New and Improved Leadership?
In your article “Can Lula Lead?” (world affairs, Oct. 21), John Maguire, senior managing director of New York-based Medley Global Advisers, is quoted as saying that if Lula governs as a populist, “the markets will tear him apart.” This is ominous. Brazilians do not need this sort of advice or threat. When asked if there is a silver-bullet solution to Brazil’s economic predicament, Maguire answered yes, but qualified it by saying, only if the new president could negotiate a trade deal with the United States. Then he added haughtily, “That would be a very important change-signaling event and open all sorts of doors. But it’s not there now.” Trade is very important in Latin America, so we know why President Bush is suddenly so supportive of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez. And, who knows? Someday he might be equally supportive of Brazil’s president, too. Armando Rozario Macae, Brazil
New? Lula has nothing new to offer. He’s doing whatever it takes to get there. He fought more than 20 years for his ideology and now, in three months, he has changed his mind? Yeah, right, I believe in the Easter bunny, too. Henrique Belfort Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
You quoted Tom Jobim, the classic bossa nova composer, as saying, “Brazil is not for beginners.” And that’s the worry about Lula. Although he’s an experienced party and union boss and has served in the Federal Congress, his executive credentials are otherwise thin. But at least he’s not a former drunkard who has been sharing a bad hangover with the planet. Monica Santos Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Lula doesn’t scare international investors. On the contrary, international investors scare the whole of Brazil. I work for an international company, and it doesn’t have any kind of constraint or fear about investing here. It has been investing billions of dollars since 1998 and the goal is to invest much more–with Lula or without. If we are in a precarious economic shape, it is because of U.S. impositions. Not only does Lula want to help Brazil, he also knows how to communicate. Emilio Melo Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
An American Jihad
Fareed Zakaria makes a good point in his argument “Time to Take on America’s Haters” (world view, Oct. 21) that religious extremism in America has found an expedient enemy in Islam. However, this should not deprive Franklin Graham or anyone else of their right to free speech. The roots of extremism need to be examined by all of us in the Islamic world before extremists in the United States and other Western countries. We only wish, for the sake of peace and tolerance, that behind our search the spirit of humanity, knowledge and truth will prevail–and not that of brewing enmity for our preconceived foes. As for what Zakaria calls “the cowardice of the moderates,” some of us really have no choice. I cannot even sign my name to this letter because, as in so many Islamic countries, free speech is not respected here. Name Withheld Cairo, Egypt
Fareed Zakaria rightly takes on America’s televangelists for their impulse to respond to the jihad of arms with their own jihad of words. Fundamentalism and extremism are more easily identified in others than in oneself. The Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and Franklin Grahams of our world would do well to heed Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus asked us to “bless them that curse you” and “pray for them which… persecute you.” If we love only those who love us and do good only to those who do good to us, in what way are we different? Don’t even terrorists do that? Arun Sam Amirtham Altendorf, Switzerland
Zakaria has justifiably chided the Bush administration and mainstream political and religious leaders for their coward-ly reluctance to condemn Falwell and his blasphemous remarks about Muhammad. But considering that September 11 left the American psyche savagely bruised, such condemnation would have appeared labored and insincere. Besides, it would have hardly mollified faithful Muslims anywhere. The core of the problem is that Islam finds it difficult to coexist with other religions, and condemnation of Islamic extremism by liberal Muslims would make no difference. The remedy may lie perhaps in Islam’s eminent worldwide clergy’s unanimously redefining Islam as more tolerant. To this end, abusive terms like “jihad” and “kafir” [infidel] need to be expurgated. In multireligious secular countries, there can be no peace and progress unless such barbs are removed. Sharad C. Misra Mumbai, India
Zakaria has a point in condemning the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Graham for their hate-filled tirades against anything they consider un-American, tirades that now dangerously include sweeping attacks against Islam and its founders. These vitriolic comments are already serving as grist to the mills of those supporting terrorists like the ones who committed the atrocious acts of September 11. It’s time for President Bush to step in and say “enough.” Only I’m afraid he will refrain from doing so because he still relies heavily on the votes of these shameless representatives of the religious right. Such forms of Christian fundamentalism can be just as bad and harmful as their Islamic counterparts. Werner Radtke Paderborn, Germany
Once again, Fareed Zakaria has shown his moral courage and political vision–neither of which is much in evidence now in the galaxy of the U.S. administration–by trying to persuade President George W. Bush to confront extremism at home as he has been doing, and is committed to continue doing, across the world. Zakaria realizes that for the next decade at least, the single biggest issue for United States’ foreign policy will be America’s relationship with 1.2 billion Muslims across the world. Without reining in the unbridled extremists at home who let fly a volley of hate for Muslims, it will not be possible to prevent the fire of hate from growing into terrible conflagration. M. Saleem Chaudhry Karachi, Pakistan
Fareed Zakaria complains about the silence of the moderates in the United States who did not object to the verbal attacks or criticism voiced by Christian fundamentalists against Islam’s holy prophet, Muhammad. Over the centuries, all religions and their preachers–whether Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or of any other faith–have been criticized, ridiculed and treated with utter disrespect at different times by various people, politicians, writers and religious leaders. This has been countered often by tolerance–sometimes by objections and even outrage–but it never resulted in murder or in an institutionalized incitement to kill the offender. Western societies have mostly matured enough to take criticisms of religious beliefs and religious leaders within the framework of civilized debate. The only religion in our time that preaches the destruction of the “infidel,” accepts no criticism, tolerates no unfavorable remark and would react with murder or incitement to murder–openly and formally by its clerics, national leaders and educators–is Islam. (This has happened both before and after the publication of Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses.”) Speaking about this aggressive and murderous phenomenon and the underlying religious beliefs and teachings, is not necessarily Islam-bashing, but an effort to analyze, define and contain this modern-day scourge, an awakening after a long period of indifference. That is why Zakaria did not hear objections from Western liberals to the utterings of the Christian fundamentalists. Maurice Ogilvy Tel Aviv, Israel
I agree with most of Fareed Zakaria’s statements. As a Christian, I condemn hate agitation by any side. In Germany, all leading Christian clergymen tell their flock and the 3 million Muslim people here that Islam as a whole is a peaceful religion. They say that only a small minority of radical Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for terror and violence. However, moderate Islamic leaders and imams here fail to publicly state their opinion about Nazi-like hate propaganda against Israel, against all Jews and against Christians by acknowledged imams and scholars (not radical extremists) at mosques and universities all over the Islamic world. Both moderate and extremist Muslims base their religious behavior on the same Arabic Qur’an, which contains suras advocating the killing of unbelieving enemies of Islam. Muhammad himself ordered the killing of a Jewish community that did not convert to Islam, thereby demonstrating a nature contrary to that of Jesus Christ. What are the criteria for a Christian to distinguish between a radical devout Muslim and a moderate devout Muslim? I tried to get my bishop to ask these questions to local imams but, unfortunately, that never happened. Heinz Trauboth Weingarten, Germany
Provenance of the Peace Prize
I was most interested in your article “Tooting One’s Horn” (periscope, Oct. 21) which discussed Kim Dae Jung’s strategies for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It is hardly surprising that people initiate varied activities to promote their candidacy, but people who wish to influence the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize will have to direct their effort to Oslo, rather than Stockholm. For, while all other Nobel prizes are awarded by committees in Sweden, Alfred Nobel apparently did not entrust his countrymen to decide to whom the peace prize should go. Consequently, that task was given to the Norwegians. Terje Andresen Asker, Norway
Army Discipline
I am disappointed by both the tenor and the allegations in Colin Soloway’s article, " ‘I Yelled at Them to Stop’ " (Asia, Oct. 7). Soloway based the bulk of his story on after-the-fact interviews with a few Special Forces soldiers who claimed the 82d Airborne troops were heavy-handed in their dealings with Afghan villagers while searching for enemy troops and ammunition. Soloway was not with the forces on this particular operation, and when he brought his claims to us we worked hard to provide him with additional information, including interviews with senior leaders and details from our own investigation. The investigation included statements from Civil Affairs soldiers (who are part of Special Forces Command), who refuted the allegations. Soloway chose the perception of a small group of soldiers over the evidence we gave him–including stories from other reporters who accompanied the operation. Soloway also reports that Gen. Dan McNeill was “reportedly dressed down [by Donald Rumsfeld]… for failing to capture more ‘high-value targets’.” However, the only “dressing down” he received from Rumsfeld was for speaking too loudly during a video teleconference. Our troops are in the field to prosecute the war against Al Qaeda, and they will continue to work as a team until they get the job done. Roger King, Colonel U.S. Army Baghram Air Force base, Afghanistan
Of Leni and Letters
First, I must say, I love your magazine, especially the readers’ contributions to the letters column. It is so encouraging to see people from all over the world join in these informal and instantaneous forums while sharing views. Next, let me add that I thought your piece on Leni Riefenstahl’s anniversary nicely captured the moral and political ambiguity of the filmmaker’s world (“The Bad and the Beautiful,” society & the arts, Sept. 2). However, I found your statement regarding her postwar photographs of African tribes people (“In matters of race, at least, she dissented from Nazi orthodoxy…”) misleading. What Riefenstahl set out to achieve in Africa was simply a further exploration of cultural and mythological archetypes (such as “Father,” “Virgin,” “Homeland”), which so famously abound in her Hitler-era work. Manipulation of these archetypes and, through them, of the collective unconscious, forms one of the linchpins of Nazi ideology. Hopefully, one day art historians will be able to explore and dissect Nazi aesthetics in the same dispassionate way we now view patriotic posters from Bolshevik Russia and Maoist China. Martin Kralik, Director Infocomm Research Strategic Intelligence Research Singapore
