Starting Points

Apr 12, 2010

Sexual abuse and the Catholic Church : The New Yorker

Image by Meneer de Braker (Akbar2) via Flickr

On October 31, 1517, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, Dr. Martin Luther, put the finishing touches on a series of bullet points and, legend has it, nailed the result to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany—the equivalent, for the time and place, of uploading a particularly explosive blog post. Luther’s was a protest against the sale of chits that were claimed to entitle buyers or their designees to shorter stays in Purgatory. Such chits, known as indulgences, were being hawked as part of Pope Leo X’s fund-raising drive for the renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica. The “Ninety-five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” touched off a high-stakes flame war that rapidly devolved into the real thing, with actual wars, actual flames, and actual stakes. The theological clash that sundered Christendom didn’t just change the face of Western religion; it birthed the modern world.

Half a millennium later, the present agony of Catholicism is very far from being in the same league, even though the National Catholic Reporter has called it “the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in Church history.” The crisis is not about doctrine, at least not directly. It’s about administration; it’s about the structure of power within the Catholic Church; it’s about the Church’s insular, self-protective clerical culture. And, of course, like nearly every one of the controversies that preoccupy and bedevil the Church—abortion, stem-cell research, contraception, celibacy, marriage and divorce and affectional orientation—it’s about sex.

It’s also about indulgence—the institutional indulgence, fitful but systemic, of the sexual exploitation of children by priests. The pattern broke into public consciousness in the United States a quarter of a century ago, when a Louisiana priest pleaded guilty to thirty-three counts of crimes against children and was sentenced to prison. Since then, there have been thousands of such cases, civil and criminal, involving many thousands of children and leading to legal settlements that have amounted to more than two billion dollars and have driven several dioceses into bankruptcy. In 1992, Richard Sipe, a Catholic psychotherapist and researcher who served for eighteen years as a priest and Benedictine monk, told a conference of victims that “the current revelations of abuse are the tip of an iceberg, and if the problem is traced to its foundations the path will lead to the highest halls of the Vatican.”

America’s liberal system of tort law, along with the enterprising reporting of journalists at newspapers like the Boston Globe, brought the problem to light earlier here than elsewhere. But it can no longer be dismissed as an epiphenomenon of America’s sexual libertinism and religious indiscipline. In Ireland, for example, where Church-run orphanages and other institutions for children are supported by the state, a government commission reported last year that the Dublin Archdiocese’s preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.

The past few years have seen a cascade of revelations from many countries, including, most recently, Germany, and in the past month the cascade has become a flood. Sipe’s prediction has come true. As Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and now as Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger appears to have been at best neglectful, at worst complicit, in minimizing and covering up specific cases of abuse that came under his supervision.

The response of the ecclesiastical powers that be, once outright denial became untenable, has all along been an unsatisfactory mixture of contrition and irritation. From Benedict on down, Church fathers have made statements of apology and shame. Awareness programs have been launched, studies have been conducted, bishops have been obliged to resign. The Pope met personally with victims of abuse during his visit to the United States, in 2008, and even his critics agree that he has taken the problem more seriously, both before and since his elevation to the throne of St. Peter, than did his predecessor, the soon-to-be-sainted John Paul II.

On the other hand, that’s not setting the bar very high. When serious discipline has been imposed, it has generally been in the wake of bad publicity, usually from outside the Church and always from outside the hierarchy. There has been a lot of bad publicity of late, and some of the reaction has been tinged with resentful paranoia. In an editorial, L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, accused “the media” of having the “rather obvious and ignoble intention of attacking Benedict XVI and his closest collaborators at all costs.” This was echoed, nearer home, by the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, who, in his blog (yes, he has one), accused the Times of “being part of a well-oiled campaign against Pope Benedict.” Back in Rome, on Palm Sunday, the Pope himself spoke darkly of “the petty gossip of dominant opinion.”

The Catholic Church is an authoritarian institution, modelled on the political structures of the Roman Empire and medieval Europe. It is better at transmitting instructions downward than at facilitating accountability upward. It is monolithic. It claims the unique legitimacy of a line of succession going back to the apostolic circle of Jesus Christ. Its leaders are protected by a nimbus of mystery, pomp, holiness, and, in the case of the Pope, infallibility—to be sure, only in certain doctrinal matters, not administrative ones, but the aura is not so selective. The hierarchy of such an institution naturally resists admitting to moral turpitude and sees squalid scandal as a mortal threat. Equally important, the government of the Church is entirely male.

It is not “anti-Catholic” to hypothesize that these things may have something to do with the Church’s extraordinary difficulty in coming to terms with clerical sexual abuse. The iniquities now roiling the Catholic Church are more shocking than the ones that so outraged Martin Luther. But the broader society in which the Church is embedded has grown incomparably freer. To the extent that the Church manages to purge itself of its shame—its sins, its crimes—it will owe a debt of gratitude to the lawyers, the journalists, and, above all, the victims and families who have had the courage to persevere, against formidable resistance, in holding it to account. Without their efforts, the suffering of tens of thousands of children would still be a secret. Our largely democratic, secularist, liberal, pluralist modern world, against which the Church has so often set its face, turns out to be its best teacher—and the savior, you might say, of its most vulnerable, most trusting communicants.

Panel Calls for Thai Premier’s Party to Be Dissolved - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

By THOMAS FULLER

BANGKOK — The battle of wills between the Thai government and tens of thousands of protesters barricaded in the streets of Bangkok appeared to turn in favor of the protesters Monday when the country’s army chief shunned a military solution to the crisis and the prime minister’s party suddenly and unexpectedly faced the prospect of dissolution.

Two days after repelling a blood-soaked military crackdown, the protesters cheered jubilantly at the announcement that Thailand’s election commission had recommended that the party of the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva be disbanded on charges of receiving an illegal donation.

“This government’s time in power is nearly over,” said Veera Musikapong, a protest leader to throngs of protesters in the commercial heart of the city. Mr. Veera and other opposition figures said they would maintain their demonstrations to pressure Mr. Abhisit to resign.

The announcement by the election commission came hours after the head of the army, Gen. Anupong Paochinda, appeared to rule out further military action to remove protesters, saying “the situation requires that the problem be solved by politics.

Mr. Anupong also described the dissolution of parliament, the main goal of the protesters, as “a reasonable step.” The general’s comments were a stinging blow to Mr. Abhisit, who is portrayed by protesters as a puppet of Thailand’s elite and who came to power 16 months ago as part of a coalition brokered in part by the military.

For the past month, Mr. Abhisit’s besieged government has operated from a military base on the outskirts of the capital as protesters, many of them farmers from the provinces, expanded their debilitating street protests.

Mr. Abhisit has appeared increasingly isolated following thefailure of the military to dislodge protesters on Saturday after running battles that killed 21 people and made parts of Bangkok resemble a war zone. Erstwhile government supporters accused Mr. Abhisit of being powerless while the opposition decried the deaths.

Protesters have put important portions of Thailand’s capital city beyond the government’s control. Armed with sticks and poles, red shirted protesters have erected checkpoints at major intersections, blocking police and the military. Although not quite anarchy, the protests have created a vacuum of law and order.

Even outside the two large protest sites, some police say they have stopped issuing traffic tickets, despite an increase in the number of motorists running red lights, driving down the wrong side of the road and parking where they wish.

“If I can stop them I will. But if it puts us in danger, we will let them be,” said Police Lt. Col. Dejapiwat Dejsiri, a senior police official at a precinct in the tony Sukhumvit area of Bangkok. “It’s like there is no law anymore,” he said.

The Election Commission’s decision on Monday may tip the scales toward the opposition movement but it is unlikely to resolve the country’s underlying political crisis.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the attorney general and ultimately the country’s Constitutional Court. If found guilty, Mr. Abhisit’s Democrat Party, the country’s oldest, could be dissolved and it leaders, including Mr. Abhisit, barred from politics for 5 years.

The Democrat Party would be the third political party in three years to be dissolved.

“The system of political parties is on very shaky ground,” Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner. “There is no stability.” Mr. Gothom, among others, has called for revision of the law that holds the entire party accountable for electoral offenses.

The two parties disbanded earlier were affiliated with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister removed in the 2006 military coup. Mr. Thaksin is a hero and inspiration for many in the current anti-government protest movement but is despised by some members of the elite who see him as corrupt.

The stalemate between protesters and the government is a reflection of deep divisions in Thai society that revolve around issues of income inequality and the power of unelected institutions such as the powerful bureaucracy, military and royal entourage.

These tensions have existed for years but one major stabilizing force in Thailand, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, has often been able to bridge divisions in the country. Many Thais are hoping that Mr. Bhumibol, who is 82 and ailing, will intervene to resolve the stalemate.

Thai television Monday carried remarks by the secretary-general of a charitable foundation, Sumet Tantivejkul, who has worked with the king on many projects.

“His Majesty the King has always warned ‘don’t demolish the house,’” Mr. Sumet said. “The house is now close to collapse. We have to protect the country.”

Image by Images History via Flickr

Signs of the protesters’ continued impunity were amply evident Monday. The Thai media reported that one group of red shirts abducted the head of the CAT Telecom, the state-owned telecommunications company. Several hundred protesters “guarded” a government satellite station, Thai media also said. Both actions were meant to prevent the army from carrying out orders to take an opposition-run television station off the air.

On the eve of the traditional Thai new year, large convoys of red shirts paraded coffins through Bangkok symbolizing the protesters killed on Saturday to illustrate what they said was the brutality of the government.

Law enforcement in Thailand has always been patchy and the freewheeling nature of Thai society has often been counted as an attribute for the country’s economic dynamism.

But the lawlessness of protests during the past four years of political turmoil, including the seizure of Bangkok’s two international airports 17 months ago, has frightened foreign investors and raised questions about the stability of the country.

The protests are driving away tourists and draining the resources of the state. Many police stations in Bangkok have threadbare staffs because officers have been mobilized to serve as riot police.

Russia is said to have fueled unrest in Kyrgyzstan

Image by zsoolt via Flickr

By Philip P. Pan
Monday, April 12, 2010; A01

BISHKEK, KYRGYZSTAN -- Less than a month before the violent protests that toppled the government of Kyrgyzstan last week, Russian television stations broadcast scathing reports portraying President Kurmanbek Bakiyev as a repugnant dictator whose family was stealing billions of dollars from this impoverished nation.

The media campaign, along with punishing economic measures adopted by the Kremlin, played a critical role in fanning public anger against Bakiyev and bringing people into the streets for the demonstrations that forced him to flee the capital Wednesday, according to protest leaders, local journalists and analysts.

"Even without Russia, this would have happened sooner or later, but . . . I think the Russian factor was decisive," said Omurbek Tekebayev, a former opposition leader who is now the No. 2 figure in the government.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has denied that Moscow played any role in the uprising, and leaders of the movement to oust Bakiyev insist they received only moral support. But the Kremlin had made no secret of its growing displeasure with Bakiyev, and over the past few months it steadily ratcheted up the pressure on his government while reaching out to the opposition.

The strategy was a sharp departure from Russia's traditional support for autocratic leaders in its neighborhood. It paid off quickly and dramatically, and it appears to have delivered the Kremlin a rare foreign policy victory.

Not only has Moscow served notice on other wayward autocrats in its back yard -- many of whom also govern Russian-speaking populations that watch Russian television -- it also appears to have gained a greater say over the future of the U.S. air base here, which is critical to supplying the NATO military surge in Afghanistan.

Little more than a year ago, the Kremlin regarded Bakiyev as an ally, promising him more than $2 billion in aid during a visit to Moscow at the height of the global economic crisis.

On the same trip, Bakiyev announced plans to close the U.S. air base, in what was widely seen as an exchange.

Four months later, after Russia had made good on $415 million of its pledge, Bakiyev suddenly agreed to keep the air base open when Washington offered more than three times the original rent. Russian officials, including President Dmitry Medvedev, indicated at the time that they had blessed the decision, but it soon became clear that the Kremlin had been cheated -- and was furious.

"The Russians were upset and angry, not just because of the base but because of his attitude," Tekebayav said.

In November, Russian media reported that Putin upbraided the Kyrgyz prime minister at a summit, asking why the U.S. air base had not been closed and alleging that the Russian aid money had been stolen by Bakiyev's family. In February, Moscow postponed payment of the remaining $1.7 billion of the package, with officials saying publicly that the first tranche had been misused.

In late March, two weeks before the April 7 protests, Russia's Kremlin-friendly television stations and newspapers marked the fifth anniversary of Bakiyev's rise to power in the putsch known as the Tulip Revolution with unusually tough stories about his rule. One paper compared him to Genghis Khan, and Russia's top television station hammered him with multiple reports alleging corruption.

Much of the coverage focused on Bakiyev's son, Maksim, whom he appointed to lead an economic development agency and who had become a lightning rod for opposition charges of nepotism and embezzlement.

In addition to the reversal on the U.S. base, analysts said, the Kremlin turned against Bakiyev because he tried to bring China into a Russian deal to build a hydroelectric dam and to extract rent from Moscow for a Russian air base in Kyrgyzstan. Russian leaders were also upset that Bakiyev's family was buying gasoline from Russia at special prices and selling it to the air base, a scheme worth as much as $80 million per year, Russian media reported.

Alexander Knyazev, a political analyst here with ties to a Moscow think tank, said people began to worry that the Kremlim might expel the estimated 1 million Kyrgyz migrants who work in Russia and send money home to their families. The remittances account for as much as a third of the Kyrgyz economy and at least half of the government's budget, he said.

"Bakiyev was spoiling the relationship, and people saw it," he said. "That's how this protest mood got started."

After the opposition announced plans for nationwide protests, Putin provided a final spark by signing a decree March 29 eliminating subsidies on gasoline exports to Kyrgyzstan and other former Soviet republics that had not joined a new customs union.

When the tariffs kicked in April 1, Russian fuel shipments to Kyrgyzstan were suspended, said Bazarbai Mambetov, president of a Kyrgyz oil traders association. Within days, gas prices in Bishkek began to climb, enraging residents already angry about sharp increases in utility fees.

As the Kremlin leaned on Bakiyev, it also consulted the opposition, hosting its leaders on visits to Moscow, including in the days before the protests. On the eve of the demonstrations, the Kyrgyz prime minister accused one, Temir Sariev, of telling police that he had met with Putin and had won his support for efforts to overthrow Bakiyev.

Sariev, now the interim finance minister, said he never met Putin or told police any such thing. "But I did meet privately with friends," he acknowledged with a smile. "We did discuss the situation in Kyrgyzstan."

Tekebayev, second in command of the interim administration, said Russia's actions were important because they signaled to government officials that Bakiyev could not stay in office, undermining his support in key ministries and regions when the opposition seized control.

"The Russians used to work only with those in power in the former Soviet Union," he added. "But in the last year, they started developing relations with the opposition, like the Americans and Europeans. I think, for the first time, this approach was a success for them."

Apr 8, 2010

Teaching About the Web Includes Troublesome Parts - NYTimes.com

Image by Downing Street via Flickr

By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD

MILPITAS, Calif. — When Kevin Jenkins wanted to teach his fourth-grade students at Spangler Elementary here how to use the Internet, he created a site where they could post photographs, drawings and surveys.

And they did. But to his dismay, some of his students posted surveys like “Who’s the most popular classmate?” and “Who’s the best-liked?”

Mr. Jenkins’s students “liked being able to express themselves in a place where they’re basically by themselves at a computer,” he said. “They’re not thinking that everyone’s going to see it.”

The first wave of parental anxiety about the Internet focused on security and adult predators. But that has since given way to concerns about how their children are acting online toward their friends and rivals, and what impression their online profiles might create in the minds of college admissions officers or future employers.

Incidents like the recent suicide of a freshman girl at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts after she was bullied online and at school have reinforced the notion that many children still seem unaware how the Internet can transform typical adolescent behavior — popularity contests, cliquish snubs, macho boasts, sexual flirtations, claims about drinking and drugs — into something not only public, but also permanent.

The South Hadley case is leading some states to re-examine their laws against bullying; while more than 40 states address the issue, they tend to focus on punishment, not prevention.

Image by Scott McLeod via Flickr

Mr. Jenkins this year began using lessons from Common Sense Media, which tries to teach students to consider their online behavior before they get into trouble.

Financed largely by foundation money, Common Sense will offer a free curriculum to schools this fall that teaches students how to behave online. New York City and Omaha have decided to offer it to their public schools; Denver, the District of Columbia, Florida, Los Angeles, Maine and Virginia are considering it.

“You want to light a fire under someone’s fanny?” said Liz Perle, editor in chief of Common Sense Media. “Have your child post something that is close to a hate crime.”

And the Internet is where children are growing up. The average young person spends seven and a half hours a day with a computer, television or smart phone, according to a January study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Considering that the time is mostly outside of school, the results suggest that almost every extracurricular hour is devoted to online life.

Common Sense’s classes, based on research by Howard Gardner, a Harvard psychology and education professor, are grouped into topics he calls “ethical fault lines”: identity (how do you present yourself online?); privacy (the world can see everything you write); ownership (plagiarism, reproducing creative work); credibility (legitimate sources of information); and community (interacting with others).

Image by Spigoo via Flickr

Raquel Kusunoki, a sixth-grade teacher at Spangler, recently asked Mr. Jenkins, now an educational technology specialist for the school district, to teach Common Sense classes to her students. The class listened as Mr. Jenkins read a story about a girl who got annoyed when her parents quizzed her about details from her online journal.

Lucas Navarrete, 13, asked, “What’s their right to read her personal stuff?” adding, “They have no right!”

“Maybe they’re worried,” suggested Morgan Windham, a soft-spoken girl.

“It’s public!” argued Aren Santos.

“O.K., O.K., if it was a personal diary and they read it, would you be happy?” Lucas asked. “They have no right, see?”

Mr. Jenkins asked the class if there is a difference between a private diary on paper and a public online diary. But the class could not agree.

“I would just keep it to myself and tell only people that were really, really close to me,” Cindy Nguyen said after class. “We want to have our personal, private space.”

That blurred line between public and private space is what Common Sense tries to address.

“That sense of invulnerability that high school students tend to have, thinking they can control everything, before the Internet there may have been some truth to that,” said Ted Brodheim, chief information officer for the New York City Department of Education. “I don’t think they fully grasp that when they make some of these decisions, it’s not something they can pull back from.”

Common Sense bases all its case studies on real life, and insists on the students’ participation. “If you just stand up and deliver a lecture on intellectual property, it has no meaning for the kids,” said Constance M. Yowell, director of education for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which has provided financing.

But some media experts say that in focusing on social issues, Common Sense misses some of the larger, structural problems facing children online.

“We can’t make the awareness of Web issues solely person- and relationship-centered,” said Joseph Turow, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Children should learn things like what a cookie or a Web virus is, and how corporations profit from tracking consumers online, he said.

In San Francisco, the Schools of the Sacred Heart, related boys’ and girls’ schools, met with parents earlier this year to discuss their Common Sense pilot program with Sister Anne Wachter, the head of the girls’ school.

“The messes they get into with friends, or jumping onto someone’s site and sending a message,” she said. “They don’t know, sometimes, how to manage the social, emotional stuff that comes up.”

Crowded into a basement math classroom, the parents listened to a teacher, Bill Jennings, discuss lessons he had been trying. In front of Sister Wachter and the parents, many of whom are Catholic, he gave an example of a social-networking message the girls might see about a new student: “Amy is a slut; her mom’s a whore.”

There was startled silence from the parents.

“If I came up with five scenarios for Maya, they’d probably be so far from that — they’re not calling someone’s mother a whore,” said Sheila Chatterjee, a parent of a seventh grader.

“But the language of that is what they hear,” Mr. Jennings said.

“It’s authentic,” Ms. Chatterjee agreed.

Shirin Oshidari, who has a son in seventh grade, said this lesson seemed obvious. “To me, it’s exactly how you behave person to person,” she said. “Everything you write, the college you want to go to, they will see it. And the job you want to get, they will see it.”

Jaime Dominguez, the head of the boys school, said: “The hard part is, as adults we see that connection. They don’t.”

Russia and U.S. Sign Nuclear Arms Reduction Pact - NYTimes.com

Image by phauly via Flickr

By PETER BAKER

PRAGUE — With flourish and fanfare, President Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia signed a nuclear arms control treaty on Thursday and opened what they hoped would be a new era in the tumultuous relationship between two former cold war adversaries.

Meeting here in the heart of a once-divided Europe, the two leaders put aside the acrimony that has characterized Russian-American ties in recent years as they agreed to bring down their arsenals and restore an inspection regime that expired in December. Along the way, they sidestepped unresolved disputes over missile defense and other issues.

“When the United States and Russia are not able to work together on big issues, it is not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world,” Mr. Obama said as his words echoed through a majestic, gilded hall in Prague Castle. “Together we have stopped the drift, and proven the benefits of cooperation. Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.”

Mr. Medvedev called the treaty signing “a truly historic event” that will “open a new page” in Russian-American relations. “What matters most is this is a win-win situation,” he said. “No one stands to lose from this agreement. I believe this is a typical feature of our cooperation. Both parties have won.”

The Russian president signaled general support for the American-led drive to impose new sanctions on Iran, saying that Tehran’s nuclear program has flouted the international community. “We cannot turn a blind eye to this,” Mr. Medvedev said, while adding that sanctions “should be smart” and avoid hardship for the Iranian people.

Mr. Obama said he expected “to be able to secure strong, tough sanctions” on Iran during the spring.

Image by controlarms via Flickr

The apparently warm relationship between the presidents was on display as they entered the hall to trumpet music. They whispered and smiled with each other in English as they sat side by side signing copies of the so-called New Start treaty, then traded compliments during a follow-up exchange with reporters.

Mr. Obama called the Russian a “friend and partner” and said, “Without his personal efforts and strong leadership, we would not be here today.” For his part, Mr. Medvedev said the two had developed a “very good personal relationship and a very good personal chemistry, as they say.”

While the treaty will mandate only modest reductions in the actual arsenals maintained by the two countries, it caps a turnaround in relations with Moscow that sank to rock bottom in August 2008 during the war between Russia and its tiny southern neighbor, Georgia. When he arrived in office, Mr. Obama made restoring the relationship a priority, a goal that coincided with his vision expressed here a year ago of eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Even as the two presidents hailed the treaty, however, they found no common ground on American plans to build an antimissile shield in Europe to counter any Iranian threat. Mr. Obama refused Russian demands to include limits on missile defense in the treaty, nearly scuttling the agreement. In the days leading up to the ceremony here, Russian officials alternately claimed the agreement would bind the program or complained that it did not and threatened to withdraw if it went forward.

The treaty, if ratified by lawmakers in both countries, would require each country to deploy no more than 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200 allowed in the Treaty of Moscow signed by President George W. Bush in 2002. Each would be limited to 800 total land-, air- and sea-based launchers — 700 of which can be deployed at any given time — down from 1,600 permitted under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start.

Because of counting rules and unilateral reductions over the years, neither country would have to actually eliminate large numbers of weapons to meet the new limits. Moreover, the treaty does not apply to whole categories of weapons, including thousands of strategic warheads held in reserve and tactical warheads, some of which are still stationed in Europe.

But the treaty would re-establish an inspection regime that lapsed along with Start last December and bring the two countries back into a legal framework after years of tension. Moreover, both sides hope to use it as a foundation for a new round of negotiations that could lead to much deeper reductions that will cover weapons like stored or tactical warheads.

The first task for Mr. Obama after returning to Washington will be persuading the Senate to ratify the new treaty, and advisers planned to head to Capitol Hill on Thursday, even before his return, to brief Senate staff members.

Ratification requires a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, meaning the president needs at least eight Republicans. The White House is counting on the support of Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and one of his party’s most respected voices on international affairs, to clear the way.

But it could still have to contend with skeptics like Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who have expressed concern about limiting American defenses. And the polarized politics of Washington heading into a midterm election are volatile, meaning a vote could be delayed until after the election, which would further put off other elements of Mr. Obama’s antinuclear agenda, such as consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The White House wants a vote by the end of the year, and Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, reminded reporters on Air Force One during the flight here that past arms control treaties have received near-unanimous votes. “We are hopeful that reducing the threat of nuclear weapons remains a priority for both parties,” he said.

But what he did not note is that the Senate has also rejected an arms control agreement in recent times, refusing to ratify the test ban treaty when it was originally brought up in 1999. Moreover, it took three years in the 1990s to ratify the first Start follow-up treaty, known as Start 2, which never went into force because of a dispute over Russian conditions attached during its own ratification process.

Mr. Obama hopes to use the trust built during the treaty negotiations to leverage more cooperation from Moscow on other issues, most notably pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Speaking after signing the treaty with Mr. Medvedev, Mr. Obama said the United States and Russia were “part of a coalition of nations insisting that the Islamic Republic of Iran face consequences, because they have continually failed to meet their obligations” under international rules governing the use of nuclear materials.

“Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international integration,” he said. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, but the United States and its western allies suspect Tehran wants to build a nuclear weapon.

Warmer relations with the Kremlin worry American allies in Central and Eastern Europe, which were already concerned that Mr. Obama’s decision last year to scrap Mr. Bush’s missile defense plan in favor of a reformulated architecture was seen as a concession to Moscow.

Hoping to soothe those concerns, Mr. Obama plans to have dinner Thursday night in Prague with 11 leaders from the region, including the presidents or prime ministers of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Similarly, Mr. Obama made sure before leaving Washington to speak by phone with President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia to reassure him of American support. He will meet separately with Czech leaders on Friday morning before returning to Washington.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris, and Dan Bilefsky from Prague.

Kyrgyz Opposition Group Says It Will Rule for 6 Months - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

By CLIFFORD J. LEVY

MOSCOW — A transitional government in Kyrgyzstan declared that it was in charge on Thursday, a day after deadly protests forced the president to flee the capital. But the president himself insisted that he would not step down, issuing veiled threats from an unknown location that suggested that the country, the site of a vital American military base, could face renewed instability.

The day’s events were dominated by two compelling and contrary figures in Kyrgyz politics: the interim leader, Roza Otunbayeva, a bespectacled former diplomat who once taught Marxist-Leninist theory before becoming embracing Western mores; and Kurmanbek Bakiyev, the gruff, street-wise president, who boasted in an interview last year that he feared “absolutely nothing.”

Ms. Otunbayeva took the stage first, calling a news conference with her opposition colleagues to issue a series of directives that she said would calm the country after Wednesday’s violence, which left 68 people dead and more than 400 wounded.

“You can call this revolution. You can call this a people’s revolt,” she said. “Either way, it is our way of saying that we want justice and democracy.”

Like her colleagues at the new conference, Ms. Otunbayeva — who once backed Mr. Bakiyev before breaking with him early in his tenure — called for the president to acknowledge that he was through and resign.

But a few hours later, Mr. Bakiyev, 60, emerged from obscurity to make clear that he had no intention of stepping down.

Mr. Bakiyev had quit the capital, Bishkek, on Wednesday after thousands of opposition protesters, infuriated by rising utility costs and a government they saw as repressive and corrupt, seized control of important government buildings, including the television stations.

On Thursday, he issued a statement saying that the opposition was solely responsible for the violence the day before. Then he gave an interview to a radio station in Moscow in which he maintained that he had widespread support among the Kyrgyz people, though he acknowledged that he no longer commanded the government.

“In a few days it will become evident that those who imagined themselves the leaders — they are unable to lead,” he said. “They have pushed the country into such an abyss, into such a mess, that they will have to answer for it.”

All the while, Mr. Bakiyev offered no hint as to his whereabouts. Opposition leaders speculated that he had retreated to the south of Kyrgyzstan, where he has longstanding family ties. They said they were worried that he would try to gather supporters and try to retake the capital,– though that seemed unlikely for now — the armed forces, the security services and the police appear to have pledged loyalty to the interim government.

Mr. Bakiyev’s proclamations seemed to fall on deaf ears in Bishkek, where Ms. Otunbayeva announced that the interim government would administer the affairs of state for six months before presidential elections.

Ms. Otunbayeva said the status of the American military base in Bishkek, which plays an important role in supplying the war effort in Afghanistan, would not immediately change, though she warned that the issue was still being debated in the interim government.

In interviews Thursday, opposition politicians said that Ms. Otunbayeva, a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States and Britain, was chosen as interim leader because she is considered to be a compromiser who is not politically ambitious and does not have a strong base of domestic support, having spent so many years abroad. The politicians, who would speak only anonymously because the situation was in such flux, said they believed she would be unable to amass power, leaving the field open for the presidential election.

Aleksandr Knyazev, a prominent political expert in Bishkek and a former student of Ms. Otunbayeva, said he thought of her as highly conscientious and honest. He said she seemed more European than Central Asian, and that she speaks better Russian and English than Kyrgyz.

“She does not understand the Kyrgyz mentality, and lacks clan support,” Mr. Knyazev said. “I doubt that she will run for president. Judging by her skills, she would make a good parliament speaker.”

While Kyrgyz politicians struggled for control, the United States and Russia on Thursday also seemed to be maneuvering for advantage in Kyrgyzstan, which is the only country in the world that has both American and Russian military bases. The Kremlin has long been bothered by the presence of the Americans in a region it calls part of its zone of influence.

Mr. Bakiyev had repeatedly sought to pit the United States and Russia against each other in order to extract more financial aid from both. Last year he upset the Kremlin when he agreed to evict the American base, then changed his mind after the Obama administration agreed to a steep increase in the rent and other favors.

In recent months, Mr. Bakiyev’s relations with Russia had collapsed, and the Russian government had increased the cost of energy that it provided to Kyrgyzstan. Russia’s state-controlled news media, which is widely followed in Kyrgyzstan, had also been conducting an intense campaign against Mr. Bakiyev, portraying him as a corrupt dictator.

On Thursday, Russia reached out to the opposition, effectively recognizing it as the government. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin spoke with Ms. Otunbayeva, and a senior Russian lawmaker, Sergei M. Mironov, called another prominent Kyrgyz interim leader, Omurbek Tekebayev.

It did not appear that the United States took similar steps, though the State Department said diplomats from the United States Embassy in Bishkek were meeting with opposition leaders.

At her news conference, Ms. Otunbayeva said the interim government was examining the agreements governing the American base.

“We still have some questions about it,” she said. “Give us time and we will listen to all the sides and solve everything.”

Mr. Tekebayev said in a telephone interview that any decisions on the base would be made collectively by the opposition. He said he had a positive attitude toward the United States, but acknowledged that the opposition had lingering resentments over what he said was the willingness of American diplomats to overlook Mr. Bakiyev’s human rights record in order to protect the base.

“The U.S. government does not and did not criticize Bakiyev, or express any negative opinions about him,” Mr. Tekebayev said. “The embassy here was warned several days ago that this would happen. They knew it, and they didn’t do anything about it.”

Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker from Prague, Nikolai Khalip from Moscow, Alan Cowell from Paris, and Elisabeth Bumiller from Washington.

Language proficiency is Foreign Service's 'greatest challenge,' Negroponte says

Image via Wikipedia

By Joe Davidson
Thursday, April 8, 2010; B03

The site at 21st and E streets NW once was a favorite watering hole for State Department employees seeking something harder than the soft drinks offered in the agency's cafeteria.

Workers from State still meet at that location, presumably for more lofty deliberations than those found in most saloons. The American Foreign Service Association owned the Foreign Service Club, but decided to get out of the restaurant and bar business years ago. In that recently renovated space it sponsored a sober discussion Wednesday on challenges facing Foreign Service officers. AFSA did offer chocolates wrapped in the association's shield, but without booze to loosen up the dialogue, it might have been a far cry from the joint's livelier days.

The forum's main attraction was John Negroponte, who has served, sometimes in a storm of controversy, in a wide variety of foreign policy positions, including as the nation's first director of national intelligence. But neither foreign policy nor his controversies were on the minds of those who gathered to hear his take on some of the challenges they face as Foreign Service officers.

Although the quantity of State Department and Agency for International Development officers has increased steadily in recent years, serious gaps in their number and foreign language proficiency remain.

The "greatest challenge," according to Negroponte, is the need for officers who can speak the languages of the world.

"There is no substitute," said the multilingual Negroponte, "for recruiting, training, deploying, retaining and retraining," officers in languages and geography so they "develop the contacts, the knowledge, the insight, the local and area expertise" needed to help develop America's foreign policy.

Image by rita banerji via Flickr

But State isn't meeting that challenge well enough, according to the Government Accountability Office. In September, it said the department needs a comprehensive plan to address "persistent foreign language shortfalls."

According to the GAO, whose study was current as of October 2008, there are "notable gaps" in State's foreign language capabilities that "could hinder U.S. overseas operations."

Worse yet, some of those gaps are in super-critical countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nearly one-third "of officers in all worldwide language-designated positions did not meet both the foreign language speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions, up slightly from 29 percent in 2005," the GAO reported. About 40 percent of officers in the Near East, South and Central Asia, China and places where Arabic is spoken are language-deficient.

As bad as the numbers are in those countries, the language skill set there is better than in America's war zones. In Iraq, 57 percent of Foreign Service officers lack sufficient language skills. Afghanistan trails far behind, with 73 percent unable to directly communicate with the country's people.

State Department officials told the GAO that the language gap could begin to close next year if it gets requested funding, but they did not say when they expect the language staffing requirements to be fully met.

But the GAO also reported that Foreign Service officers have a different take on the problem.

"Another challenge is the widely held perception among Foreign Service officers that State's promotion system does not consider time spent in language training when evaluating officers for promotion, which may discourage officers from investing the time required to achieve proficiency in certain languages," the report said. "Although HR officials dispute this perception, the department has not conducted a statistically significant assessment of the impact of language training on promotions."

The second challenge cited by Negroponte is the need for State to provide a mix of policies and incentives "in order to optimize the deployment of officers and their families for a substantial majority of their careers."

Last year, President Obama took an important step in making international postings more attractive when he signed legislation that begins to close a pay gap for Foreign Service officers, who do not get locality pay as do other federal employees.

Without that law, Negroponte said, there was a "perverse incentive" for Foreign Service officers to serve in the United States. He advocated greater employment opportunities for spouses of officers abroad -- "that effort has faltered at various times" -- and a reduction in postings to which officers can't take their families. At least, he said, State should "find ways of compensating for that problem."

In another report, the GAO said, "State uses a range of incentives to staff hardship posts, but their effectiveness remains unclear." Despite some progress, the GAO said persistent staffing gaps continue to be a problem.

The GAO made clear to Congress the stark result of these deficiencies: "State's diplomatic readiness remains at risk."

Mining interests are heavily invested in Capitol Hill

Image by Storm Crypt via Flickr

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2010; A19

The mining industry, which finds itself under renewed scrutiny this week after dozens of fatalities at a West Virginia coal mine, wields major political clout in Washington thanks to hefty campaign contributions to GOP lawmakers and expensive lobbying efforts aimed at blunting the impact of environment- and safety-related legislation.

Mining companies and related trade groups have sharply increased their lobbying efforts in recent years, tripling their spending from $10.2 million in 2004 to nearly $31 million in 2008, according to a review of lobbying disclosures by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a watchdog group.

The investment in Washington dropped only slightly last year, to $26 million, as mining and energy companies worked to defeat cap-and-trade legislation. The legislation passed the House but stalled in the Senate, in large part because of strong opposition by senators in top coal-producing states. Leading spenders included Peabody Energy ($5.8 million), Consol Energy ($3.4 million), Arch Coal ($2 million) and the National Mining Association, the industry's main trade group, which spent $2.8 million on lobbying, records show.

Mining firms and their employees have also donated more than $13 million to federal lawmakers since 2005; 74 percent of that money went to GOP candidates and about half came from industry political action committees.

Image by mlhradio via Flickr

The United Mine Workers of America, by contrast, donated less than $1 million to federal candidates during the same time period, according to CRP data. All but 1 percent of that went to Democrats.

At least 25 workers died Monday in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine, owned by Richmond-based Massey Energy Co. The company's chief executive, Don Blankenship, is a highly active GOP fundraiser and bankroller who is known for his outspoken opposition to labor unions; the Upper Big Branch Mine is not unionized.

CRP calculates that individuals and PACs connected to Massey Energy have contributed more than $300,000 to federal candidates in the past two decades, 91 percent of which went to Republicans. Top recipients include current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has collected $13,550 from Massey-connected contributors, records show.

Blankenship contributed the federal maximum of $30,400 last year to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and he has supported Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and GOP Senate candidates Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio.

The Massey Energy chairman garnered national attention in 2004 when he contributed $3 million to the campaign of a West Virginia judicial candidate, who later played a pivotal role in overturning a $50 million judgment against Massey Energy. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that the judge should have recused himself from the case.

New conservative force

A well-connected new conservative political group hopes to shake up the 2010 midterm elections by providing a potential alternative to the Republican National Committee, which has come under siege for spending nearly $2,000 on "meals" at a sex-themed nightclub in West Hollywood, Calif.

American Crossroads, based in Warrenton, Va., is the brainchild of a team of veteran GOP consultants, including former RNC chairman Mike Duncan, Republican operative Jim Dyke and Steven J. Law, who is leaving his perch as chief legal officer and general counsel at the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Karl Rove, George W. Bush's former political adviser, and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie have also signed on as advisers.

American Crossroads is "an independent, national grassroots political organization whose mission is to speak out in support of conservative issues and candidates across America," according to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The group has already received commitments for more than $30 million in donations from wealthy contributors, and plans to spend more than $50 million on advocacy ads and other efforts aimed at influencing the November elections, according to Dyke and others.

Because it is organized as a so-called 527 group, American Crossroads is not governed by limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission and -- under an appeals court ruling last month -- is free to collect as much money as it wants from wealthy donors. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the evidence suggests that American Crossroads will appeal primarily to large-scale donors rather than grass-roots contributors. The group's IRS form lists "no@email" as its e-mail address.

"Supposedly they've collected $30 million in promised money with no Web site and before they even really exist," Hasen said. "This is not based on mass appeal; it's a different model."

Turkey hopes to grow economic ties and influence within Middle East

Image by blhphotography via Flickr

By Janine Zacharia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2010; A11

GAZIANTEP, TURKEY -- Since Turkey and Syria eliminated border restrictions several months ago, the crowds of Syrians at the glittering Sanko Park Mall in this southeastern Turkish city have grown tenfold. Exports from Gaziantep to Syria are booming, and rich Turkish businessmen are stepping up their investments across the border.

"There's no difference between Turks and Syrians," said Olfat Ibrahim, a 35-year-old Syrian construction engineer with bags of goods in hand. She said she has stepped up her visits across the border since the lifting of visa requirements. "Syria is Turkey.''

The thriving trade is a sign of Turkey's rising influence with Syria, part of its effort to reach out to neighboring countries to build economic ties it hopes will also stabilize political relationships and expand its influence in the region. Those efforts, which include business ventures with Iran, illustrate to some extent how futile U.S. efforts to isolate those countries with sanctions have become. They've also raised concerns in Washington and in Israel about whether this key Muslim member of NATO is undergoing a fundamental realignment.

Turkey's efforts, however, seem as much about economic expansion as they do about foreign policy, with an aggressive strategy of seeking new markets for Turkish businessmen, many of them backers of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party.

Image by huntz via Flickr

"We want to have an economic interdependency between Turkey and neighbors and between different countries in these regions. If you have an economic interdependency, this is the best way to prevent any crisis," said Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

The push has included an effort to broker a resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks, easing tensions between Syria and Saudi Arabia -- the main power brokers in Lebanon -- to help avert a political crisis there, and trying to mediate an end to the West's dispute with Iran over its nuclear program.

With wealth garnered in emerging markets and growing self-confidence as a new member of the G-20, Turkey is reaching out as much to former European enemies, such as Greece, as to its Muslim neighbors. In the past year and a half, Davutoglu and his predecessor made roughly twice as many trips to Europe as they did to the Middle East. A Turk serves as president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly as well as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

To some analysts, Erdogan doesn't seem as much of an ideologue as a pragmatic capitalist trying to make money and create markets. When he visited Tehran in October, he described the Iranian nuclear program as "peaceful,'' causing U.S. officials to bristle. Less noticed was Erdogan's push for a free-trade agreement.

Accompanying the Turkish leader on the trip was Rizanur Meral, chief executive of Sanko Holding's Automotive Group and president of TUSKON, a Turkish business association representing 50,000 small and medium-size Turkish companies.

Business leaders are playing an important role in Turkey's foreign policy, serving as unofficial ambassadors and advisers. Syrian businessmen in Gaziantep pushed for the relaxation of the visa requirements. When President Abdullah Gul visited Cameroon last month to sign a free-trade accord and open a new embassy, he was accompanied by three cabinet ministers, four members of parliament -- and 147 businessmen. Erdogan took similar-size delegations to India, Iran and Libya.

"The business consideration is very important for this government," said Ismail Hakki Kisacik, general coordinator of Turkey's Taha Group, which controls the country's largest clothing chain and joined government officials on the recent Africa trip. "If you're developing your business with countries, it means your relations improve.''

The United States may be an exception.

Washington's relations with Turkey took on a sour tone in February when the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution calling Turkey's killing of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 "genocide." Turkey recalled its ambassador, Namik Tan. The Obama administration has insisted that it does not support the panel's move.

Over the past year, U.S. officials have shown muted tolerance toward Turkey's outreach to Syria and outright disapproval of Turkey's rhetoric on Iran. The United States has openly chastised Turkey -- which is heavily dependent on Iranian-supplied energy sources -- for undercutting the U.S. push to isolate Iran internationally over its nuclear program.

"It seems, to me at least, that Turkey is contemplating a fundamental realignment,'' said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. foreign policy initiatives.

Phil Gordon, the assistant secretary of state for Europe, said recently that the United States doesn't necessarily believe that Turkey is turning away from its Western allies. He said Turkey's move to improve relations with its neighbors was understandable, but warned that that effort "should not be pursued uncritically or at any price," especially at the expense of its relationship with Israel.

Relations between Israel and Turkey were good until Israel launched a military offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008. Erdogan's popularity soared after he lectured Israeli President Shimon Peres about the attacks in January last year.

His criticism, which has continued, contributes "negatively to the way Israel is perceived in Turkey," said an Israeli diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of relations between the two nations. "It's not clear which direction Erdogan is taking Turkey."

But to Turkish officials, the direction is obvious. As their nation has grown economically, it is only natural for Turkey seek a bigger role in global affairs.

Turkey, meanwhile, is also looking to export some of its cultural influence. In recent years, the country has had about 30 television shows broadcast across the Arab world.

Kivanc Tatlitug, a popular soap opera star, has been so effective at promoting Turkey's interests and tourism in the region that during Foreign Minister Davutoglu's recent visit to Bulgaria, "there was a question whether Turkey, as a government, is promoting these series as propaganda,"' Davutoglu said.

It is, he said, one thing the government is not doing.