United Nations » Undiplomatic

15 October 2009 Charles J. Brown
11:52 am

In Case You Didn’t Know Already, Climate Change is A Bad Thing

So today is “Blog Action Day,” where thousands of bloggers all post passionately about an important issue. This year’s topic is climate change.

Okay. Here it goes.

Climate change is bad.

Really bad.

And scary.

Really scary.

We should stop it from happening or something.

Maybe by regulating carbon emissions.

Hey — I know! The world’s governments should all get together and talk about it!

And do something!

There ya go.

I don’t mean to mock a very serious issue — climate change is bad. And the world does need to do something about it.

But convening an online blogging Woodstock isn’t really going to do a damn thing.

Come on, sing it with me!

We are the blogs
We are Al Gore’s children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start blogging
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re we’re wasting all your time
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me and seven thousand other bloggers

Regular readers of this site know that I’m a huge fan of social media (if I wasn’t, why would I be blogging?). But I find things like this project — what I would call premeditated spontaneity — pretty silly. How does getting 7,000 blogs (by the site’s latest count) to write about climate change on a single day somehow make a difference?

Blogging isn’t action. It’s a bunch of people writing about stuff. I mean, they’re not even suggesting you link to an online petition, for crying out loud.

That’s not “action.” It’s cyber-narcissism.

Even if I were to believe that Blog Action Day is a good idea, I’d still have serious doubts about the event’s understanding of strategy.

Just for a moment, let’s assume that world leaders will wake the hell up after they read that Perez HIlton and Wonkette are unhappy about global warming. Don’t you think it would have made more sense to schedule the event a little closer to the UN Climate Change Conference, which doesn’t start until December 7?

I guess Hu Jintao will have to bookmark us so he can remember all this, um, passion when he shows up in Copenhagen six freaking weeks from now.

Guinea: Murder, Rape, and Chinese Investment

Unless you follow international news closely, you may have missed the tragic recent events in Guinea. From a September 29 NYT report:

Streets were deserted and shops were shut tight Tuesday in Conakry, Guinea, a day after government troops went on a brutal rampage at an opposition rally, shooting, stabbing, raping and assaulting dozens of men and women in a packed stadium.

Hospitals in the city were full of the wounded from what opponents of the military government here termed a massacre, and human rights groups continued to revise upward the number of dead, saying Tuesday that about 157 people are known to have been killed. Over a thousand victims had suffered gunshot wounds or other injuries, the groups said.

[A] precise death toll was impossible to ascertain because the army had removed bodies from the stadium where as many as 50,000 had gathered to protest the ruling military junta. . . .Witnesses said women were raped in public by the soldiers and sexually assaulted with their guns; the military fired repeated volleys on unarmed civilians at point-blank range, human rights officials said.

The most brutal soldiers were identified as belonging to the elite, red-beret-wearing presidential guard.

Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara, who took power in a coup d’etat last December after the death of Guinea’s previous dictator, has vehemently denied any responsibility for his soldiers’ brutality.

The government reported 56 dead, saying many persons had been trampled, while human rights advocates have documented at least 150 murders and at least 1,000 injured, substantiated by photographs of countless dead bodies that had been shot. Many of these photos were provided to various news organizations, including the New York Times.

Numerous reports have emerged describing brutal rapes of women and children, including a cellphone photo, also provided to the New York Times that shows soldiers surrounding a woman on the ground. Other media reports from the IRIN Africa news service on the “Aftermath of Rape” in Guinea elaborates in explicit terms:

At an 8 October gathering of Guinean women beaten or raped during the recent military attack on demonstrators, all wept as one young woman presented torn clothes soldiers had ripped off of her.

“We all collapsed in tears. It is unspeakably painful what happened here in Guinea,” Aïssata Daffe of the Union des Forces Républicaines political party.

The gathering was part of an ongoing effort by local NGOs and civil society organizations to collect information about the sexual violence during the 28 September military crackdown in order to appeal for assistance and justice. NGOs are still trying to determine how many women and girls were raped. For now 33 cases have been documented, according to local and international aid agencies.

In response, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement to reporters in Washington, D.C. saying the “events [in Guinea] cannot be allowed to continue” and that “It was criminality of the greatest degree, and those who committed such acts should not be given any reason to expect that they will escape justice.” Clinton quickly dispatched Deputy Assistant Secretary of State William Fitzgerald, who met Camara yesterday and “us[ed] strong language” in a tense discussion that reportedly lasted for more than two hours.

Fitzgerald urged Camara not to run for re-election (Camara’s decision to run after promising not to is what prompted the peaceful opposition demonstration) and told the President that the events of Sept. 28th were directly tied to him. Later this month, Patricia N. Moller, currently U.S. Ambassador to Burundi, should arrive in Conakry to serve as the new U.S. Ambassador. We can only hope that she is able to maintain pressure on Camara.

Most Western diplomats have concluded the violence has undercut any shed of credbility that Camara had once possessed, and do not forsee him continuing as head of the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD), the 32 senior and middle ranking military officers (and a few civilians) behind last December’s coup.

Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister of France, announced the suspension of military aid to Guinea, declaring that France could no longer work with Camara and urging intervention by the international community. France is supporting the initiative by the Commission of the African Union to send President Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso as mediator to address the Guinea crisis, and has encouraged the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union, and the UN Commission on Human Rights to set up an international commission of inquiry.

Yesterday in Abuja, Nigeria, ECOWAS issued a Final Communique on the Guinea situation, stipulating that Guinea take a number of specific actions, including a pledge by Samara and other members of the junta that they would not stand for elections. The communique itself is written in quite blunt and uncharacteristically direct language, according to a retired State Department official who has worked extensively in West Africa. The official said that the quantity of strong documentary evidence of the violence was a significant contributing factor to the language — such as saying that “raped men, be treated and released from the hospital” — which is quite unusual and speaks to the chaos and anarchy that must have occurred on the ground.

Amid the disintegration of Guinea society, the junta announced a $7 billion infrastructure mining and oil deal with China. Guinea has the largest bauxite deposits in the world and is one of the poorest nations in Africa where people live on less than $1 per day.

Stay classy, Hu Jintao.

More Thoughts on Obama’s Peace Prize

When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced this morning that it was awarding President Barack Obama the Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” Obama became only the third sitting president to receive the honor. The other two were Woodrow Wilson, who received the honor in 1920 for his futile efforts to establish the League of Nations, and to Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 for his negotiating peace between Russia and Japan.

Only nine months into his administration, Obama apparently won the Prize for his tone in reaching out to Muslims, exemplified in his ground breaking speech delivered in Cairo earlier this year; his urging to the international community to address pressing global problems such as climate change and the reduction of nuclear weapons, when he recently addressed the UN General Assembly.

But those are as much aspirations as achievements; no one can argue that Obama won because of anything he’s done. In fact, as Charlie noted on Twitter, it would be a mistake to think Obama got it just because he wasn’t Bush (though let’s not kid ourselves — that most definitely was part of Committee’s thinking). It’s more accurate to say that Obama is being honored for turning the supertanker, so to speak — moving the United States away from the disruptive role it played in world politics and back toward its more traditional role as leader and partner.

Now, as the old saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding. The pressure on Obama to deliver on Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East peace, climate change, and nonproliferation has just gotten significantly — perhaps exponentially — greater. And then there is that sticky issue of human rights, which seems to have taken a back seat to realism in this administration. More to come on that last point later.

Obama the Communitarian

Apologies for the delay in getting this up, but I wanted to give priority to Tanya’s very important post on the events in Belgrade and Keith’s commentary on the G-20.

Yesterday, I posted over at Care2, offering my thoughts on Obama’s UN speech. I urge you to go read the whole thing, but I wanted to highlight one point:

[In his UN speech,] Obama used language consistent with communitarianism, a political philosophy that believes that individual rights must be balanced by the needs and interests of the community. Communitarians argue that each community is shaped by its culture, but also believe that a strong civil society is a prerequisite for a strong community.

Now take a look at some of what Obama said during the speech:

“We can only reach [a future of peace an dprosperity] if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes [the world] work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation. . . .The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation — one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve.”

As I noted in my post, it’s all there — the focus on balancing rights and responsibilities, the emphasis on needing to work together to achieve common goals, the challenge to other nations to the burden of solving the world’s most pressing problems. Obama went out of his way to call on every nation live up to the UN’s founding vision — what he called “the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.”

It’s an interesting way to approach foreign policy. The danger, of course is that communitarianism by its very nature requires consent, which other countries — including America’s partners and allies — may not want to grant. Without it, it will be much harder to accomplish Obama’s vision.

That said, I think it’s a smart move by Obama, essentially giving the world a vision reasserts American leadership while acknowledging past American mistakes. John Bolton may not like it (surprise!), but we’ve seen more progress on nukes in the past 72 hours than we had seen over the past nine years.

The first major test of Obama’s new approach will be Iran — especially after this morning’s news. Obama has laid the groundwork, and others — particularly the Russians — appear willing to go along.

So far.

Care2 Join Me?

I’ve been remiss in mentioning that I am now also blogging over at Care2’s fine site — I hope you’ll follow me there as well. In my first couple of posts, I’ve managed to start another raging debate over ACORN (which had nothing to do with the post) and get Hondurans yelling at me over my suggestion that Zelaya and Micheletti compromise or something.

Later today, I’ll link to my post there on Obama’s speech to the UN.

So all in all, it’s a pretty good start. I hope you’ll join me there as well.

Turning the Tide on Nuclear Security

The most tangible and urgent danger facing the developed world today is arguably the threat of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. Highly enriched uranium could be used to craft a crude fission device of significant magnitude. Plutonium or low enriched uranium could be used for a “dirty bomb” spreading radiation and panic.

The possibility of so-called “loose nuclear material” falling into almost anyone’s hands was driven home by this piece in the Washington Post earlier this week. And, thank goodness, it is a threat taken seriously by the Obama Administration which has made securing all of this material over the next four years a top priority.

Loose nuclear material, nuclear nonproliferation, and overall disarmament are on the agenda today as 15 heads-of-state meet at the United Nations Security Council. U.S. President Barack Obama chairs the historic meeting which is expected to pass a meaningful resolution. (UPDATE: The resolution passed unanimously. Full text here.)

Today’s action is just one step in a long path to lower nuclear dangers around the world. The U.S. decision to drop a missile defense plan to be based in eastern Europe has already lowered tensions. (One wag said we are getting a good deal of benefit for giving up a failed system intended to defend us against a threat which no longer existed.)

This new atmosphere will likely be beneficial to talks between the United States and Russia to drastically cut their strategic nuclear arsenals. Something both sides desperately want to do, but in the real world can only accomplish in tandem.

And if a U.S.-Russia deal can really be reached, watch out. Big global change could be in store.

All the other nuclear powers in the world, when asked why they won’t reduce their arsenals or cooperate more on nonproliferation, say, “Why should we when the U.S. and Russia won’t reduce theirs?” Well if that roadblock is cleared, all kinds of new agreements and arrangements will be on the table.

Imagine the possibilities if this is the context for the global summit on nuclear security being held by President Obama in Washington, DC next March. We may very well look back on September of 2009 as the moment when the nuclear tide finally began to turn.

(More from the Stanley Foundation on nuclear security here.)

President Obama’s Global Governance Tour

President Obama will, in the space of 48 hours this week, address the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, chair a rare “heads-of-state” level meeting of the United Nations Security Council, and host a meeting of the G20 leading nations in Pittsburgh.

At the General Assembly on Wednesday, I expect a cross between the president’s April speech in Prague and the one given by US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice last month at New York University. If nothing else, the image of Barack Obama behind that green marble podium, representing the United States of America in front of all the other world leaders, will send an unmistakable message about the nature of our democracy.

Of course the most newsworthy items at the UNGA will likely be President Obama’s Tuesday meeting and photo with the Israeli prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority… and his efforts to avoid crossing paths with President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

As for the Security Council, the topic will be nuclear arms control. And the president has been quite forceful on this issue. He campaigned on deep strategic arms cuts with the Russians and a plan to secure all loose nuclear material (the stuff terrorists can get) within the next four years. Reports say the president rejected the first revised nuclear arms plan from the Pentagon because it didn’t go far enough to reduce our arsenal. And last week’s announcement scrapping the missile defense shield in eastern Europe could open the door for the broadest global cooperation on nukes in a generation. Thursday’s Security Council meeting will be the first indicator. A draft resolution to be debated at the session has been leaked.

Finally, Air Force One leaves New York Thursday for Pittsburgh and the G20 summit. Note that this is the fourth global summit in 10 months. We had the G20 in Washington in November and then again in London in April. July was the G8 (which actually had about 30 countries in attendance) in Italy. There is a very real case of summit fatigue in major global capitals.

Some have already set low expectations for this G20 session. Protectionism is on the rise and bonus pay (a populist issue with no real impact on the global economy) may steal the spotlight. But I will be reading other tea leaves in the Pittsburgh confab.

The G meetings have become the red hot center of 21st century global governance.

These rotating, informal gatherings have the flexibility needed for today’s fluid policy environment. The G8 is moving to include more of the world’s rising powers, and the G20 has proven nimble in the face of a global financial crisis. The real tests will therefore be a) can these bodies continue to show leadership even after the current crisis fades, b) can the Gs find ways to keep moving beyond photo-ops into further accountability for their pledges, and c) can they find meaningful ways to interface with the legitimate, universal institutions (like the United Nations) to implement and lock in real international cooperation?

I plan to write more on all of this as the week unfolds.

Afghanistan: See EU Later?

Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that Gordon Brown, prime minister of the UK, Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France have sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, asking the UN to sponsor a meeting of allies engaged in the war in Afghanistan to discuss coordinating resources and support for the U.S.-led effort, once the next government is formed.

Brown and Merkel face considerable opposition at home for their armies’ participation in the Afghanistan war. Britain and German military forces are the second and third largest of NATO participants in the Afghanistan operation. It is not merely Americans who are dying in Afghanistan. Fifty British soldiers have died over the last four months; as a result, Brown faces increased opposition not only from the Tories but also within his own party — one junior minister already has resigned in protest.

The NATO airstrike called by a German general officer last Friday has generated considerable outrage in Germany. Speaking before the German Bundestag today, Merkel strongly defended the German military who called in the airstrike resulting in approximately 70 to 100 persons killed, while urging patience and called for a full investigation saying that “any innocent life lost in Afghanistan is one too many.”

The Financial Times also reported that

Ms Merkel on Sunday came under fire from opposition parties over her government’s military deployment in Afghanistan, which is opposed by most Germans. Gregor Gysi, parliamentary head of the radical Left party, criticised the air strike against hijacked tankers ordered by German troops in Kunduz province on Friday. Mr Gysi called the resulting deaths of civilians “unjustified and inexcusable.”

No doubt the Social Democrats and Greens also will make the NATO air strike an issue in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has assigned Canadian Maj. Gen. C. S. Sullivan to lead the formal investigation along with an U.S. Air Force Officer and a German legal advisor. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Prime Minister of Denmark, who assumed the NATO secretary general position last month, also called for an investigation.

The timing of the Europeans’ announcement is no coincidence. U.S. allies in Europe want to know what the Obama Administration’s plans are to “fix” Afghanistan, and will continue to withhold their full support until they have an answer. Meanwhile, the Administration is weighing a new report from McChrystal that in all likelihood includes a request for more troops. Although Obama will be focusing on health care over the next few weeks, Afghanistan is also likely to remain on the front burner, especially given the reported disagreements within Obama’s national security team.

As Merkel and Brown continue to face growing domestic opposition to continued participation in ISAF, they will continue to push the Obama Administration to make its priorities clear and chart a way forward that will benefit the Afghan people — and in the process, make it easier for U.S. allies to convince their electorate of the need for continued engagement.

Big Brother? More Like Big Sister Mary Margaret

So the Pope wants a world government:

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.” . . .

More than two years in the making, “Caritas in Veritate,” or “Charity in Truth,” is Benedict’s third encyclical since he became pope in 2005. Filled with terms like “globalization,” “market economy,” “outsourcing,” “labor unions” and “alternative energy,” it is not surprising that the Italian media reported that the Vatican was having difficulty translating the 144-page document into Latin. . . .

Benedict also called for a reform of the United Nations so that there can be a unified “global political body” that allows the less powerful of the earth to have a voice, and called on rich nations to help less fortunate ones.

“In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all,” he wrote. . . .

Arguably the most environmentally-conscious pope in history, Benedict wrote that, “One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of ‘efficiency’ is not value-free.”

In line with what he calls “respecting the intrinsic value of creation,” he also decried stem cell research, abortion and euthanasia.

So let me get this straight. Benedict thinks we need a strong world government to regulate the excesses of the economy. And address the plight of the world’s poorest and most disadvantaged. And fix the environment. And outlaw abortion and stem cell research.

Just a bit of a mixed message there, your holiness. I guess we’re talking about a nunny state rather than a nanny state.

It will be interesting to see how some conservatives react to this. Some of those who most ardently support the Pope’s stance on abortion also view the UN as a mortal threat to American sovereignty. Will they change their mind if, as the pope appears to imply, black helicopters were used to shut down abortion clinics?

For the past decade, the Catholic Church in the United States has had conservative leaders who threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is pro-choice. Will they now also threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is anti-UN? Or votes to cut funding for the developing world? Or is in the pocket of Big Oil? Or who supports the death penalty?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Budget: The Perfect Administration Job for Me. . .

. . .Too bad it’s being eliminated. From a list at OMB chief Peter Orszag’s blog that identifies specific budget cuts (h/t):

Educational attaché, Paris, France ($632,000). The Department of Education can use e-mail, video conferencing, and modest travel to replace a full-time representative to UNESCO in Paris, France.

Don’t cut it Mr. President! I’ll make the sacrifice for far less money. I’ll do it for $200,000, even $150,000. I’ll even pay for my own housing. And I’ll keep my travel modest — only Geneva and Monaco on the weekends.

How did it cost $632,000 to base one person in Paris in an embassy alreaid paid for out of other Departments’ budgets? Even with housing allowances? Was consumption of caviar, foie gras, and champagne a mandatory part of the job?

Sheesh. No wonder people get angry about government waste.

Politicizing Relief: Blaming (Those Helping) the Victims

News out of Sri Lanka today, via the BBC:

The Sri Lankan government has attacked what it calls a “vicious coalition” of aid and humanitarian agencies for their actions over the country’s civil war. The defence ministry said those “pretending to be humanitarian and aid agencies” were prolonging the conflict “to secure their income”. . . .

The defence ministry website said the “vicious coalition” that had “been pretending to be humanitarian agencies, aid agencies, free media, civil rights movements, etc, have made the continued bloodshed on Sri Lankan soil a lucrative business for them.” It said the goal was “to ensure that the [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's] war would never end at any cost.”

The ministry accused the Care International group of being part of the “abominable conspiracy.” Care last week reported that a local worker was killed by shellfire in a government-designated “no-fire” zone. The ministry said “very reliable sources” indicated the man was “a hardcore LTTE cadre.”

I detest the LTTE, which is arguably the worst terrorist organization in the world, responsible for refining and popularizing suicide bombing. But to suggest that international relief agencies are somehow LTTE sympathizers because they’re helping those caught in a war zone is patently absurd.

Sri Lanka is not the first government to attack CARE and other groups for such work. Earlier this month Sudan expelled thirteen international relief agencies working in Darfur (including CARE, Oxfam, and Save the Children) in response to the International Criminal Court’s issuing of an arrest warrant for President Omar al Bashir. And in the past few days, Eritrea — which has recently expressed solidarity with Sudan, even hosting Bashir after the warrant was issued — has started kicking out aid groups in apparent solidarity with its new friend. And back in the 1990s, Sudan did something similar at the height of its war against the SPLA.

On one level, this looks like a major bucket of stupid. Aid agencies are, after all, there not to take sides but to help those caught in the crossfire. But no one really should be surprised. If people already are condemning you for the way you’re treating civilian populations, you really have nothing to lose by kicking out those trying to help, especially if those people happen to reside in areas controlled by rebels.

As is usually the case, governments justify their actions by cloaking them in high-minded rhetoric. In this case, Sudan and others have claimed that humanitarian relief is the latest version of colonialsim (a neo-neocolonialism?), and that aid agencies are merely a tools of the U.S.-European colonial-military-globalist hegemon. Some on the left in the United States, most notably Noam Chomsky and David Rieff, have offered an intellectual framework to support this perspective. Rieff for example, has suggested that most humanitarian groups are often “subcontractors to the war efforts of various NATO powers.”

Such views are not merely absurd but insulting. CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children, and numerous other groups do extraordinary work. They’re not trying to advance anyone’s agenda, nor are they interested in taking sides. In fact, they’d like nothing more than to make themselves unnecessary.

The Obama Administration should move quickly to express support for their work. Appointing a new USAID Administrator certainly would be a good start, giving the US a voice on development issues. The Administration also should support the efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to define any move by a government to deliberately deny civilians the ability to survive as a war crime.

Chas Freeman and John Bolton

As you may know by now, there has been quite a storm brewing over President Obama’s appointment of Charles W. “Chas” Freeman, Jr. to head the National Intelligence Council, which is responsible for producing the often important but sometimes off-the-mark National Intelligence Estimates. This is an important debate, and I want to weigh in on it.

But for those of my readers unfamiliar with the NIC and NIEs, let’s start with some background. On its website, the NIE describes itself as

a center of strategic thinking within the US Government, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and providing the President and senior policymakers with analyses of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community.

Our work ranges from brief analyses of current issues to “over the horizon” estimates of broader trends at work in the world. Although most of our work is for internal government use, we also produce or commission unclassified reports.

And here’s a pretty good summary of NIEs, via Wikipedia:

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are United States federal government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to a particular national security issue. NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. NIEs are classified documents prepared for policymakers.

From time to time, the NIC pops up in the news. In 2007, the Bush Administration released the unclassified sections of an NIE of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The estimate concluded that Iran had ceased its development of a nuclear weapons program in 2003 and as of the time of the estimate, had not restarted it. The Estimate became a political football, with critics of the Bush Administration noting the contrast between Administration officials’ statments on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the NIC’s analysis.

These days, the NIC the focus of attention not because of what it has said, but rather who is slated to lead it. Freeman has come under fire for his often critical views on Israel, his sympathetic attitude towards the Saudis, and his opinion that the Chinese should have cracked down earlier on the Tiananmen protests. Freeman is a hyper-realist, believing that the use and conservation of hard power should trump any and all other considerations. He clearly is an unconventional thinker, and his views have often placed himself outside the mainstream of conventional foreign policy views.

Freeman brings to mind another famous free-thinker on foreign policy, John Bolton. Like Bolton, Freeman has made provocative statements that are now coming back to haunt his appointment. Like Bolton, Freeman is suspicious of the manner in which foreign policy decisions often are made. Like Bolton, he favors American power over idealistic or romantic views of how the world should work. And like Bolton, he often has exaggerated his views for effect.

So stylistically, the two men are quite simliar. But in terms of policy positions, they couldn’t be more different. Although both believe in American power, Bolton sees it as something to project while Freeman regards it as something that should be conserved. Bolton views certain American allies, particularly Israel, as so indispensible that they should be forgiven for any and all transgressions, while Freeman, as the current controversy demonstrates, believes that Israel has made significant mistakes and should be held to account. Interestingly, the two switch sides when it comes to China, with Bolton far more critical of the current regime and Freeman more likely to tolerate its excesses.

As those who know my work before this blog can attest, I played a central role in opposing John Bolton’s nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. So you might conclude that I also oppose Freeman.

I don’t. But I don’t really support him either. I find his remarks on China to be particularly infuriating, but then again, I’m not happy with the views of many political appointees, both in this Administration and in the last one. Personal opinions should be important only if they have a direct impact on the person’s ability to take on the job, or if they fall so far outside the mainstream as to be unacceptable. No matter how controversial Freeman’s past statements may be, neither of those would be an acccurate description of the issue now at hand.

Am I inconsistent? Perhaps. But I see three fundamental differences between the cases of Bolton and Freeman.

First, Obama has appointed Freeman to a position that does not require Senate confirmation. As a result, his opponents have no real channel to prevent his taking the position. Bolton, on the other hand, had to get Senate approval (and in fact never did). You can argue that the NIC position should rise to the level of Senate confirmation — and this controversy may lead to such a change — but right now it doesn’t, and those critical of Freeman have no hope other than to generate enough controversy so as to convince Obama to withdraw the appointment.

Second, Freeman’s views are not in opposition to the institution he is to lead. Freeman has never suggested abolishing the NIC, or knocking off its top ten stories. Bolton, of course, did say such things about the UN. Although the analogy is imperfect — Bolton was not appointed to head the UN, but rather to represent the US at the UN — the reality is that Freeman’s views are tangential to his appointment rather than directly relevant.

Third, there’s a fundamental difference between leading an intelligence body and serving as a U.S. diplomat. As Joe Klein has noted, an unconvential thinker is exactly what you want as Chair of the National Intelligence Council — which is, after all, the body responsible for the 2002 NIE that the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq. A diplomat, in contrast, is supposed to calm the waters, not make waves.

Nonetheless, I find no small irony in the fact that a few of those who so vocally opposed Bolton are now supporting Freeman, in large part because they believe that a few of his past statements should not prevent him from getting the job. They may not remember, but those of us who opposed Bolton rejected similar arguments made in his favor, asserting that his remarks on the UN reflected the man’s actual positions, and that he therefore could not be trusted with such an important position.

As I noted above, I think there are serious and important differences between the Bolton nomination and the Freeman appointment, enough so that I have less of a quarrel with those who support Freeman than I do with those who oppose him. But I think it is at best inconsistent and at worst intellectually disingenuous to suggest that Freeman’s past statements are irrelevant if you also were one of those who argued that Bolton’s past statements were damning.

Neocons, A.Q. Khan, the ICC and Red Herrings

Maybe, just maybe, The Washington Times should stop repeating tired old neocon tropes about how the International Criminal Court is going to lock up Dick “Bambi” Cheney and other God-fearing Americans:

Mr. Obama and his representatives have now gone further than any other previous administration in empowering the ICC. On Thursday, top Obama administration officials offered support for implementing the war crimes indictment issued in July against Sudanese President Omar Bashir for his role in the genocide and war crimes - crimes that have resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 people and the displacement of 2.5 million. A panel of judges is deliberating whether to issue Mr. Bashir’s arrest warrant. . . .

Mr. Obama wants to show the world that the United States is serious about protecting human rights. But our commander-in-chief must be even more zealous in showing Americans that he will first and foremost - and at all times - safeguard us from our rivals and opponents whose primary motives might very well be to hamstring and diminish our current global preeminence in making the world safer.

Oh. My. God. Did you hear? The ICC wants to prosecute Omar al-Bashir. I mean what has he done? Okay, other than Darfur. And a fifteen-year war against the southern half of his country. And provide Osama bin Laden with sanctuary for a while. But come on. He’s so much fun at parties!

Maybe the WaTimes should stop worrying about the ICC and instead focus its outrage over reports that the Pakistani High Court has released confessed nuclear smuggler A.Q. Khan from house detention. Someone should arrest this guy, maybe bring him to trial. Of course, that would require an international institution capable of investigating and prosecuting the worst of the worst — people like Bashir; Joseph Kony, the insane leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army; and Khan himself.

An institution like, oh, I don’t know, the International Criminal Court.

Too bad they’re busy prosecuting Americans — which, contrary to the fever dreams of the WaTimes, they’re not. Here’s the reality.

1. Even if the Obama Administration decides to reverse Bush’s unsigning of the ICC treaty, the United States Senate is unlikely to ratify it anytime in the near future.

2. Even if the U.S. were to join the treaty tomorrow, the Court could not prosecute Bush Administration officials because a) the alleged “crimes” took place before the U.S. was a party to the treaty; and b) the treaty has a provision, known as complementarity, which says that in cases where a state has a functioning legal system and acts in good faith to investigate and adjudicate allegations of such crimes, the court has no jurisdiction.

3. In fact, the only way the Court could investigate U.S. officials would be through a Security Council referral, which would require the United States not to veto. And not even the WaTimes believes that the Obama team would allow that to happen.

4. To date, the court has demonstrated admirable restraint in choosing not to investigate reported war crimes by troops in Iraq, refusing to pursue investigations into allegations against British forces, citing the principle of complementarity as the reason for its non-action.

5. The court also has refused calls for it to investigate the United States, pointing quite sensibly to the fact that the U.S. is not a state party.

6. Contrary to the Boltonites allegations, the court has not turned into a kangaroo court focused on political prosecutions. Instead, it is investigating serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sudan, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic.

To be clear, Pakistan is not a state party to the ICC treaty, so the Court could only investigate Khan were it to have the case referred to it by the Security Council (something that China is unlikely to allow). And even were Pakistan a state party, I think it could be plausibly argued that the Pakistani court system has acted in a manner consistent with the idea of complementarity (although it also could be argued that the government’s decision not to investigate the allegations does not meet that standard).

But hey, it’s far more fun to make stuff up than it is to be angry at genuine outrages.

The Best Laid Plans

Last night I attended a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations featuring CFR fellow Stewart Patrick and his new book. The Best Laid Plans takes a look at the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations’ efforts to establish international institutions in wake of the Second World War.

I’ll have more on the book once I read it, but I wanted to highlight last night’s discussion, which focused on the lessons that the Obama Administration could learn from that time. In particular, I wanted to share something Patrick said last night that is the best summation of neoconservatism that I’ve ever heard:

Neoconservatives are Wilsonians who don’t believe in international instutitutions.

John Bolton, white courtesy phone please.

As Patrick noted last night, Roosevelt and Truman wanted to build international institutions that would support and strengthen American exceptionalism, not operate separately from it. That involved an act of hubris as significant as any undertaken by the Bush Administration, but it was done in a way that actually ceded significant American power in return for which international organizations (IOs) largely followed the U.S. line.

Over time, however, those institutions, particularly the United Nations, have evolved away from that standard — to the point that for many Americans, the UN and other IOs represent part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The neoconservatives’ answer to this development was to attack or ignore the institutions and champion American “ideals,” often at the cost of international cooperation and comity. The neocons also proposed new institutions, such as the League of Democracies, to replace the UN. Of course, such organizations are merely an attempt to create a more exclusive club open only to those who would accept their brand of exceptionalism.

The Obama Administration has made it clear that it will move in a different direction, one that emphasizes cooperation rather than confrontation. But much as his predecssors did, Obama will soon learn that good intentions do not always produce good results. Although UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has expressed his desire to work more closely with the Obama Administration, there is only so much he can do to rally other nations behind him.

The irony, of course, is that the very institutions designed by the U.S. to ensure that its views would triumph — the Security Council veto, the General Assembly, the then-Commisison on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) are the main obstacles to greater U.S.-UN cooperation (and to a more effective UN).

During the Bush Administraiton, many felt that was a good thing. But it’s important to remember that the UN also opposed the U.S. intervention in Kosovo, leading the Clinton Administration to work around it and through NATO. In fact, many analysts have pointed out that the Bush Administration adapted the Clinton argument on Kosovo in justifying its own intervention in Iraq.

Obama’s challenge will be to walk the fine line between those who believe that the United States should always defer to the UN and those who think the U.S. can do fine without it. That’s not going to be an easy task, even if Bolton and other exceptionalists are out of power. The first time American interests clash with those of the UN, he will have to decide whether to choose a similar path as Clinton and Dubya, or to find another way to engage the UN and encourage its cooperation/participation.

And that may be one of the biggest challenges he faces, certainly greater than Iraq and perhaps as daunting as the economy.

A Power-less State

A few short hits today, as I try to catch up on the news.

Let’s start with word last week that Obama plans to appoint Samantha Power to serve as Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs in the National Security Council. To no one’s surprise, the MSM focused not on her abilities or scholarship, but on “monstergate,” the moment last year when Power’s criticism of Hillary went a little over the top.

That’s too bad, because Power brings an impressive resume to an important job. The Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs, no matter what the usually brilliant Charlie over at Abu Muqawama may believe, is a crucial job, particularly in an administration dedicated to reversing the Bush Administration’s disastrous unilateralism. Power will oversee a portfolio that includes not only U.S.-UN relations, but also human rights, democracy, humanitarian relief, peacekeeping, and refugees. It’s a big job, as demonstrated by the fact that past Administrations have appointed similarly senior people (Mort Halperin, Eric Schwartz, and Elliott Abrams — who, no matter how despicable you may find him, was a key player during his time at NSC).

I have a passing acquaintance with Power — she served on (and contributed to) the foreign policy team I co-directed for the Kerry campaign — but I don’t know her well. She is, by any measurement, an impressive and important thinker, and deserves to be taken much more seriously than the gossipy coverage she’s gotten over the past year. Her most recent books are A Problem from Hell, which is a history of U.S. policy toward genocide (and which won the Pulitzer Prize) and Chasing the Flame, which is a biography of Sergio Vielo de Mello, who died in the bombing of the UN compound in Iraq. She has headed the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard and has been a regular contributor to The New Yorker.

Power is one of the few academics out there who can bring experience working on both the U.S.-U.N. relations and U.S. human rights policy. Most importantly of all, she’s close to Obama, having served as one of his earliest foreign policy advisors. In fact, her decision to take a leave of absence from Harvard to work in Obama’s Senate office was for me an early sign that he was thinking beyond the Senate.

You can count on her to play an important role in reversing Bush-era policies, from Guantanamo to torture to Boltonist views of the U.N.

Much of the press coverage has breathlessly suggested that Power will have “close contact and potential travel with Clinton.” Uh, no. In all fairness to Power, her new position is not that high up the food chain. Hillary will deal with James Jones, Power’s boss’s boss, not Power. Her counterparts at State will be the Assistant Secretaries for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL); Population, Refugees and Migration; and International Organization Affairs. She’ll also liaise with USAID and those sections of State and DOD that work on peacekeeping issues. She may be in meetings with Clinton, and may from time to time brief her. But even if Power is on the plane, she’s likely to be one of many, not one-on-one with Clinton.

And speaking of DRL, Power’s appointment to the NSC takes out of the running the most obvious candidate to lead my old bureau. From what I hear, there are currently three serious candidates, two from the human rights community and one from a think tank. No word on when one of them will get the nod.

Responsibility and Foreign Policy

The Connect U.S. Fund is a fairly new collaborative created to fund those organizations that promote “responsible U.S. engagement in an increasingly interdependent world.” (Full disclosure: I am good friends with most of its staff).

Yesterday, it released an open letter to President-elect Obama calling on him to change the direction and focus of American foreign policy, moving away from unilateralism and towards a more consultative and collaborative approach. I was pleased to be one of more than 200 foreign policy leaders, experts, and practicioners to sign.

Here are a few highlights:

Your Administration will confront challenges and opportunities in an interconnected world, in which our security and prosperity are tied to the security and prosperity of others, problems cannot be managed in isolation, and addressing critical national security concerns will require that we advance shared global interests. . . .

We recognize that in the first months of your administration, you will face urgent foreign policy challenges, which include ending the war in Iraq, promoting security and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, addressing the global financial crisis, and dealing effectively with nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. They must not prevent you from addressing broader and systemic challenges to U.S. leadership worldwide.

In particular, the ability of the United States to achieve key national security objectives has eroded over the past eight years, as the war in Iraq has diverted attention and resources from other vital needs, the civilian instruments of U.S. power – both development and diplomacy – have been neglected, and our capacity to lead effectively has been undermined through unilateral actions in disregard of the views and interests of key friends and allies.

The letter goes on to outline a number of essential steps that an Obama Administration should take, including prohibiting torture; closing Guantanamo; establish a carbon cap system; promote clean energy technology; reengage on climate negotiations; resume talks with Russia on reducing nuclear arms; outlaw nuclear weapons testing, increase funding for foreign operations, particularly State and USAID; and support the Millennium Development Goals.

These are all important goals, and I agree with every one of them — otherwise I would not have signed the letter. But the problem with such letters is that the laundry list approach often obscures the more fundamental issues here.

It also sometimes leads to the inclusion of stuff that doesn’t belong. For example, here’s one of the letter’s fifteen bullet points:

Transmit to Congress with the FY2010 budget a separate national security and international affairs budget that includes funding for Foreign Operations, Homeland Security, and Defense. The justification for this separate budget should highlight how the four agencies that support national security (DOD, Homeland Security, USAID, and the State Department) complement one another to make America and the world more safe.

That’s a valid issue, one that I wholly support. But does it really belong in this letter? It certainly doesn’t have the same oomph as, say, closing Guantanamo or reengaging on climate change negotiations.

I don’t mean to pick on that one point, or to suggest it isn’t important. But no matter how valid it may be, it’s in the weeds, not part of the big picture. It certainly shouldn’t be listed as one of fifteen most important things the Obama Administration should do to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy — so essential that, as the letter puts it, the new administration should take action “in the first six months of {Obama’s] Administration.” In fact, I can think of a number of other issues that are more important, from fixing the international financial institutions to reengaging with the United Nations, from ending genocide in Darfur to ending the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from better relations with China to fixing U.S. policy towards the Americas.

And if it is that important, couldn’t the letter’s organizers have come up with a shorter, pithier way to say it? After all, framing the message is a key part of what makes it successful. I would have gone with something along the lines of “work with Congress to fix the problems with the existing national security and international affairs budgeting process.” That pretty much states the issue in plain language that those outside the Beltway can understand (and in the process would have made the case that it was worthy of being included on the list).

The reality is that the inclusion of such talking points may have pleased some of the letter’s signers, but it has obscured the essential message: that the United States needs to move away from the ad hoc, thoughtless and often reckless approach of the Bush Administration and toward more thoughtful, responsible, and cooperative engagement with the rest of the world.

That, not the laundry list, is what’s most important.

Of course it would be great if the Administration also moved quickly on the laundry list too.

The Perfect Christmas Gift?

A brilliant little video that uses humor to highlight the need to shut down the global trade in small arms (h/t Slog):

For years now, activists and a number of countries have been trying to draft and get UN approval for a treaty limiting trade in small arms. Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association have convinced their friends in the Bush Administration to oppose these efforts, and has portrayed them as some sort of world government conspiracy.

Perhaps under the Obama Administration, the United States can demonstrate some leadership. It won’t be easy — the NRA will portray any small arms ban as an effort to deny their members their guns. But it could save tens of thousands of lives.

When Stupidity Strikes

It’s good to know that really smart people are running things over at CNN (h/t: Think Progress)

It’s as if CNN learned everything they think they need to know from “Gone Quiet,” that horrible episode of The West Wing where Hal Holbrook, playing “the Assistant Secretary of State” for Curmudgeonly Old American Affairs, lectures President Bartlett. Memo to CNN (and Aaron Sorkin, for that matter): there are something like forty Assistant Secretaries of State, and none of them have anything to do with domestic constituencies.

This just demonstrates the degree to which the MSM doesn’t understand the most basic mechanics mechanisms of U.S. foreign policy. But then again, they never had to learn any of this under Bush, did they?

As If Anyone Cares

John Bolton — John Bolton! — offers his reaction to the appointment of Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:

John R. Bolton, who was one of Mr. Bush’s ambassadors at the United Nations, would not discuss Ms. Rice’s selection, but said it was unwise to elevate the position to the cabinet again.

“One, it overstates the role and importance the U.N. should have in U.S. foreign policy,” Mr. Bolton said. “Second, you shouldn’t have two secretaries in the same department.”

Apparently Bolton has forgotten that Jeane J. Kirkpatrick held Cabinet rank in the Reagan administration. Last I checked, nobody has ever suggested that she was a second Secretary of State, or that her role somehow overstated the “role and importance the U.N. should have in U.S. foreign policy.” If they had, Kirkpatrick herself probably would have laughed them out of the room.

This demonstrates just how far removed Bolton is from the mainstream of foreign policy: he can’t bring himself to be gracious about the appointment of the successor to the man who succeeded him. I’m not arguing for intellectual dishonesty here, but all Bolton had to say was “I congratulate Dr. Rice and wish her the best. That said. . .blah blah blah. . .I continue to freaking hate the UN. . .blah blah blah.”

Setting aside the obvious ax he has to grind (or is it a wrecking ball?), Bolton argument that elevating the post to Cabinet rank somehow creates a second Secretary of State reminds me of a friend of a friend who was yammering on about how she didn’t think that beauty was that important in a relationship, to which my friend, who happens to be quite attractive, smiled sweetly and said, “Jealous?”

It’s must be galling to see others get what you never had: respect. It must be doubly galling to know that, unlike Bolton, Ambassador Rice will have the ear of her President. Oh, and that she’ll actually get confirmed. And that even leading Republicans will vote for her.

I’d say I feel Bolton’s pain but I’d be lying.

Madam Ambassador

Congratulations to Susan Rice, who will be appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations tomorrow as part of President-elect Obama’s rollout of his National Security team.

I’ve never worked directly for Susan, but I’ve had the opportunity to work with her, both when I was at State (and she was Assistant Secretary for African Affairs) and since then. She’ll make an outstanding Ambassador, helping to bring to an end whatever residual hostility remains from the Bolton era.

Two brief observations:

1. According to the NYT, Obama will return USUN to Cabinet rank, a position it has held for most of the past thirty years. That is a strong indication of just how seriously Obama regards the need to work multilaterally. It’s no coincidence that the longest period that USUN was not in the Cabinet was during the Bush years. This also means, contrary to some progressives’ (and Obama foreign policy experts’) fears, there will be a strong progressive voice at the Cabinet table. What is not yet clear is whether Rice also will be a member of the principals committee that usually makes most foreign policy decisions.

2. Rice faces a tremendous challenge: working with UN states to achieve a number of important US goals while at the same time pushing the UN to continue its currently stalled efforts at reform. Much like the USG itself, the UN is a mess. There isn’t much that the US can do from outside to fix the problem, but Rice should not hesitate to be a vigorous advocate for change. Her biggest obstacles will be the UN bureaucracy, which has viewed past reform efforts as challenges to their sinecures, and the developing world, which all too often has viewed the UN as a jobs program.

America Rejoins The World Day

There are so many things I want the new Obama/Clinton foreign policy team to do. But each individual item scares me a little… I think I am still very gun shy from the neo-con years. I worry that any one progressive move in international affairs will allow the right to cripple the new presidency for months. (Clinton’s early stumble on gays in the military is illustrative of this fear.)

If we simply roll out each policy initiative on its own, they will get picked apart by the right-wing echo chamber.

So… I think the answer is to roll out massive change in a single day. We need a major plan for re-engaging America with the world. And the new agenda should have so many facets that it leaves the neo-cons quaking in their boots wondering where the hell to aim first. (Newt Gingrich’s plan for the first one hundred days of his speakership gets sort of at what I mean here.)

So here are the policy changes I would include in the Rose Garden announcement on “America Rejoins The World Day.”

Close the Guantanamo prison camp
Lift the embargo on Cuba
Work toward full diplomatic relations with Cuba
Work toward full diplomatic relations with Iran
Re-sign the International Criminal Court treaty and submit it for ratification
Submit the Law of the Sea Treaty for ratification
Submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for ratification
Announce a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons
Invite the Russians to join a new round of strategic arms reduction negotiations
Pay in full all outstanding United Nations dues and peacekeeping assessments
Dramatically increase funding for the U.S. foreign policy apparatus including State Department, USAID, and Peace Corps.

What else should be on the re-engagement list?

Powell, Obama, and Torture

There’s word today from numerous sources that Colin Powell will go on Meet the Press this Sunday and endorse Barack Obama. The Obama campaign certainly isn’t doing anything to discourage the speculation:

Today Obama spokesperson Linda Douglas said she has no news on the Powell front, but the campaign would obviously love an endorsement. ”We would welcome the support of somebody with such a distinguished and honorable career as General Powell,” she told me this morning, as Obama’s plane flew to Virginia for a rally. Obama has previously cited Powell as a potential member of his administration, and the two have been in touch before. “I know they talk from time to time about foreign policy matters,” Douglas said, though she did not know the last time they spoke. Powell is widely viewed as a thoughtful public servant who carries credibility (and experience) in both parties.

Quite a few folks in the progosphere think Powell endorsing Obama would be a great thing. I’m not so sure.

Like many others, I had a great deal of respect for Powell before he joined the Bush Administration. His story was a compelling one and his service was largely distinguished. In 1996, Powell chose, for a variety of reasons, not to run for President. Had he done so, he very well might have defeated Clinton. Instead, he remained on the sidelines until Dubya asked him to serve as Secretary of State.

These days, Powell is often viewed as a tragic figure, largely because of his 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council during the Administration’s push for war with Iraq. According to Powell, he was duped by the CIA, who convinced Powell that the intelligence behind his presentation was unimpeachable. Powell then went out and made the case for war.

Thirty months later, Powell told Tim Russert that the CIA had misled him, using intelligence based on discredited sources. Since then, conventional wisdom has given Powell the benefit of the doubt. Many commentators regard his statement that he had been misled as the same thing as an apology:

Private warnings cannot cancel out Powell’s hawkish presentation to the U.N., but unlike so many war cheerleaders in politics and the media, he owned up to his mistakes. On national television, Powell called the U.N. address a “blot” on his record.

Fair enough — everyone makes mistakes, and to his credit, Powell has acknowledged (or at least gave the appearance of acknowledging) that he was wrong. Second chances are the American way, and certainly a Powell endorsement of Obama would represent an open repudiation not only of his friend John McCain, but also of the Administration for whom he worked.

There’s just one small problem. Powell’s testimony before the UNSC was only the second biggest “blot” on his record.

The biggest was, and is, his tacit support for torture. If, as the Nuremberg tribunals established, knowledge is complicity, then Colin Powell is guilty of war crimes. And unlike Iraq, he’s never apologized for his role in helping to shred the Constitution, ignore the Convention against Torture, and trash the Geneva Conventions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s what Jane Mayer has to say in The Dark Side:

Bush also knew about, and approved of, White House meetings in which his top cabinet members were briefed by the CIA on its plan to use specific “enhanced” interrogation techniques on various high-value detainees. The meetings were chaired by Rice. . . . The participants were members of the Principals Committee, the five Bush cabinet members who handled national security matters: Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet, and Attorney General Ashcroft.

Knowing how the Agency had been blamed for ostensible “rogue” actions in the past, Tenet was eager to spread the political risk of undertaking “enhanced interrogations.” However, some members of the group became irritated with Tenet’s insistence upon airing the grim details. “The CIA already had legal clearance to do these things,” a knowledgable source said, “and so it was pointless for them to keep sharing the details. No one was going to question their decisions. . . . It’s not as if any of the principals were debating the policy — that was already set. They wanted to go to the limit that the law required. . . .”

There is no indication. . .that any Bush cabinet members objected to the policy. [emphasis added]

As Mayer acknowledges, Powell did object quite strongly to Bush’s decision to suspend the Geneva Conventions. But he did not make those concerns public or threaten to resign. He merely accepted the outcome and soldiered on. It is only at the time of Abu Ghraib (and the first media reports of John Yoo’s infamous August 2002 “torture memo”), Mayer notes that Powell (along with Rice) began to express qualms:

After reading the torture memo itself for the first time in the newspapers, Rice and Powell confronted Gonzales together and furiously insisted that there be “no more secret opinions on international and national security law.” Their righteous anger seemed somewhat undercut by reports that Tenet had provided graphic details of specific coercive interrogations during the Principals Committee meetings while both were present. And while they directed their frustration at Gonzales, neither had the temerity to confront Cheney, who clearly was the true source of these policies. [emphasis added]

Colin Powell passively assented to torture. Although he occasionally raised concerns, there is no evidence that he threatened to resign — as Ashcroft and others did over the issue of domestic wiretapping. He sat in meetings and listened as George Tenet offered graphic descriptions of torture committed by U.S. government officials — and never once objected, other than to complain that Tenet’s statements were unnecessary, given the fact that the President already had authorized torture.

As was the case with his presentation at the United Nations, he accepted what he heard and did as he was told. Only later, after the Yoo memo and the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, did he begin to object — and then only to ask if there were any other memos he should know about. At no time did he confront Cheney or Bush, threaten to go public, or quit in protest.

Later on, after he was once again a private citizen, Powell did raise concerns about the Administration’s policies, writing in 2006 to John McCain to express his opposition to proposed rules on Military Commissions:

In his letter to McCain, Powell said the effort to “redefine” the article was “inconsistent” with his previous opposition to the use of torture. “The world,” he wrote, “is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” . . .

Powell declined yesterday to address Bush’s comments. “To say that we want to modify, clarify or redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], which has not been modified for the 57 years of its history, I think adds to the doubt” about U.S. morality, he said. “Plus I believe that the legitimate concerns that the administration has can be dealt with in other ways.”

The problem, of course, is that there is no public record during Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State of his “previous opposition to the use of torture.” In his letter to McCain, Powell makes it clear that his objection is not with the underlying policy, but rather the tactics around the military commission. That is not exactly taking a stand in the face of evil or speaking truth to power.

Silence in the face of evil is assent. In the eyes of the law, it’s called conspiracy. At best, Powell’s actions — both in regard to Iraq and to torture — show a lack of critical thinking. At worst, they demonstrate profound moral cowardice.

So pardon me if I’m not thrilled at the notion of Powell endorsing Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin and Henry Kissinger: Blech.

Two of my least favorite people in the world got together yesterday to have some laughs and share some good times.

No, I’m not talking about Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. In case you didn’t hear, Sarah Palin met with Henry Kissinger yesterday. I wonder if Henry tried to pick her up? “Vell Sarah, you are very pretty. Have you ever done it with a war criminal?”

Ewwwwwww.

In any case, I happened to have an inside source at the U.S. mission to the U.N.. S/he was kind enough to make a list of all the questions the Sarahnator asked Hank the K:

What’s the difference is between a hockey mom and a Secretary of State?
Why can’t I see Afghanistan from my house?
Is a foreign minister kinda like a community organizer?
Do I have to read foreigners their rights before I talk to them?
Do I get to torture people personally the way Cheney does?
Are there foreigners I might mistake for moose?
Have you met John Bolton? Is he as cute as everyone says he is?
Why does this Karzai guy wear those funny dresses? Is he gay or something?
Why am I meeting with the President of Columbia University? I never went to that college.
Why does the President of the United Nations go by the name Binky Moon?

Here’s the scary part. Apparently a CNN sound tech picked up a small part of the conversation:

Kissinger: (something about a speech, not sure to whom he was referring) “And I’m going to give him a lot of credit for what he did in Georgia.”

Palin: “Good, good. And you’ll give me more insight on that, also, huh? Good.”

As I said yesterday, sometimes reality transcends satire.

Today, the fun continues. Palin is meeting with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Word is that she spent at least two hours last night just learning how to say their names.

Photo illustration: New York Magazine

Ron Paul, Ross Perot, and. . . Chuck Baldwin??

You know things are getting weird when NPR starts interviewing Ron Paul on the bailout. And he’s making sense.

I regard Ron Paul the way I used to view Ross Perot. He’s crazy, but that doesn’t stop him from having the occasional good idea. He reminds me of an editorial cartoon on Perot that came out around the time of the 1996 election. Perot is on television, and he’s talking to the American people:

NAFTA steal your jobs? Told ya so!

Economy a mess? Told ya so!

Space aliens living in your toaster? Told ya so!

That’s Ron Paul. He may be right when it comes to the bailout (and to be fair, the Iraq war), but he’s profoundly wrong on a whole bunch of other things. Oh, and he just endorsed this guy for President:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign. . . .

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Who is Chuck Baldwin? Here are some excerpts from his columns:

Let’s face it: most of America’s foreign policy over the last several decades has been more about fulfilling the U.N.’s global desires than protecting the people and property of the United States. And, yes, that includes America’s invasion of Iraq. Do readers not remember that soon after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush appeared before the United Nations and plainly told that sinister organization that the reason he had ordered the invasion of Iraq was to “defend . . . the credibility of the United Nations”? Frankly, I did not know the United Nations had any credibility worth defending. Nevertheless, G.W. Bush was willing to sacrifice over 4,000 American lives for the express purpose of defending the U.N.’s “credibility.”

I am often asked about the people in history that I revere or otherwise hold in high esteem. . . . Among nineteenth-century figures, none stand out more to me than Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson. For that matter, practically all of the generals from the Old Confederacy were probably the greatest assembly of military leaders to ever live. Their combined character on and off the battlefield is the stuff of legend. It will never be matched.

2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. . . . George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America’s entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy. . . . There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America’s citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone.

So it seems that in a fit of pique over Bob Barr having criticized him, Paul has chosen to endorse a nutjob ultra-right-wing evangelical version of Dennis Kucinich. Apparently given the choice between his libertarian principles and his conspiracy theories, Paul chose the latter.

Chuck Baldwin worships Robert E. Lee and thinks that John McCain and Barack Obama are both the devil. He thinks the United States should be a theocracy. He actually believes that the Council on Foreign Relations is conspiring to destroy the United States. And he once actually said this:

It should be clear to anyone willing to see that while Terri Schiavo suffers what must be an agonizing death, Lady Liberty is also dying. Her feeding tube, the feeding tube of constitutional government and bedrock principle, has been removed, and she is starving for want of the fundamental fluids that maintain her health and vitality.

Yep. That’s who I want as President. Reverend Moonbat. This guy makes Sarah Palin look like Barbra Streisand.

So pardon me if I’m not going to get on the Ron Paul bandwagon anytime soon.

Nightly Election Thread

Some folks have asked me why I haven’t written about Sunshine Sarah’s visit to the United Nations.

When reality transcends satire, there’s really no point.

Actually, I’ll have something up tomorrow. In the meantime, tawk amongst yerselves.

Sarah Palin’s Excellent Adventure

In case you missed it yesterday, the Sarahnator and her tannin’ bed are heading to New York City to visit Dr. Joel Fleischman to meet with strange people who talk funny (no, not other Alaskans):

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will meet with foreign leaders next week at the United Nations, a move to boost her foreign-policy credentials, a Republican strategist said. Republican candidate John McCain plans to introduce the Alaska governor to heads of state at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, although specific names weren’t yet firmed up. “The meetings will give her some exposure and experience with foreign leaders,” the strategist said. “It’s a great idea.”

Oh yeah, a great idea. Just stu-freaking-pendous. Maybe McCain advisor John Bolton can take her up in a helicopter and they can try to shoot the top ten stories off the UN building.

Nothing like using foreign governments to score a few political points. And hey, if Obama can go to Berlin, why can’t Palin go to Turtle Bay?

Uh, because she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about?

I can see it now.

Hi Vladimir and Dmitri, my name is Sarah. Vlad, you gotta come to Alaska where we can go huntin’ together. Shootin’ moose is a lot more fun than that little kitty you killed a few weeks ago. And have I mentioned that I can see you guys from my house?

Oh, and if you ever mess with Georgia again, this lipstick-wearin’ pitbull is gonna bomb the living crap out of ya. If you thought messin’ with Texas was a pain, just wait ’til you have a snowshoe shoved where the sun don’t shine.

I’m sure that will go over like a ton of nukes.

“Putting Government Back on the Side of the People”

An excerpt from Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin tonight:

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

She then changed the subject to energy.

But hold on a second, Governor. You said that “putting government back on the side of the people. . .has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.” I’m willing to take you on your word on that — at least for the moment. But I have a few questions for you.

Given that a majority of the American people believe that we should not have gone to war in Iraq, does that mean that you favor us getting out?
Given that a majority of the American people want the United States to be an international leader on climate change, are you willing to support much more aggressive measures to combat global warming, even if it means cutting back on the use of internal combustion engines, thus hurting your state’s economy?
Given that a majority of the American people support the end of torture, the closing of Guantanamo, and as you so quaintly put it in your acceptance speech, “reading their rights” to terrorist suspects, are you and Senator McCain in favor of ending the Bush Administration’s assault on civil liberties and the rule of law? Would you prosecute those in the Bush Administration suspected of committing war crimes?
Given that a majority of the American people want the United States to work within the United Nations system and with our allies, would you and Senator McCain support reengaging with the United Nations in a meaningful way, including an end to the rhetoric we saw at the Convention attacking the UN? And if so, can you explain the presence of John Bolton as an informal foreign policy advisor to the McCain-Palin campaign?

Because, Governor, that’s putting foreign poicy back on the side of the people. Because that’s what a majority of the American people want.

I didn’t think so.

By the way, on Pakistan, she agreed with Obama and contradicted McCain.

And she thinks we should go to war with Russia if it invades Georgia again (or Ukraine).

Last but not least, Governor Palin might want to check out this page before her next interview.

Everything You Need to Know about the World Food Crisis

And it’s only a minute long.

Hat tip: UN Dispatch

While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia

The last two weeks have been nuts, what with the Clinton and Obama speeches, Hurricane Sarah, and all other things political. And things are unlikely to slow down anytime soon, given the fact that the election is only sixty days away.

While Americans focused on the conventions (and Hurricane Gustav), world events didn’t just grind to a halt. Over the past two weeks, there have been a number of important developments that are not only important in their own right but also may have a significant impact on the next President’s ability to govern.

Over the next few days, I’m going to try to highlight someJ of them. Let’s start with Russia-Georgia.

In the past two weeks, the Russia-Georgia conflict has increasingly turned into a proxy (cold) war between the United States and the Russian Federation. Russian President Medvedev has demonstrated a particular affection for Bushian bluster, making grandiose nationalistic statements about reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence that were meant as much for internal consumption as for global politics. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has taken several steps to bind the United States even more closely to the fate of Georgia — including a pledge of more than $1 billion in new (non-military) foreign assistance and a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney.

John McCain’s protestations notwithstanding, most Americans still do not understand what is going on or why the conflict is relevant to their lives.

For all the jokes about Cheney being sent out of the country during the Convention, the reality is that his trip was deadly serious, designed to show the Russians that the United States would not be cowed in the face of its aggression. But it also showed Cheney’s unbelievably blinkered view of the world: in the end, the reason the U.S. is backing Georgia is because of the latter’s decision to send troops to Iraq.

The Administration’s actions are going to make it much harder for the next President to pursue a more rational, interests-based policy while at the same time defending Georgian sovereignty. Of course, if McCain is President, that will not be a problem.

The bottom line: this has become a game of low-intensity chicken, with both sides acting like 12-year-old boys. And neither side really cares to behave like adults. Georgia, which is largely (though not entirely) the victim here, is stuck in the middle, with little hope of serious support from the West or complete withdrawal of Russian forces. The real fear is that some further incident will cause one side or the other to ratchet up the rhetoric in a way that we’re suddenly looking at Bosnia 1914 all over again — except this time, it will be with thousands upon thousands of nukes on both sides.

For those interested in the specifics, you can find a straightforward report on the events of the past two weeks after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hagel for U.N. Ambassador?

Yglesias suggests that Obama reward a smart Republican like Hagel not with Defense, but with the U.N. Ambassadorship:

It would be much more productive, I think, to take someone with a solidly conservative domestic record but internationalist views on foreign policy and make him (or her) UN Ambassador or something. That sends the message that the liberal approach to world affairs has appeal that transcends party lines or debates over tax policy or whatever else. . . .Those are ways of co-opting conservative politicians in order to broaden the appeal of progressive solutions, rather than a way that draws attention to alleged weaknesses in the progressive approach.

I understand the argument, but I can’t say that I agree with it. Given our track record with the U.N., and given the fact that our credibility with the U.N. is at an all-time low, and especially given the fact that we need someone who can help fix the UN, I don’t think that Hagel is the right choice. Maybe Jim Leach or Lincoln Chafee, but I don’t know if they’re the right choice either.

So who would I pick? An old friend of mine. I think he’d be absolutely brilliant.

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Contact Me

Blogroll

Polls

Admin

Archive