By William Fisher
Foreign lobbyists are exploiting America’s post-9/11 fear to obtain billions of dollars in U.S. military aid – and a substantial part of it is being sent to countries that routinely violate human rights, participate in ‘extraordinary renditions,’ and recruit and deploy child soldiers.
These are among the conclusions of a year-long study by a team of seasoned reporters – known as the Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) --under the aegis of the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Public Integrity (CPI).
The ICIJ report, titled “Collateral Damage”, concludes that “the influence of foreign lobbying on the U.S. government, as well as a shortsighted emphasis on counterterrorism objectives over broader human rights concerns, have generated staggering costs to the U.S. and its allies in money spent and political capital burned.”
“Deals to provide military aid to what are perceived as often corrupt and brutal governments have set back efforts to advance human rights and the rule of law,” the ICIJ report says.
Since 1950, the US government has provided over $91 billion to militaries around the world from a single fund. There are a number of additional funds, so total is substantially higher. Most of the money comes from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (DOS).
In their investigation, 10 ICIJ reporters on four continents explored American counterterrorism policy since the 2001 terrorist attacks. They found that post-9/11 U.S. political pressure, Washington lobbying and aid dollars have reshaped policies towards countries ranging from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, to Pakistan and Thailand in Asia, Poland and Romania in Europe, to Colombia in South America.
The ICIJ report documents substantial increases in U.S. military aid since the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The 2008 budget presented to Congress by President George W. Bush requested an increase of more than a billion dollars for military and security assistance, particularly to key ''front-line'' states in the ''war on terror".
But the ICIJ report notes that many of the recipients of this aid are countries believed to be guilty of human rights abuses.
For example, the report highlights the continued use and recruitment of child soldiers by governments and government-supported paramilitaries, militias and other armed groups in eight countries. The U.S. provides military assistance to six of those eight countries: Afghanistan, Chad, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Uganda.
It charges that countries receiving military aid from the U.S. have also participated in “extraordinary renditions” – kidnapping suspected terrorists or transferring prisoners to countries known to practice torture and other inhuman and degrading practices.
Reliable data shows that airplanes chartered by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made at least 76 stopovers in Azerbaijan, 72 in Jordan, 61 in Egypt, 52 in Turkmenistan, 46 in Uzbekistan, 40 in Iraq, 40 in Morocco, 38 in Afghanistan, and 14 in Libya. Most of these countries are recipients of U.S. military assistance.
The British Government recently disclosed, and the U.S. acknowledged, that CIA aircraft had touched down on Diego Garcia, a U.K. territory in the Indian Ocean. It is believed that CIA flights included hundreds carrying prisoners to the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba.
Until North American and European media exposed the practice, the U.S., along with countries reportedly receiving rendered prisoners, denied that “extraordinary renditions” were part of government policy.
For example, in a meeting with Human Rights Watch in late August 2007, Jordanian officials categorically denied that it had held prisoners rendered by the United States.
Often characterized by the mainstream press as being one of the most moderate nations in the Arab Middle East, Jordan was receiving more than $2.7 billion in U.S. military aid as of 2004, and the sum has reportedly increased since then.
Jordanian officials have denied that they inflict torture in detention. But Human Rights Watch concludes, “Given the weight of credible evidence showing the opposite, their denials are unconvincing.”
Egypt -- a key U.S. ally – has long been the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid, after only Israel. Washington provides $1.3 billion in annual military aid, a sum that amounts to 80 percent of Egypt’s military’s budget. Its secret police are notorious for their brutality during interrogations.
In Uzbekistan, according to a highly critical assessment by the United Nations Committee Against Torture, torture and ill-treatment remain “widespread” and continue to occur with “impunity.” Uzbekistan currently receives well over $100 million in U.S. military aid.
Although there have been prosecutions of Uzbek police for torture -- some 42 cases, according to the ICIJ report -- representatives of human rights groups assert that most of these cases resulted in convictions based on confessions and testimony linked to torture. They contend that the Uzbek government has grown more, rather than less, repressive over time
Since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Pakistan has become one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid – reportedly more than $10 billion.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) contends that torture is used extensively by both police and prison officials. It notes that no officials have been punished for engaging in such excesses. HRCP further alleges that instances of illegal detention occur on a relatively regular basis and that most of them go unreported.
Pakistan’s use of U.S. military assistance funds has also been the subject of serious questions raised in Congress and by human rights groups. Tim Rieser, a key adviser to Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, told the ICJ, “With the possible exception of Iraq reconstruction funds, I've never seen a larger blank check for any country.”
He added, “There is no formal auditing mechanism to verify costs apart from local U.S. embassies and military officials vouching for the accuracy of the submitted bills.” He charged that the former Republican congress "did next to nothing to track what was done with the money."
The ICJ said it “found little evidence that the U.S. government has paid significant attention to improving the accountability and human rights practices of Pakistan’s internal security forces.”
Indonesia – not long ago banned from American help because of its conflict with East Timor -- is now another recipient of substantial U.S. military aid. To increase the flow of U.S. money, the Indonesian intelligence agency used the charitable foundation of a former Indonesian president to hire lobbyists to pressure Congress on keeping the spigots open. The ICIJ report says the Indonesian government ran a concerted lobbying effort of Congress after the 9/11 attacks using “high-powered influence peddlers”, including former Republican Senator and 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole.
The U.S. State Department reported, “Inadequate resources, poor leadership, and limited accountability contributed to serious violations by security forces. Widespread corruption further degraded an already weak regard for rule of law and contributed to impunity.”
Alleged human rights violations included extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary detentions, a corrupt judicial system, infringements on free speech, peaceful assembly, and freedom of religion, and sexual abuse against women and children.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
OBAMA, WRIGHT, AND THE MEDIA
By William Fisher
Amid the explosive controversy over remarks made in sermons by Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor, critics are charging that America’s mainstream media has distorted his comments with out-of-context soundbites, failed to understand the African American church, sought to punish the Democratic Party presidential hopeful through “guilt by association,” and gave a free pass to what they say are equally incendiary remarks made by white clergy on the religious right.
At the center of the storm that engulfed Barack Obama's presidential campaign is his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright is the former pastor of the Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago's south side. He officiated at Obama's wedding and baptized his daughters.
Parts of Wright’s sermons have been played millions of times on the Internet and on television and have become a major issue for the Obama campaign. Wright's comments prompted Obama to give a groundbreaking speech on race in America – the first time in decades that this issue has been addressed by a candidate for the presidential nomination. In the speech, Obama said he rejected Wright’s more inflammatory statements, but refused to disown his longtime spiritual advisor.
Among Wright’s remarks:
"The government gives them (African Americans) the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, Goddamn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. Goddamn America for treating our citizens as less than human. Goddamn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now (post 9/11) we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
The comments of Dr. George Hunsinger of Princeton University, an ordained Presbyterian minister, are typical of those who believe the American popular media have distorted Wright’s remarks.
He told us, “I think we are looking at some basic questions of fairness. Is it really fair to take a minister's remarks, no matter how provocative or ill-advised, out of context and to broadcast them incessantly, as if they were the only thing that minister ever said or believed? What purposes are served by this sort of propaganda?”
Hunsinger also raised the issue of faulting Obama for remarks made by Wright. “Is it really fair to slime a candidate with the defamation of guilt by association? Does anyone really believe that tactics like this belong in a well-functioning democracy? What kind of media succumbs to these tactics? Finally, is it really fair to act as though African Americans should all be a bunch of happy watermellon eating black folks with no historic grievances that our nation has yet to address? What universe are we living in?”
Another prominent theologian, Rev. Martin Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School, said he “does not excuse some of the indefensible comments of Wright that have now been bludgeoned into our consciousness to the exclusion of all else. And those comments should not be excused. And they have not been excused by Obama.”
But he says, “The four S's charged against Wright -- segregation, separatism, sectarianism, and superiority -- don't stand up…” He said Trinity “has made strenuous efforts to help black Christians overcome the shame they had so long been conditioned to experience…People do not leave Trinity ready to beat up on white people; they are charged to make peace.”
Civil libertarians have also been weighing in on the continuing Wright/Obama controversy. For example, Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, told us, “Wright’s comments were taken out of context to make it seem like he was justifying the 9/11 attacks and was therefore unpatriotic. But when you listen to his entire sermon, he characterizes them as blowback for a vicious U.S. foreign policy.”
She added, “The cable (news) stations played the soundbites over and over, distorting their real meaning. Over the weekend, when news was slow, CNN played one of Wright's sermons in its entirety, which was helpful.”
In his speech, Obama called an Americans to begin a national conversation on race and ethnicity. Cohn told IPS that this “is already happening in the corporate media and on the Web among grassroots organizations. There is so much to talk about, this discourse will, and should, go on for a long time. We have a long way to go in overcoming racism.”
But she expressed doubt that the Bush Administration will take any substantive action to encourage the debate. “The Bush administration likes to sugar coat, i.e. spin, the most important problems, such as the failing economy, and the increasingly disastrous situation in Iraq. By encouraging a national debate about institutional racism, the administration would be admitting to its own shortcomings. It won't happen.”
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association which, at that time, did not accept African-American lawyers as members.
Most polling data suggest that the Wright controversy has not damaged Sen. Obama’s presidential bid. But Harold Ickes, a senior advisor to Sen. Hillary Clinton, his competitor for the Democratic Party nomination, is quoted as saying that the Clinton campaign would use it as a way of persuading Party insiders – known as Super-Delegates – that Obama is not electable.
Meanwhile, theologians in Texas expressed support for Wright at a symposium last weekend on the “State of Black Church.” Dr. Stacey Floyd-Thomas, associate professor of ethics and director of black church studies at the Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, said, ""What is eminently clear is the degree to which the black church is still largely misunderstood and routinely caricatured in U.S. popular culture.”
She added, “If Wright is guilty of anything, (he is) guilty of loving the U.S. enough to tell the United States the truth. Patriots and prophets are "often called to speak harsh words to their nation, not out of a place of hatred, as some suggest, but from an impassioned place of profound love and the highest of expectations.” Wright is a former member of the U.S. Marine Corps.
In contrast to the Wright/Obama furor, criticism of right-wing clergy has been muted or non-existent. For example, Mike Huckabee, a former candidate for the Republican nomination for president, has said, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives...I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, is a former governor of Arkansas.
Also attracting little attention in the U.S. mainstream press are endorsements by prominent conservative clergymen of the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. One of them, Rev. John Hagee, has said Roman Catholicism is ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years.” He said that the Catholic religion has “produced a harvest of hate.” Hagee has confirmed that McCain sought his endorsement. McCain has said he was proud to have Hagee’s support.
Another prominent McCain supporter, Rev. Rod Parsley, has said, “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”
Amid the explosive controversy over remarks made in sermons by Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor, critics are charging that America’s mainstream media has distorted his comments with out-of-context soundbites, failed to understand the African American church, sought to punish the Democratic Party presidential hopeful through “guilt by association,” and gave a free pass to what they say are equally incendiary remarks made by white clergy on the religious right.
At the center of the storm that engulfed Barack Obama's presidential campaign is his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright is the former pastor of the Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago's south side. He officiated at Obama's wedding and baptized his daughters.
Parts of Wright’s sermons have been played millions of times on the Internet and on television and have become a major issue for the Obama campaign. Wright's comments prompted Obama to give a groundbreaking speech on race in America – the first time in decades that this issue has been addressed by a candidate for the presidential nomination. In the speech, Obama said he rejected Wright’s more inflammatory statements, but refused to disown his longtime spiritual advisor.
Among Wright’s remarks:
"The government gives them (African Americans) the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, Goddamn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. Goddamn America for treating our citizens as less than human. Goddamn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now (post 9/11) we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
The comments of Dr. George Hunsinger of Princeton University, an ordained Presbyterian minister, are typical of those who believe the American popular media have distorted Wright’s remarks.
He told us, “I think we are looking at some basic questions of fairness. Is it really fair to take a minister's remarks, no matter how provocative or ill-advised, out of context and to broadcast them incessantly, as if they were the only thing that minister ever said or believed? What purposes are served by this sort of propaganda?”
Hunsinger also raised the issue of faulting Obama for remarks made by Wright. “Is it really fair to slime a candidate with the defamation of guilt by association? Does anyone really believe that tactics like this belong in a well-functioning democracy? What kind of media succumbs to these tactics? Finally, is it really fair to act as though African Americans should all be a bunch of happy watermellon eating black folks with no historic grievances that our nation has yet to address? What universe are we living in?”
Another prominent theologian, Rev. Martin Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School, said he “does not excuse some of the indefensible comments of Wright that have now been bludgeoned into our consciousness to the exclusion of all else. And those comments should not be excused. And they have not been excused by Obama.”
But he says, “The four S's charged against Wright -- segregation, separatism, sectarianism, and superiority -- don't stand up…” He said Trinity “has made strenuous efforts to help black Christians overcome the shame they had so long been conditioned to experience…People do not leave Trinity ready to beat up on white people; they are charged to make peace.”
Civil libertarians have also been weighing in on the continuing Wright/Obama controversy. For example, Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, told us, “Wright’s comments were taken out of context to make it seem like he was justifying the 9/11 attacks and was therefore unpatriotic. But when you listen to his entire sermon, he characterizes them as blowback for a vicious U.S. foreign policy.”
She added, “The cable (news) stations played the soundbites over and over, distorting their real meaning. Over the weekend, when news was slow, CNN played one of Wright's sermons in its entirety, which was helpful.”
In his speech, Obama called an Americans to begin a national conversation on race and ethnicity. Cohn told IPS that this “is already happening in the corporate media and on the Web among grassroots organizations. There is so much to talk about, this discourse will, and should, go on for a long time. We have a long way to go in overcoming racism.”
But she expressed doubt that the Bush Administration will take any substantive action to encourage the debate. “The Bush administration likes to sugar coat, i.e. spin, the most important problems, such as the failing economy, and the increasingly disastrous situation in Iraq. By encouraging a national debate about institutional racism, the administration would be admitting to its own shortcomings. It won't happen.”
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association which, at that time, did not accept African-American lawyers as members.
Most polling data suggest that the Wright controversy has not damaged Sen. Obama’s presidential bid. But Harold Ickes, a senior advisor to Sen. Hillary Clinton, his competitor for the Democratic Party nomination, is quoted as saying that the Clinton campaign would use it as a way of persuading Party insiders – known as Super-Delegates – that Obama is not electable.
Meanwhile, theologians in Texas expressed support for Wright at a symposium last weekend on the “State of Black Church.” Dr. Stacey Floyd-Thomas, associate professor of ethics and director of black church studies at the Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, said, ""What is eminently clear is the degree to which the black church is still largely misunderstood and routinely caricatured in U.S. popular culture.”
She added, “If Wright is guilty of anything, (he is) guilty of loving the U.S. enough to tell the United States the truth. Patriots and prophets are "often called to speak harsh words to their nation, not out of a place of hatred, as some suggest, but from an impassioned place of profound love and the highest of expectations.” Wright is a former member of the U.S. Marine Corps.
In contrast to the Wright/Obama furor, criticism of right-wing clergy has been muted or non-existent. For example, Mike Huckabee, a former candidate for the Republican nomination for president, has said, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives...I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, is a former governor of Arkansas.
Also attracting little attention in the U.S. mainstream press are endorsements by prominent conservative clergymen of the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. One of them, Rev. John Hagee, has said Roman Catholicism is ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years.” He said that the Catholic religion has “produced a harvest of hate.” Hagee has confirmed that McCain sought his endorsement. McCain has said he was proud to have Hagee’s support.
Another prominent McCain supporter, Rev. Rod Parsley, has said, “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Selling Democracy – De Lux Model with Double-Standards Built In
By William Fisher
The news went largely unreported, so you may have missed it, but last week the editor of a newspaper in Cairo was sentenced to six months in prison for spreading “false information… damaging the public interest and national stability” by reporting that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was in a coma. The judge in the case said the report, by Ibrahim Eissa, editor of Egypt’s Al-Dustour, caused panic among foreign investors and threatened Egypt’s economy.
This case is unremarkable given the recent history of Egypt’s contempt for press freedom – in fact, for all the freedoms we Americans still regard as our inalienable rights. It is arguably more remarkable in that, if the test of “spreading false information” were applied to American journalists, building more jails would be a higher priority than building new homes for Katrina victims.
That said, however, the news of Mr. Eissa’s conviction gives us yet another example of the embarrassing double standards built into US foreign policy. Our State Department produces an annual report on human rights abuses around the world, but neglects to assess our own performance. So Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, renditions and waterboarding, are absent. Instead, the Bush Administration continues to bury us in empty bromides about democracy promotion.
But the democracy-promotion mantra didn’t start with George W. Bush. It started as long ago as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It was significantly ratcheted up during the Cold War administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89), when the US policy of Soviet containment made friends of the enemies of our enemy.
In 1982, Reagan told the British Parliament of a "democratic revolution" gathering force around the globe. Reagan announced that the US would “foster the infrastructure of democracy" — a free press, independent
unions, truly representative political parties, and the many other institutions essential to a functioning democracy.
Bush 41, considered a foreign policy “realist,” continued the theme, though somewhat less stridently. And the Clinton Administration embraced much the same themes during the 1990s, to make its case for our embrace of globalization.
But post-9/11, the Bush Administration raised the promotion of democracy and freedom – particularly in the Middle East -- to a historically higher rhetorical priority. In his second inaugural address, Bush said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush said the "resentment and tyranny" in which "whole regions of the world" were now immersed had come to breed new forms of violence that "raise a mortal threat" because Islamic fundamentalism endangered American security. So, he said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush administration officials say they have used diplomatic pressure, foreign aid and the architecture established by Reagan to help nurture democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Bush also said the democratic transformation of the Middle East would begin with regime change in Iraq.
But Bush outdid Reagan: He went for a twofer: The US would continue to talk up freedom and democracy while enlisting other nations to help fight the ‘global war on terror.’ It is now clear that in Dubya’s world, counter-terrorism trumps democracy promotion, rhetoric notwithstanding. And it is precisely that juxtaposition of goals that now finds us in bed with most of the world’s most repressive regimes – many of the same countries we wooed during the Cold War.
Egypt was one of them. In the 1950s, both the Soviet Union and the Western powers offered aid to Egypt to build the Aswan High Dam on the Nile River. But Egypt chose to buy weapons from the communist government of Czechoslovakia, and the West canceled its offer. Later, it would become a more dependable Cold War partner for the US.
And – from a war on terror standpoint – the Bush Administration has considered it a dependable partner ever since. Today, Egypt receives $2 billion a year, including $1.3 billion in military assistance from the U.S. annually – second only to the sum awarded to Israel. The Bush Administration considers Egypt as key ally against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a once-violent opposition group that has since renounced terror and has numerous representatives in the Egyptian parliament – serving as independents, because the government won’t recognize the Brotherhood as a legitimate political party.
The US also considers Egypt – the first Arab nation to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations – as critical to its peace-seeking agenda for a Palestinian state, though to date there is little evidence that it has much real influence on the process. Currently, Egypt is said to be in secret talks to reach some kind of accommodation with the leadership of Hamas. And, as David Ignatius pointed out in Sunday’s Washington Post, there has been no outcry of opposition from the US or the Israelis.
The bottom line in this complex relationship is that US aid to Egypt has continued without major interruption despite what many see as toothless criticisms by the Bush Administration of the iron-fisted 30-year rule of Egypt’s aging autocrat, Hosni Mubarak.
That criticism has included Administration condemnation of the arrest and imprisonment of Mubarak’s main opponent in the presidential elections in 2005, Ayman Nour, who Bush said was “unjustly imprisoned.” Earlier, Bush complained about the conviction of another prominent opposition leader, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who has since fled Egypt. Since 1980, Egypt has been under a so-called Emergency Law, which gives its police and security services virtually carte blanche in arrests and detention of its citizens. The State Department’s human rights report annually confirms that instances of torture, abuse and death in detention are widespread, and Egypt is known to have been the recipient of “extraordinary renditions” by the CIA.
Earlier this year, the US Congress weighed in to express its displeasure with the Mubarak regime. It put a ‘hold” on $100 million of American military aid to Egypt, calling on the Mubarak government to protect the independence of the judiciary, stop police abuses and curtail arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.”
But in January, the Bush Administration waived the hold in a bid to encourage Egypt to help in calming the Israeli-Palestinian crises. In a visit to Egypt the same month, President Bush lavished praise on Mubarak: “I appreciate the example that your nation is setting…I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you’ve had for a vibrant civil society.”
But, according to one of the Arab world’s most widely respected non-governmental organizations, a vibrant civil society is the perfect definition of what Egypt is not. Nor is most of the rest of the Arab Middle East and North Africa. In a recent report to the United Nations Human Rights Council – of which Egypt is a member -- the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) charged that at least fourteen Middle East and North African governments are systematically violating the civil liberties of their citizens – and most of them are close US allies in the war on terror.
The report said that there have been “huge harassments of human rights organizations and defenders have been increasingly subject to abusive and suppressive actions by government actors in democratic rights and freedoms in the majority of Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Tunisia.”
The group called upon the international community to “exert effective efforts to urge Arab governments to duly reconsider their legislation, policy and practices contravening their international obligations to protect freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to form associations, including non-governmental organizations.”
It added that “Special attention should be awarded to providing protection to human rights defenders in the Arab World.”
As an example of typical area-wide human rights abuses, the CIHRS report cited the recent forced closure by Egyptian authorities of the Association for Human Rights Legal Aid, an organization active in exposing instances of torture. The Egyptian government claimed that the organization “received foreign funding without having the consent of the Minister of Social Solidarity.”
The organization warned of “increasingly repressive conditions being imposed on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Egypt, including a proposed amendment to the Law of Associations that it said would limit the right of association and expression.
Other Arab nations singled out for detailed criticism included Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The report also accused four other Arab countries of human rights abuses -- Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco.
The CIHRS report to the UN details numerous human rights violations throughout the Arab Middle East and North Africa. It accuses Syria of arresting “dozens tens of qualified professionals personnel belonging to human rights organizations and civil society revival committees.” It says the Bahraini government closed the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, put the president of one civil society on trial, and charged seven other activists with "participating in an illegal gathering and creating disturbance."
In Tunisia, the report charges, “The authorities have made it almost impossible for the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH) and other civil society institutions to operate. Tunisian human rights defenders have not been allowed to travel abroad and undertook measures to freeze LTDH’s grants from the European Union.
According to the CIHRS report, “Many Gulf countries, as well as Libya, do not allow for the existence of human rights organizations or civil society activists. The long-running Algerian military influence has severely limited civil society organizations. Since the toppling of Sudan’s democratic government in 1989, Sudanese civil society has been deprived of many legal and political protections and rights. Furthermore, civil society institutions in conflict affected countries, such as Iraq, come under constant violent attack; the same applies to the situation in Palestine – whether due to the occupation or in-fighting between its two political parties.”
The US position on promoting democracy while turning a blind eye to blatant and widespread human rights abuses in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere has made America vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and has doubtless contributed to the precipitous fall in the world’s respect for the US.
Many foreign policy experts suggest that America needs a more targeted approach to defeating known terrorists. And more effective use of “soft power” to counter the jihadist narrative with a more appealing story, and a series of high priority initiatives to discourage further radicalization among people who feel marginalized and disempowered but have not yet joined the ranks of “the bad guys.”
This is not just an American problem. Millions of people from the Middle East and North Africa have now migrated to Europe. And, so far, few European countries have shown either the skills or the political will to develop policies to create a more welcoming environment for these “not like us” newcomers.
But it is a very special problem for the United States – the country the whole world once looked to as an exemplar of respect for civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law.
It is doubtful that America’s position in the world is likely to be restored by being found in bed with Hosni Mubarak or King Abdullah.
Also doubtful is that President Bush, in the waning months of his administration, is going to do anything except “stay the course.” Changing course will be a job for our next president. Lamentably, none of the contenders for that office are discussing this issue.
But we need to encourage them to do so.
The news went largely unreported, so you may have missed it, but last week the editor of a newspaper in Cairo was sentenced to six months in prison for spreading “false information… damaging the public interest and national stability” by reporting that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was in a coma. The judge in the case said the report, by Ibrahim Eissa, editor of Egypt’s Al-Dustour, caused panic among foreign investors and threatened Egypt’s economy.
This case is unremarkable given the recent history of Egypt’s contempt for press freedom – in fact, for all the freedoms we Americans still regard as our inalienable rights. It is arguably more remarkable in that, if the test of “spreading false information” were applied to American journalists, building more jails would be a higher priority than building new homes for Katrina victims.
That said, however, the news of Mr. Eissa’s conviction gives us yet another example of the embarrassing double standards built into US foreign policy. Our State Department produces an annual report on human rights abuses around the world, but neglects to assess our own performance. So Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, renditions and waterboarding, are absent. Instead, the Bush Administration continues to bury us in empty bromides about democracy promotion.
But the democracy-promotion mantra didn’t start with George W. Bush. It started as long ago as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It was significantly ratcheted up during the Cold War administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89), when the US policy of Soviet containment made friends of the enemies of our enemy.
In 1982, Reagan told the British Parliament of a "democratic revolution" gathering force around the globe. Reagan announced that the US would “foster the infrastructure of democracy" — a free press, independent
unions, truly representative political parties, and the many other institutions essential to a functioning democracy.
Bush 41, considered a foreign policy “realist,” continued the theme, though somewhat less stridently. And the Clinton Administration embraced much the same themes during the 1990s, to make its case for our embrace of globalization.
But post-9/11, the Bush Administration raised the promotion of democracy and freedom – particularly in the Middle East -- to a historically higher rhetorical priority. In his second inaugural address, Bush said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush said the "resentment and tyranny" in which "whole regions of the world" were now immersed had come to breed new forms of violence that "raise a mortal threat" because Islamic fundamentalism endangered American security. So, he said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush administration officials say they have used diplomatic pressure, foreign aid and the architecture established by Reagan to help nurture democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Bush also said the democratic transformation of the Middle East would begin with regime change in Iraq.
But Bush outdid Reagan: He went for a twofer: The US would continue to talk up freedom and democracy while enlisting other nations to help fight the ‘global war on terror.’ It is now clear that in Dubya’s world, counter-terrorism trumps democracy promotion, rhetoric notwithstanding. And it is precisely that juxtaposition of goals that now finds us in bed with most of the world’s most repressive regimes – many of the same countries we wooed during the Cold War.
Egypt was one of them. In the 1950s, both the Soviet Union and the Western powers offered aid to Egypt to build the Aswan High Dam on the Nile River. But Egypt chose to buy weapons from the communist government of Czechoslovakia, and the West canceled its offer. Later, it would become a more dependable Cold War partner for the US.
And – from a war on terror standpoint – the Bush Administration has considered it a dependable partner ever since. Today, Egypt receives $2 billion a year, including $1.3 billion in military assistance from the U.S. annually – second only to the sum awarded to Israel. The Bush Administration considers Egypt as key ally against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a once-violent opposition group that has since renounced terror and has numerous representatives in the Egyptian parliament – serving as independents, because the government won’t recognize the Brotherhood as a legitimate political party.
The US also considers Egypt – the first Arab nation to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations – as critical to its peace-seeking agenda for a Palestinian state, though to date there is little evidence that it has much real influence on the process. Currently, Egypt is said to be in secret talks to reach some kind of accommodation with the leadership of Hamas. And, as David Ignatius pointed out in Sunday’s Washington Post, there has been no outcry of opposition from the US or the Israelis.
The bottom line in this complex relationship is that US aid to Egypt has continued without major interruption despite what many see as toothless criticisms by the Bush Administration of the iron-fisted 30-year rule of Egypt’s aging autocrat, Hosni Mubarak.
That criticism has included Administration condemnation of the arrest and imprisonment of Mubarak’s main opponent in the presidential elections in 2005, Ayman Nour, who Bush said was “unjustly imprisoned.” Earlier, Bush complained about the conviction of another prominent opposition leader, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who has since fled Egypt. Since 1980, Egypt has been under a so-called Emergency Law, which gives its police and security services virtually carte blanche in arrests and detention of its citizens. The State Department’s human rights report annually confirms that instances of torture, abuse and death in detention are widespread, and Egypt is known to have been the recipient of “extraordinary renditions” by the CIA.
Earlier this year, the US Congress weighed in to express its displeasure with the Mubarak regime. It put a ‘hold” on $100 million of American military aid to Egypt, calling on the Mubarak government to protect the independence of the judiciary, stop police abuses and curtail arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.”
But in January, the Bush Administration waived the hold in a bid to encourage Egypt to help in calming the Israeli-Palestinian crises. In a visit to Egypt the same month, President Bush lavished praise on Mubarak: “I appreciate the example that your nation is setting…I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you’ve had for a vibrant civil society.”
But, according to one of the Arab world’s most widely respected non-governmental organizations, a vibrant civil society is the perfect definition of what Egypt is not. Nor is most of the rest of the Arab Middle East and North Africa. In a recent report to the United Nations Human Rights Council – of which Egypt is a member -- the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) charged that at least fourteen Middle East and North African governments are systematically violating the civil liberties of their citizens – and most of them are close US allies in the war on terror.
The report said that there have been “huge harassments of human rights organizations and defenders have been increasingly subject to abusive and suppressive actions by government actors in democratic rights and freedoms in the majority of Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Tunisia.”
The group called upon the international community to “exert effective efforts to urge Arab governments to duly reconsider their legislation, policy and practices contravening their international obligations to protect freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to form associations, including non-governmental organizations.”
It added that “Special attention should be awarded to providing protection to human rights defenders in the Arab World.”
As an example of typical area-wide human rights abuses, the CIHRS report cited the recent forced closure by Egyptian authorities of the Association for Human Rights Legal Aid, an organization active in exposing instances of torture. The Egyptian government claimed that the organization “received foreign funding without having the consent of the Minister of Social Solidarity.”
The organization warned of “increasingly repressive conditions being imposed on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Egypt, including a proposed amendment to the Law of Associations that it said would limit the right of association and expression.
Other Arab nations singled out for detailed criticism included Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The report also accused four other Arab countries of human rights abuses -- Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco.
The CIHRS report to the UN details numerous human rights violations throughout the Arab Middle East and North Africa. It accuses Syria of arresting “dozens tens of qualified professionals personnel belonging to human rights organizations and civil society revival committees.” It says the Bahraini government closed the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, put the president of one civil society on trial, and charged seven other activists with "participating in an illegal gathering and creating disturbance."
In Tunisia, the report charges, “The authorities have made it almost impossible for the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH) and other civil society institutions to operate. Tunisian human rights defenders have not been allowed to travel abroad and undertook measures to freeze LTDH’s grants from the European Union.
According to the CIHRS report, “Many Gulf countries, as well as Libya, do not allow for the existence of human rights organizations or civil society activists. The long-running Algerian military influence has severely limited civil society organizations. Since the toppling of Sudan’s democratic government in 1989, Sudanese civil society has been deprived of many legal and political protections and rights. Furthermore, civil society institutions in conflict affected countries, such as Iraq, come under constant violent attack; the same applies to the situation in Palestine – whether due to the occupation or in-fighting between its two political parties.”
The US position on promoting democracy while turning a blind eye to blatant and widespread human rights abuses in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere has made America vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and has doubtless contributed to the precipitous fall in the world’s respect for the US.
Many foreign policy experts suggest that America needs a more targeted approach to defeating known terrorists. And more effective use of “soft power” to counter the jihadist narrative with a more appealing story, and a series of high priority initiatives to discourage further radicalization among people who feel marginalized and disempowered but have not yet joined the ranks of “the bad guys.”
This is not just an American problem. Millions of people from the Middle East and North Africa have now migrated to Europe. And, so far, few European countries have shown either the skills or the political will to develop policies to create a more welcoming environment for these “not like us” newcomers.
But it is a very special problem for the United States – the country the whole world once looked to as an exemplar of respect for civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law.
It is doubtful that America’s position in the world is likely to be restored by being found in bed with Hosni Mubarak or King Abdullah.
Also doubtful is that President Bush, in the waning months of his administration, is going to do anything except “stay the course.” Changing course will be a job for our next president. Lamentably, none of the contenders for that office are discussing this issue.
But we need to encourage them to do so.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
OUR ‘WAR ON TERROR’ ALLIES
By William Fisher
One of the Arab world’s most widely respected non-governmental organizations is charging that at least fourteen Middle East and North African governments are systematically violating the civil liberties of their citizens – and most of them are close U.S. allies in the war on terror.
In a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) said that there have been “huge harassments of human rights organizations and defenders have been increasingly subject to abusive and suppressive actions by government actors in democratic rights and freedoms in the majority of Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Tunisia.”
The group called upon the international community to “exert effective efforts to urge Arab governments to duly reconsider their legislation, policy and practices contravening their international obligations to protect freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to form associations, including non-governmental organizations.”
It added that “Special attention should be awarded to providing protection to human rights defenders in the Arab World.”
As an example of typical area-wide human rights abuses, the CIHRS report cited the recent forced closure by Egyptian authorities of the Association for Human Rights Legal Aid, an organization active in exposing incidences of torture. The Egyptian government claimed that the organization “received foreign funding without having the consent of the Minister of Social Solidarity.”
The organization warned of “increasingly repressive conditions being imposed on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Egypt, including a proposed amendment to the Law of Associations that it said would limit the right of association and expression.
Other Arab nations singled out for detailed criticism included Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The report also accused four other Arab countries of human rights abuses -- Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco.
The U.S. and other Western governments have had close ties with Arab governments in the Middle East and North Africa for many years. These ties have grown closer since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
But since the administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89), promoting democracy and freedom in the Arab world has been a staple in U.S. political rhetoric. The rhetoric has ratcheted up significantly during the administration of President George W. Bush. In his second inaugural address, Bush said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush administration officials say they have used diplomatic pressure, foreign aid and the architecture established by Reagan to help nurture democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Bush also said the democratic transformation of the Middle East would begin with regime change in Iraq.
Many observers have found the Bush administration’s relationships with Egypt to be particularly problematic. In the past, the president and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have publicly expressed criticism of Egypt for repressing free political opposition, notably the imprisonment of liberal reformers such as Ayman Nour, the principal political opponent of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress put a ‘hold” on $100 million of American military aid to Egypt, calling on the Mubarak government to protect the independence of the judiciary, stop police abuses and curtail arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. In testimony to Congress, Margaret Scobey, the nominee to be ambassador to Egypt, said "The government's respect for human rights remains poor, and serious abuses continue.”
But in January, the U.S. waived the hold in a bid to encourage Egypt to help in calming the Israeli-Palestinian crises. In a visit to Egypt the same month, President Bush told his Egyptian counterpart, “I appreciate the example that your nation is setting.”
Egypt receives $2 billion a year, including $1.3 billion in military assistance. from the U.S. annually – second only to the sum awarded to Israel.
Steve Carpinelli of the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) told us, “Billions of dollars in new military aid, accompanied by lax oversight and poor accountability, have flowed to governments with documented histories of human rights abuses, weak advancements toward democratic governance and the rule of law, among the findings of the Center's Collateral Damage project, which assessed the impact of U.S. military aid in the post 9/11 era.” The CPI, a government accountability watchdog group, has just published a comprehensive report on U.S. military aid to repressive governments. The full report can be found at http://www.publicintegrity.org/MilitaryAid/.
The CIHRS report to the UN details numerous human rights violations throughout the Arab Middle East and North Africa. It accuses Syria of arresting “dozens tens of qualified professionals personnel belonging to human rights organizations and civil society revival committees.” It says the Bahraini government closed the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, put the president of one civil society on trial, and charged seven other activists with "participating in an illegal gathering and creating disturbance."
In Tunisia, the report charges, “The authorities have made it almost impossible for the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH) and other civil society institutions to operate. Tunisian human rights defenders have not been allowed to travel abroad and undertook measures to freeze LTDH’s grants from the European Union.
According to the CIHRS report, “Many Gulf countries, as well as Libya, do not allow for the existence of human rights organizations or civil society activists. The long-running Algerian military influence has severely limited civil society organizations. Since the toppling of Sudan’s democratic government in 1989, Sudanese civil society has been deprived of many legal and political protections and rights. Furthermore, civil society institutions in conflict affected countries, such as Iraq, come under constant violent attack; the same applies to the situation in Palestine – whether due to the occupation or in-fighting between its two political parties.”
The report identifies Morocco as one of the few Arab countries that has made progress in the human rights field. However, it notes that members of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights have been arrested, tried and sentenced to prison for periods ranging between two and three years for displaying slogans during a peaceful protest during Labor Day celebrations. The slogans were considered by the authorities to be “detrimental to the king and monarchy,” the report said.
One of the Arab world’s most widely respected non-governmental organizations is charging that at least fourteen Middle East and North African governments are systematically violating the civil liberties of their citizens – and most of them are close U.S. allies in the war on terror.
In a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) said that there have been “huge harassments of human rights organizations and defenders have been increasingly subject to abusive and suppressive actions by government actors in democratic rights and freedoms in the majority of Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Tunisia.”
The group called upon the international community to “exert effective efforts to urge Arab governments to duly reconsider their legislation, policy and practices contravening their international obligations to protect freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to form associations, including non-governmental organizations.”
It added that “Special attention should be awarded to providing protection to human rights defenders in the Arab World.”
As an example of typical area-wide human rights abuses, the CIHRS report cited the recent forced closure by Egyptian authorities of the Association for Human Rights Legal Aid, an organization active in exposing incidences of torture. The Egyptian government claimed that the organization “received foreign funding without having the consent of the Minister of Social Solidarity.”
The organization warned of “increasingly repressive conditions being imposed on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Egypt, including a proposed amendment to the Law of Associations that it said would limit the right of association and expression.
Other Arab nations singled out for detailed criticism included Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The report also accused four other Arab countries of human rights abuses -- Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco.
The U.S. and other Western governments have had close ties with Arab governments in the Middle East and North Africa for many years. These ties have grown closer since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
But since the administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89), promoting democracy and freedom in the Arab world has been a staple in U.S. political rhetoric. The rhetoric has ratcheted up significantly during the administration of President George W. Bush. In his second inaugural address, Bush said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush administration officials say they have used diplomatic pressure, foreign aid and the architecture established by Reagan to help nurture democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Bush also said the democratic transformation of the Middle East would begin with regime change in Iraq.
Many observers have found the Bush administration’s relationships with Egypt to be particularly problematic. In the past, the president and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have publicly expressed criticism of Egypt for repressing free political opposition, notably the imprisonment of liberal reformers such as Ayman Nour, the principal political opponent of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress put a ‘hold” on $100 million of American military aid to Egypt, calling on the Mubarak government to protect the independence of the judiciary, stop police abuses and curtail arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. In testimony to Congress, Margaret Scobey, the nominee to be ambassador to Egypt, said "The government's respect for human rights remains poor, and serious abuses continue.”
But in January, the U.S. waived the hold in a bid to encourage Egypt to help in calming the Israeli-Palestinian crises. In a visit to Egypt the same month, President Bush told his Egyptian counterpart, “I appreciate the example that your nation is setting.”
Egypt receives $2 billion a year, including $1.3 billion in military assistance. from the U.S. annually – second only to the sum awarded to Israel.
Steve Carpinelli of the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) told us, “Billions of dollars in new military aid, accompanied by lax oversight and poor accountability, have flowed to governments with documented histories of human rights abuses, weak advancements toward democratic governance and the rule of law, among the findings of the Center's Collateral Damage project, which assessed the impact of U.S. military aid in the post 9/11 era.” The CPI, a government accountability watchdog group, has just published a comprehensive report on U.S. military aid to repressive governments. The full report can be found at http://www.publicintegrity.org/MilitaryAid/.
The CIHRS report to the UN details numerous human rights violations throughout the Arab Middle East and North Africa. It accuses Syria of arresting “dozens tens of qualified professionals personnel belonging to human rights organizations and civil society revival committees.” It says the Bahraini government closed the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, put the president of one civil society on trial, and charged seven other activists with "participating in an illegal gathering and creating disturbance."
In Tunisia, the report charges, “The authorities have made it almost impossible for the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH) and other civil society institutions to operate. Tunisian human rights defenders have not been allowed to travel abroad and undertook measures to freeze LTDH’s grants from the European Union.
According to the CIHRS report, “Many Gulf countries, as well as Libya, do not allow for the existence of human rights organizations or civil society activists. The long-running Algerian military influence has severely limited civil society organizations. Since the toppling of Sudan’s democratic government in 1989, Sudanese civil society has been deprived of many legal and political protections and rights. Furthermore, civil society institutions in conflict affected countries, such as Iraq, come under constant violent attack; the same applies to the situation in Palestine – whether due to the occupation or in-fighting between its two political parties.”
The report identifies Morocco as one of the few Arab countries that has made progress in the human rights field. However, it notes that members of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights have been arrested, tried and sentenced to prison for periods ranging between two and three years for displaying slogans during a peaceful protest during Labor Day celebrations. The slogans were considered by the authorities to be “detrimental to the king and monarchy,” the report said.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Bush Spins Iraq. The Dems go A.W.O.L.
By William Fisher
Only the terminally tone-deaf could fail to be astonished by the juxtaposition of last week’s two major speeches – President Bush’s address marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, and Barack Obama’s remarks on race in America.
Because they speak volumes about the profound differences between the two men who delivered them. One came from a man who is either a serial liar, a foreign affairs ignoramus, or a terminal victim of historical amnesia. The other came from a man willing risk his political future on planting both feet on the most divisive Third Rail in American life: Race.
Millions of words have already been written and spoken about the Obama oration, and I will spare you yet another assessment. Except to note that the senator from Illinois seemed to be trying to achieve three objectives: First, putting the incendiary sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright behind him; second, winning support from the so-called Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania and beyond; and third, encouraging all of us to begin a serious national dialogue to help our country understand and accommodate the realities of racial diversity.
My guess is that he probably isn’t going to make much of a dent in the first two of these objectives. And the jury will be out for years on whether the American people are ready to help him achieve his third objective.
This was a speech Sen. Obama didn’t want to make; the incessant soundbite publicity surrounding his pastor left him no choice. He was becoming a victim of guilt by association.
But having said that – and even acknowledging that there were some questions he failed to address – I think that, years from now, his remarks will have earned their place in the pantheon of the most consequential speeches of the last half-century.
The reason is not simply because of the elegance of the prose or its superb delivery. The reason is the subject itself. Millions of Americans, regardless of their skin color, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, harbor varying degrees of distrust of people who are “not like us.” Obama confronted the resentments, the stereotypes, the bigotry, head-on, and suggested the urgency of a national conversation on these issues. It’s an uncomfortable conversation we’ve been only too happy to ignore, and we need to have it.
But saying so was not merely a good and necessary idea – it was an act of extraordinary political audacity.
Contrast that with what the President said on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. He spoke of the success of the initial military campaign of March 2003, and how quickly our military vanquished Iraq’s scattering army. He then spoke of the success of the "surge" during the last year, noting it has drastically reduced the level of violence in Iraq and turned "the situation in Iraq around." The President paid tribute to the 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqis killed in his “cakewalk.” He told us we were succeeding. Al Qaeda was on the run. The flowers would soon be burying the ‘liberators’. Victory was just over the horizon.
What he conveniently left out were the four-and-a-half years in between – years that demonstrated either the ideological arrogance or the abysmal foreign policy ignorance of the president and his advisors.
No planning for the day after Saddam’s statue toppled. No understanding of the simmering rage of Iraqi Shias, repressed for years by a brutal dictatorship led by a Sunni. No clue that Iran, an overwhelmingly Shia theocracy, would be a predictable Iraqi ally. Not enough troops. An Iraqi government riven by corruption and unwilling or unable to implement any real political reconciliation, although that’s what was posited as the rationale for the surge. An Iraqi government still paralyzed into inaction in delivering the most basic services people expect of their government – water, electricity, education, health care, security. And no exit strategy for America or anyone else.
“There is no military solution” became the non-stop refrain in the president’s symphony of dissonance. But here we are, five years on, with our uniformed forces still trying to apply a military solution.
So much for confronting the issues head-on and telling us the truth. What we got instead was more spin. Mission (almost) Accomplished!
The spin shouldn’t surprise us. It comes from a president who, when he ran for the nation’s highest office in the 2000 election, was implacably opposed to ‘nation-building.’ Now he’s demonstrating yet again that he had (and has) no clue about how nations are built or about our country’s abysmal history of failure in attempting to impose democracy on unwilling despots.
Salivating in the wings to continue this sorry saga is Sen. John McCain – for 100 years, if necessary. The conductor-in-chief of the ‘straight-talk-express’ returned from a visit to Iraq with the same rose-colored vision we heard from the president. The surge is succeeding.
What we should hope to hear from our president, and those who would succeed him, is that the Iraq debacle has put us between a rock and a hard place. The Bush Doctrine has left us with no good options.
We can stay in Iraq and let our soldiers and marines continue to serve as beat cops – chasing al Qaeda while Afghanistan continues its freefall and Pakistan continues to provide safe haven for those wonderful folks who brought us 9/11. Or we can leave Iraq and pray that power, money, territory and oil don’t explode Sunni-Shia violence and Shia-on-Shia violence into an even more catastrophic civil war.
Will no one trust the American people enough to give us a real opinion and a real plan – warts and all?
A presidential candidate who had the courage to confront the ugly reality of race in America should be capable of confronting the ugly reality of Iraq. And so should his opponent.
Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have both said they will draw down our troop levels in Iraq, being “as careful getting out as we were careless going in.” But neither has uttered a word to reassure us that they understand the incredible complexities of our dilemma and exactly how they intend to put this genie back in its bottle.
We certainly won’t be hearing anything like that from Mr. McCain. But we have a right to hear it from both the Democrats who are campaigning for our support based on their promises of real change.
Only the terminally tone-deaf could fail to be astonished by the juxtaposition of last week’s two major speeches – President Bush’s address marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, and Barack Obama’s remarks on race in America.
Because they speak volumes about the profound differences between the two men who delivered them. One came from a man who is either a serial liar, a foreign affairs ignoramus, or a terminal victim of historical amnesia. The other came from a man willing risk his political future on planting both feet on the most divisive Third Rail in American life: Race.
Millions of words have already been written and spoken about the Obama oration, and I will spare you yet another assessment. Except to note that the senator from Illinois seemed to be trying to achieve three objectives: First, putting the incendiary sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright behind him; second, winning support from the so-called Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania and beyond; and third, encouraging all of us to begin a serious national dialogue to help our country understand and accommodate the realities of racial diversity.
My guess is that he probably isn’t going to make much of a dent in the first two of these objectives. And the jury will be out for years on whether the American people are ready to help him achieve his third objective.
This was a speech Sen. Obama didn’t want to make; the incessant soundbite publicity surrounding his pastor left him no choice. He was becoming a victim of guilt by association.
But having said that – and even acknowledging that there were some questions he failed to address – I think that, years from now, his remarks will have earned their place in the pantheon of the most consequential speeches of the last half-century.
The reason is not simply because of the elegance of the prose or its superb delivery. The reason is the subject itself. Millions of Americans, regardless of their skin color, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, harbor varying degrees of distrust of people who are “not like us.” Obama confronted the resentments, the stereotypes, the bigotry, head-on, and suggested the urgency of a national conversation on these issues. It’s an uncomfortable conversation we’ve been only too happy to ignore, and we need to have it.
But saying so was not merely a good and necessary idea – it was an act of extraordinary political audacity.
Contrast that with what the President said on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. He spoke of the success of the initial military campaign of March 2003, and how quickly our military vanquished Iraq’s scattering army. He then spoke of the success of the "surge" during the last year, noting it has drastically reduced the level of violence in Iraq and turned "the situation in Iraq around." The President paid tribute to the 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqis killed in his “cakewalk.” He told us we were succeeding. Al Qaeda was on the run. The flowers would soon be burying the ‘liberators’. Victory was just over the horizon.
What he conveniently left out were the four-and-a-half years in between – years that demonstrated either the ideological arrogance or the abysmal foreign policy ignorance of the president and his advisors.
No planning for the day after Saddam’s statue toppled. No understanding of the simmering rage of Iraqi Shias, repressed for years by a brutal dictatorship led by a Sunni. No clue that Iran, an overwhelmingly Shia theocracy, would be a predictable Iraqi ally. Not enough troops. An Iraqi government riven by corruption and unwilling or unable to implement any real political reconciliation, although that’s what was posited as the rationale for the surge. An Iraqi government still paralyzed into inaction in delivering the most basic services people expect of their government – water, electricity, education, health care, security. And no exit strategy for America or anyone else.
“There is no military solution” became the non-stop refrain in the president’s symphony of dissonance. But here we are, five years on, with our uniformed forces still trying to apply a military solution.
So much for confronting the issues head-on and telling us the truth. What we got instead was more spin. Mission (almost) Accomplished!
The spin shouldn’t surprise us. It comes from a president who, when he ran for the nation’s highest office in the 2000 election, was implacably opposed to ‘nation-building.’ Now he’s demonstrating yet again that he had (and has) no clue about how nations are built or about our country’s abysmal history of failure in attempting to impose democracy on unwilling despots.
Salivating in the wings to continue this sorry saga is Sen. John McCain – for 100 years, if necessary. The conductor-in-chief of the ‘straight-talk-express’ returned from a visit to Iraq with the same rose-colored vision we heard from the president. The surge is succeeding.
What we should hope to hear from our president, and those who would succeed him, is that the Iraq debacle has put us between a rock and a hard place. The Bush Doctrine has left us with no good options.
We can stay in Iraq and let our soldiers and marines continue to serve as beat cops – chasing al Qaeda while Afghanistan continues its freefall and Pakistan continues to provide safe haven for those wonderful folks who brought us 9/11. Or we can leave Iraq and pray that power, money, territory and oil don’t explode Sunni-Shia violence and Shia-on-Shia violence into an even more catastrophic civil war.
Will no one trust the American people enough to give us a real opinion and a real plan – warts and all?
A presidential candidate who had the courage to confront the ugly reality of race in America should be capable of confronting the ugly reality of Iraq. And so should his opponent.
Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have both said they will draw down our troop levels in Iraq, being “as careful getting out as we were careless going in.” But neither has uttered a word to reassure us that they understand the incredible complexities of our dilemma and exactly how they intend to put this genie back in its bottle.
We certainly won’t be hearing anything like that from Mr. McCain. But we have a right to hear it from both the Democrats who are campaigning for our support based on their promises of real change.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
THE WHEELS COME OFF – AGAIN
By William Fisher
While conservative pundits like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Pat Buchanan teeter on the brink of apoplexy about Barack Obama’s refusal to throw his incendiary former pastor under the bus, they – and virtually the entire mainstream media – have gone silent on John McCain’s shameless pandering to the toxic wing of the religious right.
If we’re so intent on applying Joe McCarthy’s guilt-by-association mantra to Sen. Obama’s relationship to his former pastor, how come we’re hearing virtually nothing about Mr. McCain’s support from Rev. John Hagee?
(Maybe the media feels it needs to show Mr. Straight-Talk-Express some deference because of his age. That might also explain the free pass he got for his absurd four-time assertion that (Shia) Iran was training (Sunni) Al Qaeda terrorists -- he had to be corrected by Sen. Joe Lieberman, his Middle East traveling buddy). Sometimes age brings memory deficits.
So who is this Rev. Hagee? He is a multi-millionaire televangelist, founder and senior pastor of the 16,000-strong Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, and head of John Hagee Ministries, whose broadcasts spew bigotry to some 99 million homes on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks in the U.S., Canada, Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and many third world nations.
And what’s he saying?
He speaks out against homosexuality. As noted by “Media Matters,” he believes Hurricane Katrina was “an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn…a level of sin that was offensive to God".
He claims that another reason for God's wrath was the Bush administration's pressure on Israel to abandon settlements and the land associated with them. Therefore, God took American land in a "tit for tat" exchange during Hurricane Katrina.
Hagee asserts that Muhammad was a man of war and that this influence on Islam is the cause of the troubles of Jerusalem.
He calls Roman Catholicism "A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years (and which) produced a harvest of hate."
He denounces abortion and stopped giving money to Israel's Hadassah hospital when it began performing the procedure.
He calls the head of the European Union “the anti-Christ,” for trying to create a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. “A final battle between East and West at Armageddon will then precipitate the Second Coming of Christ.”
He condemns literature such as J. K. Rowling's “Harry Potter,” calling it contemporary witchcraft.
Despite his claims of opposition to anti-Semitism, Hagee believes that the persecution of Jews throughout history, and even the Holocaust, was caused by their own "disobedience…Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.”
He believes that "The most important thing to the Christian community is not the environment but evangelism."
And he asserts, "Christians don't steal or lie, they don't get divorced or have abortions. If the Ten Commandments were followed by everyone we would be able to fire half the police force and in six months the prisons would be all half empty."
Now, these canards are not all that unusual in the extreme wingnut section of the Christian right. What’s unusual is that, unlike Sen. Obama – who had a 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright – John McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement when he began his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
And is apparently happy to accept it. "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support," McCain said at the time.
Previous incarnations of John McCain had the courage to label fanatics like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Bob Jones "agents of intolerance." The 2008 edition has shamelessly pandered to the religious right, even refusing to disown his statement that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
What happened to the “maverick” John McCain many of us respected? Maybe, at the end of the day, he’s no different from most politicians -- willing to do or say anything to get elected.
That’s not an edict from God. That’s a choice.
And McCain’s choice has taken the wheels off the Straight Talk Express – again.
While conservative pundits like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Pat Buchanan teeter on the brink of apoplexy about Barack Obama’s refusal to throw his incendiary former pastor under the bus, they – and virtually the entire mainstream media – have gone silent on John McCain’s shameless pandering to the toxic wing of the religious right.
If we’re so intent on applying Joe McCarthy’s guilt-by-association mantra to Sen. Obama’s relationship to his former pastor, how come we’re hearing virtually nothing about Mr. McCain’s support from Rev. John Hagee?
(Maybe the media feels it needs to show Mr. Straight-Talk-Express some deference because of his age. That might also explain the free pass he got for his absurd four-time assertion that (Shia) Iran was training (Sunni) Al Qaeda terrorists -- he had to be corrected by Sen. Joe Lieberman, his Middle East traveling buddy). Sometimes age brings memory deficits.
So who is this Rev. Hagee? He is a multi-millionaire televangelist, founder and senior pastor of the 16,000-strong Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, and head of John Hagee Ministries, whose broadcasts spew bigotry to some 99 million homes on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks in the U.S., Canada, Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and many third world nations.
And what’s he saying?
He speaks out against homosexuality. As noted by “Media Matters,” he believes Hurricane Katrina was “an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn…a level of sin that was offensive to God".
He claims that another reason for God's wrath was the Bush administration's pressure on Israel to abandon settlements and the land associated with them. Therefore, God took American land in a "tit for tat" exchange during Hurricane Katrina.
Hagee asserts that Muhammad was a man of war and that this influence on Islam is the cause of the troubles of Jerusalem.
He calls Roman Catholicism "A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years (and which) produced a harvest of hate."
He denounces abortion and stopped giving money to Israel's Hadassah hospital when it began performing the procedure.
He calls the head of the European Union “the anti-Christ,” for trying to create a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. “A final battle between East and West at Armageddon will then precipitate the Second Coming of Christ.”
He condemns literature such as J. K. Rowling's “Harry Potter,” calling it contemporary witchcraft.
Despite his claims of opposition to anti-Semitism, Hagee believes that the persecution of Jews throughout history, and even the Holocaust, was caused by their own "disobedience…Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.”
He believes that "The most important thing to the Christian community is not the environment but evangelism."
And he asserts, "Christians don't steal or lie, they don't get divorced or have abortions. If the Ten Commandments were followed by everyone we would be able to fire half the police force and in six months the prisons would be all half empty."
Now, these canards are not all that unusual in the extreme wingnut section of the Christian right. What’s unusual is that, unlike Sen. Obama – who had a 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright – John McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement when he began his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
And is apparently happy to accept it. "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support," McCain said at the time.
Previous incarnations of John McCain had the courage to label fanatics like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Bob Jones "agents of intolerance." The 2008 edition has shamelessly pandered to the religious right, even refusing to disown his statement that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
What happened to the “maverick” John McCain many of us respected? Maybe, at the end of the day, he’s no different from most politicians -- willing to do or say anything to get elected.
That’s not an edict from God. That’s a choice.
And McCain’s choice has taken the wheels off the Straight Talk Express – again.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Fierce Urgency of How
By William Fisher
My reaction to the news that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed to yet another debate, this one on April 16, in Philadelphia:
Be still my heart!
Having forsworn ever watching another so-called debate for fear of dying from Trivialitis – but apparently having a strong self-destructive urge – I fear I will once again find myself hunkered down in front of my television to watch the candidates swap one-liners.
Barack will promise to bring us all together so that the nation can move forward. He’ll again assert his prewar opposition to Iraq and promise to bring our troops home. He’ll tell us yet again that we have to be as careful bringing them home as we were careless sending them in. He’ll assure Pennsylvania voters that he’s going to renegotiate NAFTA. And, of course, he’ll promise us universal health care, middle-class tax relief, better schools, secure borders, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, and energy independence. And no doubt we’ll hear yet again about how John McCain would have us stay in Iraq for the next hundred years.
Hillary will tell us how ready she is to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One. She too will repeat all the lofty goals she and her opponent share – universal health care (but leaving no one out), energy independence, better teachers and smaller classrooms, an exit strategy for Iraq (two brigades a month), the NAFTA riff, secure borders, and of course middle-class tax relief, better schools, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, energy independence, and John McCain’s 100-year-war.
But unless they have some kind of joint epiphany, neither candidate will talk about how they view the Constitution, the limits of Presidential Power, secretive government, how they will reach consensus with the Congress, separation of church and state, Guantanamo, Bagram, the CIA’s secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, the respective checks-and-balances roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government -- and a host of other mismanaged issues that have arguably assured George W. Bush one of the most pitiful legacies of any President in our history.
Our two Democratic contenders – and the TV anchors who moderate these colloquies -- apparently believe that discussion of such issues is so far down in the weeds that viewers’ eyes will instantly glaze over and the entire nation will scramble for the remote.
But if they think of what a lot of the rest of us see as existential issues as being beyond the voters’ comprehension, I wonder how they view an equally important question: How?
By which I mean that lofty visions and even good strategies don’t answer the question of how you’re going to go about actually getting things done – swiftly, efficiently, responsibly, accountably.
Like HOW you’re going to avoid another Heck-of-a-job-Brownie moment. HOW you’re going to bring us energy independence. HOW you’re going to secure a peaceful Middle East. HOW you’re going to end aggressive extremism. HOW you’re going to execute your health care plan, put better teachers in smaller classes, and all the rest.
Dealing with the HOW is arguably even more important than figuring out the WHAT. HOW you’re going to implement good strategies raises issues of leadership and management. It’s about bringing people into government who are not merely loyal or ideologically driven, but able and experienced. Grown-ups who have proven track records in the kinds of jobs they’re getting appointed to. And who have demonstrable records of integrity and leadership.
A new president has the authority to make more than 3,000 “political” appointments. But political appointees don’t necessarily have to be synonymous with party hacks or ideologues. That there will have to be some of those is a given – the person who lands in the Oval Office inevitably has lots of political favors to repay.
But, beyond what should be a relative few, a president’s ability to lead the government will depend on his ability to find and attract those who know how to manage the government. Who are willing to accept personal accountability for their performance. And who know how to use the institutional memories of our civil servants – our bureaucracy – to participate professionally in the execution of good plans and policies.
Why am I so hung up on the importance of HOW?
Well, I had the privilege of sweeping into the nation’s capital as a very minor player with “the best and the brightest” who followed John F. Kennedy to the presidency. I saw first-hand how the best of the brightest showed their leadership qualities by motivating our career civil servants by respecting their aggregate knowledge and experience. How they looked to the permanent government cadre to help craft practical plans and goals and to organize their work to optimize their chances of achieving those goals.
I also saw the converse. I saw too many bright people in too many very senior positions who believed that each of their brilliant ideas was brand-new. Who became almost delusional about their mission to reinvent government. Who became intellectually corrupted by the power they thought they wielded.
And I saw those people fail.
A new president needs to understand the high price of political patronage. That understanding will go a long way toward putting the right people in the right slots. And having the right people in the right slots will give the new president at least a shot at making things work.
And having no more Brownies.
And helping to restore the people’s confidence in their government.
My reaction to the news that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed to yet another debate, this one on April 16, in Philadelphia:
Be still my heart!
Having forsworn ever watching another so-called debate for fear of dying from Trivialitis – but apparently having a strong self-destructive urge – I fear I will once again find myself hunkered down in front of my television to watch the candidates swap one-liners.
Barack will promise to bring us all together so that the nation can move forward. He’ll again assert his prewar opposition to Iraq and promise to bring our troops home. He’ll tell us yet again that we have to be as careful bringing them home as we were careless sending them in. He’ll assure Pennsylvania voters that he’s going to renegotiate NAFTA. And, of course, he’ll promise us universal health care, middle-class tax relief, better schools, secure borders, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, and energy independence. And no doubt we’ll hear yet again about how John McCain would have us stay in Iraq for the next hundred years.
Hillary will tell us how ready she is to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One. She too will repeat all the lofty goals she and her opponent share – universal health care (but leaving no one out), energy independence, better teachers and smaller classrooms, an exit strategy for Iraq (two brigades a month), the NAFTA riff, secure borders, and of course middle-class tax relief, better schools, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, energy independence, and John McCain’s 100-year-war.
But unless they have some kind of joint epiphany, neither candidate will talk about how they view the Constitution, the limits of Presidential Power, secretive government, how they will reach consensus with the Congress, separation of church and state, Guantanamo, Bagram, the CIA’s secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, the respective checks-and-balances roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government -- and a host of other mismanaged issues that have arguably assured George W. Bush one of the most pitiful legacies of any President in our history.
Our two Democratic contenders – and the TV anchors who moderate these colloquies -- apparently believe that discussion of such issues is so far down in the weeds that viewers’ eyes will instantly glaze over and the entire nation will scramble for the remote.
But if they think of what a lot of the rest of us see as existential issues as being beyond the voters’ comprehension, I wonder how they view an equally important question: How?
By which I mean that lofty visions and even good strategies don’t answer the question of how you’re going to go about actually getting things done – swiftly, efficiently, responsibly, accountably.
Like HOW you’re going to avoid another Heck-of-a-job-Brownie moment. HOW you’re going to bring us energy independence. HOW you’re going to secure a peaceful Middle East. HOW you’re going to end aggressive extremism. HOW you’re going to execute your health care plan, put better teachers in smaller classes, and all the rest.
Dealing with the HOW is arguably even more important than figuring out the WHAT. HOW you’re going to implement good strategies raises issues of leadership and management. It’s about bringing people into government who are not merely loyal or ideologically driven, but able and experienced. Grown-ups who have proven track records in the kinds of jobs they’re getting appointed to. And who have demonstrable records of integrity and leadership.
A new president has the authority to make more than 3,000 “political” appointments. But political appointees don’t necessarily have to be synonymous with party hacks or ideologues. That there will have to be some of those is a given – the person who lands in the Oval Office inevitably has lots of political favors to repay.
But, beyond what should be a relative few, a president’s ability to lead the government will depend on his ability to find and attract those who know how to manage the government. Who are willing to accept personal accountability for their performance. And who know how to use the institutional memories of our civil servants – our bureaucracy – to participate professionally in the execution of good plans and policies.
Why am I so hung up on the importance of HOW?
Well, I had the privilege of sweeping into the nation’s capital as a very minor player with “the best and the brightest” who followed John F. Kennedy to the presidency. I saw first-hand how the best of the brightest showed their leadership qualities by motivating our career civil servants by respecting their aggregate knowledge and experience. How they looked to the permanent government cadre to help craft practical plans and goals and to organize their work to optimize their chances of achieving those goals.
I also saw the converse. I saw too many bright people in too many very senior positions who believed that each of their brilliant ideas was brand-new. Who became almost delusional about their mission to reinvent government. Who became intellectually corrupted by the power they thought they wielded.
And I saw those people fail.
A new president needs to understand the high price of political patronage. That understanding will go a long way toward putting the right people in the right slots. And having the right people in the right slots will give the new president at least a shot at making things work.
And having no more Brownies.
And helping to restore the people’s confidence in their government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
