Chris Gelken has nearly 20 years experience as a photographer, writer, news editor and broadcaster.

For the past 11 years Chris has been based in Asia where he now works for Hong Kong's leading AM radio news station, Metro Plus.

Chris also contributes freelance material on a wide variety of topics to newspapers, magazines and radio networks internationally.

Not Starr-struck

What may appear perfectly reasonable to one person, can be a completely alien concept to another. After spending more than half my life working overseas, many issues that I see being argued in the Western media often leave me thinking, "Aw, c'mon people, get a life." I suppose our attitudes are moulded by our experience.

Regular readers may notice I rarely comment on the Starr investigation in my column. For one thing my fellow editors at American Politics Journal have the story pretty well covered.

But frankly, and perhaps the most important reason, is I really don't give a damn!

Every time I see a television news anchor begin to announce the latest developments in Starr's witch hunt I have this compulsion to switch channels to the Cartoon Network. I don't, but invariably wish I had. I must be on a different wavelength. The transfer of sensitive military technology makes me sit up and take notice, that's a story that should concern all of us. But whether or not POTUS has a problem keeping his libido under control? Sorry folks, that's territory that I'd rather leave to the National Enquirer and late night talk-show hosts.

Did POTUS lie under oath about having a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? Well, at the risk of damaging my credibility to ever sit on a jury, if I thought my marriage might be put in jeopardy by telling nothing but the truth -- and if I thought I could get away with it- - I guess I'd lie too. Let's face it, we all lie from time to time and often the reasons are quite crass. Lying to save one's marriage moves us into an area where few of us would like to be put under scrutiny. And certainly not under oath.

For the past 12 years I have lived in an area of the world where infidelity among the great and good isn't considered the exception -- it is the rule. No self respecting Thai tycoon would feel dressed without his diamond studded Rolex and at least one young and beautiful 'minor wife' hanging off his arm. To be honest this practice is not only accepted, it is expected. Okay, these things are quite alien to our late 20th century politically correct Western cultures. I am not saying I like or agree with the idea of infidelity -- especially when it is flaunted outrageously -- but it is a fact of life in countries like Thailand. I just don't let it bother me. I am more concerned about the problems of child and forced prostitution, poverty among farmers, the brutality and corruption of the police and the blatant cronyism, nepotism and corruption of politicians.

Compared to these things, the President's hard-on is only a little thing. Though perhaps there are those with first hand experience who might disagree. And I am not just talking about interns. What revelations the Secret Service might be able to spill to Ken Starr is quite frightening.

Like it or not, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I have listened to the arguments and believe that it is in the best interests of U.S. national security that the President considers Secret Service agents as self-sacrificing body-guards rather than as potential spies for special prosecutors. Every head of state worth their salt has a Praetorian Guard -- why not POTUS? It might sound a little off the wall and somewhat inclined towards totalitarianism, but for the guy to function he has to have a coterie of insiders who will not only die for him, they will lie for him. Sometimes a national leader has to do unpopular -- frequently illegal -- things in what he considers the interests of the public that elected him. Turning Secret Service agents into White House spies will only drive these activities further underground and make it harder for journalists to learn the truth! Think what you are doing here!

Do I actually agree with the concept of special status for agents? No, not really. No one is above the law and any witness to a crime is morally bound to reveal what they know. On purely moral grounds and in the public interest I agree that agents should be called to testify. But at the same time I am a realist and do not subscribe to the unspeakably naive suggestion that if POTUS has nothing to hide he should have no objections to his bodyguards being grilled by Starr minions. All Presidents have something to hide.

Personally I think it is better to let our leaders think they are beyond scrutiny - give them enough rope to hang themselves and then kick open the trap-door when they least expect it. When one is acutely aware that one is under the most intense scrutiny one doesn't change one's habits, one just hides them more effectively. Now that ain't in the public interest.

Chris Gelken
18th July 1998
Hong Kong