Throughout the article there is a narrow, gossipy focus, complete with tall Scotches and beautiful (though distant past) blondes. This says nothing about the policies, programs and achievements of the government that Mbeki leads. The true South African context is the positive response to the president’s recent State of the Nation speech and the strong public response to his stirring call on South Africans to work together for change. An independent academic survey found that in 2001, the ratio of presidential targets fulfilled to those still to be accomplished was 4 to 1. Since 1994, millions in South Africa have gained access to electricity, clean water and other services, and this is continuing, generally at a faster pace.
The government’s budget won almost universal acclaim for macroeconomic balance combined with increased social expenditure. On HIV/AIDS, the focus of Mbeki and his government includes care for the affected and infected, treatment of all diseases including opportunistic ones, and research into a vaccine. Our massive prevention program, particularly among youth, has been described by the head of UNAIDS, Dr. Peter Piot, as the most comprehensive in Africa and one of the largest in the world–a program, he says, with high levels of government investment, starting to show results.
On mother-to-child transmission, the program is now operating through 215 clinics and hospitals as research access points at which 70,000 women have so far received care. This is yielding essential information about the requirements to run a good mother-to-child prevention program.
Far from having “openly split” with President Mbeki over AIDS, as suggested, former President Nelson Mandela, after extensive briefing, declared himself satisfied.
NEWSWEEK quotes a woman who says Mbeki “doesn’t have the personality to be a president.” The overwhelming majority of South Africans, who upped their vote to 66 percent for him and the ANC some three years ago, differ. Essop Pahad Minister in the Presidency Pretoria, South Africa
Editor’s note: NEWSWEEK stands by its story.
Reconciling Two Holy Books
Like any other ideology, Islam is how its adherents perceive it. It can be modern and tolerant or aggressive and violent. The battle is essentially about extremism that, unfortunately, will always exist, even in the best of circumstances. That’s why I believe that studying the Qur’an will not provide any meaningful solutions in this regard. As for suggesting the improvement of the political and economic lot of Muslims (a point made repeatedly by NEWSWEEK writers), it’s misguided. People don’t perpetrate brutal crimes because they live under a dictatorship (Tim McVeigh was an American) or because they are poor (Osama bin Laden is a billionaire), but because they are violent extremists who exploit issues like Palestine to legitimize their bestiality. Husam Dughman Benghazi, Libya
NEWSWEEK has hurt the feelings of Muslims around the world by printing images of the holy prophet Muhammad. This might have been done in the name of “freedom of expression,” but let me remind you that your freedom ends where my nose starts: it is against our religion to show Muhammad, or any other prophet, for that matter. Please be careful in the future. Hammad Shamimi Islamabad, Pakistan
Editor’s note: NEWSWEEK regrets that its reproduction of some famous illustrations of the prophet Muhammad offended some Muslims. It was certainly not our intention to offend, and we hope that the accompanying article by Kenneth Woodward will show that we were fair and sensitive in our discussion of Islam.
You refer to the Muslims’ belief that the Qur’an is literally God’s word, but fail to mention that this is exactly what Roman Catholics have been taught about the Bible and what many Christians still believe. Both books, however, do teach the same important truth: that God is with the poor and humble rather than the rich and mighty. (By the way, does America’s pious president know this?) And we in the West stand above Muslims who have fallen from ancient despotism directly into the hands of modern-day colonialists and despots? Wolfgang Wiemers Munster, Germany
The bottom line in the teachings of both holy books is peace, love and harmony between man and man, and between man and God. Both Jesus and Muhammad preached the same thing. Indeed, Prophet Muhammad never claimed to have invented anything new but merely reiterated the message of Jesus, Moses and Abraham in their purity. Conflicts have arisen out of ignorance or self-serving interpretations of the book over the ages. Ibrahim D. Waziri Lagos, Nigeria
I believe in a higher being of sorts, but I am a disbeliever of all current religious options in this world. Indeed many religions have their merits but, at the end of the day, religions base themselves on fear and fables. They often create power bases and power-hungry human beings. They cause war and death, and have done so since the beginning of time. If there is a God, surely there can be only one, and therefore all other religions are fiction. Aaron Blake Christchurch, New Zealand
NEWSWEEK’s observation that the Christian-Jewish Bible and the Islamic Qur’an have “more in common than most believers would guess” hit the nail on the head. Both books contain so many ambiguities that passages can be found that support any atrocity. Only when mankind is devoted to humanism rather than the belief that a particular book contains the word of God that cannot be proven will there be any hope of peaceful coexistence. Don Bay Froson, Sweden
As I read through the Qur’an systematically for the first time I was struck by its unrelenting hostility toward nonbelievers. Repeatedly we are told that nonbelievers will be condemned to hell where, among other charming punishments, they will have their skins burned off again and again. The message is clear: Allah hates nonbelievers. That a supposedly benevolent and omnipotent deity could hate any part of his creation is inconceivable. If he is benevolent, he should not be inclined to hate anything; and if he is omnipotent, he can change anything he doesn’t like. It is precisely the Qur’an’s attitude toward nonbelievers that makes me one. William Page Bangkok, Thailand
The big question that the Islamic world must face, beyond September 11 and Afghanistan, is whether it seeks peaceful coexistence in a global community. You say “brave voices scattered across the Middle East… have condemned the terrorist acts of killing civilians and judged suicide bombings contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an.” It will take even more courageous voices to reinterpret the retribution for apostasy within Islam–to allow for the freedom of a Muslim individual to change his beliefs without being subject to state penalty and/or family persecution. G. Pontier Retford, England
People are often killed in God’s name. But no one is tortured, terrorized or killed in the name of atheism. When we have to search in holy books for the roots of conflicts and the seeds of reconciliation, I say, enough. Religion has had centuries of opportunity to straighten out the mess in this world, but religion is the main cause of that mess. Let us instead love, worship and adore the real savior of our world: science and technology. Poch Suzara Makati, Philippines
The Old World vs. the New
European unease about America’s unilateralist tendencies, which have recently increased, actually go back to a time long before George W. Bush’s taking office. Over the years, whenever a crisis has shown up–often in Europe’s backyard–a lot of mumbling has gone on, condemning each atrocity. But then, when it comes to concrete action and commitment of ground forces, America finds itself in the middle of it. Years of this have made Americans feel indispensable. Few other countries have the political will and military might to act as the world’s policeman. America’s delusions might be justifiable, but its in-your-face attitude is uncalled for. Uzor Ogbu Ibadan, Nigeria
Speaking Up for Malaysia
Why are you so one-sided in the article on Somalia? Don’t you know that people in the Gedo region are starving and diseased? Please do something to highlight the problems of this war-ravaged people. Meanwhile, thank you for your global news coverage. I love NEWSWEEK! Ibrahim Careys Gedo, Somalia
Genetically Modified Foods
The question of the reluctance to embrace GM foods is answered by the cause of the crinkly leaves of the tomato plant noted in your article. NEWSWEEK did not address the reason that multinationals make forays into GM food–profits. These profits come from the sale of patents and seeds–and of patented seeds. And they come from suing farmers for saving and using seeds from the previous year’s harvest of GM crops. The bottom line is, should our daily bread be provided by a few profit-seeking multinationals? W. H. Koo Selangor, Malaysia
In Praise of a Year-End Issue
I am really glad to see that NEWSWEEK has returned to serious journalism. As a European, I found it very difficult to accept all the patriotic and glorifying articles following September 11, whereas before, I used to appreciate NEWSWEEK’s critical and neutral point of view. It’s good that you’re back to the way you were. And I really hope you stay that way. S. Eitschberger Schwerin, Germany
