Please write to us at letters@atimes.com

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

August 2004

Re Voices from the march to nowhere [Aug 31]. Hmmmm - they just do not get it, do they? America depends on oil. Not just for the baubles, but at its very basics, America depends on oil to feed itself. How do you think the crops are grown and transported? Yes, in time, there will probably be an alternative. But for now and the near future, there is not. As someone from the West who benefits from this obscene exploitation of the world's resources I feel uncomfortable. But unless I am prepared to face reality and acknowledge my dependence on those resources, principally oil (and, of late, cheap labor) I am a hypocrite to drive to a rally to deride those who are basically going and getting that resource for me. I am probably wearing clothes made by cheap labor and transported by cheap oil. I am going to eat food produced and transported using oil. I have probably used many items at home and business produced by cheap labor and oil. My economy is dependent on the money merry-go-round between the West and China/India (mind you, who is exploiting whom is an interesting question), and so on. I think it is all obscene. I cringe at my impotence. It is all very well to take out my anger on [US President George W] Bush, [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair and, for us, [Australian Prime Minister John] Howard, but they are responding to the demands of their societies. The demand for this exploitation of resources to prop up a lazy and exploitative lifestyle is what drives the politicians. (For example, balance the number of people who will die of obesity in the West with the number of people who will die for starvation in the Sudan - yet we are all born with an inalienable right to an equal share of the world's resources.) Simply voting in another party does not solve the problem. The problem is on the street, and that voice must be loud and clear. It must first of all look at itself and decide what level of sharing it will embrace and what level of exploitation it will give up. It must then communicate that clearly to the powers that be. To simply demonstrate from a comfortable distance while enjoying the fruits of the policy is hypocritical, ineffective and morally defective.
Graeme
Australia (Aug 31, '04)


I don't think it is correct to assume that [George W] Bush will win the [US presidential] election [Close, but Bush will win, Aug 31]. There is a groundswell of anger against him currently in the USA that illustrates the feelings of many, many Americans.
Apocrpha Roll (Aug 31, '04)


Most of your commentaries include information about the author; the articles by Marc Erikson do not. Could you please provide me some information about this author?
Christopher S Haase (Aug 31, '04)

Marc Erikson is an Asia-based journalist with broad experience in Asian affairs and longtime affiliation with Asia Times Online. - ATol


[Re Iraq test for Moscow, Aug 31] I personally fail to see how anybody can seriously contemplate even the remotest of possibilities of Russian soldiers ever appearing in Iraq. President [Vladimir] Putin called the Iraq war "a mistake" countless times, and it's unlikely that recent developments have improved his opinion. While it's in Russian interests to resist answering every rumor or innuendo and maintain as much strategic ambiguity as possible, common sense should be called upon to refute any such idea. Benefits described by [Yevgeny] Bendersky simply don't exist (one could argue that Russia's WTO [World Trade Organization] membership would be more beneficial for Western and Asian companies, hence the rush of recent concessions to Moscow), while liabilities would most likely prove monumental and long-lasting. Given the comparison of their conventional forces, where Americans are dying by hundreds, Russians would be dying by thousands. Persistent Russian efforts to heal the memory of its Afghanistan campaign and improve its standing in the Islamic world would be null and void. All in all, it would boost Russia's profile in the US, but prove an absolute and unmitigated strategic disaster for Russian interests elsewhere in the world. At the present time Russia's geopolitical position is the best it's been in a very long time. Even more, it keeps on improving. Why Russia would want to throw it all away is beyond logic and rationality.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Aug 31, '04)


As we, whom [Rudyard] Kipling styled the bander-log, sit here at the edge of ruin and chatter, some of the best, most entertaining chatter around comes from Spengler [Know your enemy (including Commentary magazine), Aug 31]. But after a while watching him sidle up to the truth and then shy away becomes a bit wearing. The question before the house is a simple one: Why is Western civilization failing? And that question quickly morphs into the more general one, why do civilizations always fail? Why does social and technological complexity, after centuries of providing invincible advantages to those that employ it, eventually fail to provide its lords with enough of an advantage to even maintain the status quo? Spengler is correct when he intuits that the answer lies, improbably enough, in philosophy. The answer lies in a philosophical argument in which, as is usual, both of the opposing parties were right. That argument was the quarrel between Galileo Galilei and the Inquisition. Galileo was right about the physical facts. The Inquisition was right that knowledge of those facts was the beginning of the end for man's belief in the significance of his own life. Galileo was right that there was no way to suppress the truth. The Inquisition was right that widespread awareness of that truth would mean the end of Western civilization. The short and sweet of it is that as long as at least the appearance of a "struggle to survive" can be maintained, the citizens of a civilization can protect themselves from knowing too much. But ever-increasing prosperity and man's insatiable curiosity are a deadly combination. Man discovers the truth of his place in the universe and discovers despair. He attempts to hide behind an ever more frenetic swirl of amusements and diversions, but the paralysis has its way. As Spengler has pointed out, he loses the drive to breed his replacements. That phenomenon is evident in the statistics in Europe, including Russia, and in Japan. Immigration and the breeding habits of the first generation or two of immigrants mask the effect in the US, but it is happening here as well. The phenomenon proceeds as the theory would suggest, with the most prosperous and the most intelligent reproducing the least and postponing reproduction the longest. Civilizations die when enough of their citizens catch on to the simple truth: life isn't worth the effort.
Grumpy_and_the_other_six
Central California, USA (Aug 31, '04)


Dan Piecora (letter, Aug 30) is correct when he states the US would surrender Taiwan to an invading communist China in the right circumstance. His only confusion is thinking it has anything to do with "adequate tactical and strategic military might". In the event of a [John] Kerry administration there is no action communist China could take that would provoke an American military response (South Koreans and Japanese should take note). On the other hand, President [George W] Bush would not hesitate to use every step necessary to defend a democratic ally.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 31, '04)


ATol editors call the debate between yellow people and white people about the future death of Taiwanese people nice. However, the Taiwanese people may not think that way. As some of them indicated here, they would like to be left alone. If ATol editors would like a real fair, democratic discussion of the Taiwan issue, ATol should publish more articles written by the Chinese people living on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We all know what white people want. Let us hear some voices from Taiwan and mainland China. Your single-sided attacks [against] China and Chinese people will fuel neo-nationalism and misguide [Taiwan President] Chen Shui-bian, and promote hatred. That is not a fair debate. That is not nice at all to Chinese people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 31, '04)

We, unlike certain government-suppressed media we could name, are keen to publish the views of Chinese people on both sides of the strait and on all sides of the issue; to refresh your memory on this point, you might reread Tang Liejun's A brighter future for China and Japan (Aug 7), Tang's US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals (Jul 29), Sam Ng's Taiwanese gold rush to China (Jul 30), Li Jing's Talking the talk, walking the walk (May 26), etc. We also have a Chinese-language site. - ATol


If Aaftaab [letter, Aug 30] feels that ATol is owned by Indians it is difficult to fault his reasoning. The brilliant exposures of Pak complicity in breeding and fomenting terrorism would seem to originate only from a sworn enemy hell-bent on damaging the fair name of Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, they are pouring out from all directions from a world waking out of its stupor and have nothing to do [with] India. Ironically, his outpouring itself shows an India-centric lament for all that is wrong with Pakistan. The observation of Siddharth [Srivastava] in his article [What kissing James Bond means to India, Jan 9], which provoked Aaftaab, is actually a documented fact that the kiss did indeed create a furor in Pakistan and that the said politician did take a lot of heat for his daughter's peccadillo. But Aaftaab would have preferred that such embarrassing information and other inconvenient facts about abetting terrorism, fathering the Taliban, etc not be in the limelight. I congratulate him on having figured out that ATol is is being bankrolled by India with the sole objective of harassing Pakistan.
Sri
New York, USA (Aug 31, '04)

But don't forget that, according to other observers, we are also in the pocket of "white people" trying to provoke war with "yellow people", we are in the pay of Beijing to put down Delhi (and vice versa), we are both pro-Israel and anti-Semitic, we "hate America" but are also paid off by "corporate America", etc, etc. It all keeps us very busy, and we are running out of mattresses to hide all these payoffs under. - ATol


"Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan bureau chief for Asia Times Online." Can you please clarify? As far as I know, Mr Shahzad is your only correspondent reporting about Pakistan, unless you consider the large bevy of Indian journalists that are always looking at ways to belittle Pakistan as part of the Pakistani "bureau". As far as Saleem Shahzad is concerned, the less said, the better. I know that Mr Shahzad tries to be creative, yet if I were to buy his version of events, Pakistani tribal areas would have brought about a revolution in the whole country, the mullahs would be ruling Pakistan, al-Qaeda would have hold of Pakistani nukes and the country would have long ceased to exist. To Mr Shahzad's credit, he sometimes does get it right. Not by any fault of his, though. You write enough hare-brained schemes, filled with conspiracy theories, and sometimes by sheer luck, events unfold in a manner that you can write more drivel to support your original warped hypothesis and then pump your chest and proclaim loudly, "I told you so." Meanwhile I wait for Mr Shahzad to finish watching the latest Hollywood action-packed thriller, The Bourne Supremacy - stay tuned, folks.
Kamran Ali (Aug 31, '04)


Dear Andre Fabre [letter, Aug 23]: The Chinese civilization's "arch enemy" around AD 12 was really the Xiongnu, a nomadic race whose various tribes had been plaguing [the Chinese] for more than a thousand years (if you include the ancestors of the Xiongnu, the Rongdi). The Xiongnu were the initial and main reason for the building of the Great Wall. So in the long course of Chinese history, the Koguryo kingdom hardly qualifies as an "arch enemy". In fact, the Chinese civilization at various times became friends and enemies with the Koguryo kingdom and various Xiongnu tribes, such being the nature of politics. The Xiongnu later died out or moved away (no specific record in Chinese or other Asian historical literature) while the ancient Koguryo kingdom collapsed and was then "rebuilt" in the region around present-day Korea. Whatever the enmities between ancient Koguryo and ancient China, the "revisionist" name of Xiali has not stuck and Koguryo is now commonly referred to as Gaoli. I hope you appreciate that modern Chinese historians have the unenviable task of trying to interpret and integrate the histories of their minority races such as the ethnic Mongolians and the ethnic Koreans and sometimes end up distorting "mainstream" Chinese history. For example, ethnic-Han generals who fought Mongolian invaders can no longer be referred to as "national heroes" as it is thought to be insensitive to the feelings of Mongolian Chinese nationals. And there was a similar academic/diplomatic wrangle with the "nationality" of Genghis Khan some time back (his grandson took over China but then the Mongolian governing class got overthrown and "assimilated" into Chinese civilization). I hope these short stories lend a little objectivity to your reading of the historical relationship between China and Korea from various sources.
Sing Yung
Singapore (Aug 31, '04)


Dear Ambassador [K Gajendra] Singh: I want to thank you for your extremely readable, well-presented and above all informative article on Russian/Turkish relations at this geopolitical moment [Russian bear calls on gray wolf, Aug 28]. The article appears to be written in the best tradition (now disappearing, particularly in the West) of the honest and scholarly analysis without bias and propagandistic overtones. I must say that, at least since the 1999 NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] attack on Yugoslavia, I have noticed that Indian authors are among the few that as a group quite regularly exhibit the above-described high level of professionalism in attending to geopolitical questions. So I would like to praise you collectively for this rare trait in this day and age of disinformation.
Aleksandar Jokic, Assistant Professor
Portland State University, Department of Philosophy
Portland, Oregon (Aug 30, '04)


[Re] What kissing James Bond means to India [Jan 9] By Siddharth Srivastava. Read this article and one will realize what I meant in my last letter to ATol. All Indians want to do is implicate Pakistan in everything they can even think about, "kissing" being one of them. Three cheers for the Indian intellect level. Is ATol owned and run by Indians?
Aaftaab (Aug 30, '04)


After about four years of reading your website on a very regular basis and recommending it to many friends, it is for the first time that I have come to the stage where these days I log on, read all the headings and not want to open a single article and sit and wonder where to go now? Most of your more interesting contributors have either left for "greener pastures" (as you put it) or just run themselves dry and now have nothing more to give. I suggest you send Spengler on a long fishing holiday or something where he can be one with mother nature for a while and rediscover himself. [Meanwhile] Pepe Escobar needs to end his holidays and come back to the real world. He's getting too soft - I say send him to Chechnya for a couple of months. As for your new favorite man Syed Salim Shahzad, who's stuck by you through thick and thin, he definitely needs to get over his paranoia and stop taking his "secret sources" so seriously. Every week he writes a new article saying the same stuff in a different permutation. Pakistan's military is ready to rebel against [President General Pervez] Musharraf, but then they are not really ready just yet. The Islamic radicals and ready to rebel against the government, but say they will for now do "peaceful demonstrations". The Pakistan government/military has captured Osama bin [Laden], Dr Aiman al-Zawari and other "big names" and kept them in "safe houses" to present to America when Musharraf meets [US President George W] Bush, but then they might not even present them because that would mean they have no more cards to play, and so instead they might hand over a few "smaller" guys over. Make your mind up, dude, which is it? Are they going to hand bin Laden over or not? Is the military going to revolt or not? Are the religious and jihadis going to wage jihad against Pakistan or stick to "peaceful rallies"? Stop boring us and come up with something solid ... in the meantime, I'll just rely on the ICC [International Cricket Council] Champions Trophy to keep me going ...
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 30, '04)


With regards to Omega Lee's letter (Aug 25) - sigh. One really wonders if he is interested in hearing an actual opinion or is he waiting to hear from someone who will say the things that he wants to hear. For the longest time that I can remember, I have been reading about so many opinions from others (mostly Western media) about trying to mould Singapore into their image. Hence, my writing to provide an alternative viewpoint. One wonders if the "democratic" people are prepared to have an open and equitable meeting of minds, if their judgment seems to be divided into (a) if it matches their ideals - it must be good, (b) if not - then it must be bad. I hate to disappoint them, but the world is not so black and white, it exists in many shades of gray. Relating to the opposition, if there are no skeletons in your cupboard, what have you to fear? It may seem ironic, but the presence of lawsuits may actually help to entrench the existing opposition since people are well aware that the government will always keep an eye out for any slip-ups. So, if the PAP [People's Action Party] government can't pin anything on you, then you must be worth keeping around. As for the good doctor, he had previously undertaken a "hunger strike" to protest against the conditions of the democracy. What's more, he had also ousted the previous leader of the SDP (Singapore Democratic Party), Mr Chiam [See Tong], who had brought Dr Chee [Soon Juan] into the party which Mr Chiam had founded. Facta non verba (deeds not words) determine the person, and frankly we are not impressed with all that he has done. By the way, Dr Chee's books are available in Singapore in major bookstores and he has even sold them in the heart of Singapore's financial center. Perhaps Australia has the good fortune of not experiencing a widespread racial riot, but Singapore experienced one in May 1964. It was stirred by narrow-minded people playing communal politics. In this multicultural, multi-ethnic society, Tang Liang Hong was playing with fire. Moreover, there was always a real danger that it could incite other communalists in the surrounding countries. In addition, thank you for introducing The Age and The Australian, which I have had the previous pleasure of discovering. Along with them I have visited numerous other sites, one of the more interesting ones [being] the New York Times (www.nytimes.com), which is definitely no fan of the PAP government. However, I guess somewhere along the line I decided to make up my own mind after seeing how many of them seem to have this parochial conceit that their views were universal ones. As for the August 24 ATol article Singapore, the safe haven, I guess you have to make up your own mind about that. Will you extend the same courtesy to allow us to make our mind for ourselves then?
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Aug 30, '04)


First of all, I never opposed free exchange of ideas. That is a typical label you put it on the people who do not agree with you. What I am suggesting to you and other white people is not to stir up trouble and promote hatred to East Asian people. East Asian people would like to resolve the disagreement by themselves. Was that all that Japanese asked for during World War II? [Is] the desire of being left alone against freedom of speech? Seems to me that labeling other people as xenophobia, communist mouthpiece, or demons, etc is also against freedom of speech. ATol editors had been labeled as communist mouthpiece many times before by American readers. If you do not like that label, maybe you should try not labeling others. Next time, look into the mirror before charging against others. Is the Taiwan Strait at war? This question can only be answered by the people who live there. I suggest [letter writer] Daniel [McCarthy] and ATol editors pay a visit to Fujian, Shanghai and Taiwan before jumping to a quick conclusion. You even can board a tour boat from the mainland and sail a few hundred feet away to a Taiwanese cannon. If you are lucky, you will find a Taiwanese solder waving to you. The stalemate between brothers is completely different than the MAD [mutually assured destruction] match between Americans and Russians. You have to be there to feel that peace. How stable is the peace? I think you should read the article [Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Aug 21] published on ATol. Stability of East Asia is well defined in that article. Don't you read your own articles? A well-defined peace is a stable peace. You do not have to fear the gun if nobody puts a finger on its trigger. If Parag Vohra [letter, Aug 27] does not want India to be included in the do-not-disturb lists, I will use "East Asian" instead in the future. So far I have not seen many Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese people wanting to invite their white masters to stay or to come back. Yellow people will regard white people as friends if they are not trying to disturb their peaceful lives in East Asia. I am sure I will not be welcomed if I go your house digging [through] your dirty laundries or peeking into your bedroom. Freedom should only be exercised when other people's peace is not disturbed. Is that against democracy?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 30, '04)


It was with keen interest that I read letter writer Daniel McCarthy's opinion of the situation with Taiwan and China (Aug 27). For the most part I agree with him, but venture to go further in his prediction regarding "China showing an error in judgment and starting an actual fight". While I agree with his statement, "The one-China policy gives the basis for China's belligerence, and will be the legal cause of the war," I disagree with his prediction of the outcome, "China's civilian and military leaders will bear moral responsibility for the destruction of modern China as a result." That is only if they lose. China may attack, but it will not be destroyed as he opines if a full-scale assault were to break out. And it would not be an error in judgment on the part of the Chinese to attack. They have, or will soon have, the upper hand and they know it. The US will lose in a conflict over Taiwan, and decisively, unless it bolsters its Pacific forces and prepares for a Pearl Harbor-type attack on Guam and Okinawa. Like Pearl Harbor, we [Americans] can still be caught off guard in the Pacific, yet restrained from fully retaliating in order to retake the island. Unlike Pearl Harbor, when Taiwan is attacked it will be invaded and fall permanently into the hands of the "enemy". To retaliate or to launch any sort of counterattack by the US could, or would, incur nuclear strikes against Japan, South Korea and the US. So the ultimate question is, could the US lose countless American soldiers, watch Taiwan be absorbed by the Red Communist masses and be forced to stand down by being blackmailed with nuclear war? The answer, right now or very soon, is an obvious "Yes, it could." The US military may be willing to suffer untold casualties over the island nation of Taiwan, but the US government is not willing to suffer the loss of American cities through nuclear annihilation. China knows this and will call our bluff when the time is right, meaning adequate tactical and strategic military might.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington (Aug 30, '04)


I would like to express support for the views of Frank, Seattle, and Joe Nichols on the differing issues they have dealt with in their letters. I can't say that I fully agree with them as I am neither white nor American and don't necessarily see things the way they do - but it is good to have them present an alternative and reasoned case against the world views expressed by writers such as Dennis McCarthy and Richard Radcliffe. It appears to me that while political discussion within the American democracy is highly transparent, the way it deals with other countries/territories is rather condescending - much like imperial China before the revolution of 1911 toppled Manchurian rule and forced the Chinese civilization to give up the millennia-old myth that they were the "sons of heaven" and the "center of the world". To quote one example: quit it with the "Singapore would not have existed without the United States" bullshit ... the US bombing of Hiroshima forced the Japanese to surrender and free Singapore in World War II [is a] myth - the failure of the eight-year Sino-Japanese war was killing Japan anyway. Yes, major world events would have turned out differently but the world (and Singapore) would certainly have continued to spin itself into existence - there is a difference between a causa causans (effective cause) and a causa sine qua non (prerequisite cause). Finally, as ATol editors noted, Frank's preference on the Taiwan issue for taking baby steps while "maintaining a standoff" does have the weight of history. In fact, lots of history: the Chinese civilization's millennia of history is interspersed with centuries of "civil war" or "separation" (such as the Seven Warring States and the Three Kingdoms periods) and the current "standoff" is actually relatively peaceful. On the other hand, the case for Taiwanese independence presented by psuedo-historians who are cherry-picking Taiwan's history and bending over backwards to delineate Taiwanese "territory/history/society/ culture" is rather dubious. I accept that the Taiwanese (native hill tribes, Hakkas, Hokkiens, etc) have their own culture and a case for independence, but it should not be based on the denial of their history.
Sing Yung
Singapore (Aug 30, '04)


In response to Daniel McCarthy's question (Aug 26), let me make the following statement and I shall not touch the subject anymore, hoping instead to watch the final outcome someday. There had to be good reason when one member was expelled to be replaced by a new one in a cheering, lopsided vote at the United Nations. Witty, sarcastic remarks or jokes are easy to come by. But I do believe that the majority of Chinese on the mainland and overseas, not just the Beijing leadership, desire and demand reunification with Taiwan. The ongoing, quickening pace of cultural exchanges and economic integration may play a crucial role, hopefully not in the too distant future. China paid dearly in the wars in Korea and Vietnam in defense of her stated principles from which she had never once wavered. When and if the time comes, it is a matter of how much sacrifice one side would be willing to accept. At that time I think the likes of [Taiwanese President] Chen [Shui-bian] and [Vice President Annette] Lu will safely depart in a hurry.
Seung Li (Aug 30, '04)


Dennis Castle (letter, Aug 27) must join me in Hermeneutics 101 and we can examine if he's right to say I don a "mantle of authority" by arguing that people calling themselves Christians must heed the words of Jesus. When Castle says that "interjecting religion into a discussion" is a problem, I read "interjecting Jesus into Christianity", causing not a problem for discussion but a problem for war. After clearing air enough to allow us the "right' to an intelligible debate, I will recommend the class look at the following statements juxtaposed: 1) Joe Nichols' problem is: "referencing scripture meant for individuals and insisting they are meant for entire nations" (Castle). 2) "The problem is that a religion that makes sense for the individual is being used, again and again, to orient people to a cause that contradicts it" (Nichols). Not unlike his earlier mistake (pretense?) that I confessed to a world view made from the very "movies and wretched fiction" that I specifically argued against, Castle seems again intent on appropriating or misunderstanding my positions only to use them against me by suggesting the same or similar positions. Completing his statement, this position he assigns to me - which contradicts the one I actually made - "demands one ignore other clear passages of scripture", suggesting that we can find different scriptures for nations and individuals. Well, there's a good question for you. What did Jesus say that can send a "Christian nation" to war? And how are Christians to reconcile these with the clear and overwhelming call of Jesus to "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy", etc? A brilliant piece of American movie propaganda, Sergeant York, starring Gary Copper and directed by Howard Hawks, shows us the way. Alvin C York was a real, live Daniel Boone-type in Tennessee at the time of World War I. In the movie, he was a big-hearted, hard-working but riotous young man, given to drink and fighting until a revelation came his way in the form of a lightning bolt that knocked his horse right out from under him. He got God in a big way and this turned him into a pacifist, which all praised. As luck would have it, Alvin then got called up by conscription to go to war and kill Germans. He said no, because the "Good Book was against it", but the preacher-man told him he had to go or the state would bury him in a cell. In time, Alvin was given a reprieve to sort through his turmoil and make a choice - war or no war. On a high bluff (his thinkin' spot) with his favorite dog, Alvin contemplated the Bible and came across his license for war: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," the phrase that Jesus used to answer for being taxed by Rome. But Alvin wasn't just being asked to give up some shekels to the emperor; Alvin wound up shooting Germans in the trenches like they were turkeys - even using his earlier-demonstrated turkey call (gobble-gobble) to get them to raise their heads for a clean shot (the audience finds that clever and amusing). It's almost certain that by this time (October 1918), those German soldiers were desperate to desert the front lines or surrender (read All Quiet on the Western Front), but were kept in the slaughter at the front by an edict handed down by another Christian nation - the death penalty for deserters. That, my friend, is a quintessential aspect of the nature of the state in matters of life and conscience; and this is how propaganda in the US proceeds. Sergeant York came out in 1941, not coincidentally. As an ironic twist in real life that shows how York didn't understand his scriptures or the state, in 1961 when he was paralyzed, near penniless and blind, the US government sued him for failure to pay his taxes!
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 30, '04)


Methinks David Little [letter, Aug 27] lives in a warped time and memory zone. Obviously, he is unable to comprehend the meaning of what he reads when he bemoans that Pakistan is being forced to turn against its treasured child of terrorism, which he acknowledges himself. It is strange that a country should be coerced into fighting terrorism. One would think that would be the natural thing to do, but not Mr Little. He is okay with terrorists funded by Pak ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] ramming planes into buildings but is alarmed at Israelis visiting Kashmir. India has borne the brunt of Pak terrorism for the past two decades and now the rest of the world, which in a suicidal unison turned a blind eye to this Pakistani penchant, is also savoring the taste of this well. The tragedy of the ill-conceived US invasion of Iraq has distorted the fight against terrorism and has helped people like Little overwork their little minds and trot [out] fanciful theories in defense of rogue nations.
Sri
New York, USA (Aug 30, '04)


My despair at thinking your publication has moved to the dark side, the side of war, invasion, murder, the USA/Britain/Israel side, increases daily. The sudden emergence of the author Syed Saleem Shahzad as the top writer at the top of the page on most days of the week is troubling. Almost all of his articles read like a gleeful man seeing just what he wants to: the destruction of Islam. His approval of the Pakistani cooperation with the USA against fellow Pakistanis indicates where his allegiance lies. Then I read the Sudha Ramachandran article on Israeli tourism in Jammu and Kashmir [Israel's unlikely home away from home, Aug 27]. The article states that Israelis are going to these places for vacation. [Whom] is [she] kidding? Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with a nuclear bomb. After the subjugation of Afghanistan, Iraq and the encircling of Iran by threats from the Israeli/British/Americans, there is only one Muslim nation left that could possibly defend itself militarily: Pakistan. With the past history of Israel, I would think that even common people, much less the well-educated and professional writers at ATol, would guess that some of these Israelis are intelligence agents. I think it is very reasonable to assume that the Israelis are active in Kashmir - that they could be using Kashmir as a launch pad for operations into Pakistan such as the bombings of mosques and the killings of Islamic students and teachers. To see the slant of the article lean towards an interpretation of "all of these Israelis visiting Kashmir because it is pretty", I must wonder if this writer is well versed in the historical terrorist operations of the Israeli military - or if the slant is on purpose to make the sudden influx of Israelis into India seem like something other than it is, preparations for the destruction of Pakistan. The last line of the article is so sweet it makes me want to go rock myself to sleep. "For the Israeli tourist, then, violence-ravaged Kashmir is a home away from home." Oh those beautiful, innocent Israelis! This article makes them appear so wonderful I can't help but question my TV reports showing the deaths in Palestine and the bulldozed homes. I bet all those TV reports on Israeli atrocities are a fake. I trust author Ramachandran's opinion of innocent Israelis much more than I trust my own eyes viewing footage of the destruction and atrocities in Palestine ...
David Little (Aug 27, '04)


[Jim] Lobe: Thank you for your brilliant exposure of the true motives of the neo-con movement [Neo-con ideology, not Big Oil, pushed for war, Aug 18]. It is true that their policies can be traced to religious dogmatism, [but] I must question whether or not it is fair to call their ideals "Christian". A Christian is one whose actions resemble those of Jesus Christ, so before we start to label the neo-conservatives as Christians we must ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" After the [World] Trade Center bombings, Jesus would not have called his nation to war. He would have prayed for those misguided souls who had designed such a murderous plot and asked God to forgive them because they did not fully understand what they were doing. Christ would not have never placed political sanctions on Iraq or any other country suffering under a brutal totalitarian government, but rather He would have sent food, medicine, and clothing to its innocent people. Christ would have tried to spread Zion, but not through violent regime changes because His kingdom is not in the governments of the earth. The Zion Christ would have established would have come to pass through compassionate works and peaceful teachings because it can only exist on earth in the hearts and minds of the people. Some churches claim biblical support for the neo-con movement because it gives them political power and helps secure government funding for their organizations, but their arguments cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, to say the neo-con movement is based on true Christian teachings is incorrect.
Liz H
Florida, USA (Aug 27, '04)


Frank's vocabulary ("wiggling his tail" etc) is indicative of his own demons and sheds light into the xenophobia present in in nationalist Chinese such as him [letter, Aug 26]. The points he makes in his rebuttal are completely irrelevant to the original argument I took issue with. Excluding a country's influence or participation based on race (white people) is a sure sign of xenophobia. This was the case when Japanese ultra-nationalists made the argument and is the case now. In fact the one factor that makes Asian countries look to US involvement for stability is Chinese attempts to rewrite history, be it the Spratly Islands dispute or the recent Chinese attempts at revisionism of the history of Koguryo.
Parag Vohra (Aug 27, '04)


It is amazing that a person holding himself out as an intellectual, like Frank (Seattle), would consider the Taiwan-China status quo to be peace [letter, Aug 26]. China is engaged in an unprecedented arms race to achieve military superiority over Taiwan and is specifically designing its military to attack US. Pacific forces. China continually threatens attack, and has shown unwise brinksmanship on several occasions. Although the situation may not be a hot war, it certainly qualifies as a neo-cold war, or a quasi-state of war as Annette Lu calls it. Each day that passes, we move closer to China showing an error in judgment and starting an actual fight. The one-China policy gives the basis for China's belligerence, and will be the legal cause of the war, although China's civilian and military leaders will bear moral responsibility for the destruction of modern China as a result. And to Seung Li [letter, Aug 26], I ask, why wasn't the People's Republic of China a member of the United Nations from 1949 to 1972? Could it be that the UN has always been a corrupt political institution, not an unbiased arbiter of international disputes?
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 27, '04)


[Re ATol note under Frank's letter of Aug 26] The point is that we do know self-delusion has prevented a Taiwan war for more than 50 years. I am not saying that self-delusion will prevent a war forever. What I am suggesting is to prevent this Taiwan war for another 10-20 years. Twenty years later, the ideological hatred between brothers will be replaced by economical needs of each other. By then, both sides can sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution of this long-lasting stalemate. We have already seen a good trend of reconciliation between brothers and sisters. Mainland [China] is Taiwan's largest trade partner. There are more than a million Taiwanese who moved to the mainland bringing much needed technological and management skills. China is also moving away from Russian-style communism. Give a few more years, and the ideological division will fade out. What we need is a little more time. Many people including your editors, authors and many leaders of the world are all realizing the next four years are the most dangerous years for Taiwan. I do not know what ATol editors will gain by pushing Taiwan to a war now. If the self-delusion can keep the peace of Taiwan Strait for more than 50 years, it is logical to say that it will keep the peace for another four or 10 more years. It won't take long before the people realize the money in their pockets is more important then ideology in the air. Mikhail Gorbachev did not do anything extra. He just capitalized on that realization. I am sure 10 years later there will be a leader like Mikhail Gorbachev [who] points out that fact to the people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait. By then, a stable peace will stay in reality. The peace will not come when you are attacking China indiscriminately. The efforts of demeaning China, Chinese people and Chinese achievements will only bring war closer to Taiwan. Please think the consequences before you write. There are many wars started from verbal arguments. You can find that out from many history books.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 27, '04)

You don't know what's going to happen in the next 10 years, or 10 days, any more than ATol or Daniel McCarthy does. You can only extrapolate from past trends and, as we said, the conclusions you base on your observation of history are reasonable. What is not reasonable is your insistence that the free exchange of ideas, or at least ideas that contradict your own, on this website will "bring war closer to Taiwan". To the contrary, the challenges to your thinking by McCarthy and others on this forum have made your arguments noticeably sharper, evidence of the benefits of free thought and debate. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone on this planet were as free as you, McCarthy and ATol to have these discussions? Or would it just cause another world war? - ATol


[Jose R] Pardinas (Aug 26) writes that the argument "the answer to 99 questions out of 100 is 'money' amounts to a redux ad absurdum" (return to the absurd). Dr Pardinas meant reductio ad absurdum, but was making a clever pun off of my pen name. Kudos! And he's quite right; if one interprets that saying literally, then it is absurd. Who could prove such a statistic? Who would want to discuss such semantics? Obviously, the saying is meant to poetically express the power of economics, as Dr Pardinas himself expressed in his letter (Aug 26). Dr Pardinas was also kind enough to prove the exact point I was trying to make. Dr Pardinas writes, "what economic or money interests of the USA does the embargo on Cuba really serve?" and he's right. There's no direct economic benefit for the US. Moreover there's an economic loss to the world because of it. So why would the world allow the US to "act with impunity", especially when it costs them money? If I may return Dr Pardinas to his original assertion that the US acts with impunity because of nuclear weapons; I reiterate my argument that the US seems to act with impunity because the world values its trade agreements with the US more than it values Cuba, Iraq, and other places that might be termed "US stomping grounds". The high value the rest of the world places on its trade agreements with the US provides a much greater impetus for allowing the US to behave the way it does, rather than a fear of American nuclear weapons. To suggest that the world cowers in fear of the American nuclear arsenal suggests that no other nation has nuclear weapons; and surely Dr Pardinas knows this assertion is more than false, it is a model of the world which depends on one terrifying variable and is thus truly absurd. However, I think nuclear weapons are indeed an important variable to consider; and I would very much like for Dr Pardinas to expand upon his model to include rational actors that are not so "one-dimensional". That's one of the reasons I read Asia Times Online, because it provides such broad perspectives. I'd also like Dr Pardinas to address possible negative consequences to Iran from Iran's nuclear armament; unless Dr Pardinas is prepared to argue that a Pakistan-India nuclear standoff can only be interpreted as a good thing. I look forward to his next letter.
Terence Redux
USA (Aug 27, '04)


One problem with interjecting religion into a discussion is that people such as Joe Nichols (letter, Aug 25) assume a mantle of authority on the subject they clearly have no right to. Referencing scripture meant for individuals and insisting they are meant for entire nations demands one ignore other clear passages of scripture. Assuming mercy exists independent of justice destroys the meaning of both, confusing love and pity leads to the same end (as though there cannot be a loveless pity or a pitiless love). A first-year hermeneutics class would help Joe grip the issues he raises and perhaps make him less dismissive of those who fail his personal Christian true/false test. Joe's point that Christian spiritual individualism is not translatable into entrepreneurial spirit is still lost on me (perhaps a larger crayon, written more slowly). Are they mutually exclusive or is it conceivable that one be both a Christian and an entrepreneur? My point regarding the survival of Israel was simply that those on Joe's side of the argument tend to want American protection removed knowing the consequences (thus the hyperbolic "Jew-killing privileges" remark). I will gladly take the comment back if Joe (or anyone) can believably tell me what other future might hold for Israel were the US to follow his suggestion.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 27, '04)


Vincent Maadi [letter, Aug 24] states that Iran "commands the respect most of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America". I agree that by the extremely low standard set by Middle Eastern governments, Iran is relatively well off. However, the cultural idiocy of Iranian politics and culture today is frightening. I fully sympathize with people who are angered by the West's hypocrisy in banning Iran and other nations from having weapons that they themselves stockpile in vast numbers. However, the wrongs of the West are no excuse for Iran's own problems. The "Westoxification" of Iranians is a direct result of the closed society fostered by narrow-minded Iranian rulers over the past century. Technology and science are only one part of a healthy culture and society. Iranians, like many people in developing nations, have forgotten the lessons of their own history, and now greedily yearn for the fruits of advanced science and technology without understanding the social and cultural development which are prerequisite. People in Iran are shuttered from the real world like children, and the only things which are imported from the West are the basest forms of popular culture, like MTV and Hollywood blockbusters. During the Shah's era, Iran was full of brothels and miniskirts, but intellectuals and critics were brutally suppressed. Nowadays, at least, some progress has been made in allowing criticism and discussion, but there is far to go. There was a time when Farsi was the official language of the Ottomans in Turkey and North Africa, of the Mughals in India, and across Central Asia. Iranians and non-Iranians alike were part of a huge, colorful culture, which is exemplified in the vast literature in Farsi and related languages across the Middle East, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Iranians are probably totally unaware that much of China's traditional clothing and music was imported from Iran and Central Asia in the Tang Dynasty. Iran's culture at that time was captivating to non-Iranians, who enriched Iranian culture with their own contributions. Nowadays, Iranians are not even curious about their neighboring cultures. Many are obsessed with migrating to Europe or America, and Iranians tend to claim some sort of European lineage to set themselves apart from their neighboring peoples. The government's excessive reliance on Islam to justify itself has created a popular aversion to Arab culture, and has fostered a ridiculous notion among many intellectuals that Iran must "purify" its culture and language of Arab and foreign influence. Iranian youth today are often more jaded than their American counterparts, as the public banning of "un-Islamic" behavior has fostered a decadent underground of sex, liquor and drugs. I state these criticisms not as an outsider looking down on Iran, but as an Assyrian-Iranian exile who wishes for his countrymen to live up to their own broad-minded and enlightened past.
Gunther Travan
California (Aug 27, '04)


Regarding The reinvented, more youthful al-Qaeda [Aug 25]. It's a doomed movement. It's going to take on the US, India, China and Russia - some 3 billion people? Fat chance. What fools. And you are too for trumping up their image.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington (Aug 26, '04)


I am a regular visitor to your site as I find your articles to have the kind of depth in reporting and the acumen in analysis that is so needed in the dailies but is so absent, leading only to ignorance by the general population who seem only to have time to flash on the headlines but end up focusing on the movie timetables or sports statistics. The greatest tragedy in the current Mideast crisis is the overall attitude and knowledge of the American population. As I stated above - ignorance. While many individuals and anti-war groups have arisen, their ability to generate widespread interest and support seems limited to those groups who like to protest in the nude chasing butterflies (no offense to such, but really!). While it is obvious that it is in the best interest of America to simply say no, we will not support efforts to oppress native dissent, the truth of the matter is, as [Pepe] Escobar so emphatically points out [Martyrdom or victory for Muqtada, Aug 24], the long-term objectives of American foreign policy in the region is at the heart of the entire scenario. The real challenge to the crisis of Iraq includes the mobilization of the American population to realize that the costs in money and in lives should not be measured by the values of the rich who only stand to gain while the middle class continues its slide into poverty. This approach should be the sword that the anti-war movement in America needs to use in awaking the population to the consequences of the horror of what [President George W] Bush and his lackeys have done ...
Jerry (Aug 26, '04)


The long delay in the development of a functioning government in Myanmar acceptable to the international community should have by now exposed the futility of the so-called [constructive] Engagement and Asian Way as advocated by Singapore and some other ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] leaders as our unique way of solving difficult political problems in the region [One year on, Myanmar marks time, Aug 24]. It was quite clear from the beginning that the group of self-appointed generals [ruling Myanmar] are interested only on one thing - hanging on to their jobs and power at all cost. Perhaps it is time (14 years after NLD [the National League for Democracy] won about 80% of the parliamentary seats in the last election) for [United Nations Secretary General] Kofi Annan to take the lead. For a start, he needs to convince the communist leaders in China that it is in their long-term interest to let a proper functioning government emerge in Myanmar - without the cooperation of communist China, it will be quite difficult to break this stalemate. The leaders of ASEAN should also face up to their collective responsibility to the region and help to [persuade] the generals to come to a meaningful power-sharing arrangement. With the full cooperation of China and ASEAN, there is no doubt that the stalemate would be resolved soon and thus rescue the 53 million people who are now living in boiling water.
Dell
Singapore (Aug 26, '04)


I don't usually pay too much attention to letters debating religion. Arnold Toynbee's letter of August 25 caught my attention, though. Is he basically saying that Western countries and citizens should be more Christian and shy away from multiculturalism? It seems to me that organized religion and strong beliefs for or against have actually been the biggest cause of suffering over the years, especially recently. I don't follow any particular religion, but the only non-trouble-causing religion that comes to my mind is Buddhism. Finally, I disagree with Britain being lumped together in the "neo-modern" category with the United States. The Church is now largely irrelevant in Britain and much of mainland Europe, so I would have to say that the US is largely on its own.
Peter Mitchelmore (Aug 26, '04)


[Re Arnold] Toynbee's letter of August 25 ... It would be the so-called "neo-moderns" (a term intended to convey that this cabal is composed of individuals in addition to the neo-con cabal who are primarily non-Christians) who intuitively learned from Israel how to save the culture and soul of Western civilization. A review of the photos taken at the Abu Ghraib facility in Baghdad attests to the truism that Judeo-Christian men and women (neo-moderns) are unsurpassed in their zeal to save Western civilization with ardor and pleasure. It is as all important issues are resolved in terms of the common man/woman and goes something as follows in challenging the neo-cons/neo-moderns: "Who the f... do you people think you are?" or better still: "Why not build a wall like Israel and hide behind it?"
ADeL (Aug 26, '04)


[Re ATol note under Toynbee letter, Aug 25] First, I am not sure how comfortable or secure a New York library is these days. Second, if my letters seem "America-centric" then I think I have succeeded, since what I originally set out to do here is to explain the American point of view, in the context of a certain philosophy of history - the theory of challenge and response. Third, I agree that Islamic terrorism was a real threat to Western civilization before September 11 [2001], but it seems self-evident that the West did not take it very seriously before that. As for making the West safer, that really is not the point of what I have written, my entire thesis being that the shape of history and the fate of nations depend upon challenge and response, and that being safe and secure may very well mean that a civilization is headed for oblivion. Spengler has addressed this very issue in this forum. Norway is probably one of the safest places on Earth, but will it even exist a century from now? The Jewish nation has suffered unimaginable persecution and war, including outright attempts to annihilate it, throughout five millennia, and they exist to this day as a cohesive and incredibly prosperous group. Just as matter is made more dense by pressure, so too a people is kept together by external threats. What exactly have the costs of the American-led response to the Islamists been to other civilizations? The Islamists would utterly erase and destroy the great achievements of their own civilization if they had their way. The Wahhabist Saudis have all but eliminated the past glories of Mecca and Medina. Amazingly, the American-led effort, if successful, will help save Muslim civilization from itself. Finally, what the neo-moderns are up to is not really an American empire, although it may look that way - if anything it is a new British empire, a Churchillian vision of the union of English-speaking peoples around the world. As such it includes at its center the ultimate Anglo-American social-religious experiment - the resuscitated state of Israel. Perhaps that is one reason it has met with such opposition.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 26, '04)


To say that the answer to 99 questions out of a 100 is money amounts [Terence Redux letter, Aug 25], I believe, to a redux ad absurdum. American domestic and foreign policy is to a very large extent determined by which interest groups control which politicians. For example, what economic or money interests of the USA does the embargo on Cuba really serve? The perfectly obvious answer is "none". What it does serve is also perfectly obvious - especially to someone living in Miami. Similarly, one could argue that if oil is the key to our [the United States'] Middle East foreign policy, pissing off the Arabs, who ostensibly own most of that oil, would be the silliest thing that we could possibly do. And yet we do it. Why? Even if Mr Redux is not the fool he thinks he is, and the answer is "money", I would have to add that it is the money of the political lobbies in Washington and its influence on American politicians that is the full answer. And as for [Andrew] Berman [letter, Aug 24], with all due respect and without animosity, I have to tell you that it is sickening how most American Jews don the mantle of victimhood in order to "unconditionally" (to quote Colin Powell) support Israel's heinous behavior toward the Palestinians. You have to face the fact that you are the oppressors and the butchers this time around. Your mantle of victimhood is a fig leaf that cannot hide your viciousness and inhumanity. Just because it is not reported as such in the American media does not make what you're doing to the Palestinians any less repulsive and immoral.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Aug 26, '04)


I suggest Taiwan should exploit the wit and eloquence of [letter writer] Daniel McCarthy and ask him to give a speech at the United Nations so that Taiwan may be admitted a member of the world body, like any other independent country. Then he naturally should serve as Taiwan's ambassador to the UN on American approval.
Seung Li
USA (Aug 26, '04)


Parag Vohra's desire of wiggling his tail or bubbling his head to his white masters is the right behavior [letter, Aug 25]. All others are xenophobic. Let us not forget, there were a large number of East Indians who served in the Japanese Army during World War II. A large number of Taiwanese solders were responsible for the killing of Americans in the Philippines too. Like it or not, we all live in a fiction world [see Frank's letter of Aug 25, and ATol note]. Anybody see gods walking or floating around somewhere? Anybody see a real free, fair and democratic country existing somewhere? The boundary between a real and fiction world is not very clear. Is the fiction world more stable or peaceful than a real one? It depends. Some fiction-world beliefs make people kill each other. Some will keep us safe. If the fiction world keeps people from killing each other, why do we want to change that? Will a war with mainland China bring Taiwan peace and stability?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 26, '04)

The point is that we don't know whether self-delusion is more efficient than reality at preventing war in the long term. Your argument is that, in the case of Taiwan, it does, and you have evidence on your side: China so far has limited its bellicosity to verbal threats and insults, as have pro-independence Taiwanese and their foreign backers. As long as both sides are satisfied with the current state of affairs, all bluster and no bombs, so much the better for everyone. It's a similar argument about whether the Cold War was justifiable because it was preferable to a hot war, which it allegedly prevented through the policy of mutually assured destruction. The counter-argument is that things could easily have gone very badly during that period, with some hothead actually pushing "the button" and wiping us all out, and we were just lucky that Mikhail Gorbachev came along when he did. A similar counter-argument in the Taiwan debate would be that failure to settle the issue in a realistic way satisfactory to both mainlanders and islanders is a recipe for eventual conflict. - ATol


Dear Syed Saleem Shahzad: A lot is appearing these day in the press and media by way of self-analysis, self-criticism, and even self-condemnation that during the last 57 years we [Pakistan] as a nation have not been able to achieve much or even decide for ourselves as to what form of government, presidential or parliamentary, federation or confederation, we should have. My advice to the nation is not to have any such remorse and instead condemn, and condemn severely without any mercy or compassion, the handful of looters and plunderers that have had been in one garb or the other at the helm of the affairs of this hapless country. It is they who have brought us to this dismal situation and need to be denounced well and proper. They must be ostracized from the society as untouchable carriers of unpatriotic and communicable diseases of corruption, nepotism and avariciousness. The nation as a whole is wonderful and second to none in the world. Zara nam ho to yeh mitti bari zarkhaiz hai saqi.
Colonel Riaz Jafri (retired)
Rawalpindi, Pakistan (Aug 26, '04)

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan bureau chief for Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com. - ATol


I came to know Asia Times recently and have often marveled at the insightful articles on it, especially David Scofield's. I have become an ardent fan of his articles and whenever I read them I am impressed by his in-depth knowledge of and keen insight into Korea issues even though he's not a Korean but a Brit.
Gomdori
Jeju, South Korea (Aug 26, '04)


The [W Joseph] Stroube commentary [Religion and geopolitics: Ties that bind, Aug 25] is true [but] only in the context of how certain people use religion to forward their own personal desires. I can speak clearly for Christianity that none, not one, of these political machinations are anywhere near those teachings of Jesus. And I know [enough] of other religions to reasonably say that they are being used wrongly as well. For those users of Jesus, the act of loving one's enemy is a big-time no-no.
John Anderson (Aug 25, '04)


I am flattered by Tino Tan's offer [letter, Aug 24] of becoming of a Singaporean citizen and becoming an MP [member of parliament] but to be polite, I have other engagements elsewhere. Also, I would not like to be sued and persecuted (eg Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party, Tang Liang Hong of the Workers Party) if I were to decide to enter Singaporean politics - which I believe is in the minds of your other countrymen who might harbor political ambitions. In any case, I don't think I am qualified to be a professional politician. I doubt that "apolitical" people would bother picking up the pen and contribute letters to Asia Times. I will continue to wait for a letter from a Singaporean that is not an echo of the Straits Times or the PAP [People's Action Party] newsletter. Concerning the Singaporean media in general, I doubt that similarly any article critical of the ruling party would arise. Maybe I can introduce you to two of Australia's leading newspapers: The Age (www.theage.com.au) and the Australian (www.theaustralian.news.com.au). I would also like to refer to the [Aug 24 ATol] article Singapore, the safe haven. I have difficulties in identifying whether it is an op-ed piece, one of the Monetary Association of Singapore's information webpages or a detailed analysis of the subject at hand - like most of Asia Times' other articles.
Omega Lee (aka Clement)
Melbourne, Australia (Aug 25, '04)


[Re] Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21] and letters following. It appears that all the authors have missed the primary point of the conflict. For Iran and some of the other Islamic nations of the Middle East, the conflict is all about destroying Israel. For most of the rest of the world it is about the flow of oil at market prices. We have seen over the last few months the impact on the world's economy of the record prices of oil. Not all of that effect has been aggregated to the United States. I would submit that were oil to stop flowing from the Persian Gulf, the People's Republic of China, Japan and even Taiwan would come to an immediate understanding that oil must start flowing again and they will do whatever is necessary to re-establish that flow. Outside of the United States and a few other countries, the rest of the world doesn't care whether Israel exists or not. In fact, if it would stabilize the Middle East, they will accept the destruction of Israel and not even raise a finger. But the problem is that if Israel feels threatened, like when Iran "goes nuclear" and has, or is close to, a deliverable nuclear weapon, significant parts of Iran will be converted to subatomic particles. If one of those places happens to be Kharg Island, more than Israel will be upset about ayatollahs with nukes. If Israel really wants to get the rest of the world involved in their problems with Iran, all they have to do is threaten to shut down the oil flow. As long as Israel exists and is secure, the oil flows. Otherwise, Israel not only destroys Iran's known nuclear facilities, it destroys its oil industry. Threatening to shut down access to the world's third-largest known oil reserves will get immediate worldwide attention. So the solution to most of the problems in the Middle East is very simple. All the current and future governments in that region sincerely promise to keep the oil flowing at market prices. After that, we don't care much who runs what country or what minor conflicts exist between them. But the flow of oil at market prices implies multiple suppliers in the region competing against each other for market share based upon the quality of their oil, their production capability and the effect that has on the price of a barrel of their oil. If the Iranians want to start making electricity with nuclear power and sell the oil they might otherwise use to generate electricity, that's fine. In fact, the consuming world would be much happier if the ayatollahs took all the money they are spending on nuclear weapons and spent it improving their oil industry infrastructure. So for those who are predicting dire consequences, let me assure you that should the flow of oil stop, or even become more restricted, the consuming nations of the world will do something about it. If the ayatollahs really want to see forces gather for a regime change, just do something that stops the oil. Then it will not only be the forces of the United States they will face, but most likely also the Chinese, Japanese, EU and everyone else whose economy is at serious risk.
Richard Radcliffe
Apple Valley, California
bigbird@kwamt.com (Aug 25, '04)


Two letters written to ATol on the subject of Ehsan Ahrari's Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21] have peaked my interest. First, there is the letter from Jose R Pardinas, PhD, who writes: "The ability of Israel and the USA to act militarily with absolute impunity in the Middle East rests ultimately on their implicit capacity to deploy nuclear weapons." I would argue that this assertion is absolutely false. The good Dr Pardinas has forgotten that the answer to 99 questions out of 100 is "money". The United States can act with impunity because it is the world's consumer, the world's best customer; and perhaps Dr Pardinas would be kind enough to explain who in the world is willing to lose their best customer? The United States can act with impunity because the rest of the world gets to keep doing business with it. I very much doubt the whole world shakes in fear of the US nuclear arsenal, as if it were wielded with an itchy trigger finger. That shivering was the exclusive property of the Soviet Union. Dr Pardinas also writes: "For Iran, accepting the status quo on nuclear-weapons possession would amount to a surrender of its very survival to Israel and the USA," as if the United States and Israel were the biggest threat to Shi'ite Muslims and the Shi'ite Islamic republic that is Iran. Dr Pardinas writes these words as if the people most gunning for Iran were the Americans (and their would-be sidekicks the Israelis). Dr Pardinas seems to be falling into the same trap Ehsan Ahrari reserved for "Western experts" as they make frightening (and wrong) predictions. And on that note, let's try a different set of frightening (and possibly wrong) predictions. It seems obvious to an uneducated fool like me, and should be obvious to a man such as Dr Pardinas, that a nuclear-capable Iran would ruffle more feathers than [those] of the Americans. It would ruffle feathers of those who have in the past shown no compunction in murdering Shi'ites by the thousands and millions. I would argue that nuclear capability for Iran would most certainly doom it, as soon as it unveiled the first nuclear capable device. Next we have a letter from Vincent Maadi who writes in a paranoid and racist rant, "The disarming of Iraq should be a lesson to all the Third World countries, and Iran should not and must not give up its nuclear option because the West's nuclear weapons are for exclusive use on the non-white people of the world." Perhaps Vincent Maadi should be given a Nobel Prize for discovering alternate realities; because in his universe, the Cold War never happened. For 50 years nuclear weapons were things that the USA and USSR pointed at each other, each being the projected and exclusive recipient of the others' payloads. But not in Vincent Maadi's universe, where nuclear weapons were invented with ability to distinguish between "white" skin and "non-white" skin; which throws into question the fate of light-skinned Iranians - will they survive the blast along with the cockroaches in Vincent Maadi's alternate reality? ...
Terence Redux
USA (Aug 25, '04)


Dale Stoy: One must be careful to not express a smug sarcasm which leaks like a Bush War Crimes Family ship of state. You write [letter, Aug 23]: "... Ehsan Ahran [Iran: The babble and the bomb, Aug 21] uses the phrase 'Western-style democracy'. Implicit in this statement is the idea that there is an 'Eastern-style' democracy. I would like to learn the author's definition of both and examples of the latter." The answer to your question is obvious: Israel is an "Eastern-style" "democracy". And, as implicit in your statement and question is denunciation of the idea of an "Eastern-style" "democracy", I agree with you. Israel is an apartheid "democracy" in which even Jews are classed by Jews as to whether they are the "right" kind of Jew. And beneath that hierarchy of some three classes (lowest of which are Sephardic Jews) are all who are not Jewish by blood, proper ancestral heritage, or proclaimed "religion". I, too, pine (but without the derision) for an "Eastern-style" democracy which is such, in accordance with the meanings and intents of whichever the sovereign people have and declare it. "Self-determination", as it is termed by the US's resident supremacists who are, in all things, manifestly a superior race. Alas, that contradiction doesn't allow for such in the "East" when it meddles, so it appoints a former Saddam Hussein hitman and rival, and CIA-backed terrorist, [Iyad] Allawi, and calls it "democracy". Which latter we are given to assume the US actually means to be perceived as "democracy". The only significant difference between Hussein and Allawi is that the US never accused Hussein of "democracy" when it was not true.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 25, '04)

To read Ehsan Ahrari's response to comments on his article, please click here.  - ATol


The Taiwan Strait has been in a stable peaceful stalemate situation for more than 50 years. Lawrence Grinter's article Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan [Aug 21] outlined the triggers of a transformation from peace to war. If [President] Chen Shui-bian thinks that there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence, what is the rationale to push for a declaration of independence now? Especially [as] everybody knows that such a declaration will trigger a war. [Letter writer] Daniel McCarthy seems to understand that; however, he still wants to push those Taiwanese pawns forward to start a war. Why? Why cannot we let the people of both sides of the Taiwan Strait live in a peaceful fiction world for another 10-20 years? By then, hopefully, the ideological hatred between brothers will be replaced by economic needs of each other. By then, both sides can sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution of this long-lasting stalemate. Why do you want to see a war in East Asia now?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 25, '04)

Living in a "fiction world", ie the China-Taiwan status quo, may seem peaceful, but it is arguable whether it is really any more stable, or less dangerous, than a world in which fantasies are dealt with. - ATol


I find it interesting to see that [letter writer] Frank's constant refrain is for "white people" to leave Asia alone. The last time this xenophobic refrain was used by the Imperial Japanese Army [it was] to devastating effect. I am sure Frank knows the consequences of that philosophy and how it took "white" imperialism to bring back peace and stability.
Parag Vohra
Washington, DC (Aug 25, '04)


Although I must admit to [being] a non-passionate as well as a non-partisan observer, I believe that [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy is beating a dead horse (as the saying goes on the reservation). The fact that Chang Kai-shek, an officially admitted ex-ruler of China (mainland), moved to Taiwan with his entourage and ruled there for many a year without any "Taiwanese" revolts and maintained that he would eventually return to free "the mainland" would under any court of law justify the legality of an entity called China that does include Taiwan. Unless of course the Taiwanese opt to become part of the US as Hawaii did.
Armand DeLaurell
On the Texas border (Aug 25, '04)


To understand why India as a rising power ([Aug 20] Yevgeny Bendersky) may be tomorrow but not today, just read the accompanying article by Kunal Kumdu (India's public sector means less for more [Aug 20]). When you have the majority of your resources being used to support [the] welfare of a very few (the 5 million-odd government and government-owned companies' employees), it is not very hard to find economic stagnation and poverty. Case in point are the recent oil-price hikes. It is great to remove subsidies, especially for a product that is imported at a very high cost. But the fact that rising cost does not change demand or consumption patterns only reinforces the fact that the government is a large consumer of this commodity and it will simply pass on this "added" cost by raising taxes. Now you know how inflation is caused in India.
AP (Aug 25, '04)


I ran into an old article, Asia observers failing to see clearly [Jul 4, '03], by David Isenberg, and would like to make one small comment. In the article, Mr Isenberg said that China has resolved border disputes with numerous neighbors and cited that as China's genuine intention to join the world community. However, one close look into China's border settlements shows that they all resulted in China's territorial gains.
Alphonse (Aug 25, '04)


Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a few things. The modern age in the West dawned at the time of the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe - about which much has been written. Christendom and the old order gave way to nation states and denominations, each with its own dominant culture, language, and religious affiliation. English Reformed Christianity proved to be the most vigorous of the new groups, and its crowning glory was the founding and peopling of what would become the new leading nation of the West, the United States. Part of the reason the United States has proved so powerful is that it became a re-coalescence of fractured European Christendom, reinvigorated with open space and new ideas, and strengthened by the challenge of the frontier and its dangers. It might also be helpful to recognize that two camps are now battling, or at least seem to be battling, for the soul of the West. One, which I would call the post-modern, is exemplified by secular-state atheism, socialism, and moral relativism. It refuses to espouse any positive belief other than a radical vision of individuality, leading to an atomistic society. Family and church are seen as hindrances in the pursuit of self-realization, as the purpose of the state is to foster self-realization by means of enforcing uniform education, opportunity and, if that fails, outcome. At its core, this camp is self-consumed and illiberal, which is why I do not call it by its popular name of liberalism. I find it helpful to identify this camp with France, whose actions and movements throughout the last five centuries, beginning with the persecution and expulsion of the Huguenots but not really apparent until the French Revolution, have made her the mother of post-modernism. The other camp, which I would call modern, or perhaps neo-modern as a resurgence of modernism, is exemplified primarily by certain characteristically Western religious beliefs and traditions, primarily Magisterial Reformed/Protestant Christianity (which in the last century has split into Evangelical/Fundamentalist and Liberal), and more recently, the previously and in some ways still pre-modern Tridentine Roman Catholicism and Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. Patriotism, and a certain belief in Manifest Destiny, perhaps a spiritual outgrowth of the doctrine of Providence, have also characterized this latter group, and have led to some of its excesses. This group is more easily identified with the United States and its parent country Britain. Although spawned at the French Revolution from the seed of the Wars of Religion, post-modernism only began to come into its own in the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution and its technologies had the twin effects of the creation of time for thought (and boredom/ennui), and the destruction of traditional religious belief. The moderns still held sway, although their hold was weakened, up through the evaporation of Soviet communism. As that threat dissipated and the West relaxed from its Cold War clenchedness, the post-moderns made some rather amazing gains, in the US somewhat ironically with the cooperation and assistance of Liberal Protestantism and its institutions. The adoption of "diversity" as dogma and the ongoing "sexual revolution" are recent American examples. Also ironically, the US protected France and Germany, who form the core of resistance to its policies in the war against Islamic terrorists, from Soviet aggression for a half-century. Victor Davis Hanson has suggested that this protection, after the ravages of the great wars, is the very thing that allowed those nations to become soft and pursue a course of post-modern secular-state atheist socialism. This is strangely similar to the US providing arms to Islamic radicals in Afghanistan, and another example of how the effort to defeat Soviet communism overrode all other concerns. The neo-moderns appear to have learned an important lesson from that and have pursued a different course in the current war against Islamic terrorism. At any rate, the reappearance of a real external threat to Western civilization on September 11, 2001, suddenly stopped the tide of post-modern, relativist absurdism in the US and, to a lesser extent, in Europe. The opposition to post-modernism had been growing for some time, but human nature being what it is, it took a real threat to make a difference. And so what the neo-moderns are winning, in an admittedly bloviated nutshell, is the culture war for the soul of Western civilization. It should be noted that the rules by which I judge the situation are by no means uniquely Western, but rather universal. As the Chinese sage Mencius noted in the 4th century BC, "As a rule, a state without law-abiding families and trustworthy gentlemen on the one hand, and, on the other, without the threat of external aggression, will perish. Only then do we realize that anxiety and distress lead to life and that ease and comfort end in death." The neo-moderns, perhaps inspired by the example of Israel, intuitively understand this, while the post-moderns yearn for the comfort that leads to oblivion.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 25, '04)

Well, maybe from the relative comfort of a New York library the turmoil wrought worldwide by your "neo-moderns", whom everyone else calls neo-conservatives, looks like the salvation of Western civilization, but we find your analysis America-centric. For just one example, international terrorism was "a real external threat to Western civilization", primarily in Europe, long before it hit Americans as well on September 11, 2001. And while the European reaction to such threats may be less Mencian than you would prefer, there is little evidence that the US approach has made Western civilization any safer - many think the contrary is true - or that the cost to other civilizations is worth it. Further, your claim that "what the neo-moderns are winning ... is the culture war for the soul of Western civilization" is surely overwrought when every non-American civilization has in one way or another vigorously resisted the neo-conservative model of an American empire. - ATol


Dennis Castle ([letter] Aug 24) is either a very, very bad reader or a transparently dishonest writer to assign to me positions, conditions and views that I briefly point out in order to challenge. But he did catch me craftily cherry-picking a few of Jesus' ideas, so in my next letter I will include the whole New Testament. Then we can see that "resist not evil" and "care not for tomorrow" have been taken wildly out of context, as have the Beatitudes - a throwaway monologue. This will be made even clearer by citing the many occasions where Jesus implores his disciples to hack and cleave their enemies and to pursue material wealth. But seriously folks, should Christians be only slaves and martyrs? If you take Jesus literally - which is to say if you take the religion seriously and believe that a non-competitive life yields spiritual rewards and eternal life can be gained through suffering in this world - then you definitely run the risk of winding up on the shitty end of the stick. But then Jesus had no inclination to build a state-capitalist civilization bent on incorporating all life and material into itself. He didn't even have a serious idea about community organizing, so the early Christian communities shared their meager means amongst themselves not to demonstrate a modern political model - an extrapolation Castle apparently makes and then overcomes with his idiotic farm-pharm comparison - but "communistic" fairly describes the shared values of early Christians. The point I was making, obviously, is that Christian spiritual individualism is not translatable into entrepreneurial spirit, and I assumed that most readers wouldn't need to see this written in crayon. The problem is that a religion that makes sense for the individual is being used, again and again, to orient people to a cause that contradicts it - why not just talk about straight power concepts? But Castle wants to keep "Christian" soldiers on the warpath and the plunder flowing in the right direction, so for his kind all discussion necessarily leads to the same conclusion and even flashing lights won't check his rhetorical stride. On to Israel: If my pointing to Israel as a major factor in US policy in the Middle East is a degeneration of views, then how low must one go to place Castle's worn-out, obnoxious equation that treats critical opinion as being tantamount to desiring "Jew-killing privileges", or some comparable bluster designed to extinguish expressions of self-interests or rational discussion and thought. It is here invoked in the effort to shame and cow people and deter them from seriously assessing either the nature of the Israeli state, its conduct and even the divisions within it, because to do so would complicate matters for "pro-Israel" and millenarian fanatics. Perhaps a quarter of Israelis are atheists (and many of them, other secular Jews and the ultra-orthodox, are fearful of the Christian Right), and within Israel there is a long-standing opinion among articulate and rational people that US hawks (Jewish or not) and subsidies have distorted the societ