Jul 27, 2009

Rape of the Congo

By Adam Hochschild

As if eastern Congo had not already suffered enough, seven years ago Nature dealt it a stunning blow. The volcano whose blue-green bulk looms above the dusty, lakeside city of Goma, Mount Nyiragongo, erupted, sending a smoking river of lava several hundred yards wide through the center of town and sizzling into the waters of Lake Kivu. More than 10,000 homes were engulfed. Parts of the city, which is packed with displaced people, are still covered by a layer of purplish rock up to twelve feet thick.

Far greater destruction has come from more than a decade of a bewilderingly complex civil war in which millions have died. First, neighboring Uganda and Rwanda supported a rebel force under Laurent Kabila that overthrew longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997. Soon after, Kabila fell out with his backers, and later Uganda and Rwanda fell out with each other. Before long, they and five other nearby nations had troops on Congo's soil, in alliance either with the shaky national government in Kinshasa or with a mushrooming number of rival ethnic warlords, particularly here in the mineral-rich east. Those foreign soldiers are almost all gone now, but some fighting between the government and remaining rebel groups continues. For two weeks in June, I had the chance to observe the war's effects, with the best of possible traveling companions: Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, whose reports have been an authoritative source of information on the country for years.



No one has been harder hit than Congo's women, for almost all the warring factions have used rape as a calculated method of sowing terror. An hour and a half southwest of Goma on bone-jolting roads stand several low buildings of planks and adobe; small bleating goats wander about and a cooking fire burns on one dirt floor. There is no electricity. A sign reads Maison d'Écoute (Listening House). The office of the forty-two-year-old director, whom I will call Rebecca Kamate, extends from the side of one of the buildings; its other three walls are of thin green tarpaulin with a UNICEF emblem, through which daylight filters. The floor is gravel. Kamate pulls out a hand-written ledger to show to Anneke, her colleague Ida Sawyer, and me. Ruled columns spread across the page: date, name, age of the victim, and details—almost all are gang rapes, by three to five armed men. Since the center started, it has registered 5,973 cases of rape. The ages of the victims just since January range from two to sixty-five. On the ledger's most recent page, the perpetrators listed include three different armed rebel groups—plus the Congolese national army.

"What pushed me into this work," says Kamate, speaking softly in a mixture of Swahili and hesitant French, "is that I am also one who was raped." This happened a decade ago; the rapists were from the now-defunct militia of a local warlord backed by Uganda. "Their main purpose was to kill my husband. They took everything. They cut up his body like you would cut up meat, with knives. He was alive. They began cutting off his fingers. Then they cut off his sex. They opened his stomach and took out his intestines. When they poked his heart, he died. They were holding a gun to my head." She fought her captors, and shows a scar across the left side of her face that was the result. "They ordered me to collect all his body parts and to lie on top of them and there they raped me—twelve soldiers. I lost consciousness. Then I heard someone cry out in the next room and I realized they were raping my daughters."

The daughters, the two oldest of four girls, were twelve and fifteen. Kamate spent some months in the hospital and temporarily lost her short-term memory. "When I got out I found these two daughters were pregnant. Then they explained. I fainted. After this, the family [of her husband] chased me away. They sold my house and land, because I had had no male children." From time to time Kamate stops, her wide, worn face crinkles into a sob, and she dabs her eyes with a corner of her apron.

"Both girls tried to kill their children. I had to stop them. I had more difficulties. I was raped three more times when I went into the hills to look for other raped women." Part of her work is to go to villages and talk to husbands and families, because rape survivors are so often shunned. In one recent case, for instance, a woman was kidnapped and held ten months as a sex slave by the FDLR (Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda), the Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide and their followers, long the most intransigent rebel group here. After she returned to her village with a newborn baby, her husband agreed to take her back, but only if the baby were killed. Kamate intervened, and took in the child at the Listening House. Living here now are six women and seventeen children—some of whom keep scampering up to an opening in the tarpaulin to giggle and look.

At one point Kamate has to break off because a new victim walks in off the road, a forty-seven-year-old woman raped just three days ago by three Congolese army soldiers who barged into her house after she came home from church. For twenty minutes, Kamate takes down her story and then quickly sends her to a nearby clinic: if anti- retroviral drug treatment is begun within seventy-two hours of a rape, it can usually prevent HIV/AIDS.

The last time Kamate herself was raped was on January 22 of this year. The attackers, members of the CNDP (Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple), a Tutsi-led rebel group that has since been integrated into the Congolese army in a new peace deal, were four soldiers who targeted her because they knew of the work she was doing. It is for fear of this happening again that she asks me not to use her real name. "After having raped me, they spat in my sex, then shoved a shoe up my vagina. When I arrived home I cried a lot and was at the point of killing myself."

Unimaginably horrifying as ordeals like Kamate's are, they are all too similar to what Congolese endured a century ago. Rape was then also considered the right of armies, and then, as now, was how brutalized and exploited soldiers took out their fury on people of even lower status: women. From 1885 to 1908, this territory was the personally owned colony of King Leopold II of Belgium, who pioneered a forced-labor system that was quickly copied in French, German, and Portuguese colonies nearby. His private army of black conscript soldiers under white officers would march into a village and hold the women hostage, to force the men to go into the rain forest for weeks at a time to harvest lucrative wild rubber. "The women taken during the last raid...are causing me no end of trouble," a Belgian officer named Georges Bricusse wrote in his diary on November 22, 1895. "All the soldiers want one. The sentries who are supposed to watch them unchain the prettiest ones and rape them."

Forced labor also continues today. The various armed groups routinely conscript villagers to carry their ammunition, collect water and firewood, and, on occasion, dig for gold. A 2007 survey of more than 2,600 people in eastern Congo found over 50 percent saying that they had been forced to carry loads or do other work against their will in the previous decade and a half. A few miles down the road from the Listening House, I meet one such person in a camp for people who have fled the fighting; several thousand of them are living here in makeshift shelters of grass thatch, the lucky ones with a tarpaulin over the top. The man is twenty-nine, in T-shirt and sandals, and, like Kamate, doesn't want his real name used. He arrived two days ago from Remeka, a village a few days' walk from here, that has changed hands several times in recent fighting between the FDLR and the national army. A fresh bandage covers his left eye.

Congolese army soldiers corralled him last week to be a porter. The troops then came under fire and "I took advantage of that to flee. I spent a night in the bush, and when I came back to the village I found the army had pillaged it, and everyone had fled. Other soldiers told me again to carry supplies. When I refused they took a bayonet and jabbed me in the eye." He can see something out of the eye, but not clearly. Doctors don't know if its sight will return. His wife and two children, aged two and eight, fled the village and he thinks they are still in the bush.

Where does such cruelty come from? Four problems, above all, drive Congo's unrelenting bloodshed. One is long-standing antagonism between certain ethnic groups. A second is the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the two million or so people who flowed across Congo's porous border in its aftermath: Hutu killers, innocent Hutu who feared retribution, and a mainly Tutsi army in pursuit, bent on vengeance. The third is a vast wealth in natural resources—gold, tungsten, diamonds, coltan (a key ingredient of computer chips), copper, and more—that gives ethnic warlords and their backers, especially Rwanda and Uganda, an additional incentive to fight. And, finally, this is the largest nation on earth—more than 65 million people in an area roughly as big as the United States east of the Mississippi—that has hardly any functioning national government. After Laurent Kabila was assassinated in 2001, his son Joseph took power in Kinshasa, and won an election in 2006, but his corrupt and disorganized regime provides few services, especially in the more distant parts of the country, such as Goma, which is more than one thousand miles east of the capital.

Evidence of the nation's riches is everywhere. Battered Soviet-era Antonov cargo planes continually descend into Goma airport filled with tin ore from a big mine at Walikale, in the interior, now controlled by Congolese army officers. On a country road, a truckload of timber, stacked high, passes by, heading out of the rain forest toward the Ugandan border. And then one day in Goma, while I am walking with Anneke, Ida, and another foreigner, a man approaches and asks: Would we like to buy some uranium?

He is perhaps forty, with expensive-looking walking shoes. He claims to have had clients from South Africa, Europe, and Saudi Arabia. The uranium has been tested with Geiger counters, and it's de bonne qualité! And safely packed: two kilos inside each seventeen-kilo radiation-proof container. The price? $1.5 million per container. But this is negotiable....

Also on all sides is evidence of the lack of a functioning government. This does not mean that there are no government officials; on the contrary, they are everywhere, and self-supporting. On rural roads where less than a dozen vehicles pass in an hour are clusters of yellow-shirted traffic police; we see three large trucks stopped at one, their drivers negotiating. On another road, when people on market day are wheeling bicycles piled high with charcoal and bananas, blue-uniformed police are stopping them to collect a "tax."

There are even dilapidated court buildings in towns large and small, but, a lawyer tells us over dinner, with great feeling, "I've never, ever, seen a judge who wasn't corrupt." This is so routine, he and a colleague explain, that in civil disputes, the judge gets a percentage of the property value that the bribe-payer gains. People in such positions are then expected to send some of the take back up the line to those who appointed them; this is called renvoyer l'ascenseur—sending back the elevator. Being a judge in an area full of mining rights disputes is particularly lucrative. Other civil servants also earn extra: Goma is on the border with Rwanda, and one of the lawyers explains that the very hotel where we're having dinner was built by a customs official. They point along the street to two more hotels owned by customs men.

Government as a system of organized theft goes back to King Leopold II, who made a fortune here equal to well over $1.1 billion in today's money, chiefly in rubber and ivory. Then for fifty-two years this was a Belgian colony, run less rapaciously, but still mainly for the purpose—as with colonies almost everywhere—of extracting wealth for the mother country and its corporations. The grand tradition was continued by Mobutu Sese Seko, heavily backed by the United States as a cold war ally, who over three decades starting in 1965 amassed an estimated $4 billion, buying grand villas all over Europe (one, on the Riviera, was almost within sight of one of Leopold's).

The dictator built palatial homes throughout Congo too, one of them in Goma. It is now the provincial governor's office, and Kabila stays here when he's in town: a sprawling red-brick mansion, whose green lawn, dotted with palms and other trees, rolls down to Lake Kivu. The floors are white marble, and a curving marble staircase leads up to Mobutu's circular office, where there is a huge kitschy chandelier of hundreds of little glass balls. The initials M and B, for him and his second wife, Bobi Ladawa, are intertwined in gold, with many curlicues, on top of an inlaid wood desk and elsewhere throughout the house. Of the his-and-hers bathrooms, hers is the more spectacular, in pink marble with two sinks in the shape of shells, and a large Jacuzzi.

Into the void of the world's largest failed state has stepped a wide variety of organizations wanting to help. In Goma it sometimes seems as if every other vehicle on the deeply rutted streets is an SUV with a logo on the door: Oxfam, Action Contre la Faim, World Vision, Norwegian Refugee Council, HopeIn Action.eu, and dozens more. Many also sport a window sticker: a red slash mark across a submachine gun and the legend NO ARMS/PAS D'ARMES. But the biggest foreign presence consists of people who do have arms: more than 17,000 United Nations troops and military observers. They are quickly visible in blue helmets, blue berets, blue baseball caps, or blue turbans worn by Sikh soldiers from India. Almost all are from poor countries, where UN peacekeeping is a big moneymaker for their armies. The wealthy nations, although they contribute a few higher-ranking officers and civilian specialists, have been generally loath to risk their soldiers' lives in someone else's civil war. However, they pay most of the cost. A plan that we have to join one Bangladeshi unit on patrol is scrubbed at the last minute because word comes that the ambassador of Japan—a major source of funds—is to visit the base the next day and all hands are needed to prepare.

The UN presence is a mixed story. Far better equipped and disciplined than the Congolese army, these troops have kept a bad situation from getting worse. Yet it is hopeless to expect so few soldiers to provide protection for most civilians in such a vast country. "How many troops would it really take to stop all the fighting here?" I ask one UN official, out of his office. "Oh, about 250,000," he replies.

On the record, officers are brisk, upbeat, and bristling with acronyms. In the UN military headquarters in Bunia, the ragged, dirt-streets capital of the Ituri gold-mining district several hundred miles north of Goma, a cheerful Pakistani paratrooper colonel briefs us in a room filled with wall maps showing AORs (areas of responsibility) of battalions from Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Morocco—Nepbat, Banbat, Pakbat, Morbat. Other troops in the area, he says, include Indonesians (who repair roads), Uruguayans (who patrol lakes and rivers), Guatemalans (special forces), South Africans (military police), and Indians (who fly helicopters). Tunisians and Egyptians are on the way. "Last week we carried out a heli-recce" of one trouble spot; when aid groups have trouble going somewhere, the UN gives them a "heli-insertion."

One of the UN jobs here is to train the Congolese army, and this, too, he assures us, is on track. First thing on the agenda: training forward air controllers (puzzling, since Congo has virtually no air force). And how will they do this, given that few UN officers speak either French or any local language? Simple, they will find the English-speaking Congolese officers (although veteran aid workers here say they've rarely seen any). And what if forward air controlling is not their specialty? "We're training the trainers!"

When speaking not for attribution, UN officials are far more somber. I talk to four more of them, military and civilian, African and European. All agree that the biggest single problem is the chaotic Congolese army itself, which numbers some 120,000 ill-trained men. On one country road, heading to a combat zone where one unit is relieving another, we see hundreds of soldiers in green fatigues, but not once a truck filled with troops. Carrying rifles or grenade launchers, the men are hitchhiking rides with passing cargo trucks and motorcycles. They wave at us, bringing hands to their mouths to beg for cigarettes. Beneath a piece of canvas strung between trees, a solitary sentry manning one checkpoint is sound asleep.

Top-heavy with colonels to begin with, the army has swollen mightily in recent years, since the price of a series of half-effective peace accords has been its absorption of an array of predatory warlords and their followers. Some two dozen different rebel groups signed a peace agreement with the government in Goma last year, for instance. Since then, one of the most notorious warlords, Bosco Ntaganda, known as "The Terminator" and under indictment by the International Criminal Court for conscripting child soldiers, made his own deal with Kinshasa and was appointed a general.

What can be done? The outside world has influence over the Congolese army, because we're partly paying for it. The national government depends on aid money to make ends meet, depends on the UN force to retain control of the east, and sometimes even needs UN planes to transport its soldiers, for there is no drivable road from one side of the country to the other. At a bare minimum, the Western powers have leverage to pressure Congo into purging its army of thugs in senior positions—and could demand far more as well.

A curious, very limited kind of pressure is being applied. Underlying the army's long-standing practice of looting civilian goods and food is that soldiers often don't get paid. "The money comes from Kinshasa," a UN official explains, "then goes to Kisangani"—a city three quarters of the way to the eastern border—"and by the time it gets down to company level there's not much left." To deal with this problem, the European Union has sent a fifty-five-man military mission here.

One member is Bob Arnst, a short, wiry man with a crew cut, who is a sergeant major in the Dutch army. He is stationed in Bunia, and talks about his work one evening in the UN's café and recreation center, where a security guard at the gate has the job of keeping out local prostitutes.

"Everything is in cash. They bring the money in big packages, 120 by 80 by 20 centimeters. In great bricks. We're expecting a convoy now. When the money arrives, they count it again, bill by bill." Arnst and two French soldiers watch the count at the local army headquarters, after which paymasters from half a dozen battalions arrive in SUVs to collect the funds for their units. "Most of them [the paymasters] have very nice clothing. Once a colonel showed up with his bodyguard and I asked, 'What are you doing here?' And he said, 'I've come to see where my money is.' And I said, 'It's not your money.'"

In the days following, Arnst and his French colleagues visit Congolese battalions in the field, usually dropping in by surprise in a UN helicopter. "We ask soldiers, 'Did you get your payment?'"

And if they didn't? On three occasions in the last few months, entire units were not paid. Arnst reported each case to his EU superiors in Kinshasa, and a Dutch colonel applied pressure at the Ministry of Defense. Each time, the commander was forced to turn over the money to his troops—but was not arrested or disciplined.

The situation is worse in some outlying areas; Arnst cites the town of Dungu, in the north, where he believes some troops may not have been paid for four months. Food destined for soldiers sometimes disappears as well. "If they don't have any money, they have a weapon, so..." his voice trails off. Furthermore, there isn't a foolproof system to prevent commanders from pocketing pay for "ghost soldiers" who've deserted. Plus, he says, the pay is woeful to begin with: only about $40 per month, and another $8 for living expenses. Military families are "living in tents with holes in them. And if a soldier does get his money, he's got no way to bring it to his family." Hence families tend to follow military units around. The officers are little better off. "Last week a captain came to me and said, 'Can you give me twenty dollars? Ten dollars?'"

From the dozen years of intermittent war, almost everyone has searing memories. Fabien Kakani, thirty-eight, for example, is a nurse at a Protestant mission hospital in the savannah town of Nyankunde, an hour southwest of Bunia. One day in 2002, militia from the Ngiti ethnic group, and an allied force, overran the hospital, burned its library of more than 10,000 books, and began killing an estimated three thousand people of other ethnicities—hospital staff, patients, and residents of the nearby town. "I was working in the ICU that day. I had just made the rounds with the doctor and we heard shots from the hill behind the hospital." He points out the window. "We brought more patients in and locked ourselves in. Then they went to the maternity ward and the pediatric ward and I heard screams as they massacred people there. Throughout the night we heard shots. I was a Bira [a different ethnic group] and I knew they would be looking for me."

The raiders then broke into the ICU, and Kakani and some seventy other people were tied up and marched to a room he shows us in another hospital building, which we pace out as being about ten by twenty-one feet. "We spent three days here. No food, no drink, we had to defecate and urinate on the floor. Children died because there was no milk in their mothers' breasts. We were passing their dead bodies out the windows."

So many people were killed at Nyankunde hospital alone that there was no time to dig graves; the bodies had to be thrown in pit latrines. And the leader of the Ngiti troops who carried out the massacre? He was Kakani's brother-in law, who wanted to kill members of several rival groups, including the Bira, even though he was married to a Bira, Kakani's sister. The commander of the allied militia force involved in the attack was not on the scene, but in close communication by radio, well aware of what his troops were doing. Following one of the incorporate-the-warlords peace agreements, he became Congo's foreign minister. He is still in the cabinet today, in another position.

After two weeks my notebooks overflow with such stories. But looking at people I meet, even an entire encampment of young gold miners who are almost all ex-combatants, do I see those who look capable of killing hospital patients in their beds, gang-raping a woman like Rebecca Kamate, jabbing a young man's eye with a bayonet? I do not. People are warm, friendly, their faces overflow with smiles; seeing a foreigner, everyone wants to stop, say " Bonjour!" and shake hands, whether on a small town's main street or on a forest path. I've never seen more enthusiastic hand-shakers. At night, when the electricity works, the warm air echoes with some of Africa's best music. There is no shortage of ordinary acts of human kindness. When our car's left front wheel goes sailing off to the side of a remote mountain road, leaving one end of the axle to gouge a long furrow in the dirt, the driver of a passing truck, piled teeteringly high with goods and then with people sitting on top, immediately stops and crawls under the car, using his jack in tandem with ours to solve the problem and get us on our way.

What turns such people into rapists, sadists, killers? Greed, fear, demagogic leaders and their claim that such violence is necessary for self-defense, seeing everyone around you doing the same thing—and the fact that the rest of the world pays tragically little attention to one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of our time. But even the worst brutality can also draw out the good in people, as in the way Kamate has devoted her life to other raped women. In Goma, I saw people with pickaxes laboriously hewing the lava that had flooded their city into football-sized chunks with flattened sides, then using these, with mortar, to build the walls of new homes. Can this devastated country as a whole use the very experience of its suffering to build something new and durable? I hope so, but I fear it will be a long time in coming.

—July 15, 2009

The News About the Internet

By Michael Massing

Books, blogs, Web sites, and essays discussed in this article:

Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press
by Eric Boehlert

Free Press, 280 pp., $26.00

And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture
by Bill Wasik

Viking, 202 pp., $25.95

Rob Browne at Daily Kos: rbguy.dailykos.com
Juan Cole, Informed Comment: juancole.com
Brad DeLong, Grasping Reality with Both Hands: delong.typepad.com/sdj
Jeffrey Goldberg: jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com
Michael Goldfarb: weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/
Glenn Greenwald: salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Ryan Grim at The Huffington Post: huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/ryan-grim
Joanne Jacobs: joannejacobs.com
Ron Kampeas, CapitalJ: blogs.jta.org/politics/
Mickey Kaus, kausfiles: www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/
Mark Kleiman, The Reality-Based Community: samefacts.com
Ezra Klein at The Washington Post: voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein
Kevin Pho, KevinMD: kevinmd.com
M.J. Rosenberg: tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mjrosenberg
Yves Smith: nakedcapitalism.com
Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Tanta at CalculatedRISK: calculatedriskblog.com
Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss: philipweiss.org/mondoweiss
Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel at FireDogLake: emptywheel.firedoglake.com
Matthew Yglesias: yglesias.thinkprogress.org
ProPublica: propublica.org
Talking Points Memo: talkingpointsmemo.com
"Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated As Beltway Royalty?"
by Arianna Huffington

The Huffington Post, April 30, 2009: huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-are-bankers-still-bei_b_194242.html

"The State of the News Media, 2009: An Annual Report on American Journalism"
by Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism

stateofthemedia.org/2009/index.htm

"Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable"
by Clay Shirky

March 13, 2009: shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable

Ross Douthat at The New York Times: nytimes.com

Of all the dismal and discouraging numbers to have emerged from the world of newspapers—the sharp plunges in circulation, the dizzying fall-off in revenues, the burgeoning debt, the mounting losses—none seems as sobering as the relentless march of layoffs and buyouts. According to the blog Paper Cuts, newspapers lost 15,974 jobs in 2008 and another 10,000 in the first half of 2009. That's 26,000 fewer reporters, editors, photographers, and columnists to cover the world, analyze political and economic affairs, root out corruption and abuse, and write about culture, entertainment, and sports.

The membership of the Military Reporters and Editors Association has fallen from six hundred in 2001 to under one hundred today. In April, Cox Newspapers closed its Washington office, contributing to the dramatic decline in the number of reporters covering the federal government. The Boston Globe, The Baltimore Sun, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Newsday have all closed their foreign bureaus. Because of repeated retrenchments, the McClatchy newspapers, which include The Sacramento Bee, The Charlotte Observer, and more than two dozen other dailies across the US, cannot afford to open a South Asia bureau that's been in the works for three years, or to keep a full-time correspondent in Mexico or even Baghdad, where its bureau has done such standout work. In "the good old days," McClatchy editor Mark Seibel recently wrote, the organization could lay off reporters "and insist with a straight face that there would be no change in our ability to cover the news. No more. The last year of layoffs, cutbacks and consolidations have hurt. Bad."



In an online chat with readers earlier this year, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller deplored the "diminishing supply of quality journalism" at a time of "growing demand." By quality journalism, he said, he meant the kind "that involves experienced reporters going places, bearing witness, digging into records, developing sources, checking and double-checking, backed by editors who try to enforce high standards." The supply of such journalism, he added,

is declining because it is hard, expensive, sometimes dangerous work. The traditional practitioners of this craft—mainly newspapers—have been downsizing or declaring bankruptcy. The wonderful florescence of communication ignited by the Internet contains countless voices riffing on the journalism of others but not so many that do serious reporting of their own.

Keller's lament—one of a steady chorus rising from the industry—contains a feature common to many of them: a put-down of the Web and the bloggers who regularly comment on Web sites. David Simon, a former Baltimore Sun reporter and the creator of The Wire, offered a particularly barbed version during recent testimony in the Senate on the future of journalism. While the Internet is "a marvelous tool," he declared, it

leeches...reporting from mainstream news publications, whereupon aggregating websites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth. Meanwhile, readers acquire news from the aggregators and abandon its point of origin—namely the newspapers themselves. In short, the parasite is slowly killing the host.

This image of the Internet as parasite has some foundation. Without the vital news-gathering performed by established institutions, many Web sites would sputter and die. In their sweep and scorn, however, such statements seem as outdated as they are defensive. Over the past few months alone, a remarkable amount of original, exciting, and creative (if also chaotic and maddening) material has appeared on the Internet. The practice of journalism, far from being leeched by the Web, is being reinvented there, with a variety of fascinating experiments in the gathering, presentation, and delivery of news. And unless the editors and executives at our top papers begin to take note, they will hasten their own demise.

1.

The two bloggers most commonly recognized as the medium's pioneers, Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan, are, remarkably, still at it. Kaus, who started the blog kausfiles in 1999, is now at Slate, and Sullivan, who began The Daily Dish in 2000, now posts at The Atlantic. Both still use the style they helped popularize—short, sharp, conversational bursts of commentary and opinion built around links to articles, columns, documents, and other blogs. At first glance, this approach might seem to bear out the charge of parasitism. In early July, for instance, Sullivan, under the headline "Where the Far Right Now Is," wrote:

I watched this in Aspen [where he was attending a conference]. Michael Scheuer is actually saying that the only "hope" for the US is a major attack from Osama bin Laden. This is where they are, getting nuttier by the day.

Below was a link to a clip from Fox News on which Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, indeed expressed the hope that bin Laden would attack the US so that its government would finally take the measures needed to protect the American people.

Sullivan is here riffing on the journalism of others while doing no conventional reporting of his own. But, as a regular reading of his posts shows, his multiple links to a wide array of sources, processed through his idiosyncratic gay-Catholic-Thatcherite- turned-libertarian-radical mind, produces an engaging and original take on the world. A dramatic demonstration of this occurred just after the Iranian elections, when his site became an up-to-the-minute clearinghouse for e-mails, Twitter feeds, YouTube videos, photos, and e-mails from Tehran, many posted before mainstream news outlets could get hold of them. Sullivan made no pretense of being balanced— he devoutly desired the overthrow of the hard-line establishment supporting Ahmadinejad and tilted his site to that end—but at a time when Western journalists were largely muzzled, The Daily Dish served as a nerve center for news from the Iranian street. While reading his site, I was also watching CNN, and it seemed clear that Sullivan, sitting at his computer, outperformed CNN's entire global network.

The Sullivan-and-Kaus snip-it-and-comment approach remains popular with many bloggers, but over the years it has given rise to a number of offspring that have become models of their own. Among the most prominent is Talking Points Memo (TPM), begun by Josh Marshall in 2000, when he was the Washington editor of The American Prospect. After constantly clashing with his fellow editors—he liked both Bill Clinton and free trade more than they did—he began freelancing and blogging on his own. While he was inspired by Sullivan and Kaus, Marshall was a reporter at heart and included on his blog more material that he had uncovered himself. The result was a new type of blog that not only commented on the news but also occasionally broke it.

An early milestone came in 2002, when Marshall latched onto Trent Lott's racist-tinged comments about Strom Thurmond and, calling attention to them in frequent posts, contributed to Lott's fall. As TPM's readership expanded, Marshall was able to attract advertisers, which in turn allowed him to hire staff, which helped him break more news. Tips flowed in from readers about political goings-on in their communities. Sifting through them, Marshall in 2007 was able to detect a pattern in the firing by the Bush administration of US attorneys across the country. His angry posts on the matter helped bring it to the attention of the national press, earning him a George Polk Award.

Today, Talking Points Memo is one of the most visited political sites on the Web. In addition to Marshall's own blog, it includes TPMDC, which covers the capital, TPMmuckraker, which does investigations, and TPMcafé, which features outside contributors. TPM's rapid growth reflects a broader political shift that's taken place on the Web. Back in 2005, when I last wrote about the blogosphere,[*] it was dominated by the right, with the scrappy Drudge Report in the lead. Today, the liberal left is ascendant (with energy among conservatives channeled instead into talk radio).

During a recent visit to TPM's office, on West 20th Street in Manhattan, the place seemed eerily quiet as a dozen or so young reporters, writers, and "aggregators" (who link to other Web sites) peered intently at their computer screens. Marshall, a poker-faced forty-year-old, told me that he spends much of each work day reading through reader e-mails. "Relative to size, the volume of quality e-mails we get is an order of magnitude greater than either The New York Times or The Washington Post," he said.

It allows us to do more than even a newspaper can. Political reporters have good sources, but they tend to be professional sources, who are used to picking up the phone and giving tips to reporters. We're into a whole class of people who are not acculturated to the world of political journalism. If something happens in Kansas, I'll hear about it.

Over the years, Marshall has helped train many cyber-savvy reporter-bloggers who have taken their skills to other, better-endowed institutions. Take the example of Paul Kiel. After two years at TPM, he was hired by ProPublica, an online investigative unit backed by multimillion-dollar grants from the former real estate magnate Herbert Sandler and other philanthropists. Since its start in 2008, the ProPublica staff, working out of a sleek modern space in lower Manhattan, has produced exposés on everything from the involvement of doctors in torture to the contamination of drinking water by gas drilling.

At first, ProPublica focused mainly on carrying out joint investigations with established news organizations such as 60 Minutes and The New York Times and distributing its findings through them, but it has come to see the value of building up its own Web site. Paul Steiger, the former Wall Street Journal managing editor who heads the operation, speaks glowingly of all the "really smart Web-oriented journalistically informed people" he's been hiring, Paul Kiel among them. "He's like a reincarnated I.F. Stone," Steiger told me, "but instead of reading government documents alone, he scours the Web, then makes a phone call or two. The guy just moves the ball."

One of Kiel's duties is surfing the Internet for investigative work done by others. Too often, Steiger says, such work becomes "road kill,"—i.e. ignored or skipped over—but by aggregating and commenting on it, Kiel and his colleagues help gain it more attention. Kiel has also set up a subsite devoted to tracking the money spent by Washington. The site remains a work in progress—its daunting mass of numbers, charts, and graphs is not easy for novices to navigate—but it's part of a much-watched experiment to test the feasibility of doing investigative reporting on the Web.

Kiel is an example of an emerging new breed of "hybrids," schooled in both the practices of print journalism and the uses of cyberspace. Other examples include Matthew Yglesias, a twenty-eight-year-old who began blogging while an undergraduate at Harvard and who now writes on American politics and policy at Think Progress, the blog of the Center for American Progress, and Ross Douthat, who after graduating from Harvard in 2002 joined The Atlantic, where he both edited and blogged, and who earlier this year became a columnist at The New York Times. Ezra Klein, who began blogging while a student at the University of California at Santa Cruz, has developed an expertise in health care that so impressed the editors of The Washington Post that this spring they hired him to blog on its site. "Explanation has become more important than commentary," says Klein, who is all of twenty-five.

But the Internet is not just for wunderkinder. It offers a podium to Americans of all ages and backgrounds who are flush with ideas but lack the means to transmit them. A good example is Marcy Wheeler, a resident of Ann Arbor, Michigan, who earned a doctorate in comparative literature from the University of Michigan and then went to work as a consultant for the auto industry. She first began blogging in 2004, gaining notice for her posts on the Valerie Plame leak case; in early 2007 she "liveblogged" the Lewis Libby trial. Later that year, after giving up her consulting job, she began blogging full-time for FireDogLake, a leftist blog collective, where she now concentrates on torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the auto bailout. I first learned of Wheeler last April, when her name appeared in a front-page article in The New York Times about the release of Bush-era memos on interrogation techniques. Through a close reading of the documents, Wheeler was able to conclude that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times in one month. This revelation was quickly picked up by The Huffington Post, and soon thereafter it showed up in the Times.

"The idea that our work is parasitical is farcical," Wheeler told me by phone. "There's a lot of good, original work in the blogosphere. Half of all journalists look at the blogosphere when working on a story." At the same time, she said, "I'm happy to admit I'm still utterly reliant on journalists. You can't have a conversation [about torture] without talking about Jane Mayer [of The New Yorker]," she said. Wheeler also praised Dana Priest and Joby Warrick of The Washington Post and James Risen and Douglas Jehl of The New York Times. "We ought to be talking about a symbiotic rather than a parasitical relationship," she told me. What disturbs bloggers, she added, are those journalists who reside in "the Village"—shorthand, she said,

for the compliant, unquestioning, conventional wisdom that comes out of Washington. It's the world of the Peggy Noonans and David Broders, who are interested only in the horserace or in maintaining the status quo they're part of.

The blogosphere, by contrast, has proven especially attractive to those who, despite having specialized knowledge about a subject, have little access to the nation's Op-Ed pages. The model here is Juan Cole, a Mideast scholar at the University of Michigan whose blog, Informed Comment, has over the years offered a more acute analysis of developments inside Iraq—and now Iran—than most of the reporters stationed in those countries. Today, one can find similar commentators on almost any subject. For a physician's personal take on America's health care problems, one can turn to KevinMD, written by Kevin Pho, a primary care doctor in Nashua, New Hampshire. For a fresh perspective on education, there's joannejacobs .com, by a former Knight-Ridder columnist; and on drug policy, there's The Reality-Based Community, by UCLA professor Mark Kleiman.

Beyond such individual sites, the Web has helped open up entire subjects that were once off-limits to the press. The domestic politics of US policy toward Israel is a good example. Until recently, the activities of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC were all but ignored by reporters fearful of being branded anti-Semitic or anti- Israel. Today, the Web teems with news, analysis, opinion, and polemic about US–Israel relations. Rob Browne, a Long Island dentist, keeps track of Israel-related legislation in Congress on the left-liberal blog Daily Kos. M.J. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer-turned-dove, dissects the Israel lobby's activities on Talking Points Memo. Fiercely opposing them is a battalion of Israel defenders, including Ron Kampeas, (Capital J at the JTA wire service), Michael Goldfarb (the online editor of The Weekly Standard), and—the most influential journalist/blogger on matters related to Israel—Jeffrey Goldberg (at The Atlantic).

Both sides feed off the vast amount of data available on the Web. "In the past, I wouldn't have been able to get Haaretz except by going to Hotaling's," observes Philip Weiss, author of the blog Mondoweiss, referring to the long-since-shuttered foreign newspaper shop in New York. "Now I can get it, and the entire Israeli and Arab press, online." Weiss is one of several friends I've seen flourish online after enduring years of frustration writing for magazines. With its unrelenting criticism of Israel, his site has angered even some of his fellow doves, but it has given voice to a strain of opinion that in the past had few chances of being heard. In June, Weiss, with $8,000 in reader donations, traveled to Gaza with an antiwar group, and for several days he filed reports on his encounters with students, aid workers, and Hamas officials.

2.

Even on subjects that are in the headlines, like the financial crisis, the Web offers insight and revelation. When the subprime mortgage bubble burst in mid-2007, for instance, journalists, scrambling to explain the mess, rushed to sites like Calculated Risk, where Tanta, a pseudonymous mortgage banker with twenty years experience in the field, dissected the follies of lenders and the fecklessness of regulators. On Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith, a (pseudonymous) veteran of the financial services industry, demystified the credit markets, while on Grasping Reality with Both Hands, Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, provided close critical analysis of the views of economic policymakers.

While researching this article, I stumbled on a lode of fresh material about the relations between Wall Street and Washington. At Ezra Klein's suggestion, I looked up the work of Ryan Grim at The Huffington Post, the Web site known widely for its entertaining jumble of tangy stories, eye-grabbing headlines, and celebrity blogs. But it also has a Washington bureau with seven editors and reporters (including Dan Froomkin, added in July after The Washington Post terminated his contract). As one of the reporters, Grim covers Congress, and during the spring he closely covered the battle to rein in the banking, credit card, and mortgage industries. Able to post several times a day, Grim can track the proceedings with a thoroughness most newspaper reporters would envy. In an article about the banking lobby's efforts to derail a bill designed to help prevent foreclosures, Grim recorded Senator Dick Durbin's anguished observation that "the banks—hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

Coming from the majority whip of the Senate, Durbin's outburst seemed a striking acknowledgement of the banking industry's continued grip on Congress, yet no major paper picked it up. (Six weeks later, Frank Rich mentioned it in his column in the Times.) Immediately sensing the remark's importance, Arianna Huffington folded it into one of the sharp-edged columns she regularly posts on her site. "Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated as Beltway Royalty?" the headline asked, and Huffington responded with a series of sobering examples of how "the entrenched special interests" continue "to call so many shots on Capitol Hill."

Glimmers of these realities occasionally surface in printed newspapers and weeklies, whether, for example, in The Wall Street Journal 's "USA Inc." series or the reports of Gretchen Morgenson and Stephen Labaton in the Times. For the most part, though, the coverage of the financial crisis in the daily press has been episodic, diluted, cloaked in qualifiers, and neutered by comments and disclaimers from businessmen and their paid spokesmen, to whom mainstream journalists feel obligated to give equal time.

The bloggers I have been reading reject such reflexive attempts at "balance," and it's their willingness to dispense with such conventions that makes the blogosphere a lively and bracing place. This is nowhere more apparent than in the work of Glenn Greenwald. A lawyer and former litigator, Greenwald is a relative newcomer to blogging, having begun only in December 2005, but as Eric Boehlert notes in his well-researched but somewhat breathless Bloggers on the Bus, within six months of his debut he "had ascended to an unofficial leadership position within the blogosphere." In contrast to the short, punchy posts favored by most bloggers, Greenwald offers a single daily essay of two thousand to three thousand words. In each, he draws on extensive research, amasses a daunting array of facts, and, as Boehlert puts it, builds his case "much like an attorney does."

Greenwald initially made his mark with fierce attacks on the Bush administration's policy of warrantless surveillance, and he continues to comment on the subject with great fury. Other recent targets have included Goldman Sachs (for its influence in the Obama administration), Jeffrey Rosen (for his dismissive New Republic piece on Sonia Sotomayor), Jeffrey Goldberg (for his attacks on the Times 's Roger Cohen), the Washington Post Op-Ed page (for the many neoconservatives in residence), and the national press in general (for its insistence on using euphemisms for the word "torture"). In June he wrote:

The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture"—even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantánamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries—reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

For the press, Greenwald added, "there are two sides and only two sides to every 'debate'—the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment."

In so vigilantly watching over the press, Greenwald has performed an invaluable service. But his posts have a downside. Absorbing the full force of his arguments and dutifully following his corroborating links, I felt myself drawn into an ideological wind tunnel, with the relentless gusts of opinion and analysis gradually wearing me down. After reading his harsh denunciations of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of torture photos, I began to lose sight of the persuasive arguments that other commentators have made in support of the President's position. As well-argued and provocative as I found many of Greenwald's postings, they often seem oblivious to the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.

This points to some of the more troubling features of the journalism taking shape on the Web. The polemical excesses for which the blogosphere is known remain real. In And Then There's This, an impressionistic account of the viral culture on the Internet, Bill Wasik describes how "the network of political blogs, through a feedback loop among bloggers and readers," has produced a machine that supplies the reader with "prefiltered information" supporting his or her own views. According to one study cited by Wasik, 85 percent of blog links were to other blogs of the same political inclination, "with almost no blog showing any particular respect for any blog on the other side."

With so many voices clamoring for attention, moreover, a premium is put on the sexy and sensational. Headlines are exaggerated so as to secure clicks and boost traffic—the all-important measure of Web success. At any moment, site managers can see which pieces are faring well and which poorly and can promote or bury them accordingly. The reports by Ryan Grim on Wall Street's influence in Washington that I found so illuminating were hard to find on The Huffington Post, while you couldn't miss tabloidy posts like "Lindsay Lohan TOPLESS on Twitter."

Writers on the Internet are under constant pressure to post so as to keep the traffic flowing. Many who write full-time for Web sites complain of the Taylorite work pace and the lack of time it leaves to think or to work on longer pieces. Readers themselves seem allergic to reading extended pieces on computer screens. "The one nut we've never fully cracked is how to do long-form journalism online," says Jacob Weisberg, the former editor of Slate. "Doing New Yorker -type pieces on-line doesn't work." In an effort to fix that, Weisberg's successor, David Plotz, is requiring each Slate writer to take off six weeks to work on longer projects.

Finally, the Internet remains a hothouse for rumors, distortions, and fabrications. The last presidential campaign exemplified this, with bloggers on the left (including Andrew Sullivan) insisting that Sarah Palin had faked being pregnant in order to protect her daughter Bristol, and bloggers on the right declaring that Barack Obama had falsified his birth certificate and was not a US citizen. The recent cascade of material out of Iran, with its surge of uncorroborated e-mails, videos, and Tweets, suggests the urgent need for skilled aggregators who can sift the factual from the flimsy and help guide readers through the tumult of cyberspace.

For all these problems, the Web is currently home to all kinds of intriguing experiments. YouTube recently introduced a Reporters' Center offering tips from established reporters on how to cover international news. The Huffington Post has set up an investigative fund to support journalistic research. The Boston-based GlobalPost has arranged with dozens of independent reporters around the world to find outlets for their work. Sites like Minn Post in Minneapolis and Voice of San Diego are testing whether metro reporting can be done on the Internet. Among the more notable recent developments are the sharply edited book section at The Daily Beast; the brisk video-debate unit Bloggingheads.tv; and the conservative blogging collective NewMajority.com, set up by David Frum after he broke with National Review.

Taken together, such initiatives suggest a fundamental change taking place in the world of news. As the Pew Project for Journalistic Excellence put it in its 2009 "State of the News Media" report:

Power is shifting to the individual journalist and away, by degrees, from journalistic institutions.... Through search, e-mail, blogs, social media and more, consumers are gravitating to the work of individual writers and voices, and away somewhat from institutional brand. Journalists who have left legacy news organizations are attracting funding to create their own websites.... Experiments like GlobalPost are testing whether individual journalists can become independent contractors offering reporting to various sites, in much the way photographers have operated for years at magazines.

In a much-circulated essay, Clay Shirky, an Internet consultant and professor at NYU's Interactive Telecommunications Program, compares the current turbulence in the news business to the disorder brought about by the invention of the printing press, when old forms of transmitting information were breaking down and new ones had yet to cohere—a transition accompanied by much confusion and uncertainty. The historical analogy can be taken a step further: just as the advent of printing helped break the medieval Church's hold on the flow of information, so is the rise of the Internet loosening the grip of the corporate-owned mass media. A profound if unsettling process of decentralization and democratization is taking place.

Needless to say, traditional news organizations continue to play a critical part in keeping the public informed. But can they adapt to the rapidly changing news environment? And who is going to pay for quality news and information in the future? I hope to address both subjects in a subsequent piece.

Notes

[*]"The End of News?" The New York Review, December 1, 2005.

Jul 26, 2009

Chinese Hack Film Festival Site

Chinese hackers have attacked the website of Australia's biggest film festival over a documentary about Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.

Content on the Melbourne International Film Festival site was briefly replaced with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans on Saturday, reports said.

In an earlier protest on Friday, Beijing withdrew four Chinese films.

Melbourne's The Age newspaper says private security guards have been hired to protect Kadeer and other film-goers.

She is due to attend the screening of Ten Conditions of Love, by Australian documentary-maker Jeff Daniels, on 8 August.

'Vile language'

Chinese authorities blame Kadeer, leader of the World Uighur Congress, for inciting ethnic unrest in Xinjiang - charges she denies.

Hey, we're an independent arts organisation and it's our programme!
Richard Moore Head of the Melbourne International Film Festival

Earlier this month, around 200 people died and 1,600 were injured during fighting in the region between the mostly Muslim Uighurs and settlers from China's Han majority.

Kadeer, 62, spent six years in a Chinese prison before she was released into exile in the US in 2005. In 2004, she won the Rafto Prize for human rights.

Richard Moore, head of the Melbourne International Film Festival, told the BBC that he had come under pressure from Chinese officials to withdraw the film about Kadeer and cancel her invitation to the festival.

He said the attacks on the festival's website began about 10 days ago.

"We've been subjected to a number of these attacks and we can see behind the scenes on our website that there are hundreds, well, if not thousands, of people from outside of Australia trying to get into our website and trying to damage us," Mr Moore told the BBC's World Today programme.

"This has been going on... since obviously the call from a Chinese consular official who told me in no uncertain terms that I was urged to withdraw this particular documentary from the film festival and that I had to justify my actions in including the film in our programme," he went on.

"Hey, we're an independent arts organisation and it's our programme!"

He said police were investigating the website attacks, which appear to come from a Chinese internet address.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/8169123.stm

Published: 2009/07/26

US Urges Syria on Mid-East Peace

The United States has called for Syria's "full co-operation" in trying to achieve a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement.

Speaking after talks in Damascus, Barack Obama's envoy George Mitchell said discussions with Syria's president had been "candid and positive".

Mr Mitchell said restarting peace talks between Syria and Israel was a "near-term goal".

He later arrived in Israel, to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks.

Mr Mitchell's visit to Damascus was his second since June, amid a renewed US push for peace since President Obama took office earlier this year.

The envoy's trip comes ahead of a string of visits to Israel this week by leading Obama administration officials, at a time when US-Israel relations are unusually strained.

'Historic endeavour'

Mr Mitchell said he had told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Barack Obama was "determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace".

Naturally, in the context of friendly relations between allies, there isn't agreement on all points
Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli prime minister

"If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full co-operation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavour," he said.

Correspondents say the visit was not expected to bring a breakthrough, but Syrian officials have been encouraged by Washington's new willingness to listen.

Damascus is a major player in the region, because of its support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, its backing for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its close links with Iran.

This made Syria a pariah in the eyes of the Bush administration, which cut virtually all ties with Syria.

The BBC's Lina Sinjab, in Damascus, says President Obama's commitment to talks with all parties is welcomed in Syria but not with much enthusiasm.

Getting back the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is a priority in Damascus, our correspondent says.

Syria was expected to lobby Mr Mitchell on the issue of the Heights, a strategic mountainous area seized by Israel in 1967.

Syria's official news agency quoted President Assad as stressing to Mr Mitchell "the Arab right to recover occupied lands through achieving a just and comprehensive peace."

Direct talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000 over the scale of a potential Israeli pull-back on the Golan Heights.

Sticking points

The diplomatic flurry comes at a time of strained relations between the US and Israel.

The BBC's Middle East correspondent Katya Adler says Mr Obama has been leaning on Israel's government unusually hard for an American president.

Washington has called on Israel to stop all Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank, but Israel says it will not curb what it calls "natural growth" there.

Mr Mitchell arrived in Israel later on Sunday and met defence minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv.

In an effort to kick-start stalled Israeli-Palestinian talks, the envoy is due to meet Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Monday and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

Shortly before Mr Mitchell's arrival in Israel, Mr Netanyahu said he hoped to reach an agreement with the US.

"This relationship is important and strong. Naturally, in the context of friendly relations between allies, there isn't agreement on all points, and on several issues we are trying to reach understanding," he said.

As well as Mr Mitchell, US defence secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones are also due to hold talks in Israel.

Our correspondent says Iran and its nuclear programme will certainly be discussed.

Israelis say that is their top priority but arguably the focus of the visits will be the possibilities for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and also the wider Arab world, she notes.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8169111.stm

Published: 2009/07/26

Now It’s a Census That Could Rip Iraq Apart

BAGHDAD — When Iraqis were drafting their Constitution in 2005, the parties could not agree on who would control Kirkuk, the prized oil capital of the north. They couldn’t even agree on who lived in Kirkuk, which is claimed by the region’s Kurds, but also by its Turkmen minority and Sunni Arabs. For that matter, they couldn’t even agree on where Kirkuk was — in Tamim, Erbil, or Sulaimaniya Province.

So the Iraqis punted, inserting Article 140, a clause that called for a national census, followed by a referendum on the status of Kirkuk, all to be held by the end of 2007. What followed were a succession of delays, against a backdrop of sectarian violence and warnings that Kirkuk could blow apart the Shiite-Kurdish alliance that has governed Iraq since the Americans invaded.

Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish regional government, warned two years ago that if “Article 140 is not implemented, then there will be a real civil war.” He’s still waiting.

But so is the threat of civil war, which lurked quietly in the polling places this weekend as residents of Iraq’s Kurdish-dominated areas voted for their regional president and Parliament. Until the status of Kirkuk is clear, nobody really knows how much power those regional officials can wield within the national government, or even whether the Kurds will want to remain part of Iraq.

The problem with settling that is the Kirkuk referendum. There can’t be a referendum until Iraqis figure out who is eligible to vote in Kirkuk, which they can’t do until there’s a census. And any attempt to hold a census in this country may well end up, all by itself, provoking a civil war.

Even now, Sunnis don’t agree that they’re a minority of the nation, and that the Shiites are the majority, though it’s patently obvious. And in Kirkuk, everyone is in denial, one way or another.

Ethnically mixed and awash in oil, Kirkuk has always been something of a numbers game. There are 10 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — 6 percent of the world’s total and 40 percent of Iraq’s — all within commuting distance of downtown Kirkuk. Its fields, though half destroyed, still produce a million barrels of oil a day.

Both Turkmen and Kurds claim to be in the majority; the last reliable estimates, from a 1957 census, gave Turkmen a plurality in the city and Kurds a plurality in the surrounding district, with Arabs second in the countryside and third in the city. In the Saddam Hussein years, the Kurds declared Kirkuk part of their autonomous region of Kurdistan, but the dictator sent the army after the Kurdish guerrillas, known as pesh merga, and held onto the prize. He then set about Arabizing it, forcibly relocating families from the south while evicting Kurds and Turkmen alike.

After 2003, pesh merga troops quickly took control of Kirkuk as the Iraqi Army collapsed. Some local Arabs revolted, nurturing an insurgency that still festers. Others simply remained. Meanwhile, Turkmen appealed to powerful patrons in Turkey that they were undercounted and ignored by everyone, and Turkey came to their aid to make sure the Kurds didn’t get Kirkuk, which supplies much of Turkey’s oil. Only the presence of American troops has kept a lid on things; a brigade is still kept in Kirkuk.

And still there is no census. “The Iraqi government for the last three years, every year they say it will come this year,” says Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament.

A date for a census is on the calendar — Oct. 24. But it is subject to ratification by Iraq’s cabinet, the Turkmen have announced that they will boycott it and Arabs in Kirkuk may well do the same.

One proposal for getting past this problem would be to hold a census everywhere but in Kirkuk. If that happened Kirkuk could end up, in effect, a disenfranchised province when the next general national elections are held in January.

Another suggestion is to hold a referendum on Kirkuk without a census, but that would invite a dispute about the validity of the results.

And then there’s the Lebanese solution, the one that so far seems likeliest: just do nothing. The last census in that sectarian hodge-podge of a country was in 1932; no one would dare hold one now, since the groups who would almost certainly lose representation — Maronite Catholics, Druze and Sunni Muslims — would simply go back to war rather than get counted out.

Already, the Kurdish regional government has been defying Baghdad and issuing contracts to develop its oil fields, including some in Kirkuk. The Iraqi government showed its displeasure by moving its 12th Division, some 9,500 troops, up to Kirkuk; there they have been provocatively patrolling into pesh merga-held areas and setting off a series of minor incidents recently.

“It’s very worrisome that these incidents continue to happen,” said Joost Hilterman, of the International Crisis Group. “Perhaps they will be contained, but the stakes are huge.”

For the moment, there are still plenty of American troops around to do the containing, but all American combat troops are due to pull out by next summer. That doesn’t leave a lot of time to broker an agreement, especially when no one is likely to really want it.

Abeer Mohammed contributed reporting.

Corruption Fighters Rouse Resistance in Indonesia

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Indonesia, a country that has long been regarded as one of the world’s most corrupt, has won praise for combating graft in recent years. Leading the charge has been a single powerful government institution — one whose successes have drawn fierce opposition that now threatens its existence.

Armed with tools like warrantless wiretaps, the Corruption Eradication Commission confronted head-on the endemic corruption that remains as a legacy of President Suharto’s 32-year-long kleptocracy. Since it started operating in late 2003, the commission has investigated, prosecuted and achieved a 100-percent conviction rate in 86 cases of bribery and graft related to government procurements and budgets.

Local reporters camp daily outside the commission’s imposing eight-story building here, where high-ranking businessmen, bureaucrats, bankers, governors, diplomats, lawmakers, prosecutors, police officials and other previously untouchable members of Indonesian society have been made to discover a phenomenon new to this country: the perp walk.

One of Indonesia’s most famous rock bands, Slank, even performed outside the building last year to show support. The band took aim at members of Parliament, the institution generally considered the country’s most corrupt, by singing: “Who draws up laws? Draft bills for bucks.”

According to Transparency International, a Berlin-based private organization dedicated to curbing corruption, the modest progress Indonesia has made against corruption in the past half decade has resulted from the commission’s investigations and reforms inside a single ministry, the Ministry of Finance.

But now the nation’s Parliament, police force and attorney general’s office have increasingly been caught in the cross hairs of the anticorruption commission’s investigations, and members of those bodies are trying to undermine the commission, according to commission officials and watchdog groups.

The attacks against the commission grew so intense that Indonesia’s newly re-elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, summoned Indonesia’s top law enforcement officials on a recent morning. Sounding sometimes like a marriage counselor, he told them to avoid “friction” through better “communication” and “respect.”

The meeting shone a rare, public spotlight on the particular difficulties of fighting corruption here. At stake, experts say, is the very survival of the anticorruption commission, universally referred to as K.P.K., the initials of its name in Indonesian.

“It’s now a very dangerous time for the K.P.K.,” said Teten Masduki, the secretary general of Transparency International’s chapter in Indonesia. “Whether it’s the police, attorney general’s office or Parliament, there is a systematic agenda to destroy the K.P.K.”

Some critics say that the commission’s powers are too draconian and that defendants receive inadequate protection at a special Corruption Court where they are tried. Even Mr. Yudhoyono, who has made fighting corruption a main theme of his administration, said recently that the commission “seems to be accountable only to God.”

Haryono Umar, one of the commission’s four vice chairmen, said that its investigators were merely following the 2002 law that created it, and that the commission was accountable to Parliament and other government agencies.

“According to the law, corruption is an extraordinary crime, so that’s why it should be handled by extraordinary means,” Mr. Haryono said.

“But because we are handling corruption very aggressively,” he said, “many people are not happy with the K.P.K.” However, he denied that other law enforcement officials were among them.

Likewise, Inspector Gen. Nanan Soekarna, a spokesman for the national police, said, “We have good relations with the K.P.K.”

Current and former commission officials said relations with police officials and prosecutors started off well but grew strained in the past year after corruption investigators began focusing on the police and the attorney general’s office, long considered among the most corrupt institutions here. Last year, a former high-ranking police official was sentenced to two years in prison for misappropriating funds while serving as ambassador to Malaysia.

“Now our relations are no good because the K.P.K. started picking on their high officials,” said Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, a former deputy chairman at the commission. “We suspect each other.”

More recently, an active high-ranking police official, Susno Duadji, was wiretapped by the commission and caught asking for a $1 million bribe. In an interview with Tempo, the country’s most respected magazine, the police official said he knew he was being wiretapped and played along with the caller; in an allusion to the anticorruption commission and the police, he said, “It’s like a gecko challenging a crocodile.”

The police, through leaks to the news media, threatened to arrest several commission officials on corruption charges of their own and in a bizarre case involving their former chairman, Antasari Azhar. In May, Mr. Antasari was arrested and accused of ordering the murder of a prominent businessman who was blackmailing him over an affair with their mutual love interest, a golf caddy, according to the news media.

Watchdog groups say the anticorruption commission is facing a potentially more effective, though passive, challenge from Parliament.

The challenge comes in the form of delays in passing new legislation governing the commission and the court, after the Constitutional Court ruled in 2006 that the law establishing the two was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court gave the government until the end of 2009 to create a new law.

Watchdog groups say that Parliament has been sitting on the proposed bill in a strategy to kill the anticorruption commission. Transparency International rates Parliament — nine of whose members have been convicted by the special corruption court since 2007, mostly for bribery — as Indonesia’s most corrupt institution.

Gayus Lumbuun, a lawmaker in the committee reviewing the proposed bill, said its passage was possible before the end of the year. “We agree with T.I.,” he said in an interview, referring to Transparency International’s rating. “But we hope that T.I. also sees that there are members of Parliament who are ethical and trying to do good.”

Last year, Mr. Gayus led other lawmakers in threatening to sue Slank, the rock band, for singing about legislators who “draft bills for bucks.” But they dropped the idea after one of their own was arrested for bribery around the same time, and later sentenced to eight years in prison.

Even if the bill passes, the anticorruption effort could be weakened, according to Danang Widojoko, a coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch, a private organization. He said the bill would strip the commission of its prosecutorial authority and make the court less independent.

If Parliament fails to pass the bill, the president could extend the life of the anticorruption commission and court by passing a special regulation to be reviewed by Parliament. Mr. Yudhoyono was elected to his second term by a large margin. But he also has longtime supporters in business in a country where companies still depend largely on government contracts, experts said.

“If he’s serious about combating corruption, he’ll make sure the K.P.K. survives,” said Mr. Teten of Transparency International. “That would make the people happy, but I don’t know about the others.”

Affirmative Action Died Too Soon

By Juan Williams
Sunday, July 26, 2009

Affirmative action, age 45, is dead.

In 2003, after the Supreme Court limited race to one of many factors that could be considered in school admissions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted that affirmative action, born with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, had at most 25 more years to live. She was too optimistic.

The court's recent 5 to 4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano -- concluding that the city of New Haven, Conn., violated the rights of white firefighters when it threw out a promotions test because no blacks had passed it -- cut the last legal underpinnings for affirmative action. Without protection from reverse-discrimination lawsuits, virtually every instance of affirmative action can now be forever tied in a legal tangle that chokes the life out of it.

It is a death that has come too early, as even the nation's latest unemployment numbers show. African Americans have close to double the joblessness of whites, while the unemployment rate among Latinos is a third higher than that of whites. In a nation that is rapidly becoming more racially diverse, these are destabilizing disparities in power and class. In the professional world, blacks and Hispanics make up a mere 4 percent to 6 percent of the nation's lawyers, doctors and engineers. These gaps are exacerbated by differences in education and income and, more important, by the history of government-enforced segregation that long denied African Americans entry into schools and the business world.

So, why now? More often than not, it is the American left that gets lost in absurd fantasies about race in this country. They pretend there has been no progress in recent decades, even when they see the rise of a black middle class and witness the election of a mixed-race president and the likely confirmation of a Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court. But today, it is the right wing and its supporters on the high court who are making stuff up. They pretend that the nation is already so transformed that a colorblind America is a reality and that affirmative action is superfluous, so much so that white employees in a city fire department -- an arena long dominated by Irish and Italian Americans -- need help from the Supreme Court to get a promotion.

This is a stark reversal of the Supreme Court's position in 1979, when it upheld a company hiring policy of "one black for one white" in United Steelworkers v. Weber. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission then protected businesses from lawsuits from white employees if a company acted on an approved plan to reverse the exclusion of people of color in hiring or promotions.

The Ricci decision blows apart that framework. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on target when she said the ruling did "untold" damage to civil rights laws intended to rectify past wrongs.

Justice Antonin Scalia exemplified the new thinking, writing in his opinion that a "war" is coming between individual rights in the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act's protections against standards or hiring tests that have a specific effect on protected minorities. "The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how -- and on what terms -- to make peace between them," Scalia wrote.

But the war is over before it began. Employers, whether in government or in the private sector, now have every incentive to avoid affirmative action fights. Left in place is a status quo that favors the white majority, especially white males, who profited most from the exclusion of racial minorities for all but the most recent American history.

The only way to make sense of what seems so farcical is to conclude that the court is focused on the idealism of individual rights in a nation whose demographics are a potentially combustible mix. There are many more immigrants -- and children of immigrants -- while white birth rates are declining, so people of color already make up a third of the U.S. population. In a more racially and ethnically diverse America, every person (including whites) can be subjected to unfair racial judgments by employers.

And it makes sense, up to a point, to debate ending remedies for discrimination that are more appropriate to mid-20th century America, in which nearly 90 percent of the population was white and racism kept blacks, Latinos and Jews from advancing in the workplace.

When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, the intent of its employment provisions -- Title VII -- was to protect obvious victims, i.e., blacks, Hispanics and Asians who were being injured by discrimination in hiring, promotion and pay. (White women were not included until several years later.) Affirmative action was put in place under Title VII to help qualified minorities find their way through old-boys' networks and negative stereotypes that had the effect of putting a "Whites Only" sign on company doors.

That is just one aspect of the racial unfairness that brought together an all-white Senate with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X to support a Civil Rights Act aimed at ending discrimination. Presidents across political lines, beginning with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, also embraced the idea. The Civil Rights Act led Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice William Brennan to argue that the Constitution's equal rights protections had not stopped pernicious job discrimination and therefore should not be used to stop efforts to redress the damage done by outright racism.

In the 1989 case of City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., the Supreme Court cut that back by ruling that affirmative action is a "highly suspect tool," adding that any use of it had to be preceded by "strict scrutiny" -- putting minorities in the position of having to prove past discrimination. And now, with the Ricci case, the Supreme Court has reduced affirmative action to virtually nothing.

Public-sector employers, such as elected officials in New Haven -- where 60 percent of residents are minorities but the leadership of the fire department remains heavily white -- may still feel political pressure to bring more people of color into their workforces, and may explore tests that seek to produce more equitable racial outcomes for jobs and promotions. But even then, any loser may sue.

Corporations, meanwhile, are unlikely to go that far. Why bother to spend money and time to develop such tests absent any political pressure to diversify the workforce? As the director of the National Federation of Independent Business told the Wall Street Journal, the Ricci ruling was good news for business because it insulates employers from suits brought by minorities negatively affected by a new hiring test.

After the Ricci ruling, President Obama said that any hiring or school admissions practices based solely on race are unconstitutional, and he condemned the use of quotas. In an interview with the Associated Press, the nation's first black president stressed that the Supreme Court did not completely "close the door" on affirmative action, if properly structured and in certain circumstances, but he conceded that the court had moved "the ball" away from such efforts. Obama also asserted that affirmative action "hasn't been as potent a force for racial progress as advocates would claim," and as consolation, he offered that the best form of affirmative action is a good education for all Americans.

Essentially, Obama delivered a eulogy for affirmative action.

Of course, efforts to breathe some life into affirmative action may continue here and there. New blood on the high court, in the form of current nominee Sonia Sotomayor and future possible additions to the liberal wing, may change some rulings. Sotomayor, a self-described product of affirmative action in school admissions, said at her hearings that "equality requires effort" and that recognition of race and history is necessary to ensure equal rights in some cases. She may be right, but for now she does not have the votes with her, and the tide of time and politics has moved the other way.

The bold national experiment that came to life 45 years ago with the equal employment section of the Civil Rights Act is now over -- even if discrimination is not.

It is time to think about how to deal with racial inequity without affirmative action.

Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR and political commentator for Fox News, is the author of "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It."

Influential Allies Censure Ahmadinejad Over Delay in Deputy's Dismissal

By Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 26, 2009

TEHRAN, July 25 -- Influential supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized him Saturday for initially refusing to drop his choice for vice president as ordered by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a week ago.

Ahmadinejad confirmed that he had dismissed Esfandiar Rahim Mashai as vice president. But the head of the armed forces and an influential member of parliament questioned why it had taken Ahmadinejad so long to heed the supreme leader's instruction.

"The Iranian nation didn't expect the ink on the leader's letter to dry out while it was not yet implemented," said Maj. Gen. Seyed Hassan, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Saturday.

"The expectation from Ahmadinejad was that he would implement the leader's order immediately after receiving his letter on the 18th of July. Mashai's appointment should have been revoked and annulled, as the leader said," said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, who generally supports Ahmadinejad's policies.

The pro-government Fars News Agency reported late Saturday that after dismissing Mashai, Ahmadinejad promoted him to the key position of head of the president's office, a move expected to infuriate critics.

In a letter to Mashai, the president wrote: "Since you are a faithful, devoted and trustworthy person, I will appoint you as the adviser and the head of the president's office."

Mashai, whose son is married to Ahmadinejad's daughter, sparked controversy last year when he declared, "The Iranian people are friends with all the people of the world . . . even those of Israel."

Khamenei, the supreme leader, publicly criticized Mashai for his statement, saying it was wrong.

Replying to the leader's edict only after it had been read on state television Friday, Ahmadinejad sent an unusually informal letter to him on Saturday. Ahmadinejad's sober reply, devoid of most customary honorifics, ended a rare, open conflict between him and Khamenei, who have publicly aligned since the disputed outcome of the June 12 presidential election.

"Salaam aleikum," or "peace be with you," Ahmadinejad wrote to Khamenei, refraining from the flowery language and praises usually used when addressing the country's top authority. "The copy of the resignation letter . . . dated the 24th of July from the first deputy position has been attached. . . . Yours, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," the Iranian Students News Agency reported.

Ahmadinejad's decision came amid a fresh round of protests against his government in the capital, Tehran.

Witnesses said a couple thousand people silently crowded an area around northern Vanak Square, some flashing the victory sign.

"There were no slogans, but many cars were blowing their horns. Riot police on red motorcycles did not intervene but were present all around," one witness said. "All shops were closed on orders of the security forces."

Two other witnesses said authorities fired tear gas and made arrests at the protest.

Similar demonstrations were reported Friday in the nearby town of Karaj.

Leading Ahmadinejad opponents issued a letter Saturday urging senior clerics to speak out against arrests and repression since the election. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the unofficial leader of the movement calling for an annulment of the vote, joined other opposition figures in asking the country's grand ayatollahs to warn the government.

There are about 20 of these top Shiite clerics worldwide. Many of them have hundreds of thousands of followers but steer clear of politics. Some have spoken out against the postelection violence in Iran, asking for the people's will to be heard.

Even though they often have no positions, the grand ayatollahs wield political clout in a system based on clerical rule.

"How can we be silent against all this violence and beastliness and claim that this system is divine and follows the prophet's teachings?" the politicians asked in their letter, which was published on the Parleman News Web site.

"We request you sources of imitation to warn the responsible authorities on the negative results of their illegal activities, and to caution them on the increase of injustice in the Islamic Republic System."

Also Saturday, the commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps said Iran would strike Israel's nuclear facilities if the Jewish state attacked, state television reported.

"We are not responsible for this regime and other enemies' foolishness. . . . If they strike Iran, our answer will be firm and precise," state television quoted Mohammad Ali Jafari as saying.

Israeli leaders have threatened to destroy Iran's nuclear program, which it says poses an existential threat to their country. Iranian leaders say that the program is meant only for energy production and that nuclear weapons are against Islam.

Jafari denied reports that Iran was planning a nuclear test, calling them "sheer lies."

"Iran does not seek to conduct a nuclear test or any other similar tests," he said.

Maliki Faults Iraqi Officer's Detention of U.S. Troops After Shootout

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 26, 2009

An Iraqi officer who ordered the detention of U.S. soldiers last week after they killed three Iraqis while pursuing insurgents acted in error and was "out of line," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday.

The officer "did not understand the agreement" governing U.S. military activities since American combat troops withdrew from Iraqi cities last month, Maliki said in an interview, adding that it "clearly states that American forces have the right to defend themselves, and that's what they did." Four Iraqis, including two children, also were wounded when U.S. forces returned fire and raided nearby houses after insurgents attacked their convoy.

Maliki, at the end of a week-long U.S. visit, said he had telephoned Baghdad and "made clear that they understand that this demand of handing over the people who killed the Iraqis was wrong."

The incident, which occurred Tuesday in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, marked a potential escalation of tensions between both countries' military forces as they struggle with differing interpretations of the six-month-old military agreement. The accord, which went into effect Jan. 1, turns over all security responsibility to the Iraqi forces, and it provides for a phased U.S. withdrawal, including last month's pullout from urban areas and the complete departure of American forces by the end of 2011.

Both governments have tried to play down talk of friction between them, and senior commanders have said they are working on clearer guidelines. On the ground, however, the Americans have chafed at the restrictions and said their security is at risk.

During his four days in Washington, Maliki has consistently described U.S.-Iraq relations as being at a positive turning point, with insurgent violence substantially reduced and bilateral attention shifting from security matters to more "normal" economic, diplomatic and cultural issues. Maliki, who met with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, senior lawmakers and business representatives, dismissed reports that Iraq is feeling slighted by the Obama administration's shift in attention to the war in Afghanistan.

"It is true that we had more frequent and continual relationships with the Bush administration," he said, including weekly video and telephone conversations with President George W. Bush. "But that was because of the circumstances of that period. It was not an indication that it was stronger then and weaker now."

Maliki said he was pleased with talks with U.S. officials and especially gratified by a meeting at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he said would lead to a major international Iraq investment conference in October. He also signed an agreement for up to 10,000 Iraqi students to study abroad annually -- including in the United States -- over the next five years and a deal under which Ohio will offer Iraqi students in-state tuition and benefits.

The Obama administration, concerned that ongoing sectarian strife will endanger political and economic progress in Iraq as U.S. troops draw down, has used Maliki's visit to press for quicker and greater progress on reconciliation among the Shiite majority, Sunnis and Kurds. During his White House meeting with Maliki on Wednesday, Obama told reporters, "I reiterated my belief that Iraq will be more secure and more successful if there is a place for all Iraqi citizens to thrive, including all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups. That's why America continues to support efforts to integrate all Iraqis into Iraq's government and security forces."

Leaders in the autonomous Kurdish region said last week that armed conflict between local militia troops and Iraqi army forces has been avoided only by the presence of the U.S. military. Issues of contention include control of the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk and delineation of the territorial boundary between Kurdish and Arab Iraq.

Maliki's power, and his prospects for returning to office after January elections, are seen as greatly enhanced by overall security improvements. The Kurdish problem, and any escalation in sporadic attacks by Shiite and Sunni insurgents elsewhere in Iraq, could undermine his standing. At the same time, however, he must take care not to alienate his principal Shiite constituency.

At every venue during his U.S. visit, Maliki has insisted that no one wants reconciliation more than he does. "We are determined not to go back to sectarianism," he said in the interview, adding that it was the "root of all problems" in Iraq.

The role of U.S. forces after their withdrawal from Iraqi cities poses a related problem for Maliki. What he has called a "victory" for Iraq required U.S. troops to pull back to their bases outside urban areas except in specific circumstances outlined in the agreement.

"It gave a very positive image to the Iraqi people, it supported the credibility of the Americans, it vouched for their good intentions, it created an atmosphere which is conducive to long-term relations," Maliki said of the pullback, which was completed June 30. "It embarrassed all those who cast doubt on this relationship."

But many Iraqis -- including within the security forces -- interpret the agreement to mean that American troops are prohibited from any military operations. Some in the U.S. military say the Iraqis have been overzealous in imposing restrictions while continuing to rely on the Americans for training, combat backup, intelligence and logistical support, including fuel and bullets.

Maliki said Saturday that the self-defense clause outlined in the agreement was "difficult to define" but "obvious."

"It is self-evident that American forces are now confined to their bases and camps," he said. "They are there lawfully. Therefore, if they are attacked by any group, according to the agreement, they can return fire, they can defend themselves."

"More than that, if they have intelligence that a certain group is planning an attack on them, they have the right to move, in coordination with Iraqi forces . . . to move and act and attack," after consulting with Iraqi liaison officers, who are stationed in every U.S. encampment.

"The liaison officers decide on each separate incident, whether it is the Americans who take action, or the Iraqi forces, or a joint force," Maliki said. "We generally prefer that we take action, unless we need support from them."

Long-Oppressed Hazara Minority May Play Key Role in Afghan Elections

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 26, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan, July 25 -- For generations, Afghanistan's Hazara minority has occupied the humblest niche in the country's complex ethnic mosaic. The political power structure has been dominated by the large southern Pashtun tribes, followed by the slightly less numerous northern Tajiks.

During various periods in history, the Shiite Hazaras have been forced from their lands and slaughtered in bouts of ethnic or religious "cleansing." In more recent times, they have often been relegated to lowly jobs as cart-pullers or domestic servants. The abused boy in the novel and movie "The Kite Runner," which generated much controversy here, came from a family of Hazara servants.

But the group now stands poised to play a decisive role in the Aug. 20 presidential and provincial council elections. It has produced a popular presidential candidate, independent Ramazan Bashardost, who is an extremely long shot but has been traveling the country nonstop, preaching a message of government reform and social justice.

Meanwhile, President Hamid Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun who is seeking reelection, and his major challengers are aggressively courting the Hazara vote. The group makes up as much as 20 percent of the country's electorate and had high voter-registration and turnout rates in the last presidential election, in 2004.

"We have become kingmakers," said Mohammed Mohaqeq, a leader of the main Hazara political party, Wahdat-e-Islami, who agreed to support Karzai in return for pledges that Hazaras would be given control of several ministries and possibly a newly created province. "I cannot get elected, because my Pashtun brothers might not support me, but our people can make a big difference in deciding who wins," he said.

Mohaqeq has been campaigning in various provinces for Karzai, who has remained largely invisible during the run-up to the elections. Mohaqeq's party has organized an army of campaign workers and has fielded a slate of 14 candidates for the upper house of parliament and provincial councils, including one young man whose posters depict an old Hazara cart-puller bent under a load of goods.

Karzai, whose second vice presidential pick is a Hazara, took pains to appease conservative Hazara leaders in March by approving a controversial Shiite family law, even though it outraged human rights groups because it subjected Hazara women to the absolute control of their fathers and husbands.

Yet the political emancipation of Afghanistan's Hazaras, whose children are flocking to universities and office jobs, has created a generational and political split in a community that long fell in lockstep behind ethnic militia or religious leaders such as Mohaqeq as a matter of survival.

Many older or less educated Hazaras still express strong loyalty to such leaders and say they intend to follow their political instructions on voting day. But many others, including students and former refugees who have returned after years in Iran, said they value their political independence.

"I am Hazara, but we have rights now, and no one can tell me how to vote," said Farahmuz, 33, a laborer who joins dozens of men each morning at a traffic circle, hoping to obtain a few hours of work. "I don't want ethnic issues to come up in these elections, because they can destroy the country again," he said.

Many Hazaras said their sentimental favorite for president is Bashardost, 44, a reformist legislator and former planning minister whose office is in a tent across the street from parliament. He has been campaigning in much the same style, accepting government-provided planes to reach distant provinces but then mingling with voters in parks and markets.

"I like Mr. Bashardost because he understands our problems," said Jawad, 25, a Kabul resident who grew up in exile in Iran and now supports his elderly parents as a construction worker. "He doesn't campaign in luxury vehicles like the others. He came to Shar-i-Nau Park on foot and sat there in a tent and listened to the people."

Reached on his cellphone Saturday in a noisy market in Khost province, Bashardost said he had discovered "a big distance between the ordinary people and the politicians in Kabul," adding: "I am sure we are going to see a revolution on August 20." He also said he had received a surprisingly large amount of support from Pashtuns at home and abroad. "This is something very new for Afghanistan," he said.

As a minority group that has long faced economic exploitation and social oppression, Hazaras seem to be taking particular advantage of political freedoms that have opened up since the fall of extremist Sunni Taliban rule in late 2001.

At a new private Shiite college in Kabul, teachers and students said the elections are important for their community, no matter who wins, because they represent a step toward modern, democratic practices that can help overcome Afghan traditions of ethnic and tribal competition.

"We need to develop the values and practices of democracy," said Amin Ahmadi, the college director. "Unfortunately, ethnic issues still play a large role in our country, and people don't trust leaders from other ethnic groups. But if we can have fair, transparent and peaceful elections, that will matter more than if we get a good or a bad president."

In West Kabul, the rundown but bustling heart of the capital's Hazara community, every public surface is papered with campaign posters. Yet many cart-pullers, mechanics and other workers said they are fed up with both national and ethnic politics. They said that their community suffers from widespread unemployment and poverty, but that no one in power has done anything to help.

"We are not happy with our government, and we are not happy with our own leaders," said Imam Ali Rahmat, 61, who sells firewood. "To them, we are just made of grime and dust. To us, they are just made of false promises. We need a change and we need new leaders, because we have lost our way."