The Decline of Spain ’ s Miracle? It is usually a great pleasure to receive my copy of NEWSWEEK, but not this time, as I was shocked by the March 10 cover and the article on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (“Spain’s Dud”). How could you allow such a shoddy, inaccurate article to be published just days before the Spanish election? I am not Spanish, but I follow events there with great interest. Former prime minister José María Aznar did not “mishandle” the terrorist attacks of March 2004. He lied to the Spanish people, causing a general revulsion that gave victory to his opponents. Since then the Popular Party has been engaging in a campaign of lies and slander, enthusiastically helped by the most reactionary wing of the Roman Catholic Church. The excesses of the PP leader, Mariano Rajoy, would make Newt Gingrich blush. The PP does not believe what it says, but it knows that if it repeats its lies enough, many people will end up believing them. So we have seen elegant ladies shouting in the streets that Zapatero is responsible for the terrorist attacks by ETA and the Muslim fundamentalists, or that the Madrid attacks were orchestrated by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party in order to win the elections. The PP has also obstructed judicial and legislative processes, forcing the government to spend time and energy controlling the damage done to vital institutions. Your analysis is that Zapatero has put his energy into sparring with the center-right, neglecting the country, without making clear the grotesque situation created by the PP in the past four years. There are many other mistakes. If you get it so wrong about a country I know well, how can I trust you about countries I don’t know at all? Teresa Cervera London, England
The real dud, NEWSWEEK, was your article “The End of the Spanish Empire.” As an American who has lived and worked in Spain off and on since 1970, when I was first stationed there with the U.S. Air Force, my impression continues to be that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has earned and maintains a reputation among the vast majority of his countrymen and -women as an honest and effective leader. Without knowing whom your writers used as sources, I can’t determine how they arrived at the conclusion that Zapatero’s popularity and following have recently plummeted in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. According to El País, the most widely read newspaper in Spain, as a result of the recent elections Zapatero’s party has become the most successful since the birth of Spanish democracy in terms of vote count. In addition to its reasonably decisive national victory, it won 51 of 52 provinces in absentee ballots and received twice the number of votes cast for the opposition party by Spaniards living outside the country. Sure, the Spanish economy is in trouble, as is ours, and those of the vast majority of the world’s countries. If you want to hold Zapatero personally accountable, be prepared to do the same with George W. Bush, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and an endless list of other world leaders. To quote the authors of your article, “The country seems, if not adrift, becalmed at the moment, even unsure of itself and its identity.” Come on, gentlemen, forget the psychology-of-the-masses bit and stick with journalism. John Holter Geneva, Switzerland
I was surprised to read in “The End of the Spanish Empire” that “Aznar would be driven out of office by his mishandling of the March 11, 2004, attack.” Making good on an electoral promise given eight years earlier, Aznar never ran for a third term. I can understand the authors’ honest mistake, as Aznar’s gesture is uncommon among politicians. Ariel Mazin Madrid, Spain
Your disappointment with Zapatero may be influenced by a too high estimation of his power. Please bear in mind that a prime minister cannot be compared to a president of the United States. The American Constitution is one of the few that combine the head of state (the union) and the head of government in one single executive (the president). In most countries, including the constitutional monarchy of Spain, these functions are separate. King Juan Carlos is head of state and stands above national elections, but his prime minister does not. Sverre Haukeland Vasteras, Sweden
Once again, I have to write to you to complain about your manifest, obvious ignorance of Spanish affairs. Your issue of March 10 has major mistakes. You write that Aznar was driven out of office when everybody in Spain knows that he did not even run for prime minister, accomplishing his promise of staying only for two terms. Second, unlike most of Europe, Spain did not support Kosovo’s independence because, according to the United Nations and international law, its declaration of independence is illegal. The fact that the United States and other countries supported it does not change that. You write that Zapatero decided to open talks with ETA after it declared a ceasefire in March 2006. That’s not true. As everyone in Spain knows, Zapatero was already talking to ETA while still in the opposition, and at the same time he was signing an “antiterrorist” pact with the then government of Aznar before 2004. You say that Zapatero was forced to end negotiations after an ETA bomb killed two people in Madrid’s airport in December 2006. Zapatero himself admitted (in a long interview given to the director of El Mundo newspaper) lying to the Spanish people and their Congress by telling them that he had ended all talks with ETA while, in truth, in March 2007 he was still talking to it. You write wrongly that Mariano Rajoy, president of the Popular Party, “sides with the Catholic Church on social issues like same-sex marriage.” Rajoy has repeatedly stated that what he is against is calling it “marriage.” Finally, the PP has not been split by infighting: if you are referring to Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón’s bid to take Rajoy’s place, it did not go very far. As a matter of fact, the PP is as tight as ever and with more members than ever before. Maybe you are referring to the split in the Socialist party, whose member Rosa Díez has left to form her own party? If so, she is not the only one who has left. C. Bonafonte Barcelona, Spain
I am a longtime subscriber to TIME magazine who resisted friends who were telling me that I might like NEWSWEEK better since it is more left wing in its views. I finally got a subscription to check NEWSWEEK out and was stunned by your wholly right-wing views on Zapatero and Spanish politics. The worst offense is your March 10 cover. Zapatero a “dud”? He may not have nourished his stardom because he has been too busy attending to Spain’s needy and keeping the right-wing paper El Mundo and Radio Cope off his back while the Popular Party was mouthing its views. But he is (finally) addressing Spain’s longtime wrongs, bravely resisting the religious right and bringing the country into the 21st century. I’ve lived in Spain for 20 years, and he is a star for me. Bravo, Zapatero! Ragini Nederveen Pieterse Barcelona, Spain
How could you write on your cover “Spain’s Dud: How Zapatero Fell From European Star to National Disappointment”? Indeed, with turnout recorded at 75.3 percent, Zapatero’s Socialist party has obtained five more representatives in Congress than in the last general elections, and Spaniards have clearly endorsed Zapatero’s achievements during his past four years in power—a far cry from national disappointment. From now on, when I read your magazine I will bear in mind that sometimes your political analysis can be poor, partial and inaccurate, as it has obviously been in this case. Ignacio Salaberria Garcia Malaga, Spain
Regarding your article “The End of the Spanish Empire,” I would like to clarify one point. You say, “Aznar would be driven out of office by his mishandling of the March 11, 2004, attack.” Well, I’ve often heard this from journalists, but it is not correct. Aznar was not a candidate for the elections when the terrorist attack happened; the candidate was Mariano Rajoy. Aznar declined to be a prime ministerial candidate in the 2004 elections. Ana Belen Perez Martinez Madrid, Spain
Buddhism ’ s Angry Revival I must admit that i have been pleasantly surprised by your generosity in giving so many pages to Buddhism, a religion of great compassion and wisdom (“Buddha Is Back,” March 10). Brought up in a Buddhist family, I am equally worried and saddened by your argument that the politicization of Buddhism is part of a growing religious phenomenon worldwide. Indeed, Buddha would be most unhappy with this situation if he were to return to earth today. In fact, these traditionally peaceful and unpretentious monks are getting more militant, as exemplified by their actions in some countries in South and Southeast Asia. This is an unhealthy trend globally. Groups of extremely pious disciples (albeit relatively small in number) of every religion could turn aggressive overnight in many places all over the world. What has made these normally calm and deeply religious people go wild? What is wrong with the great world religions that have been preaching peaceful coexistence for thousands of years? Is it an inevitable byproduct of our dreadful modern society? Ti Han-Venn Hong Kong
I’m a 15-year-old high-school student appalled by your story on the rise of Buddhism. The article and its images create a negative image of Buddhism. You say priests are turning their backs on enlightenment and nonviolence and taking part in politics. I’m not denying that it can be so, but not all Buddhist monks are like that. Of the members of the Sri Lankan political party Jathika Hela Urumaya, you say that they have begun advocating violence. This is not so. The article gives an image of a decaying religion with followers who are beginning to lose their way. The images accompanying your article are also depressing. They picture the dark and gloom, monks and Buddhists in tattered, filthy backgrounds—especially the picture of two monks, one laughing out loud while the other looks angry. Were you not aware that you are portraying all Asian Buddhists through those images? I do not expect you to give a false image of Buddhism, but to just be realistic and respectful. I am disappointed in NEWSWEEK. Chathuri Pathirana Colombo, Sri Lanka
I was left feeling somewhat uneasy, if not absolutely unconvinced, by your article’s exaggeration of Buddhist militancy. Although it was well researched, your report is yet another example of generalizing a phenomenon when the actual number of people involved is an insignificant percentage of the total number. A part does not represent or reflect the whole. Indeed, small groups of “extremists” or “fundamentalists” do exist in practically every religion, interpreting the tenets of their religion in their own peculiar, often distorted ways. Their actions often counter or vastly deviate from the normal practice of their fellow disciples. Nevertheless, we should not be duped into believing too quickly that these groups epitomize the general trend of a particular religion. That said, one must remember that the great majority of Buddhists have been, are still and will continue to be compassionate, tolerant, apolitical and antimilitant. They practice humility, and respect all sentient beings. Their goal has always been to attain enlightenment and nirvana. To argue that the politicization of religion, in particular Buddhism, is fast gaining ground worldwide is premature. B. T. Tan Singapore
From reading your story, i get the feeling that your writer either does not like Buddhism or had unrealistic expectations of it. And what a choice of pictures, both from Tibet and of Tibetans! The trouble that the administrations in and around Bodhgaya are undergoing is more serious. But at least we avoided a 150-meter-long statue of the future Buddha there, which would have dwarfed everything else. As for the resurrection of the university at Nalanda, just the vast knowledge that Buddhism offers will probably not be enough by itself. One would have to look into meditation, and other practical applications in improving people’s lives. But Buddhists are human, too. Our strength is that we have timeless values because we have access to the nature of the human mind. Buddhists can protect themselves, their families and the freedom of their societies, but they should never hate the enemy. During conflicts, one needs to think, like a doctor, that one is inflicting a smaller pain now to avoid bigger trouble later. The misunderstanding of nonviolence is what allowed Muslim tribes to brutally kill countless people and destroy Buddhist cultures in Asia for centuries. Lama Ole Nydahl Copenhagen, Denmark
I would like to draw your attention to a factual mistake in your March 10 article “Armies of the Enlightened.” The birthplace of Lord Buddha, Lumbini, is not in India but in Nepal. An integral part of the southern plains of Nepal, in the district of Kapilavastu, Lumbini was never part of India—even in history. Rajaram Bartaula Beijing, China
As a Buddhist, I am deeply perturbed about the way China is treating (or rather ill-treating) the Buddhists (including monks) in Tibet. China has been a predominantly Buddhist country historically, so I ask, “Is this the Buddhism it practices?” One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism is to have compassion and tolerance toward fellow human beings. China has a huge population, and a considerable percentage of it is in abject poverty. So the government should first look into its people’s misery and improve their standard of living before interfering in the affairs of Tibet. To use extreme tactics and suppress the fight for freedom in Tibet is despicable, to say the least. Now China is planning to stage the next Olympics to show its hollow glory while it does not practice true sportsmanship. All democracy-loving countries should boycott these Games to give a wake-up call to China. Lionel Rajapakse Kandy, Sri Lanka
No Longer the Old Germany As an old German with some war experience, I would like to comment on your article “Hiding Behind the Americans” (Feb. 25). We are not hiding behind anyone, but we have learned our lesson. The age-old call of “Germans to the front” has generated only misery and disaster. War does not produce anything worthwhile. To claim that our freedom is secured in Afghanistan is ideology and big-power policy nonsense. The German government complies only because of pressure from outside. The overwhelming consensus in Germany is, using the same resources peacefully is definitely much better. Also, a country like the United States, where domestic civil violence seems to be uncontrollable, is not qualified to call others to quell violence abroad, for example in Afghanistan. Goetz Uebe Ludwigslust, Germany
In “Hiding Behind the Americans” you write, “From a few token pilots on an AWACS plane over Bosnia in 1993—Germany’s first military appearance outside its borders since World War II …” I think the well-known fact that slipped your memory is that it was East German troops who crossed the Czechoslovakian border on Aug. 21, 1968, along with those from the U.S.S.R., Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria. Russians stayed to occupy the country until 1990; their allies left soon. It was the second occupation of the country. After the Munich Treaty of 1938, Czechoslovakia was stripped of its border territories inhabited by Germans, called Sudeten; later, on March 15, 1939, Slovakia became independent and German troops occupied what was left, installing the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated by Czech paratroopers soon after he was appointed. Historically, the political impact has been a mistrust of the strong German Army in this part of Europe and political support for the Serbs, who sided with Czechs in both historical moments. This is why Czechs hesitate to recognize Kosovo, and after being settled by people from the east, the former Sudeten German territories have not recovered. They distrust the Great Powers’ asking, “Why didn’t Americans liberate Czech lands in 1945 instead of leaving them to the Russians?” Now Americans reap the results of this: 60 percent of the people are against approving their missile shield. Jiri Sedlacek Kladno, Czech Republic
Defining the Western Soul The cover picture of your Feb. 14 issue depicting a huge Turkish flag contradicts the title of your cover story, “The Western Soul of Turkey.” The painting of huge flags on mountains or rocks, sometimes outlined by lights so as not to be missed during the night hours, is a common practice in Turkey. It is a blatant manifestation of chauvinism, arrogance and an attempt to intimidate the viewers. It also shows contempt and disregard for nature and the environment. It is an expression of the level of culture, maturity and taste that prevails in Turkey. After all, Europe’s Western soul has evolved through centuries of history, culture, civilization and a mentality characterized by the ability to respect and tolerate others and to endure—virtues that are hard to find in Turkey. They cannot be acquired overnight. Tania Mitsides Nicosia, Cyprus
Revisiting South Africa In your Feb. 25 letters column, reader Martyn Abrahams, responding to your Jan. 7 article “The End of the Affair,” blames the current woes of South Africa on black Africans. He would have us believe that “Nigerian warlords invented and initiated organized crime in South Africa,” and that the high murder rate in South Africa is due largely to the 9 million illegal refugees from other African states resident in South Africa. Worse still is his allegation that these illegals specifically target white people. Abrahams stops short of saying that South Africa was a much better place under the apartheid system (which no doubt it was—for whites). South Africa’s problems today are legion, but almost all of them stem from the legacy of apartheid. Blacks, who were deliberately undereducated, have now taken over the reins of power, but the lack of education is obvious from the ineptitude of several government officials as well as from such heinous crimes as raping babies and children, purportedly to cure AIDS (a uniquely South African crime). Let us not forget the cozy deal negotiated at the handover of power that included abolishing the death penalty (which whites feared would be used against them in retaliation) and ensuring that whites remained in control of the economy. Whites still control more than 90 percent of South Africa’s wealth though making up only 5 percent of its population, 14 years after the historic elections that officially ended apartheid. Those two provisos in the transition deal mean that there is no effective deterrent to crime and that the vast majority of black South Africans remain mired in poverty with little hope for the future. These situations create conditions rife for rampant crime. There is no doubt that South Africa needs to drastically reduce the incidence of crime by effectively enforcing its laws, but the government is hampered, in part, by the legacy of apartheid and by some of the deals made in the transition to democracy. Kelechi C. Ogbuehi Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Croatian, Not Serbian I’d like to correct your March 24 piece on Nikola Tesla (“The Cult of the Volt”): Tesla was born and raised in Croatia, as were his ancestors, who lived here for generations. They came from Serbia—in the Middle Ages. So, if he’s a Serb, then the only Americans are Native Americans. Ivan Golub Slavonski Brod, Croatia
