Ecuador Upheaval A Defeat for Democracy

Miami Herald editors think the latest change of government south of the border isn't exactly a "Rose Revolution":

Now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a restoration of order. Fine, but where was U.S. diplomacy when the Gutierrez government began making a mockery of democracy months ago? It's hard to see how the chaos in Ecuador promotes the Bush administration's goal of furthering democracy around the globe. The democratic charter of the Organization of American States is tailor-made to aid countries in trouble like Ecuador, but with the secretary-general's seat vacant and U.S. leadership missing, the OAS predictably failed to respond. There are no winners amid this wreckage except foes of democracy like Fidel Castro, who was quick to boast that Mr. Gutierrez lost out because he was ''too close to the empire,'' his epithet for the United States. He must be chortling with glee as he watches the chaos in Ecuador and takes note of the weakening commitment to democracy in one of the most volatile regions of the hemisphere.

Is Russia Doing OK?

Nicholas Gvosdev thinks Andrei Shliefer's new book makes the case that Russia is moving in the right direction, the economy is on track, and that liberalization is moving forward. He says there are larger cultural issues that prevent people from realizing how well off they really are, and refers to the American controvery over outsourcing as a parallel.

In one sense, Gvosdev is right. Russia is obviously richer than it has ever been before. And I agree with this statement: "I think a strong case might be made for Russia's economic troubles having stemmed in large part from values and worldview -- precisely the types of stimuli to which politicians respond."

But am I convinced that Russia is on the right track? Not unless Putin lets Khodorkovsky go...

Condoleeza Rice Analyzes Vladimir Putin

From an interview with Fox News, she had this to say about her meeting with the Russian president:

QUESTION: You met yesterday with President Putin. Have your perceptions of him, what kind of man he is, what kind of leader he is, how committed to democracy he is, at all changed over time?

SECRETARY RICE: I believe that this is a strong leader for Russia. He is someone who cares deeply about his country. He's actually quite easy to talk to. He is willing to talk about difficult subjects and does it without being defensive. And he is someone who obviously wants his country to succeed. We haven't always agreed about the future course of Russia, but there is no doubt that this man is a patriot, he cares deeply about his people, deeply about his country, and I think is trying to do his best to take Russia into a better future.

QUESTION: What percentage of Russian nuclear materials does the United States consider to be securely under lock and key?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm not able to go into numbers here. Let's just say that we have worked hard since the collapse of the Soviet Union to secure as much Russian nuclear material as possible. We --

QUESTION: Is even 50 percent?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, James, I;m not going to go into numbers. I will say that we have been working as hard as possible and as quickly as possible and accelerated the timeline in the Energy Department programs to secure nuclear materials, not just in Russia but in general in the space that was created by the former Soviet Union. We have very active programs to do that. And we and the Russians have been working on this problem, but I don;t want to go into specific numbers.

QUESTION: So you can't even assure me that even half of the nuclear arsenal of that country is under lock and key?

SECRETARY RICE: James, I’m not going to get into numbers. I don’t think that people should believe that we have a huge problem with a lack of security of nuclear material. We do have concerns that in the post-Soviet period and up till now that are being met through the programs that we have for trying to secure those materials.

One interesting cross-cultural note. It seems that Rice's visit to Moscow may have produced a different reaction among Russians than among Americans. For example, last night my Russian teacher criticized Rice for going on the air with Echo Moscow radio without a translator. He thought it was bad that she made mistakes. Where my attitude, as an American, was that it was good that she was trying to speak Russian. We say, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." But, in Russia, mistakes have often been fatal...

A pro-Khodorkovsky Website

Found a link to Russia in Focus on the Wall Street Journal site, and it has some interesting articles about Russia, from a pro-Khodorkovsky perspective.

I still think Putin should let Khodorkovsky go before May 9th V-E Day celebrations....

Wall Street Journal on the Bolton Nomination

OpinionJournal has an interesting editorial that sees the Bolton case as a "tipping point" for the Bush administration. I agree with their perception that Senator Lugar has been less than enthusiastic about Bolton. The question remains: Why?

Townsel Accuses Bolton of Harrassment in Moscow

Bolton's situation is looking a little bit like Clarence Thomas', according to today's interview with Melody Townsel in USATODAY:

Townsel says she is a 'vocal, outspoken Democrat,' the mother of a 5-year-old daughter and a member of Mothers Opposing Bush, a national group that opposed President Bush's re-election. Townsel says she was not active in politics prior to the election and spent more than a decade working overseas, from 1987 to 1999. She said she sent the letter to the committee on April 8 'at the urging of friends.'

She alleged that Bolton harassed her in 1994 when she was working as a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on an advertising campaign supporting privatization in Kyrgyzstan, then a newly independent former Soviet republic.

Townsel had written a letter to USAID complaining about a lack of funds and personnel from the main contractor, International Business and Technical Consulting Inc. (IBTCI). Bolton, then a private attorney for the company, was sent to make her retract her complaint, she said.

'The fact that I didn't immediately do what he wanted me to do put a real burr in his saddle,' Townsel said. 'He threw a folder across the desk at me' during their first meeting, at the Aerostar hotel in Moscow. In a subsequent meeting, 'he threw a plastic tape dispenser at me.'

When Townsel would not withdraw her complaint, she says, Bolton spread rumors that she had stolen money and also referred disparagingly to her weight and hinted that she was a lesbian. 'When he didn't get his way, he was going to smear me,' she said.

In a letter to the committee, IBTCI President Jayant Kalotra denied that Bolton had been asked to contact Townsel. 'It is difficult to understand how Ms. Townsel could make such accusations with any veracity,' he wrote. Kalotra provided a copy of the letter to USA TODAY.

Kirby Jones, a Washington consultant, said Townsel told him of Bolton's behavior at the time. Jones, who was then executive vice president of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, hired Townsel in late 1994 to work on projects in the former Soviet Union. Townsel told him that Bolton had accused her of stealing money. Bolton's employers, Jones said, 'were upset that she had reported them to (USAID), which was quite appropriate and proper to do. IBTCI and Bolton went after her in a vicious way.' Jones added that Townsel 'was terrific and did great work' for him.

I hope that the Senate has full hearings into this matter and that the USAID files are opened up for all to see, especially so we can figure out how Kyrgyzstan's democratic transition got messed up by USAID and its contractors (whatever happened here, it looks like something nasty might have been covered up, and not necessarily by John Bolton). Last month's Bishkek riots may have had their roots in Bolton's hotel confrontation...

You Can Say That Again...

Secretary of State Rice tried to answer listener phone calls in Russian on Echo Moscow, but soon got into trouble, as many Americans do. Luckily,The Moscow Times reports, she warned her hosts: "'You understand it will be very difficult because I am out of practice, and in your language there are these awful cases!' she continued. 'It's very difficult for us, and it is very difficult to talk without making mistakes.'"

Reaction to Russia's New Cossacks

On the letters page of The Moscow Times, Nikolai Butkevich writes: "I fully realize that most Cossacks are normal people who want to reconnect to their pre-Soviet traditions; in some ways they are the equivalent to Civil War re-enactors in the U.S. However, there is a definite lunatic fringe within the movement defined by extreme racist and anti-Semitic views and a propensity to solving problems through the use of force. The passage of this law, I fear, will only inspire more interethnic violence."

Roger L. Simon on the UN Scandal

Roger L. Simon writes:

Well, I am sorry Mr. Goldstone but I am actually amazed you would put your name publicly to such nonsense (next time I would advise speaking, as did your female cohort from the committee, on 'condition of anonymity' or some such). Why am I so sure this is nonsense? Because I have known personally about Parton's disaffection from the committee for over a month - that is long before the committee made its interim report and therefore long before Parton, Duncan or anyone else had 'completed their work.' Indeed, I had learned some time ago that somewhere around or about March 11 Parton had already tried to resign, but then was presumably persuaded to stay on or talked out of it by other members of the committee. What promises were made to him at that time about the 'thoroughness' of the investigation I do not know, but I strongly suspect they were trashed within weeks or even days after having been made.

And I would be willing to testify about what I do know under oath. How about you, Mr. Goldstone? Oh, I'm sorry again., You were only testifying as to your 'understanding.' You're safe behind your weasel words. Smear Parton and Duncan. Smear Mouselli. Smear anybody you want to defend kleptocracy at the United Nations. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe you. Or believe your committee's final report. We would be idiots.

Rice on Echo Moscow Radio

The transcript of her interview is online at MOSNEWS.COM. Here's an interesting question and answer about American support for democratic revolutions in the former USSR:

ECHO MOSKVY: What is better, the export of democracy, or the export of socialist revolutions? You probably know that at the beginning of the last century there was a concept of exporting revolutions from the USSR. Now is the United States exporting democracy?

RICE: No, there are very serious differences, historical differences, and from the practical point of view there is no necessity to export democracy. The people themselves feel that they want to have those freedoms that you get from democratic development. If you ask people whether they want to be able to say what they want to say, whether they want to practice whatever religion they chose, whether they want the freedom to educate their children, girls and boys, whether they want to be free from that knock on the door from the secret police, the people will say, yes, of course we want this. And that is why there is no need to export democracy or to implement democracy from above. People must be given the opportunity to freely express their wishes. And they will choose democracy, and so here I think the old terminology about exporting democracy has gotten old.

ECHO MOSKVY:Then what is the role that the U.S. plays in the processes we witness now on the former Soviet territories, I mean the so-called velvet revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine? Did the U.S. play any role there? What was it?

RICE: The U.S. role only involved us saying that people have a right to control their future, that democracy should develop worldwide and that the U.S. and the EU supported civil society and NGO’s in those places. But the people of these countries took steps towards freedom deliberately, this is important, and I hope the Russian people will see that the U.S. does not want to restrict Russian influence in these countries. We actually see the situation not as a game where someone loses and someone wins, but as a game where everybody can win, when flourishing and economically developed countries evolve around Russia. I think this is a game with no losers.

ECHO MOSKVY:There is an opinion that Ukraine, Georgia and now Azerbaijan, where you are for some reason establishing military bases, have become areas where Russian and U.S. interests collide. The U.S. have arrived where the USSR, Russia, the Russian Empire used to have its interests. This is seen as a challenge.

RICE: I’d like to point out what I see as a difference between a 19th and 21st century view of these regions. We know about your historic, cultural, economic contacts of the Soviet period and earlier that of the Russian Empire. But a modern pattern of interaction is based on mutually beneficial contacts — in trade, economy, politics. There is no reason for Russian influence in these regions to diminish, if it’s based on transparent and beneficial contacts. What’s more, we do not regard ourselves as a country that wants, as you said, to take Russia’s place. We are not trying to overtake a zone of Russian influence, what we want is a free economic and trade development zone. Both the U.S. and Russia should maintain good relationships with these countries. And considering the geographical factor, Russia is bound to maintain a very close relationship with them.

Ann Coulter's Family Album

You can't read the article without paying Time, but a slide show of Ann Coulter's family album is available to the public at TIME: Right From the Start Photo Essay. It's pretty interesting to look at family photos from New Canaan, Connecticut as well as high school and college portraits. It shows that Ann is really a nice girl--but she is too thin, and now it's time for her to settle down, get married and raise some kids (look at the expression her eyes in the snapshot of Ann with her mother Nell).

More on Putin's New Cossacks

...correcting an earlier post here, from The Russian Dilettante's Weblog:

Not only did Bolsheviks abolish the Cossack estate, which was natural as the old, antiquated estate system had to be put to rest. They literally abolished -- killed that is -- a large number of Cossacks (with help from the poorer Red Cossacks); many others were resettled. This policy was known as 'De-Cossackization' (raskazachivanie); it peaked during the Civil War and the Collectivization.

'Cossacks' once described communities of those who had moved out or escaped from Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania to live a life of robbing and farming in the huge steppe area in-between the sedentary agricultural Ruthenia and its various neighbors, including the unpleasant steppe nomads. Russians slowly but surely colonized the steppe and closed in on their troublesome neighbors in the South and the South-East, leaving less space for the Cossacks' highwaymanship. The Russian Cossacks then stroke a bargain with Moscow, promising to perform military service, as frontier guards in particular, in return for a degree of self-government. Turns out I have written about them before. But keeping in mind the Civil War of 1918--1922 and the Collectivization, I doubt if many of the inhabitants of Russia's traditionally Cossack areas are descended from pre-1917 Cossacks. Are we going to see a new Cossack estate emerge when Russian rebels and misfits stream down south and all the way to the Far East, Russian borders in need of protection more than ever since 1700?

In any case, I still think Putin's New Cossacks might present a p.r. problem for a country that is supposed to be moving forward into the modern, democratic, era. Sounds like a throwback to the days of the Tsar...

Power Line on the Bolton Controversy

Thanks to Roger L. Simon's interesting discussion of the Bolton affair, where he compares the pathetic charges against Bolton--getting big play in major media--with serious charges against the UN--being downplayed in major media--I clicked on Powerline's analysis, called Senate Slanderfest to Continue.

Yes, it is like Clarence Thomas, and yes, for Bolton to be confirmed the Republicans will need to stop trying to rush the nomination through and instead make time their ally. Each charge certainly can be fully discussed--and each witness against Bolton fully discredited. What I've seen so far is only lukewarm support from Republicans on the committee, while Democrats have been in attack-dog mode. The Republicans employ a disgruntled former staffer for Bolton on the Senate Foreign Relations committee--which may indicate something. Lugar simply has been offering weak support, not strong support. Why? We don't know. He may have some problems with Bolton himself.

The point is, Bolton may or may not be a jerk, but many effective trial lawyers are jerks, and if they are good in the courtroom, nobody cares if they scream at people or throw things.

BTW, Bill Clinton and Hilary are both notoriously difficult to work for. Henry Kissinger was a notorious "serial abuser" of his employees (to use lobbyist Carl Ford's term). Dick Armitage himself has a reputation for being high-strung.

Perhaps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might take a look at the entire corporate culture at the State Department--and read all the grievance reports filed in the last year into the Congressional testimony, to put the charges in Bolton's office into some perspective.

Finally, I hope we hear the whole story about the USAID grant dispute which got Bolton into the Kyrygyzstan fray. How does it come about that a "Republican" political consulting firm like Black, Manafort hires the head of the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Against Bush" on a project? Let's open up the USAID grant process in democracy-building (obviously a failure in Kyrygzstan, given recent events) to public scrutiny--in the interests of transparency and good government. It might prove embarrassing to the Republicans who got the USAID contracts in question, but such a fresh look might prove useful in fixing some of the very serious problems the US is facing with public diplomacy around the world.

We're in a Global War Against Terror, aren't we?

Jewish Leaders Untroubled by Pope Benedict XVIth's Nazi Past

According to Haaretz : "[Rabbi David] Rosen believes that Ratzinger's German background has shaped his attitude toward Israel and the Jews. "It is a significant factor in his understanding of the evil and danger of anti-Semitism," he says. "It is certainly a factor in his positive commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations. He is conscious of the burden of history."

[World Jewish Congress chairmain Israel] Singer, who is also chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC), dismisses fears that have been expressed in some quarters - in Israel and in the Jewish world - over Ratzinger's membership, as a boy, in the Hitler Youth. 'At that time, every child was forced to be a member of the Hitler Youth,' says Singer, who recently met Ratzinger at the funeral for Pope John Paul II."

Rice to Keep an Eye on Khodorkovsky

Reuters reports on the Putin-Rice meeting: "Rice, on her first visit to Moscow as Washington's top diplomat, also said the United States would be watching the outcome of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky's trial 'to see what (it) says about the rule of law in Russia'. A Moscow court is to hand down a verdict in Khodorkovsky's fraud trial on April 27."

Kyrgyzstan Story Delays Bolton Confirmation

From CTV.ca:

Democrats on the committee said they were continuing to receive fresh allegations of Bolton behavior that was imperious or worse.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the panel, read from what he said was a letter from a U.S. Agency for International Development worker in Kyrgyzstan who alleged Bolton harassed her - not sexually - while he was in private practice representing a company.

'She's prepared to provide an affidavit. The letter she sent in, and I'm going to just take a second here, it says, `When I was dispatching a letter to AID, my hell began. Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door, and genuinely behaving like a madman. I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton then routinely visited me to pound on the door and shout threats.''

The committee's delay was a surprise, coming after the White House expressed fresh support for Bolton and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid all but conceded the nomination would be cleared for a floor vote.

Handicapping Bolton's chances of confirmation in advance, Reid said it was possible Democrats would try to block it if Republicans pushed ahead with their plans.
The committee's decision left the timetable unclear, but a two-week delay seemed to be the minimum that could be expected.

Well, let's get this out in the open and have some hearings of the "He said, she said," kind--Kyrgyzstan in the news again. From the letter, I'd say it doesn't really look like Bolton did anything terribly bad--but who knows? The hearings might be the "Tulip Revolution" meets "Anita Hill." I hope that at the hearing we'll find out exactly what the alleged crime Bolton's accuser allegedly might have gone to prison for, relating to USAID contracts, really was...

We might remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed after far more embarrassing charges had been levelled.

New Pope's Books Now Bestsellers

Book sales soar for new pope reads the headline in the San Diego Union. You can click on the link for some of his titles...

10 Years After Oklahoma City

A decade later, the bombing of the Oklahoma CIty Federal Building seems a trial-run for the terrorist attacks that were to strike New York and Washington a few years later. At the time, those who sought to connect Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols's actions to Middle Eastern terrorists were dismissed as fantasists--although one of these individuals was one of McVeigh's lawyers. (Here's the preface from Stephen Jones' book, OTHERS UNKNOWN: TIMOTHY MCVEIGH AND THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING CONSPIRACY.)

Over time, eyewitnesses to "John Doe Number 2" were discredited, links between Elohim City and Arab terrorism were ignored, and President Clinton went so far, at the time, to blame talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for a "climate of hate" that motivated McVeigh and Terry Nichols--even though McVeigh declared the proximate cause of his attack was Clinton's own seige of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, as well as his sympathy for Iraqi victims of American bombing during the Gulf War.

One thing is perfectly clear, as President Richard M. Nixon used to say: Timothy McVeigh did not become a terrorist because of a lack of democracy in the United States. Those who argue that Bush's democracy revolution will stop terrorism might ask themselves--why didn't American democracy stop McVeigh and Nichols?

They could have written letters to their congressmen. Instead, they blew up innocent men, women, and children. That's why the events of April 19, 1995 might be seen as a dress rehearsal for the dreadful terror attacks of September 11, 2001...

Who Was Pope Benedict XV?

Why did the new Pope choose the name Benedict? Perhaps because he wanted to link himself with this predecessor. You can find some information about Pople Benedict XV, who led the Vatican during WWI, at this website. As a German, from Bavaria, Ratzinger is no doubt well-aware of the after-effects of the collapse of the Habsburg Empire due to the Great War...

Victor Davis Hanson on the Papacy

From VDH's Private Papers::A Pope for All Seasons: "A strong pope--as in the case of John Paul II, who boldly opposed Soviet totalitarianism--can provide a bulwark for an agnostic European culture at large increasingly adrift. A caretaker pontiff will only worsen the continent's disturbing lack of confidence in its own origins and once hallowed values.Apart from his political skills, language fluency and vitality, the pope was a man of letters who still believed in what he could not prove by physical evidence. Thus he reminded all of us that reason and faith are not incompatible but are symbiotic and were always at the heart of our very culture. So John Paul II was a powerful reminder that intellectuals can pray, while churchgoers should cultivate the mind. And at this late age, at this troubled time, he was thus a rare gift out of the long past to a now increasingly uncertain West.

"Atque in perpetuum, pater, ave atque vale."