Just Foreign Policy News
November 15, 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. [A more recent Bloomberg poll now suggests that the race is a four way dead heat, so the case that a peace vote could determine the outcome has become even stronger.] http://www.truth-out.org/13111-new-peace-voters-ron-paul-can-win-iowa-caucus/1321373390
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/
Glenn Kessler: Fact checking the South Carolina debate
Kessler examines the claims of Republican candidates during their foreign policy debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-south-carolina-debate/2011/11/13/gIQAFKzVIN_blog.html
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) IDF soldiers and police on Tuesday forcibly removed Palestinian activists from a bus to occupied East Jerusalem, which they had boarded in a campaign they called a reenactment of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement’s "Freedom Rides" of the 1960s, +972 reports. Six activists boarded an Israeli bus in the West Bank that typically services Jewish settlers, with the intention of trying to reach East Jerusalem, which West Bank Palestinians are forbidden from entering without special permits. The campaign was part of an effort to call attention to Israel’s occupation in general, and policies of segregation and restricted freedom of movement in particular.
2) The U.S. military says an American service member has been killed while conducting military operations in central Iraq, AP reports. The death raises to at least 4,485 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to an AP count. Violence has dropped dramatically across Iraq, but deadly bombings and shootings still happen nearly every day, AP says.
3) Republican presidential candidates are ratcheting up military threats against Iran, write William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh in Politico. If any of them becomes President, they might be shacked to their threats. If they are not prepared to follow through, they should control the rhetoric now. The threats won’t change Iran’s nuclear policies, but could bring the U.S. closer to military conflict.
4) Calls by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry for the use of military force against Iran flatly ignore or reject outright the best advice of America’s national security leadership, writes retired brigadier general John Johns in the New York Times. Gates, Mullen, Sestak and Zinni are only a few of the many who have warned us to think carefully about the repercussions of attacking Iran. "A military strike … against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States’ national security," Sestak said.
If the candidates favor military action, they should desist from peddling the false notion of a simple "surgical" strike and answer the hard questions, Johns writes. How would they contain a larger regional war? Would they commit to a ground invasion? How would they pay for it? What is their view on the implications of another major deployment for the U.S. military? And why are they ignoring the advice of some of America’s most experienced military leaders?
5) Senate Majority Leader Reid said Democrats would not allow Republicans to save the Pentagon from cuts if the supercommittee fails to reach a deal, the Hill reports. Some Republicans have said they will try to reverse the automatic cuts that would hit Defense but Reid vowed non-defense discretionary programs would not carry the burden alone.
6) The move to eliminate cluster munitions is under attack, with the US leading the way, writes Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch on Huffington Post. The US is touting a much weaker alternative through the Convention on Conventional Weapons – with much lower standards than US policy already requires. The draft law is replete with broad exceptions and loopholes, and governments can choose not to obey key provisions for up to 12 years. It could lead to an increase in the use of cluster munitions, by providing a specific legal framework for their use.
7) Planned expenditures on nuclear weapons still reflect Cold War thinking, writes Walter Pincus in the Washington Post. We don’t need 1,000 of them. Nor do we need all of the 12 new $4 billion strategic nuclear submarines, each with 16 missiles. Robert McNamara – defense secretary through much of the 1960s – said he had always believed that 500 warheads or less was enough, even at the height of the Cold War.
Iran
8) War with Iran could be triggered by Israeli covert action against Iran, writes Tony Karon in Time Magazine. Karon suggests that provoking Iran towards military conflict could be a key Israeli government motivation for undertaking such covert action. Two years ago, Aluf Benn, now the editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz, suggested that an act of provocation might be Israel’s route to a military strike on Iran.
Colombia
9) Colombia’s president Santos has emerged as the leading voice on the international political stage calling for a major rethink on the war on drugs, writes John Mulholland in the Guardian. Last month he said: "The world needs to discuss new approaches… we are basically still thinking within the same framework as we have done for the last 40 years." He said: "A new approach should try and take away the violent profit that comes with drug trafficking… If that means legalizing, and the world thinks that’s the solution, I will welcome it. I’m not against it."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) IDF, police forcibly remove Palestinian "Freedom riders" from Israeli bus
Mya Guarnieri and Noa Yachot, +972, Tuesday, November 15 2011
http://972mag.com/palestinian-freedom-riders-set-to-board-segregated-west-bank-buses/27785/
IDF soldiers and police on Tuesday forcibly removed Palestinian activists from a bus to occupied East Jerusalem, which they had boarded in a campaign they called a reenactment of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement’s "Freedom Rides" of the 1960s.
Six activists boarded an Israeli bus in the West Bank that typically services Jewish settlers, with the intention of trying to reach East Jerusalem, which West Bank Palestinians are forbidden from entering without special permits. The campaign was part of an effort to call attention to Israel’s occupation in general, and policies of segregation and restricted freedom of movement in particular.
The security forces carried the activists off the bus following a standoff on the Jerusalem side of the Hizmeh checkpoint, during which they tried to convince them to disembark voluntarily or risk arrest. The activists had boarded after waiting some 40 minutes outside the West Bank settlement of Psagot before a bus finally stopped at the station at roughly 3 P.M. Israel time, enabling activists and journalists to board. After standing still for some time, the bus headed out in the direction of Jerusalem.
At Hizmeh, IDF soldiers boarded the bus, and asked to see the passengers’ IDs. After a short struggle with one activist – Badia Dweik, who was arrested as a teenager during the first Palestinian Intifada – the standoff ensued, with the bus parked in a lot on the Jerusalem side of the checkpoint and Dweik remaining on the bus. At roughly 5:15 P.M., security forces began carrying the activists off the bus, and arrested them all.
Earlier, one of the riders, showing his green ID card to the cameras present, announced from the bus, "I am illegal. It is now illegal for me to be here."
[…] The six activists – five men and one woman – included Palestinian scholar and activist Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh. Of the six, five hold the green ID cards issued to West Bank Palestinians, and one a blue card held by East Jerusalem Palestinians.
[…] According to a press released issued Sunday by organizers:
"While parallels exist between occupied Palestine and the segregated U.S. South in terms of the underlying racism and the humiliating treatment suffered then by blacks and now by Palestinians, there are also significant differences. In the 1960s U.S. South, black people had to sit in the back of the bus; in occupied Palestine, Palestinians are not even allowed ON the bus nor on the roads that the buses travel on, which are built on stolen Palestinian land.
In undertaking this action Palestinians do not seek the desegregation of settler buses, as the presence of these colonizers and the infrastructure that serves them is illegal and must be dismantled. As part of their struggle for freedom, justice and dignity, Palestinians demand the ability to be able to travel freely on their own roads, on their own land, including the right to travel to Jerusalem."
2) US military: American service member dies in Iraq
AP, 11/15/11
http://news.yahoo.com/us-military-american-member-dies-iraq-071616547.html
Baghdad – The U.S. military says an American service member has been killed while conducting military operations in central Iraq. The military statement released Tuesday said the death occurred Monday.
[…] Violence has dropped dramatically across Iraq, but deadly bombings and shootings still happen nearly every day. Some officials have warned of an increase in attacks as the U.S. withdraws all of its troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
[…] The death raises to at least 4,485 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
3) The GOP field’s risky saber-rattling
William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh, Politico, November 14, 2011
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68311.html
[Luers served as U.S. ambassador to Czechoslovakia and as president of the UN Association. Pickering served as ambassador to Russia, Israel, Jordan and the U.N. Walsh is a research associate at the MIT Security Studies Program.]
For centuries, successful statesmen and parents alike have cautioned: "Don’t make threats that you’re not prepared to carry out." Presidential candidates would do well to follow this time-tested advice when considering threats against Iran during the campaign.
The Republican wannabes, however, are already ratcheting up the threats from the decadelong, gold standard trope of "taking no option off the table." During Saturday’s GOP debate, these candidates with ambitions to run our national security all seemed mesmerized by military action as the key quick fix for the Iran problem.
By stepping up the level of military threats, any future president could shackle himself to a decision for war as an early test of his credibility. If candidates are not prepared to follow through, they should control the rhetoric now. For increasingly grave warnings and hostile language are unlikely to change the policies of Tehran’s nuclear program – but could bring the U.S. closer to military conflict.
The GOP front-runner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, suggested in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, "I Won’t Let Iran Get Nukes", that he would build a "very credible military option." He was essentially suggesting that he would go to war if unsatisfied with Tehran’s response.
To show his strength, Romney vowed to ratchet up sanctions and increase military pressure. His policy is "If you want peace, prepare for war." He would be prepared to commit U.S. armed forces to begin a new war in this battle-worn region.
In the process, Romney’s actions could open up Israel to immediate and devastating assaults from its neighbors; throw a spanner into any hopes of world economic recovery; kill thousands of people, including Americans who would be the main targets of hostile fire; and unravel all hope of a constructive role for the United States in the evolving, revolutionary Middle East.
And Romney’s war would still not stop Iran’s nuclear program. It would only delay it while giving Iran real reason to develop a nuclear weapon.
This competition among presidential hopefuls over who can make the most convincing threat against Iran increases the possibility – even the likelihood – that Washington will be left with no option but to initiate another war of choice – with all the unanticipated consequences for us and our unstable world.
There is a far more difficult, demanding and untried option for a U.S. president. "Keep your friends close," the saying goes, "but your enemies closer." It has guided victorious leaders for ages.
The vast cavern of psychological space, mutual ignorance, overpowering distrust and the enormous political-cultural divide between Iran and the U.S. qualifies Tehran as the most distant of any enemy in modern U.S. history. Washington has been threatening and pressuring Iran for more than 30 years – as if it were the planet Mars.
The GOP candidates seem to have already forgotten the pain, trauma and failures the U.S. experienced in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. War would be the easy choice for the U.S. to fall into – since that is where we have come with the befuddling and dangerous Islamic Republic of Iran.
Escalating U.S. threats and military presence in the region would drive a spike into all other options, while strengthening the power and determination of the rulers in Tehran to do everything necessary to stay in power. Pressed into a corner, with no way out, Iran’s leaders would only resist change more strenuously as the sanctions bite ever deeper into their system.
A new president who is a bold leader could show his courage and toughness by working tirelessly, on the track of statesmanship and diplomacy, to close the gap of mutual distrust with Iran. This option of reducing barriers is still viable, while the military option is irresponsible and calamitous.
Refusing to be distracted by the war hysteria, a strong president can find a path to get close enough to begin to deal with that threatening and frightening enemy. Success at this better and more difficult option would rule out both war and an Iranian nuclear weapon.
4) Before We Bomb Iran, Let’s Have a Serious Conversation
John H. Johns, New York Times, November 14, 2011
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/before-we-bomb-iran-lets-have-a-serious-conversation/
[Johns is a retired brigadier general. He served as a combat arms officer in the Army for over 26 years and taught national security strategy at the National Defense University for 14 years.]
It is common for candidates in presidential primaries to use bellicose language to prove their toughness. This kind of rhetoric is especially useful in Republican primaries, where audiences have a firm belief in the use of military power to solve problems. But toughness and wisdom are not the same thing.
The difference between the two was on display in the discussion of Iran that opened Saturday night’s Republican foreign policy debate, as it has been throughout the Republican campaign. Asked if he would consider a military option should current efforts fail to deter Iran’s work on developing nuclear weapons, Mitt Romney said, "of course you take military action, it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Newt Gingrich echoed Romney’s call. Previously, Herman Cain called preemptive force against Iran his "option B." Even Jon Huntsman, who has been the most sober of the candidates on foreign policy, suggested that "if you want an example of when I would consider the use of American force, it would be that." Rick Perry let us know that he would support Israeli military strikes too.
The problem with these arguments is that they flatly ignore or reject outright the best advice of America’s national security leadership. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, former congressman Admiral Joe Sestak and former CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zinni are only a few of the many who have warned us to think carefully about the repercussions of attacking Iran. Two months ago, Sestak put it bluntly: "A military strike, whether it’s by land or air, against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States’ national security."
While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.
Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel’s Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran "would mean regional war" and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were "the stupidest thing I have ever heard."
[…] Running for President means running for commander in chief of America’s armed forces. If the candidates favor military action, as is their prerogative, they should desist from peddling the false notion of a simple "surgical" strike and answer the hard questions. How would they contain a larger regional war? Would they commit to a ground invasion? How would they pay for it? What is their view on the implications of another major deployment for the U.S. military? And why are they ignoring the advice of some of America’s most experienced military leaders?
America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought.
5) Reid: Dems will oppose efforts to spare Defense from automatic cuts
Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 11/15/11 03:38 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/193753-reid-dems-will-oppose-efforts-to-spare-defense-from-automatic-cuts
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that Democrats would not allow Republicans to save the Pentagon from cuts if the supercommittee fails to reach a deal.
The Defense Department is slated for $500 billion in cuts if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction fails to produce an agreement with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts by Nov. 23.
Some Republicans have said they will try to reverse the automatic cuts that would hit Defense but Reid vowed that non-defense discretionary programs would not carry the burden alone.
"If committee fails to act, sequestration is going to go forward. Democrats aren’t going to take an unfair, unrealistic load directed toward domestic discretionary spending and take it away from the military," Reid told reporters.
[…]
6) The United States Aims Low on Cluster Munitions
Steve Goose, Huffington Post, 11/15/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-goose/the-united-states-aims-lo_b_1094448.html
[Goose is director of the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch and co-chair of the international Cluster Munition Coalition.]
There was widespread outrage earlier this year when forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi fired cluster munition rockets into residential parts of the Libyan city of Misrata.
Misrata was an increasingly rare example of the use of these weapons, which are comprehensively banned by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. The convention has been signed or ratified by 111 nations, including most of the United States’ closest allies–but not the US itself.
Regrettably, the move to eliminate cluster munitions is under attack, with the United States leading the way. The US is touting a much weaker alternative through the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) – an alternative with much lower standards than US policy already requires.
At a conference in Geneva beginning November 14, diplomats will try to conclude negotiations on a new CCW protocol on cluster munitions. Though cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric, the draft is clearly an effort to provide political and legal cover for potential future use of the weapon. That is bad news because cluster munitions are indiscriminate when they are used, causing harm well beyond the target, and leaving unexploded submunitions to threaten civilians long afterward.
The draft law is replete with broad exceptions and loopholes, and governments can choose not to obey key provisions for up to 12 years. It will fail to offer greater protections to civilians. In fact it could lead to an increase in the use of cluster munitions, by providing a specific legal framework for their use.
It would allow for continued use, production, trade, and stockpiling of many millions of cluster munitions, containing hundreds of millions of submunitions. It includes no obligation to destroy stockpiles.
The key "humanitarian" provision cited by the US and others is a ban on use of cluster munitions produced before 1980. Yet, these 30-plus-year-old weapons either have already reached or are nearing the end of their shelf-life and would have to be destroyed anyway. Most cluster munitions used in the past decade–by Libya, Thailand, the US, Russia, Georgia, Israel, and the United Kingdom–were produced after 1980. Most important, as has been abundantly demonstrated, post-1980 cluster munitions also cause unacceptable harm to civilians. That is why the comprehensive ban convention came into being.
[…] The United States already has one of the most transparent and comprehensive policies of countries that haven’t signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Under Defense Department policy established during the George W. Bush administration, by the end of 2018 the US will ban the use of all but a tiny fraction of its cluster munitions–those with a failure rate of less than 1 percent. The US has banned the export of cluster munitions since 2007, except those with a failure rate of less than 1 percent.
But if the US can ban the weapon in 2018, it can do it now. In light of the political stigma, it is going to be very difficult for the US to use cluster munitions again. Unlike in previous air campaigns in joint military actions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US did not use cluster munitions during the NATO air operation in Libya. This was due in no small part to the fact that 20 of the 28 NATO countries are parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are legally bound not to use cluster munitions or help other countries use them.
One useful aspect of the CCW negotiations has been an increased recognition by the US and others that the inherent dangers cluster munitions pose to civilians far outweigh the military usefulness of the weapon. It’s time for the US to put an end to the CCW folly and get on board the Convention on Custer Munitions.
[…]
7) Thinking outside the Cold War nuclear box
Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/thinking-outside-the-cold-war-nuclear-box/2011/11/13/gIQAzDiEMN_story.html
Further reductions in nuclear weapons beyond those agreed to in the New START agreement with Russia are being discussed within the Obama administration as part of the Defense Department review of future spending.
Maybe it is time for thinking outside what is still a Cold War nuclear box, which focuses on the United States having enough secure nuclear weapons to deter some other country from using theirs against America or its allies, today or in the future.
The Pentagon discussions are mainly about whether savings can be made in the $213 billion or more that the Defense and Energy departments require over the next 10 years to modernize the current triad of strategic intercontinental-ballistic-missile-launching submarines, land-based ICBMs and long-range bombers, and to upgrade the aging industrial complex that builds and maintains the nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has "indicated that there’s been preliminary discussion about maintaining an effective nuclear deterrence capability while reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal." That’s the way Defense Department spokesman George Little has put it.
The Pentagon review is looking at "strategic needs," which means threats that could or should be deterred by the U.S. nuclear forces. Based on that, it will study the existing U.S. nuclear "force structure," which means numbers and types of delivery systems and warheads. And, finally, it will look at U.S. "force posture," or how many U.S. warheads need to be deployed on sub- or land-based ICBMs or bombers, and whether they should be on alert or in reserve stockpiles.
Cost estimates for replacing these three delivery systems have already grown 25 percent over the past year. During the 2010 debate over the treaty with Russia, the estimate for replacing the strategic submarines, land-based ICBMs and strategic bombers together was $100 billion over 10 years. It is now $124.8 billion, as James N. Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on Nov. 3.
What are we talking about for the long run? The ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), said the current nuclear forces modernization plan estimated that the cost of building just the new fleet of strategic submarines would be $110 billion, but out more than 10 years. The estimate for operating them would be another $250 billion over their 50-year life span.
The Air Force estimate for 100 new strategic bombers, manned or unmanned, is an additional $55 billion, and there is no figure yet for a new generation of land-based ICBMs, she said.
In his April 2009 Prague speech, President Obama said, "To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same." Today’s goal, required by New START, is to have 1,550 deployed warheads on 700 delivery systems by 2018.
Those numbers represent Cold War thinking. They relate to Russia’s forces and what’s needed to deter Moscow. But deter Moscow from what? For that matter, how does the U.S. stockpile of 1,550 warheads deter China, or al-Qaeda or other non-state terrorist groups? U.S. nuclear warheads have not deterred North Korea from trying to build their own, nor do they deter Iran. They may have encouraged their programs.
[…] But despite what defense planners say about actually using them only against valued military targets, they are in fact weapons that will kill thousands of civilians either immediately or through radioactive aftereffects. Two atomic bombs, far less powerful than today’s warheads, used twice against Japanese "military targets" destroyed two cities and killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Would a U.S. president use one or more nuclear weapons first, or only if the United States were attacked? In either event, this country does not need 1,000 or more of them. Nor do we need all of the 12 new $4 billion strategic nuclear submarines, each with 16 missiles. Each missile carries a minimum of four warheads. With only nine such subs, the United States could have three on patrol, two in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic, and the United States would have a minimum of 192 warheads ready to hit targets all over the world.
With such an underwater fleet, do we still need up to 400 new land-based ICBMs? And why have any strategic bombers fitted to carry nuclear weapons?
Years ago, Robert McNamara – defense secretary through much of the 1960s – told me he had always believed that 500 warheads or less was enough, even at the height of the Cold War.
[…] Nuclear weapons deterred conventional war between the world’s then-superpowers. But neither country ever needed the more than 10,000 each had built. According to McNamara, several hundred would have been enough then, and it certainly would be enough now. The United States today can’t afford the Cold War luxury of overbuilding its nuclear force, and that could be a blessing.
Iran
8) Israel and Iran: Covert Warfare Raises Risks of Retaliation, and Conflagration
Tony Karon, Time, November 14, 2011
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/14/israel-and-iran-covert-warfare-raises-risks-of-retaliation-and-conflagration/
If Iran’s leaders actually believe their official insistence that last weekend’s blast at the Bid Ganeh Revolutionary Guard Corps missile base was an accident, the event is unlikely to make any difference to regional stability. But if Iran, instead, believes claims — and widely held suspicions in Tehran — that the blast, which killed 17 Iranian guardsmen including a senior commander, was the work of Israel’s Mossad security agency (as reported by my TIME colleagues Karl Vick and Aaron Klein and a growing chorus of innuendo in the Israeli media) the region could be in for a sharp uptick in turbulence.
Iranian analyst Kaveh Afrasiabi notes that officials in Tehran suspect foul play not only in the Bid Ganeh blast, but also in the death under suspicious circumstances in a Dubai hotel of the son of a prominent former Revolutionary Guards commander, and suggests that if these are deemed hostile events, pressure will grow on the Iranian leadership to retaliate.
Iran has over the past couple of years absorbed a series of covert warfare blows directed against its nuclear program — assassinations of its scientists, sabotage of facilities and, most damaging, the Stuxnet computer worm that invaded and hobbled its uranium-enrichment centrifuge system — which Tehran’s leaders believe were largely the work of the Israelis, possibly in conjunction with other Western intelligence agencies. And tensions are rising as Israel threatens military action to stop a program whose potential military dimension was highlighted last week by the IAEA.
Thus far, however, Tehran has declined any significant retaliation for actions it clearly perceives as provocations.
[…] However, this calculation may not hold as the intensity of the sabotage campaign increases. And that may just be the Israeli gamble.
It would certainly be more difficult for the leadership in Tehran to refrain from answering a painful slap at the IRGC, the military core of the regime’s strength, than it has been to insist on restraint in the face of Stuxnet and the murder of scientists. If, indeed, the blast at Bid Ganeh was more than an accident, its purpose — besides striking a minor blow at Iran’s ability to project power — would be to provoke retaliation. And, of course, any steps that Iran took in retaliation would likely provoke further escalation — both overt and or even covert — from those targeted by Tehran. As the unnamed diplomat who briefed my TIME colleagues noted, there may be more attacks in the works — or, in his words, "There are more bullets in the magazine."
[…] Two years ago, Aluf Benn, now the editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz, suggested that an act of provocation might be Israel’s route to a military strike on Iran: "It is usually assumed," Benn wrote, "that Israel will seek to repeat the 1981 bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq. This is only one scenario and not a likely one. There are other possibilities to consider: a war in the north [between Israel and Hizballah in Lebanon] that drags Iran in, or a strike against a valuable target for the Iranian regime, which leads Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to take action against ‘the Zionist regime.’ If Iran attacks Israel first, the element of surprise will be lost, but then Israel’s strike against the nuclear installations will be considered self-defense."
That reasoning may prompt some within the corridors of power in Iran to counsel restraint even if Tehran concludes that Israel was responsible for the blast at Bid Ganeh. But there will be others who may not be willing to let Israel continue unanswered emptying "the magazine" described by the Western diplomat in TIME’s story.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week reiterated the Pentagon’s skepticism of the call for military action against Iran, stressing that at best it could delay the Iranians by up to three years, but would touch off a potentially far more damaging immediate conflict. "You’ve got to be careful of unintended consequences," Panetta warned. Indeed. But that warning may prove to apply as much to covert warfare as to overt warfare.
Colombia
9) Juan Manuel Santos: ‘It is time to think again about the war on drugs’
Colombia’s president speaks frankly of the price his country has paid and his success in dismantling the cartels
John Mulholland, Guardian, Saturday 12 November 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-santos-war-on-drugs
Bogotá –
[…] [Colombia’s president Juan Manuel] Santos has emerged as the leading voice on the international political stage calling for a major rethink on the war on drugs. Santos’s call for a new debate about drug regulation is heavily symbolic, since Colombia has suffered more than any other country at the hands of narcotics traffickers.
Santos has drawn attention to the damage suffered by the producing nations in Latin America as they continue to serve the growing demand for drugs in the consuming nations of the west. His voice is becoming the key one in trying to set the terms for a new international discussion about the war.
[…] It is in this context – as the president of a country that was very nearly broken by a combination of drug cartels and guerrilla narcotics traffickers – that Santos’s recent pronouncements on the war on drugs are all the more remarkable. Last month he said: "The world needs to discuss new approaches… we are basically still thinking within the same framework as we have done for the last 40 years."
Santos has gone further than any other leading politician in opening up the debate. In an interview with the Observer he spelled out the radical ideas which he hopes will create a fresh approach. He said: "A new approach should try and take away the violent profit that comes with drug trafficking… If that means legalising, and the world thinks that’s the solution, I will welcome it. I’m not against it."
But he is clear that any initiatives need to be part of a co-ordinated international plan of action and he rules out any unilateral action by Colombia. "What I won’t do is to become the vanguard of that movement because then I will be crucified. But I would gladly participate in those discussions because we are the country that’s still suffering most and have suffered most historically with the high consumption of the UK, the US, and Europe in general."
Santos is prepared to go much further than others – he is opening up a debate about legalising marijuana and perhaps cocaine.
"I would talk about legalising marijuana and more than just marijuana. If the world thinks that this is the correct approach, because for example in our case we used to be exporters, but we were replaced by the producers of California. And there even was a referendum in California to legalise it and they lost it but they could have won. I ask myself how would you explain marijuana being legalised in California and cocaine consumption being penalised in Idaho? It’s a contradiction. So it’s a difficult problem where you set the limits. It’s a difficult decision. For example, I would never legalise very hard drugs like morphine or heroin because in fact they are suicidal drugs. I might consider legalising cocaine if there is a world consensus because this drug has affected us most here in Colombia. I don’t know what is more harmful, cocaine or marijuana. That’s a health discussion. But again, only if there is a consensus."
Santos is not alone. There is a growing impatience in the producing countries of Latin America that suffer acutely as their drug cartels feed the demand in the consuming countries.
For Santos and his country, the issue of drugs looms much larger than for the consuming nations. For Colombia, drugs are "a matter of national security" whereas, for others, "it is mainly a health and crime issue". He speaks eloquently of the price his country has paid – and continues to pay – for feeding the west’s appetite for illicit drugs. "We have gone through a tremendous experience – dramatic and costly for a society to live through. We have lost our best judges, our best politicians, our best journalists, our best policemen in this fight against drugs and the problem’s still there."
It is difficult to overestimate the symbolic importance of a Colombian president entering the debate with such force, given the central role drugs have played in his country’s recent bloody history. Santos is all too aware of the symbolism and of the role he is playing. "Yes, I know, and I’m conscious of what this means. I’ve told President Calderón [of Mexico], ‘You and I have a lot more authority to talk about this because our countries have spilled a lot of blood fighting drug traffickers and we should promote this discussion."
If the war on drugs has failed, it has failed most abjectly in Latin America. That is where the bodies are buried. Or not so much buried, since the Mexican drug gangs prefer to litter the bodies of their victims along the byways and highways of the border towns with America, or leave them hanging from bridges to serve as a public warning to anyone who gets in their way.
Last week drugs gangs beheaded a blogger in Nuevo Laredo for reporting on the activities of the Zetas, the narcotics gang that all but controls the Mexican city that sits on its border with America. A month earlier, they beheaded a 39-year-old woman who blogged for the same site. In September, they hanged a couple from a highway overpass and left a note saying they had been killed for "their social media activity". These are four killings out of about 42,000 in the past five years. The price of drugs in Latin America can be costed in dollars, but in wasted lives too.
The fallout from the interminable war goes deeper – since the vast funds of narcotics trafficking have been used to corrupt their bodies politic. One former Colombian president, Ernesto Samper, has been publicly accused of having been swept to power on the back of the Cali drug cartels. Drugs have posed a threat to the very existence of civic institutions in many of the countries on the frontline of the war on drugs.
But Latin America is starting to take the fight to the consuming nations in Europe and the US. President Felipe Calderón of Mexico joined the debate in September when he used a speech in New York to hit out at consumer nations that were not doing enough to reduce demand. He took direct aim at the US, saying: "We are living in the same building. And our neighbour is the largest consumer of drugs in the world and everybody wants to sell him drugs through our doors and windows."
Calderón went further and suggested that if the consumption of drugs could not be limited, "then decision-makers must seek more solutions – including market alternatives – in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organisations". The phrase "market alternatives" was widely assumed to be a call for a new debate in the US about whether legalised or regulated drug markets might be an alternative to the war on drugs.
The more vociferous these Latin American voices become, the more difficult it will be for the leaders of the consuming nations to remain silent in the debate over the effectiveness of the war.
It was these western leaders that the Global Commission on Drug Policy was addressing when it released its landmark report earlier this year. The 19-person commission includes former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, former US secretary of state George Shultz, former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and César Gaviria of Colombia.
The report’s first line was: "The war on drugs has failed." After detailing the costs, ineffectiveness and harmful effects of the drugs war, it made this plea: "Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately… that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won."
This week a House of Lords event on drugs policy reform, organised by Baroness Meacher, will include an impressive list of attendees from around the world. It is an attempt to engage the debate, but no frontline British politicians will be there to hear people such as the Colombian interior minister speak. Privately, many senior British politicians support the initiative to try to help generate a new debate on drugs – but publicly they are invisible.
So it is left to Santos and others to stir the debate and try to promote a wider discussion. "I hope there is a shift in the debate. I am open to, and I welcome these discussions and this debate," he says. "We are the country who has suffered most of any country. Hopefully the world will enter into a fruitful and dynamic debate on this issue and if they find a new solution I’ll be even more than happy to support it."
But political leaders in the consuming countries have not yet shown any appetite for joining the debate. In fact, quite the opposite. "This is a very sensitive political subject and there’s a lot of hypocrisy there," says Santos. "Many leaders, in private, they will say something and they tell me something and in public they say, ‘But I can’t do this probably because my people will really crucify me’."
One of the most glaring contradictions is in the United States. While on the one hand a growing number of states in the US have semi-legalised marijuana (it is freely available from cannabis dispensaries with an easy-to-obtain doctor’s prescription) on the other hand the country pours billions of dollars into helping the Mexican military fight the drug cartels which are busy trying to get marijuana into the US.
Barack Obama declared the war on drugs to be "an utter failure". He went on to say: "We need to rethink how we are operating in the drug wars because currently we are not doing a good job." But that was in January 2004.
There are, of course, isolated victories in the war and the manner in which Colombia disrupted much of the drug trade is a case in point. This was principally because of Plan Colombia, which involved a massive programme of financial and military aid. While Plan Colombia is credited with having saved the Colombian state, the "victory", as even Santos admits, is a Pyrrhic one.
"We are now helping other countries, the Caribbean countries, Central American countries, Mexico, because our success means more problems for them," he says. "There’s the balloon effect." Meaning, that the problem is simply displaced, to another country – or even another continent, as in the case of Guinea Bissau in west Africa.
The other indices of the war on drugs do not make for encouraging reading. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that nearly 23 million Americans are illicit drug users. That is 8.9% of its adult population, up from 2008-09 when the rate was 8%. The number of marijuana users has gone up from 14.4 million in 2007 to 17.4 million in 2010.
[…]
–
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