NEASFram - Near East and Africa Security Framework

2008-04-22T10:35:00.001-04:00

We hosted a dinner for Andy Worthington, the author of Guantánamo files, a few weeks ago and something he said struck a cord with everyone in attendance. During a back and forth pertaining to the positive statements made by Senator McCain, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton vis-à-vis Guantánamo – all seem keen to close it - Andy asked us to consider the end game for the U.S. Specifically he asked what would happen to the prisoners.

Of course the first reaction of most of the individuals in attendance was predictable – these prisoners would be repatriated back to their home countries. However, as Andy prodded us to consider that assumption we all stumbled upon the problem that he was grappling with. It became clear that there would be many countries that would refuse to take back their citizens. After all, the U.S. has been stating since the first prisoner transfer to Guantánamo that it is holding the worst of the worst. With that statement on the record it seems fair to assume that some countries will choose to wash their hands of the matter. Why risk internal strife by bringing back someone who is a radical, has become radicalized or is likely to embarrass his home government by questioning why they did not do more to seek the release of an innocent national. What will the U.S. do if it ends up with a group of prisoners who have no where to go and are not deemed to have committed acts that warrant a trial?

The three candidates for President seem to understand that Guantánamo is a blot on the U.S. image in the world and I am convinced that all of them would like to close it. However, in an incredible irony, it seems possible that the next U.S. President may find that closing Guantánamo proves to be harder than it was for the Bush Administration to open it.

I am going to start making a few calls on this issue to see what the latest thinking is within Defense department circles and will report back in the days ahead.

Zimbabwe

2008-04-22T10:18:00.002-04:00

Violence seems to be escalating in Zimbabwe. As readers of this blog know, I care deeply about that country and its people and have worked on human rights challenges there in recent years. My concern for a while has been that Robert Mugabe will use all the tools of State power to ensure that he remains at the helm of his country. When you consider the war crimes his forces committed in Matabeleland in the 1980’s, the international community needs to put Mugabe and the generals on notice that they will face individual judicial consequences for their actions this time.

New Abu Gharib Photos Released

2008-02-28T08:15:00.001-05:00

Wired.Com has just released a set of previously unseen images from Abu Gharib that were recently used in a presentation on torture at the TED conference in Monterey, California. The photos are horrific (viewer discretion is advised) and will certainly reopen the global debate on torture and U.S. actions in Iraq. There is little doubt that the U.S. image in the world will take a further blow at a time when it cannot afford to take too many more.

There is no chance of restoring the U.S. reputation in the world unless we shift course on the issue of torture - unfortunately the Administration and Congress are incapable of dealing with this issue on their own. I have been urging for several years now that Congress moves to create an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Torture and Interrogation; it is past time that the U.S. comprehensively address the scandals of Abu Gharib and beyond.

Some may ask whether it makes sense to wait until we have a new President as there is a good chance that Administration policy will shift dramatically in 2009. My sense is that we actually need more than just a shift in policy going forward. There is a need for all the information on torture to be raised in a public setting and for the facts to be on display for both domestic and global public consumption.

Any Commission that is created should be tasked with bringing together a broad range of experts able to collectively comprehend the totality of the issue, its consequences and necessary policy prescriptions. The experts would be drawn from the intelligence, foreign policy, law enforcement, military, veterans, legal and human rights community. Additional members could include representatives of the faith community, theologians, cultural specialists and historians.

The Commission would publicly air its findings thereby ensuring that the country as a whole can move forward together with an understanding that an “end to torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment” policy is both the morally correct thing to do AND is the best counter-terror approach for the U.S. to take.

I strongly believe that this is an issue where we can build bipartisan support. Maybe Powell could chair the Commission?

Perhaps a national reporter could ask Senator Obama, Senator McCain and Senator Clinton whether they would ensure that such a Commission would be formed during their first 100 days as President.

Obama: Don't Go to War with Iran

2007-09-13T08:28:00.001-04:00

It was good to see Sen. Obama come out and put the Bush Administration on notice that their push to war with Iran is neither popular nor authorized. In a speech in Iowa he stated that:

"George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American people and the Congress: You do not have our support, and you do not have our authorization, to launch another war."

The Senator rightly seems concerned about the escalation in rhetoric on the part of the Administration and seems to recognize the catastrophic implications of such a conflict for the US, Iran, the broader Middle East and the international community. Sen. Obama went on to note that:

"....we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the president and vice president talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shia and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest the time for diplomacy and public pressure is running out, when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy."

It is vitally important that the current roster of Presidential candidates is urged to state clearly and unequivocally that they oppose war with Iran. Real diplomacy and talks must be the focus of US regional engagement.

More bad news in Pakistan

2007-09-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

Two pieces of bad news coming out of Pakistan in recent days, one involving the political situation and the other on the security front.

Politically, the Musharraf government made a significant strategic error when they decided to deport former PM Nawaz Sharif when he returned to the country despite the fact that the Pakistani Supreme Court has ruled that he can return. Musharraf would have been better off letting Sharif back but is now reinforcing Sharif's position as a key democratic opposition figure. The Bush Administration needs to be vocal and condemn this move. Sharif will have influence in Pakistan going forward and is close to some key religious figures, he needs to feel that he has support in the West.

On the security side a large number of Pakistani soldiers have been captured by Taliban in the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lack of central government control more evident by the day and a change in the status quo will require real cooperation between the two neighbors. Again, this is something the Bush Administration needs to push very hard.

Lessons of the Arar Commission

2007-08-15T08:44:00.000-04:00

Dick Marty, a Swiss parliamentarian and rapporteur on secret detention centers for the Council of Europe, has written an interesting piece for the Globe and Mail on the lessons that can be learned from observing the Canadian Arar Commission. The piece is important because these types of Commission will be needed because it is only by understanding fully the flaws of current U.S. foreign policy will we be able to shift the ideology towards a NEASFram type framework.

Marty notes that "only Canada has made a real effort to put right the wrong done to the victim — and in a way that does not endanger its legitimate national-security interests." He has come to recognize that European governments and bodies have been too afraid of being accused of harming security to really challenge the executive on rendition policy. Marty believes, with some justification, that Europeans (and I believe Americans) can learn a lot from the Canadian process.

That process, and its benefits, is described in this way by Marty:

"In simplified terms, Judge O'Connor, an experienced jurist, was given access to all the information required. Certain documents, which the government considered secret in the interest of national security, national defence or international relations, were examined in a procedure in which both parties were heard but the material was not reproduced in the public version of the report (although attention was drawn to its absence).

With such carefully weighed transparency, Judge O'Connor was able unequivocally to clear Mr. Arar's name, ensuring justice and clearing the way for the compensation due to him, yet exclude the publication of anything that might, in his judgment, threaten the security of Canadians. The important thing — and here we get to the heart of the question — is that the government is not the sole arbiter of what should be regarded as a state secret: Its claims must be evaluated by an independent body. In the Arar case, that principle remains in place, regardless of this week's readjustment; it was, after all, again a judge who ordered that the new material be made public."

Here is a link to the full piece.

Clinton Wrong on Pakistan

2007-08-08T07:25:00.001-04:00

Without wading into the fight between Obama and Clinton over Pakistan, I do want to note one aspect of Sen. Clinton's comments at the MSNBC/AFL-CIO debate. Clinton noted:
"Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals and it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence -- but remember we've had some real difficult experience with actionable intelligence... But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Mushareff regime, which is fighting for its life against Islamic extremists, who are in bed with al-Qaeda and Taliban.
And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al-Qaeda like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons. So, you can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president because it can have consequences across the world, and we don't need that right now."

The piece of this that worries me is the equation of Musharraf v Islamic Fundamentalists. In reality the support of military dictators in Pakistan always seems to lead to a spike in fundamentalism. There is no question that since the US backed Musharraf has been in power, he has blocked out the democratic parties and allowed the fundamentalists to grow in strength. That he is now "fighting back" says more about his instincts for self preservation. He still shows little sign of giving up power, letting democratic elections go forward and allowing the fundamentalists to be beaten at the ballot box.

PM Brown DIstancing Himself from President Bush?

2007-08-07T07:54:00.000-04:00

Possibly....

What is clear however is that the British government is seeking the release of five Guantanamo prisoners who have links to the UK. Interestingly, none of the five are British citizens but all have secured either refugee status or the right to stay in the UK. The new British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to request their release.
My suspicion is that we will see the five released in the next few months....

Rice on Pakistan

2007-08-06T07:40:00.000-04:00

Secretary of State Rice distanced herself from Sen. Obama by assuring Pakistan that the U.S. would not act unilaterally to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Key quote from Rice: "We have a cooperative arrangement with Pakistan; Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror. The idea that somehow we have a greater interest in the capture and kill of high-value targets who are threatening Pakistan itself, as was shown by the extremist who brought about all that trouble at the Red Mosque, who are bringing about trouble in the frontier areas, I think is just not right."

Unfortunately there has been little or no focus on the need for democracy to be restored to Pakistan as a way to limit the growth of radicalism in society.

Obama and Pakistan

2007-08-06T07:36:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately someone close to Obama the politician likely urged the candidate to include a paragraph showcasing his toughness. That paragraph was designed, in part, to combat the Clinton campaign's efforts to create a narrative that Obama is naive and weak. In rebutting a rival's political frame, Obama strayed away from a really important task. He was not able to use this opportunity to message to the American public that it is time to embrace diplomacy and alliance building if the U.S. is to get itself out of the hole it currently finds itself in.

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

"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the
Muslim world." (
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/ pressreleases?id=0202)

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

ICC, Darfur and a Fatally Flawed Foreign Policy Approach

2007-08-02T16:55:00.001-04:00

If we needed another example of the flawed approach to foreign policy taken by the current Administration Mark Goldberg, writer in residence at UNF, just provided us with it. Mark put in a FOIA request for cable traffic and other items that spoke to the development of Darfur policy at the State Department. He recently received 800 or so documents and kindly gave us permission to share some of the most important info. Please find his full note below; the intensity with which the Administration sought to undermine the ICC, regardless of the costs to the people of Darfur, is certainly worth noting.

Dear Friends:

In May 2005, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for cable traffic and other items that spoke to the development of Darfur policy at the State Department. Finally, last month, I received a package of some 800 documents. Not all of the documents are that useful, but there are some fascinating tidbits hidden therein — including documents pertaining to the winter/spring 2005 debate at the Security Council over whether or not the International Criminal Court should be given jurisdiction to prosecute alleged war crimes in Darfur.

(Some background: Since taking office, the Bush administration has been openly hostile to the ICC out of a fear that the court would launch politically motivated prosecutions of Americans. At times, the administration’s opposition to the court has bordered on monomaniacal obsession. The administration, for instance, imposed military and economic sanctions on allies that support the court, even as those allies had troops deployed in Iraq. Then, in late January 2005, an Italian judge named Antonio Cassese suddenly put the administration in a bind. Cassese had led a UN investigation into suspected war crimes in Darfur, and in a report to the Security Council he recommended that the council authorize the ICC to investigate.)

The documents I’ve obtained detail the administration’s headstrong reaction to a potential Security Council vote on an ICC referral for Darfur.

In early January 2005, upon learning that Cassese was to recommend ICC referral, UN Ambassador Jack Danforth sent a cable to Washington asking for instructions. The cable, addressed to Secretary of State Rice, recounts a meeting Danforth held with French Perm Rep Jean-Marc de la Sabliere (and an individual whose name is redacted.) Danforth was informed by de la Sabliere that France would, in fact, take up Cassese’s recommendation. Danforth, therefore, asked Rice for some direction: should the US seek to A) block the ICC referral all together, or B) simply carve out US exemption (that is, insert language into the resolution that would grant immunity to any Americans that might be somehow be caught up in the investigation.)

Danforth recommended the later course, saying that doing so would make life easier for everyone. His advice was not heeded. Rather, for the next three months, the US sought to block a resolution giving jurisdiction to the ICC, because in the words of a cable from Foggy Bottom ”we do not want to be confronted with a decision on whether to veto a court resolution in the Security Council.” In place of the ICC, the United States proposed creating an alternate ”accountability venue” that would be an African Union-United Nations hybrid court that would prosecute Darfur’s war criminals using the facilities of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

I followed this story closely at the time, but until I read these cables I had no idea the lengths to which the administration was willing to go in pursuit of this alternate option. Rice directed the US mission to the UN to “position ourselves to table our text before any other member formally proposes language seeking accountability through the ICC.” But the Europeans did not confuse first with best. EU members of the Security Council held firm against the AU-UN hybrid option, so the administration sought to circumvent them.

“The proposal might gain momentum…if the Africans supported it,” reads one cable. Pierre-Richard Prosper, the US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, traveled to Africa to press AU member states to agree to the American proposal for a hybrid, AU-UN court. Prosper delivered talking points and a so-called “concept paper” about the hybrid option to the president of Senegal, who was to travel to Chad to discuss it with regional powers like Nigeria and South Africa during an AU summit on Sudan.

The talking points Prosper delivered show real desperation. One point says the hybrid court would be less costly than the ICC — which was a point the Europeans strenuously denied. (Further, the Europeans countered that they would not agree to fund the hybrid court when they are already paying dues to the ICC). Also, the talking points argue that the ICC is a lesser option because it cannot prosecute crimes prior to 2002. (Never mind that the fighting in Darfur did not break out until 2003-2004.) Finally, as if the ICC were some European plot against Africans, one point cynically says “so far the only referrals have related to activities in Africa.”

The administration had hoped that Senegal would convince other AU member states of the wisdom and utility of the hybrid option. Alas, this effort to failed. On March 31, 2005, the United States abstained from resolution 1593, which gave the ICC jurisdiction to investigate crimes in Darfur. The US sought—and won—exception from the ICC as was originally counseled by Danforth. In the meantime, three months of diplomacy were needlessly wasted as the US pursued the hair-brained hybrid option.

When people say that the international response to Darfur has been slow, you can point them to this anecdote.

Regards,

Mark

Ignatius on Waziristan

2007-07-31T07:36:00.000-04:00

David Ignatius is one of the smarter foreign policy writers around and his column in today's WP is well worth a read. The piece is centered around a National Intelligence Estimate released July 17.
Igantius notes that the NIE "put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" using a new haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan."

He goes on to ask a very important question:
"What should the United States do about al-Qaeda's new haven in Pakistan, from which it may already be plotting attacks that could kill thousands of Americans?"
and seems to suggest an approach that is light on force (perhaps using counter insurgency tactics) and heavy on economic aid.

While there is some merit to this idea, I wish that Igantius had also sought to tackle the political dimensions of this problem. I strongly believe that dealing with Waziristan/Pakistan cannot be done in isolation but must be looked at as part of a broader regional strategy including Afghanistan, India and Iran -- essentially the eastern piece of NEASFram.

MI5 Relationship with CIA in Question RE: Torture Flights

2007-07-30T07:38:00.000-04:00

The Guardian ran an interesting article on Sunday that once again highlighted and called into question the relationship between MI5 and the CIA over torture flights. In this case they interviewed Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi living in the UK who claims he was tortured at Gitmo and at Bagram airforce base. While many of the facts he lays out seem to fit into the broad construct of the rendition program, there are a couple of pieces that are more unusual and that, if true, really could hurt MI5.

First Bisher claims to have been an informer for MI5 and alleges that they betrayed him by telling the CIA he had a timing device for a bomb with him when he was flying to The Gambia. As readers of this blog may have come to anticipate, there was no timer at all. In fact he had a battery charger with him and several years and much pain and suffering later he is free.

Like many freed survivors of the CIA program, he claims to be speaking out to help an innocent friend who is still at Gitmo. This type of exceptionalism continues to harm U.S. interests globally. When will it all end?

Reaction to Executive Order

2007-07-26T09:40:00.001-04:00

Today's Washington Post carries an important OP-ED by Gen. P. X. Kelley (commandant of the Marine Corp from 1983-1987) and Robert F. Turner (co-founder of the UVA Center for National Security Law) in which they react to the White House executive order from last Friday in which the President seeks to interpret Common Article 3. It is fair to say they are not convinced - here is the key section:
"In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.""
I am glad that these two individuals weighed in and that the Post gave them the space to make their case - it is vitally important to note the rising tide of outrage directed at the Administrations continued bad faith approach to dealing with the issue of torture. We are a long way from ensuring that the United States respects international law in this area.

The Times (UK) OP-ED on Musharraf's Moment

2007-07-12T09:47:00.000-04:00

It is time for Pakistan to take steps towards the restoration of democracy....check out this OP-ED from the Times (UK).

Worrying Development From the Turkish-Iraqi Border

2007-07-09T13:43:00.000-04:00

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari has been quoted as saying that Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops on its border with Kurdish Northern Iraq. This move seems to be a sign of increased Turkish frustration with guerrilla groups based in the Kurdish Iraqi north. Reading a report on the issue, it seems clear once again that a comprehensive NEASFram type approach is the only way to ensure an end to this type of politically triggered insecurity.

Pakistan Unravelling?

2007-07-03T09:01:00.001-04:00

The latest set of crises to hit Pakistan are the clashes at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad, where fundamentalist students continue to push for the imposition of Sharia law, and the hundreds of thousands of people displaced by flooding and storms.

Despite some arguments that tackling root causes and foreign policy challenges will not ease tensions throughout the NEASFram region, we believe that there is a need for the United States and the U.K. in particular to assist Pakistanis as they respond to the recent natural disasters; both because it is the right thing to do and because it shows a more supportive side of their foreign policy.

Steve Clemons Wrote the following at The Washington Note:

2007-06-28T08:00:00.001-04:00

"My view matches Zbigniew Brzezinski's that the combined storm of America's engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, brewing problems with Iran, lack of meaningful success in Israel-Palestine peace, and regional disdain among Arab Muslims for the United States is the defining challenge for America. We need to turn that around and given the collapse in legitimacy America has experienced because of failure in Iraq, much more priority should be given to establishing a stable Israel-Palestine deal that produces two states and includes other regional deal-making including normalization of relations with Syria and a new set of economic and collective security arrangements with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other regional players."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002196.php

Steve is a smart foreign policy thinker and this strikes me as an endorsement of a NEASFram type approach to the region - perhaps our framework is a little broader (includes Somalia for instance) but the broader points are the same.

Closing Gitmo

2007-06-27T08:14:00.001-04:00

The Washington Post Editorial Board today urged President Bush to close the U.S. prison at Gitmo and seek another way to hold suspected terrorists. The overall message is a welcome one as the Post recognizes that the prison camp at Gitmo has been a public image disaster for the U.S. However, I am not 100% convinced that the second suggestion from the editorial, that the President should seek to create an administrative system to hold suspects, is as wise.

While the WP is correct when it suggests that the methodology for trying suspects in Israel and the U.K. is a step above current U.S. practice and would be an improvement if enacted in the U.S., the lack of confidence in the overall U.S. governmental approach to terror cases makes adoption of an administrative system look like a risky proposition.

In recent years too many high ranking Bush Administration figures have made questionable choices regarding the detention of suspected terrorists. Additionally there is still evidence that the administration is allowing the use of illegal tactics in the interrogation arena. These two issues make it hard to defend an administrative system to try suspected terrorists.

I will concede that if the next U.S. administration agrees to be more judicious in its approach to the arrest of suspected terrorists and is willing to end the use of torture and other illegal interrogation approaches, Congress should look at innovative approaches to trying terrorists that could be based systems like the one used until recently in the U.K.

Blair Success Will Depend on Interlinked Issues

2007-06-26T08:19:00.000-04:00

As the Middle East Quartet considers naming outgoing British PM Tony Blair as its new envoy, it is important to note that he will only be able to succeed if his work on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is tackled along with the broad range of interconnected crises of the broad NEASFram region.

Additionally it is critically important that Mr. Blair recognizes the different obligations of this role - he must not be seen as narrowly pro-American or Israeli or European. He needs to bridge 5-7 important audiences - and this will not be easy. Nevertheless, Mr Blair can be a key piece of a NEASFram type approach to the region where multi-track diplomacy is given a chance. Let us hope that this is the first of many positive steps.

Interesting Exchange on This Week re: Hamas and Votes

2007-06-25T08:53:00.000-04:00

At a recent round table on This Week there was an interesting exchange on the botched nature of U.S. Israeli-Palestinian policy. David Corn was one of the guests and took his chance to point out that things could continue to spiral downwards in the West Bank and Gaza:

"Well, no, it can't, which is why the situation could get worse there. You could have a humanitarian crisis with 1.4 million people there cut off from water, electricity and food supplies which come in through Israel. I mean, let me agree with what George just said, said that in addition to the administration, you know, getting the tonic wrong, I think they really believe that speechifying was more important than the hard work of diplomacy. I mean in the Clinton years, they had the Oslo agreement and there was a lot of diplomacy back and forth. The Bush people came in and they that - they actually threw it aside with a lot of disregard and believed that they could sort of elevate the issue by giving these grand eloquent speeches about democracy, and that would do the trick, and they let the hard work of diplomacy, I think, go to the side. And now we're paying the dividends."

The comment I found most interesting however was from Martha Raddatz, a classic inside the beltway commentator. She was discussing possible next steps from the Administration:

"But I don't think they really have any idea how to build up Abbas. I mean, it hasn't worked so far. There's corruption. They seem to be in denial about Hamas, and they've been in denial about Hamas all along. I remember the president very early on said look, they didn't vote for Hamas because of terror. That's not the reason they voted. Well, he should take that lesson now because people want jobs, people want money, people want a way of life that they may find in Hamas that they didn't find in Fatah. So this is far from solved. It's far from solved in the West Bank whether they'll have any power. And I think right now you probably see the White House scrambling to come up with some sort of opportunity or even what to say."

There is a crisis in the region but there is still an opportunity for change because right now no one is winning.

The Need to Tackle U.S. Exceptionalism

2007-06-25T08:51:00.000-04:00

The WP blog carries an important piece from Gellman and Becker titled “Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power.” It highlights how the VP has been at the center of the Administrations interrogation policy development since January 11^th 2002, the day CIA officials raised the challenges facing Guantanamo interrogators. The blogger's go on to note that:

“Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning.”

The whole piece is worth reading and it underscores the need for an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Interrogation/Torture.

Rule of Law v the dictator and the United States?

2007-06-21T07:49:00.001-04:00

General/President Musharraf has, at least since 9/11, been viewed as an American stooge by Pakistanis of all political persuasions and at today’s rally in support of Pakistan’s suspended chief justice the demonstrators visually represented this sentiment.

They did so by burning an American flag at the rally.

While such an act increases the odds of the demonstration being covered on CNN and provokes a negative reaction in the U.S., it is unfortunately not an unusual or surprising occurrence. What was unusual and surprising about this particular flag burning was the identity of the demonstrators and the message they were seeking to convey.

The 5,000 strong rally was made up of lawyers (Pakistan’s legal system is an English influenced common law tradition), human rights activists (who tend to be western trained with a profound belief in international human rights law) and the opposition (they are focused on securing democratic elections and adherence to the rule of law).

A group of lawyers burned the U.S. flag to protest what they believe is U.S. support for a military dictator at the expense of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Think about that for a minute….it should give each of us pause and reason to reflect on the U.S. image in the world.

Frankly, it is past time that those who influence U.S. foreign policy take a hard look at our approach to Pakistan and recognize that we have ended up on the wrong side of the political conflict in that country.

The U.S. must demand that the Musharraf regime stop undermining the courts, press and civil society. It must also seek a timetable for free and fair elections that are open to all parties and their leaders.

When the U.S. is, with justification, perceived to be supportive of a military dictator by the bastions of liberal society - lawyers, human rights activists, democracy promoters, the press and judges - something has gone horribly wrong with our foreign policy. It is time for a change.

The Crisis Across the Region Continues

2007-06-19T16:19:00.000-04:00

As global and regional powers seek to address the plethora of crises across the NEASFram region in an incremental fashion, security continues to break down and in each situation the prospect of a secure political settlement grows dimmer.

From the fracturing of Palestine into separately controlled Gaza and the West Bank to the spiralling violence in Iraq to the rise of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, the prospects of human security across the region seem to dim by the day.

It is critical that the UNSG and other global leaders start to consider an integrated approach to addressing these interlocked crises before we are faced with a cluster of failed states throughout the NEASFram region.

Must Read Editorial in The Australian on Outsourcing of Torture

2007-06-18T07:53:00.001-04:00

I believe that this editorial in The Australian should be required reading for policy makers across the globe. The key quote:

"The American practice of outsourcing torture through the process of extraordinary rendition, as has occurred since September 11 cannot be justified. It is hard to see how sending Habib to Cairo on a CIA-chartered flight protected the US or its allies from imminent attack. His captors may have had reason to suspect Habib for his presence in Pakistan at the time of the 9-11 attacks but this does not justify incarceration without trial in an Egyptian dungeon."

Powerful Words from the former UN Envoy to the Middle East

2007-06-14T07:52:00.000-04:00

Mr De Soto wrote a confidential memo to the UNSG - it was leaked to the press. Here are some key quotes:
"The steps taken by the international community with the presumed purpose of bringing about a Palestinian entity that will live in peace with its neighbour Israel have had precisely the opposite effect..."
"The Quartet took all pressure off Israel. With all the focus on the failings of Hamas, the Israeli settlement enterprise and barrier construction has continued unabated."
RE: Hamas's commitment to the destruction of Israel he described it as: "abominable".
RE: Palestinian efforts to stop militant attacks: "patchy at best, reprehensible at worst".

Bombing of al-Askari shrine could spark uptick in violence in Iraq

2007-06-13T08:02:00.000-04:00

Another devastating day in Iraq has seen the destruction of the two minarets of the al-Askari shrine in Iraq. The shrine is one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. The Iraqi and U.S. authorities are trying to prepare for any increased violence but it is hard to be hopeful that they will be able to significantly limit killings and increased sectarian violence.....

The Great Game Continues....

2007-06-12T07:54:00.000-04:00

Afghanistan has been a proxy battle ground for regional and international conflicts for more than 150 years. This article highlights that little has changed as we move into the 21st Century. The comments re: Iran by Rory Stewart, a former diplomat currently living in Afghanistan, are worth reflecting on for a moment - Stewart believes that:

"They play very, very long strategic games, and do a lot of very traditional interference in neighbouring countries in order to try to defend their own national interests."

While Stewart is correct, it is important to note that many countries have used and are using Afghanistan for their own ends. This is why Afghanistan is such a pivotal component of NEASFram.

Musharraf Orders Withdrawal of Media Restrictions....for now

2007-06-12T07:14:00.000-04:00

Despite suffering from a range of restrictions on core rights since the Musharraf military coup, Pakistan has maintained its tradition of having a free and critical media. The Pakistani people have rightly been proud of their free press - a good friend of J21 who is from the region commented a year or so ago that despite the tensions in the country the press was still more open and critical than in many Western countries.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks this freedom, which is a foundation stone of contemporary Pakistani society, has been put under pressure from the authorities. The pivotal incident was, perhaps, the storming of the GEO TV studios by the police during which its employees were tear-gassed. This was in response to the refusal of its editors to stop broadcasting pictures of protests against the Pakistani chief justice’s suspension. After the GEO attacks the authorities became increasingly brazen in their assault on the free media and recently we saw President Musharraf decree that he would be giving the Pakistani electronic media regulatory authority new powers to close television stations. Thankfully there was a huge outcry both in Pakistan and abroad. The authorities clearly miscalculated and after much pressure from home and abroad, President Musharraf has withdrawn that order.

Nevertheless it is imperative that he is put on notice by his allies in the West, particularly the U.S. that such interventions are not acceptable. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher must continue to remain vigilant and ensure that Pakistani society continues to benefit from a free press.

The Talebanisation of Pakistan

2007-05-22T08:12:00.000-04:00

We have discussed how the lack of democracy in Pakistan and the dearth in economic assistance to the NW provinces have led to a rise in support for Taliban oriented groups. This article sheds a bit more light on the issue and again shows why issues such as representation and development are a part of NEASFram.

Lebanon Unravelling?

2007-05-22T08:03:00.001-04:00

I'm not sure if we can say that definitively right now but the violence in recent days between the Lebanese army and the Fatah al-Islam group in and around Palestinian refugee camps is really worrying. The BBC has followed the story closely and has sought to provide some useful background information. What seems certain is that without outside assistance Lebanon may be heading towards another summer of violence.

Sadly this is not a major surprise as Lebanon is an integral part of the region that falls under NEASFram - precisely because things there are complicated, it is a key pivot in the plan.

Important Chatham House Report

2007-05-17T08:19:00.000-04:00

Gareth Stansfield has written a very important report for Chatham House on the current realities on the ground in Iraq. Of particular interest to me are these two findings:

"Each of Iraq’s three major neighbouring states, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, has different reasons for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments."

"These current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq. A political solution will require engagement with organizations possessing popular legitimacy and needs to be an Iraqi accommodation, rather than a regional or US-imposed approach."

Together they provide additional support for the need for a comprehensive political agreement in Iraq and the broader region - a key finding of the NEASFram plan.

Sullivan on Paul's Debate Comments and Blowback

2007-05-17T08:15:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan considers the question of blowback - i.e. does preemption and the use of torture etc. increase the danger to both U.S. and other states in the NEASFram region?

Most Republican Presidential Candidates Fail to Grasp the Harm Caused by Torture

2007-05-17T08:06:00.000-04:00

he backlash against the comments supporting torture made by most of the Republican candidates at the Tuesday Presidential debate continues. In a powerful OP-ED in the Washington Post today Charles C. Krulak a former commandant of the Marine Corps and Joseph P. Hoar a former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command respond to the debate claims and note that torture is both a betrayal of U.S. values and breeds more enemies. They note that:
"....it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation."
Andrew Sullivan, who has been a strong voice on the issue of torture generally, also swings hard at the torture supporters on stage in S.C.:
"Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules of Western justice has no business being president."

We really are seeing a battle for the moral core of the Republican party and judging by the comments on stage and the applause from the audience those morally opposed to torture are losing.

Bombing in Pakistan

2007-05-15T08:42:00.000-04:00

Breaking news out of Pakistan suggests 30 or so people have been killed by a bomb in Peshawar....conflicting reports as to whether Afghan intel or some other group is responsible. This could be yet another example of the dangerous and complex Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship.

King Abdullah II of Jordan Understands Interconnections

2007-05-14T12:12:00.000-04:00

King Abdullah II just met with Vice President Cheney and used the meeting to make several important individual points and by implication a broader point. The King noted that "Jordan stands in support of a peaceful resolution to the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities that would spare the region further tensions." Making this comment to the VP was very important because anything less than a clear statement in favor of a peaceful resolution may have encouraged the hawkish Cheney to push a military option....he may well do so but at least he received some push back from Abdullah.

The King also stated that the Arab Plan "still represented an opportunity to advance peace and end the Arab-Israeli conflict" and strongly encouraged the U.S. Administration to push this forward. He also went on the record and reaffirmed that "reinforcing security and establishing stability in Iraq is in the interest of the country as well as a key Jordanian interest."

Each of these points individually is very important and collectively they show that while the Middle East - or from this blog's perspective the NEASFram region - has many problems, there are real and often interconnected solutions out there. We just need the political will to carry them out.

The U.K. as a Critical Friend - Implications for U.S. Gitmo Policy?

2007-05-14T08:32:00.001-04:00

The U.K. as a Critical Friend

That is the relationship the U.K. should have with the U.S. according to the results of a Guardian survey of the Labor Party's would be deputy leadership candidates. The candidates took shots at U.S. foreign policy on a range of issues from Climate Change to the ICC to Gitmo. Beyond the specifics, the candidates indicated a desire to move away from the Blair foreign policy.

Peter Hain the current Northern Ireland secretary stated the desire of the Labor Party to shift gears:

"The challenge has been how we work with a very rightwing president ... We must pursue a progressive internationalist foreign policy [and] strengthen and reform international institutions."

And Harriet Harman the justice minister underscored the need for a change in the British strategy:

"We need to draw the US closer to our politics, rather than embracing theirs. Bush's failure to plan for recovery and reconstruction in Iraq was a huge mistake which has only increased the threat of international terrorism."

This unfolding story is worth monitoring closely....we should anticpate real shifts in the U.K.-U.S. relationship in the coming months.

Pakistani Unrest

2007-05-12T09:58:00.000-04:00

In a worrying development, the pressure from the legal community and the banned opposition seems to have provoked a violent response from the Musharraf government. The BBC is reporting street battles in Karachi as the attempted appearance there by the ousted Supreme Court Justice has led to an aggressive response from Musharraf's allies. Pakistan is entering a dangerous phase at this time as the forces of democracy seek to make themselves heard.

A Very Important Letter from Gen. Petraeus

2007-05-12T09:55:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan draws attention to a very important letter from the top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. Petraeus. In the letter the General seeks to tackle the worrying signs of the recent Army survey showing that torture and other illegal actions are often condoned by soldiers in Iraq. The General clearly recognizes that the lack of adherence to core international legal standards is both harmful to the army and hurts its overall mission in Iraq.
Key quote here:
"Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. "
This is a very important moment in the fight to return the U.S. to a posture of adhering and supporting international legal norms - a core component of NEASFram is for the U.S. to again adhere to core international legal standards and to move away from U.S. exceptionalism.

Blair at the World Bank

2007-05-11T11:29:00.000-04:00

Rumors are starting to circulate that some in the foreign policy community would like to see British Prime Minister Blair take over from Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank. This is a very interesting prospect and could really help to positively influence the development components of a NEASFram type plan.

Blair Resignation and the Middle East

2007-05-10T08:00:00.000-04:00

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the timetable for his summer departure from office today. While Mr. Blair has accomplished many important objectives during his time in office, including a deal to finally secure the peace in Northern Ireland, he will perhaps always be remembered for supporting the Bush Administration's fatally flawed Iraq policy.

Interestingly, there are some rumors circulating that suggest that Mr. Blair will follow the lead of his old friend President Clinton and set up a foundation to tackle the issues he cares about. If he does move in this direction it is likely that he will seek to play a role in the Middle East and in particular seek to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. We hope that Mr. Blair does seek to engage on Middle East issues and stand ready to discuss NEASFram with him and his staff.

About Cheney And the Saudis

2007-05-09T15:37:00.000-04:00

David Ignatius is a smart guy who has a lot of intelligent things to say about the broad region covered by this blog. His most recent op-ed focuses on the Vice President's trip to Saudi Arabia to manage "the Abdullah account." Ignatius seems to suggest that the meeting will focus on the mutual desire of both parties to limit Iran's influence and that other issues such as disagreements over the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and Iraq can be put to one side. Respectfully, I am not sure if that analysis is correct because even if the Saudi moves were to be viewed through a lens of self-interested action to undercut Iran, by extension the disagreements between Saudi and the U.S. would need to be "on the table" in a Cheney/Abdullah meeting. Why? Well, it seems clear that these two disputes are tier one issues for Iran and are part of its regional strategy and therefore they must also be on the agenda for any country seeking to effectively hem Iran in. Another way to put it is that you sometimes have to meet your strategic opponent where he is. If the Saudis view Iran as their strategic opponent they must in turn consider Iranian policy towards the Israel-Palestine and Iraq....and consequently disagreements with the U.S. are a VERY big deal.

Finally let me be clear that SAI believes that there is a different approach that all parties in the region should consider - the interconnected agreements that comprise NEASFram. Such an approach will serve the U.S., Saudis and Iranians well if they give it a chance....but that will require moving away from "secret strategy councils with the hard-nosed Cheney."

Vice President Cheney in Iraq

2007-05-09T08:01:00.000-04:00

As I scanned through the news briefings of the VP's trip to Iraq this note from the BBC struck me as particularly revealing:

"Analysts say Mr Cheney will hope to build on ties forged in previous trips to the region, while in business and as vice-president to George W Bush and defence secretary to his father, President George Bush Snr."

If the VP believes that these credentials will help secure more help for the U.S. in Iraq and the broader region he is going to be in for a big surprise. Surely it is clear by now that there are significant and substantive geopolitical issues in the broader region that need to be dealt with to bring real security to the area and the broader international community. Simply being chummy with a few leaders will on its own not get the VP very far.

Worrying Thinking From Sullivan

2007-05-08T09:36:00.000-04:00

Although I disagree with Andrew Sullivan on a regular basis, I find him to be an interesting and, at times, thought provoking writer. In the foreign policy arena he has slowly come around on the Iraq issue and has shifted from being pro-invasion to now recognizing the various failings associated with the Bush Administration's policy towards that country.

Yesterday Sullivan posted a long piece titled "Re-Thinking The War I" that includes some thinking that I find quite worrying. Most troubling is the final passage of this post where he considers the ramifications of a possible/probable/likely Sunni-Shia'a conflict after a U.S. pullout:

"And: what benefits to the West could accrue from a brutal Sunni-Shi'a war in the Middle East? Yes, I know a withdrawal from Iraq will lead to statements of victory from al Qaeda. That would hurt. But ask yourself: what does bin Laden fear more in private? A continuing stalemate in Iraq that brings new recruits to his cause, exhausts the U.S. military, divides the American people, and keeps the narrative as one in which the "crusaders" are slaughtering Muslims in their own lands? Or a chaotic regional war in which the Muslim world is rent apart by sectarian warfare and in which the US and Israel are mere bystanders?"

There are two reasons, at least, to be deeply troubled by this type of thinking.
(1) From a ethical standpoint - the U.S. did break Iraq when it invaded....there is, at a minimum, an ethical/moral duty to reduce the prospects of more innocent deaths. Yes continued occupation will not work but that is not the only option - there are alternatives such as NEASFram that could allow for withdrawal without civil war. Leaving Iraq in a manner that ensures it will blow up is immoral.
(2) From a self serving standpoint - U.S. foreign policy thinkers should not be naive and think that there would be no security costs to a brutal civil war in Iraq and the region....chaos and violence and instability can lead to a host of foreseen and unforeseen problems. It is in the U.S. self-interest to avoid a civil war.

I hope Sullivan walks back from his thinking in this area - placing hundreds of thousands of people in a perilous situation because Bush broke Iraq is wrong any way you look at it.

Petraeus Understands U.S. Breaches of Int. Law Harms Nat. Sec.

2007-05-08T08:36:00.000-04:00

Gen. David Petraeus responded to the findings we discussed yesterday that suggested an erosion of the moral foundation of U.S. troops in Iraq. To the General's credit he noted that:
(a) He was really concerned by the results
(b) Recognizes a need to do more to educate troops as to the importance of the rule of law
(c) Understands the costs, including to the U.S., of breaching the laws of war

For me the key quotes from Petraeus were the following:

“We can never sink to the level of the enemy....we have done that at times in theater, and it has cost us enormously.”

AND

“So the first step is that we’ve got to . . . make sure that folks remember that that’s a foundation for our moral compass . . . anything we do that violates that is done at considerable peril.”

Let's hope the Pres, VP and the AG were listening....

Rice and Muallem Talk at Sharm el-Sheikh

2007-05-07T08:58:00.000-04:00

The relationship between the United States and Syria took a turn for the better at the recent Sharm el-Sheikh conference on Iraq. To be sure we are a long way from any type of strategic change in the U.S. approach to the region but the fact that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice actually had a first face-to-face talk with Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem is a positive step in the right direction.

The BBC noted that the tone was not hostile, with Rice telling reporters that "I didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me..."

Sharm el-Sheikh was the site of two parallel but independent meetings - one being the United Nations-sponsored International Compact for Iraq (a five-year national plan to help Iraq consolidate peace, sound governance and economic reconstruction) and the other a ministerial meeting of states neighboring Iraq.

Data on Attitudes to Torture Impacts U.S. Image

2007-05-07T08:39:00.001-04:00

A recent survey of U.S. troops in Iraq paints a bleak picture of an Army that is seeing the erosion of its moral moorings. One statistic in particular that caught my attention was the one that shows that roughly two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed would not report a team mate for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. As the Army report notes:

"Less than half of soldiers and Marines believed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect..."

As of 8.30am EST this survey has been picked up by about 500 outlets across the globe once again raising in the minds of the public from Africa to the Middle East and Europe to Asia that the U.S. Armed Forces seems to have developed a culture that rejects international law and the Geneva Conventions. This type of report should set off flags from the Pentagon to the State Department and although we cannot hope for such a reaction from the Bush Administration, we need to encourage those running for President to build foreign policy platforms capable of tackling such sentiments.