Friday, August 29, 2003
Freedom's in 2nd Place?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
ARAPCHIV, Ukraine — This is the story of two villages, half a world apart. One is this hamlet in southern Ukraine, where my roots lie. The other is my wife's ancestral village, in the Taishan area of Guangdong Province in southern China.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the two countries took diametrically opposite paths. Ukraine and most other constituents of the deceased Soviet Union giddily held presidential elections and pronounced themselves democracies, while China massacred protesters demanding more freedom and democracy.
I wish I could say that free elections pay better dividends than massacres. But, although it hurts to say so, in this case it looks the other way around.
Here in Karapchiv, villagers are reasonably free to say what they like about their leaders, but Ukraine is further than ever from having the broad middle class that normally sustains a healthy democracy. There are no jobs, some peasants spend their entire day leading a cow around on a rope to graze, and Karapchiv lacks any factory to take advantage of labor that can cost as little as $1 a day.
In contrast, my wife's village is bustling, along with the rest of Guangdong. Factories have sprouted everywhere, and teenagers brandish cellphones the way they used to wave Mao's "Little Red Book."
Since 1989, when the Soviet Union opened fire on Communism and China opened fire on its citizens, China's economy has tripled in size — and Ukraine's has shrunk by half.
Even in Russia, according to Izvestia, 40 percent of the people can't afford toothpaste; in Karapchiv, many can't afford toilet paper and make do with newspapers (which to me seems sacrilegious). Meanwhile, prospering China has become a global center for cosmetic surgery.
I was as outraged as anyone that Chinese troops massacred hundreds of protesters to destroy the Tiananmen democracy movement. But China's long economic boom has cut child mortality rates so much since 1990 that an additional 195,000 children under the age of 5 survive each year.
Does this mean that the Chinese are better off for having had their students shot? No, of course not. But it does mean that authoritarian orderliness is sometimes more conducive to economic growth than democratic chaos.
For example, two of the nastiest and least reformed countries in the former Soviet empire are Belarus and Uzbekistan. As an excellent (and somewhat rueful) World Bank report on the ex-Soviet Union's first decade notes, those are also the two countries that best weathered the post-Communist recessions.
As I compare Karapchiv with my wife's village, though, it seems to me that the best explanation for the different paths of China and the former Soviet Union is not policy but culture. I'm sure I'll regret saying this, but there really is something to the caricature that if you put two Americans in a room together, they'll sue each other; put two Japanese in a room together, and they'll start apologizing to each other; two Chinese will do business; and two Ukrainians or Russians will sit down over a bottle of liquor.
The moment the Chinese government began to debate the future of the communes more than two decades ago, peasants in Guangdong took matters into their own hands and divided up the land to farm their own plots. In contrast, even today the old Kristof farmland in Karapchiv is still part of a state farm, run by Petro Makarchuk, an amiable director in a white shirt over a potbelly; he still insists that state farms are the way to go.
Most farmers in Karapchiv do now farm their own plots, but some, like Vasyl Hutsul, have remained in the local collective farm. "I'm just waiting for my retirement pension," he explained, with a lassitude and complacency that one rarely sees in Guangdong.
Our old family home is now a school, and the principal, Anatoly Marianchuk, fretted about the lack of initiative to start new capitalist ventures. "It's a question of psychology," he said moodily. "The old system is breaking down, but slowly."
Ultimately, after my visit here, I still don't feel I fully understand why China has done so well and the former Soviet Union so poorly. But I am filled with one overpowering emotion: I'm so grateful to my father, and to my wife's grandparents, for leaving behind all that was familiar to them in two villages half a world apart, and thus bequeathing us the gift of America.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
ARAPCHIV, Ukraine — This is the story of two villages, half a world apart. One is this hamlet in southern Ukraine, where my roots lie. The other is my wife's ancestral village, in the Taishan area of Guangdong Province in southern China.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the two countries took diametrically opposite paths. Ukraine and most other constituents of the deceased Soviet Union giddily held presidential elections and pronounced themselves democracies, while China massacred protesters demanding more freedom and democracy.
I wish I could say that free elections pay better dividends than massacres. But, although it hurts to say so, in this case it looks the other way around.
Here in Karapchiv, villagers are reasonably free to say what they like about their leaders, but Ukraine is further than ever from having the broad middle class that normally sustains a healthy democracy. There are no jobs, some peasants spend their entire day leading a cow around on a rope to graze, and Karapchiv lacks any factory to take advantage of labor that can cost as little as $1 a day.
In contrast, my wife's village is bustling, along with the rest of Guangdong. Factories have sprouted everywhere, and teenagers brandish cellphones the way they used to wave Mao's "Little Red Book."
Since 1989, when the Soviet Union opened fire on Communism and China opened fire on its citizens, China's economy has tripled in size — and Ukraine's has shrunk by half.
Even in Russia, according to Izvestia, 40 percent of the people can't afford toothpaste; in Karapchiv, many can't afford toilet paper and make do with newspapers (which to me seems sacrilegious). Meanwhile, prospering China has become a global center for cosmetic surgery.
I was as outraged as anyone that Chinese troops massacred hundreds of protesters to destroy the Tiananmen democracy movement. But China's long economic boom has cut child mortality rates so much since 1990 that an additional 195,000 children under the age of 5 survive each year.
Does this mean that the Chinese are better off for having had their students shot? No, of course not. But it does mean that authoritarian orderliness is sometimes more conducive to economic growth than democratic chaos.
For example, two of the nastiest and least reformed countries in the former Soviet empire are Belarus and Uzbekistan. As an excellent (and somewhat rueful) World Bank report on the ex-Soviet Union's first decade notes, those are also the two countries that best weathered the post-Communist recessions.
As I compare Karapchiv with my wife's village, though, it seems to me that the best explanation for the different paths of China and the former Soviet Union is not policy but culture. I'm sure I'll regret saying this, but there really is something to the caricature that if you put two Americans in a room together, they'll sue each other; put two Japanese in a room together, and they'll start apologizing to each other; two Chinese will do business; and two Ukrainians or Russians will sit down over a bottle of liquor.
The moment the Chinese government began to debate the future of the communes more than two decades ago, peasants in Guangdong took matters into their own hands and divided up the land to farm their own plots. In contrast, even today the old Kristof farmland in Karapchiv is still part of a state farm, run by Petro Makarchuk, an amiable director in a white shirt over a potbelly; he still insists that state farms are the way to go.
Most farmers in Karapchiv do now farm their own plots, but some, like Vasyl Hutsul, have remained in the local collective farm. "I'm just waiting for my retirement pension," he explained, with a lassitude and complacency that one rarely sees in Guangdong.
Our old family home is now a school, and the principal, Anatoly Marianchuk, fretted about the lack of initiative to start new capitalist ventures. "It's a question of psychology," he said moodily. "The old system is breaking down, but slowly."
Ultimately, after my visit here, I still don't feel I fully understand why China has done so well and the former Soviet Union so poorly. But I am filled with one overpowering emotion: I'm so grateful to my father, and to my wife's grandparents, for leaving behind all that was familiar to them in two villages half a world apart, and thus bequeathing us the gift of America.
Problems in the UK for the BBC after Balir's apperance in Court for the Judicial Inquiry into the death of Mr. Kelly. He took responsibility for making Kelly's name public, but denied having sexed-up the intelligence files on Iraq.... the ball is now in the BBC's court. On the Middle East today from the Washington Post:
washingtonpost.com
Arab Leaders Must Act
By Dennis Ross
Friday, August 29, 2003; Page A23
Once again high hopes are giving way to despair in the Middle East. While the administration still speaks of progress being made between Israelis and Palestinians, it is difficult to see it. Unfortunately, the progress was always more illusionary than real. There was a cease-fire, but there was not a peace process. Neither side implemented what was called for in the first phase of the road map, with the Palestinians hoping calm would produce Israeli pullbacks and the Israelis reluctant to pull back far without some sign that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be controlled, even if they were not initially disarmed.
Can the road map be salvaged now? Can Prime Minister Abbas's government be saved? The stakes are high. Should Mahmoud Abbas resign there would be no Palestinian partner -- no one to assume responsibilities, no one to build a state based on reform and the rule of law, and no one with whom to negotiate. Yasser Arafat would be happy, believing he would recoup his position. But his constant efforts to undermine Mahmoud Abbas and block any efforts to confront those who literally blew up the cease-fire have cemented his status as a revolutionary whose only cause is his personal rule, not the well-being of Palestinians.
For Abbas to survive he will have to produce, and that is harder today than it was yesterday and will be even harder tomorrow than it is today. Israeli targeted killings signal that the Israelis will act if the Palestinians do not, and yet they also create such anger among Palestinians that Abbas and his security chief find it more difficult to crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- even in Gaza, where they have the means to do so. Add to this Arafat's blocking maneuvers and Abbas looks increasingly hemmed in.
With Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage headed to the region next week, the administration will try to persuade the Israelis to give Abbas some time to take meaningful steps against the terrorist groups. But after the Jerusalem bombing, the Israelis will no longer settle for half measures. Something different and more dramatic is now necessary to prevent an inevitable escalation and to preserve diplomacy as an option.
It is time for Arab leaders to assume their responsibility. Slogans are not sufficient. Prime Minister Abbas needs the cover of Arab legitimacy to confront Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The Israelis need to see some dramatic actions by Palestinians and Arab leaders alike to give them a reason to pause and give the Palestinians the chance to take convincing steps on security.
To that end, Arab leaders need to cross a threshold: Send a delegation of Arab foreign ministers -- to include Saud al Faisal -- to Jerusalem and Ramallah. They must meet with Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas. While calling on the Israelis to fulfill their parts of the road map -- cease military operations, lift checkpoints, pull back from Palestinian cities, freeze settlement activity -- they must make clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad violated the cease-fire and threatened the Palestinian cause. The actions of these organizations can no longer be tolerated, and the Palestinian Authority will have the active support and material assistance of Arab leaders in doing what the road map requires of the Palestinians -- namely, the effective targeting of terrorist groups, collection of illegal weapons, and dismantling of terrorist capability and infrastructure. There is no other way; the Arab call to action must be presented as the only way to achieve Palestinian interests.
Obviously Arafat remains a major impediment. The Arab ministers must insist that he now accept the consolidation of Palestinian security forces under Abbas; nothing less is acceptable. Rather than calling on Arafat to help -- which only feeds his desire to prove nothing can be done without him -- the ministers must make clear that their criticism of him will no longer be kept private if he prevents the consolidation.
Anyone who has worked in the Middle East will understand that Arab leaders will resist playing this role. Not a single Arab leader condemned the Jerusalem bus bombing, and to date no Arab leader has ever condemned Hamas by name. Now they will claim they cannot do so because of Israeli actions -- actions that in the Arab world make Hamas "resistance" heroic.
Certainly they will not be prepared to take these or other steps if President Bush does not now push them to do so. Does he have the leverage to do so? He does in no small part because Arab leaders believe active U.S. engagement is critical to defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For a president who did not rush to be involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, he should make it clear that he remains committed to doing our part, but that we have no chance of succeeding if Hamas is going to be free to subvert the hopes for peace any time it suits that organization. If Abbas is not publicly backed now -- both in terms of legitimizing confrontation with the groups that destroyed the cease-fire and in overcoming Arafat's opposition -- there is little that we can do. Do your part, the president must tell them, and we will do ours with the Israelis. Don't do your part and diplomacy won't shape the future, but the fence the Israelis are building will.
That is the unfortunate reality. We are probably only one or two Hamas bombs away from losing diplomacy as an option for the foreseeable future. Perhaps President Bush can use that sober reality to salvage a process he thought he had launched at Aqaba.
The writer was director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton. He is currently director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
washingtonpost.com
Arab Leaders Must Act
By Dennis Ross
Friday, August 29, 2003; Page A23
Once again high hopes are giving way to despair in the Middle East. While the administration still speaks of progress being made between Israelis and Palestinians, it is difficult to see it. Unfortunately, the progress was always more illusionary than real. There was a cease-fire, but there was not a peace process. Neither side implemented what was called for in the first phase of the road map, with the Palestinians hoping calm would produce Israeli pullbacks and the Israelis reluctant to pull back far without some sign that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be controlled, even if they were not initially disarmed.
Can the road map be salvaged now? Can Prime Minister Abbas's government be saved? The stakes are high. Should Mahmoud Abbas resign there would be no Palestinian partner -- no one to assume responsibilities, no one to build a state based on reform and the rule of law, and no one with whom to negotiate. Yasser Arafat would be happy, believing he would recoup his position. But his constant efforts to undermine Mahmoud Abbas and block any efforts to confront those who literally blew up the cease-fire have cemented his status as a revolutionary whose only cause is his personal rule, not the well-being of Palestinians.
For Abbas to survive he will have to produce, and that is harder today than it was yesterday and will be even harder tomorrow than it is today. Israeli targeted killings signal that the Israelis will act if the Palestinians do not, and yet they also create such anger among Palestinians that Abbas and his security chief find it more difficult to crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- even in Gaza, where they have the means to do so. Add to this Arafat's blocking maneuvers and Abbas looks increasingly hemmed in.
With Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage headed to the region next week, the administration will try to persuade the Israelis to give Abbas some time to take meaningful steps against the terrorist groups. But after the Jerusalem bombing, the Israelis will no longer settle for half measures. Something different and more dramatic is now necessary to prevent an inevitable escalation and to preserve diplomacy as an option.
It is time for Arab leaders to assume their responsibility. Slogans are not sufficient. Prime Minister Abbas needs the cover of Arab legitimacy to confront Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The Israelis need to see some dramatic actions by Palestinians and Arab leaders alike to give them a reason to pause and give the Palestinians the chance to take convincing steps on security.
To that end, Arab leaders need to cross a threshold: Send a delegation of Arab foreign ministers -- to include Saud al Faisal -- to Jerusalem and Ramallah. They must meet with Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas. While calling on the Israelis to fulfill their parts of the road map -- cease military operations, lift checkpoints, pull back from Palestinian cities, freeze settlement activity -- they must make clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad violated the cease-fire and threatened the Palestinian cause. The actions of these organizations can no longer be tolerated, and the Palestinian Authority will have the active support and material assistance of Arab leaders in doing what the road map requires of the Palestinians -- namely, the effective targeting of terrorist groups, collection of illegal weapons, and dismantling of terrorist capability and infrastructure. There is no other way; the Arab call to action must be presented as the only way to achieve Palestinian interests.
Obviously Arafat remains a major impediment. The Arab ministers must insist that he now accept the consolidation of Palestinian security forces under Abbas; nothing less is acceptable. Rather than calling on Arafat to help -- which only feeds his desire to prove nothing can be done without him -- the ministers must make clear that their criticism of him will no longer be kept private if he prevents the consolidation.
Anyone who has worked in the Middle East will understand that Arab leaders will resist playing this role. Not a single Arab leader condemned the Jerusalem bus bombing, and to date no Arab leader has ever condemned Hamas by name. Now they will claim they cannot do so because of Israeli actions -- actions that in the Arab world make Hamas "resistance" heroic.
Certainly they will not be prepared to take these or other steps if President Bush does not now push them to do so. Does he have the leverage to do so? He does in no small part because Arab leaders believe active U.S. engagement is critical to defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For a president who did not rush to be involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, he should make it clear that he remains committed to doing our part, but that we have no chance of succeeding if Hamas is going to be free to subvert the hopes for peace any time it suits that organization. If Abbas is not publicly backed now -- both in terms of legitimizing confrontation with the groups that destroyed the cease-fire and in overcoming Arafat's opposition -- there is little that we can do. Do your part, the president must tell them, and we will do ours with the Israelis. Don't do your part and diplomacy won't shape the future, but the fence the Israelis are building will.
That is the unfortunate reality. We are probably only one or two Hamas bombs away from losing diplomacy as an option for the foreseeable future. Perhaps President Bush can use that sober reality to salvage a process he thought he had launched at Aqaba.
The writer was director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton. He is currently director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
