Just Foreign Policy News
November 11, 2010
Just Foreign Policy News on the Web:
[To receive just the Summary and a link to the web version, you can use this webform:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/switchdailynews]
McClatchy: Obama to Renege on Afghan Drawdown
McClatchy reported: "The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama’s pledge that he’d begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy." This report indicates not only that the "surge" failed militarily, but that the political policy in which it was embedded – that troops would be withdrawn whether the surge succeeded or not – has also failed. The White House rejected the report: "The White House vehemently denies that there is any change in policy. ‘The president has been crystal clear that we will begin drawing down troops in July of 2011. There is absolutely no change to that policy,’ said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman."
http://www.truth-out.org/mcclatchy-obama-renege-afghan-drawdown64998
Video: Win Without War -The Veterans’ Trust Fund
Congress should set money aside for future needs of veterans when it decides to go to war. As it stands, veterans’ needs are always on the chopping block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuoVjxSW9A
South of the Border on DVD
Oliver Stone’s documentary South of the Border is now available on DVD. Why did the center-left cruise to victory in Brazil? You can get the DVD here.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/southoftheborder
Help Support Our Work
Your donation helps us educate Americans and create opportunities to advocate for a just foreign policy.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) A senior administration official said a White House review of Afghanistan strategy next month will not suggest alternatives if aspects of the policy are found to be failing, the Washington Post reports. The report will provide a catalog of issues that need to be addressed in the spring, the official said, leading to the July deadline Obama has set to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. A declassified version of the conclusions will be made public in late December or early January, the official said.
2) The Obama administration is increasingly emphasizing the idea that the US will have forces in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2014, a change in tone aimed at persuading the Afghans and the Taliban that there will be no significant US troop withdrawals next summer, the New York Times reports. In a move away from Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of a drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Clinton and Adm. Mullen all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message was that the US would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years, the Times says. The message shift is effectively a victory for the military, the Times says.
Last year the White House insisted on the July deadline to inject a sense of urgency into the Afghans to get their security in order – military officials acknowledge that it has partly worked – but also to quiet critics in the Democratic Party upset about Obama’s escalation of the war. The White House insisted that there had been no change in tone. "The old message was, we’re looking to July 2011 to begin a transition," a White House official said. "Now we’re telling people what happens beyond 2011, and I don’t think that represents a shift. We’re bringing some clarity to the policy of our future in Afghanistan." Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, was adamant that the White House had not shifted. "The president has been crystal clear that we will begin drawing down troops in July of 2011," he said. "There is absolutely no change to that policy."
Officials acknowledged that the 2014 date was based on the presumption that the US military would be successful enough in fighting the Taliban that significant withdrawals would be under way by then, the Times says.
3) Iraq’s lawmakers took a step toward forming a government on Thursday, hammering out the details of a deal struck one day earlier to end a political impasse, the New York Times reports. The new governing coalition reflects the growing influence of Iran and the waning influence of the US, the Times says. Maliki will be hard pressed to make good on promises made and to hold together a coalition of parties whose aims are fundamentally incompatible. There were pledges to the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, who have called for accelerated withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi soil, even as Maliki has been discussing a US presence beyond the agreed-upon full withdrawal by the end of next year.
4) Tea Party Republicans oppose so-called "free trade" more than other Republicans, the Pew Research Center reports, based on new poll research. Overall, a third (35%) of respondents say that "free trade agreements" have been good for the United States, while 44% say they have been bad for the U.S. Just 28% of Republicans say that "free trade agreements" are good for the US. Only about a quarter of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party (24%) say that "free trade agreements" like NAFTA and the policies of the WTO have been a good thing for the US, while 63% say they have been a bad thing. Among Republicans who have no opinion of the Tea Party or disagree with the Tea Party movement, opinions are evenly split (42% good thing, 42% bad thing). [Pew refers to these as "free trade agreements," while in fact they include many restrictions on trade, such as restrictions in the trade in medicines – JFP.]
5) A report from the Muslim Public Affairs Council says terrorism plots in the US by non-Muslims greatly outnumber those attempted by Muslims, and that Muslim-American communities helped foil close to a third of al Qaeda-related terror plots threatening the country since Sep. 11, Inter Press Service reports.
6) "Free trade zones" are increasingly popular spots for criminal activity, the New York Times reports. Counterfeiting and money laundering can flourish in these zones, where governments relax tax and regulatory requirements to attract foreign investment and ease the rapid movement of goods. The zones’ susceptibility to illegal activities was cited by the Financial Action Task Force, an international watchdog organization that co-ordinates and monitors government efforts to block money laundering and terrorist financing.
Afghanistan
7) Afghan officials and foreign diplomats have agreed that a shutdown of private security companies in Afghanistan will have to be carried out in several stages, AP reports.
Iran
8) Iranian President Ahmadinejad said Iran would not submit to greater IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities or sign the Additional Protocol because the IAEA would pass all the information gathered about Iran’s nuclear program to the US, Reuters reports. [It has been alleged in the past that such information has been used for military targeting – JFP.]
Colombia
9) The opposition PDA party said round 50 political activists have been murdered in Colombia since President Santos took office in August, EFE reports. The victims have included leftist politicians, union members, peasant and indigenous leaders as well as human rights defenders, PDA chief Clara Lopez said in a report to the party’s National Executive Committee.
10) The CUT labor federation said 16 teachers have been killed so far this year in Colombia and three more have disappeared, EFE reports. The CUT said three additional teachers have been the victims of attacks, 20 have been forced to leave their homes, and 144 teachers had received threats.
11) The UN said Colombia had the most people displaced by violence in the world, writes Colombia Reports. Colombia has 3.7 million internally displaced people, according to the UN.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Official: White House will review Afghan war strategy but won’t offer Plan B
Karen DeYoung and Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, November 9, 2010; 9:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110906893.html
A White House review of President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy next month will judge "how this current approach is working" but will not suggest alternatives if aspects of the policy are found to be failing, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
The review, one year after the strategy was announced last December, will provide policymakers with an assessment of whether it is "delivering the sorts of effects that we want based on the resources committed" and is "performing at the right pace," the official said.
Assessment data began to flow in from civilian and military forces in Afghanistan two weeks ago, said the official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity. Input from U.S. allies will also be gathered at a NATO summit in Lisbon that Obama is set to attend at the end of next week.
The report will provide "a catalog of open policy issues that need to be addressed" in the spring, the official said, leading to the July deadline Obama has set to begin a phased withdrawal of about 100,000 U.S. troops. A declassified version of the conclusions will be made public in late December or early January, he said.
Among other elements, the assessment will look at progress in forming local defense forces in Afghanistan, the size and capacity of the Afghan army and police, and progress in reconciliation talks between the government and the Taliban.
"There are not active talks ongoing," the official said. "However, the fact that there are talks about talks, and potential outreaches to senior Taliban, is an important dimension of the review."
[…]
2) U.S. Tweaks Message on Troops in Afghanistan
Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, November 10, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11military.html
Washington – The Obama administration is increasingly emphasizing the idea that the United States will have forces in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2014, a change in tone aimed at persuading the Afghans and the Taliban that there will be no significant American troop withdrawals next summer.
In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.
Administration officials said the three had made loosely coordinated comments at the conference, in Melbourne, to try to convince Afghans that the United States was not walking away next summer and to warn the Taliban that aggressive operations against them would continue. Although Mr. Obama and administration officials have repeatedly said that July 2011 would be only the start of troop withdrawals, the Taliban have successfully promoted the deadline among the Afghan populace as a large-scale exit of the 100,000 United States troops now in the country.
"There’s not really any change, but what we’re trying to do is to get past that July 2011 obsession so that people can see what the president’s strategy really entails," a senior administration official said Wednesday.
In Australia, Mr. Gates said the Taliban would be "very surprised come August, September, October and November, when most American forces are still there, and still coming after them."
The message shift is effectively a victory for the military, which has long said the July 2011 deadline undermined its mission by making Afghans reluctant to work with troops perceived to be leaving shortly. "They say you’ll leave in 2011 and the Taliban will chop their heads off," Cpl. Lisa Gardner, a Marine based in Helmand Province, told a reporter this past spring. This summer Gen. James T. Conway, then the Marine Corps’s commandant, went so far as to say that the deadline "was probably giving our enemy sustenance."
Last year the White House insisted on the July deadline to inject a sense of urgency into the Afghans to get their security in order – military officials acknowledge that it has partly worked – but also to quiet critics in the Democratic Party upset about Mr. Obama’s escalation of the war and his decision to order 30,000 more troops to the country.
On Wednesday, the White House insisted that there had been no change in tone. "The old message was, we’re looking to July 2011 to begin a transition," a White House official said. "Now we’re telling people what happens beyond 2011, and I don’t think that represents a shift. We’re bringing some clarity to the policy of our future in Afghanistan."
[…] Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, was adamant on Wednesday night that the White House had not shifted. "The president has been crystal clear that we will begin drawing down troops in July of 2011," he said. "There is absolutely no change to that policy."
The 2014 date will be a focus at a NATO summit meeting that Mr. Obama is to attend next week in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance is to be presented with a transition plan, drawn up by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, that calls for a gradual four-year shifting of security responsibility to the Afghans. Administration officials said that the document had no timetable for specific numbers of troop withdrawals and instead set forth the conditions that had to be met in crucial provinces before NATO forces could hand off security to the Afghans.
Administration officials emphasized that the 2014 date was first set by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who mentioned it in his inaugural address last year and again at a conference in Kabul this past summer.
The officials acknowledged that the 2014 date was based on the presumption that the American military would be successful enough in fighting the Taliban that significant withdrawals would be under way by then.
[…]
3) Lawmakers in Iraq Agree on Details of a Governing Pact
John Leland, Jack Healy and Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, November 11, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html
Baghdad – Iraq’s lawmakers took a step toward forming a government on Thursday evening, hammering out the details of a deal struck one day earlier to end an eight-month political impasse. But only three hours into the new session of Parliament, as lawmakers began the early stages of forming a government, one of the major political blocs walked out – a portent of the political struggles ahead and the fragility of the agreement.
Members of Parliament named a speaker and were expected to elect a president, paving the way for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to return to office, leading a coalition that is likely to prove unwieldy. Its contours reflect the growing influence of Iran and the waning influence of the United States seven years after an invasion that cost more than 4,000 American lives and more than 100,000 Iraqis.
[…] Mr. Maliki will be hard pressed to make good on promises made in closed-door negotiations and to hold together a coalition of parties whose aims are fundamentally incompatible. These include promises made to Kurdish lawmakers, who seek greater autonomy from the central government. There were also pledges to the followers of anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who have called for accelerated withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi soil, even as Mr. Maliki has been discussing an American presence beyond the agreed-upon full withdrawal by the end of next year.
[…]
4) Public Support for Increased Trade, Except With South Korea and China
Fewer See Benefits from Free Trade Agreements
Pew Research Center, November 9, 2010
http://people-press.org/report/673/
The public is of two minds when it comes to trade with other countries. Most Americans say that increased trade with Canada, Japan and European Union countries – as well as India, Brazil and Mexico – would be good for the United States. But reactions are mixed to increased trade with South Korea and China.
More generally, there is increased skepticism about the impact of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the World Trade Organization. Roughly a third (35%) say that free trade agreements have been good for the United States, while 44% say they have been bad for the U.S.
Support for free trade agreements is now at one of its lowest points in 13 years of Pew Research Center surveys. In 2008, an identical percentage (35%) said free trade agreements were good for the U.S. Support for free trade agreements had increased last year, to 44% in April and 43% in November, despite the struggling economy.
As in past surveys on trade, many more Americans say free trade agreements have a negative rather than a positive impact on jobs in the U.S., wages for U.S. workers, and economic growth in this country. And more say their personal finances have been hurt (46%) rather than helped (26%) by free trade agreements.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Nov. 4-7 among 1,255 adults, finds that just 28% of Republicans say that free trade agreements are good for the United States, down from 43% last November. Opinions among Democrats and independents have changed little over the past year.
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party have a particularly negative view of the impact of free trade agreements. Only about a quarter of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party (24%) say that free trade agreements like NAFTA and the policies of the WTO have been a good thing for the United States, while 63% say they have been a bad thing.
Among Republicans who have no opinion of the Tea Party or disagree with the Tea Party movement, opinions are evenly split (42% good thing, 42% bad thing). Overall, about half (51%) of all Republican and Republican leaners say they agree with the Tea Party while 42% have no opinion; very few (5%) disagree with the Tea Party.
[…] More than half (55%) say that free trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States, compared with just 8% who say these agreements create jobs; 24% say they make no difference. And while 45% say free trade agreements make wages lower, far fewer (8%) say they make wages higher. Similarly, the public does not see much benefit from free trade agreements for the overall economy – 43% say they slow the economy down while fewer than half as many (19%) say they make the economy grow.
Opinions are less negative about the impact of trade agreements on prices in the U.S.; as many say they make prices lower as higher (31% each). People in developing countries are widely perceived as benefitting from trade agreements: 54% say they are good for people in developing countries while just 9% say they are bad.
[…]
5) Muslim Americans Foil Terror Threats
William Fisher, Inter Press Service, Nov 9
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53506
New York – A new report on violent extremists in the United States finds that terrorism plots by non-Muslims greatly outnumber those attempted by Muslims, and that Muslim-American communities helped foil close to a third of al Qaeda-related terror plots threatening the country since Sep. 11, 2001.
The report comes from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a not-for-profit organisation advocating for the civil rights of American Muslims. It consists largely of MPAC’s "Post-9/11 Terrorism Incident Database".
Reportedly the first of its kind by a Muslim-American organisation, the database tracks plots by Muslim and non- Muslim violent extremists against the United States.
The author of the report, Alejandro J. Beutel, MPAC researcher and government liaison, told IPS, "This report demonstrates the validity of two of our guiding principles."
"The first of these is that the choice between our rights and liberties and national security is a false choice; we can have both," he said. "The second is that law enforcement will be much more successful if it treats the American Muslim community as partners, not as adversaries."
[…]
6) Free-Trade Zones Attract Criminals
Angela Shah, New York Times, November 10, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/middleeast/11iht-m11mtrade.html
Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates – As free economic zones grow in size and number across the globe, they are increasingly popular spots for illicit trade.
Counterfeiting and money laundering can flourish in these zones, typically manufacturing and warehousing sites near ports and airports, where governments relax tax and regulatory requirements to attract foreign investment and ease the rapid movement of goods.
Conditions that attract honest businesses attract criminals, too. "Organized crime and counterfeiters are very resourceful and creative," said Stuart Jones, a U.S. Treasury financial attaché based in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. "They are also interested in free-trade zones to exploit the very ecosystem governments created to contribute to economic development."
Globally, there are about 3,000 free-trade zones in about 135 countries, through which billions of dollars’ worth of goods are transferred every year. Most of the United Arab Emirates’ 36 free-trade zones are in Dubai, but other emirates are also creating them as investment vehicles, including Masdar, a green-energy zone in Abu Dhabi. The oldest free-trade zone in the Emirates, the Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone, is one of the largest in the world, and handles 11 million containers each month.
That volume is reflected in the crime statistics. According to data from European Union customs, the Emirates were the No.2 source of counterfeit goods, after only China, in 2008 and 2009, said Omar Shteiwi, chairman of the Brand Owners Protection Group, an anti-counterfeiting group based in the region.
The zones’ susceptibility to illegal activities was also cited earlier this year by the Financial Action Task Force, an international watchdog organization based in Paris that co-ordinates and monitors government efforts to block money laundering and terrorist financing. Free-trade zones do improve economic opportunity, but the characteristics that make these enclaves attractive to business also create chances for illicit programs that can finance terrorism, the task force warned.
Screening of cargo is "often carried out by random selection more than on risk assessment or indicators," the task force found. "No clear procedure, authority, or documentation is identified to organize and execute the examinations."
Security in free-trade zones was a topic recently at the 10th World Free Zone Convention and Exhibition held in the emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. "You now have to factor in the globalization of illicit trade: How to balance trade efficiencies and low cost with the need to supervise what’s going on?" Pat Heneghan, who heads global operations against illicit trade at British American Tobacco in London, said as part of a panel discussion.
[…]
Afghanistan
7) Afghan Security Companies Agree To Disband In Stages
Katharine Houreld, Associated Press, Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 12:42 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111002736.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – After weeks of negotiations, Afghan officials and foreign diplomats have agreed that a shutdown of private security companies in Afghanistan will have to be carried out in several stages, two officials familiar with the talks said Wednesday.
The development indicates a possible compromise over the controversial issue, which has occupied top international diplomats and Afghan officials since President Hamid Karzai in August ordered the closure of private companies that provide security guards in the country.
At the time, Karzai said private security companies would be replaced by Afghan security forces.
But he later backed away from a Dec. 17 deadline for the shutdown, after diplomats said the move threatens billions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects. Up to 40,000 private guards work in Afghanistan, mostly guarding embassies, military convoys and development projects.
An Afghan and a foreign official familiar with the negotiations said Wednesday the two sides now agree the shutdown should be gradual. They said sticking points remain, such as who would be guarding military convoys.
[…]
Iran
8) Iran: IAEA would pass nuclear information to U.S.
Reuters, 16:31 11.11.10
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-iaea-would-pass-nuclear-information-to-u-s-1.324191
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has suggested the UN nuclear watchdog would pass information about Iran’s nuclear program to the United States, underlining
worsening relations between Tehran and the Vienna-based body.
Ahmadinejad, who is sending uncompromising signals ahead of a possible resumption this month of talks with the major powers on Iran’s nuclear program, also ruled out giving the agency wider inspection powers in the Islamic Republic.
[…] The IAEA wants Iran to implement what it calls the Additional Protocol, which permits unfettered inspections beyond declared nuclear sites to ferret out any covert atomic activity.
"The acceptance of the Additional Protocol would be tantamount to placing all of our nuclear activities under the supervision of the IAEA which would in turn pass our information to America," state broadcaster IRIB quoted Ahmadinejad as saying
on its website. "We said we would not accept this protocol," Ahmadinejad added.
[…]
Colombia
9) 50 Activists Slain in Colombia Under Santos, Opposition Says.
EFE, November 9, 2010
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=376556&CategoryId=12393
Bogota – Around 50 political activists have been murdered in Colombia since President Juan Manuel Santos took office in August, the opposition PDA party said Tuesday.
The victims have included leftist politicians, union members, peasant and indigenous leaders as well as human rights defenders, PDA chief Clara Lopez said in a report presented to the leftist party’s National Executive Committee.
[…]
10) 16 Teachers Slain This Year in Colombia.
EFE, November 9, 2010uu
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=376534&CategoryId=12393
Bogota – A total of 16 teachers have been killed so far this year in Colombia and three more have disappeared, the CUT labor federation said Tuesday.
At least three additional teachers have been the victims of attacks during the same period, while 20 have been forced to leave their homes, according to a CUT report on violence against educators. The CUT, Colombia’s main union federation, emphasized that another 144 teachers had received threats since the beginning of this year.
Regarding the fatalities, the CUT said that all those murders had been conducted when the victims "were carrying out their educational or union work in their regions."
The report was released after the most recent murder, that of Ligia Gonzalez, who was shot to death last weekend in the southwestern town of Tulua. Gonzalez, a 30-year veteran of the teaching profession and a union member, was murdered by two gunmen on a motorcycle, according to the report.
[…]
11) Colombia has most displaced in world: UN
Adriaan Alsema, Colombia Reports, Tuesday, 09 November 2010 06:19
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/12808-colombia-has-most-displaced-in-the-world.html
Colombia counts 3.7 million internally displaced people and 380,000 refugees abroad, making it the country with the most people displaced by violence in the world, the United Nations said Monday.
In a report presented at a regional summit on refugees in the Ecuadorean capital of Quito, the U.N.’s refugee agency UNHCR said that Colombian refugees are seeking asylum in 36 countries, primarily Ecuador, which shares a 447-mile border with Colombia and according to its own official data has granted asylum to more than 50,000 Colombian refugees.
In its yearly report presented in June, the UNHCR counted 3.3 million internally displaced people.
According to Jorge Rojas, director the Colombian NGO CODHES, the number of displaced in Colombia exceeds that of countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
[…]
–
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.