Remembering Vladimir Nabokov

Just found out, by reading my cousin Savtadotty's blog, that she had been a student of Vladimir Nabokov:

Vladimir Nabokov was my Russian Literature and Comparative Literature teacher at college. During the summer of my sophomore year "Lolita" was published. It was banned in the USA, but friends who were fortunate enough to go to Paris that summer returned with suitcases full of English paperback copies. I regret that I was too much of a goody goody cheapskate to invest in buying one of them, but not so much of a goody goody that I didn't read it. Instead, I bought a copy of his less-controversial "Pnin," which he was gracious enough to autograph for me.

I guess some family secrets are never told...

Strategic Implications of the Kashmir Earthquake

Belgravia Dispatch analyses the geopolitical importance of Kashmir, and discusses the effects earthquake relief efforts might have on extremist groups, such as Lakshar-et-Taiba, in the region:

So basically I think that the LeT has more than the financial endurance necessary to weather whatever hard assets they lost during the storm and provide support and relief services to God knows how many Pakistanis lost their home during this latest event. That is going to take some time for them to mobilize, however, which is one of the reasons why I'm more than confident that the US can beat them off at the pass on this one if we act quickly and decisively. This also fits into Dr. Gunaratna's recommendation of creating a parallel NGO and aid network in Muslim countries to serve as a challenge to Wahhabi charities like the LeT's parent MDI organization.

There are also broader issues of national interest here that need to be taken into consideration here. Riding on the wave of popular anti-Americanism that swept across much of the Muslim world during the run-up and aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, the LeT claims that it recruited as many as 3,350 new members from January to June 2003. Even if these totals are inflated (and it certainly wouldn't be the first time), I think it's entirely fair to say that allowing several thousand people to become dependent on LeT social services for the immediate future does not serve US national interest. Moreover, Pakistanis assisted by the US will in all probability be far more likely to assist us at tracking down al-Qaeda and their allies.

Finally, if the heavy casualties suffered by the LeT and other Pakistani jihadi groups live up to hype, this would be an exceedingly good time for the US to press Pakistan on the dual issues of a permanent settlement over Kashmir or at least dissuading them from allowing the wounded groups to rebuild their destroying training infrastructure.

In this context, Dr. Rice's offer of $50 million doesn't seem like enough, since Kuwait alone has offered $100 million. Americans might offer substantially more aid money than any other country, in order both to be seen as the most credible highest bidder in this war for the "hearts and minds" of Pakistan -- and to pay Musharraf enough to shut down the Islamist extremists and terrorists operating in Kashmir, once and for all.

UPDATE: There's more on this subject here.

The Chirac Doctrine

Middle East Quarterly has a fascinating analysis of French foreign policy vis-a-vis the Islamist threat. While I don't agree with everything Olivier Guitta says (banning headscarves is hardly reaching out to Islamists), the overall analysis of the Chirac doctrine is thought-provoking. It is a good thing to take France seriously.

With just one-fifth the population of the United States, France boasts the world's second largest contingent of diplomats, and its consulates and embassies number just eight fewer than the State Department's 260.[1] The French investment in its foreign ministry is likewise heavy and demonstrates the importance the French government places on French prestige and grandeur. Under President Jacques Chirac, French foreign policy has become increasingly assertive. Francois Heisbourg, director of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (Foundation for Strategic Research), summed up French foreign policy as "oppose just to exist."[2] Such descriptions are not entirely fair, though. While Chirac inherited a French foreign policy already tilted toward the Arab world, his pursuit of close personal ties to Arab leaders and his outreach to Islamists, rejectionist Arab states, and groups considered terrorists by the U.S. government is part of a broader strategy

Franco-British rivalry in the Middle East is a major theme of A Peace to End All Peace (scroll down). Of course, Chirac's recent stroke may affect Guitta's theory as much as the death of Syria's Hafez al-Assad.

Will Secularism Survive?

Daniel Pipes wonders if the world understands that secularism (not athiesm) is an answer to today's threat from Islamist extremism, because it permits believers to "agree to disagree" about their faith.

UPDATE: Here's the website for the British National Secular Society. And here's the Wikipedia entry.

Do the Right Thing

Secretary of State Rice has gone to Pakistan to announce more US aid for earthquake victims, according to CNN. This is the type of thing--like Bush 1 and Clinton's Tsunami Tour--that makes friends for the US and influences people in a positive way. So far, she's only been seen with leaders like presidents Karzai and Musharraf. It might be even more helpful if Dr. Rice travels to Kashmir to see the devastation and relief efforts in person, as well as to be seen on TV offering succor to the victims--up close and personal.

After the Tashkent earthquake in the 1960s, Soviet propaganda made much out of Moscow's generosity in rebuilding the city. It created lasting goodwill for Russia among the population. The recent Kashmir tragedy provides America a chance to show that we care, too...

More on Eurasianism

From Ben Paarman, who adds some valuable historical and political context to Aleksandr Dugin's recent DC appearance (scroll down).

19th Century Russian Prince Predicted Blogs

Thanks to Nathan at Registan for this curious news story from the Moscow News:

Prince Vladimir Odoevsky, 1803-1869, was a gifted man. Apart from writing philosophical books, stories for children and composing pieces of music, he also wrote science fiction, trying to imagine what his country would look like in 2,500 years, in 4338.

The fact that among other utopian inventions Odoevsky described something very close to the Internet and blogging was brought to public attention by — surprise, surprise — a blogger. Ivan Dezhurny, a Russian poet and singer, is generally fond of futuristic literature. Reading Odoevsky’s novel “Year 4338”, written in 1837, Dezhurny republished selected bits of the book on his personal blog to the delight of his readers.

Odoevsky suggested in future there would be a kind of connection between houses that would allow people to communicate quickly and easily, the way they do now via the Internet.

“Houses are connected by means of magnetic telegraphs that allow people who live far from each other to communicate,” Odoevsky wrote.

Even more interestingly, Odoevsky suggested every household would publish a kind of daily journal or newsletter and distribute it among selected acquaintances, a habit which Russian bloggers immediately recognized as blogging.

“We received a household journal from the local prime minister, which among other things invited us to his place for a reception,” one of Odoevsky’s characters tells a friend.

“The thing is that many households here publish such journals that replace common correspondence. Such journals usually provide information about the hosts’ good or bad health, family news, different thoughts and comments, small inventions, invitations to receptions.”

However, Odoevsky, a prince and a wealthy man, could not imagine people taking so much bother to keep their acquaintances updated on their daily affairs. He suggested the job would be carried out by the butler.

“The job of publishing such a journal daily or weekly is carried out by the butler. It is done very simply: receiving an order from the masters, he makes a notice of what they tell him, then make copies by camera obscura and sends them to the acquaintances.”

Odoevsky’s book contains other curious predictions, such as the threat of the Earth colliding with a comet and Russians planning to fire rockets at it to prevent the collision.

Literature theorists say the unusual remoteness of Odoevsky’s predictions — 2,500 years — could be explained by the slow pace of life that Russian society led in the 19th century.

The Ugly American

That's how Condoleeza Rice appears to the Russians. Her trip to Central Asia seems like some sort of attempt to exclude Russia from the region, according to this article in Kommersant. Will her lecturing and hectoring about democracy and human rights work?

I don't know. In any case, the Secretary of State might take a look at James Yee's account of conditions at Guantanamo Bay prison, as published in the Sunday Times of London (ht Andrew Sullivan). With President Bush threatening to veto a military appropriations bill to preserve his right to torture prisoners, it doesn't seem the USA has much moral standing to criticize other countries, at least for now...

US to Resume Israeli Dialog

Bet you didn't know that the US has been cold-shouldering Sharon for 3 years over military sales to China. The Gaza withdrawal has apparently led to a thaw. Now, talks are scheduled to resume between Washington and Jerusalem, according to Haaretz.

Denmark Returns Empress Maria Fedorovna to Russia

The remains of Empress Maria Fedorovna, born Princess Dagmar of Denmark, will join her husband's, Russian Emperor Alexander III in St. Petersburg, according to Kommersant. In 2006, the Danish navy will transport her coffin for interment at the St. Peter and Paul Fortress, final resting place of the Russian imperial families.

Russia in Global Affairs

Thanks to Lisa Lau, academic publishing coordinator of the Council on Foreign Relations, whom I met at the American Political Science Association, I discovered the website for Russia in Global Affairs. They have some interesting articles on international relations, from a different perspective.

MK Bhadrakumar on Ukraine's Orange Revolution

The former Indian diplomat posted to Islamabad, Kabul, Tashkent and Moscow writes that events are tilting Moscow's way:

Ukrainian developments once again show that the Western integration processes in the post-Soviet republics are very much linked to and are conditional on Russia's own Western integration orientation.

Indeed, what happens in Ukraine in the coming weeks and months will be an important indicator of the shape of things to come for the post-Soviet space.

Significantly, in a major speech at Stanford University (alma mater of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) on September 20, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned against the real danger of blundering into another Cold War.

Will Russia and the West cooperate in Ukraine instead of pulling in opposite directions? Will Ukraine be allowed to settle into acting as a bridge between the West and Russia? The trend is likely to be Ukraine itself not wanting to be integrated in a form that separates it from Russia. If so, will it prompt a remedial course on the part of the West to draw Russia itself closer to it? The post-Soviet space will be keenly awaiting the answers to these questions.

An Able-Danger China Connection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain Bans 15 Terrorist Groups

According to the BBC.

Why Condoleeza Rice Snubs Uzbekistan

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

MR. ERELI: (Inaudible) Barbara?

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Columbus Day

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

Kanan Makiya and Rend Rahim on Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NY Times Discovers Jihad in Central Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Night and Good Luck

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

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

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

Banned in Tashkent

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

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