February
4, 2003, 9:00 a.m. To
Be in Davos, Part II
esterday, I gave you Part I of a kind of Davos Journal. (Davos —
just to refresh — is the Swiss village in which the Annual Meeting
of the World Economic Forum is held.) You can reach Part I here,
and it may be advisable to read it, before going on. But now: I’ll
go on!
I was saying? Well, how about this? Throughout the week of Davos, there
are endless seminars, “working dinners,” coffees, nightcaps,
and other sessions. Their variety is infinite, too. We have standard topics,
like “Helping Japan Avoid Another Lost Decade” and “Globalization
at a Crossroads.” But we also have some offbeat ones, like “Love:
A Matter of Trust” and “Why Do We Age and Why Do We Hate It?”
(The sitarist and “living” guru Ravi Shankar holds forth in
both of these.) You can also drop in on “Shakespeare and Leadership,”
hosted by Richard Olivier, son of you-know-who.
For journalists, Davos — with all its heads of state, foreign ministers,
CEOs, and so on — is access heaven. It’s “shootin’
fish in a barrel,” as a colleague of mine says. The Annual Meeting
gives you one-stop shopping. Just turn around, and there’s someone
to interview, or at least chat up. Davos is sort of like the pages of
the New York Times come to life. Who’s that guy? you ask.
Then you look at his badge: Oh, yeah — Gorbachev’s spokesman.
Want to hear a little more about Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia —
or from him? In his talk before a large crowd, he places heavy emphasis
on the disparity between rich nations and poor. I don’t blame him.
The maddening thing is, such people rarely bother to explore the reasons
for this disparity. They give the impression that they regard it as merely
a matter of luck — as though prosperity fell from the sky on some
countries while misery fell from the sky on others. Instead of complaining
about American and Western prosperity, why not take the necessary steps
to equal it? Why not install the rule of law, a free market, and so on?
To be a “law-and-liberty country,” as Orwell put it, you have
to have law and liberty.
But that, many rulers
aren’t willing to countenance.
For further on this
subject, see Victor Davis Hanson, Adam Smith, and other worthies.
As I explained yesterday, Mahathir believes that the current war —
between America and terror — is a matter of mutual misunderstanding
or stubbornness. He believes that the “weak” are merely lashing
out at the “strong,” in the only way they know how. I perceive
that some of this thinking has leaked into the Forum’s machinery
itself. Here’s how a session on foreign aid is introduced: “Terrorism
in a globalized world cannot be counteracted by military power and government
control only. Foreign aid is a key tool in preventing disparities and
reducing inequality” — and there you have it. Inequality as
a spur to terrorism.
Funny, but most of
the world is unequal to the West, and most of the world does not
engage in mass murder. I could go on, but you have Bernard Lewis to read,
so there’s no need of me.
Rob Portman, the Republican from Ohio, says that the United States has
done a poor job communicating to the rest of the world. Ah, the old fallback
position: that one’s unpopularity or failure is merely a question
of communication. Would that it were so. Maybe — just maybe —
much of the world public isn’t buying. And maybe the onus, to side
with civilization, should be on societies other than free and democratic
ones.
As you well know, it’s hard to get some Americans to understand,
too. Talk about communication! I encounter a couple from the American
South. Husband says, “Well, are we going to war against Iraq?”
I say, “Well, I think we’re going to war against Saddam Hussein,
that’s for sure.” Wife says, “Well, that will just make
those people angrier, and we’ll pay a terrible price.” I say,
“Maybe — but remember the scenes you saw in Afghanistan: the
jubilation in the streets; women putting their faces to the sun for the
first time in years; the literal embrace of American soldiers.” Wife:
“Yeah, but Afghanistan was an entirely different situation. There,
the people were oppressed by the government. In Iraq, they’re oppressed
by our sanctions.”
I see. And how can
such a conversation continue? But we part cordially.
As people constantly say — and as they certainly say in Davos —
there’s a difference between anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism. But
I detect not only anti-Bushism but also rank, unthinking, alive anti-Americanism.
How can I tell? What are my criteria? By what method do I judge? Here,
I have to plead the Potter Stewart line: I know it when I see it. I can
smell it. And so, really, can any alert and experienced person.
For several days, I hear a lot about capital punishment in America —
especially in Texas, the Dark State — and brutal treatment at Guantanamo
Bay and the obnoxious American swagger. Muslims complain that Americans
completely misunderstand and defame their religion. One woman mentions
Pat Robertson to me maybe five times. (He seems to be a very famous American,
in certain quarters.) I say — trying to be all diplomatic and conciliatory
— “Well, I’m sure there’s misunderstanding on all
sides.” The lady looks at me incredulous: “No. There’s
no Muslim who misunderstands or slanders Christianity or Judaism. We bother
to find out about others and appreciate them.”
To this, how can
one respond? One way of doing so: “MEMRI.org,
baby.” But I say nothing; just sort of cringe.
If Davos has a favorite American, I imagine it’s Jimmy Carter, the
new Nobel laureate. He is regarded as a virtual saint. In fact, the Sage
of Plains is proffered as proof positive that one isn’t anti-American:
“I’m all for Jimmy Carter, see?” One famous European scholar
speaks movingly about a private meeting with Carter. The ex-president
has told him that, in his time in the White House, he never lied, even
when it would have been convenient to do so. But this scholar hastens
to say that Carter was making a contrast with Nixon — not with Clinton.
Oh, no! Let there be no misunderstanding!
For Clinton seems
to be Davos’s next-favorite American. He is here, of course, a superstar,
the Living Embodiment of the Third Way, treated almost reverently, referred
to as “the President.” Davos is his sort of environment —
it’s Renaissance Weekend times about a hundred. Clinton has his daughter
in tow, and also Hernando de Soto, the genius Peruvian economist, and
Ira Magaziner, co-architect with the former First Lady of ClintonCare.
I believe I detect
something about Clinton: that he is pulling a Carter. They have a lot
in common, the Sage of Plains and the Man from Hope. I discern that Clinton
is transcending mere Americanness to become a kind of Global Man. We sometimes
praise an American as “above party.” Well, Clinton is rapidly
becoming above country. Absent from his unrelenting flows of words is
any mention of U.S. interests. He is all Global Interdependency. But then,
this is Davos, and when in Davos . . .
Friends, I ask you to fret not: America will never be the most despised
country in the world as long as Israel exists. It seems that most Davosers
casually assume that Sharon is a monster and that the Palestinians are
the most abused people on earth. They are certainly among the most
abused — not least by their own leadership. I have the impression
that Arafat would be well received in Davos. Shimon Peres is here, of
course — I say “of course,” because this is his kind of
crowd, and his kind of party. He swans around, radiating well-being and
appreciation, accepting plaudits. It seems clear that he’s more popular
in Davos than in his own country — which is only days away from reelecting
Sharon by historic margins.
Back to America for a sec. Whenever I’m at an international conclave
like Davos — not that there’s anything quite like Davos —
I’m struck by the near uniqueness of American self-criticism. I am
conscious of the absence of self-criticism from elsewhere, hearing the
dog that doesn’t bark. I just about never hear a Saudi curse —
or even question — his country or its role in the world. The same
goes for Indonesians, Nigerians, and others. The Americans are critical
of America; the non-Americans are critical of America. I think of one
of Reagan’s favorite jokes: An American and a Russian are having
an argument, back in Cold War days. The American says, “I live in
a free country — I can march past the White House and yell, ‘Down
with Reagan!’” The Russian says, “Big deal. I can march
past the Kremlin and yell, ‘Down with Reagan!’”
Americans are the
only ones not allowed to be patriotic or nationalistic — not to mention
chauvinistic. Everyone else seems excused. But that’s okay. Shouldn’t
a country — like an individual — have its own standards?
I can’t help noticing a tendency in my fellow journalists. I’m
talking about those from the U.S. We have many opportunities to question
foreign leaders, about anything (e.g., problems in their own countries
and in their own foreign policies). But the questions from Americans tend
to be invitations to bash the Bush administration. They have almost a
goading quality. The gist of these questions is, “Hello, I’m
Betty Brown from the Chicago Herald-Gazette. Isn’t it a shame
that George W. Bush is such an idiot?” And the foreign minister —
or whoever — says, “Why, yes, now that you mention it, it is
a shame that George W. Bush is an idiot.”
And I’m a little
startled by the deference paid by foreign journalists to leaders of their
own countries. In a large forum — featuring Argentina’s president
Dualde — a journalist from that country says, “I’d like
to address my president.” My president. You can imagine Sam
Donaldson saying that, can’t you? Well, maybe sarcastically!
And I, of course,
heartily endorse the Donaldson way, don’t get me wrong. Just observin’.
One thing bothers me — really bothers me — about my days here.
I don’t hear a peep of sympathy for the Iraqi people. I hear a lot
of talk about how Americans are about to go in, blaring and blasting,
and kill a lot of Iraqis. I don’t hear any acknowledgement of the
brutal regime under which Iraqis have been suffering and dying, and the
prospect of a better life post-Saddam. A little disturbing.
And the idea that
the American war is one of self-defense? Hopeless to advance!
But don’t lose
hope, folks. Back with Part III tomorrow.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
esterday, I gave you Part I of a kind of Davos Journal. (Davos —
just to refresh — is the Swiss village in which the Annual Meeting
of the World Economic Forum is held.) You can reach Part I 
I was saying? Well, how about this? Throughout the week of Davos, there
are endless seminars, “working dinners,” coffees, nightcaps,
and other sessions. Their variety is infinite, too. We have standard topics,
like “Helping Japan Avoid Another Lost Decade” and “Globalization
at a Crossroads.” But we also have some offbeat ones, like “Love:
A Matter of Trust” and “Why Do We Age and Why Do We Hate It?”
(The sitarist and “living” guru Ravi Shankar holds forth in
both of these.) You can also drop in on “Shakespeare and Leadership,”
hosted by Richard Olivier, son of you-know-who.
