By Rami G. Khouri
Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star
newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International
Herald Tribune.
Beirut -- Nothing better captures the great contest that now defines the
Middle East than four telegenic characters who have crisscrossed the
region during the past few weeks: Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Khaled
Mashaal and Muqtada al-Sadr.
This would seem to be a match made in heaven: two powerful bearded Arab
politicos who wish to expand their efficient constituencies and militias
into governing systems that enhance the well-being of their fellow
citizens; and, two elegant and eloquent American women who combine the
bouncy enthusiasm of high school democracy cheerleaders with the more
daring inclination to engage in political genetic engineering in order to
enhance the well-being of Arab citizens and the security of Americans in
one magical move.
This happy ideological marriage has not happened.
Instead, Rice, the U.S. secretary of state and Hughes, President Bush's
communications consultant, preach democracy for Arabs in the morning, then
spend the afternoon fighting democratically elected Arabs. In response,
Arab political leaders like Mashaal, the head of Hamas' political bureau,
and al-Sadr, who leads a powerful Shiite movement and militia in Iraq,
increase their legitimacy and their impact through parallel routes. They
engage in politics by being more responsive and accountable to the needs
of their constituents, and they generate wider emotional and political
appeal by defying the United States and its policies and presence in the
Middle East.
So the American women lost ground to the bearded Arabs. This is due to the
simple reason that both the style and substance of Rice-Hughes policies
run sharply counter to the sentiments of ordinary Arabs, while
Mashaal-Sadr politics cater directly to ordinary people's obvious
emotional and political views.
I had the opportunity to experience the style of American diplomacy at a
gathering in Doha where Hughes spoke. She repeated the standard Bush
administration policy goals, but did so in a manner that was rather
condescending and insensitive. She failed to acknowledge many legitimate
Arab concerns, and preached to our region through the narrow lens of
post-Sept. 11 American hurt.
Fine for Texas barbecues, but bad news for Arab gatherings. My reaction to
her talk was that it was a disaster -- an example of public diplomacy
shooting itself in the foot, and hurting the United States' image among
Arabs rather than helping it. I asked perhaps 50 Arabs, Muslims, and even
some Americans at the gathering, and they all had the same view. Hughes'
aggressive, pedantic style makes us keep asking: Why does Washington keep
insulting us in this manner? Hughes is an impressive person; her
speechwriters are diplomatic nitwits.
The equally problematic substance of Washington's policies is manifested
in Rice's recent trip to four Arab capitals. She seeks to persuade Arab
governments to quarantine Hamas and starve the Palestinian government of
aid funds until Hamas changes its views and actions vis-à-vis Israel. This
policy will clearly be rejected by all Arab governments, and may set back
U.S. standing in the region more than any other action in recent years,
perhaps even more than the unpopular Iraq war. This is because U.S.
opposition to Hamas touches and sharply inflames deep nerves that already
anchor widespread global skepticism about U.S. foreign policy.
The first is the sense that the United States is neither serious nor
consistent about promoting democracy.
The second is that the United States fights mightily against Arabs or
others in the region who try to manifest their identity through
expressions of indigenous, mainstream political Islamism.
The third is that Washington wages vigorous battles against any Arabs,
Muslims or others in the world who dare to resist Israel's occupation and
subjugation of Arabs.
The fourth is that Washington treats sovereign Arab governments with
contempt, expecting them to ignore their own public opinion and bend to
America's desires at the snap of a finger.
The fifth is that Washington reflexively parrots Israel's neurotic views
on Hamas, instead of waiting to see the policy of the new Palestinian
government that Hamas will head and then defining its policy response.
Not surprisingly, public opinion and election results throughout the
Middle East now favor mainstream Islamists. These groups succeed because
they simultaneously accept democratic pluralism, defy the United States,
resist Israeli occupation and colonization, and demand less corruption and
more efficient governance at home. Consequently, Mashaal's and al-Sadr's
travels around the Middle East last week are more like a victory lap than
anything else.
We must challenge some of their past behavior and future plans, to be
sure. But we must also admit that these Islamist leaders have more
legitimacy in the Middle East than all of Rice and Hughes' copious
democratic rhetoric and all the Marines in Mesopotamia put together.
What to do instead? Elected incumbents in Washington, Palestine, Iraq,
Iran, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere should engage honestly, to move toward a
common middle ground where Arab, Iranian, Turkish, European and
American policies could happily coexist.
This desired terrain would include indigenous religious and social values,
universal good governance standards, global principles that assert
national sovereignty and reject colonial occupation, and legitimate
leaders who have both the political credibility and the managerial
capacity to synchronize all these factors into sensible, sustainable
policies. High-profile U.S. officials should explore this more humane,
mutually beneficial approach during their visits to our convoluted lands,
rather than mainly lecture and offend us.
The score up till now: bearded Arabs 1, American women 0.
Friday, March 10, 2006
What to Do When the Emperor Has No Clothes
By Garrison Keillor
These are troubling times for all of us who love this country,
as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at
your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your
bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about
America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to
let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you
read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who
isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke
him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder."
Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's
life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article
by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S.
Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon
bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department,
and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick
"Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva
Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They
seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to
order prisoners to be tortured.
One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in
isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs,
subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so
that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate
approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as
an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
mental pain or suffering."
Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?
Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go
for it. How about turning over American ports to a country
more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was?
Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey,
you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And
your blue button-down shirt--it's you.
But torture is something else. Most people agree with this,
and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate
position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and
have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is
impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the
American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most
disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is
coming out now.
Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that
country to the verge of civil war while earning us more
enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security
is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody
wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within
our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much
so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have
conceded the very subject of security and positioned
themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of
Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government,
which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is
the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable
man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The
U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him
to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the
country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the
evidence.
These are troubling times for all of us who love this country,
as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at
your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your
bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about
America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to
let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you
read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who
isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke
him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder."
Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's
life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article
by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S.
Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon
bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department,
and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick
"Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva
Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They
seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to
order prisoners to be tortured.
One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in
isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs,
subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so
that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate
approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as
an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
mental pain or suffering."
Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?
Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go
for it. How about turning over American ports to a country
more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was?
Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey,
you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And
your blue button-down shirt--it's you.
But torture is something else. Most people agree with this,
and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate
position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and
have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is
impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the
American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most
disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is
coming out now.
Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that
country to the verge of civil war while earning us more
enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security
is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody
wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within
our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much
so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have
conceded the very subject of security and positioned
themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of
Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government,
which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is
the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable
man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The
U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him
to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the
country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the
evidence.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS AND ENCOURAGE EXTREMISTS
By William Fisher
One of my proudest moments as an American working in Egypt always came at about this time of year, when the U.S. State Department issued its annual report on the state of human rights around the world. I remember sitting in front of a computer in a Cairo living room a year before 9/11, while a group of young journalists, human rights activists and academics downloaded the report from the Internet, eager to see what the world’s most trusted authority on the rule of law had to say about their country and their region.
Their reaction was what made me grateful for having been born in the U.S.A. Because they were bright, well-informed, and fiercely pro-democracy, they quibbled about how the report phrased a particular human rights abuse or why this or that infraction hadn’t been given more or less emphasis.
But there was not the slightest doubt among them that this report spoke truth or that, of all the world’s countries, only the United States of America had the performance record to speak with authority and credibility on this subject.
When this year’s Human Rights report appeared last week, I e-mailed it to six of these old friends and asked them for their reactions “off-the-record”.
They had a lot to say, but it all came down to this consensus: The United States had forfeited its right to report on abuses committed by others by committing its own, failing to correct them, and then holding no one in authority accountable. They said they would have expected this behavior in their own countries, but not in mine.
The keywords in their e-mails to me included Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, imprisonment without trial, ghost prisoners, kidnappings, renditions, unilateralism, bribing journalists, and Bush & Company and their whole Iraq adventure.
One of them wrote, “What kind of democracy is George Bush trying to spread anyway?”
Lest Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney are immediately tempted to attack the people who wrote to me, they need to know that these men and women were as disbelieving and horrified by 9/11 as was most of the rest of the world. Many of them had attended American universities. They put their freedom on the line every day by fighting autocratic rule. They are people who once thought of us as the world’s last best hope for progress and equity. And, yes, they are all Muslims.
In short, these are precisely the people Karen Hughes is supposed to be reaching through her public diplomacy efforts to win hearts and minds.
Her job description ought to read, “How Do We Win Back the Hearts and Minds of Friends We Have Lost?”
Through exchange programs? By trying to bond with Muslim women by telling them that she, too, is a Mom? By insisting they drive the cars they’d rather have their drivers drive? By denying or remaining silent on what her country has become and by slavishly justifying whatever her boss, the President, does in the name of the “Global War on Terror?”
One of the young women I wrote to summed it up this way:
“We’re used to the iron fist of government in Egypt. We expect it. We used to have someone we could count on to show our leaders how to lead by setting an example of good governance without the iron fist. It was America. Now that’s gone. Now, the only people who are motivated by what America is doing are the very people it’s trying to defeat – Muslim extremists.”
One of my proudest moments as an American working in Egypt always came at about this time of year, when the U.S. State Department issued its annual report on the state of human rights around the world. I remember sitting in front of a computer in a Cairo living room a year before 9/11, while a group of young journalists, human rights activists and academics downloaded the report from the Internet, eager to see what the world’s most trusted authority on the rule of law had to say about their country and their region.
Their reaction was what made me grateful for having been born in the U.S.A. Because they were bright, well-informed, and fiercely pro-democracy, they quibbled about how the report phrased a particular human rights abuse or why this or that infraction hadn’t been given more or less emphasis.
But there was not the slightest doubt among them that this report spoke truth or that, of all the world’s countries, only the United States of America had the performance record to speak with authority and credibility on this subject.
When this year’s Human Rights report appeared last week, I e-mailed it to six of these old friends and asked them for their reactions “off-the-record”.
They had a lot to say, but it all came down to this consensus: The United States had forfeited its right to report on abuses committed by others by committing its own, failing to correct them, and then holding no one in authority accountable. They said they would have expected this behavior in their own countries, but not in mine.
The keywords in their e-mails to me included Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, imprisonment without trial, ghost prisoners, kidnappings, renditions, unilateralism, bribing journalists, and Bush & Company and their whole Iraq adventure.
One of them wrote, “What kind of democracy is George Bush trying to spread anyway?”
Lest Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney are immediately tempted to attack the people who wrote to me, they need to know that these men and women were as disbelieving and horrified by 9/11 as was most of the rest of the world. Many of them had attended American universities. They put their freedom on the line every day by fighting autocratic rule. They are people who once thought of us as the world’s last best hope for progress and equity. And, yes, they are all Muslims.
In short, these are precisely the people Karen Hughes is supposed to be reaching through her public diplomacy efforts to win hearts and minds.
Her job description ought to read, “How Do We Win Back the Hearts and Minds of Friends We Have Lost?”
Through exchange programs? By trying to bond with Muslim women by telling them that she, too, is a Mom? By insisting they drive the cars they’d rather have their drivers drive? By denying or remaining silent on what her country has become and by slavishly justifying whatever her boss, the President, does in the name of the “Global War on Terror?”
One of the young women I wrote to summed it up this way:
“We’re used to the iron fist of government in Egypt. We expect it. We used to have someone we could count on to show our leaders how to lead by setting an example of good governance without the iron fist. It was America. Now that’s gone. Now, the only people who are motivated by what America is doing are the very people it’s trying to defeat – Muslim extremists.”
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Welcome Aboard
The notice below was sent to us by John H. Brown of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.
From the Desk of
CMDCM(SW/SS) Lawrence A. Cairo
Command Master Chief
U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Shipmate,
Congratulations on your orders to Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. You
now are part of history, a member of the oldest U.S. base overseas, and the
only one in a Communist country. We are located in the Oriente Province on
the southeast corner of Cuba. The base is about 400 air miles from Miami,
Florida. [...]
In the recent past, our base has become a highly successful stop for many
Naval ships looking for a place for their crews to rest and relax.
Naval Base Guantanamo Bay is a great community as well. Since we do not
have the luxury of leaving the base after work, we have everything you need
right here. We have a Commissary, Navy Exchange, furniture store, gas
station, hospital, dry cleaners, bowling alley, library, Navy Federal Credit
Union, Community Bank, and Columbia College so you can work on advancing
your education. If you are accompanied by your family and have children, we
have both an elementary (pre-K through 6th grade) and high school (grades
7-12), along with two Child Development Centers and a Youth Center. All
facilities are open to the general population with the exception of the base
clubs. The drinking age on base is 21, so only personnel 21 and older are
allowed into the clubs.
The base has a very diverse and rich culture. Our current population is
about 8,500. In addition to active duty service members from the Navy,
Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, and their dependents, we have
civilian contractors, DoD contractors, dependents of hired contractors and
third country nationals (TCN), mostly from Jamaica and the Philippines. The
base contractors hire many of the TCNs for their workforce. Because of this
diverse population mixture, we commemorate each other’s special celebrations
such as Cuban-American Friendship Day, Philippine Independence Day, and
Jamaican Independence Day.
Guantanamo Bay is not all work. There are many off-duty activities as well.
Most activities are outdoors, because we have great weather. Because of our
location, the temperature in the winter is in the 60s in the morning and is
in the upper 70s by afternoon. During the summer the temperature is in the
mid 70s in the morning, and rises into the upper 90s throughout the day.
MWR is very active here. We have free outdoor movie theaters that show first
run movies every night, with two on the weekends. Intramural sports are very
popular and are programmed throughout the year, and there are a number of
different ball fields in various locations around the base. Additionally
MWR has boats, kayaks, fishing equipment, diving equipment, and even some
surfboards for rent. We have a 9-hole golf course, an 18-hole miniature
golf course, tennis courts, batting cages, and three swimming pools. There
is great diving here. You can snorkel or tank dive. If you are not a
certified diver, you can take classes to become certified. Night dives are
very popular with certified divers.
You can even have a ‘GTMO Getaway Weekend.’ We have a bachelor quarters
complex on the Leeward side of the base which has 134 rooms. You can take
the ferry over to the Leeward side and rent a room for about $7.
Additionally there is a galley on Leeward side, an outdoor movie theater
(coming soon), a mini-mart, and a small club. You can spend the weekend
away from everyone, visit one of the Leeward side’s four beaches and relax.
As you see, GTMO is more than you thought, and will be a great duty station
assignment. I am looking forward to your arrival, meeting you, and having
you as a member of the “GTMO Team.”
Again, welcome to the team!
Very respectfully,
Lawrence A. Cairo
CMC(SW/SS)
Washington DC
202-363-7208
From the Desk of
CMDCM(SW/SS) Lawrence A. Cairo
Command Master Chief
U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Shipmate,
Congratulations on your orders to Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. You
now are part of history, a member of the oldest U.S. base overseas, and the
only one in a Communist country. We are located in the Oriente Province on
the southeast corner of Cuba. The base is about 400 air miles from Miami,
Florida. [...]
In the recent past, our base has become a highly successful stop for many
Naval ships looking for a place for their crews to rest and relax.
Naval Base Guantanamo Bay is a great community as well. Since we do not
have the luxury of leaving the base after work, we have everything you need
right here. We have a Commissary, Navy Exchange, furniture store, gas
station, hospital, dry cleaners, bowling alley, library, Navy Federal Credit
Union, Community Bank, and Columbia College so you can work on advancing
your education. If you are accompanied by your family and have children, we
have both an elementary (pre-K through 6th grade) and high school (grades
7-12), along with two Child Development Centers and a Youth Center. All
facilities are open to the general population with the exception of the base
clubs. The drinking age on base is 21, so only personnel 21 and older are
allowed into the clubs.
The base has a very diverse and rich culture. Our current population is
about 8,500. In addition to active duty service members from the Navy,
Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, and their dependents, we have
civilian contractors, DoD contractors, dependents of hired contractors and
third country nationals (TCN), mostly from Jamaica and the Philippines. The
base contractors hire many of the TCNs for their workforce. Because of this
diverse population mixture, we commemorate each other’s special celebrations
such as Cuban-American Friendship Day, Philippine Independence Day, and
Jamaican Independence Day.
Guantanamo Bay is not all work. There are many off-duty activities as well.
Most activities are outdoors, because we have great weather. Because of our
location, the temperature in the winter is in the 60s in the morning and is
in the upper 70s by afternoon. During the summer the temperature is in the
mid 70s in the morning, and rises into the upper 90s throughout the day.
MWR is very active here. We have free outdoor movie theaters that show first
run movies every night, with two on the weekends. Intramural sports are very
popular and are programmed throughout the year, and there are a number of
different ball fields in various locations around the base. Additionally
MWR has boats, kayaks, fishing equipment, diving equipment, and even some
surfboards for rent. We have a 9-hole golf course, an 18-hole miniature
golf course, tennis courts, batting cages, and three swimming pools. There
is great diving here. You can snorkel or tank dive. If you are not a
certified diver, you can take classes to become certified. Night dives are
very popular with certified divers.
You can even have a ‘GTMO Getaway Weekend.’ We have a bachelor quarters
complex on the Leeward side of the base which has 134 rooms. You can take
the ferry over to the Leeward side and rent a room for about $7.
Additionally there is a galley on Leeward side, an outdoor movie theater
(coming soon), a mini-mart, and a small club. You can spend the weekend
away from everyone, visit one of the Leeward side’s four beaches and relax.
As you see, GTMO is more than you thought, and will be a great duty station
assignment. I am looking forward to your arrival, meeting you, and having
you as a member of the “GTMO Team.”
Again, welcome to the team!
Very respectfully,
Lawrence A. Cairo
CMC(SW/SS)
Washington DC
202-363-7208
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
SON OF GITMO
By William Fisher
Legal, diplomatic, religious and human rights authorities are struggling to be heard on what many consider to be the "Son of Guantánamo" -- a secret prison in Afghanistan where the U.S. military is said to have been holding some 500 "enemy combatants" for as long as three or four years without access to lawyers.
The existence of the prison, located at Bagram airbase near Kabul, was reported last week by The New York Times. But the story was quickly relegated to back pages by the revelation that Dubai Ports World (DPW), a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, was about to take over the management of as many as six major U.S. seaports.
On the Bagram prison issue, the views of David Cole, one of America’s foremost authorities on constitutional law, are typical of reactions obtained by us. Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law school in Washington, said, “The Bagram story raises serious questions about the Bush administration's unwillingness to be bound by law. The administration chose Guantanamo in the first place because it thought it was a law-free zone. Now that the Supreme Court has said that the administration is actually accountable to legal limits at Guantanamo, it is turning to other avenues to avoid accountability. The only real solution is to conform its conduct to the law, not to continue to evade legal responsibility for its actions.”
Times reporters Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt, who broke the Bagram story, wrote, “Some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at
Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark
Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in United States courts.”
They added, “Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the international Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there…From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its Cuban counterpart. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.”
The Times reported that the detainee population at Bagram rose from about 100 prisoners at the start of 2004 to as many as 600 at times last year, according to military figures, was in part the result of a Bush administration decision to shut off the flow of detainees into Guantánamo after the Supreme Court ruled that those prisoners had some basic due-process rights under United States law.
Bagram has often been described by the U.S. military as a temporary “screening center” from which some detainees would be released and others transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But as Guantanamo became a lightning rod for worldwide criticism of Bush Administration detention policies, transfers to Cuba were cancelled.
William Rugh, retired U.S. ambassador to Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, told us that, while he has “no idea if the report is correct,” he believes that “all prisoners held by the United States, whether in Guantanamo or elsewhere, ought to be brought promptly to trial of some kind and afforded the right to be represented by an attorney. If the U.S. government persuades the judge that material evidence to be presented at the trial is legitimately classified, the trial could be closed to the public but there should be a trial.”
The views of the U.S. human rights community were typified by Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and Security Program for Human Rights First, a major advocacy group. She told us, “Apart from the ongoing harms to human rights, one of the most remarkable features of the U.S. detentions at Bagram and elsewhere is that four and a half years after September 11, the Administration continues to hold nearly 15,000 detainees worldwide without rights recognized under any domestic or international legal regime, and without a plan for how it might begin detaining people legally in what the Administration now calls the ‘long war’ going forward.”
And Amnesty International USA told us, “Because of on-going and unresolved reports of torture and ill-treatment at Bagram Air Base, we continue to assert the necessity for open and honest investigations of all prisoner abuse cases and renovations of current prison facilities. We are concerned about reports that the base has been expanding in its current form, primarily because practices of secrecy such as the restriction of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the denial of detainee's rights are still known to be prevalent there.”
Noah S. Leavitt, an attorney who has worked with the International Law Commission of the United Nations in Geneva and the International Court of Justice in The Hague, took issue with the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Afghanistan, who is quoted as saying the U.S. is “providing the best possible living conditions and medical care in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention.”
That statement, Leavitt charged, “highlights the Administration's ignorance of or cavalier attitude toward long-established international law.”
He added, “The world will always be in catch-up mode when it comes to investigating, discovering and challenging the many ways the Bush Administration has undermined international legal norms. Just as they did for Guantanamo, concerned lawyers, journalists and researchers will have to figure out how to gain access to Bagram in order to bring the harsh treatment of the prisoners to the attention of the U.S. judicial system and the international community before any improvements are seen.”
Leaders of the religious community have also weighed in on the Bagram issue. George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America, told us, “America must lead by example. If we continue to shame our country through secret prisons, torture and abuse, the world will no longer look to us as a beacon of hope, but as a dungeon of despair. The only way to defeat terrorism is by upholding our ideals not by trampling on them.”
Meanwhile, in a related development, a new round of reviews of the Guantánamo Bay detainees is set to begin, but attorneys say the U.S. government is flouting military and international law by preventing any meaningful consideration of proposed evidence and denying information to the detainees' lawyers. Experts from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which is currently overseeing 450 pro-bono attorneys representing the detainees, expressed “outrage about this violation of due process” and pointed to a new federal court decision vindicating their calls for transparent and fair hearings.
Last week, a U.S. District Judge ordered the Defense Department to release the names of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees and uncensored transcripts of their hearings by March 3.The CCR called the ruling “a major blow to the government's attempts to maintain total secrecy over its detainment process”. The Pentagon has said it will comply.
It is difficult to know whether the Bush Administration’s penchant for shooting itself in the feet is the result of incompetence or arrogance. After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Pentagon should have learned that getting out ahead of bad news is far better than waiting for its inevitable disclosure by the press. That’s Public Relations 101!
Legal, diplomatic, religious and human rights authorities are struggling to be heard on what many consider to be the "Son of Guantánamo" -- a secret prison in Afghanistan where the U.S. military is said to have been holding some 500 "enemy combatants" for as long as three or four years without access to lawyers.
The existence of the prison, located at Bagram airbase near Kabul, was reported last week by The New York Times. But the story was quickly relegated to back pages by the revelation that Dubai Ports World (DPW), a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, was about to take over the management of as many as six major U.S. seaports.
On the Bagram prison issue, the views of David Cole, one of America’s foremost authorities on constitutional law, are typical of reactions obtained by us. Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law school in Washington, said, “The Bagram story raises serious questions about the Bush administration's unwillingness to be bound by law. The administration chose Guantanamo in the first place because it thought it was a law-free zone. Now that the Supreme Court has said that the administration is actually accountable to legal limits at Guantanamo, it is turning to other avenues to avoid accountability. The only real solution is to conform its conduct to the law, not to continue to evade legal responsibility for its actions.”
Times reporters Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt, who broke the Bagram story, wrote, “Some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at
Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark
Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in United States courts.”
They added, “Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the international Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there…From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its Cuban counterpart. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.”
The Times reported that the detainee population at Bagram rose from about 100 prisoners at the start of 2004 to as many as 600 at times last year, according to military figures, was in part the result of a Bush administration decision to shut off the flow of detainees into Guantánamo after the Supreme Court ruled that those prisoners had some basic due-process rights under United States law.
Bagram has often been described by the U.S. military as a temporary “screening center” from which some detainees would be released and others transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But as Guantanamo became a lightning rod for worldwide criticism of Bush Administration detention policies, transfers to Cuba were cancelled.
William Rugh, retired U.S. ambassador to Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, told us that, while he has “no idea if the report is correct,” he believes that “all prisoners held by the United States, whether in Guantanamo or elsewhere, ought to be brought promptly to trial of some kind and afforded the right to be represented by an attorney. If the U.S. government persuades the judge that material evidence to be presented at the trial is legitimately classified, the trial could be closed to the public but there should be a trial.”
The views of the U.S. human rights community were typified by Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and Security Program for Human Rights First, a major advocacy group. She told us, “Apart from the ongoing harms to human rights, one of the most remarkable features of the U.S. detentions at Bagram and elsewhere is that four and a half years after September 11, the Administration continues to hold nearly 15,000 detainees worldwide without rights recognized under any domestic or international legal regime, and without a plan for how it might begin detaining people legally in what the Administration now calls the ‘long war’ going forward.”
And Amnesty International USA told us, “Because of on-going and unresolved reports of torture and ill-treatment at Bagram Air Base, we continue to assert the necessity for open and honest investigations of all prisoner abuse cases and renovations of current prison facilities. We are concerned about reports that the base has been expanding in its current form, primarily because practices of secrecy such as the restriction of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the denial of detainee's rights are still known to be prevalent there.”
Noah S. Leavitt, an attorney who has worked with the International Law Commission of the United Nations in Geneva and the International Court of Justice in The Hague, took issue with the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Afghanistan, who is quoted as saying the U.S. is “providing the best possible living conditions and medical care in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention.”
That statement, Leavitt charged, “highlights the Administration's ignorance of or cavalier attitude toward long-established international law.”
He added, “The world will always be in catch-up mode when it comes to investigating, discovering and challenging the many ways the Bush Administration has undermined international legal norms. Just as they did for Guantanamo, concerned lawyers, journalists and researchers will have to figure out how to gain access to Bagram in order to bring the harsh treatment of the prisoners to the attention of the U.S. judicial system and the international community before any improvements are seen.”
Leaders of the religious community have also weighed in on the Bagram issue. George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America, told us, “America must lead by example. If we continue to shame our country through secret prisons, torture and abuse, the world will no longer look to us as a beacon of hope, but as a dungeon of despair. The only way to defeat terrorism is by upholding our ideals not by trampling on them.”
Meanwhile, in a related development, a new round of reviews of the Guantánamo Bay detainees is set to begin, but attorneys say the U.S. government is flouting military and international law by preventing any meaningful consideration of proposed evidence and denying information to the detainees' lawyers. Experts from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which is currently overseeing 450 pro-bono attorneys representing the detainees, expressed “outrage about this violation of due process” and pointed to a new federal court decision vindicating their calls for transparent and fair hearings.
Last week, a U.S. District Judge ordered the Defense Department to release the names of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees and uncensored transcripts of their hearings by March 3.The CCR called the ruling “a major blow to the government's attempts to maintain total secrecy over its detainment process”. The Pentagon has said it will comply.
It is difficult to know whether the Bush Administration’s penchant for shooting itself in the feet is the result of incompetence or arrogance. After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Pentagon should have learned that getting out ahead of bad news is far better than waiting for its inevitable disclosure by the press. That’s Public Relations 101!
Monday, February 27, 2006
DEATHS IN U.S. CUSTODY
By William Fisher
A senior U.S. military commander has branded as ‘propaganda’ a new report from a major human rights advocacy group charging that of the 98 detainees who have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, 34 are suspected or confirmed homicides, another 11 suggest that death was a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions, but only 12 deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.
The remark was made by Brigadier General Mark Kimmett, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq, regarding a report by Human Rights First, which charged that in close to half the deaths surveyed by the organization, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.
The report, entitled “Command’s Responsibility”, says that of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half.
While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, no CIA agent has faced a criminal charge, the report says, adding, “Among the worst cases -- detainees tortured to death – only half have resulted in punishment and the harshest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death has been five months in jail.”
The exchange with Gen. Kimmett occurred at a press conference in Iraq. The question was:
“General Kimmett, there's a human rights organization today in the States called Human Rights First. They said that around 100 detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq have died in the prisons. What's your comment on this?”
The response from Gen. Kimmett was: Well, my comment is that's propaganda; it's not correct.”
Gen. Kimmett went on to say, “I would defer to the Department of Defense, who would more than happy to give you all the information regarding the number of situations inside the detention centers in which people have died and for whatever reason.”
HRF reports that Admiral John Hutson has sent Kimmett a personal letter with a copy of the report, urging that he rethink his public remarks
Among the report’s other findings: Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations; investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution; record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution; overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability; overbroad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability; agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined; effective punishment has been too little and too late.
Charging that there is an “accountability gap”, HRF says closing it will require “a zero-tolerance approach to commanders who fail to take steps to provide clear guidance, and who allow unlawful conduct to persist on their watch.”
The report recommends that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, “move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (known as the McCain Amendment) passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005”.
It also demands that “the President, the U.S. military, and relevant intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken seriously – not from the moment a crime becomes public, but from the moment the United States sends troops and agents into the field”.
Congress, the report suggests, “should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the ‘war on terror’. Such a commission could investigate and identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and specific path going forward to make sure those mistakes never happen again. The proposal for a commission has been endorsed by a wide range of distinguished Americans from Republican and Democratic members of Congress to former presidents to leaders in the U.S. military. Human Rights First urges Congress to act without further delay.”
In response to our question, Deborah Pearlstein, Director of HRF’s U.S. Law and Security Program, said the Pentagon’s detention policies have repeatedly been criticized by military lawyers and health officials, but their objections have largely been ignored.
Most recently, it was revealed that one of the Pentagon's top civilian lawyers repeatedly challenged the Bush administration's policy on the coercive interrogation of terror suspects, arguing that such practices violated the law, verged on torture and could ultimately expose senior officials to prosecution.
Mora's campaign underscores how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.
"Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive
interrogations, as was the case in Guantánamo, how could one do so without
profoundly altering its core values and character?" Mr. Mora asked the
Pentagon's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, in a 22-page memorandum.
The Pentagon has declined to comment on specific assertions in Mr. Mora's memorandum.
"Detainee operations and interrogation policies have been scrutinized under a microscope, from all different angles," a spokesperson said. "It was found that it was not a Department of Defense policy to encourage or condone torture."
The HRF report notes that “It is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of punishment when so few have been punished, and when the deliberations of juries and commanders are largely unknown. Nonetheless, two patterns clearly emerge and are documented in Command’s Responsibility: (1) because of investigative and evidentiary failures, accountability for wrongdoing has been limited at best, and almost non-existent for command; and (2) commanders have played a key role in undermining chances for full accountability.”
It adds, “In dozens of cases documented in the report, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation, and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths. Commanders have failed both to provide troops clear guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on vigorous investigations. And command responsibility itself – the law that requires commanders to be held liable for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known – has been all but forgotten.”
After dozens of cases of prisoner abuse over the past several years, including the deaths HRF is reporting, the Pentagon must be totally tone-deaf to think it can dismiss all these claims as “propaganda” and maintain any credibility whatever.
This is not just more spin. It is the Kabuki theater of the absurd.
A senior U.S. military commander has branded as ‘propaganda’ a new report from a major human rights advocacy group charging that of the 98 detainees who have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, 34 are suspected or confirmed homicides, another 11 suggest that death was a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions, but only 12 deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.
The remark was made by Brigadier General Mark Kimmett, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq, regarding a report by Human Rights First, which charged that in close to half the deaths surveyed by the organization, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.
The report, entitled “Command’s Responsibility”, says that of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half.
While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, no CIA agent has faced a criminal charge, the report says, adding, “Among the worst cases -- detainees tortured to death – only half have resulted in punishment and the harshest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death has been five months in jail.”
The exchange with Gen. Kimmett occurred at a press conference in Iraq. The question was:
“General Kimmett, there's a human rights organization today in the States called Human Rights First. They said that around 100 detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq have died in the prisons. What's your comment on this?”
The response from Gen. Kimmett was: Well, my comment is that's propaganda; it's not correct.”
Gen. Kimmett went on to say, “I would defer to the Department of Defense, who would more than happy to give you all the information regarding the number of situations inside the detention centers in which people have died and for whatever reason.”
HRF reports that Admiral John Hutson has sent Kimmett a personal letter with a copy of the report, urging that he rethink his public remarks
Among the report’s other findings: Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations; investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution; record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution; overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability; overbroad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability; agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined; effective punishment has been too little and too late.
Charging that there is an “accountability gap”, HRF says closing it will require “a zero-tolerance approach to commanders who fail to take steps to provide clear guidance, and who allow unlawful conduct to persist on their watch.”
The report recommends that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, “move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (known as the McCain Amendment) passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005”.
It also demands that “the President, the U.S. military, and relevant intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken seriously – not from the moment a crime becomes public, but from the moment the United States sends troops and agents into the field”.
Congress, the report suggests, “should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the ‘war on terror’. Such a commission could investigate and identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and specific path going forward to make sure those mistakes never happen again. The proposal for a commission has been endorsed by a wide range of distinguished Americans from Republican and Democratic members of Congress to former presidents to leaders in the U.S. military. Human Rights First urges Congress to act without further delay.”
In response to our question, Deborah Pearlstein, Director of HRF’s U.S. Law and Security Program, said the Pentagon’s detention policies have repeatedly been criticized by military lawyers and health officials, but their objections have largely been ignored.
Most recently, it was revealed that one of the Pentagon's top civilian lawyers repeatedly challenged the Bush administration's policy on the coercive interrogation of terror suspects, arguing that such practices violated the law, verged on torture and could ultimately expose senior officials to prosecution.
Mora's campaign underscores how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.
"Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive
interrogations, as was the case in Guantánamo, how could one do so without
profoundly altering its core values and character?" Mr. Mora asked the
Pentagon's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, in a 22-page memorandum.
The Pentagon has declined to comment on specific assertions in Mr. Mora's memorandum.
"Detainee operations and interrogation policies have been scrutinized under a microscope, from all different angles," a spokesperson said. "It was found that it was not a Department of Defense policy to encourage or condone torture."
The HRF report notes that “It is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of punishment when so few have been punished, and when the deliberations of juries and commanders are largely unknown. Nonetheless, two patterns clearly emerge and are documented in Command’s Responsibility: (1) because of investigative and evidentiary failures, accountability for wrongdoing has been limited at best, and almost non-existent for command; and (2) commanders have played a key role in undermining chances for full accountability.”
It adds, “In dozens of cases documented in the report, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation, and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths. Commanders have failed both to provide troops clear guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on vigorous investigations. And command responsibility itself – the law that requires commanders to be held liable for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known – has been all but forgotten.”
After dozens of cases of prisoner abuse over the past several years, including the deaths HRF is reporting, the Pentagon must be totally tone-deaf to think it can dismiss all these claims as “propaganda” and maintain any credibility whatever.
This is not just more spin. It is the Kabuki theater of the absurd.
Bush, Jews and Hamas
By William Fisher
On the heels of the surprise victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary election, President George W. Bush is discovering just how difficult it is to try to herd a bunch of cats.
Some members of his ordinarily supportive Jewish-American pro-Israel constituency are distinctly unhappy that Bush insisted on holding on-time elections, producing what they consider to be disastrous results. Others are suspicious that, despite his rhetorical assurances not to have anything to do with terrorists, he has left the door a bit ajar and may be pressured by his European and Arab allies into resorting to realpolitik. Mirroring the sentiments of the Israeli right-wing, powerful groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) want that door slammed shut until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel’s right exist and renounces violence.
And U.S. fundamentalist groups on the Christian right, which have been strong supporters of Israel of late, take pretty much the same view as their more hawkish Jewish-American counterparts.
These groups are vital constituencies in Bush’s base. Both have lots of influence in the White House and in the House and Senate and, with Congressional elections due next November, could make the President’s life almost as complicated as dealing with Hamas.
A further complication is that the Jewish community in the U.S. is far from homogenous. As in Israel, American Jewry has a smaller, less well financed, but increasingly vocal left wing.
Emblematic of this faction is Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace. This national organization of American Jews is headed by Marcia Freedman, a former member of the Knesset. It is committed to a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It says many American Jews share this perspective, but are reluctant to express themselves for fear they may bring harm to Israel and the Jewish people. And it has rejected the knee-jerk “no play-no pay” approach of the U.S. House of Representatives.
While saying it is “deeply troubled” by the Hamas victory because its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its resort to terror and violence that target innocent civilians, it is urging the Bush Administration “to maintain a cautious approach to the new Palestinian government, so as to preserve the future possibility of bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.”
.
In a letter to President Bush signed by, at last count, 100 prominent rabbis, the group points out that the Palestinians conducted a free, fair, and democratic election, “something that is still too rare in this region”. It calls on Hamas to
"recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace", but also calls on Bush to embark upon “constructive engagement” with the new Palestinian government, to encourage “moderates such as President Mahmoud Abbas and sustain the ceasefire that has allowed for relative calm over the past year”.
The rabbis caution that deterioration in the plight of Palestinians “only increases support for extremism, which, in turn, endangers Israel.” They urge “continued funding for indirect assistance to the Palestinian people via NGOs, with the appropriate conditions to ensure that it does not reach the hands of terrorists.” They exhort the President “to leave open the door for those Palestinians who are committed to working for a negotiated, two-state resolution of this conflict.”
The nightmare scenario for this branch of American Jewry is that if the U.S. and the E.U. shut off funding for the Palestinian Authority, the PA will turn to Iran and to other anti-Israel Muslim states for resources.
At a time when Bush is preparing to start broadcasting into Iran, reaching out to Iranian students to come to the U.S., and planning financial support for Iranian pro-democracy NGOs, the emergence of an Iranian hegemon in Palestine looms as a major migraine.
The Bush Administration is also concerned that rejecting a freely-elected Hamas government will confirm the widely held perception that the U.S. is all for elections, providing they produce the result it wants. That would do further damage to the credibility of America’s crusade to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East – already in dangerously parlous condition in Iraq and elsewhere in the neighborhood. It is also likely to enhance the influence of Islamist political movements throughout the region and constrain America’s allies in the “Global War on Terror.”
The Bush Administration, along with the even more generous European supporters of “a new, improved” Palestinian Authority, clearly misread the temperature of Palestinian voters. But whether Palestinians voted for “terror” or for “change” is now irrelevant. The West is stuck with the facts on the ground. The election of Hamas was another stick in the eye of the Bush agenda.
Now, the so-called Quartet can move cautiously toward engagement or it can open the door for Iran to plant its flag deeply into Palestinian consciousness.
Which leaves the U.S. and its European friends with no good options at all. To implement a policy of “trust but verify”, Bush desperately needs all of American Jewry, plus the pro-Israel right-wing Christians, to present a supportive united front. This constituency is a major influence on the Government of Israel.
But, given the fractious rivalry of ideologies between these groups, it is far from a slam-dunk to think he’ll get it.
On the heels of the surprise victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary election, President George W. Bush is discovering just how difficult it is to try to herd a bunch of cats.
Some members of his ordinarily supportive Jewish-American pro-Israel constituency are distinctly unhappy that Bush insisted on holding on-time elections, producing what they consider to be disastrous results. Others are suspicious that, despite his rhetorical assurances not to have anything to do with terrorists, he has left the door a bit ajar and may be pressured by his European and Arab allies into resorting to realpolitik. Mirroring the sentiments of the Israeli right-wing, powerful groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) want that door slammed shut until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel’s right exist and renounces violence.
And U.S. fundamentalist groups on the Christian right, which have been strong supporters of Israel of late, take pretty much the same view as their more hawkish Jewish-American counterparts.
These groups are vital constituencies in Bush’s base. Both have lots of influence in the White House and in the House and Senate and, with Congressional elections due next November, could make the President’s life almost as complicated as dealing with Hamas.
A further complication is that the Jewish community in the U.S. is far from homogenous. As in Israel, American Jewry has a smaller, less well financed, but increasingly vocal left wing.
Emblematic of this faction is Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace. This national organization of American Jews is headed by Marcia Freedman, a former member of the Knesset. It is committed to a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It says many American Jews share this perspective, but are reluctant to express themselves for fear they may bring harm to Israel and the Jewish people. And it has rejected the knee-jerk “no play-no pay” approach of the U.S. House of Representatives.
While saying it is “deeply troubled” by the Hamas victory because its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its resort to terror and violence that target innocent civilians, it is urging the Bush Administration “to maintain a cautious approach to the new Palestinian government, so as to preserve the future possibility of bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.”
.
In a letter to President Bush signed by, at last count, 100 prominent rabbis, the group points out that the Palestinians conducted a free, fair, and democratic election, “something that is still too rare in this region”. It calls on Hamas to
"recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace", but also calls on Bush to embark upon “constructive engagement” with the new Palestinian government, to encourage “moderates such as President Mahmoud Abbas and sustain the ceasefire that has allowed for relative calm over the past year”.
The rabbis caution that deterioration in the plight of Palestinians “only increases support for extremism, which, in turn, endangers Israel.” They urge “continued funding for indirect assistance to the Palestinian people via NGOs, with the appropriate conditions to ensure that it does not reach the hands of terrorists.” They exhort the President “to leave open the door for those Palestinians who are committed to working for a negotiated, two-state resolution of this conflict.”
The nightmare scenario for this branch of American Jewry is that if the U.S. and the E.U. shut off funding for the Palestinian Authority, the PA will turn to Iran and to other anti-Israel Muslim states for resources.
At a time when Bush is preparing to start broadcasting into Iran, reaching out to Iranian students to come to the U.S., and planning financial support for Iranian pro-democracy NGOs, the emergence of an Iranian hegemon in Palestine looms as a major migraine.
The Bush Administration is also concerned that rejecting a freely-elected Hamas government will confirm the widely held perception that the U.S. is all for elections, providing they produce the result it wants. That would do further damage to the credibility of America’s crusade to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East – already in dangerously parlous condition in Iraq and elsewhere in the neighborhood. It is also likely to enhance the influence of Islamist political movements throughout the region and constrain America’s allies in the “Global War on Terror.”
The Bush Administration, along with the even more generous European supporters of “a new, improved” Palestinian Authority, clearly misread the temperature of Palestinian voters. But whether Palestinians voted for “terror” or for “change” is now irrelevant. The West is stuck with the facts on the ground. The election of Hamas was another stick in the eye of the Bush agenda.
Now, the so-called Quartet can move cautiously toward engagement or it can open the door for Iran to plant its flag deeply into Palestinian consciousness.
Which leaves the U.S. and its European friends with no good options at all. To implement a policy of “trust but verify”, Bush desperately needs all of American Jewry, plus the pro-Israel right-wing Christians, to present a supportive united front. This constituency is a major influence on the Government of Israel.
But, given the fractious rivalry of ideologies between these groups, it is far from a slam-dunk to think he’ll get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
