PRI's The World » 01/27/2010

Entire program – January 27, 2010

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:35:15 +0000

Download MP3
Today on The World: Counter-terrorism experts chime in on what President Obama might say in his State of the Union address tonight, the stock market reacts to Toyota’s recall troubles, and the international community grows more concerned about instability in Yemen.

The state of national security

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:30:11 +0000

President Barack Obama will deliver his first State of the Union address tonight before Congress. The economy and healthcare reform are sure to be high on the President’s agenda. But he will also likely focus on counter terrorism measures. The World’s Jason Margolis tells us what the President might say, and what some counter terrorism experts say he should say. Download MP3

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. President Obama delivers his State of the Union address before Congress tonight. It’s an important speech for the President. The White House says he’ll be looking to address public anger over the economy and the now stalled heath care reform push. But President Obama is also likely to spend some time talking about his administration’s counter-terrorism efforts. Here’s more on that from The World’s Jason Margolis.

JASON MARGOLIS: When President Obama addressed Congress for the first time last February he mentioned the words terrorism or terrorist just three times. He’ll use those words more tonight for two reasons says Dartmouth government professor Linda Fowler. First, the failed Christmas Day bomber reminded people about the risks of terrorism. Second, Fowler says fighting terrorism is a good topic for a State of the Union.

LINDA FOWLER: Unfortunately the State of the Union has just degenerated into one of these where the opposition party sits in surly silence on it’s hands and the party that shares the party of the President stands up and cheers wildly at everything. And it’s a very artificial situation. But being tough on terrorism is something that everybody would have to stand up and applaud for.

JASON MARGOLIS: Tonight’s speech may have the usual elements of theater, but the State of the Union still matters to counter-terrorism experts like Eric Rosenbach. Rosenbach directs the Belfer Center for International Affairs at Harvard.

ERIC ROSENBACH: I think the State of the Union is important, particularly for national security issues because you see the themes and the most important items that the President wants to emphasize to the American public.

JASON MARGOLIS: Rosenbach says tonight’s speech serves as an outline as the President’s national security priorities looking forward. The speech is also a chance for the President to look back, to highlight the administration’s recent successes says Michael Jacobson at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

MICHAEL JACOBSON: I think you’ll hear some about the progress in tackling the terrorist threat and in dismantling some of the terrorist networks. I think you’ll probably also hear about some of the ratcheting back of some of the practices used during the Bush era.

JASON MARGOLIS: Regarding the failed Christmas Day bomber, Jacobson expects the President to point out the gaps his administration uncovered in the U.S. intelligence community.

MICHAEL JACOBSON: And I think you’ll hear the President say that they have identified what those gaps are and that they are moving aggressively to try to fix them.

JASON MARGOLIS: On that topic Eric Rosenbach adds that the President will also likely emphasize another point he’s made before.

ERIC ROSENBACH: That the United States does not want to sacrifice the things that made America a great country. In the past we may have gone too far and infringing on the rule of law. We need to stay true to our beliefs and that’s a message that really has resonated well with a lot of Americans. I think he needs to emphasize that again.

JASON MARGOLIS: Tonight the President will mention the usual nations we’re accustomed to hearing about, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. You can bet on that. But Mr. Obama will also likely mention a country almost never acknowledged during a State of the Union address, Yemen. Gregory Johnson is a Yemen expert at Princeton. He says the approach to combating Al Qaeda in Yemen is very different than the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. He says the President shouldn’t lump the three nations together, but Johnson adds, tonight is not the night to explain the nuances of U.S. strategy in Yemen.

GREGORY JOHNSON: I don’t really think that the State of the Union is the appropriate forum to really get into explaining Yemen to the American people nor is, am I certain, is the individual who is supposed to do that as opposed to just mentioning that Yemen is obviously a significant priority for the United States as it has been for the past several years and that his administration will continue to pay very close attention to what’s going on.

JASON MARGOLIS: One security topic the President isn’t likely to dwell on is Drones. Although unmanned Drones have become a cornerstone of the U.S. anti-terrorism strategy, the President probably won’t say much about the program tonight simply because the U.S. doesn’t officially acknowledge Drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen. For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

How best to help Haiti

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:25:17 +0000

The earthquake in Haiti happened more than two weeks ago. Yet aid organizations continue to struggle with basic questions there. Feeding hungry survivors has proved a big challenge. And work is just starting on temporary tent camps meant to get homeless survivors out of the squalid makeshift camps where they love now. Americans who want to help have been urged to give money to reputable aid organizations. But we’ve also heard of smaller organizations that are collecting things like tents or food. So, should you donate items, or is money still the best way to go? David Case is an editor with the online news website Global Post. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: The earthquake in Haiti happened more than two weeks ago yet aid organizations continue to struggle with basic questions there. Feeding hungry survivors has proved a big challenge. Work is just starting on temporary tent camps meant to get homeless survivors out of the squalid makeshift camps where they live now. Americans who want to help have been urged to give money to reputable aid organizations, but we’ve also heard of smaller organizations that are collecting things like tents or food. So, should you donate items or is money still the best way to go? Well David Case is an editor with the online new website global post and David, you wrote an article, right after the earthquake titled “Help with Money, not Stuff” and then you said that experience has shown that regardless of your intentions, you’ll only make matters worse if you send stuff instead of money, so explain this to us. Why?

DAVID CASE: That’s absolutely right. My article is actually based on my experience Aceh, Indonesia, after the tsunami. What we witnessed there was a lot of people with very good intentions, of course, sent boxes of all kinds of things, medical supplies, clothes, everything from Bibles to birth control pills. One of the biggest challenges to a disaster situation like this is that the entire logistical system in the country will have broken down. The hardest thing to do, really, is to distribute the supplies, not to actually get the supplies because good relief organizations can buy those supplies anywhere. When you have unsorted materials, it creates an enormous logistical problem for the pros who are trying to get vital supplies in.

MARCO WERMAN: Ultimately money has to go to buying those supplies anyway, so what is the advantage of actually getting cash then?

DAVID CASE: The advantage of giving cash is that you can leave the buying decision to the pros. One of the concerns, I think one of the reasons why people send stuff instead of cash is they’re worried how their money is going to be spent. If you send your money to a reputable aid organization you don’t really need to worry too much about this. From my experience in many places around the world, these are some of the most hardworking, dedicated people you’ll ever find.

MARCO WERMAN: As you said, you spent time in Aceh after the tsunami hit there in 2004 in Indonesia. Presumably there were some medicines that were desperately needed that were sent in. One can make a solid argument to send in medicine, can’t you?

DAVID CASE: Well you can and what we witnessed in Aceh is that so much medicine arrived that it rendered all of that medicine pretty much useless. The French group, Pharmacists without Borders, did a study of the situation after things had gotten better in Aceh and they found that four pounds of medicine for every person in the tsunami zone had been sent. Four pounds, that’s a lot of medicine. What it meant was that vital supplies, like state of the art malaria medicines, were buried under boxes from people from Texas that had sent their half opened pharmaceuticals from their medicine cabinet. The United Nations is capable, and other reputable relief organizations like Doctors without Borders, or Care to get the medicine to the right people and you should provide them with the means to actually do that by sending money.

MARCO WERMAN: Now you mentioned earlier the concern among Americans that if they give money it could potentially go down the tubes in a country like Haiti where there’s a long history of corruption. That is a concern, isn’t it?

DAVID CASE: Well absolutely, but don’t forget if you send vital supplies, if they fall into the wrong hands they’ll just be sold on the black market for a lot of money. If you send a tent right now in Haiti, people might be willing to pay a lot of money for that. If you send money to a reputable relief organization, the chances of that relief getting in the right hands are far greater.

MARCO WERMAN: Now you mention tents, I’ve seen reports that Haitian President Rene Preval has actually asked the world to send 200,000 tents to Haiti. What is the right response to that?

DAVID CASE: Well, again, let organizations that are the experts decide which tents to buy and how to deliver them to Haiti. If every one of us went to EMS and bought a tent and sent it, the refugee camps would have a tremendous logistical problem of trying to teach people how to set these tents up. These camps would be disastrously chaotic.

MARCO WERMAN: And so if people are concerned about shelter, maybe they should give to an organization that deals specifically wither shelter, is that what you’re saying?

DAVID CASE: Yes.

MARCO WERMAN: David Case, editor at the online site global post, thanks very much for your time.

DAVID CASE: Thank you Marco.

Britain’s inquiry into the Iraq war

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:20:48 +0000

The British government’s former top lawyer has said he initially believed a second United Nations resolution was necessary to justify invading Iraq in 2003, but later changed his mind a month before the war. Critics of the war have long suspected that former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith was pressured to change his mind by then Prime Minister Tony Blair (pictured). Blair is expected to testify before the inquiry on Friday. Laura Lynch reports. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: Britain’s investigation into it’s involvement in the war in Iraq is heating up. In two days former British Prime Minister Tony Blair faces a public grilling at the Iraq inquiry. And today, there was new evidence suggesting Washington played a key role in convincing Blair’s government that the Iraq invasion was legal. The World’s Laura Lynch reports.

LAURA LYNCH: It’s the question that goes to the heart of the inquiry; was the 2003 invasion of Iraq illegal? A Dutch inquiry concluded two weeks that it was. But it’s still a matter of intense debate here in Britain. Yesterday the Foreign Office’s two top lawyers at the time of the invasion were unequivocal in their testimony. They said the invasion wasn’t legal without explicit UN support. Elizabeth Wilmshurst told the inquiry her Minister, Jack Straw, simply swept aside that advice.

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: Well, it’s rather uncomfortable when the Secretary of State of the Department doesn’t agree with the legal advice given to him or her. So in that sense it was a challenge.

MALE VOICE 1: Was it unusual in your experience?

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: Yes.

MALE VOICE 2: Did it make a difference that Jack Straw is himself a qualified lawyer?

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: He is not an international lawyer.

LAURA LYNCH: The uncomfortable laughter was a nod to the tensions simmering throughout government in the months before the war. Tensions that lead to sharp disagreements among ministers. Today Tony Blair’s Attorney General took his turn on the stand. Lord Peter Goldsmith said he, too, got a cool reception when he tried to warn Blair the summer before the invasion not to rush into anything with George W. Bush.

LORD PETER GOLDSMITH: I knew that the Prime Minister was going to see President Bush. I knew that one of the topics of conversation, at least, was going to be the Iraq issue because that was obviously very much on the international agenda at that stage. And I didn’t want there to be any doubt that in my view the Prime Minister could not have the view that he could agree with President Bush somehow, well let’s go without going back to the United Nations. I wasn’t asked for it. I don’t, frankly, think it was terribly welcome.

LAURA LYNCH: Goldsmith didn’t waiver in his view until February of 2003, just weeks before the troops rolled into Iraq. For the first time today, Goldsmith admitted it was a trip to the United States that changed his mind. He visited the White House, met with attorneys and Condoleeza Rice among others. Goldsmith came back and gave Blair the go ahead.

LORD PETER GOLDSMITH: I was of the view that a reasonable case could be made. I’m sorry, there was a reasonable case that a second resolution was not necessary and that that was on past precedence, sufficient to constitute a green light.

LAURA LYNCH: Watching all this today was Clare Short. She was in Blair’s cabinet at the time, but resigned over the decision to invade. She finds Goldsmith’s conversion on the road back from the White House troubling.

CLARE SHORT: And to say he was influenced by the Americans, we know that the Bush administration had no respect of any kind for the UN or for international law, didn’t think there was any need to go to the Security Council, did so because Britain couldn’t do it without that. So to say that American opinion influenced him is really not impressive.

LAURA LYNCH: Short herself will testify at the inquiry in the coming weeks, but not before the former Prime Minister himself on Friday. Tony Blair’s appearance is almost certain to generate protest outside and inside the hearing room. Relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq will be sitting just feet away from Blair as he testifies. For many of them, Blair was far too ready to follow Washington’s lead into a war they still believe wasn’t justified. For The World, I’m Laura Lynch in London.

Trouble at Toyota

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:15:32 +0000

Toyota stocks took a big hit today, after the company announced it’s suspending US sales and production of eight popular models. Millions of Toyota vehicles already out there have also been recalled. The cars are being sent back to the shop to repair potentially defective gas pedals. Marco Werman talks with Leo Lewis, the Asia business correspondent for the Times of London. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. Toyota stocks took a hit today. This after the company announced its suspending U.S. sales and production of eight popular models. Millions of Toyota vehicles already out there have also been recalled. The cars are being sent back to the shop to repair potentially defective accelerator pedals. Leo Lewis is the Asia business correspondent for The Times of London. He’s in Tokyo. Lewis says the recall is a big blow to Toyota’s image at home and abroad.

LEO LEWIS: This is an industry that lives on its image, the image of the brand and for Toyota particularly, that image has been driven by a sense of reliability, of quality control and so on. And this, of course, deals a massive blow to that. Reliability problems were never the area that Toyota thought that it would be fighting battles.

MARCO WERMAN: And does that sallied image of Toyota also have a knock on affect on national pride?

LEO LEWIS: Yes it does. Toyota sits in a very interesting position. It’s a company within Japan that is hugely respected, but not necessarily hugely loved. Other brands, one thinks of Sony and Honda, those are brands that are genuinely loved. Toyota is somewhat different. That is a brand that is hugely respected in Japan. They respect what Toyota did in terms of really ramping up mass production and of taking on the big Detroit auto makers. So yes, national pride is wounded, certainly because of reliability problems and the Japanese sense that they are the ultimate craftsmen, really. But there isn’t a great deal of national love for this company in the way there might be for other brands.

MARCO WERMAN: Toyota has a strong reputation, at least here in the United States; I’m sure in Japan too. You know, trailblazing the hybrid technology. But I’m wondering if this recall indicates bigger, deeper problems in the company that we don’t know about.

LEO LEWIS: I think with Toyota without making a great public deal of it was really very, very keen to steal that title of “World’s Biggest Auto Maker” from General Motors. So publicly they were quite discreet about it, they downplayed it. But my sense is that within the company they were really going hell for leather to try and get that crown. But I’m also hearing that in that process, there may have been compromises.

MARCO WERMAN: And the auto industry in this country certainly is still on very shaky legs after last year’s episodes. What do you think this is going to do to the auto industry as a whole in the United States? What’s going to be the fallout here? Could it lead to layoffs and what do you think it’s going to do to auto buyer confidence?

LEO LEWIS: Toyota does have a very great and considerable capacity to bounce back from this sort of thing. It certainly does have the marketing abilities to try and recapture some of that and to really present itself for what it is, which is a company with a great deal of cutting edge auto technology. I think also what’s going to happen is that Toyota is already being conscious of the fact that it needs to make up for lost ground in China and it may in some way see this situation as an opportunity to start again in one sense, with the brand and make China a bit more of a focus.

MARCO WERMAN: Toyota on the little islands of Japan certainly has a high profile image. You’ve visited Toyota city near Nagoya. What did you find there?

LEO LEWIS: Well Toyota city is the place that has grown up with the company. I’ve been to Detroit as well. The two cities really couldn’t be any more different. Toyota city is a place that has really lived for the whole process of total quality control. All the companies around the parts supplies, the people that make the carpets that go in the back seat wells and so on. Everyone in that city has been historically driven by that same sense that quality is everything. And you really do feel it when you’re there. Nowadays, it is a much more depressed place than it used to be. It’s not the same sort of visible decay that you would get in other cities around the world, but it certainly has a mood of disappointment, really, of things being not quite as great as they used to be.

MARCO WERMAN: Leo Lewis is the Asia business correspondent for The Times of London. He joined us from Tokyo.

Real runners do it barefoot

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:10:20 +0000

Kenyan adolescent: never worn shoes (Photo: Harvard University)

A new study finds that people who run barefoot move very differently from people who run in modern athletic shoes. The research, conducted in the U.S. and Kenya, found that shoeless runners land on the front or middle of the foot, whereas shod runners land on the heel. The researchers say running in shoes — as most Americans do — causes the body to strike the ground with more force and may increase the odds of athletic injuries. Keith Seinfeld of station KPLU reports.Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. The African nation of Kenya has produced more than its share of elite athletes, many of them marathon runners. In a few minutes we’ll hear from one Kenyan who is hoping to compete in this year’s Winter Olympics. But first a study just published in the journal Nature suggests the way some Kenyans run, that is barefoot, may be better for their bodies than running in shoes. Reporter Keith Seinfeld of station KPLU has our story.

KEITH SEINFELD: Dan Lieberman is an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. He studies how humans run.

DAN LIEBERMAN: And I have always wondered how it is that people ran before shoes.

KEITH SEINFELD: Before shoes people obviously ran barefoot or in some sort of sandals. Even today some people run barefoot and Lieberman decided to study them. He put a barefoot runner on a special track that measures how hard your feet hit the ground. He was shocked. The runner’s feet registered almost no impact compared to a typical runner in fancy running shoes. To determine what’s going on with the body when a person runs without shoes, Lieberman then studied dozens of runners, with and without shoes, in the U.S. and in Africa.

DAN LIEBERMAN: So we went to Kenya where there is still a lot of people who grow up barefoot and do a lot of running. In fact, some of the world’s best runners come from the region we went to. It’s in the highlands of the Rift Valley.

KEITH SEINFELD: The scientists recruited kids, ages 12 to 16 from two different schools; one rural, where everyone is barefoot and one in a town where they all wear shoes. Lieberman’s team prepared a crude running track.

DAN LIEBERMAN: We used the driveway, a long dirt road. We cleaned it up so there was no pebbles on it. Just sort of a nice clean, smooth road.

KEITH SEINFELD: And then they used a high speed video camera to study how the kids ran. Lieberman’s team analyzed exactly how the kids’ feet, ankles, legs and hips moved. The kids who grew up with shoes ran just like your average American. As their feet touch the ground they landed on their heels before pushing off with their toes. The kids who grew up not wearing shoes ran very differently.

DAN LIEBERMAN: Most of the time, they landed very gradually on the ball of the foot.

KEITH SEINFELD: That is, on the front of the foot. Lieberman says one way to understand this kind of running is to go outside, jog to a corner and then keep moving while waiting for the light to change.

DAN LIEBERMAN: The best way to do it is just to run in place.

KEITH SEINFELD: Okay, so we’re standing on the sidewalk.

DAN LIEBERMAN: And you’re just about to cross and you’re waiting for the cars to come by and you run in place and you land with your foot right underneath your hip. First your toes come down, right? And then your heel comes down, right?

KEITH SEINFELD: And if I were to try to come down on my heel like this I would feel really like I’m jolting my body.

DAN LIEBERMAN: Right, right. So what barefoot runners do is they run like that. They actually land with their foot more underneath their hips. They have this very compliant, soft landing.

KEITH SEINFELD: Lieberman says running this way requires more strength in your foot and calf muscles because they’re working a lot harder acting like shock absorber. But Lieberman’s lab measurements confirm what proponents of barefoot running have been saying all along; landing this way, even if you’re totally barefoot on a hard sidewalk, actually causes less impact on your body than landing in a fancy pair of running shoes on your padded heel. Whether running barefoot style leads to fewer injuries to the feet and spine, that requires further study. For The World, I’m Keith Seinfeld.

MARCO WERMAN: We should note that the Harvard study was funded in part by Vibram, U.S.A. That company has long made soles for shoes and it now makes footwear that mimics the experience of going barefoot.

America’s third war

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:05:12 +0000

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with The World’s Jeb Sharp about an important component of President Obama’s counterterrorism strategy: the controversial drone war over Pakistan. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: The Word’s Jeb Sharp is with me to talk about that drone program. Jeb, remind us how the United States uses drones and in it’s wars and counter-terrorism programs.

JEB SHARP: Well first of all you have to know a drone is an unmanned aircraft, or something that is remotely piloted. We have drones flying over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, but they can be controlled from back here in the United States. There is a distinction to be made; we use drones, they were used for surveillance from back in the mid ’90′s forward. But after September 11th they were used to actually fire missiles and drop bombs against enemy targets, against terrorist targets. There is a U.S. Air Force program to use drones in Iraq and Afghanistan in our official wars. But there’s also a more controversial program to use them in Pakistan which is mostly operated by the CIA and much more secret and that’s what people are mostly referring to when they talk about counter-terrorism.

MARCO WERMAN: Right, and this heightened use of drones, and specifically the use of drones in Pakistan is not without controversy.

JEB SHARP: That’s right. It’s controversial for a host of reasons. Number one, it’s a sovereign country where the U.S. is not officially at war, so you can imagine the sensitivities there. Pakistani government tacitly allows it to go on, but it’s a really difficult issue on all sides. But beyond the sovereignty issue, these drone attacks inevitably cause civilian casualties. So there are ethical and legal considerations. There are also strategic considerations. There are military analysts that say even while you’re being successful at actually killing terrorists you want to kill, you’re killing civilians which inflames anti-U.S. sentiment and may be a potent recruiting tool for terrorists. So a sort of “one step forward, two steps back” and because it’s so secret it’s controversial. People want to know more. They want to know who is running it, what the debates are like, what the moral decisions being made are like.

MARCO WERMAN: And strikingly, President Obama, I don’t know if you would call him a champion of the technology and drone wars, but he certainly continued President George W. Bush’s intensive use of them.

JEB SHARP: Yes, and I think in the context of the State of the Union and going forward, and what policies President Obama is going to pursue, this is really, really interesting because it has been so striking. Not only did he embrace President Bush’s policy of using drone attacks, which President Bush had stepped up at the end of his term, he then even went further. The pace and frequency of these attacks has increased in 2009 over 2008 and now since the attack on the CIA post in Afghanistan at the end of December that killed seven Americans, the drone attacks have really stepped up. Something like 11 counted so far just this month alone. So if you extrapolate that for the year, we’re going to be way up, possibly into the hundreds.

MARCO WERMAN: What do you think it says about Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy that he has upped the use of drones?

JEB SHARP: Well I think it just points to how tough the options are. CIA Chief Leon Panetta said last year it’s the only game in town. There’s some sense that, and I don’t think he meant the only game in town, but there’s a sense that you got to do this as well as try to figure out how to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and how to fight terrorism in a more global way. We’re not going to give this up unless we have better alternatives.

MARCO WERMAN: Where do you think this story is headed; this drone story is headed Jeb?

JEB SHARP: I think there’s so many things to watch. One thing that’s been interesting, I’m really interested in talking to the pilots and operators of these drones just to find out how its different from flying planes and how its different being in a war zone versus being back here at home at the U.S. Air Force base in Nevada or even a CIA Operator in Langley, Virginia. Just kind of emotionally and in terms of where warfare and counter-terrorism is headed. What some of those psychological issues are like and tellingly I was trying to organize a visit out to Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, which has been quite welcoming to media for quite some time and there is actually a freeze on media visits to the Air Force Base right now, precisely because of “sensitivities about the program” which to me, just spoke volumes about debates behind the scenes, not only over policy but probably over how this is all presented to the public.

MARCO WERMAN: Undoubtedly, these are nuances that won’t be part of the President’s State of the Union speech tonight. The World’s Jeb Sharp, very good to speak with you, thanks.

JEB SHARP: Thanks a lot Marco.

The skier from Kenya

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:00:12 +0000

Download MP3
Anchor Marco Werman speaks with cross-country skier Philip Boit, the only athlete to represent Kenya at the Winter Olympic Games.

MARCO WERMAN: Philip Boit is Kenyan and he was a runner. Philip Boit, did you run barefoot?

PHILIP BOIT: Yes. Of course. I could say its funny, but I really ran barefooted when I started my running in Kenya as almost everybody in Kenya does that when we are still young.

MARCO WERMAN: Now Philip, you gave up running years ago, but you’ve not given up on representing Kenya internationally in sports. You’re hoping to be in Vancouver next month as a cross-country skier competing in the Winter Olympic Games. That’s still up in the air, though at this point as you haven’t qualified yet. Philip, you join us from Seattle. Tell us, you came from a family of runners. Your uncle won a bronze medal in the 800 meters at the Munich Olympics. Why did you give up running fro cross-country skiing?

PHILIP BOIT: For sure, there are still a lot of questions. People have been asking so much about that because Kenyans, we are doing very well in running. Also, my – - was been very good running. But I find out that we are overcrowded in Kenya with running, so I was trying to venture into a different sport, skiing, or a winter sport.

MARCO WERMAN: Right, you got some sponsorship the first time around.

PHILIP BOIT: Yes the first time around about four years, I got sponsorship with Nike, that was the 1996 all the way to Olympic, 1998 and after that Nike quit. But for me, it was not the end of skiing. I went on skiing.

MARCO WERMAN: So, you’re having problems with getting sponsorship. Why do this? What is it about cross-country skiing that keeps you going?

PHILIP BOIT: For me, I think my muscles, running muscles all – - to skiing muscles, which I was not going to go back running again. So I said I have to pursue this career all the way. Even though I don’t have sometimes sponsorship, but I fight all the way that I should keep on going. That’s motivation that I should keep on going with skiing.

MARCO WERMAN: It’s pretty difficult to keep going because you come from a country where you can’t really train. I mean there’s very little snow to speak of in Kenya.

PHILIP BOIT: In Kenya we don’t have snow at all. Maybe in the big mountains like Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya, up at the mountains which we cannot make it as it’s so high. So I have been coming to Europe, mostly to Finland, but sometimes I skip about one or two years without skiing.

MARCO WERMAN: How did you manage to pay to come to the United States on this trip?

PHILIP BOIT: My ticket was paid by Olympic Committee of Kenya. They did pay themselves.

MARCO WERMAN: When you’re in Kenya, Philip, what do you do?

PHILIP BOIT: I do farming. I do a little bit farming, having some cows and also planting maize or corns.

MARCO WERMAN: How much have you had to rely on agriculture to underwrite your Olympic bid?

PHILIP BOIT: Yeah, I – - because – - I have to sell some of my farming goods also and put into my training. Or sometimes I can sell even some cows and paying my payment of training area so I get assistance also from my family.

MARCO WERMAN: You were the first athlete to represent Kenya at the Winter Games. How are you feeling about your chances right now? You’re still trying to qualify for the Games in Vancouver. Do you think the Olympic Committee will give you an exemption?

PHILIP BOIT: Oh yeah, I hope so. I was in very good shape – - and Finland. I had already skied and got 302 points and they wanted 300. So I needed only two points to take away so that I would be qualified, but they needed 300. And I had some problem – - in Kenya. When I arrived in U.S. about two, I stayed about two or three days and I was sick. I got fever and flu and it was like decreasing my power or my speed. When I competed in U.S. I really went down.

MARCO WERMAN: Vancouver would be your fourth and final Olympics. What will you do if you can’t compete?

PHILIP BOIT: For now I’m still positive that I will go because the way I can see, it looks positive for me. I think I’ve not put that option of not competing. I still have that positive attitude for the Olympics.

MARCO WERMAN: Stay positive man. We’re rooting for you.

PHILIP BOIT: Thank you.

MARCO WERMAN: Philip Boit is hoping to represent Kenya at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. He’s currently petitioning the IOC to get an exemption to allow him to compete. Thank you very much for speaking with us Philip.

PHILIP BOIT: Thank you very much.

Geo Quiz

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:55:42 +0000

Download MP3
Where will our Geo Quiz take us today?

Is Yemen in trouble?

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:50:25 +0000

Download MP3
Yemen is the subject of a high-level international conference in London today. There are fears the Arab nation could become a failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda. Anchor Marco Werman speaks with the Middle East editor of London’s Guardian newpaper, Ian Black.

MARCO WERMAN: A month ago Omar Farouk Abdulmuttalab pushed the Arab nation of Yemen into the international spotlight. Abdulmuttalab was allegedly trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen before attempting to blow up an airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. The incident focused the world’s attention on Yemen’s fragile government and its uphill battle against militants in the country. That situation in Yemen was the subject of a high level international conference in London today. Ian Black recently visited the country as Middle East editor for London’s Guardian newspaper.

IAN BLACK: First of all, Yemen is a very poor country. It’s in the Arab world, but only just. It’s on the edge of the Arab world. It’s got far more in common with Africa, just across the Red Sea. It’s a population of 23 million people nearly half of whom live on less than $2.00 a day. It’s running out of water. San’a the capital may become the first capital city in the world in some years to actually run out of water. Its oil reserves are being depleted rapidly. It’s got a very rickety infrastructure and the country has always been seen as one which is difficult to govern. The President once talked about his job being like dancing with snakes. That’s a pretty vivid description of what it’s like to hold this place together.

MARCO WERMAN: And dancing with snakes refers to what?

IAN BLACK: Dancing with snakes refers to the shear difficulty of running an extremely poor country which is still largely tribal with a very large population, remote, rugged areas where now and the current western preoccupation, people see the beginnings, if you like, of new safe havens or something like that for Al Qaeda. It’s Al Qaeda that is the source of the immediate international interest. They’re the problems of Yemen. Of course they’ve been around for many, many years, but it’s the link to western security, to the ability to attack the United States, Britain and others that has brought this very, very intense focus which is behind the meeting here in London today.

MARCO WERMAN: And yet the country’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who mentioned that ruling Yemen can be like dancing with snakes, is the same man who, as you point out in your article on Sunday in the Guardian, built this incredible mosque in San’a, the capital which blazes lights all night long even when power cuts out. Do you think that the government of Ali Saleh is nimble enough to cope with the challenges that you’ve just mentioned?

IAN BLACK: Well I think that’s absolutely the question. The Saleh regime is a very difficult one. He’s been around for 30 plus years maneuvering, buying people off. The sense is it can’t go on like this, that his own ability to maneuver is being restricted by the economic crisis. He can no longer afford to buy people off, to buy security and that links him to the fear that Al Qaeda is making in roads and that Saleh’s dance with snakes, if you like, is getting harder and indeed more dangerous.

MARCO WERMAN: So the officials meeting in London, do you think they’re on the right track? They seem to have the stick, but what is the carrot for this incredibly impoverished country?

IAN BLACK: Well I think the carrot is quite clear. Yemen isn’t facing problems simply from today. In 2006 there was a previous international conference, also held in London, which pledged around $5,000,000,000.00 in aid. But the difficulties involved have been clear over the years. Only a small fraction of that money has actually reached Yemen, partly because of reasons of a lack of capacity to absorb development aid, partly because of the way things are handled in that part of the Middle East. I think that the U.S. and Britain would dearly like to see Saudi Arabia, this powerful and wealthy country next door to Yemen, take a more active role including getting the Yemeni’s to behave more like an accountable government which can receive the kind of aid it so desperately needs and that that aid can go to the right kind of projects and not simply line the pockets of corrupt officials, bureaucrats, whatever and not reach the Yemeni people whose need is so very, very great. So that’s what the Yemeni’s are being required to do. It’s quite a tall order, but I think what you see is this international concern is underlining the sense of urgency about the situation. Everybody is afraid of another failed state in this very strategic part of the world.

MARCO WERMAN: Ian Black, Middle East editor for the Guardian, very good to speak with you. Thanks a lot.

IAN BLACK: Thank you.

Come to Yemen

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:45:26 +0000

Download MP3
The negative international press surrounding Yemen is making one person’s job increasingly difficult – the man who’s trying to sell the country to would-be tourists. Anchor Marco Werman reports.

MARCO WERMAN: A quick additional note about Yemen, almost everything we hear from there is bad news. Terrorism, militants, corruption, not the kind of things that attract tourism. And, we should mention the State Department discourages non-essential travel by U.S. citizens to Yemen. Pity the man whose job it is the sell the country to would-be tourists.

MOHAMMED ELIZZANI: My name is Mohammed Elizzani. I’m the area manager for Yemen Airways in the U.S. A and Canada.

MARCO WERMAN: It’s a tough job, but Mohammed Elizzani has got his own spin on things to do in Yemen.

MOHAMMED ELIZZANI: A perfect day would be like going to the old city of San’a, shopping, going to a Salteh restaurant, eating a Salteh dish and maybe, if they like, they could chew cot in Yemen, which is something that everybody does over there. Cot is a leaves that the old people chew and they just gather and they just chat and talk politic, everything else. So that’s a perfect day. Not only in San’a, but in Aden.

MARCO WERMAN: By the way, cot is considered an illegal narcotic substance here in the United States. Yemen Airways Mohammed Elizzani in Brooklyn might want to fine tune his sales pitch a bit. We have more about Yemen, including a look at archeology there on The World’s history podcast, how it got here. You can find it at the world dot org slash history.

Geo answer

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:40:44 +0000

Download MP3
We’re still looking for a city in China’s mountainous Hunan province. The answer to our geo quiz is Zhangjiajie. Locals claim their rocky mountains look just like the floating mountains in the movie Avatar, so they’ve officially renamed one Hallelujah Mountain.

Geo Quiz page

Tensions follow soccer rivals

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:35:33 +0000

Download MP3
Correspondent Aya Batrawy reports from Cairo on the bitter rivalry between soccer clubs Egypt and Algeria. Their last match caused riots in both countries. Now they’re set to meet tomorrow in the semi-finals of the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Soccer rivals Egypt and Algeria are at it again. The two national teams meet tomorrow in Angola for a semi-final match at the Africa Cup of Nations tournament. The last time they met it was on neutral ground in Sudan. Algeria dealt Egypt a painful loss, knocking the Egyptians out of the World Cup. But the tensions go well beyond the pitch as Aya Batrawy reports from Cairo.

AYA BATRAWY: When Algeria beat Egypt in November, Egyptian fans said they were attacked leaving the stadium in Sudan. Back in Cairo, thousands of angry young men rioted in front of the Algerian Embassy. Twenty-seven year old Cairo taxi driver Ahmed Abdel Ghani was one of those who went to the Embassy.

MALE VOICE 1: [through interpreter] I went and pulled out the Egyptian flag, but Police said I can’t do that. They said I was inciting people.

AYA BATRAWY: This time around, the Egyptian government has taken pains to try to prevent any post-game violence. And while Ahmed says many here are praying nothing happens after the match, they’re prepared to defend their nation’s pride. Ahmed took me to a street in his slum neighborhood. It’s called Algeria Street. He says after Egypt lost to Algeria in November, residents here petitioned the government to change the name. Dalia Safwat, a journalism student and soccer fan says that’s understandable. Soccer is what people here care about.

DALIA SAFWAT: It’s the only thing that people enjoy which is soccer, football, winning a match. That’s what they have. People are suffering from economic problems and poverty and football is one of the outlet that they enjoy.

AYA BATRAWY: Egypt has a lot riding on tomorrow’s game. It’s won the last two African Cup of Nations. One Egyptian player says for both teams, it’s a matter of life and death. For The World, I’m Aya Batrawy in Cairo.

Paquito d’Rivera

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:30:42 +0000

Even though his livelihood depends on it, Cuban-born clarinettist and saxophonist Paquito d’Rivera doesn’t seem to stop for breath. At 61, the Latin-Jazz king has put out more than 50 albums. He’s recorded with big classical and jazz stars, like Yo Yo Ma and the late Dizzie Gillespie. D’Rivera has received countless prizes including the National Medal for the arts and this weekend he’s up for two Grammy’s. The World’s Adeline Sire recently caught up with d’Rivera and she has this story. Download MP3

Paquito d’Rivera homepage
2010 Concert Dates