Israel will respond “as soon as possible” to the Arab peace initiative which was reaffirmed by the Arab League at their summit in Riyadh earlier this year, Israeli Vice-Prime Minister Shimon Peres told participants at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East. On the podium with Peres, Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator for the Palestinian National Authority, called on Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative.
A unified, stable Iraq would be better for everyone, said Mohammad Larijani, Director, Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics of Iran, in a session on the final day of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East. He said he hoped that the upcoming talks between the US and Iran could ease tensions and encourage deeper cooperation. Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah (Republican), USA, expressed Washington’s desire to work together to stabilize Iraq and the entire region. “We need to reach out to each other,” Hatch said. While the US has made many mistakes, he acknowledged, “our intentions are honorable.”
His Highness, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai, today launched the "Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation", a major initiative to promote human development and provide hope and opportunity by investing in education and the development of knowledge in the region. His Highness, Sheikh Mohammed, made the announcement in a keynote address at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East being held at the Dead Sea in Jordan.
To achieve stability in the Middle East will require inclusive solutions and solidarity among Arabs and Muslims, leaders from the region said on the second day of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East. In addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the civil strife in Iraq, the continuing unrest in Afghanistan and any other sources of instability, regional and international players must be engaged in the process. “Very often we have seen the high costs of exclusion,” said Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. “We must bring everybody to the table.”
Watch a video interview with Sherif El Diwany who is Director of the Middle East at the World Economic Forum. He talks more about the meeting's programme, who will participate and the focus of the talks.
The World Economic Forum on the Middle East will convene at the Dead Sea in Jordan from 18 to 20 May. The World Economic Forum has a strong record as a neutral platform for dialogue between countries, regions and religions. Leaders from the world of business, politics and civil society will meet to discuss various dimensions of the theme, “Putting Diversity to Work”.
His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan is expected to deliver an opening address on how World Economic Forum participants can bring critical leadership to the region in the areas of conflict resolution, economic cooperation and development.
Learn more:
Programme
Issues in Depth
Partners
Linda Rottenberg, Co-Founder and CEO of Endeavor Global; Young Global Leader; Schwab Foundation Social Entrepreneur; and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East gives her insight on some of the issues on the agenda of the meeting which will take place at the Dead Sea from 18-20 May.
In your capacity of Co-Chair, what results would you like to see from the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, particularly in meeting the summit’s theme of "putting diversity to work"?
The World Economic Forum on the Middle East has so much potential and it is up to us to realize that potential. As an institution, the World Economic Forum has the ability to convene the very best leaders and share the best ideas to overcome the hurdles that currently restrict the impact that entrepreneurs have on their communities. To this end, I am particularly excited about the interactive WorkSpace session on entrepreneurship. This session has the opportunity to energize and mobilize business leaders to embrace entrepreneurship in the Middle East. If we are successful, we will create opportunities across many industries and jobs for everyone regardless of background.
How can entrepreneurship help fuel a diversified regional economy and meet the challenge of job creation the Middle East faces?
Above all, entrepreneurs are the risk-takers and the innovators in an economy. Entrepreneurs can and should come from all walks of life – young and old, male and female, privileged and under-privileged. As a society, if we give all of those who opportunistically dare the chance to succeed, we will inherently create a much more diversified regional economy. In turn, this will create more jobs, more investment and ultimately more prosperity for all.
What more should be done to support entrepreneurship and public-private partnerships like the Jordan Education Initiative in the region?
"Support" really is the operative word here. Governments, universities, the media, non-profits, and business leaders must come together and work in concert to create the right conditions for entrepreneurship. This means providing education, mentorship, fair access to "smart capital" and less red-tape to give entrepreneurs the skills, the confidence and the incentive to start businesses. Then, we must trumpet these success stories to inspire others to take up the challenge of entrepreneurship.
Ultimately, we can create a disruptive shift in the mindset of a region. When Endeavor was first founded ten years ago, I remember talking with a taxi driver in Argentina. From the conversation, it emerged that he had a PhD in engineering. I asked him why he was driving a taxi and he replied, "What else could I do?" I asked him whether he had ever considered becoming an entrepreneur. He replied, "What on earth is an entrepreneur?" Ten years later, "emprendedor" has a very established place in the Argentine lexicon
What lessons have you seen in your experience of working with entrepreneurs in other parts of the world that could yield successful results in the Middle East?
Every year, Endeavor conducts a survey of its 250+ high-impact entrepreneurs. Accessible capital, of course, is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. From our survey, we have found that giving entrepreneurs the right tools and support to make smart financial agreements is just as important as the capital. Our entrepreneurs have consistently reiterated their need for mentors who provide experienced, objective strategic advice, role models who inspire them to "think big" and a supportive community of like-minded entrepreneurs. It doesn’t matter what country the entrepreneur comes from: these are needed to ensure businesses can scale smartly and profitably.
Saeed Al Muntafiq, Executive Chairman of Tatweer; Chairman of the Board of the Young Arab Leaders; and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, gives his views on some of the issues on the agenda of the meeting which will take place at the Dead Sea from 18-20 May.
In your capacity of Co-Chair, what results would you like to see from the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, particularly in meeting the summit’s theme of "putting diversity to work"?
As an Arab businessman, I am looking forward to the results and initiatives of the dialogue that the Arab private sector will engage in during the 2007 edition of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East. I believe that the theme of the Forum "putting diversity to work" addresses one crucial need for the development of the private sector in the Arab world: growth through diversification.
A secure long term growth for the region cannot be built by autonomous efforts of public and private sectors. There needs to be multilateral collaboration between both key parties stimulated by dialogue, to highlight and develop human capital, seeking to exploit the best economic growth opportunities.
I believe we are experiencing a key moment in the history of the Arab private sector. Some Arab countries have already developed strong service sector-based economies whilst reducing their dependence on the fluctuant and limited energy market. This has created the emergence of new sectors of strength, such as tourism, real estate, entertainment and hospitality that create new growth opportunities and Arab companies are in the best position to capitalize on business opportunities.
The World Economic Forum on the Middle East should become an incubator of Arab initiatives, driven by a close conjunction between the public and private sectors across the region that addresses the wellbeing of millions of Arabs through the embracement of economic diversification. I am particularly excited about the potential of new commitments and look forward to an initiative-based prosperous Forum.
Looking from your situation in the Gulf, how do you see the investment climate in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa at this time of high oil prices?
Arab regional investments have experienced a meteoric rise in the last five years. The Arab community is becoming aware of the tremendous potential that panArab investment opportunities have created. Initiatives such as the Greater Arab Free Trade Agreement (GAFTA) have triggered the economic integration of the region. If we combine this with an increasing liberalization of markets, we are slowly but securely creating business opportunities that were never before available to the private sector. As a result, the sector is allowed to participate in infrastructure development and most Arab companies, whether global or local in reach, are positioning themselves to take first-mover advantage of the enormous opportunities being presented in a market with over US$ 400 billion of investments.
However, these market opportunities have also attracted multinational corporations and Arab companies are therefore also feeling the increasing pressure from these experienced competitors, waiting for the opportunity to capitalize on our regional market.
It is my opinion that the biggest power shift for the Arab companies over the next five years is the renewed focus on capitalizing regional opportunities. If we do not manage to secure our common regional ground, we risk losing out on a great growth opportunity.
How is the latest wave of globalization reshaping the competitive landscape for firms in the region?
Globalization has had a great effect on the Arab region: it has perhaps produced one of the biggest cross-sector transformations in our history, changing the way governments search for growth, the way Arab companies have evolved or opening new markets from which we operate. It is true that some countries have understood this before others and it is the reason why some of them are already taking the lead and acting as models to other Arab nations.
The past ten years have seen dramatic changes in the way our markets operate, the management of our companies and the way governments apply international best practices to execute its endeavours. It is true that Arab companies have to recover the pace with regards to our global competitors. The effect of globalization is clear: it is the "change or be changed" attitude and we must be ready to compete in a new environment. If we do not adapt to the systems and procedures of the global stage, we will not be competitive and leave the door open for external actors to profit from the opportunities we did not use.
I believe the next 10 to 20 years will really mark the success of Arab companies, when market liberalization becomes a reality and Arab companies will compete face to face with multinational companies in, not only regional but any market across the world. This is why I believe that Arab companies must first forge a strong position across the Arab markets and then seek entry into foreign regional markets.
As building projects and cities continue to grow, how can successful partnerships between the public and private sector be built to address environmental challenges linked to rapid urban growth?
Public and private partnerships in the field of environmental protection are critical. The majority of best international champions that are pioneering the concept of sustainable environment result from close partnerships between the private and public sector. This is the case in countries like Sweden, Brazil, Germany and Spain, where governments have taken the initiative and created investment-friendly incentives in the area of the environment, whether in the promotion of alternative energy or in the support of specific industries.
Therefore, international best practices are showing that private companies need incentives to start focusing on developing environmentally-friendly solutions and these should be originated from the public sector.
In the case of the Arab region, we are becoming aware of the importance of the environmental challenges we face, particularly those faced with rapid growth or inefficient use of our energy and resources. We are already starting to see the initiatives that some Arab governments, who are responding to this challenge and innovating this field, by promoting the adoption of sustainable development models and creating new systems to comply to this sustainability. I also believe it is a great field for regional companies to take the lead in, and that there is a need for a regional champion.
Sir Martin Sorrell, Group Chief Executive of WPP and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, gives his views on some of the issues on the agenda of the meeting which will take place at the Dead Sea from 18-20 May.
As an international business leader, how do you see the business environment and the emerging opportunities in the Middle East?
The growth of our business in the Middle East is substantial and ranks with the growth we see in Asia and Russia, albeit from a lower base. We are extremely bullish about the prospects in the Middle East, despite political uncertainties and volatility. We are seeking to broaden and deepen our areas of activity in the Middle East across all our disciplines - advertising, media investment management, information, insight & consultancy, branding & identity, healthcare and specialist communications. To date, we have very strong, creative and powerful businesses in which we are trying to extend our equity ownership and add further capabilities. Dubai has become a very strong centre, replacing Beirut as the key focal point in the Middle East but our operations span Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
What is it about the World Economic Forum's meetings that is different and encouraged you to get involved in this event?
The Forum manages to attract key business leaders, government officials, media owners and editors of a very high calibre. The Forum enables us to review the trends and potential developments in the Middle East and gives us a strong strategic and tactical point of view.
As IT, telecommunications and media and entertainment companies reassess their traditional business models and enter each other's markets, what will be required for companies to stay competitive?
The opportunities in the Middle East are similar to those we see elsewhere. Two challenges are geographical development and technology. In our industry the traditional media are still growing strongly in the Middle East buttressed by new technologies, particularly mobile and internet. The challenges are similar to Asia, Russia, the other CIS countries and Latin America: expanding our business in the traditional media and developing new media presences.
How can governments in the Middle East attract the innovative power of foreign enterprises into the region, as opposed to just their capital and business development capacity?
The region’s governments need the following in place:
Hans-Paul Bürkner, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Boston Consulting Group; and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, gives his views on some of the issues on the agenda of the meeting which will take place at the Dead Sea from 18-20 May.
In your capacity as Co-Chair, what results would you like to see from the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, particularly given the summit’s theme of "putting diversity to work"?
The Arab World is Janus-faced: While the economic face is smiling, the political face seems more worried than ever. While the economy prospers, the political situation remains complex and provides a major constraint to faster growth and competitiveness.
The conflict in Iraq, the unresolved Israeli-Palestianian problem, tensions over Iran's nuclear programme, and the sectarian schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims demonstrate that the quest for peace and stability remains one of the most urgent challenges. But there is also progress on coming together. For example, the ongoing efforts of the Gulf Cooperation Council to achieve monetary union by 2010 are advancing steadily – and closer economic integration may encourage greater political cooperation
In order to sustain and strengthen the Arab World’s competitiveness as well as to maintain its growth momentum, harnessing its diversity will be crucial. The region's rich heritage of religious and ethnic diversity can represent a powerful source of advantage—provided it evolves toward a peaceful "melting pot". Enhancing common understanding and tolerance among faiths and peoples is the first step to fostering peace and stability in the region. And I am confident that the World Economic Forum on the Middle East in Jordan will once again provide a neutral platform to facilitate and enhance the dialogue among parties and to enable new insights into the root causes of conflict.
"Putting diversity to work" also addresses an often-neglected issue: the need to balance the interests of local Arab populations and a rapidly-growing expatriate community. Dubai, for example, has 1.4 million inhabitants—of these 800,000 are South Asians, Westerners, or other foreigners. In integrating these diverse groups and creating a new common spirit, the UAE might become the New York of the 21st century.
As an international business leader, how would you characterize the business environment in the Middle East? What emerging opportunities do you see?
The Middle East is a diverse business region comprising fast growth areas, emerging markets, and less-developed areas. But generally speaking, the whole region and in particular the Gulf Cooperation Council members, are experiencing an exceptional period of economic growth and a booming commercial sector. Although this boom is driven by high oil prices, the region is no longer solely dependent on sun, sand, and oil, but decisively diversifying into other businesses. This growth is helping to fuel an investment and consumption boom that is accelerating the transformation of the region into a global financial and business hub.
The region is undergoing major changes. First of all, there is a fundamental change in capital flows. Financiers estimate that up to US$ 2 trillion in investable assets originate in the Gulf region, the bulk of which is parked abroad, often as American Treasury bills and in places like Switzerland and London. Increasingly, however, Arabs are investing in their home region. Governments are also spending billions of dollars on infrastructure, and national investment agencies are on the prowl for opportunities. As a consequence, we will see a continuous flow of investments in infrastructure, real estate, travel and tourism, as well as in other sectors.
This abundance of capital is complemented by a large pool of labour. And the pool of young blue-collar workers from India, Pakistan, and other countries is growing constantly. These trends favor businesses that are energy-intensive, labor-intensive, and rely on large plants that are typically unwelcome in densely-populated, urban areas, but ideally located in deserts. For example, cement and building materials, chemicals, and other raw materials that can be further processed in Europe or China can be competitively produced in the region.
Another sector which will be at the heart of the region's economic growth is transport and logistics, especially as the UAE emerge as a new hub for long-haul carriers and container shipping. Travel and tourism will see further expansion as well, with huge duty-free stores and shopping complexes, the world's first seven star hotel, luxury beach resorts, and tourist attractions like man-made islands and the planned branches of the Louvre and the Guggenheim museums.
The Middle East is even outpacing the growth rates of other rapidly-developing countries such as China and India. Sooner or later it will produce its own global challengers outside of the oil and petrochemical sector. When BCG published a list of 100 new Global Challengers from rapidly developing economies last year, most of the emerging multinationals had their roots in Asia, Russia, or South America. But I would not be surprised at all to see Arab companies on our next list. An increasing number of companies such as banks, airlines, property companies, construction firms and hotel chains are already regional champions and will soon be entering the world stage.
What is it about the World Economic Forum that inspired you to get involved in this event?
I know no other organization that can convene top policy makers, business leaders, and public figures and engage them in a continuous dialogue to shape global, regional, and sectoral agendas. The World Economic Forum's meetings play an influential role as one of the world's most effective sensing systems for future trends and developments. Whenever I have participated, I have come away enriched with new insights, perspectives, and relationships.
I strongly support the World Economic Forum's central premise that the most urgent global challenges can only be solved by close cooperation between the public sector and an engaged and responsible private sector. Companies are increasingly distrusted—in some recent studies even more than politicians! Increasingly, competitive advantage can be lost and won on the issue of corporate responsibility. More than ever companies need to balance social and commercial needs and explore limits and opportunities for business and society in equal measure.
The World Economic Forum also has a proven record for enabling and facilitating the dialogue between the West and the Islamic World across countries, religions, and ideologies. I am deeply concerned about the potential business implications of the conflicts in the Middle East. Globalized conflicts may disrupt global capitalism. But in the long run, I hope that capitalism will prove to be the more convincing choice. I am confident that the discussions in Jordan will help foster an understanding of the urgency of promoting the peace and understanding that can provide the foundation for turning the region’s diversity into an asset rather than a source division. Personally, I am also eager to learn more about the reshaping and transformation of the region's economies.
Can you tell us more about The Boston Consulting Group’s plans for expanding its activities in the Middle East?
For many years BCG has served multinational clients in their expansion in the Middle East with staff from our global network. With our recently-opened offices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, we have established a permanent local base in the Gulf region to deepen and expand relationships with both local and international clients across all industries.
With the rapid growth of many economies in the Middle East and their diversification away from oil, local companies and public authorities face the challenges of modernization, managing growth, and globalization. In order to be successful in the long term, their businesses must be grounded in differentiated strategy and excellent management skills—which are at the core of BCG's mission and client work.
Our local team in the UAE will enable BCG to participate in, and contribute to the economic transformation in the Middle East. We are committed to serving both our global and local clients and to increasing our investments particularly in the Gulf region. We have assembled a team from across the world, both men and women, from many different backgrounds, with deep expertise and experience in the relevant industries. And we are actively recruiting top talent in the region who combine an Arabic background with an international education or business experience. The diversity within the team will, I am sure, greatly benefit our clients and will also contribute to a better understanding between cultures. We have ambitious growth targets for our Middle East offices and plan to double our revenues within each of the first several years.
If we are not integrated as a region, if we don’t have good channels between ourselves, how can we say we’re ready to be globally competitive?
What we are trying to do in Egypt, and I think that this is more or less a challenge for every country in the region, is to create a true market economy and integrate with the global system. Trade is playing a leading role in that transformation. The region is trying to act more and more as one block, which is vital, because we are dealing with a very complicated world today. We have the multilateral discussions with the World Trade Organization, we have regional discussions, we have bilateral agreements that are taking shape, but at the same time, we’re trying to make sure that we are building capacity within our own countries.
The real test is how to increase the competitiveness in the country itself, and nowhere is this more vital than on the trade front. You can’t be a global player today politically without being a strong player on the trade side. We have very strong examples of this in China and India.
Egypt is like the rest of the world: When you talk about globalization, it is often linked to factories closing down, to lay-offs and so on. It’s not only governments that are at fault here: Businesses themselves are not doing enough to communicate to the public at large the benefits of open trade and globalization. All the statistics prove very clearly that in the past 30 years, free trade has been a significant contributor to economic growth and prosperity, but we have not been able to easily convey the message that opening up the country to competition will create jobs.
The reality is that we have to make tough decisions that sometimes aren’t very publicly popular, at least at first, such as our decision in 2004 to slash customs duties and reorganize the tariff system. That was not an easy step; the challenge was and still is the mindset we must change across the board.
We have lived a 50-year dream of having an Arab Common Market, but the problem was that we were just dreaming — we weren’t doing anything else. We did not have the trade infrastructure and our companies were not thinking regionally. This has changed in the past three to four years. For the first time, we have companies that are thinking regionally. This is making our job as Arab ministers of trade much easier. Before, every minister in the region was under pressure to protect the market. Today, the companies are themselves pushing us to open up the market.
The days of protectionism are over, and we have a number of Arab Ministers who are very clear on that direction.
The Arab world is one of the few remaining regions to have failed to capitalize on their full potential in terms of regional cooperation and trade. We are a region of 22 Arab states and around 300 million consumers that enjoy geographical proximity and historical ties as well as cultural and linguistic affinities. While inter-Arab trade is now accelerating after decades of single-digit growth, it has the potential to represent a far greater proportion of the region’s overall trade with the world.
I believe the implementation of the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA), which came into force in January 2005, is the key to maintaining and promoting Middle East integration and stability. It is a catalyst for growth and job creation that will translate into new opportunities for future generations.
Intra-regional trade grew by 22% last year, up from the single-digit rates that have prevailed during much of the past decade. Egypt’s trade with the region grew by 60% in 2005. Regional integration will be driven not by governments, but by individual Arab companies looking to do business with each other.
Our future will be charted by a new generation of global companies now emerging from the Arab world.
Rachid Mohamed Rachid
Minister of Trade and Industry
Arab Republic of Egypt
Read the summary of the session where the Minister spoke on this topic.
Most of us here are talking about the security – how tight it is. This is a mixed blessing, of course. The extremely tight security can be reassuring; it can also be a colossal pain. To provide a minor example: I can’t take a walk from my hotel. And you can barely turn around without being checked in some way. And yet one recognizes that it is all to a purpose.
Can security be tight without being paralyzing? Maybe – but it is a delicate art.
***
We participants are certainly being treated royally. Normally, when you speak of “red-carpet treatment,” you’re using a metaphor; here that treatment is quite literal. And the red carpets didn’t begin at the Congress Center – they began at Cairo Airport. A person could get used to such treatment; but the carriage will turn back into a pumpkin soon enough.
***
May I comment on the food? Every time I come to the Middle East, I think that this must be the best cuisine in the world. It doesn’t matter where you are: Egypt, Israel, Jordan. The food is mouthwatering (and healthful-seeming, although that may be an illusion). Really, people should be too delighted with what they’re eating to have much time for hostilities.
***
Say this for the Egyptian government: They couldn’t be clearer about their central message. Their signs say, “Egypt: Open for Change”; “Egypt: Open for Challenge”; “Egypt: Open for Competition.” If this is truth in advertising, the Egyptian economy will be in good shape.
***
I thought, on Friday night, returning to my hotel, that I was beholding a naturalist’s nightmare: The Red Sea’s shoreline was ringed with lights. Unnatural indeed. But I confess to rather liking it.
***
Saturday breakfast was had with the prime minister of Egypt, Ahmed Nazif – a star here in Sharm El Sheikh, of course, as in Davos last January. I will admit to being unclear on what an Egyptian prime minister does – what his responsibilities are. But I imagine he does whatever the president orders him to do. (So it is in the U.S. with the vice president – his constitutional duties are very few; he has those powers that the president happens to accord him.)
In my experience, no one in the Middle East talks more encouragingly than Prime Minister Nazif. He’s like those signs put out by our Egyptian hosts – promising openness, change, reform. Perhaps he’s the one who put them out!
After listening to him last January, I wrote that he sounded like a chair-holder at the American Enterprise Institute – the think-tank in Washington, D.C., that is a trumpet of liberalism (in the classical sense).
At the Saturday breakfast, Prime Minister Nazif began by saying that “there is no shortage of issues in the Middle East.” A nice understatement, that. He boasted of Egypt’s 6 percent growth rate, and stressed that the country is opening up politically. “There’s no turning back,” he said. He pronounced last year’s presidential election a success: a clean, First World operation. Yet we know that the democrat Ayman Nour is in jail.
In the course of his remarks, the prime minister allowed, “I realize we’re not totally there yet” – not all the way to bona fide democracy – “and we all realize that.” But “democracy takes time,” and in fact many years. “We have time. We’re not in a hurry.”
Moreover, said Prime Minister Nazif, “some people are scared” of changes afoot in Egypt. But “I’m not.”
And how about those two judges, who were rounded on when they pointed out fraud in recent elections? He referred to them and their supporters as “a special-interest group” – which has a certain connotation, at least in America. I’m not sure that Prime Minister Nazif meant to use that phrase. It seems to me that the independence of the judiciary, and freedom of expression, are universal interests, not special ones.
In any case, Prime Minister Nazif gave no quarter on the judges issue. He said, “The president could have interfered, but he didn’t – we stuck to the law.”
Like most officials and politicians, Prime Minister Nazif has some gripes about the world media. He said that they – perhaps I should say we! – tend to portray Egypt as a glass half empty. But “we are filling in the other half.”
As far as I can tell, Ahmed Nazif is a genuine Arab reformer (to the extent that a member of the ruling elites can be such a reformer). If he is not, he’s certainly well disguised as one. And what can outsiders do except root for these people?
***
As far as I’m concerned, the line of the conference so far belongs to Mark Adams, head of communications for the WEF. With an eye to the clock, he said, “We’d like to run on Swiss time, even though we’re in Egypt.”
***
At these WEF conferences, there’s always one thing I’m amazed at: the variety of cellphone rings. Today, I heard traditional Middle Eastern music out of a cellphone – it might have been a twilight wail in the desert. Remarkable.
***
Following the breakfast with Prime Minister Nazif, some of us had breakfast – or a post-breakfast – with the prime minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz. What a polished performer. No wonder he rose so high in the world of finance, and in the politics of Musharraf’s Pakistan.
Prime Minister Aziz discussed Iran at some length. Iran is a warm ally of Pakistan – even a partner, you might say – and the prime minister made no apology for this. Indeed, he said that Pakistan hopes to “expand” its relations with Iran.
They are working on a pipeline with Iran, for “gas is what we need to fuel our growth.”
About Iran’s nuclear program, he said two things (repeatedly): Pakistan is opposed to Iran’s acquiring an A-bomb; and Pakistan is opposed – absolutely opposed – to any use of force to stop such acquisition.
Well, what if that stance is untenable? What if you can’t prevent Iran from acquiring an A-bomb without the use of force? What is Pakistan’s preference: that the mullahs go nuclear or that force be used against them?
That question was unaddressed.
I asked how the fight against al-Qaeda was going. Prime Minister Aziz did not want to talk about al-Qaeda in particular, but about terrorism in general. He said that governments had to fight terrorism – but then delivered a little sermon on “root causes.”
Yes, our old friend root causes, the RCs. I used to be big on root causes, back when I was in college, I’d say. But then the realization dawned: Lots of people have grievances, including very severe and justifiable grievances. And they don’t commit terror. They don’t go on mass-murder sprees, or behead.
Besides which, a lot of these terrorists are downright wealthy.
And Prime Minister Aziz never answered the question how the fight against al-Qaeda was going. My impression is, fairly well. But the PM of Pakistan would know a lot better.
At one point, Prime Minister Aziz was pressed on Israel – what did he think of the Iranian president’s vow (and Mr. Aziz has met repeatedly with Ahmadinejad) to destroy Israel? The prime minister would say only that he thought every nation had a right to exist, and in peace. Which is something.
These matters aside, Prime Minister Aziz, like his counterpart in Egypt, seems the very model of a Muslim-world reformer. He recited the following string of words: “liberalization, deregulation, privatization, transparency, improvement in governance.” What sweet, sweet music. And what might be called the World Economic Forum’s theme song.
***
Oh, and one more thing. You know how I said I wasn’t sure what the prime minister of Egypt does? I’m not sure about the prime minister of Pakistan, either. But as long as they know . . .
Jay Nordlinger
Managing Editor
National Review
Day 1 — Saturday, May 20, 2006
For the past two days, I have been experiencing ‘pre-Forum’ Sharm El-Sheikh as final preparations were being made to welcome more than 1,200 dignitaries and opinion leaders to our shores for the World Economic Forum on the Middle East. There is no doubt that the pressure is on: The eyes of the world are focused on Egypt for the next three days, but we are definitely up to the challenge. I’m extremely proud and excited to finally see the fruits of all the hard work we have put in over the past nine months.
The achievements we have made during that short time-span are immense. We worked around the clock to ensure that things come together at the right time and place. This has involved cooperation with various segments of the Egyptian government and coordinating between our Ministries, Forum organizers and entities such as the airport, the media and our State Security apparatus.
Things are on the right track: Egypt is open for business, and we want to let the rest of the world know about it.
I am confident that what we have on offer in the coming days will be exceptional, whether we are talking about the facilities, the city, the environment or the Egyptian economic success story itself.
We have a great list of participants who will be engaged in sessions that are very relevant to our current circumstances in the Middle East. It is an agenda that adequately reflects issues that are of real concern to the region during this time of turmoil and transition. Issues affecting youth, including job creation and education, go to the heart of our challenges at a time when governments are debating the question: What is our promise to future generations — and how do we meet that promise?
I plan to focus in the coming days on inter-Arab trade and competitiveness. I’m particularly interested in Arab institutions at present because I want to make sure that we can help create the environment private companies need in order to continue what they have started: moving from being regional players to fully global ones. I truly believe that the strength of the Middle East in the decades ahead depends on how our companies perform in the next few years. And by "our," I mean not just Egyptian, but also Saudi, Gulf and Jordanian businesses.
I want to improve the odds for each and every company that is now a regional player. Expansion is crucial, because our strength as a region — and our economic strength as Egypt — is only as good as the strength of our companies. The issue now is how can we get five, ten — maybe even fifteen — regional companies into the Fortune Global 500 within the next five years.
Coming together for an event like the World Economic Forum on the Middle East demonstrates the extent to which government and business are committed to joining forces and engaging in a joint dialogue to solve our most pressing issues, which I believe can never be resolved by governments alone.
This is a critical time of transition not only for Egypt, but for the region, and we must take this opportunity to discuss where we are going. We are at a crossroads, and the future of the next generation is at stake. What kind of a region are we leaving behind for our youth, and what do they expect from us?
In Egypt, 640,000 students graduate from universities each year in search of a better life. Their future will be decided by what we, as a government, do today — but we can’t work in isolation. That’s why the Forum is such a great venue. Bringing together all the stakeholders allows us to chart a vision of where we want to take future generations.
Rachid Mohamed Rachid
Minister of Trade and Industry
Arab Republic of Egypt
Blog for the World Economic Forum on the Middle East
More than 1,200 government, business and civil society leaders from 46 countries are meeting from 20-22 May in Sharm El Sheikh in pursuit of outcomes to help prepare the way for a more prosperous future for the Middle East. Under the theme, "The Promise of a New Generation", participants will look at the role of business as the engine of job creation and the need for leaders to work together for peace and stability.
"The World Economic Forum on the Middle East will be a chance to facilitate meaningful dialogue on a wide variety of issues including the global business agenda… The theme for this year's meeting will highlight the importance of investing in our future - not just economically, but also politically and socially," said Egyptian Prime Minister, Ahmed Mahmoud Nazif, as participants arrived in Sharm El Sheikh for the start of the meeting, which Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will inaugurate.
Great news is that we've got a couple of participants blogging the meeting - Egyptian Minister of Trade and Industry, Rachid Rachid, is going to post his thoughts on sessions here in Sharm. Also blogging is Jay Nordlinger, Managing Editor of the National Review.
This promises to be a very interesting meeting with all the top issues on the table. Check out the programme, as well as photos from the meeting and also interviews with key participants. I'll be updating the blog with super interesting summaries of sessions as they take place.
The big debate has finally begun around the theme of regional identities and struggles and the first conversations identifying the key challenges have begun to take place in small intimate groups, discussion panels and in the big townhall debate.
The first day of the 2006 Annual Meeting was dedicated to identify the key challenges for each of the major themes of this year's event.
With regards to regional identities and struggles , the main challenges identified, with potential global impact, that face the five major world regions over the coming 12-18 months were:
Key regional questions that need to be addresssed in the next 12-18 months the most pressing ones identified were:
In terms of k
Europe: How can the European Union clearly define the region’s priorities to ensure that the European Union can work. Solving the key governance and leadership issue are key to ensuring the ecomomic development of the region in face of a european identity crises
Middle East: How can governments in the middle east ensure that their elections are not simply “window dressing” exercises benefiting simply national elites? How can the long oil boom ensure regional development and stabilty.
Latin America: How can, or will, the new regional political alliances arising from the coming to power of conservative goverments make sure that the market the reforms accomplished thus far are continued?
The real question however is what are the mechanisms for change that each region needs to adopt in order to provide concrete solutions to the key challenges identified? Are interntational bodies or umbrella organisations going to be able to provide the answers or are the transformations needed only able to be done at a local level?
Welcome to the World Economic Forum Action Group 3 Blog. This action group, formed in our Annual Meeting 2006 focuses on New Mindsets/ Changing Attitudes.
We are looking forward to an exciting and intensive discussion process over the next days. What are the upcoming disruptive technologies changing the way we think and act, how to unleash the power of alternative energy and how to take responsibility for the next generations. What are the new mindsets that we need to create and how do we go about it? These are just some of the questions that we shall discuss on this blog and during our Action Group meetings.
Just “hot air”?
No, we don’t think so.
We would like to especially invite everybody to contribute and to post your opinion. Please enter any relevant messages regarding this theme so we gather and sift through information as we go through our Annual Meeting and also beyond.
Please ensure you sign your name after each comment so we can attribute good ideas later.
We are looking forward to your posts!
Saman Ahsan
Global Leadership Fellow
C-100 Initiative
and
Emanuel Frauenlob
Global Leadership Fellow
Europe
Welcome to the World Economic Forum Action Group Blog. This action group, formed in our Annual Meeting 2006 focuses on Regional Identities and Struggles. The aim of the Action Group is to address how the business community can positively impact the regional economic growth and prosperity of Europe, Asia, Latin America, Middle East and Africa. Topics we hope to discuss (and disagree on) are: - Labor movements, regional immigration, economic and social integration - Social reform: combatting poverty and disease - National identity and religious struggles - New regional balance and emerging hotspots - Emergence, or not, of new leadership So, now it's time to introduce ourselves: two Mediterranean inquisitive minds (an Italian and a Lebanese) who usually write and think in less dry terms ( it's really late right now!!!!!) who will try to navigate you through the thousands of different sessions where the best minds will try providing real answers to serious questions! Jokes aside, we will try to be faithful reporters on the discussions we witness in Davos, on the one side, and critical analyzers on the other. We are hoping to keep you informed and entertained- and we promise to report the fashion faux-pas of the day. Hope you do the same! Thea Chiesa and Diana El-Azar (of course, you knew we were women from all our exclamation marks!)
We asked the Disaster Resource Network (DRN's own site) whether it was undertaking any efforts to assist after the earthquake that struck Iran's Kerman province on Tuesday morning.
This is the response from Bob Bellhouse, DRN Executive Director [edited]:
"As of February 22, Iran has not issued an international appeal, and has stated that, based on its experience gained after the 2003 earthquake in the same region, it is capable of handling the situation. DRN is monitoring the situation."
The Arab World Competitiveness Report 2005 will be released on 2 April 2005.
There is growing consensus among prominent leaders in the Arab world that ambitious and sustained economic and political reforms are the only way to boost the region's growth performance. |
Posted from the U.S
The World Economic Forum has been a model of free speech in terms of its weblog since the Easongate controversy began. However, not releasing the videotape has become a story and a twisted problem all of its own. Citing a combination of off-the record policies and Chatham House Rules, it looks like Easongate is entering an Orwellian world of doublespeak.
Here is what I found regarding the origins and meanings of the Chatham House Rules (from riia.org, The Royal Institute of International Affairs).
BACKGROUND
Founded in 1920, Chatham House, formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs, is based in the heart of London. As a measure of its importance in the world of international relations, the name 'Chatham House' - the building - is now commonly used to refer to the organization.
The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:
"WHEN A MEETING, OR PART THEREOF, IS HELD UNDER THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE, PARTICIPANTS ARE FREE TO USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, BUT NEITHER THE IDENTITY NOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE SPEAKER(S), NOR THAT OF ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, MAY BE REVEALED".
Members should note that general meetings are almost invariably held ‘on the record’ rather than under the Rule and this is unlikely to change with the new amendment. In those cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, meetings can be held ‘off the record’ and participants are not free to make public use of the information received.
EXPLANATION of the Rule
The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.
Meetings of Chatham House may be held 'on the record' or under the Chatham House Rule. In the latter case, it may be agreed with the speaker(s) that it would be conductive to free discussion that a given meeting, or part thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Q. When was the Rule devised?
A. In 1927, then refined in 1992.
Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?
A. There is only one Rule.
Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.
Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House can take disciplinary action against one of its members who breaks the Rule. Not all organisations that use the Rule have sanctions. The Rule then depends for its success on being seen as morally binding.
Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for the larger meetings (so called General Meetings); more frequently for smaller ones, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive.
Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used in the English-speaking world - by local government and commercial organisations as well as research organisations.
The concept of the rule is easy to understand, but does it apply here? The World Economic Forum says it does, and to a degree one has to respect the World Economic Forum's sticking to its rules (although there are some critics already challenging when and how this rule is being invoked in this case, and if it even applied to the room where the discussion was had, and why was it all videotaped).
But there is a person and an organization who can make an ethical stand here: Eason Jordan and CNN. Let me describe what they could say, if the noble concepts of transparency and accountability mattered to them (because the rest of the world reads this invocation of the Chatham House Rules as the "old boy" network protecting its own):
(Note: The following is a satirical letter which I do hope that Eason & CNN would send to the WEF):
Dear Powers That Be At The World Economic Forum:
Thank you so very much for trying to save my hide with the most valuable Chatham House Rules policy. I really, truly appreciate it. However, last night the ghost of George Orwell visited me, and after a long and frightening discussion about Big Brother, media manipulation, and other things I can not even dare mention, I have decided to change my mind. I have nothing to hide. I fully believe in, and accept the concept of transparency at face value. More importantly, I would like to show Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the foreign minister of Afghanistan, an important and fragile new democracy in the Middle East, how we do it in the democractic and free Western World. I would like for him to understand that in the United States we do things differently, and that invoking obscure policies to protect oneself from accountability from what one said is not anything that I, or my network, stand for or believe in. In fact, I would agree to play the videotape, in its entirety, on CNN for all the world to see. It is time for me to standup and be a real leader, and to show the rest of my news friends how a media figure should act. If, when the tape comes out, it does not look so good for me, I will be accountable for what I said, perhaps instituting widespread reform across CNN to become a model of what mainstream media should be. Perhaps I will lose my job - but I do not care. I want to address this issue head-on, with courage and a stout heart, and not hide from it. I appreciate that you stand by your rules, but I believe that in this case, if none of the other panel members object: please, for the good of democracy and transparency, release the tape!
Is that really ever going to happen? In my view, Eason Jordan and CNN have a major opportunity here to redeem themselves and lead a true reform in the quality and verifiability of the news. We all know that they have the power to obtain the release of the complete, unedited videotape, if they wanted to. You can stop the Kabuki dance. Please do so. It would be a real start in a needed change across the board for mainstream media. It would be good for your soul. The truth here would set you free. It would be unexpected, wonderful, even transcendant. It would be a unique show of leadership if Eason himself led the charge for the tape's release. Would it be the business thing to do? Maybe not. But it would be the correct human thing to do, and even your enemies, naysayers, and detractors would have to have some respect for that level of courage to face your own words. Why are you afraid to face the reality of your own words, you who shoot words at others for so long?
-R
Posted from the U.S
Richard Sambrook of the BBC, David Gergen of Harvard, and Senator Christopher Dodd have all weighed in their initial measures on Easongate. Much of this can be followed at Michelle Malkin's site, Hugh Hewitt, and Rebecca MacKinnon. We now understand that the WEF is mulling over the release of the videotape of the session with Jordan, and that there is a small debate brewing regarding the "on" or "off" the record nature of the session. I have also heard from the WEF's Head of Media, Mark Adams, just a few hours ago. Mark was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I sent him recently. Mark explained to me that the session was held under 'Chatham House Rules', which means that the general tenor of the debate can be reported but specific quotes are not attributable, which was done to encourage a full and frank exchange of views. Others have received a similar communication from Mark. I suppose this means that the public will not get to view a copy of the videotape, unless something changes. Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context.
Senator Dodd's statement, "Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel." is perhaps the clearest statement from a major figure present at the meeting. Thank you, Senator Dodd for at least expressing what I felt as well, and for adding some real weight to this issue. If the WEF suppresses the video, the chaff thrown out by CNN and Eason supporters may obscure and cloud all of this to a lack of contextual understanding by audience members. Let's be clear: that is a load of bull. What was said was clearly understood, and no amount of reverse engineering can undo that. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre and then try to say that what you really meant was for someone to just turn down the air conditioning, it just does not fly. There are a multitude of related issues that stem from what happened, but as I watch Easongate unfold, a line in the sand issue has emerged for me. Over dinner with a friend tonight a thought crystallized: the media is either for the right or for the left, and the lying, the twisting, and the skewing of the truth - these aberrations are just ok with us. We the public, the audience, have been accustomed to this way of living, and we are supposedly fine with it. Reporters can throw out half-baked ideas, partial truths, anything they want, as long as this plays into the political mindset of their core audience. We want to hear what they say, true or not, so long as it fits our particular system of thought. The American right is up in arms about Eason Jordan, but will a single Arabic, or European, or even Asian voice sing anything but his praise, or nod in quiet approval?
In Gergen's statement he says "Jordan realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far and walked himself back." I have the greatest respect for David Gergen, but he is being too kind. Jordan walked himself back because he was pushed back, and pushed back hard. It was an outrage to watch in the flesh the process of big media at work, this massaging of facts and distortion of reality to meet the needs of a specific group of news consumers. It was an outrage because these distortions fuel the minds of entire regions of the world, which propagates hatred, bias, and war. The unrestricted influence the media has on world and regional opinions and views is without parallel. I am a very strong proponent of free speech, but when will we achieve speech that is not only free, but factual and trustworthy? The concept of trust is a big one on the web in terms of data communication, password authentications, and machine to machine communication. Can this concept, or standard of trust be applied to the MSM (mainstream media)? What if MSM had to live up to standards of verification, authenticity, and the production of assertions supported by facts? What if viewers could know and understand that a member of the MSM was part of a chain of trusted information, or that he or she was outside the fold? The scientific community works in this very way: there are respected, peer reviewed journals, and there are rags of speculative nonsense. The consumer of the news, vital information that shapes all of our lives, has no such obvious choice.
Rebecca MacKinnon in a previous article writes: "Before we leap to moral judgments or condemnations, we must be realistic. In truth, it is unrealistic to expect commercially-driven TV news companies to do anything other than to seek profit maximization -- while at the same time selling a product that can still be defined as "news" in some way. The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience. Citizens of democracies who want to be well informed must understand this. They cannot expect to be passive consumers of whatever news comes their way from a name-brand news source. They must question, contrast, and compare. They must demand better quality information".
Her observations define an entrenched reality, but Easongate is a challenge to that reality. It is a challenge which says "Enough!". Many people recently said "Enough!" to the tobacco companies, another amoral corporate institution driven by "profit maximization" and "lucrative potential audiences". The product of tobacco companies poisons the body and brings forth cancers and a host of disease and ailments. What of the product of commercially-driven TV news companies, where only profits matter? What does this "product" do to the minds of viewers? "The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience". This is exactly what Eason was doing. Eason gave me his CNN business card after the talk. The back of his card is in Arabic, even though he is based in Atlanta. There is nothing wrong with Arabic - it is a beautiful, expressive language with a rich, wonderful, deep culture. But it is not hard to understand, or guess at, Eason's most lucrative potential audience. The news is being shaped, and it is time to say, "Enough!". Here is a crazy idea: The U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Asia - why can't we all see the same news, the same data, the same reality, and the same truth? Is the truth regional, or is a fact a fact, anywhere in the world? Science is universal - why is the news, merely a reporting of physical events, a distorted, biased mess? Is that too boring? Must we keep stirring the pot of regional conflicts? What Rebecca describes as the cold facts of commercial media, having worked for them, makes me sick. Yes, I am an outsider to this industry, but so are billions of us on this earth. We need a change. Start with Eason, but don't stop. Much of the house is rotten.
A lone blogger named Zed has posted his collected findings on the journalists killed in Iraq. The quality of Zed's work, in its very limited scope (put together with what looks like a hacker's ethic of just finding things out), overshadows the quality of anything that CNN, or most anyone for that matter, has done to defend CNN's chief, in over a week. This is not a comment on the accuracy of what Zed has found, but at least he has tried to pull together some semblance of data, given the lack of verified facts. A random, stray blogger seems to care more about the truth than the MSM. It does not matter if he is coming at this issue from the right or the left - at least he is trying. Zed and I are specks in the scheme of things compared to MSM - where are they on any of this? Easongate is not a good topic for MSM's audience, because it is pointing out the darker underbelly inside of MSM - not a great move for building profits. What we are seeing here is the blogging world practically dragging and forcing MSM to deal with this issue, perhaps even against their will.
The outrage of Senator Dodd is well taken, but will Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying "Enough!"?
Posted from the U.S.
In the plainest language possible:
* "Don't try and raise the issue to one of "blogosphere ethics" ? Hmmm. Ethics regarding responsible speech is why we are discussing Eason at all. Eason made some serious accusations, backpedaled quickly, and is in some very hot water. Ethics and a responsibility to the verifiable truth is why the water is boiling. I agree with Hugh Hewitt that MSM (mainstream media) ethics are being put to a real test here, but I also firmly believe that blogger ethics matter equally, if not more. We should not simply oust the old king and put in a new one just as corrupt. The bloggers should be a model of journalistic ethics and shame the MSM into a new model of behavior and standards.
* Of course both sides (left and right) should be held to the same standards. Ignoring Eason and attacking General Mattis alone is unfair and biased.
* The comparison to Bush or other leaders is about influencing or swaying a mass audience to achieve a goal that you or your interests desire. However, the Bush analogy will go nowhere here. Fine. How about a softball: Michael Moore's Farenheit 911. Freedom of speech? Journalism? Art? Satire? He sure makes a whole bunch of damning remarks and insinuations about many people, clearly feeding his audience. Eason is on track to losing his job, while Moore wins awards at Cannes. Eason is heading to the stake because he is perceived as having a cloak of objectivity, while Moore is already seen as being "out there". Both however, influence the thoughts and behaviors of a mass audience, as do their analogues on the right and in the center. What if Eason claimed that CNN is audience driven "infotainment", and not objective news? My point: if Eason becomes an example, will the same standards be applied by those asking for Eason's head now, regardless if the person is from the left, center, or right? Why does this matter? Because the blog swarm that rips into Eason's hide now will remember these changing times and rip into any side, regardless of left, center, or right persuasion. Be prepared to hand over the heads of beloved partisan leaders in the future. This relatively new blog driven process of accountability, personified here as Easongate, merits some introspection, lest it only be the 21st century equivalent of a hangin' party.
* "It is about whether a senior American news executive can slander the people who are fighting --and dying or being wounded-- and do so without consequence". This is a big component (I agree with Hugh here), but not the only.
It was a sad day when an unknown outsider (myself) had to first intervene and challenge Eason to defend America from such a slander, when plenty of big media and major American political leaders were in the room. I can easily imagine Eason getting away with all of it. But there are some voices in the blogosphere, independant of Eason, who are saying that something has happened to journalists on both sides in Iraq and the issue is not so clean. Amy Goodman interviews media critic and filmaker Danny Schechter about "fishy deaths of unembedded reporters", and a movie about this topic is coming out now. Schechter says: "What's also outrageous is that the American media companies did not demand an investigation of this, did not join Reuters in demanding an investigation. So it just wasn't just complicity and collusion in the coverage of the war but a refusal to get involved in an effort to try to find out what really happened, what the facts were. To try to get at the truth of what happened to their own people. That to me compounds the shock of the way in which the media played the role it did."
There are more datapoints than Eason. While he has lost credibility in his role (where's the objective data?), are these people also liars? Is Schechter fabricating everything? The question goes beyond Eason and his own blunders.
I'll give credit to Hugh Hewitt and others for staying focused on the near term story (Eason Jordan) that will likely soon have a satisfying outcome for some. Hugh is leading a credible, direct charge and is rallying the right and center and will soon become a media folk hero (he may be to some already). As for me, I'm fishing in deeper waters, taking a longer term view. This is a difficult position to understand: Eason has not been able to (to date) verify with objective data what he said, and that does not bode well for him, in his role. But the ghost of what he said lingers out there, and others are asking some hard questions. In the way that the right is damning MSM for not following up on Eason, Schechter damns them as well, for not having the courage to investigate the facts about what has happened to "their own people".
-R
Posted from the U.S.
Swarms of bloggers, in a furious feeding frenzy that I have only seen before in sharks, are tasting blood and moving in for the kill. What has now been dubbed "Easongate" by Rebecca MacKinnon has begun to leak into comics, hundreds of blogs, as well as the Washington Times (Friday 2/5/05 Op/Ed, "CNN's Line of Fire". I just saw on NBC's Chris Matthews show fellow blogger and political pundit Hugh Hewitt break the story on American television, promising that next week Easongate would blow open as big news. A lynch mob of bloggers is asking for Eason's head, and it seems that all of the excitement is moving towards a seemingly inevitable conclusion: the deposing of a news media chief disliked by the right, but apparently loved by an Aljazeera audience to whom he is supposedly pandering.
What Eason said will likely become available on mainstream media and the web in the coming week, so none of Eason's CNN canned responses are really going to help him. It seems that no one ever learns that just admitting that you screwed up is a best practice (see Clinton, Monica Lewinsky). The "persistence of memory" capability provided by technology, omnipresent video, and the web will no longer allow major leaders, as well as the rest of us, to ever escape what we say or do. Like the Biblical concept of the eye that sees all, and the scroll that records all, we are entering an era of informational accountability.
What can Eason do at this point? And what should we, the angry, pitchfork carrying mob of bloggers, do, at a crossroads where the challenge is not only to Eason Jordan, but to mainstream media itself. Let me break from the pack of wolves for a moment and propose a few things.
(1) For the mob of bloggers, please review the proposed Blogger Code of Ethics, whose highlights include: Be Honest & Fair, Minimize Harm, and Be Accountable. Are we all meeting this standard? Before Eason is stoned, are we sure that we are all without sin? Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan (see George W. Bush, reasons for invading Iraq)?
(2) For Eason: Admit your mistake, and use your power and capacity as one of the most powerful media figures in the world to turn CNN into a model of ethical, fair, and fact based journalism. Create new models of accountability where your own journalists will no longer report inflammatory or highly slanted stories just to feed into the appetities of regional audiences. Tell your bosses that the world is changing, the bloggers are watching, and it is high time for a new way to report the news and do business. Stop the ridiculous attempts at spinning bloggers, which only incites them (it's like chumming the water), and get real.
(3) Getting to the truth of this issue. The philosopher Karl Popper spoke of our inability to ever prove that something was true. We are only capable of constantly testing a theory, and so long as a theory can be tested and it is not proven false, it remains the closest approximation to the truth that we, as humans, will ever get. This is a basis for how modern science works. Modern journalism, on the other hand, occasionally resembles the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition.
The statement in question:
(a) Do U.S. Troops specifically target American and foreign journalists in Iraq?
The lack of a solid response by Eason Jordan, and the general silence by the left, seems to indicate that this is a false statement. However, is a random flurry of e-mails and blogs sufficient to throw this quesion away and send Eason packing? There have been a few e-mails, bloggers, and groups that are to a degree supporting this statement. Their voice is clearly not as strong as the blog swarm working to prove this statement false, but they are there. What will happen if a soldier steps forward and speaks his heart, or a journalist on the ground risks his or her life and admits that there is fire to the smoke. We all know that terrible things happened in Vietnam, and why should we believe that in Iraq all is well, or has gone well? In the real war that begun after the war was won, U.S. troops face an unseen enemy who lurks in the shadows, who can be anyone, and who fights with absolutely no rules, no ethics, and no morality. When the Soviet Union fought against Afghan rebels there were many accounts that the Soviet troops had to resort to unusual, terrible tactics to put fear into the hearts of the rebels. They could not fight that war by conventional means. Would the Pentagon want American citizens, let alone the world, to understand in detail what tactics are required to fight an enemy who belongs to no state, who utilizes any means, and who has no boundary of morality or human decency? Can one fight this enemy without becoming like that which we hate?
Maybe Eason Jordan does deserve whatever is coming to him, maybe not. He still has options at hand to come clean and become a new leader of what the media can be, as opposed to what it is. He, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media can come to grips with the reality of a new order, of an uncontrollable blog swarm that will always demand the truth, and demand accountability for everything you do and say. The blog huns are at the gates of old media and you can not hide behind your walls anymore.
The swarm of bloggers have an unusual power and reach, and should they just brush off completely what Eason said? He is not the only one saying it, although no clear spokesperson for the other side of this debate has emerged. Someone must know soldiers on the ground, or journalists on the ground, and there must be members of that group who have a conscience. If anything Eason or a minority of others has said resembles the truth, this truly is the time to come forward. The silence of the other side to this debate only fuels the feeding frenzy, and it will soon be a feeding frenzy of the big media sharks, ready to tear apart one of their own. If another truth is out there, speak now, because your silence is deafening.
-R
Posted from the U.S.
Since I first posted the story, "Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?" last week from the WEF 2005 in Davos, there has been a fast growing interest in what really is a bundle of interconnected, complex issues.
I was very glad to see the post "Eason Jordan clarifies comments" by Rebecca MacKinnon. Eason's voice in this discussion is a very important one, and it should be heard. But I would like to point out that the substance of the issues raised here, as well as the posts by readers in response to the original article, go well beyond Eason. I am still disturbed. I understand the tough position Eason is in. He is the head of a major news organization and he has corporate and managerial responsibilities. But I felt that he was pushing at broader ethical and moral issues that perhaps go well beyond the scope of his current job. One reader, Ken Hechtman, posted a response with some data from the Reporters Without Borders website (http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3). Other readers, including some soldiers, provide a voice from the field which is chilling. I am finding it harder and harder to understand the truth on this subject. I have, and likely only can, scratch at the surface here, but there appears to be some depth and complexity to what really is a tangled web of issues that may be even more frightening when the light of day shines upon it.
I would like to point out Rebecca's courage on this issue. My views and posts are unexpected by the mainstream media, and I have been unknown in that world. The free voices coming from the blog world are a new, uncontrolled force of change in the news world. I am already getting a flood of e-mails, requests to be on various media outlets, and pressure from certain powers that be. Clearly a nerve has been hit. However, Rebecca comes from this world. Eason was a former colleague and superior. But she heard what I heard - all of us in the room did. But few have had the courage to stand up and say something. It would be nice to hear from some of the major world leaders who were in the room with us.
This topic is of significant U.S. and global importance. It digs into the heart of the freedom of the press, corporate influence, and the fabric of democracy. There is not a real solid middle ground here. Do our media and political leaders really want the us to see the truth on a subject like this? Has a veil of influence been pierced?
Here are the issues as I see them:
(1) What really did happen in Iraq to both the U.S. and foreign journalists killed while trying to cover the war? The posts by the readers, in particular a few from soldiers themselves, make this question even more compelling. And what is going to happen to journalists covering Iraq going forward? How does the truth ever become fully revealed and made public? Does the U.N. need to investigate what happened? Is there a major media organization reputable enough to present accurate information on a question which by definition here involves the major media?
(2) What is the responsibility of the media, and of media chiefs in particular (such as Eason) when it comes to how the news is shaped (or not shaped) to meet the needs of their audience? Is the news a business that needs to market to their customers what they want to hear and see, or is there a higher set of ethical and moral responsibilities that come along with the business of news? What is interesting in this case is that I do believe that the exact, objective facts are available with respect to what was said. This particular discussion at the WEF 2005 was videotaped (hopefully it is in a complete and unedited form). The debate about exactly what was said is easily resolved if an accurate transcript of the tape, or the tape itself, can be produced and made public. This kind of transparency lends itself well to global issues where subjectivity can taint any side of a topic like this. It is possible in this case that the subjectivity on one part of this issue can be removed entirely (with the complete videotape and transcript of the discussion).
(3) What is the responsibility of those in major leadership positions when confronted with such issues? In the room with us were powerful men and women, including high ranking politicians, who could follow up in a serious and meaningful way. Where are those voices and where is the followup? This topic should not be buried away in the closet. Is what Eason said the problem, or should we be more frightened at the prospect of journalists being targeted and killed by U.S. soldiers. "I see no problem if the US snipers take them out" was a comment from one reader, as well as "If they chose to take the part of the Baathists and Al kayda (sic), and say, 'embed' themselves among them, they will be killed." At a minimum the data and confusion calls for at least someone of the stature of a U.S. Senator or Congressman to step in now and lead a robust investigation.
(4) The role of the individual in society. In this debate and discussion I made the decision to say something - to speak out. That decision has sparked a lot of things, including some intense pressures coming from a lot of sides. But I now feel an obligation myself to not give in to any side, but to ask for, in fact to demand, an accounting of the truth.
The ability of blogs such as this one to influence and reach the mainstream media is a relatively new mode of the expression of free speech - truly free speech. The balance of power is being disrupted because the corporate media can no longer strongly control what a wide audience sees or hears. We need to continue this reclaiming of the freedom of speech away from corporate media, where revenues and market share will always balance with objectivity - a business is a business and has its own internal logic of building shareholder value. Voices who care primarily about the ethical and moral considerations of an issue are needed if the world is to become transparent and accountable.
Is this the Boston Tea Party of major media? Maybe in a small way. Yes, I am asking some seriously difficult questions, but they do need answers. Is it wrong to ask for the accountability of major news media and their leadership? Aren't we also all disturbed at the prospect of Eason being correct about the targeting of journalists, including those journalists now in Iraq, or on their way there? If I were going to cover the news in Iraq, I would have no idea what to think or expect at this point.
As a techie, I like to see problems solved. Here are some specific actions that should happen:
* Independant, objective, and respected investigation into this topic in a timely way (now, not years from now).
* Disclosure of what is found to the global public.
* Better protections and neutrality status for journalists, subject to harsh, Geneva style accountability if violated.
* More voices should come forward now. The voices of the soldiers in Iraq, as well as of journalists on the ground, need to come out. Let us know in your own words, unfiltered, what has happened, and what is happening. Have courage.
Note: All of the views that I have, and will be expressing in these blogs are my own personal views, and not those of any organizations that I am affiliated with.
-R
Eastern countries have
Alert the Moderator
About this blog
Disclaimer and Guidelines
