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.

September 2004

In Kevin Ewing's article Media fail to report for duty (Sep 29) he argues the problem with [US] news media is that [they are] biased or agenda-driven. He then goes on to attack President George W Bush using the exact language from the shrillest pro-John Kerry news media. Even the inexcusable and apologized-for forged-document story presented by CBS reporter Dan Rather in order to influence the election against President G W Bush seven weeks out is spun by Mr Ewing, who uses a bizarre rhetorical question to prove that Mr Rather was compelled to commit the act by those supporting the president. The truth of this entire concern is that the highest echelon of American news media has been both shamelessly nepotistic for generations and patronizingly liberal since the late 1960s. Consumers that have been waiting for media to express both sides of an issue are supporting those venues willing to break the nepotistic/liberal hold, much to the chagrin of people such as Kevin Ewing.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 30, '04)


Kent Ewing's article on failed US news media [Media fail to report for duty, Sep 30] is right on the mark! Good reporting, Kent.
Rick
Northern New Jersey, USA (Sep 30, '04)


[Re Media fail to report for duty, Sep 30] There are many reasons why the [US] media kept silent against the war drums for Iraq. It was in their best interest to see an Arab country humiliated in a fashion so blatant that no one else would dare challenge the will of the superpowers of today. The Arab world has always had a problem with our [US] foreign policy ... The media saw the war on Iraq, a constant threat to Israel, as a way of sending a very strong message to the "axis of evil" that threats to an ally would not be tolerated. The security of Israel was first and foremost on their justification of the war. To them it is a win-win situation. If the war succeeded, the message is loud and clear. If it did not, it would be perfect for them to make the war "the" campaign issue for this upcoming election and put their man in the White House, thus regaining the liberal access which they've ... had for many years, therefore pushing their liberal agenda ... So to expect more from the media in this case is naive. If the war was against someone else, the media would have stepped up to the plate. And we have many examples on that. At one point the term "weapons of mass destruction" became [such] a household term that even the MTV-generation kids were talking about WMD like it was a new fad. So the media pick and choose when to be more aggressive or less passive. Why is everyone surprised about the Muslim world's reaction to our campaign on Iraq? They still believe that it is a war against Islam and until we prove them wrong, they will continue to believe it regardless of what we say. It is what we and Israel are doing that make them stick to that belief. How can anyone deny the Palestinians a homeland? How can any people stay without a homeland? A two-state solution has been discussed and approved by all parties, so why drag it any longer and allow more innocent civilian victims to perish? If we don't have a more credible Middle East policy, the Muslim world will always see us as the enemy. Why do we prefer to keep our heads in the sand?
Noel Francis
Chino, California (Sep 30, '04)


There seems to be a logical error in Sudha Ramachandran's algorithm (System error in India's Silicon Valley, Sep 30). She seems to equate IT [information technology] with infrastructure when she describes the new Karnataka government as not having an IT minister. Pray, would it be the job of the IT minister to provide roads, electricity, housing, clean environment and so forth? If your answer is yes, India can happily bid goodbye to one industry that is not micromanaged by the government. If you answered no, then one wonders what does an IT minister do? Seems to me that this is one more instance where government has not delivered and the IT industry that pays no taxes is demanding too much from the government. At least the idea of the tollway where the user pays the fees is a good beginning.
AP (Sep 30, '04)


Dear [Mahan] Abedin and Asia Times Online: Thank you very much for the great analytics that is regularly published by your publication. This kind of analytics is rarely published by international media. So I appreciate your work. The [Sep 28] article Iran at sea over Azerbaijan [contained] some details that I want to bring to your attention ... This particular statement appears imprecise: "The geopolitical space that is now the Republic of Azerbaijan had been an Iranian territory for millennia before it was incorporated into the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century." This is indeed a commonly held belief by many Iranians, one of those unfortunate cliches that seems to make sense but is contrary to facts. Actually, it was Iran [that was] under Turkic (Azeri) rule for the previous millennia, a fact that is known and acknowledged grudgingly in Iran. Consider the following historical developments: from the 4th century BC until the 7th century [AD] all of the territory of the North Azerbaijan belonged to the Caucasian Albania - which at some times, as all other states in the region, indeed fell under dependence of a stronger southern neighbor, Sassanid Iran, yet was independent, had its own army and king, minted its own coins, etc. However, by the 7th century it was definitely independent, as Sassanid Iran was at war with Jevanshir the Great, the king of Caucasian Albania, and unable to conquer him. Also, the state of Atropatena existed in South Azerbaijan for different periods. From the 7th century AD until the early 10th century, the entire region of Azerbaijan, Iran and beyond was conquered by Arabs, the Abbasid Caliphate. Yet already starting in AD 879 parts of Azerbaijan had re-established self-rule under the following dynasties: Sajid, Shirvanshah, Salarid, Sheddadin, Ravvadid and Naxcivanshah. The breakup of the Arab caliphate was in major part due to the powerful liberation movement headed by an Azeri Spartacus - Babek. What is more important and well known, however, is that by 1051-1060, the Seljuk Turks entered Azerbaijan and the centuries-long rule of the entire Caucasus and Iran began. Under the domain of the Seljuk sultan, an Azeri state of Atabeks was established in 1136, which ruled all of Azerbaijan and Iran (the rulers, the Atabeks, who were Azeri, were the teachers of the young Seljuk sultans). In 1225 the region was conquered by the Mongols, and the rule of the Hulaguids, Tamerlane and his son Miranshah lasted until the late 1300s. In 1410 the Azeri states of Gara-goyunly and Ak-goyunly were created in the territories of Azerbaijan and Iran. Finally, in 1501 the rule of Shah Ismail Khatai Safavi began, and the rule of Iran and Azerbaijan by a Turkic (Azeri) Safavid shah dynasty last until 1736. It is then replaced by another Azeri dynasty, the Afshars, and then again by the Qajars, which lasted until 1925. Only then did the Persian dynasty of Pehlevi come to power in Iran (there was also a short rule of the Persian Zend dynasty in between the rule of the Afshars and Qajars, but it was a weak dynasty and Iran did not exist as a single, strong state under it). Regardless of these facts, in 1747, [on] the death of Nadir-shah Afshar, some 15 khanates, sultanates and beglyarbeys were established in North and South Azerbaijan, with the majority of North Azerbaijani khanates, such as Ganja, Karabakh, Sheki and Guba, being independent from Iran or anyone else. Thus the wars with Russia in early 19th century were not Russo-Iranian, but Russo-Azerbaijani. Not that it matters too much, as Iran was ruled by an Azeri dynasty, speaking Azeri, and sometimes placing the capital of Iran in such Azeri cities as Tebriz. I hope that all of the corrections will be carefully reviewed and after any additional verification, will be applied to the article and considered in the future.
Mahir Iskender
Washington, DC (Sep 30, '04)


The reason I think Jayanthi Iyengar [China power crisis dims production, Sep 24] cannot understand this large complicated ancient country [China] is the fact that this author regards her ignorance about the rapidly changing China as paradoxes. China's power shortage caused by faster-than-expected development is temporary. The world's third-largest river is to provide 20% more power to the people it has nourished for the last 5,000 years. There are many reports on ATol regarding China's achievement of exploring renewable-energy sources. Jayanthi Iyengar cannot understand that. Instead, she is blinded by jealousy and hate. Labeling me with many names does not make you or Jayanthi Iyengar look better. I suggest DNT [letter, Sep 29] look [in] the mirror first before talking about the concept of academic debate.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 30, '04)


Taiwan "premier" Yu [Shyi-kun] has called for a "balance of terror" by threatening to attack mainland [China] cities such as Shanghai if the mainland does not allow Taiwan to become independent peacefully. Of course [everyone] knows that Taiwan can never become independent peacefully. Therefore Singapore's newly installed Premier Lee [Hsien Loong] is right to say in his inaugural speech that "China will fight. Win or lose, Taiwan will be devastated." Taiwan "foreign minister" Mark Chen tries to deny reality by shooting the messenger. He described Singapore as a "piece of snot" who sought favors by "embracing China's balls". Most of the 26 countries that either only recognize the ROC [Republic of China] as the sole representative of China or recognize Taiwan as a country are even smaller than Singapore. I then guess that Taiwan's diplomatic allies even can't pass for a "piece of snot" ... I mean, one can wonder how peaceful "democratic" Taiwan is. Not long ago there were reports that Taiwan should attack the Three Gorges Dam which would kill millions of Chinese people. This idea is not very farfetched, as the Pentagon has officially informed the US Congress that Taiwan is developing ballistic- and cruise-missile capabilities that present "credible threats to China's urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam". Well-informed American experts on China-Taiwan affairs have also revealed that the island has revived its secret nuclear program that was halted in 1988 under US pressure. Michael Le Houllier [letter, Sep 28] makes a comparison with Cuba in his letter. The US is preparing to sell Taiwan arms worth billions of dollars, which pose an imminent security threat to the mainland, just as the missiles installed in Cuba by the Soviet Union posed an intolerable threat to the US. Former US president [John] Kennedy was able to stop shipments with a naval blockade and have the others removed. China should prepare to stop any shipments of US arms to Taiwan by a naval blockade as well. The US has effectively contained Cuba, which no longer poses a security threat, and is seeking regime change today. The hostile regime in Taipei poses a significant security threat to the mainland as listed in my letter. The Beijing leadership should prepare to do a "regime change" with a preemptive strike, because the separatist hostile regime in Taipei can no longer be appeased or tolerated, unless it stops its anti-China activities that pose a security threat to the mainland, desinification policy on its Chinese population and stops seeking permanent independence.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Sep 30, '04)

For the record, Foreign Minister Chen actually said Singapore was "smaller than a piece of snot", though no doubt J Zhang captures the tone of the remark correctly. For an in-depth analysis by Laurence Eyton of the Singapore-Taiwan war of words, see the new ATol article Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat. - ATol


In his September 18 article Operation enduring millstone, B Raman writes, "At the risk of being called mad, let me suggest restoring Saddam to power and quickly withdrawing from Iraq." Why not just put Saddam Hussein's name on the January ballot? As I see it, there are two possible outcomes. First, Saddam could lose the election. In that case, the Iraqi people would have chosen a new leader, and rejected Saddam themselves. I believe the world would recognize the legitimacy of the new government under these circumstances, assuming that the elections were held in all parts of the country. The resistance would probably continue at some level, but I think that many Iraqis would say, What more could we ask for? The US could immediately announce a schedule for removing troops from Iraq. If the violence did not subside, then at that point there might be an international consensus on UN peacekeepers, or maybe a force [composed] of Arab League states. On the other hand, Saddam could actually win the election. In that case, the US would be embarrassed, but by releasing Saddam it might regain some of the respect it has lost. Colin Powell could say, Look, we don't really understand this, but we have to respect the vote. The US would finally be playing by the rules. If Saddam Hussein were elected president of Iraq, and the US troops began to leave, it seems reasonable to expect that the insurgency would soon run out of steam. Voting for Saddam would be like voting for John Kerry. Nobody really likes him, but just look at the alternative.
Paul Wolf
Washington, DC (Sep 30, '04)


This refers to many spirited e-mails on this forum on [V S] Naipaul, "Islamic atrocities" on India etc. As a liberal Indian who is also a Hindu, I would like to say couple of things. Did anybody [expect] so many e-mails from Indians full of historical references, especially from abroad? Folks engaged in information technology are reading history very closely. Very unusual! This is much more complicated than [it] appears. Ashis Nandy described it as a "return from exile", return from colonization of India during British period. Indian is not non-West, it is India. The evidence of Islamic atrocities is India is undeniable but forms a small part of the story. It's a distraction at best. The real story is how [the] growing Indian middle class is rediscovering [its] past, getting decolonized, standing on its feet. India treats [Mahatma] Gandhi as [the] father of the nation, but discarded him in many ways after independence. [Rabindranath] Tagore wrote extensively on complete dislocation of Indian educational system during the British period. He was so disgusted [he] had to found his own university at Shantiniketan ("Abode of Peace). This controversy [was] started in the mid-'80s by "left fundamentalist" historians in India, who got control of key academic institutions ... during the time of Indira Gandhi. They started writing history [and] social-sciences textbooks for Indian schoolchildren. It's as if Noam Chomsky [or Antonio] Gramsci were entrusted with writing school textbooks in the US or in Italy ... The Ayodhya controversy had its effects when Indians started learning about Islamic literary ... evidence of [the] destruction. Naipaul lent his weight through his superb prose. The hold of Marxist historians started to loosen on society. Postmodernists like Ashis Nandy [and] Partha Chatterjee questioned the Indian model of "secularism". The Indian right had already started moving into the mainstream. Partha Chatterjee showed the Hindu right can live with separation of church and state. The Hindu right's rhetoric is more political, and not religious, said Ashis Nandy. With liberalization, success in Information technology made the Indian middle class more confident. I know [technology] graduates living in the US for many years suddenly started discovering Vastu, a 2,000-year-old Indian architecture style. Travel guides in Vijayanagara, the ruined city, are more assertive. They now say we are proud of this city which was destroyed by Muslim invaders. My personal take? Take it seriously. It's already well documented that religious riots [and] strife [are] an urban phenomenon in India. So is the Hindu right. What hope does India have with more and more industrialization [and] urbanization? More social strife? At least it can be said [that] the Indian model has failed to provide tolerance. Something needs to be done urgently. Folks, grab Partha Chatterjee [and/or] Ashis Nandy to understand this rediscovery. It has a wonderful secular discourse with strong nationhood in place. Did anybody ask about [the] Muslim president in India? Look at his achievements: top defense scientist, missile man of India. He was proposed by a Hindu nationalist government. It's a way of telling Indian Muslims: come out of your ghettoes. Modernize, prosper and make your own country strong.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Sep 30, '04)


This refers to Shah's [letter, Sep 29] and reference to William Dalrymple's [Guardian] article. This article proves nothing, defies even basic logic. It doesn't reconcile the multiple original sources which describe the horror. If there were so much Hindu-Muslim [camaraderie], as the author tried to portray by example of the king wearing Muslim court dress, why so much of destruction? Farukh Dhondy wrote this wonderful rebuttal in the liberal Outlook magazine. Mr Dhondy was head of multicultalism programming of Challel 4 in the UK, which is a left-of-center liberal channel. Thankfully, Dr [Manmohan] Singh, current Indian prime minister. referred to these types of mindset as "left fundamentalism" in a recent press conference in Delhi. Mr Shah, what you are doing is hiding under [the] "secularism", "democracy" [and] "plurality" of India. Come out in the sun. Nobody blames Indian Muslims for these atrocities. But it's your denial, it's your not shouldering the pain [and] anguish Indians endured during that "dark" period [that] irritates common Indians. Mexicans treat Hernan Cortes as an invader, a ruthless general, the destroyer of Aztec civilization. Do Indian Muslims treat Mohamad bin Kasim, the first Arab invader of Sind, [in a] similar way? Or [do] they treat bin Kasim as [the] bearer of the true faith, Islam, in India? Now do you see how prophetically correct [V S] Naipaul is? Indian Muslims claim they are indigenous, but share just the opposite view on invaders who caused so much of death and destruction of their culture [and] civilization. Sure, there are exceptions. But I guess that doesn't prove it wrong. Mexico's biggest stadium is Aztec Stadium. The Mexican flag has an emblem of an eagle with a serpent, which is of Aztec origin. Can you cite a single example of this magnitude from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan [or] Central Asia? I hope now you understand the contempt Islam breeds amongst converts against its own culture [and] civilization.
Bhaskar
Connecticut, USA (Sep 30, '04)


My dear Shah [letter, Sep 29], why do think India is secular or even democratic? Don't you think India is most secular country in the world, at least by constitution (the whole world is either Muslim theocracy or Jewish or Christian secular, which means after Christians the rest are immaterial). So tell me one thing: What will happen to India the day Muslims become the majority in India and you and [letter writer] Fareed [Zahid] are at the helm of affairs in India? Do you guarantee me that India will not turn into another Pakistan? If not, than I really appreciate your concern. If yes, then please next time cut this secularism concept, because Islam doesn't recognize it and India and Hindu are synonymous words and it is because of majority Hindus that you are fancying this "secular" world which is not part of [the] Islamic dictionary.
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Sep 30, '04)


Dear Mr Shah [letter, Sep 29]: [G] Travan [letter, Sep 28] has every right to express his opinion as much as you and requires no validation whether he is right or wrong. You make a claim that [V S] Naipaul is clueless about India and Islam. Actually I have read his book Among the Believers and I thought his claim about subcontinental Muslims was not totally off the mark. It was based on his interviews. According to his research, he showed that Muslims in all places save the Middle East are nihilist - meaning they are in denial of their history and heritage before they became Muslim. For example, Pakistani history books start only from the 10th century onwards when Islam came into the subcontinent. It does not take the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] to remind you the shared heritage of the subcontinent lies in Sanskrit and not in Arabic and Saudi Arabia. Mr Naipaul is no historian. He is a writer with an attitude, so let's cut him some slack. His writings are not binary. If that's the case you have to accept that Salman Rushdie's writings about Allah [were] either right or wrong. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Your claim that Naipaul is a card-carrying member of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and RSS is so blatantly invalid. Mr Naipaul is agnostic and non-political and no friend of any party in the UK or in India. If the only sin that the BJP did was to invite him to a Non-Resident Indian meet, which by the way included Salman Rushdie, then you should be praising the BJP for upholding freedom of speech, not brickbatting it. After all, the Congress party did not give Salman Rushdie a visa to enter for fear that it [would] upset the Muslim voting bloc. Your point about the BJP being decisively rejected at the ballot [box] because of their vision is a poor reading of facts. They were defeated because their vision to "Turn on the Light to Make India Shine" was shared by everyone, but not experienced by everyone. Are you telling us that [the] "darkness is a virtue" vision of the Congress is the decisive mandate? I am sorry Mr Shah, that vision of darkness did not work for the Congress under [Indira] Gandhi's emergency time and it is not going to work in the 21st century.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Sep 30, '04)


The interest of G Travan [letter, Sep 28] in India is appreciated. The Taj Mahal is an architecture of stunning beauty. It stands for the love of an emperor for one of his queens. Very romantic, and having seen it, I agree if you have not seen the Taj you have seen nothing. Now the background of the Taj is as nostalgic as other wonders of the world, such as the Pyramids, which were built on the sweat and blood of slaves. Shahjehan had the right hands of all the main architects and artisans amputated so that they might not build any other building of such beauty. What a royal reward. The queen was the wife of one of the soldiers of the emperor who was sent to a battle to be killed so the emperor could get her. You can forget history only on the peril of repeating the same mistakes. In one of his many plundering visits to Somnath Temple by Mahmud of Ghaznawi, he beheaded all the 50,000 inhabitants of that campus and destroyed all the idols, emulating the Prophet himself, one of whose many names is "the destroyer of idols". Now these are authentic accounts and not fictions of such as [V S] Naipaul. Do not Christians feel sorry for the crimes of Nazis? Is it okay for Jews to forget their Holocaust and others to admire their casinos and worship the Statue of Liberty?
RR (Sep 30, '04)


[G] Travan [letter, Sep 28] is wrong if he thinks that the recent debate in this column is a symptom of malaise in the Indian polity. With increasing globalization and access to the Internet more and more Indians are venturing out and learning about the events that shaped the modern world from a close angle like never before. It is these new perspectives that induce them to have a relook at their own history. In their curiosity most of them ask inquisitive questions that are never dealt with in the schoolbooks (Indian federal and state governments keep a tight control on the content of school textbooks; detailed study of inconvenient and embarrassing historical events are deliberately neglected so that the children are spared the trouble of reading and remembering tragic events). But one cannot censor and doctor the entire medieval history of Indian for long. Sooner or later people will dig out the facts or at least ask "troublesome" questions. I don't think one can brand a person who refuses to follow the "corrected" version of history as one spewing hate. I believe the sense of shame and hatred lies in the dastardly acts and not in the writings that point them out. Even if [V S] Naipaul is biased when it comes to dealing with the treatment of Muslim culture, the critics have the right and liberty to express their opinion and give the world the proper perspective. As for Shah [letter, Sep 29], I find it amazing that he seems to close his mind to Naipaul's writings just because the writer is a supporter of RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Supposing Naipaul changes his name to Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden: will Shah accept his views? Instead of looking at who says it, Shah, should rather be glancing at what he says. Indian Muslims are the fortunate ones to enjoy democratic rights that are rare in the ummah. They must exercise these rights to isolate the bad elements who bring/brought shame to the entire community by their acts and not the ones who ask valid questions. The community should be projecting its intellectuals and not the bloodthirsty morons. Most Indians have no prejudice against minorities. The Indian president, Abdul Kalam (not Abdul Kalam Azad as Siddhardh Srivastava has written [India's man for all seasons, Sep 29]) was a technocrat and an excellent leader who was able to build organizations from nothing and deliver goods against the odds (a difficult proposition indeed given the fact government organizations are rather noted for their lethargic attitude and infighting). Once when he was asked the secret of his success he said very clearly when a worker faces a problem he goes to him and sits with him to sort it out (regardless of his rank within the organization). Not many people in the higher hierarchy would be willing to stoop down to lower level and interact even if there is a severe problem. It is these admirable qualities in him that made him acceptable to all right thinking persons, regardless of the caste, religion and region. India is truly proud of its first citizen.
Kannan (Sep 30, '04)

Various media refer to the president of India by various names, but according to his website, his full name is Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam. - ATol


I am deeply saddened by the arrogance and vitriol with which [Sep 29] letter-writers V Lotke and Sri responded to my letter [of Sep 28]. Let me state for the record that I am not Muslim, nor Indian, but I come from a Muslim country, Iran, where I have seen first-hand the effects of extremist hate-mongers hiding behind the veil of Islam. There are people who blame all of Islam for the acts of a few of its practitioners, which differs little from racism. V Lotke asked for one example of a positive side to Muslim history in the Indian subcontinent. Can he really be so biased in his thinking, and hate Islam so much, as to deny an entire people any merit to their history or culture? If the Taj Mahal offends him, perhaps he can read the work of some Muslim Urdu poets, or listen to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. He might be surprised to learn of a happy, human side to the religion he paints so blackly. Although Islam has been a divisive force in India, it is a uniting force for many peoples, who put aside their ethnic grievances to form a brotherhood of mankind. Of course, this ideal is honored more in the breach. Lotke and Sri bear striking resemblance to the right-wing fanatics in the USA. For example, Sri somehow starts down the road of listing the great virtues of the Hindu people, who are responsible for India's diversity. What does this have to do with anything? I was not discussing all Hindus in my previous letter, but a specific group of virulently hateful people who hide behind their Hindu identity. I am sure that the great majority of all Indians, Hindu, Muslim, etc, are tolerant. Sri's statements are the type of racial incitement, abundant in every ethnic and religious group, that leads to horrible civil wars. I also abhor the extremist strain of Islam that hates all other religions, but not because it claims to be Islamic, but because it is just another excuse to hate hiding behind lofty ideals.
Gunther Travan
California, USA (Sep 30, '04)


I'm reading [Carl] Jung. Does it seem like too great a coincidence that the two greatest extroverted civilizations are falling into a civilizational war: America and Islam? I've reached these conclusions due to your [Spengler's] conclusions about mainstream Islam and my conclusions following a trip through the United States. My proof: I visited Florida theme parks for the first time in my life. An introvert could feel nothing but a psychic wasteland devoid of meaning (or if they are a natural optimist, could be quite happy with the place). An extrovert would feel the collective joy and significance of the enchanting kingdom (or guilt for not feeling so). Both civilizations wish to paint the world with their collective paintbrush, for in their own minds, relativism - ie other ways of living, are devoid of any value. This goes as much for Democrats as for Republicans. America is a nation of natural Hegelians - the same goes for much of Islam. They believe fulfillment comes from society, whereas an introvert could be happy in the worst of circumstances, or unhappy in the best, the physical environment having little to do with such matters. Obviously every nation is a nation of extroverts, but to greater and lesser degrees. This might even explain why South Korea has largely rejected Buddhism for Protestant Christianity. The former had a greater inner-mind focus, while the latter allowed for a greater sense of collective identity and is far more life-affirming (or worldly). America's strength lies in the fact that [Americans'] collective lives are so powerful that no matter how much modernity corrupts their inner lives ($100 billion porn industry), they cannot fall into despair. And unlike Islam, that corruption cannot destroy their extroverted lives.
Dave Henderson
Canada (Sep 30, '04)


I thank Michael Schwartz and ATimes for his excellent article on America's new strategy in Iraq [Sep 29]. ATimes has become a must-read for me each day.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Sep 29, '04)


I am always bemused by your correspondent Phar Kim Beng's often analogic and romanticized world view. Not only that, I am constantly amazed at how such a scholar, as he claims to be, can even make as many fundamental errors of fact as he has - and simple ones at that, such as in one previous piece where he claimed the second round of Indonesian presidential poll was to be held on September 15 when in fact it was always penciled in for September 20. He has made errors here on Asia Times as well as Malaysiakini and even in The Edge, a Malaysian weekly. But for all that, let's take one example of this scholar's simpliisticism which Mr Phar ([Indonesia's peaceful poll: How they did it] Sep 29) passes as analytical. He claims that international observers at [the] Indonesian poll had possibly prevented any violence that would have marred the presidential election. He also claims that the dispatch of Indonesian military and police across the volatile Indonesian archipelago was aimed at stamping out the same sort of violence during the election. Big deal. As a scholar, he should know international history, and if he did, he would know that international observers are often dispatched to observe that the polls are kept clean and that there isn't any rigging of the ballot. Their job is not to control or indeed even prevent violence from breaking out. That's the mandate of the local police and, if the police prove incapable in stemming the violence, then needless to say the trigger-happy Indonesian military will deal with the perpetrators in the only way [it] knows best [sic]. But worse is this scholar's inherent tendency towards contradiction, for in the very same breath he says this: "Nevertheless, Indonesia conducted the direct presidential election orderly and peacefully, without disruption to voter access. Many observers also acknowledged significant improvements in the way the elections were administered." You could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Phar had attributed credit to the international observers for the conduct of the election. Then there is this gem, in the very next paragraph: "But neither local nor international electoral watchdogs alone can take credit for the smooth process of the polls. The police and civilian guards played an important role too." Now I ask you: if the police and civilian guards aren't local folks, or Indonesians, who else could they have been? Indeed, what kind of "scholar", apparently trained at Cambridge and the Fletcher School, would produce this kind of bunkum? As for Mr Phar's romantic world view, here is one example: "So, despite the attendant (minor) imperfections in the Indonesian elections, it is clear that Indonesian democracy - at least of the electoral kind - is on a roll. Just how Indonesia progresses depends hugely on its ability to use the same amount of energy and dedication shown in monitoring the elections to eradicate corruption." If only Indonesian political reality and history - as with any other country - were so precise and clear-cut; then we would never ever have to worry again about the return of rottenness among those who seek political power and center it in their hands. How nice and uncomplicated a world Mr Phar paints for us through his rose-tainted [sic] glasses.
Ari Abidjani
London, England (Sep 29, '04)


I refer to the article Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28] by Spengler. Spengler can dream on about American power and victimization of Muslims. Except for a very minute minority of Muslims who live in the US or Europe, the rest of us don't give a damn about America or Europe and have no fear about the future. America is on a downward slope and it won't be long before the Empire falls. Islam and Muslims have gone through Crusades, invasions and colonialism, but have never been defeated and will never be defeated by Johnny-come-lately cowboy power. For us the robbing of our resources and imposing puppet governments is not considered a defeat. We have fear only of Allah, and it is that which motivates us and protects us from the illusionary powers of the monsters like the US. Our minds will never be defeated by illusionary powers. Any evil and false ideology which seeks to oppress mankind will by its own [evil] self-destruct, and this is what is happening to America. Witness the oppression and injustices perpetrated on its own people through the various acts such as the [USA] Patriot [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and the oligopolistic economic system and you can see the end is near for them. Fortunately the laws of the universe are not only physical but metaphysical, and that can never be manipulated by any power.
Vincent Maadi (Sep 29, '04)


For further proof of Why al-Qaeda is winning, kindly read Spengler's Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28].
Luay (Sep 29, '04)


First of all, thank you for the great variety and depth of your articles, as well as their authors. Although I do not always agree, I do find that I often leave with a broader point of view and greater consideration and respect for differing opinions. I find it sad, then, that many readers are less broad-minded and open. I take the frequent respondent "Frank" as an example. His often vitriolic, ignorant, exclusionist remarks make one wonder if the centrally important concepts of academic debate and dissent register at all on his radar. I find it especially comical when, for instance, he criticizes Jayanthi Iyengar [China power crisis dims production, Sep 24], "being an outsider", for not "understanding China" - comical since the sources Iyengar uses inevitably come from a large number of Chinese [letter, Sep 27]. I don't even have to assume that China's Development and Reform Commission is run by Chinese. I do know that other sources, such as the firm Morrison and Forester, employ mainly Chinese in their Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong offices. The same is true of nearly all China experts, who always employ Chinese research assistants and such. Of course, one does not need to be "Chinese" to understand China. What is required (as with any other country), is great endurance, willingness and, most of all, an open mind. As evidenced by quite a few of the posts, this last value is missing among many.
DNT (Sep 29, '04)

Iyengar's main oversight, apparently, was not having her article vetted by that great arbiter of truth, Xinhua, before submitting it for publication. - ATol


I would like to ask Michael Le Houllier [letter, Sep 28] if the United Nations Charter guarantees the right of self-determination of peoples. Should KMT [Kuomintang] Chinese people living in Taiwan be allowed to declare independence from Chen Shui-bian's government? In the news, there are many millions of Chinese people living in Taiwan [who] do not recognize Chen Shui-bian as their leader. Can they self-determine their own leader?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 29, '04)

Not to second-guess Michael Le Houllier, but we believe the process you refer to is called "voting". Can Chinese people on the other side of the strait determine their own leader? - ATol


To respond to Michael Le Houllier's letter [of Sep 28], I think that the salient point for pro-reunification Chinese is that links with the mainland pre-date things like the SFPT [San Francisco Peace Treaty]. Moreover, the SFPT is merely "words on paper" for many Chinese. National feelings go deeper than such things in most parts of the world, and quoting such a treaty isn't the beginning and end of the issue. Times change for sure; however, many aspects of China are so deeply ingrained from its history that bits of paper such as the SFPT are largely irrelevant.
Peter Mitchelmore (Sep 29, '04)


I have been following the debate regarding the Muslim rule in India in this section. I don't quite understand why G Travan [letter, Sep 28] would automatically assume that Indians (at least those writing on this forum) are distorting the suffering of their forefathers. If it comes from the accounts of the historians that are from the courts of the Mughal (not Mongol) kings, why should I doubt the veracity of that narrative? I am sure that the "proponents of pure Hindu culture" would acknowledge the positive side of Islamic history as long as it needs to be done in context of a different geographic entity. Burying one's head in the sand, equivalently not learning from history, is a sad crime Indians have been guilty of one time too many. [V S] Naipaul's writings are entirely irrelevant here - I doubt if any of those "Hindoo phanatiques" ignite their hatred based on his rants. Coming back to the "positive side of Islamic history", would you care to elaborate on this point with regard to the subcontinent?
V Lotke
Utah, USA (Sep 29, '04)


[G] Travan, thank you so much for admiring the astounding diversity and tolerance in India where minorities can aspire [to] and often occupy such high positions [as] president and prime minister [letter, Sep 28]. Now, do you know why all this is possible? Because the majority of people in India are Hindus and hence genuinely secular - in spite of their history. We don't care if a Muslim or Christian is our leader so long as that person is qualified for that role. Have you ever remotely heard a whisper of an African-American or any other minority candidate for the presidency, or even a woman, in the United States (none practicing a different faith than Christianity, mind you), which is supposed to be the yardstick for measuring freedom and equality in today's world? Your letter is full of contradictions. You think those of us that question Islam's role in India are intolerant and suffer from a sense of victimization but you admire India's tolerance without having a clue as to where that tolerance is coming from ... Are you in the esteemed company of [letter writer] Fareed [Zahid] in denying the barbarism committed by Islam in India? If so, there is no point talking with you. Travan, who so admires Islam's contribution to India's culture, have you heard of Kashmir? The capital of Kashmir is Srinagar, which is a Hindu name, and has been for a while. No Muslim came up with that name, let me assure you. There used to be until as recently as 10 years ago a few million Hindus there. Now, they did not migrate to Kashmir from the rest of India. Hindus have been in Kashmir since time. Now do you know where they are? In refugee camps in Delhi and other states. No, Travan, they did not leave on their own. They were forced to flee for their lives. Do you know why? Because your current-day Muslim (not all of them but enough number of them) is taking a page from his glorious past and trying to de-Hinduize Kashmir. Why? Is he persecuted there? Have you heard of Muslims being massacred there [so] that they have to drive out the Hindus to feel more secure? No. And Fareed, who is an Indian and should know his history, arrogantly denies his past, and present, and like you thinks the Taj Mahal makes up for Islam's bloodbath in India. If you reread all the letters written by other Indians you would note that no one is calling for jihad against Islam or asking for Muslims to get out of India. I had said in my last letter [Sep 24] this very thing. Any Hindu who asks inconvenient questions is painted [as] an intolerant fanatic. Thanks for proving me right. If Hindus were driven by hatred and a sense of genocide, as you foolishly conclude, then there would not have been this diversity and tolerance that you so admire in India. So go and get yourself a new thinking shirt that is colored in reason, logic and plain common sense.
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 29, '04)


G Travan's letter of September 28 is correct: [V S] Naipaul's "fearless veracity" is alas clueless when it comes to India and Islam. ATol's editorial intervention was thus not entirely accurate - none of those quoted in the Guardian article thought he had a clue about Islam; the only positive comments were, appropriately enough, about his works of fiction. For a more balanced historical view of Hindu-Muslim relations, see the excellent Guardian article by William Dalrymple. Naipaul is in fact an open supporter of the BJP/RSS [Bharatiya Janata Party/Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] "Hindu nationalist party". What can a "Hindu nation" mean in secular India, you may ask? According to one of their leaders, M S Golwalkar, writing in 1939, "the Hindu nation is one where all those not belonging to the nation, ie Hindu race, religion, culture and language, naturally fall out of the pale of real national life. The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea except the glorification of the Hindu religion and culture, ie the Hindu nation, and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race or they may stay in the country wholly subordinate to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment of even citizens rights." Fortunately, this vision was decisively rejected at the ballot box by the shrewd voters of India in the recent election - long live democracy!
Shah (Sep 29, '04)


Kudos to Asia Times Online! Where else can a reader go for so succinct an expose of US grandiloquence and hypocrisy as we find in Stephen Zunes' [Sep 28] article [Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized]? In this country [US, President George W] Bush's speech went either largely unexamined or was taken at face value, and with a tear in the eye, by the imbeciles that make up his constituency.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD (Sep 28, '04)


Stephen Zunes' argument in his article Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized (Sep 28) did not strike me as very sophisticated. To each of President George W Bush's points, Mr Zunes basically said "O huh" and left it at that. I understand he has a very low opinion of the United States in general and President Bush in particular, but just being contrary doesn't do anyone any good. One obvious example: he takes issue with Security Council Resolution 1441 reading "serious consequences" against Saddam Hussein and insists it demanded a second vote before those consequences were implemented. Well, there were two versions of 1441, the French version that required a second vote and the American version that did not. It was the American version that received unanimous approval by the Security Council. Then he considers it Orwellian to imply that the meaning of "serious consequences" is obvious. It would be more illuminating to read how Mr Zunes would have written the speech. At least then we could determine if Mr Zunes' perspective or vision is preferable.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 28, '04)


[Richard] Radcliffe (letter, Sep 27) states, "When a major unfriendly power in the area also obtains nuclear weapons or the presumed capability to make nuclear weapons, that is a condition that Israel cannot allow to exist." At this time Iran is allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and as pointed out by Stephen Zunes (Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized [Sep 28]), "Since 1981, Israel has stood in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on that country's government to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency." Therefore one would assume that a nation (Israel) that refuses to have its nuclear facilities investigated yet reserves that right to unilaterally destroy another nation's (Iran) nuclear facilities would be classified as a rogue state, and should be punished accordingly. And I hardly would call a unilateral attack on Iran "an accommodation". One could sympathize with Israel if it lived within the pre-1967 borders, did not invade Lebanon and halted its persecution of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet Israel's history is one of expansion and persecution of the Muslim. I suggest you read Noam Chomsky's Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Though you may scorn the author's political leanings, he has compiled an extensive bibliography to back up his research, most of which came from Israeli sources. You ask for my proposals for a Middle East peace:
1) Israel's right to exist will [be] reaffirmed by all nations, including those in the Middle East.
2) The nation of Palestine will be recognized as the borders of the West Bank and Gaza.
3) All nations in the Middle East shall renounce "terrorism".
4) Israel removes all settlements outside of its pre-1967 borders. Compensation to existing settlers will come from the American taxpayer.
5) The United States will guarantee the borders and security of both states by issuing troops to patrol the buffer zone between both nations. All nations are "invited" to participate with humanitarian, economic or military aid to ensure the security of both states.
6) The Middle East will be declared a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] free zone and all nations will fall under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency and all WMD will be decommissioned.
7) The current Iraqi situation will be "solved" by [a] massive amount of international humanitarian, economic or military aid. The United Nations Security Council will govern the nation of Iraq until free elections are established. Though I admit No 7 is iffy, with full international assistance there is no reason to believe that the violence in Iraq can be stopped. With the Palestinian problem solved, no nation has any grounds to object [to] assisting in the formation of the new Iraqi nation.
Therefore, Mr Radcliffe, I respectfully invite you to submit counter-proposals and further discussion of the above "Lynch" Plan.
Ernie Lynch
Skunk Hollow, Pennsylvania (Sep 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler's Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28]. Spengler's warning of dire consequences to Muslim individuals in the West as a progression of G W Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" can only result logically [in] the flip side of the same coin - which one would guess would be (from a Muslim point of view) "if you are not with us then we are not with you". Or would that be elevating the Muslims' intellect to our own?
ADeL (Sep 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler: Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28]. This problem is very simple. There are two relevant facts: 1) Osama bin Laden has said we wishes to use a nuclear weapon on an American city. 2) Majorities in nearly every Muslim nation view bin Laden favorably. In light of these facts, I fail to see how the West can afford to do anything else but take harsh measures for its own defense. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Brian Dunstan (Sep 28, '04)

Not to detract from your point, but it is difficult or impossible to tell what bin Laden wishes to do at the moment, or whether he has the wherewithal to acquire or use a nuclear weapon on the US or anywhere else, or what effect such a desperate act would have on the "favorable" opinion many Muslims have of him (usually in comparison with someone else, notably US President George W Bush). According to an article published by Pakistan's Dawn newspaper in November 2001, bin Laden did tell Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir: "We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them." - ATol


Your [Sep 28] article Iran at sea over Azerbaijan by Mahan Abide was a very informative and enlightening one. However ... there is a slight omission that the Bolsheviks in 1917 for the first time coined the term "Azerbaijan Republic" to denote the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan. Of course the intent was to entice the progressive Azeris of the Azerbaijan Province which had so brilliantly spearheaded the then-recent Persian Constitutional Movement into joining the newly established republic. Iran in the late 1910s was a stagnant, decadent, ailing empire, and the euphoria of change and progress and socialistic egalitarianism was hoped to prove attractive enough to cause an Azerbaijani breakaway possible. Mr Mahan's analysis clearly explains why this did not occur. Prior to that time, all the maps and traveler accounts and historical documents indicate that it was called Maavaraa Ghafghaaz, Trans Caucasia, Aran, Eran or even Albania. So indeed the territories taken from Persia were never referred to as Northern Azerbaijan in the referenced treaties. I have Iranian Azeri relatives through marriage [whose] surnames indicate their origins in parts of the locations in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan - eg Ordoobaadi, meaning one from Ordoobaad. They still are in contact with cousins and other relatives there, and one who recently returned from a "roots" trip said [that] in Ordoobaad, they all still identify themselves as Iranians. So any traveler to rural Azerbaijan Republic is well advised to be mindful of the pro-Iranian sentiments there.
Nader Rastegar
Atlanta, Georgia (Sep 28, '04)


[Mahan] Abedin (Iran at sea over Azerbaijan [Sep 28]) makes a detailed and - within the space of a small article - balanced appraisal of Iran's concern over Azerbaijan's position. However, I believe that in the international environment, other important regional players must be brought into the analysis - as Iran and Azerbaijan themselves would do. This mainly concerns Russia. Though not an alliance, Russian-Iranian cooperation in the Caucasus allows both states to maintain their own influence and contain foreign inroads. It is very likely that a US base in Azerbaijan would call on Russia to apply some pressure on the at least 2.5 million Azeris living in Russia and transferring approximately $5 billion a year. Would the US be willing to offset even half of that money? Since only a fraction of the funds likely would trickle down to the needy Azeri families and to the migrants returning from Russia - this is not in the security interest of Azerbaijan; US bases do not add to security against terrorism as was shown in Uzbekistan in 2004, and as seen in Iraq, they might actually attract it. In addition, stationing of US forces in Azerbaijan would all but make Russian military-base presence in Georgia and the radar station in Azerbaijan permanent - and any attempt by Azerbaijan and the US to flame up ethnic separatism in northwestern Iran would provoke a much more dangerous Iranian reply-in-kind through the support of Islam in a rather repressive Azerbaijan. True, Azerbaijan - like any country in a difficult and important geopolitical region - needs options and different allies; it is still not clear, though, whether it will risk social and political instability in return for the chimera of security and prestige that an American base will provide.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Sep 28, '04)


Re Whispers of regime change [Sep 24] by Ehsan Ahrari. I read your piece in the online edition of Asia Times. A few comments. 1) I find it amazing that there is all this focus on Iran while Israel maintains stockpiles of 200-300 nuclear weapons. Also Pakistan, India, China, the US, Russia, etc have nuclear weapons. Are there any demands on these countries to reduce their stockpiles of these weapons? 2) Iran has threatened to attack the Demona reactor in Israel at the slightest hint of an attack on Iran. If this happens, this is going to widen the war in the Middle East. I view this as an extremely reckless and dangerous provocation which is going to further destabilize the Middle East and the rest of the World. I am fully supportive of nuclear disarmament and blocking the spread of these weapons. However, I don't think this will occur under conditions where some countries are allowed to possess these weapons while others (typically those countries populated by people of color) cannot. What is going to happen to the world economy if Iran is attacked and [its] oil exports are disrupted? Bush has gotten the US bogged down in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that have turned into military, political and economic disasters. Now these folks want to open up additional wars. Where are the troops going to come from? How is all of this going to be paid for?
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Sep 28, '04)

The declared nuclear states have been signatories to treaties obligating them to reduce their stockpiles, and some progress was made for a while. For a thorough analysis by an expert on this subject, see Salvaging the nuclear non-proliferation regime (May 19). - ATol 


Sai Wansai's remarks [The case for sanctions on Myanmar, Sep 10] are to the point, highly relevant and a cogent summary why economic sanctions are necessary and towards its intended aim to pressure the brutal Burmese dictators to quit their continued illegal seizure of power and to honor the people's wish to [be] rid of them. The result of the May 1990 elections was absolutely clear. It is obvious that ASEAN's [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations'] strategy of "constructive engagement" is morally bankrupt and has patently not worked while at best it was a cynical excuse for neighboring commercial and political interests, who shall remain nameless, but we all know who they all are, to carry on profiteering and gorging on the destitute corpses of the peoples of Burma [Myanmar] as vultures on carrion.
Tiger Yawnghwe (Sep 28, '04)


I have been reading the debate regarding Muslims in Indian history on Asia Times' Letters section with some sadness. Why do so many Indians yearn to paint themselves as victims on an unprecedented scale? Do they envy other victims of genocide and conquest so much that they must distort their own suffering at the hands of Mongol-Muslim conquerors to be more like the Holocaust or the Spanish conquest of Latin America? I had a great regard for India's diversity, with a Muslim president, a Sikh prime minister and an astounding number of cultures. The proponents of a pure Hindu culture refuse to acknowledge the positive, human side of Islamic history, which must require an immense amount of hate in the land of the Taj Mahal. I hope that, as in Iran, people with such views are seen as the narrow-minded, hateful fanatics that they are. A letter writer mentioned the accuracy of V S Naipaul's writings on the non-Arab Muslim peoples. Naipaul's views on Islam are extremely biased. I quote from a Guardian article on Naipaul: "Edward Hoagland in the New York Times thought Among the Believers a 'vitriolic tour [that] evinces an inherent antipathy to the religion of Islam so naked and severe that a book taking a comparable view of Christianity or Judaism would have been hard put to find a publisher in the United States'. [Columbia University Professor Edward] Said describes Beyond Belief as an 'intellectual catastrophe. He thinks Islam is the worst disaster that ever happened to India, and the book reveals a pathology. It's hard to believe any rational person would attack an entire culture on that scale.'"
G Travan
California, USA

The Guardian article (A singular writer, Sep 8, '01) also noted that "Naipaul's reputation, as a novelist and travel writer, has always been split" and that "Naipaul is never short of champions of what is described as his fearless veracity". It also cited numerous fans of Naipaul in addition to the two detractors you have selected. - ATol


I don't completely understand Singapore's latest proclamation that Taiwan had better not provoke Beijing for the sake of maintaining peace in this part of Asia. Taiwan, by being a peaceful, democratic state in East Asia, is doing nothing that ought to be provocative to China. It is, in fact, China that is responsible for the rising tension in the region, not Taiwan. By Singapore's logic, if the government in Kuala Lumpur decided that Singapore ought to do as KL says or risk invasion by Malaysian military forces, Singapore's government ought to toe the line for the sake of regional security in Southeast Asia. This, of course, [would ignore] the fact that Singapore is a sovereign government and Malaysia [would be] the aggressor. However, as Singapore urges Taipei to not provoke Beijing, Singapore should similarly not provoke Kuala Lumpur. In the early 1990s, Iraq made similar demands of Kuwait, a much smaller neighbor in the Persian Gulf. For the sake of maintaining peace, perhaps the sovereign government of Kuwait ought to have done exactly what Baghdad asked [it] to do. That would have maintained the peace. It didn't. However, was Kuwait blamed by the international community? No, of course not. Iraq was. Similarly, if China attacks Taiwan, who would be at fault? The peaceful, democratic government of Taiwan? No! The totalitarian, aggressive government of China would be. Unfortunately, many governments either don't realize, or simply ignore, the fact that Taiwan was never given to China following World War II. The San Francisco Peace Treaty simply does not make any mention of Taiwan being handed over to China following the war. To be sure, Japan surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan, but there is nothing that says China is to assume sovereignty over the island. That often brings up the question from China's apologists: Is such an explicit mention of transfer necessary under international law? The answer is absolutely yes. Customary state practice is one of the most important sources of international law. In countless treaties, the beneficiary of a transfer of territory is specifically mentioned. The Treaty of Versailles that followed World War II specifically mentioned France and Belgium as the beneficiaries of territory ceded by Germany. The fact that those territories were already occupied by the countries mentioned didn't change the necessity for their transfer to be mentioned specifically in the peace treaty. The United States conclusively defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War in 1898. In the Treaty of Paris that concluded the war, Spain ceded the Philippines and Puerto Rico (among other territories) to the United States. It would seem safe to assume that since the United States and Spain were the only combatants in the war and were the only two parties of the treaty, a simple statement of Spanish relinquishment of claims would be enough. However, in following customary practice, the transfer to the United States was clear and specific, despite the fact that the United States already had military control over those territories. However, while Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba, and even allowed for occupation of the island by the United States, there is no mention of cession to the United States. Accordingly, Cuba was granted its independence rather than becoming a territory of the United States. The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the very treaty in which Taiwan was transferred to Japan, includes similar specificity of transfer of sovereignty from China to Japan. So does the Treaty of Portsmouth, in which territory is specifically ceded from Russia to Japan. So why is there no such mention in the peace treaty of San Francisco? Perhaps because there was absolutely no intention on the part of the signatories of the treaty to give Taiwan to China. Perhaps, similar to Cuba, Taiwanese were to be allowed to control their own destiny in the future. Unfortunately, the KMT [Kuomintang] illegally usurped the right of the Taiwanese people to a plebiscite that would allow them to so control their destiny. Chiang [Kai-shek] maintained a fiction that Taiwan was a part of China, but maintained martial law and White Terror over the masses in Taiwan to maintain that fiction. Now that Taiwan is a democracy, they [Taiwanese] are now asserting the rights that they should have had five decades ago. The United Nations Charter guarantees the right of self-determination of peoples. Why Singapore opposes that right for Taiwanese makes no legal or moral sense. However, since Singapore also is not a democracy, it shouldn't be surprising.
Michael Le Houllier
Taichung City, Taiwan (Sep 28, '04)


In her article Iraq held hostage to terror [Sep 25], Sudha Ramachandran asserts that Muslims, by their silence, are saying that beheadings may be okay, depending on the nationality of the victim, and blame coalition forces for all of the Iraqi civilian casualties. I also gather she is sympathetic to that viewpoint.
Dale Stoy
Saline, Mississippi (Sep 27, '04)


Thinking reflectively about [Yoel] Sano's review [Closing the globalization 'Gap', Sep 25] one is left with the feeling that he was treading softly around the edges of [Thomas P M] Barnett's thesis. A recent editorial in a major British publication had the following-titled commentary: "We all should vote in the US presidential elections in 2004". Would not such an approach be more forthcoming as well as less costly in human and financial terms than invading/liberating the nations that the superpower wants to include under the heading of its tutelage of "Cappo di Gap"? While to some the present may be likened to a Don Quixote endeavor, to others it may be representative of a memorable song in an American musical whose repetitive words of "Anything you can do I can do better ..." reflect the basics of what the Gap is telling the Core, and the Core responds, "No you can't," followed by "Yes I can ..." The Gap then either attempts to seduce the Core by entering into a dialogue amongst equals or, as the present effort in Iraq symbolizes, by killing almost all of the recalcitrants. It may be that most all of those nations that fall under the heading of Core have taken up Tom Paine's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death."
ADeL (Sep 27, '04)


What is going on at Asia Times? This recent trend toward the reactionary and delusional has its latest example in [Yoel] Sano's fawning review of Thomas Barnett's paean to globalization (Closing the globalization 'Gap' [Sep 25]). Quotes like "Globalization empowers the individual at the expense of the collective ..." or "No growth equals no security" are the sort of thing one expects from Francis Fukiyama or the Wall Street Journal, not Asia Times Online. Let's ask the workers of Honduras or Haiti if globalization has empowered them. Or Bolivia or Sierra Leone. Or Slovakia or Ukraine. The draconian policies of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank have brought only destruction and increased poverty to the developing world. Beyond that, Mr Sano mentions how Barnett wants (nay, insists) on a "happy ending to the war on terror". Say what? The implicit rationale for war that runs through the entire review is really reprehensible and suggests Sano needs a primer on poverty and Third World realities. Actually, Sano might have a future writing speeches for Dick Cheney. The "war on terror" is a pathetic excuse to keep hyper-militarization going, finding ways for that billion-dollar-a-day (and then some) defense budget to be kept running. Make bombs so you can use them up - that's the idea behind the war on terror. The most glaring example of Sano's and Barnett's cluelessness is the excuse and explanation for bombing poor countries - those of the so-called "gap" - when the obvious reality is that they get bombed because they cannot bomb back. Where does terrorism originate? Do Barnett or Sano ever wonder about that? Does the stork just sometimes deliver terrorists to their mothers? Please, editors, let's try and find some better and more critical analysts, and really, why are you bothering to even review crap like Barnett?
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Sep 27, '04)


Jayanthi Iyengar (China power crisis dims production [Sep 24]) does not understand that China is a dynamic society. China is changing very rapidly. However, China is not a country of paradoxes for sure. Nuclear power stations generate a very small portion of the power. Hydropower stations are one of the most important sources of power. The world's largest hydropower station has already generated electricity. China is to receive 20% more power from this power station in the next year or two. And more hydropower stations are on the way. Jayanthi Iyengar does not mention a word of those projects. This author should visit China more often before writing about China. ATol should let more Chinese authors write about their own country. Some outsiders just cannot understand this large complicated ancient country.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 27, '04)


From his contradictory statements against both the former government (NDA [National Democratic Alliance]) and the current UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government, Ramtanu Maitra [Dull, and downright hopeless, Sep 24] seems to be indulging in Lalu or Basu-speak. For one, he seems to ignore cases of infrastructure reform such as construction of roads and telcom reform during the NDA government did bring real change. I suggest he travel on some of the newly constructed highways and do some cost-benefit analysis of paying tolls and gaining efficiency in terms of time and fuel cost or talk to the numerous urban and rural poor who can afford cell phones. Not only that, real interest rates did come down from the low teens to 8-9%. Presumably, the growth in construction that followed must have created jobs. But the jobs the left-wingers are worried about are of the "government" kind where people get a paid lot of money for doing no work (read downsizing of banks, opening insurance and airline sector to private companies, privatization of industries and so forth). By that standard, both Manmohan [Singh's] economics of the '90s, the Jaswant [Singh] economics following that and now Manmohanomics again must be terrible. But Mr Maitra, even our standing comic Lalu could tell you good medicines, either of the Aurvedic or Western kind, always seem to be bitter in taste.
AP (Sep 27, '04)


Though I strongly disagree with Ahmad Chalabi and wish him due punishment for his actions against the people of Iraq, it is unprofessional for you to spread misinformation. Regarding the article Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran [Sep 21] by Spengler, I searched the original interview on the Middle East Quarterly [MEQ] website and could not find his Sunni reference, and I only found this:
MEQ: Some high-profile American analysts, such as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, have called for Iraq to be split up into three states. Are they right? Should Iraq be broken up? Why shouldn't the Kurds have independence?
Chalabi: All peoples have the right to self-determination and that includes the Kurdish people. Why should they be any different? If the exercise of that right leads them toward independence, then so be it. We will negotiate with them. The days of using violence to hold this country together are over.
(Source: http://www.meforum.org/article/626)
There is no mention of "The simplest way to deal with resistance in the Sunni triangle is to break off the oil-rich Kurdish north and Shi'ite south, and let the Sunni center eat sand." In Arabic parlance, this is real anathema. Are you spreading misinformation? This is very damaging to the credibility of your site.
Imad Khadduri
Richmond Hill, Ontario (Sep 27, '04)

The sentence you mention was written by Spengler, and was not quoted from the MEQ interview. You may have been confused by a missing line space (caused by a technical glitch) between the two-paragraph blockquoted (double-indented) excerpt of the interview and the next paragraph (beginning "Iraq's Shi'ites"), which was part of the body of the Spengler article. - ATol


Dear [B] Raman: Thank you very much for your excellent article [Operation enduring millstone, Sep 18]. It was brilliantly written. To refer to this situation as a "quagmire" is to glorify it. Rather, this tragic occupation of Iraq will be a watershed in world history of immense consequences. It is indeed tragic that with the demise of communism we should be faced with yet another cataclysm of epic proportions. God help us all.
Kingsley Hooker
Memphis, Tennessee (Sep 27, '04)


Adam Wolfe's article China takes the lead in strategic Central Asia [Sep 17] is sadly like most of ATol's propaganda about Central Asia. Wolfe credulously repeats Anglo-American alibis that the West is fighting "terrorism" in Central Asia, when this is a Big Lie that even you don't believe. The Anglo-American agenda in Central Asia is to seize and control Caspian oil in competition against Russia and China. All the other justifications are disinformation, just like the lies about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] used to justify the Anglo aggression against Iraq. Wolfe comically discourses at length about China's motives in Central Asia but never questions the real reasons why an extra-regional power like the USA invaded this area in the first place. What's the matter? Are you afraid that questioning America's bogus war on terrorism would ultimately lead to questioning the curious events of September 11 [2001]? After all, it is the USA which most benefited from the September 11 attacks. More hilarious is the attempt by ATol's assortment of hacks to posture as advocates for human rights, democracy, or independence for Uighurs in China. Notice how most of them like Stephen Blank, Adam Wolfe, and Stephen Sullivan all [sic] work for Western militaries, corporations, or business firms - not exactly institutions known for their humanitarian instincts. Western concern for Uighurs is like Western concern for Iraqis before the 2003 invasion - a cynical humanitarian mask to hide the predatory policies of these imperialist nations. Like the British Empire, the American Empire loves to divide and conquer opposing nations by sowing ethnic division. The USA in particular wishes to destabilize and weaken China through [its] not-so-covert support of ethnic separatist movements in China, from the Uighurs to Tibet to Taiwan. In addition, the Uighur issue is useful for the USA to prevent or at least hinder China's attempt to access Caspian oil in Central Asia. And Wolfe has the nerve to suggest that Washington is interested in financially supporting these groups through a CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] front group like the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] in order to gain "human-rights concessions" from China. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I would like to see the Western reaction if China started supporting independence movements in Aztlan, Hawaii, Northern Ireland, Aboriginal [lands], or indigenous nations ruled by the Anglo colonial states of the USA, UK, and Australia. Indeed, ATol's studious silence on issues of Aboriginal self-determination in Australia (such as the murder of T J Hickey) is revealing and betrays your cynical pretenses. Maybe one should ask your editor Allen Quicke why this is. ATol has also either tried to downplay or even to label as "terrorist" national-liberation movements in countries allied with the USA - such as the ongoing rebellions in Turkish-ruled Kurdistan; the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines; Manipur, Assam, and Kashmir in India; or the recent uprisings in southern Thailand. Why haven't you reported on these developed independence movements with the same sympathy and enthusiasm? The answer is obvious.
DP
USA (Sep 27, '04)

As a rule we avoid reporting anything with "sympathy and enthusiasm" - we strive to present objective pictures of Asian events as viewed by experts on those subjects. That's the goal, one that we sometimes miss, partly because writers who gain intimate knowledge of their subject matter - which we encourage - also gain passionate viewpoints, which are sometimes reflected in their articles. As for the Aborigines, Asia Times Online's coverage area does not include Australia. - ATol


Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] by Pepe Escobar offered very little to the discussion of the so-called "war on terror". But it certainly provided clear evidence of the author's crippling cynicism. As usual, any action taken against the murdering terrorists of the world is deemed to be politically motivated and furthering America's "imperialist" foreign policy. But whether or not America is imperialist is not the issue. Any objectives, whether political, cultural or otherwise, that the world's terrorist groups have are moot. Organizations that further their "objectives" by randomly murdering unarmed, innocent people, with a special talent for killing children (for example, by shooting them in the back of the head as they run away for the safety of their parents), do not merit a place at the table of global diplomacy. Imagine a world where all one needs to do to achieve an objective is to murder a few children. To acquiesce in any way, large or small, to the demands of terrorists is to truly legitimize them. Recognizing murderous, amoral thugs as a threat to the civilized world and then taking steps to kill or disable them legitimizes them only in the eyes of people who are helplessly and irretrievably cynical. When one reaches this level of cynicism, it is time to retire from the civilized world. Mr Escobar is there already.
James A Barrett
Napa, California (Sep 27, '04)


I was blown away by Pepe Escobar's article Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] - I wish we had this kind of quality journalism here in America. Our media [have] become so useless that I can't even watch [them] anymore, especially the coverage of election issues (it's nearly impossible to find out what [President George W Bush and challenger John Kerry] are ever trying to say because they dumb everything down into meaningless slogans and attacks on each other - I haven't heard [either] one of them offer a genuine discussion on real issues). I am sure that many of my fellow Americans will probably be upset about the point of view that the article is written from but I commend you for it. If we cannot understand the point of view of the radicals then how can we ever hope to resolve the situation? No one ever stops to think that if they had been born into an Islamic family in the Middle East and had experienced the same things they have gone through in life, they would most likely end up doing the exact same things. People's experiences define their identity and perception of the world around them - we need to look objectively at the situation and figure out what experiences create "terrorists" and what we can do to improve those situations. Mr Bush as a "born-again Christian" would do well to listen to the words of Jesus, like "love thine enemy", as well as the ideas of compassion for all living things and understanding. Of course these ideas are so intensely foreign to most people that the idea of these things seems completely ludicrous to the conservative right. Thank you for your excellent work and open-mindedness - may your time here on Earth be as happy and wonderful as the creator intended it to be.
Justin (Sep 27, '04)


You [Pepe Escobar] are a sick man - your sickness will consume you some day.
Sid (Sep 27, '04)


[Ernie] Lynch [letter, Sep 24]: as I am not a lackey of the Israeli government or the Jewish lobby, neither am I a lackey of the Zionists. If the State of Israel did not exist, I would not be clamoring for its creation. But Israel does exist and we must take situations as they are, not as we wish them to be. The point behind my last letter was that Israel will, like any organism, defend its existence with all the weapons available to it. Those weapons presumptively include nuclear weapons. When a major unfriendly power in the area also obtains nuclear weapons or the presumed capability to make nuclear weapons, that is a condition that Israel cannot allow to exist. Hence the destruction of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli air force. I have no doubt that the same will occur to Iran if it continues on its current course towards mastering the nuclear fuel cycle. It was 31 years ago during Yom Kippur that the world was facing the immediate prospect of global thermonuclear war. While that threat is not present this Yom Kippur season, the specter of regional nuclear war still haunts the Middle East. Here mutually assured destruction (MAD) is not really an option as the enemies of Israel have made it clear in their public pronouncements that their goal is its destruction, not an accommodation. Yasser Arafat turned down the chance for an accommodation with Israel at Wye River. His failure to obtain Israel's surrender has led to the current campaign of attrition that is called the Second Intefada. The Arab side claims to want Israel to withdraw from its settlements in the territory it seized in 1967. Yet when Israel prepares to do so from the Gaza [Strip], it is met not with cheering as it leaves but with harassment as the Arabs attempt to kill as many Israelis as possible before they can be shielded by the "wall". After all, how can the various terrorist organizations attrit the Israeli army and tie it up with no settlers to act as bait? That is the current problem that Israel must solve: how to stop the attrition caused by the Intefada. Since Mohammed's creation of the belief system called Islam, Muslims have equated victory in battle with Allah's favor. Defeat in battle was Allah's wrath. The greater the defeat, the greater the displeasure of Allah. That leads to the question of just how big a defeat it will take to break the Intefada. Peace, after all, requires that the parties to the dispute actually want peace. When one side only wants jihad, peace is hard to find. Hence the suggestion that one way to relieve the pressure on Israel and perhaps defuse the immediate threat to its existence would be not to invade Iran, but to invade Syria. As Mr Lynch pointed out, my geography was in serious error (and I thank him for correcting me) but the strategy is still valid. The only difference is that it is a shorter distance from the beaches of Beirut to Damascus than it is from northern Syria to Damascus. But the result is the same: lots of terrorists get to relocate, some even to paradise. But Israelis in the northern part of Israel get to sleep nights without worrying about "incoming" and we all get to learn the secrets of the Bekaa Valley. Anything that reduces the threat to Israel's survival reduces the likelihood of nuclear war. That is a very good thing. I doubt that Mr Lynch and I will agree on how to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But talking is always much better that fighting. Let's continue to talk about possible solutions the conflict.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain (Brevet Feldmarschall), US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 27, '04)


Dear Dennis [Castle] from Portland [letter, Sep 24]: You will know the answer to your question, whether the militants of Islam are adherents to the text or are a deranged cult, when you finish reading the Koran. My question is, if Islam preaches killing and everybody believes it, would:
a) All killers embrace Islam and get to "Jihad (English definition)?
b) All the other killers start a crusade to rid the world of Muslims?
c) All of the above?
Luay (Sep 27, '04)


To Dennis Castle [letter, Sep 24]: Finally you raise a strikingly relevant question: "Who has the best imaginary friend?" And you ask it with perfect timing: As [US President George W] Bush is being challenged about the divergence between reality on the ground in Iraq, and fantasyland on Bush's tongue, he is being asked how he manages to be his own best imaginary friend. It was interesting to learn from him, during the Bush-Allawi press conference, that it was not US troops but the Afghan army which assaulted Najaf. That the Afghan army is part of the army. And that a "right track/wrong track" poll he saw showed that more Iraqi people think things are going well in Iraq than Americans believe about America. I especially appreciate his latter inadvertent admission of how unpopular he and his extremist agenda are with the US electorate. John Kerry, prosecutor, is establishing the case against the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory. Sharon Barone writes [Sep 23]: "We do not sit still and negotiate with terrorists." Actually, we do. In fact, president Thomas Jefferson paid a $150,000 bribe to the Tripoli government in exchange for US citizens held hostage. Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld re-established relations with Iraq and Saddam Hussein - recall the photograph of Saddam and [Donald] Rumsfeld shaking hands? - in order to be able to provide him weapons for his war against Iran. They continued to give him weapons before, during and after he allegedly "gassed his own people". You also write: "Did you forget the terror that Saddam [Hussein] did to the Iraqi people?" You mean, of course, that [president George H W] Bush Sr told the Iraqi people that if they arose against Saddam Hussein, he would provide them support. When they arose against Hussein, he did nothing ... as with the "gassing his own people" episode. What is the Bush estimate of how many Iraqis were killed by Hussein while Bush Sr looked the other way? But you're right: we don't "sit and negotiate with terrorists". Instead, we fly to Iran, with a "Bible", a cake, and some missiles, in violation of the US "Trading with the Enemy Act", and - the