Sep 29, 2009

McChrystal’s War - Newsweek.com

ISAF Logo. * de: Schrift in Paschtu: کمک او هم...Image via Wikipedia

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal believes he can win in Afghanistan. It's the rest of the world that needs convincing.

Published Sep 26, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009

In Kabul, the entrance to the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force—the coalition of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan—is easy to miss. Ever since the Taliban blew up the main gate a month ago, visitors have been required to pass through a small metal door and down winding, dingy passageways topped with barbed wire. Inside the ISAF compound, grimy trailers, used to provide office space, are stacked up around a seedy, once grand building that was long ago a social club for officers of the British Empire. There was a bar, but a couple of weeks ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal outlawed alcohol on the base, and he has indicated that he wants to turn a small, pretty garden, a tiny oasis of green, into a rifle range.

McChrystal, 55, is a purebred warrior, the son of a two-star general, West Point class of '76, a former commander of the elite Rangers Regiment, and, from 2003 to 2008, the head of hunter-killer black ops in Special Operations. He eats one meal a day, works out obsessively every morning at 5, and is so free of body fat that he looks gaunt. Lately, as commander of the war in Afghanistan, he has become a kind of Zen warrior, preaching that often "the shot you don't fire is more important than the one you do." He is a student of what he calls "counterinsurgency math." If you encounter 10 Taliban members and kill two, he says, you don't have eight remaining enemies. You have more like 20: the friends and relatives of the two you killed.

McChrystal reinforces his sermon early every morning in a dreary, windowless bunker at a meeting called the CUA (pronounced koo-ah), for commander's update assessment. He sits in the back row of five tiers of computer modules, facing giant video screens streaming with data and statistics. One day last week, when a briefer informed him that two Taliban had been killed the day before by soldiers using a multiple-rocket launcher, McChrystal dryly noted, "That's an awful lot of firepower to kill two people." He used gentle humor to chide an officer who presented a convoluted diagram full of boxes and arrows to illustrate counterinsurgency in Kandahar. "The day we can explain that, we've won," the general observed.

McChrystal has a disarming, low-key style, free of the bombast and sense of entitlement that can come with four stars. He is polite and gracious, if direct, and he can be funny. At the end of the CUA, an officer brought up the spate of articles appearing in the American press suggesting that McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan was being seriously questioned by policymakers in Washington, including President Obama. McChrystal had sent his chiefs in the Pentagon a secret assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which he described as "deteriorating" and headed for "failure" unless the Americans sent more troops. The 66-page document had been leaked to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, setting off a buzz of critical stories in the media. Hawks seized on the report to argue that Obama was going all wobbly, while critics of the war suggested the military was dragging him toward another Vietnam. The controversy caused evident anxiety among McChrystal's commanders at the morning briefing. The officer asked if General McChrystal was feeling the pressure. "I am," McChrystal allowed, and deadpanned, "Money would make me feel better." There were a few laughs as his legal adviser, Col. Rich Gross, gave the general a dollar, but the joke fell a little flat. McChrystal's people want to believe in him, and they want to believe in their mission; they do not want to see McChrystal's judgment questioned—and certainly not his integrity.

At the morning briefing, McChrystal tried to make light of stories in the press quoting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as saying McChrystal's call for more troops was just one opinion among military experts. "She's absolutely right," said McChrystal to his lieutenants. "There are other experts and they're smarter than me," though, he quipped, "not in this room." The jokes were uncharacteristically lame, as if he was struggling to put a bright face on bad news. Later that evening, eating his one meal of the day (salmon salad, chick-en, strawberry shortcake), McChrystal was clearly troubled—"a bit bothered," as he put it—by the rumors appearing in the media that he might resign over his differences with those unnamed other experts in Washington. "It is my responsibility, my duty—my sacred duty," he said, to tell the unvarnished truth to his leaders, but then to carry out their orders. He would not resign, he said, even if they rejected his advice.

Duty, that most noble of military virtues, is a deceptively simple notion. "Duty, Honor, Country" is the motto of the U.S. Military Academy. But what if duty to your troops conflicts with duty to your political leaders? What then is the honorable thing to do for your country? McChrystal would not acknowledge that there might be a conflict. But virtually everything he said to me over the course of an hour last week suggested that he believes he cannot carry out his mission in Afghanistan without more troops. He would not say how many he is asking for in a still-secret document, but knowledgeable military officials who would not be quoted discussing classified information say the number is about 40,000. Maybe McChrystal will salute smartly if he is ordered to make do with fewer. He has great political skills; he couldn't have risen to his current position without them. But he definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his principles to do the politically convenient thing. At the very least, when he is called back to Washington to support his assessment and recommendation, he will make a strong public case that only an all-out campaign of counterinsurgency against the Taliban will accomplish his assigned mission—to make sure that terrorists do not use Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations against the United States.

McChrystal has led a charmed life until now, in part because his leadership skills have been obvious and recognized. His inspiration was his father, a Korean and Vietnam War combat vet who was, according to his son, the "non-Great Santini"—soft-spoken, never a bully. "I never, ever saw him do the wrong thing in my whole life," says McChrystal. "I never saw him say, 'With a wink and a nod we can get around this.' "

At West Point, the younger McChrystal was "a troublemaker," he recalls. He often violated the drinking ban and got caught at it, walking hundreds of hours of punishment drills, pacing up and down a stone courtyard in full-dress uniform, carrying a rifle. As a senior, McChrystal organized a mock infantry attack on a school building, using real guns and rolled-up socks as grenades, and was nearly shot by the military police guarding the building. But his classmates compared him to the Cooler King, the charismatic renegade played by Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. His tactical officer at West Point made him a battalion commander, one of only a dozen on campus.

He became a Green Beret, a Ranger, and an assistant division commander in the 82nd Airborne. Twice he was taken aside by senior officers and told that he needed to get a certain staff or desk job to advance his career, but he declined in order to stay in the field. Curiously for such a warrior, he did not see combat in his early Army years. "I missed Panama and Grenada, and it bothered me. You always wonder how you'll do," he says. Rising to become a Special Operations commander after 9/11, he finally did go on combat operations, though, he says, "I've never shot anyone." Still, he has been a very effective killer. When he was head of the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan and Iraq, from 2003 to 2008, McChrystal's black-ops teams hunted high-value targets (HVTs), eliminating some notorious ones like Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the ruthless head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Along the way, "I became kind of an ascetic," says McChrystal. "I got fat as a lieutenant, so I started jogging and eating one meal a day, and it just worked for me." His wife, Annie, whom he married out of West Point and with whom he has a son (who chose not to become a soldier), scoffs at the suggestion that her husband is some sort of spiritual samurai, and says he just doesn't like the drowsy feeling he gets after eating a big meal. She also laughs about the fact that he has seen the raunchy NASCAR spoof Talladega Nights so many times, he can recite the lines (he can do the same for Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

Nonetheless, others say that Mc-Chrystal is like an ancient warrior-scholar, constantly reading history, pondering the mysteries of human nature. He studied for a year at Harvard in the 1990s and took a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations, running to work every day from his home in Brooklyn, N.Y., a dozen miles away. He was known at both elite institutions for his humility. "He's not a Petraeus," says Parag Khanna, who shared an office at the CFR. "He's not a publicity seeker." Reading about the struggles for national liberation in Indochina from the 1950s through the Vietnam War, McChrystal became fascinated by the challenges of counterinsurgency. He learned that putting down a guerrilla movement was impossible without winning the support of the local population. His convictions were reinforced by his experience running black ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Counterter-ror operations—hunting down HVTs—went hand in hand with effective counterinsurgency, with winning over the local population. Indeed, he came to believe, "you can't have one without the other." To successfully find and kill terrorists requires the intelligence and cooperation that only the locals can provide. McChrystal already had this mindset before Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed him forward to replace Gen. David McKiernan as head of Coalition forces in Afghanistan. It was one of the rare occasions when a theater-of-war commander has been removed. (Truman's dismissal of General MacArthur during the Korean War is another.) The Pentagon was trying to send a message. In the view of Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, McKiernan had spent too much time trying to coax along the squabbling and sometimes inert NATO force commanders, and he didn't have the necessary background to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

Mullen and Gates found the right man to shake things up. Arriving in Kabul last June, McChrystal announced that there were two types of people at his headquarters: "Martyrs and people that are going home." The general's audiences sometimes don't know if he is being serious or kidding. "People who don't know me sometimes don't laugh," he says. "Others laugh nervously. People who do know me laugh, but they also know it's true." (McChrystal's deeply loyal staffers like to joke that they've "climbed aboard the pain train.")

McChrystal immediately decreed that the ISAF troops were going to learn how to get along with the local population. It took less than a week for him to start to make his point. He was part of a convoy blasting through city streets at 60mph when the speed limit was 20mph. The soldiers were driving heavily armored vehicles right down the middle of the road, pointing their weapons at civilian vehicles, forcing them to the side. When the convoy stopped, McChrystal took aside the commander and dressed him down. "This is exactly the way you create the ugly ISAF," he said in a low but cold tone. He issued a directive: from then on, all ISAF forces would obey local driving laws. (More difficult, he tried to set an example by not wearing body armor. "The Afghans don't wear body armor," he would say, but he ran into grumbling and resistance.)

There is a strong emphasis in the military on what is called "force protection." Many officers believe their first priority is to bring their troops home safely. To that end, American soldiers gear up in helmets and bulletproof vests and ride in massive armored vehicles. "It was like we were going through Afghanistan in a submarine," sighs McChrystal. He wants his troops to get out in the field, away from the comfy forward operating bases and into the street. In past wars, there was a term called REMF, for "rear-echelon motherf--ker." The new term of derision is FOBBIT, for those who never leave their forward-operating base. To cut down what McChrystal calls "the recreational attitude," he has been methodically closing down the concessions that sprout up on American bases—Pizza Hut, Burger King, Baskin-Robbins. "We don't need 31 flavors to fight a war," said a McChrystal aide who did not wish to be identified, but observed that when he was based at Camp Victory in Iraq early in the war there, it was possible to shop for 39 varieties of flat-screen TVs.

If lazing about on a couch is classically American, so is aggressively attacking the enemy. "It's not the American way to back down from a fight," says Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, deputy commander of Special Operations and a friend and classmate of McChrystal's. Traditionally, the "American way of war" has been to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. McChrystal has been after his junior officers and soldiers to think twice before they shoot. "Is it worth killing that insurgent if you might also kill a family in the compound? Probably not," he says. When he first arrived, he asked, "Why do we even have 2,000-pound bombs? Afghanistan doesn't have big-enough targets for them." He issued another directive instructing troops not to call in airstrikes or supporting fire unless necessary for self-defense. This order has cut down on civilian casualties, probably the biggest obstacle to winning the trust of the Afghans.

Young American soldiers who a few years ago might have sought combat as a macho way to "get some" are learning self-restraint. But McChrystal also has to deal with the opposite problem—allied forces whose national leaders basically want them to stay out of the fight. The Germans do not fight at night, and the Canadians have pulled back from combat in recent months. McChrystal has no power to order them into battle.

A month ago, the Germans called in an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks. Perhaps 90 people died in the fireball, maybe a third of them civilian. McChrystal immediately went on the local airwaves to apologize, antagonizing the Germans, who initially proclaimed no civilian casualties. He further irritated the Germans by shutting down the bar at ISAF headquarters. McChrystal last week jetted off to Europe to stroke allies, some of whom refuse to use the word "war," preferring "armed humanitarian conflict."

The general's real diplomatic challenge is at home in Washington. He was taken aback last week by the flap over the leak of his assessment of the Afghanistan war. "It's sort of like, 'Why is this happening to me now?' " says his executive officer and old friend, Col. Charles Flynn. McChrystal was palpably uncomfortable with the suggestion that Obama was having second thoughts about the whole counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The general, who admires Obama, has met him only three times, and has never really had the chance to discuss the war with the president in any depth. If asked back to Washington, McChrystal says, he would welcome the opportunity to make his case for more troops. ("General McChrystal knows this is not the appropriate time for him to come back to speak to Congress," says Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for the secretary of defense. "He knows his views are well represented in Washington.") McChrystal's aides point out that if Obama does approve the additional troops, it will still take months to get them into the theater—while the war continues to go downhill.

The general is trying to put the best face on the stories of dissent bubbling up in Washington. "The debate is healthy. The worst thing would be no debate," he says. He is aware that there is a move on, reportedly emanating from the office of Vice President Joe Biden, to give up on nation building in Afghanistan and just go after the terrorists in their lairs. Or, maybe just trying to bring security to Kabul and a few provinces, and leave the rest to the Taliban. With some effort, McChrystal tries to be open-minded about his critics. "Maybe they're right," he says.

But it's obvious he thinks they're wrong. He uses the analogy of a burning building: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn." His chief of intelligence, Gen. Mike Flynn, says flatly, "Civil war would immediately break out. You'd have a failed state, like Somalia, only much harder to get to."

The enormity of the challenge facing McChrystal and his team becomes clear from attending their morning CUA. Reams of data stream across the video screens, but what does it really mean? ISAF is building more power generators, but what good does it do when the power is stolen or cut off—which in a thoroughly corrupt, broken country, routinely happens? McChrystal has a bright staff, but they're smart enough to know what they don't know. Cmdr. Jeff Eggers—a Navy SEAL with an Oxford degree who was the chief drafter of McChrystal's assessment—notes, for instance, that it would be useful to know who usually shoots first in a fire fight with the Taliban. Often the side that takes the initiative has better intelligence. The problem is "we don't know who shoots first. We can't tell," says Eggers. He blames the conflicting reports on the fog of war.

McChrystal is so sincere, well informed, and impassioned that he will make a good case for getting more troops if and when he is ever summoned to Washington. But he has a natural bias toward assertive action, not retreat. What if Obama says no to more troops, or does not approve enough troops? "I'll do the best I can," McChrystal says. "He's not the type to resign to make some kind of political statement," says his friend General Kearney.

On McChrystal's shelf is a novel called Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer. The book, which pits a noble warrior named Sam Damon against a conniving careerist named Courtney Massengale, has a cult following in the military. "I've read it about six times," says McChrystal. He is "flattered" to be compared to the Damon character, as he often is by his admiring staff. But he adds that the book is actually complex, and that the Damon hero is a "bit too rigid," while the villain Massengale is "brilliant when he wants to be." McChrystal has an appealing earnestness and openness (he doesn't hesitate to tick off his flaws: "I'm impatient, I shoot from the hip, I ride my staff too hard…"), but one senses a certain wiliness as well. There are many ways to be a good soldier, and McChrystal wants to be them all.

With John Barry and Suzanne Smalley in Washington

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How to Save the News - Nation

PBS logo (1971-1984)Image via Wikipedia

There's no doubt that news in America is in trouble. Of the 60,000 print journalists employed throughout the nation in 2001, at least 10,000 have lost their jobs, and last year alone newspaper circulation dropped by a precipitous 7 percent. Internet, network and cable news employ a dwindling population of reporters, not nearly enough to cover a country of 300 million people, much less keep up with events around the world. It is no longer safe to assume, as the authors of the Constitution did, that free-flowing news and information will always be available to America's voters.

It's time for the public discussion to focus less on what has caused this swiftly escalating crisis--the mass migration of readers to the Internet and the effects of the economic meltdown feature in most explanations--and start talking seriously about solutions. Saving journalism might seem like an entirely new problem, but it's really just another version of one that Americans have solved many times before: how do we keep a vital public institution safe from the ups and downs of the economy? Private philanthropy and government support are the two best answers we have to this question.

One of the best-known examples of philanthropy's response to the news crisis is ProPublica (propublica.org), which was founded in 2007 by editor in chief Paul Steiger with retired banking tycoons Herbert and Marion Sandler. The group, which relies mainly on grants from the Sandlers to stay in operation, maintains a staff of thirty-five reporters and editors, who specialize in hard-hitting investigative journalism with a long memory, the kind that cash-strapped commercial media have always been wary of supporting. With stories on Hurricane Katrina and Guantánamo already published in places like the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Nation [see A.C. Thompson, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," January 5], the group exemplifies how valuable the nonprofit news sector can be.

The group's finances and the scope of its operations, however, are a perfect example of why philanthropy can never be the sole answer to America's news crisis. ProPublica's annual budget of $10 million is exceptional by philanthropic standards, but it is still less than a single newspaper, Denver's Rocky Mountain News, was losing per year before its owners shut it down. An army of ProPublicas is needed before America can replace the capacity for good journalism it has already lost.

That said, the private, not-for-profit news sector is worth paying attention to. Some of the new organizations cropping up might be models for others, if they're successful. Two representative examples are the Investigative Network (currently a for-profit, with plans to become a hybrid not-for-profit and for-profit entity) and the Under-Told Stories Project. Founded to fill a void in coverage of the multibillion-dollar Texas Statehouse budget, the Investigative Network (pressforthepeople.com) aims to use the revenue it gets from selling subscriptions to niche information streams to fund investigative journalism in the general public interest. The group's founder, investigative reporter Paul Adrian, hopes that funding will also come from story syndication and philanthropy. Groups with such a diverse mix of support as part of their initial business plans are likely to become more common.

The Under-Told Stories Project (undertoldstories.org) is devoted to increasing public awareness of underreported international topics. The group is funded partly by sale of its stories, most of which end up on public television and radio, and partly by its institutional partner, Saint John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota. Organizations that get some support from endowed nonmedia institutions might also become more common.

It's also worth noting that in an environment of diminishing opportunities for young journalists, the Under-Told Stories Project arranges internships. Ensuring that good reporting will be around in the long term is just as important as preserving what we have now, and the private, nonprofit media sector would do well to pursue it more vigorously. (Full disclosure: I am an unpaid adviser to both the Under-Told Stories Project and the Investigative Network.)

Because such fledgling enterprises are potentially so valuable to the health of our media, they should be loudly and publicly encouraged at this stage, even though there will never be enough of them to solve the news crisis on their own. At Harvard's Hauser Center, I've launched a database of nonprofit news efforts (hausercenter.harvard.edu/medialist). Many of the listed organizations are in the early stages of development, and now is the time when publicity and donations can make a decisive difference. If you're looking for somewhere to donate, or if you know of a group that we haven't found yet, I urge you to get in touch. But for a nation in the midst of a crippling news crisis, my list is still alarmingly short, and, as a potential replacement for our commercial media, it can never really be long enough.

I would love it if supporting the news were seen as a routine civic obligation--"this month's city hall coverage adopted by the Elks Club" is easy to imagine--but those days, if they ever come, are likely far in the future, and adopting a stretch of highway is a far cry from building it in the first place.

To survive the current crisis, we need bigger, faster solutions. We need to do what other mature democracies have long done: fully fund our public media with tax dollars. Calling in the resources of the central government to bear on any national problem is sure to be obscured by the fog of ideological and partisan distractions permeating the debates about the climate crisis and healthcare. I can already hear the hysterical, clamoring opposition to "socialized media" or "government takeover of the news."

Better funding for All Things Considered on NPR or NewsHour on PBS will not turn either program into a propaganda outfit for the government. The BBC is not Pravda, and Japan and most of Europe, which have enjoyed extremely well-funded public media for decades, are not a network of totalitarian states. German public television, for example, is amply funded with revenue collected under the aegis of the central government but administered through a decentralized system designed to preserve regional independence. There are numerous democratic nations with public broadcasting systems that are both well funded by their central government and also well shielded from its political influence.

In America, more robust public media won't weaken or constrain our commercial media. No matter how well funded PBS and NPR become, American cable news will still be free to devote 22 percent of its total coverage to stories like the death and burial of Anna Nicole Smith, as it did in February 2007.

Even though it goes against habits of American governance, and even though the Obama administration and its allies are mired in the slow advance of other ambitious projects, now is the moment to advocate greatly expanding our public media. The rapid corrosion of our commercial news demands that something be done soon, and it is still early in the administration of a popular, progressive president, when sweeping changes are possible.

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have correctly deemed efforts to solve the news crisis a national infrastructure project [see "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers," April 6]. We don't leave it up to private nonprofits to maintain our roads and bridges, outfit the Army or provide public transportation. Volunteer militias and private fire departments rightly did not survive the progressive reforms of the nineteenth century. You can still hire a private security firm or travel in a private jet, but the government also assures a basic measure of protection and mobility to every taxpaying citizen. Why shouldn't it be the same for the news and information whose circulation the founding fathers saw fit to protect in the First Amendment?

Total federal support for American public broadcast media in 2007 was about $480 million. That might seem sufficient or even impressive until you compare it with the BBC, which serves a nation with one-fifth the US population but which received the equivalent of $5.6 billion in government money in 2007. When it comes to public media, the United States is decisively outspent by the governments of most other major democracies. Japan, whose population is less than half the size of the United States', spent the equivalent of $6.8 billion for public broadcasting in 2007; Germany, with one-third the size, spent about $11 billion; and Canada, a tenth the size, spent $898 million. Even Denmark and Ireland, with populations smaller than New York City, far outspent the United States per capita, with respective budgets equivalent to $673 million and $296 million.

The amount the government now sets aside for public broadcast media is about what it costs the military to occupy Iraq for two and a half days. Taking into account the hundreds of billions lavished on the interim survival of our elite financial institutions, funding our news infrastructure won't be a hardship. Just a small fraction of the $45 billion--that's billion with a "b"--Citigroup alone has received since October 2008 would give NPR and PBS all the money they need.

Unlike the benefits that come from bailing out investment banks and insurance conglomerates, a stronger investment in public media would give all citizens a concrete and valuable service. Turn on cable TV news to find out about an event overseas, and you are likely to see a panel of well-coiffed pundits sitting in a studio in New York, Washington or Los Angeles debating what might be happening on the other side of the world. Switch to the same story on the BBC, and you are likely to see a correspondent on the ground where the event is actually taking place. The BBC's forty-one permanent foreign bureaus are more than twice the number maintained by ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS each. This isn't a difference of national character; it's simply a matter of money. For commercial TV, paying pundits is a lot cheaper than doing the real work of reporting. And for public media, chronically small budgets often make extensive original reporting too expensive, even for respected shows like NewsHour.

To discern the real view the American people hold toward public media, it is necessary to pay attention to one fact: voluntary viewer donations provide the biggest chunk of the money that keeps public media in business, and have done so for a very long time. The phrase "supported by viewers like you" is more than a marketing bromide. Except for stalwarts like the Ford and MacArthur foundations and Mutual of America, and in years past Exxon and AT&T, foundation and corporate giving has never provided as much to public television as small individual pledges. But despite its reliability, voluntary public subscription is no way to fund a major public service.

Throughout the two decades I was president of WNET, New York's PBS station, I spent a lot of time standing in front of cameras asking viewers for money, so I don't feel ashamed or unqualified to say that even though it has essentially saved the medium and mobilized millions of Americans, the drawn-out, droning pledge drive may finally be reaching a point of diminishing return. After factoring in the salaries of development departments, the costs of direct mail and on-air solicitation, premiums, thank-you letters and the requisite tote bag, a sizable portion of every dollar that comes in to public television is already spent. There is also the less quantifiable cost in viewers who, when faced with a pledge drive, simply change the channel.

For more than fifty years the American people have shown, through their generous donations, that they support the idea and the reality of public media. The government should acknowledge those decades of widespread support by funding NPR and PBS both more extensively and more efficiently.

By increasing direct allocations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is responsible for disbursing funding to public TV and radio affiliates across America, the inherent inefficiencies of fundraising via public appeal would be eliminated, and countless hours of airtime would be liberated from pledge drives. It would also mean that Americans would get more in return for the money they already pay to maintain the public media distribution network, which delivers NPR and PBS to 100 percent of the country.

Perhaps most important, pumping more money into our public media infrastructure could fortify the eroding foundation of print journalism, on which the rest of news media depend. News shows on PBS and NPR already routinely call on newspaper and magazine reporters to provide coverage. Expanding this practice could mean jobs for the rapidly growing number of unemployed print journalists, or even the survival of entire newsrooms in cities with closed or downsizing papers.

Once a newspaper or magazine is lost, its particular blend of institutional history, editorial and reporting expertise, and its ties to the community are never fully recoverable. But an expanded public media network, capable of deploying reporters across the nation and around the world, would at least make sure that someone is always available to gather the news, and keep government and business responsible to the public interest.

The costs of letting our journalistic institutions decay aren't visible like collapsed bridges or tent cities, but they're just as dire. A thriving news media, which America is in real danger of losing, is the unspoken assumption behind not only the First Amendment but the whole idea of self-government. It shouldn't seem radical to expect the same government that recognizes the freedom of the press to also ensure the survival of the press.

About William F. Baker

William F. Baker, president emeritus of WNET, the country's largest PBS station, is Bernard L. Schwartz Professor and Journalist-in-Residence at Fordham University

This article initially characterized The Investigative Network as a private, not-for-profit group. The article has been corrected to reflect the fact that the organization is a for-profit that intends to become a hybrid for-profit and not-for-profit.

Evan Leatherwood, a freelance writer based in Brooklyn, New York, helped research and write this article.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sep 28, 2009

Plan to Have Vietnam Governed by PhDs - Thanh Nien Daily

Hoàn Kiếm Lake in the centre of Hanoi, with th...Image via Wikipedia

A recent plan to have doctorate degree holders fill all top positions in the Hanoi government is “not quite viable”, local newswire VietnamNet quoted a senior official as saying Friday.

Le Quoc Cuong, deputy head of Hanoi Department of Internal Affairs, said the plan to increase the city’s talent pool announced earlier this month would be reconsidered as “some targets need to be adjusted.”

All managers from Hanoi’s Communist Party Unit, the highest local government body, must hold PhDs by 2020, Le Anh Sac, an expert with the Department of Internal Affairs, said in an interview with VietnamNet on September 17.

The plan has sparked a torrent of criticism among experts and residents, who said the target of 100 percent was too high and impractical.

Cuong said “a target of 50 percent is practical” as right now more than 30 percent of 500 officials in the Party Unit hold master’s and doctorate degrees.

According to Sac, among the city’s 7,500 civil servants, only 56 currently have doctorates. He said he would like Hanoi’s civil service to follow the lead of neighboring countries that have more advanced bureaucracies.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Formation of Makkal Sakti a good move, says Dr M - Daily Express

Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahath...Image via Wikipedia

Published on: Sunday, September 27, 2009

Kuala Lumpur: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has described the formation of the Malaysia Makkal Sakti Party as a good move.

Saying that there was a strong support for its formation, he said the move would also help restore the support of the Indian community towards the Government.

"Since there seems to be a lot of support for the formation of this party, I think it is a good thing because we don't want to lose the support of Indians," he said at a Hari Raya open house which he hosted at his residence here, Saturday.

The new Indian-based party is formed by former leaders of the outlawed organisation, Hindraf, and is headed by Hindraf's national coordinator R. S. Thanenthiran.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is scheduled to launch the party on Oct 10 at the Malaysia Agro Exposition Park in Serdang.

Asked whether Makkal Sakti would affect MIC's position as the main Indian-based party in the country, Dr Mahathir said: "I think MIC's influence has already been diluted."

Asked on reports that MIC President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu might consider taking a two-month break from his duties as party president, Dr Mahathir said two months was not enough.

"It should be extended to about 20 years. He has been there for 30 years.

The longer he (Samy Vellu) sits there, the more people are going to hate him," he said.

Dr Mahathir was also asked on the road safety campaign dubbed "Ops Sikap" which was launched in conjunction with the Aidilfitri.

Expressing disappointment over the attitudes of Malaysian drivers whom he said were prone to speeding, he suggested that the Government suspend the licence of those who flouted traffic rules.

"I've been to many countries and never have I seen people driving as fast as the way Malaysian drivers do.

"These drivers are not that good a driver but they cannot wait and always want to go fast, causing accidents," he said.

The 20th Ops Sikap, an integrated operation to minimise road accidents during the festive season, saw 222 people perished on the roads since its launch on Sept 13. The operation ends tomorrow.

Earlier, Dr Mahathir and wife Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali received guests at their open house.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Govt’s land policy failing most vulnerable - Phnom Penh Post

090928_01f
Photo by: Sovan Philong
Chab Bunleang, 49, who lives along rail lines in the north of Phnom Penh in a home she said she has owned for two decades, belongs to one of 23 households facing eviction. Three families have agreed to government compensation since last week.

VULNERABLE communities are still being subjected to land-tenure insecurity and forced displacement despite a seven-year, multimillion-dollar effort to reform the land sector, according to a report to be released today.

The report, produced by a coalition of local and international housing rights groups, says the donor-funded US$38.4 million Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP) has failed the country’s poor by “entrenching inequality”, signalling a potentially dark future for land rights in Cambodia.

LMAP was established in 2002 with funding from international donors including the World Bank with a goal of establishing an “efficient and transparent land administration system” within five years.


The 81-page report acknowledges that the project has notched up some significant achievements, including issuing legal titles for more than 1 million pieces of land nationwide, but it argues that sporadic successes have been overshadowed by an increase in forced evictions and the project’s failure to protect those most vulnerable to exploitation.

“Despite significant successes in some areas, LMAP is not improving tenure security for segments of Cambodian society that are most vulnerable to displacement,” the report states.

“Vulnerable groups that have legitimate claims to land are routinely and arbitrarily denied access to land-titling and dispute-resolution mechanisms, which undermines the project’s aim of reducing poverty and promoting social stability.”

A key defect identified by the report is the fact that LMAP’s land-titling system has excluded areas that are “likely to be disputed” or of “unclear status”, cutting tens of thousands of families off from access to land titles under the Kingdom’s 2001 Land Law.

The area around Phnom Penh’s Boeung Kak lake, where more than 4,000 families have been unable to apply for land titles because the lake lies in a “development zone”, is cited as a key example. It also expresses concerns for the protection of indigenous land rights and argues that LMAP’s land-dispute resolution mechanism has failed to create a “fairly accessible, efficient and impartial” means of resolving conflicts.

“If the system continues to exclude vulnerable groups, the benefits of the programme will be overshadowed by the harms,” said David Pred, country director of international rights group Bridges Across Borders, which contributed to the report.

“The experience of LMAP has demonstrated that many of the intended benefits of titling do not materialise in the absence of the rule of law and functioning dispute-resolution mechanisms to protect people’s rights.”

Yeng Virak, executive director of the Community Legal Education Centre, said LMAP’s land-registration drive had made significant achievements, but that the project is restricted by the “rigidity” of its design and implementation.

Particularly, he said, the fact that LMAP’s land-titling programme is not carried out in at-risk areas means that many strong legal claims – including those from Phnom Penh’s

Boeung Kak, Group 78 and Dey Krahorm areas – had not been rewarded with land titles.

“[The] existing legal instruments are sufficient,” he said. “Their possession rights should be recognised and respected.”

Land Management Minister Im Chhun Lim could not be reached for comment Sunday, but Phnom Penh Deputy Governor Mann Chhoeun rejected the contents of the report, saying dispute-resolution mechanisms at district and provincial levels had been successfully enforced by governors.

“Both bodies have helped balance the work so that it is better and … responds to the people’s need more effectively. This is [an example of]
good governance,” he told the Post.

Rights groups on Sunday expressed fears the successor programmes to LMAP – the Land Administration Sub-Sector Programme and Land Management Sub-Sector Programme – will do little to improve the situation.

“We hope to see both development partners and the government do a better job of fulfilling their responsibilities under the successor programmes,” said Natalie Bugalski, a legal officer from the Centre of Housing Rights and Evictions, which also contributed to the report.
Pred said the success of future programmes relied on more than the good intentions of one or two stakeholders.

“The most serious problems that we document in the report are beyond the capacity of LMAP and the Ministry of Land to address, and require better interministerial cooperation and political will that has so far been sorely lacking,” he said.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

VOA News - Philippines Launches Massive Relief Operation After Flood



28 September 2009

Bayron Report - Download (MP3) Download
Bayron Report - Listen (MP3) audio clip

The Philippines has appealed for international assistance following the worst flooding in more than 40 years. At least 140 people have been killed as a result of the heavy rains and, as the death toll from the disaster continues to rise, the government has been overwhelmed by its scale.

Elated flood victims reach out to receive relief goods after flood water subsides in Cainta, east of Manila, 28 Sep 2009
Elated flood victims reach out to receive relief goods after flood water subsides in Cainta, east of Manila, 28 Sep 2009
The Philippine government is scrambling to provide shelter, food and basic supplies for hundreds of thousands of people displaced by the floods.

Tropical storm Ketsana brought torrential rains to the northern Philippines Saturday, inundating most of the capital Manila and surrounding provinces. Surging water washed away buildings and cars. Scores of people were killed and many are still missing.

President Gloria Arroyo called the disaster an "extreme event" that has strained the government's capabilities to the limit. She said rescue efforts will continue until all residents are accounted for.

Two days after the flooding, rescue and relief operations continue to be hampered by the lack of rubber boats and helicopters. Many victims are demanding answers from local authorities for the lack of advance warning and the slow response to the emergency. Victims said they were stranded on their rooftops for hours before help arrived.

Flood waters in some areas subsided Monday but thousands of homes are still without power.

The government has appealed for international humanitarian assistance. Vilma Cabrera, assistant secretary of the Philippine Social Welfare Department, said Monday her agency needs donations of basic necessities.

"Right now we need mats, blankets, mosquito nets, cooking utensils. We need hygiene kits and we need flashlights and lighting equipment," said Cabrera.

People have been warned about the danger of water-borne diseases. Schools are closed until Tuesday and many offices remain shut.

Storms lash the Philippines every year and tropical Storm Ketsana was not one of the strongest, but it brought very large amounts of rain. In Manila Saturday, a month's worth of rain fell in 12 hours.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Singapore’s art groups decline to be propaganda mouthpiece for National Integration Council - The Temasek Review

The PMO is headed by the Prime Minister of Sin...Image via Wikipedia

From our Correspondent

The key players in the Singapore art scene have declined an overture by the government to become their propaganda mouthpiece to help promote integration between locals and foreigners, a call made by the National Integration Council on Friday.

The Council, led by Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had earlier recommended the government allocate an eye-popping $10 million dollars to organize events for immigrants to make them feel welcome in Singapore.

The government is becoming increasingly worried at the rising social tensions on the ground due to relentless influx of foreigners in recent years.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a dialogue with NTU students lately that the government’s immigration policy will remain though it will “tweak” it to slow the intake of foreigners.

When interviewed by the state-controlled media, many key leaders in Singapore’s art scene expressed their doubts and scepticism of being involved in helping foreigners “integrate” into Singapore society.

Tay Tong, managing director of TheatreWorks, said:

“It’s really more about that, rather than say, ‘Oh, let’s do a play and please, integrate!’. I don’t think that’s going to work. I’m kind of curious what it means by integration. I think when we’re dealing with cultural differences, it should primarily be more about the celebration of differences, rather than trying to be homogeneous.”

NMP Audrey Wong, who is also the co-director of Substation was more direct:

“The thing is, we don’t want to do propaganda art. In fact, the public cannot be duped. They are suspicious of anything that smacks of propaganda. So there needs to be an understanding of how art works and how art functions in society, in order for the initiative to be successful.”

Shaun Teo, president of Migrant Voices, added:

“We are not talking about issues in a hypothetical or ideal situation. The characters act out certain situations that will happen at home, so the solutions that they’ll find from forum theatre are the solutions that they are most probably able to apply at home.”

The lukewarm response from the arts community in Singapore must have disappointed the government who is sparing more efforts to ensure that their new citizens are well integrated into society without incurring the wrath of the locals.

It is strange that the NIC would recommend “outsourcing” this noble task of promoting integration to outsiders when the government already has the most ideal candidate within its ranks to spearhead its latest pro-foreigner initiative – Acting Minister for Information, Communication and Arts Rear-Admiral Lui Tuck Yew.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

MIC heading for a split - Malaysia Insider

Members of the Malaysian Indian Congress Youth...Image via Wikipedia

by Baradan Kuppusamy

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 25 — An advertisement on page 12 of the Makkal Osai Tamil daily yesterday is likely to have sent shivers down the spine of the top MIC leadership led by Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

The reason — the advertisement placed by MIC members signals a permanent parting of ways that could lead to the MIC splitting into two as had happened to Umno in 1988.

That year Umno split, with former Umno vice-president and Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah calling his half Semangat 46 and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad registering Umno Baru.

The advertisement, under the title “Maperum Perani” or Great Movement, is calling on expelled MIC members and Indians above the age of 18 to gather in Klang this Sunday and launch a reawakening movement.

They said the movement is to take charge of the Indian future and reject, without spelling it out, the MIC as representatives of the Indian community and Samy Vellu and his coterie of yesmen as community leaders.

The organisers are simply calling themselves Committee for Reawakening of the Indian community but it is clear supporters of former MIC deputy president Datuk S. Subramaniam are involved.

In fact the reason why the top MIC leadership is taking note of the advertisement is that they believe Subramaniam is behind the “new awakening” initiative.

Subramaniam, after losing the battle to inherit the MIC from Samy Vellu, is looking for a new political platform to stay relevant.

Subramaniam lost by a slim majority of 62 votes to incumbent deputy president Datuk G. Palanivel in the recent MIC elections.

While he was defeated the results show his support in the MIC had in fact marginally increased compared to the 2006 contest where he lost to Palanivel by over 400 votes.

The mood this time for change in the MIC was just not large enough for him to win and the vote was also split, with the third challenger Datuk S. Sothinathan garnering about 18 per cent of the votes.

MIC insiders say Subramaniam has emerged as a threat to Samy Vellu and his anointed successor Palanivel and they say it is no surprise that the former is facing possible expulsion from the party.

The MIC central working committee is meeting on Tuesday to decide whether to act against Subramaniam for allegedly tarnishing the party image — a catch-all charge that has been used by Samy Vellu to expel critics over the years.

The incipient reawakening movement therefore is a dagger pointed at Samy Vellu — if he proceeds to expel Subramaniam he faces a situation similar to Umno in 1988.

The MIC could split into two, with Subramaniam taking what is left of the party with him, leaving a shell for Samy Vellu to preside over.

His aim may well be to reconnect with the Indian grassroots that fled to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) after being inspired by the Hindraf and Makkal Sakti movement.

But Subramaniam will be competing with others like the unregistered Human Rights Party and the officially recognised Parti Makkal Sakti Malaysia for the loyalties of the Tamil masses.

The question is: does Subramaniam, 65, have the stamina to start a new and uncertain political journey after a long career in the MIC?

His supporters are forcing him to choose. In fact, the gathering in Klang is to present him with an ultimatum — form a new party, join the PR or retire from politics.

Subramaniam is overseas contemplating his fate and is expected to make a major announcement either before Tuesday or immediately after.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Global Voices Online - Indonesia: Controversial new film law

Session of the Indonesian People's Representat...Image via Wikipedia

Posted By Carolina Rumuat On 2009-09-14 @ 11:33 am

The Indonesian movie-making industry is criticizing the newly revised Film Law [1] [id]. The law is deemed to leave a small room for creativity, and putting the survival of the industry under the government's tight supervision.

If the agonizing law is strictly implemented, the flourishing landscape of national cinema will surely turn to a different direction.

Film critic Totot Indrarto wrote an opinion [2] [id] on local journal Kompas:

Sejak RUU disosialisasikan, sejumlah komponen komunitas perfilman Indonesia, dengan berbagai cara yang konstitusional dan saluran yang ada, telah menyatakan ketidaksetujuan atas sejumlah pasal. Antara lain, larangan membuat film dengan isi tertentu; pembatasan produser untuk menggunakan SDM dan teknologi tertentu yang dibutuhkan; pembuatan film harus dimulai dengan pendaftaran judul, cerita, dan rencana produksi; kewenangan Lembaga Sensor Film (LSF) yang masih besar; pekerja film wajib memiliki sertifikat kompetensi dari organisasi profesi, lembaga sertifikasi profesi, atau perguruan tinggi; kegiatan peredaran, pemutaran, apresiasi, pengarsipan, dan ekspor-impor film diatur dengan peraturan menteri; serta sejumlah sanksi administratif dan ancaman pidana yang mengerikan.

[…]

Substansi UU Perfilman itu jelas amat birokratis, eksesif, cenderung represif. Sementara semangatnya menafikan arus besar dalam komunitas perfilman Indonesia yang menghendaki agar urusan film dikembalikan sepenuhnya ke tangan orang film.

Since the law's draft was first introduced, numerous components of Indonesia's film community, through various constitutional-abiding ways and channels, have declared disagreements on several points. Which are, prohibition to make films with certain content; limiting the producers to use the required manpower and technology; film production should start by registering the title, plot, and production plan; the Board of Censorship still has great authority; people who work on film industry need to be certified from professional organization, professional certification agency or college; film's distribution, screening, appreciation, archiving, and export-import are controlled based on minister's decree; numerous horrible administrative sanctions and criminal charges.

The substance of the film law is clearly extremely bureaucratic, excessive, and quite repressive. The grand idea (of this law) is to diminish the big splash from the Indonesian film communities which demand movie issues to be returned to the hands of the movie people.

Some professionals feared that the law could trigger a massive wave of unemployment, since one point of the law imposed job related certification for those who wish to remain in the industry.

Iman Fatah wondered [3] if the law would force him turn away jobs:

Pada poin #9 (pasal 68), Itu dampaknya sangat besar mengingat di Indonesia para insan perfilman mayoritas berangkat dari otodidak dan pengalaman karena minimnya pendidikan formal di bidang film. Lalu bagaimana nasib para pekerja music scorer dan music producer otodidak seperti saya ini? apakah ini artinya saya DILARANG MEMBUAT SCORING FILM LAGI?

Poin #9 (chapter 68) could have great impact, since, in Indonesia, the majority of those who work in the industry learned things autodidactly and through experience, (mainly) because there are so few formal education to be found. So what will happen to me as music scorer and producer who learned autodidactly? Does this mean that I can't make film score anymore?

Herman Saksono [4] said that the House of Representatives, though on paper has a noble intention to protect the survival of film industry, isn't choosing the right path. Saksono pointed out [5] that imposing 60% of local film quota is an excessive protectionism move.

Pertama-tama kita harus sepakat bahwa melindungi potensi nasional kita adalah sesuatu yang mulia dan penting.

[…]

proteksi yang berlebihan justru akan melahirkan jago-jago kandang kelas teri. Adanya kuota 60% justru mendorong produser-produser film sembarangan membuat film, hanya demi memenuhi kuota hadiah dari DPR.

Akibatnya, kualitas film kita jadi buruk. Kuantitas di atas kualitas. Padahal sekitar 90% film Indonesia itu buruk. Jadi, dipastikan yang buruk akan bertambah banyak. Ini bukan sebuah hipotesis, ini sudah terbukti ketika pemerintah mewajibkan stasiun televisi menayangkan minimal 70% tayangan produksi dalam negeri di awal 90-an.

First of all we do agree that the initiative to protect our national potential is something that's both noble and important.

[…]

Excessive protectionism will give birth to the schoolyard champions. With 60% quota, film producers will make low quality movies for the sake to fulfill the quota given by the House of Representatives.

As the result, the quality of our movies deteriorate. Quantity over quality. In fact 90% of Indonesian films are bad. So, the bad ones will surely keep on appearing. This is not hypothesis, it's a fact just like when the government imposed local TV channels to air at least 70% of local productions in the beginning of the 90s.

He added that the industry requires a bigger space in order to improve a more creative atmosphere:

Mungkin DPR lupa kalau untuk bersaing di kancah industri kreatif global, yang dibutuhkan adalah ruang untuk berekspresi dan kemudahan birokrasi, bukan shortcut dan cheatsheet.

Perhaps the House of Representatives forgot that in order to compete in the global creative industry what the people need is a room for expression and bureaucracy ease, not shortcut and cheatsheet.

Wina Armada Sukardi, a journalist and also a film critic, said [6] there are few of weak points on the new law which systematically restrain the improvement of the currently growing movie industry:

Keempat, sistem sensor yang dipakai masih memakai sistem pemotongan dan bukan klasifikasi murni. Memang sudah ada penggolongan atau pembagian umur, tetapi produser tetap harus mengikuti ”selera” lembaga sensor film. Hal ini melahirkan sistem sensor klarifikasi setengah hati.

[…]

Keenam, peranan pemerintah terlalu dominan memasuki hampir seluruh aspek perfilman. Campur tangan pemerintah tidak hanya sebatas pada pemberian bantuan keuangan dan hal-hal yang strategis saja, tetapi juga sudah masuk ke dalam masalah-masalah tetek bengek. Makanya tak banyak lagi ruang yang tersisa bagi insan perfilman untuk mengatur dan mengekspresikan dirinya sendiri.

Fourth, the current censorship system still use the “cut” system instead of pure classification. Sure there's a classification or age classification, but the producer still needs to follow the “taste” of the censorship agency. And this caused half-hearted censorship by classification system.

[…]

Sixth, government's role is too dominant and is included in nearly all aspects of the movie making business. Goverment's involvement isn't limited on financial aid and strategic matters, but also to thingamajig affairs. Therefore not much left for the movie people to control and express themselves.

However, he added, the industry shouldn't cry over spilled milk and should consider this as a lesson, so that in the future everybody who's involved in the business would fight together defending their common freedom of expression…

Kelahiran UU Perfilman baru ini memberikan pelajaran lain kepada kalangan film nasional: jangan tidak peduli terhadap urusan pihak lain dalam dunia perfilman yang sama. Selama ini terdapat kecenderungan kalangan film hanya sibuk mengurus diri sendiri dan tidak begitu peduli terhadap urusan pihak lainnya. Hanya apabila terdapat kepentingan langsung mereka yang terganggu barulah mereka beraksi.

Dalam memperjuangkan substansi UU Perfilman yang baru pun agar lebih banyak unsur kemerdekaan berekspresi dan kondisi yang kondusif bagi perfilman nasional, lebih banyak dilakukan oleh kalangan nonfilm. Dari mulai kalangan aktivis prodemokrasi sampai wartawan budaya ikut memerhatikan perkembangan soal ini. Tapi kalangan perfilman baru datang belakangan, itu pun jumlahnya cuma secuil.

Tidaklah mengherankan apabila di tengah ketidakpedulian itu ada pihak lain yang mengambil inisiatif untuk menata dunia perfilman nasional berdasarkan versinya. Jadi, sebenarnya, UU Perfilman memang harga yang harus diterima oleh kalangan perfilman sendiri atas sikap mereka yang kurang proaktif. Inilah kado buat kalangan perfilman sesuai dengan sikap tindak mereka sendiri.

The birth of the new Film Law has taught yet another lesson to everyone in the national film industry: not to be ignorant of the right of their fellow film making professionals. All these times, the film people tends to mind about their own business and ignore the others (who are involved in the same industry). They react only when their interest is being disturbed.

It is the non-film industry people who are (more seriously) fighting the substance of the new Film Law, so it will have more freedom of expression and a more conducive condition for the national movie industry. From pro-democracy activists to cultural journalists followed closely the updates of the issue. The movie makers came later on, and in small numbers.

It's not surprising if on the midst of that passiveness, another party took initiative to rearrange the national film industry according to their version. So, in fact, the Film Law is indeed the price to pay by those in film industry for their less than proactive demeanors.

Hundreds who are against the new law signed an online petition [7], and a Facebook Group [8] was set-up for this cause.

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/09/13/02594990/uu.perfilman.baru.siapa.peduli

Article printed from Global Voices Online: http://globalvoicesonline.org

URL to article: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/14/indonesia-controversial-new-film-law/

URLs in this post:

[1] Film Law: http://masyarakatfilmindonesia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/ruu-perfilman-final-paripurna-08-09-092.pdf

[2] wrote an opinion: http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/09/12/04335636/kami.tidak.percaya.negara

[3] wondered: http://imanfattah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/ruu-perfilman-memasung-kreativitas-dan-menambah-pengangguran-di-indonesia/

[4] Herman Saksono: http://curipandang.com/profil/hermansaksono.html

[5] pointed out: http://curipandang.com/baca/2009/09/09/kuota-film-nasional-60.html

[6] said: http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/09/13/02594990/uu.perfilman.baru.siapa.peduli

[7] online petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/ruufilm/petition.html

[8] Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=perfilman&init=quick#/group.php?gid=126890478595&ref=search&sid=573466481.1489651628..1

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sep 27, 2009

bookjacket

"If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die":
How Genocide Was Stopped in East Timor
Geoffrey Robinson

Cloth | February 2010 | $35.00 / £24.95
340 pp. | 6 x 9 | 22 halftones.

Shopping Cart | Endorsements | Table of Contents
Chapter 1 [PDF]


This is a book about a terrible spate of mass violence. It is also about a rare success in bringing such violence to an end. "If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die" tells the story of East Timor, a half-island that suffered genocide after Indonesia invaded in 1975, and which was again laid to waste after the population voted for independence from Indonesia in 1999. Before international forces intervened, more than half the population had been displaced and 1,500 people killed. Geoffrey Robinson, an expert in Southeast Asian history, was in East Timor with the United Nations in 1999 and provides a gripping first-person account of the violence, as well as a rigorous assessment of the politics and history behind it.

Robinson debunks claims that the militias committing the violence in East Timor acted spontaneously, attributing their actions instead to the calculation of Indonesian leaders, and to a "culture of terror" within the Indonesian army. He argues that major powers--notably the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom--were complicit in the genocide of the late 1970s and the violence of 1999. At the same time, Robinson stresses that armed intervention supported by those powers in late 1999 was vital in averting a second genocide. Advocating accountability, the book chronicles the failure to bring those responsible for the violence to justice.

A riveting narrative filled with personal observations, documentary evidence, and eyewitness accounts, "If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die" engages essential questions about political violence, international humanitarian intervention, genocide, and transitional justice.

Geoffrey Robinson is professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles. His books include The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali. Before coming to UCLA, he worked for six years at Amnesty International's headquarters in London. From June to November 1999, he served as a political affairs officer with the United Nations in Dili, East Timor. Robinson lives in Los Angeles with his wife and daughter.

Endorsements:

"Those of us with a special interest in the final frenzy of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor will be deeply grateful to Geoffrey Robinson for the narrative power and depth of insight that makes his book the outstanding treatment of these events. But the value of his book goes far beyond that: as a historian who has thought deeply about political violence, as a human rights practitioner familiar with the ways of states and institutions that perpetrate and condone massive human rights abuses, and as a reflective participant in the UN mission that oversaw the referendum on East Timor's independence, Robinson is uniquely qualified to bring out the wider meanings of what happened in East Timor in 1999, and triumphantly succeeds in doing so."--Anthony Goldstone, coeditor of Chega!: Final Report of the East Timor Commission for Reception, Truth, and Reconciliation

"In this outstanding book, Robinson provides an authoritative and gripping account of the violence visited upon East Timor by the Indonesian Armed Forces that is unparalleled in documentation, sophistication, and insight. His appraisal of the conditions enabling the belated United Nations intervention in East Timor is likewise unrivalled in its combination of scholarly analysis and insider insights."--John Sidel, London School of Economics and Political Science

"This is the single most important book about the complex and dramatic events of 1999 in East Timor. Combining a scholarly analysis of violence with first-person reporting, it provides a profound and nuanced understanding of recent East Timorese history."--John Roosa, University of British Columbia

Table of Contents:

Preface ix
List of Abbreviations xv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO: COLONIAL LEGACIES 21
CHAPTER THREE: INVASION AND GENOCIDE 40
CHAPTER FOUR: OCCUPATION AND RESISTANCE 66
CHAPTER FIVE: MOBILIZING THE MILITIAS 92
CHAPTER SIX: BEARING WITNESS--TEMPTING FATE 115
CHAPTER SEVEN: THE VOTE 139
CHAPTER EIGHT: A CAMPAIGN OF VIOLENCE 161
CHAPTER NINE: INTERVENTION 185
CHAPTER TEN: JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION 205
CHAPTER ELEVEN: CONCLUSIONS 229
Notes 249
A Note on Sources 295
Bibliography 297
Index 313

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]