of 2004, senior church leaders were among a contingent that met with Hezbollah in Lebanon and praised them - the same international terrorist organization that has killed thousands, including Americans, without remorse over several decades, and that receives major funding from Iran. The Church also funds fiercely pro-Palestinian committees, sends representatives to Palestinian advocacy conferences, and has written obsequious congratulatory letters to the terrorist leaders of Hamas on their recent election victory." Perhaps "embrace" was the wrong word, but Presbyterian overtures to radical Islamists have been noteworthy. In general, though, Reverend Scott has a fair criticism to make: my characterization of mainline Protestant denominations was too sweeping and implicitly unfair to millions of their members who do not agree with such policies. For this I apologize. There is an active and vocal conservative wing of the Presbyterian Church, represented by such voices as Caleb Stegall at www.newpantagruel.com. I am happy to hear that Presbyterian leaders such as Reverend Scott are confident that they can remedy these problems.
Spengler (Jun 22, '06)


Gareth Porter, like many other commentators on Asia Times [Online] and elsewhere, not once mentions the principal issue of the Bush administrations's conflict with Iran: oil [Iran: US opts for regime change, not force, Jun 22]. The Bush administration never once mentioned oil as a reason for regime change in Iraq, either. And, as in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq by the US, Porter joins most of the mainstream press in accepting the "regime change" rationale for the US policy on Iran. The recent about-face in the US approach to Iran has been led by the Europeans (who are willing to not mention oil either). But the realpolitik is the certainty at this point that China is engaging Iran with an eye to joint development of Iran's considerable oil and gas reserves to the exclusion of both Europe and the US. China has already negotiated a US$56 billion contract to develop Iranian gas fields. Russia already has made the Europeans uncomfortable with regard to reliable supply of energy, and Russia [has] sided with China in this deal. Undoubtedly there are neo-cons in the Bush administration and the right-wing punditocracy who are still urging preemptive military action against Iran, but they have lost the debate in Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice's State Department, and never had credibility with any of the negotiating powers of Europe. Europe at present depends on Iran for between 10% and 20% of its petroleum supply. Preemptive military strikes against Iran will simply guarantee China's locking up access to Iran's energy resources to the exclusion of everyone else - not an acceptable outcome for either the US or the Europeans. Engagement and normalization with Iran are the best hope for securing Western access to Iran's energy supplies as well as enabling a gradual evolution of Iran's theocracy into a more representative form of government. The engagement approach is not a defeat for US foreign policy, simply a defeat for the hardline militarists in the US foreign-policy establishment.
David Sheegog (Jun 22, '06)

Asia Times Online has mentioned, reported, analyzed and opined on the oil issue so often and for so long that by now we expect most of our readers have gotten the picture. - ATol


Gareth Porter in his [Jun 22] article [Iran: US opts for regime change, not force] concludes that the United States is unlikely to exercise the military option against Iran, but rather prefers regime change. This is a belated recognition on Mr Porter's part of the obvious: Iran learned from the demolition of the Iraqi Osirak reactor (by Israeli forces in 1981) the hazards of centralized, relatively undefended installations and has dispersed, duplicated and hardened its program to the extent that a military attack would be unsuccessful and (as most commentators have already concluded) counterproductive. That, however, is not really the point: the germane consideration is not the existence of the Iranian program, it is the nature of the regime that controls the weapons. Regime change would most likely reduce the perceived threat of the Iranian nuclear program and is a pragmatic solution to several other problems as well. On the Iranian domestic scene, replacement of the theocracy would improve the economy: civil-rights infringements, capital flight, failure to attract substantial foreign investment and corruption have resulted in a disenchanted and potentially disfranchised population who have suffered a decline in real income since the shah was deposed. On the foreign horizon, regime change would remove Iran's isolation by opening markets and reducing the tensions which bedevil Iranian international relations. In short, it is a worthy goal as many commentators of various political persuasions have already remarked. Why Mr Porter characterizes this as an ignoble effort evoked by the Bush administration as a second-place priority eludes me. As Kenneth Michael Pollock, director of research at the Sabin Center/Brookings stated in May in US Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony on this topic, "The issue, as always in politics, is not whether Iran wants to see its nuclear program through to completion, but what it would be willing to sacrifice to keep it ... What this suggests then is that convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program is going to require very considerable inducements, both positive and negative, but that is not impossible to do." The present US administration has (after trying everything else) recognized this and is working to prepare just such a mix of inducements. Whether or not it will succeed is a matter of speculation, but consider the alternative.
Keith Comess (Jun 22, '06)

On the "worthy goal" of interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation and changing its government, it is likely that the government of, say, Cuba (to name one of many), which the US has persecuted for four and a half decades, would find the idea of regime change in Washington similarly attractive. On the phenomenon of one country refusing to follow the rules it expects everyone else to follow, see the new article Nukes and double standards. - ATol


Here in Thailand, the government is able to purchase political loyalty by making welfare payments. Welfare recipients have been known to prostrate themselves at the feet of the ruler when he happens to visit their village. It's not very democratic. The ruling party is in effect using tax revenues to finance its campaign for the next election. I hope this is not what the reader in New Orleans (Chrysantha Wijeyasingha, letter, Jun 21) has in mind when he expresses his displeasure with respect to the freedom of expression enjoyed by welfare recipients in a democratic society.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 22, '06)


I appreciate that the ATol editor allowed a few logical arguments and filtered out the senseless personal attacks. I also would like to thank Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth [letter, Jun 21] for reading and remembering my letters written about a year ago. There are many articles and letters that have funny logic. I always try to point them out so that other readers can have a good laugh by reading them. I sure hope that other readers find comic-relief assistance from my letters. However, I do not think it is a spirit of free expression if truthful messages were ignored. If you do not like a certain writer, I suggest that you can either point out the funny logic so other people can [have] some comic relief or point out the obvious lies. Why can't those so-called [argumentative] Indians defend themselves with a logical argument? There is no need to be upset about other people's honest opinions about you. If Indians claim that they can argue logically, show it to us at ATol.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 22, '06)


Wayne Jett (The Fed and the nickel dollar, Jun 21) fails to mention the fact that when the Nixon administration severed the link between the dollar and the price of gold, every other traded currency was pegged to the US dollar at fixed exchange rates. So except for the small number of overseas currencies that decided to sever their links to the dollar in favor of a floating exchange rate, all currencies simply rose and fell in sympathy with the US dollar. As a devaluation takes place only when a currency drops in value with that of other traded currencies, the 1971 move does not count as a true devaluation. It was different in 1934 when the small number of convertible currencies of the day were pegged to the gold standard, just like the greenback. Mr Jett claims that "the dollar has lost half its value over the past three years". When measured against what? The price Americans pay for goods and services at home? The exchange rate of the dollar compared with the currencies of America's main trading partners? His single-minded preoccupation with the relationship of the dollar and the price of gold smacks of good-old-days economic quackery. Referring to interest-rate policy, Wayne Jett appears to be on firmer ground when he alleges: "The Fed's rate hikes have weakened the dollar, along with economic growth, by reducing demand for dollars to invest. That creates excess dollars the Fed does nothing to drain. So the Fed itself is causing monetary inflation." Well, there is a consensus among economists that a weaker currency is by nature inflationary - it makes imports more expensive. High interest rates producing economic slowdowns are supposed to be counter-inflationary. As for the excess dollars these do not remain in circulation. If these do not go into government bonds and securities paying higher interest rates, they will find their way overseas where investment returns are better. More potent than the policies of the Fed would appear to be the years of budget deficit spending by the Bush administration. Yet this fiscal indiscipline is not even mentioned in passing by Mr Jett. The forex value of a country's currency is measured these days not against the amount of precious metal held by its central bank but by the country's overall economic fundamentals. Ideally, the amount of money in circulation and available credit should square up with the output of goods and services. The challenge of any central bank is to keep supply of money in line with demand. "Throughout history, gold has been an unerring measure of a currency's value," says Wayne Jett. Not anymore.
Steve Greaves
Australia (Jun 21, '06)


Re There's method in the missile madness [Jun 21]: Suddenly the United States wakes up and takes notice of North Korea's supposedly imminent testing of an ICBM, or [intercontinental] ballistic missile. Common wisdom has it that Kim Jong-il feels that President [George W] Bush has neglected him in favor of Iran. Let's look beyond the pop psychology. The Bush administration has engaged in a slugfest with Pyongyang. All gloves are off. It has played "good cop, bad cop"; it has offered poisoned carrots and thinly veiled threats. It may be useful to recall that a letter from Kim Jong-il was hand-carried to Mr Bush almost four years [ago] offering to open negotiations. It was received with a [refusal]. Washington is playing hardball, and its muscular diplomacy has not gone very far. America's ambassador to Seoul issues jeremiads against Mr Kim. Washington engages in black propaganda against North Korea, accusing it of drug-running, counterfeiting, money-laundering, so on and on. Taken all together, Mr Bush has pushed Pyongyang into a corner. It should come as no surprise then that North Korea is resorting to the "weapons of the weak". It is highly sophisticated in rocketry and nuclear arms. Such arms that it has should strike fear in the heart of Washington. But they do not. Let's face it, Mr Bush has no clear idea as to what's what in North Korea. It is an instance of a willful failure in diplomacy. The trial balloon of a few weeks ago of offering to negotiate a treaty to end the Korean War and open lines of discussion with Pyongyang has burst in the atmosphere. So in the end Washington's brinksmanship in Korea gathers war clouds.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 21, '06)


The Spengler review of David Brog's book contains serious inaccuracies if not misrepresentations [You don't need to be apocalyptic, but it helps, Jun 20]. The Presbyterian Church General Assembly voted in 2004 (not 1994) not to end all investment in companies doing business in Israel but for a phased program of selective disinvestment from some companies doing business in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. As a committee has recommended this week, it is likely that action will be reversed this week. Presbyterian leaders did not embrace Hezbollah. It is true that some Presbyterians on a Middle East tour met with one or more Hezbollah representatives, but they were roundly criticized within our denomination, and one national staffer lost his job over the matter.
Reverend Stephen W Scott
First Presbyterian Church
Statesville, North Carolina (Jun 21, '06)


Spengler's original review of [David] Brog's book might need a few corrections [You don't need to be apocalyptic, but it helps, Jun 20]. The Protestant Reformation began in 1517; clearly Spain expelled the Jews in 1492 to make Spain a single nation, culture and religion, not to stop the spread of Protestantism. As Paul Johnson describes it in his book A History of the Jews, Protestants did indeed influence the Jews. Their services, religious architecture, and garb were surely not the only items: surely Protestant theology influenced the Jews in the process of this inculturation which has resemblance to earlier Hellenization of some Jews around the time of Christ. Christian churches and theologies vary in what they emphasize regarding what [is] called the Kingdom of God that is "already, and not yet". It is an overstatement to imply that all Christians simply emphasize the "not yet". There is realized eschatology, partially realized eschatology, not-at-all-realized-as-of-yet eschatology. Max Weber showed how Protestants emphasized this world regarding marriage, the non-clerical middle class, and capitalism, whatever their motives. (Recall that St Peter tells Christians to speed up the coming of the Kingdom by being good Christians in this world, thus, in a sense, helping realize the Kingdom in this world.) One can certainly say that the New Age and Gnostic fads emphasize realized eschatology, happiness in this life. But that needs to be tempered with the fact that their salvation amounts to a totally other-worldly, non-material, non-historical, non-incarnational, non-sacramental inner salvation. In what I just mentioned regarding the Protestants and in the Catholic sacramental approach, this world ends up being more important than it is to the faddists. Daniel Boorstin, of course, credits these attitudes among Christians and Jews as being the reason they produced great science and technology. And contrary to what many believe - including those who still use the inaccurate term "Dark Ages" - the Greeks were not much interested in science or history. Their stress on universals, the spiritual, and the unchanging led them to that relative lack of interest ... The Christian and Jewish concepts of "Logos" and "Wisdom", according to Boorstin, were transformed from their lesser importance as demi-urge in Plato to central motivations for Christians and Jews: If God created the world through Word and Wisdom, then the world is not only good, but worth studying to find out about God. And humans could be motivated to be creative in imitation of God. Overly apophatic or negative theologies among some Christians, Jews and Muslims is what sometimes led to a neglect of or denigration of this world and the study and improvement thereof.
Richard L A Schaefer
Dubuque, Iowa (Jun 21, '06)


Re Spengler's You don't need to be apocalyptic, but it helps [Jun 20]: I have know about Dispensationalism since 1972, Spengler evidently since 2006. Better late than never, I suppose.
Lester Ness (Jun 21, '06)

All that happened in 2006 was that David Brog published Standing with Israel and Spengler decided to review it. There is nothing to suggest Spengler has only now discovered Dispensationalism. In fact, as a fan of Spengler you will be happy to learn that there are many other things he is aware of but hasn't gotten around to doing an article on yet. Stay tuned. - ATol


Dhruba Adhikary's article Nepal makes way for the comrades that appeared on June 20 gives a scary picture of the looming Maoist takeover of Kathmandu, the state capital of Nepal. As Adhikary has aptly pointed out, there are many pertinent questions that the Maoist leadership are not as yet prepared to answer unequivocally, despite their much-hyped propaganda [about joining] the mainstream politics of the country. Why do they hesitate to commit themselves to a parliamentary system of democracy instead of parroting the vague and banal rhetoric of "competitive politics"? If they have really prepared to join the peace process, why do they continue to recruit their "army", abduct students and resort to extortion to support their nefarious activities unabatedly? Adhikary has quoted a remark by a medical doctor, Sundarmani Dixit, that Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal "is highly unlikely to deceive the peace-seeking Nepali people". But I simply dismiss it as piece of panegyric citation in praise of a master terrorist. Nepal's Seven Party Alliance, which is at the helm of power today, appears to be caving in under pressure from strategically astute masterminds of [an] insurgency that killed so many people and destroyed property worth billions of rupees. As the writer has mentioned, mutual suspicion is the hallmark of the government-Maoist relation today. Government has complied with all their [Maoists'] demands, whereas the rebels have conceded nothing. Without their guns and "red terror tactics" the Nepali Maoists are not a political force to reckon with and do not enjoy a wide range of popular support. Therefore, they resort to a new tactic of demoralizing, if not destroying, the Nepalese army so that their final assault on the capital would be totally unencumbered. The Maoists are using the spell of ceasefire as lead time for furbishing their Trojan horse and recalibrating their war machine.
Ratna Prasad Nepali
USA (Jun 21, '06)


Derek Lane (letter, Jun 20) writes: "Once again Asia Times Online seems to surpass by volumes the quality of Western reporting." I wholeheartedly agree and I would like to add that it also surpasses the quality of Thai reporting. For example, had it not been for Asia Times Online [World health: A lethal dose of US politics, Jun 17], Thais might never have known that the US had pressured the WHO [World Health Organization] to reassign its country representative in Thailand after that individual had cautioned Thailand that the FTA [free-trade agreement] being proposed by the US had certain provisions that would adversely affect the availability of generic antiviral drugs to Thai HIV [human immunodeficiency virus] patients. This item has become big news in the Thai media. It was first reported by Asia Times Online. The proposed FTA will now certainly be scrutinized on this basis. Thailand owes a debt of gratitude to Asia Times Online.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 21, '06)


Regarding your article World health: A lethal dose of US politics [Jun 17]: Dylan C Williams seem to assume that companies in the US who have spent millions of dollars in research and development must make the sacrifice to all mankind by reducing the price to the companies' loss. At the same time most of these nations have expressed openly their hostility towards the US in one form or another. It reminds me of the welfare recipients in this country who love to express the hate they feel towards the government and in some extreme cases towards the US and its culture and wish it would go away but at the same time are glad to accept the monthly check from the government. If the world body wants to play that tactic, the US will not be bullied or forced to donate to anyone other than its own citizens. In my opinion it would be a sunshine day if the US pulled out of the UN and the WHO [World Health Organization] and stop any payments from the US to those left-wing organizations. Rent the UN building to high-priced condominiums and tell the UN to take a hike. They have become as effective as the League of Nations, and any nation with an ounce of dignity would pull out of that organization and let it die the death that is overdue.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 21, '06)


Re Once more up the Khyber [Jun 20]: Britons have never forgotten the defeats of the forces of imperial Britain at the hands of Afghans. These days Syed Saleem [Shahzad] of ATol is better placed to provide fresh analyses on the current strategic position of the parties. I know for sure that at the very height of the conflict between the Taliban and Ahmad Shah Masood of the Panjsheer Valley in the late '90s and before [September 11, 2001] when Afghans looked exhausted from infighting, British media showed greater excitement about the prospects of British revenge through intervention in Afghanistan using the heroin trade as pretext. Then came September 11. Now in 2006 when it is NATO's turn to take charge of the matters in Afghanistan and Britain appears to be spearheading this role, they could be forgiven for [a] bad choice of timing to realize their century-old dream. There is no Ahmad Shah Masood anymore, Afghans have already had [a] full cycle of experience of foreign presence and the Taliban seem to [be] already far better organized or at least motivated. It seems to me history is eagerly waiting to repeat itself, this time probably in a lot [more] vigorous fashion, the repercussions of which are going to go far beyond Britain.
Rashid Hassan (Jun 20, '06)


Ronan Thomas has the geography right but he is doing what game theorists do: replaying history backwards. His Once more up the Khyber [Jun 20] is a mix of imagination and fact. Today's Afghanistan is not the Afghanistan of 1839 let alone that of the Second Afghan War of 1870-71. It hardly echoes the rimes of Rudyard Kipling's Arithmetic on the Frontier. Let's face it, as some high-ranking Pakistani general put it, the Taliban are a tactical problem. NATO troops are conducting a mop-up operation of a defeated regime, no more, no less. Afghanistan of today mirrors not the conditions of the 19th century when the British suffered defeat at the hands of the Afghan amirs. The Raj learned well to keep them at arm's distance and well bribed to keep the peace, and neutralize Czarist Russia's plans in what was called The Great Game. Mr Thomas sees parallels between the Afghanistan of the days of imperial British rule and the Afghanistan of today, but he misses the extremes of differences between then and now.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 20, '06)


Ronan Thomas in his article Once more up the Khyber [Jun 20] eloquently connects the past British Empire's military escapades in that region to the current conflict. I have to part with him on the issue underlying the current war versus the 19th-century British Empire's need to expand and control. The war now being waged is of a far-reaching "civilizational" clash. The Islamic jihadis, unlike their 19th-century counterparts, are global in nature and their aim is deadlier than what the British Empire faced, issues such as the advocacy of the eradication of Israel or the cultures that are not Muslim, be [they] Western or Eastern. The wars fought today can be connected to each other, conflicts that occur in Kashmir, Afghanistan, [and] terrorist attacks in non-Muslim nations by these radical Islamic terrorists, such as the support given to them by al-Qaeda and the powerful Muslims who believe in the al-Qaeda cause by financially supporting it. Unlike [in] the 19th century, Islamic terrorists strike anywhere on the globe, be it Spain, the US, the UK or even Bali. This war is unique in the sense of the globalization of the conflict between radical Islam and the rest of the planet. The worst part is we are only seeing the beginning of this worldwide conflict, and not until this conflict is in the past can one really reflect and draw conclusions from it.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 20, '06)


Robert Dreyfuss begins his [Jun 20] Asia Times [Online] article [Iraq: The beat goes on and on] with the coy premise that for many or most Americans good and evil fall neatly into categories suited to the saccharine sort of tripe generated in films of the late Frank Capra. Knowing Mr Dreyfuss' journalistic experience, this is transparently a writer's device, not an accurate representation of any but the most ingenuous and benighted observer. That aside, the gist of Mr Dreyfuss' article rests in this paragraph: "The war in Iraq was not a 'mistake'. It was a deliberately calculated exercise of US power with a specific end in mind - namely, control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf region. It was illegal and remains so. It was a war crime and remains so. Its perpetrators were war criminals and remain so. Its goals were unworthy and remain so." These important arguments should be addressed in order of presentation. First, to state [that] the war in Iraq was "not a mistake" is incorrect: it was a mistake, and that mistake has been well documented to have arisen from two fundamentally incorrect but widely shared assumptions. These were: (a) that the various US governmental intelligence agencies were reporting accurate data on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam [Hussein]'s military intent and (b) that various geostrategic calculations, largely pertaining to forms of governance in the region made by certain seminal figures in the current US administration and their advisers, were accurate. Before leaping to categorical conclusions, it should be recalled that the US Senator [Lindsey] Graham-initiated National Intelligence Estimate, prepared shortly before hostilities began, clearly and unequivocally stated that Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction programs were active and stockpiles of such existed. This served as one prime, if not the prime, motive for war, according to most reputable sources. The geostrategic-calculation aspect of this argument ran afoul of reality: the assumption that the despotisms of the Middle East were anxious to self-destruct and the Arab polity was awaiting only a nearby example of democratic governance in order to initiate widespread regime change to liberal, pluralistic forms of governance was inaccurate. Second, it is true that the "deliberately calculated exercise of US power" had a specific end in mind, but it is not true (or at least there [are] insufficient data to pronounce it as such) that the US government acted to establish itself as the hegemon of Iraq: in effect, a nakedly imperialist agenda that implies such dense stupidity on the part of the US Congress, American allies and the American people as to beggar reality - and I'll grant Mr Dreyfuss that the US government (past and present) and the American people have done some pretty stupid things. The realpolitik aspect of this argument, ie, that the US wants unimpeded access to [Persian] Gulf oil, is transparently obvious and requires no justification or further explanation. Third, the "illegality" of the war is a matter of dispute. I know of no consensus of American or international jurisprudence that so states, and Mr Dreyfuss makes his assertion with no supporting documentation whatsoever. Fourth, the accusation that the US government perpetrated a "war crime" and those who (overtly or tacitly) support US actions in Iraq are "war criminals" is an imprudent extrapolation from the unproven premise of "illegality" of the war. This amounts to an argumentum ad populum, not a legal indictment. Finally, the "unworthiness" of the goals assumes that the goals were unworthy: a tautology. What were some of these goals? Removal of Saddam Hussein; was that unworthy? Ask the Kurds who fell victim to the al-Anful chemical-warfare campaign about that one. Ask the "Marsh Arabs" whose ancestral homelands were devastated by Saddam for their perspective. Many other examples could be cited, but the point is obvious. While Mr Dreyfuss is quick to attribute a variety of malign motives to the present [US] administration, he betrays an ideological prism of his own. He seems, by dint of this, to have arrived at the junction best summarized by the distinguished satirist Jonathan Swift, to wit, "A strong dilemma in a desperate case! To act with infamy or quit the place." There are, needless to state, other alternatives.
Keith Comess (Jun 20, '06)


The failure of American foreign policy is framed on one side by the successful inclusion by the Nepalese government of a group classified by [the United States of] America as a terrorist organization [Nepal makes way for the comrades, Jun 20], and on the other side by the chaos and mayhem incited in Somalia by CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] spooks doling out cash to warlords. As Nepal rises like a phoenix from the edge of a failed state by doing what America forbids it to do, Somalia sinks deeper into that state due mostly to American meddling gone wrong. American policy in Somalia has promoted warlordism and ended up giving rise to Taliban-like Islamists, while what we see in Nepal looks a lot more like democracy. America's self-image as a champion of democracy is at odds with a reality that has become distorted by a one-issue foreign policy based on terrorism.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 20, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thank you for your article on Asia Times Online [The battle spreads in Afghanistan, May 26]. Based on the information you have found, it would seem it is anti-occupation forces currently fighting the US/UK forces in Afghanistan and not, as we are being told in the West, specifically the Taliban (a name now synonymous for good or bad with a Pavlov response of "nasty" or "evil"). If this is the case, it would seem the people of Afghanistan are doing what under international law it is their right to do (as is the case in Iraq). I only hope we see more honest response from the media on this, as is the case in your article. Once again Asia Times Online seems to surpass by volumes the quality of Western reporting.
Derek Lane (Jun 20, '06)


To some of the ATol readers who were upset by Saqib Khan's recent letters: there are three letter writers who are better ignored, or purely read for comic relief. One is Frank of Seattle; some readers will recollect the long thread about dogs a few months ago. The next is Saqib Khan of UK, who is obsessed with lewdness, and recently defended Saudi Arabia's practice of not letting women drive, but generously allowed that "some leniency has been allowed to women in many matters concerning biological and physiological compulsions" [Oct 4, '05]. Whew, that's a relief - so what does that mean, if you're a woman and you're caught driving in Saudi Arabia, you can always plead that it was that time of the month? The third is Adil Mouhammed of Illinois, who is either an economist or plays the part on TV, but had the supreme self-confidence to assert that Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, suffered from a "fundamental misunderstanding" [Apr 26]. But I confess these three letter writers have some entertainment value, and I do find myself guiltily reading their letters and shaking my head with disbelief, so they have a purpose in life too.
Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jun 20, '06)


Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Jun 19] should pay some attention to my letter before making comments. I mentioned many times, democracy is not just a form of election. Elections started millions of years ago. Animals have been picking their pack leaders in a form of election before humans. Ancient Indians and many other tribal members had been picking their leaders in different forms of elections. However, those elections are not the models of a civilized democratic society. Animals elect the strongest jaws. Tribal members normally elect the largest fists. In a real civil democratic society, people should be able to freely elect a leader who will take care of their needs. That is the society we are all after. Without law and order, many human societies behave no [differently from] packs of animals or ancient tribes. The only difference is the jaws are replaced by wealth. Poor Indians have never been able to pick a leader to take care of their basic needs to survive. That is why neither China nor India is a civilized democratic society yet. In that area, [the United States of] America is definitely ahead of these two. That is why to compare India's tribal democracy with America's is completely inappropriate.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 20, '06)


Please publish my letter, not in provocation to my Hindu ATol co-writers but in appeasement to give a few more facts about the blithering failed democracy of India and bloated claims of its admirers. In continuing with my letter [of Jun 19], I add a few more facts. More and more young Indian girls are consulting illegal clinics to have ultrasound to discovering pregnancies and terminating them with horrendous consequences. As a consequence of Western decadent morality, dowry demands etc, many young couples are practicing female feticide, and the practice is so widespread that The Lancet recently estimated that 10 million baby girls had been terminated in the last 20 years in India. The gender ratio of babies has fallen to fewer than 600 girls to every 1,000 boys in many parts of India whereas worldwide, 1,050 female babies are born for every 1,000 boys. This has also created extremely serious social problems for the hopeful men wishing to get married, and one particular area of Indian Punjab is suffering from an acute shortage of brides because a quarter of the normal female population is missing and men have become so frustrated that hookers and whorehouses are in great demand ... To the outside world India is striding towards an economy growing at 6-8% and a potential market for foreign investors, but to over 80% of the India's poor, the emerging benefits are far and few and a long way off but found in the nightlife of big cities ... Let me mention one more very disturbing area that haunts India's democratic system where the poor are ruthlessly ignored and neglected by those elected into power by the poor man's vote: the plight of over 100 million poor undernourished little babies ... Starving children are the tip of the iceberg of poverty in India. Democracy is not just about unlimited freedom of speech etc as viewed by many but is also about looking after the needs of all those who put their votes in the ballot boxes with fairness and justice ...
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 20, '06)


Jim Lobe has it right in Bush hitches political star to Iraq [Jun 17]. The United States' chief executive officer is wrapping himself in the American flag, and is cynically taking refuge in patriotism, to maintain Republic majorities in the Houses of Congress after the forthcoming elections in November. He and his advisers have chosen the squalid and violent grounds of Iraq to [cow] his Democratic opponents and a growing dissatisfied electorate. The rising cost in lives and dollars count less in the president's muscular diplomacy. It betrays a less-than-expected degree of maturity and leadership. If anything, it has that quality of childlike wonder in playing in the sandbox, and pulling out a plum like Little Jack Horner, who smugly said, "What a good boy am I." Fear and intimidation are in play here. Thomas Mann brilliantly captured this in his "Mario and the Magician".
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 19, '06)


I refer to the article China and Russia embrace the Shanghai spirit (Jun 16) and wish to comment. China may not be America's equal yet but of all other contenders will win the race in the not distant future. The Chinese economy is growing at the rate nearly three times the US's and is prudently projected to catch up in terms of gross domestic product [GDP] by 2041. As I have said all along, Americans and the Europeans follow unethical, perfidious, double and duplicitous standards when it affects the size of their pockets and wallets: they are open to all offers and willing to stoop and bend over to negate their preciously held views over democracy and human rights. The reality is that the USA is currently running a trade deficit of approximately 7% of GDP, and a large part of that deficit is financed by China in the form of purchases of American bonds, so both sides have become interdependent. It is a weird kind of a situation: economic rivals, political adversaries, and increasingly competing ... as No 1 and No 2 consumers of the world's energy resources. It is the insatiable consumption of the US household that is helping the Chinese to flood American shopping malls and halls with their electronic gadgets, clothing, [and] other cheap goods and creating China's economic miracle. Another important factor worth mentioning is that the majority of Americans live on false optimism that one day they will become millionaires by numbers on their lottery tickets or win a quiz show, and do not save enough for their old age or for hard times. The average American earns [US]$40,000 per annum but has savings of 0%, whereas a Chinese earns hardly $1,500 per year but has savings of 23% of his income, and a large part of it his bankers are lending to the Americans ... Western politicians and their governments are these days busy polishing Chinese official boots and do not wish to miss out on the bandwagon of treasure troves on offer and at the same time finding an opportunity exporting Western debauchery ... thus reflecting that their morality is only pocket-deep and lewd. Because of China's enormous economic potential, it will soon take over from the UK as the fourth-largest economy of the world and is using its elitist position with certain arrogance and to its advantage. The Chinese government is also one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth, and let us not forgets about Tibet, its oppressed minorities, and where free speech is crushed by tanks and bullets.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 19, '06)


Re Resurgent Russia aims for the summit [Jun 15] and China and Russia embrace the Shanghai spirit [Jun 16]: [M K] Bhadrakumar executes these articles with scholarly, professional efficiency, sometimes importing a philosophical, intellectual touch into diplomatic matters. The diplomatic landscape has radically changed since the conception of the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] and so will its objectives and priorities. The Islamist movement is now a global force in its own right and only a limited fraction of this force is directed against the SCO countries; the rest is against the United States and its allies. The question before the Sino-Russian alliance or SCO is the same as before the rest of world in general and the United States and its allies and/or NATO in particular: the question is as to whether it is in the best interests of the international community to open up multiple fronts against the global Islamist force and confront it in the battlefield or reckon with its importance and engage it in dialogue for peace based on mutual respect. The chances of success of either approach are another issue that needs discussing but the second approach at least does have some hope. I personally think Russia has in the recent past made some moves and gestures for the second approach, but I suspect the SCO countries in general and the Sino-Russian alliance in particular need to do more and move faster and more aggressively on that path to maximize the chances of the international community being able to enjoy the fruits of peaceful dialogue between contrasting cultures and civilizations. There can never be an alternative to continued positive engagement between opposing forces in the hope for a dialogue for peace.
Rashid Hassan (Jun 19, '06)


This is in response to the comments made by Saqib Khan [letter, Jun 16] on India, US: the natural partnership [Jun 13] and Frank's comments on Indian democracy [letter, Jun 16]. Mr Khan concludes his statement by writing, "Democracy is a deception and a delusion which allows lewdness, immorality and dishonesty to flourish for the benefit of the capitalists ... Democracy could never be a just system as it is an invention of a man with his ulterior motives in mind and man is always an unjust animal." Mr Khan's analysis of democracy is so skewed that one who understands the basic principles of democracy would not give his opinions any response, but I will try my best. Democracy is fundamentally an issue of the freedom of expression of every citizen and most importantly the responsibility that goes with this freedom. If some of the young [among] India's 1.1 billion people choose to use drugs, that is their choice and they will have to face the consequences of their act. Saqib Khan underestimates India's diverse and huge population when he claims, "India is fast becoming a shameless and gutless society following in the footsteps of Western insidious materialism." Let me make it clear to Mr Khan and all other commentators what exactly 1.1 billion people mean. If one was to take the entire New World, which would include South America, Central America, the Caribbean, and North America, the population statistics state the sum total is around 850 million. That is still short of India by 250 million, and if one was to compare the drug problem in India to the New World population's drug problems it would be a drop in the ocean ... Finally, if Mr Khan thinks democracy is a "deception and a delusion", he never gave an alternative that would be pure as the driven snow. The other choices we have [are] communism, theocracy, oligarchy, dictatorial rule, monarchy and a few more. I place this question to Saqib Khan: Which of the above systems is more beneficial for India than its current democratic system? As for Frank's remarks on the poor of India being left out of the democratic process, Frank desperately needs to read some elementary books on Indian democracy. Long before the Western powers came to India, the rural population of India already had a time-honored democratic system in which each village voted in ... a panchayat to represent their local problems and find solutions to them. It was and still is a decentralized democratic process that definitely gives voice and power to the rural poor. All the Western powers did was centralize it in New Delhi and introduce their form of parliamentary democracy. As for the social problems India is facing, please name me just one nation that is bereft of any social problems.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 19, '06)


I refer to letters from Saqib Khan and Frank of Seattle [Jun 16], who are heaping scorn over democracy in India. I ask them, what in their opinion should be the governing system for India ? Sharia? Military rule? or a one-party communist system? At least the naked and starving Indians have a choice to throw out a non-performing political party in favor of another and keep going on this process till they get it right. Can Saqib Khan's Pakistan and Frank's China break out of their present straitjacket? Methinks not.
Partha
Australia (Jun 19, '06)


I, being a Hindu, am not required by religion to be squeamish (unlike Islam or Christianity). However, don't you think ATimes needs a separate "porn" section in the forum considering the regular publication of such letters from reader Saqib Khan? ("These urbanized Indians photocopying [the] Western immoral way of life are abandoning their [Hindu gods and] are seeking guidance taking heavy drugs and indulgence in debauchery and unsolicited sex ... India is fast becoming a shameless and gutless society following in the footsteps of Western insidious materialism and capricious capitalism ... India's democratic system has miserably failed and let down its poor whereas it has immensely benefited the privileged few and rich ..." [letter, Jun 16]) Seems to me his single-point agenda of calling India and the Hindu religion names could still be done by excluding vulgar language. Secondly, I am quiet curious where Mr Khan seems to be getting his data. In absence of any data, it seems his regular letter writing is more a reflection of his own state of mind.
Rocky (Jun 19, '06)


I find [Robby] Brumberg's letter [Jun 16] about "Hindu fundamentalists" quite amusing as he finds it apt to compare the likes of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, finally concluding with some instances of the poor Christians being thrown to the lions. Perhaps if we look at some facts we will see that is outright pathetic to compare the likes of the BJP with the Islamists, as if we do that then we really have to go ahead and put the evangelical Christian groups that support the "new" Republican party on the same list (the same Christian groups that are in India doing their best to convert people). The fact is that the BJP, unlike the Islamists, came to power through the vote and left its seat of power in a mature manner once the people felt that its performance wasn't up to expectations. This is called democracy, and the BJP, unlike certain other religious-backed political parties, didn't win its way to power by a controversial vote, either. It was free and fair all the way. Furthermore, the fact is while the BJP has some unsavory characters in it, no doubt, they are no Taliban or al-Qaeda. You don't see Hindus strapping bombs on them and blowing up buses and then blaming the rest of the world for their economic and social conditions. Rather, Hindu immigrants do mostly quite well wherever they go, and quite often they are the target of hate crimes in the "Christian West". For example, recently a Hindu family in "cosmopolitan" New Jersey was threatened in their own house by bigots. Also a Hindu temple in Minnesota was the target of a savage attack and many artifacts and items of significant religious value were desecrated and destroyed. There are many instances of Hindus from California to Moscow simply not getting permission to even build a temple to serve their community (not to mention the fact that still in many Christian countries Hinduism isn't even characterized as a officially acknowledged religion). So I suppose this is all the result of an upsurge of Christian fundamentalism in the US in recent years which the "good pastors" (evangelical, no doubt) refuse to speak about. Hindus have also been receiving a lot grief in the West, yet we don't go around screaming about [it]. We should condemn all hate attacks equally and not just focus on the instances when "our kind" are attacked. India by no means has a perfectly clean record of communal relations (neither does the West - ask your nearest Jew or Muslim), but one fact remains true, and that is that India was perhaps the only land where the Jews weren't persecuted and the land where the Zoroastrians sought refuge after the Islamic invasion of Persia. The rule is simple, don't try to shove your ideology down our throat, we won't do the same, and we can all live in peace. You worship your way, we worship our way, the Kingdom of Heaven is open for us all as all paths lead to God, not just one ...
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere in Arabia (Jun 19, '06)


Regarding Robby Brumberg's letter (Jun 16) on persecution of Christians in India, I seem to recall ATol making a point about how only those letters that refer to articles in ATol would be published. Am I missing something? Exactly what article is Mr Brumberg referring to? As per the letter itself, I live in the US as does Mr Brumberg, and I am sure he is aware of how blacks consistently bring up the race card upon assumed slights. Mr Brumberg plays the same game. India is a huge country, we have a billion people. Every year thousands of people die, some of them are priests, Hindu, Muslim and yes, even Christian. Also, if I am a stranger visiting a country like India, I would be careful about wandering around the country. It is not safe to do so, especially since people think Westerners are rich. I heard of a horror story where a woman's hand was cut off so that the thief could get at her jewelry. Last, not all priests are nice guys. We all know what the [Roman Catholic] Church did when it found out about the pedophiles in its midst, it hid them ... What Mr Brumberg is doing is common among proselytizing religions. They abuse minority religions while crying abuse when they are in the minority. It is sad to see ATol giving their bigotry free rein.
Jayanti Patel (Jun 19, '06)

You are correct that this page is primarily intended for comments on ATol articles, but we do occasionally run letters on Asian current events not specifically covered by an ATol piece. - ATol


M K Bhadrakumar's article [China and Russia embrace the Shanghai spirit, Jun 16] is enlightening. Although China far outdoes Western countries by offering credit of [US]$900 million to Central Asia, what the author doesn't say is that China together with Japan is the paymaster of the United States, which hasn't even been able to afford to give proper body armor to its troops in Iraq. The United States is using up its expensive armaments while they still represent a technological advantage. Updating and replacing these armaments will be increasingly onerous as the American economy keeps losing ground relative to the economies of other countries, such that America's paymasters will start tightening their credit terms and amounts. Meanwhile American troops are being treated as expendable accessories to their much more important armaments. But George W Bush doesn't consider himself expendable, so he flew into Iraq unannounced and stayed in the Green Zone.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jun 16, '06)


Pyongyang is reaping the whirlwind of Japan's wrath [Japan puts more pressure on North Korea, Jun 16]. It has steadfastly dragged its feet for the last 30 years on the issue of shanghaiing young Japanese. As a result, Japan out of exasperation has taken bold steps to force North Korea to own up fully to its own responsibility in these kidnappings. Tokyo has stiffened its spine and is refusing to bend to Pyongyang's politics of foot-dragging. Now the Japanese diet will pass the North Korean Human Rights Act. Fresh with that law, and the enforcement of existing laws on the books, the Japanese police are putting pressure on Chosen Soren or the General Association of North Koreans in Japan. It is tightening the hold on its purse strings. It is keeping under stricter surveillance its officials who function ex officio as surrogate diplomatic representatives for North Korea. It has conducted raids in Tokyo and Osaka on businesses and offices run and owned by Chosen Soren or its substitutes. Pyongyang has its own reasons for not settling the matter of the unlawful seizure of Japanese nationals in Japan itself. It has allowed that issue, which has aroused popular temperatures to a boiling point, to work against its own interests. North Korea may have counted on Japan's habit of hooing and humming in the face of crises, but this time it is wrong. By stonewalling, Pyongyang has succeeded in allowing Japan to form the other jaw for Washington's pincer tactics to force Pyongyang to make concessions.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 16, '06)


The article Taliban's call for jihad answered in Pakistan [Jun 16] reads to me like Pakistan is going from the frying pan into the fire, and willingly at that. The impending showdown will be between this newly [aroused] Taliban youth and the Western powers, but some of the poison seems to be saved for the Musharraf government for serving the needs of Washington ... If massive attacks are planned and carried out either in Afghanistan or against the Musharraf regime, massive retaliation is expected. This will definitely isolate [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf even more among the Balochis, and probably [from] most Muslims in Pakistan. If he doesn't attack, he faces pressure from the US and [will] bolster the Taliban. Mr Musharraf seems to have the habit of getting himself in awkward positions.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 16, '06)


I should be obliged if you would publish my comments on the article India, US: The natural partnership [Jun 13]. India's urbanized middle class instead of sitting in the lotus position by the banks of Ganges are lying on the couches of their psychiatrists seeking solutions to their newly acquired, adopted and photocopied Western problems. They now prefer to take cocaine, amphetamines and drink until they fall flat on the streets rather than do old yoga to improve their inner self. More and more are consulting American-style psychiatrists to combat the pressure of modern life sitting in their resource centers and answering phone calls sorting out queries of their customers from abroad and, funny enough, copying [the] American accent. A survey of the psychiatrists in New Delhi showed a 40% increase in clients in the last two years. Young Indians who are fortunate enough to find a job, which is almost a miracle, work long hours like robots to meet their huge ambitions. There are many corner-shop psychiatrists as well as legal and illegal abortion clinics doing a flourishing trade in big cities of India. In particular, there is increasing demand of the clinics to terminate illegitimate pregnancies running rampant in the young girls going to schools and colleges. These urbanized Indians photocopying [the] Western immoral way of life are abandoning their [Hindu gods and] are seeking guidance taking heavy drugs and indulgence in debauchery and unsolicited sex ... India is fast becoming a shameless and gutless society following in the footsteps of Western insidious materialism and capricious capitalism ... India's democratic system has miserably failed and let down its poor whereas it has immensely benefited the privileged few and rich. The wealthy and emerging middle classes are so oblivious of the miserable existence of the poor and do not even wish to look into the abject poverty in which they live. Democracy is a deception and a delusion which allows lewdness, immorality and dishonesty to flourish for the benefit of the capitalists and dishonest politicians as long the majority cast their votes. Democracy could never be a just system as it is an invention of a man with his ulterior motives in mind and man is always an unjust animal.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 16, '06)


This is in response to your comment about democracy [in response] to Mohan's letter [Jun 14] ... A "so-called democracy" (in your terms) can prevent exploitation of its people and let the market forces take control [while] a country with thugs ruling it and spreading propaganda ([is] Frank of Seattle part of this propaganda? It can't be more obvious) encourages exploitation of its own citizens. Democracy is like a wine, the older it gets the more powerful it becomes. Well, how can you explain the taste of ginger to monkeys, who keep questioning democracy (particularly in India)? Not to say all is good in India, but for big diverse country like India that is having lots of problems, democracy is the best tool to solve or at least accept and discuss problems to start with, though at its own pace.
Sandeep Khurana
Stuttgart, Germany (Jun 16, '06)


I appreciate that ATol can host a discussion about the meaning of democracy to the population it is governing. It is laughable to say that India adopted equity and justice in 1947 [per Srikanth Subramanyam's letter, Jun 15]. And the USA never employed equity and justice at the same time. Please explain why after 60 years of democracy with equity and justice, all of India's news media and freedom of speech are still controlled by the upper-caste India elites. I do not believe that colored Americans would agree with the Indian readers. Without equity, America is not a true democracy. Please stop using America's past shameful segregation policy to justify today's Indian racism. It is a shame that the world is turning blind eyes towards India's caste system. Today's India is no different than yesterday's South Africa's apathy or America's slavery. In those good old days, to the slave owners, America was a democracy. To black slaves and American Indians, America was not. In India today, to those rich and powerful upper-caste Indian elites, India is a democracy. To millions of India's lower-caste poor, India is not. I hope Brij [letter, Jun 15] can understand [that an] election is not the [entire] period of democracy. It should be the beginning of a democratic governing. The display of poor knowledge about the meanings of democracy from so many Indian readers and writers at ATol is the evidence that India's half-baked democracy is nothing but a boasted name.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 16, '06)


In the article Iran deploys its war machine [May 24] by Iason Athanasiadis, there was a picture of an Iranian martyr [with the caption] "A propaganda poster in Tehran depicts a Bassiji volunteer. During the Iran-Iraq War, such volunteers went to the front to clear minefields with their bodies." I want to say, yes he was a volunteer, but not a mine cleaner. The myth of "human waves" about Iranian volunteers (including kids) going to the field and clearing mines was started by Western propagandists and racists. Those who started it could not explain the great victories of Iran like liberation of the Iranian town of Bostan. It is Western ignorance and arrogance in not accepting the fact [that] others can be very clever and war-smart, and sadly this myth has taken root in many Western books and study guides. There were no "human waves" in the war to clear mines, but only tactical genius of the great Iranians and their bravery. I assure you, if Iran would be desperate enough, Iranians would be willing to do exactly what the myth of "human waves" depicts. That's how much the people love their nation.
Mehrdad Irani (Jun 16, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I am an American and I greatly enjoy reading your work and ATimes in general. The writing is brilliant, insightful; and I generally have to Google at least five words in each of your articles. I am writing to you on behalf of the non-Hindus of India. So much ado has been made of the rise of Islamic extremism, but I feel that the equally insidious rise of Hindu extremist activity has gone largely unnoticed by the outside world. It seems as though the Hindutva radicals have tired of fighting with Muslims so they are targeting a much easier mark, the Christians of India who constitute a mere 2% of the population. I am baffled by the fact that the world's largest democracy, which is well on its way to superpower status, can continually and literally get away with such Stone Age nonsense. Pastors are killed seemingly every week, especially in places like Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madya Pradesh etc. An especially egregious situation has been Rajasthan's [Bharatiya Janata Party]-led government's shameless attack on the Christian mission EMI [Emmanuel Mission International]; putting the lives of orphaned children, hospital patients, etc at risk to achieve their blatant Christian-bashing agenda. It's up to bold, honest and ethical folks such as yourself to inform the world on topics that are unpopular but need to be understood. I trust and hope that you there at ATimes will (continue to) do the right thing and let the world know about the situation Christians are facing today in India ...
Robby Brumberg
Columbus, Georgia (Jun 16, '06)


Can someone please explain to me why the poppies growing openly in the fields of Afghanistan, destined to be refined into heroin, are not burned from the air with napalm? The Americans control the air and there is no lack of helicopters or napalm. The fields cannot be hidden, unlike the processing labs, and the poppy-cultivation process and timetable [are] common knowledge. Why can't the fields be hit with napalm at the optimum time before the harvest? The growers are enemies of the occupation of their country by foreigners, so why would the Americans worry about their opinions on the destruction of their livelihood? Is there something about this whole heroin business that I don't know about?
Mike Davis
Sydney, Australia (Jun 16, '06)


Regarding my June 15 essay, Baghdad's unwelcome visitor: The best part of writing for Asia Times Online is that the writer gets instant response, especially from those who disagree with him/her. The political climate in the United States is such these days that any analysis that is critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is equated with "commie propaganda" or apology for the Islamists, or even a lot of unmentionable depictions. I will not honor such letters by responding to them in person. Besides, you might have noticed that I rarely respond to individual letter writers. However, I would like to make two points. First, ATol did not publish my entire essay. My original title of that essay is "Why did Bush dash over to Iraq?" If you wish to read that essay in its entirety, you will have to go to my website (www.ehsanahrari.com). Then make up your mind about it. Second, even though ATol has shortened my essay, the essence of my analysis has remained intact, and I very much stand by it.
Ehsan Ahrari (Jun 15, '06)


Re Baghdad's unwelcome visitor [Jun 15]: Some people in the United States - whose number is rapidly dwindling - still insist that global media [don't] report good news from Iraq as eagerly as [they pick up bad news]. While I sympathize with their outlook on the extremely sad state of affairs in Western reporting, Iraq may be the one case where mainstream commentariat is probably overstating even admittedly modest "progress". The most recent Baghdad trip of the cheerleader-in-chief seems to support the direst of scenarios. First, President [George W] Bush apparently trusts Iraq's new prime minister so little and is so mortified [about] going to Iraq (25 pounds of body armor speak louder than words) that security considerations easily swept away all the niceties of diplomatic protocol and common courtesy. Iraqi democracy may be untidy, but when the "most powerful man on Earth" is forced to sneak in incognito, it's probably beyond repair. And second, [Prime Minister Nuri] al-Maliki looked far paler than George Bush. For an Arab man, that's quite an "achievement". Either the American president is spending too much time in tanning booths, or Nuri al-Maliki is unable to get out of his own cabinet. Or both.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jun 15, '06)


Ehsan Ahrari's Baghdad's unwelcome visitor (June 14) discusses two inconsistent issues, neither of which receives adequate analysis. I would like to comment on Mr Ahrari's main point, which is President George W Bush's secret trip to Baghdad, assuming my ignorance of the effects of the Iraqi war on the American people. In my opinion, neither this president nor his father or president [Bill] Clinton is well liked in Iraq, because [under] these three presidents more than 1 million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children have been massacred and killed, excluding the massacres of Haditha and Ishaqi and the treatments of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Iraq's infrastructure and wealth have been destroyed and looted by the imperialist bombing and occupation of the country. Iraqi industrial facilities, which were built after Iraqi independence on July 14, 1958, have been wiped out. President George W Bush's strategy for controlling Iraq has divided the country into pieces and many social groups, and these groups have been killing each other over the last three years. All these killings and brutal massacres, as well as the pillage of wealth and oil and the Abu Ghraib scandal, have been called by President Bush "liberty" and "democracy". I am sure the majority of Iraqis know these points and consequently they are not interested in seeing and hearing any American president talking about the liberation of Iraq, or more realistically discussing the liberation of Iraqi oil from the Iraqi people: the owners. Having stated these facts, I can conclude that President Bush was not welcomed by the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi prime minister now knows who his true boss is. His true boss is President George W Bush, not the Iraqi mullahs, a realization that the Iraqi mullahs will not take [easily], because the Iranian mullahs will remind them that Muslims should not be led by a non-Muslim. The insurgents and the majority of the Iraqi people now know that the Iraqi government is not legitimate, because its supreme leader is President Bush, not [Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani. All these multivariate issues point to one direction of more instability, killings, and chaos. In short, President George W Bush does know these facts. So why did he visit Baghdad? Simply, he was not satisfied by the first trip he made two years ago because he did not see Baghdad. This new visit gave him the opportunity to visit the Green Zone in Baghdad, where all foreign officials and elected Iraqi leaders have been hiding. Still, President Bush does not like this trip either, because he was not able to see Baghdad, and the irony is very simple in that the liberator of Iraq, President Bush, cannot see his liberated country. At any rate, I give the president credit for his secret visit, because he went to the Green Zone in Baghdad ,which has had more violence and massacres compared to other places he has visited.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 15, '06)


Starbucks has struck gold in China [Starbucks soars in China, Jun 15]. It has come into the China market at the right time. It is benefiting from China's Gen X's and Gen Y's tastes thirst for a high-end style of living. Here we are talking of city dwellers, not the disfavored, impoverished countryside. As the Chinese economy heats up, fueling rising expectations, the pool of upwardly mobile younger workers and managers and the growing numbers of millionaires increase, imported Western products cater to the vanity quotient of consumption. It is not surprising that the observations of the American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class obtain.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 15, '06)


India, US: The natural partnership (Jun 13) is not as natural as it is boasted. The similarities between the US and India are much less than the similarities between India and Africa. India is actually more divided than Africa. Just as the ATol editor stated [under Mohan's letter of Jun 14], India's government is unresponsive to the needs of the vast majority of its people. For example, law and order are the basic elements to ensure that all people are equally free, not just the rich and powerful ones. Without law and order, freedoms can only be gauged by the sizes of jaws or fists. India's laws regulate poor people only. Rich and powerful can bribe their way out of anything. India is more similar to the wild west of America in the early days. Democracy is a great format of government. However, its implementation is far more important than its name. I would like to read an article to compare today's American democracy with India's. We do not want to let India ruin the name of democracy.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 15, '06)


How does one explain ATol's comments on the Letters page about democracy and migrant workers' conditions? The views of the editor are absurd, even infantile. ATol commented [under Mohan's letter of Jun 14], "There is more to a democracy than occasional elections." Actually, ATol, democracy only means the influence of the citizens on the political bodies creating policies and laws. As such, a democracy is by definition restricted to regular, not occasional, elections - with every citizen having an equal say in the process. That is it. Period. The policies of the elected bodies are immaterial to the topic. "Responsiveness to the needs of the citizens" is not the point - assertion of the will of the majority is. If the majority is fearful, then it will produce a government that is afraid of trying new ideas. You are confusing democracy with governance. Democracies are slow to bringing good governance because governance requires a strong faith, and an absence of the fear of consequences. I am surprised that while ATol publishes articles damning the treatment of captives by the USA, you have no problem siding, however slyly, with the despicable attitudes of people like Jack Meehan. How depraved does one have to be to fault the migrant workers, mostly legal, for the brutal treatment they get from the Arabs? Should the Chinese who cram inside ships or cargo trucks to get inside USA or UK be treated in the same manner? If you are not a Thai, then how would you like to have a similar treatment from the Thai authorities in Bangkok? Shame on you.
Brij (Jun 15, '06)

In fact Thai law is blatantly biased against foreigners, and is becoming more so under the current regime. This is just one example of a disconnect between government policy and the attitudes of most ordinary Thai people that has contributed to the ongoing political crisis and underscores our previous points about governments that are legally and fairly elected but remain immature and unrepresentative of the electorate. - ATol


You said [under Mohan's letter of Jun 14], "If an elected government is unresponsive to the needs of the vast majority of its people, as in India, which has more people living in abject poverty than any nation on Earth, is it really a democracy?" Where did you get the "unresponsive" part? Or do you mean that people living in poverty do not understand democracy and, hence, their voting does not count as a democratic process? Poverty does not count as a negation of democracy.
Gaurav Savant
Jackson, Mississippi (Jun 15, '06)

Our assumption was that the tens of millions of Indian voters living in poverty would like the politicians they have elected to do something about their plight, but this has not happened - hence the government is "unresponsive" to the needs and desires of the majority of the electorate. However, if the "will of the majority", to use Brij's words, is in fact to stay in poverty, then of course our assumption must have been incorrect. But the next letter offers a more interesting and probably more cogent analysis of the situation. - ATol


At the outset, I thank ATol for its teardrops on behalf of millions of Indians living in abject poverty. Hopefully my response should provide some much needed gripe water. Undisguised glee apart, every state or nation has three things to choose from: efficiency, justice and equity. And they succeed economically by employing only two, never all three. Communist China (not the Chinese) pursues an "efficiency only" model and without democracy (equity and justice); it does so "brutally". The US too regards efficiency as non-negotiable. It balances between equity and justice by promoting one theme at a time, not both at the same time. When segregation was government policy (at least in the US Army until 1945), it was not pursuing equity. Now, when it is promoting "freedoms" in the world, it is not pursuing justice. I have no clue on Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan (this does not mean their societies have no ideals). The UAE was similar up until 1996, since when it has adopted the "efficiency only" approach. It is in this context that Aryan Rathore [letter, Jun 13] commented on the absence of both equity and justice (not just one). ATol chose to disregard it and focused instead on the efficiency aspect alone. As for India, it adopted equity and justice in 1947. Efficiency was included in 1991. And there is no parallel - in this world and beyond - for such a courageous vision of operating all three at the same time and succeed by 2050. As for your role models, China and the UAE do not have a vision of efficiency, equity, and justice - not even beyond 2050. On a side note, ATol readers may note that the king of Bhutan is currently measuring his monarchy's progress by defining a new concept called "gross national happiness".
Srikanth Subramanyam
Greenwich, Connecticut (Jun 15, '06)


Reading your paper for the first time, it was pretty obvious that it biased toward some special party. It is felt straight away [that] the headings and the stories that have been included reflect a policy that the paper follows which certainly is biased. As an example, by reading the South Asia section, there is nothing more than about India and Taliban [and Osama bin Laden]. I hope you pay some heed toward it and include stories from other nations as well; there surely are much more interesting events happening in other nations than French kisses and hisses for India. Or maybe you cannot do anything about it because of all the Indian crew you have on board.
Shahzad Ali
Hamilton, New Zealand (Jun 15, '06)

As a newcomer to Asia Times Online you can be forgiven, perhaps, for not being aware that we do monitor South Asian countries other than India and Afghanistan. It is true that India, as by far the largest and most influential country in the region, generates the most stories, and that Afghanistan is currently of interest because of events related to the "war on terror". But the current South Asia page does also have stories from Bangladesh and Nepal. - ATol


Criminal defamation charges and libel lawsuits as political tools are overused, misused, and abused in Thailand and they deprive the country of proper political dialogue and discourse. One would expect that our learned and articulate political leaders would simply bring their case to the people and participate in an open dialogue instead of hiding in their office and instructing their attorneys to file lawsuits against political opponents.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jun 15, '06)


The article US opens new war front in North Africa [Jun 14] opened my eyes to that portion of the world that seldom gets covered, let alone the current involvement of the US in that region. For me this gives me some satisfaction that the US is serious in fighting terrorism on a global level. The vagaries of the war will ebb and flow for the US. That is the nature of any war, civil, insurgent or otherwise - basically the worst of human relationships are demonstrated and within that paradigm anything goes, so the US will have setbacks, but the US suffers from another enemy which many talk-show hosts have termed the "enemy within". These are Americans who have lived in [a] world where everything is taken for granted, especially the notion that the US can fight two major wars simultaneously. Therefore, why the prolonged war in Iraq? It has to stop - they say without even giving a moment's thought that war is not only a violent act but its end cannot and should not be taken for granted. There are too many vagaries that would change the course of who wins and who loses. The Romans made that same mistake. Their populations became accustomed to victory and defeat was not acceptable. I fear the US "enemy within" has that mentality and [is] singularly responsible for [President George W] Bush's low [public approval] rating. We the civilized nations need to fight this war however long it takes and hopefully win it.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 14, '06)


Peter Kiernan's OPEC jittery over high oil prices (Jun 14) is a fair analysis of the oil market over the last 10 years; however, it does overlook an essential point in that the [Bill] Clinton administration actually initiated the increases in oil prices. The Clinton administration did send then secretary of energy Bill Richardson to several OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] countries, asking them to stabilize [the] oil price around an average of [US]$25 per barrel. That suggestion would determine a price of $1-1.25 per gallon [26-33 cents per liter] at the pump, which was considered as an acceptable price for American consumers. Higher oil prices were thought to be a good move for the American economy, because they would attract American oil producers to increase domestic oil production. Accordingly, oil producers and corporations have been able to generate huge profits. These prices would also generate higher oil revenues for some friendly OPEC members [that] would be able to purchase American military hardware such as improved F-16 jet fighters and be able to invest part of these revenues in American real and financial assets. That is to say, high oil prices and revenues did generate considerable profits for the military complex and oil corporations, and would increase foreign deposits of the petrodollars in American and European financial institutions. Simply, this means the financiers would receive their share of pecuniary benefits out of these petrodollars. Once again, the same corporate triangle of oil corporations, military complex, and financiers has received the best deal of the high oil prices. In contrast, American consumers and industrial capitalists have been squeezed by these prices. Later on, the price per barrel was around $30 and then rose significantly after George W Bush was elected as president of the United States of America. In one way or another, the tragedy of September 11 [2001] was used by the Bush administration to go after some oil countries [that] were accused of being originators of terrorist activities threatening American's national security. The imperialist occupation of Iraq and the threat of using military forces against the Iranian mullahs have contributed significantly to raising oil prices and profits of oil corporations and the military complex. Yet it was argued by [Alan] Greenspan, the previous chair of the [US] Federal Reserve Board, that higher oil prices would not have negative impacts on the American economy because of technological changes and adjustment. (After he left office, Mr Greenspan has reversed his opinion.) Realistically, this trend of high oil prices will continue as long as advocates of oil corporations and the military complex are important players (or part of the elite) in the Bush administration. These advocates encourage imperialist wars for their own self-interests and therefore, American people have to pressure all elected officials to agree to terminate imperialist wars and to allocate funds for finding alternative sources of energy. This strategy will not only undermine oil corporations and the military complex, but will also reduce international animosity and encourage world peace.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 14, '06)


Your reply to Aryan Singh Rathore's June 13 letter ... contained this [phrase], which I feel [was] rather weird: "or the migrant workers themselves, especially those from so-called democracies such as India, the Philippines and Indonesia". May I ask if this [phrase] meant to say that ATol actually means that the countries above mentioned are just "so-called democracies" and not a model or at least actual democracies? If yes, then what could be a real democracy in the eyes of ATol? If still yes, what message are you trying to send to your readers? It may be that I might have mistook the sentence, but either way, a clarification would clear my mind over whatever your intentions are.
Mohan
Hanover, Germany (Jun 14, '06)

There is more to a democracy than occasional elections. The dictionary meaning of the term is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" (Merriam-Webster Online). If an elected government is unresponsive to the needs of the vast majority of its people, as in India, which has more people living in abject poverty than any nation on Earth, is it really a democracy? Certainly India has elections, and tolerates dissent to a reasonable degree, and yet it remains dysfunctional in crucial areas despite more than half a century of republican government. The Philippine and Indonesian democracies have had far less time than India to become truly representative, but in the context of the editor's note to which you refer - the plight of migrant labor - they remain immature. - ATol


In reply to Dirty Dog's letter of [Jun 13], I should point out to him that I detest violence or terrorism either by an individual, a group or a state and have on many occasions [written] vehemently against it. I resent the fact that more than often I am misunderstood by many and Dirty Dog is not an exception, since he has this habit of going into hibernation and missing [the] fun of ATol's disputants ...
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 14, '06)


I find Jeffrey Robertson's piece Korean xenophobia faces new challenge [Jun 13] to be extremely weak, especially in his citing South Korean protests against the overbearing US presence in the country as a sign of hostile nativism. I don't doubt that like all countries, South Korea has a degree of nationalist xenophobia and racism. Which country doesn't? In recent years nativist aggression has been reported coming from several countries - Western Europe, Russia, the US and of course Australia. Perhaps South Korea has a higher level of xenophobia than other countries; if so, we need better examples than the ones given. But Korean dismay with the US is only natural, logical and expected. The United States has dominated South Korea economically, politically and militarily for decades now. It's not about knee-jerk xenophobia, it's clearly thought-out nationalist action. You don't have to agree with it, but it's either dishonesty or poor comprehension skills to categorize it as blind isolationism.
Hollis Henry (Jun 13, '06)


I have to take exception to some of the premises in Jeffrey Robertson's Korean xenophobia faces new challenges [Jun 13]. Let us face it, the points that he raises are hardly new. Robertson brings up as an example the windfall profit that Newbridge Capital garnered in selling its interests in a Korean bank without paying a whit in taxes. This is less an instance of corporate greed than taking advantage of a tax shelter in Labuan which the Korean government had set up to attract foreign capital after the 1998 economic crisis. Seoul has learned its lesson, and is closing this loophole. It has become more vigilant in curbing excesses in sharp corporate practices in Korea itself. Let us look at anti-Americanism. This is an endemic problem since the division of Korea in 1945. It persists. It has its highs and its lows. Saying this, South Korea is an ally of the United States, and it is not ready to run Washington out on a rail. Robertson overlooks the fact that divided Korea is in an arrested state of war in which the 1953 Armistice maintains. Finally, Robertson bandies around the number of 1.5 million mixed-blood Koreans, the honhyeolin. Korea, like neighboring Japan, is racially homogeneous. It does not take kindly to metis. Yet as the population declines in the countryside, [South] Korea recognizes the need to supply wives to farmers. The government has even come up with suggestions for marriage for the bachelors who work the land. Mongol women are highly prized, because they closely resemble Koreans and share a common history of sorts. Then come women from other Asian countries. Consequently, the gene pool may be diluted but it remains fundamentally Asian, [with] facial traits close to the average Korean's. Thus [mixed blood] mildly obtains and represents a minimal percentage of Koreans.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 13, '06)


Thanks to Fazile Zahir for presenting us with an informative article [The mystery of the dying girls, Jun 13]. One crucial element that she missed, however, is attempted suicides versus actual. The attempted-suicide rates are usually established by personal accounts and are therefore prone to inflation. For instance in the USA, according to a 2002 report from the National Center of Health Statistics, more than four times as many men as women died by suicide (the split is roughly 83% men and 17% women). Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for men, versus 19th for women. Suicide, at least in the US, is primarily a male problem, as the data clearly show. In a research paper appearing in 1999 in Psychological Medicine, based on data from nine countries, researchers concluded that women reported attempting suicide three times [as often as] than men. However, tragically, men seem to have a much higher rate of success. Another comment relates to when [Zahir] wrote about the glorification of suicide. She is quite right on that account. Media representations of suicide do have an influence over a person's decision to commit suicide, as evidenced by what is known as the Werther effect. Although controversial, this effect has held the test of time as late as the teenage suicides following Kurt Cobain's death.
Sadi Baig (Jun 13, '06)

The Werther effect derives its name from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's 1774 novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther), called by Wikipedia "one of the earliest known associations between the media and suicide". A number of "copycat suicides" followed the death of US rock star Kurt Cobain in 1994. - ATol


The article India, US: The natural partnership [Jun 13] starts out [noting] the similarities between the US and India: "Both are proud democracies, suspicious of Islamic fundamentalism and deeply concerned about the rise of China." Then it goes on to say, "India is happy to play the role, though not at the cost of its own security interests, especially when it comes to China." This contradiction is valid, especially since China is aggressive in pursuing its own strategic power in Asia and around the world. India is playing a balancing act between the new-found alliance with the USA and the rapidly growing economic relations with China. Any nation can take more than one path towards its progress. The US has done this many times. But the more roads that a nation has to take simultaneously, the stronger the criticism will be from the world body. [Accusations of] hypocrisy [and] double talk are ... often thrown at the US, and India may have to face the same. The excuse of not granting India nuclear technology as it would lead to further proliferation does not take into account India's stellar record in this area, and furthermore, whether India gets this technology or not, other nations will pursue their own security concerns, as seen in Iran. Yes, India and the US are similar in many ways, but India is unique in its democracy. India ... is not only the largest [democracy] but its diversity staggers the mind of anyone who knows its culture. Even if the entire EU became one nation, India still would be more diverse than Europe, just in the religious aspect alone. While India has given birth to several religions that are flourishing today, Europe after the fall of Rome has not given birth to even one (Christianity was born in Bethlehem, not Europe). The reason I point this out is that the closer one looks at India, one begins to understand India cannot be easily compared to other nations, and this goes for the Indo-US nuclear agreement.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 13, '06)


Axel Merk's Paulson and the dollar (Jun 13) tries to establish the importance of [US Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson in making a new direction and change for the declining US economy. The economy has been stagnating since the Iraq war has started. It has taken several years for the unemployment rate to decline to about 4.7%, assuming the data are fair and accurate. However, the rate of inflation has been increasing to more than 3.5%. Soon, the rates of unemployment and inflation will both rise, creating a new problem of stagflation generated by the increases in budget deficit, interest rates, and oil prices. Still, I wonder [about] the fact that if there is a shortage in the labor market, then the market forces should raise money wages significantly, but this has not happened yet. Therefore, one can conclude that the employment data are not really accurate. Since wages have not increased significantly, this means that income of the working people has stagnated too. Unsurprisingly, the American personal savings rate is negative-1.6% for April of this year. In fact, many Americans, including the federal government, are in debt and the interest rates have been rising, a condition that further squeezes government and people. It follows that the financiers are making the best deal out of the prevailing conditions. Oil prices have been on the rise because of the wars and the uncertainty of the security of oilfields. Both conditions have [allowed] oil and military corporations [to reap] huge profits. Mr Paulson cannot affect this trend, nor can he influence the trend of the inequality in income distribution, nor will he be able to find a magic move by which he reduces the unemployment rate significantly and increases income of working people. Nor can he reduce the trade deficit in the short run by making the dollar cheaper globally, because if he can, many Americans will not be able to buy inexpensive foreign products. I admire the point that Mr Merk has made in that Mr Paulson is interested in delivering new ideas to the Bush administration. This is indeed noble, and Mr Paulson should be commended and rewarded for this type of personality, which we really need in this crucial time. The situation of "yes men" tends to create personal rules which violate the political rules of democracy. Consequently, Mr Paulson's creative historical idea for solving the stagnating economy must be to suggest to President George W Bush clearly that imperialist wars for oil are a losing cause and extremely costly in the long run. Also, the only way that American people [will] become prosperous is to pull the military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, or to end both wars, and to redirect a large segment of government spending on militarism to social programs and to rebuild the country's infrastructure. These moves will lower government deficits and national debts and will create high-paying jobs for Americans. This will in turn increase government tax revenues, as people receive high incomes. Consequently, interest rates and prices of oil will decline, and investments and employment will rise. The dollar's value becomes cheaper, and American exports will increase and imports will decline over time. Hence in part the trade deficit can be solved. Once people receive higher incomes, they will pay their debts and will increase their savings. In addition to these economic benefits, the termination of war activities will save thousands of precious lives, enhance the US image globally, and stimulate the country to find domestic alternatives for oil that help the environment. If Mr Paulson does not move in the direction of ending the wars, then he is another yes man, wasting his time for a prestigious job whose cost is very high for all of us.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 13, '06)


You stated after my letter [Jun 12] about foreign workers [in Dubai] that "no one is forcing them to stay" if they don't like it. It must be stated that is not absolutely true - in many instances the workers can't leave. Many of them are made to pay extraordinary sums of money to get to Dubai, usually thousands of dirhams for their visas and tickets etc. The companies that would usually pay for this make the workers pay for it and take it out of their salaries; furthermore, to ensure that the workers don't flee, the passports of the workers are kept by the company bosses. Thus the document that allows one to leave and is technically under international norms usually inseparable from its holder is kept away from the worker. The worker then must work under sometimes (I say sometimes, not all the construction companies are run by devils) terrible conditions until they work off their "debts" and then, if they are lucky, they are let go opening a space for the next naive fool. In order to get their passports back the people are forced to often pay a small ransom to get what is really theirs. Ladies are forced [to perform] sexual favors to get their passports back or sometimes to merely keep their jobs (they relent, which is not really surprising considering that many of the female workers are so poorly paid that they turn to prostitution on the side for extra cash). Additionally, often the construction company bosses make a tidy profit and then flee the country, leaving the workers with months of unpaid dues and no way to get home except by begging to the government and the embassies, [which] aren't always that sympathetic. These people are the lowest of the low, the laws of the land which are well written and there to protect these people are very often ignored with the collusion of the very authorities [who] should be helping these people. Many people in this booming city of Dubai agree that this is wrong; unfortunately, everyone (and I am, sadly, no exception) is so used to the good life and cheap labor that we just let it slide. Kicking a man down or verbally abusing (such as "second-grade leeches) him like that is beyond acceptable. We in Dubai may be hypocrites, but it's the likes of [Jack] Meehan [letter, Jun 9] who insist on kicking a group of people even when they are down and out that simply show the true colors of his second-grade mind and personality.
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere in Arabia (Jun 13, '06)

Our note under your letter of June 12 was not meant to comment one way or the other on the veracity of Jack Meehan's points, but merely to clarify what they were. Again, no one denies that migrant workers are shamefully exploited in many wealthy countries, and not just the United Arab Emirates. The only debate seems to be who is most to blame for the plight of migrant workers: the exploiting countries and those of us who live well at the expense of others; countries such as the Philippines that to a significant degree base their economies on the export of cheap labor and do little or nothing to protect their own people from, or warn them about, abuse in foreign lands; or the migrant workers themselves, especially those from so-called democracies such as India, the Philippines and Indonesia, who move to wealthy countries to escape poverty rather than working to improve the environments in their homelands, and then complain about the hardships they face overseas. - ATol


Despite protests from [Jun 12 letter writers] Maverick (USA) and Mission Impossible (UK), I stand by my two-stage theory of alienation followed by radicalization. There is no fixed way for alienation to happen, but radicalization almost always has to be the second stage. [Osama] bin Laden was alienated by Americans when they worked together against Russians in Afghanistan and was radicalized by their powerful and imposing presence in Saudi Arabia and American policy in Palestine. [Al-Qaeda No 2 Ayman al-]Zawahiri and company were alienated by the Americans' friend [Egyptian president] Anwar el-Sadat and were radicalized by American policy in Palestine. The [September 11, 2001] suicide bombers were led by those who had been alienated in the Western society. All 19 bombers were well traveled, particularly in the United States, and all of them had been alienated by neo-Nazis in Hamburg and imposing American bases in Saudi Arabia and radicalized by American foreign policy in Palestine and elsewhere. The chances of somebody getting on to the second stage (radicalization) without going through the first stage (alienation) are significantly less than 5%.
Rashid Hassan (Jun 13, '06)


Saqib Khan [letter, Jun 12] has no words of condemnation for the dead [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi who had no problems in using the Muslim god's name in his violent beheadings of fellow Shi'ites. Further, Mr Khan is intellectually dishonest to state that the brutal killing of Shi'as and Sunnis is by an illegal occupation force - a code word for the Americans. Before Mr Khan [threw] stones at America, did he pause to examine that the death and mayhem in Iraq [are] the handiwork of the militias owned by Shi'as and Sunnis? Religious men, both Shi'a and Sunni, are involved with these ritual killings. Mr Khan, it's not enough to remind Muslims that the ideal of Islam is non-violence. The world does not know if it was or not, but it knows that Islam is violent today and it's time to accept [this] and appeal to Muslims to go change it. You consistently throw stones at America without thinking of a house cleanup. The world will benefit if you stand up and be counted.
DirtyDog
USA (Jun 13, '06)

To be fair, Saqib Khan's June 12 letter and the one below were substantially cut for length, and the originals may have spoken to some of your concerns. - ATol


... It annoys me immensely when so many ATol writers either mendaciously use the word "jihadi" to sully Islam or in their ignorance use it conveniently without knowing the true essence and the definition of "jihad". A jihad can be proclaimed only by a properly constituted state: anything else is vigilantism. The true idea of jihad was spread peacefully throughout the realm of Islamic civilization. Islam believes in the jihad that is spread peacefully and militancy is totally forbidden. The greater jihad, as preached by Prophet Mohammed, is first inward-seeking: it involves the effort of each Muslim to become a better human being, to struggle to improve him or herself, so that jihad can benefit their [Muslims'] communities. Jihad is a test of each Muslim's obedience to God and willingness to implant his commands on the Earth. So please do not call terrorists jihadis. It is the exercise of injustice in impunity that feeds hatred and horrifying terrorism and that remains the weapon of the impoverished, the weak, those who have exhausted the resources of law. Add to this disaster a demonization of the Palestinian, the Arab, the Muslim, revealing racism as devastating as the new Arab anti-Semitism whose practices [have] pernicious effects.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 13, '06)

Most non-Muslims see little but the atrocities committed by radical Islamists in the name of jihad, and the muted or non-existent condemnation of such extremism by legitimate Muslim states and clergy. Therefore it is the radicals, not the media, who are perversely redefining "jihad", and perhaps even Islam itself - the media are merely reacting to this reality. When the ummah successfully reclaims jihad as a movement of peace, it will be the responsibility of the media to react to that as well. For a look at the experience of the world's most populous Muslim nation, see the new article Indonesia strikes back at Islamist hardliners. - ATol


I hope that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi's death will result in [the] cessation of brutal killing of innocent Shi'as and Sunnis in Iraq and both sects will unite in fighting against the illegal occupation, further destruction of their country, re-colonization of the Middle East and looting of its oil wealth by the ever-greedy and capricious Americans and Europeans: the real motive and the only objective of [US President George W] Bush's sordid imperialism [A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq, Jun 10]. Muslims must understand that Islam advocates peace and calls it "the path of places", and even Prophet Mohammed subscribed to the concept of peace and waged no wars, rather he himself was subjected to violence and atrocities ...
Saqib Khan
UK (Jun 12, '06)


Permit me to respond to Ehsan Ahrari's funeral oration regarding A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq (Jun 10). The writer has provided three "important" reasons - enormous jealousy being the third - for [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi's death. While not an intellectually exhaustive list, the relevant reasons were conveniently ignored. Islamist fascist [Ahmad al-]Khalayleh alias Zarqawi was a Jordanian foreigner fighting foreign occupation in Iraq. This illegal alien in Iraq believed he could fight foreign occupiers on behalf of Iraq and mutilate Iraqis too - especially if they were Shi'a. This "affirmative action" killer bombed Sergio Vieira de Mello and several [other] UN diplomats, Americans, Britons, Bulgarians, Japanese, Koreans, Turks, and hundreds of Iraqi Shi'as in Najaf and Karbala (in his value system, guilty by birth [of being] heretics). He gleefully beheaded engineer Nicholas Berg ... Killing an American Jew achieved two goals in one shot, or in one beheading. As a patriotic Jordanian, he killed Jordanians too by blowing [up] hotels in Amman. This last act prompted a massive ... hunt by the Jordanian intelligence in tailing him, and sharing the intel with the US - not "enormous jealousy" as Ehsan Ahrari would have us believe. So solid was the combined Jordanian and US Special Forces intelligence, the scrambled US F-16s were advised to take their time in eliminating him. Liberal British journalists like Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent of the British daily The Independent (world's most decorated foreign correspondent), even denied the existence of Zarqawi and brushed [aside] this as US propaganda until Arab-owned Al-Jazeera televised him. At least Ehsan Ahrari not only believes in Zarqawi's life but also in his death - trivial reasons like enormous jealousy notwithstanding.
Srikanth Subramanyam
Greenwich, Connecticut (Jun 12, '06)


Ehsan Ahrari's musings on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are an exercise in speculation [A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq, Jun 10]. Zarqawi's dead, and that's a fact. Yet the insurgency continues, as does the bloodletting. It is not going to stop. Ahrari ends his thoughts on the hook of a hope that at long last Iraq has a full roster of ministers in a government of coalition. There is little reason for wishing on that star. One, there are too many reasons, personal or tribal, to glue together a government which can function. Two, that government has no force to fight the insurgency without the presence of American and British troops. Three, [US President George W] Bush's war has brought nothing but chaos other than toppling Saddam Hussein. Four, the defeat of the insurgency requires more troops and a radical strategy of reducing Iraq to the year zero, or burned earth. The United States is caught in a trap of its own making. As long as Mr Bush is in office there is no policy but more of the same, which translates into more carnage and suffering and martyrdom of the Iraqi people. In brief, there's little hope. Supposing foreign troops withdraw tomorrow, the vacuum of power in Iraq will split the country in three parts and cause havoc in the Middle East. Three poles of contending forces will emerge: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 12, '06)


Re A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq [Jun 10] by Ehsan Ahrari: The American people and the world fear that the flicker is the fuse of a time-bomb ready to explode. The kitschy, tacky and morbid pictures of a murderer being displayed as a trophy were disgusting and showed the moral bankruptcy of those who gloated over this morbid and ghoulish non-event. It is amazing how our [US] news media [force] us to get consumed in disgusting and gory non-events. The hype gets to us. The death of this scoundrel/thug/murderer/killer [Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] is a non-event in terms of deaths or in Iraqi history. Nothing will change tomorrow. This is as insignificant as the death of one of the comrades of [former Afghan president] Babrak Karmal during the Afghan fight with the USSR. Will it improve the sagging ratings of our [US] fearless president? Will it reduce the life of the insurgency, now estimated at around 11 years? Will Iraqis feel safer? Will Iraq foster a new dawn? As President [George W] Bush said, he does see this as reducing the insurgency. [US television talk show host] Jay Leno asked us about our values, when he said, are we celebrating death? Should we, even though it is the death of Jeffrey Dahmer or this other serial killer? Retrieving the body of a thug/murderer/killer/insurgent, painting the body up with makeup and then decking it out for pictures is disgusting indeed. The gloating politicians from all over the spectrum who lined up to wallow and rejoice should be ashamed of themselves and their antics. Those [who] are celebrating the death of a murderer need some psychological help. It shows a low moral turpitude based upon perverse and ghastly values. Certainly these are neither Christian nor Jewish nor Islamic values. [Israeli journalist] Uri Avnery reminds us every so often that Judaism forbids anyone from saying anything bad against a slain person, no matter how bad he is. Then the politicians wonder why [the United States of] America is so disgusted by the [Iraq] war and disgusted by the politicians. The world engaged in World Cup soccer took this event with a yawn. Only the US media [were] infatuated with this type of gore. If the [news] services wanted to put rumors to rest, the pictures actually have created more questions than answers. The world is asking, how is it that after two daisy-cutter 500-pound bombs hit a small home and blew it to smithereens [that] the murderer Zarqawi survived the explosion and the intelligence services found his body absolutely intact? They are also asking why his pictures look so very different than those that are published in the "wanted dead or alive" posters ... Meanwhile the American gulag continues to cast aspersions on the sense of fair play and moral authority the world used to expect from America. The suicide committed by three Gitmo [Guantanamo Bay, Cuba] inmates was condemned by Amnesty [International] and [other] human-rights organization. When the military leaders say these men were guilty, we have to take their word for it, because they were neither tried nor convicted of anything. The world see it differently. America does not care about serial killers, thugs and murderers. Americans want to know when our kids will come home.
Moin Ansari (Jun 12, '06)


Ehsan Ahrari's A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq (Jun 10) intends to demonstrate the effect of the killing of a high-value terrorist, [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, whose ranking is considerably lower than [that of Osama] bin Laden, on the Iraqi insurgency. The article is missing the crucial point because what is called insurgency is actually a set containing various components of resistance, insurgents, terrorists, kidnappers, thieves, and the like. Zarqawi became known to me after [Colin] Powell, [then] the US secretary of state, used him in his infamous presentation before the UN as a means to link Iraq to al-Qaeda in order to justify the invasion and the occupation of the country [Iraq] for the true reason of looting of oil. After the imperialist occupation of Iraq, Zarqawi intensified his brutal killing of Iraqi and other foreign individuals and magnified the sectarian division in Iraq. This sectarian division, however, has been compatible with the US strategy aiming at controlling Iraq. In fact, even the Iraqi constitution has been consistent with the sectarian division that Zarqawi intended to fully materialize. It follows that Zarqawi's termination will reduce the conflict between the Iraqis and Muslims on the one hand and will intensify the basic contradiction between the Iraqi resistance and the US military forces on the other hand. Logically, Zarqawi's elimination does not serve the US strategy in the long run (unless the tactic of the sectarian division has been changed by the policymakers), but it temporarily boosts the performance rating of some high-rank politicians and administrators. What Mr Ahrari's article should have investigated is how the termination of Zarqawi can affect the rebuilding of Iraq. The demise of Zarqawi will have no effect on stabilizing and rebuilding the country. Insurgency and resistance will continue and both will become stronger after his death, and the country's instability will become more fragile and uncontrollable. The scientific analysis, in my opinion, places the cause of the Iraqi misery - instability, death, terrorism, torture, massacres such as [those in] Haditha and Ishaqi, looting of oil and land, ethnic and religious division of the country, destruction of infrastructure from power to roads and bridges, higher rates of unemployment, poverty, orphanage, and mortality, a low rate of per capita income, and the lowest rate of happiness in the world - on the imperialist occupation of the country, or "the new system of freedom and liberty". Therefore, if the imperialist occupation is terminated, all of the foregoing indicators of the Iraqi (and even American) misery will be eradicated. Generally and forcefully, the world will be better off, happiness will rise, peace will prevail, and human alienation and suffering will decline if monopoly capitalism is squeezed.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 12, '06)


Re Death of Zarqawi: George gets his dragon [Jun 9] A death, and a flicker of hope in Iraq and Mixed emotions among Iraqis [both Jun 10]: [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi was the field commander of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and of the resistance movement in Iraq. He and his initial associates [whom] he brought with him from the training camps in the north of Iraq acted as catalysts in the Iraqi society in its transformation into [an] anti-occupation society. Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia became in biological terms the nucleus and in strategic terms the spearhead of the anti-occupation resistance. Zarqawi is now dead, and for his fellow jihadis his death is little more than the martyrdom of a fellow soldier. Before death Zarqawi had more than three years to attract, inspire and galvanize his own brand of jihadist movement and leaves behind the legacy of a core of more than a few thousand committed, mature and battle-hardened, fierce resistance fighters who will continue to inspire the Iraqi resistance for the foreseeable time to come. In Islam, whose history is full of things like slave kings, the poor background of Zarqawi does not seem very relevant; neither indeed is his lack of university certificates of any significance. [Osama] bin Laden himself is the child of a builder's family from Yemen, and builders in any society are not particularly seen as social superiors. The path that Zarqawi chose indicates that in Islamic and Asian terms his family (albeit poor) must have honorable roots. Soldiers fight in the field knowing that they may get killed any minute, and therefore I do not read too much into the death of Mr Zarqawi. I do not believe he was betrayed by anyone of substance inside al-Qaeda and (despite American claims) it is more likely than not that the tip-off [came from around] the household where he was killed. The way [Iraqi Prime Minister] Nuri al-Maliki and the Mehdi Army responded to his death underlines the reality that until his death he most probably enjoyed sufficient support of the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency in general and that any possibility of an immediate reconciliation between Sunni insurgency and Shi'ite tribal leaders in the aftermath of his death is at its best fanciful. Otherwise Americans would have never killed him. Regardless of his perceived aberrations and brutality, in terms of Sunni Islam he will be seen as a martyr in every era of present and future Muslim history. His "martyrdom" as a commander in the field will inspire a host of youths to follow suit and catalyze and boost the Islamist movements around the globe. His death sends the clearest message to the jihadis, aspiring jihadis and Muslim youths in general that "martyrdom" is not the exclusive privilege of foot soldiers. The way he has been unwittingly glorified posthumously by the Western media has turned him into an immortal legend. Westerners are digging pits for themselves.
Rashid Hassan (Jun 12, '06)


How ironic it is, with life imitating art, in a reversal of roles, with the reported death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, eerily reminiscent of the reported death of the mysterious terrorist named "V" in the movie of the same name. Interestingly enough, though, it was only a devious manipulation of seemingly positive events by those devious power-monger politicians who governed the land by fear, intimidation and deceit, in order to placate the ever-increasing unruly masses and to subject them to ever-deeper levels of control and manipulation. Now that to me clearly seems like a case of art imitating life, don't you think?
Steve Agi (Jun 12, '06)


"The United States' global energy-control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed 'democracy' by Washington. But while it is preoccupied with implanting democracy in the Middle East, the United States is quietly being outflanked in the rush to secure and control major energy sources of the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond." What's wrong with this seminal paragraph in William Engdahl's US outflanked in Eurasian oil politics [Jun 10]? In the first sentence he suggests that "democracy" is but a ruse of the US to secure energy resources (oil); in the next he says that they are too busy with democracy (without quotes this time) to secure energy resources. He says that "A equals B; A does not equal B". Yet we readers benefit from your editorial oversight; by this paragraph we are tipped off that this writer is so bent on proving his pet theory that no logic is too tortured. I understand he has a following, but not every such person is worthy of publication. You wouldn't run Michael Moore's polemics, would you? And that's what this is - a pure polemic masquerading as a detached inquiry, as social science. You're better off dumping this doof; he doesn't help the [website]'s credibility.
R Martin (Jun 12, '06)

Michael Moore is as welcome as anyone to submit an article to our Speaking Freely department, and we would give it due consideration if it were relevant. We ran a letter by him once (Apr 26, '04). - ATol


This is in reference to [Syed] Saleem Shahzad's bombast about the Taliban on June 9 [Taliban take the fight to the country]. The Taliban will never materialize into anything more than rag-tag jihadis without the support of Pakistan's army, and that is not forthcoming any time soon. Most Afghan ethnicities fear the Taliban more than they fear the US presence, and this factor alone will keep a second coming of the Taliban from happening. This is the good news. The bad news is that the Taliban will continue to be a menace, much like cockroaches. The steep illiteracy and chauvinism of the Pak-Afghan border region creates a cesspool of miserable existence that provides good breeding grounds for the likes of the Taliban.
Moiz Ali
Oregon, USA (Jun 12, '06)


[In] the article Bin Laden's jihadi spring [Jun 9], Michael Scheuer correctly points out the global Muslim inspiration of [Osama] bin Laden. The problem with bin Laden's plan to bite off chunks of flesh from the "Western Satanic nations" is [that it is] bound to backfire. If one were to look at European history one would notice a pattern of long periods of high civilization juxtaposed with periods of intense brutality. This would include the Inquisition, the French Revolution, and World Wars I and II. Even if one goes back to the time of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, they attacked and repelled the Muslim stronghold in Spain, even though these Muslims, or Moors, had no expansionistic plans as in the case of India. Bin Laden's plan to keep wounding the beast in its own homelands where Muslims are still considered not part of the mainstream of European culture could easily backfire in conservative and radical governments being voted in and draconian laws being passed. I am sure none of these laws will specifically mention the volatile Muslim populations within their cultures, but the effect may still be directed at them. This plan of bin Laden will create an unwinnable war of civilizations where the Muslim settlers in Europe may receive the worst end of the stick. Bin Laden cannot destroy this "Western" beast as it is too powerful and will retaliate to the detriment of Muslim countries. Bin Laden cannot continue to keep biting at the beast, for this will result in a massive cultural backlash. Bin Laden has power, that is undisputable according to the article, but bin Laden does not have sufficient power for his plan to succeed. Bin Laden should remember the old maxim, "If one does not have the power, do not act like you do have it."
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 12, '06)


Rashid Hassan makes an important point in his letter of June 9 on the article Bin Laden's jihadi spring by Michael Scheuer when he stresses the alienation of the Muslim populations in European countries as a necessary precondition for recruitment of young men for fighting in Iraq and possibly at home. I would like to refocus his argument a bit, however. What is almost never properly acknowledged in Western public discourse is the plain fact that much of the alienation of European Muslims is quite simply a result of latent racism. It is the usual racist connect between economic disfranchisement, perceived biological differences, and perceived cultural [determiners] that produces results in the explosions of the French ghettos. It is interesting to see how closely the role the Muslims have come to play in European countries resembles that of the Afro-American population in the US. Compare for example the role the young males are playing. Just as hip-hop, at least in its most popular forms, is an embracement of exactly those stereotypes young black males are attributed with, violent, irrational, sexually threatening, socially irresponsible etc, so is the way the youths with Turkish roots in Germany or those with North African roots in France present themselves towards society a direct mirror of the economic and social role that society has prescribed them to. It has been demonstrated how, beginning in the '80s, the old-style biological racism of Western societies, with its most murderous consequences such as the extermination of the indigenous populations of the Americas or the mass murders of Nazi Germany, has been replaced by, or rather modernized into, a new cultural racism. This remake of racism was a result of several factors, most importantly probably the successful liberation wars of the ex-colonies and the extent to which biological racism as a concept had been discredited by the Nazis. The new-style racism, replacing biology with culture [as a] core concept and instead of operating solely with inferiority and superiority holding fundamental dissimilarity as central tenet, coincided with the end of the "short 20th century" and thrived of the neo-liberal revolution in Western societies. It has now become an undisputed and central element of Western culture and politics towards minorities inside and majorities outside.
U Klammt
Hamburg, Germany (Jun 12, '06)


In reference to Rashid Hassan's letter dated June 9, his contention [that the] problem of home-grown Islamic dissent against the Western world is of West's own making is absurd. He further makes an outlandish theory that people have been radicalized because they have been alienated from their societies. I would like to point out that such "alienated youth" exist in several developing countries [such as] India, Mexico, Brazil etc. Youth from these countries do not go around becoming suicide bombers, rioters or terrorists. I further would like to point out that most of the [September 11, 2001] hijackers were from upper-middle-class and affluent families in Saudi Arabia and were not "alienated" from their societies. The biggest problem of Islam is the silence of moderates. Alienation is at best a reason, not an excuse.
Maverick
New York, USA (Jun 12, '06)


I would like to correct some of the numerous (and self-serving) misconceptions Rashid Hassan [letter, Jun 9] has of the Western world. Home-grown Islamic dissent against the Western world is not of the West's own making; rather it has been encouraged by a vocal minority within it: by liberals, and Marxist-socialists, whose disproportionate influence dominates Western educational establishments, its mainstream media, and the European Union. Had the majority in the West known of Islamic intentions and ambitions earlier, we would have squashed or eradicated such attitudes at birth. Instead, we now find ourselves suffering the consequences of a liberal legal profession that has been allowed to meddle in politics (to the clear advantage of jihadist Muslims) via so-called human-rights legislation. As for Mr Hassan's assertions that Muslims have been alienated from the very societies they came to join, and that they suffer (disproportionate) social injustices, he knows very well this is a lie. In fact, it is worse than a lie; it employs a deception designed to hide the real reasons why young Muslims become radicalized. Islam itself is an imperial, political ideology. Muslims never, wherever they go, seek to integrate into their host culture. I have traveled this world far and wide, and I have seen Muslim run straight for the "spiritual ghetto" as soon as they arrive in an infidel land, every time (as instructed by the Koran). Muslims are drunk on arrogance, believing their faith is so superior to all others that all non-Muslim (infidel) societies are not worthy of respect. In fact, one could go further and state it is Muslims' sense of contempt for non-Muslims that lies at the root of all our present troubles. The riots in France, the lawlessness in Sweden, the protests in Denmark, the bombs in Spain and England, the deliberate building of large mosques around Europe, are all attempts to intimidate Europeans and influence the weak minds of their misguided, liberal and Marxist-socialist sympathizers. Millions (if not billions) of petrodollars have been spent in Europe, by Saudi-sponsored organizations, to aggressively promote the cult of Islam. Let me advise Mr Hassan that most residents in Europe consider Islam's so-called "warning shots" an unprovoked and aggressive act which has only hardened our resolve to deal with you appropriately. Islam is a dysfunctional blot on the landscape: violent conflicts in the Philippines, southern Thailand, western China, India, former [Soviet] states, East, North and West Africa, not to mention Europe, have all been instigated and sponsored by Islam. Your holiest shrine is situated in a country that carries the symbol of a sword on its national flag. This is because Islam lives, as it has always done, by the sword. By the same sword, ye shall experience [thine] ultimate demise. If Islam really wants to invite another Crusade, then let its spokesmen and leadership continue their present policies and attitudes.
Mission Impossible
United Kingdom (Jun 12, '06)


I think it's likely that a Letters to the Editor section precludes in-depth analysis of any particular topic. This is unfortunate, as Spengler's [Jun 6] article Military destiny and madness in Iran deserves a full critique ... There is also almost zero evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons (and even if they were, what delivery system would they plan on using?). President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad may be a fanatical theocrat - but then so are [US President George W] Bush and [Vice President Richard] Cheney - but he did send a letter to the US asking for dialogue. But never mind that; his posturing is as political as that of the US. But for Spengler to cite remarks by war criminal John Negroponte, without any mention of Negroponte's lurid and blood-soaked past, is again typical of this writer. The point is that the US under Bush/Cheney/[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and their pals at the Bildeberg Soiree are intent on domination - of oil, or water, and of strategic land. Iraq was no threat, even to its neighbors (and the US helped put Saddam Hussein in power). Iran is no threat either. The US is the sole hyperpower in the world. Its defense budget for each day is almost [US]$2 billion. If you make bombs you have to use bombs. The US keeps inventing ways to use bombs. Now one wonders what part Israel may play in the Iran scenario. I don't know, to be honest, but it's a factor. Will the US also start wars with Venezuela? Sure, if [it] can. But first is a completion of the new Great Game in the Middle East. Spengler states that Iran is on the edge of economic meltdown. He fails to look at the economic free fall in the US - propped up by military spending. Spengler is an orientalist, and a [disingenuous] one at that. It's interesting that in all of Spengler (that I've read, at least) he fails to mention the US imperial past in the region, or how the US put its pal the shah in power and unleashed the worst secret police (SAVAK [Security and Intelligence Service]) of the 20th century (trained largely by the US). Such historical facts matter. The entire frame invented by Spengler to discuss Arab and Persian history [is] the same one favored by clowns like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. It is pure imperial fantasy and demagoguery. The actions both of the governments of the Middle East and of its people have been shaped by colonialism. Spengler waxes poetic about [Albrecht von] Wallenstein, but won't bring up in any substantive way the real history of European domination in the region. Spengler is, if I were trying to be generous, a simpleton naif. The imagined workings of global domination are depicted in almost comic-book fashion. This kind of article only serves to further delude a populace addicted to the non-news of CNN and Fox, addicted to the most primitive sound-bite delivery of faux journalists. It simply won't pass even perfunctory scrutiny.
John Steppling
Lodz, Poland (Jun 12, '06)


I was so amused after reading [Jack] Meehan's letter [Jun 9] about Dubai that I almost had tears in my eyes ... as someone who has spent decades in the region (I refuse to divulge my exact location due to the nature of the regimes here, the same regimes that Mr Meehan loves and defends so much). Behind all the shine, glass and steel are stories of horror. He says it's the workers who themselves are at fault. Well then, I suppose it's the fault of the workers that they don't get paid on time by their bosses. It is also the fault of the workers that if they get sick by working in the near-50-degree-[Celsius] heat the medical services provided to them are substandard. It is also the fault of the workers that some of them are forced to live in camps where there is often no electricity or running water. This is all reported in the press in Dubai itself - Mr Meehan should read a paper. It must be the fault of the workers that this info got out somehow. Furthermore, [whom] is he alluding to when he speaks of "second-hand leeches"? Is it the Asians [who] run and make Dubai what it is? The racial bigotry in Dubai has to be seen to be believed. Recently a local paper asked readers to send letters highlighting the racism they face when they try to enter nightclubs; [it was] inundated in a few hours and had to stop accepting letters. The likes of Mr Meehan bring out the Frank of Seattle in me. The real leeches here are perhaps the "whites" who couldn't quite make it in their native lands so they come out here in the desert where just by being a white they get a job easily. For example a Filipino waitress who has worked at a hotel for a while will get paid 800 dirhams [US$218] a month while a newly hired white will automatically start with 1,400 dirhams [$381] ... Dubai is a great place in many ways and is certainly a lot better than black holes of civilization like Saudi, Iraq and Iran, yet it is far from perfect. The generations of foreigners who were born in Dubai and built it up are wondering where they really belong. Unlike Singapore, there is no offer of citizenship here, there is no equality of race, religion or anything. Dubai will find in the future [that] building the greatest building is easy; building a great society is not. Dubai grew on the back of black gold, black money and some black hearts ... Overall I think Dubai is still a heck of a lot of better than many of its neighbors, but there is still much that can be done to clean this place up. First it must learn that criticism isn't mean to hurt a place's reputation, but merely to highlight certain facts that will improve the system and elevate the status of city. In a city where construction is a symbol of progress, it is sad and funny how constructive criticism is the one sort of construction that some would rather do without.
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere in Arabia (Jun 12, '06)

Jack Meehan's main point was not that problems such as you highlight do not exist in Dubai, but that no one held a gun to the head of foreigners who chose to move there - and that as bad as things are for foreign workers in Dubai, they are apparently worse back home. - ATol


I think I owe a reply to Chrysantha Wijeyasingha's letter [Jun 9] on India's inaction in Sri Lanka's internal conflict. Lessons learned, whether 19 years ago or 35 years ago, are still valid. India does not harbor any terrorists from LTTE [the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] anymore. We have scores of refugees rushing to camps in Tamil Nadu when you people start fighting there [in Sri Lanka]. This is an unnecessary headache for us [Indians]. If you think we do harbor LTTE [members], then please come and shoot them dead. Nobody will [prevent] you from doing so because they are considered hardcore terrorists by the people and the government of India. [The point about an] invitation to China is amusing. Chrysantha Wijeyasingha, states do not think like individuals. The Chinese are not fools to get involved in this mess for nothing. As for peace initiatives with Pakistan, please ask any Pakistani to give an update.
Ajith Kumar
Sharjah, UAE (Jun 12, '06)


Re Bin Laden's jihadi spring [Jun 9]: I am afraid to say that the problem of home-grown Islamic dissent [against the] Western world is of West's own making. After all, these home-grown jihadis of Europe and North America are part of the very people who came to the West to join the Western society for betterment of their lives. The fact that these very people have been radicalized to the extent that now they are fighting the West inevitably means that have been alienated [from] the very society that they came to join. Anyone with the slightest interest in sociology will confirm that before radicalization against a group or class of people is the stage of alienation with such people. Radicalization has almost always to be the second stage. Things like foreign policy and treatment of Muslims in Muslim countries by the Western forces are the necessary elements of radicalization and not alienation. Western intellectuals know this for fact and whether or not they admit this in public [is] a separate issue. Everyone saw the riots of unemployed and disfranchised Muslim youths in France quite recently, and that is what this is all about. [Osama] bin Laden and company appeal to only this kind of youth who are desperately looking for some sort of "glorious" and "legitimate" route to channel and vent their anger. The enduring generalized social injustice in the West that is specifically directed against the Muslims within these societies is the actual culprit that is to blame for pitching the Western Muslim youths against Western forces, and the trend has continued to grow because the Western leaders have not heeded the warning shots positively and constructively.
Rashid Hassan (Jun 9, '06)


In the [Jun 9] article by Michael Scheuer [Bin Laden's jihadi spring], the argument is forwarded that Osama bin Laden has specific and directed strategic aims generally confined to Middle Eastern concerns and does not stand in opposition to the culture and attitudes of the Western democracies, this despite informed opinions to the contrary and Mr bin Laden's own statements. This line of reasoning was pursued in depth in Mr Scheuer's recent book Imperial Hubris and its predecessor Through Our Enemy's Eyes and was updated and rehashed in this article. Michael Scheuer ("Anonymous"), formerly of the CIA's bin Laden desk and now an ardent critic of US policy vis-a-vis "Muslims" (always used by him as if these 1.5 billion individuals share an absolute commonality of purpose and perspectives), argues that, through a combination of benighted, misguided and self-defeating policies mostly implemented by the US and other Western countries, Osama bin Laden has emerged as the avatar of outraged and appropriately vengeful Islam. The premise of the books and this article is to demonstrate that the US (in particular) and the West (in general) are being targeted for very specific foreign-policy decisions, rather than for espousing what is, for Islamists, a fundamentally antithetical world view (a "clash of civilizations") ... To accept the author's premise, the reader must either be genuinely uninformed on the topic or simply delusional. To support the perspective that bin Laden's efforts are an appropriate and measured response designed to change specific US policies, the author ignores a large body of well-known and explicitly documented evidence that demolishes his logic. It's also frankly repellant and perverse to suggest that somehow, the events of September 11, 2001, instigated, planned and supported as they were by bin Ladin were somehow justified by US policy. To make his case, Scheuer quotes selectively from the corpus of bin Ladin's statements ... The only new twist to Mr Scheuer's original thesis, as expounded in his two books, is the claim, "The purpose of this article is not to attack either the distinguished individuals quoted or the views and analyses they put forth." It does just exactly that. Of course, the nonsense contained in the remark attributed to Fawaz Gerges deserves ridicule, but the comment of US Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] chief General Michael Hayden appears harder to dismiss. While Mr Scheuer is probably correct in his assertion regarding bin Laden's symbolic role (rather than the commander of a rigidly hierarchical organization), this amounts to a tautology: the organization was never so structured. Additionally, some of his other assertions seem dubious. For Scheuer to acknowledge facts such as these would confront us with the unpleasant reality that, at least for Islamists of the bin Laden type, a genuine "clash of civilizations" is in progress. And, as Scheuer candidly acknowledges, Osama bin Laden will stop at nothing to accomplish his vision.
Keith Comess (Jun 9, '06)


The June 9 installment of The Roving Eye [And all for a little round ball ...] reads basically like a condensed version of Eduardo Galeano's book Soccer in Sun and Shadow. In fact, the section on corporate influence at the World Cup, especially that of the big shoe companies, is [very] close to the discussion of same presented in the 1999 edition of Mr Galeano's book (published after the 1998 World Cup) ... In any event, the book upon which his [Pepe Escobar's] work is based is good.
Richard DeLaurell
USA (Jun 9, '06)


Sally Wang's China may restrict foreign property funds [Jun 9] is timely, for REITs (real-estate investment trusts) are a hot-ticket item in the world of finance. They bring quick and good returns usually. It is little wonder that China's communist rulers worry about rapid turnover of funds and control of property in China by foreigners. The ... export of capital is less [of a] concern than the historical memory of the days of unequal treaties and the role of foreign capital in China before 1949. It is one thing to accept massive infusion of capital from abroad to fan the fires of rapid industrialization and economic great leaps; it is another to see control pass into foreign hands. Despite China taking the capitalist road, the country's communist leadership have maintained and wherever possible reinforced the party's role as what Lenin called "a party of a new type", run on the principle of democratic centralism. Recent decisions to restrict control of China's financial institutions and instruments have become more common. They simply betray a fear of liberalization and weakening the pillars of a single party's almost 60-year steel grip on power.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 9, '06)


The article by Mahan Abedin [Iran's lurking enemy within, Jun 8] was fascinating and impressive. The scope of the article clearly indicates the author's knowledge, but ... it lacks many facts. He is right that Iranian intelligence needs to reform, because the aggressive Western black ops against Iran will always continue. The sad thing for Iranians is that they always have to live with these threats. Regarding the situation in Azerbaijan, things could not be as bad as Abedin thinks they are. The Iranians clearly have no chance of winning the media war against the West. The large anti-cartoon non-separatist protests (which in fact included some Iranian patriotic Persian-speaking peoples) was a gift of [golden] opportunity for the Western propaganda machine (eg BBC) to create false propaganda of "ethnic" clashes and unrest. It is widely unknown in the West that many Iranian Azeris are the most patriotic Iranians in Iran or elsewhere. That fact was heavily demonstrated by large demonstrations of more than hundred of thousands of Azeris in Azerbaijan against "foreigners" and "enemies of Iran". They, many with Iranian flags, fiercely and passionately chanted against foreign plots against the Iranian nation. However, as I noted earlier, [much] larger demonstrations of the people were never reported by the Western media. In fact some were again portrayed as anti-cartoon protests. The possibilities of playing games in one of Iran's oldest cultural regions, Azerbaijan, has been an old trick going back to czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. The so called Azeri nationalists in Baku have been targeting Iran since the times of [Josef] Stalin. In fact, much of the Western propaganda used against Iranians [derives] from the methods used by Stalinists. Many of today's foreign agents (I do not ignore Iranians involved) are actually immigrant or perhaps guest-worker Azeris from the Republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Some of the secret agents include members of extremist fascist militias of Bozkurtlar (the "Gray Wolves") of MHP [National Action Party] of Turkey. These militias are most useful since they are the most aggressive and ideologically loyal to their cause. A few years ago these people started violent protests against Armenians but then turned against the Iranian government. Another fact the author wrongly mentions is that the Kurdish unrest after the Iranian revolution was a separatist conflict. In fact in whole, it wasn't. Even the Kurdish leaders openly admitted that back then. And the new wave of Kurdish "separatists" are actually not of Iranian background. While it is true that all the top figures are Iranians (this is true for all "separatists" of Iran, who are mostly college dropouts rather than being well educated), their mercenaries and "foot soldiers" are mostly from outside of Iran. PEJAK [the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan] is a wing of PKK [the Kurdistan Workers Party], and the majority of its fighters are those who are from Turkey trained by Israelis in northern Iraq. The insignificantly few Khuzestani Arab separatists are also those few Iranian Saddamites who participated unsuccessful in [Iraq's] war against Iran, and now their members and Saudi and Jordanian secret-service agents are following up (I am not ignoring the role of the West here I should remind, nor do I ignore home-grown Iranians in this). Another [point] that the author forgot to mention is that there in fact is evidence of Western interference in Balochistan. British commandos have been training Afghan and Pakistani Balochis (in Afghanistan's southwest, where Balochis live in an isolated area) to launch raids [into] Iran in cooperation with drug lords and thugs. So it is becoming ever more evident that the West has launched an Opium War against Iran. Many interesting things will come to follow this "Great Game", and as Abedin said, Iran definitely needs to reform and beef up its intelligence agency fast, before time runs out.
Mehrdad Irani (Jun 9, '06)


M K Bhadrahumar's quote of the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, "a US switch-over from a position on the roadside" describing Washington's joining the EU-3, Russia and China to negotiate Iran's development of civilian nuclear power, is a nice diplomatic metaphor but it does not convey the enormity of this "switch-over" - Iran is being promised admission into the World Trade Organization as an incentive to give up uranium enrichment [US caught in Iran policy squeeze, Jun 7]. We are witnessing a sea-change in the US approach to Iran. The US has potentially moved Iran from a country labeled by the Bush administration as part of an "axis of evil" and "sponsor of terrorism" to a preferred partner for trade, and recipient of aid in the development of peaceful nuclear energy and other critical technologies. Iran will "nibble" around the edges of this proposal, but will certainly accept it, pretty much as it [is]. This is a giant step toward normalization. It will make some of Iran's neighbors nervous, some of them angry, but most will understand that Iran is Washington's only hope of achieving even a modicum of security and stability in Iraq's medium-to-long-term future. This deal can be struck - not exactly a US handoff of Iraq to Iran, but laying the groundwork for much deeper cooperation. The Bush administration may be willing to offend the Saudis and the Israelis a little bit, because neither of them [has] been particularly helpful with Iraq and [they] are certainly not seen as part of a long-term solution. And there will be some who will say that ["peak oil" prognosticator] Matthew Simmons is right about Saudi oil reserves, which would mean that within the next decade or so the recoverable oil in Iraq and Iran will be most of what is left in the Middle East.
David Sheegog (Jun 9, '06)


I take exception to parts of Pepe Escobar's Dubai lives the post-oil Arab dream [Jun 7]. He rails against the way foreign workers are treated and the fact that Dubai citizenship is restricted. First, these foreign workers are not shanghaied from their native lands and forcefully transported to Dubai. They come voluntarily because they have a better deal there than back home. It's not up to Dubai to further improve the deal. If human conditions are to be improved it's up to the foreign workers' home countries to clean up their own conditions so their people wouldn't have to exit to survive. Second, Dubai wants to stay Dubai. It does not want to change into something else, which is exactly what would happen if it opened up its citizenship. As for ruling Dubai, it is understandable that those who made it what it is are not going to hand it over to second-rate leeches who couldn't make it on their own. You don't replace a winning team. As for the "poor me" crowd, they can always leave. If they're so good they should be able to make it big elsewhere. If they can't (which is what I believe), they should shut up, because they are getting the best they're entitled to.
Jack Meehan
New Hampshire, USA (Jun 9, '06)


[This is] my final response regarding the article India held back by wall of instability [Jun 1] and the numerous responses to my comments on the subject. I would just like to ask why Ajith Kumar [letter, Jun 5] cited a situation in 1987, 19 years ago, and Srikanth Subramanyam [letter, Jun 8] cited another action by the Sri Lankan government in 1971, 35 years ago, as valid reasons for India to harbor these terrorists and turn a blind eye to the civil war in Sri Lanka, while at the same time India currently is playing "Pollyanna" with Pakistan, which just had a war a couple of years ago, the Kargil War, and continues covert terrorist operations on Indian soil. Why [are] New Delhi and the Indian commentators on ATol so willing to forgive and forget with Pakistan but when it comes to Sri Lanka these commentators' memory surpasses that of an elephant? Obviously Pakistan has not become a "rented state" by allowing the Chinese close to India's western border and is getting India's peace initiatives on top of it. It only proves my point that Colombo has not exercised pressure politics like Pakistan and therefore is treated by New Delhi and obviously by these Indian commentators as a pariah state that deserves no redemption. As I have stated before, Sri Lanka should invite China and start a covert operation within south India. This will give a new and sinister meaning to that old euphemism of calling Sri Lanka "the teardrop of India".
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 9, '06)


The [Jun 8] article on Iran's ethnic divisions by Mahan Abedin [Iran's lurking enemy within] is the sort of lucid, insightful exposition that makes Asia Times [Online] the exciting, informative information source that it is. I've seen no comparably detailed analysis of this matter in other online or print resources. Thanks for publishing this piece: it aids materially in interpretation of this fascinating and challenging country.
Keith Comess (Jun 8, '06)

Because of an editing error, the article claimed that Iranian Azerbaijan "comprises the provinces of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan". In fact, Iranian Azerbaijan comprises four provinces: East and West Azerbaijan, Zanjan and Ardebil. The last two are new provinces (carved out of the other two), and contain significant numbers of Persians and other non-Azeris. The article has been corrected. - ATol


Spengler recently accused Iran's leaders of imperial ambitions and mystical madness [Military destiny and madness in Iran, Jun 6]; but surely he is mistaken? These words apply much better to the Bush regime in the US.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Jun 8, '06)


I read Chrysantha Wijeyasingha's letter dated June 7 regarding India held back by wall of instability (Jun 1). I wish to correct the [letter writer's] attempt to provide the impression that Sri Lanka is an honest neighbor and India is dissing Sri Lanka. Step back to 1971. In the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the US moved its entire 5th Fleet in the Indian Ocean to the Bay of Bengal (USS Enterprise CVN-65 was the world's first nuclear aircraft carrier) within striking distance of India as a show of public support to Pakistan and thereby China (Islamic Pakistan was helping the Nixon administration connect with communist China). The freshly minted Islamic Republic of Iran provided hangar facilities to Pakistani fighter aircraft, thereby protecting it from attacking Indian jets. Nuclear China made attack postures across two fronts by moving several divisions of the People's Liberation Army [PLA] to Arunachal Pradesh (northeast state in India) and the Ladakh border (northwest region of India bordering Pakistan and China). And what did the [Sri Lankans] do? They provided significant logistical support (refueling facilities) to Pakistani fighter jets en route to East Pakistan ... Needless to say, the war resulted in the most humiliating defeat yet of Islamic Pakistan and, more important, in the creation of sovereign Bangladesh. To be fair, the erstwhile Soviet Union moved its army closer to the Chinese border, resulting in the backing of Chinese army positions with India, and supplied critical spare parts (three months before the war, India and the USSR signed a "friendship treaty" which realized that an attack on one was deemed to be an attack on the other). The [letter writer's] intention to blackmail [sic] India as communist China's pillion rider in South Asia has been tested and tried at least once before and completely failed. India can take care of herself, as it did in 1971.Oh yes, please let communist China's PLAN [PLA Navy] dock in the warm waters of Trincomalee. Speaking from experience, India has the wisdom to welcome China getting embroiled in Sri Lanka's civil war. Last, I admire the [letter writer's] sincerity in referring to his country's problem as a "civil war".
Srikanth Subramanyam
Greenwich, Connecticut (Jun 8, '06)


Dear cynic friend Frank [letter, Jun 7]: please do not twist the facts. I never stated the lesser choice of living without a right to vote to begging for food. If you tell me that no one begs, is underfed and underclothed in China under communism, I may change my mind. My understanding is democracy does not promise plasma TVs, air-conditioning and much more. I like friends being personal, so here [are] some answers to your queries. My parents were schoolchildren when the British left India. I know what your next question will be; my grandfather was a farmer and grandmother a homemaker. I guess [the] same may be true for your ancestors under the Japanese? That would help overcome your misconception about why you think that democracy is more successful in some societies with "better" human-rights records. You mentioned Japanese, I would suggest you ask some of the Chinese about that. About Germany, ask some Jews and, while in Seattle, meet some native Indians or blacks. You never let ATol down for slurring Indians; many more Indians fly than some who travel by boat. India held back by wall of instability [Jun 1] has generated much response. While Ajith Kumar and Chrysantha Wijeyasingha ([letters] Jun 6, 7) decide on the foreign policies of India and Sri Lanka, I have this to stay. India cannot remain aloof to security concerns of Sri Lanka. The insurgency is easier to be helped and fueled by other nations but not put down. It is best dealt with by local people and governance. Although Chrysantha usually gives excellent opinions in this section, inviting other powers to Trincomalee may be a detriment to Sri Lanka in the long run by turning it into a rented state.
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (Jun 8, '06)


I hope Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, Jun 7] can study a little Chinese history before making any comments about China. Chinese people have no interest in India at all. It took China over 100 years of struggle to provide for 1.4 billion people. As of today, there are 23 million of their own still live in poverty. China does not have good reasons to destabilize India. It is [very] beneficial for China to have many stable, wealthy neighbors to purchase [its] manufactured goods. I hope South Asians can respect each other. In the meantime, all of us should remember that English masters did not leave Asia for their servants. They were kicked out of Asia by Asians. We should openly let those servants know what we think of them.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 8, '06)


An American (Jakob Cambria) suggesting in his letter [Jun 7] that the PRC [People's Republic of China] "should respect the sovereign rights of its smaller neighbors" is truly a laughable act. He is aware that his country has recently invaded two sovereign countries and is planning to invade another one, no?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jun 8, '06)


Despite my apolitical, rough and broad-brushed approach to the more then half a dozen letters I have sent you, you published them all but two. I believe that I have begun to see a pattern to what you let in and what you keep out. If ... I am correct in my reasoning, then your paper is really no different than any of the other papers. But then, I guess that we all have agendas which do not jive with the whole truth.
Krischer (Jun 8, '06)

A very small proportion of letters is rejected. Most of these are gratuitously offensive to ethnic or religious groups, to ATol authors, or to other letter writers. Others are too long or too poorly written to be comprehensible (hint to all: carefully reread and spell-check your letters before hitting the "send" button), or are simply irrelevant. "My religion is better than yours" sermons are rejected, though some religious defense is okay if in direct response to an ATol article. We also prefer that if letter writers wish to debate each other at length, they do it in The Edge forum, not on this page. - ATol


Re US caught in Iran policy squeeze [Jun 7] by M K Bhadrakumar: The fact that US policymakers lie is hardly news anymore. But that they lie so brazenly (or desperately), knowing full well that their lies won't outlast [the] Russian foreign minister's next press conference, is disturbing indeed.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jun 7, '06)


M K Bhadrakumar's US caught in Iran policy squeeze (Jun 7) is an excellent analysis of the US-Iran conflict on the nuclear issue with several implications that were overlooked. First, the article substantiates the fact that the imperialist occupation of Iraq has negative consequences on the integrity of the United States of America; one [such] consequence is the inability to deliver military punches with a high probability of winning. Some years ago the Bush administration failed to deliver against North Korea, and now has been in a nutcracker condition. This condition is where the foreign policy based on power and military strikes is being squeezed daily due to the imperialist occupation of Iraq, an occupation of a defenseless country that absorbs more than 134,000 American soldiers. This implication is magnified by the fact that the US cannot be involved in another military conflict against a large country such as Iran as was suggested in the past by some military gurus. Second, the article proves the fact that the best beneficiaries of the imperialist occupation of Iraq are oil corporations, the military complex, and the Iranian and Iraqi mullahs. This is indeed an unintended consequence for the United States but was totally predicted: not a shock. The oil price per barrel has gone up to [US]$75 and counting, which has generated billions of dollars of profits to oil corporations. Simultaneously, the military complex has been faced with higher internal and external demands for military hardware, which will be translated into huge profits. In Iran and Iraq, the mullahs have become the dominant force and the fundamental institution of change, [and] no one expects that they will create changes in favor of the US. Third, the nutcracker situation of the Bush administration will be squeezed further as the Iraqi resistance will be intensified, given the information that the US is being squeezed by the Iranian mullahs. This predictable outcome will stimulate the Iranian mullahs to put more pressure on the nutcracker by feeding the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan such that the US will lose control of the military situation in both nations. At that point the Iraqi mullahs will ask the US to leave Iraq completely and will invite the Iranian mullahs for support against the Iraqi resistance. When the new fight becomes between the Iraqi resistance and the Iranians' occupiers, the Iranian mullahs will lose the fight, but before that condition completely rises, they will invoke the fight against Israel as a new alternative. Either way, the US's role in the Middle East and the Gulf will be weakened. The basic conclusion should be stated clearly, that the Bush administration must pull the American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. The US must also rebuild Iraq as a gesture for the historical American mistake and as a restoration of the definition of American democracy that has been destroyed by the Bush administration; otherwise, the financial and human cost will be much higher than the pecuniary benefits the oil corporations and military complex receive at the expense of the underlying population. Still, the unpleasant outcome is clear in the short run: the economic and political domination of the Iranian mullahs.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 7, '06)


Trita Parsi's arguments are persuasive [Gulf widens between US and sheikhdoms, Jun 7]. Yet, saying this, it is nonetheless necessary not to forget the fact that despite the Gulf sheikhdoms' weariness and misgivings about Washington's forceful policies in the Middle East, they prefer the United States' presence as a countervailing weight to the longer shadow of a militant Iran. Look at a parallel example: ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries enjoy good relations with Beijing, but they too welcome America's military presence; in fact, some Southeast Asian countries join in military exercises with the United States military, as a veiled reminder to China that it should respect the sovereign rights of its smaller neighbors.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jun 7, '06)


Re Gulf widens between US and sheikhdoms [by] Trita Parsi (Jun 7): Just now, as your readers may know, many localities within the USA are contemplating adopting computer-automated voting systems which are alleged to be subject to vote rigging, that is, which may (at voting time) contain an operative computer program directed to some activity other than the correct counting of the votes actually cast. The idea of computer-driven systems with hidden agendas has applications beyond the limited range of electoral systems. I have long wondered whether the computer programs which make up a part of most modern weapons and communications systems can be known (by potential and actual purchasers) to be immune from hidden surprises which would render those systems ineffective in the event they were used contrary to the manufacturer's (or the manufacturer's country's) political agendas. Such thoughts might well motivate a country which feared (or which sought to prepare for) war with a US ally to avoid populating its arsenal solely with weapons "made in USA". Perhaps this idea has has been discussed within the sheikhdoms.
PAB
USA (Jun 7, '06)


In his [Jun 6] article US 'allies' keep Iran options open, M K Bhadrakumar discusses three aspects of US decision-making with respect to Iran: domestic, international, and Iran itself. Naturally, any rational decision-maker considers all factors deemed relevant to the problem. Certainly, in the area of international diplomacy, the government must consider its own constituency ("domestic"), the posture of its allies and potential adversaries ("international") and, of course, the target of the diplomacy itself, namely Iran in this case. For a career diplomat, Mr Bhadrakumar registers a surprising reaction to the apparently abrupt turn in the US governmental posture on Iran. Perhaps when Mr Bhadrakumar cited former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, he forgot to consider one of Mr Kissinger's maxims, to wit, "Countries do not have friends. Countries have interests." In other words, pragmatism and "the art of the possible" (politics, in a word) operate in governmental decision-making in most countries: this appreciation of consequences falls under the rubric of "realpolitik". Certainly, there are some governments that allow their interests to be dictated by ideology, but this is really an emphasis on the domestic constituency, to the potential detriment of other considerations. Iran may fall into this category. The US government itself occasionally falls prey to fantasy (spreading democracy, for example), but invariably considers its own perceived best interests in the end. This observation was stated in a more pithy fashion decades ago by another great and incisive statesman, Winston Churchill: "Americans always do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Of greater concern [is] Mr Bhadrakumar's gratuitous slur on Israel and its many American supporters. His allegations regarding detrimental Israeli proxy interference in American foreign policy, at least in the specific case considered in his article, is a classic example of the logical flaw of ignoratio elenchi, the so-called fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion. In other words, in this logical pitfall, something is advanced as an argument when it has nothing to do with the point at issue. Other than a reference to the recent article "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy in the London Review of Books in March by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Mr Bhadrakumar offers no evidence in his paper to indicate deliberate machinations by or on behalf of Israel or its alleged proxies in the issue of Iran and its nuclear program. Citing a statement by Israeli Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert on the dangers of Iraqi nuclear aspirations does not create a causal link. It does not even create a "climate of expectation" in Israel's American supporters. It merely states the obvious, so transparently obvious, in fact, that Russia, China and the EU share concerns on the same issue: the matter of how it might best be resolved is the point in contention, not the existence of the problem. Would Israel prefer the Iranian program go away? Yes, under the present Iranian government, [it] doubtless would. So would plenty of other people. Yes, the US government has a domestic constituency to satisfy. One element of this constituency [is] supporters of Israel. Another [is] those who, regardless of their attitude toward Israel, view Iran's nuclear program as a significant threat to their country. Some elements of both of these parties advocate a military solution; others speak of sanctions; still others advocate negotiations; probably some think that the program should be accepted and no action is needed. Considering the complexity of the issue, perhaps a more nuanced approach is in order, rather than scapegoating Israel and the Bush administration by suggesting America is held hostage by an all-powerful but potentially nefarious element on the domestic front. To do so would considerably enhance his [Bhadrakumar's] analysis.
Keith Comess (Jun 7, '06)


Regarding the article India held back by wall of instability [Jun 1] and Ajith Kumar's response [letter, Jun 5], Sri Lanka has far more options than covert operations in the southern states of India. Currently China is building a military naval port for Pakistan, thereby setting its footprint in India's west. In the case of Sri Lanka, it has had a long relationship with China. Even when Buddhism ceased to exist in India the Sri Lankan Buddhists continued their relationship with China. Sri Lanka also is at the very tip of India and has a harbor (Trincomalee) that major powers of the world such as China and the USA have been seeking access [to]. If New Delhi, according to Ajith Kumar, has "washed its hands" of the Sri Lankan civil war, so be it. Sri Lanka can offer this harbor to China in return for support to end the civil war and start the covert operation I suggested in my earlier [letter (Jun 1)]. Such a scenario will compromise India's maritime security and destabilize south India. China has already moved in, on its right flank in Pakistan, northern flank in Tibet and, with the aid of Sri Lanka, its southern flank. Let the [politicians] of New Delhi waste water washing their hands of issues that are most pertinent to India's security. Sri Lanka still has many options that will be [contrary] to New Delhi's ambitions of even being a regional power. As for "India bashing", that was not the issue of my comments. It was New Delhi's inability to flush out terrorism - within its borders. If India has to face a Chinese domination of South Asia, it will be the inaction of New Delhi to see the potential strategic importance to India of Sri Lanka and to step in before Colombo decides that India is a deadbeat and needs to seek other powers to help it out.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 7, '06)


I find Sudha Ramachandran's Logging on to terror.com [Jul 14, '04] is a feeble attempt of pushing a lopsided and to some extent blinkered view. In today's world, it is utterly pointless if someone is waxing eloquent about terror without even taking into account the legitimate issue of state terror. Talking of [the] Tamil struggle without knowing the suffering of the Tamils since independence (1948) under state terror is abominable. I suggest that these writers, especially from neighboring India, in spite of their bias, should inform themselves and form a rounded opinion on these subjects prior to putting pen to paper.
B J Alexander
London, England (Jun 7, '06)


I certainly agree with Douglas Lucciano [letter, Jun 6] that not all Americans are evil, but I must say his argument that the Iraqis killing each other on a daily basis has nothing to do with the US is ludicrous. As bad as the Saddam [Hussein] regime was, Iraq under Saddam did not plunge into a chaotic mess with scores of civilians getting killed every day. It all happened after the US invaded Iraq. Chrysantha Wijeyasingha's rhetorical defense of the Haditha massacre [letter, Jun 6] is truly stunning. He argued that "the ultimate goal of killing your enemy with collateral damage has been the standard in any war". So people can brush it off and say "in wars things like that happen"? Those who died from the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks were probably considered "collateral damage" by al-Qaeda. When you engage in wanton killing of innocent civilians like the US did in Haditha, what makes you different from those terrorist scumbags you swore to defeat?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jun 7, '06)


I would like to ask D Bhardwaj [letter, Jun 6], if to live without [a] vote is a lesser option than to live begging for food, then what were his parents doing under the English rule? Besides, I do not believe those half-naked starving Indians can afford the airplane ticket to come to America. Please prove me wrong, D Bhardwaj.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Jun 7, '06)


I am curious why none of the media covers the most important aspect of the [Lee Boyd] Malvo shootings. If you look at newspapers on the dates when the shootings [were] under way, you discover something quite interesting. The shootings began the very day the debate on the [Iraq] war started and completely and totally dominated the news until they caught them [Malvo and his accomplice John Allan Muhammad, linked to a series of sniper-style shootings in the eastern US in 2002] shortly after the declaration of war? If you ask most people, "Do you remember the debate about starting the second Iraq war?" they will all answer, "Yes, of course." But if you follow up with the question, "Name one point in the debate, a speech by a senator or where their senator stood," [nothing]. Almost no one noticed any aspect of the most important [US] Senate debate in the last 50 years? An interesting and odd fact. No one has done a story on what the real impact of the shootings were. It was to virtually eliminate the Senate war debate from the media. The Special Forces background of the senior member of the pair [Muhammad] also seems to get short shrift. Smells a little fishy to me. At a minimum it's a very significant part of the story, ie that a common murderer had such an impact on our [US] political process at such a critical time. Why is nobody covering this obvious fact?
Dan Pride (Jun 7, '06)

The general public - everywhere, not just in the US - is easily distracted from important issues by sensational news stories such as sniper shootings, serial sex offenders, California wife-murderers and celebrity rapists. Therefore there seems little reason to cook up an elaborate conspiracy theory to explain why Americans were more interested in the Malvo/Muhammad shooting spree than in dull debates in the Senate, albeit on the impending Iraq war about which (four years later) they now are becoming worried. See We report, you get it wrong (Oct 4, '03). - ATol


Re My Lai to Haditha, wars' turning points [Jun 6]: However wrong what was done by the US military was, it doesn't excuse what the Iraqis do to each other on a daily basis. They are not divided because of the US and they do not kill and murder each other because of the US. Maybe more should be written about how Iraqis murder each other and less about trashing Americans. Not all Americans are evil.
Douglas Lucciano (Jun 6, '06)


[Re] America-bashing comments such as written by Sami Moubayed [My Lai to Haditha, wars' turning points, Jun 6]: War is cruel and all is equal in warfare. Yes, 24 innocent Iraqis died [in Haditha]. Mr Moubayed should read a little on World War II, when the allied forces trying to defeat the Nazi regime bombed Dresden to the ground. That included tens of thousands of innocent people. We have created the Geneva [Conventions] to limit the "excesses" of war such as the use of chemical weapons, but the ultimate goal of killing your enemy with collateral damage has been the standard in any war. I wish the US [would] pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and let the power-hungry religious zealots of Iran take the reins. Once Iran achieves its nuclear-weapons capability, the Arab nations will feel such "heat" from Iran's foreign policies they will suddenly see the "Great Satan" as a possible ally, and I hope the US turns them down and lets them fester under Iran's dictatorial theocracy and Afghanistan's revived Taliban rulers. What a wonderful place the Middle East will be.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 6, '06)


Re My Lai to Haditha, wars' turning points [Jun 6] by Sami Moubayed: How is it possible that Mr Moubayed is privy to information that the rest of the world doesn't have? Investigations aren't finished, nor the results released. You aren't being responsible to your readers. Reading this is like reading about UFOs, or the Tooth Fairy.
John Walls (Jun 6, '06)


Re My Lai to Haditha, wars' turning points [Jun 6]: What about the Iraqis who invited Westerners and entered Iraq on American tanks in order to get rid of Saddam [Hussein]?
Rashid Hassan (Jun 6, '06)

What about them? - ATol


Spengler's [Jun 6] analysis of the Iranian/US confrontation is a cogent summary of the situation [Military destiny and madness in Iran]. However, his conclusion that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is the inevitable outcome is too categorical. First, the Iranian demographics are as he described: 30% of Iran's population is between 15 and 30 years of age; unemployment is very high at around 20% (due to ideologically motivated economic manipulations, collateral damage from the Iran-Iraq War; lack of private investment, etc); current income is about 25% of 1979 levels. So the domestic situation for all but the zealots and a small elite is materially worse: the usual outcome of revolutions. Second, the inevitable collision between rising expectations and the frustrations of the present reality demand a new dialectic: either capitalist-type economic reform with some form of Islamic governmental structure (the "China model", so far unsuccessfully employed by Iran) or a new drive for ideological purity, obtained by whipping populist sentiments in favor of an Islamist utopia to a froth and thusly galvanizing the public to new sacrifices. Indicators are that the latter approach is being followed by the present regime. Indicators are also that this is approach is being welcomed by significant segments of the population, in part due to the Goetterdaemmerung tendencies of the Shi'a mentality (at least as objectified by the current Iranian regime) and also in part due to the lack of a viable alternative strategy. Given the history of Iran since the deposition of the shah and given that [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's credibility rests on his Islamist revolutionary credentials, there seems to be little incentive to a pragmatic solution on the part of the Iranian regime. To buttress this assertion, recall the following. The posture adopted by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been quite consistent and convergent with the equally consistent and bellicose stance of Mr Ahmadinejad. The Islamic regime directed by Mr Khamenei undermined the minimally reformist veneer of Mr Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, by disqualifying numerous opposition candidates for office, by openly contradicting policies adopted by Khatami's administration (diluted as they were), [and] by sending (in 1999) Basij paramilitaries to crack the heads of student activists advocating a more open society. Potential Iranian reformists recognize that there is still plenty of room in Evin Prison and have largely reacted accordingly. Despite all these indicators of looming collision, Spengler does not make a cogent argument that ineluctably leads to his conclusion that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is inevitable. He presupposes that the US government is similarly ideologically blinkered. There are too many unknown variables and too many obvious impediments to US military action, not the least of which is the uniform agreement that it won't work. Furthermore, the problems the US will face domestically, amongst its putative European allies and in Iraq enter into consideration. While the Bush administration may have a truculent stance and while it has made numerous counterintuitive and illogical decisions in the past, there is no reason to necessarily believe that it is hell-bent on a ruinous policy of direct military confrontation with Iran.
Keith Comess (Jun 6, '06)


In response to several recent articles on Iran's nuclear program, including M K Bhadrakumar's US 'allies' keep Iran options open [Jun 6], there has been a lot of silly talk about imperialism and hegemony. First, Iran is trying to achieve nuclear weapons - to think otherwise is utter foolishness or willful ideological blindness. Second, what can be done to prevent this? A lot of people on the left would like the US just to accept Iran as a nuclear power. George Bush is never going to do that. Will sanctions ever be applied and will they work? It is likely some form of sanctions will be applied by the US and the Europeans with some positive lip service by China and Russia. But massive cheating will occur, [and] the sanctions will not stop Iran's drive for the bomb - as [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf stated, Iran is desperate for the bomb. The only means of stopping or slowing Iran's drive for the bomb will be to physically destroy its ability, that is, bomb Iran. Before the US bombs Iran's nuclear sites, it will first destroy Iran's air defenses, its air force and its navy. Also the US can hold Iran's electric infrastructure hostage so they [Iranians] will make no attempt to close off the shipping of oil. This probably will cause the price of oil to spike and could bring on a worldwide recession or worse, if one has not already started. However, the oil-market upset could be brief as Iran's military weakness will be exposed and they [Iranians] will seek their revenge in terrorism, unless they want to spend a lot of time in the dark. The European left, Russia and China will not be able to stop this attack; if the world doesn't like this picture, they had better get serious about stopping Iran, but the real answer remains in helping a real democracy to come to power in Iran, hopefully more skillfully than the inept attempt in Iraq. PS, Spengler: the attack is not coming in 2006.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Jun 6, '06)


Peter Morici's The 'haves' and 'have nots' economy (Jun 6) had some useful remarks about the American economy, but did not further analyze the stated economic problems of the whole American reality to the basic sources, which are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that from President George W Bush's perspective the economy is solid, because as Professor Morici correctly indicates, wages rose by 0.1% and productivity (and the economy) increased by higher growth rates. Consequently, labor cost per unit of output declines, which increases capitalist profitability and exploitation of American working people. Once again Karl Marx is absolutely right in his rigorous analysis of capitalism. This condition has been manifested by the greater inequality in income distribution and the large number of poor Americans. In other words, the "have nots" economy has indeed been intensified during the Bush administration, and the irony is that a conservative administration substantiates Karl Marx's findings. To provide more benefits to monopoly capitalists, the Bush administration has been running a budget deficit to support the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; a deficit that benefits specifically and significantly the monopoly capitalists of the American military complex and oil corporations. The deficit spending on these military operations has led to the continuous increases in the Federal Funds rate, or the short-term interest rates, which has in turn increased the mortgage rates and consequently affected negatively the housing market. Deficit spending for wars, whose unintended consequence has been the support of the Iranian and the Iraqi mullahs, has also led to the tremendous increases in oil prices by which oil corporations and the Iranian mullahs have made huge profits and wealth. In short, the militarism of monopoly capitalism has increased interest rates and the inflation rate, and higher interest rates have kept a high value of the US dollar, which has widened the trade deficit. A higher inflation rate is not welcomed by the financiers, and higher interest rates will damage the housing market and will reduce investments in general. Many indebted firms and individuals will be bankrupt, and employment and the economy's growth will slow down. If in the near future the rates of unemployment and inflation will increase, the problem of stagflation will appear in the American economy once again. The expected recession will also increase further the rates of unemployment and poverty but will not reduce the rate of inflation significantly as the wars and deficit spending will have to continue. Hence any economic solution will be useless without ending the imperialist occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and imperialist leaders must keep in mind that imperialist adventures, although providing tremendous profits to oil and military corporations, will destroy even the strong nations in the long run.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Jun 6, '06)


I have been following with interest the series on the war on terror by [Mark] Perry and [Alastair] Crooke - who seem to have an agenda of their own - and seem to miss the forest for the trees [How to lose the 'war on terror']. While going on at length about the neo-conservative movement in the United States, they give short shrift to the prime movers in the electorate - the growth of conservative media in the US. The conservative movement was nowhere without the growth of talk radio and alternative-media forces, and to not mention that while bloviating about the conservative intelligentsia would be a great oversight and a disservice to readers as it would provide only half the story. While all the heavyweights they mention are significant to a lesser or greater degree, the real movers are those in the media world [who] got the message out effectively and in a way that is more modulated than the neo-cons [to whose agenda] a small number of Americans would sign on.
C A Morrison (Jun 6, '06)


India held back by wall of instability [Jun 1] by Chietigj Bajpaee makes interesting reading. India should partly blame itself for the impasse presented by this wall. But [it] should not entirely blame herself as it is not of its making. India should learn a lot from China and do business in the true sense and deal with these countries on a case-by-case basis. Rhetoric of democracy and human rights takes a back [seat to] self-interest by most countries and is never a consideration for Chinese. I like cynic Frank's way of answering my question by a counter-question (letter, May 30). My Sinic friend Frank, I voted in India when I was underfed and underclothed and I vote now in the US when I am overfed and well-dressed, but never did look at votes as means for food, cloth or shelter. Simply put, a vote is a free expression of an individual's right of self-expression and choice. Surely I cannot live on votes, but to live without will be a less desired option. Your showcasing of obscure elections in China as a precursor of "home-grown democracy" is what is called bragging. Stick to [the] large tally of Olympic medals won by China, as that would be a fact and not bragging, just as, India's 8.5% growth rate claimed by world financial institutions notwithstanding, China is doing far better.
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (Jun 6, '06)


I read Wei's letter from Shanghai dated June 5 [regarding] India held back by wall of instability (Jun 1). He has asserted [that] China's human-rights culture, management skills and respect for women and children are better than India's. That is his individual sentiment. And I respect it. Now, let us consider the opinion of his country's dictators on all the above (not mine). The zenith of China's human-rights culture aka "The Great Leap Forward" has the unenviable record of creating, sustaining and "managing" the largest man-made famine in human history. How did they manage? [At] last count 77 million Chinese women and children killed of "forced" mass starvation (perspective: Australia's population is 20.5 million). Students and workers in China aimlessly murdered more Chinese than [Adolf] Hitler systematically gassed Jews (genocide). A human-rights abuse so severe (beyond genocide), a new term had to be coined, "democide". Unlike Wei, the Chinese dictators are so embarrassed of their record, even 30 years later, it is impossible to know the full truth of these events. After killing 77 million under Dear Leader Jiang Qing's diktat (Dear Chairman Mao Zedong's widow), the Chinese condemned her to death in a show trial (later commuted to a life sentence, some allege she committed suicide). This Shanghai gentleman chose to establish China's pride by showing a candle to the world - of all topics - on human-rights culture, and that is truly amazing. All right, we shall allow him to call it "human rights with Chinese characteristics".
Srikanth Subramanyam
Greenwich, Connecticut (Jun 6, '06)

US political scientist R J Rummel coined the term "democide" to describe murder by government (not just China's, though the communist regimes of Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin are especially condemned in his writings). The word "democide", which would appear to be a useful derivative of the wider-ranging term "genocide", seems to have encountered resistance from dictionary compilers, perhaps because of controversy over the validity of Rummel's work, including some of the numbers cited in your letter. - ATol


The recent press release by the visiting US delegation to Vietnam which states that the US will not help the many thousands of deformed and crippled victims of Agent Orange has put to rest as "absolute bullshit" the notion that the US has any moral right to be critical or to judge any other country or person.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jun 6, '06)


Kaveh L Afrasiabi's Rabbit and carrot: US turns the tables on Iran [Jun 3] might have been more aptly titled "Russia and China turns tables on US". To rate the United States' latest move in the Iranian nuclear issue as a "superb maneuver" is quite baffling when the reality is that America's punitive position on Iran floundered due to lack of support by Russia and China. Also difficult to swallow is the claim that world opinion will turn against Iran if it refuses to stop its uranium-enrichment processes, especially in the light of the nuclear hypocrisies of India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - plus the fact that, to date, there is no concrete evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program. I would argue that what world opinion is against is some of the options on [US President George W] Bush's table. However, that said, the United States' new show of flexibility, albeit conditional, is keeping the diplomatic solution alive. Common sense must prevail.
Tony Wiffler
Hami, Xinjiang, China (Jun 5, '06)


In his [Jun 3] article Rabbit and carrot: US turns the tables on Iran [Jun 3], Kaveh Afrasiabi claims that the recent preconditioned offer for talks by the US with Iran was a "superb maneuver that puts Iran on the defensive", and that if Iran rejects this offer and the new incentive package by the major powers, "it will lose the battle for world public opinion and strengthen the US's hand when the 'stick' comes into play again". Are you kidding me? Anyone in the world with a modicum of critical-thinking skills can see this so-called "offer" by the US for what it is - a thinly veiled propaganda device designed to make Iran appear intransigent and inflexible, when in fact it is the United States that is acting in the most cynical, repulsive fashion by putting forth an obviously unacceptable offer. The precondition about Iran forsaking its uranium-enrichment rights is ridiculous - this is the very matter on which the dispute hinges, and making a precondition on this central issue before negotiations even begin is tantamount to demanding a categorical capitulation from the other side before the talks have even started. No individual or government in its right mind would slavishly succumb to such an impossible demand, but the Bush administration hopes that people would be gullible enough not to notice the fact that its offer for talks is predicated on a totally unworkable premise. While for the sake of non-proliferation, we can all hope that Iran chooses to eschew nuclear weapons, at the same time, Iran has been scrupulously obeying international law on this issue and remaining within its rights as stipulated by the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. In fact, in the past five decades, it is the US that has been acting with aggression and arrogance, while Iran has behaved with comparative responsibility. It is the US that has brutally invaded dozens of countries and interfered in the most basic ways with their functioning, often in clear violation of international law, while Iran not invaded or attacked its neighbors. Moreover, it is the United States and Great Britain, under Winston Churchill, that intervened in Iran 50 years ago to destroy a fledgling yet promising democratic government, and overthrow a democratically elected leader by sponsoring and facilitating the coup that ousted Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, and replacing him with the corrupt and authoritarian shah. This occurred for the most selfish, greedy and arrogant reasons, since the US and UK were worried that Mossadegh was threatening the profits of their multinationals, and all the miserable relations these countries have since endured - including the 1979 [Islamic] Revolution itself - are a direct consequence of the US and UK-sponsored coup in 1953 and their subsequent aggression in the region. In regard to nuclear weapons themselves, the hypocrisy by the US is truly amazing. Iran lacks a single nuclear weapon, and the Iranians have every right to enrich uranium based on the provisions of the NPT. Furthermore, Iran justifiably refuses to forsake its enrichment rights to a third country, since accomplishing the process itself indeed encourages the growth of a scientific and technological society within Iran. Since the age of oil may pass within a few decades, Middle Eastern countries will need to develop their societies industrially and technologically outside of oil, and Iran is doing just that. These suggestions to restrict enrichment to a third country strike Iran as an arrogant attempt to block Iran from the same process of development that the West has enjoyed, and to keep Iran down as a poor, oil-dependent Third World country at the mercy of the United States. Furthermore, the US threatens world civilization with many thousands of nuclear weapons on ready launch and even refuses to forsake the possibility of a first strike. How can the US expect other nations to refrain from developing even a single weapon, when the US maintains thousands of superfluous warheads itself? The best way to stop Iran and North Korea from going nuclear would be for the US to drop down to perhaps 200-300 nuclear weapons itself - still more than enough to provide for defense and project power, but well below the ludicrous levels the US currently maintains. To do otherwise would be transparent hypocrisy, and this would undercut US efforts toward non-proliferation.
Pete Gaidar
Ann Arbor, Michigan (Jun 5, '06)


Kaveh Afrasiabi's