SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 12:11:14 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Brooks has been writing well lately, John. I think these people are like Racehorses, they go in and out of form. I love the way he points out that if you asked what a "Pentacostal" was in a Newsroom, the only ones that would know are the Secretaries and the Janitors. "Atlantic"

The Agenda
Ideas

Kicking the Secularist Habit

A six-step program

by David Brooks

Like a lot of people these days, I'm a recovering secularist. Until September 11 I accepted the notion that as the world becomes richer and better educated, it becomes less religious. Extrapolating from a tiny and unrepresentative sample of humanity (in Western Europe and parts of North America), this theory holds that as history moves forward, science displaces dogma and reason replaces unthinking obedience. A region that has not yet had a reformation and an enlightenment, such as the Arab world, sooner or later will.

It's now clear that the secularization theory is untrue. The human race does not necessarily get less religious as it grows richer and better educated. We are living through one of the great periods of scientific progress and the creation of wealth. At the same time, we are in the midst of a religious boom.

Islam is surging. Orthodox Judaism is growing among young people, and Israel has gotten more religious as it has become more affluent. The growth of Christianity surpasses that of all other faiths. In 1942 this magazine published an essay called "Will the Christian Church Survive?" Sixty years later there are two billion Christians in the world; by 2050, according to some estimates, there will be three billion. As Philip Jenkins, a Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University, has observed, perhaps the most successful social movement of our age is Pentecostalism (see "The Next Christianity," October Atlantic ). Having gotten its start in Los Angeles about a century ago, it now embraces 400 million people?a number that, according to Jenkins, could reach a billion or more by the half-century mark.

Moreover, it is the denominations that refuse to adapt to secularism that are growing the fastest, while those that try to be "modern" and "relevant" are withering. Ecstatic forms of Christianity and "anti-modern" Islam are thriving. The Christian population in Africa, which was about 10 million in 1900 and is currently about 360 million, is expected to grow to 633 million by 2025, with conservative, evangelical, and syncretistic groups dominating. In Africa churches are becoming more influential than many nations, with both good and bad effects.

From the archives:

"What Is the Koran?" (January 1999)
Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. By Toby Lester
Secularism is not the future; it is yesterday's incorrect vision of the future. This realization sends us recovering secularists to the bookstore or the library in a desperate attempt to figure out what is going on in the world. I suspect I am not the only one who since September 11 has found himself reading a paperback edition of the Koran that was bought a few years ago in a fit of high-mindedness but was never actually opened. I'm probably not the only one boning up on the teachings of Ahmad ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid Qutb, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

There are six steps in the recovery process. First you have to accept the fact that you are not the norm. Western foundations and universities send out squads of researchers to study and explain religious movements. But as the sociologist Peter Berger has pointed out, the phenomenon that really needs explaining is the habits of the American professoriat: religious groups should be sending out researchers to try to understand why there are pockets of people in the world who do not feel the constant presence of God in their lives, who do not fill their days with rituals and prayers and garments that bring them into contact with the divine, and who do not believe that God's will should shape their public lives.

Once you accept this?which is like understanding that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa?you can begin to see things in a new way.

The second step toward recovery involves confronting fear. For a few years it seemed that we were all heading toward a benign end of history, one in which our biggest worry would be boredom. Liberal democracy had won the day. Yes, we had to contend with globalization and inequality, but these were material and measurable concepts. Now we are looking at fundamental clashes of belief and a truly scary situation?at least in the Southern Hemisphere?that brings to mind the Middle Ages, with weak governments, missionary armies, and rampant religious conflict.

From the archives:

"Trials of the Tribulation" (January 2000)
In the "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins things get very bad?the planet is invaded by "200 million demonic horsemen," for example, and that's before Armageddon and the Last Judgment. By Michael Joseph Gross
The third step is getting angry. I now get extremely annoyed by the secular fundamentalists who are content to remain smugly ignorant of enormous shifts occurring all around them. They haven't learned anything about religion, at home or abroad. They don't know who Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are, even though those co-authors have sold 42 million copies of their books. They still don't know what makes a Pentecostal a Pentecostal (you could walk through an American newsroom and ask that question, and the only people who might be able to answer would be the secretaries and the janitorial staff). They still don't know about Michel Aflaq, the mystical Arab nationalist who served as a guru to Saddam Hussein. A great Niagara of religious fervor is cascading down around them while they stand obtuse and dry in the little cave of their own parochialism?and many of them are journalists and policy analysts, who are paid to keep up with these things.

The fourth step toward recovery is to resist the impulse to find a materialistic explanation for everything. During the centuries when secularism seemed the wave of the future, Western intellectuals developed social-science models of extraordinary persuasiveness. Marx explained history through class struggle, other economists explained it through profit maximization. Professors of international affairs used conflict-of-interest doctrines and game theory to predict the dynamics between nation-states.

All these models are seductive and partly true. This country has built powerful institutions, such as the State Department and the CIA, that use them to try to develop sound policies. But none of the models can adequately account for religious ideas, impulses, and actions, because religious fervor can't be quantified and standardized. Religious motivations can't be explained by cost-benefit analysis.

Over the past twenty years domestic-policy analysts have thought hard about the roles that religion and character play in public life. Our foreign-policy elites are at least two decades behind. They go for months ignoring the force of religion; then, when confronted with something inescapably religious, such as the Iranian revolution or the Taliban, they begin talking of religious zealotry and fanaticism, which suddenly explains everything. After a few days of shaking their heads over the fanatics, they revert to their usual secular analyses. We do not yet have, and sorely need, a mode of analysis that attempts to merge the spiritual and the material.

The recovering secularist has to resist the temptation to treat religion as a mere conduit for thwarted economic impulses. For example, we often say that young Arab men who have no decent prospects turn to radical Islam. There's obviously some truth to this observation. But it's not the whole story: neither Mohammed Atta nor Osama bin Laden, for example, was poor or oppressed. And although it's possible to construct theories that explain their radicalism as the result of alienation or some other secular factor, it makes more sense to acknowledge that faith is its own force, independent of and perhaps greater than economic resentment.

Human beings yearn for righteous rule, for a just world or a world that reflects God's will?in many cases at least as strongly as they yearn for money or success. Thinking about that yearning means moving away from scientific analysis and into the realm of moral judgment. The crucial question is not What incentives does this yearning respond to? but Do individuals pursue a moral vision of righteous rule? And do they do so in virtuous ways, or are they, like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, evil in their vision and methods?

Fifth, the recovering secularist must acknowledge that he has been too easy on religion. Because he assumed that it was playing a diminishing role in public affairs, he patronized it. He condescendingly decided not to judge other creeds. They are all valid ways of approaching God, he told himself, and ultimately they fuse into one. After all, why stir up trouble by judging another's beliefs? It's not polite. The better option, when confronted by some nasty practice performed in the name of religion, is simply to avert one's eyes. Is Wahhabism a vicious sect that perverts Islam? Don't talk about it.

But in a world in which religion plays an ever larger role, this approach is no longer acceptable. One has to try to separate right from wrong. The problem is that once we start doing that, it's hard to say where we will end up. Consider Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning Dutch politician and gay-rights advocate who criticized Muslim immigrants for their attitudes toward women and gays. When he was assassinated, last year, the press described him, on the basis of those criticisms, as a rightist in the manner of Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was far from the truth. In the post-secular world today's categories of left and right will become inapt and obsolete.

The sixth and final step for recovering secularists is to understand that this country was never very secular anyway. We Americans long for righteous rule as fervently as anybody else. We are inculcated with the notion that, in Abraham Lincoln's words, we represent the "last, best hope of earth." Many Americans have always sensed that we have a transcendent mission, although, fortunately, it is not a theological one. We instinctively feel, in ways that people from other places do not, that history is unfulfilled as long as there are nations in which people are not free. It is this instinctive belief that has led George W. Bush to respond so ambitiously to the events of September 11, and that has led most Americans to support him.

Americans are as active as anyone else in the clash of eschatologies. Saddam Hussein sees history as ending with a united Arab nation globally dominant and with himself revered as the creator of a just world order. Osama bin Laden sees history as ending with the global imposition of sharia. Many Europeans see history as ending with the establishment of secular global institutions under which nationalism and religious passions will be quieted and nation-states will give way to international law and multilateral cooperation. Many Americans see history as ending in the triumph of freedom and constitutionalism, with religion not abandoned or suppressed but enriching democratic life.

We are inescapably caught in a world of conflicting visions of historical destiny. This is not the same as saying that we are caught in a world of conflicting religions. But understanding this world means beating the secularist prejudices out of our minds every day.

The URL for this page is theatlantic.com.



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 12:22:21 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
The Communists were some of our best sources of info on France during WWII. Looks like we may be getting the same from the Iraqi Communists now. I wonder what they will do when Iraq is put back together. Everything they believed in has turned out to be a lie. And they suffered for it anyway from Saddam. "LA Weekly."

Iraq: Telling the Left From the Right
American leftists woefully ignore their Iraqi counterparts
by Frank Smyth

HOW MANY AMERICANS WHO OPPOSE THE LOOMING war know the left from the right when it comes to Iraq? The only two players on the field are not George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. For inside and outside the borders of Iraq there is a political opposition to Saddam ? and while some of those opponents are now aligned with the White House, others remain on the political left.

But don?t expect to read or hear much about any Iraqi leftist groups in the mainstream or even the ?alternative? press.

In past U.S. foreign-policy conflicts, American activists frequently expressed their solidarity with and support of embattled leftists, whether in Chile, Nicaragua or El Salvador. But in this standoff with Iraq, American leftists seem woefully ignorant of their Iraqi counterparts and, consequently, of their views on the present conflict. And for these Iraqi leftists the current crisis transcends the prevailing American leftist view, which reduces the matter simply to either war
or peace.

Today, Iraqi leftists play an important oppositional role against Saddam. Foremost among them is the Iraqi Communist Party, which at one time was that country?s biggest and broadest leftist mass movement, touching the lives of literally millions. Even before Iraq?s short-lived, British-imposed monarchy was overthrown in 1958, the Communist Party was organizing trade unions and other civic groups.

The leftist party has also long been Iraq?s most diverse political movement, cutting across traditional population lines to incorporate many disenfranchised majority Shias and minority Kurds. Even though tens of thousands of Communists and other leftists have perished in Saddam?s gulags and are still actively targeted by the ruling Ba?athist regime, the Iraqi CP today maintains a clandestine network across Iraq that experts deem to be of significant scale and political potential.

That network provides some of the best and most detailed reporting on armed resistance and government repression within Iraq. Indeed, human-rights activists, from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International, rely heavily on the detailed reporting that comes out of Iraq via this network. ?[T]he bodies of tens of people from the city of Basra, who were executed by firing squads of the dictatorial regime in late March 1999, are buried in a mass grave in the Burjesiyya district near the town of Zubair, about 20 km southeast of Basra,? reads the Iraqi Communist Party Web site in an article about a brief anti-Saddam uprising three years ago in the Shia-dominated, southernmost city. ?Some of the victims fell into the hands of security forces after being wounded, or when their ammunition had finished. But most of the arrests took place during the following days when the authorities . . . unleashed an unprecedented campaign of police raids, house searches and detentions.? The report concludes that 400 to 600 people died in this massacre. ?The massacre culminated with security men firing their handguns at the [h]eads of their victims,? says the report. ?The horrific scene ended with throwing the bodies of victims in a deep pit dug with a bulldozer which was used later to cover up the site in an attempt to hide the traces of the crime.?

Today, Iraqi Communists, and most Iraqi leftists, firmly oppose the Bush administration?s war plans ? but not necessarily war itself. Unlike many of their American counterparts, Iraqi leftists offer a policy alternative other than a vague call for ?peace.? Instead of a unilateral U.S. invasion, Iraqi leftists want the international community to back an Iraqi-led military uprising against Saddam.

Short of that, Iraqi leftists would most likely support a multilateral military intervention that would not only overthrow Saddam but also hand him over to an international tribunal that would try him on charges of crimes against humanity.

Iraqi leftist groups also favor other positions routinely ignored by most American leftists, including vigorous U.N. human-rights monitoring inside Iraq. Most American anti-war activists also downplay another issue that Iraqi leftists are most worried about. What might a post-Saddam Iraq look like? The Communist Party and other Iraqi leftist groups refused to join the recent U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition meeting in London, pointing out that Washington has only been planning to replace Saddam?s regime with another minority dictatorship. The Iraqis closest to Washington remain deposed aristocrats, although the Bush administration finally dumped the plan, backed by the Pentagon alone, to restore exiled former supporters of the Kingdom of Iraq, which prevailed for 27 years, to power as the Iraqi National Congress.

Instead of the U.S.-backed return of the old ruling class, the Communist Party and Shia and Kurdish opposition groups want U.N.-monitored elections inside a post-Saddam Iraq leading to a federal representative government. This is an ongoing struggle yet to be adequately reported, unfortunately, in any U.S. publication, and the issue represents a genuinely democratic frontline with, so far, few if any so-called American progressives on it.

American and Iraqi leftists also differ over whom to blame for any coming war. The Iraqi CP blames not only the Bush administration, but also the Iraqi government. In this regard, the Iraqi Communist Party ironically joins the Bush administration in unequivocally demanding that Saddam fully cooperate with U.N. inspections to prevent his regime from developing more weapons of mass destruction. ?The rulers? of ?the dictatorial regime in Iraq,? reads an Iraqi CP declaration, put ?their selfish interest above the people?s national interest, refusing to allow the [work] of U.N. weapons inspectors, and thus preventing action to spare our people and country looming dangers.?

Any U.S. leftist who even remotely thinks that Saddam?s regime is ? beside its heavy-handedness ? some sort of socialist alternative had better think again. No matter how much Saddam relies on the Stalinist model for his security services, the Iraqi dictator has never held anything but contempt for Iraqi leftists.

At 22, Saddam Hussein carried out his first assassination plot, against a Communist-backed leader in Baghdad who was the first president of Iraq. In fact, the young man from Tirkit was not accepted into the Ba?ath party until after he and others shot at President Abdel-Karim Qassem, who was backed by the Iraqi Communist Party and many trade unions. President Qassem survived, while Saddam was wounded in the leg.

Instead of leftist principles, Saddam?s ruling Ba?athist ideology unabashedly champions ethnic nationalism in order to build a greater nation based on ethnicity. His Iraqi Arab Socialist Ba?ath party explicitly excludes the one in every five Iraqis who are ethnic Kurds. Moreover, the Ba?athists? Pan-Arab message is shaped mainly by Arabs of the Sunni Muslim faith like Saddam, and their form of Arab nationalism has little appeal for Arab Muslims of the Shia faith, who constitute three out of five Iraqis. Rather than empower either Iraq?s Shia majority or its Kurdish minority, the Ba?ath party merely replaced Iraq?s old rulers, who were Sunni Arab?led monarchists based in Baghdad, with new Sunni Arab?led rulers like Saddam from rural regions north of the capital.

?A ruling class-clan rapidly developed and maintained a tight grip on the army, the Ba?ath party, the bureaucracy, and the business milieus,? writes Faleh A. Jabar, a University of London scholar and former Iraqi Communist Party newspaper editor, in a recent issue of the U.S. monthly The Progressive. ?You had either to be with the Ba?ath or you were against it.?

Today most of Kurdish-speaking Iraq, in the north, enjoys U.S.-enforced autonomy from Saddam?s regime, while Shias, in the south, still actively resist rule from Baghdad. Take Basra, where Saddam?s officials routinely bring visiting U.S. peace activists. ?We were welcomed warmly into the home of Abu Haider, the father of a young boy who was killed three years ago by a U.S. Tomaha[w]k missile shot from a ship in the Gulf,? reads a pre-Christmas report from Pax Christi, a faith-based group. Pax Christi?s newsletter today says that this U.S. missile attack occurred in Basra in 1998. Undoubtedly true. But missing from that newsletter is that in that same year Saddam?s regime interred dozens of anti-Saddam rebels and others in secret graves in that same city, according to Iraqi Communist sources.

Opposing American imperialism is one thing. But ignoring Iraqi fascism is quite another. In the wake of the Gulf War, and after then-President Bush called on the Iraqi people to rise up, mass armed rebellion swept Iraq in the spring of 1991. More than a dozen major cities fell into the hands of the Iraqi rebels. Yet, as American forces stood by with arms crossed, Saddam?s troops and attack helicopters drowned the rebellion in blood, taking at least 100,000 lives. The anti-Saddam opposition was openly and tragically betrayed by Washington.

American leftists and peace activists must not now repeat the same sin. Only a quintessentially American arrogance would lead leftists in a big country to think that leftists in a smaller country don?t matter. Iraqi socialists and leftists have endured Saddam?s Ba?athist terror long enough to know the left from the right in Iraq. And as our nation prepares to invade their country, more Americans, especially peace activists, should take the trouble to do the same.

Frank Smyth is finishing a book on the 1991 Iraqi uprisings, which he reported on for CBS News, The Economist and The Village Voice.
laweekly.com



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 12:24:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
No Relief in Sight

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Columnist
The New York Times
February 28, 2003

To Glenn Hubbard has resigned as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers — to spend more time with his family, of course. (Pay no attention to the knife handles protruding from his back.) Gregory Mankiw, his successor, is a very good economist, but never mind: When the political apparatchiks who make all decisions in this administration want Mr. Mankiw's opinion, they'll tell Mr. Mankiw what it is.

Meanwhile consumer confidence is plunging, and almost two-thirds of voters rate the current state of the economy as "poor." Is there any relief in sight? No.

The conventional wisdom among business forecasters now calls for growth of a bit more than 3 percent over the next year. Growth at that pace is barely enough to keep up with rising productivity and an expanding labor force, not enough to make a serious dent in unemployment. And a growing number of forecasters think the conventional wisdom is overoptimistic, that the pain is about to get even worse.

One reason is the surge in oil prices, which acts like a big tax increase, siphoning off spending that might otherwise have helped create jobs. And forget about those cheerful predictions of cheap oil as soon as Saddam is gone. Yes, oil prices plunged after the 1991 gulf war; but as Philip Verleger of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, back then there were big inventories of oil that got dumped once the crisis was past; this time inventories are very low. And if the victory isn't as quick and easy as promised, or if the aftermath of war is as nasty as many fear, oil prices could easily go much higher.

Then there's the effect of the worst fiscal crisis in the 50 states since World War II. Iris Lav of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that tax increases and spending cuts at the state level could drain $100 billion from the national economy over the next year. Aid from Washington is an obvious answer — but the Bush administration refuses to provide a penny.

Finally, the increasingly grim mood of consumers can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If disheartened families cut their spending, the job picture will worsen even further.

So where's the upside? To be fair, there are some reasons for hope. Most notably, after two years of low business investment, there's presumably a pent-up demand for new equipment. As I understand it, the prevailing view at the Federal Reserve — which is considerably more optimistic than private forecasters — is that once war fears are behind us, business investment will surge, and all will be well with the economy. Sounds like wishful thinking to me, but let's hope they're right. Also, war itself can be an economic stimulus, as the Pentagon replenishes the munitions it uses up in Iraq.

But you don't have to be a doomsayer to feel that the negatives greatly outweigh the positives — that an economy that is already hurting badly is all too likely to get even worse. So what will the administration do about it? Nothing, of course.

Yes, I know, the Bush team is proposing about $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. But when pressed, administration officials admit that their plan will do little for the economy right now. Why? Because those are long-term cuts; only a tiny fraction of the total will flow into people's pockets this year. Furthermore, most of the tax cuts will — of course — go to affluent families, who will probably save most of the money.

Why is the administration so uninterested in helping the economy? Here's my theory: The depressed state of the economy provides a convenient if bogus rationale for the huge, extremely irresponsible long-run tax cuts that, after Iraq, constitute this administration's principal obsession. To do anything else to help the economy would suggest that it's possible to create jobs now without putting the country's future solvency at risk — and that's not a message this administration wants to convey.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. Mankiw, who I suspect has no idea what he's getting into; I'm sure he will soon feel frustrated over his inability to have any real influence on this disastrous policy. But on second thought I'll save my sympathy for the two million people who have lost their jobs over the past two years, and are not likely to find new ones any time soon.

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 12:31:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
This explains a lot. That our press is too squeamish, or too "PC", to talk about. From "The Spectator."

It's worse than you imagined
There are a lot of myths about why Aids is widespread in Africa. But the facts, says Hugh Russell, are more bizarre

Lusaka

The funeral processions trundle past my garden gates at any and every hour of the day. Sometimes they are rather grand affairs, with a purpose-built hearse and an ornate coffin gleaming through its transparent walls. But more often ? in fact, almost invariably ? the coffin, of plain unvarnished wood, is carried in the back of an ancient pick-up and attended by mourners who squat perilously on the sides of the vehicle as it rattles over the potholes. Another couple of pick-ups or trucks follow, each carrying up to 40 mourners. The women sing.

At the cemetery the huge humps of newly dug reddish earth, the rickety wooden crosses and the litter of dying flowers are like something out of a Hammer horror movie. But the place is alive with people, as the various cortèges come and go. It?s said that people often get confused and attend the wrong burial. This is Aids in Africa.

At a local sports club the secretary showed me a fly-blown photograph on the notice-board. It was a picture of the club?s rugby XV from 14 years ago. Two of the team were white ? Brits, the secretary told me, who had gone home long ago. Of the 13 Zambians, 11 were dead. Of the remaining two, one he wasn?t sure about, and the other was still alive, and in fact turned out on a Saturday afternoon when he could find the time.

I needed some tiles for my bathroom, and went to the local tile centre which, by some quirk of planning, is situated to the rear of an undertaker. To reach the display you have to pass through the undertaker?s showroom, and at first I sniggered to myself as I strode past the ranks of coffins. Then I noticed that at least half of them were only three to four feet long, or less.

The UN secretary-general?s special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, one Stephen Lewis, reported in a Sunday newspaper on a visit he made not long ago to a paediatric ward here. While he was on the ward, he said, children with Aids were dying at the rate of one every quarter of an hour. Forgive me if I repeat that: one every quarter of an hour.

This is Aids in Africa. It?s rarely called Aids, of course. Cause of death is given as malaria or pneumonia or TB and, strictly speaking, that may be true. But the ruthless syndrome lies behind almost all the fatalities.

Nelson Mandela recently spoke of Aids ?decimating? southern Africa. Would to God that he was right. Statistics vary, of course, but even the most optimistic figures show that a far greater proportion than one in ten of the population is threatened. At an educated guess, one in five of us here in Zambia is HIV positive. But in the age-group most at risk ? 15 to 40 ? that figure comes down to one in three. In the 14th century the Black Death was operating at about the same average. Of course, that plague moved swiftly. Aids takes its time, which is why we call it, with grim humour, the ?slow puncture?.

In 1993 our neighbour Botswana, the place that used to be Bechuanaland and which today is one of the most economically successful countries in Africa, had an estimated population of 1.4 million. Today that figure is well under a million and heading downwards. Doom-merchants predict that Botswana may soon become the first nation in modern times literally to die out.

This is Aids in Africa. But why? Why has the syndrome got such a vice-like grip on us while its hold in Europe and America is, comparatively speaking, tenuous? What?s God got against Africa?

Let?s kill off a few canards first. We are not more gay than you. I know it?s politically incorrect to speak of Aids as having links with homosexuality, but of course in Europe and the US it does. Here in Zambia we have relatively few active gays. We have relatively fewer needle-sharing junkies, too.

Nor can the blame be laid on anal intercourse, another alleged cause of the spread of Aids. It may be common enough in Europe; in fact, judging by some dinner-table conversations in suburbia these days, it?s practically mandatory. But not so here. What?s more, Zambian law says that buggery is illegal, and you go to jail for it, as a sad German tourist found out to his cost a year ago.

Is it, then, that Africans are simply more immoral, that African society is just too casual? No, of course not. Society here is a complex web of tradition, custom, superstition and folklore, and the average Zambian sticks rigidly to the tribal code.

But perhaps that?s part of the problem. Perhaps it is in this strict adherence to custom that Zambians and other Africans make themselves particularly vulnerable to the virus. Let me tell you about three of those customs. The last will make you wince.

1. Ritual cleansing. This is not, sadly, some kind of elaborate bath. It has to do with the laying of ghosts. The belief is that when a husband dies his ghost will ?follow? his widow; and it will drive her mad unless she is ?cleansed?. Traditionally, cleansing requires the widow to have sex with a close male relative ? perhaps her husband?s uncle. Once this is done ? often with a fee payable to the lucky uncle ? the widow is deemed cleansed, and the ghost will disturb her and the family no more. Of course, if the husband died of Aids, and his widow also has the syndrome, then she will probably pass it on to Uncle.

In some districts this form of cleansing has been banned by the local chief who is, understandably, worried about his ever-decreasing population, or argued out of existence by persistent missionaries and health workers. Then the widow has another option. She can hop on a minibus and travel to a different part of Zambia, where she is a stranger. There she will make herself as attractive as she can, then slip into a local bar. She will pretend to be drunk, find a drunken man, and have quick casual sex with him. By making love to a stranger, she will ensure that the ghost of her husband leaves her and follows the man ? as indeed may the Aids virus. The ghost will in turn drive the strange man mad. This belief is so entrenched that when a young man shows signs of mental unbalance his friends and family will nod wisely and remark that he must have slept with a widow.

2. The secret society. Like the masons only more so, this component of African life is so secret that no one ever talks about it, and many deny that it still operates. But I?m assured by health and social workers here that it does. This is how it comes about. In the villages of rural Zambia, boys who reach the age of 12 or 13 undergo a ritual that initiates them into manhood. It?s the usual sort of thing ? circumcision plus lectures on adult behaviour and a few tattoos. As a result of this experience, the boys of any one year form a special bond, which will last a lifetime. They call it their secret society. In future years, when one such boy visits the home of another, he will be offered, and be expected to accept, the sexual use of his host?s wife. This is not considered adulterous, as long as the husband is present throughout. Not quite like the masons, perhaps.

As I said, the secret society is not talked about openly today, but the spread of Aids among seemingly moral and faithful married couples speaks volumes on its behalf.

3. Dry sex. I warned you that this one would make you wince. Again, it?s not something that?s talked about much, but many here believe that the practice is a major factor in the spread of the virus, particularly when prostitution is involved.

Dry sex is what it sounds like. For reasons that baffle me and perhaps most European men, many Zambian and other African men prefer to make love to a woman when she is, or appears to be, unaroused. A truck-driver told me that he liked his partner to be ?dry and tight? because it made her feel like a virgin. He found a moist vagina distasteful ? ?like she?s making water?, as he put it. To satisfy him, his girls had to be difficult to penetrate.

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing is that the women go along with this. The reason, I?m told, lies in the fundamental relationship between the sexes in southern Africa: the woman will do anything to make her man happy. To ensure that she is in a suitable condition when her man wants to make love, she boils up a concoction of roots, leaves and herbs, a secret recipe handed down from mother to daughter. The resulting brew has an astringent quality that both dries and firms vaginal tissue.

Prostitutes who service truck-drivers and other travellers at the truck stops and border posts are said to use the same technique, which means they can present themselves to their clients in a satisfactory state several times a night. Just how painful sex becomes for the woman can be imagined. And with the pain come abrasions, splits and other injuries, which result in a greatly increased likelihood of the transmission of the Aids virus.

Our vice-president Enoch Kavindele, about whom I have been rude in the past, recently advised men who are not already circumcised to get it done soonest, as a protection against Aids. The advice sounded almost comic. But if it was designed to avoid split and bleeding foreskins suffered during dry sex, it makes sense. Good thinking for once, Enoch.

Health workers and other concerned people are well aware of how deeply these three fatal customs are woven into the fabric of Zambian society. Intensive efforts are being made to eradicate them, but like so many things in African society, any change at all is a long time coming.

True, ritual cleansing, in its sexual guise, is slowly becoming less common. Instead a new format has been devised, by which the widow is formally covered with mealie meal and then declared ?cleansed?. But to the more tradition-minded woman, rolling around in some dusty maize flour is a pallid substitute for sleeping with her dead husband?s uncle. As for the dry-sex habit, health workers hand out plenty of advice to the prostitutes and their truck-driving clients. But prostitutes will, of course, do whatever their clients are willing to pay for, and truck-drivers, kings of the road in southern Africa, are not the types to have their sexual mores easily reversed. And the secret societies? What secret societies?

The fact is, those working to reduce the incidence of Aids in southern African countries are hoeing a hard row. In Zambia occasional posters and wall paintings shout the message. Schoolchildren are talked at interminably. Contraceptives are widely available to purchase, although even the cheapest is often beyond the means of a man who can afford to eat only perhaps once every two days.

In his State of the Union message President Bush promised trillions of dollars to fight HIV/Aids in Africa. Those of us with satellite television saw him do it. But his words were virtually ignored by our local newspapers, perhaps because our editors suspect that the White House has other things on its mind at present.

More American cash will, of course, buy more anti-retroviral drugs, which could save many lives and extend others. What?s more, many firms now supply their products to the region at cost. But even at cost they are still out of reach of people who have nothing. And, as the Weekly Telegraph reported recently, racketeers are now snapping up the drugs at their low African price and smuggling them back to Europe to sell at a vast profit.

Africa Wins Again, as the cynics here, and possibly those in Washington, will say. And another thing: here, even if the anti-retroviral drugs became available to the general populace, it is difficult to imagine how the necessary strict medical supervision of the patient could be carried out in the framework of our ramshackle social system.

There?s some hope for a few of us ? a very few. If you?ve got a slow puncture and you?re rich enough, you can fly down to South Africa for expert treatment. Several prominent Zambians are said to do just that. The rest ? almost everyone, in fact ? sit and wait for the inevitable. Meanwhile, the funeral processions continue to trundle past my gates with ever-increasing frequency, and one is haunted by the feeling that the worst is yet to come.

Is there anything you can do to help? You can, of course, donate to the various charities that work in the field, and watch your cash go sluicing down the sink that we call ?donor aid?. But there?s something else you can do, which costs nothing and which, cynics would say, is liable to be just as effective. It?s something that Zambians, citizens of a self-proclaimed Christian country, do all the time. You can pray for us. spectator.co.uk



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 3:05:35 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Yes, Hussein is evil, but what's the rush?

By Sheila Suess Kennedy
Editorial
The Indianapolis Star
February 27, 2003
indystar.com

In the wake of massive, worldwide demonstrations against President Bush's rush to war, right-wing pundits and citizen hawks have questioned the patriotism of the protesters ("My country right or wrong!") and accused them of lacking concern for our troops. They have adopted the administration's simple logic that "If you aren't with us, you're against us."

This "either/or" approach to issues may work for editorial cartoons, but it makes lousy policy. Fortunately, most Americans take a much more nuanced approach. According to polls, we believe Saddam Hussein is evil and that the world would be better off without him, but we don't understand what the big rush is.

Most of us are willing to take part in a truly multilateral operation through the United Nations but are wary of going to war alone and suspicious of an administration that tells us we are going to ignore the United Nations and invade Iraq because Iraq has ignored the U.N.

This continued ambivalence of the American public has not been lost on the White House, which understands that it must make at least a show of working through the world community. So Bush has gone shopping for allies. The same administration that just cut mental health benefits for poor people; that is unable to find the promised cash to fund state and local homeland security efforts; that "forgot" to budget a single dollar for the continued pacification of Afghanistan has promised Turks $26 billion if it will let our troops deploy from their country.

Leaving aside the moral and geopolitical implications of buying one's allies, $26 billion is a lot of money.

Bush's budget is deep in red ink, and that is without a single dollar budgeted for a war and its aftermath that analysts say could easily cost $1 trillion. The surplus Bush inherited is a distant memory. His tax policies have plunged state and local governments into record deficits. Experts claim that a war with Iraq will bankrupt America's airlines, deepen the recession and inflate the price of gasoline. We are in a world of fiscal hurt while Bush is using $26 billion to bribe Turkey to be our friend.

When America last took troops into Iraq, it was under a President Bush who had carefully assembled a multinational force, who had engaged in the demanding job of negotiating with allies and reassuring nonaligned nations. There are many reasons to emulate that approach, not the least of which is that those other nations picked up 90 percent of the tab.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy is assistant professor of law and public policy at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Indianapolis.



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 4:25:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Bush & Co. don't care what we think

By HUBERT G. LOCKE
SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, February 28, 2003

Last month, I had the privilege (and pleasure -- he is a personally delightful fellow) of spending a morning with Daniel Ellsberg. Unfortunately, the name is apt to be remembered primarily by those over 40; Ellsberg was a former special assistant in the Department of Defense (during the Johnson administration) and senior staff member of the Rand Corp. who, in October 1969, secretly photocopied a 7,000-page, top secret study on U.S. decision-making regarding the war in Vietnam.

Ellsberg released the purloined papers to The New York Times and The Washington Post where they were quickly dubbed "the Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg, in the words of NPR news analyst Daniel Schorr, "single-handedly changed the course of history." The Pentagon Papers initiated a series of events that led to Watergate, the collapse of the Nixon presidency and, finally, the end of the Vietnam War.

Three decades later, Ellsberg tells his story in a book titled "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" (Viking Press). It makes for chilling reading, particularly in light of the present, relentless rush toward war in Iraq and the Middle East. "Secrets" ought to be required reading for every American because it is essentially the story of how reporters -- and, by extension, the American public -- were lied to by people in positions of power in the nation's capital who thought they knew what was best for America and the nation's interests.

"Secrets" describes how, in the heady atmosphere of the Pentagon and the White House, loyalty to one's boss overwhelmingly took precedent over personal honesty and integrity.

It details how a set of convictions developed that "it was the president's job to make foreign policy, with the advice of our bosses, not, in any serious sense, with the advice of Congress. It didn't matter that much to us what the public thought." Ellsberg tells of watching Washington's top decision-makers "secretly maneuver the country into a full-scale war with no real promise of success."

He describes watching his colleagues and counterparts moving from "one crisis to another" like the circus juggler "who keeps a dozen plates spinning in the air on the ends of long, flexible poles . . . " Ellsberg concludes, "I asked myself more than once: . . . with all the simultaneous problems (whose range reflected America's post-war sense of its 'responsibilities,' its power, its entitlements) . . . can men even as brilliant and adroit as these -- and for sheer brainpower and energy, the Kennedy crew that Johnson inherited could not easily be bettered -- manage safely and wisely so many challenges at once . . . ? Can you really run the world this way?"

With the war drums pounding incessantly in our ears, Ellsberg's recounting of the atmosphere in the top reaches of government during the Vietnam era takes on an alarming pertinence. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it's like "déjà vu all over again." The White House is maneuvering this country toward a full-scale war -- the only difference being that, this time, it makes no secret of the fact. The maneuvering is being done by people who believe they know what is best, not only for America but the entire world. And they are people who have amply demonstrated that they do not care what either the American public thinks -- or the rest of the world, for that matter.

They are also the people who confront, in Ellsberg's words, a basketful of "simultaneous problems." Kim Jong II and his nuclear pretensions in North Korea make Saddam Hussein seem like a rank amateur. Iran announced earlier this month that it has begun to mine uranium as part of an ambitious energy program; Iran is said to be only three to five years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is about to precipitate a constitutional crisis in the Philippines by sending 3,000 troops to help hunt down members of a terrorist organization that allegedly has ties to Osama bin Laden. The Philippine Constitution prohibits foreign troops from engaging in combat on Philippine soil. And the United States already has 200 troops stationed in Colombia where rebels are holding three Americans as hostages. (The U.S. troops, incidentally, are training Colombian troops to defend an oil pipeline owned by L.A.-based Occidental Petroleum.)

No one would suggest that the current crowd in the White House could hold a candle -- when it comes to brilliance and adroitness -- to those who managed the nation's affairs during the Kennedy years. So Ellsberg's question becomes all the more critical: "Can you really run the world this way?"
_____________________________________________________

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: JohnM who wrote (78290)2/28/2003 5:49:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

by John Brady Kiesling
Published on Thursday, February 27, 2003 by the New York Times

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

###

commondreams.org