Posted December 30, 2002

Toy Problem

Regarding "Christmas Carnage" by Justin Raimondo:

I can find only one problem with this "magnificent" toy: the soldier is missing his blue UN helmet.

~ ML

New Nukes

Regarding "Pakistan, India, Nukes" by Zuffar H. (Backtalk, posted November 8), "Transfer of Nuclear Technology" by Farrukh P. Butt (November 28), and "Technology Transfer" by Ehsan Leghari (December 3), all in response to my column "A North Korea-Pakistan Connection?"

The authors are entitled to their views, their patriotism, even their prejudices. But I am appalled that they should be accusing me, a long-standing critic of India’s nuclear weapons programme and its military ambitions, and an advocate of India-Pakistan reconciliation and friendship, of being an Indian government agent, of doling out its “propaganda”, of being “a Pakistan-hater”, and of mouthing the rhetoric of Hindu “fundamentalists”.

All the three writers sound like apologists for the Pakistan government, not antiwar or nuclear disarmament activists. They are unconvincing in rebutting the hypothesis of a North Korea-Pakistan deal.

No one can credibly deny that the new disclosures made over the past month greatly strengthen the surmise that there was a missile-for-nukes deal between North Korea and Pakistan (for example, see, especially, David E. Sanger in The New York Times November 25/26: “Deadly barter: How Pak got missiles” and “CIA agents were looking in the wrong place in N. Korea”, reproduced in The Asian Age.)

On December 8, Edward Timberlake and William C. Triplett, authors of Red Dragon Rising, also wrote in The Washington Times that China brokered a deal, by which North Korea would provide Pakistan the medium range missiles capable of hitting India’s east coast and in return Pakistan would provide North Korea nuclear weapons know-how. This strengthens the original hypothesis.

Now, there is yet another, even more sensational, disclosure from the Japanese news agency, Jiji (quoted by AFP, December 26), based on intelligence sources. This says Pakistan “secretly informed the US that a number of its scientists and military officers were ‘personally’ involved in providing nuclear arms technology to N Korea.” A Pakistan government investigation team set up by Musharraf “discovered remittances worth tens of billions of dollars in the personal accounts of scientists at the Kahuta laboratory…over a number of years”. (It denied official involvement, though.)

Following a number of reports in October and November, Colin Powell on November 28 warned Pakistan (Mexico City, November 26) that there would be “consequences”. He said: “In my conversations with (Pakistan) President (Pervez) Musharraf in recent months, I have made it clear to him that any, any sort of contact between Pakistan and North Korea we believe would be improper, inappropriate and would have consequences... And he has assured me on more than one occasion that there are no further contacts …”

The allegation or hypothesis of a North Korea-Pakistan missiles-for-nukes deal eminently deserves to be seriously investigated. The reason why the US is unlikely to pursue the matter further is political: its need for Pakistan’s cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda.

One of the main conclusions of the recent disclosures is that “Pakistan was desperate to counter India’s superior military force, but encountered years of American-imposed sanctions, so it turned to North Korea.”

I never claimed that there was irrefutable proof of “a smoking gun”, as it were. In nuclear matters, there often isn’t. I only said this seems highly plausible—for a simple reason: By the mid-1990s, i.e. after the collapse of the USSR, North Korea was in no position to develop the gas centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment on its own. It was technologically and industrially too weak, and too poor, to do so. Nor did it have the benefit, as it once did, of free gifts of plant and technology from the former Soviet Union.

At the same time, Pakistan’s own indigenous missile programme was in a bit of a mess. It stands to reason that it should want to import missiles or missile components from North Korea to allow the delivery of its nuclear arsenal to “every strategic site in India”.

It is disingenuous to argue, as Mr. Leghari does, that Pakistan didn’t need North Korea because it had China as a supplier. The two have different kinds of missiles and offer different kinds of deals. Nor is it relevant that India first protested the transfer of Chinese missile technology to Pakistan. It has since prepared a dossier on possible North Korean transfers too.

North Korea’s recent missile shipments to Oman suggest it is far more liberal than China with such exports.

I have myself written at length about the open and clandestine trade in nuclear and missile technologies, involving, in particular, India and Pakistan and at least half a dozen other states — not least in New Nukes, co-authored with Achin Vanaik (Interlink Books, Northampton, 2000).

The only relevant issue is how one distinguishes between “evolved” and other technologies. Conceptually, such demarcation is relatively easy to make. It is analogous to CKD or SKD (completely or semi-knocked down kits or packages), in contrast to discrete components, to assemble which you need some expertise.

For instance, the transfer of components like maraging steel, special magnets and high-speed motors is one thing; the transfer of a near-complete assembly, say, of gas centrifuges, is quite another. Similarly, how successfully a country can use imported materials, e.g. heavy water or fuel rods depends on its general technological capability and, in particular, its nuclear expertise.

I think one might rate India somewhat higher than Pakistan in both. This is entirely to be expected from a country with a population that is seven times larger than Pakistan’s and with a much broader and deeper industrial-technological base. To say this is not toe an Indian-chauvinist line or worship “Mother India”—a sickeningly derogatory term one of the three writers uses for me, which is itself borrowed from the current Hindu-nationalist vocabulary.

In New Nukes, we strongly deplore the unseemly rivalry between the Indian and Pakistani military-scientific establishments and their hyperbolic claims of nuclear and missile prowess. (See the Box “Mine is Bigger than Yours: The Indian and Pakistani Test Yields”, pp 99-105.)

It is especially galling that the three writers seem to write from within the perspective of that very rivalry. It would be enlightening to know where they come from. None of my friends in the Pakistani peace movement can identify them or have even heard of them as peace activists or liberal dissidents.

~ Praful Bidwai

Islam in India

Regarding "Hindu Fascists' Dream Of Killing India's Pluralism Can Still Be Defeated" by Dr. Shaik Ubaid:

The rise of whom the Muslims call "Hindu Fascists" lies squarely on the laps of Indian Muslims and the merchants of Islam in India and outside who have maintained a hard-line stance against Hindus from time past and since independence. Congress "seculars" , pseudo-secular Hindus and the media have also since independence ignored ... atrocities within India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. But whenever there was even a perceived Hindu blaspheme against Islam, Muslim conduct was swept under the rug.

Hindus have been "ethnic cleansed" from Kashmir yet no Indian Muslim leader, let alone Congress "seculars" or "moderate" Muslims, ever came out to condemn the atrocities against them. Gujarat carnage started only after Muslims burnt to death Hindu pilgrims. Hardly any "meow" was heard from Congress"seculars", the media or the Muslims of India. Hindu reprisal against Muslims was the first of its kind, especially when you look at Muslim carnage against Hindus before independence, during independence and after independence.

The Muslims' favorite party, the Congress , is now hard pressed to address Hindu rights in their own country. This is the party that put Muslims of India on a silver platter at the expense of the majority Hindus and now it is time to pay the piper.

Terrorist activity exported from Pakistan into India is openly backed by Indian Muslims. The merchants of Islam in India could have solved so called Babri Masjid issue with Hindus long time ago and it would have had earned them more than Hindu gratitude. Instead they have conveniently forgotten their own history of temple destroying activities in India and have made long closed Babri Masjid a battle cry. All it comes down to is that like their Pakistani brothers, Indian Muslims have chosen to follow the Saudi Wahabbi brand of Islam and that goes against every free thinking human, including Hindus.

The problem with Muslims today is not just confined to India but worldwide.Just read every morning paper and you will find something about it in some form or shape.

~ R. Sharma

Dr. Shaik Ubaid replies:

R. Sharma's "blame the victims" strategy is an old yet discredited one. Hindutva ideology is based on "Hindustan (India) for the Hindu race". It should come us no surprise that Hindutva-fascists admire Hitler and try to justify his genocide of Jews and other "mixed and inferior races".

Muslims have condemned unequivocally the train burning as a horrible crime against humanity. There are now reports by human-rights organizations that suggest that the train burning was staged. One thing is clear: whether the train incident had taken place or not the Gujarat genocide would have, because it was so well planned that experts agree that many months had gone into its planning. Also, if one buys into Mr. Sharma's argument then the logical conclusion of it will be (may God forbid) that thousands of Hindus should be killed in the west for burning alive and raping of western missionaries in India.

The author lies when he writes that Muslims of India have refused to settle the Babari Mosque issue. The Muslim stand has been and still is that the issue should be settled by the Supreme Court and if it is proven that the Mosque was built on the site of a temple or on the site where the Hindu god Ram was born (880,000 years ago), they would be willing to give up the mosque. The Hindutva response has been that since it's a religious issue, no court has jurisdiction over it!

The Hindutva attempt to exploit the Kashmir issue was spoilt by its own former supporters, the Hindus of Kashmir. Kashmiri Hindus, the alleged victims of genocide, having seen through the hypocritical schemes of Hindutva demagogues withdrew their support to BJP causing the party a humiliating defeat in the recent elections. Indian Muslims, by the way, have always condemned violence in Kashmir.

The "Wahabisation of Islam" in India is another lie. The so called Wahabis of India, the Deobandis are Hanafites who have strong differences of opinion with the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia who are Hanbalites. What is interesting that while the Deobandi (Sharma's Wahabis) supported Gandhi's call for a united India, their opponents the Sufees (Barelvis) supported the demand for Pakistan.

I suggest to Mr. Sharma, who urges the readers to join the Islam bashing campaign by some in the media, that he should include Antiwar.com on his menu of daily press readings.

Dalits

Regarding "Hindu Fascists' Dream Of Killing India's Pluralism Can Still Be Defeated" by Dr. Shaik Ubaid:

As one who specializes in India and who has had my work featured in the major Dalit newspapers this past year, I wonder why the author of this article completely failed to mention the Dalits, or even the caste system. The Dalit party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, is now India's third largest and fastest growing party, with the party's number two leader, Ms. Mayawati now Chief Minister of U.P., India's largest and most influential state. I notice nothing on how most Muslims are considered to be converted Dalits and that the caste system is what is behind the Hindu Muslim violence. How could this be overlooked unless the intent is to cover up Apartheid in India? One wonders if this writer is a supporter of the caste infested Hindu, M.K. Gandhi, and as such a supporter of Apartheid in India.

~ Thomas C. Mountain, Ambedkar Journal

Dr. Shaik Ubaid (President, Indian Muslim Council-USA) replies:

Indian Muslim Council has always supported Dalit causes and we believe that the oppression of Dalits (the so called lowest caste/untouchables) is worse than apartheid. A few months ago Indian Muslim alert Network (www.imannet.com) ran a campaign to vote Mr. Ambedkar, the Dalit leader, as the greatest Indian of the last century.

My article was limited to Gujarat state elections and the rise of Hindutva-fascism. In Gujarat, the Dalit party was not in the fray, in fact, Ms. Mayawati, the Dalit leader ran a campaign in support of the Hindutva-fascists who had committed horrible crimes against humanity just a few months prior.

The Court of World Opinion

Regarding "More Dirty Lies" by Nebojsa Malic:

I am surprised that you let what is otherwise a fairly consistent antiwar platform be hijacked by Serbian nationalist polemics. Not that there weren't lies and distortions and atrocities on both sides (it was a particularly nasty civil war following the dissolution of Yugoslavia). However, to baldly print the views of an obviously virulently pro-Serbian viewpoint is extraordinarily unbalanced, with no commentary to the effect that this is sheer denial (ask the Turks about the Armenian genocide, and you get the same response, basically – all "lies and distortions"). To a relatively dispassionate observer like myself (ethnically not involved, and also a student of history) this reminds me of the way that the pacifist left used to embrace Stalin, with all his horrors that they denied, in a desperate effort to be consistently anti-capitalist.

On the one hand you print pure speculative passionate letters like someone forecasting a "massacre" of Iraqis, and on the other hand when it comes to the past, you show no interest in educating readers that, yes, there was a war in Yugoslavia, and, yes, the Serbians were deemed in the court of world opinion to be mostly the aggressors, employing repugnant methods of "ethnic cleansing," rather than the "wronged victims of a worldwide conspiracy" that the author of this article wants us to believe.

To me you discredit the rest of the information of your entire website by foolishly pretending that anyone who has an anti-American, anti-Western bias must have something worthwhile to say, and that in the interest of some dimwitted "solidarity" it's a good idea to use your platform to spread the "unreconstructed Serbian" unrepentant hateful message that their leaders are simply victims of a Western conspiracy. Sort of like the old Confederates in the U.S. who used to mourn for "The Lost Cause," in total denial of the fact that it was also "The Wrong Cause"!

~ Steve S., Illinois

Nebojsa Malic replies:

So I've been called a Stalinist, a Confederate and a 'virulent Serbian nationalist', simply for daring to challenge the verdict of the 'court of world opinion'. Yet what 'court' is this, and how does it pass judgment? Or is truth whatever CNN says it is? What a magnificently scholarly approach, indeed.

For once, I would like someone who accuses me of Serbian nationalism or other such nonsense to offer some actual evidence to that claim. But no one ever does, because – as with claims of 'Serbian genocide' – such evidence simply does not exist.

Neos' Anti-Black Agenda

Regarding "Attack of the Neos" by Justin Raimondo:

Kudos once again to Justin's eye on the hypocrisy surrounding the Trent Lott affair. "Neos" are the last people to be casting stones at Lott, not only because of their uncritical support for Sharon, but also because their stance toward African Americans.

Just as a policy of "Israel First" is central to all "neo" foreign policy statements, a policy of keeping black folk down, is central to nearly everything on domestic policy.

While one doesn't have to be a racist to oppose affirmative action and other features of the civil rights movement, there's a single-mindedness toward the neos' stance that raises questions. All neos love to hate Louis Farrakhan, even though he professes (and practices) many conservative values of self-help. We're endlessly told he's an anti-Semite, as was Malcolm X – and of course no apology was/is never good enough. ...

From Ben Wattenberg's attempt to bring Israeli-like demographic concerns to the US in The Birth Dearth, where he advises increasing immigration of favored origins to counterbalance overly-fecund Hispanics and Blacks, to the American Enterprise Institute support for Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve, neos have a consistent anti-Black agenda. ...

In any case, the neos have more in common with "DixieCrats turned Republicans" than they let on, they just have an added layer of hypocrisy.

~ Eric M.

Lott

Regarding Raimondo's recent column on Trent Lott and the Neocons ["Colorblind – Except for Some"]:

I also think the fuss about Lott's remarks was totally ridiculous. Raimondo hints at some sort of ulterior motive on the part of Lott's critics. But I'm not sure what Lott did to offend the neoconservatives. He seems to have been on the bandwagon of the War Party and the pro-Israel lobby. Is there something I've missed?

By the way: I'm an avid reader of Antiwar.com, especially Raimondo, Bock and Malic. Keep up the good work, guys.

~ Vaughn Treude, Glendale, Arizona

Handy Attack

Regarding "9/11 – Who Knew?" by Justin Raimondo:

If you read By Way of Deception written by Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, you get your answer. It would not be the first time that Mossad spies on the US and it will definitely not be the last time. He confirms in his book that Mossad only gave to the US the information they wanted them to have. It is obvious that the attack came in handy for Israel because the blame was going to the Arabs. Hopefully the American people will get the correct information and stop to sponsor the terrorist number one in the world.

~ Erwin L., Portugal

Agendas

The following quote was taken from an AP article ("100 Arrested in US Antiwar Protests," By Allen G. Breed, Associated Press Writer, Tuesday, 10 December, 2002 ) as reprinted on the truthout.org site:

"The [antiwar] protests [December 10] were a far cry from October's mass rallies in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere that drew an estimated 200,000 participants. But Eric Garris, director of antiwar.com, an affiliate of the nonprofit Center for Libertarian Studies, said those events were sponsored in large part by groups with agendas other than stopping a war with Iraq."

I'm behind the times. What were these sponsoring groups, and what were their agendas? I find it hard to believe; and I think that if there is some kind of insidious manipulation occurring, that does not invalidate the motivation of the rank and file demonstrators nor does it invalidate the cause.

~ Rick S.

Eric Garris replies:

This was an invented quote. I was explaining that the groups who were focusing on the war alone would get a larger response, and the reporter turned it around. I spent 45 minutes on the phone with the AP reporter and he twisted what I said. I apologize for what was indicated, but I didn't say it.

I proudly participated in and supported both sets of demonstrations.

Airport Horror Story

Regarding "Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?" by Nicholas Monahan (LewRockwell.com):

What a horror story. One can certainly understand Mr. Monahan's reaction to the "treatment" his wife received at the airport.

I remember reading The Gulag Archipelago about twenty years ago and thinking at the time that this could never happen in America. The American people would never abuse fellow citizens. But it seems there are plenty of little apparachniks around who savor the power they now have to humiliate, frighten and abuse the narod.

And I agree with Mr. Monahan's conclusion that it's too late to prevent this because it's already here and well entrenched, with our ignorant blessings.

~ Rick O.

Butter Wins

I have been reading Antiwar.com for some time now, and must say that you're doing good work. I too am disgusted by the US Government's desire for world domination. I have recently thought of a way to end American Imperialism, and, like any simple idea, it surprises me that no one thought of it sooner. It worked in South Africa, and it can work here. Boycott the US Government. In fact, although it may be painful for our way of life here in the US, boycott America as a whole. We are the world’s largest debtor nation. If everyone simply refused to lend us any money, or to invest in our bonds (especially government bonds) and businesses, there would soon be an end to our foreign adventures. We would soon have to really choose between guns and butter, and butter wins out every time. ...

~ David Leeman