Forests and Trees

The current hyper-partisan environment in Washington, D.C. appears to be both a result and function of the Village Press which has confused incidents and policy to such an extent that it is difficult to separate the scandals du jour from the policy reforms which might mitigate the possibilities of future foul ups.

Case in point: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.   As long as the D.C. press continues to focus on the construction of talking points in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack on a diplomatic outpost seeking an elusive, and very likely non-existent connection to political machinations in campaign season, we’ll not get around to addressing some very real problems which make our diplomatic missions less safe.

There is another way to frame this information issue:  As long as the D.C. press corps is intent on categorizing all policy decisions and governmental activity in political terms we won’t get deeply enough into the policy implications.  This framing is easy, requires very little if any policy expertise, and can be deftly constructed to create a platform for hyperbole. The focus may sell newspapers and advertising but it’s not very helpful when looking for ways to solve real problems.

It might be interesting to know how many of the commentators and pundits who have graced us on the Sunday morning jabberwocky sessions have read the 39 page report from the State Department’s independent review panel.  (pdf)  Those who have will be familiar with the following sample of recommendations for action made by the independent review panel.

The Department must strengthen security for personnel and platforms beyond traditional reliance on host government security support in high risk, high threat posts.

The Board recommends that the Department re-examine DS organization and management with a particular emphasis on span of control for security policy planning for all overseas U.S. diplomatic facilities.

Regional bureaus should have augmented support within the bureau on security matters, to include a senior DS officer to
report to the regional Assistant Secretary.

The Department should develop minimum security standards for occupancy of temporary facilities in high risk, high threat environments, and seek greater flexibility for the use of Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) sources of funding so that they can be rapidly made available for security upgrades at such facilities.

The Board supports the State Department’s initiative to request additional Marines and expand the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program – as well as corresponding requirements for staffing and funding.

The Board strongly endorses the Department’s request for increased DS personnel for high – and critical – threat posts and for additional Mobile Security Deployment teams, as well as an increase in DS domestic staffing in support of such action.

Perhaps instead of endlessly opining on the subject of how the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency disputed the crafting of information to be made available to the public at large (including interested parties in Libya) we might take a moment to ask:

# What actions have the Department of State and other governmental agencies taken to reduce our reliance on host nation security forces for the protection of diplomatic outposts?

# What actions have been taken to better coordinate the agencies and departments responsible for developing and implementing plans for outpost security in high risk environments?

# If we are using temporary facilities in high risk areas what contingency plans are now in place to reduce the probability of attack.  Granted, we shouldn’t announce our security plans to the entire world, but it would be nice to know that the Department of State and other agencies are coordinating their efforts to plan for the use of temporary facilities and to mitigate threats.

# Where were the Marines?  The quick answer is: In Tripoli.  The important question isn’t why weren’t they dispatched to the scene immediately?  Quick answer: The were guarding the permanent embassy in Libya. The long answer is another question:  What is the appropriate kind of staffing for diplomatic security?

“Approximately 90 percent of U.S. diplomatic security personnel are private contractors, according to Deborah Avant, a scholar with a doctorate from the University of California San Diego who oversees The Private Security Monitor, an independent research project on government contracting.”  [UTSanDiego]

Do we want to increase funding for the expansion of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program? Or, do we want to rely on privately contracted security personnel?   If we mix the two, what percentage should be military personnel? Corporate security personnel?  Contractors from the host nation?  No, this kind of discussion doesn’t make for rousing ratings, but it would be far more informative than bickering about who edited talking points for Sunday morning consumption.

# The independent review panel urged the State Department to “increased DS personnel for high – and critical – threat posts and for additional Mobile Security Deployment teams, as well as an increase in DS domestic staffing in support of such action.”

“The State Department is asking Congress for more than $1.3 billion to boost security, out of contingency funds once allocated for Iraq: $553 million for additional Marine security guards, $130 million for civilian diplomatic security personnel and $691 million for installation improvements, officials told The New York Times.” [UTSanDiego]

The request has been made, now we need to know how much of this recommendation has be implemented, or is in the process of implementation?  Perhaps we could even find out how Marine Corps plans to get 1,000 more guards trained and available for diplomatic security duty?  Do they have the funding necessary to make all posts as secure as reasonably possible? Or, are current funding levels sufficient to meet some needs but not others?

The recommendations mentioned above are only a handful, and not representative of the entire report, but they are illustrative of the kinds of questions we should be discussing as a civil society with legitimate concerns for the safety of our diplomatic endeavors.  So long as the Villagers are content to air the political rendition of the Bickersons we’ll not likely hear much about the policy changes necessary to improve diplomatic security.

Case in Point:  The Tax Man Cometh.  The Internal Revenue Service faced a veritable flood of requests for 501 c(3) and 501 (c) 4 status (tax exempt) in recent years.  There were no less than 2,744 501 (c) 4 applications in 2012:

Compare that to 1,777 applications in 2011 and 1,741 in 2010, federal records show. Not since 2002, when officials processed 2,402 applications, have so many been received.

Meanwhile, Exempt Organizations Division staffing slid from 910 employees during fiscal year 2009 to 876 during fiscal year 2012, agency personnel documents indicate.

In 2010, IRS officials projected exempt division staffing at 942 employees. But IRS officials cut the number to 900 after the agency began slashing its budget in response to fiscal woes affecting most corners of the federal government.  [CPI]

Thus we have a decreasing number of people handling a 56% increase in the number of applications in a single year — and what do people tend to do when an agency is short handed?  They make short cuts.  In this instance some not very good ones.   We can quibble endlessly about who did what to whom? However, questions like is the “targeting” of right wing groups comparable to IRS investigations of Green Peace or the NAACP?” aren’t very constructive.   There are two policy points in this controversy, each less well covered in our media than would be good for us.

# Who should be making decisions about the application of campaign finance laws?  There are some legitimate lines of inquiry here:

“For the I.R.S.’s bipartisan legion of critics, the agency’s record has underscored its contradictory and seemingly confused response to the fastest-growing corner in the world of unlimited political spending: tax-exempt groups that have paid for at least half a billion dollars in campaign ads during the last two election cycles.

The I.R.S. has done little to regulate a flood of political spending by larger groups — like Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, co-founded by Mr. Rove, and Priorities USA, with close ties to President Obama — as well as Republican leaders in Congress and other elected officials. And an agency that is supposed to stay as far away from partisan politics as possible has been left in charge — almost by accident — of regulating a huge amount of election spending.”  [NYT]

Given the amount and sources of political funding in this country, it hardly seems rational to leave the determination of regulation to an agency tasked with revenue collection.  Perhaps we ought to be using this latest “scandal” as a starting point toward rationalizing our campaign finance structure?  We can see the agency struggling with how to deal with groups that announced their intention to “improve our general welfare,” but whose main object was to funnel campaign funds.   How was the agency to determine what was political and lobbying and what was “advocacy?”  Would a political, as contrasted with a social welfare, organization necessarily be involved with limited or expanding government, or with educating people about the Constitution?  [ABC pdf]  Should the term “party” in the title of the group be an acceptable flag identifying the applicant as a political rather than a social welfare or educational organization?   There is appropriate indignation from both sides of the political aisle about the shorthand methodology of the IRS, but that still leaves us wondering — Who is in charge of implementing campaign finance regulation in this country?

# Is the Internal Revenue Service appropriately staffed to allow that agency to meet citizens’ needs in a timely and accurate fashion?  Do we really believe that cutting staff from 942 to 900 will mean there are enough people to review the increasing number of applications for tax exempt status?  Is the agency so understaffed that there is a temptation to ignore the Big Players while smaller organizations get more scrutiny?

Case in Point: Pressing the Press.  The Department of Justice used FISA warrants to obtain information from 20 telephone lines related to reporting by the Associated Press.

“The organization was not told the reason for the seizure. But the timing and the specific journalistic targets strongly suggested they are related to a continuing government investigation into the leaking of information a year ago about the Central Intelligence Agency’s disruption of a Yemen-based terrorist plot to bomb an airliner.” [NYT]

We need to tread carefully here.  In 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act, in the wake of revelations about the NSA warrantless wiretaps during the Bush Administration.   This would be the self-same H.R. 6304 about which the ACLU raised significant objections.     The bill passed with a 293 to 129 vote in the House of Representatives on June 20, 2008 [roll call 437] and by a vote of 69 to 28 in the Senate on July 9th.  [roll call 168]  There were 188 House Republicans who voted for the bill and 105 Democrats voting in favor.  128 Democrats voted against it, while only 1 Republican (Rep. Johnson, IL) voted “no.”   All 28 “no” votes in the U.S. Senate were cast by Democrats.

While the Associated Press may characterize the the intrusion in angry terms:

“Gary Pruitt, the president and chief executive of The A.P., called the seizure, a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its news gathering activities.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” he wrote. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news gathering activities undertaken by The A.P. during a two-month period, provide a road map to A.P.’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about A.P.’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.” [NYT]

The Associated Press ought not get a free pass in this instance because (1) we don’t know if it was “massive,” — we actually don’t know much of anything because that’s how the FISA Law was written,  (2) we don’t know if it was “overbroad” either because that’s how the FISA Law was drafted, and (3) we don’t know if AP’s “sources and methods” were compromised — and we probably aren’t going to find out because in the wake of various acts of terrorism the majority of members of the 110th Congress were pleased to enact ‘reformed’ measures to allow for this kind of surveillance in cases of national security (in this instance a CIA operation).   If the Associated Press naively thought it was somehow immune to the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 because a press pass is as good as a law-proof vest, then they’ve been sorely disabused of their optimism.

Some caution should be exercised when we call for a No-Holds Barred approach to “fighting the War on Terror” in the name of national security, because while it may appear to be a grand idea when the target is a potential or alleged terrorist or someone associated with a potential or alleged terrorist –  it’s a whole different ball game when the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is applied to you.

The discussion in this instance needs to be more broadly focused — not on whether or not the AP is an aggrieved party or if CIA operational methods and sources were compromised by reporting — but on whether we may finally be ready to take a serious look at the objections to H.R. 6304 which were raised by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations when the law was being considered.

Simply bouncing from one “scandal” to the next in order to boost ratings and sell print isn’t going to serve the American public any better now than it did when we followed Whitewater into nothingness.   With each major incident there is a choice to be made — either follow popular titillation with the shallow aspects of a scandal, or take a more measured long term view which addresses serious questions about which we should demand serious answers.  It’s the difference between be able to discern good wood from pulp.

Profiles in Squirmage: Heller on Hagel

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) was one of 40 members of the United States Senate to vote against cloture on the nomination of former Republican Senator Charles Hagel as Secretary of Defense. [Senate Vote 21]  Senator Heller’s contribution to Squirmage includes the following statement:

“U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who voted against advancing the nomination, echoed Republican sentiments, saying Thursday in a statement: “Even after sitting down with Senator Hagel in recent weeks, I still have concerns about his nomination to be secretary of defense. While I have great respect for Senator Hagel’s brave service in the Armed Forces, my colleagues and I are still waiting for additional information from the senator. I do not believe it is appropriate to move forward until that information is provided.” [RGJ/AP]

Additional information? What additional information?  Would Senator like more information about the Benghazi attack?  It’s becoming readily apparent that the GOP would like to keep the Benghazi station tragedy in the headlines until (1) something sticks, or (2) they find some other issue with which to assault the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.   As truly tragic as the Benghazi attack was, it is one of many examples of the perils faced by our diplomats and foreign service personnel around the globe.

On January 22, 2002 radicals attacked the U.S. consulate in Calcutta, India.  Five members of the mission were killed.  On June 14, 2002 our consulate in Karachi, Pakistan was attacked, and 12 people were killed by the truck bomb.  On February 28, 2003 two people died in an attack on our Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.  June 30, 2004 our Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan was the target of a bomber; two died.  On December 6, 2004 Al Qaeda militants attacked our diplomatic compound in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; nine members of our mission were killed.  March 2, 2006 our diplomats were attacked again in Karachi, Pakistan when a car bomb detonated, killing 2 at the Consulate.  September 12, 2006 gunmen attacked our Embassy in Damascus, Syria, four members of our diplomatic mission were killed.

January 12, 2007 an RPG was fired at our mission in Athens, Greece, fortunately there was no one killed as a result; but the results were different when on March 18, 2008 our diplomats in Sana’a, Yemen were fired on — two died.  July 9, 2008 we lost six members of our mission to Turkey during a armed attack on our diplomatic personnel in Istanbul.   There was worse to come again in Sana’a, Yemen, when two car bombs went off at our Embassy on September 17, 2008 killing 16 people.  [complete list]

The obsessive focus on the Benghazi, which is far more intense than the attention we paid to post attacks in the previous Administration, illustrates little more than the Rule of Shifting Goal Posts.  Republicans would be satisfied if they were briefed — they were in November 2012 when the Intelligence committees were given a closed door classified information briefing on the subject. [CNN]  That was declared insufficient.  Republicans were “troubled.”

One key critic, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) missed the briefing because he was holding a press conference…on Benghazi. [ABC]  Republicans would be satisfied if the State Department offered testimony — it did, they weren’t.  Republicans would be more pleased if Secretary Clinton testified — she did, they weren’t.   At this juncture, the GOP was emitting Whitewater Signals.  No matter what evidence might be provided, even documentation illustrating transparency and accountability, it would always be “troubling,” “insufficient,” “incomplete,” or “incredible.”  If Senator Heller is playing this political game, it’s truly beneath the dignity of the office, and unhelpful toward the end of creating a cogent foreign policy.

The other game is even more deleterious.  Tea Party darling, Republican Ted Cruz (R-TX) stepped into some treacherous territory:

“We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups,” Cruz told the Senate Armed Services Committee before it voted Tuesday to approve Hagel’s nomination. “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.”

The “only reasonable inference” to draw from Hagel’s refusal to provide additional financial information, he said, is “there was something in there that they did not want to make public.” [RCP]

Senator Cruz is “demanding” five years worth of financial disclosure, although Committee rules require only two.   The innuendo, offered without even a nod toward any substantiation, also flies in the face of separate disclosure requirements which call for 10 years worth of disclosure concerning any dealings with foreign nations.   Cruz’s slanderous remarks are well beyond the pale.   Surely, Senator Heller isn’t aligning himself with this line of attack?

There really is NO excuse for a no vote on former Senator Hagel’s nomination.  The first excuse is little more than an exercise in Moving The Football, both hypocritical and a blatant exploitation of the Benghazi tragedy for political points.  The second is an unconscionable reversion to McCarthyite guilt by suggested association; a Republican era to which we ought not return.  Exactly what questions DO you have Senator Heller?

A Map For the Geographically Challenged

 

Got it?

Romney’s China Bashing Hot Air Trial Balloon

The latest offering on the campaign trail from the right appears to be a surfeit of China Bashing — with another First Day item added to Governor Romney’s to-do list: Declare China a currency manipulator.  Sounds rather ‘forceful’ doesn’t it? Sounds all ‘leadershippy?”  It’s a bad idea and here’s why — from a bastion of conservative print, Barron’s:

“To declare China officially a currency manipulator risks launching the 21st century equivalent of the Smoot-Hawley protective tariff passed in 1929, one of the key factors that made the Great Depression “great” in the worst sense of the word.”

In other words, if you advocate protectionism then a declaration of China as a currency manipulator is your policy of choice.  Why? Because the Chinese, rather than allowing  surplus dollars from its exports to the U.S. to push up the value of the yuan, buys the dollars and re-invests them in the U.S.   When did Governor Romney decide that foreign investment in the U.S. was a bad idea?

Secondly, it’s not that the yuan isn’t appreciating.  In fact, the value is going up.  The Chinese currency is currently trading at 6.254500 [CET] as of October 21, 2012.  There’s a graph indicating the trend upward for American currency in the past year:

Click on the graphic for additional information.    How about a two year perspective? What would that illustrate?  There’s also a graph showing the appreciation of the Chinese currency relative to the American dollar for the last two years.

Perhaps someone in the Romney campaign would care to explain WHY, when the yuan is appreciating relative to the American dollar — and has been generally for the past two years — it’s time to declare China a nefarious currency manipulator?  This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless Barron’s is correct, and the Governor wants to risk  a Smoot-Hawley Tariff protectionist brawl in foreign trade.

Yes, the Chinese have the reins on the value of their yuan, but as the second graph illustrates they’ve been allowing it to steadily appreciate relative to the value of the dollar.   When did Governor Romney decide this was an unhelpful trend?

There’s another problem with China Bashing as it is currently being practiced. They are also importers.   The following graph from FRED (Federal Reserve) shows the increase in Chinese imports — which in case we’d forgotten means American JOBS.

So, when did Governor Romney decide that facilitating policies intended to  increase our exports TO China was a bad idea?   Returning to the issue of the relative value of the two currencies, the yuan and the dollar, for a moment — the chart above doesn’t indicate that the yuan is as significantly undervalued as previously believed.

One writer at Forbes opines that the declaration of China as a currency manipulator will be on Governor Romney’s list of things to drop like a hot rock on his  Day One.   It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to drop it immediately, and to release the hot air from this thoroughly political hot air balloon.

Yosemite Sam Shallow: Romney’s Foreign Policy

There’s shallow, and then there’s so shallow you wouldn’t get your shoe laces wet if you stepped in it.  Thus we have Governor Romney’s foreign policy statement.

“The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”  [WSJ]

Where to begin? How about the conflation between the Libyan and Egyptian situation?  Let’s stick with Libya.  Secretary of State Clinton spoke to the situation in Benghazi without referring to the infamous inflammatory film trailer, only hours after the attack on the consulate:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.” [State 9/12/12]

To say that the Administration has “finally conceded” the attacks were the result of terrorists is to ignore Secretary Clinton’s opening sentence:

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings.”  [State 9/12/12] (emphasis added)

That would be “heavily armed militants.”   Where did Secretary Clinton speak to “This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long,” in her remarks on behalf of the American government?

Evidently, the Romney campaign didn’t get the memo from the State Department in which they’ve now been able to firmly identify those who attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi:

“The Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and E.O. 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula to include the new alias, Ansar al-Shari’a (AAS). The Department of State previously designated AQAP as an FTO and under E.O. 13224 on January 19, 2010.”  [State 10/4/12]

These designations are not made lightly, nor are they simply elaborations of unsubstantiated news reports or the product of punditry — the designations have consequences.

“The consequences of adding the new alias for AQAP include a prohibition against knowingly providing material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, Ansar al-Shari’a, and the freezing of all property and interest in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States, or the control of U.S. persons. The Department of State took these actions in consultation with the Departments of Justice and Treasury.

In addition, today the United Nations 1267/1989 Al-Qa’ida Sanctions Committee listed AAS. As a consequence the group now faces a worldwide assets freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo. The actions taken today against AAS support the U.S. effort to degrade the capabilities of its parent organization, AQAP. We are determined to eliminate AQAP’s ability to execute violent attacks and to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat their networks.” [State 10/4/12]

Let’s look to the generalities adopted by Governor Romney, such as the statement: “…attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”

And, there’s nothing like having an opponent who wants to wage perpetual war to make any neoconservative delighted beyond reason.  Here we have all the necessary elements, (1) a “dark ideology,” which can be easily conflated with an entire religion; (2) a valiant nation out to protect women and girls; (3) the adoption of the Al Qaeda pipe dream of the revival of the Caliphate (don’t bet on it); and (4) the “perpetual war” motif which refers back to the neat and tidy categorizations of the Cold War Era.

What we have here is a rhetorical amalgamation of neo-conservative bombast, anti-Muslim propaganda, a smattering of the White Man’s Burden, and the proposal that we readjust the old Cold War classifications into which we can conveniently shove various and sundry new governments.

So, what is Governor Romney’s complaint?

“But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.  Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.” [WSJ]

This in the part where we’d expect to find some suggestions for how to shape policy.  Instead we simply heard a justification for intervention.

“Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.”  [WSJ]

The statement is demonstrably false.   First, the U.S. is in a delicate position in some Middle Eastern nations.  Our previous support for the Mubarek regime in Egypt has left many Egyptians with a bitter after taste.  Secondly, we can point to some very tangible kinds of support to both the new  Egyptian and the Libyan governments.   Those in the fact based universe will want to consult the State Department’s fact sheet on aid to Libya, describing aid ranging from political and electoral development to health and medical services.   American aid and expertise lent to the new Egyptian government is the subject of a fact sheet released by the State Department on September 24th.  For good measure, there’s also a summary of U.S. support for the new Tunisian government.

The remainder of Governor’s speech was a litany in support of intervention. Possibly military. Maybe economic. Could be aid based?  In short, a relatively empty framework into which those wishing to hear support for both military intervention or more foreign aid may find rhetorical sustenance.

Who’s Sorry Now?

For the record, a list of Bush Administration apologies to foreign governments from 2001 to 2008.  Full post here.

The “WE” don’t apologize brand of Yosemite Sam foreign policy espoused recently by former Massachusetts Governor Romney stands in stark contrast to the measured responses of President George W. Bush who was willing to make amends to foreign governments when the diplomatic situation called for it.   While I’ve been, and remain, highly critical of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy in general –  giving credit where it is due –  President Bush did know when an apology was in order.

Current Republican candidate Romney seems not to have mastered the fundamentals of diplomacy necessary to understand when temper should be tamped down by temperance.

Amodei Joins Fire, Ready, Aim Brigade

Nevada’s own Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) has unfortunately joined the ranks of those not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players in foreign relations.  “The fact that the host countries have mildly reacted to the attacks of the past 48 hours makes it abundantly clear that this administration’s support for their rise to power is another example of a failure in policy.” [RGJ] Really?

As the Gazette-Journal correctly points out, should our policy have been to provide continued support for “a murderous dictator in Libya who, by all accounts, was directly responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, in which 270 men and women died, including 11 on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland. Why? Apparently because there are extremist Muslims in Libya, and they can’t handle freedom?“

The last sentence is particularly insightful, because the internal politics of those nations which have cast off particularly egregious police-state regimes are only beginning to address re-organizing their political institutions, and minority right wing fundamentalist extremism in those countries isn’t helping.   Nor can all the difficulties in each of the nations be swept neatly into one pile of conveniently categorized political groups.

The Libyan Example: Oil and Guns

As noted previously, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was launched by heavily armed militia members in an area of well known radical right wing activity.  One group in Libya may be responsible for the attack on the consulate.  Ansar Al Sharia rejects the validity of the current Libyan constitution and government, as does an affiliated group in neighboring Tunisia.   Two  major parties, the moderate National Forces Alliance and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party (JCP) current hold the reins, but as one expert explains:

As a political force, Ansar al-Sharia hold some sway in the political arena. For the country’s major parties – both the moderate National Forces Alliance and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party (JCP) – a small group like Ansar al-Sharia can be make-or-break when it comes to decision making. “Each of these small parties is an important force because everything hangs on just a few voices,” explained Mathieu Guidère. [France24]

A few voices are attempting to hold a fragile coalition government together in a nation awash in firearms and materiél.  Libya is also a country with limited economic development.  95% of the nation’s exports are hydrocarbon (fuel), contributing 65% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, and about 80% of the government revenue.  The CIA analysis of the Libyan economy is cautiously optimistic:

“Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing its primarily socialist economy, but the revolution probably increases the opportunity for entrepreneurial activity and the evolution of a more market-based economy. The service and construction sectors, which account for roughly 20% of GDP, expanded over the past five years and could become a larger share of GDP after political volatility subsides. Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit agricultural output, and Libya imports about 75% of its food.”

The complications are obvious.  The old regime was pleased to receive the oil revenues, and happy to purchase arms from willing sellers in the U.S. and Europe.  [HuffPo] [DailyMailUK] U.S. policy changed in 2009 allowing only “non-lethal” military equipment sales, supposedly aircraft parts, but items which some observers suggested could be transformed into crude munitions. [HuffPo]  Precious little of the revenues from oil exports under Gaddafi trickled down into the Libyan economy.  The unemployment rate, last estimated under the Gaddafi regime, was approximately 30% in 2004.

U.S. policy positions in regard to Libya

Developing a stable moderate-to-conservative coalition government, in a political climate in which few voices are commanding most of the attention, and in an economy previously artificially constricted by a dictatorial regime, is seriously problematic, but not intractable.   There are some policy objectives which ought to be crystal clear.

It is in the best interests of the United States to assist in the economic development of Libyan commercial expansion and economic diversification. How they accomplish this is, putting it bluntly, their problem. However, a nation that must feed its people by importing at least 75% of the food required has to find a way to keep famine from the doors.  The Libyans must also find a way toward developing public  infrastructure, and assist the nascent construction sector, by moving from a focus on military installations and palaces.

Thus far U.S. aid to Libya has been based on identified needs in a nation which still has extremely high unemployment and suffers from the aftermath of a civil war:

“Since February 2011, the United States has provided $170 million in assistance, mostly in response to urgent humanitarian and security challenges in the immediate aftermath of the beginning of the conflict. We have also focused on supporting capacity building efforts within government institutions, developing civil society, and facilitating free and fair elections. All programs advance key U.S. interests by filling critical capacity gaps within U.S.-Libya identified transition priorities. All projects are being coordinated with the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).” [Dept of State]

The projects so far include U.S. participation in constitutional development, election management and monitoring, developing an independent news and broadcast media, disarmament and demobilization, forensic and mass grave technical assistance, technical assistance for public infrastructure projects,  assistance with financial management, and  entrepreneurial assistance, among other efforts.  [Dept of State]  Sounds rational doesn’t it.

Here’s an example of irrational: “A group of House conservatives is calling for foreign aid to Libya and Egypt to be stripped from a six-month federal funding bill set for a vote on Thursday.”  [The Hill] Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.

Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) demonstrated the inadequacy of his understanding of our relations with Libya, saying: “Why is it that the United States is bankrolling some of these countries?” he asked. “Why do we continue to bankroll them at the level that we are? We’re waiting for that discussion from the administration.” [The Hill]

Perhaps Representative Garrett would care to explain why he would object to the Obama Administration’s policy in regard to Libra, and why he objects to the expenditure of funds for (1) constitutional development, (2) election management and monitoring, (3) developing an independent news and broadcast media, (4) disarmament and demobilization, (5) forensic and mass grave identification technical assistance, (6) technical assistance for public infrastructure projects, (7)  assistance with financial management, and  (8) entrepreneurial assistance?

What Have You Done For US lately?

Representative Amodei seems to have missed the same news as might have been un-noticed by Representative Jeff Landry (R-LA3):

“What is the government doing to prevent it? What is the government doing to arrest these people? What was the government doing to quell those protesters? If someone were to come and invade the embassies of Libya and Egypt here, what do you think would happen? What would our government reaction be? Why can’t we expect the same amount of reciprocity from other governments that we would give them here?” he asked.” [Politico]

First, as the Tea Party Caucus member from Louisiana must have missed, there are TWO governments involved in the identification, capture, and arrest of the people who assaulted the Benghazi consulate — the U.S. and Libya, and the Libyans are cooperating, and have been since immediately after  the event –

“President Magariaf of Libya expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.”  [TDS]  What’s unclear about this statement?

What should surprise (and please) Representatives Amodei and Landry is that a country still struggling to retrain its police force, up to its ears in well armed militias, and slowing piecing together its civil institutions managed to arrest 4 of of the alleged attackers by September 14th!. [Reuters] One might think that the Tea Party Caucus members would want to express their thanks for the rapid arrests, and support further development of the Libyan law enforcement efforts.

What policy failures are illuminated by the prompt promise of full cooperation by the Libyan government and the arrest of four members of the group which assaulted the consulate — all within a matter of a few days?

In each of the countries in which American, German, and British diplomatic facilities have been assaulted recently there are internal political, economic, and social forces at play which may be generalized accurately under the rubric of disaffected fundamentalists, but which  should also be carefully scrutinized as evidence of internal issues unresolved as those governments emerge from dictatorships to democracies.

Let’s Have The Discussion

Which is better for the maintenance of long term American interests in predominantly Muslim nations — that we support dictatorial regimes as those of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad, and others — or that we support international efforts to develop democratic institutions and more open and transparent economic systems?

Which is better for the maintenance of long term American interests in predominantly Muslim nations — that we offer economic and humanitarian aid to fledgling democracies in the Middle East and northern Africa or that we leave the field in a fit of pique and thus invite other nations to fill the void?

How might Representative Amodei,  or Representative Landry and other members of the Tea Party Caucus respond?

The Mythology of the Missing Apology and Diplomatic Matters

There’s no need to re-invent the wheel, and even less reason to re-write the well written.  J. Patrick Coolican’s masterful takedown of the Obama Apology Mythology in the Las Vegas (NV) Sun is a must read.  Less informative, but more sophomorically  amusing is the third comment down the page from a Tea Party “thinker” who has nothing on offer but ad hominem attacks on the Obama Administration and the President personally.   There are several other articles worth citing which offer cogent explications of various parts of the foreign policy story.

Before anyone starts rambling about why the American embassies and consulates aren’t better protected,  some attention should be paid to the reasons for that, one of which is:

‘Secretaries of State have had to beg for crumbs from Congress, which sees diplomacy as an easy thing to cut back — who lobbies for more money for diplomats? Military contractors have all the money. In addition, no president is criticized for gutting State, while taking even a nail file to Defense’s obese budget elicits slurs from the opposing party.”  [Salon]

There’s some additional commentary on the subject of the Libyan Gaffe   worth reading at The Nation, regarding the political ramifications of Governor Romney’s ill-timed remarks, and a perceptive piece from George Zornick about the intertwined relationship between Governor Romney’s foreign policy pronouncements and the right wing blogs.   Frank Rich explains how Governor Romney got out ahead of the facts.

The wretched hack piece of a film which launched the protests in the Middle East and northern Africa is very difficult to explain to citizens of nations wherein the media is controlled by government agencies.  It is equally hard to explain why “free speech” which denigrates and demeans another religion isn’t officially banned here to citizens of nations in which church/mosque/etc. and state are not separated.  Jack Balkin offers a summary of the legal reasons the wretched hack piece of a film is protected constitutionally.

Secretary of State Clinton reiterated this point in her remarks to U.S. – Morocco Strategic Dialogue:

“I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

If you agree that the attack on the consulate in Libya looked very different from the usual rock and bottle throwing flag burners in other hot spots, then the information in Hisham Matar’s contribution to the New Yorker will be instructive. Here’s a taste:

“It is thought to be the work of the same Salafi, ultra-religious groups who have perpetrated similar assaults in Benghazi. They are religious, authoritarian groups who justify their actions through very selective, corrupt, and ultimately self-serving interpretations of Islam. Under Qaddafi, they kept quiet. In the early days of the revolution some of them claimed that fighting Qaddafi was un-Islamic and conveniently issued a fatwa demanding full obedience to the ruler. This is Libya’s extreme right. And, while much is still uncertain, Tuesday’s attack appears to have been their attempt to escalate a strategy they have employed ever since the Libyan revolution overthrew Colonel Qaddafi’s dictatorship. They see in these days, in which the new Libya and its young institutions are still fragile, an opportunity to grab power. They want to exploit the impatient resentments of young people in particular in order to disrupt progress and the development of democratic institutions.”

Some attention should also be paid to the delicate work that is the essence of diplomacy.   The object of the game is to keep sovereign nations talking constructively with one another so as to promote their mutual interests, and — here’s the sticky part — address, so far as is practicable, their own agendas.

The Yosemite Sam version of diplomacy in which trade and security interests are promoted at gun point with all the sensitivity of a saltwater crocodile  isn’t often very helpful increasing bi-lateral trade and commerce. Characterizing diplomacy as “soft” (as opposed to rushing in guns blazing “hard”) is counterproductive to our own economic interests.  Likewise, when it does come to the classic definition of war — a failure of diplomacy — it’s always better to have friends, especially friends who are willing to foot part of the bills.   There’s one more step in this waltz.

President Obama was, for example, very cautious in his classification of Egypt — a nation not necessarily a friend, but not an enemy.  In a less complex world, or perhaps in one in which there are only two countries, the “friends and enemies” categorizations are possible.  Reality is another matter entirely.   There are friends, enemies, and nations which are both given a particular set of circumstances at a given point in time.  Think: Great Britain and the Falklands/Islas Malvinas (Argentina).    Think: China imports about $82 billion worth of U.S. goods annually.  Some further thought leads inevitably to the conclusion that some friendships are stronger than others, and some enemies can, at times, be very helpful. Think: Pakistan.

 

Therefore, diplomacy in the advancement of American interests requires patience, all too often not our best suit — we like our beer cold, our soup hot, and our aspirin to work within 15 minutes.  The patience involved is not only a matter of concern for Secretary Clinton engaging with the Moroccans at the moment, but also our patience with other countries, especially those which are experiencing internal instability.

Why, we wonder, can’t the citizens of Whateveria get their act together and form a government?  What’s so hard about having an election?  We’ve been having elections forever about everything; six year old first grade students hold up their hands to select either a Story Hour or Puzzle Time for Rainy Day Recess.  That’s the point.

We start practicing “elections,” and other rudimentary forms of democracy with children who are barely housebroken.  The losers in the Story Hour/Puzzle Time vote learn to “go along with the majority.”  Imagine the middle aged man voting in the first election of a lifetime in which the outcome was not already a forgone conclusion.  Imagine a nation in which people are trying to figure out what it means to form a “loyal opposition.”

We also tend to forget the patient long term efforts of diplomats and agencies which carefully tended organizations, in eastern Europe for example, which gradually consolidated sufficient political power to finally and  literally make The Wall fall down.

We imperil our own interests if we don’t recognize that most of the nations with whom we share this planet don’t fall neatly into Cold War Era categorizations of Friends or Enemies.  As tidy and convenient as those labels may be, the simplification is both seductive and counter-productive.  The paradigm is outdated. The classifications are too simplistic.  American interests are always better served when we put away our cartoon character persona’s, re-color our maps in something other than black and white, and approach discussions of foreign policy with the understanding that the ties binding us to each other on this planet are incredibly tangled.

The Right Response

Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) issued this statement in regard to the attacks on American consulate personnel in Libya:

I was deeply disturbed and saddened to learn of the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American personnel in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. I join President Obama in condemning these senseless acts of violence. And my thoughts are with the families of those who were killed in this horrific attack.
It is too often forgotten that American diplomats risk their lives on a daily basis. Our diplomatic corps is filled with admirable and dedicated public servants. And the four Americans who lost their lives yesterday exemplified the courage and sacrifice that happens every day at diplomatic posts across the globe.

I have traveled to many of America’s embassies abroad, and I have always been impressed by and grateful for the leadership and commitment of America’s ambassadors and State Department personnel. Ambassador Stevens was a career Foreign Service officer and a former Peace Corps volunteer, who spent his life giving of his time and his talents to promote democracy and American values. I support President Obama’s directive to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the world, and to provide whatever resources necessary to keep our personnel in Libya safe. And I will continue to the monitor the situation as we learn more about these terrible events.

This is what diplomacy sounds like.   This is also what someone sounds like who has been reading the foreign policy and intelligence briefings.  Here’s why:

1. Condemnation is a strong word in the diplomatic world.  It is not used lightly.  To condemn an action is to place it beyond the realm of negotiation.  However, it must be use carefully so as to allow the party creating the injury to respond in diplomatic terms without necessarily having to resort to military action.

The Administration and State Department achieved that.  The proof is in the response of the Libyan government – what we would want to hear is precisely what the Libyan government conveyed: “President Magariaf of Libya expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.”  [TDS]

The Libyan President responds with an equal measure of outrage, offers his condolences on behalf of his nation, and most importantly offers his nation’s “full cooperation.”   The modifier is also significant.  “Full” is also a meaningful word. The Libyan President could have stopped with the condolences — with all the implications that might have inferred — but he didn’t, he went that last step and offered all the services his new government can muster to resolve the issues peacefully.

The public isn’t privy to the policy and intelligence briefings concerning the new Libyan government but we can reasonably surmise they are not far from the public assessment offered by the U.S. State Department:

“Libya faces the challenges of building democratic institutions, protecting the universal rights of all Libyans, promoting accountable and honest government, rebuilding its economy, and establishing security throughout the country. The United States has a strategic interest in a stable and prosperous Libya, and is supporting Libya’s democratic transition in cooperation with the UN and other international partners.”

Note that the democratic institutions are not yet fully functional, the economy is not yet fully stabilized, and “establishing security throughout the country” is  still a work in progress.   This leads to the second reason why briefings and intelligence analysis and cool heads matter.

#2.  Attacks on American and American interests are no longer primarily a function of state actors.  They may not even be the result of client state activities such as we witnessed during the Cold War.  The term asymmetrical threat is a polite euphemism for “Who Knows Who’s Going To Do What, Much Less When?”   Senator Reid is correct — it take some courage to take a diplomatic posting these days because an incident which outrages some group in one country  could result in an attack on an American embassy anywhere.  For example, in May 1986 “The Japanese Red Army fired on the Japanese, Canadian, and U.S. embassies. The Red Army’s goals included overthrowing the Japanese government and starting a world revolution.” [IBT]  A splinter group from Al Qaeda was responsible for the September 13, 2001 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France. [IBT]

Because the attacks are “asymmetrical,” because they are not state sponsored, and because they aren’t even organizationally rational, it becomes all the more important to be as fully briefed as possible with the understanding that those briefing are as informative as the host government is cooperative.

#3.   Here’s what happens when the time isn’t taken to assess a diplomatic situation carefully before speaking:

Romney: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” [WaPo]

The first, and obvious problem, is that the statement came out before Ambassador Stevens death was confirmed and the family was notified.  But, there are diplomatic issues as well.

Yes, indeed, the attacks were outrageous, but notice that the Romney statement fails to differentiate between official State Department statements and a release by the Cairo Embassy well in advance of the protests which sought to explain that the motion picture so offensive to some Muslims was not indicative of American attitudes toward members of the Islamic faith.  A point raised by President George Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks and maintained by his successor.  Both the Bush and Obama Departments of State repeatedly sought to sustain cooperation with Middle Eastern, African, and Asian nations by emphasizing that the American government  dislikes terrorists but does not vilify all Muslims.   The previous point should be repeated: Those briefing are as informative as the host government is cooperative.

The second is that there is no message.   Senator Reid points out that the U.S. will be stepping up mission security, and that “we” will be monitoring the situation.  That “we” could infer a wide variety of agencies.   Secretary Clinton said:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.”

The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack. A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice. We are working closely with the Libyan authorities to move swiftly and surely. We are also working with partners around the world to safeguard other American embassies, consulates, and citizens.”  [emphasis added]

Secretary Clinton affirms the relationship with Libya, thanks them for their cooperation, and announces there will be further discussions of embassy security with other host nations.   Messages sent.   Unfortunately, the only initial message from Governor Romney is that he is angry and doesn’t think the President is doing a good job.  It doesn’t take diplomatic credentials to figure that out, but it also doesn’t give our friends and enemies any hints about how he might address similar issues in subsequent talks with them.

There was a message in the President’s remarks: “We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats,” he said. “I’ve also directed my Administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” (emphasis added)  The collaborative nature of the activities is on notice.  The United States has received the assurance of the Libyan government that it will “fully” cooperate, and will act in concert with the Libyan government to secure what we want — bringing the perpetrators of the attack to justice.

And, while the U.S. works with the Libyan government Americans may learn that there are 22 shabiyats or districts in Libya, and four significant political parties.  However, the most important word is “with” — we will not act on them, or independently of them, but WITH them — sending the message that we accept them as a full partner and equal on the world’s diplomatic stage.  The right responses help  send the right messages.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world…

While the corporate media covers the “Akin Story” better than one sheet, two blankets, and three warm dogs on cold winter night — there are some other items of interest in the news.

Isn’t Africa a country?   Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi died this week, [WaPo] and while he was praised for his strong stance against terrorism and for his support for infrastructure improvements in his country, his legacy is shadowed by incidents illustrating a lack of tolerance for political and intellectual dissent.

Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton issued this statement concerning Zenawi’s death:

“I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia.

I admired the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to transforming Ethiopia’s economy and to expanding education and health services. He was an important and influential voice in Africa, and we especially valued his role in promoting peace and security in the region. I am confident that Ethiopia will peacefully navigate the political transition according to its constitution.

On behalf of the American people, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the people of Ethiopia, and to reaffirm our commitment to a strong partnership focused on strengthening development, democracy and human rights, and regional security.”

Perhaps the American people would like to know:

#1.  While the U.S. government may have valued his role in keeping conflicts minimized, what realistic concerns should we have over the unresolved issues with Eritrea?  And, is a new Ethiopian government expected to provide the same cooperation in military operations in Somalia?

#2.  Secretary of State Clinton affirms her belief that Ethiopia can make the transition to a new government peacefully, but the Kenyan Prime Minister Railia Odinga is not quite so confident, saying that the factions in Ethiopian politics makes the situation very “fragile.” [BBC] The question is not whether one view is more accurate than the other, but whether regional and U.S. interests can be advanced in a country in which the leadership has been supportive of U.S. interests but which also has a highly questionable human and civil rights record?  [NYT]

#3. What are the major factions in Ethiopian politics? Where are their allegiances and alliances?

Another U.S. ally, the Republic of South Africa, has endured serious unrest after the strike at the Marikana Mine (owned by Lonmin) during which 34 miners were killed.  [BBC] The New Yorker covered the conflict, but the miner’s issues and the negotiations (or lack thereof) have barely dented the consciousness of most Americans.

#1. Has the U.S. issued directives to our diplomats in RSA concerning any position taken by the State Department in regard to the Marikana strike and resulting police attack, the most serious since the apartheid era?

#2. Does the income inequality gap in the RSA compound the issues underlying the Marikana Strike, including the substandard housing for most of the platinum miners?

Are we Orient-ed?  The U.S. has extremely close ties to China, Korea, and Japan.   How does the economic growth of the South Korean economy affect its (and our) relations with China?  With Japan?

#1. What position should the U.S. take regarding South Korea’s recent issues over maritime boundaries with Japan?

#2. What does South Korean interest in forging closer economic ties with China mean for the Tri-lateral Free Trade Talks?

#3. If there are conflicts over both economic interests and maritime boundaries between the South Koreans and the Japanese, then how are American interests to be preserved as both are U.S. allies and close economic partners?