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.
Wednesday, December 14
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."
Friday, December 9
Ahmadinejad's sixth sense and Jordan King Abdullah's plan
"Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan"
-- Jordan's King Hussein, father of Jordan's present ruler
"Pundita! Were you listening to John Batchelor last night? Did you hear the part about Ahmadinejad saying he saw lights around people at the UN? He sounds crazy and he's another Hitler only with the Bomb! Do you think there's going to be a showdown soon between Iran and Israel?
Sleepless in St. Louis"
Dear Sleepless:
Get a grip. Ahmadinejad is not another Hitler. He's a servant. From his teens, he said and did exactly as he was told by his masters in Iran's military. He will continue to do so, or be dead of a tragic accident within 24 hours.
Ahmadinejad is going to find tragic accident anyhow if he doesn't stop causing the House of Saud to lose Face. They are big losers, if events force them to acknowledge that Jordan King Abdullah's plan for a resolution of the Israel-Palestine situation is the workable one.
The problem is that other Arab leaders don't trust Abdullah. More to the point, the Saudis and other Arab oil rulers fear that a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation will consolidate too much power in Abdullah's hands.
The American news media are hopeless, so the American public is unaware that vast changes have been going on in Jordan during the past year. In one sentence, Jordan's king is going ahead as if his plan had been accepted, and preparing the ground for a confederation. (1)
Meanwhile the Saudis are having to watch as the Iranian military and their hired goons -- al Qaeda and all the rest of the alphabet soup of Iran-controlled terror armies -- throw monkey wrenches into their plan for the two-state solution.
What should the American government do, during this critical period? Well, it's a little late in the day to throw their weight behind Jordan King Abdullah's solution. Besides, what does he know? He's a Palestinian -- half Palestinian if you want to be silly about it -- and his queen is a Palestinian. Why should he take the lead in developing a workable solution for the Palestinian people? That would be like putting the South Koreans in charge of negotiations with the North Koreans. America's foreign policy establishment has a reputation to uphold. Putting people in charge who know what they're doing threatens to skew the batting average.
But let's address your concerns about Ahmadinejad. Take a look at this:
After the failed 1991 Iraqi Shia uprising Saddam Hussein ordered the slaughter and imprisonment of tens of thousands of the rebels. He ordered tanks to wreck mosques in Najaf and Karbala (Saddam later ordered repairs) and clamped down on pilgrimages to the cities. (3)
Many of the Shia clerics fled to Iran and settled in Qom, also a holy city. So Qom took on much greater religious significance under Saddam's crackdown. Now that Saddam and his regime are gone from power, the Shia clerics are returning in droves to Najaf and Karbala and so are the pilgrims. The Iranian clerics are not taking this lying down -- particularly since they suffered a complete loss of Face due to the Information Age. The theocratic revolution was a complete bust, and now the whole world knows it.
It's not just about donations by the Faithful flowing from Qom to Najaf and Karbala, although there is untold wealth at stake; it's about the prestige and power, in a world where the edicts of clerics command the unquestioning obedience of millions.
It's also about Tehran's attempt to win the obedience of millions of uneducated Iranians who are being herded out of the countryside and into the major cities as part of the government's attempt to deal with the water shortage crisis.
Above all, it's about the Iranian military's maneuvering for an attempted land grab in southern Iraq.
Let us be clear: the region was carved up by Westerners who thought it was smart to set national boundaries in a way guaranteed to keep the locals at each other's throat. It's called "divide and keep control." The strategy is stupid in the era of portable nukes but the point is that the Shia in Iraq now have a national identity that Tehran's military, and clerics, would like to see replaced by fealty to a religious sect.
So while I do not know whether Ahmadinejad sees lights around people, I am certain that his masters told him to go on a talking jag about mystical visions and the imminent return of the Mahdi.
As to whether knowledgeable Iranians are buying Ahmadinejad's talk about the Mahdi's Second Coming:
"Of course, we must pray for the return of the Imam, but we must also tackle inflation and unemployment," said former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a reform-minded cleric.(2)
Now what does any of this have to do with Israel? For the answer, closely read the following:
I would think the cause for desperation is Syria's status in the Arab world as Tehran's poodle, measured against Syria's desire to maintain standing in the Arab League. The Arab regimes don't have the same use for Tehran, now that they're certain Saddam's regime is gone for good.
However, the Arab League is not going to provide the firepower to protect Assad's clan if Assad tells Tehran to sit on a tack. Only the Americans in the region are equipped to provide that kind of firepower. Sounds like game, set and match to Pundita.
As to what any of this has to do with Israel -- nothing, except that Israel is again forced into the role of the magician's stage props. Right now, Israel is the prancing rabbits and dancing ladies, while Tehran tries to fit itself into the new order emerging in the Arab Middle East since Saddam's departure. Ahmadinejad will say anything to keep attention focused on Israel and away from Tehran's increased isolation in the region.
But you may trust that his talk about the imminent return of the Mahdi has gone down like bacon at a bar mitzvah with the Arab world's Sunni. The Mahdi is sacred to the Shia but not to the Sunni. So Ahmadinejad's mystic talk is what's known as digging a hole for yourself with your tongue.
Does this mean that the danger to Israel is not what it's cracked up to be? No; this is an extremely dangerous period for Israel. But it is a period -- an inevitable phase, once Saddam was toppled.
As to what Washington can do during this period -- they are stuck with the two-state solution. So the best they can do is pursue the solution until it works or collapses. They can keep repeating the same three points, not back down from them, and keep asserting that the US won't cut and run. And use every means to arm-twist leaders in Brussels, Moscow and Beijing to keep their machinations down to a dull roar in the Middle East.
All of that is pretty much what Condoleezza Rice is doing. The rest depends on cool heads in Israel and the Middle East Arab governments, and continuing to battle the terrorist armies.
The approach also requires that the US not shy away from elbowing out Britain, Germany, Russia and France as "peacemakers" in the region. They had their chance. All they did was make one mess after another.
As to where all that leaves Tehran's regime -- out of step with the Arab regimes in the region. Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw summed it when he said, "Iran is unique in opposing a resolution to the Arab-Israel dispute based on the principle of two states living side by side in peace and security." (5)
If Tehran holds to their posture they will be isolated in the Middle East, which means they will become increasingly desperate, with greater reliance on al Qaeda's way of doing things.
1) Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, July 2005 Are There Signs of a Jordanian-Palestinian Reengagement?
2) Reuters, November 17 via Persian Journal: Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return
3) BBC, April 2003: Karbala and Najaf: Shia holy cities
4) WorldNetDaily, December 9: Lebanese leaders blast Syria's Klein snub
5) Reuters, December 9: Iranian leader condemned for Holocaust remarks
-- Jordan's King Hussein, father of Jordan's present ruler
"Pundita! Were you listening to John Batchelor last night? Did you hear the part about Ahmadinejad saying he saw lights around people at the UN? He sounds crazy and he's another Hitler only with the Bomb! Do you think there's going to be a showdown soon between Iran and Israel?
Sleepless in St. Louis"
Dear Sleepless:
Get a grip. Ahmadinejad is not another Hitler. He's a servant. From his teens, he said and did exactly as he was told by his masters in Iran's military. He will continue to do so, or be dead of a tragic accident within 24 hours.
Ahmadinejad is going to find tragic accident anyhow if he doesn't stop causing the House of Saud to lose Face. They are big losers, if events force them to acknowledge that Jordan King Abdullah's plan for a resolution of the Israel-Palestine situation is the workable one.
The problem is that other Arab leaders don't trust Abdullah. More to the point, the Saudis and other Arab oil rulers fear that a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation will consolidate too much power in Abdullah's hands.
The American news media are hopeless, so the American public is unaware that vast changes have been going on in Jordan during the past year. In one sentence, Jordan's king is going ahead as if his plan had been accepted, and preparing the ground for a confederation. (1)
Meanwhile the Saudis are having to watch as the Iranian military and their hired goons -- al Qaeda and all the rest of the alphabet soup of Iran-controlled terror armies -- throw monkey wrenches into their plan for the two-state solution.
What should the American government do, during this critical period? Well, it's a little late in the day to throw their weight behind Jordan King Abdullah's solution. Besides, what does he know? He's a Palestinian -- half Palestinian if you want to be silly about it -- and his queen is a Palestinian. Why should he take the lead in developing a workable solution for the Palestinian people? That would be like putting the South Koreans in charge of negotiations with the North Koreans. America's foreign policy establishment has a reputation to uphold. Putting people in charge who know what they're doing threatens to skew the batting average.
But let's address your concerns about Ahmadinejad. Take a look at this:
[...] In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.The key word in those passages is "Qom," which is not the holiest of cities for the Shia sect. If you want to be sure the Mahdi reads your letter, throw it down a well near Najaf or Karbala. The catch: those cities are in Iraq. They are the holiest cities, not Qom.
According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.
"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.
"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."
"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.
Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.
A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.
This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.
Presidential aides have denied a popular rumor that he ordered his cabinet to write a letter to the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom where thousands of pilgrims come each week to pray and drop messages to the Imam. [...](2)
After the failed 1991 Iraqi Shia uprising Saddam Hussein ordered the slaughter and imprisonment of tens of thousands of the rebels. He ordered tanks to wreck mosques in Najaf and Karbala (Saddam later ordered repairs) and clamped down on pilgrimages to the cities. (3)
Many of the Shia clerics fled to Iran and settled in Qom, also a holy city. So Qom took on much greater religious significance under Saddam's crackdown. Now that Saddam and his regime are gone from power, the Shia clerics are returning in droves to Najaf and Karbala and so are the pilgrims. The Iranian clerics are not taking this lying down -- particularly since they suffered a complete loss of Face due to the Information Age. The theocratic revolution was a complete bust, and now the whole world knows it.
It's not just about donations by the Faithful flowing from Qom to Najaf and Karbala, although there is untold wealth at stake; it's about the prestige and power, in a world where the edicts of clerics command the unquestioning obedience of millions.
It's also about Tehran's attempt to win the obedience of millions of uneducated Iranians who are being herded out of the countryside and into the major cities as part of the government's attempt to deal with the water shortage crisis.
Above all, it's about the Iranian military's maneuvering for an attempted land grab in southern Iraq.
Let us be clear: the region was carved up by Westerners who thought it was smart to set national boundaries in a way guaranteed to keep the locals at each other's throat. It's called "divide and keep control." The strategy is stupid in the era of portable nukes but the point is that the Shia in Iraq now have a national identity that Tehran's military, and clerics, would like to see replaced by fealty to a religious sect.
So while I do not know whether Ahmadinejad sees lights around people, I am certain that his masters told him to go on a talking jag about mystical visions and the imminent return of the Mahdi.
As to whether knowledgeable Iranians are buying Ahmadinejad's talk about the Mahdi's Second Coming:
"Of course, we must pray for the return of the Imam, but we must also tackle inflation and unemployment," said former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a reform-minded cleric.(2)
Now what does any of this have to do with Israel? For the answer, closely read the following:
[...] WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein [...] planned to travel to Damascus this week to interview officials from Syria, Lebanon and the U.S. but his visa application was rejected because, according to at least one official in the Syrian embassy, he's Jewish.Mr Jumblatt is in a position to know. But why would Syria's regime be so desperate at this time? John Loftus noted recently that Bashar al-Assad is thumbing his nose at the West -- waiting for Bush and Chirac to leave office on the theory that the uproar about Rafik Hariri's assassination will die down then.
"This is absolutely ridiculous. Syria is out of control," said Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt, a veteran politician and head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party. [...] They are getting so desperate they would coddle [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon just to get out of their problems. Meanwhile they do this? [Rejecting Klein's visa] is just a stupid, stupid thing." [...] (4)
I would think the cause for desperation is Syria's status in the Arab world as Tehran's poodle, measured against Syria's desire to maintain standing in the Arab League. The Arab regimes don't have the same use for Tehran, now that they're certain Saddam's regime is gone for good.
However, the Arab League is not going to provide the firepower to protect Assad's clan if Assad tells Tehran to sit on a tack. Only the Americans in the region are equipped to provide that kind of firepower. Sounds like game, set and match to Pundita.
As to what any of this has to do with Israel -- nothing, except that Israel is again forced into the role of the magician's stage props. Right now, Israel is the prancing rabbits and dancing ladies, while Tehran tries to fit itself into the new order emerging in the Arab Middle East since Saddam's departure. Ahmadinejad will say anything to keep attention focused on Israel and away from Tehran's increased isolation in the region.
But you may trust that his talk about the imminent return of the Mahdi has gone down like bacon at a bar mitzvah with the Arab world's Sunni. The Mahdi is sacred to the Shia but not to the Sunni. So Ahmadinejad's mystic talk is what's known as digging a hole for yourself with your tongue.
Does this mean that the danger to Israel is not what it's cracked up to be? No; this is an extremely dangerous period for Israel. But it is a period -- an inevitable phase, once Saddam was toppled.
As to what Washington can do during this period -- they are stuck with the two-state solution. So the best they can do is pursue the solution until it works or collapses. They can keep repeating the same three points, not back down from them, and keep asserting that the US won't cut and run. And use every means to arm-twist leaders in Brussels, Moscow and Beijing to keep their machinations down to a dull roar in the Middle East.
All of that is pretty much what Condoleezza Rice is doing. The rest depends on cool heads in Israel and the Middle East Arab governments, and continuing to battle the terrorist armies.
The approach also requires that the US not shy away from elbowing out Britain, Germany, Russia and France as "peacemakers" in the region. They had their chance. All they did was make one mess after another.
As to where all that leaves Tehran's regime -- out of step with the Arab regimes in the region. Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw summed it when he said, "Iran is unique in opposing a resolution to the Arab-Israel dispute based on the principle of two states living side by side in peace and security." (5)
If Tehran holds to their posture they will be isolated in the Middle East, which means they will become increasingly desperate, with greater reliance on al Qaeda's way of doing things.
1) Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, July 2005 Are There Signs of a Jordanian-Palestinian Reengagement?
2) Reuters, November 17 via Persian Journal: Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return
3) BBC, April 2003: Karbala and Najaf: Shia holy cities
4) WorldNetDaily, December 9: Lebanese leaders blast Syria's Klein snub
5) Reuters, December 9: Iranian leader condemned for Holocaust remarks
Pundita posts on John Batchelor's Middle East trip
I've consolidated all my posts this week on Batchelor's Middle East trip into this one except for the post about the New York Daily News article (See John Batchelor and the sleepless era of news)
Monday, December 5
Breaking News! World Net Daily reports that John will broadcast tonight from a truck parked near an Israeli Defense Forces artillery outpost in a Negev town that borders Gaza.
For more on tonight's broadcast, check out the WND report and check John's website (after 9:00 PM, ET) for a complete description of the Monday lineup.
Wednesday, December 7
John Batchelor chats up three Most Wanted terrorists
If you missed Tuesday's program, you didn't only miss reporting on the war on terror; you missed the war on terror. You also missed a demonstration of great intelligence gathering work.
Funniest moment: When one of the terrorists graciously agreed to stay on the line for an ABC station break. (They could only stay on their cell phones for a few moments at a time because the IDF was working overtime to track the signals.)
The interviews might be available from the Audio Intelligence section (as MP3) within 24 hours or so. Check Batchelor's website.
Batchelor will be broadcasting from the Middle East all week. The show is from 10:00 PM to 1:00 AM on many stations but if you can listen via WMAL-AM (Washington, DC) on the Internet, you can also pick up the 9:00 PM-10:00 PM segment. Same for listening via satellite radio. Check Batchelor's website for details and also to listen via Internet if your radio ABC affiliate station does not carry the show.
Thursday, December 8
John Batchelor broadcasting from Damascus tonight
I think that's where he's going to be broadcasting from tonight, from a WorldNetDaily report. Anyhow, he's still in the Middle East. Check at the website after 9:00 PM for tonight's schedule and to listen via the Internet.
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com
Batchelor, Klein on to Jordan and Syria
Stay tuned. Here's what's available so far at Batchelor's website of the audio record (MP3) of the Dec 6 interviews with terrorist leaders:
Khalid el Batsh, Deputy Commander of Hamas, interviewed by John Batchelor, Aaron Klein & Larry Kudlow. Aired December 6, 2005.
Abu Abir, Spokesman and senior leader for the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, interviewed by John Batchelor, Aaron Klein & Larry Kudlow. Translation by Fawaz Gerges. Aired December 6, 2005. Note: only part 3 available.
I am hoping there will be an audio archive of the second interview with Abu Abir (on Wednesday show). Makes an interesting comparison to the Tuesday interview.
Also, there is an audio archive of the Dec 6 interview with Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinain Negotiator, interviewed by John Batchelor & Aaron Klein.
"You know what you are" Klein denied Syria visa because he is Jewish
Sixth question on visa questionnaire is "Religion?" John Batchelor answered, "Protestant." When Aaron refused to answer, the official told Aaron, "You know what you are," and denied Aaron's visa.
So John Batchelor and Aaron are broadcasting from Amman, Jordan tonight.
(this last entry posted 12/08/2005 10:18:00 PM)
Monday, December 5
Breaking News! World Net Daily reports that John will broadcast tonight from a truck parked near an Israeli Defense Forces artillery outpost in a Negev town that borders Gaza.
The artillery unit is regularly used by the IDF to fire at rocket launching sites in Gaza following Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks at Jewish communities in the border area.Aaron Klein, WND's Jerusalem Bureau Chief, will join John in the truck and help him host the show.
A good portion of tonight's show will focus on Israel's upcoming parliamentary and prime ministerial elections, and the aftershooks of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's evacuation of Jewish communities this past summer from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.And -- what's this?
Batchelor and Klein will broadcast from various Mideast hot spots all week.Hot spots... hot spots... now I wonder where those might be?
For more on tonight's broadcast, check out the WND report and check John's website (after 9:00 PM, ET) for a complete description of the Monday lineup.
Wednesday, December 7
John Batchelor chats up three Most Wanted terrorists
If you missed Tuesday's program, you didn't only miss reporting on the war on terror; you missed the war on terror. You also missed a demonstration of great intelligence gathering work.
Funniest moment: When one of the terrorists graciously agreed to stay on the line for an ABC station break. (They could only stay on their cell phones for a few moments at a time because the IDF was working overtime to track the signals.)
The interviews might be available from the Audio Intelligence section (as MP3) within 24 hours or so. Check Batchelor's website.
Batchelor will be broadcasting from the Middle East all week. The show is from 10:00 PM to 1:00 AM on many stations but if you can listen via WMAL-AM (Washington, DC) on the Internet, you can also pick up the 9:00 PM-10:00 PM segment. Same for listening via satellite radio. Check Batchelor's website for details and also to listen via Internet if your radio ABC affiliate station does not carry the show.
Thursday, December 8
John Batchelor broadcasting from Damascus tonight
I think that's where he's going to be broadcasting from tonight, from a WorldNetDaily report. Anyhow, he's still in the Middle East. Check at the website after 9:00 PM for tonight's schedule and to listen via the Internet.
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com
Batchelor, Klein on to Jordan and Syria
Stay tuned. Here's what's available so far at Batchelor's website of the audio record (MP3) of the Dec 6 interviews with terrorist leaders:
Khalid el Batsh, Deputy Commander of Hamas, interviewed by John Batchelor, Aaron Klein & Larry Kudlow. Aired December 6, 2005.
Abu Abir, Spokesman and senior leader for the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, interviewed by John Batchelor, Aaron Klein & Larry Kudlow. Translation by Fawaz Gerges. Aired December 6, 2005. Note: only part 3 available.
I am hoping there will be an audio archive of the second interview with Abu Abir (on Wednesday show). Makes an interesting comparison to the Tuesday interview.
Also, there is an audio archive of the Dec 6 interview with Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinain Negotiator, interviewed by John Batchelor & Aaron Klein.
"You know what you are" Klein denied Syria visa because he is Jewish
Sixth question on visa questionnaire is "Religion?" John Batchelor answered, "Protestant." When Aaron refused to answer, the official told Aaron, "You know what you are," and denied Aaron's visa.
So John Batchelor and Aaron are broadcasting from Amman, Jordan tonight.
(this last entry posted 12/08/2005 10:18:00 PM)
Thursday, December 8
War
"Yes of course it's complicated; it's a war."
-- John Batchelor
This post continues my discussion with US War College professor James Ellsworth. He agreed to allow publication of his end of the exchange 'as is,' without the polishing that would transform a letter into an essay. I note that Jim is expressing his own opinion but as a military person and thus, his use of "we" and "our" where he's clearly referring to the US military.
* * * * * * * *
Jim,
Saddam is not seeing the trial as a trial; he's seeing it as a part of the war -- isn't he? At the time the Iraqis called for the trial they had no idea that the insurgency would drag on so long, and neither did we. I just wonder if, from the purely military tactical view, this kind of trial is a mistake?
Pundita,
In one sense, you're spot on: Saddam clearly does see this as part of the war. In another, though -- and this may illustrate a broader point about our inability to get our perspective out -- you're seeing this through the prism of the media coverage. Because from where I sit, everybody on both sides fully expected the insurgency to go on this long, from the very beginning.
Do you remember when Bush and Rumsfeld told us this was going to be a long, hard fight? I'm sure I could find the press releases if I had a little more time--just like I found the President's speech to the UN Security Council on 12 Sep 2002 laying out our justification for the war, which had nothing to do with whether or not Saddam actually had WMD.
Of course we're going to accentuate the positive. This is a war we expect to win, and expected to win from the beginning; you simply do not get out in front of your own citizens and place all the emphasis on the risks and dangers: the enemy is going to do a plenty good job of that for you -- and your job is to return the favor!
Meanwhile, we were preparing our troops to expect that Saddam had ordered thousands of his best soldiers to decline combat, to fade into the countryside and the population, and to fight the "real war" as an insurgency. We were preparing our troops to be ready for it and to defeat it. When I was finishing up as a War College student, in March of 2003, we already had significant time in the curriculum where we were wrestling with how we were going to do that, and rebuild Iraq. And yet somehow everybody "knows" we went in without a clue and without a plan. It's frustrating.
Yes, we made mistakes. So did our enemy. Clausewitz called that "fog and friction" (see Heinze 2003 for a good, concise discussion), and they're at least as severe in counterinsurgency as they are in force-on-force combat (see Moore 2000 p. 4). This is what war looks like, up close and personal.
It's even what victory looks like. A week or two ago Marc Schulman at American Future ... featured a couple of great parodies of what the reporting on Midway and Normandy would have looked like today.
But it's not really about media bias (IMHO), not most critically. It's about the fact that every man, woman, and child in the world watches modern war unfold in messy tactical detail without seeing the plan, and without the breadth of professional knowledge and depth of perspective that come from studying it and fighting it and leading it for twenty or thirty years. And in general, they only see our mistakes because our enemy doesn't believe in letting the people see theirs.
So what the professional looks at and sees as measurable progress through a plan he knows and understands -- interspersed with the fog and friction of war, which he knows affect friend and foe alike -- the citizen sees as this one-sided parade of our mistakes, interspersed with disjointed tactical "stuff" that he simply can't assemble into a picture of victory and therefore assumes we must be losing.
Where the media come in, in my assessment, is in (wittingly or otherwise, I do not judge) reinforcing that assumption because the footage that they can get to put on the air to keep people watching presents that same, "messy tactical," one sided picture.
(As I've pointed out in my blog, as much as they like to portray themselves as a "fourth branch of government," they're really a for-profit enterprise that has to sell programming and ad space to stay in business.)
It doesn't have to be their fault; it's just the nature of the business: if they could get footage of al-Qa'ida screwing up, they'd show it just as readily -- just look at the reporting on al-Zarqawi's folks blowing up a Muslim wedding party. If they could get stunning insider exposes of corruption and human rights abuses among our enemy, they'd show them.
Although here I'd say there is at least some unintentional complicity: when they do get such footage of the enemy -- like them beheading a relief worker -- it's a defeat for us, and evidence of "just how badly the war is going;" when they get such things on us -- like Abu Ghraib -- it's an exposé of American atrocities.
Welcome to Information War. We have got to figure this stuff out, and fast.
-- John Batchelor
This post continues my discussion with US War College professor James Ellsworth. He agreed to allow publication of his end of the exchange 'as is,' without the polishing that would transform a letter into an essay. I note that Jim is expressing his own opinion but as a military person and thus, his use of "we" and "our" where he's clearly referring to the US military.
* * * * * * * *
Jim,
Saddam is not seeing the trial as a trial; he's seeing it as a part of the war -- isn't he? At the time the Iraqis called for the trial they had no idea that the insurgency would drag on so long, and neither did we. I just wonder if, from the purely military tactical view, this kind of trial is a mistake?
Pundita,
In one sense, you're spot on: Saddam clearly does see this as part of the war. In another, though -- and this may illustrate a broader point about our inability to get our perspective out -- you're seeing this through the prism of the media coverage. Because from where I sit, everybody on both sides fully expected the insurgency to go on this long, from the very beginning.
Do you remember when Bush and Rumsfeld told us this was going to be a long, hard fight? I'm sure I could find the press releases if I had a little more time--just like I found the President's speech to the UN Security Council on 12 Sep 2002 laying out our justification for the war, which had nothing to do with whether or not Saddam actually had WMD.
Of course we're going to accentuate the positive. This is a war we expect to win, and expected to win from the beginning; you simply do not get out in front of your own citizens and place all the emphasis on the risks and dangers: the enemy is going to do a plenty good job of that for you -- and your job is to return the favor!
Meanwhile, we were preparing our troops to expect that Saddam had ordered thousands of his best soldiers to decline combat, to fade into the countryside and the population, and to fight the "real war" as an insurgency. We were preparing our troops to be ready for it and to defeat it. When I was finishing up as a War College student, in March of 2003, we already had significant time in the curriculum where we were wrestling with how we were going to do that, and rebuild Iraq. And yet somehow everybody "knows" we went in without a clue and without a plan. It's frustrating.
Yes, we made mistakes. So did our enemy. Clausewitz called that "fog and friction" (see Heinze 2003 for a good, concise discussion), and they're at least as severe in counterinsurgency as they are in force-on-force combat (see Moore 2000 p. 4). This is what war looks like, up close and personal.
It's even what victory looks like. A week or two ago Marc Schulman at American Future ... featured a couple of great parodies of what the reporting on Midway and Normandy would have looked like today.
But it's not really about media bias (IMHO), not most critically. It's about the fact that every man, woman, and child in the world watches modern war unfold in messy tactical detail without seeing the plan, and without the breadth of professional knowledge and depth of perspective that come from studying it and fighting it and leading it for twenty or thirty years. And in general, they only see our mistakes because our enemy doesn't believe in letting the people see theirs.
So what the professional looks at and sees as measurable progress through a plan he knows and understands -- interspersed with the fog and friction of war, which he knows affect friend and foe alike -- the citizen sees as this one-sided parade of our mistakes, interspersed with disjointed tactical "stuff" that he simply can't assemble into a picture of victory and therefore assumes we must be losing.
Where the media come in, in my assessment, is in (wittingly or otherwise, I do not judge) reinforcing that assumption because the footage that they can get to put on the air to keep people watching presents that same, "messy tactical," one sided picture.
(As I've pointed out in my blog, as much as they like to portray themselves as a "fourth branch of government," they're really a for-profit enterprise that has to sell programming and ad space to stay in business.)
It doesn't have to be their fault; it's just the nature of the business: if they could get footage of al-Qa'ida screwing up, they'd show it just as readily -- just look at the reporting on al-Zarqawi's folks blowing up a Muslim wedding party. If they could get stunning insider exposes of corruption and human rights abuses among our enemy, they'd show them.
Although here I'd say there is at least some unintentional complicity: when they do get such footage of the enemy -- like them beheading a relief worker -- it's a defeat for us, and evidence of "just how badly the war is going;" when they get such things on us -- like Abu Ghraib -- it's an exposé of American atrocities.
Welcome to Information War. We have got to figure this stuff out, and fast.
Wednesday, December 7
Quo Vadis? Pundita warns against blogcentricity
The blogosphere just "is" -- all attempts to define it fall short. There are as many types of blogs as there are people, and the collegiality that has arisen on the blogosphere has as many benefits as downsides. However, if the most influential news-oriented contributors to the blogosphere are to become a reliable alternate news source, they need to take pains to insure that collegiality does not descend into the insularity that is an occupational hazard for those working in the mainstream media.
Those thoughts first occurred to me in December 2004, when I was still new to reading blogs and I'd only been blogging about a month. I came across a comment by well known blogger that deeply troubled me, coming as it did in the wake of the astoundingly biased, uninformative blogosphere coverage of Ukraine's presidential election. With few exceptions, the coverage parroted the pap that the US Department of State and the Get Putin gang of policy institutes fed to major media outlets.
I admired the blogger's writings but his comment reflected a blogcentric view that mirrored the insularity one finds in other media. So, despite my newness to the blog medium, I felt the comment demanded an answer, which I published on a blog I did not keep up. I republish the essay here as an introduction to Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards. (I've provided a choice between the original version of the awards post and the polite version, which simply lists the awards.)
Quo Vadis?
December 20, 2004
The other night I read a popular blogger's comment that bloggers had been keeping the Congo story going. I thought of Bobby Block on the satphone, calling from somewhere in Africa, describing to John Batchelor what he'd recently seen of the fighting in the Congo. He'd witnessed atrocities, included cannibalism.
Block sounded wrung out emotionally and he was physically exhausted and still in a very dangerous powderkeg region. I remember John telling him, "Keep yourself safe" and Bobby's wry assurance that he would try.
That conversation must have been about a year ago. I forget which newspaper Block was reporting for at the time--probably the Wall Street Journal but maybe The New York Times.
I've been listening to Batchelor's radio program since the third day of the US invasion of Iraq. I can't remember when I first heard him talk about the Congo but it was not longer after I started listening. He returns to the situation every so many weeks. More than any American media outlet, his program talks about situations across the African continent and keeps the Congo story going.
John is alive to the fact that Americans can't ignore any region of the world because the enemy doesn't. The situation in the Congo is made to order for al Qaeda so it bears close watching, as does all of Africa.
A grotesque irony of this war is that the enemy does a public service by forcing Americans to think globally. The enemy is quicker than Western governments at finding the weakest links in the developing world. Run him out of Afghanistan, run him out of Yemen, run him out Iraq, he just sets up shop somewhere else. Somewhere where human life is still cheap, where armies can be bought for a song and tribal blood feuds are easily exploited.
The enemy is very sophisticated. He's an oil patch expert; he knows every region where oil exploration is underway, where oil pipelines are being laid. He knows every petroleum route by heart. He understands globalized crime and banking and how they intersect. He fights with a copy of the financial pages in one hand. For all his talk about hating modernity, the enemy thinks modern--more modern than most Americans. He understands the 21st century.
I'm wonder whether the blogosphere isn't heading toward the same mistake as the mainstream media. The mainstream pays so much attention to what their own members talk about that their attention is narrowed on their own world. That, too, the enemy exploits because he is a master at working on our blind side.
Those thoughts first occurred to me in December 2004, when I was still new to reading blogs and I'd only been blogging about a month. I came across a comment by well known blogger that deeply troubled me, coming as it did in the wake of the astoundingly biased, uninformative blogosphere coverage of Ukraine's presidential election. With few exceptions, the coverage parroted the pap that the US Department of State and the Get Putin gang of policy institutes fed to major media outlets.
I admired the blogger's writings but his comment reflected a blogcentric view that mirrored the insularity one finds in other media. So, despite my newness to the blog medium, I felt the comment demanded an answer, which I published on a blog I did not keep up. I republish the essay here as an introduction to Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards. (I've provided a choice between the original version of the awards post and the polite version, which simply lists the awards.)
Quo Vadis?
December 20, 2004
The other night I read a popular blogger's comment that bloggers had been keeping the Congo story going. I thought of Bobby Block on the satphone, calling from somewhere in Africa, describing to John Batchelor what he'd recently seen of the fighting in the Congo. He'd witnessed atrocities, included cannibalism.
Block sounded wrung out emotionally and he was physically exhausted and still in a very dangerous powderkeg region. I remember John telling him, "Keep yourself safe" and Bobby's wry assurance that he would try.
That conversation must have been about a year ago. I forget which newspaper Block was reporting for at the time--probably the Wall Street Journal but maybe The New York Times.
I've been listening to Batchelor's radio program since the third day of the US invasion of Iraq. I can't remember when I first heard him talk about the Congo but it was not longer after I started listening. He returns to the situation every so many weeks. More than any American media outlet, his program talks about situations across the African continent and keeps the Congo story going.
John is alive to the fact that Americans can't ignore any region of the world because the enemy doesn't. The situation in the Congo is made to order for al Qaeda so it bears close watching, as does all of Africa.
A grotesque irony of this war is that the enemy does a public service by forcing Americans to think globally. The enemy is quicker than Western governments at finding the weakest links in the developing world. Run him out of Afghanistan, run him out of Yemen, run him out Iraq, he just sets up shop somewhere else. Somewhere where human life is still cheap, where armies can be bought for a song and tribal blood feuds are easily exploited.
The enemy is very sophisticated. He's an oil patch expert; he knows every region where oil exploration is underway, where oil pipelines are being laid. He knows every petroleum route by heart. He understands globalized crime and banking and how they intersect. He fights with a copy of the financial pages in one hand. For all his talk about hating modernity, the enemy thinks modern--more modern than most Americans. He understands the 21st century.
I'm wonder whether the blogosphere isn't heading toward the same mistake as the mainstream media. The mainstream pays so much attention to what their own members talk about that their attention is narrowed on their own world. That, too, the enemy exploits because he is a master at working on our blind side.
Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards
This past Saturday, UPI Senior Analyst Peter Lavelle -- always up to his eyeballs with drop-dead writing deadlines -- patiently replied to the flood of questions and opinion I emailed him on a range of Russia issues. Of course he did other things while waiting for me read and reply to his end of the correspondence, which included background articles to help me better understand a situation. But by the time I logged off, six hours had passed during which Peter had made himself available. (I will be publishing portions of our correspondence later this week.)
Peter has made the time once before for such correspondence. Pundita is one of the few US-based blogs that looks beyond the American media's reports about Russia. However, my blog does not specialize in Russia or East European affairs, so it's not on any Russia watcher's reading list. That means there is no payoff for Peter spending that much time in correspondence with me, other than a willingness to teach someone with desire to learn.
Sunday morning was spent analyzing John McCain's interview on Meet the Press, plowing through online versions of the world's top newspapers, tracking reports on avian flu and writing analysis that I emailed to various correspondents, and digging into a reported weapons sale to Iran. Sunday afternoon and evening answering emailed questions from Pundita readers, pondering Peter's replies, more research, more writing.
I can't remember what time my brain finally went on strike -- maybe around 2:00 AM Monday morning -- but as often happens when I push beyond the point of exhaustion I fled to The Glittering Eye for a break before tumbling into a hasty sleep.
"Maybe he's got some new recipes up," I muttered. Or a story about the Samoyed members of his family or research about something that no one has thought to do. (Who but Dave Schuler would think to dig into the CIA's vaunted overthrow of Mossadegh?)
So maybe you can understand my disappointment when I found a big logo for Whizbang's 2005 Weblog Awards at Dave's site, accompanied by the news that he'd been nominated as a finalist in one of the 'best of' categories and his request that his readers to put in a vote for him.
I blurted, "Who has time for this crap?"
I was immediately overcome with guilt. Dave Schuler has graciously endured my perennial ill temper, found time in his busy blogging/work schedule when I pleaded for help in getting to the bottom of an issue I found important, and taken the time to analyze and promote several of my writings.
So Pundita dutifully clicked on the web awards link to cast her vote for The Glittering Eye. While there I noted the Best Blog top finalists. I was unfamiliar with three of them. (Eschaton, The Corner, Talking Points Memo.) As for the rest, during the 14 months I've been reading blogs I'd only visited the entire group about 20 times in total. Rough estimates of my visits: Powerline twice, Michelle Malkin twice, Instapundit five times, The Huffington Post once, Boing Boing once, Kos twice, and so on.
There's no reason for me to follow such blogs, which struck me as linkologists or political agendists. So, I had no way of deciding which among them is the best, let alone grasp why they should be considered the "best" of the blogosphere.
I then returned to The Glittering Eye to insert a peevish remark in the comment section. That's when I saw the post underneath Dave's one about the weblog awards. The post was titled: The Four Types of Dog Vomit and yes, it really is about dog vomit.
I sat there for a moment with my jaw dropped and probably my eyes bulging out of my head. Then I burst into laughter. Dave Schuler has a patience I could never muster for the ways of the pack but he's nobody's fool.
I'll have to rely on Dave's opinion that Captain's Quarters noses out the others in the Best Blog finalist category because of the blog's investigation of corruption in Canada's government. But, undaunted by the little time I allot to reading blogs, I complied my own awards list...
Sudan Watch
For reporting on atrocities and human rights abuses in Sudan and other countries; for fingering the world's biggest scoundrels and for calling again and again to conscience.
Sumedh Mungee
For discourses on ICT innovations/business and how they are shaping this era; for windows on India's role in the ICT era and the impact on global rural development.
Simon World
For courage in hammering away from inside China at China's regime about democracy issues.
Untimely Thoughts
For expert analysis of Russia's vast transitions in this era and their global impact.
American Future
For massive research projects of importance to US foreign/defense policy.
The Fourth Rail
For consistently delivering a coherent, informative picture of US military progress in Iraq.
Belmont Club
The war's most formidable polemicist.
The Glittering Eye
The blogger's blog -- finds, tracks and analyzes blogs to watch and thoughtful essays on the full spectrum of issues. Also, for those who consume heavy-duty news virtually 24/7, a place to escape for a few minutes and remember the simple things in life.
Honorable Mention
Winds of Change
Not a blog but a showcase for thoughtful blogger essays and debates on war-related issues and a portal to GWOT sites and news stories.
Peter has made the time once before for such correspondence. Pundita is one of the few US-based blogs that looks beyond the American media's reports about Russia. However, my blog does not specialize in Russia or East European affairs, so it's not on any Russia watcher's reading list. That means there is no payoff for Peter spending that much time in correspondence with me, other than a willingness to teach someone with desire to learn.
Sunday morning was spent analyzing John McCain's interview on Meet the Press, plowing through online versions of the world's top newspapers, tracking reports on avian flu and writing analysis that I emailed to various correspondents, and digging into a reported weapons sale to Iran. Sunday afternoon and evening answering emailed questions from Pundita readers, pondering Peter's replies, more research, more writing.
I can't remember what time my brain finally went on strike -- maybe around 2:00 AM Monday morning -- but as often happens when I push beyond the point of exhaustion I fled to The Glittering Eye for a break before tumbling into a hasty sleep.
"Maybe he's got some new recipes up," I muttered. Or a story about the Samoyed members of his family or research about something that no one has thought to do. (Who but Dave Schuler would think to dig into the CIA's vaunted overthrow of Mossadegh?)
So maybe you can understand my disappointment when I found a big logo for Whizbang's 2005 Weblog Awards at Dave's site, accompanied by the news that he'd been nominated as a finalist in one of the 'best of' categories and his request that his readers to put in a vote for him.
I blurted, "Who has time for this crap?"
I was immediately overcome with guilt. Dave Schuler has graciously endured my perennial ill temper, found time in his busy blogging/work schedule when I pleaded for help in getting to the bottom of an issue I found important, and taken the time to analyze and promote several of my writings.
So Pundita dutifully clicked on the web awards link to cast her vote for The Glittering Eye. While there I noted the Best Blog top finalists. I was unfamiliar with three of them. (Eschaton, The Corner, Talking Points Memo.) As for the rest, during the 14 months I've been reading blogs I'd only visited the entire group about 20 times in total. Rough estimates of my visits: Powerline twice, Michelle Malkin twice, Instapundit five times, The Huffington Post once, Boing Boing once, Kos twice, and so on.
There's no reason for me to follow such blogs, which struck me as linkologists or political agendists. So, I had no way of deciding which among them is the best, let alone grasp why they should be considered the "best" of the blogosphere.
I then returned to The Glittering Eye to insert a peevish remark in the comment section. That's when I saw the post underneath Dave's one about the weblog awards. The post was titled: The Four Types of Dog Vomit and yes, it really is about dog vomit.
I sat there for a moment with my jaw dropped and probably my eyes bulging out of my head. Then I burst into laughter. Dave Schuler has a patience I could never muster for the ways of the pack but he's nobody's fool.
I'll have to rely on Dave's opinion that Captain's Quarters noses out the others in the Best Blog finalist category because of the blog's investigation of corruption in Canada's government. But, undaunted by the little time I allot to reading blogs, I complied my own awards list...
Sudan Watch
For reporting on atrocities and human rights abuses in Sudan and other countries; for fingering the world's biggest scoundrels and for calling again and again to conscience.
Sumedh Mungee
For discourses on ICT innovations/business and how they are shaping this era; for windows on India's role in the ICT era and the impact on global rural development.
Simon World
For courage in hammering away from inside China at China's regime about democracy issues.
Untimely Thoughts
For expert analysis of Russia's vast transitions in this era and their global impact.
American Future
For massive research projects of importance to US foreign/defense policy.
The Fourth Rail
For consistently delivering a coherent, informative picture of US military progress in Iraq.
Belmont Club
The war's most formidable polemicist.
The Glittering Eye
The blogger's blog -- finds, tracks and analyzes blogs to watch and thoughtful essays on the full spectrum of issues. Also, for those who consume heavy-duty news virtually 24/7, a place to escape for a few minutes and remember the simple things in life.
Honorable Mention
Winds of Change
Not a blog but a showcase for thoughtful blogger essays and debates on war-related issues and a portal to GWOT sites and news stories.
Pundita's 2005 Weblog Awards: the polite version
Sudan Watch
For reporting on atrocities and human rights abuses in Sudan and other countries; for fingering the world's biggest scoundrels and for calling again and again to conscience.
Sumedh Mungee
For discourses on ICT innovations/business and how they are shaping this era; for windows on India's role in the ICT era and the impact on global rural development.
Simon World
For courage in hammering away from inside China at China's regime about democracy issues.
Untimely Thoughts
For expert analysis of Russia's vast transitions in this era and their global impact.
American Future
For massive research projects of importance to US foreign/defense policy.
The Fourth Rail
For consistently delivering a coherent, informative picture of US military progress in Iraq.
Belmont Club
The war's most formidable polemicist.
The Glittering Eye
The blogger's blog -- finds, tracks and analyzes blogs to watch and thoughtful essays on the full spectrum of issues. Also, for those who consume heavy-duty news virtually 24/7, a place to escape for a few minutes and remember the simple things in life.
Honorable Mention
Winds of Change
Not a blog but a showcase for thoughtful blogger essays and debates on war-related issues and a portal to GWOT sites and news stories.
For reporting on atrocities and human rights abuses in Sudan and other countries; for fingering the world's biggest scoundrels and for calling again and again to conscience.
Sumedh Mungee
For discourses on ICT innovations/business and how they are shaping this era; for windows on India's role in the ICT era and the impact on global rural development.
Simon World
For courage in hammering away from inside China at China's regime about democracy issues.
Untimely Thoughts
For expert analysis of Russia's vast transitions in this era and their global impact.
American Future
For massive research projects of importance to US foreign/defense policy.
The Fourth Rail
For consistently delivering a coherent, informative picture of US military progress in Iraq.
Belmont Club
The war's most formidable polemicist.
The Glittering Eye
The blogger's blog -- finds, tracks and analyzes blogs to watch and thoughtful essays on the full spectrum of issues. Also, for those who consume heavy-duty news virtually 24/7, a place to escape for a few minutes and remember the simple things in life.
Honorable Mention
Winds of Change
Not a blog but a showcase for thoughtful blogger essays and debates on war-related issues and a portal to GWOT sites and news stories.
Tuesday, December 6
The deathless place
"...nothing in life is easy - and certainly nothing worthwhile. But some things are so beautiful and all but necessary you have to learn to accept the dreadful uneasiness they may inevitably bring one day."
In his essay So, What was I thinking? Dan Riehl at Riehl World View steps out of character to write about the death of a loved one. To give another a place in our heart is to touch God, I think. Dan's words reminded me that the wellspring of love is a deathless place.
Dan asks why she did it "I'll never know." Maybe that's why; he couldn't think about it and she knew that. She knew it was time.
In his essay So, What was I thinking? Dan Riehl at Riehl World View steps out of character to write about the death of a loved one. To give another a place in our heart is to touch God, I think. Dan's words reminded me that the wellspring of love is a deathless place.
Dan asks why she did it "I'll never know." Maybe that's why; he couldn't think about it and she knew that. She knew it was time.
John Batchelor and the sleepless era of news
"I sleep with my Blackberry under my pillow so I can take a call from China at 3 a.m."
I am not sure John Batchelor would describe himself as a conservative and I've not heard a Batchelor show that is not erudite but aside from those quibbles, David Hinckley's article for the New York Daily News does a good job of conveying that John Batchelor is a newscaster for the present era. That means Batchelor's show is in a category all by itself.
By DAVID HINCKLEY
New York Daily News
December 5
"Batchelor's eager to conduct mideast talks
Beyond saying he plans to spend this evening in the Gaza Strip, John Batchelor declines to specify exactly where he will be and with whom he will be speaking.
Even listeners on WABC (770 AM), where Batchelor has carved a 10 p.m.- 1 a.m. nightly niche with his internationally minded and often erudite programs, won't hear all the details.
"The people I'm talking with," Batchelor said late last week before he left, "are, I think the phrase is,'high-value targets.' Discretion seems appropriate."
These guests also aren't necessarily the group one might expect to talk with Batchelor, who makes no secret that his horse in the Middle East is Israel. But that's exactly the kind of thing he's been doing since WABC hired him in the wake of Sept. 11: tooling around the world building an international network of experts and contacts who he feels can present a truer picture of what goes on out there.
He doesn't hide his own view, which is conservative. He does, however, regularly talk with guests who disagree.
"I don't have or want only Republicans listening to me," he says. "I have Democrats and others as well, because we're providing information."
In fact, he says, it is the breadth of his audience and the subsequent power of his microphone that enables him to make trips like this week's, which will also take him to several other spots in the Middle East.
"The people I'll be seeing have the biggest bodyguards with the biggest guns," he says, "and they won't let anything happen to me because they know that through me they can talk directly to America.
"I have a large audience of well-connected people in New York and Washington. When they talk to me on ABC, they can reach those people in ways they cannot through any other means, including TV."
He stresses, however, that doesn't mean he is giving his subjects an open forum for spreading disinformation.
"My audience is very intelligent," he says. "They know no guest will take over a WABC microphone. They know that whatever is said, I will bring the discussion back to the point. The story is what I say it is."
It's a story he says he tries to see through a broad international and historical lens. On the Iraq war, for instance, he says its current unpopularity means nothing.
"Of course, this war is unpopular," he says. "All wars are unpopular. Americans hate war. Until we win. And after we win this one, George W. Bush will be seen as having done a superb job for seeing it through."
Backing these assessments with a Princeton degree, theological studies and a passionate interest in history, Batchelor says he never worries about talking over his audience's head.
"They know so much," he says. "And they're enormously curious to know more."
Having come to talk radio at 52, Batchelor says radio isn't where he does his studying.
"I don't listen to talk radio," he says. "I don't have time. My show is a 24-hour operation. I sleep with my Blackberry under my pillow so I can take a call from China at 3 a.m." [...]"
I am not sure John Batchelor would describe himself as a conservative and I've not heard a Batchelor show that is not erudite but aside from those quibbles, David Hinckley's article for the New York Daily News does a good job of conveying that John Batchelor is a newscaster for the present era. That means Batchelor's show is in a category all by itself.
By DAVID HINCKLEY
New York Daily News
December 5
"Batchelor's eager to conduct mideast talks
Beyond saying he plans to spend this evening in the Gaza Strip, John Batchelor declines to specify exactly where he will be and with whom he will be speaking.
Even listeners on WABC (770 AM), where Batchelor has carved a 10 p.m.- 1 a.m. nightly niche with his internationally minded and often erudite programs, won't hear all the details.
"The people I'm talking with," Batchelor said late last week before he left, "are, I think the phrase is,'high-value targets.' Discretion seems appropriate."
These guests also aren't necessarily the group one might expect to talk with Batchelor, who makes no secret that his horse in the Middle East is Israel. But that's exactly the kind of thing he's been doing since WABC hired him in the wake of Sept. 11: tooling around the world building an international network of experts and contacts who he feels can present a truer picture of what goes on out there.
He doesn't hide his own view, which is conservative. He does, however, regularly talk with guests who disagree.
"I don't have or want only Republicans listening to me," he says. "I have Democrats and others as well, because we're providing information."
In fact, he says, it is the breadth of his audience and the subsequent power of his microphone that enables him to make trips like this week's, which will also take him to several other spots in the Middle East.
"The people I'll be seeing have the biggest bodyguards with the biggest guns," he says, "and they won't let anything happen to me because they know that through me they can talk directly to America.
"I have a large audience of well-connected people in New York and Washington. When they talk to me on ABC, they can reach those people in ways they cannot through any other means, including TV."
He stresses, however, that doesn't mean he is giving his subjects an open forum for spreading disinformation.
"My audience is very intelligent," he says. "They know no guest will take over a WABC microphone. They know that whatever is said, I will bring the discussion back to the point. The story is what I say it is."
It's a story he says he tries to see through a broad international and historical lens. On the Iraq war, for instance, he says its current unpopularity means nothing.
"Of course, this war is unpopular," he says. "All wars are unpopular. Americans hate war. Until we win. And after we win this one, George W. Bush will be seen as having done a superb job for seeing it through."
Backing these assessments with a Princeton degree, theological studies and a passionate interest in history, Batchelor says he never worries about talking over his audience's head.
"They know so much," he says. "And they're enormously curious to know more."
Having come to talk radio at 52, Batchelor says radio isn't where he does his studying.
"I don't listen to talk radio," he says. "I don't have time. My show is a 24-hour operation. I sleep with my Blackberry under my pillow so I can take a call from China at 3 a.m." [...]"
Monday, December 5
A dialogue about Saddam Hussein's trial
After snatching a little sleep I stumbled to the computer and logged back onto the Internet. And what should my eyes be greeted with? A picture on AOL Headline News of an outraged Saddam with his finger raised in court and the headline DISORDER IN COURT Saddam chants, "Long live Iraq!"
To begin with, Pundita has not been in a good mood since Nixon stabbed Taiwan in the back so he could suck up to China. Without caffeine in my veins Saddam's courtroom antics sent me over the top. I thought, What next? Singing We Shall Overcome and sit-ins to free the rat bastard?
I had no sooner worked up a head of steam when an email arrived to thank me for the tip that John Batchelor would be broadcasting this week from the Middle East.
The note was from James Ellsworth, who happens to be a professor at a war college. So this was not his lucky morning to send a thank-you note Pundita's way....
ust awakend tyo see saddam acting up like 60s radical, which put me in a fould moodl . isn't he the head of iraq.s military? was? so why not just just try him befor ea a military tribunal then put him beofre a firing squad?
"ROTFL! Good morning, Pundita!
Delicate balance there. Probably WOULD have if the goal was efficiency...but lots of political capital (and, frankly, TEACHING POINTS about the rule of law) to be made in Iraq by allowing the Iraqi people to extract THEIR revenge on their former oppressor...but WITHIN THE BOUNDS of the rule of law."
are you sure? I have been wondering about all that. as long as it is what the iraqis want, okay. But there is dignity, the need for a people to have dignity. You see, the Iraqis don't know all that he did, and once it starts coming out -- this is a very difficult thought i am trying to express while still half awake.
I just worry that this Judgment at Baghdad (a .la Nuremberg) is not good for peop.les who have never known much dignity. The Germans had a high culture in recent centuries they could hang onto for dignity. the people of the land of 2 rivers haven't had that since -- what? 1,500 BCE?
I don't know. Maybe you are right.. I go now to mainlaine a qart of caffeine so I can type
"Pundita,
It was a key demand of the Iraqis when we got him. But your point brings up an interesting and key fact: there are, in many senses, two completely different meanings to "the Iraqis" at the moment. It is entirely possible that it could be simultaneously true that the POLITICAL Iraqis want to exact their revenge, AND the "ordinary" Iraqis could have their political dignity damaged, all by the same act. So IF that were the case, this could be a critical win in the near term, yet potentially problematic in the longer term.
My sense, though, is that there is a psychological component to this similar to what follows the dissolution of a violently abusive marriage: before the victim can truly move on and RECLAIM her (or his!) dignity, there needs to be some definitive, symbolic event that breaks from the past, exorcises its demons, and clears the stage for the future. This is what the IRAQI trial of Saddam represents to Iraqis. It's also, in a key sense, empowering -- because not only is Saddam being brought to justice, but it's the Iraqi courts, acting for the Iraqi people, that are doing it.
Contrast this with the impact on Iraqi dignity--AND on the legitimacy of the p roceedings in the court of worldwide public opinion (likely to be shaky enough as it is!) if Saddam were tried and convicted by THE OCCUPIERS (like Nuremberg). No, I think we got this one right. But like I said, it IS a delicate balance, with a LOT of moving parts; if I'm missing one, I could be dead wrong."
Jim, the Judgment at Nuremberg was not broadcast in living color all over Germany.* Big difference between now and then. I'm not being argumentative; I am just worried that ways of doing things in a mature democracy are being imposed on people who never knew democracy, rule of law. Is a trial that recounts atrocities done to them -- is this the way for Iraqis to start learning? Or will it bring them terrible shame? And with nothing to fall back on?
Such questions haunt me.
Also, they're trying to make a democracy at this time. Huge task. Is Saddam's trial hurting or helping at this time?
"For many of the reasons I laid out in my last message, helping, I think. For one thing, it's showing that in a democracy, even those everybody "knows" are guilty are entitled to a fair trial. For another, it shows that we are willing to trust the Iraqi people/government to run the show, even if we continue to have great influence. And perhaps most critically, it will show, when that influence is generally used to RESTRAIN the Iraqis who ARE hell-bent on revenge, and to ENSURE he gets a fair trial, that we are not QUITE as hypocritical as our press has been portraying us every time we make a mistake."
The psychological factor you cited (need for closure) is a very compelling argument for the trial -- but is the analogy correct? In an abusive marriage, the victim was aware of all the injustices. Isn't the better analogy here more like discovering that one's father is a serial killer?
"I haven't heard anything that would suggest that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't already KNOW that "dad" is a serial killer AS WELL AS a wife-beater! Your point about the SPECIFICS of the atrocities is still worth reflecting on...but the psychotherapeutic point remains: they MUST move through the stages of coming to grips first with what was done to them, second with the fact that it's over, and third (and as I said, perhaps most importantly) that THEY have real power over their future...to start with laying the past to rest."
Your argument is still compelling, so for now I will sit on my concerns. Just occurred to me that our dialogue might interest Pundita readers so I will publish with your permission.
I wonder: Do you think the trial at this time might help the Sunnis and Shiites realize all that was done to the Kurds, which might help solidify them as a nation?
"Pundita, it's fine to publish the letters. To answer your question, I would imagine the Sunnis don't especially care what was done to the Kurds (I have a quip I like to use about Sunnis being dissatisfied because they can no longer treat a Kurd like Shiite)...but it could perhaps strengthen the bond between Shiite and Kurd as each learns more details about what was done to the other.
That could, however, be a VERY bad thing for the finally-moderating tone of Sunni sensibility; if anything like that were emphasized, it would have to be accompanied by a great deal of attention paid to how to help the Sunnis avoid feeling like THEY are on trial, given their dominance in the former regime. They need to have an avenue to psychologically dissociate themselves from Saddam and his goons, to avoid the damage to their pride and cultural identity that you were concerned about in our earlier discussion.
For the Sunnis, your analogy of "dad as serial killer" has a lot of power in another sense: even if THEY got beaten every night at home, the looks they'll be getting from teachers and classmates the next day after each news broadcast from the trial will not, for the most part, be friendly.
We must have a plan to be the "Principal" who calls a faculty meeting to remind everybody that the kids did not participate in the crimes, and were victims just as much as those who died."
Okay, Jim. Now: what happens if they manage to get the trial moved to Europe? I am concerned that the Brussels Euros will try to manage the trial so that it becomes an antiwar screed. They were wrong on Iraq, wrong on Bush's Greater Middle East policy, so now they are trying to scrape together spitballs to hurl at the US.
"Moving the trial to Europe (or anywhere outside of Iraq) while arguably justifiable in terms of the sense of U.S. law (cf. moving the OJ trial out of Simi Valley) would in my judgment undercut most of the rationale I just laid out for holding the trial now in the first place. Your concern would be just the axle grease frosting on an already unpalatable cake! (grin)"
Yes, the field tilts to the Brussels Euros if it moves to Europe because it will give them considerable control, including media control. They stand to lose much Face as more comes out at the trial about the past. They have been very skilled at glossing Saddam's atrocities as part of their war against Bush.
Europe (the EU3 in particular) and the US will be as much on trial as Saddam. The difference between the US and Europe in this regard is that we more-or-less respected the embargo, whereas the Brussels crowd greatly profited from it.
And there is the other huge difference: we acted to remove Saddam, whereas France and Germany (and factions in Britain) acted to stop the US from trying.
If as you say the majority of Iraqis have a good idea that Saddam was always a monster, I wonder if they know the extent of West Europe's complicity? I would think that at all costs, the Brussels Euros want to prevent the Iraqis from knowing.
It's not really about the trial of a monster, in the view of the Brussels Euros. It's about protecting their influence in the Middle East. For all America's money, for all our military might -- we got spooked after Sadat's assassination. We stayed behind the enclave wall, wrote out checks and allowed the Europeans to direct our policy in the Middle East. We scurried right back behind the walls after shoving Saddam out of Kuwait, which is just where the Euros want us.
Well now it is our time -- time to do things American style, time to act as Americans act. The Brussels Euros are fighting this tooth and nail.
* Just to clarify, after re-reading. I was not thinking from the view of the political situation in Germany at the time but of the overwhelming impact of that kind of trial today among heavily tribalized clan peoples. Maybe I overlooked that satellite TV in Iraq, now widespread since Saddam's fall, has already braced the Iraqis for the images they will see, the testimonies they will hear.
To begin with, Pundita has not been in a good mood since Nixon stabbed Taiwan in the back so he could suck up to China. Without caffeine in my veins Saddam's courtroom antics sent me over the top. I thought, What next? Singing We Shall Overcome and sit-ins to free the rat bastard?
I had no sooner worked up a head of steam when an email arrived to thank me for the tip that John Batchelor would be broadcasting this week from the Middle East.
The note was from James Ellsworth, who happens to be a professor at a war college. So this was not his lucky morning to send a thank-you note Pundita's way....
ust awakend tyo see saddam acting up like 60s radical, which put me in a fould moodl . isn't he the head of iraq.s military? was? so why not just just try him befor ea a military tribunal then put him beofre a firing squad?
"ROTFL! Good morning, Pundita!
Delicate balance there. Probably WOULD have if the goal was efficiency...but lots of political capital (and, frankly, TEACHING POINTS about the rule of law) to be made in Iraq by allowing the Iraqi people to extract THEIR revenge on their former oppressor...but WITHIN THE BOUNDS of the rule of law."
are you sure? I have been wondering about all that. as long as it is what the iraqis want, okay. But there is dignity, the need for a people to have dignity. You see, the Iraqis don't know all that he did, and once it starts coming out -- this is a very difficult thought i am trying to express while still half awake.
I just worry that this Judgment at Baghdad (a .la Nuremberg) is not good for peop.les who have never known much dignity. The Germans had a high culture in recent centuries they could hang onto for dignity. the people of the land of 2 rivers haven't had that since -- what? 1,500 BCE?
I don't know. Maybe you are right.. I go now to mainlaine a qart of caffeine so I can type
"Pundita,
It was a key demand of the Iraqis when we got him. But your point brings up an interesting and key fact: there are, in many senses, two completely different meanings to "the Iraqis" at the moment. It is entirely possible that it could be simultaneously true that the POLITICAL Iraqis want to exact their revenge, AND the "ordinary" Iraqis could have their political dignity damaged, all by the same act. So IF that were the case, this could be a critical win in the near term, yet potentially problematic in the longer term.
My sense, though, is that there is a psychological component to this similar to what follows the dissolution of a violently abusive marriage: before the victim can truly move on and RECLAIM her (or his!) dignity, there needs to be some definitive, symbolic event that breaks from the past, exorcises its demons, and clears the stage for the future. This is what the IRAQI trial of Saddam represents to Iraqis. It's also, in a key sense, empowering -- because not only is Saddam being brought to justice, but it's the Iraqi courts, acting for the Iraqi people, that are doing it.
Contrast this with the impact on Iraqi dignity--AND on the legitimacy of the p roceedings in the court of worldwide public opinion (likely to be shaky enough as it is!) if Saddam were tried and convicted by THE OCCUPIERS (like Nuremberg). No, I think we got this one right. But like I said, it IS a delicate balance, with a LOT of moving parts; if I'm missing one, I could be dead wrong."
Jim, the Judgment at Nuremberg was not broadcast in living color all over Germany.* Big difference between now and then. I'm not being argumentative; I am just worried that ways of doing things in a mature democracy are being imposed on people who never knew democracy, rule of law. Is a trial that recounts atrocities done to them -- is this the way for Iraqis to start learning? Or will it bring them terrible shame? And with nothing to fall back on?
Such questions haunt me.
Also, they're trying to make a democracy at this time. Huge task. Is Saddam's trial hurting or helping at this time?
"For many of the reasons I laid out in my last message, helping, I think. For one thing, it's showing that in a democracy, even those everybody "knows" are guilty are entitled to a fair trial. For another, it shows that we are willing to trust the Iraqi people/government to run the show, even if we continue to have great influence. And perhaps most critically, it will show, when that influence is generally used to RESTRAIN the Iraqis who ARE hell-bent on revenge, and to ENSURE he gets a fair trial, that we are not QUITE as hypocritical as our press has been portraying us every time we make a mistake."
The psychological factor you cited (need for closure) is a very compelling argument for the trial -- but is the analogy correct? In an abusive marriage, the victim was aware of all the injustices. Isn't the better analogy here more like discovering that one's father is a serial killer?
"I haven't heard anything that would suggest that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't already KNOW that "dad" is a serial killer AS WELL AS a wife-beater! Your point about the SPECIFICS of the atrocities is still worth reflecting on...but the psychotherapeutic point remains: they MUST move through the stages of coming to grips first with what was done to them, second with the fact that it's over, and third (and as I said, perhaps most importantly) that THEY have real power over their future...to start with laying the past to rest."
Your argument is still compelling, so for now I will sit on my concerns. Just occurred to me that our dialogue might interest Pundita readers so I will publish with your permission.
I wonder: Do you think the trial at this time might help the Sunnis and Shiites realize all that was done to the Kurds, which might help solidify them as a nation?
"Pundita, it's fine to publish the letters. To answer your question, I would imagine the Sunnis don't especially care what was done to the Kurds (I have a quip I like to use about Sunnis being dissatisfied because they can no longer treat a Kurd like Shiite)...but it could perhaps strengthen the bond between Shiite and Kurd as each learns more details about what was done to the other.
That could, however, be a VERY bad thing for the finally-moderating tone of Sunni sensibility; if anything like that were emphasized, it would have to be accompanied by a great deal of attention paid to how to help the Sunnis avoid feeling like THEY are on trial, given their dominance in the former regime. They need to have an avenue to psychologically dissociate themselves from Saddam and his goons, to avoid the damage to their pride and cultural identity that you were concerned about in our earlier discussion.
For the Sunnis, your analogy of "dad as serial killer" has a lot of power in another sense: even if THEY got beaten every night at home, the looks they'll be getting from teachers and classmates the next day after each news broadcast from the trial will not, for the most part, be friendly.
We must have a plan to be the "Principal" who calls a faculty meeting to remind everybody that the kids did not participate in the crimes, and were victims just as much as those who died."
Okay, Jim. Now: what happens if they manage to get the trial moved to Europe? I am concerned that the Brussels Euros will try to manage the trial so that it becomes an antiwar screed. They were wrong on Iraq, wrong on Bush's Greater Middle East policy, so now they are trying to scrape together spitballs to hurl at the US.
"Moving the trial to Europe (or anywhere outside of Iraq) while arguably justifiable in terms of the sense of U.S. law (cf. moving the OJ trial out of Simi Valley) would in my judgment undercut most of the rationale I just laid out for holding the trial now in the first place. Your concern would be just the axle grease frosting on an already unpalatable cake! (grin)"
Yes, the field tilts to the Brussels Euros if it moves to Europe because it will give them considerable control, including media control. They stand to lose much Face as more comes out at the trial about the past. They have been very skilled at glossing Saddam's atrocities as part of their war against Bush.
Europe (the EU3 in particular) and the US will be as much on trial as Saddam. The difference between the US and Europe in this regard is that we more-or-less respected the embargo, whereas the Brussels crowd greatly profited from it.
And there is the other huge difference: we acted to remove Saddam, whereas France and Germany (and factions in Britain) acted to stop the US from trying.
If as you say the majority of Iraqis have a good idea that Saddam was always a monster, I wonder if they know the extent of West Europe's complicity? I would think that at all costs, the Brussels Euros want to prevent the Iraqis from knowing.
It's not really about the trial of a monster, in the view of the Brussels Euros. It's about protecting their influence in the Middle East. For all America's money, for all our military might -- we got spooked after Sadat's assassination. We stayed behind the enclave wall, wrote out checks and allowed the Europeans to direct our policy in the Middle East. We scurried right back behind the walls after shoving Saddam out of Kuwait, which is just where the Euros want us.
Well now it is our time -- time to do things American style, time to act as Americans act. The Brussels Euros are fighting this tooth and nail.
* Just to clarify, after re-reading. I was not thinking from the view of the political situation in Germany at the time but of the overwhelming impact of that kind of trial today among heavily tribalized clan peoples. Maybe I overlooked that satellite TV in Iraq, now widespread since Saddam's fall, has already braced the Iraqis for the images they will see, the testimonies they will hear.
Sunday, December 4
Major outbreaks of bird flu watching and bureaucratic bungling
An eighth human death from H5N1 (after exposure to infected poultry) in Indonesia was confirmed on December 3. See Bloomberg for details. However, from my tour around the Internet last night I have not found anything to suggest that there is a highly lethal strain of avian flu transmitting H2H (human to human).
A World Net Daily article recounts medical speculation that a relatively mild strain of H5N1 could be spreading via H2H in Thailand. (H/T Riehl World View.) Yet I can't find data to rule out that the noted 'increase' in H5N1 cases in Indonesia and Thailand is due to increased awareness of the virus at hospitals and clinics.
The most striking increase is in the awareness of H5N1 in the health community worldwide. Also, there is vastly increased public awareness worldwide, which means more people are going to the hospital or clinic even for mild flu-like or cold symptoms, which makes it possible to catch more cases of H5N1 infection. From a September BBC report:
The reasons for laxity cover the spectrum: bureaucratic bungling, interagency fights, low budget for data collection and reporting, reluctance to accept outside help, and so on. See the December 2 New York Times article Experts Doubt Bird Flu Tallies From China and Elsewhere. The problems discussed in the article are by no means limited to East Asia.
There is the added problem of corruption. Romania's health care bureaucracy might be the most corrupt on earth next to China's or at least up there in the top ten. So, if you just throw money at 'em, chances are good it won't all be spent on reporting. That means putting an additional layer of oversight into programs that earmark aid for avian flu data collection and reporting. That kind of oversight costs a lot of money, and it takes time to get the oversight bureaucracy up and running. Time is what we're short of.
That's not speaking to the Harry Lime problem. A November 15 New York Times report via the International Herald Tribune mentions that a fake vaccine was used for inoculating chickens against flu.
So it's time to get real. By now, every international airport in your country -- whichever country that is -- should have human temperature sensors at the exit and entry gates. Where are the sensors? They're in Hong Kong. Here, Pundita feels a Valley Girl joke coming on:
"How do you stop a killer bird flu pandemic?"
"Move to Hong Kong. Duh."
The truth is that any method of tracking bird flu in the boonies anywhere in the world is bound to have holes a mile wide. And it's foolish to bank on a magic bullet drug or vaccine to stop an epidemic in the critical early stage.
So while it's vital to improve data collection and work on magic bullets, governments must not neglect the most effective way to stop a pandemic, which is thorough preparation for quarantine measures. This preparation involves a lot of drill and the entire society.
Is that effort time consuming for the citizen? Yes. But you may trust that if quarantine preparation is ignored in favor of a magic bullet that misses the mark, there will be no one around to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
A World Net Daily article recounts medical speculation that a relatively mild strain of H5N1 could be spreading via H2H in Thailand. (H/T Riehl World View.) Yet I can't find data to rule out that the noted 'increase' in H5N1 cases in Indonesia and Thailand is due to increased awareness of the virus at hospitals and clinics.
The most striking increase is in the awareness of H5N1 in the health community worldwide. Also, there is vastly increased public awareness worldwide, which means more people are going to the hospital or clinic even for mild flu-like or cold symptoms, which makes it possible to catch more cases of H5N1 infection. From a September BBC report:
According to the BBC correspondent in Jakarta, Rachel Harvey, the increase in the number of suspected cases in Indonesia could be partly due to an increase in public awareness. There is now saturation coverage of the bird flu outbreak on television, radio and in newspapers, she says.Right now it seems the greatest causes for alarm are that no country is up to speed on pandemic preparation and developing countries where bird flu has made an appearance are very uneven in their reporting and surveillance efforts.
"With increased surveillance it's not unusual that you would pick up more cases," said Dr Margaret Chan, the WHO's representative on bird flu.
The reasons for laxity cover the spectrum: bureaucratic bungling, interagency fights, low budget for data collection and reporting, reluctance to accept outside help, and so on. See the December 2 New York Times article Experts Doubt Bird Flu Tallies From China and Elsewhere. The problems discussed in the article are by no means limited to East Asia.
There is the added problem of corruption. Romania's health care bureaucracy might be the most corrupt on earth next to China's or at least up there in the top ten. So, if you just throw money at 'em, chances are good it won't all be spent on reporting. That means putting an additional layer of oversight into programs that earmark aid for avian flu data collection and reporting. That kind of oversight costs a lot of money, and it takes time to get the oversight bureaucracy up and running. Time is what we're short of.
That's not speaking to the Harry Lime problem. A November 15 New York Times report via the International Herald Tribune mentions that a fake vaccine was used for inoculating chickens against flu.
The official Xinhua news agency reported last week that a fake flu vaccine, possibly including active virus, may have actually spread the disease instead of preventing it.For once I am in total agreement with a China official. However, the single biggest problem to emerge is that countries are putting too much faith in vaccine development and anti-viral drugs. There are serious questions about whether Tamiflu (or any anti-viral on the market) is effective against bird flu! See December 4 Pundita post Two health experts challenge use of Tamiflu to treat Avian Flu.
"The harm is incalculable," said Jia Youling, chief of the veterinary department at the Agriculture Ministry."
So it's time to get real. By now, every international airport in your country -- whichever country that is -- should have human temperature sensors at the exit and entry gates. Where are the sensors? They're in Hong Kong. Here, Pundita feels a Valley Girl joke coming on:
"How do you stop a killer bird flu pandemic?"
"Move to Hong Kong. Duh."
The truth is that any method of tracking bird flu in the boonies anywhere in the world is bound to have holes a mile wide. And it's foolish to bank on a magic bullet drug or vaccine to stop an epidemic in the critical early stage.
So while it's vital to improve data collection and work on magic bullets, governments must not neglect the most effective way to stop a pandemic, which is thorough preparation for quarantine measures. This preparation involves a lot of drill and the entire society.
Is that effort time consuming for the citizen? Yes. But you may trust that if quarantine preparation is ignored in favor of a magic bullet that misses the mark, there will be no one around to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
How to scare up a billion to build your anti- anti-missile defense system
"Russia has long positioned itself as a major peace broker between Iran and the West -- and all of a sudden they are throwing this bombshell. It just does not make any sense."
-- Western diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous (1)
For more on the reported deal and US official reaction:
U.S. Concerned by Reported Russian Missile Sales to Iran, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, December 2 via Defense News
Iran to get Russian missile interceptors from Russia's business daily Vedomosti via RIA Novosti (12:29 - 2/12/05)
1) From Reuters (UK) December 2 report Iran and Russia sign $1 bln defence deal
-- Western diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous (1)
December 1But hey, a contract is just a piece of paper, as Pravda reminds the reader:
RIA Novosti
Russia has technology to outsmart anti-missile systems - expert
(MOSCOW) Russia has the technology for a strategic missile that could get around any existing or future anti-ballistic missile defense systems, the chief of the Russian General Staff said Thursday.
"This is a very expensive technology and its [industrial] production depends on the situation," Yury Baluyevsky said.
He said anti-ballistic missile defense systems were not efficient in their defense against existing types of weapons.
December 3
Pravda
Russia to sell 29 air defense systems to Iran
(MOSCOW) ... Russia intends to sell 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems capable of downing cruise missiles and air bombs to Iran, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote [December 2] with reference to an anonymous manager of a defense enterprise. According to the newspaper, the contract on the matter has already been signed.
In 2000, Russia pulled out from the secret agreement with the USA about restricted arms deliveries to Iran. The document was known as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol. Moscow undertook not to strike any defense deals with Iran. In return, the USA promised to help Russia enter the international market of defense technologies. The promise was not kept, though.Tsk tsk. Always try to keep your promises.
For more on the reported deal and US official reaction:
U.S. Concerned by Reported Russian Missile Sales to Iran, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, December 2 via Defense News
Iran to get Russian missile interceptors from Russia's business daily Vedomosti via RIA Novosti (12:29 - 2/12/05)
1) From Reuters (UK) December 2 report Iran and Russia sign $1 bln defence deal
Two health experts challenge use of Tamiflu to treat Avian Flu
The information in the reports raises questions about government programs to stockpile Tamiflu for use against an Avian Flu outbreak in humans. Clearly more research is needed fast on Tamiflu for use against H5N1.
The Sunday Times
December 04, 2005
Doctor says bird flu drug is useless
Jonathan Carr-Brown, Health Correspondent
"A VIETNAMESE doctor who has treated dozens of victims of avian flu claims the drug being stockpiled around the world to combat a pandemic is “useless” against the virus.
Dr Nguyen Tuong Van runs the intensive care unit at the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi and has treated 41 victims of H5N1.
Van followed World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines and gave her patients Tamiflu, but concluded it had no effect.
“We place no importance on using this drug on our patients,” she said. “Tamiflu is really only meant for treating ordinary type A flu. It was not designed to combat H5N1 . . . [Tamiflu] is useless.” [...]
Van, who has also treated patients with Sars, the respiratory condition linked to birds, said avian flu had a frightening effect on its victims and the only way to keep patients alive was to “support” all their vital organs, including the liver and kidneys, with modern technology like ventilators and dialysis machines.
Van would not criticise governments for stockpiling Tamiflu but said doctors had to explain its limitations. [...]"
The Jakarta Post
December 4, 2005
The overuse of Tamiflu in treating avian flu
Iwan Darmansjah, Jakarta
"The writer was a WHO expert panel member on drug evaluation and pharmaceuticals (1975-2003)."
"Tamiflu -- generic name oseltamivir -- has been promoted too far to be used in avian flu because it is neither proven nor significantly effective even in the treatment of common flu. In influenza Type A and B (common flu) the efficacy in clinical studies is manifested as an improvement of one day (FDA website -- updated on Nov. 17, 2005 -- states one to one-and-a-half days) in the recovery-time of influenza that normally heals within a week. A one-day improvement should be considered an insignificant result in a clinical trial.
Moreover, in the U.S. most flu is that of Type A. Such results, measured by days of recovery for a sickness that lasts normally a week, should be classified as "modestly effective" at the most to justify marketing of the product. Adverse reactions are not yet completely known. On the current FDA website, adverse event reports from Japan in children documented "primarily unusual neurologic and psychiatric events such as delirium, hallucinations, confusion, abnormal behavior, convulsions and encephalitis... 12 deaths in pediatric patients were documented since Tamiflu's approval".
The FDA is currently investigating these reported events, all of them from Japan. Although adverse events are different from (established) adverse reactions, this phenomenon should not be taken for granted, since this is not the first time that Japan has produced such reports on other drugs that have later been proven to be true.
Against avian flu Tamiflu has never been studied before, while avian flu is quite a different disease than ordinary flu that occurs in countries with a cold climate nearer the Antarctic. Influenza in tropical climates, such as Indonesia, is again not the same as the cold winter flu in the above countries.
Thus the "fever" of stocking Tamiflu is rather surprising; it even is supported by a trusted agency, the WHO. The efficacy criteria adopted by the FDA (1999), which was the data accepted before marketing, is indeed debatable if applied to the avian flu syndrome. The case of avian flu has a different dimension, and surrogate endpoints such as the use of days in improving a self-limited illness in a clinical trial cannot be extrapolated into the deadly avian flu case.
Here, "real endpoints", such as survival rate or total deaths should be measured in controlled clinical trials. Such data could then guide clinicians to use the drug against avian flu. What then should the control treatment be in such a study, and what causes death in avian flu? [...]"
The Sunday Times
December 04, 2005
Doctor says bird flu drug is useless
Jonathan Carr-Brown, Health Correspondent
"A VIETNAMESE doctor who has treated dozens of victims of avian flu claims the drug being stockpiled around the world to combat a pandemic is “useless” against the virus.
Dr Nguyen Tuong Van runs the intensive care unit at the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi and has treated 41 victims of H5N1.
Van followed World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines and gave her patients Tamiflu, but concluded it had no effect.
“We place no importance on using this drug on our patients,” she said. “Tamiflu is really only meant for treating ordinary type A flu. It was not designed to combat H5N1 . . . [Tamiflu] is useless.” [...]
Van, who has also treated patients with Sars, the respiratory condition linked to birds, said avian flu had a frightening effect on its victims and the only way to keep patients alive was to “support” all their vital organs, including the liver and kidneys, with modern technology like ventilators and dialysis machines.
Van would not criticise governments for stockpiling Tamiflu but said doctors had to explain its limitations. [...]"
The Jakarta Post
December 4, 2005
The overuse of Tamiflu in treating avian flu
Iwan Darmansjah, Jakarta
"The writer was a WHO expert panel member on drug evaluation and pharmaceuticals (1975-2003)."
"Tamiflu -- generic name oseltamivir -- has been promoted too far to be used in avian flu because it is neither proven nor significantly effective even in the treatment of common flu. In influenza Type A and B (common flu) the efficacy in clinical studies is manifested as an improvement of one day (FDA website -- updated on Nov. 17, 2005 -- states one to one-and-a-half days) in the recovery-time of influenza that normally heals within a week. A one-day improvement should be considered an insignificant result in a clinical trial.
Moreover, in the U.S. most flu is that of Type A. Such results, measured by days of recovery for a sickness that lasts normally a week, should be classified as "modestly effective" at the most to justify marketing of the product. Adverse reactions are not yet completely known. On the current FDA website, adverse event reports from Japan in children documented "primarily unusual neurologic and psychiatric events such as delirium, hallucinations, confusion, abnormal behavior, convulsions and encephalitis... 12 deaths in pediatric patients were documented since Tamiflu's approval".
The FDA is currently investigating these reported events, all of them from Japan. Although adverse events are different from (established) adverse reactions, this phenomenon should not be taken for granted, since this is not the first time that Japan has produced such reports on other drugs that have later been proven to be true.
Against avian flu Tamiflu has never been studied before, while avian flu is quite a different disease than ordinary flu that occurs in countries with a cold climate nearer the Antarctic. Influenza in tropical climates, such as Indonesia, is again not the same as the cold winter flu in the above countries.
Thus the "fever" of stocking Tamiflu is rather surprising; it even is supported by a trusted agency, the WHO. The efficacy criteria adopted by the FDA (1999), which was the data accepted before marketing, is indeed debatable if applied to the avian flu syndrome. The case of avian flu has a different dimension, and surrogate endpoints such as the use of days in improving a self-limited illness in a clinical trial cannot be extrapolated into the deadly avian flu case.
Here, "real endpoints", such as survival rate or total deaths should be measured in controlled clinical trials. Such data could then guide clinicians to use the drug against avian flu. What then should the control treatment be in such a study, and what causes death in avian flu? [...]"
Friday, December 2
John Murtha and a small world
Dan Riehl at Riehl World View has researched the rumors about House Representative John Murtha (D-PA) and found much interesting hard data. Dan notes in part:
There is no such thing as "domestic" politics for the world's lone superpower nation in today's highly interconnected world -- and in particular not during a globalized asymmetric war launched by America's enemies.
The date of the LA Times article suggests Mr Murtha has had plenty of time of worry that pointed questions about his ethics would mar his next election bid. Murtha's headline-grabbing call to immediately bring US troops from Iraq has made him a quixotic hero in his home congressional district, according to a Big Three nightly news report the other night. (ABC, if my memory serves.)
There might be no connection between John Murtha's call for troop withdrawal and his desire to head off ethics questions, yet Dan turned up another credible source (The Hill newspaper) that raises even more troubling questions about the power that Murtha has accumulated in Washington. The Hill article (linked to in Dan's post) notes:
President Bush, on the other hand, is always fair game: the media examine every sentence he utters, every action he takes with regard to Iraq, in light of speculations about his political motives.
That's not a level playing field, which tilts to the enemy's advantage.
The Los Angeles Times in June reported that Murtha funneled nearly $21 million to 10 or more corporate clients of KSA Consulting, where Robert "Kit" Murtha is a senior partner. Carmen Scialabba, a Murtha congressional aide for 27 years, is also a high-ranking official at KSA.Now one may snort that raising an eyebrow about Murtha's lobbying connections ignores Business as Usual in Washington, yet this cynicism ignores the big picture. An American can look back almost with nostalgia at the Washington lobbying scandals during the waning years of the Cold War, when maneuvers by foreign and US business interests to influence Congress didn't boomerang on US national security -- at least, not enough to raise great alarm. Such is not the case today.
There is no such thing as "domestic" politics for the world's lone superpower nation in today's highly interconnected world -- and in particular not during a globalized asymmetric war launched by America's enemies.
The date of the LA Times article suggests Mr Murtha has had plenty of time of worry that pointed questions about his ethics would mar his next election bid. Murtha's headline-grabbing call to immediately bring US troops from Iraq has made him a quixotic hero in his home congressional district, according to a Big Three nightly news report the other night. (ABC, if my memory serves.)
There might be no connection between John Murtha's call for troop withdrawal and his desire to head off ethics questions, yet Dan turned up another credible source (The Hill newspaper) that raises even more troubling questions about the power that Murtha has accumulated in Washington. The Hill article (linked to in Dan's post) notes:
In 2004, Murtha ranked behind only President Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, in overall defense-industry contributions, with $284,750.So I find it disturbing that the major broadcast media (and, it seems, the mainstream media in general) have not sought to question Mr Murtha about his motive for demanding immediate US troop withdrawal from Iraq.
President Bush, on the other hand, is always fair game: the media examine every sentence he utters, every action he takes with regard to Iraq, in light of speculations about his political motives.
That's not a level playing field, which tilts to the enemy's advantage.
"Applying the lessons they learned from Marc Rich, they bankrupted Russia"
"Pundita, dear, your post on Stephen Curtis shows the instincts of a mud wrestler but I have trouble reconciling this with my image of you as a schoolmarm in the frontier West. What set you off, may I ask? Was it Gary Kasparov's latest prose for the Wall Street Journal?
Boris in Jackson Heights"
Dear Boris:
That wasn't mud wrestling. This is mud wrestling: Marc Rich and the Russia Connection.
By the way, your note caused me to recall the accidental death of another man who knew too much. Oh but wait -- Vince Foster's death was deemed a suicide. There are so many accidental deaths and suicides related to the plunder of Russia that it's hard to keep them sorted.
The Wall Street Journal and the entire Get Putin crowd are in another snit because the Kremlin is getting ready to buy back control of Russia's metals industry.
The capitalists can lecture all they want about the evils of Russia returning to a Commanding Heights economy; people such as Marc Rich cannot be termed "capitalists," they are government-backed crooks. So until an economist figures out how a poor country can prevent conquest and plunder by rich countries through the mechanism of dirty financial deals, nationalization of a poor country's key commodities is the lessor of two evils.
Vladimir Putin is still up against the Seventh Ring of Hell. So it's a good time for a review of recent history. A place to start is the golden oldie article I mentioned above.
Mark [sic] Rich and the Russia Connection
by
Christopher Ruddy
for NewsMax.com
February 19, 2001
"Marc Rich may have a pardon clearing him to enter the U.S. at any time, but don't expect him ever to return.
Washington sources tell me that congressional investigators would love to slap him with a subpoena upon arrival and haul him before congressional hearings and the cameras for interrogation. The Clinton pardon deal may just be one small part of what Congress may want to find out from Rich.
Perhaps the most serious concern for congressional investigators is Rich's longstanding ties with Russian intelligence agencies, the Russian mafia, and some of the old communist states of East Europe.
Last week the New York Post's Rod Dreher reported that Rich made tens of millions of dollars helping Russia’s communist bosses loot their country, leaving it bankrupt.
Rich’s role in ruining Russia’s economy was detailed in the book "Godfather of the Kremlin," by Paul Klebnikov, who Dreher describes as an expert on Russia and a Forbes magazine senior editor.
The book reveals how Rich and Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and associates stole untold sums from the Russian people through corrupt international financial manipulations.
In 1983, the year he fled the United States to avoid prosecution, Rich took advantage of the grain embargo the United States imposed on the USSR because of its war in Afghanistan.
Rich ignored the embargo and imported grain into the Soviet Union, winning friends in the Soviet hierarchy with whom he would ally himself when the Communist government collapsed.
According to NewsMax.com Washington sources, from then on Rich was associated in his business dealings "by the Communist Party and KGB senior figures. Everybody in that carousel, commie and KGB, got personal benefits ... commissions in Western accounts."
It is widely believed by intelligence experts that today's powerful Russian "mafia" is nothing more than an arm of Russian intelligence agencies, such as the former KGB.
Other evidence suggests Rich had more than a casual business relationship with Russia's spy agencies.
Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" earlier this month, former head of the U.S. Marshals Service Howard Safir revealed efforts by East Germany, then a Russian satellite state, to get Rich off the hook.
Safir said, referring to Rich, "You are talking about an individual, when I did a spy exchange in 1986, he had a lawyer from East Germany offer $225 million for him and Pinky Green if the prosecutions were wiped out."
According to Klebnikov, Rich came into the picture again as a major wheeler-dealer in Russia around 1990, when the Soviet Union began to open up to outsiders, Dreher wrote.
"Governmental authority began to crumble. All these local Communist Party bosses got to strike deals on their own," the author told Dreher.
Working out of Switzerland, which has secretive banking laws, Rich was in a prime position to help Russia's plunderers carry out their dirty work," Dreher wrote.
"Klebnikov reported that Rich dealt in oil, aluminum, zinc and other raw commodities.
"He'd strike a deal with the local party boss, or the director of a state-owned company," Klebnikov told Dreher. "He'd say, 'OK, you will sell me the [commodity] at 5 to 10 percent of the world market price. And in return, I will deposit some of the profit I make by reselling it 10 times higher on the world market, and put the kickback in a Swiss bank account.' "
"He made a complete mint off of Russia," says Klebnikov.
Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto Western industrial markets, causing a 30 percent collapse in the price of the metal, as Western industry had no way to compete.
There was such an outflow of aluminum from Russia that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to Western markets.
Rich's companies were under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993. As a result, for at least two years, while the Soviet Union was writhing in its death throes, Rich was that nation's largest trader of aluminum and oil on a spot basis.
According to Dreher, a former foreign-trade minister told the author that Rich taught the robber-baron elite how to get around the law by running secret deals through shell companies and the like.
In an interview with Forbes magazine, a former Russian trade minister, Oleg Davydov, told Klebnikov that in the rush to privatize government-owned industries the Russian government made a serious mistake by immediately dismantling the government foreign trade monopolies.
"These organizations had decades of experience and representatives all over the world," Davydov explained.
"They charged 0.5 percent commission and remitted all the difference [between domestic commodity prices and world prices] to the government. When these legal channels became inconvenient [for Russia's new businessmen], there appeared a huge mass of foreign entrepreneurs, mostly crooks like Marc Rich, who began to teach us various ways of taking the money out through offshore companies."
"Marc Rich ended up being a mentor to all these young kids who came out of the Communist Party establishment, and who made billions off these schemes themselves," Klebnikov charges.
"Applying the lessons they learned from Marc Rich, they bankrupted Russia," Klebnikov alleges.
"As a result, you have a ruined economy, bankrupt government, and an impoverished population."
Rich, headquartered in Switzerland, was well situated to help the Russian mafia. Switzerland has already been identified by international police agencies as a major center of Russian money laundering.
If it is true that Rich and his intermediaries were willing to spend more than $200 million for a pardon for U.S. crimes, it raises questions of whether a lot more money may have changed hands than the few million suspected as donations to the DNC, Hillary's Senate campaign or the Clinton Library.
Could money, for example, have been transferred to an offshore bank account? It's a good question investigators need to ask. Especially since the Clintons have had their own Switzerland connection. Several years ago London's Sunday Telegraph reported that Vince Foster, onetime White House deputy counsel, made frequent trips to Switzerland before the Clintons entered the White House."
Boris in Jackson Heights"
Dear Boris:
That wasn't mud wrestling. This is mud wrestling: Marc Rich and the Russia Connection.
By the way, your note caused me to recall the accidental death of another man who knew too much. Oh but wait -- Vince Foster's death was deemed a suicide. There are so many accidental deaths and suicides related to the plunder of Russia that it's hard to keep them sorted.
The Wall Street Journal and the entire Get Putin crowd are in another snit because the Kremlin is getting ready to buy back control of Russia's metals industry.
The capitalists can lecture all they want about the evils of Russia returning to a Commanding Heights economy; people such as Marc Rich cannot be termed "capitalists," they are government-backed crooks. So until an economist figures out how a poor country can prevent conquest and plunder by rich countries through the mechanism of dirty financial deals, nationalization of a poor country's key commodities is the lessor of two evils.
Vladimir Putin is still up against the Seventh Ring of Hell. So it's a good time for a review of recent history. A place to start is the golden oldie article I mentioned above.
Mark [sic] Rich and the Russia Connection
by
Christopher Ruddy
for NewsMax.com
February 19, 2001
"Marc Rich may have a pardon clearing him to enter the U.S. at any time, but don't expect him ever to return.
Washington sources tell me that congressional investigators would love to slap him with a subpoena upon arrival and haul him before congressional hearings and the cameras for interrogation. The Clinton pardon deal may just be one small part of what Congress may want to find out from Rich.
Perhaps the most serious concern for congressional investigators is Rich's longstanding ties with Russian intelligence agencies, the Russian mafia, and some of the old communist states of East Europe.
Last week the New York Post's Rod Dreher reported that Rich made tens of millions of dollars helping Russia’s communist bosses loot their country, leaving it bankrupt.
Rich’s role in ruining Russia’s economy was detailed in the book "Godfather of the Kremlin," by Paul Klebnikov, who Dreher describes as an expert on Russia and a Forbes magazine senior editor.
The book reveals how Rich and Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and associates stole untold sums from the Russian people through corrupt international financial manipulations.
In 1983, the year he fled the United States to avoid prosecution, Rich took advantage of the grain embargo the United States imposed on the USSR because of its war in Afghanistan.
Rich ignored the embargo and imported grain into the Soviet Union, winning friends in the Soviet hierarchy with whom he would ally himself when the Communist government collapsed.
According to NewsMax.com Washington sources, from then on Rich was associated in his business dealings "by the Communist Party and KGB senior figures. Everybody in that carousel, commie and KGB, got personal benefits ... commissions in Western accounts."
It is widely believed by intelligence experts that today's powerful Russian "mafia" is nothing more than an arm of Russian intelligence agencies, such as the former KGB.
Other evidence suggests Rich had more than a casual business relationship with Russia's spy agencies.
Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" earlier this month, former head of the U.S. Marshals Service Howard Safir revealed efforts by East Germany, then a Russian satellite state, to get Rich off the hook.
Safir said, referring to Rich, "You are talking about an individual, when I did a spy exchange in 1986, he had a lawyer from East Germany offer $225 million for him and Pinky Green if the prosecutions were wiped out."
According to Klebnikov, Rich came into the picture again as a major wheeler-dealer in Russia around 1990, when the Soviet Union began to open up to outsiders, Dreher wrote.
"Governmental authority began to crumble. All these local Communist Party bosses got to strike deals on their own," the author told Dreher.
Working out of Switzerland, which has secretive banking laws, Rich was in a prime position to help Russia's plunderers carry out their dirty work," Dreher wrote.
"Klebnikov reported that Rich dealt in oil, aluminum, zinc and other raw commodities.
"He'd strike a deal with the local party boss, or the director of a state-owned company," Klebnikov told Dreher. "He'd say, 'OK, you will sell me the [commodity] at 5 to 10 percent of the world market price. And in return, I will deposit some of the profit I make by reselling it 10 times higher on the world market, and put the kickback in a Swiss bank account.' "
"He made a complete mint off of Russia," says Klebnikov.
Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto Western industrial markets, causing a 30 percent collapse in the price of the metal, as Western industry had no way to compete.
There was such an outflow of aluminum from Russia that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to Western markets.
Rich's companies were under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993. As a result, for at least two years, while the Soviet Union was writhing in its death throes, Rich was that nation's largest trader of aluminum and oil on a spot basis.
According to Dreher, a former foreign-trade minister told the author that Rich taught the robber-baron elite how to get around the law by running secret deals through shell companies and the like.
In an interview with Forbes magazine, a former Russian trade minister, Oleg Davydov, told Klebnikov that in the rush to privatize government-owned industries the Russian government made a serious mistake by immediately dismantling the government foreign trade monopolies.
"These organizations had decades of experience and representatives all over the world," Davydov explained.
"They charged 0.5 percent commission and remitted all the difference [between domestic commodity prices and world prices] to the government. When these legal channels became inconvenient [for Russia's new businessmen], there appeared a huge mass of foreign entrepreneurs, mostly crooks like Marc Rich, who began to teach us various ways of taking the money out through offshore companies."
"Marc Rich ended up being a mentor to all these young kids who came out of the Communist Party establishment, and who made billions off these schemes themselves," Klebnikov charges.
"Applying the lessons they learned from Marc Rich, they bankrupted Russia," Klebnikov alleges.
"As a result, you have a ruined economy, bankrupt government, and an impoverished population."
Rich, headquartered in Switzerland, was well situated to help the Russian mafia. Switzerland has already been identified by international police agencies as a major center of Russian money laundering.
If it is true that Rich and his intermediaries were willing to spend more than $200 million for a pardon for U.S. crimes, it raises questions of whether a lot more money may have changed hands than the few million suspected as donations to the DNC, Hillary's Senate campaign or the Clinton Library.
Could money, for example, have been transferred to an offshore bank account? It's a good question investigators need to ask. Especially since the Clintons have had their own Switzerland connection. Several years ago London's Sunday Telegraph reported that Vince Foster, onetime White House deputy counsel, made frequent trips to Switzerland before the Clintons entered the White House."
Thursday, December 1
Chain of cruelty
John Batchelor continues to blog at Red State; his latest entry reminds me that he was an author before he was a radio show host. He writes beautifully, bitterly, of the hypocrisy that mourns the execution of Van Nguyen while ignoring the horrors unleashed by the heroin trade.
... Those heroin grams out of Cambodia are part of the chain of cruelty that reaches into the rogue state of Cambodia -- brutalized by the unrepentant, PRC linked Khmer Rouge lieutenants of Pol Pot's last years -- and then reaches across Asia to wreck neighborhoods and fund terror gangs ...From Batchelor's December 1 entry Singapore Hang 'em High
Brussels' poodle: The pattern of New York Times editorial opinon on Iraq
"A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times -- the self-described “newspaper of record” -- is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003."
-- Marc Schulman, American Future
Schulman's research turns up fascinating patterns. Another fascinating pattern would be revealed by a study of editorial opinion on Iraq at West Europe's strongest pro-EU newspapers during the same period and comparing this to NYT opinion.
One interesting bit of history dug up by Schulman is that Tony Blair was also Clinton's poodle when it came to Iraq. Of course there is an alternative view of Mr Blair: that he was a hawk on Iraq before George Bush came to office, and that he turned to America when he got no support from Britain's most powerful EU partners.
-- Marc Schulman, American Future
Schulman's research turns up fascinating patterns. Another fascinating pattern would be revealed by a study of editorial opinion on Iraq at West Europe's strongest pro-EU newspapers during the same period and comparing this to NYT opinion.
One interesting bit of history dug up by Schulman is that Tony Blair was also Clinton's poodle when it came to Iraq. Of course there is an alternative view of Mr Blair: that he was a hawk on Iraq before George Bush came to office, and that he turned to America when he got no support from Britain's most powerful EU partners.
(Times Editorial 11/19/98)
Weary of endless confrontations with Iraq, President Clinton, Congress and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain are now rallying around the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The thought is certainly alluring. The installation of a democratic government in Baghdad would probably eliminate the threat of Iraqi aggression. Unfortunately, the only sure way to reach that goal is for American troops to invade Iraq and capture Baghdad, a risky prospect few Americans would support. The White House and the Pentagon are well aware of all these problems, and were openly skeptical about plotting against Mr. Hussein until Mr. Clinton unexpectedly embraced the idea earlier this week. If Mr. Clinton and members of Congress are serious about trying to overthrow him, they need to level with the American people about the potential financial and human costs. The project will not be cheap or bloodless. Nor is it likely to succeed without an American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Keeping Iraq isolated and controlling its weapons of mass destruction through aggressive inspection is an imperfect policy, but it is more practical than anything else that has been proposed.
The death of Stephen Curtis
"Our robber barons created wealth. Russia's oligarchs took over wealth from the state and shipped much of that wealth out of Russia illegally. I don't agree that Khordokovsky knew he would face imprisonment if he returned to Russia. He thought his high level contacts in the Bush administration would protect him. Khordokovsky is a thug who got religion too late."
-- Stephen F. Cohen commenting on the trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky
In the early evening of March 3 this year, after one of his countless business trips for Yukos, Mr Curtis boarded his private helicopter at London's Battersea Airport. At the controls was experienced pilot Matt Radford, 34.
Around 20 minutes into the journey towards Mr Curtis' multi-million-pound seafront home, Pennsylvania Castle, at Portland, Dorset, the helicopter plummeted to the ground near Bournemouth Airport and exploded. ...
Witnesses heard the helicopter's rotor cut out and pilot Mr Radford reported an unspecified problem to air traffic control. It exploded into flames 29 seconds later. ...
On November 3, 2005 the inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death, saying the crash was probably caused by the pilot becoming disoriented in bad weather.
Stephen Curtis was a lawyer who set up a breathtakingly vast and complex web of shell companies that became Group Menatep, the parent company of Yukos Oil, Russia's most valuable oil company. The shell game allowed Mikhail Khordokovsky and his cohorts to rob the Russian people of billions of dollars.
Stephen Curtis knew enough to put Khordokovsky away for life. When Khordokovsky was arrested in Russia in 2004 on tax evasion and fraud charges he saw that Curtis was appointed managing director of Group Menatep, the parent company of Yukos. But the criminal investigation had spread outside Russia. Swiss auditors looking at possible money laundering or tax evasion attempts raided two Yukos companies and seized their assets.
In the effort to avoid prosecution Stephen Curtis offered to sing to Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service. He only managed to meet with NCIS twice before he was killed.
Eric Jenkins, Mr Curtis's uncle, told the inquest that his nephew said he was receiving threatening phone calls and was under surveillance. Mr Jenkins said that two weeks before his death Mr Curtis had said that if anything happened to him, it would not be an accident.
Although there was no evidence of sabotage from the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) ... the father of the pilot, Dennis Radford, said he thought the possibility of sabotage had not been fully investigated by the AAIB.
Quotes from (UK) Telegraph and icWales.
-- Stephen F. Cohen commenting on the trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky
In the early evening of March 3 this year, after one of his countless business trips for Yukos, Mr Curtis boarded his private helicopter at London's Battersea Airport. At the controls was experienced pilot Matt Radford, 34.
Around 20 minutes into the journey towards Mr Curtis' multi-million-pound seafront home, Pennsylvania Castle, at Portland, Dorset, the helicopter plummeted to the ground near Bournemouth Airport and exploded. ...
Witnesses heard the helicopter's rotor cut out and pilot Mr Radford reported an unspecified problem to air traffic control. It exploded into flames 29 seconds later. ...
On November 3, 2005 the inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death, saying the crash was probably caused by the pilot becoming disoriented in bad weather.
Stephen Curtis was a lawyer who set up a breathtakingly vast and complex web of shell companies that became Group Menatep, the parent company of Yukos Oil, Russia's most valuable oil company. The shell game allowed Mikhail Khordokovsky and his cohorts to rob the Russian people of billions of dollars.
Stephen Curtis knew enough to put Khordokovsky away for life. When Khordokovsky was arrested in Russia in 2004 on tax evasion and fraud charges he saw that Curtis was appointed managing director of Group Menatep, the parent company of Yukos. But the criminal investigation had spread outside Russia. Swiss auditors looking at possible money laundering or tax evasion attempts raided two Yukos companies and seized their assets.
In the effort to avoid prosecution Stephen Curtis offered to sing to Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service. He only managed to meet with NCIS twice before he was killed.
Eric Jenkins, Mr Curtis's uncle, told the inquest that his nephew said he was receiving threatening phone calls and was under surveillance. Mr Jenkins said that two weeks before his death Mr Curtis had said that if anything happened to him, it would not be an accident.
Although there was no evidence of sabotage from the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) ... the father of the pilot, Dennis Radford, said he thought the possibility of sabotage had not been fully investigated by the AAIB.
Quotes from (UK) Telegraph and icWales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)