"Dear Pundita, It's no problem if you publish this letter but we don't want to give our names or tell where we live, except it's okay to say we're in Asia. We are 19 and 22 and we have been married now less than a year against our families wishes so we had to run away and now we live and work in a big city where our families can't find us. Even though you sound like a mean person we think you care about people. We can't believe you are American because you understand about the way people in other countries are. It is so true what you said [in "Waiting for Pasha" essay] about not wanting to take out the garbage. Even though we try to have faith in God we don't want to have children. To bring them into this world where there is so much evil and corruption would be wrong. The older generation will never change. Sometimes we don't feel like going on.
[Unsigned]"
Dear 19 and 22:
So. Our ancestors clawed their way out of the caves, fought behemoths with their bare hands; survived earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, meteor showers and plagues, all so their descendents could sit on the road and wail.
There are many Americans who understand people in other lands, for many Americans are well traveled and America is a land of immigrants. It's just that you might not know about those Americans, which is one of the nice things about the blogosphere; it allows ordinary Americans to circumvent the traditional media channels and speak directly to people in other lands.
This is a foreign policy blog, not a counselor's office, but we will make an exception this one time by way of warning. This blog discusses very difficult subjects; we try to get to the bedrock of what's wrong with many things. The blog is not meant for young people, but for people who have lived long enough to be able to put bad things in context--see them against the big picture.
The big picture is not one of corruption and evil--else humanity would have killed each other off eons ago. But with every leap in technology or knowledge, a relatively small number of humans get the jump on the rest. When that happens, adults must set things back in order. For that, we need to look squarely at situations, in order to see what we're really dealing with. That is not easy and it involves taking a critical stance.
You may think what you wish of your elders and you should take care to avoid their clutches, if you think they mean you harm. However, you must never let down our ancestors--all those who came before. Do not sneer at their efforts, for there is nothing this modern world has that they did not help create. For that reason, find words of praise for elders and temper your criticism with a remembrance of their accomplishments. By thanking your elders on occasion, if only in your thoughts, you are remembering to thank all those who came before.
It is none of Pundita's business whether you choose to have children, but if you allow the bad in this world to overwhelm your thinking you forget that this is your time. There is no way to avoid suffering and grief, no way to avoid really bad things that are determined to visit, but you should remember they are happening in your time. No one can own that time except you.
Being human is to make many unwise choices, but that is not all it means. Many years ago I was a guest at Bharata Natyam recital that took place in Bethesda, Maryland. The Bharata Natyam is surely one of the most difficult dances that humanity has thought up; as such it's an accurate reflection of the very ancient and complex Indian culture.
Except for a handful in attendance, including Pundita, the audience was Indian or Americans of Indian heritage. The recital was a graduation ceremony for American girls of Indian ancestry who had been studying Bharata Natyam for years -- some practicing since early childhood.
One girl among the dancers riveted the audience's attention. She was beautiful, incredibly graceful, and for one so young she demonstrated impressive dance technique.
I ask you to put yourself for a moment in the girl's place and consider that the Indian culture, even when transposed to Indians living in America, is very conservative, very restrained. Think of practicing for years to master a dance that is far more than dance -- at once living history, a statement of your heritage, and a spiritual meditation. Finally comes the time to demonstrate everything your teacher has taught you and make your parents and community proud.
Now ask yourself what might be the worst thing that could happen to you on that stage, with hundreds of eyes upon you.
Suddenly a murmur went up from the audience. The woman next to me gripped my arm and whispered, "Oh my God her pantaloons have come undone!"
Yes. The button or safety pin had given out. As the hapless child continued her dance the leggings underneath her costume slowly continued their descent. A look of horror fleeted across the girl's face. The other dancers broke their stride a bit to glance in sympathy.
The girl's teacher raced to the stage wing and gestured, calling softly for her to leave the stage for a moment so she could regain her dignity and her pantaloons. Everyone would have understood if she'd left the dance momentarily under those awful circumstances.
A look of determination came over the girl's features; within an instant the look was gone, replaced by the stylized expression of the deity her dance was meant to represent.
Without missing a beat, and as the pantaloons continued their downward journey to twist around her ankles, the girl continued with her dance.
Even before the triumphant stamping of the dancers' feet to signal the end of the dance, the audience was clapping her on.
Yet only after all the dancers made their bow to the audience was the deity replaced by a mortified child. She whisked off the pantaloons, scampered to her teacher's embrace, then disappeared backstage for pantaloon repair.
Then at the insistence of the other dancers, her teacher, her parents, the musicians and the audience, the girl shyly returned to the stage to take a bow to thunderous ovation.
As the audience dispersed I heard a man say to a companion, "It was as if Saraswati [the goddess of wisdom, music and the arts] appeared tonight to teach us a lesson."
Goddess or no goddess, the lesson was abundantly clear. To be human means you can't avoid making a damn fool out of yourself, even if you're the best-looking and most accomplished of the lot. But you show the spark of that which transcends the human condition when you hang in there and finish your dance.
.
Thursday, April 7
Wednesday, April 6
Tony Blair calls for May 5 general election in Britain. Brussels seizes an opportunity
Despite their past disagreements with the Iron Chancellor about his insistence that sound government fiscal policy is, well, sound, two days ago Brussels gave Gordon Brown a glowing endorsement. One might argue that they couldn't help but doing so, given that Mr Brown's policies on the British economy have been famously vindicated; however, Brussels watchers know that the compliments verged on the fawning. Coming as they did just 24 hours before Tony Blair's unsurprising call for a general election, what can we read into Brussels' fit of generosity?
Looming on the horizon is Britain's referendum on the ratification of the EU constitution. The drop-dead deadline for ratifying the constitution is November 2006, but it's likely the event will occur in the early part of 2006. What's particularly interesting about the referendum is that it was never supposed to happen. Blair, determined that Britain should fully integrate with the EU, initially dismissed the need for a referendum. In doing so, he neglected the gathering opposition in Britain to EU integration. But through the miracle of polling, which revealed his steep decline in popularity and the opposition, he reversed course and called for a referendum.
As to where Tony Blair stands now on the issue of integration with the EU, seemingly where he's always stood. His view is that first you join them, then you battle to regain what you gave up by joining. Mr Blair is quite a scrapper--a trait that endeared him to Americans who support the invasion of Iraq--so his logic might work, for him. But he has all but promised the Labor party that if returned to power after election he won't serve his full term, thus clearing the way for Gordon Brown to become PM. Pundita is not sure how much Blair's promise is worth but at this juncture we have to take him at his word.
As to where the Tories stand on integration--they stand for whatever the polls indicate might give them a shot at unseating Labor. Right now polls show that British voters are roughly split on the question of integration.
In coming months we'll have more to say about all this because Britain's decision on integration will have profound implications for the US war on terror and the trade war.
So now seems a good time to bone up on just exactly what Euroscepticism is. The topic represents a formalized school of thought, so the explanation is a little dry--although Pundita strongly recommends that her readers make the time to read every point.
To ease into the subject, and to dispel the notion that Pundita is mean to Brussels, I suggest you first read a genuine, card-carrying Eurosceptic's opinion of the European Union. Next to Robert Locke, Pundita is the soul of sweetness on the topic. Those who are coming to Locke's 2002 piece for Front Page Magazine for the first time should be warned to remove small children and even sensitive pet goldfish from the reading area before clicking on this link .
.
Looming on the horizon is Britain's referendum on the ratification of the EU constitution. The drop-dead deadline for ratifying the constitution is November 2006, but it's likely the event will occur in the early part of 2006. What's particularly interesting about the referendum is that it was never supposed to happen. Blair, determined that Britain should fully integrate with the EU, initially dismissed the need for a referendum. In doing so, he neglected the gathering opposition in Britain to EU integration. But through the miracle of polling, which revealed his steep decline in popularity and the opposition, he reversed course and called for a referendum.
As to where Tony Blair stands now on the issue of integration with the EU, seemingly where he's always stood. His view is that first you join them, then you battle to regain what you gave up by joining. Mr Blair is quite a scrapper--a trait that endeared him to Americans who support the invasion of Iraq--so his logic might work, for him. But he has all but promised the Labor party that if returned to power after election he won't serve his full term, thus clearing the way for Gordon Brown to become PM. Pundita is not sure how much Blair's promise is worth but at this juncture we have to take him at his word.
As to where the Tories stand on integration--they stand for whatever the polls indicate might give them a shot at unseating Labor. Right now polls show that British voters are roughly split on the question of integration.
In coming months we'll have more to say about all this because Britain's decision on integration will have profound implications for the US war on terror and the trade war.
So now seems a good time to bone up on just exactly what Euroscepticism is. The topic represents a formalized school of thought, so the explanation is a little dry--although Pundita strongly recommends that her readers make the time to read every point.
To ease into the subject, and to dispel the notion that Pundita is mean to Brussels, I suggest you first read a genuine, card-carrying Eurosceptic's opinion of the European Union. Next to Robert Locke, Pundita is the soul of sweetness on the topic. Those who are coming to Locke's 2002 piece for Front Page Magazine for the first time should be warned to remove small children and even sensitive pet goldfish from the reading area before clicking on this link .
.
Tuesday, April 5
Hugo Chavez, The Coffee Club, and Plan A & B. You will need math and aspirin for this one.
"Pundita, What is Hugo Chavez up to? Is he planning on becoming the next Castro or Bolivar or Napoleon or what?
[Signed] Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
He's just doing a little horse trading, in the effort to convince the Bush administration to back away from pushing Brazil for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I'm not sure how much you want to know about this situation, unless you have a secret wish to jump back in time and see for yourself what life was like in the Italian Renaissance.
It all started innocently and coherently enough, if one is able to follow Machiavellian logic. Back in the early 1990s, a "wily Sicilian," as he is known around the halls of the United Nations, cobbled together an informal group of nations that was dubbed the Coffee Club or sometimes the Cappuccino Club. This was because Rome wanted to flummox Germany's designs on becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Rome was concerned even back then that a unified Germany in the post-Soviet era would control the European Union and soon the world.
As you will soon see why, it's virtually impossible to nail down how many nations belong to the Coffee Club but the number tends to wax and wane around 30-40. The nations are characterized as 'middling' in military and trading power and don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC.
The idea behind the club is that while few middling nations would lose sleep about Germany's designs, they would have their own reasons for opposing a radical change in the UN ecosystem, which an additional permanent member on the UNSC would touch off. Thus, the Coffee Club was founded on a simple strategy: Every time there's discussion about expanding the UNSC, everybody in the club raise such a squawk that the US administration shelves discussion.
This worked for a time due to President Clinton's daily routine. Every morning Clinton would look at the intelligence briefings stacked in his in-box, make a face, and ring up his secretary of state or national security advisor to ask whether the United States was doing okay. They would ring up the America desk at the State Department, which would ring up George Soros, who would ring up Brussels. Then by noon they'd report back to Clinton that the NATO alliance was still holding strong, yet another republic was being peeled away from Russian influence, and so the United States was doing just fine.
Then George W. Bush became President. He not only read every intelligence briefing in his in-box, he also hauled the DCI into his office every weekday morning for an in-person report. The first time this happened, Tenet's chauffeur got lost enroute to the White House because it was only the second time he'd made the trip. Within days of Bush settling into his morning routine, the yelling from the Oval Office could be heard all the way across the Potomac. The gist, with expletives deleted:
How did Brussels manage to pussyfoot around South America without the US government noticing, instigate a trading bloc (Mercosur) and forge an alliance between the EU bloc and Mercosur that worked against NAFTA?
And here we are today. Mercosur is dead and the replacement bloc (SACN) is years away if ever from getting off the ground. By happy coincidence Brazil is now a proud member of the G-4--the group of four nations most likely to be invited to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, if Plan A is adopted by the UN.
Somewhere along the way, Brazil realized that their Bingo Club meeting schedule conflicted with Coffee Club meetings. But what the Coffee Club loses on one hand, they pick up on the other, for there are virtually infinite combinations and permutations of reasons why middling nations would have reason to oppose Germany, Brazil, India or Japan having permanent membership on the UNSC and the general principle of an expanded permanent membership for the UNSC.
Things started getting really complicated as soon as word got around about the details of the proposed UN reform package that Kofi Annan was overseeing--and overseeing with great zeal, I might add, once the Iraq Oil for Scandal wrecking ball swung his way. The package, which Annan insists is a take-it-or-leave it deal, presents two options for changing the security council--Plan A and Plan B (or 'models' as Kofi likes to say).
Plan A
Six new permanent UNSC seats, with no veto being created, and three new two-year term non-permanent seats, divided among the major regional areas: Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe, Americas.
Plan B
No new permanent seats but creates a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat, divided among the same regional areas as above.
Now if you count on your fingers you immediately note that the G-4 does not equal six. That means even if Plan A is adopted and Brazil, Germany, India and Japan get permanent seats, that still leaves two seats up for grabs. The two proposed seats are for Africa.
So the way the Coffee Club is thinking at this moment, subject to change the next moment:
Italy wants to block Germany
Pakistan wants to block India
Mexico and Argentina want to block Brazil
South Korea wants to block Japan
Egypt wants to block Nigeria and South Africa and vice versa
From here on, you need math
On Monday and Tuesday, Israel wants to block India. On Wednesday and Thursday, Israel wants to support India.
On Monday and Wednesday, Egypt wants to block India because they don't want a nation with a Hindu majority having a permanent seat on the UNSC. On Tuesday and Thursday, Egypt is busy lobbying the US for a permanent seat on UNSC and posing no objection to India.
On the second Monday of every month, when the Indonesian Central Bank talks with the Bank for International Settlements, Indonesia wants to support Japan. The rest of the month Indonesia wants to block Japan to stay on China's good side and out of concern that Japan already has too much power in Asia. This is excepting Thursdays, when Indonesia worries that China is throwing too much weight around in Asia.
See above for days of the week that Malaysia wants to support or block Japan and why, then continue down the list of middling countries in the Coffee Club, if we had a list which we don't.
Now we come to the P-5 (five permanent members of the UNSC). China wants to block Japan, except on Wednesdays and Fridays when they become worried that other Asian nations perceive them as a bully. Russia would like to back Japan and India except on....darn, the dog just ate my notes.
Pakistan, which is currently leading the Coffee Club charge against India, has realized that things are slipping toward chaos. So Pakistani thinkers are trying to get the discussion back on track by pointing out that the Coffee Club is supposed to be Little Guys against Goliath. If everybody would just agree that they need to fight for Plan B, they might win the day. Don't you agree, Brazil? Hello? Hello? What do you mean this phone number isn't working anymore?
For a summary of the UN reform policy report and the UN view about the reform plan click here . To retrieve the entire UN reform follow-up report (PDF format) click here. Type "Box 5" into the Find field to bring up Model A and B for the UNSC or scroll to page 43.
.
[Signed] Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
He's just doing a little horse trading, in the effort to convince the Bush administration to back away from pushing Brazil for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I'm not sure how much you want to know about this situation, unless you have a secret wish to jump back in time and see for yourself what life was like in the Italian Renaissance.
It all started innocently and coherently enough, if one is able to follow Machiavellian logic. Back in the early 1990s, a "wily Sicilian," as he is known around the halls of the United Nations, cobbled together an informal group of nations that was dubbed the Coffee Club or sometimes the Cappuccino Club. This was because Rome wanted to flummox Germany's designs on becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Rome was concerned even back then that a unified Germany in the post-Soviet era would control the European Union and soon the world.
As you will soon see why, it's virtually impossible to nail down how many nations belong to the Coffee Club but the number tends to wax and wane around 30-40. The nations are characterized as 'middling' in military and trading power and don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC.
The idea behind the club is that while few middling nations would lose sleep about Germany's designs, they would have their own reasons for opposing a radical change in the UN ecosystem, which an additional permanent member on the UNSC would touch off. Thus, the Coffee Club was founded on a simple strategy: Every time there's discussion about expanding the UNSC, everybody in the club raise such a squawk that the US administration shelves discussion.
This worked for a time due to President Clinton's daily routine. Every morning Clinton would look at the intelligence briefings stacked in his in-box, make a face, and ring up his secretary of state or national security advisor to ask whether the United States was doing okay. They would ring up the America desk at the State Department, which would ring up George Soros, who would ring up Brussels. Then by noon they'd report back to Clinton that the NATO alliance was still holding strong, yet another republic was being peeled away from Russian influence, and so the United States was doing just fine.
Then George W. Bush became President. He not only read every intelligence briefing in his in-box, he also hauled the DCI into his office every weekday morning for an in-person report. The first time this happened, Tenet's chauffeur got lost enroute to the White House because it was only the second time he'd made the trip. Within days of Bush settling into his morning routine, the yelling from the Oval Office could be heard all the way across the Potomac. The gist, with expletives deleted:
How did Brussels manage to pussyfoot around South America without the US government noticing, instigate a trading bloc (Mercosur) and forge an alliance between the EU bloc and Mercosur that worked against NAFTA?
And here we are today. Mercosur is dead and the replacement bloc (SACN) is years away if ever from getting off the ground. By happy coincidence Brazil is now a proud member of the G-4--the group of four nations most likely to be invited to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, if Plan A is adopted by the UN.
Somewhere along the way, Brazil realized that their Bingo Club meeting schedule conflicted with Coffee Club meetings. But what the Coffee Club loses on one hand, they pick up on the other, for there are virtually infinite combinations and permutations of reasons why middling nations would have reason to oppose Germany, Brazil, India or Japan having permanent membership on the UNSC and the general principle of an expanded permanent membership for the UNSC.
Things started getting really complicated as soon as word got around about the details of the proposed UN reform package that Kofi Annan was overseeing--and overseeing with great zeal, I might add, once the Iraq Oil for Scandal wrecking ball swung his way. The package, which Annan insists is a take-it-or-leave it deal, presents two options for changing the security council--Plan A and Plan B (or 'models' as Kofi likes to say).
Plan A
Six new permanent UNSC seats, with no veto being created, and three new two-year term non-permanent seats, divided among the major regional areas: Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe, Americas.
Plan B
No new permanent seats but creates a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat, divided among the same regional areas as above.
Now if you count on your fingers you immediately note that the G-4 does not equal six. That means even if Plan A is adopted and Brazil, Germany, India and Japan get permanent seats, that still leaves two seats up for grabs. The two proposed seats are for Africa.
So the way the Coffee Club is thinking at this moment, subject to change the next moment:
Italy wants to block Germany
Pakistan wants to block India
Mexico and Argentina want to block Brazil
South Korea wants to block Japan
Egypt wants to block Nigeria and South Africa and vice versa
From here on, you need math
On Monday and Tuesday, Israel wants to block India. On Wednesday and Thursday, Israel wants to support India.
On Monday and Wednesday, Egypt wants to block India because they don't want a nation with a Hindu majority having a permanent seat on the UNSC. On Tuesday and Thursday, Egypt is busy lobbying the US for a permanent seat on UNSC and posing no objection to India.
On the second Monday of every month, when the Indonesian Central Bank talks with the Bank for International Settlements, Indonesia wants to support Japan. The rest of the month Indonesia wants to block Japan to stay on China's good side and out of concern that Japan already has too much power in Asia. This is excepting Thursdays, when Indonesia worries that China is throwing too much weight around in Asia.
See above for days of the week that Malaysia wants to support or block Japan and why, then continue down the list of middling countries in the Coffee Club, if we had a list which we don't.
Now we come to the P-5 (five permanent members of the UNSC). China wants to block Japan, except on Wednesdays and Fridays when they become worried that other Asian nations perceive them as a bully. Russia would like to back Japan and India except on....darn, the dog just ate my notes.
Pakistan, which is currently leading the Coffee Club charge against India, has realized that things are slipping toward chaos. So Pakistani thinkers are trying to get the discussion back on track by pointing out that the Coffee Club is supposed to be Little Guys against Goliath. If everybody would just agree that they need to fight for Plan B, they might win the day. Don't you agree, Brazil? Hello? Hello? What do you mean this phone number isn't working anymore?
For a summary of the UN reform policy report and the UN view about the reform plan click here . To retrieve the entire UN reform follow-up report (PDF format) click here. Type "Box 5" into the Find field to bring up Model A and B for the UNSC or scroll to page 43.
.
Sunday, April 3
Pundita plays White Rabbit to a reader's Alice in Washington-land
"Pundita, the hallmark of science is not its ability to explain but its ability to predict (I mean prediction BEFORE something actually happens rather than the more common claiming to have predicted something AFTER it happens). How do so many people (particularly in foreign relations) whose predictions have been so poor hold onto their jobs?
[Signed] Dave in Chicago"
Dear Dave:
Your remark about science and your question are very broad, but if you're referring to people whose job it is to make predictions for the US government, you are misinformed. Such people are almost invariably 100% right in their predictions. I know this will come as a shock and you might think Pundita is pulling your leg. So allow me to play White Rabbit. Before we pop down the hole, let us hop back in time.
Say your job is to be the high priest--a job that was passed down by your uncle. Your main job duty is to ensure a good harvest each year, which you accomplish by hurling 10 virgins off a cliff. It worked for your uncle, it worked for his uncle, and for 20 years it's been working for you. On the 21st try, the harvest comes a cropper.
Naturally you are hauled before the king, who demands an explanation for why the crops failed. This is because all his subjects are massed outside the gates and demanding an explanation. Now tell Pundita what you would say. "I have no idea" would be the wrong answer, if you want to hang onto your position not to mention your life. You have come up with an explanation for the presumed anomaly.
Put another way, you haven't the foggiest idea why hurling virgins off a cliff worked to bring a good harvest and why it stopped working. And if you're a very smart high priest, you might have a hunch that one event has nothing to do with the other. However, with your life on the line, it would be the wrong time to take up lab bench science.
To spare you the brain sweat, Pundita will quote from page 432 of the 11,465 page How to Survive your Job as High Priest Book of Answers which provides an array of explanations for earlier science's failure to accurately predict things.
The crop failed because:
Blame it on the Assistant
a) The virgins were too young.
b) The virgins were too old.
c) They hadn't been properly tested to ascertain that they were actually virgins. (Note: Here call for the immediate execution of your assistant.)
Blame it on the Harvest god
a) The god is now demanding a doubling in the number of sacrificed virgins.
b) The god is in a bad mood.
c) The god was busy fighting a war with other gods and forgot about the harvest.
Blame it on the King's subjects
a) The people have not been showing proper respect to the harvest god.
b) The people have been fighting with each other, which angered the god.
Note: float this one if the people have been complaining a lot recently about the king and the king is in good standing with the military.)
c) The people became lazy and deceitful and didn't share enough harvest with the king's bounty collectors.
Note: Different combinations of the above explanations should be enough to get you through for a few years, until whatever's wrong with the harvest rights itself. If all else fails:
Blame it on the King
a) The king has started thinking he's more powerful than the harvest god.
CAUTION: Try this one only after consultation with courtiers and generals assures that the king is next off the cliff.
From all the above, you can begin to intuit that Pundita was not pulling your leg. Predicting how foreign relations will go is not a science but hanging onto your job in Washington is. Those who labor in government, policy institutes and academia can predict with virtual 100% accuracy what will happen to their funding if their predictions are outlandishly wrong. Thus, they build myriad escape hatches into the predictions so that they can never be nailed as outlandishly wrong.
A favorite escape hatch is conveyed in a joke that a CIA policy analyst told Pundita years ago. I interject that during the Clinton years it was trying to find oneself seated next to a CIA employee at a Washington dinner. The CIA under Clinton had to spend their clock time in a booth at Taco Bell playing checkers. One could only think up so much polite dinner conversation about a burrito menu, you understand. I don't remember the exact wording of the joke but it went like this:
After World War Three broke out, the DCI and the top CIA policy analyst were hauled before POTUS and his defense advisors. The President picked up a CIA report titled, How to Avoid World War Three, tossed it to the DCI and said angrily, "We read every page of that 832-page report. We took into account every prediction and followed every recommendation. Now you tell us what we did wrong."
The DCI tossed the report to the analyst and snapped, "What did they do wrong?"
The analyst thumbed through the report then replied, "They missed the third footnote on page 471."
What's funny about the joke is that nobody in Washington except grad students and 3.5 senators reads an actual policy paper; they read a two syllable one-page summary of the paper, which does not contain footnotes. Policy analysts know this because they also write the summary. Therefore, you would be hard pressed to find a prediction stated in a paper that is not qualified or completely contradicted somewhere in the same paper.
.
[Signed] Dave in Chicago"
Dear Dave:
Your remark about science and your question are very broad, but if you're referring to people whose job it is to make predictions for the US government, you are misinformed. Such people are almost invariably 100% right in their predictions. I know this will come as a shock and you might think Pundita is pulling your leg. So allow me to play White Rabbit. Before we pop down the hole, let us hop back in time.
Say your job is to be the high priest--a job that was passed down by your uncle. Your main job duty is to ensure a good harvest each year, which you accomplish by hurling 10 virgins off a cliff. It worked for your uncle, it worked for his uncle, and for 20 years it's been working for you. On the 21st try, the harvest comes a cropper.
Naturally you are hauled before the king, who demands an explanation for why the crops failed. This is because all his subjects are massed outside the gates and demanding an explanation. Now tell Pundita what you would say. "I have no idea" would be the wrong answer, if you want to hang onto your position not to mention your life. You have come up with an explanation for the presumed anomaly.
Put another way, you haven't the foggiest idea why hurling virgins off a cliff worked to bring a good harvest and why it stopped working. And if you're a very smart high priest, you might have a hunch that one event has nothing to do with the other. However, with your life on the line, it would be the wrong time to take up lab bench science.
To spare you the brain sweat, Pundita will quote from page 432 of the 11,465 page How to Survive your Job as High Priest Book of Answers which provides an array of explanations for earlier science's failure to accurately predict things.
The crop failed because:
Blame it on the Assistant
a) The virgins were too young.
b) The virgins were too old.
c) They hadn't been properly tested to ascertain that they were actually virgins. (Note: Here call for the immediate execution of your assistant.)
Blame it on the Harvest god
a) The god is now demanding a doubling in the number of sacrificed virgins.
b) The god is in a bad mood.
c) The god was busy fighting a war with other gods and forgot about the harvest.
Blame it on the King's subjects
a) The people have not been showing proper respect to the harvest god.
b) The people have been fighting with each other, which angered the god.
Note: float this one if the people have been complaining a lot recently about the king and the king is in good standing with the military.)
c) The people became lazy and deceitful and didn't share enough harvest with the king's bounty collectors.
Note: Different combinations of the above explanations should be enough to get you through for a few years, until whatever's wrong with the harvest rights itself. If all else fails:
Blame it on the King
a) The king has started thinking he's more powerful than the harvest god.
CAUTION: Try this one only after consultation with courtiers and generals assures that the king is next off the cliff.
From all the above, you can begin to intuit that Pundita was not pulling your leg. Predicting how foreign relations will go is not a science but hanging onto your job in Washington is. Those who labor in government, policy institutes and academia can predict with virtual 100% accuracy what will happen to their funding if their predictions are outlandishly wrong. Thus, they build myriad escape hatches into the predictions so that they can never be nailed as outlandishly wrong.
A favorite escape hatch is conveyed in a joke that a CIA policy analyst told Pundita years ago. I interject that during the Clinton years it was trying to find oneself seated next to a CIA employee at a Washington dinner. The CIA under Clinton had to spend their clock time in a booth at Taco Bell playing checkers. One could only think up so much polite dinner conversation about a burrito menu, you understand. I don't remember the exact wording of the joke but it went like this:
After World War Three broke out, the DCI and the top CIA policy analyst were hauled before POTUS and his defense advisors. The President picked up a CIA report titled, How to Avoid World War Three, tossed it to the DCI and said angrily, "We read every page of that 832-page report. We took into account every prediction and followed every recommendation. Now you tell us what we did wrong."
The DCI tossed the report to the analyst and snapped, "What did they do wrong?"
The analyst thumbed through the report then replied, "They missed the third footnote on page 471."
What's funny about the joke is that nobody in Washington except grad students and 3.5 senators reads an actual policy paper; they read a two syllable one-page summary of the paper, which does not contain footnotes. Policy analysts know this because they also write the summary. Therefore, you would be hard pressed to find a prediction stated in a paper that is not qualified or completely contradicted somewhere in the same paper.
.
"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold"
Sometime during the 1970s we passed into a new chapter in the saga of the human race. Here is the outline: Present technology + human population number + Amazon going up in flames due to bad development projects + rapidly escalating desertification + present phase of earth's cycle + very limited knowledge about dealing with problems of mass populations.
The earth has her own cycle of life--as we saw on the day we refer to as the Tsunami. Yet we can't tell the earth, "Please suspend your cycle until we get it together."
That means we're now operating on a very thin margin of error. One of the many recent signs of this was the heroic Canadian doctor who battled SARS to the death in a hospital in Canada. She had to wage battle with her back to the wall of bureaucratic bungling. That kind of situation is happening more and more. Yet when we're routinely having to depend on just one person to save us from a mega-disaster, this is a clear sign of system failure. It's a sign that our margin of error has shrunk to near zero.
Those who talk about saving humanity from disaster are referencing opportunity that is long gone. The ship left the pier decades ago. Given the combination of factors, there is no way humanity can avoid crashing into the metaphorical iceberg. However, the Titanic passengers who were killed did not die because of the impact of the ship's crash. They died because the ship maker and the shipping company didn't build in margins of error. They assumed the ship was unsinkable so--not enough lifeboats, no disaster drills, no backup SOS system, etc.
We can't avert all coming disasters but we can widen our margin of error--minimize our exposure to disasters and maximize our responses to them. There's plenty enough human brainpower for the task, thanks to our mega-population. The challenge is to get more of the brainpower involved with governing decisions and oversight.
That's where democratic government comes in. Democracy is no longer just about the choice between freedom and slavery. It's about transferring decision-making from small numbers (an 'elite') to large numbers with their vast diversity of experience and education. It's about the human race making it through this century in one piece.
Here we come to a snag. There are two democracy doctrines; one is phony. The Democracy Bubble of the 1980s and 1990s, when it burst, left many people round the world feeling cheated by their experiment in democracy. But they didn't really have democracy. They were sold a form of government that's a stage show run by a small circle.
How did so many people get taken in? Pundita's been trying to figure that out, in the manner of a bunko squad detective taking apart a con. I've zeroed in on the word 'freedom,' which is the word I hear most associated with democracy. Remove the dom and you're left with free--the con artist's favorite word.
(To the tune of "A Christmas Song" sung by Alvin and the Chipmunks):
Freedom for you and freedom for me!
We'll be free with democracy!
We won't worry when we are freeeeee!
All we do is vote and see
Our leaders will make us free!
Freedom is not free. It has a very high price and the payment is not a one-time shot. It's a huge ongoing investment of time and because time is money in the modern world, it's lot of money to invest. So the question is whether all the freedoms that come with democratic government are worth the high price for all peoples in all circumstances. From a Darwinian perspective, and during earlier eras, the answer would be no; the Democracy Stage Show Kit essay looks briefly at one reason--the exhaustion factor. But the choice is no longer about accepting democracy. The choice is how well the human race survives this century.
A Palestinian once told Pundita that humanity has no worries about the future because Muslim prophets have said that the end of the world is near. Hello, the end of the world is sure enough near for some peoples if they don't get cracking but we're not looking at a doomsday scenario in this century. We're looking at hell on earth for a lot more people, if we don't get more brainpower set to work on the problems we're facing. The fastest and best way to do this is via genuine democratic government beep this is a recording.
The US government needs to take all the above into consideration, the next time they decide to cut corners--for the greater good--and support a democracy stage show. They need to update their concept of the greater good. Same goes for the governments in other developed countries. Let's get it together, ladies and gentlemen, because this earth will not suspend her schedule of events while we're working through our issues.
In the Democracy Stage Show Kit I noted, "We have simply passed the era when a small elite could be counted on to properly manage the problems of governing a populace. It takes large numbers of people to efficiently govern populations that run into the hundreds of millions. "
In his commentary Zenpundit observes, "This point is not merely one of functionality but of political legitimacy."
I agree, and yet functionality and political legitimacy must converge, else the concept of 'government' is rendered invalid. I don't know the exact population number that has to be reached before tribal government begins to break down but at some point up in the thousands, it does. The same for imperial government when the population rises to the millions. "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold."
From then on, the choice is to rule by force or bring in democracy, which can efficiently govern very large numbers. Yet the functionality of democracy has not been emphasized during the past century; democracy has been presented as a philosophical subject and ideal. That's allowed for a lot of fuzzy inspirational talk and not much talk about the nuts of bolts of democratic government. That's what is missing, when we preach democracy. A little less preaching, a little more explanation. That would make it harder to palm off a show for the real deal.
We might try something new for a change and get creative. Someone could think up a board game that has players set up a democratic government. Then would come the computer game. Then the movie and the theme park.
Better yet--ask Mark Burnett to create a reality show on setting up a democratic government. Maybe we could get a LDC government to cooperate. The president of the country could give the same task to different members of his government then fire the one who did worst with the task. You could spin a soap opera off it. The BBC would pick it up; it could go on playing forever all around the world, like EastEnders.
Well why not, if you really want to see 'the masses' learn democratic government? But gee come to think of it, there never has been that much interest in teaching the masses the actual nuts and bolts of democratic government. What we've had is--
Freedom for you and freedom for me!
We'll be free with democracy...
.
The earth has her own cycle of life--as we saw on the day we refer to as the Tsunami. Yet we can't tell the earth, "Please suspend your cycle until we get it together."
That means we're now operating on a very thin margin of error. One of the many recent signs of this was the heroic Canadian doctor who battled SARS to the death in a hospital in Canada. She had to wage battle with her back to the wall of bureaucratic bungling. That kind of situation is happening more and more. Yet when we're routinely having to depend on just one person to save us from a mega-disaster, this is a clear sign of system failure. It's a sign that our margin of error has shrunk to near zero.
Those who talk about saving humanity from disaster are referencing opportunity that is long gone. The ship left the pier decades ago. Given the combination of factors, there is no way humanity can avoid crashing into the metaphorical iceberg. However, the Titanic passengers who were killed did not die because of the impact of the ship's crash. They died because the ship maker and the shipping company didn't build in margins of error. They assumed the ship was unsinkable so--not enough lifeboats, no disaster drills, no backup SOS system, etc.
We can't avert all coming disasters but we can widen our margin of error--minimize our exposure to disasters and maximize our responses to them. There's plenty enough human brainpower for the task, thanks to our mega-population. The challenge is to get more of the brainpower involved with governing decisions and oversight.
That's where democratic government comes in. Democracy is no longer just about the choice between freedom and slavery. It's about transferring decision-making from small numbers (an 'elite') to large numbers with their vast diversity of experience and education. It's about the human race making it through this century in one piece.
Here we come to a snag. There are two democracy doctrines; one is phony. The Democracy Bubble of the 1980s and 1990s, when it burst, left many people round the world feeling cheated by their experiment in democracy. But they didn't really have democracy. They were sold a form of government that's a stage show run by a small circle.
How did so many people get taken in? Pundita's been trying to figure that out, in the manner of a bunko squad detective taking apart a con. I've zeroed in on the word 'freedom,' which is the word I hear most associated with democracy. Remove the dom and you're left with free--the con artist's favorite word.
(To the tune of "A Christmas Song" sung by Alvin and the Chipmunks):
Freedom for you and freedom for me!
We'll be free with democracy!
We won't worry when we are freeeeee!
All we do is vote and see
Our leaders will make us free!
Freedom is not free. It has a very high price and the payment is not a one-time shot. It's a huge ongoing investment of time and because time is money in the modern world, it's lot of money to invest. So the question is whether all the freedoms that come with democratic government are worth the high price for all peoples in all circumstances. From a Darwinian perspective, and during earlier eras, the answer would be no; the Democracy Stage Show Kit essay looks briefly at one reason--the exhaustion factor. But the choice is no longer about accepting democracy. The choice is how well the human race survives this century.
A Palestinian once told Pundita that humanity has no worries about the future because Muslim prophets have said that the end of the world is near. Hello, the end of the world is sure enough near for some peoples if they don't get cracking but we're not looking at a doomsday scenario in this century. We're looking at hell on earth for a lot more people, if we don't get more brainpower set to work on the problems we're facing. The fastest and best way to do this is via genuine democratic government beep this is a recording.
The US government needs to take all the above into consideration, the next time they decide to cut corners--for the greater good--and support a democracy stage show. They need to update their concept of the greater good. Same goes for the governments in other developed countries. Let's get it together, ladies and gentlemen, because this earth will not suspend her schedule of events while we're working through our issues.
In the Democracy Stage Show Kit I noted, "We have simply passed the era when a small elite could be counted on to properly manage the problems of governing a populace. It takes large numbers of people to efficiently govern populations that run into the hundreds of millions. "
In his commentary Zenpundit observes, "This point is not merely one of functionality but of political legitimacy."
I agree, and yet functionality and political legitimacy must converge, else the concept of 'government' is rendered invalid. I don't know the exact population number that has to be reached before tribal government begins to break down but at some point up in the thousands, it does. The same for imperial government when the population rises to the millions. "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold."
From then on, the choice is to rule by force or bring in democracy, which can efficiently govern very large numbers. Yet the functionality of democracy has not been emphasized during the past century; democracy has been presented as a philosophical subject and ideal. That's allowed for a lot of fuzzy inspirational talk and not much talk about the nuts of bolts of democratic government. That's what is missing, when we preach democracy. A little less preaching, a little more explanation. That would make it harder to palm off a show for the real deal.
We might try something new for a change and get creative. Someone could think up a board game that has players set up a democratic government. Then would come the computer game. Then the movie and the theme park.
Better yet--ask Mark Burnett to create a reality show on setting up a democratic government. Maybe we could get a LDC government to cooperate. The president of the country could give the same task to different members of his government then fire the one who did worst with the task. You could spin a soap opera off it. The BBC would pick it up; it could go on playing forever all around the world, like EastEnders.
Well why not, if you really want to see 'the masses' learn democratic government? But gee come to think of it, there never has been that much interest in teaching the masses the actual nuts and bolts of democratic government. What we've had is--
Freedom for you and freedom for me!
We'll be free with democracy...
.
Thursday, March 31
WORLD BANK ELECTS PAUL WOLFOWITZ AS PRESIDENT
In October 2004 Paul Wolfowitz addressed an audience at Warsaw University. Pundita is haunted by one of his observations during the speech, as recounted by Peter J. Boyer:
Now is also a good time to read the Department of Defense biography of Wolfowitz, which contains links to his recent major speeches and articles.
Congratulations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense on his new appointment. As to how he might fare during his first year at the Bank, let us not forgot that Paul Dundes Wolfowitz was one of the few conservatives in the Bush administration to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state.
And remember he has a doctorate, a degree in mathematics, and taught at two major universities and was the dean of a school at one. These are very important distinctions to World Bank mandarins, who treat adults without a doctorate as if they're small children.
He'll do fine at the Bank.
.
"Poles understand perhaps better than anyone the consequences of making toothless warnings to brutal tyrants and terrorist regimes," Wolfowitz said...[He] observed that some people—meaning the "realists" in the foreign policy community...believed that the Cold War balance of power had brought a measure of stability to the Persian Gulf. But, Wolfowitz continued, "Poland had a phrase that correctly characterized that as 'the stability of the graveyard.'"Read Boyers's profile in the November 2004 New Yorker to learn about the man who will head the world's most powerful development bank. If you've read the profile before, you might want to read it again for insights about the American who now stands a fighting chance to profoundly affect the course of history.
Now is also a good time to read the Department of Defense biography of Wolfowitz, which contains links to his recent major speeches and articles.
Congratulations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense on his new appointment. As to how he might fare during his first year at the Bank, let us not forgot that Paul Dundes Wolfowitz was one of the few conservatives in the Bush administration to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state.
And remember he has a doctorate, a degree in mathematics, and taught at two major universities and was the dean of a school at one. These are very important distinctions to World Bank mandarins, who treat adults without a doctorate as if they're small children.
He'll do fine at the Bank.
.
Wednesday, March 30
Women keep out of politics, or why Soccer Moms need to be in charge of US foreign aid
Dear Pundita, I've started doing research on the issue you raised about the link between physical exhausting labor and low interest in political involvement. From what I've been reading, this issue falls hard on women in the poorest countries. I was shocked to learn that there's still considerable gender bias in Europe, in particular Eastern Europe. It seems to be a cultural attitude toward females. Do you know anything about this issue?
[Signed] Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
Pundita has not studied the subject as applied to East Europe; I doubt it's easy to get good data, for the same reason it's hard to get good data on racism in those regions. As soon as an American with check-writing power goes near such questions, the lobbies for those countries produce polls to demonstrate that racial and gender prejudice are not a problem and that their government enforces laws to prevent discrimination.
I do know there was a seminar that took place in 2000 in Dubrovnik, and which produced a book comprised of 10 papers presented by women from Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovenia. The book, Women and Politics: Feminisms with an Eastern Touch was reviewed in 2001 by Olivera Jokic, who notes
Who's talking about patience? We're talking about money. For the love of Larry, it's hard to blow trillions of US dollars. You have to really work at it. But now we have The Arab Problem to deal with. How could there be an Arab problem if Arabs have been rolling in oil money for half a century? The Saudis click their worry beads then reply, "Petroleum is Allah's curse. It made us crazy."
Well maybe ya'll would have been a little less crazy, if Saudi women had some say these past 50 years in the way their government was run. Same applies to endemic corruption in East European governments. They wail and throw clouds of ashes when you bring up the topic. But you can graph the fall of corruption in American government, the police forces and judicial systems with the rise of American women voters having their say and women in politics, business and law. That's because females tend to be skinflints if they don't think it's right to pay for something and they are rule oriented. Men will pay bribes just to get on with things and not disturb the ecosystem of 'codes.'
In 2000 Zbignew Breziznski told a bunch of Ukrainians, "Much of the money we [US government] have given to Russia has been misappropriated -- and we don't like to talk about this. The U.S. officials who worked closely on this are embarrassed about it."
Embarrassed? Every morning Bill Clinton gets out of bed and the first thing he does is look out the window: Whew; they're not there yet. Same ritual at the White House and in the parking garages at Foggy Bottom and Congress: "Anybody smell tar and see bales of feathers yet?"
US officials are not embarrassed. They live in fear that the American public will discover that zillions of US tax dollars were given to gangsters who had the Democracy Rap down pat. Of course Breziznski singled out Russia but that country stands in a long line. It's not just the amount of stolen money that would send the American public through the roof. It was the way the stolen money was used. Soccer Moms should be in charge of the US foreign aid checkbook. And East European women and Saudi women--and come to think of it, women all around the world--need to wake up and get serious about grabbing more power. The problems are so huge and complex these days that all countries need all the brain power they can get. It's not just a matter of equal rights. It's also a matter of two heads are better than one for solving tough problems.
Arab Muslims have been yammering for decades that the end of the world is coming. Darn tootin, if more women don't exercise more of their brain cells. Yet too many women are waiting for men to give them power. Men are not going to give them power because men are human and because that's not the way men get power. They don't sit around and say, "Where's my power? Somebody give it to me."
If you want power, ladies, step up to the plate.
.
[Signed] Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
Pundita has not studied the subject as applied to East Europe; I doubt it's easy to get good data, for the same reason it's hard to get good data on racism in those regions. As soon as an American with check-writing power goes near such questions, the lobbies for those countries produce polls to demonstrate that racial and gender prejudice are not a problem and that their government enforces laws to prevent discrimination.
I do know there was a seminar that took place in 2000 in Dubrovnik, and which produced a book comprised of 10 papers presented by women from Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovenia. The book, Women and Politics: Feminisms with an Eastern Touch was reviewed in 2001 by Olivera Jokic, who notes
...several of the articles try to recapitulate the changes within the last decade in eastern Europe as they affected women’s rights, and find that the benefits of ‘democracy’ were not necessarily meant to be enjoyed by women. Even in Slovenia...which is usually taken to be a token of successful decentralization and smooth transition of institutions, women are discouraged from political activism and exposed as intruders in a strictly male sphere.But when you ask pointed questions of East Europeans you can get the same defensive replies, even from women, that you hear from Saudis who defend their practice of treating women like brain-damaged parakeets. They say America didn't have equality for women for much of its history, so have a little patience with their slow progress.
Who's talking about patience? We're talking about money. For the love of Larry, it's hard to blow trillions of US dollars. You have to really work at it. But now we have The Arab Problem to deal with. How could there be an Arab problem if Arabs have been rolling in oil money for half a century? The Saudis click their worry beads then reply, "Petroleum is Allah's curse. It made us crazy."
Well maybe ya'll would have been a little less crazy, if Saudi women had some say these past 50 years in the way their government was run. Same applies to endemic corruption in East European governments. They wail and throw clouds of ashes when you bring up the topic. But you can graph the fall of corruption in American government, the police forces and judicial systems with the rise of American women voters having their say and women in politics, business and law. That's because females tend to be skinflints if they don't think it's right to pay for something and they are rule oriented. Men will pay bribes just to get on with things and not disturb the ecosystem of 'codes.'
In 2000 Zbignew Breziznski told a bunch of Ukrainians, "Much of the money we [US government] have given to Russia has been misappropriated -- and we don't like to talk about this. The U.S. officials who worked closely on this are embarrassed about it."
Embarrassed? Every morning Bill Clinton gets out of bed and the first thing he does is look out the window: Whew; they're not there yet. Same ritual at the White House and in the parking garages at Foggy Bottom and Congress: "Anybody smell tar and see bales of feathers yet?"
US officials are not embarrassed. They live in fear that the American public will discover that zillions of US tax dollars were given to gangsters who had the Democracy Rap down pat. Of course Breziznski singled out Russia but that country stands in a long line. It's not just the amount of stolen money that would send the American public through the roof. It was the way the stolen money was used. Soccer Moms should be in charge of the US foreign aid checkbook. And East European women and Saudi women--and come to think of it, women all around the world--need to wake up and get serious about grabbing more power. The problems are so huge and complex these days that all countries need all the brain power they can get. It's not just a matter of equal rights. It's also a matter of two heads are better than one for solving tough problems.
Arab Muslims have been yammering for decades that the end of the world is coming. Darn tootin, if more women don't exercise more of their brain cells. Yet too many women are waiting for men to give them power. Men are not going to give them power because men are human and because that's not the way men get power. They don't sit around and say, "Where's my power? Somebody give it to me."
If you want power, ladies, step up to the plate.
.
Tuesday, March 29
Pundita replies to critics, Part II
(See March 29 for Part I.)
TM Lutas blogger wondered whether the kit I described in Democracy Stage Show Kit exists.
As I stressed there is no actual kit; however, the phenomenon I described can be considered a kit; i.e., a set of methods that have been abstracted by studying general principles and 'packaged' for use by virtually anyone. In this case, the basic kit was created by analyzing mass civil disobedience/nonviolent protests in democratic countries.
Of itself, the kit isn't a 'stage show' (phony) because genuine democracy movements seeking guidance on how to confront governments nonviolently can make use of the methods. However, just because anyone can use the kit, it can and has been be used by governments and factions wanting to put on an appearance--a stage show--of a genuine nonviolent mass protest. Thus, the Democracy Stage Show Kit.
An organization known for providing the basic kit is transnational (they advise groups anywhere in the world) and not connected with any government or political party. Here the reader might ask whether I can be entirely certain of both assertions; the answer is "no" because I don't know who funds the organization and in these days of shell corporations even knowing the names of the donors wouldn't necessarily provide a definitive answer to either question.
However--and this is very important to understand--even if the organization is a front for a government agency or special interest group, this would have no bearing on the points in my earlier essay. Such an organization, and the 'kit' they provide, is as inevitable in the modern era as K&R (kidnap and ransom) negotiation firms and contractors that provide private military assistance to governments. Although the organization is a nonprofit, it follows the same pattern as any type of consulting contractor. It is a group of specialists--in this case, academics and former government workers with scholarship and/or direct experience with nonviolent movements.
Because my essay was not chiefly concerned with examining this type of organization, I did not explain that the organization I had in mind does not limit their advice to pro-democracy groups in countries that have nondemocratic government. The organization will also advise groups in democratic countries. In other words, if your group or political party didn't get what they wanted through the voting process, or doesn't like the way the government they voted in decides on issues, this organization will advise you on how to use mass protests and civil disobedience in the attempt to pressure the government into doing what you want.
If the reader is suddenly at full attention--with hindsight, Pundita might have made it easier on the reader if I'd mentioned that point. The organization is not really about 'democracy training.' It's about training large numbers of people to confront a government via mass protests.
Of course, taking to the streets out of anger at a voting outcome or in the attempt to pressure a government on an issue is part and parcel of life in democratic countries. But it's not democratic countries and mature democracies that are under discussion in the Democracy Stage Show Kit essay.
Lutas remonstrated that Pundita neglected to mention that the DSSK is a "mirror" of the violent rent-a-mob protests organized by dictatorships such as the Soviet regime, then asked what harm the DSSK did in the Ukraine, given that the protests did not involve bloodshed.
Lutas answered the first part of his question for himself. Pundita did not mention the rent-a-mob because it's nothing like the DSSK, which doesn't deploy violence. It's the very model of a nonviolent "by the rules" civil protest, so the DSSK is not a mirror of the rent-a-mob. The only connection is that as with the rent-a-mobs organized by dictatorships/autocratic regimes, the DSSK can be organized and controlled by a government.
However, it is wrong to assume that the DSSK does not carry the threat of violence. All massed protests carry the threat of violence; in the case of Kiev, which Lutas mentioned, there was more than threat even though no blood was shed. This wasn't evident to first glance because the paid protestors who filled the streets of Kiev to demand another the election round did not come armed. And they had been coached on how to act with the cameras rolling. They sang and danced and threw orange carnations and waved orange streamers. To the camera eye, they were a well-behaved lot following the democratic model of nonviolent protest against an unresponsive/tyrannical government.
But slowly the whole well behaved singing, dancing, clapping lot moved in on the Supreme Court building in Kiev. Inside the justices were trying to decide how to judge on the matter before them, until they realized they were blocked from leaving the building by the protestors--and with the police clearly not willing to stand between the justices inside the building and the happy campers blocking the building entrance.
That is how it came to pass that in districts that showed balloting at 100% for Yushchenko, even with as many as 24 candidates in the running, the justices did not order another election round in those districts. They gave the Orange protestors exactly what they wanted. That's the only way those justices could get out of the building, and be assured they wouldn't be torn apart by the happy clapping Orange demonstrators.
Pundita will not waste tears and Kleenex about the plight of the judges. There were voting irregularities on both sides and the country was virtually split down the middle about the candidates. Bottom line is that one oligarch clan wanted to replace another in the Ukraine government; the Orange side had EU and American backing. The Russians and their Blue candidate didn't have a handy-dandy DSSK. All they had was clunky Soviet style rent-a-mobs. When they learned the Orange side had the Full Monte DSSK, the TV cameras running and half the West's election observers parked in Ukraine, they realized they couldn't deploy the bone crackers. And Kuchma's government couldn't order the police to break heads because the police refused. So the slicker fools won. End of story.
The question is whether genuine democratic government can emerge from a putsch disguised as a peaceful revolt. The question has been discussed at great length in America since it was clear that the US was going to topple Saddam Hussein's regime and replace it with a democratic government, even though the DSSK was not deployed in that instance.
Thoughtful Americans asked, "What if the democratic government in Iraq throws out the US military and votes in a radical fundamentalist Muslim agenda? Is the US government prepared to live with that?"
The answer is that you need to be pretty darn clever, and very knowledgeable about democratic government, if you want to wiggle out of a Faustian bargain with the foreign powers that help you gain the palace. Because it's sure enough true that the powers did not help you gain the palace out of sheer love of democracy. Pundita's Democracy Stage Show Kit essay simply looks squarely at that reality.
Contrary to Zenpundit's observation, I am not skeptical about democratic rule. I am skeptical that the DSSK includes a companion guide to real democratic government. And I am realistic about the problems that the poorest emerging from dictatorial rule face, if they want to create workable democratic government.
Many people in certain countries (in Latin America, FSU) are exhausted with the constant turmoil and uncertainty that their experiment with democracy has brought them. And they are bitterly aware (as with the Ukrainians who wanted to throw out Kuchma's government) that no matter which platform/party they vote in, somehow the new administration is always the same old jazz: corrupt bureaucrats controlled by an elite that does no better at managing the country than the last bunch.
All this is despite the fact that the countries have received large ongoing infusions of aid from UN organizations, the EU and America, cheap loans from the World Bank and regional development banks, and numerous development projects concerned with creating and strengthening democratic institutions.
It's against this stark fact that the US government's use for the Democracy Stage Show Kit must be weighed. On paper the ends justify the means, as Lutas pointed out, if the regime in power is a brutal one. But the DSSK isn't a recipe for good government; it's simply a tool for wresting power. If the people carrying out the stage show aren't knowledgeable about good government they must try to invent the wheel--or allow themselves to be guided by an elite that is not necessarily a friend of true democracy. Neither option is pretty and given the problems of this era, unacceptable.
.
TM Lutas blogger wondered whether the kit I described in Democracy Stage Show Kit exists.
As I stressed there is no actual kit; however, the phenomenon I described can be considered a kit; i.e., a set of methods that have been abstracted by studying general principles and 'packaged' for use by virtually anyone. In this case, the basic kit was created by analyzing mass civil disobedience/nonviolent protests in democratic countries.
Of itself, the kit isn't a 'stage show' (phony) because genuine democracy movements seeking guidance on how to confront governments nonviolently can make use of the methods. However, just because anyone can use the kit, it can and has been be used by governments and factions wanting to put on an appearance--a stage show--of a genuine nonviolent mass protest. Thus, the Democracy Stage Show Kit.
An organization known for providing the basic kit is transnational (they advise groups anywhere in the world) and not connected with any government or political party. Here the reader might ask whether I can be entirely certain of both assertions; the answer is "no" because I don't know who funds the organization and in these days of shell corporations even knowing the names of the donors wouldn't necessarily provide a definitive answer to either question.
However--and this is very important to understand--even if the organization is a front for a government agency or special interest group, this would have no bearing on the points in my earlier essay. Such an organization, and the 'kit' they provide, is as inevitable in the modern era as K&R (kidnap and ransom) negotiation firms and contractors that provide private military assistance to governments. Although the organization is a nonprofit, it follows the same pattern as any type of consulting contractor. It is a group of specialists--in this case, academics and former government workers with scholarship and/or direct experience with nonviolent movements.
Because my essay was not chiefly concerned with examining this type of organization, I did not explain that the organization I had in mind does not limit their advice to pro-democracy groups in countries that have nondemocratic government. The organization will also advise groups in democratic countries. In other words, if your group or political party didn't get what they wanted through the voting process, or doesn't like the way the government they voted in decides on issues, this organization will advise you on how to use mass protests and civil disobedience in the attempt to pressure the government into doing what you want.
If the reader is suddenly at full attention--with hindsight, Pundita might have made it easier on the reader if I'd mentioned that point. The organization is not really about 'democracy training.' It's about training large numbers of people to confront a government via mass protests.
Of course, taking to the streets out of anger at a voting outcome or in the attempt to pressure a government on an issue is part and parcel of life in democratic countries. But it's not democratic countries and mature democracies that are under discussion in the Democracy Stage Show Kit essay.
Lutas remonstrated that Pundita neglected to mention that the DSSK is a "mirror" of the violent rent-a-mob protests organized by dictatorships such as the Soviet regime, then asked what harm the DSSK did in the Ukraine, given that the protests did not involve bloodshed.
Lutas answered the first part of his question for himself. Pundita did not mention the rent-a-mob because it's nothing like the DSSK, which doesn't deploy violence. It's the very model of a nonviolent "by the rules" civil protest, so the DSSK is not a mirror of the rent-a-mob. The only connection is that as with the rent-a-mobs organized by dictatorships/autocratic regimes, the DSSK can be organized and controlled by a government.
However, it is wrong to assume that the DSSK does not carry the threat of violence. All massed protests carry the threat of violence; in the case of Kiev, which Lutas mentioned, there was more than threat even though no blood was shed. This wasn't evident to first glance because the paid protestors who filled the streets of Kiev to demand another the election round did not come armed. And they had been coached on how to act with the cameras rolling. They sang and danced and threw orange carnations and waved orange streamers. To the camera eye, they were a well-behaved lot following the democratic model of nonviolent protest against an unresponsive/tyrannical government.
But slowly the whole well behaved singing, dancing, clapping lot moved in on the Supreme Court building in Kiev. Inside the justices were trying to decide how to judge on the matter before them, until they realized they were blocked from leaving the building by the protestors--and with the police clearly not willing to stand between the justices inside the building and the happy campers blocking the building entrance.
That is how it came to pass that in districts that showed balloting at 100% for Yushchenko, even with as many as 24 candidates in the running, the justices did not order another election round in those districts. They gave the Orange protestors exactly what they wanted. That's the only way those justices could get out of the building, and be assured they wouldn't be torn apart by the happy clapping Orange demonstrators.
Pundita will not waste tears and Kleenex about the plight of the judges. There were voting irregularities on both sides and the country was virtually split down the middle about the candidates. Bottom line is that one oligarch clan wanted to replace another in the Ukraine government; the Orange side had EU and American backing. The Russians and their Blue candidate didn't have a handy-dandy DSSK. All they had was clunky Soviet style rent-a-mobs. When they learned the Orange side had the Full Monte DSSK, the TV cameras running and half the West's election observers parked in Ukraine, they realized they couldn't deploy the bone crackers. And Kuchma's government couldn't order the police to break heads because the police refused. So the slicker fools won. End of story.
The question is whether genuine democratic government can emerge from a putsch disguised as a peaceful revolt. The question has been discussed at great length in America since it was clear that the US was going to topple Saddam Hussein's regime and replace it with a democratic government, even though the DSSK was not deployed in that instance.
Thoughtful Americans asked, "What if the democratic government in Iraq throws out the US military and votes in a radical fundamentalist Muslim agenda? Is the US government prepared to live with that?"
The answer is that you need to be pretty darn clever, and very knowledgeable about democratic government, if you want to wiggle out of a Faustian bargain with the foreign powers that help you gain the palace. Because it's sure enough true that the powers did not help you gain the palace out of sheer love of democracy. Pundita's Democracy Stage Show Kit essay simply looks squarely at that reality.
Contrary to Zenpundit's observation, I am not skeptical about democratic rule. I am skeptical that the DSSK includes a companion guide to real democratic government. And I am realistic about the problems that the poorest emerging from dictatorial rule face, if they want to create workable democratic government.
Many people in certain countries (in Latin America, FSU) are exhausted with the constant turmoil and uncertainty that their experiment with democracy has brought them. And they are bitterly aware (as with the Ukrainians who wanted to throw out Kuchma's government) that no matter which platform/party they vote in, somehow the new administration is always the same old jazz: corrupt bureaucrats controlled by an elite that does no better at managing the country than the last bunch.
All this is despite the fact that the countries have received large ongoing infusions of aid from UN organizations, the EU and America, cheap loans from the World Bank and regional development banks, and numerous development projects concerned with creating and strengthening democratic institutions.
It's against this stark fact that the US government's use for the Democracy Stage Show Kit must be weighed. On paper the ends justify the means, as Lutas pointed out, if the regime in power is a brutal one. But the DSSK isn't a recipe for good government; it's simply a tool for wresting power. If the people carrying out the stage show aren't knowledgeable about good government they must try to invent the wheel--or allow themselves to be guided by an elite that is not necessarily a friend of true democracy. Neither option is pretty and given the problems of this era, unacceptable.
.
"Where is your Pundita is not Wonkette post??" Note to Reader
Pundita has a bad habit of treating her blog posts as if they were drafts, which means regular readers know to snap up a copy of a post they plan to return to before it vanishes or undergoes major revision.
I think we have finally learned our lesson; yesterday two blogs (The Glittering Eye and Zenpundit) linked to "Pundita is not Wonkette" essay and made interesting comments. However, their readers would have quickly discovered the essay was not at the published link. I'd decided that I'd stuffed too much into one writing and thus deleted it, unaware until hours later that I'd upset the blogosphere ecosystem. My apology for the confusion this caused.
The original essay is now split into two. The material Zenpundit and Glittering Eye discuss is now under the title How do you run a government when the voters are smarter than you? Material that refers to a critic's comments and Romania remains under the original title Pundita is not Wonkette.
.
I think we have finally learned our lesson; yesterday two blogs (The Glittering Eye and Zenpundit) linked to "Pundita is not Wonkette" essay and made interesting comments. However, their readers would have quickly discovered the essay was not at the published link. I'd decided that I'd stuffed too much into one writing and thus deleted it, unaware until hours later that I'd upset the blogosphere ecosystem. My apology for the confusion this caused.
The original essay is now split into two. The material Zenpundit and Glittering Eye discuss is now under the title How do you run a government when the voters are smarter than you? Material that refers to a critic's comments and Romania remains under the original title Pundita is not Wonkette.
.
Pundita replies to critics, Part I
Pundita's Democracy Stage Show Kit created a flurry of comments; three bloggers (see links below) published their critiques. The observations are mostly negative, which is not surprising because the essay presented two unfamiliar concepts then joined them to present an unsettling idea:
The connection between physically exhausting work and a willingness to accept autocratic government
This idea gave the critics the most trouble. That's understandable to some extent because (to my knowledge) no distinct study has been done on the subject—and if a few studies have been done they are buried in the vast body of literature on sustainable development that’s collected during the past 40 years on the specific problems of the world's very poorest. However, the subject is alluded to in countless papers on development, of the kind churned out by the World Bank.
Yet development banks generally look at the subject of physical exhaustion within the framework of development issues rather than political ones. They have not looked at the implications with regard to the impact of physical exhaustion on citizen involvement with their government and their tendency to favor leaders who promise to take decisionmaking off their hands. (I’d like to stand corrected on this point; if the reader knows of any such study, kindly pass along the information to Pundita.)
In any case, two of my critics (Schulman and Lutas) are clearly unaware that the problem of exhaustion has been (exhaustively) studied in relation to a range of situations in LDCs. But applying common sense overcomes the lack of scholarship in this instance. Here are the paragraphs from Democracy Stage Show Kit that caused the critics the greatest concern:
Two billion of the world's people still depend on wood for their cooking fuel. This has created the Human Locust phenomenon in many regions. The populations strip their region of firewood. Because the 'locust' populations are not chiefly nomadic, this means they have to keep walking further and further from their village every so many months to retrieve enough cooking fuel to sustain baseline survival. And then make the walk back--an exercise that can take up most of their waking hours.
The same situation is in effect with water supply, game and fish. With regard to the latter, many populations dependent on fishing have depleted fish in coastal waters, which means sailing further and further out each day, just to catch enough fish to feed their family and have enough left over to sell, in order to afford other baseline essentials.
Perhaps my essay should have used such examples instead of coal mining and farming; however, the history shows who made most of the political decisions during America's big coal mining days. And the grueling work of farming before modern equipment still had cycles--seasons when a break from planting and harvesting gave settler families time to attend community meetings about government, time to discuss and debate the issues connected with their fledgling democracy.
There is no seasonal cycle, no rest period, for people who must walk several miles every day just to collect and lug back enough fuel and water to keep themselves alive until the next long walk. The cycle of survival has been reduced to 24 hours--not for thousand or hundreds of thousands, but for hundreds of millions of humans. And the number threatens to leapfrog to billions.
Believe you me, such people are too exhausted to walk more miles to attend regional meetings on governance issues or even vote, if they live several miles from a voting booth. As to how they participate in government--the same way Indian villagers and villagers all over the world participate in government in the poorest regions.
The party representative drives up to the village with bags of rice and wheat in tow, gives them to the village chief for distribution and says, "Your village is voting for The Hand" or whatever pictograph the party uses for a symbol. (They use pictures because many villagers are illiterate.)
Before you snicker at this democracy stage show--how do you think things worked in this country during the late 19th Century and during early decades of the last century in the coal and steel mining towns, the poorest farming regions and ghettos? True, they didn't deliver bags of rice to the union bosses and ward heelers--they delivered promises of pork in Congress and threats to break heads if the union members and ward residents didn’t adopt the party ticket.
The difference is that America in those days was not suffering from overpopulation, AIDS, and a host of other situations faced by the world's poorest today. And it was not until the post-Depression era that the American federal government and state governments became so huge and complex that even the well-educated affluent with some time on their hands don't find it easy to follow what their government is up to.
Americans came to that realization the hard way, during the weeks that followed the 9/11 attack. The realization swelled the ranks of bloggers, brought thousands of citizen watchdog groups into existence, and made news junkies out of Americans who before had limited their newsgathering to the Sunday paper and the Seven O'clock news.
Yet Lutas seems to assume that democratic government, once wound up and set in motion, is self-perpetuating:
Renewed citizen oversight and pressure brought forth the 9/11 Commission and a host of long-overdue changes in Washington. Provided people have say in their government, provided they can closely monitor their government, intelligent and efficient government follows. But in virtually all the poorest countries, there is the Forbidden City phenomenon. The centralized government is far away from the regional outposts and even within the capital city, which can see large populations, there is a walled city aspect to the government. Technology can help break down the wall, and put people in the most outlying regions in touch with their government.
And technology can save the time and energy needed to participate in government. Everywhere in the world's poorest regions that interactive communications have come (as versus state-run television, newspapers) government services have improved.
Of course the governments are not happy with the people having such an impact on the Forbidden City, and for the same reason many in the US Congress have come to fear the blogosphere. The greater and richer network of connections between Americans brought about by improved communications threatens to unseat the elite. Ever thus, for all peoples everywhere. But now we really have no choice but to bring as many people as possible to bear on problems of governance, for the problems our vast numbers have wrought are staggering. One hour spent in Mexico City is enough to teach that.
TM Lutas
http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/005262.html
Marc Schulman
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/03/
is_democracy_on.html
Mark Safranski
http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-hamiltonian-
realism-regarding.html
.
The connection between physically exhausting work and a willingness to accept autocratic government
This idea gave the critics the most trouble. That's understandable to some extent because (to my knowledge) no distinct study has been done on the subject—and if a few studies have been done they are buried in the vast body of literature on sustainable development that’s collected during the past 40 years on the specific problems of the world's very poorest. However, the subject is alluded to in countless papers on development, of the kind churned out by the World Bank.
Yet development banks generally look at the subject of physical exhaustion within the framework of development issues rather than political ones. They have not looked at the implications with regard to the impact of physical exhaustion on citizen involvement with their government and their tendency to favor leaders who promise to take decisionmaking off their hands. (I’d like to stand corrected on this point; if the reader knows of any such study, kindly pass along the information to Pundita.)
In any case, two of my critics (Schulman and Lutas) are clearly unaware that the problem of exhaustion has been (exhaustively) studied in relation to a range of situations in LDCs. But applying common sense overcomes the lack of scholarship in this instance. Here are the paragraphs from Democracy Stage Show Kit that caused the critics the greatest concern:
But freedom is not free. It's a tremendous responsibility, which imposes considerable discipline on the individual and takes up much time. That's just why dictators keep being returned to power. After the glow of a stage-managed democracy revolution wears off, the populace realizes how much work and responsibility it entails to make democracy work. Thus, many become willing to make a tradeoff between freedom and free time. They go looking for a hardworking fool to take on the burden of governing responsibility--preferably, a benevolent fool.Schulman responds:
This impulse doesn't stem so much from laziness as from the need to conserve energy. Those who labor 12 hours a day in fields, coal mines and factories don't have much energy left over for the task of self-governance. But of course there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator when push comes to shove.
Unless I'm totally misinterpreting her, Pundita's argument is that freedom is a luxury item that is affordable only by the (relatively) affluent, who have the time and energy to govern themselves in addition to working, eating, and sleeping. But does this assertion correspond to historical reality?Schulman's observations are echoed in Lutas's critique:
I think not. Leaving aside ancient Athens, democracy was introduced into the world by the United States of America. And what was our country like at the end of the eighteenth century? It was predominantly a nation of family farmers and individual tradesman, who worked from dawn to dusk. They were tired, but they toiled in a democracy.
And what of present-day India? I'm not aware of anyone who refers to that country as anything other than a democracy, nor do I know of anyone who would describe the typical Indian as affluent.
The idea that people have no time for political freedom is, frankly, just not credible. If the franchise could be exercised two centuries ago in the wilds of Kentucky and Ohio where agriculture was the main pursuit, time saving devices were nonexistent, and the wilderness or hostile indians could destroy all you had built in the blink of an eye, it is certainly practical for people in today's Ukraine, Romania, Georgia, or Iraq where the physical and economic challenges are generally less.Yes, well, the people of Ukraine, Romania, Georgia and Iraq do not descend in the millions on a refugee camp, as happened in Tanzania with Rwandan refugees, and within nine months denude the region of forest and shrubs.
Two billion of the world's people still depend on wood for their cooking fuel. This has created the Human Locust phenomenon in many regions. The populations strip their region of firewood. Because the 'locust' populations are not chiefly nomadic, this means they have to keep walking further and further from their village every so many months to retrieve enough cooking fuel to sustain baseline survival. And then make the walk back--an exercise that can take up most of their waking hours.
The same situation is in effect with water supply, game and fish. With regard to the latter, many populations dependent on fishing have depleted fish in coastal waters, which means sailing further and further out each day, just to catch enough fish to feed their family and have enough left over to sell, in order to afford other baseline essentials.
Perhaps my essay should have used such examples instead of coal mining and farming; however, the history shows who made most of the political decisions during America's big coal mining days. And the grueling work of farming before modern equipment still had cycles--seasons when a break from planting and harvesting gave settler families time to attend community meetings about government, time to discuss and debate the issues connected with their fledgling democracy.
There is no seasonal cycle, no rest period, for people who must walk several miles every day just to collect and lug back enough fuel and water to keep themselves alive until the next long walk. The cycle of survival has been reduced to 24 hours--not for thousand or hundreds of thousands, but for hundreds of millions of humans. And the number threatens to leapfrog to billions.
Believe you me, such people are too exhausted to walk more miles to attend regional meetings on governance issues or even vote, if they live several miles from a voting booth. As to how they participate in government--the same way Indian villagers and villagers all over the world participate in government in the poorest regions.
The party representative drives up to the village with bags of rice and wheat in tow, gives them to the village chief for distribution and says, "Your village is voting for The Hand" or whatever pictograph the party uses for a symbol. (They use pictures because many villagers are illiterate.)
Before you snicker at this democracy stage show--how do you think things worked in this country during the late 19th Century and during early decades of the last century in the coal and steel mining towns, the poorest farming regions and ghettos? True, they didn't deliver bags of rice to the union bosses and ward heelers--they delivered promises of pork in Congress and threats to break heads if the union members and ward residents didn’t adopt the party ticket.
The difference is that America in those days was not suffering from overpopulation, AIDS, and a host of other situations faced by the world's poorest today. And it was not until the post-Depression era that the American federal government and state governments became so huge and complex that even the well-educated affluent with some time on their hands don't find it easy to follow what their government is up to.
Americans came to that realization the hard way, during the weeks that followed the 9/11 attack. The realization swelled the ranks of bloggers, brought thousands of citizen watchdog groups into existence, and made news junkies out of Americans who before had limited their newsgathering to the Sunday paper and the Seven O'clock news.
Yet Lutas seems to assume that democratic government, once wound up and set in motion, is self-perpetuating:
Pundita complains that "The 21st Century will pound home the point that you can't have it both ways: you can't have the luxury of letting someone else take on responsibility for your governing and expect to have good government." The problem with this complaint is that it seems to be endorsing democracy over democratic republicanism. That's just stupid if its intentional and badly written if Pundita did it by accident. By definition democratic republicanism is the idea of voting to give somebody else the government for a time and not much worrying about it until next election day.Pundita was not complaining, only stating a harsh reality. Representative democracy does not mean abrogating the citizen responsibility to carefully oversee those you elect to office. You vote 'em in and forget 'em until the next election at your gravest peril--and at the gravest peril to your democracy.
Renewed citizen oversight and pressure brought forth the 9/11 Commission and a host of long-overdue changes in Washington. Provided people have say in their government, provided they can closely monitor their government, intelligent and efficient government follows. But in virtually all the poorest countries, there is the Forbidden City phenomenon. The centralized government is far away from the regional outposts and even within the capital city, which can see large populations, there is a walled city aspect to the government. Technology can help break down the wall, and put people in the most outlying regions in touch with their government.
And technology can save the time and energy needed to participate in government. Everywhere in the world's poorest regions that interactive communications have come (as versus state-run television, newspapers) government services have improved.
Of course the governments are not happy with the people having such an impact on the Forbidden City, and for the same reason many in the US Congress have come to fear the blogosphere. The greater and richer network of connections between Americans brought about by improved communications threatens to unseat the elite. Ever thus, for all peoples everywhere. But now we really have no choice but to bring as many people as possible to bear on problems of governance, for the problems our vast numbers have wrought are staggering. One hour spent in Mexico City is enough to teach that.
TM Lutas
http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/005262.html
Marc Schulman
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/03/
is_democracy_on.html
Mark Safranski
http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-hamiltonian-
realism-regarding.html
.
Monday, March 28
Rats, Lice, and the Relentless March of Political Correctness
"deer pUndiTa, I am riting to prostest your use of buzzard to insult KoFi Anan. I thogt you were diferrent pondita but, like all humans you are humansentric and look down on everykind else. Also now you take all the credit and never mension your team anymore. pondita you are getting puffy hed.
[Signed] Rugby the Rat"
So. He manages to hit the Caps key for Annan's name and of course always for his name but not for Pundita's. And he lectures Pundita about a puffy head. I haven't mentioned the team recently because this is the time of the year they desert their duties. Off doing things that creatures do in the early Spring. But then I suppose if one is born, raised and confined to a laboratory one wouldn't know much about the changing seasons.
Policy meetings are sparsely attended except when it's pouring rain and even then minds are not on the chores at hand. Input is usually confined to, "What do you think?" although Da and Nyet reported at the last meeting that they were chased from the Russian embassy grounds--an ominous sign that US-Russia relations are continuing to cool.
This said, it so happens it was pouring rain this morning, which brought the Peregrine falcon to drop in for a visit. After I read him Rugby's letter and explained the circumstances, the falcon asked archly, "What is wrong with buzzards?"
It is becoming quite difficult to come up with insults for one's fellow humans. One can't call them bastards without offending those born out of wedlock. One can't call them retarded, blind or deaf without bringing the wrath of the challenged down upon one's blogspot. Calling them snakes, rabbits, weasels or skunks brings forth threatening letters from PETA. And of course "rat" is now on the forbidden list.
All right, we're going to bump down a few species. Pundita will revise the offending sentence to read, "If that louse folds, Bill "Please Understand Me" Clinton will get the post..."
This is on the assumption that lab lice can't type computer passwords.
.
[Signed] Rugby the Rat"
So. He manages to hit the Caps key for Annan's name and of course always for his name but not for Pundita's. And he lectures Pundita about a puffy head. I haven't mentioned the team recently because this is the time of the year they desert their duties. Off doing things that creatures do in the early Spring. But then I suppose if one is born, raised and confined to a laboratory one wouldn't know much about the changing seasons.
Policy meetings are sparsely attended except when it's pouring rain and even then minds are not on the chores at hand. Input is usually confined to, "What do you think?" although Da and Nyet reported at the last meeting that they were chased from the Russian embassy grounds--an ominous sign that US-Russia relations are continuing to cool.
This said, it so happens it was pouring rain this morning, which brought the Peregrine falcon to drop in for a visit. After I read him Rugby's letter and explained the circumstances, the falcon asked archly, "What is wrong with buzzards?"
It is becoming quite difficult to come up with insults for one's fellow humans. One can't call them bastards without offending those born out of wedlock. One can't call them retarded, blind or deaf without bringing the wrath of the challenged down upon one's blogspot. Calling them snakes, rabbits, weasels or skunks brings forth threatening letters from PETA. And of course "rat" is now on the forbidden list.
All right, we're going to bump down a few species. Pundita will revise the offending sentence to read, "If that louse folds, Bill "Please Understand Me" Clinton will get the post..."
This is on the assumption that lab lice can't type computer passwords.
.
Pundita is not Wonkette
(3/29-Note to Reader: Some material included in original version, and which Zenpundit and Glittering Eye discuss on 3/28, is now under the title How do you run a government when voters are smarter than you?)
Pundita's Democracy Stage Show Kit touched off a flurry of published criticism from a small circle of bloggers who first learned about Pundita a short while ago from Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye. After the critiques were published Schuler wrote on his blog that he enjoyed the idea of the cross-blog discussion he set off.
If Pundita were two people with the patience of a border collie I don't think I'd mind getting involved in a cross-blog discussion of the kind the critical essays represent. However, the critics' points are so poorly informed that I'd have take time away from other writing to teach before the critics could comprehend my replies. As witness to my dilemma, this criticism by blogger TM Lutas:
I note Lutas wrote his critique as a first-time visitor to Pundita's blog and evidentially zipped through so fast he didn't notice the blog header, which clearly indicates that Pundita is a female. Or perhaps he noticed and decided that any female blogger who tackles weighty themes should be referred to as a male.
But we'll make an exception this one time, just for Dave Schuler, and dedicate the next two essays to an attempt to haul the critics into the 21st Century. If they don't get it after that, here is the link to Wonkette. http://wonkette.com/
*USAID Report on Romania
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/
cbj2005/ee/pdf/ro_cbj_fy05.pdf
.
Pundita's Democracy Stage Show Kit touched off a flurry of published criticism from a small circle of bloggers who first learned about Pundita a short while ago from Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye. After the critiques were published Schuler wrote on his blog that he enjoyed the idea of the cross-blog discussion he set off.
If Pundita were two people with the patience of a border collie I don't think I'd mind getting involved in a cross-blog discussion of the kind the critical essays represent. However, the critics' points are so poorly informed that I'd have take time away from other writing to teach before the critics could comprehend my replies. As witness to my dilemma, this criticism by blogger TM Lutas:
Pundita complains that "The 21st Century will pound home the point that you can't have it both ways: you can't have the luxury of letting someone else take on responsibility for your governing and expect tohave good 0government."Pundita was not complaining; she was describing a stark reality. Now let's see what the blindfolded dartboard method of finding an adequate system of democratic government has wrought for the Romanian people. The dart throwing accompanied, I assume, by the attitude that democracy means voting in a government then "not much worrying about it until next election day." From a portion of the latest USAID report on Romania.*
The problem with this complaint is that it seems to be endorsing democracy over democratic republicanism. That's just stupid if its intentional and badly written if Pundita did it by accident. By definition democratic republicanism is the idea of voting to give somebody else the government for a time and not much worrying about it until next election day. It's possibly the most successful system of governance on the planet even if a little long...
Again, turning back to Romania, they voted in a neo-communist first government by wide margins, voted again to put them in by slimmer margins, voted in an opposition government that promptly betrayed its electoral platform, voted the neo-communist/social democrats back into power for another term and when that turned out to be a bad idea they put in a liberal government late last year. There were lots of corruption scandals, lots of bad choices along the way but nobody can seriously say that things are worse off than if Ceasescu the butcher or his rapist son were still in power. Nor is it credible to hold that the Romanian people haven't grown in sophistication and improved in their exercise of their sovereign power through the use of the franchise.
Romania is one of the poorest European Union (EU) applicants. Government statistics indicate that almost one in three Romanians lives in poverty. The proportion is much higher in rural areas, where wages are far below Romania’s average of $140 per month....So it's not just a matter of teaching; Pundita would have to figure a way to transmit the teachings to Pluto. Earth calling blogger Lutas: Democratic government of any kind is NOT "the idea of voting to give somebody else the government for a time and not much worrying about it until next election day."
Over 40% of the population is engaged in agriculture, most on small subsistence plots. Many young, educated workers continue to leave the country in search of better opportunities elsewhere.
Confidence in democracy is undercut by endemic corruption, low political accountability,and continued high levels of poverty.
Civil society remains weak, with little influence on public policy or public opinion. Partly a legacy of communism, the concept of citizenship, including the responsibility of constituent interest and involvement, has yet to take root among much of the population.
This is exacerbated by a "party list" system for parliamentary elections, eliminating any real tie between national level office holders and their constituent districts. In the 2000 elections, a large number of disaffected voters turned to an extremist and xenophobic party that offers no sustainable solutions for resolving the country's problems. The central government is transferring responsibility for many services to local governments without providing the necessary fiscal and management resources.
Unfunded central government mandates in utilities, education, social welfare, and health are a pressing problem.
On the whole, there appears to be no coherent plan for decentralization and no analysis of the impact of decentralization on local governments.
Too little attention has been given to the efficient use of local resources, the need to establish community priorities, and the means to enhance local service delivery.
The health and child welfare situation in Romania remains bleak. [Corruption in health care agencies is endemic.] Life expectancy at birth is 71 years, one of the lowest in Europe. Infant mortality, under-five mortality, and maternal mortality are among the highest in Europe. In 2000, maternal mortality rates were six times the EU average and pediatric AIDS cases are the highest in Europe...
I note Lutas wrote his critique as a first-time visitor to Pundita's blog and evidentially zipped through so fast he didn't notice the blog header, which clearly indicates that Pundita is a female. Or perhaps he noticed and decided that any female blogger who tackles weighty themes should be referred to as a male.
But we'll make an exception this one time, just for Dave Schuler, and dedicate the next two essays to an attempt to haul the critics into the 21st Century. If they don't get it after that, here is the link to Wonkette. http://wonkette.com/
*USAID Report on Romania
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/
cbj2005/ee/pdf/ro_cbj_fy05.pdf
.
How do you run a government when the voters are smarter than you?
Pundita's regular readers are 'ahead of the curve' people--those who see just a little farther and quicker than most. They know we're all students now, striving to comprehend massive shifts in civilization that took half a century to build and finally converged around the turn of this century.
One of the biggest shifts has gone almost unnoticed by the media, even though signs of it are everywhere. I first got wind of the shift 30 years ago, courtesy of a computer scientist who was known as the Guru to several in the computer industry. I wasn't involved with the computer field but one day I expressed my concern that the US government would eventually abuse computer technology to create a Big Brother society. The Guru looked at me as if I was a child and replied, "You don't understand. If they get too far out of line we'll shut them down."
I did not understand the import of his words until a week after 9/11. Then it hit me that for the first time in recorded history the pyramid of society is turned upside down. Except for a very few pockets around the world, the government does not represent the smartest and best-informed people in the society. This situation is crashing the Machiavellian School of government (exemplified by Henry Kissinger in modern times), which has been the linchpin of civilization going back to the ancient times.
The government and military in the United States are aware of the situation and at least some of its implications. They have no choice but to be aware. In a globalized, market-oriented society, only the saintly among the smartest are going to labor in the government for a fraction of the salary they could get from working in private enterprise. Indeed, only the war's appeal to patriotism is bringing in the kind of minds the government needs to fight this war effectively.
Something like this up-ended situation has arisen several times in history but it's always been nipped in the bud by military conquest. There have been eras when a knowledge explosion put a great deal of information within reach of many outside the ruling class. As long as the rulers had control of a military, they could simply enslave the burgeoning brainpower and keep it doing their bidding.
That solution to the problem of the masses getting above their station came crashing down on 9/11. Nineteen guys with box cutters outfoxed NORAD, bombed the flagship building of the most powerful military in history and destroyed the symbol of world trade.
Granted, the 19 had financing and planning behind them that trace back at least in part, and by many twists and turns, to a few governments. Yet that doesn't invalidate the fact that possession of a standing army no longer guarantees the ruling class a secure berth. Nowhere is that more evident than in the K&R (kidnap and ransom) industry, which is huge in certain countries.
Again, one may argue that the most successful gangs depend on their government, or at least corrupt factions or individuals in the government, to help them. But the elite in several countries must take very elaborate and very expensive precautions to prevent being hit by kidnappers.
Setting aside criminality and terrorism the question is how government can function effectively with so many smart people outside government putting in their two cents worth and demanding at every turn that the government keep up with their curve.
The flip side of the issue is that the problems now facing humanity are so huge that governments need all the brainpower they can get to assist them.
Last year I spoke with a guy in his 30s from India who spent a half hour blowing off steam about the problems in his country, his government's totally inadequate response, and the government's deaf ear to the recommendations made by people in his class -- young, smart and well educated professionals. I asked what ideas he had about getting New Delhi to listen.
He replied, "I will tell you how it is. We're waiting for the older generation to die off."
Given the current state of medicine that could be a long wait. And look at the age of the top leaders in China and Saudi Arabia. If you're not completely gaga, you can hang onto power well until the young ones have white hair.
So here we are. Trying to balance between anarchy and prodding slow governments to act more quickly and efficiently to deal with problems that the smart ones outside government clearly see and know how to solve.
Make no mistake; even the governments in the wealthiest, most powerful nations are very slow. Pundita has received letters asking why she never returned to discussing what she learned from Yossef Bodansky's seminar at the National Intelligence Conference. We're working up to it--trying to find a way to discuss what we learned without plunging the sensitive reader into a steep depression.
But without going into gory detail, you need to stop and think about the people you elect to represent you in Congress. Why do you elect them? For their ability to plow daily through 200 page reports with footnotes on geopolitical situations? For their ability to analyze and synthesize data in a flash? Or so they can sit on congressional foreign relations, defense and intel committees?
No. You elect them to represent your interests on a range of domestic issues. Yet realize the interests are now so complex that to understand them requires plowing through more 200 page reports with footnotes.
If you observe that surely they have aides to do all that reading and analysis and synthesis for them -- um, have you seen the aides? Most are kids straight out of college with virtually no real-world knowledge, and who weren't picked to be congressional aides for their brainpower. They were picked because they loyally served the party and the congressional's campaign.
That's enough scary campfire stories for today.
One of the biggest shifts has gone almost unnoticed by the media, even though signs of it are everywhere. I first got wind of the shift 30 years ago, courtesy of a computer scientist who was known as the Guru to several in the computer industry. I wasn't involved with the computer field but one day I expressed my concern that the US government would eventually abuse computer technology to create a Big Brother society. The Guru looked at me as if I was a child and replied, "You don't understand. If they get too far out of line we'll shut them down."
I did not understand the import of his words until a week after 9/11. Then it hit me that for the first time in recorded history the pyramid of society is turned upside down. Except for a very few pockets around the world, the government does not represent the smartest and best-informed people in the society. This situation is crashing the Machiavellian School of government (exemplified by Henry Kissinger in modern times), which has been the linchpin of civilization going back to the ancient times.
The government and military in the United States are aware of the situation and at least some of its implications. They have no choice but to be aware. In a globalized, market-oriented society, only the saintly among the smartest are going to labor in the government for a fraction of the salary they could get from working in private enterprise. Indeed, only the war's appeal to patriotism is bringing in the kind of minds the government needs to fight this war effectively.
Something like this up-ended situation has arisen several times in history but it's always been nipped in the bud by military conquest. There have been eras when a knowledge explosion put a great deal of information within reach of many outside the ruling class. As long as the rulers had control of a military, they could simply enslave the burgeoning brainpower and keep it doing their bidding.
That solution to the problem of the masses getting above their station came crashing down on 9/11. Nineteen guys with box cutters outfoxed NORAD, bombed the flagship building of the most powerful military in history and destroyed the symbol of world trade.
Granted, the 19 had financing and planning behind them that trace back at least in part, and by many twists and turns, to a few governments. Yet that doesn't invalidate the fact that possession of a standing army no longer guarantees the ruling class a secure berth. Nowhere is that more evident than in the K&R (kidnap and ransom) industry, which is huge in certain countries.
Again, one may argue that the most successful gangs depend on their government, or at least corrupt factions or individuals in the government, to help them. But the elite in several countries must take very elaborate and very expensive precautions to prevent being hit by kidnappers.
Setting aside criminality and terrorism the question is how government can function effectively with so many smart people outside government putting in their two cents worth and demanding at every turn that the government keep up with their curve.
The flip side of the issue is that the problems now facing humanity are so huge that governments need all the brainpower they can get to assist them.
Last year I spoke with a guy in his 30s from India who spent a half hour blowing off steam about the problems in his country, his government's totally inadequate response, and the government's deaf ear to the recommendations made by people in his class -- young, smart and well educated professionals. I asked what ideas he had about getting New Delhi to listen.
He replied, "I will tell you how it is. We're waiting for the older generation to die off."
Given the current state of medicine that could be a long wait. And look at the age of the top leaders in China and Saudi Arabia. If you're not completely gaga, you can hang onto power well until the young ones have white hair.
So here we are. Trying to balance between anarchy and prodding slow governments to act more quickly and efficiently to deal with problems that the smart ones outside government clearly see and know how to solve.
Make no mistake; even the governments in the wealthiest, most powerful nations are very slow. Pundita has received letters asking why she never returned to discussing what she learned from Yossef Bodansky's seminar at the National Intelligence Conference. We're working up to it--trying to find a way to discuss what we learned without plunging the sensitive reader into a steep depression.
But without going into gory detail, you need to stop and think about the people you elect to represent you in Congress. Why do you elect them? For their ability to plow daily through 200 page reports with footnotes on geopolitical situations? For their ability to analyze and synthesize data in a flash? Or so they can sit on congressional foreign relations, defense and intel committees?
No. You elect them to represent your interests on a range of domestic issues. Yet realize the interests are now so complex that to understand them requires plowing through more 200 page reports with footnotes.
If you observe that surely they have aides to do all that reading and analysis and synthesis for them -- um, have you seen the aides? Most are kids straight out of college with virtually no real-world knowledge, and who weren't picked to be congressional aides for their brainpower. They were picked because they loyally served the party and the congressional's campaign.
That's enough scary campfire stories for today.
Friday, March 25
Candle Power
This essay summarizes Pundita's points, scattered through several essays, about US foreign aid and development policy as applied to helping the world's poorest. I saw the need for this exercise after reading a blogger's published thoughts on Pundita's Finger of Shame essay. The blogger, Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye blog, refers to Joseph Nye's 'hard-soft power'concept and places Pundita's outlook in the soft power category:
Yet there are many good-hearted, brilliant and well educated people from all over the world laboring in sustainable development. These are people who eat, sleep, and breathe the problems of the world's downtrodden. So how is it that so many smart, concerned people ended up on the moon?
Part of the answer lies in the development 'system' and mechanisms by which development policy is actualized; e.g., the development loan model, which was not created to solve the most pressing problems of the world's poorest.
Part of the answer is that developed nations have used foreign aid/development banks not so much to help the poorest but to further strategic aims. There's nothing wrong with trying to further such aims. But when this impulse is mixed with development policy it sets up a mental screen, which makes it hard to see things simply as they are.
A famous example of this type of blindness is shown in a movie based on a Graham Greene novel set during the Cold War. The US delivered food aid to a Third World country as part of a strategic initiative. The food was delivered to the docks in crates stamped in English "A gift from the United States of America."
During the night Soviet operatives crept onto the docks and stamped on the crates "A gift from the Soviet Union" in the native language of the people who were to receive the aid.
The other part of the answer can be hard to grasp; as soon as one tries to explain people interrupt with, "Oh I see. It's prejudice, bigotry."
Then how come dogs put in charge of minding small children display the same attitude? Within a few weeks the dog starts treating the kid like an idiot. The dog's not a bigot. There is something deeply rooted in mammalian nature that you don't want to mess with, but which when poured into looking after people who are perpetually in a weak position manifests in behaviors that are something like benevolent paternalism.
Of course the paternalism can mix with bigotry, class-consciousness and the Enclave mentality. When you put all that together, you get the attitude famously associated with West European colonialism. Pundita terms this brew of traits Sahibism.
Now one would think that Sahibism is not found among aid and development bank workers who come from the very regions of the world that were under Colonial rule. But as any Indian or African who remembers the tail end of Empire can tell you, there you would be very wrong. The 'natives' elevated by the Colonialists to administrative positions eventually took on much the same attitude toward their fellow natives that the Colonials displayed.
That makes sense if you realize the attitude is not rooted in bigotry. It's rooted in human nature. But when the attitude is mixed with development policy or even charitable giving, it sets up another mental screen--one that also makes it hard to see facts on the ground.
That is why, for decades, the World Bank simply replaced valuable equipment that was repeatedly stolen from the same Bank project construction sites in 'third world' countries. That is why an otherwise intelligent Western Christian missionary defended the Africans who repeatedly stole from his hospital by saying it was their culture to steal.
How can you arrive at intelligent aid policy, if you hold in your mind the attitude that the people you're trying to lift out of abject poverty are overgrown children? Thus, President Bush's approach, which is remarkably free of Sahibism, is a breakthrough. That is why Pundita supports the general idea behind Bush's Millennium Challenge Account, which tags US aid to governments that make strides in adopting and strengthening democratic government.
To return to Nye's concept, the Millennium Challenge Account is hard power--bone-cracking economic clout. Bush doesn't want to hear the laundry list of excuses from national leaders who've learned to play US administrations and the World Bank like a fiddle. Bush's position is either get with the democracy program or forget getting more money. That's treating leaders from nondemocratic poor countries as if they're adults in full possession of their mental faculties.
The Millennium Challenge Account doesn't have much funding, which for the short run leaves US aid/development policy still dependent on the USAID agency and international organizations such as the World Bank. That means things are still not looking up for the world's poorest. However, Pundita can't give unqualified support to the MCA because I don't know exactly how the program works out in practice. Giving money to governments that have made strides in democratic reforms doesn't necessarily equate to strides with real transformative value.
To think intelligently about helping the world's poorest requires first a different way of categorizing the poor. If you look through the list of the 77 "poorest" countries that make up the G-77 (See Pundita's sidebar), you'll note that some of those countries have oil wealth and other valuable exportable resources. Other countries on the list are narco states or Money Laundering, Inc., which means they're rolling in dough.
In short, there are oceans of money sloshing around in several of the countries that the World Bank and other international organizations categorize as the poorest. So clearly there's something screwy with the criteria for determining poverty. A close inspection shows that many countries, including several in OPEC, are poor because their governments spent decades making a complete mess and blowing export revenues on the wrong projects.*
But I think the majority of poorest countries are poorest because the class that put the government in power doesn't like to cough up at tax time, and because crime syndicates don't file tax returns. Yet pouring development and aid money into countries that don't have an adequate tax base to develop and maintain infrastructure and basic social programs is pouring into a bottomless pit.
Intelligent development policy should be grounded in that observation. Here we come to a snag. Multilateral development lending agencies and US aid programs are not set up to go after tax cheats. Nor do they have the authority to strong-arm governments into hounding the richest in their country to pay up on back taxes and raise taxes on the rich from a pittance percentage.
That is why development policy is on the moon. It's like the fable of the man who searched under a street lamp for a lost object in his darkened house because the lamp threw more light on his search. So making headway in helping the world's poorest is not really a matter of hard or soft power. It's a matter of lighting a candle to guide thinking back to earth.
Thanks to Dave Schuler's essay for galvanizing Pundita to summarize her writings to this point on aid/development policy.
* Seven of the 11 nations that make up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are poorer (or no richer) today per capita than they were in 1974. For an overview on why OPEC nations are crying poor these days, see the Christian Science Monitor report at http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0324/p16s01-cogn.html
.
The notions of hard and soft power derive...from the work of Joseph Nye. Hard power—military and economic power—is making other people do what you want them to. Soft power is making them want what you want. You don't employ or deploy soft power. You either have it and it's working or you don't and it won't...Hard power and soft power can work together synergistically. In what is certainly the most lucid article on the World Bank (and development banks generally) that I have ever read, Pundita suggests foregoing our hard power(in this case economic) strategies in the developing world in favor of a soft power approach...Clearly Dave was unaware that Pundita nominated Eliot Spitzer for World Bank president. Short of dropping a bomb on World Bank headquarters, my suggestion doesn't get more hard power than that. Schuler closes by observing:
It's pretty clear that we have not made an opening in attacking the problem of the poverty of the poorest of the poor. Can it be accomplished with a soft power strategy? Do we have the wit and skill (and faith) to exploit it?Pundita's reply: Not unless the wits are considerably sharpened. Development policies for the world's poorest haven't made headway because the policies are on the moon. They're on the moon because they're thought up by people who live inside theoretical bubbles, which float high above the doings of mortals down here on earth.
Yet there are many good-hearted, brilliant and well educated people from all over the world laboring in sustainable development. These are people who eat, sleep, and breathe the problems of the world's downtrodden. So how is it that so many smart, concerned people ended up on the moon?
Part of the answer lies in the development 'system' and mechanisms by which development policy is actualized; e.g., the development loan model, which was not created to solve the most pressing problems of the world's poorest.
Part of the answer is that developed nations have used foreign aid/development banks not so much to help the poorest but to further strategic aims. There's nothing wrong with trying to further such aims. But when this impulse is mixed with development policy it sets up a mental screen, which makes it hard to see things simply as they are.
A famous example of this type of blindness is shown in a movie based on a Graham Greene novel set during the Cold War. The US delivered food aid to a Third World country as part of a strategic initiative. The food was delivered to the docks in crates stamped in English "A gift from the United States of America."
During the night Soviet operatives crept onto the docks and stamped on the crates "A gift from the Soviet Union" in the native language of the people who were to receive the aid.
The other part of the answer can be hard to grasp; as soon as one tries to explain people interrupt with, "Oh I see. It's prejudice, bigotry."
Then how come dogs put in charge of minding small children display the same attitude? Within a few weeks the dog starts treating the kid like an idiot. The dog's not a bigot. There is something deeply rooted in mammalian nature that you don't want to mess with, but which when poured into looking after people who are perpetually in a weak position manifests in behaviors that are something like benevolent paternalism.
Of course the paternalism can mix with bigotry, class-consciousness and the Enclave mentality. When you put all that together, you get the attitude famously associated with West European colonialism. Pundita terms this brew of traits Sahibism.
Now one would think that Sahibism is not found among aid and development bank workers who come from the very regions of the world that were under Colonial rule. But as any Indian or African who remembers the tail end of Empire can tell you, there you would be very wrong. The 'natives' elevated by the Colonialists to administrative positions eventually took on much the same attitude toward their fellow natives that the Colonials displayed.
That makes sense if you realize the attitude is not rooted in bigotry. It's rooted in human nature. But when the attitude is mixed with development policy or even charitable giving, it sets up another mental screen--one that also makes it hard to see facts on the ground.
That is why, for decades, the World Bank simply replaced valuable equipment that was repeatedly stolen from the same Bank project construction sites in 'third world' countries. That is why an otherwise intelligent Western Christian missionary defended the Africans who repeatedly stole from his hospital by saying it was their culture to steal.
How can you arrive at intelligent aid policy, if you hold in your mind the attitude that the people you're trying to lift out of abject poverty are overgrown children? Thus, President Bush's approach, which is remarkably free of Sahibism, is a breakthrough. That is why Pundita supports the general idea behind Bush's Millennium Challenge Account, which tags US aid to governments that make strides in adopting and strengthening democratic government.
To return to Nye's concept, the Millennium Challenge Account is hard power--bone-cracking economic clout. Bush doesn't want to hear the laundry list of excuses from national leaders who've learned to play US administrations and the World Bank like a fiddle. Bush's position is either get with the democracy program or forget getting more money. That's treating leaders from nondemocratic poor countries as if they're adults in full possession of their mental faculties.
The Millennium Challenge Account doesn't have much funding, which for the short run leaves US aid/development policy still dependent on the USAID agency and international organizations such as the World Bank. That means things are still not looking up for the world's poorest. However, Pundita can't give unqualified support to the MCA because I don't know exactly how the program works out in practice. Giving money to governments that have made strides in democratic reforms doesn't necessarily equate to strides with real transformative value.
To think intelligently about helping the world's poorest requires first a different way of categorizing the poor. If you look through the list of the 77 "poorest" countries that make up the G-77 (See Pundita's sidebar), you'll note that some of those countries have oil wealth and other valuable exportable resources. Other countries on the list are narco states or Money Laundering, Inc., which means they're rolling in dough.
In short, there are oceans of money sloshing around in several of the countries that the World Bank and other international organizations categorize as the poorest. So clearly there's something screwy with the criteria for determining poverty. A close inspection shows that many countries, including several in OPEC, are poor because their governments spent decades making a complete mess and blowing export revenues on the wrong projects.*
But I think the majority of poorest countries are poorest because the class that put the government in power doesn't like to cough up at tax time, and because crime syndicates don't file tax returns. Yet pouring development and aid money into countries that don't have an adequate tax base to develop and maintain infrastructure and basic social programs is pouring into a bottomless pit.
Intelligent development policy should be grounded in that observation. Here we come to a snag. Multilateral development lending agencies and US aid programs are not set up to go after tax cheats. Nor do they have the authority to strong-arm governments into hounding the richest in their country to pay up on back taxes and raise taxes on the rich from a pittance percentage.
That is why development policy is on the moon. It's like the fable of the man who searched under a street lamp for a lost object in his darkened house because the lamp threw more light on his search. So making headway in helping the world's poorest is not really a matter of hard or soft power. It's a matter of lighting a candle to guide thinking back to earth.
Thanks to Dave Schuler's essay for galvanizing Pundita to summarize her writings to this point on aid/development policy.
* Seven of the 11 nations that make up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are poorer (or no richer) today per capita than they were in 1974. For an overview on why OPEC nations are crying poor these days, see the Christian Science Monitor report at http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0324/p16s01-cogn.html
.
Wednesday, March 23
Why Vicente Fox is going straight to Hell
In the wake of recent essays about poverty and the World Bank, Pundita has received a flurry of letters asking for ideas on how to improve US policy on helping the world's poorest. One writer asked, "If you could only do one thing to better the world, what would it be?"
Well, given that the United States is at war, I think it's more helpful to tell what the world's smartest terrorists want to do to better the world. They want to shoot all the government leaders who depend on diaspora remittances to keep the poorest in line.
Smart Islamofascists understand the connection between diaspora remittances, tax cheating by the richest in their countries, and the plight of the poorest. They're building coalitions with communists. The only thing that's holding them back is the communists' slowness to realize what century this is, which prevents them from modernizing communist doctrine. The rich per se are not the problem. The problem comes when the rich demand government-built infrastructures but don't want to pay their fair share in taxes to build and maintain the structures. They want the middle class and the poor to pay for them.
Western governments are studiously blind to the connection between diaspora remittances, narco states, terrorism, and the plight of the world's poorest. The US State Department (and the Bush administration) crowed about an initiative under the US-Mexico partnership, which makes it cheaper for poor Mexican immigrants working in this country to send remittances back home. Why don't they just line up Mexico's poor and shoot them? Oh but that's right, Pundita forgot! If you shoot them, you can't bleed them dry.
The US-Mexico initiative is small chips next to what China has done. They set up a program which 'encourages' Chinese working abroad to contribute a portion of their remittances to infrastructure projects in China. The Indian government wants to copy China's program (without the 'encouragements' of course) if they haven't done so already. So, the crime syndicates that have a big say in running those two countries will have even more heat taken off them when tax time comes around.
As to what would happen to Vicente Fox if he pushed to raise and enforce taxes on Mexico's richest--well, he'd have to take the same precautions that President Alvaro Uribe has had to take while standing up to Colombia's drug lords. So, okay, he'd have to live every moment as if it was his last. But this is not the chairmanship of Coca-Cola that Vicente Fox has got. He's supposed to be a national leader--a concept that implies moral and physical courage. And if he was on the level, he could get the Mexican people at this back. Once that happened, he could get the United States government squarely at this back.
But I don't wish to single out one national leader. Go down the list of governments that rely on remittances from their diaspora populations to keep their citizen unrest at bay. You see the same story again and again, whether it's Philippines, Burma, Algeria--you name it.
Education is a part of the solution; immigrants naturally want to send money back home. They need to learn in detail what their acts of generosity support, which is the very system of government that makes life in the old country Hell for their relatives. Yet the situation calls for more than palaver. It calls for Draconian measures on the part of nations that greatly profit from the cheap labor of diaspora populations.
To my knowledge there hasn't been much written recently about the issue of diaspora remittances--at least, not for the general public. That is why I recommend that Pundita readers look at two very short articles by Barbara Walker (links below). The articles are a few years old and look at remittances pretty much within the narrow context of Mexican workers in the US. But the articles are reader-friendly and a good if highly opinionated introduction to a complex subject.
The second Walker article I've listed provides a reading list for those who want to go deeper into the subject. However, I recommend that next you glance through the report from the UK Parliament House of Commons (third link below). If I recall the data is a few years old but the report is a primer on the subject of diaspora remittances. The bonus is that the report is well written and has cool charts, which at a glance can teach you a lot.
The caveat is that the Parliament report looks at everything upside down. The consensus in the development community (which the US-Mexico partnership follows) is to find ways to better use remittances to help poor countries. This is refusing to acknowledge that remittances are like methadone; they provide just enough of a cash flow fix so that corrupt/inefficient governments can avoid going after the biggest tax cheats in their country--the biggest being the crime bosses.
Once you realize what the avoidance has created for the poorest, you can see why the terrorists and radicals are building a broad platform that transcends cultural/religious boundaries. The platform is more sophisticated than the anti-globalist one because it's targeted, and more in tune with the fact that globalized business is here to stay.
Not to raise your blood pressure any more than it might rise after reading the Walker essays, but at the end of the following list is the link to a 2003 Time article on how Western Union got wildly rich off remittances. The data helps fill in some blanks.
http://www.vdare.com/walker/mexico_the_rich.htm
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86122
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/
cmintdev/79/7908.htm
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030623-458779,00.html
.
Well, given that the United States is at war, I think it's more helpful to tell what the world's smartest terrorists want to do to better the world. They want to shoot all the government leaders who depend on diaspora remittances to keep the poorest in line.
Smart Islamofascists understand the connection between diaspora remittances, tax cheating by the richest in their countries, and the plight of the poorest. They're building coalitions with communists. The only thing that's holding them back is the communists' slowness to realize what century this is, which prevents them from modernizing communist doctrine. The rich per se are not the problem. The problem comes when the rich demand government-built infrastructures but don't want to pay their fair share in taxes to build and maintain the structures. They want the middle class and the poor to pay for them.
Western governments are studiously blind to the connection between diaspora remittances, narco states, terrorism, and the plight of the world's poorest. The US State Department (and the Bush administration) crowed about an initiative under the US-Mexico partnership, which makes it cheaper for poor Mexican immigrants working in this country to send remittances back home. Why don't they just line up Mexico's poor and shoot them? Oh but that's right, Pundita forgot! If you shoot them, you can't bleed them dry.
The US-Mexico initiative is small chips next to what China has done. They set up a program which 'encourages' Chinese working abroad to contribute a portion of their remittances to infrastructure projects in China. The Indian government wants to copy China's program (without the 'encouragements' of course) if they haven't done so already. So, the crime syndicates that have a big say in running those two countries will have even more heat taken off them when tax time comes around.
As to what would happen to Vicente Fox if he pushed to raise and enforce taxes on Mexico's richest--well, he'd have to take the same precautions that President Alvaro Uribe has had to take while standing up to Colombia's drug lords. So, okay, he'd have to live every moment as if it was his last. But this is not the chairmanship of Coca-Cola that Vicente Fox has got. He's supposed to be a national leader--a concept that implies moral and physical courage. And if he was on the level, he could get the Mexican people at this back. Once that happened, he could get the United States government squarely at this back.
But I don't wish to single out one national leader. Go down the list of governments that rely on remittances from their diaspora populations to keep their citizen unrest at bay. You see the same story again and again, whether it's Philippines, Burma, Algeria--you name it.
Education is a part of the solution; immigrants naturally want to send money back home. They need to learn in detail what their acts of generosity support, which is the very system of government that makes life in the old country Hell for their relatives. Yet the situation calls for more than palaver. It calls for Draconian measures on the part of nations that greatly profit from the cheap labor of diaspora populations.
To my knowledge there hasn't been much written recently about the issue of diaspora remittances--at least, not for the general public. That is why I recommend that Pundita readers look at two very short articles by Barbara Walker (links below). The articles are a few years old and look at remittances pretty much within the narrow context of Mexican workers in the US. But the articles are reader-friendly and a good if highly opinionated introduction to a complex subject.
The second Walker article I've listed provides a reading list for those who want to go deeper into the subject. However, I recommend that next you glance through the report from the UK Parliament House of Commons (third link below). If I recall the data is a few years old but the report is a primer on the subject of diaspora remittances. The bonus is that the report is well written and has cool charts, which at a glance can teach you a lot.
The caveat is that the Parliament report looks at everything upside down. The consensus in the development community (which the US-Mexico partnership follows) is to find ways to better use remittances to help poor countries. This is refusing to acknowledge that remittances are like methadone; they provide just enough of a cash flow fix so that corrupt/inefficient governments can avoid going after the biggest tax cheats in their country--the biggest being the crime bosses.
Once you realize what the avoidance has created for the poorest, you can see why the terrorists and radicals are building a broad platform that transcends cultural/religious boundaries. The platform is more sophisticated than the anti-globalist one because it's targeted, and more in tune with the fact that globalized business is here to stay.
Not to raise your blood pressure any more than it might rise after reading the Walker essays, but at the end of the following list is the link to a 2003 Time article on how Western Union got wildly rich off remittances. The data helps fill in some blanks.
http://www.vdare.com/walker/mexico_the_rich.htm
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86122
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/
cmintdev/79/7908.htm
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030623-458779,00.html
.
"A bureaucrat's dream and a human being's nightmare"
Dear Reader, Pundita hopes you study the Belmont Club blogger's March 22 observations on Kofi Annan's plan to reform the United Nations. That's if you have a serious interest in helping the world's poorest and want to see the war on terror end in your lifetime. Wretchard observes in part:
.
In my own opinion Kofi Annan's proposals are a recipe for disaster for two reasons. His entire security model is philosophically founded on a kind of blackmail which recognizes that the only thing dysfunctional states have to export is trouble. He then sets up the United Nations as a gendarmarie with 'a human face' delivering payoffs to quell disturbances. This is the "bargain whereby rich countries help the poor to develop, by promoting the Millennium Development Goals, while poor countries help alleviate rich countries' security concerns."
Second, his model flies in the face of the recent experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire democratizing upheaval in the Middle East. It is by making countries functional that terrorism is quelled and not by any regime of international aid, inspections, nonproliferation treaties, declarations, protocols, conferences; nor by appointing special rapptorteurs, plenipotentiary envoys; nor constituting councils, consultative bodies or anything else in Annan's threadbare cupboard.
.
Monday, March 21
But Kuchma was our tyrant
Pundita! Would you stop fiddling with your sidebar! It’s driving me nuts! I went to click on the website for World Bank president and it was gone. And by the way, can we please take a vacation from talking about the World Bank? And Europe and China? We get the picture. We can’t trust the World Bank, Germany, France, Russia, Ukraine and China any further than we can throw them. Now can we please move the foreign policy discussion to someplace closer to home? What about Canada and Mexico? They’re our neighbors, you know. Also, we’ve never once discussed any country in Latin America, but now I suppose we’ll have to spend the next week discussing Kuchma’s sales of missiles to Tehran. [Signed] Not Born Yesterday in New York”
Dear NBY:
Canada and Latin American countries have not been selling weapons and weapons/dual use technology to terror sponsoring regimes. Nor to Pundita’s knowledge has any regional development bank connected with Latin America been writing loans/grants to such regimes. We’ve been prioritizing foreign policy discussion according to threats to US national security. However, Pundita takes your point. We will soon turn to discussion of our neighbors.
With regard to your comment about Kuchma, Pundita has not been doing her job properly if you automatically assume that it was Kuchma’s government that sold the missiles in question to Tehran. Yushchenko’s administration is busily working to blame everything from solar flares to male pattern baldness on Kuchma’s government.
You need to remember that at one time, Cold War warriors such as Breziznski viewed the mullacracy in Tehran as a ‘green belt’ against encroachment of the Soviets on Middle East oil. You might also want to bone up on the Iran-Contra affair. And recall the divide-and-conquer strategy favored by Washington and London, which saw the standoff between Baghdad and Tehran as very useful to keeping the rest of the Middle East in line.
Of course all that was before 9/11; US policy toward the Middle East has changed greatly since then. Yet you need to keep all the above history in mind, and keep a large salt shaker handy, when considering bombshell data that governments plop into the daily news these days.
This said, it wouldn’t surprise Pundita to learn that someone in Kuchma’s government sold some missiles. The surprise is hearing Americans sputter that Kuchma’s government was a democracy-hating tyranny of the most evil order. Then why did NATO admit Ukraine under Kuchma’s tyranny?
Kuchma was our boy; he did everything Washington wanted up to the point where he risked having Russia shut off energy supply to Ukraine. One look at US aid and World Bank loans to Ukraine during Kuchma’s years shows that he had instituted democracy reforms. He sought and gained entry for Ukraine into NATO. But one day Washington soured on Kuchma. We still don’t know why. We’ve discussed this issue before. Washington’s turn could have been due to a number of converging factors—which could include learning about the missile sales to Tehran. And there is still the accusation floating around that someone in Kuchma’s government sold weapons technology or whatever to Saddam Hussein. However, the French sold weapons to Saddam during the embargo and allegedly even after they knew the US was to invade Iraq. Doubtful that France was the only NATO ally engaged in such practice.
In any case, it's not a really a matter of trust. We can’t blame countries for acting in what they perceive is their best interest—although we can try to convince them to adopt a better set of priorities, if they’re doing weapons trade with US enemies. We need to save blame for the US Department of State, which gained far too much power during the Clinton era and combined this with dangerously uninformed views of post-Soviet Russia, oligarch clan politics in former Soviet regions, the European Community, and the Middle East entire.
With regard to your complaint, Pundita has not made changes to her sidebar for five days—a record, I believe.
.
Dear NBY:
Canada and Latin American countries have not been selling weapons and weapons/dual use technology to terror sponsoring regimes. Nor to Pundita’s knowledge has any regional development bank connected with Latin America been writing loans/grants to such regimes. We’ve been prioritizing foreign policy discussion according to threats to US national security. However, Pundita takes your point. We will soon turn to discussion of our neighbors.
With regard to your comment about Kuchma, Pundita has not been doing her job properly if you automatically assume that it was Kuchma’s government that sold the missiles in question to Tehran. Yushchenko’s administration is busily working to blame everything from solar flares to male pattern baldness on Kuchma’s government.
You need to remember that at one time, Cold War warriors such as Breziznski viewed the mullacracy in Tehran as a ‘green belt’ against encroachment of the Soviets on Middle East oil. You might also want to bone up on the Iran-Contra affair. And recall the divide-and-conquer strategy favored by Washington and London, which saw the standoff between Baghdad and Tehran as very useful to keeping the rest of the Middle East in line.
Of course all that was before 9/11; US policy toward the Middle East has changed greatly since then. Yet you need to keep all the above history in mind, and keep a large salt shaker handy, when considering bombshell data that governments plop into the daily news these days.
This said, it wouldn’t surprise Pundita to learn that someone in Kuchma’s government sold some missiles. The surprise is hearing Americans sputter that Kuchma’s government was a democracy-hating tyranny of the most evil order. Then why did NATO admit Ukraine under Kuchma’s tyranny?
Kuchma was our boy; he did everything Washington wanted up to the point where he risked having Russia shut off energy supply to Ukraine. One look at US aid and World Bank loans to Ukraine during Kuchma’s years shows that he had instituted democracy reforms. He sought and gained entry for Ukraine into NATO. But one day Washington soured on Kuchma. We still don’t know why. We’ve discussed this issue before. Washington’s turn could have been due to a number of converging factors—which could include learning about the missile sales to Tehran. And there is still the accusation floating around that someone in Kuchma’s government sold weapons technology or whatever to Saddam Hussein. However, the French sold weapons to Saddam during the embargo and allegedly even after they knew the US was to invade Iraq. Doubtful that France was the only NATO ally engaged in such practice.
In any case, it's not a really a matter of trust. We can’t blame countries for acting in what they perceive is their best interest—although we can try to convince them to adopt a better set of priorities, if they’re doing weapons trade with US enemies. We need to save blame for the US Department of State, which gained far too much power during the Clinton era and combined this with dangerously uninformed views of post-Soviet Russia, oligarch clan politics in former Soviet regions, the European Community, and the Middle East entire.
With regard to your complaint, Pundita has not made changes to her sidebar for five days—a record, I believe.
.
Paul Wolfowitz and the Arab Problem
“Pundita, dear, the Japanese had signed off on Wolfy even before Bush formally nominated him [for World Bank president]. So what kind of president do you think he’ll make? [Signed] Boris in Jackson Heights”
Dear Boris:
At the moment of this writing it seems likely that Wolfowitz has the job but the Bank vote has not yet been cast. Unwise to underestimate Brussels in this matter because so much is at stake for them. Behind the polite response from Brussels to the Wolfowitz nomination is a battle to determine how to use the World Bank to work on the Arab Problem. The Arab Problem is not part of the US war on terror, although it intersects with it. The Arab Problem is the result of Arab migration patterns, demographics, widescale poverty, and a host of grave social problems connected with Arab culture.
Discussion of the problem has been muted in the Western press and officialdom even though it was Arabs who formally identified the problem with the publication of the first Arab survey for the United Nations. The survey was launched several months prior to 9/11 but by the time it was published, in July 2002, government leaders were loath to publicly discuss the topic because Arabs are of course Muslims.
However, President Bush did try to propose a solution to the Arab Problem, which he dubbed The Middle East Initiative. This was met with howls of “Helsinki Initiative!” from Brussels, Arab leaders egged on by Brussels, and the Cold War Warrior crowd in Washington, which wanted to keep US resources focused on making Russia into a corn patch on the map.
Amending the name to “Greater” Middle East Initiative didn’t mollify the critics. The Arab Street picked up the howls, charging that America was trying to pave over the Middle East with American culture. Thus, the Bush stab at working on the Arab Problem would have to proceed in piecemeal, tiptoe fashion instead of as a comprehensive, explicitly stated plan. That’s a shame because the Arab Problem went untended for so long and has so many facets that it’s best dealt with in coordinated fashion.
Wolfowitz understands at a deep level the Arab Problem and the Middle East. Thus, his name surfaced in Washington even before Bush’s reelection during discussion of possible candidates for next World Bank president. The question at that time was whether Bush would want to reshuffle leadership at the Department of Defense if he won reelection. And I think a lot rode on the Iraqi election. If the election process went reasonably well, then Bush could really push for Paul Wolfowitz as next World Bank president.
Official EU response to the Wolfowitz nomination has been muted, but Brussels is not happy with the nomination. As soon as the nomination was announced, a well organized ‘grassroots movement’ sprang into action in Europe to ‘pressure’ Brussels into making a strong protest to Washington about the nomination. Clearly the movement was ready to spring into action well in advance of the nomination but probably would have sprung no matter which candidate Bush announced.
The question is whether the movement, or elements of it, is concerned with promoting the Brussels view on how best to address the Arab Problem. The answer would be sheer guesswork because again Brussels has (to my knowledge) continued to avoid public discussion of the problem. But taking a shot in the dark, it might be that the plan for ending world poverty that Jeffrey Sachs outlined in his latest book indicates how Germany and France want the US to deal with the Arab Problem.
In any case, the Arab Problem is certainly worse in Arab regions that don’t have much or any petroleum resources. But it would be confusing distinct issues to apply that point to how the Bank can be used to work on the Arab Problem.
Contrary to popular perception, the Bank is not an aid organization. It’s a financial institution and a sound one. It has to remain sound if it wants Bank bonds to have a high rating because the Bank does not only finance projects through grants from member countries. To keep their credit rating high, the Bank has to get returns on their investments—in other words, they have to collect on loans they make to governments.
The worst-case countries really can’t afford to qualify for Bank loans—even with the softest repayment terms and zero interest. Those countries are best helped by outright aid. Yet it seems Brussels wants to remake the Bank into more of an aid organization. That trend got seriously underway during Wolfensohn’s tenure; the Bank has made outright grants. That’s like trying to make your electric blender into a bread toaster. The World Bank can raise big loan amounts just because it’s a financial institution with a good credit rating. If you mess with the formula, you undercut or even destroy the Bank’s capacity to make big-ticket loans.
Post-Ba’athist Iraq, which of course is situated in the Middle East proper, is a perfect candidate for the classic big-ticket IBRD model of development and reconstruction, which does best at helping countries that have fallen backward. Years of Ba’athist rule, which included a long war with Iran, left the country’s infrastructure in ruins even before the US bombing campaign. Yet because Iraq has large oil reserves, they can be expected to make timely repayments on big Bank loans. And because Iraq manifests all the problems that have been noted with other Arab countries, the World Bank could, in theory, make fast inroads on the Arab Problem by lavishing loans of all kinds on Iraq.
If you take the darkest view of Brussels, which is that they are bent on destroying US power in the world, it’s easy to read dark motives into what is surely their lukewarm support for rebuilding Iraq with Bank loans. However, the bottom line is that Brussels is trying to find money to build up the EU military and tend to the many administrative expenses of running the European Union. There might be no immediate payoff for Germany and France in supporting big loans to Iraq because the two Euro nations stood on the wrong side of history on the matter of Bush’ plan to deal with the Iraqi Ba’athist regime. The Iraqi government will remember that when it comes time to okay contractors for big Bank projects--unless Germany and France greatly extend themselves to be helpful to Iraq, which to my knowledge they haven’t yet done.
Does all this mean that Wolfy at the helm of the Bank would result chiefly in a flurry of loans to Iraq? His diplomatic stint in Indonesia, core beliefs, and understanding of the Arab Problem suggest otherwise. But let’s not jump ahead of ourselves. Because America is at war Brussels has cards to play. Washington’s priorities do not place the World Bank or the Arab Problem at the top of their To-do list. So now, we wait.
.
Dear Boris:
At the moment of this writing it seems likely that Wolfowitz has the job but the Bank vote has not yet been cast. Unwise to underestimate Brussels in this matter because so much is at stake for them. Behind the polite response from Brussels to the Wolfowitz nomination is a battle to determine how to use the World Bank to work on the Arab Problem. The Arab Problem is not part of the US war on terror, although it intersects with it. The Arab Problem is the result of Arab migration patterns, demographics, widescale poverty, and a host of grave social problems connected with Arab culture.
Discussion of the problem has been muted in the Western press and officialdom even though it was Arabs who formally identified the problem with the publication of the first Arab survey for the United Nations. The survey was launched several months prior to 9/11 but by the time it was published, in July 2002, government leaders were loath to publicly discuss the topic because Arabs are of course Muslims.
However, President Bush did try to propose a solution to the Arab Problem, which he dubbed The Middle East Initiative. This was met with howls of “Helsinki Initiative!” from Brussels, Arab leaders egged on by Brussels, and the Cold War Warrior crowd in Washington, which wanted to keep US resources focused on making Russia into a corn patch on the map.
Amending the name to “Greater” Middle East Initiative didn’t mollify the critics. The Arab Street picked up the howls, charging that America was trying to pave over the Middle East with American culture. Thus, the Bush stab at working on the Arab Problem would have to proceed in piecemeal, tiptoe fashion instead of as a comprehensive, explicitly stated plan. That’s a shame because the Arab Problem went untended for so long and has so many facets that it’s best dealt with in coordinated fashion.
Wolfowitz understands at a deep level the Arab Problem and the Middle East. Thus, his name surfaced in Washington even before Bush’s reelection during discussion of possible candidates for next World Bank president. The question at that time was whether Bush would want to reshuffle leadership at the Department of Defense if he won reelection. And I think a lot rode on the Iraqi election. If the election process went reasonably well, then Bush could really push for Paul Wolfowitz as next World Bank president.
Official EU response to the Wolfowitz nomination has been muted, but Brussels is not happy with the nomination. As soon as the nomination was announced, a well organized ‘grassroots movement’ sprang into action in Europe to ‘pressure’ Brussels into making a strong protest to Washington about the nomination. Clearly the movement was ready to spring into action well in advance of the nomination but probably would have sprung no matter which candidate Bush announced.
The question is whether the movement, or elements of it, is concerned with promoting the Brussels view on how best to address the Arab Problem. The answer would be sheer guesswork because again Brussels has (to my knowledge) continued to avoid public discussion of the problem. But taking a shot in the dark, it might be that the plan for ending world poverty that Jeffrey Sachs outlined in his latest book indicates how Germany and France want the US to deal with the Arab Problem.
In any case, the Arab Problem is certainly worse in Arab regions that don’t have much or any petroleum resources. But it would be confusing distinct issues to apply that point to how the Bank can be used to work on the Arab Problem.
Contrary to popular perception, the Bank is not an aid organization. It’s a financial institution and a sound one. It has to remain sound if it wants Bank bonds to have a high rating because the Bank does not only finance projects through grants from member countries. To keep their credit rating high, the Bank has to get returns on their investments—in other words, they have to collect on loans they make to governments.
The worst-case countries really can’t afford to qualify for Bank loans—even with the softest repayment terms and zero interest. Those countries are best helped by outright aid. Yet it seems Brussels wants to remake the Bank into more of an aid organization. That trend got seriously underway during Wolfensohn’s tenure; the Bank has made outright grants. That’s like trying to make your electric blender into a bread toaster. The World Bank can raise big loan amounts just because it’s a financial institution with a good credit rating. If you mess with the formula, you undercut or even destroy the Bank’s capacity to make big-ticket loans.
Post-Ba’athist Iraq, which of course is situated in the Middle East proper, is a perfect candidate for the classic big-ticket IBRD model of development and reconstruction, which does best at helping countries that have fallen backward. Years of Ba’athist rule, which included a long war with Iran, left the country’s infrastructure in ruins even before the US bombing campaign. Yet because Iraq has large oil reserves, they can be expected to make timely repayments on big Bank loans. And because Iraq manifests all the problems that have been noted with other Arab countries, the World Bank could, in theory, make fast inroads on the Arab Problem by lavishing loans of all kinds on Iraq.
If you take the darkest view of Brussels, which is that they are bent on destroying US power in the world, it’s easy to read dark motives into what is surely their lukewarm support for rebuilding Iraq with Bank loans. However, the bottom line is that Brussels is trying to find money to build up the EU military and tend to the many administrative expenses of running the European Union. There might be no immediate payoff for Germany and France in supporting big loans to Iraq because the two Euro nations stood on the wrong side of history on the matter of Bush’ plan to deal with the Iraqi Ba’athist regime. The Iraqi government will remember that when it comes time to okay contractors for big Bank projects--unless Germany and France greatly extend themselves to be helpful to Iraq, which to my knowledge they haven’t yet done.
Does all this mean that Wolfy at the helm of the Bank would result chiefly in a flurry of loans to Iraq? His diplomatic stint in Indonesia, core beliefs, and understanding of the Arab Problem suggest otherwise. But let’s not jump ahead of ourselves. Because America is at war Brussels has cards to play. Washington’s priorities do not place the World Bank or the Arab Problem at the top of their To-do list. So now, we wait.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)