Repeat after me: The US Department of State is not a triage desk, the US military is not the maid

REDMOND, Washington (June 15 - Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates said Thursday he will gradually give up his day-to-day duties at the company to concentrate on the charitable work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Pundita opened the comment section for On the Road to Perdition with Bill Gates, Dean Kamen and Jeffrey Sachs. I did so with the intention of saving myself time but it cost more time than my usual routine of answering/publishing emails in response to posts.

Now that I have registered my grumbles about the comment section, which I will continue to leave open for the time being, here are some reader observations that didn’t make it into the comment section and two that did but which I want to highlight in this post:

“Okay, I'll buy that disease-eradicating, profit-generating businesses won't eliminate poverty or reform government. But, won't they at least reduce disease and spur business investment, thus improving people's lives? And, if nothing else, if Gates fails spectacularly, won't he at least learn his lesson so that people realize wisdom, not money or technology, is what we really need?”
Dr. Ernie

Pundita replies:
A reminder: Pundita strays, but this is supposed to be a foreign policy blog; I look at development and foreign aid issues from that angle. But yes, Dean Kamen’s entrepreneurial approach, which I discussed in the March 29 post, will spur business investment. As to whether solutions posed by Gates, Kamen, and Sachs will “reduce” diseases such as malaria remains to be seen.

Yet this is a situation where success can be far worse than failure unless there is massive coordination between many international agencies and governments, massive infusions of aid money, and possibly military intervention. Here’s why:

Imagine Bill Gates gets his wish and a successful malaria vaccine is developed. Then Gates’ foundation teams with other transnational charities and WHO to launch a massive vaccination program across Africa. Success: malaria eradicated in wide swaths of Africa.

Here we come to a snag. Eradicating the disease means a spike in the inoculated population. Now overlay that situation on regions in Africa where there is water scarcity, food scarcity, and firewood (cooking fuel) scarcity.

Then project 3-5 years when the spike in population will place strains on health care and social systems already breaking or broken: sewage and water treatment facilities, hospitals, police forces, etc.

From the viewpoint of foreign policy (and US national security) the issue is one of accountability. As with George Soros, Bill Gates is carrying out foreign aid on a large scale. Yet he is a private citizen acting 'without portfolio' in areas that impact US foreign policy in many directions. When he screws up he can't be hauled before a military tribunal, a congressional inquiry, or an internal review at State.

Are Mr. Gates’ foundation and the United Nations able to deal with the situations that would arise from the scenario I’ve sketched? If not, First World governments would find themselves under pressure to avert calamity. Even if military action could be avoided you don’t want to think about the triage decisions that would have to be made. So it’s not for nothing that I titled the essay under discussion “On the road to perdition…”

Not surprisingly, Andrew Mwenda, the Ugandan journalist that Dave Schuler links to in his comment, also alludes to the hellish aspect of brainless foreign aid schemes applied to Africa. I have published Mwenda’s comments at the end of this post.(1)

And here is a link to a Wikipedia article about Mwenda; the Ugandan government’s attacks on him are a good introduction to his comments about foreign aid follies.

Now for Dymphna’s comments, which were also languishing in the comment section:

“Isn't it an interesting aspect of human nature that just because we do one thing extremely, fantastically well -- like, say, build a computer empire or perhaps act in films -- it somehow makes us a global expert?

Malarial countries need DDT and they've needed it for years. Now that we've eradicated *our* problem, we can safely ban it. Unless, of course, the Nile virus becomes endemic here. Then maybe everyone will once again be entitled to DDT.

How come these financial geniuses haven't studied success stories like Grameen? I'd love to see you explain Grameen...my favorite foreign charity. Actually, my only one.”
Dymphna

Pundita replies:
I haven’t studied Grameen’s charities. But for readers who are not familiar with the microinvesting concept pioneered by Grameen Bank, I mentioned it in the March 29 post (“Dean Kamen vs. the World Bank…”) and provided a link to the bank’s website:
http://www.grameen-info.org/
bank/GBdifferent.htm

Your comment about DDT is on target. There are sound approaches to fighting malaria-carrying mosquitoes that the vaccine approach ignores. Amazingly, one approach is a cell phone signal that repels mosquitos! – See the July 12 Pundita essay, Fire up the cell phone, gather round the radio: Not by any one way does democracy come to the rural developing world.

Yet as I noted in my reply to Dr. Ernie it’s actually success that is the greatest threat with disease eradication among impoverished populations. From this viewpoint the quality of the solution is not as important as the context in which it arises.

Whether good or bad, actions that impact millions of people within a short time have profound consequences. That’s a lesson the World Bank learned the hard way.

If Gates and his ‘New Giving’ circle think they can make a dent where the World Bank and USAID have failed, Pundita has no objection to honest efforts. Yet I strenuously object to plans that don’t deal with the starkest consequences of disease eradication in regions where critical resources are already strained to the breaking point.

Now for comments from Beth:

”I've often wished I had the brain and education to tackle "global" problems. I don't think that I do. But I also don't think these men do either.

"Disease leads to poverty, and poverty deepens disease. But the good news is that where health takes hold, women choose to have fewer children; and literacy, equality, the environment, and economic opportunity all improve. When health improves, life improves – by all measures." [1]

What's cause and effect in all of that mess? Does [Bill Gates] have any idea? Is he really saying that lowering birth rates will solve all the problems? If health and poverty and fewer children are all tied together – then isn't the simplest solution to start paying all those poor women to not have children just like we've paid all the farmers to not grow crops?
Beth Mauldin

Pundita replies:
Bill Gates applied a secularized, monogamous, First World behavior model to women in Third World African nations (Christian and Muslim) who are in a polygamous marriage. From that he somehow concluded such women would choose to have fewer children once infectious killer diseases are eradicated.

But in Africa the Christians and Muslim leaders are in a numbers battle and so both promote multiple births in families. Both have shown cowardice when it comes to standing up to demands by practitioners who want to take multiple wives. The leaders, if they can be called that, pander to males who are serial divorcers as the means to circumvent the four-wife limit in Islam and the call for monogamy in Christianity.

Let us hope Mr. Gates’ reasoning will improve once he turns more of his attention to his charitable enterprises. Correction: Let us pray.

1) "The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. The calls by Sachs, Bono and Geldof fall into that category. First, their calls for more aid assume -- and wrongly so – that the primary problem in Africa is lack of a resource base to generate revenue to invest in what the World Bank prefers to call 'poverty reducing expenditure areas' – free primary education, basic health care and infrastructure like roads. Of course these are good for the poor, but they are not poverty reducing. At best, they can be welfare improving. The primary problem for Africa is one of governance. The poor in Africa do not have basic social services because they are ruled by repressive, corrupt and incompetent governments. These governments spend millions of dollars annually on their corrupt and ineffective militaries, on ostentatious consumption by the political class, and on obese, profligate and highly incompetent bureaucracies. The institutions are very corrupt and incompetent that they stifle both domestic entrepreneurial initiative and frustrate foreign direct investment. These actions are not sustainable in the long term, of course, as these governments eat away the very economic foundation of their political survival. Foreign aid is the subsidy governments in Africa employ to avoid facing the consequences of their own folly. Without aid, many governments in Africa would stare regime collapse in the eye. Some would be stupid, retain the old ways and collapse. But many would be forced to reform their monetary and fiscal policies, to be frugal and prudent, to put in place public policies and political institutions that favor rapid economic growth and capital accumulation. They would have to listen more to their own people and foreign investors in policy making and policy orientation. In short, they would be forced to establish good, effective, accountable and democratic governments. Good and accountable government is not a product of altruism, but enlightened self-interest. Sachs, Bono, Geldof, Tony Blair – and all the many good but naive people of the West – need to learn that simple, commonsense logic." – Andrew Mwenda, Ugandan libertarian radio and print journalist

2) Quote from Gates’ 2002 UN luncheon speech.

Bill Gates 2002 lunch speech at the United Nations

May 9, 2002
U.N. Secretary General's Luncheon
United Nations - New York, New York
Prepared remarks by Bill Gates, Co-chair

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for this invitation to speak. It's an honor to address so many heads of state. And it's a particular honor to do so alongside Secretary General Annan and President Mandela, whose contributions to humanity make them two of the most admired men in the world. I'd also like to thank Carol Bellamy and UNICEF for their commitment to children and for sponsoring this meeting of world leaders.

Is the world going to take care of its children? That is the question we came here to answer.

While many important issues will be discussed at this historic Special Session, it's my belief that improving health is the best way to start improving the future for our children.

Today, one in 12 children dies before the age of 5 mostly from preventable diseases - from measles, malaria, diarrhea. One in 12.

Disease leads to poverty, and poverty deepens disease. But the good news is that where health takes hold, women choose to have fewer children; and literacy, equality, the environment, and economic opportunity all improve. When health improves, life improves – by all measures.

My personal commitment to improving global health started when I learned about health inequities. I remember reading the 1993 World Development Report. Every page screamed out that human life was not being as valued in the world at large as it should be.

My wife Melinda and I were stunned to learn that 11 million children die every year from preventable causes. That is when we decided to make improving health the focus of our philanthropy.

The leaders here who face public health challenges know personally the inequities in global health:
· 95% of all new HIV infections occur in developing countries
· 99% of TB and malaria sufferers live in developing countries
Yet where demand for health spending is greatest, supply is lowest.

Rich governments are not fighting these diseases because the rich world doesn't have them. The private sector generally is not developing vaccines for poor countries because poor countries can't buy them. Of the $70 billion spent globally on health every year, only 10% is devoted to research on diseases that make up 90% of the total disease burden.

Market-based capitalism works well for the developed world, but our human values and compassion are needed to save these children. Markets alone won't do this.

What will happen if we do nothing?

On current trends, a hundred million people will have been infected with HIV by 2005. Without a decisive intervention, China could soon have 20 million cases. India also is at a tipping point – it can act aggressively and keep prevalence below one percent as Brazil has done, or see infection rates skyrocket as they have in parts of Africa.

Without an aggressive global effort to reverse the course of the AIDS epidemic, the impact on our children will be catastrophic:
· Half of all 15-year olds in South Africa and Zimbabwe will lose their lives to AIDS.
· 44 million children in Africa will have lost one or both parents to AIDS by 2010.
We can't change the past. But we can change the future, as long as we start now. The challenge is daunting, but I am optimistic.

I believe we have never been in a better position to make dramatic improvements in global health.

Today, we have several unique opportunities:

The first opportunity is to learn from our successes. Thirty-five years ago the United Nations launched a successful campaign to eradicate small pox. Looking back, that campaign has prevented 350 million people from contracting smallpox and 40 million from dying of it.

It has also shown that eradicating disease is a good investment. The total twelve-year cost of the smallpox eradication effort was $300 million – the same as a single-year cost of small pox vaccination, quarantine and treatment the year the campaign began. In other words, we didn't spend any more, we just spent it more wisely, and now we're saving $300 million every year because we eradicated small pox.

The same principles that led to that success are now being put to work to eradicate other diseases, including polio.

The second opportunity comes from proven models of collaboration. One of our earliest grants was to establish the Vaccine Fund, a fundraising arm for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, or GAVI, whose goal is to fully vaccinate every child in the world, which would save the lives of 3 million children every year.

GAVI is a collaboration of our foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, our host UNICEF, the vaccine industry and governments in both developed and developing countries. This is a phenomenal range of talent, resources, and experience.

One recent example of the work of GAVI and the Vaccine Fund is a $40 million grant, which will be matched by the government of China, to dramatically increase the use of hepatitis B vaccine in China.

Just before this luncheon, I helped announce another example of a promising global collaboration, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, or GAIN. GAIN is a coalition of national governments, multilateral organizations, foundations, and private companies that are fortifying foods to address micronutrient deficiencies in low-income countries.

It costs relatively little to fortify foods with Vitamin A, iron, iodine and other micronutrients, and by doing so it will save lives, reduce health care costs, improve productivity, and help children reach their potential.

These are the kinds of initiatives that break new ground in collaboration and prove that it is possible to launch global responses to global health challenges.

The third opportunity comes from the increased attention being given to global health. Take the last year alone:
· The United Nations, under the leadership of Kofi Annan, held a Special Session on AIDS.
· The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was established and it has just announced its first round of grants.
· Global health was a central topic at the World Economic Forum.
· The President of the United States pledged to increase development assistance by $5 billion a year.
These things were not happening three or four years ago. They represent new opportunities. These opportunities can all work in our favor. But to build on them, we have to do three things:

First, we must increase the visibility of what is happening to our children. Health inequities continue to worsen. I believe this is because people who see the worst of it don't have the resources to defeat it, and the people who have the resources to defeat it don't see the worst of it.

I believe that if you took the world and you randomly re-sorted it so that rich people lived next door to poor people – so, for example, people in the United States saw millions of mothers burying babies who had died from measles or malnutrition or pneumonia – they would insist something be done.

And they would be willing to pay for it.

Second, we can't just tell people about the problems. We have to tell them about effective, affordable solutions - about how little money it takes to save a life.
· If people knew that the measles vaccine costs only a quarter…
· If they knew we could prevent children from dying of malaria with a bednet that costs just $4…
· If they knew we could prevent a child's death from diarrhea for 33 cents using Oral Rehydration Therapy…
If they knew these facts, more and more people would provide the resources needed to solve these problems.

The third critical element is political leadership. This is something that only the distinguished guests in this room can provide. Foreign aid and foundation giving can achieve important advances, but the big examples of national success have all required political leadership.

This is especially important on the issue of AIDS. Many of you have been willing to speak out about AIDS and its impact. That has been part of every national success story, including Uganda – which brought its HIV prevalence from above 30% to below 10%; and Thailand – which cut infection rates of high-risk groups by two-thirds.

Another important act of political leadership is to increase health budgets. A strong commitment from you will inspire a stronger commitment from your partners. These partners look to you for clear results and transparent accounting.

Leaders in the developed world have said they will increase their support as you increase success. I believe you should take them at their word – and hold them to their word.

We are in a better position than ever before to make dramatic improvements in global health. We have models of success. We have breakthrough interventions for childhood diseases. We have global collaborative efforts. We have rising demand for action and the political will to tackle these issues.

With more visibility and more resources and more political leadership, we can eradicate diseases like polio. For fifty years children have suffered from a disease we know how to prevent. Let's end it. Let's eradicate Guinea worm. Let's get vaccines to every child and save 3 million lives every year. Let's recommit ourselves to developing and deploying vaccines against AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. If we do this, we will change the world's view of what's possible.

It all depends on our answer to the fundamental question: Is the world going to take care of its children?

It's our choice. But we must choose now. Personally, I hadn't planned on getting involved in philanthropy until later in life; when I was in my sixties; when I could devote full time to it. But the more I learned, the more I realized there is no time. Disease won't wait. So I committed myself to this cause, and I will keep that commitment for the rest of my life. And I am thrilled to be a part of this effort.

I believe together we will take care of our children. We can do it – and nothing on earth is more important.

Thank you all very much.

Paul Wolfowitz forms cabal at World Bank: Pundita is shocked! Shocked!

Mohamed Hakki's rag on Paul Wolfowitz is the funniest unintentionally funny article I've come across this century. Hakki, a former World Bank employee, reports that many at the Bank are upset because Wolfy started his own cabal.

What's so funny is that the World Bank has long been Cabal Central. Bank employees of the same nationality (e.g., Filipino, Pak) form 'mafias' inside the Bank to push agendas for their particular developing country.

True, a Bank president has never before formed a cabal; the prez being an American and all, it's not considered pukka sahib if he tries to form his own gang. No, the post of the World Bank president is meant for being at the mercy of the Bank's Mandarins and getting blindsided by the mafias.

More unintended humor from Hakki's description of exiting Bank employees termed "top talent." Understand that the Bank had no institutional integrity and displayed no adherance to ethics until Paul Wolfowitz put teeth in the Bank's anti-corruption efforts. But let us start with Hakki's sour grapes, Cronyism and Corruption, published by Counterpunch in March:

[...]"In recent months, there had been a massive exodus of top talent from the World Bank. The senior ethics officer of the bank has departed. Also on the exit roster are the vice president for East Asia and the Pacific, the chief legal counsel, the vice president for environmentally and socially sustainable development, the bank's top managing director, the director of institutional integrity (who monitors internal and external corruption), and the head of the information solutions group.

Steve Clemons says in the Washington Note: "It looks as if Wolfowitz is gut-punching the most talented teams at the Bank and morale is plummeting. A lot of good people are leaving."

What has Wolfowitz done to start this serious wave of negative sentiment? He appointed Kevin Kellems, former communications director and spokesman for Vice President Cheney, to a newly created post of director of communication strategy in addition to his position as advisor to the president, effectively sidelining the vice president of communication, UN and External Affairs at the Bank. While one could question Kellems' professional ability and record in view of his previous position and the miscommunication that flowed from Cheney's office over the years, the immediate issue for Bank staff is that he was imposed following a Wolfowitz presidential fiat. Wolfowitz in effect, forced a political appointment at the director level, which is rather unheard of, especially since directorships are lower in the administrative stratosphere and are traditionally filled following an open competitive process based on merit, not political imposition.

Another glaring example of presidential fiat came with the appointment of the Bank's new corruption czar, Suzanne Rich Folsom, as the new head of "institutional integrity". Her catapulting prompted the courageous and highly respected chairwoman of the Bank's Staff Association, Alison Cave, to issue an open letter of protest to all staff. Ms Rich, married to a powerful Republican leader and a powerful Republican lobbyist in her own right, was also appointed with no concern for clear and open competitive process. She also has the title of "Counsellor to the President". A clear conflict of interest if there was ever one.

Another example involves the appointment of Karl Jackson, an old friend of Wolfowitz and colleague from Johns Hopkins University as well as government, as an advisor to the president, and who apparently has been handed the portfolio of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank's private sector supporting arm.

Perhaps the most stunning example of Wolfowitz's cronyism and complete lack of regard for the principles of the institution he has been handed to govern, not to mention the obvious appearance of conflict of interest, involves the ever-growing role of his senior counsellor, Robin Cleveland. Ms Cleveland left the Bush administration under a cloud after it emerged that she attempted to use her connections to get a relative a job at a large defence corporation while she was negotiating a contract on behalf of the US government with them. However, even this apparently has not tarnished her stature in the neocon's books, as it is said that Ms Cleveland effectively is now running the Bank.

All these examples are only serving to fuel Bank staff's growing doubt with the stewardship of Wolfowitz. One key senior official called it "utter shamelessness". Another old time Bank staffer said "the fight against global poverty is essentially a moral cause; if we lose the moral high ground, by disregarding transparency, competence, and integrity in our own institution, nothing else is left."

Others are saying he is appointing political hacks to positions that should be filled by highly qualified professionals through a competitive and transparent process. Senior Bank staff sees Wolfowitz withdrawing from the Bank's senior professionals and relying instead on a group of political operatives, zealots and ideologues. The current confusion and concern of the staff of the Bank over the direction of this global institution is best reflected in the results of the institution's own staff survey, released only last week.

When asked: "Do you have a good understanding of the direction in which World Bank Group senior management is leading the institution?" only 48 per cent of respondents answered favourably, in contrast to a 67 per cent favourable response during the previous staff survey in 2003.

No one is comparing Wolfowitz with any of the former Bank presidents any more. Everyone is saying that he is building his "cabal" of supporters at the highest levels of the institution and confirming all their worst fears of foisting a Bush administration agenda on the world's premier development agency. Meanwhile, the board of executive directors, which represents the 184 member countries of the World Bank, remains scandalously silent. Quel domage!"

That no one at the Bank is comparing Wolfy with any other Bank president is a great compliment to him and a hopeful sign that he's holding his own against the Mandarins.

As to the claim that Wolfy is appointing "political hacks" to positions that "should be filled by highly qualified professionals through a competitive and transparent process" -- hey, political hacks is a step up from appointing professionals who serve Russian and Chinese mobsters, outlandishly crooked government officials, George Soros, and Brussels.

As for transparency: the Bank's unofficial motto is "It's not what you know at the Bank, it's who you know."

Yes, the Bank sorely needs transparency and a truly competitive appointment process. Starting the process can't happen until the biggest obstacles at the Bank resign.

Now for another view of Wolfy's efforts at the Bank. Thanks to Nile Klein at Internews Network for alerting me to David Hoffman's opinion piece, which was published April 4 in the International Herald Tribune:

World Bank should link loans to press freedom
At 1 a.m. on a recent morning in Nairobi, masked police officers broke into the offices of KTN television and The Standard, a Kenyan newspaper, both owned by the Standard Media Group. Commandos with assault rifles seized files and equipment. The printing press was shut down, newspapers were burned, employees terrorized and three reporters were jailed.

While the Kenyan president and several ministers pleaded ignorance of the assault, John Michuki, the internal security minister, admitted that the press raids were planned by government officials, who presumably wanted to send a signal to the Kenyan media that recent reporting on government corruption would not be tolerated. "When you rattle a snake you must be ready to be bitten," he said.

Such a blatant crackdown on the media had not been seen in Kenya for 20 years. While 26 embassies and international organizations protested, including the United Nations, the World Bank, as is its custom, kept silent.

Then, after hesitating for six days, the bank openly rebuked the government for the raid, and The Standard reported that the bank had imposed a new rule making press freedom a condition before the World Bank would agree to release $250 million in frozen loans. The loans had been withheld since reports surfaced of massive government fraud, even before John Githongo, appointed by President Mwai Kibaki to be Kenya's "anticorruption czar," exposed details of government graft and fled the country.

Colin Bruce, the World Bank's country director in Kenya, denied that the bank was making freedom of the media a new element of conditionality, but by then the Kenyan stock market had already tumbled.

Even if formal conditionality has not been imposed, the World Bank's president, Paul Wolfowitz, is quietly breaking precedent by ordering the bank to publicly protest when press freedoms are under attack.

Wolfowitz understands that open news media are the most important means to expose the endemic corruption that is undermining economic growth in the developing world. And he is determined to do more than just talk about it. He recently held up $800 million in loans, including the quarter of a billion dollars for Kenya, because of allegations of corruption. "Corruption is the biggest threat to democracy since Communism," Wolfowitz has said.

Wolfowitz and senior World Bank economists know that strong, independent news media play a key role in promoting transparency and good governance, which in turn lead to economic and political development. Corruption can only flourish when governments operate with impunity outside the bright lights and public exposure that independent media bring. So autocrats and corrupt politicians everywhere seek to suppress their homegrown independent media.

The bank has been reluctant in the past to speak out on this issue for fear that it would be seen as interfering in the domestic politics of sovereign states. But media freedom is a universal right; it is also a precondition for tackling the central issue of corruption. As Wolfowitz has said, "you really can't talk about economic development without talking about freedom of the press."

If Wolfowitz and the Bank are to attack corruption effectively, they would also be well advised to make media freedom a precondition for future loans. The adoption of a media accountability index with common standards, to measure a country's compliance with basic media freedoms, would greatly reduce corruption in the developing world.

Inducements to increase transparency within government can only go so far. Unleashing a free press makes the public an active participant in reform. Protected by the threat of World Bank sanctions, the media everywhere would play their natural role of watchdog of the public interest.

In his book, "America at the Crossroads," Francis Fukuyama concludes that domestic pressure is the most effective force for long-term institutional reform. A free press guarantees that the public is informed and has a voice. By making press freedom a condition for its loans, the World Bank would protect the media, allowing them to defend the public's right to transparency and accountable government.

The bank is moving in the right direction. Media conditionality would be a decisive step forward.

(David Hoffman is President of Internews Network, an international non-profit organization that promotes access to information for people around the world.)

I think we may surmise that Wolfowitz had to do battle for six long days before the Bank Mandarins agreed to a formal rebuke of Kenya's government. In light of the Bank's history of looking the other way, the rebuke is astounding.

Of course there is much more to be done; a Reuters report by Gilbert Le Gras, filed April 21, points to the obstacles ahead. Wolfowitz's latest anti-corruption measures have come under fire from non-governmental organizations and protesters for "not going far enough."

"Corporate corruption, who can we thank? The IMF and the World Bank," chanted a half dozen protesters from a collection of advocacy groups who interrupted Wolfowitz during his briefing to kick off the bank's spring meeting.

Wolfowitz has targeted graft as a major impediment to development and called for greater transparency in countries that receive aid.

"The best check against corruption is strengthening governance and regular monitoring, transparent information, rewarding success and penalizing failure," Wolfowitz said at the briefing.

His anti-corruption plan includes training civil servants, judicial reform and freedom of information as well as a new system to curb the risk of corruption on World Bank projects.

He also said last week that he wanted to expand his collaboration with groups interested in improving fiscal transparency, like civil organizations and the private sector."[...]

The road ahead is very difficult. Yet during the short time he's been at the helm Wolfy's made more progress on the anti-corruption front than all World Bank presidents put together. That goes to show what can happen when brains are backed with relevant experience (e.g., getting needed reforms pushed through at the Pentagon), the cooperation of a US President -- and a cabal.

Dean Kamen vs World Bank: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..."

February 18
Subject: Ephemeralization against the bureaucracy
Dear Pundita,
Welcome back! We've missed you. I just saw this euphoric post by open source advocate Eric Raymond about Dean Kamen's attempt to transform the economics of water and power distribution.

I'm sure much of this is hype (considering the Segway :-), but it is interesting how Eric (libertarian that he is) sees this as part of a larger quest to "dis-empower" government:

> Kamen's (rightly) contemptuous dismissal of conventional development economics, and his plan to end-run governments.
> Kamen is taking the next logical step: downsizing and decentralizing the power and water infrastructure. And look at the way he plans to do it; not by enlisting governments, but by tapping local entrepreneurialism.

To be sure, I think it is silly to imagine we can over do away with government, the way some Libertarians dream. On the other hand, it does seem plausible that technical achievements (or even failures) could dramatically impact some large-scale geopolitical issues you talk about, especially the development community.

Which brings me to my question: do you think it is possible for technology + entrepreneurship to (eventually) do an "end-run" around traditional development organizations (e.g., the World Bank), and demonstrate the viability of a truly grass-roots approach to social uplift?
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar in California"
radicalcentrism.org

Dear Dr. Ernie:
Thank you for alerting Pundita to the investment model developed by Dean Kamen and Iqbal Quadir; it's very exciting news so I can see why Eric Raymond is euphoric. Now to play wet blanket:

As the Kamen article notes, those nifty energy generator/water purifier machines have to be mass produced in order to bring their price within the reach of village entrepreneurs. As soon as you talk about mass production, you're talking about factories and distribution, and labor unions, and financing. When talking about financing you're talking about banks, which leads to banking regulations, and -- pretty soon you are entangled in the very red tape that Kamen wants to circumvent.

In 2003, Segway's marketing chief told CBS 60 Minutes that he was targeting military and industrial markets in Europe and Asia, "where there are fewer regulatory hurdles than in the U.S."

There are hurdles of a certain kind in the USA, but just try doing the most routine business in a developing country; the hurdles can be mind boggling. Two illustrations:

> Many illegal Mexicans in the US are here simply because they don't want to wait a decade to get a small business loan approved by a Mexican bank. So they work illegally in the USA just to establish credit so they can borrow from an American bank.

> In the 1990s Ukraine's government appealed to the World Bank for help in handling the massive task of establishing individual ownership of property, which of course was held collectively under the Soviet regime.

The examples are a helpful introduction to David Puglielli's paper The World Bank and Microfinance: An Elephant Trying to Build a Bird Nest, which is the shortest answer to your question. Puglielli observes:

...the World Bank has already found its place in the world of microfinance; structural adjustment programs designed to liberalize the over-regulated and suffocating less-developed economies.

The catch is that unless readers are already steeped in Bankese they will have to plow through the entire paper to fully grasp Puglielli's observation. The effort is worth the trouble; Puglielli's writing seems to be poorly transcribed in parts but the points are well reasoned and clear enough.

The points are also timely -- although for all Pundita knows the paper was published a decade ago. That is another reason to give the paper a read: the general public and businesspeople such as Kamen are at least a decade behind the thinking at the IMF-World Bank (and multilateral development institutions in general).

By the late 1990s the big institutions had come round to the idea that developing the physical infrastructures to support industry in the LDCs isn't much help, if the institutions and methods that support business in an advanced industrial nation are not in place.

In other words, if it takes years for entrepreneurs to get a simple business loan; if owners can't write business contracts because the legal infrastructure isn't in place to enforce the contracts; if the notion of private property has not been legally established, much less codified -- then the country is not exactly developing. It remains dependent on the advanced nations, no matter how many factories are built by multilateral institution development loans.

However, the World Bank and IMF must deal with governments that have any number of excuses for not modernizing their 'soft' infrastructures, shall we call them. Then along came the War on Terror and the Bush Democracy Doctrine; taken together, they provide the practical and theoretical rationale for shifting more emphasis to modernizing business infrastructures in the LDCs.

So that's where we are now. Microenterprise is coming into its own in development circles. The catch is that microenterprise, with its emphasis on small-scale entrepreneurs, requires microfinancing and thus, laws that don't mire small business and creative microfinancing in red tape.

The task for the American public in this regard is to lean hard on USAID; Treasury; Congress, the White House and, above all, the US Department of State, so that the multilateral development banks stay the course that the brightest development economists have laid down. (I urge Europeans in the advanced industrial nations to lean on their counterpart organizations as well.) As to why State is key in this regard:

In the manner of the White Rabbit Pundita cautions that you will lose your bearings if you assume that the World Bank's mission is development and reconstruction. The IBRD (now World Bank Group) and its sister organization, the IMF, were conceived as a means to avert another world war; that's their mission, which applies macroeconomic theories to the role of lending to governments that seek development and/or reconstruction assistance from wealthier governments.

The loan mechanism used by the Bank is a carrot and stick; it steers governments toward development/ reconstruction projects that follow economic principles which, in theory, help a poorer government avoid the kind of drastic conditions that traditionally lead to war.

But the development loan is also a powerful tool of foreign policy for the lending governments. So, historically, State (as with all foreign offices in the advanced industrial nations) tends to think in terms of advantage rather than development. Which means State has to be prodded to plug their ears when a government whines that they really can't modernize their business infrastructures if it means riling the party that put them in power. State understands all this; the public just needs to make sure that State's actions support their understanding.

Okay; that is the short answer to your question: In this era the inventor and the entrepeneur still need the World Bank. To be more precise, they need the governments in the advanced industrial nations to lean hard on the IMF and big development banks to keep pushing LDC governments toward modernizing their soft infrastructures.

(The response from many LDC governments will be -- and already is, in some cases -- "We don't need the IMF and World Bank and their stupid rules. We'll just go borrow from commercial banks." Persistence is the best retort.)

In the next post Pundita will tackle the kind of thinking that informs Kamen's push to save the world via cheap energy and clean drinking water. Puglielli's paper is enough homework for now.

Readers who are new to the concept of microfinancing, as applied to small scale development projects in LDCs, might want to visit the Grameen Bank, Grameen Foundation and Aga Khan Network websites before tackling David Puglielli's paper.(1)

Study the history of the Aga Khan's development network if you want to see how relatively small sums of money and lots of ingenuity and good planning can crank out "grassroots" development projects that work well. Also study the history of the Grameen Bank, which led the microinvesting revolution.

Next, I suggest visiting the Microvest Fund website to learn about microinvesting as it's used to help the world's poorest start small businessess.(2) And now that really is enough homework!

Finally, as I noted in the private reply to your February email, Pundita is not exactly back but we'll be posting a little more regularly -- at least once a week -- in April.

1)
Grameen Bank
http://www.grameen-info.org/
bank/GBdifferent.htm

Aga Khan Development Network
http://www.akdn.org/
agency/akf.html

2)
http://www.microvestfund.com/
(Pundita has no connection with Microvest Fund and this mention given to the company should not be considered an endorsement.)

Clans

"Anna, I can't cope. Look at this!"

It is doctor Anna who is shouting in despair, showing me another of those children. A lump at the back of the throat, eyes glistening with tears at the sight of the badly deformed girl on the cot.

"I'm beginning to hate [the Iraqis]. How can they do this to their children? They know that marriage between cousins..." She stops herself here and has to leave the room; she needs to go and give vent to her anger.

I am familiar with such moments. I glance down at the creature on the cot. I can barely bring myself to look. I can't describe her. My eyes meet hers and it's almost as if she's pleading for help. She understands. She is not going to survive in that body. I wish she didn't understand and she didn't know that there is no hope for her. Her loving father tries to comfort here. Maybe he should have thought earlier. Now it's too late; the damage is done and it's irreversible. Yet even the father, a middle-aged man, is also a victim.

"I have five children," he tells me. "Two of them are fine, but the other three..." I can see in his eyes what he's going to say. He continues. "She is the youngest. Her two brothers are dead."

Silence.

"This is Allah's will," he tells me.

What if Allah needed to be helped out a little?

"And soon this one is going to die too. And she knows it," he concludes.

I would like to ask him how many more children he wants to bring into this world before he stops. But I don't. He is a victim of a custom that is very much entrenched in Iraq. This is a country where inter-family marriage is quite common, where marrying a relative is perfectly acceptable. The key word is clan. The importance of belonging to one clan rather than another is almost inconceivable for a Western mind. And this man, who will not stop producing children even when faced with such horror, is the best representative.

"But I feel safe like this," a young woman married to her cousin once tried to explain to me. "I know that no one in this family will do me harm."

A debatable opinion.

"Should I marry a stranger instead? Marry someone from work who assures me that I can trust him?"

There are few opportunities in Iraq for women to meet men outside of their own family. There are still fewer opportunities for a woman to date a man and get to know him. Working women have slightly better chances, but only within the working day. Rarely can they meet men outside working hours; that would be considered inappropriate. Consequently, a woman chooses a blood relative who is a regular guest at her family's home. This explains why deformities. . .constitute a gaping wound in the Iraqi people's health."

--From Two Birthdays in Baghdad Finding the heart of Iraq by Anna Prouse

A modern French philosopher displays clarity of thought. Pass the smelling salts.

Marc Schulman at American Future has dug up another gem...

"Thursday, March 16th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Fact vs. Faith
By Marc Schulman
"The new issue of Democratiya is out. The lead article is Separating Truth and Belief by the French philosopher André Glucksmann. Better than anything else I've seen, it puts into words the disorganized thoughts that have been floating around in my mind about the Cartoon Jihad. The article is short, so I'm posting all of it..."

"[4 March-May 2006
Separating Truth and Belief
by André Glucksmann
Le Monde, 2006, 2 pp.

"The anti-caricature campaign started by attacking a newspaper. It then focussed on Denmark as a defender of the freedom of the press, and now it has all of Europe in its sights, which it accuses of having a double standard. The European Union allows the Prophet to be denigrated with impunity, but it forbids and condemns other 'opinions' like Nazism and denial of the Holocaust. Why are jokes about Muhammad permitted, but not those about the genocide of the Jews? This was the rallying call of fundamentalists before they initiated a competition for Auschwitz cartoons. Fair's fair: either everything should be allowed in the name of the freedom of expression, or we should censor that which shocks both parties. Many people who defend the right to caricature feel trapped. Will they publish drawings about the gas chambers in the name of freedom of expression?


Offence for offence? Infringement for infringement? Can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent 'beliefs' which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief.


This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought. Aristotle distinguished between indicative discourse on the one hand, which could be used to reach an affirmation or a negation, and prayer on the other. Prayers are not a matter for discussion, because they do not state: they implore, promise, vow and declare. They do not relate information, they perform an act. When the Islamist fanatic affirms that Europeans practise the 'religion of the Shoah' while he practises that of Muhammad, he abolishes the distinction between fact and belief. For him there are only beliefs, and so it follows that Europe will favour its own.


Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations – so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ('I am the truth') or they fall into nihilism ('nothing is true, nothing is false'). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.


A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject 'actually existing socialism'. Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists – who are far from representing all Muslims – like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising any one of the beliefs which every European has the right to practice or poke fun at.


For centuries, Jupiter and Christ, Jehovah and Allah have had to put up with many a joke. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith. That is the price of religious peace. But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future.

It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think. What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: here on earth the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity."

Through the Looking Glass

"Pundita, Re your March 12 post on the deleted [UK] Sunday Telegraph article by Dr. Sookhdeo:

A possible reason why removal of the article genuinely might be "for legal reasons." There was a statement in the Telegraph recently (read it in the print edition; unable to find online so far):

"The Sunday Telegraph acknowledges that Dr Sookhdeo's remarks did not refer to The Noble Qur'an, A Rendering of its Meaning in English, but to a completely different translation. The Sunday Telegraph apologises for this mistake and for any offence caused by it."

In other words, there could be a very good legal reason for removing the article.

Free speech, etc. notwithstanding if Sookhdeo, Palmer or the article editors confused titles, the Telegraph could be looking at a very nasty lawsuit if it kept the article up.

BTW I agree with the article argument; it looks like it's an unfortunate victim of the sloppy fact-checking common in newspapers here (which is odd, when you think about; it given how restrictive libel law is in England, you'd think they'd be really scrupulous about verifying facts).
John in UK"

Dear John
Thank you for news about the Telegraph apology. Pundita notes that Dr Sookhdeo very clearly wrote out the title of the book he referenced, which is not the same title that called forth the Telegraph apology. Thus, Pundita suspects that the Telegraph editor had to leap through the Looking Glass in order to scare up an excuse to delete the piece.

This said, British libel laws are beyond restrictive; they are a universe unto themselves, as Rachel Ehrenfeld learned the hard way. So it's possible that a mere similarity of wording in a title might be enough to provoke suit. (Or, as you suggest, this could be one to blame on the fact checkers.)

Of course these observations have nothing to do with Sookhdeo's points, which the British government seems reluctant to discuss, let alone debate, in public. The question is whether the government is reluctant to see the points debated in any public forum under the control of British law. (Or should we say,"British and Sharia" laws?)

Operation Safe Commerce study puts nail in coffin of Bush's defense of Dubai ports deal

..."The study, called "Operation Safe Commerce," undercuts arguments that port security in America is an exclusive province of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is not managed by companies operating shipping terminals.

The theme was an important element in the Bush administration's forceful defense of the deal it originally approved to allow Dubai-owned DP World to handle significant operations at ports in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia." ...

Full text:

Study Warns of Lapses by Port Operators
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press (via AOL news)

"WASHINGTON (March 12) -- Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports.

The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports.

The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked "sensitive security information" and obtained by The Associated Press.
The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges.

The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside.
Among the study's findings:

-- Safety problems were not limited to overseas ports. A warehouse in Maine was graded less secure than any in Pakistan, Turkey or Brazil. "There is a perception that U.S. facilities benefit from superior security protection measures," the study said. "This mind set may contribute to a misplaced sense of confidence in American business practices."

_No records were kept of "cursory" inspections in Guatemala for containers filled with Starbucks Corp. coffee beans shipped to the West Coast. "Coffee beans were accessible to anyone entering the facility," the study said. It found significant mistakes on manifests and other paperwork. In a statement to the AP, Starbucks said it was reviewing its security procedures.

-- Truck drivers in Brazil were permitted to take cargo containers home overnight and park along public streets. Trains in the U.S. stopped in rail yards that did not have fences and were in high-crime areas. A shipping industry adage reflects unease over such practices: "A container at rest is a container at risk."
-- Practices at Turkey's Port of Izmir were "totally inadequate by U.S. standards." But, the study noted, "It has been done that way for decades in Turkey."

-- Containers could be opened aboard some ships during weekslong voyages to America. "Due to the time involved in transit (and) the fact that most vessel crew members are foreigners with limited credentialing and vetting, the containers are vulnerable to intrusion during the ocean voyage," the study said.
-- Some governments will not help tighten security because they view terrorism as an American problem. The U.S. said "certain countries," which were not identified, would not cooperate in its security study -- "a tangible example of the lack of urgency with which these issues are regarded."

-- Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. "We consider ourselves playing an important role in security," said the company's vice president, Bob Waters.

In theory, some nuclear materials inside cargo containers can be detected with special monitors. But such devices have frustrated port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors -- which all emit natural radiation -- set off the same alarms more than 100 times every day.

The study applauded efforts to install radiation monitors overseas. "While there is clearly value in nuclear detection at a U.S. port, that is precisely the concern -- it is already on U.S. soil," it said.
Finding biological and chemical weapons inside cargo containers is less likely. The study said tests were "labor intensive, time-consuming and costly to use" and produced too many false alarms. "No silver bullet has emerged to render terrorists incapable of introducing WMD into containers," it said.

Sen. Patty Murray, who advocated the study, said: "There are huge holes in our security system that need to be filled." The Washington Democrat said the study "shows us there are major vulnerabilities over who handles cargo, where it's been and whether cargo is on a manifest."

Part of the study tested new tamper-evident locks on containers and tracking devices.
"It's important to figure out what works and what doesn't," said Elaine Dezenski, Homeland Security's acting assistant secretary for policy development. She said the study "gave us a much better view of vulnerabilities." The U.S. is looking for weaknesses across the shipping system to learn where terrorists might strike, she said.

The study, called "Operation Safe Commerce," undercuts arguments that port security in America is an exclusive province of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is not managed by companies operating shipping terminals.

The theme was an important element in the Bush administration's forceful defense of the deal it originally approved to allow Dubai-owned DP World to handle significant operations at ports in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Bush and senior officials sought to assure lawmakers that safety at ports would not decline.
"I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security when in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security," Bush said Feb. 28. "Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America."

DP World promised on Thursday to transfer fully to an American company its U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

It was unclear how such a sale might occur, but the divestiture was expected to involve major operations at the six U.S. ports and affect lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a leading critic of the Dubai deal, said anyone suggesting that port operators and shipping companies were not involved with security was "living in La-La land."

"You can obviously have stuff in containers that doesn't make it onto manifests, either by design or from the actions of bad actors," Menendez said in an AP interview Friday. "A terminal operator is so involved in the overall security equation of ports."

Parts of the U.S. study examined the safety of containers sent to the same cargo terminal in New Jersey that DP World would have managed jointly and operated with its Denmark-based rival, Maersk Sealand.
Hundreds of pages of study documents obtained by the AP do not list specific security lapses at the New Jersey terminal. The final two cargo containers being tracked under the study were expected to arrive there this week from the Middle East.

But the study broadly described problems in warehouses and other storage areas that raised doubts about the safety of containers brought to New Jersey's port. It cited problems with protective fences and gates, surveillance cameras and emergency plans.

The lengthy study has been beset by problems. Japan refused to allow officials to attach tracking devices to containers destined for the United States. Other tracking devices sometimes failed. Many shipping companies refused to disclose information for competitive reasons.

Some containers in the study were aboard a ship the Coast Guard held 11 miles off New Jersey's coast for security reasons in August 2004. An anonymous e-mail had claimed a container filled with tons of lemons was deliberately contaminated with a biological agent. The lemons were fumigated and burned, but no trace of poison was ever found; the containers also were destroyed.

Parts of the study could not be finished at all. U.S. officials went to Pakistan to inspect how workers in Karachi handle cargo containers. But they canceled plans for a return inspection because of an outbreak of terrorist attacks there.

Press censorship in Britain deletes opinion article about British Muslims

". . .in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law. It is already starting to happen – and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."

Thanks Marc for alerting me to this situation. Thanks also to Hyscience and VirtueOnline for rescuing the deleted article.

The censorship is bad enough but the observations in the Telegraph suggest that the British government is still having a hard time digesting the concept of a 'nation,' which of course can only be governed by one body of law. Fellow Americans, please take note.

* * * * * * * * *
By Marc Schulman at American Future
"On February 19, The Telegraph published an article by Alasdair Palmer entitled "ENGLAND: The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state."

If you click on the link, you won't find the article. Instead, you'll be treated to this message: "This story has been removed for legal reasons." What those legal reasons are isn't said.

Fortunately, Hyscience found the deleted article on another website. Shocking would be an understatement. You owe it to yourself to read all of it. Please help to disseminate it throughout the blogosphere.

ENGLAND: The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state

For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries.

"They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.

"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' – violence to the rest of us – then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

"It is already starting to happen – and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."

For someone with such strong and uncompromising views, Dr Sookhdeo is a surprisingly gentle and easy-going man. He speaks with authority on Islam, as it was his first faith: he was brought up as a Muslim in Guyana, the only English colony in South America, and attended a madrassa there.

"But Islamic instruction was very different in the 1950s, when I was at school," he says. "There was no talk of suicide bombing or indeed of violence of any kind. Islam was very peaceful."

Dr Sookhdeo's family emigrated to England when he was 10. In his early twenties, when he was at university, he converted to Christianity. "I had simply seen it as the white man's religion, the religion of the colonialists and the oppressors – in a very similar way, in fact, to the way that many Muslims see Christianity today.

" Leaving Islam was not easy. According to the literal interpretation of the Koran, the punishment for apostasy is death – and it actually is punished by death in some Middle Eastern states. "It wasn't quite like that here," he says, "although it was traumatic in some ways."

Dr Sookhdeo continued to study Islam, doing a PhD at London University on the religion. He is currently director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. He also advises the Army on security issues related to Islam.

Several years ago, Dr Sookhdeo insisted that the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings in this country. His prediction was depressingly confirmed on 7/7 last year.

So his claim that, in the next decade, the Muslim community in Britain will not be integrated into mainstream British society, but will isolate itself to a much greater extent, carries weight behind it. Dr Sookhdeo has proved his prescience.

"The Government, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, are fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam," he insists. "Tony Blair unintentionally revealed his ignorance when he said, in an effort to conciliate Muslims, that he had 'read through the Koran twice' and that he kept it by his bedside.

"He thought he was saying something which showed how seriously he took Islam. But most Muslims thought it was a joke, if not an insult. Because, of course, every Muslim knows that you cannot read the Koran through from cover to cover and understand it.

The chapters are not written to be read in that way. Indeed, after the first chapter, the chapters of the Koran are ordered according to their length, not according to their content or chronology: the longest chapters are first, the shorter ones are at the end.

"You need to know which passage was revealed at what period and in what time in order to be able to understand it – you cannot simply read it from beginning to end and expect to learn anything at all.

"That is one reason why it takes so long to be able to read and understand the Koran: the meaning of any part of it depends on a knowledge of its context – a context that is not in the Koran itself."

The Prime Minister's ignorance of Islam, Dr Sookhdeo contends, is of a piece with his unsuccessful attempts to conciliate it. And it does indeed seem as if the Government's policy towards radical Islam is based on the hope that if it makes concessions to its leaders, they will reciprocate and relations between fundamentalist Muslims and Tony Blair's Government will then turn into something resembling an ecumenical prayer meeting.

Dr Sookhdeo nods in vigorous agreement with that. "Yes – and it is a very big mistake. Look at what happened in the 1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists. The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done.

"The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work – yet it is still being followed. For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim bookshops.

"It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book.

"Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both."

Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.

They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.

"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.

'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion – and it is their aim to achieve this.

"That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future – and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.

"Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on."

That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities – which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.

"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.

"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time – and stay married, in sharia law, to all four.

"The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."

Dr Sookhdeo's vision of a relentless battle between secular and Islamic Britain seems hard to reconcile with the co-operation that seems to mark the vast majority of the interactions between the two communities.

"Well, it isn't me who says Islam is at war with secularisation," he says. "That's how Islamic clerics describe the situation."

But isn't it true that most Muslims who live in theocratic states want to get out of them as quickly as possible and live in a secular country such as Britain or America? And that most Muslims who come to Britain adopt the values of a liberal, democratic, tolerant society, rather than insisting on the inflexible rules of their religion?

"You have to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr Sookhdeo. "I agree that the best hope for our collective future is that the majority of Muslims who have grown up here have accepted the secular nature of the British state and society, the division between religion and politics, and the importance of allowing people to choose freely how they will live.

"But that is not how most of the clerics talk. And, more significantly, it is not how the 'community leaders' whom the Government has decided represent the Muslim community think either.

"Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a 'community leader'. Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as 'Muslims without Islam'. He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood.

"He calls the education in the state schools of the West 'aggression against the Islamic personality of the child'. He has said that 'the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle'. He has added that 'compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness'."

So what's the answer? What should the Government be doing? "First, it should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.

"Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed.

"The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.

"Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions – but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here.

"If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome."

http://americanfuture.net/?p=1480

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/
modules/news/article.php?storyid=3645

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/
2006/03/telegraph_self_1.php#more

The New York Times sorta profiles John Batchelor's show

Pundita notes the writer manages to avoid mentioning that John's show represents a revolution in news broadcasting and sets a high standard for foreign-policy related reporting and analysis. The best parts of the piece: when John is talking.

He Takes the Shout Out of Talk Radio
The New York Times
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
Published: February 19, 2006

"WITH his soft-spoken demeanor and a preppy, bookish wardrobe that might seem more appropriate for a college professor, John Batchelor is not a particularly noticeable figure along the tree-lined streets of Briarcliff Manor, where he is one of Westchester's newest boldface names. Other than his involvement at the town's local Congregational church, where his wife is a pastor, Mr. Batchelor generally keeps a low profile.

But tune in to his near-nightly talk show on WABC radio and Mr. Batchelor is nothing if not provocative.

In the last five years, Mr. Batchelor has carved an unusual slot in the radio station's typically conservative lineup, where he is the host of a show from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. on weeknights that is heard nationwide. He does not stray far from the political leanings of Laura Ingraham and some of his other WABC counterparts.

But in a landscape of radio often dominated by shouting, Mr. Batchelor's show has enjoyed the rare distinction of being a source of sophisticated — and at times impossibly erudite — political debate and quirky subject matter.

Mr. Batchelor, 57, has described his show as the BBC without British accents, but others in the world of talk radio have referred to it as NPR on drugs. A typical episode combines world news reports with interviews of guests who are almost always in another time zone and tend to run the gamut from foreign correspondents to leaders of militant groups in the Middle East, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"It's so much more exciting to interview terrorists than American politicians, who never, ever have anything interesting to say," Mr. Batchelor explained.

There is no call-in segment to the John Batchelor Show. Mr. Batchelor prefers instead to let his guests do the talking and then move rapidly from one subject to the next, with no downtime. And for added suspense, each segment is set to the strains of tense and sometimes warlike music from films like "Hotel Rwanda" and "Gladiator."

"This is an audio experience," Mr. Batchelor said. "Providing as many different voices, and as many different accents, and as many different points of view of the same story as possible gives the listener the feeling, correctly, that whatever we're covering is a global event."

For Mr. Batchelor, a former novelist, there is a good reason for the show's global perspective. In his world, segments on the show are not so much "reports" or "interviews" as they are "chapters" in what Mr. Batchelor considers the larger story of the United States in a post-9/11 world.

The show first went on the air the day after the attack on the World Trade Center. At the time, Mr. Batchelor had been appearing on a weekend radio show on WABC as a conservative commentator and conspiracy theorist, delving into assassinations and political mysteries.

On the weekend before Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Batchelor "happened to do a whole night's worth of talking on this weirdo guy over on the other side of the planet called Osama Bin Laden," recalled Lee Mason, Mr. Batchelor's longtime producer. On Sept. 12, a WABC producer called Mr. Batchelor and his liberal co-host at the time, Paul Alexander, and begged them to move into the time slot held by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ms. Mason said.

The show was extended week after week until it eventually became a mainstay. Mr. Alexander left in 2003 to resume his career as a writer.

Mr. Batchelor said that every international event that he and his guests have debated — elections in Haiti, for example, or revolution in Nepal — is in some way connected to the conflict in the Middle East.

Among his favorite topics these days is Iran, he said, because "that's the next theater of conflict."

"I feel like I'm telling a series of stories every night," he said. "And they're all in the context of telling the story of the war, the threat to the United States, which I think is profound and will last a century or more."

With its climactic music and heavy subject matter, the show might not seem like one that most people would choose to listen to as they drift off to sleep. But in fact it is currently the top-rated show in talk radio for his time slot. Still, even for its most sophisticated acolytes, the show's content can at times be tough to decipher. When the on-air light flicked on in Mr. Batchelor's studio in Midtown Manhattan on a recent evening, for instance, the host jumped straight into an interview with a philosophy professor at Princeton, Kwame Anthony Appiah, who was asked to discuss cosmopolitanism and its relationship to the so-called cartoon riots in the Middle East.

A half-hour later, an astronomy professor at a Mexican university was on the air, describing in detail his theories on the genesis of genetic material from the "prebiotic soup" that existed on Earth billions of years ago.

“In talk radio, you're only supposed to be popular if you're tempestuous, confrontational or bigoted," Mr. Batchelor said, sitting at a desk cluttered with microphones and computers. "In my opinion, talk radio has consistently underestimated its audience. My show works because it's very smart and so is the audience."

On the show Mr. Batchelor rarely hides his own conservative views, but some of his most frequent guests are also his political opposites. Katrina vanden Heuvel, who has been on several times and is the editor of The Nation magazine, said she thought the show was "an antidote to the trivialization of news and the classic talk radio format."

"Though I disagree with him about 90 percent of the time, he has had me on and he's respectful of my views," she said of Mr. Batchelor. "He lets me speak my piece, which you can't say about many of our media formats today." [...]

Transformational Diplomacy

Michael Wright: What do you think of Condoleezza Rice’s announced changes at State, USAID, and the concept of "Transformational Diplomacy?"

Pundita: The meaning of the term is clear enough. The US will tag US-controlled development dollars to how well foreign governments adhere to US standards for democratic government reforms --

MW: What I’m hearing is a lot more talk about trade than democracy – how much the developing nations are willing to kowtow to WTO.

Pundita: Since when has State not been pushing that agenda? That’s old news. My sense is that Transformational Diplomacy talk is the clearest sign that the US has tacitly acknowledged that the United Nations is not the place to promote certain US agendas.

MW: Despite the changes Bolton is bringing about [at the UN]?

Pundita: Streamlining the bureaucracy there, getting rid of the worst corruption – efforts in that regard will go forward, but I think the US government has been coming round to the idea that bilateralism is the best path for dealing with certain types of aid and development situations.

Keep in mind that USAID stands for "US Agency for International Development," not "US foreign aid," although USAID does provide outright aid.

MW: Many people don’t make the distinction between aid and development even though it’s an important one. If they’re throwing in the towel with the UN, what about the World Bank? Do you think the US will eventually pull out of the Bank?

Pundita: Not as long as the Bank exists. I don’t think they’re so much throwing in the towel as getting a better picture of US limitations working through multilateral institutions –- what can and cannot be accomplished through the Bank and UN.

MW: You mean, what the American people can reasonably expect their tax dollars to accomplish at those organizations?

Pundita: That’s one way of putting it, although I was thinking in narrower terms: how State and the Pentagon can better coordinate strategies using bilateral approaches in certain cases and multilateral ones -- for example the UN and the Bank --in others.

I’m seeing a more flexible, empirical approach taking shape in US foreign policy; Rice’s announcements in January and the reasonably positive response she received from Congress suggest that the approach has gone beyond the talking stage.

MW: But you’ve said many times that State already has too much power.

Pundita: I am wary about the new post that has been created – Development Czar – and I am very concerned that changes at State are a bandage over festering wounds. Yet it’s too early to do anything but study the unfolding situations.

MW: You think [Transformational Diplomacy ] is a new day, though?

Pundita: That depends greatly on the next US administration. They could backtrack --return US foreign policy to following the lead of Brussels. Nothing is jelled at this point.

MW: So, the possible dawn of a new day?

Pundita: To be cautious, yes.

* * * * *
Three 1/06 articles related to the discussion:

"U.S. foreign aid machinery being reshaped
WILLIAM C. MANN
Associated Press – January 20, 2006
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reshaping the $19 billion U.S. foreign aid program and has appointed the government's global AIDS coordinator to run it.

She said Randall Tobias, a former corporate executive who headed two major American companies before entering government, will be administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and will hold the additional new title of director of foreign assistance, equivalent to deputy secretary.

Rice said Thursday the changes were to further the Bush administration's "transformational diplomacy" goals. That is the concept of using aid as a way of bringing good government to poorly run countries.

"Foreign assistance is an essential component of our transformational diplomacy," Rice said. "In today's world, America's security is linked to the capacity of foreign states to govern justly and effectively."

On Wednesday, she defined it this way: "Transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership, not paternalism; in doing things with other people, not for them."
Thursday's bureaucratic shuffle built on changes in effect since late in the administration of former President Clinton, when Congress tried to have the State Department absorb USAID. That move fizzled, but while remaining independent, the agency came under "the direction and general foreign policy guidance" of the secretary of state.

As the new USAID administrator, Tobias replaces Andrew Natsios, who resigned to join the faculty of Georgetown University.

Some outside experts had expected Rice to make such a move, perhaps by naming a deputy secretary for development. The administrative formula Rice chose saved the Bush administration a probable battle with Congress because the change will not require the paperwork and the expense of officially restructuring the State Department.

Rice said the change will make USAID more effective.

Early reactions from members of Congress were generally positive. Sen. Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, said Rice has outlined weaknesses in the current foreign aid system. "I will support any changes that will make these programs more efficient and effective," the Vermont senator said, but "I want to be sure that USAID's long-term development goals do not take a back seat to a short-term political agenda."

Leahy's counterpart on the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., also praised Rice's move but said it didn't go far enough. She said she wants to end "the fragmentation that exists with the dozen or more other U.S. government agencies that also provide international assistance, most notably the Department of Defense."

Lowey recommended that President Bush support Rice in bringing "the totality of our foreign assistance programs" under State Department control.
Larry Knowles, a foreign aid specialist with the bipartisan Congressional Research Service, said in a National Public Radio interview that the restructuring "could actually work both to the advantage and the disadvantage of USAID being the premier development assistance agency."

"While it will bring it closer to the State Department," Knowles said, "it will be another signal of demoting the USAID staff's status in deciding where the money should be spent."

http://www.mercurynews.com/
mld/mercurynews/news/politics/
13668121.htm


"DEVELOPMENT:
Groups Worried About New US Aid CzarEmad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (IPS) - The United States has unveiled a new plan for how it spends foreign aid dollars that links U.S. security to democracy and development overseas.

But development activists fear the new overhaul could be ideologically motivated and criticised the appointment of a new aid director who they say had performed poorly in his previous position.

"In today's world, America's security is linked to the capacity of foreign states to govern justly and effectively," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday as she announced the plan. "Our foreign assistance must help people get results."

The new re-structuring plan unifies U.S. aid agencies, aid accounts and individual programmes under one director. President George W. Bush said he will appoint Randall Tobias, who now heads the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the U.S. global AIDS programme.

Tobias will also be the new administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and will oversee all U.S. foreign aid work. He will also carry the title of Deputy Secretary for Development.

Around 80 percent of all U.S. assistance goes through USAID and the State Department.

Tobias takes over USAID, which works in more than 100 countries with a 14-billion-dollar annual budget, from outgoing administer Andrew S. Natsios, whose resignation was announced last month.

He previously served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company. Officials from the State Department say the new changes will involve a sharper focus on the spread of democracy and the push not to have "failed states" without U.S. intervention.

Under the overhauled programme, Rice said, State Department officials and those from USAID, which has been independent since its founding in 1961, will have to exchange experiences and work. Diplomats will now get training in "complicated foreign assistance programmes", she said.

Rice said she will also initiate talks with Congress soon as to how the U.S. can better use its foreign assistance.

The State Department says that U.S. money should be used to empower developing countries to strengthen security, to consolidate democracy and to increase trade.

Rice also said that Washington should further link its aid to defeat terrorist threats. In her speech Thursday, she invoked the attacks of 9/11 and noted that the terrorists used the previously failed state of Afghanistan to launch their attacks.

"In the final analysis, we must now use our foreign assistance to help prevent future Afghanistans -- and to make America and the world safer," she said.

Rice named terrorism, weapons proliferation, diseases, and trafficking in persons and drugs as global threats that require the U.S. to develop new diplomatic strategies. She said that without the new changes, U.S. foreign assistance may be ineffective.

"The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and ineffective programmes and perhaps even wasted resources. We can do better and we must do better," Rice warned Thursday.

But some civil society groups criticised the appointment of Tobias, citing his record in the fight against AIDS.

"Under his direction, HIV prevention programmes have shifted from being based in public health science to being dictated by the abstinence-only-until-marriage ideology of the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of the Washington-based Advocates for Youth.

Activists fear that too much ideology in the foreign aid system may derail other important programmes like family planning and population management.

"As head of USAID, Ambassador Tobias will not only be responsible for AIDS funding, but also in charge of population and family planning programmes," concluded Wagoner. "How will his anti-science ideology impact programmes vital to protecting the health of women and young people around the world?"

Tobias' record in the fight against AIDS has also been marred by accusations of favouring drug corporations by displaying a preference for using more expensive, brand-name drugs instead of cheaper, safe generic versions that could have reached many more people in impoverished countries.

"An administrator of USAID should be committed to the most cost-effective and far-reaching response to such international challenges, rather than championing corporate interests and profits," said Ann-Louise Colgan, director for policy analysis and communications at Africa Action.

Advocacy groups have also expressed concerns that sensitive aid programmes will now be run by a pharmaceutical company executive with no experience in development work.

"We feel that these concernsà must raise serious questions about Mr. Tobias' qualifications to run the U.S. Agency for International Development," said Colgan.

The new aid strategy announced by Rice is also part of an overarching restructuring of the State Department that Rice has called "transformational diplomacy". This means U.S. diplomats will have to work directly with foreign citizens to help them "build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system".

Under the plan, areas previously not at the top of development priorities, like the Middle East and Islamic nations, where the U.S. claims it wants to spread democracy, will apparently take precedence.

The secretary said that the new front lines of U.S. diplomacy are in the transitional countries of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East and emerging regional leaders like India, China, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa."(END/2006)
http://www.ipsnews.net/
news.asp?idnews=31837

"Rice Explains Aid Restructuring to USAID EmployeesBy Bradley Graham and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A02

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced a barrage of pointed questions yesterday from employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development, who expressed concerns that an administration move to centralize the management of foreign assistance will weaken the agency and place short-term political goals ahead of long-term development aims.

Rice took the unusual step of holding a town-hall-style meeting with hundreds of USAID employees after announcing the creation of a high-level State Department position to oversee all foreign aid programs.

Rice said the position -- director of foreign assistance -- is intended to bring greater coherence and efficiency to a broad patchwork of often overlapping assistance programs that now total about $19 billion. Randall L. Tobias, a former pharmaceuticals industry executive who has headed the administration's global AIDS program for the past 2 1/2 years, was named to fill the position and also to serve as the new USAID administrator.

The moves eased fears at USAID that the agency, set up in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy, would be merged into the State Department. But it prompted other worries, voiced in the questioning, that USAID's strategic planning role might end up diminished and that the agency's corps of experienced foreign aid specialists might be superseded by Foreign Service officers.

In her nearly hour-long appearance before a standing-room-only crowd gathered in the cavernous Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium next to USAID headquarters, Rice offered assurances that USAID will continue to play a key role in setting development strategy and that the administration will maintain a long-term view on development issues. "If we have a short-term perspective, we will fail," she said.
Several longtime USAID officials who heard Rice said in brief interviews afterward that her decision to hold the meeting was itself a significant gesture, but they also made clear that they will be withholding final judgment about the revamped management structure.

"The plan, in broad strokes, makes sense," said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the interview was not authorized. "But the devil is going to be in the details."

The choice of Tobias drew some criticism. He has little experience in development issues other than the anti-AIDS effort, and some activists have faulted him for placing less emphasis on condom use than on abstinence to reduce the spread of AIDS, and for moving too slowly to promote inexpensive generic drugs.
But his supporters in the administration and in Congress stressed his management skills yesterday. "He has proven in his private and public sector responsibilities that he can successfully manage big organizations and complicated programs," Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

The foreign assistance initiative is part of a series of moves announced by Rice this week under the banner "transformational diplomacy." Her plan, announced Wednesday, to redeploy U.S. diplomats from Europe to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere received some backing yesterday from the American Foreign Service Association.

J. Anthony Holmes, the association's president, said his group supports the plan in general but is concerned about the security arrangements for diplomats who will be placed in large cities away from capitals. He also questioned whether the government has the financial resources to carry out Rice's vision.

Rice said 100 Foreign Service officers due to rotate into posts in Europe and Washington this summer will get new assignments. Holmes said a number of the officers are halfway through training for such difficult languages as Russian and Polish, and so the new assignments will be "very disruptive for families and individuals."

Pundita still alive

Clearly the idea for "Pundita Uncut" and "Pundita Encore" blogs has not panned out. I will post an essay this Saturday at Pundita.

Best regards to all,
Pundita

Pundita Uncut

Pundita Uncut is for readers who are already familiar with Pundita essays. Posting at the new blog will be erratic. Don't look for essay quality writings, Pundita's team, Pundita's famous patience with lame questions, or Pundita's charm and graciousness.

Pundita Uncut will be notes, quick takes, and updates on Pundita's doings.

Two posts up today at the new blog.

http://punditauncut.blogspot.com/

Happy New Year and best regards to all,
Pundita

Found: Saddam Hussein WMD tapes

From Intelligence Summit Press Release 1/6/06

"A former military intelligence analyst, who currently works as a civilian contractor, believes he has found a cache of extremely confidential--and very shocking--audio recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings. The audiotapes, which had apparently been overlooked, were found in a warehouse along with many other untranslated Iraqi intelligence files. These tapes are extremely significant, since they may be the best evidence yet of Saddam's secret intentions concerning weapons of mass destruction.

Before 9/11, many intelligence experts were convinced that a very strong and important Iraqi WMD connection existed, only to change their minds when no concrete evidence of that connection could be uncovered in the three years following the beginning of Iraqi war.

Because of the considerable historical importance of this stunning recent development, the contractor who obtained and reviewed these tapes plans to release them to the public on February 17, 2006 at the Intelligence Summit, a non-partisan, non-profit conference open to the public, scheduled to be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, Virginia that weekend.

After his presentation, a panel of intelligence experts will discuss the ways in which experts may verify the fact that Hussein in fact recorded these audiotapes. These procedures include utilization of voiceprint analysis and other technical means of voice verification. [...]

In regard to these highly confidential audiotapes, Attorney John Loftus, President of the Intelligence Summitsm, recently stated that, "Saddam's secret office recordings continued well into the year 2000. In all, they contain at least 12 hours of totally candid discussions with his senior aides. Clearly, after these tapes have been verified and corroborated, they will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important-and controversial-weapons of mass destruction questions." Loftus went on to say that the contractor who found and recovered the tapes has requested that his identity remain anonymous until he makes his presentation. [...]"

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/

For info on the summit:

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/