March 8, 2002	atimes.com

Letters Contact us at letters@atimes.com I find it surprising and amusing that our little island state, Tonga, has finally earned international recognition. A royal, secret treasure of a whooping US$350 million, a kingdom to boot, a real king, a queen, princes and princesses. What an exotic setting; regrettably there is no dragon. I wish that Alan Boyd Royal blues, Feb 28 had waited a few days with his article; perhaps he would have found a different story. On the first claims by opposition legislator and columnist Akilisi Pohiva about the king's alleged millions, most Tongans thought it was a good joke. However, the story's escalation to international awareness had Tongans thinking it was going a bit too far, especially as it reflected badly on our king and the kingdom. Regarding our relations with New Zealand, we have long been at loggerheads with that country, and an enigma to the regional champions of democracy. Other Pacific states adopted Western-made democratic forms of government - and look what has happened to Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomons Islands, and Papua New Guinea. As for the Kingdom of Tonga, well, we just took it easy under da coconut tree. Our semi-democratic-monarchy form of government seems to be politically stable, the reason being that we simply forgot to ask strangers to designate the best form of government for us. [Letter shortened.] K T Mafile'o Nuku'alofa, Tonga Thank you for responding so positively to my request some time ago that you include more articles on environmental issues affecting the economy, globally and locally. As our country braces itself for the Earth Summit that it is to host later this year, it is really interesting and valuable to have some Asian perspectives. I refer especially to Sergei Blagov's article Troubled waters in the Caspian Sea [Mar 1]. Conflict over natural resources has been a major factor in many disputes between nations and seems set to continue to be so. Developing nations are particularly vulnerable in such situations as Mr Blagov's article illustrates. Professor Jeremy A Ridl University of Natal Durban South Africa Sultan Shahin's article Drubbing for Hindu fundamentalists [Feb 23] reflect some weird misconceptions. The writer says that "Another significant pointer to the electorate's distaste for Hindu fundamentalism is that when it decided to dump the long-reigning Congress party, it voted for BJP or its allies like Shiv Sena, only in those states where no other alternative was available." Excuse me, but has the writer ever cared enough to go through a typical ballot paper of any constituency? It is not uncommon to find dozens of candidates contesting a constituency. The electorate, or at least a sizeable chunk of it, has clearly preferred the BJP over all others in the past, in a lot of states and even in central elections, even where there were "alternatives". Probably the reason why the writer can't see this is because he oversimplifies everything into a fundamentalism-versus-non-fundamentalism issue. Perceived "fundamentalism" is not the number one issue on the minds of 1 billion voters, all the time - and furthermore perceptions can range from "welcome-change-from-nasty-leftist-policies" to "okay-just-a-slight-right-wing-tilt", to "oh-how-terrible-these-fundamentalists-are". It is common knowledge that there are scores of other issues, particularly those related to economy, employment, development, caste politics, ethnic affiliation, performance of other political parties etc, that are likely to play a more significant role in deciding an electoral outcome - especially in states like Uttar Pradesh. Rakesh Chandra India Apropos of the article Who are the terrorists, George? [Mar 1], one cannot but take issue with the writer's flight of imagination in equating Bhagat Singh and other Indian nationalists with deluded mass-murdering terrorists of recent persuasion fighting self-declared "enemies" and going about righting mostly nonexistent grievances. It appears that even self-evident facts need to be pointed out: namely, no one, even most ardent advocates of imperialism ("white man's burden" ...) ever claimed the Indo-British relationship of the raj days was anything other than a plain and simple colonial one. Impartial writers, including many British (eg, Orwell), revealed mercilessly the sheer exploitative character of that occupation; benevolent, if hypocritical, descriptions by raj apologists were never taken seriously by anyone with any knowledge of Indian conditions, except those who would deliberately keep their eyes shut. But even the latter stopped short of claiming that Indian subjects in fact enjoyed MORE rights than British citizens. It has taken 50 years of the existence of free India, it seems, for ignorance of that kind to burst forth. Gyan Singh Mark Erikson [Who are the terrorists, George? Mar 1] says he is terrified of "Bush's and many Americans', absolutism and unquestioning righteousness". Either his mortification is in the context of how he imagines we are defining "terrorism", how we are responding to it, or both. Most Americans probably hew closely to a definition that combines "attacking non-combatant civilians with the intent to kill them" with Michael Kinsley's secondhand "I know it when I see it" pragmatism - a pragmatism that is the antithesis of absolutism. Most Americans would agree that in any definition of terrorism there are gray areas: John Brown's and Bhagat Singh's cases are good examples, mainly involving the sometimes difficult definition of "non-combatant". However, Brown and Singh did not, to my knowledge, target the wives and children of their opponents. So their cases are not analogous to the attack on the World Trade Center. Where the vast majority of Americans are absolutist is in the belief that no matter how you choose to define terrorism, the attack on the World Trade Center is an example of it. If you had eyes, half a brain, and any moral backbone, you knew it when you saw it. The majority of Americans strongly support Bush's war on terrorism. How does that get twisted into "absolutism" and "unquestioning righteousness"? One should not confuse the hopeful, yet painful, decision to take lives in order to save lives, with the absolutism and unquestioning righteousness of pacifism. Geoff Sherwood New Jersey, US Rather than trying to surmise the genus and differentia specifica of "terrorism" [Who are the terrorists, George?, Mar 1], ask yourself the question: What type of act was September 11? Can it be tagged in pre-existing categories or is it perhaps sui generis? And what kinds of persons are those who commit such acts? If we could agree that these guys give terrorists (of whatever definition) a bad name, we might not need arrive at a commonly accepted definition of terrorism. When bin Laden tells the whole world that "Americans love life but we love death," I think he goes beyond terrorism. He espouses "death-ism". So, I propose we leave "terrorists" alone and go after "deathists". After all, it is their human right to have their wish fulfilled. Criton M Zoakos Perhaps one criterion to decide whether people are terrorists or freedom-fighters [Who are the terrorists, George?, Mar 1] is: Are they free to elect their own government? In Kashmir the ruling party and chief minister are Kashmiris. There may be arguments that the polls are rigged, etc, but one should keep in mind that in India this is by no means limited to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And while human-rights violations by the army cannot be condoned, the army was called in only after the struggle became violent in Kashmir. Once again, this phenomenon is not limited to Kashmir or even India (eg, Assam, Punjab, Sri Lanka). Using this criterion, I would say that Tibet is not free, and even though I am Tamilian I would criticize the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Arvind In Who are the terrorists, George? [Mar 1] Marc Erikson seems to have trouble understanding what a terrorist is. Let's try this for size. The fellow that walks into a birthday party for eight-year-olds and blows them away with a bomb is a terrorist and sick in the worst way. Some may choose to call him a valiant martyr or a hero. So what? Sicknesses are often contagious. Frank Skog Minneapolis Ehsan Ahrari [The imaginary 'axis of evil', Feb 28] appropriately makes the little-noted but obvious point: no nation on Earth has the capability to attack the United States at an acceptable cost. Taking the point one step further, not one nation appears to even contemplate such a suicidal act. Nations do have realistic regional aspirations, and the unaltered historic mix of "interests" and "influence". One no longer hears or reads about the US being the "world's only superpower". That may be because many, applying objective observation and common sense, have concluded that the high-technology air-delivered weapons that served as the basis of that term turn out to be of very limited use and effectiveness in the conduct of the "war against terrorism", or any other extant conflict. The "war against terrorism" was said from the beginning to be a long-term, enduring struggle. Early references may have been intended to refer to the difficulty of locating the scattered leadership of al-Qaeda. More recent actions in the Philippines, Georgia and other countries indicate that the continuing "war" has little, if anything, to do with September 11. Based upon US economic and other contributions to Afghanistan and Pakistan so far, the US appears to intend to do as little as it can in assuring freedom and economic growth in those countries. If the only actions taken by the US administration are a continuation and geographic extension of the activities taking place in Afghanistan and the Philippines, a diminution of US influence throughout the area seems possible. If economic competition has largely replaced military force, application of the universal truth that "one gets what one pays for" is in order. Jack Henderson Osterville, Massachusetts, US Syed Saleem Shahzad [BJP can benefit from climate of violence, Mar 1] has made a cheap attempt to put a sinister spin on the dastardly events at Godhra, Gujarat. While it may be true that India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party could take advantage of the resulting outrage, to suggest that "other forces might have been in play" (deflecting blame) is tendentious and in poor taste. This is similar to Pakistan suggesting that India staged the attack on its own parliament in order to make Pakistan look bad. A few years back a similar massacre of Sikhs in Kashmir was blamed on a sinister Indian conspiracy to achieve God-knows-what (as if there was any lack of evidence of the terrorists' depradations in the valley). The situation in India is complicated alright, and we would welcome some insightful journalism into real causes. We can do without Mr Shahzad's sly suggestions. Carl Clemens Hyderabad, India I must say that Syed Saleem Shazaad [BJP can benefit from climate of violence, Mar 1] is gifted with good imagination. The way he writes about Muslim tea sellers, it's as if he was sitting on the railway platform instead of in his house at Karachi at the time. The only problem is that the story is grossly wrong. You can read the truth in many Indian newspapers. [Letter shortened.] Satish Gupta It always bothers me as to why the news media come to the rescue of India's minority Muslim community but not the majority community when it is under attack. Every news article on the Gujarat riots pays lip service to the burning of Hindus by Muslims, but would roundly condemn revenge taken by Hindus. Why is that? Syed Saleem Shahzad [BJP can benefit from climate of violence, Mar 1] is either an idiot or he thinks readers are idiots. He says Hindus started stabbing Musilms at the station and all of a sudden the bogies went up in flames. Yeah right! Makes a great Bollywood story. Venkat Arava Sultan Shahin's article [Pakistan could be Vajpayee's salvation, Feb 28] demonstrates how Vajpayee, Joshi, Advani and company have failed in their bid to stir up needless military jingoism and hide the dismal failure of the BJP government. Meanwhile, India keeps its troops on the Pakistan border, costing both countries millions of dollars - money that neither country can afford to spend. The Indian government has been hopelessly outmaneuvered on the diplomatic front, with no face-saving rationale for a withdrawal of troops in sight. I guess Advani's brainwave would be to stage a shooting (or perhaps a hijacking), which Indian security forces would "courageously" foil. The BJP could then blame Pakistan and of course the ISI, and give another bellicose cry for war. What more can you expect? It takes a visionary to talk peace. Jawad Haider The disparity between the heavy American media coverage of "Skategate" and its lesser coverage of Korean skater Kim Dong-sung's disqualification in the 1,500-meter shorttrack speedskating competition is plain common sense [see letter below]. "Skategate" had a French judge who admitted her corruption, then, bizarrely, retracted her confession, and now has admitted her sins once again. I have heard no one who is professionally qualified to judge figure skating say that they honestly felt that the Canadian skating pair's technical performance was not superior to the Russians'. The speedskating tempest-in-a-teapot has no such intrigue. I have not heard Mr Sonny Liew, or anyone else, explain how Kim Dong-sung's blocking of Apolo Ohno was not a violation of the rules against "cross-tracking". It is always fascinating to read articles and letters that highlight the writer's distorted views of the American media. Sadly, it seems these writers formulate their views mainly from snippets of CNN (they wouldn't know a New York Observer or Village Voice if they tripped over one). It is then amusing to read in various Asia Times Online articles and letters accusations that CCN is a "mouthpiece" of Washington, a propaganda machine of sorts, when in America CNN is incessantly criticized as a politically correct, left-leaning news organ. [Letter shortened.] Geoff Sherwood Towaco, New Jersey, US Another contentious decision in the Winter Olympics, only this time the winner was an American and the victim a South Korean. There is all this talk about subjectivity on the parts of judges, yet the disparity between media coverage of so-called "Skategate" and Kim Dong-sung's disqualification in the 1,500-meters shorttrack (where the focus was almost entirely on Apolo Anton Ohno, who like the media seems to think of Kim only as "the Korean"), shows how little objectivity there is in the media itself. Where is the non-stop coverage of the controversial decision on the news? Where are the polls on whether it was the right decision? Sale and Pelletier [the Canadian figure-skating pair] got their just rewards mainly due to media pressure and attention; Kim will unfortunately not receive his, mostly because he was up against an American media darling. Sonny Liew As a Pakistani observer, I would today like to whistle a slightly different tune. I would like to praise both India's and Pakistan's cricket boards along with those of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh for the way the have come together and backed each other up over their alleged mistreatment by the International Cricket Council. It was a wonderful day when I heard that the Indian Cricket Board had announced that the Indian team would not visit New Zealand if that country declined to come to Pakistan for a rescheduled tour in April. The news made me feel good to be "South Asian", a rare feeling indeed. In spite of differences between both countries, the cricket boards of India and Pakistan have been exceptionally sensible and mature in recent days (note, the recent decision of India not to play Pakistan was made by the government, not the cricket board). In the past we have also seen both countries join forces on World Trade Organization matters, but this show of solidarity by the cricket boards is something that can be seen and felt directly by ordinary people. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the politicians of both countries could learn from this? Now the hockey boards of both countries have also decided to cooperate on a much higher level, so that hockey can be revived on the subcontinent. I wish India all the luck in the hockey World Cup in Malaysia, and hope that either India or Pakistan can bring the cup back to where it belongs - Asia. This does not have to be just about sports, this could indeed be a glimpse into the future of the subcontinent. Tafhim Kiani London, UK Kashif Hanif [see letter below] asserts that Pakistan had the "guts" to "stand up" to an "arrogant" India. This kind of justification for Pakistan's performance is based more upon emotive thinking rather than on a recognition of priorities. The debt/GDP ratio is 22.0 for India and 52.1 for Pakistan (for 2000, according to the World Bank's website). The writer also says that India has five times the resources of Pakistan. Does it then make sense for Pakistani governments to assert that Kashmir is the "life and death" issue for all Pakistanis? Does it make sense for Islamabad to agressively seek to match India's military strength every time India fires a rocket or bursts a firecracker? What should be a higher priority - spending more upon modern secular education or aiding anarchist groups which are creating a daily bloodbath in Kashmir under the guise of "holy war"? Rakesh Chandra India Sultan Shahin writes [Drubbing for Hindu fundamentalists, Feb 23] about certain "fundamentalist" policies that India's BJP government follows and that its "drubbing" in the Uttar Pradesh state polls has removed that mandate. As far as I know, the government is behaving as responsibly as can be expected. The Center has rebuffed the Vishwa Hindu Parishad [World Council of Hindus] on the Ayodhya temple issue and said the decision will be taken by the Supreme Court. It was reported that the prime minister even offered to resign over this issue. Large-scale privatization by the government and the reform process have brought hope to the slowing economy, and the opening up of major sectors has removed the government from all the shady deals we know occurred. So what are the fundamentalist polices that Shahin accuses the Indian government of following? Vasu Philadelphia, US "Indonesia stirs ethnic Chinese pot", [Feb 20] was an interesting read and drew attention to the ongoing discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. As Richel Langit says, ousted president "Gus Dur" Wahid, in his short span in office, had started to make good the wrongs of the past. Wahid's moves were from the heart. No one did more than him to foster openness and tolerance to people of other religions in his own country. While he was president he sustained the ethnic Chinese hopes of an end in sight to discrimination and fear. What he, like so many Indonesians, could not accept was the overbearing and critical attitude of Singapore towards its neighbor. Both sides, short of a real issue to quarrel over, have been quick to play the racist card. But by attacking the racial policies of predominantly Chinese Singapore, first B J Habibie and then Gus Dur were seen as giving a green light to right-wing and racialist elements within Indonesia to step up their verbal and physical attacks on the ethnic Chinese minority. On the other hand, Megawati is never going to get involved in such unseemly public spats. Her carefully cogitated moves are by now well known to have only a political dimension. Her declaration of Imlek [Lunar New Year] as a future national holiday, five days after this year's celebrations, is unlikely to impress any ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. They can cope with the discrimination, it's nothing new for them; what they fear most is a doomsday scenario brought nearer and nearer by this administration's uncaring attitude to the poor and impoverished, who are gradually forced into more despair and are scarcely able to see any future at all. [Letter shortened.] Bill Guerin Jakarta, Indonesia Tim Shorrock [Bush is still a neophyte, Feb 19] makes his points by confusing the issue. Like leaders of democratic countries around the world, US presidents are primarily domestic-issues oriented. Bread-and-butter issues trump foreign policy unless the survival of the nation is at stake. When that occurs, American presidents tend to be quick studies and generally understand (with the exception of Clinton) that decisiveness is more important than diplomatic finesse, which in the final analysis, is the last resort of the weak. Bush is no exception in this regard - he decided on a course of action in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power in just under three months. In East Asia, Bush needs to impress upon America's so-called allies that the US will not allow the ocurrence of another atrocity like September 11. His words are blunt because there can be no softening of the message. North Korea's exports of missile technology and China's exports of both missile and nuclear technology to America's enemies are simply their way of indirectly striking at America. North Korea and China have adopted the time-honored strategy encapsulated by the Chinese phrase jie dao sha ren - borrowing someone's knife to kill your enemy. This is not a completely novel strategy, but as applied to weapons of mass destruction, the consequences are incalculable. Bush has to send North Korea (publicly) and China (privately) a message that the United States will treat nuclear missiles from America's enemies as missiles from North Korea or China. They proliferate at the risk of retaliatory nuclear strikes from the US. Bush needs to counteract China's view that the US is a country in moral decline, and will not retaliate against limited nuclear strikes. Nuance would be quite dangerous in this situation. Clarity would significantly reduce the risks of Chinese miscalculation. And if America's "allies" find this undiplomatic and amateurish? They can certainly expel US troops from their soil. South Korea, always the most nominal of America's "allies", may find a unified Korea under the rule of Kim Jong-il more to its liking. Si Long Jersey City, New Jersey, US I've noticed that most letters I see here are people's reactions to other letters, as opposed to comments on a particular article or some other more original topic. So my suggestion is that maybe we should have a notice board for people to have a go at each other, and avoid long strings in the letters section. I'd also like to say that I really enjoyed the article by Ehsan Ahrari [Musharraf: A leader in search of a new category, Feb 19]. It's a shame how Pervez Musharraf has gone so far in his attempt to bring Pakistan back on track to become a "modern Islamic welfare state" (in accordance with Jinnah's vision), but hasn't been given due appreciation by the world community (and by due appreciation I don't mean cheap praise at various press conferences). We can see from what happened in Afghanistan that no country can live in isolation from the world and that the world community cannot afford to turn its back on people in need. Tafhim Kiani London, England There have been a number of letters drawing comparisons between the Pakistani and Indian economies. Pakistan is a country which has had the guts to stand up to an arrogant India (a country with five times more resources) and has ignored its economy in favor of developing military infastructure. Hence it's not surprising the economy is underdeveloped. But its a bit of a cheek for Indians who have left India for a better life to start talking about the Pakistani economy - it's like two beggars talking about who has more pennies. Kashif Hanif Islamabad, Pakistan In response to Si Long's letter [see below]: It is correct that partnership with the US or any other powerful state is not a ticket to all-round well-being, but is an advantage that could be used in a nation's larger plan for development. Pakistan chooses to externalize the blame for all its ills, with its jilted lover accusations of the US abandoning it after the Afghan-Soviet War. As long as India does not hitch its fortunes solely on Indo-US-friendship, there is no danger of it "ending up like Pakistan". Judging from the past strategic thinking, and from India's current situation, there seems to be little chance of this happening anyway. However, I do not agree with Si Long's contention that investment in science and technology is "quixotic". In fact, many cutting-edge technologies can be cost-effective and express solutions to the most basic problems in a developing society. As for defense expenditure, there can be no compromise. India has been forced into an arms race by nations such as China and the US, which have used a rabid Pakistan as a handle to contain India and threaten it. For a nation that has faced crushing external aggression in recent history, India is unlikely to take any chances on that front. Carl Clemens Congratulations on the three-part Japan series by Richard Hanson. It is thoughtful, well-reasoned and one of the clearest analyses of the confused Japan situation I have read in a long time. His writing is stylish, witty and informative, a joy to read. But then, I am not surprised. I have known and admired his work for years. John Roderick One of the writers [see letter below] suggests a plebiscite on Kashimir - no problem, the one and only condition is that there should be one in Baluchistan, one in Sindh and one in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan at the same time, giving the option to the people of these areas to become independent. After all, they all became part of Pakistan at the same time that Kashmir became part of India. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And, if you can have a plebisite in Kashimir then you can have one in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the whole of confederate territory in the US as well. [Letter shortened.] S V Ramani Sudha Ramachandran [Delhi lays down the welcome mat for Washington, Feb 14] quotes a former Indian ambassador to the US as saying the junior partners of the US end up like Pakistan. This is pretty absurd on the face of it - other junior partners include Canada, most of Western Europe, Israel, Japan, Taiwan and most of Southeast Asia. The lesson here is that a military alliance with the US will not solve the junior partner's self-inflicted economic problems. Each government has to take responsibility for the development of its own economy and address real issues such as (1) education, (2) barriers to business formation, (3) labor rules that benefit a minority of workers at the expense of the vast majority and (4) corruption, rather than waste money on quixotic ventures like nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and space programs. Si Long Jersey City, New Jersey, US Ong Teng Cheong, the first elected president of Singapore, who died of cancer on February 8, should be praised for his contribution to ordinary people in society. This is someone we could have well done with here in Britain. Mr Ong was a decent politician committed to the public interest and capable of addressing the needs and concerns of ordinary people. For someone in politics, it takes a rare and very special person to have so many turn up to pay their final respects. He was instrumental in initiating and developing one of the world's finest public transport systems, Singapore's underground railway. Its benefits have been immeasurable to Singapore society and the country itself. Mr Ong once wrote: "We live only once and we'll do our best in whatever we do and there's nothing really to worry about in this world if we make a honest living. I would leave behind a good record so that the family would be proud." Gavin Staples Cambridge, UK I read Asia Times Online almost every day. The reason I like the website is Francesco Sisci's enjoyable and intellectually fulfilling articles. I am always astounded that Sisci understands China so broadly and deeply: philosophy, religion, military ideas, economy, politics, literature - every aspect of Chinese civilization, past and present. I would like to know whether Sisci's Another China has been translated into Chinese. I hope so - it would make people in China really smart. Bing Xia (a dentist in the US, originally from China) The article Alarm bells ring over US overseas military spending [Feb 9] gave a good overview for most of new spending by the Bush administration on the military. However, it is far off base on the actual costs of the US military. Until 1984, military retirees' pay was taken off the top of the defense budget. At that time it was placed under US Code, Title 10, Sections 1,461-67 wherein the required annual funds are now placed in the Treasury each year and the retirees' pay comes out of the Treasury. Thus annual retiree pay, an emolument, does not appear as part of the defense budget. In addition, Congress and the administration have added a new of health care emolument for retirees over the age of 65. This raises the annual military costs significantly, by about 10 percent. Willard D Gray Your article Region uneasy about US troops in the Philippines [Feb 9] could almost serve as a propaganda piece for Cold War-era anti-US radicals. First, the title makes it seem as if Southeast Asian governments and peoples fear a soft invasion by US forces, yet you do not mention a single average citizen or government spokesperson, official or unofficial, which lambastes the US mission in the Philippines. A more appropriate title would have been "Two anti-US academics from Malaysia and Indonesia decry US war on terrorism as plot to take over Southeast Asia". Second, the Philippine government asked the United States for help in this matter. Third, a recent and respected poll taken in the Philippines asserts that 80 percent of the citizenry support US involvement in the fight against Abu Sayyaf. No one really believes the "US as a hegemonic power" angle. Tell us the global takeover plan that you have discovered from these objective contacts you have made. Don't leave us hanging, please. Jeff Virginia, US In respect of the figures quoted by Kamran Ali [see letter below], according to a very recent issue of the Economist, the per capita income of India is US$490. In respect of the per capita income of Pakistan, I draw Kamran Ali's attention to the article "Missing the Bus" by Benazir Bhutto in the Nation of December 20, 2001, wherein she states: "In real terms, the per capita income of the country fell from $475 in 1996 to $396 under the generals in 2001." Capt Naresh K Wadhera Surbiton, Surrey, UK This might be an overly generous generalization, but I do enjoy the variety and objectivity of your reporters. I will continue visit your site. Prof Jeremy A Ridl University of Natal Durban, South Africa In the Middle East, the idea that the Israeli government is nudge-winking the United States into conflict with Iran rings irrefutably true. In the putatively paranoid opinion of the Middle Eastern "street", a war with Iran will allow the Israelis to refocus attention away from their strangulation of the Palestinians and to continue their ceaseless disregard of human rights and international law. It also lets them bomb Iran's nuclear reactor, in a grander replay of Israel's bombing of Iraq's spanking new reactor in 1981. A showdown, first rhetorical then real, will benefit also the Bush clan by diluting the growing suspicion among so-far-assenting-Americans that there is something rotten in the White House, namely possible evidence of chronic and sweeping Enronitis in the administration. In short, messing with Iran can help Bush and Sharon postpone the day of public reckoning. But even if Bush and Sharon's politically leprous administrations desperately need some cosmetic refurbishing in the mirror of world opinion, fingering Iran won't help prettify their behavior. And if the off-the-cuff accusations, bullying and brinkmanship continue between Iran, Israel and the US, things may get even uglier than they are today. In fact, as an Iranian immigrant who knows a bit of both worlds, I wager that Iran may turn out to be more Moby Dick than this gaggle of Ahabs can chew. Babak Nahid Mount St Mary's College Los Angeles, California, US In response to Tafhim Kiani [see letter below]: Whenever someone mentions this "jilted lover" phrase regarding India-US relations, it sounds almost funny. Don't you understand that there cannot be and are no emotional bonds in international politics? India's only interest is curbing the ongoing proxy war. Indians hardly care about what other activities Pakistan is engaged in; whether it becomes a "frontline" state or a "super-frontline" state quite simply does not matter to India, in spite of the emotional colors you may give to the whole issue. You are missing a point: India is far from being the US, but India doesn't need to be one, because Pakistan is even further from being a Cold War-era USSR. Rakesh Chandra India This is a rebuttal of the letter from Kamran Ali [see below], who has questioned my statement that India is ahead of Pakistan on almost all human development indicators. I recommend Mr Ali looks at the latest UNDP figures. UNDP evaluates countries on more than 200 parameters to come up with a human development index. India ranks 115 while Pakistan ranks 127. The following numbers for 1999 will be of interest to Mr Ali: GDP per capita in US$ at purchasing power parity: India 2,248, Pakistan 1,834 , Human poverty index: India 55, Pakistan 65, female life expectancy India 63.3, Pakistan 59.5, male life expectancy India 62.4, Pakistan 59.8. Overall, India is ahead of Pakistan in 90 percent of the relevant parameters. Coming to Mr Ali's invitation, I never had the chance to visit Pakistan and will do so the moment the British Home Office lifts its travel warning to British citizens ("travel to Pakistan is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary as the country is politically unstable"). Finally, in response to Mr Ali's question about what social indicators have to do with self determination in Kashmir: If I were to choose between a military dictator who rules Pakistan and a dictorship from Delhi (the jury is still out on the Indian dictatorship bit, while nobody will claim that Gen Musharraf is an angel of democracy), I would choose the one who rules me better and improves my life. [Letter shortened.] Neil Sadopec London, UK In response to Kamran Ali's reponse to Neil Sadopec's suggestions: The fact is that India and Pakistan do not maintain parity in a lot of indices, with India clearly having at least a small edge in most of them. According to World Bank data: Population growth rate: India 1.8%, Pakistan 2.4% Illiteracy (males): India 32.2%, Pakistan 41.1% Illiteracy (females): India 55.55%, Pakistan 70.0% According to economist.com: GDP per capita (US$): India 472.0, Pakistan 461.0 (for year 2000) There are other things like democracy, freedom of expression, equal opportunities, etc, and it is obvious that India has a significant edge over Pakistan in these as well. Interestingly, the socio-economic indicators in Pakistan pretty much show a steady decline from the late '80s onwards. It is hardly a coincidence that this is the same period that saw the greatest religion-inspired terrorism by foreign militants in Kashmir. It is a fairly common knowledge that failed internal systems, combined with religious extremism, become breeding ground for terrorists. [Letter shortened.] Rakesh Chandra India US's double standards on terrorism in South Asia, [Feb 5] represents perfectly the "jilted lover syndrome" that India today suffers. The Indian government should have been mature and responsible enough to know that what America did in Afghanistan was justifiable only by the "Golden Rule" ie, he who has the gold makes the rules. I am not trying to criticize the Americans here, for that's a separate and much talked-about issue. But India should have known that America was able to do what it did because it's the richest and most powerful nation on Earth while Afghanistan is the poorest and most powerless one. Similarly, Israel can get away with it because the people of Palestine are a people with no home or power. But India is not the US and Pakistan is not Afghanistan: all this should not come as a shock to India. Tafhim Kiani With mounting frustration, I watch the Indian establishment being outmaneuvered at every turn. First the soothing noises by the Chinese premier while simultaneously fortifying Pakistan's air force. Now Musharraf striking a pious note about Kashmir. This from the dictator of an economically collapsed state. What keeps the Indian response from being deliberate and extremely precise? For example, what stops India from publicly supporting Tibet and other countries around China? How about sharing information with Taiwan? What stops India from non-recognition of the Partition that was mandated by an outside power, and claiming all of its former territory? How about openly developing the means to attack mainland China? A very clear, decisive strategy is the need of the hour. The great powers are now at our doorstep. There is no time for foolish mistakes. Narendra Kini The naivety of the suggestions put forward by Neil Sadopec [see letter below] is amazing. What human indices is he talking about? If he had done some research, he would have realized that Pakistan and India maintain parity with respect to most indices and in some instances Pakistan is most definitely better. A few examples: Life expectancy - Pakistan: 63 years (men), 65 years (women); India: 59 years (men), 60 years (women) Average annual income - Pakistan: $470; India: $440 Source: BBC world country profiles, available on the Internet. I would invite Mr Sadopec to visit Pakistan's cities and then Kolkata, known as the city of beggars, to see the difference between the two countries, before passing such sweeping remarks. The conditions of South Asians are nothing to brag about, but the standard of living of Pakistanis is better than that of their Indian counterparts. The issues of poverty are much more acute in India because of the sheer weight of its population. It has only been during the last decade, when our corrupt leaders bled this country dry, that Pakistan lost ground on the economic front. And may I ask, what have Pakistan's conditions got to do with Kashmir? Let's not mix the issues. Kashmir should have acceded to Pakistan the day it was born, being a Muslim majority state. [Letter shortened.] Kamran Ali I am curious. Did the editorial writer Give war a chance, [Feb 1] forget to include Ariel Sharon's Israel on the list of countries the US has rotten relationships with? I think I see a blind spot in Asia Times Online's field of view. May I suggest a journalistic view checkup, with particular attention to evenhandedness in identifying "evil"? Anooshirvan Ghazai San Francisco, California, US After watching President George W Bush's State of the Union address, I've come to one conclusion: only in America could a moronic speech like that get 40 standing ovations. While Americans are so patriotically fired up, the rest of us "non-terrorist" foreigners who live outside the US can only laugh. Why stop with the mere "axis of evil" thing? That's not macho enough for the cowboy from Texas. He should just invade the rest of the planet and get it over with. Yenny Lo Christchurch, New Zealand I live in the US and appreciate our free press. However, when I want the perspective of the international community, and to understand our actions in the context of world affairs, I go to your website. You provide clear and informed commentary with no political agenda. Keep it up. Mark Denzer Honolulu, Hawaii, US I'm sorry, but today's Editorial, Give war a chance [Feb 1] sucks. Bush today sees himself as the judge, jury and executioner and now we have responsible news services endorsing the view that morality itself is relative to America's self-righteousness. The Editor mentions the Gulf War, but Saddam's "oppressive" rule did not begin with that war. He was oppressive even with the full backing of the US government. But back then he wasn't considered "bad". He only became the incarnation of Satan himself when that was strategically beneficial to the US. Saddam oppressed the Kurds with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction long before the Gulf War. So in fact he is what he has always been and it's the rest of the world that has changed, in line with the US's strategic interests. The Editor talks about "rotten compromises"; does he think the US will exclude Russia and China from its alliance because of their human rights violations in Chechnya and Xinjiang respectively? And where does the Editor see Bush placing countries like Israel, India, and Egypt if they don't change their "oppressive" policies? Tafhim Kiani In response to Sameer Jad's letter [see below] about the Indo-Israeli defense deal: The writer claims that Israel's sale of defense equipment disturbs the "balance of power" in South Asia. Where were the writer's concerns about "balance of power" when Pakistan was buying weapons from China? Or when Pakistan had made it a state policy to nurture the atrocious Taliban to gain "strategic depth" against India? I suspect that in reponse to this, some may claim that the above examples "restored" the balance of power, in which case I would have one thing to say - it's a baseless and hypocritical argument. Every country has to think about its security and it is foolish to say some developments are "disturbing" the balance of power and others are "restoring" it. Rivalry is a vicious circle. [Letter shortened.] Rakesh Chandra India The two articles by Nadeem Malik US military seeks deeper roots in Pakistan, Jan 30 and Syed Saleem Shahzad US spies set up shop in Pakistan, Jan 30 were excellent and show the shifting influences in Asia. It is very worrisome how America is so open on the fact that it has no intention of leaving Pakistan in the near future, as if the government and people of Pakistan have no say in the matter. This is happening just as the Americans are discovering how the stationing of their troops in Saudi Arabia soured relations with that country. For no matter how friendly a government is to the US, no Islamic country can afford an American presence on its soil for the long run - the trust simply isn't there. Now, when Pakistan has once again stuck its neck out for America, with the government willing to take 10 steps for every one that Washington takes, why does America want to spoil all that? Isn't it better to have Pakistan, the only nuclear-capable Islamic country, as a "trusting friend" rather than as a suspicious client? [Letter shortened.] Tafhim Kiani London, UK As an amused (and sometimes alarmed) observer watching the proxy war that is going on in your letters column between Indians and Pakistanis, let me throw my hat into the ring with a few suggestions: 1. The Kashmir issue has to be resolved once and for all for the stability of the region and for the sake of the people of the region. 2. I understand that Kashmir has a Muslim majority, but has significant Hindu and Buddhist minorities which may not want anything to do with Pakistan. Also, I am told that Hindus are concentrated around Jammu, Buddhists in Ladak, and Muslims in the rest of Kashmir - so the three communities are concentrated in three distinct geographic regions. 3. There are major disparities between India and Pakistan when it comes to development - Pakistan is below India in almost all human development indices. Also, the longest stretch of democracy in Pakistan was from 1989 to 1999, while India has remained democratic since independence. I suggest that India and Pakistan agree to have a plebicite in the whole of Kashmir, on a regional basis, to decide whether a region should join either India or Pakistan or remain independent, within a reasonable time frame, say 15 years, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pakistan achieves parity with India on all predefined indices - say literacy, economic growth, life expectency, commitment to democracy, independence of judiciary, freedom of expression etc, within this 15-year period. 2. Pakistan demonstrates that it can function as a democracy without the periodic interference from the army and builds lasting democratic institutions. The army should relinquish power before 2003 and should not interfere at all in the affairs of goverment from then on. 3. India and Pakistan agree to abide by the results of the plebiscite, held under international observeration by the UN. 4. Once this deal is agreed, India pulls out troops from Kashmir immediately, Pakistan and Kashmiris renounce terrorism in all forms. If Pakistan catches up with India in the agreed time frame (which will definitely improve the life of Pakistanis, whether they get Kashmir or not) and if Kashmiris want to be part of Pakistan, so be it. If Pakistan cannot fulfil the pre-conditions, they have no locus standi to talk about rights of Kashmiris. Instead of an arms race, let these countries have a development race. Neil Sadopec London Thank you for bringing to your readers' attention the India-Kashmir-Pakistan situation [KASHMIR IN FOCUS]. The real problem of the region is the product of 53 years of occupation, oppression, and subjugation. The tormented people of divided Kashmir want India, Pakistan, and the world to keep their promises and commitments so they can decide their future freely, fairly without fear, as well protect their families, friends, and faiths. India labels the aspirations and plight of the people of Kashmir as "cross-border terrorism", but the people's genuine resistance to occupation and fight for freedom will not be denied or delayed. The Kashmir American Mission pleads for a serious, sustained, and substantial dialogue to address the basic and fundamental issue of self-determination for Kashmiris. Col Ali M Khajawall First Secretary: Kashmir American Mission Diamond Bar, California, US Pepe Escobar states [Pipelineistan Part 1, Jan 25] "Khalilzad was studying at the notoriously conservative University of Chicago when Afghanistan was invaded by the Red Army in December 1979." On the face of it, the University of Chicago is generally viewed as hard left; not far beneath the surface it is, in fact, Rockefeller-germinated globalist doctrinaire. Michael Levy Washington, DC, US In Pipelineistan Part 1 and Part 2, Pepe Escobar asserts that America's war in Afghanistan is about oil, not terrorism. But is it really just the Gulf War redux, with higher financial and geopolitical stakes, or is this another quaint conspiracy theory, like those hatched by the overactive imaginations that gave us "faked" lunar landings and the Mossad's attack on the World Trade Center? Let's look at Escobar's evidence. We are informed by Escobar that it is no coincidence that the "map of oil" nearly coincides with the "map of terror" in the Middle East and Central Asia. How that is more than coincidental is not explained. Escobar is privy to the "Pipelineistan" dreams of a number of powerful people in Washington. Somewhere there must be compelling evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between those dreams and the war in Afghanistan. Somewhere. But not in Parts 1 and 2. There's US$5 trillion to be made exploiting the oil and gas reserves in the Pipelineistan neighborhood; it will end America's dependence on OPEC, and help sate her ever-growing energy appetite. Aha! We have a motive! Now all we need is evidence linking motive and action. Quite a bit of technical fluff here about pipelines radiating in every direction, gazillions of gallons of crude oil and gas gushing every which way. That's all fine and good. But we're looking for hard evidence here. There were pre-September 11 plans to topple the Taliban. For oil and gas? Or because the Taliban were harboring Al-Qaeda, who were known to have been responsible for the attacks on the American embassies in Africa several years ago? Escobar is keeping the evidence connecting the military plans with the pipeline plans close to his vest. I would urge your readers to ask themselves whether or not America would have waged war in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks even if there were not one drop of oil or gas within 10,000 miles of Afghanistan. And what American administration would dare not to attack the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and instead face the violent wrath of the American people? [Letter shortened.] JS I have to admit, when I first started reading Asia Times Online, I thought Aidan Foster-Carter was pompous and ignorant of anything that had to do with Korea, let alone North Korea. But his article North Korea vs Japan: Ne'er the twain shall meet? [Jan 26] proves that, surprisingly, he really does understand the situation more than I thought. David Minho Rhee Boston, Massachusetts, US I have advice for Sameer Jad [see letters below]. I am an Indian Muslim. Thanks for your concern about us. But, I can assure him that Indian Muslims are not under any attack or facing discrimination. Yes, I agree there is communal tension. But the major religious parties had to tone down their initial rhetoric thanks to a mechanism called democracy. We Muslims enjoy as much freedom as others. Our people occupy top positions in both government and private companies. The head of India's missile development program until recently, Dr Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim too. He was the recipient of Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilan award. [Letter shortened.] Mehmood Hassan Cochin, India Pepe Escobar has hit another home run with his excellent article Pipelineistan: The rules of the game [Jan 25]. Escobar exposes what this phoney "war on terrorism" really is. I can't wait to read his next installment. Nikki Lee Hong Kong Corruption is a good thing and exposing it is an evil. India's Vajpayee government has demonstrated this by its persecution of tehelka.com's main investor, Shankar Sharma, and his wife, Devina Mehraand. [tehelka.com exposed corruption in Indian defense deals last year, which resulted in the resignation of Defense Minister George Fernandes. He was subsequently reinstated.] The Sharmas have been prevented from working, traveling abroad or living a normal life ever since last March when tehelka broke its story. They have faced 25 raids by income tax and enforcement departments, they have been dragged off an airplane they tried to abroad, their properties have been attached, and Shankar is now in jail on charges that do not usually warrant the denial of bail. Instead of punishing the guilty as the prime minister initially promised, his government is punishing one of the country's most brilliant young businesspeople for daring to invest in tehelka.com. Preeti Kaul Dubai, UAE The first Indian reaction to the Kolkata American Cultural Center incident ran according to the tired old script: Pakistan was behind the attack. However, this seemed more out of habit than conviction, since the circumstances surrounding the incident are still far from clear. Remember, India has miserably failed in the past to malign Pakistan with this type of knee-jerk accusation. It may be recalled that US Secretary of State Colin Powell, during his recent visit to Pakistan and India, warned his latter hosts to expect such "spoiler" attacks by elements that sought to heighten tensions and endanger peace between Pakistan and India. India should stop exploiting these individual acts of terrorism to settle its old scores with Pakistan under the banner of the US-led war against terrorism. None of these incidents will free India from its obligation of solving the Kashmir dispute according to the wishes of Kashmiri people. Saadia Liaqat Islamabad, Pakistan Twenty-nine villagers were gunned down and many were severely injured in India's northeastern state of Assam during the past two weeks. Officials said that the massacres were carried out by the outlawed National Democratic Front of Bodoland. The NDFB is fighting for an independent homeland. Since Assam is thousands of miles away from Pakistan, it will be hard for us to link these incidents to cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. New Delhi should take urgent steps to address the grievances of the separatist movements in different parts of India. Let us learn a lesson from the fate of the Soviet Union, which could not safeguard its territorial integrity despite its military might. The Soviet Union had collapsed, because its component states were kept within its fold by brute force. Indian secularism - Nehru's and Gandhi's founding vision of a state that doesn't favor any religious group over another - needs to be reintroduced in this great country which is unfortunately heading towards Hindu militancy. Ravi Krishna Manama, Bahrain Effective September 11, 2001, organized religious zealots kicked America in the face and forced it to assume a similar role that imperial Japan forced on us 60 years ago. The atrocities committed by the zealots on September 11 thrust America into the unenviable role of being a victim that must retaliate or continue to be brutalized. Fortunately, our leaders recognized that the terrorists wanted us to "overreact" and wage indiscriminate war on all Muslims. Paradoxically, regardless of America's reactions to the murder and destruction perpetrated by the aforementioned fanatics, biased opinions would find fault with any American retaliatory action. Generally, I have found that younger Americans accept that the world was changed for them on September 11, as it was for my parents 60 years ago. Given a fair chance, I think the young people across the world who have not been brainwashed to despise everything that is foreign accept that American ideals are not all bad. Recognizing, of course, that ideals are implemented by people, and people have opinions that always seem to foul up good intentions. Consequently, all we can do, I believe, is keep trying and hope for the best. It appears that the diverse opinions published on this site reflect some of the "best and brightest" in the world. I applaud you. Larry W Holloway Santa Barbara, California, US The articles by Syed Saleem Shahzad [Iran takes center stage, Jan 22] and N Janardhan [Cracks widen in Saudi-US friendship, Jan 23] were very interesting indeed. In the post-September 11 world, no doubt there will be unprecedented and quick-time changes in foreign policies all over the world. And I think that if the Islamic countries can put aside their differences for a while and form an alliance (not necessarily against any other country), they can all gain huge benefits. In particular, an alliance and broader cooperation between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan is long overdue. We can no longer fight among ourselves and in the meantime expect other nations to work for our strategic interests. Maybe, if anything were to come out of "the war against terrorism" it would be the strengthening of relations between these three countries in particular and all Islamic countries in general. As Samuel Huntington suggested, one of the main problems facing the Islamic world today is the lack of a "core state". Even though no country at the moment is in a position to fill that void, an alliance between Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would go a long way. In order for the 1 billion Muslims world-wide to have any kind of voice, they must first of all work towards resolving their own grievances and strengthening the Organization of Islamic Countries. Maybe then we would see an end to terrorism in all forms, including state terrorism. Tafhim Kiani London, England Interesting article [Why Beijing is not bugged by bugs, Jan 22] by Francesco Sisci. Planting bugs on the Chinese president's plane is the most idiotic thing the CIA (or whoever was responsible) could do. Did they think they could pull it off? The most amusing thing is that there were bugs in the toilet and bedroom. Perhaps next time President Jiang Zemin will buy an Airbus instead of a Boeing. I'm sure the Europeans are very interested in his bowel movements and bedroom activities, but they aren't dumb enough to plant bugs on his plane. Nikki Lee Hong Kong Even though I don't agree with many American foreign policy matters, I tend to accept it as only natural that, as Pepe Escobar expresses it, "We are the (United States') world" [Jan 16]. Like it or not, America is the sole supreme earthly power, and it is only natural for a country so superior to all others to think of the world relative to itself. Being a Muslim, I prefer to look at the troubles of the Islamic world first. I think it wiser to look at ourselves before pointing a finger of blame at someone else. For even when America was not so great, we had more or less the same problems. We had England as the superpower - but still we cannot possibly put all the blame for our own misfortune on England. Our downfall started rather earlier, due to our own arrogance, pride, and diversion from the path set for us by the holy Koran and the example of the Prophet. As for America, I think that despite all it's arrogance and pride, it is still much, much better than any other country could or would be in the same situation. Nations become great with hard work and a spirit to achieve something, and indeed America has struggled hard to get where it is today (as did the British, the Russians, and Muslims too in their time), but it has always been arrogance that starts the downward spiral. So one day, maybe some other power will take America's place. But in the meantime, we should try harder to look at our own shortcomings and faults rather than blaming everything on America or the West. For I can't see a single country that deserves to be in America's place. Which Islamic state would we rather have as the superpower today? Or would we rather have seen the USSR come out of the Cold War victorious? Or would we rather have China, Japan, Germany, or England as the superpower? I think that in spite of its faults, America is doing no worse than any other country would have done in its place. Having said that, I loved Pepe's article and think he would find it amusing that most of the fuming protest about it comes from Americans, who live in a world of their own. Tafhim Kiani London, England I take it from Pepe Escobar's We are the (United States') world [Jan 16] that the weird psychoses of Europe's "thinking elite" are now more newsworthy than events in Afghanistan. Odd that such thoughtful elites are howling like wounded wolves in the aftermath of Afghan joy at their release from Taliban hell. How Escobar and his elite soulmates must have writhed in agony at the scenes of Afghan youth buying kites for the first time in their lives, at the overjoyed Hazaras who no longer fear another genocidal Taliban rampage through Mazar-e-Sharif, at the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who can now, finally, be fed, all thanks to American "ballistic fury" (to quote Escobar's hyperbole.) In Elite Escobar's upside-down world, to be free to sing and dance, to practice Shi'ism or Sufism without being executed, is to be "suffocated". According to Escobar's moral math, the deaths of several thousand Afghan civilians in the American bombing of the Taliban are more important than the untold tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Taliban during their reign, and the further hundreds of thousands who probably would have died of starvation due to the Taliban's refusal to allow aid agencies to operate freely. Escobar somehow concocts the fantastic notion that America only knows bombs, and only attacks the symptoms, not the causes of Islamic terrorism. Wahhabi madrassas are being shut down or reformed throughout Pakistan as I write this. American pressure is being brought to bear on Saudi connivance in the vast, pernicious Wahhabi madrassa system. The pundits and elites have it wrong (as usual); the American and European working-stiff has it right - Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalists aren't giving Islam a bad name, mainstream Muslims are giving Islam a bad name by their childlike insistence on blaming everyone else for their problems except themselves. The answer to the pervasive ignorance, miseducation, despotism, and poverty in the Islamic world is secular education, secular government, and a free press. Until these three pillars of free society are in place, the Islamic world will continue to be a danger to itself and to the rest of the world. And until mainstream Muslims speak out against Muslim-against-Muslim slaughter throughout the world, who can take seriously their anger at Amerian support for Israel - a hypocritically righteous anger that would disappear like dust in the wind if the Palestinians happened not to be Muslim? [Letter shortened.] JS Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres's recent visit to India reflects Israel's worries over its security, particularly its fear of Pakistani nuclear weapons, whose missile range exceeds 2,500 kilometers and could reach Israel. Israel has been trying for years to destroy these weapons or even seize them, as it did previously with its destruction of Iraqi nuclear installations. Israel will thus pressure India and try to prevent any close ties between India and Pakistan till the issue of Pakistan's nuclear strength is solved. Since the BJP came to power, India has concluded several military agreements with Israel, and the recent unprecedented supply of state-of-the art military equipment like AWACS has disturbed the balance of power. Israel's entrance into South Asia on India's shoulders is to the detriment of peace, security and stability in the region. Sameer Jad Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia In response to Ishtiaq Ahmed [see letter below]: "India, as always, will oppose any mediation, fearing its insincerity being exposed." I would like to remind the writer that India and Pakistan had signed an agreement which states that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally. So why are Pakistanis blaming India for not wanting a mediator? And where was "sincerity" on the part of Pakistan when Vajpayee's Lahore peace trip was matched by Pakistan's Kargil incursion? "But it is about time the US and the rest of the world stopped being blackmailed by India." Blackmailed? How? It is Pakistan in which certain sectors were busy feeding extremists and mercenaries for the past two decades, and using them to fight a proxy war against India in Kashmir. It is amply clear who the real blackmailer is. Rakesh Chandra India A massive mobilization drive has been launched by India's Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an affiliate of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, to acquire Babri Mosque land to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. With the prospect of an Indo-Pakistan war fading, the BJP is looking for an equally emotive issue as an election card. Only an emotive campaign can keep the BJP afloat in Uttar Pradesh, as the state government headed by the BJP has performed dismally. Salman Khan Dammam, Saudi Arabia I really enjoyed and agreed with Uwe Parpart's Musharraf: Can this man change Pakistan? [Jan 18]. I think if Allah gives him the time to do what he has set out to do, his name will go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of not only Pakistan, but the world at large. Some 30 years ago a UK-based newspaper said that "Pakistan is one of the few fortunate countries of the world which has had two great leaders within half a century" - namely Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. And I think nature has now been particularly kind to have given us a third leader in Musharraf. As a politician (something he has had to become even though he may despise the idea himself), he ranks higher than any other Pakistan has ever had, bar Jinnah - although his honest and straightforward approach very much resembles that of the founding father - and Bhutto. One thing I must add is that when Musharraf talks about a progressive and modern Islamic welfare state, he does not mean a secular state. Even if he wanted and thought it wise to turn Pakistan into a secular state, it's simply not possible. Pakistan is not Turkey. [Letter shortened.] Tafhim Kiani London, England US Secretary of State Colin Powell is in Islamabad with the aim of de-escalating tension between Pakistan and India. It is about time that the US administration - using its enormous international clout - became proactive in South Asia, particularly over Kashmir. Kashmir is a potential nuclear flashpoint. How can the US help defuse the current stand-off, or assist Pakistan and India to end their conflicts? The best way is not through emergency trips such as the present one by Powell to Islamabad and Delhi. At both places, he may end up making some tactful statements meant to avoid annoying either country, and then he will go back to Washington to issue follow-up remarks. That's it. Such a makeshift US outlook on South Asia, especially towards its most dangerous conflict of Kashmir, will never succeed. Washington needs to chalk out a strategy for the purpose, an essential component of which could be the appointment of a US envoy for the Kashmir dispute. India, as always, will oppose any mediation, fearing its insincerity being exposed, but it is about time the US and the rest of the world, stopped being blackmailed by India. [Letter shortened.] Ishtiaq Ahmad Islamabad, Pakistan The situation in the Kashmir region is very grave. The fuse is short, and a minor event could escalate into widespread deprivation, destruction, and the death of scores of innocent people. The Kashmir American Mission humbly pleads for wisdom, vision, and selflessness on the part of Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders, to move away from war and concentrate of de-escalation, confidence building, and reconciliation. [Letter shortened.] Col Ali M Khajawall First Secretary: Kashmir American Mission Diamond Bar, California, US It's not Escobar's facts that concern me [We are the (United States') world, Jan 16]. It's his anti-American sentiment through which they are filtered. Tell me Mr Escobar, how did the United States reach this idea of a "New American Order"? America did not want the role of the world's policeman. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the rise of Nazism and communism, we would probably not be having this discussion at all. It is the rise of fundamentalist religions (communism and Nazism were - are still - religions as well) that prompted the US to build hedges against these types of movements through both military and economic ties to a host of regions. That has (and unfortunately so) left a lot of people out in cold. Let's however take a look at exactly who was left out. These are the same countries that have spent their time bickering since the beginning of history over religious differences (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc Sum with a host of others thrown in). Only those who have managed to put aside those differences (both internally and externally) have enjoyed peace and prosperity. The same pattern has been repeated over and over again throughout history. You on the other hand rip America for building these hedges and continue to write agitprop under the very protection that would not exist if not for the US and its fight against these movements for the past 75 years. Go ahead and speak freely, but speak constructively, gratefully, and intelligently. Jody Barr Concordia International School Shanghai, China Regarding Pepe Escobar's column We are the (United States') world [Jan 16], a number of his points are in error. Escobar says, "The ruthless precepts of the New American Order are very clear - and were already enunciated even as the Bush II term started. We don't give a damn about the international community." We do give a damn. We just don't take orders from them. He continues, "We don't even give a damn about NATO - as long as it follows our orders." We do give a damn about NATO. But we don't take orders from them either. He continues, "We - and no other international bodies - define our priorities." This is true. It is also a truism. He continues, "This means that Washington is not bound to respect any treaties whatsoever." Stuff and nonsense. We honor the treaties to which we are a party, because the US Senate has advised and consented to those treaties. He continues, "This means that America decides - and the rest of the world complies or sulks." You got that right, Pepe. Escobar then draws a parallel between Guernica and Afghan villages. More nonsense. In 1936, Spain did not attack Germany. In 2001, Afghanistan, through its agents in the Al-Qaeda, did declare war upon and subsequently attack the United States. If Escobar sees no moral distinction between the attacker and the attacked, then there is no such thing as morality in Escobar's mind, and he should simply accept all homicidal violence everywhere as just an amoral expression of human exuberance and the joy of killing. [Letter shortened.] Donald C Leamy Newton, Massachusetts, US I've just read the article We are the (United States') world [Jan 16]. I see it was written by a writer from a third-rate nation who obviously has eaten a large amount of sour grapes. Envy rides rampant through his tirade. How convenient it is for him to point fingers and write accusations over actions set in motion by the very embodiment of evil, Al-Qaeda. MP Your letters page is very interesting. I find the cyber-war between supporters of India and Pakistan quite illuminating. I am a Muslim Indian living in the US. I am taken aback at what the Pakistani letter writers are doing to Muslims in India. They are a large community under no particular threat from the Indian state. They are generally free to take part in all activities that any citizen of the country participates in. Muslim Indians can be found at the top in every sphere. Of course, there is occasional discrimination, but I find that in the US as well. In fact, Pakistanis, in their eagerness to "help" Muslim Indians, are hurting them. Just as Muslims are viewed with suspicion in the US now, every act of terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistanis affects them. To take a leaf out of Musharraf's book, this Indian would like to say to all these Pakistanis: "Lay off!" We can fight our battles: we don't need you to speak on our behalf. We want no part of your territorial ambitions; we just want to be left in peace in our own country. Ijaz Ahmed Fremont, California, US In response to Sameer Jad's letter [see below]: The writer says that: "The Indian economy will be crippled if the Arab countries enforce an oil embargo, ban Indian goods and expel Indian contract labor." In a world that has been fast globalizing and becoming increasingly economically interdependent, such drastic action will likely incur future harm to the economic interests of those who take it. Arab countries hardly have general socio-economic health like that of the developed West and consequently cannot easily implement such strong measures, especially when there is no outright hostility against the target country. Secondly, from what I gather, Indian goods and Indian contract labor in the Middle East are not terribly significant contributors to the Indian economy (I am willing to learn more about this if you offer legitimate economic statistics which show otherwise). As far as oil goes, buyer and seller relations are based upon mutual benefits and are pretty much symbiotic in most cases. The writer seems to have forgotten about this, in his zeal for advocating arm-twisting measures. "Also, you must know that Pakistanis, Arabs and Afghans living in America are US citizens and can't be expelled for some individual terror actions. But the Indians working in Arab countries are contract labor and may be asked to go home due to India's deliberate state policy of making a best friend out of the Arabs' foe." This is a seriously flawed argument. India has traditionally been friendly to Arab countries, and continues to be so. In today's world, everything is governed by specific interests, and it would be a serious mistake to assume that just because India is interested in purchasing defense equipment from Israel, India is inimical to Arabs. Such insinuations are a result of seeing the whole world in black and white, Arabs vs non-Arabs. [Letter shortened.] Rakesh Chandra India General Musharaff has told New Delhi that he needs proof before taking action against the 20 terrorists named in India's list. This list includes a Pakistani named Azhar who was released in exchange for the passengers of a hijacked Indian Airlines plane. This list also includes the five hijackers themselves. I fail to understand what other proof Musharraf needs that these six gentlemen were involved in acts of terrorism against India. Sarabjit Singh Bombay, India India in a dilemma [Jan 15] is a poor analysis of the Kashmir conflict. America has time and again gone to Pakistan and not India in dealing with South Asia. Pakistan has always delivered, but India has played a game beyond its capacity. The US will take time, but in the end India will be told what to do by America and these childish games of border escalation will be brought under firm US control. Kashmir will be resolved and America will mediate, no question about that. K Ahmad London, UK You make a justification on your letters page for your decision to include India and Pakistan in a single section on your website. [See Editor's note in response to Krishenkanth Suryakanth's letter below]. However, you are inconsistent. If you include Taiwan along with China, why don't you label that section China/Taiwan, to be consistent with India/Pakistan? Furthermore, you are wrong to believe that Japan, China and Korea are Asia's three most important economies. In terms of GDP, India's economy is bigger than Korea's, and in terms of purchasing-power party, India ranks higher than Germany and is in the top five in the world. I think you might be guilty of underestimating India as an economic power. [Letter shortened.] Rajeev Srinivasan Stanford, California, US Bhuchung Tsering's letter [see below] mentioned the Tibet factor in China-India ties. The truth is there is no Tibet factor at all. When Zhu Rongji and Atal Bihari Vajpayee met they did not even mention Tibet, no matter how loudly those Tibet protesters were chanting. The Dalai Lama and his supporters should know that their begging for Western support all these years has produced nothing concrete for their cause. It's purely symbolism over substance. Mingling with Hollywood stars and Western politicians can get you free propaganda but it won't advance the cause of Tibetan separatism. The Chinese people are united (save for a few independence supporters in Taiwan), and will never let a foreign country carve Tibet out of China. If the Dalai Lama continues to be a part of the anti-China/contain-China team, he can forget about a dialogue. Phil Tong Canada I enjoyed your news site after walking into it accidentally. Keep up your credibility by being politically neutral on every issue. NP I have investigated many news and opinion sources, but none comes close to Asia Times Online for its wide-ranging and to-the-point approach to news and situations. I randomly found your site while searching for other international news sources, and I now have one wish - export your stories to America! Too often we fall under the one-sided views given by our news networks like CNN. Yes, it's interesting to hear about the latest bombings in Afghanistan, but it's always been strangely incomplete without the true effects it has on the rest of Asia. Seeing Washington's duplicity from your varied sources gives me a new respect for the difficulty of government as well as the resolve to change as much as I can in this country for the better. I will recommend your site to all my friends. Thank you for your service to mankind. Scott Schwemin Mobile, US I liked the recent article We are the (United States') world [Jan 16] by Pepe Escobar. I'm writing to point out or to clarify that David Lynch is a Canadian. I realize that the article never claimed he was not, but the reader unfamiliar with the artist could gain the mistaken impression that he is an American. David Henderson Pepe: Regarding your Jan 16 "Roving Eye" [We are the (United States') world]: What have you been smoking since coming out of Afghanistan? CZ Syed Saleem Shahzad's article Musharraf draws flak from Arab world [Jan 16] brilliantly underlines the struggle Pakistan and the Muslim world are facing against the Zionist lobby's influence on the United States administration. Asgar In the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, India has always put the blame on Pakistan for everything. Instead of working with Pakistan and being part of the solution, India's energies are expended on trying to maintain the status quo. The best example of this is its charge of terrorism in Kashmir and blaming groups in Pakistan. Now that Pakistan is taking strong action against these groups, why does India not work with Pakistan in trying to solve the root cause of the problem? Since Pakistan has begun the arrest of people associated with various groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, how about India doing the same by arresting and putting on trial its security forces personnel for human rights abuses? [Letter shortened.] Jay Metha Rakesh Chandra [see letter below], you are wrong in assuming that srengthening ties with Israel at the cost of Arab resentment will not harm the Indian economy. The Indian economy will be crippled if the Arab countries enforce an oil embargo, ban Indian goods and expel Indian contract labor. Also, you must know that Pakistanis, Arabs and Afghans living in America are US citizens and can't be expelled for some individual terror actions. But the Indians working in Arab countries are contract labor and may be asked to go home due to India's deliberate state policy of making a best friend out of the Arabs' foe. Such a decision by Arab countries would not be based on ethnic bias, but purely on national interest. [Letter shortened.] Sameer Jad Indian-held Kashmir The article by Nadeem Iqbal, Hiding behind a nuclear cloud, [Jan 11] makes for interesting reading. What worries me most about Pakistan is its fundamental instability in governance - it is never clear who is in charge of the armed forces and who the armed forces listen to. To talk about a nuclear doctrine that everyone in Pakistan will abide by is unrealistic. It is my opinion that a country that ungovernable does not deserve to retain nuclear weapons, for their use almost surely will be spontaneous and catastrophic. And I doubt very much that India has any territorial interest in Pakistan - this talk of using nuclear weapons to save the nation is ill-founded. A more apt title for the article would be "Hiding behind a dark nuclear cloud with no silver lining". R Jagannathan Pakistani President Musharraf's Saturday speech was the best he could make under the circumstances. He gave India a firm warning - stay out, or you will be dealt with with an iron hand. His stand on Kashmir is fully justified, as is his proposal that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations be allowed in Kashmir to stop India's abuses. UN peace-keeping forces should be posted to expose India's crying wolf about cross-border terrorism. Musharraf has banned jihadi outfits in Pakistan to show the world that the Kashmiris are fighting their own war of independence. Lashkar-e-Toiba was no doubt supporting the Kashmiri struggle by sending volunteer fighters, but the Kashmir movement is indigenous, and its struggle will continue until liberation. Saadia Liaqat Islamabad Indian Home Minister L K Advani said in Washington that India, backed by a broad national consensus, would oppose any American effort to mediate in the Kashmir issue. At the same time, India has credited the Bush administration with exerting pressure on Pakistan to abandon terrorism. It appears that each time something goes wrong between India and Pakistan, we have to go and lodge an FIR (First Information Report) with the US and expect them to exert pressure on Pakistan. But we reject America's offer of mediation to solve our bilateral issues. So what are the moral grounds for asking the US to flex its muscles to blackmail Pakistan in the name of terrorism? The time has come for third-party mediation. Let us hope that US Secretary of State Colin Powell's coming visit to both countries starts a process towards eternal peace in South Asia. [Letter shortened.] Sameer Jad Indian-held Kashmir In response to Sameer Jad's letter [see below]: "There are thousands of Indian workers gainfully employed in the Arab countries, who are an important source of sustenance for the Indian economy. A threat to expel the Indian workers will certainly force the Indian government to have a fresh look at its pro-Israel policies." The letter smacks of ethnic and national prejudices. The assertion that the Indian workers in Arab countries are an "important source of sustenance" for the Indian economy is incorrect - the Indian economy is not as flimsy as the writer thinks. As regards threatening to expel the Indian workers, I want to ask the writer this: Why shouldn't Arabs, Afghanis, and Pakistanis be asked to leave the US, UK and Europe after the September 11 attacks? Why shouldn't overseas Pakistanis not be interrogated and held in custody because of Pakistan's direct support for the atrocious Taleban? How about expelling the royal family from Saudi Arabia for being a US partner in the war against terrorism? If these steps are taken, I bet people like the writer would be the first to start screaming about maltreatment based upon ethnicity. [Letter shortened.] Rakesh Chandra India I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read Sultan Shahin's piece on Indian-Israeli ties [Jan 12]. He wrote, "Obviously, it is this lurch towards right-wing Hindu extremism in Indian politics and its acceptance by former liberal and secular politicians of India that is also paving the way for a closer strategic relationship with Israel at the cost of India's traditional relationship with Arab and Muslim countries." Lurch towards right-wing Hindu extremism? And this is worse than Islamic terrorism? And when were Arab countries really friendly towards India? In any conflict between India and Pakistan they have consistently sided with Pakistan. And all they have done at other times is to foment religious tension by funding terrorists in India. Not one Arab country can be trusted. And now we hear than Iran will support Pakistan against India. So much for all the bhai-bhai [brotherhood] talk. Murli Nagasundaram Boise, Idaho, US A Machiavellian dictum suggests that one good way to consolidate one's rule is to do the following: first frighten the population with the worst that could happen, then proceed not to let that materialize. The population then will heave a sigh of relief and praise your "capabilities" and "statesmanship". This precisely is Atal Bihari Vajpayee's methodology. Following the December 13 attack on India's Parliament, he thundered about a war to the finish. The saffron brigade went to town whipping up war hysteria. Some Hindu leaders went to the extent of urging a nuclear war to wipe out Pakistan. Then on the New Year's Day Vajpayee struck a tone of restraint and spoke of diplomatic efforts. Praises are once again being sung about his "moderation". Machiavelli must be proud to have such a sincere disciple, so many centuries later. Ravi Krishna Bahrain I would echo Krishenkanth Suryakanth's call [see letter below] that you kindly disaggregate India/Pakistan on your website. I concur with his rationale and would also emphasize that it minimizes the international presence that India has as the largest functional democracy and a fast-emerging economic player in the global economy. While I appreciate your editorial note that some of the East Asian nations warrant being identified separately, it seems to me that a similar rationale could be employed with respect to India. I would only note India's prominent presence in global information technology as a case in point, and on how fast the global economic landscape has been transformed by India/Indians. In this respect, perhaps you will see that the links existing between the Indian economy and the larger global economy are quite significant; albeit qualitatively different from the ways in which Korea or China may be important. Sunil The letter by Krishenkanth Suryakanth [see below] is typical of how many of our underdeveloped countries never seem to get themselves out of the rut they find themselves in. Why can't we learn from Europe, where centuries-old rivals are coming closer together by the day? We just sit and argue over who's better than whom. How ironic if now the Asia Times Online section changes from "India/Pakistan" to "South Asia"! I for one (if given the chance to vote), would prefer to keep things as they are. But I guess if it does change, people from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan would be the last to complain. As for India and Pakistan, well maybe it serves us right. What I would like to add though, is that I really do appreciate the services offered by Asia Times Online, and during the Christmas/New Year break I found out how hard it is for me to live with out it from day to day. I think what would be really good is a section (something like "About Us") that tells us more about this amazing service. Tafhim Kiani London, England Addressing a press conference after his talks with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Israel would stand by India in case of a war with Pakistan. He also hinted that a deal to sell state-of-the-art Phalcon airborne early warning and control systems (AWACS) to New Delhi could materialize in the near future. Reports also speak of the presence of about 10,000 Israeli advisors and experts in various fields in India, with a sizeable number of them based in Kashmir to train Indian troops. Peres's offer of support to India is no surprise, because New Delhi and Tel Aviv are pursuing a common agenda against Muslims. His visit to New Delhi has, however, evoked sharp criticism from Iran, whose deputy foreign minister has called upon the Muslim nations to resist Indo-Israeli collusion, the only target of which is the Muslim Ummah [community]. It is imperative to dismantle the collusion for the sake of Ummah's future. There are thousands of Indian workers gainfully employed in the Arab countries, who are an important source of sustenance for the Indian economy. A threat to expel the Indian workers will certainly force the Indian government to have a fresh look at its pro-Israel policies. Sameer Jad Al-Khobar , Saudi Arabia Francesco Sisci seems to have totally neglected the Tibet factor in the Sino-Indian relationship Zhu's Delhi visit: a chance for peace, Jan 11. Indian leaders since Jawaharlal Nehru have come to accept the fact that without a resolution of the Tibetan problem there can be no normal ties, whether economic, political or other, between India and China. However, this reality is not being spelt out publicly by either country. The sooner China accepts the fact that without looking at the situation in Tibet, it cannot hope to convince India of its sincerity, the better it will be in terms of a chance for peace in the region. It will be interesting to see if India takes up the call of the Dalai Lama, made just a few days ago, for India to take a more active role in the resolution of the Tibetan issue. India has a strategic interest in Tibet but the challenge is whether India is able to make the Chinese realize this and act accordingly. Bhuchung Tsering Washington, DC, US I would like to bring to your attention the offense you have caused many Indian readers by putting India and Pakistan into one section on your website. India is a huge nation and as the largest democracy in the world and the second largest nation in Asia, I do not consider it asking too much for you to assign a seperate section for India as you have for China. I understand that many articles that are reported involve both nations. However, I do not see you putting China and Taiwan together, even though many articles about China relate to the dispute with Taiwan. India and Pakistan are seperate entities and we have many issues to report that have nothing to do with Pakistan. Therefore, I request on behalf of all your Indian readers that you create an India section, and I assure you that this will increase your India audience. Krishenkanth Suryakanth [Editor's note: The India/Pakistan section was originally called "South Asia", but it seemed many readers were unfamiliar with that term for the region. The section did, and still does, include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Perhaps it is time to return to "South Asia", in line with our other regional divisions, "Southeast Asia", "Central Asia", and "Oceania". We believe that Japan, China (including Taiwan for our purposes), and Korea, as Asia's three most important economies, warrant separate sections.] One of the biggest issues the West, from the early days, had with the Taliban was that they were, allegedly drug dealers, even though United Nations and United States teams confirmed that the Taliban had actually wiped out poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in a single year. But that's a separate issue now because the Taliban government is nothing but history. What's rather strange is the British government's response to the question that, now there is a "West-friendly" government in Kabul, wouldn't this be the best time to deal with the Afghan drug problem once and for all? There may indeed never be a better opportunity to root out the cultivation of poppies in Afghanistan. But what's the British government's reponse? It actually went and said "No" - eliminating poppy cultivation from Afghanistan would not necessarily eliminate the drug supply to Europe. So now that something can actually be done about the problem, rather than pointing fingers at foreign governments, we are told "Leave it." Would someone please tell me what's going on here? Tafhim Kiani There are some brutal people sending letters to your website. I'm writing in response to "Boom", the cowardly American who claimed that if he or she were president he/she would have nuked both Iraq and Afghanistan [see letter below]. I'm actually writing to congratulate Boom because he/she has surpassed the world record holder for mass murder, everybody's favorite, Joseph Stalin (unfortunately Mao Zedong's numbers don't count because many of those deaths were the result of stupidity rather than murder). The "nuking" of those two countries would result in 42 million deaths. Of course, we must not forget that according to Christianity, the main religion in the United States, desiring to commit an act and doing it are the same thing. At least you could have been a little braver and signed your name, Mr or Ms Boom. Dave Henderson PS: You would have to use more than one ICBM to nuke a country the size of Afghanistan. Francesco Sisci, I'm afraid that sometimes you just talk utter fiction. The day India and China get together against Islam [The key to Asian stability, Jan 9] will be the day pigs fly. But even if they do get together against Islam (or "Islamic fundamentalism", as it's more politically correct to say), Islam will target them as the enemy to survive. For survive it must, just as it has survived impossible odds in the past. With India's track record in Kashmir, and China's handling of Xinjiang, both countries have among the worst human right records in the world, and in both cases the victims are Muslims. All we need now is for Israel and Russia to join in. So who, may I ask, is a threat to whom? But, being a Muslim, I hope what you say really does come true, because not so long ago Islam was a spent force. History teaches us that Islam has always come out stronger when it's most vulnerable. Tafhim Kiani Sisci's article The isolation of India, [Jan 8] lacks historical perspective. The assumption that in the event of war Indian society would degenerate into a non-secular country is not only arrogant and presumptious, but flies in the face of well-researched journalism. Sandip Kushwaha Calgary Canada I commend Rajeev Srinivasan on his letter [see below]. As a secular democratic nation, India has in fact fought hard to preserve/protect legitimate minority rights. As he rightly points out, currently Muslims in India obviously "are free to go [to Pakistan] if they want to, but nobody does go these days". Perhaps this is a reflection of the fact, as he states, that "Pakistan itself has a high probability of falling apart" (?). For Namoos Zaheer [see letter below] to suggest that because the self-appointed president, Pervez Musharraf, is a Mohajir it follows that these folks are not persecuted in Pakistan, is like saying that because Colin Powell can rise to Secretary of State it follows that there is no racism in the US. Sunil The present campaign against trauma, terror, and terrorism will not fail. But it is also critical that it should not degenerate into a campaign for the defense of tyrannies and illegal military occupations, oppression, and subjugation. India should not and will not be allowed to deceive the world, to deprive the people of Kashmir of their promised right to choose their future freely and fairly. The world knows that the struggle of the people of Kashmir for the restoration of their rights, clearly recognized by the United Nations, is in essence a non-violent struggle. Any incursion into this struggle by unsavory elements does not change its character and aim. India's saber-rattling at this delicate moment is indicative of its design to divert international attention from the realities of the Kashmir dispute and the principles of a healthy and viable international order. [Letter shortened.] Colonel Ali M Khajawall First Secretary, Kashmir American Council California, US I am very sorry to see the article The reformist road, trod with care [Jan 3] published on your website. Having friends who practice Falungong, I can ensure you that what is stated in the article is not true. Because of the spiritual aspect of the practice, namely the belief in god, this group is labeled "superstitious" and "cult" in China, and persecuted by the government. To my understanding, it's not Falungong that brings problems to society but the government, because it has made up an excuse to persecute innocent Chinese people just to hold onto power and control people's hearts and souls. Yet this article is trying to help spread lies and mislead readers. Don't you see that this will ruin your reputation? [Letter shortened.] Hua I enjoy reading Francesco Sisci's articles. His writings about China are some of the best I've read. His article The isolation of India [Jan 8] I believe hits the nail right on the head. I've always thought that the two Asian giants, China and India, must have a rapprochement. Since they are neighbors, this cold, confrontational relationship they have had for decades must change. But unfortunately I don't see any bold leader from either China or India who is "big enough" to look into the future and mend the relationship. Just think of the great things these two giant civilizations could do together if they cooperated. But sadly all we see are the same cold war attitudes. Nikki Lee Hong Kong Marc Erikson Collateral strategic consequences, [Jan 4] has such a naive view of events that are happening in and around Afghanistan. He gloats about America's military strength and strategic muscle. Well, if the folks in Washington were so smart, we wouldn't have people like Osama bin Laden in the first place. The term "blowblack" is used within the CIA to describe events that are caused by previous failed or mishandled policies. Bin Laden is a perfect example of "blowback". He is a monster created by the US, but this monster broke its leash and bit his former master. So when Marc Erikson tells us about how strong America's "strategic muscle" is, he should realize that the US is just cleaning up a mess that it created in the first place. And just what kind of victory has America achieved? Has bin Laden been killed or captured? Have the leaders of the Taliban been killed or captured? They all merely disappeared. And who is in control of most of Afghanistan now? The real winners of this "war on terrorism" are the Northern Alliance and its real backer, Russia. The US has just delivered Afghanistan to them, free of charge. The US military indeed has very impressive high-tech weapons and hardware. But it can control only the skies, not the ground. The continuing search for bin Laden is proof of this. Bin Laden's supporters are determined to fight this war with the US using their methods. They do not have fancy weapons or equipment - what they have is a common faith, loyalty, knowledge of the geography, ingenuity and resourcefulness. The war is not over yet, Mr Erikson, it's just begun. [Letter shortened.] Phil Tong Canada You are wrong, Bob R [see letter below]. The "termites" are the world outside the US. There are 2 billion Muslim "termites", 1.3 billion Chinese "termites", and a billion others. And in your present state of "fundamentalist" paranoia, they're all after you. Yes it is religion you're fighting, it is culture you're fighting, it's the real world outside Hollywood, Disneyland and the "American dream" that you're fighting because you're terrified of it. To you it's the borderland, the shadowland that haunts your nightmares because you're too scared to come out and come to terms with it. Like little children you want "daddy and mommy" (your government and military) to "blow it away" so you can sleep safe at night. Except that however much you huff and puff you can't blow it down because it's inside the house you live in - it's called the world. Destroy those termites, whatever their religion and culture, and you destroy yourself. Blow one Afghan pile of rocks into another Afghan pile of rocks and take a few Afghans with you - 10 generations on they'll come back to haunt your descendants. Better come to terms (understanding/comprehension) now than wait till then. Philip Andrews The outside world (or at least part of it) Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf went out of his way to be friendly with his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, by shaking hands with him in Kathmandu. Following that, Vajpayee all but admonished Musharraf for his conduct in the past, and appeared to "put him in his place". Vajpayee was not putting Musharraf in his place. He was putting himself in a good position for the Uttar Pradesh elections. Musharraf has constantly been encouraging talks and a friendly solution to problems. The Indian leadership in response should give up its hostile, irresponsible and arrogant behavior. Let us hope that the brief encounter between Vajpayee and Musharraf will pave the way to solving the Kashmir issue, the root cause of the problem in their relationship, through dialogue. Sameer Jad Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia I want to congratulate Marc Erikson [Collateral strategic consequences, Jan 4] for writing a piece that isn't tilted (except for his overuse of propaganda words like "neo" and "imperialist"). This problem we in the US (and abroad) are having is not a religious issue at all. It is simply an eradication of rodents in the world that would glorify killing thousands of people who were minding their own business, at work, trying to make a living for their families. I look back at Pearl Harbor and think, nice hit, good sucker punch. That was a military facility. These cancerous members of society went well beyond what is reasonably acceptable. We all must find ways, in all countries, to make sure this type of activity is thwarted. Regarding Erikson's assessment of US military capability, yes, we are serious about our resolve, but we also would prefer that use of our military abroad is unnecessary. But the world has been overly tolerant of activities that no one condones. If we all eradicate these termites, the house will be safe from erosion. Bob R Sterling Heights, Michigan, US Some thoughts for your letter writers [see letters below] ... RS: Islam was a major civilization 1,000 years ago while Europe was still in mud huts and the Americas still had their full complement of Native Americans. Without the help of Islam (and the Jewish Radhanite scholars/merchant adventurers) bringing Chinese and Islamic science and technology to Europe from 700-1250 AD, Europe would still be in mud huts under a Christian dictatorship. We owe Islam and Asia more than we can ever repay. They are still a major culture, 2 billion of them, so cut the arrogance and read your history. John Thomas: UNOCOL, the US oil firm, spent a lot of time and money in the '90s wooing the Taliban to use Afghanistan as a transit point for a $3 trillion gas/oil deal from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean via Pakistan. The route west is difficult due to Turkish and Azerbaijani problems. And yes, you can ship gas by tanker. That's what your army is fighting for. BJG: The US corporate interest plays by its own rules in Asia as elsewhere. It's a case of In God you Trust for both bombs and dollars. How do you think the rest of the world feels about being bullied by these interests? At least with the Russians and the Chinese you know their governments are "bastards", so you can deal with them straight. For the rest, its "freedom and democracy" but if you dont take our dollars we'll bomb you until you do. America needs to look at itself from the outside sometimes: see how "the rest of the world" (yes, there is life outside of the American dream ...) experiences you. That might help to close that awesome gap a little, the gap that was crossed in desperation on September 11. You need to cross that gap toward the rest of the world to become aware of why September 11 happened. Are you up to it? Philip Andrews Guildford, UK The article by Mushahid Hussain [Divided Muslim world stands alone, Jan 5] left out one important thing: September 11, 2001. America and the American people are not after all "Islam, and nations and peoples belonging to this faith" as Hussain states, but only those responsible for the September 11 attacks. We are a nation built on diversity. Anyone here is free to worship as they please but just as Timothy McVey, the Oklahoma bomber, found out, if you kill or harm us, you will be brought to justice or justice will be brought to you. The people of the United States would never allow our government to continue the war to include those not responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Towers, the embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks on innocents. We, America, will never forget September 11, but this war has an end. It will end when those responsible for these cowardly acts are finished. Vic Francis US I have one question in response to Rajeev Srinivasan's letter [see below] which states: "No Indian Muslim wants to go to Pakistan ... they are free to go if they want to, but nobody does go these days. Those who did go at Partition, known as Mohajirs, live horrible, exploited, violence-ridden lives as second-class citizens." Am I correct in assuming that the writer is unaware of the fact that the President/Chief Executive/Chief of Army Staff (Pervez Musharraf dons all these hats) is a Mohajir? Lord help us if the people in postions of power (which allow them to deploy nuclear weapons) are plagued by the same fundamental lack of knowledge. Namoos Zaheer New York, US Let me clarify the points raised by Rajeev Srinivasan [see letter below] who seems to be quite upset by my attempt to expose racist and fascist designs of Hindu zealots. 1) Pakistan was not created to be the homeland for all Muslims in the subcontinent. Pakistan Resolution of 1940 very clearly states that the northwest Muslim majority states of India will constitute Pakistan. During the whole Pakistan movement there was never mention of migration of population by any Muslim League leader. The migration started after Hindus and Sikhs started shedding the blood of Muslims in Hindu majority states. 2) Pakistan has not performed an explicit ethnic cleansing of the Hindu and Sikh population of (west) Pakistan - they migrated to India during Partition. 3) I am one of the migrants from Uttar Pradesh and let me inform you that we Mohajirs are more prosperous and established than the local Sindhis in our province. I would suggest you do not read "saffronized" history books written by Murli Monhar Joshi, which will leave you one-eyed. [Letter shortened.] Salman Khan Dammam, Saudi Arabia I agree with Marc Erikson Collateral strategic consequences, Jan 4 and I disagree. Everyone knows the US has complete military dominance of the battlefield, except when it lets the Russians in by default. So everyone fights the conflict on lower levels, through becoming invisible, through networks, through groups, cells and organized crime. That's what the Taliban are doing. Quite sound strategic thinking. There's more to this conflict than guns and bombs: it's religion, culture and psychology now, and the Americans are both blind about and ignorant of these levels, while Asia is a past master. No, Mr Erikson, the war hasn't ended, it's just beginning ... Philip Andrews Guildford, UK Your prolific letter writer, Salman Khan of Saudi Arabia, who I presume is a Pakistani based on his obsession with India, castigates Hindu nationalists for the "crime" of wanting to transfer all the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent to Pakistan. However, his righteous indignation would carry much more weight if it weren't for two unfortunate factors: 1) Pakistan was in fact created explicitly to be the homeland for all Muslims in the sub-continent. This is the reason for the very existence of Pakistan. So what's wrong in suggesting it live up to its stated mission? 2) Pakistan has in fact performed an explicit ethnic cleansing of almost all its non-Muslims. The non-Muslim, mainly Hindu and Sikh, population of (west) Pakistan, which was over 30 percent at Partition, now stands at 1-2 percent. So what right would Pakistanis have to object if India were to eject its Muslims? Salman Khan wants to have his cake and eat it too. According to him, what is earmarked for Muslims (theocratic Pakistan) belongs to Muslims. What is earmarked for all religions (secular India) should also belong to Muslims. This is a fantasy. Pakistanis have been deluded by their leaders who talk of an Islamic empire stretching from Central Asia to India to Burma to Sinkiang, with Pakistan as the imperial center. The first step in this was supposed to be the colonization of Afghanistan, and we have all seen where this led. Alas, there is not going to be any Pakistani empire; on the contrary, Pakistan itself has a high probability of falling apart. In reality, no Indian seriously wants to drive the Muslim population out of India. No Indian Muslim wants to go to Pakistan either: they are free to go if they want to, but nobody does go these days. Those who did go at Partition, known as Mohajirs, live horrible, exploited, violence-ridden lives as second-class citizens. Rajeev Srinivasan Stanford, California, US Sunil's diatribe [see letter below] reads as a sorry story of half-truths and outright lies and a sad indictment of his narrow-mindedness. But since we are playing the blaming game, let me say that it is not Pakistan which denies the whole population of Kashmir the right of self-determination. It is not Pakistan that brutally maims, rapes and oppresses Kashmiris using one third of its army's might to crush a popular independence movement. It is not Pakistan whose Hindu zealots desecrated Babri mosque, thus laying to rest forever the myth of Indian "secularism". No sir, it is not Pakistan that forcibly converts minorities to the Hindu religion in rural India and it is not Pakistan that has brutally suppressed independence movements in Assam and Punjab. You see, Sunil, playing the blaming game is easy, you can do it, I can do it, but it takes a bigger person to stand up and say that South Asia does not need a war to compound the miseries of one of the world's poorest regions. It seems to me that many Indians have been brainwashed by the nationalistic jingoism and the dangerous game of brinkmanship that the Indian rulers are playing. I remain resigned to the fact that for many Indians the only solution is war. If that is the case, so be it. I will meet you at the border. But India is mistaken in thinking that we are Palestine and India Israel. So when all this is over, when we have nuked each other to pieces and put ourselves back another 50 years, remember that the blood of South Asia will be on Indian hands not Pakistanis'. In any case it will be a Pyrrhic victory, yours or mine. Kamran Ali The two nuclear powers will never attack each other. The only choice left to them is to resolve the core Kashmir dispute with the help of the UN. Otherwise the unrest, militancy, state terrorism and economic chaos will not end. The difference between politicians and statesmen is that while politicians think of the next election, state think of the next generation. Both countries need statesmen at the helm of their affairs. Mohsin Meer The decision of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to set up a supreme defense council to counter "outside threats" of invasion or war happens to come at an appropriate time. However, it goes without saying that such a decision must extend from mere rhetoric and verbal assurances to practical implementation of all the steps and measures spelt out in the declaration. Members must also take cognizance of the fact that they are as open to aggression today as they were more than 11 years ago and they are as dependent on Western and foreign military assistance as they were in August 1990. Against this backdrop, it becomes vital for the Gulf Arab leaders to harness their resources in building up a strong and fortified military presence of their own. If the miniscule Jewish entity of Israel can have an effective army, air force and navy of its own, then why can't the GCC? The geopolitical scenario that is emerging is increasingly anti-Islamic and anti-Arab and it won't be long before the "outside threats" being foreseen will multiply at an alarming rate. Sameer Jad Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia

Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive

back to the top ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand