Playing for Iranians

Soft power matters. Don't let a hawk tell you otherwise. Pick up Penny M. Von Eschen's Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War or read about the concert the New York Philharmonic gave in North Korea two years ago and you'll see my point. When crafted just right, soft power can greatly assist a nation in accomplishing its various foreign policy goals. However, when crafted incorrectly, soft power can have quite the opposite effect.

This is exactly the effect a recent Iranian exercise in soft power experienced. In case you missed it, the Tehran Symphony Orchestra (TSO) just wrapped up a state-sanctioned European tour this past week. And it appears that that tour really could not have gone more badly. Michael Kimmelman was at the TSO's performance in Geneva and he wrote a ridiculously wonderful high-brow critique.

He initially takes aim at the main musical selection:

"[The TSO] played the so-called 'Peace and Friendship Symphony,' by Majid Entezami, a four-movement jeremiad of martial bombast and almost unfathomable incompetence and silliness, originally performed, according to Tehran Times, last February in Iran to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the revolution. It has been retitled for this occasion.... Suffice it to say that some Iranian musicians, not orchestra members, reportedly complained beforehand that the work wasn’t good enough to export. They were right. Scored for orchestra, chorus and male solo singer, with an electric guitar, amplified piano and battalion of harpists thrown in to increase the racket, the symphony approximates brief melodies in between lengthy drum assaults by burgling hints of 'Dr. Zhivago' and 'Lord of the Rings' along with Vivaldi and 'Fiddler on the Roof.' Otherwise, for the better part of 75 minutes, a whole team of percussionists gravely beat the bejesus out of a variety of very loud drums, to unintentionally (and increasingly) comic effect."

Haughty critique, right? I loved it!

Anyways, while it was a great idea to put an Iranian composer on the program (the New York Philharmonic playing Gershwin's An American in Paris for the North Koreans went splendidly), this piece was wrong for a number of reasons. First off, as you can see from Kimmelman's critique, the "Peace and Friendship Symphony" is just plain bad. It's pretty clear that it never stood a chance of being well-received in the land of an innumerable classical greats. Secondly, what's with the blatant retitling? Did the Iranian government think that people would fail to take notice of this and the piece's origins? Why program something that celebrated an event that many in the West (and in Iran too) look at with an incredibly high level of disdain? The title, moreover, simply rings hollow. When paired with the stops in Geneva and Brussels (international diplomats aplenty), the message isn't too hard to get.

Here's the rub: they're attempting to propagate that message of goodwill when opposition forces at home are being brutally repressed. (The Iranian government just executed two political prisoners and has sixteen others currently imprisoned awaiting trial. Not to mention, the two opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, have called on supporters to take to the streets for protests next Thursday.)

Kimmelman explains how the Iranian government attempted to preempt any disruption at the TSO performances:

"...[T]ickets [were] distributed free by Iran’s consulate to invited guests, no doubt to keep protesters and adverse publicity at a minimum. Geneva’s tourist office handed out a few tickets on its own, as it turned out, padding the enormous Victoria Hall, which was mostly empty anyway. I counted maybe 300 people in an auditorium built for well over a thousand. More than a few of those who came beat a hasty retreat after the music started, including a young Swiss composer and his German date, who, when I asked what they were doing there, said they had landed tickets at the last minute from the tourist office after pleading that they hadn’t anything better to do with themselves that night. They knew nothing about the music or musicians. (Iranian organizers didn’t distribute programs.) Less than a half-hour into the symphony the couple sheepishly snuck out. Who could blame them?"

It turns out that this sort of preemptive effort didn't work at all. As you can see from Kimmelman's piece and the YouTube video above, sizable protests took place at each and every one of the TSO's performance sites across Europe. It's not surprising. You can't expect a soft power initiative to work if you're operating with a dictator mentality. (I guess it's silly to think the Iranian government would operate with any other kind of mindset.) How can you claim to want to showcase your top classical musicians to Europeans and then keep whole scores of people out? And this wasn't even close to showing what Iranian classical musicians can do to boot! Perhaps concert protesters and Westerners alike would have looked at the TSO tour with more pleasing eyes if the performances were completely open and a more meaningful program was put together. Then the music could have spoken for itself.

So, this whole TSO series of concerts made absolutely no sense to me. The soft power initiative was pitiful at best and probably damaged Iran's international image even more at worst. Then I read one sentence from Kimmelman's piece again: "But surely the only reasonable expectation was for the concerts to be spun for domestic consumption, either as evidence that Iran is not as isolated as Iranians may fear or as proof that the West is hostile even to an olive branch from the Iranians." This is a striking idea: using soft power abroad to accomplish domestic goals. Perhaps the Iranian government knew all along what it was doing with the TSO tour then? With all the problems stemming from the last presidential election, I suppose this would be the perfect time to try out such an idea. However, if true, it shows the world just how nervous the Iranian regime has become. Does Iran really warrant the use of anyone's hard power anytime soon then?

- Doug

Geography Trumps Ideology

A few days ago President Obama released his suggestions (don't forget Congress ultimately decides what gets approved and what doesn't) for the 2011 federal budget. As I'm sure you saw, numerous Republicans spoke out against the $3.8 trillion request. For example, Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said the following: "This is fiscal insanity - to continue to grow the government the way we're growing it, to continue to spend the way we're spending.... We're going to pass onto our kids a country that basically is insolvent." I even saw a special on CNN Monday night where they were legitimately asking whether or not the Obama administration had plans on bankrupting the country.

Beyond the partisan soundbites and dramatizations needed to ensure high ratings, one thing in particular about the budget caught my attention: the dismantling of the Constellation program. (The Constellation program was a NASA initiative that sought to put American astronauts back on the moon by 2020.) Heeding the advice of a nonpartisan committee assembled to study the future of NASA space programs last year, President Obama stated in his budget that Constellation was too costly, "behind schedule, and lacking in innovation" to be allowed to move forward. Furthermore, in addition to halting the 2020 mission to the lunar surface and advancing a consortium of different space initiatives, the president also announced that launch services would be privatized.

When I first learned of all this NASA-related news, I thought that no one would be happier than Republicans. The president wants to increase competition and spur innovation by turning to the private sector for launches? This takes a cue right from their playbooks! (It also nicely chips away at all those ridiculous claims that Obama wants to socialize everything.) In addition, a program found to be riddled with problems was cut during what Republicans keep reminding us is a fiscally unstable economic climate. (Since the same committee that pushed for privatization also made the recommendation for Constellation, the results don't appear to be ideologically skewed, right?) So why, in spite of all this, are some Republicans upset?

It turns out that ideology doesn't matter much when your constituents work for the program about to get cut. Remember where the main NASA bases of operation are located? Well, they're in decidedly Republican territory: Texas, Alabama, and Florida. Politicians from these states in particular have, not surprisingly, come out swinging against the president's plan for Constellation. (Not much gratitude for the privatization part either.) "Congress cannot and will not sit back and watch the reckless abandonment of sound principles, a proven track record, a steady path to success, and the destruction of our human spaceflight program," said Richard Shelby (R-AL).

I can't say that I'm at all surprised at this reaction. (We've seen something similar recently.) At the end of the day, being responsible to your constituents will always trump party ideology. The Constellation program will most likely be cut when all the dust settles. Should members of Congress from affected areas support the cut? That's a stupid question. However, there's no harm in making it look as though you're putting up a real fight. You can use those quotes when you're stumping for votes during the next election cycle.

See how it works? Sometimes, it's just amusing to see politics in action.

- Doug

Reaching New Levels

Do yourself a favor. Take three minutes and watch the video clip above. It's bad, really bad.

I'm not at all surprised when I hear a strong conservative slant to any of the stories profiled on Fox News. (Don't even get me started on the whole "Fair and Balanced" slogan.) This piece on textbooks, however, is really something special. It has honestly got to be the most biased thing I've ever seen come out of something claiming to be a news organization. And this isn't even from their admittedly opinionated primetime lineup! Perhaps people will start to think twice now.

Anyways, as you saw from the video, the host interviews Tucker Carlson about an upcoming vote on potential changes to history textbooks in Texas. (Nowhere is it stated that Carlson is conservative. Minor point, but I'm still counting it against them.) While Carlson does a good job explaining why changes to Texas textbooks have ramifications for schoolchildren across the entire country, what follows is of little worth.

My favorite part is when they bring up that graphic. In one quick move they not only make the audience aware of the fact that Rene Nunez is a Democrat (again, where's Carlson's label), but also they start to implant the idea in your head that he's a radical. (It's funny because the quote is the complete opposite of radical.)

Now, in case you missed their graphical cues, Carlson then verbally fleshes everything out. Basically, Nunez is a corrupt leftist hellbent on taking Christmas away from American schoolchildren. And since Christianity is the majority religion in America, it's pretty silly (it's the only way to describe his flippant tone) to want to deemphasize it in history textbooks. (Who cares about minority religions or the separation of church and state!) The host says, "This is scary." Oh, and global curriculums are also pretty silly (again, Carlson's tone, not mine).

If you still didn't get the "right" message after all that, Carlson concisely concludes: "The effect is to deemphasize Christianity as a world religion."

But wouldn't placing Christianity alongside other religions make it look like a world religion more and not less? I mean, practicing Christians do reside all around the globe. They're actually the largest of any group. So what is he talking about? Alas, the video is full of illogical statements. You get the picture.

The main issue here is that the Texas State Board of Education is being completely mischaracterized. (I've written about the board at length in the past.) It's a body that is overwhelmingly made up of evangelicals and they are widely know for pushing conservative themes. Put simply, there's absolutely no way that any liberals on the board could ever get anything passed. It's actually pretty laughable that Fox News would even suggest such an idea.

But Fox News is the highest in ranking and revenue. Someone over there had to be cognizant of the board's makeup, right? What else could they be up to with this segment then?

If I had to guess, I'd say that their efforts were partly aimed at riling up a portion of the Republican Party's base: the Christian right and xenophobes/America supremacists. It's not them that I'm worried about though. (Trust me, they'd be voting Republican with this segment or without it.) I think Fox News also had hopes of playing into the fears many everyday Americans now possess because of 9/11. Mention to them that a Democrat wants to teach their children Islam and it probably won't be too hard to squeeze out a few more votes for the GOP.

Don't fall for these partisan tactics though. Retreating into what you know can be a slippery slope. It may start with putting the kibosh on studying Islam and lead to a "My children aren't learning Spanish because we speak English here" sort of sentiment pretty quickly. The bottom line is that we mustn't be afraid of giving our children a wide-ranging education. There's an entire world out there, one with different religions (and languages too). And we undeniably live in a globalized economy today. Exposing our students to all the diversity that abounds is only going to help ensure they can succeed in the future. Ignorance is not bliss nowadays.

Shame on Fox News for broadcasting a piece that plays into people's fear of the unknown. And Tucker, Christmas is not a world religion. Check your talking points again. You're welcome.

- Doug

Small Cars, Big Problems

I recently read an article in The Economist about the growth potential that developing markets such as China and India offer global auto manufacturers. One of the most notable recent examples of the promise of such markets is the Tata Nano. Pioneered by the Tata Group, the Nano is the least expensive mass produced car in the world, priced at under $2,500. The innovation of the Nano makes car ownership a true possibility for a large segment of the Indian population, and will undoubtedly spur a flood of similar ultra low-priced vehicles from other automakers as they strive to remain competitive.

However, a country like India lacks the infrastructure to support a sudden influx of vehicles on the road. For example, inside many of the neighborhoods in and around Delhi, it is common to see cars crammed on both sides of the street. These streets, which could earlier accommodate two-way traffic, now barely permit the passage of a single lane of traffic. Over the last two decades alone, as the population of the cities burgeoned, owners of single-family homes constructed upwards, increasing the number of people – and cars – in their neighborhoods two- to four- fold. The situation is just as dire on the major roads of the city. Traveling a distance of just 15 kilometers (10 miles) in Delhi can take up to an hour during peak times of day.

Some changes in recent years have somewhat reduced the problem of congestion in Delhi. The construction of freeways and flyovers has improved connectivity and reduced travel times. The passage of commercial trucks during peak hours has been recently banned.

However, despite these measures, a sudden increase in the number of cars is likely to have negative consequences, such as overburdened infrastructure, exacerbation of an already severe pollution problem in major cities (resulting in an increase in respiratory problems and other health conditions), congestion, and more hazardous driving conditions. An increase in poverty is also possible, as slum dwellings may be destroyed and homeowners may be pushed out of their homes to develop new roads and freeways to support the proliferation of cars.

What role should auto manufacturers play in mitigating these side effects of their growth ambitions? What responsibilities do they have? And what role can the government play to encourage or require socially responsible behavior by the auto manufacturers?

- Nina

A Terrifying Headache

As you can see from that headline, the 9/11 plotters are not going to be tried in lower Manhattan after all.

The Obama administration acknowledged (for all intensive purposes) on Friday what a number of prominent New York leaders and community representatives have been increasingly saying as of late: the security fees and potential for disruption would be far too high for a 9/11 terror trial set in lower Manhattan. Coming off the missed self-imposed deadlines for health care reform and the closing of Guantanamo Bay, this latest error is all the more embarrassing for the president. (I've mentioned his penchant for risky deadlines once before.)

So what exactly led to this latest misstep?

Surprisingly, it's actually pretty straightforward: the Obama administration failed to draw up a comprehensive plan with the requisite officials in New York before making its intentions for the trial's controversial location known. In other words, it acted prematurely.

Take a look at what one senior official from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office said:

"When [Attorney General] Holder was making the decision, he didn't call [Police Commissioner] Ray Kelly and say, 'What do you think?' He didn't call the mayor and say, 'What would your position be?' They didn't reach out until after it got out there."

I'm inclined to believe this official is telling the truth. Why? Well, if the Obama administration had spoken with and then drawn up a workable plan with the appropriate officials beforehand, those officials clearly wouldn't have been working this whole time to craft such a plan. All the various difficulties now known would have been fleshed out. Those difficulties could have been handled or the whole idea for a lower Manhattan trial could have been scrapped with the public none the wiser.

It gets worse though.

Even with word that the trial location will be moved landing on the front page of the New York Times yesterday, Police Commissioner Kelly apparently had no foreknowledge. Paul J. Brown, a spokesman for the commissioner, said, "We were not aware of [their decision.]"

What in the world is going on here? This blatant lack of communication makes the Obama administration look incredibly naive. I support trying these terrorists in a civilian courtroom (as does prominent conservative legal scholar Steven G. Calabresi), but the entire endeavor must be completely planned out before wide-ranging announcements are made. Otherwise, you're just giving your critics easy points.

- Doug