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.

July 2007

Another Korean hostage in Afghanistan has been executed, reports Agence France-Presse. The Taliban announced the execution of Sung Sin by a firing squad, owing to the failure of President Hamid Karzai's government to release eight Taliban prisoners. Despite trying to shame the Taliban by appealing to the Muslim code of not taking women as hostage, this entreaty from Kabul has fallen on deaf ears. Sung Sin's assassination by Kalashnikov turns up the heat on President Karzai and on Washington for the deliverance, safe and sound, of the remaining 21 evangelical South Korean Christians. South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon has telephoned [US] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Donald Kirk reports, "to urge Karzai to agree to the release of at least eight Taliban prisoners" [Korean hostage crisis pressures US, Karzai, Jul 31]. It is doubtful that this plea will sway Dr Rice or Hamid Karzai ... The Bush administration's position is clear: it is loath to deal with the Taliban. For those who have longer memories, when the Uruguayan Tupamaros kidnapped a former police offer who trained Latin American police in the use of torture techniques, then-[US] president [Richard] Nixon refused to [negotiate] with them for his release. In the end, [Dan] Mitrione's body was found in the [luggage compartment] of an automobile. Costa-Gavras' State of Siege [1972] with Yves Montand movingly retells this tale of caution. Washington's immovable stance will contribute to the ever near-to-the-surface anti-Americanism which lies ready to awaken in South Korea. What is puzzling, and this Kirk does not address, is: has anyone from South Korea's small Muslim community also appealed to the Taliban to release their 21 South Korean captives? That, to me, seems a missed opportunity, to say the least. At this time, things look bleak.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 31, '07)

Sung Sin was the name of the victim as released by the Taliban. The South Korean Foreign Ministry says he was actually Shim Sung-min, 29. - ATol

Re Korean hostage crisis pressures US, Karzai (Jul 31) by Donald Kirk: With the Taliban holding 22 South Korean Christian aid workers hostage in Afghanistan, this makes it the second time in 18 months that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been caught in the middle of a major crisis between international opinion in the West and extremist elements within his own US-backed government. In March of last year, President Karzai was faced with the similar dilemma of protecting a native Afghan, Abdul Rahman, from the death penalty, after he was found guilty of converting from Islam to Christianity. While attempting to address US concerns, President Karzai had also sought not to alienate religious conservatives, who demanded that authorities should enforce a provision in the country's Islamic-based laws calling for the execution of Muslims who abandon the faith. It is in this highly volatile context that the South Korean aid workers knowingly entered Afghanistan, which leaves President Karzai with very little room to safely end the crisis. To add to the pressure, Pope Benedict XVI has issued a plea calling for the release of all the hostages, while also denouncing the Taliban for committing a "grave violation of human dignity". After reports now of a second hostage found executed as a result of authorities not meeting the latest deadline set by the Taliban, this crisis is shaping up to be yet another illustration of the fact that the "war on terror" is in its most fundamental dimension a war between religions.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 31, '07)

Re The blurred line between war news, propaganda [Jul 31]: Any form of communication partially if not wholly can be called propaganda. The most distinguishing factor of ATol from other outposts of communication is that to a large extent it is more partial in an educational and informational sense than almost all major "media outposts". Thus Khody Akhavi's review as well as [Norman] Solomon's film are exemplary of "propaganda" expressing opinions to influence the opinions or actions of individuals who have been or are already influenced by previous opinions dedicated towards specific actions or reactions, in other words, propaganda. In the case of America's outposts of disbursing news/propaganda, most of it is undertaken by mostly ignorant and unanalytical but definitely photogenic individuals. At least on TV. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, showing vehicles being blown up in Baghdad is more opinion-forming than showing mutilated bodies of Iraqis. Such along with another propaganda gimmick of [accusing] others of being [an Adolf] Hitler combine to influence opinions and reactions, especially in a society whose interaction with others is limited to what's written in the newspapers or shown on television or films, [which] are for the most [part] more interested in selling ads than in contributing to challenging and/or providing their readers with any analytical/educational views. Mr Solomon as well as Mr Akhavi (and ATol) need to be commended for contributing to an understanding of the scope and range of how to "win friends and influence people".
Armand De Laurell (Jul 31, '07)

Re For the markets, global chill [Jul 31]: Julian Delasantellis is correct when he points out that, without transparency, monetary regulators worldwide have no effective way of policing Web-based hedge-fund activity. If a universal reporting protocol were to be established that required all such Web-based transactions to be recorded real-time before they could be considered official, that could become such a record ... Visibility is a very good thing.
T Sullivan
USA (Jul 31, '07)

The article [A new crisis in Russia-Iran relations, Jul 28] falls prey to political analysts' "professional hazard". Every sneeze is interpreted as a major event. Does anyone believe that Russia and Iran just invent their relationship as days go by? Do they read their favorite analysts, and then spring into action? I am convinced, in the light of the moves on both sides, that Russia and Iran are in firm agreement on their strategic objectives. It is absolutely necessary to ensure that their adversaries try to exploit gaps, ensuring that engagement of any sort occurs. By succeeding to engage Washington, on whatever terms, Iran and Russia are succeeding in slowing down the time-bomb in Washington. [US Vice President] Dick Cheney is clearly seeing the danger, and is warning President [George W] Bush of the "closing window" for attacking Iran. No, the danger [of] a military "solution" to Iran has not passed, nor will it go away with the next administration. The same corporate power brokers will still be around with the same agendas and a pliable, powerless Congress. For that reason, Russia and Iran are engaged in a series of tiny steps, all of them aimed at chipping away at the military option. Russia-US agreement on peaceful use of nuclear energy is enhancing IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency], and through it, the international law governing the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The delay of Bushehr is convenient to Moscow and Tehran. First, the additional provisions on the peaceful use of nuclear technology will support the Iranian position in international negotiations, and second, the illusion of disagreement keeps on enticing Washington to talk to Iran. It makes no difference [to] the nature of the talks. The US has much to gain from normalization with Iran, and so does Russia and the region as a whole. It is a fair bet that such normalization, if and when it occurs, will not be at the expense of Russia or China, the principal SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] partners. It is good theater, but nothing more, to engage in the soap-opera events of the day. Is Iran "unhappy" with Russia, or does Russia "fear" Iran's alignment with the "Great Satan"? Who will get amnesia, and who will be unfaithful? O, what suspense! The SCO fundamentals seem to remain unchanged. Russia, Iran and China need stability in Asia. The US does not. It matters little if the US is "alarmed" over Iran's nuclear program, or the state of Iran's tomato harvest: what matters is the threat of further military conflagration in the area of strategic interest to both Russia and China. Following the agreement with the US on peaceful use of nuclear energy, Russia has just announced additional sales of military technology to Tehran. This is a reminder that the Iran-Russia partnership is alive and well in the Great Game.
Bianca
USA (Jul 31, '07)

Ioannis Gatsiounis seems such a meticulously investigative, yet honest and forthright, observer of the Malaysian scene that most of his articles carry more truth and depth than those glossy government promotional brochures churned out to hoodwink potential foreign investors. His Malaysia's mid-life crisis (Jul 28) pretty much sums up the prevailing mood of the nation. As a foreigner, he is, of course, not expected to reflect on the true human dimension (ie, the real frustrations, angers, agitations and intense sufferings and hatreds of the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, towards these UMNO [United Malays National Organization] racist/religious bigots) of the crisis. In actual fact, all aspects of life in Malaysia are a shambles and it is increasingly becoming intolerable, despite all the deliberately falsely fabricated "all is well" hypes propagated by the government. The nation is failing pretty much across the whole spectrum - a bloated yet hugely inefficient civil service, declining (as a result of being politicized) academic institutions (especially tertiary institutions), rising yet uncontrollable crime rate, rampant corruption right up to the highest level (it is an open secret [that] nothing gets done unless one greases the system), rampant frauds (especially unrelenting looting of the Treasury), unabashed state-sponsored racism/religious [bigotry] wholly for political expediency, stagnant and shrinking economy due to its inability to move up the value chain, which in itself is exacerbated by the shortage of talent/capital/FDI (foreign direct investment) due to [unfavorably skewed] government policies/strategies etc - the list is endless. No wonder people are leaving in droves. The scene is [starkly] telling if one bothers to walk into the Australian [or] New Zealand Embassy to see long queues of people seeking residency permits in these countries, notwithstanding the fact that there are already huge numbers residing in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and even China. Malaysia is truly a tropical paradise squandered for the most unimaginable [reasons].
Sad Malaysian (Jul 30, '07)

Re Malaysia's mid-life crisis [Jul 28]: Malaysia is going through more than a mid-life crisis. As it prepares to celebrate its half-century as an independent nation, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) is showing the frays of age and the tearing of its innards through Byzantine disputes and appeals to demagogy. Despite banners proclaiming Malaysia as a nation with "One legacy. One destiny," the country plays on racial and ethnic division, which is no better illustrated than in favoring the bumiputera (sons of the dust) over the needs of the Chinese and Indians. Indicative of this flaccid apartheid are the remarks of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who baldly stated that "Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state". His assertion contradicts the constitution of Malaysia. His words may have found a resonance among fundamentalists who are all too willing to listen to the nightingales of a mythical Islamic past, but Razak's very utterance has sent chills down the spine of the Chinese who have not forgotten the violence and bloodshed and killings of the 1969 communal riots. Ioannis Gatsiounis provides some answers to why Najib Razak has thrust himself on to center stage: political ambition and expediency and a way to deflect from his unexplained involvement in the brutal murder of a Mongolian model. The spotlight on Razak highlights a Malaysia reticent about change: the ubiquitous use of the Internet and rise of bloggers have turned an intense beam on the machinations of the ruling party, its secrecy, [and] the corruption of its officials, and have given fuller body to suspicions about going about politics in the old tried-and-true way. Malaysia is indeed at a crossroads on its 50th birthday. Yet it seems unable to find a new direction and one that will truly turn it into a nation with "One legacy. One destiny."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 30, '07)

Re Malaysia's mid-life crisis [Jul 28] by Ioannis Gatsiounis: The statement "Malaysia, which includes 40% non-Muslims" is inaccurate. Yes, Najib [Razak] did comment [on] "an Islamic state" but the reference of [40% non-Muslims] was added by writers themselves, and this is inaccurate. As announced by the government from the past census, Malaysia has about 40% bumiputeras. Bumiputera is also made up of indigenous ethnic, Sino-native and some Kristang people who are non-Muslims. Therefore, the total of non-Muslims is more than 40%.
Lim Wei Seng (Jul 30, '07)

Re A new crisis in Russia-Iran relations [Jul 28]: Every time I read Kaveh L Afrasiabi's ruminations about Russia, I have a sense of deja vu. A couple of things seem to be firmly in place from one article to another. First is a typical Iranian view that Tehran always holds the best cards no matter [the] doghouse it's in, and second is a rather mysterious conviction that Russia somehow owes Iranians something for nothing. That's why Iranians can repeatedly threaten Russia with their "eventual normalization" of relations with the US (an argument that's starting to lose its potency due to overuse), snub Russian offers of joint [uranium] enrichment on Russian soil (then ask Europeans for the same deal, only in Europe), and keep [an] accusatory tone which they never allow themselves in their dealings with China or India. That Russia's patience with its "mortal friend" is running low is therefore understandable. Iran, however, would be better served by ditching the hissing sound. After all, what if Washington's conditions for "eventual normalization" turn out to be too onerous? And what if The Mahdi fails to come on time? These are the questions to ponder.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jul 30, '07)

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, in A new crisis in Russia-Iran relations (Jul 28), seems to be deeply at odds over Moscow's decision to postpone the completion of Iran's Bushehr reactor, which he says has "shocked" Tehran and is bound to bring Russia-Iran relations to a crisis point. Nowhere does he even mention the most obvious catalyst for this latest development: the signing on Friday, June 29, in Moscow and Washington, of the so-called 123 Agreement between the United States and Russia. The 123 Agreement is named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, and is designed to govern the exchange of civil nuclear technologies between the US and allied nuclear powers (a similar agreement was more recently signed between the US and India). Initially, the Clinton and Bush administrations had held off, trying to use the prospect of such an agreement as leverage to encourage Russia to restrict its nuclear dealings with Iran - especially over the construction of the Bushehr reactor. But now, US officials say that in recent years Russia has made positive steps in this regard, even though Moscow is still formally committed to the Bushehr project. With the 123 Agreement signed, it will be sent to the US Congress, which has 90 days to act. Unfettered passage of the agreement, however, is far from guaranteed, with some members still remaining highly skeptical about nuclear cooperation with Russia. Moreover, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which Congress recently passed to prevent a 123 Agreement from entering into force with any country that aids the nuclear program of Iran, clearly demonstrates that US President George W Bush would have to make a strong case to Congress that the US-Russia agreement is in the US interest. And what better way to make such a strong case in a (supposedly) post-Cold War world than to leave Tehran "shocked" in the wake of a project that is now more than seven years overdue?
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 30, '07)

I am a little disappointed that Sudha Ramachandran did not touch on the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir in her article Nightlife and real life return to Srinagar (Jul 28). Kashmir and Srinagar will never return to normal until the Hindus who were driven out are welcomed back. It is sad to see that the powers [that] be have let Kashmir turn into a Muslim state. As long as it is a Muslim state and the atrocities committed against Hindus are condoned, in fact by Hindus themselves (the writer herself is Hindu), the insurgency will fester. I guess I better post this in the South Asia forum, since this defends Hindus and puts Muslims in a bad light. I have learned the painful way how ATol is biased towards Christians and Muslims. Spengler is allowed to spread hatred using Christianity but any criticism is either cut or censored.
Jayant Patel (Jul 30, '07)

Religion is part and parcel of politics in most of Asia, and some comment reflecting that cannot be avoided. However, we have a policy against sermonizing or pitting one religion against another on this page. - ATol

All I can say about [Turkey's Islamists pay a price for victory, Jul 28] is, "[M K] Bhadrakumar has done it again." The AKP [Justice and Development Party] of Turkey is a success story, and its success in fact presents a very good model for the Islamist movements across the Muslim world. Their pursuance of a democratic path, perseverance, pragmatism and positive approach present an enviable example for the abusive, hopelessly aggressive and violent brethren Islamist movements across the globe. I hope our friends for whom blind pursuance of the Iranian model of Islamist transformation has been the only viable example learn a different message from the AKP success story. The AKP has very correctly (and wisely) kept the prospects of EU accession talks alive because this is one potent deterrent to keep any takeover ambitions of the secularist, nationalist military at bay. And this is so because the chief supporter of the military as well as the EU accession is the very same, [the] Turkish secularist elite, and the military would never wish to alienate their chief supporter through jeopardizing EU accession talks by undermining the democratic process. Indeed, the AKP may be much better off at this point by reviving the debate on EU accession talks more actively, even if only as a diversion from the maneuvers for election of a favored presidential candidate.
Rashid Hassan (Jul 30, '07)

Michael Chang's article [Let us now praise Hu Jintao] and Kelvin Mok's letter [both Jul 27] are spot on. The East and the West have different models because of history and their route to development. The West was fortunate to be able to develop in an era when many actions that were blatantly wrong, discriminatory and corrupt were actively implemented. Now that they have attained developed status, they expect developing countries to have their lofty ideals, which are hemorrhaging their societies. These developing societies should learn from the West but absorb only those policies and practices that are possible and relevant to themselves.
Steve
Canada (Jul 30, '07)

Let us now praise Hu Jintao by Michael Chang (Jul 27), though sentimental, correctly highlights the achievements of the Hu-Wen team in advancing mainland Chinese interests. On the Taiwan issue, Chang succinctly writes, "This [status quo for peace] is a stance consistent with the United States' national interest and that of the rest of the world community … It also becomes the responsibility of the US, often assisted by the European Union and the UN, to do the necessary damage control, not just China alone." This observation is particularly valid in today's atmosphere of ideological fatigue and absolute abhorrence of violence, due to the fiasco in Iraq. Chang continues, "Maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is something China can live with comfortably for the time being, while it continues to modernize its military capabilities and sustain its economic growth." Here Chang does not indicate the eventual application of such military capabilities. I would add that once lopsided economic and military advantages against Taiwan are achieved in a few decades, the actual use of force would be obviously unnecessary, as Taiwan by then would be too feeble and isolated. Taiwan's geography as an island so close to the Chinese mainland and energy vulnerability will be mainland China's absolute trump card. Taiwan may know what is to come and may have decades to attempt to parry eventual unification, but it cannot be prevented. Taiwan should ask if in circa 2030 it would initiate an attack on the mainland to free itself from the mainland's increasingly effective pressure. President Chen Shui-bian has vehemently said that Taiwan doesn't want to be another Hong Kong. The thoughtful in Taiwan should ask him why Hong Kong is relevant; after all, the handover of Hong Kong was peaceful. Indeed, the mainland will eventually peacefully coerce Taiwan into accepting a form of unification like Hong Kong. Two more mainland trump cards lurk and labor persistently: the mainland's sudden withdrawal from trade with Taiwan (as the US against Hawaii) and the mainland's profound impact on the island's democratic and social cultures. Taiwan has just exercised "application for independence" at the UN and was fundamentally rejected, with the expressed reason that Taiwan is a part of China. What can be so pivotal about any "declaration of independence"? Why should any "declaration" elicit an attack from the mainland? In what venue and to what body would Taiwan "declare" independence? "Declaration" means attraction of the media and attempt to promote populous sympathy in the West - but it is already saturated. At the governmental level, all that can aid Taiwan without gravely hurting it, and each country's interests, has been done. Colin Powell recently stated tactfully that, although the fairness of the United States' "one China" policy is being questioned, the policy remains the most effective and feasible in terms of avoiding an escalation of tensions in the region. I believe the rational in Taiwan should evaluate his statement and aspire within a realistic scope. The aim should be to maximize Taiwan's interests eventually as an autonomous part of China, the PRC [People's Republic of China].
Jeff Church
USA (Jul 30, '07)

Thailand's constitution [see Toward a less democratic Thailand, Jul 27] is written, abrogated, and rewritten on a fairly regular basis and so it would seem that, given modern technology, the Internet and not a printing press is the appropriate vehicle for its dissemination, because online documents are easier to change. The online constitution might include a time and date stamp to indicate when it was last updated and it may eventually evolve into a wiki-constitution so that, in the ultimate expression of democracy, not just a chosen few, but all Thai citizens may actively participate in its content. At any given moment, the wiki-constitution will reflect the will of the people and no referendum will ever again be necessary. In this way, a single online constitution will seamlessly and continuously serve the nation for all time under changing conditions and changing needs. It will bring to an end the nation's tortured history of constitution musical chairs.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Jul 30, '07)

I ran across The politics of regret [Jul 26] on [the Internet]. A very reflective and stirring article about us Americans. Thanks.
Mike (Jul 30, '07)

Every so often I check your site and I must say it is interesting. You print stories and views that are often missing here in the West. In no way do I agree with everything she writes, but I have been challenged by some of the articles written by Beverly Darling. The latest one, The politics of regret [Jul 26], shows a reflective and thoughtful nature. It was very refreshing and, I must add, somewhat true. I like reading a variety of writings including perspectives from a woman's point of view. Her passion and intuition [are] evident and speak well for our gender.
Renee (Jul 30, '07)

In the article Pakistan's Pashtun 'problem' [Jul 26], Haroun Mir presents a very insightful and [thoroughly] opinionated view about the Pakistani military and the struggle of the Pashtuns. His views were more of rhetoric than of factuality. His views also included [biases]. For example, his characterization of all Pashtun youth being "radicalized" is very out of touch with reality. The idea that these "backward and illiterate" Pashtuns for the last three decades have been doing nothing but radicalization and suicide bombing is very thoughtless and biased. I know young Pashtuns in Peshawar who attend madrassas, and are very much modernized. However, besides the flawed characterization of the Pashtun ethnicity, Mir does provide an honest speculation of the events, such as the inevitably corrupt role of the Pakistani military in the destabilization of the Pashtun tribal belt. Great job, Haroun, on the article, [I] give you two thumbs up, but next time keep your bias aside.
Zia G
USA (Jul 30, '07)

I refer to the letter of Rashid Hassan of July 27 and would say without hesitation that he sounded more like an incompetent defense lawyer for Benazir Bhutto, her pageboy and a sycophant. His written language did not make any sense to me as it lacked substance and was full of inadequate references ... With regard to Benazir Bhutto's Islamic way of life, he is advised to investigate her early days at Oxford University and would be shocked to find out about her loose and lavish Western way of life. She is nowadays shamelessly flirting openly with General [Pervez] Musharraf to taste power from the back door or closed door despite vehement disgust of [the] majority of Pakistanis. She has loose political morals. Mr Hassan also appeared to be wearing blinkers at ignoring the political history of MQM [Muttahida Qaumi Movement] and its founding fathers and their involvement in terrorism, civil unrest, murders and massacres of innocents in Karachi. Why is it that Altaf Hussein does not go back to Pakistan instead of living abroad as a fugitive?
Jalal Rumi (Jul 30, '07)

I am a fervent reader of your website, but curiously I have never seen any discussion about African economies. What is the trade implication for Africa relative to the economic expansion in China? There are so many other economic issues to discuss about Africa, yet you never mention Africa, even in the World Economy section.
Willy Moore
Texas, USA (Jul 30, '07)

This website is about Asia, not Africa. However, we have in fact mentioned Africa with some frequency of late, especially regarding China's and India's interest in the continent. See for example China's risky bet in Somalia (Jul 24) and India pushes people power in Africa (Jul 13). - ATol

Shawn Crispin: Some people in Thailand brought to our attention your fine essay on Thailand [Toward a less democratic Thailand, Jul 27]. Well done, my friend!
John E Carey (Jul 27, '07)

[Re Toward a less democratic Thailand, Jul 27] I am sorry to write this, as I do also believe in democracy. But does democracy have something to give apart from the same corruption non-democratic countries are experiencing? I am not any longer convinced. Reading Thai history with focus on King Chulalongkorn the Great, I believe that Thailand has lost its edge with the absolute monarchy. As a Norwegian, I draw the same line to Norway and believe that we have lost our edge too ... I am confident that Thailand has more aspiring politicians [who] can continue the process this country needs before it can be called a democracy. And I wish them luck. It is very wrong to even consider the king to have any control over this political mess. Take a look at the Thai population, what do they know? What do they appreciate? How will they, apart from the few, be spending the rest of their life? A democracy requires people that understand democracy, and that should be [taught] in school, I guess. But [is] it? I am happy [former prime minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra] is gone even [though] I appreciated most parts of his agenda. I know there is just the right leader in Thailand, but the Thai people don't see him.
Ingar Torsrud
Bangkok, Thailand (Jul 27, '07)

Shawn Crispin: "The consensus is that Thailand's new military-drafted constitution will likely pass a highly anticipated national referendum on August 19" [Toward a less democratic Thailand, Jul 27]. Do you really believe that? Whose "consensus" are you talking about? I have no idea what's going to happen on August 19. The military will be counting the votes, as they did in the recent mayoral election in Chiang Mai. So perhaps your "consensus" has the inside information, perhaps even including the vote totals for all the provinces, for the August 19 election in hand? I have been reminded of the last election in Burma, when the dictatorship there, so utterly out of touch with the populace that it thought it would actually win, mistakenly, from its point of view, allowed the election to go forward. You may be right. I have no real basis for my belief other than the dissatisfaction of everyone I know with the present government. And my own hopes for democracy in Thailand. I do hope you are wrong.
John Francis Lee
Chiang Rai, Thailand (Jul 27, '07)

Without pre-polling voter surveys, the consensus referenced in the article was not statistically backed. Judging from several reports recently issued by major investment banks and well-placed political analysts who spoke with Asia Times Online, an analytical consensus has emerged that the new constitution will pass the referendum. That analysis is based primarily on the mild popular response to the May 30 dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai party, which indicated to several analysts that the military has effectively consolidated its power. The military's media blitz and mobilization of royal symbolism are also expected to influence up-country voters, while public-opinion polls indicate that the Bangkok middle and upper classes are fed up with the political impasse and are willing to sign off on the new charter to speed a return to democratic governance. The pundits, as frequently is the case, could be wrong, and if so watch this space for updated analysis. - Shawn W Crispin

Re Bring 'em on: Jihadis in Pakistan await US (Jul 26): If Syed Saleem Shahzad thinks that Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf is reduced to the role of a "bystander" while the United States and hardline al-Qaeda commanders and Taliban fighters in the northern tribal region of Pakistan ready themselves for a showdown, then he is badly mistaken. It is of no coincidence that at the height of these latest US threats to eliminate al-Qaeda, Pakistan has just successfully fired a cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads deep into India. According to a military statement, the test of the Babur (or Hatf VII) missile would "consolidate Pakistan's strategic capability and strengthen national security". President Musharraf wasted no time in publicly congratulating the scientists and engineers involved in the test, which was conducted just two days after a nuclear agreement was reached between the US and India. The agreement would not only allow India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years, but it is clearly intended to place a more solid curb on Pakistan's premier status as the world's only Islamic nation with a declared nuclear-weapons capability. President Musharraf's latest response is therefore meant to serve as a dire warning to Washington that the US is to stay well out of Pakistan's internal affairs in dealing with the growing resurgence and unrest of Islamic militantism.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 27, '07)

Just to clarify, although an editor's index-page summary of this article reflected the gist of the piece when it employed the word "bystander", Syed Saleem Shahzad did not use that word in the article itself. - ATol

The rest of the developing world is watching closely the China leadership model to see what they can learn from it (Let us now praise Hu Jintao [Jul 27]). The two-party (or multi-party) adversarial Western system certainly will not work for them. In this system the opposing parties do their worst to demonize and destroy their rivals from within and from from without. You can follow the current US presidential debates for a first-hand example. In a developing country, to lose can literally be fatal to the candidate and for his followers. What has never been raised in any discussion so far is the fate for the outgoing leader. Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin retired peacefully and on schedule, with honor and their legacy a base from which the successor builds on to progress further. More important, their families and supporters have been left unmolested after their leader departed. One must realize that the fate of the kith and kin of an outgoing leader is of paramount importance in the path to a smooth transition of power. China's example shows that a leader need not cling to power until death or through a coup. And a leader's political supporters and kin need not scramble for personal power bases or personal fortunes that can survive the demise of their leader. In the current Chinese system the mechanism for a smooth political transition makes possible to plan for rational leadership succession. This allows the search for the next national leader who will have popular support of the power elite as well as the support of those senior public service heads. This person can then be groomed and tested for the ultimate leadership position. To arrive to this exalted status of crown prince in waiting would have to have proven performance as a political functionary and in senior public service positions. This person will unlikely be able to acquire this record until at least into his mid-40s to early 50s. Another eight to 10 years of grooming in the Politburo and he's 60, an age of wisdom, of benign temperament yet healthy enough for another 10 years to endure the rigors of office. Then he must retire. This age means he won't have the physical strength to stay on even if he wants to. A leader's function is to provide the stability and the continuity for each member of the leadership team to pool their talents and to function as a team for the governance of China. A practically guaranteed 10-year term under a designated leader gives enough time and stability to formulate, develop, implement programs and realize tangible results. Hu Jintao fits this profile. I don't know if this is what Deng Xiaoping planned, but that was what he set up by example, not by law. His successors will find it very difficult to break those precedents. China has a government that is dynamic and works spectacularly. We have peace, stability and prosperity in the country. Why would anyone want to copy the chaotic political system of the West?
Kelvin Mok (Jul 27, '07)

Re South Korea balks at hostage hard line [Jul 27]: Donald Kirk has fallen back on conventional wisdom and the impossibility of eliminating risk in Afghanistan for South Korea. [It does not logically follow from] the kidnapping and holding as hostages of 23 South Korean evangelical Christians by the Taliban ... that because the Bush administration has put pressure on Seoul to send troops and materiel to fight in Afghanistan, and had President Roh Moo-hyun not committed a small fighting force there, these 23 South Koreans would not have been taken prisoner. Kirk may not fully appreciate the deep religious feelings and commitment of members of the Saemmul Church, nor their personal obligation as Christians to assume the obligations of the New Testament to bring aid and succor and glad tidings to those that they think are in need (even though the "needy" may not welcome such solicitude). To most, this course of action may seem foolhardy, especially in war-torn Afghanistan, a country where foreign and local aid workers are held for ransom and where some are brutally murdered, as in the case of pastor Bae [Hyung-kyu]. It is to President Roh's credit that he prefers negotiations to save the lives of the remaining 22 living South Korean hostages than posturing as a Rambo-esque caricature. It is much in his favor that he is looking to minimize the risks to the Taliban's innocent victims than playing up to their murderous instincts. Kirk sees the weakness in Mr Roh's character which he willy-nilly hooks on to his so-called softness in dealing with North Korea. It would [do] Kirk a world of good were he to learn the difference between Mr Roh's being popular in his appeal to save lives than his being a populist in following the thoughts of what is simply true because the feelings are widespread.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 27, '07)

Re The politics of regret [Jul 27], I would say the only regret that President [George W] Bush would carry till the end of his term in office and beyond into old age should be his inability to catch or kill Osama bin Laden. Ever since [September 11, 2001] he has lived every minute with this dream and nightmare but has failed despite spending nearly US$1 trillion of American taxpayers' money on a futile war on terror, illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan, killing nearly 800,000 Iraqis and 100,000 Afghans with the slightest regret as well as destroying their countries to rubble and into medieval ages so that he could loot their oil wealth and natural resources. President Bush will one day regret as to why he did not order a search of the White House in case Osama bin Laden was hiding in his bedroom. President Bush believes in the philosophy, "Make it a rule of life never to regret and never to look back. Regret is an appalling waste of energy; you can't build on it; it's only for wallowing in" (Katherine Mansfield). He also believes in the philosophy, "Kill innocent people who you consider your enemies and never say sorry or regret afterwards."
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 27, '07)

The Book Reviews section of yours is a real feather in the cap. I am impressed at the focus on current affairs/non-fiction books that you give in this section as well as the variety of publications reviewed. The reviews of Sreeram Chaulia and Dmitry Shlapentokh are especially enriching. Chaulia's pieces inspire me to buy the relevant book, although sometimes his review is in itself enough of a gist of the whole book that I can imbibe the knowledge without thinning my wallet! The mark of an intellectual newspaper is determined by its editorials and its book-review section. Here's a toast to ATol's reviewers.
Shawn
Bristol, England (Jul 27, '07)

I am a bit surprised by the outburst of [Jalal] Rumi [letter, Jul 26] about a Muslim Pakistani woman who comes from one of the most genuinely respectable families of Pakistan. For the record, she is the first Bhutto woman to be allowed outside the four walls of [a] house. Once while on an excursion with a group of college friends, I happened to pass through her native village (Garrhi Khuda Bukhsh) and the only building that stood out was a mosque built by her late father or grandfather. Bhuttos are of traditional Sunni persuasion as far as I know. Her mom is from an Iranian Shi'ite family who had business in Karachi. It is my understanding that she has deep understanding of Islam and has cogent arguments for woman's role in the society that she has chosen to play. If she wasn't an honorable woman of honorable roots, then heavyweights like Makhdoom Syed Fahim of Sindh and Qureshis of Multan would not be walking behind her and she would have never won votes from deeply conservative and Orthodox Muslims Sindhis. The majority of Sindhis are very deeply conservative Muslims. But it is of course not for me to speak on behalf of anybody. If a free and fair democratic electoral process had been allowed to continue, then PPP [Pakistan People's Party] would have probably gotten rid of the Bhuttos already. As for the matters of morality, the majority of feudal or other landowner families in Sindh and southern Punjab are deeply attached to Islam, more deeply than many of the Islamists I had had associations with. [The] basic lesson of the history of Pakistan as well as the subcontinent is that Islam entered the subcontinent through Sindh, and Sindh and southern Punjab were blessed with Islam some 500 years before Lahore [was]. The movement for the creation of Pakistan was the strongest in Sindh. Pakistanis are only Pakistani Muslims and not Shi'ites or Sunnis. The Shi'ite-Sunni schism in Pakistan was intentionally deepened by the Jallandhari clique for nefarious motives and in order to divide and destroy the popular support of the PPP. The process of disintegration is the fruit of the dismissal of the popularly elected civilian regime in July 1977 and the judicial murder of its elected prime minister, the late Z A Bhutto. If he and his party were so corrupt and unpopular, then the democratic electoral process could have and should have been restored fairly and transparently immediately after his arrest in 1977, or most certainly after his execution in 1979. For the record, MQM [Muttahida Qaumi Movement] is the brainchild of those who dismissed the civilian administration in 1977 ... Stability of Pakistan as a country is paramount, and ways are to be found to meet that end. Country and stability of country come first, and a party with necessary tools to achieve that end will assume power if fair and transparent elections (not manipulated by intelligence services) were held. Islamization is a persuasion-based process. Islamists had 60 long years to educate and persuade the masses [to] elect them ...
Rashid Hassan (Jul 27, '07)

May Sage has made good points about uplifting downtrodden sections of society in India (letter, Jul 25) but gives the impression that she is waiting for the "end of days", with references to global warming implying we are close to a total meltdown. Altogether a bit too theatrical. Having been born in India and having lived there for over 34 years till moving to Europe in 2004 and having been thoroughly educated in Tamil Nadu, a part of India where the backward classes have been calling the shots for quite some time, I understand just what is our history and what is wrong and what needs to be done to make it right. I have seen for myself how political power has changed the fortunes of the depressed classes in Tamil Nadu and don't see any reason why that can't be repeated all over India. We may well see that now, starting with the election of Ms Mayawati as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. As for India not having 200 years, Europeans may well have felt that way on the eve of World War I, but Europe is alive and kicking now. So I humbly submit that India does have 200 years and we will indeed fix our problems in a much shorter time than that. As for global warming, I remember reading articles on how the melt ice from Greenland would interrupt the North Atlantic Conveyor, an ocean current system originating near Florida and going all the way to the North Sea that enables the UK to have mild weather in about the same latitude as polar bears in Canada and places with freezing winter weather as in Scandinavia, causing the UK to freeze as well along with much of the northern half of Europe. However, now the threat is supposed to be warming. So we aren't even clear what exactly is happening. So I suggest that Ms Sage be a bit more cheerful in the knowledge that we may actually have all of eternity on this planet (or at least a very long time).
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan
Indian living in Budapest, Hungary (Jul 27, '07)

Your debate with May Sage has brought up many interesting points, but the Letters page is not really the place for it. We invite you to continue it, if you so wish, on The Edge forum so that others can join in. - ATol

[Re The politics of regret, Jul 26] I can assure [Beverly] Darling that I regret each day voting for [US President George W] Bush. He has ruined this great country of ours.
James Tibow
USA (Jul 26, '07)

I appreciate Beverly Darling's insight on such critical issues [The politics of regret, Jul 26. She] makes very compelling arguments that show thought and passion. Thanks for including [her] pieces.
Ken Roman (Jul 26, '07)

Forgive me for being cynical, archly so. Beverly Darling's Speaking Freely contribution [The politics of regret, Jul 26] and US Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson's hawking the snake oil of mortgage-backed securities to China are part and parcel of American naivety and eternal Panglossian wonderment (Olivia Chung's China shying from shaky US mortgage market [Jul 26]). Darling has misread President [George W] Bush's character. Christian that he may be, he is muscular in his beliefs and would sing a lusty rendition of Sir Arthur Sullivan's [and Sabine Baring-Gould's] 19th-century hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers". Mr Bush owns up to no regrets. How can he? After all, he speaks directly to God and God speaks to him! Secretary Jackson has the chutzpah of an Elmer Gantry. In the face of the falling dominoes of the United States' subprime mortgage market, he is in Beijing offering reserve-rich China a never-to-lose golden opportunity in a failing market - this despite a loss of 2% in the S&P 500 Index, and indications [of] the contagion that very market is now spreading to conventional home loans. Darling and Jackson are symptomatic of an exaggerated sense of America's self-importance and excessive appreciation of its own worth.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 26, '07)

Re US-Iran dialogue on a tortuous path (Jul 26): While Kaveh L Afrasiabi dishes out the usual apologetic advice that Iran should aim at bridging its rhetoric with its "actual" behavior, the recent fallout between US Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over future strategies for US foreign policy carries a potentially far more significant and defining impact on US-Iran relations. At stake for these two leading Democratic presidential contenders is whether the US should continue to play strategically savvy and hardball politics with "rogue" nations such as Iran, as suggested by Senator Clinton, or whether, as suggested by Senator Obama, the US should take a completely different course. In the words of Senator Obama: "It goes to the heart of whether or not we're going to have a fundamental change in how the Bush administration has conducted foreign policy, or we're going to have a version of Bush-light." If elected, Senator Obama has pledged that in the first year of his presidency he would endeavor to meet with the leaders of the two remaining "axis of evil" nations - Iran and North Korea. Although he remains firmly opposed to Iran pursuing its current uranium-enrichment program, he is resolute that the US presidential office should - in person - extend all the way to the diplomatic table. Moreover, Senator Obama personally believes that faith should return to the center of private and public life; and according to his longtime spiritual mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, this "does not mean that God tells you to bomb another country or to go get Saddam Hussein". Clearly, what we are beginning to witness here is possibly one of the most significant political revolutions in US history - one where the uncompromisingly fundamentalist god of the Christian Right finally gives way to the god of justice, truth and reconciliation. In the absence of such a historic revolution, nothing else on the face of this Earth will ever be able to overcome the "adverse pressures" that have made US-Iran dialogue so extremely difficult and tortuous.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 26, '07)

Haroun Mir: You have hit the nail right on the head with your factual and informative article Pakistan's Pashtun 'problem' [Jul 26]. As a Pashtun I have witnessed first-hand the radicalization of Pashtun youth at the hands of the Pakistani state. For about 30 years Pakistan conveniently nurtured in place of Pashtun nationalism 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. The war on terror has become a convenient tool for the corrupt Pakistani military to make some money. They receive $100 million a month from the US, so these corrupt and wicked army [members] will do everything in their power to prolong this "war on terror". Pashtun blood and lives had and have no value for Pakistani generals.
Azmal Pashtonyaar (Jul 26, '07)

Re A change of US plan for Pakistan [Jul 25]: Benazir Bhutto is an opportunist politician who would suck anybody's toes to get into power. She was given an opportunity to govern the country but failed despicably to maintain any coordination or coherence of governance. She allowed unprecedented opportunism, nepotism, despotism and lethal corruption to reach every corner of Pakistan. Her husband was well known in the country for bribery and called Mr 10%. Benazir Bhutto is intellectually deprived of any political coordination, which is very apparent from her interviews and utterances; she cannot even speak a proper sentence of Pakistan's national language (Urdu) and makes a mockery of the vernacular. Her political mandate is [shallow] and without [any] sense of political and economic direction. She belongs to one of the richest feudal families of Pakistan, and so many these morally debauched feudal lords have been responsible for many ills that have deprived the Pakistani masses [of] fairness, equality, justice and democratic rights. She always plays a dynastic card to win votes from the Sindh province as well as gets [a majority of the] Shi'a votes for ideological affinity. She is not the one who would ever unite the nation but [would] fragment it, as she did last time in power. Washington would be most happy if she is elected in the next general elections as the Bush administration is getting fed up with the unpopular and inept General [Pervez] Musharraf and playing every dirty trick to destabilize Pakistan to bring [in] a debauched secular pro-Western government headed by Benazir Bhutto. She would be delighted to suck President [George W] Bush's toes and polish his boots for another two years of his remaining term, and then do the same for four years of the next administration. With regard to the leader of MQM [Muttahida Qaumi Movement], Altaf Hussain, I will be most happy if he never, ever steps on Pakistan's soil. He is a political thug who lives in London and rules his party like a mafia don via mobile [telephone]. MQM is trying to break up Pakistan so that the muhajirs [can] make Karachi a no-go area for all other Pakistanis whose mother tongue was not Urdu at the time of partition of the Indian subcontinent. Even 60 years after the creation of Pakistan, these MQM members and their progeny, though born in Pakistan, shamefully call themselves Hindustani muhajirs [refugees/migrants].
Jalal Rumi (Jul 26, '07)

Re A change of US plan for Pakistan [Jul 25: M K] Bhadrakumar's incisive articles are so enjoyable, as he always seems to be "in touch". I agree with him that Benazir [Bhutto] has so far taken a measured approach. To ensure that Pakistan's stability is not significantly undermined and that elections are held in time and with a degree of fairness, she could not have correctly placed herself in the same basket with others in calling for immediate resignation of [President General Pervez] Musharraf. Musharraf is a patriot who [will] eventually fulfill his obligations to the constitution by holding fair and transparent elections in time. Pakistan's interests would be best served by keeping MQM [Muttahida Qaumi Movement] on board in mainstream politics if at all possible. Nawaz Sharif is a different story altogether, and to be honest, I am not quite sure whether another spell of his premiership would be suitable or indeed possible in today's Pakistan. I do not know how many people in the military would want to see Sharif back in power ...
Rashid Hassan (Jul 25, '07)

The article A change of US plan for Pakistan [Jul 25] demonstrates the length and breadth the US administration will go to fight this "war on terror". In the name of the "holy grail" of democracy, the US Pentagon has carte blanche to do whatever it takes to contain this worldwide terror. Unfortunately for the average American, we are freely giving up our rights to protect us from that unseen and sinister terrorist. The [Department of] Homeland Security has used this bogeyman, the Islamic terrorist, which is real and quite convenient for the US government to infiltrate the average US citizen. In other words, [Osama] bin Laden [and] the Islamic terrorist [have] already achieved their goal. While the US [excuses] any action in the name of democracy abroad, this same government is also acting in a similar way towards its own citizens. Take for example our average cell phone. Now the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] or the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] can tap into a conversation even when the cell phone is off. The only way out is to take out the batteries. No matter how many terrorists we kill, the US government is either forced or put into a no-win situation where the very foundations of US democracy have to be shackled in order to fight this worldwide terrorist movement. Unlike World War II, this war is a guerrilla war fought on a global level by the terrorists, and we are fighting the war using by and large conventional methods on the battlefield and suspending the very ideals of democracy ... (for the safety and well-being of the US citizen). Common sense would dictate that there is no light at the end of this "tunnel of war", and the worse it becomes the [more the] heavy hand of Big Brother will be felt. The book Nineteen Eighty-Four pales in comparison to ground realities both in the US and in the battlefields that are now spreading into an acknowledged nuclear state of Pakistan, and all the consequences we [in] the West and the East will have to reap because the American public, due to fear, will gladly offer its rights on the altar of security.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Jul 25, '07)

Once again M K Bhadrakumar serves an ace [A change of US plan for Pakistan, Jul 25]. President General Pervez Musharraf picked the wrong battle when he tried ousting Iftikhar Chaudry from his high judicial office. His removal set [off] a wave of protest threatening Musharraf's juggling act of keeping secular and religious balls in the air. The Pakistani president in mufti belatedly took on the extremists at Lal Masjid, and suddenly he broke eggs [that have] sent President [George W] Bush's Pakistani rook in his war against terror [into] a tailspin. Bhadrakumar has found the fly in Washington's ointment. If anything, his analysis simply reinforces common wisdom that the Bush White House lacks a viable alternative to President General Musharraf. [Benazir] Bhutto is damaged goods, and even if she weren't, Pakistani history is one strongman after another, with the brief civilian government which fails badly. Mr Bush won over President General Musharraf by forgiving Islamabad's multibillion-dollar debt to wage war against Muslim extremists. Yet the White House did not do its homework: Musharraf may be a secularist, but he has used the very extremists he is supposed to be fighting in Kashmir. Additionally, he has been unable to disentangle his generals from their incestuous relationship with Muslim extremists. Thus poor Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place. Nonetheless, Mr Bush and company have a poor grasp of history and geography, and have drawn up foreign policy and war plans on the basis of what Sigmund Freud called "flummery". This said, President Bush will twist and turn in the winds of events that he so poorly understands, hanging on to President General Musharraf's fraying coattails.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 25, '07)

M K Bhadrakumar [A change of US plan for Pakistan, Jul 25] shows that American foreign policy has little capability for dealing with how things are, as opposed to sticking with Washington's imagined reality. Leading Democrats are slaves to the same delusions, contradictions and counterproductive strategy that drive the executive branch. Meanwhile, Pakistanis are caught in the web of American failure.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jul 25, '07)

Do we again have to believe that central command of al-Qaeda is strongest in the tribal areas of Pakistan? Please view the contradictions of these statements from various people of the US government and you would know the motivations of what these magicians are up to. America is too stretched to enter another foray, and I hope that common sense would prevail, so they better trust Pakistan more than themselves.
Rahat
Canada (Jul 25, '07)

Re Yes, Bush is naked, what of it? (Jul 24): There is one major stakeholder in US President George W Bush's announcement of a new Middle East summit [to which] Tony Karon fails to give even a mention, and that is the US Christian Right. It should come as no surprise that this born-again president made his announcement at the same time that America's largest Christian lobby group for Israel headed by Pastor John Haggee, called Christians United for Israel (CUFI), was holding its second annual Washington/Israel summit. The event brochure declared Wednesday, July 18 - the day President Bush made his announcement - as "Christians United for Israel Day on Capitol Hill". It was to be the day when the expected 3,500 participants were urged to meet with their elected representatives and to present their "biblical positions on Israel". This lobby group has already castigated President Bush for being a "traitor" over his unprecedented 2004 announcement in calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is also deemed as being guilty before God for "dividing" the Holy Land in order to appease the enemies of Israel, [whom] CUFI unapologetically declare to be "the enemies of America". Moreover, the guest-speaker list for the summit's crowning event, called Night to Honor Israel, included such notables as senior Republican Newt Gingrich, Israel's former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold, and former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As noted by Karon, the Christian lobby has become so successful on Capitol Hill that "Congress is even more anti-Palestinian than the [Bush] administration". Indeed, the two leading US Democratic front-runners, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both declared that they too will stand for Israel. This means that there should be no shred of doubt that the agenda for President Bush's Middle East summit will not be set by the justice of a two-state solution, but it will be set by CUFI's eschatological reading of Israel's glorious prophetic future.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 25, '07)

Re Tony Karon's Yes, Bush is naked, what of it [Jul 25]: One is almost tempted after reading Mr Karon's revealing commentary to make the following observations regardless of whether one sees [US President George W] Bush in the altogether or not. (1) Now is a good time for Ariel Sharon to get out of his coma and get in touch with his good buddy George. (2) Mr Karon's conclusions as to the definitiveness of the US Congress and any future administration to not only continue but increase its actions regarding the Palestinians can only be considered welcome news by [those] usually referred to [as] "bad/rogue guys in the region". And (3) [there are] the beginnings and growth of an anti-Israel sentiment in the US. Last, as the famous carpet weaver Omar pontificated millennia [sic; Omar Khayyam died in AD 1131 - ATol] ago, "The moving finger ... having writ, moves on"; the recent quote attributed to the Condor, "it's all a game", as well as the popular ditty of some years past, "que sera sera", more than adequately summarizes realities than may extend to the end of the 21st. century. By then, who knows, we all [may] be as naked as Bush is right now.
Armand De Laurell (Jul 25, '07)

Dmitry Shlapentokh (Putin's reading of Solzhenitsyn [Jul 25]) suggests that the US and Russia are more alike than different, because both are being displaced by more economically dynamic allies (the EU and China, respectively), because both have declining industrial and educational sectors, and because both are prone to moralism in their political cultures. Shlapentokh then proceeds to suggest that these affinities form the basis for a political alliance between the two states, the foundations of which he sees as having been laid at the recent "Lobster Summit" hosted by President [George W] Bush. However, the presence of structural, or even ideological, similarities is not in itself a reason to seek a political alliance. On the contrary, the geopolitical and economic differences between the US and Russia militate against any possible alliance. Russia is a territorialist power that seeks to form a united front with other Eurasian players. The US is a maritime power that seeks to establish itself as an offshore balancer vis-a-vis Eurasia, and to exploit any differences between powers in that part of the world. Russia tries to exploit divergences between the US and "Old Europe" in order to stem NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] expansion and forestall "color revolutions" on its doorstep. The US tries to dominate Europe by promoting these very policies. Russia (as a major producer) is trying to restructure the global energy market and to maintain the high price of energy, whereas the US (as the top consumer) is trying to preserve the existing neo-liberal structures by dominating suppliers in order to ensure low energy costs. At the same time, the economic links between the two are not terribly significant. Russia is dependent on Europe for capital investment and high tech, and on China for food and cheap consumer goods, while it supplies them with energy and arms. The US, on the other hand, is dependent on China and Japan for underwriting its increasing deficits and also for consumer goods, while it provides them access to its capital markets. In other words, if Shlapentokh is right in his characterization of the US and Russia as industrially declining powers, it stands to reason that they would ipso facto seek to establish complementary relationships with industrially dynamic powers, not with one another.
Iastreb
USA (Jul 25, '07)

I would like to comment on Kent Ewing's piece China's democracy debate: The end is nigh [Jul 25]. When [Chinese President] Hu Jintao commented: "What do you mean by a democracy?" what he was saying was simply that there are varied interpretations of democracy and varied ways of achieving democracy. For example, in the current presidential campaign in the US, there are already speculations that the total expense might reach [US]$1 billion for the two parties. Is this what you call a democracy? Wouldn't the money be best spent on health care, education, repairing social security and the aging infrastructure? The problem with Westerners is that they always believe that their way is the best and the only way, be it a political system or religious beliefs. Of course, it is apparent that they want China to follow their way so that they can influence China's policies. A candidate would need money to run a Western-style political campaign, and therefore he can be bought.
Wendy Cai
USA (Jul 25, '07)

To be fair, though, the US system is unusual in the larger scheme of Western democracy. In most democratic countries, small parties are able to make an impact without the vast expenditures seen in US federal politics. Even in the United States, at the civic, county or even state levels grassroots political movements are able to participate. - ATol

Spengler: In reading through the trove of your previous pieces, I came across your commentary of January 26, 2002, wherein you draw comparisons between option trading and geopolitics (Geopolitics in the light of option theory). While admittedly an exercise in simplification, I still feel there is value in the comparisons drawn. My question now is, with Chinese economic expansion occurring at the rate that it is, and with a newly rediscovered approach to dealings with the rest of the world (see recent dealings with Somalia for an example), would you still rate the United States as a long-option player? Do you remain convinced that "China shows little inclination to fish in stormy waters far from its shores. No power stands to gain from instability other than the United States itself"? If anything, the day-traders of the geopolitical world are stirring the waters, and the benefits to be gained from the resulting instability are not accruing to the US of A alone; if you are in the mood to revisit old writings (as with the recent justificative piece on genocide [In defense of genocide, redux, Jul 24]), please take another look at the way that the geopolitical markets fare today.
Patrick Kennedy
Ottawa, Ontario (Jul 25, '07)

Theta has been eating away at the US option for some time, and the unique American advantage is somewhat attenuated. I don't think China is a spoiler, but Russia might be, all the more so because America's idea of promoting stability conflicts sharply with perceived Russian interests in the near abroad. Then Iran wants to exploit a kind of instability, the sort that raises the poor Shi'ite masses against the Arab establishment. It has become a bit more complex. There is a parallel to the situation in Europe a century ago. In 1905, Germany was the potential beneficiary of the Russian Revolution and Russo-Chinese War, for it gave Berlin the opportunity to crush France quickly. Russia did not exercise the option, and by 1914, instability benefited no one. - Spengler

In his letter [Jul 24], China critic TaMu claimed, "The notion that China is staying out of the internal affairs of African countries is pure nonsense, as China routinely interferes in political, diplomatic and legal issues in African countries." I would like to ask TaMu to provide us with the evidence to support this claim. He somehow made "securing oil and other resources to feed the Chinese economic machine" sound like a despicable thing to do; I venture to ask, what's wrong with the PRC [People's Republic of China] wanting to secure these to fuel its economic growth? Did the Chinese come with guns, pointing them at the Africans, forcing them to sell their resources cheap? Did the Chinese shortchange them? Africa has what the PRC wants and the Chinese came with cash to purchase them. Is there anything wrong with this? TaMu and hordes of Westerners like him have accused the PRC of engaging in "neo-colonialism" in Africa, yet not telling us how it is so. What is the West doing in Africa? What has the West done in the past 60 years since the end of the World War II to help African battle civil wars and poverty, develop their economy [and] domestic industries and get them to stand on their own feet? What? Last, TaMu accused the Chinese of not caring enough about the Africans. Yes, the Chinese are guilty as charged. So [is] the rest of the world.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jul 25, '07)

In his response to my letter, [Kaushik] Venkatasubramaniyan (letter, Jul 20) looks positively at India's political development. He fails to see Indian's system is deteriorating, not improving. Once murderers and other criminals are elected, systemic decay is a matter of course. The old institutions established before their toxic arrival are barely hanging on. Further, India won't last another 200 years as is because it faces the challenges of climate change, which ... is going to have a disastrous effect on governments unable to provide for more and more of their citizens. The Indian government already provides [inadequately] for its citizens, which is why the Naxalites are increasing with leaps and bounds of late after being in remission for many decades. This is a symptom of failing government. Climate change will take care of the rest. India's political future requires changes now, not 200 or 1,000 years from now, I'm afraid. In fact, brave Indians know that and are trying to change the status quo. Mr Venkatasubramaniyan should support his beleaguered but brave nationals.
May Sage
USA (Jul 25, '07)

US President George W Bush explained to troops at Charleston Air Force Base that the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq in the post-invasion era represents a direct threat to the USA. However, we know that there were no links between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the US-led invasion. That leaves us with two possible conclusions: (1) the US-led invasion really has increased the al-Qaeda terror threat against the USA, and elsewhere, or (2) President Bush has had to create yet another perceived threat against the USA to bolster dwindling support for his misadventures in Iraq. Either way, President Bush himself has increased the threat of terrorism in the USA and abroad. Either way, President Bush is looking very bad.
Rory E Morty
Giessen, Germany (Jul 25, '07)

Because of the unwavering support of corporate America and the media that obey it, polls show that once again Americans are vacillating between being against or for the continuation of the Iraq war. With all the lies and abuse of power going on, its no wonder the people are confused. No sane American would tolerate another nation, other than America, attacking another country without provocation and calling it a "war of choice". Americans would fast denounce that scenario as a war of aggression, an illegal act against another sovereign nation, because that is in fact what it really is. This is how the mainstream American media have been packaging and selling us the Iraq war for five years, a war that is one of the greatest social and ethical failures of recent times. The invasion and failed occupation of Iraq have been falsely called a "war of choice". This is a dishonest, outrageous and truly degenerate way to portray this war of aggression. Our government, with the help of Congress, media and the military, is continuing to commit illegal and aggressive warfare on innocent civilians in Iraq. Many Americans, like sleeping sheep, don't seem to see anything wrong with this aggression, so long as it is committed by "our side". It has been said that a nation cannot behave like a tyrannical empire abroad and be a constitutional democracy at home. One or the other has to give. Moral hypocrisy is not only wrong and disgusting, it will ultimately bring destruction upon those who think they see clearly the fault in others but are oblivious to the same or worse faults in themselves.
Jerry Gerber
San Francisco, California (Jul 25, '07)

Commenting on the previous article by Spengler [letter, Jul 3], I pointed to his genocidal inclinations; unfortunately, his most recent rant [In defense of genocide, redux, Jul 24] proved me right. One interesting point that should be addressed here is his assertion that the great deal of credit for the decrease of violence in Africa goes to Christian evangelists who, allegedly, contributed to peace by spreading the "religion of peace". Christianity, Spengler seems to believe, is the most potent force for extinguishing violence in Africa; and since Africa used to be synonymous with genocide before Christianity came to the rescue, Christianity can and should play the same role in the rest of the world; so it follows that everyone should convert to Christianity; if the world rejects the "Prince of Peace" and, as an aftermath, the rejectionists suffer genocide and massacre each other to extinction, they deserve no less. This reasoning stands in stark contrast with the greater part of his article. In almost one breath Spengler suggests Christianity as a solution while providing the example of Europe, where not only did Christianity consistently fail to bring peace for almost a millennium and a half, but [it] served as a catalyst for wars and genocide (Spengler provides the example of mutual slaughtering of Catholic and Protestant Christians). Africa, and more specifically Rwanda, is also a good example. Rwanda is the most Christian country in Africa. According to the 1991 census, 90% of Rwandans were Christians, out of which 63% were Catholic, 19% Protestant and some 8% Adventist. Yet this didn't prevent Hutus [from massacring] Tutsis even though the great majority of both ethnic groups were Christians. If we also take into account the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity by various Christian groups against non-Christian minorities throughout history, it is very difficult to imagine Christianity as a driving force behind world peace; if history can teach us anything, it is that it is more likely that Christianity will act as a driving force behind wars rather than peace. Coming from an ethnic group which felt the full brunt of (Orthodox) Christian "love" on its back gives me more than enough reason to believe so.
Mustafa
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Jul 24, '07)

Spengler, in In defense of genocide, redux (Jul 23), should be very careful before making the largely unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that Christian evangelists have won tens of millions of Africans to a "religion of peace", thus concluding: "it seems very unlikely that the African solution, namely Christian evangelization, will have much effect in the Middle East." He appears to completely overlook the fact that one of the gravest sins committed by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches in the lead-up to the 1994 Rwandan genocide was their deliberate policy of polarizing the deep racial division between the ruling majority Hutus and the minority Tutsis. For example, if any priest was a Tutsi, he was not allowed under any circumstances to be promoted to the office of a bishop. With not less than 90% of the population Christian, Rwanda was favorably known before the genocide as the "most Christian nation in Africa". Spengler also gives us the impression that [US] Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is implicitly endorsing a policy of allowing genocide between rival Sunni and Shi'ite factions in Iraq to naturally take its course in the absence of US occupying forces. But what Senator Obama went on to say was this: "You can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun ... There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts." So if Christianity is truly to become a "religion of peace" in the Middle East (and also in Africa), then the answer to the prevention of genocide does not necessarily lie in "Christian evangelization". It lies in something that Spengler would most deeply resist - it lies in Christians making peace with Sunnis, Shi'ites and even al-Qaeda.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 24, '07)

Re Spengler [In defense of genocide, redux, Jul 24]: the American Civil War was understood by its participants as primarily being fought over tariffs, trade, and regionalism. The south was financed to a large degree by the Rothschilds of Britain who desired a resource-rich supplier of raw materials. Only with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 did slavery gain center stage. It is estimated that only 11% of the south's soldiers owned slaves.
Richard J Johnson (Jul 24, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad [Pakistan in the grip of a big squeeze, Jul 24]: You have talked about [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf and the big squeeze on him, and how the chief justice's reinstatement is a major setback. Why don't I read anywhere that Musharraf is an honest man who could have influenced this decision? Politicians have influenced decisions in the past and this is not unheard of. Is it just about winning and losing and not caring about what is right for the country? There was a time I used to talk about democracy, but not anymore. What has democracy actually brought us? Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was smart but an arrogant man, Benazir Bhutto and Mr 10%, Nawaz Sharif and his Mayfair flats, who declared Rs56 in income tax. If you look at the history of Pakistan, Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto, who was Benazir's grandfather, was awarded the title of "Sir". These titles, along with large parcels of land, were given to the people who sided with the British against their own people. Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir's brother, was someone who believed in Sindhudesh [a nationalistic concept for Sindh province]. So how can this family lead Pakistan with dignity and honesty? You can take a person out of his background, but remember, you cannot take the background out of him. This is exactly how the Bhuttos are. Whatever Musharraf and the military have done, it has brought some sort of progress. Hopefully he will be around a long time and prove to be a Mahathir [Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia] of Pakistan.
Fatima (Jul 24, '07)

I agree with you that all past Pakistani governments did pressure the courts. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Syed Saleem Shahzad's article [Pakistan in the grip of a big squeeze, Jul 24] shows that consistency and coherence have long been foreign to American policy. In Afghanistan, before the invasion of Iraq, as American troops were closing in on Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, the top brass suddenly decided to delegate the pursuit to some underpaid Afghan fighters who let Osama elude capture, supposedly for a small bribe. The US wanted Osama free to play the bogeyman for Americans as it propagandized a strong link between Saddam Hussein and Osama. This left Pakistan to play the role of partner with the US, even though Saddam couldn't stand Osama and Pakistan had played footsie with Osama, at least by backing his Taliban hosts. What went wrong is that the US never had a chance of succeeding in Iraq. Now that parts of the American public are seeing that Iraq's a lost cause, Washington needs new targets. Iran's proving to be a tough match, so Pakistan's untamed zone bordering Afghanistan will have to do. The timing's urgent, considering that Afghanistan's looking like a lost cause too. Besides, Pakistan already has the bomb, a no-no for Muslim countries. If non-Americans find that all this zigzagging is bewildering, it's because they lack the benefit of Washington's domestic propaganda, which consists in applying the rule that a false premise can justify any conclusion.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jul 24, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I thought I'd drop a line to say that I really find your reports from Pakistan to be informative and well put together. Many thanks, and please keep them coming. One question I have for you is regarding the balance of forces on the ground between the Islamists, on the one hand, and secular-democratic and progressive forces on the other. It is difficult to gauge this from where I am (in the US), but I have read some reports about groups like the Labour Party of Pakistan, for instance, which are both anti-Musharraf but also secular and progressive. What is your estimation of the size and strength of these forces? This points to a larger question, which at this stage is not simply a matter of idle speculation, in my opinion: What will replace [President General Pervez] Musharraf when (not if) his government collapses?
Nagesh
Ewing, New Jersey (Jul 24, '07)

Apparently, the Labour Party (a very small left-wing party) and the like are supposed to be on the side of Musharraf as he is secular and liberal. This is what people think who analyze the situation from outside Pakistan. The politically progressive forces in Pakistan take seriously Musharraf's liberal and secular ideas. The strongmen around Musharraf are all known conservatives, such as Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Sheikh Rasheed, Mohammed Ali Durrani, Ejazul Haq and Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain and others. After Musharraf, of course, the Islamists would never be able to control the levers of power. The Pakistan Army is strong enough to do whatever it likes. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Though I applaud the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to restore its suspended chief justice [Iftikhar Mohammad] Chaudry to his office, it is high time that the corrupt judges, lawyers and advocates are brought to book by the revitalized and reborn pretenders of an honest judiciary in Pakistan. It is the lawmakers and the probationers of law who have been the biggest violators of the law in Pakistan's history of 60 years. The corrupt judiciary and its holders have in the past cajoled, connived and contrived with the incompetent, incapable, greedy, lusty [sic] and maligned politicians and army generals by bringing them in power and supporting their governments. They broke every norm of judicial and constitutional authority bestowed upon them by the nation and condoned abject miscarriage of justice on the poor, weak, meek and powerless of the country ... I wish that all those lawyers and advocates who demonstrated for the lawful restoration of an autonomous judiciary in Pakistan should look into their own misty careers and devil's mirrors and clear their dirty acts and conscience.
Jalal Rumi (Jul 24, '07)

Re China's risky bet in Somalia [Jul 24]: Alan Wolfe has written a very telling article. It is [clear] that the bloom is off the rose of China's charm offensive of Africa. Beijing is using the tried and true colonial strategy of dividing and conquering in Somalia. It is not hedging its bets; it has put its money on President Abdullahi Yusuf, and he has responded fully to China's backing by granting the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) the right to explore for oil in Somalia's relatively peaceful northern Puntland, which may or may not have rich deposits of oil which Beijing needs. Yusuf has thrown caution to the wind by allowing China to have majority control of 51% of the oil found and produced, which is nothing more than proof positive that he is willing to take China's money in the hope that nothing of importance is found - for if, as China and the foreign oil giants suspect, northern Puntland is a treasure trove of oil, Yusuf has surrendered to foreign control Somalia's natural-resources patrimony and is mortgaging its future as a Chinese banana republic. China has no patience for democratic niceties; it prefers strongmen with a penchant for corruption. The newly signed northern Puntland agreement, as Wolfe so archly points out, is but a twin brother of the oil law which the United States is trying to shove down [the throats of] its friends in Baghdad. Both Washington and Beijing having voracious appetites for oil; it is little wonder that each resorts to the same modus operandi in justifying the means to the same end.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 24, '07)

Re China's risky bet in Somalia [Jul 24]: It sure didn't take long for the people of Africa to begin to turn on their new colonial masters. China's claim of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries may play well with Africa's dictators, but the average African on the street can plainly see what is really happening - yet another foreign power arriving on the continent to loot the natural resources for its citizens back home at the expense of the people of Africa. The notion that China is staying out of the internal affairs of African countries is pure nonsense, as China routinely interferes in political, diplomatic and legal issues in African countries. Since it lacks the technology to compete with Western firms, China's selling point is that it can willingly turn a blind eye to the horrific human-rights abuses on the African continent in the name of doing business. This may have worked in the short term, but it appears that the tide is beginning to turn against China already in some areas of Africa. This is going to end up being a lousy policy in the long term; just look at what supporting dictators in Central and South America has bred for the United States. Let's be very clear why China, whose citizens are extremely prejudiced against African people in general, is doing business in Africa. It is only to secure oil and other resources to feed the Chinese economic machine. Outside of that, China could [not] care less about Africa and the people [who] live there.
TaMu
China (Jul 24, '07)

[Re Beware the 'old China' syndrome, Jul 24] Sunny Lee's recent articles on his observations in China may have earned good reviews from his peers. While the majority of foreign journalists are bona fide reporters, one can only be very naive to believe that none of them has some personal agenda or a mission from his/her publisher or even government. Granted that many a country may have more advanced techniques of surveillance than China. But it should be crystal-clear to a fair-minded professional whether he or she needs to be concerned. Fair reporting on governmental or social ills is part of a journalist's job. But frequent holier-than-thou reporting surely will raise attention of the host country. One part of a foreign journalist's work should be to cultivate and promote understanding and friendship between two peoples. A balance between conflicting interests is not easy but should be sought.
S P Li (Jul 24, '07)

I find it atrocious that Mahan Abedin, in Iran's clerical spymasters (Jul 21), should provide us with such a lengthy exposition of Iran's internal intelligence operations all for the explicit purpose of demolishing the argument that the recent detentions of four Iranian-Americans in Iran "must be understood in the context of worsening tensions between Iran and the United States". This argument, Mr Abedin goes on to say, not only assumes the "complete innocence" of the accused, but moreover dabbles in "amateurish analysis". Well, the conclusion Mr Abedin draws from his own "amateurish analysis" is this: "By creating a more open information society, the Iranian government would lessen the incentive for Western intelligence services to recruit individual Iranians to access information that they cannot obtain through other means." In other words, the four Iranian-Americans are all guilty of spying on the presumption that if Iran were more open, then the US would no longer need to resort to such unconventional means as sending these four academics to Iran for intelligence-gathering purposes. What Mr Abedin cannot answer, however, is, why were the detainees arrested on the very eve of the first direct, bilateral and publicly announced talks in a generation between the US and Iran? Moreover, are not these allegations plainly linked to the five Iranian officials already held by US forces in Iraq on suspicion of being spies? Looming in the background is Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons, and no amount of tiptoeing by Mr Abedin (or ATol's Dr Kaveh L Afrasiabi) can sufficiently camouflage the regime's apocalyptic intentions of staging its own nuclear Armageddon.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 23, '07)

Re Iran's clerical spymasters [Jul 21]: Mahan Abedin's insights are eye-opening. In the US, we humble citizens get little information about what goes on inside Iran because our government and the news media are more interested in feeding us propaganda that aims at making a military strike against Iran look like a good thing to do. The only part of Abedin's article that gives rise to doubt is the implication that American intelligence efforts have improved since 1989. They can't have improved all that much, considering how by going into Iraq, the US has handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. This is something that any American with half a brain could foresee before the invasion. Maybe Iran doesn't get enough credit for its agents in the US who lobbied for war against Saddam [Hussein]. Moreover, maybe it doesn't get enough credit for its agents who got the US to tell Israel to invade Lebanon last year, another rousing success.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jul 23, '07)

Reading Mahan Abedin's interesting Iran's clerical spymasters [Jul 21] brings to mind the great German historian Leopold von Ranke's pithy saying: "Wenn Gott mit uns ist, wer ist wider uns?" ("Whenever or if God is with us, who can be against us?") In the Islamic Republic of Iran's scheme of things, religion and (secular) power at times rise to equity and identity. Ferreting out violators of Shi'a Islam at home and arresting Iranian-born scholars living abroad as handmaidens of the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency are] examples of the Islamic state flexing its muscles by using its power to coercively enforce its laws. On one hand, it is symptomatic that Tehran has cleared the playing field as though it were at war. It exhibits a fortress mentality threatened, wrongly or rightly, by President [George W] Bush's America or Israel or exile groups here and there in Europe and the United States. On the other hand, it is an indication that internally its base of support has shifted ... Thus, snapping the whip, Iran has come down hard to rein in a drift from the pillars of its 1979 revolution. It is an exercise of the use of power through the dark arts of spies, for example, to use religion to maintain power. This show of the state's power to enforce its rules has gone to a ludicrous extreme by hanging 14 squirrels.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 23, '07)

Iranian vendor Hassan Mohmmadi had the best local analysis of the squirrel crackdown: "I bet they were British squirrels, they are the most cunning." Syndicated US columnist Mark Steyn disagreed, however: "I'm prepared to believe that a crack team of rodents from NUTS (the Ninja Undercover Team of Squirrels) abseiled into key installations in Iran and garroted the Revolutionary Guards, but not that the US and British governments had anything to do with it." - ATol

Re The new imperialism [Jul 21]: I certainly agree with you, [Chan] Akya. The new imperialism is basically to dominate the world and maintain the status quo. The [newly] emerging Asian industrialized countries like China, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and the rest ... should be more cautious with the EU [European Union] and the US, with their new imperialistic strategies. The Asian financial crises is just an example and should be a reference for future economic strategy. The Asian emerging industrialized countries mentioned above should lay out new strategies to counter the US and EU. Asia or APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum] should succeed free form intervention from the EU, the US and the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. A free, strong and independent APEC or newly industrialized countries should bond together and make their region prosper and peaceful with dignity and respect to the global economy, and political issues. What is the next strategy? Maybe a new non-aligned economic [organization of newly] industrialized nations led by China, India and Russia, and not EU and US imperialism.
Tom Lasam
USA (Jul 23, '07)

David Llorito's Filipino diaspora moves up value chain [Jul 21] ... shows where the root of the problem is. The onus is clearly on the Philippine government to provide the environment for economic advancement of home-grown talent. Otherwise global companies will cherry-pick the best brains from the available pool. This requires spending for major infrastructure, business- and worker-friendly tax structure, and a united government. But as usual, the political bickering among the elite is keeping the country from fully realizing its potential. Now, if we could only outsource politicians ...
Jo Veno (Jul 23, '07)

Re India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism (Jul 4): Benign Chinese ([letter] Jul 10) and Joseph (letter, Jul 9) both seem to forget that India is a member of NAM [the Non-Aligned Movement], meaning that it is not interested in any alliances against anyone else, especially not against one of its powerful neighbors. India knows well that China's development is in its interest and that any conflict or disturbances in the region will hurt its own development towards becoming a powerful nation. India has its own strategic direction and ambitions, it is mature enough not to let itself be used against anyone else and will not do anything stupid that would disrupt its path to economic and social progress. India as a regional power wants to become a global power and has taken positive steps in improving its relations with neighboring countries, including with Pakistan, since it knows that regional stability is essential for its own economic and social development.
Humayun
Quebec, Canada (Jul 23, '07)

While Shawn Crispin usually does a fine job of covering Thai politics, his recent articles on Thailand's economy leave plenty to be desired. In the space of six months, he wrote stories saying Thailand's economy has bottomed out and is busily employing the king's self-sufficiency model to the economy is doing extremely well and the self-sufficiency model is largely being ignored. Then you had Edward Russell, in between times, reinforcing the notion that the Thai economy has tanked [Thailand's free-falling economy, Jun 20]. Well, can you guys make up your mind? Surely there can't be that much vacillation in the Thai economic picture, whiplashing from the bottom to the top in less than six months? After living and reporting on the Thai maritime sector for 16 years, I confirm that you can get anyone to say anything about the Thai economy, politics and culture, but surely there are sources with more measured and accurate opinions than those cited.
Tony Gillotte (Jul 23, '07)

Thailand's economic picture has been mixed over the past calendar year, with exports growing way above projections despite a fast-appreciating currency, while domestic consumer and investor sentiment are in the doldrums because of the unresolved political situation. Because 70% of Thailand's gross domestic product is dependent on exports, and less so on domestic consumption, the economy has held up relatively well, at least in broad financial terms. Foreign investors were understandably spooked last December when the military-appointed government applied capital controls and tweaked the Foreign Business Act, which appeared to many to be an actual implementation of the protectionist "sufficiency economy" concept chief economic policymakers were espousing, including then-finance and chief economics minister Pridiyathorn Devakula. Much of the recent recovery in foreign sentiment, seen in the recent surge of capital flows on to the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), has notably coincided with Pridiyathorn's departure and the appointment of new Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkan, a well-known free-marketeer, and the relaxation of the capital controls. Our most recent economics-related piece, From political darkness, economic light (Jul 7), noted that although not yet seen in the actual economic statistics, foreign investors clearly anticipate an uptick in domestic demand as the country appears headed smoothly toward new democratic elections and the prospect of the market-friendly Democrats taking the helm of a new coalition government. Thailand's economic prospects are still highly dependent on exogenous variables, mostly foreign investment and global trade trends. The happy sentiment now witnessed on the SET could again shift dramatically if anti-junta protests pick up steam, as witnessed unexpectedly on July 22, or a more nationalist, military proxy party prevails at the next polls over the pro-market Democrats. Stay tuned. - Shawn Crispin

I ran across the article Spinning the Korean model [Jun 14] by Beverly Darling. I was not that familiar about Korea, although my husband fought in the war. The article was very interesting and I did not realize this happened to South Korea. I don't regret my husband serving in Korea (he has passed away), but my question is, why did the US put up with corrupt and ruthless leaders? Will the same happen in Iraq?
Joanna (Jul 23, '07)

Theoretically that is up to the US electorate, but in practice, at least since the end of World War II, the pattern of US support for brutal, murderous dictatorships has been well established (eg nearly every country in Latin America during the Cold War). - ATol

I have been reading Asia Times [Online] for a while now and I [cannot resist expressing] how I feel about the articles from various writers. All the articles are comprehensive in terms of research and expression of the same. I read all the Asia Times [Online] articles right from the start to the end - the content is packed with so much spark to light the day ahead.
Nandhakumar (Jul 23, '07)

Surely, the Supreme Court ruling [on July 20 reinstating Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry] is a milestone in the judicial history of Pakistan. Not only has the chief justice has been restored; the independence of the judiciary has been vindicated for all times. It has clearly, implicitly but also explicitly, declared the present and past military interventions as ultra vires of the constitution and illegal. The verdict leaves no room for [President General Pervez] Musharraf and army to stay. It consigns them to their constitutional role: the barracks. Musharraf must leave for a caretaker government to hold a free and [fair] election to let stability come to Pakistan and free it from [US President George W] Bush's chains and clear the putrefied mess created by him.The political leaders have to now act more sagaciously and learn from their past blunders.
A Mustafa Billaly
Peshawar, Pakistan (Jul 23, '07)

Re Iraq exit a simple alternative for US [Jul 20]: Thank you for posting Dan Smith's comments. He makes sense, which is why those who decide things in Washington will ignore him.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jul 20, '07)

Re the article Iraq exit a simple alternative for US [Jul 20] by Daniel Smith: President [George W] Bush is as much undaunted today as he was when, in late 2005, he told Republican leaders: "I will not withdraw from Iraq if Laura and Barney [his dog] are the only ones supporting me." With the continued bloodshed and bloodletting in Iraq and increasing disaffection and defection among [Republicans], that moment of truth is becoming a reality and drawing nearer and nearer. I would not be surprised if Barney (the dog) would run away before his master becomes senile in isolation ... Unfortunately, Mr Bush has two more years of his last term remaining, which has alarmed many Republican senators who are thinking more in terms of saving their own skins ... His foes as well as his many friends are now openly saying that he is possibly the worst president in American history.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 20, '07)

Sami Moubayed's piece regarding Loose Saudi cannons in Lebanon [Jul 20] is quite interesting. He touches on the Saudi incidence of suicide bombing. I wonder why the fact of suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia is known and is being mentioned more, but writers either seem to be too timid to explore the reasons that Saudi Arabia nurtures more than [its] share of terrorists or do not have the information. External influences impact all countries that might breed terrorists, but the Saudis have more than their share. Who has a definitive answer?
Jim of Southern California
USA (Jul 20, '07)

Sunny Lee's Ladies first: China opens to Korean refugees [Jul 20] sets off the ditty in my mind's ear of "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm / After they've seen Pa-ree?" [Sam M Lewis and Joe Young, 1919]. Rapid industrialization and explosive economic development in China correspond with migration from and depopulation of the countryside where life is rude and the laborious routine of the peasantry remain frozen in time. Add to this the one-child policy, which favored man-made selection of boys and the abortion of girl fetuses, thereby creating a large reserve of bachelors who remain wedded to the land. Beijing has found a way to find these men a bride by issuing "resident permits" to North Korean women refugees. And marriage offers a refuge and a less bleak future [than that] from which these women fled. Lee paints a smiling face to China's change of heart, but scratch the surface [and] the central Chinese government has assumed the role of marriage broker to solve a social problem. South Korea's and Japan's aging rural bachelors fare no better. But they find wives in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia. These two neighbors of China mirror the same plight. Japan's trouble stems from a low birth rate and [an] aging population. Still the countryside diminishes in importance and in keeping its young. There is no nostalgia nor longing for the difficult life of the farmer, nor for "The Deserted Village" about which Oliver Goldsmith waxed so poetic in 18th-century England.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 20, '07)

Re May Sage's response [Jul 17] to my letter of July 16: The US has been governing itself for more than 200 years and Europe for 1,000 years. So to expect India to reach their level of development or anything close to it in 60 years as an independent nation is a farce. Political power eventually leads to development for marginalized people. The development process itself is usually messy. That has been the norm for pretty much all of human history; and any action has an equal and opposite reaction whether it is justified or not. So if there were protesters against the Mandal Commission recommendations [on quotas for lower castes in Indian educational institutions] it was due to this law. That does not mean that the protesters don't want everyone to benefit. It just means that they don't want to be penalized for their ancestors' faults.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan
Indian living in Budapest, Hungary (Jul 20, '07)

I have been reading [and] printing [Henry] C K Liu's articles for more than two years. To my regret, the recent articles were divided in five parts. This is very inconvenient for me and for other readers who wish to print the articles. Please reconsider the methods of printing, as I think many readers are not satisfied in printing but reading.
Kazuo Okamoto
Japan (Jul 20, '07)

Long articles are divided into multiple pages to increase the number of page impressions, which increases our revenue from advertisers. We believe most readers don't mind a little inconvenience if it keeps Asia Times Online a free service. - ATol

I have one comment to make regarding Al-Qaeda regrouping points to US attack [Jul 19] by Michael Scheuer. Everyone - including [US President George W] Bush, [Vice President Richard] Cheney and the other neo-cons - knows the only possible way the Republicans can win re-election in 2008 and continue to hold power is if there is another significant terrorist attack on US soil. Human nature being what it is, in the resulting climate of fear they will ride to victory and brush aside their opponents with ease. Given what we know about the scruples of the people currently in power in the US, can there be any doubt that such an incident will be allowed, promoted or, if necessary, even staged?
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Jul 19, '07)

The terrorist threat to the US homeland [Jul 19] underscores the core truth about Bush administration policy. It has made the world much less safe. Obviously that wasn't the Bush goal. But because the Bush goals involved a neo-conservative agenda that benefits the elite strata of American society, the good of the majority was not and is not a factor considered. So the enhanced dangers of terrorism, the continuing deadly impact of Iraq, the suffering of Iraqi citizens, the displacement of Iraqis, the warming of our planet, the alienation of others, and the curtailment of human rights are not important. The neo-con agenda has precedence over all.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Jul 19, '07)

I watched with dismay a CNN newscast graphically depicting, on several separate occasions, the torture and summary execution of alleged al-Qaeda members by US-backed Sunni Arab militias in Iraq. Equally disturbing was the accompanying speech by US President George W Bush praising these same US-backed militias for their efforts in dealing with alleged al-Qaeda members. President Bush's tacit support for torture and extrajudicial executions, while disturbing, is hardly surprising. However, does anybody else see the writing on the wall? It was US-backed ... militias in Afghanistan that later became the much-hated Taliban, and ultimately our [US] reason for invading and occupying Afghanistan. How long will it be before these US-backed militias become our next reason to invade and "liberate" Iraq again?
Rory E Morty
Giessen, Germany (Jul 19, '07)

North Korea: The unsung success [Jul 19] has a sniff of revisionism to it. Nirav Patel brings little color to the background leading up to Pyongyang's decision to shut down its nuclear facilities. US special envoy Christopher Hill indeed does deserve praise, but he was not leading with his left in the decisions leading up to North Korea's proactive diplomacy. In a word, the assistant secretary of state was on the ropes throughout his discussions with his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-gwan. The Bush White House had to retreat step by step so that Pyongyang [would] carry out the terms of the February Beijing accords. It had to do a double backward flip, overriding its own Department of Treasury ruling not to unblock some US$25 million of North Korea's funds held at the Banco Delta Asia, so that it could snatch a failed aggressive policy towards Pyongyang from complete and utter doom. Mr Patel has chosen to give the matter a blank-slate coating. It is useful to remember the fumbling moves of former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger during his negotiations with the North Vietnamese. He gave in on practically all of Hanoi's demands.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 19, '07)

Re Divorce, Chinese style [Jul 18]: I don't know about "Western moral norms" - I tend to agree with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi about "Western civilization" in general - but these manipulations of domestic arrangements - or at least the manner in which they are reported to the authorities - would be immediately recognizable here in Sweden.
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jul 19, '07)

It's very interesting to realize how some Asia Times [Online] writers tend to tie their subjects, when about Japan, to a kind of "the sky is fallen" [sic] sense. In Hisane Masaki's [Jul 17] article More proof of the Rising Sun's eclipse we can see this pattern again clearly since the beginning, the title. Actually, under a reasonable perspective, Japan does not have to worry about not being the world's largest aid donor, because its effort has achieved the goals of development, freedom and peace of poor countries, especially the neighbors. South Korea is a good example [of] how Japan aid worked and, in the same way, other Asian countries [are] doing well. Now, Japan can decrease the assistance effort and let neighbors like South Korea and China contribute to the world too. Now we expect that the new wealthy nations of Asia [will] follow Japan's example of friendship, helping other countries to achieve [development], with [responsibility], freedom and peace.
M Murata (Jul 19, '07)

The USA and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] are trying to destabilize and politically destroy Pakistan in order to invade [the northwest] and Waziristan, alleged as havens for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The recent military operation in the Lal Masjid and subsequent killing of over 60 army personnel in bomb attacks as well as [this week]'s suicide bombing at a political rally called by lawyers in support of the suspended chief justice points to a bigger conspiracy manipulated by Pakistan's enemies, including the inept [President Hamid] Karzai's government of Afghanistan.
Jalal (Jul 19, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: In your article Pakistan struggles with damage control [Jul 18], you are trying your best to convince the world that the problem of extremism is with Pashtuns. For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that there is a religious ideology behind the Taliban/extremism movement which sustains them. Then the question arises, where does the motivation for that ideology comes from? Deobandi school of thought? Many others of the type, Pakistani state-funded muftis, and Pakistani state-sponsored mullahs? Where [does] this religious ideology comes from? Do you know that all these things are not indigenous to the Pashtuns at all? Pashtuns, being a proud nation with history going back [thousands] of years, do not need a religious identity - in other words, the use of religion as a means for acquiring political power either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. In fact the crisis of identity is with the Pakistani state, which needs religion to bind it together in the absence of any meaningful contract [among] the various groups for a collective well-being of all its citizens. You remove that religious motivation and preach secularism for a while and the phenomenon of Talibanization will recede automatically, because it is superfluous, imposed and not indigenous to the Pashtun culture, which offers a much better alternative identity. The fact of the matter is that Taliban/extremists were not a force/movement until they were given a political agenda, to control Afghanistan and marginalize the Pashtun nationalists in the context of Pak-Afghan relations. Which means that there is nothing religious about the Taliban - it's the political agenda behind that facade which needs to be addressed/neutralized if there has to be a long-lasting solution to the problem. The moment that political agenda is addressed, the Taliban phenomenon will recede.
Azmal Pashtonyaar (Jul 18, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: In your article Pakistan struggles with damage control [Jul 18] you mention Maulana Masood Azhar. Being from the area, I know for a fact that some time back, Maulana Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Mohammed from Punjab, was very active in Swat. It is intriguing, though, that we don't hear of him anymore. There seems to be a strategic silence on his part. It seems his patron, that is, the Pakistan Army, has instructed all mullahs of Punjab to keep a low profile. I well remember [that] during the Taliban era, this mullah from Lahore, Dr Israr Ahmad, used to visit Pashtun areas and tell people how hadiths (Prophet Mohammed's sayings) have predicted the emergence of "forces of Islam" from Khurasan (he called Afghanistan plus the NWFP [North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan] areas Khurasan) that will conquer the world.
Babagul (Jul 18, '07)

Re Beijing keeps Pakistan honest [Jul 18]: Tarique Niazi provides a good laundry list of China's activities in Pakistan. Its presence there is a thin veil of old-fashioned realpolitik. Pakistan, as Niazi suggests, serves Beijing's strategic interests. Killing Chinese workers and kidnapping Chinese migrants in Pakistan will not deter China from its goals. By building a major port and improving Islamabad's infrastructure and opening reclusive Waziristan to the modern world, Beijing has, as Niazi notes, invested heavily in time and money in Pakistan. Niazi is spot on in saying that Chinese diplomats express fears and concerns privately, but events have gone so far that they do see with startling clarity the precarious nature of the Pakistani state. Broadly speaking, China prefers the stewardship of President General Pervez Musharraf, since it ensures Beijing's preference for strongmen and state-dominated business, which permits the flow of China's billions into the right pockets. The assault on the Lal Masjid consummated the divorce between the Musharraf government and the ultra-religious forces. Yet nothing in Niazi's article hints at the quiet movement of concessional and commercial loans to purchase Chinese-made materiel and weapons to swell further Pakistan's fat arsenals. President General Musharraf better serves Beijing's interests as well as he does Washington's, and [therefore] China will go a long way to protect him and his regime.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 18, '07)

Donald Kirk is stirring old chestnuts in Pyongyang shuts reactor, opens mouth [Jul 17]. You might go as far as saying that he is being a bit churlish. Old Korea hands expect that Pyongyang does not live up to its word. It is true that in October 2002 a senior North Korean official acknowledged to a US team led by James Kelly the existence of a program for developing nuclear warheads with enriched uranium, which violated the 1994 agreement. North Korea may have been signaling the United States that it was ready for serious horse-trading in light of the fact that Washington had long dragged its feet on the same accord [under] which it promised Pyongyang light-water nuclear reactors. (John Bolton was part of Kelly's team, and during that trip Mr Bolton, with [his] usual lack of civility and diplomatic [tact], openly insulted Kim Jong-il.) It is not difficult to say that North Korea acts purposefully, but the United States, owing to its faulty intelligence on North Korea, often lacks concrete information. It often scrambles to get up to speed. The Bush White House went on full alert when North Korea tested a nuclear device in 2006. Like the Red Queen in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the president and his team had to run faster to stay in place. In the end, President [George W] Bush at the six-power conference had to yell uncle. One, the US held bilateral talks with North Korea; two, for shutting down Yongbyon, Washington agreed to terms which ultimately would open the path to diplomatic recognition and trade and, yes, with South Korean funding the building of light-water reactors on hold since the 1994 agreement. Pyongyang has now asked for talks with the US military. Even for an old Korea hand like Donald Kirk, this demand is a further signal that North Korea has changed tack and is wanting to end the state of war [with] the United Nations represented by the US. This would lay finally to rest the 1954 armistice, replacing it with a peace treaty, thereby ending at long last the Korean War. For too long Koreanologists have come to believe their own dire predictions and prejudices when it comes to North Korea. A shift in the wind in Pyongyang has long been noticeable, but the change in climate has too long been ignored. It no longer can be.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 17, '07)

My understanding is that most Asian central banks put their excess US dollar reserve mostly into US Treasuries. And I was curious that the article The robbery of the century [Jul 14] by Chan Akya indicated that most Asian central banks also hold mortgage securities. I was also impressed by the assertion that the extra time offered by the rating agencies was to be used by investment banks to put most of the CDOs [collateralized debt obligations] to Asian central banks. But the problem [of] these CDOs [is] huge. How come there [is] no market reaction or commentary from major newspaper on the fire sale [of the century]?
Charles Yen
Hong Kong (Jul 17, '07)

Obviously both China and India have something to offer the continent of Africa in the article India pushes people power in Africa [Jul 13]. In the case of China, it has the "deep pockets" to sign up mega-deals; it also has a communist system of repression of its people who are paid slave-labor salaries, the vast [degradation] of its environment, [and] the control of its media so its citizenry are ill-informed to the benefit of Beijing. I am not being sarcastic, as reports state that China has the highest rate of executions in the world, an abysmal record of its mining industry, and now even its exports of food. In the case of pet food alone coming from China to the US and Canada, hundreds of pets have died eating Chinese-produced pet food; all in the name [of gaining] an extra penny. Though bad as it is, China has profited well. Maybe the Africans should also follow China's method of economics backed by a brutal regime. On the other hand, India does not have the deep pockets of China. Part of the reason is multifold. India's corruption is notorious, but India's economy started growing only in the early '90s while China had taken this path in the late '70s. Yet within this short period of time India has more billionaires than China. India, like China, is also [degrading] its environment, but unlike China, India's population under a democratic system have the right to protest or take the matter to courts, and they are actively doing so. And unlike China, India's media [are] free for expression of all kinds without any brutal reprisal from New Delhi. An economy of a nation cannot be just judged by how much money it makes at any cost (as in the case with China). It has to include the freedom of expression, the freedom from fear of government and the freedom to change a government that puts money ahead of the well-being of its citizenry. India's democracy allows its people this choice while China does not. Regarding the disparity of the rich versus the poor, China is not exempt from that. The eastern part of China is dirt-poor and estimates state that there is a population of over 100 million whose land has been confiscated by Beijing. I agree that China has raised the level of wealth of some of its citizens but not the freedom that should go with it. Though India has vast numbers of very poor people, they have direct access to the world's technologies through India's many satellites. The practice of democracy is tedious and many times difficult to implement, since democracies have to take into account the various opinions of her people before any major project is undertaken. So should Africa mimic China and get rich quickly using brute force (for those privileged few) or follow the arduous path of a democratic open-market system that India offers? To claim that India alone is burdened with inequities in wealth distribution stretches the truth to the point that it becomes a lie. Wealth disparities fully exist in China as well as in India or even the United States, whose wealth far exceeds India's and China's economies put together, but I haven't read [of] any finger-pointing by the Chinese towards the US or any other wealthy Western nation. Why is that? I would presume that if China starts criticizing the West it just may lose that one precious penny.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Jul 17, '07)

Siddharth Srivastava's article A US$10bn scramble for India's fighter jets [Jul 12] is surely informative and gives interesting details about the struggle of the leading military-industrial complexes for the Indian mega-order. I only have one comment: if India chooses one of the US fighters but at the same time pursues an independent foreign policy in Asia, it just might be in for an unpleasant surprise ahead. When the US doesn't get [its] way, or finds another state's foreign and domestic conduct conflicting with key US interests, it uses this state's reliance on American technology to pressure and sometimes even sabotage the state's defense and security policies. Look at Venezuela and at Pakistan, among others - how long had the latter waited to receive American F-16 fighters? Venezuela has faced problems with parts, maintenance, and upgrades to its American and European (those with American components and technology) hardware. Iran found out that even the allegedly sovereign and independent states cannot stand up to US pressure when Germany canceled its nuclear-power-plant deal with Tehran. Pakistan has turned to China for some of its air-force needs. On the other hand, Russian has fulfilled arms contracts with its main customers, notwithstanding US pressure. Given [the United States'] deep involvement in and penetration of Europe, contracts with EADS might not be safe from political reverberations of India's independent line in Asia if it contradicts US plans. Strategically the safest and least vulnerable choice would be Russia, followed by France and Sweden.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Jul 17, '07)

Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan [letter, Jul 16] seems to only live in a world of symbolism. The issue is not about political power. Further, Mayawati has been in power before, but how has she positively changed lot of the dalits? When the issue of the Manda Commission came up there was much talk about reservation [quotas], but [I know] what minority power means in practice ... Further, when 94% of students drop out between kindergarten and 10+2, who rules the roost? ...
May Sage
USA (Jul 17, '07)

I refer to the letters by Dr Tojo (Jul 13) and Salt (Jul 16). As to Salt's letter, no doubt there is a fear that China may be a "hegemon bent on conquest", but the actual hegemon, as we all know, was Japan, [which] attempted to set up a Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity sphere, as I recall. That is the key difference. True, China's and both North and South Korea's harping on atrocities committed many years ago, in light of their own less than perfect record, may sound disingenuous and grating to those outside of Asia. An outsider would also be right to ask why the major powers can't make up like the Europeans. However, unlike Germany, Japan has never properly reflected on its actions during World War II and considers its actions above reproof. The comments about the World War II sex slaves or "comfort women", by the Japanese prime minister no less, show just how little Japan has changed in its core set of values and thinking, choosing to suffer from selective amnesia. Time and again, this shows up in their [Japanese] attempt to rewrite history to gloss over their naked aggression. More callously, Japan is seen to wait [until] the last of the "comfort women" die out so as to sweep everything under the carpet. Of course, one must credit the Japanese for being an equal opportunity (ab)user of women (and men) from China, Holland (in the Dutch Indies), Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Thanks in no small part to their continued need for aid, the other Asian countries which suffered under Japanese Imperialism have to mute their concerns and seethe silently while holding the begging bowl. Perhaps if Dr Tojo were to step outside of the exclusive Japanese clubs, he [could] begin to realize how jarringly different [is] the perception the locals of the Japanese. While the Chinese and the Koreans are seen in a less than complimentary light, the Japanese are viewed with greater disdain, for the Japanese are seen as condescending with an air of superiority. Believed to be congenitally insular, to put it politely, the Japanese shut themselves away from the locals and the locals from them. Interestingly, Dr Tojo's letter also gives an insight to the keen sense of neighborliness that Japan had "during that most desperate of times for Asia". Instead of assisting, it joined the imperialist powers in the gang-rape of Asia. While it is prudent that we watch China with a wary eye, we must also remain equally wary of our unreconstructed "friend" as Dr Tojo tellingly ends with the note "how right Japan was and is".
DV (Jul 17, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your article about happenings in Swat [A new front opens in Pakistan, Jul 14] is much deeper and more detailed than anything in the American mainstream news. These events and the siege of the Red Mosque seem very ominous. A huge problem here in America is that Americans know very little about the world - and they don't much care, as long as they can feel safe. It is a great tragedy for all humans. I believe we need to read and see people who are on location and have some original connection with the culture. Great reporting, thanks. I just wish more Americans would wake up from the materialistic stupor that keeps them in confusion and fear and under the control of professional liars.
David
California, USA (Jul 16, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad's article A new battle front opens in Pakistan [Jul 14] is chilling for many reasons. By attacking the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, President [General Pervez] Musharraf and his ally the US have opened a proverbial hornets' nest. The Islamic revolution in Pakistan has been brewing for a long time and the US media barely cover it, preferring to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan. With the showdown at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, the battle line has now been drawn. President Musharraf may feel a bit confident that the US is supporting him, but he is now fighting not just the radical elements in Pakistan but the support from Islamic jihadists outside of Pakistan, a large portion of Pakistan's population, and the theocratic parties within Pakistan who hate President Musharraf as much as the jihadists. The writing is already on the wall. President Musharraf will eventually realize he has but one option left in order to save his life, and that is take refuge in the US or some other nation friendly to his cause. When a nation's people demand a particular way of life that is denied to them, the government in charge will fail in squashing that demand. Putting excessive pressure using the military only entrenches this demand, especially when they are getting support from political parties within Pakistan and from outside Pakistan. Even some segments of Pakistan's military are sympathetic to the wish of a "Talibanized" Pakistan. When (and not if) President Musharraf meets his end, the US will have only two options: either invade Pakistan, which will cause a religious storm across the Islamic world, or isolate Pakistan, which will be ideal to the jihadists. This is a no-win situation for President Musharraf and his ally the US. The ultimate consequence of an acknowledged Islamic nuclear nation in the hands of the Taliban will have world consequences.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Jul 16, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: It is indeed sad and shocking the way events took a turn at the Lal Masjid. These were well-educated, refined, God-fearing young people whose only crime was that they insisted on the strict virtues of Islam to be followed in Pakistan. It was the faith in Islam that created Pakistan apart from the parliamentary democracy system that was eventually pursued by the great founder of this great country ... The Lal Masjid episode is just the beginning. More and more young Muslims all over the world are getting impatient at what they see as injustice towards their Muslim brothers and sisters throughout the world. Unfortunately the countries they live in are all ruled by dictators or puppets of the West. The only [three] countries so far I see to possess some kind of dignity are Iran, Syria and Malaysia. Saudi Arabia I hear treats Muslims of South Asia with contempt while it admires the white visitors of the West. With this strong disadvantage I really don't know how this system of Islam is going to be implemented. The point I am trying to make is we have so much treachery in our own society. With traitors at the helm of affairs in a country populated by devout Muslims who merely wish to follow the true pattern of Islam, there will always be bloodshed of this kind all the time. This happens in countries like Turkey all the time. [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf, who happens to be a great admirer of Turkey, is merely following suit. Young people must realize this and begin a different way altogether. Mass education of the country is what is needed. Selfish interests of the rich must be eroded. More equality of society should be emphasized. Power should be equally distributed and above all teachings of Islam should neither be misunderstood nor forgotten. Inshallah. May Allah grant a place in Jannah [paradise] for those dear young people who have been needlessly killed by a mindless regime.
R Ashraf (Jul 16, '07)

Re The robbery of the century [Jul 14]: Chan Akya waxes indignant. His analysis is neither acute nor compelling. Certainly it is true that the subprime market in the United States is in crisis. It is also true that collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are slippery financial instruments which at first enriched the deep pockets of American and European investment banks [and] rich investors, and gave hope to millions of hard-working people of owning finally a home of their own. As long as times were good and interest rates low, the banks and their rich clients profited handsomely. Nonetheless the housing bubble burst, foreclosures rose, and the value of CDOs fell and are falling still. UBS's liquidating of its own subprime fund was a warning, but it hardly brought more discipline to the market, nor religion to the rating agencies, nor concern from Washington. The warning whistles came with the near-collapse of one of Bear Stearns' funds. Were it allowed to fail, a domino effect would set in for larger investment banks. Goldman Sachs and others rushed in to rescue Bear Stearns to avoid a run on the market. Yet the value of such suspect CDOs keeps falling, and the financial touts are hedging bets on a recession. How this will affect cash-rich Asian markets is another question which Chan does not address adequately. The burden ultimately will fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayer, who once again will pay for the benign neglect of his government's oversight of private-equity banks. Chan may rant against the unfairness of the marketplace, but he brings little to the matter at hand other than rhetoric.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 16, '07)

Re The robbery of the century [Jul 14]: Chan Akya should know a little more about rating agencies' history. Rating agencies can go wrong in not just new markets. For example WPPS (or "whoops" to some) was one of the biggest defaults in US municipal-bond history. The rating agencies gave the bonds very high ratings even though what forced default was a weak link in bond design from beginning. Then there was Orange county [California], long rated AAA by rating agencies, which after bond default was sued by those who noted raters rated OC high just weeks before default. Rating agencies have revealed a history of not looking deep enough. The "hogs" are guilty of same. After all, you have to be dumb to think subprimes would last for a while. That was true from beginning. Hogs should be risk-averse, and investing in subprimes is not being risk-averse.
May Sage
USA (Jul 16, '07)

The letter of Dr Sunyat Tojo (Jul 13) is completely at odds with my experience in Southeast Asia. My wife has a large and extended family in and around Bangkok and, even three generations removed, still harbor ill-will from the Japanese occupation of World War II. Her mother, who is 90, has vivid memories of atrocities and unnecessary brutality by the Imperial Army of Japan. The letter of Brian Kirkpatrick (Jul 13) is odd. I read the article (Kim Jong-il's military-first policy [Jul 11]) and I thought it a good paper. Maybe his teeth and lips are crimson from drinking too much red state "Kool-Aid". We have way too many of those in this "Land of the Free and Ignorant".
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 16, '07)

I admire the candor of Dr Sunyat Tojo, who wrote in to Asia Times [Online] on Friday [letter, Jul 13]. His view certainly needs to be taken seriously by everyone in Asia - just how much longer are Korea and China going to play victim over atrocities committed many decades ago by foreign colonizers while ignoring what was done by their own countrymen? Mao [Zedong]'s murders of millions of Chinese took place 30 years after the Nanjing massacres, and yet your Chinese writers never mention it, nor do they pay much heed to the Tiananmen massacre in 1989. Japan has done more than enough to rectify the wrongs of past generations of Japanese. There are now no flag-waving imperialists in that country. What remains is a population that is forever scared by threats of rogue Korean attacks and, worse, a Chinese military confrontation or embargo. In contrast, Koreans are frequently seen as aggressive nationalists, while China's thuggery with respect to Taiwan and Tibet on the one side and its support for brutish regimes in Burma and Sudan on the other are an affront to the civilized world. We can conclude from China's recent behavior that they [Chinese] have merely imbibed the spirits of the Japanese imperialists, not today's citizens of Japan. Therefore, it should logically be the Chinese Communist Party that sends a delegation to pay respects at the Yasukuni Shrine, seeing as [its members] are the only ones in Asia still "honoring" the traditions of those who perpetrated war crimes.
Salt (Jul 16, '07)

May [Sage]'s comments are anything but sagely [letter, Jul 13]. They display a total lack of understanding of how democracy works in a heterogeneous society like India, unlike in countries of the Western world. We have so many different subcultures that are all but invisible to Westerners. As for [the] minority calling the shots, I guess she hasn't heard of an Indian politician by [the name of] Ms Mayawati. She is a dalit woman and has won an absolute majority in the most populous Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, which in the past has also been notorious for its bad treatment of backward castes and dalits. Her election shows how the situation is changing in north India. As for south India, the southern state of Tamil Nadu has been governed by backward castes since 1967. I wonder what she has to say about the treatment of African-Americans in the US from around that time. As for the other southern state of Kerala, the backward castes have made themselves heard loud and clear from 1957 when the communists first came to power there. So I suggest Ms Sage gets some education on "developing" countries before passing Sage comments.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan
Indian living in Budapest, Hungary (Jul 16, '07)

For more on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati Kumari, see A potential prime minister emerges in India (Jun 1). - ATol

Why have you turned off registration for the forum? Why don't you explain [in] the forum FAQ instead of just saying you've turned it off? Will it ever open again?
Kev (Jul 16, '07)

Any news on when new forum registrations will be accepted? You print articles and prominently invite comments via The Edge (forum) and then turn off registrations. People might start to believe that all the feedback to these news articles is negative and its flow needs to be arrested.
Jeff Mc (Jul 16, '07)

It's nothing so dramatic. In fact we do accept new registrations on the forum, but were forced to make the procedure a bit more complex so we could block spammers, vandals and other low-lifes. Instructions on how to register are under the "Announcements" section in the forum. Click on this link to go there directly. - ATol

Re India pushes people power in Africa [Jul 13]: [Sudha] Ramachandran lives in a bubble, it seems. Africa needs a different paradigm than India, where the minority benefit and the majority languish. Africa already has that dynamic, [which] is the reason why it is so far behind on MDG [Millennium Development Goals]. China, on the other hand, is raising living standards of far more people than India. That is what Africa needs to learn. Africa needs to do this in hurry as [it is] also the most vulnerable continent to global warming. Does Ms Ramachandran forget that medical students were protesting inclusion of reservations [quotas], just wanting to protect minority benefits? India's higher-education institutions are similarly hamstrung. It [may be] because of this that India is running [out] of educated personnel to fulfill its economic needs, a topic covered by sources other than Asia Times [Online]. It certainly has a large pool of excluded masses that could fix this problem in a hurry, if only the mindset changed.
May Sage
USA (Jul 13, '07)

Re the excellent article The core misconceptions in the 'war on terror' [Jul 13] by John Feffer, I wish that the author had named it, "The core misconceptions and deceptions in the war on terror". President [George W] Bush's shock-and-awe in Iraq was not about Saddam [Hussein]'s nuclear ambitions, or the alleged link to the al-Qaeda network which the US blames for the September 11 [2001] attacks, it was for the greed and looting of Iraqi oil wells, about defending the dollar, and setting an example that anyone who seeks payment for oil in currencies other than US dollars, which is what Saddam did in 2000, would be likewise punished. History teaches that an empire should go to war for either defending itself or benefiting from war; otherwise, as Paul Kennedy stated in his The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, "A military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse." Crime is contagious; if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt. President Bush committed war crimes as an institutional necessity to terrorize the world and in consequence propagated law of jungle, where the strongest attempts to kills the weaker. I remember reading that US Colonel Steve Butler was suspended from duty after he wrote to a newspaper calling Bush "a joke" whose presidency was going nowhere before September 11. "He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy has Saddam Hussein and he needed Osama." Mr Bush alleged silence about intelligence failures was "sleazy and contemptible", the colonel added. There is no doubt in the fact now that wisdom to G W Bush is as alien as would be slippers to a snake and, because of this slowness, he has never been in total control of his senses during his inept presidency.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 13, '07)

It beggars belief to compare Andrei Lankov's The world according to Pyongyang [Jul 13] and Kim Myong-chol's Kim Jong-il's military-first policy [Jul 11]. Yet the exercise is worth doing. The timbre of voices [is] seemingly the same yet lacks the richness of tone. Dr Lankov is willing to lend much credibility to the authenticity of the Chang Yong-sun transcript as a former Soviet citizen. Yet since no one can prove its authenticity beyond a shadow of a doubt, questions do abound. Dr Kim, as the ["official"] voice of Pyongyang outside North Korea, speaks in a loud and clear voice. There is no doubt: what he says and writes does not lack authority. This said, Dr Lankov makes a small degree of fuss about the tenor of Chang's words. Soviet-born and Soviet-educated, he should ... recall with clarity that [applying] pressure one way or the other in a highly regimented society has one purpose in mind: persevering and furthering the interests of the state. Dr Kim does not resort to equivocal language with the intent to deceive. Quite the contrary. His article suffers less from the wooden language which he customarily uses. Pyongyang-ologists like Andrei Lankov should not be one whit surprised at the import of the "Chang document". North Korea has never recoiled from proudly posing as the proud defender of Korean-ness, nor stoutly defending its right to defend itself from a hostile world, especially from the machinations and wiles of the United States during and after the Korean War. The sense of containment and fear of war are part of a larger history of North Korea's struggle for survival and dignity. Dr Kim speaks with more authority, it seems, since Pyongyang's nuclear gambit has brought much-desired results and a sense of detente and a humiliation for President [George W] Bush. Nonetheless, North Korea is intent in keeping the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free, but let no one think that this is a move made out of weakness, for as Dr Lankov and Dr Kim will more likely concur, North Korea remains on the qui vive to maintain its independence proudly and fiercely.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 13, '07)

I loved your article by Kim Myong-chol [Kim Jong-il's military-first policy, Jul 11]. I have not read anything so funny in a long time. What an absolute boob he is! It takes all kinds.
Brian Kirkpatrick
Kansas City, Missouri (Jul 13, '07)

Re Death from above [Jul 12]: Once again, readers are indebted to ATimes for republishing another of Tom Engelhardt's incisive essays which unmask the meretricious, but self-serving and therefore persistent, myth about a US foreign policy which to its nature is ever benevolent but which, alas, to everyone's great surprise, suffers so very frequently from certain errors of execution. When "mistakes" are made repeatedly, as they have been these last six and a half decades, and when they are factored into the strategic and tactical equation from the very beginning, the word "mistake" becomes a misnomer, the last refuge, along with the so-called "patriotism" that equates mass murder and carnage abroad with defense of "democracy" and "freedom" at home, of the spin-doctor scoundrel. (The first refuge, of course, is to ignore the incident in the first place, or to refer to it as a great victory over "Taliban fighters" or "al-Qaeda guerrillas" or "hardline Ba'athists" or "Vietcong" - whatever term is currently used for the enemy du jour. The last refuge is only employed when so much of the slaughter has been leaked through the dikes of the corporate media, that simple denial or misrepresentation no longer suffice.)
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jul 13, '07)

As always, Henry Liu's article [Japan's strategy to be a 'beautiful nation', Mar 3] contains so many typical one-sided misrepresentations and disinformation about Japan that it is necessary to clarify some points, as Japan is severely under-represented on [China]-centric Asia Times [Online]. It would require a book in itself to rectify the myriad fallacies, but some general points are as follows:

The myth of the "revival of militarism" is one of the biggest straw men that China uses to demonize Japan, and has no factual basis. China uses every weapon that Japan makes as proof of a fictional "militarism" while it rabidly boosts its military budget by tens of billions; deploys ICBMs/Sunburns [intercontinental and anti-ship missiles]; threatens sovereign neighbors with nuclear destruction; threatens to instigate a Pacific war through the conquest of Taiwan; pushes outside its waters to grab foreign undersea resources; uses its buffer state North Korea to threaten Japan; and commits mass genocide. China's aggressive military ambitions threaten peace in Asia - "peaceful rise" indeed. In other words, the more China pushes, it is entirely in Japan's place to push back - which China loudly characterizes as "remilitarization" in classic gangster fashion.

Japan did not "leave the crosshairs of the US, while concern grew of China around the '80s". Liu seriously needs to do some research. Japan was demonized by the US as [an] "economic animal" all throughout the '80s, until '91, when it supposedly "crashed" (according to the Anglo-US media); China did not even come on the radar as an economic threat until the late '90s. "Exchange-rate warfare to defeat Japan's threat" sounds like a fairy tale. Japan was not "defeated" unless you consider the largest account surplus in history as a liability (Japan's), and debt-ridden import-reliant bankruptcy as an asset (USA). If this situation is "a dark experience", most countries in the world would be delighted to have such an "economic downfall".

The LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] can't be "clueless on how to restructure the economy" because it isn't [its] business. Economic policy falls under the aegis of METI and MOF [Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Ministry of Finance] primarily; the LDP doesn't control such matters. Again, these two ministries are hardly clueless, when you consider the fact that they steered a resourceless, bomb-flattened island into the world's richest nation in one generation - where do you think China's economic policies and capital come from?

Southeast Asia is not a "hotbed of anti-Japanese sentiment". This is classic Chinese and Korean disinformation. Most countries in Asia (popular sentiment-wise) have nothing but contempt for Korea, and consider China as a dangerous hegemon bent on conquest. They also admit that today Japan is the only one that can hold off such rogue nations, as the US is now both economically and morally bankrupt. The exception to these sentiments are the overseas Chinese (tens of millions across Asia and worldwide) who make the loudest stink, always in accordance with the official line in Beijing, earning them scorn from local populations among whom they live. Asia Times [Online] is a good illustration of this phenomenon. "Mending relations with Asia" is a myth, as Japan's relations with Asia [are] uniformly wonderful, with the exception of these three countries, who love to instigate non-existent problems with their self-interest firmly in mind. It's funny how much China and Korea hate Japan but continue to accept their capital and technology.

Fukoku kyohei was not a rejection of "traditional appreciation of the virtue of harmony in Asian civilization" by any means; if anything, it was a movement to maintain Asian harmony, since omniscient China and Korea were no longer up to the task of protecting themselves, much less all Asia. The problem is that China only recognizes Asian harmony on its own terms, as it sees itself as "the Middle Kingdom, from which anything of any worth originates", while Korea traditionally acquiesces to China's view. No one can fault Japan for not agreeing with this ridiculous stance, especially in light of Chinese and Korean impotence during that most desperate of times for Asia. If this concept is so perverse, why is China practicing it now? Again, it's simple - [it] realized how right Japan was and is.
Dr Sunyat Tojo
Diego Garcia (Jul 13, '07)

Bombing, like justice, is blind. It sows death evenhandedly. Only in the early H G Wells stories does bombing civilian targets and populations bring a country to its knees. Only in the writings of General Giulio Douhet, [Benito] Mussolini's [commisioner for] aviation, do lightning strikes bring rapid results and ultimately victory. In total war, which is the object all sublime of Wells' figments of the imagination or Douhet's theories, there is no distinction between military and civilian populations. Bombs kill indiscriminately, and they are used to break morale and hasten victory. Each side of the conflict zeroes in on the civilian population, which euphemistically turn into inoffensive expressions, as Khody Akhavi describes [A fallacy that bombs - literally, Jul 12] "incidents", "accidents", or less felicitously as "collateral damage". Yet bombs do not total victory make, as Washington learned in Vietnam, or the old Soviet Union in Afghanistan. You may bomb a country to hell, but it takes an army to hold the terrain in order to conquer. And it is best to remember that it took a uranium and a plutonium bomb to bring Japan to its knees on August 15, 1945. Nonetheless, the lightning victory of the Israelis in 1967 has not brought it peace, nor did the rapid-fire victory of the Americans in Iraq. These two countries squared off against toothless tigers, but once their armies held the ground they found the conquered populations resisted. We are seeing again and again, despite the hardships and long struggles, the playing out of the Vietnamese tale of the ant and the elephant.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 12, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad [Re Pakistan's post-mortem, Jul 12]: Your report is nice and informative. Do you think this might be the start of trouble in Pakistan, and would India be targeted by these jihadis?
Sunil (Jul 12, '07)

The problem will flare up throughout the region. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

After the [July 7, 2005] bombing in London, [then prime minister] Tony Blair demanded that [Pakistani President] General [Pervez] Musharraf rein in the religious seminaries in Pakistan, but it was his military government that allowed the shadow of extremism to fall on Pakistan and allowed these madrassas to become politically motivated and exploit the neglect of governance by offering free education, food, clothing, shelter and medicine to thousands of poor families and their children. They then brainwashed and used these deprived children as fodder in their ulterior motives and design to dismantle the corrupt military power, which they accused as the crony of G W Bush and Tony Blair. These students were [among] those who sacrificed their lives and worked relentlessly day and night to help Kashmir's earthquake victims and also long before fought against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. They were then armed and trained by CIA [the US Central Intelligence Agency] and MI5 [the British Security Service] along with al-Qaeda and later dumped when not needed. The debauched military general who is fond of wine and women and a boot licker of the West wore blinkers for years when the Ghazi brothers were arming themselves to neck in Islamabad, where he resides not very far away. [That] they posed a threat to the military regime is unbelievable. The military dictator and his regime [are] sinking deeper in muddy waters ever since he dismissed the chief justice of the Supreme Court resulting in civil and political unrest, disorder, chaos and mob violence under the very eyes of the pro-government Karachi police force with the death of over 40 people, many innocent. After eight years of military dictatorship, Pakistan's democratic forces are stirring up and the masses are fed up and disgruntled by his military uniform. The general, though, has pleased his master G W Bush using brutal force in the standoff with the militants, killing over 50 [along with the] death of 10 army personnel. He has started, unfortunately, another battle between the pro-Western debauched secularists and those who love non-violent and peaceful Islam. The general thought that by using Pakistan's armed forces to kill Pakistanis, he would subdue the 97% of Pakistani Muslims who love peaceful Islam - he was misled by his ignorant optimism. The military action was a mistake and unnecessary when matters could have been resolved by negotiations. The general will be hated more than ever before because of [this] politically motivated showdown in order to divert people's attention from issues threatening his neck and power. Pakistanis should demand a public inquiry and the participants of this ugly episode [should stand] trial.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 12, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I just wanted to thank you for your articles on Asia Times [Online] - I appreciate the insights and valuable details regarding events in my homeland which are hard to find elsewhere. Keep up the good work.
Abu Asma (Jul 12, '07)

[Syed Saleem] Shahzad's [Pakistan's iron fist is to the US's liking, Jul 11] again provides fascinating reading, with him placing the entire blame for the attack on the Lal Masjid at the door of President [General Pervez] Musharraf. It seems [Abdul Rasheed] Ghazi and his cohorts were the people being "reasonable" in their negotiations. Unfortunately, this is very much on par with his columns of the last few years. He seems to be continually sympathetic to the points of view of the jihadis. His detailed interviews tend to be with jihadi leaders, whose words and explanations are taken as gospel. [Former Inter-Services Intelligence chief Lieutenant-General] Hamid Gul is constantly brought in to provide the "real" interpretation of current government actions (never mind that General Gul has been out of service for many years now, and is of a decidedly obscurantist mindset, so any analysis by him is purely to further his own agenda). I do find myself questioning whether Mr Shahzad has his own agenda to pursue. It would be interesting to see columns on Pakistan by some other columnists ...
Assad K
Ohio, USA (Jul 12, '07)

Re Pakistan's iron fist is to the US's liking [Jul 11]: I am not supporter of the Ghazi brothers, who were used and abused by the corrupt Pakistan Army as well the US and Saudi Arabia. It appears these armies were too cowardly to fight so they bribed the Ghazi brothers and many others like them to brainwash young men to die for them. Hence they are no different than Reza Pahlavi or [Manuel] Noriega, who were used and discarded like dirty tissue paper. No doubt their actions were despicable, but they were egged on by the very same people. Once again Saleem Shahzad is on top of it all. He [hits] the nail on its head. We always suspected that there was a lot more to it than met the eye. What can you say [when an] event like this has unfolded right in front of our eyes and we have watched the whole drama on live TV? It is hard to believe that it is the Pakistan Army that is killing its own people, including women and children, right there for everyone to see. East Pakistan seemed so distant in the past. As a decent Pakistani person, all I can do is feel sad and cry for the misery of the country, which seems to be at the verge of disintegration due to follies of another traitor. What else can you say except that [President General Pervez Musharraf] has gone completely mad? These are the very same people who died for them and sacrificed hundreds of their followers so that the cowardly generals can womanize and pick our pockets and act patriotic when jihadis were dying for them. No other army would do this to its own people - for what? ... Re India's sons live the dream - and wage jihad [Jul 10] ... What is wrong with all these people? Have they gone completely insane and lost all their brain cells? People from England are wonderful, and from Glasgow exceptionally kind ... I wonder, how can a normal human being hurt a hand that is feeding it? When no one wants Muslims in their schools and hospitals, then please do these stupid, insane tricks so that no human being will have any sympathy for us at all. Keep it up, brothers, so that all of us are condemned to live under the [Musharrafs] and Mubaraks of the world ... Now I know you are my enemy; it is not the Western powers, it is my own insane community. They are conspiring against all of us so that our kids [can] never have a good future. You are no better than the Taliban and other 12th-century creatures. Can someone issue a fatwa against stupidity?
R Ahmed (Jul 11, '07)

Re Pakistan's iron fist is to the US's liking [Jul 11]: Has Syed Saleem Shahzad taken leave of his senses? His third article on the standoff at the Lal Masjid looks at events through the small lenses of binoculars. He takes a narrow view of what is happening in the mosque in Islamabad. Straight away, President General Pervez Musharraf's condemnation of the radical Islamists holed up in the Lal Masjid after long hours of fruitless negotiation seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis certainly gladdens the heart of President George W Bush, as it does bring a sense of relief to leaders in India, China, Great Britain, Argentina, and the Cameroons, I dare say. Shahzad has a poor compass to guide him. The maulanas and followers threatened and challenged the authority of the state by offering up a Salifist pie-in-the-sky dream of replacing it by a state run solely and purely on the precepts of sharia [Islamic law]. They had in the mosque a large stock of weapons, bombs, rockets, etc. They had long planned to engage in insurrection in the vain hope that the Pakistani people would rise up in revolution, thereby leading to the overthrow [of] the current constitution and laws of Pakistan. The maulanas of the Lal Masjid took fantasy for reality, and they have paid a heavy price in lives and in ridicule, since one maulana tried escaping in a burqa. Shahzad did not take the pulse of his fellow Pakistanis who did not go along with these religious fanatics. On the contrary, it is almost certain that [they] breathe a sigh of relief that the crisis is over. Yet it is a sad telling that Shahzad took a cartoon view of the dangers that the Lal Masjid posed for Pakistan. His is a leftist conceit, to wit, as if George W Bush were the Wizard of Oz who, pulling the chains and [blowing the] whistles in Washington, put lead in President General Musharraf's spine to bring these ultra-Islamists at the mosque to heel. This parochialism betrays a poor understanding of the nature of politics.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 11, '07)

Forced by China's strong protests after attacks on Chinese nationals in Pakistan, President [General Pervez] Musharraf had no option but to start actions, delayed for at least six months for political reasons, against the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) complex in Islamabad. Musharraf said on June 29 that al-Qaeda and militants of Jaish-e-Mohammad, an al-Qaeda-linked group fighting India in Kashmir, were hiding in the mosque. Many Pakistani and international analysts and observers have suggested that Pakistan should give up its state policy of using Islamic militants and cross-border terrorism against both Afghanistan and India. Pakistan has always tried to bleed India in Kashmir and even elsewhere in India, but it is Pakistan which will continue to see the hemorrhage as the blowback of its own support for Islamic terrorism intensifies. Further, there is a possibility that India [will] retaliate at its discretion under international law. Pakistan's policy of trying to compartmentalize terrorism, by controlling it in Pakistan but encouraging it against India and Afghanistan, has failed again and again. The blood of many people at the Red Mosque this week will not be the end of the gory story, as the many Pakistan-based terrorist groups will take revenge over the next few months. President Musharraf has used the Lal Masjid events to deflect the spotlight from his many internal problems and even get some support from the US for finally taking action, but he has created more problems for himself, not only with the Islamic terrorist groups but also with extremists within the army and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] agency. Moderate civil society, ably led by the lawyers and media, is already up in arms against Musharraf's military dictatorship, and the sound of the demand for real democracy from the people of Pakistan rises to a crescendo. There are many red faces in Pakistan's establishment today as well as in the US government. The only message the Bush administration should be sending to General Musharraf is [to ask] why on earth he tolerated for months a virtual parallel fundamentalist Islamic state controlled by mullahs and terrorists within a short distance of the central power in the heart of the capital, Islamabad. Musharraf's position is at the tipping point for the US administration. It is time for President [George W] Bush not to sacrifice long-term US interests in Pakistan as well as India by continuing to support the very unpopular dictator Musharraf for tactical reasons. The British government and media should also fully support democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, as under military rule Pakistan will continue to be the hub of global Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Vipul Thakore
London, England (Jul 11, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: I just wanted to say thanks for the articles on the Lal Masjid raid and the ongoing problems it has caused. Your articles have been incredibly informative about the whole situation, I will definitely be looking up more of your work. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated them.
Sergio Tariq (Jul 11, '07)

I enjoy reading Asia Times [Online] and visit it every day. Your articles are wonderfully written, informative, and witty. I was a bit surprised when I read China rises to Pakistan's defense [Jul 11]. The article states that there are two separate fighter craft jointly developed by China and Pakistan: the JF-17 and the FC-1. These are actually the same craft. Also, this article has an uncanny resemblance to another article written by the Federation of American Scientists on the FC-1. Given the author's inability to note that FC-1 and JF-17 refer to the same aircraft, it is difficult to take seriously the claim that "the JF-17 is on a par with the world's most advanced light fighter jets" ... I think this reporting is a bit of an anomaly from ATimes. I felt it important to point out I usually scour academic journals on my own, but frankly I learn a lot from you guys first. Keep up the good work.
Andrew (Jul 11, '07)

We're quite sure the author is aware of the nature and evolution of the FC-1/JF-17, but this may have been unclearly explained in the original copy and then further obscured in the editing process. - ATol

Beverly Darling fails to honor her charming family name in her diatribe against the US for supporting South Korean dictatorships [Spinning the Korean model , Jun 14]. This veteran Korean-affairs analyst wishes to highlight a key error. The longest-serving [South Korean] autocrat was president Park Chung-hee (1961-79). His predecessors were a pair of pro-US civilians, namely prime minister Chang Myon and president Yun Po-sun. However, these amiable bumblers were hapless, forming four rickety cabinets in eight months. Park launched his coup only 11 days after the last stillborn cabinet - revealing his frustration and fear. Rivals North Korea and Japan were renascent. No, the US did not back his power grab - isn't that why Park never once thanked or rewarded it? Park had first supported Imperial Japan and then North Korea - two mortal US enemies. Instead, Washington withheld normalization for a full 100 days as rumors swept Seoul that an Incheon speedboat would whisk Park north if his mysterious junta failed. When the Americans reluctantly checkmarked his regime, they extracted a promise that he would usher in civilian rule after South Korea stabilized - ie, no deadline. Envisioning breakneck economic growth funding a robust defense buildup, Park adjudged that day never came. Next, US ambassador Sam Berger tied aid to liberalization efforts even as Washington hailed Park's economic and security agenda. In 1977, [US] president Jimmy Carter essayed to scupper the entire alliance to punish Park over his abuses. Washington even withdrew over 3,000 ground troops. Park vowed that he might expel every migook (American) - including English [language] teachers. He was furious. Why was Washington coddling China, a Korean War adversary, while punishing a "blood tied" ally? While Beijing was a communist dungeon, Park's death toll was in the low dozens - that's correct, Ms Darling. The Korean right, fearing the North, aligned with the left, which panicked that the conservatives would create a full-blown garrison state if watchdog and restrainer America left. Japan and the US fretted [that] Korea would nuclearize. Carter reconsidered after intelligence reports showed that the North's invasion power had grown some 40% through new divisions and noteworthy special operations squads. Even then, it took the Kremlin's thrust into Afghanistan for Carter to only freeze his retreat before president Ronald Reagan officially reversed it. How indicative that after Park's own security chief assassinated him on December 12, 1979, the former's acolytes excoriated the US. They bellowed that its obvious opprobrium for Park isolated and weakened him before the killer. Isn't this proof that the dictator and his inner circle never saw the Americans as stanchions? Anyhow, Park must be smiling in the afterlife as Korean polls rank him as the most favored president, with a 70% approval peg. His liberal agonists score as low as 10% - and some wish to build monuments to Park. Why can Koreans back Park but no one else? Finally, North Korea is arguably the world's most odious dictatorship - without the US's encouragement. Doesn't this mean that Koreans can entirely imprison themselves?
Victor Fic
Journalist and Broadcaster
Seoul, South Korea (Jul 11, '07)

The above letter was revised after its initial upload, at the writer's request, to clarify that president Yun Po-sun preceded Park Chung-hee. - ATol

It is indeed extraordinary that Kaveh Afrasiabi (letter, Jul 10) should defend Iran's right to pursue nuclear enrichment under the provisions of Article IV of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with the statement: "In the absence of any smoking gun and the International Atomic Energy Agency's verification of the lack of any military diversion, Iran's quest to master the nuclear-fuel cycle is legal and not in breach of the non-proliferation regime." What evidence, then, does Dr Afrasiabi actually have to show that the IAEA has verified Iran is not in breach of its obligation to refrain from diverting its uranium-enrichment program for military purposes? I would refer Dr Afrasiabi to the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 (2006), which uncategorically declares: "noting with serious concern that the IAEA director general's report of 27 February 2006 lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran's nuclear program, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran". This most definitely sounds like the tentative language of incompletion - and not the far more conclusive language of "verification", which can securely point to the lack of any military diversion of Iran's nuclear activities. And as far as the absence of any "smoking gun" is concerned, exactly what kind of evidence does Dr Afrasiabi have in mind? Is it the smoke of a dense radioactive cloud hovering over Israel in the wake of an Iranian nuclear missile successfully finding its long-awaited target? The world community has good reason to suspect that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, and no amount of hedging by such legal apologists as Dr Afrasiabi will help to take away that suspicion.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 11, '07)

Reading A blockage in the peace pipeline [Jul 10, by Kaveh L] Afrasiabi, I was reminded of Moscow's hesitancy for proceeding with the completion of the nuclear plant at Bushehr, Iran. Speculation for said pull-back from the project by Moscow involves, among other reasons, the increasing likelihood that the US and/or our allies may attack Iran, thus posing too much risk for the Russians (if not involving a medium-term horse-trading/quid pro quo scenario with Moscow). India's hesitancy for proceeding with the IPI [Iran-Pakistan-India] pipeline, despite the supposed benefits to New Delhi that Afrasiabi discusses, may very well involve the same core motive of risk aversion, which, too, would in turn concretely attest to the sense that an attack on Iran isn't too far off.
D Johnson
USA (Jul 10, '07)

Let me express my relief and joy that no one was injured or harmed except the terrorists in the recent failed attempts of terrorism in London and at the Glasgow airport terminal Referring to the article India's sons live the dream - and wage jihad [Jul 10], it is absurd to label these terrorists as "jihadis" for the sake of politicizing Islam and for the purpose of mischief-making using deformed logic to present an argument. Islam does not practice and forbids totally human sacrifice. To carry out terrorist actions, contemporary fundamentalists have redirected the idea of sacrifice and have acclimated it to the Islamic imagination by a series of manipulations. The so-called terrorists have no blueprint for any policy or plan for better governance but are obsessed with hatred of the USA, the West and Israel as they blame them for most economic ills as well as for the exploitation and oppression of the Muslim world. [Most] of these [men accused in the London/Glasgow incidents] were trained to cure, heal and save lives but instead attempted to kill innocents, which baffles the simplest mind and intellect. These [alleged] terrorists have the same insane instinct, mentality and motivation as would a psychopath, murderer, robber or a thief: to kill the innocent for perverse enjoyment, satisfaction, revenge, harm, hurt or destroying lives. But these highly educated Muslim doctors living and working in the UK were most likely driven or motivated by rage [at] injustice inflicted upon their brothers and sisters in the world. As I have always said, terrorism in its indiscriminate pursuit destroys the best and the brightest in man. So many intellectuals of highest abilities blindly followed [Adolf] Hitler, [Josef] Stalin and Mao Zedong. If we can find tangible and everlasting solutions of the root causes of their grievances, then we can stop these acts of mind-boggling atrocities. The big and the wealthy nations have to treat the underdeveloped and poor nations and their people with some respect and stop making them a playground for their hidden agendas and manipulating intentions and killing fields for dead bodies. The American and the Western governments must change their partial attitude towards Israel. Terrorism will never be eradicated by bombs or bullets but by finding its root causes and by negotiation sitting on the opposite sides ... I am so glad that whole of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom and through the world has condemned and vilified these criminals for their sordid acts.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 10, '07)

Re Basra tears itself apart (Jul 10): Although Dr Babak Rahimi provides an excellent presentation of the complexities surrounding intra-Shi'ite politics in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, he comes up with this most limiting conclusion: "Overall, the problem in Basra is a localized conflict with ties to Baghdad's political process." This is indeed surprising, especially given the fact that he earlier mentions that the increase in the Shi'ite-Sunni conflict represents a "major factor". He goes on to give the disturbing example that last May nearly 170 Sunni mosques were closed for security reasons in response to the assassinations of a number of Sunni clerics. But none of this compares [to] a more recent report that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group called Islamic State in Iraq, has threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shi'ites in Iraq within two months. Baghdadi has further criticized Kurdish leaders for their alliance with Shi'ites in the "Iraqi Shi'ite government", thus ominously pointing to the possibility of Iraq descending into an all-out civil war - a war that threatens to engulf whatever "localized" differences still exist between the various Shi'ite political factions (and also between Shi'ites and Kurds). Moreover, another major regional development is now also coming into play. Envoys from the 22-country Arab League will be sent on a historic first mission to Israel this week to discuss a sweeping Arab peace initiative and how it might prop up embattled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Israel rejected the Arab plan when it was first proposed in 2002, but it has reportedly softened its resistance after moderate Arab states endorsed the plan again in March, sharing their concerns about Iran's growing influence. If this highly unprecedented Arab-Israeli alliance manages to gather momentum, then it could leave US forces in Iraq in an extremely invidious position. The world's largest superpower would be relegated to the sidelines of the "war on terror" as the region's Shi'ites and Sunnis are left to tear each other apart - just [as] they both did during the first Iran-Iraq War.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 10, '07)

Re PyeongChang: Melted dreams [Jul 10]: James Card paints a drab picture of PyeongChang. A sports mecca it is not, says he, for nothing could be further than the truth. Well, neither is Sochi, he neglects to say. Sochi is on the Black Sea; it is and was a warmer-water holiday seaside resort, and once a holiday spot for the communist apparatchiks [of the Soviet Union]. It has no infrastructure for Winter Olympic Games. It has no snow. It has no hills. It has, in short, nothing to recommend it as a winter wonderland. In the background of Sochi, though, there are mountains, which are away from the city itself. But Russia had something which South Korea had not. A big fat purse and very first-class means to sway the Olympic Games jury to bring a judgment in Moscow's favor. Russia led a top-class advertising campaign to clinch the choice of Sochi as the venue for 2014 Winter Games. It had a pile of cash, US$2 billion, and it used the wiles of glitter and star power of President Vladimir Putin to overwhelm the Olympic Games nominating committee, which it wined and dined to attain its game plan. And it worked. James Card … throws in the shopworn bugaboo of the nefarious North Korea so jealous of its southern cousins that Pyongyang would [do] almost anything to embarrass Seoul. This may have been true of the 1988 Seoul Summer Games, but this canard does not fly today. And he betrays his love-hate affair with South Korea, which is not uncommon with expatriates who live there.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 10, '07)

I'm glad to see the review of Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great [Faith: Part of the problem, Jul 7]. A year ago I asked a proselytizing acquaintance to explain modern Christianity's response to the great problems of our day, such as overpopulation ("go forth and multiply"), multiculturalism ("worship no false gods") and planetary species collapse ("man has dominion over the animals"). I haven't yet heard back from him. Religion's [response] to independent thinking is now ("intelligent design") and always has been ("Recant, Copernicus, or burn at the stake") repression. This fact frames the issue well: critical thinking is the singular aspect of humanity which makes our long-term survival possible, and yet this is the one thing religion fears most. Religion is merely politics in a robe, with a pointy hat. Like so many other aspects of human behavior, religion is about power, and the first, highest "calling" of power is self-perpetuation. I invite the ATimes readers and writers, especially Spengler, to put forward modern religion's policy and actions with respect to the great problems of our day. Let the abiding value of religion - with all its unique contributions to our time - be set out for all to see.
Tom Pfotzer
USA (Jul 10, '07)

Re Good story - pity about the propaganda [Jul 7]: "Never probe too far: you might just uncover something you - or your editor and publisher - don't want the public to know" seems to be the golden rule of what passes as investigative journalism in the corporate media. Surprise, surprise!
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Jul 10, '07)

Or what the public itself does not want to hear. - ATol

Re Mahmud Ahmadinejad - the movie [Jul 6]: The author recalls an instructive list of badly unkept promises of Iranian populist President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad, especially the [boastful] ones as to resuscitating the terminally ill, fraud-filled economic body or cutting off the hands of few powerful econo-political mafias from the past that have monopolized the economic arena with boundless political privileges, but Ahmadinejad idiotically shifted his focus from the palpable economic plights to a stupid, irrelevant agenda … Maybe he likes fame or hitting headlines or the repute of being remembered as an ardent, austere anti-American by history freaks next to the crazed partisans of [the] Venezuelan adventurist president, but his people will never excuse him, no doubt.
Amin (Jul 10, '07)

Re Joseph (letter, Jul 9), responding on my comment on India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4] ... There is absolutely no necessity to convince anyone who is benign or otherwise belligerent; the West's bad behaviors have been written all over the history textbooks - imperial conquests, racist colonialism, wholesale annihilation of native language/culture/stock, trade in black African slaves, illegal land grabs of the whole North American continent, [Australian] continent etc. China insists that its is a peaceful rise, but its detractors prefer to foment the charade of "China threats" and forming real alliances trying to contain it. Who is making enemies [out of] whom is thus obvious beyond any doubt. China without allies while the West [and] India have many allies? What nonsense! Most post-colonial independent nations hate their colonial masters but they just do not like to shout about it because, since the world is still very much politically, economically and technologically US/European-dominated, they are prudent/expedient enough not to commit political suicide. Rest assured that the West will be trampled mercilessly the moment it loses its edge/influence! India, meanwhile, has all its neighbors staring hatefully at it for its alleged big-brother hegemonic postures adopted against its immediate neighborhood. Who could draw upon 45 out of 49 African heads of state for a Sino-African Conference in Beijing but China? Even though China does not cherish the habit of having buddies, so to speak, it can easily call upon such nations as Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela, Laos, Cambodia and many others to do its bidding if it really needs be. Power politics, vicious as it may [be], does not have to be executed so ruthlessly as had been practiced by the West ...
Benign Chinese (Jul 10, '07)

In response to Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin (letter, Jul 9): There are several other countries such as Brazil that enjoy the right to produce nuclear fuel without facing any backlashes by the international community. In Iran's case, although the picture is a bit more complex due to the previous history and systematic discriminations against Iran reflected in the cancellation of nuclear contracts, the basic fact remains: in the absence of any smoking gun and the International Atomic Energy Agency's verification of the lack of any military diversion, Iran's quest to master the nuclear-fuel cycle is legal and not a breach of the non-proliferation regime. I refer the good reverend to my legal argument in the debate on the United Nations sanctions posted on the Carnegie Endowment website.
Kaveh Afrasiabi (Jul 10, '07)

I want to thank Kalyan Kumar [letter, Jul 9] for his response to my letter. It is heartening to note that he intended only to point out historical transgressions and not to malign any religion. My only comment is that every religion (at some time or the other) has been misused to perpetrate injustice. This is not unique to Islam, so I don't understand why it's constantly singled out (here and elsewhere). I am not one for political correctness or for portraying a sanitized version of history. However, those who insist on revisiting (I am not insinuating that Mr Kumar did this) violent episodes in Muslim history should be open to introspection vis-a-vis their own religious legacy. For instance, India's Hindu elite savagely persecuted Buddhists, destroyed their temples and forcibly converted many of them. As a result, relatively few Buddhists remain in the subcontinent. Christianity's record is replete with gore and unspeakable atrocities in almost every continent, from the Vatican's acquiescence of [Hernan] Cortez' and [Francisco] Pizarro's murder of thousands (if not millions) in the Americas to the bloody "Reconquista" of Moorish Spain. Does this mean that Hinduism and Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) are inherently violent? No. But it does mean (as with Islam) that these religions were used to enforce vicious political, territorial, social and economic agendas by giving them an ambience of divine legitimacy, and making them more acceptable and palatable. Since no one can claim a spotless historical record, what is the point in regurgitating the past? Methinks that's a rather useless endeavor.
Fareed Zahid
USA (Jul 10, '07)

"Hitchens tackles the faith-based argument that atheist and secularist rulers have committed crimes more heinous than the the Crusades and Islamic imperial conquests and the witch trials etc, etc." - Ioannis Gatsiounis, Faith: Part of the problem, [Jul 7 review of] God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. This is not a "faith-based argument", but a history-based argument. It is simply historical fact that the last two centuries (since the French Revolution) have had the biggest massacres, and that the excuses have been secular. Why do Hitchens et al not concentrate on criticizing violence and its excuses? Religion is but one excuse, popular in some times and places, but not always and everywhere.
Lester Ness, PhD, History
Kunming, China (Jul 9, '07)

Re Iran's moment of nuclear scrutiny (Jul 7): I find it extremely disappointing that Kaveh L Afrasiabi should make such a misleading assertion that "there is, after all, the absence of a legal basis to continue pressing Iran with sanctions as long as its nuclear activities are legal within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency". The fact that he so favorably states [that] Iran "insists" it is operating within its NPT rights, and hence "refuses" to stop enrichment activities, leaves us all with the ordered impression that this is the end of the story. But the real truth is, the story is far from over. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, the primary task of the agency is to serve as a watchdog so that "peaceful" nuclear-energy technology is not used for producing nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This is definitely not an easy task, since Article IV of the NPT has been interpreted by some states - including Iran - to grant them a right to uranium enrichment for fuel for commercial reactors. As a matter of fact, this is a major loophole. There are actually no significant legal barriers distinguishing between a state's capability to enrich uranium for reactor fuel and to enrich uranium to a level that can be used in nuclear weapons. It is what is called "dual-use technology", which is why ElBaradei issued this statement back in 2004: "The technical barriers to mastering the essential steps of uranium enrichment - and to designing nuclear weapons - have eroded over time, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the control of technology, in and of itself, is not an adequate barrier against further proliferation". Moreover, as far as leading US arms-control expert, former senator Sam Nunn, is concerned, in his Statement on Nuclear Weapons Policy delivered before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 10, 2007, he declared: "In my view, the risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding. Countries like North Korea and Iran have defied international will by developing nuclear-weapons technology." Contrary to Dr Afrasiabi's assertion, there is absolutely no hint here of any specific endorsement of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear activities within the legal framework of the NPT - a framework seriously flawed with some very far-reaching technical ambiguities.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 9, '07)

M K Bhadrakumar comes through again [For Putin, little but a lobster dinner, Jul 7]. This time he has served up a full-course meal on President [Vladimir] Putin's Russia for ATol readers. We have background to post-Cold War Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, which is hardly dealt with in the American press at least. Bhadrakumar makes use of the analysis of Alexei Arbatov, who is, as he was under the old Soviet system, a sophisticated student of US-Russian relations. He makes good use of the Russian press and quotes Kremlin spokesmen. Bhadrakumar takes a medium-term look at Putin's foreign policy as it obtains to Central Asia and China before looking at the meeting of President Putin and President George W Bush at the American chief of state's father's summer "dacha" at Kennebunkport, Maine. It is to President Putin's credit that ... he went without much hope of a breakthrough. Once again, as he did at the meeting of the Group of Eight in Germany, he set forth his case before Bush. The Russian president is willing to work out an agreement with Washington instead of initiating a new cold war. Putin knows his history; he full well takes into account Russia's inefficiencies and its waste of money, men, and materiel to compete with the United States. Such a standpoint nudged him to propose the joint use of a missile base in Kazakhstan, thereby taking the steam out of Bush's proposal to station the American missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Putin had low expectations of changing Bush's mind, and he wasn't disappointed. Moscow will position its own missiles as a result in Kaliningrad at minimal outlay from its fat, oil-rich purse. On the other hand, America will spend more funds, thereby ballooning a titanic debt. Nonetheless, Mr Putin will not stray from his policy even though Mr Bush wants to push him to the ropes. The American president's grasp of history is wrongheaded, but Mr Putin's is not.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 9, '07)

Re India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4]: As long as India imports Chinese-made saris for local consumption, India has a very long way to go to match China. With a US$5 billion corruption economy, I see ever more saris, paans and bidas being imported from China, with eventually stupid government policy one day squandering even the current lead in IT [information technology] to China. Probably God gave Indians intelligence but not enough intelligence in selecting their political leaders.
R J Padbatan
New York, New York (Jul 9, '07)

Sudha Ramachandran's article India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4] needs further clarification. The spread of Buddhism from India also showed the Lord Buddha's Hindu roots. From the earliest statues of Buddha of the Gandharan school of sculpture in the west of India to the 16th-century bronze Buddha statue in Kyoto, Japan one sees the Hindu "Pottu" (Tilak) on Lord Buddha's forehead. Further examples include the various shades of saffron robes worn by the Bikkus, which also is the color used by Hindu holy men. Even the act of greeting with palms together is quintessentially Hindu. This form of greeting stops west of India. Independent of Buddhism, India can claim a second wave of its culture, this time being Hindu. Starting around the 8th century, Hindu kingdoms came up in Southeast Asia. The world's largest religious building, Angkor Wat, is a temple to Lord Vishnu. The writings on this temple and 100 others in that area are in pure Sanskrit and the carvings depict stories from the Mahabarata, one of India's epic poems. Hinduism's influence in Southeast Asia is not limited to architecture alone but influenced the various classical dances of those nations ... Buddhism too took on grand proportions outside of India. Classical examples would be Borobudur, the Buddhist mountain shrine in Indonesia, and the mammoth-sized dagobas (Sinhalese for stupa), the largest being the Jetevanerama Dagoba, which in size equals the largest of the Pyramids in Egypt, namely the Pyramid of Cheops. Within India from its birth in the 5th century BC to its brutal demise in the 12th century AD covered a period of 1,700 years. During this period was also one of Hinduism's "golden ages" (Hinduism had several "golden ages"), the Gupta era. During this time Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism existed peacefully side by side. This can be easily seen in the Ellora cave temple complex where Hindu and Jain cave temples stand side by side with Buddhist cave temples (or viharas).
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Jul 9, '07)

Re India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4] and the letter from Benign Chinese [Jul 5]: Why are the Chinese constantly trying to convince everyone that everything they do is "benign" while the west is "bad"? Why does China have no allies? Do the Chinese actually believe we measure a culture by their words rather than their actions? I think China needs to bridge that gap from the "Middle Kingdom" to the "real world" and realize that it is one world, one people. Stop making everyone else the enemy - the enemy is primarily always our "back yard", whether it be America, China, or India. China needs to start looking at its own history and its own past before it looks at the sins of others. Please stop acting like victims and join the "real world". After living and working in China for many years, I find the Chinese a most contradictory culture - one that is highly intelligent but at the same time woefully innocent and isolated. Gross nationalism and inflammatory elitism accomplish nothing, except making more "enemies". Power politics is a reality and China deals the cards as viciously as anyone else. It was China that attacked India and not the other way around. It has been China that is more into "self-defeat" than "self-realization". Wake up, "Benign Chinese", and realize what your own people have done to your own country.
Joseph (Jul 9, '07)

I welcome the response of Fareed Zahid [letter, Jul 6]. My letter [Jul 5] was not meant to tarnish Islam, but just to highlight the fact that Islam has been used as a reason to justify pillaging and plundering ... I am not here to raise temperatures on Islam or to vilify Islam. All I have said is what has been substantiated by numerous Muslim chroniclers who accompanied the pillaging marauders. Readers interested in verifying this can visit a lot of historical monuments in India to see how many a mosque has been built using destroyed temples. The classic example is the Quwatul Islam Mosque within the precincts of Qutb Minar, in Delhi.
Kalyan Kumar
Canada (Jul 9, '07)

Commonality of enemy is the commonality of objective, the same objective that ties socialist Hugo Chavez with the Islamist [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad. Native Americans in [the] Americas number somewhere between 50 [million and] 100 million. The overwhelming majority of them live in Hispanic North America and South America. In Guatemala they form over 60% of the population and in Bolivia above 70%. It would appear in sharp contrast to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic axis of genocidal forces who did their best to wipe the native Americans out; the Hispanics treated them less brutally. And that is why Latin American countries like Mexico have large numbers of mixed race (Hispanic-Indian) populations. This is a good point for some sort of politico-social dialogue in allaying the fears of Hispanics while engaging Indians for alliance. Southern states of Mexico, particularly Chiapas, are, like Guatemala, not only full of Indians but also are almost directly parallel to strategically sensitive US states separated only by a couple of hundred miles' stretch of the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone with a foothold in these regions at least in theory poses a strategic threat of encirclement of the US. The US-Mexican border is so porous and it is so easy to penetrate deep into the heart of US through that route. There is a large strip of Indian territory stretching through Ontario right into the periphery of New York state. Encircling the US is difficult but not impossible and in my view should be one of the top priorities of jihadi forces because it offers a decent chance of fighting the US on its own soil.
Chris McGowan (Jul 9, '07)

The Spaniards were "less brutal" than the British in their subjugation of aboriginal Americans? That's a bit like saying Dachau was less brutal than Buchenwald, but anyway, last word to you on this subject. We remain unconvinced that the US Department of Homeland Security should lose too much sleep over the specter of hordes of jihadis paddling across the Gulf of Mexico from Chiapas in war canoes. - ATol

Pepe Escobar, in Iraq, the new Israel (Jul 6), views US President George W Bush's latest justification in bringing democracy to Iraq, in which he presents Israel as an ideal "model", as effectually making the plight of Iraq's Sunni Arabs analogous to the plight of the Palestinians. But the implications here are far greater. The main purpose behind the president's speech at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, was to bolster support for his latest "troop surge" strategy among an ever growing number of skeptical fellow Republicans. With the strategy now up for a major review by Congress in September, what better way for this born-again president to appeal to the evangelical Christian base of his own party than to invoke the biblical name of Israel? Nothing else can transcend the harsh realities of the quagmire that the administration is now facing in Iraq, except this trans-ideological belief in the certainty that the Jewish state plays a crucial redemptive role in a fundamentalist Christian script for the End of Days. Time and time again, this has been the deeply unspoken, yet overriding, rationale for the irrational bloodshed, torture and unimaginable suffering inflicted upon the innocent and war-torn people of Iraq. Paradoxically, Christian evangelicals see this as a portent of what is to come - a Day when the whole of the Muslim Middle East will not only be ruled under the political sovereignty of democratically elected governments, but will be ruled under the divine and glorious sovereignty of "The Prince of Peace: the Lord Jesus Christ".
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 6, '07)

I am most amused by [Sudha] Ramachandran's article India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4], especially with [her] efforts to claim Buddhism as India's own. Buddhism may have originated from India, but it was cast out most cruelly by the Hindu (and later Islamic) rulers. Stupas were turned into Hindu temples and, most tellingly, even the Tree of Enlightenment was destroyed. The author mentions Tibet but should be reminded that China has always maintained that its actions in Tibet were in response to separatism, and never a hatred of Buddhism per se. Today, there are basically no Buddhists in India. Buddhism is almost an alien religion there. The practice of the untouchable caste conversion to Buddhism is symbolic, a means of saying, "I am no longer Indian." In contrast, the East Asian cultures embraced the faith and, more importantly, [synchronized] it into their own cultures and traditions. No, India will not be considered by East Asian Buddhists as the spiritual motherland. Buddhism in India will turn out to be nothing more than tourists traps, ie, "Here's the birthplace of Buddha" and "Here's the (new) Tree of Enlightenment."
Vigilant Reason
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Jul 6, '07)

Although even Indians accept that the birthplace of the Buddha was likely just across the northern border in present-day Nepal. - ATol

In the various letters commenting on India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4], the words "the Buddhist kingdom of Tibet" ring loud and strong (Jakob Cambria, Jul 5). For it was the Dalai Lama who wanted to reign, and is supposed to have the legal right to reign by outside supporters, as a king in Tibet. First the British, and then some Indian politicians of yesteryear, looked at Tibet with a salivating tongue and greedy eyes. Other outside onlookers, now in frustration, could only chime in with condemning words on China, no matter how the livelihood of Tibetans has improved. Fortunately or unfortunately, historical legacy and geographic proximity have favored China with respect to the fate of Tibet over any other foreign "designer". Its inevitability has to be reconciled like many other nations holding "foreign land".
S P Li (Jul 6, '07)

Rightly or wrongly, nationalistic pride has little to do with "improved livelihood" brought by a conqueror - East Timor is only the most recent example of an "independent" nation that cannot support itself. The "we make the primitives' lives better" argument has been used through the ages to justify imperialism. - ATol

Re India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4], or should I call it "software-Buddhism"? The Indians are good at selling anything and exploiting Buddhism for commercialism, and for any ideological superiority. Now that the Chinese have plenty yuan [with which] to travel abroad and their government [is] trying to soften its ruthless image, it is using Buddhism to rediscover its ancient religion. The Indians worship goddess Lakshmi (of wealth) without any scruples; Buddhism is another tourist commodity to sell for the Indians. As a matter of fact, it was the Emperor Ashoka who after massacring millions of innocent people, destroying everything to rubble in his path in pursuit of infamous victories stretching from Afghanistan to Bengal that made him to convert Buddhism to seek refuge for his lament and guilt of barbarism. It is absurd, unfounded and perfidious to say, as [a] few Hindu writers have claimed, that the Muslims were the cause of Buddhism's demise in India. It was in fact the Muslims who were saviors of the Buddhists and what remained of Buddhism in India when they landed in the Indus valley in AD 710. Before the advent of the young Muslim commander Mohammed bin Qasim in 710, Sindh was predominately Buddhist under Hindu rulers. Hinduism was engaged at that time in eliminating Buddhism and exterminating any remaining Buddhist in India. While the Buddhists were maligned, persecuted and suppressed violently as misguided evil revisionists by the Hindu rulers and fanatical mobs, Qasim arrived at Bhambore, 65 kilometers east of Karachi. Not surprisingly, he found a welcoming populace in the Buddhist community, the Arab Muslims appearing as liberators as they defeated their rulers and oppressors and finally defeating King Dahir. In order to extend the pattern of Muslim administration in newly acquired territory, Qasim allowed the Buddhists and later the Hindus to claim the status of the "people of the Book". Like the Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Hindus were entitled to convert to Islam or to seek protection by the Islamic state. Tolerance of other religions in the Sindh-Multan kingdom was remarkable and free from oppressive features of Hindu rulers. Hindus and Buddhists in millions converted to Islam without compulsion but willingly and with open arms to escape the iniquitous Hindu caste system, its self-indulging and inflicting ethos; and for the Buddhist, it was freedom from Hindus' persecution and vehement violence. Following this pattern, Islam spread in the subcontinent more as result of Sufi missionary activity than invasions. Many devoted Sufis settled down permanently in the subcontinent, teaching and spreading Islam by [precept] and example. Even today we see millions upon millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and people of other faiths venerating their shrines. By the beginning of the 11th century, the entire Indus Valley from the Hindu Kush mountains to the Arabian Sea was dotted by Sufi shrines, which later began to spill over to the Gangetic valley created by the melting snows of the Himalayas. That was the power of Islam and its message of love, peace, harmony, submission and to worship one God (Allah) and none else.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 6, '07)

I want to thank Kalyan Kumar [letter, Jul 5] for pointing out to us that the great Buddhist Nalanda University was destroyed by Bakhtiar Khilji in the 12th century. While this sad fact is not in dispute, what is objectionable is Mr Kumar's odious assertion that the destruction was perpetrated "in the name of Islam". Bakhtiar Khilji was an astute and ferocious military commander, and, keeping to the practice of his times, did plunder, ransack and take his share of the spoils of war. His behavior was not (and is not) pardonable. Neither was it Islamic. During his lifetime, Prophet Mohammed laid down clear rules of engagement during armed conflict and explicitly prohibited violence against civilians, and the wanton destruction of property and livestock. As Muslims, we are well aware of the value [of] great institutions of learning. And we know how unbearable and irreplaceable the loss of such institutions is. After all, a few decades after the demise of Nalanda, Baghdad (which had several magnificent universities, including its Grand Library) was destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. The Mongols were led by Hulagu Khan, a Buddhist and, by all accounts, rabidly anti-Islamic. Now, you don't see me blaming Buddhism for his deeds, do you? Perhaps it would behoove Mr Kumar to put aside his prejudices and not resort to such callous and unsubstantiated statements in the future.
Fareed Zahid
USA (Jul 6, '07)

I am from the US and a friend suggested your site. I have enjoyed most [of] the articles and have learned a lot about Asia. Surprisingly I also learned more about my country when I came across the article Spinning the Korean model [Jun 14]. Why don't we get news like this in the US? Thanks for an informative site.
Pamela
USA (Jul 6, '07)

The US is not the only country where corporate media have shrugged off their investigative responsibilities, preferring to swallow government press releases unchallenged while pandering to the masses who care more about Paris Hilton's jail time than their nation's participation in bloody and unjustified wars. That's good for us, though; more and more frustrated news junkies are turning to websites like ours. Now, if only we could convert those burgeoning readership numbers into more advertising revenue… - ATol

I just wanted to commend you all for a great website. I thought the article by Sudha Ramachandran India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism (Jul 4) was really very well written and an interesting read. It was understandable and made a lot of sense. I have been reading all her articles and would like to see more of these in your website.
Krish Sen (Jul 5, '07)

If one is made to believe in total that most Indians, especially the intelligentsia and those [of] upper-class society [who] really matter, indulge in the same line of thinking as portrayed by the content of the article India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4] by Sudha Ramachandran, then it may be sadly concluded that India has made a very serious and silly mistake of enormous proportion. She has therefore unknowingly and injudiciously fallen into a predestined trap set up by the West, through their relentless media hype, which sets the course for a potentially self-destructive but totally unnecessary collision course with China. It is a real pity, for this may yet represent a golden opportunity squandered, between both China and India, for failing to set the determined sight for creating a truly great Asian Century. It would be prudent to remind the ambitious Indians to see through the myths created by the Western media hype on India's perceived strengths and superiorities vis-a-vis China so as not to be deceived into believing that India does indeed lie within easy range in its competition with China. To most conscious and sober-minded pundits, let alone Chinese strategists, India simply falls way outside the same category in almost all fields of contest except perhaps in IT [information technology] software. To put it insultingly, Chinese simply do not blink an attentive, let alone wary, eye on anything Indian. So instead of wasting one's time positioning to get at the throats of each other, so to say, let us put our energies together to work towards a brilliant Asian Century.
Benign Chinese (Jul 5, '07)

India is playing its Buddhist card in East and Southeast Asia, Sudha Ramachandran tells us [India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism, Jul 4]. China has tried to keep its rival out of these markets, but New Delhi is finding a way to elbow its way into them. And India has a trump card to play against China. One of China's great classics is Journey to the West or, as some in the West may know it from Arthur Waley's translation, Monkey. It is the journey of a monk Xuanzang to the west. The Bodhisattva Guanyin gives him three protectors, one of whom is Sun Wukong (whose name ATol readers will easy recognize as a nom de plume of a frequent commentator [China editor Wu Zhong]) to help Xuanzang atone for his past sins. The point here is that the west is India, the cradle of Buddhism, [and] China literally acknowledges its primordial spiritual superiority. Try as China might to keep India out of Southeast Asia, it cannot efface the centuries of the [melding] of Chinese and Indian beliefs and practices ... In East Asia, as China waxes strong economically, Japan and Korea will find in India a more supple partner in trade and technology and financial instruments. Beijing does see India as a force to deal with. India has its usefulness as a potential model; it is ripe for investment and rapid return on yen or won or euros or dollars invested. More broadly speaking, it offers a non-hegemonic template in that it seeks not to reimpose its presence on an imperial model which, almost historically determined, Beijing is cast to play as the successor to an Imperial China with its vassal states. New Delhi comes with the olive branch of "power beyond vengeance" and a foil to Beijing and its brutal rule of the Buddhist kingdom of Tibet.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 5, '07)

India can take pride in being the country where Buddhism was born and exported to so many other countries, where it was and is still revered. But so what? Christianity now finds its full glory not where Jesus Christ was born and preached. It is well known that the original form of Buddhism has languished for a long period in history inside India. Its recent revival should be welcome news. But it is not necessary for [Sudha] Ramachandran (India has its own 'soft power' -Buddhism, Jul 4) to veer into dispute between India and China by drawing in the problem of the Dalai Lama and Tibet. In fact it is counter to the spirit and effort of cooperation, as [she] mentioned the building of an Indian-styled temple, graciously funded by India, among the Baima temple complex in Luoyang, China. If Buddhism can play any meaningful role in the relationships among East and Southeast Asian countries, what India is doing is to be commended.
S P Li (Jul 5, '07)

Sudha Ramachandran's article India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4], which is otherwise well written, has one serious flaw. She writes that Nalanda University died a slow death in the 12th century. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the truth. The truth is that this great university that was visited by the likes of Xuanzang and Faxian was destroyed by [Turkic] marauder Bhaktiar Khilji around 1199, all in the name of Islam. History, however comfortable, has to be told truthfully, and not whitewashed as is being done currently in India. Nalanda University at its peak had the capacity to house thousands of students from all over Asia. Khilji's vandalism destroyed a library that housed 9 million books. This has been recorded for posterity by Mirjah, a chronicler who was a contemporary of Khilji. To this day there exists a town by the name of Bhaktiarpur somewhere in … Bihar where Bhaktiar Kalji lies buried.
Kalyan Kumar
Canada (Jul 5, '07)

India has its own 'soft power' - Buddhism [Jul 4] is a well-written article on a subject far overdue. One pertinent point that should have been made in the article is the comparison of the spread of Christianity to Europe versus Buddhism's spread to Asia from India. Unlike India, Christianity started taking root within years of the Lord Jesus' death. This caused Christianity in Europe to take on a definite "European" culture. But in the case of India, Buddhism remained for 200 years before the first outside nation was converted in the 3rd century BC (Sri Lanka) and China did not receive Buddhism until about the 4th century AD. This phenomenon meant that Buddhism had already matured in India's culture, thereby carrying a greater payload of India's culture to the rest of Asia. This resulted in India's stupas becoming the pagodas of East Asia. The spread of Yogism and the fully developed schools of Buddhism, namely Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana, to far-off lands. The fact that Buddhism from India also took a huge [amount] of Indian culture to the rest of Asia cannot be more strongly stated.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Jul 5, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad: After reading your article Pakistan in crisis over mosque attack [Jul 4], I ask if you think Islam is being hijacked by radical conservatives who believe that everyone must submit to their brand of Islam or face death. With so much evil in the world, you would think that extreme Islamists would be spending more time trying to heal the world's ills than contributing to [them]. Just a few days ago radicals tried to detonate a bomb designed to kill civilians in London. I think no one would be surprised to find that they were motivated by their "love of God". What good is a religion if all it produces are bigoted extremists bent on making everyone see their point of view by force? It makes me glad that I abandoned my religion years ago.
Ernie Geefay
El Dorado Hills, California (Jul 5, '07)

Everybody expects the flag bearers of civil society to raise their voice against inflation, vice and corruption, but those who claim to be liberal democrats not only remain tight-lipped on such issues but in some cases are part of such things. As a result, when Islamic radicals took over these issues and called for the enforcement of Islamic sharia, they emerged as popular leaders. This is the situation in the Muslim world from Morocco to Central Asia. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

[Re Pakistan in crisis over mosque attack, Jul 4] Glad to hear [the Pakistani] government is cracking down - this stuff only gets worse (like Gaza) if allowed to go on - most people just want to raise families in peace. They should start wiping out the 1,000 jihadis before they get to Karachi - they are not innocent bystanders. The only thing that really worked to get rid of dissidents was done by Syria to Hamas, and I hope it doesn't come to that again.
Rich S (Jul 5, '07)

Syed Saleem Shahzad [Pakistan in crisis over mosque attack, Jul 4]: I appreciate very much the work you are doing at Asia Times [Online]. The inside accounts on the turmoil in the western provinces [of Pakistan] have provided valuable insight to us trapped beneath [US President George W] Bush's news "filter". Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me. Is the Red Mosque connected to Iran, other than patterning its schools on their [Iranians'] form of revolutionary Islam? Which of the Afghan forces were supported by Iran in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal?
Peter Chamberlin (Jul 5, '07)

Lal Masjid does not have any Iranian connection. Shura-i-Nazaar, led by Ahmed Shah Masood, was supported by Iran after the withdrawal of Soviet troops. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

[Re What they didn't say at Kennebunkport, Jul 3] ... The idea of holding this meeting at Kennebunkport was that President G W Bush hoped wooing President [Vladimir] Putin to put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program. President Bush is also hoping that Mr Putin will agree to a tough sanction package, including freezing the assets of Iranian banks and mandatory inspection of all cargo to and from Iran. Kennebunkport was built by the president's great-grandfather, and it was once used by [former US president George H W] Bush, with little success, to hold talks with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, [Israeli leader Yitzhak] Rabin and [British prime minister Margaret] Thatcher. It is the last chance that the two will ever meet as leaders, as Mr Putin's successor will be chosen in March 2008 by the Russians. I should hope that the two at least enjoyed a good fishing trip at the New England retreat without a catch.
Saqib Khan
UK (Jul 5, '07)

Spengler [What they didn't say at Kennebunkport, Jul 3]: Why are you always cheerleading the following?

Kill Muslims.

Destroy Islam.

Rape Muslim women.

Everybody get together, Hindus, Jews, Christians, communists, and all other good races. Let's get respect from these Muslims using the above tactics. We mean well to them, peace, love, democracy and all that claptrap.
Let's have some headlines such as, "It's unfortunate that 7 million civilians were killed [as] collateral damage. We're sorry today, yesterday, and we will be sorry tomorrow for 7 million more." The true question is, "Why is Islam so abhorrent to the above religions, cultures, and peoples?" It bemuses me. Recently, the floods in Britain did around 3 billion pounds' worth of damage to homes, injured over 1,000, [made] homeless 100,000 and [killed] 10. Yet they get no coverage; the only thing that gets coverage is the burning car in Glasgow. Cars are burned in Glasgow every day by people completing fake insurance claims, at a rate of 100 per day ... I think I have clocked on as to why such feverish hatred is being pushed by the white establishment against Islamic countries. There is just one reason: Islam is coming, mostly, in fact 99.995%, peacefully. They know Islam is coming, so they battle it, they forge it in heat, build it by fighting it, oppressing it, belittling it, so it gets stronger demographically, technologically, economically, ideologically, materially, resourcefully and logistically. The white establishment of Jews and Christians then wonders why its growth reaches stratospheric proportions in short times, so they fight it again. They nuke it, plunder it, mistreat it, try to rape it, ridicule it, and then spit and piss on it, thinking that this will dissuade the growth. But, like a phoenix or a cancer, it just gets tougher, sharper, smarter, and quicker ... It's an absolutely amazing spectacle seeing buffoons like Spengler the "neo-con Herod" watching as his greatest wishes of death, destruction, child rape, pillage and child torture are turned on their head ... By the way, I'm not a Muslim, I'm just a bloke who watches the news and accurately understands the stupidity of our governments ...
Amar Manzoor (Jul 5, '07)

In response to the Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin's call for "surgical strikes" on Iran (July 2 letter in response to Kaveh Afrasiabi's article US-Iran: Taking talks to the next level [Jun 30]): While I am no fan of Dr Afrasiabi's indulgence for the ruling regime in Iran, I find it astounding that a man of the Church should so freely call for an attack on Iran, solely on the basis of obviously targeted political campaigning statements on the part of the presidential candidates in the United States, without realizing both the short-term and long-term implications of any such attack. A few commentators have on occasion expressed awareness of the threat to innocent civilians, as well as to the population of neighboring countries in terms of potential radiation fallout, not to mention the risk of escalation and devastating political consequences, but it is truly shocking that not one of those who advocate attacks on Iran, nor even those who oppose them, should mention the almost certain annihilation of some of the world's greatest artistic and architectural heritage (described by a British writer as "one of the truly great architectural traditions") as a result of the potent vibrations caused by nuclear bunker-busters ... The loss of monuments of such importance, added to the tragic loss of great artistic heritage in Iraq, part of which is either Iranian-built or Iranian-inspired (not to mention Buddhist monuments in North Korea and North Vietnam), will condemn the perpetrators and their allies as savage barbarians with total disrespect for the creative genius that belongs to all of mankind. I sincerely hope that the reverend will take time to read more about the artistic monuments of Iran, a worthwhile subject about which he is evidently ignorant. Otherwise he would put himself in the league of the same philistine barbarians, a label that, one hopes, someone of his calling would much rather avoid. The majority of Iranians revere their heritage more than they hate the ruling mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards; they know that the latter are bound to vanish sooner or later into the dustbin of history, but they will never forgive the total destruction likely to ensue from any "surgical strikes" on Esfahan and Natanz ...
Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian
London, England (Jul 5, '07)

Cha-am Jamal (letter, Jul 3) casts doubt on the resolve of a future US Democratic president to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations in the event of a breakdown in diplomatic efforts to halt its nuclear-enrichment program. To support his argument, he goes back to the presidency of Jimmy Carter - the man who "lost his embassy to the (Iranian) ayatollahs". The problem here is that he does not go back far enough, such as to the Democratic presidency of the late John F Kennedy and his handling of the so-called Cuban missile crisis. Since the breakdown of the former Soviet Union, there has come the chilling revelation, which was completely unknown at the time, that the Soviet missiles that were stationed in Cuba were in fact already fitted with nuclear warheads. Not only does this now further vindicate president Kennedy's resolve to threaten the use of America's nuclear arsenal against the Soviets, but it also sets the grave precedent for [future US presidents] - be they Democrat or Republican - to be equally uncompromising in the face of any real or potential nuclear threat to either the US or any of its allies, such as Israel and South Korea. Of course, it would be a far better option for all concerned if the US were to lead the world in bringing about the total abolition of nuclear weapons. But as John Feffer so ably argues in Disarming the nuclear genie (Jul 3), this has now become more of a distant reality given the recent bipartisan congressional support for what is called Complex 2030 - an ambitious new program that will completely revolutionize the potency of the US nuclear arsenal.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 5, '07)

[Re ATol comment under Chris McGovan's letter of Jul 3] I can confirm that the native Americans' struggle has mutated and transformed over the past couple of years and foreign elements have gone in under one or the other context. For example, the de facto leader of native American resistance in the Mexican zone is Hispanic. The current version of the native American struggle is much more hectic and there has been quite a bit of bloodshed, assassinations and abductions. People and struggles do mutate and transform. There used to be a famous quotation in relation to Kashmiris who were known to be very peaceful: "Put a gun on the hill pointing in the enemy's direction and it will shoot itself." But that all changed a couple of decades ago. There is a famous saying [that the] "enemy of my enemy is my friend". Jihadis and Iran need allies in the front and the back yard of the US and native Americans need resourceful allies. There is a Europe-based council of native Americans. If that has not complicated their struggle much, then I cannot see how it is going to be affected by seeking support from jihadis. Chiapas is more rugged and mountainous than many parts of Afghanistan.
Chris McGowan (Jul 5, '07)

The nature of jihad and the nature of the mainstream native American civil-rights struggle are fundamentally different, as are their goals and tactics. The "enemy of my enemy" adage presupposes some commonality of purpose, for instance that of natives and lower-class ethnic Hispanics in Mexico. As well, one is hard pressed to find any evidence that even the laudable goals of jihad briefly outlined by Syed Saleem Shahzad under Ernie Geefay's letter above have anywhere translated into the betterment of non-Muslim cultures. In other words, what would the jihadis bring to the party? - ATol

I am not sure when I stopped reading Spengler. At first I was mesmerized by his classical knowledge and wit; he could spin a story in a way I would never have thought of. And yet over time, since 2003, I have gone [from] this view to a place where I barely glance at his drivel; after all, what is the view of one more Likudnik? But for some reason his What they didn't say at Kennebunkport [Jul 3] drew my attention, probably because he wrote about his [US President George W Bush's] fantasy conversation with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and Putin interests me. But alas, the article was really about the purity and goodness of Bush, and Putin was just the set piece for Spengler's fabrication.
Ben (Jul 3, '07)

Says Spengler in his latest hate manifesto, "[US President George W] Bush: ... How do you propose to gain influence among Muslims? [Russian President Vladimir] Putin: ... We've been killing Muslims for 300 years. That's why they respect us" [What they didn't say at Kennebunkport, Jul 3]. I understand it's fun having a loony onboard, but I think you will do yourself a favor if you at least distance yourself from these genocidal propositions. On a side note: Spengler, it seems you calculation is wrong again; the only thing that the Israelis and Russians have achieved with their violent repressions against Muslims is triggering a very, very fast growth of Muslim population in their respective areas of influence, which, as you note, could make Russia a Muslim country in a rather short period of time. It seems that there isn't anything that can be done. Maybe you should learn to enjoy it.
Mustafa
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Jul 3, '07)

Re What they didn't say at Kennebunkport [Jul 3]: A more appropriate title for Spengler's warmongering imaginary tete-a-tete between [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and George [W Bush] would have been "Putin/Spengler tells Bush to kill more Muslims in order to get their respect". Isn't that like [Adolf] Hitler's take on getting the Jews to behave? Obviously subtlety is not Spengler's forte. Neither are the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis or several thousand Afghans. What would really nail the respect Spengler hopes for is an additional 600,000 or more Iranian Muslims. But would it not have been heaven-sent if they had said that in Kennebunkport? Then Spengler could have celebrated with a bottle of schnapps and composed a more Harry Potter-like ditty.
Armand De Laurell (Jul 3, '07)

Antoaneta Bezlova's piece Shanghaied into modernity [Jul 3] is very informative. I am surprised by the fact that the author didn't mention cars, which [are] a very important factor behind the changes that are occurring not only in Shanghai but also throughout China's other major cities. There is plenty to criticize about Mao [Zedong]'s legacy, but one of the greatest achievements of his era was the provision of almost every Chinese with a bicycle alongside a ban on car acquisition by individuals. No better health policy than that could be devised. Today, cars have supplanted bicycles in the largest cities, Shanghai in particular, and numerous neighborhoods and historical buildings have been destroyed not only to give way to skyscrapers but also to make room for highways and car parks. The result is pollution that has changed the color of the sky and the composition of the air forever, a constant and deafening noise, the killing and injuring of thousands of people each year, the suppression of walking alleyways and the reduction of public space to almost nothing. As is the case with Shanghai, I can see the same thing happening here in Suzhou. Suzhou used to be called the Venice of the Orient because of its beautiful water channels, its magnificent architecture and its wonderful gardens. Nowadays, it is as depressing as Shanghai and it has lost about all of its legendary past, except for its name. Its historical buildings in the city center are now home to KFCs and McDonald's where young lovers hang out, eating hamburgers and drinking Coca-Colas. Who cares about conservation when "modernity" is at the reach of your wallet?
Daniel Mazir
Suzhou, China (Jul 3, '07)

Re Shanghaied into modernity by Antoaneta Bezlova (Jul 2): I wonder if "New Yorked into modernity" makes more or less sense. First, if "New York" could be used as a verb, what would it have meant? As an analogy, it probably would have meant that many Americans were duped or kidnapped into working as indentured laborers in China. I am not sure if the author was cognizant of the irony. Nor was [she] aware of the possibility that the existence of the colonial structures in Shanghai was the precursor to the tumultuous period of the Cultural Revolution. Second, is New York uniquely American or [does it need] to be so? I don't think it is or needs to be uniquely American. It is just modern, albeit a little less so today. Being redolent of traditional or historical culture does not make a city metropolitan and prosperous; being modern does. Modernity is based on functionality and on the universality of appeal that transcends tradition and ethnicity, though individual needs and tastes differ. Traditional or historical culture has its ways of surviving if it serves a purpose to people's lives, otherwise it perishes. Its preservation should not be planned. Moreover, I believe China today needs more modernity, universality and functionality than traditional or historical culture. Human beings are cognitive beings; there is a greater need to develop the intellect for individualism in functions and selective tastes, universality in aggregate.
Jeff Church
USA (Jul 3, '07)

Richard M Bennett [Fighting terrorism - but at what cost?, Jul 3] talks about the costs of fighting terrorism, but he fails to consider how such costs feed upon each other or how governmental policies apparently unrelated to security can render such costs useless. Here in the US, the security apparatus has always devoted the bulk of its resources to domestic spying on innocent citizens. Moreover, to take an example apparently unrelated to security, American farm subsidies drive Mexican subsistence farmers off the land, impelling many of them to look for work in the US as illegal aliens and thus drawing off security resources that ought to be targeting terrorists. In the US, today's enemies aren't the terrorists: they're ordinary folks who are against the war in Iraq or other governmental policies. Thus as the security apparatus grows in head count, the amount of counterproductive domestic spying on those who oppose the war in Iraq or the war on drugs grows yet faster, as nearly all the new security resources are misdirected into activities that weaken liberties while further ignoring the real threats. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who admires the UK's security measures, recently said in so many words that it's more important to keep Americans toeing the governmental line than to protect the very liberties that give the nation strength. He's not just worried about those who are against the war in Iraq, but also those who oppose the nation's foreign policy in general. The contempt that leaders in Washington have for the folks they represent is what is harming the nation's security.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Jul 3, '07)

Re US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan [Jul 3]: There is a large number of native American groups overtly and covertly active all across North America, some of them right on the borders of the US and others deep inside North American territories. The terrain of some of these territories appears to be similar to the rugged terrains of Afghanistan and Nepal. I understand that these groups are generally low in resources. Like Afghans, they would appear to be fiercely independent, to the extent paranoia. Those on the Mexican side speak and understand either Spanish or various local languages. Those on the Canadian side are English speakers. I understand some of them are nominally Catholics and others followers of traditional native American spiritualist faith. Some Catholic and leftist groups and in their disguise Western intelligence services may have established inroads into these regions. There is a great potential there, because if jihadis decided in some way to establish links and make forays into these regions, that would be take some pressure off the Muslim world and eventually sort out the American menace once and for all. I suspect these native American groups would be more trusting of groups such as Tamil Tigers or Nepali communist guerrillas or anti-government guerrillas from southern Indian states simply because of their similar looks. I think Kazakhs of northern Afghanistan would blend even more easily with native Americans, but the question is whether there are any English/Spanish-speaking Kazakhs. I believe one of the best ways for the Afghans, jihadis and Iranians to avenge their problems would be to train, arm, finance and feed the native American groups.
Chris McGovan (Jul 3, '07)

Your scenario seems rather far-fetched. The native peoples of the Americas have fought oppression and prejudice for centuries, with varying degrees of success, and there are well-established native-rights and protest groups practically from the North Pole to the South. Very few of these groups are militant, few if any are religious-based, and they have demonstrated little or no interest in or solidarity with the struggles of Afghans, Tamils, Nepalis or any other non-American people or culture, nor vice versa. Importing foreign battles into the native American context would seem merely to complicate local campaigns and attract unwanted attention from law-enforcement and national-security agencies. - ATol

Re Deja-Wu: Why China must revalue [Jun 30]: I agree with Chan Akya's assertion that China must revalue the yuan sooner than later, and I'd like to try to explain why the recalls of the Chinese products in question, particularly pet food and toys, are such hot stories in [the United States of] America at the moment. Many Americans consider their pets to be members of the family, not just mere animals. Pet-related products are a billion-dollar industry, and people spend lavishly on their pets. Pets often receive gifts on birthdays and holidays. Animal cruelty is a criminal offense that is punishable by fines and, in some states, with jail time. Thousands of American pets perished [because of] tainted Chinese pet food. For many pet owners, it was as if a family member had passed away. Pet owners have been quoted as feeling "heartsick" and "devastated" by the loss of their pet. People of other cultures may not understand this emotional bond Americans have with their pets, but in America this is a big deal. The toys in question are not "a fairly undistinguished line of toys". Thomas the Tank Engine toys and videos are based on books written over the last 60 years. Millions of children have read the books, played with the toys and watch the TV show. People collect the toys, and they are a part of many people's childhood memories. Since the dangers of lead paint were discovered, its use is a huge no-no in America. Exposing children to lead paint is subsequently a newsworthy story, particularly when that exposure comes via an iconic toy. China seems to want a good relationship with the United States. A good way to achieve this would be to stop putting American children and pets in harm's way.
TaMu
China (Jul 3, '07)

Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin [letter, Jul 2]: Pre-election political-speak in [the United States of] America may not be taken literally. One must understand the context and read between the lines. In the next presidential election, the Democrats will have to overcome the charge that they are just so many mamsy-pamsy gutless liberal descendants of Jimmy Carter, the man [who] lost his embassy to the ayatollahs. They have to talk tougher than they mean just to break even. As for surgical strikes on Iran, I don't believe that they mean a word of it.
Reverend Dr Cha-am Jamal
Phetchaburi, Thailand (Jul 3, '07)

Re US-Iran: Taking talks to the next level (Jun 30): I really wonder what kind of diplomatic circles Kaveh L Afrasiabi mixes with to make him place so much reliance on the comment made by the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, that any military option to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis is "madness". If this is truly the consensus out there, then why have the two leading US Democratic presidential front-runners, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both been advocating for over 12 months now their support for "surgical strikes" against Iran if it fails to halt its nuclear-enrichment program? Ever since early 2005, intense rounds of shuttle diplomacy have occurred between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] headquarters in Brussels to provide what former CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] director Porter Goss officially declared in Ankara on December 30, 2005, to be the necessary "political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets". The whole combined military operation, which also has the tacit support of a number of frontline Arab states, would be firmly under US command. It will be coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (US STRATCOM) at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey. The planned use of "surgical strikes", however, will include the deployment of a whole new generation of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons - the so-called "mini-nukes", which are being touted by the Pentagon as "safe" for civilians because the explosions "take place under ground". Moreover, Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air-launched weapons", including some 500 "bunker-buster" bombs that can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear weapons. Yet despite the fact that senior US Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush administration for having developed "a generation of more usable nuclear weapons", his two Democratic colleagues, Senators Clinton and Obama, remain unfazed in their continued support for "surgical strikes". This makes it all the more difficult to believe Afrasiabi's contention that the relatively "dovish" US State Department, headed by Condoleezza Rice, is trying to put a premium on the "outsourcing" of the Iran nuclear issue to the European Union. Indeed, the only real "outsourcing" that appears to be going on at the moment is US STRATCOM's preparation for nuclear war.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Jul 2, '07)

It is almost unthinkable that Stephen Zunes' The rise and rise of Hamas [Jun 30] would find its way into the mainstream American press. It is best left to the blogs or e-zines, you would think. His conceit has a maverick quality. His assertion that "Israel … encouraged the rise of ... Harakat al-Muqaqama al-Islamiyya or Hamas" does not go along with today's accepted wisdom about this Palestinian Islamist movement. Yet a generation ago, in the European press, it was an open secret, which by now has faded into the woodwork. The unstated promotion of Hamas as a foil to Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization suited Israeli designs. The PLO was fighting for the right of the people of Palestine, then as now under Israeli occupation, to have a state of their own. A generation later, the PLO or Fatah ironically is serving Israeli designs to create a truncated, client state on the West Bank which has not been seized by Jewish settlers, and it is now Hamas, which once served Israel's strategy to cripple and weaken Yasser Arafat, [that] is now opposing planned efforts to deny Palestinians the right to self-determination. And to this purpose Washington, London, and the European Union jump to Israel's crack of the whip. Israel is reaping the whirlwind from the seeds of destruction that it has sown against the Palestinians.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 2, '07)

Pepe Escobar [Hamastan and Redzoneistan, Jun 29] bemoans that Americans are able to mobilize themselves only for vapid causes such as the incarceration of Paris Hilton. And, certainly, the US and Israel have created and preside over some truly hellish conditions in the Islamic world. But I'd like to ask: For whom would one, with a good conscience, root for in the Islamic world? Not for the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites locked in a vicious fratricidal embrace fueled by their respective religious fantasies. Not for the Taliban or the theocrats in Tehran with their retrograde medieval attitudes toward women, secularism, personal freedom and criminal justice. And, most definitely, not for the myriad putrid Sunni sheikhs, emirs and dictators who grind their own people on behalf of the Western powers. I am convinced that the planet would be infinitely better off were this whole miserable lot simply to vanish. Islamic societies are so hopelessly anachronistic and backward that perhaps, like America's antebellum south, they need to be swept away by war so that a fresh start might be had. As the poet Robinson Jeffers once observed, war has often been the necessary catalyst of much beneficial change - it has often been, as he put it, "the bloody sire".
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Jul 2, '07)

Thank you for the article Surging past the gates of hell [Jun 29]. As a Desert Storm and 15-year [US] Army infantry veteran, I am very broken-hearted by the death and destruction that [were] perpetrated in the name of "We the People". We have brought nothing but chaos, death and destruction to what once was a beautiful country and culture. We must bring an end to this occupation and the travesty of policy that has hijacked our national and moral principles! My continued question to those who beat the drums of war: Was/is it worth the price in blood and treasure? If your answer is yes, then you, my friends, have forgotten what made our nation great, and the "shining city on the hill" has lost much of its glow. May God forgive us and continue to open our eyes, hearts and minds.
Ira D Jinkins Sr
Lincoln, Nebraska (Jul 2, '07)

I thought the article Spinning the Korean model [Jun 14] was excellent. It also got me wondering about the history of US post-occupation strategies in Japan and Germany after World War II. [Beverly] Darling or one of your writers should look into that.
Corky Jones (Jul 2, '07)

Beverly Darling's Spinning the Korean model [Jun 14] wrongly accuses the United States of preventing democracy in South Korea and surprisingly adds that it commits human-rights abuses there now. In fact, Washington's policies have been strategically sensible and facilitate freedom. To start, given previously weak postwar democratic institutions in South Korea, dictatorships there were inevitable. Yet Seoul's autocracies were a far cry from the brutal alternatives that mass-murdering Mao [Zedong], [Josef] Stalin and Kim Il-sung forced on to their millions of victims. Also recall the ever present North Korean threat. South Korea's post-1953 strongmen rebuffed the aforementioned powerful, aggressive communist alliance that nearly destroyed their country during a blood-drenched war. They then stood firm for decades during the continuous powder-keg military confrontation and a North Korean-inspired domestic insurgency: assassination attempts against presidents Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, the digging of invasion tunnels, the seizure of a US naval vessel and torture of its hostage crew, an airliner terrorist bombing to disrupt the Olympics, kidnappings of hundreds of South Koreans and deadly naval clashes, to name a few. From World War II onward, Washington and Seoul prevented foreign totalitarianism's claws from gripping South Korea by deterring North Korea and its backers. While the US reluctantly supported moderately non-democratic regimes in Seoul that it did not welcome as part of its stabilization strategy, it also pressured those strongmen to liberalize. America's tools were aid preconditions, objections to the application of the National Security Law against legitimate opponents, US support for South Korean presidential elections, real threats to end the defense alliance and twice saving the life of then-progressive dissident Kim Dae-jung from extrajudicial executions. Washington knew that liberalizing results would take time. As for her charge that American-led human-rights violations are under way in South Korea, Darling must cite sources. Sovereign South Korea enjoys monopoly-of-force in peacetime to protect its citizens ... In fact, what surprises and provokes many who care about Korean democracy is that the current South Korean administration remains silent over North Korean atrocities. The once-in-opposition "386 Generation" vowed never to support dictatorship and previously condemned the US for the very capitalist expansion required to oppose totalitarian communism. Now that generation holds power. Surprisingly, those who once opposed dictatorship bristle as the United States keeps North Korea's human rights on the front burner and funds altruistic NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that spotlight the North's cruel depredations on its own people - a humanist agenda that Darling may wish to reconsider.
Collin Baber
Metro Seoul, South Korea (Jul 2, '07)

June Letters

Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110