‘You can turn something like this into a Kafka novel’

I haven’t heard too much about this in the media, but it seems like an interesting story that deserves some follow-up (thanks to reader S.M. for the tip).

An Iraqi doctor who made international headlines after stating that civilian deaths in the Iraq war far exceeded officially reported numbers is not being allowed to travel to North America to meet other academics.

Riyadh Lafta and his colleagues have been trying for months to get a U.S. travel visa so the doctor could speak at a medical conference at the University of Washington today.

The State Department has cited miscommunication as the reason for the visa holdup.

There’s ample reason for skepticism. When a university in Vancouver invited Lafta to instead deliver a lecture in Canada, and broadcast it to the University of Washington via video, he ran into another problem — the British government denied him a four-hour transit visa for a stopover between the Middle East and Canada.

Lafta wasn’t even scheduled to appear at UW to talk about civilian war casualties; he intended to report on a study on elevated cancer levels in southern Iraq. Apparently, it doesn’t matter.

Amy Hagopian, an acting assistant professor who is conducting research with Lafta, believes the Bush administration is purposely blocking his travel to the United States. “My hypothesis is the Bush administration was extremely threatened by The Lancet study,” she said.

You think?

Crooked Timber explored the possibilities.

Presumably the UK and US authorities have reasoned that Dr Lafta is an ex Ba’ath Party member (as he would have had to have been to hold a position in the Iraqi Health Ministry), and thus the data he is carrying is not really about child cancer at all. Perhaps he is involved in some sort of “Boys from Brazil” type plot to clone an army of super-soldiers from Saddam Hussein’s DNA, and for this reason the UK cannot be exposed to this deadly information for even four hours in the Heathrow transit lounge.

The alternative — that Dr Lafta is being intentionally prevented from traveling in order to hush up his research on post-war deaths (research which even the Foreign Office have now more or less given up on trying to pretend isn’t broadly accurate), or to hush up the news about pediatric cancer for political convenience — is too horrible to contemplate. I’d note that there isn’t an election on in the USA at present, so the denialist crowd can shove that little slur up their backsides this time too.

Look, I know the study published by The Lancet was controversial, and there have been legitimate questions raised about the methodology and results. Fine. But a) we also know the administration has been less than forthcoming when it comes to civilian casualties; b) there haven’t been any similar studies to compare it against; and c) blocking an Iraqi scientist from attending a medical seminar only leads to additional questions about the administration stifling those with competing messages.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also noted that the refusal to extend Lafta a visa has drawn congressional interest.

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, who visited Iraq in 2002, wants to know more about cancer rates in Iraq and what Lafta has found. “We end up with the State Department and God knows who putting their foot on a guy from being able to attend a medical conference,” he said.

McDermott’s staff and U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell’s staff assisted the UW in contacting the State Department about Lafta’s visa problems. […]

“You can turn something like this into a Kafka novel,” said Mike DeCesare, McDermott’s spokesman.

If I only had a nickel for every time I’ve seen that comparison over the last six years….

The State Department has cited miscommunication as the reason for the visa holdup.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. When you communicate something inconvenient to the Bush regime, you are guilty of miscommunicating. Can’t have these miscommunicators roaming the country and miscommunicating at will, now can we?

  • I think it is because the elevated cancer rates might have alot to do with all that Deplete Uranium lying about and the fact that a lot of Brit and US soldiers are also there. Afterall, DU is purported to be safe and not poisonous.

  • Can’t wait the the day when foreign governments start to ask US visitors their political party affiliations and then deny Rethugs entry permits. Well what’s good for the US Justice Department must be what democracy’s do, right?

  • What is it with Washington these days? There are so many “miscommunications,” lost e-mails, unanswered letters from Congresspeople, vanished memories, foggy recollections –it’s like a black hole settled over the town robbing it of thoughts and communications. Didn’t Ahmedinijad also fail to get a visa due to “miscommunications?”

  • As a student of health policy and having been trained in epidemiology as well, I’ve got to comment on this. The Lancet article was not methodologically flawed–those who are making that claim seem to assert that any study with such wide error bars can not have been done correctly. Well, with all due respect, bullshit. The study design was excellent given what they were looking for and, if anything, biases the excess casualties estimate DOWNWARDS, not upwards. In other words, this study is more likely to underestimate the effect of the war than overestimate the effect.

    Unfortunately, wars have longer term effects too. There have been previous reports that childhood cancer rates are higher in southern Iraq. One theory to explain this result is that it is due to the depleted uranium left in southern Iraq following the first Gulf War. Similar effects have also been observed in Kosovo, where DU was also used. So, there is a very good reason why the current administration, which has also used DU in Iraq, might not want those results publicized.

  • First the Bush folks screened those who could listen to the President’s speeches. Then they started using Fox network spokesmen to tell the press what the President was saying and gave political appointees the right to rewrite scientific documents. Now they are screening those who can come into the country and talk about the results of the war in Iraq. What’s next? Making blogs inaccessible?

    There are many dictators throughout the world taking copious notes of Bush’s strategies.

  • I find the story more than a little hard to believe.

    How many flights go from Paris to Montreal? How many flights go from Frankfurt?

    If the US can put enough pressure on the British, French and German governments to prevent a short stop-over then the US government can easily put the pressure on the Canadian government.

    Isn’t it possible to have a video hookup over the internet?

  • I swear eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. – Thomas Jefferson

    Stem Cell Research
    Global Climate Change
    EPA Reports
    Women’s Reproductive Health
    Forest Conservation
    ….

    Joeseph Goebbels had nothing on this crew.

  • Death is death. When policy-makers quibble about it on the scale we have witnessed in Iraq, the indicators point to crimes against humanity committed by policy-makers disconnected with the realities their policies make. President Bush did indeed wish to be the War President, and I hope the sake of all of us, his blunders of extreme prejudice against the Iraqi people and our service men and women will soon be his own undoing. -Kevo

  • To address the why didn’t Dr. Lafta just take another flight that didn’t go through London question:

    Moving the trip to Canada from Seattle was sort of last minute. According to my sources, the flight that was chosen through London was the most convenient for Lafta while still getting him to Vancouver in time to speak on 4/20. When the plans were made to go through London obtaining a transit visa didn’t seem like it would be an issue at all. These usually take less than a week to get and Dr. Lafta had previously received a visa to enter the U.K. and speak on two occasions. The previous visa had already expired.

  • The way I remember if from my time at the UW:

    A professor is a member of the faculty who been hired by the university and has tenure. This gives the faculty member a “lifetime” gig at the university

    An assistant professor is a member of the faculty who has been hired by the university and placed on the tenure track. If the professor does not get tenure by the end of a time period (not sure what the time period is) they are removed from their post and usually leave the university.

    An acting assistant professor is a member of the faculty who has been hired by the university but not placed on the tenure track. They have all the rights and responsibilities of a faculty member (can vote in the Faculty Senate, etc.) but aren’t going to be made a permanent part of the faculty.

    An instructor is someone who is hired to teach a specific class, and is not part of the faculty.

  • Thanks Chuck. I’d never heard the designation.

    I thought all temps were called either instructors or lecturers or “adjuncts.”

    I’m surprised any non-tenure-track hire would be allowed to vote in the faculty senate. Or maybe not.

    This must be a recent development, in keeping with the increasing tendency to farm out teaching to part-timers without rights or commitment to the institution.

    Just like the rest of the “marketplace”–sigh.

  • Comments are closed.