PRI's The World » 10/27/2009

Entire program – October 27, 2009

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:12:20 +0000

Download MP3
Today on The World: Afghanistan’s president resists demands to fire the country’s top election official; Also, what the resignation of a US diplomat in Afghanistan means for the US war effort there; Plus, the story of a weatherman in Israel who credits his successful career to his American accent.

Palestinians questioning their security forces

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:11:37 +0000

Download MP3
US Army General Keith Dayton has been assisting with training Palestinian security forces since 2005. The ongoing effort has been credited with helping to restore law and order in the West Bank. But the US role is a politically precarious one. Some Palestinians are questioning who their security forces are working for. The World’s Matthew Bell reports from the West Bank.

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.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp, and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH, Boston. Achieving peace in the Middle East is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, as it has been for many of Mr. Obama’s predecessors. There hasn’t been much progress so far. One area, though, has proved fruitful. In the West Bank, there’s less crime, and many say that has a lot to do with a new Palestinian security force trained in part by the US. But as The World’s Matthew Bell reports, even that apparent success has its detractors.

MATTHEW BELL: On a sidewalk in the Palestinian city of Jericho, an elderly man in traditional dress smokes cigarettes and sips tea. And he says times have changed.

[Man speaking Arabic]

BELL: “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, “we feel safe and secure.” The big change in Jericho, and some other Palestinian towns and cities, is that the Israeli military has eased back, while Palestinian police and security forces have stepped up their presence for the first time in years. A few doors down the street, the owner of a cell phone shop says the new Palestinian security forces deserve credit.

SHOP OWNER: [speaking Arabic] I can tell you about an incident, about my experience. One time, a drunk driver drove through the window. He broke the window and caused some damage to my shop. Within a matter of a few hours, they managed to catch him, to bring him over, to let him fix the window and take care of the problem right away. So, they are doing very good.

BELL: Palestinian police and security forces are getting help from a host of nations. The US component is led by three star Army General, Keith Dayton.

GEN. KEITH DAYTON: For the first time, I think it’s fair to say that the Palestinian security forces feel they are on a winning team.

BELL: This was back in May, in Washington. Dayton was making a rare public appearance to talk about his program. Since 2007, he said Palestinian security forces, trained and equipped with the help of the US, and in coordination with Israel, have made a huge difference.

DAYTON: Across the West Bank, these security campaigns have featured clamping down on armed gangs amid a visible police presence, dismantling illegal militias, work against illegal Hamas activities, and a focus on the safety and security of Palestinian citizens. Crime is down. Teenage girls in Jenin can visit their friends after dark without fear of being attacked. Palestinian shops are now open after dark. They never were. A year ago they weren’t. And life is approaching normal in many of these areas.

BELL: To the audience in Washington, Dayton’s presentation sounded smart and pragmatic. With Hamas in control of Gaza, it makes sense for the US to help bolster the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. And what better way to do that than work on improving security. Good for Palestinians and good for Israelis. But to Palestinian ears, Dayton’s speech hit some different notes. The leaders of Hamas in Gaza say the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is allowing the US and Israel to create a proxy militia that will serve their own needs. That’s not the way Adnan Damiri sees things. He’s a spokesman for the Palestinian police and security forces. But Damiri says the American general added to the perception problem by taking too much credit.

ADNAN DAMIRI: We built our police and we built our army and we built our national forces, we built it. He helped us, thank you for your help. But you are not our leader.

BELL: It’s significant that Damiri describes this new security force as an army. That’s a term the Americans avoid completely. They know the current Israeli government is only willing to support the idea of creating a Palestinian state if it’s a demilitarized one. But Damiri says, of course this force is a fledging army, and one of many institutions necessary for a future state of Palestine.

DAMIRI: What we need in our state, we need army, we need police, we need intelligence, we need all the things that any state in the world needed.

BELL: That’s a frightening prospect to some Israelis. But Israeli military commanders do support the new Palestinian security forces as they operate, and they give them high marks for performance. The Israelis trust has its limits though. They’ve held up shipments of protective vests, helmets and communications gear intended for the Palestinians. Middle East expert Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group says the perception problem isn’t going away. Malley says Palestinians are all in favor of restoring security, but they’re raising legitimate questions about who these new security forces are really taking orders from, and who they may fight in the future. Is it criminal gangs, Hamas, or even Israel?

ROB MALLEY: The most sensitive question is whether these forces are being trained to defend Palestinians against Israel or to help Israel and the Palestinians fight against a third party. Most Palestinians would say that they are still in a fight against Israel. That doesn’t mean necessarily that they’re going to take up weapons. But deep inside, they would identify their main enemy as the Israelis. So if forces are being trained to protect not just Palestinians, but also Israelis against Palestinians, that may make sense to us as Americans. It doesn’t make sense to many Palestinians.

BELL: In the longer term, Malley says things won’t get any easier if there continues to be no political progress between the Palestinians and Israel. He says any security force is only as strong as the political system backing it up. As for US Army General Keith Dayton, he’s not speaking publicly these days. An aide to the general turned down an invitation to speak on the record himself, but he said Dayton has never claimed to be in charge of any Palestinian security forces, because he’s not in charge. Dayton has agreed to stay on in his position until late next year. His program’s ultimate goal is to train about 5,000 Palestinian national security forces. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell, Jericho.

JEB SHARP: Matthew also has some video from his interview with the head of the Palestinian national security forces. You can see that at The World dot O-R-G.

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.

US diplomat resigns over Afghan war

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:10:35 +0000

Download MP3
A senior US diplomat in Afghanistan has become the first such person to resign in protest at the war against the Taliban, the Washington Post reports. State department employee Matthew Hoh, posted to Zabul province, said he quit because he had doubts about why the US was fighting, the Post says. His resignation letter, written last month, prompted officials to offer him alternative jobs, but he declined. Jeb Sharp discussed the resignation with Andrew Bacevich, a professor of International Relations at Boston University, and Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation.

Washington Post coverage
Letter of resignation (PDF)

JEB SHARP: Electoral uncertainty in Afghanistan isn’t the only bump in the road to formulating a new American strategy there. Here’s another: a State Department official in Afghanistan has resigned to protest the war. Excerpts from Matthew Hoh’s resignation letter appear in today’s Washington Post. The diplomat said he’s lost confidence in America’s strategic purposes in Afghanistan. Andrew Bacevich is a professor of International Relations at Boston University. Andrew Bacevich, what did you make of this letter?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think it’s really a remarkable document. Matthew Hoh has served his country with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he’s not some crazy leftie peacenik. And I think his on-the-ground observations and skepticism about the purposefulness of the US military effort there really deserve to be taken quite seriously.

SHARP: And you share that skepticism. We also have on the line Peter Bergen of the New America foundation. Peter Bergen, how does the letter strike you?

PETER BERGEN: Well, you know, it’s certainly one person’s take and he has, as Professor Bacevich points out, a long, distinguished career in the US military, like Professor Bacevich himself. But it sort of depends where you sit. He was in Zabol province. There are 34 other provinces in Afghanistan. I’ve been embedded in Zabol province with the 110^th in 2006 when it was under a fair amount of Taliban attack, and there’s no doubt that Zabol is one of the most intractable of the 34 provinces in the country. How applicable is that to every other province I think is highly debatable. In many of the other provinces, this is really sort of a non issue.

SHARP: But what about is a statement of one side of this debate that we’re having? From where I sit, the two of you do encapsulate, in a way, two strong positions. Peter Bergen, I think you think we need to press ahead with this war, and Andrew Bacevich, I think you would advocate extreme caution, and if I’m characterizing you properly, even reducing troop levels, where at this moment where President Obama is consulting and right now, you can’t force him to say what he’s going to do. So we’re all in this debate together, trying to decide what’s going to happen in Afghanistan, and here’s this letter, really laying out a critique, based on history as well, saying–

BACEVICH: From my point of view, the value of the letter comes from the way that Matthew Hoh frames the problem. And I take the point that this is one guy offering a perspective from one particular place, but he offers a general observation in which he suggests that the motive force of the insurgency is not really to advance the purposes of the Taliban, but is really to fight against the foreign occupation. Moreover, he argues that the fact that the United States finds itself supporting what is I think by anybody’s evaluation a corrupt and incompetent government, has the unintended effect of further legitimizing the insurgency. So to the extent that you want to take this critique seriously, and it seems to me that the argument that more US troops pursuing a counter-insurgency strategy can turn things around, starts to look like a pretty dubious proposition.

SHARP: Peter Bergen, what do you make of that?

BERGEN: Well, really, what is McChrystal suggesting? Essentially, he’s suggesting a population centric approach where you protect the big population centers and you withdraw from places like remote outposts in Zabol and other places, where I think the American presence is an irritant. There may be more grounds of agreement than disagreement in the sense that a counter-terrorism strategy in the rural, fairly unpopulated parts of Afghanistan sort of makes sense. A

counter-insurgency approach in the more populated parts of Afghanistan also makes sense, because only 12 percent of Afghanistan is cultivatable land, which means the vast majority of the population lives in a relatively small area, which can be protected. And one final point on this, which is that it would be one things if the Afghans wanted us all out, but we’ve had probably a dozen polls by the BBC, for instance, ABC News, the Asia Society and poll after poll always finds the same thing, which is, international forces continue to be regarded favorably by a majority of the population. The most recent poll, for instance, found that 63 percent of Afghans had a favorable view of the US military, and a fairly extraordinary number, given all the things that have gone wrong there in the past eight years.

SHARP: Peter Bergen, what about Professor Bacevich’s point that counter-insurgency relies on a credible partner? Everybody’s concerned about corruption in the government.

BERGEN: That is, of course, a very good point, but I think we need to do something much more basic before we get to the point. There’s going to be no perfect Afghan government for the foreseeable future. It’s not a place that’s had enormously credible governments in the past. Right now, what we’re not delivering is something more basic, which is just security for the population. And before we sort of get to more fancy counter-insurgency notions of connecting people to the Afghan government, we just really need to produce security, which is the one thing the Taliban, when they were in power, managed to do.

SHARP: Can outside forces do that? I mean, what about the point that so much blood and treasure is being spent on a venture that there’s considerable skepticism about?

BACEVICH: Towards the end of the second to last paragraph in the resignation letter is the one point I think where Matthew Hoh arguably goes outside his lane and comments on something that he probably doesn’t have the personal expertise, and yet it’s a very telling comment. He quotes

what he says is some unnamed commander who apparently says to visitors in Afghanistan, “We are spending ourselves into oblivion.” And Matthew Hoh goes on in this letter to make the point that we’re out of money, I mean, that this is an enterprise which holds the possibility of bankrupting the country, especially given the prospect that I think even proponents of the war share, that this eight year long war is going to continue for many more years to come and consume many more hundreds of billions of dollars and no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives. So in a sense, his concluding point is, can we really afford this? And I think by implication, are there not alternatives to achieving our interests in Afghanistan that don’t cost so much?

SHARP: Peter Bergen, how do you measure the cost, and how do you think about it as you support, presumably, McChrystal’s strategy?

BACEVICH: Well, a couple of quick factual points. One is that as a percentage of GDP, the United States is spending perhaps 4 to 5 percent on its military, of which historically, Afghanistan has consumed less than 10 percent, so we’re talking about 0.4 percent of the federal budget. Now that is obviously going to go up. I think it’s a very reasonable question to ask, but let’s do the counter-factual. We say, okay, let’s do a lighter approach, more counter-terrorism. Let’s draw down. We’re an irritant, etc. That would all be fine and good if we hadn’t done that already for the past several years. That was essentially the Bush adverse to nation building approach, where we had 6,000 American soldiers on the ground. That’s about the size of a police department in a city like Houston in a country the size of Texas, with a population of 30 million. And we got what we paid for. We did it on the cheap. The Taliban came back. They’ve morphed together ideologically and tactically with al Qaida, so I think the burden is on the other side of this debate to say, “How would it be different this time around?” We’re going to do the light approach, but somehow we’re going to do it in a way that’s either smarter or more efficacious or both.

BACEVICH: Well, I think the answer to that, if I may, is that we haven’t really been doing a counter-terrorism approach during the period when Iraq was consuming all the resources. I think the most important element in a counter-terrorism approach would be intelligence collection and surveillance. And during the years 2003 to 2008, Iraq was consuming intelligence and surveillance assets. Were they to be focused on Afghanistan, at least arguably there might be some opportunity to make a counter-terrorism strategy approach work.

SHARP: Well, thank you both very much.

BACEVICH: Thank you very much.

BERGEN: Thank you.

SHARP: Andrew Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University. His latest books is: “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.” Peter Bergen is a scholar in residence at the New America Foundation.

No more Big Macs

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:38 +0000

Download MP3
In the Geo Quiz we’re looking for an island nation where all three McDonald’s restaurants will close at the end of the month. And besides being destined to be Big Mac free by Sunday, it’s also famous for its glaciers and fjords, and, well, ice.

McDonald’s is to close its business there because the country’s financial crisis has made it too expensive to operate its franchises there. The fast food giant said its three outlets in the country would shut – and that it had no plans to return. Besides the economy, McDonald’s blamed the “unique operational complexity” of doing business in an isolated nation with a population of just 300,000.

Geo Answer:

And the country losing its Golden Arches soon is Iceland.

Svein Gudmarsson is a reporter with Iceland’s state radio.

BBC coverage
The Guardian: McDonald’s to quit Iceland

JEB SHARP: And the country losing its golden arches this weekend is Iceland. Svein Gudmarsson is a reporter with Iceland’s state radio. Tell us exactly why McDonalds is closing in Iceland?

SVEIN GUDMARSSON: Well, the reason is simple. Since last year, the Icelandic krona or currency has devaluated so much that the cost of importing the goods to make the MacDonald’s hamburgers and chips and whatever they use to make them, has almost doubled. So the regulations of the MacDonald’s stipulate that their franchisee has to import everything, and he cannot compete any more with the local hamburger restaurants.

SHARP: They would rather insist that everything is imported than keep their restaurants open? Do you understand the background to that?

GUDMARSSON: I think it has something to do with certificates that producers of meat and cheese and so on have to have, from MacDonald’s. And apparently Icelandic producers aren’t big enough to get these certificates.

SHARP: So it’s some sort of standards, quality control issues.

GUDMARSSON: Yes, that’s right.

SHARP: So you were in MacDonald’s today. I gather there were three in Iceland. Who was loving it in Reykjavik today?

GUDMARSSON: Well, I went early today like you said to our MacDonald’s restaurant nearby where I work, and it was absolutely packed. There were so many people buying hamburgers there, and of course, the restaurant is closing down on Sunday. So apparently word had spread that this would most likely be the last MacDonald’s trip here in Iceland.

SHARP: And what do you hear from the owner of the franchise there in Iceland? What’s he going to do next?

GUDMARSSON: Well, he’s quite upbeat actually, because he is going to establish a new restaurant with a different name called Metro. And he’s saying that now he can finally buy meat and cheese and buns and whatever from a local producer, which costs less, and he hopes that the quality will be better.

SHARP: Now if burger chains in Iceland will be using more local sources for food and materials, that sounds like good news for the environment.

GUDMARSSON: Absolutely. It is not good for environment having to transport a lot of food over long distances, when it can be grown or produced locally. This is good also for Iceland economically, because quite a lot of money and currency left the country to buy all that stuff, which could be produced in Iceland. Instead, this money now goes to local farmers, and even the money that the owners of MacDonald’s in Iceland had to pay for the franchise will stay in Iceland, which is definitely good news for our country that is quite starved with foreign currency.

SHARP: So not necessarily good for your health eating the burgers, but better for the health of the planet.

GUDMARSSON: You’re spot on.

SHARP: And just a point of language, do people say “Big Mac” in Iceland, or was there a colloquial?

GUDMARSSON: Yeah, I think Big Mac has always been called just simply a Big Mac, but the Quarter Pounder, or Royale, as I think it is called in the US, was always called “góður borgari” which means just, “a good citizen.” It was actually the prime minister of Iceland who took the first bite of a Big Mac back in ’93 when the first MacDonald’s restaurant opened. He is a very controversial figure still in Iceland. He only left office five years ago and when he became the governor of the central bank, and was the governor of the central bank when the bank collapsed in Iceland, so now many people are wondering if he is actually going to be the one who takes the last bit of MacDonald’s.

SHARP: Svein Gudmarsson is a reporter with Iceland State Radio. Thanks very much.

GUDMARSSON: Thank you.

Israel’s American weatherman

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:08:41 +0000

Download MP3
One of Israel’s most popular weathermen retired last month after delivering weather updates on Hebrew-language radio for 39 years. Israelis loved listening to Robert Olinsky (pictured) for his most distinguishing feature: his thick American accent. Daniel Estrin reports.

Jerusalem Post: The gift of gab

JEB SHARP: For Israeli radio listeners, the daily weather forecasts just aren’t as entertaining as they used to be. That’s because one of Israel’s most popular weathermen retired last month. He delivered forecasts on Hebrew-language radio for 39 years. And, as Daniel Estrin reports from Petah Tikvah, Israelis listened as much for that funny American accent as for the weather.

DANIEL ESTRIN: Israelis always knew who it was when Robert Olinsky came on the air.

[Olinsky speaking Hebrew]

ROBERT OLINSKY: My accent in Hebrew is pretty strong, and it’s pretty hard to forget. I tried to, but I haven’t succeeded.

[Olinsky speaking Hebrew]

ESTRIN: When Olinsky was growing up in Trenton, New Jersey, he never expected that one day he’d deliver weather reports in a foreign language to millions of listeners.

OLINSKY: I have a terrible accent. My Hebrew is technically correct, if you can understand it. But that’s life, what can I tell ya?

ESTRIN: Olinsky didn’t plan on moving to Israel. In 1970, he completed his service as a meteorologist on a US Air Force base in England. And he decided to travel eastward on his way back home. But when he stopped in Israel, he landed a job, and he’s been here ever since. Olinsky began working at Israel’s Weather Central. And whenever radio announcers would need a weather report, they’d call and put him on the air, in Hebrew.

OLINSKY: When I picked up the phone, with my accent, it just left a– it stuck in people’s mind. It just became part of my– what I was known as, sort of thing.

[Hebrew radio dialog]

ESTRIN: You don’t hear much variety in Israeli radio voices. That’s because Israel’s national radio has strict criteria for Hebrew diction. Avi Etgar hosts a Saturday afternoon show on Israel Radio. He says the airwaves are used as a tool to teach immigrants Hebrew, and to set standards for proper speech.

AVI ETGAR: Our first prime minister in 1948, David Ben Gurion, decided that the radio must speak in the most proper Hebrew. Biblical accents, perfect Hebrew, and here comes this American guy, this Robert Olinsky, with his heavy American accent. It was so funny speaking to him. And we used to make– I used to make a joke with him about that.

ESTRIN: Actually, in the beginning, Olinsky’s American accent almost cost him his job. In the ’70s, an Israel Radio representative tried to get him booted off the air. But Olinsky held on…and soon discovered that his accent became an asset.

OLINSKY: Because at that time, anything American in this country was good. An American car was the best. You know, so an American accent, it might be hard to understand him, but at least he knows what he’s talking about. So it actually gave me a benefit at that time.

ESTRIN: Throughout the years, Olinsky became a trusted source for weather. When his wife would hang out the laundry to dry, the neighbors would follow suit. And many Israelis would often call the office and ask him for personalized forecasts, especially during wedding season.

OLINSKY: “We got a wedding tonight.” “Oh that’s a great–” How many weddings are there are in Israel in a night? And all of the sudden the bride calls up, and the groom, and then the parents, and then the grandmother, and then the grandfather, who also has a grandson traveling in Argentina today. And what’s the weather gonna be in Peru tomorrow, we have to show a lot of patience sometimes, a lot of patience.

ESTRIN: But Olinsky always kept his audience in mind. Unlike many other Israeli meteorologists, he stuck to practical advice. Avi Etgar from Israel Radio says listeners loved his sense of humor, and his fatherly warmth.

ETGAR: And you know, sometimes we say, “Oh what a dry summer. What about the rain?” and it starts to be an issue. And Robert was always promising, you know, even by that sense of optimism, of “there’s gonna be rain,” because our lives depend on that, you know.

[Olinsky speaking Hebrew]

ESTRIN: Olinsky, who’s 67 years old, delivered his final forecast on the air last month. With his signature flat “‘R” he warned beachgoers to watch out for strong currents. But before he signed off, there was a surprise for him.

[Israeli meterologist speaking Hebrew]

ESTRIN: An Israeli TV meteorologist came on the air to impersonate his classic accent.

[Radio conversation in Hebrew]

ESTRIN: Olinsky’s response, in Hebrew: “I didn’t understand a single word he said.”

ESTRIN: For The World, I’m Daniel Estrin, Petah Tikvah, Israel.

Afghan election woes

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:46:11 +0000

Download MP3
Afghan president Hamid Karzai is rejecting calls to dismiss the head of the country’s election commission — a man appointed by Karzai himself. The World’s Jason Margolis has more.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp and this is The World. October isn’t quite finished, but this month is already the deadliest for US forces since the war against the Taliban began eight years ago. Fifty-five soldiers have died in Afghanistan this month. Not coincidentally, the war has become increasingly controversial. Today, we learned that an American diplomat has resigned in protest over the war. We’ll have more on that in a moment. But first, we turn to another headache for US policymakers. That’s Afghanistan’s uncertain presidential politics. President Hamid Karzai’s challenger is demanding the removal of the head of Afghanistan’s election commission. But, as The World’s Jason Margolis reports, Karzai is standing by his man.

JASON MARGOLIS: The man who oversees elections in Afghanistan is named Azizullah Ludin. That’s not exactly a household name, but Ludin could decide the upcoming election. Or rather, Ludin’s job status could decide if there is an election. That’s because presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah has indicated that he may boycott the next round of elections if Karzai doesn’t make some changes to Afghanistan’s election commission.

BRIAN KATULIS: There’s an interesting game of chicken that has actually developed between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah.

MARGOLIS: Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He says President Karzai has the power to appoint all the members of the election commission.

KATULIS: And the parliament in Afghanistan had tried to acquire some sort of voice in this earlier this year. And Karzai essentially rejected it. So this led to some questions among some observers and among some in Afghanistan of the independence of this independent election commission.

MARGOLIS: Those questions multiplied this past weekend when Ludin told the New York Times, quote, “We will have another election, and we’ll have the same result. Karzai is going to win.” Analyst Brian Katulis says that’s an odd thing to say for election officials anywhere.

KATULIS: They shouldn’t be offering their prognosis or their predictions of what will happen.

CANDACE RONDEAUX: I mean this is ridiculous.

MARGOLIS: Candace Rondeaux is with the International Crisis Group in Kabul.

RONDEAUX: There’s not a Western country in the world where you would have the head, the chief electoral advisor, calling an election for one candidate or the other. I mean, this completely calls into question the impartiality of this body.

MARGOLIS: But Karzai is dismissing these criticisms. In an interview today with the BBC’s Pashto Service, Karzai said he’s standing by not only his election chief, Azizullah Ludin, but also three cabinet members Abdullah also wants ousted.

HAMID KARZAI: [speaking Pashto] Dr. Abdullah wants me to remove some officials, but they have done nothing wrong. They have been performing their duties and what the law requires them to do. We cannot make any more changes just one week before the election, otherwise the election and Afghanistan will suffer.”

MARGOLIS: Karzai also urged Abdullah to take part in the next election because, he said that’s what’s best for Afghanistan.

KARZAI: [speaking Pashto] I want us to be able to shake the hands of the winner and wish the next government of Afghanistan the best.

MARGOLIS: But Karzai’s critics warn that it’s easy to stack the deck and steal an election when your people are in charge. Many of the elections officials who oversaw the vote in August were presumed to be Karzai loyalists. And many of them are still in place. For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.

Politics and violence in Iraq

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:44:39 +0000

Download MP3
Anchor Jeb Sharp speaks with Haddad Salih, a translator for the BBC’s Baghdad bureau, about the mood in Iraq following Sunday’s double bombing attack that left at least 155 people dead. Some fear the renewed violence will delay upcoming elections in January.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp, and this is The World. Iraq is trying to come to grips with the shocking events of the past few days. On Sunday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 155 people in Baghdad. An al Qaida-linked group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. This renewed violence in Iraq comes two years after the country stepped back from the brink of civil war. And it comes as Iraq prepares for January elections. This Baghdad resident told the BBC today that the weekend bombings didn’t come as a surprise to most Iraqis.

MAN: [speaking Arabic] Always before an election we expect bomb attacks like this. We blame the government for it. The government has ignored the fact that attacks could happen. There is a checkpoint every 100 yards. How did these vehicles get through these checkpoints? Didn’t the government learn anything from the August bombs? It is going to happen again right up to the election.

SHARP: The fact that Iraqis expect violence doesn’t make it any easier for them to deal with it. That’s according to Haddad Salih, the translator for the BBC bureau in Baghdad.

HADDAD SALIH: It’s making people furious, making people frustrated. The picture in front of them, the future in front of them is just completely dark, you know. I mean, there’s death everywhere, there’s death every day. The sad thing about it is that it’s an expected death. Everybody is a potential target. You see, I use that same road. I was there at the same place where the explosion took place about an hour before. I use this same road to and back from work. Am I really still alive? This could happen to me. This could happen to anyone.

SHARP: Try to explain to us how people actually behave when they’re afraid of violence all the time, and when they see that dark future ahead that you refer to.

SALIH: Well, you see, for example, today, I was driving around and I was coming to work. And the pedestrians, people walking around, they look suspiciously at any car because what happened could happen again. You’ll be walking in the street, thinking of your kids, thinking of work, thinking of anything, and this car could be a potential car bomb. So suspicious anger, it’s the mood of the street in Baghdad.

SHARP: And do the streets actually feel emptier in the aftermath of something like that? Do people retreat away from one another?

SALIH: Well, on the contrary, people are getting closer together, because they feel they have the common enemy. That enemy is by politics, by what you call corrupt politics. It’s not sectarian violence any more. It’s something that’s out there to claim their lives.

SHARP: What is it about the elections that makes this happen? What’s at stake and why does it affect things so much?

SALIH: Well, that’s what the people say, and I’m just telling you what the people say out in the street. They think that this party wants to make that party look weak, look like it’s not doing its duty, that it’s negligence in terms of the security. It’s one party, one political party, making the other one look bad.

SHARP: How has your work changed? How have your days changed as this violence has come back to the fore?

SALIH: Usually it takes me, with clear traffic, it usually takes me maybe at the most 15 minutes to get to work. Now it takes me about two hours to get to work, because many streets are closed, especially when the two explosions, Sunday explosions, took place in central Baghdad. And

that’s led to the closure of the area where the explosion took place, and the closure of the streets. So that put a pressure on other streets, and more checkpoints are erected. So that puts pressure on other streets and that makes people’s lives hell.

SHARP: And what about the movement of goods and shops being open or shut, has that been affected?

SALIH: Well, of course, everything will be affected. Businesses will be closed. Those businesses that are open, they have lost customers, so it affects all aspects of life.

SHARP: What do you see the government doing to combat the attacks, to ward off the attacks? I mean, people are angry and presumably they’re angry at the government for not providing security. How has the government responded?

SALIH: By erecting more checkpoints and making people’s lives more miserable.

SHARP: What else, Haddad? Any details or anecdotes or stories that you’ve heard that would help people here understand how things have shifted and how painful it is?

SALIH: Well, for example, some of the people who live in the area where the explosions took place, they are telling us horrible stories. They were telling us about this lady who, her husband called her from underneath the rubble and he told her, “I’m still underneath the rubble. Could you do something? Could you call somebody? Could you come and ask people to get me out?” And the neighbors were saying that she came to the site where the explosion took place at the Ministry of Justice building at 3:00 in the morning. And she asked the guards there, she said, “My husband just called me. Could you do something? He’s on the mobile.” And they told her, “Well,

it’s still dark. We can’t go out now,” and stuff like that. And in the morning when they came to the place where she thinks that her husband is in, her husband was dead. How sad can it be?

SHARP: Haddad Salih, you’ve seen an awful lot, and this was a particularly bad attack, and I wonder how you keep perspective and how you think about everything that’s happened, and what it means about this particular moment.

SALIH: I saw the explosions. I’d just go to work, as I said, and I did a couple of things and then I went and had a cup of coffee. And then I was standing on the balcony of our bureau, smoking a cigarette, and I was looking in the direction when the explosions took place. And they happened. I saw them with my own eyes.

SHARP: What did you think in that moment?

SALIH: What did I think? I thought about the poor people who were there. That’s what I thought. I mean, God help me, you know. What can you feel? How can you feel? It’s just really shaking. I’m still shaking.

SHARP: Well, thank you for trying to describe it to us. Haddad Salih–

SALIH: My pleasure.

SHARP: — is a translator for the BBC’s Baghdad bureau. Take care.

SALIH: Thank you very much. You too.

Geo Quiz

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:41 +0000

Download MP3
Our daily geography puzzler.

Istanbul struggles with gentrification

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:30:50 +0000

Some of Istanbul’s old neighborhoods are struggling to modernize. The Turkish government is razing buildings to make way for new homes. But in the process, some argue, the original character of the neighborhoods is being destroyed, along with the fabric of the communities that live there. Aaron Schachter reports from Istanbul.

Sofia Rei Koutsovitis

The World — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:00:39 +0000

Sofia Rei Koutsovitis

Download MP3For our Global Hit today — we want to introduce you to a singer from Argentina. Her name is Sofia Rei Koutsovitis. Download MP3

Members of her band also hail from South America originally. But they live and work now in New York City.

Sofia Rei Koutsovitis came to our studio with musicians Jorge Roeder and Jorge Perez Albela.

Find out more on Sofia’s new CD and tour dates here.

“Sube Azul”
# Audio CD (November 10, 2009)
# Original Release Date: November 1, 2009
# Number of Discs: 1
# Format: Import
# Label: World Village
# ASIN: B002S5N066