When President Bush attacked presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama before the Israeli Knesset for his determination to engage America’s enemies, he triggered a fierce response from Democrats. The responses ranged from outrage at the President’s willingness to use foreign policy as a political cudgel beyond the waters edge to substantive disagreement based on the President’s foreign policy failures in the Middle East and beyond. What was missing from the early rounds of this political battle was a recognition that the President was attacking both Obama’s foreign policy and, to a large degree, his own.

Despite the President’s rhetoric and an understandable tendency to view his approach to diplomacy through the prism of Iraq, a more considered analysis of his record illustrates a significant contradiction between the President’s own language, including the recent speech in Israel, and his administration’s record.

Consider that at the very time Mr. Bush was speaking to the Knesset, his Special Advisor to Sudan, Richard Williamson, was preparing to travel to Geneva for normalization discussions with the Sudanese government, a regime that has been accused of genocide in Darfur and of acting as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The President did not seem to grasp the inconsistency of criticizing diplomacy while sending his envoy to meet with the Sudanese with the intent to end the Darfur genocide through diplomacy.

Mr. Williamson’s efforts, which have raised the hopes among many of the U.S. groups seeking to end the killing in Darfur is only the latest in a long line of situations where a President desirous of self-caricature as a cowboy, has shown a willingness to engage rogue regimes.

The Bush administration successfully practiced quiet diplomacy with the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi over a four-year period, leading to the normalization of relations with a country that had spent a number of years on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Issues ranging from terrorism to weapons of mass destruction were negotiated by the U.S. State Department.

The State Department has also taken the lead in negotiations with the human rights abusing regime of Kim Jong-il, and has held out the carrot of normal relations if critical issues in the nuclear weapons and terror arena are resolved.

Furthermore, even as the President was wading into the election debate, his own Defense Secretary was engaged in discussions with Iran. Mr. Gates was appointed to replace the flawed Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, in part, because of his role in the Iraq Study Group. At his confirmation hearing Mr. Gates’ noted that:

“[Regarding] any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. Military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened….”

The significant gap between the rhetoric used by President Bush and the reality of his administration’s actions should not be a surprise. The administration is staffed with professionals such as Gates who are committed to securing the U.S. national interest. These individuals are able to carry out important work in the shadows well away from the political glare. Unfortunately they have to do so without the benefit of the President’s bully pulpit; the President seems comfortable with his officials using diplomacy but, for political reasons, he does not want to support such efforts publicly.

The problem with such a divide is that it forces America’s best diplomats, individuals such as chief North Korea advisor Christopher Hill, to work with one hand tied behind their back.

And that seems to be the core of the argument between the President and Senator Obama. The President seems willing to limit White House support for American diplomatic efforts in order to ensure that he is perceived domestically, for political purposes, to be a unilateralist.

In complete contrast, Senator Obama seems to believe that the U.S. President must use the White House to drive diplomatic initiatives because it is good policy. The presumptive Democratic nominee is of course betting that the American public rewards him for his smart policy in the political arena; ironically the man he is looking to replace seems intent on highlighting his mistakes and hiding his successes. 

We have been following the AG nomination process closely and decided yesterday that we needed to oppose Mukasey - here is our statement:

http://globalsolutions.org/blog/index.php/home/2007/11/01/we_are_opposing_mukasey

“Citizens for Global Solutions opposes the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for United States Attorney General because of his unwillingness to support long-established international legal standards related to torture and interrogation. An individual unable to state on the record that waterboarding is torture cannot be trusted to hold the position of Attorney General. The United States is a nation of laws and our standing in the world has eroded in recent years because the current administration has flouted well-established legal norms. The Senate must prevent a continuation of this negative trend and should reject the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey.”

In a bit of a departure from my regular posts, I want to spend a few minutes writing about the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS). For those of you not really familiar with this treaty - LOS is essentially a set of rules for the use of the world’s oceans. Its primary functions are to define maritime zones, protect the environment, preserve freedom of navigation and establish clear guidelines for businesses that depend on the sea for resources. It came into force in 1994, and to date, 152 countries and the European Commission have joined the treaty.

My organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, has been working with a diverse coalition to ensure that the United States can join this group. Last Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the LOS and we believe that the Senate needs to push to secure its passage this term. At a time of divisiveness in Washington on a range of issues, LOS provides an opportunity for bipartisan progress. From the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the environmental community, AT&T and the American Bar Association, LOS has significant and deep support. Frankly the LOS is one of those no-brainer issues in Washington. It makes infinite sense for the Senate to get this done as quickly as possible. It can only help our standing internationally if we start to reengage our allies in core areas where multilateral cooperation makes such good sense.

While there are a range of benefits from an environmental and business stand point, the national security angle has been debated a fair bit. Perhaps the most effective national security case was made by General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said: “The Convention remains a top national security priority…It supports efforts in the War on Terrorism by providing much-needed stability and operational maneuver space, codifying essential navigational and overflight freedoms.”

Of course there will always be a group of naysayers working to prevent any treaty from passing the Senate, some of this group has come together and is urging the Senate to reject LOS. Most of their arguments seemed based on incorrect data or false assumptions. I was happy to see that Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been calling them on it: “The Senate this year has an opportunity to plug a large hole in our national security structure by approving the Law of the Sea treaty. I have urged President Bush and my colleagues in the Senate to act soon before election year politics or a crowded Senate schedule once again scuttles the chances for this vital international agreement, which has for years been stalled in unnecessary controversy….However, ideological posturing and flat-out misrepresentations by a handful of amateur admirals have sought to cast a shadow over the treaty by suggesting that we are turning over our sovereignty to the United Nations. Their criticisms simply don’t hold water.”

I really hope that the Senate gets LOS done quickly – the case for passage is overwhelming.

It took a full 24 hours before I was able to put my finger on exactly what I had found disconcerting about Senator Obama's comment that:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Musharraf won't act, we will."

It was not his policy prescription that I found

particularly unsettling; the notion that the U.S. should use force in a targeted way if there is a chance to capture Bin Laden or a top tier Al Qaeda operative is one that sits comfortably with me. So if the content was consistent with my world view, what worried me?

I eventually determined that what I did find troubling was the underlying reason Obama made the comments in the first place.

Obama the policymaker clearly recognizes that the U.S. is suffering from a diplomacy deficient, and his past speeches on Pakistan have focused on the need for a shift in the U.S. approach. This most recent speech was, for the most part, consistent with these broad brush strokes. To his credit Obama sought to highlight

the importance of diplomatic collaboration with a range of countries in the fight against Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately someone close to Obama the politician likely urged the candidate to include a paragraph showcasing his toughness. That paragraph was designed, in part, to combat the Clinton campaign's efforts to create a narrative that Obama is naive and weak. In rebutting a rival's political frame, frankly a frame that is getting too much attention from the media, Obama strayed away from a really important task. He

was not able to use this opportunity to message to the American public that it is time to embrace diplomacy and alliance building if the U.S. is to get itself out of the hole it currently finds itself in.

Instead of garnering attention for his core position, Obama created a situation where rival candidate Gov. Bill Richardson could make clear that negotiation and diplomacy were clear priorities and that force was an absolute last resort:

"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the

military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the

Muslim world." (

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0202)

Obama recognizes that radical change is needed; he should not seek to avoid barbs from other candidates by looking to be hawkish on these issues. He, and the country, will be better served by sticking to the substance and outlining a vision for addressing challenges facing our interconnected world.

Today's Washington Post carries an important OP-ED by Gen. P. X. Kelley (commandant of the Marine Corp from 1983-1987) and Robert F. Turner (co-founder of the UVA Center for National Security Law) in which they react to the White House executive order from last Friday in which the President seeks to interpret Common Article 3. It is fair to say they are not convinced - here is the key section:

"In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.""

I am glad that these two individuals weighed in and that the Post gave them the space to make their case - it is vitally important to note the rising tide of outrage directed at the Administrations continued bad faith approach to dealing with the issue of torture. We are a long way from ensuring that the United States respects international law in this area.

http://www.americantorture.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

You know it's bad when some people (Republicans, mostly) actually express nostalgia for the presidency of Richard Nixon. You remember him -- the guy who said "if the President does it, it's not against the law" some 25 years before John Yoo and George Bush and the rest. The guy who, with Henry Kissinger, conspired to sabotage peace talks in Vietnam in 1968 to help get elected, dooming Vietnam and ourselves to 4 more years of war and who knows how many hundreds of thousands more deaths. The guy whose dirty-tricks administration made the word "Watergate" stand for more than a ritzy apartment complex in Washington DC.

Just because de facto President George W. Bush is an incompetent, lying, warmongering, science-ignoring, theocon-patronizing, buffoon of a President does not make Nixon good. Journalist Elizabeth Drew writes: So, despite the now-fashionable nostalgia, Nixon's pragmatism, his lack of core beliefs and his opportunism throughout his political lifetime offer little reason to doubt that he would be right in step with the conservative Republican politics of today.

I can think of no more damning -- and accurate -- a statement to make about Richard Nixon, nor about today's Republican Party.

In an important step towards accountability for the massive war crimes violations committed in Darfur , the International Criminal Court today issued warrants of arrest for Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb , the two individuals named by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Luis Moreno-Ocampo in his February filing on the Darfur situation.

The judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I issued the warrants and the deliberative nature of their thinking is evident. It is particularly worth noting this passage:

"RECALLS the United Nations Security Council resolution 1593, acting pursuant to

Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in which the Security Council

decided that the Government of the Sudan and all other parties to the Darfur conflict,

shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the

Prosecutor pursuant to the resolution and, while recognizing that States not party to

the Statute have no obligation under the Statute, urged all States and concerned

regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully."

Predictably the Sudanese government took a hostile approach to the news - its Justice Minister Mohamed Ali Al-Mardi told Reuters on Wednesday that "We do not recognise the International Criminal Court ... and we will not hand over any Sudanese even from the rebel groups who take up weapons against the government..."

However as ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo noted "The judges have issued arrest warrants. As the territorial state, the government of the Sudan has a legal duty to arrest Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb....This is the International Criminal Court's decision, and the government has to respect it."

Whether they will eventually do so or not is unclear - what is perhaps important to note today is that the ICC has ratcheted up the pressure on the Sudanese government. The Bush Administration has an opportunity to build on that and start to work with the UN and key countries to stop the killing and bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. If the Sudanese government refuses to hand over the two accused war criminals, the U.S. should leverage that decision to take the Darfur situation back to the UN Security Council with a view to pushing hard for much tougher UN action. We all need to put pressure on the White House to step up and do much more to stop the killing and hold the killers accountable.

http://www.globalsolutions.org/node/693 (includes links)

Abu Zubayah, supposedly the second most senior Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, made the claim of torture before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, once again thrusting U.S. interrogation policy into the center of the “war on terror.”

Abu Zubaydah stated that he made up facts when tortured to stop the abuse. He said that: “The statement that I was an associate of Osama bin Laden is false.”

It is hard for one to tell what AZ’s exact relationship was with Bin Laden - was he a senior operative, a loose affiliate, a rival??

What I do know is that in a relatively recent conversation, with someone who has talked to a lot of intel types about AZ and Al Qaeda, it was suggested to me that AZ was cooperating UNTIL the torture started - after that, it was suggested by my contact, the info secured from him was almost worthless.

I'd be interested to get the thoughts of Larry J and others on this.

Our friends at Human Rights Watch have just released a major new report on the CIA Black Prison Complex titled: Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention

Their key recommendations are very important and well worth noting:

The US government should:

* Repudiate the use of secret detention and coercive interrogation as counterterrorism tactics and permanently discontinue the CIA’s detention and interrogation program;

* Disclose the identities, fate and whereabouts of all detainees previously held at facilities operated or controlled by the CIA since 2001.

Other governments should:

* Refuse to assist or cooperate in any way with CIA detention, interrogation and rendition operations, and disclose any information that they may have about such operations.

The Washington Post covered the story and report on the front page today - once again showing that momentum is building on the torture/detention issues.

In an FT interview on Saturday the outgoing Counter-Terror Coordinator for the EU, Gijs de Vries, stated clearly that he believes that torture and other human rights violations committed by the U.S. and supported by its allies have made Europe less safe:

“Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, military commissions and CIA renditions have undermined the credibility of the U.S. and its partners” he said.

Gijs de Vries also noted that: “We have to stop today’s terrorists and we must also prevent tomorrow’s terrorists being radicalised.”

He urged the U.S. to return to the human rights mainstream - at least in part - because of the security ramifications.

So now we have a hard nosed counter-terror operator saying torture and other breaches of international law harm our security….will this help change the discourse stateside?