Concert without strings

WHERE DO I SIGN UP?????

By Richard V. Allen and Chuck Downs

International Herald Tribune

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The New York Philharmonic is considering a performance in Pyongyang, North Korea, next February, and already the regime there has begun to behave as though the proposed concert would be a tribute rather than an act of generosity.

A final decision by the Philharmonic on whether to perform in North Korea after its China tour merits the most careful consideration. It would be a mistake to hand Kim Jong Il a propaganda coup.

For those who recall the key role that cultural exchanges played in normalizing our relationship with Communist countries during the Cold War, the idea of a concert by the Philharmonic in North Korea may appear constructive. But the Cold War exchanges were successful largely because Western performers were committed to artistic freedom.

In 1959, when Leonard Bernstein took the Philharmonic to Moscow, he included in his program a work by Shostakovich, the popular Russian composer whose career had suffered under Stalin’s censorship.

Bernstein raced through the stirring last movement of the Fifth Symphony, demonstrating that artists have license to do just that. The audience, which included Shostakovich himself, was exhilarated.

But North Korea is not like the former Soviet Union. Any outsider who reaches out to the suffering millions in North Korea must be cautious not to worsen their oppression.

Consider how the regime prohibits international food donors from verifying who actually gets the food. Food aid is distributed only to the military and the faithful, and denied to those judged unreliable or disloyal. This is just one reason why Doctors Without Borders withdrew from North Korea in 1998.

Normally, concerts in North Korea are limited to performances of music that Kim Jong Il himself is (falsely) credited with having written or at least approved.

Merely to listen to radio broadcasts from other nations is to risk imprisonment. During a party on Christmas in 1992, one of the regime’s former propaganda officers, Ji Hae Nam, made the mistake of singing a South Korean song. She was sentenced to three years in jail and, as she testified to the U.S. Congress after her escape, beaten so severely she could not get up for a month.

It would be wonderful indeed if the Philharmonic could expose an audience in Pyongyang to some of the West’s great anthems to freedom, or at least demonstrate that excellent music has been written outside North Korea’s borders – and that the outside world is not so threatening after all. But negotiations so far on the terms of a visit are not promising.

The theater selected for the Philharmonic’s performance is one where, according to a North Korean official, Kim Jong Il himself perfected the acoustics. We can only hope that the American orchestra won’t be asked to play the same music the State Symphony Orchestra played earlier this month for the Philharmonic’s delegation to Pyongyang: Korean folk songs. The concert program ought to be the province of the Philharmonic, but who can expect that in North Korea?

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend.

If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

Richard V. Allen, national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan, is the co-chairman of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. Chuck Downs, the author of “Over the Line: North Korea’s Negotiating Strategy,” is on the committee’s board.

Israel’s legal adviser halts Gaza power cuts

This entire situation is so sad.  As if it is not enough that the innocent people of Gaza are forced to live in this open-air prison for so long, they have little or no sewage and now the electricity is being cut.  I wrote a story in early 2006 about the failed economy of Gaza – it was hard to believe then that things could get worse.  I always say that and they always do.  There is so much wrong with the situation – and plenty of blame to go around.  What hope is left?  I hope the UN intervenes.

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israel’s state prosecutor said Monday that planned punitive cuts in the electricity supply to the Gaza Strip cannot go ahead without taking full account of the possible humanitarian consequences.

Menahem Mazouz said in a statement that “security chiefs must carry out supplementary examinations to take account of the humanitarian obligations before ordering electricity cuts”.

A spokesman for Mazouz’s office, Moshe Cohen, told AFP there was a need to “evaluate the risks that such measures could have on the civilian population”.

Mazouz published his advice following close consultations with officials from the justice, defence and foreign ministries as well as the prime minister’s office and the supreme court.

The supreme court has, meanwhile, given the government until Friday to justify the economic sanctions it is seeking to impose on the Palestinian territory, following legal action taken by 10 human rights groups.

Israel on Sunday began reducing the amount of fuel it supplies to the beleaguered Hamas-run coastal strip, just weeks after it declared the territory a “hostile entity” in response to frequent but rarely lethal rocket attacks.

Amid international criticism of the move as “collective punishment”, it said it intended to impose electricity cuts within the next few days.

Israel rejected international criticism of its decision to cut fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip, after the European Union, the United Nations and Russia condemned the sanctions.

“Israel is continuing to maintain the flow of humanitarian support for the Palestinian people in Gaza – foodstuff, medicine and energy. We do not see the Palestinian people as our enemy,” Mark Regev, a foreign ministry spokesman, told AFP.

“What we are trying to do is find ways to protect our people from these daily attacks of deadly rockets against Israel,” he added. “Our response is proportional and calculated to protect our civilians.”

The decision to cut fuel supplies brought a strong reaction from UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who called the “punitive measures” against the Gaza Strip “unacceptable” and urged the Jewish state to reconsider its actions.

Russia lodged a similar complaint, with the foreign ministry condemning the “isolation” of the Palestinian territory and insisting the measures would do little to combat extremism.

Earlier on Monday a top EU official expressed similar concerns. “I have mentioned these concerns openly in all my discussions,” External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told a news conference following talks with top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.

“There are indeed real, humanitarian concerns. We do not want the population to suffer,” she said.

1 soldier, 3 Palestinians die in clashes

Three Palestinians and an Israeli soldier were killed in clashes in the Gaza Strip on Monday, Palestinian officials and the Israeli army said.

Israeli forces operating against areas of Gaza used by Palestinians to launch rockets and mortar bombs across the border came under fire in the northern town of Beit Hanoun and near Khan Younis, a built-up refugee camp in the south.

Hamas, Gaza’s ruling Islamist group, said its fighters fired an anti-tank rocket at Israeli troops at Beit Hanoun, killing one.

The army confirmed the death, describing the soldier as a reservist, and said three soldiers were wounded in the fighting.

“We reaffirm that the enemy will never pass through our areas, except over the dead bodies of their soldiers,” Hamas’ armed wing said in a statement.

Israeli tanks and helicopters shelled Beit Hanoun during the clash, killing a gunman and a civilian, Hamas and hospital officials said. At least 12 other Palestinians were wounded.

Hamas said one of its gunmen was killed while fighting Israeli troops in Khan Younis. The Israeli army said its forces there shot two gunmen but had no word on their condition.

Israel quit Gaza in 2005 after 38 years of occupation but has regularly staged commando raids and air strikes against suspected fighter bases and rocket crews.

The soldier killed on Monday was Israel’s third combat fatality in Gaza this year.

In the occupied West Bank, an Israeli soldier was wounded when his patrol was attacked by Palestinian gunmen, the army said.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a small leftist group, claimed responsibility for the ambush. Troops detained three Nablus residents.

The PKK is ‘a Political Problem’: an Interview with Kurdistan Foreign Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir

Vivian Salama | 26 Oct 2007 

World Politics Watch Exclusive                                                                      

                                                                      

NEW YORK — Within minutes of the decision by Turkey’s parliament Oct. 17 to approve a potential Turkish military action against members of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq, hordes of Iraqi Kurds poured into the streets in protest. The vote drew sharp criticism from Massoud Barzani, President of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), who said the Kurds of Northern Iraq were prepared to fight should Turkish soldiers set foot onto their soil. In an interview with Northern Iraq’s Bahdinan Radio, Barzani added “Saddam Hussein could not even finish the Kurds, so how does Turkey expect to finish them?”

Washington has repeatedly urged Turkey not to enter Northern Iraq. But Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the decision by the House Foreign Relations Committee Oct. 10 to recognize World War I-era atrocities against Armenians in Turkey as genocide would come at a great cost. “We value this [U.S.-Turkey] partnership greatly but under current circumstances, the task of defending its importance is becoming increasingly hard,” Erdogan wrote in an Oct. 19 Wall Street Journal editorial.

In addition to its status as an oasis of relative peace and prosperity in an otherwise chaotic country, Iraqi Kurdistan has logistical importance for the American war effort in Iraq. Approximately two-thirds of U.S. supplies travel through the region from Turkey. KRG Minister of Foreign Relations Falah Mustafa Bakir was in Washington last week lobbying U.S. lawmakers to oppose a Turkish incursion into Kurdistan. Before traveling to Washington, Bakir met with journalists at Columbia University in New York Oct. 12, where he disputed accusations by Turkey that his government is providing a safe haven for Kurdish separatists. The following is an excerpt from the interview with Bakir, conducted simultaneously by several reporters.
–Vivian Salama 

Turkey accuses your government of cooperating with the PKK by providing sanctuary to them. All the while, there is a lot of saber rattling at the border. What is your response?

Regarding the PKK issue, we understand Turkey’s concern and we respect Turkey’s concern. We are against violence and we do not like to see bloodshed happen. But we believe this problem is a political problem and it cannot be solved through military means. Even the problem in Iraq today is political and therefore needs a political solution. We do not provide sanctuary and we do not provide support for the PKK.We do not allow our territories in Kurdistan in Iraq to be used by any group against any of our neighbors and especially Turkey because we care about our relations with Turkey. We want to improve our relations. We want to enhance that relationship and we’re willing to help if the Turkish government takes a political approach to solve this problem.
*******Click here to read the entire interview

President Bush Needs a Time Out

a rather provocative blog that I wrote for PostGlobal - Washington Post.  I understand that diplomacy is often easier said than done, but in the case of Iran, I think we need to move beyond the days of the Islamic Revolution and weigh the benefits of reaching out to Iran.  All I’m saying is if we stop alienating people and start talking to them, maybe – JUST MAYBE – we won’t need to toy with notions such as “World War III.”  Check out Newsweek’s Cover Story this week – Where Jihad Lives Now.

by Vivian Salama

PostGlobal (washington post)

If I were a school teacher, and little George Bush made a comment in class about World War III with Iran – particularly given the current political climate – I would tell him to put his head down on his desk and take a time out.

IS HE SERIOUS? Pakistan, our so-called partner in the “War on Terrorism” is a breeding ground for radicalism and President Bush is making outrageous references to an Iranian instigated World War III?

This is just another catch phrase we can add to the pot of simmering war slogans and provocative accusations, along with “War on Terror” and “Axis of Evil.” It carves in stone the do’s and don’ts of diplomacy and leaves no leeway for reconciliation.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will only capitalize on this type of rhetoric. To use an old Vietnam War slogan, Ahmedinejad is winning the “hearts and minds” of those across the Muslim world with his anti-West, anti-Israel speech – something that many of the Sunni regimes have failed to do given their pro-West stances and, in the cases of Egypt and Jordan, treaties with Israel. Sticks and stones from the West WILL break bones, but they will not solve a thing.

How about some diplomacy for a change?

I am no fan of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, but can we really compare him to Adolph Hitler who was behind the death of at least six million people? Every administration needs its token “bad guy.” This administration has had a few. Despite his faults, Ahmedinejad does not measure up to the dreadful legacy of Hitler. The Iranian president is just a figurehead, not a major decision maker in Iran.

It is poor form (not to mention poor diplomacy) to toss around threats of war. As Americans are coming to learn, war is ugly. It should always be a last resort, not a basis of intimidation. Has President Bush considered the consequences of such a comment? While I am no combat expert, I do have an understanding of Iran’s geography. A war in Iran’s dry midlands and rugged exterior would make Iraq look like a picnic.

Should America participate in this hypothetical war, how would it fund such a war project? Does America have the resources or man power to attack yet another country? Is bombing people into submission the political order of the day?

I can’t imagine why any leader would rattle an already war-fatigued America with this kind of rhetoric. I can only assume that the chances of seeing another war during the current US administration are slim given that there is just about a year left on the clock. My question is why is the Bush Administration diverting attention to countries like Iran while turning a blind eye to allied regimes that may only be fueling the fires of fundamentalism?

Khayer Bek and Um El-Soltan Shaban Monuments to be Inaugurated

This might interest some of you:

Egypt’s Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni and Prince Karim Aga Khan, the current Shi’a Imam, will inaugurate two Islamic complex of Khayer Bek and Um El-Soltan Shaban at Al-Darbul Ahmar area in Historic Cairo.  The two have been restored in collaboration with the Aga Khan Trust for Culture. The Minister and his guests will embark on a tour to inspect the restoration work.

Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) Dr. Zahi Hawass says that the restoration project came within the framework of the SCA’s collaboration with the Aga Khan foundation in protecting and restoring Islamic monuments in Egypt especially those in Cairo. Hawass explains that Khayer Bek Complex belong to a 16th century Mameluk prince Khayer Bek, Egypt’s first ruler under the Ottoman Empire in 1517.

This complex consist of a madrassa (school), Janim Al-Hamazaoui sabil (water fountain), Ibrahim Mustafazan house and house number 25. Louis Monreal head of Aga Khan International. the Um El-Soltan Shabaan complex consists of a school and a mosque. According to Hawass, it is a great example of a Mamluk architecture.  It is one of the most important Mameluk monument built by the Mameluk Sultan Shabaan in 1369 which he dedicated to his mother Khond Berka.

The inauguration is scheduled for tomorrow, Friday October 26, 2007.

In other related news, Egypt has won a seat on the 21-member UNESCO World Heritage Committee following the latest round of elections, held yesterday in Paris.

Déjà Vu: Musharraf and the Shah

an article from PostGlobal (washingtonpost.com) from the great Gary Sick.  The Pakistan issue is the irony of ironies.  It is a breeding ground for terrorists and yet it is a major partner in the American-led “War on Terrorism.”  When do we stay “enough” and stop supporting despotic regimes that may only be contributing to the problem?

By Gary Sick

Last Sunday’s New York Times analysis, “In Pakistan Quandary, U.S. Reviews Stance,” fits so closely with a number of conversations that I have had over the past few weeks that it inspires a kind of déjà vu. It takes me back to the time when the Iranian revolution was brewing, when I was the desk officer for Iran on the National Security Council.

The ultimate reason for the U.S. policy failure at the time of the Iranian revolution was the fact that the U.S. had placed enormous trust and responsibility on the person of the shah of Iran. He — and not the country or people of Iran — was seen as the lynchpin of U.S. strategy in the Persian Gulf. Everything relied on him. There was no Plan B.

As a consequence, the U.S. strategy, endlessly mulled over, was that we had no choice except to support the shah; and this was fortified by the belief (or wishful thinking) that the shah would pull himself together and deal with the growing crisis before it was too late. By the time it became inescapably obvious that that was not going to happen, the situation was too far gone for anything to stop it.

This is a gross simplification, of course. (For more nuanced detail, see my 1985 account of the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, “All Fall Down.”) But in retrospect, this was the essence of the problem. We had placed all of our eggs in the shah’s basket; we had no visible alternative. So policy always tended to settle on More of the Same, fear of Rocking the Boat in a way that would undercut the shah, combined with much Wringing of Hands and Wishful Thinking.

Those policies were so unsuccessful that they gave rise to endless conspiracy theories among the Iranian elite (many of whom fled the country in hopes that someone else would defend their interests) that the Carter administration was in fact determined to replace the shah with Khomeini. Absurd as that appeared to those of us on the inside, it was an all too human attempt to square what they regarded as an omnipotent United States with a policy of neglect and error.

All of this comes to mind as I watch the situation in Pakistan. I am no expert on that country, but I see the U.S. locked in much the same kind of policy vise that bedeviled the U.S. in Iran. We have bet the farm on one man – in this case Pervez Musharraf — and we have no fall back position, no alternative strategy in the event that does not work.

Pakistan is far more dangerous than Iran was. If it should be taken over by Sunni radicals of a radical Islamist Talibanesque persuasion, the dangers are not that hard to imagine, even for a non-specialist. Pakistan is a nuclear state. I suppose that a radical Sunni takeover would be seen as an imminent threat by nuclear India; I know it would be seen that way in Iran, and Iran might well be persuaded to abandon its present slow-motion nuclear development, drop out of the NPT if necessary, and go for a bomb in the shortest time possible. That would set off other ripples of proliferation and possibly military reaction.

Pakistan is already a training center for international terrorism. That would only increase. Certainly a radical Islamist Pakistan would give Al-Qaeda and the Taliban an enormous boost in their operations in Afghanistan and beyond. Pakistan would constitute the kind of imminent terrorist/nuclear threat that we falsely ascribed to Saddam Hussein.

One of the obstacles to confronting the Iranian revolution at an early stage — regardless of whether or not that would have had any significant effect — was that no one had any good ideas to offer about what might be done. I certainly have no magic plan to offer about Pakistan.

Still, I think that avoiding the issue or sweeping it under the rug in hopes that it will get better on its own, is worse even than admitting that we have no solution to a problem that is confronted honestly.

The worst does not always happen, but in this region we do not have to look very far to find cases where it has. The parallels worry me.
Gary Sick is a Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University and Executive Director of the Gulf/2000 Project.

Laura Bush in Abu Dhabi

I thought you all would enjoy this photo as much as I did! 

From the BBC: US First Lady Laura Bush joins breast cancer survivors at the Pink Majlis in Abu Dhabi as part of a week-long tour of the Middle East to raise awareness of breast cancer

How the World Sees America – Amar Bakshi speaks to my students

A special thanks to Washingtonpost.com’s young globe-trotting extraordinaire Amar Bakshi for hooking my students at Rutgers University up with this inside look into the world of a professional blogger/reporter/traveler/packpacker.  For anyone interested in new media reporting, I highly recommend you check out this clip Amar shot just days before leaving on his latest journey around the world.  Good luck, Amar!!

Palestinian Census First in Decade

Call me a skeptic.  I guess I should be hopeful that a census will be the flame needed to reignite the Middle East peace process – particularly after Condoleeza Rice’s visit last weekend where she told Mahmoud Abbas “It’s time for a Palestinian State.”  Great (huge, sarcastic sigh).  I am currently reading Dennis Ross’s “The Missing Peace.”  It is a detailed account of the build up — and eventual crash and burn — of the Oslo Accords in 1993.  I haven’t gotten very far yet, but judging by the fact that the first chapter is called “The End,” I’m guessing I know how this story ends.

I tend to worry that a census actually exaggerates fault lines within societies.  Consider the situation in Rwanda earlier in the 20^th Century.  Various tribes lived as neighbors harmoniously for several centuries.  When the colonial powers imposed the census, suddenly people were aware of the groups (and their numbers) around them.  They were conscious of their majority/minority status.  Colonial powers teamed up and empowered the minority groups because those were the groups that needed their colonial friends in order to maintain authority.  Majority groups were oppressed.  The rest, if you know anything about the Rwandan genocide, is history.

 Is it a coincidence that the neo-colonial powers are teaming up with Israel?  Israel’s Jewish population stands at approximately 6.5 million.  The UN estimates the number of Palestinians worldwide to be at 10.5 million.  Of course, the majority are refugees living in the Diaspora.  In fact, there are only about 3 million Palestinians living in Israel/Palestinian territories in total (that includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem)  But let’s be honest – does it matter how many Palestinians are living in Gaza?  It is the most densely populated area in the WORLD.  Sewage systems are barely functional.  Violence is frequent.  Sonic booms and shellings from the Israeli military are almost an everyday occurrence.  Is a census really going to make that much of a difference?  They are still the minority group and will remain so.    These poor people don’t need a census; they need a miracle. 

By DALIA NAMMARI

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinians are preparing to conduct their first census in a decade, with hopes the results will help them in future peace talks with Israel.

Demographics play a central role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rapid Palestinian growth would bolster Palestinian territorial demands, while Israelis’ fear of being outnumbered in areas they now control might make them more willing to consider a West Bank withdrawal.

Later this week, some 5,000 census-takers will fan out across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, first to count buildings, and, in December, to count people. Results are expected by February.

“We hope we can use these statistics in the negotiations,” said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a supporter of moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Ramallah-based administration. “It’s not only important for the political process, but also for building the institutions of the state.”

The militant group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, has also said the census results are important and that it will cooperate.

The first Palestinian census, conducted in 1997, counted 2.89 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, the territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast War. According to estimates by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the figure now stands at 3.9 million.

Some Israeli critics have dismissed the 1997 figures and the current projections as inflated, a charge denied by Palestinian census officials, who say the counts are being conducted under international scrutiny.

Palestinians have one of the highest birth rates in the world, forcing Israel to consider the possibility that Jews, despite ongoing Jewish immigration, will one day be a minority in historic Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

In December 2006, Israel’s population included 5.4 million Jews, 1.4 million Arabs and 310,000 others, according to Israeli government figures.

Demographic concerns are often cited by those in Israel who want to withdraw from some of the lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast War. It also was a key factor in former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005.

The census will cost $8.6 million, with the Palestinian Authority paying 20 percent. The rest comes from a U.N. agency, Saudi Arabia, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Netherlands and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, census officials said.

Hafedh Chkeir, an official with the U.N. Population Fund, said his agency trusts the work of the Palestinian census agency. He also said the U.N. is trying to bring in some Arab experts based in Jordan, but they have not yet received visas from Israel.

On Saturday, census-takers will start affixing numbers to homes, business and other buildings. In radio and TV ads, Palestinians are being urged to cooperate and not to remove the numbers.

Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been frozen since a failed summit in 2000, but new momentum has been building. Negotiating teams from both sides are trying to draft a joint statement of principles that is to be presented to a U.S.-hosted peace conference later this fall, possibly the launching pad for new talks.

The first census was conducted at a relatively quiet time, with hopes still running high that the two sides were on their way to a final peace deal. However, since then, years of bloody fighting have reshaped the area.

The Palestinians now have two rival governments, one run by Hamas in Gaza and the other by Western-backed moderates in the West Bank.

During the last census, Israel did not permit a head count in the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, claimed by the Palestinians as a future capital, prompting census-takers to draw estimates for that area using 1995 Israeli figures. Israel said at the time that a Palestinian census there was a challenge to its sovereignty in the city.

It was not clear whether Israel would permit a census in east Jerusalem this year. Israeli officials did not return repeated messages seeking comment on the matter.

Iraqi refugees swell pressure on Syria’s social services

Iraqi refugees continue to flood into neighboring countries – Syria and Jordan especially.  This is an interesting report fromAl-Jazeera’s English network.  I recommend that you take a few minutes to watch it.