Posted June 8, 2002

Lists

Responding to Justin's 'Go Left, Young Man', he might be interested to know that it was not just the Cato institute that gave their approval to the FBI's new plan but Pat Buchanan the other day on MSNBC's Hardball. Justin I think is quite right to be concerned with certain lists floating about especially in today's information age. As we saw recently in Palestine, journalists were not let in to the hot spots -- how much easier it would be simply not to let certain journalists into the country at all.

~ Mark Carpenter, Ontario

Comedy Relief

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of June 5, "Go Left, Young Man":]

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy reading this kind of dirt-dishin' (Cato's gutlessness, Zsa Zsa Gavora, etc.) but your focus is skewed on this one. Like most Americans, I don't pay much attention to 'think tanks', other than marveling at how some people manage to scam a paycheck for pondering the weighty issues of the moment (i.e., loafing, albeit with a Master's). C'mon, eradicate these 'institutes' and most of the Cato 'experts' would be lucky to be ladling onions on your frank from a Sabrett's truck. I appreciate that they are all Very Very Serious but -- considering we've only traveled farther and farther from our Constitution in Cato's 25 years as a going entity -- they have had little to no impact on politics or people's daily lives. No doubt they are sellouts, but what did you expect after they relocated to DC? Fearless independence?

Now Ashcroft, Ridge, Today's FBI, The Office Of Strategic Disinformation (or whatever the heck they called it for the five minutes they went topside before scurrying back into their hideyhole) -- all of these guys scare the living bejesus out of me. The War On Terrorism, Domestic Edition, is a Phil Dick novel come to scarifying life. These government-driven "Wars On (fill in appropriate societal bogeyman)" have a horrendous track record of utter & complete failure -- the War On Drugs managed to flood prisons with newly-minted criminals without denting drug use in the slightest, and that's tough to do! Previous Wars (on Poverty, Illiteracy, etc.) were likewise resounding flops -- so the idea that, now, the government wants extended extralegal surveillance powers to wage a war against thought crimes (!) should fill every American with dread. This is a forever deal, folks. Since anyone at any time can theoretically shove a live grenade down their trousers and get on a crowded bus, elevator, restaurant, etc., the 'danger' will always be there. (Hell, it's been there all along, since grenades were invented!) It doesn't take much imagination to foresee half-rogue agencies creating 'incidents' to justify adding to their already-extended powers, or widening their scope far beyond 'terrorism' without informing anyone of this slight change in strategy. And just you wait till the Democrats land back in the White House! Homeland Security will be the greatest toy-train set a totalitarian-minded kid could ask for. Start scraping those Confederate-flag decals off your truck bumpers now, boys -- avoid the rush in '04!

Seriously, this shit is so genuinely unnerving that reading about Brink Lindsay's betrayals of libertarian principle is like comedy relief. By all means, bash these guys and name names; but let's not lose sight of what's truly important -- and scary -- here.

~ Lou Manzato, NYC

Hindu Cosmology

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of June 3, "In the Shadow of Shiva":]

Your incredulous dismissal of the Indian scientists' research into the efficacy of ancient Hindu military strategies is perhaps skewed by your own Western approach to reality. Indians steeped in Hindu science and cosmology understand that what appears to us as fantastic and incredible is in fact provable by sound scientific methods.

The great inventor Nikola Tesla understood that in addition to what we could actually see and apprehend materially, there could be worlds and beings we could not fathom....

Tesla was a great admirer of Swami Vivekananda, who first brought the principles of Hinduism to a popular American audience. The inventor would stand transfixed for hours to listen to Vivekananda's lectures because the spiritual principles Vivekananda presented were grounded in the principles of Western science. Tesla later used Hindu terms such as "prana" and "akasha" in his work, and studied the Vedas to aid his own scientific research, just as modern Indian scientists do today.

History has shown that Nikola Tesla was astonishingly forward thinking in his discoveries and scientific applications, and history will prove, too, that the ancient Hindis mastered realms of thought and penetrated planes of reality that to most of us in the West are simply "nonexistent."

~ Mary R.

First Strike Option

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of June 3, "In the Shadow of Shiva":]

I am pained to read your poorly researched and inflammatory remarks about the current India-Pakistan conflict. ...

Pakistan is not the innocent. In fact, for all its pleadings to the contrary, history clearly establishes that Pakistan has been the aggressor on all the occasions against India (And each time was beaten back by the brave forces of India). The Indian Government tried the Land for Peace deal with the duplicitous Pakistani representatives on each occasion and was met with treachery each time. Even now, General Musharaf engages in double speak (like the proverbial Devil with the forked tongue). In his recent address to the Pakistani nation, he spoke in conciliatory terms in English for the benefit of the western media, but when he switched to Urdu, he showed his true colours by reverting to hate speech and giving inflammatory remarks. Therefore, it is now not surprising that the Indians have decided to call his bluff and throw down the gauntlet. Although, even now, India has promised not to use nuclear weapons as a first strike option, Musharaf has not promised to do the same.

~ Max B.

Sanctions

There is no doubt whatsoever that the United States of America is one of the most successful democracies in the world. Hats off to the American people for that.

However, it is this great nation's foreign policy which shocks me (maybe I am naive). There is at least a country under US imposed sanctions in almost every continent in the world. The US scrutinises a country to see if it 'fits' into its perception of democracy or democratic principles, and almost always autocratically imposes crippling sanctions, leading to the suffering of the ordinary citizens of that country. ...

But there are lucky undemocratic countries who are not under sanctions; Saudi Arabia, Tajikstan, Uganda -- just to name a few.

And why are we in Zimbabwe under sanctions from a country with a domestic democracy and a dictatorial foreign policy?

~ M. Mutambwa

Connecting Dots

[Regarding by Bevin Chu's column of June 1, "Defending Taiwan's 'Democracy'"

Great job on that exposé of the current political situation in Taiwan!

A couple of things that you could have emphasized a bit more:

Remember A-bian said he would get to the bottom of the Yin Ching-feng murder case, even if it meant, "shaking the foundations of the nation."

Well, that rhetoric died out pretty quickly. Let's examine why. If one of the mainlander Generals, like General Hau, had been involved, you can rest assured that the case would have been pursued to the end. In fact, Lee Teng-hui's running dogs did try to smear General Hau with that filthy rag, by implying that he was involved in the kickbacks on the Lafayette-class frigate sales.

So why has the case now gone into a black hole? My guess is that Li Ao is correct: Lee Teng-hui had Captain Yin killed by the Security Bureau in order to shut him up (permanently) about the LaFayette frigate kickbacks.

Then, the Security Bureau chief died in the sauna of the China Hotel Yang Ming Shan. With the modern drugs available to the spy boys, it should have been no problem to conveniently arrange a heart attack or stroke for their own boss.

Li AO was saying this long ago, even before A-bian was elected, and I doubt that he would have made such charges with no evidence whatsoever.

This brings us back to the connection with the fund.

If the DPP government is interested in cleaning up "black gold" politics, they should certainly want all government operations done in accordance with law. Of course, they are now obstructing an investigation of the fund.

If the fund was only used to buy Eugene Chien a $2,000 suit (de minimus) and pay off Mandela's thugs $10,000,000 (foreign relations necessity), what's the big deal?

The kicker here is that a thorough investigation of the fund might show that A-bian's campaign was funded in large part by ROC government money funneled to him by Lee Teng-hui. This would have been clearly illegal, and no one, certainly not A-bian, could claim plausible deniability in this case. Thus, the sleaze bags in the DPP and TSU are now obstructing the investigation.

I would add here that you are 100% correct: the DPP and TSU are quite corrupted and are only interested in power and the money power gains.

Listen to their representatives discussing politics, and you will immediately see that there is no such thing as political principles or ideals, but rather factional coalitions to gain and retain power. As you so well pointed out, the case of Christine Shih is a prime example. No one pays $1,000,000 to a campaign in Taiwan (or anywhere else) unless they expect to gain substantially more money from the "democratic process." ...

How did some of these people, like A-bian and Lee Teng-hui, rise to the ranks of power and money as they did, in the first place?

Maybe this fund is the key to connecting a whole bunch of dots, and that is why it will stay in that black hole maintained by the DPP and TSU -- in collaboration with the US government?

~ TN, Taiwan

Secessionist Movements

I am writing in response to Justin Raimondo's article, "In the Shadow of Shiva," Antiwar.com, June 3, 2002. By way of disclaimer I am a US born citizen of Indian extraction. I consider myself a Hindu for statistical purposes and, to the extent that I have a religious belief system, I am a Hindu. ...

For the last thirteen years India has witnessed a secessionist movement in Kashmir which some say is homegrown and some say is foreign sponsored. It is probably a combination of the two. The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is by all accounts a Muslim majority state -- roughly 60% Muslim and 40% Hindu. There are also Sikhs and Buddhists present. It is assumed that if a plebiscite was to be held today in Kashmir, the majority Kashmiris would vote either for independence or annexation to Pakistan.

However the Kashmiri subregion of Ladakh has a Buddhist majority. No one ever discusses what would happen to Ladakh. Would it get to vote separately from Kashmir were there to be a plebiscite or would its vote simply be subsumed into a statewide plebiscite? Similarly the Jammu region has a higher concentration of Hindus than the state as a whole. The problem of plebiscites or the so-called "right to self determination" is that you can keep on drawing administrative borders smaller and smaller until you establish a majority of one creed or race over another. This is why India has always rejected a plebiscite -- it is not just a question of what should happen to Kashmir so far as India is concerned the same question could apply to numerous areas -- Tamils are a majority in the south, Sikhs in the Punjab, Naga and Bodo tribesman in the far east. There are other "minorities" far too numerous to count. India has the potential to balkanize far more radically than the former Yugoslavia once the floodgates are opened.

So what, you might ask, why should India exist as a single entity when thirty or forty smaller units might work just as well? I don't really have an answer for that. I think that under the right conditions loose federations of self governing entities can operate just as efficiently, maybe more, so than large nation states. But notice that I say "right conditions." If economic and religious freedom is observed in each of the federation members and there is some kind of common market like in the case of a BeNeLux I don't think that there would be any serious objection to self governance of Kashmir or any other administrative subdivision of India, or Pakistan, for that matter. It should be noted as well that Pakistan has had secessionist movements in Sindh and Balochistan. Have the people of these regions ever been offered a plebiscite?

If Kashmir is given independence or assimilated into Pakistan what would happen to the 40% minority Hindus? The Library of Congress website gives the religious breakdown of Pakistan as "about 97 percent are Muslim; remaining 3 percent of population divided equally among Christians, Hindus, and other religions" The formal name of Pakistan is the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan." The same website states that "Pakistan has provided a unique setting for experiments in synthesizing Islamic principles with the needs of a modern state. Although Pakistan's independence movement was articulated in Western terminology and centered on the right of national self determination , it was also rooted in the Islamic concept of society and of what constitutes legitimate political authority for a Muslim. The basis of the ideal Muslim polity is the sharia, the sacred law of Islam as embodied in the Quran. Efforts to apply Quranic law in a modern political context have had a direct impact on Pakistan's political history and have also complicated the nation's constitutional evolution.

By contrast, India's religious breakdown is given as "82 percent observe Hinduism; 12.1 percent Muslim, 2.3 percent Christian, 1.9 percent Sikh, 0.8 percent Buddhist, 0.4 percent Jains, 0.4 percent other, 0.1 percent not identified." The same website states that fundamental rights embodied in India's constitution are guaranteed to all citizens. These civil liberties take precedence over any other law of the land. They include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and statement, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights such as habeas corpus.

So as you see Pakistan is relatively more homogenous in terms of religion than India. How it got to be that way is a subject for separate scholarship. However it can be said that Hindus have been "cleansed" from areas in and around the Indus basin in modern day Pakistan for generations going back to the first Muslim invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni in the eleventh century until most recently at the time of partition in 1947 when there was mass migration of Hindus from areas that were to become Pakistan to areas that were to go to India. It is anticipated that if Kashmir were to go independent or to Pakistan that many of the Hindus in Kashmir would simply leave and come over to India. So whereas Pakistan would still retain its religious purity and Islamic governance, India with 120 million Muslims would be expected to absorb all the Hindus within the framework of a secular democracy.

The thinking of the Hindu nationalists is that if Pakistan can be 97% Muslim why can't India be 97% Hindu? The fact that that would mean the expulsion of most of the 120 million Muslims, which has not happened to this point, is the reason why India should not be discussed as if it is on the same level as Pakistan. India is religiously diverse, Pakistan is not. India has mosques in every town, village and city from the north to the south. Pakistan has few Hindu temples. India has had numerous Muslim Presidents, cabinet level ministers, Supreme Court justices, and generals. Can you point to a single Hindu in a position of leadership in any Pakistani administration since partition? I think not.

Perhaps the most debatable contention in Mr. Raimondo's article is that Mr. Musharraf is playing a purely defensive role in the current standoff. Mr. Raimondo apparently does not remember Pakistan's recent incursions in the Kargil region of Indian Kashmir when Pakistani army regulars took up positions in Indian Kashmir in 1999 and held them for several months. India dislodged the Pakistani Army from these positions without once entering Pakistani Kashmir. Facing imminent defeat, the Pakistani president ran to then President Clinton looking for support. Clinton presumably told Pakistan to pull back its troops. The President of Pakistan at the time was Nawaz Sharif, a reputedly corrupt but democratically elected civilian leader -- the general in charge of the Pakistani army was none other than Pervez Musharraf. ...

~ Vijay Venkataraman