Is Carnegie Endowment Still Wedded to Neoconservative Pre-Emptive War?
Recently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a conference on nuclear nonproliferation, which I thought at least started a useful discussion. Bush has called for major reforms to the nonproliferation treaty regime, and IAEA chief ElBaradei has echoed Bush.
However, in an article in the Washington Post on the failure of Bush's pre-emptive foreign policy, Robin Wright quotes Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment as an unrepentant Neoconservative. So, that makes me worry that the Carnegie nonproliferation initiative is pre-emption under a different name. After all the first justification for our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation is an important issue, but maybe we shouldn't yet throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the existing nonproliferation regime.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Diplomats vs. Bush
While I have not seen the text of the letter signed by a number of senior American diplomats, I support what I have heard about it. I never understood why the US thought it had to go it alone in Iraq. If we had gotten some international organization on board -- the UN, NATO, or some regional organization (unlikely, but conceivable) -- to support our intervention, we would now be in a much better position to defend what we did, Abu Ghraib and all. If we had had some partners, the Red Cross might have used them to get our attention to stop Abu Ghraib before it got out of hand, as it did. Now we are really hanging out there all alone. We need someone besides Bush, someone nicer, someone more devoted to the US constitution, and someone with higher class advisers, particularly as Secretary of Defense and Attorney General.
While I have not seen the text of the letter signed by a number of senior American diplomats, I support what I have heard about it. I never understood why the US thought it had to go it alone in Iraq. If we had gotten some international organization on board -- the UN, NATO, or some regional organization (unlikely, but conceivable) -- to support our intervention, we would now be in a much better position to defend what we did, Abu Ghraib and all. If we had had some partners, the Red Cross might have used them to get our attention to stop Abu Ghraib before it got out of hand, as it did. Now we are really hanging out there all alone. We need someone besides Bush, someone nicer, someone more devoted to the US constitution, and someone with higher class advisers, particularly as Secretary of Defense and Attorney General.
Monday, April 19, 2004
US Review of Death Penalty Cases Under Vienna Convention
I strongly support the view in today's New York Times editorial that the US comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice calling on the US to review the convictions of foreigners in the US who were denied access to consular officials from their home countries, which is a right granted under the Vienna Convention, to which the US is a signatory. As the editorial points out, the main concern is that US consular officials be granted access to US citizens arrested in foreign countries, who are much more likely to be subjected to torture or lesser mistreatment, than foreigners are in the US. It is a simple matter of protecting Americans. I suppose Bush's solution, given his contempt for law and diplomacy, is to forget the law and instead send in US troops to kill the foreign prison guards and release any Americans who he thinks have been arrested and treated improperly.
I strongly support the view in today's New York Times editorial that the US comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice calling on the US to review the convictions of foreigners in the US who were denied access to consular officials from their home countries, which is a right granted under the Vienna Convention, to which the US is a signatory. As the editorial points out, the main concern is that US consular officials be granted access to US citizens arrested in foreign countries, who are much more likely to be subjected to torture or lesser mistreatment, than foreigners are in the US. It is a simple matter of protecting Americans. I suppose Bush's solution, given his contempt for law and diplomacy, is to forget the law and instead send in US troops to kill the foreign prison guards and release any Americans who he thinks have been arrested and treated improperly.
Woodward Book
I am glad that Secretary of State Powell appears to be getting his view out in Bob Woodward's new book, although the book is apparently not released, yet. Powell is probably worried about his place in history, since he has spent his career at State surrounded by a bunch of uneducated idiots in other parts of the government, i.e., Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not idiots, but they have not used their minds in their current positions. According to Woodward on "60 Minutes" last night, President Bush is totally uninterested in his place in history. He told Woodward, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." Bush probably never read a history book anyway.
I am glad that Secretary of State Powell appears to be getting his view out in Bob Woodward's new book, although the book is apparently not released, yet. Powell is probably worried about his place in history, since he has spent his career at State surrounded by a bunch of uneducated idiots in other parts of the government, i.e., Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not idiots, but they have not used their minds in their current positions. According to Woodward on "60 Minutes" last night, President Bush is totally uninterested in his place in history. He told Woodward, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." Bush probably never read a history book anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)