Jan-Dec 2003 Archives

December 24, 2003

Iraq: Mobile Phone III

Well, I just caught this report from two days ago (22 Dec) in FT.

Iraq approves mobile licences despite probe
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow
Published: December 22 2003 20:19 | Last Updated: December 22 2003 20:19
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251728695&p=1012571727172

To quote in extenso for the non-subscribers:
The Iraqi ministry of communications on Monday approved licences to roll out mobile phone services despite a US government investigation into the awarding of the contracts. A Department of Defense spokesman said another branch of the US government had launched a full investigation into the bidding process for the licences won by three Middle Eastern consortia: Orascom Iraq, Asia Cell and Atheer.

Justice, my dears, Justice.

Orascom stinks to high heaven, as I noted prior, Orascom, an effectively insolvent entity should never have gotten into a bid, let alone won one as the lead.

Well, told you all first.

A government official close to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US occupying administration in Iraq, last week told the Financial Times that this investigation could lead to criminal charges being brought.

My, my Justice is going to be very busy in this region, with my deal, this affaire. Wonder if they need a consultant on this (hah.)?

.....
"The FT reported last month that the Pentagon inspector-general was undertaking a preliminary inquiry into the mobile phone deals. This followed allegations that CPA officials and the Iraqi minister of communications had received kickbacks.

Haider al-Abadi, Iraq's communications minister, signed the two-year licences on Monday after three months of wrangling over the details. Mr Abadi said the signing of the licences proved there was no corruption. The CPA and Mr Abadi have denied any wrongdoing.

The signing proved there is no corruption? Well, in the fairy tale land where the pre-fooled suck up every piece of shit the DoD serves on a plate for them, that might fly.

The inspector-general has also referred the matter to an allied government.

GB.

The White House is also understood to be concerned about the actions of Mr Abadi who several government officials say was responsible for the delay in approving the licences, which were announced in October.

Surprise....

The investigation comes as the Pentagon investigates charges that Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company, overcharged the US government for fuel imports into Iraq. The CPA has also delayed the bidding process for $18.6bn (?15bn) in contracts to rebuild Iraq.

In other matters, on horse trading.
Mr Putin said on Monday that the investment by Russian companies in Iraq could reach $4bn - a figure that coincides with the size of Lukoil's planned investment in the western Qurna oil field signed under the previous government of Saddam Hussein. In exchange, Mr Putin appears to have offered to write off 65 per cent of Iraq's $8bn debt.

Not much of a climb down, 65 percent, so it looks like CPA-Iraq is learning to cave a bit even if the morons back home are trying to idiotically ban companies not from the
coalition of the terminally gullible, and the terminally bribable. Morons' game, where politics rather than good economic and business sense drives decision making. And of course the droolingly stupid among the pre-fooled squeel on about patriotism.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 17, 2003

On Sadaam, local reflections

I had a most extraordinary convo with my lawyer today - well largely on our business affaires and various items - but one which touchs on Sadaam. Now this is the fellow who in late February or early March told me that he was glad the Americans were going into Iraq, etc. I commented on this before so I won't elaborate. My dear amigo

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 15, 2003

Sadaam

Well, interesting news on one level, on another I don't think it matters very much in terms of the state of Iraq. Whatever the natters have claimed, I doubt Iraqi resistance has had much to do with him and in some ways him out of the picture may enable new resistance.

The guy looked liked Karl Marx though, which I found amusing.

As for reaction so far, decidedly mixed. And I note this even among the Xian Arabs. Decdidely mixed feeling.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 10, 2003

Idiot politics intervene.

I note this idiocy.

Only Allies to Help With Rebuilding
U.S. to Deny Contracts to Firms From Nonsupporting Nations
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51059-2003Dec9.html

Politics, rather juvenile and short sighted politics so very typical of the DoD crowd and the Bush Administration in general.

In many ways this is precisely what makes economic policy go wrong, rather than seeking the best contractor, one limits selection to countries whose governments whored themselves to the so-called coalition (or were terminally gullible in buying the NBC and al-Qaeda lies the Bush and Blair administration pimped or implied).

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 09, 2003

Morality. Crime. Aide. [edit] [edit ii]

A funny night. I was not sure if I should add this, but I will.

I got a call earlier in the evening. From an ex-diplo friend of mine who was living here. From his native (Western European) country. I shall avoid detials, but he had fled the country because the local police accused him of theft in an office robbery. This happened a bit back, but just recently they called him in for questioning and he panicked and fled the country. I think unwise, but even if innocent, one can be held for a long time here. Sans habeus corpus. [edited to clarify understanding]

It is hard to know what to think. Based on what I know, from him of course, the charges are ridiculous, although the locals are not in the habit of bringing charges against Euros or Americans.

He has asked me to take care of some unfinished business for him, some payments to his maid and someone in the UN that he owes money to. A few hundred euros. I said yes, but on reflection I now ask myself, how do I know what to believe in this bloody environment. I find it almost impossible to believe the charges are true (based on his rendition of both charges and facts), a relatively upper level fellow doing what amounted to a petty office robbery?

However, he also frequented professional women - although I have to say given this region and its strictures, and when one is on long term assignment I understand the temptation. And I shall pretend no moral superiority there, I would if I were in his (former) position, and I should think were I not paranoid of my reputation in the financial circles. Hypocrisy abounds. Rather more bothersome in rettrospect is one of his friends, and yet I ask myself, do not people usually believe I am some kind of intelligence agency operative? Where is the trust?

Yet the question nags, is it correct to go for his explanation? I only know his facts, are they the right ones? Well, there is no great moral harm in paying his maid for him, and the UN friend who lent him money, although a several hundred Euro transfer into my account is perhaps less-than-desirable connexion to a sordid affaire.

Still, the maid deserves to be paid, and so does the other person. I should be transparent about it, transparency is the disinfectant. However, it is a shock, this turn of events, and certainly in the moral morass I work in, yet another display of human foibles.

[edit ii]
On reflection I thought I would clarify: what I am saddened by is I realized that upon doubting my friend that I really trust no one. Although I will do this service out of loyalty, it is not out of trust. And I will take steps to ensure all is properly documented such that I have no liability.

As my mentor once said, "if you want a friend, buy a dog."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dollar Bis

Well, news is in from FT.

No interest rate change from the Fed, more importantly no signaling of change in real position vis-a-vis positioning. The dollar is going to seriously slide.

I note from the FT article

They were watching to see if the central bank abandoned its commitment to keeping interest rates low for a "considerable period," a position first staked out at the August FOMC report.

The Fed reiterated its "considerable period" mantra but added that there had been an accumulation of evidence that "output is expanding briskly and the labour market appears to be improving modestly.

Question now, how far, how fast?

JPM had earlier in the day or yesterday advanced a Euro-$1.40 scenario. I think it could happen.

See: Fed leaves US interest rates unchanged
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: December 9 2003 19:17

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On a comment - Contemptible hypocrisy and the pre-fooled

First, it is usually best to actually understand a view before pretending to critique it.

Your statement "You've just posted elsewhere a study that suggests that miserable-failure Bush's view - that nothing makes Muslims inherently less susceptible to the capitalist disease than anyone else - turns out to be more realistic than the views of many self-avowed "realists." is pure khayali crap - glurg regurgitated from the idiots who pimp lies.

The realistic view does not in any way, outside of the childish and idiotic pretended critiques by the drooling morons on the American right, have anything at all to do with inherent incapacity for development, be it political or economic, so please in the future, do spare me the idiocy of the ignoramuses who pimp these distortions.

Now, should you have actual citations to the "realists" who posit that democracy is inherently impossible in the Arab region, or in Islam generally, then please feel free to quote them, with proper identification. I would note in advance that I do require direct quotations, not idiotic posturing by the ideo-pimps of the American neo-Cons and their colleagues in the know-nothing right. Otherwise I shall take it at the same level as your moronic claim there is real intelligence, ex-one moronic pimping of undigested intel by a discreted OSP and ideo-journo, supporting a Sadaam-al-Qaeda connexion (I have not forgotten to respond, it will come my dear innocent). There is a vast difference between understanding real, practical barriers, located in specific cultural-historical and institutional frameworks, and ascribing the word impossible and inherent on development of democracy in the Arabo-Islamic world - specifically the Middle East. Perhaps this requires a level of subtlety in thinking that tends to escape the ideologue, but so be it. I personally am unware of any State Department 'realists' expert in the Middle East who think in such terms - however one does have to be realistic about the barriers, the hurdles and the processes. As the noted paper, if you actually read it, is. It has no relation to khayali shit the Bush Administration is pimping. Rather it addresses a strain of critique rather more popular, before hypocritical expediency changed the tune, popular among the American right in re the culture. But once the political guru changed the tune, bien, il faut le volte face.

As for Gingrich's "critique" - again khayali bullshit. Make excuses as you fucking like - Bush's policies in regards to FP have failed on their execution which depends not on State staffers but the political side. Gratiituous and clumsy alienation of allies is rarely a good thing - and your idiotic, in fact drooling stupid assertion that there was nothing Bush II could have done to achieve a better result diplomaticially is so moronically in the realm of the pre-fooled I almost feel pity for you. Anyone looking to the advice of experienced American FP professionals such as James Baker and Brent Scrowcroft can find substantive and pointed critiques in regards to the completely amateurish, ideological and foolishly short-sighted, moment focused "diplomacy" of the Bush II administration, which stands in stark contrast with the diplomatic skill of Bush I in putting together a real coalition with real legitimacy in the first American Gulf War.

The fact you buy this sordid idiocy of ideological posturing speaks rather poorly of both your information, as well as your critical thinking skills. Look up the fucking critiques from the Bakers and the Scrowcrofts, pre-war, to see it. It is indeed naive khayali bullshit and a sort of almost pitifully charming naivety, if not childish gullibility to assert that a better job could not have been done on the diplomatic front. But the problem is that people like Wolfowitz, a fine fellow personally I may add, I have had beers with him some years back, had contempt for the concept of multilateral action, and indeed rather naively focused on one small and narrow reading of realism, in the context of the Melian dialogues. The criticism by Gingrich and the other whinging ideological posturering hypocrites of the worst order, of State, CIA and others, is nothing but a sad and sordid attempt to shift blame. It is, in short, as we say in French, la politique politicienne. Politicians politics should you not grasp that.

As for the sad blather about the 11 September events, wrap the present idiocy in whatever sad little bloody flag you want, it is idiocy, this present Administration and its policies. Ah yes, let me tell you in advance to spare me any pious posturing over 11 Sep., I too had personal losses, but I reject the sad exploitation of those events to justify idiocy and incompetence. Certainly, I should hope that the voting public does indeed judge FP results practically, for it is rather fucking clear that the Bush Administration has sacrificed real efforts on the front against al-Qaeda organizations for some trumped up farce of a policy based on ideologically bounded and driven policies hypocritically wrapped in the flag of 11 September.

Contemptible. And those who buy it are sad fools.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bringing Coals to Newcastle - incentive incompatibility

washingtonpost.com

Fueling Anger in Iraq
Sabotage Exacerbates Petroleum Shortages
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47474-2003Dec8?language=printer

Too many weak points, too many angry people, too much lost time.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 08, 2003

FT article on Islam and Growth [edit]

I have to say I was surprised to read the idea Muslim societies are intrinsically less conducive to capitalism than the West is a widely held belief, although in reflecting on past commentary I have read, perhaps it is.

Regardless an article of potenitial interest to some, with a link to the underlying study:
Islam no bar to economic growth, says US study
By Alan Beattie in Washington
Published: December 7 2003 21:39
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493785165&p=1012571727102

"There is no evidence that Islam restricts economic growth, according to new research that casts doubt on the widely-held belief that Muslim societies are intrinsically less conducive to capitalism than those dominated by other religions.

The study, by Marcus Noland at the Institute for International Economics think-tank in Washington, reviewed growth in developing countries over the past few decades and found no evidence that countries with large Muslim populations grew more slowly, or had lower productivity growth.

Looking at growth within three religiously mixed countries - India, Malaysia and Ghana - only Malaysia showed statistically significant lower growth within its Muslim population."

I rather wonder if that is not tied, by the way in regards to Malaysia, to two factors - traditional dominance of non-Muslim Chinese in the business sector tied to a somewhat poorly concieved affirmative action program for Malays.

Now, I am not surprised on the following,t hat underlying issues in regards to savings and investment are the fundamental issue:
Excluding the effects of oil production, which dominates the Islamic Middle East, or studying Muslim Arab countries separately made no difference to the results. Conventional economic fundamentals such as the level of education and the share of investment and government in the economy - which were found to be unrelated to the prevalence of Islam - mattered far more for economic success.

No surprise there, of course lazy, sloppy fallacy of composition thinking tends to get people into analytical traps. I refer readers to tacitus.org where the prime writers are particularly prone to this in regards to the Islamic world. (Reminds me I have a long overdue note to write in regards to claims a few days back, or perhaps weeks in re Islam and female circumcision, yet more logical fallacy bounded idiocy) - I rather suggest a combination of ignorance bounded phobia in re Islam, and lack of good materials on the religion and its vast cultural domain, tend to distort views.

"If one is concerned about economic performance in predominantly Muslim regions or countries, conventional economic analysis may yield greater insight than the sociology of religion," the study says.

Mr Noland said his results aroused suspicion, bordering on disbelief, among colleagues when he first produced them.

This last item I find wierd, surprising and ultimately disheartening.

On the other hand I had a friend in the Agency in Langely who undertook a statistical study of human rights in the Muslim world expecting to prove Muslims were more prone to violence, human rights abuses, etc. -- expectation of course driven by selection bias in re information on the Muslim world -- and was stunned to find his own evidence disproved him. Regional issues.

The view that particular religious affiliations affect growth has been a fertile ground for sociologists since the pioneering work of Max Weber, the German sociologist.

Some sociologists have argued that the tendency of Islamic education to rely on reiteration of a finite set of information, together with the disapproval of lending money at interest, has restricted innovation and growth in Muslim countries.

Now, the second paragraph is certainly among the most puzzling. First, of course, most banks in the Islamic world, including in the Arab heartland, charge interest on loans, although of course there are Islamic banking facilities that, in my opinion, use slights of hand, to get around this. On the other hand there are pools of unmobilized capital because some of the more devout do not like interest, etc., but then I see this as much as fear of frankly creaking and dubious financial systems in the Arab world more than an Islamic item. As to the education, well rote education is found all over the developing world and I find it bizarre to attribute this to Islam - again selection bias and fallacious thinking. The bounded set of knowledge is an issue, but that is largely the POV of the truly hidebound religious conservatives, which are actually not that influential in education, ex religious education. Rather more problematic is the political influence - the quasi-secular governments attitudes towards free expression and the rather obvious influence this has on what sorts of academic inquiries can happen. Not an Islamic disease, a disease of totalitarianism or better, authoritarianism.

[edited: added following]
In regards to the hoops of Islamic finance on financing instruments, Henry Azzam has an article which conveys some of this as he discusses new bond choices:
Islamically structured bonds growing in importance / Lebanon Henry T. Azzam
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=35890

I rather consider all this slights of hand, but if it helps mobilize capital and provide relatively religiously conservative people a real means of entering a modern capital market, why not? On the other hand, I am highly suspicious of many of the actors in this sector.
[end edit]

The study link, by the way, from the FT article:
http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/2003/03-8.pdf

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My Second Favorite FT writer [edit fixed tags]

I have to say I want to recommend reading Lucy Kellaway on a regular basis. In a rather understated way, she brilliantly skewers the idiocy of our modern business hype, from jargon to CEO bios to the latest blather from "strategic vision consultants" - her recent column on the fellow championing ignorance as the new source of strategic vision (HBR, we publish mindless consultant dreck and you like it, and pay for it) was a classic. However, let me quote this:

Lucy Kellaway: Why CEO biogs are all the same
By Lucy Kellaway
Published: December 7 2003 19:11

On the front page of the FT last Tuesday was a photo of three white men in their 60s all shaking hands together.

This was not terribly remarkable: every day the FT is full of pictures of white men approaching retirement age. What was odd about this trio was their extraordinary uniformity. On the left was Phil Condit, departing chief executive of Boeing, and on the right the man who is to take his place.

Both men had the same glasses, the same short brown hair receding sharply at the temples. They were in the same navy blazers with brass buttons and the same button-down shirts with the same top button ill-advisedly undone to reveal the same section of loose neck. The only difference was that the outgoing guy seemed to have eaten more business lunches and looked tougher.

Between them sat Lew Platt, the new chairman, who had dared to be different by wearing grey instead of navy, but otherwise it was the same story with the hair, specs, shirt and neck.

I used to feel a similar urge to conform when I was about 14. At that age, if I did not have the identical Biba T-shirt and loon trousers everyone else had I was not prepared to leave the house. Yet this conformity thing at the top of US corporations goes well beyond what I went through 30 years ago. The clothes and the hairdo are a superficial sign of a deeper urge to be identical.

My evidence for this comes from a study of CEO biographies, which I carried out last week. The biog is a curious document. Not quite a CV, it is a standard five to six paragraphs documenting the subject's proudest achievements to date. It is posted on the company's website and handed out at the slightest excuse.

I submit the bolded paragraphs are subtly brilliant.

The purpose of the biography is presumably to distinguish one chief executive from another. Yet, having pored over the biogs of 24 US business leaders, I can confirm that they are identical in both style and form. The result is that I cannot recall a single fact that distinguishes Carly Fiorina of Hewlett-Packard from Richard Wagoner of General Motors or him from Samuel Palmisano of International Business Machines.

This is how to write the classic CEO biog. You start off by giving the date you became CEO of your company, which you must describe as world leader in something or other. If profits or revenues have risen since you became CEO, you should quote the results and attribute them to yourself. If they have not (as is mostly the case now), you keep quiet about them.

I have a biog from Christopher Galvin at Motorola dating from 1998, when he had been CEO for only a year. It starts by saying how, under his leadership, revenues have risen. This section was dropped from the biog once the company's fortunes dived and now no mention at all is made of financial results.

The classic biog proceeds with a list of all the other positions held on the climb up the ladder to the top. These are linked with "previously" and "prior to". The rule here is that no postings are too dull to mention. Take this from the CEO of Sara Lee. "In 1990 he assumed responsibility for Sara Lee's Packaged Meats, Bakery and Foodservice businesses. In 1993 he added Coffee & Grocery and Household and & Body Care businesses, based in Utrecht, the Netherlands . . ." and on it goes. I shall spare you the rest.

Then there is an awards section. The tone here should be uniformly vainglorious so that it is impossible to tell whether the award is prestigious or not. It does not matter if the award was received a while back.

More important still is the charitable stuff. The wording should be like this: "Samuel DiPiazza has always been very active in civic affairs throughout his career", followed by a list of all charitable positions past and present. Quantity is what counts here. Fewer than three charities does not cut it.

[Note to self, if I ever want to be a CEO I need to work on this, I am notoriously uncharitable, so have to spin]

Finally you list your degrees and educational achievements. Sumner Redstone tells us that he graduated first in his class at high school some 60 years ago - which was probably gratifying for him at the time but, 60 years on, is of dubious relevance to Viacom's shareholders.

I love that.

[Aside: I have been reviewing CVs for some new positions. This is painful I have to say, truly deeply painful as CV writing -however much you can mock it at least is well-developed in the West. Here, I get CVs where people list every fucking course and trip they're ever taken in mindnumbing detial, page after fucking page. No standards.]

A few end with something like "X resides with his wife Sheila near Ashland, Kentucky" but most of them skip this section, which is a shame. None takes the trouble to document previous wives in the same way they do previous jobs, which is even more of a shame.

Hah!

[Hmmm note to self, to stand out, if I ever reach CEO level, should document my previous wife. I think I should include my favorite picture of her, which she hated.]

Two CEO biogs stand out from the crowd. The first is Steve Ballmer's of Microsoft. He uses his biog as shop window for his passion and makes no attempt to stick to the objective. "Described variously as ebullient, focused, funny, passionate, sincere, hard charging and dynamic, Ballmer has infused Microsoft with his own brand of energetic discipline and spirit over the years," it says.

This is not to my taste at all but I still prefer it to the rest as it gives us some idea about how he sees himself, which is interesting. After all, the point of a biography is that it tells us something about the person. A long list of standard facts tells us nothing.

At the other end of the emotional register is Mr Ballmer's rival at Oracle, whose biog is one mean little paragraph. Although Larry Ellison's brevity is arrogant, it is true to the man and does not waste your time. This makes it my favourite biog. The clear subtext is: "I'm Larry Ellison. I founded and run Oracle. You should know that already. Now get lost."

I confess I like this last, a little bit of well-placed arrogance, so long as it is not hubris, is not so bad.

lucy.kellaway@ft.com

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Dollar

This is really for Pantom - I wanted to note for him that our dollar discussions prior did not prove misplaced, the contrary:

US dollar may face renewed pressure
By Jennifer Hughes in London and Jenny Wiggins in New York
Published: December 7 2003 20:43

"Some foreign exchange analysts say the dollar is likely to come under more selling pressure in the weeks ahead, defying the usual pattern of December being a quiet month in the currency markets.

The recent decline in the US currency, particularly against the euro and yen, has been long awaited by many economists, who say it could help to rebalance the global economy and reduce the large US current account deficit. And though the slide has been quite rapid, it has also been relatively smooth, raising hopes that the transition to a lower dollar can be managed without disruption and volatility.

Well, a smooth adjustment so far. I expect it will continue to be so, but then there is that little story.
Further:
Analysts say that a series of tactical incentives for market participants is likely to put the dollar under further pressure in the weeks ahead. Foreign exchange economists say that European companies with dollar earnings due next year are busy protecting their revenues in euro terms by hedging against further falls in the US currency, putting more downward pressure on the greenback. "A lot of them missed the euro's rise this year and, for those with a requirement to put on hedges before the year-end, this will force them to buy euros," said Nick Parsons, head of currency strategy at Commerzbank.
.....

In a recent speech, Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, said that at some point the willingness of foreign investors to continue funding the US current account deficit would diminish. But he said that the flexibility of the US economy and financial markets was likely to ease the transition.

"To be sure, the real exchange rate for the dollar has, on balance, declined roughly 20 per cent against the major foreign currencies since early 2002," Mr Greenspan said. "Yet inflation, the typical symptom of a weak currency, appears quiescent."

Mr Greenspan referred to a Fed study in which the average current account deficit in rich countries since 1980 had risen to 5 per cent - the present level of the US deficit - before foreign investors balked at funding it. "Although the large majority of episodes were characterised by some significant slowing of economic growth, most economies managed the adjustment without crisis," he said.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq, Trade Bank - progress

From good old MENAFN:
16 countries approve Iraqi reconstruction deal
MENAFN - 06/12/2003

(MENAFN) Sixteen countries agreed on Friday in Iraq to insure payments of up to $2.4 billion worth of exports to Iraq in an effort to revive the country's economy, Associated Press reported.

The agreement was signed by Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority, government export bank from the 16 participating countries, and the Trade Bank of Iraq.

Government credit agencies such as the US Export-Import Bank, the US Overseas Private Investment Corp., Italy's SACE and Australia's EFIC committed more than $2 billion to insure loans.

Countries participating in the deal include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US.

France did not participate, while the US and Japan were the largest contributors offering loan insurance of $500 million each. Italy's export credit agency SACE agreed to insure payment of about $301 million.

Earlier in the year, a consortium of around a dozen private banks lead by J.P. Morgan was awarded a contract to provide letters of credit to companies looking to do business in Iraq via a newly formed trade bank. The Trade Bank of Iraq said it was issuing its first seven letters of credit to back that purchase of $7.9 million in medical supplies.

The figures are not included in the $33 billion pledged in the October Donors conference in Madrid.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 07, 2003

You Have To Understand the Arab Mind

Apologies to the readers, I remain deeply busy, and with the US Dep. of Justice item upcoming, much work to be done. Hope I can help them crush the bastid, but on to the more popular subject:

Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns
By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: December 7, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=

The title to this post comes from the 'wisdom' of an army commander.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

Arab mind indeed. Well, you send ignorance in and you get this.

I note this statement, a deadly statement if you know this region:

Quoting an Iraqi: "I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

However, at a level the American military response has a logic - although destruction of civilian houses strikes me as treading on the path to war crimes - and if we rephrase to a less racist phrasing, we get closer to the truth. The tribal mind, the form of social organization dominant in rural Iraq (the 'Sunni triangle' one should recall is not homogenous), certainly comes closer to the expression the dear captain used. However, price and force may not create the results our dear captain thinks, if there are not payoffs. As I have quoted before, there is an old saying, you can not buy an Iraqi tribes (or the tribes of Iraq, etc.) but you can rent one (them).

Note the issue of pride: "But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English." Harm their sense of rajulah and these guys will take up arms - never mind the clumsy early colonial echo in the all-English system.

But as a counterpoint, later in the article another military fellow notes that if they provide money, then there is a counterpoint: rather better the direct quote: "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said. "

Perhaps. However, if it is not delivered, if it does not spread beyond the typical oligarchs who will try to capture the wealth, then you get nothing. I also note that unless there is more engagement with Iraqi society with the manner in which things are happening, you get nothing.

Israel is not the model here (although certainly the article implies that the US is copying Israeli tactics, a grave error. One has not had two intefadas in Palestine from the success of Israeli tactics - but then they are tactics, not strategy. If the strategy -bring tangigle benefits and right quick- to Iraqis works, then the tactics may buy time. However, the tactics are part of the incentive incompatible nature [again I quote the brilliant Martin Wolf here] of occupation. The short term tactics needed to maintain security work against the long term strategy needed for success. They are contradictory. Now, this differs on its face from Israel in the because whatever pious idiocies may be mouthed, Israel is slowly annexing the land it is occupying, wheras the US truly does not intend to stay. But the problem is, no one believes them, so the psychological game is rather like that of the French in Algeria. Ah yes, there the tactics worked too, but failed as well. Incentive incompatible.

The problem in the end is that the window of opportunity was lost in the idiocy of the self-delusional lying that characterized US policy response from April - September, when the pre-fooled and other Bush Administration supporters kept pimping the deluded view that all was well, or right around the corner. Important opportunities to respond to emerging problems were lost - and in the end this is the role of criticism, to point out such and deal with it, the pree-fooled and others sadly saw things only through the prism of agit-prop.

The question now is: can a new window of opportunity be manufactured through a massive effort in the next four months? I am always hopeful, however, I am skeptical that the blinders have come off. There are too few people with regional expertise working on this, too many suckers. Suckers, suckers who only learn the rhythms here the hard way and then over-react. Imagine, only now after over 7 months has the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the main US governmental body for providing risk insurance in 'under or uninsurable' emerging markets - that is Iraq - been authorized to provide its products - I believe still only to US firms or projects with at least a 25 percent US equity stake, but it is a start. A start, however, that should have been ready seven long months ago, in May, to have kickstarted real work.

The story is typical, and indicates why the window of opportunity was lost (even as the drooling morons pimped the idea all was well, suckers to the end).

Perhaps we shall see change. Or perhaps one should rewatch la bataille d'Alger . Strong measures.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 04, 2003

Paleolithic Incompetence

A funny phrase. Not mine, my colleague's. Describing the work done on the new office. Setting up a new office, here, a real nightmare. Let's say the work ethic lacks in certain areas. Office is not quite what was expected.

Fine. But the explanations from the contractor were hilarious, if infuriating.

For example, when my dear colleague asks Abu Mohammed why, of why did it not occur to his painters to just perhaps tape over the window frames when paining such that the paint would not spill over, the guy replies - and this was classic, "I have an ulcer." I think his strategy was, if I tell the foreigners complete non-sequitors they will become confused and accept the shitty job I have done.

Even better, against my colleague's wishes, he installed a "butt washer" as my colleague charmingly calls the rear end spritzing device, in the toilet. Now the previously working toiler leaks. So, my colleague asks the fellow, what the hell happened? The guy responds, "It's needs a washer." Now, he's the drooling chimpanzee that installed it, and he is essentially telling us, "Hello, I am a moron, I installed some device you told me not to on your toilet and now it leaks water because I forgot the washer." Of course as he phrased it, it was as if the washer forgot to install itself.

If I were not exhausted, I would use this as an opportunity to reflect on issues of economic development in the Arab world, but instead I leave you with my colleague's phrase, "paleolithic incompetence."

I guess I shouldn't laugh.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 02, 2003

Fooled in the pre fooled formatting, an apology

It appears that the LJ has unilaterally decided to disallow comments on the "pre fooled" post - I did not set it this way and after several attempts I can't seem to lift it. It also seems not to have taken some of the initial wording edits I made, to reduce the harshness. I do tend to get on a roll when writing, and I thought to tone down.

Well, there it is, betrayed by dodgey posting software. Not sure what the hell the problem is, another drop in the bucket to leaving this LJ place.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: an analytical piece of interest

A commentary that caught my eye at The Financial Times

A zombie at large in the Middle East
By Anatol Lieven
Published: December 1 2003 20:23
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493629052&p=1012571727126

I am not entirely sure I agree entirely with the characterizations, however it is thought provoking:

"Current US strategy in the "war on terrorism" is a kind of zombie. It has been killed, slowly and painfully, by the Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgency of recent months. Its rotting corpse still walks around as if alive but as time goes by more and more bits are going to fall off. The question for uncommitted European governments, such as Gerhard Schröder's in Germany, is whether they should join this spectacle."

You can not say the writer did not have flair here. As I can not quite tell what current real US strategy is in the 'war on terror' it is hard to know if one can agree or not.

Rather more importantly, the author characterizes US policy as an unacceptable risk at present:
"It is their duty to their citizens to be very careful in this matter. As the Istanbul bombings showed, close support for US strategy brings with it an increased risk of terrorist attack. Governments can legitimately ask their citizens to undergo this risk only if they themselves have genuine confidence in US strategy. At present, it is impossible to have such confidence."

Again, perhaps the British targets do suggest something along these lines, although perhaps not.

It is not just in Iraq that US strategy is bankrupt. Despite tactical successes such as Sunday's battle in Samarra, the fighting there, and the number of US troops needed to contain it, have also in effect killed off the entire "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war. As US soldiers and officials acknowledge in private, the US simply does not have the troops or will for another war elsewhere. If Washington were crazy enough to launch another war without having itself been attacked, the result would be political revolt not just among US allies but also within the US itself."
Emphasis added.
Oh I don't know about that.

"This is therefore a good moment for European and other governments to insist that in return for help in Iraq and the Middle East, the US must develop a new overall strategy. This is all the more important because European countries are already making a vital contribution to the war in Afghanistan, and losing lives in the process.

This Afghan commitment should continue because, unlike the occupation of Iraq, it enjoys real legitimacy within Europe and in the international community and because denying Afghanistan to al-Qaeda is in any case just as important as winning in Iraq."

Legitimacy, always a very nice thing, and now some supposedly experienced policy makers are relearning old, old lessons.

"Change to America's Middle East strategy is essential in two areas. The first is US relations with Iran and Syria. In a recent address to the Middle East Institute in Washington, Kenneth Pollack - one of the principal advocates of the Iraq war and therefore no "dove" in the war against terrorism - stressed the critical importance of Iranian policies to Iraqi stability and drew an extremely positive picture of Iranian restraint and helpfulness so far. In a move that gives strong support for this view, the Iranian government recently recognised the Iraqi Governing Council as legitimate.

In return, Iran has received nothing from the US except a moderation of threats that have in any case largely lost their power to frighten. There may be a case for Europe and the US putting on a "good cop, bad cop" act over Iran's nuclear programme but this is valid only if, in return for Iranian good behaviour, the US itself is prepared to seek detente."

Among the issues with religious belief, be it religious or ideological, is that it is hard to compromise with those painted as the 'evil doers.' Interests. Cold calculation on interests is an underrated game.

"The same is true of relations with Syria, where Damascus's reward for intelligence help against al-Qaeda has been a move by the US Congress, pressed by the Israeli lobby, to impose further sanctions. In its approach to the Muslim world the US is repeating the terrible errors that helped to drag it into the debacle of Vietnam: lumping a range of mutually hostile states and forces into one category of enemy, and completely underestimating the importance of nationalism, in Muslim states as in communist ones."

Emphasis added: I believe that whatever reservations I have on the remainder, this highlighted area is precisely correct.

"More important, however, is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the issue that tends to unite the Muslim world in hostility to the US and its allies. This is the best moment for a long time to press for a genuine, two-state solution to this conflict. As prominent figures in both Israel and the US have begun to warn, it may also be the last possible moment.

If Israel continues on its present course, what will emerge will in effect be a single state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean in which a future Palestinian majority will be held down by apartheid methods. Those making such a warning have included four former heads of Israel's Shin Bet security service; one of their number, Ami Ayalon, has declared that Israeli policy is "taking sure, steady steps to a place where the state of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people". Meanwhile Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, is looking increasingly weak and isolated at home."

Precisely, although I am not sure Sharon really looks weak and isolated.

"It is essential therefore that Washington does not allow itself to be led into approving, even as an interim measure, Mr Sharon's apparent plan to withdraw a symbolic handful of Israeli settlements while continuing a strategy of restricting Palestinians to what are essentially Bantustans. The only possible viable peace between Israel and the Palestinians is something along the lines of the Geneva accords, the unofficial agreement drawn up by moderates on both sides and signed on Monday. Unless the US commits itself to such a settlement, it will be impossible to have confidence in US strategy in the war against terrorism and European governments will have no right to ask their citizens to make further sacrifices in that war."

However, sadly I believe the Sharonista supporters in the US of A have been fulminating against the Geneva accords.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq - yet more Chalabi manipulation

Once again, The Financial Times displays essential reporting, although the headline is deceptive:
Saddam's backers to be denied contracts
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: November 28 2003 18:12
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493580581&p=1031119383196

Now many might well say, well what is wrong with that? Well everything as we shall see from the article as our little corrupt slimey deciever Chalabi (actually a fairly large man) is running his own star chamber.

"Businessmen seeking to win contracts in Iraq will be vetted for ties to the former regime, Ahmed Chalabi (pictured), a prominent member of the US-appointed interim Governing Council said in an interview.

Mr Chalabi chairs the Governing Council's Higher Committee for de-Ba'athification. Formed in September, this has expanded its work from rooting out senior functionaries of the former regime to implementing what he calls "a programme of economic de-Ba'athification".

Super. Purges, political vetting of contracts, closing of politicaly inconvenient Arab TV stations. Why we are well on our way to a fine little Egypt on the Euphrates. Blisteringly good pace to establishing yet another pseudo-democracy with pseudo-secularism.

Better:
"The committee is one of the most powerful in the Governing Council. Although the policy of de-Ba'athification was first instituted by Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, Mr Bremer last week told a press conference that he had handed over responsibility for implementation to the committee."

Excellent Paul, excellent. Hand more power to Chalabi.

And best yet:
"The committee says its economic role will be to "collect information about businessmen and merchants to prevent them dealing with Iraq in the future". Mr Chalabi said it would also aim to recover the wealth from "between 10 and 15 per cent" of the Iraqis who he said benefited from the Ba'ath regime."

Good political expropriations based on one committee's 'investigations.'

The article helpfully notes:
"Critics of de-Ba'athification have attacked the programme as revenge-driven. Iyad Allawi, a fellow member of the Governing Council who has also returned from western exile, has called the plan "dangerous", and declared he was boycotting Mr Chalabi's committee.

Mr Chalabi's opponents worry that his de-Ba'athification committee has few checks and balances, and that it could be used selectively to favour his associates and undermine business rivals. He insists, however, that the motives for de-Ba'athification are a "moral issue"."

Right indeed, a moral issue from Chalabi, serial defrauder.

This is the best part:
"We will not stand for any committee members making benefits of any person," said Mr Chalabi.

The article rather goes one with more disingenous agitprop Chalabi spews for the pre-fooled. At least he knows what shit they will eat gladly.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 01, 2003

Istanbul - Personal thoughts

Istanbul - Personal thoughts

Well, Istanbul was a far more productive trip than I thought, although events are rather running ahead of where I had thought they were. Regretably I am going to have to make a number of items posted in the past private or better delete them; I am being called to rap with the people in US Justice Department. A good thing morally, but complicating my life. Well, nice and all that, hope it goes in the right direction. The IFIC needs to be slapped down like the cheap bitch he is.

In other observations: I visited the bombing sites, it was something like a pilgrimage. I noted there were crowds, I think disapproving but the sites were in Taqsim, Galata area where one expects this. Saddening, but if a bomb comes, you are gone. No use thinking about that very much. Only a matter of time before it occurs here.

On a lighter note, I was mildly entertained to note that I kept being mistaken for Turk on this, my longest time spent in the city. I note I felt rather odd, I was reflecting on how I have come to expect to understand more or less all that goes on around me, that is it felt strange being in a country where I have no grasp of the language. I’ve been to Turkey before but never spent such a large and continuous block of time in Turcophone surroundings. Feels odd, it occurred to me, for all that blending was not an issue. Frustrating, I need to learn Turkish, above all if the new demarche comes through. Wheels moving and all that.

I should also note it was an immense pleasure to be in Istanbul again. A city with life, a city with cosmopolitanism that runs deep – not like the nouveau cosmopolitanism of Dubai, which has no depth nor roots in local reality. No, Istanbul feels its imperial roots, and its ancient mix to its bones. My kind of city, being a rootless cosmopolitan (as I was amusingly called in some retort to my comments at a place called tacitus.org – I suppose it all comes down to being hard to place.) and all that. But Istanbul is a place for rootless cosmopolitans. I can see why my dear grandpa rather liked the place, although he managed to kick off in Izmir by accident. Well, cerebral meningitis does get one.

I should say that should I have a choice in life, I would rather like to finish it by dividing my time between three places, or maybe four, Dar al-Beidah, al-Jeza’ir al-‘asimah, Istanbul and Amsterdam. Yes, I wrote a few memos in the old gardens of the Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent and I found it very relaxing. The grounds keeper even played some nice Sufi music for me. I look forward to doing this again. Pity the did not serve Efes in the gardens, although that might have been a bit much, being next to the Sulieman Great Mosque, but the coffee was excellent – indeed I will note for the eaters among us, Turkey along with Morocco are fine destinations where it is hard not to have a tasty (if perhaps later ‘dangerous’) meal.

Another observation, I watched an extremely engaging and indeed illuminating tele-documentary on Arte, the Franco-German satellite channel, on the Sephardic Jews from Spain. It was very well done, covered an enormous amount of territory and struck me as balanced in a sophisticated manner. Yet, and I do not blame the interlocutor, a really very interesting Bosniac Jew and Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) speaker, there were odd silences. One in particular I would like to reflect on is how they handled the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 – and how they did not speak to the simultaneous expulsion of the Muslims. Now, given the focus was rightly on the Sephardim and this fellow’s story – quite amazing – one should not complain over much, yet I saw a symbolic absence, all the more strange given the Bosniac interlocutor speaking to Bosnia and the multicultural environment of old Sarajevo, Le Seraile, was moving in his view of all three or four religions.

However, in regards to Spain it struck me the editors went for a bit of what I might call a certain degree of modern political correctness, in forgetting the Muslim side of the expulsions and the Muslim side of the “Judeo-Christian” culture – that sad phrase that forgets one of the three major inputs to the mix, and indeed delegitimizes one of the inputs, excluding it. I also believe that it cuts one off from understanding the context in which the Muslim states, which at the time meant the Ottoman Empire and Morocco, welcomed not only the Muslim but the Jewish refugees from Xian purity of the day – in the days when Judeo-Islamic culture was Kosher/Halal and the Sublime Porte in Istanbul welcomed Jewish refugees in the name of humanity and Judeo-Christian culture was a sad joke.

Rootless cosmopolitans. We should unite. What do we have to lose but our caviar? Kha.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Also - Iraq, an article

I hate doing this as I confess I have never liked The New Yorker however this article is interesting:
WAR AFTER THE WAR
by GEORGE PACKER
What Washington doesn’t see in Iraq.
Issue of 2003-11-24
Posted 2003-11-17
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031124fa_fact1

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On Pre-Fooled, Iraq and MENA Policy

Several days ago I received this comment:

Aren't we all "pre-fooled" by our prejudices and biases? Is there a single interaction whose course and outcome isn't affected by the perspective we bring to it?

When you formulate your new judgments, you would do well, in my opinion, to consider how much they are influenced by a desire to justify your prior ones. You say you opposed the war ahead of time, a fact which suggests that you then as now took a typical "Arabist" position - the same sort of possessive, lamingly pessimistic, effectively reactionary sympathy toward the Arab world as it has been that leads you to discount the fundamental good of deposing the Baath regime, to overlook the evidence that the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection is hardly a "new" problem, to respond favorably to the French Arabism reflected in that National Journal article, and to hold the Israelis - the "Sharonistas" - entirely responsible for the ills of Arafatistan. (I suggest you look into the backgrounds of the Shin Bet fellows you were praising.)

You've elsewhere dismissed all notions of radically re-making the Middle East, and have suggested that a policy aimed at incremental change - a kind of implanting of the democratic capitalist infection - would be the only approach with any chance of success. Without policy changes at the national and international level - little things like the removal of totalitarian governments - such changes at ground are much less likely to take hold. If you combine even a relatively neutral influence on the "macro" level with the beginnings of real change on the "micro" level, then it seems to me that you have begun a rather radical re-making of the region.

Continue reading "On Pre-Fooled, Iraq and MENA Policy"

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 23, 2003

Reliability, enforceability

How did I know this was going to happen?

My cell is not roaming as it should - ah I knew it would happen. So what is the problem, the question posed itself? Is it the -to use a phrase that I did not coin- the "neanderthalically incompetent" telecom provider of the Hashemite Kingdom. (A subject that in real life provokes me to tirades. Tariffs and bulk rates.) Or is it the office.

Now, this is really my fault. You know that severance package included the old Fund paying for my phone until December end. Among other things. Well the incompetent fucks, now that they have learned that their ludicrously stupid "rescue plan" is fucked - laughed out of the room I am told - etc. they're trying to screw me. Phone has been shut.

Fuck it, on one level. However, there's a lesson here. A general lesson that also is a lesson about Middle Easern issues in general. Enforceability. There is none. Or rather it is challenging such that a severance agreement is essentially unenforceable in a legal context. The enforcement was when they were angling for retaining me for the "rescue", etc. , then they wanted to remain on my good side. That option off the table, well, fuck it. What am I going to do, sue? Sure, waste my money. Not worth the effort.

Now, this is minor and simply a point of irritation, however it is generalized throughout the system. Then you begin to see some real and serious efficiency loseses. Imagine, you have to build this into literally every stage of your business planning, the realisation that many contracts are utterly unenforceable, or if enforceable, only after expending let's ay 100 times the effort in the West.

Clearly it makes you risk averse. It also makes you want to operate on a delivery first, payment second basis - although equally for the service provider there is the desire to operate on the opposite. Trust becomes a matter of personal ties, personal ties a matter of family... And bingo, you have a clan or tribal economy with all the inefficiencies that implies.

Anyway, on a personal level I got it restored after some calls to the right people, but again, inefficiencies.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 20, 2003

Istanbul

I am happy to report the people I am to meet are not dead, so that is a positive. Nasty business this, and surprising hitting Turkey.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 18, 2003

Observation, cultural.

As I mentioned, I have begun consulting on a project here, interesting work but can't speak to it.

However, I'd like to share a meeting - doing some relationship development, introducing some of the firm principals to my contacts. Discussion was on a sensitive topic.

Now, my local side contacts I know well, I had a post-Iftar sit down with them to rap about the sensitivities, set up the meet and generally lay the basis for going forward. Conversation went well of course, and we spoke frankly to certain sensitivities re "wasta" - connections, influence - and corrupt practices. Even the senior fellow, who I had not met before, spoke freely and frankly. Of course, we largely spoke in Arabic. Or better, Arablish - that fine little business langauge here.

Last night we had our post-Iftar sit down with the American principals and the local side. I was intrigued at how different the interaction was. First, my local side their interaction was oddly different. The frankness rather faded a bit, above all with the Old Man, the senior fellow. I can't attribute that to knowing me, I met him only a week ago and we spoke freely and frankly. Langauge? Perhaps me speaking in Arabic put him at ease.

Certainly I felt oddly ... not uncomfortable but I noticed how bluntly direct and... brusque the American principals were. I almost felt rubbed the wrong way. Yet at the same time, I recall they were as direct when I was meeting them.

I was thinking about this last evening: I think that I switch cultural modes of expression depending on the environment, and it feels funny when they are mixed.

It was also interesting to see through almost Arab eyes, my own, the differences as the meeting went on. It went well, I may add, and I think I will put together a deal between the two parties, get a bit of a success bonus, but nevertheless the interaction intrigued me - as did my peculiar sense of being neither here nor there.

Well, intriguing to watch if nothing else.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: on losing

In many ways this article says all that needs to be said:

Fear Grows Among Iraqis in U.S. Employ
Several American Allies Killed in Mosul
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 18, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54195-2003Nov17.html

The US lacks langauge capacity, going after the "eyes and ears" is easy. I might add that I have not terribly much confidence in the translators themselves. By personal observation in other contexts, the translators people pick up in such circumstances are rarely good, and usually come with agendas. Certainly there is no lack of agendas in Iraq.

However, the real question is how to avoid disaster.

It is harder and harder to think about this question and feel optimistic. Certainly getting monies flowing into Iraq I hope will help. I also hope that the idiocy of this "shock and awe" airstrikes on guerillas will end in favor of more of a spy game. I remain firmly convinced that only by minimizing Iraqi casualties, minimizing "collateral damage" and by engaging in no small bribery can the negative evolution be stopped.

Will that happen?

Sadly I think not, everything I hear suggests the Bush Administration is in a muddle, stumbling along with reactive policies more aimed at trying to get good spin for elections than truly working on the problem.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 17, 2003

[EDIT] Iraq: Further Discouragement, a local view (a long tirade and analysis in one)

I just came away from a fundamentally discouraging conversation with the head of the US Embassy's economic section here. They're deeply involved with Iraq issues, a lot of the economic planning is running through Amman. In fact, as I noted on a blog elsewhere, I recently had some meet and greets with the folks who are working on consulting on the Baghdad stock exchange - they're running out of here as (i) Iraq is too fucking dangerous to risk high priced folks; (ii) there are historical linkages between the exchanges, so the synergies are natural.

(Let me add this aside: I was having a convo re the situ with one of the Corporate lawyers along on the team, a NYC based chick with substantial experience in East Euro. post communism. I advanced the ob that the situation was somewhat like E. Europe and she went ballastic. Nothing like E. Europe, in E. Europe we were loved and people were "not fucking shooting at consultants." Now I am not sure about the loved, and in fact I agreed, but I was surprised by the vehemence. I presume she's a Republican by nature, but anyone on the ground here can see things are going to shit and there needs to be changes.)

[EDITED to add not: oops I left out the key word that reversed her meaning.

Back to the point, rapping with the aforementioned Embassy contact, I noted I had the above convo (the aside) and observered CPA needed help. My man seemed quite moved on this point, stating that at present efforts are in complete chaos with the June end of occupation thing - there was no prep on this, it's been pulled out of the fucking hat with no clear idea of how to handle transition. He indicated no one knows what is going on, planning for the $20 bill is in chaos as former plans were no way along this sudden volte face. DoD is fighting to retain responsibility over economic issues, although they've done a piss poor job so for (my ob not his, this charcterization), and State and USAId are pushing back (his ob, not phrasing though).

Most worringly, this fellow, very senior, was really pessimistic on current policy. Normally he's pretty cagey, but this time no. I think, like me, he's getting a sense of impending doom. I'm really very serious about that, I feel feel failure creeping up, and perhaps spectacular failure.

I find the military response so far to be deeply puzzling, for example. Given my sense of what the intel is, was and will be, I deeply feel that airstrikes, use of missiles on distant targets and the like can only go wrong. What is needed is counterinsurgency work, which involves on the ground, involves care and involves winning back the population. My Iraqi contacts have grown more and more disgusted, and airstrikes -however much they may preserve precious US soldiers' lives, are a penny wise pound foolish approach (in terms of lives). Certainly they never helped the French in Algeria.

Further, I recall from the Iraqi conference I attended a few weeks back now (bloody hell, behind on my summ of that) an Iraqi standing up to denounce the constant references to the Sunni Triangle. Evidently a Sunni (and pro American by the way) he expressed a growing sense of frustration and denounced the characterization in re issues in the "Sunni Triangle" stating clearly, "this is turning people against you."

Yet the Administration's response so far is chaostic, unplanned, reactive and has the air of desperation.

I no longer feel that the economic opportunities I saw a year ago in connection with this policy, for all that I thought it politically stupid, will appear. The risk of a real crash is now growing and I am not at all, on my ring side seat, encouraged by the application of responses.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 11, 2003

Iraq: Phone Licenses (bis) - I questioned the Orascom award, well take a look here

Well, as those of you who have been reading my comments for a while know, I found the Iraq phone license awards, in particular the Central region award peculiar. I know the Orascom group well and I found it very strange indeed that these folks, who had severe cash flow problems with severe debt issues that led them to dispose, mere months before, of their Jordanian license, won a difficult contract for central Iraq, the demographic heartland.

In The Financial Times we have the following story:
US authorities in Iraq probe phone contracts
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: November 11 2003 0:32
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565782112&p=1012571727088

Quoting the essentials:
"US authorities in Iraq have put on hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mobile telephone contracts, while they investigate allegations that the bidding process was hijacked by associates of the new Iraqi governing council."

Okay, not surprising really.

Is it worth the delay? I don't know, certainly I would have grave performance concerns in re Orascom - and I don't trust the group.

"When the Iraqi Ministry of Communications last month awarded three Middle Eastern consortia two-year licences to build and operate wireless phone networks, the deals were heralded as a breakthrough for regional operators willing to invest in the new Iraq.

But the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq has been advised to postpone signing the contracts, according to a US administration official speaking on condition of anonymity. CPA lawyers in Iraq made the recommendation to delay signing the contracts for 10 days to allow time to investigate claims of cronyism by the Iraqi authorities in awarding the licences, the official said."

Now here is the part which is the most interesting - and may I say, well, you heard my doubts first?

"The request is understood to focus on the role of Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire businessman, in the Orascom group, one of the successful consortia."

Well, I know my market. I was surprised, however to find the implication that the Governing Council people had such influence over the process.

"The CPA has become concerned that evidence of corruption would reflect badly on the US authority, which played a central role in evaluating the bids."

No kidding, it rather seems perhaps they were duped? Not surprising. They have few people with regional experience, and fewer people with regional business experience.

Now this part I find amusing:
"The delay to the signing of the mobile phone licences comes amid broader US concern about the workings of the Iraqi governing council. Senior US officials have voiced frustration that the interim body of 25 hand-picked Iraqis is putting their own political and economic interests first."

Welcome to the Middle East kiddies, and welcome to the workings of a society that has not put much weight in highly theoretical national level identification, despite the facile appeals on the part of Iraqis themselves to "Iraqi people" and the like - they usually mean, "My Family, and then the rest of the guys."

And I was amused by this too:
"Another senior CPA official said the US occupying authorities have been struck by the resilience of corrupt business practices in Baghdad, where members of the new Iraqi regime have used power for personal gain."

Again, welcome to the Middle East my little innocents. Transformation indeed, all this talk of transformation is blather for the pre-fooled and the starrey eyed Neo Con dupes.

Finally: "Commenting on the Iraqi ministry's award of the licences, a US official said on Monday: "The question is who did what due diligence, and when?" Amid increasing suggestions of cronyism in handing out contracts, the CPA is preparing to establish a new Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Office to oversee how contracts are awarded."

Indeed, and yet what level of due diligence is really possible? I have done plenty of due diligence in this region, and it is in fact a deep pain in the ass. Lies, opaquesness, a sense that foreigners are naturally screwable out of their money.

However, at the same time, as I have noted many times, expectting contracting in Iraq to be like in the states, expecting one can impose "best practices" uniformly across the country is to engage in "transformation" fantasies.

I do expect and hope CPA will do its best to limit corruption, but frankly, getting things rolling is more important than making things perfect. Indeed I was more encouraged by this article from The Washington Post on some Iraqi efforts to ge their cement factory up and running.

Success, Traced in Cement
Iraqis Rebuild Factory at a Fraction of Estimate
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 10, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20273-2003Nov9?language=printer

I would not want to hold up the no doubt half assed reconstruction effort on the cheap as the model for getting things done in general, but rather suggest that compromises are going to be necessary early on. Enabling Iraqis to get things sort of kind of running and then, as economic activity recovers, go for the nice new reconstruction - to the extent one can seperate the activities of course - is likely a better bet. Unfortunately this also suggests tolerating in the short term all kinds of bad practices that really do need to be changed or at least to see some degree of movement for the economy to truly become the "beacon" the simpletons speak of.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 09, 2003

Iraq further articles to share

Quickly then, must be off now, a few articles I want to draw attention to.

Among the most important, in my opinion:
Another American Casualty: Credibility
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, November 9, 2003; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14360-2003Nov7?language=printer

Brilliant and well put. A must read.

Then this, which I find credible:
November 09, 2003
Chalabi plays favorites in the game of Iraqi reconstruction
http://www.menareport.com/story/TheNews.php3?sid=262911&lang=e&dir=mena

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 05, 2003

Arab REgion Business News: A subject I have to return to.

This evening I was sitting watching the evening business reports on al-Jazeerah and al-Arabiyah and a thought struck me: I am learning rather a lot about European and American business conditions, investing trends, etc. and literally nothing about the very region these fellows cover, supposedly.

In some ways this is not at all extraordinary: capital flight has meant vast sums of Arab money are in the Euro and American markets (although well placed sources characterize capital flows now as being to Europe, Asia and staying in the region. Arab flows to the US have all but dried up). Further to that, there is no transparency here. Even audited reports have to be kicked around a bit. Enron deceptions are, well, 'adi here. In addition I can't say that even the Arabsat journo standards are really all that amazing, but then business journalism, with rare exceptions such as FT is not the most ... critical field of journalism. A reader here, by the way, had a note on advert market that I would dearly like to quote from or use.

So, we have a combination of lack of press freedom; a tradition of punishing the messenger; little transparency, even from listed companies (I love being told to write a letter of justification in order to get an annual report as a potential investor. The concept of investor relations is utterly absent.); poor business journalism skills by any standard and a region only recently having begun to open up to liberalization of markets - journalists tend to come from backgrounds that put them ill at ease with economic liberalization.

That combination means that on Arab TV one is likely to learn less about the eocnomy than if one follows say, The Economist or at least EIU.

It's really sad, truly sad. Lack of information in the economic field really tends to bound potential entrepreneurs imaginations - or worse, leads them to try to model themselves after the half assed visions of Western economic developments rather than having a clear idea of how to tackle the actual economic landscape.

More to push underdevelopment.

If I thought I could overcome the barriers, I would fund a ARab Biz & Econ. media group. There are some good pubs by the way. For those readers who can follow Arabic, I highly recomend the monthly, al-Iqtisaad wal-'Aamaal (which they translit. with a K, lebs.) - the October issue by the way had a long interview with Bremmer. I meant to write up a comment on it, now I have reminded myself, I shall have to add it to the growing list of things I have to do.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Knowledge Question: figures on US MENA spending

Wondering if anyone out there knows of a nice little site that may have pulled together the recent data on US spending in the Middle East? You know, the MEPI program, latest Iraq approp. and prior approp on recon. Afraid I am a bit ignorant when it comes to getting information on US budgeting.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq: the violence ticks on

Attacks on the green zone, Spanish diplomats pulling out. Well, I suppose the Administration and the "pre-fooled"'s media campaign of roughly two weeks ago that the "Media" is exagerating problems in Iraq is stillborn.

It makes me recall my arguments on the SDMB with the "pre-fooled" -Sam Stone, december etc - who blithely kept telling me that my reports, reporting back from what I was hearing from Arab, Iraqi, and UN as well as CPA contacts said things were not progressing, etc., were wrong. I did not have the big picture, or whatever. I am sure Stone in particular is in full back-peddle or shamed silence now.

I wonder what those claims would look like now? In many ways it is a deep pity I was right. I would be looking at some really interesting opps for raising an Iraq Fund, etc., instead of this demi-world of "well it has to get better" blather. Now, raising funds, I am not going to gainsay, but at the same time, no, it does not have to get better, it can bloody well get worse. I am hopeful, I would add, that the massive appropriations bill, US $18 odd billion for reconstruction, for all that is it six motherufcking months late, will help get things going.

I remain worried, however, that the idiot ideologues who see Iraq as a blank slate on which they can inscribe their wet dream policies, flat taxes, perfect markets, etc. "transforming" the Middle East will be pushed aside in favor of pragmatism and pragmatic approaches to reworking the Iraqi economy above all, to help get buy in on the Iraqi side. Without that, well let me pimp my favoriate movie in this connection, The Battle of Algiers aka la battaille d'Alger. Colonial warfare, no holds barred. A must see, I note.

Now, a few items on this subject to draw attention to:
Iraqification: Losing Strategy
By Fareed Zakaria
Tuesday, November 4, 2003; Page A2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60368-2003Nov3.html

An excellent piece on the dangers of rushing Iraqification for short terms reasons. I find myself oddly in the camp of the same gullible fools who lapped up the initial war justifications, in fearing the Adminsitration will pull a humiliating and transparent 'Iraqification' withdrawal and compound their errors.

Then there is this, from the writer of the "talking points memo" website, which I have grown to like although its politics moderately annoy me.

However, the writer, Marshall, rightly skewers the Orewellian habits of the present Administartion in rewrting its own past comments.

Frankly there is nothing I hate worse than that, it is intellectually dangerous, and leads one into terrible errors - certainly the habit did nothing for the Soviets who were past masters of such games.

Silly word games and weapons of mass destruction
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx
(also see http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

I also wish to share this:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Death by Optimism
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 5, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/opinion/05KRIS.htm

Do read it, Kristoff makes some very fine points on the degree to which our fine fellows, Rummy, Wolfie et al. fooled themselves. Selective reading of information, ideological blinders, imposing what one "knows" on actual data. I rather like Kristoff's sly comparision btw Sadaam's habits and Bush's.

Well, a quote is inorder: " Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, "greeted as liberators." The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan.

I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion — at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information.

Policy by wishful thinking is crippling our occupation. Initially, U.S. officials didn't restrain looting because they regarded it as celebratory high jinks. Then, confident that security was in hand, they disbanded the Iraqi Army. They didn't push hard to bring in international forces." (emphasis added)

I rather agree.

Ah yes, one more quote, as I can not resist: " Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."

Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands dow