International -- Readers Report
Imagining Iraq after the War
Robert J. Barro's advice on how to build democracy in Iraq raises a critical point: The U.S. has the opportunity to redraw the ethnically arbitrary borders -- at least the lack of internal Iraqi borders -- imposed by imperial powers ("A democratic Iraq isn't an impossible dream," Economic Viewpoint, Mar. 31).
Societies become more tolerant when living standards rise, which can open the way for economic and political integration. But this usually requires building not only infrastructure but also the social capital of a sense of shared destiny and trust. Economists such as Alberto Alesina, William Easterly, and Enrico Spolaore have pointed to the positive links between democracy, ethnic autonomy, and economic growth. Welfare then benefits from this combination.
Why cannot Iraq become an ethnic federation along Swiss lines -- a single market with a limited central government and regional autonomy in cultural matters? The International Crisis Group (ICG) has proposed practical steps that the coalition forces could take to give the Kurds and, presumably, other groups some measure of autonomy in the postwar nation-building process. Those measures could be extended to create an ethnic federation while guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Iraq as a whole. How better to dispel suspicions about America's motives than allowing Iraq's main ethnic groups a degree of self-rule in cooperation with the international community?
Frank Salter
Andechs, Germany
Barro cites recent experiences to assert that changing badly drawn state borders often engenders great violence, yet he does not anticipate any such violence if Iraq is split into autonomous regions. His most galling assertion is that since Turkey has rejected U.S. appeals for assistance in the Iraq conflict, its concerns can be discounted. I guess that if Turkey had accepted the U.S. appeal, its objection to a separate Kurdish state in postwar Iraq would be favorably considered, democracy be damned. Iran is a member of the "axis of evil," so its opinion does not count. Syria supports Hezbollah, so it can also be discounted. Why shouldn't the Kurds be free like other people, anyway? If Turkey, Iran, and Syria object, the U.S. will just have to effect a "regime change" in these countries, too, in the name of democracy.
With comments such as Barro's originating from a senior fellow of an influential think tank (Hoover Institution), it is no surprise that most non-Americans wish the U.S. would withdraw into its traditional inward-focused shell, build a missile defense, carve out the North American continent into a separate planet -- anything other than engage in international affairs. And dear professor, maybe you should stick to purely economic viewpoints.
Taiwo Okeowo
Lagos, Nigeria
Barro's comparison of the gross domestic products of Iraq and Hong Kong may not be appropriate. Iraq is a raw-material-exporting economy -- its assets such as oil could could appreciate over time. Hong Kong is an industrial economy. It is an exporter of manufactured goods and investment funds. Its assets are its workers and technologies that must be utilized immediately.
Howard B. Fan
Upper Marlboro, Md.
Surging Ahead in Nanotechnology
The misleading implications in your article about Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., "TSMC: Trying to keep up with the pack" (Asia Tech Special Report, Apr. 14), require comments. TCSM's 130-nanometer production is far ahead of what appears in the article. It accounted for around 10% of our revenue in the fourth quarter of 2002 and will jump to 25% by the end of this year, instead of next year. It is a solid fact that currently more than a dozen of our customers are utilizing the 130-nanometer technology in volume production to their satisfaction.
In the meantime, TSMC is one of the leaders in 90-nanometer technology. Fully functional test chips were successfully produced in the fourth quarter of 2001. Production of 90-nanometer on 300-millimeter wafers for customers will start in the third quarter.
Harvey Chang
Chief Financial Officer
TSMC
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Microsoft Is Running Out of Options to Deal with Linux
One thought on "The Linux uprising" (Cover Story, Mar. 3): The author claims that Microsoft Corp. "plans to focus the debate on 'business value,' where the company believes it has an advantage." I don't think Microsoft believes this at all. It is focusing on "business value" because it has run out of alternatives. It has attacked the character of Linux and the development model. It has tried "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Nothing, so far, has worked (except, of course, Linux).
My experience with Linux is that not only is it a trustworthy operating system that is stable, reliable and quick to respond, but that its value is also truly remarkable. While the up-front costs are excellent, the true savings come from the fact that it simply works, and keeps working.
Rodd Clarkson
Croydon North, Australia
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
