Read the Transcript
The 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.

Bernard Haykel: You have a kind of doomsday scenario in Yemen that is looming and the people are very, very frustrated indeed.

Werman:: Bernard Haykel is a Yemen expert and a professor of near eastern studies at Princeton University. He says Yemen’s government is fragile. But he says unlike Tunisia’s now toppled regime, Yemen’s leaders are likely to use brutal force to prevent an overthrow.

Haykel: The President in Yemen I think is willing to use much greater force against the people should these demonstrations become bigger and more threatening. Also you have a regional neighbor in Saudi Arabia who I think would give the President a lot of money to calm things down.

Werman:: Mm.

Haykel: And he would continue to play the game of divide and rule as he has done for the last 30 plus years. So I, I don’t see an immediate toppling of the regime in Yemen. And that raises the other question which is let’s say the regime does topple, what comes after?

Werman:: Right, what does come after in Yemen if anything?

Haykel: Chaos, absolute chaos. Yeah.

Werman:: You think that’s inevitable?

Haykel: Yes because there are no institutions that can, unlike in, in Tunisia where the, the Army seems to have kept together and refused to shoot on the crowds, in Yemen the Army’s very weak and you have a Praetorian Guard that I think would be willing to shoot. And you would probably have, if , if you don’t have chaos in Yemen you would have another individual, an Army man just like the existing President now, who would come to power and just simply replicate the system.

Werman:: Now radicals have used Yemen as a base for launching attacks on the U.S., and the radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki is thought to be hiding in Yemen after planning some of those attacks. What are the likely consequences of this instability in Yemen for U.S. policy?

Haykel: Well the Al-Qaida presence of course takes advantage of the weak central government in Yemen and the fact that Yemen is a very divided tribal country that’s very large and where the writ of the central government doesn’t dominate. So you do have an Al-Qaida presence there and I suspect that Al-Qaida would thrive if Yemen were to become even weaker. Although I don’t think they would necessarily like it to become like Somalia because in total chaos Al-Qaida can’t function either. They still also need the light switches to come on and they need some order to function.

Having said that I’m of the view that the relationship between President Saleh and his government and Al-Qaida is not one of full antagonism. I think that there have been times in the past when the President has used Al-Qaida against his domestic enemies, and he’s now using the threat of Al-Qaida to basically get more money out of the Saudi’s and out of the Americans.

Werman:: So what line do you think Washington should take?

Haykel: I don’t think the American government knows what to do in Yemen frankly. Because it finds itself in a catch 22 situation where it doesn’t like the President and the way he rules and knows that it’s, he’s part, he’s largely the problem that keeps the country so badly managed, but on the other hand can’t think of an alternative to him. And it’s the same problem that the Saudi’s have with Yemen.

Werman:: So bottom line here Bernard Haykel, do you think President Saleh of Yemen is going to try and appease the protestors with concessions or try and shut them up through force?

Haykel: His modus operandi is basically to say yes, yes, yes, I’ll do whatever you want for you. I won’t seek another two or three terms as President. He’ll make all the right noises, and he will probably shake down the Saudis for much more money so that he can keep subsidies up, raise salaries. Do all kinds of cosmetic economic policies that will immediately alleviate some of the problems that especially the Army people have, and the people who are employed in government which is a large section of the Yemeni population. But, you know, all of these are just like putting a band-aid of a gashing wound, you know? And he doesn’t have the solutions and is unwilling to, I think, adopt the solutions that are necessary for solving Yemen’s long term problems. And namely to, to leave. To leave power because he’s really the problem.

Werman:: Bernard Haykel, professor of near eastern studies at Princeton University, thanks very much for your time.

Haykel: Thank you.

Werman:: The wave of unrest sweeping through the Arab world has strong online components. Never before have we had such immediate access to the front lines of protest around the world. From live tweets from protestors in Tunisia, to compelling video from the streets of Cairo, you can follow along. Get a glimpse of the upheaval in Egypt right now at theworld.org. And while you’re there be sure to add your comments and thoughts.

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.

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.

Lisa Mullins: As we’ve just heard in Jason’s story, defense secretary wants to rethink how the US spends its defense dollars; some say there will have to be cuts if Congress is serious about controlling spending. Even some from the Tea Party are for shrinking the military budget, but Princeton University Professor Julian Zelizer says that there are a couple of reasons that’s unlikely to happen.

Julian Zelizer: The first is, most republicans have invested too much and a hawkish posture towards national security and the defense of a high military budget to allow a hand full of Tea Partiers to really undercut that position. So, the Tea Party republicans really have to go against what the Republican Party has been about, not since 2001 but really, since the 1950’s.

Mullins: But what about going up against democrats, not just the Tea Partiers?

Zelizer : Yes, second is that members of both parties support the military budged, not just because of military policy but, economic policy. This is a form of spending that’s very important in districts throughout the country and every time there’s an effort to close bases, to cut weapon system, it comes into really strong opposition because so many legislators in both parties are invested in the status quo budget, so they’re not gonna find a lot of supporters beyond ____when they make these proposals.

Mullins: Well, the same time, you know, we have Admiral Mike Mullen who’s the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying our national debt is our biggest national security threat. History shows that every nation eventually adopts the foreign policy it can afford. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible, I mean what he’s saying is, if you’re gonna make defense  spending a sacred cow, then we are hand strong in terms what we can do in foreign policy or at least our budget will dictate what we do in foreign policy. Is that point lost on Congress?

Zelizer: I think so. You know, other secretaries of defense have faced the same problem. From Robert McNamara in the 1960’s, through secretary of defense Rumsfeld who wanted to trim and make the budget more efficient and ran into the fact that legislators depend on this money, and so do the voters who live in their districts.

Mullins: And then we’re seeing that now with Robert Gates who wants to end production of the F-22.

Zelizer: Exactly and the trouble Gates is having is predictable. I mean and there’s always this you know, convergence. One of the big supporters of defense spending in the Democratic Party in the  70’s and 80’s was this guy, senator Scoop Jackson who is from Washington and Boeing, the company that produced a lot of these weapons was in his state, he was known as the Senator from Boeing. And I think that’s what the budget cutters continue to face whenever they go after this money.

Mullins: So, if Congress is that worried about what its constituencies will think about cutting a particular fighter plane for instance, does that mean that in ceding the budget or keeping the budget the same, that it’s formulating military strategy?

Zelizer: It does, yes, I mean,  to a certain extend and this has been an old problem and an old criticism of how we go about our defense business. A lot of our strategy in terms of what weapons we have, are not picked because of sound, rational decisions over what the military needs. Is based on what Congress wants for very different reasons. So, I do think this is a problem we’ve had in our military strategy for decades and it leads us to direct spending to certain kinds of weapons that might not really be the best use for the country.

Mullins : Well, one of the different things this time around and we started off talking about the Tea Party, I’m curious about¦ so these Tea Partiers view any foreign entanglement with some skepticism. What difference you think they will indeed make in Congress this time around?

Zelizer: I’m not convinced that’s the area they’ll have the biggest  impact. They’re still small in numbers and they lost a lot of races in this mid-term election. So, their impact was more on energizing voters and shaping the media strategy and in certain victories. But clearly I don’t think they’ve taken over the Republican Party. So initially my guess in they’re gonna yell and scream for certain kinds of decisions, I doubt all of the sudden we’re gonna have a new isolationism as a result of the Tea Party, I doubt we’re gonna  have really dramatic cuts in the Federal Government. I think they’re gonna be kind of the gadfly for the Republican Party, keeping pressure on them  to at least try to cut spending, but given the composition of Congress, I just don’t think the Tea Party will have as much in effect as they are hoping for.

Mullins: Well  since Tea Partiers  and wider members of the Republican Party are complaining about the ballooning budget, I want you to tell us how you weave in one particular factor of President’s Obama’s budget. The administration did what the Bush Administration had not done and it has put into the current Federal Budget the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that has not been visible within the entire Federal Spending Plan, until now. So, by doing that, how did President Obama change the politics of balance in the budget?

Zelizer: Well, I think you know, rather then protecting the wars from balance budget battles here in the United States, he’s put them front and center. So, on one end it leads to a more realistic debate over the wars and what the costs are for this country and at the same time, in some way it protects the wars from political pressure, because it’s very hard, again, for legislators to vote against funding for wars that are in progress.

Mullins: Then, why didn’t George Bush’s Administration do that?

Zelizer : Well, the second strategy since the 60’s has been just to hide the costs and the idea is, if the public doesn’t see the costs they won’t care about it as much. And it allows, you know, a republican to spend a lot on two wars, but at the same time claim that the budget is under control. So it protects the wars, in terms of that kind of debate and at the same time it makes you look like less of a spender, because those costs are hidden.

Mullins: All right.  Julian Zelizer, professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton and editor of “The Presidency of George W Bush” and author of the book “Jimmy Carter”. Both books came out this fall.  Thanks a lot.

Zelizer: Thank you.

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.

M. V. Ramana (courtesy of Princeton University)

What do you think about the tradeoffs of nuclear power? And should the U.S follow Asia’s lead? Bring your thoughts and questions to our online Science Forum discussion with Dr. Ramana, and his colleague, Dr. Alexander Glaser.

• Science Forum
• Three listeners share their thoughts
• Science podcast

• Lizzie Martin’s blog
• Bridge Year Program at Princeton University

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:  We’d like you to meet a Princeton University student who won’t have to worry about any quizzes for a while.  That’s because Lizzie Martin is delaying her freshman year while she undertakes a year of social service abroad and she’s doing it on Princeton’s dime.  Martin is part of the university’s new Bridge Year program. The program has placed five students in each of four countries and it’s paying the students’ core expenses.  Lizzie Martin is in India and it’s been quite a change.

LIZZIE MARTIN:  I’m from Louisville, North Carolina, which is a pretty small town and in India, right now I’m living in Varanasi which is one of the holiest Hindu cities in India.  It’s also a very large city.  I have never been in a traffic jam that’s just people before and now I have.  And I have never had to take a different route to work or school because there are cows in the alley but now I have.  But Varanasi is just a beautiful place and it’s such an old place and to live in a place with so much history and you’re you know, walking around or drinking your coffee or whatever here, it’s just incredible.  We also have done a little bit of traveling around India.  We spent a month in the mountains.  We helped a man build a house so that was exciting.

WERMAN:  I imagine Varanasi is quite different from Louisville, North Carolina.  What’s been the toughest part about your experience so far?

MARTIN:  Hm, I think the thing about India is that their idea of space is very different.  In America, we like to have a certain amount of distance from a lot of things, whether that’s you know, animals or insects or illness and hardship and poverty.  And in India you’re forced to be very close to things like that, maybe it’s walking past a cow on your way to work or a herd of water buffalo.   Maybe it’s the beggars and the little children who are you know, tugging on your clothing [INDISCERNIBLE] so where everyday we’re brought really close to these situations that are hard for me to deal with because in America I have a distance and so things that seem really frightening because of the distance that we keep them at, are suddenly not so terrifying and we can find ways to deal with them.

WERMAN:  You write about that distance between people in your blog, which by the way, is just wonderfully written, especially your little comments on meditation and just how hard it is to do.  Now Princeton is picking up basically the entire tab for the five of you in the Bridge Year Program over there in India.  Do you think that there are many people your age who’d want to do this?

MARTIN:  I’m not sure how many kids my age would want to do this but I think that those who would say that they don’t want to do it, would want to do it if they knew how incredible it is.  We really, we live in a global culture now where it’s important for us to understand people from different countries and I think there’s no better way to understand another culture than to really become a part of it and so that’s what we’re doing and I think it’s incredibly powerful and it’s incredibly empowering.  We’ve done things that you know, four months ago, if you told me I was going to do these things, I would say no way, I can’t possibly organize a rickshaw trip from a train station to a hotel.

WERMAN:  Sure you can.

MARTIN:  I can’t possibly build a house out of stones at the top of a mountain.  I don’t know.  We’ve done all these things that are just very empowering, really exciting for me.

WERMAN:  Well just remember that when you’re meditating, don’t think about what you’re going to be doing when you grow up.

MARTIN:  Yeah.

WERMAN:  Lizzie Martin in Varanasi is spending a year in India as part of Princeton’s new International Bridge Year Program.  We’ve got a link to her blog at TheWorld.org.  Lizzie, thank you very much for speaking with us.

MARTIN:  Thank you so much.

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.