In response to Hans Jurgen Kary's letter of July 28 regarding Groupthink and the slide into fascism (Jul 27), I can only say I agree with Mr Kary's opinion of Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. While The Crowd was written in 1897, the inner workings of humanity appear to have remained essentially the same, with a reading of Le Bon's work indeed helping to appreciate much of the present US administration's style, its seeming pursuit of Le Bon's theories of mass manipulation as gospel. But as regards serializing the work, I personally would prefer two of Erich Fromm's: his 1941 Escape from Freedom and 1968's The Revolution of Hope. It is in the latter work where Fromm depicts man's future as a cross between George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, an unpleasant fate that increasing numbers are seeing as of pressing and legitimate concern.
Ritt Goldstein (Jul 30, '04)


In his July 26 letter, J Zhang says that "Taiwan" is a politically loaded phrase, and advises me to use the term "Taipei" when referring to Taiwan. He later states in another letter (Jul 28) that I embed my opinions in my writing. This is interesting, because so far as I know, I have never met J Zhang, and I have certainly never expounded my opinions to him (or her, as "J" does nothing to clarify the writer's gender). But back to the use of "Taiwan", I will continue to use "Taiwan" and "Taipei" interchangeably, much as I use "China" and "Beijing" or "Washington" and the "United States" interchangeably when I am talking about the respective governments. My reason for this is not to champion any political cause, but for the sake of clarity and style. Furthermore, it is not clear to me why calling Taiwan "Taiwan" necessarily implies a pro-independence - or separatist, depending on your view - stance. After all, in Mandarin, the only thing that is consistent in the various appellations that are applied to Taiwan is "Taiwan". For example, to call Taiwan "Taiwan province", as the unificationists would have it, is to say Taiwan sheng. To call Taiwan "Taiwan, Republic of China", as the Kuomintang (KMT) does, is Taiwan zhonghua mingguo. And to say "Republic of Taiwan", as the independence faction would have it, is Taiwan gonghe guo. Aside from these, there are any number of names that are bandied about, but the point is that if I say "Taiwan", you know I am talking about the self-governing entity (as the European Union refers to it) of Taiwan, whereas if I say "Taipei", I could mean the city or simply the seat of government of the entity we call Taiwan. Therefore, I think it is best to stick with "Taiwan" for the present, and I don't think it unnecessarily precludes any room for interpretation. On the contrary, I think by calling it simply "Taiwan" and leaving the rest out of the names out of the matter, it helps to clarify what is, as J Zhang notes, a very complicated issue that has not yet been resolved.
Mac William Bishop
Taipei, Taiwan (Jul 30, '04)


In response to the letter from Babagul Khan de Afghan (Jul 26): I appreciate your angle. I just mean to say that everybody has his own perspective to look at things. However, there are several ground realities that cannot be ignored. There are facts that imply that the "criminal" communists you talk about were the major force in the urban centers before 1991 who tried to transform traditional Afghan society into a modern society. It is the strong tribal-based traditional rural class that revolted against the call of modernism and called it jihad. These were internal contradictions of Afghan society. As a universal rule in this kind of a situation, external forces automatically play their role. The Afghan nation took on a fight against Soviet Russia. The leaders of the resistance were Ahmed Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hikmatyar, and both were iqwani (an Afghan term for members of the Muslim brotherhood). Retired army officers tell how Ahmed Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hikmatyar were brought to Peshawar and trained and their influences were expanded from campuses to ordinary Afghan citizens. This was all set up by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence with the support of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Interviews of the late Dr Najeeb are still available in archives in which he claimed that except for a handful of iqwani Afghans such as Sayyaf, Rabbani, Masood, Hikmatyar and their followers, it was Arabs and Pakistani Punjabis who waged war against the Afghan nation. It is not Afghans alone, it is the problem of all underdeveloped nations, whether Pakistan, Iran, countries of Latin America or others, who blame external forces like the USA, Israel and others for their woes but refuse to look at the internal contradictions of their own society. Instead, they cry about their vulnerability, and when the external forces come to their rescue with their own style of thinking, they cry that they have been victimized. Your statement "today the chicken is coming back to the rooster and I am delighted to watch these operations and fight in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] while eating my popcorn and drinking my Coke" is the fantastic reflection of a mindset under which developed nations are sinking and shows why Pashtuns on the both sides of the Durand Line are under the thumb of external forces.
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Jul 30, '04)


The [article] by Tang Leijun [US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals, Jul 29] on the possible scenarios on Taiwan is both objective and exhaustive. I want to add that not just the mainlanders yearn for reunification but also people across the spectrum in Hong Kong who may disagree with the central government in other respects. So do many millions of overseas Chinese wherever they may be. As long as Taiwan professes to be part of China, eventually negotiations can start as to the pace and extent of mutual accommodations. If war breaks out (heavens forbid), the outcome may not be predictable, but it is certain countries will be in serious or total ruins. Animosity of more than 1.3 billion Chinese will linger for a long, long time. All hinges on clear heads in Taiwan.
S P Li
USA (Jul 30, '04)


Tang Leijun's article US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals [Jul 29] is based on a false assumption, ie that Taiwan is not already independent. Taiwan is not governed by or part of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan has governed itself for the past 55 years. So if Mr Tang wishes to "prevent Taiwan independence", I am afraid he will need to turn the clock back 55 years, since Taiwan independence from China has been the status quo for that period of time. As for the further letter [Jul 29] of J Zhang of the Netherlands, if he wishes to argue treaties then I remind him that in 1895 China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, but there is no document by which sovereignty was ever transferred back to China. No such document exists, contrary to the propaganda of CCP [Chinese Communist Party] representatives. Even if it did exist, it would not matter since there is no court that could enforce it. The bottom line is that China wants Taiwan, but Taiwan does not want to be part of China. And the US will protect Taiwan. So will Japan. So that is pretty much the end of it.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 30, '04)


Brushing aside the distasteful and nonsensical editor's comments to [J] Zhang [Jul 29], which seem to ignore the fact that Mr Zhang is obviously of Chinese heritage, and thus has some knowledge of Chinese people's thinking, I would like to make an appeal to people like Mr Zhang and Frank of Seattle, who often debate issues related to China and Taiwan with Asia Times' resident China-bashers (to which I assume your editorial staff wholeheartedly belongs). Although the cause of Taiwanese sovereignty, independence or self-rule is loudly championed by Americans foaming at the mouth to start a war in Asia, this is no reason to ignore history and the actual situation in Taiwan. I have no interest in esoteric legalistic debates about Taiwan's sovereignty. However, no one can deny that Taiwan has not been ruled from Beijing for over a hundred years. How can we expect a people who have made their own decisions and, in recent times, have made those decisions through a democratic political system to accept orders from Beijing, like other Chinese provinces? I state this not only as a practical matter, but as a matter of principle. Is not Taiwan, in its internal politics, living up quite well to the "Three Principles of the People" formulated by Sun Yat-sen (does Asia Times claim that Sun Yat-sen knew nothing of the Chinese people since he lived abroad for many years?)? If the accomplishments and feelings of the Taiwanese people, half of whom are immigrants from the mainland, are given real respect by China, then the mad dogs of the world will have no cause to foment war, and a peaceful resolution will be possible. However, one need only look at the official announcements by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] on the Taiwan issue to realize how little Beijing acknowledges Taiwan's legitimate interests. Taiwan houses many Chinese national treasures in its museums, and many living treasures in its universities. The Chinese culture and virtues that these treasures represent are not merely unity and strength, but also justice and peace. China's greatness cannot be reclaimed by a military takeover of Taiwan. Quite the contrary, only Taiwan's willing reunification with China can restore national unity. Neither technology, military might, nor economic wealth will lift China out of its centuries-long humiliation. Rather, China must live up to its own values, both communist and traditional, in respecting the welfare of its people, and respecting the vast diversity of its own culture. Always remember that the warmongers' worst nightmare is seeing peaceful reforms in China and a brotherly embrace between Taiwan and China. Only by treating the Taiwanese as your brothers and sisters, deserving your full respect, can you hope to defeat the hopes of those who wish for China never to be reunified.
G Travan
California (Jul 30, '04)


ATol's letters editor calls my claim that ordinary Chinese want reunification a "nonsensical claim". Yes, there have been no real opinion polls among the 1.3 billion Chinese and millions overseas and their opinions are often omitted or forgotten in this whole issue. But don't you think I talk with many Chinese about this issue overseas and online? It has become a hot issue even for those who previously didn't care. Whatever our political leanings, whether it be CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or KMT [Kuomintang], many oppose Chen Shui-bian and his separatist movement on Taiwan. Perhaps not all Chinese feel this way, but I bet many Chinese do. And if you think most Chinese support Taiwan separatism and oppose reunification, then the burden of proof lies with you. Why don't you intervene when there are real "nonsensical claims" posted by readers such as Richard Radcliffe, who claims in his latest letter that PRC [People's Republic of China] citizens are "slaves" and the choice for Taiwan is "freedom or death"? ... Probably ATol is being run by one biased man in a room in Hong Kong only posting articles and responding to letters under the name of "letters editor". So instead of "laughing off the Internet", it would be better to get serious indeed.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 30, '04)

Finally, you understand our point (even if G Travan does not). We have no disagreement that the Taiwan issue is of great importance to many Chinese, be they on the mainland, in the special administrative regions, or overseas. Territorial integrity is of course important to people of any nationality, as has been argued often and eloquently on this page. Our point is that all you (or we) can do is take a sampling of people's opinions, as you now tell us you have done, and draw a broad conclusion. To claim that there is total unity among all Chinese on this or any other matter, as you have done in previous letters, is baseless. Chinese are not mindless automata; those who have the opportunity to do so form their own opinions, and it is quite possible, even likely, that some of those opinions differ somewhat from those of J Zhang, or of the Chinese Communist Party. - ATol


As a youngster [growing] up in Hong Kong, I went to a boarding school that was run by a group of educators [who had] retreated from the mainland with the KMT [Kuomintang] armies on the eve of their defeat by the communists. The school was funded by Taiwan, all the classes were conducted in Mandarin (while the rest of the colony's school classes were taught in Cantonese or English) and all the textbooks were printed in Taiwan, all the staff and teachers were sympathizers of the KMT and of course we were taught the KMT's partisan view of Chinese history. And I remember we were taught to hate the communists and vowed to take back the mainland one day and reunify China. Years later I still wish Taiwan could reunify China. Now I only wish for a unified China.
Caral
Western Australia (Jul 30, '04)


If I may, I would like to qualify Frank's letter [Jul 29] about India and English. During my time in China, I frequently met up with other foreigners, including some Indian businessmen and their families. They told me that in China that although dialects vary, the script does not change. However, in India, they said, you move an equivalent distance that would mark a change in Chinese dialect and not only would there be a different dialect/language, but the script would be different. The most widely spoken "Indian" language is Hindi, and only 40% of people speak that. To get around more than just one region, one must speak English, according to them. I would be interested to know where Frank originates from, as he might be able to shed new light on a phenomenon I noticed in Shanghai: Chinese not able to speak Shanghai dialect are looked down on, regardless of whether they come from a farm in Anhui or teach at Qinghua University.
Peter Mitchelmore (Jul 30, '04)


I find Captain Richard Radcliffe's logic funny [letter, Jul 29]. He said that the North Koreans have not the power to overthrow that government, so they do their best to leave. If he reads the news, that is exactly what the Taiwanese people are doing right now. They are leaving for China! I hope Richard can pay more attention to what is happening now instead of dwell to what had happened years ago.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 30, '04)


Despite the many mainly critical articles on Malaysia [in Asia Times Online], I find it puzzling that there are no similar articles (or journalists) to be found on the Republic of Singapore, which is equally authoritarian; if not more due to its absolute state monopoly on media, censorship, and its propensity to sue (and win) in Singaporean courts any foreign media which would deign to write a damning article on Singaporean democracy (or the lack thereof) or on, some may say, dynastic and cronyist practices of the ruling party. Given that Singapore may be a small state in world politics, surely recent events should have merited comment at the very least - such as the succession of the country's founding father's progeny to the highest office in the land or acquisitions made by the Singaporean state of another country's public utilities or having the world's greatest per capita capital-punishment rate. On another point, "The irony we see, like Y J Wu, is that someone who, as you say, lives far away from China in the Netherlands knows with such certainty what has 'been decided by the Chinese people', when mainland China not only has failed to establish a functioning democracy to determine and enact such popular decisions (unlike Taiwan), but suppresses free speech on the Internet and elsewhere" [ATol editor's note under J Zhang letter, Jul 28]. Surely the greater irony is that many non-Chinese or non-"Taiwanese" foreigners who have no familial ties whatsoever, nor were born there and probably have just spent a few years in mainland China or Taiwan (worse still have never set foot in either of them and simply read about the issue), claim to speak for either the "majority" of mainland Chinese or "Taiwanese". For example, for any non-Irish foreigner who does not have any Irish relatives who were involved in the Northern Irish conflict cannot claim to speak for either side of the conflict, no matter where their sympathies lie. Also, despite the "democracy" that the ROC [Republic of China] enjoys, there are many domestic political and legal problems and issues associated but nevertheless not highlighted to the foreign press. For example, if Taiwan was to pursue an independent democratic state with "Chinese characteristics", what should its relationship with Western powers be? What should its relationship with China be? How does the system accommodate conflicting political ideologies? What sort of democratic system does it want - a Western Westminster style of government? Is a civil society part of the political agenda? What language should be the official language - Taiwanese (or Hokkien, a "dialect" of Chinese, which it is otherwise known), Mandarin, or English? How is the judiciary supposed to function? These are only a few examples of a myriad issues [that] look innocuous enough at face value, but will have profound effects on the society in which Taiwanese citizens live in. Ultimately both sides have to agree that the onus is on Taiwanese citizens to resolve the issue and the issue has to examined on an intellectual basis apart from the emotive reasons and political interests that both sides have.
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Jul 30, '04)


The killing of the two Pakistanis in Iraq is very sad indeed and my heart goes out for their poor families back home, but it surprises me [that] anyone would want to go get a job in Iraq in the first place. It's not like they were there and suddenly war broke [out]. As for the many other families that have sent their loved ones out there for some financial gain, how can they sleep at night knowing that they have sent their sons and fathers out to die for a few dinars? On the flip side, the Iraqis [who] committed this awful and savage crime have put their whole nation to shame. Pakistani people have always felt the pain, and been active in support of their oppressed Muslim brothers and sisters around the world in whatever form or manner that permits them. But by committing this horrific act of violence, a few Iraqi (or foreign) so-called mujahideen have literally broken the bond that holds our two nations together as Muslims, and now which Pakistanis would seriously oppose their government should [it] decide to send tens of thousands of troops in?
T Kiani
London, England (Jul 30, '04)


In response to the letter by Johannes [L D'Armstrong, Jul 29], the allegations in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that Iraqi Prime Minister [Iyad] Allawi shot six prisoners in cold blood do clearly merit investigation. I agree with him that the story may have been planted, although journalist Paul McGeough claims the two apparent eyewitnesses didn't know about each other but told similar stories. Still, I think Johannes would agree that the truth would be of interest either way. Incidentally, so does former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, who has urged the Red Cross to examine the charges. The ABC Online article Johannes mentioned did not criticize the original story, and the Newsweek article was [cursory] about it and offered no contradictory facts (other than ready-prepared comments from US government sources). John Negroponte, the US ambassador to Iraq, refused to comment on the allegations. His office replied to the SMH in an e-mail: "If we attempted to refute each [rumor], we would have no time for other business. As far as this embassy's press office is concerned, this case is closed." A cynic might say this isn't unlike his efforts to evade answering questions about US-sanctioned human-rights abuses in Honduras. Readers may notice that nowhere in the e-mail is there a denial of the story, although Negroponte would presumably have been privy to what really happened, thanks to the four US bodyguards present at the alleged shooting. The Christian Science Monitor writes that the execution story is "widely believed because of Allawi's past". Early in his career, Dr Allawi was a fairly senior member of the Ba'ath Party. In the 1970s, he accepted a scholarship to study in London, but continued to work for the regime. He was the head of Iraqi Student Union in Europe and was almost certainly involved in reporting back information on Iraqi dissidents in the UK and continental Europe. Since his break from the Ba'ath Party, much of his time outside Iraq was spent plotting with intelligence agencies (including the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and MI6) against the Iraqi regime, as foreign intelligence services channeled money to Allawi's Iraqi National Accord (INA). Many of the false claims used by US and UK governments to justify the war originated from the INA or its sources, including the UK government's dossier that Iraq could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes. According Patrick and Andrew Cockburn's book Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, the INA backed a series of terrorist attacks in the 1990s, on a cinema, the offices of the Ba'ath Party newspaper, and a mosque, which together killed dozens of civilians. Yet strangely [US President George W] Bush's "war on terror" seems to have passed the INA by. If any ATol readers are interested, blogger David Peterson (aka Rocinate) has collected and reviewed the key articles written about Paul McGeough's story on Allawi (a search on Google will turn up his site). Incidentally, Johannes, I wasn't having a go at you personally earlier, but thought you were a wee bit pedantic in your criticism of Armand [De Laurell]'s letter [of Jul 26]. And I was actually referring to Don [Kennedy]'s future employment status, not yours, as you seemed to think knowledge of idioms critical in this area, and the incoherent Don [letter, Jul 27] managed to get the relevant idiom correct. Still, thanks for the amusing reply. Don't fret; I'm sure the future is indeed bright for a man with your witty and incisive mind: maybe next you can start writing a book on sarcasm.
Jim Sadler (Jul 30, '04)


Dear Don Kennedy [letter, Jul 27]: You are obviously a kind person who lacks any cruel bone in your body. I'm quite sure if American power were limitless, the horrors of Sudan etc would not occur. What is sad about your country (I cannot blame your people for ignoring Rwanda, your own president refused to call the three-month slaughter of 800,000 genocide) is that you fail miserably in understanding the world in which you live. The world is an incredibly complex place, and I do not even come close to understanding it. The problem many of us non-Americans have with America (and I'm not talking about the ultra-stupid types who feel out of place in the world without Darth Vader) is that your good intentions might well help cause World War III (of course there are many Americans who are morally disabled, take for example Dick Cheney). While it is apparent you were lied to about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq, the whole notion that you could just invade another country and set along a democratic path with little effort was completely insane. Really, did no one in the public, the media, the government consider that they could fail? While the positive consequences were made apparent to all, no one talked about the negative issues. Do you really believe that you, sort of Christian America, can bring about a reformation in the world's second-largest religion, because it is desirable? Do you not realize the brutality you have seen in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg of what horrors could be paraded on the Internet (check out Algeria for real brutality)? Do you not realize the corruption simple good-intentioned human beings suffer in war? The Crusaders, trying to live a virtuous life yet still be knights, ended their victory in Jerusalem with the senseless slaughter of thousands. I joined the army believing I could retain the moral goodness in my heart; I quit when I realized that the function of the job made me embrace my evil side, I was getting excited about killing. Out of all the things soldiers sacrifice, it is the life and their heart for which they are owed. In short, you are the world's most powerful country, and as they say in Spiderman Part 1, with great power comes great responsibility, and the good-hearted stupidity on the part of much of your electorate is obscene. America is like a middle-aged man suffering from bad eyesight and bad hearing - he might give a lot to charity, but he has a slight problem in respect to not seeing red lights or stop signs, leaving numerous accidents and pissed-off motorists in the wake of his SUV [sport-utility vehicle]: go get some glasses! And you prove my case: I've read a fair amount of criticism of America on [Asia Times Online], but very little hatred -again you [cannot] see the forest for the trees.
DH
Canada (Jul 30, '04)


I discovered your online paper via Yahoo News' inclusion of links to your articles on the Middle East. I just want you to know how useful I find them. I have now bookmarked your homepage and plan to be a frequent visitor to your site. As a retired professor of international studies (University of California, Santa Barbara), I find your coverage and perspective invaluable.
Robert C Noel, PhD (Jul 30, '04)


I just wanted to take this time to thank you for all of your informative articles. It is a pleasure to go on your site and know that I am going to read a well-articulated and informative article about today's political climate.
Faheem Zia
Jacksonville, Florida (Jul 30, '04)


Summer Pulse '04 is the name of the exercise that brings large portions of the United States Navy to the Far East. This exercise is about more than the Taiwan Strait or North Korea. It is to see if we [the US] can put large groups of naval forces into areas of trouble in a short time to hopefully prevent conflicts from occurring. But if there is to be conflict, we will be prepared to support our friends. Both the articles by Aidan Foster-Carter [N Korean refugees beginning of a flood?, Jul 29] and Tang Leijun [US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals, Jul 29] point out the basic yearning of the human soul to be free. Both Taiwan as a nation and North Koreans as individuals are risking death because they do not want to join or live under totalitarian systems. True, the People's Republic of China [PRC] is much less totalitarian these days than President Kim [Jong-il]'s North Korea. But there are few degrees of freedom. You are free as here in the United States or you are not, as in the People's Republic of China and North Korea. I have not seen any statements that indicate that Taiwan will never become part of a greater China. The Taiwanese simply don't want to become part of a national-socialist China run by the Chinese Communist Party. While Taiwanese "democracy" isn't perfect, the individual Taiwanese lives in a much freer society than his perhaps more economically affluent "cousins" in Shanghai. And every time that the PRC government "redefines" the freedoms of the citizens of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Taiwanese become more wary of "one country, two systems". Hence the dilemma facing both the citizens of Taiwan and the citizens of North Korea: freedom or death. The argument on Taiwan is how to stay as free as possible and alive. The Kuomintang wish to keep the status quo ad infinitum and let the mainland mature into a multi-party democracy similar to Taiwan. The party of President Chen [Shui-bian] sees de jure independence as the solution to remaining free. As to the new constitution proposed for Taiwan, let's see what actually gets written before we "go to guns". For the people of North Korea, there is no argument. The have not the power to overthrow that mini-Stalin so they do their best to leave. The Demilitarized Zone is not only there to keep the United Nations Forces out, it is, like the Berlin Wall before it, designed to keep the North Korean people in. Mr Kim: Tear down that wall. Fat chance! So the United States must prepare to put additional forces into the Korean area should North Korea implode and humanitarian aid be required on a massive scale, or should North Korea explode and military force be required on a massive scale. The fact is that in regard to Taiwan or North Korea, the United States is the only country with the ability to project enough power into an area of conflict to be able to effect the outcome. We projected that power into Iraq and 25 million people are no longer living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. We are proving to ourselves through Summer Pulse '04 that we can project power, in this case multiple carrier battle groups, into areas of conflict hopefully so that conflict doesn't occur. It is unfortunate that all disagreements between peoples cannot be solved peacefully. But tyrannies of the political left or the political right cannot long sustain themselves when their people can see examples of freedom in their neighbors. That is why the Soviet Union built the "Iron Curtain". They had to keep their slaves in. Ditto North Korea. Nor is a little freedom enough. Once a totalitarian government grants its slaves a little freedom, political or economic, the slaves want more. They don't want to be slaves. This is the problem facing the government of the PRC. To convince Taiwan to peacefully become part of a "greater China", the Chinese Communist Party must give up its totalitarian rule. In other words, it must self-destruct. That is not likely to happen in the near future. It took the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 52 years to figure out that communism is unsustainable. How long will it take the Chinese Communist Party to come to the same conclusion? But there is no convincing the despot of North Korea. He is a true son following Daddy's lead and creating for his people the hell on earth that is communism. He will be convinced to free his people when he is dead. Let us hope that the "Dear Leader" soon suffers a fatal accident (too bad the exploding train missed) and that the next member of the Kim family to rule does a better job of instituting freedom than his father and grandfather. We can only hope.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired) (Jul 29, '04)
bigbird@kwamt.com


[Re N Korean refugees beginning of a flood?, Jul 29] Has anyone ever had the suspicion that the South Korean leaders are not the group of good-hearted fools we all take them for? What could be worse for the South Korean economy than the collapse of their demonic neighbor to the north?
Dave Henderson
Canada (Jul 29, '04)


The article Behind the facade of Indian subsidies [Jul 29] presents in sober terms what is wrong with the state of subsidies in India and indeed many other developing nations of the world. Unfortunately, the political system in India rewards such irrational behavior to benefit the few at the expense of the many. In the most recent assembly elections, the Indian National Congress won a smashing landslide in Andhra Pradesh running on the platform of free electricity for farmers. The ruling AIADMK [All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam] of Tamil Nadu, in the aftermath of a rout in the most recent federal elections, has opted to copy this scheme in an attempt to avoid a similar fate as the former ruling TDP [Telugu Desam Party] of Andhra Pradesh when assembly elections come due in 2006. Funny how a political system that claims to represent the majority based on one-man-one-vote repeatedly produces policy decisions that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Wen-Kai Tang
Brooklyn, New York (Jul 29, '04)


Indians like to compare India with China. However, Siddharth Srivastava in the article Speaking English, like Indians [Jul 29] never mentioned a word [about] China. A major difference between the two countries is the altitude towards their own language. Chinese people overseas, in Taiwan, and in China spend billions of dollars or yuan to teach their children Chinese language. They do that for culture and economical reasons. From poor shepherd to multibillionaire, most Chinese people are proud of being able to speak, read and write Chinese. India is also a culture-rich country. Chinese monks [who] visited India 1,200 years ago [were] very impressed with India's culture. Chinese people thought India was a western heaven where gods lived, until the Opium War started. If you visit China now, you can still find precious stones, large bronze bells, and many other expensive materials carved, forged and engraved with India language. Indian people should be just as proud as Chinese people of their language. Giving up India language would be India's largest loss.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 29, '04)


[Re Turkey, Israel aim to forgive and forget, Jul 28] Can you not appreciate the historic State of Israel and its 5 million people, or do you feel that the Middle East is for Muslims only? Do you honestly feel that Yasser Arafat and his $1 billion in Europe stolen from donors is your best friend? God help the people of Turkey with representatives like you and [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.
Alec Gabe (Jul 29, '04)


Dear Gajendra Singh: I took the time and read [Turkey, Israel aim to forgive and forget, Jul 28] top to bottom. I am sorry for wasting my time by doing so and not just skipping to the "conclusions" sections to look for the Israel-bashing crescendo. Being biased and anti-Israeli is OK, just admit it and let us all move on instead of hiding behind long paragraphs.
Amir Stamper
Plantation, Florida (Jul 29, '04)


Esam Sohail (Disturbing colors of anti-globalization, Jul 28) and letter writers Bob Hu and John Stimmel [Jul 28] fail to grasp the historical context of the economics of globalization and labor. Labor demands - an integral part of human development - and free trade can only clash if there huge inequalities to begin with. Globalization, labor and colonization can go hand in hand and cannot be understood by focusing on any two of the three (see Loot: In Search of the East India Company, the world's first transnational corporation, by Nick Robins; Environment & Urbanization Vol 14 No 1 April 2002). There is nothing wrong with the American labor "demanding" better living standards - that's what life is about: create demand so that a market to supply the needs arises, and thereby improve quality of life - isn't that what we all want? The misallocation of resources (through colonialization) that happened in the past centuries is showing its ugly face, and globalization is its unintended victim. The massive geographic misallocation of the world's resources and infrastructure that were created by the ugly forces of colonialism cannot be turned around by restricting free trade. In "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", author and leading macroeconomic historian Angus Maddison shows that the British with less than 2.9% of the world GDP [gross domestic product] in the 1700s went on to colonize the massive economy of India (GDP 24.4% [around] 1700). By the 1940s the British managed to improve their share of GDP (by curtailing free trade to a one-way phenomenon) to [about] 7% but reducing India's to [approximately] a mere 4%. So a combined GDP of 27% gets reduced to 11% due to colonialism. Now is free trade or the labor movement to blame? Also, this drop (in India's GDP) created the greatest holocaust the world has seen in terms of the sheer number of lives lost/expectancy reduced. Remember, no apologies [or] reparations are even spoken [of] regarding this, and we are fighting over the merits of free trade and labor? Wrong focus, I guess.
Rudy Banerjee
Berkeley, California (Jul 29, '04)


Responding to Armand De Laurell's letter of July 28, he may refer to me as a "Canadian", since he pretends to speak as an American, and I am at least as Canadian as he is an American. And if I were really a Canadian I would discourage his type from moving here - we know what he's done with those Utah sheep. As to [Jim] Sadler [letter, Jul 28], doesn't he realize the alleged murdering of six Iraqis by [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi was reported by a single reporter from the Sydney [Morning] Herald based on two anonymous sources? Though Mr Sadler finds this "persuasive", ABC online and Newsweek, [which] covered the report, did not. Tim Blair, an excellent Australian blogger, speculated that the story was planted by Mr Allawi to acquire what I might idiomatically term "street cred with his peeps. know wut i'm saying?" If I wasn't Canadian. Which, ironically, I am. Thank you for the interest in my employment situation. Currently I am between jobs while I finish my two books, The Ironical Use of the Word "Irony" by Pseudo-Intellectuals, Incorrectly, Ironically and Europe's Love/Hate Affair with Fat, Arrogant and Uneducated Americans: Michael Moore Gets Sucked up to by Eurotrash American Haters in Cannes. I expect to finish up next month, and would be interested if he knows of any leads.
Johannes L D'Armstrong
Vacationing in Paris (still wearing a Canadian flag) (Jul 29, '04)


First of all, I was expecting Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jul 28] would call me a "representative of the Chinese Communist Party" [CCP], while my opinion is in fact independent. McCarthy should study the position of the CCP and PRC [People's Republic of China] more clearly. That position is that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. Clearly I do not say that, because the CCP has no jurisdiction over the ROC-controlled [Republic of China] territories. Nevertheless, you can't conclude then that Taiwan is not part of China. There is no single treaty or legal document that says that Taiwan is a "sovereign nation separate and independent from China" as McCarthy claims. The opposite is true, however: there are legal documents that say that Taiwan is part of China and that the Chinese people are sovereign. The most important document in Taiwan is their basic law: the ROC constitution. McCarthy claims "we" would have wished that "we" lost the civil war. This is just hilarious, to be honest. In my view, the civil war has not ended. It will be ended when either the CCP has jurisdiction over all of China (including Taiwan) or the ROC. Another third solution may be political reconciliation between the two sides with peaceful reunification. Secondly, Frank [letter, Jul 28] stresses that the Taiwan people should stick with the "status quo". I wonder how one can stick with the "status quo" when each side has a different interpretation of it? The way I see it, the "status quo" is rather a hollow term used by both the Americans and the Taiwan separatists to block China's reunification indefinitely. Last but not least, ATol's letters editor talks about "democracy and freedom", once again. He has often edited, censored or refused my letters. I wonder when we can democratically elect the letters editor? In the meantime, it would be better if he didn't intervene in letters between readers in order to maintain the image that ATol is neutral and objective to all readers.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 29, '04)

We do strive to be neutral, but that does not mean we need to tolerate nonsensical claims on the Letters Page (at least not ad nauseam). If we claimed that we sitting in Hong Kong or Thailand know what is in the minds of all Dutch people, we would rightly be laughed off the Internet. Yet you wish to claim that you know, sitting in safety behind the dikes amid the aroma of tulip fields and without the fear of thought police, that hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants think exactly the same as you do about the Taiwan issue, without offering any evidence for your contention (extrasensory perception, perhaps?). - ATol


This refers to your editorial comment "Sudan is in Africa, and therefore not part of our regular coverage area." Given the fact that most of your contributors are freelancers, nothing short of journalistic racism on your part explains why Africa is excluded - while many non-Asian regions, such as the US and UK, are included. Suppose this were not a case of intended racism, it is still baffling why Asia Times would dare not venture in non-Asian regions. Do you expect the New York Times to restrict itself to New York? You can't just say that a certain region is not part of our regular coverage area and leave it at that. You have to figure out how to cover that area, and in fact develop, if possible, even an Asian journalistic perspective on those areas ...
Choa Noa (Jul 29, '04)

Every news organization has a policy on what it does and does not cover, and our coverage policy is based on geography. No one should expect an organization that calls itself "Asia Times Online" not to concentrate on Asia. We do venture beyond the Asian continent occasionally, when the area thereby covered concerns Asian affairs. As it happens, we now have online a story (Darfur: The case for intervention ) that makes just such a link between the Darfur tragedy and an Asian issue - Iraq. - ATol

I would like to thank you for publishing the article Disturbing colors of anti-globalization [Jul 28]. I enjoyed reading its clear message and brief but pithy commentary. I would also like to congratulate the writer, Esam Sohail. Too often I find the articles published in your Speaking Freely column run on in a confused ramble that cannot be read in under 20 minutes, which for many makes it inaccessible due to the time constraints of a busy lifestyle. Perhaps the free speakers can also be a bit freer with their editing?
Bob Hu (Hu Bob for the traditionalists)
Sydney, Australia (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] Disturbing colors of anti-globalization [Jul 28]. It's enlightening to hear a Kansas City banker sound off on the conscience of the American working class. Am I to assume that he earns far less than minimum wage being that he merely watches over the money of others, 9-to-5, Monday through Friday, and he is probably outclassed by his Asian counterparts in global-national trade (noting the stark US trade and currency imbalance)? Is he going to speak this critically of the Asian workforce when they are developed, organized and demand a less modest slice of what we once referred to as "The American Dream" for their hard work and massive profit-generating? Obviously, the propaganda spewed by elitist groupthinkers like [Esam] Sohail is intended to make people around the world believe the American working class is greedy and selfish, not wanting to share the spoils with our global counterparts. The truth is, Americans believe 10-year-old children, regardless of race, creed or color, deserve better than to stand in a hot factory for 12-16 hours a day making golf shoes so that Kansas City bankers can court business from multinational corporations. We also believe working people in India, China [and] Singapore deserve a bigger slice of the pie, American workers deserve fair competition on a level playing field and working people around the world deserve the opportunity to better their own lives based on their individual hard work and ingenuity. Mr Sohail has obviously observed the education gaps in the US workforce. Does he offer any suggestions on education reform to help bring Americans up to academic par with the global competition or does he believe we should be discarded, herded into tents or exploited as cheap manual labor or lab rats? It's almost certain Mr Sohails' obtuse and inaccurate statements are either based on complete ignorance or just plain elitist groupthink and delusions of grandeur.
John Stimmel
Michigan, USA (Jul 28, '04)


In dragging India [in], is Syed Saleem Shahzad (US paints Pakistan further in a corner [Jul 28]) trying to divert attention from [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's inability to deliver terrorists? To begin with, most September 11 [2001] hijackers seemed to have some Pakistani/Saudi connection. Furthermore, the top Pakistani military leadership seemed to have some kind of contact with them, if not actively outsourcing their dirty work to them. Moreover, every arrested terrorist belonging to al-Qaeda worth his salt happened to be in Pakistan under some military-sponsored hideout. The issue before, today and in future is that of terrorism and Pakistani complicity in it. Pakistan and Musharraf have juggled but not given up this path. Why drag India into your quarrel with your colonial masters?
AP (Jul 28, '04)


Excellent article (The Chinese audit that went nowhere [Jul 28]) by Wang Chu. Several friends of mine in China try to avoid trouble by being low-key and avoiding talking politics altogether. But when they have needed to go to a government department for something they have found officials who seem to see no point in listening. The system doesn't work and the only way to pull the rug from under such officials' feet is to take a significant shift towards proper democracy. A free press to start with would get people talking to each other once again rather than concentrating on their own narrow self-interest, something that Deng Xiaoping once claimed wouldn't happen under socialism. The central leadership must know almost everything that everyone else does, but their own interests come first which involves trampling on others, often the most powerless. Officials' treatment of many in China is nothing short of insulting and I fear that Zhao Ziyang's warning is coming true: Economic reform without political reform will lead China down a blind alley.
Peter Mitchelmore (Jul 28, '04)


Y J Wu [letter, Jul 27] criticizes my letter [of Jul 26] and calls it "overreacting", while in fact I just made some innocent suggestions on how to improve reporting without offending any parties or supporters in this controversial issue. Clearly calling the relevant parties "China, Taiwan and the US" is biased in favor of those who want to separate Taiwan from China. I have responded to articles by Mac William Bishop before and it's very clear he usually embeds his opinion in his articles - an opinion I do not agree with. The future of Taiwan has already been decided by the Chinese people. On the mainland it's part of China. On Taiwan it's also part of China. Clearly the ROC [Republic of China] constitution, the basic law of the ROC-regime-administered territories, states that the Chinese people are sovereign and that they have the sovereignty over Chinese land, such as Taiwan. Rights such as "self-determination" do not count for Taiwan, if not just for practical reasons. Remember the Kurds, Chechens, Corsicans, Basques, etc who deserve that right more than a few separatists on Taiwan. This is not about what the "caprices" of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or PLA [People's Liberation Army] think, what old men in Beijing want or other outdated unimpressive rhetoric, it's rather what the Chinese people think and want. And that is reunification. It's also quite ironic that an ordinary Chinese living so far way from China still considers himself Chinese, while one living so close to the mainland does not.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 28, '04)

The irony we see, like Y J Wu, is that someone who, as you say, lives far away from China in the Netherlands knows with such certainty what has "been decided by the Chinese people", when mainland China not only has failed to establish a functioning democracy to determine and enact such popular decisions (unlike Taiwan), but suppresses free speech on the Internet and elsewhere. - ATol


I agree with Alex Chiang and Y J Wu that Taiwanese people know more about what will make their society successful. KMT [the Kuomintang] had kept Taiwan in peace and prosperity for 50 years. As Alex indicated, Taiwanese people would like to be left alone and continue their peaceful daily business. Why do other outside people want to change that? Why can't Taiwan keep the status quo and live in peace?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 28, '04)


The letter of J Zhang [of] the Netherlands (Jul 26) is representative of the position of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that Taiwan is mystically somehow part of China and cannot be separated from China, even though Taiwan was separated from China on October 1, 1949, by Mao Zedong's founding of the People's Republic. It is a queer irony that J Zhang and the CCP somehow regret winning the civil war, because if only they had lost then both Taiwan and China would be governed by a single government. Probably Vietnam and North Korea also regret that they did not lose their wars against the imperialists as well. Regardless of the logical contortions that CCP supporters use to justify the fiction that Taiwan has somehow remained part of China these past 55 years, all countries in the world (including China) respect Taiwan's sovereignty by respecting her borders, recognizing her passport, and trading with her. China even goes so far as to impose punitive tariffs on some goods from Taiwan, and to impose immigration and customs controls on persons entering China from Taiwan. Nothing could speak louder to China's real view that Taiwan is a sovereign nation separate and independent from China.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 28, '04)


Too often Spengler has a nose for grandiose theories that do not approximate well to reality, and his contention that Russia is going to send 40,000 troops to Iraq sounds like one of those [When Grozny comes to Fallujah, Jul 27]. True, a rumor to that effect has circulated, but not only have the Russians vehemently denied it, but consistently Russia has opposed the war in Iraq and the occupation of that country since the very beginning. Moreover, Russia, which has significant investments in Iraq and economically and politically a strong hand to play with the emergent Iraqi government would be quite foolish to not only risk its own military in a faraway engagement in that nation, but also to risk the credibility and leeway it has gained in Iraq today. Today, whether the current Iraqi government holds [on] after elections, presuming elections are actually held as planned, a government that is less beholden to the United States and more Islamicist holds out, Russia will be in a good position, as it is seen as impartial in the internal conflict in Iraq, and as staunchly against occupation. These positions mean that Iraqis of all stripes in the long term should be far more willing to deal with Russia than with some of the nations in the coalition. Moreover, Russia quietly has been rebuilding her economic and political ties in Iraq, working especially diligently with influential Shi'ites and paying close attention to the powerful clerics. US companies could only wish for that kind of strategy from their country. Sending troops in would undermine long-term Russian economic and political interests. Sending troops in would be costly and unpopular. Sending troops in would deflect resources that Russia is using not only in Chechnya but also to put pressure on many of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, which Russia hopes to control through puppets and possibly reabsorb in the long term. Lastly, sending troops in would be providing support to the United States in a region where the Russians are quite hopeful that the US will fail, so that Russia can reassert her influence and fill the vacuum left behind. Consequently, for Russia sending troops to Iraq would be a calamitous move. Spengler's mistake is to assume that the Russians are not only humbled by the collapse of the Soviet Union but that Russian power has waned so much that it is ready to and needs to play lap dog to the United States. He apparently has not noticed how Vladimir Putin, in addition to rebuilding autocratic power for the executive within Russia, has been steadily increasing Russia's regional power and working to reassert de facto control over much of the former Soviet Union in Central Asia and even over Ukraine. Belarus is already firmly within the Russian orbit. Still, such a mistake on Spengler's part is not so surprising. His analysis often seems to rely more on conspiracy theories, opinion, and his own hopes and desires than on any objective measure of fact.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC (Jul 28, '04)


Dear Ritt Goldstein: I read your article [Groupthink and the slide into fascism, Jul 27] with interest ... I humbly suggest that you and your co-workers and friends read the book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon, originally written in French, first translated into English in 1896. It has remained the preeminent study of crowd, or groupthink, psychology. After reading this book you will feel satisfied, delighted and awed as one who brings into sharp focus a subject that is blurred and unintelligible by carefully twisting the lens of his camera or telescope. If I were a newspaper editor I would print this book in serialized form for the enlightenment of the readers. Please secure a copy of this book, read it and be awestruck with clear insight and understanding of the present-day USA leadership, or groupthink crowd mentality.
Hans Jurgen Kary (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] US lessons on India and Pakistan by Seema Sirohi (Jul 27). It looks like this author never learns. At the first opportunity, all the articles churned out by him/her (or probably both) consistently badmouth Pakistan. Has this author not got anything better to do? His/her attitude is tainted by the animosity held by extremists on both sides. Words used to describe the subject (Pakistan) are common with personal opinion. A direct appeal to the editor: Please can you save us from reading this trash? News organizations are supposed to inform people. When the articles consistently slant in a predictable direction, ie inflating the negatives, accusations of churning out propaganda become real. Do you want your good offices to be used in this manner? You can decide.
Tony (Jul 28, '04)


I have short-cut your Asia Times site to my desktop. What a great find! I am sorry it took me so long to get around to you. I want especially to thank you for the Nir Rosen articles on Fallujah. I have sent the links to these articles to all my friends. Thank God for the Internet. It is so hard to find reporting like this in newspapers. Mr Rosen is to be thanked and congratulated for his daring as much as for his honesty and insight. I pray he will not return to Fallujah, however. To do so would be to tempt fate severely and, believe me, we cannot afford to lose good journalists.
Heather MacDonald
Toronto, Ontario (Jul 28, '04)

Interest in Nir Rosen's series "Fallujah: Inside the Iraqi resistance" is still running high, so for the convenience of readers, we have put it on its own page. There is a link on our Front Page, or you can click here. - ATol
 

I am mildly surprised that you printed the garbled letter [Jul 27] from Don Kennedy, which managed to avoid anything remotely resembling a fact or coherent argument. Still, his knowledge of idioms is clearly much superior to Armand [De Laurell]'s, which presumably will keep Johannes [L D'Armstrong, letter, Jul 27] happy and ensure his future employment status in the US. On a more serious note, I am wondering if the recent investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald, which persuasively claims that Iraqi Prime Minister [Iyad] Allawi summarily executed six Iraqi prisoners last month, has the remotest chance of ever leading to an independent investigation. Surely the Bush administration would be very disturbed to find it had helped to install an unelected thug with a track record of violence to run the country. But irony aside, I wonder if any international organizations or journalists will have the tenacity to expose the full truth behind this story. Here's hoping.
Jim Sadler (Jul 28, '04)


Responding to J L D'Armstrong (letter of Jul 27): Pleez, pleez no caling emmigration. Shall I call you Massa or Herr D'Armstrong? Pleez, pleez forgive zee bad edyom. Amma learning, Herr D'Armstrong. Amma good boy. eye heard sheep in utah. no wanna loos green card. then eye have to move to canada.
Armand De Laurell (Jul 28, '04)


I thoroughly enjoyed Mike's letter [Jul 27]. The image of the lumbering giant Pillsbury Doughboy is a good one for Francis Fukuyama's vision of the end of history. However, even Francis may be having second thoughts. I read somewhere that he has become highly critical of his former neo-con buddies.
Francis (not Fukuyama)
Quebec, Canada (Jul 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler's When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27]. Mr Spengler's analysis of the rumors surrounding George Friedman's prediction (in his www.Stratfor.com online publication) of three to four divisions of Russian troops deploying in the Sunni triangle as the "October surprise" in our [US] election cycle is missing one salient point: how their prospective action in Fallujah will play back in Russia. As I sit here watching Hillary Clinton speaking at the Democratic lovefest in Boston, it's quickly apparent what is not mentioned by Spengler: the politics in Russia. President [Vladimir] Putin has a 70% approval level among the electorate: How would sending troops en masse into Iraq affect these poll numbers - polling that President [George W] Bush would throw [Vice President Richard] Cheney "under the bus" to get? For a possible scenario, one need only look as far as the genius behind the political success of Bill Clinton: Dick Morris. In an extended Izvestia interview 14 months ago on the Russian translation of his book The New Prince, he counseled President Putin to return to a modern version of the World War II "Big Three" of [Winston] Churchill, [Franklin] Roosevelt and [Josef] Stalin; and more importantly, cast aside "the days when Vladimir is content to join Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder in toasting their shared impotence over vodka, champagne and beer ..."
Dan Schwartz
Cherry Hill, New Jersey (Jul 27, '04)


Re: When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27]. Your "analysis" evidently equates Grozny with Iraq, at least in your estimation of Russian thinking. May I suggest you take a look at a map? Grozny is closer than Russia's back yard and is crucial to Russian security, including part of its existing crude-oil-pipeline network. Tell me, please, what existing pipelines does Russia own in Iraq, which does not even border Russia? You proclaim what a "master stroke" it would be for Russia to occupy Iraq, and proceed to list the supposed geopolitical benefits, as if Russia cannot obtain such benefits unless America grants them. However, you utterly fail to list the sure costs Russia would incur if it sent troops to Iraq. They would be massive and prohibitive. Your thinking is clearly one-dimensional, constrained to the principles of power and geopolitical "benefits" resulting from military invasions in the pursuit of colonial-style empire. Tell me, have you been associating too closely with the Bush administration? Russia tried such an empire, and it didn't last. America is trying it, and has fallen on its face at the first step, Iraq. Grozny was not an attempt at empire, but sending troops to Iraq certainly would be. In case you haven't noticed, the Russians are playing much smarter these days. They are working hard to establish a network of strategic regional and global alliances, for cooperation in all spheres. They know what the US should know, but doesn't - colonial-style empire doesn't work. The Russians are rapidly gaining the geopolitical benefits you list in your article, without stupid and costly invasions and occupations. "Grozny" will not be exported outside Russian borders. It most likely won't be tried again inside Russian borders either. I found your article fanciful and incoherent. Emotional and bubble-headed. You're slipping.
W Joseph Stroupe (Jul 27, '04)


Dear Spengler: In your essay When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27] you suggest that what motivates the suicide bomber to fling himself against America is America's own inexorable nature: "... the creative destruction and cultural amnesia that define US society threaten to tear apart the sinews of traditional Islamic life". We are like a good-natured, giant Pillsbury Doughboy lumbering across the world, arms outstretched, gathering all within reach and smushing them into its soft, white breast where all are kneaded till smooth. Our vision of the future is best described by the Star Trek society where cultural difference can exist, side by side, without rancor because our ethnicity has been subjugated to a higher purpose and mission. Ethnic differences, religion, etc, are now amusing and entertaining and almost completely without relevance or meaning because we are now focused on our higher purpose, our common mission, to smush the world into our soft, white breast. A scary prospect, indeed, especially for the mullah who dreams about waking up tomorrow morning wearing Britney Spears' body.
Mike
USA (Jul 27, '04)


In response to J Zhang's letter [Jul 26] about the article Military might and political messages [Jul 24], I think J Zhang is overreacting and making unnecessary generalizations about the author's intent. Try as they might, no one can use grammar to impose a political message, and J Zhang's seems to be pretty straightforward: Taiwan is a province of China, period. But as recent events have indicated, there is no consensus about the status of Taiwan in the one place that really matters: Taiwan. To say that "the concept of China goes beyond political boundaries" is simply a rhetorical fallacy, and to point out that Taiwan "is part of China to most ordinary Chinese" illustrates precisely why there is no dialogue between China and Taiwan. Perhaps "most ordinary Chinese" believe this (and I question how one can be in touch with "ordinary Chinese" when one lives in the Netherlands), but certainly most ordinary Taiwanese don't. Again, it seems what Chinese nationalists fear more than anything else is seeing a successful community with a latent Chinese cultural heritage that is not dominated by the autocrats in Beijing. It may be that "self-determination of peoples" is a concept that has lost its currency over the years, but it is still an ideal of great value. Whether or not the people of Taiwan wish to "unify" with China should be left up to the people of Taiwan, and not simply the caprices of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] or PLA [People's Liberation Army]. Certainly the Taiwanese know more about what will make their society successful than the old men in Beijing.
Y J Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (Jul 27, '04)


Leslie Davis correctly points out the domestic political consequences President Gloria Arroyo-Macapagal would have faced were she to have kowtowed to the US and Australia and sacrificed Angelo de la Cruz [Arroyo basks in hero's aura, and keeps her job, Jul 24]. The country would have exploded and only martial law would have saved her. She is an astute neo-liberal economist. The US$18 billion in annual foreign-exchange remittances to the Philippines provided by its overseas workforce is precisely what services the country's enormous foreign debt. The impact of these remittances on the domestic economy are consequently less significant - and the country remains in an ever-growing debt trap. So while the politicians and pundits in the Anglo-American world openly condemn the Philippines, privately, we can be sure, their bankers have set them straight. In the grand scheme of things the major creditor countries and institutions would prefer the millions of Angelo de la Cruzes to be alive and laboring abroad to fulfill the Philippines' debt obligations over some symbolic beheading in Iraq and mass uprisings and instability in Manila.
Robin Abaya
New York (Jul 27, '04)


I would like to personally thank Nir Rosen for risking his life by going to Fallujah to gather the most important reportage to come from Iraq since the insurgency began. From the very beginning of his seven-part series [Fallujah: Inside the Iraqi resistance], I was apprehensive for his safety. After watching the New York Times' [Jeffrey] Gettleman on The Charlie Rose Show a few nights ago talk about the extreme dangers of being a journalist in Iraq, and expressing his fear and reluctance to return there, it reinforced even more the admiration I felt for Mr Rosen's work. Some might call you a foolish hero, Mr Rosen, but "heroic" is the right adjective, and the readers of Asia Times know that. We are grateful for your courage and the indispensable information you gathered to enable our understanding of the Iraqi resistance. Good work.
David Sheegog
Paoli, Oklahoma (Jul 27, '04)


[Armand] DeLaurell advises [us] Americans to "wake up and smell the roses", after the usual apology/justification of the actions of the [September 11, 2001] death-freaks [letter, Jul 26]. Perhaps Mr DeLaurell should wake up and work on his idiomatic English. Or better yet, perhaps the American immigration authorities should wake up and take his green card.
Johannes L D'Armstrong
Vacationing in the Pyrenees (wearing a Canadian flag) (Jul 27, '04)


I have [written] a few times with no reply of my letter ever being posted, and as ... such, I am posting you on my site as a [prejudiced] paper, full of lies and fairy tales! Never have I read anything positive about America or our people. Never how we give freely aid, feed and [support] those in need. Never how we as a nation, the best still in the world can have mistakes, but still have good intentions. Because we are human like the rest of the world. Islam is shown by you as always being right, when it's [worse] than the Crusades of the past by Christians. By your reporting, they are shown as just and right, [heroes] for freedom, when all they are are just evil, misguided and misinformed about the truth. I read Iraqi news, and all you say is wrong about [Iraqis]. I am sure that they would say so, and we have not blocked freedom of expression! Yes prejudice against America is in your paper, and you promote it, and [against] anyone who are friends or allies with us! My goal now is to bring to light all the [falsehoods] and prejudice by those like you and to help those [who] are [concerned] about Islam to reform it! To show these terrorists as [the] non-Islamic infidels they are! Wake up and smell the coffee, before you and those like you start World War III, with your prejudice and hate that is really unjustified!
Don Kennedy
USA (Jul 27, '04)


After reading [Marc] Erikson's commentary of the failings of the 9-11 report titled A failure of imagination [Jul 24], one is tempted to come to the same conclusion that he has regarding the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Policies followed by actions that reflect the simplistic splitting of hairs as to whether one is a good manager or a good intelligence chief betrays the realities of a society such as the US in its relations to other nations. For better or for worse successive administrations have, especially in the Middle East region, followed dysfunctional and to a certain extent irrational (given the present standing of the US in that part of the world as also elsewhere) and harmful policies that contributed to the acts of September 11, 2001. The blame is a shared one by all. The plain citizen. The ignorance and arrogance of responsible individuals. The unwarranted influences of certain lobby groups. And the belief that the world we now live in is circa 1940/1950/1960. What is at least to this writer astonishing is that as a society we spend the time and the effort to determine who is to blame for [September 11] and no one ever asks the question as to what justified and/or what did the USA gain from the number of dead Americans whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam Memorial. Did the millions of chemicalized Vietnamese and the 65,000 or so American military personnel die due to poor management or poor leadership? We Americans really need to wake up and smell the roses.
Armand DeLaurell (Jul 26, '04)


Congratulations to David Scofield for his fine article on the aversion of young Koreans to the less-than-prestigious job opportunities abounding in their country [The human factor in Korea's economic woes, Jul 24]. The same mentality appears to permeate their counterparts abroad. Recently a good-looking young plumber in New York complained to me that Korean women will not date him, the fact that he earns over $100,000 a year not withstanding. Evidently he is, alas, a ... laborer.
John Hallinan (Jul 26, '04)


In reading Macabe Keliher's China's waters of life are the waters of death [Jul 24], which reviewed Elizabeth Economy's recent book [The River Runs Black], I detected something similar to many of my own reactions to the material available on the Council of Foreign Relations' website covering her work. Economy is right to point out that China's economic growth and overall well-being are linked to environmental policies being taken seriously and implemented. Boiled down to essentials, however, Economy is almost surely interested mostly in how such unattended environmental problems in China will impair economic growth in the region in general and US trade, credit needs and investment opportunities in particular. For her, "free-market democracy" is the goal; environmental ethics is but a means, although she might believe she is seeing things differently. Fact is, economic growth in China will be much like economic growth has been in the US, Europe, Japan, etc - at the expense of the environment somewhere. Greater power and sophistication allow a people or nation to force some environmental costs of economic growth on to others, but as only the last hundred years makes starkly visible, the paradigm that equates growth with well-being is generally insane. If China could perfect this formula within its own territory, it would necessarily devastate the region and draw upon more distant areas for the resources it needs to produce the goods it needs or wants for its trade, development and consumption a mere delaying tactic. As just one example of what this looks like, examine China's consumption of wildlife for food and traditional medicine, which is absolutely emptying all of Asia of a huge range of species as its economy grows and people enjoy increased discretionary spending. In a report that focused on trade in wildlife in Laos but covered the region (Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Thailand; including some statistics from Indonesia and the Philippines), IUCN's [International Union for the Conservation of Nature] 2001 report was appropriately titled "The End of the Game". The country of destination for most of this trade is China, where obscenely people pay more as the animals become increasingly rare. SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] gave conservationists some small hope that Asia will wake up to the disaster it is creating, but all hope is really just wishful thinking. Macabe Keliher got it right on two main points: The US has no model to offer China to salvage itself from environmental ruin, and without an altogether new paradigm for mankind, the rest is futile.
Joe Nichols
USA (Jul 26, '04)


Andrew Tully's article US now linked to 'vigilantes' in Afghanistan [Jul 24] implies that there is no one at the Pentagon named Heather Anderson: "Idema, a former US soldier, said his group was in direct fax and e-mail contact with the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with his top aides. He said a four-star official in the Pentagon named Heather Anderson 'applauded our efforts'. But AP [Associated Press] reported that there are no four-star female officers in the entire US military, and that no one by that name is listed in the Pentagon telephone book." In fact, Ms Anderson is currently employed by the DOD [Department of Defense] as director for strategic integration and acting director for security. Her boss is Stephen Cambone. Her job includes responsibilities regarding security clearances for personnel hired by the DOD. Here, she testifies before the House Government Reform Committee on May 6, 2004. Perhaps Ms Anderson needs to testify under oath regarding any contacts she may have had with Jack Idema.
John Seal
Oakland, California (Jul 26, '04)


[Raju] Bist has done well to cover some major if quiet changes in how Indians, especially the middle class, shop, eat and entertain (The great Indian mall boom, [Jul 24]). Now Mr Bist could do better if he could report on the status of the supply-chain management in agriculture. Improvements there will go a long way in helping India's long-suffering farmers and middle classes as well.
AP (Jul 26, '04)


In [Military might and political messages, Jul 24] by Mac William Bishop, you call the three [interested] parties China, Taiwan and the US. This, however, is not very accurate and it suggests Taiwan being separated from China. Although this is probably precisely what Mac William Bishop is thinking, many actually disagree with it. It would be better to be more precise, such as calling them Beijing, Taipei and Washington. It gives more room for more interpretation in this controversial issue. In the case of Taiwan, the concept of China goes beyond political boundaries. Whether it be administered by the PRC (People's Republic China) or ROC (Republic of China) governments, it is part of China to most ordinary Chinese. Equating China to PRC, but leaving Taiwan out of it, may suggests otherwise.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jul 26, '04)


Wow, I just read the [Ask] Spengler column [Of butterfly priests and Spengler's Chaos Theory, Jul 20]. Remind me not to in the future, I can only stomach so much hate. And he really doesn't understand much about either empire or Israel. So far as empire goes, he doesn't realize that America doesn't actually want to own anything, just control it (just like Nike doesn't own any of its sweatshops). And with regard to his disgusting anti-Palestinian diatribes, maybe you can ask him to explain what he would do if, say, the American government gave somebody billions of dollars every year so that they could demolish his house and kick him off of your property (after shooting your grandparents with attack helicopters). That's not to say that [Yasser] Arafat's a saint, but I'm going to side with the guy who uses a Molotov cocktail to protect his people against an attack helicopter any day. I am thoroughly disgusted.
Lindsey Walsh (Jul 26, '04)


I've come to realize something about the current world situation. The average Westerner (again, I know little or nothing about non-Westerners) does not live in a temporal reality. For the West, time, history, no longer exists. Quite strange, since Spengler made a point of commenting how the Faustian spirit of the West was limitless, history or temporal reality being part of the West's basic consciousness [America is not an empire, Jul 13]. But consider, I, a true Faustian in a sense which is almost scary, look upon the current developing conflict or tragedy between the West and Islam as a simple occurrence in the history of the world, I just happen to be alive today. What I have noticed about most commentators is that they are incredibly present-minded. They see Christianity as it exists today, and say this is Christianity. They see Islam, and say this is Islam. Islam is hateful towards the Jews. Christianity loves the Jews. Remember 700 years ago, Christianity had major problems with the Jews (what is truly amazing is not Christian Europe's persecution of the Jews, but its tolerance of the Jews, from the Cathars, to "Pagans", to the religious wars, Christianity had a tendency to eliminate what it saw as demonic manifestations leading souls to hell), and Islam tolerated the Jews. How many people have even a basic knowledge of the historical development of Christianity? (Of course, their interest may be in heaven, rather than in knowledge.) My point is that very few people see the human existence in a historical temporal view. The West, it appears, has become more like the other cultures of the world, and in some sense has lost its uniqueness. But in truth, maybe this is because the West is a culture of a whole society, it is very inclusive. From the fattest rich guy to the welfare/TV-watching type, they for the most part share the same pop culture. Spengler said that the Faustian West was elitist, in every sense of the world, so maybe the culture which allowed someone to write "decline of the West" excluded itself into hell. What I am whining about is that in this democratic age ... declining literacy, would it not be a good thing to push a temporal consciousness on to people? Alas, I sound like an elitist snob saying it would be a good idea to try to pick up an ocean, or try to "create a reformation in Islam".
Dave Henderson (Jul 26, '04)


Syed Saleem Shahzad claims in a response to Jamal Jahid's [Jul 22] letter: "Ask any communist sitting in exile in Pakistan, Russia or France - he would tell you that it is not the Afghan nation that defeated Russia, but the bunch of Arab and Pakistani fighters organized by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States" [letter, Jul 23]. The maximum number of Arabs and Pakistanis who joined the Afghan jihad could not exceed 20,000 at most, compared with 2 million Afghans who got killed fighting the Soviets. These fanatic Arabs and Pakistanis amount to nothing. Indeed, Syed Saleem Shahzad should not forget that these Arabs and Pakistanis did not join the Afghan fight for their love of the Afghan nation or for any noble cause; both Arabs and Pakistanis had their own agenda and evil plan and saw the Afghan struggle against the Soviets as an opportunity to further their evil plans. Arabs joined the Afghan jihad so they could use Afghanistan as a base for their future fight - to re-establish Arab imperialism using Islam. While Pakistanis had their own evil agenda, first Pakistanis knew that they were enable to [resist a Soviet invasion]; especially when the ultimate purpose of Soviet Afghan invasion was to reach the warm waters of Indian ocean. Second, the Pakistanis got a God-given chance to eliminate the righteous and legal demand of Pashtunistan, which unfairly and against all the norms and logic after the British departure went to Pakistan - a country with which Pashtuns had no correlation with. Historically, racially, culturally and religion-wise Pashtuns belong in Afghanistan. Indeed the words Pashtun, Pathan and Afghan are synonymous. Thus Pakistan deployed her full energy to radicalize and brainwash Pashtun youth; usual illiterate village folks into Dewbandi, Wahhabi (Talibi) dogmas; using holy Islam to carry their evil and despicable plan of "Kabul must burn" and "strategic depth". And today after the betrayal of the Taliban and other fanatics, the Pakistanis are engaged in a half-hearted fight against the same people that they spent all their energy and resources to create (to keep the Afghan nation backward). Thank God today the chicken is coming back to the rooster and I am delighted to watch these operations and fight in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] while eating my popcorn and drinking my Coke since, as in the famous Pashto saying, "Death on any side is in the benefit of Islam!" All in all, I advise Mr Shahzad to not put too much emphasis on a criminal and traitor gang like communists and their hot air. History is written by people who sacrifice their life for their country and nation's cause, and Afghan history, especially the history of the Soviet-Afghan war, is written by the blood of 2 million brave Afghans. In addition Mr Shahzad writes: "There is no doubt that like the people of the entire world, Afghan people are nice and friendly. However, it is always internal contradictions of the society that help external forces to use their ground." I wonder what Mr Shahzad means by "internal contradictions", but whatever he means it does not justify the cowardice and despicable interference of Pakistan, Iran and other outsiders, special after the Soviet defeat which left Afghanistan weak and vulnerable. Mr Shahzad's argument is the same as blaming a victim for a crime just because the victim was vulnerable.
Babagul Khan de Afghan
Kandahar, Afghanistan (Jul 26, '04)


Would it be possible to have [Pepe] Escobar visit Darfur in Sudan and provide a first-hand account of events there, after he recovers from his long road trip in America?
Sir Rogers USA (Jul 26, '04)

Sudan is in Africa, and therefore not part of our regular coverage area. As well, the ongoing tragedy there is, at least at the moment, finally being paid attention to by other media. When they lose interest again, perhaps we can find a way to put Pepe on the case, as we did recently for the Roving USA series you mention. Until then, we - and he - have our hands full here in Asia. - ATol


In response to Jamal Jahid (letter, Jul 22):