Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Letters

Vol. 23 No. 9 · 10 May 2001

Search by issue:

Shocking News about the CIA

Tariq Ali on Kashmir (LRB, 19 April) is, for this non-expert, very persuasive in every respect but one. His Indians and Pakistanis, and Kashmiris too, desire one thing and get another – the common fate of all who engage in politics and war. Their circumstances and personal proclivities combine with institutional shortcomings to ensure that aims and achievements remain widely separated. But his Americans are different. They achieve ‘a remarkable hat-trick: in the space of a decade three populist politicians’ (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, Indira Gandhi), ‘each hostile to US interests in the region, had been eliminated’. Ali prefaces that remark by noting that ‘the US may or may not have been involved’ but by then he has cited ‘many people in Bangladesh’ to the effect that the CIA overthrew Sheikh Mujibur Rehman; he himself has defined Zia-ul-Haq, who executed Bhutto, as a ‘Washington implant’; and on Mrs Gandhi’s elimination he informs us: ‘A civil servant I met in Delhi told me they had evidence linking the assassination with Sikh training camps in Pakistan set up with US assistance with a view to destabilising the Indian Government. He was sure the US had decided to eliminate Mrs Gandhi in order to prevent a strike against Pakistan that would have derailed the West’s operation in Afghanistan.’

Bhutto antagonised many US officials, Indira Gandhi was both respected and resented, and only a handful of specialists were likely to have had any view at all of Mujibur Rehman. But if any US officials, including the President with his panoply of chief advisers, had set out to knock off Bhutto, Gandhi or Rehman, the chances are that they would have been roughly as successful as they were in their attempt to kill Castro with an exploding cigar. Once, long ago, an elite service manned by Ivy League graduates and capable of overthrowing governments, the CIA still gets by on the Intelligence side because only routine skills are needed to extract routine information from overhead photography and electronic collection (analysis is another matter), but its Operations directorate is so inept that, to avoid guaranteed failure, the CIA’s top managers routinely deflect requests for any action that requires any talent at all. Assassinations are no problem for them, because they are illegal under US law and so no policy official can request one, but their memo-writing skills are strained by the need to explain why the simplest things cannot be done – things as simple as collecting a soil sample from outside an unguarded factory in Sudan, for example. Whatever cannot be done by supplying money or arms – and that, too, clumsily – cannot be done at all. Bush père had to resort to a full-scale military invasion just to overthrow Noriega, truly a small-timer among dictators, and that was in Panama, a very small country where the US still had large military bases. Clinton had to send cruise missiles after Osama Bin Laden, then living semi-openly in Afghanistan, a country that lacks any kind of border controls, and where cut-throats loyal enough till pay day are easily hired. The US did not do what Tariq Ali implies it did, because it cannot even do things a thousand times easier than killing national leaders without leaving fingerprints. He should take my word for it, but if he will not, he can consult any cognisant member of the Iraqi opposition. Saddam Hussein’s more active enemies believed that there was some dark and sinuous plot at work when they were first exposed to the CIA operators who were supposed to help them. It was only after years of bitter experience that they finally accepted the simpler truth that behind the façade of unbelievable incompetence there was only unbelievable incompetence.

Edward Luttwak
Chevy Chase, Maryland

It is not true that Gandhi ‘acted as an efficient recruiting-sergeant for the British during the First World War’. Gandhi had returned to India from South Africa on the eve of the war and, on the advice of his mentor, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, maintained a public silence for a year or so until he felt acquainted with the Indian political scene. It was not Gandhi, but the other nationalist leaders who encouraged Indians to enlist in the hope that the British Government would reward such loyalty after the war with sympathetic consideration of India’s wish for Dominion status, or with some constitutional provision that would meet Indian political aspirations. Gandhi had taken part in the Boer War, on the British side, as the leader of an ambulance unit.

Ali claims that Nehru betrayed Sheikh Abdullah, but the Kashmiri leader made things difficult for himself and his friend because of his intrigues with the Americans, who were sold on the idea of an independent Kashmir modelled on Switzerland. In the aftermath of Partition fears and suspicions were rife, and Nehru’s difficulties with Indian public opinion should be recognised.

Ali could also have mentioned the much-hyped bus journey to Lahore made by India’s BJP Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in February 1999 in an attempt to make a durable peace with Pakistan. After Vajpayee returned to Delhi, he discovered that, while he was being wined and dined by his Pakistani hosts, the Pakistan military had breached the Line of Control in Kashmir and occupied the Kargil heights.

Premen Addy
London W9

I was disturbed to see that the article on Kashmir by that old anti-imperialist Tariq Ali was illustrated by a map on which Tibet was labelled as ‘China’.

Peter Godfrey
Bristol

Sink the ‘Bismarck’!

Lawrence Hogben’s lucid account (LRB, 19 April) of the naval action against Bismarck in May 1941 left me uncertain about one detail. His account, supported by a chart, allows an inference that the battle-cruiser Hood sailed from Scapa Flow ahead of Admiral Tovey’s main force and went directly in search of the German battleship. Is this an accurate account of Hood’s movements? Days before the action developed, the battle-cruiser was in Hvalfjord, on the west coast of Iceland, where my own ship happened to be, and I went on board her, invited to lunch by a young officer of my acquaintance. Lunch was just ending when the ship was ordered to sea. Guests, including me, were hurried over the side and away. Those who remained on board were well aware of the reason for the summons, and were not sanguine about the probable outcome.

Unfortunately I can’t remember whether Prince of Wales was also in the fjord at this time, I guess around 19-20 May; I think not, but Hood certainly was, evidently waiting in this post – far closer than Scapa Flow to the Germans’ course through the Denmark Strait – to waylay the enemy. Mr Hogben says the two ships were despatched westward on 21 May and his chart shows them bypassing Hvalfjord (marked on the chart). Yet Hood was at anchor in Iceland, and even finding time to be sociable, some days before 23 May, the date when Tovey, as Hogben reports, correctly guessed the German route and set out with his own force from Scapa Flow. Can it be that somebody had guessed correctly earlier, or had good intelligence even before the Swedes on 22 May sighted and reported the German force heading north?

Frank Kermode
Cambridge

Freud Memorial Lecture

In the months following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 a frequently voiced reason for satisfaction among pro-Zionist gentiles was that the existence of a National Home would ‘lift the imputation of divided loyalty from the shoulders of the Jew’. Israel has now been an independent state, with its own nationality, for over half a century. Why should Lois Oppenheim (Letters, 19 April), writing from New Jersey, regard Edward Said’s silly gesture of chucking a stone at an empty Israeli guardhouse as ‘deeply insulting to the Jewish community at large’? I don’t remember that before the advent of majority rule in South Africa critics of apartheid had to be wary of giving offence to the Dutch.

J.S.F. Parker
York

The Baader-Meinhof Gang

Peter Wollen’s contextualisation of the deaths in Stammheim on 18 October 1977 of Andreas Baader, Jan-Carl Raspe and Gudrun Ensslin is incomplete (LRB, 5 April). The sequence was roughly this: the President of the Employers’ Association, Hanns Martin Schleyer, had been kidnapped on 5 September in order to secure the release of the three terrorists. After this had apparently failed, on 13 October a Lufthansa jet on its way from Majorca to Frankfurt was hijacked by a Palestinian group who also demanded the release of the Stammheim prisoners. These parallel actions were the culmination of a campaign of high-profile assassinations on the imprisoned terrorists’ behalf. The future of Helmut Schmidt’s Social Democrat-led Administration now hung in the balance; the successful storming of the Lufthansa jet as it stood on a runway in Mogadishu has since often been cited as the real ‘founding act’ of the Federal Republic, a moment everyone looks back on with pride. It was in the small hours after the freeing of the Lufthansa hostages that Baader, Ensslin and Raspe killed themselves in such a way as to make it seem they had been murdered – hence no suicide note. Schleyer’s body was found shortly afterwards. The evidence for suicide assembled by Stefan Aust, whose book Wollen mentions, is so overwhelming as to rule out the murder theory. The circumstances surrounding Ulrike Meinhof’s death 17 months earlier were, however, entirely different and a satisfactory explanation of how she committed suicide has never been provided.

Julian Preece
University of Kent, Canterbury

Infra Dig

John Lloyd’s piece about brass bands (LRB, 5 April) reminded me of a discussion about music funding at the Arts Council in 1980. I made the mistake of asking why we didn’t make any financial provision for brass bands. After a moment of shocked silence someone replied in tones rather like Lady Bracknell’s: ‘Brass bands?’ Another said: ‘Here at the Arts Council we are concerned with the high arts, not brass bands.’

David Buckle
Abingdon, Oxfordshire

Leur Pays

David Kennedy omits an important adjective when he describes California’s Proposition 187 as ‘a ballot initiative which in 1994 sought to deny immigrants access to public services such as hospitals and schools’ (LRB, 22 February). The omitted qualifier is ‘illegal’. One argument for the initiative was that, while ‘undocumented aliens’ cost each legal household in California $1178 per year (not ‘per native-born California household’, as Kennedy writes), these ‘illegals’ pay no taxes. Of course, many of them provide services, but it is a criminal offence for Americans to employ them, as some aspiring politicos have learned.

Gwynne Nettler
San Diego, California

Begging in Tokyo

Murray Sayle, who is perhaps a little cut off from the world in his mountain retreat, may wish to know that one reason the ‘cardboard shelters of the Tokyo homeless are well out of sight’ (LRB, 5 April) is that the cardboard boxes have been swapped for the blue tarpaulins so visible in Ueno Park and other public spaces around the city. It is difficult for anyone visiting the Ueno museums, or viewing the cherry-blossom, to turn a blind eye to the colony of tents spread under the trees; difficult to turn a deaf ear as the homeless are made to sing for their supper just across from the National Museum by a particularly obnoxious group of evangelicals. And while there may be no European-style begging in the stations, the filthy, matted-haired men – and occasionally women – who spend their days circling the city on the Yamanote line provide a pungent reminder to their salaried co-passengers of the horrific free fall awaiting many of the victims of the dread risutora – or ‘restructuring’.

Phillip Brown
Gakushuin University, Tokyo

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.