Just Foreign Policy News

August 4, 2010



Bacevich: Vietnam vs. Munich, and Creating an "Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome"

Campaigning for President, Senator Obama said: "I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." But as Andrew Bacevich notes in his new book, "Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War," as President, Obama has done the opposite: he has promoted and acted on behalf of the mindset that leads to war. Bacevich’s book is a call for Americans to reject the Washington consensus for permanent war, global counterinsurgency and global military power projection, and to demand instead that America "come home," as Martin Luther King called for in 1967, and focus on resolving its own domestic problems rather than act as a self-appointed global police and occupation force. Because of his personal background and establishment credentials, Bacevich may be able to move Americans currently beyond the reach of the peace movement. This is important, because a key task for ending our current wars and preventing future ones is to break the current near-monolithic support for permanent war among the dominant institutions of the Republican Party – a stance that effectively disenfranchises the substantial minority of Republican voters who oppose the permanent war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/bacevich-vietnam-vs-munic_b_669502.html

Get the book, read it, give it to a Republican friend

https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/buywashingtonrules



September 24th: JFP "Virtual Brown Bag" with Andrew Bacevich

https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/bacevichtalk

South of the Border, scheduled screenings:

http://southoftheborderdoc.com/in-theatres/

Summary:

U.S./Top News

1) All sides appeared to be trying to restore calm after a border clash between Israeli and Lebanese forces that killed an Israeli officer, two Lebanese soldiers and a journalist, AP reports. "Hezbollah is keen for now to avoid an escalation," said an analyst with the International Crisis Group. But an ICG a report this week said tensions are mounting in the region "with no obvious safety valve."

2) Pakistan’s president Zardari told Le Monde that coalition forces were losing the war in Afghanistan because they had "lost the battle to win hearts and minds" of Afghans, the New York Times reports. The Pakistan leader’s remarks were similar to what many skeptics on the war in Britain and the US – as well senior officials and military commanders in both countries – have said, the Times notes, but his bluntness in expressing them as he headed for Britain, where popular support for the war is at a low ebb, was bound to stir controversy.

3) The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have sued the U.S. to contest a Treasury regulation that would prevent them from contesting the government’s plans to assassinate a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism, the New York Times reports. "The same government that is seeking to kill Anwar al-Awlaki has prohibited attorneys from contesting the legality of the government’s decision to use lethal force against him," says the complaint.

4) The Obama administration’s hopes for rapid approval of the New START treaty have dimmed, with Republican senators demanding iron-clad assurances of future spending to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Washington Post reports. U.S. allies had assumed New START, which only requires modest cuts, would easily be ratified this year. The French Ambassador said after diplomats cabled home that the treaty could run into problems, "People ask us, ‘Have you been drinking?’ "

5) Jewish liberals expressed outrage after the ADL opposed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, the Atlantic Wire reports. Time’s Joe Klein thinks the ADL has "sullied American Judaism’s intense tradition of tolerance and inclusion." "Founded in 1913," writes Marc Tracy at Jewish magazine Tablet, "the ADL, in its words, ‘fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.’ Except when it does the precise opposite."

6) Thousands of people defied curfews and threats by security forces to "shoot on sight" in Kashmir, shouting "Azadi," or freedom, and chanting anti-Indian slogans, the New York Times reports. The cycle of protest, killings, then more protests has gripped Kashmir all summer and shows no signs of abating. Both India and Pakistan claim the Kashmir Valley, a predominantly Muslim region; many Kashmiris want independence.

7) The US will for the first time send an envoy this Friday to commemorate the U.S. nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, AFP reports. An estimated 140,000 people died instantly in the blast. The US has never apologized for the attack. Many in Japan expect Obama to become the first US president in office to visit Hiroshima when he travels to Japan in October for an Asia-Pacific summit, after he earlier signaled an intention to do so.

Afghanistan

8) Gen. Petraeus is expected to issue new guidelines shortly on the use of force in Afghanistan that expand restrictions on artillery strikes and aerial bombardment but clarify that troops have the right to self-defense, the New York Times reports. Petraeus’s position may disappoint those in the military who believed that the protection of Afghan civilians was putting American troops at greater risk. But the restrictions were popular with Afghan officials and human rights advocates, who said the restrictions had led to a significant reduction in Afghan civilian deaths.

Iran

9) IAEA chief Amano said he had received a "positive reaction" from countries in the "Vienna Group," comprising Russia, France, the United States and the IAEA, to hold a dialogue on a potential nuclear fuel swap with Iran soon, Reuters reports. Iran has given assurance it would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent if world powers agreed to the fuel swap, the Turkish Foreign Minister said last month.

Venezuela

10) The Washington Post editorial board’s idea of proof that is "beyond dispute" that Venezuelan government officials are backing the FARC appears to include a picture of a commander from another organization drinking beer on a beach, purportedly in Venezuela, Steve Rendall reports for FAIR.

Colombia

11) Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon said the International Criminal Court will intervene if Colombia fails in its obligations to provide justice to the victims of the country’s conflict, says Colombia Reports. Garzon is a consultant to the ICC prosecutor.

Contents:

U.S./Top News

1) Flare-up over tree accents Israel-Lebanon tension

Mark Lavie, Associated Press, Wednesday, August 4, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080400896.html

Jerusalem – It took no more than cutting down a tree to shatter four years of calm on the Israel-Lebanon border. With Israel uneasy about the growing arsenal of Hezbollah, the real power in the Lebanese border area, and Lebanon influenced by the Iranian-backed group’s clout, the clash that left four dead showed how a small spark could ignite another war.

On Wednesday all sides appeared to be trying to restore calm, but the key was clearly in the hands of Hezbollah. Had it entered the fray with a rocket attack on Israel’s north, Israel would likely have retaliated, and another round of Mideast violence would have been under way – following the pattern of the monthlong conflict in 2006, when Hezbollah fired almost 4,000 rockets as Israel’s military bombed strategic targets all over Lebanon and swept through the border area.

Instead, Hezbollah sufficed with threats against Israel, and after nightfall Wednesday, representatives of the Israeli and Lebanese armies met with U.N. peacekeepers.

[…] The clash started after an Israeli soldier on a crane dangled over a fence near the border early Tuesday to trim a tree that could provide cover for infiltrators. The Israelis said they clear such underbrush at least once a week and coordinate their actions with UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force that has been in the area for more than 30 years.

This time the tree trimming was followed by gunfire from the Lebanese army, apparently aimed not at the soldier hanging over the fence, but at a base some distance away, where a senior officer was killed by a shot to the head. Another officer was wounded. Israel responded with gunfire and shelling, killing two Lebanese soldiers and a journalist.

On Wednesday the U.N. ruled that the tree, while across the fence, was inside Israeli territory. The U.N. drew the border line in 2000 after Israel withdrew its forces from south Lebanon after an 18-year occupation that followed its invasion in 1982 to fight Palestinian forces and try to install a pro-Israel government in Beirut. "UNIFIL established … that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line (border) on the Israeli side," said force spokesman Lt. Naresh Bhatt.

[…] Even so, Lebanon still considers the tree-trimming a provocation, saying its soldiers fired warning shots after the Israelis ignored requests from UNIFIL to stop cutting the tree, and Israel retaliated. Information Minister Tarek Mitri said Lebanon respects the border but still contests part of it, insisting that the fateful cypress tree, while on the Israeli side of the border, "is Lebanese territory."

Israel was having none of that, charging that the attack was unprovoked aggression. In a televised statement Wednesday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked tough. Israel will retaliate for every attack, he said. "Don’t test our determination to protect the citizens of Israel and its soldiers."

Despite that, neither side appeared interested in fanning the flames, and this time, Hezbollah stayed on the sidelines.

[…] Peter Harling, a Syria-based Mideast analyst with the International Crisis Group, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Hezbollah’s enhanced political status could rein in its desire to hit back at Israel. "Hezbollah is keen for now to avoid an escalation, knowing how tough an all-out confrontation could be to the movement and Lebanon, and more broadly to the region," he said.

Even so, a report his group issued this week said tensions are mounting in the region "with no obvious safety valve."

[…]

2) Afghan War Is Being Lost, Pakistani President Says

John F. Burns, New York Times, August 3, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/world/europe/04britain.html

London – On the eve of an official visit to Britain, Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, was quoted in a French newspaper on Tuesday as saying that coalition forces were losing the war in Afghanistan because they had "lost the battle to win hearts and minds" of Afghans, and that the Taliban’s success lay "in knowing how to wait" for NATO forces to withdraw.

The interview in Le Monde appeared as Mr. Zardari headed for a four-day visit to Britain after talks in France, including a meeting at the Élysée Palace with President Nicolas Sarkozy, that officials on both sides described as harmonious.

But the Paris interview set the stage for what promised to be tense discussions between Mr. Zardari and his hosts in Britain, a country with deep historic, economic and cultural ties to Pakistan, and with a deep investment in the Afghan war, where Britain has the second-highest number of foreign troops after the United States.

"The international community, to which Pakistan belongs, is losing the war against the Taliban," Mr. Zardari said in the Le Monde interview. "This is above all because we have lost the battle to win hearts and minds."

On the Taliban, he struck an ambiguous chord, saying at one point that "they have no chance of regaining power, though their influence is growing," and at another that their ability to be patient means "time is on their side."

In a reference to President Obama’s decision to virtually triple American strength in Afghanistan over the past 18 months, to a current level of about 95,000, Mr. Zardari added: "Military reinforcements are only a small part of the response. To win the support of the Afghan people, we must bring them economic development, and prove that we can not only change their lives, but improve them."

The Pakistan leader’s remarks were similar to what many skeptics on the war in Britain and the United States – as well senior officials and military commanders in both countries – have said, though his bluntness in expressing them as he headed for Britain, where popular support for the war is at a low ebb, was bound to stir controversy.

Inevitably, too, his remarks appeared set to deepen the gulf between Pakistan and Britain that opened last week after Prime Minister David Cameron, during a visit to India, accused Pakistan of duplicity – in Mr. Cameron’s words, looking "two ways" – in its relations with the Taliban.

[…]

3) Lawyers Seeking Terror Suspect’s Case Sue U.S.

Charlie Savage, New York Times, August 3, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/world/asia/04terror.html

Washington – A group of human rights lawyers want to stop the Obama administration from authorizing the military and the C.I.A. to kill the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen believed to be hiding in Yemen.

But the group has found itself in a Catch-22-like bind: because the government has designated Mr. Awlaki a terrorist, it would be a crime for the lawyers to file a lawsuit challenging the government’s attempts to kill him.

On Tuesday, the lawyers waded into that thicket. After they filed a lawsuit challenging a Treasury Department regulation that requires them to obtain permission to provide uncompensated legal services benefiting Mr. Awlaki, who has been accused of terrorism ties but has received no trial, the government suggested it was inclined to approve their application for a license. It had been pending for 11 days.

"The same government that is seeking to kill Anwar al-Awlaki has prohibited attorneys from contesting the legality of the government’s decision to use lethal force against him," says the complaint, filed jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Should the lawyers overcome that hurdle, they would be in a position to seek court resolution of some of the most central legal disputes in the war against Al Qaeda – including whether the whole world is a battlefield subject to combat rules, or whether Qaeda suspects far from the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq must, in the absence of an imminent threat, be treated as criminals entitled to trials.

[…] Mr. Awlaki’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki, contends that his son is not the terrorist the administration portrays him to be. He retained the two groups on July 7 to pursue a legal challenge to his son’s inclusion on a list of people to be killed by American forces or agents without a trial.

Working without compensation, the groups began developing a lawsuit over whether the executive branch could lawfully carry out such a killing in the face of the Constitution’s protection against deprivation of life "without due process of law."

But on July 16 – before the groups were ready to file such a lawsuit – the Office of Foreign Asset Control announced that it was applying the global terrorist designation to Mr. Awlaki. That blocked his assets and made it a crime for Americans to engage in transactions with him or for his benefit without a license.

The groups applied for a license on July 23, stressing that there was no time for delay. But the government issued no response until its statement to the press on Tuesday after they sued.

The lawsuit filed on Tuesday seeks a ruling that the requirement to obtain such a license in these circumstances is illegal. The suit contends that the regulation exceeds the Treasury Department’s statutory authority, violates the lawyers’ own constitutional rights, and lacks sufficient standards and safeguards. It also says, however, that the groups would accept a ruling simply ordering the government to issue a license immediately.

"Targeting Americans for execution without any form of due process while at the same time obstructing lawyers’ ability to challenge that policy is fundamentally un-American," said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

[…] Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law did not permit a government to kill people far from combat zones, calling that assassination. And in the case of a United States citizen like Mr. Awlaki, he contended, such a policy also violates the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment – and is a dangerous precedent.

[…]

4) Vote on New START nuclear arms treaty delayed in Senate

Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, August 4, 2010; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/03/AR2010080306946.html

The Obama administration’s hopes for rapid, bipartisan approval of its new arms-control treaty with Russia have dimmed, with Republican senators making clear that they will not support ratification without iron-clad assurances of future spending to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced Tuesday that he will delay a key vote on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) until after the summer recess. That will pitch the treaty into the politically charged period just before the November elections.

The administration remains optimistic that the accord can be approved this year, and Kerry said the delay would help rather than harm the effort. But the debate has illustrated the partisan distrust in the Senate, where Republicans have taken the unusual step of seeking to examine the classified negotiating record to truth-squad the administration’s assertions.

Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for President George H.W. Bush, said recently that the political battle was the most bitter he had seen over a nuclear treaty. "It doesn’t move the ball very much," Scowcroft said of the pact, which he supports. "But there’s an atmosphere of great hostility."

Many U.S. allies had assumed New START would easily be ratified this year. The treaty commits the United States and Russia to modest cuts in their long-range, ready-to-use weapons and extends a 15-year system allowing each side to check the other’s nuclear facilities. It is the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow.

The treaty has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces. French Ambassador Pierre Vimont said recently that after diplomats cabled home that the treaty could run into problems, "People ask us, ‘Have you been drinking?’ "

[…]

5) Outrage Over Anti-Defamation League’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Heather Horn, Atlantic Wire, Mon Aug 2, 2:16 pm ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20100802/cm_atlantic/outrageoverantidefamationleaguespositionongroundzeromosque4559_1

Washington, DC – Last Wednesday, Jewish civil-rights organization the Anti-Defamation League came out against the proposed mosque and Islamic center in the Ground Zero area of Manhattan. The complex statement contained what many critics feel to be contradictory positions. "We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy," the statement reads. "We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry." Nevertheless, they are against the project: "[T]here are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site … The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process … [U]nder these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found … Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam … But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain-unnecessarily-and that is not right."

Liberals, including some accustomed to being on the same side as the Anti-Defamation League when it comes to Israel, have more or less reacted with outrage.

[…] Here’s the Wire’s guide to the tremendous outpouring of opinion on the subject, organized into rough categories.

ADL: This Is Bigoted, But We Support It Anyway? The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg decides that, "if [he is reading] the press release correctly … the ADL is opposing the building of the mosque because bigots also oppose it." Matt Yglesias at Think Progress says the statement "condemns the anti-Muslim bigotry fueling the mosque’s opponents while endorsing their policy objectives." Steve Benen calls the declaration "genuinely incoherent": "What the Anti-Defamation League is arguing is that the sensitivities of bigots are more important than the religious liberty of American Muslims. The ADL believes faith communities should be free to build buildings, unless it might bother those who hate those faith communities."

The Way Constitutional Rights Work: They Apply to Everyone "[T]he bottom-line," writes Jed Lewison at Daily Kos, "is that you can’t put an asterisk next to tolerance." Echoing others in calling the ADL statement "painful and tortured," Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo seems to agree, summarizing the statement thus: "We believe in freedom of religion. They have every right to build there. But just this one time, let’s make an exception." The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer casts it in slightly different terms: "I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone." Meanwhile, the president of Jewish organization J Street releases the following counter-statement: "The principle at stake in the Cordoba House controversy goes to the heart of American democracy and the value we place on freedom of religion. Should one religious group in this country be treated differently than another? We believe the answer is no."

[…] This Is Completely Counter to the ADL’s Stated Purpose "Founded in 1913," writes Marc Tracy at Jewish magazine Tablet, "the ADL, in its words, ‘fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.’ Except when it does the precise opposite." Jonathan Chait at The New Republic agrees: "The Anti-Defamation League, the chief Jewish civil rights organization, has a long, proud history … But this is such a fundamental violation of the ADL’s principles that the group is no longer supportable." Meanwhile, Time’s Joe Klein argues that "[t]he tragedy here is that the Islamic Center is precisely the sort of institution that the Anti-Defamation league traditionally supported," resembling Jewish community centers and YMCAs. Klein thinks the ADL has "sullied American Judaism’s intense tradition of tolerance and inclusion. I miss the old ADL," he writes, "and so does America."

[…]

6) Kashmiris Storm the Street, Defying Curfew

Lydia Polgreen, New York Times, August 4, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/world/asia/05kashmir.html

New Delhi – Thousands of people defied round-the-clock curfews in the disputed province of Kashmir on Wednesday, burning police vehicles in the streets of the state’s summer capital, Srinagar, shouting "Azadi," or freedom, and chanting anti-Indian slogans.

Dozens of people have died this summer in violence in Kashmir, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan, and the unrest has prompted new questions about the state’s leaders ability to control the restive region. Despite the security forces’ shoot-on-sight orders to enforce curfews aimed at cooling rage on the streets, thousands of people openly took to the streets Wednesday, to no apparent consequence.

Omar Abdullah, the state’s chief minister, rushed to New Delhi on Monday to ask for more troops to help quell the protests, and reinforcements, including a specially trained riot control team, are on the way, according to government officials.

But more security forces are unlikely to solve the most immediate problem: angry protests, often including stone-pelting mobs of young men and boys, that government forces respond to by firing live bullets into the crowd. The resulting deaths beget yet more protests, which lead to more killing.

This cycle – of protest, killings, then more protests – has gripped Kashmir all summer and shows no signs of abating. If anything, Kashmiris seem more emboldened to defy curfew than they were last month, when the death of a student prompted two weeks of violent protests that ultimately ended only when the Indian Army was called in.

The violence reached such a peak that even separatist leaders, who often urge young protesters on to the streets, appealed for calm and an end to the burning of government property. "Violence and acts of arson have no place in our struggle against Indian rule," said Syed Ali Geelani, a hard-line separatist leader, in an appeal broadcast on Indian television.

Both India and Pakistan claim the Kashmir Valley, a predominantly Muslim region that was divided between the countries more than 60 years ago. But many Kashmiris want independence, and in the 1990s an insurgency, fought by militants trained in Pakistan, ripped through the region. In recent years armed revolt has all but disappeared, only to be replaced by a new kind of warrior – the stone-throwing youth.

[…]

7) US to Attend Hiroshima Memorial for First Time

Shingo Ito, AFP, Tue Aug 3, 1:22 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100803/wl_afp/japanusnuclearweaponswwii_20100803052308

Hiroshima, Japan – Sixty-five years after a mushroom cloud rose over Hiroshima, the United States will for the first time send an envoy this Friday to commemorate the bombing that rang in the nuclear age. Its World War II allies Britain and France, both declared nuclear powers, will also send their first diplomats to the ceremony in the western Japanese city in a sign of support for the goal of nuclear disarmament.

Japan, the only country that has ever been attacked with atomic bombs – first on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, and three days later in Nagasaki – has pushed for the abolition of the weapons of mass destruction ever since.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who arrives in Japan on Tuesday, will be the first UN chief to attend the ceremony. UN spokesman Martin Nesirsky said Ban wanted to draw attention to "the urgent need to achieve global nuclear disarmament".

In Japan, a pacifist nation since its WWII surrender six days after the Nagasaki bombing, memories of the nuclear horror still run deep. "Little Boy", the four-tonne uranium bomb detonated over Hiroshima at 8:15 am, caused a blinding flash and a fireball hot enough to melt sand into glass and vaporise every human within a one mile (1.6 kilometre) radius.

An estimated 140,000 people died instantly as the white-hot blast turned the city centre into rubble and ash, and in the days and weeks afterwards from burns and radiation sickness caused by the fallout dubbed the "black rain". The death toll from the second bomb, the plutonium weapon dubbed "Fat Man" that hit Nagasaki on August 9, has been estimated at 70,000.

[…] The United States has never apologised for the twin attacks which, surveys show, most Americans believe were necessary to bring a quick end to the war and avoid a land invasion that could have been more costly. Others see the attacks as unnecessary and perhaps experimental atrocities.

[…] Many in Japan expect Obama to become the first US president in office to visit Hiroshima when he travels to Japan in October for an Asia-Pacific summit, after he earlier signalled an intention to do so.

[…]

Afghanistan

8) New Rules Stress G.I.s’ Limits In Afghan Fighting

Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Rod Nordland, New York Times, August 3, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/world/asia/04petraeus.html

Kabul, Afghanistan – Gen. David H. Petraeus is expected to issue new guidelines shortly on the use of force in Afghanistan that expand restrictions on artillery strikes and aerial bombardment but clarify that troops have the right to self-defense. He is hoping to persuade the troops that the unpopular rules will pay off in trust won on the ground.

General Petraeus’s position may disappoint those in the military who believed that the protection of Afghan civilians was putting American troops at greater risk. During his confirmation hearings, General Petraeus fielded criticism from some members of Congress along those lines.

The new restrictions cover any place civilians are likely to be present and do not apply solely to residential compounds, American military officials said Tuesday.

They also explicitly forbid lower-level commanders from imposing any further restrictions on the use of such force "without my approval" – General Petraeus’s effort to prevent officers on the ground from ordering their troops to be overly cautious about defending themselves.

The rules are expected to be issued soon as part of a new tactical directive to troops. On Monday, General Petraeus issued his first written statement to troops on his counterinsurgency policy, calling for soldiers to be friendlier and more respectful of Afghans.

The much anticipated tactical directive is the most significant statement of a war-fighting policy in Afghanistan yet by General Petraeus. Upon taking command of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan on July 4, he immediately faced a difficult test: on one side, troops widely complained that restrictions put in place last year by his predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, exposed them to excessive risk by tying their hands from attacking people suspected of being militants or destroying buildings used to harbor insurgents.

But General McChrystal’s rules were popular with Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, and human rights advocates, who said the restrictions had led to a significant reduction in Afghan civilian deaths.

Mr. Karzai’s deputy national security adviser, Shaida M. Abdali, said in an interview on Tuesday that officials had been briefed on the changes in the coming directive but that they would wait to see how the guidelines were put into effect.

"You always see things on paper, but what matters is how we do things tactically, how we put things into practice," Mr. Abdali said. Noting that American officials have portrayed the changes "as lessening civilian casualties and protecting the population," he said: "If that happens – and it’s a big if – we will be very happy. But if that does not happen, then of course we will not be happy, and we will strongly oppose that."

[…] The new rules in the coming tactical directive that restrict airstrikes or artillery apply to buildings – no matter their condition – but also to other locations, including, for example, tree lines and hillsides, military officials said Tuesday.

They said the new directive also added a section on the use of small-arms fire where civilians might be present; after General McChrystal restricted the use of airstrikes, the greatest loss of civilian life occurred in raids on residential compounds and at checkpoints, both usually involving small-arms fire. But, that section adds, "nothing in this paragraph is intended to hinder an individual’s right of self-defense."

Other changes in the tactical directive tighten up internal investigations of civilian casualties, and insist that military operations should normally be partnered with Afghan forces and that the command has to be notified ahead of time for an exception. Many operations have been called joint ones even when there has been little meaningful participation of Afghan forces.

[…]

Iran

9) IAEA chief says Iran fuel swap talks could start soon

Reuters, Monday August 2, 2010

http://bit.ly/8Zmcza

Singapore – Talks to revive a stalled plan for Iran to swap some nuclear material for fuel could start within months, the U.N. atomic watchdog chief said on Monday, and there had been some positive signals from the countries involved.

Iran backed out of a tentative plan brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and world powers in October under which it would ship 1.2 tonnes of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad in return for medical reactor fuel.

Tehran showed revived interest in the deal in May after talks with Turkey and Brazil.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Reuters on the sidelines of a lecture in Singapore he had received a "positive reaction" from countries in the "Vienna Group," comprising Russia, France, the United States and the IAEA, to hold a dialogue on a potential fuel swap soon. "I am working on that. I have a positive reaction from member states … and why not," Amano said, when asked if he intended to push for the talks to start in September.

Tehran and Washington also sent positive signals last week about the possibility of wider talks on the Iranian nuclear programme.

The original plan had been seen by the West as a way of divesting Iran of potential nuclear bomb material but officials say it has now lost some of its value because Iran’s LEU stockpile has more than doubled in the meantime.

Iran has given an assurance that it would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity if world powers agreed to the fuel swap, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, told reporters in Istanbul last month.

[…]

Venezuela

10) Guerrilla Armed With Beer Sighted in Venezuela.

Steve Rendall, FAIR, 07/30/2010

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/07/30/guerrilla-armed-with-beer-sighted-in-venezuela/

The Washington Post’s latest attack on Venezuela comes in an editorial headlined: "Colombia Proves Again That Venezuela Is Harboring FARC Terrorists."

The editors don’t say why a point already proved needs be proved again, but before offering the new evidence, they recount the old claim that laptops captured by Colombia from FARC guerrillas have clearly established links between the Venezuelan government and the FARC: "That Venezuela is backing a terrorist movement against a neighboring democratic government has been beyond dispute since at least 2008, when Colombia recovered laptops from a FARC camp in Ecuador containing extensive documentation of Mr. Chávez’s political and material support."

The alleged FARC laptop evidence certainly is in dispute. (On March 11 of this year, Gen. Doug Fraser, head of U.S. Southern Command, testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he knew of no official Venezuela/FARC links – "We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection" – before retracting his statement a day later after an apparent trip to the woodshed.)

The new evidence? The Post cites a presentation to the Organization of American States (OAS) by Colombia’s ambassador to that body, who said he could pinpoint the locations of 75 FARC camps within Venezuela, and then offered up more concrete evidence in the form of photos and videos. Brace yourselves: The single piece of such evidence the Post editors chose to describe was a photo of a man purported to be a top commander in the ELN-which is not the FARC, but a smaller Colombian guerrilla group-"sipping Venezuelan beer on a popular Venezuelan beach." So a photo of an alleged official of a different organization drinking beer in (allegedly) Venezuela is proof that Hugo Chavez’ government is working with the FARC?

The last time the media pushed allegations (Washington Post, 2/5/03) that an official U.S. enemy (then, Saddam Hussein) was harboring a terrorist leader (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), it turned out to be a bogus claim (Washington Post, 4/6/07) that played a crucial role in tricking the nation into war.

Colombia

11) ICC may intervene in Colombia: Spanish judge.

Tom Davenport, Colombia Reports, Tuesday, 03 August 2010

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/11143-spanish-judge-icc-to-intervene-if-colombian-justice-fails.html

High-profile Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon said Tuesday that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will "obviously intervene," if Colombia fails in its obligations to provide justice to the victims of the country’s conflict.

Colombia’s inability to bring cases to court was the object of the Spaniard’s criticism. "There is a lack of the political and judicial coordination and resolve necessary to begin trials," he said. Victims had suffered too much without seeing results, he added.

The judge said that if Colombian authorities are unable to start proceedings "the ICC will have to say something – there will be claims and the court will have to say something."

Garzon was referring to the Colombian Justice and Peace law, which allows demobilized paramilitaries to receive a reduced sentence if they make a full confession of their crimes. More immediate actions are necessary, he claimed, even if it means resorting to "partial indictments" – a mechanism which allows the suspects to be tried on crimes that come to light as their confession proceeds, rather than waiting for a full admission to be made.

The law came into force in 2005. However, despite the participation of 4,600 demobilized paramilitaries and guerrillas, only two people have been sentenced.

Garzon, who works as a consultant to the ICC prosecutor, made the comments while teaching a summer course at the Complutense University in Madrid, Spain.

The judge achieved international fame for pursuing high-profile figures such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Since May 2010, he has been suspended from his role as a judge in the Spanish National High Court on charges of abusing his powers to investigate atrocities committed in the Spanish Civil War. Despite this, he was given permission to work as a consultant to the ICC.

President-elect Juan Manuel Santos met with Garzon in July to discuss how the magistrate could collaborate with the incoming government on legal and human rights issues.

–

Robert Naiman

Just Foreign Policy

www.justforeignpolicy.org

Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.