Wash Post on Jewish Lobby Article

The Washington Post reported on the Walt-Mearscheimer article on the influence of the Jewish Lobby on American Mid-East policy.

Brazil's Nuclear Program Still Progressing

USA Today reports that Brazil is still improving its nuclear program, and like Iran is developing enrichment, but it is cooperating with the IAEA. As I have said before, the US is largely responsible for starting Brazil down this road by refusing to supply the uranium fuel for a Westinghouse reactor that it sold back in the 1960s or 70s when Brazil was trying to achieve more independence from foreign oil after the Arab oil embargo. Brazil has made progress in the nuclear field, as well as in the substitution of ethanol for gasoline, two possibilities that President Bush suddenly discovered in his last State of the Union address. By contrast, Brazil has been steadily working on them for over 30 years.

Condi Rice's Oil Connections

With all the outrage about Exxon CEO Lee Raymond getting a $400 million retirement package, it's worth remembering Secretary of State Condi Rice's ties to the oil industry. She was a director of Chevron for ten years, from 1991 to 2001. She had a Chevron tanker named after her; however, the "Condoleeza Rice" was renamed the "Altair Voyager" shortly after she was named President Bush's National Security Adviser in 2001. Along with Bush's and Cheney's ties to the oil industry, the San Francisco Chronicle reported: "But critics said the ship served as a giant floating symbol of the Bush administration's cozy ties to the oil industry." Any questions why gas is approaching $3.00 a gallon and why VP Dick Cheney made $8 million last year?

If Exxon can pay $400 million for one man's retirement, and Chevron can build a Condi Rice tanker, you'd think somebody could afford to build a new oil refinery in the US. But apparently when you're a big shot investing money in your oil company has a low priority. The top priority is to get yours, pay yourself lots of money! Stockholders and consumers take 2nd or 3rd place, much less doing anything for your country. Poor America. Those she makes rich curse her.

NYT Op-Ed on Walt-Mearsheimer Paper

The New York Times has an excellent op-ed on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper on the power of the Jewish Lobby in America. One of its best points is that criticism of Israel or of American policy toward Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. The use of the anti-Semitism epithet is effective, but if overused or used improperly, it may become like the boy crying wolf. Then what do Jews do if true anti-Semitism rears its head?

Dispute over German Archives

This Washington Post article about the difficulty of access to German archives dealing with the Holocaust reminds me of a question I sometimes have when I hear about the Holocaust. How many Holocaust survivors cooperated with the Nazi death camp guards as "capos"? These were Jews who assisted the German prison guards in suppressing their Jewish fellow prisoners. While I would guess they were not favorably viewed by the other prisoners, they could grant favors. There was an example of this in the movie, "The Pianist." As one review notes, the star "was saved from transport to the death camps by a Jewish capo."

If, in fact, many Holocaust survivors were capos, they would probably never admit it. It would be interesting if these archives could shed any light on this issue.

Non-Proliferation Links

The NYT has published a list of non-proliferation site links:

The following related sites provide further information about nuclear technology and proliferation.

Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard UniversityConducts policy-relevant research on issues affecting the future of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy technology.

Institute for Science and International SecurityNon-profit, non-partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science and policy issues affecting international security. Its efforts focus on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, bringing about greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide and achieving deep reductions in nuclear arsenals.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Non-Proliferation ProjectClearinghouse of information, maps, chronologies and links on nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear Threat InitiativeNTI works to reduce the global threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and is co-chaired by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn.

Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International StudiesProvides information and analysis to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Federal Police of Malaysia: Press ReleasePress briefing report by Federal Police of Malaysia on their investigation of the Khan Network. Excellent source of fairly detailed information not normally made available to public.

Clarke & Simon on Iran War

Just when I thought the people I used to work with at State were out of the news cycle, there appears an op-ed by Richard Clarke and Steve Simon in the NYT. They argue, correctly, that it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.

In the late 80's or early 90's, I worked for Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs Richard Clarke, and Steve Simon was one of his underlings, along with me.

More Income Disparity in Japan

The New York Times reports that income disparity is increasing in Japan. This appears to be another result of globalization, and the increasing precedence of capital over labor. Good jobs are disappearing everywhere, and reappearing where they are not "good" by world standards because the pay is so low, although they may be good for the country to which they move. In some cases, e.g., Mexico, the person moves to the job but remains Mexican, in others the job itself moves to Mexico. This is efficient, but is good only for those who own the enterprises that are doing the work.

NY Times on Jewish Lobby Article

The New York Times finally ran an article about the paper written by the professors from Harvard and Chic ago about the Jewish Lobby. However, the article consists mainly of derogatory comments by mostly Jewish commentators without explaining what the article said. The NYT article also says the Atlantic magazine refused to publish the article.

I was at first disappointed at the Atlantic for not publishing the article, and at the NYT for publishing an article about it that only publishes the criticism of it, while saying very little about the article itself. Then, I realized that this is exactly the result of the Jewish lobby. It could destroy the Atlantic, and could do major damage to the NYT. The lesson is, from those the Lobby has already destroyed, like former Senator Charles Percy, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

An article by Alfred Lilienthal tells what happened to the NYT when it refused a Zionist ad shortly before Israel's creation:

To his great regret, Sulzberger [the owner of the NYT], some years earlier, had rejected an advertisement submitted by the American League for a Free Palestine, the U.S. counterpart of Menachem Begin’s extremist Irgun Zvai Leumi. The ad had defended their leader’s terrorist activity against the British and called for immediate establishment of the Zionist state of Palestine. The Times rejection of the extremist Zionist advertisement had been met with what Sulzberger later was to describe to me as “a frightening experience,” a virtual boycott of the paper, the details of which remain one of the most guarded secrets tucked away in a Times Square safe.

Senate Immigration Bill Fails

Reuters reports that the compromise Senate immigration bill has failed. Hooray! No amnesty today.

As several people have said, the US just ought to enforce the laws on the books. Contrary to Sen. John McCain's argument that it would be impossible to send 12 million illegals back home on buses, if we enforced the laws, they would mostly go of their own accord. They got here on their own. It would require some toughness. Life for them would have to be as bad here as in Mexico. We would have to make sure that illegals can't work, can't get food stamps, and in general can't get medical care, except for life threatening conditions. The Catholic church could help them by giving them food and shelter if it wanted to, but if they became a huge burden on the church, rather than contributors, the church would probably eventually encourage them to go home.

More on AIPAC article

Here's some more comment on the AIPAC article: Globalist 1; Globalist 2. The best thing is that it is a reply written by a Jew, but it does not accuse the authors of anti-Semitism.

Proposed Senate Immigration Bill Is Amnesty

The proposed Senate immigration bill as reported by the New York Times is an amnesty for illegal aliens. Anything that rewards them for an illegal act is an amnesty, and this bill proposes to do that for aliens who have been in this country for more than five years, i.e., the worst offenders.

This bill is racism at its worst. It favors Mexicans over all other races and nationalities because they are the main people who sneak over the border illegally. Sure, there are illegal Africans, Asians, and South Americans, but they mainly have to come in by the planeload and clear immigration at an airport. A few, but very few, non-Mexicans come sealed in shipping containers or by other unorthodox methods. Of the millions of aliens under consideration, the vast majority are Mexican. Indians, Russians, and Chinese be damned, especially if they have Ph.D.s or are highly skilled. The Senate doesn't want them! It wants uneducated Mexicans who sneak across the border.

The main thing that bothers me is the disregard of the rule of law. We have immigration laws, but now the Senate says they are only hortatory. I was upset at Republican disdain for international law early in the Bush administration, but now -- with increasing domestic acceptance of torture, denial of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping and other horrible things that it took the common law and the Constitution hundreds of years to outlaw -- deciding that there is no immigration law is consistent with the general Republican disdain for law. No wonder Enron's Ken Lay and company were good friends of the President, and they probably will be again when the press spotlight dims.

Perhaps I am upset because of my past job as a consular officer in Brazil issuing American visas. It breaks your heart to refuse a visa to someone, for example, who wants to visit his mother who is working illegally in the States, and whom he has not seen for years. But under the law, he is almost certain to stay and work in the US as his mother did, and thus, he is not eligible for a visa. But if he were Mexican, he could just sneak across the border. Why should there be one law for Mexicans and another for Brazilians (and Poles, and Thais, and Nigerians)? What's the point of breaking his heart, and yours, if Congress doesn't really care?

Replies to AIPAC Article

The Christian Science Monitor picks up more comment about the article on AIPAC's extraordinary influence on US politics. Alan Dershowitz weighs in for a Harvard rebuttal of a Harvard colleague. One of his worst arguments (on page 15) is, "Several years ago, I challenged those who made similar accusations to identify a single Jewish leader who equated mere criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. No one accepted my challenge, because no Jewish leader has made such an absurd claim." Dershowitz's paper is just the thing he claims does not exist. He attacks his Harvard colleague as an anti-Semite for daring to criticize Israel.

Everybody attacks the original article because David Dukes of KKK fame agreed with it. But does that necessarily make it wrong? If David Dukes said the sky was blue, would that necessarily mean that it was green? The fact that someone who is frequently wrong says that something is right does not logically mean that he is wrong in this case. The argument should be judged on its truthfulness, not on some kind of guilt by association.

Supreme Court Hears Vienna Convention Case

According to the New York Times, yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the Vienna Convention, which grants access by home country consular officials to people arrested in a foreign country. When I was a US consular officer in Brazil, I considered this the best guarantee against mistreatment, even possible torture, of arrested American citizens.

The virtue of this convention for Americans is not so much what it does for foreigners in the US, but the protections it affords Americans overseas. Similarly, the virtue of the Geneva Conventions is not so much the restrictions against torture that it places on American soldiers (although why the American government should embrace torture is beyond me), but rather that adhering to the Convention is a protection against torture for American soldiers captured by foreigners.

The report in the Times indicates that the Supreme Court may not find that any enforceable rights are created in US courts by the Vienna Convention, but the very idea that the issue made it to the Supreme Court, and that the Court may encourage local police and defense lawyers to notify the appropriate consuls is progress.

From the Supreme Court calendar, these cases, one from Oregon and one from Virginia, appear to be Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Bustillo v. Johnson. A more legalistic report of the case is on the Northwestern University web site.

Problems with Non-American American Diplomats

American Ambassador to Iraq Khalilzad wins high praise for his work in trying to bring a stable government to Iraq and end the religious strife (or civil war, depending on your viewpoint) there. As an American from a family that has been in America for several generations, I always thought that the US should give some sort of favoritism to native-born Americans, because immigrants or first generation Americans often have an advantage in that they know the language and culture of their country of origin well, which is important. But it is also important to know the US well. I worry that intimate knowledge of the US is something that is does not show up as well in testing as language proficiency does. In addition, most immigrants left their home countries for some reason, which means that they do not share some important values with the citizens of their home country who did not leave. This was often on view during the Cold War, when many of the most virulently anti-Russian policymakers were of Russian extraction.

Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is, according to Juan Cole (who was just on PBS), "an Afghan Pushtun of Sunni extraction." I think that because of this, he may be viewed with suspicion by Shiite Muslims, who are the leaders in forming a new government in Iraq. In looking for confirmation that Khalilzad is of Sunni extraction, I found a somewhat questionable website says that Khalilzad's wife, Cheryl Benard, is an Austrian who works for the Rand Corporation, whom he met at the University of Chicago while they were studying under leading neo-con Albert Wohlstetter.

The fact that Khalilzad was born a Sunni Muslim, but that one of the main influences on his thinking was Wohlstetter, a Jew at Chicago who influenced many of the Jewish neo-cons, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, has got to be confusing. Maybe it shows religion doesn't matter. Or maybe it shows that there is nobody as radical as a convert to a new religion (or a new political philosophy).

Israeli Election Implications for AIPAC

It will be interesting to see what effect yesterday's Israel elections have on American politicians' good buddies in AIPAC. According to CNN and other sources, Likud under Netanyahu did poorly. However, Likud has been the party of ethnic hatred and warfare (mainly against the Palestinians, but also against Arabs and Muslims in general) that has endeared itself to AIPAC, to many American Jews, and through AIPAC (with help from some Christian Armageddon theorists) to American politicians (Republican and Democratic). Will they become more dovish if Israel becomes more dovish? Or will the US, which started a holy war in Iraq, continue to implement Likud's policies after they have been rejected by Israel?

US-India Deal Encounters Problems with NSG

The Financial Times reports that the US-India nuclear deal has encountered problems being approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The NSG was largely a creation of the US to enforce non-proliferation export controls by developed countries. We have over the years been the main country pressing for stricter controls. Now we want looser controls, and the rest of the developed world says, "Hey, wait a minute."

US policy on non-proliferation has turned 180 degrees. But the US is likely to get what it wants eventually, because most other countries have been more interested in selling than in controlling nuclear equipment and technology. For them the NSG was sort of a fig leaf that let them say, "We looked at the proliferation impact of this sale, and it's okay; so, the sale is going forward." For the US, the NSG was a way to keep potentially dangerous sales to a minimum, by actually blocking some sales. Now the US is leading the pack, saying, "Let's sell." The others, particularly nuclear vendors like the French and the Germans, for example, will probably quickly join us. Some smaller countries that truly worry about proliferation, perhaps Sweden and Switzerland, may drag their feet. It will probably mean the end of the NSG as an effective deterrent to proliferation. Every time another country wants to make a sale that we don't like, they'll say, "What about your deal with India?" And the sale will go forward.

One of the first tests may well be Russian sales of nuclear equipment to Iran.

When I was Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, I worked with Polish Ambassador Strulak, who was Poland's main NSG expert, on NSG issues.

More on Israeli Lobby Article

The Christian Science Monitor has an update on Israeli response to the previously mentioned article on the amazing influence of the Israeli Lobby on US foreign policy. It says that while most Israeli and American Jewish commentators have condemned it, some have said that it is a wake-up call that requires discussion.

The Wall Street Journal has had two editorials condemning the article. Interestingly, the article names the WSJ as a newspaper strongly favorable to Israel, which the second editorial, "The Israel Conspiracy" in today's edition, confirms. The earlier op-ed, "Israel Lobby" by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish literature at Harvard, appeared in the March 22 edition. She implies that the authors are anti-Semitic. She says that a comparison of their article with an 1879 German one "might highlight some American refinements on the European model, such as the anti-Semitic lie that 'Israeli citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.' In fact, unlike neighboring Arab countries, Israeli citizenship is not conditional on religion or race." She concludes, "Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values."

Today's editorial by Bret Stephens says:

The authors are at pains to note that the Israel Lobby is by no means exclusively Jewish, and that not every American Jew is a part of it. Fair enough. But has there ever been an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that does not share its basic features? Dual loyalty, disloyalty, manipulation of the media, financial manipulation of the political system, duping the goyim (gentiles) and getting them to fight their wars, sponsoring and covering up acts of gratuitous cruelty against an innocent people -- every canard ever alleged of the Jews is here made about the Israel Lobby and its cause.

Both editorials condemn the article by noting that ex-Ku Klux Klansman David Duke has praised it, thus implying guilt by association.

These editorials demonstrate that you cannot criticize Israel or the Israel Lobby without being branded as "anti-Semitic." What if this issue is not about race, but about genuine political and foreign policy matters? The "anti-Semitic" sobriquet is in today's world equivalent to Senator McCarthy's "communist" name-calling in his day.

Mid-East Policy in Shambles

I want to give kudos to Mid-East special envoy (or whatever he is) James Wolfensohn. He has been a voice in the wilderness calling for something to be done about the Palestinian situation, as reported by the Washington Post. Administration officials seem to be immobilized by the election of Hamas and Ariel Sharon's incapacitation. But the Iraq invasion was supposed (in retrospect, after WMD failed to show) to be about bringing peace to the Middle East through the creation of democratic institutions. As Wolfensohn has pointed out, things are in danger of spinning out of control, into chaos if not into greater armed conflict.

I have not been a fan of Wolfensohn. I thought his appointment was bad because he was Jewish and would be too favorable to Israel to do his job. But he has turned out to be a friend of the Palestinians in this crisis, and I congratulate him for it. He probably thinks that ultimately Israel will benefit if a peaceful solution can be found, but that's fine, and I compliment him for that, too.

Orange Revolution Fading in Ukraine

After the euphoria of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine last year, the country appears on the verge of returning to its old eastward-looking, Russian policies. As the BBC reports, upcoming elections seem likely to return the russophiles to power.

American news networks don't seem interested, and neither does the American government. It doesn't need any more bad news on top of the bad news from Iraq. Condi Rice is supposed to be a Russian specialist; where is she? Meanwhile, the elections in Belarus seem to have maintained in power the party that favors Russia. And, Putin and Hu sign a big energy deal. In the old cold war days, a Russian-Chinese alliance would have worried everybody in the West. Things have changed, but have they changed enough so that we don't have to worry about this? There are rumors that the US is preparing to somehow support Taiwanese claims of independence. What if Russia, with all its old, cold-war nuclear missiles, sides with China in such a dispute?