Immigration

I simply wonder if Mr. Andrew will include Europeans in his "total and permanent freeze on any more immigration," to be followed up by the implementation of Enoch Powell’s proposal for "the voluntary and assisted repatriation of non-indigenous peoples back to their countries of origin" plan?

Otis G. Barlow, East Orange, NJ published 28 September 2007

The Rule of Law?

As a member of the "voiceless majority" I would now like to welcome the President of Iran. It is unfortunate that he did not have his handlers put him in better company. George Bush would never get caught in the presence of people "paid" to disrespect his position or dignity. All press accounts of the encounter seems to suggest that the elected leader of Iran was not accorded that stature. My question involves expectations on the part of the Iranians?

We in the voiceless majority know that this is a violent and corrupt administration. We also recognize that it is not our duty as citizens to uphold international law and its institutions. We have elected officials that we trust with that responsibility. When they fail then the rule of law must have allies in foreign capitols to sustain order.

War as armed confrontation between two equally potent adversaries is an obsolete institution! But it is convenient hyperbole when used to define armed aggression against sovereign nation. So what if collateral damage includes human flesh? It is obvious that most leaders put interest above law and in that reality lies the bigger problem: A corrupt superpower with friends in high places in foreign lands. Where goes the voiceless majority for peace?

Otis G. Barlow, East Orange, NJ published 28 September 2007

Destroyed Institutions

This refers to your editorial “Search for Peace” (Sept. 19) on the Somali peace agreement signed in Jeddah. Well-wishers of Somalia should realize that genuine reconciliation between the warring factions can take place only if the caretaker administration focuses all its efforts on the creation of a just system and a responsible government.

Further, they should create an independent constitutional commission to produce a genuine Somali Charter to be voted on by the people before the two-year term is over. For this strategy to work and to secure peace, a program of institution building should commence immediately.

This will require an honest effort on the part of Somalia’s friends who are serious about democracy to take the lead in rebuilding the constitutional and administrative institutions of the government. They will also have to pay a significant share of the cost of such building. Since an effective public service is essential for good governance and justice, a select group of retired but skilled Somalis and relatively younger professionals employed in international institutions, overseas universities, and local institutions can be paired with a small number of expatriate technicians to work on this project. Somalis deployed in this manner should not be eligible for political office in the period immediately after the transition. This constraint is to ensure that they do not use this responsibility as a political platform for their own ends.

Setting up a functioning public management system that will be handed over to the post-caretaker government must operate with a high degree of professional autonomy as that is an essential prerequisite for accountable government. Without such developments, the reconciliation process is unlikely to be sustainable beyond this period.

Mohamed Ahmed, United Kingdom published 28 September 2007

Visas for Businessmen

It was good news that the Cabinet has decided to ease visa rules for foreign businessmen (Sept. 20). However, the effectiveness of the decision will depend on the way it is implemented. Without follow-up action it will end up as just another a piece of paper, along with so many other good decisions gathering dust. This possibility is real because government departments tend to resist change. It is likely that the Cabinet decision may not reach the departments who issue visas, such as embassies; they are totally unaware of any decision made by the government — that is what past experience teaches us.

Multiple visas for foreign businessmen are the need of the time in this age of global trading. When this practice becomes normal and businessmen can come and go at will, the Kingdom will see more economic activities. It will boost local economy, especially the hotel business. Neighboring countries are competing to attract businessmen offering them facilities and making all procedures simple and hassle-free. The UAE and Bahrain are good examples. Most Saudis businessmen go there to meet foreign investors. The Saudi government should expedite the implementation of this decision. Officials at the lower level need to be instructed to carry out the changed policies.

Fida Khan, Riyadh published 28 September 2007

Sharing Ramadan

I agree with Hassna’a Mukhtar’s report “It’s Enticing, Say Non-Muslims” (Sept. 19) on non-Muslim reaction to Ramadan. I am a Christian. I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years — from 1995 to 2000. I was a senior executive of my company. I found it offensive to eat and drink while my staff was fasting. Therefore, I fasted every year and enjoyed the experience; it was illuminating. I read my Bible and abstained from all temptations. As the month of Ramadan approaches I become nostalgic. I believe non-Muslims living in the GCC should show their respect to their Muslim colleagues by sharing the experience. It is good for the soul as well.

Zehaie Isaac, United States published 28 September 2007

Flights to Kingdom

The report “Jet Airways Allowed to Fly to 5 Gulf Countries” (Sept. 18) raises some intriguing questions: Why is India’s Ministry of Aviation not allowing private aviation companies to enter Saudi Arabia or increasing the flights and service level of Indian Airlines and Air India to the Kingdom? Why is a minister in the largest democracy in the world giving the Indians in Saudi Arabia this stepmotherly treatment? Does it make any way economic sense for the airlines to fly from all the small GCC countries and leave the largest aviation market in the Gulf untouched? Can some economist in the Aviation Ministry clarify this point?

Mohammed Mateen, Dammam published 28 September 2007

Middle East Conference

I can understand why President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to boycott the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference in November (Sept. 18). I agree with him that the summit should be convened only if there is a willingness and resolve on the part of the participants to discuss and agree on the basics, such as Israel’s withdrawal from occupied lands, the future of the refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

A conference just for the sake of a conference will be a waste of time. There have been too many such conferences, all of which gave vague promises which were made useless and futile over and over again. It is about time that some concrete foundations were laid. There is no point in Abbas attending a futile conference just to improve the image of Israel and its puppet, the US.

Noroudeen Jiwnajee, Canada published 28 September 2007

War on Iran

I, too, agree with Linda Heard that, as she argued in her article “Saber Rattling Against Iran: Real or Bluff?” (Sept. 18), war with Iran would be very, very wrong. The war in Iraq was squandered the good will the United States had enjoyed in the world, post-9/11. Going to war with Iran will be very wrong and a great injustice. However, I cannot imagine a world were Iran will have nuclear weapons at its disposal.

A country that shows it is willing to take diplomats hostages and does not adhere to international agreements and rules of diplomacy always has the potential to slide into chaos. The USSR was America’s biggest adversary, but it never allowed embassies to be taken over or diplomatic norms violated, as Iran did under its religious rulers. I believe that there should be no war with Iran and that Iran should not have nuclear weapons ability.

Robert, United States published 28 September 2007

War on Iran [2]

Iran is not anyone’s problem except for Israel. Certainly, Iran is never going to attack Russia, China, Europe, the US, or anyone else, and so no one else views this as a big threat. Only Israel and “Israel-firsters” are making a big deal about Iranian nukes, just because it will end Israel’s ability to blackmail its neighbors into submission.

Iranian nuclear parity with Israel is a good thing because it will force Israel to make peace with all of its neighbors on terms that are fair considering there’s only five million Jewish Israelis compared to 250 million Arabs in the region.

Jeff Smith, United States published 28 September 2007

War on Iran [3]

Yep, it will happen. I have already read three different articles about World War III. However, if we have a war, it will not be World War III, because of the imbalance of power between the two sides. Iran or any other country now being targeted by America will be crushed, and the strong will avenge and restore their honor.

There is no diplomacy, and longsighted vision. The only ones that are winning in the present confrontation are the new conservative radicals.

Wais Lodin, Canada published 28 September 2007

Photo IDs

As a Canadian Muslim I am not offended by the call by leaders of political parties to get all voters identified by a photo ID. How else can someone be positively identified? The hijab has traditionally been part of the Muslim woman’s dress although too much emphasis has been laid on that piece of cloth instead of the general modesty of the woman’s attire. In contrast, the niqab is the choice of some Muslim women for whatever reason they have.

Women wearing the niqab in this part of the world attract more attention and may be alienating as well, since they tend to set themselves apart from everyone else. In this society people are wary of any who look too different from them.

Rahmatoola Rujeedawa, Canada published 28 September 2007

Photo IDs [2]

“Wearing the Niqab Is Not a Partisan Act” by Abdulaziz H.I. Al-Sowayegh was a well-articulated piece. Hijab is fine but niqab is unacceptable. These niqab-wearing women are a pain in the neck. They want to attract attention for no good reason. The problem with the niqabis is that they have twisted minds. They think that men are staring at them all the time. It is not true.

Niqab looks like a very odd and cheesy “rag face.” In my opinion they are no different from punks wearing red and purple hair with tattoos and rings pierced all over their body and face. They just want to be noticed.

Syed Haque, United States published 28 September 2007