Mail Call

Our Sept. 18 report on Tony Blair's legacy drew spirited responses. "Blairism would be a disastrous death wish," huffed one, "he's destroyed his country and changed its character." Griped another, "He's detested for his lack of moral fiber." A third said happily, "Goodbye, Mr. Blair!"

The cover story of your Sept. 18 Atlantic edition was much too generous to British Prime Minister Tony Blair ("And Now, Adieu"). Politically, Blair is dead. As for his legacy, let alone the longevity of New Labour, the slogan "Long live Blairism!" would be a disastrous death wish for Britain. A phony egomaniac who is all words and no action, with style over substance, Blair has used his three-term prime ministership to destroy his country and change its character beyond recognition. According to the latest IMF report, unemployment in Britain is rising faster than in any other developed country. Public spending has spun out of control with no progress to show for it; the budget deficit has ballooned; the list goes on. Add to this the problems of uncontrolled immigration, an increasingly failing education system, the pension scandal, the lack of law and order, the death of British agriculture and fishing industries and the introduction of "Big Brother" policies by stealth, and you have the destruction of most of the core values for which Britain was once both proud and renowned. Britain's only hope now is a return of the center-right Conservatives under David Cameron and an exit from the European Union.

Karl H. Pagac

Villeneuve-loubet, France

Although British prime minister Tony Blair's political days are numbered, he is still trying to hang on to his career. He wants to linger on by telling more lies about his absolute support of the Bush administration in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Israel-Lebanon war turned the tables: President Bush humiliated him in public and paid no heed to Blair's proposal of an immediate ceasefire and cessation of all hostilities by both parties. Blair has proved his loyalty and obedience to Bush by telling lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for invading Iraq and sending British troops to the Middle East. Blair has been dropped like a hot potato by his own Labour Party members, who are demanding his earlier departure. The young, dynamic leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, has challenged Blair's leadership and ridiculed him many times in the House of Commons. The curtain has already fallen on Blair's political career. Goodbye, Mr. Blair! Britain will be better off without you.

Syed Rashid Ali Shah

Vroomshoop, Netherlands

I thought your article "and now, Adieu," was biased and almost free of legitimate criticism in assessing why Tony Blair is now on the way out. As far as the British are concerned, Blair is tainted: his decline started with the war in Iraq, when they realized that he had lied in order to gain parliamentary approval to take Britain into an illegal war. Forget weapons of mass destruction--Bush and his "poodle" decided very early on to invade Iraq. All they had to do was to con the public into believing their reasons for doing so. Blair, with his ego, did this superbly by adopting spin, dodgy dossiers and lies. Add to this Blair's running of the United Kingdom like an American president, showing his contempt for Parliament and an obsession to agree with Bush on everything--including the latest Lebanon-Israel conflict. The electorate has become sick of him. His "New Labour" policies at home--on health, education, crime, immigration and transport--have failed miserably, and that is after 10 years in government. We Brits are now hated the world over as much as the Americans (especially in the Middle East and other Muslim countries), while Blair is detested for his sleazy dealings, his lying and spinning; his corruption of the Civil Service; his weakening of democracy; his imposing of "Big Brother" laws; his freebie holidays; his greedy wife, Cherie; using his reputation to earn mega-bucks, etc. Most of all, however, Blair is detested in this country for his lack of moral fiber.

G. S. Cotton

Fosdyke, England

Gordon brown dismisses protests against capitalist globalization as "an angry resistance to change--old-style Luddism, in other words" ("We Need to Be More Fair," Sept. 18). Your readers may be interested to know that the original Luddites were weavers in early-19th-century England who opposed, unsuccessfully, the introduction of new technology that, in the social conditions of the time, deprived them of their livelihood and threw their families into poverty. The propertied classes who put down the Luddites were themselves resistant to social and political changes, such as the extension of the vote to working people, the formation of unions and the reduction of working hours. Today's workers have good reason to be anxious about how capital moves around the world in search of low-paid, nonunion workers without effective legal rights. Brown's globalization manifesto says nothing about the need for effective laws to protect workers from overwork and hazard-ous conditions, and for free, independent unions in all countries.

Richard Abernethy

Kidlington, England

Gordon Brown's article might sound very convincing to those who can rely on a settled life. But it is very far from people's needs in the former communist countries. What has political freedom brought to Poles and Hungarians? Insecurity, poverty and dwindling chances--even for the young and well educated. At home they are confronted with unemployment, wage dumping and an ever-rising cost of living. If they try their chances in a "vibrant civil society" like Britain, even the highly qualified have to take unskilled menial jobs that allow them to survive at the bottom of society without any chance of finding decent work and housing. Thousands of young people in Hungary and Poland are lured by shady employment agents into coming to Britain, only to find themselves dependent as illegal workers with no opportunity to alter their situations. It seems we are on our way to modern slavery. We have to be more fair, or rather, Europe's politicians must look at people's basic needs and give them fair chances.

Helga Leszko

Unterpleichfeld, Germany

It's nice to know that Fareed Zakaria shows common sense in dealing with Iran ("The Year of Living Fearfully," Sept. 11). Actually, Iran's Islamic neighbors are the ones who should live most fearful-ly. Remember Chernobyl? Getting rid of spent nuclear fuel is not an easy task. How does Iran propose to do it? Bury it in the desert or dump it in the Persian Gulf? These questions should cause alarm throughout the Middle East. Besides, Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map, but if the navigation system on its nuclear weapons is faulty, a misguided weapon could wipe out southern Lebanon, Damascus, even the Palestinian territories. And if a nuclear weapon hits Israel, the radioactive fallout would kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, as well as poisoning their water supply. These scenarios should inform the way we contain Iran. However, George W. Bush is on a crusade against "Islamofascism," and an election is coming up. Odds are that there will be an October surprise--bombing missions against nuclear targets in Iran. What will be the reaction in the Middle East then?

William Joseph Miller

Los Angeles, California

Fareed Zakaria argues that iran in 2006 is not comparable in terms of strength and power to the Germany of 70 years ago, but maybe he should compare today's Iran to Germany a few years before that. In 1933, France should have said: "The new Reich chancellor is the man who wrote 'Mein Kampf.' This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!" But it didn't do that. France left Germany alone until it was well armed, better than it was, then Germany started the war. And how about learning a lesson from Hitler himself: "The most dangerous period is that of rearmament. Then we shall see whether France has statesmen. If she does, she will not grant us time but will jump on us." Today's question is whether the United States has statesmen.

Manuel Stein

Raanana, Israel

Fareed Zakaria makes a persuasive argument when he asks, "What if President Bush publicly offered to open an embassy in Tehran and begin student exchanges?" This is an admirable endeavor. But we shouldn't hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. That would require the kind of statesmanship that, if past performance is any indicator of future results, Bush simply doesn't have. It would be wonderful if we could see that, but for now and for the foreseeable future, one very much doubts that will come to pass.

David Weinberg

Tokyo, Japan

"How to Make Tehran Blink" offers a lot of wisdom, but I doubt it would ever be that simple to get a nuclear-free Iran (Sept. 4). The 2,000-year-old anti-Semitism that has recently been expressed publicly and repeatedly by Iran's president will not go away just because we make promises. An unalterable hatred seems to be part of the fabric of Iran. Besides, why would a radical Muslim country take any assurances from its stated enemy, the "Great Satan," seriously? It seems naive to think that any promises made in response to American assurances would be truthful.

Dinn Cosart

via internet

Scott Sagan presupposes that the Iranian regime bases its decisions and objectives on rational ideas. The Iranian government is centered on a religious cornerstone (with a Supreme Leader) around which the window dressings of executive and legislative branches are neatly arranged to give the perception that legitimate systems exist for open discussion of rational thoughts. Comparisons to the former Soviet Union seem completely inappropriate, as the only similarity appears to be the restrictions to personal freedom. The Iranian regime fundamentally hates and distrusts the West at the core level. It will pursue any and all means to rid the Middle East of Israel and Western influence as it builds its Islamic empire. In the end, the degree to which it is successful will depend on how much its propaganda is successful in leading its masses away from rationality toward a seemingly divine cause. To negotiate protections for the current regime is to provide it time to win the hearts and minds of its people and to formulate WMD plans that it will surely continue. This would be a great mistake for the West.

Mark Levine

Via internet

Even though I am not a permanent resident of Japan, I am covered by its national health insurance--coverage that enabled me to have a hip operation at a cost well below what I would have had to pay in my own country, the United States ("This Is the New Japan," Sept. 11). I plan to remain here because I can look after my health at an affordable price. At 60, I find that an important consideration.

Michael Driver

Ichihara City, Japan

America is obsessed with getting the price of oil down to earlier levels to tackle the unhealthy regimes in Iran, Syria and Venezuela ("Oil's Dirty Laundry," Aug. 21/Aug. 28). But let's be clear, America is not going to win this war by just bringing the price of oil down and relying more on ethanol for its fuel needs. Remember, North Korea, a nation with a repressive regime, is flourishing without the possession of a benefit like the OPEC cartel. This war is going to be won not by lowering the price of oil to $40 a barrel, but by something more strategic--alliances, a term that George W. Bush should get familiar with in the remainder of his second term. In the last six decades, it has never been as costly to be an American ally as today. It is no coincidence that religious fanatics in the Middle East and leftists in Latin America have regained prominence during the era of Bush and his misguided policies. For the West to regain lost ground, it needs to convince the world that it is in everybody's interest to participate actively in a quest to make the world a better place. So far, the U.S. president has failed in that regard. Perhaps he thought like Tip O'Neill, who once said that "All politics is local." Unfortunately, in a globalized world, nothing is local.

Vishal Bhargava

Mumbai, India

Your comparison of George W. Bush with Woodrow Wilson is apt ("Why W Should Learn From WW," July 17). The Wilson administration promoted global implementation of the ideals of the American Revolution. The modern political world, as a result, is largely an American creation. It is infinitely better than the world of empires into which I was born. In the 20th century, America was instrumental in the introduction of democracy to much of Europe and East Asia, self-determination to Africa, India, the Middle East and elsewhere, and free markets throughout the world. Free markets have made it possible for countries like Japan and Germany to flourish without the dominance of natural resources that empire provided. Coincidentally, free markets have delivered the oil-derived wealth that fundamentalists are now abusing in an attempt to re-establish their medieval empire. The Bush administration is right to resist this attempt to plunge the world back into darkness.

Ewald J.H. Wessels

Cape Town, South Africa

Several years ago I heard the Dalai Lama say that the biggest threat Tibet faced was the then proposed Beijing-Lhasa railroad ("Bound to the Tracks," July 17). I was thus shocked to read your piece on the completion of this railroad, with no mention of the cultural and political devastation this project will bring to the Tibetan people. Instead, your reporter gave a breathless rundown of all the wonderful economic benefits that would ensue from this Han Chinese invasion. Railroads undoubtedly opened up the American West to economic development. But what happened to the Native Americans? Please replace your reporter with someone who is less co-opted by the Chinese authorities.

Kip McKay

Kandy, Sri Lanka

You covered an important event: the opening up of the closed, mystical land of Tibet, and some of its economic implications. The political aspects of such a new connection to a country occupied since 1948, when the Red Army marched in, should not, however, be glossed over. If Soviet satellite countries can be freed after 70 years, why not Tibet too?

Gun Nidhi Dalmia

new Delhi, India

The exodus of eastern Europe's most talented that William Underhill writes about in his excellent analysis ("Down the Drain," July 24) seems to bother neither "old" nor "new" Europeans. The first ones judge the brain drain only in terms of profit for their own economies; the latter are missing the confidence and vision of the early 1990s. There is an incredible difference between the welcome that Spain, Portugal and Greece received from Europe in the 1970s, and the cool admission of Eastern Europe to the European Union. This coolness discourages the pro-European forces in the East, giving rise to frustration, nationalism and undemocratic or even operetta-like affairs. An example is the Kaczynski twins, who rule my native Poland. It is not only for economic reasons that Eastern Europe is losing its youth and intellectual elite. There is also less and less to be proud of in the East. Parties that were good in breaking down the old order proved to be lousy in building up the new one. In Poland, they failed to win over the rural population to Europe, leaving them under the sway of reactionary, xenophobic forces that now stand behind the Kaczynskis. Perhaps it was too much to ask. French farmers are far from enthusiastic for Europe as well, although they have been in it much longer. Whatever the reasons for the state of affairs in Eastern Europe today, there is little that is inspiring in the region. Living here and now, young intellectuals and professionals know that they cannot change the "now"--but they can change the "here." It is indeed a pity that this drains their countries.

Ryszard A. Daniel

Gouda, Netherlands

I regret Jeroen van der Veer's approach to the future ("Why Oil Will Get Cheaper," July 17). As a 27-year-old with an economics degree, I am very concerned about the future of oil and the global supply of energy in general. Civilization has been built for decades on oil energy. Now we can see the result of relying on "old energy" in a new millennium: skyrocketing prices for crude, up to $75 per barrel--with some analysts predicting $100 per barrel. This is evidence that oil has become the biggest source of conflicts, wars and economic crises in the world. So why does the CEO of Shell go after "elephant projects" in Russia, China, Nigeria and around the world when the only "reasonable project" would involve turning to a new ecological source for energy? There is so much to gain by using "green oil" and other bio-energies (including avoiding having to deal with dictators). If a significant part of the billions of dollars spent by oil-company research-and-development departments were used to develop alternative energy, the science would progress with giant steps. Biofuels mean a better and safer world for future generations. They are also the best way to avoid deep economic crises. As Harvard University Business School professor Michael E. Porter says, "Innovation is the best way for growth." Big companies such as Shell, BP and Total have to be agents of change, not just cash machines for greedy shareholders.

Jean-Baptiste Lamouliatte

Bordeaux, France

Christina Aguilera laments that "people take sex far too seriously" ("Red, Hot & Blue," July 31). I say she and her ilk take it too lightly. Sex has been relegated to a meaningless recreational activity in which selfish pleasure seekers exploit others. Pop culture ignores its serious consequences--heartbreak, regret, depression, STDs, HIV, unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Aguilera is just a self-serving exhibitionist who doesn't care about her influence on girls and young women.

Carol Saucier

Cockeysville, Maryland