By William Fisher
The U.S. Government has once again invoked the "state secrets" privilege, arguing that a public trial of a lawsuit against a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency for abducting and imprisoning a German citizen would lead to disclosure of information harmful to U.S. national security.
Once rarely used, the "state secrets" privilege has over the past five years become a routine defense used by the U.S. Government to keep cases from being tried.
The current case involves a suit brought by Khalid El-Masri. El-Masri was on vacation in Macedonia when he was kidnapped and transported to a CIA-run "black site" in Afghanistan. After several months of confinement in squalid conditions, he was abandoned on a hill in Albania with no explanation. He was never charged with a crime.
El-Masri, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is seeking an apology and money damages from the CIA. The first - and perhaps the last -- hearing on the case took place last week before a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
The lawsuit charges former CIA director George Tenet, other CIA officials and four U.S.-based aviation corporations with violations of US and universal human rights laws. It claims El-Masri was "victimized by the CIA's policy of 'extraordinary rendition'."
The Lebanese-born Al-Masri says he took a bus from Germany to Macedonia, where Macedonian agents confiscated his passport and detained him for 23 days, without access to anyone, including his wife.
He says he was then put in a diaper, a belt with chains to his wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold and a hood. He was put into a plane, his legs and arms spread-eagled and secured to the floor. He was drugged and flown to Afghanistan, where he was held in solitary confinement for five months before being dropped off in a remote rural section of Albania. He claims it was a CIA-leased aircraft that flew him to Afghanistan, and CIA agents who were responsible for his rendition to Afghanistan.
The aviation companies accused of transporting him during his detention are also protected by the "state secrets" privilege. A federal judge must decide whether to grant the government's motion to dismiss the case, but an ACLU spokesperson told IPS this could take weeks or months.
A parliamentary inquiry into El-Masri's kidnapping is also currently ongoing in Germany.
Speaking from Germany during a telephone news conference called last Friday by the ACLU, El-Masri said in response to our question that his objective is an explanation and an apology from the CIA.
According to Dr. Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University and an expert on terrorism, "Diplomatic assurances are trumped by the military, police and intelligence 'counterinsurgency' programs that the two Cold War superpowers instituted and still run in many of these countries that train police and military personnel in torture."
"The real attitude driving the 'rendition' efforts is: 'Having paid to train them in torture, why not get our money's worth'," he told us.
During her first meeting with the newly-elected German chancellor Angela Merkel several months ago, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted El-Masri's kidnapping and detention was the result of a "mistake" by the CIA. The incident threatened to again sour US relations with Germany, which Rice traveled to Europe to repair following Germany's opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.
But Rice has defended the practice of rendition, saying it was a vital tool in the war on terror. However, she has said the U.S. does not "send anyone to a country to be tortured."
"The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured," she said. "Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured."
But most human rights and foreign affairs experts believe that such "diplomatic assurances" are worthless. They say there is ample evidence that detainees who are "rendered" to other countries are frequently subjected to torture. The US has rendered prisoners to a number of countries that have notoriously poor human rights records, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan and Algeria, as well as to suspected CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
The existence of the Eastern European prisons was revealed by the Washington Post. The Post reported that prisoners were routinely tortured, using such techniques as "waterboarding" - submerging a prisoner in restraints in water to convince him he was drowning -- mock execution, prolonged shackling, being threatened with dogs, and "cold cell," in which prisoners are held naked in low temperatures and doused with cold water.
Last week, a special committee of the European Parliament issued an interim report concluding that the CIA has on several occasions illegally kidnapped and detained individuals in European countries. The report also found that the CIA detained and then secretly used airlines to transfer persons to countries like Egypt and Afghanistan, which routinely use torture during interrogations.
Rendition is known to have been a CIA practice for some years. But its frequency increased exponentially after 9/11, with reportedly dozens of prisoners being kidnapped from Italy, Sweden and other European countries. Italy is currently suing the US for kidnapping an Italian citizen on Italian soil.
The US Senate has passed an amendment mandating that the Defense Secretary inform Congress about U.S.-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries.
Last week, the US again refused the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to terrorism suspects held in secret detention centers.
Jakob Kellenberger, President of the ICRC, deplored the fact that the U.S. authorities had not moved closer to granting the ICRC access to persons held in undisclosed locations," the Geneva-based agency said.
Kellenberger said: "No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained."
The former senior Swiss diplomat said that the ICRC would continue to seek access to such people as a matter of priority.
Earlier, a report by investigators for the European Parliament said last month they had evidence that the CIA had flown 1,000 undeclared flights over Europe since 2001, in some cases transporting terrorist suspects abducted within the European Union to countries known to use torture.
But in an appearance before the UN Committee on Torture, the body that monitors compliance with the Geneva Convention, the lead State Department attorney labeled as "absurd" charges that prisoners being rendered were on all these flights.
He added that terrorist suspects could pose a threat to security if allowed to meet with ICRC representatives.
Addressing reporters after the hearing concluded, Bellinger said that provisions in the torture convention that prohibit transferring detainees to countries where they could be tortured do not apply to detainee "transfers that take place outside of the United States." He added, however, that the U.S. has "as a policy matter, applied exactly the same standards" to such transfers.
The "state secrets" privilege being used by the Government in the El-Masri case is a series of U.S. legal precedents allowing the federal government to dismiss legal cases that it claims would threaten foreign policy, military intelligence, or national security.
A relic of the Cold War with the then-Soviet Union, it has been invoked several times since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Judges have denied the privilege on only five occasions.
It was used against Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It has also been used to block legal actions by other "whistleblowers" who work in the national security field.
The ACLU told us, "There is an acute need for clarification of the state secrets doctrine because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court."
One of the hallmarks of the Bush Administration has been its use of legal opinions to block the due process protections that are basic to the American justice system. It can apparently find lawyers who will agree with just about any position the White House wishes to take. This dubious and secretive process - plus the abdication of any meaningful oversight by the Congress - has contributed to and continues to attempt to justify practices such as "rendition."
These practices have steadily eroded the credibility the US once had in observing the rule of law and championing the cause of human rights. This is a problem that won't be resolved through so-called public diplomacy. It goes to the heart of President Bush's foreign policy.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
CAN'T WE HAVE ANY FUN ANYMORE?
By William Fisher
Drat! It sounded so fun.
But just as our pre-schoolers were starting to get excited about this exciting new attraction came news that it's being shut down.
The attraction that's giving our little ones all the grief is called "waterboarding."
I only wish you could have seen the light in my little granddaughter's eyes when I suggested, "Let's go waterboarding, child."
So you can imagine how disappointed she was when, without so much as a by your leave, the sponsors announced they were discontinuing this novel entertainment.
What shall we do? What shall we do? We may yet have to take our little ones to Disneyworld!
The impresario of waterboarding, you see, is the U.S. Government - the Army to be specific, and it's working on an updated edition of its field manual for interrogations. Waterboarding, they tell us, not only won't be one of the attractions - it will be banned and banished forever.
My granddaughter's dismay notwithstanding, maybe it's just as well; waterboarding is not for the faint of heart. It involves submerging one's head in water until he's sure he's going to drown.
The government has said that banning this stellar attraction isn't an admission that anyone ever used it. But if that's so, we have to wonder why the Army feels it needs to be mentioned in its new manual.
And just to make matters worse for my granddaughter, the water-boarding ban will extend to the Central Intelligence Agency and others who might be playing the game. So no CIA theme parks either. Unless they can find some way to get around it.
My granddaughter has only John McCain to blame. Last fall, the Senator introduced a new law that would ban waterboarding and similar amusements. President Bush was very cross with the Senator, but he signed the law anyway (though adding a "signing statement" that gave us hope he didn't actually intend to obey it). That law requires all American agencies to use only those fun and games specified in the Army's field manual. Waterboarding won't be one of them.
The good news for my granddaughter is that release of the new Field Manual has been delayed. The reason is that congress objects to several provisions, including one that would allow tougher fun and games for unlawful combatants than for traditional prisoners of war.
While my granddaughter won't understand this (a lot of us grown-ups don't either), the civilian leaders at the Defense Department -- who are supervising the rewriting of the new manual - believe along with the president that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or irregular fighters. They think the government should have greater latitude when they're interrogating people who refuse to play by the rules.
Others, particularly in Congress, think that creating different rules for enemy prisoners of war and irregular fighters contradicts the McCain law, which requires a "uniform standard."
I assure you my granddaughter hasn't the slightest interest in unlawful combatants versus traditional prisoners of war - or the Geneva Convention, for that matter (unless maybe it's another theme park).
What she cares about is that a bunch of grown-ups are bickering while she gets shipped off to Seven Flags.
Kids these days just can't catch a break!
Drat! It sounded so fun.
But just as our pre-schoolers were starting to get excited about this exciting new attraction came news that it's being shut down.
The attraction that's giving our little ones all the grief is called "waterboarding."
I only wish you could have seen the light in my little granddaughter's eyes when I suggested, "Let's go waterboarding, child."
So you can imagine how disappointed she was when, without so much as a by your leave, the sponsors announced they were discontinuing this novel entertainment.
What shall we do? What shall we do? We may yet have to take our little ones to Disneyworld!
The impresario of waterboarding, you see, is the U.S. Government - the Army to be specific, and it's working on an updated edition of its field manual for interrogations. Waterboarding, they tell us, not only won't be one of the attractions - it will be banned and banished forever.
My granddaughter's dismay notwithstanding, maybe it's just as well; waterboarding is not for the faint of heart. It involves submerging one's head in water until he's sure he's going to drown.
The government has said that banning this stellar attraction isn't an admission that anyone ever used it. But if that's so, we have to wonder why the Army feels it needs to be mentioned in its new manual.
And just to make matters worse for my granddaughter, the water-boarding ban will extend to the Central Intelligence Agency and others who might be playing the game. So no CIA theme parks either. Unless they can find some way to get around it.
My granddaughter has only John McCain to blame. Last fall, the Senator introduced a new law that would ban waterboarding and similar amusements. President Bush was very cross with the Senator, but he signed the law anyway (though adding a "signing statement" that gave us hope he didn't actually intend to obey it). That law requires all American agencies to use only those fun and games specified in the Army's field manual. Waterboarding won't be one of them.
The good news for my granddaughter is that release of the new Field Manual has been delayed. The reason is that congress objects to several provisions, including one that would allow tougher fun and games for unlawful combatants than for traditional prisoners of war.
While my granddaughter won't understand this (a lot of us grown-ups don't either), the civilian leaders at the Defense Department -- who are supervising the rewriting of the new manual - believe along with the president that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or irregular fighters. They think the government should have greater latitude when they're interrogating people who refuse to play by the rules.
Others, particularly in Congress, think that creating different rules for enemy prisoners of war and irregular fighters contradicts the McCain law, which requires a "uniform standard."
I assure you my granddaughter hasn't the slightest interest in unlawful combatants versus traditional prisoners of war - or the Geneva Convention, for that matter (unless maybe it's another theme park).
What she cares about is that a bunch of grown-ups are bickering while she gets shipped off to Seven Flags.
Kids these days just can't catch a break!
Friday, May 12, 2006
OUR $2 BILLION LEVERAGE
By William Fisher
This is a big day for me: I am publicly confessing to agreeing with Max Boot.
The often conservative-leaning foreign policy expert from the Council on Foreign Relations wrote last week in the Los Angeles Times, "If Bush wants to show that he is still serious about promoting 'the expansion of freedom', he could begin by making an example of Egypt...Why, oh why, is this repugnant regime still getting $2 billion a year in American subsidies?"
Bravo, Max.
The genesis of that $2 billion in military and economic aid was Egypt's decision to recognize the State of Israel back in 1982. It was the first such decision in the Arab world, and not an easy one for Egypt to make. It resulted from the courageous visit of then President Anwar Sadat to Israel in 1977 --courage that Sadat paid for with his life. The two countries haven't exactly been pals since then, but they have exchanged ambassadors and maintained proper, if often cool, diplomatic relations. The U.S. expected Egypt to play a "moderating role" to cool Middle East tensions.
The $2 billion was Egypt's reward - and it has been the gift that keeps on giving - despite the steady flow of anti-Semitic rhetoric that emanates from Egypt's largely state-controlled press.
Part of that $2 billion is spent on programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development - USAID. I know about these programs up close and personal - I managed a couple of them for several years in the late 1990s and the earlier years of this century.
Like most USAID programs, it has really helpful components like improving physical infrastructure, rural agricultural practices, and maternal and children's health. It has hopeful but largely ineffective components designed to help Egypt's bureaucracy to adopt more rational policies, promote public sector accountability, and curb runaway public and private corruption.
The largest slice of these programs is built on the premise that strengthening the country's private sector will create jobs, introduce equity into the banking system, enhance capital formation, encourage transparency, and help the country to develop the skills it needs to benefit from globalization.
Despite USAID's best efforts, these programs have to be judged to have failed. For many years, Egypt has had one of the highest rates of unemployment in the Middle East. More than 75% per cent of college graduates remain unemployed for years after graduation. Until the U.S. and Europe dramatically pulled back on granting visas to Middle Easterners, the country suffered a debilitating brain-drain. And, despite a few show trials, corruption has remained rampant in both public and private sectors. The middle class has shrunk, the super-rich have gotten richer, and the gulf between the super-rich and the ordinary citizen has become the Grand Canyon of the Middle East.
So despite our $2 billion, Egypt remains an economic basket case.
And as for democracy-promotion programs, forget it: USAID has never been able to sponsor any such programs. There are three reasons.
First, Egypt has a substantial, courageous and vocal community of non-governmental organizations that advocate for human rights, gender equality, labor and consumer protection, and educational and health care reform. But these organizations are forced to operate under a draconian NGO law that demands that they register with the government and that places severe restrictions on what they can do, who they can accept contributions from, and who sits on their boards of directors.
Second, it is one of the daily frustrations USAID faces that any proposed aid program must have the agreement of the host country. So it is Egypt, not the U.S., who decides what USAID can and can't do. USAID had tried many times to use its $2 billion leverage to introduce, for example, programs to reform the country's distorted educational curriculum. But these efforts have thus far been in vain, and many have questioned the extent to which the U.S. is prepared to use its leverage.
Third, the whole country continues to live under the so-called Emergency Law, passed 25 years ago to protect the population from Islamic extremists, such as the one that assassinated Anwar Sadat. Under this law, the average Egyptian citizen has zero civil liberties. Parliament - dominated for years by the president's National Democratic Party -- defines political parties and, ergo, who can run for what. The emergency law empowers the government to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone it considers a 'dissident' - without charges, without lawyers, and without trials.
Which brings us to today.
In his second inaugural, President Bush vowed to spread freedom throughout the world. Egypt's aging dictator, Hosni Mubarak, responded with a pledge to open the country's presidential election to multiple political parties. The result was Mubarak getting more than 80 per cent of a small turnout, and his principal challenger ending up with five years in the slammer on dubious charges of forging signatures to get on the ballot.
The U.S. said is was "disappointed."
Then followed a parliamentary election - marked by widespread violence and electoral fraud. Mubarak's party toadies forced voters away from polling places and violently broke up rallies to minimize the gains of the main opposition group, the once-violent Muslim Brotherhood. The banned Brotherhood won 88 seats anyway.
Again, the U.S. said it was "disappointed."
When two judges demanded that they be allowed to investigate the rigged election, they were stripped of their judicial immunity, opening the way to their being questioned by the dreaded Security Services and criminally charged. And when peaceful demonstrators gathered to express their support for the judges, the cops descended with clubs and teargas.
And, once again, the U.S. said it was "disappointed."
Then came King Mubarak pushing a two-year extension of the Emergency Law through parliament, despite his repeated pre- and post-election promises to repeal it and replace it with a rational anti-terrorist law.
When human rights groups protected, Egyptian security officials broke up their demonstration and arrested eleven of them, including an award-winning blogger, Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam. Human Rights Watch reported that more than 100 people had been detained over the previous two weeks "for exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression." Approximately half of those arrested were members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were putting up posters and distributing leaflets protesting the emergency rule extension. The others were detained for demonstrating in support of a group of judges campaigning for greater judicial independence.
"These new arrests indicate that President Mubarak intends to silence all peaceful opposition," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division.
The U.S. again expressed its "disappointment."
What happened to Dubya's fervor for spreading freedom? Is "disappointment" synonymous with actually using the leverage gained by $2 billion a year?
Now we learn that the State Department wants to spend $75 million supporting pro-democracy groups in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. As reported by my colleagues at InterPress News Service (IPS), the money is to be spent on empowering civil society, providing supplemental requests, broadcasting into Iran, promoting democracy, offering scholarships and fellowships, and enhancing communication.
Max Boot is right about the obscenity of our $2 billion support for the Mubarak regime - and funding for many other Mubaraks in the Middle East and elsewhere. But I'm sorry to say I have to characterize as wishful thinking his suggestion to "Take the money away from Mubarak and give it to democracy-promotion programs across the Middle East. That would be a shot heard 'round the world."
Because guess what? Nobody wants it.
Nobel Peace Prize-winner and Iranian human rights advocate and dissident Shirin Ebadi was asked about the State Department appropriation on PBS last week. "Will such a program be helpful to assist democracy advocates like yourself?" asked the News Hour's Margaret Warner.
Ebadi's response: "No, I don't think it will benefit people like me because whoever speaks about democracy will be accused of having been paid by the U.S."
Ebadi is not alone.
Her position is not surprisingly held by governments in the Middle East. But it is also held by many civil society activists in the region.
The official governmental responses of countries in the Middle East to this new State Department initiative are predictable. They all contain a huge element of hypocrisy. None of these countries - none - are anything even remotely approaching democracies. None allow dissent, freedom of speech or association. None have a free press. None do much to protect women's rights or any other kinds of rights.
But all of them have courageous communities of NGOs and individual rights activists who risk their freedom every day simply by speaking out.
For many of these advocates, refusing State Department funds stems not from the threat of still more repression - they're used to that. For these rights defenders, they don't want our money because they feel that America has forfeited the legitimacy to be a credible champion of their values.
By invading Iraq. By preaching human rights while abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. By running secret CIA prisons. By waging a silent war on Muslims at home. By snooping on its own citizens. By extolling democracy while cozying up to dictators like Hosni Mubarak as long as they pledge fealty in the Global War on Terror. By failing to show any consistent, high-level commitment to getting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on the two-state roadmap. By a bring-it-on president who dismisses critics as unpatriotic while exhorting his citizens to "stay the course."
These U.S. actions have come at a high price. They have cost us our once-vaunted position as the world's most consistent advocate for human rights.
Reputation, once lost, is exceeding difficult to regain. It may take us a generation of policy-change to reclaim it.
But why not begin this journey of a thousand miles with the single step of using the leverage we still have to stand up against the Mubaraks of the world? That would, as Max Boot writes, be "a shot heard 'round the world."
This is a big day for me: I am publicly confessing to agreeing with Max Boot.
The often conservative-leaning foreign policy expert from the Council on Foreign Relations wrote last week in the Los Angeles Times, "If Bush wants to show that he is still serious about promoting 'the expansion of freedom', he could begin by making an example of Egypt...Why, oh why, is this repugnant regime still getting $2 billion a year in American subsidies?"
Bravo, Max.
The genesis of that $2 billion in military and economic aid was Egypt's decision to recognize the State of Israel back in 1982. It was the first such decision in the Arab world, and not an easy one for Egypt to make. It resulted from the courageous visit of then President Anwar Sadat to Israel in 1977 --courage that Sadat paid for with his life. The two countries haven't exactly been pals since then, but they have exchanged ambassadors and maintained proper, if often cool, diplomatic relations. The U.S. expected Egypt to play a "moderating role" to cool Middle East tensions.
The $2 billion was Egypt's reward - and it has been the gift that keeps on giving - despite the steady flow of anti-Semitic rhetoric that emanates from Egypt's largely state-controlled press.
Part of that $2 billion is spent on programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development - USAID. I know about these programs up close and personal - I managed a couple of them for several years in the late 1990s and the earlier years of this century.
Like most USAID programs, it has really helpful components like improving physical infrastructure, rural agricultural practices, and maternal and children's health. It has hopeful but largely ineffective components designed to help Egypt's bureaucracy to adopt more rational policies, promote public sector accountability, and curb runaway public and private corruption.
The largest slice of these programs is built on the premise that strengthening the country's private sector will create jobs, introduce equity into the banking system, enhance capital formation, encourage transparency, and help the country to develop the skills it needs to benefit from globalization.
Despite USAID's best efforts, these programs have to be judged to have failed. For many years, Egypt has had one of the highest rates of unemployment in the Middle East. More than 75% per cent of college graduates remain unemployed for years after graduation. Until the U.S. and Europe dramatically pulled back on granting visas to Middle Easterners, the country suffered a debilitating brain-drain. And, despite a few show trials, corruption has remained rampant in both public and private sectors. The middle class has shrunk, the super-rich have gotten richer, and the gulf between the super-rich and the ordinary citizen has become the Grand Canyon of the Middle East.
So despite our $2 billion, Egypt remains an economic basket case.
And as for democracy-promotion programs, forget it: USAID has never been able to sponsor any such programs. There are three reasons.
First, Egypt has a substantial, courageous and vocal community of non-governmental organizations that advocate for human rights, gender equality, labor and consumer protection, and educational and health care reform. But these organizations are forced to operate under a draconian NGO law that demands that they register with the government and that places severe restrictions on what they can do, who they can accept contributions from, and who sits on their boards of directors.
Second, it is one of the daily frustrations USAID faces that any proposed aid program must have the agreement of the host country. So it is Egypt, not the U.S., who decides what USAID can and can't do. USAID had tried many times to use its $2 billion leverage to introduce, for example, programs to reform the country's distorted educational curriculum. But these efforts have thus far been in vain, and many have questioned the extent to which the U.S. is prepared to use its leverage.
Third, the whole country continues to live under the so-called Emergency Law, passed 25 years ago to protect the population from Islamic extremists, such as the one that assassinated Anwar Sadat. Under this law, the average Egyptian citizen has zero civil liberties. Parliament - dominated for years by the president's National Democratic Party -- defines political parties and, ergo, who can run for what. The emergency law empowers the government to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone it considers a 'dissident' - without charges, without lawyers, and without trials.
Which brings us to today.
In his second inaugural, President Bush vowed to spread freedom throughout the world. Egypt's aging dictator, Hosni Mubarak, responded with a pledge to open the country's presidential election to multiple political parties. The result was Mubarak getting more than 80 per cent of a small turnout, and his principal challenger ending up with five years in the slammer on dubious charges of forging signatures to get on the ballot.
The U.S. said is was "disappointed."
Then followed a parliamentary election - marked by widespread violence and electoral fraud. Mubarak's party toadies forced voters away from polling places and violently broke up rallies to minimize the gains of the main opposition group, the once-violent Muslim Brotherhood. The banned Brotherhood won 88 seats anyway.
Again, the U.S. said it was "disappointed."
When two judges demanded that they be allowed to investigate the rigged election, they were stripped of their judicial immunity, opening the way to their being questioned by the dreaded Security Services and criminally charged. And when peaceful demonstrators gathered to express their support for the judges, the cops descended with clubs and teargas.
And, once again, the U.S. said it was "disappointed."
Then came King Mubarak pushing a two-year extension of the Emergency Law through parliament, despite his repeated pre- and post-election promises to repeal it and replace it with a rational anti-terrorist law.
When human rights groups protected, Egyptian security officials broke up their demonstration and arrested eleven of them, including an award-winning blogger, Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam. Human Rights Watch reported that more than 100 people had been detained over the previous two weeks "for exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression." Approximately half of those arrested were members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were putting up posters and distributing leaflets protesting the emergency rule extension. The others were detained for demonstrating in support of a group of judges campaigning for greater judicial independence.
"These new arrests indicate that President Mubarak intends to silence all peaceful opposition," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division.
The U.S. again expressed its "disappointment."
What happened to Dubya's fervor for spreading freedom? Is "disappointment" synonymous with actually using the leverage gained by $2 billion a year?
Now we learn that the State Department wants to spend $75 million supporting pro-democracy groups in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. As reported by my colleagues at InterPress News Service (IPS), the money is to be spent on empowering civil society, providing supplemental requests, broadcasting into Iran, promoting democracy, offering scholarships and fellowships, and enhancing communication.
Max Boot is right about the obscenity of our $2 billion support for the Mubarak regime - and funding for many other Mubaraks in the Middle East and elsewhere. But I'm sorry to say I have to characterize as wishful thinking his suggestion to "Take the money away from Mubarak and give it to democracy-promotion programs across the Middle East. That would be a shot heard 'round the world."
Because guess what? Nobody wants it.
Nobel Peace Prize-winner and Iranian human rights advocate and dissident Shirin Ebadi was asked about the State Department appropriation on PBS last week. "Will such a program be helpful to assist democracy advocates like yourself?" asked the News Hour's Margaret Warner.
Ebadi's response: "No, I don't think it will benefit people like me because whoever speaks about democracy will be accused of having been paid by the U.S."
Ebadi is not alone.
Her position is not surprisingly held by governments in the Middle East. But it is also held by many civil society activists in the region.
The official governmental responses of countries in the Middle East to this new State Department initiative are predictable. They all contain a huge element of hypocrisy. None of these countries - none - are anything even remotely approaching democracies. None allow dissent, freedom of speech or association. None have a free press. None do much to protect women's rights or any other kinds of rights.
But all of them have courageous communities of NGOs and individual rights activists who risk their freedom every day simply by speaking out.
For many of these advocates, refusing State Department funds stems not from the threat of still more repression - they're used to that. For these rights defenders, they don't want our money because they feel that America has forfeited the legitimacy to be a credible champion of their values.
By invading Iraq. By preaching human rights while abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. By running secret CIA prisons. By waging a silent war on Muslims at home. By snooping on its own citizens. By extolling democracy while cozying up to dictators like Hosni Mubarak as long as they pledge fealty in the Global War on Terror. By failing to show any consistent, high-level commitment to getting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on the two-state roadmap. By a bring-it-on president who dismisses critics as unpatriotic while exhorting his citizens to "stay the course."
These U.S. actions have come at a high price. They have cost us our once-vaunted position as the world's most consistent advocate for human rights.
Reputation, once lost, is exceeding difficult to regain. It may take us a generation of policy-change to reclaim it.
But why not begin this journey of a thousand miles with the single step of using the leverage we still have to stand up against the Mubaraks of the world? That would, as Max Boot writes, be "a shot heard 'round the world."
Monday, May 08, 2006
DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE
By William Fisher
After years of ignoring the United Nations panel charged with oversight of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) -- a centerpiece of international human rights law -- the U.S. government turned up at a meeting of the group in Geneva with a delegation of more than two dozen lawyers and other officials to affirm that the U.S. is "absolutely committed to uphold its national and international obligations to eradicate torture" and that "there are no exceptions to this prohibition."
That's what I call chutzpah!
The government's theory must be that the more lawyers you bring to Geneva, the easier it will be to bob and weave your way around those pesky questions people keep asking about Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo, renditions and secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
Especially if your delegation doesn't include anyone from the CIA.
Heading this delegation of representatives from the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, is State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger III.
With an absolutely straight face, Bellinger told the Committee Against Torture that despite instances of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the U.S. has not systematically mistreated prisoners and remained committed to a global ban on torture.
But members of the panel referred to a report by investigators for the European Parliament who said last month they had evidence that the C.I.A. had flown 1,000 undeclared flights over Europe since 2001, in some cases transporting terrorist suspects abducted within the European Union to countries known to use torture.
Bellinger said he could not answer questions about intelligence-related activities, but asserted that the allegation that those planes carried terror suspects was an "absurd insinuation."
He added that in cases where the government has "rendered" prisoners to countries with poor human rights records, it has sought assurances that they will not be tortured.
But the panel wasn't buying the "diplomatic assurances" argument. "The very fact that you are asking for diplomatic assurances means you are in doubt," said Andreas Mavrommatis, chairman of the committee.
The "diplomatic assurances" charade has been known - and discredited -- for years. But "rendition" is a policy the administration defends, saying it helps to get dangerous individuals out of the U.S.
In one of the better-publicized cases of "rendition", Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained by U.S. authorities after arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport from a vacation in North Africa. Instead of being allowed to continue his journey to Canada, he was detained by U.S. officials, then shipped off to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. He tried to sue the U.S. government, but his suit was dismissed because the Justice Department argued that trial would involve divulging "state secrets" in open court.
In another "rendition" case, a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, was abducted while on vacation in Macedonia in December 2003, flown to Afghanistan where he remained in jail without charge until late May 2004, when he was taken to a deserted country road and set free. He too has brought suit against the U.S. government.
Bellinger also defended the U.S. decision not to grant prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorist suspects could pose a threat to security if allowed to meet with
representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions, he said.
Such a security threat has clearly been applied by the Bush administration to the alleged key figures in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubeida. These men are being held in undisclosed locations without access to the Red Cross or to legal counsel, and have reportedly been subjected to "aggressive interrogation" techniques such as "waterboarding," in which the prisoner is led to believe he is drowning. And at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government has Mohamed al-Qahtani, who it now claims is the real would-be 20th hijacker.
Many legal experts believe that U.S. treatment of these suspects is the principal reason they will never be tried in a court of law, civilian or military. It is unlikely that either would admit evidence obtained through torture.
That's one reason the Justice Department made such a big deal of the trial, conviction and sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was clearly a bit player in Al-Quida who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. He was found guilty of conspiracy and of lying to the FBI, thus preventing the government from taking actions to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
Meanwhile, back in Geneva, attorney Bellinger offered a self-congratulatory tribute to U.S. commitment to the rule of law. "The timing of our report comes at a difficult time for the United States," he said. "But we did not shy away from coming."
Members of the panel were clearly unimpressed. Some expressed skepticism about aspects of the American presentation. For example, Fernando Mariño Menendez of Spain cited data from human rights groups saying that of 600 American service members or intelligence officers accused of having been involved in the torture or murder of detainees, only 10 have received prison terms of a year or more.
Addressing reporters after the hearing concluded, Bellinger said that provisions in the torture convention that prohibit transferring detainees to countries where they could be tortured do not apply to detainee "transfers that take place outside of the United States." He added, however, that the U.S. has "as a policy matter, applied exactly the same standards" to such transfers.
Members of the U.S. delegation also emphasized that there have been "relatively few actual cases of abuse" of terror detainees and Bellinger said that some allegations have been widely exaggerated.
Deputy US Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Stimson told the UN panel that of the 120 detainee deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, abuse was suspected in only 29 cases. He said that the deaths had been investigated and appropriate action taken. Stimson also said that no detainees have died at Guantanamo Bay.
For years, Bush administration officials have argued that international human rights laws should not constrain the conduct of United States forces. By sending its oversized delegation to Geneva, the administration is belatedly seeking to restore credibility to its record on prisoner treatment by affirming support for the CAT.
But pulling off that sleight of hand is going to take a lot more than a couple of dozen lawyers turning up in Geneva.
They could start by including a CIA representative in our next delegation to Geneva.
Then President Bush could rescind the "signing statement" he attached to the McCain anti-torture legislation, effectively giving himself the right to ignore the law whenever he says it's in the interest of national security.
That's known as Dubya's Rule of Law.
After years of ignoring the United Nations panel charged with oversight of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) -- a centerpiece of international human rights law -- the U.S. government turned up at a meeting of the group in Geneva with a delegation of more than two dozen lawyers and other officials to affirm that the U.S. is "absolutely committed to uphold its national and international obligations to eradicate torture" and that "there are no exceptions to this prohibition."
That's what I call chutzpah!
The government's theory must be that the more lawyers you bring to Geneva, the easier it will be to bob and weave your way around those pesky questions people keep asking about Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo, renditions and secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
Especially if your delegation doesn't include anyone from the CIA.
Heading this delegation of representatives from the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, is State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger III.
With an absolutely straight face, Bellinger told the Committee Against Torture that despite instances of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the U.S. has not systematically mistreated prisoners and remained committed to a global ban on torture.
But members of the panel referred to a report by investigators for the European Parliament who said last month they had evidence that the C.I.A. had flown 1,000 undeclared flights over Europe since 2001, in some cases transporting terrorist suspects abducted within the European Union to countries known to use torture.
Bellinger said he could not answer questions about intelligence-related activities, but asserted that the allegation that those planes carried terror suspects was an "absurd insinuation."
He added that in cases where the government has "rendered" prisoners to countries with poor human rights records, it has sought assurances that they will not be tortured.
But the panel wasn't buying the "diplomatic assurances" argument. "The very fact that you are asking for diplomatic assurances means you are in doubt," said Andreas Mavrommatis, chairman of the committee.
The "diplomatic assurances" charade has been known - and discredited -- for years. But "rendition" is a policy the administration defends, saying it helps to get dangerous individuals out of the U.S.
In one of the better-publicized cases of "rendition", Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained by U.S. authorities after arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport from a vacation in North Africa. Instead of being allowed to continue his journey to Canada, he was detained by U.S. officials, then shipped off to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. He tried to sue the U.S. government, but his suit was dismissed because the Justice Department argued that trial would involve divulging "state secrets" in open court.
In another "rendition" case, a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, was abducted while on vacation in Macedonia in December 2003, flown to Afghanistan where he remained in jail without charge until late May 2004, when he was taken to a deserted country road and set free. He too has brought suit against the U.S. government.
Bellinger also defended the U.S. decision not to grant prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorist suspects could pose a threat to security if allowed to meet with
representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions, he said.
Such a security threat has clearly been applied by the Bush administration to the alleged key figures in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubeida. These men are being held in undisclosed locations without access to the Red Cross or to legal counsel, and have reportedly been subjected to "aggressive interrogation" techniques such as "waterboarding," in which the prisoner is led to believe he is drowning. And at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government has Mohamed al-Qahtani, who it now claims is the real would-be 20th hijacker.
Many legal experts believe that U.S. treatment of these suspects is the principal reason they will never be tried in a court of law, civilian or military. It is unlikely that either would admit evidence obtained through torture.
That's one reason the Justice Department made such a big deal of the trial, conviction and sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was clearly a bit player in Al-Quida who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. He was found guilty of conspiracy and of lying to the FBI, thus preventing the government from taking actions to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
Meanwhile, back in Geneva, attorney Bellinger offered a self-congratulatory tribute to U.S. commitment to the rule of law. "The timing of our report comes at a difficult time for the United States," he said. "But we did not shy away from coming."
Members of the panel were clearly unimpressed. Some expressed skepticism about aspects of the American presentation. For example, Fernando Mariño Menendez of Spain cited data from human rights groups saying that of 600 American service members or intelligence officers accused of having been involved in the torture or murder of detainees, only 10 have received prison terms of a year or more.
Addressing reporters after the hearing concluded, Bellinger said that provisions in the torture convention that prohibit transferring detainees to countries where they could be tortured do not apply to detainee "transfers that take place outside of the United States." He added, however, that the U.S. has "as a policy matter, applied exactly the same standards" to such transfers.
Members of the U.S. delegation also emphasized that there have been "relatively few actual cases of abuse" of terror detainees and Bellinger said that some allegations have been widely exaggerated.
Deputy US Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Stimson told the UN panel that of the 120 detainee deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, abuse was suspected in only 29 cases. He said that the deaths had been investigated and appropriate action taken. Stimson also said that no detainees have died at Guantanamo Bay.
For years, Bush administration officials have argued that international human rights laws should not constrain the conduct of United States forces. By sending its oversized delegation to Geneva, the administration is belatedly seeking to restore credibility to its record on prisoner treatment by affirming support for the CAT.
But pulling off that sleight of hand is going to take a lot more than a couple of dozen lawyers turning up in Geneva.
They could start by including a CIA representative in our next delegation to Geneva.
Then President Bush could rescind the "signing statement" he attached to the McCain anti-torture legislation, effectively giving himself the right to ignore the law whenever he says it's in the interest of national security.
That's known as Dubya's Rule of Law.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
REMEMBER THE EDSEL!
By William Fisher
Nobel Peace Prize-winner and Iranian human rights advocate and dissident Shirin Ebadi was asked on PBS last week about the $75 million the U.S. State Department intends to spend supporting pro-democracy groups in her country.
“Will such a program be helpful to assist democracy advocates like yourself?” asked the News Hour’s Margaret Warner.
Ebadi’s response: “No, I don’t think it will benefit people like me because whoever speaks about democracy will be accused of having been paid by the U.S.” She went on to ask, “Can democracy be brought to people by bombs? Democracy is a culture. It has to come from within a society, not brought by America to a society.”
That’s about as good a capsule summary of America’s public diplomacy dilemma as I’ve heard.
The essence of that dilemma is that the U.S. is spending a great deal of money on getting its messages out -- $597 million last year alone, much of it in the Middle East. Yet successive opinion polls show that people in the neighborhood have increasingly negative opinions about American policies.
Those of us who live in the U.S. know that there are gazillion positive stories to tell about our country. And no doubt Karen Hughes and her public diplomacy colleagues at the State Department are trying hard to tell them.
But these stories are being drowned out by the realities and perceptions of our target audiences.
The U.S. is now thought of in the Middle East not just as the country that brought jazz and hamburgers, Hollywood movies, and the Bill of Rights to the world. We are thought of as the country that cooked the intelligence books to sell the American people on invading Iraq. That preached about human rights while abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. That is waging a silent war on Muslims at home. That is seen as ignoring Palestinians while helping Israelis. That is led by a swaggering Texas-style “bring it on” president who dismisses critics as unpatriotic as he exhorts his citizens to “stay the course.”
Against that incessant background of “white noise,” how can the U.S. hope to be heard?
The truth is it can’t. Not now. Not until the policies change.
Because every credible poll in the Middle East tells us that Arabs and other Muslims don’t hate the American people or American culture – they hate the policies of the Bush Administration.
And that would be true even if the strategies, tactics, and mechanics of our public diplomacy efforts were impeccably crafted. But they aren’t.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office weighed in on the subject with a new report. It found the State Department’s efforts to reach more than 1.5 billion Muslims in 58 countries lack a strong central message and a strategic plan of communication, and that as many as 30 percent of public diplomacy posts in the Middle East are filled by officers with limited language skills.
It reported that Public Diplomacy officers abroad don’t spend enough time talking to local audiences and, while the program is aimed primarily at younger audiences, there is a shortage of basic, core messages, and a lack of analysis of the program's results.
To explain U.S. foreign policy more effectively, the GAO recommended that
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provide our embassies and consulates with clear written guidance on priority goals and tactics.
At the end of the day, however, it’s not going to matter how professionally our public diplomacy efforts are organized and executed, or how much more money we throw at this activity.
Karen Hughes, longtime Bush friend and confidante, has been dealt a lousy hand by the President. He asked her to take on an impossible job for which nothing in her background equips her. I’m sure she is working hard and really trying, but the enemy she faces is not the difficulty of actually getting anything done in the Washington bureaucracy. Her enemy is the very U.S. foreign policy she was brought on board to sell.
So the problem is not the messenger or the message. It’s the product. It’s U.S. policy. Until that changes, we’re kidding ourselves if we believe we’re going to be able to win Muslim hearts and minds.
Isn’t it amazing that the country that invented modern marketing doesn’t understand that sales of a flawed product can’t be sustained?
That’s what we just don’t seem to get.
Remember the Edsel!
Nobel Peace Prize-winner and Iranian human rights advocate and dissident Shirin Ebadi was asked on PBS last week about the $75 million the U.S. State Department intends to spend supporting pro-democracy groups in her country.
“Will such a program be helpful to assist democracy advocates like yourself?” asked the News Hour’s Margaret Warner.
Ebadi’s response: “No, I don’t think it will benefit people like me because whoever speaks about democracy will be accused of having been paid by the U.S.” She went on to ask, “Can democracy be brought to people by bombs? Democracy is a culture. It has to come from within a society, not brought by America to a society.”
That’s about as good a capsule summary of America’s public diplomacy dilemma as I’ve heard.
The essence of that dilemma is that the U.S. is spending a great deal of money on getting its messages out -- $597 million last year alone, much of it in the Middle East. Yet successive opinion polls show that people in the neighborhood have increasingly negative opinions about American policies.
Those of us who live in the U.S. know that there are gazillion positive stories to tell about our country. And no doubt Karen Hughes and her public diplomacy colleagues at the State Department are trying hard to tell them.
But these stories are being drowned out by the realities and perceptions of our target audiences.
The U.S. is now thought of in the Middle East not just as the country that brought jazz and hamburgers, Hollywood movies, and the Bill of Rights to the world. We are thought of as the country that cooked the intelligence books to sell the American people on invading Iraq. That preached about human rights while abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. That is waging a silent war on Muslims at home. That is seen as ignoring Palestinians while helping Israelis. That is led by a swaggering Texas-style “bring it on” president who dismisses critics as unpatriotic as he exhorts his citizens to “stay the course.”
Against that incessant background of “white noise,” how can the U.S. hope to be heard?
The truth is it can’t. Not now. Not until the policies change.
Because every credible poll in the Middle East tells us that Arabs and other Muslims don’t hate the American people or American culture – they hate the policies of the Bush Administration.
And that would be true even if the strategies, tactics, and mechanics of our public diplomacy efforts were impeccably crafted. But they aren’t.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office weighed in on the subject with a new report. It found the State Department’s efforts to reach more than 1.5 billion Muslims in 58 countries lack a strong central message and a strategic plan of communication, and that as many as 30 percent of public diplomacy posts in the Middle East are filled by officers with limited language skills.
It reported that Public Diplomacy officers abroad don’t spend enough time talking to local audiences and, while the program is aimed primarily at younger audiences, there is a shortage of basic, core messages, and a lack of analysis of the program's results.
To explain U.S. foreign policy more effectively, the GAO recommended that
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provide our embassies and consulates with clear written guidance on priority goals and tactics.
At the end of the day, however, it’s not going to matter how professionally our public diplomacy efforts are organized and executed, or how much more money we throw at this activity.
Karen Hughes, longtime Bush friend and confidante, has been dealt a lousy hand by the President. He asked her to take on an impossible job for which nothing in her background equips her. I’m sure she is working hard and really trying, but the enemy she faces is not the difficulty of actually getting anything done in the Washington bureaucracy. Her enemy is the very U.S. foreign policy she was brought on board to sell.
So the problem is not the messenger or the message. It’s the product. It’s U.S. policy. Until that changes, we’re kidding ourselves if we believe we’re going to be able to win Muslim hearts and minds.
Isn’t it amazing that the country that invented modern marketing doesn’t understand that sales of a flawed product can’t be sustained?
That’s what we just don’t seem to get.
Remember the Edsel!
Thursday, May 04, 2006
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE VOICE OF DEMOCRACY!
By William Fisher
These were messages that needed to be delivered: Russia must stop backsliding on its commitment to democratic reform. It must stop using its oil as a tool of blackmail. Belarus must stop beating peaceful demonstrators, "disappearing" dissidents, and promoting a climate of fear under a government that subverts free elections.
But what was President Bush thinking when he chose Vice President Dick Cheney to go to Lithuania as the messenger?
Could there be anyone less credible on subjects like democratic reform and open government?
More than any other Administration figure save the president himself, it was Dick Cheney who orchestrated the cherrypicking of pre-Iraq intelligence. Who hyped the need to invade with imagery of mushroom clouds. Who promised that the Iraqis would greet us as 'liberators'. Who told us the insurgency was in its "last throes." Who put the Administration's lackey lawyers to work to find justifications for torture, and opposed John McCain's proposal to ban it. Who went to court to keep secret the details of the so-called energy policy he discussed with leaders of Big Oil. Who opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission and suppressed a Senate report on whether the Administration manipulated pre-war intelligence. Who fought every effort to declassify information the American people have a right to know. Who battled to stem all leaks except those he could use to have his minions go after the wife of an Administration critic?
Dick Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history. And un-arguably the most dangerous.
Cheney told Baltic and Black Sea leaders at the summit in Vilnius that Russia had rolled back on freedoms ranging from "religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties.'' He called Belarus the "last dictatorship in Europe'' and urged the release of opposition leader Aleksander Milinkevich and other pro-democracy activists.
"A climate of fear prevails under a government that subverts free elections,''
he said. "There is no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this
kind.''
He is undeniably right.
But what is truly grotesque is the utter hypocrisy of Dick Cheney lecturing anyone about democracy and human rights. He has dishonored these core American values in his own country.
Then there's the question of the geopolitical wisdom of his remarks?
Cheney's staunch championship of democracy in Russia and Belarus comes at a time when the U.S. is seeking Putin's support for a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran curb its nuclear ambitions. Cheney's harsh remarks could further antagonize Russia, which holds a veto in the Security Council, where it has thus far opposed any sanctions.
What splendid timing!
But, on the other hand, Russia-bashing is always a big hit with President Bush's conservative base at home, which could use considerable shoring up. Bush's approval ratings are currently hovering at around 32 percent, and Cheney's numbers are even lower.
Sending Cheney to Vilnius as a champion of human rights and civil liberties can only be seen as a caricature. It is yet another demonstration of the Bush Administration's contempt for "old Europe" and its essentially unchanged unilateralism.
Well, Europe may be old, but it's not stupid.
These were messages that needed to be delivered: Russia must stop backsliding on its commitment to democratic reform. It must stop using its oil as a tool of blackmail. Belarus must stop beating peaceful demonstrators, "disappearing" dissidents, and promoting a climate of fear under a government that subverts free elections.
But what was President Bush thinking when he chose Vice President Dick Cheney to go to Lithuania as the messenger?
Could there be anyone less credible on subjects like democratic reform and open government?
More than any other Administration figure save the president himself, it was Dick Cheney who orchestrated the cherrypicking of pre-Iraq intelligence. Who hyped the need to invade with imagery of mushroom clouds. Who promised that the Iraqis would greet us as 'liberators'. Who told us the insurgency was in its "last throes." Who put the Administration's lackey lawyers to work to find justifications for torture, and opposed John McCain's proposal to ban it. Who went to court to keep secret the details of the so-called energy policy he discussed with leaders of Big Oil. Who opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission and suppressed a Senate report on whether the Administration manipulated pre-war intelligence. Who fought every effort to declassify information the American people have a right to know. Who battled to stem all leaks except those he could use to have his minions go after the wife of an Administration critic?
Dick Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history. And un-arguably the most dangerous.
Cheney told Baltic and Black Sea leaders at the summit in Vilnius that Russia had rolled back on freedoms ranging from "religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties.'' He called Belarus the "last dictatorship in Europe'' and urged the release of opposition leader Aleksander Milinkevich and other pro-democracy activists.
"A climate of fear prevails under a government that subverts free elections,''
he said. "There is no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this
kind.''
He is undeniably right.
But what is truly grotesque is the utter hypocrisy of Dick Cheney lecturing anyone about democracy and human rights. He has dishonored these core American values in his own country.
Then there's the question of the geopolitical wisdom of his remarks?
Cheney's staunch championship of democracy in Russia and Belarus comes at a time when the U.S. is seeking Putin's support for a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran curb its nuclear ambitions. Cheney's harsh remarks could further antagonize Russia, which holds a veto in the Security Council, where it has thus far opposed any sanctions.
What splendid timing!
But, on the other hand, Russia-bashing is always a big hit with President Bush's conservative base at home, which could use considerable shoring up. Bush's approval ratings are currently hovering at around 32 percent, and Cheney's numbers are even lower.
Sending Cheney to Vilnius as a champion of human rights and civil liberties can only be seen as a caricature. It is yet another demonstration of the Bush Administration's contempt for "old Europe" and its essentially unchanged unilateralism.
Well, Europe may be old, but it's not stupid.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GOOD FIGHT?
By William Fisher
The juxtaposition of oil, human rights, and the "global war on terror" has exposed a giant fault line in the Bush Administration's foreign policy, revealing inconsistency and hypocrisy.
In his second inaugural address, the president pledged to make spreading freedom around the world the cornerstone of U.S. international relations. America would no longer tolerate its cozy relationships with dictatorial and repressive governments. We would stop supporting regimes that consistently showed up on the State Department's annual list of human rights violators.
After the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, it was never going to be easy for the U.S. to maintain any credibility for its freedom agenda. But some of us continued to cling to a few hopeful signs; for example, the Administration's arm-twisting of Egypt's aging dictator, Hosni Mubarak, to open its presidential elections to multiple candidates.
For twenty-five years, Egypt remained second only to Israel as a recipient of U.S. military and economic assistance, while its Emergency Law made a mockery of due process and freedom of association and expression. Now we would no longer give Mubarak his usual "get out of jail" free pass. Now we would attach strings to our massive largesse.
So Egypt mollified us with a kind of faux presidential election, albeit it deeply flawed by placing impossible limitations on who could challenge the Mubarak regime at the polls. And the leading opposition figure, Ayman Nour, ended up in jail.
That was followed by a Parliamentary election that was rife with vote-rigging, disenfranchisement, violent attacks on voters and peaceful protesters, and the arrest of hundreds of Egyptian citizens. Despite flagrant police interference, the banned Muslim Brotherhood - the Middle East's poster child for political Islam - managed to win 88 seats in Parliament.
Judges who called on the government to allow them to conduct an inquiry into election irregularities were stripped of their judicial immunity, opening the possibility that they could be questioned by police, arrested, and tried.
The U.S. reaction to this Egyptian "democracy" charade was the equivalent of a mild slap on the wrist. The State Department expressed its "disappointment."
It had the same reaction last week, when Mubarak pushed through a two-year extension of the 25-year-old Emergency Law, despite his pledge to repeal it in favor of anti-terror legislation.
Egypt first adopted this draconian law in 1981 in response to the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, and at its height it was used to detain more than 30,000 prisoners indefinitely without charge. Mr. Mubarak has had the law renewed every three years since - and today human rights groups estimate that there are approximately 15,000 uncharged prisoners in Egypt's jails.
The law expressly allows the authorities to hold individuals for months without being charged or tried. But in practice, legal experts say, the government goes through the motions of technically releasing prisoners and then re-arresting them, without ever having actually let them go.
In effect, the law is the fire blanket the government has thrown over all dissent, including press freedom.
Said a State Department spokesman in response to a reporter's question at the very end of a press briefing last week: "It's a disappointment. It's a disappointment. We understand that Egypt has certainly facing its own issues related to terrorism, but President Mubarak during the presidential campaign had talked about the fact that he was going to seek a new emergency law, but one that would be targeted specifically at fighting terrorism, counterterrorism, and that would take into account respect for freedom of speech as well as human rights. Certainly we would like to see President Mubarak and his government follow through on that pledge."
What has happened here is that President Bush's pledge to rein in support for dictators has been trumped by two other strategic considerations: rewarding those countries who are U.S. allies in the "Global War on Terror" and romancing other countries that have oil and gas resources, despite their outrageous human rights records.
The list of U.S. allies in the "Global War on Terror" could well be headed, "The Coalition of the Despots." The democracy-spreader in the White House seems all too willing to overlook the long histories of repression, autocracy and human rights violations of such countries as Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Jordan - even Syria, which U.S. officials have recently begun praising for its efforts to keep terrorists out of Iraq.
Clearly the U.S. and other like-minded countries need to do whatever is likely to reduce threats of terrorism. But the Administration has apparently concluded that hunting down the bad guys - no matter by what methods -- has a higher priority than working to create the transparency and good governance practices that, ironically, might just help to kill jihadism at its poisonous roots.
More recently, as Iran is seen as a gathering threat and the insatiable
oil-appetites of fast-growing economies like China and India put pressure on the world's energy supplies, the Bush Administration has begun its delicate minuet with energy-rich states.
And so access to oil and gas becomes another issue that apparently trumps respect for democratic rule of law - and another sorry substitute for an energy policy that could curb America's addiction to oil by developing non-fossil energy sources.
America's partners in this new minuet include such pillars of democracy as Azerbaijan, one the most corrupt countries in the world, and Equatorial Guinea, whose dictatorial president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, was recently praised by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
And Vice President Cheney will soon visit oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has long been a poster child for repression and corruption.
As my colleague Jim Lobe wrote recently, "Give Me That Old-Time Geo-Politics" is becoming a Bush Administration theme song.
But what makes these gaping policy contradictions so bizarre is not their geo-politics. It is the stark contrast between what America says and what America does. When our president vowed to spread freedom throughout the world, we might have thought him too idealistic, but we applauded - and we expected him to do what he promised.
Sadly, he seems to be giving up the good fight.
The juxtaposition of oil, human rights, and the "global war on terror" has exposed a giant fault line in the Bush Administration's foreign policy, revealing inconsistency and hypocrisy.
In his second inaugural address, the president pledged to make spreading freedom around the world the cornerstone of U.S. international relations. America would no longer tolerate its cozy relationships with dictatorial and repressive governments. We would stop supporting regimes that consistently showed up on the State Department's annual list of human rights violators.
After the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, it was never going to be easy for the U.S. to maintain any credibility for its freedom agenda. But some of us continued to cling to a few hopeful signs; for example, the Administration's arm-twisting of Egypt's aging dictator, Hosni Mubarak, to open its presidential elections to multiple candidates.
For twenty-five years, Egypt remained second only to Israel as a recipient of U.S. military and economic assistance, while its Emergency Law made a mockery of due process and freedom of association and expression. Now we would no longer give Mubarak his usual "get out of jail" free pass. Now we would attach strings to our massive largesse.
So Egypt mollified us with a kind of faux presidential election, albeit it deeply flawed by placing impossible limitations on who could challenge the Mubarak regime at the polls. And the leading opposition figure, Ayman Nour, ended up in jail.
That was followed by a Parliamentary election that was rife with vote-rigging, disenfranchisement, violent attacks on voters and peaceful protesters, and the arrest of hundreds of Egyptian citizens. Despite flagrant police interference, the banned Muslim Brotherhood - the Middle East's poster child for political Islam - managed to win 88 seats in Parliament.
Judges who called on the government to allow them to conduct an inquiry into election irregularities were stripped of their judicial immunity, opening the possibility that they could be questioned by police, arrested, and tried.
The U.S. reaction to this Egyptian "democracy" charade was the equivalent of a mild slap on the wrist. The State Department expressed its "disappointment."
It had the same reaction last week, when Mubarak pushed through a two-year extension of the 25-year-old Emergency Law, despite his pledge to repeal it in favor of anti-terror legislation.
Egypt first adopted this draconian law in 1981 in response to the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, and at its height it was used to detain more than 30,000 prisoners indefinitely without charge. Mr. Mubarak has had the law renewed every three years since - and today human rights groups estimate that there are approximately 15,000 uncharged prisoners in Egypt's jails.
The law expressly allows the authorities to hold individuals for months without being charged or tried. But in practice, legal experts say, the government goes through the motions of technically releasing prisoners and then re-arresting them, without ever having actually let them go.
In effect, the law is the fire blanket the government has thrown over all dissent, including press freedom.
Said a State Department spokesman in response to a reporter's question at the very end of a press briefing last week: "It's a disappointment. It's a disappointment. We understand that Egypt has certainly facing its own issues related to terrorism, but President Mubarak during the presidential campaign had talked about the fact that he was going to seek a new emergency law, but one that would be targeted specifically at fighting terrorism, counterterrorism, and that would take into account respect for freedom of speech as well as human rights. Certainly we would like to see President Mubarak and his government follow through on that pledge."
What has happened here is that President Bush's pledge to rein in support for dictators has been trumped by two other strategic considerations: rewarding those countries who are U.S. allies in the "Global War on Terror" and romancing other countries that have oil and gas resources, despite their outrageous human rights records.
The list of U.S. allies in the "Global War on Terror" could well be headed, "The Coalition of the Despots." The democracy-spreader in the White House seems all too willing to overlook the long histories of repression, autocracy and human rights violations of such countries as Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Jordan - even Syria, which U.S. officials have recently begun praising for its efforts to keep terrorists out of Iraq.
Clearly the U.S. and other like-minded countries need to do whatever is likely to reduce threats of terrorism. But the Administration has apparently concluded that hunting down the bad guys - no matter by what methods -- has a higher priority than working to create the transparency and good governance practices that, ironically, might just help to kill jihadism at its poisonous roots.
More recently, as Iran is seen as a gathering threat and the insatiable
oil-appetites of fast-growing economies like China and India put pressure on the world's energy supplies, the Bush Administration has begun its delicate minuet with energy-rich states.
And so access to oil and gas becomes another issue that apparently trumps respect for democratic rule of law - and another sorry substitute for an energy policy that could curb America's addiction to oil by developing non-fossil energy sources.
America's partners in this new minuet include such pillars of democracy as Azerbaijan, one the most corrupt countries in the world, and Equatorial Guinea, whose dictatorial president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, was recently praised by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
And Vice President Cheney will soon visit oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has long been a poster child for repression and corruption.
As my colleague Jim Lobe wrote recently, "Give Me That Old-Time Geo-Politics" is becoming a Bush Administration theme song.
But what makes these gaping policy contradictions so bizarre is not their geo-politics. It is the stark contrast between what America says and what America does. When our president vowed to spread freedom throughout the world, we might have thought him too idealistic, but we applauded - and we expected him to do what he promised.
Sadly, he seems to be giving up the good fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
