Prostitution Scandal at USAID

Maybe I missed this when it first came out in September, but it seems worth mentioning that George Soros's Open Society Institute is still suing USAID for requiring grant recipients to sign an anti-prostitution pledge (the case was mentioned at a recent American Enterprise Institute panel on NGOs):

The Open Society Institute, along with its affiliate the Alliance for Open Society International, filed a lawsuit today against USAID to challenge its unconstitutional and dangerous policy of requiring grantees to sign a pledge opposing prostitution. Failure to endorse this loyalty oath means health workers across the world striving to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS could lose funding and be forced to abandon life-saving programs...

...AOSI is administering a government grant awarded in 2002 to implement USAID’s Drug Demand Reduction Program in Central Asia, where HIV/AIDS is spread overwhelmingly through injection drug use and left unchecked will have a devastating social and economic impact. Since sex workers are at increased risk of using drugs, they are a prime target for this program’s interventions.

This is in the context of an October 6, 2005 complaint from Congressman Mark Souder to USAID official James Kunder about a US-funded NGO "called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM) that had retraffcked women back into a brothel after they had been rescued by a State Department financed group."

In his letter, Souder charged that USAID administrator Andrew Natsios was aware of SANGRAM's record.

The Montreal Intifada

A Canadian acquaintance reminded me that there were riots at Concordia University in Montreal a few years ago that bore more than a passing resemblance to the recent outbreaks in Paris and Denmark. So I googled again, and came up with this article from CAMERA on the Montreal Intifada.

The More We Know...

...the worse it looks for President Bush. Here's a story about the US warning Saudi Arabia three years before 9/11 that Bin Laden may have been planning to use planes to attack the US.

If that's true, then how come Saudi Arabia didn't know that their citizens were taking flight training in the US to do exactly that? And how come the US was letting Saudis take those classes? And so on.

The problem is that since Hurricane Katrina, Bush's credibility is zero. Only the stupidity and incomptence of the Democrats to date has saved him from impeachment for all his screw-ups before, during, and after 9/11.

"Suicide by Cop"

The tragic story at the Miami airport recalls the fact that mentally ill individuals are far more likely to be killed by police. I googled the topic, and found this website on the phenomenon of Suicide by Cop. How many more of our most vulnerable people may fall victim to trigger-happy air marshals?

One reason for putting people in a mental asylum was to protect them from themselves--and others. It may be that the Global War on Terror will mean that America has to take a closer look at the way we treat the mentally ill, and make some changes in the way their cases are managed (or ignored), in order to protect them from those who might mistake them for terrorists.

More on this story from Laura Rozen.

Sudoku Fever!

There's a classic Soviet film by Pudovkin titled Chess Fever!. The hero goes mad for playing chess.

Well, someone I know is addicted to Sudoku, plays it day and night--in newspapers, online, wherever. And while I was at Borders today, I noticed a wall chock full of Sudoku books.

Apparently, Sudoku is like a crossword puzzle, but with numbers in a sequence instead of witty word clues. And the puzzles are made by machines, instead of people.

It seems to be as addictive as computer solitaire, too...

The Google Story

David Vise and Mark Malseed were at the downtown Washington Borders this afternoon to talk about their new book. Unfortunately, I missed their actual lunchtime talk because I was at an off-the-record Washington event. But I'm glad I dropped by Borders, because I got a chance to chat with co-author Mark Malseed--who turns out to have been Bob Woodward's researcher on his books about the Bush administration and the War in Iraq. He seemed pretty level-headed, and characterized Google as "pushing the envelope" not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of what's legal and ethical, common in successful businesses (anyone remember Bill Gates and a company called Microsoft?), when it came to a discussion of the Google Print copyrright controversy. He signed a book, and I bought a copy, which I'll read rather than scan or index, and may report back on later...

L'Affaire Finkielkraut

Thanks to a link from Roger L. Simon, I read this interesting posting on Bad Hair Blog about the latest intellectual fallout from the French Riots--L'Affaire Finkielkraut.

Which led me to this quote on Solomonia, from Sarkozy:

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Sarkozy said: "Monsieur Finkielkraut is an intellectual who brings honor and pride to French wisdom ... If there is so much criticism of him, it might be because he says things that are correct."

Here's an excerpt from the Haaretz article that touched off L' Affaire:

What is its origin? Is this the response of the Arabs and blacks to the racism of which they are victims? I don't believe so, because this violence had very troubling precursors, which cannot be reduced to an unalloyed reaction to French racism.

"Let's take, for example, the incidents at the soccer match between France and Algeria that was held a few years ago. The match took place in Paris, at the Stade de France. People say the French national team is admired by all because it is black-blanc-beur ["black-white-Arab" - a reference to the colors on France's tricolor flag and a symbol of the multiculturalism of French society - D.M.]. Actually, the national team today is black-black-black, which arouses ridicule throughout Europe. If you point this out in France, they'll put you in jail, but it's interesting nevertheless that the French national soccer team is composed almost exclusively of black players.

"Anyway, this team is perceived as a symbol of an open, multiethnic society and so on. The crowd in the stadium, young people of Algerian descent, booed this team throughout the whole game! They also booed during the playing of the national anthem, the `Marseillaise,' and the match was halted when the youths broke onto the field with Algerian flags.

"And then there are the lyrics of the rap songs. Very troubling lyrics. A real call to revolt. There's one called Dr. R., I think, who sings: `I piss on France, I piss on De Gaulle' and so on. These are very violent declarations of hatred for France. All of this hatred and violence is now coming out in the riots. To see them as a response to French racism is to be blind to a broader hatred: the hatred for the West, which is deemed guilty of all crimes. France is being exposed to this now."

In other words, as you see it, the riots aren't directed at France, but at the entire West?

"No, they are directed against France as a former colonial power, against France as a European country. Against France, with its Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition."

Rumsfeld Declares War on Media

In today's Wall Street Journal, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld blames the American press for his failure to accomplish the mission in Iraq. The oped is titled: 'Do Some Soul Searching' Why aren't the media telling the whole story about Iraq? It's based on a talk he gave at Johns Hopkins' SAIS. But like Dick Cheney at AEI a little while ago, Rumsfeld has swung and missed the ball.

Sure the press is biased. What else is new? Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, and without the support of the mainstream media, in part because he was a great communicator. And it's hard to remember right now, but a few years ago Rumsfeld was a media darling. Today he's a bum.

IMHO this change reflects Rumsfeld's own decisions.

First and foremost was his decision to replace Tori Clarke as head PR honcho in the Pentagon. After Clarke left "to spend more time with her family," Rumsfeld's positive image began to sag. And there's nothing that Larry DiRita, a talented numbers-cruncher policy wonk who used to work on another floor of the Heritage Foundation when I was there, can possibly do to fix that. Good PR requires a good PR person in charge. He's just not a good PR person. And if your PR person isn't the best, what does that say about the rest of the operation? It's PR 101...

So, instead of lashing out at the messenger, maybe Rumsfeld might show us that he's willing to do some soul searching himself...

Why Did USAID Chief Quit?

According to whispers at the AEI this morning, it was because Condoleeza Rice forced him out. But why? A Democratic source has this today,according to Karen Finney of the Democratic National Committee, the reason may be that [sic] screwed up the reconstruction of Iraq:

USAID Director Who Predicted Cheap Rebuilding In Iraq Quit. "The head of the government's overseas relief agency (Andrew Natsios) , the U.S. Agency for International Development, is leaving his job... 'Secretary Rice asked him to stay but he felt it was time for new challenges,' Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson said. In 2003 Natsios confidently predicted that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, a job that is now expected to cost tens of billions of dollars. The Washington Post later reported that a transcript of Natsios' remark on ABC's Nightline was removed from the agency's Web site. 'The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges,' Natsios said on the television program. 'The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.'" (Associated Press State & Local Wire, 12/2/05)

Napoleon: An Intimate Portrait

After a somewhat depressing NGO conference at the American Enterprise Institute, where the former general counsel of USAID reiterated that information about possible US money going to terrorists or terrorist supporters despite certification and regulation to the contrary is probably not available because it is classified, confidential, private, or still in the field rather than at headquarters (what ever happened to "transparency"?)--I had the good fortune to cross the street to see the National Geographic Society's exhibition Napoleon: An Intimate Portrait.

The French Cultural attache had recommended seeing the largest private collection of Napoleonic relics in the world, and it was just fascinating. All the good and bad sides of the French general were on display. Maps, pictures, and charts from his ill-fated Egyptian campaign--"it's just like Iraq" said a woman at the glass case. His camp bed, the sleeve of his coat, his hat, a lock of hair. Busts, portraits, Empire-style decorative arts, plates, cups, and furniture. Pictures of Austerlitz, Moscow, and Ulm. His generals, his wives, his annulment and divorce. His descendants and his wife's--the ruling families of Norway, Denmark and Sweden still in place today are descendants of Josephine. And of course the story of Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase for $15 million.

Napoleon modelled himself on Alexander the Great. And he was not shy of using force. He single-handedly saved the Directory in 1795, when Royalist mobs attacked the National Convention. Barras sent for Napoleon, who ordered his troops to fire point-blank on the crowd. Hundreds were killed or wounded, the streets were cleared--and the Revolution was saved, at least until it became an all Napoleon, all the time, French Empire...

Barras' briefcase was in a glass case, with a note explaining that he introduced Josephine (his former mistress) to Napoleon. How he was betrayed, imprisoned at Elba, returned for the "100 days" and then faced his Waterloo and exile on St. Helena--where he died miserably either from poison or stomach cancer.

Fascinating, and well worth a visit.

Remember Pearl Harbor!

Comparing FDR to George W. Bush may not be fair, but four years after Pearl Harbor the USA had crushed Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were all dead. American troops occupied a peaceful and quiet Japan, Germany and Italy.

Four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Saddam Hussein is looking feisty, and Afghanistan and Iraq remain terrorist centers. Meanwhile, Paris burned after bombers struck Madrid and London.

What's wrong with this picture?

The Perils and Possibilities of Strengthening the Rule of Law

"Evidence From Uzbekistan" was Dr. Lawrence Markowitz's subtitle for tonight's talk (the title is above) on the role of the Prosecutor in Uzbekistan's legal system at Georgetown University's Intercultural Center, as the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies 2005 Nava'i Lecturer in Central Asian Studies.

Dr. Markowitz was just plain "Larry" when I met him in Tashkent a few years ago. Boy, was I impressed in those days. He was on a Fulbright-Hays, and seemed to know more about every little "kishlak" in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan than any other American. Here, in the USA, as Dr. Markowitz, he seemed more careful about what he said.

The audience seemed pretty high-powered, from the questions. At a reception afterwards, I spoke with someone from USAID, someone from a legal reform project who said she was a Supreme Court fellow, someone from the State Department, and someone who seems to have been on the Georgetown faculty and may have been a State Department official of some sort in Tashkent.

What struck me was that no matter how much I pressed them and tried to provoke an answer, not one could say for certain that the US did not provide funds, indirectly, to terrorist groups or support groups in Uzbekistan. I was told that any relevant emails may have been erased, and although I could file a FOIA request, and although support for terrorist groups or supporters is against regulations, that the recipients of US dollars actually don't have to certify or track the money to guarantee that none of it reaches the wrong hands. Ostensibly, due to the difficulties of doing business in the country. So, for example, a terrorist or member of a banned organization could possibly be a supplier or contractor or employee of an American NGO or Uzbek organization receiveing American money...and no one in Washington would be able to tell. They don't do thorough background checks, apparently. And while I can file a FOIA request, I apparently cannot find out exactly who my American tax dollars ended up going to pay in Uzbekistan, or what banned parties they may have belonged to.

The problem with such an answer, is that while it may be true, and perhaps understandable (I was told on another occasion that USAID had funded Shining Path guerilla leaders in South America), is that it cannot reassure the Uzbek government, which accused the US government of supporting Islamist terrorists responsible for the recent Andijan violence. Nor can such a non-answer reassure anyone that President Bush is very serious about his so-called "Global War on Terror."

Ironically, such answers show American aid isn't "Strengthening the Rule of Law" in Uzbekistan at all. For if the US is supporting illegal Islamist organizations, either directly or via hiring individual members of those organizations, then the US is contributing to undermining the law in Uzbekistan. Supporters of Osama bin Laden, or those affiliated with them, make questionable champions for the American legal system.

Ironically, based on these admittedly anecdotal, informal (and possibly unreliable) conversations over drinks with anonymous sources, I wonder whether lax administration and oversight of American aid programs by USAID and the State Department may have seriously harmed American interests in Central Asia--and cost our country a military base of some geopolitical significance...

UPDATE: More on Markowitz's talk at Neweurasia.net and on the Sunshine Coalition website.

Is the CIA Out to Get the President?

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn seems to say so:

IN THE CIA's continuing campaign against the Bush administration, the agency has found the leaking of classified information to be a potent weapon. This is especially true with regard to the spinning of intelligence connecting Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda. Consider, for example, the case of Abu Zubaydah, a top al Qaeda operative captured in March 2002.

Bull Moose: Rumsfeld Must Go

That's his reaction to President Bush's Plan for Victory speech.

The Danish Intifada

The American Thinker has a post on recent riots in Aarhus, Denmark--sparked by publication of a cartoon of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

I first read about the Aarhus riots in this issue of The Spectator:
It is certainly disturbing news. I was in Aarhus a few years ago for a business communication conference, and it was an interesting town, much more authenticallly Danish-seeming than Copenhagen. Such communal riots have long been common in countries like India, now it appears that Europe is set to suffer the same. There's more on this story in the Brussels Journal:

Islam is no laughing matter. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding after the newspaper published a series of twelve cartoons (view them here) about the prophet Muhammad. According to the Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the paper’s offices and kill the cartoonists.

The newspaper published the cartoons when a Danish author complained that he could find no-one to illustrate his book about Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether there were more cases of self-censorship regarding Islam in Denmark and asked twelve illustrators to draw the prophet for them. Carsten Juste, the paper’s editor, said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in Denmark. 5,000 of them took to the streets to protest. Muslim organisations have demanded an apology, but Juste rejects this idea: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures,” he said. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel reacted with the statement: “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.” . . .
Jyllands-Posten was also included on an al-Qaeda website listing possible terrorist targets. An organisation which calls itself “The Glorious Brigades in Northern Europe” is circulating pictures on the internet which show bombs exploding over pictures of the newspaper and blood flowing over the national flag of Denmark. “The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark – very soon you all will regret this,” the website says.

More from FreeRepublic.com about a bounty being put on the Danish cartoonists heads--in Pakistan.

La Trou

We enjoyed Touchez pas au grisbi so much that last night we watched Jacques Becker's last film, La Trou. It's a prison escape drama, which was just fascinating for its depiction of life inside a french jail in the 1960s. The little details seemed realistic, and the staggering determination of the prisoners to tunned out through concrete, cement, and rock with little more than their bare hands was just incredible. There were some interesting themes, and twists, to the story. Which I won't spoil by telling. In the end, the solidarity of the men, and their ingenuity, were spellbinding. It is an amazing film, over two hours long, where the main action is just men digging a hole. But it was hypnotic. The acting was great. And the best part was the type of food the prisoners received in their care parcels. I still think about the ending. It's sort of an un-Capote. Add this one to your Netflix queue, too...

Sharon: Nuclear Iran Threatens World Peace

According to Ha'aretz, Sharon is worried that Iran's nuclear program has not been stopped, probably due to the fact that the Iranian president vowed to wipe Israel off the map:

Sharon said Thursday that Israel is watching with growing concern Iran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities, and that Israel cannot accept the current situation.

However, Sharon added that "Israel is not spearheading the international struggle against Iran's nuclear arming," although he said it is working with the countries that are at the forefront.

The danger posed by Iran "does not relate only to Israel," Sharon told the editors convention at Sokolov House in Tel Aviv. "It puts at risk Israel, Middle Eastern countries and many other countries around the world. Therefore the efforts led by the U.S. today must include free countries that understand this grave danger."

Earlier this week, Military Intelligence chief Major General Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) said diplomacy would have failed if Iran was still working on producing nuclear weapons by March.

"If by the end of March 2006, the international community does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran's efforts] have failed," Ze'evi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Several MKs said they thought Ze'evi was saying military efforts would become necessary by April.

"The comments by the head of Military Intelligence convey a harsh, worrying and dark picture," said committee chairman MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). "Iran is going to become a nuclear power in the region and the world is helpless."

Hans Magnus Enzensberger on Islamism

Hans Magnus Enzensberger believes that logic of political Islamism demands the suicide of Arab civilization. As a German, he should know something about the power of suicidal ideologies. So I think this may be a credible analysis of the terrorist project. Enzenberger's article is entitled, The Radical Loser:(ht LGF)

The Arab world has proved similarly unproductive where its political institutions are concerned. Imported forms of nationalism and socialism have failed everywhere, and democratic stirrings are routinely nipped in the bud. Of course, blanket statements of this kind can only aim to say something about the state of the whole. They tell us nothing about individual capabilities, that are subject the world over to the genetic normal distribution. But in many Arab countries, anyone who expresses independent ideas puts their own life at risk. Which is why many of the best scientists, engineers, writers and political thinkers live in exile, a brain drain that can certainly be compared with the exodus of Jewish elites from Germany in the 1930s, and which is likely to have similarly far-reaching consequences.

Although the methods of repression that are customary in Arab countries refer back to the traditions of oriental despotism, in this field too, the unbelievers have proved indispensable as teachers. From machine pistols through to poison gas, they invented and exported all of the weapons that have been used in the Arab-Islamic world. Arab rulers also studied and adopted the methods of the GPU and the Gestapo. And of course, Islamist terrorism is also unable to do without such borrowings. Its entire technical arsenal, from explosives to satellite telephones, from aircraft to television cameras, comes from the hated West.

That such an all-encompassing dependency should be experienced as unbearable makes perfect sense. Especially among displaced migrants, regardless of their economic situation, the confrontation with Western civilisation leads to a lasting culture shock. The apparent superabundance of products, opinions, economic and sexual options leads to a double bind of attraction and revulsion, and the abiding memory of the backwardness of one's own culture becomes intolerable. The consequences for one's own sense of self-esteem are clear, as is the urge to compensate by means of conspiracy theories and acts of vengeance. In this situation, many people cannot resist the temptation of the Islamists' offer to punish others for their own failings.

Solutions to the dilemma of the Arab world are of no interest to Islamism, which does not go beyond negation. Strictly speaking, it is a non-political movement, since it makes no negotiable demands. Put bluntly, it would like the majority of the planet's inhabitants, all the unbelievers and apostates, to capitulate or be killed.

This burning desire cannot be fulfilled. The destructive energy of the radical losers is doubtless sufficient to kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and to cause lasting damage to the civilization on which they have declared war. One indication of the potential impact of a few dozen human bombs is the level of day-to-day controls that has come to be the norm.

But this is actually the least of the losses to civilization resulting from terrorism. It can create a general atmosphere of fear and trigger counter-reactions based on panic. It boosts the power and influence of the political police, of the secret services, of the arms industry and of private security operatives; it encourages the passing of increasingly repressive laws and leads to the loss of hard-won freedoms. No conspiracy theories are required to understand that there are people who welcome these consequences of terror. There is nothing better than an external enemy with which to justify surveillance and repression. Where this leads is shown by the example of Russian domestic policy.

The Islamists can consider all this a success. But it makes no difference to the actual power relations. Even the spectacular attack on the World Trade Center was not able to shake the supremacy of the United States. The New York Stock Exchange reopened the Monday after the attacks, and the long-term impact on the international financial system and world trade was minimal.

The consequences for Arab societies, on the other hand, are fatal. For the most devastating long-term effects will be born not by the West, but by the religion in whose name the Islamists act. Not just refugees, asylum seekers and migrants will suffer as a result. Beyond any sense of justice, entire peoples will have to pay a huge price for the actions of their self-appointed representatives. The idea that their prospects, which are bad enough as it is, could be improved through terrorism is absurd. History offers no example of a regressive society that stifled its own productive potential being capable of survival in the long term.

The project of the radical loser, as currently seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, consists of organizing the suicide of an entire civilisation. But the likelihood of their succeeding in an unlimited generalization of their death cult is negligible. Their attacks represent a permanent background risk, like ordinary everyday deaths by accident on the streets, to which we have become accustomed.

An Iranian-Chechen Connection?

There's an interesting post on Siberian Light concerning British reports of Iranian training for Chechen terrorists. Do I believe it is possible?

Yes.

One remaining question is, why do the US and EU offer support and asylum to reputed Chechen terrorists in the context of a war on terror? (Yet, curiously, some Islamic charities in the US have been prosecuted for raising money and supplies for Chechnya.)

More on Russia . . .

Speaking of Russia, my Winter 2006 issue of Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs arrived in the mail yesterday, and it looks pretty intresting. Amitai Etzioni on the issue of national sovereignty, James Kurth on the future of humanitarian intervention, Jan Ting on immigration, William Anthony Hay on Democracy, Andrei Tsygankov on Putin's foreign policy, and yours truly on cultural challenges to democratization in Russia. An excerpt:

Just as France continues to exert influence in its former colonies, Russia
will play its role in the post-Soviet space. Like France, Russia sponsored a
revolution with universal pretensions; won extensive international conquests;
had its ideas affect the course of world history; has a strongly centralized state,
its own form of dirigisme; and has lost its empire. In this sense, U.S.-French
relations might prove the model for future U.S.-Russian relations. Just as
Charles de Gaulle expelled NATO troops in the 1960s and Jacques Chirac
opposed American intervention in Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion,
Russia under Vladimir Putin may prove to be a difficult friend. But that is no
reason to make Russia an enemy.