International Mail Call

Our Oct. 23 cover story on North Korea's nukes prompted many readers to blame U.S. foreign policy. "Banish all those horrid weapons!" urged one. Taunted another, "Pot calling the kettle black?" A third faulted "Bush's adamant refusal to talk bilaterally and openly with North Korea."

Turkish Democracy As a member of Turkey's democratically elected Parliament, I strongly protest any speculation or doubt on my country's democratic credentials. It is preposterous to have NEWSWEEK's credibility tarnished by a no-name writer's agitation ("The Coming Coup d'Etat?" Dec. 4). Turkish government and Turkish democracy are strongly beaming to the future, while military coups belong to the last century. Let me make a more solid projection: Turkish democracy will prevail and AK Party will win the 2007 election and keep Turkey on a European Union path toward democracy, accountability, secularism, the rule of law and free markets. We are a democratically mandated, conservative, center-right political party. As for Zeyno Baran's claims that she had seen the last coup coming in 1997, and that a general has confided in her, the writer is profusely fabricating exclusivity. The statement belongs to Turkey's then-chief of staff Ismail Hakki Karadayi, who first made the comment in a well-publicized statement to the Turkish daily Sabah in 1996 and repeated it elsewhere in numerous interviews. Let's do a favor to this doomsayer and repeat some of her 1997 prophecy: "The idea that the military will quickly tidy things up, restore civilian rule, and preserve the march toward democracy is false. Even shutting down the [ruling party] would not reduce its considerable electoral support ... A stable, democratic Turkey is crucial for U.S. foreign policy objectives, including peace in the Middle East and stability in both the Caucasus and the Aegean." Amen, Ms. Baran. Even a broken clock shows the right time once in 10 years.

Egemen Bagis

Ankara, Turkey

In her Dec. 4 piece, Zeyno Baran says that there is a 50:50 chance of a coup in Turkey, but that's OK because it will still be a democracy more or less. What nonsense. It would not be a democracy, period. A coup would be a catastrophe for everyone involved. The EU has now made clear that the club is open only to nations where the military is unambiguously under civilian control, which is why the "no nonsense" pashas are angry. Should a coup occur, the entry negotiations will stop and they will never restart. Foreign direct investment, which totaled $12.8 billion in the year to September 2006, will dry up and precipitate a massive economic crisis. Turks will inevitably see a U.S. hand in it, poisoning relations for a generation, not to mention the impact of an allegedly "American-backed coup" on the Muslim world.

Grenville Byford

Paris, France

North Korea's Nuclear Hunger What a victory for the world that the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to impose punitive sanctions on North Korea, curbing its nuclear appetite and its hunger for ballistic missiles ("How Kim Got the Bomb," Oct. 23). Bravo especially to China and Russia for agreeing with the other Security Council members in putting shackles on the unbridled nuclear ambitions of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il. So far, the dictator has defied world opinion, but the time has come to eradicate the gravest threat to international peace and security. We must take deliberate, decisive and drastic preventive actions today to save humanity from extinction. Tomorrow might be too late. The onus is on us to reject confrontation in order to maintain peace and tranquility.

Kris Sahay

Winnipeg, Canada

How can we tell one or two countries to not acquire a single nuclear bomb while an elite seven or eight countries keep 40,000 bombs, ready to be delivered? Many of these countries wander secretly and aimlessly aboard nuclear-powered submarines all around the oceans of the world. Wouldn't it make sense to just banish all those horrible weapons altogether? It certainly would be less hypocritical, and such a decision may have more of a chance to succeed. Did we not learn any lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nuclear weapons, even when not in use, are a present and real threat to humankind. Whoever owns them will be tempted to exert excessive brutal, immoral and unethical political power.

Saptono Istiawan

Jakarta, Indonesia

The psychological analysis applied to Kim Jong Il might well be applied to other, more powerful (and forceful) world leaders--those, for instance, who create propaganda so their people support the invasion of other countries and start a disastrous and deadly war with no end in sight. And for what purpose? Filial oneupsmanship? Kim at least hasn't done that yet, and wouldn't get far if he did. Why is the pot always calling the kettle black? Do they really think we don't know the difference? As for "atomic ambitions," the United States has carried out more nuclear tests over a 50-year period than all the other countries combined.

Jef Westing

Isle Sur la Sorgue, France

The adamant refusal of the bush administration to talk bilaterally and openly with North Korea is based on yet another simple-minded us-versus-them, good-guys-versus-bad-guys dichotomy. Included on the ever-increasing list of rogue regimes are Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Britain successfully negotiated a pragmatic change of heart with Libya, removing it from the "weevil" list, but George W has always chosen the path of destruction rather than reconstruction, estrangement over engagement, diatribes not dialogues. Our universal village must grow up and learn to mutually coexist and work together to preserve the extremely fragile world order that aims for peace, harmony and mutual understanding as shared goals. Kim Jong-Il's motivation appears to be more survival-oriented than suicidal. Viable military and economic retaliation options are few and far between as the superpower's chokehold on rambunctious rogues lacks clout. Washington's credibility and morality are at an all-time low.

Charles Frederickson

Bangkok, Thailand

The crisis surrounding North Korea's nuclear ambitions, now literally put to the test is, at least in part, of the Bush administration's hard-liners' own making. As you pointed out, former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, not exactly the embodiment of an appeaser, came close to striking a deal with Kim Jong Il, and one that even convinced her successor in office, Colin Powell. But characteristically, the newly elected hawks spoiled and destroyed it all with their appalling bull-in-a-china-shop approach. To this day, they are making flimsy statements regarding alleged foul play committed by the North Koreans. The evidence they produce is even more dubious than what they provided in the buildup to the war in Iraq.

Werner Radtke

Paderborn, Germany

Carrots, Not Sticks, for Kim I always enjoy Fareed Zakaria's scintillating articles. In the one on North Korea's nuclear test, he asks, "Why did it work with Kaddafi and not North Korea or Iran?" ("Let Them Eat Carrots," Oct. 23). Every regime is unique and no one formula can solve it. Different situations call for different approaches. In this case, offering the proverbial "carrot" is more conducive than "sticks." North Korea is an ultra Stalinist state where the late Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il are seen as God, and North Koreans will do anything for him including pressing the nuclear button. Kim Jong Il will not hesitate to go for broke if America forces them into a tight corner. What is required is to open the line of communication, make frequent visits, offer economic assistance. Above all, reduce whatever is perceived as a military threat. A nation at war with itself will forever be at war with others. Hence it is the duty of other nations to unmask themselves before unmasking North Korea.

Hassan bin Talib

Kalamazoo, Michigan

America's Election Reversal The U.S. midterm election results have signaled a desire by the American public for a change in foreign policy ("Rolling With Pelosi," Oct. 23). President Bush made a start by removing Secretary Rumsfeld from office. He must follow that up by removing Ambassador Bolton as permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations, and by re-evaluating U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. The United States was the only nation to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning an Israeli attack in Gaza that killed 18 civilians, including women and children. If this had happened anywhere else in the Middle East, it would have been branded an act of terror, which it clearly was. Israel has since claimed this was a mistake. How many more "mistakes" are going to happen, and when will Israel be held accountable? The Israeli campaign of atrocities perpetrated in the Palestinian territories completely undermines President Bush's war on terror. How can the U.S. government claim to be waging a war on terror, when the United States, by blocking that U.N. resolution, has indicated that it supports state-sponsored terrorism by the Israeli government, and actively blocks any attempt by the United Nations to thwart it?

Rory E. Morty

Giessen, Germany

A Dangerous Man in Lebanon Hassan Nasrallah will be a hero of doom like other charismatic leaders before him: Abdel Nasser, Yasir Arafat, Muammar Kaddafi, Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein ("A New Man for The Mideast?" Aug. 21/Aug. 28). I commend Rami Khouri on his insightful write-up, but I don't share his prediction that Nasrallah's fate could be different. One must distinguish between a leader who is acclaimed by despondent masses for resisting Israel's cruel onslaught on Lebanon and his ability to achieve justice, peace and prosperity for the people in the region. The ruin Nasrallah and his party brought to their country is clear evidence of the tragedy implicit in their reckless heroism. What Hamas is doing in the Palestinian territories is not different. Given the asymmetry in the military and political power of Arabs and Israelis, I believe the Mideast is in need of statesmen capable of outsmarting the enemy with their minds, not fighting them with their guns. That is realistically a more promising way to win.

S.A. Sherif

Montreux, Switzerland

I read Rami Khouri's article and found it ill informed. Not once did he mention that the big loser is Lebanon. Both the Muslims and the Christians in Lebanon lost so much. Khouri says Nasrallah won. If so, it's some victory. I doubt the parents of the dead would agree with Khouri.

Dr. Elias Joseph Azar

Beirut, Lebanon

The late Israeli prime minister Golda Meir said, "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." In your Aug. 21/Aug.28 article "The Real Nasrallah," Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah says, "We, in the leadership of Hizbullah, do not spare our children and save them for the future. We pride ourselves when our sons reach the front line. And stand, heads high, when they fall [as] martyrs." Meir expressed a universal drive: continuation of the species. Nasrallah speaks of a principle contrary to the very essence of the life force on this planet.

Steve Campbell

Burbank, California

A Year After Katrina Struck The Bush administration has spent six years focusing on "bring it on" and "shock and awe" rhetoric. For a country that can launch the Marshall Plan, put Americans on the moon, stare down communism and move thousands of military personnel and heavy equipment all across the Mideast, leaving New Orleans and the gulf region as an open sore is a global embarrassment ("New Orleans Blues," Sept. 4). It doesn't matter to me whether the folks are Republican or Democrat, Blue State or Red State--they are American and I am American, and they deserve better than the current leadership.

James Brannick

Elmira, New York

Clarification In "the forgotten battleground" (Nov. 27) we said that Britain lost the Boer War. In fact, Britain lost the first Boer War in 1881 but prevailed in 1902.