US interests & war on terror

SEPTEMBER 11 of the year 2001 will always remain etched in human history as the day on which a few young firebrands among the persecuted Palestinian Arabs and some other equally aggrieved nationalist groups decided to strike back at their oppressors — the world’s sole superpower and its cohorts — in spectacular fashion. The conceptual daring, scale and clinical efficiency of execution of their attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon just outside Washington DC — on that day were so stunning that the long-standing myth of invincibility, economic as well as military, of “fortress America” was shattered within a few hours.

Suddenly, the American colossus began to look quite vulnerable, just like many other advanced countries, to any carefully planned surprise attack by even a small but determined hostile group. This remarkably successful operation not only disfigured the majestic skyline of Manhattan but also wrought a profoundly significant transformation in the American psyche and turned the global political landscape on its head.

Terribly shaken by such a massive onslaught carried out with consummate ease on the very nerve centres of its unrivalled military and financial power, the United States found it expedient to hurriedly shed off its arrogant imperial robes for a little while and started mending fences with several small but strategically important states, particularly in the Middle East, to facilitate the “creation of a global coalition against terror”. To reinforce this effort, a relentless propaganda blitz was unleashed via the electronic and print media against Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization, the presumed masterminds behind the September 11 kamikaze attacks, as well as several other Islamist groups worldwide who were similarly accused of committing terrorist acts, including murders and kidnappings for ransom, etc. in various countries.

Several nations hurriedly decided to join this “coalition against terror” not only because terrorism had become a serious and ever increasing menace in many parts of the world but more so because of the implied threat in the American president’s TV address that neutrality in the war against terror would be unacceptable. “Either you are with us or you are with them” was the constant refrain (now called the “Bush doctrine”) of President Bush’s post-September 11 speeches, and this helped create a stampede of the weak-kneed countries for joining the coalition.

Quite understandably, Pakistan lost no time in withdrawing its long-standing support of the Taliban regime and joining the American-led coalition against terror. This move was widely welcomed in the western world, and Pakistan instantly became a very valued coalition partner instead of being looked upon as a political pariah because of its recurrent military coups. Most educated and enlightened Pakistanis, too, were greatly relieved at the rapid ouster of the Taliban because of the negative impact their obscurantist religious as well as social views were having on Pakistani society.

Britain is perhaps the most loyal member of the coalition though it does not seem to carry much clout in the top echelons of its policy-making apparatus. The indefatigable Tony Blair appears to have unashamedly accepted the subservient role of playing President Bush’s little trumpet boy hopping from country to country parroting the latter’s rhetoric which, not surprisingly, has failed to make any positive impact on his audiences. Blair’s role has aroused considerable resentment and anger in British political circles and has caused his standing as an important international political leader to suffer a decline.

President Bush’s position, on the other hand, is quite different. A man of his modest intellectual capabilities has perhaps not been able to comprehend that, in this day and age, high policy in international affairs is not merely a matter of mindless sabre-rattling, but requires deep understanding of the complex issues involved and great finesse in tackling crisis situations. The belligerent views of the president are obviously very sweet music to the ears of the political far right in the US and his popularity ratings among the conservative elements in the country have, therefore, gone up considerably in recent weeks. However, it has impacted rather adversely on the international image of America.

President Bush has sought to make up for his personal and political inadequacies by adopting a very tough and often grossly unjust foreign policy stance, use of overly aggressive tactics in dealing with foreign governments, and showing barely disguised contempt for the United Nations. The Bush administration’s flat refusal to abide by the terms of several key international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol (global warming), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and international criminal court treaty (war crimes, human rights, etc), to which it is a signatory, betrays a lethal mix of ignorance, arrogance and political myopia at work. All this has created a strong backlash of resentment against the United States and made far more enemies for it in the 15 months of Bush presidency than ever before.

In the early years after the end of World War II, America was greatly admired for its just and humane approach to international issues and was seen as a genuine friend of the under-privileged and exploited developing world. Perhaps, that was only a mask which has gradually come off. The enormous reservoir of goodwill, so carefully built up previously by America has, unfortunately, been depleted as a result of the perverse policies of many subsequent US governments and has, in fact, now turned into widespread resentment and hate. America is today widely regarded as an obnoxious global bully with little regard for any principles of justice and fair play.

President Bush recently coined the infamous term “axis of evil” in referring collectively to three countries which the American establishment dislikes intensely — Iran, Iraq and North Korea. These middling powers, all of which have a fairly long history of strained relations with the US are now included in a new American list of ‘dangerous countries’ which are supposedly developing weapons of mass destruction in order to dominate other countries and, consequently, the US feels compelled to take necessary measures to save the world and itself from their supposed designs.

For obvious reasons, Israel is not included in this rogue-list though it has a much larger arsenal of such deadly weapons than all the above-named three countries put together. The real reason for the US displeasure with these three countries probably is that they have not shown the good sense of becoming the camp followers of the world’s sole superpower and thereby have, in Washington’s view, set a very bad example for other countries of the developing world. However, this ‘axis of evil’ charge can still provide a fig-leaf of justification for the US to attack and punish any one or all of these countries. This, the Bush administration believes, would be an awesome lesson for other developing countries and snuff out any incipient ideas of their taking important foreign policy decisions without taking US sensitivities into account.

Most countries and people in the world do not give much credence to President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ hypothesis. They believe that if such an axis really exists, its locus passes through Washington, London and Tel Aviv and not through Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly expressed his intention to attack Baghdad and Tehran.

Quite incredibly, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has very recently been anointed by President Bush as a “man of peace” even though he should have been arraigned before a War Crimes Tribunal for all the atrocities he has been responsible for perpetrating against the Arabs during the last three decades. On the other hand, the poorly armed Arabs, including some women, who so bravely sacrifice their lives by resorting to suicide bombing in response to the savage violence unleashed on them by heavily armed Israeli occupation forces and gangs of Jewish settlers, are dubbed as terrorists. President Bush strongly objects to their being called martyrs and insists on calling them terrorists and murderers. Can there be a more warped sense of values?

In the eight months that have passed since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001, the United States has utilized the rationale of the “war on terror” to establish a network of forward bases stretching from the Middle East across Asia to the Pacific. The aim is to provide platforms from which lethal attacks could be launched on any group of countries anywhere in the world perceived by George Bush to be a danger — present or future — to US interests. Leaving such matters entirely to President Bush’s judgment would be dangerous enough but when a cruel spirit like butcher Sharon, who has proclaimed openly that he would have no hesitation in killing as many Gentiles (non-Jews) as possible, also joins the evil enterprise of attacking other nations, the consequences for the world community can be catastrophic.

Likud votes for Armageddon

ON Mother’s Day, the Likud party overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in complete defiance of the position advanced by President Bush who sees the establishment of a Palestinian state as the only solution to resolving the Middle East conflict.

It is also a key that will open up opportunities for the US to once again establish a new order in the Middle East that will safeguard American interests against terrorism and the growing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

The Likud vote not only rejects the only path to comprehensive peace in the Middle East but also makes a mockery of the American position on the subject. The most devastating consequence of this statement by the ruling party in Israel is the message it sends to the Palestinians. If Likud has its way it will leave the Palestinians with only three options — eternal occupation and life without freedom and dignity forever, forcible expulsion or ethnic cleansing (a policy preferred by some American Republicans such as Dick Armey), or a fight to the finish.

Likud’s vote also tips the balance of power within the Palestinian community. About 80% Palestinians favour a two-state solution and are willing to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel. But nearly 20% of the Palestinians support Hamas and Islamic Jihad who stand for complete extermination of the Jewish state and like the Likud favour only a one-state solution to the crisis. While Hamas and Likud may use different means, the former preferring suicide bombers, and the latter preferring strategic bombers (F-16s), tanks and barricades, it seems that they mirror each other in their intransigence and anti-peace ideologies. The Likud vote to reject the Palestinian state will certainly make Hamas and its methods more popular. Netanyahu, the most extreme of Israeli voices is fast becoming the recruiter-in-chief of suicide bombers for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The Palestinian Authority is already screaming foul. Saeb Erakat the chief Palestinian negotiator saw the vote as a statement of the Israelis to deny the Palestinians their legitimate rights and to continue the occupation, settlement and the demographic annexation of Jerusalem.

Washington, as usual, is downplaying the issue. Israel continues to takes steps that make peace impossible and the US merely responds by increasing its support and commitment to Israel. The American government and the media, important elements of which have often functioned as an arm of the government since 9/11, have made demanding commitments to peace from Arafat and the Palestinians an art form. But when it comes to Israel they are always eager to work overtime as damage control sub-contractors. In fact the Israeli media often puts the American media to shame when it comes to “fair and balanced” reporting on the subject.

At the moment, America is promising a Palestinian state in the near future if the Palestinians give up their armed struggle against Israel. If the Palestinians comply, can the US deliver? It seems that the Likud/Israel has more influence in the Congress and the media than the White House and they are in no mood to toe the president’s line on this crucial issue. Who should the Palestinian leadership listen to? Should they take the American president seriously and condemn violence and give up their only effective weapon — suicide bombing — or should they listen to the Israeli ruling party and get ready for Armageddon. After all, wasn’t it an American, Patrick Henry, and not a Palestinian, who said ‘Give me freedom or give me death”?

There is hope still. Let’s not concede victory to Netanyahu and his extreme designs. Even as the warmongering Likuds were rejecting the visions of their own leader Sharon and the American president, hundreds of thousands of Israelis marched on May 11th calling for peace, withdrawal and an end to occupation. Shimon Peres himself, perhaps anticipating the Likud vote, declared that the best thing that could happen to the Palestinians and the Israelis was the creation of the Palestinian state. He also reflected that perhaps it was a mistake not making a Palestinian state the immediate goal of the Oslo accords.

The first Intifada led to the Oslo Accord. The second has led to suicide bombings, reoccupation and war crimes. Both communities continue to suffer. But there is a difference, while the international community refuses to deal with Palestinian extremists who reject the Israeli state, Israeli extremists (Netanyahu — the architect of the Likud vote) who reject the Palestinian state get to address the US Senate and get private audiences with the US vice president.

It is time to end all kinds of double standards and for the US and the international community to reject all extremists. Before the region falls into despair and self-destructs we must move ahead aggressively to enforce a just peace in the Middle East.

The writer is director of international studies at Adrian College in Michigan, US.

Those in depression

HERE is an interesting story and it’s true. A new study on depression revealed that people got as much help from a placebo (sugar pill) as they did from high-priced antidepressants.

In the experiment, the researchers, working with depressed people, discovered when they gave half of them Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, and the other half a placebo, the latter did just as well, and sometimes better. None of the patients knew which type of pill they were taking.

This is one small step for man and one giant leap for depression.

Obviously, most worried are the drug companies, who are dreaming up anti-depression prescriptions.

I called Dr. Furlanger of Furlanger Pharmaceuticals.

I said, “This study could change the lives of millions of people who pay big bucks for Pretext. You people must be going crazy.”

He was very calm. “No, we’re glad the study came out. It revealed that placebos worked as well as Pretext, but it also revealed that as soon as the patient knew he was taking a placebo he became depressed again.”

“But the cost of a sugar pill is so much less than Pretext, you would think that they would settle for the placebo.”

“It’s really mind over matter. Americans are so used to taking pills they want the real thing.”

“What are your people planning to do?”

“We’re going to manufacture our own placebo for depression called Cheerup X. People won’t know if it’s Pretext or a sugar pill.”

“Won’t they be suspicious now that the secret is out of the bag?” I asked.

“Not if we charge them the same price for Cheerup X that we charge for Pretext. Can you imagine the profit we can make if we package sugar pills? The only cost will be advertising and trips to Bermuda for doctors who prescribe them.”

He continued, “Our drug company has faith in holistic medicine. If the patient believes something will help him then it will help him. Our job is to see that no matter which product they use, it will take them out of the blues.”

“How can you be sure?”

“We will colour both pills with the same dye, probably magenta.” “Are you afraid the other drug companies will steal your patent for magenta placebos?”

“We’ll sue them for stealing.”

“And what about the generic companies?”

“That’s a very depressing thought.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Fears increase as budget nears

THE IMF, known for its rigid attitude, has shown relaxation towards Pakistan in several cases. And it is doing so not out of generosity or humane considerations but out of sheer necessity.

On Pakistan’s part it can do without the third tranche of 109 million dollars in view of its foreign exchange reserves of 5.266 billion dollars, but it needs the IMF chit of economic health to get far larger assistance from other international agencies, like the World Bank which is to give a billion dollars this year or the Asian Development Bank which is to give a billion dollars each for three years.

The world economic situation, particularly the regional scenario, demands of the IMF to be accommodative towards Pakistan now. While there are exceptions, like China which recorded an export growth of 17.2 per cent in April after that had dipped to 3.2 per cent in March, much of the world’s economy faces a downturn. Britain’s exports have recorded a two year low now.

The fact is that the economic situation in Pakistan is much worse today from what it was envisaged on the eve of the budget last year. The ghastly September 11 developments had their global impact. And Pakistan became a front line state in the global war against terrorism and took several direct hits. And faced increasing number of terrorist acts which recently lastly resulted in the suicide bombing of May 8 and killed 12 Frenchmen and injuries to far more.

The shrinking economic activities in Pakistan have contributed to a decline in revenue collection to a much lower figure than the targeted one. So the IMF review mission is reported to have agreed to a budget deficit of 6.1 per cent of the GDP against four or three per cent that it used to expect of Pakistan a few years ago.

Ever since the revenue target of Rs 457.7 billion was set by the budget there has been one scaling down after another to adjust the downturn in the economy. Finally the fourth adjustment is to be made now as the revenue target has been lowered to Rs 407 billion from Rs 415 billion. And the IMF is keen that this target should be met and not breached again.

But whether the Central Board of Revenue would be able to accomplish this target remains to be seen. Usually by May and June of each year the ministry of finance stops making payments or giving refund of the taxes it had agreed to and makes all such payments after July 1. Businessmen say the CBR has to refund over Rs 60 billion, and that is a lot of money in present circumstances and restricted lending by banks.

The IMF mission is also reported to have agreed to raise the defence expenditure to Rs 150 billion next year after it had agreed to an increase of Rs 15 billion this year following the Indian hostile military postures from the budgeted Rs 131.6 billion. That means the approved increase in defence outlay next year is not much.

In spite of the earlier IMF insistence on cutting down defence expenditure in the face of resistance from Pakistan it is forced to make concessions in this area as it is India which massed its forces on the Pakistan borders and refuses to talk to Pakistan. India has also been holding military exercises on our borders and now threatens to escalate the military hostilities if its demands in respect of checking cross border terrorism and the return of the 20 Indian fugitives are not met by Pakistan.

On the other side Pakistan is for a negotiated settlement with India and is trying to use every opportunity for a dialogue with India. In such a situation the IMF has to approve a reasonable increase in Pakistan’s defence outlay.

The IMF has also agreed to raise the development outlay next year to Rs 150 billion from the current year’s Rs 115 billion. Increasing the development expenditure is not very difficult now in view of the far larger aid that is forthcoming, reduced repayment of loans, lower rates of interest, and the swap funds which are becoming available as a result of countries giving up their claim for refund of debt if Pakistan uses that money for social sector development. Canada is way ahead of others in this respect. Even otherwise far more will have to be spent on development if unemployment is to be reduced and the pervasive poverty brought down.

There is good news on the external front. While the foreign exchange reserves have risen to 5.266 billion, the current account balance of payments for the first nine months of this financial year ending March 31 has recorded a record surplus of 2.095 billion dollars against a deficit of 82 million dollars in the same period last year. External assistance apart, the rise in home resistances has also helped to provide us with such an impressive current account surplus.

Meanwhile there is a bad news for the people at home. Newspaper reports predict of a rise in electricity rates up to 15 per cent. A 6 to 8 per cent rise is expected in the POL prices which would mean an increase of Rs 1.50 to Rs 2 per litre of petrol. And on the insistence of the IMF, 15 per cent general sales tax is to be imposed on edible oil. A similar sales tax on medicines has pushed up prices of costly products steeply.

There has been talk of a fixed sales tax on traders in view of the manner they have been dodging GST. That will make the traders raise prices arbitrarily as they pass on any increase in prices or taxes to the consumers along with an addition of their own.

There is also talk of the tax relief for the low income group, particularly the salaried class. The threshold for income tax may be raised from Rs 50,000 to Rs 80,000 but the income tax experts argue this is too small a rise and the base should be raised to Rs 200,000 to accommodate the accumulated inflation of many years. But in our context with the IMF breathing down the neck of the government that will be asking for too much.

There has been reports of the costly perquisites of the higher salaried class being taxed further which makes senior executives very uneasy. If the perquisites are to be taxed the salaried people would expect the rate of income tax to come down substantially. Otherwise that would mean a loss of income for them or a rise in expenditure, particularly for those who enjoy too many costly perquisites.

Meanwhile the self-assessment scheme is to be broadened and more of the income tax payers brought into it. Simultaneously the number of cases picked up for detailed scrutiny may be raised to 20 per cent from the old five per cent. That may mean that almost anyone has to be prepared for detailed scrutiny of his statement.

But what is more disturbing is the report that even persons with income above Rs one lakh a year should have to keep account books which can be both costly and tedious. Now many income tax payers are forced to seek the help of tax advisers and pay even when their income is low. And soon they may have to pay for accountants as well, which would mean further loss of income without a corresponding gain to the government.

As the new shape of things in the fiscal sector indicates, tax payers may face more problems when filing their income tax returns, while finance minister Shaukat Aziz says his efforts are to make the process simple and easy.

It is no good if the new taxation system does help the income tax payer avoid facing the income tax officer on the one hand but forces him to pay for to the accountants and the income tax advisers, on the other.

The CBR is now at a loss to fix the revenue target for the year 2002-03. Year after year it has been coming up with far higher targets than it could collect. This year while the original target fixed was Rs 457.7 billion, and after the fourth revision the amount now to be collected is Rs 407 billion — a reduction of Rs 50 billion or 11 per cent.

It is better to avoid such over-targeting in the hope of driving hard the taxation officers to collect far more than they can do and as a result they become too unfriendly towards the tax payers. Let us have a more realistic and logical pattern of revenue projection at a time when Gen. Musharraf lays so much emphasis on realistic policies. Mr Shaukat Aziz stands for simple forms of taxation, reasonable rates of taxes and easy payment methods.

But he has to make the CBR accept that in reality instead of driving the tax payers up the wall. The honest tax payers should not suffer too much as there are too many dishonest tax payers working in collusion with the corrupt taxation officers who remain unstoppable.

A Lahore away from Lahore

IT WAS a lovely spring day, sunny but kept cool by a light breeze. We were driving down the highway from Alexandria in the Washington suburbs towards Richmond. A turn off the highway, dreary like all highways or motorways everywhere, suddenly brought us into the countryside.

There were cows in the fields, lined with honeysuckle and (so someone in the party said) garlic bushes. There was a clean wetness in the landscape from overnight rains. The roads were two-way, with bends and rises and falls. The State Department and the Pentagon seemed far off, although barely a three-hour drive away. We were playing truant from work. We were searching for Lahore in central Virginia.

A road sign came up. It said Lahore Road, and pointed left. There was a store at the crossroads, and our party went in for some badly needed mid-day refreshments. The young man at the counter didn’t much know why the road was called the Lahore Road or why the settlement to which it led was named Lahore. He beckoned to an older man, perhaps his father, who too did not know the origins of the town, but did say that a few years ago a group had come from Lahore, Pakistan, looking for the place and had driven around the area.

The first mention of Lahore, in Orange Country, Virginia, had come from friend Akmal Aleemi of the Voice of America, who has been in Washington for over two decades and who had heard of the place in 1971 and, curious, went to see it. He recalled that at that time, the woman in charge of the post office in the town, an elderly lady called Mrs Marshal, and her octogenarian husband, John Marshal, had said they’d been told by fellow townsmen that before America’s independence, the settlement had no name and its residents were much put out by the fact that they had to collect their mail from a nearby town. They decided to set up a post office of their own, but for this they needed to have a name for their collection of houses.

Somebody came across a British journal, which had an article on “Lahore, the city of gardens”, liked the name, and said, “Let’s call our town Lahore”. Akmal Aleemi had even written about this, but when he drove us there on this spring day last week, he found the place changed and many of the landmarks gone. We stopped at a place where there used to be a shop selling general merchandise, but now it housed a printing establishment. “What? What?”, the young woman asked over the din of the machines, and then came out to talk. She said she had no idea why Lahore was Lahore or even about the number of the town’s inhabitants. “I live among the cows, and run this print shop. You will appreciate that we are not living in an area where neighbours are close-by. I have absolutely no clue as to the size of our community.”

Then we saw an old couple sitting out in the verandah, or stoop as it is called here for a very Dutch reason, of their small house, reversed, and went to talk to them. They both seemed lonely and rather decrepit. The lady was dozing in her armchair, and the gentleman could not quite follow us. Then the lady came alive, pronounced Lahore just as we do, but couldn’t tell us anything about the name of her community. Did they run or own a farm? “We’ve just this acre lot you see on which the house is built. That’s all,” the lady said.

“Good afternoons” shouted in the stoops of a couple of other houses brought no response: the people living there were either at work or having a nap. On the shores of a nearby lake, we drew a similar blank from the amateur fishermen there. So we came away, happy that we had been to Lahore though thousands of miles from our own Lahore, but disappointed that we couldn’t find out more about the place. It appears to be just a collection of houses, with not even a main road or a high street. It’s a pretty place set amidst a rolling landscape, with a hint of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the distance.

But it’s still and quiet. The hustle and bustle of Lahore, and its mad confusion, still beckon. Lahore, after all, is Lahore.

SOME of the repercussions of the “war on terrorism” have led Americans to confront once again, and this time perhaps more sharply, some of the dichotomies, contradictions and hypocrisies that have always informed US policies.

Domestically, what Attorney-General John Ashcroft has done to control immigration and increase vigilance on immigrants has seriously compromised the US commitment to rule of law. Preventive detention and holding people incommunicado for weeks have raised questions about basic civil liberties. Dual standards, so decried when adopted by other governments, have become the accepted norm.

Abroad, the US has recently taken to asking for democratization of the Palestine Authority, making this sound almost like a precondition to acceptance of an independent Palestine state. This inevitably draws attention to “moderate” Arab countries whom the US backs. Will the Bush administration also now ask such Arab states, many of which are monarchies or sheikhdoms, to ensure transparency and more democratic structures within their polities? One more example. The 2002 annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released earlier this month has come down hard on the state control of religious activities in Uzbekistan. It quotes from a State Department report to the effect that the Uzbek government “promotes a moderate version of Islam through control and financing of the Spiritual Directorate for Muslims (the Muftiate), which in turn control the Islamic hierarchy, the contents of imams’ sermons, and the volume and substance of published Islamic materials”.

Now, is promoting a “moderate version of Islam” a good thing or a bad thing? General Pervez Musharraf has been widely praised by US officials for declaring his adherence to precisely this moderate form of Islam in his January 12 speech. Why is President Karimov of Uzbekistan wrong and Gen Musharraf right?

The Religious Freedom Commission has an answer of sorts: Concern about Uzbekistan stems from the fact that any Muslim who does not follow the state-decreed religion is open to persecution, and people should not be punished for their beliefs but for their acts.

FORMER president Jimmy Carter’s visit to Cuba, the first by any prominent American political figure since Fidel Castro’s remarkable revolution in 1959, has exposed the artificiality of the continued US ostracization of that country.

It was Mr Carter who, as president, had established the US/Cuban diplomatic interests sections in Washington and Havana, and he has now reaffirmed his belief expressed then that it is impossible to isolate a country that has been recognized by the rest of the world.

More than that, the visit also shows that the American public has no interest in maintaining a confrontationist posture towards Cuba. Some 80,000 Americans visit Cuba illegally every year; the figure would probably rise to a million if normal diplomatic relations were restored. President George W. Bush declared after the agreement reached the other day with Russia on nuclear weapons that the cold war had finally ended. It will not end till the US changes its Cuba policy — and its attitude to Venezuela.

Apart from incorrigible right-wingers and establishment figures, the only people in America who seem to want Fidel Castro’s overthrow are the Cuban exiles living here, often described as wishing for democracy to be established in their country but who have supported every undemocratic move to unseat Castro. And even among the right-wingers in Congress and government, there are many with business interests who look for a way out that would permit their firms and conglomerates to expand their operations into Cuba.

You’ve got mail!

THEY sit there like tireless, loyal sentinels at the end of millions of rural driveways. They are rusty or shiny, tiny or spacious, creative statement or utilitarian afterthought.

But America’s roadside mailboxes have for generations been the down-home gateway between this big land’s country residents and the not-always-friendly world outside, the one that sends tax bills, junk mail and, recently, some pipe bombs.

America’s rural residents have long thought of themselves as at least apart from, possibly even above, the criminal mayhem, personal betrayals and unpredictable terror of the mushrooming urban and suburban areas whose bright lights and exciting opportunities dominate television and suck away so many young people. That’s not factually true, of course.

Smaller towns and farms have over the years seen their smaller share of brutal, even bizarre, crimes. The “In Cold Blood” murders were on a farm. The Unabomber lived by an idyllic mountain village. And, by chance, little Shanksville, Pa., was a Sept. 11 crash site.

Security isn’t the countryside’s first thought. Many there do not routinely lock cars or homes. Indeed, that’s how residents spot newcomers; they’re the ones locking cars on Main Street. So even though police arrested a pipe-bomb suspect, the undeniable reality that some nut case from afar was infecting these innocent receptacles with wired explosives is emotionally jarring and chilling.—Los Angeles Times