| 31 August 2004 | Tuesday | 14 Rajab 1425 |
Diplomacy and real politik
Olympic shames
Uniting to fight terrorism
New York under siege
A quick look at Pakistan's economy since the country gained independence in 1947 reveals an interesting pattern. In terms of the growth in GDP and increase in per capita income, the economy did very well in the 1960s, and again, in the 1980s.
Once again, there is a noticeable pick up in the financial years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. In other words, the economy has done well under military rule. However, there is now a growing realization that growth alone does not better the lives of the people.
How has Pakistan fared in terms of alleviating poverty, improving income distribution and providing people access to basic goods and services?
Digging a bit deeper into the performance of the economy, and looking at it from the perspective of the poorer segments of the population reveals the same pattern as do GDP growth rates.
Once again, the incidence of poverty declines when the military is in charge. At the time of independence some 60 per cent of the population lived in absolute poverty, a condition of life in which the basic needs of those who are affected by it are not fulfilled.
Those who are absolute poor go hungry most of the time; they cannot provide basic health care to themselves and their families; children cannot be sent to schools; and jobs, which even if available, are mostly in the low-wage informal sectors of the economy. With 60 per cent of the population living in poverty, Pakistan in 1947 had as many as 21 million people who suffered from this kind of deprivation.
In the period 1947-58 - the period during which politicians ruled with the help of the civil bureaucracy - the country added eight million people to its population.
There was no decline in the incidence of poverty, in part because of the arrival of millions of people as refugees from India. A very large number of these people arrived as destitutes, leaving behind their properties and most of their possessions.
It took about a decade and a half to settle these people on the lands and businesses left behind by the six million Hindus and Sikhs who had gone to India.
When Ayub Khan put Pakistan under martial law in October 1958, the pool of poverty had increased by another five million, to about 26 million people in a population of some 44 million.
Economists have disputed the impact of Ayub Khan's model of economic growth on the incidence of poverty as well as on income inequality. No firm data is available to suggest what happened to these measures of welfare during this period.
My own estimate is that while inequality increased, the incidences of poverty declined significantly. It couldn't have been otherwise. There is much empirical evidence gathered by the World Bank and other development institutions to suggest that rapid economic growth, even with some worsening in income distribution, reduces the number of people living below the poverty line.
Even more important, agriculture contributed significantly to Pakistan's economic growth during this period. The green revolution was led by the small and medium sized landholders and they were much more inclined to user labour-intensive techniques than large farms.
Also, the Ayub government launched an ambitious programme of rural works which was focused on building infrastructure in the countryside by using surplus labour.
When Ayub Khan was forced out of office in March 1969, Pakistan's population had increased to 56 million. Of this some 40 per cent - or 22 million people - lived in poverty.
This was a generally accepted estimate. In fact, it was this estimate, made popular by Mahbubul Haq in his writings and speeches, that introduced the concept of the "bottom 40 per cent" in development thinking.
The collapse in December 1971 of the second military government headed by General Yahya Khan brought the civilians back to power. It also saw some increase in the incidence of poverty, attributed in part to the consequence of a sharp slowdown in economic growth, the result of a series of failed monsoons, and the outcome of the deep restructuring of the economy undertaken by the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
A committed Fabian socialist, Bhutto brought dirigistic management to the economy. There were far-reaching consequences of this structural change, including the impact on the poorer segments of the population.
A reduction in GDP growth and a decline in the rate of growth of agricultural output contributed to keeping the incidence of poverty at the level reached at the conclusion of the Ayub Khan period.
In July 1977, when General Ziaul Haq removed Bhutto from power, Pakistan's population had increased to 72 million of which 28 million were absolute poor. This was six million more than in 1969.
With the advent of the Ziaul Haq rule, a firmer statistical picture is available in so far as the incidence of poverty is concerned. More systematic surveys were conducted in this period that provide a better indication not only about the number of people living in poverty but also the characteristics of the poor.
This period not only saw a sharp pick-up in economic growth, it also witnessed Pakistan's second green revolution, this time centred around increasing production and productivity of cotton, the country's main cash crop.
Since cotton is grown in the areas that were poorer to those producing rice and wheat, there was a tremendously positive impact on the incidence of poverty of this development.
The Zia period ended in August 1988, with his death in an air crash. At that time Pakistan had a population of 97 million, of which about 18 per cent or 17 million were poor. This was a remarkable development. While the size of the population in this 11 year period increased by 25 million, the number of poor declined by 11 million.
Was the state under General Zia ul-Haq responsible for these happy results? Zia himself suggested that his Islamization programme, much of which was focused on the introduction of zakat, contributed significantly to this development.
This Islamic tax on the rich to raise resources for distribution to the poor may have contributed a little to the decline in poverty. However, the two more important reasons were the growth rates based on agriculture and large amounts of remittances sent by the Pakistani workers in the Middle East.
Most of these workers came from very poor households; most of them remitted the bulk of their large earnings to their families; and, contrary to some impressions at that time, most of this money was used to meet the basic needs of the recipients. More than anything else, remittances played a significant role in reducing the level of poverty.
This trend towards reduction in the incidence of poverty was reversed during the decade of the 1990s. Once again a slowdown in the rate of economic growth played an important role.
This period also saw a significant decline in remittances, particularly after the first Gulf War when a large number of Pakistani workers in the Middle East were sent back home.
By 1999, the incidence of poverty had climbed back to 36 per cent of the population. Since the population increased to 131 million, the number of people living in poverty reached 47 million.
The size of the poverty pool began to increase at the rate of 10 per cent a year, or at a rate four times the growth of population. This is when the military returned to power under General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999. On the eve of Pakistan's fourth military rule, the country was faced with an extremely serious crisis of poverty.
Unlike the performance of the economy under General Ayub Khan and Zia ul-Haq, growth did not immediately pick up with the transfer of power back to the military in 1999.
In the first full year of Ayub Khan's stewardship, GDP increased by 4.9 per cent compared to only 0.9 per cent the year before. In Zia ul-Haq's first year in office, growth in GDP climbed to 7.7 per cent compared to only 2.8 per cent the year before.
In 2000-2001, the first year of General Musharraf's rule, GDP increased by only 2.2 per cent as against 3.9 per cent in the year before. Yearly growth data can be very misleading and should not be used to draw firm conclusions.
Nonetheless, the economic strategy followed by the Musharraf government put emphasis initially on stabilization rather than growth and poverty alleviation. In the first two years of Musharraf's rule, the incidence of poverty probably increased.
In the middle of 2003 when growth returned to the country, there were some 50 million people living in the pool of poverty, the largest number in the country's history.
It would be tempting to conclude from these broad trends about GDP growth and changes in the incidence of poverty that the military was much more adept at economic management than the civilians; that democracy failed to deliver growth and palpable improvement in the lives of ordinary citizens.
Economic performance was particularly poor in the first post-independence decade and again in the 1970s and 1990s - the three periods when politicians were in charge. In the 1950s and 1990s, the economy suffered because of the quick changes in governments which meant that a consistent set of policies could not be followed.
In the 1970s, while there was political stability, the economy was profoundly restructured by an expansion in the role of the state. Also, the political administration at that time was deeply suspicious of private enterprise and private entrepreneurs were fearful that their investment could be subject to expropriation by the government.
What this points to is not that the military was necessarily a better manager of the economy. It indicates that military rule brought political stability and a continuity of economic policies and these always help economic growth.
The periods of Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq saw the same group of civilian managers stay in charge of the economy. The military did not interfere in the day to day management of the economy.
It only provided broad oversight. President Ayub Khan was more involved himself in economic decision-making than was General Zia ul-Haq. However, even Ayub left the formulation of broad strategies in the hands of economic experts.
Economists never tire of repeating that what the market dislikes the most is uncertainty. This was what troubled the Pakistani economy the most during the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s.
Investors were not confident that the assumptions they were making about the future would prevail. Of these three periods, the 1990s were the most uncertain since each government that came to office was happy to change policies adopted by the one it succeeded.
No serious attempt was made by the politicians to restructure the economy and to remove the weakness that had caused growth to stagnate and poverty to increase. With the economy recovering and the poverty pool beginning to shrink, the time has come for a serious restructuring of the economy, to get it off the roller coaster ride it has been on for almost six decades, and to lay a solid foundation for a robust structure that would last and grow in size.
Diplomacy and real politik
The Foundation for Development of Moral Revival, founded by the late Admiral H. M. S. Choudhri, discussed at its first meeting since its founder's demise, the issue of reconciling realpolitik with principled diplomacy in meeting the challenge of conflict resolution.
Preventive diplomacy and the reduction of conflict at any stage of its evolution should be an integral part of the foreign policy, even where the geo-economic or geo-strategic interests of states are not involved.
Perceived strategic national interest in economic and security areas, and the hegemonic impulses of the ruling establishment, disguised as national interest have, however, become the building block of realpolitik.
National policies are invariably tested on this touchstone and accepted or rejected on this score. Vital elements of inter-state relationship including covenants and treaties, the principles of world order as enshrined in the UN Charter, International Laws of peace and war, have all been sacrificed at the altar of national expediency.
A glance at the contemporary scene shows the subordination of principled diplomacy (whether emanating from the principles of religion, ethics and morality or from the those of inter-state relations) to the dictates of realpolitik.
Regrettably, the possibility of major world actors agreeing to reconcile realpolitik with principled diplomacy, a most desirable objective in the long term interests of world peace and conflict resolution, is extremely remote.
The modern connotation of realpolitik derives from the growth and development of nation states. The nation-state, as the over-arching repository of popular allegiance, especially in the era preceding the growth of internationalism and the concept of the family of nations, arrogated to itself the guardianship of national security, integrity and independence, and later, the goal of economic development.
The policies of expediency, characterizing the cynical state craft of nation-states, led Dr. Johnson, the distinguished man of letters, to make the memorable statement that "If we do for ourselves what we do for our countries, what scoundrels we would be!"
Real politik has from time immemorial been an important element of state craft, irrespective of the form of the state. In the current era even the charter of the UN gives binding authority to the world body only in case of Security Council decisions under chapter VII, qualified by the veto of the five permanent members.
On the other hand, resolutions of the UN General Assembly, representing all member states, are treated merely as recommendations. The world court itself has no obligatory jurisdiction. The US has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, without any real justification.
The US has extended the conception of realpolitik to the extent of pursuing a dangerous and destabilizing strategy of unilateral diplomacy and pre-emptive use of force.
American policy in the Middle East is bereft of any accepted principle, and is based largely on the need for oil, the pursuit of hegemony and the aggressive build up of Israel.
On Kashmir, the principles and rights enshrined in the UN Charter as central elements (including the right of self-determination, the will of the people, the sanctity of UN resolutions, have all been jettisoned by the West at the altar of self-interest and political expediency.
Even the Islamic world has allowed considerations of political expediency to weigh in their support for the Kashmir cause. While the US, the erstwhile Soviet Union and a number of major powers have been criticized for naked power politics, India is a rare example of a state having successfully used a facade of non-violence, non-alignment, internationalism, secularism, and non-participation in military alliances, to pursue hegemonic and militaristic policies, particularly in this region.
These have been based solely on perceived interests without regard to the UN Charter, international obligations or the right of self-determination. If the serious turmoil, unrest and confrontations affecting the world community are to be overcome in the interests of peace, development and conflict resolution, the major states would have to reconcile their present policies of national expediency and realpolitik with elements of principled diplomacy, including the purposes of the UN Charter and the sanctity of international agreements, as well as age-old canons of ethics, morality and religion.
No reference to principled diplomacy would be complete without a reference to religion which is an important element in both conflict and conflict resolution.
Since religion addresses fundamental elements of human life such as right and wrong, fear and faith, freedom and obligation, it is an integral factor in individual or social conceptions of peace.
While basic principles of ethics and morality are common to most religions, it is the divisive exploitation of religion, which reduces or nullifies religion's role in conflict reduction. We must seek the common ground in various faiths.
Linked with the requirement of justice and human welfare, peace occupies a central position in the Islamic creed which postulates a principled-based order. At the same time, the Holy Quran warns against the committing of excesses even in the pursuit of rights or in combating injustice.
In the western approach, peace is considered separately from justice and is equated with the absence of war and with stability and order, guaranteed on occasions by hegemonic influence.
To meet the current political and social challenges facing the Islamic world, it is necessary to revive the practice of ijtehad. The established principles of ijtehad, applied in the light of contemporary interpretation, should be brought to bear on the burning questions facing the Islamic world.
The Islamic world does not have to choose between Islam and modernity or between Islam and democracy. To meet the challenges of the new-world, the practice of ijtehad needs to be revived. Ijtehad in the sense of interpretation and reasoning based on sacred texts should provide a contemporary solution for the troubles of Muslim societies.
In the past, the practice of ijtehad was opposed by religious leaders and by repressive ruling establishments in Islamic states. The thrust, worldwide towards more democratic dispensations and the vastly enhanced freedom of expression should provide a more congenial climate for the flourishing of ijtehad.
Olympic shames
The Olympic Games will cost Greece a cool US $8 billion. Can Greece afford it? Of course it can't. Any regrets? None at all. Who will pay? The Greek people though not necessarily.
It may be possible to conjure up some sort of imminent threat to civilization and a chunk of the national debt could be written off. It is not the price but the value of the Olympic Games that has to be measured.
For two weeks Athens basked in the sunshine of the world's attention and the sorrows of Najaf and the brutalities of Abu Ghraib were pushed into the obscurity of "other news." It felt good but the Olympics are over and we must return to a real world.
It is worth pointing out that Pakistan did not win a single medal falling behind Trinidad & Tobago and India with a population of a billion managed a silver medal.
Both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers so it is not as if we were dunces. The United States topped the medals table and George Bush could have said once again " Mission Accomplished " but those damn Iraqis let him down once again.
He was rooting for the Iraqi football team to win the gold medal so that he could take the credit. Indeed there were reports that he might go to Athens if Iraq's football team reached the finals. They were pipped by Paraguay in the semi-finals.
My mind goes back to the 1992 Cricket World Cup and when Pakistan reached the final, there were strong rumours that Nawaz Sharif who was then the prime minister was enroute to Melbourne.
I was told by someone close to him that he changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that Pakistan could lose and it wasn't politically prudent to be associated with failure. All this was in the realm of gossip and it is entirely possible that's all it was.
But there were two young Pakistani girls, Rubab Raza and Sumaira Zahoor who did the country proud. They did not win any medals, indeed didn't get past the first round but they competed.
There is a culture of disapproval of women taking part in international sports in our country and without wanting to go down that road, it needed a level of defiance, if not courage to set their sights as high as the Olympic Games and reach it.
Good for them and good for Pakistani women and even better for the Pakistan image which is sullied by the perception that our women are far from being emancipated. In this category would fall honour-killings and the Hudood laws.
Hockey is a subject that I will touch upon in another column I write but there is the familiar hand-wringing and chest-beating and the search for scapegoats and the Dutch coach is an easy target.
Has anybody given thought to the possibility that other countries may have improved, that rather than our standards having gone down, the standards of others may have gone up.
I don't follow hockey closely but I recall that there was a great deal of anxiety whether we would even qualify for the Olympics. Pakistan seems to be slow in responding to the fact that the world has moved on, not only in sports but in other fields as well.
We seemed to be trapped in an obsolete status quo. But look at Amir Khan, the British boxer who is of Pakistan origin. He made it to the top and had to overcome the obstruction of racial prejudice and all other prejudices at the community level that Pakistanis, indeed Muslims, have to confront in Tony Blair's Britain.
That Pakistan failed to win a single medal is not a reflection on the talent available but on the ' system' that bestows its blessings on the mediocre because mediocrity does not threaten the 'system' itself.
But the Athens Olympics were not able to overshadow the many scandals that emerged, chief among them being doping which is considered a form of cheating which I suspect it is. Most sports is plagued with this menace but surely it is not new. Sportsmen want to enhance their performance because sports is all about winning and winning is not about personal glory but about getting rich.
Thus there is the vicious cycle. But it's not just the athletes who cheat. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has had a fair share of its own scandals. The awarding of the Olympic Games to a particular country or city has involved huge sums of money and gifts changing hands, almost as bad as Halliburton getting the contracts for the re-building of Iraq.
Mark Spitz, the swimmer who in his glory days won a handful of Olympic gold medals said about the Olympic Games that they were about money, more money and even more money.
In a sense the Olympic Games are a true reflection of the times we live in. It is being said of the American elections that they are about the best government that money can buy. Doping is one of the ways that sportsmen cook the books.
Once in a while they get caught much in the way that accountants in some big corporations get found out. Perhaps, it might be easier if doping was to be made legal. Then the contest would be between pharmaceutical companies. May the better performance-enhancement drug win.
The Olympic spirit died a long time ago when national anthems were played at medals' ceremonies or when Hitler walked out at the Berlin Olympics in 1936 because he couldn't see a black man Jesse Owens, tear to shreds his master race doctrine and from then it has been downhill, from the US boycotting the Moscow Games and the Soviet Union boycotting the Los Angeles Games.
And now George Bush throws his oar in by putting Iraq and Afghanistan into his political advertisements. And the Greek government must borrow some more money. Play now and pay later!
Uniting to fight terrorism
Terrorism poses a grave threat to international security. As a western country with global interests that values peace, religious freedom, respect for the rule of law and tolerance, Australia is a target.
But the target of the contemporary transnational terrorists is as much mainstream Islam and moderate Muslim countries as it is the West. So Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike have a common interest in combating this threat.
The Australian government's White Paper on terrorism, Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia, sets out the nature and international dimensions of the terrorist threat to Australia and our interests, and how the government is responding.
We see this threat as complex and evolving, and one that is likely to persist for some years despite the progress made in capturing terrorists and disrupting their networks.
This new and potent form of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim extremists whose objectives and methods are alien to the overwhelming majority of peace-loving people.
It knows no geographic or moral boundaries. The targets and scale of the terrorists' carnage are limited only by the weapons they can access and the opportunities they can identify. Facing this challenge demands new, innovative and robust responses from Australia and the international community.
Strong, effective international cooperation is essential - no country can combat the threat from transnational terrorism on its own. We must continue to adopt a vigorous approach to fighting terrorism.
The pursuit of extremist groups that carry out terrorist attacks must be single-minded and unrelenting. And the international coalition against terrorism needs to stand firm in the face of the terrorists' violent threats and actions. Clear-sighted political commitment backed up by a commitment of energy and resources are vital.
Australia is working closely with our international partners to combat the immediate terrorist threat and reduce that threat over the longer term. We strongly support the work of the UN and other multilateral bodies engaged in fighting terrorism.
Australia is an active proponent of counter-proliferation measures like the Proliferation Security Initiative which are an important practical means of preventing WMD technology and materials getting into the hands of terrorists. But it is in our own region that we are making our most substantial contribution to the fight against terrorism.
Almost two years after the Bali attacks, Australia's counter-terrorism cooperation with our regional partners is stronger than ever. Our network of nine bilateral counter-terrorism arrangements underpin practical, operational-level cooperation between police, intelligence, border management and other agencies.
They also support measures to strengthen the capacity of countries in the region to combat terrorism. The unprecedented cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the Bali bombings highlights the value of these arrangements.
Regional organizations are playing a valuable role in strengthening the region's counter-terrorism defences. Recognizing the economic costs of terrorism, APEC has become an important forum for discussion and cooperation on terrorism-related issues, especially core problems such as transport security and border management.
ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering are all supporting counter-terrorism initiatives.
The recent establishment of the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation - a joint initiative by Australia and Indonesia - will further boost the capacity within the region to fight terrorism and other transnational crime.
In the Pacific, the Pacific Islands Forum is helping to implement counter-terrorism legal and administrative regimes in Pacific island countries.
While practical security cooperation is important right now, long-term success in the fight against terrorism will depend on winning the battle of ideas. It is the terrorists' extremist ideology that lies at the heart of the contemporary terrorist threat.
We must challenge the ideas terrorists use to justify their actions. Muslim communities around the world have a particularly important role in denying any legitimacy to the terrorists and I encourage them to speak up - as some of its members have been doing - to condemn terrorism unequivocally.
As part of our efforts to enhance international understanding of religion and cultures - an important element in the fight against terrorism - Indonesia's foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, and I have agreed to establish an inter-faith dialogue involving religious leaders from around the region. This initiative complements Australia's other programmes that strengthen links with mainstream Islamic organizations in the region.
The Australian government will continue to search for new ways to confront terrorists and challenge the ideas they represent. We are committed to this struggle and to continuing our efforts to build effective cooperation with our neighbours and other international partners to counter terrorism.
We have an obligation to the Australian people and a responsibility as a member of the international community to do so. Denying terrorists victories and ensuring global peace and stability is something we all want.
The writer is the Australian minister for foreign affairs.
New York under siege
Wherever he is, Osama bin Laden will be beaming as he watches my beloved hometown, New York City, turned into an armed camp, and threatened by more than 100,000 angry anti-Bush demonstrators and a municipal nervous breakdown.
Osama has repeatedly warned America will never know peace until it withdraws from the Mideast and ceases supporting Israel. He ordered followers to attack the heart of America's power, its economy.
He has been unimaginably successful. The September 11, 2001 attacks cost America $98 billion, and billions more annually for heightened internal security.
The Bush administration's constant, politically-timed warnings of imminent Al Qaeda attacks - none of which materialized - and attendant media hysteria, have left Americans frightened and emotionally exhausted.
The Republican Convention in New York will be guarded by the city's 37,000 police - a force twice as large as Canada's entire army. Ten thousand police will guard the convention centre at Madison Square Garden, backed by thousands more FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and other federal agents. Still, rumours abound of Al Qaeda's plans to attack the convention.
Road blocks, check points, flashing red lights, heavily armed paramilitaries, and armoured vehicles will turn New York into a traffic nightmare, disrupt commerce, and make the world's most important city look like Damascus during a military coup, or a remake of the film, 'Escape From New York.'
As this strange spectacle unfolds, the Bush and Kerry campaigns are arguing furiously about the 30-year old Vietnam War - at a time when the US is losing the wars it is now waging in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 1,000 American soldiers have so far died.
Neither candidate has advanced any cogent or realistic plan for dealing with these military-political quagmires. Bush keeps intoning meaningless platitudes like, "we've got to stay the course," or "we've got to fight for freedom."
Kerry promises that European and Muslim troops will somehow garrison Iraq, though few nations want to send soldiers into the Iraq bloodbath, no matter how much baksheesh Washington offers.
But at very least, Bush has been consistent about Iraq, even though consistently and disastrously wrong. Kerry keeps shifting his position, and has seriously damaged his credibility by trying to be both pro-war and anti-war at the same time.
The sordid smear campaign launched against Kerry's war record by a Republican-funded hit-squad called "the Swift boat veterans" has besmirched both candidate's reputations and further damaged America's already battered image around the globe. Kerry's feeble reaction to the shameful Republican attacks seems further evidence of what seems like weakness and indecision.
How the Kerry campaign can get away with letting a draft-dodging president attack his war record escapes me. Maybe Kerry's too much of a gentleman. How can decent Americans and veteran's organizations accept this disgraceful business and not roar disapproval at the president and his men? This is not politics, it's pure filth.
As a US army veteran, I know that military citations are often awarded too freely in a process of mutual back-scratching, to promote careers. Kerry may not be quite the democratic Rambo he and his supporters contend, but at least he was there, in combat - while Bush was making sporadic guest appearances at the Texas and Alabama National Guards.
Mind you, the Bush administration didn't flinch from concocting a cascade of lies about the non-existent Iraqi threat including Saddam Hussein's nukes and Iraqi drones the president actually claimed were about to spray poison on sleeping America.
So why would the White House refrain from orchestrating fabrications against a genuine threat - at least to get the current presidency - namely John Kerry? Bush and Kerry ought to be debating how to pull 150,000 US troops out of two stalemated wars costing $6.5 billion a month.
A recent Spanish congressional report estimates that had Bush not invaded Iraq, oil would now be around $30 per barrel, instead of $43. Americans have yet to understand the full cost of the administration's foreign misadventures.
Or that their soldiers are now keeping two puppet regimes in power in Baghdad and Kabul that have zero popular support and will be swept away the minute the foreign troops are removed.
Neither candidate is telling Americans the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, nor the mis-named "war on terrorism." Sadly, many Americans don't want to hear awkward facts, as Governor Howard Dean found to his chagrin. -Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2004