Ending The Scourge Of Nuclear Weapons

One way in which Barack Obama has separated himself from a standard-issue foreign policy hawk, at least in the modern conception, is on the issue of nuclear weapons. The paleo-cons and realists have generally come to the conclusion that there is no purposeful use for nuclear weapons on this planet, and the President agrees with them. Today, he presided over a session of the UN Security Council and got a unanimous agreement from the member nations to a resolution calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Gordon Brown even vowed to reduce his country's nuclear arsenal in conjunction with this pledge. In his remarks, Obama applied his prodigious rhetorical skills to a very good end.

As I said yesterday, this very institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man's capacity to kill had to be contained. And although we averted a nuclear nightmare during the Cold War, we now face proliferation of a scope and complexity that demands new strategies and new approaches. Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow; Tokyo or Beijing; London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.

Once more, the United Nations has a pivotal role to play in preventing this crisis. The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal. It reflects the agenda I outlined in Prague, and builds on a consensus that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.

He's asking for more than just a hand-holding kumbaya. The resolution would commit nations to a lockdown of all loose nuclear materials within four years. It would strengthen the mandate of the IAEA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It of course follows that nations seen as out of compliance with the NPT and the IAEA would have to face sanctions, and Obama got Russia to agree to that standard with respect to Iran. But you really cannot call for an end to nuclear weapons worldwide without calling attention to those countries threatening to defy that. I am unconvinced that Iran belongs in that number, but the pressure of proposed sanctions has led to international talks and moves toward engagement.

I share the President's vision of a world without nuclear weapons. In order for that to become reality, we need to use all necessary tools to capture loose nuclear material, confer legitimacy on the process by drawing down our own stockpiles, and ensure that all proliferation stops. That includes making all parties live up to treaty obligations. This is a worthwhile goal.

"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop until all -- we must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the Earth."

That is our task. That can be our destiny. And we will leave this meeting with a renewed determination to achieve this shared goal. Thank you.

The Unsaid In Obama's UN Speech

Here's Barack Obama's speech to the UN. As a expression of intent to disengage as a world hegemon, this would be pretty good:

This is what we have already done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges [...]

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides -- coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.

I know a way to back this up - by leaving the US military bases in Germany and Japan, two rich nations who have ample means to provide for their own security.

But that's not happening.

The Battle To Defend The Clearly Fraudulent And Hated Afghan Government

The UN is now officially calling the Afghan elections fraudulent. And then calling for a... recount of the fraudulent data?

Afghanistan's troubled presidential election was thrown into further turmoil Tuesday when a U.N.-backed complaints panel charged widespread fraud and ordered a partial recount, just as election officials announced that President Hamid Karzai appeared to have gained enough votes to win.

The growing political crisis threatens to set off a direct confrontation between Karzai and his Western backers, who have been increasingly alarmed by mounting evidence of ballot-box stuffing and other irregularities, much of it reportedly benefiting Karzai's campaign.

In the days immediately following the Aug. 20 vote, U.S. officials were uniform in praising what President Obama called "a successful election." Obama said he looked forward "to renewing our partnership with the Afghan people as they move ahead under a new government."

But the widening fraud issue now seems likely to further prolong the slow election process, leaving the country without a clear leader for weeks or even months while tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops are battling the Taliban alongside Afghan forces. Obama's strategy also includes major economic development initiatives, improved delivery of services and a crackdown on corruption -- all of which will be difficult to implement without a valid Afghan government.

It puts the military in an unwinnable situation, trying to win hearts and minds over to a government which is clearly corrupt. And if riots break out, would the military come to the aid of the government against protesters against a stolen election?

Meanwhile, the situation is getting more dangerous for Americans over there. New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell barely escaped from the Taliban after a commando raid (his Afghan interpreter was killed in the melee). Insurgents trapped and killed four US soldiers yesterday in a firefight witnessed by McClatchy's Jonathan Landay:

"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.

Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border.

With the government having lost legitimacy, the Taliban has become emboldened, and its forces tied up with nationalists fighting occupiers. And our mission has become increasingly scrambled. Liberal hawks (like Howard Dean!) need to come to their senses and realize how far we've strayed from the mission in Afghanistan, and how little hope we have of a turnaround.

Showdown In Tegucigalpa

The Organization of American States unanimously demanded the return of Mel Zelaya to the Presidency in Honduras, and gave the new government three days to do so. If they refuse, they will be suspended from the organization. The US has put joint military exercises in Honduras on hold. The UN resolved not to recognize the coup-backed government. And Mel Zelaya will head back to the country:

The two presidents of Honduras were headed on a collision course Tuesday, as the president ousted by a coup vowed to return and his replacement threatened to arrest him the minute he lands.

Neither side seemed willing to bend in a looming confrontation that is the first test of the Obama administration's diplomacy and clout in the hemisphere.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, removed from office Sunday in a military-led coup, addressed the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Tuesday and said he would fly back to Honduras on Thursday, accompanied by the head of the Organization of American States.

But the newly appointed interim president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, warned that if Zelaya returns, he will be arrested, tried and sent to prison for years. Micheletti's claim on the presidency is seen as illegitimate by the international community.

The situation is somewhat complex - referenda of the kind that Zelaya sought have questionable legality in the Honduran system, and sadly, the military runs elections. But the real problem here is the lack of a legislative check on the Presidency. If a President falls from favor with the representative Congress, they have no means, through impeachment, of removing him. There's nothing constitutional about rousting the President from his bed at gunpoint, sending him to the airfield in pajamas and flying him out of the country. But there's no remedy to a Constitutional crisis of the type that supporters of the coup, at least, feel they had with Zelaya's call for a referendum that they say would eventually increase Presidential term limits.

This sounds like a compromise:

As the rally was underway, a small, anxious but growing group of Honduran lawmakers sought to build a coalition to endorse a compromise measure to allow for Zelaya's return. According to one participant in the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of derailing the negotiations, the compromise would include a general amnesty for everyone involved, including the coup leaders and members of the military, while Zelaya would have to abandon his plan to hold a referendum that could lead to a change in the Honduran constitution.

One four-year term sounds a little constricting for a President, but Zelaya shouldn't necessarily be allowed to orchestrate his own hold on power. Of course, the point of a referendum is that the people decide, so I'm not seeing the dictatorial nature of it. I guess the military is saving the people from themselves.

Forget The Hype, Look To The Facts In Iran

Another outrage today concerned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments at the UN Conference on Racism, which prompted several diplomats to walk out of the meeting. This is the typical anti-Zionism and Holocaust denial of which Ahmadinejad is famous, and it's all terribly familiar. I would argue that the uproar is not at all significant compared to this development.

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, just convicted of espionage and sentenced to 8 years in prison, should be afforded every opportunity for a thorough legal defense in her appeal, according to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Saberi's conviction and sentence are an irritant in the attempt to President Barack Obama to improve relations with Iran, and Ahmadinejad, who is no fool, knows it [...] Ahmadinejad does not want Saberi's case to derail the current thaw between Washington and Tehran.

It is also likely that Ahmadinejad is worried that the Saberi case will reflect badly on him with Iranian youth and women, who in past years swung toward reformist candidates pledging greater personal liberties. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's rival, has now taken up that mantle, and he could benefit from a backlash in the Iranian public over the Saberi case.

One opinion poll showed Ahmadinejad trailing Mousavi among workers.

That is just a huge reversal, evident of a split, even among hardliners, inside Iran. While some in the government want to use the Saberi case as a bargaining chip, Ahmadinejad would rather use the case, and his advocacy for Saberi, in his election campaign. This shows that, at least at some level, Iran actually must respond to the will of its people, which is a powerful thing to remember as the diplomacy over their nuclear program continues.

The Chief Of Staff Of Looking Forward Not Backward

Rahm Emanuel wants us all to just forget about the people who tortured in our name, those who authorized it, the ones who created the justifications and underpinnings for it, the entire torture regime:



Never mind the moral backflips you have to make to let people off the hook for torture. Never mind the fact that the interrogators did not even follow the guidelines and meager safeguards set out in the OLC memos - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. Let's put all of that aside for a second. Rahm Emanuel is calling on the President and the Justice Department to willingly break the law.

US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.
Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims.

"The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

Maybe the President should clarify his position. According to his chief of staff, the President and the Attorney General are committed to breaking international law. Once again, we see that covering up past crimes does nothing but entangle the current executive in the crimes themselves.

Meanwhile, regarding the impeachment of Torture Judge Jay Bybee, Claire McCaskill is now on the record considering it.

What’s scary to me, Chris, is that one of them got a lifetime appointment on a federal bench. Yikes! You know, a lawyer that’s responsible for this kind of advice that clearly went too far in terms of stretching what our law is. It worries me that he’s sitting on the federal bench right now.

She then said she doesn’t want to “look in the rearview mirror.” Asked by host Chris Wallace whether she would favor the impeachment of the judge, Jay Bybee, McCaskill responded, “I don’t know. I think we have to look at it.”

McCaskill is not a wild-eyed lefty. Like any American with a conscience, she understands the failing of having the man who signed those memos sitting judgment on the federal bench. It is time to impeach.

North Korea Tries To Escalate

It took the UN over a week to pen their strongly worded letter condemning North Korea's missile launch, and Pyongyang immediately responded:

North Korea announced it would quit six-nation nuclear disarmament talks and restart its atomic weapons programme in protest at the UN's condemnation of its rocket launch.

The communist nation said Security Council discussion of the launch, which the North insists sent a satellite into orbit, was "an unbearable insult" to its people.

Analysts described the Pyongyang statement as unusually strong, and China, the North's closest ally, called for all sides involved in the talks to show restraint.

"There is no need for the six-party talks any more," said a statement from Pyongyang's foreign ministry carried by the Korean Central News Agency.

"We will never again take part in such talks and will not be bound by any agreement reached at the talks."

Now, let's not lost our heads over this. This is definitely a strong statement, perhaps their strongest yet. But the North Koreans have simply shown no aptitude for nuclear weapons. All the tests have failed and all the missile launches have failed, at least in their stated goals. Also, Pyongyang has threatened to quit these talks on multiple occasions, only to return to the bargaining table. Finally, they have gone very far down the road of disabling their nuclear program - remember the destruction of the reactor? Putting everything back together will take time and money, and the latter is scarce in North Korea.

Pyongyang wants to become a first-order problem for the West, but they have not risen to that level.

Rejoining The World Community

With the glaring exception of Af-Pak policy, which is admittedly fraught with tough choices, I have appreciated the Obama Administration's work in foreign policy to this point. They have moved in a number of additional directions today.

First, they decided to join the UN Human Rights Council, after George Bush pulled the US off of it.

"Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement. "With others, we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system. . . . We believe every nation must live by and help shape global rules that ensure people enjoy the right to live freely and participate fully in their societies."

The United States announced it would participate in elections in May for one of three seats on the 47-member council, joining a slate that includes Belgium and Norway.

Bush's removal from the Council was entirely based on right-wing demonization of the UN. And this made John Bolton sputter with rage, which is always fun.

Next, US and Iranian officials took part in a cordial meeting today at a conference on Afghanistan.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - In a cautious first step toward unlocking 30 years of tense relations, senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial meeting with Iran's deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan.

The rare diplomatic approach was the first official face-to-face interplay between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cautioned that the brief talks between Holbrooke and Iranian diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh were cordial but not "substantive."

"They agreed to stay in touch," Clinton said at the close of a one-day conference on Afghan security and development that was designed partly to allow the diplomatic turn with Iran. She told NBC News, "We think there is room for more engagement with Iran going forward." [...]

The face-to-face pleasantries, along with a diplomatic letter hand-delivered to the Iranian delegation by a U.S. official, were carefully calibrated overtures from the Obama administration aimed at testing the clerical regime's willingness to take larger steps.

This is especially encouraging in light of new Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's messianic rantings about how Obama must stop Iran "or I will." Here on Planet Earth, in the post-Bush era we engage with enemies and exhaust diplomatic avenues instead of the failed neocon policy of belligerence and unilateralism. Israel doesn't have the resources to carry out an attack on Iran, and are only left with bluster. Obama's words of engagement toward Iran mean much more.

Finally, Secretary of State Clinton acknowledged at the same conference in The Hague that the United States no longer uses the phrase "war on terror."

"The administration has stopped using the phrase, and I think that speaks for itself," Mrs. Clinton told reporters as she traveled here for a United Nations-led conference on Afghanistan.

The phrase has been criticized as having inflammatory connotations in the Muslim world. Some Democratic officials believe it is better to describe more specifically whom the U.S. is fighting, such as al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks in response to reporters' questions. Asked whether there was a specific policy decision on the terminology, she said: "I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used."

President Obama used the phrase a bit during the campaign, but I'm glad to see his Administration dropping it. The entire "war" terminology is unhelpful, whether we're talking about drugs or cancer or poverty. Against terror, the phrase was particularly misapplied. In addition to it being impossible to wage war on a tactic (David Cross famously said "It would be like fighting a war on jealousy"), it has been used to justify all manner of unconstitutional unitary executive rulings that took away civil liberties. There is no reason to be imprecise when talking about war. People may get the idea that you're waging it on them.

All in all, a pretty good day for change in the Obama Administration.

Rejoining The World

The real tragedy is that for eight years America refused to sign this, a demurral that will end.

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

Our ability to speak out against human rights abusers throughout the world has been severely limited by the past eight years. So this is good. However, we have a long way to go. Repealing DOMA, stopping the shutdown of lawsuits through state secrets, ending the assertion of indefinite detention, &c...

Exile In Condiland

I know that the Administration is trying to put the best face on the disaster they've made of things the last few years, and they're entitled to try, but I would submit to them that they stop using Condi Rice for this purpose. She is the worst liar of the bunch, and the most brazen.

This week, SO FAR, she's claimed that Iran tried to stop the SOFA agreement in Iraq (they, um, didn't, and in fact approved the proposal in the end), she made the argument that no American money was wasted in the reconstruction of Iraq (save, oh, tens of billions documented in a recent report and the $12 billion handed out from the back of a plane), and she decided that the United States has embraced the UN more than any President "maybe ever" (other than appointing a UN Ambassador who thinks that if the UN building lost ten stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference).

There are more examples here and here. Does she know that people are listening when she talks? This woman should be laughed off the Stanford campus when she returns.

The Perils Of Actual Negotiation

This is getting kind of ugly. This Administration doesn't really have a model for negotiating with a partner that won't give them everything they want. The Iraqis can't sign this SOFA agreement.

BAGHDAD, Oct. 21 -- The Iraqi cabinet called Tuesday for reopening negotiations over a draft agreement to keep U.S. forces in this country beyond 2008, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates immediately expressed "great reluctance" about more talks.

The apparent stalemate comes just 10 weeks before the expiration of the United Nations mandate that authorizes the presence of the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Without a new legal agreement, "we basically stop doing anything" in the country, Gates told news service reporters in Washington [...]

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have labored for seven months on the status-of-forces agreement. It would extend the American troop presence until the end of 2011 and give Iraqis more control over military operations here. But the accord was immediately criticized as an undermining of Iraqi sovereignty in this strongly nationalist country. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has not spoken publicly in support of it and has told colleagues it needs changes, officials say.

The most serious public challenge to the agreement emerged Tuesday in a meeting of the Iraqi cabinet. The ministers "unanimously agreed that there are necessary amendments which need to be made . . . to raise the agreement to a nationally acceptable level," according to a statement by government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. The statement did not specify what changes were sought. But one of the participants in the meeting said in an interview that Maliki himself told the cabinet that the accord did not pass muster.

"He made observations on the need for further changes, because he wants to market it" publicly, the participant said. He added that the prime minister said the accord "would be difficult, as it stands, to pass through parliament."

As said above, Gates is shutting the door on further concessions. There's actually a leaked copy of the agreement floating around, and it's a slippery document which contradicts itself in places. There was some question about legal jurisdiction, so I want to reproduce that part of it:

1­ The U.S. has the primary legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members concerning issues that occur inside the installations and areas agreed upon, and while they are on duty outside t he installations and areas agreed upon, and in all conditions not mentioned in paragraph 2.

2­ Iraq has the primary legal jurisdict ion over armed forces members and civilian members in cases of major and intent ional crimes ment ioned in paragraph 8 that takes place outside areas and installat ions agreed upon while troops are off duty.

3­ Iraq has the primary legal jurisdiction over contractors with the U.S. and their employees [...]

6­ Both sides have the right to ask the ot her side to waive their primary legal jurisdiction over a specific case. Due to the exceptional importance of exercising such jurisdictions, the Iraqi government agrees to exercise its judicial jurisdict ions in accordance to paragraph 2 only after it informs the U.S. in writ ing within 21 days of the discovery of the alleged crime.

It's seldom that US forces are both away from bases and off-duty, so that's meaningless. However, the contractor jurisdiction is pretty airtight. However however, the jurisdiction can be waived and Iraq has to assert the legal right. The whole document is like this.

As to the withdrawal, it does look like the US has to leave by the end of 2011 at the latest (it can be earlier) unless the Iraqi government asks them to stay, which I can't see them doing because it would be like signing a death warrant, at least at this juncture.

But keep in mind, the Iraqis consider this to be a raw deal. Maliki's coalition partners oppose it. They're asking for more concessions. And the Administration has no experience with anyone saying "No" to them and meaning it, so I think we're at an impasse.

Juan Cole notes that the UN mandate can easily be renewed. That the Administration isn't going that route suggests that the SOFA agreement is a kind of malware, something they can use to keep permanent bases or raid Iraqi oil.

The agreement likely cannot pass parliament. If it does pass, it is unlikely to pass by January 1, when the old UN mandate for the Multi-National Forces in Iraq runs out. Without such a mandate or a bilateral agreement, US troops in Iraq could be tried for war crimes even for ordinary military operations. If Iraq did go back to the UN for an extension of its mandate, it turns out that Russia would support an extension. Some observers, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, had wondered whether the US reaction to the Georgia police action had so soured Russia on Washington that Moscow would play spoiler on the UNSC with regard to Iraq. Not so, apparently.

Incredible. In this case, Bush going down to the wire looking for an agreement has the potential to get American troops tried for war crimes, when he could have easily extended the mandate and passed this mess on to the next President. As long as there's a fork in the road, this President will take the one with the giant bear in the middle of it.

SOFA Matters

Yesterday we were treated to the revelation that the Cheney Administration is trying to blackmail the Iraqi government by effectively holding billions of dollars of their assets hostage until they seen the status of forces agreement allowing US military and contractor personnel autonomy and immunity inside Iraq. The Iraqis don't have a lot of cards to play, but they're trying to play them.

The Iraqi government may request an extension of the United Nations security mandate authorizing a U.S. military presence, due to expire in December, amid growing domestic criticism of new bilateral arrangements now being negotiated with the Bush administration, according to senior Iraqi officials.

Iraqis across the political spectrum have objected to Bush administration proposals for unilateral authority over U.S. military operations in Iraq and the detention of Iraqi citizens, immunity for civilian security contractors, and continuing control over Iraqi borders and airspace.

Failure to reach an agreement on the arrangements, which must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, would leave the negotiations over a future U.S.-Iraqi relationship and the role of U.S. forces in the country to the next American president.

For some reason, the Iraqis understand the value of stalling this President and running out the clock more than the Democratic leadership. They have a better sense of how their very future is at stake.

In addition to the political machinations inside the UN, protesters are flooding the streets, denouncing the proposed SOFA and calling on a popular referendum before any agreement becomes law. The popular mobilization here is going to make it almost impossible for the Maliki government to sign any pact with the US. They'd have betrayed their own people and would never survive the next round of elections. Similarly, the pressure being put on them from the other side is enormous. I honestly don't know how it will turn out, but our soldiers' safety and the stability of the nation most certainly hangs in the balance.

Tragic Disaster Assistance

The military leadership in Burma is choking their own citizens, and while I understand the need to keep politics at the cyclone's edge and not act in a divisive manner by insulting the government whose help you need to administer aid, their behavior has been atrocious. First they started confiscating aid shipments, causing the UN to stop sending them (they've recently changed their minds). Then they allowed a US cargo plane in the country, but basically wanted everything dropped off at the docks. They've continually refused travel visas to aid workers. And now it appears that the boxes of aid they are sending out have the generals' names plastered on them.

Despite international appeals to postpone a referendum on a controversial proposed constitution, voting began Saturday in all but the hardest hit parts of the country. With voters going to the polls, state-run television continuously ran images of top generals including junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, handing out boxes of aid at elaborate ceremonies.

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

There's going to be a second catastrophe as those in most urgent need of supplies and medical care don't get them in time. The military government is failing its people and doesn't seem to have much concern over it.

Global Crisis

The food shortage is getting on the radar screen. I guess when there are runs on rice bags at Wal-Mart and Costco, the notion that it's a global crisis becomes more finely realized.

"This steeply rising price of food — it has developed into a real global crisis," Ban said, adding that the World Food Program has made an urgent appeal for additional $755 million.

"The United Nations is very much concerned, as (are) all other members of the international community," Ban said. "We must take immediate action in a concerted way."

The world economy is built on so many bad deals for poor people and enrichment for multinationals that this was bound to happen. During the Depression political elites had to wrench power away from entrenched corporate interests to avert mass starvation. What will we see on the global level?

Strains of Peace

This hope thing may be catching. Kofi Annan managed to broker a deal in Kenya between the two political factions after a disputed election erupted into violence. The two sides agreed to share power in a unity government. Let this put to rest the familiar bleating on the right about the fecklessness of the UN or its surrogates like Annan. Conflict resolution is, in fact, a positive development.

In a development that is perhaps MORE positive, 24 Senators on the Finance Committee have written to the Secretary of State, asking for a reassessment of US-Cuba policy.

Our current policy of isolation and estrangement has failed.  Cuba's political system is stable after five decades of American efforts to force change on the island.  New laws that tightened sanctions in 1992 and 1996 have had no effect. The administration's 2004 sanctions and its comprehensive plan to bring about transition in Cuba have failed in their objective.  The absence of Fidel Castro for 20 months has not led to a change in the system.

Instead, our current policy deprives the United States of influence in Cuba, including the opportunity to promote principles that advance democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  By restricting the ability of Americans to travel freely to Cuba, we limit contact and communication on the part of families, civil society, and government.  Likewise, by restricting the ability of our farmers, ranchers, and businesses to trade with Cuba, the United States has made itself irrelevant in Cuba's growing economy, allowing Cuba to build economic partnerships elsewhere.

There is no magic U.S. policy that will transform Cuba.  But with Cuba facing a period of change, we have a new opportunity to seize.  Our policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting should end.  We need a new approach that defends human rights, is confident about the value of American engagement with Cubans, builds new economic bridges between America and Cuba, and seeks every possible avenue of increasing American influence.

We urge you to take a fresh look at our policy toward Cuba.  We should seize upon Castro's long-awaited and welcome departure to chart a new course that favors hope and engagement over isolation and estrangement.

I think that when you see a political campaign run the way that Barack Obama has run it, and how successful it has become, and how it's built such a movement for change, politicians, which generally follow the herd, TAKE NOTICE. Strong advocacy against the current Cuba policy makes perfect sense. We are not fighting the Cold War anymore, and constructive engagement has continually led to democratization. I'm not saying that the answer to all of our worries in the world is to send in the New York Philharmonic, but clearly isolating and alienating an island 90 miles from Florida for the last 50 years has done nothing. It's good to see a bipartisan commitment to fixing this error.

Either With Us Or With The Terrorists

Mark Siljander is perhaps not with us.

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

A St. Ronnie Reagan appointee to the UN, by the way.

Now, a lot of these Islamic charity lawsuits have amounted to nothing, so we should be a little careful on this. But the connection between Islamic terrorists and random Republican lawmakers is not a new one.

Remembering To Forget

Hey, remember when the oil for food scandal was simply the gravest episode of corruption in world history? Remember how it discredited the UN and proved that our allies in Old Europe were working with our enemies? Remember when the very serious Paul Volcker was brought in to investigate, and how this was the lead story on wanker cable news shows like Brit Hume's for about a year? Remember when that lightweight Norm Coleman made the scandal his personal crusade and accused George Galloway of getting more in kickbacks than Zaire's Mobutu? Remember when every documented incident of defense contractors stealing billions from the US Treasury as a result of the war was met with cries of "Oil for food, oil for food"?

Well, now that it's completely out of the wingnut spotlight, not only does it turn out that the only guy who's been actually convicted of fraud in this scandal is a Texas oilman, but the latest two companies to be investigated are pharmaceuticals.

GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca have been asked to hand over papers as part of a probe into bribes allegedly paid to Saddam Hussein's former Iraq regime.

The Serious Fraud Office is examining allegations of bribes paid to secure lucrative contracts in breach of Iraq's 1996 to 2003 oil-for-food programme.

The programme, established in the wake of UN sanctions, allowed Iraq to sell oil to buy humanitarian provisions.

I eagerly await the 24-hour news channels to cover this with all the vigor of a missing girl in Aruba.

(Also, Chevron knew about illegal payments too, and they acknowledged their executives did nothing to stop it, including this member of the board of directors named Condoleezza Rice).

Like They're Trying To Destroy Their Own Credibility

The UN climate change conference kicks off today in Bali, Indonesia, parts of which are sinking, by the way. And the Republicans are sending a representative from the Senate Environment Committee. Obviously they're looking to burnish their standing by sending someone of stature, of renown, of credibili...

Larry WHO???

Craig is traveling to Bali this week for the U.N.-led climate change conference as the “Republican representative from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,” which is led by chief global warming denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).

Prior to his travels, Craig attacked EPW Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for creating “all-pain, no-gain” climate change legislation that would call for caps on greenhouse gas emissions. It “demonstrates nothing more than her intent to revert the United States to a developing country,” he asserted.

Now, Washington to Bali is a long flight. It may not have been nonstop. My point is that there are a lot of airport bathrooms between here and there.

By the way, this comes on the heels of another devastating story from several men claiming they either received sex or sexual advances from Craig, which he categorically denied. Obviously, Bali is off the beaten path for political reporters looking to Craig for comment.

In a way, Craig is the perfect symbol for the GOP message on global warming: discredited, in denial, untrustworthy.

Things You Won't See On Conservative Websites

Of all the huff and puff about the oil-for-food program and how the UN, France, Germany, Russia, liberals, Dan Rather and vegans have been totally discredited by it, I think it's of slight interest to note that the first person to be convicted in the case is a Texas oilman.

Texas oilman Oscar Wyatt Jr. was sentenced to a year in prison Tuesday for his role in corrupting the U.N. oil-for-food program, winning leniency from a judge who cited his military service during World War II and his many good deeds during his lifetime.

Wyatt, 83, cried as he addressed the court, saying he ''would never do anything to hurt my country.''

Moments later, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin imposed a sentence below the year and a half to two years in prison to which Wyatt had agreed when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy last month. Wyatt also agreed to forfeit $11 million.

By the way, this guy who got leniency after numerous letters to the judge, including from members of Congress and Farrah Fawcett (!), paid Saddam-era Iraqi officials $8 million dollars to get favorable oil contracts, and maintained close relations with Saddam throughout this period.

Somehow, this won't be the first thing that comes up when you hear "oil-for-food." But American oil companies were among the biggest offenders.

Freddie Goes Deep Into The Wingnut Well

When demagoguing on illegals doesn't work, when holding forth on the scourge of the Soviet Union fails to inspire, when fearmongering on Iran can't gain any traction, there's always pretending the UN will take your guns away.

Says Thompson, "Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution."

Except, that's not true.

As you can see, these are pretty broad directives. And as you can see, no country is required to do anything. In fact, the only UN body that can require something of a member state is the Security Council, on which the United States has a veto.

He also claims that the UN has denied "the existence of any human right to self-defense," which is so not true that it's in Article 51 of the original UN charter of 1945.

This whole "The UN is about to take your guns" away is pretty far down the significant rung of made-up fears from the lunatic fringe, right down there with the NAFTA Superhighway and the fluoridation of water. It's pretty deep in the wingnut id. Freddie can't figure out how else to prove to the fundies that he's one of them, so he has to pretend these lies are the truth, because that's all he's got.