News n Notes from the Web

A NOBEL FOR SISTANI
By Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times - March 20, 2005

As we approach the season of the Nobel Peace Prize, I would like to nominate the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for this year's medal. I'm serious.

If there is a decent outcome in Iraq, President Bush will deserve, and receive, real credit for creating the conditions for democratization there, by daring to topple Saddam Hussein. But we tend to talk about Iraq as if it is all about us and what we do. If some kind of democracy takes root there, it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that there had to be a direct national election in Iraq, rejecting the original goofy U.S. proposal for regional caucuses. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that the elections not be postponed in the face of the Baathist-fascist insurgency. And it was Mr. Sistani who ordered Shiites not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and jihadist attempts to drag them into a civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians.

In many ways, Mr. Sistani has played the role for President George W. Bush that Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev played for his father, President George H. W. Bush. It was Mr. Mandela's instincts and leadership - in keeping the transition to black rule in South Africa nonviolent - that helped the Bush I administration and its allies bring that process in for a soft landing. And it was Mr. Gorbachev's insistence that the dismantling of the Soviet Empire, and particularly East Germany, be nonviolent that brought the Soviet Union in for a soft landing. In international relations, as in sports, it is often better to be lucky than good. And having the luck to have history deal you a Mandela, a Gorbachev or a Sistani as your partner at a key historical juncture - as opposed to a Yasir Arafat or a Robert Mugabe - can make all the difference between U.S. policy looking brilliant and U.S. policy looking futile.

Mr. Sistani has also contributed three critical elements to the democracy movement in the wider Arab world. First, he built his legitimacy around not just his religious-scholarly credentials but around a politics focused on developing Iraq for Iraqis. To put it another way, says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "Sistani did not build his politics on negating someone else." Saddam Hussein built his politics around negating America, Iran and Israel. Arafat built his whole life around negating Zionism - rarely, if ever, speaking about Palestinian economic development or education. The politics of negation has a deep and rich history in the Middle East, because so many leaders there are illegitimate and need to negate someone to justify their rule. What Mr. Sistani, the late Lebanese Sunni leader Rafik Hariri and the new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas all have in common is that they rose to power by focusing on a positive agenda for their own people, not negating another.

The second thing that Mr. Sistani did was put the people and their aspirations at the center of Iraqi politics, not some narrow elite or self-appointed clergy (see: Iran), which is what the Iraqi election was all about. In doing so he has helped to legitimize "people power" in a region where it was unheard of. In Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine - where Hamas recently said it would take part in parliamentary elections - the ballot box and popular support, not just the gun, are showing signs of becoming real sources of legitimacy. Both Hezbollah and Hamas will have to prove - with turnout, not terrorism - that they are entitled to a larger slice of power. Third, and maybe most important, Mr. Sistani brings to Arab politics a legitimate, pragmatic interpretation of Islam, one that says Islam should inform politics and the constitution, but clerics should not rule.

The process of democratizing the Arab world is going to be long and bumpy. But the chances for success are immeasurably improved when we have partners from within the region who are legitimate, but have progressive instincts. That is Mr. Sistani. Lady Luck has shined on us by keeping alive this 75-year-old ayatollah, who resides in a small house in a narrow alley in Najaf and almost never goes out the door. How someone with his instincts and wisdom could have emerged from the train wreck that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I will never know. All I have to say is: May he live to be 120 - and give that man a Nobel Prize.
***

Banking on Nothing - A Wolfowitz in sheep's clothing
By ADAM M. GUREN - Harvard Crimson - 16 March 2005

Just when you thought President George W. Bush’s other appointments were bad, Bush had to outdo himself by nominating Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank. Ironically, at the press conference announcing Wolfowitz’s nomination, Bush seemed to make it overwhelmingly clear that Wolfowitz is not qualified for the post. Let’s take a look at the President’s remarks.

“He’s a man of good experiences.” Last time I checked most people didn’t think Iraq was a very good experience. Let’s not forget what Wolfowitz told Congress and the American people: that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (false), that we would be greeted as liberators (correct for a week), that we needed fewer troops than we did in Iraq (false), and that fewer troops died in Iraq than actually did (maybe he should take QR 34: “Counting People”). What a resume! “He helped manage a large organization. The World Bank is a large organization; the Pentagon is a large organization—he’s been involved in the management of that organization.” Wonderful! Anyone who can manage a large organization can run the World Bank! Why don’t we nominate the head janitor at the Pentagon or Kenneth Lay instead?

“He’s a skilled diplomat, worked at the State Department in high positions.” Wow, finally Bush is right. If, by diplomacy, you mean war. “Paul is committed to development.” Great! You mean you actually considered picking someone who hates poor countries to be the head of the World Bank? “He’s a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job in the World Bank.” This one is the kicker. When it is abundantly clear you have nominated someone to be the head of a development bank who has little to no experience in, say, economics, you just point out that he’s a nice guy and trust that everything will be okay. Because—let’s face it—nobody likes an expert who actually knows something about what he’s doing but who might not be so nice. The headlines should have read: “Newsflash—the only qualification for a job in Washington is being a ‘decent’ guy.”

Finally, Bush pointed out that his explanations should convince international leaders that Wolfowitz is just the man for the job. Has he even looked across the aisle or the pond? Europeans and Democrats alike hate Wolfowitz more than they hate Bush (and that’s saying something). Last time he went to Iraq (a developing country now if there ever was one), there was an assassination attempt. Wolfowitz’s nomination just shows how out of touch Bush is with the rest of the world.

To be fair, Wolfowitz is not stupid. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Also, he has dealt with other countries before. As Bush pointed out, “he was Ambassador to Indonesia,” so it’s not like he has never seen a developing country before. Nevertheless, Wolfowitz is a terrible choice. His expertise is not in development economics and he has shown a general knack for perturbing other countries, a skill that can only hurt the World Bank’s mission. The only thing going for him is that he is a loyal Bush supporter, which, of course, is just the thing we need in an international NGO.

But enough bashing Wolfowitz. If the Bush administration can’t find a better justification for Wolfowitz’s nomination, I’ll give them one: he majored in Math at Cornell and has a graduate degree in political science. Economics is kind of, sort of (not really) but marginally like political science with math, right? With all this to his credit, he’s practically overqualified for the position. Maybe his skills would be better used somewhere else.

Adam M. Guren ’08 is a Crimson editorial editor in Wigglesworth Hall.
***

Africa - The Still Dark Continent

On Africa
"...viewed from outer space at night, while much of the northern hemisphere is a blaze of artificial light, Africa has just three discernible glimmers - at Cairo in the north-east, Lagos in the west and the Johannesburg-Pretoria conurbation in the south. .. Everywhere else Africa remains - in this narrow literal sense - the dark continent."
- Allan Little, BBC News, 13 March 2005

"When they arrived, we had the land and they had the Bible. They taught us to close our eyes to pray, and when we opened them again, we had the Bible and they had the land."
- Bishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa, undated

***

What Mideast ferment means for US

Howard LaFranchi - The Christian Science Monitor - 7 March 2005
WASHINGTON – The political and social effervescence suddenly sweeping the Middle East - from Baghdad to Beirut, from Cairo to Casablanca - is providing the United States and the rest of the world with both new opportunities and new risks. With pro-democracy demonstrations popping up in Lebanon and Egypt, and with modest but still unprecedented elections taking place in places like Saudi Arabia, Arabs and Muslims are expressing the same interest in self-determination they saw their brethren in Iraq and the Palestinian territories exercise just a few weeks ago.

The Western world especially is viewing the changes with almost giddy expectation. Certainly a more democratic and open region holds out the possibility of greater public satisfaction and therefore less attraction to extremist mobilization. But it could also expose a crucial arc of nations long governed with a strong hand to greater turmoil.

"It's a good thing that a broader spectrum of civil society is being acknowledged, that people are less timid and trying to have a voice in public decisionmaking, that all around the region there are very few places where you don't see movements of this kind," says Michael Hudson, director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in Washington. "But as it unfolds, it's a tricky business."

One reason is that "people who have been in power for a long time are unlikely to give it up without a fight," he says. As democracy and more open political systems have gained ground across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia, many nations in those regions have become more peaceful and solid members of the international community. This has led to speculation that the same should work in the Middle East. As for Islamic extremism, the theory - and that's about all there is to go on - is that its allure should be reduced as young Muslims find other political outlets for venting their frustrations.

But the conventional rules don't always apply in the Middle East, a region accustomed to authoritarian rule. One risk is that the deep anti-American sentiment that pervades many of the countries could turn even more resolutely anti-Western as the public gains freedom and power. Today in Lebanon, for example, the militant Shiite movement Hizbullah is set to begin holding national demonstrations in opposition to what it sees as unacceptable Western influence in Lebanese affairs. "Freedom means that we decide for ourselves the best way to address what we see today as clear intervention of the United States and France in Lebanese internal affairs," said Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah at a Beirut press conference Sunday.

The US and France have been outspoken in their coordinated demands that Syria withdraw its troops and intelligence forces from Lebanon ahead of spring elections. Syria is a behind-the-scenes sponsor of Hizbullah in Lebanon. "We're seeing the national unity movement with new vigor and pressing to get Syria out of the country, but at the same time we see a counter movement in the counterdemonstrations Hizbullah is sponsoring," notes Mr. Hudson. "It raises the question of whether the future holds the kind of civil strife that has hit Lebanon before."

The way greater political freedoms can open the door to greater confrontation is also on display in Iraq, some experts say. The political parties there have still been unable to deliver a new government to set about the task of writing a new constitution by next fall. Still, no one is arguing that this is not progress - when compared to a regime that would sooner imprison or kill political opponents than listen to them. "An Iraq without Saddam, all to the good," says Richard Murphy, a former assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "But there are some really major problems ahead for an untested political leadership. They're going to have to show remarkable outreach to all parts of the population if it is going to work, and I don't think we can say yet where it will end up."

The majority Shiites have been emboldened to make legitimate demands in terms of a new government, he notes, while young Kurds in particular are tempted by the idea of an independent Kurdistan - a move that would set off regional earthquakes. "So while it is undeniable that we [the US] stirred the pot, how much that stirring will end up working in our favor is still an open question," Mr. Murphy says. For example, change in a closed system such as Saudi Arabia should be good for the US - unless it means such upheaval that extremist forces gain a greater hold, he says. The same goes for Iraq, unless it leads to the country coming apart. AS for whether a more democratic and open Middle East will make for a safer US, unanswered questions remain there as well. With democracy having advanced around the world over the past decade, the idea has also gained ground that more exposure to democratic ideals and open societies leads to converts. But that does not explain why someone like Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's right hand man, became even more anti-Western and extremist in his ideology after attending college in the US.

The current fermentation in the Middle East also demonstrates how even a wide-ranging phenomenon like globalization can act as a double-edged sword. When pro-democracy demonstrators in Beirut wear Eastern European-style scarves as part of their protest, in an echo of the protesters in the Ukraine standing up to a fraudulent government, it's a sign of the global impact of electronic media. But at the same time, globalization can act as a recruiting tool for extremist movements, especially among those sectors of the population that feel shut out from any of globalization's economic benefits.

Still, most experts say more political openness should make ideologies like Al Qaeda's less of a magnet. It's just getting to those more democratic societies that may be rough. "I share the idea that a population that is overwhelmingly youthful and denied meaningful political participation in their countries is more attracted to the Islamic extremist view of society," says Murphy. "And it should follow that if the social and political picture evolves to allow greater participation, the attraction of a violent extremism will diminish. But it could be a rocky transition, a very bumpy ride."
***

What Iraq's checkpoints are like
By Annia Ciezadlo-The Christian Science Monitor 7 March 2005

It's a common occurrence in Iraq: A car speeds toward an American checkpoint or foot patrol. They fire warning shots; the car keeps coming. Soldiers then shoot at the car. Sometimes the on-comer is a foiled suicide attacker (see story), but other times, it's an unarmed family. As an American journalist here, I have been through many checkpoints and have come close to being shot at several times myself. I look vaguely Middle Eastern, which perhaps makes my checkpoint experience a little closer to that of the typical Iraqi. Here's what it's like.

You're driving along and you see a couple of soldiers standing by the side of the road - but that's a pretty ubiquitous sight in Baghdad, so you don't think anything of it. Next thing you know, soldiers are screaming at you, pointing their rifles and swiveling tank guns in your direction, and you didn't even know it was a checkpoint. If it's confusing for me - and I'm an American - what is it like for Iraqis who don't speak English? In situations like this, I've often had Iraqi drivers who step on the gas. It's a natural reaction: Angry soldiers are screaming at you in a language you don't understand, and you think they're saying "get out of here," and you're terrified to boot, so you try to drive your way out.

'Stop or you will be shot' Another problem is that the US troops tend to have two-stage checkpoints. First there's a knot of Iraqi security forces standing by a sign that says, in Arabic and English, "Stop or you will be shot." Most of the time, the Iraqis will casually wave you through. Your driver, who slowed down for the checkpoint, will accelerate to resume his normal speed. What he doesn't realize is that there's another, American checkpoint several hundred yards past the Iraqi checkpoint, and he's speeding toward it. Sometimes, he may even think that being waved through the first checkpoint means he's exempt from the second one (especially if he's not familiar with American checkpoint routines).

I remember one terrifying day when my Iraqi driver did just that. We got to a checkpoint manned by Iraqi troops. Chatting and smoking, they waved us through without a glance. Relieved, he stomped down on the gas pedal, and we zoomed up to about 50 miles per hour before I saw the second checkpoint up ahead. I screamed at him to stop, my translator screamed, and the American soldiers up ahead looked as if they were getting ready to start shooting. After I got my driver to slow down and we cleared the second checkpoint, I made him stop the car. My voice shaking with fear, I explained to him that once he sees a checkpoint, whether it's behind him or ahead of him, he should drive as slowly as possible for at least five minutes. He turned to me, his face twisted with the anguish of making me understand: "But Mrs. Annia," he said, "if you go slow, they notice you!"

Under Saddam, idling was risky. This feeling is a holdover from the days of Saddam, when driving slowly past a government building or installation was considered suspicious behavior. Get caught idling past the wrong palaces or ministry, and you might never be seen again. I remember parking outside a ministry with an Iraqi driver, waiting to pick up a friend. After sitting and staring at the building for about half an hour, waiting for our friend to emerge, the driver shook his head. "If you even looked at this building before, you'd get arrested," he said, his voice full of disbelief. Before, he would speed past this building, gripping the wheel, staring straight ahead, careful not to even turn his head. After 35 years of this, Iraqis still speed up when they're driving past government buildings - which, since the Americans took over a lot of them, tend be to exactly where the checkpoints are.

Fear of insurgents and kidnappers are another reason for accelerating, and in that scenario, speeding up and getting away could save your life. Many Iraqis know somebody who's been shot at on the road, and a lot of people survived only because they stepped on the gas. This fear comes into play at checkpoints because US troops are often accompanied by a cordon of Iraqi security forces - and a lot of the assassinations and kidnappings have been carried out by Iraqi security forces or people dressed in their uniforms. Often the Iraqi security forces are the first troops visible at checkpoints. If they are angry-looking and you hear shots being fired, it becomes easier to misread the situation and put the pedal to the metal. A couple of times soldiers have told me at checkpoints that they had just shot somebody. They're not supposed to talk about it, but they do. I think the soldiers really needed to talk about it. They were traumatized by the experience.

Traumatic for soldiers, too This is not what they wanted - really not what they wanted - and the whole checkpoint experience is confusing and terrifying for them as well as for the Iraqis. Many of them have probably seen people get killed or injured, including friends of theirs. You can imagine what it's like for them, wondering whether each car that approaches is a normal Iraqi family or a suicide bomber. The essential problem with checkpoints is that the Americans don't know if the Iraqis are "friendlies" or not, and the Iraqis don't know what the Americans want them to do. I always wished that the American commanders who set up these checkpoints could drive through themselves, in a civilian car, so they could see what the experience was like for civilians. But it wouldn't be the same: They already know what an American checkpoint is, and how to act at one - which many Iraqis don't.

Is there a way to do checkpoints right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems that the checkpoint experience perfectly encapsulates the contradictions and miseries and misunderstandings of everyone's common experience - both Iraqis and Americans - in Iraq.
***

Senate Democratic Leader Blasts Greenspan

By Dan Balz - Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page A06

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan generally gets accolades for his public pronouncements. Yesterday he got a brickbat from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who blasted Greenspan as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."

Reid ripped Greenspan during an interview on CNN's "Inside Politics." He said the Fed chairman has given President Bush a pass on deficits that have built up in the past four years and should be challenging Republicans on their fiscal policies, rather than promoting Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts into Social Security.

"I'm not a big Greenspan fan -- Alan Greenspan fan," Reid said when asked about the Fed chairman's testimony this week urging Congress to deal quickly with the financial problems facing Social Security and Medicare. "I voted against him the last two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

Reid said that when Bill Clinton was president, Democrats had confronted the deficit problem by enacting a tax increase in 1993, which helped bring about a balanced budget and strong economic growth later in the decade.

"Why doesn't he respond to the Republicans and tell them the big problem here is the debt that this administration [has] created?" he said. "We had a $7 trillion-dollar surplus when Bush took office. Now we have a $3 or $4 trillion-dollar deficit. That's, in fact, what Greenspan should be telling people."

A spokeswoman said the Federal Reserve would have no comment. Brian Jones, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which a few weeks ago sharply attacked Reid, called the minority leader's comments regrettable.
***