News and views

comparison between China and Nigeria

Food Crisis

Jonathan Rauch. Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? Atlantic Monthly

India vs China, et al

India beats China in business competitiveness - The Economic Times

A few useful comments in here on China. I found the sense of rivalry with India interesting. This story, howevers, covers much of the world and so has only a little to say on India and China.

Afghanistan reconstruction

Afghanistan Reconstruction

Pete Boudreau found this Web site with lots of information on reconstruction in Afghanistan. Check it out.

419 scam

Nigeria - The 419 Coalition Website

It's nice to know Nigeria has at least one booming export industry besides oil, right? Wrong!

Depending on how well your junk mail filters work you have probably received one or more of these scam emails from Nigeria - or referencing Nigeria. I have received at least a dozen over the years - probably many more. I don't count, I don't care, and I certainly don't respond.

In fact, I never knew this scam had a name and I have asked - over the years - other knowledgeable computer types about it and they didn't know. But it does have a name and apparently it's quite an industry. Go to the above Web site to learn more.

America Preaches Free Markets, but not at Home

Do As We Do, Not As We Say

This piece by Nobel laureate (Economics, 2001) and former Chief Economist at the World Bank (1996 - 1999) Joseph Stiglitz should bear the title given by the link, not that which appears on the page. It is a cautionary lesson to third-world, developing nations not to agree to the kinds of strictures that the IMF seeks to impose on debtor nations because (1.) the history of those strictures is a succession of failed economies and (2.) the US does not practice them in its own market place.

Taliban Raise the Ante

Taliban Increase Control

The International Monetary Fund

This page has been constructed to provide you quick access to documents that will explain what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is and does and also what critics of the fund think.

If you would like to know more about what the IMF is and its aims are, this link will take you to the Fund's website. IMF Homepage
Once there I suggest you start by following the link entitled "About the IMF" which you'll find in the upper left column.

One of the most outspoken critics of the IMF today is Joseph Stiglitz who served as Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of theWorld Bank from 1996 - 1999 and was made a Nobel Laureate for his contributions to Economics in 2001. During his time at the World Bank he became increasingly critical of the IMF and resigned, or was forced out by U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers depending on whose version of history you read, rather than stifle his criticism. Stiglitz also served as chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. The bottom-line problem in his view is secrecy which precludes external critique of policy. Joseph Stiglitz

Convincing people at the World Bank of my analysis proved easy; changing minds at the IMF was virtually impossible. . . . It was maddening, not just because the IMF's inertia was so hard to stob but because, with everything going on behind closed doors, it was impossible to know who was the real obstacle to change. . . . I shouldn't have been surprises. The IMF likes to go about its business without outsiders asking too many questions. In theory, the fund supports democratic institutions in the nations it assists. In practice, it undermines the democratic process by imposing policies. Offically, of course, the IMF doesn't "impose" anything. It "negotiates" the conditions for receiving aid. But all the power in the negotiations is on one side -- the IMF's -- and the fund rarely allows sufficient time for broad consensus-bulding or even widespread consultations with either parliaments or civil society. sometimes the IMF dispenses with the pretense of openness altogether and negotiates secret covenants. [Emphasis added]

The single most controversial aspect of the programs the IMF imposes is that of the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS). The SAPs are what Stiglitz is criticizing in his piece. The following link takes you to another page of "The Whirled Bank Group" (Stiglitz is a member of the Group and his page is on the Group's site.), a page discussing the dynamics between debt and the World Bank, a close partner of the IMF. Debt & the World Bank While there, click on the eye icon in the upper right corner to go to the home page of the Group and to view the myriad links offered. [I like a good name and love what this Group has done with its name and what it seeks.]

A defense of the IMF was presented this September by Flemming Larson, the Director of the IMF's Offices in Europe, in his Introductory Remarks at World Council of Churches - World Bank - IMF Meeting. Council of Churches - World Bank - IMF Meeting [Note to discussion group. While this page is at the IMF site, I did not find it through their Homepage, but through a search, so thought it would be easier to put it up rather than ask you to find it. dsd]

One of the things that struck me in the final paragraph of his presentation is the IMF's readiness to advocate debt forgiveness!!

Finally, I want to emphasize the Fund's advocacy role. We are working closely with the official aid community to encourage debt forgiveness for highly-indebted low-income countries. We are also working to promote higher aid levels, grants instead of loans, untied assistance rather than tied to specific purchases, harmonization of donor practices to reduce the burden for recipient countries, and greater aid predictability. To illustrate how the Fund liaises with donors, I can mention that one of my staff in Paris is a permanent observer to the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. We also remain a strong critic of the industrial countries' agricultural policies and an unwavering proponent for the developing countries' interests in the Doha trade round. There is no better illustration of the IMF's views in this area than the statement issued last week by our Managing Director together with the Heads of the World Bank and the OECD. [Emphasis added]

Note that the provision "highly-indebted low-income countries" precludes consideration of Nigeria. There are no simple answers!!

Africa's Debt Fuels AIDS Fire

Debt Cancellation

At this site you will find a red star and a label "New! Africa's Debt - Fueling the fire of AIDS (April 2003)." Click on the small pdf link to go to a piece making a two-prong case for the cancellation of national debts in African nations. Prong one argues that Africa's debt is a grave threat to its ability to provide health care, especially for the mounting number of HIV/AIDS cases, and education. Prong two argues that Africa's debt is illigetimate on four counts.

What do you think? Why?

First adverting, then politics!

There's a Sucker Born in Every Medial Prefrontal Cortex

Think about it – neuromarketing – and shudder. This story does not mention politics. It does not mention foreign affairs. It is about the brain and marketing. But the basic ideas explored here have profound implications for how we make decisions.

Why, for example, if people prefer the taste of Pepsi, do they choose Coke? The story asks that question and gives an answer of sorts. It might have asked – why did people become angry with the lie of Clinton to cover-up the kind of personal escapade so many of them have, but not become angry at the lies of Bush to justify going to war?

This story doesn’t contain a lot of answers. But it points to a new direction of neuroscience research and believe me, what will first be applied to selling sugar water, will, if successful, be applied to selling ideas and the people behind them. In my book that makes this must reading for those trying to come to grips with the mysteries of human decision making - how and why people make the choices they make. (Of course this also may go the way of subliminal advertising, but right now it seems quite credible.)

What they are looking at here is a subject that has long fascinated me – the basic idea that we make important decisions at some subconscious level, and then rationalize this decision. So, for example, we make the decision subconsciously that we prefer Coke over Pepsi, then we rationalize this decision by saying we prefer the taste – when, in fact, we don’t.

Or at a subconscious level we make the decisions that we like George Bush – or some other politician – then at a conscious level we justify that decision with rational arguments. Our problem is, we try to change people’s mind by attacking those rational arguments. But even if we win the battle of rational arguments, we frequently lose the war of public opinion. Why? You won’t find the answers here – but you will find intriguing new information.

Saudi American Forum

Saudi American Forum -- United States of America Saudi Arabia Relations

This is the website that Salma provided us yesterday. If you would like to see the interview that picqued her interest, follow this link: Bernard Dunn Interview

As I browse the site I am impressed by the quantity of writing that has been posted on the matter of Saudi-American relations. Front and center today (25 October 2002) is one entitled "The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment" while just below is a 3-part interview with Ambassador Charles Freeman. This link will take you to the third part which asks the question, after all that has gone before, what is to be done? What Is to be Done?

He raises interesting points on protecting the Saudi American relationship from further erosion, among them the impact. In response to a question about the factors contributing to the further damage of the relationship he has this to say:

I think the most important negative effect has been caused by changes in U.S. visa policy and entry procedures, which essentially dried up the arrival of students in the United States from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Consequently, an important part of the relationship -- the previous generation had a good understanding and sense of connection to the United States -- has suffered. The next generation will not have that understanding or that connection, not having studied here.

In the business area, the difficulty of getting visas and the well grounded fear of humiliation at the border, or by law enforcement officials in the United States after arrival, or by airline crews, or by others has essentially dried up business travel. New business is not being done and old business relationships are atrophying, and exports from the region are rapidly declining.

The terrorists' focus on the American expat community in the kingdom and in the region more broadly, and various incidents like the [May 2003] Riyadh bombing plus the negative image of Saudi Arabia in the United States have significantly reduced the flow of American travelers to the region and led to an outflow of the resident Americans there.

The two countries really need to sit down and talk about how to reverse the trends that are ensuring that the basic human fabric from which the relationships have been sustained does not fray and disappear. We must ensure that the future generations of Americans and Saudi Arabians do not grow up in ignorance of each other - that they do not have negative views of each other formed by the absence of contact. These are very real possibilities.

When asked what should be done to reverse the estrangement between Americans and Saudi Arabians he responds:

It seems to me that some useful things could be done here, and some of them are really fairly simple. If the American visa system, for example, which now records three names for Arab visitors -- meaning the given name, the father's name and family name or tribal or place name -- were expanded to parallel the Saudi passport system, which has four names, mainly the given name, the father's name and the grandfather's name and the tribal or place name or the family name. Then, there would be far less confusion by computers about people who the United States ought to welcome to our shores versus people who we have a justified concern about.

There are a series of technical fixes that could be worked out if the two sides sat down and talked earnestly about how to reverse current negative trends, which I think they should do.

My feeling is that there needs to be a much larger effort made by Saudi Arabians and their government on a much more institutionalized and long-term basis to build a base of understanding and support in the United States to replace the current suspicion and ignorance. There needs to be a dialogue between the two governments in the ways of reversing the current trends towards estrangement at the popular level and rebuilding the relationship.

Obviously the trend in Saudi Arabia toward openness needs to continue, such that the press here does not criticize Saudi Arabia for imaginary faults but perhaps criticizing it for things that are genuinely wrong. I think that's been the trend, and I give the government of Saudi Arabia a good deal of credit.

I should also say I've been very impressed by the extent to which Saudi Arabia, in the wake of 9/11, has engaged in introspection and taken on some tough problems that it had avoided addressing for many decades. These include cleaning up elements of its education system, not just the sexual apartheid issue of separate women's educational management system but also the curriculum.

Crown Prince Abdullah has, in effect, staked out the positions that Americans ought to applaud on a wide range of issues: the need for Arabs broadly to cease blaming others and to correct their own faults; the willingness of Arabs -- if the Palestinians and Israelis can work out a mutually satisfactory peace -- to step in with their own normalization of relations with Israel; and to buttress that, with the Arab Reform Charter. These things are very positive and represent progress.
I'm sorry to say that I do not see the same level of introspection and consideration by Americans of what it is we might do to reduce friction with countries and peoples in the Middle East. There has been no examination of our policies in the region which may have played a part in producing the threat to our own security we now confront. Actually, I think we could learn a lot from the Saudis in terms of facing up to the need to take a good hard look at ourselves and our behavior.

My initial impression: the quantity of writing is matched by the quality of thought and writing.

Thanks much, Salma!

PIPA surveys

American attitudes: Program on International Policy Attitudes

The survey on "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" is found on this Web site. While we have linked to it from within other messages, it is being placed here in the "the media" category just to make it easier to find.

nigeria energy status

An article on Nigeria energy problems

Rumsfeld memo on terror

October 16, 2003
To: Gen. Dick Myers Paul Wolfowitz Gen. Pete Pace Doug Feith
From: Donald Rumsfeld
Subject: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were:

Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?
Is DoD (Department of Defense) changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment?
Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere -- one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 11th seems to be: We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them -- nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban -- Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering? Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.

Seymour Hersh Interview

Stovepiped Intelligence

Seymour Hersh has published a lengthy description of the way that intelligence was manipulated in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in October's issue of The New Yorker. Amy Davidson of The New Yorker interviews Hersh not only about his article but also about the current state of the Bush administration and what he might anticipate from the administration in the coming months. A couple questions and answers will give you a flavor of the interview and of the article. A link to that article is at the foot of this page.

Question: Was this, then, a matter of the Administration lying to itself as much as to anyone else?

One of the great questions is "Were they lying? Did they know the truth?" And the answer, I think, to a large degree, is that, whatever they may have suspected, they didn’t know the truth, because the truth was simply impossible for them to see. The system had been set up so that they saw only what they wanted. And, you know, these people, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in particular, came to the office openly suspicious of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy. They thought they were too soft on Iraq, not tough enough with Saddam, not able to make the decisive choices. So what you have is a bunch of people who weren’t lying; they simply had fixed the system so it couldn’t give them information they didn’t want to hear. One of the intelligence guys I talked to used a wonderful analogy. He said, "It’s as if you all had gone into a planetarium and the software for the sky show had gone bad and you were seeing the wrong sky, and you walked outside, and you looked up and you said, ‘Hey, what’s going on. This isn’t right.’" And that’s what they had done: they had gone into the planetarium, they set themselves up with the wrong software, and then they were surprised to find that the rest of the world didn’t conform—the war began, and there were no W.M.D.s.

. . .

We’ve been talking about how the case for the war was made. Why does that matter now, now that we’re in there?

Well, for one thing, it matters because we have a system set up, a stovepipe system, that’s still in place. We’re still in a situation in which intelligence that doesn’t meet political criteria doesn’t get to the President, and in which people in high positions will take any intelligence that makes their case and move it directly to the President. It’s not a straight system. There’s still this incredible impasse.

. . .

Last week, the President said that the press was being too negative about Iraq.

Well, that’s because the stove-piped reports he gets are generally much more upbeat.

. . .
. . . Remember that the Administration, no matter how they twist the words or spin the words, told us we’d find weapons in Iraq. They believed it. That was the intelligence they got. And, to me, the fact that they weren’t lying and really believed it is as alarming as if they had been lying. It’s very, very troubling. [Emphasis added]

I do not share Hersh's sanguine view of Cheney and Bush as targets, perhaps even as victims; I see them as complicit in the system. And, as Hersh points out, that system is still in place with severe implications for American foreign policy in the coming months.

But, read it and make your own judgment.

If you would like to read Hersh's article in its entirety, follow this link: The Stovepipe

A rationale for war - today and tomorrow

Pentagon's New Map

This article appeared in Equire last spring. It, and the letters responding to it, present arguments for the War in Iraq that are rarely heard or discussed.

While I recommend reading the entire article and the linked letters responding to it, here is a sample:

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.
 
When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror.  Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
 
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important:  It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger.  Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.
 
The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome:  Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere.  Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments.  Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.
 

National Security Strategy Excerpted

The New York Times on Line

September 20, 2002

Excerpts: Bush's National Security Strategy

Following are excerpts from President Bush's outline of "The National Security Strategy of the United States." The full text is online at the White House in both Web and PDF format.

The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise. In the 21st century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think, choose who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their children — male and female, own property and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society — and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe. . . .

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, taught us that weak states like Afghanistan can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.

I. OVERVIEW OF AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY

We will:

• Speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom;
• use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle nonviolently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take;
• take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments. . . .

II. STRENGTHEN ALLIANCES TO DEFEAT GLOBAL TERRORISM AND WORK TO PREVENT ATTACKS AGAINST US AND OUR FRIENDS

. . . Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate.

We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:

• direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) or their precursors;
• defending the United States, the American people and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively; . . . and
• denying further sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.

We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:

• using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
• supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation; . . .

V. PREVENT OUR ENEMIES FROM THREATENING US, OUR ALLIES AND OUR FRIENDS WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

. . . Our comprehensive strategy to combat W.M.D. includes:

• Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. . . . Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. . . .

VI. IGNITE A NEW ERA OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH FREE MARKETS AND FREE TRADE

. . . We will use our economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth, including:

• pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation and entrepreneurial activity;

• tax policies, particularly lower marginal tax rates, that improve incentives for work and investment;

• rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors. . . .

Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health. We will ensure that the W.T.O. intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like H.I.V./AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

VII. EXPAND THE CIRCLE OF DEVELOPMENT BY OPENING SOCIETIES AND BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEMOCRACY

A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy. . . .

The United States Government will . . . provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States. . . .

IX. TRANSFORM AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS TO MEET THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE 21ST CENTURY:

. . . The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy — whether a state or nonstate actor — to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. . . .

Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begins.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

Does The U.S. Want Global Hegemony?

Are Neocons cooking their own goose?

We have noted in passing (Topic 1) the "National Security Strategy of the U.S." document of September 2002 as a watershed change in our foreign policy. It may be worthwhile dwelling on some of the ideas and people behind that document. This article is from the 27 July 2003 issue of the Sacramento Bee.

While many debate the wisdom of current efforts by neoconservatives in the Republican Party to create their vision of Pax Americana, I wonder if the historical outcome hasn't already been determined.

That is, while Republicans on all sides worry about "containing" what was once considered a war behind closed doors between unilateralist hawks (the neocons) and multilateralist moderates in the party over a policy based upon U.S. hegemony -- world dominance -- I wonder if it isn't an already irreversibly failed policy simply because the American people were never seriously included by anyone, even the media, in the discussion.

I wonder if the worldview of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, columnists William Kristol, Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Kagan and other members and leaders of the Defense Policy Board, American Enterprise Institute and The Project for a New American Century is already dead because not only did they not make a case for hegemony to the public, they never seriously attempted to even define the term or explain the concept.

And, now, it is too late. Because the public has little understanding of the depth and breadth of their vision of global politics and is already growing weary of American involvement in Iraq, the neocons' grander plan seems destined to never come to fruition. By choosing to not present it directly to the public at large and thereby commence an examination and debate, they have unwittingly undermined it as a viable theory and now we are witnessing the manifestations of its slow and costly death.

I hope that Roger Patching is right in thinking that since the understanding and acceptance of a hegemonic policy by the American public has not been achieved, the goals of the movement will not be realized. But even if he is correct in that, do we have any idea of what the ultimate cost will be either in dollars or in lives of this experiment in hegemony?

So what is this hegemony theory all about and why is the public's general lack of awareness of it important? While my colleagues may dutifully criticize me for oversimplification, it isn't all that complicated. All governments conduct all policies based upon theories of what is happening, what ought to happen and why. Therein lies the endless debate that characterizes all democracies.

The impetus for and nature of current American operations in Iraq and elsewhere are consistent with the theory of hegemony that drives the neocons in charge. While they were not able to sell it to Bush senior or Clinton, they were successful with Bush junior.

Hegemony theory focuses on the rise and decline of global and regional superpowers, or "hegemons." From the Greek "hegemonia" (the predominance of one state over another), it examines the causes and effects, pros and cons, of the dominance of one state over a region or the world. The theory partly attempts to explain global stability and instability during the last few centuries and assumes that stable world order requires a dominant single leader to maintain order. [Emphasis added]

The highlighted sentence on stability is germane to our effort to articulate policy outcomes for American foreign policy.

Americans want to do the right thing and have their government do the right thing, but are becoming increasingly confused. They don't know that Iraq was targeted for our hegemonic expansion, along with other regions, well before Sept. 11, 2001. They don't know that Iraqi oil reserves were central to U.S. energy planning by this administration prior to the attack by mostly Saudis on the Twin Towers. They don't know that we invaded Iraq without an exit strategy because hegemons don't leave and that Iraqi sovereignty is not part of the agenda. They are not aware that there is a global theory at work and Iraq is just part of it.

. . .

Worse, in terms of credibility, is the advice provided by Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national security official and key neocon strategist. Author of a 1999 book entitled "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership," and a more recent publication, "The War Against the Terror Masters," he is quite comfortable advising that "lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." [Emphasis added]

Such "strategic deception" is presumably morally justifiable as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. So, given this operational premise, how can one discern, here or abroad, the difference between governmental information and disinformation, truth and lies? While we shall clearly be deeply involved in Iraq for years to come, maybe the end of the necons' global vision is already a done deal. Given the litany of current problems at home and worries of an Iraqi quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam, this is not a good time to explain the true nature, plans and cost of world hegemony. The public has not been prepared for it and now wouldn't accept it.

Go ahead, read the whole article and judge for yourself: can the American public be sold on the idea of American world hegemony? Do you think that the administration will make the effort? What alternative approach might be used?

EU Diplomatic Muscle Shows

Iran Agrees to Give IAEA Proof

On the one hand the headline of this story is the agreement by the government of Iran to comply with UN demands to give proof to the IAEA that its nuclear energy program is for civilian use only and will not be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. But the sub-text is that this is a victory for the EU, and particularly Britain, France, and Germany who negotiated the agreement. They, in turn, agreed to become partners helping develop Iran's nuclear power sector which currently is being aided solely by Russia.

When Is A Lie News?

Calling a Lie a Lie

This piece from the Columbia Journalism Review explores the credibility of leaders, what kind of lies stick, what kind do not, and why.

When a president's honesty is impugned, the stakes are high. A string of modern leaders — Johnson and Nixon, Reagan and Clinton — saw their administrations killed or maimed by official deceit. Now George W. Bush, after a long post-September 11 honeymoon, is facing scrutiny for this potentially fatal vice.

Yet as of early August, Bush seemed to be weathering his credibility crisis. A majority of Americans, polls say, still see him as honest (although in a July Time/CNN survey, more people voiced "doubts" about his reliability than judged him trustworthy). The issue may well fade before campaign 2004 hits full stride.

Why should this be the case? The record shows that Bush, although hardly a liar of Nixonian proportions, is no more truthful than any other recent chief executive. Whether the issue of Bush's credibility gap waxes or wanes, it's worth asking why the press sometimes seizes on a lie while at other times passes it by.

. . .

. . . On close inspection, the Iraq claims turned out to be no more spurious than other statements Bush had made:

* On the economy, Bush said that the middle class would reap the gains of his tax cuts, which in fact were regressive.
* On the environment, he said that the science was incomplete about the reality of global warming, when in fact a scholarly consensus knows the phenomenon to be real.
* On abortion, he claimed that he banned funding for family-planning groups overseas because he didn't think public dollars should finance abortions — a statement that couldn't possibly be true since the money wasn't actually paying for abortions.
* On stem-cell research, he stated that the strictures he imposed still gave scientists more than sixty usable lines of such cells, when they had only one.

. . .

The current rules end up encouraging media hysteria about personal lies of scant importance and deterring inquiry into topics that matter incalculably more.

The explanation offered for this situation may be "spot-on" but it is hardly satisfying.

Broad Coalition in US Opposes Empire

US Anti-empire Forces Strike Back

The US & the UN: Legitimacy vs. Sovereignty

Reframing the UN

This article from Asia Times traces the origin of the notion of legitimacy of government into what became the notion of the sovereign nation at the end of the 30 years war in 1648. While the UN charter embraces sovereignty, the US has long embraced legitimacy. (George W. Bush please note!) I don't know whether the re-invention of the UN in the coming years will turn on the distinction, but I do know that being aware of this intellectual lineage will help my understanding of unfolding events.

Was It Censorship or Was It Editing?

Putting 'The Boondocks' in the Dock

This piece by the Washington Post's Ombudsman presents an interesting case study of freedom of expression in the media. While I understand and appreciate Executive Editor Downie's distinction between the private and public lives of public officials, I do not buy his assertion that no explanation for its being withheld was needed since he/they edit all parts of the paper every day. It was not just any other story that was being edited, it was a feature that had been in place for some time, was expected to continue, and was not in and of itself news. Moreover, I am taken by one reader's comment: "As the strip makes clear, we're laughing at the guy who suggested finding Condi a guy, not at Condi." I think I concur with the Ombudsman's conclusion. How about you?

Book Review: America Unbound

Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives

Josh Marshall reviews the book Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives in the November/December 2003 of the journal Foreign Affairs. The following paragraphs come relatively late in the review but give a flavor of what it accomplishes.

According to the authors, Bush was no figurehead or pawn in the revolution that bears his name, but rather the key decision-maker. "Bush," they write, may not have spent any time consciously trying to develop a philosophy about foreign affairs. However, a lifetime of experience had left deeply formed beliefs -- instincts might be more precise -- about how the world works and, just as important, how it does not. ... The fact that Bush could not translate his gut instincts into a form that would please political science Ph.D.s really did not matter.

The book's central argument is simple and, by now, familiar: the president's unilateralist policies have produced quick victories in Afghanistan and Iraq but have also fractured the nation's alliances, and as a result the world system is more chaotic and unfriendly, and the United States is less secure. Daalder and Lindsay are concerned about more than the truculent face the administration sometimes shows abroad. "The deeper problem," they write in the book's concluding chapter, is that "the fundamental premise of the Bush revolution -- that America's security rested on an America unbound -- was profoundly mistaken."

The strength of the book's contribution lies not in the originality of its thesis but in its clarity and brevity, its mastery of detail, and its analysis of the essential continuity of the administration's policy before and after September 11, 2001. The attacks on that day allowed President Bush to refashion American foreign policy in a far bolder and more audacious fashion than otherwise would have been possible, the authors argue, but in fact the administration's essential goals, premises, and assumptions changed very little.

Resources on Saudi Arabia

Saud House.com

This first web site is sponsored by Saudi Arabian citizens seeking cultural and governmental reform in Saudi Arabia. I suggest that you begin your exploration of it with their Mission statement, followed by their FAQ (Frequently asked questions) link. Then pursue any of the topics they list. For example, under Saudi Fundamentalism you will find not only the text of a brief article on Wahabbism but also links to Amnesty International's Human Rights Reports for the past 7 years (1996 - 2002), links to the US State Department's Human Rights Reports for the past 8 years, and links to the Middle East Watch for the past 2 years.

The site has a decided point of view and it says some very bold things, as in this paragraph taken from their FAQ page

Saudhouse.com views Israel as the only true democracy in the Middle East (Democracy, very simply, is having the choice to decide your leader by a majority, uncontested votes of the population in accordance with a Constitution that supports free elections) and Saudhouse.com views Israel with admiration and jealousy. Israel's parliamentary system gives its citizens, whether they are Orthodox or Sectarian Liberals, a voice in their government, something Saudhouse.com believes should be the goal of every country in the Middle East. One cannot, when compared to other societies, but admire the Parliamentary system under which it operates.

If you want an entirely different perspective on Saudi Arabia, follow this second link to the National Museum of Saudia Arabia. National Museum There are 2 "tours" available, one in English the other in Arabic.

The third link is to Wikepedia, a free on-line encyclopedia, and its pages about Saudi Arabia. Wikipedia Link

Asia, China, the US

Asian Leaders Find China a More Cordial Neighbor

More unintended consequences of our "war on terror?"

Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror

What is al-Qaeda?

This will take you to a fascinating piece, published in July 2003 by The Observer, a feature of the Guardian (UK), which is an introductory excerpt from Jason Burke's book, Al Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror which was published that month.

What was the nature of the threat that now confronted my way of life, my culture, my values, my own personal security and that of those I love? Should I genuinely be frightened of bombs on the London underground, hijackings at Paris Orly, gas attacks in Los Angeles or dirty bombs in Chicago?

Little that had previously been published helped. It was clear to me that profound misconceptions were widespread. Foremost among them was the idea that bin Laden led a cohesive and structured terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda". Every piece of evidence I came across in my own work contradicted this notion of al-Qaeda as an "Evil Empire" with an omnipotent mastermind at its head. Such an idea was undoubtedly comforting - destroy the man and his henchmen and the problem goes away - but it was clearly deeply flawed. As a result the debate over the prosecution of the ongoing "war on terror" had been skewed.

Instead of there being a reasoned and honest look at the root causes of resurgent Islamic radicalism the discussion of strategies in the war against terror had been almost entirely dominated by the language of high-tech weaponry, militarism and eradication.

. . .

The war in Afghanistan ended a specific, and in many ways anomalous, period. The camps were destroyed, the militants who had joined bin Laden there were scattered. The al-Qaeda hardcore, the first component of al-Qaeda that we identified above, was virtually destroyed. However the threat is more grave than ever before.

. . .

But increasingly, and this is a trend that is accelerating, the extremists are no longer perceived as the "lunatic fringe". Instead they are seen as the standard bearers. And their language is now the dominant discourse in modern Islamic activism. Their debased, violent, nihilisitic, anti-rational millenarianism has become the standard ideology aspired to by angry young Muslim men. This is the genuine victory of bin Laden and our greatest defeat in the "war on terror

In the weeks immediately following the tragedy of September 11th there was a genuine interest in understanding: why?. Why "they" hate us, why "they" were prepared to kill themselves, why such a thing could happen. That curiosity has dwindled and is being replaced by other questions: how did it happen, how many of "them" are there, how many are there left to capture and kill Anyone who tries to "explain" the roots of the threat now facing all of us, to answer the "why", to elaborate who "they are", risks being dismissed as ineffectual or cowardly. To ask "why" is to lay oneself open to accusations of lacking the moral courage to face up to the "genuine" threat and the need to meet it with force and aggression. Many characterise this threat, dangerously and wrongly, as rooted in a "clash of civilizations."

This attitude not only plays into the hands of the extremists but, by downplaying the importance of genuine causes, risks encouraging tactics that are counterproductive. I hope to redress the balance. As I watched the bombs falling at Tora Bora I had asked the question why. My book is my attempt to find some answers.

His book has been released in the US and may be found at this Amazon.com page which contains 2 trade reviews and 2 5-star reviews from readers: Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow

And, if you would like to know more about Burke's understanding of the threat of Islamic radicalism and why our current course of action will not cope with it, follow this link to an interview with him by the website BuzzFlash.com: Jason Burke Interview

Form letters, form opinions

Real letters are welcome: 10/ 17/ 2003

Monica Allen is the editorial page editor of the New bedford Standard-Times. This was her reaction to the news that form letters were being sent to local papers under the names of US soldiers in Iraq.

Real letters are welcome

I wasn't surprised to read that several small newspapers across the country, including some in Massachusetts, had run form letters that masqueraded as personal letters from American soldiers in Iraq.

While we welcome letters from soldiers, we believe we also have received some of these form letters.

However, we try to verify the author of each letter and have avoided printing form letters. It is not always easy to detect them. Public relations flacks have become super- sophisticated.

I started noticing a pattern several months ago. We would run a letter or an op-ed piece that was critical of the situation in Iraq and then I would receive a letter from a soldier.

I responded to the e-mails and asked the senders, who appeared to be local readers, to send me contact information for the soldier. Then I would hear nothing.

So I wouldn't run the letter. I was disappointed because I would have liked to run letters from soldiers, but I wanted to be sure they were genuine letters.

We did run one letter from a soldier from Peoria, Ill., who was critical of the situation in Mosul, where he was stationed. We verified the young man had written the letter. His letter ended up being picked up by the Los Angeles Times after it ran in the Peoria paper.

Sadly, this soldier let the Peoria Journal-Star editor know recently that he was concerned about his future in the military because of his letter.

Tim Predmore did not sugarcoat the situation.

"From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned," Mr. Predmore wrote of the 101st Airborne Division.

Several of the soldiers whose names were signed to the form letter proclaiming good news and major progress in Iraq recently told a reporter for Gannett News Service that they never knew the letter would be sent to their hometown newspapers. Some of the soldiers said they signed the letter because they agreed with the sentiments, but at least one said signing a letter he did not write felt like "cheating on a test."

The form letters, apparently pushed on the soldiers by some military official, have done a great disservice to the young Americans who face a more complicated situation than any public relations officer could ever capture.

Americans on the homefront are hungry for information about Iraq and this paper would welcome real letters from any of the thousands of men and women serving in there.

Please e-mail to letters@s-t.com, include a phone number or an e-mail address for us to verify you wrote the letter. Or you can include your family member's name and telephone number for us to contact to verify that the letter is in your own words. -- Monica Allen

Time's Saudi story

The September 15, 2003 issue of time made the US relationship with Saudi Arabia the cover story. The article can be purchased online for $2.50, although Time subscribers can get the online version for free. The portion I found most interesting was a sidebar that gave a summary of the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi leadership over the past couple of decades.

TIME.com: TIME Magazine Archive -- Inside the Kingdom -- Sep. 15, 2003

Holy Warrior, or practical leader?

Newsday.com - Leader Denounces Jews

Putrajaya, Malaysia - In a blistering attack on Israel that drew immediate criticism from Jewish groups, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told a summit of Muslim leaders yesterday that Jews rule the world and recruit others "to fight and die for them."
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir, a respected statesman in Asia and the developing world, said as he became chairman of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this. It is obviously anti-semetic, but too things appear to soften it:

1. Other Islamic leaders applauded and praised the speech, but made no reference to this aspect of it.

2. He called, not for war, but for economic and political success - which fits well with what he has done in Malaysia.

So is this posturing, designed to move the Islamic world towards practical achievements? Or is it an obvious warning sign for agrowing Holy War?

On the 9/11 Attack

America's War Against Terrorism, 9/11

This link takes you to a University of Michigan site that is not only very rich in links to other sites, but is also a repository of documents, including Federal ones, on the 9/11 attack and its aftermath.

Book Review(s): The Lessons of Terror

The Lessons of Terror

If your interest was piqued by Joe Davis' commentary about and quotes from Caleb Carr on whether the acts of 9/11 were criminal or warlike (Topic 2; Question2), this link will take you to the Amazon.com page for Carr's The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians. In addition to an editorial review and to reviews and ratings by 8 readers, you will find 48 sample pages, including excerpt, full index, and table of contents.

Nation Building

America's Role in Nation-Building

The will take you to a website featuring the Rand Corporation's recent publication, America's Role in Nation-Building: from Germany to Iraq. While the entire book (263 pp.) is on-line, a more manageable "Executive Summary" of some 17 pp. is available.

The following is a review of the book that is available at the site:

"With the Iraqi Governing Council appointing cabinet officers, it would seem that at least some specifics of that nation's rebuilding are finally beginning to come into focus. That, of course, begs the question: What next? With this in mind, the RAND Corporation has compiled a series of case studies on previous postwar rebuilding efforts spearheaded by the United States, including the various challenges and outcomes. James Dobbins, who has served as special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia, leads a team of scholars through a review of case studies for Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

While the authors note that post-World War II Germany and Japan set the standard for post-conflict nation-building, all the case studies are thorough. Each examines that area's postwar inputs, such as assistance funding, and outputs, like an electoral process and variance in gross domestic product.... As for what these experiences portend for nation-building in Iraq, this text is clear and concise. While the RAND authors don't necessarily offer a rosy picture of what rebuilding in Iraq will be like, their predictions aren't all that dreary, either. Calling the challenge "ambitious" on the scale of Germany and Japan, they clearly lay out the country's pre-existent civil administration infrastructure and oil-related financial independence as aides to future growth. With any luck, those playing a role in the execution of this unwieldy task will pick up a copy of 'America's Role In Nation-Building' to help guide their way." (NationalJournal.com)

Framing, Another Propaganda Technique?

The Frame Around Arnold

George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics, a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute, and Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, has written widely on linguisics and politics. In this piece he applies the technique he calls "framing" to the recent California recall election.

Newspaper and TV reporters require a story. Each story requires a frame. How was the election of Arnold Schwartzenegger framed? Here is a selection:

Voter Revolt: Gray Davis was such a bad governor that the voters justifiably ousted him and voted in the representative of the other party.

The Great Noncommunicator: Gray Davis governed as well as possible under the circumstances, but was so bad at communicating with the electorate that he could not communicate his real accomplishments, nor could he communicate the role of the Republicans in the state's problems. The public thought Davis was worse than he was and wanted a communicator, so they voted him out and chose an actor.

Those Kooky Californians: People in California are so weird that they voted a politically inexperienced bodybuilder-actor into office to replace a governor they voted for just last year.

The People Beat the Politicians: When the people win, politics as usual must lose (Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech).

Just a Celebrity: People don't understand politics and just voted for a celebrity.

Up By his Bootstraps: Coming here as an immigrant, Arnie worked and worked to become a champion body-builder, then a millionaire actor, and finally achieved his dream -- becoming governor.

Framing was rampant in reporting in this election. Frames come with inferences, so each framing implies something different.

. . .

It is a general finding about frames that if a strongly held frame doesn't fit the facts, the facts will be ignored and the frame will be kept. The frames listed above don't do very well at fitting the facts -- though each has a grain of truth. Let's look at the facts that each frame hides.

Voter Revolt: This frame hides the national Republican effort over several years to make Davis look bad by hurting the California economy. It hides the fact that energy deregulation was brought in by Republican governor Pete Wilson. It ignores the fact that there was no real "energy crisis." It resulted from thievery by Enron and other heavy Bush contributors, thievery that was protected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission run by Bush appointees. The Bush administration looked the other way while California was being bilked and went to great lengths not to help California financially in any of the many ways the federal government can help. Arnold had had a meeting with Ken Lay and other energy executives in spring 2001 when Lay was promoting deregulation, but denies any complicity in the theft. Arnold is now promoting energy deregulation again.

It also ignores the fact that California's Republican legislature also went out of its way to make Davis look bad, refusing to support reasonable measures for dealing with the budget problems. It ignores the fact that the recall petition was paid for by a wealthy conservative legislator and that signature gatherers were paid handsomely and that some signatures were from out of state, which is illegal. And it ignores the enormous amount of money and organization put into the Schwartzenegger campaign by Republicans. This was no simple popular revolution. Most of all, the "Voter Revolt" frame does not explain why Schwartzenegger should have been the candidate chosen.

. . .
In 'Moral Politics,' I suggested that voters vote their identity -- they vote on the basis of who they are, what values they have, and who and what they admire. A certain number of voters identify themselves with their self-interest and vote accordingly. But that is the exception rather than the rule. There are other forms of personal identification -- with one's ethnicity, with one's values, with cultural stereotypes, and with culture heroes. The most powerful forms of identification so far as elections are concerned are with values and corresponding cultural stereotypes. The Republicans have discovered this and it is a major reason why they have been winning elections -- despite being in a minority. Democrats have not yet figured this out.

The 'Moral Politics' discovery is that models of idealized family structure lie at the heart of our politics -- less literally than metaphorically. The very notion of the founding fathers uses a metaphor of the nation as family, not as something we think actively about, but as way of structuring our understanding of the enormous hard-to-conceptualize social group, the nation, in terms of something closer to home, the family. It is something we do automatically, usually without consciously thinking about it.

Our politics is organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family, the strict father and nurturant parent models.

The merger agreement between KLM, the Dutch airline, and Air France is more than an intriguing business story. It is an important symbol, perhaps even a landmark, in Europe's continuing integration. Asking a country to give up its gleaming 747's flying the national colors is almost as difficult as asking it to give up its currency to join a monetary union. Politicians, after all, can be like little children when it comes to big planes. That is one reason why Europe's airlines, unlike other businesses, have not been allowed to operate freely in what has ostensibly been a single economic market for a decade.

Posted by Donald Douglas at 09:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is the Media Obliged to Debunk Myths?

The Media's Obligation in Debunking Myths

When President Bush acknowledged that he knew of no link between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein he was going counter to a link he and his aides had implied existed for months. That implication was so successful that 70% of Americans believed it to be true. Yet, in the wake of his acknowledgment the coverage of that fact by the newsmedia was less than thorough; some elected to ignore it entirely. Read this report and let us know your thoughts.

West still failing

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | West still failing to protect Afghan women

Novak a Dem?

This Oliphant cartoon appeared during the first week of the controversy over the outing of a CIA agent.

Failure in Afghanistan

Don't Forget Afghanistan

A sampling from this NYT column:

Today, huge portions of Afghanistan outside Kabul have been ceded to warlords. Since March, the Taliban have embarked on a campaign of murder and intimidation, targeting humanitarian workers in an attempt to set back reconstruction efforts and to discredit both the government of President Hamid Karzai and the United States-led coalition that supports him.

Our troops, and those of our allies, are doing a remarkable job — but they're not tasked with the mission of providing security for the Afghan people. The 11,000 soldiers participating in Operation Enduring Freedom are not meant to be peacekeepers. The only troops assigned to protect reconstruction projects, let alone civilians, are the provincial reconstruction teams, whose combined units number only a few hundred soldiers.

With chaos growing, reconstruction efforts have slowed. Humanitarian groups have withdrawn from Kandahar and other areas because their staff members have been assassinated. And Afghanistan has once again become the world's foremost supplier of opium. The harvest of 2002 was 20 times as large as it was in the last year of Taliban rule, and drug profits last year dwarfed both the central government's budget and international reconstruction funds. That kind of money buys a lot of cooperation — and the terrorists know it.

Of President Bush's $87 billion proposal for the military protection and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, he has allocated $1.2 billion for Afghanistan — a sum that does not even match the amount pumped into the economy by the drug trade. What's more, a third of this is recycled money: funds raided from existing accounts, like a desperately needed program for embassy construction. That leaves a mere $800 million in new money.

Inadequate funding is just one way the president has failed to make good on his pledge of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. He has also failed to provide the leadership necessary to encourage the rest of the world to join in the rebuilding effort.