(Image from the IMF Flikr page, via Andrew Sullivan and John Naughton)
[ 0 comments ]
From the monthly archives:
May 2011
Completely missed Vogue‘s 3,000-word feature on Asma al-Assad, Syria’s first lady, back in February (“A Rose in the Desert”). And now – damn it – it’s been taken from the magazine’s web site. Apparently, it praised the autocrat’s wife as “glamorous, young, and very chic–the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies”, and told us her “style is not the couture-and-bling of Middle Eastern power but [a] deliberate lack of adornment”. And so on.
Brilliant stuff.
Foreign Policy rounds up a few other unfortunate publication timings, including Washingtonian magazine’s recent profile of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (now heavily amended).
Poor editor. Poor reporter.
[ 0 comments ]
Via Juan Cole, a poster comparing the cost of Iraq and Libya:
Republicans are more upset about Libya, Cole notes.
[ 0 comments ]
Consistency problem here, maybe:
You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
After heartily hailing popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been unenthusiastic about the wave of anti-government protests in Syria, the Shiite militant group’s close ally.
In a speech late Wednesday, Nasrallah threw his full support behind the Syrian regime and denounced international sanctions slapped on Syria for an ongoing brutal crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators that human rights activists say has left more than 1,000 people dead.
[ 0 comments ]
Good luck to activists in Saudi Arabia trying to break a ban on women driving. It’s fairly unbelievable that women anywhere should be denied such a basic right in 2011 – but then Saudi Arabia isn’t any country. Activists are calling on women with international licenses to drive June 17th as an act of defiance. They hope to draw attention to a ban that they say disproportionately affects poorer women who cannot afford drivers, or ask husbands or relatives for help. They are very brave. Authorities have already arrested two, and shut down a Facebook page. And speculation is that police will crack down hard next month. Religious fanatics clerics say they don’t want women mixing with gas station attendants and mechanics, and that men are safer drivers.
It’s often said that the West has double standards where Saudi is concerned. But it’s even more true now. As the US, UK, France etc slowly takes on a more enlightened position on many Arab states, they steadfastly refuse to say anything (that I’ve heard) about the desert kingdom. The driving campaign is a reminder of how far behind the country is. While much of the Middle East is calling for the right to vote, Saudi subjects can’t even drive to the shops without a man in tow. It’s worth remembering, too, how little we as outsiders actually remark on this situation. You can be sure if the country was, say, Iran, the outcries would be many times louder and longer.
[ 0 comments ]
Having just moved, I appreciated this post by the author Steven Johnson (via Ben Casnocha):
And then there’s the passage of time. Another old friend — my oldest, in fact — wrote an email to me after I told him the news of our move. We’ve both been in New York for two decades, and we are both watching our kids growing up at lightning speed. “Change like this slows down time,” he wrote. When you’re in your routine, frequenting the same old haunts, time seems to accelerate — was it just four years ago that our youngest son was born? But all the complexities of moving — figuring out where to live, getting there, and then navigating all the new realities of the changed environment — means that the minutes and hours that once passed as a kind of background process, the rote memory of knowing your place, suddenly are thrust into your conscious awareness. You have to figure it out, and figuring things out makes you aware of the passing days and months more acutely. You get disoriented, or at least you have to think for a while before you can be properly oriented again.
I don’t know about time – what is that, after all? But I do know what he means about routines and being forced to look at things afresh. It’s a cleansing, healthy thing to move: to chuck away all the crap you don’t need and never use; to see old friends and family, to hug them farewell, knowing you won’t see them regularly; to land in a new place where everything is alien and novel. It re-animates the things that have become mundane, because you have to think about where to shop, eat, drink, how to cross the street, etc. Of course, there are downsides as well – including a general loss of value (eg from re-buying some of that stupid stuff again). And it’s tiring. But, on balance, I’ll take the annoyances, and the expense, for the sake of the fresh perspective. Who wants to stay in the same place forever, anyway?
[ 2 comments ]
There is a debate about the significance of Obama’s Middle East speech this week, with some saying it’s little different to what his predecessors have said, and others who see it as more of a step-change. Think I’m in the latter camp. It may not be what I want him to say. He makes too many concessions to Israel’s paranoia, for instance, and to the Syrian status quo (saying Assad should reform or “get out the way”, rather than simply get out). But, compared to where the US has been before, and in the political context, it’s change from the normal.
Consider the statement that any Israel-Palestinian agreement be based on pre-1967 borders. The rightfulness of that position may seem self-evident to 99 percent of the world, but past presidents have backed Israel to keep its war gains and settlements.
See Lyndon Johnson, 1968:
It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders
Or Reagan, 1982:
In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.
Or Bush, 2004:
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..
Most importantly, Obama placed the Israeli-Palestinian struggle in the context of the Arab Spring, and a new US Mid East policy. Implicitly, Obama was saying Palestinian aspirations need to be treated as Egyptian/Bahraini/Tunisian aspirations should be. And he normalised the Israeli-Palestinian issue, instead of treating it as a special case where the normal rules – eg on human rights – don’t apply.
Subtly, that is a big swipe on Israel’s position, which is only tenable if the US continues to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the West Bank and elsewhere.
Obama didn’t say everything we might hope – but he was brave to say what he did. The freak-out from the US right-wing media and think-tanks, rumours of defections among Democratic donors, the lock-step opposition in Congress – all mean it would be easier for Obama to repeat the bromides, and save energy for easier problems. He’s taking risks as he tries to do the right thing.
As for Israel, it increasingly risks being on the wrong side of history, condemned around the world, and forced to rely on the antagonism of its neighbours to justify its bullishness. It continues to argue that it can’t give up West Bank land because doing so would leave it open to attack. But, as Jonathan Chait says, it isn’t an invasion that Israel needs to worry about:
During the first quarter-century of Israel’s existence, the prospect of a massed conventional military invasion constituted the greatest threat to its existence. That’s no longer true. The greatest dangers today are the combination of demographic and political threats posed by the growing relative size of the Arab population west of the Jordan river, terrorism, and the loss of legitimacy posed by a continuing occupation and counter-terrorism policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Those dangers all dwarf the potential that armored columns of Arab armies will cut Israel in half. The tragedy is that huge swaths of the Israeli right and its sympathizers (both Jewish and Gentile) have failed to grasp this, and have placed it in danger of succumbing to the mortal new threat while guarding against the antiquated one.
In other words, it’s not anti-Israeli to call for a full withdrawal behind the 1967 lines, as Obama suggests. It’s in Israel’s interests, America’s, and ultimately, all our interests. It is only by reaching a solution to the conflict that Israel can defuse its demographic time-bomb, and align its professed values with its actions. The continued occupation, and the refusal to countenance anything more than a rump Palestinian state, divided and surrounded, puts Israel in an increasingly morally bankrupt position. The irony is that, while Netanyahu rails against Obama, the president represents Israel’s best hope. The alternative – the further entrenchment of the current situation – is much worse for Israel’s future.
(Image: Barack Obama Dot Com)
[ 0 comments ]
I don’t really understand this new report by the Worldwatch Institute about nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima. It points out, incontrovertibly, that the industry has been in retreat for several years: there were seven fewer reactors last year than in 2002; wind, biomass and solar accounted for more combined capacity in 2010. And so on. It says Fukushima is likely to increase costs for new plants (because the public will demand more safety, and funders will raise the cost of capital). Again: hard to argue with. But it also claims, somehow, that the nuclear “renaissance” – where dozens of countries have proposed new nuclear capacity – has been a sham.
Here is how Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, puts it:
There’s been a lot of talk about a nuclear renaissance, and that’s been referred to in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But in fact, what we find is that the overall capacity to generate electricity of the world’s nuclear plants has been really just barely increasing in recent years. In fact, the total output of electricity has even declined slightly over the last few years.
So rather than being this rather robust, rapidly growing industry, we find that nuclear power was actually facing a pretty uncertain and even somewhat troubled future, even before Fukushima, which of course has now added additional question marks.
But surely the “renaissance” isn’t about the current capacity of nuclear plants, or even their output over the next decade or so. It is about what countries are planning for the longer term. And what’s remarkable, I think, is that Fukushima has done little to dampen appetite for nuclear, despite heightened public alarm.
A recent analysis by consultants A D Little found that, of 595 units planned before the disaster, only 27 have been shelved by governments so far. A low percentage. While Italy, Thailand, and Switzerland have cancelled units, many bigger countries – notably China, India and Russia – have kept programs in place. Many have set up safety reviews, and promised to learn the lessons. But they haven’t shifted from a basic conclusion, reached some years ago, about nuclear’s necessity, whatever the dangers.
I’m all for having a debate about nuclear’s merits – and I’m certainly open to arguments about how we reach energy demand without nuclear (as long as it doesn’t exacerbate global warming). But I don’t see how minimising reality helps the discussion: countries see the need to build new nuclear power plants. You might think Fukushima ought to kill the industry – but, like it or not, so far it hasn’t.
(Image: smallritual)
[ 1 comment ]
I’d say this Tariq Ali post about bin Laden’s killing was fairly typical of posts by Tariq Ali: 1) a provocative claim (that Pakistan told the US where Osama was); 2) a lack of evidence for the above; 3) Tariq Ali at the heart of the story. I’m not saying it isn’t true: Pakistan had an incentive to house Osama (as he could be exchanged when required). But Ali provides no proof for it. Instead, the basis of the claim is a fleeting encounter:
In 2006 on my way back from Lahore I encountered an acquaintance from my youth. Shamefacedly he confessed that he was a senior intelligence officer on his way to a European conference to discuss better ways of combating terrorism. The following conversation (a lengthier version can be found in The Duel: Pakistan on the Flightpath of American Power) ensued:
‘Is OBL still alive?’
He didn’t reply.
‘When you don’t reply,’ I said, ‘I’ll assume the answer is yes.’
I repeated the question. He didn’t reply.
‘Do you know where he is?’
He burst out laughing.
‘I don’t, and even if I did, do you think I’d tell you?’
‘No, but I thought I’d ask anyway. Does anyone else know where he is?’
He shrugged his shoulders.
I insisted: ‘Nothing in our wonderful country is ever a secret. Someone must know.’
‘Three people know. Possibly four. You can guess who they are.’
I could. ‘And Washington?’
‘They don’t want him alive.’
‘And your boys can’t kill him?’
‘Listen friend, why should we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?’
All very interesting – and worth relating. But enough to say that a leak came either from the ISI, or General Kayani?
Aside from unsubstantiated claims, generally what annoys me about Tariq Ali is that he revels in the perfidy of everyone and everything, without offering any alternative. He describes at great length, say, Pakistani corruption, as if description of this is the main challenge. It isn’t. It is not difficult to find critics of Pakistan. The challenge is to change things. It would be interesting to hear Ali’s advice about this, rather than endless negativity.
[ 0 comments ]