Asia Times Online

Letters

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.

December 2006

Chan Akya's It's the money, honey (Dec 22) draws a detailed, convincing picture of the supreme importance of economics in human societies. To go a little further, the picture leads to the basic human nature of "greed", which may be ascribed to a basic instinct to protect and survive through millennia of evolution. Thereby comes the founding and spread of religions trying to offer some countering and tempering influence. So this "merry-go-round" is trying to establish some kind of equilibrium in social and international relationships. At the moment, when a smart wolf hunts, it dons a sheep's clothing.
S P Li (Dec 22, '06)

Chan Akya's latest homily to the worship of Mammon is a cynical examination of global culture, dismissing the role of religion and politics as irrational [It's the money, honey, Dec 22]. I am astounded that Asia Times [Online] published this article at all, and even more that you did it in the week before Christmas - surely that's what the sign-off "peace and goodwill to all men, bah humbug" referred to? Astounded, but very amused indeed. I rather suspect that your commentator will not be very welcome at the Vatican's Christmas do after this piece. Or at the World Bank's, for that matter.
Salt (Dec 22, '06)

Re Risky throw of the dice for Bush [Dec 22]: Skeptical as the chiefs of staff may be about President [George W] Bush's plan to beef up American ground forces in Iraq, they won't resist the commander-in-chief's latest odd variation on claiming victory. Mr Bush is not taking a "gamble". He full well knows that even a Democratic-controlled congress will shy away from withholding either funds or troops while American soldiers are fighting in Iraq. Although public opinion polls show sinking support for a losing war, the apathy of passivity of America's citizenry offer scant resistance to mate the president's tilting at windmills in Iraq. In consequence - sorry, Jim Lobe - it is the American people who are with eyes closed throwing a risky pass of the dice with the future of the country and the economic and social welfare of theirs. Mr Bush's single-mindedness trumps all despite the overwhelming evidence that the United States has lost the war there. Nothing short of a popular groundswell of organized indignation will stay Mr Bush's delusional plans of grandeur. But that ain't in the cards today, and so Washington will slouch to another searing defeat like it did in Vietnam and appear to friends and foe alike like a "paper tiger".
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 22, '06)

I'd like to add some thoughts to Robert Hartmann's excellent article on the plight of recent Chinese university graduates [Chinese higher education fails the test, Dec 21]. Many of my younger Chinese friends are experiencing the problems described in the article, from an inability to find work to low entry-level salaries. Young women especially seem to be having difficulties, and I wonder if there are any statistics regarding gender and unemployment available. [As with] everything else in China, guanxi [connections] is the most important factor when finding a job. One reason for the glut of graduates in certain fields in China may have to do with the the fact that many parents still select their child's major. Men are herded towards engineering, while accounting seems to be considered suitable for women. The traditional Chinese teaching style of memorization and repetition also produces better results in some fields (math) than others (languages and liberal arts). However, it's going to take some major philosophical changes by the central government and Chinese parents before "liberal arts" becomes a popular choice for college study. The article briefly describes the "entrance exam" that prospective students must pass in order to enter a university, but the description doesn't really capture the whole experience. When applying to a Chinese university, GPA [grade-point average], class rank, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation, and work experience are 100% irrelevant. The only thing that matters, and is considered, is the entrance exam. This one test will decide the student's educational and professional future, so middle-school students spend every waking hour for years preparing to take this test. Imagine a high-school experience that included no sports teams, no student government, no prom, no dates, no after-school job, no clubs, no personal freedom, just endless preparation for one test that is like the P-SAT [Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test], SAT [Scholastic Assessment Test], ACT [American College Test] and every high-school final examination rolled into one. Chinese middle-school students study from the wee hours of the morning to late in the evening, for years. Weekends are booked with homework, tutors, and class. It's relentless. The pressure on these students is unbelievable, as they are competing for a very limited number of university admissions, as well as guaranteeing the future fiscal heath of their family and their family's status within the community. That's a huge burden for a 15-year-old child. These years seem grim enough, but failure to pass the test can result in shame and suicide. It's no surprise that most Chinese do not look fondly upon these years. The current testing regime was implemented to try to keep university enrollment free from corruption, but it needs to be reformed. It just breaks my heart to see these children trudging home from school in the dark of the evening, robbed of some of their important formative years for an examination.
TaMu
China (Dec 22, '06)

Re Chinese higher education fails the test [Dec 21] by Robert Hartmann: Yes, a restructuring of the higher-education system may be necessary. But the unemployment problems may have a lot to do with the huge population of China and the path of the free market economy they are following. The unemployment problem is not unique to China. In a market economy, the rate of unemployment fluctuates with the market demand. Any student [who] entered a so-called "hot" field [and] studied hard during the four or five university years could face unemployment under the economic downturn. In many aspects, the market demand for university graduates can be as unpredictable as [the] stock market. It is common in North America to change career paths several times during one's lifetime. From no university graduates to oversupply (there were no university graduates through 10 years of the Cultural Revolution, 1966-76), China has done a super-successful job of catching up. Now the issue is how to solve the problem of contradiction between the efficiency of market economy and China's huge population. A market economy demands efficiency, more automation, less employment. Can China afford to follow this path? If it's important to maintain the efficiency, then what to do with the extra workforce? Let them be the recipients of social welfare, self-employed entrepreneurs, or employed through other government supported activities? As to the issue facing MNC [multinational corporations], what the MNCs are lacking are mostly managers. Those positions are not likely to be filled by the new graduates. A good manager requires the skills learned through practical work, not only the knowledge from books. With my experiences, the deficiency in this area could be resolved in time as the workforce becomes more mature and more experienced. The time may not be far away in China when there are too many qualified but unemployed managers. That [has] already happened in some parts of North America where it's easier to find a vice president than a tomato picker. Education is no longer a guarantee producing "heaven's favored ones" anywhere in the world.
Yen
An expat in Shanghai (Dec 21, '06)

In spite of China's rush towards capitalism, and the dash to cover new ground in the game of economic catch-up, as far as furnishing the trained personnel for the high end of market share in modern industries and the service sectors, as Robert Hartmann describes, Chinese higher education fails the test [Dec 21]. [In the race] to corner low-end market share, China has more hands than it needs, and this accounts for the drive of First World countries to outsource jobs and factories and transfer older technology to China, to enhance bottom lines. However, when it comes to ramping up skills on a higher, value-added level, requiring university training, China is telling time from another age. As such, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai laments the shortage of such intellectual workers. To overcome such failings, although the ACC does not say so, the burden is going to fall on the shoulders of American corporations, and this translates in capital outlays to bring Chinese university graduates up to a competent level of skills. Saying this, it is not an exaggeration to posit that successful as this long-term effort may be, these very companies will run into a wall of cultural attitudes which will put a brake on execution of desired goals, the siphoning of capital expenditures into the deep channels of corruption endemic in China, and the loosening of central government control on subcontracting and access to markets denied to them. In balance, for the members of the ACC, it is worth the candle, for the rewards promise returns of fabulous wealth.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 21, '06)

I enjoyed reading Raja M's article Let us make this perfectly clear [Dec 21], about efforts in India to improve business by improving communication. However, I must quibble with the author's description of India as the world's "third-largest English-speaking country". India is a wonderfully multilingual country and, like other such polyglot nations in Europe, English is a frequent constituent in the linguistic repertoire of educated members of society. However, as someone who spent over three years throughout India and was enthralled by the country's cultural richness, I must affirm that one of India's greatest strengths and appeals is that it is categorically not an English-speaking country. Instead, it is a place where the indigenous Indian languages and their use as cultural and technical vehicles are particularly thriving, both as first languages among the people and as public standards, and where they are used instead of and in preference to English, French and other former colonial tongues - in contrast to many other former colonies. Wherever I went through India, even among individuals who had been educated in the USA or in Britain, I almost never heard English spoken amongst the people. Instead, native Indian languages dominated the landscape. In terms of numbers of speakers, popular newspapers and TV channels, even technical journals, English was perhaps No 15 on the list of most-used languages in India. Furthermore, as I myself in part learned the hard way while working with an international media and communications company, such media ventures almost invariably failed if we used English for our news or music delivery, even for computer and technical applications. By contrast, we enjoyed success when we delivered our content in Marathi, or Telugu, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, Kannada or of course the national language Hindi. These are the languages both of popular culture and educated communication in India. Indeed, this is something that I found to be especially appealing about India compared to many other countries in which I have worked. In many European countries and even Asian nations such as Malaysia and Singapore, there is a relative scarcity of content and culture produced in the local and national languages, with local media often merely importing Hollywood films or US TV shows with some local subtitling - which reduces the distinctiveness and cultural vibrance of these places, making them less attractive to visitors and business people from abroad - whereas in India, Bollywood and other centers of the film industry unabashedly make their movies in Hindi, Bengali or Tamil among others, while Indian singers and TV stars produce their content in Hindi and other indigenous Indian languages. India, in fact, has one of the most vigorous home-grown cultural and media enterprises of any nation today, and the pride and contagious enthusiasm of India's cultural products, with its top stars expressing themselves in Hindi and other Indian languages rather than the imposed tongue of a former colonial power, accounts in part for the incredibly lucrative popularity of Indian films and music as cultural exports all over the world, from Russia to the Middle East to South America. Meanwhile, continuing Indian innovation in areas such as software and engineering, in the Hindi medium for example, is already making Hindi an important technical language, and one accessible to the masses as well. Businesses in India should indeed encourage their employees to improve their skills in important European languages such as English, French and German. However, Indians should primarily take great pride in their cultural accomplishments in Indian languages, and realize the tremendous benefits that accrue to the country from developing content chiefly in these languages, both for India and for other countries that enjoy the fruits of India's cultural creativity.
Chuck Drexler
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Dec 21, '06)

The article did not say nor tried to imply how many (or if any) Indians speak English to the exclusion of native languages. In terms of English as a second or supplementary language, however, the "third-largest" description may actually have been a conservative estimate, depending on the standards applied. Some sources suggest that India has more people than any other country who can speak and understand English at reasonable levels of competence. - ATol

Zorawar Singh brings up lots of interesting points in Security: India loses its grip [Dec 21]. However, it seems like he is lamenting over the fact that India's domestic government-owned manufacturing has fallen over the past several years ("India's self-reliance in the production of machine tools has fallen from 80% to the current 20%. Today the manufacturing industry accounts for only 17% of GDP"). I don't quite believe that India's security has suffered in any way due to this trend, which actually is a good thing. For one, Indian government-owned companies [that] either did nothing or produced goods that no one needed do not dominate the economy to the same extent. Second, the scarce capital is being invested in sectors that are growing, and are creating both jobs as well as economic activity. That is extremely healthy. Finally, Indian manufacturing, however small, as percent of the economy is healthier. Were the Indian military (and government) to call upon them to design, develop and manufacture military hardware, they are in better shape to do that. As for the demise of the public sector, they have gone the way of numerous Soviet-era industries, and that is not a bad thing.
Rocky (Dec 21, '06)

Re Holy warriors set sights on Iran [Dec 21] by Bill Berkowitz: It dawned on me after reading this article that humanity as we know it is probably doomed. What can anyone hope for when vast numbers of adults in the most materially prosperous and scientifically advanced country in the world subscribe to the mind-rot of Christian Zionism? Most troubling, the participants in these neo-Christian cults become through their irrational beliefs willing tools at the hands of devious demagogues like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Joel Rosenberg. Evangelical activism has clearly borne fruit with the election of G W Bush who is not only the most dangerously incompetent [US] president ever, but an evangelical zombie himself. In the long run, there is but one way out: the general IQ will have to be raised if the species is to survive. Perhaps the tools and the determination will be on hand after the next big war.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Dec 21, '06)

Re India fears US nuclear trap [Dec 20]: I strongly believe that this deal will pass all the hurdles and also address major concerns of India, because despite [the fact] that India and the US are saying that this is simply a business deal, it was their security concerns which ensured the success of this deal. In fact, although India direly needs the nuclear deal, the US too needs this deal for its own reasons. For India, this deal will relieve it from dangerously depending on oil. Second, a prospering India will also need more FDI [foreign direct investment] with technology transfer. Since the US-led countries are more likely to bring more investments to India, a good relationship with the US is essential for that. In the defense perspective, India must have a strong economy as well as strong defense. Without one, another is useless. With the demise of the USSR and now Russia having a good relationship with China, India is compelled to find alternatives to its defense requirements. Even Russia may maintain cordial relationship with India but its economy is too ruined to spend more for R&D [research and development] for advanced weaponry. And ironically the Russians have India and China as customers. If ever war erupts between India and China, China will have weapons which will be similar to India's or more advanced than India's, not to mention Russia, being a supplier to both, standing neutral in any clash. Any political novice will agree that in today's terrorized world, no country wants to live without a strong ally, including the mighty Americans. For India, the US has virtually become a mall. India can buy everything from it or nothing at all. In the US calculus, apart from the business perspective, India is a key force to be reckoned [with]. Now they [have] realized that the world is too big for them to handle. They want someone to share the burden or blame. Since major flash points are in Asia and all their possible adversaries (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) are in Asia, the Americans want a strong ally (not only economically but militarily too) in this continent. I am sure the US wouldn't press any clause which [would] compel India to forgo the deal. India and the US must be aware of the fact that they will never have a deal which addresses only their [own concerns]. Such a deal is only possible if one defeats the other in a war and orders the defeated one to sign. Finally, I know many people who are staunchly optimistic and God-believers. But I also know that they all have multiple insurance to protect their family from any uncertainty. India and the US consider each other as insurance.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Dec 21, '06)

With respect to the letter of Neel (Dec 20) regarding my three-part series on Revamping US Foreign Policy (see Part 3: The rising pole of the East, Dec 19): There is no doubt, as acknowledged in the series, that the US has brought many of its current troubles on itself by its pursuit of entirely foolish foreign policies. However, to say that the rising East and its strategic partners have not possessed, and are not cleverly executing, a joint strategy to leverage the opportunities provided by US misfortunes in order to fully bring in their much-vaunted "multipolar" new world order is very naive indeed. That statement is not in any way intended as a personal insult. In fact, I personally wish there were far more peace-loving and fair-minded persons like Neel, especially in top government leadership positions around the world. As the series pointed out, excessive US global dominance in the diplomatic, economic, military and geopolitical spheres, exercised virtually without regard for the legitimate interests of other powers since 1991, has pointedly cut across the opportunities of other powers to achieve the wealth and power and stability they fundamentally need and want. Both Russia and China began in 1996 to issue Joint Statements on the World Order in which they bitterly opined excessive US global dominance and vowed to bring in the "multipolar" new world order. They have both worked tirelessly to lay its political, diplomatic, economic and energy-based foundations and to capitalize on every opportunity brought by US weakness and misfortune to bring their new world order to birth. Had the US not committed strategic blunder on top of strategic blunder, providing them the golden opening for the birth of their new world order, then their efforts would not have borne the full fruit they are bearing today. But to view the complete reordering we're seeing of the global economic, energy, geopolitical, military and diplomatic landscapes, from North America-centric to Eurasia-centric, as merely "happenstance" and unplanned, is distinctly naive. I fully understand that sincere and unselfish Indians such as Neel do not wish to dominate the world, but merely want to secure a legitimate and secure place in it for themselves and their families. Many genuine individuals just like Neel exist around the globe. But they generally aren't the persons in government who are at the leadership positions where the course of the world order is genuinely being determined. The geopolitical world doesn't function quite like Neel and I wish it did. The leaders in the rising multifarious East know full well that the US leadership will take advantage of their nations at every opportunity, virtually without regard for their legitimate interests, to reconsolidate and to consolidate totally its sole global dominance. Iraq was not an aberration in US foreign policy, but rather a demonstration of how determined is the current US leadership to consolidate global power in its hands alone and usher in the "New American Century" - of course for the benefit of the entire world (if you were to ask President George W Bush). The leaders in the East know full well that excessive US global dominance must be ended - they cannot merely wait for US blunders to perhaps bring it to an end sometime in the distant future. They are bringing it progressively to an end by creating a new global economic, energy, political and even military order centered in the East rather than in the West that encompasses like-minded powers and progressively deprives the US of the political allies, economic markets, and strategic resources that are vital to the continuance of its excessive global dominance. The US will soon, by all the facts, make further military pushes against Iran, Syria, North Korea and perhaps others. It shows every sign of pursuing a destabilization of Russia and China by the further spread of democratic revolutions and North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion - especially is this to be so as Russia-China continue to rise as threats to the US global position. Neel and I don't want war - we detest it. But the geopolitical order is in transition from unipolarity to what I have laid out as asymm-plexity - lopsided bipolarity with a complex but ever more cohesive East pole. The US-led unipolar order is bringing pointed and ever more dangerous global instability and upheaval, and the rising multifarious East cannot simply stand by and inanely permit the US to bring the eventuality of a complete loss of international peace and security. Neither can they permit the US to recapture a position of total global dominance. There is a competition - really, a war - ongoing for control over the issue of determining whether a new world order will arise and what its configuration will be. The US wants no such new order to arise and is fiercely fighting its impending birth. The rising multifarious East has designs on the current US-led unipolar order and will not stand down. It is important to recognize this all-important global competition correctly for what it truly is and for what it will very soon lead to - sharply increased global upheaval as the unipolar order fades into a reversion to lopsided bipolarity, with an ascendant East.
W Joseph Stroupe (Dec 21, '06)

Spengler: Merry Christmas! Thank you for a wonderful article [Sympathy for Scrooge, Dec 16]. You raise many important points of consideration. May I please respond to your comment about the name "Ebenezer" for Dickens' character. It is my understanding that the name is derived from two Hebrew words: eben, which generally means "stone or made out of stone", and ezer, which generally means "tower or pile". It is noted in I Samuel, chapter 7, verse 12. In the well-known passage from Ecclesiastes 3:5, there is "a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together". This is a reference to the physical and symbolic acts of concluding strife between people as the stones which were formerly gathered up to be thrown against the enemy are then piled into a tower as each of the people releases their anger and reconciles. The pile of stones, therefore, is a confirmation of the end of a particular strife. Later, in Ezekiel 36:26, we read, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." When Charles Dickens employed the name "Ebenezer", it was perhaps more in keeping with the "change of stony heart" and the symbolic act of Scrooge casting aside the "bah humbug" stones which he once assailed against Christmas, and instead piling them into a tower as a reminder that where once there was strife, now there was concord. Where once there was a stony heart, now there was a heart of warm flesh. Where once there was no time for anything but "business", as the ghost of Jacob Marley eloquently encouraged, now "Mankind ought to be my business". Dickens was equally prudent in using the name of Jacob, referring to the account in Genesis 28:10-22 when the biblical patriarch used a stone for a pillow, saw the vision of the ladder ascending to heaven, and vowed a tithe: "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Regardless, though, of our particular interpretation of sacred texts, I think every one of us ought to consider how stony our hearts may have become as a result of personal hurts and shortcomings. Dickens, through the use of such special names [as] Ebenezer, provides a moment for each of us to reach inside, cast out those stones which we have been saving to hurl against so-and-so, and instead, change that stone into a solid foundation for effecting good in the world around us.
Rev Dr George A Leylegian
California, USA (Dec 21, '06)

It is amusing when the USA says that it's running out of patience with Pyongyang's progress with its nuclear program. North Korea has already declared nuclear-power status, thereby affirming its sovereign right to take measures to secure its borders, vital installations and people from possible attacks [by] its sworn anti-communist enemies like the USA, besides catering to its peaceful energy needs. North Korean [leader] Kim [Jong-il] has also urged Washington to abandon its hostile policy as a condition for Pyongyang to give [up] its legitimate nuclear assets. The resumed six-party talks in China, suspended last year following the US sanctions against North Korea, cannot come up with any tangible nuclear solutions if they approach the issue in a piecemeal fashion.Washington cannot afford to forget that it systematically thwarted the sincere attempts by the erstwhile Soviet Union right up to the [Mikhail] Gorbachev era to eliminate nuclear weapons gradually, and it subsequently walked out [of] the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty signed in 1972 between the USA and the USSR on disarmament, declaring its resolve to go for the nuclear shield with first-attack facility. The USA has no moral authority to stop the legitimate ambitions of any state to go for [its] own nuclear program.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
New Delhi, India (Dec 21, '06)

The article India fears US nuclear trap [Dec 20] points to the fact that the original agreement between President [George W] Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been modified to the extent that ... "in course of time India will lose control of its nuclear future". This agreement is not a one-way street; both nations have a voice in this ... modified nuclear deal with the US. If India finds that the deal has been modified to the extent that [it] would reduce India [to] becoming a "client state" to the US, India always has the option to turn this deal down. In this nuclear deal both India and the US have a strong voice in its implementation. It would be an equal blow to the Bush administration if India turned this deal down. No matter what the US Congress decides to modify the deal to suit the United States' interest at the expense of India, India has the final word to decide whether to sign on to this deal or not. With the growing friction between the US and China and the deteriorating relationship with Pakistan, the United States needs a strong India. But if the Indian Parliament turns this deal down it will sour relationships with the United States and put the US's strategic interests in that region in jeopardy. In the same breath India will not gain the much-needed nuclear technology and freedom to exercise its right for military use of this nuclear technology. India like the US must look out for its own strategic interests, and if India turns this deal down, the US will be well aware of a major lost opportunity with the world's largest democracy. No power on Earth can force India to compromise its security, and New Delhi and Washington, DC, are well aware of that.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Dec 20, '06)

ATol deserves two cheers for publishing Dr Ooi Kee Beng's Malaysia's squandered reform chance [Dec 20]. The ISEAS [Institute of Southeast Asian Studies] fellow clearly outlines the moments of inertia which are holding back economic reforms in Malaysia. Clearly, retardation in economic reform has its seeds in the creation of Malaysia decades ago. It lies in what the French call "positive discrimination", which favors ... the Bumiputra, or Malays, in economic and social advancement before Chinese and Indians. Under the iron reign of Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who copied his nemesis Lee Kwong Yew in Singapore, Malaysia [was catapulted] into the orbit of rapid economic growth and the expansion of a Malay middle class. Although today Malaysia can boast of launching a third civilian telecommunication satellite into outer space, the very policies which created a Malay middle class are a break in accelerating reforms which would benefit the three races which make up Malaysia. Prime Minister [Abdullah] Badawi is caught in a web of vested economic and religious interests [that] have much to lose from substantive reforms, for the New Economic Policy has hastened a brain drain of Chinese and Indians elsewhere, and left more liberal Malays discouraged. Dr Ooi puts his finger on the opportunism of Anwar Ibrahim, who is calling for reform. It is noteworthy to recall that Anwar Ibrahim ushered in an era which encouraged Malay youth to embrace strict Islamic dress and devotion and harden practices of a more or less tolerant Islam. In spite of years in prison, the ban on his running for public office is running out, and once again, he is making a bid for office. So today's modern Malaysia, a jumble of former Malay states except Singapore, which it expelled, remains a prisoner to its past. Will it be able throw off the shackles of its past? That remains to be seen.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 20, '06)

As a Jewish person, I strongly disagree with Spengler's insinuation that Judaism is not a joyous religion [Sympathy for Scrooge, Dec 16]. Certainly Jewish observance does entail much seriousness, but it encompasses plenty of joy as well, and many of our holidays are chock full of celebration. Indeed, for the father whose children feel left out of the holiday spirit for not celebrating Christmas, I'd suggest that he and his family warmly embrace Hanukah (if they haven't done so already). Plenty of holiday spirit can be found in lighting the menorah, gathering with family and friends, giving gifts, putting up Hanukah decorations, spinning dreidels, and eating potato latkes. Of course, Hanukah is not just a "Jewish Christmas"; it is a particular holiday with its own specific meaning. But it is very celebratory in its own right, and there is no reason for Jewish children to feel excluded from holiday festivities.
KM
USA (Dec 20, '06)

I recently read W Joseph Stroupe's three-part series [Revamping US Foreign Policy] including the article The misnomer of multipolarity [Dec 16]. I must say that what he has said has a lot of truth to it; the world at large is definitely aligning away from a unipolar world centered around the US and trying to find an alternative. Stroupe's assertion is that China-Russia are forming an axis and uniting to bring down US dominance. This assumption is fundamentally flawed. If we look at the waning US influence today, one of the main reasons is that its traditional allies in the EU - France and Germany - have distanced themselves and taken a path away from following US foreign policies. With its allies gone, the US is becoming weaker. India, China [and] Russia have done nothing to create that change, it's only the mistakes of US foreign policy. So why blame [it] on the "axis of the East"? Similarly, if the EU members are bettering trade relations with India and China, it's purely for economic reasons. It's the American companies which started the trend of outsourcing both in manufacturing and in services. That trend has grown much larger, and though it looks like politics to W Joseph Stroupe, it's just economics, plain and simple. Similarly, the US is today the largest energy consumer. It has the hold on energy suppliers from Canada to Saudi Arabia simply because it buys the most energy, and it can pay for it today. There is no love lost or alliances, it is purely business. The US is going into the red thanks to the outsourcing trend. Ten to 15 years down the line, if it finds itself in a spot where it can no longer afford to pay for the energy, and at the same time China and India have huge demands for energy and the money to pay for it, both Canada and Saudi Arabia will supply energy to China and India, simply because it's just business. So to avoid that situation, the US simply needs to make sure it makes money - and doesn't waste it on costly wars. Again, China, Russia [and] India have done nothing here. It's just the American actions which are causing it. The third point I disagree [on] is that China, Russia and India are forming a pole to compete with the US. I don't know about China and Russia, but let me tell you the Indian point of view. India is having a phase of unprecedented growth. Growth means more jobs for all Indians (there are still a vast number of poor and unemployed here) and we want to sustain that growth, plain and simple. We don't care that much about who rules the world, we want to be happier as a nation. Hence we will cooperate with China, the US, Russia, the EU - just about anyone who can help us to grow. The nuclear agreement is just one of those things, the same with the China visit. The difference here is that the Cold War was a game of attrition where there had to be one winner and one loser. India and China are playing games of growth - they are trying to make it a "win-win". That's why the EU is [in] cooperation with them. If the US is losing, it's more due to its own actions rather than a grand "East Pole" conspiracy.
Neel
Mumbai, India (Dec 20, '06)

Spengler's review [A new Jerusalem in sub-Saharan Africa, Dec 12] of Professor Philip Jenkins' last book [The New Faces of Christianity] went surprisingly unnoticed, although he tried his best to repeat most of his claims that ATol readers usually find most annoying and absurd. It is interesting that in Spengler's view, Europeans are now not the only "soon-to-be-ex-Christians"; now they are joined by Americans, and it's the Euro-Americans [who] together form this new "denomination". In order to comment on that part of the article, I find it appropriate to turn back to one of his earlier articles, No one expects the Spanish Inquisition [Jun 20, '04]. There, we find Spengler arguing that "a Protestant state religion is a contradiction in terms" because Protestantism "spoke to the conscience of the individual seeking grace in the word of God". This is why [Martin] Luther's alliance with German princes, which effectively made this "contradiction in terms" a reality, "opened a path for a nationalist Christianity whose deplorable consequences plagued Europe into its decline". [The United States of] America, on the other hand, was created for a completely different purpose, "to replace state religion on the European model with a religion of individual conscience". Though America may have been created for this (different) purpose, it seems that its future will not be that different from the "dying continent" and its Christianity, at least if we apply Spengler's logic when analyzing its current condition. It is increasingly evident that the Christian Right in America has its eye on establishing the US as a "Christian nation", a tendency most clearly expressed and advocated by adherents of Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominion theology, who, according to Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy, are the new rising force in American Christianity. The goal of Reconstructionists is "restoring America's biblical foundation - from Genesis to Revelation". Since Spengler believes that "Christianity cannot persist except as a continuing revival, a recurring conversion - as a sequence of singular events, rather than as an orderly process", it would be interesting to know his predictions on the future of Christianity in America granted that theocratic forces begin to dominate American Christianity; it is my contention that if this happens, and many factors point to such a turn, and if "biblical Christianity" as American state religion is as much of a contradiction in terms as Protestantism was as a state religion in European states, America cannot escape the destiny of Europe, that "dying continent" where Christianity's remnants "rot and stink". This in turn could mean that Protestantism, with its many offshoots and denominations, paradoxically represents a danger to itself; if it becomes too strong and influential, it cannot escape the destiny of becoming a state religion, and if does exactly that, it is doomed to extinction. As far as his claim that "Islam has no ritual of sacrifice, nor does it need one, for the sacrifice that Islam demands is that of the Muslim himself"; well, I think that here it would be enough to remind him that Muslims around the world will celebrate Eid al-Adha, or The Feast of Sacrifice, sometime around December 30, and I suggest that he keeps an eye on what they will be doing on that day: sacrificing rams, not themselves, to God, in order to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice to God.
Mustafa
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dec 20, '06)

In reading through the Letters to the Editor page, I came across a reply to a correspondent (Dec 13 letter from Jerome Klassen, York University) from Syed Saleem Shahzad, wherein Mr Shahzad explains the reasons as to why he was unable to interview Canadian troops serving with the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force]. In his response, Mr Shahzad states: "The general perception of the Afghan masses, minus Taliban fighters, was far better of Europeans (minus the UK) than of Americans, especially with countries like Germany, Canada and France - but the blasphemous cartoons published in the European press changed everything." This brings one main question to mind - is Mr Shahzad actually stating that Canada, as a European country, was not viewed in the same manner as the United States? And furthermore, is he compounding his geographical error by lumping the Canadian press in with [its] European counterparts? Is this the quality of information that is promoted by ATol? To hopefully clarify [sic] certain glaring oversights, please inform Mr Shahzad that Canada is not a European nation. Additionally, none of Canada's national newspapers ran the inflammatory cartoons to which Mr Shahzad refers. The Taliban have good and well-founded reasons to hate the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), much of which relates to previous decisive operations taken by the CAF against Taliban forces (such as the recent Operation Medusa); they do not need propagandists such as Mr Shahzad to create new reasons for them. The correspondent in question would be well served to research the variety of personal weblogs of Canadian Forces members [now] serving in Afghanistan - in combination with your generally high-quality reporting, it provides a balanced approach to both the hearts and minds of the average male Afghani as well as the military/reconstructive efforts under way. If this exchange has demonstrated anything, it is to highlight the importance, as a news provider, of verifying information before transforming it to news. Sadly enough, too much of the world relies on inflammatory and incorrect journalism upon which to base their ideologies.
Patrick Kennedy
Ottawa, Ontario (Dec 20, '06)

Certainly I know that Canada is part of North America and not Europe, and it was just a shortcut that I lumped Canada in with Europe when describing how Afghans differentiate between Europe and the US. Nevertheless, it is very true that most of the Canadians serving in Afghanistan are from European stock and practice the same lifestyle and languages, and their mindset in politics tends more toward that of Europe than of the US. Of course, the cartoons depicting the Prophet were not publicized in the Canadian press, but in Afghanistan in particular and in the Muslim world in general there were sections of religious groups who successfully exploited the cartoon incident against the West as whole. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

If you threaten a country by naming it as part of the axis of evil, then that country, knowing what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, will strive to defend itself by all means, including nuclear weapons. But Francesco Sisci, in his article How to turn the tables on Pyongyang [Dec 19], wants a defenseless North Korea because he fears the Japanese conservatives may also want their country armed with nuclear weapons. Without North Korea and its nuclear weapons the Japanese conservatives would still want nuclear weapons. That is their nature. It was their forebears who decided to carve out an empire for themselves, inspired no doubt by that true axis of evil, the European colonialists. Korea, among many other Asian countries, became the victim of Japan. Are these Japanese conservatives again inspired by the axis of the USA and the EU as they forage once more throughout the world? Remember what happened on the peninsula of Korea in 1950 because of a US-inspired attack on North Korea? This is all within the living memory of the Korean people, North and South, as they still care for their war-wounded and remember their dead. Such people, especially in North Korea, are in a defensive mode for a very good reason.
Wilson John Haire
England, UK (Dec 19, '06)

Francesco Sisci (How to turn the tables on Pyongyang, Dec 19) apparently suffers from serious amnesia. There is a way to stop North Korea's nuclear program: the Agreed Framework negotiated in 1994 under the Clinton administration and a deal Japan's prime minister Junichiro Koizumi was close to concluding in 2002. The two came to naught under the Bush administration. North Korea's going nuclear is predictable: Why can the United State have more than 10,000 nuclear warheads without having to confront any serious threat, while North Korea can't have any even though it was openly threatened with regime change by the lone superpower that has actually dropped nuclear bombs and declared to have the right of first strike? Whether Kim Jong-il is smart depends on the person who judges him. Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright talked to him and said that he was intelligent. US President George W Bush hasn't met him and seems to think that he [is] stupid. It would take some argumentation to show who is right, but this much is clear: one of them must be dumb to hold a view that is opposite of the other. Just in case you are unsure, here is a guidance: Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela once said of George W Bush that he can't think properly.
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Dec 19, '06)

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has after a year's absence taken its rightful seat at the six-power talks in Beijing. If the United States had any hope [that] North Korea's chief delegate Kim Kye-gwan was going to play by its rules after endless hours of private discussions in Beijing weeks before, it was sorely disappointed. Pyongyang threw on the green carpet demands which are at cross-purposes to what Washington wants to discuss. The DPRK has brought up substantive questions of unfreezing its accounts at Banco Delta Asia on the Chinese island of Macau. The United States is wanting to tackle head-on the matter of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. It does not take much hindsight, as Donald Kirk documents [N Korea talks: Not a meeting of minds, Dec 19], to see that the US Treasury acts at crossed swords with [Christopher] Hill's State Department in forging a common game plan to deal with Pyongyang, the more especially since Treasury had branded the BDA "a primary money launderer". If that is not bad enough, Mr Kim has read the riot act on Japan for enforcing money transfers from Koreans in Japan to the DPRK. So we have in effect a donnybrook at the restart of the six-power talks. The Chinese hosts plead patience to sort out the complex tensions at the heart of the matter. Mr Hill has expressed his exasperation to the world press at the mule-headedness of the DPRK. The Japanese retreat into stubborn silence and quietly at home lay plans for a standing army and a revision of the "peace constitution". The Russians keep their own counsel, as do the South Koreans, who wait for the violent winds of words to subside. Francesco Sisci, writing from Beijing, offers a strategy on How to turn the tables on Pyongyang [Dec 19]. But although geographically [he] is close to the DPRK, he has little understanding of Kim Jong-il and Co's psychology. And his ideas will make matters worse. He should look at how the Americans have done everything wrong, even though Pyongyang shot itself in its own foot by exploding a nuclear device. It had to forfeit its stance in staying away from the six-power talks, and bent to China's pressure and a full condemnation with sanctions by the UN Security Council. China will pressure its neighbor and ally with restraint ... As for Mr Hill, he is weathering the whirlwind an ill-conceived policy that [US President George W] Bush and his advisers put into practice. The horizon does not look bright for achieving anything at the recalled six-power talks in Beijing.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 19, '06)

I think that as expertly and well researched as M K Bhadrakumar's presentations typically are, this one [China plays its own energy game, Dec 19] is clearly no exception. But it overdoes [the] drama a little bit. First of all, since China is awash with US dollars - the currency whose relative performance almost makes owning it a "use it or lose it" proposition - it's hardly a surprise that the Chinese [have] decided to procure something they badly need at the moment, ie, nuclear electricity generators. In exchange they get a temporary reprieve in their continuing plunder of [the] US industrial base, front-run pending Indian orders for the best terms (although GE still remains, but as a less favorable and more ruthless supplier), get their geopolitical options spiffed up a notch, and dispose of questionable assets at face value. Beijing wins, and the US gets a consolation prize. That should ensure America's silence for another six months. But nobody in Moscow will be losing sleep over this. Russians understand that while the Chinese and US economies are joined at the hip, their political elites are not. The resulting creature makes Siamese twins look like contenders in any beauty pageant. Painful surgery is dead ahead. Second, "energy consumers' cooperation" is as viable an outcome of energy geopolitics as a cooperation between aspiring shoppers lining up at the gates of Wal-Mart on the eve of Black Friday. When widely wanted merchandise is in short supply, it's not unusual to see more than few bodies being trampled over and stamped upon once the limits of "cooperation" are reached, always within a second after the doors are opened. So Russia can afford to sit back and watch [the] newly discovered amity between the US and China without any concern. Love scenes often precede scenes of murderous violence. All they do is to make it more interesting for the idle spectator.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Dec 19, '06)

It is always a pleasure to read [M K] Bhadrakumar's clear-sighted analysis of what is going on in our little world [China plays its own energy game, Dec 19]. That what is going on is itself rather less pleasing is another matter.
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Dec 19, '06)

Re The coming Sunni-Shi'ite showdown [Dec 19] by Jason Motlagh: It will be the end of a lot of Sunni autocrats if they choose to fight the Shi'ites. The forces that they unleash will come home to roost - and sooner rather than later. This, after all, will not be a fight in far-off Afghanistan, where one can imagine these despots would have been happy to send the likes of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. This will be a fight next door and, as the old saying goes: when your neighbor's house is on fire you would do well not to fan the flames. Sunni rulers from [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak to the sheikhs and emirs of the [Persian] Gulf are but a pack of mangy dogs on an American leash. They have nothing to offer their shackled societies - certainly no dignity or true progress. It's no wonder that Israel rolls over them like so many cockroaches every time they have a war. Only the Shi'ites have shown a true capacity for technical progress, for organization and for fighting. Hezbollah beat the living daylights out the Israeli army despite the latter being armed to the teeth with all the best that $10 billion a year of American taxpayer money can buy. That fact alone does not bode well for an American war with Iran. The USA is lost in Iraq and is [at present], under the cretinous [President George W] Bush, merely counting up to 60,000 as it did in Vietnam. It would be deliciously ironic if that war, which was cynically started on the pretext of spreading democracy in the Middle East, were to sweep away most of the Sunni Arab tyrants who are the region's staunchest "closeted" allies of the USA and Israel.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Dec 19, '06)

Re A bitter struggle for power in Iran (Dec 16), it would seem that any intelligent American policy toward Iran would consider the political and the economic situation in Iran. Characterizing Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as the devil, Bush forces are inflexibly playing into his bait-and-switch policy while completely overlooking the dynamic forces playing in Iran. Leadership that doesn't learn from the mistakes of other failed endeavors like Iraq is not only doomed to failure but can entangle us all into global webs of travail. One would hope that wisdom, perhaps influenced by the upcoming legislative change [in the US Congress], will overcome policy based on an ideological jingoism.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Dec 19, '06)

Referring to the article by Chan Akya on Mid-life crisis for ASEAN [Dec 16], let me quote: "ASEAN has a small secretariat in Jakarta, but most of the coordination is achieved through national secretariats in member countries." I wish to make everything clear for everyone, including Mr Akya, that ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] has one and only [one] secretariat [and] I would not consider it small. However, each ASEAN member country, under their ministries of foreign affairs, has one directorate general dealing with ASEAN affairs ...
Dwiagus (Dec 19, '06)

W Joseph Stroupe's assertion in The misnomer of multipolarity [Dec 16] that the world is heading inevitably towards a bipolar world dominated by "the East" is less than fully convincing. Mr Stroupe's analysis is based upon a rather large number of assumptions that are, at very least, highly questionable as individual issues. For example, Mr Stroupe tends to focus almost exclusively upon questions related to the global energy supply. In positing the emergence of a world dominated by a Sino-Russian axis, he ignores a large number of relevant factors that range from Russia's imploding demography, to China's environmental crisis, to the still massive gap in total GDP [gross domestic product] between the "East" and the EU-US-Japan triumvirate. Despite ignoring many non-energy-related factors, Mr Stroupe's assertion that the world's energy supply will soon be dominated by the "East" is likewise highly questionable. This analysis requires both ignoring the role in the global energy supply of predictably EU-US-friendly states such as Canada, while simultaneously positing that other allied regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, are on the verge of being drawn into a alliance that is specifically directed against Western interests. In addition, he often displays the unfortunate tendency to build his analysis by making a highly questionable assumption, and then proceeding from that point to draw conclusions that he presents as "inevitable". A good example is his treatment of the place of India in the future world order. The improvement in Indo-American ties is seen as [an indication] of nothing more than a sort of reluctant pragmatism on India's part, while [Chinese President] Hu Jintao's visit to India is portrayed as an indication that India is inevitably becoming integrated into the Sino-Russian axis. The validity of drawing such highly divergent conclusions from India's improvement in relations with both the United States and China is questionable unless, of course, one is prepared to accept the reason for this conclusion is that it is necessary for Mr Stroupe's theory to retain some semblance of credibility. Finally, one has to question whether the "East" is truly interested in a bipolar conflict with the "West", dependent as it is on the West and Japan as both a source of investment and a market for the products of the "East", be it Russian energy or Chinese goods. In short, Mr Stroupe's analysis can be said to have several fundamental flaws; it is based upon an ill-defined "East", it significantly underestimates the role of non-energy-related factors in the balance of power, it is dependent upon the questionable assumption that the "East" is both capable of monopolizing the world's energy sources and is interested in using such leverage aggressively against the "West", it severely simplifies the foreign-policy behavior of "independent" actors such as India, and it projects an increasingly hostile position on behalf of the "East" towards Western countries that could very well be against the fundamental economic interests of the "East". Mr Stroupe's analysis had far too many arguable assumptions for him to even consider using words like "inevitable" when discussing his vision of the future global order. It is likely for this reason that one would be hard pressed to find anything approaching a general level of support for the idea of an emerging bipolar world order in the strategic and intelligence communities throughout the world.
Michael Schryvers
Toronto, Ontario (Dec 18, '06)

Those who have enjoyed W Joseph Stroupe's previous [articles] for Asia Times [Online] may find his [Dec 15] article, Full speed ahead, with menace, a troubling one. As the title suggests, the article is all about menace to the American ship of state: in this case, from an "evil" Iran - out to wrap its "tentacles" around the world oil supply, and create a Shi'a "caliphate" across the whole Middle East. Shades of all those scary statements about "Islamo-fascists" out of the Bush White House. The only difference I see is that at least Dr Stroupe puts words like "evil" in quotes, whereas the White House does not. But the notion that Iran is truly evil is taken on faith as much by Dr Stroupe as the White House. No proof is given. In keeping with the current White House line, Hamas and Hezbollah are treated as Iran's mini-monster "proxies". So what ever happened to the Sunni caliphate that al-Qaeda was supposed to be just a plane away from establishing? Has al-Qaeda now switched sides and joined forces with "evil" Shi'a Iran against the "good" Sunni Gulf states? Or should we expect to see a stupendous battle between these Muslim "monsters" while a shrunken, oil-starved West looks on? Fortunately, [the United States of] America still has its nukes - and even "population-friendly" mini-nukes - to defend the "civilized world" against the King Kong of al-Qaeda and the Godzilla of Iran. If only [President George W] Bush [would] use them. That seems to be the truly menacing message in the good doctor's article.
William Williams, PhD
United States citizen (Dec 18, '06)

The concluding article of W Joseph Stroupe's three-part series on Revamping US Foreign Policy, The rising pole of the East, is now online. - ATol

Benjamin Shobert has good intentions (Looking beyond the China dividend [Dec 16]). After reading his Speaking Freely contribution, a line from a poem by the Judeo-Spanish poet Judah Ha-Levi came to mind, in evaluating the billions [of US dollars] that are pouring into the China market from the United States: "My heart is pure, but my eyes are not!" It is the nature of the economic beast of liberal economics to turn a profit, and China is a fertile field for excellent returns on a Yankee dollar invested. Nonetheless, as the high-power delegation that [US] Secretary of the Treasury Henry "Hank" Paulson found out, the Chinese welcome an influx of dollars to hasten an industrial and financial revolution of gigantic proportions, but will not bend a whit to the demands of the United States to dampen the furious pace of transforming China into a First World capitalist economy. Secretary Paulson, in spite of his "knowledge of China", has not learned the foremost rule of thumb that the Chinese leadership go by: "Does it profit the Chinese?" Apparently the demand to [revalue] upwards the renminbi yuan and clamping down on intellectual privacy and cooling down the ballooning trade surplus with the United States are not in China's stars for the present.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 18, '06)

I must congratulate Henry C K Liu for his great article Paulson, China and the turmoil beneath (Dec 14). Mr Liu's long discussion was pretty heavy going for someone like myself, but I persevered with help from a few websites explaining the "balance of payments" language, and I'm ever so glad I did. I've read several articles before about the USA-China trade problems, but none has been as thorough in dealing with the issues involved. I think, after reading Mr Liu's article, I finally understand what is going on. Unfortunately, now that I think I understand what's going on, my opinion of the US administration has dropped yet a few more notches. I hope the Chinese aren't bamboozled by the USA's negotiators and their political agenda in these talks. Thank you, Mr Liu, for a fine article.
Jonathan
UK (Dec 18, '06)

Chrysantha Wijeyasigha's dismissal of [Pepe] Escobar's commentary [US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq, Dec 14] with a synopsis of the might and availability of oil and technology in the US as the basis of his refutation [letter, Dec 14] forces one to ask Mr Wijeyasingha: What then prompted the "shock and awe" deliverance of Iraq? The only other two acceptable rationales are: to placate Israel or hasten the day of the rapture claimed by religious fundamentalists.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 18, '06)

The two journalists Syed Saleem Shahzad and Pepe Escobar give more than standard insight into the situations of their respective reports. They are to be congratulated, and I for one find their articles to be the best sources of information about my interests. Then along comes Chrysantha Wijeyasingha with a letter (Dec 14) that is surely meant to be satire, but then from his past letters, I'm not too sure.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Dec 18, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad's recent piece The vultures are circling [Dec 13] indicates that Taliban militants are likely to regain power, although Mr Shahzad mentions nothing about Pakistanis' hands behind Taliban. Nor does Mr Shahzad mention Afghan villagers and their opinion about all this bloodshed and war imposed on them by Pakistan and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. On the other hand, a recent poll by the BBC and ABC and another poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org [find] that an absolute majority of Afghans support both the government of President Hamid Karzai and the presence of NATO forces. The [polls] also find that the Taliban remain very unpopular, despite their military resurgence. However, a majority of Afghans express frustration with the pace of reconstruction.
Sam Sam (Dec 18, '06)

This is in reference to All along the watch tower [Dec 12] by Peter J Middlebrook and Sharon M Miller, an article well written but based on wrong [premises]. To lump together, label and see the conflicts in Afghanistan and the NWFP [North-West Frontier Province], FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Area] and Balochistan areas of Pakistan as a civil war and then try to remedy the problem is the same [as] trying to treat on the basis of wrong diagnosis. The Durand Line and many other borders in South Asia and elsewhere in the world left over by colonial powers keep conflicts simmering and raging. But what is happening in Afghanistan is not a war over the Durand Line, neither is it civil. The main contenders in the current conflict, the Taliban, unsurprisingly never question the veracity of the Durand Line, the "root cause" according to the authors. The reasons are two. One, the militancy supported or resurrected by the Pakistani establishment, including a few components of the Khalistan movement, never lay claim over Pakistani territory or its borders despite the holiest shrines and historical Sikh kingdoms being in what is now Pakistan. Second, the puritanical Wahhabi sect of Islam followed by the Taliban does not recognize any national boundaries, pushing the irrelevant Durand Line further into oblivion. The "more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan" argument is as irrelevant as [the fact that] more Muslims remain in India than in Pakistan that was carved out for Muslims. Pashtuns vouching for Pakhtoonistan have and will become less strident as the whole region is taken over by Taliban ideology. The Balochistan turmoil is not about the Durand Line, neither is it tainted by the Wahhabi ideology, yet. The recent phenomenon of mujahideen turning opium from poppies [into] the finest heroin, Talibanism and sanctuary for al-Qaeda [have] nothing to do with the century-old Durand Line but a Pakistan and Saudi axis initiated by the US. Pakistan should have reversed and unfolded the mujahideen apparatus once the Soviets were defeated and left. But it continued and still continues it on its own for achieving strategically what it could not militarily, economically or diplomatically. That's where the root of the cause lies. Afghans have never done anything to the extent Pakistan has done to lay claim on its other border on the east except diplomatically. But still Pakistan wants to turn Afghanistan into its satellite for "strategic depth" and to maintain the elusive Durand Line through Taliban proxy. The offer of President General [Pervez] Musharraf to fence the Afghan border is more to secure that line than to serve as a barrier to infiltration. This thinking is even evident by many letter writers from Pakistan in this column who claim that Pakistan will decide which government stays in power in Kabul.
D Bhardwaj
Illinois, USA (Dec 18, '06)

Recent photographs from Iraq showed a grief-filled man, Haqi Ismaeel, tenderly closing the eyes of his three-year-old daughter Shayma, who was killed in crossfire between US forces and resistance gunmen. In America, people buy Christmas presents so they can see children's eyes light up yet go along with prolonging a child-killing war based on lies in Iraq. Demand an instant end from the new Congress. The only thing that can stop the slaughter among warring Iraqi factions is justice. Give them the head of [US President George W] Bush, for it is his war. This will get the attention of Iraqis and show that Americans have consciences. Demand that Congress impeach Bush and turn over all records of the war plotting and treatment of prisoners to international war-monitoring agencies. The way out is for Congress to officially apologize to the people of Iraq and offer compensation to all war victims in exchange for a ceasefire and per capita oil-revenue-sharing agreement among Iraqis. Congress should cut off funding for the war and fund conversion of the Green Zone and occupied military bases into medical-convalescent centers and housing for the war refugees. For world peace, Congress must impose an absolute embargo on the export of weapons. American weapons profiteering to Middle East dictators was the root cause of [the events of September 11, 2001], not the people of Iraq, so why should they suffer for Bush?
John Mackesy
Middletown, California (Dec 18, '06)

Thank you for your great informative articles week after week, especially the ones by Dr Kaveh Afrasiabi that have made Asia Times Online a must read for me. They have taught me a lot! Happy holidays and wishing every one at Asia Times Online even greater success in the future.
Tim Bowen
Toronto, Ontario (Dec 15, '06)

I admire the bravery of ATol's Syed Saleem Shahzad. I would admire his journalism more if he interviewed Afghan villagers as much as he interviews the Taliban. His recent piece, The vultures are circling (Dec 13, 2006) leaves many important questions unanswered. The village that Shahzad visits in Sangin is described as "virtually deserted". Why did the villagers leave? How do they feel about losing their homes, and whom do they blame for their predicament? The Taliban commander, Qari Hazrat, says that they "eliminated" a network of informers in the area. Does that explain the disappearance of so many villagers? Hazrat says that "the masses invited the Taliban to their areas". Other than poppy-growers who will benefit from the Taliban's pragmatic reversal of their former policy of cracking down on the drug trade, who did the inviting and why? A Taliban commander, Khuda-i-Rahim, belittles the fighting spirit of American soldiers. But a village boy gives Shahzad a dramatically different perspective, recalling how Americans "arrested" 300 Taliban in that area in 2001. Rahim would probably fictionalize the thorough routing of the Taliban as the Americans fleeing from the first shots, and 300 Taliban fearlessly but carelessly chasing them all the way back into a POW camp disguised as a madrassa. A cowardly American trick. I do agree with Shahzad's depiction of the Taliban as "vultures". They can only thrive on the blood and misfortune of others. Interviewing the Taliban is all well and good, but perhaps in the future Mr Shahzad will give equal time to the voices and experiences of the villagers caught in the middle of the fighting. They are a more accurate bellwether of the future success or failure of the Taliban insurgency than the pronouncements of Taliban commanders.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Dec 15, '06)

US President George W Bush's dream of imposing democracy in Iraq shows poor political judgment. His [view] of Iraq is unintelligent, pig-headed and anarchonistic. As Iason Athanasiadis posits [The search for an Iraqi kingmaker, Dec 15], the American president is desperately seeking a strong man to hold the center in an Iraq being torn apart by a centrifugal force opposing Shi'a against Sunni. Mr Bush and his scant advisors who had any knowledge of Iraq overlooked the historical fact that a ruler imposed his rule and with it his largesse on the masses. Call it "despotism", but it has nothing to do with America's political theory on democracy. The White House [has] little tolerance [for] Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whom the American president described as the best man for getting the job done in Iraq. These hearty words did little to blunt the Hadley memo which dismissed Maliki as a straw in the wind. Now Mr Bush is looking for a surrogate, a Shi'ite who will entince Iran to shoulder America's war in Iraq. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney has sought counsel at the knee of the Saudi king, to open channels to the Sunni opposition, which is fighting American troops in Iraq, to cut a deal in order to restore a status quo ante of sorts. Riyadh will funnel its oil billions to ensure that Iraq will not be dominated by the Shi'ite, with Muqtada el Sadr's army as the power behind the throne. So as the Bush administration ponders a way out of the mess that it created in Iraq, it has hit on an old tactic which might let it slip out of the noose it has wrapped around its own neck, by playing two sides against the middle, and throwing Iraq back to the stone age.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 15, '06)

Re US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq by Pepe Escobar, President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the American pro-Zionist neo-cons, the manipulators and architects of illegal wars in and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have to, at the end of the day, explain to the American people the deaths of nearly one million innocent people, the horrendous destruction of these countries and the money - US$500 billion to $700 billion - that the United States has spent on these misadventures, with the cost increasing every day. How could these shameless oil-looters and horrendous liars explain to their people that the real intention to invade Iraq was greed for oil and the war booty and not the so-called “Vision of new democracy”, as the president once called it, imposed at the point of his gun or dropping megatons of bombs on Iraqi cities and towns. The answer of course is oil, as Americans with even just a few brain cells [understand]. The profits of five oil companies combined (America's ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Conoco, and British Shell and British Petroleum) were $111 billion in 2005 and these profits will go through the roof if President Bush decides to invade Iran before his expiry date in the Oval Office. The reason? Production cannot keep up with the global 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 the real motive of the Americans. Imagine what having access to those reserves will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention their profits. There is also the matter of consumption. The United States consumes fully 25% of the world's 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's sake? Not likely. So, it must be another act of violent terror to capture the oil reserves of Iran by invasion or regime change. 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 will have over half of the world’s oil reserves under its control. There are four countries in the Middle East, which, 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 (Iran) then it has its cake and can eat it until its belly is full. But to control means to be close enough to be able to protect or threaten the governments in these countries. This necessitated the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and - as planned a long time ago by the warmongering Bush administration - the fragmentation of the country into three parts, as a result of sectarian slaughters by CIA-financed and trained Shia death squads with the connivance of Nouri Maliki Shi'a-led government. The Iraq war was manipulated for the benefit of the American oil barons, arms manufacturers and multinationals, and necessitates the presence of American bases in these territories or close by. The United States has bases in Persian Gulf countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and now is building permanent bases in Iraq to invade Iran for its oil resources, to increase oil production and bring down prices; and the alarm bell tolls for the mullahs in Tehran and they can hear it.
Saqib Khan
Britain (Dec 15, '06)

Pepe Escobar's US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq [Dec 14] is an exercise in misinformation. Since the war began none in Washington claimed they wanted to invade Iraq for its oil. The only people claiming this are the radical Islamic elements and the far left within the US. Not a thought was given to the real facts that the US has vast reserves of almost all energy-providing elements. Oil and gas fields can be found in several states and our coastal region. Alaska, a state that is 500,000 square miles [actually more than 660,000, or about 1.7 million square kilometers - ATol], is barely touched. In addition, of all nations the US has the technology, funds and manufacturing capabilities to provide the highest standards in nuclear technology, and alternative fuels. Already many nations across the world are switching to alternative fuels for environmental and security reasons. In addition there are other non-Muslim nations with vast oil and gas reserves, whether it be Russia or many nations in Africa or South America which the US can tap. Before Mr Escobar tries to make truth out of propaganda, he should at least to do some cursory study of the US known and prospective energy capabilities. By the US being the sole superpower, if it really attacked Iraq for its oil, by now the oil would be on US shores. Mr Escobar needs to understand that the Middle East is not the only place oil/gas can be procured and the world is rapidly switching to alternative fuels and it is not worth the cost and life to go to war in the Middle East for just its oil.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Dec 14, '06)

Pepe Escobar's piece Staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq [Dec 14] helps explain rumors about replacing [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-]Maliki: with [Muqtada al-]Sadr boycotting the government, Big Oil needs a replacement who will get the votes needed to pass the petroleum law. That would require paying off a Sunni bloc to join the coalition or, alternatively, a palace coup leading to a quisling government. Personally, I'm betting on the coup to take place before [US President George W] Bush's New Way Forward speech in January.
John H (Dec 14, '06)

Re US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq (Dec 14): alas, all indications are that Pepe Escobar is right. I know that it is no revelation and that Bush critics are quick to judge BushCo harshly, but look at the facts. There is over 50% unemployment in Iraq. Iraqi citizens are not safe on the streets. Hospitals lack medicine and security. Simple needs like electricity are sporadically provided. But construction of the American Embassy proceeds behind high walls, using foreign labor. Prisons are revamped. Bases are secure with barricades and heavy security. When American troops arrived, the focus was on protecting oilfields while art treasures were stolen. These conditions can only point to one conclusion. Our [US] leadership's priority is not the Iraqi people.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Dec 14, '06)

Pepe [Escobar]'s latest [US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq, Dec 14] exemplifies what professional, intelligent and as close to factual commentaries he and Syed [Saleem] Shahzad are providing the readers of ATol. The present minuet between the Bushites and the ISG [Iraq Study Group] is nothing more than an attempt to erase any trace from the fanfare of positing the reason for bringing "freedom and democracy" along with a regime change of an evil Hitler (Saddam Hussein). In this case, though Mr Escobar says it (and I say this with a sense of vanity as I have maintained it too as early as three ago in correspondence to ATol) in detail: It's the oil, stupid. I take this opportunity to extend best wishes for the coming year.
Armand De Laurell (Dec 14, '06)

Though the realities described by Pepe Escobar are grim, he manages to be nonetheless heart-lifting. In his two latest contributions [US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq, Dec 14; Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia, Dec 7], he reminds us that despite two centuries of US evil in Latin America, the resilient Latinos have resisted against all odds. US-funded and US-trained death squads killed the best of them, tried to smash their spirit with total terror. Yet they are still there, and fighting back. Same story with the Arabs and the Afghans, and other peoples, sometimes utterly destitute like the Somalis: they are confronting a most powerful, gluttonous organization, a greedy cabal called USA-Israel (or is it the other way around?); they are suffering, they are dying, but they are tough and when the going gets tough the tough keeps going. Unless they manage to genocide them completely, as they did with the Amerindians in the territories they colonized, the US-Israel clique will not subdue its victims completely and indefinitely. The hapless Iraqis are fodder for the US-paid death squads, and it's disheartening. But Pepe knows the simple words to keep the small candlelight alive and burning. Good man.
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Switzerland and Australia (Dec 14, '06)

Rigid and narrow moralism is a striking feature of President [George W] Bush's foreign policy, it goes without saying. It is this very moralism which has lead to failure of judgment on the question of Iran. Conn Hallinan [Democrat dilemma over Iran, Dec 14] is not sanguine in his views that the 110th United States Congress which will convene in 2007 under Democratic leadership, have faint chance of deflecting Mr Bush from his "unilateral militarism", which has America fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he is willing to put his money on Mr Bush's opening a third front by invading Iran. Hallinan, who sees a variety of positions and views on the Middle East among the Democrats, thinks that there is enough identity of views that will hamper the majority party in the Houses of Congress in paring Mr Bush's warlike inclinations. However, he has not tested the waters of American public opinion, which in an unprecedented 88% is against sending in extra troops to Iraq, and displays little eagerness for more adventurism in the Middle East. Mr Bush is fumbling for a response to the Baker Commission's report on Iraq, and is finding opposition among his generals for war against Iran. Hallinan raise the question of Israel's hand in the equation, but [Jerusalem] sees war with Iran [as beside] the point. In spite of President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's bellicose anti-Zionist statements, the Israelis tend to dismiss them [as] more bark than bite. As for the nuclear plants that Iran is building, they lack the strategic value [of] Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant which Israel destroyed before it was even finished in 1982. Hallinan forgets that on the whole Israeli intelligence is more spot-on than wrong, and that ... Israel through back-door channels is willing to deal with Tehran when it suits each country's mutual advantage. Looking now at the Democratic majority, its mere hold on Congress will open up discussions and debates which have been absent in the Senate and the House of Representatives when they were under Republic control. Hallinan forgets that defeat of Mr Bush's party in the November [mid-term] elections offer new options for pressing for change in Mr Bush's foreign and domestic policies. He should remember that nothing is static nor set in stone in politics, and if one thing is certain, [incoming House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi is not wedded to the dry, sterile moralism which has held this country [US] hostage to the war in Iraq.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 14, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad, re The vultures are circling [Dec 13]: Brilliant piece. Excellent reporting, if I may say so.
Brian Cloughley (Dec 14, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad [re The vultures are circling, Dec 13]: Since I and my wife lived in Jalalabad for a couple of months together with Afghans (not together with other foreigners) in 2004, visited many provinces in the east, center and north of Afghanistan (in 2004, 2005 and 2006), I really love the country and its people. We altogether spent eight months in Afghanistan ... mostly as travelers, visiting and talking to our Afghan friends and discovering the beauty and difficulties of this country. I hope I can come back to Afghanistan to meet our friends there again soon ... I have - from my own experience with foreign, especially American, troops in Afghanistan - some sympathy with the resistance, but most of all I feel with the normal Afghan people, who should not be drawn into another conflict for nothing, because in the end the foreigners will go away, the Afghans will (have to) stay. Since we lived in Afghanistan, we do not trust our media (European-American) anymore - the coverage is really biased, and since our stay we know it. But from your reports we have the strong impression that you care about the truth, and the plight of normal people and do not report with "Western" eyes but with a great education and at the same time with knowledge about and understanding of the local people. So mainly by your reports we keep ourselves updated about what really happens inside the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan - especially the south, where we have not been - and [it is] mainly your reports we rely on when we try (which we very often do) to explain the current political situation in southern and eastern Afghanistan to friends, people and students in Germany in our lectures about Afghanistan (mainly based on slides from the beautiful country) ...
Heiner Tettenborn
Germany (Dec 13, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad [re The vultures are circling, Dec 13] ... I am reliably informed that when the Australian Special Forces operated in Orzugan, the Taliban insurgents avoided them at all costs. The bad news for the insurgency is that the coalition is starting to commit more forces to combat. The vultures surely are circling, but over the Taliban.
Jim Duncan
Australia (Dec 13, '06)

This is a conflict, after all, and will not be a win-win situation. One side has to lose and the other has to win. Let's see. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I enjoyed reading the article about Afghanistan [The vultures are circling, Dec 13]. It is difficult to find out what is really happening in that country from the news reports.
E Vitny (Dec 13, '06)

Re The vultures are circling [Dec 13]: Very well written article, extremely interesting, and [it] gave a full picture of the scene. You ask the right questions and write the answers I am interested in. The ending was very nice too.
Dawit (Dec 13, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I've enjoyed your articles on Afghanistan in Asia Times Online. Do you have any info on what the Canadian troops are doing in Kandahar? The media in Canada gives a very one-sided and positive spin on Canada's role in Afghanistan, so I'm looking for alternative sources of information. What are Canadian troops doing? Are they just sitting in their bases, or are they doing a lot of fighting and "counter-insurgency" work? Are there many civilian casualties? Do the locals see them as different or the same as the Americans? Are they doing any "reconstruction" work? Do you have any insights, information, or stories?
Jerome Klassen
York University
Toronto, Ontario (Dec 13, '06)

I could not interact with Canadians in Kandahar because of the episode in Baghran where I was held by the Taliban (see A 'guest' of the Taliban, Nov 30), and after that I had to leave for Pakistan. Nevertheless, the situation in Kandahar city is different from the rest of Kandahar province. In the city they patrol on the highways and sometimes carry out operations. The general perception of the Afghan masses, minus Taliban fighters, was far better of Europeans (minus the UK) than of Americans, especially with countries like Germany, Canada and France - but the blasphemous cartoons published in the European press changed everything. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Professor Andrei Lankov devotes his attention, steadily and systematically, to the study of North Korea. His articles in ATol betray a passionate dislike for the Kim dynasty which has ruled the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for almost 60 years. In his latest contribution, North Korea turns back the clock [Dec 13], he exhibits impatience that North Korea has not failed as a communist state nor has taken the high road to capitalism like its neighbor and protector the People's Republic of China. Dr Lankov blames South Korea for propping up Pyongyang through generous inflows of capital, food, and investments. He takes Seoul to task for not taking a hard, if not harsher, tack to Kim Jong-il, thereby aborting a new age of democracy and freedom in the North Korea, and injecting new energy into a Stalinist regime that deserves to have failed dismally. Professor Lankov has shod the wrong horse. As an old Korea hand, he knows, or should know, that geopolitical interests of China and South Korea prefer the maintenance of the DPRK to the utter chaos that its collapse would have not only on these two countries but on Northeast Asia as well. On the other hand, Dr Lankov tells time by an eccentric watch. North Korea turns not back the clock. The nature of the state and the nomenklatura has varied little since the inception of North Korea as a state in 1948. Stalinist it may be, and Stalinist is it still. Mr Lankov has taken his own wishes for reality. As a student of the Koreas North and South, he ... has succumbed to the occupational habit of overestimating his scholarly readings of events, and therefore he has discounted the resiliency of the North Korean state by failing to discern the deeper currents within state-sponsored and state-generated conditions for retaining power in the DPRK. The nature of change in North Korea is found in Pyongyang, and not in the food nor infusions of aid and investment from South Korea, which is nothing but wrong-headed.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 13, '06)

It was interesting to read Asia Times [Online's] response to Zain's letter [Dec 11]. It should be noted that the national ideology of Pakistan as proscribed by the nation's elites makes it clear that they would rather be Arabs than South Asians (Indians). In another words, these are self-hating Indians or Arab wanna-bes. [Letter writer] Saqib Khan sounds like one, and he would never agree to use of non-Arabic language in Islamic discourse regardless of how demeaningly Arabs look upon his ilk.
R J Padbatan
New York, New York (Dec 13, '06)

Saqib Khan and Zain have explained quite eloquently the reasons they feel it is important for Muslims to retain Arabic, even in non-Arabic-speaking cultures such as Pakistan and Indonesia, for certain prayers. Ritual is all-important to most if not all religions, and while Saqib Khan and Zain take a more conservative stance on the Arabic-prayer issue than Yusman Roy, whose plight was described in Speaking in Islamic tongues in Indonesia (Dec 7), to confuse respect for ritual with something else is to taint one's analysis. - ATol

It seems to me that the meaning of "victory" for [US President George W] Bush is as remote as a World War II movie he saw at the age of 12. Additionally, all his talk is a mask against humiliation and whatever hidden agendas led in the first place to this contrived war. It would be good and profitable to have a discussion, a challenge issued somehow, on what "victory" is considered to be by Bush and supporters of continuing the American occupation. Last week I heard an American Enterprise Institute representative say, "Victory will come when an American ambassador can drive through downtown Baghdad in a convertible." If that's the measuring stick, we'll be looking at another half a million deaths before long. The years pass rapidly.
Peter Bollington
USA (Dec 13, '06)

Re Singaporean firm to run Gwadar port [Dec 12]: Pakistan is not known for making good choices. It, however, has made an excellent choice in awarding the Port of Singapore Authority International (PSAI) a 40-year lease as operator of Gwadar port in Balochistan, a province rich in natural gas, although not unknown for tribalism, religious extremism and violence. PSAI is yet another milestone in the city-state of Singapore's Drang nach Westen as it extends investments in South, Central and West Asia. PSAI's excellence in operating ports is not in dispute, and its reputation preceding it has found a toehold in Pakistan and the Arabian Sea. PSAI's experience and efficient management will have a positive effect on a country that is known for sharp business practices, corruption, and lax work rules. Pakistan, it is hoped, will know how to benefit greatly by PSAI's presence.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 12, '06)

Re Father, son and Holy Ghost (Dec 12): Ehsan Ahrari states that President [George W] Bush has followed the dictates of ideology for the past six years, not pragmatism. There is always a tendency to ascribe some form of organized motivation to leaders, perhaps believing that the weight of their high office assures that a form of organized reason drives their decisions. What if the driving force behind Bush's decisions started with an ideology that only privileged connections dictated, but that [obstinacy], stubbornness, and a sense of messianic destiny began to dominate his thinking? Perhaps the mid-term elections saved us from the ultimate consequences of this tendency. Or maybe not.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Dec 12, '06)

I appreciate Zain's eloquent and excellent response of December 11 [letters] regarding the article Speaking in Islamic tongues in Indonesia [Dec 7] ... As I wrote in my [Dec 8] letter, the prayers are said in Arabic, which itself has a special significance as it makes a worshipper an inseparable part of Muslim global brotherhood. But it is the universal message of the Koran in its entirety: righteousness, piety, purity and nobility of heart and mind; and the salat helps us to abstain and refrain from all evildoings. The Koran calls not only the Muslims but the whole of mankind to unite under the universal flag of Islam, and that was what I tried to convey in the [Dec 8] letter. I quote in Farsi, "Her key beenam der jahan too neest," meaning: "Everywhere I see, I find You."
Saqib Khan
UK (Dec 12, '06)

I enjoyed reading the article on cotton and the interactions of subsidies and price [China's cotton conundrum, Dec 6]. It is really odd that some of our Rio Grande Valley cotton grown here in Texas with its long fiber quality might end up spun into cloth and sewn into shirts, shorts and pants in China before coming back to the USA to be sold at various retailers here. So that's what Washington does with our tax dollars! Amazing.
Brad Altemeyer (Dec 12, '06)

Re Iraq heading the Lebanon way [Dec 9]: Preceding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, I remember how shocked I was to first hear right-wing Americans use the phrase, "The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad." That saying is the same exact one first used during the Iran-Iraq War by ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, urging his Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) forward in massed human-wave assaults against the military forces of Saddam Hussein. To this day the saying remains popular with the Pasdaran. Given the adverse US military situation in Iraq and the potential of pullout, the Iranian meaning of expansion and liberation may yet come true.
Mark Merat (Dec 11, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thank you for your interesting article [Time out from a siege, Dec 9]. It brings to mind the ideas of noted historian Bernard Fall as they apply to the concept of revolutionary warfare. Forty years after the publication of Street without Joy, we have yet to learn the importance of pursuing political solutions in conjunction with, or in place of, military force. The comments of Abdul Khaliq Akhund only confirm what we have not learned, that our military losses from the many wars and skirmishes fought during that period have indeed been in vain.
B Carter (Dec 11, '06)

There's almost a schizophrenic contradiction between economic and social reality and rising anxious expectations in South Korea today, as Donald Kirk pertinently points out [In Korea pessimism trumps reality, Dec 9]. Even more humiliating to Asia's third-largest economy [are] the resentment and general contempt towards the ruling Uri Party headed by president Roh Moo-hyun. This feeling is the sum of perceptions, a tilt with actuality. President Roh's election raised an unseasoned lawyer to the levers of power. His political program set a more open tone to politics as usual in South Korea. It loosened the tight corset of a dirigiste economy. President Roh's attempt at reform reaped a whirlwind of protest and a failed effort to impeach him. Nonetheless, it did provide the grist for rumor mills which fed uncertainty and uninformed opinion, and which in stronger growth in the economy appeared even more [as] ill-informed sensationalism. There's no doubt President Roh's years in office have turned the rachet of social and political and economic tendencies. Such a turn nurtures uncertainty, and into the malaise the older economic interests, known as chaebol, chased by the 1998 economic downturn, have seized this vague moment of existential depression to turn the clock back, thereby regaining former privileges. It is doubtful that they are going to succeed, for the mighty South Korean economy has little taste for those "good old days", and since then newer forces of growth and younger men and groups are coming to the fore. On the other hand, it is difficult to do without the chaebol, for historical reasons and for the central place they occupy in the South Korean economy. Glance an eye across the Eastern Sea to Japan: despite the American Military Occupation Government's program to break up the zaibatsu, it couldn't do away with them. Pundits are putting money on the former dictator Park Chung-hee's daughter heading the next government after the 2007 elections. They expect that Madame Park will favor such a correction politically and economically. However, as Mr Kirk has cogently written in other articles in ATol, the differences between her and Mr Roh are slight and thus appear greater depending on the critic's wishes and hopes.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 11, '06)

I have never heard anything as silly as the title The elephant gives birth to a mouse [Dec 8], but instead have heard story about a mouse who fancied having sex with a lady elephant. With great daring he managed to climb the mountain but got lost in the act and was never found again. This probably is the fast-approaching unsightly end of President G W Bush's foul play in Iraq and there is little prospect of festive joy on the political front for him, and also hardly any welcoming news coming his way during the festive season of Christmas. All his ignorant, arrogant optimism, "Mission accomplished in Iraq", and cowboy unintellectual verbosity have [deflected] his once overenthusiasm of hunting down his enemies to their graves. He is the one being hunted down now and vilified for his abject failures both with domestic and foreign policies. His approval rating has slumped to a record low of 30%, worse than any other [US] president in history. A record 71% of people asked in the most recent opinion polls disapproved of his handling of Iraq and substantial numbers were disappointed with his mismanagement of the economy. Even his loyal Republican senators are deserting him and spitting out anger and one of them, Gordon Smith from Oregon, spilled it out last week by delivering a woeful attack on his "absurd" and possible "criminal" Iraq's policy. He is one of the most polarizing presidents in American history crumbled by the globally detested and unpopular Iraq war propagated by him, and his lame-duck status since the humiliating defeat of his party in both the houses [of the US Congress]. His foes are now openly saying that he is possibly the worst president in American history as well as the least intellectually able to sit in the Oval Office. President G W Bush believes in the delusion as Richard Nixon said to David Frost in 1977 on a TV interview, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
Saqib Khan
UK (Dec 11, '06)

Referring to the article Speaking in Islamic tongues in Indonesia (Dec 7) by Duncan Smith and your response to Saqib Khan's letter [Dec 8]: The words "worship", "prayer" etc need to be clarified to a non-Muslim. The prayer as referred to by Yusman Roy is the prescribed ritual act which is called salat in Arabic or namaz in Farsi or Urdu. A prayer as most non-Muslims understand or are more familiar with is usually supplication of thanks and requests to the god; these supplications are called duas in Islam. At its core, salat is (the public salat and most often the private salat performed singly at home or outside) is quite short and fairly simple. It mainly consists of reciting two very short verses from the Koran while standing and two-to-four-word phrases (of praise and glorification of God) while bowing and prostrating. The first verse to be recited is fixed: it is the first chapter of the Koran consisting of only one verse. It consists of seven very short sentences, some consisting of only three to four words. The second verse to be recited is left open to choice. Often the second verse chosen to be recited is quite short, even shorter than the first verse. Typically a small child of five to seven learns to recite them in a couple of days. The meaning of the few short verses is also quite simple and forms the core of the belief system of Islam. Understanding the meaning of these verses is quite easy and the words used are also quite simple. Most children are able to understand the meaning well before 10 years of age. As for the dua or supplication-thanksgiving, they can be in any language - typically the language the worshipper is comfortable with. Similarly the "prayer" that most people associate ... with Islam is the Friday noon prayers. These consist of a lecture and short salat. The lecture is always in the local language. In places where multiple languages are spoken, it is not unknown to have the same lecture delivered in two languages. Understanding the Koran in the language one is familiar with has always been highly encouraged in Islam. So the question of "allow[ing] them to study the deeper truths of their faith in a language they can understand", as you put it, really does not exist. For example, the Iranians learn and analyze the religion in Farsi, as the Indians and Pakistanis do in Urdu and the Bangladeshis in Bengali. I'm not surprised that ATimes editors are unfamiliar with even the basics of Islam yet feel fit to pontificate on it. This has been my experience with many journalists who seem to write quite a bit on Islam yet prefer to view it through the image of Islam they have in mind, rarely taking the simple effort of calling a learned cleric from a mosque.
Zain (Dec 11, '06)

Yusman Roy is a devout Muslim, and he evidently feels that praying in Bahasa Indonesia rather than Arabic is important enough to go to prison to defend. The clerical imposition of a "sacred" language such as Sanskrit, Pali, Hebrew or Latin has for the most part been based on myth, not on linguistic science as Saqib Khan was attempting to claim in the case of Arabic, and its importance for preserving "unity" is also highly questionable, judging from the experiences of all major religions that have insisted on linguistic conservatism. Our intention was only to make those points, not to comment on the importance of certain rituals such as the salat et al to some Muslims. - ATol

It is articles like the one written by [Jim] Lobe [Butcher, Baker: The neo-cons' new villain , Dec 7] that endear ATol to its worldwide readers. The entire world was holding its breath for the Baker-Hamilton Commission report on Iraq. Obviously the neo-cons have either not heard the voice of the American people or are so full of hubris and arrogance that they really don't care. The neo-cons do not pay any attention to the root causes of issues, do not work on comprehensive solutions and simply bank on might and brute force to resolve issues. Fear and anger ruled the American skies for a while, but sanity is returning. The US Department of Defense has chosen to reveal that 3,000 Americans are dead. The mercenaries, contractors, civilians, and non-combat dead are not listed as part of the statistics. Independent estimates list 10 times that number as dead. America and the world faced a horrendous calamity on [September 11, 2001] because of [its] bankrupt policies in the Greater Middle East (walking away from Afghanistan after the USSR withdrew, using Osama bin Laden and his kind to fight the USSR, and not engaging the Palestinian-Israelis). I shudder to think what the blowback from [America's] current policies in Iraq and Afghanistan will be. Based on the past few weeks, it is obvious that the neo-cons will continue to sabotage any sane policy that will extricate the US [from] the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan and build peace in the Greater Middle East. They will continue to sing the song "bomb Iran" and "shoot the Saudis" and "exterminate the Palestinian nationhood". The lesson of history is that a policy based upon hate, bigotry and contempt of other cultures has serious blowbacks. Neo-con policies will bring about a regional war involving Syria, Iran, Jordan, Turkey and Israel, which is a nightmare that we do not want to imagine. The US was a beacon of freedom and a lighthouse of prosperity. We all need to work to make this a better world. The American people have spoken. Hopefully Americans will make the neo-cons irrelevant.
Moin Ansari (Dec 11, '06)

In Shawn Crispin's December 1 story Inconvenient truths in Singapore, he puts forward an untrue and deeply insulting falsehood. Crispin states: "Dow Jones' current grandstanding under a press-freedom banner should be taken with a big grain of salt considering that the financially beleaguered US news organization in 2004 offered to sell the FEER to the Singaporean government just months before it downsized and fired all of the publication's staff, according to former and current senior Dow Jones managers." I was the top commercial (managing director) executive at Far Eastern Economic Review from August 2002 to November 2004 - the time it was shut down as a weekly and reopened as a monthly. Prior to that I spent 20 years in news (18 with Dow Jones) as head of news for CNBC Asia, CNBC Europe, head of Wall Street Journal TV and more. Crispin did not disclose he was a reporter at FEER. The Review was never - and by never I mean never ever, not once ever - offered for sale to the Singapore government, or to anyone else for that matter. I also compared notes with the former editor of the Review, who says while there was a rumor a venture-capital group was interested, that was only a rumor and they were not talking directly to Dow Jones. Crispin cites nameless Dow Jones sources and yet I as managing director, and the former editor to whom I just alluded, would know better than anyone and, in a less-than-professional journalistic move, he did not even contact me. As for allegations FEER was soft on Singapore, he has convenient Newzheimers: among many stories, FEER wrote about lack of performance and transparency in Temasek Holdings ... It is a shame that Crispin has had this lapse in professionalism to go tabloid and sensationalist. Having spent 18 years at Dow Jones (I am no longer there), having worked closely with execs at all levels up to the CEO, I can tell you no one there ever would offer any Dow Jones publication for sale to a government and, again, never ever offered the Review for sale to the Singapore government or anyone else. Shawn should be ashamed for asserting this without the facts to support it and in his own act of transparency should cite who his supposed Dow Jones sources are since neither of the top two Dow Jones execs (myself and the editor at the time) had any knowledge whatsoever of attempts to sell the Review.
Christopher Graves
Former Managing Editor, Far Eastern Economic Review (Dec 11, '06)

As a professional news reporter - professional enough to serve as the Bangkok bureau chief for both the Far Eastern Economic Review and Asian Wall Street Journal from the period spanning 2001-04 - I found your letter to be badly uninformed, if not a tad bullying. I stand firmly behind the details of my article, including the passage you alluded to, which, as the story indicated, was reported in good faith based upon information I received from Dow Jones employees. It is a matter of melancholy fact that the decisions made that led to the demise of the Far Eastern Economic Review as a weekly news publication were made by Dow Jones executives from New York, and exclusive of Hong Kong-based employees like your well-meaning self. The former editor you refer to in your letter, likewise a good friend of mine, was clearly kept out of the decision-making loop on this unfortunate strategic move - and I assume from the fact that you are no longer with the company that you were too. There is obviously a difference between rumor and information presented by sources in a position to know what they are talking about - as any professional journalist knows and practices. Unfortunately, the Chinese wall between business and editorial decision-making processes was dangerously lowered during my tenure at the company, judging from my experience of being forced to work directly alongside the marketing, sales and circulation division of the publications - a cost-cutting business decision you were no doubt privy to. I have reported this information in good faith as a professional journalist, from sources I judged to be in the know. I did not contact you for this story partly because our paths rarely crossed during my time at Dow Jones, and partly because I did not believe that Hong Kong-based employees such as yourself were in a position to know. That you take such umbrage to the details in my story - notably as a former rather than current Dow Jones employee - seems suspicious, or rather perhaps a reflection of the confidentiality clauses in your severance agreement with Dow Jones, which for the record I declined to sign in my departure from the corporation. - Shawn Crispin

The proposed ban on alcohol advertisement in Thailand is an attempt to change the behavior of Thai citizens by regulatory means. Social engineering of this nature is best left to elected governments because they are more likely to represent the will of the people. The interim government is working very hard to bring to book the misgovernance issues that are the rationale for its existence and to return the job of government to elected representatives as quickly as possible. Those opposed to alcohol advertisement might wish to wait until then to lobby the elected government for such a ban and to present their case to the people at that time.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 11, '06)

As Anthony Cordesman correctly notes in The elephant gives birth to a mouse (Dec 8), the Iraq Study Group report fails to address the most crucial question facing the war-torn nation of Iraq: How can the country move forward from civil war to national reconciliation? This question will never be answered until the US recognizes its unprovoked attack on the sovereign Muslim nation of Iraq constituted an act of international terrorism that was a gross violation of the norms of human civilization as clearly embodied in the UN Charter. Nothing else can explain why the Iraqi people have mounted such a determined resistance against the US-led occupying forces, and why the country's Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim factions have turned on each other with such unprecedented ferocity. Ever since the tragic events of September 11 [2001], the Bush administration has maintained that its war against Islamic extremists was not a campaign against Islam. Yet by its very actions in Iraq it has not only betrayed the Iraqi people, but it has betrayed the trust of the entire Islamic world that sees this as the diabolical work of a born-again US president asserting global religious predominance of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The time has now come to finally put a stop to all this killing in the name of religion and to find a way forward that brings real unity to a nation that is on the verge of descending into a bloodbath of unimaginable proportion. To this end, Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, recently made an extraordinary appeal to the leaders of the Sunni insurgency by pleading with them that they recognize their common ancestry as children of the Prophet Mohammed. Indeed, it would not be too difficult to extend this same appeal to the three monotheistic faith traditions that all claim to have their common ancestry in Abraham: Jews, Muslims and Christians. The US would then be religiously bound to negotiate not only with its arch-enemies Syria and Iran, but also with Iraq's Sunni insurgents - and ultimately, with al-Qaeda.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Dec 8, '06)

Anthony Cordesman's The elephant gives birth to a mouse (Dec 8) is a very fruitful analysis to the ISG [Iraq Study Group] report, and I agree with several points he has provided. I believe, however, that many analysts, including Mr Cordesman, have overlooked the basic point of the report. Essentially, the report is not a mouse but a giant outcome aiming at saving American monopoly capitalism from a possible breakdown. The committee authoring the report represents the most important elite defending the global domination of the leisure class and the financiers. This elite has clearly decided in this report that US imperialism has been on the verge of a historical defeat by the defenseless Iraqi people. Consequently, the report suggests that there is a possibility that this expected defeat can be reversed in order to save the system. American monopoly capitalism, and all readers of the ATol know, will not be able to achieve any victory in the Middle East. The reasons are very simple. First, US imperialism has attacked Islam and has been trying implicitly to convert Muslims into an unspecified religion. This has been manifested by the continued utilization of concepts such as jihadists, Islamic fascism, and radical Islam. All people know that some of these concepts have no place in Islam and Islam without jihad is not Islam. In fact, Americans are jihadists in that they liberated America from the British occupation. This perception of [the] US goal by the Muslims and the Arabs will create a much intensified permanent resistance against US imperialism such that US cannot sustain such a revolutionary bloody resistance. Second, US imperialism has been perceived by the Arabs, the Muslims, and the peace-loving people in the world as an executor of the Zionist strategy of the establishment of the greater Israel from the Neil to the Euphrates. This strategy will revolutionize a large segment of Arabs and Muslims against US imperialism and its cronies, because those people do not like to be occupied or be submitted to the machine of US imperialism and Zionism. Third, US imperialism has been killing and massacring millions of Arabs and been destroying their social capital for no reasonable cause. People, including Americans, resist such barbarian behavior. Therefore, what the report recommends is that any president of the United States of America must do something to change the Bush administration's course of action, namely to attack terrorists, not Islam and Muslims, to rebuild, not to destroy, Iraq; to help the Palestinian and the Iraqi people, not to massacre them, and to stop looting economic resources that belong to Arabs and Muslims. Simply, the ISG report suggests that fighting the Iraqis will cost US imperialism a huge amount of economic resources that will generate an inevitable tendency toward the breakdown of monopoly capitalism. As [Karl] Marx once said correctly, the knell sounds; the expropriators will be expropriated.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Dec 8, '06)

Considering some of your last articles, I would say that the whole report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is nothing more than fake and showoff. There is only one clear option to the United States and that is getting fully out of not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East. America should withdraw all its forces from the region and stop destroying more. A bulk of the Middle Eastern people and generations of their children would hate the US forever for its support of corrupt and dependent Arab leaders, exploiting their wealth, oil, and holding the region back with all ways everybody knows. The miserable people of the Middle East, like poor Iraqis, [are] paying the price of American inhuman policies.
Shiri
Middle Eastern student in Tokyo, Japan (Dec 8, '06)

Referring to the article Speaking in Islamic tongues in Indonesia [Dec 7] by Duncan Smith ... "Worship is the pillar of religion" is a saying of the Prophet Mohammed and the Koran speaks of it more than a hundred times ... The prayers are said in Arabic, which itself has a special significance as it makes a worshipper an inseparable part of global brotherhood ... The original of the Koran was in Arabic and the same text is still in use without anyone daring make any alternation of adding [or] deleting a comma, full-stop or hyphen etc. Translations have been made in the important languages of the word for those who do not understand Arabic. Languages have a tendency of changing gradually, becoming in the course of time incomprehensible to people. The only exception is Arabic, which since the last 1,500 years has changed neither in vocabulary nor grammar, nor spelling and not even in pronunciation. It was the will of Allah that his final and lasting message revealed to Prophet Mohammed (PUBH) must be in a stable language such as Arabic. Its linguistic quality is such that no translation can ever do justice, or convey the depth of meaning that the original text does. The Arabic Koran is unparalleled in the effect it had on the people of the 7th century whom it transformed and civilized into the magnificent civilization that in 25 years spread to vast lands in the East, West and North. The needs of unity among Muslims, especially these days, can never [be] stressed too much by creating ties of fraternity rather than destroying those that already [exist] as the likes of misguided Yusman Roy profess ...
Saqib Khan
UK (Dec 8, '06)

While it is true that classical Arabic's use as a liturgical language and the faithfulness with which the Koran has been preserved over the centuries have lent the language some continuity not found in everyday "living" languages such as English or Malay, it is a myth that Arabic has been immune to normal linguistic evolution. In any case, most Muslims do not understand the classical Arabic of the Koran, and so the choice has to be whether to insist on their use of Arabic in their worship merely for religious purposes, or to allow them to study the deeper truths of their faith in a language they can understand. The former approach has been used by many other religions as well, with similar results. - ATol

After reading the various articles penned by [Syed Saleem] Shahzad following his time spent with the Taliban in Afghanistan, I am left with the feeling that the average Afghan is (a) disgusted with the Karzai government (b) at the end of their patience with the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] and (c) deciding to throw their lot back in with the Taliban. As I have not spent any time in Afghanistan, I am forced to rely on contrasting his viewpoint with the wide variety of conflicting pieces regarding the Afghan conflict, including much from the private journals of those who are serving over there, to gain a balanced opinion of the situation. Can Shahzad answer why the highest levels of female suicide occur in areas that are supposedly the most supportive of the Taliban? Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission has published figures that show that more women burned themselves to death this year in the southern province of Kandahar than anywhere else in the country - from what I can gather from Shahzad's missives, this is where the Taliban think they have their strongest backing from the general population, yet there seems to be an undercurrent of despair that is not captured in Shahzad's reports. A little clarification and perhaps investigation would turn otherwise good but biased reporting into truly insightful journalism. Patrick Kennedy
Ontario, Canada (Dec 8, '06)

Neo-conservative hegemony in the United States no longer obtains. Its a priori assumptions no longer obtain, as Jim Lobe observes in Butcher, Baker: The neo-cons' new villain [Dec 7]. The soul of America's conservative tradition is now being assailed by on-the-surface friction and competition between two groups that do not stop short of gossip and back-biting. It was plain as the nose on one's fact that President [George W] Bush's war in Iraq, based on lies and false intelligence, was wrong from its inception. Yet in the wake of [September 11, 2001], it appealed to vulgar prejudice of Americans. As long as Mr Bush maintained Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches of the government and his nomination of very conservative judges to the Supreme Court, his Republican critics held their peace. For nothing beats success, and the Republican majority was intent on turning itself into the majority party with a hold on power for years to come. Its reign has breached on November 7, when the voters toppled the Republican Party from its claw-like hold on the executive power. Corruption, scandal, pauperization of the middle classes, a ballooning national debt and, yes, the failing war in Iraq had much to do to destabilize Mr Bush's majority. Earlier in 2006 Mr Bush's strategy for turning Iraq into a William Blake-like "new Jerusalem" of democracy had [proved] a failure. This stirred the Bush pere faction into motion and, out of this rush to save President Bush, the man who succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to name George W Bush president in 2000, James Baker, appeared on the scene to perform his magic. Mr Baker has become the bete noire of the neo-conservatives, who rightly see the hook pulling them off the center stage of power. [The Dec 6] release of the Baker Commission's report on the Middle East is a work of desperation. Its counsels are obvious and desperate, for they are looking to extract the United States from a lost cause by burdening the very countries the president has refused to deal with [except on] his own terms. The neo-conservatives may feel betrayed, but they have only themselves to blame for their own downfall and didacticism and ideological contempt. However, the Baker Commission's suggestions do not seriously challenge the neo-conservative assumptions on the Middle East. President Bush is playing with a weak hand, and to extricate his country from the mess that he created, he has to fold his cards and leave the game without earnings.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 7, '06)

The much-vaunted report of the Iraq Study Group appears to have been extracted from archives of this column. I have been reading the very same analyses in letters to Asia Times Online for months. These observations apparently come as shocking revelations to the Americans. Information fed to their consumers by the American media paints a peculiar picture of the world that is often at odds with reality.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 7, '06)

Concerning Duncan Smith's Speaking in Islamic tongues in Indonesia [Dec 7], the idea of dividing people into two groups is an age-old colonial trick and, not surprisingly, such ideas are also used by modern day writers and polemicists. Duncan Smith's article divides the Muslims in Indonesia into two camps, "conservatives" (also identified as "fundamentalists") and "moderates", without any proper definition of each of the labels. The artificial division between the Muslim "radicals" and "moderates" has been recently refuted by John L Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the journal Foreign Policy ("What makes a Muslim radical?"). Their study finds that the Muslim "radicals" and "moderates" are fundamentally the same. Although not connected directly, this has some interesting implications on Duncan Smith's article. According to him, the "conservatives" in Indonesia advocate that prayers should be said in Arabic while the "moderates" like Yusman Roy suggest that Bahasa Indonesia should be used instead as it promotes a greater understanding of what is said in the prayers. Thus this portrays the "conservatives" to be rigid and "moderates" to be malleable [and] more in tune with times ... In the case of five daily [prayers], they are said in Arabic all over the world. However, Islamic law permits new converts to Islam to say the prayers in their mother tongue until they are able to learn them in Arabic. It also provides dispensation to those who have weak memory, especially old people, to say the prayers in the language in which they are comfortable ... Obviously, the "conservatives" or "fundamentalists" have a much better idea of moderation than the "moderates" themselves ... Even if we give the benefit of doubt to the "moderate" Roy about his abilities, one can't fail to miss one important point, ie, Roy receiving "a new tattoo" in prison. Does he not know that tattooing is haram (not permissible) in Islam according to the consensus of scholars? It is clear that Roy is ignorant, and his ignorance about Islam is propagated as an example of "moderation". Perhaps Duncan Smith has discovered a new definition of "moderation" which we do not know. We are left with one last question: Why Arabic? Often Muslims and non-Muslims have pointed out the unity among the Muslims when it comes to fundamental religious practices, ie, one God, one Prophet, one Book (ie, the Koran), one qibla (ie, the direction of prayer) and finally one ummah (ie, the Muslim community). Islamic law preserves this unity in many ways and the recitation of five daily prayers is no different. They are said in Arabic all over the world and it emulates the way of Prophet Mohammed rather than giving precedence to the regional practices. Thus this preserves the unity of among Muslims.
Saifullah
Singapore (Dec 7, '06)

Pepe Escobar [Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia, Dec 7] is among your finest columnists. It's not just what he writes but also the way he writes, which makes his articles without exception such interesting reading.
Gautam
Noida, India (Dec 7, '06)

[Re] Michael T Klare's The post-abundance era [Dec 7] ... Users of energy can do better than buy into pimping propaganda for - in effect - the international energy cartel. Asia Times [Online] readers could do worse than read Edwin Black's book Internal Combustion to get a 20th-century perspective that has carried forward to today. Every consumer of hydrocarbons - solid: coal, peat, etc; gas; liquid: oil - should know that they don't have to be taxed by the energy monopoly and can avoid surrendering worldwide water resources to a like tax. Black makes a case for how corporations and governments designed world oil addiction and derailed the alternatives. Perhaps if Klare had a fundamental understanding of elements and how they can be changed, he would not embrace a post-abundance era.
Doug Baker
Alameda, California (Dec 7, '06)

Help me on this one, gentlemen. I am completely against Canadian troops being used as American surrogates in Afghanistan. What surprises me from your paper is that the reports I read there are almost the opposite of what I read or hear about in Canadian media. I expect discrepancy and bias, but not so completely. [Recently] you have had reports about how casual the Taliban are in setting up for next spring's offensive, operating openly in "Canadian-patrolled" territory. Then [on Nov 7, in Rough justice and blooming poppies] you report on a British unit being heavily engaged and effectively defeated by the Taliban in another province, something I never heard about. Is this a case of two opposing media spins amplifying each other, or are the "coalition" forces really in as much trouble as Asia Times [Online] reports? Certainly the members of Canada's Parliament are ignorant of this information, unless they have been reading my e-mail forwards to them concerning your reporting.
Jim Miles
Vernon, British Columbia (Dec 7, '06)

Startling discrepancies in media coverage of what on the surface are the same circumstances have always been quite common, for various reasons ranging from government or corporate interference to sheer journalistic laziness. Asia Times Online enjoys several advantages over many mainstream media, including a large pool of energetic writers such as Syed Saleem Shahzad who actually go to the areas on which they report, or have intimate knowledge of them from many years of study, and owners/sponsors who believe in journalistic freedom - that is, we are under no obligation imposed from on high to report or reflect a certain view or "spin" of the facts on the ground as our writers see them first-hand. - ATol

Many thanks to Syed Saleem Shahzad for his reports on the situation in Afghanistan - Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven' [Dec 2], Rough justice and blooming poppies [Dec 7] and How the Taliban prepare for battle [Dec 5]. These are informative articles which we don't get in the UK. What we get here through the [media] are Boys' Own adventure stories similar to what G A Henty, the imperial British writer, wrote of British adventures in India, the Sudan and Burma, to mention just a few of the British colonies, during the beginning of the 20th century. British newspapers write of the Afghan badlands [and] of lawlessness much in the mode of this writer. With this unrealistic view of the situation in Afghanistan, can they and their allies win?
Wilson John Haire
England, UK (Dec 7, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I have been a fan of your articles for the last year on Asia Times [Online]. Your writing has always been sharp, accurate and cutting-edge ... I just felt the need to say I enjoy your articles and am glad you arrived home unhurt. God bless and keep up the great work.
Noel Johnson (Dec 7, '06)

Thank you for posting and replying to my [letter] sent on December 4 which had references to the coup in Thailand. ATol is traveling down a very dangerous path here by challenging as you call it the simplistic definitions of "democracy". There are important reasons why it has to be so simplistic ... There are comparable arguments in the US against George Bush, but so far no sensible American would recommend a coup and no general will attempt one. Americans hold to this simplistic view. It agree that after the coup, the Thai "economy is moving from statistical strength to strength" and that King Bhumibol [Adulyadej] has contributed greatly to "Thailand's enviable political stability, economic progress and social harmony". (I quote from the articles you linked [Saluting Thailand's military-run economy, Nov 10, and Why this military coup is different, Oct 19].) However, I hope ATol realizes that this argument is exactly the same argument which Lee Kuan Yew used when he rejected Western-style democracy. Basically, economic growth [and] political and social stability were cited by him, and Singapore does indeed have a GDP [gross domestic product] and social/economical stability comparable or superior to most First World countries. Furthermore, Lee did it without bringing out the soldiers from the barracks. I am somewhat surprised that at the end of the day readers are urged by Lee and ATol to reject the simplistic democracy displayed by the US but accept that economic growth and stability justify measures to restrict simplistic democracy.
Patrick Lim
New York, USA (Dec 7, '06)

The more thoughtful criticisms of Singapore's peculiar brand of democracy do not suggest that Lee Kuan Yew's policies early in the republic's history were unwise, but that Singapore has failed to progress significantly away from authoritarianism, to the extent that its once-vaunted creativity and self-sufficient prosperity are now under threat. Similarly, those who support the September coup in Thailand for the most part see it not as an end in itself, but a step toward the kind of mature, functioning, made-in-Asia democracy that a billionaire autocrat such as Thaksin Shinawatra would not find so easy to manipulate to his own ends. Thai democracy, it is hoped, is not dead; it is a work in progress. - ATol

Regarding the article Delhi told to get tough on terror [Dec 6], I cannot agree more [with] that headline. Even though India is a democracy, in times of crisis India should enact laws whether they are "draconian" or not for ... the security of the nation. India may take a page from the US and enact a Patriot Act of its own. During these times of crisis, India should have the right over the media and ... non-profit "human rights" groups when New Delhi should be fully focused on [eradicating] the internal cancer of terrorism.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Dec 6, '06)

Re As Rice's Iran strategy fizzles, Cheney waits (Dec 6), I'm afraid that Gareth Porter's analysis is too accurate, at least based on the weight cast by [US Vice President Dick] Cheney's opinion in the past. Cheney's shadow has eclipsed clearer thinking regarding many important decisions, not the least of which was the Iraq invasion. But there is almost a scripted surety in the Bush-Cheney moves. It is ironic that the refusal to negotiate with the so-called axis-of-evil countries (a Cheney trademark) has assured their adoption of threatening strategies and, in fact, is helping Cheney build a case for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. First, there is North Korea's bipolar diplomatic thrusts and its development of nuclear weapons. Then there is Iran's manipulation of the Bush administration's hot-cold policy: alternatively, threats, then feeble shows of diplomacy. What follows? The potential for military strikes that Cheney champions against nuclear facilities that past jingoistic policies helped to prompt.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Dec 6, '06)

Tom Engelhardt's Fiddling while Baghdad burns (Dec 6) is a really very fascinating intellectual piece whose implications are magnificent. The combination of the combined disastrous consequences of the imperialist occupation of Iraq and the search for combined aspects of a graceful exit strategy for American monopoly capitalism reflect indeed one essential reality, which is the continuing burning of not only Baghdad but the entire Middle East. If one analyzes the problem from the resistance's viewpoint, it is a crystal-clear conclusion that their country, Iraq, has been destroyed and thousands of Iraqis have been massacred; hence their best course of action is to continue fighting no matter what the Bush administration does. Two courses of action have been colliding daily. But the US course of action will cost American people thousands of lives and a tremendous amount of financial resources. In addition, the US has lost its humanitarian and political image because of this imperialist war that has been based on lying, deception, and destruction. Moreover, we have seen the impossible move from the desperate President George W Bush when he invited the Iraqi mullah [Abdul Aziz] al-Hakim, who is a war criminal, to the White House to help him stabilize Iraq. If President Bush thinks that he can divide the Iraqi mullahs, he is really making another historical mistake, because the Iranian and the Iraqi mullahs are connected by blood, a connection that is impossible to divide. At any rate, mullah al-Hakim is a crony who fought on the Iranian side against the Iraqis during Iran-Iraq War, and his intention is very clear in that he wants US forces to eliminate his domestic enemies in order for him and Iran to control Iraq. If a person fought his own people for the Iranian mullahs, it would be more likely that he would use US forces temporarily for achieving his own permanent interest, which is the ultimate unity with the Iranian mullahs. I do not think the American people had in mind that the occupation of Iraq and the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime [would] mean the establishment of an Iraqi political system where the mullahs will be in charge and powerful. This unbearable condition for all of us will eventually force the US elite not only to find an exit strategy ... out of this inevitable historical defeat by defenseless people. For a speedy, graceful strategy for the United States of America, it is more beneficial for the US elite to give Iraq back to the previous leadership and to provide sufficient financial resources to rebuild the country. The Ba'athists, not the mullahs, are the only players who can stabilize and rebuild Iraq and eliminate al-Qaeda. They can also stabilize the Middle East; otherwise, the burning will be cumulatively intense and enlarged on all US cronies in the region.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Dec 6, '06)

Re Bolton hits the road [Dec 6]: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's pithy words say it all about the resignation of ambassador John Bolton: "He did the job that he was sent to do." It is a diplomat's assessment, dignified in tone without praise or condemnation. Mr Bolton served [within the US] president's foreign policy. He did it forcefully and with much banging of conservative pots and pans. He never denied his cynical contempt for the United Nations. He pushed his weight around in the Security Council with results, and most noticeably by the unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1718, which called for sanctions against North Korea for testing a nuclear device. On the other hand, on reforming the United Nations' rules and procedures and staff reduction, he proved less skillful and [effectual]. He played the role of spoiler to the hilt. Contentious, willful and arrogant, he forgot the words of the Republican Party's old warhorse Theodore Roosevelt at the dawn of the 20th century: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." A big stick did ambassador Bolton wield, but he trod like a bull elephant who, wounded, crushes everything in his path. No one should be surprised were President [George W] Bush to lay the Medal of Honor around his neck for services rendered to the nation in the pursuit of Mr Bush's ill-conceived private war against the wicked that assail the pearly gates of the White House. Mr Bolton is not a martyr. He is the latest casualty in President Bush's rear-guard maneuvers to save a failed presidency.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 6, '06)

This has reference to Dhruba Adhikary's article Nepal's royal road to disaster that came out on your December 5 online edition. It was indeed a marvelous piece of analytical presentation by Adhikary as far as the pathetic dilemma that Nepal is currently confronted with. I completely agree with Adhikary that by conceding to several of the Maoist demands the so-called Seven Party Alliance has obviously compromised the political future of the country without knowing what shape and texture it would assume. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has yet to meld its mind as far as their commitment to "genuine democratic credentials" is concerned. What they have been maintaining so far reminds me of what the 33rd president of the US, Harry S Truman, said as early as 1957: "Be sincere even if you don't mean it." The [point on which] I would vehemently disagree with Adhikary is his flimsy formula of retaining the institution of monarchy in Nepal. The country has now been far ahead of this possibility and there seems to be very little chance of political reversal in favor of kingship. It is a sad episode in the nation's history that after several centuries of monarchy, including the Lichhavis and the Mallas, Nepal stands at the threshold of becoming a republic. But the vital question remains: Who will be the de facto "king" under a Republic of Nepal if King Gyanendra is forced to go into exile? Will this ruler be a nationalist Nepali or a puppet?
Rishi Ram Karmacharya
Kathmandu, Nepal (Dec 6, '06)

To ATol readers, Jason Motlagh states the obvious in Time is on the Taliban's side [Dec 2]. I wonder why his views are not propagated by his employer, the Associated Press [sic; Motlagh is deputy foreign editor with United Press International, not AP - ATol]. If it were not for outlets like ATol, we all would be in the dark. For half a decade we keep hearing about the tremendous successes of the mighty forces in Afghanistan. On the Pakistani support, it is obvious that Pakistan will not tolerate an anti-Pakistan, non-Pashtun government in Kabul ... The drug baron and incompetent [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai [has been called] "the mayor of Kabul". A joint Pakistan-Iranian nexus would expedite the exit of NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. A popular guerrilla warfare in hostile territory cannot be defeated. Lord Curzon had to [retreat] from his "on to the Oxus policy" after the Pashtuns defeated the British and sent them "back to the Indus". The mighty USSR also had to withdraw "back to Amu Darya" and leave Afghanistan. This is a lesson for NATO. Unless NATO acknowledges the incompetence and corruption of Mr Karzai and his puppet Northern Alliance Tajik-led government, and until NATO replaces Mr Karzai's incompetence with a representative Pashtun government in Kabul, the fortunes of NATO will continue to spell defeat and disaster.
Moin Ansari (Dec 6, '06)

It amazes me to see some ATol readers come out and criticize Spengler (Jihadis and whores [Nov 21]) and demand [that he be banned] - now this has got to be the ultimate double standard. Many of these so-called lovers of free speech are the first ones to deny others free speech. [Surprisingly] these radicals live in Western (Christian) countries and enjoy the fundamental rights given to them; obviously they have not understood what free speech is all about, perhaps limited by their own religious doctrine. These two-bit, foul-mouthed namak haram (Arabic for "disloyal") are spewing hate and insults at Western (Christian) women and at the same time projecting their women as pious angels. I'm not surprised that they are getting kicked out of every country where they have lived and enjoyed freedom and goodwill. Spengler, keep those articles coming, you seem to have a way of flushing the radicals from every corner of this planet ... Regarding the [Dec 2] article by Syed Saleem Shahzad Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven', I'm glad he is back safe in Pakistan. However, he should have just stayed back as he would make a good propaganda minister for the Taliban. He seems to have completely ignored the Pakistani role in the Taliban insurgency - where do you think they are getting their guns, funding and a safe sanctuary while they continue to kill NATO and American peacekeepers, with the ultimate goal of taking Afghanistan back to the Stone Age? The [Dec 2] article by Jason Motlagh Time is on the Taliban's side is more factual as the author has made an attempt to tell us the real geopolitical situation in Afghanistan and the covert Pakistani involvement, not the sugar-coated version by Saleem Shahzad which is making the Taliban rank and file smile right now.
M Ramdas
San Francisco, California (Dec 6, '06)

I am glad that Saleem Shahzad is back safe and sound with his family. I would like to know, what are his observations of ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence]/Pakistani influence on the Taliban? It is a known fact that over the years Pakistan conveniently nurtured in Pashtun nationalism's place an Islamic nationalism, which defied geographic boundaries, among Muslims. This way, they entered an alliance with the old Pashtun yearning for unity with their brethren in Afghanistan, while keeping the rest of Pakistan intact - hence the Pakistani invasion of Afghanistan. It was a clever ploy on the part of Islamabad, but it always remained vulnerable to a re-emergence of Afghan nationalism. Indeed, [US President George W] Bush [and Afghan President Hamid] Karzai are focused on forcing Pakistanis to betray their own foreign policy and the thousands of Pakistanis they've indoctrinated to their sick cause in the guise of religion, which means that the Pashtuns there will feel the pinch. What do you think, will Pashtuns be as forgiving as, say, the Punjabi mindset will allow? Don't you think herein lies the tsunami ahead which will lead to reunion of Pashtunistani Pashtuns with their brothers in Afghanistan and re-emergence of Greater Afghanistan after 100+ years of occupation?
Azmal Pashtonyaar (Dec 6, '06)

Spengler: Your piece on proxy wars between the Saudis and the Iranians is quite interesting [Civil wars or proxy wars? Dec 5]. Another conflict which has been similarly characterized is the Shi'a-Sunni violence in Pakistan.
Steve McCaffery (Dec 5, '06)

Guest writers [Donald Alford] Weadon's and [Carol A] Kalinoski's Speaking Freely feature [Washington's schizophrenic China policy, Dec 5] is but again proof that the Bush administration's policies are at best dysfunctional and at worst perverse. [Secretary] Henry "Hank" Paulson's arrival at the [US] Treasury has done little or nothing to provide a correction in the ballooning American debt with China. Mr Paulson is known for his familiarity with China. By his own admission, he has worked with the Chinese since the early 1990s and has gone there at least 70 times as then chairman of Goldman Sachs. It is apparent by his passiveness and soft policy towards China [that] he is a pigeon in a fox's lair. He may think of China as a communist country on the road to capitalism, [but] it is not. It is a highly energetic, expanding, and expansive capitalism power. Mr Paulson and his team may think that the Chinese play a good game of cricket. They very well may, but the rules of the contest are their own, not those of Mr Paulson.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 5, '06)

We are so glad that Saleem Shahzad is back with his superb reporting (How the Taliban prepare for battle [Dec 5]). In New Jersey, there is a cult following of your fantastic reporting. I have [some] questions to ask you. (1) Today the insurgency rages in 32 provinces of Afghanistan. Your analysis and prediction of a "Taliban spring offensive" is probably based on many factors. One of them is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is unable and unwilling to provide the 50,000 or so soldiers that NATO commanders have asked for in Afghanistan. Without more troops, the fall of Kandahar or Kabul [is] inevitable. Vietnamese, Iraqi, Mao Zedong's, and Che Guevara's asymmetrical "hit and run" guerrilla warfare is predicated on the premise that the enemy cannot retaliate, because the ephemeral guerrillas do not have a "base" and the targets are elusive. Retaliation against the civilian population often causes excessive casualties that create more dissatisfaction/insurgents. If the Taliban wrest Kandahar from NATO forces, NATO will target Kandahar and level it to the ground. Won't "liberating" Kandahar be counter-productive for the Taliban? For the most part the "mujahideen" did not "liberate" territory (in pieces) from the Soviets. They simply bled them until they decided to leave all of Afghanistan. Won't the Taliban have more to gain by simply repeating the tactics used against the USSR - harassing fatigued NATO forces until the resolve disappears and it becomes too expensive to hold on to the provinces? (2) It is obvious that Pakistan will not tolerate an anti-Pakistan government in Kabul. The antagonism between the Northern Alliance and the Pakistanis/Pashtuns is well known. The Pakistani government is vociferously trying to revive/sell [its] peace plan for a stable Afghanistan by creating a Pashtun-led "unity government" in Kabul which includes the moderate Taliban but may exclude the incompetent drug lord [President] Hamid Karzai. This plan has the tacit approval of the Iranians and some NATO allies. What [are] your thoughts on this and how quickly do you see this happening?
Moin Ansari
New Jersey, USA (Dec 5, '06)

Judging from the developments I saw in southwestern Afghanistan, the Taliban are now part and parcel of the local population. They are not living in the mountains. I think the Taliban's guerrilla strategy will soon transform into a popular uprising and Iran, Pakistan and NATO will not have any option except to strike a deal with them. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

It is always a privilege and delight to read Syed Saleem Shahzad's articles knowing very well his sincerity and honesty to his profession. I often say that honest journalism is a thing of the past and a rarity, and often found in the dustbins of the media moguls, but ATol and its readers are so fortunate to have Shahzad, whom we would trust without any examination. A lot of journalists these days would stoop as low as to write anything malicious, salacious and duplicitous to distort the truth as ordered by their bosses hoping to win favors to the extent of polishing their shoes in anticipation of filling their pay packets with handsome rewards. Soon after [September 11, 2001], American media helped the Bush administration to depict any questioning of the war against Iraq as a sign of disloyalty and lack of patriotism: it was the lowest point of journalism. TV channels of the kind of pro-Zionist, Fox News and CNN have disgraced honest journalism to the lowest ebb of trust.
Saqib Khan
UK (Dec 5, '06)

[The United States of] America has been trying over the last few years to destroy [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez politically if not otherwise with money and skulduggery, but he is still around and getting stronger. American hegemony in Latin America may be coming to an end, its legitimacy as a champion of freedom, democracy, and human rights having been frittered away by the Bush administration. The votes that swung the election in Venezuela were as much against America as they were for Mr Chavez. A new political wind [is] blowing in Latin America these days. No tengo duda.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Dec 5, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I just found out that you were kidnapped by the Taliban [Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven', Dec 2]. I am so relieved that you are once again a free reporter. I have always found your reports incisive and analytical. I write a weekly column for The News [Pakistan] and I must tell you that I have learned a lot from you.
Farrukh Saleem
Pakistan (Dec 4, '06)

I read with great interest the article by Syed Saleem Shahzad titled Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven' [Dec 2]. However, there is one glaring error, and that is his assertion that the Afghan National Army is a conscript army - this is not the case, it is a purely volunteer army, which is one of the reasons it is so under-strength at the moment.
N Higgins
Kabul, Afghanistan (Dec 4, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Glad to see you're back [Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven', Dec 2]. I hope you will do a series of columns on this experience and go back for more. That is the sort of thing I like to read - what is happening on the ground; and ATol seems to be one of the few elements of the media that take us there. I am one of many Canadians who abhor the fact that our government has sent our military on such a shameful and subservient mission, especially since I know that they are killing and dying to secure a pipeline transit route for Big Oil. I wish all of the Afghan resistance movement all the best - and I wish our soldiers a quick end to their "duty". Next time you are out in the boondocks, tell the Afghan freedom fighters to hang in there. They are fighting the common enemy of the ordinary people of the world.
Keith Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Dec 4, '06)

Thank you for another enlightening and elucidating article from [Syed Saleem] Shahzad (Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven' [Dec 2]). We continue to hope for more writings from Mr Shahzad. Welcome back, Saleem! "Told you so's" are sometimes sweeter than "the taste of victory". Sane political scientists within Pakistan and around the world have for the best part of half a decade advised the "wise men of Gotham" in Washington and London that the problem in Afghanistan cannot be solved by the use of brute force alone. Neo-con hubris and arrogance did not heed this good advice. History has taught us that the Afghans have never been occupied and will ferociously resist any foreign occupation. The ill-conceived, ill-founded support for a non-Pashtun, non-representative minority government in Kabul led by the corrupt and incompetent "mayor of Kabul", [Hamid] Karzai, has not worked. Pakistani Pashtuns support Pakistani interests. Millions of Afghan Pashtuns were born in Pakistan and side with their Pakistani brethren. The neo-cons must accept the fact that Pakistan's interests will never tolerate an anti-Pakistani government in Kabul. Would the US tolerate an anti-American government in Mexico? NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization] has learned the lesson the hard way. The sooner NATO begins to talk to the Pashtuns and the sooner they replace Mr Karzai's incompetence with a sane representative government in Kabul, the sooner Afghanistan will have peace.
Moin Ansari
Parsippnay, New Jersey (Dec 4, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read in [Asia Times Online] that you were detained by the Taliban in southern Afghanistan and was glad to hear that you got out okay [Deep inside the 'kingdom of heaven', Dec 2]. I wanted to take the opportunity to let you know that your reports are read here in Canada (at least they are by me). In fact, without being an expert, I find what you write to be single most informative source of information about what is going on in the region. Many thanks. Keep up the good work. And please be careful.
Peter Diekmeyer
Montreal, Quebec (Dec 4, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Nice to know that you are safe and sound. Must have been a dreadful experience under captivity, not knowing what [would] be the outcome.
Narayan (Dec 4, '06)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: First let me say that I follow your articles keenly and enjoy the insight that you provide - no other reporter or news agency gives as much insight as you do. I also find that the facts that you report are corroborated by other sources one to two months after you report them. I have a question: What are the feelings of the Taliban re Pakistan and the reversal of support in 2001? Is there any support for traditional Pashtun vengeance?
Jawad
UK (Dec 4, '06)

I never found any Taliban against Pakistan. However, there are complaints of betrayals. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Missed your reports and hoped you had taken a vacation and weren't in trouble - but glad you were able to get out of trouble and are safe. Take care of yourself - your reports are appreciated.
C A Morrison
Williamsburg, Virginia (Dec 4, '06)

Shahzad's latest account, How the Taliban prepare for battle, is online now. - ATol

Re Americans lower sights on Pyongyang [Dec 2]: The seamless cloth of President [George W] Bush's policy towards North Korea is unraveling. US envoy Christopher Hill has the unenviable task of dealing with Pyongyang's skillful negotiator Kim Gye-gwan. Discussions are heated and fierce without a meeting of the minds. North Korea knows time is on its side, and it will draw it out in a way [that] best suits its designs. Mr Hill is the spokesman for an administration that is fading fast as though it were punch drunk in a ring. In the end Pyongyang knows that Washington will have to throw in the towel and yell "uncle".
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 4, '06)

I refer to the article Inconvenient truths in Singapore [Dec 1] by Shawn W Crispin: There is nothing truthful about this article, just exaggerations and half-truths. There is reference to a corruption scandal at the National Kidney Foundation. The reality is that the issue over the NKF is not about corruption but over first-class air tickets, elaborate internal furnishings and six-figure salaries which the CEO [T T] Durai enjoyed. CEOs [chief executive officers] riding first-class and enjoying high salaries is not a corruption issue by any international standard. While it is not a corruption issue, however, it is definitely a moral wrong when a charity which is meant to care for the sick spends money frivolously. The NKF issue was exposed and brought to court not by Chee Soon Juan but by the Straits Times newspaper in an act of investigative journalism. Strangely, it is not a [medium] which Shawn W Crispin respects or gave credit to despite the excellent job which was accomplished to bring this information to the people of Singapore. Extreme bias was also shown when evaluating the Shin Corp issue in Thailand. There is complete omission [of the fact] that the deal was found illegal only by a court set up by a military junta who had staged a coup to remove the legitimate majority government. The opponents of Thaksin [Shinawatra], the ousted Thai premier, had charged [him] with tax evasion in the Shin Corp deal; however, a quick evaluation of Thai law notes that capital gains on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) are tax-exempt. In fact, Thailand had earlier sold off DTAC ([its] No 2 [mobile-telecommunications] provider) under exactly similar circumstances to a firm from Norway. The fact is that no illegality exists and Thaksin had called snap elections and the people of Thailand again supported him. Failing to use democratic methods to oust him, his opponents staged a coup attempt. This coup attempt has led to condemnation from numerous democratic nations, including the United States and the EU. Somehow such a significant fact was omitted. Perhaps Shawn W Crispin believes that coup attempts are a legitimate way of gaining power and courts set up under such authorities should be respected. This article should not be labeled "inconvenient truths", it should be called "inconvenient speculations and half-truths".
Patrick Lim (Dec 4, '06)

The Thai coup against the increasingly autocratic Thaksin Shinawatra enjoyed strong support by Thai people and expatriates alike, as the whole Thaksin experience had challenged simplistic definitions of "democracy". Rather than unquestioningly accepting the knee-jerk reaction of much of the West, Asia Times Online has run numerous articles, some by Shawn W Crispin himself, analyzing the coup, its motivations, and its effects (see for instance Saluting Thailand's military-run economy, Nov 10, and Why this military coup is different, Oct 19). - ATol

Referring to the article Titans square up for clash in Iraq [Dec 1] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, I have no hesitation in saying that President G W Bush is probably the worst enemy and at the same time the best friend that Iranian mullahs could ever [have] had or [dreamed of]. As the frenzy of diplomatic activity intensifies, ISG [the Iraq Study Group], a bipartisan panel of foreign-policy experts, plans to recommend that the US withdraws most its combat troops by early 2008 and also involve Iranian mullahs and Syria in future dialogue over Iraq's future. It reminded me of the story of a sinking man who would hold on to the smallest branch or even to [an] enemy's pen, is hoping to save [himself] from drowning. The Iranian mullahs are already claiming that they have almost won by proxy in Iraq and one of their spokesmen, Mohsen Reazi, boasted on television recently that "the kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us, no superpower has done anything similar. America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein. The Americans got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan so deep that if they come out alive in one piece, they should thank their god. America presents us with opportunity rather than a threat, not because it intended to but because it miscalculated." Iranian mullahs now hold the whip and can dictate terms and demand things in return. The mullahs have won the real chess game and bared G W Bush, emperor of the United States of America, of all his clothes and the emperor walks naked all night in frenzy looking at his devil's mirror with nothing to cheer or feel excited about. What further insult and humiliation could the Iranian mullahs have inflicted upon the imperialistic design of … G W Bush that America, Britain, France and Germany failed to persuade Russia and China to sign up to a package of sanctions against Iran? In Tehran, President G W Bush and [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair, two horrendous liars, are the toast of the town ...
Saqib Khan (Dec 4, '06)

Asia Times Online has earned its place on my reading list by offering a very robust set of world perspectives. It takes calculation and self-assurance to balance fact-finding with the bone-jarring, adrenaline-fired provocations that keep readers coming back. Spengler's recent column on Iranian prostitution [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] makes one wonder, though, if the editor's heretofore finely tuned judgment may be in need of a brief respite from the action. The piece was just incendiary, and it offered no intellectual payload for having been suffered to read it. To me, ATimes' journalistic niche is making the anti-US Middle Eastern and Asian perspective more available to the English-speaking West. It provides a boxing ring for the columnists, as caricatured foes, to duke it out. This is a great service, and is almost as entertaining as it is educational. The editorial challenge, however, is to pick the most valid, compelling, and poetic champions. Is Spengler a valid proxy for Western political sentiment? Is he compelling, if he can't get his facts right? How poetic is racist bile? If Spengler serves as proxy for the Western branch of the religious fundamentalist fad that's swept the world, what is Spengler's value once the wave passes by? Nations suffer occasional bouts of this intellectual disease. It passes, and in the US, it is under attack from all sides. What doesn't pass so quickly are the offenses, long remembered, that remain after the cartoon characters leave the boxing ring. Some time in the future, probably sooner than many realize, the rite-of-passage tensions between Iran and the US will subside, and it will again be fashionable to appreciate the many great qualities of both countries. Good editors build a lens through which cultures can peer across at one another. Great editors lead by what they put in front of that lens. Where are you leading? The function of ATimes as a conduit of the "American influence is waning" message has been achieved; I think most of us understand the attendant causes and general consequences. But the ending of the old way implies the beginning of the new. A successfully reconfigured world polity will be composed of people [who] can bridge cultural differences to accomplish the world's business. Maybe it's time to retire the Spenglers in favor of some new creative powers.
Tom Pfotzer
USA (Dec 4, '06)

I am very interested in stories [about] the Ryukyu Islands, which I truly believe [are] still owned by the Ryukyuan people, but Japan would like to steal [them] back by many underhanded methods. I truly feel the Ryukyuans have more empathy with the Chinese than with Japan. All this comes for my long-standing belief in the Cairo Accords of 1943 which took the Ryukyu Islands from Japan and gave same to the Ryukyuan people.
Marion Wm Steele (Dec 4, '06)

The Ryukyuan people, who once had an independent kingdom, for centuries paid tribute to both the Chinese and the Japanese until the Meiji government, over the protests of China but backed by the administration of US president Ulysses S Grant, annexed them in 1879. The islands now comprise Okinawa prefecture. Some interesting historical background can be found in Meditations on Okinawa (Oct 21, '04). - ATol

Kaveh L Afrasiabi's Titans square up for clash in Iraq [Dec 1], though pertinent on some points, is very one-sided against the US. In the article the reader is constantly reminded that the US for its own personal interests is the force that needs to be removed. But Mr Afrasiabi does not clearly outline the vacuum that will be left if the US military presence in the Middle East is removed. Iran is by no measure a friend of Iraq. The eight-year war only highlights it. Currently Iran is emerging as the first Middle Eastern Muslim nation with nuclear capabilities. If the US pulls out, the US-supported government of Iraq will be overwhelmed by not only the growing civil war in Iraq but the intrusion of its neighbors. A strong, democratically run, Western-leaning Iraq is the last thing its neighbors would want and … they are feeding the flames of the civil war and the insurgency against the US troops to achieve their goal of a weakened and, better still, splintered Iraq. In this quagmire of a war no party is totally innocent. [All] have their own agendas, and it behooves Mr Afrasiabi to be objective enough to point [to] the skulduggery within these Islamic nations as he has already pointed out the US intentions, whether they are true or false. This constant US-bashing actually does more harm than good as it hides the sins of the US's adversaries and their sinister plans for that area.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Dec 1, '06)

Re The world according to Ahmadinejad [Dec 1]: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is following a tradition by addressing an open letter to the American people. [Late North Korean leader] Kim Il-sung had his letter appear in that gray old lady which is The New York Times. The Vietnamese likewise appealed to the ordinary John and Jane during America's long war in Vietnam. Mr Ahmadinejad is following a well-trod trail: he is appealing to the ordinary man and woman on the street, assuring him or her that Iran bears no ill will towards him or her. He is distinguishing between the people and their rulers. The old Soviet Union and Mao [Zedong]'s China made the same distinction, the better, they thought, to arouse popular anger. It would in turn put pressure on the country's rulers to change the course of its diplomacy which was militantly antagonistic [if] not offensive to them. The Iranian president has cloaked his message in religious terminology which is not unlike the messages that one may find among fundamentalist Christians. Nonetheless his message may fall on fallow ground, for the average citizen more likely than not will dismiss his appeal for [he] perceives Mr Ahmadinejad as a fanatic and a firebrand who is looking to create unrest and strife in the Middle East. Yet, saying this, nothing will stop Mr Ahmadinejad in opposing President [George W] Bush's war in Iraq, nor his hostile and excessive hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is possible that he thought that after the American [mid-term] elections, the American people would be more receptive to his message. He seems to have forgotten that Americans have a long memory and in many minds, they replay the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Dec 1, '06)

Re Dog eats dog in fractured Iraq [Nov 30]: It seems to me that Sami Moubayed is unaware of himself, increasingly becoming a sectarian journalist.
Ali Shokouh-bakhsh
San Jose, California (Dec 1, '06)

Pope Benedict XVI, who was just on a friendship mission in Turkey, said Christians and Muslims should reject violence and has expressed "total and profound respect" for Muslims, as he attempts to defuse a row between Islam and the Catholic Church [see Politics and the pontiff in a Muslim land, Nov 30]. The pope drew condemnation from across the Muslim world in September when he quoted the words of a Byzantine emperor who fought the Ottoman Turks and linked Islam to violence. He is also seen by some as anti-Turkish for comments he made as a cardinal in which he appeared to oppose Turkey's EU membership bid. The Vatican now says it is not opposed to such a move.The pontiff reiterated that and gave Turkey support for its bid to enter the European Union That is indeed the best way to bridge the civilizations earnestly. In today's multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies, only mutual trust through constructive approaches can bring peace to the world. Any mischief played, deliberately or otherwise, by the topmost leaders, including the religious personalities being held in high esteem, would provoke criticism and incite violence leading to terrorism. The pope would do a great service to mankind if he keeps in mind that each word he utters has significance and, therefore, persons of his stature should tread very cautiously in making statements concerning other religions and cultures in public. There is extreme sensitivity about the attitude of the Christian West towards Turkey - and the pope's visit may be a focus for those concerns.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
New Delhi, India (Dec 1, '06)

Re Spengler's assertions that Iranian women are being exported as prostitutes [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21]: This article qualifies as a blatant propaganda rant rather than anything remotely factual. The EU prostitution study cited by Spengler is old (2001) and the stats in the EU study do not show significant numbers of Iranian women in the sex trade. Where are the facts to back up the author's assertion? Is Asia Times [Online] attempting to publish good factual information or simply producing and disseminating propaganda? Your editors should require this anonymous "Spengler" individual to prove his assertions with good sociological data and facts. Otherwise his assertions should come with a warning label that the assertions are based on something the author discovered during REM [rapid eye movement] sleep. Regarding his future work I would recommend you require someone schooled in sociological research to verify his work, so Asia Times [Online] does not become simply another media propaganda forum.
Eaglebradley (Dec 1, '06)

Re The Sea Tigers of Tamil Eelam [Aug 31] by Sudha Ramachandran: Freedom of press was out the window in Sri Lanka a long time ago. Tamil Nadu in India is not far behind with POTA [Prevention of Terrorism Act]. If you add up all the Tamil rebels killed by Sri Lanka as it claims in news reports as well as the news reporters who only listen to Sri Lanka (such as yourself), then the number of dead has already exceeded the Tamil population in Tamil Eelam. If you add up all the Tiger boats destroyed by Sri Lanka, it would exceed the number of naval boats owned by India.
Kiritharan (Dec 1, '06)

I [would] like to congratulate the People's Republic of Vietnam for [its] entry into the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Finally Vietnam is on its way up the ladder with its development of a market economy. Vietnam not only won the war but the Vietnamese people and [their] government proved to the world that they also won the peace. Neighboring countries in the region should support the progress being made in Vietnam through APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation], and other countries in the region should follow its path. Next potential for development in the region should be Cambodia and Burma. This development in the region will result in peace, stability and trade, thereby lowering the prospects for terrorists and insurgencies. APEC should close its ranks on trade development under the leadership of China, Japan, Russia, Singapore [and] South Korea, without any political reservations.
Tom Lasam
Los Angeles, California (Dec 1, '06)

November Letters

A Better Invoice Factoring Company

Hot Sauce & Hot Sauce Gifts

The Country Porch

security alarm system

Bridesmaid gifts

Mesothelioma Cancer Treatment

Venetian glass beads

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

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