Impromptus: Davos Journal, Part III

NRO ^ | 1/26/2004 | Jay Nordlinger

[Utah Girl]

Welcome to Part III (and for Parts I and II, go here and here). Shall we just wade right in? Back in, that is?

Okay. I'll begin this installment with the amazing Olusegun Obasanjo, president of Nigeria. He meets with a few journalists in an on-the-record session, garbed in his native dress, looking elegant and serene. As I mentioned earlier in this Journal, Obasanjo is a dignified man whose lilting English is endearing, almost hypnotic. If he's challenged, however, he gets prickly — formidable. The thought occurs, "You don't get to be Number One in an African country — or most any country — without a certain toughness (to put it mildly)."

I have watched him a fair amount during this conference, and, most of the time, Obasanjo has sort of an amused look on his face, as if to say, "Can you believe this mixed-up life?" He notes at the beginning of the session that a big (Western) publication has just done a 15-page spread on Africa — without mentioning Nigeria. He observes, "That's like writing about the West and excluding America."

He says that when the Western press does focus on Nigeria, it tends to stress corruption and religious violence, and "this perpetuates stereotypes about my country." Of course, "If you think of us for corruption and religious violence, you just may be right."

That's what I treasure about Obasanjo. You don't hear that kind of talk from just any African leader, or from any leader anywhere.

He maintains that Nigeria has made great strides against corruption, with former ministers — governmental ministers, that is — and judges being prosecuted every day. A reckoning has occurred in Nigeria, a reckoning that would brighten a continent, if it spread.

Obasanjo is big on streamlining, debureaucratizing, making more efficient. He asks, for example, why a company can't be incorporated — simply incorporated — within 48 hours. Can't you just determine whether there exists another company of the same name, and get on with it?

Sounding like a Third World leader the American administration would love, he emphasizes "openness, transparency, accountability" — for corporations and governments. And he says that Africa must lift itself — note, itself — out of poverty: "Africa has to progress so as not to be a permanent problem to the world, and to itself." That line should be pondered, memorized, and savored. Obasanjo says that the first requirement for progress is "political will" — African political will. The matter of Western aid is far down on his list.

Further on what to love about Obasanjo? A reporter asks him about Zimbabwe, and the decision of the Commonwealth to boot it. The president explains why it was important that Mugabe's regime be expelled, and the reporter argues, "But that doesn't help Zimbabweans."

And Obansajo answers, "It does." Why is that? Because — in a nutshell — the more Zimbabwe is made a pariah nation, the sooner Zimbabweans will get a decent alternative.

I will remember that rejoinder from Obasanjo for a long time: "It does." Beautiful.

As for the big question of sharia law in Nigeria, the president says, "I told you, when I first came to office, that sharia would 'fizzle out.' Those were the words I used: 'fizzle out." And that is exactly what happened. Sharia is not an issue in Nigeria."

If true, thank goodness.

• John Ashcroft is here, and, it may shock you to learn, he is not Davos's favorite member of an administration that is not a favorite of its anyway (if you know what I mean). Ashcroft was here last year too, and he is a rather nervy man to keep coming to the belly of the beast — a beautiful, luxurious Alpine beast.

The '03 Meeting was pungent with anti-Americanism: War with Iraq was only weeks away. Now that feeling has been tempered. The attitude seems to be — if I may interpret very broadly — "Oh, well: We didn't want them to go in. They went in. They toppled the regime very quickly, and the occupation is not going all that badly. And, really, how much do we want to say, given mass graves, etc.?"

Ah, but they have their WMDs — an issue they cling to.

In any event, Ashcroft is introduced by David Gergen, the Washington journalist and politico. Gergen describes him as "the point of the spear" in President Bush's anti-terror thrust. When Ashcroft gets to the podium, he says, "I thought the spear was pointing at me!" Because of the configuration of the room, he has to speak with his back to some people, and he cracks that it's dangerous to have his back turned at all, "because I have so many enemies."

He talks on public corruption, a plague of the world. In the process, he quotes Moses and Mohammad, among many others. He uses one of Reagan's favorite quotes: "We have the power to begin the world anew" (Thomas Paine). (Remember the Detroit convention?) George Will once admonished that this is the least conservative statement ever uttered.

So be it.

Ashcroft delivers a forceful indictment of corruption in office. When officials take bribes, the "invisible hand of the market" is replaced by the "greased palm" — a very nice line. Because of corruption, schools and roads don't get built, and the people's needs are unmet. Corruption "strangles the culture of productivity" (another good line). Each year, according to the attorney general, public corruption costs the world $2.3 trillion, or 7 percent of the world's economy, or the equivalent of the entire U.S. budget (and that's saying something, observes Ashcroft). And whom does corruption hurt more than anybody else? The poor.

The AG goes on to discuss the problem of "the smuggling of human beings." This is taking place in America, too, and it is "embarrassing," says Ashcroft, that "we have this problem in the United States."

Oh, yes, someone else he quotes: Friedrich von Hayek, the great Austrian economist. Ashcroft takes care to recite a line from The Road to Serfdom — how often do you hear that in Davos, or anywhere! — and he says that it's especially appropriate to quote Hayek seeing as we're in the Alps.

Success against corruption requires three things, he states. First, a moral foundation — very Ashcroftian. The AG quotes a Kenyan official who said that, more than anything, it's corruption that keeps the people "poor and backward."

Second, Ashcroft maintains that corruption is now "transnational," necessitating "a worldwide effort." He is not in favor of "world law" — heaven forfend. But he does insist on "aggressive cooperation."

And third, information. Simple information, he says — mere information — is a powerful enemy of corruption. He cites a striking example from Uganda: Only 28 percent of the money was getting to the schools for which it was designated. Then the government had the bright idea of publishing, in the local papers, the amount of money allocated to each school. Miraculously, the amounts actually reaching the schools climbed to 90 percent. So the mere publication of information caused the money for schools to triple.

"And to think there's another 10 percent to be added!" exclaims Ashcroft.

After his prepared remarks, there is a Q&A, in which the AG is aggressively challenged on aspects of American policy. It's amazing how many people at Davos think — or pretend they think — that any of us, at any moment, might be picked up and shipped to Guantanamo. In my view, Ashcroft does not handle the questions particularly well — particularly nimbly. Maybe he is a little tired.

But let me say this, in a general way about John Ashcroft: I was reminded — if I ever knew — how unusually idealistic he is. He is almost touchingly idealistic (about good government, service to the people, the moral majesty of the law, and so on).

But we're not supposed to say that, are we? That someone on the right can be idealistic?

• Incidentally, David Gergen, in his introduction, had remarked that Ashcroft is the son of an evangelical minister. After the speech, someone at my table said, "Well, he sounds like a minister's son." Somehow, he didn't mean it as a compliment.

• Silvan Shalom is here, and he is foreign minister of Israel. There aren't many Israeli officials around; there seldom are. Shimon Peres, an ex-official, is always very present, and, as I've mentioned before, he is Davos's favorite Israeli — the most Davosian Israeli, let us say.

For Foreign Minister Shalom, security is such as I have never seen. I've seen some pretty heavy security, for some pretty important officials. But nothing like this. There is layer upon layer. Even when you're sitting with him — having gone through a million checks — two or three men are semi-staring at you, suspiciously.

And so it must be.

Shalom — whose English is not especially spiffy — says, repeatedly, that "it takes two to tango." That is probably his most useful English phrase. He is referring, of course, to Palestinian-Israeli relations, to what we still call "the peace process."

He insists that relations are okay with European governments — but not so okay with European peoples. That is an arresting, and true, observation.

The same holds, he says, for the Arab world: that Israel's relations with governments, bad as they are, are better than with Arab peoples. Why is this? Shalom points to the constant propaganda perpetrated against Israelis and Jews, including television series that teach the ancient blood libel. See these Jews slit the throats of Christian children to mix into their matzos! Lovely. (Shalom neglects to mention that the Egyptian government — that American ally, and recipient of enormous American largesse — has just sponsored a long TV series based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the hoary forgery of the Czarist police affecting to detail a vast Jewish conspiracy.)

The minister launches a robust defense of the Israeli diplomat — maybe I should put quotation marks around "diplomat"! — in Sweden who physically attacked an exhibit glorifying Palestinian suicide bombing (in particular, a woman who murdered 21 Israelis). As has the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Shalom remarks that Sweden's foreign minister was recently murdered, and what if Israel provided a home to a "work of art" designed to glorify her killer?

Someone asks about the process in Geneva whereby left-wing Israelis met, off the books, with Palestinians to discuss a settlement. Shalom scoffs (and I paraphrase), "These aren't people representing civil society [as the media have portrayed]. They're the Israeli opposition. They're trying to undermine the government, a government duly elected by the people in a democratic process." What if the Spanish opposition sat down with Basques to negotiate independence? What if, during World War II, the British opposition had met with the Nazis to discuss terms of surrender? And so on.

Shalom also dwells on the significant fact that Syria has long, long occupied Lebanon — and no one seems to care. Lebanon, a once proud and consequential country, has been basically a Syrian vassal for as long as many people can remember. And the world doesn't seem much to notice. When it does, it rather yawns.

Strange.

• The man of the hour here is Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan. He makes many appearances at Davos — shows up in many forums — and I will have more to say about him, but, for now, let me just record that his theme is "enlightened moderation." That's what he wants for the Islamic world: "enlightened moderation, rejecting extremism in favor of social and economic development."

He is also the picture of sang-froid. Asked about the two very recent attempts on his life, he says the following, and I have it almost verbatim: "Consider the situation I face. I fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban on our western border. I deal with Kashmir and extremism on our eastern border. And I'm fighting extremism and terrorists within my country as a whole. I step on a lot of toes. As for the assassins, I consider them occupational hazards. Fortunately, I have nine lives and I haven't used them all up yet."

I wonder how many of us — ordinary men and women — could muster such sang-froid.

• Anthony Grayling, the British philosopher and journalist, has commented on "secularism" — his vision of it — and he is confronted by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. He tells a story (the mufti, that is): A Muslim meets a Westerner and says, "What is your religion?" The man says, "I'm a secularist." Asks the Muslim, "What's a secularist?" The Westerner says, "Well, I guess I mean I don't go to church." The Muslim says, "I must be a secularist, too. I don't go to church; I go to mosque."

Is it okay to say that I'm reminded of a joke about lesbianism?

• As you may remember from my commentary on the Forum last year, the American journalists, as a class, are a piece of work. The questions tend to be of this nature: "Mr. Prime Minister [or Foreign Minister or whatever], as I see it, George W. Bush is a dangerous moron. Do you not concur that he is a dangerous moron?" When they — we, I guess I should say — question foreign leaders, we incline to bait them to attack U.S. policy. I see this over and over.

For example, the Saudi ambassador to London is invited to take after President Bush. Nothing wrong with that. But there are all sorts of things you could ask a Saudi official — about Saudi Arabia. The desert kingdom is one of the most vicious police states on the planet, which is saying something. You could ask, "Mr. Ambassador, when are you going to stop crucifying people?" (They literally do this, for certain offenses.) You could say, "The crime for possession of a Bible is beheading. Could that be reduced to, say, the amputation of three limbs, or the burning of half the body?" But no, the questions are more along the lines of, "The Bush administration is trying to impose American-style democracy on you [not true, of course]. Does that make it harder for you to deal with extremists?"

At one session, the Saudi ambassador — Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Saud — decries "the occupation of Iraq and Palestine." And at this same session, there is what I can only describe as a Two Minute Hate — although it lasts about ten minutes — against Robert Kilroy-Silk, the BBC commentator who was fired for making what were judged intemperate and intolerable remarks about Islam. In the audience, a man from London arises to say — to brag, really — that he led the effort to get Kilroy-Silk sacked. The moderator of the session, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, responds, "Let me applaud you. It's up to people like you to hold us in the media to account." Patricia Mitchell, the head of PBS in America, heaps yet more praise on him. She also contends that, before 9/11, Americans didn't know anything about Islam. You couldn't find anything on the subject in the media. I wonder what she was reading (or watching).

Not to be outdone, Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, says, "Let me express my gratitude" for the Kilroy-Silk antagonist.

And on and on.

Frankly, it's Ambassador/Prince Turki who makes the most refreshing remarks. He recounts that, when he arrived in London, the British press was full of anti-Saudi calumny (I would have liked to see it). Riyadh called him and said, "You have to do something about this." He responded (he says), "You should see how they treat the British government. And the British royal family!"

To his credit, Lord Carey does happen to mention that it would be nice to have a church in Saudi Arabia, someday. The ambassador responds that if only Christians accepted Mohammad as a prophet, they could come to mosques to pray. What need have they of churches?

Oh, well.

Too bad there are no mosques in Christian-majority countries, huh?

Stay tuned for Part IV, tomorrow.

[Utah Girl]

Nordlinger ping

[okie01]

Thanks for posting these.

They could bear broader exposure. So.................

A-whomp-bamma-do-bop-a-whomp-bam-boom bump.