Carter’s Peace Mission

I totally agree with Ajaz Zaka Syed’s article “Carter’s Peace Mission” (April 20), but I would like to make one change. It said, “The Jewish state is doing everything to infuriate the Muslims around the world with its persecution of Palestinians.” This needs to be corrected: It is not only Muslims who are infuriated. People like me also get infuriated, angry, and saddened by the inhumanity of it all.

Elizabeth, Australia published 26 April 2008

Pakistan’s Albatross

In his letter “Kashmir Dispute” (April 19), Zafar Raja went out of his way to present half-truths. He claimed that India “has stationed 700,000 soldiers in the state to repress a population of 12 million. More than 100,000 have already been killed.” If Raja were a little bit more objective, he would also let readers know that the 700,000 soldiers stationed in the area are not there to “repress” a population of 12 million, but to protect them from militants groomed and harbored in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He conveniently omitted to mention that a majority of the 100,000 victims were killed directly in the violence perpetrated by the militants.

He believes that President Musharraf thinks “outside the box”. I have to agree — such as when he sent his troops across the border and started the Kargil war just a few weeks after India’s Prime Minister Vajpayee’s bus ride to Lahore, opening a bus route between the two nations as part of confidence-building measures. That “out of the box” thinking and stab in the back taught Indians some important lessons in dealing with our neighbor — while you shake one of his hands for peace, keep a careful eye on what the other is doing. As M.J. Akbar pointed out earlier, it is encouraging to see that Pakistan is starting to shake off its obsession with hurting India through Kashmir as this in turn has only hurt Pakistan itself more than India, ever since the militancy started in 1989.

The world can see the difference: While India has grown to be a major economic player in the world Pakistan has grown to be a major hot bed of militancy. The internal instability wrought by the detrimental policy of grooming violence has become an albatross around its own neck. It is now a major source of concern for the world.

George P. Alexander, New York published 26 April 2008

Self-Interest Is Good

I was quite amused at what Guy Damman was trying to get across in his article “Self-Interest Tied to a Dehumanizing System” (April 20). Why is laissez faire the big bad devil? Free-market capitalism is basically when people own their possessions and the government has no or very little hold over it. Capitalism is hence progressive, innovative, guarantees economic freedom, creates more jobs, gives better wages and provides far more opportunities than a socialist society. Communism, with its ideal of equality for all, is a noble concept or seems to be — except that it deters progress and crushes freedom and individualism.

So what about corruption? What about inflation? Corruption occurs both within centralized control and without. You just can’t blame capitalism for that. As for inflation, it occurs when demand is more than supply.

In a communist society, where one has no standard of living or savings, how can one demand anything? So, there is no demand, and no inflation. Inflation also occurs when supply is less because the inputs like oil are very expensive. Hence “recession”(which is decrease) in GDP occurs. A reading of George Orwell’s “1984” or ‘”Animal Farm’” to appreciate the economic and non-economic impact of unselfish mechanisms.

To quote Ayn Rand, the individual “must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” This is what many philosophers, thinkers and others have concluded over the centuries: “Love yourself first and then only can you discover love in others.”

We have the brilliant example of the USSR. What went wrong there? They were providing for everyone, food or everyone, housing and benefits for everyone. Well, those who were hard workers and achievers were discouraged; those who just couldn’t care less freeloaded at the expense of others.

So, the real dehumanizing occurred and ensued the death of progress, of innovation, of individualism, of hard work, of efficiency and of civility. The country made remarkable progress in those decades but at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives. Self-interest is good. It is healthy unless we are hurting others or engaging in illegal activities.

Zahra Ammar, Jeddah published 26 April 2008

Israel’s Success

I can’t question the logic of Sir Cyril Townsend’s analysis “Israel Putting Its Own Survival at Great Risk” (April 20). But there is a point that he does not seem to have taken into account: Israel cannot fail. It is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars yearly by the US taxpayers. The Jews living outside of Israel must pass the hat around yearly and their contributions dutifully remitted to Israel. Add to it the reparation from Germany that keeps on giving for their guilt of the Holocaust. Add them all together, and even Zimbabwe would no longer be a basket case.

I mean even Zimbabwe under similar circumstances, would be termed a success if it could rely on such cases of unfailing devotion to its survival.

Idaye, United States published 26 April 2008

Wilders’ Film

Well said. It was Geert Wilders, one Dutchman, who made the offending film, not the Dutch nation. So, there is no logic in boycotting Dutch products. The editorial might have also mentioned that it would have been wrong for the United States to boycott Saudi Arabia because a few of it citizens killed 3,000 Americans in a terrorist attack. Just as the insulting film by one individual should not result in the rejection of a nation, the murderous act of one individual should not result in the rejection of a nation.

Mary Johnson, The Netherlands published 26 April 2008

Wilders’ Film 2

I agree: An individual’s crime should remain his or hers, not of the nation or of the community. But is this ideal only for us, or is it for all? Did anyone remember this or tried to tell this to the White House or the Pentagon when some criminals attacked America? The people of Afghanistan were not responsible for that attack. But nobody told this to America, including any Dutchman. “We are now Americans,” all shouted, and did their mite to prove their loyalty to the superpower. What ensued was the most one-sided war in human history. Those Afghans who did not have the wherewithal to flee to Pakistan had just stand and take it. I remember the day when Donald Rumsfeld explained to a press conference why there were less bombings for a few days. “It was not because the American forces had run out of bombs,” he said, “it because Afghanistan had run out targets.”

All present, all great humanitarians when it comes to Tibet, thought it a great joke. Nobody saw the sickness of that utter depravity. And, Rumsfeld’s “brave soldiers” still continued bombing. Now, NATO is continuing the killing — and the Netherlanders are in that alliance, aren’t they?

Similarly, if Saddam tried to develop a nuclear weapon, it was his decision (Now we know that he had not and that it was an American lie). But even if he had, the people of Iraq were not responsible for it. America knew that and, the United Nations knew that. Yet sanctions were imposed on Iraq, punishing the people. Half a million Iraqi children died as a result. The response of Madeleine Albright, who was no Bushite neocon but a Democrat, was: “It was worth it.” What was the Netherlands’ position on the issue? Did its UN ambassador say, “It was one Iraqi, not Iraqi children. So, let us not impose sanctions”? He may have. But I don’t think so. Can you please check before you write the next editorial?

Arif Beig, Riyadh published 26 April 2008