Set Up A Meeting With France, Mr. President

By now, Barack Obama has probably landed in London on the eve of the G20 summit, his first international conference as President. He has vowed to participate as a listener rather than just dictating terms. He should sit down with Nicolas Sarkozy:

Responding to a popular outcry, the French government issued a decree Monday banning stock options and limiting bonuses for bankers or auto executives who lay off workers after accepting government aid to weather the economic crisis.

Prime Minister François Fillon, announcing the measures, said France was the first European country to lay down such legal restrictions on executive pay. Although not retroactive, they will run through 2010, he said in a statement, and they could be extended.

"There is no question of some people escaping from the consequences of the crisis while others suffer unemployment or pay cuts," he added, pledging to monitor compliance with the decree carefully because "it is a question of justice."

Banks and auto companies were singled out because they have received extensive aid since the financial crisis broke out in September, leading to economic turmoil across the globe. President Nicolas Sarkozy allocated $14 billion in October to prevent France's six main banks from sinking and loaned $8 billion under favorable terms to the country's three main car companies.

I mean, this is almost a parallel situation. Societe Generale, one of the largest French banks, was a major AIG counter-party, and two weeks ago they admitted the granting of huge stock options to their executives. After public outrage, the French government, under duress, made the changes. And the Left in France remains dissatisfied.

The Socialist Party, France's main opposition group, criticized the decree as "perfectly insufficient," saying the ban should be retroactive and extend beyond banks and auto companies. In a statement, the party charged that Fillon chose to issue a decree instead of passing a law because he was afraid of a parliamentary debate on the government's efforts to address the crisis.

That is how an oppositional movement works. In America we have a few lonely cries in the wilderness, and Elizabeth Warren has been courageous in trying to get some accountability from the Treasury Department (alas, they have been stiffing her at every opportunity). But by and large most political leaders that would be seen as "on the Left" are supporting the Geithner plan, and the fury over the AIG bonuses has petered out. And people who should be giving out all their money on the street under threat of prison like Hank Paulson can whine about not getting more "credit" for saving the economy, and nobody bats an eyelash.

I know the political dynamic is easier in France, with the party on the left in opposition to the ruling party. Democrats are wary of criticizing Obama over the bank bailouts. But they must speak. We are at risk of >slipping into a Japanification (h/t Krugman), where we never do what's necessary to rescue the banks, and we slide along with zero growth and tied-up financial markets for a decade. Delay simply makes this problem worse, and makes the inevitable takeover and restructuring more expensive.

There is at least a possibility we can get out of this all right, if the PPIP becomes a prelude to determining solvency and nationalization. Perhaps the Congress needs to grant Treasury additional resolution authority to wind down units like AIG and nonbank financial institutions. But at the very least, the Administration can respond to public anger, as the political environment has shifted. People are not blaming the President for the economy right now, but at some point that will end. I appreciate their movement on many other fronts. But we have to rip off the band-aid and take the necessary steps to recapitalize the banks and ultimately tamp down the financial sector as a share of the overall economy.

The Power Of Not Being Reviled

So Russia starts bombing targets inside Georgia, the United States huffs and puffs to no avail. Then French President Sarkozy hops on Easyjet and stops off in Moscow, and within a matter of hours, just after he lands, Russia calls a cease-fire.

MOSCOW — President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia announced Tuesday that he had ordered a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia, although he did not say that troops were pulling out and he insisted that Russian forces were still authorized to fire on enemies in South Ossetia.

The president said Russia had achieved its military goals during five days of intense fighting, which has seen Russian troops advance into Georgian territory and which brought strong denunciations from President Bush and other Western leaders.

Now, there are scattered reports of continued fighting here and there. And Sarkozy was just beginning cease-fire talks and didn't exactly provoke this. But basically, what you have is a country that maintains good relations and holds a little thing called influence, and another country that coddles their neocon friends and looks ridiculous.

(On another note, Sarkosy is a dead ringer for Jean-Paul Belmondo in Breathless)

UPDATE: According to Jonathan Landay at McClatchy, (h/t K-Drum) we begged Saakashvili not to attack Georgia (which I don't totally believe) and we "had an understanding" with the Russians that they would limit themselves to fighting in South Ossetia and not beyond those borders. That's just kind of stupid, to expect the Russians not to want to dominate their sphere of influence.

UPDATE II: Here's the smartest take on reconciling the Landay article about US entreaties to Georgia, from Robert Farley:

The other possibility is that the Americans said different things than the Georgians heard. This happens ALL THE TIME in international politics; motivated bias on the part of Saakashvili may have led him to believe that the Americans were making encouraging noises, because he wanted to believe that the Americans were encouraging him. Indeed, this would go a long way to explaining how the Georgians were certain of US support, despite the fact that there was no compelling reason for the Americans to give support.

That sounds right to me.

Presumptuous

McCain has a weekly radio address now? Isn't that something a President does once they're in office? Shouldn't he wait until November to take a victory lap? Doesn't he know his place?

What about calling himself President in an ad? Doesn't he get there's 100 days to go?

These, of course, are all questions you'll never hear directed at McCain, but at Obama, and actually I think he did a good job batting them down.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped up his weeklong foreign tour Saturday, meeting at length with past, present and possibly future British prime ministers and rebutting charges from Republican John McCain's campaign that the trip amounted to a "premature victory lap" by an overly confident candidate.

Obama argued that McCain had long ago urged him to take a foreign trip and now was complaining because he had done so. "John McCain has visited every one of these countries post primary that I have," Obama told a scrum of reporters on the driveway outside No. 10 Downing Street, where the prime minister lives and works.

"He has given speeches in Canada, in Colombia, Mexico, he made visits," he added. "And so it doesn't strike me that we have done anything different than the McCain campaign has done, which is to recognize that part of the job of the next president, commander in chief is to forge effective relationships with our allies."

Quite right. It is time for him to get back home. Hobnobbing with an exuberant Nicolas Sarkozy and hundreds of thousands of screaming Germans is fine for July, but it's time to take control of the domestic policy debate. That said, the trip was successful as a marker that Obama can point to in the future, to reference when making his foreign policy case.

And anything that makes John Bolton spittle with rage was worth doing, no matter how "presumptuous" it looks.

Tibetan Protests Rise In Europe

First in London and now in Paris, pro-Tibet protesters are disrupting the Olympic torch relay, and in the case of Paris, canceled the presentation.

A relay of the Olympic torch through Paris was canceled on Monday and the flame was put on a bus at the request of Chinese officials after pro-Tibetan protesters repeatedly disrupted its progress.

Chinese authorities decided to scratch the torch relay after human rights activists and pro-Tibet protests disrupted the passage of the flame in the French capital, forcing security officials to partly speed the flame through the streets of Paris in a bus.

Despite a heavy police escort, organizers had to twice extinguish the flame briefly after hundreds of pro-Tibet activists disrupted its progress.

The flame reaches San Francisco for its only American stop on Wednesday. Hundreds of police officers are expected to shroud the ceremony, and the route has been shifted and altered in an attempt to outflank the expected protesters. Meanwhile, European governments are mulling over potential boycotts of the opening ceremonies.

The situation is essentially that the International Olympic Committee currently has the most leverage over the Chinese government's behavior in Tibet, and their human rights record generally. And so these proposed boycotts, most recently discussed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, make more than a symbolic statement. Hillary Clinton is calling on George Bush to follow suit (which is unlikely, because he digs sports). Hold Fast Blog has a lot more.

UPDATE: There are now 3 protestors carrying signs on the spans of the Golden Gate Bridge. SFist has the story.

Repression In Tibet

The arrest numbers of activists yearning for a free Tibet continue to rise. Just between the publication of this New York Times piece and this Washington Post piece a few hundred were detained. Of course they've also opened fire on protesters as well. The way this is playing out is eerily similar to the way the military junta in Burma re-established order, by arresting everyone in sight and blacking out the global media. Now they're sending journalists in for a dog and pony show.

A small group of hand-picked journalists touched down in Lhasa on the first government-led tour since China closed the tightly restricted region to foreigners last week, but it was unclear how much freedom they would have to report.

Meanwhile, experts from the government-established China Tibetology Research Center echoed leaders in blaming the Dalai Lama for deliberately sparking the protests in order to separate Tibet from China and sabotage the Aug. 8-24 Beijing Olympics.

China has been treating the broad unrest and, as of Tuesday, still-spreading protests as a law-and-order issue that has mostly been contained. But rights groups and foreign leaders continue to pressure China to exercise restraint, open Tibetan areas to foreign observers and sit down for frank talks with the Dalai Lama, with some even raising the possibility of a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

Repressive societies don't deviate much from the plan. Meanwhile the global community is finally coming around to recognize the scale of the problem. In addition to the expected outspoken human rights defenders, like Bishop Tutu and Avaaz (one million people have signed their petition), the world powers are stepping up as well.

European leaders sharpened their tone over Tibet on Wednesday, as President Bush telephoned President Hu Jintao of China and urged a resumption of negotiations with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader.

Even as Chinese diplomats sought to defend the crackdown on protesters in Tibet, officials said they were considering sending a fact-finding mission to Beijing, signaling an intensification of international concern over the violent repression in the region.

In London, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France told a joint session of the House of Commons and the House of Lords during a state visit that Britain and France shared a responsibility to urge the Chinese leadership to respect human rights and cultural identity.

That goal could only be achieved if there was “true dialogue” between China and the Dalai Lama, he said, a day after hinting that France might boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing this summer.

Obviously, the Olympics are a bit of leverage for the world, though it's silly that it should be (Bush, of course, isn't going that far). But China is very concerned about its image, and beating and jailing Tibetans isn't helping.

Speaking of image, if Gavin Newsom wants to become the Governor of California in 2010, he would do well not to hide the Olympic torch route and set up free speech zones to try and curtail expected protests. That's not going to put a smile on any liberal's face.

China is truly sacrificing their emerging status as a world power with this maneuver. I know they're an economic juggernaut, but this sends a message to the world that is being received poorly. The Tibetans can and will be free, and China's remaining in denial will only harm them more in the end.

World Report

I've got a lot of international stories that probably aren't worth a full post, so here goes:

• Opium: it's not just for Afghanistan anymore.

The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops.

Afghan with experience in planting poppies have been helping farmers switch to producing opium in fertile parts of Diyala province, once famous for its oranges and pomegranates, north- east of Baghdad.

Failed states eventually become narco-states. It's a fact of life. And the real question is whether or not this money is flowing, like to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to insurgent and anti-government forces.

• By the way, Pakistan is a complete mess. A fort in Waziristan has been overrun by Islamists, and the intelligence service has lost control of the key elements of the militant networks there. At the same time, the United States is slowly creeping forward with a greater military role inside the country, leading us into yet another untenable conflict.

• In Kenya, amidst credible evidence that the election was rigged, the resulting unrest has once again turned violent, with riot police using live ammo and killing protestors. The anti-government forces are now looking to economic boycotts and other peaceful protests to make themselves heard. What is very worrisome is the continued tribal violence, which is not limited to Kenya inside the region. Just next door in Rwanda, the ideology of genocide is still being taught in schools.

• Nicolas Sarkozy is no longer the darling of the right, I'd gather, after the fairly trashy saga of marrying an ex-model months after a messy divorce, after his ex-wife called him "a man who likes no-one, not even his children." Of course, the Republicans are the party of Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston... so maybe it's not a big deal.

• The fallout from President Bush's "Ignorant Abroad" act through the Middle East is just starting to be felt. After a right-wing faction pulled out of Ehud Olmert's government because of the slightest hint of peace talks with the Palestinians, Olmert put his hawkish hat on.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed on Thursday to wage a "war" to stop Gaza militants firing rockets into Israel, despite warnings by Palestinian leaders that Israeli military strikes would harm peacemaking.

"A war is going on in the south, every day, every night," Olmert said in a speech.

"We cannot and will not tolerate this unceasing fire at Israeli citizens ... so we will continue to operate, with wisdom and daring, with the maximum precision that will enable us to hit those who want to attack us," Olmert said, minutes after the air strike.

Israel has a right to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the immediate fallout from Bush's visit was a break away from peace and talk of war.

• Elsewhere, the Ignorant Abroad talked about freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia while not meeting any democracy activists or dissidents, claimed that Egypt is moving toward political reform when he has done nothing of the sort, and basically spent his trip lavishing gifts on the Gulf states in the hopes that they would raise production of oil. And by the way, got no concession for his efforts. So, lies, incompetence, and failure. Just like at home!

Questioning The Facts That Don't Fit The Dementia

The neocons call for Team B:

Senate Republicans are planning to call for a congressional commission to investigate the conclusions of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as well as the specific intelligence that went into it, according to congressional sources.

The move is the first official challenge, but it comes amid growing backlash from conservatives and neoconservatives unhappy about the assessment that Iran halted a clandestine nuclear weapons program four years ago. It reflects how quickly the NIE has become politicized, with critics even going after the analysts who wrote it, and shows a split among Republicans.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he plans to introduce legislation next week to establish a commission modeled on a congressionally mandated group that probed a disputed 1995 intelligence estimate on the emerging missile threat to the United States over the next 15 years.

If Democrats dare to allow this politicization of the intelligence community, I really have to throw up my hands. But I don't think they will. I must admit to being amused by this freak-out on the right, where conflicting opinions MUST be wrong and must be challenged. If the NIE says Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, the NIE must be doctored. Contrary opinions don't exist.

The truth is that the nation's intelligence professionals understand that Iran retains key capabilities to restart a nuclear program, and may do so. But the NIE reflects an assessment of the facts as they are, not as neocon warmongers wish them to be.

What's breathtaking is how the Administration is truly acting as if nothing happened. They're still moving forward on a missile defense program that is now simply ludicrous, as nobody has the capability to launch missiles that the program would purport to shoot down (even though it can't). They're still seeking support for sanctions against the Islamic Republic, and they're actually receiving that support.

"Iran continues to represent a threat," Mrs (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel said during a joint news conference with Mr Sarkozy in Paris.

She did not specifically express support for a new UN sanctions resolution against Iran, which the US is calling for.

"We and our partners would like to continue with the UN process," Mrs Merkel said.

"I think we and our partners need to continue to seek dialogue with Iran," she said.

Mr (French President Nicolas) Sarkozy said he agreed with his German counterpart that Iran still posed a danger, and that he supported the push for more sanctions.

"Notwithstanding the latest elements, everyone is fully conscious of the fact that there is a will of the Iranian leaders to obtain nuclear weapons.

"What made Iran move up to now, it was sanctions and firmness," he said.

Look, the neocons have been wrong about every foreign policy challenge of the last 50 years. They make things up whenever the facts don't fit their politics. The great danger is that the people in power act based on those self-created facts. Frankly, let's see some hearings on the Iran NIE. I'd love to know why the report was delayed for about a year. I'd love to know why the President first said that he was informed about changes in the intelligence on Iran in August, but he wasn't told what the changes were. I'd love to know if this speculation is true.

There are, oversimplifying, two threads going around, one that the 'Iran doesn't have an active program' preliminary finding was circulating in the Administration in late '06 (Hersh, etc), and the other that Bush was told about the upcoming finding in August by McConnell, after which he changed his characterization so as not to be so obviously lying about the nature of the threat (all the while still intentionally leaving a grossly misleading impression).

The two threads can be reconciled. The basis for the findings had, indeed, been circulating beginning in late 2006, and ever since. One has to assume that Cheney and his forces marshaled full fire on those findings, and successfully suppressed them, preventing their release. That effort, however, eventually failed, probably due to intelligence and Pentagon unwillingness to take the fall for another war.

What happened in early August was not that Bush learned of the findings, but that McConnell informed him that the NIE containing the findings would be released. Those on the side of releasing them (which had to have included Gates) simply won the battle, and either faced down Cheney, threatened to resign if they lost or utilized whatever other strategy required. It was not the discovery of the underlying truth of the findings that caused the change in rhetoric (becoming more vague on Iran's nuclear status, but more bellicose on Iran generally). It was the realization that the NIE would become public.

Bang that gavel. Thanks, Sen. Ensign.

Drumbeat Update

I suspected that Nicolas Sarkozy was out making a bunch of statements about Iran because what he was hearing from the President at their little set-to in Kennebunkport was turning him white. The Moonie Times confirms this:

After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kenebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities. That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries...

But meanwhile, it's interesting to see how this is playing out in Tehran, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chief rival was just given more power than him:

In a move considered to be a blow to the hardline politics of Iran's ruling party, the former president Hashemi Rafsanjani was today chosen to head the powerful clerical body that has responsibility over the country's supreme leader.

Mr Rafsanjani received 41 votes to lead the Assembly of Experts, the group of clerics that oversees, appoints and dismisses Iran's supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [...]

The former president is regarded as more moderate than the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose politics are at odds with Mr Rafsanjani's .

The two politicians went head to head in the 2005 elections, when Mr Ahmadinejad beat Mr Rafsanjani in the run-off to become president of the country.

"This is exactly what the hardliners don't want," said Dr Ali Ansari, an Iran-watcher at Chatham House and a professor of Iranian history at the University of St Andrews. "It's a body blow for Ahmadinejad."

Iran's governmental structure is byzantine. But suffice to say that the head of the committee that can fire the Supreme Leader has a lot more power than the President of the country. Inside Iran the Ahmadinejad Presidency has not been successful, particularly on the economic front that he has the most control over. And his statements on matters of foreign policy are seen inside the regime as unhelpful. Far from being a despot or a dictator, Ahmadinejad is an unpopular public servant. Just like George Bush.

This seems to be happening on Iran's terms and not in reaction to American threats. I think that we often make the mistake in America that the world revolves around us, a kind of American heliocentric theory. In fact there are internal machinations that we don't fully understand, and typically when we try to meddle in these affairs we make the problem worse.