An Able-Danger China Connection?

Thanks to a link from WarandPiece, just saw this Michael Maloof op-ed in the Washington Times:

Following the initial DoD turndown, Ellen Preisser and this writer then data-mined unclassified information to report to Mr. Weldon on possible Chinese front companies in the United States seeking technology for the People's Liberation Army.
    It showed how Chinese front companies in the United States listed as U.S. corporations were acquiring U.S. weapons technology from U.S. defense contractors, and improving China's military capability. Such access to U.S. technology then would allow the Chinese over time to duplicate U.S. military systems down to the widget.
    Indeed, a June 27, 2005 article in The Washington Times reported U.S. investigators were concerned with China and its middlemen increasingly and illegally obtaining "sensitive or classified U.S. weapons technology" from U.S. companies.
    Reaction to the study on Chinese front companies in the United States from the Army and the General Counsel's office in the Office of the Defense Secretary was immediate. In November 1999, they ordered the study destroyed, but not before Mr. Weldon complained to then Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki.
    Mr. Weldon also wrote a letter to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh requesting an espionage investigation. Mr. Freeh never responded to the Weldon request.

And there's more interesting stuff that Maloof doesn't mention, concerning Stanford and Condoleeza Rice:

What Maloof doesn't say here but has been reported elsewhere is that his project got shut down by armed federal agents after it fingered now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former deputy Defense secretary Bill Perry among others as Chinese tech proliferators, because of their connections to Stanford. Check out this NY Post story:

...Cyber-sleuths working for a Pentagon intelligence unit that reportedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack were fired by military officials, after they mistakenly pinpointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other prominent Americans as potential security risks, The Post has learned.

The private contractors working for the counter-terrorism unit Able Danger lost their jobs in May 2000. The firings following a series of analyses that Pentagon lawyers feared were dangerously close to violating laws banning the military from spying on Americans, sources said.

The Pentagon canceled its contract with the private firm shortly after the analysts — who were working on identifying al Qaeda operatives — produced a particularly controversial chart on proliferation of sensitive technology to China, the sources said...

Britain Bans 15 Terrorist Groups

According to the BBC.

Why Condoleeza Rice Snubs Uzbekistan

I think this colloquy from Friday's State Department briefing with Daniel Fried indicates that her decisions were motivated at least in part by fear of bad press:

MR. ERELI: (Inaudible) Barbara?

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks. Dan, I wanted to ask about the decision not to go to Uzbekistan for the Secretary. Is that wise to try to increase this area's isolation? Wouldn't it be better for her to go and try to see if she might persuade them to get an independent inquiry going into Andijan, perhaps change course?

And also is it true that the Uzbeks signaled to the United States that they wanted to renegotiate the base agreement sometime before Andijan but it was not taken up for some reason?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I obviously do think it's a wise decision that the Secretary has made not to go and I wonder what your question might have been had she decided to go? Something like, I imagine, "Why are you going to that bloody dictatorship? Aren't you undercutting all your rhetoric about the freedom agenda and acting as rank hypocrites?" Right? (Laughter.) But since --

QUESTION: It was only because of fear of my question that she's not going? (Laughter.)

Although Fried denied the accusation, the laughter in the room is more reliable than a diplomatic denial (I heard the briefing live on C-Span radio).

Happy Columbus Day

Instapundit has a link to Samuel Eliot Morison's biography of the legendary sea captain whose birthday we celebrate today.

Kanan Makiya and Rend Rahim on Iraq

Today's Washington Post had an interesting article by Jackson Diehl on a recent AEI conference featuring leading Iraqi liberal. He reported their pessimistic assessments of the current situation:

That's why it was so sobering to encounter Makiya and Rahim again last week -- and to hear them speak with brutal honesty about their "dashed hopes and broken dreams," as Makiya put it. The occasion was a conference on Iraq sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which did so much to lay the intellectual groundwork for the war. A similar AEI conference three years ago this month resounded with upbeat predictions about the democratic, federal and liberal Iraq that could follow Saddam Hussein. This one, led off by Makiya and Rahim, sounded a lot like its funeral.

Makiya began with a stark conclusion: "Instead of the fledgling democracy that back then we said was possible, instead of that dream, we have the reality of a virulent insurgency whose efficiency is only rivaled by the barbarous tactics it uses." The violence, he said, "is destroying the very idea or the very possibility of Iraq."

The Iraqi liberals can fairly blame the Bush administration for not listening to them: for failing to deploy enough troops, for refusing to quickly install the provisional government they advocated, for rejecting the Iraqi fighters they offered to help impose order immediately after the invasion. But Makiya, a former adviser to the Iraqi government in exile who now heads the Iraq Memory Foundation, instead scrupulously dissected "our Iraqi failures." Chief among these, he said, was an underestimation of the rootedness of Hussein's Baath Party inside Iraq's Sunni community and its latent ability to mobilize the insurgency that has bedeviled reconstruction while dividing the country along ethnic and religious lines.

The relentless violence had, he said, made political accord impossible and instead was driving Iraq toward a three-way division, accompanied by a civil war that could endure for decades. This course had been crystallized in the Iraqi constitution, which -- hurried toward a ratification vote this Saturday at the insistence of the Bush administration -- is "a fundamentally destabilizing document," he said. "The deal we have is a patently unworkable deal. To the extent that it is made to work it will work toward fratricide."

Rahim, a former ambassador of the interim government in Washington, picked up where Makiya left off, first endorsing his conclusions and then settling in to explain precisely why the constitution threatens Iraq with catastrophe. The draft, she said, was "written as a reaction to Iraq's history" of dictatorship and oppression of minorities; it creates a central government so weak that "when you look at it, there is no 'there' there."

By contrast, the Kurdish and Shiite "regions" -- really more like mini-states -- provided under the constitution will have so much power, including their own armed forces, that they will be able to ignore the national constitution's provisions for human rights, respect for minorities and limitation of Islamic clerical power. "There's a high probability that these alignments in the constitution will eventually spin the state out of control," Rahim concluded.

I was impressed by Rahim when I heard her speak at AEI a while back on a panel with Ahmed Chalabi. I hope that America takes their warnings seriously.

The NY Times Discovers Jihad in Central Asia

In today's paper, C.J. Chivers seems perplexed after a person-to-person visit with a Hizb-ut-Tahrir activist in Kyrgyzstan. It seems they really are serious about their Islamist extremism:

The group has thrived and shows signs of expansion. In the last year there have been more reports of its leaflets appearing in northern Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and in several Russian republics, including Tatarstan, where Mr. Dzhalilov boasted that he recently had clandestine meetings with Russian members.

"It is a fact that they have become more active," said Sumar Nasiza, a spokesman for the prosecutor general of Kyrgyzstan.

In all, the party claims to have operations in more than 100 nations, and it has found fertile ground - and recruits - in the combination of endemic poverty and resurgent interest in Islam in Central Asia since the last years of the Soviet Union. The size of its membership is uncertain, with estimates ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands in Central Asia alone. "I do not think even the S.N.B. knows," said Mr. Nasiza, referring to Kyrgyzstan's successor to the K.G.B.

Those who have followed the group cite several concerns about its activities, and they are divided over the best course for limiting its influence.

Just how hard it has been to monitor and manage is evident here in Kyrgyzstan, where the group is nominally banned but has a large enough following that it has come partly into the open. Its members are not hard to find.

Four members interviewed by The New York Times said a ban in Britain would only help the party's work, by drawing attention to it and giving it greater credibility among Muslims disappointed with their station in life.

"Blair's ban is our victory," Mr. Dzhalilov said.

Good Night and Good Luck

Just saw George Clooney's Edward R. Murrow biopic, and have to say that I enjoyed it. It's slow going, it's in black-and-white, there's no sex and little romance. No car chases, no exploding fireballs, no shootouts or fistfights. Not too much humor. Just a lot of middle-aged guys reading newspaper articles and talking about Joe McCarthy in TV studios and bars. But it was full of nostalgia for the NYC of my youth. Everything looked more or less as I remember it did as a very young kid. And of course, Clooney plays Fred Friendly, (what did he do to himself?) who lived in Riverdale, where we lived, and whose son went to my private high school. Friendly became president of CBS News after the McCarthy program, promoted by Paley. He quit in the 1960s over the Vietnam war, went on to set up PBS from his perch at the Ford foundation. He hired Jim Lehrer, who is still on the air--the heir to Edward R. Murrow anchor chair for the most trusted newsman in America. So every night at 7, one sees a little of that Murrow style continues.

BTW, Murrow was a friend of my Uncle Saul (actually a cousin), a newspaper reporter and editor who ended up heading the CBS affiliate in Seattle. Murrow would visit him when he came home to see his mother.

UPDATE: Not everyone like Clooney's version. My wife sent me this unfavorable review by Slate's Jack Schafer (whom I also got to know, though not person-to-person, during the PBS controversy). As I said, I'm biased...

Banned in Tashkent

Just received an email from a reader telling me that this website has been blocked in Uzbekistan. I take it as a compliment, of course...

UPDATE: Nathan of Registan tells me that all Blogger sites are blocked. So it is a compliment to all bloggers, not me...

James R. Kurth on International Relations

Full disclosure, James R. Kurth was my professor at Swarthmore College. He produced my documentary film, and edited my articles for Orbis. So I'm not objective. Still, I think this interview from the Swarthmore magazine might be interesting even to those who don't know him. For example:

In 1980, I was in California, and I held a typical liberal/Swarthmore view of Reagan. I thought he was a political amateur, an intellectual lightweight, and a narrow-minded ideologue who was only running because he had been puffed up by others in the California elite. By 1984, I came to believe he had been intelligent enough to surround himself with good advisers. His foreign and economic policy were on a good path. By 1989, after observing how he dealt with Gorbachev with remarkable skill and wisdom and helped to end the Cold War, I had a very high opinion of him. In my mind, he had moved from a "charming incompetent" to a "wise and skillful statesman."

Why Russians Do Not Smile

From Konstantin's Russian Blog:

When you live in Siberia in a small rural commune you should be very distrustful of every stranger. Moreover – strangers should feel immediately that you are hostile towards them. Only when a stranger proves beyond doubt that (1) he wants to belong to the commune, (2) he accepts all laws and traditions of this particular commune, (3) he can be trusted; only then he is accepted. And an accepted member of the commune enjoys so much trust, friendliness, openheartedness and sincerity that is very surprising to Europeans and who think that Russian openness is over the top.

Who is Richard Parsons?

From This 'n That:

Richard Parsons, chairman and CEO of Time-Warner, one of the largest corporations in the world. Richard Parsons, attorney, admired and mentored by Nelson Rockefeller. Richard Parsons, with virtually no banking experience, turned a savings bank from failure to success. Richard Parsons, an intellectually talented man of high character, aspirations and achievement, happens to be African American.

Yet, This 'n' That would bet its last dollar that not a single young, African American, male or female, knows of his existence. Let alone what he does for a living. The media and its skewed focus on African American sports figures, must accept much of the blame for not holding just as bright a light on Richard Parsons as it does on Shaquille O'Neal. Still, some of the responsibility must fall on our educators. It is of the utmost importance to begin to affect African American children as soon as they become aware, somewhat, of what is happening in the world. It is the time when they are most impressionable. Kindergarten would be a good place to begin to inform them of people like Richard Parsons as a person to admire and emulate.

More Axis-Islamist Historical Links

This time in an ICG report on Indonesian extremists, cited by Belgravia Dispatch.

One issue that is only touched on peripherally here but is discussed in far greater detail in other ICG reports, is that Dar ul-Islam grew out of the Indonesian Hezbollah, an Islamist militia formed during World War 2 by the Japanese to assist them in their conquest of Indonesia alongside the "anti-colonialist" Badan Penyelidik Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI) puppet government under Sukarno. While the links between World War 2-era Islamists (notably the Mufti of Jerusalem) and the Nazis are reasonably well-known, I'm surprised the ties between the Japanese and the Indonesian Islamists hasn't come under more scrutiny given that while Islamist SS units like the 13th Hanjar division and Ostmusselmanische SS regiment were destroyed at the conclusion of the war, JI is a direct organizational descendant of the Indonesia Hezbollah.

Eurasianism Explained

What is Eurasianism? Dr. Aleksandr Gelyevitch Dugin, founder of the International Eurasian Movement, attempted to explain the ideological prospects and tendencies for this Russian geopolitical movement -- "not a party," he insisted -- last Wednesday night, at Johns Hopkins' Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. Since I had lived in Moscow and Central Asia, and had heard about it, I was very interested to have a chance to meet the primary theoretician of a school of thought that some say is close to that of the Kremlin. The event was hosted by Johns Hopkins professors Fred Starr and Bruce Parrott, and drew a full house of Russianists and Eurasianists. There were representatives from some former Soviet states, as well. I happened to sit next to a charming Georgian-American businessman and International Relations professor, who donated some truly delicious wine for the evening's reception. A packed house wanted to hear what Dugin had to say.
Dugin explained the historical roots of Eurasianism in the particularities of Russian identity. That is, Russians are not fully European, nor Asian. They are Eurasian people, rebutting Kipling's doggerel verse, because Russians live where East in fact meets West. Dugin covered the history of Russia from the adoption of Orthodoxy to the chaos of the Yeltsin years, and explained that Russia needed a new identity, and Eurasianism could provide it. However, Eurasianism was not in fact new, rather the traditional belief of the Russian masses, who had a special place. It was something that he, as an Old Believer, knew would promote religious tolerance. It was based on Sir Halford MacKinder's concept of "Land Power" rather than sea power. It was rooted in the sense that Russia must counter-balance the West, a desire for a multi-polar and particularist world, rather than a universal world. In this, it traced its pedigree to those who resisted universal Catholicism in favor of particularist Orthodoxy after the fall of Constantinople.In today's world, Eurasianism--a descendant of pan-Slavism and Greater Russianism--preserves a special mission for Russia. This sense of mission is necessary for a great nation, and Russia has always had one, whether Christian or Communist. Dugin believes that America also has a great mission, the spread of universal democratic and free market values, but that there are other missions possible. There is more to life than materialism and freedom, according to Dugin. There are spiritual and communal needs that the West cannot provide, so Eurasianism has a chance to offer what Americanism and globalism cannot. Many people don't want democracy imposed by force, they fear chaos, and don't want to lose their communal identities. A multi-polar world will permit more of that sort of freedom than a unipolar one, he believes.
Dugin explained that under a Eurasianist scheme, each civilization would have its own sphere of influence. Russia would have the Eurasian continent, protected by its own version of the "Monroe Doctrine." China and Japan would enjoy condominium over the Pacific. The EU would have Western and Central Europe. The United States would provide an umbrella for North and South America. Thus, a Neoconservative project of unipolarity could be resisted by Eurasianist-led multipolarity. Dugin's analysis of Kremlin politics was insightful, pointing out that "Orange" liberal democracy is associated with chaos. He said that the future is unimaginable without Putin, that the person of Putin is the Status Quo in Russia. Eurasianism, he argued, provides an "ideocracy" that allows Russia to move beyond a cult of personality.
Dugin's ideas appear to be based on a traditional geopolitical world-view, rooted in the control of land. His economic backgound seemed a bit vague. At one point, Dugan claimed oil revenues were not real wealth, because the money just came out of a hole in the ground. I'm sure the Rockefeller family, as well as the Saudi kings, would be surprised to learn that their money wasn't worth anything. Perhaps it is because Dugin, a former leader of the National Bolsheviks, still holds on to Marx's Labor Theory of Value (he talked about the need for nationalization, as well). Eurasianism has explanatory power, it is how many Russians view the world. But it doesn't explain how the world really works. Only how Russians would like it to work.
As Texans say, I wouldn't bet the ranch on Eurasianism. Russia needs to come up with something a little more sophisticated and realistic. For, as my Georgian seatmate turned and said to me at the end of Dugin's explanation of Eurasianism: "It means Russian domination."

British Council Not Playing Cricket?

Following up on the news story from Kommersant about Vladimir Putin investigaing the British Council in Moscow, I received an email from David Blackie, who publishes information about English language courses in competition with the Council. He seems to think there might be some unfair competition going on...

A Peace to End All Peace

History explains a lot. David Fromkin's book on the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the spoils by the Great Powers following World War I is just fascinating. Each past controversy had a contemporary parallel--Israel, the Palestine Question, Egypt Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, the Cacauses, Turkestan, Russia, France, Germany, and even the Sudan. Not to mention the complicating role of the United States' desire to make the world safe for democracy. Everything we read about in the headlines nowadays seems to have happened before, between 1918 and 1924. The characters are memorable, T.E. Lawrence, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Lenin, Chaim Weizmann, Jabotinsky, Ibn Saud, Kemal Ataturk, Clemenceau, and Sir Mark Sykes, among others. It reads like a novel, is filled with scholarly footnotes that are fascinating in themselves and explains why Satayana said "those who do not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..."

Miami Opening for Agustin Blazquez's New Documentary

Agustin reminded us that he's going to Miami to show the film that PBS and CBS won't broadcast, on October 22nd.

Here's his announcement:

"Filmmaker Agustin Blazquez has powerfully drawn the connection between corporate crime and the destruction of freedom."

James Lieber, Author and Lawyer


Corporate corruption in America at the highest levels exposed!
What went on behind the scenes of the Elian Gonzalez affair.
What CBS's 60 Minutes won't tell.

DON'T MISS

COVERING CUBA 4
THE RATS BELOW
(with Spanish subtitles)
produced & directed by Agustin Blazquez

Saturday, October 22, 2005 at 8 p.m.

WORLD PREMIERE
Presented by Miami Dade College

TOWER THEATER
1508 S.W. 8th Street
Miami, Florida
305 644-3307

COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below available through www.CubaCollectibles.com also available COVERING CUBA 3: Elian the real story of injustice and deception by the U.S. government and the American media.

Giuliani for President!

Roger L. Simon tipped us off that Hizzoner is thinking out loud about running.

But the first question from audience members was about Giuliani's possible return to public office.



Asked if he had any "political visions," Giuliani laughed and rubbed his forehead.



"I have some political visions. I don't know what they are yet, they're a little foggy," he said.

I hope he runs as an independent...

LeBoutillier: Bush Blowing Off Conservatives

And John LeBoutillier is mad...

Along the way, the Bush White House has grown arrogant and cocky about the ‘professional conservatives’ - those who make a living off Right Wing causes through fundraising, lobbying, speech-making, writing and TV appearances as ‘Talking Heads.’ Many of these people are on the GOP payroll in one form or another - either as consultants or contract professionals - or indirectly through their perceived proximity to the White House.

These ‘professional conservatives’ have been on the Bush bandwagon since 1999; they have stuck with him all the way. So no wonder the White House figured they could count on them - no matter what?

But - alas - some of these ‘professionals’ are going public with their disappointment or disgust over the Miers pick. And it is this public ‘separation’ from the White House that is the most revealing aspect of the Miers selection:

It tells us that the Bush Presidency is deteriorating right in front of our eyes.

American Space Millionaire Goes on TV

According to Space.com, Greg Olsen, the American tourist on a Russian Soyuz space tour (3 spacewalks, 10 days room and board inclusive, at the International Space Station) said: "Welcome to space,We’re lucky to have any communications at all..."

Bull Moose: Bush Blinked on Miers Nomination

Bull Moose, who is wise to the ways of Washington, interprets Bush's new Supreme Court pick as a sign of weakness:

Alas, the Democrats have the luxury of avoiding coming to grips with their judicial dilemma because President Bush blinked with the Miers nomination. He also potentially deflated his base for the '06 election. While evangelical Christians are kvelling over Miers, most conservatives are kvetching.

George Will, a prominent reality based conservative even suggested that the President is an unreflective rube,

"He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about
competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections."

The Moose thinks that Mr. Will is no longer on the White House Christmas card list!
Righties are right - this is an issue that largely works for them. Democrats should thank the President for betraying his most loyal supporters.

Cooking Paella at the "Taste of Bethesda"

Continuing the Latin theme, here's a picture of some chefs stirring the Paella pot at last weekend's Taste of Bethesda food fair. It struck me that a giant Spanish paella dish looks a lot like a giant Uzbek plov dish, and that a culinary history links the East to the West, thanks to the Moorish kings and Tamerlane, no doubt. But where did rice pilaf originate? I'll have to look that up.

BTW, Paella is a lot less greasy than plov, IMHO.

Miguel Osuna's "Maelstrom"

I saw this picture at the Mirrors Exhibition at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, DC. The exhibit featured Mexican artists living in the USA. I enjoyed the way the Miguel Osuna used the Los Angeles freeways to make an almost abstract expressionist design. It was moving, and the title was nice. The exhibit was interesting, and the building just beautiful, with a four-story mural in the main stairway. If you are ever in DC, it is definitely worth a visit.

5765:That Was The Year That Was

From Haaretz's Rosh Hashana Magazine. L'Shanah Tovah!

Tashkent Biennale Opens

It's even more exotic than Venice. The Tashkent Biennale has opened in Uzbekistan, showcasing modern art , a number featuring Central Asian themes.. The opening has not come without criticism. Here's a critical quote from Ferghana.ru's story:

A lot of pieces displayed at Biennale 2005 were known to general public since Art-Conversion Exhibition Constellation this spring, arranged with the help from the Swiss Bureau of Cooperation in an abandoned workshop in Tashkent. Solemnly opened by Tursunali Kuziyev, Chairman of the Academy of Arts, was suddenly closed on the authorities' order two days later. There were the rumors then that the exhibition was closed because of Vyacheslav Akhunov's "political" installations. Neither was Akhunov permitted to participate in Biennale'2005.

"I was outlawed for criticism of the Academy upper echelons in independent media outlets, and for my views on the March revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the May 13 events in Andizhan," Akhunov told Ferghana.Ru news agency.

According to Akhunov, the Academy chose artists and pieces for Biennale'2005 from the point of view of political reliability of artists and "neutrality" of their work (this latter is not supposed to dwell on problems of Uzbekistan or Central Asia). Even though a lot of gifted young artists participate in Biennale'2005, Akhunov said that it reminded him of a "toothless shark".

Asked what pieces he himself would have presented, the artist mentioned his cycle Return Of The Forgotten Corps - motives of Vasily Vereschagin's Let Them Come, Apotheosis Of War, etc. dated 1871-1874.

"

Dr. Andrea Berg on the NGO Crisis in Central Asia

Dr. Andrea Berg, a senior researcher at the Institute of Peace Research and Security Policy, University of Hamburg was in Washington today, to talk about "The Tensions between Authoritarian Rulers and International Organizations in Central Asia" at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Dr. Berg knows what she is talking about. Here is the conclusion from her paper on Uzbekistan's NGO problem, called "Encountering Transition in Uzbekistan":

The incentives and desired possibilities of financial aid have resulted in a growing number of NGOs and NGO activities in Uzbekistan. Due to artificial conditions, most NGOs are not grass-rooted or embedded in their environment. Instead of focusing on local support, they only intensify their relations with foreign donors. In my opinion, this is a dangerous starting point for the future when foreign assistance declines and the aid caravan moves on to the next region of interest. The situation in East Central Europe has already reached this point. McMahon observed that in Poland “in the last few years declining international support for the region has contributed to substantial problems among women’s groups.” While focusing on donor priorities, NGOs in Uzbekistan run the risk of losing the chance to develop ideas based on their own experience and background.

Although some NGO representatives criticize donor activities, they are dependent on grants and assistance. Few of them consider their target group’s needs and desires. Donor agencies stimulate this tendency. For now, they lack diligence, because, to a great extent, they work with the most visible and well-known NGOs. On the one hand, the “success” of these NGOs results from good networking and is connected with the assumption that “development” or “civil society” is somehow countable. Representatives of those NGOs reinforce the importance of quantity by proudly talking about the number of training seminars they conducted or the number of people who took part in them or who called their hotline. On the other hand, donor agencies prefer to trust those they consider to be “leaders” and “brokers”, and resources are routinely placed in a single individual’s hands.

Although non-governmental organizations are important, they are not the only actors in the fairly active Uzbekistan society. Networks of kin, neighbors, and colleagues are manifestations of shared socio-economic needs and common strategies to cope with these needs. Instead of only focusing on cooperation with non-governmental organizations, foreign agencies should include local groups, communities, and networks in their activities. While non-governmental organizations are a relatively new phenomenon in Uzbekistan and often do not reach beyond the urban context, local networks and other groups represent an indigenous kind of interest group, whether economic, social, or religious. Only if foreign organizations as well as NGOs learn to rely on already existing local ideas and strategies will aid become rooted and productive. By cooperating with all actors and combining their potential, foreign aid could do a great deal to gain and establish vital projects tailored for the respective local context.

From http://dbs.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/iee/download/working_papers_171.pdf.


In her Wilson Center talk today, Dr. Berg gave a thorough rundown of problems between NGOs and governments in the aftermath of the Rose and Orange revolutions. She had some interesting perspectives:

* KRYGYSTAN: The so-called "Tulip Revolution" was not a regime change, but a power change. It did not fundamentally alter the patrimonial networks in Kyrgyzstan, but did destabilize the central authority's ability to allocate resources. Result: destabilization. The country may be worse off than it was before--and no more democratic. There is now, according to Berg "a fragile security situation" due to the erosion of the national state. Any future problems for Uzbekistan in the Ferghana Valley might adversely affect Kyrgyztan. "The future looks dark."

*UKRAINE: Central Eurasian Studies Society conference-goers in Boston, American scholars of Central Asia, appeared to be unaware that Viktor Yushchenko's wife was an American citizen (now she is a Ukrainian citizen) who was a former US State Department employee--a fact widely reported in Germany, that affected CIS perceptions of the event.

*KAZAKHSTAN: The lower house of parliament has passed the draft of two new laws limiting the activities of NGOs, including re-registation and government approval requirements. President Nazarbayev submitted both laws for review to Kazakhstan's constitutional council on 13 July 2005.

*UZBEKISTAN: While she did not speak about the Andijan events, Berg did note that it has become increasingly difficult for Western NGOs to operate in Uzbekistan. She said that although the restrictions are widespread, analysts argue they were aimed at the Open Society Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and Freedom House. All money must go through two banks, either the National Bank of Uzbekistan or Asaka Bank, so it may be traced. She quoted a headline from a newspaper article symptomatic of the whole discussion, that the "Georgia revolt carried the mark of Soros."

*RUSSIA: Preparing laws similar to those of Central Asian to restrict NGO activity.

*TURKMENISTAN: One additional problem is a change in the education law that now ends schooling after the 9th grade, which hurts efforts by the Aga Khan University, American University of Central Asia, and so on, to recruit Turkmen students.

*TAJIKISTAN: Here it is quiet as far as NGO legislation is concerned. However, there are big problems and politically it is anything but quiet, Berg said.

*OSCE: Nine former Soviet republics signed a declaration on July 3rd, 2004 complaining of OSCE double standards, violations of national sovereignty, and various objections to field centers. After a decade of cooperation, the statement marked the beginning of a period of confrontation.

*EU: Berg felt the EU decision to impose an arms embargo on Uzbekistan and put visa restrictions on government officials may further intensify problems in relations with Western NGOs.

Berg made a very good impression, quoting an anonymous Kyrgyz about nostalgia for the USSR: "In those days, we did not disturb the state, and the state did not disturb us." Berg said that as a former citized of the German Democratic Republic, she understood the sentiment.

If only other representatives of NGOs had Berg's understanding, I'd feel a little better about the future of Western relations with Central Asia.

She is also responsive to questions, unlike the International Crisis Group, which has never answered my inquiries.

For example: When I asked Berg whether any Americans had in fact been involved in the Andijan uprising, as the Uzbek government charges, or if the Uzbek government is making it up, she said she did not know but would check it out and get back to me. She told me that Human Rights Watch currently has an observer at the trial in Tashkent, and that she will ask her what the story is.

So, stay tuned...

Mark Steyn on What Islamists Want

From The Australian:

Bali three years ago and Bali three days ago light up the sky: they make unavoidable the truth that Islamism is a classic "armed doctrine"; it exists to destroy. The reality of Bali's contribution to Indonesia's economic health is irrelevant. The jihadists would rather that the country be poorer and purer than prosperous and pluralist. For one thing, it's richer soil for them. If the Islamofascists gain formal control of Indonesia, it won't be a parochial, self-absorbed dictatorship such as Suharto's but a launching pad for an Islamic superstate across Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Can they pull it off? The reality is that there are more Muslim states than a half-century ago, many more Muslims within non-Muslim states, and many more of those Muslims are radicalised and fundamentalist. It's not hard to understand. All you have to do is take them at their word. As Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Gottingen University in Germany, said in an interesting speech a few months after September 11, "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."

That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies inruins.

(ht lgf)

Putin Prosecutes British Council

According to Kommersant, Russian prosecutors are bringing tax evasion charges against the Moscow branch of the British Council, alleging that it is running a language-school business that pretends to be a charity. When we lived in Moscow, it certainly was a widely spread tale that the British Council made money with language courses--and expatriate Americans said they did a tidy business by underselling the UK government. The British Council had a high profile, unlike the American Center. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. It may be a show trial, as the article suggests, to goad the UK into stopping support for Chechen rebels. On the other hand, there may be some Russian-owned language schools that don't like the competition. It seems big money is at stake here.

And to think that I taught in Moscow for $100/a month's worth of Russian lessons...

Ask Harriet Miers

Here's a 2004 Q & A with President Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court, from the White House website.

Pajamas Media Profiles Nathan Hamm

I write for Nathan's Central Asia blog, Registan.net, so am biased. That said, this is an interesting interview. We've never met, and I learned a lot about my webmaster by reading this interview with Pajamas Media. I think Registan is probably the best website covering Central Asian news for Western audiences right now. Nathan deserves all the good p.r. he's getting...

NYT: Russia Now "In"...

The NY Times Sunday Styles section declares that Russia is the new Brazil. Slavs are the new Latins. And quotes Donna Karan and Diane Von Furstenberg's to show that everything Russian is suddenly fashionable:

Ms. Karan was not just being unusually kind to a Russian newcomer. She was picking up on a fall trend. From fashion to film, from art to sports, New York is having a Slavic moment. Fifty years ago such a notion might have elicited images of drab clothes and empty stores. But the Russia in the air today is of a more opulent post-Soviet world, peopled by entrepreneurial businessmen, ambitious socialites, emerging artists and exotic beauties.

The moment started in early September, when tennis fans at the U.S. Open became taken with a seeming horde of young female Russian players, nicknaming them the "ovas" for their similar sounding last names. Then came New York Fashion Week, with the catwalks dominated by models from Russia and Ukraine. Next the Guggenheim Museum opened "Russia!," billed as the largest collection of Slavic art to be shown outside Russia since the end of the cold war.

Meanwhile the fall clothes from Anna Sui, J. Mendel, Oscar de la Renta and other designers are heavy with Slavic accents like embroidered peasant blouses, Cossack boots and military greatcoats out of "War and Peace."

"A few years ago New York was all about Brazilian models, Brazilian music, Brazilian thong bikinis, and everyone was drinking caipirinhas," said Natalia Zimmer, a senior men's wear designer at Marc Jacobs who moved here from Ukraine in 1997. "But everybody's always looking for the next new thing, and maybe the next new thing is Russia."

THERE'S an explanation for this, at least among fashion-forward Manhattanites.
"New Yorkers love Russians because they're just like us," said Diane von Furstenberg, whose father was born in Czarist Russia. "They have so much energy and thirst and the desire to make things happen."

Russian immigrants have steeped themselves in New York's melting pot ever since the first major wave of them came to the city in the late 19th century. But never before have they seemed so visible, successful and media-savvy.

It has taken almost 15 years since the collapse of Communism for this new breed to light up New York's radar. A few are jet-set visitors who made their fortunes in Russia during the early 1990's, when the government privatized industries, making assets like oil refineries and steel mills available to a select few at fire sale prices. With their places now secure at home, they have turned to New York to buy apartments, do business, collect art and finance cultural institutions.

The visitors are cross-pollinating with the rising stars of a new generation of post-Soviet immigrants who grew up in New York, coming of age with "Seinfeld" and "The Simpsons."

But whether they are American citizens or frequent fliers here, this new wave is a far cry from the cartoon figures many New Yorkers imagine when they hear the word "Russian." They are neither insular denizens of Brighton Beach swaddled in head scarves, bull-necked mobsters in track suits, nor overdressed New Russian nouveaux riches on wild spending sprees up and down Madison Avenue.

Maybe this sudden fashion shift has something to do with the price of oil reaching $70 a barrel? In any case, perhaps I'll visit New York City soon, to dine out on my Moscow teaching experience...

Bush Doctrine: "Do as I Say, Not as I Do..."

From Michael Rubin's Middle East Forum article:

Rice may echo the President, but by embracing dictators, she has undercut the spirit of his message. Dissidents should not be treated as ornaments, to be displayed when convenient but kept at arm's length. They are the foundation of freedom. While Bush might once have been remembered for bringing freedom to 30 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis, his legacy is fast becoming one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Secretary of State Defends Bush Democracy Strategy

At Princeton University, channelling the ghost of Woodrow Wilson. Thanks to Roger L Simon for the link to TigerHawk's blog.He was there, and has the full account--since TV cameras and recording devices were banned, supposedly "for security reasons":

Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security. This is not the case. A regional order that produced an ideology of hatred so savage as the one we now confront is not serving any civilized interest.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.

There are those who worry that greater freedom of choice in the Middle East will only liberate and empower extremism. In fact, the opposite is true: A political culture of transparency and openness is not one in which extremist beliefs can ultimately thrive. Extremism is most dangerous when it lurks in the dark and hides underground. When there is no political space for individuals to advance their interests and redress their grievances, then they retreat into the shadows to grow ever more radical and divorced from reality. We saw the result of that on September 11th and now we must work to advance democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East.

Bad Hair Blog has the Q&A.
The "stability without liberty" line is the Bush Administration repeating itself. And I don't know that Rice is correct. For example: Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Pinochet's Chile all moved pretty smoothly from dictatorship, preserving stability while transforming their systems to ones of liberty and democracy. Much of the former USSR and its satellites, ditto. Countries can move from dictatorship to democracy without American military occupation. You can have stability and authoritarianism. That was the Reagan doctrine, to support authoritarians against totalitarians. It worked.

On the other hand, the current situation in Iraq seems to suggest that some American democracy initiatives may not be working as well as Rice believes. There may be more than one way to bring about democratic change, and Bush's "my way or the highway" style might paradoxically be strengthening anti-democratic forces in Russia, China, Iran, and elsewhere. Especially to the degree America appears to be losing.

The Al Qaeda cell that blew up the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as Rice well knows, was based in Germany--a democracy. The plotters also lived and studied in the USA--a democracy. They had support networks in Spain and Italy--both democracies. And in the Phillipines, Indonesia, and Turkey--democracies. Suicide bombers blow up innocents in Israel and Britain-both democracies.

Bill Bennett's Aborted Logic

Former Education Secretary, best-selling author, and big-time gambler William Bennett is in trouble for this statement:

"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

In fairness, his statement seems based on point from Freakonomics, by Stephen D. Leavitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But even if cribbed from someone else, as the purported author of the Book of Virtues and The Devaluing of America, Bennett owes an apology.

What I haven't seen discussed in most news coverage is that Bennett's statement also throws into question the sincerity of Bennett's supposedly anti-abortion, pro-life public stance. Most opponents of abortion believe that it is murder: a crime. If Bennett really believed that, his statement would be illogical, because performing millions of abortions--murder of innocent unborn babies to pro-lifers-- would cause the crime rate to rise, rather than fall. As a Ph.D. in philosophy and a law school graduate, Bennett should know.

It is pretty obvious Bennett didn't think his statement through. He's making it worse by standing by what he said. One question remains: Why have pro-life groups not joined in demanding an apology from Bennett?

The French Beethoven

Last night we heard music by George Onslow and other Napoleonic-era French composers, performed by the Prima Vista Quartet at the French Embassy here in Washington. The concert was given in conjunction with an exhibit of Napoleonic artifacts at the National Geographic Society. Onslow was a big star in Napoleonic France, son of a British aristocrat who fled scandal to live abroad. The perfomers were young and enthusiastic, and it was nice to hear music that we didn't know. On the other hand, Onslow's Quatuor opus 4, n°1 reminded us a little of Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri." Perhaps one might write a variant entitled "Beethoven and Onslow"?

There's No Such Thing as Bad Publicity...

All the fuss about Uzbekistan has apparently whetted some people's interest in travellng there. I guess it shows the truth of the publicist's cliche ending "...as long as they spell my name right." Sunday's Washington Post has this Q & A in the travel section about tourism in Uzbekistan:

Q. I will be visiting Samarkand, Bukhara and Khiva in Uzbekistan in December. Will 10 days be enough time? What is the best way to travel in-country? Will hotels be easy to arrange once I arrive? Is December cold?

Wendy LeBlanc, Wheaton

A. Uzbekistan, which is surrounded by other Stans (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan), stands out for having "the foremost cities of the Islamic world," says Uzbek press attache Furkat Sidikov. It also has hosted a rich cast of characters who have left their impression on the country: Alexander the Great; the Western Turks, who brought Islam and the alphabet; the warrior Timur, who expressed his softer side as a patron of the arts; and Czar Nicholas I, one of many Russian interlopers.

To see the minarets, mausoleums, museums -- plus leave time to shop for Oriental rugs, silks and ornate knives -- Sigikat suggests spending three days each in Samarkand and Bukhara, and two in Khiva. The rest of your trip will be en route: up to seven hours by bus, car or train (from city to city) or about an hour by plane. Rosemary Burki, an adventure consultant with travel company iExplore, said that while local airlines are safe, "the biggest problem is that the schedules are arbitrary. But at least you know that that day you will depart."

As for hotels, Burki says if you are a stickler for amenities, you should book in advance. "There is something for everyone, but not a lot of it. There might one five-star and 12 two-stars, and if you can't get into that one . . . " Samarkand also has a number of properties run by Western Europeans, so you might find more comforts similar to home. Which you'll want, since December is cold: Expect Chicago-like temps, but with more snow. The air might be slightly warmer to the south (closer to D.C. winters), but don't skimp on the Arctic gear. "It is a difficult time to go then," says Burki. "Getting around is not easy." A better time: spring and early autumn.

Finally, for safety, Burki says to travel in groups of two to six, "be aware of the culture" and avoid wearing blatantly American attire. IExplore (800-439-7567, http://www.iexplore.com/ ), which can set up personalized itineraries, also has a good primer on Uzbekistan on its Web site, as does EurasiaNet ( http://www.eurasianet.org/ ). For the Embassy of Uzbekistan: 202-887-5300, http://www.uzbekistan.org/ .

J. Otto Pohl

Here's a blog I discovered, from a comment on Registan:J. Otto Pohl: An unemployed history Ph.D. living in Arivaca, AZ..

Valium Inventor Dies

Here's the AP obituary. The Washington Post obituary pointed out that Sternbach didn't take Valium himself, because it made him depressed. He had over 240 patents for different drugs, although he sold the Valium patent for one dollar to Hoffman-LaRoche...

Larry Franklin to Testify

Remember the AIPAC case? It's still going on, and the star witness is set to testify about providing documents to Israel's Washington lobbyists.

Rosen, a top lobbyist for Washington-based AIPAC for over 20 years, and Weissman, the organization's top Iran expert, allegedly disclosed sensitive information as far back as 1999 on a variety of topics, including al-Qaida, terrorist activities in Central Asia, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. policy in Iran, according to the indictment against them.

Now that the purported danger from Israel has been dealt with, I wonder if the FBI will arrest some Islamist spies... I can't recall one prosecution for Islamist espionage in Washington since 9/11.

Ann Coulter Doesn't Like Karl Rove

Karl Rove is Bob Shrum with a good cause. (Shrum has run eight presidential campaigns; number won: 0, number lost: 8.) Bush calls Rove the "architect" of his 2004 victory. In 2004, America was at war and the Democrats ran a gigolo to be commander in chief. The nation hasn't changed so much since Reagan was president that the last election should have even been close.

Whenever the nation is threatened by external enemies, the only way Democrats can win a presidential election is with another Watergate. And yet Bush nearly lost the last election. He would have lost, but for the Swiftboat Veterans — also dissed by Bush.

A Hillary Clinton-Geena Davis Connection

Exposed by John Fund in today's Wall Street Journal:

After the Washington premiere, Steve Cohen, a writer for the series who was Mrs. Clinton's deputy White House communications director, was mobbed by the senator's fans.

Wonder if this will lead to a campaign-finance investigation? After all, if this show is so much fun--it's probably illegal...

Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice

(Yawn)

Sprung Miller Sings

Why is Judy Miller's testimony before the grand jury today important?

This paragraph from today's AP story tells:

Until a few months ago, the White House maintained for nearly two years that Libby and presidential aide Karl Rove were not involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, whose husband had publicly suggested that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the runup to the war in Iraq.

It is doubtful that Libby did anything without Dick Cheney's knowledge or permission...

Judge Orders Release of US Torture Photos

It's about time that we saw what the heck has been going on at Abu Gharib.

How can the US criticize any other country for human rights abuses, when we still haven't dealt with our own torture problem?

FBI Kills 72 Year Old Puerto Rican Suspect

This story is probably not going to help Karen Hughes' efforts to improve America's international image:

The gunfight, which left longtime fugitive Filiberto Ojeda Rios dead and an FBI agent severely wounded, has sparked allegations that the FBI shot Ojeda Rios, a Puerto Rican separatist leader, and refused to enter his farmhouse as he bled to death.

And America condemns other countries for human rights violations?

Is Bush a "Neo-Bolshevik?"

According to Igor Torbakov's article for Eurasianet, Russian pundits say Bush's current democracy-spreading tactics owe something to the Comintern:

Immediately after Bush announced the formation of the ARC, Russian political analysts expressed the belief that ARC’s operations would be aimed at post-Soviet states, and began comparing it to the Moscow-controlled Communist International, or Komintern, which promoted the spread of communism prior to the Second World War. Vyacheslav Nikonov, the Kremlin-connected head of the Politika Foundation think tank, asserted in a commentary published by the Trud daily that Bush’s vision for the ACR "doesn’t differ much from the Komintern’s policies." The methods, instruments and even slogans used by the Bolsheviks and those employed now by the Bush administration are basically the same, Nikonov wrote.

During the early Bolshevik era, the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs sought to develop mutually beneficial relations with the world’s leading capitalist countries. At the same time, the Komintern carried out subversive activities in those same countries. For some Russian pundits, there’s a clear analogy between the Komintern’s tactics and present-day US foreign policy in the post-Soviet lands. On the one hand, they say, Washington seeks Russia’s help in the global war on terror, while on the other; US officials are keen to undermine Moscow’s strategic stature in its traditional sphere of influence.

Russian government officials have not publicly embraced or endorsed such "politically incorrect" comparisons. But they most likely share at least some of the Russian conservative pundits’ perspectives on US foreign policy. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, for example, recently reiterated that US attempts to "export democracy" to CIS countries and encourage "non-parliamentary methods of fighting" can lead to destabilization and new conflicts.

The Return

Thanks to our Netflix subscription, last night we watched Vozvrashcheniye (The Return) on DVD. Andrei Zvyagintsev's 2003 drama was memorable, and very Russian in feeling and mentality. Lots of suffering. Clearly allegorical. Good photography. Sad ending, made even sadder by the knowledge that actor Vladimir Garin drowned shortly after filming was completed.

American and British reviews via the IMDB link seemed to take the film as a story of a troubled father-son relationship, and a coming-of-age saga. Having lived in Russia, it seemed to me that the spare allegorical style probably was something more, something that Russians might understand at once, that I didn't quite get.

The plot is terribly simple. After a 12-year absence, a father returns to his family. He takes them on a fishing trip to a deserted island many miles from home. The natural landscape is beautiful, but the human one is not. The father digs up a buried treasure in an abandonded building. Trouble and tragedy follow. The end.

What did it mean?

None of the reviews mentioned it, but I wondered: Could the desert island have been one of the Solovetsky islands, location of the notorious Solovki prison camp the mother of the GULAG, according to Solzhenitsyn? Known as SLON, the Solovki prison camp was in use from 1923 to 1939. No one can say for sure exactly how many died.

Nowadays the location is a tourist site. Might the father in have been a returning prisoner who wanted to show his children where he had been, and what he had endured? Rebecca Santana's 2002 visit to the camp for the Voice of America seems to match the plot of the film. Beatings, arbitrary authority, left standing in the soaking rain, all take place in the father-son story--just as they did in the prison.

The boy is left soaking in the rain on a bridge over a canal. Could this be the infamous White Sea Canal, a slave labor project originally named after Stalin? Even the towers in the film remind one of prison watchtowers. And the events that take place are similar to those described in this account by Gregg Zoroya

Tour guide Olga Vostriakova says about Solovetsky: "Probably, this is a place where evil things and good things are connected together."

Nowhere is that more true than on Sekirnaya Hill, several miles north of the monastery. When the religious center was wealthy and flourishing in the 1800s, the Russian Orthodox monks built a two-story wooden chapel with a lighthouse in the tower on this highest point of land.

Today, the chapel survives, weathered and peaceful on a grassy summit where goats graze. But it is no longer a symbol of good tidings.

The Bolsheviks made it a punishment center for the gulag. Thugs who doubled as prison guards -- many of them criminals given greater authority than political prisoners -- practiced sadistic forms of torture. They would strip prisoners naked and stake them out where mosquitoes could feast. Or they would force prisoners to balance all day on horizontal poles running across the chapel at a level too high for feet to touch the ground. Those who fell were beaten or, worse, strapped lengthwise to a heavy beam and rolled down a steep portion of the hill, more than 200 feet to the bottom. It was a death sentence.

"The laws of the underworld became the camp standard," says the narrator of a 1988 Russian documentary, Solovki Power.

Would a former prisoner really return to visit the place of his incarceration? Santana's story suggests the answer is yes:

She recalls that one day a man came into her office and started looking around. When Ms. Shopkina asked if he needed help, he replied that he simply wanted to see the room where he lived as a prisoner.

Tony Blair's Labour Party Conference Speech

This is what he said about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror. Not quite Shakespeare, but not too shabby:

Today, of course, we face a new challenge: global terrorism.
Let us state one thing.
These terrorists do not, never have and never will represent the decent, humane and principled faith of Islam.
Muslims, like all of us, abhor terrorism. Like all of us, are its victims.
It is, as ever, only fringe fanatics we face.
But we need to make it clear.
When people come to our country, they have and should have the full rights we believe in. There should be no second-class citizens in Britain. But citizenship comes with a duty: to give loyalty to our nation, its values and our way of life.
If people have a grievance, politics is the answer. Not terror.


Terrorism brings home to us this now obvious truth of the modern world. Nations, even the largest, need to work together for their common good.
Isolationism is as backward as protectionism. For a country the size of Britain, there is no securing our future without strong alliances.
When I became Prime Minister I took a decision: always be at the forefront where decisions are made not at the back where they’re handed down.

That is why at every point, no matter how difficult we remain strong partners in Europe. By all means let us fight for reform in Europe; but to isolate ourselves from the world’s largest commercial market in which over 50% of our trade is done, is just a crazy policy for Britain in the 21st century.

Britain should also remain the strongest ally of the United States. I know there’s a bit of us that would like me to do a Hugh Grant in Love Actually and tell America where to get off. But the difference between a good film and real life is that in real life there’s the next day, the next year, the next lifetime to contemplate the ruinous consequences of easy applause.
I never doubted after September 11th that our place was alongside America and I don’t doubt it now.
And for a very simple reason. Terrorism struck most dramatically in New York but it was aimed then, and is aimed now, at us all, at our way of life.
This is a global struggle.

Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq.


It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East.
Their aim: to wreck this December’s first ever direct election for the Government of Iraq.
I know there are people, good people, who disagreed with the decision to remove Saddam by force.
But for two years, British troops whose bravery and dedication we salute, along with those of 27 other nations, have been in Iraq with full United Nations authority and in support of the Iraqi Government.

Yes, several hundred people stoned British troops in Basra.
Yes, several thousand run the terrorist insurgency around Baghdad.
And yes, as a result of the fighting, innocent people tragically die.
But 8 ½ million Iraqis showed which future they wanted when they came out and voted in January’s elections.
And the way to stop the innocent dying is not to retreat, to withdraw, to hand these people over to the mercy of religious fanatics or relics of Saddam, but to stand up for their right to decide their Government in the same democratic way the British people do.

Ten days ago, after years of struggle, finally in Afghanistan, 6 million people voted freely to decide their own future.
How dare the terrorists justify their campaign of hate by claiming they are angry about Afghanistan? Was it better under their Taleban?
They use Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they use the cause of Palestine, whilst trying to destroy by terror the only solution that will ever work: a secure Israel living side-by-side with a viable independent and democratic Palestine.
Just as they chose the day of the G8 when the world was trying to address the heartbreaking poverty of Africa, to kill innocent people in London.

Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind.
I know we could have hidden away at the back after September 11th and let others take the strain.
But that is not Britain at its best.
Nor is it this Party.

When we campaign for justice in Africa, that is a progressive cause.
When we push for peace in Palestine, it is a progressive cause.
When we act against global warming, it is a progressive cause.
And when we fight behind the standard of democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kosovo or Sierra Leone, for me that too is a progressive cause.
In each case, Britain in these last 8 years has been at the front. Not always succeeding, but never a spectator. In the modern world, for all the pain it can bring, it is the only place to be.

It’s a daunting agenda isn’t it; and in every area of policy we are called upon to adjust our sights, re-think, renew.
But have confidence.
We are well up to it.
No-one else is.

Fouad Ajami on Iraq

From Opinion Journal, comes this analysis of where we are, and where we have to go:

Over the horizon looms a referendum to ratify the country's constitution. Sunni Arabs are registering in droves, keen not to repeat the error they committed when they boycotted the national elections earlier this year. In their pride, and out of fear of the insurgents and their terror, the Sunni Arabs say that they are registering to vote in order to thwart this "illegitimate constitution." This kind of saving ambiguity ought to be welcomed, for there are indications that the Sunni Arabs may have begun to understand terror's blindness and terror's ruin. Zarqawi holds out but one fate for them; other doors beckon, and there have stepped forth from their ranks leaders eager to partake of the new order. It is up to them, and to the Arab street and the Arab chancelleries that wink at them, to bring an end to the terror. It has not been easy, this expedition to Iraq, and for America in Iraq there has been heartbreak aplenty. But we ought to remember the furies that took us there, and we ought to be consoled by the thought that the fight for Iraq is a fight to ward off Arab dangers and troubles that came our way on a clear September morning, four years ago.

(ht LGF)

Commander in Chief

Speaking of presidential television, my wife really enjoyed Geena Davis as the Hillary Clinton-like first woman president of the USA. I liked the last five minutes, which was all I could see, because Tuesday night is a teaching night. So, I'd say that if the show lasts three years, Hillary is a shoo-in in 2008. It would certainly be more entertaining that what is going on right now. And Americans do vote for President with this question in mind: Who do I want to see on TV every night for the next four years?

Some other thoughts.

*Donald Sutherland seems to be in the Sir Francis Urqhart role from the British political melodrama House of Cards. Look to his character to steal the show over time.

*It's nice to see big stars in these political dramas. I mean Martin Sheen is no Donald Sutherland, and I didn't know who anyone else was on the West Wing. Geena Davis is a big star.

*There are no political melodramas on Russian tv. My students were amazed that Americans had so many movies and tv shows about politics. Politics in Russia is a dirty, nasty business, not entertainment. That was one selling point for democracy that the Bush Administration misses with all its moralistic hectoring, lecturing, and threatening--democracy is more fun (probably because of the "pursuit of happiness" clause).

*Geena Davis is an Independent, not a Democrat (or Republican). This is the key constituency for the 2008 campaign. (Full disclosure: I am a registered independent).

Meet the Pres

That's not what they called Russian president Vladimir Putin's 3-hour TV call-in show, (they could also have called it "live from the Kremlin"), but it's as good a title as any. We don't have anything like it here--and I don't think Bush could answer questions for three hours on C-SPAN (Clinton or Reagan probably could). The news was that Putin is giving a raise to government employees, as well as increasing pensions and benefits. This is the fallout from the "Babushka Revolution" of last winter that shut down Moscow and St. Petersburg in protest over pension monetization schemes that would have cost the elderly their remaining perks and privileges. Now, Putin is shelling out an addtional $4 billion. Not much by Katrina standards, but for Russia, that's a lot of rubles (120 billion rubles sounds like more). The US press and liberal critics are complaining that the questions were screened, but from what I can tell, it sounds like Putin took some difficult ones, not only about hot-button pension and salary issues, but also about Chechnya. He also announced he won't seek a third term as president, but would stay active. Who knows what that means, whether a power behind the throne or a Clinton-style international hob-nobber. My guess is that he hasn't decided exactly what comes next, it depends on the next three years and how they go. What Russia does with its oil money is key. If he can begin to build up the high-tech sectors, and perhaps set up some more manufacturing industries, Russia might be able to follow China's economic path. There are a lot of "ifs" though. So the only thing one can say for sure is that the Putin TV talk show suggests that if all else fails, Putin can do a Vladimir Pozner, and host his own television talk show. I wonder if he's thought of that already?

UPDATE: The Kremlin has posted an English transcript here.

Boston Legal

William Shatner and Candace Bergen (ABC photo) Last night, after catching the end of Geena Davis in Commander in Chief, I had a chance to watch Boston Legal. We were in Russia last year, so missed the premiere of the show, but this was really a lot of fun. All the old TV stars were like being with old friends--Captain Kirk, Murphy Brown, and Betty White! The plot was campy, the actors chewed the scenery (William Shatner has gotten so fat...). And it was fun to see Boston lawyers portrayed as sleazy hustlers while the judge from LA was depicted as a priggish stickler for legality (a stereotype turned upside down). Fun, fun, fun.

End of an Era: Dan Rather at the National Press Club

Just got back from Dan Rather live and in person at the National Press Club. He was interviewed by Marvin Kalb, the network newsman who was Henry Kissinger's spokesman in the Nixon administration. His show is called The Kalb Report. Rather looked pretty good in person for 73, though the photos show that he apparently was under considerable strain. In fact, the close-up I took shows Dan looking like a character out of Dostoevsky.


The evening was strangely painful for me, because I grew up in a CBS household, believing in Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and the rest of them. When I made my film, I had help from CBS Reports producer Arthur Morse's widow, who arranged for me to view never-broadcast footage in an editing room in the CBS News building on West 57th Street. When I wrote my book about PBS, Morley Safer granted me a telephone interview. I had met 60 Minutes creator Don Hewitt's daughter socially in Washington and thought she was really very nice. Don Hewitt himself once gave me a phone interview. And a cousin of my father's had a CBS station in the Pacific Northwest. Even after Walter Cronkite attacked me in the Wall Street Journal, I still believed that CBS News had some higher standard than other networks. Call it early childhood imprinting.

In any case, the evening reminded me that my childhood beliefs were as unfounded as faith in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Marvin Kalb began the whole thing by bringing up Spiro Agnew, a discredited former Nixon administration official, who like Rather, pleaded no lo contendere. I don't think he knew he was being ironic.


Kalb's warmup queries, before he got to the forged document scandal relating to the 60 Minutes II broadcast that didn't end up making any difference in the 2004 election because it was a hoax, were simply weird. Something about defining the difference between a journalist and a member of the media, and asking whether bloggers were members of the media or journalists. What Dan would know about this--or have credibility to discuss--was a mystery before, during, and after the questioning. Dan did say something about not all bloggers being bad, if they put their names and addresses on their blogs, but it was all very odd given that Dan had been caught pulling a fast one and still didn't admit it. If anyone isn't a journalist anymore, it is Dan--though he is obviously a member of the media. OK, maybe he's now a dishonest, unethical, and lousy journalist. Still...

Strangely, some people aren't fleeing from association with Dan Rather, unapologetic about forgeries or not. The event was sponsored by a who's who of establishment worthies in addition to the press club: The George Washington University, the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center for the Press, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University, XM Satellite Radio, AM 630 WMAL. It was taped for broadcast by WHUT, Howard University Television, as well as aired live by C-SPAN. The Kalb Report is funded by a grant from the "Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation." I'm not even googling them, because I don't want to barf.

What can one say? Dan Rather obviously doesn't know much about ethics or excellence anymore--if he ever did. His answers to Kalb made clear that Dan believes the forged documents he peddled on 60 Minutes II in 2004 have not been discredited, despite the evidence that has been posted for the world to see on a number of websites--including this one (check our archives).

Dan loyally sticks by his story. He clearly sees himself as a victim of a powerful conspiracy of bloggers and political operatives. Marvin Kalb never pressed him, doing a Larry King type of show. When Dan wouldn't answer a question, he let it go. He praised Dan as a great reporter. He never said he was discredited. From time to time, when Dan gave some sort of Texas b.s. about integrity and speaking truth to power, Kalb would add something like: "I want to associate myself with that statement." So, in a way, Kalb is associating himself with forgery and stonewalling. It reminded me of the Nixon administration: "I am not a crook." Well, I'm sure Nixon believed it as much as Dan and Marvin Kalb. Dan talked a lot about loyalty to his team--four of whom at least lost their jobs because he didn't do his, by checking out his story before broadcast. Dan's still got a job. Producer Mary Mapes, however, doesn't.


Curiously, there weren't too many actual working newsmen and women in the audience. And despite the students papering the room, there were still some empty seats. Perhaps a sign that they had better things to do, or that Dan's seemingly endless victory lap--after the Emmy awards--is wearing a bit thin. One who was there was Bernard Kalb, Marvin's brother. I talked with him afterwards, and asked him what his opinion was about the documents in question. He answered that he believed the Thornburgh report. I told him that I didn't, that anyone could see that the documents in question were obvious fakes by looking at them on the internet. I said I remembered what an IBM Selectric looked like, and asked him if he remembered. He admitted he remembered IBM Selectrics, but maintained that he still believed the Thornburgh report. When I questioned whether he could think for himself, if he had his own conscience, Bernard Kalb clung to his story. He and Dick Thornburgh were in perfect agreement. He would not question a former Republican Attorney General hired by Viacom. (So much for speaking truth to power...)


The audience was mostly George Washington University students, who seemed far too young to remember IBM Selectric typewriters. One of their professors, who apparently was a former CBS News employee from Marvin Kalb's introduction, clearly didn't teach them to ask hard questions of a CBS anchor or 60 Minutes host. To say it was a lovefeast would be an understatement.

The one hard question was seemingly unintentional. Marvin Kalb asked Dan something about his retirement, along with the death of Peter Jennings and retirement of Tom Browkaw, marking "the end of an era." Dan said it wasn't about anchors, it was about the news. He didn't seem to understand that while it is indeed a virtue to speak truth to power, it is not a virtue to speak lies to power.

Dan Rather has damaged his credibility to the point where his unravelling seams begin to show. Frankly, the evening was more than a little embarrassing to watch. It was very, very sad. It really is the end of an era.

UPDATE: More here from RadioBlogger. He calls Marvin Kalb and Dan Rather's conversation "elder abuse." (ht lgf) And even more from The New York Post. (ht Best of the Web)

More on Able Danger

From Andrew McCarthyin National Review.

Nazim Tulyahodjaev Returns to Uzbekistan

(Ferghana.ru photo) We called him "Uncle Nazim" (he was our translator's uncle) when we lived in Tashkent. He struck us as one of the most multi-talented people we had ever met: actor, painter, director, animator, you name it. He produced and directed a 1984 adaptation of Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 called There Will Come Soft Rains. A genuine "Renaissance Man." He gave us a tour of UzbekFilm studios, before leaving the country. Now, Nazim Tulyahodjaev has returned to Uzbekistan to make another film. We look forward to seeing it--and hope Hollywood discovers him.

Don't Turn Over Emergency Response to the Military

(White House photo by Eric Draper)
According to news reports, President Bush is considering turning over emergency response to the Pentagon.

It's a bad idea, and it will just make matters worse.

Leave aside the constitutional problems. The major flaw is that such a responsibility overburdens a military already stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, there aren't enough troops to do the job--and if there were, it would hurt America's ability to respond to terrorist or other military attacks.

So, even if passed, it would not work.

But more than that, it shows that Bush is in desperation mode--unable to govern democratically, he seeks to resort to military solutions to domestic problems. That he's even thinking this way, it seems to me, is evidence that he has "lost it."

The US had dealt with flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, and myriad natural calamities for hundreds of years without turning into a military dictatorship. If Bush can't find civilian solutions to civil problems--he ought to resign.

The Opening of the American Mind

I had seen the ads for taped lectures from The Teaching Company, and a few years before had met Alan Kors, who recorded a series of lectures on Voltaire, but until dinner last Friday with a professor who had come to tape a series of talks on Russian Literature, I didn't know much about the operation. Turns out they have their own recording studio, and the people involved appear to be knowledgeable and dedicated. My dinner companion said he had enjoyed the experience.

Suddenly, it seemed less like a kitschy mail-order self-improvement great books thing, and more like a serious effort to spread learning, while making some money at the same time. The company was founded by Thomas Rollins, former chief counsel for the Senate Labor and Human Resources committee. He felt teaching was undervalued, and wanted to do something to promote great university teaching. Well, as a teacher, I certainly agree with that mission.

To judge from the website, he's done what he set out to do. Here's an excerpt from Philip Daileader's lecture on the state of universities in the High Middle Ages, relevant to a lot of us adjuncts and part-timers today:

Although all universities were founded for more or less the same reasons, nonetheless, two different types of universities emerged in the High Middle Ages. Paris and Bologna were rather different institutions, in many respects. They were different in terms of their academic specialties, and they were different in terms of their structures.

Paris was best known for theology. Bologna was best known for its law faculty, especially its civil law and secular law courses. The differences in structure often reflected these differences in academic specialization. The University of Paris was run by the teachers, magister, or "master," in the singular, magistri in the plural, whereas the University of Bologna was run by the students, not by the faculty. All medieval universities followed one of these two models, either the master-dominated University of Paris, or the student-dominated University of Bologna.

The reason for these different structures was the manner in which teachers were paid. Theoretically, no teacher was ever supposed to charge money, or demand money for teaching. All teaching should have been done for free, because knowledge was God's gift to humanity, and for a human being to charge money for that which was actually God's, was presumptuous. The teacher was to rely solely on gifts, freely given by students out of gratitude for the fact that teachers had shared God's knowledge with them. In practice, this was a highly unsatisfactory system of remunerating teachers; one who had to show up in class, and pray that someone gave him an apple, so that he could eat that day, and different sorts of arrangements had to be reached, whereby teachers could feed themselves.

In Paris, because it was so strong in theology, and the theology faculty really dominated the university, most teachers were supported by the Church. They were given salaries, called benefices, that they were able to live off of. Because the teachers in Paris, for the most part, did not have to rely on student gifts, but rather, were paid by the Church, they were free of student control, and were able to run the university as they saw fit.

At Bologna, with its strength in the law faculty, especially in secular law and in civil law, teachers had to rely on student fees directly for their livelihood, and since students were paying their salaries, students got to run the university. Indeed, modern teachers can only shudder with horror when they see the consequences for the poor faculty members at the University of Bologna. If you had been a master teaching at the University of Bologna, and you wanted to leave town for any reason, a getaway weekend, etc., you had to post bond with the students, guaranteeing that you were going to return to the University of Bologna, and actually teach your classes.

Teachers were fined for all sorts of infractions by the student body; I hope they don't see this tape. If you failed to attract five students to your class on any given day, you, the teacher, were marked as absent, because you had failed to gather a quorum, and you were fined for having been absent, even though you had been physically present. If you failed to keep pace with the syllabus, and you fell behind on your lecturing schedule, that, too, was a fine that you had to pay. If you were late for class, well, that was also a fine. It could be rather lucrative to be a student at the University of Bologna.

The manner in which the master's salary was negotiated at Bologna also seems rather odd today. At the beginning of an academic semester, during the first meeting of class, you as the master would choose one student from the class, a student whom you trusted. That student was given the responsibility of negotiating your fee for that semester with the student body. You, then, had to exit the room and sit outside anxiously, while the student, on your behalf, talked with the other students about how much you were actually worth. Given the fact that the student negotiating your fee had to pay whatever fee was negotiated, the results were not always that lucrative from the master's point of view. If you as a master had a choice between an appointment at the University of Paris, or the University of Bologna, well, that was a no-brainer. You wanted to go teach at Paris.

Perhaps when the history of teaching is taught a few centuries from now, a professor will cite the Teaching Company as an alternative to Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind...

UPDATE: Here's an article on the subject from The Chronicle of Higher Education

A Russian Blog From New Orleans

It's called SpeakRussian, hosted by Natalia Worthington, whom I discovered by looking for Russian podcasts. On her site, or via podcast, you can hear her impressions of Hurricane Katrina and the flood, as well as pick up a few Russian words...

Human Rights Watch Report: 82nd Airborne Tortured Prisoners

After looking at this report, I thought, the US has no right whatsoever to complain about any other country's treatment of prisoners--until we have cleaned up our own act...

London Mayor Advocates Terrorism

Making comparisons to partisans who fought the Nazis, London Mayor Ken Livingtone has called for the death of Uzbekistan's president, according to The Washington Times:

"But what do you say today to someone in Uzbekistan, where you have a monstrous and oppressive regime, which casually dismisses the lives of its people, a corrupt regime hanging onto power?"
Referring to demonstrations in Uzbekistan this year during which security forces opened fire on civilian protesters, he asked: "What option is there for someone who wants to see freedom, justice and democracy in Uzbekistan, other than to remove from power the people that keep that country in the grip of dictatorship?
"I see no way other than through the assassin's bullet or the assassin's bomb."

IMHO this comment is an on-the-record statement of what many in the NGO and Western crowd believe but will not say on-the-record. They are on the side of the terrorists--despite the obvious fact that the terrorists are sworn enemies of the West and the USA; who perpetrate the most horrific atrocities, who have an ideological and religious commitment to a goal that equally horrific; despite the evidence that they will ruthlessly carry out their plans if they ever achieve power, not shrinking from the extermination of their allies of the moment--as happened in Iran.

Livingstone says he knows of anti-Nazis who killed Nazis, and that was OK, not terrorism. Well, Livingstone should realize that Uzbekistan -- as part of the USSR -- was as anti-Nazi as anyone during WWII. And, the same sort of Islamist groups that now issue fatwas against Karimov--and the USA, Russia, Israel, India, Britain and even Denmark-- fought with the SS for Hitler. Ideologically, historically, and tactically, the Andijan "insurgents" are Nazis.

Incredibly, the Mayor of London made issued his fatwa against Karimov even after bombers linked to the same Islamist extremist groups responsible for the Andijan uprising created havoc in London on July 7th, 2005. In the end, Livingstone's statement goes beyond appeasement, "objectively" (to use a Marxist term that 'Red Ken" surely understands) siding with fascism and Nazism, as well as terrorism.

If Karimov is a legitimate target, why not Bush, Blair, or someday perhaps, Livingstone himself?

What if they gave an antiwar rally and nobody came?

Asks Little Green Footballs today. We were down near the mall--and there was practically no one on the side streets--no traffic, no crowds. Whatever the body count, it was a non-event. Except for the mainstream media, probably. The real news is that people aren't mad enough to take to the streets (yet).

If you don't believe me, here's a photo from EU Rota on LGF.

The low turnout doesn't mean the American public likes the present situation in Iraq, just that they like what the antiwar crowd is offering a whole lot less. A more hawkish Democratic party would probably sweep the next elections, IMHO...

Michael Ledeen: Bush Fails Iran Test

From National Review:

Our policymakers have thus far utterly failed to design anything worthy of the name of an Iran policy, even though it is arguably the single most important challenge we face. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley recently answered a question about Iran policy by saying that we did indeed have a policy, but we hadn’t yet written it down. This is reminiscent of the old riddle of whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it: can there be a policy if nobody can define it?

Lacking any defined policy, we can only judge the president and his aides by their actions, and there aren’t any, aside from the occasional speech or offhand remark at a press conference. The mullahs see that, and treat it with the contempt it deserves. We are currently indistinguishable from the Europeans, who run whenever the Iranians snarl at them.

This is not a war on terror, it is paralysis at best, and appeasement at worst. The hell of it is that it is costing thousands of lives, and will cost many more until the terror masters are destroyed, or we surrender. Those words were inconceivable for many years, but it is a sign of our present fecklessness that they are now entirely appropriate. We can still lose this war. And we cannot win it so long as we are blinded by our potentially fatal failure of strategic vision: we are in a regional war, but we have limited our actions to a single theater. Our most potent weapons are political and ideological, but our actions have been almost exclusively military.

Our main enemy, the single greatest engine in support of the terror war against us, whether Sunni or Shiite, jihadi, or secular, Arab or British or Italian or Spaniard, is Iran. There is no escape from this fact. The only questions are how long it will take us to face it, how effective we will be when we finally decide to act, and how terrible the price will be for our long delay.

Ann Coulter Doesn't Want Roberts

Ann Coulter thinks Roberts is the wrong choice for Chief Justice.

For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.

As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick — something they did not accuse Roberts of — Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.

That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.

Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.