Presents a letter to the editor referencing the article "The Nefarious East," published in the September 24 issue of this periodical

Bhagwati, Jagdish N.

Columbia University Academic Commons

CORRESPONDENCEAmerica's loadTo the editors:In your editorial "The Tie ThatBinds?" (October 1), you assure us thatthe "salient" Arabs would cheer anAmerican bombing of Iraq, that the"savvier" Arabs would be thrilled withan American military strike. Is this likesaying the "good" Arabs would be onour side?Before we expend too much force pat-ting ourselves on the back because Egyptand Saudi Arabia have agreed that Sad-dam Hussein is a danger to them, weshould remember that President Mu-barak has for many years been perceivedby the vast majority of Arabs, even Egyp-tians, as an American stooge. As for Sau-di Arabia, King Fahd and his family havebeen kept fat and happy on American oildeals for years. Are these the types ofsavvy Arabs you are talking about? Youreditorial was a dangerous form of self-delusion. The Arab people—savvy, sa-lient, or otherwise—would never, evercheer American B-2s flying over theirlands.Finally, you castigate other nationsfor not joining in America's militarybuildup in the region. These nationsare not pulling their load, you claim.What you forget is that it is basically anAmerican load in the first place. Ameri-ca is the nation that for ten years hasbeen searching for an excuse to imposea military presence in the Persian Gulf,and it has fmally found one. America isthe nation that has for years been cut-ting deals with corrupt monarchs andemirs for cheap oil at the expense ofthe Arab population. Our whiningwhen all the nations of the world don'thelp us pay to support a dying, cruelsystem of rule smacks of self-righteoushypo/rrisy.True, Hussein is a dangerous abuserof human rights. However, a panickedmilitary strike, with the intent of replac-ing the "rightful" government of Ku-wait, would be nothing short of disas-ter. And a long, hot, ugly disaster atthat.MYKAL MAYFIELD BANTAJersey City, New JerseyDefense mechanismsTo the editors:Regarding Pat Choate's Agents of Influ-ence ("The Nefarious East" by MichaelKinsley, TRB, September 24): if Japa-nese firms spend more on lobbying thanother foreign firms, it is not becausethey are venal. Since we have singledout the Japanese for exceptional andhostile attention (leading to the imposi-tion of voluntary export restraints onJapanese, not German or French, au-tos), this has necessitated their greaterengagement in the totally legitimate—and entirely American—process of ex-planation, defense, and negotiation,which makes Washington lawyers andlobbyists rich men.It is ironic indeed that those whoseJapan-bashing has produced the neces-sity for Japan to incur outlandishlobbying expenses should now citethose expenses as grounds for indulg-ing in yet another round of Japan-bashing.JAGDISH BHAGWATINew York, New YorkThe writer is the Arthur Lehman professor of economicsat Columbia University.Clean genes (cont'd.)To the editors:Now that the dust has settled, I wouldlike to throw my proverbial two centsinto the matter of Robert Wright's"Achilles' Helix" Quly 9 & 16). I am alsoresponding to David Drubin's Septem-ber 3 letter to the editor ("GleanGenes").Drubin characterized Wright's de-scription of my brother David Botstein'srole in the human genome project as"extremely unfair." Wright was not un-fair but simply wrong. My respect for theveracity of TNR'S reporting is such that Iwould hesitate to leave this perhapssmall stone unturned.I am not a scientist, and I am as sub-ject to sibling rivalry as anyone else, sothis defense of my brother is certainlynot sentimental. When my brother par-ticipated in the "compromise" of 1987,he was on his way out of MIT to take ajob at Genentech. He could not haveparticipated in any "pork-barrel poli-tics" simply because he would not havebeen eligible for any kind of largegrants. Wright implies that David ac-cepted the compromise because ofsome strategic judgment that the com-promise would be useful to him, pre-sumably at Stanford, where he is now.But in 1987, when David was enteringthe private sector, the idea of Stanforddidn't exist, making moot the entire is-sue of grant-getting.The problem with Wright's reporting,therefore, is twofold. He manufacturedan explanatory logic that does not fit thechronology or the facts. Second, as therecent book Genome amply makes clear, itis not in David's character to be indirector devious. His enemies and friends alikeknow that this kind of shrewd maneuver-ing and back-room-style juggling is com-pletely out of character. My brother is, Ibelieve, a scientific genius, but he is nopoUtician. In short, Wright's explanationis clever but wrong and, frankly, a touchinsulting.Among other things I respect aboutDavid is his almost excessive commit-ment to saying precisely what he thinksand his ruthless distaste—often to hisown detriment—for the kind of maneu-vering and thinking that Wright imputesto him. Gompromise is not David's longsuit, which leads me to believe that hedid what he did because he thought itwas the right thing to do without anyregard for his own advantage. In thisway, Wright had underestimated mybrother's arrogance, which is to saythat David believes that the sheer meritof what he does will, as it should,command the respect and support itdeserves.LEON BOTSTEINAnnandale-on-Hudson, New YorkThe writer is president of Bard College.Robert Wright reifies:Leon Botstein says his brother David'schange of heart about the genome pro-ject after it was expanded to encom-pass his line of research couldn't havebeen an example of pork-barrel poli-tics, because while at Genentech, a pri-vate company, David was not eligiblefor "any kind of large grants." Wrong.Several genome grants of more than$250,000 have already gone to private-sector researchers, and the genomeproject's five-year plan states that pri-vate companies are also eligible for thesoon-to-be-awarded "research centergrants," which are typically worth mil-lions. Besides, even if David had beeneligible for no grants while at Genen-tech, that wouldn't refute the charge ofpork-barrel politics; surely a "scientificgenius" is capable of imagining that atsome point during the fifteen-year ge-nome project he might be working at auniversity, and might then seek agrant. And indeed, David Botstein hasnow gone to Stanford and applied forone of those big research centergrants. (Actually, none of the above,strictly speaking, is relevant to LeonBotstein's charge that I was not merely"unfair" but "simply wrong." I nevermade any allegations about David Bot-stein's motives. I just reported thatother people—critics of the genomeproject, I noted—were making them.Of course, had the allegations beentransparently implausible, I would havebeen unfair—not inaccurate—in re-porting them. But they weren't, so Iwasn't.) •6 T H E NEW REPUBLIC OCTOBER 22,1990

Defense Mechanisms

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D87S7ZMF/download

Defense Mechanisms

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Columbia University Academic Commons