Christopher Hitchens: Stand Up For Denmark!

From Slate(ht Michelle Malkin)

The incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! A small democratic country with an open society, a system of confessional pluralism, and a free press has been subjected to a fantastic, incredible, organized campaign of lies and hatred and violence, extending to one of the gravest imaginable breaches of international law and civility: the violation of diplomatic immunity. And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings.

Mora's US Navy Torture Memo

From Jane Mayer's New Yorker article, here's a link to a "smoking gun" in the Bush administration torture controversy enveloping Washington: Alberto J. Mora's official memo recording a US policy on torture. (ht Andrew Sullivan)

The American Thinker on Dubai Port "Storm"

I don't know how they do it, but The American Thinker has another interesting article, this one about the Dubai port sale controversy:

Some wonder how an idea such as this could even find a place at Uncle Sam’s table. After all, Dubai is an state that recognized the Taliban and, as pointed out by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, seeks “to be Iran’s free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9-11.” In other words, this is somewhat akin to having given a Japanese or German company control over our seaports in the late 1930s.

Of course, such an action would have been unthinkable to the World War II generation, as it would have offended their sense of patriotism, a quality that is now sorely lacking. Moreover, their main concern wasn’t offending others; they didn’t feel compelled to pepper every condemnation of their enemy with qualifiers such as “Fascism is an ideology of peace” and “The real menace is the radical fascists.”

What has changed? Well, political-correctness was absent in those days, meaning, people had a grasp of reality. Thus, they knew it was logical to assume that foreign peoples who shared an ethnic and/or religious identity with your sworn enemies will be more likely to be partial to them than to you. This may not be a pretty truth, but a fact doesn’t cease to be a fact simply because it’s out of fashion.

Some will say I’m painting everybody with the same brush, but perish the thought. I understand that we should judge everyone as an individual, but I also grasp something that people shackled by political-correctness cannot: yes, there is variation within groups, but there is also variation between groups. And, yes, you have to judge everyone as an individual, but, you also have to judge every group as an individual group. One of the ironies of modern man is that while he will adamantly stand against the painting of every person with the same brush, he just as adamantly stands for the painting of every group with the same brush. Thus, this isn’t about denying individual uniqueness; it’s about acknowledging collective uniqueness.

But blinded to this truth we are. In our ideological frenzy to embrace multiculturalism at all costs, a bizarre and tendentious “tolerance” at all costs, and internationalism at all costs, we have imbibed all the lies upon which these schemes rest, rendering ourselves a credulous lot and sheep among wolves. And that is the problem, for, generally speaking, it’s not that those who rubber-stamp these harebrained schemes have corrupt hearts. It’s that they have corrupted judgement.

Harvard President to Quit

So says The Harvard Crimson. Were allegations of Summers' connection to Russian corruption at the Harvard Institute for International Developemnt, in Institutional Investor magazine (see How Harvard Lost Russia) the 'tipping point'? Here's evidence from another article in the Crimson:

Harvard’s top lawyer wrote this week to Institutional Investor magazine protesting its portrayal of University President Lawrence H. Summers’ role in the fate of a close colleague implicated in a U.S. government lawsuit.

An article in the magazine’s January issue suggested that Summers’ friendship with Jones Professor of Economics Andrei Shleifer protected the professor—who led a controversial Harvard project to advise Russia in the 1990s—from consequences at Harvard.

Seized by some Faculty members to criticize Summers, the article, “How Harvard Lost Russia,” details the activities of the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) in assisting the Russian government to privatize its economy.

The project, funded by the State Department, drew charges from the U.S. government that Shleifer violated conflict-of-interest policies by personally investing in Russia while running the program.

The article suggests that Summers shielded Shleifer from disciplinary action by the University, which paid $26.5 million to settle the lawsuit.

But in a brief letter dated Feb. 14, Vice President and General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83 says the article does not make clear that Summers recused himself from the University’s decisions about the suit “from the outset of his presidency at Harvard.”

The letter also says Summers did not participate in “judgements regarding whether, when or how Harvard should review the conduct of employees involved in the HIID project.”

Shleifer, who was found liable by a federal court in 2004 for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, paid $2 million to settle his part in the suit.

The article’s author, investigative journalist David McClintick ’62, said yesterday that his article “speaks for itself.”

McClintick’s account has been circulated among some faculty and was mentioned at a Feb. 7 Faculty meeting where professors assailed Summers’ leadership.

The Dots Connect Bush Administration to Dubai Ports Company

According to the San Jose Mercury News, at least two Bush administration officials have ties to the Dubai ports company at the center of the controversy over the Arab nation's role in 9/11 and financial links to Al Qaeda.

During World War II, Harry Truman headed his committee's Senate investigations into defense industry and big business ties to the Nazis, taking on the administration where necessary--which meant fellow Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Truman's committee was controversial, and it helped win WWII--it also paved the way for Truman to become President.

American sorely needs the same sort of Congressional leadership right now, to insure that American businessmen are not aiding the enemy either deliberately or inadvertently. Congress apparently set up something, according to this listing in the Library of Congress--but where's the new Harry Truman?

The Dots Connect Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda

Another interesting artice from The American Thinker, by Ray Robison, who served in the Defense Intelligence Agency's Iraqi Survey Group and says he saw the documents with his own eyes:

So let ’s put this in context. Here’s what the documents tell us:

On February 26th, 1993 the first world trade center was attacked by al-Qaeda and the EIJ (really two organizations that cooperated in 1993 and eventually merged).

A month later an official from EIJ was meeting with Saddam in Baghdad.

We have a document showing Saddam authorizing the IIS to “provide technical support” to the EIJ, and by extension, al-Qaeda.

And then al-Qaeda and the EIJ attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001 led by an Egyptian Jihadist, Mohammed Atta.

Now you have proof Saddam provided support to the EIJ and by extension al-Qaeda, both of which attacked us on 9/11.

While Europe Slept

Carlin Romano reviews Bruce Bawer's new book about the Clash of Civilizations (ht Roger L. Simon):

Accept his analysis or not, Bawer and his details startle, since American tourists rarely visit the Muslim communities that now ring many European cities, and American journalists rarely cover them. Apart from the heinous killings by angry Muslims of prominent Europeans such as Dutch professor and politician Pim Fortuyn (after publication of his book Against the Islamicization of Our Culture) and Dutch artist and filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who dared to question Islamic brutalization of women, Bawer describes a landscape of dysfunction.

Seventy percent of the inmates in French prisons, Bawer reports, are Muslim. Four out of five residents at Oslo's main women's shelter are non-Norwegian women seeking protection from male family members. In Denmark, "Muslims make up 5 percent of the population but receive 40 percent of welfare outlays." Ninety-four percent of asylum seekers who come to Norway arrive with no identification, a well-known subterfuge around Europe that virtually ensures asylum on humanitarian grounds.

Bawer's book also highlights the ironies of current global politics and immigration. Radical Islamists, for instance, focus their fury on the United States even though it, unlike Europe, experienced little antagonism with Islam until the creation of Israel, and in fact most resembles the traditional Islamic "umma" (universal Muslim community), in the generosity with which it welcomes foreign residents (though it differs in offering equality rather than second-class dhimmi citizenship).

Similarly, while Islamists explode with fury at the very idea that non-Muslims should occupy or live in Islamic countries, Bawer observes and amply documents that many employ every legal and illegal stratagem imaginable under the doctrine of "family reunification" to bring more relatives into their European countries. They then insist they have a right to be there and apply for the seemingly endless forms of European welfare: "unemployment benefits, relief payments, child benefits, disability, cash support, and rent allowance."

Bawer apportions blame for the "mess" he sees. Muslim immigrants insist on Islam's traditionally imperialist principles, which presume that no Muslim properly lives under the sovereignty of a non-Muslim state. Europeans maintain a "romantic view of Muslim immigrants" as "colorful" unfortunates worthy of assistance, but steadfastly resist their entry into elite professions and neighborhoods. Bawer beautifully capsulizes this European mind-set as "millions in aid, but not a penny in salary."

Ultimately, his book, like the cartoon controversy, raises profound challenges to standard ideas of democracy, authority, and free expression.

To whom does any country's physical territory belong? Those who have been there longest? A simple majority? The best-educated?

Must the cultural rules of longtime societies last forever? Or might it make perfect democratic sense for officially secular France to change should its Muslim population reach 50 percent, just as the English-speaking United States might need to accept Spanish as an equal language if Spanish speakers reach that mark?

Bawer's must-read book, in tandem with others, opens our eyes to an inescapable truth: Christians and Muslims fought wars for more than 1,000 years, with each at times conquering the other's territory by force. Non-Muslims need to know far more about Islam if they're going to take positions they can justify, whether that leads to cooperating with various Islamic world views or ultimately confronting them.

Islam, we're often reminded these days, means "submission" in Arabic. Enlightenment, we should equally remember, means replacing half-baked notions and myths with facts.

Woody Allen v. Billy Wilder

Yesterday, we saw Woody Allen's latest film, Match Point. It had been highly recommended by friends and professional movie critics (the person we went to the theatre with was seeing it for the 2nd time). It's something completely different, we had been led to believe. It's London, not New York. A whole new Woody Allen...

Well, it's not. And as someone I went to the screening with pointed out, the plot seems awfully similar to the plot of Woody Allen's earlier Crimes and Misdemeanors. Allen seems to have an obsession with getting away with murder, in addition to a love of social snobbery and hatred of America. This film is not a new Woody Allen, it's the same old Woody Allen--a dirty old man telling a dirty joke--you can almost hear him wheezing: "heh, heh, heh."

Allen thinks he's more profound than Dostoevsky, because Raskolnikov gets caught, and his tennis pro protagonist doesn't. Dostoevysky is making precisely the point that Allen misses. Which means there is no moral to Allen's story, other than Allen is a nasty old man.

The plot seems as well to be some sort of parody of Dreiser's An American Tragedy, made into the stunning Montgomery Clift-Elizabeth Taylor melodrama, A Place in the Sun. But these actors are not Montgomery Clifts or Elizabeth Taylors, either. Scarlett Johansen, who as our movie-going friend noted lookes "two steps from the trailer" is so wooden and lifeless that you don't understand why Allen's protagonist needs to knock her off. We believe she's a bad actress because, well, she is a bad actress. Cold, wooden, and nasty herself.

So, what Allen has done is put nasty people into a nasty situation with nasty results. His London looks just like his Manhattan.

Ick.

All the more icky in comparison to Billy Wilder's The Emperor Waltz which we had just seen on DVD. The contrast couldn't be more acute. Although the plot is similar--Americans in conflict with an aristocratic European environment--the perspectives are completely the opposite. Billy Wilder mocks the European obsession with pedigree and breeding, placing Bing Crosby's romance with the Countess Soltzenberg-Stolzenberg in parallel to the relationship between their pet dogs. Bing's mutt "Buttons" fancies the Countess's poodle, "Sherherazade." It's funny, moving, and wise, with a heartwarming moral about love conquering all.

When the aristocratic Baron orders the vet to "drown the puppies" resulting from the Buttons-Sherherazade love affair, becaue of their polluted bloodline, Bing Crosby rescues them. In Woody Allen's film, the protagonist kills the offspring from his illicit affair. In other words, in a similar situation, Woody Allen's protagonist drowns the puppies.

Blech.

Woody Allen might sneer at its humanity, but The Emperor Waltz is a brilliant film, manifesting the filmmaking genius of Billy Wilder--a genius based on a sense of humanity that Allen totally lacks. Wilder is warm, where Allen is cold.

Wilder made better noir thrillers, too. Not only is Match Point no Emperor Waltz, Match Point is no Double Indemnity, either.

Vasko Kohlmayer: Appeasement Unto Death

Another interesting article at The American Thinker:

...World War II claimed some fifty million lives. Most of them could have been saved had the western powers united to remove Hitler in 1935 or 1936 when they still could. They could have and should have seen what was coming. The signs were right there before their eyes. But they did not want to see and instead tried to convince themselves that the evil was actually not all that bad. A voice in the wilderness cried foul and urged them otherwise. But Churchill was ignored and the price was the greatest tragedy the world has seen.

During the course of its existence, The Soviet Union killed twenty million people. It sponsored world communism which claimed the lives of nearly sixty million more. It unleashed the Cold War which almost brought the world to an end. In 1918 the clear-minded understood that communism had the potential to bring about horrible things. Had the western democracies come together then, they could have cut down the struggling Bolsheviks before they had time to entrench themselves. But they did not, and the evil just grew and grew and in the end it almost swallowed everything.

A wise man once said that evil flourishes when the good remain idle. History is his witness.

The Old Continent has stubbornly refused to learn – or rather has foolishly forgotten – this lesson. So much so that one almost begins to suspect the existence of a civilizational death wish. Twice in the last century its vacillation brought it to the brink of annihilation. Western Europe did not confront the Bolsheviks and it did not stand up to Hitler. It had to be dragged into fighting the Cold War and even then it was only a lukewarm warrior at best. There was even a moment when Western Europe was all but dead. Overrun by fascism, the flame of its once great civilization flickered only weakly in the English Isles. And even there it was not due to the resilience of a culture rising in defense of that which it held precious, but to the fortitude of a single man [Winston Churchill]. That man understood that there can be no conceding to evil. He understood that appeasement is unto death. It was he who said that ‘an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.’

The Europeans stood by when Islamists called for their destruction. Perversely, they have even chastised those who try to do defend them. Now they are paying the price.

They should be neither shocked nor surprised at this. Such is the nature of things that if you ignore evil, it will come back to haunt you. That time has come for the Europeans. They are not victims – their troubles are largely of their own making. Will they finally stand up and fight to save themselves? Or will they continue on their suicidal course of appeasement?

The point of no return seems to be approaching fast. This, indeed, may be Europe’s last chance.

WSJ Poll: Danish Cartoons Must Be Published

In this online unscientific poll of Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal readers, the results speak for themselves:

OpinionJournal Poll

Most U.S. media outlets have not published the Mohammed caricatures. Should they?

No, the drawings are disrespectful to Islam
4.5%

No, the drawings are not relevant to the story
7.1%

Yes, the drawings are critical to understanding the story
37.3%

Yes, they must because this is now a press-freedom issue
51.1%

Total votes: 7392.

BTW, last time I checked The Wall Street Journal itself had not yet printed the Danish Cartoons...

Brussels Journal on the Danish Cartoon Crisis

Brussels Journal (Motto: "We Are All Danes Now") has this post citing a Telegraph article claiming victory for the Islamic clerics who started this clash:

The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that’s a clear victory. It’s confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call ‘adverse consequences’ – violence to the rest of us – then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.”

DC Anti-Danish Protest Fizzles

Tom the Redhunter was there, and has photos that make one think of that 1960s line, "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came..." (ht Michelle Malkin)

Michelle Malkin is Angry at Karen Hughes

Malkin said this:

Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes ought to read Rose's entire piece before she opens her mouth again on foreign soil and knocks newspapers who have dared to publish the cartoons

...About Hughes saying this, at the US-Islamic World Forum:

Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, maa-alhurria, mas’uliya.  Governments have responsibilities to their people -- to establish the rule of law, protect human rights, including the rights of women and minorities, fight corruption and widen political participation. Elections are an important part of democracy, but they are only a part – a thriving democracy requires independent political parties, non-governmental organizations, a free press, and civic institutions that allow people to assemble freely and engage in discussion and debate without fear or government harassment.  The challenge for leaders in this region is to listen to their people’s call for greater freedom: allow them to form political parties, let them gather and speak more freely, give them access to newsprint so they can run their own newspapers.

In a free society, individuals have community responsibilities as well.  We have a responsibility to respect and appreciate, even celebrate, the views of others.  In a genuine democracy, all have a right to express their views, share ideas and participate as equals.  In a society built on freedom and justice, we have the right to offend one another but the responsibility to do our best not to.  In my country certain racial and ethnic slurs are no longer used by civil people even though there is no law prohibiting it – and while newspapers would be free to publish them most would never do so – just as many American newspapers chose not to reprint the cartoons depicting the Prophet because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors.

Mark Steyn on the Danish Cartoon Crisis

Mark Steyn has some thoughts on the way the Danish Cartoon Crisis seems to be playing out:

Meanwhile, from Malaysia to Jordan to Scandinavia, it was a bad week for journalists increasingly constrained -- not to mention fired and otherwise humiliated -- in their ability to cover the big story of our time. If I had to pick a single moment to contrast with the hilariously parochial narcissist buffoons of the Washington press, it would be another press conference in another government building, this time in Oslo, called by Norway's minister of labor. Surrounded by cabinet ministers and a phalanx of imams, Velbjorn Selbekk, the editor of an obscure Christian publication called Magazinet, issued an abject public apology for reprinting the Danish Muhammed cartoons. He had initially stood firm in the face of Muslim death threats and the usual lack of support from Europe's political class, but in the end Mr. Selbekk was prevailed upon to recant and the head of Norway's Islamic Council, Mohammed Hamdan, graciously accepted the apology and assured the prostrate editor that he was now under his personal protection. As the American author Bruce Bawer commented, "It was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom."

In Canada, by contrast, the Western Standard (for which I also write) stood firm in its decision to publish the cartoons, and as a result is suffering legal harassment from Muslim lobby groups and has been banned from both Air Canada and two of the country's leading bookstore chains, Indigo-Chapters and McNally Robinson. Paul McNally of the latter defended his action this way: "We feel there is nothing to gain on the side of freedom of expression and much to lose on the side of hurting feelings." Not exactly Voltaire, is it? "I disagree strongly with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings." Maybe it could be Canada's new national motto.

It's easy to be tough about nothing. The press corps that noisily champions "the public's right to know" about a minor hunting accident simultaneously assures the public that they've no need to see these Danish cartoons that have caused riots, arson and death around the world. On CNN, out of "sensitivity" to Islam, they show the cartoons but with the Prophet's face pixilated so that he looks as if Cheney's ventilated him with birdshot and it turned puffy and gangrenous. C'mon, guys, these are interesting times. Anyone can unload the umpteenth round of blanks into the bulletproof Chimpy Hallibushitler, but why not take a shot at something that matters?

Or perhaps it would just be easier to change the term ''free press'' to the ''Roses of the Prophet Muhammed press.''

This Photo Says All That Needs To Be Said...

About what the protesters are calling for, in the Danish Cartoon Crisis. (Source: Little Green Footballs from German TV coverage of an anti-Danish Cartoon demonstration in Pakistan)

First Sarkozy, Now Calderoli...

One thing about a crisis, as the Chinese proverb points out, is that it presents both danger and opportunity. In France, the riots brough Nicholas Sarkozy to the fore. In Italy, the Danish Cartoon Crisis has propelled Roberto Calderoli into the limelight, as this BBC story details:

Mr Calderoli was widely criticised by his cabinet colleagues for announcing earlier this week that he would distribute T-shirts emblazoned with the controversial cartoons.

He even undid his shirt live on television to reveal he was wearing one of the offending t-shirts.

Despite growing calls for his resignation - and facing blame for the riot in Libya on Friday that led to at least 10 deaths - Mr Calderoli was defiant, calling it a "battle for freedom".

"I can be sorry for the victims, but what happened in Libya has nothing to do with my T-shirt. The question is different. What's at stake is Western civilisation," he was quoted by the daily La Repubblica as saying.

He has resigned from Prime Minister Berlusconi's cabinet as a result of his actions. Unfortunately for the USA, so far no major political leader has yet stepped forward to defend free speech . . .

Flemming Rose: Why I Published Mohammed Cartoons

The editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten explains what's at stake in the Danish Cartoon Crisis, in Sunday's Washington Post:

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

Rumsfeld Says Al Qaeda Winning Propaganda War

Like the technocrat he is, according to this report on Yahoo! News, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appears to blame processes, bureaucratic and technical problems like 8-hour days, satellite TV, and the internet rather than objective factors such as mixed American messages, bad American strategy, conflicting American aims, "contracting out" to 2nd rate political cronies (e.g., the Lincoln Group in Iraq); failure to convince the American people; use of the war for partisan purposes rather than national unity, and so on.

The fact is that the US government does not have a consistent message, cannot name or describe the enemy, and that even the Secretary of Defense was asking for "metrics" on what victory would look like. Not to mention the obvious horrors of American torture chambers, secret prisons and inability or unwillingness to defeat the enemy decisively in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Cheney's hunting accident--which has made him and American "leadership" in general appear as blundering laughingstocks--doesn't help either.

Rumsfeld's whining is simply embarrassing. The SecDef needs to realize right now that the fault is not in the internet, work schedules, or satellites, Dear Horatio. The fault is in himself. Rumsfeld's immediate resignation might actually help make American victory possible. He has become an obstacle to victory.

After all, although General McLellan couldn't figure out how to win the Civil War despite years of inconclusive skirmishing, Generals Grant and Sherman could--and did.

Ann Coulter: Declare War on Syria Now

Ann Coulter, herself a lawyer, says the US government is now legally obligated to declare war on Syria:

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up!

Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.

McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support."

We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.

Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition!

Michael Maren on NGOs

I'm doing research for a scholarly article on the role of NGOs in international relations, and found this interesting interview author Michael Maren gave to Might Magazine. He says NGOs hurt the very people they intend to help:

Q: Doesn't it seem to you that these charitable organizations come into a country like Somalia or into poor areas of the U.S. offering the promise of new schools or better health care or food or whatever, and in so doing, they sort of exonerate us from having to worry about the fact that our government doesn't care for the needs of a certain percentage of its population?

A: Or our government is supporting a dictator of a country who's ripping off the national treasury for billions of dollars. The president of Kenya is a billionaire. He's stolen more money than all of these organizations are ever going to bring in. He gets to play with these NGOs.

Q: But the presence of Western NGOs means that governments don't have to carry out the obligations that governments should have to carry out.

A: Yeah, it lets us off the hook. "We're doing something. We're building schools over there. That's our obligation to this country"-when we're pursuing macroeconomic policies that are causing these problems to begin with, such as massive structural adjustments and debt burdens. That's really the problem, and that amount of money dwarfs the money coming in through these charities. You have to think about development in terms of larger economic issues. That's where the problems are.

Q: What would happen if these aid organizations pulled out of these countries?

A: I think if all of them went out of business today, there would be very few people who would be any worse for it, and a great number of people would be better off. People know what's best for themselves. They can do what they need to do. In most of these countries-I'm thinking of Africa-people are not developing economically because they're not being allowed to. They're being oppressed politically If you look at the development that's taken place in Asia in the past 15 or 20 years, none of that can be attributed to foreign aid. It's all investment, it all came about through change in government policies that allowed people to invest their money. I had a friend who had a business in Nairobi a number of years ago who said he wanted to keep the business small because if you stuck your head up too high they'd chop it off. The president of Kenya basically stole most of the successful businesses in The country, and now owns them. That's not the kind of policy that's going to foster large economic growth. And if the Asian model is going to apply to Africa, it's got to start slowly, and it has to start with good government. And to a certain extent, NGOs and aid organizations in these countries now help fortify a lot of bad governments.

Q: In the end, is there any role for NGOs or charitable organizations in the developing world at all?

A: No.