Letters

• Share

Our story on the Indian government's failure to acknowledge the enormity of the country's AIDS problem and how that is hampering the fight against the disease prompted calls for more concerted action

You described India's growing AIDS crisis [June 6]. But the AIDS epidemic is a global problem that demands a unified, worldwide solution. It is not only the responsibility of nations in which AIDS is most prevalent or of philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates, whose foundation is assisting India. It is also the responsibility of every government and person on the planet. It is a problem that cannot be ignored. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to eliminate AIDS and the larger the number of people who will die before their time. We have the money and resources to find a solution, but we lack the willpower. We must not leave this problem for the next generation to solve.
Daniel Greenhalgh
Stavanger, Norway

Forget about Bill Gates' billions or AIDS-awareness programs or new drugs. Loose morals and poor foresight can allow AIDS to spread out of control. No amount of financial or social support can alter this. Only a change of heart in individuals and modified behavior can save humankind from this pandemic.
Ike Eslao
Laguna, the Philippines

Your report on India's denial of an AIDS crisis was very appropriate. The much hyped distribution program for antiretroviral drugs has not functioned properly. In April the organization People Living with HIV/AIDS in Manipur didn't get its supply of medicines, and patients were left to fend for themselves. Writing to government officials didn't do much good. It is sad to be an Indian and be affected by the denial of our officials in dealing with AIDS. We need to respond to this terrible epidemic. I am frustrated by the plight of my fellow countrymen who are unable to get the AIDS drugs they are entitled to.
John Lall
New Delhi

Of Freedom and Fear
In TIME's interview with former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky [June 6], he criticized Amnesty International for lacking "moral clarity" and not differentiating between human-rights abuses committed by dictatorial "fear societies" and those carried out by democratic "free societies." Sharansky implied that the latter are more tolerable, but the distinction is meaningless to the victims. When asked about Israel's abuses of Palestinians' human rights, Sharansky accused Amnesty International of ignoring violations by terrorist organizations. Well, two wrongs don't make a right.
Raymond Totah
Fallbrook, California, U.S.

Sharansky's ideas on human rights may seem simplistic, but they aren't. So long as people live in a fear society, there is no hope for peace or democracy.
Helen W. Joffe
Hamilton, Ohio, U.S.

Where is mankind supposed to turn to find the noble concept of moral clarity that Sharansky says Amnesty International lacks? The Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo scandals have spoiled whatever claim the U.S. had to moral values. Israel and America are not champions of moral clarity. Both have been attacked, and both have retaliated by victimizing innocent people. Sharansky also complained of the moral equivalence that Amnesty's reports seem to confer on both terrorist regimes and democratic societies. There may be no moral equivalence between a terrorist attack and a retaliation, but let's at least be honest about it. Both are—and should be called—atrocities. We should let Amnesty International alone. To attack its work is truly immoral.
Simon Hytten
Rome

Cruise Acts Out
Your article on Tom Cruise and his over-the-top profession of passion for actress Katie Holmes on the Oprah TV show was right on the money [June 6]. Cruise certainly didn't need to jump up and down on a sofa to prove he's an imbecile. And who is he to criticize Brooke Shields or any other woman who seeks medical help for postpartum depression? Is Cruise really against prescription drugs, or does the idea of a strong woman taking charge of her health frighten him? Cruise's opinions belong in the Dark Ages. He needs to leave health-care options to medical professionals and their patients.
Janice Fisher
Midlothian, Virginia, U.S.

Cruise's nutty behavior on oprah was an example of what happens to superstars who reach the top and have no place to go but down. Look at Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. We treat celebrities like gods, then complain when they start to believe they can fly.
Jonathan Lowe
Tucson, Arizona, U.S.

Schröder's Political Future
As a German and an avid supporter of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder [June 6], I believe he has been a stellar head of government from the day he took office. Always aware of Germany's past and its responsibility to the future yet never losing sight of the social and economic challenges his country faces, Schröder has followed in the footsteps of the greatest statesman Germany ever had, Willy Brandt. Underestimated at home as well as abroad, Schröder legalized gay marriage, eased immigration laws, inaugurated an impressive (and long overdue) Holocaust memorial, made his country No. 1 in world exports, and opposed the war in Iraq. In my view, not a bad record at all for seven years in office, and a pretty difficult act to follow!
Martin Sauter
Paris

Normally, Germans are a sedate and patient people. It took 16 years to get sick of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, but here we are, already tired of Schröder after seven years. Kohl's shoes were simply too big for Schröder to fill. If there had been no catastrophic flooding in August 2002 and if Bush had not gone to war in Iraq, Schröder's term would have ended after four years, in 2002. It's time for him to go. No one will miss him.
Thomas Kanthak
Braunfels, Germany

Schröder's idea of calling an early election is illogical. He hopes it will end the gridlock created by the opposition-controlled Bundesrat (upper house) and the government-controlled Bundestag (lower house). But if his Social Democrats win, the situation is likely to remain the same. What he should do is form a grand coalition with the opposition Christian Democrats until the constitutional end of the Social Democrats' term, in 2006. That would help break the gridlock.
Alfred Jung
Gau-Bischofsheim, Germany

After Schröder's party was severely beaten in North Rhine-Westphalia, a Social Democratic stronghold for 39 years, and was suffering its lowest approval ratings since World War II, Schröder should have resigned gracefully. Instead, he decided to call a snap election. Nevertheless, there are two possible outcomes. Either Schröder will be re-elected or he will discover, like King Canute, that even he cannot turn back an incoming tide.
Joshua Selig
Dorset, England

A Fan's Devotion
Michael Elliott's essay "hopelessly Devoted" [June 6], on being an obsessive fan of Liverpool Football Club, reminded me of how it felt to be blindly devoted to a boy band. I had the group's posters hung all over the walls of my room when I was little and played their tapes over and over again. I never understood what they were singing about (the pain of being unable to get the love of a girl or how much it hurt to lose her), and the boy band disappeared before I could figure it all out. But the days accompanied by their songs, which now seem totally cheesy to me, are just as fresh as yesterday.
Chi-shan Lee
Taipei

Abusing the News
Your article "Arabian Knights" told of plans by al-Jazeera, the Arabic broadcast network, to create an English-language sister channel based in Qatar [May 30]. I'll grant that al-Jazeera has crossed the boundaries of ethical journalism by showing some of the most gruesome acts of terrorism. Unlike cnn or Fox News, however, al-Jazeera attempts to report both sides of any story on world affairs. The analysis presented by cnn and Fox News is shallow and biased. For example, these networks tell more about how Hamas' terror attacks affect Israelis and less about how Palestinians are affected by the incursions of Israeli armed forces. The coverage of international news on cnn and Fox often consists of video clips that are the equivalent of "Around the World in 80 Seconds."
Faisal Siddiqui
Bombay

A Fractured Relationship
Our report on the mystery surrounding the February assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri [June 6] described the enormous influence that Syria has wielded in Lebanese political affairs for 30 years. In a Dec. 19, 1983, cover story, TIME explained the reasons for Syria's intense feelings about its neighbor:

"The passion for hegemony lives on in Damascus. Under the shrewd, ruthless, brutally dictatorial guidance of President Hafez Assad, 53, Syria has been making a bid for the past decade to grasp the torch of Arab unity and emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Middle East. By keeping its 62,000 troops in Lebanon ... Syria has become the key player in that fractured country's future ... Syrians consider Lebanon to be part of 'Greater Syria,' a vague concept of territorial grandeur that thrives more in memory than in reality. Indeed, the two countries share more than a millennium of history. Both Lebanon and Syria achieved independence in the 1940s, but cultural and family ties still bind their populations ... Says a Syrian official: 'Lebanon is the one issue on which any Syrian President would be prepared to take the greatest risk' ... At some point or another, every Lebanese faction has sought Syria's help. Syria's prominent role in Lebanese politics is as much a result of Lebanon's invitations as of interference by Damascus."