Mail Call: Asian Ego Rising

So, according to Evan Thomas and John Barry, ethics are now "The Enemy of the Good" (March 30). They are not—even if evading taxes is so common among politicians that administration jobs go unfilled on Capitol Hill. Thomas and Barry seem to feel that owing $140,000 in back taxes is a mere trifle, but for most of us that's a lot of money. I applaud President Obama for his commitment to clean hands at the top. America also used to be famous for its social conscience. I've been transplanted to Scandinavia, where we can really talk about oppressive taxes. My acquaintances back home in Arizona tend to shake their heads in disbelief, both at our taxes, but also about the fact that universities are free, and that there's good universal health care. Obama wants to improve American health care and education. Is anyone actually opposed to these goals? The high-rolling tax evaders are insured and have been to good schools. Are they really the best and the brightest? Raising taxes to a level still far below Scandinavia's is the obvious way to implement the new administration's realistic and needed goals, and it doesn't hurt anywhere near as much as untreated illness, or cost as much as ignorance. It is not the typical American way, but Barack Obama is not a typical man to show the way.
Frances Fischer
Svendborg, Denmark

Brazil's Economic Success
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's comments have a special economic significance for some developing countries in the Southeast Asian region (" 'Brazil Has to Be Bold'," March 30). Most of the small economies fighting large budget deficits and foreign debt have suffered from the global economic downturn. Lula admirably carries the flag of Brazil's recovery and is becoming an exemplar the world over. He rightfully takes a cue from President Barack Obama who is rebuilding America's image. Brazil's leader is also succeeding in alleviating poverty, export promotion, debt reduction, etc., and is looking forward to a positive year-end growth rate; hence his domestic popularity and overwhelming approval rating of 84 percent. While Lula admits that Brazil's development of its infrastructure is still trailing, I would have liked him to express Brazil's development imperatives and strategies moving forward.
Lionel Gulawita
Kalutara, Sri Lanka

As Saudi Arabia Looks to the Future
As a Saudi citizen, I was heartened by the fact that NEWSWEEK concluded what many of us in the Kingdom have been experiencing in the past few years: King Abdullah's reform process is vital, serious and well paced within the Saudi context ("The Monarch Who Declared His Own Revolution," March 30). However, the imbalance in your article is quite apparent when one notices the demeaning manner in which you refer to one of this country's most accomplished men "the Interior minister Prince Naif." What is even more painful is the utter failure to mention that with the blessing and encouragement of his brother King Abdullah, he was the mastermind behind what you termed the "Aggressive efforts by the Saudi security forces 'that' led to the death or capture of most Al Qaeda leaders and operatives." Even more painful is your failure to mention that he is the man directly responsible for what former CIA chief Michael Hayden has aptly described as "the world's most effective counter-radicalization programs." Your reference to King Abdullah's attitude toward his fellow Arab leaders is both insensitive and imprecise. Everyone who has dealt with King Abdullah knows all too well how respectful he is even toward those with whom he differs. His belief in the "simple Arab and Islamic values" as you have correctly stated shields him from having such a negative attitude. I am afraid that King Abdullah's frank and open style is sometimes misunderstood even by people who should know better. We need to understand others, and listening to or quoting the spinners does not serve this quest.
Khalid Alsaeed
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Christopher Dickey's fascinating article on King Abdullah's approach to circumventing or eliminating the stringent rules prescribed by the Wahhabi elements of state, which suppress women's rights, is reminiscent of King Faisal's actions prior to his assassination in 1975. I was employed by the Saudi government as clinical laboratory director of the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Riyahd during this period. As part of my responsibilities I spent the early morning hours checking out the computer system that controlled our analytical instrumentation. Early on, I would see this distinguished gentleman walking among the computers, located below ground level, fingering his prayer beads and praying. I soon learned it was His Majesty King Faisal and, in time, developed the courage to say "Good morning, Your Majesty." After another week or two King Faisal asked me my name and what I was doing. Still later, we conversed with one another on a regular basis. I vividly recall during one of our conversations him telling me that he realized the Kingdom must commence removing the restrictions on the rights of women otherwise there would be a revolution and, if there was to be a revolution, he wanted it to start in the Royal Palace. Unfortunately, six weeks later he was dead. I am convinced if King Faisal had lived and continued to carry out his agenda, Saudi Arabia would be far different than it is today.
Otto W. Wendel
Young Harris, Georgia

The Saudi Peace Plan, Revisited
It has been some time since I have read a more biased column than the one written by Saudi academic Abdul RahmanH. Al-Saeed ("Revive the Saudi Peace Plan," Feb. 16). First of all, the Saudi peace plan is a recipe for disaster for the Israelis who under its envisaged terms are expected to withdraw to pre-1967 borders, agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the return of Palestinian refugees. On top of it all, Israel is expected to recognize Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. In exchange for these huge and concrete concessions, the Israelis get a "normalization of Arab-Israeli relations in the context of a comprehensive peace." Such a plan would not allow Israel to peacefully coexist with its Arab neighbors but would be an unconditional surrender. For more than 60 years the Arabs have tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Every neutral observer would understand Israel's being somewhat skeptical of Arab offers of peace. I notice that the article is filled with indignant condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza and the blame for the unfortunate carnage, material loss and human suffering Al-Saeed lays squarely at Israel's door. At no point does he mention the fact that Hamas was the original aggressor by firing rockets into Israeli territory and then hiding behind innocent civilians to avoid retribution. Al-Saeed even has the gall to demand compensation and an apology from Israel. Israel has a right to exist and to protect its citizens by whatever means from the actions of militant Islamic terrorist organizations that still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Al-Saeed calls the actions of the Israelis "disproportionate" and an "atrocity." The Israelis employed massive force for the dual purpose of communicating to Hamas that Israel means business and of convincing the manipulated local population of Gaza that support for terrorists is counterproductive to their welfare. Israel is as anxious for peace as anybody but not at the price of self-destruction as called for by Arab initiatives such as the Saudi Peace Plan. Israel cannot and should not negotiate on issues absolutely vital to its survival while radical Arab neighbors plot its destruction.
Peter Perkins
Randburg, South Africa

The U.S.–Britain Relationship
Stryker McGuire misses the point of the Anglo-American "special relationship" between Britain and the United States ("An Island, Lost At Sea," Feb. 23). It is not about whether it is or isn't "almost entirely foreign to American ears." It is about four areas of joint trust and mutual respect: military, intelligence, diplomatic and nuclear. Over the past four years according to the recently departed American ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Robert Tuttle, some 12,000 American politicians and civil servants came to Britain to meet with their counterparts here. Recently on British television an expert was explaining that the accidental collision between the British and French nuclear submarines came about because each didn't know the other was in the area. He observed that only the United States and Britain keep each other informed about the whereabouts of their nuclear defense subs, describing it as a very deep secret, not generally shared even with other NATO allies. It isn't time to "move on" from the special relationship, but it is past time for media commentators and pundits to quit picking at it, focusing on the trivial, and realize that it's there, it's deep and it's lasting where it counts.
Robert Worcester
London, England

© 2009