 |
| James Baker speaks to journalists during a media breakfast meeting in Dubai, on Sunday. Baker is visiting Dubai as a senior partner of international law firm ” Baker Botts” which has opened an office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (AP Photo/Nousha Salimi). |
When the University announced James Baker III as its choice for this year’s commencement, some cheered for a political bigwig, a few groaned in dismay, and still others wondered who he was and why people were creating such a stir. I wasn’t thrilled about the choice.
What I find important to note about Baker doesn’t center on alleged anti-Semitic remarks or anti-Israel positions. Rather, I’m much more concerned about his shady dealings in the Middle East with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
A little background on Baker: He’s a former Secretary of State under President George W.H. Bush, the cochair of the Iraq Study Group, the current Special Presidential Envoy on Iraqi debt, and a senior partner at Baker Botts, a prestigious Houston law firm.
So what’s the problem? A little conflict of interest, that’s all. Baker’s job as presidential envoy is to persuade countries to forgive Iraqi debt. Unfortunately, he’s also working on the other side of the fence, for the merchant bank and defense contractor the Carlyle Group, of which Baker is senior counselor and an equity partner. According to The Nation, in October 2004, secret documents obtained by that magazine revealed that the Carlyle Group struck a deal with the Kuwaiti government that would transfer $57 billion dollars in unpaid Iraqi debt from the Kuwaitis to a foundation run by a consortium, of which The Carlyle Group would be a member. In exchange, the consortium would work to persuade world leaders that Iraq should “maximize” its debt to Kuwait , which would then get the money after 10-15 years. And of course, the consortium would make a handsome profit in commission from this deal.
This conflict of interest is no small matter: Baker’s position in the Carlyle Group directly contradicts his role in the U.S. government. Baker should be dissuading countries from increasing Iraqi debt, not doing the very opposite.
Another issue that I find unsettling is Baker’s role as senior partner of Baker Botts. The firm appears to have some questionable clients. For instance, in 2002, families of 9/11 victims sued Saudi Arabian princes. The princes, the Saudi defense minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz
Al-Saud, and his brother, Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the governor of Riyadh, ultimately chose Baker Botts to defend them in the lawsuit.
The fact that Baker’s firm chose to represent Saudi interests, instead of American ones, is unnerving. Moreover, according to an April 2003 Newsweek article, Baker Botts lawyers openly admitted during the course of the trial that the Saudis have authorized regular payments of about $266,000 a year (for the past 16 years) to the International Islamic Relief Organization, a charity that U.S. federal agents raided because they suspected it was associated with giving funds to terrorist groups.
Yesterday’s DP editorial praised the University’s selection of James Baker III as commencement speaker, stating that “Baker is not just a big name — but a timely one as well.” This reasoning is flawed — could we not have selected a different big and timely name without such murky credentials attached?
There are many valid criticisms of Baker, but these associations with groups working against American interests seem to be the most troubling. He will undoubtedly serve as an inspiration to graduates who want to accede to public service, but I hope that they’ll take his good qualities, and leave his sketchy accolades aside.
An RSS feed of The Spin is available
March 15th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I think the last paragraph is most important. There would have been protest and objection no matter who was picked, but we just need to take the good with the bad.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
“Private law firm take on most profitable clients” shock horror!!
March 15th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Also the Carlyle Group are a multi-billion dollar private equity firm and will make numerous unilateral decisions without considering Baker’s input. And anyhow his job isn’t solely to persuade countries to forgive Iraqi debts.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Why is everybody always bashing businessmen who are somehow related to a business that may have some relation to shady figures. I mean it’s like that whole thing where a friend of a friend of a friend did something, so I was involved. Carlyle group is a private equity firm that has investments in defense contractors a well as numerous other industries. Why does everybody have to be so anti- business. Also, why should a lawyer be hated because he supported the saudi side, we don’t know if the americans who sued were making ridiculous accusations.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I don’t really care who is our graduation speaker, and there are surely many reasons to oppose Baker, but I find your criticism of his law firm’s work for Saudi princes after 9/11 to be absolutely odious and un-American. A fair administration of justice, which includes a full opportunity for one’s defense, is a fundamental principle of this country. Highly criticized at the time, John Adam’s defense of British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre (a job no one else wanted), is now highly regarded as an example of our adherence to this principle. What was considered at the time un-American is now seen as an act of patriotism. Only recently, right-wing ideologues were publicly criticizing the big-time law firms who have taken on Gitmo detainees as pro-bono clients - they claimed it was un-American to defend “terrorists”. Luckily, a majority responded to these arguments with disgust at such tactics. Although they come from a left-leaning view, rather than a right-leaning view, your argument is no less perverse. Find something else to complain about.
March 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
It seems thou has ruffled a few feathers young julie…