Author: Navasardian Karapet

Front Page Magazine
25 Oct. 2004

Debating Islam’s “Golden Age”
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 26, 2004

(In our October 8th issue, we ran Mustafa Akyol’s article Still
Standing for Islam – and Against Terrorism. Below is a response from
Bat Ye’or, followed by a rejoinder from Mr. Akyol, and then a final
word from Bat Ye’or. – The Editors)

*
Spare Us Another “Golden Age” By Bat Ye’or

The hope inspired by Mr. Mustafa Akyol’s long article in Front Page
Magazine is tempered by his deception. Mr. Akyol speaks of the
necessity to re-interpret the fundamental teachings and scriptures of
Islam, particularly the hadith and sira (the biography of the Prophet).
Finally we see here a potential Muslim effort to continue and improve
the critical exegesis initiated by the great Orientalists of the 19th
century, particularly Ignaz Goldziher, whose work has since become
anathema to the Muslim intelligentsia. However, Mr Akyol does not
explain on what authority a selection of hadith and events of the sira
will be made, since, he himself, in the course of his argumentation,
simply uses them to prove the justice of Islam.

Disputing the veracity of the claim in the sacralized biography of
Muhammad regarding the massacre of the Qurayza Jews is most welcome
since it negates the Muslim command to kill Jews in order to emulate
the Prophet. This assertion must be fully encouraged, because the
treatment of the Jews by the Prophet has became the standard by which
the classical Muslim jurists formulated their policy toward
non-Muslims, as embodied in the Shari’a and in the jihad’s rules.
Hence, when non-Muslims (primarily Hindus and Christians) were killed
in Bali, Amrozi, the Indonesian terrorist, invoked the fate of the Jews
in the oasis of Khaybar, perhaps confusing them with the mass slaughter
of their co-religionists, the Qurayza. Although many of the Jews of
Khaybar were killed in an unprovoked jihad campaign by Muhammad, those
vanquished Khaybar Jews who surrendered were not killed, but were
dispossessed and became exploited dhimmi tributaries, until, within a
decade later, they were expelled by the “Rightly Guided” Caliph Umar.

In fact, there is no way for us, in the 21st century. to know what
really happened in a small Arabian oasis in the seventh century given
the lack of contemporary evidence. But Mr. Akyol again contradicts
himself by implying that the Qurayza’s punishment was justified,
because they acted treacherously while of course there are no objective
proofs for such accusations, which rest merely on the demonization of
the victims. Moreover the problem does not concern only the Qurayza
Jews but the Jews and Christians throughout the Hedjaz, who were, soon
afterward dispossessed, and within a decade of Muhammad’s death,
expelled, according to his professed (i.e., again, in the sira)
deathbed wishes.

As Mr. Akyol stated rightly, this was not exceptional at that time. The
problem now is that such acts have been attributed to the Prophet
Muhammad who is the model to be emulated by all Muslims. Hence, while
even worse wars might have been perpetrated in the world by rulers long
since forgotten, the acts and sayings of Muhammad concerning
non-Muslims are still binding for over a billion Muslims today. To
decry Dr. Bostom’s analyses, based on 13 centuries of Islamic teaching
and writing, and accepted today in all Muslim countries, is almost
surrealistic.

It is true that now we see an effort by Muslim theologians to
contextualize the actions and words attributed to the Prophet Muhammad,
and thereby introduce an element of relativity between the seventh
century, and the present. But this timid and belated tendency has not
the slightest influence on the current jihadist war of terror against
the West overwhelmingly approved in the Muslim countries.

Mr Akyol’s explanation of jihad itself is particularly disingenuous. In
a democracy “a final jihad on western secular materialism” is shocking.
This is especially concerning given that the word “faith” can be
understood in its Muslim sense which states that the only true faith is
Islam. (Qur’an 3:17).

What exactly is “western secular materialism”? Will that be replaced by
a Shari’a morality? Much of Mr. Akyol’s reasoning seems inspired by the
International Institute of Islamic Thought set up in 1983 in the U.S.A.
to teach the Islamization of Knowledge. This program, financed by Saudi
Arabia, was developed under the guidance of, among others, Ismail Raji
al-Faruqi, a Palestinian Professor who taught at Temple University. A
document from the Islamization of Knowledge program summarized its
objectives:

“The new reform effort should present a systematic and methodological
approach to rebuild Islamic knowledge on the same firm foundation that
supported Islamic Civilization in its first cycle. The Muslims, being
an Ummah (nation) of a Divine message, can only rise to civilization
dominance if they carry the message in its original clarity, purity,
and relevance.”1

The program to reform Islamic religious thinking thus aims at
reinforcing traditional teaching through modern reasoning. Thus, one is
imprisoned within a circular argumentation which goes back to its
Islamic starting point. While I understand the difficulties of
reforming a religion, a process that takes centuries, and does not
relate to Islam alone, I deplore the violent animosity displayed
against those writers and researchers in the West who denounce, very
courageously, the brazen acts of terrorism perpetrated throughout the
world, primarily against non-Muslims, by Muslims invoking the very
texts that Ibn Warraq, Bostom, Spencer, and so many others have
analyzed, and brought to public attention.

Mr. Akyol denies their self-evident interpretations, and that is his
right, but he should try to convince – not a Western audience – but
over a billion Muslims who curiously share the views of the Muslim
texts and authorities quoted by the courageous authors mentioned above.
Mr. Akyol prefers to try and persuade Westerners of the perfection of
Islam, simply denying that the horrors that occurred in Muslim history,
chronicled with great accuracy by Dr. Bostom, either didn’t happen, or
were not done by Muslims. This sort of twisted logic is little removed
from the warped thinking which justified the bizarre accusations that
the CIA, Americans, or Zionists must have perpetrated 9/11 because
Muslims could not commit such horrors. Many books elaborating this
preposterous thesis were disseminated in Europe, and in the Muslim
world.

It would be meaningless to answer all of Mr. Akyol’s affirmations,
accusations and denials, including the genocide of the Armenians. His
total rejection of the history of dhimmitude, despite copious
documentation by both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, and its
replacement by a glorification of a just and peaceful Islamic rule over
tens of millions of subjected, non-Muslim peoples, precludes any
understanding between those who call a jihad a genocidal war, and those
who call it a liberation (even having the temerity to deny the jihad
genocide of the Armenians). Mr. Akyol invokes testimonies which are
contradicted, multiple times over, by others he chose to ignore.

A mass of documents from a vast array of sources describe throughout
the centuries and even till today, the trials of populations –
Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists –
vanquished by the Muslim armies. The affirmations of modern scholars
that he quotes, just confirm the political rewriting of history but do
not suppress, by overlooking them, the veracity of the facts enunciated
by Dr. Bostom. Mr. Akyol’s affirmation that it was not Muslims who
perpetrated the acts described is merely his personal opinion based on
his current appreciation of Islam. Finally, while Mr. Akyol’s efforts
to modernize religious beliefs are praiseworthy, they should be
directed exclusively at convincing his coreligionists, not attempting
to persuade the non-Muslim victims of Muslim aggression that their
ordeal did not happen or was an idyllic era for which they should be
grateful. Spare us another “Golden Age”.

Notes

[1] Amber Haque ed., Muslims and Islamization in North America:
Problems & Prospects, Amana Publications, Maryland, 1999, p.19.

*

Inviting Bat Ye’or To Consider Fairness
By Mustafa Akyol

It appears that both Ms. Ye’or and Mr. Bostom believe that terrorists
such as al-Qaeda spring from and represent the supposedly inherent
violence of Islam. I argue, on the other hand, that the current
“Islamic terrorism” we face stems from a distortion of the true Islamic
faith.

In order to defend my case, let me shortly answer the questions,
counter the criticisms and unveil the misjudgments of Ms. Ye’or.

The first issue is about the traditional, post-Koranic Islamic sources.
Ms. Ye’or welcomes my critical approach to the hadith and sira
traditions but criticizes me for failing to “explain on what authority
a selection of hadith and events of the sira will be made.” (Hadiths
are sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad and sira are his
biographies.) I feel free to question these traditional sources,
because they are very late constructs. The earliest sira was written
about 150 years after the Prophet. Hadiths were compiled even later.
And it is already known that these sources include many fake,
irrational stories. I just argue that the inauthenticity is wider than
commonly acknowledged.

But how will we judge these sources, as Ms. Ye’or rightly asks. Robert
Spencer raised the same question, too. My answer is the Koran. The
Koran must be the sole infallible Islamic criterion and hadiths should
be compared with its verses and the overall message. There are some
modern scholars who reach this conclusion. Professor Hayri Kirbasoglu,
a theologian in Ankara University and an expert on hadiths, argues that
a new method is necessary to evaluate the hadith collection and
compatibility with the Koran — a criterion much neglected before –
should be its basis. The same holds for sira as well.

With this reasoning, I see the sira and hadith accounts about the
massacre of the men of Bani Qurazya as incompatible with the Koran.
Thus I reject it.

Ms. Ye’or welcomes my rejection of this story, but finds another reason
to accuse me:

But Mr. Akyol again contradicts himself by implying that the Qurayza’s
punishment was justified, because they acted treacherously while of
course there are no objective proofs for such accusations, which rest
merely on the demonization of the victims.

There is a logical inconsistency here. Ms. Ye’or says that there “are
no objective proofs” showing that Bani Qurazya was treacherous, but
there is no objective proof for the rest of the story as well. We can
either take the story at face value or doubt or reject it completely.
By taking the killing as granted but by doubting its accepted reason,
Ms. Ye’or stealthy walks away from fairness.

Ms. Ye’or also questions my effort to redefine jihad as an intellectual
stance against atheism, and its philosophical underpinning, i.e.
materialism. First of all, she asks what this is. Put simply,
materialism is the idea that matter is all there is, God is imaginary
and we humans are the products of a blind process of evolution.

Ms. Ye’or then asks whether I want to replace the materialist morality
with a “Shari’a morality”. The latter term is an oxymoron[i] and it is
not my vision for any society. But, yes, I would love to see a
transformation from the materialist morality, which feeds hedonism and
selfishness, into a theistic morality — which depends on the
recognition that we are not mere animals in a struggle for survival and
our lives have a meaning beyond earthly mundane existence.

This topic is undoubtedly related with science and Ms. Ye’or noticed
that. Good. Yet, she traced my ideas to the “Islamization of Knowledge”
project that was launched by International Institute of Islamic
Thought. Probably to add an alarming detail, Ms. Ye’or also notes that
the institute in question was “financed by Saudi Arabia.”

Yet, this is totally unrelated to me. The scientific project that I
believe in and actively support is not the “”Islamization of
Knowledge,” but the “Intelligent Design Theory.” And it has nothing to
do with Saudi Arabia; it is in fact a brainchild of several prominent
American scientists and thinkers and is spearheaded by the Discovery
Institute in Seattle and the Intelligent Design Network based in
Kansas. Intelligent design theorists argue for a paradigm shift to
liberate modern science from the materialist dogma. This is desperately
needed because of the overwhelming scientific evidence against
materialist theories of origins such as Darwinism.[ii] In my article
titled Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, I explain why
this theory is a common intellectual stance for all theists, whether
they be Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

In short, I am not trying to “Islamize” knowledge as Ms. Ye’or assumes,
rather I seek objectivity and argue that knowledge — in the form of
scientific data — is already compatible with the basic tenets of
theistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

After her suspicions about my scientific endeavors, Ms. Ye’or employs a
straw man argument against me. She makes a caricature of what I have
said in my recent reply to her colleague, Andrew Bostom, and then
attacks that caricature.

According to her, I “affirmed that it was not Muslims who perpetrated
the acts described” by Mr. Bostom. I was “simply denying the horrors
that occurred in Muslim history”, and I was asserting that those
horrors “either didn’t happen, or were not done by Muslims.” From here,
she goes on to equate me with bizarre conspiracy theorists who pointed
to the CIA or the Mossad as the force behind 9/11.

What I said in fact was totally different. The exact wording in my
article in question include statements such as, “there of course were
many kinds of ‘Muslims’ who looted and pillaged simply for profit and
other worldly gains” and “Muslims can do evil, not because Islam
directs it, but because they themselves individually choose to do so.”
What I did was to distinguish between the Muslim acts for the sake of
Islam and the Muslim acts for the sake of worldly interests. I accepted
all the horrible massacres committed by such figures as Tamerlane,
Mahmud Ghaznavi, Mohammad Ghori, early Seljuks, and so on. But I
explained that these people were hardly good representatives of the
Islamic faith. In a more illustrative example, I showed that the
sacking of Thessalonica in 904 was not a “jihad campaign,” as Andrew
Bostom portrayed, but rather the work of Arab corsairs which acted
simply for world profit — the same motive that drew the “Christian
corsairs” of the Caribbean.

I really can’t understand how Ms. Ye’or overlooks what I have said,
distorts it so overtly and then expects to be persuasive.

I am sure she can do better than this.

Ms. Ye’or also criticizes me for speaking to the Westerners about
Islam. “While Mr. Akyol’s efforts to modernize religious beliefs are
praiseworthy,” she kindly says, “they should be directed exclusively at
convincing his coreligionists.” That is indeed true and I am indeed
trying to appeal to my co-religionists, too. But the struggle for the
soul of Islam has become, especially after September 11, a global issue
in which non-Muslims have a share to say. The outcome of that struggle
is very much related with Western, and especially American, policies
towards the Islamic world. That’s why I think that a fair assessment of
Islam in the West is crucial and I am trying to be helpful to that
assessment. We should also keep in mind that many opinion leaders of
the Islamic world are either living in the West or are affected the
Western intellectual climate; so it is not odd to argue for an Islamic
renewal in this medium.

But Ms. Ye’or believes that I am not being helpful. Interestingly, she
accuses not just me, but also many prominent Western scholars who study
Islam. According to her, “the affirmations of modern scholars” that I
quote from, “just confirm the political rewriting of history.”
Political rewriting of history for what? To luster Islam? And by the
many American, British, Italian historians that I quote from? Let me
remind that the scholars in question are not the usual guests of the
“Campus Watch,” rather they include names like Bernard Lewis and Daniel
Pipes. What could compel such historians to engage in a distortion of
history for the sake of a religion that they don’t adhere to? Who could
stir such a global conspiracy? The learned elders of Mecca whose
protocols are discovered by Ms. Ye’or and her colleagues?

A better explanation – of the Ockham’s Razor type – might be that in
fact it is Ms. Ye’or and her colleagues who are engaged in a political
rewriting of history.

I hope they are not. Or if they are, that they will reconsider their
stance. They should not see such self-criticism as an indignity.
Abrahamic monotheism, whether it be in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic
tradition, teaches us that it is indeed a great virtue to retreat from
a mistake.

And I will pray to better witness the virtues of Ms. Ye’or.

Notes:

[i] The term sharia refers to Islamic law. I don’t see it as the source
of an Islamic morality, because I believe that morality should stem
from personal faith, not penal law. The “enforced morality” we can see
in the horrible example of the Taliban, and in the Saudi regime, can
only achieve hypocrisy. In a forthcoming article of mine, titled
Deconstructing Islamic Radicalism, I deal with this issue in detail.

[ii] Intelligent Design is not creationism. The latter is based on a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Intelligent Design, on the other
hand, do not refer to religious texts, it is based purely on scientific
data. Intelligent Design theorists criticize Darwinism not because it
is against the Scripture, but rather because it is against the recent
findings of modern science.

*

Inviting Mr Akyol to Consider Intellectual Integrity, Without
Triumphalism

By Bat Ye’or

Let me begin by answering Mr. Akyol’s accusation of a “logical
inconsistency” which is entirely his own. He implies that I take for
granted the killing of the Banu Qurayza while in fact I said that
“there is no way for us, in the 21st century to know what really
happened in a small Arabian oasis in the seventh century given the lack
of contemporary evidence.” It is Mr. Akyol who rejects – a welcome
attitude – the hadith version that describes the execution of all the
Jewish males and the enslavement of their women and children. But a
little later he, himself, accuses the Qurayza Jews of having being
treacherous, hence justifying a treatment that he has previously
denied. Mr. Akyol has assumed from his own imagination that I take for
granted a massacre, and on this distorted and gratuitous allegation,
has accused me of unfairness.

Accusations of “distortions”, “unfairness”, “selectivity”, in my
analyses of dhimmi history manifest an unwillingness to acknowledge the
violent history of Islamic expansion. What we are now seeing in Sudan
echoes the Muslim chronicles of jihadist expansion over the centuries
across Asia, Africa, and Europe. I am used to such ad hominem
indictments because I have refused, deliberately, to accept the
Islamophile stratagem that deflects the jihad violence onto the victims
of jihad, or minimizes the victims’ trials, by specious arguments. I
have explained this position in chapter 10 of The Decline of Eastern
Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude.

As a researcher on dhimmi peoples (the non-Muslim indigenous
populations subdued by jihad conquests), I tried to recover their
testimonies from the ashes of their past. Mr. Akyol’s negationist view
on the Armenian genocide, and his whitewashing of the historical jihad
illustrates both his lack of objectivity, and his contempt for the
detailed historical records of a multitude of non-Muslim populations.
His refusal of John of Nikiu’s account which he attributes to an
alleged xenophobic Egyptian character as a whole is spurious and
racist. The horrors of the Arab conquest in Armenia, narrated by local
historians, corroborate similar accounts, including that of John of
Nikiu, a distinguished member of the Coptic clergy. In fact, the
descriptions that recount in detail the warfare: slavery, massacres,
deportation, destruction, cities or villages razed, usually come from
Muslim chroniclers. Such events are referred by Mr. Akyol as
“liberation wars”. It looks as if Mr. Akyol has an encyclopedic
knowledge of both Western and Islamic civilizations regarding every
“historical episode”, allowing him to assert that Islam has a better
record than the West, – after he rejects any event he dislikes.

The numbers of former non-Muslims involved in jihadist operations
against their own people, throughout history, under whatever pressures
(including for example, the gulam/devshirme enslavement systems for
Christian children under the Seljuks and Ottomans, which, combined
persisted for over 500 years), are beyond calculation. But, like the
contemporary examples of the American “Taliban” John Lindh, or the
British “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, they represent individuals
propelled along by a 13 centuries old jihad system which they have
neither invented, nor engineered. This system embodies an ideology of
world domination and world governance based on specific strategies and
tactics conceived from the 8th – 9th centuries as a war machine against
the infidels. Patrick Sookdheo’s excellent book Understanding Islamic
Terrorism 1 examines in detail from its inception till today, the
Muslim framework of relations with non-Muslims.

Historical contingencies and accidental enrolment or participation of
Christians or others in this theological warfare machinery cannot hide
the basic and perennial structural configuration that has destroyed
through massacres, slavery or oppression countless populations. Peoples
recording their own history – i.e., Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians,
Bahais, Assyrian Christians, Armenians, Copts, Maronites, Greeks,
African and Mediterranean Jews and Central Europeans Christians –
contradicts the Islamophilic re-casting of history that designates
imperialistic Islamic expansion through jihad war- a “liberation”.
Such historical obfuscation has nurtured modern Islamic
“fundamentalism” and terror. Free nations today find themselves
engulfed in a 13 centuries-old jihadist war about which they know
almost nothing – being oblivious to both its ideology, and its tactics.

I do not know what Mr. Akyol means by “saving the soul of Islam”. If it
implies a projection on others of the negative aspects of one’s own
history or their negation, such a salvation seems to me doubtful,
indeed. A recent debate in Cairo (October 5-6) discussed the way to
implement a radical revision of Islamic scholarship and Jusrisprudence
and called for both religious and political reforms. This may be a
positive harbinger for progress, if religious hierarchies do not
succeed in condemning it. 2

A little less triumphalism and certitude, and a little more humility
will pave the way toward an intellectual integrity that forbids
equating massacre and liberation.

Notes:

1 Patrick Sookhdeo, Understanding Islamic Terrorism, with a foreword by
General Sir Hugh Beach, Isaac Publishing, Pewsey, U.K., 2004.

2 MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis – Egypt/Reform Project, October 22, 2004,
N° 192.

Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist, writer and a
director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul.

Bat Ye’or is the world’s foremost authority on Dhimmitude. Her latest
study is Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide. Her
forthcoming book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, will be published in
January 2005.

–Boundary_(ID_zynb0sdJNhk83MVFgdNy+g)–

Young Armenians to gather in Upper Garabagh

Assa Irada
26 Oct 2004

The Pro-Armenian Foundation of International Youth Center plans to
hold a conference entitled “The activity of young people in conflict
arena: human rights, democracy and participation” in Upper Garabagh
on November 15-19.

Representatives of NGOs from Poland, Ukraine, France, the Netherlands,
Russia and Bulgaria have been invited to the event, a reliable source
told AssA-Irada.

Armenian youngsters make up most of the invitees. The Armenian
government and diaspora, by inviting young people from various world
countries, are trying to present the conference as an international
event.*

Armenian president, US visitors discuss Karabakh conflict

Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
26 Oct 04

[Presenter] Armenian President Robert Kocharyan received members of a
joint mission of the German Marshall Fund of the USA and the Project
on Transitional Democracies today.

[Correspondent] Kocharyan described the situation in the South
Caucasus as peaceful and stable. He said that the situation is in
the centre of attention of the international public. The visit by
the joint mission to the region proves this.

Noting that a settlement of the Karabakh conflict is very important
both to Armenia and the whole region, Kocharyan said that different
centres and persons focused on the Karabakh issue at the expert level
and that they are interested in studying the problem more deeply and
familiarizing themselves with the details on the spot.

The Armenian president briefed the quests on the history of the
Karabakh conflict settlement and the status quo.

[Video showed the meeting]

–Boundary_(ID_dWk8pujSMMsWh2CosdxyLg)–

Federal News Service
October 14, 2004 Thursday

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB NEWSMAKER LUNCHEON WITH GADDI VASQUEZ, DIRECTOR,
PEACE CORPS

TOPIC: PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEERS SERVING IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

MODERATOR: SHEILA CHERRY, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

LOCATION: THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MS. CHERRY: Good afternoon, and welcome to the National Press Club.
My name is Sheila Cherry, and I’m a reporter for the Bureau of
National Affairs and president of the National Press Club.

I’d like to welcome club members and their guests in the audience
today, as well as those of you watching on C-SPAN or listening to
this program on National Public Radio. I’d like to ask you to please
hold your applause during the speech so that we have as much time for
as many questions as possible.

And for our broadcast audience, I’d like to explain that if you do
hear applause, it may — I emphasize may — be from the guests and
members of the general public who attend our luncheons, and not
necessarily from the working press.

The video archive of today’s luncheon is provided by ConnectLive and
is available to members only through the National Press Club website
at For more information about joining the club, please
contact us at 202-662-7511. Press Club members also may access
transcripts of our luncheons at our website. And non-members may
purchase transcripts, audio and video tapes by calling 1-888-343-
1940.

Before introducing our head table, I would like to remind our members
of some upcoming speakers. On Friday, October 15th, Ernest Borgnine,
the actor, will be our guest. On Friday, October — on Monday, I
believe that’s October 18th, Senator George Allen of Virginia, who is
chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Senator
Corzine of New Jersey, who is chair of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, will be here to discuss the upcoming senatorial
elections. On Friday, October 22nd, Congressman Tom Reynolds of New
York, chair of the Republican Congressional Committee, and
Congressman Bob Matsui of California, chair of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, will discuss the upcoming
congressional elections.

If you have questions for our speaker, please write them on the cards
provided at your table and pass them up to me. And I will ask as many
as time permits.

I’d now like to introduce our head table guests, and I’d like to ask
them to stand briefly when their names are called. Please hold your
applause until all of our head table guests have been introduced.

Raghubir Goyal of Asia Today International and India Globe; Valentine
Wilber, an NPC member and a returned Peace Corps volunteer —
(laughter); Dena Bunis, Washington bureau chief for the Orange
County, California, Register; Hoda Tawfik, foreign correspondent for
Al Ahram newspaper; Daniel Nassif, managing editor for Radio Sawa;
Bill McCarren, president of U.S. Newswire and chairman of the
National Press Club Speakers Committee. Skipping over our speaker
momentarily; Ken Dalecki, deputy managing editor of the Kiplinger
Washington Editors, and the Speakers Committee member who organized
today’s luncheon. Thank you, Ken. Myron Belkind (sp), a new member of
the National Press Club who just returned to the U.S. after working
abroad for 40 years for the Associated Press; Hanan El-Badry of
Egyptian Television; and Tobin Beck, executive editor of United Press
International. (Applause.)

Our speaker today is the 16th director of the Peace Corps, an
organization admired not only at home, but also around the world. The
Senate unanimously confirmed Gaddi Vasquez in January 2002 after his
nomination by President Bush to be the first Hispanic American to
serve as Peace Corps director. Unlike some of this predecessors,
Director Vasquez is not one of the more than 170,000 Americans who
have been Peace Corps volunteers. But he has spent many years in
public service, beginning as a police officer in Orange County,
California. Director Vasquez was elected to the Orange County Board
of Supervisors and served from 1988 to 1995. He had the dubious
distinction of being chairman of the board when the county was forced
to declare bankruptcy.

We’re sure that’s not going to happen in your new — (laughter).

Prior to his appointment as Peace Corps director, he was a division
vice president for public affairs of the Southern California Edison
Company. Director Vasquez is a native of Carrizo Springs, Texas. He
is a graduate of the University of Redlands, and has been a trustee
professor at Chapman University.

The Peace Corps has come a long way from its relatively modest
beginnings under an executive order signed by President Kennedy in
1961. Today, more than 7,500 volunteers serve in more than 70
countries, from Mexico to the newly independent states of the former
Soviet Union.

In addition, volunteers face new cultural and security challenges,
particularly in the growing number of predominantly Muslim countries
being served by the Peace Corps. And that is one of the topics that
Director Vasquez will address today. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my
great honor to present to the National Press Club the director of the
Peace Corps, Gaddi Vasquez. (Applause.

MR. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much. Let me begin by expressing my deep
appreciation for the opportunity to be with you today, and I want to
thank Sheila for that kind introduction. I want to thank Ken for his
helping in — arrange and organizing this event. And I’ve come to
understand that he has very close and personal affiliation with the
Peace Corps, in that his wife served in the Peace Corps and is a
returned Peace Corps volunteer. And Bill, thank you very much for
your leadership as the chairman of the Speakers Committee.

I have a great honor and a great privilege of serving as director of
the Peace Corps at a very historic time. It is a time of growth, it
is a time of opportunity, and it is a time of change.

But I also want to point out that today is a special day in the
history of the Peace Corps, because exactly 44 years ago today, then-
Senator John F. Kennedy, while campaigning to become president of the
United States, stood on the student union building steps of the
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and he spoke out and shared a
vision for a new government agency. And he said the following, and I
quote: “How many of you who are going to be doctors are willing to
spend your days in Ghana? Technicians or engineers, how many of you
are willing to work in the Foreign Service and spend your lives
traveling around the world; on your willingness to do that, not
merely to serve one year or two years in the service, but on your
willingness to contribute part of your life to this country?”

He went on to say, “I think the answer will depend on whether a free
society can compete. I think it can, and I think Americans are
willing to contribute, but the effort must be far greater than we
have ever made in the past.”

And it was from these remarks that President — then-Senator Kennedy
and then President Kennedy articulated this vision further and issued
a call to Americans to serve in the Peace Corps. And on signing the
executive order on March 1 of 1961 — in March of 1961, President
Kennedy said and again I quote: “Life in the Peace Corps will not be
easy.” And I think there are returned Peace Corps volunteers in the
room right now who might be able to validate that, and I salute you
for your service.

But he went on to say, “There will be no salary, and allowances will
be at a level sufficient only to maintain health and meet basic
needs. Men and women will be expected to work and live alongside the
nationals of the country in which they are stationed, doing the same
work, eating the same food, talking the same language.”

And course some early skeptics doubted that this program would ever
really launch and that it would ever really take off.

Yet, ladies and gentlemen, through 43 years the Peace Corps has
become a way for the world to see Americans and for Americans to see
the world.

This idea, this vision that President Kennedy articulated, 43 years
later has produced over 170,000 volunteers who have served in 135
countries. Today the Peace Corps is one of the best known faces of
America for millions of people around the world. This is why former
Ambassador William C. Harrop, the ambassador to the Philippines,
said, “There is no — repeat no — U.S. overseas program that yields
as much return for the taxpayer’s dollar as the Peace Corps,” end
quote.

As director I’ve had the privilege of meeting with leaders of
different nations, and time and time again, I am reminded of the
experiences, the contributions and the meaningful impact that
volunteers have made throughout their service. The Peace Corps today
is experiencing a time of opportunity, and just as in President
Kennedy’s time Americans responded to his call to service, Americans
are responding today.

For it was President Bush who has been a strong supporter of the
Peace Corps, who during a State of the Union — or after the State of
the Union address, at Ohio State University commencement, reiterated
a call to service that he had made during the State of the Union. And
he said, and I quote, “A life of service isn’t always easy. It
involves sacrifices. And I understand many other things will lay
claim to your time and to your attention” — as he was speaking to
students. “In serving, however, you will give help and hope to
others.” You will — “your own life will gain greater purpose and
deeper meaning. You will show your love and allegiance to the United
States, which remains what it has always been, the citadel of
freedom, a land of mercy, the last best hope of men on Earth.”

Did Americans respond to that call? Well, I’m pleased to tell you
that they did. Because we saw shortly thereafter a 131 percent
increase in the inquiries that we had on our website. But more
importantly, applications increased significantly. And today I’m
pleased to tell you that the Peace Corps is enjoying the highest
level of volunteers in service in 28 years — over 7,500 Americans,
who have said, I’m willing to leave the United States and go overseas
to work in a host country for two years and engage in this noble and
incredible work that so many have experienced over the years.

Volunteers have left a powerful legacy in many countries. President
Toledo of Peru, who’s currently the president of that country, was
taught by Peace Corps volunteers as a young man, and he remained
friends with the volunteers who worked in his community. And they
assisted him to go on to college in California, and later he would be
elected president of his country. And one of the first things that he
did upon assuming the office of the presidency of his country was to
invite the Peace Corps to return to Peru after a 20- plus-year
absence from that country. And he has time and time again remarked on
how Peace Corps volunteers, Americans, made an impact on his life
that has lasted a lifetime.

Even as the Peace Corps goes forward, it adapts to the times. But its
foundation remains remarkably unchanged, and the principal mission of
the Peace Corps is to promote global peace and friendship. And I
would submit that if there was ever a time that we needed to advance
the ideal of peace and friendship, promote cross-cultural
understanding of people throughout the world, and promoting an
understanding of Americans, that time is now.

Volunteers of all walks of life have gone on to great careers after
Peace Corps service: members of Congress; governors like Governor Jim
Doyle of Wisconsin, Governor Robert Taft of Ohio; Senator Chris Dodd
of Connecticut; and House members Chris Shays, Congressman Thomas
Petri, Jim Walsh, Congressman Mike Honda and Congressman Sam Farr of
California. Currently returned Peace Corps volunteers serve as
ambassadors in countries ranging from Poland to South Africa to
Bolivia. And according to the Foreign Service Institute, returned
Peace Corps volunteers comprise 25 percent of U.S. Foreign Service
officers. So this is one of the dividends that perhaps is not
mentioned often, but is also a dividend for America because we have
produced some tremendously successful foreign service officers, and
men and women who are doing great work overseas. And of course, in
the ranks of journalists we have people like Chris Matthews, who
served in Swaziland; Alberto Ibarguen, who is the publisher of the
Miami Herald; Al Kamen of The Washington Post; Maureen Orth, who has
served in — as a volunteer in Colombia.

So, ladies and gentlemen, these are good times for the Peace Corps.
Americans are working, and we are now in 71 countries today with over
7,500 volunteers. And to provide some basics, volunteers are young;
they are seniors. They are single; they are married. They are
technical school or college graduates. They are African- Americans,
Asian-Americans, Hispanic Americans. The opportunities abound, and
Americans are responding. We have seen an increase in the number of
African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Hispanic Americans who are
applying to service in the Peace Corps.

The Peace Corps has evolved to new programs like information
technology, business development, community development, and one of
the most important programs that we have undertaken in many years,
HIV/AIDS education and prevention programs. Places like Botswana and
Swaziland, where the work of the volunteers is dedicated entirely to
HIV/AIDS education and prevention.

And a historic moment was achieved just a few days ago when the Peace
Corps began its first program ever in Mexico. Interesting about
Mexico so that you understand that volunteers are not just young
people is that the average age of the volunteer going into Mexico in
the first group is 45 years of age. Degrees range from doctorates in
environmental science and engineering to MBAs to bachelor’s in civil
engineering.

So the fact of the matter is is that the Peace Corps is diversifying,
it is changing, and we are being responsive to the conditions in the
world today. We have now expanded our efforts in new countries. We’ve
expanded in the areas of agriculture, in community development, in
girls’ youth groups and programs.

And this afternoon I’d like to very briefly share with you some of
the programs that we have embarked on in Muslim countries, programs
that have been expanded.

And I can point to Mohammed A. Shekaki (sp), a Muslim American
education volunteer, who served in the Muslim area of Cameroon from
2001 to 2002. And he said and I quote: “People in my community were
surprised to learn I am an American and a Muslim. Some people would
actually say, ‘No, really, where are you from? You’re not American.'”

“Some of the young Muslim boys there identified with me,” he said.
“And when I sat down and spoke to them, I could really see that they
listened. So that was something that I found pretty special, and I’m
glad that it worked out the way that it did.”

I had the personal experience in Casablanca, when I was visiting
Morocco, as I was leaving a mosque, and a young — Moroccan young man
stopped me, and he said, “Where are you from?”

I said, “I’m from the United States.”

And he said, “Tell me about life in the United States. What’s it like
in your country?”

I described our country and the life and housing, and he wanted to
know a lot of things. In mid-conversation, he stopped and he said to
me, “You don’t look like an American.” And I said, “What do you mean,
I don’t look like an American? Why do you say I don’t look like an
American?” He said, “The color of your skin. You don’t look like an
American.” And I said, “Well, my grandparents came from Mexico to the
United States, pursuing dreams and opportunities.”

And it gave me the opportunity to put a face on America that he did
not understand, because there is this perception — and I don’t want
to sound like I’m preaching to the choir, but there is a perception
that Americans look a certain way, and when they don’t look a certain
way, you probably are not an American.

But volunteers are changing that, because volunteers come from all
backgrounds, all ethnic origins. And I’m pleased to tell you that the
new group that went to Mexico recently includes a volunteer who was
born in Iran, who was born in Armenia, who was born in the Czech
Republic, and was born in India.

And I was fascinated with the idea that here are individuals who were
born in other countries, who are now American citizens, going
overseas to be Peace Corps volunteers, to put a face on America that
is unique and different in the 21st century.

People like Mohammed (sp), who I mentioned, eradicate and help
eradicate the ignorance that feeds negativity and has had such
profound implications. But the world needs to see the face of America
as it really is, and in my view, there is no better organization to
do that than the Peace Corps.

We’ve steadily increased volunteer numbers where Americans are
serving. Currently 18 of our 71 countries are — our programs are in
predominantly Muslim countries, and these programs account for about
20 percent of our volunteers.

Last year we opened a new program in Azerbaijan, and we returned to
Morocco, to Chad, Jordan and Albania, all predominantly Muslim
countries. These countries, I believe, want to better understand
America, and volunteers want to better understand their host
countries and the people of those host countries.

Volunteers in Islamic countries work in all six Peace Corps sectors,
implementing innovative ideas like showing farmers in Senegal how to
maximize their cashew yields, demonstrating computer skills to
students in Bangladesh, and creating after-school programs in the
Gambia that combine sports with information, and preventing also,
through education and prevention programs, the spread of HIV.

To provide a better picture of the importance of the Peace Corps, I’d
like to mention just a couple of profiles of volunteers.

Amy Petriss (sp), who is assigned to a mountainous area of Morocco.
She’s assisting her community with the planting of some 3,500 olive
trees, paid for with funds from USAID and the local High Atlas
Foundation. And the aim is to improve income generation and create
jobs within four to six years, to enhance natural environment as
trees prevent soil erosion and desertification, and to promote
environmental education.

In Uzbekistan, Daniel Ben (sp) helped the community of Ishtiksan (ph)
build a new school. And after submitting a grant proposal, the
community was awarded a grant in excess of $70,000 to build a new
school. The New Lyceum was opened on September 1, 2004, and compared
to the old school, the current school has increased capacity in many
things — heat, electricity, blackboards, large classrooms and enough
desks and chairs for all of the students.

The girls youth group program in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.
Peace Corps volunteers, in collaboration with the Ministry of Womens
Affairs, have established girls mentoring centers where young
Mauritanian women and students come together to study for school and
discuss issues of interest. And each year, the Peace Corps hosts a
national annual girls education conference. The program not only
helps to build the young girls’ self-esteem, but also exposes these
young women to female Mauritanian role models working in government,
academia and other sectors. The approach to reaching out to young
women in a culturally appropriate manner has been well received.

Comments and feedback and opportunities remain very, very positive.
I’m often asked, “Are Americans willing to go overseas, given the
turbulent times in which we live?” And I can say with great
confidence that Americans are willing to serve. And today we have a
list of 27 countries that have requested Peace Corps programs where
programs do not exist today. So I like to say that I have supply and
I have demand in the Peace Corps world. What we hope for is
additional funding from Congress to be able to increase the number of
volunteers going forward in the 21st century.

But the reality, and perhaps one of the most important elements of
Peace Corps work is the ability and the opportunity to put a face on
America, to promote and build that cross-cultural understanding that
is so vital in our times. And Americans, young, middle-aged, retired,
older, couples, are prepared and willing to serve.

First Lady Laura Bush said on “The Today Show” in 2002, and I quote,
“I want to urge young people as they graduate from college, or older
people who are in mid-career, to think about joining the Peace Corps
and working in other countries to really help spread how important
all these values are, how important we think” — Americans think —
“the values of life and liberty and human rights are. And that’s
really what a Peace Corps volunteer does, besides helping educate
people,” she said.

As we embark on the 21st century and move forward, the vision of
President John Kennedy was the right one.

When I traveled for the first time as director of the Peace Corps, I
had the task of going to Afghanistan. And I had a meeting with the
Afghan deputy prime minister then and minister for women’s affairs,
Sima Samar, and I was going to talk about the Peace Corps and share
the concept, the vision, the mission of the Peace Corps. And again
mid-conversation she stopped me and she says, “Mr. Director, you
don’t have to tell me about the Peace Corps. It was the Peace Corps
volunteers who taught me English the last time the Peace Corps was
here in Afghanistan.”

This conversation happened just weeks after military action had come
to a halt in Kabul. And that moment reminded me, and I have reflected
on it many, many times, that the work that Peace Corps volunteers
have done over 43 years, both in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, is
a living and a lasting legacy as men and women who have been taught
by volunteers in their childhood, in their youth, have come to
understand Americans a little better, have established friendships,
stronger friendships and alliances, with some who have sustained them
for a lifetime as many volunteers return to their villages and
communities over decades after their service is complete.

So ladies and gentlemen, I will close my remarks by reporting to you
today that the Peace Corps is at a 28-year high in the number of
volunteers who are in service, and we have achieved that for one
reason and one principal reason alone, and that is that Americans
with strong spirits, with a determination and a desire to make a
difference in the world are stepping up and stepping out to put a
face on America.

Martin Luther King once said, and I quote, “Every man must decide
whether he will walk in the creative light of altruism or the
darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s
most persistent and most urgent question is `What are you doing for
others?'”

Well, in our time many Americans are asking themselves that question,
and many are answering that question by volunteering to be Peace
Corps volunteers in the 21st century.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MS. CHERRY: The first question of Director Vasquez is, what is the
status of the Peace Corps operations in Russia?

MR. VASQUEZ: Just about two years ago, the program in Russia was
closed. The Russian government communicated its desire to end the
relationship between the government and Peace Corps. And the Peace
Corps — and those of you who have been volunteers and who have
worked at the staff level know that part of the Peace Corps history
has been that volunteers serve in countries where we are invited to
serve, and that countries have the option, as does the Peace Corps,
to cease programs or operations.

And we were requested to close the program, and we complied as per
our agreement with the Russian government.

MS. CHERRY: And this person asks you to tell us what the Peace Corps
is doing in India. Was there any government cooperation on your task?
And they point out that Mr. Carter (sp) was a great Peace Corps
volunteer.

MR. VASQUEZ: We do not have a program in India at the present time.
It is one of the countries that we are looking to, perhaps, in the
future. But at the present time, we do not have a program.

The program in India did have a very rich history in terms of the
numbers of volunteers, which literally numbered in the thousands, who
served in that country. And so we look forward to the possibility of
something in the future. But again, I go back to the issue of funding
as being the principal obstacle to responding to those countries that
have requested programs.

I might add that, of the 27 countries that have requested programs,
about 13 of those countries are Muslim countries. And so we continue
to have great interest across the board.

MS. CHERRY: And about that, this person asks, it seems like you are
saying that there are about 1,500 Peace Corps volunteers in Muslim
countries. What kind of funding increase would you need to triple
that, and how long would it take?

MR. VASQUEZ: We requested $401 million this year from Congress to be
able to embark on an expansion. President Bush a couple of years ago
proposed the doubling of the Peace Corps, from 7 (thousand) to
14,000. That proposal was made. We sought the funding from Congress.
We were not able to achieve full funding. So we have had not to
necessarily scale back, because we’ve increased the number of
volunteers, but we have not been able to grow at the pace or at the
levels that we would like to.

And I believe that Americans have demonstrated a willingness to serve
in the Peace Corps. Our recruiting and our applications, for example,
this year are up, so far this year, 16 percent over last year. So
Americans continue to apply in record numbers. Again, older Americans
are applying in record numbers, couples in the Peace Corps. People of
color are applying and serving in record numbers. And so we have a
very, very significant opportunity, but it has been dollars that have
stood in the way.

We evaluate our resources on a country-by-country basis, and so for
us the opportunity to grow programs in-country is based principally
on program opportunities, the quality of the experience for the
volunteer — and this is for countries across the board — and third
is of course the safety and security component, to ensure that
countries that serve as Peace Corps countries are places where
volunteers can do their work safely and securely and have the
fulfillment of a quality experience.

MS. CHERRY: A high percentage of volunteers in difficult venues, such
as West Africa, fail to complete their training or their two-year
tours. Can’t the Peace Corps do a better job of training to weed out
those who lack the strong commitment needed to serve?

MR. VASQUEZ: The process of selection — the selection process for
Peace Corps volunteers is a very diligent and very thorough process.
It is one that can require — nowadays we strive for about a
six-month window from the time that someone applies to the time that
they’re invited to serve. Volunteers — as opposed to the old
process, which some of you may remember in the audience who served,
where training used to occur here in the United States, that training
is now done in-country overseas so that the trainee has the
opportunity to start experiencing the culture, the language, making
the adjustments. And we strive then to ensure that the volunteer has
the training, the understanding of projects and programming so that
we keep our termination or our early termination rates, as we call
them, to an absolute minimum.

But the fact of the matter is, and to be candid here, is that I tell
trainees and nominees and interested people that the Peace Corps is
an opportunity that requires physical and mental and social agility.
That is to say that if you are an applicant and you are looking for a
cookie-cutter job that’s nicely packaged in a nice box with a little
bow wrapped around it and is waiting for you in your host country,
the Peace Corps is probably not for you, because there are challenges
and there are difficulties. And we do as much as we can to establish
quality programming, quality training, but once you are in the field,
and those who have served know what I’m talking about, you have to
become somewhat self-reliant; you have to be a self-starter; you have
to be willing to take on responsibilities that you may have been
unaccustomed to. But I will tell you that many volunteers have told
me that some of the highest and most significant gratification comes
from some of the toughest countries in the Peace Corps. And
volunteers enjoy that experience and the tough challenges. So it is
an ongoing opportunity that we face of improving our programs and
obviously improving our retention rate.

MS. CHERRY: The Peace Corps has been in some countries for more than
40 years where volunteers still work on providing very basic health
and other services. Is there any feel of frustration at not having
made more progress in overcoming such basic needs in poor countries?

MR. VASQUEZ: I think the Peace Corps volunteer recognizes that once
they have an opportunity to complete their training, they have an
understanding of the country, they have an understanding of (where ?)
the country evolves. And I think that — I sense very little
frustration in the context of the longer look at a country where
we’ve been in for 40 years. I think what volunteers look at is the
immediate opportunity to make an impact, to leave a lasting legacy in
a community, to make a community independent, self-reliant. And
that’s what we strive for is that programs that we undertake are
programs that have sustainability, so once a volunteer completes his
or her service, there is an opportunity for a community to continue
that which was established. And we’ve had great success in that
regard.

And we face challenges, but new opportunities. Countries evolve. The
information technology, the evolution of technology has presented new
opportunities for Peace Corps in countries where we’ve been for 40
years, but technology has now evolved to the level in — as an
example, Mauritania, where I witnessed a program that volunteers are
involved in where training — computer training and technology
training is made available to a community that would not have had it
otherwise. And that’s an evolution, notwithstanding the fact that
we’ve been in that country for some time.

MS. CHERRY: What is the Peace Corps doing in the country of Armenia,
which is a Christian country surrounded by Muslim countries?

MR. VASQUEZ: The program in Armenia has been incredibly successful.
It is a program where the country has extended great hospitality.
Volunteers are having great effects in the area of education, in the
area of health education, community development, youth development.

One of the most moving moments that I’ve had as director of the Peace
Corps was visiting a rural radio and television station in the second
largest city in Armenia. And as we were getting ready to leave, the
owner of the station said to — first invited me to stay and have
some refreshments. I was late on schedule but, you know, he was
persistent, and I’m glad he was. And so I sat down and had
refreshments. And he said to me, “When I get enough money, I am going
to build a bust in front of my building in honor of Eric Pacific
(sp).”

“Well, who’s Eric Pacific (sp)?”

He said, “Eric Pacific (sp) is the Peace Corps volunteer who helped
me build this radio and television station. And this station is now
used for education and information for the Armenian people.

And during some of the great earthquakes that have occurred in
Armenia, that have devastated the country, radio has become a vital
way of communicating public information and education.” And he said,
“And it was Eric who helped me put this station together, a bit
primitive, but it worked and it served a positive purpose in the
country and in the community.”

And that is an example of what I talk about legacy, leaving
sustainable development in country, and it has now probably resulted
in perhaps saving lives, enhancing the level of understanding and
education in that country, and Armenia has been a very successful
program for the Peace Corps.

MS. CHERRY: Do Muslim countries that receive Peace Corps assistance
allow Peace Corps staff to wear Western clothing, like shorts, or
jewelry, like crosses if they are Christian, or have Christian or
Jewish services?

MR. VASQUEZ: Those are measured on a country-by-country basis. We
rely on our country staff, our country director, to provide guidance
to the volunteers as to the appropriate attire, conduct. But one of
the things that is most important, and it’s fundamental to the Peace
Corps, is that volunteers are encouraged and are tasked with the
following, and that is to respect, to appreciate the culture, the
traditions and the values of the host country.

Former President Mejia of the Dominican Republican once said to me,
“What I really love about the Peace Corps volunteer is that the Peace
Corps volunteers respect my people. They respect our country, our
values and our traditions.” And that is something that we have
observed, sustained, encouraged volunteers to do, because it’s the
right thing to do. It is a positive relationship, it’s a
collaboration, and part of that is the mutual respect that needs to
exist.

MS. CHERRY: Two questions. The first is, is the Peace Corps doing
enough to ensure the safety and security of volunteers, and is there
any more that can be done? And also, if a prospective volunteer is
worried about terrorism, can they decline to go to a particular
country?

MR. VASQUEZ: We have undertaken some major reforms in the way that we
manage safety and security at the Peace Corps. I suspect that those
of you who served some years ago, if you came back to serve in the
Peace Corps today, you would note the difference. It’s substantial.
It’s significant. But we do so because we believe it is important to
maintain the vigilance of safety and security, whether it’s Guatemala
or it is Belize or it is the Philippines. We have systems, processes
and programs in place and encourage the volunteers to put into
practice a conduct, behavior, personal habits and things in place
where they live, where they work, to ensure that they achieve a safe
and secure experience.

So we do everything that is within our capacity to create optimum
conditions for a volunteer to have a safe and secure experience. And
I think the record of the Peace Corps is quite remarkable when you
consider the number of volunteers who have served over 43 years, the
countries in which they have served. And frankly, I’ve had many a
volunteer who has said to me, “You know, I feel safer in my village
in my country than I do back home in the United States.” And that’s
quite a commentary about the hospitality, but also the environment
and the quality of the host families and countries in which they
serve.

We work with placing volunteers so that it is a safe and fulfilling
experience. We work with them when it comes to placement, where their
interests, our interests, our needs, and we try to create — in terms
of the second question about volunteers worried about terrorism, can
they go to a particular country — our placement folks at Peace Corps
work with the applicant to try to find a suitable placement for the
volunteer where issues are raised.

MS. CHERRY: The Peace Corps used to send volunteers to South Korea,
but that country has become so prosperous that they are no longer
needed. How many other countries once served by the Peace Corps are
deemed to no longer require its assistance?

MR. VASQUEZ: It is on a country-by-country basis that we evaluate a
country, both the program effectiveness, the safety and security, the
ability of volunteers to do productive and meaningful work. So we
evaluate countries from time to time to see and put a qualitative
analysis on programs, and then make determinations of where programs
should be sustained, where countries have advanced economically and
otherwise, resulting in perhaps the shifting of resources from one
country to another. That is a process that the Peace Corps has
engineered and has worked with for a number of years, but it’s an
ongoing process. If I understand the question correctly.

And so we continue to evaluate, but we also look at countries, as we
expand, on the basis of where can we be effective. People ask, “Well,
how do you prioritize the countries that request programs?” We look
at a number of areas: program, safety, security, access to health
facilities, support, and infrastructure for the volunteers are all
key components of countries where we work and countries where we
contemplate or consider establishing programs.

MS. CHERRY: This questioner says, “I was an older volunteer,
beginning my service at age 44. I was struck by the youth of many
staff members and felt that this resulted from the five-year rule;
one can only, with some exceptions, work for Peace Corps for that
time period. Does this rule still apply? And what is your opinion of
it?”

MR. VASQUEZ: Thank you for that question. (Laughter.) The rule still
does apply. The Peace Corps is unique as a federal agency in that it
has a five-year rule. Your term of service — and there is
opportunity for extensions — but principally, it is five years of
service as a Peace Corps staff person. And it still does apply.

There is increasing discussion, both on the Hill, and I have some
concerns about the five-year rule in that there are upsides and there
are downsides. Perhaps the greatest downside is the loss of
institutional memory and continuity that occurs when you have term
limits, so to speak, on staffers and their tenure at Peace Corps. And
so we are evaluating — and in fact, Congress has authorized the
director of the Peace Corps to grant exemptions from the five-year
rule to positions within the Peace Corps that relate to safety and
security. And the purpose of that and the spirit of that
authorization and that legislation is to give the director of the
Peace Corps the latitude to develop and to retain essential personnel
or positions that are involved in safety and security. So we are
moving to evaluate, to better understand how the five-year rule
serves a positive and sometimes serves in a negative, and we want to
look at that and continue looking at it and expanding some horizons
in that regard.

But the five-year rule still remains, but it’s under study.

MS. CHERRY: What percentage of return Peace Corps volunteers become
teachers? With a growing need for more teachers, isn’t this a key
social benefit for your program?

MR. VASQUEZ: I don’t have a specific percentage or number of return
Peace Corps volunteers who come back and become teachers. With
135,000 — I’m told about 135,000 return Peace Corps volunteers who
are living, we try to do as much as we can to track careers and what
they’re doing in life. But I will tell you that there are states
where having been a Peace Corps teacher counts as experience when
applying for a teaching position. I know in the state of California,
for example, the two years of service as a teacher in Peace Corps
count when you compete for a position out in California. I know
because I sign the letters that validate the service of a teacher in
the Peace Corps.

Teachers have become great recruiters for Peace Corps. There are
many, many school teachers — professors, high school, middle school,
elementary — who talk about their Peace Corps experience, share the
experience in the classroom. And I know because when I travel, and
I’ve been to 35 countries during my tenure, I’ve asked volunteers,
where did you get the Peace Corps bug? And time and time again, the
most frequently mentioned contact is a school teacher in high school
or elementary school who shared the Peace Corps experience — planted
that seed in that child, that young man, young woman’s mind, and once
they completed college resurrected that interest and pursued Peace
Corps service. So teachers are a tremendous asset to our recruitment
efforts.

MS. CHERRY: Which state or cities produce the most Peace Corp
volunteers?

MR. VASQUEZ: Well, Dena, historically, the state of California. In
fact, I think it’s 23,000 over 43 years. I just was looking at the
chart just a couple of days ago, and California, Texas, New York —
for obvious reasons, states with large populations. But there are
unique places like Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota — small
states that have produced large percentages of Peace Corps
volunteers. And I think the University of Wisconsin continues to be
the number one campus — large campus in the Peace Corps world that
produces the largest number of volunteers. And so they continue to be
the number one campus.

But I will tell you that amongst university and college campuses, it
has become very competitive, because the big schools want to be in
that top 25. Every year we recognize the top 25 big schools who
produce volunteers in the United States, and then the small mid-size
colleges and universities. And the top 25 big schools and
universities have become very, very competitive.

Q This person says, when I applied for Peace Corps in 1988 my
application was held up for quite a few months due to my father’s 36-
year career in the CIA. Do you support such scrutiny, and if so, why?

MR. VASQUEZ: We have always ensured that the Peace Corps maintain its
independence, that we protect any perception or view that the Peace
Corps is involved in any other activities because it is important for
us to maintain the independence of the volunteer and the Peace Corps,
to ensure that our processes are very diligent in evaluating the
suitability, the background, the history, the knowledge of
individuals, men and women who apply for service in the Peace Corps.

It is very, very important for us to do that, and sometimes the
delays can be for a variety of reasons, everything from background to
the inability or tardiness of applicants to provide medical records.
As I look at our medical director here, many, many times volunteers
or applicants complain that “my process is taking too long. Why are
you questioning my background?” Because at the end of the day we want
to have the best and the brightest serving as volunteers in the Peace
Corps, and it requires us to be very, very deliberate, very diligent
in what we do.

But let me just be real clear about something, and that is that the
Peace Corps volunteers who serve in the Peace Corps are there in-
country to train men and women in their host countries, to promote
cross-cultural understanding, to put a face on America, and to learn
about their host country and bring that experience home. That is the
limit, that is the purpose, and that is the scope of Peace Corps
service. That is entirely the scope of Peace Corps service.

MS. CHERRY: Some volunteers have served in very hazardous conditions,
even in war zones. Do you think those who have given such service
deserve special recognition, perhaps a service medal of some kind?

MR. VASQUEZ: That’s an interesting question. It’s interesting because
I would find it very difficult to try to render judgment on an — on
establishing an index of difficulty, and based on some form of an
index determine that one volunteer deserves recognition over another.

Let me tell you that we have volunteers who serve in the Peace Corps
who have disabilities, who have physical challenges, who exert great
energy and great effort to serve in the Peace Corps. And there are
others who live in areas where the environmental conditions are
challenging and are difficult. But I don’t think you can put a
measure on one volunteer having a greater hardship over another
because every volunteer faces challenges and difficulties. Everything
from environmental issues in terms of climate, in terms of housing,
in terms of remoteness to contracting infections and some of the
illnesses that volunteers contract during their service.

So there’s all kinds of elements of difficulty, and I think that
every volunteer — every volunteer in the Peace Corps is unique and
special in my view. And I like to say that the reason we don’t pay a
salary to Peace Corps volunteers is because they are priceless.
(Laughter, applause.)

MS. CHERRY: In October 2003, you announced that you would resign as
Peace Corps director, but you changed your mind. Can you explain?

MR. VASQUEZ: When I expressed a desire to make a change, it came
about as a result of a — of a family health situation that emerged
within my immediate family that today continues to be a formidable
challenge for a member of my family. And in further discussions with
family and coupled with the deep passion that I have for this work —
and I will tell you that I’ve been blessed to have a lot of great
jobs in my career and I’ve had some really great jobs, but this is
the best job that I’ve ever had in my life.

It is fulfilling, it is gratifying.

My father always taught me that before you could become a leader, you
needed to know how to be a servant. And the Peace Crops has helped me
understand that on a much grander scale. And so the opportunity,
then, to be able to stay here and to continue the service to my
country, to serve the president of the United States, was compelling,
persuasive, and I’m delighted that I did, because since that time, we
have been able to achieve some new milestones, some historic highs in
advancing the mission and the purpose of the Peace Corps. Because the
beauty of serving as director of the Peace Corps is that it’s not
about the director, it really isn’t, it’s about the Peace Corps. It’s
about what you leave as a legacy not for yourself, but what you leave
for the world and what you leave for America, for the United States.
And for all those who have served, I must tell you that I consider it
a high privilege, because I have met some of the best, some of the
brightest and some of the finest Americans I have ever known in Peace
Corps service, and I count it a high honor to continue my service
alongside with the volunteers.

MS. CHERRY: What do you see as the greatest challenge in the future
for the Peace Corps? Will it ever be so successful that it is no
longer needed?

MR. VASQUEZ: I hope and pray for a day when the service of the Peace
Corps would no longer be needed; that the world would achieve the
total eradication, elimination of HIV/AIDS, poverty, disease, and all
that goes on in the world today. But until that time, we have a
tremendous window of opportunity to make an impact, to make a
difference in people’s lives.

I was in Botswana just a few weeks ago, and I had one of the most
remarkable experiences I think any Peace Corps director could have. I
met Peace Corps volunteers who were born in Russia, Israel, Cape
Verde, Liberia, and Nigeria. These are American citizens who were
born in another country, who came to the United States, became U.S.
citizens and are now Peace Corps volunteers serving overseas in the
United States Peace Corps. And I will tell you, it took my breath
away to meet these young volunteers and to think this is what is
amazing about the Peace Corps, that people who are born elsewhere
would come to the United States and then go overseas to put a unique
face on America; to be able to talk about being born in Russia, and
then coming to the United States, and then going overseas to a
country like Botswana. Tremendous, tremendous impact.

So, there will be great opportunities for the Peace Corps in the
future. And as the world evolves, we will also evolve. And I believe
that’s why the Peace Corps is uniquely positioned in the 21st
century, because if there was ever a time that we needed to promote
peace, understanding and friendship between our country and countries
of the world, the time is now.

MS. CHERRY: That said, who do you think benefits more from Peace
Corps service, the host country or the United States?

MR. VASQUEZ: First, I think the volunteer does. I think the volunteer
gains a priceless experience and an opportunity to understand a
foreign country, the culture, the values, the traditions of that
country, and then be able to bring it home. And we say you’re a Peace
Corps volunteer for two years, but you’re a return Peace Corps
volunteer for a lifetime, because after that volunteer serves, he or
she is in a unique position to put a face on Mauritania and be able
to share with American audiences what life is like in Mauritania or
Costa Rica or Guatemala or Paraguay, and to be able to share that
with communities and colleges and universities and students, and so
on, is a unique opportunity.

As to the benefit to the United States and the host country, it is a
mutual benefit, because at the end of the day, if we can promote
better understanding, everyone wins.

I saw a large poster as I was traveling not long ago. It was a
picture of the Earth taken from a space shuttle, I believe it was, or
a satellite, and it was just the Earth, and beneath, the caption
said, “Our Home Address.”

I thought, you know, that’s the kind of reminder that we need on a
daily basis. We all live here and we all need to strive and work to
make the world a better place, because it is our home address.

MS. CHERRY: Director Vasquez, I’d like to thank you for coming today.
And I’d like to do so by presenting to you this Certificate of
Appreciation for coming and sharing your vision of this agency with
us here today.

MR. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much.

MS. CHERRY: And in a peace offering, I would like to present you with
the coveted National Press Club mug. Thank you very much

MR. VASQUEZ: Well, thank you very much. (Applause.)

MS. CHERRY: And for our last question. We’ve been told that your
education was your mother’s top priority and she had a unique way of
encouraging you to study. Could you please elaborate?

MR. VASQUEZ: I don’t know if I should put her on the spot, but I
will. My mother who is a tremendously strong woman and who is a major
influence in my life. I am the first college graduate in the history
of my family. And I really appreciate the form that my mother used to
raise us, because we have a 25-year-old son who’s graduated from
college, and we use modern-day techniques. We use persuasion,
dollars, gifts, a little mediation, arbitration, intervention, self-
help books, tapes, everything that — you know, parenting, the whole
nine yards. We use those techniques.

But my mother, who never graduated from high school but had a
determined sense that we were going to achieve something good in
life, and the way we were going to do it was to get an education, she
was not into self-help books or tapes or psychology. She was not even
into negotiation or arbitration or mediation. When we didn’t want to
do homework, she just simply — and they were migrant farm workers, I
might add — she just went out into the yard and broke a branch off
of a tree and took the leaves off and came at us.

And someone said, “It sounds to me like you were an abused child.”
And I said, “No, I was a highly motivated child.” (Laughter.) My
mother’s priorities were my instant priorities.

So you can imagine her pride and joy when I became the first in my
family to graduate from college, and even more so to go on to become
the director of the Peace Corps. My grandparents came to this country
from Mexico. And I suspect that if they were alive today, they would
just be astounded — proud, I suspect, but astounded at the thought
that their grandson is director of the Peace Corps. But that’s what
makes this nation a great nation, because there is opportunity for
all of us who wish to pursue and realize our dreams.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MS. CHERRY: Director Vasquez, thank you so much for coming here
today. And I have to confess that many members of MY family were
raised on the “twig method” of educational motivation as well.
(Laughter.)

I’d also like to thank National Press Club staff members Melinda
Cooke, Pat Nelson, Jo Anne Booze, Melanie Abdow and Howard Rothman
for organizing today’s lunch. And thanks to the National Press Club
Library for their research.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. (Applause.)

Daily Iowan , IA
Oct 18 2004

Int’l students watch campaign with interest
By Arna Wilkinson – The Daily Iowan

Ferzan Akalin, a UI graduate student and one-year Iowa City resident,
has been watching the presidential debates and is leaning toward Sen.
John Kerry. She is adamant about voting in her native Turkey, but she
is not able to vote in the United States.

Although they will not cast a ballot, Akalin and other UI
international students are following the presidential race closely,
concerned with how the outcome will affect their countries.

“George Bush didn’t care about cooperating with his allies, and
that’s why he’s getting lots of reactions from other countries and
people,” Akalin said. “The next president should be working harder to
have better relationships with his neighbors.”

Yet, Akalin said, a Turkish newspaper had reported Kerry as
supporting the recognition of genocide against Armenians by Turkey
during World War I. Preceded by decades of conflict between the
Ottoman Empire and Armenians, approximately 1.75 million Armenians in
Turkey were deported by the government, resulting in 600,000 deaths.
Armenians contend it was genocide, a charge the Turkish government
disputes.

“The candidates promise a lot of things for votes, but this should
not be an issue,” Akalin said.

Evans Ochola, a UI graduate student from Kenya who has lived in Iowa
City for four years, said he would not vote in the U.S. elections if
he could, despite an interest in politics.

“I think that voting should be left for citizens – people that are
citizens should vote,” he said. “I would not want to dilute the
process.”

What amazes him most, he said, is the fairness of the debates.

“No one is being taken to jail. Both sides can say what they want
without anyone victimizing them,” he said. “You don’t see that in
most African countries.”

Even with a recent peaceful election in Kenya, Ochola said, he would
welcome presidential debates in his country’s election process,
adding they can indicate candidates’ personalities and intellects.

UI graduate student Prem Ramakrishnan, a four-year U.S. resident,
said everyone in his native India is watching American politics.

“We do follow American politics because our kin are here. If
something goes wrong here, it will affect the others” in India, he
said, adding he was concerned about the fluctuating number of work
permits offered by the U.S. government, along with the war in Iraq.

Ramakrishnan, who watches CNN and reads Indian newspapers, said
American and Indian campaigns are different because of ethnic
diversity in India, where more than 14 different constitutionally
recognized languages are spoken in 28 states and six union
territories.

“I like the [American} system; it looks orderly, I can follow it
easily,” said Ramakrishnan. “The majority of the issues are the same,
but there are difficulties because of different languages and
ethnicities.”

EVERYTHING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KARABAKH

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
18 Oct 04

As we have already informed, a new school was built in the village of
Shosh, sponsored by the Armenian community of Canada. At the ceremony
of opening the executive director of the pan-Armenian foundation
`Hayastan’ Naira Melkumian was present. We talked to her on the
activity of the foundation, plans for the near future, as well as the
upcoming marathon of donations. – I want to start with the building of
the school because it is the event of the day. It is very encouraging
indeed that the program of school building is implemented in
villages. In the towns the problem seems to have been solved already,
and it is time now to render Karabakh into a developed area. All the
programs presently implemented in Artsakh are a transition from
humanitarian to new development programs. In the nearest future the
foundation will build more schools in Artsakh, that is to say, the
program of school building has not been completed yet. Besides,
perhaps you know that a medical institution – a complex building of
policlinic – is built in Stepanakert, which is unique not only in
Artsakh but also in Armenia. The medical complex will be supplied with
modern equipmentof European standards. These programs help to solve
economic and social problems in Karabakh. The people of Karabakh are
employed in construction works carried out by the foundation, thereby
solving the problem of unemployment. According to our estimates, about
1000 people work in those building sites, and works of 7 million are
carried out in Artsakh. Hopefully this number will grow every year and
in 2 or 3 years the construction of the highway `North – South’ will
be finished. In parallel we will undertake other projects the
implementation of which will favour the settlement of political
problems as well because developed Karabakh will settle its issue
itself. – What future programs, undertakings are there? – Soon we are
going to solve the problem ofwater supply of Stepanakert after which
water will be supplied by a regular schedule.

Unfortunately, we cannot provide 24 hour running water at present. I
know there are problems of water at many places in Karabakh. In
certain communities the problem will be solved soon. On the whole, the
programs are many: hospitals, schools, water reservoirs – Every year
the marathon of national donations is held. Is it going to be held
this year? – Certainly. The traditional TV marathon will be held on
November 21. We hope it will be successful. Besides, I would like to
use the chance and ask our fellow countrymen to take an active part in
it, more active than last year. At that time about 60-70 thousand
dollars was raised in Artsakh. It would be good to increase the sum up
to 100 thousand dollarsat least. This will encourage our compatriots
in the Diaspora. – As far as I remember, the business circles of
Russia were not active during the previous telethon. What
anticipations do you have for this year? – You know,we must have a
correct attitude towards the participation of the Armenian community
of Russia. All of us know about the great aid provided to Artsakh and
Armenia by the Armenians of Russia. The aid to region counts
millions. This year too, theywill participate by all means.

LAURA GRIGORIAN.
18-10-2004

6 MONTH IMPRISONMENT FOR BEATING A JOURNALIST

A1 Plus | 21:12:32 | 11-10-2004 | Social |

Today the First Instance Court of Kotayk District sentenced Gagik
Stepanyan, the defendant over the case of journalists Anna Israelyan
and Mkhitar Khachatryan to 6-month-long imprisonment.

Let’s remind that on August 24 this person seized a memory chip from
“Fotolur” Agency photographer Mkhitar Khachatryan cursing and doing
violence and outraged “Aravot” Daily correspondent Anna Israelyan.

At today’s trial the defendant cursed the journalists covering
the trial.

MEMORANDUM ON COOPERATION SIGNED BETWEEN ARMENIAN AND INDIAN BUSINESSMEN

YEREVAN, October 11 (Noyan Tapan). A memorandum on cooperation aiming
to strengthen Armenian-Indian economic partnership was signed between
Martin Sargssian, Chairman of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of
Armenia, and K.K.M. Kutty, Chairman of the Industrial Confederation of
India, on October 11. Acording to Mr. Kutty, the document will allow
the two countries two enlarge trade turnover in the future years,
and found joint ventures. The Industrial Confederation of India will
open an office in Armenia soon to promote Armenian-Indian economic
cooperation. He said the representatives of the Chamber of Industry
and Commerce of Armenia will be invited to participate in next year’s
business forum to be held in India. According to M. Sargssian, the
memorandum will also allow the two countries to cooperate in organizing
exhibitions, as well as to exchange business information. He said
within the framework of the exhibition “In the Indian World” being
held in Yerevan October 10-13, Armenian and Indian businessmen have
reached an agreement to establish joint ventures producing medical
equipment and selling spare parts in Armenia.

ProgressiveTrail.org, OR
Oct 8 2004

Oil Wars and the American Military
by Michael Klare

published by Tom Dispatch

In the first U.S. combat operation of the war in Iraq, Navy commandos
stormed an offshore oil-loading platform. “Swooping silently out of
the Persian Gulf night,” an overexcited reporter for the New York
Times wrote on March 22, “Navy Seals seized two Iraqi oil terminals
in bold raids that ended early this morning, overwhelming
lightly-armed Iraqi guards and claiming a bloodless victory in the
battle for Iraq’s vast oil empire.”

A year and a half later, American soldiers are still struggling to
maintain control over these vital petroleum facilities — and the
fighting is no longer bloodless. On April 24, two American sailors
and a coastguardsman were killed when a boat they sought to
intercept, presumably carrying suicide bombers, exploded near the
Khor al-Amaya loading platform. Other Americans have come under fire
while protecting some of the many installations in Iraq’s “oil
empire.”

Indeed, Iraq has developed into a two-front war: the battles for
control over Iraq’s cities and the constant struggle to protect its
far-flung petroleum infrastructure against sabotage and attack. The
first contest has been widely reported in the American press; the
second has received far less attention. Yet the fate of Iraq’s oil
infrastructure could prove no less significant than that of its
embattled cities. A failure to prevail in this contest would
eliminate the economic basis upon which a stable Iraqi government
could someday emerge. “In the grand scheme of things,” a senior
officer told the New York Times, “there may be no other place where
our armed forces are deployed that has a greater strategic
importance.” In recognition of this, significant numbers of U.S.
soldiers have been assigned to oil-security functions.

Top officials insist that these duties will eventually be taken over
by Iraqi forces, but day by day this glorious moment seems to recede
ever further into the distance. So long as American forces remain in
Iraq, a significant number of them will undoubtedly spend their time
guarding highly vulnerable pipelines, refineries, loading facilities,
and other petroleum installations. With thousands of miles of
pipeline and hundreds of major facilities at risk, this task will
prove endlessly demanding – and unrelievedly hazardous. At the
moment, the guerrillas seem capable of striking the country’s oil
lines at times and places of their choosing, their attacks often
sparking massive explosions and fires.

Guarding the pipelines

It has been argued that our oil-protection role is a peculiar feature
of the war in Iraq, where petroleum installations are strewn about
and the national economy is largely dependent on oil revenues. But
Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking
their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In
Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel
are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and
refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission.
American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian
Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea
routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact,
the American military is increasingly being converted into a global
oil-protection service.

The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of this
trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American oil
companies and government officials have sought to gain access to the
huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin —
especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some
experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil
lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the
amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is
landlocked and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the
West is by pipelines crossing the Caucasus region — the area
encompassing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian
republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.

American firms are now building a major pipeline through this
volatile area. Stretching a perilous 1,000 miles from Baku in
Azerbaijan through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey, it is
eventually slated to carry one million barrels of oil a day to the
West; but will face the constant threat of sabotage by Islamic
militants and ethnic separatists along its entire length. The United
States has already assumed significant responsibility for its
protection, providing millions of dollars in arms and equipment to
the Georgian military and deploying military specialists in Tbilisi
to train and advise the Georgian troops assigned to protect this
vital conduit. This American presence is only likely to expand in
2005 or 2006 when the pipeline begins to transport oil and fighting
in the area intensifies.

Or take embattled Colombia, where U.S. forces are increasingly
assuming responsibility for the protection of that country’s
vulnerable oil pipelines. These vital conduits carry crude petroleum
from fields in the interior, where a guerrilla war boils, to ports on
the Caribbean coast from which it can be shipped to buyers in the
United States and elsewhere. For years, left-wing guerrillas have
sabotaged the pipelines — portraying them as concrete expressions of
foreign exploitation and elitist rule in Bogota, the capital — to
deprive the Colombian government of desperately needed income.
Seeking to prop up the government and enhance its capacity to fight
the guerrillas, Washington is already spending hundreds of millions
of dollars to enhance oil-infrastructure security, beginning with the
Cano-Limon pipeline, the sole conduit connecting Occidental
Petroleum’s prolific fields in Arauca province with the Caribbean
coast. As part of this effort, U.S. Army Special Forces personnel
from Fort Bragg, North Carolina are now helping to train, equip, and
guide a new contingent of Colombian forces whose sole mission will be
to guard the pipeline and fight the guerrillas along its 480-mile
route.

Oil and instability

The use of American military personnel to help protect vulnerable oil
installations in conflict-prone, chronically unstable countries is
certain to expand given three critical factors: America’s
ever-increasing dependence on imported petroleum, a global shift in
oil production from the developed to the developing world, and the
growing militarization of our foreign energy policy.

America’s dependence on imported petroleum has been growing steadily
since 1972, when domestic output reached its maximum (or “peak”)
output of 11.6 million barrels per day (mbd). Domestic production is
now running at about 9 mbd and is expected to continue to decline as
older fields are depleted. (Even if some oil is eventually extracted
from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as the Bush
administration desires, this downward trend will not be reversed.)
Yet our total oil consumption remains on an upward course; now
approximating 20 mbd, it’s projected to reach 29 mbd by 2025. This
means ever more of the nation’s total petroleum supply will have to
be imported — 11 mbd today (about 55% of total U.S. consumption) but
20 mbd in 2025 (69% of consumption).

More significant than this growing reliance on foreign oil, an
increasing share of that oil will come from hostile, war-torn
countries in the developing world, not from friendly, stable
countries like Canada or Norway. This is the case because the older
industrialized countries have already consumed a large share of their
oil inheritance, while many producers in the developing world still
possess vast reserves of untapped petroleum. As a result, we are
seeing a historic shift in the center of gravity for world oil
production — from the industrialized countries of the global North
to the developing nations of the global South, which are often
politically unstable, torn by ethnic and religious conflicts, home to
extremist organizations, or some combination of all three.

Whatever deeply-rooted historical antagonisms exist in these
countries, oil production itself usually acts as a further
destabilizing influence. Sudden infusions of petroleum wealth in
otherwise poor and underdeveloped countries tend to deepen divides
between rich and poor that often fall along ethnic or religious
lines, leading to persistent conflict over the distribution of
petroleum revenues. To prevent such turbulence, ruling elites like
the royal family in Saudi Arabia or the new oil potentates of
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan restrict or prohibit public expressions of
dissent and rely on the repressive machinery of state security forces
to crush opposition movements. With legal, peaceful expressions of
dissent foreclosed in this manner, opposition forces soon see no
options but to engage in armed rebellion or terrorism.

There is another aspect of this situation that bears examination.
Many of the emerging oil producers in the developing world were once
colonies of and harbor deep hostility toward the former imperial
powers of Europe. The United States is seen by many in these
countries as the modern inheritor of this imperial tradition. Growing
resentment over social and economic traumas induced by globalization
is aimed at the United States. Because oil is viewed as the primary
motive for American involvement in these areas, and because the giant
U.S. oil corporations are seen as the very embodiment of American
power, anything to do with oil — pipelines, wells, refineries,
loading platforms — is seen by insurgents as a legitimate and
attractive target for attack; hence the raids on pipelines in Iraq,
on oil company offices in Saudi Arabia, and on oil tankers in Yemen.

Militarizing energy policy

American leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to
stability in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by
employing military means to guarantee the unhindered flow of
petroleum. This approach was first adopted by the Truman and
Eisenhower administrations after World War II, when Soviet
adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals in the Middle East seemed
to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf oil deliveries. It was given
formal expression by President Carter in January 1980, when, in
response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic
revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow of Persian Gulf
oil was in “the vital interests of the United States of America,” and
that in protecting this interest we would use “any means necessary,
including military force.” Carter’s principle of using force to
protect the flow of oil was later cited by President Bush the elder
to justify American intervention in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91,
and it provided the underlying strategic rationale for our recent
invasion of Iraq.

Originally, this policy was largely confined to the world’s most
important oil-producing region, the Persian Gulf. But given America’s
ever-growing requirement for imported petroleum, U.S. officials have
begun to extend it to other major producing zones, including the
Caspian Sea basin, Africa, and Latin America. The initial step in
this direction was taken by President Clinton, who sought to exploit
the energy potential of the Caspian basin and, worrying about
instability in the area, established military ties with future
suppliers, including Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and with the pivotal
transit state of Georgia. It was Clinton who first championed the
construction of a pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan and who initially took
steps to protect that conduit by boosting the military capabilities
of the countries involved. President Bush junior has built on this
effort, increasing military aid to these states and deploying
American combat advisers in Georgia; Bush is also considering the
establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in the Caspian region.

Typically, such moves are justified as being crucial to the “war on
terror.” A close reading of Pentagon and State Department documents
shows, however, that anti-terrorism and the protection of oil
supplies are closely related in administration thinking. When
requesting funds in 2004 to establish a “rapid-reaction brigade” in
Kazakhstan, for example, the State Department told Congress that such
a force is needed to “enhance Kazakhstan’s capability to respond to
major terrorist threats to oil platforms” in the Caspian Sea.

As noted, a very similar trajectory is now under way in Colombia. The
American military presence in oil-producing areas of Africa, though
less conspicuous, is growing rapidly. The Department of Defense has
stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces in Angola and
Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and enlisted
personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look for
permanent U.S. bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana, Mali,
Uganda, and Kenya. Although these officials tend to talk only about
terrorism when explaining the need for such facilities, one officer
told Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal in June 2003 that “a key
mission for U.S. forces [in Africa] would be to ensure that Nigeria’s
oil fields, which in the future could account for as much as 25
percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure.”

An increasing share of our naval forces is also being committed to
the protection of foreign oil shipments. The Navy’s Fifth Fleet,
based at the island state of Bahrain, now spends much of its time
patrolling the vital tanker lanes of the Persian Gulf and the Strait
of Hormuz — the narrow waterway connecting the Gulf to the Arabian
Sea and the larger oceans beyond. The Navy has also beefed up its
ability to protect vital sea lanes in the South China Sea — the site
of promising oil fields claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines,
and Malaysia — and in the Strait of Malacca, the critical sea-link
between the Persian Gulf and America’s allies in East Asia. Even
Africa has come in for increased attention from the Navy. In order to
increase the U.S. naval presence in waters adjoining Nigeria and
other key producers, carrier battle groups assigned to the European
Command (which controls the South Atlantic) will shorten their future
visits to the Mediterranean “and spend half the time going down the
west coast of Africa,” the command’s top officer, General James
Jones, announced in May 2003.

This, then, is the future of U.S. military involvement abroad. While
anti-terrorism and traditional national security rhetoric will be
employed to explain risky deployments abroad, a growing number of
American soldiers and sailors will be committed to the protection of
overseas oil fields, pipeline, refineries, and tanker routes. And
because these facilities are likely to come under increasing attack
from guerrillas and terrorists, the risk to American lives will grow
accordingly. Inevitably, we will pay a higher price in blood for
every additional gallon of oil we obtain from abroad.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies
at Hampshire College. This article is based on his new book, Blood
and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Petroleum
Dependency (Metropolitan / Henry Holt).

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Oct 9 2004

US CAN INCREASE AID TO AZERBAIJAN
[October 09, 2004, 21:41:35]

The US can provide more aid for Azerbaijan, the United States
Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish noted during his meeting with
Milli Majlis (Azerbaijan Parliament) deputy chairman Ziyafat Asgarov.

As noted Mr. Asgarov foreign policy of nationwide leader of
Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev lead to strengthening the US-Azerbaijan
relations, which were raising to the strategic partnership level.
This policy successfully continues by President Ilham Aliyev.

The memorandum signed during Congressmen Kurt Weldon’s visit to Baku
gave an impetus to developing relations between US Congress and Milli
Majlis, the deputy chairman said. According to the agreement,
Azerbaijani parliament delegation is expected to pay a visit to the
United States.

Reno Harnish impart to USA provide $70 million aid to Azerbaijan. The
United States are highly estimated Azerbaijan’s contribution to
anti-terror operations, the Ambassador added.

Mr. Harnish stressed the great importance the Congress attaches to
Azerbaijan and significance of expected Azerbaijani delegation’s
visit to USA.

Touching upon Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh conflict, the
diplomat noted that USA supports peaceful resolution of the conflict.
US Minsk Group co-chair Steven Mann to make every effort to find a
fair solution to the problem.