http://www.undiplomatic.net/2008/09/23/ambassador-for-all-war-crimes-except-our-own/ Bringing foreign policy back, girl. Those other countries don't know how to act. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:23:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 http://www.undiplomatic.net/2008/09/23/ambassador-for-all-war-crimes-except-our-own/#comment-4751 Matthew Lavine Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:27:49 +0000 http://www.undiplomatic.net/?p=827#comment-4751 This item on your blog was recently brought to my attention and although some time has passed since you wrote it, I felt compelled to respond. First of all, I understand the point you're making. Like you, I've felt outrage about certain U.S. policies over the last few years, especially the approach to counterterrorism that led to the Guantanamo internment facility, prisoner torture scandals, and a decline of America’s standing in the eyes of the world. I do take issue, though, with your characterizations of Clint Williamson. Although I've recently left government to attend graduate school, for the past two years I worked directly with him as a career civil servant in the State Department. I found him to be very principled and far from an apologist for crimes that may have been committed by U.S. officials. Contrary to your characterization of his mission and message as, “do as we say and not as we do,” he has confronted these issues head-on wherever he has travelled and has consistently acknowledged that incidents of torture, the "un-signing" of the Rome Treaty, equivocal statements on the Geneva Conventions, etc., have diminished U.S. credibility on these important issues. He has also worked very hard to see the United States re-engage with the ICC -- the effects of which are visible in the way the United States has handled issues recently in the UN Security Council regarding the court. European governments and ICC officials are clearly aware of the positive changes that have taken place over the last three years in terms of relations between the United States and the ICC, and I know that if you speak to them, you'll find that they acknowledge Williamson’s role in this. Finally, you criticize Williamson and his office for negotiating the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo. I agree with your unstated point that the inclusion of this mission seems incongruous with the main function of the OWCI. Hopefully, the Obama administration will recognize this and separate the two functions. However, far from being something sinister as you characterize it, this process of releasing detainees is enthusiastically supported by the human rights community. OWCI works very closely with ICRC, Human Rights Watch, and other groups to facilitate these transfers and to ensure they’re performed in a manner consistent with principles of non-refoulement. Again, Williamson has taken a very principled approach which has often put him at odds with other actors in the U.S. Government -- the ones you really should be targeting in your blog. To my knowledge, you've never met Clint Williamson and based on your descriptions of him, you haven't spoken with anyone who has dealt with him on these issues. If you had, you would have gotten a very different picture of him and his work. This item on your blog was recently brought to my attention and although some time has passed since you wrote it, I felt compelled to respond. First of all, I understand the point you’re making. Like you, I’ve felt outrage about certain U.S. policies over the last few years, especially the approach to counterterrorism that led to the Guantanamo internment facility, prisoner torture scandals, and a decline of America’s standing in the eyes of the world. I do take issue, though, with your characterizations of Clint Williamson. Although I’ve recently left government to attend graduate school, for the past two years I worked directly with him as a career civil servant in the State Department. I found him to be very principled and far from an apologist for crimes that may have been committed by U.S. officials. Contrary to your characterization of his mission and message as, “do as we say and not as we do,” he has confronted these issues head-on wherever he has travelled and has consistently acknowledged that incidents of torture, the “un-signing” of the Rome Treaty, equivocal statements on the Geneva Conventions, etc., have diminished U.S. credibility on these important issues. He has also worked very hard to see the United States re-engage with the ICC — the effects of which are visible in the way the United States has handled issues recently in the UN Security Council regarding the court. European governments and ICC officials are clearly aware of the positive changes that have taken place over the last three years in terms of relations between the United States and the ICC, and I know that if you speak to them, you’ll find that they acknowledge Williamson’s role in this. Finally, you criticize Williamson and his office for negotiating the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo. I agree with your unstated point that the inclusion of this mission seems incongruous with the main function of the OWCI. Hopefully, the Obama administration will recognize this and separate the two functions. However, far from being something sinister as you characterize it, this process of releasing detainees is enthusiastically supported by the human rights community. OWCI works very closely with ICRC, Human Rights Watch, and other groups to facilitate these transfers and to ensure they’re performed in a manner consistent with principles of non-refoulement. Again, Williamson has taken a very principled approach which has often put him at odds with other actors in the U.S. Government — the ones you really should be targeting in your blog. To my knowledge, you’ve never met Clint Williamson and based on your descriptions of him, you haven’t spoken with anyone who has dealt with him on these issues. If you had, you would have gotten a very different picture of him and his work.

]]>