Simplistic Editorial

Your editorial “Battle of Pride”(Feb. 16) on the tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia oversimplified a complex issue. Of course, protecting the territorial integrity of our nation is a matter of pride for us. It is for all — not just the Eritreans.

Let me clarify a few points about the conflict: Eritrea has never initiated any of the many confrontations with Ethiopia and will not initiate a new one. We know, from our own experience, the bitter taste of war. We learned it, first, during our armed liberation struggle and, second, during the last TPLF invasion. That was why we waited more than six years to implement the Algeria Agreement.

We are still appealing to the international community to shoulder its responsibilities put on its shoulders by the UN. Those who suggest simplistic solutions must first ask what the mandate of the Blue Helmets is. Are they going to live there, consuming donor’s money for an unspecified period? Their mandate was only for two years — until the demarcation process was completed.

The crucial question is: Was it because of the presence of the UN soldiers and monitors that the war did not resume? The answer to that must be a definite “No.” War did not erupt again because Eritrea upholds international law.

Now the Border Commission has closed its offices and handed over the virtual map to both countries. They know where their borders are. So what is the need for peacekeepers to remain in our land? The government of Eritrea is pursuing development program despite the threats of war from Ethiopia. WHO has it on record that Eritrea is one of the four African countries that fulfilled the UN millennium program of eradicating malaria and child death rate. This winter we have managed to collect enough crops for two years. Our educational and infrastructural development is going ahead rapidly. Contrary to what the editorial claimed, we buy arms and bullets only because we are forced to do it.

If your logic is that poor and weak nations are not entitled to defend their sovereignty and should let the bigger and rich nations do what they want, that is a prescription for lawlessness. What will be the fate of Palestinians if that logic were correct?

G. Yemane, Riyadh published 24 February 2008

Danish Cartoons

I have seen reports that the man who drew the cartoons denigrating the Prophet (peace be upon him) was motivated by a desire to defend free speech and has no regret whatsoever, and that all newspapers, including the one that originally published them, were taking a stand against self-censorship. I presume that self-censorship is considered a bad thing in their society. But would this man or these newspapers show the same courage in drawing some offensive Holocaust cartoons, if only to demonstrate their opposition to self-censorship and defend free speech? And if they cannot draw them for some reason, then could they at least reprint the Holocaust cartoons that an Iranian paper printed as a sponsored event? Surely, the people of Europe have a right to see what these Holocaust cartoons were like!

Rather than admonish one of their own who was insulting other people, the nationals of these countries stand in unison.

P.L.S, Jeddah published 24 February 2008

Unpardonable Waste

I was shocked by the preposterousness of a recent news story that reported that people were willing to pay $20 million for a license plate bearing the number, “1”, at an auction of car numbers in the UAE. There is clearly a lot of money going around.

A few thousand kilometers away, there are widowed Arab women in Iraq and Palestine and Arab children orphaned or maimed who could do with a lot of help, to rebuild their lives, homes and schools. Surely, money has better uses — to ease the suffering of the needy and less fortunate in the world.

Rajendra K. Aneja, Dubai published 24 February 2008

Pak Politics

The current events in Pakistan, the frantic efforts by Asif Ali Zardari’s PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N) in particular to form an alliance and then a government, shows the hypocrisy of both parties. They have used billions of rupees, much precious time and resources of Pakistan in their two tenures of government against each other. They labeled and branded each other as the most corrupt looters of the nation’s wealth. They used all means to blame and prove that the other is corrupt. Zardari spent almost a decade in prison because Sharif put him there on corruption charges. In the same manner, Sharif’s father Mian Sharif was imprisoned, when Benazir was in power.

Now both of these political parties have teamed together and are singing each other’s songs. They are praising themselves and each other as the most patriotic parties and clean people in Pakistan. Are they not hypocrites? Should we trust these two parties once again while they have not done anything for a better Pakistan when they were in power for two terms?

Syed Habib Orakzai, London published 24 February 2008

Pak Politics [2]

As a Pakistani in my late 60s, I must say that I am now more optimistic than ever before about Pakistan becoming a true democracy — not tomorrow, but eventually. The reason for the optimism is that for the first time in our history punctured by military coups, there is a mass aversion toward military administrations.

While our people may not agree on who should rule them, there is near unanimity on who should not: military men. Viewed in that perspective, Pervez Musharraf may have done more for democracy than any other political leader in our history, with the exception of the Quaid-e-Azam.

Those who will form a government — a PPP-PML (N) alliance — are no angels. The impression the nation has of them, true or not, is that of crooks and looters. But they still are a better choice than military generals, because they — the former — were brought to power by the people and can be thrown out by them. That is the merit of democracy: It is a self-cleaning system. After a few elections, better people than Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif will come to politics and will offer the voters choices who will lead Pakistan to a better future.

In contrast, generals who come to power on the strength of their guns and uniforms can never be thrown out by the people. If such system is perpetuated, we will be condemned to lurch from dictator to dictator, who will try to stick to their chairs by changing our constitutions with their bayonets and anointing themselves as presidents without our consent.

Rustum Khan, Riyadh published 24 February 2008

Olympic Principle

Stephen Spielberg’s decision to withdraw from the contract with China to help Beijing launch the Olympic Games — because he had a sudden attack of conscience about China’s failure to condemn Khartoum’s role in the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur was, as your Feb. 15 editorial called, an “organized stunt.”

He was wrong if he imagined that his absence would pose any problem for the Chinese government. It can replace him with someone who is capable of doing the job and able to do so preserving the principle of neutrality underpinning the events which, in the early days of Greece, were considered inviolable. In those days, the Games were held even though participants represented city states that might have been at odds or even in conflict with one other.

The use of the Olympics as a tool of political leverage is entirely inappropriate and the American actions with regard to the Moscow Games were only a sign of immaturity. Olympics are held to assert the principle that, despite our shortcomings as men, we can still aspire toward the common goal of peaceful interaction, despite our hatreds.

Perhaps they point the way to the right approach to the problems of the world.

Jerry Copeland, United States published 24 February 2008