Politics

I met Taymor  Kamrany in 2003, just over a year after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan had ousted the Taliban. We were both in Kabul, working on a USAID program to improve the environment for business and help government institutions rebuild their capacity to support a market economy. It was not an easy task. I was working with the management and staff of the Export Department of the Ministry of Commerce. Apart from the Head, a man in his fifties who had worked in the ministry throughout all the upheavals of the previous 30 years, no one in the Department could speak any foreign language. Though Afghanistan had once a thriving export economy – until the civil war of the 1990s, it was the world’s largest exporter of raisins, which were the most delicious I have ever eaten – its productive capacity was largely destroyed, its fields strewn with landmines, its best and brightest long ago departed. I was there for just a month, but in spite of these daunting challenges facing the country,  I sensed a lot of optimism among both Afghans and foreigners.

Taymor, an Afghan-American, born in Afghanistan and relocated with his family to the U.S. when he was a small child, was bright, ambitious, idealistic, and very American in demeanor and outlook. Apart from speaking Dari, the main language of Kabul and the northern part of the country, and having some relatives he visited from time to time, he seemed to be little more at home there than I did. After we had each left Afghanistan, I learned that he had entered an MBA program at the University of Southern California, and still later that he was working for one of the Big 4 consulting firms. Then we more or less lost touch. But most people never prune their e-mail address books, so a while ago I received  a broadcast e-mail from Taymor, linking to an article he wrote, which is published on the web site of the Middle East Institute, entitled Afghanistan 2002-2012: A Decade of Progress and Hope. No question mark. [click to continue…]

Share

{ 0 comments }

About 10 days ago I sat at breakfast  in Lomé, the capital of Togo, a sliver of a country in West Africa, watching French TV news of the capture, and what turned out to be false reports of the liberation, of seven French tourists in northern Cameroon by the Nigerian radical Islamist group Boko Haram. It was hard not to feel concerned about the future of this part of the world. Lomé is a good 800 miles as the crow flies from where this most recent drama occurred – and a similar distance from northern Mali, where fierce fighting continues for control of the city of Gao – and I was in far more danger there from motorcycles going the wrong way down one-way streets than from terrorist kidnappers. But the fairly recent emergence of economic dynamism in much of Africa after decades of stagnation due to poor governance and political and ethnic strife remains fragile, and these developments highlight the risk. [click to continue…]

Share

{ 0 comments }

I am not a great fan of Jeffrey Sachs, the former Harvard development economist now Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, whose main claim to fame is having administered shock liberalization to the Bolivian and Russian economies in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. Though his prescriptions did put an end to Bolivia’s hyperinflation, neither Bolivia nor Russia is a paragon of economic dynamism, and the main beneficiaries of his Russian experiment were the soon-to-be oligarchs who snapped up state-owned companies at a fraction of their real value. Nevertheless, Sachs, writing in yesterday’s Financial Times, has neatly identified the culprit in the U.S. fiscal sequester, which went into effect at noon today. It is not the Tea Party, nor even the House Republican leadership, but Obama himself, counterintuitive as that may appear. [click to continue…]

Share

{ 0 comments }

Slavish obedience to tradition is never a good thing, but neither is its wanton disregard. So what are we to make of the recent announcement by the International Olympic Committee that wrestling, one of the original sports in both the ancient and modern Olympic Games, is to be dropped as a core sport and will have to compete for a single slot in the 2020 Games against a number of other sports, including baseball and softball, karate, squash, roller sports, sport climbing, wakeboarding (I’d never heard of it, but it appears to be related  to water skiing) and wushu, a martial art said to be hugely popular in China? Media reports on the decision stressed the vigorous and successful lobbying by proponents of modern pentathlon, an original sport in the Modern Games, also threatened with removal, which consists of running, swimming, horseback riding, fencing, and shooting – skills required by the late-19th-century cavalry officer caught behind enemy lines – to which I confess a certain fondness due in equal measure to its gloriously anachronistic quality and its complete lack of commercial appeal. 

Some traditions are best abandoned. I, personally, am happy Olympic athletes no longer compete in the nude, their bodies glistening with olive oil, though I would make an exception for women’s beach volleyball. The modern Olympics themselves are to a large extent based on a misreading of the role of the original games in ancient Greece. Pierre de Coubertin, who created the modern Olympic movement, was, unusually for a Frenchman, strongly influenced by English ideas of education and sport, especially those of Dr. Arnold of Rugby School, a proponent of the notion that “organised sport can create moral and social strength,” and that, as de Coubertin put it, “L’important dans la vie ce n’est point le triomphe, mais le combat, l’essentiel ce n’est pas d’avoir vaincu mais de s’être bien battu.” (The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well). De Coubertin would have had little use for Vince Lombardi’s world view (Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing), but then he also had little regard for women in sport and believed that they should be excluded from the Olympics. 

There is evidence that de Coubertin misinterpreted, and excessively romanticized, the ancient Olympics. Scholars have argued whether ancient Olympic athletes were amateurs or professionals – after 480 BCE, at least, most were professionals –  and have disputed de Coubertin’s belief in the contribution of the games to the prevention of war, arguing that a limited truce was declared only to permit athletes to travel to and from the Olympic site and protect the venue from attack during the festivities. What’s more, the idea that, as American sportswriter Grantland Rice put it, “For when the great scorer comes to write against your name, He marks not that you won or lost but how you played the game,” would probably have been quite alien to contestants in the ancient games. The ancient Greeks may have competed for glory, not reward, but the glory came in winning, not in being a good loser. Both Hector and Achilles, after all, were revered for their victories, not their defeats.

Still, some traditions are worth holding on to just because they are ancient and venerable. The modern Olympics are descended directly from the ancient Olympics, however much of the latter may have been lost in the translation. Wrestling was one of the core events of the ancient games and of the modern games, at least until now. Wrestling is one sport in which contestants compete purely for the glory. A few wrestlers may go on to fame and some degree of fortune in pro wrestling, but most of these guys, winners as well as losers, go on to earn a living doing something totally unrelated to the sport in which they have excelled. I have never seen a wrestler pictured on a Wheaties box, sponsored by a major shoe company, or advertising prescription drugs on TV. Some things are valuable precisely because they have no value outside themselves.

The ancient Greeks invented the concept of hubris – defiance of the gods – which typically led to nemesis, or divine retribution. Abandonment of wrestling, an ancient sport one can imagine the Greek gods watching and betting on, in favor of, say, artistic roller-skating, would be hubris at its worst, ditching whatever remains of Olympic ideals to pander to the TV networks’ eternal request for ratings. If this decision stands I fully expect nemesis to follow, perhaps in the form of a bolt of lightning that wipes out the next meeting of the International Olympic Committee. 

Share

{ 2 comments }

After watching from the sidelines for nearly two years, many of the world’s political and opinion leaders are now calling for the West to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. British Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken  of a “strategic imperative” to act, at least in part to prevent extreme jihadist groups from eclipsing more moderate factions. Foreign Affairs  has published an article by Michael Bröning with the Orwellian subtitle  “Arms for Peace,” which similarly argues that the moderate rebel contingent is the only party to the conflict that does not have a reliable supply of arms and money from the outside, since the Russians continue to supply the Assad regime and most of the Qatari and Saudi funds go to more radical groups.

Although no Western power has yet – officially, at least – supplied arms to the rebels, the idea seems to be gaining currency in both Western and Arab capitals, especially in the wake of the December conference in Marrakech, which declared the Syrian National Coalition “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.” For those who remember the U.N. declaration declaring the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, this too has an Orwellian tint. With the death toll in the conflict standing at an estimated 60,000 it is tempting to conclude that it is time for some kind of intervention: supplying arms at a minimum, but potentially declaring a no-fly zone over portions of the country to protect rebel-held territory from aerial attacks. But it would be a terrible mistake.   [click to continue…]

Share

{ 1 comment }