Sunday, September 30, 2007

9/11 Is Over

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
NYT, September 30

Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:

“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”

Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.

Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us.

I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security. But sometimes the necessary is impossible — and we just can’t keep chasing that rainbow this way.

Look at our infrastructure. It’s not just the bridge that fell in my hometown, Minneapolis. Fly from Zurich’s ultramodern airport to La Guardia’s dump. It is like flying from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.

I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore. Last July, Microsoft, fed up with American restrictions on importing brain talent, opened its newest software development center in Vancouver. That’s in Canada, folks. If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?

We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Monks’ Protest Is Challenging Burmese Junta



SETH MYDANS
NYT, September 24

BANGKOK, Monday, Sept. 24 — The largest street protests in two decades against Myanmar’s military rulers gained momentum Sunday as thousands of onlookers cheered huge columns of Buddhist monks and shouted support for the detained pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Winding for a sixth day through rainy streets, the protest swelled to 10,000 monks in the main city of Yangon, formerly Rangoon, according to witnesses and other accounts relayed from the closed country, including some clandestinely shot videos.

It came one day after a group of several hundred monks paid respects to Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi at the gate of her home, the first time she has been seen in public in more than four years.

The link between the clergy and the leader of the country’s pro-democracy movement, the beginnings of large-scale public participation in the marches and a call by some monks for a wider protest raised the stakes for the government.

So far, it has mostly allowed the monks free reign in the streets, apparently fearing a public backlash if it cracks down on them in this Buddhist nation.

Monks were reported to be parading through a number of cities on Sunday, notably the country’s second largest city, Mandalay, where an estimated 10,000 people, including 4,000 monks, had marched Saturday.

Myanmar’s military government has sealed off the country to foreign journalists but information about the protests has been increasingly flowing out through wire service reports, exile groups in Thailand with contacts inside Myanmar, and through the photographs, videos and audio files, carried rapidly by technologies, including the Internet, that the government has failed to squelch.

The state-controlled press has carried no reports about the monks’ demonstrations.

Since the military crushed a peaceful nationwide uprising in 1988, killing an estimated 3,000 civilians, the country, formerly known as Burma, has sunk further into poverty and repression and become a symbol for the outside world of the harsh military subjugation of a people.

Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, has been locked inside her home for 12 of the last 18 years, and the government has arrested thousands of political prisoners.

The United States and Europe have led a tightening economic boycott that has been undermined by trade and assistance from Myanmar’s neighbors, mainly China but also India and some Southeast Asian nations. The United States has diplomatic relations with Myanmar but no ambassador. President Bush, his wife, Laura, and a roster of Hollywood celebrities have spoken out recently about Myanmar, and the abuses of human and political rights by the military junta are expected to take a high profile at the United Nations session starting this week.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asked about Myanmar as she arrived at the United Nations on Sunday, told reporters that the Bush administration was closely monitoring how the government deals with the protests.

“The Burmese people deserve better,” she said. “They deserve a life to be able to live in freedom, just as everyone does. And the brutality of this regime is well known, and so we will be speaking about that and I think the president will be speaking about it with many of his colleagues.”

The public display of discontent in Myanmar mirrors that of the previous uprising — anger over a brutal and incompetent military government that has turned one of Southeast Asia’s best endowed and most sophisticated nations into one of its most repressed and destitute.

Surreptitiously shot photographs and videos recorded on Sunday showed thousands of civilians marching quickly through the streets side by side with the monks, emboldened by the continuing demonstrations into a rare show of defiance.

Some pictures showed people joining hands in a protective cordon as they walked beside the monks in their dark red robes. Others showed Buddhist nuns with shaved heads marching through the streets as onlookers applauded.

In audio recordings people shouted “Do-aye” — “It is our task” — a slogan of determination that was also heard on the streets in 1988.

The photographs and videos themselves represented acts of courage in a closed and repressive country that has tried to quash the spread of information.

But modern communications technology has brought the protests into the world’s eye in a way that was not possible in 1988.

Both the government and protesters have so far sought to avoid the kind of confrontation that led to widespread bloodshed in the 1988 uprising, which was led mostly by students.

“The monks are the highest moral authority in the Burmese culture,” said Soe Aung, a spokesman for a coalition of exile groups based in Thailand. “If something happens to the monks, the situation will spread much faster than what happened to the students in 1988.”

This gingerly approach by authorities — and the challenges it poses — were demonstrated on Saturday when guards removed barriers to allow about 500 monks to walk down the tree shaded street where Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi lives.

She met them at the iron gate outside her home and witnesses told wire services that she was in tears as she greeted the monks, who chanted prayers as they faced the security officers with riot shields who sealed off her home.

On Sunday, witness accounts relayed by exile groups reported that members of the public shouted their support for her and that some of the protesting monks also shouted, “Release Suu Kyi!”

Uniformed police officers and soldiers have stayed in the background throughout a month of building protests. But witnesses said plainclothes police officers trailed the marchers and some, armed with shotguns, were posted along the route.

The Associated Press reported that police officers turned back a small group of monks who tried to march for a second day to the home of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi.

Although she has been sealed off from the public and has been allowed almost no visitors, Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, 62, remains a martyr and rallying symbol for the population.

“She has been out of contact with virtually everyone, but her symbolic importance cannot be underestimated,” said Basil Fernando, director of the Asian Human Rights Commission. “Symbolically, her reintroduction into the political life of the country at such a dire moment is of enormous importance.”

The daughter of an assassinated independence hero, Aung San, she came to prominence when she became a leader in the pro-democracy demonstrations of 1988.

Her political party, the National League for Democracy, won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections in 1990, although the junta, fearing her charismatic appeal, had already placed her under house arrest.

The military government annulled the election results and held on to power. But it miscalculated the public mood again in 2002 when it released her from house arrest and allowed her to tour the country, visiting party offices.

She drew increasingly large and enthusiastic crowds until a band of government-backed thugs attacked a convoy in which she was traveling, killing several people. The government seized her again and placed under even stricter house arrest, cutting off her telephone and deepening her isolation.

The latest protests began Aug. 19 in response to sharp, unannounced fuel price increases of up to 500 percent, immediately raising the prices of goods and transportation.

They were led at first by former student protesters and other activists, but most of the leaders had been arrested or were in hiding when the monks began their protests last Tuesday.

The monks were apparently motivated at first by an attack on a small demonstration at which security officers fired shots into the air and beat a number of monks.

Since then, the monks’ protests have spread from city to city and have become more overtly political.

On Saturday, an organization of clergy called the All Burma Monks Alliance, called for a widening of the protests in a statement that said, “In order to banish the common enemy evil regime from Burmese soil forever, united masses of people need to join hands with the united clergy forces.”

It went on, “We pronounce the evil military despotism, which is impoverishing and pauperizing our people of all walks, including the clergy, as the common enemy of all our citizens.”



Burma's Junta Imposes Curfew, Bans Gatherings

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 26


BANGKOK, Sept. 25 -- Burma's military rulers imposed a nighttime curfew and banned assemblies Tuesday after thousands of Buddhist monks defied warnings and mounted another day of pro-democracy protests to the cheers of crowds in the streets of Rangoon.

Although Tuesday's demonstration was allowed to proceed peacefully, several truckloads of soldiers and armed police were seen taking up positions in Burma's largest city late in the day, according to news agency reports and videos e-mailed out of the isolated Southeast Asian country.

The ban on assemblies and the appearance of reinforcements, including anti-riot troops carrying shields and truncheons, suggested that the military junta may be preparing to crack down despite appeals from around the world that it avoid using force and enter into negotiations with its opponents.

Addressing the annual U.N. General Assembly, President Bush announced that he will impose new economic restrictions on Burmese leaders and their financial backers and expand a U.S. visa ban on those deemed responsible for "the most egregious violations of human rights" as well as their families.

After a day of protest by an estimated 10,000 monks and lay supporters, some shouting "Democracy, democracy," junta supporters were seen driving around Rangoon warning via loudspeakers that "action" would be taken against anybody who continued to support the demonstrations, news agency reports said. Others announced a 9 p.m.-to-5 a.m. curfew in Rangoon and Mandalay, Burma's two largest cities, and said gatherings of five or more people were banned, setting the stage for confrontation if the monks continue to protest, the reports said.

"A crackdown is imminent," predicted Bertil Lintner, a veteran Burma specialist based in neighboring Thailand.

Similar protests in 1988 were put down by soldiers firing weapons into crowds of demonstrators, killing several thousand. But this time, security forces have remained in the background during more than a week of sustained anti-government agitation that has built into the most serious challenge to the military junta since the 1988 disturbances.

The junta warned on government-controlled television Monday night that security forces could step in if the current wave of demonstrations did not come to a halt. The threat followed a day-long protest march in Rangoon estimated to have included more than 50,000 people, perhaps up to 100,000, which was much larger than previous demonstrations and several times larger than Tuesday's march.

At the same time, the religious affairs minister, Brig. Gen. Thura Myint Maung, ordered senior Buddhist leaders to rein in younger monks leading the charge in the streets. "If the monks go against the rules and regulations in the authority of Buddhist teachings, we will take action under existing laws," state television quoted him as saying.

In what could be a taste of things to come, several hundred monks protesting in the northwestern city of Sittwe were attacked with tear gas and roughed up by security forces, the Reuters news agency reported. Others were reportedly arrested, sparking anger among their fellow monks in Rangoon.

The protests started Aug. 19, set off by a stiff rise in fuel prices. But they have escalated since then into a head-on political challenge against the military leadership that has run Burma, also called Myanmar, for most of the past half-century. Spearheaded by the Buddhist monks who are revered by Burma's approximately 50 million inhabitants, the demonstrations in recent days also have broadened to embrace lay students and members of the National League for Democracy, the political party headed by Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military junta has kept Suu Kyi under virtual house arrest and prevented her party from taking power despite its victory in elections in 1990. Reuters reported Tuesday that Suu Kyi, who has become a symbol for many of the protesters of their longing for democracy, was taken to a prison Sunday in an attempt to prevent her from emerging as a leader of the new antigovernment campaign. In a brief appearance at the gate of her home Saturday, she drew cheers from hundreds of protesters who were allowed to approach her residence.

The junta and its leader, Gen. Than Shwe, have been urged to abandon their exclusive grip on power as public concern over the increasingly tense situation surges across Asia and beyond.

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear," Bush said at the United Nations. "Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking and rape are common. The regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990."

Bush called on other nations "to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom." Although he did not mention any country by name, it was a message aimed particularly at China, the key trading partner and ally of the Burmese government.

China has not joined the chorus of condemnation. Instead, it reiterated its refusal to pressure for change in public. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Chinese government hopes Burma's rulers can "maintain stability and resolve the issue in its own way," according to news agency reports from Beijing.

The United States imposed stringent economic sanctions on Burma in 1997 and amplified them in 2003. But some human rights activists who closely track the issue said the latest sanctions may be more effective if the administration follows its own model in cutting off illicit money held by North Korea in foreign banks. Bush and White House officials did not discuss in detail how the new restrictions would work but said they would target specific individuals as opposed to the general sanctions now on the books.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch has consulted with administration officials on the matter. "Even though the generals in Burma are profoundly isolated from their own people and the world, they still have to bank somewhere and that makes them vulnerable," he said. "There's a vulnerability that's never been exploited by the international community. If they can't bank anywhere, they can't buy things, including guns."

Malinowski added that leaders of the junta may be surprised to find their access to cash cut off.

"It will have an impact," he said, "when the wife of the leading general walks into his bedroom in the morning and starts screaming at him, 'What happened to our money?' "

Burma has occupied a prominent spot on the White House radar screen since first lady Laura Bush became personally upset about the situation. In recent weeks, she has called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to urge more action on Burma and summoned reporters to condemn the government -- unusually public moves by the first lady.

"What we're trying to do is . . . ratchet up the pressure on this regime, to get them to understand that there is a time now for a political transition and that they should be using the turmoil in the country as a vehicle for planning and achieving that transition, rather than trying to crack down on it and turn the clock back to a time that the Burmese people are no longer willing to tolerate," said national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

Staff writer Peter Baker at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Myanmar Raids Monasteries Before Dawn

NYT, SETH MYDANS

BANGKOK, Sept. 27 — Beginning the second day of their crackdown on nationwide protests in Myanmar before dawn today, security forces raided at least two Buddhist monasteries, beating and arresting dozens of monks, according to reports from the capital, Yangon.

Facing its most serious challenge since taking power in 1988, the ruling junta is attempting to contain the uprising by tens of thousands of monks who have been at the heart of more than a week of huge demonstrations against economic hardships and the political repression of the military junta.

On Wednesday, in a chaotic day of huge demonstrations, shooting, teargas and running confrontations between protesters and the military, many people were reported injured and half a dozen were reported to have been killed, most of them by gunshots.

The Associated Press reported that more shots were fired today at one of several monasteries raided early in the day, Ngwe Kyar Yan, where one monk said a number of monks were beaten and at least 70 of its 150 monks were arrested.

A female lay disciple said a number of monks were arrested at a second monastery, Moe Guang, which was being guarded, like a number of other monasteries, by a contingent of armed security personnel.

The government began its violent crackdown Wednesday after tolerating more than a month of ever-larger protests in cities around the country, clubbing and tear gassing protesters, firing shots into the air and arresting hundreds of the monks and their supporters. The government of Myanmar began a violent crackdown on Wednesday after tolerating more than a month of ever larger protests in cities around the country. Security forces clubbed and tear-gassed protesters, fired shots into the air and arrested hundreds of the monks who are at the heart of the demonstrations.

A government announcement said security forces in Yangon, the country’s main city, fired at demonstrators who failed to disperse, killing one man. Foreign news agencies and exile groups reported death tolls ranging from two to eight people.

Despite threats and warnings by the authorities, and despite the beginnings of a violent response, tens of thousands of chanting, cheering protesters flooded the streets, witnesses reported. Monks were in the lead, like religious storm troopers, as one foreign diplomat described the scene.

In response to the violence, the United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss the crisis, but China blocked a Council resolution, backed by the United States and European nations, to condemn the government crackdown.

However, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that the United Nations was “urgently dispatching” a special envoy to Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

A spokesman for President Bush, in New York City for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, denounced the crackdown and urged restraint. A day before, White House officials had expressed hope that Mr. Bush’s announcement of new sanctions directed against the military government’s leaders would intensify pressure on them not to use violence against the protesters.

“The United States is very troubled by the action of the junta against the Burmese people,” the spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said Wednesday afternoon. “We call on them to show restraint and to move to a peaceful transition to democracy.”

Though the crowds in Yangon, formerly Rangoon, were large and energetic on Wednesday, they were smaller than on previous days, apparently in part because of the deployment of armed soldiers to prevent monks from leaving some of the main temples.

But it appeared that an attempt by the military to halt the protests through warnings, troop deployments and initial bursts of violence had not succeeded.

Political analysts said the next steps in the crackdown might be yet more aggressive and widespread.

The foreign diplomat described an amazing scene on Wednesday as a column of 8,000 to 10,000 people flooded past his embassy following a group of about 800 monks.
They were trailed by four truckloads of military men, watching but not taking action. The diplomat, in keeping with his embassy’s policy, spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to news reports and telephone interviews from Myanmar, which is sealed off to foreign reporters, the day’s activities began with a confrontation at the giant gold-spired Shwedagon Pagoda, which has been one of the focal points of the demonstrations.

In the first reported violence in nine days of demonstrations by monks in Yangon, police officers with riot shields dispersed up to 100 monks who were trying to enter the temple, firing tear gas and warning shots and knocking some monks to the ground. As many as 200 monks were reported to have been arrested at the pagoda.

Several hundred monks then walked through downtown Yangon to the Sule Pagoda, another site of the demonstrations, where truckloads of soldiers were seen arriving Tuesday. A violent confrontation was reported there; more shots were fired and a number of arrests were made.

On a broad avenue near the temple, hundreds of people sat facing a row of soldiers, calling out to them, “The people’s armed forces, our armed forces!” and “The armed forces should not kill their own people!”

In Mandalay, Myanmar’s second largest city, more than 800 monks, nuns and other demonstrators were confronted by some 100 soldiers who tried to stop them from marching from the Mahamuni Paya Pagoda, which they had tried to enter earlier, The Associated Press reported.

The demonstrations in Yangon have grown from several hundred people protesting a fuel price rise in mid-August to as many as 100,000 on Sunday, led by tens of thousands of monks in the largest and most sustained protests since 1988.

That earlier peaceful uprising was crushed by the military, which shot into crowds, killing an estimated 3,000 people. It was during the turmoil that the current military junta took power in Myanmar, and it has maintained its grip by arresting dissidents, quashing political opposition and using force and intimidation to control the population.

Now, emboldened by the presence of the monks, huge crowds have joined the demonstrations in protests that reflect years of discontent over economic hardship and political repression.

At first, the government held back as the protests grew. It issued its first warning on Monday night, when the religious affairs minister said the government was prepared to take action against the protesting monks.

On Tuesday night, the government announced a dusk-to-dawn curfew, banned gatherings of more than five people and placed the cities of Yangon and Mandalay under what amounts to martial law. Troops began taking up positions at strategic locations around Yangon and tried to seal off five of the largest and most active monasteries.

As the protests grew, public figures began to come forward, and on Tuesday the government arrested the first of them, a popular comedian, Zarganar, who had urged people to join the demonstrations. He had irritated the government in the past with his veiled political gibes.

The crackdown on Wednesday came in the face of warnings and pleas to the junta from around the world to refrain from the kind of violence that had made the country’s ruling generals international pariahs.

At the United Nations, President Bush on Tuesday announced a largely symbolic tightening of American sanctions against Myanmar’s government. The European Union threatened to tighten its own sanctions if violence was used. On Wednesday, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said the first step after any meeting of the Security Council should be to send a United Nations envoy to Myanmar.

The Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, and Desmond Tutu, the former archbishop of Cape Town and antiapartheid campaigner, have spoken out in support of their fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese pro-democracy leader, who has been held under house arrest for 12 of the last 18 years.

The junta was also hearing the message directly from diplomats based in Yangon. The British ambassador, Mark Canning, said he met with a government official on Tuesday to urge restraint.

“You need to look very carefully at the underlying political and economic hardships,” he said he told the official. “The government must also understand what this is about — not fuel prices, but decades of dissatisfaction.”
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from New York.



The Monks Are Cut Off, and Burmese Clashes Ebb

SETH MYDAN
NYT

BANGKOK, Sept. 28 — Myanmar’s armed forces appeared on Friday to have sealed tens of thousands of protesting monks inside their monasteries, but they continued to attack bands of demonstrators who challenged them in the main city, Yangon.

Witnesses and diplomats reached by telephone inside the country said troops were confronting and attacking smaller groups of civilians around Yangon, chasing them through narrow streets and sometimes firing at protesters and arresting them.

“Today has been quieter than previous days, meaning far fewer protesters came out, but the military is being very quick to use violence, tear gas, guns and clubs to break it up,” said Shari Villarosa, the chief diplomat at the United States Embassy.

Diplomats said that there was no way to know the toll of dead and wounded in Yangon or other cities, but that it was certainly far higher than the junta says.

Bob Davis, Australia’s ambassador to Myanmar, said that based on unconfirmed reports, he was sure the death toll was “several multiples of the 10 acknowledged by the authorities.”

“I am afraid we believe the loss of life is far greater than is being reported,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said.

Human rights and exile groups with contacts in Myanmar said they had fewer clashes to report on Friday, at least partly because of an apparent government clampdown on Internet and telephone communications.

Brutal attacks on monasteries and a heavy military presence outside their gates appeared to have choked off, at least for now, the huge demonstrations led by monks that are the most serious challenge to the military junta since it took power in 1988.

Exile groups passed on many vivid reports about brutality toward monks, many of whom were reportedly driven away in trucks. Soldiers were said to have prevented others from leaving the monasteries.

“Wednesday night, numerous monasteries were raided,” Ms. Villarosa said, “and we have reports that many monks were beaten and arrested, and we have pictures where whole monasteries have been trashed,” including images of blood and broken glass.

With the monks contained, another Western diplomat said, the demonstrations seemed to have lost their focus, and soldiers were quick to pounce on any group that appeared on the streets.

“Troops are chasing protesters and beating them and taking them away in trucks,” said the diplomat, speaking anonymously under embassy policy. “There are pockets of protesters left. They are unorganized, and it’s all very small-scale.”

Even if the junta clears the streets, it seems to have turned most of the world against it. The crackdown has drawn far more intense criticism than in 1988, when the military responded to protests by killing thousands.

Nor was it clear how the junta would recover any legitimacy at home. “The military is doing their best to frighten people into going back, but they are not doing anything about the underlying grievances,” Ms. Villarosa said. “Whether they will ultimately be successful, I doubt, because the grievances are real.”

Heavy pressure from the United Nations has forced the military to allow a visit from a special United Nations envoy, Ibrahim Gambari. He is expected to reach Myanmar on Saturday.

In Washington, President Bush thanked China, Myanmar’s leading trade partner, for helping persuade the junta to allow the visit.

In Tokyo, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said that he had spoken with his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, and that they had agreed to work on international efforts to solve the crisis.

“I asked that China, given its close ties with Myanmar, exercise its influence, and Prime Minister Wen said he would make such efforts,” Mr. Fukuda said.

Reuters reported that Japan would send an envoy to Myanmar to investigate the death of a videojournalist, Kenji Nagai. A videotape shows that Mr. Nagai, who was killed Thursday while filming protests near the Sule Pagoda in Yangon, may have been shot at close range.

The current crisis began on Aug. 19, after the government increased fuel prices overnight by as much as 500 percent without any announcement or explanation. The increases ignited scattered protests led at first by longtime dissidents, most of whom had been involved in the protests of 1988. The demonstrations revealed the deep discontent and anger over the junta’s economic mismanagement.

In 45 years of military rule — and 19 years under this junta — Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has become a ragged, suffering nation, one of the poorest and most repressed in Asia.

The crowds grew much larger after Sept. 18, when huge columns of monks filled the streets and residents joined them by the tens of thousands. The demonstrations swelled to as many as 100,000 monks and supporters in Yangon alone.

Defying international warnings and condemnation, the government crackdown began Wednesday morning with raids on several monasteries and the appearance of an aggressive armed force on the streets.

NYT, September 29

U.S. Steps Up Confrontation With Myanmar’s Rulers

By DAVID E. SANGER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Bush administration stepped up its confrontation with the ruling junta in Myanmar on Friday, and officials said they were searching for ways to persuade China and other nations to cut off lending, investment and trade into the country.

But in a sign of how limited Washington’s leverage is against the country, which has long been the target of American sanctions, officials said they were concerned that China, a trading partner and neighbor of Myanmar, would block any serious effort to destabilize the Burmese government.

The administration seems to regard the violent crackdown on Burmese monks as a long-hoped-for opportunity to get other Southeast Asian nations to rethink their insistence that they should not interfere with the internal politics of their neighbors. The hope is that American pressure might force the Burmese leaders into a political process that would drive them from power, if not from the country.

“What we are trying to do is speed their demise,” said a senior American official. “The question is, do we have the diplomatic and economic influence to hit a bank shot here,” by persuading Beijing, in particular, that its dealings with Myanmar could embarrass it as the 2008 Olympics approach.

Another senior official said the administration would try to persuade China to offer sanctuary to the leaders of the junta, in hopes it would get them out of the country. Other ideas include getting China and India to halt investment in new oil and gas projects, cutting off bank lending in places like Singapore to freeze Burmese accounts.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal policy deliberations.

Many of the techniques are modeled on the sanctions designed against North Korea. Officials were surprised at how quickly banks ceased dealing with that country as soon as they realized it could affect their access to the American banking system.

“International institutions take our list seriously,” one of the officials said, referring to banks. The official added, “They quickly realize the downside of dealing with these people is greater than the upside.”

At least for the moment, officials said, the junta leaders seemed to be gaining some ground over the protesters, cutting off their access to the Internet, so that photographs and video of the street confrontations would not circulate around the world.

The government does face international criticism, though. The United Nations, under pressure from the Bush administration and European leaders, is sending a special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, to Myanmar, which agreed to allow him to visit after China intervened, officials said.

In a meeting on Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confronted a midlevel Burmese diplomat, according to officials who were present, telling him it was “bizarre” that he was defending his government while pictures emerged of troops shooting unarmed monks.

On Friday, Ms. Rice expressed disappointment that the United Nations Security Council could not act more forcefully, largely because of opposition from China.

“I will say on Burma that given what is going on in the streets in Rangoon, I would have hope that the Security Council would have taken stronger action,” Ms. Rice said in New York, referring to the country’s capital, Yangon, by its traditional name. American policy does not recognize the military government’s changing of the country’s name to Myanmar and continues to refer to it as Burma.

The Bush administration’s efforts have received praise from an unexpected quarter: human rights advocates.

“To the extent the international community is not moving, it is not the fault of the United States,” said Jeremy Woodrum, a co-founder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, an advocacy organization in Washington. He credited President Bush with forcing through statements critical of Myanmar’s leaders this week by the United Nations Security Council and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Officials said Mr. Bush saw the events in Myanmar as a chance to reinforce his push for democracy around the world. “It’s a legacy moment,” a senior American diplomat said.

Mr. Bush discussed how to respond to the military crackdown in a video conference on Friday with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, who promised to seek tougher sanctions through the European Union. The State Department also announced that it had barred “more than three dozen” senior officials and their family members from entering the United States.

On Thursday, the Treasury Department announced a list of 14 of Myanmar’s leaders who now face sanctions. One of the senior officials said that the list would be expanded next week to include more officials.

Few Burmese leaders have ever traveled to the United States, but President Bush pointedly included family members when he announced the visa bans. The State Department did not specify who was on the list, though it almost certainly includes those on the Treasury Department’s list.

The officials warned that it could easily be expanded to include Burmese officials’ children or grandchildren who might be visiting or studying in the United States.

One of the senior officials said that the administration was also considering the fate of the only major American investment in Myanmar, a Chevron energy stake, which was grandfathered in when the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on the country in 1997.

Chevron owns a share of a gas field and pipeline project that was initially acquired by Unocal. The project also includes Total from France, PTT Exploration and Production of Thailand and Myanmar’s Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.

A spokesman for Chevron, Donald Campbell, declined to comment on whether the new sanctions or any other under consideration would affect the company’s investment.

Given the dearth of American investment and trade with Myanmar, the financial levers appear limited, officials acknowledged.

But the United States has stepped up pressure in other ways: Voice of America and Radio Free Asia doubled their broadcasting into the country in Burmese to five hours a day.

Officials hope to increase that, and also to shift funds to help support nongovernmental organizations and purchase cellphones to help disseminate information, especially now that the government has shut down Myanmar’s Internet connections.

Ultimately, though, the officials said the greatest hope for forcing the military government to negotiate its own demise, in effect, rested with the country’s neighbors, especially China.

President Bush used an Oval Office meeting with China’s foreign minister on Thursday to press for strong action, but American officials say the Chinese are reluctant to act against a significant trading partner or set a precedent for undermining a single-party government that represses dissent.

Still, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said Friday that Mr. Bush was pleased with the outcome of his meeting with the foreign minister, Yang Jeichi. “I think that the Chinese were helpful in allowing to make sure the U.N. special envoy was allowed to get there, to Burma,” she said.

Helene Cooper contributed reporting from New York.



U.S. Urges China to Help Curb Violence in Burma, Prepare for Transition

Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post
Saturday, September 29


Senior Bush administration officials have pressed Chinese officials in private conversations this week to use their leverage with Burmese authorities to limit the violence and help manage a transition to a new government in Burma, which is experiencing its most serious and violent demonstrations in two decades, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The Chinese have deflected the entreaties by describing Burma's turmoil as an internal matter. But one senior U.S. official said the Chinese have been "shocked" by the world's reaction to the confrontation between the government and protesters. He added that he believes they are "reconsidering the amount of support" China provides to the Burmese government.

China, which has extensive commercial interests in Burma, has received a blunt message from the United States: "You wanted to become a big power -- part of being a big power is you will be held responsible for you client states," said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing private meetings. U.S. officials have also urged China to consider some form of refuge for Burmese leaders, to help speed a transition to a new government, this official said.

The White House is focusing its diplomacy on China largely because it has little independent influence over the military-led government in Burma, which has engaged this week in a crackdown on protesters led by Buddhist monks.

The administration is calculating that Beijing, a major protector of Burma, will not want to risk world opprobrium if widespread bloodshed is caused by its long-time ally. Officials said China is nervous about prospects that the 2008 Olympics in Beijing could be tarnished if the situation in Burma is not stabilized peacefully.

The anti-government protests, which started in August, have become a cause c¿l¿bre in Washington in the wake of this week's crackdown. House and Senate leaders drafted resolutions yesterday condemning the military government, with little of the normal partisan bickering that often accompanies foreign policy debates on Capitol Hill.

The administration, meanwhile, announced sanctions this week aimed at squeezing the government's military leaders and their associates. On Thursday, the Treasury Department imposed new financial sanctions on 14 senior Burmese officials linked to egregious human rights abuses.

Yesterday, the State Department announced that three dozen Burmese military and government officials and their families will be barred from visiting the United States. The U.S. government is also doubling the amount of Burmese-language broadcasts beamed into a country where the authorities have been trying to cut off Internet and other forms of communication with the outside world, an official said.

President Bush has stepped up his rhetoric, calling on other countries to press Burma, which is also known as Myanmar. He has been joined by first lady Laura Bush, who has adopted the pro-democracy cause in Burma in a rare foray into foreign policy and has issued repeated public statements criticizing the government. Both Bushes have been heavily influenced by private meetings with Burmese dissidents and other activists, current and former administration officials say.

"President Bush calls on all nations, especially those nations closest to Burma that have the most influence with the regime, to support the aspirations of the Burmese people, and to join in condemning the junta's use of violence . . .," the first lady said in a statement last night. "The United States stands with the people of Burma. . . . We cannot -- and will not -- turn our attention from courageous people who stand up for democracy and justice."

Bush met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in the Oval Office on Thursday for an unscheduled meeting on Burma after the diplomat came to the White House to see national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the subject of Burma in her own meeting with the foreign minister earlier in the week, and the United States' top diplomat on Asia, Christopher R. Hill, has also discussed the issue in Beijing, where he is attending talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, a senior official said.

U.S. officials have limited knowledge about events inside Burma -- including the death toll, so far -- and depend, in large measure, on news reports and information from refugees, exiles and others in neighboring countries. The United States does have a mission in Burma, but the ability of diplomats there to report has been limited in recent days, officials said.

Still, one senior official said the accounts he is seeing suggest "a regime under severe stress." He said the U.S. government is receiving unconfirmed reports that division-level military commanders in Burma are refusing orders to participate in the crackdown. Another official said that it is impossible to predict what will happen but that there is "overwhelming dislike" of the government among civilians.

U.S. officials were cautious in their assessment of the diplomatic road ahead. One acknowledged that there have been only "pretty tepid" statements from China and India, but officials were encouraged by a condemnation this week from neighboring members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. State Department officials quietly raised the possibility of introducing another U.N. Security Council resolution on Burma if they do not see stronger action from China and India.

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he agrees with the administration that China is key to resolving the situation. "There is no doubt in my mind that if the Chinese authorities decided to put pressure on Burma, things will change instantaneously," he said.

Staff writer Robin Wright contributed to this report.

NYT, October 1
U.N. Envoy Tries to Ease Tensions in Myanmar

SETH MYDANS

BANGKOK, Sept. 30 — A United Nations envoy to Myanmar met Sunday with the detained opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and with several members of the military junta that last week crushed a peaceful pro-democracy uprising, the United Nations said.

The envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, spent more than an hour at a government guesthouse in the main city, Yangon, with Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 12 of the past 18 years. He spent Saturday and Sunday nights in the administrative capital, Naypyidaw, 200 miles north of Yangon, where he met with government officials but not the top two leaders.

Soldiers patrolled the quiet streets of Yangon on Sunday after days of the military’s violent crackdown on demonstrations, led by Buddhist monks, that had grown over more than a week to as many as 100,000 people.

More arrests were reported overnight and hundreds of monks remained in detention after leading the biggest challenge to the junta since it took power 19 years ago. Human rights groups and diplomats said the death toll was far higher than the 10 reported by the junta.

At least four local journalists, including Min Zaw, the Burmese correspondent for the Japanese daily Tokyo Shimbun, have been arrested, and several others are missing and presumed arrested, news media organizations said.

About 10 Burmese reporters have been physically attacked or prevented from working, including reporters for the foreign news agencies Reuters and Agence France-Presse, according to Reporters Without Borders and the Burma Media Association.

“The crackdown appears to have terrified people enough to stay out of the streets,” said the chief representative of the United States in Myanmar, Shari Villarosa. She said that some monasteries appeared to be deserted Sunday and that “one can only wonder what has happened to all the monks.”

Ms. Villarosa said the military must now seek a peaceful resolution through a dialogue with the opposition “rather than just relying on gunfire, which has succeeded in clearing the streets but does not address the underlying grievances of the people.”

Mr. Gambari traveled to Myanmar as the representative of a world that has watched in outrage as a military government that has ruled through force ordered troops to fire into crowds of demonstrators.

Some analysts doubted that the visit could have a significant effect on a ruling clique that has resisted all international efforts to modify its behavior.

Visits by United Nations envoys have failed to bring reconciliation between the junta and the opposition or secure the release of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr. Gambari visited her a year ago, the last time she had been seen by any senior foreign diplomat.

“Reconciliation is now farther away than ever from reality,” said Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political analyst who is based in Thailand. “The military’s violent response took the lid off the anger and pent-up frustration that has accumulated over the past 19 years and it will be difficult for the military administration to put things back in order.”

Analysts said a key to modifying Myanmar’s behavior would be pressure from China, its main trading partner and its political buffer between the outside world.

On Saturday, China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said China was “very much concerned about the current situation.” He urged all parties in Myanmar to “use peaceful means to restore its stability as soon as possible.”

But there was no indication that China would join efforts to boycott or sanction Myanmar.

On Sunday, a senior Japanese official headed to Myanmar to protest the shooting death of a Japanese photographer, Kenji Nagai, 50, as he covered a military assault on protesters.

His killing drew outrage in Japan, which is Myanmar’s largest aid donor, giving about $25 million last year. But Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said he would refrain for now from withdrawing aid or taking other steps.

Video of the shooting, posted on YouTube, shows a helmeted soldier running up behind Mr. Nagai and apparently pushing him to the ground before shooting him and running on. Mr. Nagai then momentarily raised his arms, camera in hand, and then lay still.

Several days ago, the authorities shut down access to the Internet, and the police reportedly began to search pedestrians and to confiscate cameras in a continuing effort to halt the flow of video images and photographs.

The United Nations’ World Food Program reported that it had received assurances that it could resume delivering aid to hundreds of thousands of people who had been cut off by government restrictions on transportation.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Cleaning Up China

September 24
NYT Editorial

In 1991, Lawrence Summers — then the World Bank’s chief economist and later Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary — wrote a memo suggesting that the bank should encourage the world’s dirty industries to move to developing countries. The forgone earnings of workers sickened or killed by pollution would be lower in low-wage countries, he noted, while people in poor countries also cared less about a clean environment. “The economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable,” he wrote.

Mr. Summers later apologized, saying his words were “sardonic counterpoint,” meant to spur new thinking about the environment and development. In any case, the World Bank’s encouragement wasn’t needed. In the 16 years since, a large share of the world’s polluting industries have migrated to the largest low-wage country of all, China, helping to turn big swaths of its landscape into an environmental disaster zone.

China makes more than a third of the world’s steel, half of its cement, about a third of its aluminum. It also consumes more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. Its environmental degradation is a match for Dickens at his bleakest: airborne pollution causes more than 650,000 premature deaths a year.

The problem doesn’t stay there. China is about to surpass, or has already surpassed, the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

China’s government bears primary responsibility for failing to address the devastating environmental consequences of its breakneck growth. Industrialized countries, whose companies and consumers have benefited from China’s cheap labor and polluting industries, also bear responsibility and must work to fix this mess.

Beijing has begun to realize that its current path is not cost-free. A study commissioned by the government conservatively estimated that costs imposed by environmental degradation added up to 3 percent of G.D.P. in 2004. The government has since set targets to reduce energy use and cut emissions. China’s authoritarian leaders, however, are fearful of anything that might require slower growth and have strangled most domestic debate about the environmental disaster. After the first report they dropped the effort to measure pollution’s economic impact, and the targets are unlikely to be met.

Beijing could start investing some of the hundreds of billions of dollars China earns on exports in social and environmental programs at home. Foreign companies could help by requiring their suppliers in China to adopt best environmental practices. Western governments can also help by explaining how pollution could threaten both China’s growth and social stability — the two things its authoritarian leaders worry about most.

Perhaps the most important thing the United States could do is to set a strong international example, by dealing with its own environmental deficit. Instead, the Bush administration has been hiding behind China’s recalcitrance — allowing China to do the same.

Against quackery

Subroto Roy
The Statesman, 23 September

Manmohan and Sonia have violated Rajiv Gandhi’s intended reforms; the Communists have been appeased or bought; the BJP is incompetent

WASTE, fraud and abuse are inevitable in the use and allocation of public property and resources in India as elsewhere, but Government is supposed to fight and resist such tendencies. The Sonia-Manmohan Government have done the opposite, aiding and abetting a wasteful anti-economics ~ i.e., an economic quackery. Vajpayee-Advani and other Governments, including Narasimha-Manmohan in 1991-1996, were just as complicit in the perverse policy-making. So have been State Governments of all regional parties like the CPI-M in West Bengal, DMK/ AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Congress/NCP/ BJP/Sena in Maharashtra, TDP /Congress in Andhra Pradesh, SP/BJP/BSP in Uttar Pradesh etc. Our dismal politics merely has the pot calling the kettle black while national self-delusion and superstition reign in the absence of reason.

The general pattern is one of well-informed, moneyed, mostly city-based special interest groups (especially including organised capital and organisedlabour ) dominating government agendas at the cost of ill-informed, diffused anonymous individual citizens ~ peasants, small businessmen, non-unionized workers, old people, housewives, medical students etc. The extremely expensive “nuclear deal” with the USA is merely one example of such interest group politics.

Nuclear power is and shall always remain of tiny significance as a source of India’s electricity (compared to e.g. coal and hydro); hence the deal has practically nothing to do with the purported (and mendacious) aim of improving the country’s “energy security” in the long run. It has mostly to do with big business lobbies and senior bureaucrats and politicians making a grab, as they always have done, for India’s public purse, especially access to foreign currency assets. Some $300 million of India’s public money had to be paid to GE and Bechtel Corporation before any nuclear talks could begin in 2004-2005 ~ the reason was the Dabhol fiasco of the 1990s, a sheer waste for India’s ordinary people. Who was responsible for that loss? Pawar-Mahajan-Munde-Thackeray certainly but also India’s Finance Minister at the time, Manmohan Singh, and his top Finance Ministry bureaucrat, Montek Ahluwalia ~ who should never have let the fiasco get off the ground but instead actively promoted and approved it.

Cost-benefit analysis prior to any public project is textbook operating procedure for economists, and any half-competent economist would have accounted for the scenario of possible currency-depreciation which made Dabhol instantly unviable Dr Singh and Mr Ahluwalia failed that test badly and it cost India dearly. The purchase of foreign nuclear reactors on a turnkey basis upon their recommendation now reflects similar financial dangers for the country on a vastly larger scale over decades.

Our Government seems to function most expeditiously in purchasing foreign arms, aircraft etc ~ not in improving the courts, prisons, police, public utilities, public debt. When the purchase of 43 Airbus aircraft surfaced, accusations of impropriety were made by Boeing ~ until the local Airbus representative said on TV that Boeing need not complain because they were going to be rewarded too and soon 68 aircraft were ordered from Boeing!

India imports all passenger and most military aircraft, besides spare parts and high-octane jet fuel. Domestic aviation generates near zero forex revenues and incurs large forex costs ~ a debit in India’s balance of payments. Domestic airline passengers act as importers subsidised by our meagre exporters of textiles, leather, handicrafts, tea, etc. What a managerially-minded PM and Aviation Minister needed to do before yielding to temptations of buying new aircraft was to get tough with the pampered managements and unions of the nationalized airlines and stand up on behalf of ordinary citizens and taxpayers, who, after all, are mostly rail or road-travellers not jet-setters.

The same pattern of negligent policy-behaviour led Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in an unprecedented step to mention in his 2007 Union Budget Speech the private American companies Blackstone and GE ~ endorsing the Ahluwalia/Deepak Parekh idea that India’s forex reserves may be made available to be lent out to favoured private businesses for purported “infrastructure” development. We may now see chunks of India’s foreign exchange reserves being “borrowed” and never returned ~ a monumental scam in front of the CBI’s noses.

The Reserve Bank’s highest echelons may have become complicit in all this, permitting and encouraging a large capital flight to take place among the few million Indians who read the English newspapers and have family-members abroad.

Resident Indians have been officially permitted to open bank accounts of US $100,000 abroad, as well as transfer gifts of $50,000 per annum to their adult children already exported abroad ~ converting their largely untaxed paper rupees at an artificially favourable exchange-rate.

In particular, Mr Ratan Tata (under a misapprehension he may do whatever Lakshmi Mittal does) has been allowed to convert Indian rupees into some US$13,000,000,000 to make a cash purchase of a European steel company. The same has been allowed of the Birlas, Wipro, Dr Reddy’s and numerous other Indian corporations in the organised sector ~ three hundred million dollars here, five hundred million dollars there, etc. Western businessmen now know all they have to do is flatter the egos of Indian boxwallahs enough and they might have found a buyer for their otherwise bankrupt or sick local enterprise. Many newcomers to New York City have been sold the Brooklyn Bridge before. “There’s a sucker born every minute” is the classic saying of American capitalism.

The Sonia-Manmohan Government, instead of hobnobbing with business chambers, needed to get Indian corporations to improve their accounting, audit and governance, and reduce managerial pilfering and embezzlement, which is possible only if Government first set an example.

Why have Indian foreign currency reserves zoomed up in recent years? Not mainly because we are exporting more textiles, tea, software engineers, call centre services or new products to the world, but because Indian corporations have been allowed to borrow abroad, converting their hoards of paper rupees into foreign debt.

Forex reserves are a residual in a country’s international balance of payments and are not like tax-resources available to be spent by Government; India’s reserves largely constitute foreign liabilities of Indian residents. This may bear endless repetition as the PM and his key acolytes seem impervious to normal postgraduate-level economics textbooks.

Other official fallacies include thinking India’s savings rate is near 32 per cent and that clever bureaucratic use of it can cause high growth. In fact, real growth arises not because of what politicians and bureaucrats do but because of spontaneous technological progress, improved productivity and learning-by-doing of the general population ~ mostly despite not because of an exploitative parasitic State. What has been mismeasured as high savings is actually expansion of bank-deposits in a fractional reserve banking system caused by runaway government deficit-spending.

Another fallacy has been that agriculture retards growth, leading to nationwide politically-backed attempts at land-grabbing by wily city industrialists and real estate developers. In a hyperinflation-prone economy with wild deficit-spending and runaway money-printing, cheating poor unorganised peasants of their land, when that land is an asset that is due to appreciate in value, has seemed like child’s play.

What of the Opposition? The BJP/RSS have no economists who are not quacks though opportunists were happy to say what pleased them to hear when they were in power; they also have much implicit support among organised business lobbies and the anti-Muslim senior bureaucracy. The official Communists have been appeased or bought, sometimes so cheaply as with a few airline tickets here and there. The nonsensical “Rural Employment Guarantee” is descending into the wasteland of corruption it was always going to be. The “Domestic Violence Act” as expected has started to destroy India’s families the way Western families have been destroyed.

The Arjun-DMK OBC quota corrodes higher education further from its already dismal state. All these were schemes that Congress and Communist cabals created or wholeheartedly backed, and which the BJP were too scared or ignorant to resist.

And then came Singur and Nandigram ~ where the sheer greed driving the alliance between the Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab Congress and the CPI-M mask that is Buddhadeb, came to be exposed by a handful of brave women like Mamata and Medha...

Rajiv Gandhi had a sense of noblesse oblige out of remembrance of his father and maternal grandfather. After his assassination, the comprador business press credited Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh with having originated the 1991 economic reform. In May 2002, however, the Congress Party itself passed a resolution proposed by Digvijay Singh explicitly stating Rajiv and not either of them was to be so credited. The resolution was intended to flatter Sonia Gandhi but there was truth in it too. Rajiv, a pilot who knew no political economy, was a quick learner with intelligence to know a good idea when he saw one and enough grace to acknowledge it.

Rule of Law

The first time Dr Manmohan Singh’s name arose in contemporary post-Indira politics was on 22 March 1991 when M K Rasgotra challenged the present author to answer how Dr Singh would respond to proposals being drafted for a planned economic liberalisation that had been authorised by Rajiv, as Congress President and Opposition Leader, since September 1990. It was replied that Dr Singh’s response was unknown and he had been heading the “South-South Commission” for Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, while what needed to be done urgently was make a clear forceful statement to restore India’s credit-worthiness and the confidence of international markets, showing that the Congress at least knew its economics and was planning to take bold new steps in the direction of progress.

There is no evidence Dr Singh or his acolytes were committed to any economic liberalism prior to 1991 as that term is understood worldwide, and scant evidence they have originated liberal economic ideas for India afterwards. Precisely because they represented the decrepit old intellectual order of statist ”Ma-Bap Sarkari” policy-making, they were not asked in the mid-1980s to be part of a “perestroika-for-India” project done at a foreign university ~ the results of which were received, thanks to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, by Rajiv Gandhi in hand at 10 Janpath on 18 September 1990 and specifically sparked the change in the direction of his economic thinking.

India is a large, populous country with hundreds of millions of materially poor citizens, a weak tax-base, a vast internal and external public debt (i.e. debt owed by the Government to domestic and foreign creditors), massive annual fiscal deficits, an inconvertible currency, and runaway printing of paper-money. It is unsurprising Pakistan’s economy is similar, since it is born of the same land and people. Certainly there have been real political problems between India and Pakistan since the chaotic demobilisation and disintegration of the old British Indian Army caused the subcontinent to plunge into war-like or “cold peace” conditions for six decades beginning with a bloody Partition and civil war in J&K. High military expenditures have been necessitated due to mutual and foreign tensions, but this cannot be a permanent state if India and Pakistan wish for genuine mass economic well-being.

Even with the continuing mutual antagonism, there is vast scope for a critical review of Indian military expenditures towards greatly improving the “teeth-to-tail” ratio of its fighting forces. The abuse of public property and privilege by senior echelons of the armed forces (some of whom have been keen most of all to export their children preferably to America) is also no great secret.

On the domestic front, Rajiv was entirely convinced when the suggestion was made to him in September 1990 that an enormous infusion of public resources was needed into the judicial system for promotion and improvement of the Rule of Law in the country, a pre-requisite almost for a new market orientation. Capitalism without the Rule of Law can quickly degenerate into an illiberal hell of cronyism and anarchy which is what has tended to happen since 1991.

The Madhava Menon Committee on criminal justice policy in July proposed a Hong Kong model of “a single high-tech integrated Criminal Justice complex in every district headquarters which may be a multi-storied structure, devoting the ground floor for the police station including a video-installed interrogation room; the first floor for the police-lockups/sub-jail and the Magistrate’s Court; the second floor for the prosecutor’s office, witness rooms, crime laboratories and legal aid services; the third floor for the Sessions Court and the fourth for the administrative offices etc…. (Government of India) should take steps to evolve such an efficient model… and not only recommend it to the States but subsidize its construction…” The question arises: Why is this being proposed for the first time in 2007 after sixty years of Independence? Why was it not something designed and implemented starting in the 1950s?

The resources put since Independence to the proper working of our judiciary from the Supreme Court and High Courts downwards have been abysmal, while the state of prisons, borstals, mental asylums and other institutions of involuntary detention is nothing short of pathetic. Only police forces, like the military, paramilitary and bureaucracies, have bloated in size.

Neither Sonia-Manmohan nor the BJP or Communists have thought promotion of the Rule of Law in India to be worth much serious thought ~ certainly less important than attending bogus international conclaves and summits to sign expensive deals for arms, aircraft, reactors etc. Yet Rajiv Gandhi, at a 10 Janpath meeting on 23 March 1991 when he received the liberalisation proposals he had authorized, explicitly avowed the importance of greater resources towards the Judiciary. Dr Singh and his acolytes were not in that loop, indeed they precisely represented the bureaucratic ancien regime intended to be changed, and hence have seemed quite uncomprehending of the roots of the intended reforms ever since 1991.

Similarly, Rajiv comprehended when it was said to him that the primary fiscal problem faced by India is the vast and uncontrolled public debt, interest payments on which suck dry all public budgets leaving no room for provision of public goods.

Government accounts

Government has been routinely “rolling over” its domestic debt in the asset-portfolios of the nationalised banks while displaying and highlighting only its new additional borrowing in a year as the “Fiscal Deficit”. More than two dozen States have been doing the same and their liabilities ultimately accrue to the Union too. The stock of public debt in India is Rs 30 trillion (Rs 30 lakh crore) at least, and portends a hyperinflation in the future.

There has been no serious recognition of this since it is political and bureaucratic actions that have been causing the problem. Proper recognition would entail systematically cleaning up the budgets and accounts of every single governmental entity in the country: the Union, every State, every district and municipality, every publicly funded entity or organisation, and at the same time improving public decision-making capacity so that once budgets and accounts recover from grave sickness over decades, functioning institutions exist for their proper future management. All this would also stop corruption in its tracks, and release resources for valuable public goods and services like the Judiciary, School Education and Basic Health. Institutions for improved political and administrative decision-making are needed throughout the country if public preferences with respect to raising and allocating common resources are to be elicited and then translated into actual delivery of public goods and services. Our dysfunctional legislatures will have to do at least a little of what they are supposed to. When public budgets and accounts are healthy and we have functioning public goods and services, macroeconomic conditions would have been created for the paper-rupee to once more become a money as good as gold ~ a convertible world currency for all of India’s people, not merely the metropolitan special interest groups that have been controlling our governments and their agendas.

The author is Contributing Editor, The Statesman

Response on Sarko

Roger Cohen
From Roger Cohen blog

A lot of facile comparisons here of Sarkozy to George W. Bush. Sarko strikes me as different in almost every way: more media-savvy, less tolerant of illegal immigration, more interventionist on the economy, firmly pro-choice, against the death penalty. I could go on. What Sarkozy has the courage to demonstrate, unlike the vast majority of the French poltical class in recent years, is an absence of a priori prejudice toward the United States. This is so refreshing it amounts to a breakthrough. From Paris, Rulf writes (comment 13) that Sarkozy is a “dangerious parvenu.” People who make it, wherever they come from, are not called “parvenus” in the United States. The term reeks of a closed system, which is what Sarkozy is in many ways striving to overcome. I tend to agree with Herbert Rubin (comment 147) that “France had allowed itself to become irrelevant and socially reactionary in support of arguments long settled elsewhere.” I’ve been amazed by some of the debates on globalization in France in recent years. The notion that the process could somehow be rolled back made me think of people sitting around in the 1920s saying the world would be a lot nicer without the automobile. Globalization, like cars, is here to stay; the question is how to adjust to it, prepare people for it, and spread opportunity to the widest swathe of the world’s population as possible. Sarkozy strikes me as a realist about the way the modern world functions.

I find the usual measure of dripping disdain from Europe (Sylvia Ullmo in comment 123) and Canada about the United States. Ullmo writes that “most of the time you are so deeply ignorant of other people’s culture and mores that you…expect them to learn by American rules.” She thinks I’m “elated” that Sarko is going to make France “think and behave like the US.” Nonsense. The oldest (conservative) trick in the book is to say that any attempt at reform that would actually end the crippling and chronic scourge of unemployment in France amounts to an attempt to “Americanize” the country. The French welfare state will be alive and well way beyond Sarkozy. But as Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and to some degree Germany have shown, welfare should not involve making it more attractive not to work than to work, unattractive to hire, and near impossible to fire. If you reward people for not working, tax business owners to the point where employing anyone is near suicidal, and provide lifetime job security, you end up with unemployment in the 8 to 10 percent range, which is where France has been for a very long time. Everyone knows this, but nobody’s been prepared to talk about it. Which brings us to French hypocrisy.

Several readers raise this issue — David in Portland, Oregon (comment 132) and Bill Nicodemus (comment 40), among others. This is a complex issue. I am a Francophile, have been since I first lived in Paris in the 1970s. Over the years, however, my love of France has been tested by what I saw as intellectual dishonesty on a range of issues: unemployment; the confrontation of freedom and totalitarianism during the cold war (even Solzhenitsyn’s account of the Gulag did not convince all the French left of what Moscow stood for); the place of Vichy in the country’s history (we had to wait for Jacques Chirac to declare in 1995 that “Yes, the criminal folly of the occupiers was seconded by some French, by the French state”); the defeat-into-victory narrative of World War 11 and France’s liberation; and the growing gap between French power and French ambition. The pretense of virtue as a camouflage for looking facts in the face amounts to hypocrisy. Of course, France has no monopoly on this. Still the country needed a leader ready to use straight, declarative sentences about difficult issues.

As I said in my column, I am waiting to see how far and effectively Sarko translates words into action. I don’t like his policy on Turkey — I am firmly in favor of Turkish membership of the EU. I don’t like the needless burnishing of the French colonial past. I’m watching his immigrant policy carefully. But the cheap shots against him — “his kind of modernity stinks of old ideologies from the 1920s-30s” (Anais Prosaic, comment 71) are just that: cheap shots. As Bob Nelson writes from Calais, France, (comment 26), “at least he is making France move.” That is good for France (hence Sarkozy’s very high approval ratings) and good for a world that needs an active, confident, outward-looking government in Paris.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

China in Three Colors

September 23, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Beijing

After a week of meetings with Chinese energy, environmental and clean-car experts, I’m left with one big, gnawing question: Can China go green without going orange?

That is, can China really undertake the energy/environmental revolution it needs without the empowerment of its people to a whole new degree — à la the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004? The more I see China wrestling with its environment, the more I’m convinced that it is going to prove much, much easier for China to have gone from communism to capitalism than to go from dirty capitalism to clean capitalism.

For China, going from communism to its state-directed capitalism, while by no means easy, involved loosening the lid on a people who were naturally entrepreneurial, risk-taking capitalists. It was tantamount to letting a geyser erupt, and the results of all that unleashed energy are apparent everywhere.

Going from dirty capitalism to clean capitalism is much harder. Because it involves restraining that geyser — and to do that effectively requires a system with some judicial independence, so that courts can discipline government-owned factories and power plants. It requires a freer press that can report on polluters without restraint, even if they are government-owned businesses. It requires transparent laws and regulations, so citizen-activists know their rights and can feel free to confront polluters, no matter how powerful. For all those reasons, it seems to me that it will be very hard to make China greener without making it more orange.

China’s Communist Party leaders are clearly wrestling with this issue. I could hear it, feel it and see it. I could hear it while interviewing government officials. They’ve always wanted a steadily rising G.D.P., which is essential for China’s stability and for the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party, whose abiding ideology is “G.D.P.-ism.”

But more and more I heard these same officials now saying they want a better environment and a higher G.D.P., because the air has become so filthy here, and the damage to China’s health, rivers, landscape, glaciers and even G.D.P. has become so severe, that the legitimacy of the communist regime, for the first time, is in some way dependent on making the air cleaner. And China’s leaders know it.

For now, though, they want to address this problem without having to change the basic ruling system of the Communist Party. They want to be green and red, not green and orange. I could feel it the minute I arrived.

“Hey, is it a little warm here in your office, or is it just me?” I found myself repeatedly asking in Beijing. No, it wasn’t just me. In June, China’s State Council dictated that all government agencies, associations, companies and private owners in public buildings had to set air-conditioning temperatures no lower than 26 degrees Celsius, or 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Air-conditioning consumes one-third of the energy demand here in summer.

The government just ordered it from the top down. Sounds effective. But then you pick up the Shanghai Daily and read: “More than half of the city’s public buildings have failed to obey power-saving rules setting air-conditioning at 26 degrees Celsius, according to local energy authorities.” Hmmm — seems to be a little problem with follow-up.

In 2005, China’s leaders mandated a 20 percent improvement in energy productivity and a 10 percent improvement in air quality by 2010. You can see why — or maybe you can’t.

I was at the World Bank office in Beijing, meeting with a green expert, and outside his big bay window all I could see through the brownish-gray haze was the gigantic steel skeleton of the new CCTV skyscraper — spectacular six-million-square-foot headquarters reaching to the heavens — one of 300 new office blocks slated for Beijing’s new Central Business District.

I play a mental game with myself now as I am stuck in traffic in Beijing. I look at the office buildings I pass — which are enormous, energy-consuming and architecturally stunning — and I count the ones that would be tourist attractions if they were in Washington, but here in Beijing are just lost in the forest of giant buildings.

And that brings me back to China’s leaders. Right now they want it all — higher G.D.P., greener G.D.P., and unquestioned Communist Party rule. I don’t think you can have all three. I also don’t think they are going to opt for democracy. I am not even sure it is the answer for them right now. So they are seeking a hybrid model — some new combination of red, green and orange. I hope they find it, but right now the vista is mostly an ugly shade of brown.

Who’s Your Daddy?


September 23, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
By MARK EDMUNDSON
Batesville, Va.

SIGMUND Freud died 68 years ago today, and it remains uncertain whether he is what W. H. Auden called him, “a whole climate of opinion / Under whom we conduct our differing lives,” or whether he is completely passé. It’s still not clear whether Freud was the genius of the 20th century, a comprehensive absurdity or something in between.

Our confusion about Freud is something he predicted — and also provoked — particularly in his later work, now largely unread, which is preoccupied with the question of authority. It sheds light on our confused attitudes toward Freud, who always strove for cultural authority. But more important, books like “Totem and Taboo” and “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” illuminate our collective difficulties with power and particularly with the two scourges of today’s world, fundamentalist religion and tyrannical politics.

Probably the best way to understand Freud’s take on authority is to consider the mode of therapy that he settled on midway through his career. We might call it “transference therapy.” Over time, Freud came to see that his patients were transferring feelings and hopes from other phases of their lives onto him.

Frequently they sought from him what they’d sought from their parents when they were children. They wanted perfect love, and even more fervently, it seems, they wanted perfect truth. They became obsessed with Freud as what Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalytic theorist, liked to call “the subject who is supposed to know.” Patients saw Freud as an all-knowing figure who had the wisdom to solve all their problems and make them genuinely happy and whole.

Freud’s objective as a therapist was to help his patients dismantle their idealized image of him. He taught them to see how the love they demanded from him was love that they had once demanded (and of course never received) from fathers and mothers and other figures of authority. Over time, the patients might come to view the doctor — Freud — as another suffering, striving mortal, not unlike themselves.

The man sitting at the foot of the couch had to be revealed as neither a Merlin nor a Gandalf, but as a rather short, bespectacled fellow who smoked too many cigars and had a deep fondness for his dog Jo-Fi, the chow who sat beside him while he worked and to whom he occasionally addressed stray remarks. Once the patient could do that much, he was in a better position to treat other important figures in his life realistically. He’d be less prone to assault them with demands, to ask them for everything.

One of Freud’s key beliefs was that there is no sharp division between the psychologically healthy and the unwell. His patients longed for authoritative fathers — and so did Freud. In the early phase of his career, he embraced a sequence of mentors (among them Jean Charcot, the French neurologist; Wilhelm Fliess, a German doctor; and Josef Breuer, an Austrian doctor) who had nothing like his mental powers, but whom he vastly esteemed nonetheless. Freud said we all seek such figures, in both political and personal life.

In “Group Psychology,” Freud wrote about the qualities that a leader-figure, in his most extreme guise, possesses. “His intellectual acts,” said Freud, “were strong and independent even in isolation and his will needed no reinforcement from others.”

He also “loved no one but himself, or other people only insofar as they served his needs.” The leader’s confidence is absolute, for he possesses what everyone most wants, truth. His allure is as powerful as it is pernicious.

Well, you might say, it takes one to know one. Freud himself was drawn to authority. He liked to lord it over his disciples; he liked to make pronouncements; he liked — as schoolchildren say at recess — to act big. When Freud presented himself to the public, he almost never forgot the lessons that he had learned about authority in his consulting room and through his studies of the church, the army and tribal societies. “The autocratic pose” clung to him, said Auden.

Freud still manifests himself to us as a grand patriarch. Collectively we have thought about him as the father, as the one who is supposed to know. We have hoped he’d confer the truth — make us whole and happy. Of course, he cannot. But he has been different from all the other aspiring masters in that he has taught nothing so insistently as the need to dissolve our illusions about masters, and to be responsive to more moderate, subtle and humane sources of authority.

Such a figure — authoritarian and anti-authoritarian at the same time — cannot help but be confusing. But once we understand our confusion, Freud can also be quite illuminating. Among other things, his ideas about authority help us understand (and in some measure sympathize with) the hunger for absolute leaders and absolute truth that probably besets us all, but that has overwhelmed many of our fellow humans who find themselves living under tyrannical governments and fundamentalist faiths.

But the best of Freud will not be available to us until we can work through the transference he provoked. We need to see him as a great patriarch, yes, but as one who struggled for nothing so much as for the abolition of patriarchy.

Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia, is the author, most recently, of “The Death of Sigmund Freud: The Legacy of His Last Days.”

Getting rich quickly, poor even quicker

This week Britain saw long queues of anxious people standing in line outside the branches of Northern Rock, a bank threatened with disaster in the wake of the US crisis over “sub-prime” loans.

The inventiveness of the language that describes such transactions is as creative as the accounting which led to the present situation. “Sub-prime”, translated into English, means loans offered to people who simply do not have the means to repay them. There has been a systematic attempt by the unscrupulous (and whose scruples ever made much profit?) to make such loans to the poorest. In the US, this means African-Americans. The debts they have now incurred will involve yet another vast transfer of wealth from poor to rich in one of the most unequal societies on earth.

This is the meaning of the “credit-crunch”. And it is no aberration. Every day for many years, the mail has brought me offers of loans; every time I open my e-mails, someone who magnanimously declares himself indifferent to my credit status, is nonetheless willing to offer me fabulous sums of money so that I can take the dream holiday, invest in a new kitchen, upgrade my home or take part in all the other pleasant activities which seem to have become the principal reason for living in these rich societies.

Britain’s total indebtedness is more than twice the GDP of India. Recently, India’s success as a one-trillion dollar economy was greeted with something little short of ecstasy. What an enviable prospect, to “catch up” with us, adrift on debt, the answer to which is not prudence or cutting one’s coat according to one’s cloth, but the contracting of more debt. A mortgaged future, tomorrows eaten up in advance, the lavish spending of income not yet earned: welcome to the “developed” world.

Northern Rock was the eighth-largest bank in the United Kingdom. Until earlier this year, the financial pages had been full of praise for its “business model”, which had seen it become a major lender in the UK for house-purchase.

The “sub-prime” collapse in the United States will lead to the “repossession” of two million houses in the next couple of years. Compulsory sale of their property will lead to a fall in house prices. In both Britain and the US, following the fall in the stock markets after the dot.com collapse at the turn of the millennium, investors moved into real estate, paying unreal prices in an unrealistic expectation that these would go on rising for ever. “Safe as houses” seemed a good bet: something tangible, bricks and mortar - what more palpable pledge could there be of sound investment?

It later emerged that certain banks, among them Northern Rock, had been relying for the loans they provided, not on money deposited by savers, but on borrowing on a short-term basis from “the wholesale financial markets.” Loans were then “sold on” by banks in $700 billion dollars’ worth of “asset-backed commercial paper” (a sort of promissory note used by banks and companies for short-term financing) and other “securitised instruments.” If all this is opaque and incomprehensible, this is no doubt as it should be: to call such transactions by their real name would offend the tender sensibilities of bankers.

It would not do to admit too much light into a world where banks have been “packaging mortgages” for resale to other banks and financial institutions. “Bundles of assets”, it seems, also contain an unnumbered quantity of bad debts, so that their true value is unclear, despite elaborate computer models designed to evaluate them. We are “informed” that “these securities were parcelled up in a host of instruments, with differing levels of risk, bought by hedge funds, which borrowed heavily against them or used them to bet against future default rates.”

The outcome of these mysterious developments was, however, crystal clear: banks abruptly stopped lending to one another, with the spectacular “run on the bank” that we saw last week in Britain - people whose life-savings had been placed in an institution which threatened to go bust, and whose share-price dropped by three-quarters in just a few days. Such scenes were reminiscent of the darkest days of capitalism - the bursting of investment bubbles in the 19th century, or the great depression, when the sky rained ruined bankers throwing themselves out of skyscraper windows.

The British government, which prides itself that almost one-third of GDP now comes from the “banking and financial sector”, and which has permitted London to become one of the the most relaxed on-shore tax havens on earth, stepped in to announce that it had agreed with the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (the nominal “regulator” of financial dealings) to lend enough money to the bank to ensure that it would not collapse. At present, only a percentage of savings is guaranteed to savers caught up in a bank failure; so this did not dissolve the crowds pressing to draw out their savings from the stricken bank.

So the government went further, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that all savings with Northern Rock would be guaranteed. In complete contradiction to its professed admiration for free markets, the government demonstrated that it will not allow bad practice (yesterday’s admired business model) to permit a bank to go under. The grounds on which this had been, in theory, ruled out was that it created “moral hazard”, that is, it might encourage irresponsible lending, because the lender could be sure that the government would rescue them in the event of failure. It is significant that use of the word “moral” is restricted to this extremely narrow context: there is, it seems, no moral hazard in growing inequality, in fortunes self-administered by city bosses and CEOs or in the perishing poverty which is the inseparable companion of great wealth.

So now we know. It seems that the streams of money which have passed through our hands have the power to cleanse memory, so that we swiftly forget the bitter lessons of two hundred years of capitalist society: that fortunes can be made and lost overnight, that insecurity is part and parcel of its life, that the system is all-powerful and autonomous, and humanity exists to dance attendance upon it. Its survival depends upon the permanent renewal of optimism that this time, or at least next time, it is all going to be different. If its success rests on the superstition that we can all get rich quick, reality often shows that many people can also get poor even quicker.

Great fear once existed among the people of Britain of “falling into the moneylenders’ hands.” It now seems that such hands are all we have to protect us against destitution. How ironic, this convergence between the fate of the most humble Indian peasant and the most “developed” metropolitan.

Are there any lessons for India here? If so, they are unlikely to be welcomed by a country plunging into the never-never world of perpetual credit, mountainous debt and unpayable dues. Only when the debts are called in, the goods consumed, the resources used up and the poverty of riches stands revealed, will the people of the world gather in turbulent crowds outside the banks, that have closed their metal grilles, reinforced shutters and security apparatus against their anger. Only by then, the wealth will have fled, spirited away in “vehicles” and “instruments” that pass our understanding.