June 29, 2002	atimes.com

Letters Contact us at letters@atimes.com Your article Law to reform Pakistani religious schools doubted fails to diagnose the actual reason behind the flourishing of religious schools in Pakistan. Education is a basic human right of every person. Not so in Pakistan. With the state's failure to provide decent education for its people, especially the poor; many private organizations have created a school mafia, which unscrupulously fleeces poor and medium class parents. Religious schools are an offshoot of the same phenomenon, which lure indigent parents with the guarantee of lodging, two decent meals and the provision of some basic reading skills for their children. Unfortunately for a country like Pakistan, which has always been overshadowed by its bigger neighbor to its east, the emphasis is on a stronger military, which can prevent India from bullying it. Thus at the cost of education, health care and other basic amenities, we continue spending on the army, a white elephant which blinks anyway to Indian chest beating. The ramifications are obvious: Rs3.2 billion allocated to education in the recent budget compared to Rs130 billion to the military. Shouldn't it have been the other way round? Kamran Ali I quote M J [letter below]: "India's assistance to Tibet has been purely humanitarian." An Italian diplomat once wondered aloud, "There are 1001 separatists movements in the world - why Tibet?" More to the point, offhand I could think of a dozen hellholes around the world which would make Tibet look like heaven on earth, so why the fixation on Tibet? Don't take my word for it either, read what critic B Gautam had to say in The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20000804a2.htm). Gautam is obviously not a China apologiser - here he is worried that the Tibetans are having it so good they might have lost their fervor for independence. How chivalrous of him! I ventured the question that since the Tibetans are obviously not in any danger of extinction despite what the Americans would have us believe, maybe he should spend some time looking into the bloodbaths back home, like those in Kashmir etc. After all, doesn't charity start at home? Well, I didn't get an answer because The Japan Times ("all the news without fear or favor") gutted my letter. But the question remains - why the fixation on Tibet? It couldn't be because of human rights, because the same set of human rights champions seem oblivious to the genocides happening outside China; and if India is all about altruism, why are the Chin refugees summarily denied (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/08/burma-refugee0817.htm) while the Dalai Lama and his entourage are feted? Could it be that (to paraphrase Noam Chomsky) the Chins are considered worthless victims while the Tibetans are valuable "assets" - such as a secret army being raised to "liberate" Tibet (http://www.flonnet.com/fl1718/17180240.htm)? Ironically it was Nehru himself who once observed wryly that "the Yanks and the Brits don't give a hoot about the Tibetans, what they want is to embarrass China". Deng Xi Chang It is very naive to think that "it was not India that stared it [Pakistan] down, it was the United States. America's aggressive mediation ..." [India, Pakistan: Talking heads achieve little]. It is obvious that the US simply told Pakistan that if it did not stop terrorism, India would beat the stuffing out of it. A nuclear war would have meant removal of Pakistan from the face of the earth. In fact, Inter Press Service should understand that if the US had not mediated, there would have been a tamer Pakistan by now, if indeed there was a Pakistan at all. Also, the fact that Pakistan's best friend decided to pressure it proves the success of India's military posture. Those who think otherwise need a reality check. Anon It is not China that is encircled, it is India. China has been anti-India since the communist forces won control of the country. This has been very well documented. China is India's enemy number one - no doubt about it. They provided nuclear weapons and other military hardware to Pakistan, for which the destruction of India is the holy grail. India's assistance to Tibet has been purely humanitarian. When you compare this assistance to that afforded to Pakistan, Deng Xi Chang's argument that India was constantly plotting against China becomes laughable. India had no reason to plot with the US, and has no designs on Chinese territory, again contrary to China's desires. It was China which conspired with the US against India post Nixon. The fact is, you can blame Aksai Chin on Nehru's naivety or on intelligence failures, or whatever, but the fact remains that China betrayed India in 1962 and is generally a hostile neighbor. India, a nation of 1 billion people, to whom we owe our present world civilization, is constantly fought against and belittled on the world stage. Why? Because India, through Vedic tradition, is the only society where solutions to the real human, psychological and metaphysical problems are proposed and exploration of these matters encouraged. Now for the bombshell: Bin Laden and Bush are fighting for the same cause. This is the total subjugation of the human mind. Bin Laden's way is through the unquestioning following of religous dogma. Bush's way is through fooling the individual to think that he/she is acting out of free will, when in fact they are simply sheep being herded into a pen for their minds, to become perfect consumers; materially alive, but spiritually and intellectually dead. I sincerely hope (since I generally like Americans) that America realises that economic progress is just one measure of societal success. Bush and Bin Laden, along with China (whose citizen's minds have already been subdued) are all anti-Vedic or anti-social forces, and as such are both against what India as a country stands for. We should all be thankful that a country like India exists, despite a thousand years of Muslim invasions, Chinese skullduggery, and Western apprehension. MJ London In response to China: Surrounded again by Francesco Sisci, Ram Gorni writes that the basic reason for the differences in ideology between China and the United States lies not in issues such as communism, democracy, Taiwan, Tibet, religious or human rights, but in opposite political structures. The solution, in his opinion, is for China to abandon the "Three Represents Theory", and for America to elect a new president in 2004 (maybe even a woman president). Please click here for the full text of his letter. Some of your correspondents are writing about the United States trying to encircle China. I agree totally. America is frustrated by the fact that it doesn't know anything about China's nuclear weapon capabilities. Why did the US really step in against Afghanistan? Why is it offering military assistance to India? Before the war In Afghanistan, the US stated that it had NO intention of staying there for the long term. Now we learn that they are constructing a permanent base there. M F Hussain England I quote Parag Vohra [letter below]: "Chinese claims that they wanted to solve the dispute amicably are suspect because of their activities in Aksai Chin". China had been trying to get India to the negotiating table for the past four decades, before the 1962 war and ever since. Nothing could better demonstrate China's peaceful disposition than the fact that China did not press home its victory in 1962 to make good its claim south of the Macmahon Line. As former Australian diplomat Gregory Clark put it, "Beijing, which had quite a good claim to the territory south of the McMahon Line [here is a clue: why are people in northeastern India branded "Chinks" by the heartlanders?], withdrew all its troops after defeating India." While China kept most of its claim in Aksai Chin, Indian-held territory (a staggering 70 percent of the disputed land by some estimates) was left unmolested. Reflecting on the conflict, the then under secretary to the British Foreign Office, Lord Caccia, commented in 1966 (not without a tinge of grudging admiration) that, "The Chinese withdrawal to their original line after a victory in the field was the first time in recorded history that a great power has not exploited military success by demanding something more" (Maxwell). A magnificent piece of diplomacy by any standard, which sadly is not reciprocated. Deng Xi Chang The article Preemption's the new buzz word does not discuss the reason for the US wanting to topple Saddam Hussein. The reason is that Israel perceives Iraq as a military power and would like to see it diminished. Israel cannot expand while Iraq is powerful. Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan was eliminated, bin Laden and Saddam are next. Asif Niazi Burlington, Canada This is with reference to the ongoing discussion between Deng Xi Chang and Arun. Deng is correct when he says that the McMahon Line was never recognized by the Chinese. The McMahon Line was imposed on China by a stronger Great Britain and India tried to accrue advantage as the successive power. Deng is also correct when he says that the Chinese did offer to mantain status quo while discussions were under way. India's policy of holding on to it's territory while only bringing Chinese-held territory under the gamut of talks was clearly untenable. However, in Aksai Chin, it was the Chinese who had surreptitiously been building a road. Aksai Chin was not under direct Chinese control, and notwithstanding the non-recognition of the McMahon Line, the Chinese government had not disputed that specific area. The discovery of Chinese activity in territory which was supposedly undisputed obviously raised red flags about Chinese intentions, and encouraged India's "forward policy". China did not violate India's trust by simply crossing the McMahon Line. However, Chinese claims that they wanted to solve the dispute amicably are suspect beacuse of their activities in Aksai Chin. Parag Vohra Boston, US Responding to China: Surrounded again by Francesco Sisci: On the question of the US trying to "surround China", Francesco is correct. On the question of how to respond, he is at best naive and at worst misleading. If the US is arrogant enough to surround China again and again, why on earth should China be trying to please the US global hegemon and maintaining that cycle of everyone kowtowing to the US hegemonic policy? The best foreign policy is to have good relations with your neighbors and the worst policy is the reverse. Hawaii is the closest US state to East Asia and it is still thousands of miles away. China should snub that US pampering and should continue striving for good ASEAN relations and convince Korea and Japan to form an EU-style economic alliance. Japan should no longer be a US military colony; besides, a common economic future with China and Korea would avert war in East Asia, much like in Germany and the EU. Even a democratic-capitalist Japan can forget about love from the US if its economy overrides the US as it did in the 1980s. To her west, China should strive for harmony with Russia, India and the Arab-Muslim world. Everyone in Eurasia – East Asians, Arab-Muslims, and Europeans - has the right to self-determination. It is OK for every continent or subcontinent to have a responsible superpower. History or religion or Christ never said there should be only one center of authority, prosperity and stability called America. Ultimately, the US plays one against the other and will not spare even their so-called allies. Roy US Last week, at an event leading up to the annual meeting of America's Southern Baptist Convention, the Rev Jerry Vines of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, made insulting and inflammatory remarks about Islam and, by extension, every other religious and philosophical view. There have been calls from many quarters for President Bush to repudiate these remarks, yet he remains silent. Vines's rhetoric puts one in mind of the rhetoric employed in pre-World War II Nazi Germany to marginalize and dehumanize German Jews. Yet Bush remains silent, and his silence implies consent. This implicit consent could embolden those who would recreate the Kristallnacht of Nazi Germany in America. Only this time the targets would be those of Arab descent, followers of Islam, and doubtless other innocents. Yet Bush remains silent. Mark Schrider US If the article Turkey hints at shifting alliance by Hooman Peimani is indeed true, then that is very refreshing. I have said many times that the populations between the Mediterranean and India/China remain fragmented at their own peril. Surely Arabs, Persians, Turks, and Pashtuns have been all been associated with Middle Asia (Middle East and Central Asia) and with Islam for centuries. It is about time for the people of this region to find a compromise between Islamic law and Islamic culture, a compromise between Sharia virtues and economic-political security. It is about time they start working to achieve economic integration if not political integration. Roy US Deng Xi Chang's frequent references imply that Tibet is in China. Tibet is not not a part of China and it never was, culturally, liguistically or physically. Soon tibet will be a free nation as it was in the early 1950s. Jon Laurence Eyton [Taiwan: Island of insecurity] sheds light on an important issue of Taiwanese society: loyalty toward Taiwan, China or a greater China. Because most Taiwanese are mainlanders in various degree, depending on when their ancestors settled on the island, the dividing line can be drawn differently by different people. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporters are now reaping the bitter fruit of their divisive ethnic politics. It is likely there will be increasing suspicion, accusations of disloyalty, and even witch hunts. It is no accident that China has openly suggested with whom it would like to negotiate on the three links. China clearly understands that Taiwanese ethnic identity is not an either/or choice. It will be the downfall of the DPP if it underestimates the attraction of Chinese identity among Taiwanese. Peter X The recent surge in violence across Pakistan and the regime's total failure to check widespread bloodletting of innocent citizens should come as no surprise. First of all, it is idiotic to expect respect for the law from ordinary mortals when the messiahs are at the helm only because of their firepower. When rulers - regardless of their robes and pretext - can molest the constitution with impunity, anarchy is an inevitable end result. Secondly, terrorists would definitely have a field day, when security agencies are busy impounding public transport and arranging rallies rather than handling security related tasks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if the entire top brass is more concerned with its own power, prefers extra-constitutional activities like micro-managing the referendum and cobbling together like-minded (read compliant) political alliances, to their stipulated duties, law and order is bound to suffer badly. Likewise, when the reluctant saviors are utilizing intelligence outfits solely to manipulate the political process in the larger national interest, in a most flagrant manner, then it is absurd to blame a ubiquitous "foreign hand" and external factors for failures of our own making. And, for discussion's sake, if there is indeed a god-damned foreign hand, who the hell is responsible for defusing it? Without a doubt, when military officials, who ought to be completely apolitical, have nothing else to do but to pressurize one politician, coerce another and reward a third for fulfilling the personal plans of their bosses, citizens will obviously be on the mercy of unscrupulous marauders. Quite simple, when the entire intelligence apparatus is meant to advance the agenda of an individual (or a group of individuals), far away from their designated sphere of responsibility, who will track the anti-state elements? It seems that insecurity in the country is directly proportional to the fixation of the ruling party - irrespective of its color/attire - to perpetuate its own rule. The total absence of democratic channels to influence the state of affairs and incapacity of judicial venues (due either to that obnoxious doctrine of necessity or the spinelessness of our judges) to impart justice is one of the major causes of lawlessness in Pakistan. What we desperately need is an institutional order where every organ of the state in general, and law enforcement agencies and the armed forces in particular, do only what they are supposed to do. Hassan Nasir Chandhar Gujranwala, Pakistan Much of what Henry C K Liu says in National planning and the American myth is correct, but there is something I dispute. Liu is right that Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations asserted that monopolies, or excessive concentrations of economic power, destroyed wealth and were no small part of the explanation why some nations, overwise similar, were much poorer than others. In fact if we were to boil down Adam Smith's message into one sentence, that one sentence might arguably be: "Get rid of monopolies." Much of his book then becomes a more or less detailed explanation of how free markets might replace many widespread monopolies of his time and why this would radically advance the human condition. It's a puzzle to me how so many since have apparently missed this message and, more fundamentally than what Smith said or not, have never addressed this argument and counter argued that monopolies were a good thing. Or, at least, if there is such an economic argument, I have missed it (ignoring Karl Marx, national socialism and communism). No, it seems that Adam Smith's neo-liberal opponents have dealt with him by misrepresenting him. Liu is also correct that Smith argued that in many cases monopolies form readily and almost inevitably, and that although Smith does not by and large get into the details of just how one establishes and maintains a free market, the implication seems clear that this would often require aggressive government intervention. Where I start to get to get uncomfortable with Liu, or maybe I'm simply misunderstanding him, is where he seems to be arguing that Smith was for "national planning". Yes, I think it's true that Smith was all for "national planning" to establish free markets in as wide a domain as possible. But free markets are about, among other things, decentralizing economic decision making. In fact it's hard to imagine another mechanism that could be so effective at involving so many people in deciding what we do. Thus Smith's program advocates a specific and narrow centralization of power to accomplish a much more basic and widespread decentralization. For few people is this what "national planning" means. For most, "national planning" suggests something more like a government deciding what will be produced, etc, or in other words a meaning opposite to free market. Finally something I would like to see discussed is just how free markets might actually be implemented. Despite the many examples Liu gives, the United States did embrace, create and maintain free markets to a greater extent than almost all other countries. Nevertheless reality falls far short of what is imaginable. Large sections of the US economy are dominated by monopolies or their close kin. The anti-trust laws have been mostly a failure. The Interstate Commerce Commission, in the name of breaking up a railroad monopoly that was not in fact present, created one. Governments agencies seem to attract people that are philosophically pro-monopoly. Elections bias politicians in favor of monopolies because monopolies concentrate resources and have no difficulty donating to political campaigns. Free market enterprises in their competitive context are so busy surviving that the only thing they do is satisfy their customers; thus there are no extra resources or energy to influence the political process. So again, practically speaking, just how does one regulate to form and maintain free markets? Perhaps biasing taxation against large enterprises? Whether foreign or domestic, the corporate tax rate would increase as a function of gross sales within the home economy. Mark Amerman In reference to Rahul Bedi's article Wild boars infiltrate Line of Control I want to add some more information. Reliable sources have revealed that Pakistan is not only sending wild boars to attack Indian-held Kashmir, but have also unleashed deadly flies and mosquitoes into the region. These insects are carrying diseases like typhoid, malaria, and pneumonia and are controlled by Pakistan's ISI, which is using an ancient Chinese method to direct them to the houses of Hindus living in the region. A Pakistani army general, who asked not to be named, says this is the most effective form of terrorism since it's practically un-stopable by the Indian army. The general also made references to Alexander the Great, who's army was forced to retreat from the subcontinent because of the deadly mosquitoes. The Indian government should inform not just the local residents but the international community that if anyone experiences a mosquito bite or a diarrhea attack, its due to cross-border terrorism by Pakistan. Syed Umar San Diego, US Pepe Escobar is pleading with America to stop its silly castigation of official Iranian support for child-murdering terrorists [Iran Diary, Part 10: Encircled]. Ayatollah Khamenei and his henchmen have been well-behaved in Central Asia - or so Pepe would have us believe - so who cares if they continue to train, arm and financially aid the Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, who believe it is their holy obligation to murder innocent men, women and children? Americans should just embrace Khamenei in a very European-like gesture of refined amoral sophistication, pat him on the back and cajole him with sweet words like, "We know those young boys and girls that you just helped to blow up would have grown up to be nasty, Palestinian-hating Jews, so why should we complain? By the way, need any help loading up the 'Karine B'?" J S New Jersey, US My thoughts on India, US and Kashmir: As far as India is concerned, it has to recognize the fact that the United States is a global power and has global interests. And I think India has begun to do so. Despite the talk of unipolarity, and aversion to it in terms of the media and so on, the government of India I think clearly recognizes the fact that there is only one superpower in the international system today, and that it has to come to terms with that reality. On the part of the United States, there must be a clear recognition of the fact that India is the regional, managerial power; it is the pre-eminent and predominant part in the region, and it is able to provide public good to its neighbors, which means that it is essential to maintain the stability and security of the region. The United States must also recognize that it cannot meddle with the Kashmiri issue, and that it should put pressure on its friends in Pakistan to desist from the dangerous game they have been playing, because in the context of a nuclearized subcontinent, infiltration and aiding and abetting insurgencies, even if you take the moral high ground on that, is a very, very dangerous affair. And there is, I would argue, no give on the Indian position on Kashmir, no matter what, because any concession on Kashmir would reopen all the wounds of partition. India cannot afford another division of the country on the basis of religion because it would have a tremendous negative impact on the future of the 150 million Muslims in the rest of the country. Opening up this Pandora's Box would pander to the baser instincts of those Hindu chauvinists who consider all Muslims fifth columnists. The Muslims of India cannot be sacrificed at the altar of so-called rights of the 3 or 4 million Kashmiris. Katy S I refer to the letter by Arun. China had never recognized the Macmahon Line, one of the dozen encroaching frontiers foisted on it by the British colonialists. In fact the Tibetans in 1947 had asked India to return a wide swathe of territory from Ladakh to Assam, including Sikkim and the Darjeeling (Maxwell). But China was willing to accept the status quo and negotiate with India to settle the claim and counter claim along the border. As Maxwell pointed out, the same policy brought China the diplomatic prize of settled boundaries with almost all its neighbors - including Russia. The only intractable dispute was with India, which insisted that Indian-held territories were not up for negotiation. India would only discuss claims to Chinese-held territory - but only after the Chinese withdrew from the disputed areas. No country on Earth would accept such a lopsided proposition. As much as China wished for an amicable solution, confrontation was inevitable when Indian troops pushed into Chinese-held territory to make good its claim. And the rest is history. Dang Xi Chang In reply to Deng Xi Chang's letter: China grabbed Aksai Chin, in Kashmir, to build its strategic road from Tibet to Turkestan [western China]. They knew this area was west of the McMahon Line on the Indian side and that it was virtually undefended and inaccessible by the Indian army. The road was discovered by the Indian governmemt in 1958, prior to the Tibetan uprising. This sector was clearly acknowledged as part of India by Chinese governments during the 1950s. After this incident, China made more claims to land south of the McMahon Line. In response, India initiated its "foward policy" to defend against more territory being grabbed at the disputed border. As for Thangla Ridge, presumably the watershed principle does not hold good in this sector, hence the actual demarcation was not easy, leading to different interpretations by India and China, both claiming the highest ridge in this area. Fact is, China violated the McMahon Line, China violated India's trust, China hid its intentions in Kashmir, and China attacked India. All this while China was chanting "Indians-Chinese are brothers." Arun Pepe Escobar, in his article IRAN DIARY, Part 7: It's the economy, Ayatollah [June 5], says, "A lot of people in Iran - about 35 percent of the active population - seem to be state employees. According to professors who agreed to speak to Asia Times Online off the record, these people have no other option than to settle for these low salaries because after the revolution the regression of industrial development was nothing less than drastic. There are many causes for the regression: the effects of the war; massive state intervention; speculation; bureaucratic corruption; and the brain drain of intellectuals, engineers, captains of industry." Although all those causes doubtlessly play a part, I imagine there is one dominant mechanism that explains the greater part of what is going on. It works like this: like most third-world countries an amazingly large percentage of the paid working population works for the government. Like most countries these state employees think they are poorly paid. And like most third-world economies it can be guessed even though it is not actually stated that many of these state employees supplement their official salaries by extorting money for ignoring violations of one the myriad laws and regulations that such governments excel in producing. The most promising prospects for bribes are enterprises that seem to be doing well. Any such business, unless politically well-connected, triggers a feeding frenzy. Thus the main, though unacknowledged, business of government is suppressing productive activity. Mark A In response to Salim Akbani [letter below]: The approach that Pakistan should take, as suggested by the writer, smacks of an irresponsible and sado-masochistic kind of mindset. It is almost a unanimously agreed all over the world that nuclear weapons do and should serve as only a deterrent for nuclear attacks, and should not be and cannot be used recklessly, especially when the other side has deliverable nukes. Are the trigger-happy military generals of Pakistan so insane as to send missles with nuclear tips into Indian territory the moment one firecracker from India lands in Pakistan? Do the Pakistanis really believe that they'll be better off by delivering nukes to India? Does Musharraf dream of relaxing in an air-conditioned nuclear-protected dungeon while Pakistani cities vanish in the Indian counter-assault? (That India can survive a strike and go for a counter-strike has been indicated before by several analysts). By threatening to use nukes, the emphasis is supposedly "to make the Indian politicians realize the losses". But what about the losses in Pakistan? Is it not easier, saner, and more correct for Islamabad to stop its overt and covert support to Muslim militants in Kashmir? What is more important for Islamabad - peace and the lives of its own citizens, or pursuing a destructive "religious" war that is victimizing innocent Kashmiri and Indian civilians? Rakesh India While many of your writers have come up with an unequivocal claim that India has won the diplomatic war with Pakistan, it may be worthwhile to exam how India has managed to hoodwink world opinion. India has cleverly used the mantra of cross-border terrorism for all of Kashmir's ills, but to put the blame on Pakistani-sponsored militants for the valley's present state is a gross miscarriage of justice. The present armed struggle was a result of Delhi's drag-your-heels policy towards Kashmir. That Kashmiris took up arms in 1989 to finally have their demands met was a consequence of the apathy of Delhi's failure to redress Kashmiri grievances. Sweeping issues under the carpet and prolonging the status quo was hardly a solution. So let's not distort facts: Kashmir has been and is an indigenous freedom struggle. While it is incumbent on Pakistan to hold back militants, it is equally important for India to recognize the right of plebiscite for Kashmiris. If India claims to be the world's biggest democracy, why is it so scared of giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination? It is unfortunate that the Western world, which gives such importance to human rights, is afraid to raise this question with Indian leaders for fear of irking them, while it unilaterally puts pressure on Pakistan. Lets call a spade a spade; the world doesn't care anything about Kashmir or human rights. What it does care about is the market of a billion people. Kamran Ali I refer to the letter by Rakesh. The 1962 war was forced upon China by India's aggressive probing inside Chinese territory; the Indian push to take Thalga ridge was merely the last straw that ignited the Chinese response. There are lots of illuminating accounts in Maxwell's book - here are just two exemples: "China does not wish war with India provided we do not disturb the status quo" (General Daulat Singh, western command); and "Dalvi ordered the Punjabis to disengage and retreat, the Chinese let them go and held their fire as the survivors cross the river." After the war, China sought reconciliation by releasing all Indian POWs and captured weapons - meticulously cleaned and oiled! But India was already preparing for a rematch. As early as 1963, India dropped all pretense of non-alignment and declared its wish to "work with the US for the containment of China" (Maxwell). As fellow Aussie Gregory Clark put it, "China's 1962 border war with India followed the 1959 Tibetan uprising (in which we now find that India and the CIA were involved). That, combined with the 1958 confrontation with America in the Taiwan Strait (when the US threatened to nuke China) and the growing dispute with the Soviet Union, was enough to convince Chinese leaders that they were being surrounded. Alliance with Pakistan was the only way they could break the stranglehold, they reasoned." Thus, the "Chinese aggression in 1962" should be called self-defense and the much harped upon alliance with Pakistan a COUNTER containment. Having set the record straight (a fat lot of good it does though, when the Americans' daily diet consist of stuff like this, http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/24/aksai.chin/index.html), I would appreciate some supporting evidence regarding this much talked about "China's mischief making in the northern states" and the "threat to open a second front in 1965". I have been getting lots of wild assertions but not many facts lately. Deng Xi Chang I have read Henry C K Liu's article China: Banking on bank reform [June 4] with great interest and admiration. His in-depth analysis really contributes to our understanding of international finance and banking. Ben Mah Canada Deng Xi Chang claims that after four decades of "frenetic" arms buildup India now enjoys a "10:1" advantage at the India-China border. The fact is that the border between India and China is the most insurmountable terrain in the world (the Himalayas and its adjoining ranges). Hence, the writer should direct the blame for this supposedly grave situation at mother nature, if not the Chinese regime; although one may think this "disadvantage" has been more than offset by the Chinese attempts at mischief-making in India's northeastern states like Arunachal Pradesh. Quoting a few writers and analysts and claiming "this is just the tip of the iceberg" does not quite give the complete picture of what is happening, especially regarding activities that China is engaging in in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in order to spread its communist hegemony. An excellent example of the policy that China has followed vis-a-vis India is the overt and covert supply of sensitive defense material to Pakistan - a theological state driven by a rabid jihadi philosophy, lacking democratic civilian rule, and obsessed with grabbing Kashmir. An analysis by Michael Yahuda on the BBC's website says: "From a geopolitical point of view, China has consistently sought to constrain Indian power and confine it essentially to the region of South Asia Furthermore, China has contained India by cultivating its neighbours and by blocking Indian aspirations to be the dominant power in the southern reaches of the Himalayas. Thus China continues to refuse to recognise India's claims to Sikkim, it encourages Bangladesh to stand up to India and above all China has supported India's arch-rival Pakistan. In the 1965 Indo-Pak war China went so far as to threaten to open a second front against India." Clearly there are more than one icebergs floating around, only the tips of which can be seen. Rakesh India I refer to the letter by Rakesh: "As for the writer's illusions of some grand capitalist-cum-democratic alliance directed against China, let me remind him that politically the Indian and US governments were on the opposite sides of the Cold War ..." Ever since the US's favorite dictator Chiang Kai Shek "lost Uncle Sam's China" to the communists in 1949, the Americans made it known that China has to be "contained" and India was in it right from the start (Tibet uprising, 1959). No sooner did the last shot of the 1962 war die down than India was gunning for a "rematch" with China. After four decades of frenetic arms build-up, India now enjoys a 10-1 strategic superiority at the border and its intensive lobbying for an anti-China alliance has finally borne fruit in the form of the much heralded US-India-Japan strategic partnership, the declared aim of which is to contain China. This one is straight from the horse's mouth: "Beijing views a potential US-Indian military alignment with horror. Paired with the US-Japan alliance, it would bracket China and bring into concert with Washington Asia's other two major powers" (William R Hawkins, Washington Times, Feb). Even before September 11, writer Rajeev Srinivasan got himself into an ecstatic binge because he had been "shouting himself hoarse" for just such an "iron ring" around China's neck (http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/28rajeev.htm). Now that the encirclement is complete - thanks to the anti-terrorism mantra which allows Uncle Sam to plant bases all around China - notorious China baiter Brahma Challenay can hardly conceal his glee: "The Asian strategic landscape is being rapidly transformed after September 11 - to China's disadvantage. By spearheading the anti-terrorism campaign, the United States has strengthened its strategic role from Central Asia to Southeast Asia. It is setting up long-term military bases in Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan; it intends to stay strategically engaged in Pakistan; and it has returned to the Philippines with its special forces ..." (Washington Times, Feb 2). These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Asia Times Online has run several articles about the US-India alliance, so I am really surprised that Rakesh and Carl Clemens are still talking about so called US-India antagonism. As for my "illusion" of an anti-China alliance, how come everywhere I go people seem to be popping champagne corks and having a party about it? Deng Xi Chang The first order of business from Pakistan’s perspective is to avoid war with India. India can afford to thrust a limited and conventional war on Pakistan with a degree of success in obtaining its objectives; destabilizing the country and the government to render it useless in the Kashmir dispute for a long time, significantly reducing Pakistan’s military capability for the next decade and finally projecting itself as the undisputed 600-pound regional gorilla. Pakistan cannot afford to enter into a limited conventional war with India without losing it and complicating its own precarious political and economic situation, and the Indian leadership cannot be deterred at this time from a conventional confrontation. Thus, Pakistan’s leadership must take a very strong position on deterring India, and the only way to do this is to put the nuclear card on the table. Pakistan must make it clear to India and the world that its first response will be its last response; a total nuclear attack on Indian strategic, economic and political assets. As horrible and insane as it may sound, this may be the only way to avoid a conventional conflict - which is sure to go nuclear eventually. Mutual assured destruction is the only threat that can bring the Indians back from the war room and into the talking room. The Pakistani leadership must stop issuing vague statements about the use of nuclear weapons perhaps as a last resort. You don’t want to use nuclear weapons at all. What is the benefit of using them as a last resort when you are on the losing side? Pakistan will gain nothing militarily. However, in order to avoid using them, a credible threat to use them must be acknowledged by the Indians and the world community. Once Indian politicians realize that losses sustained through nuclear conflict will destabilize India as well, accompanied by horrible human carnage, there will be enough pause to give diplomats on both sides and from the world community opportunity to enter into dialogue to de-escalate the conflict. The current crisis is a reflection of the unstable leadership of both countries. The more the BJP loses its grip on Indian politics, the more belligerent and hostile it becomes toward Pakistan, Kashmir and Muslims within India. As Musharraf and his gang lose credibility inside and outside Pakistan, the more they use the age-old tactic of diverting attention to the borders, blaming India for all the problems. Both leaderships have been guilty of irresponsible and self-serving behavior. Hopefully, both will exit the scene without destroying whatever goodwill and relationship there is between the two nations, saving millions of lives and keeping alive the hopes for peace that India and Pakistan both desperately need. Salim Akbani O’Fallon, Illinois, US The statement [The price of failure in Kashmir, May 31] "In this respect [Pakistan] is, like Israel, using the same dishonest, spurious and ethically and legally untenable argument of making no distinction between actual terrorist perpetrators and the country that harbors them ..." makes a comparison that is without any apparent basis in fact. It seems clear that the Palestinian Authority, unlike Pakistan, is actively: recruiting bombers, including minors; training the bombers; arming them; dispatching them; selecting their targets; providing financial incentives to the bombers; providing payments to their families; and publicly hailing those sick souls who believe that blowing up babies in perambulators is heroic. Frank Skog Minneapolis Deng Xi Chang has got his fundamentals wrong. There is freedom of expression in both India and America because all aspects of every national issue are debated. As an example, in India, when there were riots in Gujarat, there was a huge press tirade against the ruling political party for having allegedly failed to control the riots, and at the same time there was also reverse criticism about the irresponsible sensationalism that certain sections of the press engaged in by spreading certain communal/partisan viewpoints. Parliamentary motions were moved, censuring the government for its "failure". The government didn't censor, and nor did the press, by and large. The press has been doing an excellent job in India, exposing the rotten apples of all hues. In contrast, I wonder what the reaction was in China after the Tiananmen Square incident. In the US, the press has always played a positive role in highlighting all aspects of issues ranging from abortion to the war on terrorism. In contrast, I wonder if in China the "other side" of Tibet or Taiwan (ie, the opinions of the Tibetans and Taiwanese) will ever emerge. As for the writer's illusions of some grand capitalist-cum-democratic alliance directed against China, let me remind him that politically the Indian and US governments were on the opposite sides of the Cold War, and today both have decent trade relations with China. Rakesh India I refer to the letter by Ying. I had in fact replied to Jeff Geer, but that letter wasn't published. No complaints though, not when I have a more than 90 percent success rate with Asia Times Online. That's more than I can say about the US "free press" - my success rate with them is zero, yes, ZERO. All these years, these "democracies" had the field all to themselves - don't forget that Uncle Sam controls "world opinion". While Americans and Indians discussed how they should contain the "Chinese threat", China became the new "evil empire" by default. Miscreants like me had no place in those discussions and were banished to the wild world of those unmoderated newsgroups, NO CENSORSHIP! But you must be able to take the heat, like being called "anti-American", "anti-Indian", or "Chinese Communist Party bootlicker". Without fail, when the other side is stumped by a challenging question, name-calling starts to fly. In countries like China, the state is doing the censoring, while out here in the democracies, it's the press which practices self-censorship and the good citizens volunteer to be thought police. Uncle Sam says, "If you are not with me, you are against me." The likes of Jeff Geer say, "If you don't follow the script you are against me." I wonder if that makes me a terrorist now? Deng Xi Chang So when are you going to write about the atrocities in Gujarat or the human rights violations in Kashmir by India? I guess seeing a repeat of the 1930s Hitler era in present-day Gujarat does not shock this publication. Sohail Editor's note: Please take a look at just a few of our related articles: Is India going the way of 1930s Germany? (April 5) India's secularism and dirty politics (May 3) Gujarat hits at India's secular heart (April 6) Destroying the house that Gandhi built (March 15) I quote Aradhana [letter below]: "It is abundantly clear from Neville Maxwell's report that it was China who first launched the attack, so where's the dispute?" Here is an insider's account by Gregory Clark, one-time Australian diplomat and former advisor to Japanese foreign minister Tanaka, currently president of Tama University. "At the time (October 20, 1962) I was a junior China desk officer in the Australian Department of External Affairs. One needed only to look at a map to discover that the hostilities had begun after India moved troops into the Thagla Ridge area, north of the official version of the McMahon Line, which India was claiming as its northernmost frontier. In other words, India must have started the fighting. I made it my job to find out whether the British Foreign Office and the US State Department agreed, which they did, reluctantly." What were the Indians doing so far north of the official line? Maxwell's account clearly shows that they were on the verge of an all-out attack on the Chinese position. The Indians had been building up their strength to mount an attack right under the Chinese noses and their intention to "evict" the Chinese was broadcast to all and sundry. If you enter your neighbor's house, announcing that you are going to "evict" him by force, then you don't complain about getting a bloody nose. Fact is, the first shot wasn't fired on October 20, 1962 either; numerous clashes had already occurred in the preceding years, when India embarked on its "forward policy" by infiltrating troops into Chinese territories to set up bases. Barely a month before the all-out war, China alleged that Indian troops had surprised and overrun a Chinese outpost in the same area. The Indians of course present their own version of these clashes, but again the big question is, what were they doing deep inside Chinese territories? Deng Xi Chang In his article Taiwan: Game, set, stalemate [May 29], Laurence Eyton seems to blame the failure of cross-strait relations on China's insistence on the One China principle. But all failing independence movements have their own logic, moving from idealism to radicalism and then to intolerance. Taiwan is becoming a divided society because the independence cause has intolerance written all over it. Now Lee Teng-hui's followers are starting to call Taiwan's top businessmen traitors. China is sitting pretty and does not seem to be in a hurry to bargain its strengths away. When its chipmakers start moving to China in the coming year or two, the Taiwan government will realize, too late, that it has lost its final bargaining chip. Peter X Those who refer to the UN resolutions regarding a plebiscite in Kashmir would do well to remember that it was up to Pakistan to vacate the areas which it had forcibly occupied. The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs, and the settlement of Punjabis and Afghans in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir has irrevocably altered the ethnic balance. Under these circumstances, and the perpetuation of violent conflict by Pakistan (which has no love for Kashmiris - they do not even have the right to vote in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, nor any say in their so-called freedom struggle) a referendum would be impossible and would not reflect the true feelings of the population of Kashmir, Ladakh and Jammu. The fact is that Hindus would not be safe in an independent or Pakistan-governed Kashmir. Pakistan and all those so-called Islamic warriors should leave Kashmir alone to develop and mature as is definitely possible as a state of the Indian Union. In any case, how long will it be until Pakistan declares Sufis (Kashmiris are mainly of this Islamic sect) to be non-Muslims, as it has with other Muslim minorities? Then Kashmiris will see Pakistan for what it is, a wolf in a sheep's clothes. Mark Johnson London Regarding China's connection to terrorism and rogue states: I would bet that the Chinese government is funding and supporting such activities on an indirect basis. Why not? The US is doing it every day. But as is often the case, the US is breeding its own enemies. After our bought and paid for "friends" screw us we cry foul. Is it not time we Americans insisted that our government befriend only those who have earned our respect and who have supported us? We need to stop getting into bed with crooks and scoundrels now. Larry N Bill Guerin replies to Ted Gruen I was astonished to note that my article [Speaking for Islam: A tale of two leaders, May 17], essentially a piece about two Muslim leaders, neither of whom have presided over any "massacres" visited on their countrymen, should be seized on by Ted Gruen to advance the odd premise that Muslims have "collectively deceived" themselves. A close look at the Jenin incident suggests that the Israelis have not only deceived themselves, but the whole world. My view that Israeli acts of violence make Palestinians victims of Israeli acts of terror is one widely held by others, unless we are to redefine terror. The refusal to face the facts lies on the Israeli side. What "everybody knows" is that once Human Rights Watch was eventually allowed by the Israelis to access the camp, the group was able to document 52 people killed by the Israelis, including 22 civilians, many of whom "were killed wilfully or unlawfully". The report also catalogued a pattern of serious human rights violations in Jenin, some of which the group says may be war crimes. The abuses include attacking and killing medical personnel, using civilians as human shields, failing to distinguish between military targets and civilian homes, and causing "extensive and disproportionate destruction of the civilian infrastructure" - so much so that more than a quarter of Jenin's population is now homeless. Amnesty International announced similar findings in a May 4 report: "The Heavy Price of Israeli Incursions" documents "unlawful killings, destruction of property and arbitrary detention [and] torture and ill-treatment" by the Israeli military, and states that many of these actions violated human rights and international law. Gruen's claim that "Jenin, for example, witnessed no 'massacre' at all" resounds loudest in falling flat in the face of the facts. Bill Guerin Jakarta, Indonesia After chastizing America for foreign intervention [Pressure on US to broker peace, May 24], the world looks to America to prevent Pakistan/India nuclear conflict! How ironic. Yet again, Asian countries complain, complain, complain. Never enough. Never with the right mindset. And on and on. I, for one, wish my country would not dabble in other countries' affairs, no matter the reason. Seems like a bunch of children complaining that the teacher shows more favoritism to this child or that child. Grow up world, the teacher may cancel class, permanently. Larry Johnston New Orleans, US Regarding the breakup of the plane over the Straits of Taiwan: Somebody needs to ask whether the US is testing new weapons all over the place, and blackmailing the world. That is my first and foremost question, as a US citizen. There are many, many people in the US and around the world who don't buy any of the crap we're being fed about the events of September 11. I know we've been testing new weapons in Afghanistan (eg, thermobaric bombs). People are also talking about "scalar" weaponry, and whether the crashing of the planes into the WTC towers was a cover for a test of a new type of weapon. I am watching our Pentagon encircle the entire Eurasian landmass with troops and new military bases - and I am horrifed. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the CIA and the Bush-crooks. The question must be raised as to whether that Taiwanese plane was brought down by some new kind of weapon. Jacqueline Brook Putney, Vermont, US I found Jeff Geer's letter lacking in content. Branding someone anti-American and nationalistic is not enough to discredit someone's opinion. Deng Xi Chang's points on the American media are very well taken, and well thought through. It's refreshing to see a different opinion in a world saturated with the likes of CNN, Fox, and AP. It is indeed naive to believe that propaganda only exists "in societies where governments control the flow of information". There is no guarantee that the "free media" offer accurate information, especially when it comes to international politics. The American media aim to justify American policies that defend "American interests". Whether these are in other nations' interests is not their concern. These media are American entities, and I don't blame them for serving American interests first by eschewing and twisting facts. Yet it's unethical and self-defeating to pass them on as truths. The false sense of reality held by the American public will haunt the nation in the future. I applaud Deng's effort to shed some light on this subject. Ying In reply to Tong and Deng [letters below] regarding the sino-Indian conflict: If you read carefully, the source and author of the article you mentioned and base your claim on is Neville Maxwell. The same author has been critical of India in all aspects including the liberation of Bangladesh, where hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis were killed by the Pakistani army. It's a fact you can look up. Bearing that in mind, I take that article with a pinch of salt. A sensible person looks for more than one source of information. Neville Maxwell is the only author in this conflict who favors China. Basing one's whole perspective on one author/source is not very objective or healthy. Arun Referring to Deng and Tong's letters: It is abundantly clear from Neville Maxwell's report that it was China who first launched the attack, so where's the dispute? Jawaharlal Nehru's follies notwithstanding, the fact remains: China continues to harbor anti-India feelings. Its presence in Arunachal Pradesh and its support of insurgency in northeastern India speaks of its aggressive stand. India is a peace-loving nation but is unfortunately pushed to the brink of war by its bellicose neighbor, Pakistan. Relations with China depend a lot on how China views Pakistan's tacit support for militancy in Kashmir. Aradhana In the article Mega-NATO: China out in the cold [May 24], Francesco Sisci boldly states what the Chinese leadership fails to underscore. To their credit, the Chinese leadership realizes that NATO is not a triple-purpose (economic, political, and military) organization; however they must realize that the Eurozone or EU could easily metamorphose into just that, with Russia as the eastern-most border. It is time East Asia dissolved old rivalries between Japan, the Koreas, and China to establish a common future. Neither these East Asian nations nor ASEAN nations would be welcome in a mega-NATO. Turning to Middle Asia (Middle East and Central Asia), an Indo-China alliance should no longer be inconceivable. Also, it is about time Pakistan left India alone and focused on developing an Arab-Muslim alliance (free trade and common currency zone) extending from Pakistan to the Mediterranean. Such an alliance should aim to develop an economically vibrant Middle Asia by finding a compromise between strict Islamic codes and non-strict Islamic culture, a compromise between Islamic-Sharia society and economic-political security. Roy In determining who was responsible for creating the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962, it is interesting to note that some Indian sources acknowledge that it was India (http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/23spec.htm). "After the 1962 war, the Indian Army commissioned Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat to study the debacle. Their report was never made public and lies buried in the government archives. Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique's doorstep." So much for Indian democracy and transparency. Tong Los Angeles, California, US I refer to Aradhana [letter below]: "The world knows about the Chinese aggression of 1962." Correction, the world was conned by Uncle Sam and India. Hours after the war broke out, the US Congress was informed by the CIA in a secret hearing that India had attacked China, but this did not stop the US from conspiring with India to frame China, and it sent the 7th Fleet to back up India. Bertrand Russell, the famed mathematician-cum-philosopher, had gone to India to lend his sympathy to his Indian friends, but during his stay he stumbled across evidence that gave him the shock of his life - India was the aggressor. He left a disillusioned man. Henry Kissinger is on record saying that if he had known the truth about the 1962 war, he might have opposed the Vietnam War, which was fueled by the so-called "Domino Theory", viz, an aggressive Chinese plan to turn the Asian countries communist, one by one. Ex-Times correspondent Neville Maxwell debunked this massive fraud in his book India's China War four decades ago. After the 1998 nuclear tests, India's nationalist Defense Minister George Fernandes declared that the bomb was to counter the threat from China, "India's number one enemy". This prompted Maxwell to write to the Far Eastern Economic Review, chastising India for reviving the China frame-up to cover its own hidden agenda - a favorite ploy amongst the American warmongers too. They have a lot in common, this congenial pair. Even today, this fraud of the century is still being perpetrated in the US and India - two countries which boast of being the most open and free societies. Deng Xi Chang Ask the 1.5 billion people living on $1 a day or less what they think of the World Bank. I'll bet they don't care where assistance comes from or who provides it. They just need help in any shape or form. To the critics of the World Bank, I say leave it alone. The bank should be commended for having the vision and compassion to help the suffering. Marisa We Indians respect China for its unprecedented economic success, but it's amazing to see how misinformed they are. One wonders whether citizens of China have any medium to learn the facts and know the truth. Deng Xi Chang's [see letters below] knowledge of the 1962 war perhaps comes from a nationalist media run by the state machinery. Why else would he call it an "Indian attack"? The world knows about the Chinese aggression of 1962. I wish he could come to India in some exchange program and re-read his history. Right to information is as important as economic freedom. Regarding the article Back on the brink of war [May 18], this is irresponsible reporting to say the least. The author seems to have conveniently overlooked the fact that communal violence in Gujarat was an outburst against the killing of Hindus aboard a train at Godhra. Calling the Hindu organizations "terrorist" is a desperate attempt to lump them in with Muslim fundamentalists. Aradhana Munaf Ahmed [see letter below] should first ask the anti-democratic Pakistani regime to adopt a "civilized" approach toward Kashmir by renouncing terrorism and "jihad" directed against Hindus and other non-Muslims. Islamabad is an expert in double-deals; on one hand it claims to be an ally in the war against terrorism and chants the peace mantra, on the other it cunningly sets loose the jihadi fanatics and the rabid Inter-Services Intelligence with the intention of shedding blood in Kashmir. The world community should have imposed an embargo on the Pakistani regime 15 years back, for its abundant rogue activities. Rakesh India It appears that Sultan Shahin is getting rather desperate in his attempts to paint India as the aggressor in his recent article India ups the ante with Pakistan [May 22]. Perhaps, in his self-selected role as apologist for Pakistan, he should note that history shows that in every situation it has been Pakistan that has been responsible for initiating hostilities. And to those who believe that a "limited strike" by India would lead to nuclear war, I say, let us give the Pakistanis some credit - all species (including Pakistani generals) have an instinct for self-preservation. As much as the generals would love to have Kashmir, they love Pakistan even more, and I doubt they want to see their country annihilated. Sridhar Shankar I refer to the article Alert issued for China's next cyber attack [May 21]. I found James Borton blatantly biased and hostile against China. I wonder where Asia Times Online tries to position itself in the Asian media spectrum, despite your many more balanced articles. I hope it is not trying to be Asia's Washington Times. First of all, the CIA and FBI missed many clues before September 11. Remember when George W Bush first came to power, obsessing about China as a strategic competitior and intending to make it enemy number one in a new cold war? Connect the dots here: Obsessing about China - CIA and FBI busy on the China case - CIA and FBI missing clues to September 11. Now Borton wants the US to repeat the same mistake. Secondly, there is a difference between Chinese student hackers and China the state. Intentionally mixing the two up indicates either the author's malice or lack of logic. Finally, why do well-educated Chinese university students hack the freedom-loving US government's websites, instead of their own government's sites? Borton does America a great disservice - having no confidence in the attractiveness of American ideals, he sees enemies everywhere. Peter X The United Nations must force India to respect its resolutions, otherwise it must impose sanctions and a trade embargo. This is the only way to compel India to adopt a civilized approach to Kashmir. Munaf Ahmed Austin, Texas Syed Saleem Shahzad [War scenario beyond conventional wisdom, May 21] writes, "However, the Islamic militant groups, and especially those who have ruled out calls for restraint from President General Pervez Musharraf, pose the greatest threat to India. These militant groups are fully integrated into Indian society and have the potential to wage a proxy war all over India should the countries actually begin a war." He is wrong. These potential terrorists inside India represent a threat to Pakistan. Surely, if India feels sufficiently threatened by Pakistan whether from within or without, it is Pakistan that will be annihilated. Gary Moore I would like to say that I'm happy for the people of East Timor for achieving their independence, and for the former East Timor guerrilla leader Xanana Gusmao who was sworn in as the first president of the new nation. Although poor, being a sovereign state East Timor now has the best opportunity to determine its own future and to improve the lives of the people. I quote from Jose Ramos-Horta, the new East Timorese foreign minister who shared the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize with Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo: "Now is a time for peace, tolerance and forgiveness." Kudos, East Timor! Chi Wang Cambridge, Massachusetts, US Deng Xi Chang dishes out a list of issues including those relating to Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, and points a finger at India in each case. India's relations with all of these countries, including a vast majority of their people, remain peaceful and tolerant, if not friendly. A third party bitterly ranting about these issues reflects hawkishness, if not an outright expansionist mindset. Rakesh Chandra India Bill Guerin's complaint [Speaking for Islam: A tale of two leaders, May 17] about the Palestinians being "indisputably the new victims of Israeli acts of terror cloaked in the guise of a fight against the same terror" as visited on the US on September 11 falls flat in the face of facts that everybody knows and can only be motivated by refusal to face them. Jenin, for example, witnessed no "massacre" at all at the hand of Israeli forces who gave their lives so that innocents there, both Muslim and Christian, would be spared the kind of true massacres that Syrian Muslims visited on their countrymen in Hamah (20,000), that Algerian Muslims have visited upon their own countrymen (100,000 and counting), that Muslim Taliban visited upon the Afghan people (50,000), that Egyptian Muslims visited upon Christian Copts (10,000), and that Indonesian Muslims have visited on the people of East Timor and Irian Jaya (untold thousands). Muslims have deceived themselves that they are collectively not as dangerous as the facts show they are when it comes to dealing with minorities, and they need to reform themselves from within instead of projecting their attitudes against the West and Israel, who have always leaned over backward to be accommodating and kind in ways Muslims find hard to comprehend and therefore disbelieve and ridicule as being a "guise" for evil. Ted Gruen I would like to bring to your attention to errors in the article Back on the brink of war [May 18]. References to Hindu terrorists are baseless. All the Indian political parties referred to are legal parties which do not indulge in mindless violence. As fas as the reference to India waging war with Pakistan is concerned, it should be remembered that each time the countries have waged war, Pakistan was the aggressor. Each time, the Indian leadership showed exemplary restraint and let Pakistan go with a warning and sometimes the signing of an accord for which Pakistan seems to have no respect. Even after the attack on India's parliament, the Indian government did not retaliate. But there is a limit to how much terrorism a country can endure, especially in a democracy where leaders are answerable to the people. I think the time has come for action from India to root out terrorism at its source - Pakistan. Pravin I quote Carl Clemens: "Deng should be frank and simply say: 'To hell with all morality. China will commit crimes if that is what it takes to become a hegemon and a world power. And that's that." Uncle Sam as the hegemon needs no introduction, hell, their own high-priced strategists openly theorize on ways to preserve that hegemony. Nobody ever called India a hegemon - call it professional courtesy among the democracies if you like - yet the track record is damning. India attacked China in 1962, air dropped supplies to the Tiger rebels in Sri Lanka, imposed a decade-old blockade on Nepal to punish the tiny nation for tryining to get cozy with China, gobbled up Sikkim in 1975, turned Bhutan into a vassal state, fought three wars with Pakistan and had numerous border skirmish with Bangladesh. But in the world according to Uncle Sam, India is a "peace-loving country brutally invaded by China", it "shares common values with the US" (they might have something there), and "faces a common threat from the Chinese". According to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans swallow this, hook, line, and sinker. Talk about the brain-washed Chicoms, you aint seen nothing yet. On the other hand, where is the evidence for Chinese hegemony? What did China do as a "hegemon", what "crimes" were commited along the way? "To hell with morality"? Why not, who cares about morality these days - the US? India? Give me a break. Deng Xi Chang I take note of Deng Xi Chang's whining and find it to be of little interest. On the other hand, Henry C K Liu is hardly a whiner in my opinion, and I find it difficult to fathom how writers like Deng can even begin to hold a candle to someone of Liu's intellectual caliber. Deng is blantantly anti-American in his own nationalistic antagonisms, unlike Liu's deeper intellectual quest, which probes the issues to more fully expose the ambiguities of the Taiwan question or the Tibetan rights issue. Liu's lengthy but often revealing exposes obviously are not so flattering to the US, but then neither are they complete in their scope (eg Laws of War, Laws of Occupation, International Humanitarian Laws, FM 27-10, etc). Maybe he simply just has not burrowed deep enough to hit the bedrock bottom of the fundamental issues yet. But the commissars of anti-Americanism will back-fill his works and color the Taiwan or Tibetan issues with their politically correct red crayons of Han chauvinism and nationalistic sentiments without any regard to giving the issues any deeper thought. These commissars of "One China" have missed the bigger picture not found in any of their little coloring books. A cold shower does an ego good, and some of the intellectual midgets noted herein need one. Jeff Geer Face the facts, Deng Xi Chang, and don't theorize about how Uncle Sam lies. China's main source of news is the People's Daily, owned by the government. Western media, including those in the US, are corporations which governments can't touch, while the Chinese media are manipulated by the government. Just go to NBC News and you will see that some editors criticize US foreign policy with impunity. Dat Tran Since when does silence imply admission, as Deng Xi Chang seems to suggest in his letter? Comments made by Deng are often so single-minded and one-sided that to address them thoroughly and responsibly in a forum like this is just not possible. Chi Wang Cambridge, Massachusetts, US I quote Chi Wang: "In countries where information is never censored or altered by a central authority, we have opinions and consensus, but never propaganda." Amazing. After tacitly admitting, by your silence, that China's accusations of US aggression are true while Uncle Sam has been lying through his teeth about Chinese expansionism, you can still theorize that propaganda could only happen in China, not the US. Chinese propagandists are crude in their trade, a lot of Chinese citizens are wary of their government's utterances, and take the likes of People's Daily with a grain of salt. Uncle Sam is the real pro here - he can tell a blatant lie and get away with it, as you have just demonstrated. Herein lies the difference between an amateur and the master of the art. Deng Xi Chang In response to Deng Xi Chang: Do I now have to "prove" that the US and India have a relationship that was described as "estranged", if not bitter at times, during the Cold War? Also, Pakistan has been a lackey-state of the US, and not just because of Afghanistan. Please refer the now declassified (and sanitized) minutes of the conversations between Kissinger, Nixon and Chou Enlai. Each side seems to be humoring the other by making crass statements about Indian history, politics, its modern leaders, and its ambitions. The Sino-US pact to contain the USSR also extended to India. You also said: "The part regarding China the bogeyman is a familiar Indian refrain to justify their arms program." If a belligerent neighbor, which has invaded a buffer state (Tibet) and now stands on your borders, has already made war and usurped some of your territory, then collaborates with and nuclearizes another rabid neighbour (Pakistan), and seeks to fully encircle you by indulging a third state ruled by a military junta (Myanmar), is not reason enough for alarm, then I'm afraid I don't know what is. As for the "external aggression" phrase you dug up from a letter I had written ages back in a different context: please pick up a book on the past 800 years of Indian history. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am now embarrassed by the petty confrontationist approach you are taking. When I first wrote in referring to your letter, it was your basic attitude and lack of "logic" that I was pointing out. Now I do not wish to further indulge it. Carl Clemens Ohio, US I refer to Carl Clemens's letter. Me? Frothy mouthed? After you have calmed down, please show me the offensive paragraph where I "assert China's God-ordained destiny to usurp other lands and swallow other cultures; use specious "historical" and "cultural" arguments to "prove" that China has a legitimate "right" over Tibet"; and "lambaste Canada" - I happen to think the Canadians are swell fellows, not that all Americans are jerks either, it's just that their country is heading down the path of the Roman Empire. Oh, I nearly forget, you made an extremely intriguing remark in a previous letter, viz, "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." The part regarding China the bogeyman is a familiar Indian refrain to justify their arms program, but US as a threat to India must be news to the readers. And when did India suffer this "crushing aggression"? Please enlighten the readers , I am waiting with bated breath. Deng Xi Chang If Deng Xi Chiang's intent was to call attention to propoganda emanating from the US, then many, including I, would agree with him. Instead, he persists with the same vacuous logic, by using his bitter rants against the rest of the world to "justify" Chinese injustices. His reasoning is tantamount to: "Since so many bimbos believe US propoganda, why won't you go along with mine?" Similarly, on the Tibet issue: "Other nations in history have invaded foreign lands, so don't start criticizing China." In each case, the whole point of the discussion is missed, or deliberately circumvented. If the argument is about the moral aspect of Chinese policy and action, then let's deal with the real facts. Otherwise, Deng should be frank and simply say: "To hell with all morality. China will commit crimes if that is what it takes to become a hegemon and a world power. And that's that." That is reasonable enough, and would also save us the mortification of his untruths. Carl Clemens Ohio, US In response to Deng Xi Chang's recent letter quoting my comments, I'd like to point out that "propaganda" can only be substantiated in societies where governments control the flow of information. In countries where information is never censored or altered by a central authority, we have opinions and consensus, but never propaganda. Propaganda can never survive when people can develop independent views. Had Deng understood the distinction, perhaps by first trying to read more uncensored news, he would never have attempted to ask readers "to decide who is the master of propaganda". Because we don't have one here in the US. Or in any other free countries, for that matter. By the same token, "being demonized" is perhaps a phenomenon that only exists in China. Here in my neighborhood of Cambridge we treasure strong views, knowing they are based on uncensored information. "Being demonized" is not something we can imagine someone using in this part of the world, luckily. The Chinese government can "harp on the same subject" if it's the truth. Unfortunately, truth is hard to come by, even in a free society like the US, let alone in countries like China. Therefore, the question becomes, how can average Chinese citizens know it's the truth when all they can read and hear to develop their own judgement has been altered by the government? When the government harps on the same subject over and over again without giving its people access to opposing views, it's brainwashing. And this happens every day in all those Chinese dailies, I might add. I know this because I read them. Not for consumption of news, but for verifying its authenticity (don't ask, it's one of my hobbies). The Chinese Communist Party IS the master of propaganda. And I would ask Deng and all Chinese citizens to think hard about who the demonized "victims" are. Chi Wang Cambridge, Massachusetts US I refer to the article Chinese popular taste bucks propaganda [May 16]. I always wondered about China-bashers' twisted logic. Antoaneta Bezlova is no exception. If the ban was demanded by parents and teachers, how could it become "popular taste bucks propaganda"? It seems "communist censors" were being responsive to public opinion. And Bezlova also does not understand the mass media. Pirated books and VCDs can never compare to the reach of television. And as the producers do not make money from them, there is no incentive to make similar programs again. Here is my theory why the series Meteor Garden was banned so quickly. Because it is Taiwanese, so the banning discourages the growth of Taiwan's culture industry outside China's orbit. If Taiwanese entertainment wants to grow, it has to go Chinese. It is as simple as that. Taiwanese singer A-Mei learned from a bad experience. Peter X Praful Bidwai [India gives Gujarat pogrom a terrorist spin, May 14] seems to be blatantly glossing over the jihadi agenda that Islamists in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere have pursued for decades. The writer should honestly ask himself whether it is really unfeasible that the rogue agency ISI, along with the support of jihadi elements and some local goons in Godhra deliberately burned a bogey-full of Hindus with an intention of provoking riots. Even a cursory look at the past 15 years of internal happenings in Pakistan and terrorism in India and Kashmir would suggest that there are plenty of sinister jihadi elements who want to deliberately provoke Hindus and spread communal disharmony. Any kind of violence is condemnable and detestable. But cynically dismissing facts will serve no purpose. The writer should think what the reaction would have been had non-Muslims burned a bogey-full of Muslims in a Muslim country. Rakesh Chandra India I quote the letter by Chi Wang: "Chang's references to things like US intimidation, hostile spy planes, and all those 'separatists', are really tiring because the Chinese government has already said it all once too often. Doesn't China have anyone with slightly different views than these? How can a country as big as China have such uniform views?" When I recap 5 decades of US aggression against China, I invited readers to point out any inaccuracies, and the invitation still stands. Does it matter how many times the Chinese Communist Party has harped on the same subject if it happen to be the truth? Are we to understand that when Uncle Sam kicks your butts, you are not allowed even to whine, else it prove you are anti-American (Jeff Geer take note)? Now take a look at the claptrap circulating in the US media: China attacked India in 1962 and grabbed a large piece of territory; China built up its puny 15 ICBMs in order to "challenge US supremacy" or, according to the likes of Bill Gertz from the infamous Washington Times, "to destroy the USA"; the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by accident; China is a threat to the world's democracies and has to be contained, China is the worst persecutor of regligions. I let the readers decide who is the master of propaganda here. By the way, I am not even a Chinese national, who most likely would not read an English-language paper and hence wouldn't know how he had been demonized in the Western press all these years. I glean much information not from any "Chinese proganda machine" - I have yet to read the People's Daily - but from Western sources, including American - there are still honest Americans around, believe me. Deng Xi Chang Danielle Knight [Bhopal disaster back to haunt US firm, May 8] draws attention to a very curious human perception: poor and disadvantaged people are less beautiful and have a lesser worth as members of the species than the wealthy. An American life fetches the highest price in the courts, followed by the rest of the G8 nations. Lives in the poorer nations have no commercial value in the courts. Bhopal demonstrates this so acutely. Once the money has been sucked out of a case, the rights of the affected parties simply cease to exist. Environmental problems manifest themselves over long periods of time. When does liability end? When economic factors determine the "sell by" date of the clients? For lawyers, there is no money in drawing attention to environmental ills unless there are paying clients or courts that will order appropriate compensation. The Bhopal case and many others need to be dealt with at the Earth Summit,. I hope your fine publication continues to draw attention to these matters so that these injustices can be addressed. Jeremy Ridl Durban, South Africa I quote from Chi Wang's letter on Tibet, "Instead of reflecting on its own failure to win the heart and soul of ethnic Tibetans, the Chinese seem to be mindlessly obsessed with the government's propaganda that Tibet is part of China because of history." Where on earth would you find a rebel-plagued territory showered with goodies like exemption from tax, exemption from major national policies like population control, heavy subsidies in education and the economy? Where else but in Tibet of course. Compared to the horrible bloodbath in Indian-occupied Kashmir, or Palestine, or Kurdistan in Turkey, or Aceh, or East Timor (until 1998), China ought to get a Nobel Peace Prize for its exemplary endeavor "to win the heart and soul" of ethnic minorities. Here is a supposedly evil communist country showing the democracies the way of enlightened rule. But in the world according to Uncle Sam, all we hear about is China's "genocidal rule" in Tibet and India's "benign" policy in Kashmir. So China gets all the flak for dangling the carrot , while India and other vaunted democracies who wield the stick are praised and rewarded with arms. "Government propaganda" is at work here alright, but guess who are the victims? Deng Xi Chang Regarding Deng Xi Chang wondering "why the world seems to expect the Chinese communists to set a higher standard in human rights and democracy than all the rest" [see letter below], well, wonder no more. The reason is very simple: China makes the loudest noise promoting itself as a "major" player on the world stage, yet has the worst human rights violations on record by any standard: a perfect combination for human rights activists on the lookout. But with privilege comes responsibilities. China has to learn to play the game. Also, I'm sure most countries would not give up land without a fight. However, there are different kinds of fights. For instance, I don't recall the Canadian government yelling to the Quebecois: "Hey, you French separatists, stop the nonsense now or I'll use force if necessary!" However, in the mid-17th century the British and the French did trade such threats in nearby Nova Scotia, with both sides claiming ownership of Port Royal, but that was nearly 300 years ago; nations then were not as civilized. Chi Wang Cambridge, Maryland, US Referring to Deng Xi Chang's series of letters asserting China's God-ordained destiny to usurp other lands and swallow other cultures: Specious "historical" and "cultural" arguments to "prove" that China has a legitimate "right" over Tibet are ridiculous, if not outright offensive (and not just to Tibetans). His insensitivity invited a few retorts from Tibetans and others. His rant now rises to a frothy-mouthed crescendo as he lambastes India, along with a host of other nations, including Canada. His argument now falls to the level of "if others do it, so can we". Deng has been parroting some contemptuous lines first used by Mao and other Chinese leaders, one of them being that India is a "partner" of the West. Excuse me, but most people tell me that India and the US have been "estranged" for half a century. In fact, it was China and the US which were strategic "partners", who sought to contain, both, the USSR and India, co-opting Pakistan to good effect. Deng's arguments and slanders are famliar Chinese propoganda. They cease to be entertaining when one considers the fact that this large nation will have a preponderant influence in the Asian region. If this influence is to be benign and welcomed, ordinary Chinese, as well as their government, will have to start being a little more sensitive and respectful of their neighbors. This includes those neighbors they have invaded. None of the 700 Tibetan families in my city (in India) will buy any of Deng's arguments. Carl Clemens Ohio, US With reference to the article by Praful Bidwai, India gives Gujarat pogrom a terrorist spin [May 14], the leftist author sounds pathetic, frustrated and depressed when he scribbles that the "Gujarat riots were not a spontaneous reaction to Godhra carnage". Even after such a grave provocation as a terrorist attack on a train, the author expects Hindus to remain subservient and disregard the flames of Sabarmati which engulfed more mothers and daughters than was ever reported. The term "pogrom" seems new to him. It would be more reasonable to ascribe the happenings of September 11, December 13, and February 28 to the anti-infidel, pro-pogrom view enshrined in the Muslim scriptures. Everything else is just a reaction for survival. However, an important ingredient of Hindu reaction could have been the post-September 11 frustration at seeing Indian Muslims glorifying Osama bin Laden. It is alarming that in the face of rising global Islamic fundamentalism, Asia Times Online is willing to play al-Jazeera. Akshay Anand I must commend your writer Syed Saleem Shahzad on his vivid imagination. He should be writing Hollywood scripts about UFOs or the new episodes of the X-Files rather than making a serious attempt at journalism. His recent suggestions that Iran was responsible for the bombing in Karachi are as bizarre as they come. There is a simple explanation for the attack on the French engineers - domestic terrorism. Iran would never sabotage its relationship with Pakistan to the extent of killing foreigners in this country. Kamran Ali Apparently Pepe Escobar is a new addition to the group of anti-India fiction hobbyists at Asia Times Online [Al-Quaida vs France or India vs Pakistan]. Before weaving wild conspiracy theories about an Indian secret agency (RAW) hand in the Karachi bombing, he might have considered the following: Didn't that very same French company, DCN, collaborate in the design work for the Indian Navy Air Defense Ship (ADS) project? Isn't there a deal in the works for DCN to set up a Scorpene submarine production line in India? I wonder if it occurred to Escobar that this attack was (a) extremely unlikely to permanently affect the Pakistani Agosta project, and (b) if traced to RAW would cause great harm to the Indian Navy ADS and Scorpene projects. It is absurd to suggest RAW would do this to employees of an Indian Navy foreign contractor. Carl Clemens Ohio, US Let me ask this of Pepe Escobar [Al-Quaida vs France or India vs Pakistan]: Do you think India would want to jeopardize everything by using something like a suicide attack? Isn't it cheaper (not in monetary terms) to just buy that technology from France? France is not shy about selling arms to India. We have more money than Pakistan. You can criticize Indian policy makers for lots of things - greed, corruption, etc - but they are not that stupid. India cooperates with France militarily. It also plans to build Scorpene subs. Do you think that if Pakistan did not get Agosta, India's problems would be solved? We have regional aspirations. We also have China to contend with. Arvind Mani Maryland, US I refer to the letter by Chi Wang regarding Tibet. Tibet IS a part of China, period. This has nothing to do with events "some point in history". Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is universally recognized, including by the US. Regarding your statement, "When the people of Tibet can develop a mature consensus in support of independence, the world, including China, should endorse it," China might see fit to consider the "democratic view" of the Tibetan separatists - IF democractic India is willing to quit occupied Kashmir, Israel is willing to withdraw from occupied Palestine, Indonesia is willing to let go of Aceh and West Papua, Turkey is willing to grant independence to Kurdistan, Canada is willing to forgo Quebec, Spain gives up on the Basque region, the Philippines allows the Moro separation, etc. I always wonder why the world seems to expect the Chinese communists to set a higher standard in human rights and democracy than all the rest. Chinese rule of Tibet seems to me a natural legacy of centuries of "twisted and complicated relationships between China and Tibet" - much more natural, in fact, than the white men's brutal descent upon America and India's occupation of Kashmir and annexation of Sikkim (according to the likes of Encyclopaedia Britannica, China "annexed" Tibet, while India "incorporated" Sikkim). The irony of course is that the Americans and their Indian partners are those who yelp the loudest about Tibet. Talk about people in glass houses ... Deng Xi Chang The modern world order is rooted in history, in the context of a Westphalian structure of nation states. Therein lies the internal contradiction facing separatist movements, that their claim of the right to separate national status is in turn challenged by sub-units within their movements. The logic ends in anarchy. The prime function of a national government, while protecting the legitimate rights of all its citizens, is to resist separatism, with force if necessary. America's Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union at high cost of life and property, by essentially destroying a vibrant Southern economy and culture. Canada resisted Quebec independence. National independence struggles under Western imperialism are of a different nature: they aim for the just overthrow of domination by an alien government. Invoking residual Cold War propaganda rhetoric of "democracy" and "human rights" in support of separatist movements serves neither the noble causes of true democracy and human rights, nor progressive world order stability. Tibet is an autonomous adminstrative region of China. To the extent that misguided Tibetian separatists desist from collusion with anti-China forces such as the CIA, Tibetian antonomy within the Chinese political system will be further enhanced. Henry C K Liu This is in response to Roy's letter about multipolarity. It sounds so good to hear about Tibet's many supposed similarities with China, and of a China unified with Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia etc as a great nation, as China already claims to be. But Tibetans have fewer similarities with the Chinese than with Mongolians and Indians. Tibet's Buddhism came from India; our writing is based on India's, and is way different from Chinese. Tibetans are from a Mongoloid race. Our dress has a Mongol rather than a Chinese influence. The theory of a united, mighty China which will help to stabilize a unipolar world sounds great. But I would prefer a unipolar world with the US as the hegemon, rather than China, which has no sense of human rights, democracy, or self-determination. I would also prefer unipolar US hegemony to a bipolar world with China and the US sharing power. Things are wrong in the world because people assume they are doing the right thing by encroaching on other people's wishes - just like China invaded Tibet and called it a "liberation". It's the same issue that makes you afraid of US hegemony in the first place. So look before you leap. Dawa Ghoso After reading the letter Why Tibet is part of China by Henry C K Liu, I ask myself: What does this lengthy historic introduction have to do with Tibet's struggle for independence?"The twisted and complicated relationships between China and Tibet, as Liu carefully outlined, is just that: history. For China to say that "Tibet is part of China" because at some point in time Tibet was part of China is ridiculous. Doesn't the will of today's Tibetan mean anything? What made Tibet part of China in the past has no bearing on Tibet's current and future status if democracy and human rights are to be respected. When the people of Tibet can develop a mature consensus in support of independence, the world, including China, should endorse it. Instead of reflecting on its own failure to win the heart and soul of ethnic Tibetans, the Chinese seem to be mindlessly obsessed with the government's propaganda that Tibet is part of China because of history. Or perhaps that's just the government's front to cover up its real intention: Tibetan independence would mean defeat by the US, which no doubt would considerably weaken the Communist Party's hold on power. Also, this is the first time I've read Deng Xi Chang's letters and I must say it's really difficult to have a meaningful debate with these Chinese folks because you can never tell if their opinions are their own, or just standard lines brainwashed into their subconscious by their government. After all, how can someone develop their own views if they can only read what the government wants them to read? Chang's references to things like US intimidation, hostile spy planes, and all those "separatists", are really tiring because the Chinese government has already said it all once too often. Doesn't China have anyone with slightly different views than these? How can a country as big as China have such uniform views? Chi Wang Cambridge, Massachusetts, US I refer to the letter by Karma Tsering regarding Tibet. If China committed genocide in Tibet, it ought to be condemned. But a lot of allegations leveled against China are just that - allegations passed off as facts. About this genocide thing, there are currently at least three versions circulating in the US - take your pick, the number of victims is rising by the day. The Dalai Lama claimed that 1 million Tibetans had been "liquidated", physicist Barry Simon claimed 3 million (his Tibetan pal told him so), superstar Richard Gere claimed 6 million - and he got this from, who else, his Tibetan pal. The Americans are responsible for some of the greatest hoaxes of the century, so it's wise to take anything from the land of (dis)information with a huge grain of salt. Fact is, in many forums that you yourself have participated in, you and others could not produce conclusive evidence to justify the accusation of genocide, let alone one of such massive scale. Tibet is China's internal affair. My recent comments were about outright US aggression against China, and there is no moral equivalence. As other readers have pointed out, it's up to the Chinese themselves to sort out their family squabble. Outsiders, especially Americans, please buzz off. Deng Xi Chang Karma Tsering raised some legitimate points about the errors of past Chinese policy on Tibet. Indeed, China needs to adopt a more respectful and nurturing policy towards indigenous cultures of its minorities. There are indications that current policies have moved in that direction. Yet policy errors do not alter the historical fact that Tibet is part of China, writes Henry C K Liu. Please click here for the full text of his letter. Full text I plead to Karma Tsering (letter to Deng Xi Chang) that for sake of a multipolar world - having more than one center of authority, stability, and prosperity - Tibet becomes a vibrant part of China. Tibetans may have issues with Han Chinese but the historical evidence shows that Han Chinese are their best ally, not the hypocritical West, particularly the US. There are at least four ways in which Chinese and Tibetans are already united: historically, culturally, geographically and racially. According to the general culture theory, the Irish and English may have differences but also have a lot of similarities. Regardless of the differences between English and the Irish, they have far more in common than each of them has with a Tibetan or Han Chinese. Like a river and its tributaries, different European cultures have a shared general culture and history. No wonder the new euro currency has Greco-Roman designs and other historical themes to which all Europeans can relate. Finally, regional geography suggests that a united China will be far more prosperous than a fragmented China. Like the European Union, all Chinese ethnic groups must give up some sovereignty in return for a greater common good. It is acceptable for Tibetan Buddhism to be practiced throughout China. However, to allow the US to exploit ethnic differences for the purpose of fragmenting China and maintaining a unipolar world with only one center of authority, stability, and prosperity can never be the Christ-like thing to do. Let us all build a true global democracy and demand that a multipolar and polycentric world is a human right. Roy (polycentricity.net) I refer to Alan Boyd's article ASEAN's military buildup threatens detente with China. Boyd does not seem to understand either ASEAN or China. First, Singapore buys advanced weapons because of its sense of insecurity toward Indonesia and Malaysia. In turn, Malaysia purchase its share of arms in order to reach parity. Malaysia is bigger and does not like seeing Singapore's military superiority. Their mutual suspicion of each other is bigger than that between either of them and China. Their arms buildup has nothing to do with China. Thailand buys more arms because Vietnam has risen gradually and has always had its own design of domination in Indochina. Thailand has always been grateful that China attacked Vietnam after the latter invaded Cambodia in pursuing an Indochina federation. Instead of growing apart, ASEAN countries and China are coming together. The agreement to negotiate an ASEAN-China free trade pact in 10 years is a very good example of this integration. Peter X In response to M Wali's letter regarding a renewed Indo-Afghan friendship: The Indian role so far in the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been quiet in spite of the fast pace of developments. Apart from "monetary aid packages", the support has been more in the form of helping build, train and organize the civic, military and infrastructure development bodies. Latest in the now regular stream of such reports is the visit of Afghan Defense Minister Mohd Faheem to India, and the gift by India of three A-300 Airbuses worth $7 million to Ariana. The potential for civic and commercial engagement between India and Afghanistan is great. A parallel military cooperation is also natural - given the role India has played in supporting anti-Taliban forces within Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, which is a common threat. The effects of Pakistani interference in Afghanistan have been far worse than just economic and military disaster. It has corrupted the entire national psyche and society of Afghanistan. After injecting Afghan society with the drug of "jihad", Pakistan has used Afghans for its own power projections in Central Asia, India (Kashmir), etc. Also, Islamabad needs to keep Afghanistan weak, so that it does not have to part with its essentially Pushtun-dominated territory east of the Durand Line. The choices Afghanistan makes in its foreign relations should reflect the moral choices it makes about its own future as a nation. Carl Clemens Columbus, Ohio, US In Hot economy or cooked books? [May 3] Asia Times Online Editor Uwe Parpart did a needed service by pointing out that while there are problems in China's official growth statistics, the more relevant measurement is the rate of structural change in the Chinese economy. Problems with statistics are not unique to China. Economic data are meaningful only to the extent of the rationale behind their collection and categorization. For example, Business Week has observed that the US Federal Reserve's oft-quoted Flow of Funds data showed that households sold $168.4 billion of individual stocks in 1995 and only bought about $88 billion worth of equity mutual funds, implying that households were lightening up their overall equity ownership. In fact, the Fed might have been undercounting the purchase of mutual funds by households, and overcounting households' sale of equities. While the Fed possesses detailed information on the buying and selling of equities for such institutions as banks, insurance companies, and mutual funds, it has no transaction-derived data for American households. After figuring out the total amount of equity issued during the year and tallying the amount of stock retired through corporate buybacks and mergers, Fed economists subtract the net purchases and sales of equities by institutional investors. What's left is dumped into the household category. The numbers for the household sector include transactions by non-profit organizations which are net sellers of stock because of the need to fund their many projects. The money held in defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s is excluded from the household sector and appears in a category the Fed calls pension plans. As more people put more of their 401(k) money into equity funds, the Fed's numbers on pension plans go through the roof - and the numbers for the household sector miss a larger and larger chunk of stock ownership. Two economists, James M Poterba of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Andrew A Samwick of Dartmouth College, by including equity held in 401(k)s, variable annuities, and other types of investments, showed individuals owning 64 percent of all outstanding equity, compared with about 50 percent calimed by the Fed. The reason Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which emphasizes quantitative expansion rather than qualitative development, is given dominant importance is because of its role in international finance. Sovereign credit ratings, country interest rate premiums and exchange rates valuations are driven by GDP growth data, a one-size-fits-all measurement. Since the development of cross-border finance under financial globalization, GDP has become the whole game in competing for global capital. Nations declare optimistic GDP targets and would do everything to achieve them, including high unemployment and creative accounting, to secure better terms in cross-border finance and better advantage in trade through foreign currency valuations. Thus the whole world pushes for quantative growth, not as matter of philosophy but of hardball finance. Yet, as Keynes observed: If every man married his housekeeper, GDP would fall. Global capital ought to become more attracted to locations of high development rather than high quantitative expansion. Under current norms, capital tends to go to economies of high Gini coefficient (developed by Italian statistician Corrodo Gini to provide a mathematical expression of the degree of concentration of wealth or income), used by social scientists describing inequality or comparing inequality within and among nations. It makes no sense in a world economy of overcapacity, not to mention that high wealth and income disparity leads directly to social and political instability - a nightmare risk scenario for investors. Henry C K Liu I am a Tibetan and can understand Deng Xi Chang's feelings of being on the receiving end of aggression by the US, such as flying and spying near China. But how about 1 million Tibetans being killed in the so-called liberation of Tibet by "docile" China? How about the Tibetan language, a product of around 2,000 years of civilization, being on the brink of extinction, mainly due to China's lop-sided care for the victim? Of course, China wants to modernize Tibet, by removing what is Tibetan. Karma Tsering Toronto, Canada As a Canadian citizen of Afghan ethnicity, I would like to congratulate both the Afghan and Indian nations for re-establishing their diplomatic, cultural, and economic ties. The two nations have always enjoyed honest understanding and respectful friendship in the past, with the exception of the barbaric and dark years of the Pakistani-supported Taliban. Both Afghanistan and India are victims of terrorism. I would urge the interim Afghan government to make its best efforts to give Indian companies priority in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, since India stood by the Afghan people during their struggle against the Taliban and their Arab-Pakistani terrorists. Afghanistan has a lot to learn from the greatest democracy on Earth. Long live our brotherly friendship. M Wali Canada The degree of anti-American sentiment expressed by the respondents has little to do with the fact that the Laws of War are jus cogens to the world, including China or Israel. To the United State Congress, the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is the supreme law of the land as it is a domestic legislative equilavent and the US Senate ratification process constitutionally overrides any treaty inconsistencies of their beloved Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Determining just how inconsistent the TRA is with the SFPT obviously requires the use of FM 27-10. Before Japan abrogated the Treaty of Taipei in order to recognize the lawful government of China, it was always a "treaty within a treaty" as the noted bilateral Article 2 cession does not grant any sovereignty to the ROC under a superior treaty authority of Article 2 in the multilateral SFPT. The Taiwan cession is subject to the higher authority of the SFPT found in Article 26, and even the bilateral treaty recognized that basic legal fact in Article 11. The ROC on Taiwan is not the government of China nor is it even the sovereign government of Taiwan cession in SFPT. In full accordance with the Shanghai Communiques, the final peace treaty status of Taiwan cession is between the ROC and PRC. As the Shanghai Communiques are executive agreements or "mini-treaties" with Beijing, the SFPT has the supreme legal authority over this issue too. However, these lawful US-PRC bilateral civil affairs agreements are further upheld as supreme law for SFPT cessions in Article 2 because of Paragraph 354 in FM 27-10. Under SFPT, the political status of Taiwan is yet to be finalized by any bilateral agreement between the recognized lawful government of the area and the far more localized "military government" of Taiwan. If one even thinks SFPT mysteriously makes Taiwan a "country", then whom are you really kidding? The Taiwan question is between the ROC and PRC for the final treaty status during this SFPT interim status quo. So has the TRA wrongfully infringed upon SFPT as supreme law for any purposes of finalizing the Taiwan question? The big question of TRA is, is the US Congress honestly playing by its own legal rule books for the self-serving purposes of imposing its peaceful but "democratic" resolutions upon the SFPT cession? Again, the present hostility is more rooted in ignorance and anti-Americanism than any recognition of the rule of law as clearly summarized by the SFPT and was drafted in conformity with binding guidelines for the Laws of War. The TRA may be a domestic law, but so are the International Laws of War because of the SFPT ratification. It is finally time to just resolve the SFPT cession issue by the book, per se, but not TRA. Jeff Geer Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh is on trial in Hyderabad, accused of involvement in the kidnapping and particularly cruel murder of the American journalist Daniel Pearl. Whatever the verdict announced, however, so many powerful men in Pakistan are so afraid of the knowledge that Sheikh holds that he is unlikely to leave the country alive. Nor is the real story likely to be told in court or ever come out. For Sheikh is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan's government, military, and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. There was one bizarre clue in the demands made by Pearl's kidnappers, who wanted America to honor an agreement to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan. This hardly squared with the outlook of a militant Muslim organization fighting a jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. It did, however - no matter how unpleasant to the US - express the interests of Pakistan's military government. India's foreign minister once said that if Pakistan was an ally of the US in the fight against terrorism, then good luck to the US. With a friend like Pakistan, the US doesn't need enemies. Suresh M Sheth Irvine, California, US Why is it, with all the talk about weapons of mass destruction in regard to Iraq, which no one suggests has a nuclear weapon, that there is only one state in the world that has nuclear weapons and is not a party to any of the international arms control treaties, disdains the United Nations and demonstrates daily its willingness to indulge in disproportionate military responses? Jack Henderson Osterville, Massachusetts, US In my response to Jeff Geer's letter I made an error referring to the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFTP) when I had meant to refer to the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, signed at Taipei on April 28, 1952. I attached in my letter a copy of the Republic of China-Japan Peace Treaty which referred to sections in the SFPT regarding Formosa - Article 2 (b) "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" - but understandably it was edited out because of excessive length. Mr Geer accused me of "lacking in the present depth of any military knowledge on this topic as he has even failed to check out the basic facts of just exactly who signed the SFPT as neither the ROC or PRC are signatories. Without any degree of knowledge of SFPT status or the Laws of War, how can he even seriously debunk the applicability of FM 27-10?" Surely the basic facts of the SFPT need no checking out as the editor's note immediately following Mr Geer's letter states, "On September 8, 1951, 48 countries signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty to mark the formal cessation of World War II hostilities in Asia-Pacific between Japan and the rest of the signatories. The treaty specifies the settlement terms of war-related issues and provides for an end to Japan's occupation. Neither China nor Taiwan was invited to the peace conference." I plead guilty to being unfamiliar with the Laws of War because of their irrelevance to the Taiwan issue. As I said, Mr Geer's contention that the US position on Taiwan is predicated on the FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare is truly novel. And the peculiar logic he relies on to boost his contention with my error does not strengthen his position. Henry C K Liu I certainly do admire Jeff Geer's self-centered confidence in the applicability of SFPT and FM 27-10 to the issue of Taiwan's status. Asian countries victimized by Japan resisted the process and the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Neither the People's Republic of China on the mainland nor the Republic of China on Taiwan was invited to the peace conference; neither were North and South Korea. India and Burma refused to participate. The Philippines, though present, neither signed nor ratified the treaty until after it became effective, while Indonesia signed but never ratified it. Since neither the ROC nor the PRC is a signatory of the SFPT, neither party need abide by the treaty. Actually, according to the PRC, the SFPT is illegal and unjust. (Please check Chinese leader Zhou Enlai's statement of August 16, 1951, on this matter.) The ROC government shares this position on the Taiwan status. (Please check exchanges between Wellington Koo, the Kuomintang's ambassador to Washington, and [secretary of state John Foster] Dulles in 1951). Actually, when the Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950, and the US immediately sent its 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait to stop the unification of Taiwan, both the PRC and the ROC regarded it as US intervention in a Chinese civil war. I am afraid, though, that I have to agree with Jeff Geer [that] "the Chinese just are not very technically proficient in the Laws of War". I am pretty sure that the British were "very technically proficient in the Laws of War" when they initiated the Opium Wars in the 1840s to force opium on China. Americans were "very technically proficient in the Laws of War" when they bombed entire villages in Vietnam back to the Stone Age to set them free. On the other hand, the Chinese army was so primitive when it crossed Yalu on October 1950 to face General [Douglas] MacArthur's armies of 16 nations that I am pretty sure no one in the Chinese army had ever heard of, not to say care about, the FM 27-10. "What is the exact nature of the ROC on Taiwan?" This question has to be answered by Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. It is a Chinese internal affair and Chinese don't even have to look at the words in a tainted rule book. Taiwan's unification with the mainland will be accomplished by peaceful means if possible, by force if necessary. Abe Lincoln pursued a peaceful initiative to the Southern rebel government. But after all the concessions he made to the South were refused with disdain, he had to keep the union intact by means other than peaceful. If the "one country, two systems" formula does not satisfy the Taiwan regime, I am sure they will find the formula of "one country, one system" far more attractive. Chinese have no illusions on the possibility of foreign intervention on the unification of China. We dealt with it before, we can handle it tomorrow. China sets a higher priority on protecting Chinese sovereignty than on being accepted as a "civilized country" (whatever one means by it ) and in abiding by rules that are contrary to Chinese national interests. Kim Yongsan Harbin, China I refer to Sultan Shahin's article India's secularism and dirty politics [May 2] in which he states, "It would have only been an embarrassment and probably an additional pressure to stop the continuing series of massacres that have already cost Muslims heavily in Gujarat - at least 1,000 dead (government figures), 2,500 missing and presumed dead, 420 mosques and other Muslim shrines destroyed and scores of them converted into temples. At least 140,000 Muslims are now refugees, unable or too scared to return to their homes." I would like to know the basis of the numbers here. It seems a rehash of stale misinformation. Hindu-Muslim conflict in India goes back 1,000 years, calling what happened in Gujarat "genocide" and equating all Hindus with Nazis is simplistic. For example, history stands witness to scores of massacres of Hindus by Muslims, and the most recent ethnic cleansing of the Kashmir Valley is but one example. Because the Nazis were Christians, not all Christians were Nazis. AJ I certainly do admire Henry C K Liu's intelligence on the issues of Taiwan status [ Why it's time to resolve the Taiwan issue, April 25] but I must point out his preconceived arguments have not stratched the surface. As a civilian of the private sector, I am afraid he is lacking in the present depth of any military knowledge on this topic as he has even failed to check out the basic facts of just exactly who signed the SFPT as neither the ROC or PRC are signatories. Without any degree of knowledge of SFPT status or the Laws of War, how can he even seriously debunk the applicability of FM 27-10? I am afraid to say that the Chinese just are not very technically proficient in the Laws of War despite their supposedly keen interests in the unresolved status of Taiwan cession. If Mr Liu were more proficient, then he certainly would come to know that Paragraph 354 outlines just how the Shanghai Communiques have legally reaffirmed the PRC as the lawful government of China for purposes of finalizing the Taiwan cession of SFPT. FM 27-10 is the military summary of "unwritten law" of SFPT and it is time for China to start abiding by this international body of law-making treaties (Hague Regulations, Geneva Convention, etc) as a civilized country. What is the exact nature of the ROC on Taiwan? SFPT tells us that they are merely the military governors of the interim status as retained under the supreme authority of the US Military Government for the benefit of the lawful government of China. Because of FM 27-10, the final status of SFPT is between the PRC and ROC in complete accordance with Para 354. Mr Liu should become far more gracious in his very sharp criticisms of Washington as it is SFPT which makes the Shanghai Communiques legitimate in their very clearly expressed purposes that the "between" negotiations of Taiwan status will never be officially conducted on any "state-to-state" basis. Henry Kissinger should be very proud of these diplomatic steps to so professionally facilitating the Shanghai Communiques with SFPT and FM 27-10. This is really about staying within the recognized rules of international law, if China wants to peacefully negotiate with Taiwan under the Shanghai Communiques. Jeff Geer Las Vegas, Nevada In the United States there are a number of so-called "tabloids" that exploit the niche of readers who never want to look at the mundane workings of life, economy, politics, civilization. A number of tabloids seem to cultivate those readers who see strange conspiracies, distorted maneuverings, etc. After reading Asia Times off and on for a few weeks, I've decided that the niche of distortion and conspiracy seems to be the one that you chase. I wish it were otherwise. I had to throw up my hands at some of the latest theories your writers propose. I'll come back in a year and see if you've changed a bit more toward pragmatism. Mike Sigman Durango, Colorado Jeff Greer's contention [see letter below] that the US position on Taiwan is predicated on FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare is truly novel. It appears to be a position held by no others. The language of the Taiwan Relations Act itself does not invoke the Law of Land Warfare. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed by representatives of the Republic of China, a government not recognized at the time by both the USSR and Britian, both Security Council members. A statement by President Truman, in which he declared the United States would pursue a hands-off policy on Formosa, was followed by the recognition by the British government of Mao Zedong's Communist administration as the new government of China. (J