May 1994

Why India and America Don1t Always Get Along

I must admit that I like to go with a winner.

Which is why the last time I was assigned to Washington I bought a Honda Accord. This Japanese product was the most popular car in America at the time, admired for its performance, handling, and comfort as well as for its dependability and reasonable price. It's still a good car, but the next time I go back to live in America I'll probably buy a Ford Taurus. Not out of national chauvinism, but out of cold, calculating self-interest.

The Taurus is widely regarded as the best car for the money in America today, and the man primarily responsible for that is Donald E. Petersen, former chief executive officer of the Ford Motor Company. Petersen has written a . book about his management philosophy, A Better Idea: Redefining the Way Americans Work, and SPAN runs an excerpt from it this month in which Petersen discloses how he used principles of employee involvement, participative management, and worker empowerment to turn Ford around. Those may sound like buzzwords, but they're buzzwords that work not only for corporations but for organizations and institutions of all kinds-universities, the military, government, even the family.

As I have noted in this space before, the world is changing so quickly that those who do not adapt and reform are sure to lose their way. We have even seen that happen to some of America's major corporations; IBM, General Motors, and Citicorp come to mind. But then we also have seen people like Petersen, Jack Welch of General Electric, and Bill Gates of Microsoft break antiquated corporate molds and, in effect, create new company cultures. These men have understood better than most that to survive and prosper, they must change corporate philosophy.

The change in Ford's corporate philosophy was confirmed by a $2,500 million profit in 1993, a massive gain over the $502 million loss it reported in 1992. Honda, meanwhile, has been sidetracked with sharply lower sales. Maryann N. Keller, a securities analyst who monitors the auto industry, recently told the Washington Post that such a corporate detour "is what happens to companies that confuse tradition with success."

She could just as well have been talking about a university or a government.

2 Extraordinary Collectors

by Paul Gardner

6 Newspaper on Wheels by Doug Willis 8 u.s. Foreign Policy-Advice for the President 14 17

Estranged Democracies

A Review by J.N. Dixit

Astronomical Name Game

19 World Cup Countdown The Favorites

by Caroline Lupfer

by Timothy Carlson

by K.N. Mohlajee

31 Return to Casablanca

by Manisha Shelat and Narendra Pachkhede

35 38

The Magic of Teamwork

41

Heart Shock

42 44

Focus On ...

New Vaccines

by Donald E. Petersen

by Anna Aldovini and Richard A. Young

by Jean Sherman Chatzky

On the Lighter Side

45 Chandigarh-The American Connection

by Rajnish Wallas

Recollections

by Eulie Chowdhury

Front cover: American soccer stars gear up for the World Cup championship which makes its inaugural appearance in the United States next month. In the photograph is Roy Wegerle of the U.S. men's national soccer team.

Publisher, Stephen F. Dachi; Editor, Guy E. Olson Managing Editor, Krishan Gabrani; Assistant Managing Editor, Swaraj Chauhan; Senior Editor, Amrita Kumar; Copy Editors, A. Venkata Narayana, Snigdha Goswami; Editorial Assistant, Rashmi Goel; Photo Editor, Avinash Pasricha; Art Director, Nand Katyal; Associate Art Director, Kanti Roy; Artist, Hemant Bhatnagar; Production Assistant, Sanjay Pokhriyal; Circulation Manager, D.P. Sharma; Photographic Services: USIS Photographic Services Unit; Research Services: USIS Documentation Services, American Center Library, New Delhi.

Photographs: Front cover-Shaun Botterill, AJlsport USA. 2-3-John Dominis. 6-AP Newsfeatures photo. 14, IS top-The White House; bottom-Press Information Bureau, Government oflndia. 17 top--courtesy California Institute of Technology; bottom-John Wrinn/Harvard University. 18top--courtesy NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory; bottomNASA. All photos from the Smithsonian News Service. 19-Wide World Photos. 21 topStephen Dunn; bottom-David Leah. 22-23-Shaun Botteril!. 24-25-0. Strohmeyer. 2125-all photos courtesy Allsport USA. 26-28-all courtesy U.S. Soccer Federation except 26-27 top center and 28 center left & bottom by Barry Fitzgerald and 28 center right by Avinash Pasricha. 33-courtesy The American Film Institute. 35-courtesy Corporate News Department, Ford Motor Company. 42 bottom-Mohan Das V. Badagara. 43 topAvinash Pasricha; bottom-R.K. Sharma. 45 left, 46-47 top row-Rajnish Wattas.

Published by the United

States Infonnation

Service. American

Center,

24 KaslUrba

Gandhi

Marg.

New Delhi I I()(X)I

(phone: 3316841). on behalr or the American Embassy, New Delhi. Printed at Thomson Press (India) Limited.

Faridabad.

Government. the Editor.

Haryana.

The opinions expressed-in

Useo/SPAN

this magazine

articles in other publications

Price ~fmagazine,

one year's

subscription

do not necessarily

is encouraged.

(12 issues)

reflect the views or policies of the U.S.

except when copyrighted.

Rs. 120 (Rs. 110 for students);

For permission

write to

single copy.

Rs. 12.

By the 19808 the Vogel collection was well known and respected. So were the Vogels. More than 15 exhibitions of selected works from the collection have been held in the United States and overseas.

cally on areas we haven't gone into at all."

Abstract expressionism, as demonstrated in works by Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, is boldly emotional.

Pop art gained notoriety with its comment on consumerism and cliches. The Vogels immersed themselves in movements that were decidedly cool and impersonal, where the idea behind the work was more important than its visual (frequently geometric or architectural) engagement. They were irresistibly drawn to the art and the artists.

But hold on, say museumgoers hearing of the Vogels for the first time: With their modest means and lack of status, how did they know what to buy, and then how could they afford it?

Most important American collectors were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Herb and Dorothy admit, with a burst of laughter, that their spoons were plastic. The Mellons and the Fricks acquired collections through the power of their capital.

Today, stockbrokers, meat-packing magnates, movie stars, and oil barons appreciate the status associated with collecting. Not so the Vogels, even though they are described affectionately by friends as "mini-moguls" of art.

Quite si';nply, the dedicated duo used her salary to live on-and his to buy art. In this age of publicity, in which people themselves are packaged, the Vogels are genuine. They do not hobnob with collectors whose names clutter the society columns that tell us who's-still-who. They do not sit on museum boards where seats of influence are sometimes awarded to would-be benefactors. They never collected for social prestige or used art as an investment. Finally, they never had the money to seduce artists with sumptuous feasts. Besides, restaurants with foot-long menus fill them with dread. "It's just not us," says Herb.

If Dorothy is in the mood, she might offer a guest some boiled chicken, but she and Herb would rather eat in a Chinese cafe around the corner from their one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. He likes the scallion pancakes; she looks forward to the fortune cookies. "An important event will soon take place in your life," Dorothy once read. She wonders now if it meant that their collection would someday belong to the nation.

"Who knows?" answers Herb, playfully. "Listen, it's better to get a good fortune cookie than a bad one." He raises his eyes toward heaven. He raises his shoulders too. "As for our collection going to the National, all I can say is wow!" Some of their art already has hung on the walls of the museum. The entire Vogel collection will be transferred during their lifetimes as part gift, part purchase. Various museums courted the Vogels, but they chose the National Gallery for sentimental reasons, such as the memory of their honeymoon, and because, continues Herb in a serious voice, "unlike other museums, it has never sold a painting."

The Vogels first began making shy appearances in New York galleries in the 1960s1 quietly purchasing a drawing here and a

small sculpture there. No one paid any attention to them. They weren't invited to bohemian loft parties or museum sneak previews with the beautiful people of Pop. They certainly didn't have the money to buy a Jasper Johns flag or a bedroom ensemble by Claes Oldenburg. So the Vogels remained beyond the fringe of the art world, tentative and anxious, a bit frumpy, shuffling in and out of galleries, carrying shopping bags and holding hands. Unbeknownst to most artists and dealers, the Vogels were already collectors.

Herb grew up in New York (his father was a tailor) and took courses in art history and painting at New York University. At the Cedar Tavern, once an art hangout in Greenwich Village, he would listen to the art talk, absorb it all, and ask questions.

After marrying Dorothy, his zeal convinced her to enroll in a drawing class he was taking. "I knew nothing about art until I met Herbie," says Dorothy, who comes from Elmira, New York (her father ran a stationery store). She looked forward to their museum outings and gallery treks. "We learned about art by studying everything that was going on. We read catalogs. We went to lectures and all the shows and, significantly, the studios of artists."

Sol LeWitt, a founding member of the minimal school, had his first show in 1965; shortly thereafter, the Vogels visited his studio and bought the piece that, they say, was their first important acquisition. It was also one of the first works LeWitt ever sold. Naturally it wasn't very expensive, admits Herb. "If you're rich, it's easy to start a collection.

But if you need your paycheck to pay the rent and phone bill, and you want to collect, you've got to depend on instinct.

What you feel in your head and heart. Wits and guts." Herb Vogel has plenty of both. "Sol was unknown then and doing work I felt was going to be important. Today it is important." When the Museum of Modern Art in New York gave LeWitt a retrospective 13 years later, the Vogels were there, grinning like doting parents.

LeWitt recalls that they would drop by his studio on Sunday afternoons. "They never wanted anything, not even a glass ,gf water. I knew they didn't have a lot of money to spend.

I also knew they cared deeply about art-not reproductions or posters but original art. They're idealistic and supportive. When you compare them to the collectors who later hit the scene-people who treat art like a commodity, who know almost nothing-you realize the Vogels are a breath of fresh air."

With the 1970s and the emergence of minimal and conceptual art, the Vogels met other new faces of the day, such as Donald Judd, Richard Tuttle, and Robert Mangold. Although they own enough LeWitts to fill a room in a museum, they also own about 350 works by Tuttle. Altogether, their acquisitions-<:ubes, pyramids, rectangles, and other unadorned geometric shapes-seek to tease the mind or, at least, get it all bollixed up. Some critics call these boxlike ventures

and floating paper pieces "blank form."

Always direct, Herb explains: "Look, I'm not saying we understood everything we bought. Ifwe waited for the magical light bulb to go off, we'd never buy." Dorothy, stroking a purring cat named Cezanne, adds softly, "It's about liking the art, isn't it, Herbie? When you meet someone, you may not know anything about them, but you know if you like them."

As they got to know other artists they bought more, but since they often had only a few hundred dollars to spend, their collection contains a lot of drawings. Still, artists and dealers, appreciating that the Vogels wanted original contemporary art, were generous. And why not? On a small income, the couple, with no hand-holding from an art consultant, dared to be adventurous on their own. They were further determined not to let life become a sit-at-home every night, focused on TV sitcoms. Anyway, soon there was nowhere to sit.

Over the years the walls of their living room, foyer, kitchen, bath, and bedroom were massed with art. "Ajoke went round that I kept art in the oven," says Dorothy, laughing. "Not true.

But I could have. I never use the oven." What wouldn't fit on the walls or closet doors or in cupboards, or perch on end tables-if you could find one-was packed in huge crates plunked in the center of the living room. Several enormous boxes added to the hazardous disorder. Turning quickly, as did one visiting journalist, you could bang your head on a steel-and-Plexiglas box sculpture by Don Judd or crush a paper construction by Richard Tuttle. What little space was left over was allocated for animals-fish, turtles, and cats-rather than furniture.

"But Dorothy, with her keen librarian's mind, knew where everything was stored or shelved or hanging," says Tuttle. "I first sold them a white paper octagonal in 1971for around $100.

We found an area where I slapped it on the wall with glue and wallpaper paraphernalia. It was a radical act, in a way, but the Vogels were thrilled. I pasted it high enough so the cats couldn't reach it." Another time, Tuttle sent Herb a drawing that Herb had selected. Tuttle wrapped the purchase in another drawing-one that Tuttle had rejected, scribbling on it. But when Herb got the package, he wanted the wrapping instead. Tuttle is a close chum, and the Vogels have flown to Amsterdam, Holland, when he exhibited new work there. "When I met them and saw their apartment, I felt, hey! their response to art is alive, it isn't simply intellectual, it's also spontaneous.

Herb's intense opinions reflect vast knowledge. Be may not be asked to join the 'art panels' in the Hamptons with collectors who own summer houses there, but he sure knows more than most of them."

More than 200 artists are represented in their collection.

Until the art began to be moved to the National Gallery, the apartment, tight and airless, a jumble of archives and art, was an "environment" unto itself, a kind of surreal fantasy created for a play by Ionesco. A crushed metal car sculpture by John Chamberlain was installed on the bed's headboard. There were wall octagonals by Tuttle and a "wrapped" piece by Christo,

who has gained international attention with his penchant for wrapping islands and hanging curtains across canyons. Referring to their Christo-a tarpaulin bag tied with rope-Dorothy murmurs, "There's mystery involved. Obviously it must never be unwrapped. Once you do that the piece doesn't exist!" (Herb regrets, he says, that nobody ever took a picture of the apartment when all the art was still in it.)

Herb concedes that, yes, he once unwisely hesitated about a purchase. "A valuable piece in our collection is an untitled ink on graph paper by Eva Hesse. I was aware of her for a long time. I knew she was good. But you know what?

I couldn't come to a quick decision. I didn't buy until after her death. This was a mistake. We had to go to the estate, so it~ost."

If it boiled down to a choice between taking a vacation or acquiring art (and that time it did), the Vogels always went for the art.

By the 1980s their collection was well known and respected.

So were the Vogels. Selected works from the collection were seen in more than 15 exhibitions in the United States and abroad. Gallery gallivanting was done on Saturdays. They would travel up and down Manhattan, from midtown to SoHo, seeing as many' as 25 shows a day, and it wasn't done in a limousine. When they entered a crowded gallery, someone would inevitably whisper, "Look! It's the Vogels!" Small in stature, unobtrusively dressed amid mink coats and selfconsciously torn dungarees, they would be surrounded by art aficionados who now wanted to hear their opinions.

They had definitely arrived. "You can say we did it by subway," suggests Herb.

Herb Vogel, now 71, sits with Dorothy, 58, at a small deskand-dining table, the apartment's social center, near the foyer.

The collection that wouldn't stop growing, he observes, surprises even him. "As a kid growing up I learned about survival in the sweatshops. I also knew there was another world out there, and somehow I'd find it myself. So I explored the city, always on a search for knowledge. This stretched my imagination. If you build up a creative spirit within yourself, you can do without a lot of things. I spent long hours at the Museum of Natural History studying the animals-beautiful creatures.

One day I wandered across Central Park and walked up the steps into the Metropolitan Museum. Here was a completely new experience! Looking at the Old Master paintings I realized how limited I was and how much more I had to know. From the Old Masters I gradually made my way into contemporary art. It carried a magical reality for me."

"We don't have children of our own," says Dorothy, opening a box of chocolate-chip cookies and spreading them on a plate.

"The art that used to be here represented our children. Now it's like the children got married and moved away, but they're still ours. We can see them anytime."

0 About

the Author:

Paul

Gardner

is a contributing

editor

for

ARTnews magazine and has coauthored the book Brooklyn: Past & Present, People & Places.

SIERRA C

Hibhw~y 49 Sl;lg~ road b~l\\

and SiclTa CllY. base of the m;lJ n:I\Il..:rcd and Ie by ;lv;\\:tlll.:hc~ I" .... lory.lhe !"Ol;),tl.:.lrtltll

\0\' n;u

I\(~Y bUlldl!ll~'" theil, the \\1(.11

:uoumlluwn

\

\,:.,r!y,pnnf..l>

the Ir.,,,h blll~ the n;llHlllal n hac;';' when II in the ~ln.:cb 'n\..:: hard thl: arc..! W.IS with :lboUI S I.then

oul of

mik llo11ho Mine i~opu the Sierra C

BcauUfull) orlbin;l! nl.J

ofkrscX.cl:o mine ar;d ( ~\llllmcr co fromlo1ks

S:u;rall1cnl¡

SIERR & L01

Up and 0\

Rompin' >Ro,dents summer tourist season. Five Palace-bred and raised mice are "auctioned off' 10 the bar patrons, [he highest bidder for each earning the rights to race it All the money is put into a pol Erst place takes 60 percent. second place 30 percent and third place 10 percenL Winning mice have paid off as much as $165.

The mousies are lined up on a nine-fool

Chuck Woodbury maps out his next trip from his tiny office in Grass Valley, California.

r

ee s

From Boring, Oregon, to Nothing, Arizona, by way of Puckerbrush, Nevada, Chuck Woodbury has hit the high spots of America's Old West.

In six years of publishing an offbeat travel newspaper that deliberately avoids major tourist attractions, Chuck Woodbury, 46, has logged nearly 200,000 kilometers on the back roads of II Western states.

Woodbury is editor, publisher, chief photographer, circulation manager, ad salesman, and mobile home driver

for Out West, The Newspaper That Roams.

The slogan in his quarterly tabloid's masthead is meant literally. Out West's newsroom is a recreational vehicle (RV) equipped with a batteryoperated laptop computer, a MacIntosh Plus desktop publishing system that plugs into the cigarette lighter,

and his cameras.

His business office in the Sierra foothill town of Grass Valley, California, where he keeps circulation and advertising records, isn't much bigger than the RV office. The quarterly tabloid is printed by a local daily newspaper.

Woodbury abandoned conventional journalism in 1986, when he sold his suburban monthly newspaper. He made enough from the sale to equip the mobile newsroom and support himself until he sold enough subscriptions to make his new paper self-supporting.

The first edition of Out West appeared early in 1988, selling about 400 copies at $\.50 each for 28 pages of stories about out-of-the-way Western communities.

Twenty-four issues later, Woodbury is selling 8,500 copies of a 48-page paper at $2.50 a copy. He has also published one hardcover book and produced two videos based on his travels. He also met and married Rodica, a fellow writer and editor, during his wanderings. They

now travel with a two-yearold daughter.

"We have a really good life.

We do what we want to do.

We make a modest living, about the same as a reporter or editor on a medium-sized newspaper," Woodbury says.

Although Woodbury does all of his traveling in a recreational vehicle, he stresses: "We're not an RV magazine.

It's just the way we get around. We don't dwell on it.

Only about 20 percent of our readers are R V owners."

Woodbury says he has also discovered, somewhat to his surprise, that most Out West subscribers live in the urban areas he avoids in his newspaper.

"The paper is an escape for readers. They fantasize about doing the same thing we're doing, escaping to the country and the back roads," he says.

"They live in urban areas, and they want out."

Woodbury's niche among travel publications is going to the places nobody else goes and writing about the people nobody else writes about.

His restaurant reviews rate

the amount of grease in the hamburgers. His travel journals talk about interesting road signs, advertisements, and business names, like the "Pat Yer Beli Deli" or the sanitation company that advertises "We're No. I in the No.2 Business."

Woodbury has written about the controversy among residents of Earth, Texas, over whether to call themselves "earthlings."

He has visited Pie Town, New Mexico, where there is no place in town to buy a pie, and Nothing, Arizona, "which almost lives up to its name."

One story was about Buck and JMaud, who run a rural radio station from a bedroom of their Arizona home. Another story was about the competition among Idaho towns to host the State Potato Museum, and yet another was about the Earthquake Pub in Hollister, California, which serves Seismic Ale and gives customers a round of free drinks during a quake on the nearby San Andreas Fault.

Woodbury avoids big cities and known tourist attrac-

tions, focusing instead on two-lane back roads lined with mailboxes and dotted with roadside stands. One of his favorites is old Route 66, which he says is still about 80 percent intact through the Southwest.

"It still has the Wigwam Motel, where you can still spend a night in a wigwamshaped room," he says.

The newspaper's most popular feature is his travel journal, a random mix of travel information and personal feelings that reads like a long letter to a friend and fills up to a quarter of the paper.

Woodbury muses about how new shopping malls and big discount stores threaten and change, but haven't destroyed, the traditional main streets that give character to the rural West.

"There's always more to see, and places change," says Woodbury. "And you haven't traveled a road until you've traveled it both ways, and in all four seasons."

0 About the Author: Doug Willis is a reporter for the Associated

Press.

Harper's Magazine, a monthly journal of ideas and opinion, recently wrote that a year-and-a-half ago, when President Bill Clinton took office, "the job of directing 'the world's only superpower' seemed an easy one. The phrase promised a global Pax Americana: History was at an end, what remained to be done was routine police work. That rosy scenario, however, was soon overtaken by events, and the White House, without a compass for the new world, has found itself lurching from crisis to crisis, changing strategies with each set of map coordinates.

"Amid the flurry of policy shifts, high-level contradictions, and official 'clarifications,' scant attention has been given to the primary questions of American foreign policy: Should our dealings with other nations be governed by Wilsonian moral precepts or by a strict calculation of interests? How much are we willing to sacrifice to support democracy and human rights in other nations? What, in the end, are our responsibilities outside our borders?"

Harper's decided that it would attempt to offer the President some foreign-policy advice by gathering six experts for a roundtable discussion.

The experts were: Kenneth Anderson, a lecturer at Harvard Law School, where he teaches the laws of war; Jean Bethke Elshtain, a teacher of political philosophy at Vanderbilt University and the author of Women and War and the coauthor of But Was It Just?-a reflection on the morality of the Persian Gulf War; Kim R. Holmes, vice president and director of foreign policy and defense studies at the Heritage Foundation; Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute and the coeditor of Mandate for Change, a manifesto of the "New Democratic" ideas on which President Clinton campaigned; Democrat Congressman Frank McCloskey, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Aryeh Neier, president of Open Society Fund and a former executive director of Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The meeting, moderated by Harper's contributing editor Jack Hitt, sheds light on the considerations and quandaries affecting foreign-policy-making in Washington today.

DVICE FOR THE PRESIDENT Jack Hitt: For the purposes of our discussion, let's imagine that I am President Clinton. I've gathered you here as my new team of national-security advisers to help me get out of the mess that I'm in. A year ago, I was inaugurated with a mandate from the American people to pay as little attention to foreign policy as possible. It seemed to work for a while, but then events in Bosnia, Somalia, Moscow, and Haiti made that position untenable. It has been said that my foreign policy is confused because no one knows what America stands for in 1994. Has the time come for me to articulate a clear strategy-a "Clinton Doctrine"-to guide our behavior abroad?

Jean Bethke Elshtain: No. The word "doctrine" implies a comprehensiveness for which we're not prepared. We haven't begun to take the measure of the post-Cold War world. After World War II we were able to talk about a Truman Doctrine, but that's because it was easier then to perceive our interests and concerns.

Will MarshaU: I would agree that the international picture is just too inchoate for something as rigid as a Clinton Doctrine. But I would argue that you, as President, have already articulated a general foreign-policy frameworkelevating commerce to a strategic interest, revamping our military to meet new threats, and reinforcing the global movement toward democracy and markets. You have a policy; it's just that the problems cropping up in the daily headlines don't fit neatly into it.

Elshtain: I disagree. All you and your advisers have been able to come up with is "enlargement"-and that's a nostrum, not a strategy. Of course America is in favor of the expansion of democracy and free markets. It's like saying the Pope ought to be Catholic.

Kim Holmes: The reason you should not have a doctrine, Mr. President, is that there isn't a single idea that encapsulates all the diverse problems at large in the world. "Containment" worked after World War II because it perfectly melded a concept-a way to see the world-with a guide for action. Now we must be content with setting priorities among our interests and stating which regions of the world are important to us and which are not.

Aryeh Neier: What I would propose, instead of a policy based only on "interests," is that you issue a "minimum articulation of principles."

Hitt: What should those be?

Neier: Most basically, certain extremities of suffering inflicted by

leaders on their own populations, or on the populations of other countries, will not be tolerated. Of course, we have to accept our limits and recognize that by intervening we may make a bad situation worse. But if the suffering extends to crimes against humanity on a gigantic scale, the United States will consider that it has a responsibility to try to alleviate the situation.

Holmes: The essential division in the debate over American foreign policy has always been between a national-interest approach and a humanitarian approach. We Americans find it difficult to navigate between these two poles, because we confuse our national interest with humanitarian concerns.

Kenneth Anderson: Or even invert them completely. Look at some recent positions taken by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops were hesitant about American involvement in the Gulf War, where we were clearly motivated by raw interests in a material sense. Then came Bosnia, where they endorsed military intervention precisely because they felt that there were no national interests at stake-only a humanitarian principle. It's a peculiarly American way to think.

Holmes: And it never works in the real world. You can't get a consensus behind a strategy totally devoid of national interest. ._ Not only that; I also think such a strategy is morally corrupt.

The American government is elected to represent the interests and values of the American people. To pretend that foreign policy can operate without regard for our self-interest is a breach of the social contract between the U.S. government and the American people.

Elshtain: It's a huge mistake to divorce considerations of national self-interest from ethical imperatives. Ethical imperatives historically have also been a part of our national interest.

Max, Weber made the observation a long time ago that if you have a policy of pure interest severed from ethics, it gets brutal and opportunistic too easily. And if you have a policy that's too idealistic and severed from interests, it becomes naive and Utopian rather quickly. To bring these together in a fruitful mix--that's our challenge.

Neier: What Kim is ignoring is the importance of leadership.

Just because the current President tends to follow public opinion doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. When the \ Marshall Plan was proposed in 1947, it was supported by only about ten percent of the American people. But the President led [he public, through argument, to see that the Marshall Plan was in their self-interest. My premise-that what's needed is a statement of principles-is based on the idea that there is no fixed set of national interests.

Anderson: I would go even further. I believe that there are moments when it is appropriate, just, right, and defensible for one political community to come to the aid of another country without any national-interest calculation at all, out of pure altruism, on exclusively moral grounds. These moments are limited and, as Aryeh said, require extraordinary political leadership. Bosnia, I would argue, is such a case.

Elshtain: There's nothing but trouble in that position, Ken. Pure altruism is notoriously difficult to articulate in foreign policy. It slides too easily into moralistic posturing. What's right isn't necessarily what's pure.

Anderson: But I hold it out there because I don't want to be in a position-nor should the country-of always trying to translate our actions into some kind of national-interest talk. The result of that is a confusion of altruism and self-interest, which does neither any good.

Holmes: Our foreign policy works best when our altruistic instincts and national interests coincide. The Cold War made that marriage easy: Our strategic interest-preventing the domination of Europe by the Soviet Union-went along well with the principles of promoting democracy and freedom in Eastern Europe. Now that the Cold War is over, we have a divorce between two sides of our brain. One half is thinking strategically; the other, in terms of humanitarian goals.

Neier: I don't agree that our interests and principles necessarily conflict. In many cases, they still coincide.

Hitt: Give me a principle that coincides with. our national interest.

Neier: Halting genocide, for one. Genocide is probably the greatest crime in the human lexicon. And in Bosnia, for instance, our principle of preventing genocidal conduct converges with our interest in order and stability.

Elshtain: We have another interest in halting genocide-for us to do nothing in the face of activities that violate so fundamentally the principles that we stand for erodes our credibility in the international arena.

Hitt: So as President, I should state to the world that genocide is a crime of such magnitude that America is ready to commit blood and treasure to prevent it?

Elshtain: Force isn't the only answer. Often all one can do is say: That's unacceptable. And sometimes intervention can do more harm than good. But you don't want to have a case-by-case foreign policy if it means that you'll ignore genocide over here but not over there. There have to be some standards.

Frank McCloskey: I agree. Halting genocide has to be stated as an absolute principle. That being said, we cannot commit American lives to every instance of genocide. We have to look at each situation, especially in those places where we have leverage.

Holmes: But that's precisely the problem with elevating any humanitarian principle to a foreign-policy goal: As soon as you state it, you have to start issuing exceptions. In foreign policy, you have to abandon the world of pure moral ideas, where consistency is effortless, for the practical world of international

relations, where hypocrisy comes easy. The difference between what we say and what we do is that the former is unlimited and the latter is not.

Neier: There is a value in saying that the United States will strive mightily to stop the commission of genocide. But precisely what we should do in trying to carry that out depends on the situation.

McCloskey: Exactly. We state opposition to genocide as an absolute principle. Then we look to our resources, ability, power, and leverage. Sure, there's a political component in all this. We cannot say we are going to intervene everywhere, but neither can we say we won't intervene anywhere. That's not hypocrisy. It's reality.

Marshall: That's why we're so baffled in Bosnia. The war there tortures us because it touches upon the: tension between our broad principles and a tempering sense of national interest. Is the slaughter in Bosnia so horrible that America is willing to pay in blood to stop it? No. It rises almost to that threshold, but it doesn't get over it. That's why we've held back.

McCloskey: But the situation in the Balkans is not simply a question of humanitarian principle. Although the Clinton Administration refuses to admit it-even ~fter all my formal requests-it's also very much a matter of international strategic interest. As Senator Joe Biden has said, the security and stability of Europe are in our interest. Look, this war may be off the front page right now, but it could heat up again tomorrow.

There are 200,000 dead. There are a million refugees; Germany alone has 500,000. There is potential spillover into Greece, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria.

Anderson: That kind of talk is very troubling to me. The reason I held out the possibility of a purely altruistic intervention was precisely to avoid sounding like the congressman, who is straining to squeeze Bosnia under the rubric of American interests. I, too, would have intervened-though only with NA TO-on the ground in Bosnia, but I would have done so for purely humanitarian reasons, and I would have said so. If you try to tell Europeans that they're not capable of understanding their own interests, you wind up sounding ludicrous.

True, the Germans have had to take in a lot of refugees. ~ut they don't seem sufficiently worried about that fact to intervene in Bosnia. It is preposterous to lecture Europeans about their interests.

Holmes: During the Cold War, the United States paid attention to Yugoslavia because we feared whit the Soviets might do there. That consideration is completely absent now. You have refugees, you have regional instability, and you have a human tragedy. But that is not the sort of large and strategic interest that compelled us to join NATO and threaten thermonuclear war to protect Europe from the Soviet Union.

Marshall: Wait a minute, Kim. Who defines a nation's interest? My problem with foreign-policy realists is that they arrogate to themselves the ability to divine the nation's true interests. But the national interest is a complex calculation, done by the American people, of values and costs, not an

abstract and theoretical truth. If the American people want to intervene on humanitarian grounds, a President would be hard-pressed not to listen. I disagree with Kim; I don't think there has to be a solid substratum of interests on which to base each policy. If the American people think that we should intervene to prevent mass slaughter in Bosnia, fine. That's a worthy and enlightened impulse. But in each case, we have to calibrate the costs.

Holmes: The problem with that formulation is that our foreign policy ends up being defined by television. Let me give you an example. In Angola, half a million people have been killed in

from erupting. But usually we will not want to act alone.

-U.S.

In this new era our first foreign priority and our domestic priority are one and the same: Reviving oureconomy .... 1will elevate economics in foreign policy, create an Economic Security Council. ..and change the State Department's culture so that economics is no longer a poor cousin to old school diplomacy.

-Bill

Clinton. August 13. 1992

[Seeking a multilateral consensus is] a form of leadership that's quite appropriate at the moment .... We don't have the influence [to act unilaterally].

We don't have the inclination to use military force. We certainly don't have the money.

-Under Secretary of State/or Political Affairs Peter Tarnoff.

May 25.1993

"ASSERTIVE MUL TILA TERALlSM" There will be many occasions when we need to bring pressure to bear on the belligerents of the post-Cold War period and use our influence to prevent ethnic and other regional conflicts

ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright. week a/June 7. 1993

The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement-enlargement of the world's free community of market democracies.

I see four components to a strategy of enlargement. First, we should strengthen the community of major market democracies-including our ownwhich constitutes the core from which enlargement is proceeding.

Second, we should help foster and consolidate new democracies and market economies, where possible, especially in states of special significance and opportunity.

Third, we must counter the aggression-and support the liberalization-of states hostile to democracy and markets.

Fourth, we need to pursue our humanitarian agenda not only by providing aid, but also by working to help democracy and market economies take root in regions of greatest humanitarian concern.

Anthony

-National Security Adviser Lake. September 21. 1993

war since the fall of 1992. That's an incredible human tragedy.

But we're not talking about Angola like we're talking about Bosnia. Why is that? Is the suffering of an Angolan less acute than the suffering of a Bosnian? What about Tajikistan?

There's a terrible war going on there. More than 30,000 people were killed in 1992 alone. It's absolutely brutal. But CNN can't get its cameras in, and therefore it's not on our global radar screen. To me, a policy defined by what people see on TV is the least moral position there is. If morality is not applied consistently, it becomes mere posturing.

Setting Priorities Hitt: In my role as President, I want to address the country about my newfound commitment to foreign policy and to define what our national interest is. What do I say are the interests and principles of American foreign policy?

Holmes: First, the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Second, assistance to Russian democracy.

Third, the promotion of a free international trading system. I can keep going down the list.

Hitt: So we'll defend democracy in Russia but not in, say, Haiti?

Holmes: I am setting priorities. Haiti is on the list. It's just down around number ten.

Anderson: What I find curious, Kim, is that I can't really see any difference between your listing of priorities and what Will has said.

Marshall: That's not true: I don't rule out intervention for humanitarian reasons, if that's what the American people decide to do. I don't insist on some narrowly defined national interest as a criterion. In fact, I think this choice between interests and principles is a false one. I also suspect I am more sanguine than Kim about the possibility of advancing U.S. interests through multilateral means and the prospect of reviving collective-security agreements.

Holmes: The other difference between Will and me is that I worry every time the President is asked what we stand for, because the first word out of his mouth-and I'm sure it makes Will happy-is "democracy."

Hitt: Well, 40 years of containment taught him to say that.

Holmes: Then we have a hangover, don't we? It's time to start talking differently.

Marshall: Kim, 200 years of American history taught him to say that word.

Holmes: Not true. Democracy was not the key issue of the American Revolution. Liberty was.

Anderson: This is interesting. You admit that "democracy" is a bit of language we use to speak about something else--call it "interests." But Will, too, uses it to signify a deeper set of convictions that is really more about capitalism and consumption. His foreign policy is built upon the good of expressing oneself through the purchase of consumer goods that, it is hoped, promote peace by promoting universal consumer values.

Elshtain: That's "enlargement" for you. It's too murky.

Anderson: But, Jean, it's not murky for people like Will. It's pure Clintonism-foreign policy as a sort of therapy. The City on the Hill goes out into the world not to make it a better place, or even a safer one, but to feel good about itself. That's why this administration is so happy with symbolic actions in places like Bosnia-the war-crimes tribunal, for example. Symbols let it feel just as good as real action, which inevitably produces ambiguous results, and hence anxiety.

Marshall: The collapse of communism left liberal democracy standing as the only credible theory for organizing politicsor economies, for that matter. We didn't create this situation.

The Eastern European revolts were indigenous. People are suddenly deciding on their own that political and economic freedom are going to lead to a better life-whether they're inspired by material aspirations or a desire not to have their human rights trampled. Add to that the fact that a liberal world order would be less likely to dissolve into cataclysmic violence, and it's clearly in our interest to construct the new

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible ....Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue [our own] course ....Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?

I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world: That no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful.

-President George Washington.

Farewell Address. 1796

-President Woodrow Wilson. in a speech to the United States Senate. 1917

The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

-President James Monroe.

Annual Message to Congress. 1823

It is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russain expansive tendencies.

-x. later identified as George F. Kennan. in the July 1947 Foreign

Affairs

order on liberal, democratic principles.

Elshtain: I get nervous, Will, when I hear talk of a liberal world order.

Holmes: No kidding.The fact is, democracy is not the new organizing order. Mr. President, if I were your secretary of state, I'd tell you that in deciding our foreign policy for a certain country, the question is not whether that country is democratic but whether it has a pro-Western foreign policy. In Asia, you have countries that are pro-Western but not necessarily democratic. I was just in China, and it's clear that in the next ten or 15 years the People's Republic will evolve into an authoritarian mix of capitalism and socialism. It's not going to be democratic.

It's going to be increasingly capitalist.

Elshtain: Talk of a homogeneous liberal world order strikes me as another nostrum along the lines of enlarging free markets. It pushes a universalism of the sort we should stay away from. We should acknowledge that there exist certain minimal standards beneath which our concern kicks in, but there is a big difference between situations in which people are being systematically slaughtered, populations transported, or victims sent to death camps, and cultural practices we don't agree with, such as women wearing a chador or undergoing clitoridectomypractices that women in these societies often support and enforce.

Holmes: Let us not forget that we intervened against Adolf Hitler not because of the Holocaust but because he invaded France.

Neier: Yes, but the lesson of that war was the need for international institutions to ensure that a holocaust did not occur again. We created these institutions and adopted in their name a variety of agreements. We have been moving in a certain direction. Now, though, these international institutions are frayed, and we have a definite national interest in making them work.

Anderson: The reason they are frayed is precisely because of the imperial overreach that comes with imagining that the United Nations will enforce some kind of a pax romana.

Holmes: Am I the only one at the table who doesn't really kt;IOW what the "world community" is? I know there are United ~ations declarations. But I defy anyone to state even the lowest common denominator.

Anderson: It's worse than that. Communities are defined by setting themselves apart from other communities around them.

There won't be a "world community" until the day the Vulcans arrive in our skies and invite us to join the United Federation of Planets. Only then will we know our common elements as a "world community."

Neier: In the past, empires were mechanisms for maintaining a certain degree of order. At this moment, we have no empires.

But we do have international institutions created to promote just such an order, and we have a definite national interest in making them work.

Elshtain: In a lot of what gets said nowadays, one can hear a certain nostalgia for empire. We want it to be a nice empire, a

benevolent empire, maybe even-I hate to saddle you with this, Will-a liberal world order. But there are ways to promote Aryeh's or Will's notion of order without these nostalgic longings for a supranational power.

Marshall: If you want to build a consensus for internationalism, you must ground your foreign policy in the sentiments of the public. You're going to have to tell people that we're trying to create the world we would all like to live in, which is a world that is liberal in the sense that there are norms and values that are transcendent. We don't want everything to look like the United States. But there's no reason why you can't have national distinctiveness within an increasingly liberal and democratic framework. The end of the Cold War means that our democratic convictions and our interests are more likely to converge than ever. The record of this century is that democ-

FOREIGN POLICY: THE GRASS-ROOTS APPROACH In September 1993 the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press polled 2,000 Americans for their views on U.S. foreign policy. Respondents were given a list of "possible long-range foreign-policy goals."

The percentage of people who named each goal as a "top priority" is given below.

Protecting

the jobs of American

workers

85%

Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction

69

Ensuring adequate energy supplies for the United States

60

Improving

56

the global environment

Reducing U.S. trade deficit with foreign countries

55

Strengthening

41

the United Nations

Aiding the interests of U.S. business abroad

27

Promoting and defending human rights in other countries

22

Promoting

22

democracy

in other nations

Helping improve the living standard in developing nations

18

Protecting weaker nations against foreign aggression even if U.S. vital interests are not at stake

17

racies don't go to war with each other. They are less likely to sponsor terrorism, flout human rights, and violate nonproliferation treaties. Aiding Russia's transition to democracy-which is Clinton's true foreign-policy success-is not just an expression of our moral values; it's an urgent security imperative.

Holmes: If promoting democracy produces a pro-Western foreign policy, then we should do it. But there are many countries in Asia and the Middle East where promoting democracy is not a good idea right now.

Neier: So you're saying that America's foreign policy should be: If you're pro-Western, you're entitled to be as authoritarian and abusive as you want?

Hitt: Kim, can you imagine a situation in which you'd recommend a humanitarian policy that would conflict with a national interest?

Holmes: Probably not. If you want me to support some political group in [an allied country] that happens to be the latest cause celebre of Amnesty International, I would not cut all ties to that regime, as we did with the Shah [of Iran], just because of human-rights concerns. Those countries are allies of ours that have, for us, a larger strategic purpose.

Staying off the Front Page Hitt: My good friend James Carville came into the Oval Office the other day to talk about foreign policy. I told him I had McCloskey climbing up my back on Bosnia, calling for Warren Christopher's resignation. He advised that I get foreign affairs off the front page. Frankly, I don't want a frontpage foreign policy. I want one that shows up on page A-16.

How do I get it?

McCloskey: Can't be done. It's not an A-16 world right now, Mr. President.

Hitt: But it was for the first seven months of my administration.

Holmes: Look what you did in Bosnia.

Hitt: I tried to play it down.

Elshtain: No, at one point you were promising air strikes, remember? You more or less marched the army up and then back down again.

Hobpes: The roots of this dilemma go back to the campaign.

What you did was outflank [George] Bush on his right by being more internationalist with your Bosnia air strikes, your tough defense positions, and your China and Haiti policies. But those positions are coming back to haunt you.

Elshtain: You may not be interested in foreign policy, Mr. President, but foreign policy is interested in you. The last thing you want to do is make the possibility of our commitment even more diffuse. Your speech on foreign policy needs to weave a clear articulation of principles and interests-all of which were outlined here in some fashion. Then you need to apply that guide to the world, because, in the end, the only way to keep foreign policy off the front page is to stop lurching from one crisis to the next. That is, the best way not to be overtaken by foreign policy is to have a foreign policy.

D

~,.'â&#x20AC;˘.anged

Delllocracies That relations between India and America are not always harmonious is obvious to anyone who has been reading Indian newspapers recently. That the situation is nothing new has been chronicled in depth by aformer U.S. ambassador, Dennis Kux, in his recent book, India and the United States: Estranged Democracies.

Who better to evaluate the book and comment on its conclusions than India's immediate past foreign secretary, who is well acquainted with the author and who has been a close observer of and sometime participant in events Ambassador Kux describes.

Dennis Kux, friend and colleague, whom I have known for nearly three decades, has come out with a book typical of his professional temperament, and manifesting his realistic perceptions about India and IndoU.S. relations.

Long ago, far away, Dennis and I participated in a seminar for diplomats at the Schloss Kleissheim near Salzburg, Austria, organized by the Austrian Foreign Ministry on some perennial theme like "The Role of Diplomacy in Peace and Development." It was 1967. We were first secretaries then-he in Bonn, I in Vienna. The Vietnam conflict was in the making. U.S.-sponsored systems of military alliances were in full operation.

President Lyndon B. Johnson and Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in the post1966 rup~e-devaluation ambience, were wary of each other.

Young Dennis and a slightly younger I had wandered off from the group discussions; sitting on a hillside overlooking a mountain stream in the Hellbrunn area, we got to discussing Indo-U.S. relations. At one point Dennis remarked that the problem between our two countries was that the

United States perceived India as being too pompous and assertive, and India considered the United States too domineering and interfering. He went on to say, "Perhaps these relations are permeated too much by mutual emotions-and high expectations.

It might be better if both were to deal with each other in a businesslike and practical manner." It was a precociously wise assessment by Kux, long before he reached the higher echelons of the U.S. Foreign Service and years before I met and worked with him again in Washington in the mid-1970s when he was director of the India Desk.

The negative vibes in Indo-U.S. relations of the Nixon era had been tenuously remedied with the resumption of bilateral economic ties in 1974. Kux had advice for me when I took over as minister in the Indian Embassy in Washington: "Mani, read this book-Scratches on Our Minds-on IndoU.S. relations. Don't get too het-up about Americans lecturing you on sundry subjects. Concentrate on what is possible in concrete terms. Don't predicate Indo-U.S. relations on the idealistic but irrelevant illusion of India and America being democracies, having shared values, etc. They are there no doubt! But the factors that affect our relations are different and diverse."

I am recalling his words across a span of 20 years to the best of my memory. He was right then. He is right now. In writing India and the United States: Estranged Democracies, he has expanded on his basic view and given it body and substance. He acknowledges that the book does not attempt to make value judgments. It was animated by his realizing that "in recent years no American had prepared a comprehensive account of the relationship."

The book conforms to this norm of logic: Before trying to understand and judge why things happened or happen, it is necessary

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with President Dwight D. Eisenhower (top) and with President John F. Kennedy. and relevant to know what happened.

Recalling the causations before coming to propositions and conclusions is always a useful exercise. Kux's book serves the purpose admirably. His terms of reference are clinical and objective. He has consciously avoided hortatory or moral postures or "realpolitik" prejudices that generally characterize Indo-U.S. interaction.

Estranged Democracies covers Indo-U.S. relations from 1941 to 1991. The descriptive history of these 50 years is woven around the administrations and personalities of ten U.S. Presidents, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George Bush, and their interactions with Indian Prime Ministers, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Rajiv Gandhi.

Kux has captured both the drama and complex chemistry of Indo-U.S. relations.

Few Indians or Americans would know or remember the idealism and empathy that animated President Roosevelt's India policy during the 1940s. Nor is there much awareness of the supportive pressure that Chiang Kai-shek exerted on the British government for India's independence. The

author has recaptured these details, retrieved these memories giving evolutionary context to Indo-U.S. relations. While highlighting U.S.-British differences of opinion about India's independence, Kux has not given in to the temptation of glorifying American policies of that time. He candidly describes American disappointment about the Quit India Movement: "Gandhi's tactics-appalling to Americans-Qf launching the Quit India ...campaign at the height of the war. ..and his earlier criticism of the United States played into the hands of British hardliners."

The dichotomy characterizing Indo-U.S. relations during the Truman years is brought out without any attempt at rationalizing or justifying the phenomenon from the U.S. point of view. Kux recalls Truman's bemused perceptions about India, Secretary of State Dean Acheson's distances vis-a-vis Nehru, and American reservations about India's neutral or nonaligned foreign policy postures. He gives details about Indo-U.S. differences on Kashmir and the Korean War, and resulting negative trends. He mentions the commencement of U.S. developmental and food assistance to India under Truman's directives. But how India's views and 'policies on these issues affected any tangible aspect of U.S. security interests at that point of time is not explained. What happened is recounted, but how things happened and to some extent why things happened the way they did are missing from this book.

India's disappointments about American reluctance to export technologies to India and to build industrial core sectors of the Indian economy began at this time, ultimately leading India to turn toward the Soviets and East Europeans for support in this vital area. Bethelhem Steel's objection to the U.S. setting up steel production factories in India reflected this phenomenona phenomenon that led not only to economic disappointment but also political estrangement. Some significant factors like these are not touched upon in sufficient detail in the book.

President Eisenhower gets two chapters.

The Eisenhower era was a period when the major causes of estrangement in Indo-U.S. relations were issues affecting American

interests. Cold War controversies were at their peak. The Korean War; Suez Canal and Hungarian revolution crises; the creation of military alliances to contain communist expansion; India's opening up lines with the Soviet Union and China; her leading role in establishing the nonaligned movement; her views on the developing politico-military situation in Indo-Chinawere issues over which America and India had fundamental differences.

Kux lucidly analyzes events and trends of this period, imparting insights into U.S. decision-making processes, political considerations as well as personal inclinations, preferences, and prejudices. Among issues discussed are the controversial and selfrighteous role of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in dealing with India; Eisenhower's overriding common sense and practicality, which balanced this off; and, more important, Eisenhower's giving sufficient attention to India despite the country's comparatively low ranking on his foreign policy priority agenda.

The chapters devoted to the Eisenhower period shed light on larger dimensions of U.S. foreign-policy making. The author correctly pinpoints U.S.-Pakistan relations during these years as the benchmark by which India assessed American attitudes toward India. This is confirmed by Dulles telling President Ayub Khan and Finance Minister Amjad Ali in April 1958 that U.S. "feelings for Pakistan were, in a sense, totally different from those for India ... .The basic relationship with India was intellectual in contrast to its relationship with Pakistan which came from the heart." Kux illustrates the point by noting the U.S. government's backing out of an offer to sell Sidewinder missiles to India and refusing India's request for Fairchild C-I 19 transport aircraft in 1980, while Pakistan was being given F-104 aircraft.

One wishes that Kux had devoted more space to Indo-U.S. interaction during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Short though it was, the period witnessed the most positive equation between the two countries since India's independence. Kux mentions Kennedy's prompt and concrete response to India's defense and security requirements in the aftermath of the Sino-Indian conflict of

1962; Indo-U.S. cooperation on the crises in the Congo and Laos; and India's restrained reaction to the U.S. invasion of Cuba. He could have added an analysis as to why, despite the empathy of Kennedy, Indo-U.S. relations did not take a more long-term positive orientation; after all, the Democrats continued in power for a full five years after Kennedy's demise. Kux does mention Ayub's presenting a stallion to Mrs. Kennedy and the strong Pakistani connections in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community. Pakistan's better public relations equation with the power structure in America is a point still relevant to structuring our relations with the United States. One is not advocating keeping up with the Pakistani Joneses in giving lavish presents, but the need for the United States and India to be sensitive about and responsive to public opinion and political-cultural traits of peoples of both countries cannot be overemphasized.

The human factor affecting history and affairs of state is soberly and poignantly narrated in the context of Nehru's visit to the United States in 1961 when he disappointed Kennedy with his indifference toward discussing issues.

The chapters on Johnson, Nixon, and Ford give clear pictures of the U.S. psyche and ethos in dealing with India. There were Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with President Lyndon B. Johnson (below) and with President Richard M. Nixon.

two Indo-Pak wars during this period, in 1965 and 1971. The Vietnam War came to a boil with the U.S. withdrawal in 1975. Johnson temporized, while Nixon tilted in favor of Pakistan, on various matters of vital concern to India. The United States took the position that safeguarding democracy against communism transcended regional or national concerns. India did not accept this worldview. America felt it had helped India a great deal in economic, technological, and academic spheres, yet India was not responsive to U.S. concerns. The U.S. Administration perceived India as self-centered, assertive, and unmanageable. American reactions and policies were indifferent (except in actual conflict situations) and at times adversarial, as during the Nixon era.

India in turn assessed U.S. policies toward India in particular and South Asia in general through the looking glass of U .S.Pak relations, especially from 1965 to 1973.

This gave a roller coaster character to IndoU.S. relations that the author outlines with relevant detail and anecdotal specifics.

Bilateral relations during the Carter and Reagan administrations were subject to qualitative new developments. The declaration of emergency in India in 1975, the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan affected relations.

The author has adverted to the higher purposes of Carter's foreign policy, like respect for human rights and nuclear nonproliferation. Though Carter's trip to India in 1978 was the first top-level visit in many years, it did not make any long-term substantive or positive impact on Indo-U.S. relations. Kux says, "The improvement in the political relationship between the United States and India was real, but somewhat deceptive ... .The two governments had difficulty in moving much beyond the stage of better political atmospherics."

Kux describes the Reagan period as one of "gradual warming" in Indo-U.S. relations, but except for the high point of the meeting between Mrs. Gandhi and President Reagan at Cancun in Mexico, this does not square with ground realities of the period. Divergences on transfer of sophisticated and dual use technologies, IDA (International Development Authority) contribution, the quantum of economic

From top: Prime Minister Morarji Desai with President Jimmy Carter; Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with President Ronald Reagan; and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with then Vice President George Bush.

assistance, disarmament and nonproliferation matters, controversies over intellectual property rights, export of Indian textiles to America, and more began afresh during this period. Yet the ambience and the atmospherics in our bilateral relations improved in some respects.

The first part of the Bush period suffered from the uncertainties of the Indian political situation. The ambiguous, even confused, attitude of the Indian government on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the alarms and excursions in Indo-Pak relations caused by tensions in Jammu and Kashmir, did not help matters. Kux, however, gives an accurate and balanced account of the motives and manner of U.S. efforts to lower IndoPak tensions in 1990. It contrasts with the hyperbolic and alarming picture other American authors, particularly those who wrote the book Critical Mass, painted about the situation.

Kux's concluding thoughts reflect sobriety and realism. His measured prognosis outlines possibilities for and acknowledges

the limitations endemic to relations between India and America, given their respective geopolitical locations, and their different statuses and responsibilities in the world's newly emerging power equations. He has pointed out with clarity and perspicacity that just being sister democracies with shared values is not a sufficient basis for truly close relations. He has not hesitated to stress the fact that economic concerns, security interests, and strategic considerations were and are the decisive factors determining Indo-U.S. relations.

Estranged Democracies is the most comprehensive and thoughtful description of Indo-U.S. relations written by an American in the past four decades at least. Combining virtue and necessity, it deals with India's relations with one of the most important countries of the world. Reading it is a necessity because these relations have important implications for India and South Asia.

Kux has attempted to lay foundations for a better understanding of the forces influencing Indo-U.S. relations. It is a pity, therefore, that he did not have equal access to Indian archives and Indian resource persons.

The estrangement of India and America is a fact; whether this is an unchangeable predicament is the question. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in his introduction to the book, says that the temptation to answer the question in the affirmative should be resisted.

Kux's book provides the historical perspective and realistic prism through which the United States and India can view each other and thereby structure a relationship where the considerations of realpolitik can be gradually brought in line with the abiding mantra chanted by many Indians and Americans alike that the world's strongest and the world's largest democracies have shared values that must inevitably produce a close and friendly equation.

Kux makes a timely advocacy for perseverance tempered by objectivity. I 0 wholeheartedly agree with him.

About the Reviewer: J.N. Dixit, aformer Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and deputy chief of mission in the Indian Embassy, Washington, D.C., retired in January 1994 as foreign secretary.

I

Astronomical .ameGame Comet [ke)'a-Seki was named ajier its discoverers, [keya Kaoru and Seki Tsutomu. [n [965, it was visible to the naked eye in broad daylight. Right: Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center/or Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

at's nomenclature problem of astronomical proportions.

Since it began to survey the face of Venus in 1990, the Magellan spacecraft has revealed literally thousands of uncharted mountains, valleys, plains. cracks, faults, rifts, volcanic basins, craters, and myriad other odd geological formations.

Now, cosmic cartographers must assign names to all these features on the map of Venus. Of course, they can expect lots of help--solicited and otherwise. Indeed, Joel Russell of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is drowning in a deluge of mail from people worldwide who want to suggest just who or what gets immortalized on the planet's crust.

The USGS is responsible for producing the detailed planetary maps used by scientists and students around the world. As a member of the Venus cartographic team at the Office of Astrogeology in Flagstaff, Arizona, Russell is the public contact for suggesting potential names.

At its 17th general assembly in 1979, the International Astronomical Union (lAU) decided that, except for one high mountain already named for Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell, only feminine names will identify Venusian surface features. Newly mapped volcanic caldera and craters larger than 19 kilometers in diameter will be named for historical women, smaller craters will be given feminine first names from various world cultures, and valleys will take the names for the planet Venus from different languages. Other features will be named for mythological women.

To some people, the astronomical name game may seem a quaint practice with little relevance to understanding what an object really is. To others, it is a full-time job requiring hours of patient research and the delicate negotiating skills of a United Nations diplomat.

Throughout time, different cultures and civilizations have had

their own names for things in the sky. Zib, Dilbat, Ng'andu, Djohar, Aldan-odo, Jutrzenka, and Shukra, for instance, all mean Venus-in Sumerian, Babylonian, Swahili, Indonesian, Mongolian, Polish, and Hindi, respectively.

With the invention of the telescope, those who saw something first usually named it as they liked. Even as recently as the 1920s, three separate sets of nomenclature for features on the

moon had been generated by observers on different continents.

As a result of the increasing internationalization of science at the beginning of this century, names for solar system bodies began to be codified and subjected to certain conventions-both in an attempt to be fair and to minimize confusion among researchers.

Today, only comets and asteroids, and the newly discovered moons, rings, and associated sur-

Below: Feminine names will be given to all unnamedfeatures on the planet Venus, according to the decision by the International Astronomical Union. Thousands offeatures have been mapped on the Venusian surface, including these three impact craters. Boltom: No living persons may be commemorated for topographic features on the moon or planets. Hadley Rille, a lava channel on the moon, provided the backdrop for this photo of Apollo 15 astronauts in the Lunar Roving Vehicle.

face features of planets, are given real names. The process is governed by various IAU committees. In general, neither the names of politicians, philosophers, or military figures of the past two centuries, nor the names of people associated with any stilI-practiced religion, are accepted.

For topographic features on the moon or planets, no living people may be commemorated.

One notable exception in 1973: Charles Greeley Abbot, fourth secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who lived to be 101, was "somewhat prematurely honored," as he put it, with a lunar crater name.

"Outside the solar system, on the other hand, it's far messier," says Brain Marsden, referring to the sheer, unimaginable number of stars and galaxies in the universe. Marsden is associate director for planetary sciences at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics In Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the international committee that names asteroids and comets.

With the exception of the constellations and a few hundred stars whose original Arabic or Greek names have persisted in some form to the present, astronomers typically identify objects by their coordinates on a celestial grid or by a hierarchical ranking within a constellation, or both.

This leads to such odd appellations as FU Orionis, for the 196th variable star discovered in the constellation Orion. Or Omicron Ceti, also called Mira, which should be the 15th brightest star in the constellation Cetus the Whale.

Sometimes the numbers are preceded by letters that refer to any one of dozens of astronomical cata~ogs, resulting in the more pedestrian, but practical, NGC 2264, BD + 362147, or HD 114762.

Comets have traditionally been named after their discoverers or the circumstances in which they occurred-eomet Halley, comet Swift-Tuttle, The Great January, or Daylight comet of 1910. This

only becomes a problem when more than one person-Dr satellite instrument-is responsible for the discovery, producing such mouthfuls as comet IRAS-ArakiAlcock or comet SchwassmannWachmann 1,2, and 3.

On the other hand, the asteroids, or "minor planets"-thousands of chunks of rock ranging in size from boulders to mountain ranges that orbit the sun along with the rest of the planets--engender much fiercer debate when it comes to naming them.

Generally, the privilege of christening a minor planet also lies with the discoverer, who has ten years in which to propose a name. After that, it is open to the astronomical community. Astronomers are no different from other people and, consequently, names of friends and loved oneseven pets-Df the discoverers make up a significant fraction of entries.

The accompanying citations explaining (or justifying) a choice have become a minor literary form, admired as examples of precision, brevity, and wit.

"The big debates are usually caused by whether someone is considered political or not," Marsden says. "The commission turned down Lech Walesa in 1991, but accepted Jan Palach, the Czechoslovakian student who martyred himself to protest the Soviet invasion of 1969, because he had originally been proposed before the ruling against political names was made, and because the political climate between East and West is generally more tolerant now."

The first, and largest, asteroid to be observed was named Ceres by its Italian discoverer for the Roman goddess of the harvest. From Polyhymnia to Mr. Spock, names for asteroids run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous, the original to the commonplace, the popular to the absurd.

0 About the Author: Caroline Lupfer is a reporter for the Smithsonian News Service.

WorldCup COUNTDOWN Next month 24 of the world's top football teams will begin a 52game playoff in nine U.S. cities to determine the world's champion.

It has taken 64 years, but at last the premier event of the most popular sport on the planet is about to invade what an international official cal1s "the final frontier": The United States of America.

The World Cup wil1commence on June 17with a lavish opening ceremony at Soldier Field in Chicago, fol1owed by a game pitting defending champion Germany against Bolivia. The final game of the 52-match schedule involving 24 national teams and nine stadium sites wil1be played on July 17 before 100,000 fans paying $475 a ticket at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California-accompanied by the now familiar Hol1ywood-caliber half-time supershow and a futuristic closing ceremony extravaganza that is likely to exceed recent Olympic proportions.

In awarding the 15th quadrennial World Cup to the United States over Brazil and Morocco, the Federation Internationale de Footbal1 Association (FIF A) had no doubt that the United States had the facilities and the capacity to pul1it off, and the organization was intrigued by the potential for growth of the sport in America. Nevertheless, FIF A feared putting the hal10wedWorld Cup in a country that has never demonstrated overwhelming passion for the sport.

One indication that the United States was ready was its successful organization of the 1984 Olympic footbal1 compeLos Angeles, where 103,000 enthusiastic fans safely witnessed the Olympic final at the Rose Bowl in nearby Pasadena. The com,missioner of the Olympic footbal1 event, Los Angeles attorney and now chairman of the World Cup USA 94 Alan Rothenberg, earned international respect that would pay dividends for the U.S. 1994 World Cup bid.

In 1986 the U.S. Soccer Federation (footbal1 is known as soccer in the United States) went out on a limb and bid for that year's World Cup, which suddenly became available when designated host Colombia found internal problems too pressing to

take on the crushing responsibility. "The U.S. bid, but FIF A was pretty clear their comfort factor was higher with a country that had done it before and chose Mexico," said Jim Trecker, vice president and press officer of World Cup USA. The United States passed on bidding for the 1990 World Cup but regrouped and made a strong claim for 1994. "The key event that convinced FIFA President Joao Havelange that we could handle it was a visit to President Ronald Reagan in the White House in spring of 1987," said Trecker. "When Reagan assured him the government was behind the bid, and when both houses of Congress passed a joint resolution supporting an American bid, he received a clear message that the United States was ready."

On July 4, 1988, FIFA told the United States to start planning for the 1994 World Cup and raise funds to cover $300-400 million in expenses. Monetary success seems assured with ten major sponsors-Coca-Cola, Snickers, Gillette, Philips, JVC, MasterCard, Canon, Fuji, General Motors, and McDonald'scommitting $15-20 million apiece, all of which goes to the FIF A. Among a second category of sponsors, called "marketing partners," are American Airlines, Adidas, Sheraton Hotels, Sprint, Upper Deck, and four other companies that have committed $7 million each, to be paid to World Cup USA. The sites (see pages 26-28) are ready.

World Cup USA 94 picked the smallest number of sites ever (nine) for a 24-team field, with the largest average seating capacity (73,809). They include the Cup's first indoor venue, the Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan, where a $2-miilion strain of live bluegrass, developed at nearby Michigan State University, held up well in Germany's 2-1 victory over England in June last year before 62,126 fans in the finals of the United States Cup. The sixgame U.S. Cup tournament drew 286,761 fans, an average of 47,793 a match.

For the 1994 World Cup, some 3.6 million tickets were made available, of which two million have been sold in the United States. One million of the tickets are low-priced "Category 3" tickets,

starting at $25. As Rothenberg said, "Soccer is a sport played by millions of young and working-class Americans, and our price structure gives them a chance to see the event live at very reasonable prices."

Most tickets are already sold. The European and world allotment seems destined to be sold out.

In addition to the Rose Bowl and the Silverdome, the games will be played at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, California, south of San Francisco; Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois; the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Texas; the Citrus Bowl in Orlando, Florida; Robert F. Kennedy Stadium in Washington, D.C.; Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, near New York City; and Foxboro Stadium near Boston in Massachusetts.

The first round of the World Cup will

The American domestic allotment of World Cup tickets, two milliolJ of the 3.6 million total for seats at the nine U.S. venues, were sold out almost a year ago.

consist of 36 games played from June 17 to June 30, with a minimum of two and a maximum of four games each day. After a day of rest on July I, a second round of 16 games will begin at all venues save Michigan, with two games a day through July 5.

Quarterfinal games will be played in Boston and Dallas, on July 9, and on July 10 in Palo Alto and East Rutherford. On July 13, Giants Stadium will host one semifinal game, and the Rose Bowl the other. The Rose Bowl will then host the match for third place on July 16 and the final on July 17.

"The schedule represents an exciting allocation of games and goes a long way to share World Cup fever across the nation," said Rothenberg. Television coverage will take the excitement around the world. Key FIFA sponsors-Snickers, MasterCard, and Coca-Cola are committed to a funding plan whereby the U.S. network ABC (American Broadcasting Companies), which is broadcast-

ing 11 games including two first-round U.S. matches and the final, and ESPN (Entertainment and Sports Programming Network), which will telecast the other 41, will avoid the traditional commercial interruptions during play; both 45" minute halves of all games will be shown without a break.

"Never before has the entire World Cup coverage on the TV been available in English in the United States," said Rothenberg. ABC and ESPN, which are paying $11 million for U.S. broadcasting rights, will integrate their announcers with the basic European Broadcasting Union's neutral feeds of the 52 matches going out to the rest of the world.

When world football fans converge on Pasadena and the greater Los Angeles area, says venue organizer David Simmons, they will be greeted by a city ready to share the World Cup spirit.

"Pasadena is one of the most beautiful communities in southern California," notes Simmons. "It is unique for a small community to have a major stadium in a beautiful setting in the foothills ofthe San Gabriel Mountains. We plan to have a festival of activities-including a miniature soccer field where visitors can test their abilities-within range of the stadium. Pasadena, which hosted the 1984 Olympic soccer competition, is ready for a large proportion of the estimated 1.5 million international visitors."

Pasadena, like the other World Cup host cities, has many attractions. It has two major art museums as well as the Pacific Asia Museum with its authentic Chinese garden. Every type of cuisine is available among the city's 250 restaurants.

And for nightspots there are jazz and dance clubs, sports bars, and homey neighborhood pubs where enthusiastic Argentines, Germans, and Africans can all feel at home. Those who care to venture slightly farther afield can visit Disneyland, Universal Studios, famed comedy nightspots on Sunset Strip in Hollywood, and Malibu Beach; see television shows being taped at major studios; drive to see unique desert (Text continued on page 25)

WorldCup

USA94"

Weare going to put on the red, white, and the blue and go out and shock the world.

-THOMAS

DOOLEY (left)

Goalkeeper Tony Meola.

World Cup USA is striving to put its best foot forward to welcome players and spectators from around the world. formations at Joshua Tree National Monument; or observe the mix of international cultures that characterize greater Los Angeles.

Preparations include security, an awesome responsibility in this era of terrorism and sporadic deadly football riots throughout the world. The prospectseems daunting for a democratic society that won't stand for massive police and military presence at its public events. And FIFA officials are opposed to the use of fences, ditches, and barbed wire barricades employed at other football venues. "If you put people in cages, they act like animals," said FIF A General Secretary Joseph Blatter.

Trecker is confident that the footballfan hooliganism will not develop at the World Cup. "Those outbreaks were the result of local club loyalties at stadiums unprepared for the events," said Trecker.

"That kind of outbreak hasn't been seen at World Cup and Olympic events, partly because the travel costs are prohibitive and partly because security has improved.

In fact, this year, cooperation between international security agencies resulted in people convicted of soccer violence being turned back at the U.S. borders. We plan to keep those people away."

Despite warnings of possible terrorist acts at practically every large international gathering, security forces at recent Olympics have met the challenge and are prepared for the World Cup. With safety concerns taken care of behind the scenes, the festival can bloom on the surface. Temporary theme parks are being erected in each of the nine World Cup cities, and world-renowned designers are creating colorful motifs to decorate World Cup stadiums and the (Text continued on page 29) U.S. players John Doyle and Desmond Armstrong try to take control of the ballfrom Ferinand in a U.S. Cup '93 match between America and England.

CHICAGO: Soldier Field on the shores of Lake Michigan will be

the site for the gala opening ceremony of the 15th World Cup on June 17. The "Windy City," carved out of swampland and organized as a village in 1833, has a population of 2.8 million.

Chicago is the commercial, financial, industrial, and cultural center of the Middle West.

ORLANDO: This trade and processing center, with aerospace a~d electronics industries, has a population of 128,394.World Cup teams will square off at the Florida Citrus Bowl, two kilometers west of Orlando, and probably find time to visit Disney World, one of several nearby tourist attractions.

LOS ANGELES: The Rose Bowl in Pasadena, ten kilome-

ters east of Los Angeles, is famous as the site for one of America's New Year's Day university American football championship games. Sun-drenched Los Angeles, "City of the Angels," was founded by the Spanish in 1781 and invaded by the motion picture industry about 1910.

Its population is 3.5 million.

DALLAS: The second largest metropolis in Texas (after

Houston) was incorporated asa city in 1871on the Trinity River. After 1900the population soared with the discovery of oil and the growing of cotton. "Big D," as Dallas is called, has a population of one million. Its World Cup venue, the Cotton Bowl, hosts another famous New Year's Day American football championship.

SAN FRANCISCO: The football venue for this storied area is Stanford Stadium, 40 kilometers south of San Francisco in Palo Alto, California. Culturally proud San Francisco, the first American city to have a civic opera house, was founded in the 18th century by the Spanish and known as Yerba Buena. The little town was rechristened San Francisco on January 23, 1847, and today has a population of 720,000.

DETROIT: This city of 1.2 million on the Detroit River was the automobile

capital ofthe world in the early 20th century. Its World Cup matches will be played 30 kilometers to the northwest at the covered Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan.

BOSTON: This hub of historic New England, with a population of 570,000, is considered the cradle of American soccer. As far back as 1827, Harvard University was the scene. of a crude brand of the game. For decades football has been the number one sport in Boston. World Cup matches will take place 40 kilometers south in Foxboro, Massachusetts.

Matches willbe played at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium,just20blockseastofthe U.S. Capitol. The Washington metropolitan area, with a population of 3.9 million, is home to many recently arrived immigrant groups whose members converge on public parks evenings and weekends to play football.

WASIDNGTON:

NEW YORK CITY: America's cul-

tural and financial capital was established as a trading post in 1609. The population of the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area is 18 million. The World Cup venue will be Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River.

streets of nearby cities.

All the spectacle of this gargantuan event, of course, would be nothing without the competition. Despite the spine-chilling tension of several games decided on penalty kicks to break ties at the end of regulation time in 1990, football officials are worried that low-scoring, defensive struggles might douse rather than ignite fan interest in the United States-a country accustomed to the high-scoring antics of basketball and the offensive fireworks of American football, which resembles rugby.

"The biggest mark against World Cup soccer is that it is primarily a defensive sport," said assistant U.S. coach Timo Liekoski. "The beauty of soccer is not necessarily the goals scored but rather the duels for the ball, the buildup, the good goalkeeper's save, and the near miss. I think this is difficult to accept in the United States, with its other sports tradi tions."

But the game seems to be changing, according to the sport's analysts. "In 1990, the negative nature of World Cup play had the FIF A and everyone concerned," said Trecker. "Certainly, if there are 52 boring games this year, that won't do much to spread the gospel of soccer here and elsewhere. But all evidence shows that the World Cup teams seem to be evolving out of that."

In last summer's U.S. Cup event, which saw the United States, Germany, England, and Brazil play six games, 22 goals were scored. "This was a scoring bonanza compared to past tournaments," said Trecker. "And scoring was up in the recently concluded European season. Just like in American professional sports, defensive soccer seems to be a phase that is changing."

No better illustration of this happy "opening" of play comes than with the Argentine squad, one of the favorites.

"Argentina comes forward as a joyful, attacking team completely different from the squad that was placed second to West Germany in Italy in 1990," said Trecker.

"Most of the credit goes to coach Alfio Basile."

The South American champions have retooled their team very nicely, and to

Indian-born Sunil Gulati, 34, has been instrumental in bringing the World Cup to the United States. He is senior vice president and chief international officer for World Cup USA 1994.

Before taking up his present assignment in October 1992,Gulati worked with the World Bank as an economist for a year. Earlier he had been an assistant professor at his alma mater, Columbia University in New York City; he received graduate degrees in economics and philosophy from there.

Gulati is responsible for all World Cup matters related to strategic planning, international football federations, international ticketing, international games involving the U.S. national team, and scheduling games and referees.

Gulati immigrated to the United States from Punjab in 1964 with his mother and sister Anita. His father Bodh Gulati, a mathematics teacher at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, had gone

replace, if the need be, the aging superstar Diego Maradona-an unparalleled, brilliant individual playmaker-they now have a trio of stars: Gabriel Batistuta, a prolific goal scorer who played for the great AC Fiorentina team in the Italian football league, midfield star Fernando Redondo, and goalie Sergio Goyochea. Since 1990the Argentine team had been unbeaten until it lost qualifying matches to Colombia in August and September 1993.

The German squad, which seldom has had a fiery superstar like Maradona, is once again "a beautiful machine," in Liekoski's words. "The Germans like to play forward whenever possible, with a lot of players in the midfield. They make it very difficult for another team to get an attack going and play the ball forward as quickly as possible." When the Germans tied Brazil 3-3 in a U.S. Cup match, they averaged one pass for each of their goals while the Brazilians involved eight players in 11 passes, Liekoski said.

Germany is not without its stars. The team is led by Lothar Matthaeus, who recently participated in his 108th match as a member of the German national team

to America four years earlier.

From 1986to 1990Gulati served as chairman of U.S. Soccer's International Games Committee, responsible for the national team programs and international games in the United States. In 1987he was the acting general secretary of U.S. Soccer. In 1990 he became director of the national teams, and since 1991he has chaired the national teams committee. He also served as chairman of U.S. Cup '92, won by the United States.

Before his association with U.S. Soccer, Gulati was actively involved with the Connecticut Junior Soccer Associationas a player, referee, coach, and administrator. He trained various state select teams and later served as the state's Olympic Development Program administrator.

Says Alan Rothenberg, chairman and chief executive officer of World Cup USA 94: "Gulati is a soccer treasure. No one is indispensable. He's not. I'm not. But he is as close as you can come."

0

(it will be his fourth World Cup appearance), and striker Jurgen Linsmann, who with four goals was chosen MVP (most valuable player) of the U.S. Cup tournament, which Germany won in its tie with Brazil, a hard-fought 4-3 win over the United States, and a 2-1 squeaker over England, which had been shocked by the fledgling U.S. squad.

The Americans turned heads with their upset of England, a feat they had not accomplished in 40 years of international competition. After the team lost all three games in the first round of the 1990World Cup, the U.S. Soccer Federation hired Yugoslav-born coach Bora Milutinovic, who had led Mexico to the quarterfinals in the 1986World Cup and Costa Rica to the second round in 1990, for $200,000 a year-far more than any U.S. player is compensated.

Milutinovic gave immediate returns on investment as the U.S. squad beat Uruguay in 1991. The 1992 highlight was winning the U.S. Cup with a 1-0 win over Portugal, a 3-1 victory over Ireland, and a 1-1 tie with Italy. Goalie Tony Meola made eight crucial saves, and finally John

Harkes struck a feed past Italian goalie Luica Marchegiani for America's first goal against Italy since 1934.

The addition of South African forward Roy Wegerle (married to an American) and Thomas Dooley (born in Germany of an American serviceman, and a star in the European leagues) has solidified the

U.S.team. "Although we are not likely to win the Cup, we have proved that we can play with the best in the world on a given day," said Liekoski. "We could well be the Cameroon of the 1994 World Cup." Dooley, speaking through an interpreter, told a reporter: "We are going to put on the red, white, and blue and

The World Cup has never gone out of its two perennial abodes, Europe and South America. Even this time there is hardly any likelihood of a dramatic change in the destiny of the Cup. So the poser is-and a million-dollar poser at that~Who will walk away with the World Cup this year? A Latin or a Continental? The only sure bet is that the much coveted trophy is unlikely to be bagged by the host United States. Nor, for that matter, will it travel to any of the three emerging African nations (Cameroon, Nigeria, and Morocco), nor to any of the two Asian aspirants (South Korea and Saudi Arabia).

Currently, the World Cup is in the custody of three-time champion Germany, a country with an outstanding and proud record in the tournament. Though flairless, Germany, as defending champion, must start among the hot favorites at the time of kickoff on June 17, 1994.

If the Germans make it to the final on July 17at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, it will be for an unprecedented fourth time in a row. And a record seventh time overall in their 13 appearances in the finals. Then there are two other three-time World Cup winners-

sentimental favorite Brazil and clinically efficient Italy. Yet, one has to look beyond this favored trio: The likes of Argentina-twice winners; and the Netherlandstwice runners-up but never winners.

Strangely, the skillful though temperamental Netherlands is not among the six seeds, but the United States and Belgium are.

The seeds head the six groups of four teams each. Winners and runners-up of each group plus four other best-placed teams will advance to the knockout second round. The teams graduating to the second round are likely to be: Brazil, Russia, Columbia, Switzerland,· Germany, Spain, Argentina, Bulgaria or Nigeria, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Romania or the United States, Cameroon or Sweden, Bolivia, and Morocco.

There will be eight matches in the second round. Only the winners will go into the quarter-finals. Considering all permutations, and the unpredictable and crazy twists and turns of form and fortune, one may hazard a guess about the eight which will contest the quarterfinals. To wit, Argentina vs Spain or Switzerland; Netherlands vs Brazil; Italy vs Germany; Columbia vs Belgium or Ru~sia or Cameroon.

Going further one may suggest this semi-

®

go out and shock the world."

Meanwhile, World Cup USA is eagerly working to put its best foot forward to welcome players and spectators from around the world.

0 About the Author: Timothy Carlson is a freelance writer from Culver City, California.

final lineup: Argentina vs Germany; and Brazil vs Columbia or Belgium.

What about the finalists?

It could-if not shouldbe Brazil and Germany. This despite the revealing and discouraging fact that Brazil has not even entered the final since its third and last triumph in 1970. Interestingly, Brazil's three World Cup victories came during the fabulous Pele era.

But let's not forget the hosts, kind of Cinderellas of World Cup 94. History and tradition demands that the hosts progress at least into the second round. It has been so throughout the World Cup's 64 years.

All said and done, World Cup USA 94 will be an open affair. Anything and everything is possible, especially with such shock troopers as Columbia, Norway, Switzerland, Cameroon (remember their epochal deeds last time?), Nigeria, and Mexico around. The new and welcome rule of three points for a win in the opening round (instead of two points as in earlier championships) should encourage 0 attacking, exciting football.

About the Author: K.N. Mohlajee is theformer sports editor of The Statesman and now a columnist with the same newspaper.

LOS ANGELES COLOMBIA

YS

CAMEROON BOSTON

DALLAS

ARGENTINA KOREA

YS

YS

JUNE

BOLIViA

ARGENTINA GREECE

GREECE

YS

YS

NIGERIA

NIGERIA

21

SPAIN

23

NIGERIA

25

GERMANY

30

ARGENTINA

CHICAGO

YS

JUNE

BULGARIA YS

KOREA YS

BOLIViA....

.

YS

BOLIVIA

GERMANY

YS YS

BULGARIA YS

USA

SPAIN

21

ROMANIA

GREECE

26

SWEDEN

27

BRAZIL

YS

SWITZERLAND

COLOMBIA

22

USA

YS

ROMANIA

26

21

NEW YORK/NEW

27

ITALY

YS

IRELAND

30

ITALY

YS

NORWAY

SAUDI

ARABIA YS

JERSEY

YS

JUNE

18 23

MOROCCO

SAN FRANCISCO BRAZIL

YS

RUSSIA

BRAZIL

YS

CAMEROON..

SWITZERLAND RUSSIA

YS

NORWAY

28

RUSSIA

22

BELGIUM

28

MEXICO

YS

YS

MOROCCO

IRELAND..

COLOMBIA

26 28

D.C. MEXiCO

NETHERLANDS

YS

20 24

CAMEROON

WASHINGTON, NORWAY

SWEDEN

YS

JUNE .

25

18 ORLANDO

YS YS

19

YS

22

YS

SWITZERLAND

JUNE

18

USA

IRELAND

17

SPAIN

JUNE

JUNE

SWEDEN

17

DETROIT

GERMANY

BOLIVIA

KOREA

YS

ROMANIA

YS

JUNE

19

ITALY

.

24

BELGIUM

YS

YS

JUNE

SAUDI

ARABIA

MEXICO YS

SAUDI

19 .. 20 28

ARABIA...

. .. 30

The stunning black and white photography, crisp editing, memorable dialogue, and, above all, the romantic pair of Rick Blaine and I1sa Lund, played by Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, are what give Casablanca its appeal half a century after it was made.

Return to C'asa anca In the annals of Hollywood, 1993 went down as the year Casablanca turned 50. Though not wrongly referred to as "vintage Hollywood," the film's never-ending capacity to lure audiences makes it more accurately an "all-time great."

The Casablanca phenomenon raises several pertinent questions: What is a classic? Are classics made or do they just happen? What makes a film click with generation after generation?

A number of factors contribute to Casablanca's perennial appeal, not the least of which are the setting and period. The film opens in the coastal city of Casablanca in French Morocco, a way station for refugees trying to escape to the New World from Nazi persecution. The atmosphere is thick with intrigue; everyone's eyes are turned in desperate hope to the freedom promised by America. The year

Casablanca got exis 1941; Pearl Harbor cellent reviews when it has not yet been was released and won attacked and many Oscars for Best Film, Americans are still Best Screenplay (by uncommitted.

Julius Epstein, Philip Center stage in the Epstein, and Howard .narrative is Rick's Koch), and Best DirecCafe Americain, a tor (Michael Curtiz). fancy nightclub owned The movie was nomiby Rick Blaine (Humnated in eight Acadphrey Bogart), a cyniemy Award categories cal American advenand brought Bogart turer. One day the his first nomination as French Police Captain Best Actor (although Louis Renault (Claude he lost out to Paul Rains) shows up at the Lukas in Watch on cafe and informs Rick the Rhine). about the arrival of Interestingly, CasaVictor Laszlo (Paul blanca is based on a Henreid), head of play that never even the European Underreached Broadway. ground Movement.

Written by Murray Burnett and Laszlo has escaped from a Rick Blaine, the cynical nightclub Joan Alison, it was entitled Everyconcentration camp and is trying owner, and Captain Louis Renault, the body Goes to Rick's. Warner to flee to America with his wife charming police officer, strike up a Brothers bought the screen rights I1sa Lund (Ingrid Bergman). I1sa "beautiful friendship." to the play and hired the Epstein turns out to be Rick's old flame brothers, Julius and Philip, to try with whom he had a brief but and put something together. intense affair at the time of the fall Producer Hal B. Wallis wanted of Paris. I1sa had deserted Rick for Ingrid Bergman to play the female Laszlo just when she and Rick lead but she was under contract to David O. Selznick. As were planning to flee Paris to get married, leaving Rick Selznick would loan her only if sufficiently impressed with understandably wounded and bitter. the proposal, Wallis sent the Epsteins over to Selznick to adRick has two exit visas that could allow I1sa and Laszlo to lib the story into something impressive. The Epsteins did a escape, but when Laszlo asks for the visas Rick is not ready to commendable job. After Adam Had Four Sons, in which oblige. "The problems of the world are not my department," she played a housekeeper and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in Rick says. ''I'm a saloon keeper." Later at a clandestine meeting, which she played a tarty barmaid, Selznick saw Casablanca I1sa first begs Rick for the visas, then tries to get them by as a chance for Bergman to add glamour to her image. Wallis threatening him with a gun. In the end she breaks down, assigned another screenplay writer, Howard Koch, to help the confessing that she is still in love with him. She says she left .J Epsteins and speedup the work on the script. Meanwhile the him once but could never do it again. She is prepared to run Epsteins themselves left for Washington, D.C., to work on away with him. the U.S. War Department's Why We Fight series under From here the film passes through intense, high-paced drama Frank Capra. Koch struggled with the script for about a month with a series of interesting convolutions until finally I1sa leaves until they returned. with Laszlo and not Rick. The film ends with Rick and Renault It was a race against time. The salaries of the stars were pretty walking off together into the night fog with Rick saying the high even in those days and the producer could not afford to immortal curtain line, "Louis, I think thi~ is the beginning of a keep them without work. All three writers pitched in, not bea utiful friendship." necessarily in total harmony. When the shooting began only Casablanca was the first-and the last-film to romantically half the screenplay was done. Nathaniel Benchley gives an pair Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart. Apart from the interesting account of the making of Casablanca in Humphrey three lead actors, the film had an excellent supporting cast in Bogart's biography that was published in 1975. He writes: Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Conrad Veidt, "Generally speaking the shooting was in shambles. It was done S.Z. Sakall, and Dooley Wilson, the black pianist who played on a day-to-day basis, with Curtiz scanning the various scripts the unforgettable "As time goes by."

as they came hot from the typewriters, and saying things like 'This looks interesting. Let's try this one today.' The actors, without the security of a finished script or even the knowledge of where they were heading, became jittery and upset and when they asked Curtiz for guidance he'd simply say, 'Actors! Actors!

They want to know everything!' " Ingrid Bergman too recounts in her autobiography: "Mike Curtiz was a very experienced and talented director but Casablanca started off disastrously. From the very start Hal Wallis was arguing with the writers and every lunchtime Mike argued with Hal Wallis .... Mike didn't know what he was doing because he didn't know the story either. All the time I wanted to know who I was supposed to be in love with-Paul Henreid or Humphrey Bogart?"

"We don't know yet-just play it well...in between" was the answer Bergman got from Curtiz.

It wasn't any better for Bogart. As Benchley recounts, "One day, when Bogart appeared for shooting, Curtiz told him, 'You've got an easy day today. Go on that balcony, look down and to the right, and nod. Then you can go home.' 'What am I

"Play it again Sam," says I1sa to the pianist, evoking poignant memories of her affair with Rick.

nodding at?' Bogart asked, 'What's my attitude?' 'Don't ask too many questions!' Curtiz replied. 'Get up there and nod, and then go home!' Bogart did as he was told and didn't realize until long afterward that that nod had triggered the famous 'Marseillaise' scene, where Laszlo leads the nightclub orchestra in drowning out some Germans who had been singing 'Die Wacht am Rhein.' It's a scene that even after 30 years prickles the scalp and closes the throat and for all Bogart knew he was nodding at a passing dog!"

The ending was yet another problem. Who should get the girl? Henreid had been loud in his insistence that he get the girl but it was decided to shoot two endings and see which felt better. As Ingrid vividly describes it: " ... the first ending we shot was that I say goodbye to Humphrey Bogart and fly off with Paul Henreid. Then if you remember, Claude Rains and Bogie walk off into the fog, saying the famous phrase, 'Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.' And everybody said, 'Hold it! That's it! We don't have to shoot the other ending. That's just perfect, a wonderful closing line.' But they hadn't known it was the closing line until they heard it. And they certainly didn't know it was going to turn out to be a classic and win an Oscar."

Many attribute Casablanca's success to an uncanny historical coincidence.

The film received an unexpected publicity windfall when, just 18 days before its New York premiere on Thanksgiving Day, 1942, the Allies launched the invasion of French Africa, scoring a key victory at Casablanca.

It was as though Warner Brothers had planned the invasion!

The film was released on January 23, 1943, while the allied war conference in Casablanca among Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, and French General Henri Giraud was on. This made Casablanca-so far an unknown African port-a household name in America. A great deal of allegory has been read into Casablanca. Many saw the last scene with Rick and Captain Renault as a symbol of French-American friendship whereas others point to the Rick-Roosevelt similarity in the uncommitted American who stands by while others do the fighting, and then at the proper time steps in and turns the tide.

Such coincidences certainly gave Casablanca's popularity a boost, but a film must surely have a lot more to it to become a

to find out whose side Rick is classic. Ultimately, the chief reason for the film's longevity on. Is Rick one of those people is believed to be the "Bogart who. can't imagine Germans in his beloved Paris? "It's not my Mystique," at the core of which beloved Paris," answers Rick. lies the persona of the cynical Can he imagine Germans in idealist, the man with the socalled "hard exterior and soft London? Rick's cold reply is: interior." The mystique is ev"When you get there, ask me."

When the conversation beident right from Rick's first comes heated, Rick discreetappearance.

The film opens ly leaves the table saying, with documentary-like shots of "Forgive me, Gentleman. Your refugees pouring into Casablanca. Then you have the business is politics. Mine is runscenes of street violence. ning a saloon."

Next the shot of a plane over Rick's dossier with Major the marquee of Rick's Cafe Strasser complicates rather Americain. The camera enters than solves the puzzle: "He the cafe from the viewpoint is 37. Cannot return to his of a customer.

One hears country. The reason is a little vague. He worked for the snatches of conversations and sees glimpses of people in the French underground in Paris. cafe making deals, bargainHe ran guns to the Ethiopians in 1935 and fought on the ing, arguing, and ... dreaming loyalist side in Spain in of a safe new life in the New 1936-and got well paid both World. And then the first murmur about Rick is heard-"He the times!" never drinks with customBut Rick's help to a Bulgarers"-and about his clandesian couple who need money to buy exit visas, by rigging the roulette tine activities ignored by the police.

The triangular struggle among lisa, game ("Have you tried 22 tonight?"), A little later you hear Rick's voice. her husband Victor Laszlo, and Rick forms reveals the softer, sentimental side of The camera then enters his office and the central theme of the film. his personality; so does his intense it pauses on his signature before reaffair with IIsa. "Under that cynical vealing his hand playing chess. Finalshell," says Renault, "you are a sentily we see Rick's face. mentalist at heart." He is indeed.

Initially Casablanca depicts Rick When IIsa fails to get the transit as a cynical, uncommitted man who papers from Rick, she says, "One woman has hurt you and you doesn't give a damn about anything but himself. As the film take your revenge on the whole world." Rick is bitter and curt. proceeds, one piece after the other of his jigsaw-puzzle "The problems of the. world are not my department. I'm a saloon personality falls into place.

"I've often speculated on why you don't return to America," ~eeper." But in the end when IIsa hesitates to go with Laszlo, Rick tells her, "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of Captain Renault says to Rick in his cafe. "Did you run off with three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy a senator's wife? Did you abscond with the church funds? I like world." By giving up the girl, Rick makes a noble gesture, to think you killed a man. That's the romantic in me." "It's a remains an idealist with a deep-seated honesty, and wins the combination of all three," says Rick, not ready to reveal any part of his personal life. hearts of audiences.

The mystique clearly works, over half-a-century later, Captain Renault won't give up so easily. "What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?" "My health," says Rick. "I as is apparent at the Brattle Street Theater at Harvard which holds a Bogart Festival twice a year. Of all the came to Casablanca for the waters." "The waters?" Renault is puzzled. "What waters? We're in the desert."

"I was films shown, it is Casablanca, year after year, that misinformed," answers Rick. Renault laughs but Rick remains steals the show.

0 unsmiling, inscrutable.

When Nazi Major Heinrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt) arrives About the Authors: Manisha Shelat and Narendra Pachkhede are on the faculty of journalism and communication of the General Education in Casablanca to investigate the murder of two German Centre at the M.S. University of Baroda. couriers carrying letters of transit, and visits Rick's cafe, he tries

TRANSFORMING AN ORGANIZATION

THE MAGIC OF TEAMWORK

Ford's former chief executive officer discloses how his company learned from others and totally transformed its inner system. The first step toward changing a company's culture, he says, is for management to recognize the importance of the individual without whom there can be no teamwork.

Shortly after I retired I got a call from Admiral Frank Kelso, who had just been appointed chief of naval operations for the United States. He was interested in applying to the Navy the ideas for quality improvement that we had used at Ford. The admiral wanted to change the way Navy personnel work together, to get them to take more initiative in generating ideas instead of just taking orders from commanding officers. Admiral Kelso's call was similar to a lot of letters and calls I've received in recent years. People wonder how they might be able to apply ideas like ours in their organizations, everywhere from the factory floor to retail shops to ships at sea.

After Admiral Kelso called, we got together for the better part of a day and talked about these ideas-employee involvement, participative management, worker empowerment-and the people who put them into practice.

To take a major instance, before we started manufacturing the Taurus, which quickly became the top-selling car in the United States, we sent managers and engineers to the primary assembly plants in Chicago and Atlanta to ask the hourly workers for their suggestions. We even took plastic see-through prototypes of the car, so workers could see how their piece of the puzzle fit into the whole.

Following the principles of employee involvement, management painstakingly examined everyone of the workers' 1,401 suggestions. We either Reprinted

Š

by permission

1991 by Donald

of Sterling

E. Petersen

Lord Literistic.

and John Hillkirk.

Inc. Copyright

adopted them or explained to each person why his or her idea wasn't used. Ultimately more than 700 employee suggestions found their way into the final design of the Taurus.

Thanks to Ford's workers, the number of panels on the side of the car was reduced from 14 to two, which lessened the chance of leaks and excessive noise. Employees came up with ways to fasten all interior moldings with one set of screws. All those little things added up: The number of cars needing rework in the assembly plants dropped from ten percent to one percent. And, as the car went into production, lastminute design changes that used to cost almost $150 million were down to only $35 million.

Admiral Kelso asked me if! thought he needed to create a master plan that would launch a quality-improvement program for the Navy and, if so, what that plan would involve and how he would get it started. Having grown up in the Navy, he probably took it for granted that you have to issue a set of orders before anything can be accomplished. That's the military way.

I told him that at Ford we hadn't really known anything about total quality management when we first got started.

I explained how the NBC (National Broadcasting Company) documentary "If Japan Can, Why Can't We?" had led me to meet with W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician and management consultant who was so much in demand

by U.S. companies since Japanese firms adopted his concept of total quality management. Deming told us about the need to eliminate fear from the workplace and give workers the opportunity to do a better job. He also led me to embrace the idea of continuous improvement.

It all sounded so logical, because it seems to me that Deming's philosophy is rooted in some basic concepts of human behavior, such as trusting your fellow man and living by the Golden Rule: Everything he said starts from the importance of the human being and moves on from there. Had it not been for Deming, I'm pretty sure we would have

found a better way eventually, but it certainly would have taken longer.

Making It Work in the Navy I suggested that Admiral Kelso might start the way we did at Ford and give some of his people at a small Navy facility the freedom to experiment with these ideas by forming teams and beginning to tackle problems. We discussed the idea that a repair facility might be a logical starting point. I told him about our Richmond, California, parts depot where the hourly workers persuaded their bosses to stay home for a week so they could prove they could run the place.

"I bet you won't have much trouble finding a place where people are frustrated by all the rules they have to live by and have opinions about how to run it more effectively," I said. "Why don't you give it a try?"

Sometime later we talked again, and he assured me that he was following through with his effort. The secretary of the Navy had endorsed what the admiral now called his total quality leadership program. Kelso and his aides experimented at several small naval facilities scattered throughout the United States, and tried to adopt the philosophy that everyone in the Navy, on shore or at sea, has a "customer" that he or she must be concerned about.

The Navy also tried using the team approach to come up with ways to deploy ships faster and more efficiently. In the old days, the captain alone bore the burden of going to sea on time. Now everyone from members of the maintenance crews to critical parts suppliers is a part of the deployment team. Kelso [who is soon to retire from the Navy] also told me that his counterpart in the Air Force has launched a similar quality program.

Teams Running Schools The schools, too, might make great strides if students began to work in teams early on in life. There is a small but growing interest in this approach. For example, a math teacher in Bakersfield, California, organizes his students in teams and assigns one of his best stu-

dents in each team to help the others along. That school also gives its teachers a lighter-than-usual teaching load, so they have time to get together in teams to talk about students' needs and any problems they are having in their classrooms. The school has also brought parents into the teams to share ideas and to help the teachers learn more about the students.

In Rochester, New York, two old adversaries, the teachers' union chief and the superintendent of schools, have formed a partnership to restructure the district's 60 schools. Perhaps most important, administrators agreed to push decision-making down to the individual schools. Teachers have been given considerably more authority-and a 45 percent increase in pay over three years. That is what you call rewarding the people doing the actual work. In addition, all firstyear teachers are supervised and trained by senior teachers, or mentors, and the school district and the union agreed on a rigorous system that makes sure the teachers are getting results. As the Rochester experience indicates, we could do a lot to improve the way our schools are managed.

Almost every time I pick up a newspaper, turn on the television, or walk into a store, I look for signs that people are putting the ideas of teamwork and quality improvement to work.

I was at Loews Ventana Canyon Hotel in Tucson, Arizona, sometime back. The manager, Johnny So, obviously runs the place in a participative fashion. It's clear that all the people wh9Jwork there love the man. I never sensed even one ounce of tentativeness when I asked an employee a question. I could tell that they have the flexibility to deal with problems in whatever way they think is right, and that's something I've developed a feeling for.

If you asked So whether he uses employee involvement, participative management, or teamwork, he would probably tell you that he doesn't know what you are talking about. But it doesn't matter whether he calls it anything at all; the point is he is doing it, day in and day out. He is always walking round and

doing what he can to help. He is as much a part of the team as anyone.

I have also seen these ideas at work at a McDonald's restaurant. The workers were laughing and chattering, and it was a pleasant, upbeat place. I noticed that the manager was taking part in the work, doing whatever was needed at the moment, yet he was still keeping a close eye on how long customers were having to wait. It didn't bother him to pick up a half-empty box of fries and throw them away or to clean up some trays. The whole atmosphere was positive, and the place was clean as the dickens.

Not long after that, I walked into another McDonald's, which was dirty and where the employees all seemed to have sour dispositions. The manager of that restaurant was standing in the back, just watching people work. Clearly, that boss was doing all the wrong things.

If I ever became the manager of a McDonald's, I would start out by talking a lot with the employees. I would tell them how important it was that our team be customer-driven, and I would point out that, even though many of our customers were just passing through, we would also be serving a good number of regulars. I would tell them, "If we serve them well, we'll keep our customers and our jobs, and we might even enjoy doing it."

Then I would encourage everyone to talk about their different jobs and tasks: "What's working and what isn't?"

"Would it help if we learned one another's jobsT' "Is there anything I can do to make your job easier?"

I would look for ways to involve the employees in decision-making. I might even get some of them involved in a little competitive benchmarking by giving them money to eat lunch at a Wendy's or a Burger King down the street, then asking them to tell the group what our rivals were up to.

The Homebuilder Peter Ochs, a homebuilder in southern California, epitomizes what you can

accomplish in a medium-size business.

Ochs was named builder of the year in 1990 by Professional Builder magazine, and his company, Fieldstone, grew from a few million dollars in sales in 1981 to more than $368 million in 1990.

Everything Ochs does, from monitoring the quality of his lumber to forming teams at the construction sites, is based on treating people with integrity and trust. He says the key to his success has been allowing people to "do all they're capable of doing, and creating an environment to allow that to happen."

All of Fieldstone's employees take two courses sometime in their first year, one of them on managing interpersonal relations and the other on team problemsolving. That's the kind of training that I hope will be used throughout the United States.

As individuals, we can learn that embracing such ideas will help us in our daily lives. We can make life so much more enjoyable by going out of our way to appreciate all the little things that others do for us. You can't be a kind and considerate manager in the office and an angry bear at home-or vice versa.

What Teamwork Does for a Company Almost anyone can change his attitude ifhe works at it. Jack Telnack, the design genius behind the Taurus, spent his early years in a design center where one person was often pitted against another, which created some pretty fierce rivalries.

Telnack was undoubtedly affected by that, so he naturally had some trouble shifting gears.

In the early 1980s, I asked a man named Don Kopka, who was a real team player, to try to change the atmosphere in the design center. He and Telnack talked a lot about the past and discussed ways in which Telnack and the other designers might work better as a team. It took awhile, but as Telnack gradually came to trust Kopka, they began to cooperate. The cooperation between the two leaders then spread throughout the design center.

You'll be amazed how many more

choices are available if you get a group together and think everything through.

It's hard sometimes to be highly creative, and to brainstorm, in a vacuum. That's where teamwork brings great power. Often you need another person who knows about a new technology or a new way of doing things, someone who can say, "Well, if! could do this, would it give you a whole new way to approach the problem?"

Gradually, your employee involvement teams will offer some tangible ideas for improving your products and the productivity of the employees. Some of the suggestions will be simple improvements-adding a screw here, changing a trim design there-but others will be more lucrative. At Ford, some of the suggestions from employees resulted in tremendous quality improvements. Others saved the company anywhere from $100,000 to $700,000 a year.

Every individual has to be persuaded to strive for excellence in everything he or she does, even in minor details. If more and more people start thinking that way, everything within the whole system will get progressively better. And the company as a whole will continually improve. We came to realize that the Japanese were already doing this. They paid extra attention to the quality of everything they did.

Japan's Mazda, which is partially owned by Ford, helped prove the point.

Mazda's Hiroshima plant was supplying automotive transmissions for some of our 1981 Ford Escorts. Here in our Batavia, Ohio, plant, Ford employees were building transmissions based exactly the same design, but the two transmissions were dramatically different. The ones made in Japan were well liked by our customers; many of those from Ohio were not. Ours were erratic; many shifted poorly through the gears, and customers said they didn't like the way they performed.

When we took the two transmissions apart, we could actually see a difference.

The Mazda parts were beautifully manufactured and finished, and every measurement fell within very close tolerances. The

on

Ford transmissions met the specifications, but there was a much wider variance in dimensions from one transmission to another. As a result, when the final products were assembled, they had more variance in performance.

This showed us how far ahead of us the Japanese were in precision and control.

They were operating within much narrower limits than the designs called for.

The excellence of the workmanship on the individual components was remarkable.

Discovering the benefit of this really prodded us along and helped convince us that we needed a definition of quality that included striving for excellence in every way we serve our "internal customers."

Sharing Innovation Worldwide Changing a company's culture is a difficult and never-ending process. Almost every management book you read describes something sequential-" And then this happens.

And then that happens." Yes, certain things do happen at certain times, but there is no reason to wait for one stage to end before you start another. At Ford we recognized early on that we couldn't say, "First we'll improve the quality of our cars, then we'll tackle the relationship problems we have with our hourly employees." It all had to happen at the same time.

I know much work remains to be done at Ford, but the company has reached the point where it is trying some extremely innovative things. Hourly workers from Europe fly to America to meet with their American counterparts to discuss new equipment and share ideas about ways to improve processes such as welding body panels and painting cars. Japanese engineers from Mazda and Americans from Ford develop small cars together, and groups of Europeans from various countries do the same.

The day may not be far off when a multicontinental team, with members from Europe, Japan, and America, will build a true "world car" for sale in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.

The leadership of such an effort would be taken by the organization with the best available resources.

0

ew

are on the market. There is not even a remote chance that these vaccines could cause the disease they are designed to ward off, because they contain no complete pathogen.

Nor could the production of such vaccines pose a danger to laboratory workers in the evcnt of, say, a broken flask.

One kind of new vaccine may be particularly useful in the developing world. There the costs of most vaccines and their breakdown in the absence of refrigeration make inoculation against many diseases impossible.

Working with the agent used in the tuberculosis vaccine, molecular biologists hope to develop an inexpensive vaccine that could remain stable in hot weather and could in one dose, possibly given to newborns, prevent a number of bacterial and viral infections.

The theory behind such vaccines is new enough that some of the research strategies are tentative.

But the tools being used in the new approaches are improving scientists' understanding of the biology of infection and the immune response.

So even if a new vaccine fails initially, investigators will be better able to find out why and to make improvements.

ICCineS A revolution in the field of vaccine development, fueled by progress in genetic engineering, offers hope in combating AIDS and many of the pa thogenic illnesses prevalent in the developing world.

Epidemics of bubonic plague killed perhaps one of every four people in Europe during the Middle Ages. Tuberculosis was responsible for about one-third of all deaths in the United States and Europe during the 19th century.

The 1918-19 influenza pandemic killed more than 21 million people worldwide and more than 500,000 in the United States.

Then came the widespread practice of childhood vaccination. and many people. at least countries. stopped those in industrialized thinking about deadly scourges. Perhaps that is one reason AIDS has so shocked the world.

Suddenly another devastating virus appeared and began taking its toll~worldwide. one in 250 adults arc infected.¡ There is neither cure nor vaccine.

Now a revolution in the field of vaccine development. fueled by progress in genetic engineering and immunology, offers hope in combating AIDS;and other pathogenic illnesses.

For many years sCIentists developed vaccines empirically~ mutating or killing disease-causing organisms and then testing whether preparations made from them had the desired effect.

But in the past ten years, researchers have started coupling advanced theories about the immune response with recombinant DNA technology to design vaccines in a more orderly fashion.

Whether or not these efforts lead to a vaccine for AIDS, they are starting to yield other valuable vaccines. So far, at least two human vaccines created by new genetic engineering approaehes~both for hepatitis B~

The Crowing Knowledge of Immunology The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of the world's children are now vaccinated against measles, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus.

That translates into 60 million vaccinations annually. Despite the wide use of vaccines, however. scientists' knowledge about the immune response to infcction has been limited.

What has been known is that when an individual recovers from an infection, the person's immune cells establish a "memory" of the foreign agent. The memory, which the body can retain for a lifetime, allows the immune system to rapidly recognize the same pathogen in the future and swiftly kill it. This "reinfection immunity" explains why most childhood diseases are just that--one infection protects the individual. often for life. Molecular biologists have used this understanding to develop vaccines by mimicking infectious agents and generating memory for specific pathogens without producing disease.

Some vaccines in use. such as the one for measles and one of the two available for polio,

consist of living pathogens that have been attenuated-that is, crippled-through laboratory-produced mutations, which prevent the pathogens from causing disease. The live bacterium in the tuberculosis vaccine. for example. is an attenuated strain of an organism closely related to the one that causes the disease. When the crippled organism reproduces in a person, it initiates an immune response-a buildup of antibodies and other agents that will destroy the genuine tuberculosis pathogen if it later infects the person. The response is triggered by "antigens"certain structural components within the pathogens themselves.

The other type of vaccine used widely today contains killed infectious agents.

This kind of vaccine requires two partsan antigen-usually a protein from the pathogen-and an adjuvant. The adjuvant is an irritating chemical substance that stimulates the immune system to investigate, respond to, and remember the antigen. The diphtheria and tetanus vaccines include purified antigens from the killed bacteria, while the vaccine for whooping cough is a suspension of the killed, whole bactcrium that causes that illness.

But today many researchers believe that a new way to develop vaccines holds great promise-with genetic engineering tools, molecular biologists can isolate from infectious pathogens genes that contain the instructions for specific antigens.

Investigators can insert such an antigen blueprint into a harmless bacterium or virus, which then produces the antigen. To the immune system. the harmless bacterium or virus appears to be the real pathogen, and the immune cells learn how to attack the pathogen without exposure to it.

Before designing vaccines this way. however. investigators have to understand the biology of each pathogen. Viruses and bacteria have many ways of invading the human body and its cells and therefore have evolved various mechanisms to evade the host's defenses. For example. if scientists are to devise a vaccine for sleeping sickness-a disease that afflicts one of every 100 Africansthey must learn how the organism that causes the disease continuously changes the antigen that coats its surface, a tactic that confounds the immune system.

At the same time, details on how the immune response protects against each pathogen are critical. Researchers have learned that the immune system deploys an extraordinary array of cells during infections. These include macrophages, which gobble up invaders and

break them down into small .bits. B lymphocytes make antibodies that attack viruses and bacteria. most frequently by binding to them and killing them before they can infect cells.

And cytotoxic T lymphocytes kill infected cells to help prevent the spread of the pathogen, while helper T lymphocytes command the attack on the outsider by sending signals to other immune-system cells.

Since T lymphocytes and antibodies from people infected with a pathogen recognize specific antigens of that invader. investigators can use lymphocytes and antibodies in searches to identify the dominant antigens of various pathogens. In many cases, these antigens produce the primary immune rcsponse, and their genes could prove useful in vaccines.

Using a technique developed in the early 1980s by one of the authors (Richard Young). researchers can search through libraries of thousands of antigens produced by recombinant DNA sequences of a pathogen.

After identifying the dominant antigens. molecular biologists can again employ recombinant DNA techniques to isolate genes and create vaccines.

Designing Vaccines In 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvcd a Merck Sharpe & Dohme vaccine for hepatitis B that was developed using this approach. The vaccine is safer than an earlier hepatitis B vaccine not only because it avoids the use of an actual pathogen, but also because it is not derived from human blood, which can carry other infectious agents, such as the AIDS virus. And the vaccine works as well and costs about the same as its older counterpart.

The new hepatitis B vaccine is known as a recombinant subunit vaccine. After identifying the gene for an antigen that is normally a part (or subunit) of the hepatitis B virus. researchers place the gene into baker's yeast in such a way that the yeast's genetic information starts producing thc antigen as yeast cells grow. Then the investigators isolate the antigen from the yeast. (Antigens for other vaccines are being madc in yeast or harmless bacteria as well.)

Recombinant subunit vaccines will also probably prove useful for protection against diseases other than hepatitis B. Researchers are making considerable efforts to identify good antigens for recombinant subunit vaccines to prevent Lyme disease. measles, and malaria, among others.

At the cutting edge of vaccine development is the live recombinant vehicle vaccine, which is made by incorporating a gene for a specific antigen into a living but harmless virus or bacterium, which can, in turn. be injected into the body. The notion is that the live organism will manufacture and deliver the antigen to the immune system. Such vaccines should be more effective than recombinant subunit vaccines because they persist in the body for a longer period, presumably engendering a stronger memory for the pathogen.

They should also be able to carry multiple foreign genes and therefore may allow simultaneous vaccination against a variety of pathogens.

The primary concern among researchers interested in pursuing live recombinant vchicle vaccines is dctermining what kinds of "vehicle" organisms should be used with particular antigen genes. Some vehicles are better at stimulating antibodies, which are particularly important for battling certain pathogens. Other vehicles are best atstimulating T lymphocytes, which are needed to fight different invaders.

Among virus vehicles, investigators have most extensively studied vaccinia, the organism that was originally used on its own as a vaccinc against smallpox. One can easily introduce genes from most pathogens into the genetic blueprint for vaccinia. Similar investigations are also focusing on poliovirus and adenovirus. a virus that normally causes respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and pneumonia. There are attenuated strains of both viruses.

Some molecular biologists are also researching a bacterium called BCG. It has a long record of safe use as a vaccine against tuberculosis. with health-care workers having administered more than 2,000 million doses. BCG's effectiveness derives from componcnts in its cell wall that strongly stimulate the immune system and from its ability to continue growing in the face of a robust Immune response.

A group of us at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. as well as scientists at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and at Medlmmune in Gaithersburg, Maryland, have recently engineered BCG to contain genes for antigens from many pathogens, including those that cause Lyme disease. tetanus. and malaria. Mice have shown strong immune responses to recombinant BCG vaccines for these pathogens. and Medlmmune has started similar tests in primates for the

BCG vaccine for Lyme disease.

Several features of BCG suggest that it will make an ideal vaccine in the developing world.

It's easy and inexpensive to manufacture: The cost is 5.5 cents [Rs. 17] per dose, and recombinant forms of BCG should not cost much more. The bacterium remains stable without refrigera tion, there is already a worldwide distribution network for handling BCG, and the vaccine is easy to administer. And since BCG is one of the few vaccines that newborns can receive, recombinant forms could make effective childhood vaccines against a variety of diseases.

Another promising candidate for a vaccine vehicle is salmonella, a bacterium that normally causes food poisoning. Salmonella infects the gastrointestinal tract and stimulates an immune response that helps defend the body against pathogens that affect mucous membranes.

For several years now, Jerry Sadoff and his colleagues at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Washington, D.C., have been using crippled strains of salmonella to introduce genes from a variety of pathogens. Among other things, they have so far shown that the recombinant salmonella induces immune responses for malaria in mice and primates.

The Special Case of AIDS While recombinant vaccines offer great promise, a disease that has helped fuel interest in the field-AIDS-is proving to be one of the hardest illnesses to combat. The very concept underlying vaccination, reinfection immunity, is not applicable for an infection from which there is no evidence that a person can recover. Researchers do not understand why the immune system can never rid the body of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, once it has infected a few cells. If the immune system cannot mount an effective response, scientists may not be able to design an AIDS vaccine.

The major challenge to developing an AIDS vaccine may well be that HIV infects the very cells, the helper T lymphocytes, that control much of the immune response. HIV also introduces its own genetic blueprint into that of the T lymphocyte, making the infection of that cell permanent.

And unlike the way infected cells typically respond to most invaders, a fraction of cells carrying HIV may not produce the viral proteins that alert the immune system. More-

over, HIV can baffle the immune system by rapidly changing portions of its enveloping protein.

Despite these problems, we have substantial reason to expect that a human vaccine can be developed.

After all, the immune system makes a strong effort to destroy the virus through the action of antibodies and lymphocytes. One idea, therefore, is to make an AIDS vaccine that stimulates the immune system to recognize and kill the virus before it can infect immune-system cells.

Indeed, independent of each other, both Ronald Desrosiers, a virologist at the New England Regional Primate Research Center in Southboro, Massachusetts, and Michael Murphey-Corb, a microbiologist at the Tulane Regional Primate Research Center in Covington, Louisiana, have developed a vaccine that in some cases has provided immunity against the primate virus related to HIV. The vaccine is actually produced by one of the two older techniques: It is composed of the killed virus and an adjuvant, which stimulates an Immune response.

About half the primates who have been vaccinated and later exposed to the live virus have not been infected. Investigators are now trying to understand why some but not all of the animals are protected, and they are attempting to develop genetically engineered vaccines to improve on the results and avoid the safety concerns arising from the possibility of an incompletely killed batch of virus.

For example, researchers have created two candidate recombinant vaccines for human beings. One, developed by MicroGeneSys of New Haven, Connecticut, is a recombinant subunit vaccine consisting of the protein that envelops the HIV virus. The otherpioneered by virologist Bernard Moss of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and further developed by virologist '-Shui-Lok Hu of Oncogen-is a live-vaccinia recombinant vehicle that produces the same protein. The appeal of using this protein is that antibodies "see" it first. (Although the outer protein is known to change, investigators think that the kinds of variations may be limited.)

Investigators will not know for some time whether either of the candidate vaccines stimulates enough of an immune response to prevent HIV infection.

Meanwhile, the Whitehead, Albert Einstein, and MedImmune researchers have produced recombinant BCG vehicles that carry genes for HIV's envelope protein and other major structural proteins. These can-

didate vaccines induce immune responses to HIV in mice. Medlmmune is conducting similar tests in primates. And at Walter Reed, the Sadoff group has found that recombinant salmonella carrying genes for the HIV envelope protein induces immune responses in mice and primates.

Among the dozen or so other AIDS vaccine approaches that scientists are exploring is a technique called intracellular vaccination, which could help prevent most cells from becoming infected. The idea is to introduce into individual cells genes that destroy HIV'~ ability to reproduce, or that cause the cells to self-d~struct when infected. For example, a vaccine might introduce a gene that would produce a substance that in turn woulq poison a cell when HIV invades it. Researchers cannot efficiently introduce such a vaccine into all the relevant cells of the body now, but gene-therapy research could eventually lead to a solution.

These new vaccine approaches-whether they will someday be used to combat AIDS or measles-obviously rely on high technology. But it's important to stress that disease control is not merely a matter of more and improved vaccines. Equally essential is the need to improve the conditions that can lead to serious pathogenic illnesses. Poor nutrition for sure makes people highly susceptible to disease.

The worth of the effort by the World Health Organization and UNICEF to vaccinate all the world's children by the year 2000 against measles, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus cannot be overstated. Vaccines are the most cost-effective means of reducing disease, and many of the vaccines under development will likely play a valuable role in the not-lOo-distant future.

But ultimately, programs to combat poverty, together with vaccinations to prevent specific diseases, are necessary to help maintain universal health.

Many private foundations are making important contributions to combat nutritional problems in the developing world. Such efforts must continue, with help from other national and international agencies.

0

About the Authors: Anna Aldovini is a physician and postdoctoral associare at the Whitehead Insriture of Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusells. Richard A. Young, an associare professor ar rhe Massachusells InsrirUle of Technology and member of rhe Whirehead Insriture, is an expert on rropical diseases.

Heart Shock The nerve system that controls the heart is a wonder of nature. It fires at just the right pace to keep the heart muscle contracting in just the right pattern, over and over, 2,000 million times.

But sometimes, because the heart has been weakened by a coronary artery blockage, or because of a genetic problem, or for no apparent reason at all, the system breaks down. Instead of pulsing rhythmically, the main muscle in the heart goes into a quivering, writhing spasm called ventricular fibrillation. If the victim happens to be in the right place, a medic will restart his heart with a powerful jolt of electricity from a defibrillator. If the victim is far from help, he will die.

These tragedies, and the shrinkage of electronic chips, have manufacture and installation given rise to a new industry-the of implantable, intelligent defibrillators. The battery-operated gizmos are implanted in a patient's abdomen and wired to the heart. They sense when a heart is misfiring and deliver corrective jolts of electricity, at first in very small doses and only if necessary in larger, more painful doses.

The newest generation of intelligent defibrillators are a big improvement on older ones that lack judgment and can deliver only large shocks. Those shocks are so painful that some patients have asked to have the defibrillator removed. About 25,000 people in the United States have had the older varieties of defibrillators implanted; the potential market for the newer ones, made by Ventritex, Medtronic, and Eli Lilly, is 50,000 patients a The defibrillator delivers year by 1996, acbig shocks only if lillie cording to Hamones don't work. brecht & Quist analyst Kurt Kruger.

Why are smart defibrillators just now coming onto the market?

Because the medical world had to wait Bradycardia ~ for improvements pacing 5 -10 volts in battery and microprocessor technology-and for

around for years. But they gobble up electricity. Thus, even the latest implantable defibrillators creak along at only 30,000 instructions per second, far short of what happens inside a desktop computer. "Speed costs you power," explains Edwin Duffin, a product planner at Medtronic.

Power comes from a six-volt lithium battery that is supposed to last for four to six years, even though the processor chip is running around the clock. The battery also supplies the juice to deliver, with the help of electronic boosters, corrective shocks that start at five or ten volts and can run up to 750 volts. Also inside the device are: 32,768 bytes of memory and some chips that translate the information coming from the heart into binary code the processor can understand.

A doctor programs the defibrillator after it is installed, using a device that works like a VCR remote control but broadcasts longer waves; which penetrate the skin. An antenna in the implant receives the signal. Another set of commands allows the doctor to interrogate the device's memory chip for a history of heart irregularities.

If the defibrillator senses an abnormally slow heartbeat, it sends a series of five- to ten-volt pacing pulses to bring it up to speed. If the heart is beating too fast, the microprocessor determines whether the problem is ventricular tachycardia, which can usually be controlled with small pacing pulses, or the much more dangerous ventricular fibrillation. The latter ultimately calls for a knockout dose of electricity that wipes the slate clean and restarts the natural rhythm from scratch. Some physicians program the device to wait 20 seconds before defibrillating so that the patient will have already passed out and won't feel the intense pain. Many others, fearing patients may be behind the wheel, choose not to.

These on-board computers cost $20,000 each, plus another $30,000 for surgery and programming.

Notwithstanding the huge price tag, the market would no doubt be far higher thaI1 Kruger's estimate of 50,000 implantations a year if all the potential heart attack victims could be identified in advance. As it is, a doctor won't prescribe a defibrillator unless the patient has had either a serious heart attack or several episodes of tachycardia. Says Kruger: Yes~ "The statistics associated with [ventricular fibrillation] are quite grim. Without device intervention, one dies; with the device, one lives.

It's as simple as that."

0

--+----------...

No--...-

regulatory approval. Microprocessors that pack a lot of decision-making power into a small space have been

No--",About Defibrillation 750 volts (max)

the

Author:

Chatzky is a former magazine.

Jean Sherman reporter of Forbes

Filmmakers: New Breed Out of the 200 films from over 30 countries screened this February at the third Bombay International Film Festival (BIFF) of documentary, short, and animation films, 44 were from the United States. Notable entries included Joan Gratz's Mona Lisa Descending a Staircase (it won a prize of Rs. 250,000), Giamfranco Rosi's Boatman, John Valadez's Passin' It On, William Tyler Smith's Lloyd, Elise and Jennifer, lara Lee's Prufock, and Casey Williams's Genbaku Shri: Killed by the Atomic Bomb. A retrospective of films by the reputed filmmaker Frederick Wiseman was also on view.

Special attention went, in addition, to David Straus's fictional short Breaking the Bread, and Bethany Yarrow's Mama Awethu! Breaking the Bread is, to quote Straus, "a story of friendship and honey made of memories." The film draws a sad and ennobling portrait of a wife and mother haunted as much by her memories of a persecuted past as her present impoverished circumstance. Elsa Raven (at right in photo), who acts the part, is a picture of a suffering, proud child of destiny. On one occasion she reacts sharply to an insensitive remark by another community member: "Don't insult my history!" What is this history? It is the memory of ghettos and pogroms, of the gas chamber in early-1940s Germany, of death and diaspora-symbols and images peculiar to the Jewish experience but with a universal message. The film points to a maturity, in both artistic and philosophical terms, that well exceeds the director's years.

Straus is currently a graduate student at the School of Theater, Film, and Television, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). In 1990 he was awarded a Fulbright grant to conduct research on the political changes in Hungary. His interest in East Europe, he explains, partly stems from the fact that he is descended from Polish and Russian immigrants.

Bethany Yarrow's Mama Awethu! is about five black African women in the settlements around Cape Town where brutal re-

pression has been as commonplace as death, disease, and poverty. The film, however, travels beyond recording the physical and visible frontiers of apartheid.

The Yale-educated, 22-year-old Yarrow says: "Although the film is explicitly about Cape Town, South Africa, in 1992, its relevance ext-ends far beyond the specifics of time and place, as these women, in the midst of so much violence and so much killing, speak so eloquently of hope." The title of the film comes from the rallying cry, "Amandla Awethu!" (Power to the People)--one of the banned slogans of the resistance movement in South Africa.

Each of the film's five heroines is as unremarkable as the next, yet each is as life-affirming as the other in her homespun wisdom, in courage distilled out of personal tragedy, but above all in the ability to dream of a quiet conquest over an unyielding destiny. They also struggle who dare to dream--each of the five women confirms.

Says Yarrow of her choice of protagonists: "Because women rarely occupy pos~tions of power, it is the men who are interviewed by the media, the men who speak, the men who discuss; the voices of the women for the most part have been silent." There is nothing of the fiery feminist in the young Yarrow, but she exhibits a firmness of opinion clearly grounded in a deep awareness of the human and political realities surrounding her. She was just 14 when she was arrested at a civil disobedience demonstration with her father and his singing partners (the famed Peter, Paul, and Mary folk group) in front of the South African Embassy in Washington, D.C. -Vldyerthy Chellerlee

Dance Exchange Two recent cultural exchange programs highlighted American interest in classical Indian dance. While Madras-based Bharata Kalanjali performed classical ballets in 30 cities in the United States, six students and their coordinator from Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, spent four months in Tamil Nadu studying Bharatanatyam and Terukkoothu, the ancient Tamil folk drama.

The Bharata Kalanjali tour was sponsored by the Cleveland Cultural Alliance (CCA), a nonprofit organization devoted to promotion of dance and music from India. The Madras group, led by V.P. Dhananjayan and Shanta Dhananjayan, performed "Sanghamitra" and "Sita Ram Katha" at institutions such as the Playhouse Square in Cleveland, and Pomona College in Los 'Angeles, "In the past few years the presentation of classical Indian dance in ballet form has caught the imagination of the audiences in the

United States," says V.P. Dhananjayan.

The visit of American undergraduate students to India was sponsored by the Colgate India Study Group, founded in 1969 by Professor William Skeleton, who occupies the Robert Ho Chair in Asian Studies. About 15 study group members visit Madras every alternate year for four months to learn about Indian art, culture, and traditions.

Professor Skeleton's interest in India and Indian studies dates back to 1963 when he first came to this country on a Ford Foundation grant to learn vocal classical music.

The students visited Pudisai village and took part in Terukkoothu folk drama. Some of them studied Tamil for the purpose. Skeleton observed that "our Pudisai experience shows that people can communicate through nonverbal means, and art forms can help develop meaningful relationships."

Freedom

Chaos in India India is a vibrant democracy, but Americans are misled by the seemingly chaotic face of India, assertsSubrata Mitra, this year's holder of the recently endowed Indo-American Chair in India Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. In a recent interview, Mitra said that Americans must understand that "India is not just a democracy. It is a free society, and it takes its freedom very seriously."

"Indian society," he added, "hasgotten used to the notion of democracy-not only in the polling booth, but democracy in its schools and colleges and on the street....lt has its own logic; it's a part of the political culture."

Mitra, who is director of the Centre for Indian Studies at the University of Hull in Britain, welcomed India's recent economic reforms. However, he regretted that although India has opened its borders to trade and investment "as never before," foreign investors remained wary of the country, precisely-and ironically-because of its openness.

"It is an efficient country, but one that lives its life in the open."

He contrasted India with China, which has had greater success in attracting investment from the United States. "A potential investor going to China will be taken exactly where the hosts want him taken and be shown exactly what he needs to be shown. In India, there will be no fixed itinerary.

There will be no way to stop the beggars from panhandling.

There will be no way to stop lowlevel bureaucracy from exhibiting both its inefficiency and its tendency to be corrupt."

Mitra is a native of Orissa. He completed his master's degree from Delhi and later won a Fulbright scholarship to the University of Rochester in New York. He is also the recipient of fellowships in France and Germany.

Easy Access The American Center at Kasturba Gandhi Marg in New Delhi is now user-friendly for disabled persons who wish to visit its library, auditorium, or other facilities. A ramp at the entrance provides easy access for wheelchair-bound visitors, and a rest room has been adapted and an elevator dedicated for their use.

These facilities were completed in time for World Disabled Day in March when the American Center held a World net dialogue titled "No Pity: The Disabled Revolution in America" between panelists in Washington and New Delhi.

Washington panelists Joseph Shapiro, senior editor of U.S. News & World Report, Assistant Secretary of Education Judith Heumann (afflicted with polio since the age of 18 months), and citizen advocate Justin Dart, Jr., discussed the long struggle to enact the Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990 (see SPAN, December 1993). New Delhi panelists included Javed Abidi of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation and Mehreen Khosla of Tamana.

The Americans said that activists working with the disabled in the United States have made

their cause civil rights and human rights issues. Their advice that the disabled take the lead themselves in their fight for full equality, found strong support among the audience in New Delhi, many of whom were themselves disabled.

Shapiro, the author of No Pity: People

a

New

With Disabilities Civil Rights

Forging

Movement,

said: "There is no tragedy in having a physical or mental disability.

Tragedy comes with discriminatory attitudes ...when buildings are not accessible to people on wheelchairs, when employers do not hire people with disabilities...." Dart said he had been inspired by the example of Mahatma Gandhi to work for the rights and empowerment of the disabled.

The World net program provided inspiration for setting up a "Disabled Rights Group" in New Delhi. According to The Times of India, the group will meet every ten days to identify issues concerning the disabled that need to be taken up with various authorities. Among the members of this group are Lal Advani of the Indian Association for Special Education and Rehabilitation, and Javed Abidi.

-Kumud Mohan

(f)

o

0Q)

E

CO

Z

"'How 1 Spent My Summer Vacation,' II'hich includes the right to reproduce this whatsoever, including, but not limited to, miniseries, home video, and

C ~ Q)

~

(f)

U

~

D

ÂŤ

0-

ro

o '"c

'"

CD

o '"OJ

()

.c

o OJ OJ

>-

ro (L

o ;;0

o>n

OJ C N

ai V>

'" OJ

~a.

'"

'" '" E

z .c~ <{

(L U)

()

o

o>

.9

~

Vi S

o

c

c

c

ro

0

[i

l

Cu',

.,'

,. i' .

j;

,i;

\""

.

;:: 0

on '" a: on

o ~ o N

"0 ~

rf ~ o 3l '0

C OJ

-§ c

OJ

E Ci ~ "d) 0. U OJ ~ V>

.g c OJ

Q>

0 "0

"Goodbye, house, and don't/orget: Oven, you go on at 4: 15. Hall light, you switch on at 4:30. Crockpot, you start up at 4:45. VCR, start taping at 5.

Mr. Coffee, kindly turn yourself on at 5:45, and I'll see you all at 6. "

by Lilia Anya, all rights reserved, essay or portions thereof in any form novel, screenplay, musical, television interactive CD-ROM."

Matthew Nowicki's visualization of traditional Indian features such as jaalis (latticework) in house/shop facades (right); and jaalis as adapted in Sector 22 houses by the Corbusier team (below).

The author highlights the contributions of two American architects to the design of Chandigarh before Frenchman Le Corbusier arrived on the scene.

handigarh, one of the greatest 20th-century experiments in urban planning, was, ironically, born out of the trauma of India's partition in 1947. The truncated state of Punjab having lost its capital city of Lahore to Pakistan needed a new capital to rehabilitate the influx of refugees as well as to be, in lawaharlal Nehru's words, "a new town symbolic of India's freedom, unfettered by the traditions of the past."

Although most people associate the planning of Chandigarh with the world-renowned French architect Le Corbusier, much of the pioneering spadework for the project was done by two American architects: Albert Mayer and Matthew Nowicki. Before the arrival of Le Corbusier on the scene, Mayer and Nowicki had already prepared the first conceptual blueprint for the city's layout and completed visualization of its urban form, including the master plan and several "think, sketches" outlining the city's built form.

It would be interesting to recall the fascinating saga of Chandigarh's inception, initial planning, and the American role in it even though the credit for remodeling the American architects' early, raw work and giving it final, concrete shape must go to the genius of Le Corbusier.

The impetus for building Chandigarh came from Nehru. As there were not many professionally trained Indian town planners in the late 1940s to take on the monumental task of planning a new capital city, Nehru suggested that a foreign expert be hired for the job. The choice fell on Albert Mayer. He had excellent

C

credentials. A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the well-known architectural firm of Mayer and Whittlesey and Glass in New York, he had been involved with several significant architectural projects in the United States. Moreover, his close association with eminent American architects and thinkers like Lewis Mumford and Clarence Stein had helped him refine his views on urban planning.

Mayer wasn't new to India. During World War II, he had served in the country as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, building airfields in Bengal and the Burma-India theater. He was so drawn to Indian life that he proposed a program for model villages to Nehru soon after independence. In December 1949, when the Punjab government approached him for the Chandigarh project, Mayer was already associated with the Etawah rural development undertaking in Uttar Pradesh, and several other postwar town planning projects in India including the master plans for Greater Bombay and Kanpur.

Mayer was thrilled at the prospect of planning a brand-new city, and he accepted the assignment though it offered him a modest fee of $30,000 for the entire project. The brief for him was enormously challenging-to prepare a master plan for a city of half a million people, showing location of major roads and areas for residence, business, industry, recreation, and allied uses. He was also to prepare detailed building plans for the Capitol Complex, City Centre, and important government facilities as well as archi-

While Le Corbusier's Capitol Complex (including the Secretariat) relied on the harsh aesthetic of concrete (left), Nowicki envisioned extensive use of traditional sandstone amidst large water pools and a lake with boats (left below).

The temple (left) in Sector 23 built in the 1960s bears remarkable similarity to the sketch (above) prepared by Nowicki in his early studies of Chandigarh.

tectural controls for many other areas.

Acutely aware of the myriad needs of a modern metropolis, Mayer included several American experts in the project: James Buckley, a specialist in the field of economics and transportation; Ralph Eberl, an expert on city services, roads, and site engineering; H.E. Landsberg, a climatologist; and Clara Coffey, a specialist in landscaping. Later, on the advice of his friend Stein, Mayer inducted into his team Matthew Nowicki, head of the School of Architecture at North Carolina State College in Raleigh. Soon, Nowicki and Mayer became the key American planners for Chandigarh.

Mayer drew his inspiration for Chandigarh from a number of American residential projects, such as Stein's Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles, California, which were, in turn, influenced by the Garden City Movement in England toward the end of the 19th century. Conceived by Ebenezer Howard, garden cities sought to "counteract the disadvantages of the sprawling industrial towns by creating self-sufficient cities restricted in size and surrounded by green belts, which would have the advantages of both town and country."

Soon after his appointmerit in 1950, Mayer wrote to Nehru: "I feel in all solemnity that this will be a source of great stimulation to city building and replanning in India-it will be the synthesis and integration in the world to date of all that has been learned and talked of in planning over the last 30 years. Yet, I feel we have been able to make it strongly Indian in feeling and function as well as modern."

J The master plan as conceived by Mayer and Nowicki assumed a fan-shaped outline spreading gently to fill the site between two seasonal riverbeds. At the head of the plan was the Capitol Complex, the seat of the state government, and the City Centre was located in the heart of the city. Two linear park lands could also be noticed running continuously from the northeast head of the plan to its southwestern tip. A curving network of main roads surrounded the neighborhood units called superblocks. The first phase of the city was to be developed on the northeastern side to accommodate 150,000 residents and the second phase on the southwestern side for another 350,000 people.

The plan, which reflected the American architects' desire to deliberately avoid the sterility of a geometric grid in favor of a loosely curving system, certainly had the overtones of the "romantic picturesque" tradition of a Garden City. In addition, Mayer and Nowicki produced conceptual schemes for the Capitol

Complex, superblock, and the City Centre.

However, providence had different designs. On August 31, 1950, Matthew Nowicki died in a plane crash, and with this tragedy the American team's plan for Chandigarh too got grounded. In the absence of Nowicki, Mayer felt he could not handle the monumental project. The American connection with Chandigarh ended, and Le Corbusier was invited to be the architectural adviser for the project.

Although .Le Corbusier made many radical changes in the Americans' master plan, incorporating his own architectural and city planning ideas, it is a tribute to Mayer and Nowicki's vision that he incorporated several of their seminal ideas. For example, the basic framework of the master plan and its components-the Capitol Complex, City Centre, university, industrial area, and a linear parkland-as conceived by Mayer and Nowicki were retained by Le Corbusier.

Among the major differences between the two master plans is in the geometry of the road network. While Le Corbusier always had a preference for the classic, logical, formal layout for a city, the Americans had chosen a more relaxed, loose network. Also, as Le Corbusier believed that the only rational movement pattern for human

There are many similarities between the master plan designed by Albert Mayer and Matthew Nowicki (left) and that based on the design by Le Corbusier (above). Both called for abundant parkland, which is shaded in green on the plans and manifest today in Leisure Valley (top), among several other areas.

beings was the straight line, he had this rigid discipline incorporated into his plan.

Although this discipline took away some of the loose ambiguity of the earlier plan, it also unfortunately had the effect of throwing the "baby out with the bathwater!" The city plan as visible today is a checkered mesh of predictable straight lines and road intersections. The result is unbearable visual monotony. Perhaps a blending of the two approaches might have yielded better results.

Another significant difference relates to the details worked out by the two teams in the design of residential units. While Mayer and Nowicki had proposed that each residential unit comprise three superblocks of 1,500 x 3,000 feet, Le Corbusier preferred one unified sector of 2,600 x 3,960 feet. One commonly heard criticism of Chandigarh today is that the sector is too large, unwieldy, and overscaled to engender any cohesive community feelings as was

originally intended. Perhaps the American team's superblock, being a much smaller unit, might have been a better option. Also, the superblock, with its much more centralized shopping areas and green spaces, would have served the residents' daily needs better.

A case in point is Sector 8 of the city which, unlike other Corbusean sectors, has been built according to Mayer and Nowicki's proposals. This sector has an introverted U-shaped shopping area in contrast to Le Corbusier's linear shopping street for other sectors. Also, Sector 8 has three subdivisions, somewhat similar to the superblock proposed by the American team. Although it is difficult to say whether Sector 8 has generated a better community life than the other sectors, its introverted shopping block is certainly more interesting.

Another very significant contribution of the Mayer-Nowicki team was their visualization of details for the houses and shops within the superblock. The sketches worked out by Nowicki especially indicate an extensive usage of traditional Indian elements like jaalis (latticework), awnings, and courtyards, where small-scale entrepreneurs and craftspersons are shown at work. A common lament of the present neighborhoods is that they have no planned spaces for roadside hawkers, whether it be a cycle-repairman, a cobbler, or a tandoorwala.

A truly remarkable feature of Nowicki's sketches for the neighborhood units was an attempt to create vertical landmarks among the otherwise low two- to three-story housing: One sketch, for example, shows a tall temple.

Surprisingly enough, it has a strong resemblance with the existing temple built later in Sector 23. One is tempted to speculate that had the MayerNowicki team continued, the city neighborhoods might have been more lively and closer to, the Indian way of life and ethos than they are now.

Another distinctive feature of the Mayer-Nowicki design was its call for the extensive use of traditional red sandstone for the Capitol Complex which, unfortunately, Le Corbusier jettisoned in favor of exposed concrete. Though very beautiful, sculptural, and powerful, the concrete compositions created by Le Corbusier have aged very rapidly. Also, concrete absorbs heat and is therefore not an ideal material for the long, hot Indian summer.

The same is true of the City Centre, which is also built of concrete.

The adverse micro-climatic effect of using concrete without adequate landscaping with green cover is a major failure of this Corbusean concept. However, the Mayer-Nowicki proposals for the City Centre are also much too nebulous and indefinite to enable any fair judgment or comparison.

One proposal by the American team that is a reality today is the continuous parkland tying all parts of the city with the hills. The Leisure Valley, one of the most beautiful features ofChandigarh, does exactly that.

H must be appreciated that, four decades after their in;;eption, many of the Mayer team's farsighted predilections and visions are a reality in Chandigarh, a city that combines tradition with the amenities of modern urbanism. Perhaps the true American imprint on Chandigarh has been the laying of a base for a city ever ready to experiment and 0 invent a better, new tomorrow.

About the Author: Rajnish Watlas is a professor of architecture at the Chandigarh College of A1:c1litef:ture. He writes regularly for periodicals and newspapers, including The Tribune and Pioneer.

Eulie Chowdhury (right), a former chief architect ofChandigarh ( 1969). Haryana (1970-71). and Punjab (1976-81), was associated with the Chandigarh Capital Projectfor two decades from 1951. She worked closely with Le Corbusier's French team. Chowdhury graduated in architecturefrom the University of Sydney in 1947. She worked for a while in Australia before moving to the UnUed States. where she joined the architecturalfirm of Robert J.L. Cadien in Cliffside Park. New Jersey. She returned to India in 1951. Chowdhury lives in Chandigarh.

I

Albert f Mayer and Matthew Nowicki (pronounced No-veeskee) had been able to complete their assignment of designing Chandigarh, the present city would have probably looked more like a traditional Indian urban center than the modern 20th-century city that Le Corbusier created.

Nowicki and Mayer were attempting to create a city similar to Jalandhar, Ludhiana, or Amritsar. Their plan did not cater to mechanized traffic. Eventually this would have led to problems; for example, traffic in housing areas, as shown in their plans, would have been quite congested.

The American architects' major contribution was the selection of the site for the Capitol Complex, comprising the Secretariat, the Assembly, and the High Court buildings. It was, so to say, the crowning glory of the city. But I am sure that Le Corbusier would have also selected that location on his own because of the majestic presence of the Shivalik hills.

When Mayer was offered the job of designing Chandigarh, he enlisted as his colleague, Nowicki, a talented professional of Polish origin. Nowicki made brilliant sketches and perspective drawings for the new city. He borrowed traditional Indian motifs such as latticework and translated them into a modern idiom. But somehow the jaalis have not worked in modern architecture.

Initially, the Le Corbusier team also adopted these but gave them up later. They let in mosquitoes, flies, dust, rain, and biting cold.

Mayer was shattered when Nowicki was killed in an air crash in Egypt in 1950 and was unable to continue. However, the American connection did not end with the arrival of Le Corbusier. I recall a handsome, blue-eyed blond American architect (whose name I forget) who had trained with Frank Lloyd Wright, and who worked with the French team for a year or two. He was an idealist and, by American standards, worked for a pittance. He lived in the YMCA in Shimla, where the Chandigarh Capital Project was based.

After him came a tall strapping American girl, Vina. She later married the jovial Piloo Mody, who became a member of Parliament. Both were architects, trained in the United States, and they joined the Chandigarh Capital Project. In 1951, Piloo lived in a tent in the village of what was then Nagla in Chandigarh, but he had a huge Buick parked outside.

In 1952, when Piloo Mody moved to a dwelling in Sector 22, the earliest sector to come up in Chandigarh, Vina arrived and stayed with another member of the team, A.R. Prabhawalkar, as it was considered improper for engaged couples to live under the same roof. Eventually Piloo left Chandigarh to enter politics and Vina became an interior designer in Bombay.

Le Corbusier, meanwhile, had ties with America through architect friends who had moved there from Europe-Walter Gropius, Jose Luis Sen, and many others. Through their efforts, he was commissioned to design the Visual Arts Center at Cambridge, Massachusetts: today a place of pilgrimage for architects and planners from around the world. ( As told to Swarai Chauhan)