Financial Times: Wolfowitz Must Go

What then do we see here? The answer is: an apparent violation of Bank rules; favouritism that borders on nepotism; and a possible cover-up. It is true Mr Wolfowitz and Ms Riza were put in a difficult position. Even so, what has come out would be bad in any institution. In an institution that spear-heads the cause of good governance in the developing world, it is lethal.

The World Bank has moved from being a self-proclaimed exemplar of best practice in corporate governance to an example of shoddiness. As long as Mr Wolfowitz stays, this can be neither repaired nor forgotten, be it outside the Bank or inside it. In the interests of the Bank itself, he should resign. If he does not, the board must ask him to go.

Investor's Business Daily: Wolfowitz Must Go

(ht worldbankpresident.org)

Wolfowitz was a visible symbol of U.S. control of the World Bank with this finger-pointing. Corrupt states have often reacted with routine anti-Americanism. Now with clear ethics violations at the top, they have a new excuse for their resentment — and their corruption.

As countries like Tajikistan, Iraq and Haiti see this spectacle unfold, they'll have new reasons to resist outside efforts to clean up.

Then there's those who fund the World Bank — mainly U.S. taxpayers who provide cash and billions in loan guarantees to fund the Bank's $23 billion annual lending.

They come from a world where bank officers, business executives, stock traders and even journalists must carefully follow complex ethics rules or be paraded off before TV cameras in handcuffs as criminals. They aren't fooled by claims of ignorance.
While the White House says it still has full confidence in Wolfowitz, staying on is unlikely to encourage taxpayers of dozens of countries to provide more capital for its $23 billion in annual lending.

Did Wolfowitz Deal Corrupt US State Department?

Soren Ambrose notes the strange arrangement whereby the US State Department agreed to hire a British subject paid by the World Bank to improve the US image in the Muslim world. He doesn't think it appears kosher for Shaha Riza to be paid by the World Bank to promote US political goals:

An Overlooked Angle in Wolfowitz Scandal?
Isn't it odd that there are no questions being asked about a "secondment" arrangement in which international public funds are used to pay the exorbitant salary of a U.S. State Department staffer (and most recently director of a U.S. State Dept. front group) whose mission is to improve the U.S.'s image in the Muslim world?

I've seen nothing about a balancing of the secondment -- e.g., the State Dept. sends four of its staff to the Bank to balance out Shaha Riza's salary. And a five-year secondment must be rather unusually long.

But the key issue should be: why should international taxpayers be supporting efforts to popularize U.S. policy in the Middle East? Are we all really so cynical about the Bank's supposed status as a U.S. puppet that we don't even blink at such an arrangement?

The idea of a "non-political" World Bank was always a fantasy, but this seems to be pushing it a bit far.

He has a running account of Wolfowitz's problems here.

Paul Wolfowitz's Statement to World Bank Annual Meeting

From the World Bank Website:

... Let me also ask for some understanding. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I also had to deal with it when I was new to this institution and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters. The situation was unprecedented and exceptional. This was an involuntary reassignment and I believed there was a legal risk if this was not resolved by mutual agreement. I take full responsibility for the details. I did not attempt to hide my actions nor make anyone else responsible.

I proposed to the Board that they establish some mechanism to judge whether the agreement reached was a reasonable outcome. I will accept any remedies they propose.

In the larger scheme of things, we have much more important work to focus on. For those people who disagree with the things that they associate me with in my previous job, I’m not in my previous job. I’m not working for the U.S. government, I’m working for this institution and its 185 shareholders. I believe deeply in the mission of the institution and have a passion for it. I think the challenge of reducing poverty is of enormous importance. I think the opportunities in Africa are potentially historic. We have really been able to call attention to the progress that’s possible in Africa, and not just the despair and misery in the poorest countries. I think together we’ve made some progress in enabling this institution to respond more effectively and rapidly both in poor countries and in middle income countries to carry on the fight against poverty. I also believe—even more strongly now than when I came to this job—that the world needs an effective multilateral institution like this one that can responsibly and credibly manage common funds for common purposes, whether it is fighting poverty or dealing with climate change or responding to avian flu. I ask that I be judged for what I’m doing now and what we can do together moving forward.

Britain Says Wolfowitz Has Damaged World Bank

According to Reuters, the Wolfowitz scandal has embarrassed the UK:

Britain said on Saturday the scandal over World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's promotion of his girlfriend has damaged his institution and the decision over his fate should now lie with its board.

"While this whole business has damaged the Bank and should not have happened, we should respect the board's process," British development minister Hilary Benn said in a statement released as he arrived in Washington for the World Bank/International Monetary Fund meetings.

"I am sure these views will be shared by other governors who will also be considering their responses."

Wolfowitz has been under growing pressure to resign after it became known that he approved a big pay rise and new job for his girlfriend -- a World Bank staffer.

The White House has offered its full backing for the former Bush administration stalwart but many other countries have so far remained cautious about prejudging any decision by the World Bank's board.

Here's a typical headline from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald: The banker, his lover and her pay rise of $80,000.

That Wolfowitz appears to be blind to the damage the World Bank scandal is doing to him and the institution he heads is another argument for his swift departure...

NGOs: A ‘New Class’ in International Relations

I've just learned that my latest Orbis article, NGOs: A ‘New Class’ in International Relations, is available online from Science Direct. Unfortunately, Science Direct charges for the full text download unless your library has a subscription. However, the abstract, at least, is available for free:

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

Banned Filmmaker Blasts PBS Islam Series Censors

In a Washington Times op-ed, producer Frank Gaffney accuses Robin MacNeil of collaboration with PBS censors:

As it happens, I was involved in making a film for the "America at a Crossroads" series that also focused on, among others, several American Muslims. Unlike Mr. MacNeil's, however, this 52-minute documentary titled "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," was selected through the competitive process and was originally designated by CPB to be aired in the first Crossroads increment.

Also unlike Mr. MacNeil's film, "Islam vs. Islamists" focuses on the courageous Muslims in the United States, Canada and Western Europe who are challenging the power structure established in virtually every democracy largely with Saudi money to advance worldwide the insidious ideology known as Islamofascism. In fact, thanks to the MacNeil-Lehrer film, the PBS audience soon will be treated to an apparently fawning portrait of one of the most worrisome manifestations of that Saudi-backed organizational infrastructure in America: the Muslim Student Association (MSA). The MSA's efforts to recruit and radicalize students and suppress dissenting views on American campuses is a matter of record and extremely alarming.

In an exchange with me aired on National Public Radio last week, however, Robert MacNeil explained why he and his team had refused to air "Islam vs. Islamists," describing it as "alarmist" and "extremely one-sided." In other words, a documentary that compellingly portrays what happens to moderate Muslims when they dare to speak up for and participate in democracy, thus defying the Islamists and their champions, is not fit for public airwaves -- even in a series specifically created to bring alternative perspectives to their audience.

The MacNeil criticism was merely the latest of myriad efforts over the last year made by WETA and PBS to suppress the message of "Islam vs. Islamists." These included: insisting yours truly be removed as one of the film's executive producers; allowing a series producer with family ties to a British Islamist to insist on sweeping changes to its "structure and context" that would have assured more favorable treatment of those portrayed vilifying and, in some cases, threatening our anti-Islamist protagonists; and hiring as an adviser to help select the final films an avowed admirer of the Nation of Islam -- an organization whose receipt of a million dollars from the Saudis to open black Wahhabi mosques is a feature of our documentary. The gravity of this conflict of interest was underscored when the latter showed an early version of our film to Nation of Islam representatives, an action that seemed scarcely to trouble those responsible for the "Crossroads" series at WETA and PBS.

At this writing, it remains an open question whether PBS will get away with suppressing this film. The decision rests with the CPB, whose vision and support for "Islam vs. Islamists" in the face of sustained hostility for it exhibited by PBS and its friends has made this documentary possible.

Unless and until a way is found to translate into widespread distribution CPB's stated assessment that ours is a powerful and important film, though, the intention of the "Crossroads" series to diminish, if not end, the tyranny of the public airwaves by the left, will be substantially unfulfilled. And "Islam vs. Islamists" will remain the film PBS does not want you to see -- and can keep you from doing so.

Read This Book Online For Free

UC Press has a new digital publishing feature that has a posted an online edition of BEFORE THE NICKELODEON by Charles Musser, a classic film studies text about Thomas Edison's motion-picture business.

NEH Statement on Ken Burns Scandal

Found this statement from Noel Milan of the National Endowment for the Humanities in my email--his response to an earlier post: Unanswered Questions About NEH Role in Ken Burns Scandal:

Dear Dr. Jarvik:

Thanks for your query.

The National Endowment for the Humanities continuously strives through
its rigorous peer review process to fund excellence in significant
products. As a custodian of taxpayer dollars, we make every effort to
ensure a broad range of views are represented in projects we support,
however we cannot censor or manipulate content. The ultimate
responsibility for any project is that of the creator or author.

Sincerely,

Noel Milan

Although Ken Burns has surrendered to Hispanic veterans, I think questions about NEH responsibility--and the precise nature of Ken Burns' relationship with NEH--remain unanswered.

UK Foreign Office Condemns Berezovsky Declaration

According to RIAN Novosti, the British government is distancing itself from Berezovky's call for Putin's ouster--but if actions speak louder than words, the question remains: Will the British continue to give Beresovsky a safe haven?

LONDON, April 13 (RIA Novosti) - Britain's Foreign Office Friday condemned Boris Berezovsky's remarks urging a coup against the Russian president and said it will closely look into this and other statements by the exiled tycoon.

The Foreign Office said it deplores anyone who uses their residence in the U.K. as a

platform to call for the violent overthrow of a sovereign government, but stopped short of promising to extradite the fugitive oligarch - something Moscow has been pushing for ever since the billionaire was granted political asylum in 2003.

On Friday, Moscow renewed its calls for Berezovsky's extradition after he said in an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian that he has bankrolled Kremlin insiders conspiring to topple Vladimir Putin.

Berezovsky Calls for Violent Overthrow of Russian Government

In Kommersant, exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky is quoted as calling for "regime change" in Russia:

The Guardian of Britain released an interview of Russia’s exile tycoon Boris Berezovsky Friday. “We need to use force to change this regime,” The Guardian quoted shadowy billionaire as saying.
”There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” Berezovsky announced via The Guardian. “We need to use force to change this regime.” When asked whether he was plotting a new revolution, the fugitive oligarch didn’t hesitate to answer. “You are absolutely correct,” he said.

President Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, pressurizing the opposition, centralizing power and violating the constitution, Berezovsky made clear, emphasizing that he is funding his supporters in Russia, who are staging a coup. “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

The oligarch said he didn’t fear to loose his refugee status, reasoning that the situation had recently changed for the better because of the polonium murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

Berezovsky could be again questioned by investigators of Russia’s Prosecutor General Office, this time because of his interview to The Guardian, said Dmitry Peskov, the briefer of Putin’s administration. “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue,” Peskov said as quoted by The Guardian.

Why Wolfowitz Is Finished At World Bank

This statement by Paul Wolfowitz, published in today's New York Times, means his departure from the World Bank is only matter of when, not if:

“In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations,” Mr. Wolfowitz said.

Wild Diner Films Blog

Turnabout is fair play. There's a mention of my film's DVD release here, so thought readers interested in DC's independent film scene might find Wild Diner Films Blog worth a look:

The WILD DINER FILMS Blog (ex-DIY Filmmaker Sujewa)
This is the blog of DIY (do-it-yourself, real indie/ultra-low budget & self-distributed) DC based filmmaker Sujewa Ekanayake. Current projects: DATE NUMBER ONE (2006) distribution, getting ready to shoot my '07 film FILMMAKING FOR THE POOR. For more information on Date Number One & other projects please visit: http://www.wilddiner.com/. Thanks!

Weinraub's "Accomplices" Explains "Israel Lobby"

According to Jonathan S. Tobin, of The Jewish Exponent, one theme of Bernard Weinraub's play set during World War II is a dispute over American Jewry's appropriate role in US politics (another version published in The Jerusalem Post):

According to a growing number of academics and political extremists, the Jews have too much power in America.

This backlash against the so-called "Israel Lobby" has predictably caused many to wonder whether the assertive voice of contemporary Jewish political activism is too loud, too brash and, most of all, too pushy in making its case.

Those who wonder what the world would be like if only those pushy Jews listened to their critics need not engage in science fiction. All you need is a history lesson about how American Jewish organizations and leaders -- the predecessors of the ones that are today considered the take-no-prisoners cornerstone of "the lobby" -- acted during the Holocaust. And to do that, a visit to an off-Broadway theater this month will do nicely.

More here, in the Downtown Express review by Jerry Tallmer.

Anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's First Spaceflight

As Google reminded one on its homepage, today is the anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's launch into space. Wikipedia entry here.

Ken Burns & PBS Surrender

Just received this email:

Dear Defenders of the Honor,
Great news today: PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger this afternoon sent the Defend the Honor  organizers a 3-page letter, announcing that Ken Burns and co-director/producer Lynn Novick "have decided to create additional content that focuses on stories of Latino and Native American veterans of the Second World War. The new narrative will be included in the broadcast of the series, as well as in THE WAR's DVD, Web site and educational outreach materials."

You may read Kerger's entire letter, the Defend the Honor response, and the Defend the Honor press release, at our website, www.defendthehonor.org, under NEWS/PRESS RELEASES   
(We are unable to attach those PDF documents because many of you are receiving this via listservs which will not accept attachments.)

In a letter to Kerger, our Defend the Honor core group noted that this development represents a historic moment.: "We are gratified that PBS has taken our concerns seriously and has made the decision to include, in a substantive manner, the Latino, as well as Native American experiences in The War." 

In a news release from the Defend the Honor core group, Angelo Falcon, of the National Institute for Hispanic Politics, noted: "This result was made possible by the unusually strong collaboration between the many Latino organizations and leaders that came forward to let PBS know that our community must be respected."

The core group will be meeting sometime in the near future with Paula Kerger to nail down details of exactly how the Latino and Native American experiences will be incorporated. We want to make sure that our celebration isn't unfounded.

The Defend the Honor core group looks forward to collaborating closely with the other organizations, including the  Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the National Council of La Raza, the American GI Forum, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Hispanic Media Council, individual members of Congress and of both the California and the Texas state legislatures who have also led the charge.

Thank you to the thousands of individuals who have voiced their concerns and propelled this movement forward. There will be other developments in the coming weeks and we will keep you apprised. But just for today, on behalf of Gus Chavez, Angelo Falcon, and Marta Garcia, I hope you will savor the sweet taste of success.
                 
Maggie

Ken Burns & PBS Blind to Hispanic Community

Writes Janet Murguia in the Kansas City Star:

I have admired much of Ken Burns’ work, but the exclusion of Latinos from the World War II series appears to be part of a pattern. That his series on jazz failed to include even a passing reference to Latino artists seemed questionable at best. But his virtual exclusion of Latinos from his series on baseball, a game where Hispanics historically have made enormous contributions and dominate today, was completely inexplicable.

It seems obvious that, notwithstanding his creative genius, Mr. Burns has a serious blind spot when it comes to our community.

The lack of action by PBS also follows an unfortunate, longstanding pattern. Any objective review of current PBS programming would demonstrate that the number of Hispanic-focused stories is inadequate.

In this sense, the record of Mr. Burns and PBS is no different than that of much of the mainstream media. But Ken Burns is not just another filmmaker, and PBS is not just another network. PBS is funded in part with public dollars and, more important, holds a public trust. The extraordinary relationship between Mr. Burns and PBS has made him the chief television chronicler of our nation’s history. Yet neither PBS nor Mr. Burns have addressed the Latino community’s concerns is any meaningful way.

Producer Charges PBS Censored Documentary on Islamist Extremism

Martyn Burke's charges against PBS are reported in the Arizona Republic (ht LGF):

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

"I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds," Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.

Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, "Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them."

A Jan. 30 news release by the corporation listed Islam vs. Islamists as one of eight films to be presented in the opening series.

More about this at Current.org.

Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die? on DVD at Potomac Video

John, the very kind manager of Potomac Video here in NW DC, has put up the 1982 one-sheet poster that last hung in front of New York City's Carnegie Hall Cinema, when my film premiered theatrically. He told me that he already rented the film to a customer, who told him that he liked it...so I'm glad it is finally on DVD (their VHS copy hadn't been rented since 2001). Here's a link to Potomac Video's website:

David Finkle on Bernard Weinraub's "The Accomplices"

In his review today, David Ng of the New York Times criticized Bernard Weinraub's "The Accomplices" saying, "Scenes unfold at such an uninflected pace that you’d think you were watching C-Span." Yet, to a Washingtonian like me, that sounded like a compliment. So, I looked around the Web, and found critic David Finkle's positive review on TheatreMania:

As Bernard Weinraub's heavy-tonnage docudrama The Accomplices unfolds, the effect is like that of an entire population -- you among them -- feeling a slow, steadily mounting burn. While the sensation is uncomfortable enough to have you shifting in your seat, it is absolutely necessary.

I'm going up later this month to see for myself...

UPDATE: Nikki Finke's DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com story here.