Full UN Report on Torture Criticizing Guantanamo

This link opens the full pdf version of the UN report criticizing the US for Guantanamo.

Article on Jewish Lawyers

This is an interesting article on how Jewish lawyers moved from small, Jewish law firms to large, mainstream, Protestant "white shoe" law firms representing large corporations.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

This article gives a good background on one of the pro-Israel think tanks influencing US policy, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

I discovered this article while looking up articles written by Richard Speier, my old nemesis when I was working on missile proliferation issues. This LA Times article says he was one of the authors of the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime MTCR), which is true. However, if he had not been involved, the MTCR would have come into force sooner and probably would have been stronger. He was an acolyte of Richard Perle at the Pentagon, who held up formulating a US position on the MTCR in an effort to make it ban missiles absolutely. This, of course, is impossible, but it is a characteristic of politically right-wing, conservative approaches to arms control. In essence it means they don't like arms control (or international law) at all, because it doesn't make them feel absolutely safe. It's like saying that you should not outlaw murder because you can't be absolutely sure that no one will commit murder if you do outlaw it.

While looking to see what articles Speier has written since those bad old days when I was at the State Department feuding with him at Defense, I found that he has written for WINEP. It shows that if you are pro-Israel in Washington, somebody will look out for you. No wonder, AIPAC, WINEP and other Israeli lobbies are so successful! Interestingly, he also wrote an article on the dangers of the Iraqi al-Samoud missile in February 2003, before we found that Iraq didn't have any WMD. Another WINEP article dealt with the Israeli Arrow ABM missile which was a problem for us when I was working on the missile proliferation issue. To his credit, he continues to oppose the Arrow, which the US proposed during the Bush I administration to avoid the constraints on the US of the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty, which the US has since renounced. Thus, the treaty is no longer a restraint on the US, and the US has less need of an Israeli proxy to do prohibited research.

Gergen Article Follow-Up

I've now read (somewhat quickly) McCullough's description of Truman's decision process for recognizing Israel. I don't see the quotation cited by Gergen, but it might be there. McCullough treats the subject in great detail, over fifty or so pages.

Truman may well have claimed, and might even have believed, that he did not decide to recognize Israel for political purposes, but we'll never know. If politics were not important, why did he think it was so important that the US be the first to recognize Israel?

Furthermore, McCullough says one of the most important considerations was whether Secretary of State George Marshall would resign over the issue. If Marshall had resigned, Truman thought he would be doomed politically because Marshall was so highly respected. It was only after Marshall said that he would not resign over the issue that Truman felt that he could go further, pushed hard by the Jewish lobby.

Marshall told Truman that if he recognized Israel, it would be a reason for Marshall not to vote for Truman, because he felt that Truman was doing it for domestic political purposes. This was a strong rebuke to Truman, but toothless, because Marshall never voted. He felt that it would inhibit his ability to carry out his duties to his country if he chose political sides.

Unfortunately there is no one in government today with the character and stature of General George Marshall. Marshall was in large part responsible for the Allies' victory in World War II. Then he was largely responsible for the US positioning itself to eventually win the cold war in the post-war world, sponsoring the Marshall Plan for the recovery of Europe, and perhaps avoiding a shooting war with the Soviet Union.

Gergen Article on Jewish Lobby Paper

David Gergen says in a 4/3/06 web-posted US News article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm) that according to David McCullough, Truman recognized Israel "in spite of pressure from Jewish groups, not because of it." I don't have McCullough's book, but I don't think history supports this claim. Truman's Secretary of State, General George Marshall, opposed the recognition of Israel, because he thought that Truman was doing it for election year politics, and not because it was the right thing to do from a foreign policy perspective. The primary advocate for recognizing Israel was Clark Clifford, who was then Truman's advisor for domestic political affairs.

One detailed reference to Truman's domestic political concerns is the following:
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/marshallclifford.htm

Perhaps a more reliable description of Marshall's position is this posting by the Truman Presidential Library. See the entry for May 12, 1948, and the subsequent entries. Note that it says Marshall had send a special envoy to the UN to prevent the entire American staff at the UN from resigning over the Israel issue:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm

I will have to find McCullough's Truman book to see why he thinks Truman's recognition of Israel was motivated by foreign policy considerations when his Secretaries of State and Defense both opposed it strongly. I don't think Gergen should accept McCullough's characterization without question. That he does, seems to indicate that Gergen, for whom I have much respect, is under the sway of the Israeli lobby, and may not know it. He is living proof of the allegations made by Profs. Miersheimer and Walt.

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).