Asia Times

Letters

Write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

April 2004

After his travels into Central and Southeast Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Pepe Escobar has finally made his way to a truly exotic region of the world, one in which the people maintain strange notions that separate them from either a more naturally grounded or a more enlightened humanity: Pepe is in the US of A. His [Apr 30] article, Bush against Bush, is a fine bit of writing and does capture nicely some measure of what constitutes the current discourse in the land of the screaming eagle (US), but the greater part of America still awaits his talented scrutiny. New York is New York. Neither the Sikh or Punjabi, Nigerian or Palestinian taxi men or shop owners in the great cosmopolitan digs of the Big Apple will give us a sense of how this vast and powerful nation is clumsily and blindly stumbling towards a catastrophic world reckoning: such people, possibly cynical and heartfelt, are leagues beyond the average grassroots American in their grasp of how the world's fundamental conflicts are taking shape - competition for resources; the stresses of population growth; the alienation of cultures in the face of globalization; and the bleak environmental outlook at the village and national level in disadvantaged countries. To represent the dissonance between core American sensibilities and real-world conditions, Pepe will need to collect the points of view of the average, Main Street, semi-literate American and contrast these against what Asia Times Online readers take for granted, ie, a reasonable knowledge of the world. It might make no difference in the end, but readers should know that 80 percent of the US population get their understanding of this staggeringly complex world from highly conditioned and appallingly brief television representations given to them by a corporate media that reflexively represent an establishment agenda. I want to hear Pepe's man-on-the-street interviews in mid-America, contrasted against what he knows about the world, just for laughs - painful laughs.
Joe Nichols
USA (Apr 30, '04)

Stay tuned - Pepe's Roving USA series will continue. - ATol

Pepe Escobar's article Bush against Bush [Apr 30] pointed to a critical aspect of the upcoming elections in the US: that both the Democratic and Republican parties agree on all issues essential to the interests of the ruling elite in this country. Above all, they both agree on the continued occupation of Iraq and the subjugation of its people. It is no wonder that so many Americans are cynical: they feel (and are) disfranchised. The two-party system allows for no expression of the real interests and aspirations of the broad majority of the population. Instead, the elections serve simply as a means of working out the different tactical questions faced by the corporate establishment. There is, however, a party running in the elections that seeks to advance an alternative and begin the process of building an independent movement. The Socialist Equality Party - which publishes the World Socialist website - is running on the basis of the call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and Central Asia. In considering the issues of the 2004 elections, it is not enough simply to denounce the injustices of what exists. We must also begin the process of constructing an alternative - an independent and international movement of working people against the entire system that is responsible for this injustice. The only force capable of bringing a halt to the cruelty and barbarism being waged against the Iraqi people is the American population itself.
Joe Tanniru
United States (Apr 30, '04)

I commend Biff Cappuccino [letter, Apr 28] for his vast creativity. He writes, in response to my letter, "Mr Travan, like most people worldwide, is racist and culturally chauvinist ...That is, if locals kill locals, it's sad and regrettable. If foreigners kill locals, it's 'disgusting and morally reprehensible'." Mr Cappuccino may be assuming that I condone locals killing locals since he apparently has no objections to colonists butchering, raping and pillaging locals. Mr Cappuccino, killing people is murder. I make no excuses for locals, foreigners, aliens or any other beings. It was Mr Cappuccino who arrogantly claimed "Scotland, Nigeria, Uganda, Northern Ireland, America and Canada ... benefited from colonialism". Just because Scotsmen, Nigerians, Ugandans, Irish, and native Americans had been violent within their own societies does not excuse the massive crimes committed against them by well-armed and technologically advanced colonists. Mr Cappuccino's glaring fabrications would be laughable were it not for the fact that his neo-colonial thinking is thriving in the circles of power in many Western nations. As Amit Sharma notes in his letter [Apr 29], the technology of European colonists allowed them to inflict carnage on an unprecedented scale. However, one must accept that the root of these horrors are not in Europe or the West, but in human nature itself. The Third World has done a great job of harming its people without help from outside. Nevertheless, one can often see a direct link between the violent history of colonialism and present suffering (eg Palestine, Rwanda, etc). I am not one to blame the West for all mankind's problems, but it must bear its fair share of the burden. The lessons of colonialism are ever more important today, when many nations outside the West possess the technology and armed forces to ravage the weak and defenseless.
Gunther Travan
California (Apr 30, '04)

Daniel McCarthy is insinuating in his letter below [Apr 29] that loyalty towards the PRC is some kind of crime. Should I be feeling guilty that I love my country of birth: the People's Republic of China (PRC)? I guess not. McCarthy's view is typically hostile against the PRC and shows the Cold War mentality that some still have. With such a surname, it does not surprise me. Not only him, but also many of the so-called Hong Kong democrats. That saddens me. If the Hong Kong Democratic Party wishes to challenge the ruling Chinese Communist Party, then Hong Kong won't see universal suffrage and direct elections any time soon.
J Zhang (Apr 30, '04)

Your article [Hong Kong polls: The law's on China's side, Apr 29] was a stunning example of the kind of selective reading of the Basic Law practiced by those who toady to Beijing. The article makes no mention of the two crucial parts of the document that cover suffrage. These, of course, are contained in Annexes 1 and 2. Section 7 of Annex 1 states: "If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval." Section 3 of Annex 2 states: "With regard to the method for forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and its procedures for voting on bills and motions after 2007, if there is a need to amend the provisions of this Annex, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record." In short, an alteration to the methods of election of the chief executive and the Legco [Legislative Council] is foreseen in the Basic Law and provision is made for the people of Hong Kong (through the Legco) to make said changes. Why does your "analysis" make no mention of these critical parts of the Basic Law?
Jake Collins (Apr 29, '04)

The Apr 29 article Hong Kong polls: The law's on China's side shows no author. Is the author so ashamed of his/her views that he/she dare not show a name? Or is this a piece that the PRC [People's Republic of China] has insisted be published by ATol in order to show its "loyalty" to the motherland?
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Apr 29, '04)

To set us straight, why not submit a Speaking Freely article on the subject? Oh, wait, we'd better ask Hu Jintao if it's okay first. - ATol

[Re: Horror and humiliation in Fallujah, Apr 27]. The common mistake is to view the Islamist movement as a religious movement. The movement itself is political and quite religiously ambivalent. We have a systemic imbalance - that of class differences (capitalistic mode of production) exacerbated with the typical national and cultural-myopic petty differences, exacerbated by the anti-modern force of traditions, exacerbated by serious epistemic world view differences, exacerbated by the typic desire of the collective conscientia to dominate the individual, and then on top of that explosive and unchecked population growth and its accompanying social depression. Post-Cold War, this heterogeneous moment has found a language to express and to drive - the language of Islam. The spiritual component, if any, is just the lubricant and the necessary intellectual anesthetic to the practitioner.
DAriush XandAn (Apr 29, '04)

Re Horror and humiliation in Fallujah [Apr 27]. Spengler, Spengler, Spengler, you poor lost soul. It's really sad to see one with such potential for enlightenment walking with self-inflicted blindness through the world, apparently not alone! The humiliation you refer to is that of the honest followers of Islam who are forced to stand and watch as the "true infidels", the radical Islamists, hijack, butcher and soil the name of Allah for self-aggrandizement and unholy power unto themselves - which all with inner vision can see. The heathens under siege in Fallujah are a perfect example. Holed up terrorizing innocent civilians in the name of self and loss of being the big dog on the block, using every excuse to justify [using] them as human shields. Allah is watching and the Islamists will die, with no heavenly reward - no virgins and definitely no honors through history. As for the humiliation of Islam you say is brought on by the United States, which by the way, from what I've witnessed, has far more morality and compassion than any medieval, cultist Islamist radical or otherwise, I'd ask you to gaze in the mirror, but you, my friend, are blind and sick with misplaced rage. You/they will lose this war - you already have. Those you claim to fight for [you] don't believe in you. You and your kind are prehistoric relics that have brought nothing but misery and lies to the innocent. They now yearn for freedom and to move into the 21st century, so stand aside, you poor sad creature, and for once let them breathe.
Scott K Jackson (Apr 29, '04)

Ever since Spengler unleashed his "shock and awe" campaign on ATol readers I have been nagged by the suspicion that he must smoke some really good-quality stuff before putting pen to paper. Now his last two articles have me wondering whether his numerous detractors have somehow managed to taint his supply with some heavy-duty psychotropic substance. Without violating Mr Spengler's privacy, of course, I was wondering if ATol's editor could do some discreet investigation.
Sir Rogers
USA (Apr 29, '04)

The debate in letters [below] between G Travan and Biff Cappuccino is very interesting. I would like to thank Travan for speaking up and taking the morally correct position on colonialism. Though what Cappuccino says [Apr 28] about indigenous peoples also being guilty of killing each other over resources/wealth/power is correct, he's missing the point. What is new and horrible about modern colonialism is not that one race of people killed and enslaved another for money, it is the sheer scale. Colonialism by European countries proceeded in tandem with their industrialization - in fact the two are inseparable - and therefore the killing, misery and enslavement inflicted by modern colonialism [are] as humongous in scale as human greed and industrial automation/mass-production. It was not good for the victims and it has no parallel in history, as Cappuccino is trying very hard to make us (and his own guilty conscience) believe. It is absolutely critical that we realize this because colonialism isn't dead yet - it just survives under different names such as one-sided free trade/market reforms/economic liberalization/structural adjustment etc.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Apr 29, '04)

With reference to [the letter of Apr 26 from] Dorothy Archibald, who cannot understand why people of Pakistan do not support Pervez Musharraf, I am surprised at her inability to understand. The issue is very simple. We, the people of Pakistan, want the same right, the right to choose, which is enjoyed by the people of free world and which was taken away from us at the barrel of gun on October 12, 1999, through a military coup. Only we can decide who is good or bad for us. The Western media try to portray everyone who is against Musharraf as a religious extremist. But the real reason why Musharraf is so intensely hated in Pakistan is simply because he is the one who has disfranchised the whole nation. The bottom line is, we the people will determine who will rule us. The guns can delay the inevitable but ultimately the will of the people will prevail.
I K Ahmed
Islamabad, Pakistan (Apr 29, '04)

Spengler's article Horror and humiliation in Fallujah (Apr 27) simplifies the conflict occurring in Iraq. This is not a conflict between the West and Islam, even if some might like to present it in such a light. The resistance fighters in Fallujah are not al-Qaeda supporters; they are people defending their homes from an occupying power. This is not a religious conflict but an anti-colonial one. Spengler wrongly presents political Islam as an inexorably growing force in Muslim countries, and speaks of the "Islamic world" as though it is a homogenous entity, when it is not and never has been. He is partially correct in correlating the rise of radical Islam with perceived humiliation at the hands of the West, but ignores other factors, particularly widespread Arab disillusionment with rival ideologies such as Arab nationalism and Stalinist socialism. Why is this important? Because a defeat for the US in Iraq will not necessarily exclusively benefit Islamic radicals. The defeat of colonialism in the middle of the 20th century mainly benefited secular political forces (though of course in countries like Egypt there was a sharp struggle between the opposing currents). Iraq is a case in point. One final point on Spengler's false "clash of civilizations" thesis. Don't forget that millions of people in aggressor countries are turning against their own governments as a result of their actions in Iraq (I can attest to it here in Australia). They are not all about to convert to Islam. Rather they see themselves as part of an international people's movement for social and economic justice. They are part of what the New York Times last year dubbed "the second superpower: global public opinion". This movement, which transcends traditional national boundaries, will grow in strength in the coming years.
Jarvis Ryan
Sydney, Australia (Apr 28, '04)

When Spengler is good it is usually because he is taking a clear-eyed look at something that everyone else is viewing through rose-colored glasses. When he allows his own hopes and dreams to refract his vision, he's as bad as anyone else. The notion that there is anything much left in the United States of "Christianity" other than some folk symbols is clearly wishful thinking. The notion that an "American Catholic" maintains any doctrinal connection with the Catholicism of the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, and the Inquisition is absurd. The United States has converted completely to the worship of Mammon. Americans have incorporated cultural artifacts of Christianity within Mammonism, just as earlier converts to Christianity incorporated cultural remnants of the more sophisticated polytheisms that they were abandoning, but that is all. And Mammonism is, first and foremost, the glorification of the transient fleshy appetites of the individual. Mammonism puts the spirit at the service of the body, and proclaims with Louis XIV "Apres nous, le deluge." A "culture" and a "civilization" and indeed an empire founded on such "principles" is a house built upon the sand. At whatever speed, and with whatever backing and filling may be appropriate to the individual case, the American Imperium will conform to the life-cycle template of all empires, from the Hittites to the Chinese dynasties to [Isaac] Asimov's fictional precursor to the Foundation. At one time Spengler knew this. What happened?
Grumpy and the other six
USA (Apr 28, '04)

Marc Erikson's [Deadline looming, US forces the issue, Apr 27] credits the Americans as being "in the fore" in terms of the power struggle among Iran, [Muqtada] al-Sadr, [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani and al-Da'wa. If that is the case, then one would have to conclude that the fact that Sunnis are uniting with al-Sadr in calling for the ouster of the coalition [from Iraq] is a sure sign that the Americans are acquiring lots of leverage! One also wonders why the US gathered 2,000 troops outside of Najaf just to be held back by Sistani, who warned [them] not to "cross the red line" or else suffer a pan-Shi'ite insurgency. I mean, it is quite embarrassing to first threaten al-Sadr's life outside Najaf's gates and then to negotiate with him for about a week - after which he announces that he is not interested in what the Americans have to say and that it is time for the occupation to end. It is probably true that the US knowingly instigated the al-Sadr insurgency to, among other things, see the extent of support he will get from Iran; but all indications show that the US had not planned for the consequences of such an act. It is even more perplexing for one to read that the US could be said to be "in the fore" in the Iraq power-grab. Which makes me wonder - Marc, are you a neo-con?
RFC Kung (Apr 28, '04)

Re: South Asia in the shadow of terror, by Ajai Sahni [Apr 21]. The current happenings in Iraq are very much in the nature of an insurgency, an uprising or rebellion, against the American invasion. They cannot be characterized as terrorism, the kind [Osama] bin Laden exports. It is America's incapacity to understand the Arab sentiments that has promoted their arrogant actions in the region. It seems that the American administration is incapable of perceiving the depth and extent of hatred that exists in the region for its policies and motivations. It may well be that its historic predilections in the Arab-Israeli conflict have insulated them from an appreciation of the Arab feelings. It is fairly obvious that America sees everything in the Arab world through the medium of Israel-colored glasses and oil. Ajai Sahni is justified in suggesting that the failure of the military might of America to quell the insurgency in Iraq could encourage the motley groups of terrorists across the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia to spread their wings and try their brands of terror on peaceful societies. As regards Pakistan, the breeding ground for terrorist groups in the past, we have a fragile hope at this time in the form of [President General Pervez] Musharraf. Notwithstanding his past acts of deception, especially in relation to India, he has shown signs of some success with political parties in de-emphasizing religious radicalism and building a more secular political structure. He, however, faces a big challenge. The leadership in India should closely watch the developments and render all possible help to him in strengthening his hands in preventing the consolidation and intensification of terrorism. Peaceful and productive life is any time better than misguided fanaticism, which treats human life with scant respect. Permanent hostility between the two neighbors is not the best of situations. At the same time, India should increase and strengthen its vigilance across its western borders to demonstrate its determination to destroy cross-border infiltration. As Sahni also points out, there are other forms of terrorism in the region not related to the radical Islamic kind; such groups can also derive encouragement from the mighty America's inability to gain the upper hand in Iraq a year after the invasion of the country. While the national governments are expected to firmly deal with such groups, it is equally necessary for democratic governments to try and understand their expectations and meet them as permitted by the laws of the land.
Giri Girishankar (Apr 28, '04)

While your features are very well written, and I have read many of them for more than a year now, the one-sided anti-US content is very tiring. While no nation is perfect, certainly not the US, one-sided treatment of issues does the world no good service.
Jim Six
Ohio, US (Apr 28, '04)

Much of current US foreign policy is broadly seen outside the US itself as harmful and dangerous, and Asia Times Online merely reflects the prevailing view of its writers, who are astute observers of events driven by an unapologetically aggressive and "preemptive" White House. Besides, we also happily publish writers who are willing and able to offer a coherent analysis of US policy that goes against this prevailing grain - eg Marc Erikson, Stephen Blank, John Parker, et al. - ATol

First I would like to congratulate you on your mainly unbiased publication; however, I would like to address several issues concerning [Asia Times Online]:
1) Firstly given that it is an "Asian publication for Asian consumption" (paraphrased), would it be more apt to focus on the various issues that surround the domestic and regional policies more than American woes? I feel that in keeping in line with its stated policy, the publication should address more Asian issues rather than the innuendos of American politics or policy, which seem to dominate.
2) Spengler is not relevant and quite inflammatory in my opinion. Rather than have a Western arts Christian writer expound his theories on theology exclusively, there should be writers of other faiths contributing articles, especially religions which are otherwise minority religions in the USA and other Western countries, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
3) How is Asia to be defined? Does it include the Pacific region as well? If so, there are several issues to be highlighted such as Hawaiian independence, which appears to be a growing movement.
Clement (Apr 28, '04)

We used to cover the Pacific region but dropped it for lack of readership; there are plenty of Australian, New Zealand and other publications that cover that region adequately in English, and it became clear that our services were needed more urgently elsewhere. - ATol

G Travan [letter, Apr 26] writes, "Invaders throughout history have brought with them pillage, rape and murder." But naturally indigenous peoples have also brought pillage, rape and murder. And what is an indigenous people that visits pillage, rape and murder on another indigenous people but an invader? So what's the difference between indigenous murderers and invading murderers? For people with curious double standards like Mr Travan, all the difference in the world. I say the following with no ill intent: It appears that Mr Travan, like most people worldwide, is racist and culturally chauvinist. (We all start out this way and it takes a lot of earnest soul-searching to eradicate this hard-wired tendency in any meaningful way.)That is, if locals kill locals, it's sad and regrettable. If foreigners kill locals, it's "disgusting and morally reprehensible". If locals make good in the local business community, it's something to be proud of. If foreigners make good in the local business community, they are "cruel and greedy". "Cruel and greedy foreigners" like the European Jews and the Southeast Asian Chinese were massacred for hundreds and thousands of years due to such self-affirming, feel-good patriotism. As to Mr Travan's hallucinations about the "humiliated Chinese": During the decade prior to 1997, Hong Kong's billionaires were overwhelmingly Cantonese, not British. This remains the case today. Taiwan's richest mogul for the past 20 years is neither Japanese nor a KMT [Kuomintang]-affiliated Chinese but a local boy who made good and started out by selling rice door to door. In 2003, Taiwan ranked fourth worldwide in US patents won; a rather curious achievement considering that martial law ended here only in 1987 and that the political reign of the colonizing Nationalist Party only ended in the year 2000. Though I don't share Mr Travan's fanaticism or his weakness for phrases, I agree with the essence of this sentence of his: "It is imperative that ... rancid views be exposed, as 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'."
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei, Taiwan (Apr 28, '04)

With regards to Don Mohr's letter [Apr 27] and his assertion that "the US is about to peak its petroleum consumption and within, or by the end of, the next five years its consumption will actually decline", I would like to know what his references are pertaining to this information. Also, when he assumes that [when] more hybrid cars appear on the American market, Americans are going to change their long-ingrained cultural preferences for gas-guzzling muscle cars and SUVs [sport-utility vehicles], simply because they would have the same horsepower, without taking into consideration cost and other cultural factors. Hydrogen technology is going to be extremely costly in terms of research, distribution and production and it appears that there is not going to be any breakthrough soon. Moreover, taking into consideration America's increasing population due to immigration and its relatively high birthrate and longer life span of its citizens, that consumer consumption of oil for transport represents a portion of oil demand, and that oil is one of the sources of producing hydrogen directly or indirectly, I can safely say that America's dependence on oil is not about to peak any time soon (even according to President [George W] Bush's timetable) based on the information that I had gathered from CNN and not based on my political bias. On a related note, the state of public transport in America is appalling, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. The ASCE Progress Report indicates a trend in further decline from the ASCE's original 2001 report-card assessment of "C minus". One must then assume that those who can afford private transport would not then change their patterns of transport, exacerbating the problem. But since this is not America Times but Asia Times Online, we should focus on the various successes and various current states of the local public transport systems. Of course Japan has to be the world leader in conserving energy as a whole, for producing cars that would reduce fuel consumption and one of the world's best public transport systems, accompanied with a culture of frugality pertaining to petroleum, and it is to Japan that we should look towards for leadership in energy matters.
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Apr 28, '04)

Re Horror and humiliation in Fallujah [Apr 27]. As usual, Spengler employed "selective history" to exaggerate a generally well-crafted argument. In World War II, there is little evidence that Nazi methods of war-making were any more horrific than those of the US. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, not to mention the atomic destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, provide stark evidence of the extremes that Western war-makers will go to when fighting a total war. Events will likely play out differently in the modern television age; the American home front did not have to watch the horrors of Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki or Hiroshima play out on live TV. On the other hand, the war between radical Islam and the West hasn't yet reached the level of total war, either. It will take another attack more damaging than September 11 [2001] to produce that result.
Gary Haubold (Apr 27, '04)

Regarding [Horror and humiliation in Fallujah, Apr 27]: I have to say this is by far the best analysis regarding the subject of the war against radical Islam that I have ever read. Please keep up the brilliant analysis. It's only too bad that one can't get such lucid thinking anywhere else.
Axel Agranov (Apr 27, '04)

I refer to Marc Erikson's article Deadline looming, US forces the issue [Apr 27]. I am getting sick and tired of hearing the American bafflegab about the "depraved" citizens of Fallujah killing and "mutilating" four US corporate hired guns outside the city. These poison pens rarely ponder and never speak of why some Iraqis might have bad feelings about the wanna-be Empire and its bizarre methods of "winning hearts and minds": their country, devastated by the 1991 war, in which tens of thousands of innocents were slaughtered; 12 years of trade embargo, which sorely punished every man, woman and child - killing thousands of the latter through disease and malnutrition; the daily "turkey shoots" from the air by US and British "top guns" all through those 144 months. Finally, there was the manner in which George's Luke Skywalkers introduced themselves to the people of Fallujah at the end of April 2003, killing 17 of them when they came to one of their schools to protest the Americans taking it over for their own use. This was Fallujah's first taste of "The American Way". A full, on-site account of the horrendous first encounter with their "liberators", by Phil Reeves of the London Independent, can be found [here]. (The 10 or 13 dead mentioned by Reeves was eventually updated to 17.) Considering these circumstances, I have no trouble understanding why the Fallujans are so reticent about giving up their arms and so unwilling to trust any sort of "deal" with Americans. Let's face it, world: What's happening in Iraq is an evil depravity in which the Americans are determined to outdo themselves - and their "coalition of the willing" is simply a collection of groveling political supplicants who have no compunctions about donating the lives of their young men to the corporate cause. This is a cold-blooded aggression against a country that had been systematically beaten to its knees over a period of more than a decade, with the rest of the world standing by as sheep-like onlookers. Now the Iraqi people have decided to fight; and each day they must endure the American presence will harden their determination to win. Furthermore, their champions in the world at large are growing in number. In my opinion, this is Bully America's last hurrah.
Keith E Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Apr 27, '04)

Marc [Erikson (Deadline looming, US forces the issue, Apr 27)]: I'm sorry, but your bias is showing. "The killing and barbaric desecration of the bodies of four American civilian security guards by a depraved mob" was indeed horrible, although the mercenaries (evidently you don't like the term "mercenary" when applied to white men, although I'm certain you don't hesitate to call an Arab who defends himself a terrorist) made their choice. The civilian populace of Fallujah didn't have that choice to make, their only choice was to seek cover and pray or fight back. Admittedly the mob committed an atrocity - occupation by a foreign army can bring out the worst in people. So what do you call the marines who are killing women and children? Are they also a depraved mob? Oh wait - they're only killing Arabs! And if you don't want to know about what the troops are really doing, do what your buddy [Brigadier-General Mark] Kimmitt suggests - just change the channel. Then cling to your liberal belief that while [US President George W] Bush lied about Iraq and al-Qaeda, September 11 links and WMD [weapons of mass destruction] - he is telling the truth about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. If someone tells you it's about oil, just change the channel.
Joseph Osorio
Oakland, California (Apr 27, '04)

Generally I find your site refreshingly objective. However, this article [US: Procuring the world's oil, Apr 27] by Michael Klare does not forewarn the reader of Mr Klare's anti-US bias. Please forward each article with a link to the writer's political biases. If his political, social and economic beliefs were known, he would be found on the far left of those spectrums; somewhere in the socialist-communist vectors in any practical extension of his belief system. That aside, Mr Klare's views and information are about 30 years old. The US is about to peak its petroleum consumption and within, or by the end of, the next five years its consumption will actually decline. Or have you not heard or seen that starting this year and next that BMW, Toyota and Honda are offering either gas/electric (Toyota, Honda) or gas/hydrogen (BMW) hybrids as a staple of their current offerings? In fact, Toyota, Ford and BMW have vehicles with release dates no later than 2007 that have the same horsepower, something Americans love, as their stock counterparts. The country you should fear of taking oil sites by force would be China. China, whose military has long ago published claims on the southern Philippines - the world's second or third-largest oil reserve - in their "Long March" papers and doctrines. Let us not forget their Siberian border and the vast amount of oil that lies unguarded since the fall of the Soviet empire. China's need for oil should grow exponentially in the next three years. Its need is already an economic, and thus national, issue already publicly acknowledged by world economists, if not China's own government. China's economic growth is an issue of national pride. Already their economy is on the brink of disaster, simply because it cannot expand quickly and stably enough. China, in its own eyes, faces increasing pressure internally and externally to maintain face. It has recently overtaken Japan in raw trading dollars with the US and wants to be the economic hegemony of Asia, if not more. Please be more honest with your readership on the biases of your contributing writers. They lend you nothing to your good reputation, but can easily tarnish it.
Don Mohr
California (Apr 27, '04)

Re: Bush's believe it or not by Jim Lobe (Apr 24). The US electorate is deeply and firmly divided in regard to their political affiliations. There is only a small percentage of people who are undecided. This reality is reflected fairly clearly in the case of the Iraq war. [President George W] Bush and his gang have done a great sales job. Their job would have been much more difficult if September 11 [2001] had not taken place. Most American people cannot accept the scenario that September 11 could have happened without state sponsorship. They need not stretch their imagination before concluding that the state involved is most probably Iraq because of its recent history. At this stage of the Iraq war, nothing is going to change their mind. The people who support Bush are convinced that victory in Iraq is definite and the current wave of violence and insurrection is limited to certain areas and will soon peter out; this is exactly the time to show firmness. Bush has only to persist in his bravado and disdain for the Iraqi insurrection till election day and hope that nothing disastrous happens to the US forces in Iraq. On the other side of the debate, [Senator John] Kerry and his supporters have not been effective in explaining to the American people, especially the small percentage of undecided electorate, the falseness of Bush's claims regarding WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and Iraq's support for al-Qaeda. Most people rely on radio talk shows and TV news for their information. Their reading habits and analytical capabilities are generally poor. The right-wing radio talk shows will any day out-talk and out-shout the Democrats and liberals. They are also good at maligning (I really want to say "assassinating") the character of their opponents, in this case John Kerry. Elections [in the US] are still a long way off. An effective campaign can be put together and carried out to demonstrate that the existence of WMD in Iraq and Iraq's sponsorship of al-Qaeda were untrue and unproven; accordingly, the invasion of Iraq and its consequences are totally unjustified and against national interests.
Giri Girishankar (Apr 27, '04)

Re the response [by Matthew Conomos, letter, Apr 22] to my response [Apr 21] to Nepal cashes in on cannabis [Apr 21]. Dear Mr Conomos, I am sorry that you had to spend your youth among unfortunate people forced out of the mainstream of society by the imperialist war on cannabis. I was not present where or when you grew up, but I imagine a place like the hippie communes in America, most of which fell prey not to cannabis but to alcohol and other addictive drugs controlled by the imperialist elite and the CIA-mafia nexus. Those communes were attempts by naive youth to live a life different than that offered at the time by the powers that be. Many people considered making the attempt, and many quickly gave it up in the face of the superior power of the imperialist elite. In my 40 years since that era I have seen no element of moral principle in the behavior of the elite, to the point now where the overriding principle of national and international behavior is (not surprisingly) "might makes right". I used cannabis daily for many years and never suffered any of the debilitating effects you have noted. I lived a good life on the outskirts of society, but many of the people I knew resembled the equivalent of 70-year-old alcoholics you mention. A few of them were old alcoholics (not many alcoholics reach the age of 70), and others were young, but they were all alcoholics or drug addicts. I knew only one person besides myself on the street who conscientiously used only cannabis for good health. So I must wonder whether the 20 and 30-year-olds you remember were not also alcoholics. Alcohol is a toxic substance which causes just the symptoms you describe. I have never known cannabis to cause those symptoms, and so I doubt your account.
David George (Apr 27, '04)

Love your many talented writers and journalists. But where is your best, Pepe?
Ian Winterflood
Sydney, Australia (Apr 27, '04)

Pepe Escobar is currently roving through a country about which he writes frequently and passionately, the United States of America. Asia Times Online will begin running his newest series of articles this week. - ATol

I'm baffled why you decided to dedicate Internet bytes to showing Michael Moore's semi-coherent, single-paragraphed rant in your Letters column [Apr 26]. So, in the interest of journalistic fairness, I expect Asia Times Online to dedicate an equal amount of space to extreme right-wing rants from people like Jean-Marie Le Pen or Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
Stephen Renico
Detroit, Michigan (Apr 27, '04)

The single-paragraph format for letters is ATol style; Michael Moore's original had many paragraphs. As for Monsieur Le Pen and Mr Zhirinovsky, neither has expressed any interest in Asia Times Online, whereas Moore's website links to ours from time to time. - ATol

If ATol would be so kind, I would like to also give my last word on the recent debate between Frank [letter, Apr 23] and myself. It is simply a matter of individual freedom that one says what one wishes on any given subject. Consequentially, anyone must also be open to the right of others to criticize their viewpoint. Basic principles of freedom would be violated if they were forced to agree with their government. My opinions stated here have no weight in official policy whatsoever, so I draw a distinction between "my" government and myself. A government forcing everyone to agree with [it] is unfair and unjust. I am still in touch with friends in China and my wishing that they would get a fairer deal from their government would never make them respond that I was trying to diminish or demean them. If Frank believes this, then that is his business. What I have seen many individual Chinese achieve during my time in China deserves only the highest praise no matter what, but especially so considering the rough ride that many officials give them. In summary, I am grateful for the fact that Frank can only advise me what not to say and not dictate that I keep silent. I will therefore continue to reject his disgraceful contention that I be denied the universal right to freedom of expression and repeat that I would forcefully stand up for these same rights for him.
Peter Mitchelmore (Apr 27, '04)

"Manchuria under Japanese rule was the most modern part of China at the time." - Biff Cappuccino (letter, Apr 23). Mention Japan to any Dong Bei people (= "Manchurians") and they will tell you: "I hate Japan." Give them a few minutes and they will tell you how Japanese soldiers massacred a dozen family members. If you want more detail on "modernity", visit the Unit 731 museum in Harbin and learn about lethal experiments using Chinese people to test poison gas, radiation, germ warfare, the penetrating power of bullets, etc. (The museum is funded by the current Japanese government, so it's likely to be objective info.) Colonialism means near-slavery and no one on the receiving end likes it.
Lester Ness
Longtime resident of Changchun, capital of Japanese-occupied Manchuria
Putian University
Putian, China (Apr 27, '04)

The article Bush's believe it or not by Jim Lobe [Apr 24] was really informative; however, it failed to explicitly state the main reason for current American beliefs on various world issues. Americans, like all other people on this planet, simply choose to believe whatever is conveniently suited to their interests, whatever makes them feel good about themselves, whatever soothes their conscience. The human mind is incredibly flexible and can fool itself into believing anything, even though all evidence and logic may point in the opposite direction. Americans are not simpletons misled by incorrect information. They just like to put on a down-to-earth country-cowboy kind of persona so they can later absolve themselves of complicity in any wrongdoing by claiming to be innocent/simple folk misled by slick city politicians. The US is the richest country in the world; it has one of the best, if not the best, education systems; in terms of Internet access (ie, access to outside sources of information) it ranks No 1 by a long margin. It should not be so trivially easy to fool the population of such a country. As Lobe's article showed, a major fraction of the US population did disagree with their government because they were honest enough to confront the truth, which was plain for everyone to see and which could not be disguised by any amount of media bias in favor of government propaganda. The reason why so many Americans continue to believe their government's lies is because they are acutely aware of the military-industrial economic system in the US. The idea that defense spending and wars are good for jobs and economy has been ingrained into their thinking for so many generations that they cannot break from this habit.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Apr 26, '04)

Re Bush's believe it or not [Apr 24]. Jim Lobe notes that "a whopping 82 percent of respondents" to a US opinion survey believe that "Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda" (47 percent) or that "experts are evenly divided on the question" (35 percent). This massive degree of reality-distortion within the United States should come as no surprise. Fantasy and superstition are close to the American soul. Over 70 percent of Americans believe in the devil; 25 percent are born-again Christians for whom diabolical possession is a real possibility. Paranoid fantasy exists in the form of reds-under-the-bed varieties, and at the sugar-coated end of the spectrum, the Disneyfication of American life is evident on every street.
Henry Laycock
Department of Philosophy
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario (Apr 26, '04)

Jim Lobe's Bush's believe it or not [Apr 24] asserts that there is "almost irrefutable evidence" that no WMD [weapons of mass destruction] existed in Iraq prior to the war. I'm amused, because Lobe can cite no such evidence. He doesn't even try. The only "evidence" for his assertion is the opinion of men who have not yet been able to find any WMD. Yet even strident critics of the Americans, like Hans Blix, can't explain what happened to the WMD that Iraq was documented to have had a few years ago. Just as there is not yet evidence of remaining WMD, neither is there evidence that Saddam Hussein completely destroyed his WMD. I'm amused by critics like Lobe because any reasonable observer would have to admit that it would have been quite easy for Ba'athist loyalists to hide WMD and related equipment. Just fill the basement of an innocent old building, level it, cap it, and rebuild with no apparent basement. Or just fill an old, remote underground military bunker, one of hundreds that date from Iraq's earlier wars, and bulldoze dirt over it so as to look like the surrounding wilderness. Or simply dig holes in a farmer's field, fill them, and then plow as before. Or, worse, WMD could have been trucked to Syria as part of the payment to hide some of Saddam's leaders and/or assets. It would take relatively few men to complete any of these operations. A few men who could be well paid and far away. Or dead. Given Saddam Hussein's past, it is quite possible that he personally pulled the trigger on the few comrades left who knew the location of such a cache. Saddam Hussein will surely never willingly reveal the truth. It's laughable to assert that such a cache can be found by inspectors who visit old suspected production sites. Critics in America don't admit to these obvious possibilities because they want ammunition to vote [President George W] Bush out of office. Critics outside America don't admit to them because, for a wide variety of self-serving reasons, they want to see the USA with a bloody nose.
Constant
Santiago, Chile (Apr 26, '04)

Re Bush's believe it or not [Apr 24]. Some of you have heard the saying: "Don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind." I will always remember another story - this woman told me: "I don't want to know what the issue is, if I knew I would have to worry about it, and I don't have time to worry about it." My preacher told this story: A third of the people are involved, a third are not, and a third don't give a damn. In the US, the Republicans account for 20 percent of the total number of electors, the Democrats account for about 19 percent of the electors, and 60 percent of the rest don't give a damn. There is no freedom of choice for voters to choose because the candidates are chosen by the Political Donor Class identified by David Cay Johnson.
Bill Berka (Apr 26, '04)

[President George W] Bush is exactly the leader for most Americans. Ignorant himself, he appeals to the ignorant among us. Saddam Hussein had no role in September 11 [2001]. Our [Americans'] attack on him and the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed this past year (collateral damage) [were] unjustified. Keep telling the truth. It might get through to enough people to save our Beloved Country.
R T Carpenter
Florida (Apr 26, '04)

I have never seen a head so far up a presidential ass (pardon my Fallujah) than the one I saw [April 13] at the "news conference" given by George W Bush. He's still talking about finding "weapons of mass destruction" - this time on Saddam [Hussein]'s "turkey farm". Turkey indeed. Clearly the White House believes there are enough idiots in the 17 swing states who will buy this. I think they are in for a rude awakening. I've been holed up for weeks in the editing room finishing my film (Fahrenheit 911). That's why you haven't heard from me lately. But after [April 13]'s Lyndon Johnson impersonation from the East Room - essentially promising to send even more troops into the Iraq sinkhole - I had to write you all a note. First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not "contractors" in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it. Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a war profiteer, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested - or worse. The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win. Get it, Mr Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking? One year after we wiped the face of the Saddam statue with our American flag before yanking him down, it is now too dangerous for a single media person to go to that square in Baghdad and file a report on the wonderful one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, there is no celebration, and those brave blow-dried "embeds" can't even leave the safety of the fort in downtown Baghdad. They never actually see what is taking place across Iraq (most of the pictures we [Americans] see on TV are shot by Arab media and some Europeans). When you watch a report "from Iraq", what you are getting is the press release handed out by the US occupation force and repeated to you as "news". I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the [US] army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They FedEx the footage back to me each week. That's right, FedEx [Federal Express courier service]. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country - they're coming from America to America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq. There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe - just maybe - God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end. Until then, enjoy the "pacification" of Fallujah, the "containment" of Sadr City, and the next Tet Offensive - oops, I mean, "terrorist attack by a small group of Ba'athist loyalists" (Hahaha! I love writing those words, "Ba'athist loyalists", it makes me sound so Peter Jennings!) - followed by a "news conference" where we will be told that we must "stay the course" because we are "winning the hearts and minds of the people" ... Remember, the American people are not that stupid. Sure, we can be frightened into a war, but we always come around sooner or later - and the one way this is not like Vietnam is that it hasn't taken the public four long years to figure out they were lied to. Now if Bush would just quit speaking in public and giving me more free material for my movie, I can get back to work and get it done. I've got four weeks left till completion.
Michael Moore (Apr 26, '04)
mmflint@aol.com

This letter originally appeared on www.michaelmoore.com and was forwarded to Asia Times Online. - ATol

Re: Defending democracy in Pakistan by Syed S Hussain [Apr 24]. It appears that [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf has created the institutional safeguards for "sustained democracy". The NSC [National Security Council] has now the formal role to avoid the periodic political crises that were common till recently. True democracy at the grassroots level has not evolved in Pakistan. Historically, the people of the sub-continent have not had that tradition. The transition from pre-independence governance to meeting the challenges and responsibilities of a true democratic rule has not been smooth, allowing politicians of influence to exploit the situations for their own personal benefits. In the case of Pakistan, it has been relatively more crisis-ridden than in India. Under the circumstances, an enlightened leadership is what is required to build proper traditions from the grassroots level. It is now up to Musharraf to develop and present his vision for the country and let the people at all levels participate in discussing it to establish national goals. He has to make sure that public participation becomes the tradition. Party leaders and elected representatives must be expected to nourish these traditions and be working for people's interests. Musharraf must also see to it that the military is weaned away from its tradition of interfering with the democratic government.
Giri Girishankar (Apr 26, '04)

I am an American. I have been studying for over two years and still do not understand everything that happens in Pakistan. My question is: Why don't the Pakistani people either find a credible candidate (one who has not already failed twice, is not incredibly wealthy, and has not been convicted of corruption) or jump in and support the president so he doesn't need a strong military backup?
Dorothy Archibald (Apr 26, '04)

Re Counter-productive counter-insurgency, Apr 23. David Isenberg is absolutely right. What the Bush administration and its apologists have shown is that they are good at blundering on. How else do you explain their mendacity and hubris in defense of actions in Iraq that are totally indefensible? The Iraqi people crave independence, not occupation. As Isenberg indicates, further blundering only adds to the present slaughter on both sides. As long as Iraqis don't see a future and continue to be humiliated, feeling despair and injustice, the ranks of the insurgents will get larger. To end this madness, politically, elections must be held sooner rather than later, to put in place a legitimate Iraqi authority. And, economically, the parceling out of the wealth of the Iraqi people must stop. Iraqis want to rebuild their own country, not a have a bunch of foreign private profiteers do it, who have yet to restore electricity and water on a regular basis, never mind security.
Fariborz S Fatemi
Former Professional Staff Member
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
McLean, Virginia (Apr 26, '04)

Andrew Wells-Dang may be working for the so-called independent non-profit Fund for Reconciliation and Development, but his article Republican group meddles in Cambodia [Apr 16] is anything but independent and impartial. He lets his imagination run wild, out of hand in fact, when he writes, "It is reasonable to conclude that without IRI [International Republican Institute] prodding and 'technical and material support', the eight-month political deadlock in Cambodia could have been resolved much sooner." Many level-headed observers of Cambodia politics beg to differ. The fact is that everybody, including Andrew Wells-Dang, has been meddling in Cambodia, jockeying to establish their influence over a gullible government that needs foreign handouts year in and year out just to breathe. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into the country every year for more than a decade, yet the Cambodian human-development indicators are worsening. Wells-Dang's long-winded one-sided analysis - full of selective facts and speculations - simply shows he has a different ax to grind. It is indeed too naive and presumptuous to conclude that, without the IRI's "meddling", the current deadlock could have been resolved much sooner. Regrettably, Wells-Dang fails to appreciate the real reason behind the impasse. He is so used to the bankruptcy mentality he has come across in his contacts with some of the government officials that he could not grasp a tiny possibility there may still be other Cambodians who do really care for the country. If he could accept a simple fact that Cambodia has one of the world's worsening human-development indicators in the last decade, then he might perhaps agree that Cambodia needs a different government. It is definitely not the kind of government of expediency like the current one that has overall done so much damage to the country in the past decade.
Sinourn Sim
Melbourne, Australia (Apr 26, '04)

Dear Spengler,
I'm not sure why you are so keen on keeping the myth of Judeo-Christian tradition alive, the entire world knows that there is no such thing. There are Hindu traditions, Islamic culture, Christian dogma and Jewish communities - Judeo-Christian (hitherto referred as JC in this letter) is simply a blatant lie. Throughout the annals of history, Jews have been ostracized in Christian societies. The tale of this exploitation born out of theological differences has added many words to English dictionary; "pogrom", "ghetto", "holocaust" etc are used extensively these days to characterize events and situations. Christians have remained hostile to Jewish intransigence in not accepting their messiah; Jews never believed that he was messiah in the first place. The current bonhomie in the USA between evangelicals and Jews is not a result of some faith-based dialogue, but an opportunistic alliance where both support Israel for their own theological reasons - one for reclaiming the ancient motherland, the other for second coming of the messiah. As for associating democracy, liberalism etc to some JC myth, please read on:

The earliest form of democracy was practiced in India in what are called the Gana-Sangha states.

Tolerance is a new phenomenon in the Occident, has been practiced for ages in Orient. When the Christians and heathens were slugging it out in Medieval Europe, Indians allowed Jews, Parsis and other persecuted communities to make India their home.

Islam has not always spread through the sword - Malays [and] Indonesians were converted as a result of missionary effort.

As for Islam being anti-democracy - Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh have been good democracies for quite some time. Even the "extremist" Pakistan and Iran have had brief experiences of democracy before they were "liberated" by US-sponsored coups.

In the 15th century when Reconquista forced Jews out of Spain, they were allowed to settle in Islamic Turkey. Was this eviction in conformance to some JC principle?
As pointed out above, there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian culture or tradition or heritage - the good things like democracy, liberalism and tolerance are a result of deliberate effort by Westerners. They have worked assiduously to break free from the shackles of bigotry, intolerance and excessive religiosity - the ills that plagued them in the dark Middle Ages. I have nothing against Western civilization (if there is any such monolithic entity), but the approach of viewing world events through a black-and-white, us-and-them prism is counterproductive. Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan are a testimony to the havoc that such a faulty world view has brought upon the human species.
Rahul Malviya (Apr 26, '04)

When I read articles in Asia Times Online I find many things true [that are] absent in Western news media. Western news media hardly condemn state terrorism by Israel and the USA and have a tendency to [show] Palestinians as terrorists. [They do] not explain the reasons of terrorism, rather try to justify genocide in Iraq. Almost every day Western news media broadcast that Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons. Unfortunately, I have not seen in any news, except a BBC interview on Hard Talk when Tim Sebastian asked a Republican senator why the US administration gave microbes to Saddam Hussain, then he replied it was for research purposes. I wonder whether Iraqis do better research than Americans. The USA wants dictatorship in the Middle East because if there is democracy people will demand the withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East. Muslims must understand that Islam does allow democracy and not kingship and hence those who encourage fighting between Shi'ites and Sunnis are obviously not good Muslims and serve the US purpose. Dictators and people like [Osama bin] Laden intentionally or unintentionally serve US purposes. Real Muslims must fight for democracy. I cannot understand why the imams of mosques in the Middle East come out in the street to establish democracy. What lecture do they give on Friday? Is it for Islam (for democracy) or against Islam (for kingship)?
Dr Mahboob Hossain
Niigata University of Pharmacy and Applied Life Sciences
Niigata, Japan (Apr 26, '04)

Thank you for printing Biff Cappuccino's letter [Apr 23], which claimed that "Scotland, Nigeria, Uganda, Northern Ireland, America and Canada ... benefited from colonialism". I did not realize such horrendous and troglodyte points of view still existed among the literate until I read this letter in Asia Times Online. Invaders throughout history have brought with them pillage, rape and murder. The slave ships visiting Africa brought great benefit to the slave masters, and perhaps the likes of Mr Cappuccino believe that the slaves themselves were liberated by their enslavement at the hands of wonderful, cultured Europeans. The unspeakable atrocities committed by the Japanese in China and Korea during World War II speak for themselves. And in America, I don't believe any native Americans have derived much benefit from cultural extermination. This is not to deny that colonists have also done good things. But this is no excuse for their terrible crimes. In fact, their good deeds are testament to their humanity, while their crimes are equal testament to their vice. Europeans and Americans view their recent history as one of great cultural and moral progress. This may make sense from their points of view, but does it make any sense from the point of view of the enslaved African, the colonized Vietnamese, or the humiliated Chinese? The image of the West abroad has been shaped by cruel and greedy colonizers, by unjust wars for resources and wealth, and by shameless hypocrisy. Perhaps it was the very moral progress at home that drove conquerors and tyrants to ply their trade abroad. Mr Cappuccino and other colonial apologists should think hard about the slavery, rape, torture and extermination which has accompanied colonialism, which, in the end, is only the modern form of the ancient human tradition of conquest. In my view, Mr Cappuccino's views are as disgusting and morally reprehensible as those of the Nazis or al-Qaeda. It is imperative that these rancid views be exposed, as "sunlight is the best disinfectant".
G Travan
California(Apr 26, '04)

Regarding Jack A Smith's Bush's 'transfer of power' gambit [Apr 23]: Why all the hand-wringing about colonialism? All of us grew up in colonies. Every nation on the planet has been colonized by some other nation at some point. Big deal. I grew up in the colonies of Scotland, Nigeria, Uganda, Northern Ireland, America, and Canada. All of them benefited from being colonized. Now I live in Taiwan, which also benefited from being colonized. Many members of Taiwan's elder generation have fond memories of the Japanese colonial era. When the Japanese came, they ended the aboriginal tradition of headhunting and the Chinese tradition of clans massacring one another. When the Japanese went into Korea, they ended the cherished tradition of institutionalized slavery. Manchuria under Japanese rule was the most modern part of China at the time. Hong Kong, having profited from English colonial rule, remains the most modern part of China today. If the United States leaves Iraq now, surely the country will erupt in civil war. After my family left Uganda, the local patriots threw all the white people out. Then the local patriots threw the Indians and the Chinese out. When there were no more demonic foreigners to throw out, the patriots looked for a new target and killed 600,000 fellow citizens by demonizing them as an unpatriotic tribe. If the American forces were actually to be forced out, something similar would most likely happen. Although the public argument against colonialism is usually some version of the claim that wily omnipotent foreigners suppress naive and cuddly locals, the subtext is usually a combination of racism and cultural chauvinism. My barbarous ancestors in England benefited greatly from being colonized by the Romans. Iraq would be lucky to be colonized by the Americans. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei, Taiwan (Apr 23, '04)

Re: Bush's 'transfer of power' gambit by Jack A Smith [Apr 23]. The war in Iraq may be blowing up in the Bush administration's face, but the White House is working to maintain substantial military, political and economic power in the war-torn country following a deeply suspect "transfer of sovereign power" to an interim Iraqi government on June 30. The guerrilla resistance, combined with Washington's bungling of the occupation, has compelled President George W Bush and his neo-conservative advisers to reconfigure or shelve several of their more grandiose postwar plans. But the US government has no intention to simply relinquish its expensively obtained hegemony over a Baghdad government possessing the world's second-largest proven petroleum reserves and strategically located to influence the entire Middle East. The US must execute three complex maneuvers to accomplish its goal:
1. Inducing the United Nations to become an active partner in Iraq, providing the White House with respectable support and camouflage for its endeavors in exchange for the appearance of shared authority.
2. Taking measures to ensure that a huge American occupation force remains in the country, and that Washington will exercise great influence over the new permanent government and Iraq's economy by establishing a virtual parallel regime of its own in Baghdad.
3. Containing the resistance by any means necessary - from massive retaliation against the Sunni fighters and their new allies led by Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, to making deals with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the principal leader of the majority Shi'ite population. The entire plan may fail unless the resistance is destroyed or reduced to occasional attacks against Pentagon-controlled Iraqi security forces.
An important consequence of this plan, if successful in its opening stages, is that it may help re-elect Bush of Baghdad to a second term in November. Even if he is defeated by the Democrats, a John Kerry administration does not appear politically indisposed to implementing a similar design ... The Bush administration's intention to create a neo-colonial dependency under the guise of building democracy and restoring sovereignty may well degenerate into a fragile house of cards destined to collapse sooner than later. The two most important internal factors in making this determination will be the resistance of national liberation forces and the relationship of the Shi'ite majority to the new government and the US occupation authority ... The situation in Iraq is exceptionally complicated and events are moving at considerable speed. Anything can happen - and probably will, in a matter of weeks or months. Keep your eyes on the "transfer of power" gambit.
William Kulin (Apr 23, '04)

Since Peter Mitchelmore already knows the answer, I do not understand why he is still asking the question [letter, Apr 22]. Government is the congregation of people. Individual person's behavior should not be any different morally from the government. Since Peter agrees that his government should not try to stir up trouble in Asia, I advise that Peter should not behave any different. Asian did not promote trouble in American or European countries. In return, white people should leave Asia along. White people's criticism serves as a purpose of diminishing Asian or Asia's achievements are not welcomed. If 1.3 billion voices are not loud enough to make Peter understand, I do not what else will. This is my last letter to this kind of stupid question.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 23, '04)

In your article Musharraf whipping Pakistan into (US) line by Syed Saleem Shahzad dated Apr 22, you say that [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf is making changes politically to make himself stronger and the supreme decision maker in Pakistan. This might be true, but 90 percent of Pakistanis agree wholeheartedly with Musharraf's policies. We are moderate Muslims who are being dragged into this "extremist and unpredictable" category at hands of a few foreign extremists. [Whoever] is controlling the country knows that we will as a nation not tolerate any extremism. Most of the terrorists in Pakistan are either from Afghanistan (remnants from the [anti-]Soviet war) or Saudi Arabia-sponsored madrassa graduates from the tribal areas. They have nothing to do with mainstream Pakistanis. Your [article's] "traditional forces" have not existed in Pakistan. Traditionally we have always allied ourselves with the Western world, whether it was in the Ayub Khan era or the Soviet invasion era. I would like to inform your readers that the author does not seem to know much about Pakistan. So what Musharraf is doing is nothing new. "All Musharraf needs to do is a few more Wana operations [sending the army into the tribal areas in search of radicals] and he will not remain, either with or without his uniform," Syed Munawer Hasan [warned]." No Pakistani would agree with this except a few rogue elements that have pointed this out. The people in Wana do realize the importance of these operations and the need to flush out al-Qaeda sympathizers from the area. So I would urge the author to do some more research before putting [forth] his views. Obviously, the author does not know what he is talking about.
Younes Khan
Islamabad, Pakistan (Apr 22, '04)

Re: Musharraf whipping Pakistan into (US) line [Apr 22]. The various developments that have been envisioned in Syed Saleem Shahzad's column will certainly make both the USA and India happy when they are realized. They will certainly be a major step in the normalization and stabilization of Indo-Pak relations. The US must be thanked for such a transformation. The spark that Syed Munawer Hasan, the general secretary of the Jamaat-i-Islami, warns about could even come from Iraq in the form of a major and glaring loss of Muslim lives due to the US's magnified application of its firepower in response to the continued Iraqi resistance. The present trend in the Iraq operations seriously threatens such a turn of events; it is only to be hoped that Musharraf can muster sufficient political strength to stem any sympathetic reaction among the Muslims in Pakistan.
Giri Girishankar (Apr 22, '04)

Perhaps David George [letter, Apr 21, in response to Nepal cashes in on cannabis, also Apr 21] can explain why cannabis turns 20 and 30-year-old potheads into the equivalent of 70-year-old alcoholics: Dribbling, driveling and wetting themselves even when not under the influence. That is at least what I saw as a teenager in the tropical Australian hippie-haven where I grew up. I guess it's possible that my observation was incorrect and [was] actually caused - somehow - by imperialist, neo-con, corporate elitists hell-bent on narrowing the joy of life, but I doubt it.
Matthew Conomos (Apr 22, '04)

John Helmer's [Apr 21] article Russia revels in US's woes is a shoddy piece of journalism from an otherwise respectable publication. Helmer asserts: "Israel's effective capture of the White House has taken a half-century to pull off, and for those, like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, who now command the heights of US power, this is a do-or-die campaign. Only it will be patriotic Americans who will be doing the dying." This argument, that a small cabal of Jews have taken over the government to the detriment of the "real" Americans, is a classically anti-Semitic one. Unfortunately, Helmer forgets such influential policymakers as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and the president himself. Like it or not, the decision to go to war in Iraq was not driven by a small cabal of Jews, but by mainstream conservative administration officials.
Joshua Vizer (Apr 22, '04)

I refer to your article titled How al-Qaeda keeps its secrets by Syed Saleem Shahzad [Apr 20]. What a web of lies you weave! Ignoring tons of evidence which proves with great scientific and logical detail that not only September 11 [2001] but Bali, Mumbai, Madrid and on and on are the handiwork of state-backed agencies, most probably from the technologically advanced countries, you still continue to peddle the myths that even a child cannot believe. Thank God that the majority of the people living in technological societies are not gullible to buy that line. If the so-called al-Qaeda is so mighty and powerful, how come they have not been able to dislodge occupiers in their own back yard, where if they had such sophistication, they would have succeeded easier and faster? Call it a "conspiracy theory", but there is definitely a very sophisticated, well-funded and well-equipped secret service or services who are behind all these acts of terror. They certainly are not from Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia.
Vince Costa (Apr 22, '04)

Dear Spengler:
I hope I am not flogging a dead horse, but I feel your points regarding the irrelevance of Medieval Persian (Sufi) mystics to an understanding of modern Islamic orthodoxy understates the gap [Of Groucho, yokels, mullahs and modern 'art', Apr 20]. I remember enough of my undergraduate course on Sufism, taught by a reputable (and Muslim) scholar, to know that Sufis have typically operated on the margins of Islamic society, and outspoken Sufi voices were regularly executed or otherwise forcibly silenced for offending prevailing notions of piety. Al-Hallaj, cited by one respondent as an example of the influence of this tradition on Islam, was torn to pieces by a mob for such a heretical ecstatic outburst of identification with the divine. Understanding why the universally appearing mystical notion of union with the divine should arouse such rage is the first step in understanding the motivations of suicide attackers.
Doug Slothouber (Apr 22, '04)

Re: Ask Spengler discourses. I would like to share some views about an ongoing subject that is endlessly discussed one-sidedly in this medium and most others around the world today. The subject is religion. There [are] endless discussion and opinions given about the various facets of religion and almost none seem want to discuss the logical view, which in my eyes is: "Is there any factual basis to religion at all?" With all the opinions and discussion contained in these letters and articles I have never seen an opposing view of religious belief itself. It would seem that very few people in the world are able to escape from the religious indoctrination and conditioning they have grown up with in order to be able to look at the subject with unbiased eyes. Undoubtedly, there have been thousands of gurus and religious leaders in history [who] have been the basis of most religions and beliefs, but to give these people the many spiritual and magical powers that they have been supposedly endowed with is surely the work of mortal humans themselves. In all, there is no factual basis to any religion at all but seemingly an amazing amount of conjecture and hearsay on the subject. Despite the fact that humans are supposedly intelligent creatures, logical thinking doesn't seemingly enter the argument that all. While nearly all religions preach brotherly love and peace on Earth etc, there are numerous conflicts ongoing around the world today that put neighbors, brothers and families against each other purely because of their religious beliefs. This must continue as long as their children are taught (read, indoctrinated) the same flawed thinking that their parents believe in. Logically this will continue. To sum up, it would seem that humanity somewhere in the past has made a wrong turning in the evolutionary process and started to rely on beliefs as means to an end and thus they become substitutes for reality. Humans appear to have a fatal flaw in their make-up: this is that they are so susceptible to indoctrination. In all reality, this will probably be the downfall of humanity. The world will not end without religious belief, despite opinion to the contrary. People can and do live happily and in peace without beliefs, but very few so far have been able to escape. It is so.
Lindsay Cooper
Australia (Apr 22, '04)

The letter by Ashesh Parekh (Apr 19) criticizing the article Beckham, sex and big business [Apr 16] by Siddharth Srivastava was quite pointless. His rants such as "... it really makes me wonder why Asia Times chooses only blatantly anti-Hindu left-wing writers for reporting on India ..." were quite unjustified. I fail to see what was anti-Hindu about the article. Most of ATol's writers who cover Indian issues are very competent, and quite balanced. If Parekh wanted to criticize left-wing writers in general for selectively picking on Hinduism, he may have a point. This trend was first started by the communist parties in India, who wanted to highlight that they were opposed to religion but could not pick on any other religion for fear of being labeled as anti-minority fascists. Over the decades it snowballed to the point where anyone trying to prove that they are not anti-minority started off by trashing Hinduism. In the 1990s, right-wing Hindu parties like the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] exploited the backlash against this to storm into power by whipping up Hindu sentiment and deriding anyone opposing them as "pseudo-secularists". Coming back to Parekh's paranoid reaction to an interesting article: he really needs to relax and start taking life easy.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Apr 22, '04)

No wonder Daniel McCarthy [letter, Apr 21] likes Gary LaMoshi [Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, Apr 8] so much. He can't seem to help himself. He is following LaMoshi's footsteps of propping up straw men and then feeling good for himself for striking them down so valiantly. He is also trying very hard to distort the content of my letter (Apr 20) so as to place me into an imaginary extreme and make himself look good to other readers. Why else would McCarthy accuse David O'Rear, Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce chief economist, of "butt[ing] into Gary LaMoshi's article-drafting process" when it was clear that O'Rear merely protested for not being contacted for clarification of his statements prior to being distorted by LaMoshi? Why else would McCarthy allege that I was saying "Hong Kong/China have a democratic political system" when nothing of the sort was indicated even remotely in my letter? I still believe it is a candid reflection of facts in Hong Kong's political reality for O'Rear to say "We have more democracy than most other Asian countries" and "Plus many overseas companies are very active throughout the region." No matter how hard McCarthy tries, these statements still remain undisputed and unchallenged at all. A vibrant economic system will never be sustained by itself if it is not accommodated by a tolerant and nourishing political climate. I am sure McCarthy is familiar with Chicken Little and the Falling Sky, as that is exactly how he sounds like to me at least.
Jay Liu
USA (Apr 22, '04)

I predicted that Frank [letter, Apr 21] would react the way he did. Namely, he didn't really answer the question and went on again to accuse anyone criticizing the Chinese government or his viewpoint as "promoting troubles". The most predictable response was to level the same accusation at me, which is absurd. Frank claims that some ("non-Asians" as mentioned before) should not voice opinions about certain matters. Is this treating others as they wish to be treated? Governments should be careful how they comment on other countries' policies, but I am a private citizen and will say what I wish. I welcome Frank to do the same: I firmly believe that his freedom of speech is as important as mine, no matter how much we may disagree with each other. I hope he agrees with this. I don't want to get into a slanging match - I was merely pointing out what I believed to be a racially prejudiced viewpoint. I still don't feel that this has been answered. Next, Frank's two questions to me. This is Asia Times Online, so views about other places are not appropriate here. To answer his questions, though: I know nothing about Tahiti, having never been there; Northern Ireland is not a question of independence but whether it is to belong to the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I think that all sides concerned should talk their problems through, and that it should be given back to the Irish. Finally, I lived in China for four years, mostly because I wanted to get to know the country, people and culture. So having left I still have a special interest in it. I welcome any comments by Frank on any subject whatsoever, as is his and everyone's right, which is why I wrote my previous letter [Apr 16] in the first place.
Peter Mitchelmore
Calgary, Alberta (Apr 22, '04)

I am just writing to congratulate you for use of neutral language and not making out that Arabs are all stupid and are hindering the USA and Britain doing their good deeds. Actually, if you study a bit of history you will find many similarities to when America was preparing the public for destroying Japan in World War II. They had superman killing Japanese - Hollywood helped to educate the ordinary ignorant people to know who the enemy was. The same propaganda was apparent when the Russians were the enemy. I guess it's the media's job to misinform people and rally support for their country. But it is good to know that one can read neutral reports at Asian Times Online. I will tell all my friends about your site too.
kb (Apr 22, '04)

[Re Russia revels in US's discomfort, Apr 21.] I think John Helmer's assessment is the right one. While there are no reports of ordinary Russians cele