Another Evil Despot
I read with interest your article on Kim Jong Il and the rising anti-American sentiment among Koreans (“North Korea’s Dr. Evil: Is Kim Jong Il a Bigger Threat Than Saddam?” Jan 13). It is true that some Koreans hate America and want U.S. troops to leave South Korea because, they say, U.S. forces are an obstacle to reunification of the two Koreas. And although that radical minority gets much media attention, you should know that the silent majority of Koreans are still for the U.S. troops stationed in Korea. According to a recent government poll, more than 70 percent of respondents agree that U.S. forces are essential to the defense in Korea and should remain after reunification. And the majority has begun to voice its opinion on the North Korean nuclear development and anti-American sentiment. Recently, more than 100,000 Christians and other citizens held a rally to support the continued presence of U.S. troops here and to demand the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program. Kim Jong Il is not a “dear leader,” but a despot who has committed hideous crimes such as the killing of 115 innocent people by bombing a KAL airliner in 1987. He has also let 2 million North Koreans die of starvation over the past decade. The day will come when a reunified Korea will bring him to justice. Kim Bo Jung Seoul, South Korea
I found your cover story entertaining but also frightening. North Korea is desperately begging for war, unlike Iraq, which is shying away from it. North Korea, no doubt, has all it takes to trigger a third world war–from weapons of mass destruction to an evil Stalinist despotic ruler. And one thing is clear: North Korea is jealous of its neighbors’ economic prosperity. All it needs is the slightest Western provocation and, in retaliation, it will wipe out a major portion of the South and Japan. Washington needs to be aware of this. North Korea should be disarmed only on a diplomatic platform. Egbetho Philip Department of Physics University of Benin Benin City, Nigeria
Thousands of U.S. soldiers died to keep South Korea from joining the workers’ paradise in the North, and for 50 years American lives have been on the line to prevent North Korean soldiers from marching south. As a result, South Koreans were saved from what turned out to be a workers’ hell where a third of the population would starve but for food aid supplied by the West. In return, America was vilified by the North and resented by the South. If the United States is indeed the arrogant, self-interested aggressor everyone says it is, wouldn’t it tell North Korea to feed itself, South Korea to defend itself and Kim Jong Il to pull his missiles and belligerent head in, or get it knocked off? John Dawson Melbourne, Australia
Your article on North Korea was excellent. I’m so impressed with your superb coverage that I just got my first subscription. It’s time to regard North Korea as a serious threat. Why don’t we act in Korea if weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the world? Are there other hidden motives for attacking Iraq and not North Korea? Joel Olson Portland, Oregon
The tone of your articles on North Korea does not surprise me. The preparations for the next war after Kosovo and Iraq seem to be already underway in America with the media playing their role in the preparation. I wonder which country the U.S. government will next consider a menace and a threat to world peace and therefore fit to be occupied. The way you treat the Spanish and American navies’ boarding of the North Korean ship is typical. In fact, the boarding of a ship in international waters is an act of piracy, and the perpetrators of this act should be punished severely. You also omitted the fact that the South Korean government had to learn of this act via the media, just as it did when President Bush called North Korea part of this “Axis of Evil.” But it seems that, for you, this act of piracy was in defense of international law, human rights, freedom and peace. What if North Korea were to board–in international waters–an American ship carrying weapons to, say, Taiwan? I can see the headlines in NEWSWEEK screaming for revenge and war against the evil empire of Kim Jong Il. Willy Van Damme Dendermonde, Belgium
For most of us who are not particularly impressed by America’s current diplomacy, the biggest clear and present threat to world peace and stability seems to be George W. Bush and his team rather than Saddam or Kim (rulers who probably rank with the likes of Slobodan Milosevic, Ariel Sharon and other evil despots who may be lesser on the world scale). As the largest stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction, the United States should set an example and destroy its own weapons under U.N. supervision, making sure that such countries as India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel, as well as the four other nuclear powers, follow suit. If a diplomatic approach is suitable for North Korea, it should also work in Iraq. Now is the time for American diplomacy to focus on solving the true Mideast problem, the Israel-Palestinian situation, by acting as a truly impartial mediator. Paul Papadopoulos Athens, Greece
Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein are both tyrants, and it would be better for their people if they were to fall from power. And yet, their potential to do harm to others is far from the same. Saddam may support terrorist organizations, but his ability to use weapons of mass destruction in other countries is limited, as he never got his hands on nuclear weapons and most of his chemical weapons were destroyed during the gulf war. Kim Jong Il, however, can aggressively pursue his foreign political demands thanks to his nuclear weapons. Isn’t it understandable, then, why North Korea is treated so much more carefully than Iraq? In the diplomatic world, military power is unfortunately still superior to moral strength. Karsten Strey Hamburg, Germany
As a 29-year-old Korean-American born and raised in Philadelphia, I am dismayed by the widespread hostility that a growing majority of young Koreans have toward the United States and its troops stationed along the DMZ (“Angry at the Yanks”). My parents lived through the Korean War and have always reminded me that they owe their survival to the U.S. military and Gen. Douglas MacArthur. While I recognize that the killing of two Korean schoolgirls by two American soldiers galvanized public sentiment against American troops, I am appalled that many Koreans now view the United States as the enemy. I do not understand why they want to make peace with a manipulative, ruthless, egomaniacal communist dictator. Are they really that naive and ignorant? Jennifer Oh Exton, Pennsylvania
Abstinent Teens
After reading your Dec. 9 special report “New Moral Order?” I got the impression that Americans are now endorsing “a new counterculture,” the movement based on teenagers who choose abstinence until marriage. I do hope that this trend will have an impact on countries like Japan because here we see nudity even in our news magazines and kids read skin magazines in bookstores. Kenji Otsuka Yokohama, Japan
The trouble with many abstinence-only programs is that the unspoken message is: “Abstain till marriage or death, whichever comes first.” As Wendy Kaminer wrote in “True Love Waits,” it’s one thing to tell kids to put school ahead of sex; it’s another to imply that abstinence guarantees you a Prince Charming who will never dump you. And any counselor of poor teen parents will tell you that many of them see reproduction as the only thing they can succeed at. Maybe more kids would say no if adults focused more on helping them build futures to say “yes” to. Kira Barnum Somerville, Massachusetts
Fighting Terrorism Globally
I agree with Fareed Zakaria that there has been an utter lack of political effort by the international community in the war against terror (“How to Fight the Fanatics,” Dec. 9). In fact, there has been a negative effort, especially in the Islamic world (look at the recent election victories for Islamists in Pakistan and Turkey, two otherwise moderate states). The easiest way to fight terrorists would be to deprive them of their causes and the assistance they receive from sympathizers. Doing so requires a lot of diplomatic work on the part of the world’s sole superpower. It neither costs billions nor is it difficult. The United States needs only to rise on a higher moral plane and apply justice–to stop taking sides and be fair in cases like the Palestinian territories, Kashmir, Chechnya and so forth. Deprived of these causes, terrorism will suffocate itself. Right now the opposite is happening. Parvez Iftikhar Islamabad, Pakistan
The United States needs to address not only the risk of terrorism in the Middle East but also the galloping escalation of terrorism in South American countries like Colombia and Venezuela. If the States does not move quickly, it could become too late. Roberto Martin via Internet
Healing a Successful Society
I was interested to read your Nov. 18 article “Healing Medicine” on the state of the medical system in Japan. The problems you describe are symptomatic of Japanese society as a whole. I work in a Japanese company and have ceased to be astounded by the habitual corruption that hides behind blind obedience to authority. Just as your article stated, status is conferred by age and not by achievement, by pedigree and not by performance. This injustice is endemic since workers soon realize the best way to advance themselves is through sycophantic alliance to those in power. The excesses of the bubble economy could mask such a system, but the aftermath has revealed the stagnation and disenchantment it engenders. Richard Jones Nishio City, Japan
The View From Europe
Although I must admit that I have often been critical of the United States’ policies toward the so-called war on terrorism, Fareed Zakaria certainly had a valid point when he lambasted the German government’s abruptly rediscovered pacifism regarding its attitude toward Iraq (“The Lonesome Doves of Europe,” Sept. 30). Chancellor Schroder’s U-turn was a classical example of downright opportunism, which, after all, won him a second term in office. Whether both the Reds and the Greens are ready as well as willing to prove the courage of their convictions is a completely different matter. For, after all, winning a national vote is one thing; being a reliable partner on the international stage is quite another. Werner Radtke Paderborn, Germany
I am flabbergasted week after week by Fareed Zakaria’s opinions on Russia, France, the rest of Europe and generally whoever does not share his hawkish views on Iraq. I cannot help but feel that he has not tried to really understand other people’s positions. In Europe we see that the war in Afghanistan was started just to capture Osama bin Laden and eradicate Al Qaeda. But, although these jobs are far from finished, the Bush administration does not seem to worry. Is that because the real objective was to have a solid foothold in Afghanistan because of its strategic location in moving oil from the Caspian Sea? Why this sudden interest in Iraq? It seems to be another power grab by the United States of an oil-rich country to check Saudi Arabia at whatever consequences for the rest of the world. Zakaria is astonished to see Russia and France fighting selfishly for their national interests? And while Zakaria’s article has its merits, the acrimony against France, a smallish non-Anglo-Saxon, non-English-speaking nation, is shocking. Britain is also sitting on the permanent Security Council and is even less powerful than France, but the article says nothing about this country. Is it because Britain toes America’s line? Michel Gallet Courbevoie, France
