USAID Funded Iraqi Insurgents, Too...

Recent reports of USAID funding for Afghan Taliban reminded of this earlier story from Bill Easterly's AIDWatch blog:

...namely a 2008 audit that found evidence of fraud, phantom workers, and money being diverted to insurgents through trash collection contracts.

Steve Jobs, Live and In Person...

Federal Reserve Policies Corrupted Economics Profession

So says Ryan Grim in today's Huffington Post:

Galbraith, a Fed critic, has seen the Fed's influence on academia first hand. He and co-authors Olivier Giovannoni and Ann Russo found that in the year before a presidential election, there is a significantly tighter monetary policy coming from the Fed if a Democrat is in office and a significantly looser policy if a Republican is in office. The effects are both statistically significant, allowing for controls, and economically important.

They submitted a paper with their findings to the Review of Economics and Statistics in 2008, but the paper was rejected. "The editor assigned to it turned out to be a fellow at the Fed and that was after I requested that it not be assigned to someone affiliated with the Fed," Galbraith says.

Publishing in top journals is, like in any discipline, the key to getting tenure. Indeed, pursuing tenure ironically requires a kind of fealty to the dominant economic ideology that is the precise opposite of the purpose of tenure, which is to protect academics who present oppositional perspectives.

And while most academic disciplines and top-tier journals are controlled by some defining paradigm, in an academic field like poetry, that situation can do no harm other than to, perhaps, a forest of trees. Economics, unfortunately, collides with reality -- as it did with the Fed's incorrect reading of the housing bubble and failure to regulate financial institutions. Neither was a matter of incompetence, but both resulted from the Fed's unchallenged assumptions about the way the market worked.

Even the late Milton Friedman, whose monetary economic theories heavily influenced Greenspan, was concerned about the stifled nature of the debate. Friedman, in a 1993 letter to Auerbach that the author quotes in his book, argued that the Fed practice was harming objectivity: "I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results," Friedman wrote.

Afghanistan 2009 v Chicago 2008

Someone I know suggested that I take a look at US 2008 Presidential election results, precinct-by-precinct, when considering the Obama Administration's reported objections to recent polling in Afghanistan--since New York Times "journalists" Mark Landler and Helene Cooper had not bothered to do their homework. It's not hard. Here's a link to the Chicago Elections website. It shows, for example, that in Wards 3 to 9, President Obama and Vice-President Biden received over 95 percent of the votes cast:

Ward 3--97.05%
Ward 4--97.07%
Ward 5--97.13%
Ward 6--99.25%
Ward 7--98.69%
Ward 8--99.19%
Ward 9--98.80%

There was a similar pattern In my hometown of Washington, DC.:

Precinct 20--96.58%
Precinct 114--99.45%
Precinct 115--99.33%
Precinct 116--99.09%
Precinct 120--98.79%

So, I don't think that the Obama administration would ever choose to set aside votes in the United States in the way US Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry has advocated doing in Afghanistan...

All the College Courses You Can Take For $99/Month

A teaching colleague sent me a link to this article by Kevin Carey from the Washington Monthly:

StraighterLine is the brainchild of a man named Burck Smith, an Internet entrepreneur bent on altering the DNA of higher education as we have known it for the better part of 500 years. Rather than students being tethered to ivy-covered quads or an anonymous commuter campus, Smith envisions a world where they can seamlessly assemble credits and degrees from multiple online providers, each specializing in certain subjects and—most importantly—fiercely competing on price. Smith himself may be the person who revolutionizes the university, or he may not be. But someone with the means and vision to fundamentally reorder the way students experience and pay for higher education is bound to emerge.

In recent years, Americans have grown accustomed to living amid the smoking wreckage of various once-proud industries—automakers bankrupt, brand-name Wall Street banks in ruins, newspapers dying by the dozen. It’s tempting in such circumstances to take comfort in the seeming permanency of our colleges and universities, in the notion that our world-beating higher education system will reliably produce research and knowledge workers for decades to come. But this is an illusion. Colleges are caught in the same kind of debt-fueled price spiral that just blew up the real estate market. They’re also in the information business in a time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to record, destabilizing lows.

In combination, these two trends threaten to shake the foundation of the modern university, in much the same way that other seemingly impregnable institutions have been torn apart. In some ways, the upheaval will be a welcome one. Students will benefit enormously from radically lower prices—particularly people like Solvig who lack disposable income and need higher learning to compete in an ever-more treacherous economy. But these huge changes will also seriously threaten the ability of universities to provide all the things beyond teaching on which society depends: science, culture, the transmission of our civilization from one generation to the next.

Whether this transformation is a good or a bad thing is something of a moot point—it’s coming, and sooner than you think...

The Ascent (1977)

The other night, someone I know and this blogger watched Laura Shepitko's 1977 Russian classic, The Ascent, which we had ordered from Netflix. It is a harrowing film, a WWII horror picture set in what seems to be the Ukraine or Belarus, full of Russian Orthodox religious symbolism, including shots that look like icons painted by Andrey Rublev, set in landscapes by Levitan (although in Black & White). Shepitko died at age 40, in a car accident, shortly after making this film. She was married to Elim Klimov, whose Come and See explored similar themes, in a less religious way....

From Our "Told You So" Department: USAID Funded Taliban in Afghanistan

From Jean MacKenzie's story on GlobalPost.com (ht The Newshour With Jim Lehrer):

KABUL — The United States Agency for International Development has opened an investigation into allegations that its funds for road and bridge construction in Afghanistan are ending up in the hands of the Taliban, through a protection racket for contractors.

And House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) vowed to hold hearings on the issue in the fall, saying: "The idea that American taxpayer dollars are ending up with the Taliban is a case for grave concern."

U.S. officials confirmed that the preliminary investigation and the proposed hearings were sparked by a GlobalPost special report on the funding of the Taliban last month that uncovered a process that has been an open secret in Afghanistan for years among those in international aid organizations.

The report exposed that the Taliban takes a percentage of the billions of dollars in aid from U.S. and other international coalition members that goes to large organizations and their subcontractors for development projects, in exchange for protection in remote areas controlled by the insurgency.

I wrote about a different aspect of this problem in a February 2007 ORBIS article, NGOs: A ‘New Class’ in International Relations:

Nongovernmental organizations have attempted to take control of civil society, displacing traditional governing institutions. This serves the interests of the terrorists, warlords, and mafia dons, who benefit from weak central government, and hinders the West's ability to mobilize allies to participate in the war on terror. NGO leaders who are hostile to the nation-state itself seek to transform a voluntary system of participation in international organizations by sovereign member-states via a “power shift” to an unholy alliance of multinational corporations and NGOs. Since they do not possess the traditional sources of legitimacy enjoyed by nation-states, they seek to impose their will by financial or forceful means—for example, “sanctions” or “humanitarian intervention.” A new class of NGOs has thus emerged that is essentially opposed to the diplomatic, legal, and military measures required for dealing with civilizational conflict.

Minister Confesses UK Traded Pan Am Bomber for BP-Libya Oil Deal

In an item from the Press Association (UK), Justice Minister Jack Straw takes a fall for Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

But Mr Straw said the issue of trade played "a very big part" in his decision to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) struck with Libya in 2007, citing a lucrative deal which was being sought by British oil giant BP at the time.

Documents released earlier this week showed Mr Straw assured the Scottish Government in 2007 that Megrahi would be excluded from any PTA agreed with the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi as part of the normalisation of relations between the UK and Libya. But just weeks later, he informed Edinburgh that he had not been able to secure an exemption for Megrahi and had decided to go ahead with the PTA as it stands "in view of the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom".

Asked whether trade was a factor in his decision, Mr Straw told the Daily Telegraph: "Yes... a very big part of that. I'm unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state... We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal."

Mr Straw said Mr Brown was not involved in the decision to press ahead with the PTA, saying: "I certainly didn't talk to the PM. There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all."

In January 2008, just weeks after the PTA was sealed, Libya ratified a £550 million oil deal with BP.

New Jersey Senator Demands US Investigate UK-Libya Pan Am Bomber Deal

According to UPI:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for a formal investigation into the allegations.

"In particular, I ask that the committee examine whether Mr. Megrahi's release was influenced by oil contracts between U.K.-based BP Plc. and the government of Libya," he writes.

Lautenberg said a formal investigation should look into whether oil and commercial interests played a role in the decision.

London, meanwhile, faces an uncertain energy future as deposits in the North Sea run dry. Ukraine and other European nations have lobbied for access to Libyan reserves as well.

Regardless, Lautenberg says the bombing of Pan Am 103 was a "brutal act of terrorism" that should not be linked to commercial interests.

"I urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing and investigation to uncover whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests," he said.

More from PolitickerNJ.com

· Whether oil and commercial interests led to the U.K's. authorization to include al-Megrahi in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) when it had previously sought to exclude him;

· If the negotiated PTA and/or the August 20 release of al-Megrahi violated the international agreement between the U.S. and the U.K.;

· Whether oil contracts played a role in the U.K. government's actions leading up to the release of al-Megrahi, including the U.K.'s failure to object to al-Megrahi's release; and

· Whether commercial interests played a role in the decision to release al-Megrahi.

Scotland's The Herald has still more:

Sir Christopher [Meyer], speaking about his time as ambassador in Washington during the 1998 negotiations over Megrahi’s trial, said: “One thing I do remember very, very clearly was that it was very important to them [the US] to get a commitment out of us that if Megrahi and the other guy were found guilty, they would serve the full term of their sentence in a UK jail.

“That was a vital selling point for the relatives and friends of the Americans who died in the blowing up of the Pan Am flight.” He added that this was the “clear political and diplomatic understanding” the US had.

Washington Examiner: Bin Laden a Whitney Houston Fan...

He reportedly also reads The Star:

Whitney Houston has a fan in bin Laden
By: KIKI RYAN
09/04/09 12:05 AM EDT

Whitney Houston — Bin Laden’s ‘Greatest Love of All?’

According to a new novel [a memoir entitled Diary Of A Lost Girl] by Sudanese author Kola Boof, Osama bin Laden is obsessed with singer Whitney Houston.

Boof claims that when she was held as a sex slave for the terrorist for four months in a Moroccan hotel room, he couldn’t stop talking about the legendary singer.

“He told me Whitney Houston was the most beautiful woman he’d seen,” she writes in “Diary of a Lost Girl,” excerpted in next month’s Harpers’ Bazaar. Boof adds that he constantly spoke of “how beautiful she was, what a nice smile she has, and how truly Islamic she is but is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband.”

Allegedly, Bin Laden sought to have Houston’s ex-husband Bobby Brown killed.

And although the totalitarian government of Afghanistan considers listening to music sinful, she writes Bin Laden “spoke of someday spending vast amounts of money to go to America and try to arrange a meeting with the superstar.”

If that’s not bizarre enough, other American pop culture she cites as him enjoying were watching episodes of “The Wonder Years,” “Miami Vice” and “MacGyver” and reading Star Magazine and Playboy.

(more at PerezHilton.com.

Washington's New African-American History Museum Expands Collection

An interesting account today from the Washington Post's Jacqueline Trescott:

The discoveries can come through late-night e-mails, conversations with elderly black women over weak tea, or at a community center where someone brings in their great-grandfather's diploma.

Such is life at the moment for Lonnie G. Bunch III, the founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, who is working diligently to bring essential documents and artifacts of the black American story to the public. So far he has a Selmer trumpet once owned by jazz innovator Louis Armstrong, a Jim Crow railroad car from outside Chattanooga, Tenn., a sign from a Nashville bus that reads "This part of bus for colored race," an 1850 slave badge from Charleston, S.C., and a porcelain drinking fountain labeled "colored."

The museum also has a house built about 1874 in Poolesville by the Jones family, freed slaves who founded an all-black community in Montgomery County, as well as a letter signed by Toussaint L'Ouverture, the leader of a successful slave revolt in Haiti, not to mention a cape and jumpsuit from the late soul superstar James Brown, and the 700 garments and 300 accessories from the Black Fashion Museum, which closed in 2007.

BP Pressurized British Government to Hand Over Pan Am Bomber

According to this London Times article:

Jack Straw was personally lobbied by BP over Britain’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya just before he abandoned efforts to exclude the Lockerbie bomber from the deal.

The Times has learnt that the Justice Secretary took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former M16 agent, who was by then working for BP as a consultant, on October 15 and November 9, 2007.

Having signed a $900million oil exploration deal with Libya earlier that year, BP feared that its commercial interests could be damaged if Britain delayed the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) through which the Gaddafi regime hoped to secure the return home of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Baltimore Sun: Human Rights Watch Shills for Saudis

From Israel obsession leads HRW astray by Gerald Steinberg and Dan Kosky:

The likes of HRW benefit from a halo effect that persuades journalists to accept their every claim as gospel, without first checking the "evidence" provided.

Yet this façade is slipping under the weight of HRW's activities within Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most notorious human rights abusers. According to Arab News, HRW's senior Middle East professional Sarah Leah Whitson, along with board and Advisory Committee member Hassan Elmasry, attended a dinner where they asked "prominent members of Saudi society" to make up for the "shortage of funds" due to the global financial crisis "and the work on Israel and Gaza which depleted HRW's budget for the region." This tacit admission that HRW targeted Israel to the detriment of analyzing genuine human rights violations was accompanied by Ms. Whitson's odious invocation of "pro-Israel pressure groups."

HRW has failed to provide an alternative account of events, and its only defense has been an absurd attempt to cast a distinction between soliciting Saudi officials and prominent members of society who owe their very position to the regime.

Serious questions are rightly being asked of a human rights organization that sees fit to have its pockets lined with the gold of one of the world's most oppressive countries.

More from the Jerusalem Post:

HRW's Middle East division is run by Sarah Leah Whitson, who had organized protests against Israeli "brutality" at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee before she was hired by Roth. At HRW, Whitson continued to promote anti-Israel boycotts, and in May 2009, Whitson led HRW's fund-raising trip to Saudi Arabia, where she denounced "pro-Israel pressure groups," which "tried to discredit" HRW's "work on Israel and Gaza," including its role in creating the Goldstone inquiry.

Furthermore, Joe Stork, Whitson's deputy in HRW, spent over 20 years as a founder and editor of MERIP, an anti-Zionist and anti-American organization. Following the Munich attack, Stork and his colleagues published an editorial headlined "Who are the real terrorists?" which denounced "Israeli terrorists, equipped with US-supplied jets and tanks" and "their policy of murder and destruction against the Palestinians." (The authors added a disclaimer that such acts were not "justification" for the Munich attack.) In 1996, Stork joined HRW.

The biases displayed by Whitson and Stork violate the basic principle of political objectivity for human rights fact-finding, as codified in the International Bar Association's "London-Lund" guidelines. Similarly, the appointments of Goldstone and Prof. Christine Chinkin to the UN's Gaza investigation are inconsistent with these common-sense rules. (UN Watch's call to disqualify Chinkin quotes a letter she signed declaring Israel the aggressor and perpetrator of war crimes, and "categorically rejecting" Israel's right to self-defense against rocket barrages.)

HRW's reports, like the NGO submissions to Goldstone, consistently reflect this bias and lack of professional standards. Behind the façade of "factual research," the work of the Middle East Division consists of multiple pages of carefully picked Palestinian "eyewitness testimony." These reports mix speculative, plausible Palestinian claims that are unverifiable, bad fiction and pages of irrelevant technical "facts" and contorted legal verbiage.

In HRW's latest publication, co-authored by Stork, which accused the IDF of the odious moral crime of deliberately killing civilians waving white flags, the first incident is based entirely on the claims of the Abed Rabbo family. However, Western and Arabic versions show that as the Palestinian "fixers" brought journalists and NGO officials, including HRW "researchers," for interviews, the story evolved with each telling.

In parallel, the videos and other evidence clearly showing Palestinian abuses, including routine use of "human shields" to protect terrorists and weapons, are omitted because they do not fit the desired conclusions. No serious court would accept this testimony as evidence, or the publications as "research." .

There are dozens of similar examples repeating Palestinian claims in HRW publications. Every phase of this long war is also opportunity for promoting this agenda through reports, press conferences, letters and e-mails. These indictments (Roth was trained as a prosecutor) routinely repeat the odious charges of "indiscriminate attacks against civilians," "war crimes" and collective punishment. (HRW's "White Flags" publication uses the term "war crimes" 15 times.) This anti-Israel obsession is part of the broader transformation of HRW from its original goal of battling for the freedom of political prisoners in repressive regimes, to an ideological power directing its guns ($42 million in 2008) against embattled democracies such as Israel.

Charles Crawford on Putin's Polish Speech

From the blogoir of the former British ambassador to Poland, among other places:

1st September 2009
As many senior international dignitaries gather in Gdansk today to commemorate the start of WW2, Russian Prime Minister Putin (one of the guests) has written an open letter to Poland to give a clear and (as of now) definitive Russian view on the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.

Here is the Russian official version in English. The published Polish version is here. It is a well-turned and characteristically clever piece of work. And long - nearly 2200 words in the English version.

Let's go through it, looking at what it says - and what Messages it sends.

Invited by Donald Tusk, Polish Prime Minister, to take part in the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Second World War, I did not hesitate to accept the invitation, I could not do otherwise: because the war took a heavy toll of 27 million lives of my compatriots, and every Russian family keeps both the sorrow of loss and the honor of the Great Victory...

First message: Poland bangs on about the role of the Soviet Union in starting WW2. Attack is the best form of defence. Onward!

No judge can give a totally unbiased verdict on what was in the past. And no country can boast of having avoided tragedies, dramatic turning points or state decisions having nothing to do with high morals. If we are eager to have peaceful and happy future, we must draw lessons from history. However, exploiting memory, anatomizing history and seeking pretexts for mutual complaints and resentment causes a lot of harm and proves lack of responsibility.

Message: there's no real 'truth' in all this, so why talk about it so much? Let's all be ... responsible.

The canvas of history is not a third-rate copy which can be roughly retouched or, following customer's orders, modified by the addition of bright of dark tints. Unfortunately, such attempts to rehash the past are quite common today. We witness the efforts to tailor history to the immediate political needs. Some countries went even further, making the Nazi accomplices heroes, placing victims on a par with executioners, and liberators - with occupants.

Message: no 'equating' Nazism with Soviet Communism, you pathetic ungrateful Balts and others.

The situation in Europe prior to the Second World War is considered fragmentarily, regardless of the cause-and-effect relationship. It is indicative that history is often slanted by those who actually apply double standards in modern politics.

Message: any attempt to look at these events on the basis of clear standards is necessarily hypocritical and false, since there's no 'truth' anyway, plus those who assert such standards invariably fail to live by them, so what they say can not count.

One cannot help but wonder to what extend such myths-makers differ from the authors of the memorable "Brief Course of Russian History" published in the Stalin period, where all names or events uncomfortable to the "leader of all nations" would be erased and stereotyped and completely ideology-based versions of reality would be imposed.

Message: yes - you too are no better than Stalinists, so don't accuse me of being one.

Thus, today we are expected to admit without any hesitation that the only "trigger" of the Second World War was the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939.

However, those who advocate such a position neglect simple things - did not the Treaty of Versailles which drew the bottom line of the First World War leave a lot of "time bombs", the main of which was not only the registered defeat of Germany but also its humiliation. Did not the borders in Europe begin to crumble much earlier than 1 September 1939? What about the Anschluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia being torn to pieces, when not only Germany, but also Hungary and Poland in fact took part in the territorial repartition of Europe.

Message: Germany was 'humiliated' by the Versailles settlement which you wrote, so what did you expect? Plus things were falling apart anyway before we started taking our slice. That means you Poland (Note: Good Point.)

And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

Finally, what was the military and political echo of the collusion that took place in Munich on 29 September 1938? Maybe it was then when Hitler finally decided that "everything was allowed". That neither France nor England would "lift a finger" to protect their allies.

Message: you Westerners were weak but crafty in dealing with Hitler - who are you to talk now?

There is no doubt that one (sic) can have all the reasons to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact concluded in August of 1939. But a year before, in Munich, France and England signed a well-known treaty with Hitler and thus destroyed all the hope for a united front to fight fascism.

Message: the M/R Pact was the inevitable consequence of what others did. 'One' might condemn it - but I don't.

Today, we understand that any kind of collusion with the Nazi regime was morally unacceptable and had no prospects of practical implementation. However, in the context of the historical events of that time, the Soviet Union not only remained face to face with Germany (since the Western States had rejected the proposed system of collective security) but also faced the threat of waging war on two fronts, because precisely in August of 1939 the flame of the conflict with Japan on the Halkin-Gol river reached its highest.

Message: as I keep saying, Russia resists being encircled by its enemies. Events thousands of miles away left us simply no choice but to invade Poland. Strange but true.

The Soviet diplomacy was quite right at that time to consider it, at least, unwise to reject Germany's proposal to sign the Non-Aggression Pact when USSR's potential allies in the West had already made similar agreements with the German Reich and did not want to cooperate with the Soviet Union, as well as to be confronted with the Nazi allmighty military machine alone.

Message: we only did with Hitler what y'all did. And we were wise to do so. Right?

...the Munich Agreement that led to disunity among the natural allies in the fight against the Nazis and made them distrust and suspect each other. While looking back at the past, it is necessary for all of us, both in Western and Eastern Europe, to remember what tragedies can result from cowardice, behind-the-scenes and armchair politics, as well as from seeking to ensure security and national interests at the expense of others. There cannot be reasonable and responsible politics without a moral and legal framework.

Message: and, by the way, since there is no Truth we define the moral and legal framework as we like.

... the moral aspect of policies pursued is particularly important. In this regard, I would like to remind you that our country's parliament unambiguously assessed the immorality of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. This has not been the case so far in some other States, though they also made very controversial decisions in the 1930s.

Message: NB this is very important. The M/R Pact was assessed as 'immoral' by the Russian Parliament back in 1989. I have mentioned that in this message. But I also have said that it would have been 'unwise' for the Soviet Union not to sign the Pact. What's immoral about being wise? So you stupid media people in the West need to say that I have condemned the Pact as 'immoral', even though I have not done so. Got that?

All experience of the prewar period - from the Versailles Peace Conference to the beginning of the Second World War - provides strong evidence that it is impossible to set up an efficient system of collective security without involvement of all countries of the continent, including Russia. You Americans - represented in Gdansk by some junior flunkey - can relax and stay at home.

Message: if we are not happy, look what we do. That's just the way it is.

Establishment of the Anti-Hitler Coalition is, without exaggeration, a turning point in the history of the 20th century, one of the most important and determining events of the previous century. The world saw that countries and peoples, despite all their differences, diverse national aspirations, tactical discords were able to stand united for the sake of the future, for the sake of countering the global evil...

Message: you Westerners got into bed with Stalin and Stalinism to defeat Hitler. And thereby gave Stalin a legitimacy which is not going away.

The historic post-war reconciliation of France and Germany opened the way to the establishment of the European Union. At the same time, the wisdom and generosity of Russian and German peoples, as well as the foresight of statesmen of the two countries, made it possible to take a determining step towards building the Big Europe. The partnership of Russia and Germany has become an example of moving towards each other and of aspiration for the future with care for the memory of the past.

Message: some things are for grown-ups.

I am sure that Russian-Polish relations will, sooner or later, come to such high level, to the level of genuine partners. It is in the interests of our peoples and of the whole European continent.

Message: sigh ... you Poles need to work on it, and get with the Russian-German Narrative. Remember 1939.

We are deeply grateful that Poland, the land where more than 600 thousand soldiers of the Red Army lie, those who gave their lives for its liberation, shows care and respect to our military burial places. Believe me, these words are not simply for the record, they are sincere and heartfelt.

The people of Russia, whose destiny was crippled by the totalitarian regime, fully understand the sensitiveness of Poles about Katyn where thousands of Polish servicemen lie. Together we must keep alive the memory of the victims of this crime.

Message: be very grateful, sensitive Poland, for our liberating you, even though we murdered and imprisoned thousands of Poles to do so. And let's remember the victims of the Katyn crime. But let's not talk about the criminals who committed it.

Katyn and Mednoye memorials, just as the tragic fate of the Russian soldiers taken prisoners in Poland during the 1920 war, should become symbols of common grief and mutual pardon.

Message: you have your massacre victims, Poland - we have ours. No double standards. OK?

Our obligation to the past and gone, to the very history, is to do everything in order to make the Polish-Russian relations free from the burden of mistrust and prepossession, which we have inherited. To turn over the page and start writing a new one...

Message: all this historical stuff is so tedious. We all know Poland and Europe just won't wear us down into apologising for the M/R Pact and all that. Why not look at some oil/gas deals instead?

* * * * *

Vladimir Putin has a weak hand to play here, on the merits. And plays it aggressively.

He basically turns the fact that Poland is making so much of this anniversary of Nazi/Soviet aggression to Russia's advantage. He knows that once the Poles have invited him they will be loath to be too critical of what he says, lest they come over as churlish, 'needlessly' generating a controversy when there should be a sense of reconciliation.

Hence this message. It deftly strikes a reasonable, fair-minded overall tone, while conceding precisely nothing at all on the hard-core post-Soviet view of WW2:

The Munich Agreement is presented as no different from the M/R Pact, even though France and UK struck a deal with Hitler to avoid war, not to launch it by invading and annexing great slabs of other countries.
The brutality the Soviets inflicted on millions of Poles as they invaded in 1939 and thereafter is not mentioned.
Nothing is conceded on Katyn, which is compared to the messy aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1920 (another attempted land-grab) - did Poland's top leaders back then really sign papers ordering the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands of Red Army prisoners?
Warsaw's 'courageous' resistance is mentioned, but nothing about Stalin's shameful refusal to intervene as the Nazis razed the city in 1944.
Nothing is said about post-WW2 Soviet crimes.
And Putin boldly puts all this in the context of Russian/German reconciliation. At the ceremonies today the UK is represented by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, whose recent speech in Poland did not even mention the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact and why the issues around it still matter. The USA is sending only a senior official.

Thus Poland as the first victim of the Nazi/Soviet Pact is left today commemorating it sandwiched between Big Germany and Big Russia, Angela Merkel and PM Putin, the former keen to achieve substantive reconciliation on modern European terms, the latter nodding stiffly in that direction but in practice offering only Russian terms.

Putin's Message?

You see, Poland and Europe, I will come to your so-called ceremony - and assert my view of history, not yours.

I'll make some nice noises but concede nothing. But your sissy leaders and idiotic media will feel obliged to portray my message as a positive conciliatory gesture and say that I have 'condemned' the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact as 'immoral' when - as we both know - I have done no such thing.

You will have no choice but to accept my view, thereby legitimising it for a long time to come.

In short?

I am strong. You are weak.

Понял?

Moral of the story?

Be careful which VIPs you invite to a party.

Some of them may show up.

And then it becomes their party.

I Like the Washington Monthly's College Guide...

Washington Monthly is taking on U.S. News and World Report with this list:

Below are the Washington Monthly's 2009 national university college rankings. We rate schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).

Here's the top ten:

1 University of California, Berkeley
2 Univ. of California, San Diego
3 Univ. of California, Los Angeles
4 Stanford University (CA)
5 Texas A&M U., Col. Station
6 South Carolina State University
7 Pennsylvania State U., University Park
8 College of William and Mary (VA)*
9 University of Texas, Austin
10 University of California, Davis

Of course, I'm biased. My undergraduate degree is from UC Berkeley (where I transferred from Swarthmore, ranked 8 on the Washington Monthly's liberal arts list) and my doctorate is from UCLA...Go Bears! Go Bruins!

Charles Crawford on Britain's Libyan Lockerbie Bomber Deal

From the world's first diplomatic Blogoir:

It is always fascinating to read original official documents, in this case a selection of papers about the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted for the Lockerbie bombing.

So have a look here.

Yet it all seems ... incomplete.

Where are the letters and emails from/to the FCO and No 10, and associated FCO/No 10 internal minuting including the FCO Legal Advisers thoughts?

The key constitutional/legal issue after all is, basically, how far Scottish legal norms as decided in Edinburgh might be subject to (or have to take some sort of account of) UK foreign policy concerns (including the interplay between foreign policy principles and commercial possibilities) as decided in London.

The papers as released leave us none the wiser on how that question and all the issues swirling around it were hammered out behind the scenes. I just do not believe that not a single memo/email/minute/letter was sent to or issued from No 10 or the Foreign Secretary's office on these complex and sensitive subjects.

Nice try. But not good enough.

More please.

UPDATE--The Telegraph's (UK) Nile Gardiner reports:

David Rivkin, a highly respected former White House official, has told the BBC that the British government’s role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber “will damage US relations with Britain for years to come. I really can’t think about a more duplicitous act by Britain vis-à-vis the United States in the post-war period.”

Bob Dole's Advice to President Obama: Try, Try Again on Health Care

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Obama's approval numbers would jump 10 points if Americans knew he was fully in charge. A tactical move of introducing his own plan would also stir more Republicans to become active for reform in critical areas. Right now the president's biggest problem is with congressional Democrats, who are split and searching for a way out of the medical wilderness.

In short, the president, Congress and the public are choking on all this, and choking is not covered by the legislation.

When I served as Senate Republican leader, I recall President Ronald Reagan telling me after he'd sent a bill that I would introduce that he wanted it all -- but that if I could get 70 to 80 percent, to run with it, and he would try to get the rest later. Neither Reagan nor Obama has been considered a master of Congress, but both are known for their great popularity and for understanding the art of reaching for more than they could reasonably expect. Now, consider this: Members of Congress want to keep their jobs. They support their president, but they also want to be employed, with a good health plan (like the one they enjoy now), after this president or even the next has come and gone. So votes on this issue are not simply partisan. They are also about survival. Most lawmakers, Republican or Democratic, will think long and hard before casting this vote -- to avoid backing into a buzz saw.

Once the president has staked out his position, which will provide room for amendments, the debate will narrow, and bipartisan bargaining and other political maneuvering can begin.

New Jersey Beats Libya in Round One

Fox News reports:

MYFOXNY.COM - New Jersey Congressman Steve Rothman says five-days of phone calls between his office and the Libyan government finally came to an end on Friday when Libya said its leader would not visit the town of Englewood.

Rothman told Good Day NY's Greg Kelly that the Libyan government told him it never intended to pitch a Bedouin tent in front of Libyan property in the northern New Jersey town.

Reports in the last few weeks indicated Moammar Qadaffi planned to stay in the tent while he attended the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.

"Qadaffi is a financier of international terrorism. He has the blood of Americans on his hands," Rothman told Good Day NY.

According to Rothman, the State Department told him Qadaffi would not be allowed to stay in Englewood.

Back in the 1980s, Rothman worked to help change the rules governing residences of foreign nations in the United States. Rothman says those rules would not permit Qadaffi to stay at the house.

Sunday Times (UK): Britain Traded Pan Am Bomber for BP Libyan Oil Deal

Jason Allardyce published excerpts from official letters in yesterday's Sunday Times:

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Is It the Kennedy Coverage?

Or something else? This just in:

Hi, Laurence Jarvik.

British Embassy, USA (UKinUSA) is now following your tweets on Twitter.

A little information about British Embassy, USA:

2732 followers
412 tweets
following 2775 people

You may follow British Embassy, USA as well by clicking on the "follow" button on their profile.You may also block British Embassy, USA if you don't want them to follow you.

The Twitter Team

Senator Kennedy's Funeral at Arlington

Here's some footage I took of Senator Kennedy's funeral procession approaching Arlington on Saturday. Someone I know and I stood there for couple of hours. The crowd was smaller than I had expected, dotted by the roadside, only one deep. But the event was moving, nonetheless...reminding one of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, 1963 and the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles, 1968. It struck me that both Jack and Bobby were victims of terrorism...before we called it that. The 9/11 connection was there, somehow, as people waved flags, and the flag-draped coffin went by in the hearse. Earlier that morning the widow of a passenger on Pan Am 103 told me that Senator Kennedy personally called Lockerbie survivors, offered to help, and was instrumental in working out the original deal in which Libya turned al-Megrahi over for prosecution under Scottish law. (She added that there are plans for an anti-Ghaddafi protest when the Libyan dictator comes to New York to address the United Nations, featuring both Pan Am 103 and 9/11 family members). So, Kennedy was certainly aware of the connection.

One curious sight was the family waving from opened windows of funeral limousines and from the front windows of the buses-- about as many Kennedys as one could possibly see in a lifetime. So while sad, the procession had a Last Hurrah feel, of one last campaign, especially as buses passed by. Is that Caroline? Is that Victoria Reggie? Is that Teddy, Jr. Is that William Kennedy Smith?

Also interesting was that letter to the Pope read at the graveside, not just a personal matter, IMHO, for Senator Kennedy said he had asked for a "conscience objection" covering Catholic hospitals in any health care legislation. I'd say that the abortion, and indeed euthanasia, question should be settled by that note.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, campaigning, politicking and dealmaking to the very end--and beyond...

Admiral Mullen's Controversial Article on "Strategic Communication"

From Joint Forces Quarterly, the article that made such a splash in today's newspapers...and Admiral Michael G. Mullen gives serious cause to worry about our military strategy in Central Asia, if he really has fallen for the self-serving promotional pablum Greg Mortensen has peddled to gullible customers with such success in his best-sellers:

I’m a big fan of Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. In fact, I had the opportunity this summer to help him open up a new school for girls in the Panjshir Valley. Greg believes that building relationships is just as important as building projects. “The enemy is ignorance,” he told me, “and it isn’t theirs alone. We have far more to learn from the people who live here than we could ever hope to teach them.”

He’s right. We are only going to be as good as our own learning curve. And just the simple act of trying, of listening to others, speaks volumes all by itself.

Mullen certainly doesn't sound much like another Admiral Nimitz, Halsey, or Spruance.

The official US Navy photo above, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff website, shows Admiral Mullen "showerd (SIC) gifts and flowers from grateful villagers at the opening of the Pushghar Village Girls School, Panjshir Valley, Afghanistan, July 15, 2009. The school located in a remote valley 60 miles north of the capitol (SIC) Kabul was built by "Three Cups of Tea" author Greg Mortenson to promote and support community-based education, especially for girls, in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan."

I hope Greg Mortenson and Admiral Mullen--and their schoolteachers--spell better than US Navy webmasters (or the private contractors who work for them).

MEMO TO ADMIRAL MULLEN: As General Colin Powell said in Powell's Rules: "8. Check small things."

Englewood, NJ v Libya, Round One

From the Associagted Press:

"If the U.S. State Department won't shut this down, we will," Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes said. "New Jersey's governor, its two U.S. senators and its U.S. congressmen are all on board on this."

Libyan intelligence is widely believed to have orchestrated the 1988 attack on Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 aboard — including 38 people from New Jersey. Gadhafi, who has worked to try to rehabilitate his image in recent years, provoked a backlash last week by helping secure the release of the only man arrested in the bombing from a Scottish prison. Television cameras captured Gadhafi giving Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted bomber, a warm greeting as a cheering crowd welcomed him back to Libya.

Already, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, U.S. senators and representatives from New York and New Jersey have protested Gadhafi's plan to stay at the sprawling estate in the upscale community when he addresses the UN next month. Gadhafi is expected to pitch a ceremonial Bedouin-style tent on the grounds, after a request to erect it in Manhattan's Central Park was rejected, according to officials.

The Libyan government, which bought the property in 1982, is renovating the property extensively. Wildes said mansion workers have violated numerous city ordinances by tearing down trees and part of a neighboring fence and expanding the mansion's pool without proper permits. He said they may also have violated state environmental rules by encroaching upon a stream that runs through the 5-acre property.

The city previously sought to slow the renovation via a stop work order, which allowed the imposition of fines. The Libyans have ignored the order. The injunction will allow Wildes to send Englewood police onto the property to halt work. The city plans request an injunction Friday from Bergen County Superior Court Judge Robert Contillo. Wildes said he expects a decision from Contillo in the next few days.

U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman, whose district includes Englewood, has promised there will be "hell to pay" if the U.S. State Department lets Gadhafi stay in Englewood.

Sen. Jim Webb Calls for Opening to Myanmar

On last night's PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer:

And, by the way, another piece of this is, I'm not saying lift sanctions immediately. I'm saying we need to proceed immediately toward a formula where we can do that. By cutting off the United States and the European Union from Myanmar, as China is so heavily investing in the country, and we're seeing Myanmar now tilt away from our national interest. There's got to be a different way to do this.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, one of the leading pro-democracy in Burma groups says the U.S. should not offer the benefits of trade and investment to Burma, to Myanmar, until it takes real steps to open up its political system, that otherwise the U.S. would be just selling democracy down the river. What do you say to that?

SEN. JIM WEBB: I say, I share their objectives of moving toward a more open system. The question is how you get there.

And one of the interesting historical examples in that case is Vietnam itself. I was very strongly opposed to lifting sanctions on Vietnam after the Communists took over and how they treated the people who were with us.

But as other countries lifted their sanctions against Vietnam, it became more logical for us to do so, and, quite frankly, looking back on it, I think that was a key moment, in terms of beginning the process of opening up Vietnam.

The dissident groups that say you should have democracy first, really, I understand their frustrations, but they need to look at it a different way. Take what you can get and move toward democracy. That's the way you can bring change in Asia.

CQ: US Pan Am Libyan Bomber Case "Still Open"

After all, why should the US government be cooperative with a British government that has used the Pan Am 103 bomber case to get BP a leg up on US-based Occidental Petroleum, among others, in a bidding war for Libyan oil and gas concessions?From Jeff Stein's CQ "Spy Talk" column:

The release of Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi from a Scottish jail has opened cash spigots from Tripoli to London, but a Justice Department spokesman says the Libyan Pan Am 103 bomber could be arrested again, along with other unnamed conspirators.

"There remains an open indictment in the District of Columbia and an open investigation," Richard Kolko, an FBI agent and Justice Department spokesman, told SpyTalk Thursday.

It could not be learned whether the "red notice" Interpol posted when Megrahi was indicted in 1991, alerting its members to the U.S. warrant for his arrest, remained open.

Megrahi was held under house arrest in Libya until 1998, when he was handed over to Britain. A special Scottish court held in the Netherlands convicted him in 2001.

Interpol spokeswoman Latonya N. Miller could not immediately say whether the red notice has been taken down, or a new one issued, since Megrahi was released Aug. 20.

But "the normal practice when someone is 'arrested,' even if we (the FBI) do not arrest them, is to remove the warrant from NCIC (National Crime Information Center)," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who headed the Pan Am 103 Task Force, "and I would assume the red notice would be removed as well."

But the prospect of Washington putting renewed vigor into arresting Megrahi, who was given a hero's welcome when he arrived home in Tripoli last week, has to be considered slim

Western investment, including from the U.S., has been pouring into Libya since the Muammar Qadaffi renounced nuclear weapons and last year paid off the remaining claims of victims of Libyan terrorism, which also included survivors and relatives of American soldiers killed in a 1986 West German discotheque bombing.

Libya, meanwhile, "is preparing to pour millions of pounds into the London property market in the latest sign of burgeoning business links between the two countries," the Guardian newspaper reported.

"The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), which manages the country's $65bn (£40bn) oil wealth, has bought two buildings in recent months worth a combined £275m and instructed real estate advisers to look for more."

The paper also said "the Tripoli-based LIA, a so-called sovereign wealth fund which looks after long-term state reserves, is looking to open its first branch in London - paving the way for billions of dollars worth of investment to be channelled through the City."

"Existing British investments in Libya," The Guardian said, "have raised questions about whether business interests are dictating the pace of diplomatic detente."

"Official and unofficial British government contacts with Libya have been extensive," veteran BBC anchor Andrew Neil also reported Thursday.

"Last night we learned that three government ministers have made trips to Tripoli in the last 15 months: the then-trade minister Digby Jones (May 2008), Health minister Dawn Primarolo (November 2008) and Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell (February 2009).

"We do not know what was said in any of these Tripoli talks. But remember this: Saif Qudaffi, the Libyan dictator's favourite son and a key figure in the bomber's release, has averred that "in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain, Megrahi [the now-released bomber] was always on the table." So it's reasonable to assume the ministers had their ears bent."

Neal also noted that "In 2004 Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to a tent outside Tripoli to do his so-called "deal in the desert" with Colonel Qaddafi which led to a broad rapprochement with Libya, a significant part of which was a prisoner transfer agreement which Qaddafi always saw as a means of bringing back his bomber."

Prince Andrew, who acts as Britain's special trade representative, has also visited Libya three times in the past year.

"It's a cast of characters that would do justice to a Bond film," Neal added.

Joseph McBride: Costs of Pan Am Bomber Release "Yet to be Determined"

From a Times of Trenton op-ed by a father of a Pan Am 103 bombing victim:

The important lesson from the response to the Scottish government's perplexing and apparently politically motivated move is that the emotional wounds of terror are not easily healed. This group of families had worked tirelessly to push both the U.S. and Scottish governments to find the culprits and waited for years until Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi agreed to release the suspects for trial in the Netherlands. The trial took place in 2000, 12 years after the bombing. The conviction was welcomed by most of the families.

The families waited 12 long years for justice, enduring shabby treatment by the airline and the state department; years of dealing with successive administrations, some more responsive than others; and embarrassing treatment by the Pan Am corporation during litigation. Finally, one person was convicted of this heinous crime. Perhaps there are others, but the evidence pointed to this man and his co-patriot, who was acquitted. Now, just eight years later, al-Megrahi is set free to enjoy his remaining days as a hero in his country.

Death by terrorism is unique in that the victims are random, cut down in the daily activities of life. They are not soldiers, but ordinary citizens. For the family members, the grief process, extensive and intensive, becomes even more complicated by the political realities of the day. Despite the setbacks, they as a group have made a significant impact on making the way we all fly safer. They worked the halls of Congress to pass legislation and to bring the Libyan government to release the suspects and provide compensation. Many of them later responded to the victims of 9/11, providing the comfort of those who have walked in their shoes.

In the face of these terrible events, a false expectation arises that the powers that be will do the right thing. Living through the last 20 years, many family members shared with me their bitter disillusionment with the people they thought were there to protect and care for them in their time of need. The recent example of the revelation that the Bush administration manipulated the terror levels for its own political gain provides no better example of the impact of politics. Imagine the emotional stress on Americans, in particular the victims of 9/11 and Pan Am 103, to hear that another attack was possible when, in reality, no such threat existed.

It is heartening to see the outrage of people across the world in response to al-Megrahi's release. It raises legitimate questions regarding what impact his release will have on future terrorists, the role of oil and big business and the realties of the Scottish government. The costs of this move are yet to be determined.

Happy Birthday, FOIABlog

The informative Freedom of Information Act website is now three years old:

The FOIA Blog Celebrates its Third Birthday
Three years ago today the FOIA blog was born. I'd like to thank each and every one of you for stopping by either on a time basis or regularly to read my posts about the Freedom of Information Act. I hope this blog has been informative, and I look forward to the fourth year of the blog.

If you don't know anything about me, I'm an attorney in Washington D.C. practicing FOIA and other government disclosure laws. My law firm website can be found here.

And don't forget the FOIA blog fan page on Facebook. There is a link on the left top of the blog.

Edward M. Kennedy, R.I.P.

Everyone in Washington seems to have a Teddy Kennedy story, and this is mine. I never met him, but I saw him speak. It was the summer of 1993, when someone I know and I went up to the Massachussets Institute of Technology on for a June conference on the future of the National Endowment for the Arts featuring speeches by critic Robert Hughes and Senator Edward M. Kennedy. We sat smack in front of the senator, in the middle of the audience as Senator Kennedy gave his keynote address. It was a real tub-thumper of a speech, political oratory at its finest. He was handsome and eloquent, and yes, "charismatic." He was a little fatter than I had expected, though full of energy. As someone who came of age in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, it was a moving experience. Senator Kennedy was indeed impressive. He actually attacked the arts crowd for screwing up by funding smut, although newspapers didn't report it and no one in the arts world had a public comment. In fact, he didn't say too much with which I could disagree. It was a pleasant surprise for me, but probably not for the arts bureaucrats. I wrote about it for David Horowitz's magazine, COMINT (v.4 n. 1), which covered the National Endowments and Public Broadcasting at that time:

Not surpisingly, Senator Kennedy began his keynote address with an attack on [acting NEA Chair Anne] Radice for refusing MIT's grant for the "Corporal Politics" show. Kennedy said of Radice's rejection:

Incredibly, the Acting Chairman of the Endowment subverted her agency's own procedures. She ignored the recommendation of the National Council on the Arts and the peer review system, steps established by statute to avoid just this type of political intrusion into the Endowment's deliberation. A national conference like this is an appropriate forum to state and restate some fundamental principles and avoid a repetition of distressing incidents like that.

But after Kennedy genuflected to the left, he giant-stepped to the right with an attack on obscenity. It was, he indicated, a sin the NEA better think twice now about committing. This was very different from Jane Alexander's 1990 Congressional testimony about NEA-funded obscenity. On that occasion she said it was not appropriate to "try to regulate or judge what is obscene." Said Kennedy:

Obscenity is the place to draw the line. Federal dollars should not be spent on any project that is obscene. Current law explicitly prohibits funding for such projects. If funds are awarded for such purposes, they must be refunded.

I saw that Senator Kennedy was a class act, a principled politician as well as a charismatic one. May he rest in peace.

Charles Crawford on Britain's Al-Megrahi Libya Deal

The former ambassador to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw explains diplomatic factors behind the furor on his Blogoir:

A youthful Crawf asks me what I make of the sending to Libya of the 'Lockerbie bomber'.

Very difficult to say, because it's a fiendishly long and complicated story about which I know next to nothing on the inner detail.

My only professional diplomatic encounter with Libya came on the night in 1986 when US planes bombed Tripoli (in response to clear evidence linking the Libyan leadership to anti-American terrorism) after taking off from airfields in the UK to do so. I was the FCO Resident Clerk fielding a torrent of angry calls from the public. One of my first blog postings described the experience.

Two years later came the destruction of Pan Am 103 which crashed on and around Lockerbie. The finger of suspicion pointed at Libya. Sanctions were imposed.

Over the following years it all slowly changed.

The Cold War ended. Colonel Gadhafi's eccentric if not narcissistic Arab nationalism started to look a bit limp and self-indulgent compared to Islamist violence. Heavy sanctions on Libya took some sort of toll.

Then 9/11. President Bush gets tough. Very tough. Saddam is toppled then arrested and put on trial.

All this gave Colonel Gadhafi a lot to think about. Gadhafi decided that that the time had come to try something new.

A very private message was conveyed to a senior MI6 officer... Here is a vivid and well-sourced account of the whole story as seen from the US perspective.

The elements of a Big Deal emerged.

If Libya accepted responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103 and paid out compensation to the families of the victims, plus stopped playing with weapons of mass destruction, sanctions could be lifted and everything normalised. Why, Colonel Gadhafi could be respectable again.

And, basically, this is what has happened.

The Libyans wrote a letter to the UN Security Council in 2003 which, while carefully drafted, got as close as such a text is ever going to get to accepting responsibility for the atrocity. Sanctions were lifted, in stages.

And, in due course, Prime Minister Blair visited Libya. Relations were normalised and smoothed out, even if the colour scheme and rug weren't:

As a significant extra element in this story, two Libyans were surrendered to the British and put on trial for the bombing. One was convicted.

An exhaustive and exhausting expert blog by Professor Robert Black pores over the issues surrounding the less than satisfactory conviction of that man, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.

My view(s)?

1 The decision made in Edinburgh to send a dying Al-Megrahi back to Libya falls, just about, within the scale of what is reasonable. But I would not have voted to do so, broadly for the reasons given by Liam Murray. Michael Binyon makes some trenchant points too.

2 The idea that London/HMG had nothing to do with the decision (ie that it was Scotland's alone to take) is obviously phoney. Hence the row now developing. No decision such as this would be taken in Scotland without a closely coordinated eye being kept in London on the manifold foreign policy aspects for the UK as a whole. See the Observer yesterday, not least this:

Meanwhile, details emerged of a second letter written by the Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis to the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, confirming that there were no legal reasons not to let Megrahi go and concluding: "I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application."

3 If Al-Megrahi did not do it, there is now simply no chance of identifying, arresting and successfully prosecuting those who did. And in any case the really guilty terrorists were the people up the hierarchy in Libya (and/or elsewhere) who ordered the bombing, or gave a sly wink to those lesser villains who might do it.

4 Ignominious, embarrassing, perfidious or whatever you want to call it, maybe the whole thing is for the best, all things considered:

We and the Americans used a powerful and sustained policy of carrot and stick to bring Libya to accept responsibility for this horror, and pay compensation, and also renounce its weapons of mass destruction.
This is one of the biggest Western foreign policy achievments of our times (compare North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan and so on ), and a huge step forward towards making Northern Africa a partner, not a foe.
Where Diplomacy meets Reality?

The Telegraph (UK): Britain Protecting Accused Saudi Bomber From US Trial

The current Pan Am 103 bomber case may be the tip of an iceberg for British protection of accused terrorists, according to the Daily Telegraph:

More important, the American security services are re-examining their relationship with their counterparts in Scotland and England, since the decision to release Megrahi is only the latest thumb in their eye. The British Government has refused on human rights grounds to extradite six suspected terrorists wanted by American authorities, including a Saudi sought in connection with bomb attacks on US embassies. Remember: this is the same Government that raised no objection when British businessmen were extradited to face trial in the United States on various charges. Apparently, the Scottish desire to show compassion to a mass murderer is matched by a British desire to keep suspected terrorists from facing justice in US courts.

Martin Kramer on Yale University Press & Danish Mohammed Cartoons

From Martin Kramer's Sandbox:

Muna AbuSulayman is also Alwaleed's point person for his academic programs. "I used to work with him at Kingdom Holding, I was head of strategic studies, and I was given the assignment of doing the first centers in the U.S. I guess I did such a good job that he actually offered me the foundation." You can see her in this photo of Alwaleed with Georgetown's president, and in this one of Alwaleed with Harvard's provost (she's the one with the hijab). AbuSulayman continues to monitor the Alwaleed centers; in March, she convened their directors in London for their first joint planning meeting. (In this photo, she's surrounded by the directors of the endowed centers, including Georgetown's John Esposito and Harvard's Roy Mottahedeh. Look carefully for strings attached.)

Now it gets interesting. In April, Yale named Muna AbuSulayman a "Yale World Fellow" for 2009. This isn't some honorific, and she'll reside from August through December in New Haven. (Her Facebook fan page, August 16: "I need help locating a Town House/condo for short term leasing near Yale University... Anyone familiar with that area?") Can you imagine a better way to set the stage for a major Alwaleed gift? Hosting for a semester the very person who structured the Harvard and Georgetown gifts, and who now directs Alwaleed's charitable foundation? A stroke of genius.

Imagine, then—and we're just imagining—that someone in the Yale administration, perhaps in President Levin's office, gets wind of the fact that Yale University Press is about to publish a book on the Danish cartoons—The Cartoons That Shook the World. The book is going to include the Danish cartoons, plus earlier depictions of the Prophet Muhammad tormented in Dante's Inferno, and who-knows-what-else. Whooah! Good luck explaining to people like Prince Alwaleed that Yale University and Yale University Press are two different shops. The university can't interfere in editorial matters, so what's to be done? Summon some "experts," who'll be smart enough to know just what to say. Yale will be accused of surrendering to an imagined threat by extremists. So be it: self-censorship to spare bloodshed in Nigeria or Indonesia still sounds a lot nobler than self-censorship to keep a Saudi prince on the line for $20 million.

Yale has seen its endowment suffer billions in losses, and its administration has the mission of making the bucks back. Yale's motto is lux et veritas, light and truth, but these days it might as well be pecunia non olet: money has no odor—whatever its source. Still, that isn't the mission of Yale University Press, which seeks to help authors of exceptional merit shed full light on the truth. More than three years ago, I warned against "the deep corruption that Prince Alwaleed's buying spree is spreading through academe and Middle Eastern studies." If this is what caused Yale University to trespass so rudely against the independence of its press, then the rot has spread even further than I imagined. I've been a reader for Yale University Press, which I think publishes a more interesting list in Middle Eastern studies than any university press. But if editorial decisions are to be subjected to vetting and possible abortion by Yale's money collectors, why bother?

Ignore all the denials, and watch for a hefty gift from Arabia, perhaps for another Alwaleed program in Islamic apologetics. Fat endowments speak louder than words—or cartoons.

An Open Letter from Ali Alyami to His Royal Highness, Prince Khalid, Governor of Makkah, the Saudi Kingdom

His Royal Highness, Prince Khalid,
Governor of Makkah, the Saudi Kingdom
 
First, let me congratulate you for this splendid initiative. It takes a lot of courage to open one's self to unfiltered questions, especially from a population who has a lot to say, but who understandably lives in a constant fear from autocrats who control all power, money and decision-making processes?
 
The following are some of my guarded questions which I hope you will answer candidly and your paper, Alwatan, will publish for all to see.
 
1, When will women be allowed to feed themselves, drive their children to schools and be free from the denigrating male guardian system?  2, When will religious minorities be free to practice their rituals as they wish? 3, When will there be accountability, transparency, power sharing, independent and non-sectarian judicial system where the rule of law replaces the whims of judges who consider women, Shia and non-Muslims heretics and inferior?
 
4, When will the Shura Council be elected and accountable to the people instead of the king? 5, When will Jeddah have a sewage system? 6, When will water and electricity be sufficient so people don't die from heat and thirst in a country that should have the best public service in the world? 7, Incidentally, why does not Saudi Arabia have the best public services in the world, given its small population and huge revenues? 8, Are things mismanaged as some people say or is it just a big lie to defame the ruling family? 9, Are religious police really religious or they use religion to terrorize and humiliate people?
 
The most important question your Royal Highness is:  When will people be free to think for themselves and criticize the squandering of public wealth without being rounded up and sent to the basement of  Prince Naif’s Ministry of Interior for an unforgettable physical treatment or as some say be fed to wild animals?

Ali H. Alyami, Ph. D.
Executive Director, Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
1050 17 St. NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 558-5552; (202) 413-0084; Fax: (202) 536-5210
ali@cdhr.info ; www.cdhr.info

The Strange Case of Fethullah Gülen

In a deposition (full transcript posted on Bradblog) for a case before the State of Ohio's Election Commission, former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds discussed Fethullah Gülen, founder of a chain of Turkish schools in Central Asia. What she had to say was of interest, as his schools had been closed down by the Uzbek government shortly before I arrived for my Fulbright year. :

(p.89)
7 Q Can you tell me what practices and
8 policies that you were referring to that were
9 inimical to American interests?
10 A There's several. One is practices
11 and operations implemented from mid-1990s at
12 least until towards end of 2001 in Central
13 Asia and Caucasus, and these operations and
14 practices included Islamization of certain
15 segments of those Turkic nations, Uzbekistan,
16 Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. There are so many
17 of them in that -- in that area, and setting
18 up madrasahs and bringing in, helping bringing
19 -- at the time they were not referred to as
20 al-Qaeda until 2001, September 11th. They
21 were referred to as mujahideens from
22 Afghanistan and Pakistan into Central Asia,
Page 90
1 then to Turkey to give them passports, and
2 then funnel them in 1997, 1998 to certain
3 Eastern European countries and the Balkans.
4 And also -- and it's very broad I
5 can go on for a long time about what practices
6 and why they were -- they were against the
7 security and the interests of the Americans
8 and the lives.
9 Q Okay. Well, I don't want to
10 burden you too much, but I would like as
11 complete an answer as you can give us in terms
12 of what you were referring to.
13 A Those operations when until -- at
14 least until September 2001, and again, for
15 those operations, they corroborated and worked
16 with certain U.S. persons who were involved in
17 these operations...

***
(p. 94)
...14 Q Are you familiar with a person
15 named Fetullah Gulan, G-u-l-a-n?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Can you tell us who that is?
18 A My information is mainly about his
19 activities and issues that were, again, done
20 from late 1990s until I left, and then after
21 that it will be known activities here in the
22 United States. He shortly -- he was the
Page 95
1 religious activist figure in Turkey, and he
2 landed on Turkish government's wanted list and
3 was going to be persecuted for wanting to
4 throw Turkish secular government -- replace it
5 with Islamic shariah kind of type of
6 government.
7 And when he was wanted in Turkey
8 for that and he was going to go to jail, he
9 actually got on the plane and came to the
10 United States, and he was given immediately
11 visa to stay in the United States, and he has
12 been in the United States until now as far as
13 I know.
14 He has since established more than
15 300 madrasahs in Central Asia and what he
16 calls universities that have a front that is
17 called Moderate Islam, but he is closely
18 involved in training mujahideen-like militia
19 Islam who are brought from Pakistan and
20 Afghanistan into Central Asia where his
21 madrasahs operate, and his organization's
22 network is estimated to be around $25
Page 96
1 billion.
2 He has opened several Islamic
3 universities in the United States. As I said
4 it's being promoted under Moderate Islam. It
5 is supported by certain U.S. authorities here
6 because of the operations in Central Asia, but
7 what they have been doing since late 1990s is
8 actually radical Islam and militizing
9 (phonetic) these very, very young, from the
10 age 14, 15, by commandoes they use, and this
11 is both commandoes from Turkish military,
12 commandoes from Pakistani ISI in Central Asia
13 and Azerbaijan, and after that they bring them
14 to Turkey, and from Turkey they send them
15 through Europe, to European and elsewhere.
16 Up until 1999, the Turkish
17 government, also paramilitary units in Central
18 Asia, they operated under the groups that call
19 themselves Gray Wolves, ultra-nationalists,
20 and their method was, you know, assassination
21 of certain leaders in the Central Asian
22 countries, and militizing, but not through
Page 97
1 Islam.
2 But after this scandal that took
3 place in Turkey, Susurluk scandal, they were
4 no longer supported by certain segments in the
5 United States, and instead some of our people
6 involved in foreign policy, they supported the
7 Islamic movements of Gulan in the Central
8 Asian countries in order to counter Russia as
9 far as the energy sources are concerned in
10 those countries.
11 Q How is it, if you know, or how is
12 it that Gulan is allowed to be in the United
13 States?
14 Let me ask a different question.
15 A Okay.
16 Q I'm sorry. Is that an individual
17 based on what you've told me that you would be
18 -- that you would consider a threat to U.S.
19 interests?
20 A One hundred percent, absolutely.
21 Q And if you know, how is it that
22 he's allowed to be in the United States?
Page 98
1 A Because part of what he has in
2 terms of the deal with certain segments in the
3 United States is furthering the interests of
4 the people who are interested in the energy
5 sources in Central Asia, and that is the --
6 whether it's oil or whether it's natural gas,
7 and basically it's a fight.
8 The best way to describe it is
9 Cold War is not over. It's a continuation of
10 Cold War over those nations, and what we did
11 in Afghanistan in early 1980s with mujahideen,
12 we have been joined now in Central Asia by
13 using Islam and extremism and these madrasahs,
14 and Pakistani and Afghani elements to build
15 (unintelligible) and staff in terms of those
16 resources towards certain business interests.
17 Q Did you say that Gulan had set up
18 schools in the United States as well?
19 A Yes.

Jay Mathews: The Lesson of Jonathan Keiler

In the Washington Post yesterday, Jay Mathews told the story of Jonathan Keiler, who gave up a legal career to teach--only to find himself persecuted by the educational establishment.

It is difficult to argue that Keiler, 49, is anything but one of his county's best teachers. He is the only member of the Bowie High faculty with National Board Certification, having passed a competitive series of tests of his classroom skills that has become a gold standard for American educators. He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and history from Salisbury University and a law degree from Washington and Lee University. He served four years as an Army Judge Advocate General officer, then was a partner in a private law firm in Bethesda until, as he puts it, he "got sick of law and became a social studies teacher at my alma mater."

He teaches a survey course called Practical Law, as well as Advanced Placement World History and AP Art History. More students signed up for his classes this year than he had periods to teach them. He coaches Bowie's Mock Trial team, the most successful in the county. He has published articles on military history and law in several magazines.

He hates the education school courses teachers must take to be certified and qualify for pay increases. He says they "are generally no more useful or interesting than watching paint dry." But he dutifully accumulated three credit hours at Bowie State University, six through the county's continuing professional education program and three for going through the National Board process. That was more than enough, he was told, for his standard certification.

Then earlier this month, the county's teacher staffing and certification office informed him that previous officials counted his credits wrong. If Keiler didn't somehow produce three extra credits by the end of September, he would be decertified and any pay increases he received associated with certification would be retroactively revoked.

Also, he was told, don't try to claim any more for that law degree. For years, the school system gave him zero credential credit for his three years at Washington and Lee, one of the nation's top law schools, even though he teaches a course on law and coaches Mock Trial. Eventually officials said he could claim three credit hours for the constitutional law course he took and get some extra pay, but that was it.

Keiler's drama unfolded in a way familiar to schoolteachers and other employees of large, easily distracted public agencies. He was told he needed to apply for an Advanced Professional Certificate, something required of 10-year teachers whose only discernible purpose, according to Keiler, is "to keep headquarters people employed." He sent in his paperwork. Weeks passed. He was told it wasn't enough. He needed 36 credits. He explained that because of his National Board status, he needed only 12. The staffing and certification office said that was news to them, but they would check. More weeks passed. He was told his National Board credits weren't certified. He sent in the certification from the American Council of Education. He was told they still wouldn't count unless he paid a college or university to certify them. And, whoops, suddenly he didn't have enough credits for even a standard certification.

"They are essentially firing me," Keiler told me, "because they do not understand their own rules and procedures, which of course are idiotic in the first instance, but at least they should know them. . . .This is typical of the thoroughly unprofessional way teachers are treated despite all the blather about professionalism, and also indicative of the cemented, regimented and unenlightened concept of teaching that is so engrained in the education establishment."

The Observer (UK): British PM Made Pan Am Bomber Deal With Gaddafi at Italian G20 Summit

This Observer story (ht Drudge) indicates that the Obama administration gave a private green-light to the Libyan deal, despite subsequent "condemnations." (Observer photo)

Downing Street released the text of a cordial letter sent to the Libyan leader on the day that Abdulbaset al-Megrahi was released, asking that the event be kept low key because a "high-profile" ceremony would distress his victims and their families.

But critically the letter also refers to a meeting between the two leaders six weeks earlier at the G8 summit in Italy, adding that "when we met [there] I stressed that, should the Scottish executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private family occasion" rather than a public celebration.

Previously officials have said that the two men's conversation in Italy at the beginning of July was brief and that, while the Lockerbie case was raised, Brown merely stressed the matter was one for the Scottish government to decide.

However, the new letter, addressed to "Dear Muammar" and signed off by wishing him a happy Ramadan, suggests that the decision was well enough advanced and Brown well enough briefed to set terms for a homecoming – albeit unsuccessfully. A jubilant Libyan crowd, some waving Scottish flags, greeted Megrahi at the airport.

Meanwhile, details emerged of a second letter written by the Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis to the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, confirming that there were no legal reasons not to let Megrahi go and concluding: "I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application."

Although the Foreign Office said it was not intended to make representations either way, the leaking of the letter suggests the SNP-led administration may be starting to fight back.

Tonight the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, redoubled calls for the government to release official records of conversations about the release, as Gaddafi increased the embarrassment by publicly thanking "my friend Brown, his government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision".

The scale of fury in America was laid bare in a vitriolic letter from the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller – who as a justice department lawyer led the investigation into the bombing – describing the release in a scathing letter to MacAskill as a "mockery of the rule of law" and of the victims' grief.

However, the Scottish government last night responded defiantly, insisting the US had made clear in discussions that, while it opposed Megrahi's release, it regarded freeing him on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer as "far preferable" to a prisoner transfer deal that would have seen him in custody.

Fears that the US could retaliate against the British government were eased when Whitehall sources disclosed that the White House had made no complaint to Downing Street, reserving its ire for the Scottish administration.

The official statement released by the Libyan leader makes clear the involvement of the British Prime Minister, as well as Libya's continuing support for terrorism:

Tripoli, 22.08.2009 (JANA)

Tripoli-22.8.2009(JANA) In front of his steadfast home, the Leader of the Revolution received last night Abd al Basset al Megrahi, his family members and a crowd of his relation.

The Leader made the following statement in which he addressed a message to friends and those who objected to these friends:
"At this moment I want to address a message to our friends in Scotland , the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to congratulate them all for their courage, that they have proven to be independent inspire of all unnecessary and unacceptable pressure they faced..but they made the right, courageous and humane decision.

"I say to my friend Brown, the British Prime Minister, his government, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Andrew who against all odds encouraged this brave decision."

"This step is in the interests of relations between the two countries Libya and Britain and in the interests of personal friendship between me and them, and will positively affect exchange between the two countries.

As for the other side, we would like to tell them:

When Libya took up the responsibility and commuted the death sentence against the Bulgarian medical team to life imprisonment, and I took up the responsibility in response to my friend President Sarkozy, and for France we turned the team that is convicted of mass murder to serve life imprisonment in Bulgaria.

However, the world was stunned that the team, convicted of the hideous crime, was pardoned even before landing at the airport in Bulgaria, the President of Bulgaria was at the forefront of those to greet them, they were greeted as heroes, since they killed 400 innocent Libyan children and infected them with the AIDS virus.

Then, unfortunately, the European parliament welcomed the convicted team with a standing ovation, as if they were heroes.
We haven't we heard any protests on the exoneration of the convicted team? And why there was no talk that this would hurt the feelings of the families of the Libyan victims?

As for now with the release of Abdelbaset from prison, unfortunately illogical voices were raised, saying this hurts the feelings of families of the Lockerbie victims!!

Are we without any feelings, and they have feelings?!...Are we donkeys and they are humans?!

This is the double standard politics, this is an encroachment, this is arrogance and contempt for other nations, of their public opinion and humanity.

This is what brings about injustice and the terrorism they are now facing.

Terrorism is a phenomena that has justifications, which is the double standard politics.

Herein, we are extending a message to friends and to those who objected the friends.

During this reception several popular poems that express congratulations to the leader , his honorable family and the Libyan people on the occasion of 40th anniversary of Great al-Fatah Revolution and on start of the blessed month of Ramadan and the return home of brother , Abdel Basset el-Meghrahi .

These poems hailed the giant moral and material gains of al-Fatah Revolution for the Libyan people since its outbreak in 1969.

The poets reaffirmed their commitment and loyalty to the leader of the Revolution generation after generation .
/ JANA /

More reaction at BoycottScotland.com:

From the very beginning we have advocated the boycott of British Petroleum and other major British companies that have been lobbying for closer trade relations with Libya. As the news continues to unfold, more and more evidence is mounting regarding BP's role in this affair, as well as that of other major British industries seeking a foothold in the increasingly lucrative Libyan market. It has now become clear that the release of al-Megrahi was a concession made towards this end.

Charles B. Hall Honored in His Indiana Hometown

Dorian Trent Anderson, a retired two star general, was and is the first and only African American to receive an appointment to West Point from Brazil, Indiana. He was the guest speaker at the ceremony honoring Charles B. Hall in his hometown on Saturday as reported on This 'n That:

CHARLES B. HALL HONORED TODAY

Charles B. Hall was the first Tuskegee Airman to shoot down a German fighter plane during World War II over Italy. His home town of Brazil, Indiana paid special tribute to him today with an unveiling ceremony of a memorial constructed in his honor. Mr. Hall died in 1971 at the age of 51 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. His daughter and son were in attendance...

For Kelli Ann Hall Jones, Saturday's ceremony was very special.

"It's so important," Jones said Saturday following the dedication ceremony for the Charles B. Hall Memorial in front of Brazil City Hall.

Jones is the youngest of Hall's children and lives in Oklahoma City, Okla.

"This was a chance for me to come to his hometown," Jones said. "I'd never been here. It's a lovely town."

Happy Ramadan!