Just Foreign Policy News
November 14, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
With 13,111 New Peace Voters, Ron Paul Can Win the Iowa Caucus
If 2008 turnout and a recent Des Moines Register poll give an accurate picture of what would happen if the Iowa Republican presidential caucus were held today, that would indicate that the addition of 13,111 new peace voters by January 3 could carry the Iowa caucus for Ron Paul. This outcome is plausible; the benefits to the majority of Americans would be significant; the costs would be small.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/with-13111-new-peace-vote_b_1092802.html
Kit Kittredge: "Freedom Waves" – Another Challenge to the Israeli Naval Blockade of Gaza and the US Congress
Kit Kittredge, US passenger on the recent Canadian boat to Gaza, on why she undertook the journey.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/14-6
New York Times dialogue: ideas for cutting military spending
Larry Korb and respondents put forward proposals for cutting military spending: cut troop levels, cancel weapons, close foreign bases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-ideas-for-cutting-military-spending.html
Friday, November 18 – Ralph Nader presents: Bruce Fein & Tony Shaffer debate David B. Rivkin & Lee Casey on Bush & Obama: War Crimes of Lawful Wars?
This DC event will be broadcast on C-span.
http://www.debatingtaboos.org/2011/11/bush-and-obama-war-crimes-or-lawful-wars/
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) President Karzai has called a loya jirga in an attempt to show political support for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan through 2024, the New York Times reports. Afghan officials said Karzai knows his fate is closely tied to U.S. military presence and aid. Some analysts suggest Karzai wants an endorsement for specific requirements for the U.S., including demands that all detention operations be turned over rapidly to the Afghan government, and that military night raids, which are central to U.S. counterinsurgency tactics but a driving instigator of domestic outrage, be conducted only by Afghan forces.
2) Leading Republican candidates for president accused President Obama of not being forceful enough to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the Washington Post reports. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich indicated that they would be willing to use military force against Iran. Romney criticized Obama for looking to withdraw troops from Afghanistan before the end of next year.
On a number of issues, Rep. Ron Paul disagreed with the rest of the Republicans, urging the U.S. not to intervene in conflicts abroad, the Post notes. Romney and Gingrich called for the U.S. government to use covert action to try to bring down the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but Paul said, "the Syrians ought to deal with their country."
3) Several Republican candidates embraced US "covert action" in Iran, Walter Pincus notes in the Washington Post. Newt Gingrich said the U.S. should "take out" Iranian scientists. Mitt Romney argued for covert action to support Iranian dissidents. The CIA’s recent record of carrying out such activities in the Middle East is not great, Pincus notes: CIA efforts to overthrow the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq failed.
4) Cutting military spending in the appropriate way will have far less of a negative impact on jobs than the cuts that are likely to occur if the defense budget is not cut, argues Rep. Barney Frank in the Boston Globe. A recent study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts documents that money spent on clean energy, health care, or education "will create substantially more jobs within the US economy than would the same [amount] spent on the military.” The largest percentage of military money is spent overseas. Ending the war in Afghanistan saves more than $120 billion a year. The major alternative sources of significant deficit reduction are Medicare and Medicaid, Frank notes.
5) The US and UK are trying to torpedo the global ban on cluster bombs, The Independent reports. The UK is supporting a US proposal that would permit the use of cluster bombs as long as they were manufactured after 1980 and had a failure rate of less than one per cent. But arms campaigners say the 1980 cut-off point is arbitrary, and that many modern cluster bombs have far higher failure rates on the field of battle than manufacturers claim.
Iran
6) The IAEA report repeated the sensational claim that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon, Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service. But the foreign expert is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives. The Israeli government was likely the IAEA’s source for the false allegation, Porter suggests. David Albright, director of the International Institute for Science and Security in Washington, circulated the false claim to the international media, Porter says.
Israel/Palestine
7) The Israeli government is holding $100 million in tax revenue owed to the Palestinians in retaliation for the successful Palestinian bid to join UNESCO as a member state, AP reports. Israeli defense officials have said the funding cutoff threatens the stability of the Palestinian government.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Questions Cloud Meeting of Afghan Elders Called by Karzai
Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times, November 14, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/world/asia/questions-cloud-meeting-of-afghan-elders-called-by-hamid-karzai.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – Despite criticism from neighboring countries, threats from the Taliban and calls for a boycott from some political opponents, President Hamid Karzai has called a loya jirga, the traditional grand council of Afghan elders and leaders, in an attempt to gain popular support for a long-term partnership with the United States, Afghan officials and analysts say.
Even before the jirga’s opening, set for Wednesday, it is being clouded by doubt and confusion – much of it sown by Mr. Karzai himself.
His public statements about the United States have grown more hostile in recent months, including a statement several weeks ago in which he suggested that if Pakistanis were to go to war with the Americans, he would actually ally himself with Islamabad.
That in particular seemed a contrary message to be sending while intense negotiations were under way to persuade the United States to keep troops and military trainers for 10 years beyond the Obama administration’s 2014 withdrawal deadline, and while also asking for help in paying for the Afghan security forces.
Afghan officials affirmed, however, that Mr. Karzai’s overarching goal is to obtain an agreement with the Americans, not least because he knows that his fate is closely tied to their military presence and aid.
Mr. Karzai must overcome the resistance of Americans facing both budget pressures and public exhaustion with a war that is entering its second decade. He must also counter intensifying opposition from the governments of Pakistan and Iran, which have their own ambitions in Afghanistan and distrust the United States.
[…] However, the council’s planners have been vague about its full agenda, and there may be other goals. Some Afghan analysts suggest that Mr. Karzai wants an endorsement for specific requirements for the strategic partnership with United States, including demands that the agreement be binding, that all detention operations be turned over rapidly to the Afghan government, and that military night raids, which are central to American counterinsurgency tactics but a driving instigator of domestic outrage, be conducted only by Afghan forces.
[…]
2) GOP candidates hammer Obama on his Iran policy during South Carolina debate
Karen Tumulty and Perry Bacon Jr., Washington Post, November 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-policy-debate-brings-gop-candidates-to-south-carolina/2011/11/12/gIQALIEEGN_story.html
Spartanburg, S.C. – With the International Atomic Energy Agency warning in a new report that Iran may be proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, the leading Republican candidates for president accused President Obama of not being forceful enough to prevent that from happening.
At the first GOP debate that focused on foreign policy, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich indicated that if either of them were commander in chief, they would be willing to use military force against Iran, if tightened economic sanctions and support for the Iranian opposition did not work to deter nuclear weapons development in the country.
"If all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides take military action. Then of course you take military action," Romney said.
Gingrich agreed: "If in the end, despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon."
Former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive Herman Cain said he would assist the opposition, but "would not entertain military opposition."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would impose economic sanctions on Iran’s central bank – a move the Obama administration has backed away from, for fear of the economic damage that might occur if it disrupted international oil markets.
[…] Although the candidates trained most of their fire on the current commander in chief, differences emerged among the Republican contenders on multiple fronts, including U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and on the use of harsh interrogation tactics that many have labeled torture.
Romney criticized Obama for looking to withdraw troops from Afghanistan before the end of next year, suggesting that the president’s September timetable was influenced by the election calendar.
However, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. said he would bring an immediate end to all but a small troop presence. "I say it’s time to come home," Huntsman said.
Huntsman, who also served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to China, added: "This nation’s future is not Afghanistan. This nation’s future is not Iraq." The more significant focus, he said, should be preparing the United States to compete with the emerging economic powers of Asia.
On a number of issues, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has long urged a more isolationist foreign policy, disagreed with the rest of the Republicans, urging the U.S. not to intervene in conflicts abroad.
Romney and Gingrich called for the U.S. government to use covert action to try to bring down the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but Paul said, "the Syrians ought to deal with their country."
[…]
3) Republican Candidates Embrace Covert Action In Iran
Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gop-candidates-embrace-covert-action-in-iran/2011/11/13/gIQAQqGEJN_story.html
During a Republican presidential debate Saturday night, several candidates embraced the idea of the United States using covert operations to help solve diplomatic problems.
Some of the activities they suggested may be underway but not publicly acknowledged.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) has long been an advocate of using the CIA in Iran, and he pushed that during the South Carolina debate. Asked what "non-war means" the United States could employ to deal with Iran’s apparent nuclear weapons program, Gingrich said he would institute "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable." He also called for "maximum coordination with the Israelis in a way which allows them to maximize their impact on Iran."
[…] During the debate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney also took up the idea of covert operations in Iran. After the contested 2009 Iranian presidential election, Romney said President Obama should have spoken out publicly "when dissidents took to the streets and say, ‘America is with you.’" Romney called for working "on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents."
The CIA’s recent record of carrying out such activities in the Middle East is not great. In 1991, after Iraq’s forces under Saddam Hussein were forced out of Kuwait, then-President George H.W. Bush publicly encouraged Shiite opponents of the Iraqi dictator to come out against him. At the same time, covert operations were undertaken to force him from power.
Hussein carried out brutal attacks against the dissidents, particularly in southern Iraq. Although the United States eventually set up air cover to protect the Iraqis, the covert operations were unsuccessful. One program supplied initial funding to the exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi, who later got Congress to fund his group after the CIA cut him off.
[…]
4) Defense Cuts Affect Jobs, But Other Cuts Are Worse
Barney Frank, Boston Globe, November 12, 2011
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/11/12/defense_cuts_affect_jobs_but_other_cuts_are_worse
It is surprising to hear defenders of our high level of military spending oppose defense reduction because of its negative effect on employment. This argument comes from the same people who have said that government spending creates no jobs, and who made no such employment-based objection to policies that have led to the firing of firefighters, teachers, and police officers, and reductions in spending for infrastructure. But the fact that this weaponized Keynesianism is inconsistent does not mean that it is wrong. The question is not whether there is an employment impact from defense spending cuts, but how that impact compares to spending reductions in other areas.
The answer, from both a national and Massachusetts perspective, is that cutting military spending in the appropriate way will have far less of a negative impact on jobs than the cuts that are likely to occur if the defense budget is not cut.
A recent study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the Political Economy Research Institute at University of Massachusetts Boston documents that money spent on clean energy, health care, or education "will create substantially more jobs within the US economy than would the same [amount] spent on the military.”
Except for the foreign aid program, the largest percentage of military money is spent overseas. The Pentagon and its allies engage in the "Washington Monument syndrome,” in which an agency threatened with budget reductions insists that the cuts will be made in the most damaging way. But those of us seeking to reduce military spending are focused on unnecessary spending in other countries.
Ending the war in Afghanistan saves more than $120 billion a year. Telling our wealthy allies in Western Europe – who spend 1.7 percent of their GDP on the military, while we spend 5.4 percent on ours – that they are in charge of their own defense and no longer need tens of billions of dollars a year in American military subsidies will cost few, if any, American jobs.
The fundamental cause of this country’s greatly inflated military spending is that we continue to play the role that we assumed after World War II: the protector of virtually every nation in the world outside the Communist orbit, and the guarantor of stability across the globe. There is no longer any need for the former, and it was never reasonable to undertake the latter. The causes of instability are rarely curable by American military intervention.
Secondly, there are cuts that will cause much greater job loss, especially in Massachusetts. The major alternative sources of significant deficit reduction are Medicare and Medicaid. In Massachusetts we are not only consumers of medical care, but also producers, through our hospitals, medical device manufacturers, and research institutions. Big cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will be far more damaging to the Massachusetts economy than reducing our far-flung network of military bases throughout the world.
Protecting the military budget against further cuts will also lead to increased reductions in the budgets of state and local governments, meaning fewer teachers, public-works employees, firefighters, and police officers. We should continue to support international efforts to fight disease, diminish child starvation, and cooperate in efforts at international financial stability. But these are done far less expensively than maintaining a military presence in dozens of nations all over the globe.
[…]
5) UK backs bid to overturn ban on cluster bombs
Campaigners say US-led proposals to water down global ban give a ‘green light’ to use the weapons
Jerome Taylor, The Independent, Wednesday 09 November 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/uk-backs-bid-to-overturn-ban-on-cluster-bombs-6259139.html
Britain is backing a US-led plan to torpedo the global ban on cluster bombs, in what MPs and arms campaigners fear is an attempt to legitimise the use of weapons that are widely deemed to be inherently indiscriminate.
In recent years, the UK has played a leading role in trying to rid the world of cluster bombs. It is one of 111 countries that have signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, is on target to destroy its own stockpile, and has ordered the US military to remove any submunitions it holds on British soil.
But The Independent has learnt that the UK Government is supporting a Washington-led proposal that would permit the use of cluster bombs as long as they were manufactured after 1980 and had a failure rate of less than one per cent. Arms campaigners say the 1980 cut-off point is arbitrary, and that many modern cluster bombs have far higher failure rates on the field of battle than manufacturers claim.
[…]
Iran
6) IAEA’s "Soviet Nuclear Scientist" Never Worked on Weapons
Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, Nov 9
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105776
Washington, Nov 9 – The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published by a Washington think tank Tuesday repeated the sensational claim previously reported by news media all over the world that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.
But it turns out that the foreign expert, who is not named in the IAEA report but was identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives.
In fact, Danilenko, a Ukrainian, has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm.
It now appears that the IAEA and David Albright, the director of the International Institute for Science and Security in Washington, who was the source of the news reports about Danilenko, never bothered to check the accuracy of the original claim by an unnamed "Member State" on which the IAEA based its assertion about his nuclear weapons background.
Albright gave a "private briefing" for "intelligence professionals" last week, in which he named Danilenko as the foreign expert who had been contracted by Iran’s Physics Research Centre in the mid-1990s and identified him as a "former Soviet nuclear scientist", according to a story by Joby Warrick of the Washington Post on Nov. 5.
The Danilenko story then went worldwide.
The IAEA report says the agency has "strong indications" that Iran’s development of a "high explosions initiation system", which it has described as an "implosion system" for a nuclear weapon, was "assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable on these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career in the nuclear weapon program of the country of his origin."
The report offers no other evidence of Danilenko’s involvement in the development of an initiation system.
The member state obviously learned that Danilenko had worked during the Soviet period at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics in Snezhinsk, Russia, which was well known for its work on development of nuclear warheads and simply assumed that he had been involved in that work.
However, further research would have revealed that Danilenko worked from the beginning of his career in a part of the Institute that specialised in the synthesis of diamonds. Danilenko wrote in an account of the early work in the field published in 2006 that he was among the scientists in the "gas dynamics group" at the Institute who were "the first to start studies on diamond synthesis in 1960".
[…] The unnamed member state that informed the agency about Danilenko’s alleged experience as a Soviet nuclear weapons scientist is almost certainly Israel, which has been the source of virtually all the purported intelligence on Iranian work on nuclear weapons over the past decade.
[…] The Jerusalem Post’s Yaakov Katz reported Wednesday that Israeli intelligence agencies had "provided critical information used in the report", the purpose of which was to "push through a new regime of sanctions against Tehran…."
Israel/Palestine
7) Israel maintains hold on $100 million in taxes due to Palestinians over UN statehood bid
Associated Press, Monday, November 14, 2:55 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/israel-maintains-hold-on-100-million-in-taxes-due-to-palestinians-over-un-statehood-bid/2011/11/14/gIQAtN5OLN_story.html
Jerusalem – Israeli Cabinet ministers decided Monday to hold on to some $100 million in taxes owed to the Palestinians, an official said, despite warnings from Israel’s Defense Ministry that the measure could threaten the stability of the Palestinian government in the West Bank.
Israel stopped transfer of tax funds as punishment for the Palestinian’s successful bid for admission to the United Nations’ cultural agency UNESCO, which was part of a larger effort to gain admission as a state in the world body.
[…] Israeli defense officials have said funding cutoffs threaten Abbas’ moderate Palestinian Authority, which employs tens of thousands of people, including security forces whose work at preventing attacks on Israelis has won praise from Israel and the United States in the past.
In accordance with interim peace deals, Israel collects customs, border and some income taxes on behalf of the Palestinians and relays them monthly to their West Bank government. The transfers were suspended on Nov. 3 in reaction to the UNESCO admission.
[…]
–
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. The archive of the Just Foreign Policy News is here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews