Lounsbury: March 2005 Archives

« February 2005 | April 2005 »

March 30, 2005

Iraq, Gov

The news is looking very bad, one has to seriously consider the problem of a collapse or worse, a Chalabi-Allaouie old boys plus Kurds run that will fuck legitimacy. Well, like I said, elections are not magic, and it is the doing afterwards. It better get done soon or the illusion of progress will slip away.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 29, 2005

Hariri and Leb Land: further

I saw this on al-Arabiyah, but BBC helpfully has a synopsis for the lazy.
TV shows Hariri 'murder footage'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387109.stm
Synopsis: may be a suicide truck bomb after all.

(al-Arabiyah's online story for reference: http://www.alarabiya.net/Article.aspx?v=11654)

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Theocracy in America - edited: comments closed.

Theocracy in America

I have to say that I was fairly appalled at the spectacle this past week or so in re the Schaivo case (and as well what appears given my disconnected reading of US events, a new anti-science �God Botherers� �as my dear old ultra-con and yet ultra secularist father puts it � push against evolution and the like.).

I confess that in many ways I really don�t care very much about American domestic politics, except when it very directly intersects with personal interests. However, I found this spectacle truly irritating, even disturbing. While always a pragmatist, I have always rather respected bedrock yankee liberalism (or libertarianism in purely American parlance) as a guiding value set for a society. Non-interference in personal affaires, meritocratic values, etc. I have always been too pragmatic and anti-ideology to mistake the idealized vision for reality, but in terms of guide posts or soft ideology, old yankee conservatism is by far the most attractive to me. I suppose it is the real source of my politics � informed by my highly utilitarian and pragmatic willingness to bribe the masses to enable markets to operate and throw them a bone for their undemocratic and anti-liberal leanings [and yes, to enable my own elitism and snobbery from time to time]. A certain Dubaiwalla has heard me express in person such sentiments � I forget what precisely I said but it had something to do with me having nothing against transparent bribery (side payments as we like to say in economics); I am not sure if that appalled him more than my perhaps moderately cold blooded comments on the camel nomads � and I meant them. Oil to grease the wheels of commerce. Not too much one hopes, or the wheels spin, but too little and one wears those wheels down in a penny-wise, pound-foolish manner. I wish more of my free market compatriots understood this calculus.

However, returning to the subject of Theocracy in America and the �God Botherers� � I confess one of my favorite memories of my father, otherwise � well a model for my personality, was his reducing some Mormon missionaries to tears, quite inspirational that � I find myself appalled in a real sense by this case. More in the sense in which these so called �Conservatives� in the American government lost their hypocritical attachment to local rights, family and whatnot to use the power of the State to intervene and even try to override the courts. These are the policies of Right Bolsheviks, not classic liberals by either instinct or nature. They are the actions of theocrats (in the wide sense the very same people often use in regards to the Islamists (who are not so far away from them in their thinking)), with this talk of �God�s Law� and the like. To take Central Government action to rip a case from its proper context and place it into another sphere, into the Federal court system in this case, is an abuse of power worthy of any theocracy.

This is dangerous thinking, and I am glad Shays of Connecticut gave it its proper name. In combination with the assault on the teaching of proper science, and generally the theologically driven assault on evolution, I frankly see a real danger in my yankee homeland. I rather despise the God Botherers, who are in general one in the same with the Know Nothings of Foreign Policy. They are no better than the woolly headed morons on the Left bleating on about the �Washington Consensus� and confusing World Bank and IMF, and now they are a good bit more dangerous being far, far closer to the center of power. Confusion of science and theology is a sign of idiocy and decline, and unworthy of any nation pretending to civilization. It strikes me that American �Conservatives� need to relearn liberalism, or they become naught but the stalking horses of dark ages theocratic morons.

Ah well, without satellite TV and the people in from the States I might have remained blissfully unaware of this idiocy; although Andrew Sullivan also touches on this: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_03_27_dish_archive.html#111203137716792801

Comments have grown far too irritating and stupid. I am hopefully freezing them to spare me the distraction.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 28, 2005

Well done Wolfowitz Comment

I rather liked this commentary on Wolfowitz:

World Bank Pragmatism
Wolfowitz's Ideology Fits New Challenges
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5757-2005Mar27.html

...... What of the Wolfowitz ideology? His nomination has been bracketed with that of fire-breathing John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, but this is ridiculous. Bolton argues that international law and multilateralism constrict the United States and that this on principle is bad. Wolfowitz espouses no such principle. His passion is the advance of democracy, and he's willing to use unilateral tools to get there, but unilateralism is not an end in itself. To strengthen democracy in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, Wolfowitz advocated multilateralism in the form of NATO expansion.

Wolfowitz appears pragmatic on economics as well. His main exposure to development comes from his time as ambassador in Indonesia, which combined miraculous poverty reduction with state intervention; he surely does not believe in privatizing everything in sight. Nor is he associated with the common Republican belief that, because Brazil or China can borrow on private capital markets, the World Bank should on principle stop lending to them -- a principle that would deprive the bank of its strong borrowers and threaten its financial foundations.

Well, I am not sure I am convinced that Wolfowitz is a pragmatist in this sense, although what I know of him from my convos, I would endorse that the characterization of support for a broad role for WB in activating and supporting private markets is correct.

I emphasized the underlined because this somewhat highlights Wolfowitz is not a strong candidate on this kind of experience, although I do know he's genuinely interested. That's fine of course, but so am I. Should I be WB President?

The next question is harder, and gets to the points the FT made:
So there are some troubling ideologies that Wolfowitz does not share. That leaves the reasonable question: Is a passionate democratizer right for the World Bank? Fifteen years ago the idea would have seemed outlandish; the research consensus held that democracy was actually bad for development, because it takes a hatchet-faced dictator to cut government spending, close inefficient government businesses and eradicate inflation. Taiwan and South Korea in the 1970s; Suharto's Indonesia in the 1980s; China, Vietnam and Uganda in the 1990s: All seemed to demonstrate an "authoritarian advantage."

And yet, over the past decade, our understanding of what drives development has changed. The Washington consensus reigns no longer, partly because it's been successful -- in nearly all developing countries, hyperinflation, rampant budget deficits and other forms of crass economic incompetence are gone. Now a new consensus -- also headquartered, naturally, in Washington -- holds that the chief challenge in poor countries is political. It's to fight the corruption that deters private investment and to create the rule of law.

Well....... I think this is rather thoroughly overstated as where the hard core problems remain - e.g. Middle East and Africa, some parts of continental South East Asia, the problems look rather similar as to the cited. As for the corruption that deters foreign investment, that is but one driver, and arguably not the most important one (within certain limits).

A China, a India can overcome this drag by the sheer attractiveness of their markets, nor is democracy always a route to transparency: see Nigeria.

For this new challenge, democratic virtues such as accountability and transparency are essential, and appointing a passionate democratizer as World Bank president seems less outlandish after all. Amusingly, the cheerleaders of this political new Washington consensus have been mostly left-wingers -- intellectuals such as Joe Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist, and nongovernmental development activists -- and now these same left-wingers are deploring Wolfowitz's appointment. But anyone who regards Wolfowitz as a wacky far-right ideologue should consider Nicolas van de Walle's new book, just published by the sober and nonpartisan Center for Global Development. It says democratic reforms, especially presidential term limits, should be required as a condition of development assistance.

First, I rather dislike Stiglitz, although I reluctantly admit he has some on point criticisms, however the man is blind to a lot of problems and idealizes emerging market actors at the expense of developed market actors. An ideological thinker.

Second, I think tying development assistance to democratic reforms is a loser. Fooling oneself about where the drivers are.

Wolfowitz should be cautious about pushing this agenda. Although the empirical link between good economic governance and poverty reduction is well established, the link between democracy and poverty reduction remains debatable. It's fair to ask whether, given his naive forecasts about the easy success of Iraqi reconstruction, he can be trusted to be cautious. But if he can avoid hubris, and if he can fight through the thicket of negative perceptions, he may prove a worthy leader for the World Bank.

I agree with this overall, empahsis added on the above; hard to know what extent he say this as political spin.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Cole, amusing note

Just to indicate I still like the guy, despite his inane post on the oil sector issue:

"A different kind of violence, social violence, broke out on Sunday. About 50 building guards demonstrated outside the ministry of Science and Technology, protesting that they had not been paid their salaries in full. Bodyguards for the minister, Rashad Mandan Omar, shot into the crowd and killed one.

Generally, I'd say you want to avoid killing the people who guard your building if you are a cabinet minister in Iraq (many ministers have had assassination attempts on their lives). In fact, I'd say if you made sure anyone was paid, it should be the guards outside your building. (Does this mean the Iraqi government is broke, having been badly hurt by oil pipeline sabotage?)"

Emphasis added. Funny and true.

I doubt the lack of payment says anything about the Iraqi government not having liquidity to pay salaries, it probably suggests that payment systems are breaking down and/or graft is siphoning off monies before it reaches the little guys.

I note the above, if it is frequent is a very bad sign. More of a bad sign than the random violence - it suggests an operational government that will be still born in legitimacy terms.

I remain of the view that while things have gotten moderately better in Iraq of late, this does not reflect a fundamental shift but a sidewise slide in "trading" / activity. Until a government forms, and one knows the shape of things, it is impossible to have a solid view on where the new trend is. All the signs are that Iraq is sliding inexorably towards communitarian civil strife - likely along the Lebanese glide path I have evoked previously.

By the way, I have to say it is hard not to conclude Lebanon is approaching the same dynamic. Why so many soi disant Leb experts opined this was impossible escapes me. I guess talking to the Middle Class one never thinks the hard men are willing to go one bridge too far. Unfortunately, they almost always are.

To quote my mentor on this, from an email where I opined we're seing 1975 bis: "I share your skepticism re Lebanon. I've been watching that country's travails since the early 70's. But let's hope."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 25, 2005

Wolfowitz, Economist

Echoing my own comments, an Economist

The World Bank: Wolf at the door
Mar 17th 2005
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3767432

The World Bank is the world's biggest development agency�a sprawling bureaucracy that is extremely difficult to run well. Its leader needs to know about development, be able to articulate a workable vision and be a good manager. Mr Wolfowitz scores passably on two counts. He is not an economist or a banker, but has first-hand experience of developing countries (as American ambassador to Indonesia). He has public-sector management experience�not least as number two at the Pentagon, although the bungling in Iraq raises questions about just how good his management skills are. .... it is doubtful that Mr Wolfowitz's zealotry, albeit in that noble cause, is right for the Bank. Its job is alleviating poverty, and the relationship between democracy and the relief of poverty is, let us say, complicated. Think of China. There is also a risk in coming to the World Bank with a vision that is both grand and idiosyncratic�witness Robert McNamara, another Bank president fresh from the Pentagon with a mind to change the world. Haunted by Vietnam, Mr McNamara had big ideas for eliminating poverty and oversaw a huge expansion of the Bank. The result was bad lending and a weakened institution. Jim Wolfensohn, whom Mr Wolfowitz will replace, was likewise drawn to the grandiose. The Bank needs a realist more than a visionary.

I think this is fair and well stated. I've said before I am not at all comfortable with the ideological opposition to Wolfowitz, a man I do like at some level, but there are very practical reasons why another appointee would be better. And above all, more realism, less vision/ideology is needed from this Administration.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Leb Land bis: It Appears Syria is stupider than I thought.

Well, I have to say my doubting the Syrian angle is looking less and less supportable - have to issue an early observation that I am likely to have been wrong. Syria does appear to be far stupider than I thought.

From The Financial Times:
Syrian president �threatened to harm Hariri�
By Mark Turner at the United Nations
Published: March 24 2005 23:11 | Last updated: March 24 2005 23:11
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c8c2c984-9cb8-11d9-b1c2-00000e2511c8.html

Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, had threatened Rafik Hariri, the assassinated former Lebanese prime minister, �with physical harm� if he opposed the extension of the Lebanese presidency of Emil Lahoud, a UN inquiry said on Thursday.

The inquiry also said the Syrian government bore �primary responsibility� for the political tension that preceded the February 14 killing, although it did not say who was actually responsible for the attack.

While one would be well served in maintaining a degree of skepticism, I have to say this information causes me to favor the "idiot self inflicted wounds" path to Syria.

Ultramarooons.

Of course, that does not exclude the corrupt mafia angle as a sub plot.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 18, 2005

Cole: Iraq, Privatization, Ignorance

I like Juan Cole. Despite his rather typical leftish politics, he is usually a good observer. However, today's comment on Iraq was ... borderline illiterate in many aspects, alhtough it contains valid points. A quick run down.

Plots
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/wolfowitzs-plot-to-destroy-opec-and_18.html
Cites to the BBC story on the Iraqi oil sector and US plans
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

I'm going to comment on Cole, not on BBC.

Selections

"It is a story that also has a bearing on Paul Wolfowitz's bid to become chairman of the World Bank. I have some questions for him. Does he want to reduce the Arabs to poverty? Is he hostile to the very existence of OPEC and of producer cooperatives in primary commodities? Does he favor the use of warfare by states to permit their corporations to take over public energy resources in the Global South? Are his economic policies going to be rooted in a desire to further the interests of the Likud and other rightwing parties in the Global South?"

This is largely a set of dumb and confused questions. Wolfowitz's hostility (or not) to OPEC has fuck all to do "reducing the Arabs" [sic] "to poverty."

OPEC - which is hardly an "Arab" organization, although it's true KSA plays a key role - is not "The Global South" (whatever that means, sounds like silly anti-Globo Leftist idiocy speak to me) and frankly its policy (rational one may add) of maintaining the highest sustainable oil price is more of a tax on the poorer non-oil producing emerging markets as percent of buying power than it is on The West or Developed Markets. Nor does OPEC money effectively get reinvested in those non-producer nations.

Producer cooperatives for primary commodities: actually I think Wolfowitz is critical of such, but that's not an evil.

Warfare for taking over the public energy resources of the "Global South" (every time I type that idiotic phrase I hate it a bit more, namby pamby academic bullshit speak)? What the bloody fuck does that mean. Iraq? Yes, but what the fuck does this have to do with World Bank? In any case, it's a confused smear of a question.

The last question is simply incoherent.

"As Palast tells the story, the Neoconservatives (presumably Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith) and the Department of Defense were dedicated to privatizing the Iraqi petroleum industry as a key plank of their Iraq project. They hoped that Iraq's privately-owned (presumably by American petroleum corporations) petroleum industry would secede from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and would pump large amounts of petroleum, refusing to stay within the bounds of the Iraq OPEC quota. By setting quotas for members, OPEC attempts to keep the price of petroleum from falling too far or from oscillating too wildly."

Well, actually it was more than the NeoCons hoping for this, although it was a dumb ass aspiration from the get go, given Iraqi interests are naturally for price stability at a maximum current price. Of course among the reasons why OPEC "works" now is that the non-OPEC producers and OPEC coordinate. The price collapse of 1998 taught all producers what pain was. OPEC is working because in fact "oil producers" generally presently see gain from cooperation.

Of course privatization is not of necessity connected with exiting OPEC. Nor is willfully violating quotas (which members in good standing have done almost at will, until prices smacked them).

"That there was a cult of privatization at the Pentagon has never been in doubt."

Cult of privatiation?

" Iraq has been a socialist country since at least 1968 (and had elements of socialism in the period of military rule 1958-1968). Most major industries were publicly owned. Moreover, the Iraqi population liked it that way. Opinion polls show that 80% of Iraqis think the purpose of a government is to take care of people."

Yeah, Iraq has been a basket case economy since the 1980s. Socialist enterprise development has contributed to that. Most major industries outside of the oil sector were complete shit before hand. I note Cole's stupid, reflexive leftist "take care of the people" line.

Great, take care of the people historically in that context has meant deadly dictatorships. Yes, the Iraqi people are afraid of privatization - afraid of losing jobs etc. Afraid of instability.

All valid fears. That does not make their fear of change a good basis for economic policy nor privatization bad.

"Paul Bremer, the second US civil administrator of Iraq is a fanatical laissez-fairiste."

Fanatical laissez-fairiste. Interesting turn of phrase.

Naive believer in the ability of markets to regenerate I grant. Fanatical? Nah, had he been fanatical some of the real whack job plans I saw would have been forced through. They were not.

"The privatizers would set up private corporations to sell you creek water and oxygen if they could get away with it."

And?

Selling water delivery services is a good thing. Attracts capital, allows extension of services and improves quality.

"In a BBC interview, Jay Garner alleged that the Department of Defense dissolved the Iraqi army and sent it home, causing all of us no end of trouble, because they were afraid that retaining a large Baath institution like that would form an obstacle to radical privatization."

Possible.

I would agree that probably fed into decision making (among many reasons) and was stupid.

" Bremer wanted to allow foreign companies to buy any firm in Iraq and to be able to expatriate profits immediately."

Cole is over personalizing this. CPA generally. See my comments back in 2003. CPA was filled with what I would frankly call naive ideologues who did not understand the country they were dealing with and the fact private enterprise would need to be nurtured. The rules were to allow for free investment, Iraqi or otherwise. Expatriation of profits comes as part of that, nothing wrong per se. Ex of course the Iraqi economy was too fucked to handle that. Should have been planned as a gradual move, very true.

Dumb ass naive planning.

Cole decides to speak to things he doesn't understand
" (The abolition of currency regulations, advocated by Washington Consensus free marketeers, contributed to the meltdown of the East Asian economies in 1997; Malaysia escaped devastation by thumbing its nose at the privatizers and slapping on currency controls. It turns out that if there are no regulations about currency transfers, speculators take advantage of it; Surprise!)
Let's leave aside Cole's illiterate and ridiculous use of "privatizers" in the context of the Asian currency crisis (that had nothing to do with "privatization") and focus on his illiterate macro-economics.

It turns out if you attempt to maintain currency at rates that are not supportable in the market, and run up debt in forex due to that because the forex denominated debt looks cheaper than it really is on a risk adjusted basis, you will pull in "hot" short term money. The Asians were looking for FDI for private investment and got it, only too much in portfolio flows, driven by their own policies - not "Washington Consensus." One can rightly critique the calibration of IMF response, but it's just completely illiterate to say "Malaysia escaped devastationg by thumbing its nose at the privateers and slapping on currency controls."

Cole needs to learn some economics.

"Obviously, the real prize in privatization would be the petroleum industry. No other state-owned Iraqi industries are worth much, and will be difficult to sell to private owners because they are bloated bureaucracies and inefficient."

Well ain't that a glowing endorsement of the socialist economy; in fact most Iraqi state industries were money losers - great for creation of wealth you know. However, he's wrong, other industries (as you all know from my obsesions) were interesting and lots of money was being mobilized - however sell off really wasn't a good idea because of the shitty state of things and the politics.

"The prospect of the Iraqi petroleum going into foreign hands, however, impelled many Iraqis to begin sabotaging the pipelines, or to support the saboteurs."

I seriously doubt that. I seriously fucking doubt that. Prospects, vague and discussed (althought the CPA rules never overturned the Oil regs that forbid such) do not turn people to blowing up pipelines. Stupid fucking assertion.

Generalized resentment of Americans among the old Baath elite, Islamist hard core opposition, possible extent resistance plans. These make sense. And to the extent CPA in its loud mouth incompetent Bush Administration way carried a little stick and spoke in a big confused voice, yes over the top talk about privatization and resentment of having their economic world changed apparently at CPA will may have fed in.

"According to Palast, it was the Coalition Provisional Authority officials from a Big Oil background, like Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who told Bremer "No!"

The US petroleum companies haven't been interested in owning Middle Eastern petroleum for decades. Most Middle Eastern oil producers nationalized their industries in the 1970s. The US companies moved into refining and distribution, which is plenty profitable. Trying to own the oil fields had long caused them a lot of trouble. The attempt of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddegh to nationalize Iranian oil in 1951-1953 had led to a US/UK boycott of Iranian petroleum and ultimately a CIA-backed coup that ended the last democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. Since that time, Middle Eastern peoples had become much more politically and socially mobilized, and popular demands for ownership of national resources became irresistible."

Let me restate this in real terms:
Getting into owning in country assets in the MENA region looks too risky, non-national hydrocarbon firms have preferred to manage this by moving up the value chain. The MENA state ownership of oil resources, a fact since the 1960s-1970s has been a fine little means for the hydrocarbon states to become utterly divorced from their populations (see Algeria, e.g.) but the rentier elites have done a good job of pimping simplistic, socialistic resource nationalism to people like Cole and the populations on the "exploitation / colonialism" line, while the rentier elite state effectively exploits the same for its own narrow interests.

Applaud this in the name of the people.

"(Max Boot, who thinks Middle Easterners are just Filipino peasant villagers circa 1902--poor, illiterate, unconnected and politically naive--exemplifies the basic Neocon fallacy. The Neocons haven't even caught up to the 1950s or read Karl Deutsch on the social mobilization of the Global South. People can't be occupied so easily once they are urbanized, industrialized, literate, connected by modern communications, and politically aware. This is why Boot and Wolfowitz did not anticipate a long-term guerrilla war in Iraq, or how savvy and effective it would be. They really think they are Lord Curzon dealing with backward WOGs)."

This is just empty stupid abuse, which I have nothing against were Cole otherwise on point here, but since he's an economic illiterate, it's not entertaining.

"So the Neoconservative/ Department of Defense plan to privatize the petroleum industry was swimming against history, and proved impossible to implement because a) the Iraqis wouldn't put up with it and b) even US Big Oil could see that it was a disaster waiting to happen."

Cole is wrong here.

Swimming against history is 30 years out of date. Throughout the region there are moves to move away from the State dominated model and return assets to the private sector (albeit usually with national investor rules to ensure some national ownership component) in order to modernize, attract new investment and try to end the Vampire State effect.

What went wrong was (i) Rational economic actors (we can call this abusively 'Big Oil' if we want, or economically literate observers) could see the risks were too much for a direct privatization move a la CPA's clumsy and gauche policies, (ii) CPA in its beautiful and stupid ignorance plunged ahead on the utterly and often fascinatingly naive idea that all would be self evident - rather than working on building local consensus among stake holders, and implicating Iraqis in the necessary reforms.

The kernel of truth in his critique is that CPA went in without any fucking idea of how to sell their ideas to actual Iraqis, without any respect for a process of transitioning Iraq on Iraqi terms to a private sector driven economy, and without any clue as to the needs of Iraqis to get on their feet for doing so. All that was absolutely criminal (and as anyone reading me in mid to late 2003 knows, was driving me up the wall): these so called "free marketeers" did, in my opinion, immeasurable damage to really getting free enterprise going in Iraq because they were not really business people or economists or related experts in emmerging markets and went in commiting a cardinal sin: they didn't fucking understand the least fucking thing about their motherfucking market. When you do that, you get fucked.

"The other thing wrong with the Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith plan to destroy OPEC via Iraq is that it cannot be done. If they thought it could be done, they are ignorant of the petroleum industry and also of basic economics."

A more ironic critique could not be made.

Well, the remainder of the post is not that bad, sounds partially cribbed from other sources.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Economist art

Something Stirs
I don�t often call articles from The Economist stupid, but this shall be an exception: the issue of 5 March article entitled �Something Stirs� rather irritated me for its easy and superficial characterizations of the current changes we�re seeing in the MENA region.

Let me take the opening paragraph as an instance: Opening by noting that since March 2003 the �Neo Con� camp has been ferociously mocked for its rather stupid pretensions re NBCs and the entirely whack idea Iraqis would be truly welcoming of an American presence in their country. (Rightly so, of course. Khayali bullshit needs to be checked.) The article follows this by contrasting this with �A lot of people in the anti-war camp predicted that the war would cause upheavals across the Middle East, fanning hatred for the West [actually the US] and tipping [US] friendly regimes into the hands of Islamist extremists.�

They then say �It hasn�t worked out that way.�

Excepting the collapse of friendly regimes into Islamist hands, a bizarre statement: objectively the image of the US is far worse 2 years on than it was in 2002 or even 2003 and actual hatred (as opposed to dislike) is also objectively up in the region.

So, fanning hatred of the US: check.

The next question is tipping regimes: well here it�s not at all clear where things are. Anti regime protests in Egypt do not mean Pro Western protests � nor are �liberals� (in the classic sense) dominant in opposition in Egypt. Lebanon, as you all know is an unclear case, but mass street protests there are not genuinely about �democracy� but sectarian power plays; the logic of maximalism and muscle flexing is clearly at play and could tip into violence at the slightest miscalculation. Iraq, a government can�t even form and ugly sounds are coming out of rising Shia and Kurd tensions. Analysis: utterly unclear, certainly nothing clearly positive in terms of US friendly regimes � see also Jordan and the rising confrontation there against a US centric regime (I note I am favorably disposed to Jordan but the reality is that it is a police state and that if popular will was expressed its policies would change drastically).

The article notes �right now much of the change seems to be pushing in a welcome direction, towards a new peace chance in Palestine and the spread of democratic ideas around the Arab world.�

This is quite simply a truly stupid sentence. False contrast and just plain stupid. The changes in the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic of course have nothing to do with the Iraq issue excluding a possible change in the US comportment for US-centric reasons tied to Iraq. Second, �spread of democratic ideas� is simple Neo Con whanking; maturation is potentially a correct way to put it, but �spread� is far too simplistic. Even maturation is more than slightly overdone insofar as so far we don�t have much evidence of democratic maturity (nor can one reasonably

There is a case to be made for the peoples of the Middle East taking the idea that maybe, just maybe the sclerotic old rentier regimes may come down, in the case of Egypt that perhaps the US backing for the Old Man is over, and for that the US deserves credit.

Further to that, the US policy since its own elections in re Iraq has begun to become rather more grounded in reality � let us leave aside the silly rhetoric about spread of democracy, that is premature and too simple � the apparent (so far) maturity in going along with the realities of Iraqi politics (that is the Shia religious domination, the probable domination of fairly non-liberal, fairly non-secular as one normally means the word political actors) is helpful. The game Allaouie is playing does raise suspicions, I have to say, that some people are trying to rig the game. But less important than that, I am returning to my earlier doubtfulness that with, the Kurd-Shia dynamic in the context of Sunni rejectionism and clear provocations from the extreme Salafine, Iraq can avoid a civil war a la Lebanon. It�s hard to see how.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Wolfowitz

Wolfowitz further thoughts.

I have been kicking around my thoughts on Wolfowitz�s candidacy for the Presidency of World Bank and finally have a position.

I am against. But not because I think Wolfowitz is a bad guy (like I have said, I have met and talked with him at length a long time ago and have a soft spot for him, ex his utterly whack ideas on military and transformation), nor that his ideas as I knew them on economic development are bad, nor that he himself would be a bad guy in the position. Actually, abstracting away from what I am about to note, I would support him.

No, rather simply and sadly for the following reasons:
(i) The Bush Administration botched the naming and stupidly, clumsily and self-indulgently poisoned the well. They can win it, but winning it is likely a Pyrrhic victory � i.e. a highly negative cost-benefit balance.
(ii) Wolfowitz at present is carrying too much negative political baggage internationally for this context, and if the US wants to be truly influential, someone with the right thinking but without the baggage would be better.
(iii) For WB I would prefer the institution have a strong leader who will be able to motivate change due to personal credibility in both management terms and expertise in the field. I don�t see that with Wolfowitz. I am not impressed by the fuzzy � touchy feely culture centered rubbish that WB has gotten involved in and would prefer to see it moved back to a stronger core economic development focus. (Although as an aside, I recognize the motivation for the vaguely lefty squishy stuff had good roots � i.e. recognizing culture is a variable in economic situs)

I would say then that he could be the right guy, but it�s the wrong time. I also note that he�s not an obvious choice in regards to background in economics and emerging markets, which weakens his case a bit.

I simply don�t see the benefit in expending political capital forcing him into WB where he is likely to face serious internal opposition and where he does not have the �weight� in professional cred to motivate change.

Pity, because in this context I genuinely like the guy. He�s smart, he thinks and I can attest he really does care about the emerging market economic development issues. But his experience on applied management here as well as policy is thin, and with the political baggage�.. it is not going to work. Without the political baggage he would be an unusual, perhaps a bit weak but potentially interesting choice.

Frankly, it�s likely to be better for him as well.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 17, 2005

On Wolfowitz and World Bank

I remain somewhat ambivalent about this - in this area I actually don't dislike Wolfowitz (it's his dumbass "transformative action via military force" thinking) - but the criticism about process here gets back to my issue with the Bush Administration and its sheer gratitious clutziness.

Shareholders' dismay at lack of consultation
By Alan Beattie in London and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: March 16 2005 20:49 | Last updated: March 16 2005 20:49

Surprise, and in some quarters dismay, was a common response in the World Bank's other large shareholder countries to Paul Wolfowitz's nomination.

The lack of consultation before the announcement meant that European governments - who collectively hold about 30 per cent of the votes on the bank's executive board to the US's 17 per cent - were slow to react. "There are going to be a lot of very unhappy people, but they may be as upset about the process as about the person," said one European official. "They were supposed to consult us and there was no consultation."

.....

Privately, European officials in Washington and bank staff have expressed concern that the US would put forward such a controversial candidate for the post. One concern is that his appointment would make it more difficult for the World Bank to operate effectively in the Middle East.

Many development campaigners were in no doubt. "We consider the choice of Wolfowitz utterly inappropriate to lead such a key institution," said Jeff Powell, co-ordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog non-governmental organisation. "This appointment will only serve to confirm suspicions that the World Bank is a tool of US foreign policy."

.....

"But I fear they will grudgingly accept the nomination," she said. "There is a feeling that we have to get on with America."

One common concern was whether the White House was trying to turn the World Bank into an agency of the "war on terror", assuming a mission of democratisation and adopting political criteria for lending. If so, it may find itself with an uphill task.

.....

Fair points overall, ex Powell's although there is a valid issue on Wolfowitz and confusion in re US FP and WB policy. Does muddy waters.

I would suggest that ultimately I wouldn't be anti-Wolfowitz, but there was a right way to do this (drum up support) and wrong way (stick in the eye).

I am at a loss as to why the Bush Administration is always on the wrong way. It increases long term and even medium term transaction costs.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 16, 2005

I am, officialy, mad. [edited for coherence]

I was just bothering my assistant about getting me some analysis of the Bourse and its listings, asking her if we didn't have something recent on this.

She fowards me.... the document that I researched and wrote on it two months ago.

I am quite clearly going mad; I had no recollection of doing this - although it was quite convenient! Just what I wanted. Now I can complain to myself about my own cockamamie analysis. At least I didn't remember it.

Now, time to write some complete and utter bullshit for New York characterizing the "Middle Market" off of non-existant data. Yes, I may add, I have told them the data doesn't exists, blah blah blah, but they have this magical belief I can create data. So, I will.

Final amusing note, the Big Fat Idiot asked -in relation to an ongoing IT issue we have due to the half-assed jerry rigged network upgrade our home office chimps did- us to go to a client's office and test out the solution.

This piece of brilliance actually made me laugh out loud. Now that would be brilliant - pop over to a client (none of which particularly love us...) and say "Hey, we've fucked up our network, can I randomly hijack your office network to see if our NY office IT chimps solution doesn't work magically or not?"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Wolfowitz

Well, interesting. Proposed for WB. I have a soft spot in my heart for the man, knowing him ever so slightly, but I find it hard to imagine him at WB. Non-obvious choice, although he does have somewhat of a relevant profile.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Iraq, Gov. Kurd-Shia

Maximalism. Not a good sign. The warm glow of the elections and ink stained fingers is going to disapoint.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 15, 2005

On Deals and falling flat

Well, we just had one fall apart right in front of my beady little eyes. Thought all was good, everyone on board. I put together a package, emailed up to London.

Then it all comes apart on some detials and second thoughts.

Up and down.

Pity I liked the guys on the other end, I think though they got itchy about the Arab World connexion in the end. Very pleasant about it, I guess I can't blame them.

_____
In other unrelated matters:

I got an email from some peeps in Jordan about a new US project to make Jordan a "Center for Financial Excellence" and help it become a competitive financial center.....

The power point is hilarious.

These dumb ass fucking USG idiots and the dumbasses they used and the dumbasses in CBoJ want to go head to head with Dubai? Dubai may be a black box, Dubai may be a freaking bubble of US proportions, but Dubai also knows how to grease wheels. One long ass power point of empty ass dumb fuck consultant blather posturing.

I particularly liked the "Safe Haven Reputation" line. Yeah, safe haven compared to its neighbors, who are all either at war, at the verge of civil conflict or spinning out of control.

Center for Financial Excellence. What's better is Arab Bank is one of the key players on this. Arab Bank which the US is trying to slam.

Fucking development blather.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Leb Land and Egypt: Pressure, Demo, Counter Demo, Escalation.

Quickly, as I have not much time, fucking disasters at work:

'Kifaya' in Egypt
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35379-2005Mar14.html

Leaving aside the other paras of little interest, the last paragraph has something right.

" While aggressively campaigning for freedom in Lebanon, the Bush administration continues to gently prod Mr. Mubarak. In a speech last week devoted mostly to Lebanon, President Bush included one sentence saying that credible elections must include "freedom of assembly, multiple candidates, free access by those candidates to the media and the right to form political parties." In addition, the administration has -- at long last -- announced that it will provide funding to six independent Egyptian civil society groups, including one that hopes to monitor the upcoming elections. But gentleness doesn't seem to be working. Mr. Mubarak's foreign minister publicly ridiculed Mr. Bush's speech and rejected his prescriptions. That suggests something about the level of pressure Mr. Bush has so far exerted on a ruler who has received more than $50 billion in U.S. subsidies during his time in office: It's not enough."

I would rewrite as "While aggressively campaigning against Syrian interest in a test of wills with Syria, and engaging in some rather poorly thought out and loose rhetoric regarding Hizbullah, ...."

Egypt is a real boil and there is real leverage - just withholding US bribe money would highlight Mubarek's whoring, better do it now than wait for the boil to burst. It will.

Re Leb Land and current developments, an anon commentator in yesterdays post on the demos said:

Too true. This is shaping up into a sectarian game of chicken.

These demonstrations don't actually have anything to do with Syria. If you listen carefully, everyone more-or-less agrees on the ostensible topic of dispute -- Most everyone is in favor of a Syrian withdrawal and Lebanese sovereignty. At most, there's a disagreement about timing and about whether the Syrians should be asked to leave nicely or imperiously.

But these are everyday questions of diplomacy that are amenable compromise. 500,000 people aren't turning out on the streets over whether the Lebanese government should express "concern" or "serious concern" over the Syrian presence. They're turning out in the streets because they want to stake their claims to power after Syria leaves.

These demonstrations are, at their cores, power plays by sectarian interests. If they can couple this to democracy (which, I'm sad to say, I doubt) things might turn out OK. Unfortunately, the logical extension of the current round of "Can you top this?" is an armed conflict.

Emphasis added.

My anon. commentator hit the nail on the head. I expressed this concern earlier - the escalation is disturbing. While I know some ahem expert blogs out there have poo pooed the idea of renewed sectarian conflict, I have a word - middle class complacency. Hard men with guns, a bomb, escalations, hardening lines. No one thought 1975 would run out of control at the time either.

An issue, I find the US is not calibrating its talk. The US is posturing too heavily, they don't know what game they are into. I prefer lingering Syrian influence in a peaceful Leb Land to extended Syrian influence in another round of sectarian strife. We're dancing toward the later. And the Sunni vs Shia tensions are not being helped by Iraq.

Lesson for you all in re Middle East - don't ever think things are going well - it's a good way to get one's hand slammed in the door. Pessimism and cynicism are so much more on point.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 14, 2005

Leb Land: Demo, Counter Demo, Escalation.

Today's big ass demo by the opposition is an interesting development. Main issue in mind - where does the pressure that is building go? What do Amal and Hizbullah do? This has some ugly potential for building up the Shia versus everyone else playbook. Ugly. I hope the deal makers sit down - I don't like the signs here.

EDITED to Quote comment:
I want to quote this comment:
Too true. This is shaping up into a sectarian game of chicken.

Emphasis added.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Evolution. The Dangers of Going to Bed with the Parties of God

I am a bit concerned with this type of news:

Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html

Being utterly irreligious and in fact in general vaguely hostile to religiousity, I have never particularly liked the interaction of the religious with education.(*) I positively despise this sort of movement. Throw the religious a bone where necessary but allowing them to intrude into matters not of their competence (although frankly I confess I see no particular competences...), and above in science education where the US badly trials to begin with, is dangerous to the national interest. They should be crushed.

(*: _{This brings to mind something: in an early sign of my amoral nature I have an amusing memory of playing a strategy game called diplomacy as a boy -this being in those primitive days before electronic games- which involved a great deal of deal making and breaking. An occasion which sticks in my mind of an instance where one of the others, quite religious, made me swear to God and Jesus blah blah to undertake actions X,Y and Z. I did X and Y and then fucked him over on Z. He was genuinely outraged, pity the innocent, for I had sworn to God and all that rubbish. I still get some pleasure in thinking of his face when I replied "So?" - although one should learn to be tolerant.)}

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Credit. Credit. Credit

From FT

Growing fears credit boom may implode
By Dan Roberts and David Wighton in New York and Peter Thal Larsen in London
Published: March 13 2005 21:42 | Last updated: March 13 2005 21:42

Unusually loose lending conditions have encouraged record borrowing by speculative-grade companies, with leveraged buy-outs and debt refinancing on both sides of the Atlantic generating more than $100bn of deals in the past eight months.

But last week's fall in the price of US Treasury bonds, coinciding with signs that bankers are struggling to complete riskier corporate bond issues, has added to a sense of nervousness in some quarters.

Although corporate default rates remain low, some fear the legacy of recent private equity buy-outs and hedge fund investments in distressed debt will be a swath of over-leveraged companies ill-equipped to survive in less benign conditions.

PwC, the largest corporate recovery adviser, said it was hiring insolvency specialists in sectors such as retailing, utilities and telecommunications in preparation for the expected fall-out.

Hmmm, wonder if one should become an insolvency specialist.

Last week, the Financial Stability Forum, a group of national and international central banks and regulators, pointed to the levels of liquidity as one of the main risks to the stability of the global financial system.

Following a meeting in Tokyo, the FSF said that, according to some of its members, tight credit spreads and low long-term interest rates suggested some in the market might be underpricing risks. ....

Might be underpricing risks. Frankly, I don't think anyone rational can doubt that the market IS underpricing risks. How much, well that's an emperical question, right? However, I truly do dare anyone to advance a rational argument for current pricing given the risks.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 13, 2005

Iraq, slowly, slowly, slowly we walk towards Leb 70s style bloodletting

A quick note to draw your attention to Juan Cole's comments here:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/on-ending-military-occupations-in.html
"Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the clan members of the victims of the Mosul bombing, most of them Shiites, want to take revenge for the deaths of loved ones. Their clan elders, however, are attempting to calm them down, fearing the outbreak of civil war.

It also reports that the family of Ra'id Mansur al-Banna in Salt, Jordan, held a funeral for him at which they celebrated his "martyrdom." Al-Banna was the suicide bomber who killed dozens of persons at a clinic in largely Shiite al-Hilla last week. The news of this celebration has enraged Iraqi Shiites. The depth of feeling on both sides is a good reminder that if violence should break out between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, it would almost certainly involve neighboring countries."

I have been emphasizing for a long time it is going to be very, very hard to abort this dynamic - all the more so because it only takes a minority of dedicated hard care nut job Salafi murderers among the Sunni to tip the scales - of blood for blood debt settling.

Elections have helped more than I thought in keeping Shiite leadership convinced that they should not (yet) go to war with the Sunni hard line, but this is a delicate game, an unstable game. There is no stable equilibruim, rather virtually any miscalculation can tip Iraq into open civil war.

I note that I think Cole's comments on elections and troop presence are moderately unfair - Leb Land has been 'stable' for a decade, the direct comparision between the US and the Syrians here is too early.

On the other hand, he does highlight a real PR problem for the US in MENA, as the average Mohammed, Shia or Sunni, is not going to be so understanding. Again, rhetoric, one has to watch and calibrate it not for oneself but to the situ on the ground.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 11, 2005

Similar thinking on Leb Land

Phrased differently but similar analysis to my own:
Lebanon's Next Steps
By David Ignatius
Friday, March 11, 2005; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25613-2005Mar10.html

That's why the Bush administration must be very careful as it steers around the curve of history in the Middle East. President Bush's bully-pulpit speech this week about Arab democracy unfortunately pumped the gas so much it risked flooding the engine. It threatened to make the United States the issue, rather than the Lebanese people.

Or what I call self indulgent, self regarding rhetoric.

Some further points:
The Bush administration rightly wants to keep the focus on Syria -- and the demand that the Syrians withdraw their troops from Lebanon. To accomplish that, the White House needs to cool its rhetoric and keep its allies out front in pressuring Syrian President Bashar Assad to pull out. The lead negotiator with Assad will be U.N. representative Terje Roed-Larsen; that's as it should be. Behind him is a broad coalition that includes France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other nations, in addition to the United States. That powerful alliance should deny the Syrians any port in the Lebanese storm.

Perhaps, but right, the generic face is better than Bush.

This week's events in Beirut and Damascus showed that the passage toward Arab democracy won't be a smooth, straight line of the sort Americans like but a complicated series of stops and starts, curlicues, smudges and ink blots. That is to say it will be written in the political language of the Middle East.

Or humanity.

The biggest challenge involves the Shiite militia, Hezbollah. If anyone had forgotten that this was crucial, they got a noisy reminder Tuesday when the group's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, pulled 500,000 of his followers into the streets of Beirut. Calling it a "pro-Syria" rally was a misnomer; this was a pro-Hezbollah demonstration -- a statement that Nasrallah has the ability to sabotage the democracy movement if he chooses.

A nice lesson for the know nothings out there blithering on about Syria and Hizbullah.

The remainder of the article/op ed is not bad. Ignatius, while sometimes a bit of a sucker for the smooth talkers, is a good observer and I liked hims comments on Elmer Fudd back when he rapped with him.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 10, 2005

Iraq, Gov

Here it is
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/10/iraq.government/

Hmmm, Chalabi.... still time to fuck around. Allaouie?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Thank you, Bush Administration.

U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
Foes of Death Penalty Cite Access to Envoys

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21981-2005Mar9.html
" In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.

The protocol requires signatories to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.

The United States initially backed the measure as a means to protect its citizens abroad. It was also the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, also known as the World Court, successfully suing Iran for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.

Petulant short sighted morons. Fucking petulant short sighted idiotic drooling know nothing morons.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Zogby Poll on Leb Situ

Very much worth reflection
7 March poll from last week of Feb 2005
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=973

Read and reflect. Divisions are severe.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Cole on Leb Land

http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/hundreds-of-thousands-of-shiites-stage.html

Let me note the following first: I think Cole is a bit too dismissive, a bit. However the point about pushing democracy only for the unpopular regimes (or those that get out of line) has a certian ring of truth. Not wholly true but perhaps a bit.

His observation re the silliness of the march of democracy narrative re Leb Land is also useful (as the idiocy re novelty of peaceful protest, Leb Land has seen peaceful protest / mass rallies in the past ten years).

In particular:
"They were a signal that the Druze, Maronites and a section of the Sunnis had agreed to try to push Syria out. It was the US who had invited Syria into Lebanon in 1976. And it was a sign that Lebanon is still deeply divided, since the Shiite plurality largely supports Syria. Given the pro-Syrian sentiment in some Sunni cities like Tripoli, it may well be that a majority of Lebanese want Syria to remain in some capacity."

I would say "appear to largely support" Syria. Certainly, as I have noted, the situ is rather more complicated than the Know Nothings have made out, to their discredit in understanding the genuine changes. However, again, I think Cole is too dismissive - American pressure and apparent willingness to countance more change in existing order have rendered things perhaps a bit more fluid. Perhaps. It is still too early to tell. It's an error to be a trader in this market, driven by the daily whipsaw. Look to the long term fundamentals. There are signs of change, but ambiguous and depending on execution of the strategy. And Execution Counts. Taking what might in theory be a good strategy and fucking it all to hell through bad execution (Iraq) is every bit as bad as doing nothing, and potentially much worse.

By the way, there is also some amusing stuff in their on Jumblatt.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

On the Leb Pro Syrian Protests

Catching up in reading I went skimming about to read what kind of comments the last few days had generated out in electron land.

As usual, the commentary was stupid on both sides of the political spectrum. No surprise there.

A few obs.

(i) It's usually helpful to understand the demographics of a country before conspiracy theorizing regarding numbers - esp. in pretending the pro-Syrian demo numbers don't add up. Not that the breathless number hand waving was likely susceptible to reason (any more than an analysis based off of blog pictures).
(ii) It's probably good to know something about the electoral system and recent elections before calling Hizbullah "afraid" of democracy. Quite the contrary, Hizbullah clearly understands that demographics and sectarian voting habits are in its favor, indeed it would be more powerful without the current un-democratic sectarian balancing provisions.
(iii) Democracy does not mean pro US or pro Western. In the short run at the very least.
(iv) Every little hiccup is not the Bush Administration's fault (or in its favor either).
(v) Some credit should be extended to the Bush Administration for beginning to be ready to take some kinds of chances (e.g. Egypt), the criticism is better on execution.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

On Sexy Lebanese Chicas and the like

Via my dear Eerie via rakehell:
On Leb Sluts and Revolution (my title not the blog's):
http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/03/07/my-corrupt-western-biases/

I've commented on style before. What I found amusing here were the simple minded comments (mullahs getting upset about cheek bones etc); it's vaguely irritating to see what a skewed view most 'Westerners' have of what women and girls are wearing out here (burka.... it seriously appears as if most think that the whacko Afghani burqa is something normal to the Middle East) and the rather silly conclusions (even in the context of light heartedness) derived from Beruiti Middle Class.

I was also amused and irritated by this comment: Most people probably think of the Lebanese as �Arabs� when a better description might be �Mediteranian,� like the Greeks or Italians.

How very brilliant. Well, the brilliant commentator has just hit on .... the pedestrain observation that most Arabs as defined by Arabs are not Gulfies or Saudis or Yemanis, but of Med region descent. Brilliant. Tells you nothing of course, other than the commentator is an idiot.

Otherwise, I note from this link http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050308/481/bei11803081725 that it appears the Syria supporters can muster some Leb Slut action, although the dyed blond aspect is somewhat disappointing.

Nevertheless, the imagery to a limited extent shows something other than the usual, which while Beiruit is a bit of an odd place, rebalances things a bit.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

EDITED: US, Hizbullah, Lebanon: Why Judo is Better than Drunk Belligerant Boxing

Quoting from a New York Times article, to illustrate my analysis:

"U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, March 9 - After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say.

The administration's shift was described by American, European and United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops.

On Tuesday, Hezbollah showed its clout by sponsoring one of the biggest demonstrations of recent Lebanese history, bringing hundreds of thousands of largely Shiite supporters into central Beirut to support the party's alliance with Syria and, by extension, the presence in Lebanon of 14,000 Syrian troops.

Lebanon's political crisis deepened Wednesday when Parliament renominated the pro-Syrian prime minister nine days after he resigned under pressure from street demonstrations. If opposition leaders refuse to join his transitional government, tension over the rules for elections in May and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country will be high. .....

Now the United States has basically accepted the French view, echoed by others in Europe, that with Hezbollah emerging as such a force in very fractured Lebanon, it is dangerous to antagonize it right now and wiser to encourage the party to run candidates in Lebanese elections.

.....

European officials say the situation with Hezbollah is analogous to that of the Palestinian group Hamas, which has won local elections in Gaza and the West Bank and has come under pressure to moderate its views and negotiate with Israel. The United States and Europe formally label Hamas a terrorist organization.

Especially since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon on Feb. 14, France has argued that Hezbollah ought to be encouraged to concentrate on politics. At the same time, President Jacques Chirac of France has supported President Bush's call for a Syrian troop withdrawal.

There is more but my key observation is the following:
The Bush Administration was not wrong to attempt to leverage recent events to tie down Syria. As I said when this began, it, however, is a question of "how." And as I began noting in re the clumsy cowboy rhetoric, there is a lot of potential for blowback in the region if one (a) too aggressively enters the domestic fray, (b) lets one's rhetoric get ahead of reality in terms of (i) what the local "allies" of the moment want/desire/aim for, (ii) what one can actually effect, (iii) confusing one's own goals with those of one's allies.

While Bush should get some limited credit for lending weight on this - not that much per se, I add insofar as virtually any American Administration would have done more or less the same calc. - I return to my initial criticism: clumsy, self regarding rhetoric aimed as much at home as to the Leb situ. The Leb situ is and was delicate. Where the Shia eventually end up is important - the nice protests of fashionable middle class Beirutis in prior weeks did not speak to the poorer, more conservative Shias, and sadly Bush's clumsy mixing of US issues with Hizbullah (noting Jumblatt of the Druze and others immeidately parted company there), the insertion of the Israelis, and the too out in front aggressiveness contributed to pushing Hizbullah into its present stance. Further to that, the US has an unhappy history in Leb land in terms of intervention in the past, making it important to pay attention to one's rhetoric.

Now, I would not equally want to exagerate the impact of US rhetoric - certainly the Leb opposition to Syrian presence got out ahead of itself a bit (or note: don't forget the opinions of the Shia), however I would opine the US helped them get their oats one when a more cautious, yet still moderately aggressive position, a la France, would have served the US far better than the past few weeks posturing - posturing that will have to either result in armed confrontation or the appearance of a climb down.

So again, execution matters. Merely having a theoretical position is not enough.

Now, I noted that Kevin Drum had a question:
"HEZBOLLAH TURNAROUND....Is this hypocritical opportunism or mature flexibility?"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005810.php

Strikes me as unnecessarily snide and entirely misses the point. Opportunism, mature flexibility - mere hair splitting. The Bush Admin is doing the right thing in working with reality and deserves to be applauded. The proper criticism to make is the dumbo rhetoric leading up to this, which got far out in front of the actually achievable and ends up lending an impression that the US will be making a climb down.

EDITING TO ADD
Adding these links because they are relevant to reflecting on my problems with the American Administration's clumsiness:

ZenPundit on "STRATEGIC INFLUENCE AND CULTURAL COGNITION"
rightly noting the analysis warms my heart:
"

"From these case studies we conclude that influence campaigns are highly sensitive to operational environments. Moreover, campaigns that do not take these sensitivities into account not only fail but are counterproductive"

This does not mean that cognitive and social psychology are useless for American statesmen in crafting a positive message for the Arab-Islamic World. Instead, it means not to confuse principles and devices with also having a coherent and culturally relevant script or dialogue. It also means respecting the limits of the possible in terms of aspects of American foreign policy that is perceived by Muslims as threatening their interests.

The United States is always going to have clashes of interests with other states and societies and as a rule we should try to see that our interests prevail. That being said, nothing is gained from our emphasizing to other people the stick that we are putting in their eye. Much less our extolling of why they should embrace the stick with joy. Pointless irritant and waste of our resources and time.

Our focus in strategic influence should be any existing common ground, our most attractive political memes like " democracy" and " freedom" and potential non-zero sum mutual gains from cooperation plus those instances of our relatively more altruistic gestures like tsunami aid."

Emphasis in original.

I entirely agree with these comments. As I said supra (before reading Zenpundit), principles are not enough, execution matters.

PDF of Rand Study
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG184.sum.pdf

Further edit:

I thought it useful to add this quote from The Economist:

Now for the counter-revolution
Mar 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Lebanese who welcome Syrian occupation confront those who abhor it
IT IS not a new question: it is, in fact, the very question that sparked the civil war that tore the country apart. A speaker at one of many giant rallies in Beirut put it simply. Is Lebanon to stand with Syria at the heart of Arabism, or is it to join what he called �the Israeli-American project�?

Well, I am not sure if one should say this "sparked the civil war" - contributed yes, sparked?

The most powerful of these by far, the Shia party-cum-militia Hizbullah, called out a demonstration that dwarfed previous displays of people power. In a rock-concert setting, with the vast throng roused by such stirring songs as �America, Mother of Terror�, Hizbullah�s charismatic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, declared resoundingly that this was not Ukraine. Lebanon would never renounce resistance to Israel.

It was a good speech by the way. His lisping did not come through that much. Still, I feel alone as the only person having identified his Elmer Fudd characteristics.

His supporters, many of them black-shirted or veiled, working-class Shias, presented a stark contrast to the young, jeans-clad and largely Christian anti-Syrian protesters who had enlivened Lebanese television screens for the previous month. Hizbullah�s turnout of 500,000 was a blunt reminder of the changing demographics that have made the once-marginalised Shias the largest of the country�s sects. And not only are they well-organised, they are armed. Hizbullah�s 20,000-strong militia was exempted from the general disarmament agreed by other parties at the conclusion of the civil war in 1990.

Emphasis added.

The key items: working class Shia. Once marginalised. Well organized.

Here is where American commentators, such as that simple minded twit Friedman, are getting things wrong. It's not the Syrian question, it is inter sect power, and the reality that the Druze and Maronites were in the drivers seat, and that has resonance. Tone deaf Americans have not understood.

Yet optimism survives. The pro- and anti-Syrian camps are less polarised than they may appear. Both declare the importance of Lebanese sovereignty. Even Mr Nasrallah accepts the need for Syrian troops to leave. Both camps say they forswear the use of force and are committed both to the principles of democracy and to the Taif Accords, the agreement that ended the war by reapportioning powers among the country�s 18 religious confessions.

In fact, only one issue really divides them. A UN Security Council resolution passed last year calls not only for Syrian withdrawal, but also for disbanding all local militias. To many Lebanese, tired of their country being an occasional punch-bag for Israel, this obviously includes Hizbullah�s �resistance� forces. But to other Lebanese who share Hizbullah�s view of Israel as a mortal threat, the maintenance of an armed deterrent is non-negotiable.
Emphasis added.
I recall very vividly hearing Christian (but not Maronite) support of Hizbullah on this very point.

Hizbullah is popular because its fighters humiliated Israel, forcing an end to its 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. Many Lebanese share the general Arab view that Israel and America seek regional hegemony. The crushing of the Palestinian intifada, America�s Iraqi adventure, the pressure it has applied to Iran and Syria and its promotion of democracy are all seen as part of this �project�. Abandoning Lebanon�s �resistance� would thus be seen as part of a wider capitulation.

Here Judo, not clumsy charging in will be useful. Give the hard liners too much material to hang the American imperial project rhetoric on and that rhetoric will stick and will fuck your own interests.

What I want to see is the Bush Administration learn Judo.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 09, 2005

The Dog Barks

Well, we know where the organized Shia are now.

My criticism of the clumsy, self regarding rhetoric coming out of the Bush Admin was thinking of exactlely this kind of blow back. The problem with throwing the ignorant know nothings in the States red meat is that it tends to have blow back in terms of real interests. Not that the pre fooled fan drooling moron fan club will notice.

Regardless, the anty is upped. The Shia's main voice spoke in major numbers. The Maronite dilletantes in their sexy skirts have to up the ante or admit being a foreign backed game.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

Dubai

I had the pleasure to meet some Dubai people. There are now a few more people to connect me with me. I note further that Dubaiwala gave something of a tour of the construction that is Dubai, and conveyed Z message.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 07, 2005

Elmer Fudd

I really enjoyed Nasrallah's speech on behalf of Hizbullah yesterday. There's something about a guy with an Elmer Fudd accent giving a serious speech that amuses me endlessly. Yes, he has a tinge of evil about his, but he's so adorable when he lisps "Is wa eel" and "Sou wi ya"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-July 2005

March 06, 2005

Dubai-and Democracy (not actually related)

I'm in dubai. Anyone wants to get together, no promises here, email my yahoo account. You can figure it out. Small hurdle, I developed an ear infection during the flight and at present can hardly hear - it's actually quite amusing if a bit frustrating, practice for old age.

Else, I share this quote from the NYT on democratisation in the Middle East:
"Turkey, long a pliant ally under military or military-backed