topic by
i.hanan
(226 posts)
Ancona,
Italy
8/14/2003 (02:43) |
|
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Mr. Chairman. I would like to address the nomination of Mr. Pipes to the
U.S. Institute of Peace Board of Directors.
I was here at the beginning of our efforts to start the Institute of Peace
with my former colleagues, Senator Sparky Matsunaga and Senator Mark
Hatfield. At that time, we wanted to set up a National Academy of
Peace. This idea had first been proposed by George Washington and a couple
of others involved in our Revolutionary War. They proposed setting up a
Department of Peace within the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, the idea of a Peace Academy did not take hold at first and
was debated for many, many years. Finally in the late 1980's through
compromise and negotiation it was decided that there would be an institute
rather than an academy. The law establishing the U.S. Institute of Peace
was signed by President Reagan in 1984.
Since its inception, the U.S. Institute of Peace has had a very good record
of stimulating discussions, working with high schools, colleges, and
hosting visiting professors. I have spoken with many people involved with
the Institute's work of Peace, and since we fund it through our
Appropriations Subcommittee I have had a keen interest in how it has
evolved and how it has operated. I think it has had a very distinguished
board, not all of whom I have agreed with philosophically, but I always
have thought that they were well-meaning individuals who brought a degree
of rigorous academic examination to the policies and procedures of the
Institute of Peace.
I have never met Mr. Pipes, but I have read his writing. I have taken the
time to read his writings. I have also taken the time to contact people
who have been involved with Mr. Pipes and it is clear to me that after you
strip away everything else, Mr. Pipes is a highly controversial
individual. I think anyone could agree on that. Mr. Pipes is highly
controversial.
At this point in time there is a need for a United States Institute of
Peace that can usefully be involved in negotiation, conciliation,
understanding, and dialogue. The United States Institute of Peace is the
last place that we need someone who is going to be a lightning rod for
controversy -- and Mr. Pipes is a lightning rod. If he is on this board,
more of the talk is going to be about him and his views than it will be
about the work of the entire institute.
Someone said Mr. Pipes was a scholar. As I have read more of Mr. Pipes'
writings and commentaries, it seems to me that he prefers provoking
controversy. That's fine, but that is not the kind of individual that I
think we want on the board of the Institute of Peace. Mr. Pipes appears to
have taken this course, to engender controversy, to make outrageous
statements that people can then pick up on.
I have an interview-this was a report done by Mark Richardson that was in
the Ontario, Canada London Free Press in which Pipes was quoted as saying,
'I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence and
increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims
will present true dangers to American Jews.' Increased stature, affluence,
and enfranchisement. He is talking about the right to vote. The right to
vote.
The writer says, 'Mr. Pipes makes is no distinction between Islamism and
Islam. So I e-mailed Pipes for clarification and he was good enough to
respond.' From Mr. Pipes, 'As the number of Muslims increases in Western
countries, those countries are going to become more Muslim in nature, and
that will inevitably be to the detriment of some elements. I was speaking
to a Jewish audience. I would make the same point to audiences of women,
gays, civil libertarians, Hindus, evangelical Christians, among others, all
of whom face similar true dangers as the number of Muslims increases and
threaten their interests. For an example of a country that is experiencing
advanced problems along those lines, see my article about Denmark at
www.danielpipes.org Article 450.'
The writer says, so I did. In his New York Post article Pipes says, among
other things, 'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people
but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially
combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are
non-Muslim.' This is Daniel Pipes' writing, not mine. This is his
writing. 'This is not a pleasant fact to point out,' Pipes noted in
closing, 'but all concerned are better off dealing with the truth and not
hiding from it.'
The writer goes on to say, 'not so fast. No one can blame minorities for
feeling threatened, but that applies to Islamic minorities too. I suspect
that the root cause of the problems Pipes associates with Muslim
immigration are the very lack of stature, affluence, and enfranchisement
that he fears.'
Another writer went on to point out that the stats he pointed out about
Denmark are really not true. So somehow this was made out of whole cloth,
that Muslims make up 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up
a majority of their convicted rapists. These are inflammatory statements
made by Daniel Pipes to invoke controversy. But again, I hope you can see
that someone like this on the Institute of Peace is going to draw more fire
around him.
I might just add, Mr. Chairman that this inordinate fear that Mr. Pipes has
of the enfranchisement, stature, and affluence of American Muslims falls on
deaf ears when it comes to this Senator. In the State of Iowa we have the
oldest operating mosque in America. The oldest, in my State of Iowa, in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. We have been blessed with a rich diversity in our
State of Northern Europeans, we have a huge Jewish population in many parts
of our State, and we have Muslims in Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
Now if Mr. Pipes's fears were anywhere true, we would have seen a lot of
discontent and discord in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. That has been the opposite
of what has happened. The Muslims in Iowa have become lawyers and business
owners, union members, doctors, part of our community. And they have been
enfranchised; they vote. And some of them are quite affluent, and some of
them are not. They make up a wide range.
From the deepest part of my body I strongly disagree with Pipes when he
says that the very fact of enfranchisement, affluence, and assimilation
will somehow threaten our values. The opposite is true. They have taken
on our American values and have become American Muslims, just like other
minorities who have come to this country. They brought their
religions. They brought their customs. But they have Americanized.
I remember as a young child going to my small Catholic Church in my small
community with my mother who was an immigrant who could barely speak
English. On certain feast days my mother liked to wear the clothes of her
native land. These were not the normal clothes that one would wear in a
small town in Iowa. And I can remember people making fun of her.
So when Mr. Pipes makes statements like this, I think about my
mother. Sure, she talked funny. Maybe she didn't dress like everyone else
did. She wanted to bring some of her customs with her to this
country. But anyone who knew my mother could never deny that she was
American to the core.
My staff also contacted Dr. Juan Cole at the University of Michigan
department of history. I do not know Juan Cole. I have never met him, but
my staff has talked to him to verify what he has said and to make sure that
he can back up what he has written. According to Mr. Cole, in September of
2002 Mr. Pipes set up a web site that targeted scholars that 'did not
support U.S. interests in the Middle East.'
Quoting from Dr. Cole, 'in September of 2002 Mr. Pipes placed me and other
academics on a McCarthyite watch list that disrupted our teaching and
scholarship and resulted in death threats and massive spamming. The watch
list encouraged those who know me to spy on me and to submit to Mr. Pipes
reports on my statements and activities, which would either be secretly
archived by his Middle East forum or published on the web.'
The keeping of dossiers on individual academics provoked an outcry among
all Americans concerned about freedom of speech. Judith Butler of the
University of California suggested that persons all across the U.S. 'turn
themselves in' to Pipes and ask that they be added to his watch list.
On 21 September, the eight targeted scholars on whom Pipes had set up
web-based dossiers began receiving hundreds and even thousands of e-mails
each day. This massive spamming was the work of hackers who illicitly
nested in a Verizon server in southern California and automated the sending
out of these numerous spam messages. Mr. Cole goes on to say, as a result
of this, I could not even do my work. I could not read by e-mails. I
could not even e-mail fellow academics. I had thousands of spasm every day
locking up his computer.'
Mr. Cole continues, 'around October 1st of 2002 Mr. Pipes responded to the
outcry that his neoMcCarthyism had provoked by taking down the dossiers on
individual professors. He continued to have web pages on individual
campuses, however, and the materials on the individuals was simply
transferred to those sites. That is, the surveillance continued simply
under a different heading.'
For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, and especially for what he did to
these professors, indicated that this is an individual that is a lightning
rod, highly controversial. When he talks about Muslims being funny
looking, bringing different customs, I am sorry; this is not the person
that ought to be on the U.S. Institute of Peace board.
I close, Mr. Chairman, by saying I do not know why we are considering this
person. We have had no hearings on him. I have not been able to question
him. He has not appeared, and all of a sudden his name is brought up. I
do not know what is going on. But for all these reasons, this is not a
person that ought to be put on the United States Institute of Peace.
|
|
