This continues my reply to Dymphna's letter, published earlier today.
After studying your blog layout I am quite certain that you look at the blog sidebar from the vantage point of being plugged into the blogosphere, which is quite distinct from blogging. For the edification of readers who are not bloggers:
The blogosphere is a creation of linking and specifically bloggers linking to each other's blogs -- both permanently (sidebar) or via links embedded in posts. The sphere of links is the basis of the ranking system used by EZ Bear to define the blogosphere ecosystem, even though many bloggers are not ranked in EZ Bear and thus, their links to a blog are not tracked by EZ Bear. You can see this by comparing links shown on Technorati with links shown on EZ Bear; not all the Technorati links show up on EZ Bear. And EZ Bear does not track links to blogs that are picked up by subscription websites.
(Technorati in turn does not record many links for reasons I've never understood; it might have something to do with software. And they too do not show links put up by subscription sites -- at least, not the subscription sites that have linked to my posts.)
Of course EZ Bear also tracks by daily readership number provided the blogger uses Site Meter tracking software. But it is entirely possible to receive a high ranking on EZ Bear even with a low daily readership, simply through the mechanism of permanent linking, which is why so many blogs have an extensive blogroll.
Those who value the sense of community the blogosphere affords, or who blog primarily to promote themselves in some way (e.g., as a book author) take linking very seriously just because the ranking system attached to it helps give their blog publicity and thus, helps increase readership.
So they would be horrified (and some have expressed horror) at Pundita's attitude toward her blogroll. I would put up links then yank them a short while later. Then some names would return only to be yanked again. Once I yanked the entire blogroll.
Finally a loyal reader wrote that my constant fiddling with the blogroll was driving her crazy. I settled down a bit after that, then came another bout of fiddling. I eventually settled on nine permanent links. The tenth (Sumedh Mungee) I had up for a short while, then yanked, then restored only a few days ago after naming him for a 2005 Pundita Weblog Award.
The above suggests that I did not look at the sidebar from the vantage point of being a member of the blogosphere. I was looking at it as way to make a gift for my readers and anyone who came across the Pundita blog, against the time I would be leaving. But it was just an idea at first; over time I struggled with the gift in the manner of a novice cook who is making a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. There was a lot of improvisation and correction involved.
Excluding the link to Dave Schuler's The Glittering Eye blog (which is my symbolic thanks to the blogosphere), if you study the sidebar links as a whole, there are two snapshots: one of the Bush administration's view of the war and foreign policy issues. The other is a snapshot of views in:
> Asia (Simon World)
> Russia/Central Asia/Europe (Untimely Thoughts) and
> via Sudan Watch and other of Ingrid Jones's Africa blogs linked on Sudan Watch:
-- Africa
-- global development and aid issues
-- United Nations
-- global oil politics
-- environmental problems; e.g., water scarcity
In other words, Ingrid's Sudan Watch is not just about the Darfur crisis, or about Sudan or even Africa. It's a window on the developing world and related issues, all of which are important to US foreign policy.
This is not counting the link to John Batchelor's website, which daily has links to the best reports on important issues here and abroad, and which reviews books that deal with the full range of 21st century issues.
I wanted to find an all-Canada and Mexico blog, and also a south and central American blog or at least an all-Latin American blog. I hope to have the time to pursue that goal once I stop blogging. Those blogs would help complete the big picture.
Mungee's blog is also important because it helps round out the picture in India; it's also a window on ICT for people who are not in that field, which is profoundly shaping the modern era. It's also a window on rural development -- and something more:
Study the photograph at the top of the blog: A man in tribal clothes squatted in a verdant field, showing a child how to use a PDA. There it is, in one photograph: the early 21st century across the world. All the promise and challenge of this era are captured in the picture. You've heard of the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason? Well, this is the Age of Human Resources.
So that is my gift to people who return to Pundita's blog to root around in the archives or who come upon it for the first time. I found a few blogs that together convey our world in a way that's not readily apparent from the nightly news.
I have thought about adding a link category for bloggers I like and who are plugged into the blogosphere. I thought of calling it "American potluck" or somesuch. But after thinking over all the above, my heart tells me to leave well enough alone, at least for now.
Who knows? If I return to the blogosphere, I might do it in a right proper way -- comment section, trackback, participating in blogger carnivals, politicking to get into a Whizbang Awards, endlessly visiting other blogs and adding my comments in order to promote my blog, putting into practice the great marketing advice that Dan Riehl has given me, and writing many essays about other bloggers' essays.
Thank you again for writing to say goodbye, Dymphna. I will leave you with a cautionary observation and a traveler's tale; why the latter has come to mind while reading your 'personal' blog, I do not know. But I wrote "Another kind of beer" for you.
Note the caption at Sumedh Mungee's blog: "There is no box."
That's right; there is no box and there never was a box. There are just ways of thinking, and dialogue. Stop the dialogue; terrorize it into silence, and ways of thinking harden. This only means that the Genius informing every heart can't easily be heard -- but not boxed in, not gone away. It's always there as a whisper or a roar.
So that would be my answer to the question posed by Gates of Vienna:
"Does liberal humanism provide enough spiritual might to counter the Great Islamic Jihad? If not, then we have no arms to fight it with."
Neither liberal humanism nor Islam or Christianity or any religion or creed provides spiritual force. Spiritual force comes from the heart's ability to listen to the best within us.
Now about that traveler's tale....
Monday, December 19
Another kind of beer
One late night in the boonies in a Third World country an American woman showed up. She had been pushed to her limit by the rigors of travel in a land that was completely foreign to her. Then she couldn't get a room and was told she'd have to wait for hours to find out if one could be found. She broke into sobs and blurted that she wished she'd never made the journey.
I happened to be stting in what passed for the lobby and hearing all this. I slapped my hands on my knees, stood up and announced matter-of-factly, "I don't know about you but I'm going out for a beer."
The woman whirled to look at the stranger who spoke English. She choked through her sobs, "A beer? There's beer in this place?"
I grinned at her. "Want to come along?"
"Oh yes!" she cried in relief. "A beer! I would die for a beer right now!" She glanced at her suitcases.
"They'll be okay," I said.
I led her out into the night. A few minutes of walking through the dusty roads of the village. She asked my name and told me hers. As we walked she talked about why she had made the journey and how much she regretted it.
"I'm turning right around and going back to the US as soon as I get some sleep and find transportation."
I led her through the silent streets of the village bedded down for the night. She looked around eagerly and asked, "Where's the bar?"
I pointed ahead. On reaching the open countryside she stopped, looked around and said ruefully, "There is no bar, is there? No beer."
"The bar is right here," I smiled, and added, "Look up."
She looked up, then plunked down on the ground in awe and stared.
In that region there were no electric lights for many, many miles at night. We sat in silence watching the sky so close in the pristine air it seemed with small effort one could touch the heaven's starry tapestry.
Then we chatted about nothing in particular, as if we were sitting in a bar after work.
By the time we returned to the village a room had been found for her, but she knew by then that she could have bunked with me if no room materialized.
I saw her a few days later. "Still here, huh?"
She grinned. "Thanks for the company -- and the beer."
I happened to be stting in what passed for the lobby and hearing all this. I slapped my hands on my knees, stood up and announced matter-of-factly, "I don't know about you but I'm going out for a beer."
The woman whirled to look at the stranger who spoke English. She choked through her sobs, "A beer? There's beer in this place?"
I grinned at her. "Want to come along?"
"Oh yes!" she cried in relief. "A beer! I would die for a beer right now!" She glanced at her suitcases.
"They'll be okay," I said.
I led her out into the night. A few minutes of walking through the dusty roads of the village. She asked my name and told me hers. As we walked she talked about why she had made the journey and how much she regretted it.
"I'm turning right around and going back to the US as soon as I get some sleep and find transportation."
I led her through the silent streets of the village bedded down for the night. She looked around eagerly and asked, "Where's the bar?"
I pointed ahead. On reaching the open countryside she stopped, looked around and said ruefully, "There is no bar, is there? No beer."
"The bar is right here," I smiled, and added, "Look up."
She looked up, then plunked down on the ground in awe and stared.
In that region there were no electric lights for many, many miles at night. We sat in silence watching the sky so close in the pristine air it seemed with small effort one could touch the heaven's starry tapestry.
Then we chatted about nothing in particular, as if we were sitting in a bar after work.
By the time we returned to the village a room had been found for her, but she knew by then that she could have bunked with me if no room materialized.
I saw her a few days later. "Still here, huh?"
She grinned. "Thanks for the company -- and the beer."
Gates of Vienna and the Gates of Athens
Dear Pundita:
I'm sorry you're shutting down your blog. Pundita Encore will be a good resource but I shall miss what I believe to be one of the superior blogs -- up there with Wretchard [Belmont Club] but in your own more wide-ranging style. Aside from content, the craft of your writing is excellent. I think you do some kind of writing for a living because it seems so fluid. When I found your blog -- can't remember how I stumbled upon it -- I grabbed our readers by the lapels and told them they must go there. No one else writes in your voice or with your breadth.
I thought your Blog Awards observations were spot on. When the Baron and I went to look at them we realized we're in a little ghetto. I don't know most of those people. I did visit a few to see what I might be missing.
Since you are leaving the scene for a while, I'd like to ask a favor. Would you do a critique of Gates of Vienna and tell me why we didn't qualify for your blog roll? Are we too much in a ghetto? Too random? I'd be interested in your opinion, which I respect. And your perspective would be helpful.
I hope your leave-taking is a happy one, meaning you are just much too busy having a real life to bother blogging. I hope you are leaving your present blog up just to float in the ether.
Dymphna
Gates of Vienna blog"
Dear Dymphna:
Thank you for the praise and kind farewell. Analyzing your blog and explaining why I do not link to it on my sidebar are two different things. I have taken a liking to several blogs I have visited during the course of research but I rarely return to read them. But I will do the best I can toward answering your questions.
First, I've only visited your blog a handful of times; each time, I've come across an educational, well written report about some aspect of Islamic history/culture or an organization (Muslim or otherwise) in the US that is espousing values which pose a threat to American security.
These themes are in line with the Gates of Vienna (GOV) mission statement, as laid out in the essay titled The Newest Phase of a Very Old War:
Also, the secondary thesis tends to overwhelm the mission statement because it raises issues that transcend the war on terror and the struggle between Christianity and Islam. The issues reflect the tension between the rise of civilization and the existence of tribes.
The laws that form a nation-state are inimical to religious/tribal laws, which is why the ancient Greeks politely but inexorably kicked the Greek gods upstairs. Same happened in ancient India. It has happened everywhere that the nation-state is shown to be a more efficient model of human society than tribes.
The conundrum is that the state's diffusion and consequent weakening of religious/tribal values leads to a weakening of purpose. This makes the nation-state vulnerable to decay from within and attacks from without, as the ancient Athenians learned the hard way. It's a lesson that has been taught countless times in history.
By placing this theme in your blog you've invited a 10,000 pound gorilla to take up residence. It's a huge, huge theme, which is quite hard to integrate with GWOT and matters Islam because it overpowers them. It's the heart of many disputes connected with civilization.
This observation should not be seen as a criticism or a call to revise the GOV mission statement. Of course many blogs, including Pundita's, make forays into topics that are outside the confines of the blog's stated theme. In GOV's case in particular I would be reluctant to criticize forays because your very first letter to me mentioned that you had taken up blogging to help you through the difficult period following the death of your daughter. I note that you mentioned this again in your most recent correspondence.
I admire that as part of your blogging you do reporting that provides valuable information to the US war effort. Yet during this endeavor you listen carefully to your heart (of course mourning and the healing process have a way of prompting special attention to intuition). If close listening leads you to forays, that is simply the personality of Gates of Vienna.
I think what distinguishes newsy blogs from other media platforms is a very distinct personality, which always reveals byways of the heart and contradictions.
In short, I don't have a criticism of Gates of Vienna. What you might want to play around with is more clearly delineating the two themes so that new readers are quickly oriented, but here I am just thinking aloud.
As to whether I can criticize any of the handful of GOV essays I've read -- I take issue with the branding of today's enemy as a German Nazi and with analogies that call forth Nazi atrocities, such as the Kristallnacht atrocity. Such branding has snowballed during the past year on American news talk shows and numerous blogs and opinion websites.
Pundita has also been guilty of mental laziness in invoking the "Islamofascism" label as a matter of convenience, but not since I've noticed the tendency to cast the enemy as the Third Reich.
Earlier this year Pundita rumbled with some fans of Muslim Brotherhood who denied the Nazi roots of the organization. However, it is getting into dangerous waters to haul a peaceful US ally into analogies that miss the mark in the first place, and secondly stimulate prejudice against Germans. Both of which play into the hand of al Qaeda and the Syrian and Iranian regimes.
Pundita thinks Ahmadinejad has gone on a Holocaust denial kick to target Germany or to be more precise, Germany's new government. I think Maddy's handlers in Iran's military want to embarrass the German government and drive a wedge between Britain, Germany and France. Since the Merkel-led coalition has formed Tehran has watched the EU Three toughen and show more solidarity in their approach to negotiations with Iran about nukes.
In any case Maddy is not Hitler; correct me if my memory is wrong but I seem to recall the latter had virtually unqualified support from the German people after he consolidated power. Maddy is in power only because he's backed by Iran's military; at least 80 percent of Iran's populace wishes him gone along with his handlers.
Iran's regime is a military dictatorship, plain and simple, and which no longer finds use to Arab neighbors or the Israelis; this since the US toppled Saddam Hussein's government. So when Maddy floats the "We're all Muslims against the World" routine what he hears back is, "What you mean 'we' Kemosabe?"
Except from Bashy -- Bashar al-Assad -- of course, and he has made his name mud in the Arab world. Iran's military is in a pile of trouble at home and they know it; they are hanging on only because of oil receipts. But stand back and look at the big picture. For decades Iran's regime was petted and feted by West Europeans and Russians and tolerated by Americans; now they're hearing that they're the Third Reich.
If I recall the majority of Iran's people are under 30; it's because so were many wiped out by the war with Iraq -- a war that the West encouraged in order create stasis in the region.
What can the West do now? Keep the pressure on for democratic reform, don't let Iran's leaders change the subject by yammering about Israel, and turn off the theoretical bubble machine. No triangulation, no chessboard thinking. Demand to negotiate directly with Iran's military.
We should take our cue from a reform-minded Iranian cleric whose answer to Maddy's talk about the Mahdi's Second Coming was to the effect, "Yes yes but we also have to focus on the deficit and inflation."
They have to focus on a few other things as well, but so far Maddy has created uproars that distract attention from Tehran's seat on a slippery slope.
To be continued.
I'm sorry you're shutting down your blog. Pundita Encore will be a good resource but I shall miss what I believe to be one of the superior blogs -- up there with Wretchard [Belmont Club] but in your own more wide-ranging style. Aside from content, the craft of your writing is excellent. I think you do some kind of writing for a living because it seems so fluid. When I found your blog -- can't remember how I stumbled upon it -- I grabbed our readers by the lapels and told them they must go there. No one else writes in your voice or with your breadth.
I thought your Blog Awards observations were spot on. When the Baron and I went to look at them we realized we're in a little ghetto. I don't know most of those people. I did visit a few to see what I might be missing.
Since you are leaving the scene for a while, I'd like to ask a favor. Would you do a critique of Gates of Vienna and tell me why we didn't qualify for your blog roll? Are we too much in a ghetto? Too random? I'd be interested in your opinion, which I respect. And your perspective would be helpful.
I hope your leave-taking is a happy one, meaning you are just much too busy having a real life to bother blogging. I hope you are leaving your present blog up just to float in the ether.
Dymphna
Gates of Vienna blog"
Dear Dymphna:
Thank you for the praise and kind farewell. Analyzing your blog and explaining why I do not link to it on my sidebar are two different things. I have taken a liking to several blogs I have visited during the course of research but I rarely return to read them. But I will do the best I can toward answering your questions.
First, I've only visited your blog a handful of times; each time, I've come across an educational, well written report about some aspect of Islamic history/culture or an organization (Muslim or otherwise) in the US that is espousing values which pose a threat to American security.
These themes are in line with the Gates of Vienna (GOV) mission statement, as laid out in the essay titled The Newest Phase of a Very Old War:
The thesis of this blog is that, like it or not, we are in a religious war. We do not define the terms but we should take careful note of them. We are mistaken if we think the Enemy wants merely to kill us. Once again, Jihad offers two choices to the West: conversion or death.However, I was struck by another GOV thesis, as stated in Part One of the series titled The Enemy Within:
...can this battle against the enemy within be fought without a religious regeneration in our own [American] culture? Does liberal humanism provide enough spiritual might to counter the Great Islamic Jihad? If not, then we have no arms to fight it with.This thesis puts you and Baron Bodissey (GOV co-author) in general agreement with traditionalist Muslim clerics not to mention the fundamental teachings of al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri. His target is much more secular government than Christianity. And he is very clearly against the nation-state.
Also, the secondary thesis tends to overwhelm the mission statement because it raises issues that transcend the war on terror and the struggle between Christianity and Islam. The issues reflect the tension between the rise of civilization and the existence of tribes.
The laws that form a nation-state are inimical to religious/tribal laws, which is why the ancient Greeks politely but inexorably kicked the Greek gods upstairs. Same happened in ancient India. It has happened everywhere that the nation-state is shown to be a more efficient model of human society than tribes.
The conundrum is that the state's diffusion and consequent weakening of religious/tribal values leads to a weakening of purpose. This makes the nation-state vulnerable to decay from within and attacks from without, as the ancient Athenians learned the hard way. It's a lesson that has been taught countless times in history.
By placing this theme in your blog you've invited a 10,000 pound gorilla to take up residence. It's a huge, huge theme, which is quite hard to integrate with GWOT and matters Islam because it overpowers them. It's the heart of many disputes connected with civilization.
This observation should not be seen as a criticism or a call to revise the GOV mission statement. Of course many blogs, including Pundita's, make forays into topics that are outside the confines of the blog's stated theme. In GOV's case in particular I would be reluctant to criticize forays because your very first letter to me mentioned that you had taken up blogging to help you through the difficult period following the death of your daughter. I note that you mentioned this again in your most recent correspondence.
I admire that as part of your blogging you do reporting that provides valuable information to the US war effort. Yet during this endeavor you listen carefully to your heart (of course mourning and the healing process have a way of prompting special attention to intuition). If close listening leads you to forays, that is simply the personality of Gates of Vienna.
I think what distinguishes newsy blogs from other media platforms is a very distinct personality, which always reveals byways of the heart and contradictions.
In short, I don't have a criticism of Gates of Vienna. What you might want to play around with is more clearly delineating the two themes so that new readers are quickly oriented, but here I am just thinking aloud.
As to whether I can criticize any of the handful of GOV essays I've read -- I take issue with the branding of today's enemy as a German Nazi and with analogies that call forth Nazi atrocities, such as the Kristallnacht atrocity. Such branding has snowballed during the past year on American news talk shows and numerous blogs and opinion websites.
Pundita has also been guilty of mental laziness in invoking the "Islamofascism" label as a matter of convenience, but not since I've noticed the tendency to cast the enemy as the Third Reich.
Earlier this year Pundita rumbled with some fans of Muslim Brotherhood who denied the Nazi roots of the organization. However, it is getting into dangerous waters to haul a peaceful US ally into analogies that miss the mark in the first place, and secondly stimulate prejudice against Germans. Both of which play into the hand of al Qaeda and the Syrian and Iranian regimes.
Pundita thinks Ahmadinejad has gone on a Holocaust denial kick to target Germany or to be more precise, Germany's new government. I think Maddy's handlers in Iran's military want to embarrass the German government and drive a wedge between Britain, Germany and France. Since the Merkel-led coalition has formed Tehran has watched the EU Three toughen and show more solidarity in their approach to negotiations with Iran about nukes.
In any case Maddy is not Hitler; correct me if my memory is wrong but I seem to recall the latter had virtually unqualified support from the German people after he consolidated power. Maddy is in power only because he's backed by Iran's military; at least 80 percent of Iran's populace wishes him gone along with his handlers.
Iran's regime is a military dictatorship, plain and simple, and which no longer finds use to Arab neighbors or the Israelis; this since the US toppled Saddam Hussein's government. So when Maddy floats the "We're all Muslims against the World" routine what he hears back is, "What you mean 'we' Kemosabe?"
Except from Bashy -- Bashar al-Assad -- of course, and he has made his name mud in the Arab world. Iran's military is in a pile of trouble at home and they know it; they are hanging on only because of oil receipts. But stand back and look at the big picture. For decades Iran's regime was petted and feted by West Europeans and Russians and tolerated by Americans; now they're hearing that they're the Third Reich.
If I recall the majority of Iran's people are under 30; it's because so were many wiped out by the war with Iraq -- a war that the West encouraged in order create stasis in the region.
What can the West do now? Keep the pressure on for democratic reform, don't let Iran's leaders change the subject by yammering about Israel, and turn off the theoretical bubble machine. No triangulation, no chessboard thinking. Demand to negotiate directly with Iran's military.
We should take our cue from a reform-minded Iranian cleric whose answer to Maddy's talk about the Mahdi's Second Coming was to the effect, "Yes yes but we also have to focus on the deficit and inflation."
They have to focus on a few other things as well, but so far Maddy has created uproars that distract attention from Tehran's seat on a slippery slope.
To be continued.
Saturday, December 17
House votes to erect 700 mi security fence along US-Mexico border
"After we pass this, we send it to the Senate. And I think that's the end of it."
Pundita thinks we should see something like another Boston Tea Party -- launched this time against the Democrat and Republican parties -- if the Senate doesn't at least vote for the limp-wristed security measures passed by the House.
However, the bill does not deal with the huge problem of remittances, which Pundita addressed at length earlier this year. (See Mexico essays on the sidebar.)
And of course legislation cannot substitute for strong action by the White House and State Department in dealing with the Mexican and Central American governments, which tacitly (and overtly) encourage immigration to the US in lieu of making reforms that bother the ruling class in those countries.
Border-security bill passes House but divides GOP
Mike Madden
Republic Washington Bureau
Gannett
Arizona Central newspaper online
"Dec. 17, 2005 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - The House passed a sweeping border enforcement bill Friday night that would make illegal presence in the United States a federal crime, order employers to verify their workers' legal status and build a fence across most of the Arizona-Mexico border.
The 239-182 vote split the Arizona delegation, underscoring the fractious politics behind the issue. More than half of the 1.2 million arrests made last year by the U.S. Border Patrol were in Arizona.
The vote also exposed broader disputes among House Republicans that could pose hurdles for any immigration-reform bill, despite widespread recognition that the current system no longer works.
Pressure from constituents to fix the law has mounted in the past few years as illegal immigration has soared to record levels, straining hospitals, schools, social services and police departments around the country.
GOP leaders pushed hard for the measure so that lawmakers could go home for a monthlong Christmas break and lay the groundwork for next year's elections by touting tough action to stop illegal immigration.
But the bill does not include a plan for temporary-work visas for any of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States, something President Bush has sought for two years and a step many Arizona lawmakers say is crucial. The White House supported the bill anyway but said the administration will keep pushing for broader legislation.
The Senate may support a guest-worker visa when it takes up the issue in February, setting up an election-year clash over the most extensive immigration reform in years.
Both of Arizona's Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, have written immigration bills that allow guest workers, though they differ over how to design the program.
The House measure attracted only grudging support from many lawmakers.
Republicans were split. Conservatives who want to crack down harder on illegal immigration and businesses that employ undocumented workers complained that it didn't go far enough.
Moderates who favor a guest-worker plan were upset that the bill didn't include the plan. They predicted undocumented immigrants would stay in the United States to work illegally even under the new bill's terms.
'The end of it'
Opposition arose on both sides of the debate, even within the Republican majority. Arizona GOP Reps. J.D. Hayworth and Jim Kolbe, who rarely agree on any immigration question, both opposed the bill and voted against two procedural motions needed to advance it to a final vote. Hayworth voted against final passage, one of only 17 Republicans to oppose the bill.
Kolbe, who will retire after this term in office, skipped the vote on final passage. His office released a statement saying he had a prior commitment but would've voted against the bill.
"These people, having voted on enforcement only, are never going to touch it again," said Kolbe, who has co-sponsored a guest-worker proposal with Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that mirrors McCain's proposal.
Kolbe said he fears the House will never act on it.
"After we pass this, we send it to the Senate. And I think that's the end of it," he said.
Meanwhile, Hayworth predicted the Senate will pass its own guest-worker program that the House eventually will take up instead of the bill passed Friday.
"In terms of truth in labeling, are we in fact engaged in enforcement first, or are we in fact engaged in enforcement maybe?" Hayworth asked.
Republican leaders tried hard not to alienate other conservatives, who said they would revolt against any guest-worker bill. Republicans met privately Thursday to hash out internal disagreements before holding the first of two procedural votes needed to move the bill toward passage.
Both narrowly passed, despite opposition from Hayworth and Kolbe.
Most Democrats voted against the bill, saying it was too harsh on immigrants and impossible to enforce.
Pulled between siding with Kolbe, his co-sponsor on the guest-worker program, and with Republican leaders, Flake voted for the bill but said he could have voted against it. He said he was counting on the Senate to pass a more comprehensive reform bill.
He said he voted for the second procedural motion only after asking for assurance from House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that leadership wouldn't block the House from taking up a guest-worker bill next year.
"If the only way to move this forward is to give the Senate a flawed vehicle, then give it," Flake said.
Other Arizona lawmakers voted along party lines. The bill included a proposal by Rep. Rick Renzi to require Border Patrol uniforms to be made in the United States, easing security concerns raised by their production in Mexican factories.
Outside Congress, advocates for increasing legal immigration said they also hoped the Senate will pass a guest-worker plan and that the House bill will not become law. Business groups joined with labor unions and churches to oppose the House bill. Advocates for immigrant rights decried the legislation. The National Council of La Raza called it "appalling."
Mexico's ambassador to the United States, Carlos de Icaza, said the bill wouldn't fix immigration problems.
"Fences by themselves don't solve things, and not between neighbors," de Icaza said in an interview.
Conservatives called the measure a useful step toward getting control of the nation's borders, especially the 1,950-mile frontier with Mexico. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and other groups that seek reduced immigration agreed, urging supporters to call lawmakers all day Thursday and Friday to lobby for certain amendments."
Pundita thinks we should see something like another Boston Tea Party -- launched this time against the Democrat and Republican parties -- if the Senate doesn't at least vote for the limp-wristed security measures passed by the House.
However, the bill does not deal with the huge problem of remittances, which Pundita addressed at length earlier this year. (See Mexico essays on the sidebar.)
And of course legislation cannot substitute for strong action by the White House and State Department in dealing with the Mexican and Central American governments, which tacitly (and overtly) encourage immigration to the US in lieu of making reforms that bother the ruling class in those countries.
Border-security bill passes House but divides GOP
Mike Madden
Republic Washington Bureau
Gannett
Arizona Central newspaper online
"Dec. 17, 2005 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - The House passed a sweeping border enforcement bill Friday night that would make illegal presence in the United States a federal crime, order employers to verify their workers' legal status and build a fence across most of the Arizona-Mexico border.
The 239-182 vote split the Arizona delegation, underscoring the fractious politics behind the issue. More than half of the 1.2 million arrests made last year by the U.S. Border Patrol were in Arizona.
The vote also exposed broader disputes among House Republicans that could pose hurdles for any immigration-reform bill, despite widespread recognition that the current system no longer works.
Pressure from constituents to fix the law has mounted in the past few years as illegal immigration has soared to record levels, straining hospitals, schools, social services and police departments around the country.
GOP leaders pushed hard for the measure so that lawmakers could go home for a monthlong Christmas break and lay the groundwork for next year's elections by touting tough action to stop illegal immigration.
But the bill does not include a plan for temporary-work visas for any of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States, something President Bush has sought for two years and a step many Arizona lawmakers say is crucial. The White House supported the bill anyway but said the administration will keep pushing for broader legislation.
The Senate may support a guest-worker visa when it takes up the issue in February, setting up an election-year clash over the most extensive immigration reform in years.
Both of Arizona's Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, have written immigration bills that allow guest workers, though they differ over how to design the program.
The House measure attracted only grudging support from many lawmakers.
Republicans were split. Conservatives who want to crack down harder on illegal immigration and businesses that employ undocumented workers complained that it didn't go far enough.
Moderates who favor a guest-worker plan were upset that the bill didn't include the plan. They predicted undocumented immigrants would stay in the United States to work illegally even under the new bill's terms.
'The end of it'
Opposition arose on both sides of the debate, even within the Republican majority. Arizona GOP Reps. J.D. Hayworth and Jim Kolbe, who rarely agree on any immigration question, both opposed the bill and voted against two procedural motions needed to advance it to a final vote. Hayworth voted against final passage, one of only 17 Republicans to oppose the bill.
Kolbe, who will retire after this term in office, skipped the vote on final passage. His office released a statement saying he had a prior commitment but would've voted against the bill.
"These people, having voted on enforcement only, are never going to touch it again," said Kolbe, who has co-sponsored a guest-worker proposal with Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that mirrors McCain's proposal.
Kolbe said he fears the House will never act on it.
"After we pass this, we send it to the Senate. And I think that's the end of it," he said.
Meanwhile, Hayworth predicted the Senate will pass its own guest-worker program that the House eventually will take up instead of the bill passed Friday.
"In terms of truth in labeling, are we in fact engaged in enforcement first, or are we in fact engaged in enforcement maybe?" Hayworth asked.
Republican leaders tried hard not to alienate other conservatives, who said they would revolt against any guest-worker bill. Republicans met privately Thursday to hash out internal disagreements before holding the first of two procedural votes needed to move the bill toward passage.
Both narrowly passed, despite opposition from Hayworth and Kolbe.
Most Democrats voted against the bill, saying it was too harsh on immigrants and impossible to enforce.
Pulled between siding with Kolbe, his co-sponsor on the guest-worker program, and with Republican leaders, Flake voted for the bill but said he could have voted against it. He said he was counting on the Senate to pass a more comprehensive reform bill.
He said he voted for the second procedural motion only after asking for assurance from House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that leadership wouldn't block the House from taking up a guest-worker bill next year.
"If the only way to move this forward is to give the Senate a flawed vehicle, then give it," Flake said.
Other Arizona lawmakers voted along party lines. The bill included a proposal by Rep. Rick Renzi to require Border Patrol uniforms to be made in the United States, easing security concerns raised by their production in Mexican factories.
Outside Congress, advocates for increasing legal immigration said they also hoped the Senate will pass a guest-worker plan and that the House bill will not become law. Business groups joined with labor unions and churches to oppose the House bill. Advocates for immigrant rights decried the legislation. The National Council of La Raza called it "appalling."
Mexico's ambassador to the United States, Carlos de Icaza, said the bill wouldn't fix immigration problems.
"Fences by themselves don't solve things, and not between neighbors," de Icaza said in an interview.
Conservatives called the measure a useful step toward getting control of the nation's borders, especially the 1,950-mile frontier with Mexico. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and other groups that seek reduced immigration agreed, urging supporters to call lawmakers all day Thursday and Friday to lobby for certain amendments."
Not with all your smarts, Dan Riehl, not with all your smarts
Whereupon Pundita grouses to the Riehl World View blogger. (For an introduction to Dan Riehl's highly independent views about the blogosphere, read the Sigmund, Carl and Alfred interview.)
Subj: Bringing the US Department of State in line with today's world
Date: 12/17/05 5:28:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pundita1
To: itsjustdan@comcast.net
Dan, this long essay, which ranges over several issues connected with State, is prefaced by a long letter from a loyal reader (cybersecurity expert Annlee Hines) ...
Pundita
* * * *
In a message dated 12/17/05 5:34:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, itsjustdan@comcast.net writes:
"what happened to your retirement???"
* * * *
Date: 12/17/05 5:36:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pundita1
To: itsjustdan@comcast.net
what are you doing up at this ungodly hour? I am going to sleep before I crash face forward onto the keyboard. will write tomorrow.
* * * *
Date: 12/17/05 6:10:53 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: itsjustdan@comcast.net
To: Pundita1@aol.com
"Pundita always says this. LOLOL nite"
* * * *
It's a forced retirement, Dan. In a few days I will have no choice but to leave the blogosphere and concentrate completely on personal matters. But after taking a short break about a month ago (or whenever I announced my long vacation) I decided to battle on as long as I possibly could, right down to the wire. Not a smart decision if you knew my circumstances, simply a tenacious one.
I want to show you something, so you understand the road ahead for the Bush democracy doctrine:
Do you remember the essay I sent you by the US vet about his adventures helping the stranded in New Orleans after Katrina? "The Deuce." My site meter showed that no sooner did you link to it than hundreds of your readers began showed up to read it, and it went on like that until I gave up trying to count. But over the course of a few days thousands read the essay. (I am very glad they did; it is a wonderful story.)
Now, I will tell you how many of your readers came calling today after you published a link to my essay about the US Department of State: As of 10:30 AM, two. One of them in Europe.
Yes, it's a Saturday, and it's still early, and this is a weekend when many people are doing Christmas shopping, so I'm sure there will be more readers from your site as the week wears on. And Pundita's blog, which probably sees fewer readers in a day than yours sees in an hour, will stay up after I leave, so a few thousand readers here and abroad will eventually read the essay and maybe a hundred of those will find the time to ponder about it.
However, a few thousand are not enough to turn the tide, you understand. What about John Batchelor's audience, which numbers I don't know but maybe as many as 10-20 million listeners a night? I can tell you this much: whatever knowledge his audience has gained about the doings at State, after listening four years to his show, it has not made a dent in the Democrat and Republican political machines. Not even the smallest dent.
In the end, US foreign policy will be set by battles between the most aggressive and ruthless partisans and lobbyists and by the machinations of civil servants at State. In short, about 50 people will shape how the US interacts with the world. And if it all falls down again, as it did on September 11, there will always be the US military to pick up the pieces.
I don't see all this as a cause for pessimism; one cannot fight to win because many times in the battle to inform and explain, all seems lost. One simply does what one can, and keeps doing it, until one can't battle longer. In this way, civilization lurches onward.
But I will tell you that at times I fall prey to a dark mood. This happened when I published the essay about State that I sent you early this morning. Before tumbling into bed I thought that I should be happy if only 100 people took the time to read the essay, which admittedly was overly long.
After crashing for a few hours I checked the site meter then glumly observed, "Bah. My fellow Americans would rather watch paint dry than read about State."
With a sigh I clicked to your site, to see your comment about the essay. At first I missed it. On the second scroll-through I found it, but could not believe my eyes at first. You'd published your comment under the title, Are you ready for some football? and the first sentence was clearly about football.
For a moment I sat there staring, then burst into laughter. I laughed until tears streamed down my face. If anyone can lead a horse to water, it's a smart marketing professional. (Are there any other kind but smart?) So the Pajamas Media people should listen carefully to your critiques and take notes because you know what you're talking about.
Yet not with all your smarts, Dan Riehl, not with all your smarts and marketing experience, can you squeeze out a higher percentage of interest among the American electorate about the doings at Foggy Bottom. But you sure gave it one hell of a try, which I find to be of great cheer.
Subj: Bringing the US Department of State in line with today's world
Date: 12/17/05 5:28:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pundita1
To: itsjustdan@comcast.net
Dan, this long essay, which ranges over several issues connected with State, is prefaced by a long letter from a loyal reader (cybersecurity expert Annlee Hines) ...
Pundita
* * * *
In a message dated 12/17/05 5:34:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, itsjustdan@comcast.net writes:
"what happened to your retirement???"
* * * *
Date: 12/17/05 5:36:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pundita1
To: itsjustdan@comcast.net
what are you doing up at this ungodly hour? I am going to sleep before I crash face forward onto the keyboard. will write tomorrow.
* * * *
Date: 12/17/05 6:10:53 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: itsjustdan@comcast.net
To: Pundita1@aol.com
"Pundita always says this. LOLOL nite"
* * * *
It's a forced retirement, Dan. In a few days I will have no choice but to leave the blogosphere and concentrate completely on personal matters. But after taking a short break about a month ago (or whenever I announced my long vacation) I decided to battle on as long as I possibly could, right down to the wire. Not a smart decision if you knew my circumstances, simply a tenacious one.
I want to show you something, so you understand the road ahead for the Bush democracy doctrine:
Do you remember the essay I sent you by the US vet about his adventures helping the stranded in New Orleans after Katrina? "The Deuce." My site meter showed that no sooner did you link to it than hundreds of your readers began showed up to read it, and it went on like that until I gave up trying to count. But over the course of a few days thousands read the essay. (I am very glad they did; it is a wonderful story.)
Now, I will tell you how many of your readers came calling today after you published a link to my essay about the US Department of State: As of 10:30 AM, two. One of them in Europe.
Yes, it's a Saturday, and it's still early, and this is a weekend when many people are doing Christmas shopping, so I'm sure there will be more readers from your site as the week wears on. And Pundita's blog, which probably sees fewer readers in a day than yours sees in an hour, will stay up after I leave, so a few thousand readers here and abroad will eventually read the essay and maybe a hundred of those will find the time to ponder about it.
However, a few thousand are not enough to turn the tide, you understand. What about John Batchelor's audience, which numbers I don't know but maybe as many as 10-20 million listeners a night? I can tell you this much: whatever knowledge his audience has gained about the doings at State, after listening four years to his show, it has not made a dent in the Democrat and Republican political machines. Not even the smallest dent.
In the end, US foreign policy will be set by battles between the most aggressive and ruthless partisans and lobbyists and by the machinations of civil servants at State. In short, about 50 people will shape how the US interacts with the world. And if it all falls down again, as it did on September 11, there will always be the US military to pick up the pieces.
I don't see all this as a cause for pessimism; one cannot fight to win because many times in the battle to inform and explain, all seems lost. One simply does what one can, and keeps doing it, until one can't battle longer. In this way, civilization lurches onward.
But I will tell you that at times I fall prey to a dark mood. This happened when I published the essay about State that I sent you early this morning. Before tumbling into bed I thought that I should be happy if only 100 people took the time to read the essay, which admittedly was overly long.
After crashing for a few hours I checked the site meter then glumly observed, "Bah. My fellow Americans would rather watch paint dry than read about State."
With a sigh I clicked to your site, to see your comment about the essay. At first I missed it. On the second scroll-through I found it, but could not believe my eyes at first. You'd published your comment under the title, Are you ready for some football? and the first sentence was clearly about football.
For a moment I sat there staring, then burst into laughter. I laughed until tears streamed down my face. If anyone can lead a horse to water, it's a smart marketing professional. (Are there any other kind but smart?) So the Pajamas Media people should listen carefully to your critiques and take notes because you know what you're talking about.
Yet not with all your smarts, Dan Riehl, not with all your smarts and marketing experience, can you squeeze out a higher percentage of interest among the American electorate about the doings at Foggy Bottom. But you sure gave it one hell of a try, which I find to be of great cheer.
Stand and Deliver: Bringing the US Department of State in line with today's world
Hi, Pundita:
Re: your post about de-Europeanizing the US Department of State. As always, I enjoyed your essay, and don't disagree with the premise. Being human, however, I can always quibble about something.
One thing I've noticed about people who grow up (individually) in cramped quarters: disagreements to them are win-lose. Those of us who grew up with a little more space around us (even though the city grew out to change that) tend to think more in terms of win-win.
Oddly, societies seem to operate in somewhat the same way, though the flavor is a little different. Europe, with its history of so many wars fought over the same dreadful ground, sees all contests between states as win-lose, while the US, with its history of taking our kit and going elsewhere, tends to be win-win. You can have your way here; I'll just go over there, and we won't bother each other -- we might even trade a bit eventually.
But those Americans most likely to be the doers rather than the arguers are those least likely to be attracted to the State Dept. Most societies are older than ours, and so generally those attracted to old societies will be the ones who want to deal with them. The doers of that group will want to deal with them for profit (business), the talkers will gravitate to a talking shop: State, the UN, etc.
As for a universal truth, I think that wonderful set of clauses [in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence] may be just that, though John Locke had to spell it out for us. I've come to the conclusion that he had to spell it out because those truths are not self-evident. (Though it made a lovely bit of framing the argument, eh?) Further, it is because they are not self-evident we must say them aloud, indeed proclaim them early and often and defend them every time, lest they be nibbled away like a stream bank when no one is looking.
Since those serving at State and desirous of serving in the UN, et al, are those among us least likely to live that truth, perhaps we need to make government service less of a career opportunity, even at the risk of introducing new forms of ineffeciency. After all, the inefficiencies which come with our present career service model (including tenure, by any other name as sweet) are most dissatisfying.
Annlee Hines
Dear Annlee:
You should know by now that Pundita loves quibbles, which have inspired many Pundita essays and helped me (and I hope, readers) clarify thinking on a matter. Which is to say that knowledge does not build if everyone is in perfect agreement. I appreciate your comments, which are always thought provoking. I disagree with you on some points in your letter and see in them a need to clarify some of my statements.
I agree that environment, including the amount of "space" one inhabits, is a factor in attitudes about how far to carry a disagreement. However, my call to wrest the State Department away from Eurocentrism is grounded less in what the Europeans are like and more in what official Washington and the American public are like.
It is pulling teeth with an elf's tweezer to get the majority of Americans to think with any depth about global matters and thus, it's easy for State to operate outside the spotlight of the American public's scrutiny. This situation won't change markedly because America is a vast nation, Americans are such terribly busy people, and many matters of diplomacy are best carried out without the constant glare of media attention.
The other side is that because of America's superpower status, American foreign policy should not drift under the influence of foreign regional concerns and the increasingly globalized interests of American big business.
The latter reflects the viewpoint that characterized the foreign relations of the European colonial powers. Such attitudes are not necessarily the best for America's defense and the regions of no great interest to the business powers. Yet if 9/11 has taught anything, it is that no world region is unimportant in this era.
For this reason American foreign relations need to be brought closely in line with the only rational definition of foreign policy, which is to directly support the defense of a nation.
Toward this end, the US government must not fall in love with any one world region, bloc, alliance or other nation -- no matter how valuable they might be to US strategic resources and business interests. This is on the theory that the backlash from an oppressed, isolated, ignored or especially favored region can wipe out whatever security the US gains from focusing on a particular resource or region at the expense of others.
Yet during the waning years of the Cold War and running into the post-Soviet era the US Department of State was dominated by factions that were hyperfocused on Eastern Europe/Russia. The American public had only the haziest notion of how the post-Soviet era in those regions was shaking out and so was unaware that the Cold War did not stop with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, a few other things were going on in the world, as Americans learned on 9/11 and again, when France and Germany rose up in 2002 at the UN to tell America to go sit on a tack. And again as it dawned that Beijing had not sat on their hands with the power accorded them by the big Western trading nations. This was a power considered by the NATO allies to be a 'necessary evil' to offset Soviet expansion, and which continued unexamined by the State Department after the Soviet Union dissolved.
So I take issue with your implication that State is a talker and not a doer. If only State had confined themselves to talk! The problem for the American people and the world at large is that throughout the Clinton years, State continued as a big doer.
By the end of the Cold War State had gathered tremendous power; I believe they got more power than the Congress and White House to set and direct foreign policy. During the Clinton era no small part of the power was placed under the control of George Soros and the Marc Rich crowd, US corporations wanting to cash in on the breakup of the Soviet Union, and congressionals who listened to lobbyists here and abroad who didn't want to stop with 'winning' the Cold War; they wanted to take control of Russia's government and destroy any possibility of the Soviet Union rising again.
By the end of Clinton's presidency State was virtually running the Central Intelligence Agency and controlling the Pentagon's agenda. And it's not much of an exaggeration to say that State was by then run from a post box in Brussels; i.e., they fell in line with the foreign policy of the European Union. This policy was in turn (and still is) influenced by the 'Chirac School' of multilateralism, which is a thinly disguised rationale for allowing trade to dominate all other issues.
One cannot blame all this on America's foreign office, and one certainly can't blame it on the European Union. During the Clinton era State acted behind the screen of public inattention, which reflected the US media's hyperfocus on domestic issues and battles between the US political left and right.
Nor can State's power be tracked solely to the Cold War and the US determination to retain the NATO alliance after the Cold War ended. The power State accrued over decades was an inevitable consequence of the inbuilt tension between the congressional and presidential branches of US government.
The tension serves the checks and balances in the US Constitution in that it acts as a corrective measure when one branch becomes too powerful. The downside is that the constant jockeying for power between two elected branches of government gives power to a civil service agency. This is because a bureaucracy is buffered against the revolving door of political appointments and attendant shifts in political winds.
People who understand this warned passionate supporters of the Bush doctrine not to pin great hope on Condoleezza Rice's appointment to State, particularly during the first years. The Secretary of State does not run Foggy Bottom. Those whose entry into the State Department is through presidential appointment, or who come to State hand-picked by appointees, must find ways to negotiate with powerful civil servants they know can outlast a term of political appointment.
Generations of those civil servants at State were trained to give the highest priority to NATO aims, which meant little adjustment in thinking when the focus went to chipping away at Moscow's hold on the waning Soviet empire. The Bush doctrine, while retaining lip service to NATO, represents a completely new day for US foreign policy -- and a very dangerous, untested one, in the view of State's most powerful chiefs.
What happens, they ask, when Bush leaves the presidency and Rumsfeld leaves Defense? The United States of America could be out there bouncing on the limb of democracy yappity-yap and with no safety net provided by our oldest and most powerful allies.
These civil servants see themselves as the tiller on the ship of state, which in a democracy is buffeted by the winds of politics. They are there to keep America's foreign policy on a steady course through the storms of change wrought by political winds. They provide the continuity that democratic politics does not necessarily allow.
Is their view of their function right or wrong? There is no easy answer, until you stop and think it through very carefully. Let's begin with the obvious questions. Do we really want our foreign office to act as a pioneer? To always place integrity above the exigencies of dealing with a flashpoint situation? Do we want them to march in lockstep with the latest power shift in Congress and presidential election?
From the other side, is the US foreign office supposed to set US foreign policy and shield the decisions from control by the Congress and White House?
That's a question the Founding Fathers didn't think about because at the time the US Constitution was framed, the Union was not the world's lone superpower nation in a world of many governments and alliances with global power. But we can feel our way to the answer because the Founders designated three and not four branches of US government. This was alluded to during a recent debate on PBS NewsHour. An ex-State official fumed that State was being shut out of a place at the table by the Bush administration when it came to decisions on Iraq.
The other guy stared at the official in quiet amazement then said something like, "State is a bureaucracy. They don't get a seat at the table."
Britain's foreign office does function as a virtually autonomous branch of government. But in our version of democracy our laws do not allow for a fourth branch of government.
This brings me to another disagreement with your statements. I am in great sympathy with the position of America's foreign service workers. Whether they serve in diplomatic missions or at Foggy Bottom, they are at the mercy of political appointees who often can't find their country appointment on a map and whose knowledge of diplomatic matters would not fit on the head of a pin.
Time and again, these appointees have wrecked months and even years of delicate negotiations through sheer ignorance or the desire to carry through a political party's agenda at the expense of sane actions. But I am reminded of the punchline in Under Siege, when the ex-Navy Seal tells the disgruntled ex-CIA operative that if you don't like taking insane orders, don't sign up.
The State Department is not the guardian of the American nation. It is not the tiller of the ship of state. That function falls to the American people as a whole and elected representatives to the Congress and White House. State is there to carry out orders by elected officials. If they don't like them apples, find another place to work.
That does not mean America's foreign service workers do not have a legitimate beef. One cannot put competent workers in the position of receiving dangerously inept orders from idiots and expect them to be cooperative. We saw this in starkest terms during the Viet Nam war, when reportedly US soldiers sometimes replied to clearly insane orders by shooting the idiot who issued them.
Certainly, State's vast bureaucracy, which I sent up in The US Department of Pack Rat, needs pruning and refurbishing for the post-Soviet era. However, I don't think less is more in this case. America is a superpower nation in an incredibly complex world of many competing powers; we need the best diplomats (and foreign office) that US tax money can afford, not "less." We need a meritocracy at State, one that does not pass over intelligent, experienced and very dedicated workers in favor of a 'political' promotion.
Foreign service employees posted abroad often work under very dangerous and difficult conditions and are always looked upon as spies by the host government. Despite this, they do not garner respect and gratitude in the American society in the way that police do. Bureaucrats are not held in high esteem in America and the foreign service is no exception. The American public needs to become more aware of the contributions of the best field workers yet at the same time they can't just because those workers are placed in more danger by the spotlight of public attention.
Also, we need to give our foreign service workers protection against Americans who are handed power and diplomatic posts simply as a plum because they wrote out big donation checks to a political candidate and did big fundraising. The American public needs to realize that such plums are very counterproductive and even very dangerous in this era.
A good analogy is Michael Brown's appointment to head FEMA. During a settled weather pattern, it didn't matter so much that FEMA was run by someone whose greatest expertise seemed to be showing Arabian horses. Then came the perfect storm.
There many storms during this very unsettled era. Gone are the Kabuki-like days of Cold War diplomacy, when moves by other governments were so predictable that an American with no foreign service experience and not even speaking the language could be expected to hold down a diplomatic post. The 9/11 attack was the perfect storm in US foreign policy circles. Congressional attention to the needs of our foreign service has not reflected this because such discussion boils down to pay scale hikes and more money spent on training. Yet at the least we need to move past the era when being a great friend to a political campaign is the sole criterion for determining competency to run a diplomatic mission.
Let the friends sleep in The Lincoln Bedroom or run the White House Easter Egg Roll. Give them any kind of plum except the work of US diplomacy.
I also take issue with your statement "Americans most likely to be the doers rather than the arguers are those least likely to be attracted to the State Department."
We desperately need the best arguers we can find. Arguing skillfully about highly abstract concepts that underpin different types of government is very much a "doer" occupation, and one that has been tragically neglected on American shores, which carries over to US diplomatic missions.
Yet I will grant that the sentiment you express about talkers and doers is a hallmark of American thinking. Thus, in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand took a thousand pages to bash home the point that despots such as Josef Stalin did not think up Communism and its rationale; that was done by philosophers who were quite distant from the clock-punching workaday world of "doers."
The view among many Americans is that to see American success is to love democracy and capitalism. So if we just keep doing our thing, eventually everyone will see its value. Tell that to someone who lives in a country taken over by transnational dope-selling gangs that are models of free market enterprise after they've murdered all dissenters in the government.
Tell that to a country taken over by a cadre of foreign investors and bankers practicing free market economics, cranking out pro-democracy tracts and stage-managing "democratic" elections while taking zero interest in the welfare of the populace.
The Bush democracy doctrine is not a real doctrine in the sense of a developed philosophy of foreign relations. It is an outline of ideas, which must run the gauntlet of many thoughtful, subtle and shrewd disputes if it's to outlast Bush's presidency. America's foreign service workers are on the front line of the disputes, which means they need to hunker down to serious talking -- and keep talking outside the narrow channels of diplomacy.
In the bars of Calcutta, the coffee houses of Cairo, the shopping malls of Shanghai, they must talk and talk and talk. They must learn to talk skillfully, intelligently, and thoughtfully when challenged by arguments that elevate profit motive, national security, internal social order, and religious law above democracy.
Before talk must come hard thinking. Months ago I warned a reader that America is facing the fight of our lives. The battlefield is ideas. I say with a smile that you have already made that point, and eloquently, so I will close with repeating your own words:
Re: your post about de-Europeanizing the US Department of State. As always, I enjoyed your essay, and don't disagree with the premise. Being human, however, I can always quibble about something.
One thing I've noticed about people who grow up (individually) in cramped quarters: disagreements to them are win-lose. Those of us who grew up with a little more space around us (even though the city grew out to change that) tend to think more in terms of win-win.
Oddly, societies seem to operate in somewhat the same way, though the flavor is a little different. Europe, with its history of so many wars fought over the same dreadful ground, sees all contests between states as win-lose, while the US, with its history of taking our kit and going elsewhere, tends to be win-win. You can have your way here; I'll just go over there, and we won't bother each other -- we might even trade a bit eventually.
But those Americans most likely to be the doers rather than the arguers are those least likely to be attracted to the State Dept. Most societies are older than ours, and so generally those attracted to old societies will be the ones who want to deal with them. The doers of that group will want to deal with them for profit (business), the talkers will gravitate to a talking shop: State, the UN, etc.
As for a universal truth, I think that wonderful set of clauses [in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence] may be just that, though John Locke had to spell it out for us. I've come to the conclusion that he had to spell it out because those truths are not self-evident. (Though it made a lovely bit of framing the argument, eh?) Further, it is because they are not self-evident we must say them aloud, indeed proclaim them early and often and defend them every time, lest they be nibbled away like a stream bank when no one is looking.
Since those serving at State and desirous of serving in the UN, et al, are those among us least likely to live that truth, perhaps we need to make government service less of a career opportunity, even at the risk of introducing new forms of ineffeciency. After all, the inefficiencies which come with our present career service model (including tenure, by any other name as sweet) are most dissatisfying.
Annlee Hines
Dear Annlee:
You should know by now that Pundita loves quibbles, which have inspired many Pundita essays and helped me (and I hope, readers) clarify thinking on a matter. Which is to say that knowledge does not build if everyone is in perfect agreement. I appreciate your comments, which are always thought provoking. I disagree with you on some points in your letter and see in them a need to clarify some of my statements.
I agree that environment, including the amount of "space" one inhabits, is a factor in attitudes about how far to carry a disagreement. However, my call to wrest the State Department away from Eurocentrism is grounded less in what the Europeans are like and more in what official Washington and the American public are like.
It is pulling teeth with an elf's tweezer to get the majority of Americans to think with any depth about global matters and thus, it's easy for State to operate outside the spotlight of the American public's scrutiny. This situation won't change markedly because America is a vast nation, Americans are such terribly busy people, and many matters of diplomacy are best carried out without the constant glare of media attention.
The other side is that because of America's superpower status, American foreign policy should not drift under the influence of foreign regional concerns and the increasingly globalized interests of American big business.
The latter reflects the viewpoint that characterized the foreign relations of the European colonial powers. Such attitudes are not necessarily the best for America's defense and the regions of no great interest to the business powers. Yet if 9/11 has taught anything, it is that no world region is unimportant in this era.
For this reason American foreign relations need to be brought closely in line with the only rational definition of foreign policy, which is to directly support the defense of a nation.
Toward this end, the US government must not fall in love with any one world region, bloc, alliance or other nation -- no matter how valuable they might be to US strategic resources and business interests. This is on the theory that the backlash from an oppressed, isolated, ignored or especially favored region can wipe out whatever security the US gains from focusing on a particular resource or region at the expense of others.
Yet during the waning years of the Cold War and running into the post-Soviet era the US Department of State was dominated by factions that were hyperfocused on Eastern Europe/Russia. The American public had only the haziest notion of how the post-Soviet era in those regions was shaking out and so was unaware that the Cold War did not stop with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, a few other things were going on in the world, as Americans learned on 9/11 and again, when France and Germany rose up in 2002 at the UN to tell America to go sit on a tack. And again as it dawned that Beijing had not sat on their hands with the power accorded them by the big Western trading nations. This was a power considered by the NATO allies to be a 'necessary evil' to offset Soviet expansion, and which continued unexamined by the State Department after the Soviet Union dissolved.
So I take issue with your implication that State is a talker and not a doer. If only State had confined themselves to talk! The problem for the American people and the world at large is that throughout the Clinton years, State continued as a big doer.
By the end of the Cold War State had gathered tremendous power; I believe they got more power than the Congress and White House to set and direct foreign policy. During the Clinton era no small part of the power was placed under the control of George Soros and the Marc Rich crowd, US corporations wanting to cash in on the breakup of the Soviet Union, and congressionals who listened to lobbyists here and abroad who didn't want to stop with 'winning' the Cold War; they wanted to take control of Russia's government and destroy any possibility of the Soviet Union rising again.
By the end of Clinton's presidency State was virtually running the Central Intelligence Agency and controlling the Pentagon's agenda. And it's not much of an exaggeration to say that State was by then run from a post box in Brussels; i.e., they fell in line with the foreign policy of the European Union. This policy was in turn (and still is) influenced by the 'Chirac School' of multilateralism, which is a thinly disguised rationale for allowing trade to dominate all other issues.
One cannot blame all this on America's foreign office, and one certainly can't blame it on the European Union. During the Clinton era State acted behind the screen of public inattention, which reflected the US media's hyperfocus on domestic issues and battles between the US political left and right.
Nor can State's power be tracked solely to the Cold War and the US determination to retain the NATO alliance after the Cold War ended. The power State accrued over decades was an inevitable consequence of the inbuilt tension between the congressional and presidential branches of US government.
The tension serves the checks and balances in the US Constitution in that it acts as a corrective measure when one branch becomes too powerful. The downside is that the constant jockeying for power between two elected branches of government gives power to a civil service agency. This is because a bureaucracy is buffered against the revolving door of political appointments and attendant shifts in political winds.
People who understand this warned passionate supporters of the Bush doctrine not to pin great hope on Condoleezza Rice's appointment to State, particularly during the first years. The Secretary of State does not run Foggy Bottom. Those whose entry into the State Department is through presidential appointment, or who come to State hand-picked by appointees, must find ways to negotiate with powerful civil servants they know can outlast a term of political appointment.
Generations of those civil servants at State were trained to give the highest priority to NATO aims, which meant little adjustment in thinking when the focus went to chipping away at Moscow's hold on the waning Soviet empire. The Bush doctrine, while retaining lip service to NATO, represents a completely new day for US foreign policy -- and a very dangerous, untested one, in the view of State's most powerful chiefs.
What happens, they ask, when Bush leaves the presidency and Rumsfeld leaves Defense? The United States of America could be out there bouncing on the limb of democracy yappity-yap and with no safety net provided by our oldest and most powerful allies.
These civil servants see themselves as the tiller on the ship of state, which in a democracy is buffeted by the winds of politics. They are there to keep America's foreign policy on a steady course through the storms of change wrought by political winds. They provide the continuity that democratic politics does not necessarily allow.
Is their view of their function right or wrong? There is no easy answer, until you stop and think it through very carefully. Let's begin with the obvious questions. Do we really want our foreign office to act as a pioneer? To always place integrity above the exigencies of dealing with a flashpoint situation? Do we want them to march in lockstep with the latest power shift in Congress and presidential election?
From the other side, is the US foreign office supposed to set US foreign policy and shield the decisions from control by the Congress and White House?
That's a question the Founding Fathers didn't think about because at the time the US Constitution was framed, the Union was not the world's lone superpower nation in a world of many governments and alliances with global power. But we can feel our way to the answer because the Founders designated three and not four branches of US government. This was alluded to during a recent debate on PBS NewsHour. An ex-State official fumed that State was being shut out of a place at the table by the Bush administration when it came to decisions on Iraq.
The other guy stared at the official in quiet amazement then said something like, "State is a bureaucracy. They don't get a seat at the table."
Britain's foreign office does function as a virtually autonomous branch of government. But in our version of democracy our laws do not allow for a fourth branch of government.
This brings me to another disagreement with your statements. I am in great sympathy with the position of America's foreign service workers. Whether they serve in diplomatic missions or at Foggy Bottom, they are at the mercy of political appointees who often can't find their country appointment on a map and whose knowledge of diplomatic matters would not fit on the head of a pin.
Time and again, these appointees have wrecked months and even years of delicate negotiations through sheer ignorance or the desire to carry through a political party's agenda at the expense of sane actions. But I am reminded of the punchline in Under Siege, when the ex-Navy Seal tells the disgruntled ex-CIA operative that if you don't like taking insane orders, don't sign up.
The State Department is not the guardian of the American nation. It is not the tiller of the ship of state. That function falls to the American people as a whole and elected representatives to the Congress and White House. State is there to carry out orders by elected officials. If they don't like them apples, find another place to work.
That does not mean America's foreign service workers do not have a legitimate beef. One cannot put competent workers in the position of receiving dangerously inept orders from idiots and expect them to be cooperative. We saw this in starkest terms during the Viet Nam war, when reportedly US soldiers sometimes replied to clearly insane orders by shooting the idiot who issued them.
Certainly, State's vast bureaucracy, which I sent up in The US Department of Pack Rat, needs pruning and refurbishing for the post-Soviet era. However, I don't think less is more in this case. America is a superpower nation in an incredibly complex world of many competing powers; we need the best diplomats (and foreign office) that US tax money can afford, not "less." We need a meritocracy at State, one that does not pass over intelligent, experienced and very dedicated workers in favor of a 'political' promotion.
Foreign service employees posted abroad often work under very dangerous and difficult conditions and are always looked upon as spies by the host government. Despite this, they do not garner respect and gratitude in the American society in the way that police do. Bureaucrats are not held in high esteem in America and the foreign service is no exception. The American public needs to become more aware of the contributions of the best field workers yet at the same time they can't just because those workers are placed in more danger by the spotlight of public attention.
Also, we need to give our foreign service workers protection against Americans who are handed power and diplomatic posts simply as a plum because they wrote out big donation checks to a political candidate and did big fundraising. The American public needs to realize that such plums are very counterproductive and even very dangerous in this era.
A good analogy is Michael Brown's appointment to head FEMA. During a settled weather pattern, it didn't matter so much that FEMA was run by someone whose greatest expertise seemed to be showing Arabian horses. Then came the perfect storm.
There many storms during this very unsettled era. Gone are the Kabuki-like days of Cold War diplomacy, when moves by other governments were so predictable that an American with no foreign service experience and not even speaking the language could be expected to hold down a diplomatic post. The 9/11 attack was the perfect storm in US foreign policy circles. Congressional attention to the needs of our foreign service has not reflected this because such discussion boils down to pay scale hikes and more money spent on training. Yet at the least we need to move past the era when being a great friend to a political campaign is the sole criterion for determining competency to run a diplomatic mission.
Let the friends sleep in The Lincoln Bedroom or run the White House Easter Egg Roll. Give them any kind of plum except the work of US diplomacy.
I also take issue with your statement "Americans most likely to be the doers rather than the arguers are those least likely to be attracted to the State Department."
We desperately need the best arguers we can find. Arguing skillfully about highly abstract concepts that underpin different types of government is very much a "doer" occupation, and one that has been tragically neglected on American shores, which carries over to US diplomatic missions.
Yet I will grant that the sentiment you express about talkers and doers is a hallmark of American thinking. Thus, in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand took a thousand pages to bash home the point that despots such as Josef Stalin did not think up Communism and its rationale; that was done by philosophers who were quite distant from the clock-punching workaday world of "doers."
The view among many Americans is that to see American success is to love democracy and capitalism. So if we just keep doing our thing, eventually everyone will see its value. Tell that to someone who lives in a country taken over by transnational dope-selling gangs that are models of free market enterprise after they've murdered all dissenters in the government.
Tell that to a country taken over by a cadre of foreign investors and bankers practicing free market economics, cranking out pro-democracy tracts and stage-managing "democratic" elections while taking zero interest in the welfare of the populace.
The Bush democracy doctrine is not a real doctrine in the sense of a developed philosophy of foreign relations. It is an outline of ideas, which must run the gauntlet of many thoughtful, subtle and shrewd disputes if it's to outlast Bush's presidency. America's foreign service workers are on the front line of the disputes, which means they need to hunker down to serious talking -- and keep talking outside the narrow channels of diplomacy.
In the bars of Calcutta, the coffee houses of Cairo, the shopping malls of Shanghai, they must talk and talk and talk. They must learn to talk skillfully, intelligently, and thoughtfully when challenged by arguments that elevate profit motive, national security, internal social order, and religious law above democracy.
Before talk must come hard thinking. Months ago I warned a reader that America is facing the fight of our lives. The battlefield is ideas. I say with a smile that you have already made that point, and eloquently, so I will close with repeating your own words:
...it is because [the truths stated in the Preamble] are not self-evident we must say them aloud, indeed proclaim them early and often and defend them every time, lest they be nibbled away like a stream bank when no one is looking.
Friday, December 16
Peter Lavelle and Pundita discuss reported Russian sale of SAMs, weapons tech to Iran
More of my December 3 correspondence with Peter Lavelle, UPI Senior Analyst and whose blog, Untimely Thoughts, won a 2005 Pundita Weblog Award. The first part of our discussion revolved around Russia's telecom scandal and the Kremlin's nationalization push.
Peter's side of the exchange is shown in quotes. See this Pundita post if you need to refresh your memory about the weapons agreement under discussion
Peter,
I note from a Reuters report that Russia's export agency claims to have no record of the SAMs sale agreement to Iran. Washington is seriously bent out of shape about the reported agreement. However, an unnamed diplomat said the deal made no sense. From various Russia news services, it seems there was indeed a deal. But why would Putin allow such a sale -- or does he have no control over it?
"Pundita,
See this part of my weekly panel discussion with experts on Russia.(1) The panel doesn't directly answer your question but explains Russia's engagement of Iran and other "rogue states."
Okay; I have read the discussion at the link you sent me. Isn't Putin's position contradicting his 'state of the union' speech, in which he was clearly inspired by Bush's democracy doctrine?(2) Wasn't he speaking of Russia as becoming the "civilizing" influence in Central Asia and helping to lead the entire region to more liberal values?
I read an analysis of the speech (published on your site) that very nearly brought tears to my eyes. Was all that hot air? Wishful thinking on the part of the analyst? If not, there seems to be a contradiction between Putin's stated vision and what he's doing. Or not?
"Not at all. To have a liberal society, each state needs security from both domestic and foreign threats. There is an unstated myth in Western media - the Kremlin controls the "stans" - that is simply wrong. Russia's influence is very limited. What the Kremlin fears is the possibility of an Islamic republic coming to power on its ex-Soviet border. The Kremlin will accept just about anything from the old Soviet establishment to avoid this. The Kremlin's foreign policy regarding its southern flank is defensive in the extreme - it is playing the role of a fireman fearing the worst."
Interesting. So why agree to sell SAMs to Iran and moreover agree to help them modernize their air force across the board? Is the Kremlin being blackmailed by Tehran thugs in league with al Qaeda and Chechen hard-liners? See, it doesn't stack -- the reported missile deal and what you've written, which makes good sense.
"[...] SAMs are a defensive system by very definition."
Ah, but modernizing Iran's air force cuts both ways.
"Look, the US has lost the war in Iraq - everybody knows this. Iran isn't taking any chances the Bush "lie machine" won't target Iran next to cover its tracks. Iran is acting rationally. (I don't like the Iranian regime.) We have seen the same kind of US pressure against Syria lately. Again, Iran is acting defensively."
The contract was reportedly signed before the Kremlin lost patience with Tehran, so we'll see what happens next. A nuke-armed Iran is not in Russia's best interest, so my hope is that Putin will find a way to scotch or at least suspend the contract -- use it maybe as a carrot to encourage Iran's regime to give up nuke weapon development.
Wars are not won or lost before they're over. If any war drags on longer than a year, it settles down to each side trying to take advantage of the other's mistakes.
* * * * * * *
The close reader will note that Peter's last reply attempts to switch the ground of discussion by attacking Bush's prosecution of the war. My impression is that Peter's response reflects how the Kremlin (and I assume the Russian military) tries to gloss the inherent contradiction in their approach to Iran.
The last thing the Kremlin needs in their region is a nuke-armed despotic regime under pressure from the most radical Islamist elements. The problem for Russia is that at this point they can't depend on backup from the European Union or China, if they take a hard stand about Iran's nuclear weapons program.
To say Russia could depend on backup from the United States -- since when? The State Department has very recently softened their harsh rhetoric toward Russia, but that is no assurance the US wouldn't leave Russia bouncing on a limb. The US government does not yet speak with one voice on the US approach to Tehran.
At the risk of repeating myself endlessly, if we want more cooperation from Russia on the issue of Iran (and Syria), we first need to get very clear on how the US should approach Iran then seek greater cooperation from Brussels and Beijing.
1)
http://russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/
article.wbp?article-id=338E06A9-ABFE-
4C2D-8B3B-DECEA602AEE7
2) President Putin's remarks in his 2005 "speech to the nation" sketch an ambitious vision that is easily picked apart and compared with the record. However, several of his statements reveal a determination to move Russia toward the lofty goals outlined in Bush's democracy doctrine. Putin set the bar high, which invites close scrutiny and criticism of his record during the rest of his term. That, in itself, is a credit to his thinking.
Here are the parts of the speech that especially impressed me and touched off my questions to Peter Lavelle about the troubling contradiction I noted in the Kremlin's approach to Iran's despotic regime:
April 25, 2005
The Kremlin, Moscow
The Russian President's Annual Address to the Federal Assembly
"...Russia should continue its civilising mission on the Eurasian continent. This mission consists in ensuring that democratic values, combined with national interests, enrich and strengthen our historic community.
"...the terrible lessons of the past also define imperatives for the present. And Russia, bound to the former Soviet republics – now independent countries – through a common history, and through the Russian language and the great culture that we share, cannot stay away from the common desire for freedom.
"Today, with independent countries now formed and developing in the post-Soviet area, we want to work together to correspond to humanistic values, open up broad possibilities for personal and collective success, achieve for ourselves the standards of civilisation we have worked hard for – standards that would emerge as a result of common economic, humanitarian and legal space."
Peter's side of the exchange is shown in quotes. See this Pundita post if you need to refresh your memory about the weapons agreement under discussion
Peter,
I note from a Reuters report that Russia's export agency claims to have no record of the SAMs sale agreement to Iran. Washington is seriously bent out of shape about the reported agreement. However, an unnamed diplomat said the deal made no sense. From various Russia news services, it seems there was indeed a deal. But why would Putin allow such a sale -- or does he have no control over it?
"Pundita,
See this part of my weekly panel discussion with experts on Russia.(1) The panel doesn't directly answer your question but explains Russia's engagement of Iran and other "rogue states."
Okay; I have read the discussion at the link you sent me. Isn't Putin's position contradicting his 'state of the union' speech, in which he was clearly inspired by Bush's democracy doctrine?(2) Wasn't he speaking of Russia as becoming the "civilizing" influence in Central Asia and helping to lead the entire region to more liberal values?
I read an analysis of the speech (published on your site) that very nearly brought tears to my eyes. Was all that hot air? Wishful thinking on the part of the analyst? If not, there seems to be a contradiction between Putin's stated vision and what he's doing. Or not?
"Not at all. To have a liberal society, each state needs security from both domestic and foreign threats. There is an unstated myth in Western media - the Kremlin controls the "stans" - that is simply wrong. Russia's influence is very limited. What the Kremlin fears is the possibility of an Islamic republic coming to power on its ex-Soviet border. The Kremlin will accept just about anything from the old Soviet establishment to avoid this. The Kremlin's foreign policy regarding its southern flank is defensive in the extreme - it is playing the role of a fireman fearing the worst."
Interesting. So why agree to sell SAMs to Iran and moreover agree to help them modernize their air force across the board? Is the Kremlin being blackmailed by Tehran thugs in league with al Qaeda and Chechen hard-liners? See, it doesn't stack -- the reported missile deal and what you've written, which makes good sense.
"[...] SAMs are a defensive system by very definition."
Ah, but modernizing Iran's air force cuts both ways.
"Look, the US has lost the war in Iraq - everybody knows this. Iran isn't taking any chances the Bush "lie machine" won't target Iran next to cover its tracks. Iran is acting rationally. (I don't like the Iranian regime.) We have seen the same kind of US pressure against Syria lately. Again, Iran is acting defensively."
The contract was reportedly signed before the Kremlin lost patience with Tehran, so we'll see what happens next. A nuke-armed Iran is not in Russia's best interest, so my hope is that Putin will find a way to scotch or at least suspend the contract -- use it maybe as a carrot to encourage Iran's regime to give up nuke weapon development.
Wars are not won or lost before they're over. If any war drags on longer than a year, it settles down to each side trying to take advantage of the other's mistakes.
* * * * * * *
The close reader will note that Peter's last reply attempts to switch the ground of discussion by attacking Bush's prosecution of the war. My impression is that Peter's response reflects how the Kremlin (and I assume the Russian military) tries to gloss the inherent contradiction in their approach to Iran.
The last thing the Kremlin needs in their region is a nuke-armed despotic regime under pressure from the most radical Islamist elements. The problem for Russia is that at this point they can't depend on backup from the European Union or China, if they take a hard stand about Iran's nuclear weapons program.
To say Russia could depend on backup from the United States -- since when? The State Department has very recently softened their harsh rhetoric toward Russia, but that is no assurance the US wouldn't leave Russia bouncing on a limb. The US government does not yet speak with one voice on the US approach to Tehran.
At the risk of repeating myself endlessly, if we want more cooperation from Russia on the issue of Iran (and Syria), we first need to get very clear on how the US should approach Iran then seek greater cooperation from Brussels and Beijing.
1)
http://russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/
article.wbp?article-id=338E06A9-ABFE-
4C2D-8B3B-DECEA602AEE7
2) President Putin's remarks in his 2005 "speech to the nation" sketch an ambitious vision that is easily picked apart and compared with the record. However, several of his statements reveal a determination to move Russia toward the lofty goals outlined in Bush's democracy doctrine. Putin set the bar high, which invites close scrutiny and criticism of his record during the rest of his term. That, in itself, is a credit to his thinking.
Here are the parts of the speech that especially impressed me and touched off my questions to Peter Lavelle about the troubling contradiction I noted in the Kremlin's approach to Iran's despotic regime:
April 25, 2005
The Kremlin, Moscow
The Russian President's Annual Address to the Federal Assembly
"...Russia should continue its civilising mission on the Eurasian continent. This mission consists in ensuring that democratic values, combined with national interests, enrich and strengthen our historic community.
"...the terrible lessons of the past also define imperatives for the present. And Russia, bound to the former Soviet republics – now independent countries – through a common history, and through the Russian language and the great culture that we share, cannot stay away from the common desire for freedom.
"Today, with independent countries now formed and developing in the post-Soviet area, we want to work together to correspond to humanistic values, open up broad possibilities for personal and collective success, achieve for ourselves the standards of civilisation we have worked hard for – standards that would emerge as a result of common economic, humanitarian and legal space."
Thursday, December 15
EU LEADERS SET TO CONDEMN IRAN'S PRESIDENT ON NUKES, HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Too many false starts for Pundita to jump for joy but the statement out of Brussels is progress, of sorts. We'll see how much solidarity the leaders maintain when they have to decide just exactly how long the "window of opportunity" will remain open for Iran.
Thu Dec 15, 2005
Reuters UK
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union leaders were set to condemn Iran's president for denying the Holocaust and warn Tehran the opportunity for a diplomatic solution to its nuclear programme cannot stay open forever, diplomats said on Thursday.
A summit statement drafted by EU foreign ministers said of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that the Nazi mass extermination of Jews was a myth: "These comments are wholly unacceptable and have no place in civilised political debate."
It also voiced grave concern at Iran's failure to remove suspicions about its nuclear intentions and said: "The window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely." [...]
Ride of the Gold Dinar Fairy (to music of Ride of the Valkyries)
December 14, 11:20 PM Pundita email to correspondent:
"Dun dun dun DUN dun dun dun DUN! Bashy dissed King Notdullah! Go get him, Sire! (Listening to Seffy) Ooof thud just fell off chair laughing"
For those who have not followed Pundita's blog since early days (and the John Batchelor show), Bashy is my name for Bashar al-Assad; King Notdullah is my name for Saudi King Abdullah; and Seffy is Yossef Bodansky, who frequently reports to John Batchelor's audience about GWOT. Right now Seffy is focusing on Assad's attempts to hang on to his power.
Assad can thumb his nose all he wants at the UN Security Council but he has made a serious mistake by insulting a very sharp (not dull) ruler who is about twice his age. Saudi King Abdullah tried to give Assad a face-saving out (for Arab solidaity and all that) and Assad threw it back in his face. You don't diss old kings in that part of the world if you're a whippersnapper.
I almost feel sorry for people whose idea of following the war is limited to finding as many bricks as possible to hurl at the US effort in Iraq. They are missing out on the ground floor of a new world era. And they are now so far behind the curve of events, they can't hope to make sense out of the war.
As to the Gold Dinar Fairy, I hotly dispute that she's a figment of my imagination although I've never actually seen her. She's sort of an Arab version of Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy rolled into one. Translation: Money talks, nobody walks.
So we'll see whose checking account is bigger: House of Saud or Iran's regime. As for Assad's banking account, I suspect he's transferring what funds he has left to Switzerland but Tehran's oil bankroll is still keeping Assad's regime afloat.
Okay; Pundita will settle down now. I'm giddy because of election day in Iraq. Three cheers for the Iraqi voters and the Coalition and Iraqi troops! Remember all the talk in 2002, 2003 about Arabs not being capable of self rule? Take this, you trash talking -- tsk! tsk! be gracious in victory, Pundita. From the the Scotsman (UK):
"Dun dun dun DUN dun dun dun DUN! Bashy dissed King Notdullah! Go get him, Sire! (Listening to Seffy) Ooof thud just fell off chair laughing"
For those who have not followed Pundita's blog since early days (and the John Batchelor show), Bashy is my name for Bashar al-Assad; King Notdullah is my name for Saudi King Abdullah; and Seffy is Yossef Bodansky, who frequently reports to John Batchelor's audience about GWOT. Right now Seffy is focusing on Assad's attempts to hang on to his power.
Assad can thumb his nose all he wants at the UN Security Council but he has made a serious mistake by insulting a very sharp (not dull) ruler who is about twice his age. Saudi King Abdullah tried to give Assad a face-saving out (for Arab solidaity and all that) and Assad threw it back in his face. You don't diss old kings in that part of the world if you're a whippersnapper.
I almost feel sorry for people whose idea of following the war is limited to finding as many bricks as possible to hurl at the US effort in Iraq. They are missing out on the ground floor of a new world era. And they are now so far behind the curve of events, they can't hope to make sense out of the war.
As to the Gold Dinar Fairy, I hotly dispute that she's a figment of my imagination although I've never actually seen her. She's sort of an Arab version of Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy rolled into one. Translation: Money talks, nobody walks.
So we'll see whose checking account is bigger: House of Saud or Iran's regime. As for Assad's banking account, I suspect he's transferring what funds he has left to Switzerland but Tehran's oil bankroll is still keeping Assad's regime afloat.
Okay; Pundita will settle down now. I'm giddy because of election day in Iraq. Three cheers for the Iraqi voters and the Coalition and Iraqi troops! Remember all the talk in 2002, 2003 about Arabs not being capable of self rule? Take this, you trash talking -- tsk! tsk! be gracious in victory, Pundita. From the the Scotsman (UK):
Strong turnout in Iraq elections
Iraqis have voted in a historic parliamentary election, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas that had shunned balloting last January [...] Several explosions rocked Baghdad as the polls opened [...] But violence overall was light and did not appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a bright, sunny day [...]
Putin the Clever vs Mordor: the war moves to the banking sector
A big thanks to Riehl World View and The Steel Deal for catching this United Press International story:
Is Putin serious about severely limiting foreign banking in Russia? Well, I think he's very serious about getting more cooperation from US, West European and Israeli banks in coughing up billions in owed back taxes that Russian oligarchs have stashed in those banks. I also think he's sending a clear message to Russia's business community that the Rape of Russia is over.
While the Russian oligarchs ran the show they sure didn't do their big banking at Russian banks; they banked the big profits at US, Israeli and West European banks. So not only did the oligarchs rob the Russian taxpayers and government blind, they did not put enough Russian oil profits into the Russian banking system and thus into the Russian economy to help it stay solvent. Sort of like beating up someone after robbing him.
That's not even speaking to Israeli banks refusing to cooperate with the Russian government's attempts to get back the billions in back taxes owed to Russia that oligarchs and Russian mobsters bunkered in Israel stashed there.
11:00 AM Update
See Putin the Clever vs Mordor: the war moves to the banking sector for my analysis of Putin's latest move in what I only half-jokingly referred to earlier this year as "World War V." Thanks again to Riehl World View and Steel Deal for catching the UPI article!
NOVOSIBIRSK, Russia, (UPI) -- December 14 -- Russia's president said Wednesday he wants foreign banks "essentially banned" from his country, Itar-Tass reported. [...]Readers who have been with Pundita since the early days know that I warned almost a year ago that this sort of move was coming once the Kremlin wrestled control of Russia's oil away from Russia's oligarchs.
"This is connected not only with competition, including the impossibility to trace the movement of money and capital in the modern world," said Putin. "This is connected among other things with the need to fight terrorism. We must not forget this. And this is connected with the need to fight money laundering."[...]
Is Putin serious about severely limiting foreign banking in Russia? Well, I think he's very serious about getting more cooperation from US, West European and Israeli banks in coughing up billions in owed back taxes that Russian oligarchs have stashed in those banks. I also think he's sending a clear message to Russia's business community that the Rape of Russia is over.
While the Russian oligarchs ran the show they sure didn't do their big banking at Russian banks; they banked the big profits at US, Israeli and West European banks. So not only did the oligarchs rob the Russian taxpayers and government blind, they did not put enough Russian oil profits into the Russian banking system and thus into the Russian economy to help it stay solvent. Sort of like beating up someone after robbing him.
That's not even speaking to Israeli banks refusing to cooperate with the Russian government's attempts to get back the billions in back taxes owed to Russia that oligarchs and Russian mobsters bunkered in Israel stashed there.
11:00 AM Update
See Putin the Clever vs Mordor: the war moves to the banking sector for my analysis of Putin's latest move in what I only half-jokingly referred to earlier this year as "World War V." Thanks again to Riehl World View and Steel Deal for catching the UPI article!
Vladimir Putin pours Rosneft oil on troubled waters
This will give the US contingent of the Get Putin gang something to think about -- even if Evans does not accept the position:
Analysis: Evans and Russia's oil patch
By Peter Lavelle
Analysis: Evans and Russia's oil patch
By Peter Lavelle
"MOSCOW, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, who is a close friend of U.S. President Bush, is reported to have been offered the job of chairman of the Russian state oil company Rosneft ahead of its initial public offering next year. Bringing Evans on board may help improve the oil giant's damaged reputation in the wake of the Yukos affair, but is it enough for investors?
The Russian business daily Kommersant Tuesday reported Evans met with several top Russian officials during a trip to Moscow last week, and with President Vladimir Putin on Dec. 7. The daily says Putin offered Evans the post of head of Rosneft's board of directors. At the time of writing, neither the company nor Evans commented on the report.
If the news is confirmed and Evans takes up the post, his duties would apparently include improving Rosneft's attractiveness to the Western investment community and to potential shareholders. This will not be an easy task."
Wednesday, December 14
Peter Lavelle on Russia's telecom scandal and the Kremlin's nationalization push
December 2
Hullo, Peter!
Greetings from America! I hope all is well with you. Pundita has been ranting again against the Get Putin crowd. I dragged one of your UPI articles into it (Kremlin eyes metals sector), so I thought you'd like to see the post, titled "Applying the lessons they learned from Marc Rich, they bankrupted Russia". John Batchelor invited Gary Kasparov onto his show the other night to rant and rave, which put me in a ranting mood.
Also, would you care to comment at your Untimely Thoughts blog about today's WSJ piece on the money-laundering scandal involving Leonid Reiman? [See end of this post] Thanks!
Pundita"
December 3
"Pundita,
Greetings from Moscow! It is good to hear from you. Your comments on the metal industry and other items reminds me how I can be easily misunderstood. Most of the time I try to explain what is happening in Russia without taking a side. On the metals story: it is a "strategic sector" and Putin has made it clear that the state [will be] front and center.
Personally, I have mixed thoughts about this. However, my thesis was that the state is willing to buy out Russia's oligarchs -- not steal from them like in the case of Yukos.
On the Leonid Reiman story, I wrote on it over a year ago.[1] This guy is as guilty as sin but it appears he has done a pretty good job of covering his tracks. As long as he can keep any legal action within the Russian court system, nothing will happen to him.
Peter Lavelle"
Peter:
Perhaps I did not make my point clear, then, because that is exactly what I understood you to mean. Please see if I have it correctly: (from a heated exchange with a correspondent):
"The Wall Street Journal crowd is not interested in a security zone. They fear that the Kremlin's solution -- the state buying back control of key industries while allowing a certain percentage of foreign investors -- will catch on with other countries. Right now the WSJs are hysterical because they see that the Kremlin isn't stopping with oil and gas; now they're getting set to buy back control of the metals sector.
I bemoaned the conundrum but I think Putin & Co. have hit upon what they hope is the way Russia can avoid a stagnant economy while at the same time protecting against foreign takeover via control of key resources.
Von Hayek would argue that in the long run the patchwork solution can't work. And of course the solution is aleady in effect in Arab oil kingdoms; foreign interests own a stake in the oil companies. But the Russians are not the Arabs.
Russians such as Kasparov are playing back to Americans what Americans want to hear: that Russia is ready at this time to have a government that reflects the American idea of democratic government. I think Putin's view is that before there is a rule of law as Americans envision it, there must first be a nation; i.e., a general agreement on which governing body makes the major decisions: clan bosses or a central government."
Well, Peter, am I in the ballpark? If so (or if not) please advise.
I would be interested in reading your article on Rieman. My specific interest in asking for your comment was about whether you think Reiman's close association with Putin makes a mockery of Putin's attempts to wrest power away from the most crooked oligarchs.
I guess what I'm asking is whether Reiman covered his tracks well enough to fool Putin (hard to imagine) and in any case, now that the cat is out of the bag, will Putin ditch him?
Thanks if you can find the time to give some sort of reply. Frankly, I am deeply suspicious of the timing of the Reiman investigations. Perhaps I am paranoid, but I don't think the American government has taken it lying down that they haven't yet been able to install a puppet government in Moscow. In other words, I think the Get Putin crowd are still working overtime to tar Putin.
Maybe Putin deserves a black eye in this instance but I noticed that the WSJ said nothing about Mikhail Fridman's oil interests -- assuming he still has them.
"Pundita:
I certainly don't disagree with you; we are on the same page. Of the course the WJSniki are upset -- they can only get a minority stake in companies that can produce enormous profits, but controlled by the majority share holder (the Russian state) that will not always -- if ever -- focus exclusively on the bottom line.
From a purist liberal market position -- which doesn't exist in reality -- what Putin is doing has considerable downside. Gazprom-Rosneft (what will become "Kremlin-nickel") will have a tendency to crowd out the normal development of a modern economy. That said, if the government is conscious of this problem -- and many are in government -- then a political decision has to be made to ensure the the "crowding out" factor is taken into account.
The record of "national resource champions" is mixed. Norway has gotten it right, will Russia get it right? We'll see. The WSJniki have a point, but they don't understand Russian politics and the country's continuing economic transition.
However, protecting defined "strategic resources" is all well and fine, but last week the state became the majority owner of Russia's largest carmaker AvtoVAZ. Car manufacturing is not a "strategic sector" in Russia by any definition.
On the Leonid Reiman story, you are following the wrong trail. It is the Alfa Group -- Megafon's competitor -- pushing this story. The Alfa Group has seriously important connections in the US, especially media. So I would back away from the political slant and stick with what it is almost always about: MONEY!
Peter"
[Correspondence continued in tomorrow's post]
1)
Analysis: Russia's 'Telecom-gate
By Peter Lavelle
MOSCOW, Nov. 15, 2004 (UPI) -- Russia's Telecommunications Minister Leonid
Reiman, alleged to have taken a $1 million payment in the early 1990s, is at the center of growing scandal that stands to tarnish and undermine Vladimir Putin's claim that fighting state corruption is an important part of his agenda.
The politics of Russia's telecommunications industry has always been fraught
with charges of favoritism, shady deals and the reality of opaque company ownership structures. Telecommunications Minister Leonid Reiman, since the inception of the Russia's first digital telecoms network in the early 1990s, has been at the center of the industry's development. He is now the focus of a scandal questioning his use of office for personal gain. The potential fallout surrounding the allegations against Reiman could significantly affect Russia's fast growing and very lucrative telecoms industry as well as test Putin's demand that government officials conduct themselves in the same transparent fashion as the business community.
At the end of last month in the British Virgin Islands court, an affidavit was signed by a former Reiman business associate claiming that the then up and coming Leningrad communications official accepted a $1 million payment to "arrange" the establishment of Russia first digital telecoms network. The affidavit, signed by telecoms entrepreneur Anthony Georgiou but only made public last week, states he invested $2 million -- half going to Reiman -- to create the telecom company Peterstar.
The fact that Reiman is alleged to have accepted the payment, while a government official, is not a particularly damaging charge. Considering how businesses were created and run in the 1990s, cash payments to officialdom to grease the works were the norm. For the $1 million payment, Georgiou claims that Reiman secured the 16 ministerial signatures needed to establish Peterstar - a no small feat at the time.
According to court testimony, all state officials involved in setting up Peterstar signed recipients for payments received.
At stake now is how Peterstar, undergoing a number of mutations, has become a major player in Russia's very competitive telecom industry with Reiman as the government official overseeing it.
Peterstar went on to merge with telecom North West GSM, St. Petersburg's largest mobile phone operator, and Sonic Duo -- holding the prized GSM mobile license for Moscow. Collectively, these companies now form Russia's third-largest telecom operator known as Megafon. Reiman has repeatedly claimed that he has no personal interest in Megafon.
In the same BVI court proceedings, Danish lawyer Jeffery Galmond -- believed to have been involved in the development of Russia telecom industry -- said Reiman was the primary beneficiary of a trust indirectly holding shares in Megafon until last year. But Galmond is on the record saying Reiman had not been paid any cash for his financial interest in Megafon.
Doubts concerning Reiman's personal involvement in Megafon have been raised
virtually as many times he publicly states otherwise. In August 2001, Reiman's ministry suddenly awarded valuable mobile operator licenses to Sonic Duo without holding a public tender. Russia's two other telecom giants, Vimpelcom and MTS, called foul pay.
A month before, in what was called the "frequency scandal," Reiman suddenly
re-allocated frequencies favoring Megafon. Only after the personal intervention of then-Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, was Reiman forced to reverse the reallocation.
Then the plot thickened. Who owns what? Who has the right to own what? All of this would be a non-story if the actually ownership of Megafon had not been called into question. The legal proceedings in the BVI were started after Russia's huge industrial and financial group, as well as major telecom player, Alfa Group defended its claim that it owns a 25.1 percent stake in Megafon, purchased from the financial boutique LV Finance for an unclosed amount in 2003.
Another Russian company, IPOC, contests the Alfa Group's claim of legal ownership in Megafon. IPOC directly owns 6.5 percent and 31.3 percent indirectly though still another legal entity called Telecominvest claims LV Finance violated its first right of refusal to purchase shares in Megafon.
As Megafon's ownership structure is debated and most likely decided upon in distant BVI, the political fallout from the court proceedings could not be more embarrassing for Putin's Kremlin. Since assuming office, Putin has used Russia's reinvigorated and empowered state bureaucracy to bring to heel Russia's small clan of super-rich "oligarchs" -- limiting their political power and economic influence. The state under Putin is supposed to protect the Russian economy from unscrupulous business people, not encourage opaque business activities of state officials.
Leonid Reiman is also widely seen to be close to Putin. When Putin ordered a
significant downsizing of government ministries immediately after reelection in May, Reiman lost his job at the Telecom Ministry. Then, suddenly and inexplicably, Putin reversed himself - something he rarely does - and rescinded the government shakeup. The only revision of the original shakeup plan was to return Reiman to his telecom portfolio.
How Putin reacts to "Telecom-gate" will be an indication of whether he accepts double standards among his own inner circle and whether his demand for a fair playing field in the world of business is only rhetoric.
* * * *
Close Putin Ally Implicated in Probe Into Laundering
By David Crawford, Glenn R. Simpson & Gregory White
from The Wall Street Journal
Posted December 02, 2005
A money-laundering scandal that started in Germany has spread to other countries and now implicates a top Russian official who is a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, say law-enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation. In letters to counterparts in other Western countries, prosecutors in Frankfurt have named Russia's telecommunications minister, Leonid Reiman, as a central figure in a German criminal probe. Using financial records, the prosecutors lay out what they suspect was an elaborate scheme to milk Russian state-owned telecom companies for cash or divert their assets.
In their letters, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the prosecutors say they suspect Mr. Reiman "illegally enriched himself through a series of transactions," and then set up a network of shell companies and trusts to secure and conceal more than $1 billion in assets. The German investigation has spawned parallel inquiries in the U.S., Cyprus and Switzerland.
The corruption allegations are among the most serious ever against a sitting Russian minister. President Putin has worked closely with Mr. Reiman for more than a decade, from the days when the Russian president was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and Mr. Reiman was executive of a state telecom company. Some of the transactions under investigation date from around that same time.
The investigation has already had repercussions. The German inquiry has led to the resignation of a Commerzbank AG board member. Four other current and former officials of the big German bank are also suspected of money laundering, including Chief Executive Klaus-Peter Muller, whose home and office were searched by German police in August, according to a Commerzbank spokesman. And the investigation has spread to the New York offices of Barclays PLC and other Western banks, according to law-enforcement officials familiar with the inquiries.
Mr. Reiman, who declined to comment for this article, has continually maintained that he did nothing wrong. He says the allegations against him, which came to light as part of a bitter Russian business dispute, are a pressure tactic by billionaire Mikhail Fridman's Alfa Group to fend off a rival claim by Jeffrey Galmond, a longtime associate of Mr. Reiman, to a disputed stake in mobile-phone operator OAO Megafon.
The allegations stemming from the Megafon case rely in part on the testimony of a former Galmond employee who is a convicted felon, and Anthony Georgiou, a former business partner of Mr. Reiman's who has since fallen out with him. Both men, who have given sworn testimony in the civil case, have acknowledged in court that they have agreements to receive compensation from Alfa Group or its allies.
Even so, their testimony is consistent with voluminous financial records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The records show a series of large transfers, totaling tens of millions of dollars, moving assets of Russian telecom ventures to shell companies based in Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and other tax havens.
Much of the funds then flowed via the New York office of Barclays to a mutual fund based in Hamilton, Bermuda, which Mr. Galmond says he owns. The former Galmond employee in the Megafon case alleged that the tangled structure was designed to conceal the fact that the real owner is Mr. Reiman, something both Mr. Galmond and Mr. Reiman deny.
The German prosecutors' letters and other documents show that they have embraced several of the allegations that emerged from the Megafon litigation about how the alleged corruption scheme worked. It had three phases, according to court papers in the case, each of which allegedly relied on Mr. Reiman's role in directing phone ventures part-owned by the state. [...]
Mr. Reiman isn't a criminal target of Western prosecutors. Most of the countries involved in the latest investigations don't assert any jurisdiction over crimes that may have occurred wholly in Russia. In Russia, authorities have looked at some of the transactions and found no significant legal violations. [...]
Mr. Reiman is named in search warrants and requests for international judicial assistance, German prosecutors' spokeswoman Doris Moller-Scheu said. That's because prosecutors have "substantial evidence" that he participated in the initial crimes of stealing assets of the Russian companies and paying bribes to Russian officials, she said.
Commerzbank allegedly helped finance the expanding empire and conceal its true ownership, while Barclays handled many of the suspect transactions between its numerous offshore entities, according to investigators. A spokesman for Barclays in London said the bank can't comment on any law-enforcement matters.
A Commerzbank spokesman says the bank fully backs its CEO, Mr. Muller, who is one of the suspects, and it believes no current staff are guilty of illegal activity in connection with the case.
The U.S. Justice Department has begun its own investigation into the business dealings of the banks and shell companies, according to people familiar with the inquiries. It declined to comment.
The New York office of Barclays, the focus of the U.S. inquiry, acted as the middleman moving funds and converting currencies in many of the deals between firms in Cyprus and Bermuda, transaction records show. The bank acts as a "correspondent" bank for the Bermuda Commercial Bank Ltd., which handles most of Mr. Galmond's operation on Bermuda. John Deuss, chairman of Bermuda Commercial, declined to comment.
The Galmond fund in Bermuda, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd., has been under investigation by the Bermuda government, which is looking into whether it violated regulations that require mutual funds to have many shareholders. Mr. Galmond acknowledges he is secretly the primary owner of IPOC, but the fund denies any impropriety.
Hullo, Peter!
Greetings from America! I hope all is well with you. Pundita has been ranting again against the Get Putin crowd. I dragged one of your UPI articles into it (Kremlin eyes metals sector), so I thought you'd like to see the post, titled "Applying the lessons they learned from Marc Rich, they bankrupted Russia". John Batchelor invited Gary Kasparov onto his show the other night to rant and rave, which put me in a ranting mood.
Also, would you care to comment at your Untimely Thoughts blog about today's WSJ piece on the money-laundering scandal involving Leonid Reiman? [See end of this post] Thanks!
Pundita"
December 3
"Pundita,
Greetings from Moscow! It is good to hear from you. Your comments on the metal industry and other items reminds me how I can be easily misunderstood. Most of the time I try to explain what is happening in Russia without taking a side. On the metals story: it is a "strategic sector" and Putin has made it clear that the state [will be] front and center.
Personally, I have mixed thoughts about this. However, my thesis was that the state is willing to buy out Russia's oligarchs -- not steal from them like in the case of Yukos.
On the Leonid Reiman story, I wrote on it over a year ago.[1] This guy is as guilty as sin but it appears he has done a pretty good job of covering his tracks. As long as he can keep any legal action within the Russian court system, nothing will happen to him.
Peter Lavelle"
Peter:
Perhaps I did not make my point clear, then, because that is exactly what I understood you to mean. Please see if I have it correctly: (from a heated exchange with a correspondent):
"The Wall Street Journal crowd is not interested in a security zone. They fear that the Kremlin's solution -- the state buying back control of key industries while allowing a certain percentage of foreign investors -- will catch on with other countries. Right now the WSJs are hysterical because they see that the Kremlin isn't stopping with oil and gas; now they're getting set to buy back control of the metals sector.
I bemoaned the conundrum but I think Putin & Co. have hit upon what they hope is the way Russia can avoid a stagnant economy while at the same time protecting against foreign takeover via control of key resources.
Von Hayek would argue that in the long run the patchwork solution can't work. And of course the solution is aleady in effect in Arab oil kingdoms; foreign interests own a stake in the oil companies. But the Russians are not the Arabs.
Russians such as Kasparov are playing back to Americans what Americans want to hear: that Russia is ready at this time to have a government that reflects the American idea of democratic government. I think Putin's view is that before there is a rule of law as Americans envision it, there must first be a nation; i.e., a general agreement on which governing body makes the major decisions: clan bosses or a central government."
Well, Peter, am I in the ballpark? If so (or if not) please advise.
I would be interested in reading your article on Rieman. My specific interest in asking for your comment was about whether you think Reiman's close association with Putin makes a mockery of Putin's attempts to wrest power away from the most crooked oligarchs.
I guess what I'm asking is whether Reiman covered his tracks well enough to fool Putin (hard to imagine) and in any case, now that the cat is out of the bag, will Putin ditch him?
Thanks if you can find the time to give some sort of reply. Frankly, I am deeply suspicious of the timing of the Reiman investigations. Perhaps I am paranoid, but I don't think the American government has taken it lying down that they haven't yet been able to install a puppet government in Moscow. In other words, I think the Get Putin crowd are still working overtime to tar Putin.
Maybe Putin deserves a black eye in this instance but I noticed that the WSJ said nothing about Mikhail Fridman's oil interests -- assuming he still has them.
"Pundita:
I certainly don't disagree with you; we are on the same page. Of the course the WJSniki are upset -- they can only get a minority stake in companies that can produce enormous profits, but controlled by the majority share holder (the Russian state) that will not always -- if ever -- focus exclusively on the bottom line.
From a purist liberal market position -- which doesn't exist in reality -- what Putin is doing has considerable downside. Gazprom-Rosneft (what will become "Kremlin-nickel") will have a tendency to crowd out the normal development of a modern economy. That said, if the government is conscious of this problem -- and many are in government -- then a political decision has to be made to ensure the the "crowding out" factor is taken into account.
The record of "national resource champions" is mixed. Norway has gotten it right, will Russia get it right? We'll see. The WSJniki have a point, but they don't understand Russian politics and the country's continuing economic transition.
However, protecting defined "strategic resources" is all well and fine, but last week the state became the majority owner of Russia's largest carmaker AvtoVAZ. Car manufacturing is not a "strategic sector" in Russia by any definition.
On the Leonid Reiman story, you are following the wrong trail. It is the Alfa Group -- Megafon's competitor -- pushing this story. The Alfa Group has seriously important connections in the US, especially media. So I would back away from the political slant and stick with what it is almost always about: MONEY!
Peter"
[Correspondence continued in tomorrow's post]
1)
Analysis: Russia's 'Telecom-gate
By Peter Lavelle
MOSCOW, Nov. 15, 2004 (UPI) -- Russia's Telecommunications Minister Leonid
Reiman, alleged to have taken a $1 million payment in the early 1990s, is at the center of growing scandal that stands to tarnish and undermine Vladimir Putin's claim that fighting state corruption is an important part of his agenda.
The politics of Russia's telecommunications industry has always been fraught
with charges of favoritism, shady deals and the reality of opaque company ownership structures. Telecommunications Minister Leonid Reiman, since the inception of the Russia's first digital telecoms network in the early 1990s, has been at the center of the industry's development. He is now the focus of a scandal questioning his use of office for personal gain. The potential fallout surrounding the allegations against Reiman could significantly affect Russia's fast growing and very lucrative telecoms industry as well as test Putin's demand that government officials conduct themselves in the same transparent fashion as the business community.
At the end of last month in the British Virgin Islands court, an affidavit was signed by a former Reiman business associate claiming that the then up and coming Leningrad communications official accepted a $1 million payment to "arrange" the establishment of Russia first digital telecoms network. The affidavit, signed by telecoms entrepreneur Anthony Georgiou but only made public last week, states he invested $2 million -- half going to Reiman -- to create the telecom company Peterstar.
The fact that Reiman is alleged to have accepted the payment, while a government official, is not a particularly damaging charge. Considering how businesses were created and run in the 1990s, cash payments to officialdom to grease the works were the norm. For the $1 million payment, Georgiou claims that Reiman secured the 16 ministerial signatures needed to establish Peterstar - a no small feat at the time.
According to court testimony, all state officials involved in setting up Peterstar signed recipients for payments received.
At stake now is how Peterstar, undergoing a number of mutations, has become a major player in Russia's very competitive telecom industry with Reiman as the government official overseeing it.
Peterstar went on to merge with telecom North West GSM, St. Petersburg's largest mobile phone operator, and Sonic Duo -- holding the prized GSM mobile license for Moscow. Collectively, these companies now form Russia's third-largest telecom operator known as Megafon. Reiman has repeatedly claimed that he has no personal interest in Megafon.
In the same BVI court proceedings, Danish lawyer Jeffery Galmond -- believed to have been involved in the development of Russia telecom industry -- said Reiman was the primary beneficiary of a trust indirectly holding shares in Megafon until last year. But Galmond is on the record saying Reiman had not been paid any cash for his financial interest in Megafon.
Doubts concerning Reiman's personal involvement in Megafon have been raised
virtually as many times he publicly states otherwise. In August 2001, Reiman's ministry suddenly awarded valuable mobile operator licenses to Sonic Duo without holding a public tender. Russia's two other telecom giants, Vimpelcom and MTS, called foul pay.
A month before, in what was called the "frequency scandal," Reiman suddenly
re-allocated frequencies favoring Megafon. Only after the personal intervention of then-Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, was Reiman forced to reverse the reallocation.
Then the plot thickened. Who owns what? Who has the right to own what? All of this would be a non-story if the actually ownership of Megafon had not been called into question. The legal proceedings in the BVI were started after Russia's huge industrial and financial group, as well as major telecom player, Alfa Group defended its claim that it owns a 25.1 percent stake in Megafon, purchased from the financial boutique LV Finance for an unclosed amount in 2003.
Another Russian company, IPOC, contests the Alfa Group's claim of legal ownership in Megafon. IPOC directly owns 6.5 percent and 31.3 percent indirectly though still another legal entity called Telecominvest claims LV Finance violated its first right of refusal to purchase shares in Megafon.
As Megafon's ownership structure is debated and most likely decided upon in distant BVI, the political fallout from the court proceedings could not be more embarrassing for Putin's Kremlin. Since assuming office, Putin has used Russia's reinvigorated and empowered state bureaucracy to bring to heel Russia's small clan of super-rich "oligarchs" -- limiting their political power and economic influence. The state under Putin is supposed to protect the Russian economy from unscrupulous business people, not encourage opaque business activities of state officials.
Leonid Reiman is also widely seen to be close to Putin. When Putin ordered a
significant downsizing of government ministries immediately after reelection in May, Reiman lost his job at the Telecom Ministry. Then, suddenly and inexplicably, Putin reversed himself - something he rarely does - and rescinded the government shakeup. The only revision of the original shakeup plan was to return Reiman to his telecom portfolio.
How Putin reacts to "Telecom-gate" will be an indication of whether he accepts double standards among his own inner circle and whether his demand for a fair playing field in the world of business is only rhetoric.
* * * *
Close Putin Ally Implicated in Probe Into Laundering
By David Crawford, Glenn R. Simpson & Gregory White
from The Wall Street Journal
Posted December 02, 2005
A money-laundering scandal that started in Germany has spread to other countries and now implicates a top Russian official who is a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, say law-enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation. In letters to counterparts in other Western countries, prosecutors in Frankfurt have named Russia's telecommunications minister, Leonid Reiman, as a central figure in a German criminal probe. Using financial records, the prosecutors lay out what they suspect was an elaborate scheme to milk Russian state-owned telecom companies for cash or divert their assets.
In their letters, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the prosecutors say they suspect Mr. Reiman "illegally enriched himself through a series of transactions," and then set up a network of shell companies and trusts to secure and conceal more than $1 billion in assets. The German investigation has spawned parallel inquiries in the U.S., Cyprus and Switzerland.
The corruption allegations are among the most serious ever against a sitting Russian minister. President Putin has worked closely with Mr. Reiman for more than a decade, from the days when the Russian president was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and Mr. Reiman was executive of a state telecom company. Some of the transactions under investigation date from around that same time.
The investigation has already had repercussions. The German inquiry has led to the resignation of a Commerzbank AG board member. Four other current and former officials of the big German bank are also suspected of money laundering, including Chief Executive Klaus-Peter Muller, whose home and office were searched by German police in August, according to a Commerzbank spokesman. And the investigation has spread to the New York offices of Barclays PLC and other Western banks, according to law-enforcement officials familiar with the inquiries.
Mr. Reiman, who declined to comment for this article, has continually maintained that he did nothing wrong. He says the allegations against him, which came to light as part of a bitter Russian business dispute, are a pressure tactic by billionaire Mikhail Fridman's Alfa Group to fend off a rival claim by Jeffrey Galmond, a longtime associate of Mr. Reiman, to a disputed stake in mobile-phone operator OAO Megafon.
The allegations stemming from the Megafon case rely in part on the testimony of a former Galmond employee who is a convicted felon, and Anthony Georgiou, a former business partner of Mr. Reiman's who has since fallen out with him. Both men, who have given sworn testimony in the civil case, have acknowledged in court that they have agreements to receive compensation from Alfa Group or its allies.
Even so, their testimony is consistent with voluminous financial records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The records show a series of large transfers, totaling tens of millions of dollars, moving assets of Russian telecom ventures to shell companies based in Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and other tax havens.
Much of the funds then flowed via the New York office of Barclays to a mutual fund based in Hamilton, Bermuda, which Mr. Galmond says he owns. The former Galmond employee in the Megafon case alleged that the tangled structure was designed to conceal the fact that the real owner is Mr. Reiman, something both Mr. Galmond and Mr. Reiman deny.
The German prosecutors' letters and other documents show that they have embraced several of the allegations that emerged from the Megafon litigation about how the alleged corruption scheme worked. It had three phases, according to court papers in the case, each of which allegedly relied on Mr. Reiman's role in directing phone ventures part-owned by the state. [...]
Mr. Reiman isn't a criminal target of Western prosecutors. Most of the countries involved in the latest investigations don't assert any jurisdiction over crimes that may have occurred wholly in Russia. In Russia, authorities have looked at some of the transactions and found no significant legal violations. [...]
Mr. Reiman is named in search warrants and requests for international judicial assistance, German prosecutors' spokeswoman Doris Moller-Scheu said. That's because prosecutors have "substantial evidence" that he participated in the initial crimes of stealing assets of the Russian companies and paying bribes to Russian officials, she said.
Commerzbank allegedly helped finance the expanding empire and conceal its true ownership, while Barclays handled many of the suspect transactions between its numerous offshore entities, according to investigators. A spokesman for Barclays in London said the bank can't comment on any law-enforcement matters.
A Commerzbank spokesman says the bank fully backs its CEO, Mr. Muller, who is one of the suspects, and it believes no current staff are guilty of illegal activity in connection with the case.
The U.S. Justice Department has begun its own investigation into the business dealings of the banks and shell companies, according to people familiar with the inquiries. It declined to comment.
The New York office of Barclays, the focus of the U.S. inquiry, acted as the middleman moving funds and converting currencies in many of the deals between firms in Cyprus and Bermuda, transaction records show. The bank acts as a "correspondent" bank for the Bermuda Commercial Bank Ltd., which handles most of Mr. Galmond's operation on Bermuda. John Deuss, chairman of Bermuda Commercial, declined to comment.
The Galmond fund in Bermuda, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd., has been under investigation by the Bermuda government, which is looking into whether it violated regulations that require mutual funds to have many shareholders. Mr. Galmond acknowledges he is secretly the primary owner of IPOC, but the fund denies any impropriety.
Tuesday, December 13
Get out of our way
"Hi, Pundita,
Sorry to learn you're leaving the bloggysphere. Best of luck to you in future. Before you go I'm hoping you can answer my question. If you had the power to change one thing about US foreign policy, what would it be?
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
If I had a magic wand I would de-Europeanize the thinking at the US Department of State and replace it with American-style thinking.
The United States of America is founded on a concept of universal values. Whether or not one agrees with the stated values, the American outlook transcends the rivalries and struggles for power that mark tribalized, clannish aggregates of people.
Europe is not founded; it is many clannish peoples having to live close together on one more-or-less contiguous body of land. The outlook that arose from that experience is grounded in the struggle to maintain equilibrium. The outlook, when applied to gaining trade and diplomatic advantages, resulted in the famous "divide and rule" thinking and tactics of the European trading powers.
The leaders of modern Europe know all that; the founding of the European Union was an attempt to unite Europe around basic principles that all Europeans could agree upon. The leaders envisioned a United States of Europe -- a true European nation.
Whether or not such nation will come about someday, old ways of thinking die hard. When people are under pressure, they fall back on the fighting style they know best. In this case, it is to bring out as many differences as possible in order to gain advantage, and by such means control a situation. That style of fighting is second nature to the European leaders, their foreign offices and intelligence agencies.
Yet one look at the situations in Africa and the Middle East shows that this is the very worst time in history to be focusing on differences that sharply divide people. So while the kindest thing you could say about America's grasp of the situations in those two regions is that we're on a steep learning curve, our instincts are right.
Between them, the British and French foreign ministries know everything there is to know about the tribes of Africa and the Middle East; they can recite chapter and verse the history of every Islamic sect and every blood feud that has arisen in the Middle East and Africa going back to the Old Testament. But what use is it to have a scorecard, if you're standing out in the parking lot during the ball game?
America has, due to sheer ignorance, stumbled into one cultural land mine after another since throwing our weight around in Iraq. Yet when history is at your back and your instincts are right, that means you're in ballpark.
Here is the ballpark: once technology collapses the world into a very small place, innumerable differences must take second place to universal values when it comes to the foundations of government.
That kind of thinking comes naturally to Americans and with it should come an approach to foreign relations that emphasizes universal values. The European Union leaders are now busy trying to co-opt this approach but they are doing it as a means to brake what they see as growing American hegemony in the Middle East.
In other words, no matter how hard Europe's leaders try to think universally during their waking hours, they mumble "triangulation" if shaken awake in the middle of the night. Triangulation, detente -- whatever it takes to keep the other fellow off balance.
Yet like a fool, State's most powerful offices still think it's possible to bring about peace and non-despotic governments in the Middle East, if they only follow more closely the collective advice of Europe's leaders!
Earth calling the US Department of State: those leaders are not advising in order to bring about peace and democracy; they're trying to maintain influence in the Middle East. The same situation holds true for the African nations.
Europe's leaders have a right to try to maintain their influence and between them, they have some good advice for America. Yet State needs to place the advice in the context of the American outlook.
State also needs to follow on with the tradition that Secretary Condoleezza Rice is eking out. As you know I have been sharply critical of Rice and remain so; she has followed State's dogmatic views on Russia, Latin American countries, and China and with predictable bad results. However, if you study Rice's constant travels you'll see that she is pioneering an approach whereby the President's chief foreign relations advisor gives great weight to the advice of the government in question.
This is a revolutionary approach for American's foreign office, which has traditionally given the greatest weight to the advice of close allies. So it is an empirical approach rather than a dogmatic one and thus, perfectly suited to the present era.
The catch is that the empirical approach has already raised a red flag among the NATO allies. Yet President Bush is determined to hold the NATO alliance together, as he is determined to refurbish all the American led post-World War Two international/ regional organizations.
I understand the principles guiding the President's decision and being human I also want to have my cake and eat it too. But once you start down the road (for example)of listening first to what the Egyptians advise about Egypt rather than what the Saudis or NATO heads or the IMF advise -- I perceive a crossroads down the line.
Which road we take will depend greatly on whether the US Department of State is dominated by the American or European outlook.
6:30 PM Update
I just received a letter from a reader who thought he could catch Pundita napping. The writer asked what kind of universal values American foreign policy should promote, given that I'd admitted that not everyone would agree with the values at the top of America's list.
My answer is that government is under discussion, not a philosopher's concept of a perfect society or a theologian's metaphysics. Peoples living under a freely elected government have no serious dispute with this statement of universal values as applied to government:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Sorry to learn you're leaving the bloggysphere. Best of luck to you in future. Before you go I'm hoping you can answer my question. If you had the power to change one thing about US foreign policy, what would it be?
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
If I had a magic wand I would de-Europeanize the thinking at the US Department of State and replace it with American-style thinking.
The United States of America is founded on a concept of universal values. Whether or not one agrees with the stated values, the American outlook transcends the rivalries and struggles for power that mark tribalized, clannish aggregates of people.
Europe is not founded; it is many clannish peoples having to live close together on one more-or-less contiguous body of land. The outlook that arose from that experience is grounded in the struggle to maintain equilibrium. The outlook, when applied to gaining trade and diplomatic advantages, resulted in the famous "divide and rule" thinking and tactics of the European trading powers.
The leaders of modern Europe know all that; the founding of the European Union was an attempt to unite Europe around basic principles that all Europeans could agree upon. The leaders envisioned a United States of Europe -- a true European nation.
Whether or not such nation will come about someday, old ways of thinking die hard. When people are under pressure, they fall back on the fighting style they know best. In this case, it is to bring out as many differences as possible in order to gain advantage, and by such means control a situation. That style of fighting is second nature to the European leaders, their foreign offices and intelligence agencies.
Yet one look at the situations in Africa and the Middle East shows that this is the very worst time in history to be focusing on differences that sharply divide people. So while the kindest thing you could say about America's grasp of the situations in those two regions is that we're on a steep learning curve, our instincts are right.
Between them, the British and French foreign ministries know everything there is to know about the tribes of Africa and the Middle East; they can recite chapter and verse the history of every Islamic sect and every blood feud that has arisen in the Middle East and Africa going back to the Old Testament. But what use is it to have a scorecard, if you're standing out in the parking lot during the ball game?
America has, due to sheer ignorance, stumbled into one cultural land mine after another since throwing our weight around in Iraq. Yet when history is at your back and your instincts are right, that means you're in ballpark.
Here is the ballpark: once technology collapses the world into a very small place, innumerable differences must take second place to universal values when it comes to the foundations of government.
That kind of thinking comes naturally to Americans and with it should come an approach to foreign relations that emphasizes universal values. The European Union leaders are now busy trying to co-opt this approach but they are doing it as a means to brake what they see as growing American hegemony in the Middle East.
In other words, no matter how hard Europe's leaders try to think universally during their waking hours, they mumble "triangulation" if shaken awake in the middle of the night. Triangulation, detente -- whatever it takes to keep the other fellow off balance.
Yet like a fool, State's most powerful offices still think it's possible to bring about peace and non-despotic governments in the Middle East, if they only follow more closely the collective advice of Europe's leaders!
Earth calling the US Department of State: those leaders are not advising in order to bring about peace and democracy; they're trying to maintain influence in the Middle East. The same situation holds true for the African nations.
Europe's leaders have a right to try to maintain their influence and between them, they have some good advice for America. Yet State needs to place the advice in the context of the American outlook.
State also needs to follow on with the tradition that Secretary Condoleezza Rice is eking out. As you know I have been sharply critical of Rice and remain so; she has followed State's dogmatic views on Russia, Latin American countries, and China and with predictable bad results. However, if you study Rice's constant travels you'll see that she is pioneering an approach whereby the President's chief foreign relations advisor gives great weight to the advice of the government in question.
This is a revolutionary approach for American's foreign office, which has traditionally given the greatest weight to the advice of close allies. So it is an empirical approach rather than a dogmatic one and thus, perfectly suited to the present era.
The catch is that the empirical approach has already raised a red flag among the NATO allies. Yet President Bush is determined to hold the NATO alliance together, as he is determined to refurbish all the American led post-World War Two international/ regional organizations.
I understand the principles guiding the President's decision and being human I also want to have my cake and eat it too. But once you start down the road (for example)of listening first to what the Egyptians advise about Egypt rather than what the Saudis or NATO heads or the IMF advise -- I perceive a crossroads down the line.
Which road we take will depend greatly on whether the US Department of State is dominated by the American or European outlook.
6:30 PM Update
I just received a letter from a reader who thought he could catch Pundita napping. The writer asked what kind of universal values American foreign policy should promote, given that I'd admitted that not everyone would agree with the values at the top of America's list.
My answer is that government is under discussion, not a philosopher's concept of a perfect society or a theologian's metaphysics. Peoples living under a freely elected government have no serious dispute with this statement of universal values as applied to government:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Monday, December 12
O Bumba, Great God of Vomit, please stop the bad things in Darfur!
"Death toll now stands at 400,000 and rising -- half the number of Rwanda's genocide ten years ago when the world said "Never Again". Darfur is Rwanda in slow motion. But after 20 months of blogging Darfur, still not many people, including Africans and Arabs, are interested -- even when given today's technology and free blogging tools. It's a funny old world. What's different this time though is you can turn the other cheek but cannot say you did not know about the hellhole of Darfur."
-- Ingrid Jones, Sudan Watch
"Dear Pundita,
Just to say thank you for listing Sudan Watch in Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards.
It was a lovely surprise, I enjoyed your well written piece and chuckled at your insightful comments about Instapundit et al - and the dog vomit!
Thought your awards list was so well thought out, you ought to make it an annual event! (I'm serious -- you are a great blogger with an incisive mind).
Guess what -- congratulations from human rights activists in Boston Mass. and around the US and UK are pouring in here!
They've read my latest post at Sudan Watch. I've just received four emails congratulating me on my award -- a few of them were cc'd to several other people!
Best wishes and thanks again for the very kind mention.
It's pretty gruelling blogging African humanitarian crises and genocide and an emotionally draining lonely solitary task, so your post comes as a breath of fresh air to have a bit of light hearted fun.
I have linked to Pundita at:
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com
http://meandophelia.blogspot.com
also in the sidebars of my other blogs:
http://ugandawatch.blogspot.com
http://congowatch.blogspot.com
http://ethiopiawatch.blogspot.com
http://nigerwatch.blogspot.com
Kindest regards,
Ingrid Jones
England, UK"
Dear Ingrid:
I did quite a lot of thinking about the Darfur situation after reading your letter. Pundita learned the hard way to be very careful about giving advice. But after thinking it over for days I can't conceive of any great harm coming to them, provided your human rights activist friends don't embellish on the plan I suggest.
But first, I think we can agree that the situation for the Darfur refugees is desperate. The African Union peacekeeping forces don't have enough of a mandate to make a dent and there's no peace to keep.(1) And even in the unlikely event that the Sudanese goverment agrees to allow it, the earliest the UN could deploy troops to the region would be September 2006. So we're looking at maybe another 100,000 dead and just that many starving in refugee camps within a year.
Meanwhile, routes to the refugee camps have recently been cut off by fighting so aid can't get through. (1, 2)
Meanwhile, the combined efforts of the African Union, European Union, United Nations, Arab League, US government, and many score humanitarian and religious organizations have failed to stop the mass murder and crisis for Darfur's refugees.
This while diplomats continue to nitpick over whether mass murder in Darfur is technically genocide and officials haggle over which version of the death count is accurate. And while Kofi Annan seizes on yet another plan to squeeze more money out of the West to pour into the African Union's bottomless pit and the International Criminal Court clucks, "Tsk tsk" at war crimes.
It's not a war going on in Darfur; it's slaughter carried out under the noses of Canadian, Swedish and Chinese energy companies.
In short everyone is finding their own cause to pursue in the Darfur massacres and doing an excellent job of saving Face in the process. That's one way to describe a practiced hypocrite. The reaction by the aid agencies has been programmatic and thus, easy for hypocrites to work around. Let's see them work around this:
> Target sites: Vatican mission offices, largest mosques and Christian churches. (Focus on churches with big missions to convert Africans to Christianity.)
> Gather, raise arms and eyes to heaven and call out, "O Bumba, please stop the bad things in Darfur!"
If you have African friends who can teach you to correctly pronounce Bumba's other names, by all means. And if you take a liking to other African gods, by all means yell out the names when you get tired of "Bumba!"
> Don't be a martyr; if you get surrounded by a nasty crowd run like hell and go to another mosque or church.
> When asked by onlookers what you're doing, reply something like this: "We prayed for years to Jesus Christ and Allah to stop the bad things in Darfur but they have turned a deaf ear. So we're hoping the old gods of Africa will show mercy to our prayers."
> If onlookers try to drown you out by calling at the top of their lungs to Jesus Christ and Allah, that's great. Leave them praying at the top of their lungs and proceed to the next mosque and church on the list. Parting shot: "Let's hope you're still out here praying 15 minutes from now."
> DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT make this into a Million Man March. Five or ten people standing at a respectful distance from a church or mosque is not threatening. No showy demonstrations that cost a mint to mobilize.
> If you can reasonably dedicate only two hours a week to the prayer calling, do just that much with all your heart. Just don't think of giving up. Don't think about the results. Just keep calling to Africa's gods.
> Do not bring rum or other alcohol as offering to the gods when you stand outside mosques.
> If you are accosted by Africans who lecture that you're not going about praying in the right way, by all means invite them to call in their way and just keep calling in yours. Be very sincere. I recall being told that the African gods have a sense of humor and love nothing more than pricking hypocrites, but don't push your luck.
Now, why Bumba? It's not easy to explain. One of blogger (The Glittering Eye) Dave Schuler's relatives was a card-carrying Christian saint who went to live in a cave with a bear. [Update 2010: I think it might have been a St. Bernard dog, not a bear, but I'll have to ask Dave.] (Actually, he's got more than one saint in his family -- on his father's side, I think. His mother's side is vaudeville, he wrote recently, if my memory serves.)
Dave's hilarious essay on dog vomit inspired Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards, which inspired your letter of thanks, which prompted me to think hard on the Darfur crisis. My reflections on Darfur caused me to look up names of African gods. The second name on the website's Current Top Ten of African Gods is Bumba -- who is, and I am not making this up, the God of Vomit.
Bumba is a Congolese creator god. He vomited up the universe including living creatures and a pile of diced carrots.
I'm not sure whether to read all this as a message from God but that's how I conceived the plan and stumbled across Bumba, the Great God of Vomit.
Bumba doesn't seem a terribly accessible god from the description but the way I figure it the buck always stops at the desk of the god of creation.
Okay; that's my advice, which I hope you share with every activist and humanitarian organization around the world. They've got nothing to lose by trying the plan, seeing how nothing else has worked.
Thank you for your letter and the praise and the links. I have been hinting to my readers for months that I would be suspending the Pundita blog depending on circumstances. Events have caught up with me, so after publishing this essay and my correspondence last week with Peter Lavelle at Untimely Thoughts, I am departing the blogosphere, at least for the foreseeable future.
That means it's unlikely there will be a 2006 version of Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards. Also, I published a version of the 2005 awards post that simply lists the awards: Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards: the polite version. More suitable for framing than the original, don't you think?
1) December 12, 2005 Christian Science Monitor: The African Union struggles to calm Darfur.
See November 14, 2005 Christian Science Monitor: Sudan falters as US House rethinks aid for more background.
2) December 10, 2005 newswire report:
"Aid flights grounded as Darfur violence worsens
Aid flights have been grounded in West Darfur as violence escalates despite hopes for a peace deal before the end of the year.
There have been high hopes for the seventh round of Darfur peace talks because the two key rebel groups are presenting a united position for the first time.
However, the talks have been complicated by a demand that a representative from Darfur be appointed Sudan's vice-president.
They have also been overshadowed again by renewed fighting, particularly around el-Geneina in West Darfur state.
All roads have been closed to United Nations traffic and some aid flights have been grounded due to threats to planes from militia groups.
Aid workers say humanitarian access to West Darfur is the worst it has ever been.
The worsening situation again coincides with peace talks being held in Nigeria.
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has urged the Security Council to strengthen the African Union peacekeeping mission in the region."
-- Ingrid Jones, Sudan Watch
"Dear Pundita,
Just to say thank you for listing Sudan Watch in Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards.
It was a lovely surprise, I enjoyed your well written piece and chuckled at your insightful comments about Instapundit et al - and the dog vomit!
Thought your awards list was so well thought out, you ought to make it an annual event! (I'm serious -- you are a great blogger with an incisive mind).
Guess what -- congratulations from human rights activists in Boston Mass. and around the US and UK are pouring in here!
They've read my latest post at Sudan Watch. I've just received four emails congratulating me on my award -- a few of them were cc'd to several other people!
Best wishes and thanks again for the very kind mention.
It's pretty gruelling blogging African humanitarian crises and genocide and an emotionally draining lonely solitary task, so your post comes as a breath of fresh air to have a bit of light hearted fun.
I have linked to Pundita at:
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com
http://meandophelia.blogspot.com
also in the sidebars of my other blogs:
http://ugandawatch.blogspot.com
http://congowatch.blogspot.com
http://ethiopiawatch.blogspot.com
http://nigerwatch.blogspot.com
Kindest regards,
Ingrid Jones
England, UK"
Dear Ingrid:
I did quite a lot of thinking about the Darfur situation after reading your letter. Pundita learned the hard way to be very careful about giving advice. But after thinking it over for days I can't conceive of any great harm coming to them, provided your human rights activist friends don't embellish on the plan I suggest.
But first, I think we can agree that the situation for the Darfur refugees is desperate. The African Union peacekeeping forces don't have enough of a mandate to make a dent and there's no peace to keep.(1) And even in the unlikely event that the Sudanese goverment agrees to allow it, the earliest the UN could deploy troops to the region would be September 2006. So we're looking at maybe another 100,000 dead and just that many starving in refugee camps within a year.
Meanwhile, routes to the refugee camps have recently been cut off by fighting so aid can't get through. (1, 2)
Meanwhile, the combined efforts of the African Union, European Union, United Nations, Arab League, US government, and many score humanitarian and religious organizations have failed to stop the mass murder and crisis for Darfur's refugees.
This while diplomats continue to nitpick over whether mass murder in Darfur is technically genocide and officials haggle over which version of the death count is accurate. And while Kofi Annan seizes on yet another plan to squeeze more money out of the West to pour into the African Union's bottomless pit and the International Criminal Court clucks, "Tsk tsk" at war crimes.
It's not a war going on in Darfur; it's slaughter carried out under the noses of Canadian, Swedish and Chinese energy companies.
In short everyone is finding their own cause to pursue in the Darfur massacres and doing an excellent job of saving Face in the process. That's one way to describe a practiced hypocrite. The reaction by the aid agencies has been programmatic and thus, easy for hypocrites to work around. Let's see them work around this:
> Target sites: Vatican mission offices, largest mosques and Christian churches. (Focus on churches with big missions to convert Africans to Christianity.)
> Gather, raise arms and eyes to heaven and call out, "O Bumba, please stop the bad things in Darfur!"
If you have African friends who can teach you to correctly pronounce Bumba's other names, by all means. And if you take a liking to other African gods, by all means yell out the names when you get tired of "Bumba!"
> Don't be a martyr; if you get surrounded by a nasty crowd run like hell and go to another mosque or church.
> When asked by onlookers what you're doing, reply something like this: "We prayed for years to Jesus Christ and Allah to stop the bad things in Darfur but they have turned a deaf ear. So we're hoping the old gods of Africa will show mercy to our prayers."
> If onlookers try to drown you out by calling at the top of their lungs to Jesus Christ and Allah, that's great. Leave them praying at the top of their lungs and proceed to the next mosque and church on the list. Parting shot: "Let's hope you're still out here praying 15 minutes from now."
> DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT make this into a Million Man March. Five or ten people standing at a respectful distance from a church or mosque is not threatening. No showy demonstrations that cost a mint to mobilize.
> If you can reasonably dedicate only two hours a week to the prayer calling, do just that much with all your heart. Just don't think of giving up. Don't think about the results. Just keep calling to Africa's gods.
> Do not bring rum or other alcohol as offering to the gods when you stand outside mosques.
> If you are accosted by Africans who lecture that you're not going about praying in the right way, by all means invite them to call in their way and just keep calling in yours. Be very sincere. I recall being told that the African gods have a sense of humor and love nothing more than pricking hypocrites, but don't push your luck.
Now, why Bumba? It's not easy to explain. One of blogger (The Glittering Eye) Dave Schuler's relatives was a card-carrying Christian saint who went to live in a cave with a bear. [Update 2010: I think it might have been a St. Bernard dog, not a bear, but I'll have to ask Dave.] (Actually, he's got more than one saint in his family -- on his father's side, I think. His mother's side is vaudeville, he wrote recently, if my memory serves.)
Dave's hilarious essay on dog vomit inspired Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards, which inspired your letter of thanks, which prompted me to think hard on the Darfur crisis. My reflections on Darfur caused me to look up names of African gods. The second name on the website's Current Top Ten of African Gods is Bumba -- who is, and I am not making this up, the God of Vomit.
Bumba is a Congolese creator god. He vomited up the universe including living creatures and a pile of diced carrots.
I'm not sure whether to read all this as a message from God but that's how I conceived the plan and stumbled across Bumba, the Great God of Vomit.
Bumba doesn't seem a terribly accessible god from the description but the way I figure it the buck always stops at the desk of the god of creation.
Okay; that's my advice, which I hope you share with every activist and humanitarian organization around the world. They've got nothing to lose by trying the plan, seeing how nothing else has worked.
Thank you for your letter and the praise and the links. I have been hinting to my readers for months that I would be suspending the Pundita blog depending on circumstances. Events have caught up with me, so after publishing this essay and my correspondence last week with Peter Lavelle at Untimely Thoughts, I am departing the blogosphere, at least for the foreseeable future.
That means it's unlikely there will be a 2006 version of Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards. Also, I published a version of the 2005 awards post that simply lists the awards: Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards: the polite version. More suitable for framing than the original, don't you think?
1) December 12, 2005 Christian Science Monitor: The African Union struggles to calm Darfur.
See November 14, 2005 Christian Science Monitor: Sudan falters as US House rethinks aid for more background.
2) December 10, 2005 newswire report:
"Aid flights grounded as Darfur violence worsens
Aid flights have been grounded in West Darfur as violence escalates despite hopes for a peace deal before the end of the year.
There have been high hopes for the seventh round of Darfur peace talks because the two key rebel groups are presenting a united position for the first time.
However, the talks have been complicated by a demand that a representative from Darfur be appointed Sudan's vice-president.
They have also been overshadowed again by renewed fighting, particularly around el-Geneina in West Darfur state.
All roads have been closed to United Nations traffic and some aid flights have been grounded due to threats to planes from militia groups.
Aid workers say humanitarian access to West Darfur is the worst it has ever been.
The worsening situation again coincides with peace talks being held in Nigeria.
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has urged the Security Council to strengthen the African Union peacekeeping mission in the region."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)