Just Foreign Policy News, December 14, 2011
House Passes Iran Contact Ban; Gingrich Backs War for Regime Change
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
House Passes "Iran Cooties Reduction Act"
On Wednesday evening, the House passed HR 1905, the so-called "Iran Threat Reduction Act," which, among other things, would prohibit contact between U.S. and some Iranian officials. Eleven Members voted no: Amash, Blumenauer, Duncan (TN), Ellison, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, McDermott, Moran, Olver, Stark, Woolsey. The measure now goes to the Senate, where the bill may be stopped or some of its most extreme provisions may still be removed.
The debate on the bill happened Tuesday night. You can watch the debate here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession5288
The debate begins at the 8:05 mark.
At the 8:15 mark, Rep. Kucinich introduced into the Congressional Record Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton’s column noting that the IAEA did not say that Iran is building a nuclear bomb (during the debate, some Members claimed that it did.)
At the 8:37 mark, Rep. Blumenauer noted press reports that new sanctions on Europeans who buy oil from Iran could raise the price of gas in the U.S. by a dollar a gallon.
At 8:50:26, Rep. Berman claimed that "there is nothing in this bill that would prevent Americans from having contact with Iranians," an astonishing claim, given the plain English meaning of Section 601c, cited in the peace groups’ letter to the House:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1100
Robert Mackey: After Fatal Shooting of Palestinian, Israeli Soldiers Defended Use of Force Online
Gripping account by the New York Times’ Robert Mackey of the online debate over the killing of a Palestinian demonstrator when he was hit in the face with a tear gas canister.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/after-fatal-shooting-of-palestinian-israeli-soldiers-defended-use-of-force-online/
Ron Paul: U.S. Shouldn’t Support Israel’s Gaza Blockade
This 2010 interview – following Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara – is in the news because Politico referenced it in an attack on Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-06-03/ron-paul-u-s-shouldnt-support-israels-gaza-blockade/
Dean Baker: "Will the media allow Ron Paul to raise serious questions about U.S. foreign policy?"
Dean Baker responds to the Politico attack.
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Dean_Baker_97E106A5-5228-40D0-AB6D-EDC8CC3F5D6E.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) Newt Gingrich says the idea of airstrikes that would take out Iran’s nuclear program is a fantasy, notes Michael Crowley for Time Magazine. But Gingrich’s conclusion from this is that the endgame of a military strike should be regime change.
2) Turki Al-Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., said the impact of a military attack on Iran would be "calamitous … cataclysmic, not just catastrophic," the Arab News reports. He called for a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone that would include both Iran and Israel and be buttressed by both sanctions and rewards.
3) A senior U.S. Defense Department official told a visiting Japanese opposition party lawmaker that if the Japanese government presents by the end of this year a report to Okinawa on relocating a U.S. base within Okinawa, Congress might restore funding for moving Marines from Okinawa to Guam, Kyodo News reports. The Senate and the House have cut funding for the relocation, because opposition in Okinawa to relocating the base in Okinawa has stalled the relocation plan.
4) In an editorial, the Washington Post praises the news that the Obama Administration will cut the National Guard deployment at the Mexican border, saying that the deployment is wasteful and unnecessary.
5) A New York Times reporter recovered from a junkyard Marine testimony about the killings of Iraqi civilians at Haditha in 2005 that the US military intended to destroy, the New York Times reports. The killings at Haditha helped cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the US and a resentment that not a single Marine was ever prosecuted; one of the main reasons all US combat troops are leaving by the weekend, the Times notes.
Israel/Palestine
6) In Israel, the life of a Palestinian is cheap, says Haaretz in an editorial. The killing of a demonstrator at Nabi Saleh is part of a pattern of impunity for soldiers who shoot at Palestinians.
7) After settler attacks on an army base and a military commander, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that some radical settlers would be treated the same way as suspected Palestinian militants – detained for long periods without charge and tried in military courts, the New York Times reports. Human rights groups have long condemned Israel’s use of administrative detention against Palestinians and were not expected to applaud its use against settlers despite their objection to settlements, the Times notes.
Honduras
8) Journalists were beaten by police at a protest over the killings of journalists in Honduras, EFE reports. The government claimed it had not ordered the police to break up the protest.
Iran/Iraq
9) The US and Iraq have negotiated a reasonable agreement to deal with the problem of Camp Ashraf and the Paris leadership of the MEK should stop blocking the agreement with intransigent and unrealistic demands, argues the Washington Post in an editorial. Under the agreement, MEK members would be interviewed individually so they can say where they want to go, free from intimidation from MEK leaders, and none of the MEK members would be returned to Iran against their will.
Cuba
10) The GAO says the board that supervises Radio/TV Martí failed to provide sufficient information to Congress about its costs and audience in Cuba, ElNuevoHerald reports. Surveys conducted before 2008 indicated less than 2 percent of Cuban adults in households with land lines said they listened to or watched Radio/TV Martí on a weekly basis. Critics have long recommended that the stations be shut down altogether or folded into the Spanish-language section of the Voice of America.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Newt Gingrich Contemplates War with Iran
Michael Crowley, Time, December 13, 2011
http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/13/newt-gingrich-contemplates-war-with-iran/
A lively debate continues to swirl in some quarters of Washington about whether time is running out to derail Iran’s nuclear program through military action. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who has perhaps written more than anyone on this subject, relays growing concerns in Israel about Barack Obama’s willingness to use force if necessary, and says he’s "beginning to have doubts" about whether Obama really considers a Persian nuke unacceptable.
Suddenly, Newt Gingrich’s opinion about this has become quite significant. But his position is a little tricky to pin down. Appearing on CNN last week, for instance, Gingrich told Wolf Blitzer that if the Israelis were to call and notify him about an imminent military strike, his first response would be: "How can we help you?" He continued:
"An Iranian nuclear weapon is potentially a second holocaust. Israel is a very urban country. Two or three nuclear weapons wipes out most of the Jews who live in Israel. I believe Ahmadinejad would do it in a [inaudible]. When you have people put on body suits to walk into a crowded mall to blow themselves up, you better believe they put on a nuclear weapon. So, I think the world needs to understand, Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon. All the world can decide is whether they help us peacefully stop it or they force us to use violence, but Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon."
But Newt sounded less bellicose during his debate yesterday with Jon Huntsman, arguing that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear complex won’t solve the problem:
"They have huge underground facilities. Some of the underground facilities are under mosques. Some of them are in cities. The idea that you’re going to wage a bombing campaign that accurately takes out all the Iranian nuclear program I think is a fantasy. It would be a gigantic mess, with enormous collateral civilian casualties…. There’s no practical scenario in which you can take out their weapons without them rebuilding them."
Instead, Gingrich called–as he has before–for a combination of measures to topple the Iranian regime, including harsher economic sanctions such as cutting off Iran’s gasoline supplies, and other "political, psychological, and diplomatic" measures. But he also went a step farther, suggesting that violence might make sense after all, so long as its not focused solely on nuclear targets: "Unless they unilaterally disarm their entire system, we are going to replace their regime. We’re ideally going to do it non-militarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon." The implications of that position–"militarily" replacing the Iranian regime–are even more dramatic. Does Newt really entertain the idea of going to war with Iran to change its government and somehow install a friendlier one? It seems so. Gingrich he has said previously that any strike on Iran’s nuclear program should be undertaken "only as a first step towards replacing the regime."
This leaves Gingrich with a position that is perhaps unique, and quite dramatic. He’s skeptical about military action to take out Iran’s nuclear complex. But he thinks war with Iran to replace its regime might be necessary. Amid the freak show of the Republican presidential campaign, that’s a sobering reminder of the underlying stakes.
2) Attack on Iran will have ‘calamitous’ consequences, says Prince Turki
Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Arab News, Dec 13, 2011 00:50 Updated: Dec 13, 2011 00:50
http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article547026.ece
Riyadh: Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, on Monday called for the creation of a nuclear-free Middle East while supporting a system based on rewards and sanctions to deter nations in the region with nuclear ambitions.
Prince Turki, who is extensively engaged in public diplomacy by touring and lecturing across the world, also said that any attack on Iran will have huge consequences for the region and its adverse implications will be felt worldwide.
Prince Turki, speaking to an elite group of academics and faculty members at the prestigious Alfaisal University in Riyadh, said a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was the best way to get Iran and Israel on board and to force them to abandon nuclear programs.
"Such a zone must be accompanied by a rewards regime for those countries in the region that join the zone," said the prince, while stressing and calling for "a nuclear security umbrella guaranteed by all the permanent members of the UN Security Council for the region."
[…] Replying to a question about the possibility of an attack on Iran to force it to roll back its nuclear program and the impact of such an action, Prince Turki reiterated that the impact will be "calamitous … cataclysmic, not just catastrophic."
He said that Iranian actions have provoked worldwide opposition but at the same time suggests that Iran’s nuclear program is being singled out, while Israel is being given a clean chit. Any unilateral decision to launch a military attack aimed at halting the nuclear program of Iran could have huge consequences, he warned.
He, however, expressed his grave concerns that if Israel and Iran acquire a range of nuclear weapons, they would unleash a cascade of nuclear proliferation that would significantly destabilize the region and possibly destroy efforts to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in this part of the world.
To this end, he also noted that the last year’s nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference included in its final document a call for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of all weapons of mass destruction.
Prince Turki, who also shook hands and stood with students for photo sessions, pointed out that an intergovernmental conference to discuss such a zone was scheduled for 2012. Most of the countries in the region except Israel and Iran are pursuing nuclear programs for peaceful purposes.
[…]
3) Key Okinawa Report May Restore Congressional Funding: U.S. Official
Kyodo News, December 14, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111214p2g00m0dm090000c.html
Washington — A senior U.S. Defense Department official told a visiting Japanese opposition party lawmaker Tuesday that if the Japanese government presents by the end of this year a key report to Okinawa on relocating a U.S. base within the prefecture, it could lead to a flexible response by Congress concerning funding connected to the relocation.
Michael Schiffer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, also said in a meeting in Washington with Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Nobuteru Ishihara that the United States can deliver F-35 stealth fighters to Japan based on the planned schedule, LDP members said.
Their talks came a day after the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives agreed to cut from the annual spending bill for fiscal 2012 through next September the entire $150 million requested by the U.S. government for the planned relocation of some 8,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Schiffer said it is possible for Congress to be flexible on funding to move the Marines to Guam — a plan linked to relocating the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station to the Henoko district in Nago from a densely populated area of Ginowan, both in Okinawa Prefecture — if the Japanese government goes through with its plan to submit to Okinawa by the end of this year an environmental assessment report for the relocation.
The defense official said Congress decided to cut the funding due to the frustration over the lack of progress on the Futenma relocation plan, which has been agreed by the Japanese and U.S. governments but is being met with opposition from the local people in Okinawa.
[…]
4) A border debate that counters sense with nonsense
Editorial, Washington Post, December 13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-border-debate-that-counters-sense-with-nonsense/2011/12/13/gIQAxwVhsO_story.html
When President Obama announced his decision to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexican border last year, his hand was forced at least as much by politics as by border security. The president acted under pressure from border-state governors shortly after Arizona passed a draconian law targeting illegal immigrants. At the time, the number of illegal border crossings was already plummeting in the face of a beefed-up U.S. Border Patrol and wilting demand for cheap labor among recession-wracked U.S. companies.
So it is no surprise that the modest force of guardsmen, who lack the power to make arrests or pursue illegal border crossers, has been little more than window dressing. Though they have provided some help with logistics, intelligence and surveillance, their overall contribution to the clampdown on the southwestern frontier – on top of 18,500 Border Patrol officers plus personnel from an alphabet soup of other federal agencies – has been slight.
Mr. Obama is now reported to have decided to slash the number of guardsmen on the border, whose deployment was paid for by the Pentagon. His decision is sensible. The deployment was intended to be temporary, and at $10 million a month, it was a luxury the Pentagon, facing billions of dollars in cuts, could hardly justify.
Still, the logic of the president’s decision has not dampened an outcry from Republicans who see political advantage in fanning hysteria on the issue of illegal immigration. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose collapse in the polls this fall owed much to his supposed softness on illegal immigration, was especially quick to pounce. Mr. Obama’s move, said the governor, "is proof that this administration has no intention to truly secure the border."
Facts are always the first casualty of political crossfire, but Mr. Perry’s misuse of them is especially cynical. The border today is more tightly sealed than at any point in decades. Illegal border crossings, as measured by apprehensions along the 2,000-mile Mexican border, fell in the latest fiscal year to their lowest level since 1972. The number of crossers captured, about 327,000, was down 50 percent since 2008; 70 percent since 2006; and 80 percent since 2000, when the Border Patrol picked up 1.64 million illegal immigrants along the border.
[…]
5) Accounts of a Massacre, Saved From Junkyard Flames
Michael S. Schmidt, New York Times, December 14, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/united-states-marines-haditha-interviews-found-in-iraq-junkyard.html
Baghdad – One by one, the Marines sat down, swore to tell the truth and began to give secret interviews discussing one of the most horrific episodes of America’s time in Iraq: the 2005 massacre by Marines of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.
"I mean, whether it’s a result of our action or other action, you know, discovering 20 bodies, throats slit, 20 bodies, you know, beheaded, 20 bodies here, 20 bodies there," Col. Thomas Cariker, a commander in Anbar Province at the time, said to investigators as he described the chaos of Iraq. At times, he said, deaths were caused by "grenade attacks on a checkpoint and, you know, collateral with civilians."
The 400 pages of interrogations, once closely guarded as secrets of war, were supposed to have been destroyed as the last American troops prepare to leave Iraq. Instead, they were discovered along with reams of other classified documents, including military maps showing helicopter routes and radar capabilities, by a reporter for The New York Times at a junkyard outside Baghdad. An attendant was burning them as fuel to cook a dinner of smoked carp.
The documents – many marked secret – form part of the military’s own internal investigation, and confirm much of what happened at Haditha, a Euphrates River town where Marines killed 24 Iraqis, including a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair, women and children, some just toddlers.
Haditha became a defining moment of the war, helping cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the United States and a resentment that not a single Marine was ever prosecuted. That is one of the main reasons that all American combat troops are leaving by the weekend.
But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand. In their own words, the report documents the dehumanizing nature of this war, where Marines came to view 20 dead civilians as not "remarkable," but as routine.
Iraqi civilians were being killed all the time. Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the commander of American forces in Anbar Province, in his own testimony, described it as "a cost of doing business."
The stress of combat left some soldiers paralyzed, the testimony shows. Troops, traumatized by the rising violence and feeling constantly under siege, grew increasingly twitchy, killing more and more civilians in accidental encounters. Others became so desensitized and inured to the killing that they fired on Iraqi civilians deliberately while their fellow soldiers snapped pictures, and were court-martialed. The bodies piled up at a time when the war had gone horribly wrong.
Charges were dropped against six of the accused Marines in the Haditha episode, one was acquitted and the last remaining case against one Marine is scheduled to go to trial next year.
That sense of American impunity ultimately poisoned any chance for American forces to remain in Iraq, because the Iraqis would not let them stay without being subject to Iraqi laws and courts, a condition the White House could not accept.
[…] Many of those testifying at bases in Iraq or back in the United States were clearly in the hot seat for not investigating an atrocity and may have tried to shape their statements to dispel any notion that they had sought to cover up the events. But the accounts also show the consternation of the Marines as they struggled to control an unfamiliar land and its people in what amounted to a constant state of siege from guerrilla fighters who were nearly indistinguishable from noncombatants.
Some, feeling they were under attack constantly, decided to use force first and ask questions later. If Marines took fire from a building, they would often level it. Drivers who approached checkpoints without stopping were assumed to be suicide bombers.
"When a car doesn’t stop, it crosses the trigger line, Marines engage and, yes, sir, there are people inside the car that are killed that have nothing to do with it," Sgt Maj. Edward T. Sax, the battalion’s senior noncommissioned officer, testified.
He added: "I had Marines shoot children in cars and deal with the Marines individually one on one about it because they have a hard time dealing with that."
Sergeant Major Sax said he would ask the Marines responsible if they had known there had been children in the car. When they said no, he said he would tell them they were not at fault. He said he felt for the Marines who had fired the shots, saying they would carry a lifelong burden.
[…]
Israel/Palestine
6) In Israel, the life of a Palestinian is cheap
When it comes to shooting a Palestinian, pulling the trigger does not come with a real fear of having to answer to the law.
Editorial, Haaretz, 02:15 12.12.11
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-israel-the-life-of-a-palestinian-is-cheap-1.400908
The pictures from Friday’s events in Nabi Saleh are hard to swallow: An Israel Defense Forces soldier opens the back door of an armored military jeep and, from a distance of just a few meters, fires a tear-gas canister directly at a young man who is throwing stones. After the canister is fired, the jeep continues on its way without stopping.
A photographer on the scene relates that the young man "fell to the ground, remained conscious for a few seconds, and then began bleeding profusely from the region of his eye." He was subsequently evacuated for treatment at Beilinson Hospital, where he was sedated and placed on a respirator. On Saturday, he died from his wounds.
The incident took place during the weekly demonstration held by residents of Nabi Saleh against the expropriation of their land in favor of the nearby settlement of Halamish and the settlers’ takeover of a spring that served the Palestinian residents. The young man who was killed has a name – Mustafa Tamimi, 28, a resident of the village and regular participant in the demonstrations that have been taking place there every Friday for the past two years.
The IDF Spokesman’s Office said in response that "the army is looking into the incident." But one needs to wonder about the use of the term "looking into." A report published last week by Yesh Din-Volunteers for Human Rights, which examined 192 complaints – including an analysis of the content of 67 Military Police investigations into various types of severe harm to Palestinian civilians and their property – reveals that 96.5 percent of the total number of complaints are closed without indictments.
[…] On the day Tamimi was killed, Chaim Levinson published a report in Haaretz that dealt with the failings of the Israel Police’s Judea and Samaria District with regard to investigations into harm to Palestinians. Concerning the killing of 10-year-old girl Abir Aramin by the IDF in early 2007, the High Court of Justice ruled that the incident was improperly handled; and to date, no one has been called on to answer for the 2009 killing of demonstrator Bassem Abu Rahme. Will the death of Mustafa Tamimi be added to the statistics that show that in Israel, the life of a Palestinian is cheap?
7) Israel Leader Sets New Curbs on Violent Settlers
Ethan Bronner, New York Times, December 14, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/netanyahu-sets-new-curbs-on-violent-settlers-in-israel.html
Jerusalem – After two days of settler violence that shocked much of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Wednesday that some radical Israelis would be treated the same way as suspected Palestinian militants – detained for long periods without charge and tried in military courts.
The disclosure of the new enforcement tools followed an urgent meeting of the country’s top legal and security officials and showed how worried Mr. Netanyahu and his lieutenants have become about militants of the far right who attack not only Palestinians in the West Bank, but also the Israeli army there.
Around the world, it is the abuse of Palestinians under Israeli occupation that draws anger, the separate legal systems – one for Jewish settlers and another for Palestinians – that has produced comparisons to South Africa under apartheid. Here, it was a settler assault on an army base and on a military commander in occupied territory that enraged Israelis and produced an instant consensus that radical steps equaling those applied to Palestinians were warranted.
"Red lines were crossed," blared Maariv, a centrist daily, across its front page on Wednesday. The previous night, Mr. Netanyahu made a speech in which he described the settler attack on the Israeli military base as "a game changer."
[…] Human rights groups have long condemned Israel’s use of administrative detention against Palestinians and were not expected to applaud its use against settlers despite their objection to settlements.
Mr. Netanyahu declined to go so far as to formally label violent settlers "terrorists." Doing so would have allowed security forces to use targeted sanctions and courts to impose harsher punishments.
[…] On Wednesday, when police drove to an apartment building in Jerusalem to question some of those who had been barred from the West Bank, they were met with dozens of rioters in the street, many of them local religious students, who slashed police car tires and smashed their windows.
Earlier in the day, a disused Jerusalem mosque was defaced and set afire. The words "price tag" were spray-painted on the mosque. Price tag refers to violent acts by settlers and their supporters against Palestinians and Israeli security forces.
Mr. Netanyahu’s critics assailed him for downplaying the extent of settler violence and seeming surprised by what had happened this week.
"There is no word more shameful in the Israeli lexicon of violence than the word ‘handful,’ " wrote Nahum Barnea, a columnist for Yediot Aharonot newspaper, referring to characterizations of the violent settlers as so small in number as to be insignificant. "This criminal behavior must be rooted out, and everyone knows where the roots are: in the incitement of the settler rabbis, in the Israeli governments that over and over again approved the settlers’ illegal acts, in the leniency of the judges and in the powerlessness of the Shin Bet, the army and the police."
[…]
Honduras
8) Cops Beat Protesting Journalists in Honduras
EFE, December 13, 2011
http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=452027&CategoryId=23558
[Photos: Journalists protest killings of colleagues in Honduras
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9419753-journalists-protest-killings-of-colleagues-in-honduras]
Tegucigalpa – Several people were beaten by police and troops on Tuesday during a protest to demand justice for the 24 journalists murdered in Honduras over the last eight years, including 17 slain since January 2010.
Some 40 news professionals marched from the eastern part of Tegucigalpa to the presidential palace, where soldiers and cops responded with batons and tear gas when the protesters tried to get around a security barrier.
[…] President Porfirio Lobo’s press secretary said the palace did not order police and troops to break up the protest. "We will investigate who gave the order to repress the journalists," Miguel Angel Bonilla told reporters.
[…]
Iran/Iraq
9) A U.S. plan to save Iranians who remain in Iraq
Editorial, Washington Post, December 13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-us-plan-to-save-iranians-who-remain-in-iraq/2011/12/07/gIQA1YXhsO_story.html
To some, including the U.S. government, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is a terrorist organization that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians, including Americans in Tehran in the 1970s. To others, it is the voice of democratic Iranian opposition.
This debate, fueled in part by the group’s handsomely paid stable of former U.S. officials who act as advocates, should be put aside to focus on a much more immediate and potentially explosive problem.
Come Dec. 31, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered the closure of Camp Ashraf, an encampment 35 miles north of Baghdad that has been home for 25 years to members of the MEK. The camp currently houses some 3,400 people. The MEK fled Iran in the mid-1980s and took up arms with Saddam Hussein in the fight against Iran; the group has also been linked to Hussein’s violent suppression of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Incidents of terrorism attributed to MEK have significantly declined since 2001, but hostility to the group still runs high and was evident in the April massacre of dozens of Camp Ashraf residents by Iraqi forces.
The bloodshed could be even worse if the remaining residents are not moved out of the camp by Mr. Maliki’s deadline, which coincides with the pullout of U.S. troops. Some fear that Mr. Maliki could turn a blind eye to violence at Camp Ashraf or forcibly send to Iran MEK members, who fear persecution.
The Obama administration has won Iraqi agreement for a plan that could avoid these outcomes. Overseen by Martin Kobler, the U.N. envoy to Iraq, it calls for the MEK members to be moved to the United States’ former Camp Liberty base, near Baghdad’s international airport, where they would be interviewed and processed by the United Nations’ refugee agency. Interviews would be done individually, allowing each person to state his or her wishes for relocation without intimidation from the group’s leaders. The United Nations would monitor the process to protect against abuses. Officials say none of the MEK members would be returned to Iran against their will.
This is a decent solution to a thorny problem. The sticking point is the MEK’s Paris-based leadership, which is demanding that U.S. troops or U.N. peacekeeping forces provide security at the new camp. With the last U.S. soldiers on the way out and U.N. peacekeepers nowhere in sight, that is a condition that can’t and won’t be met. It’s time for the MEK – and its American mouthpieces – to drop unrealistic demands and accept a plan that offers the best chance to safeguard its members.
Cuba
10) U.S. government agency says Radio/TV Marti’s bosses failed to properly inform Congress
Juan O. Tamayo, ElNuevoHerald, Wed, Dec. 14, 2011
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/14/2545339/us-government-agency-says-radiotv.html
The board that supervises Radio/TV Martí failed to provide sufficient information to the U.S. Congress about its costs and audience in Cuba, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.
In a strongly worded report, the GAO also recommended that the Broadcasting Board of Governors study "sharing resources" between the Martí stations and the Voice of America’s Latin America division.
The nine-member BBG, based in Washington, supervises all government broadcasters, including the Martís, VOA, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Network.
Established during the Reagan administration to break the Cuban government’s monopoly on information in the island, the Martí stations have long been one of the most controversial parts of the BBG operations. Many critics have long recommended that the stations be shut down altogether or folded into the Spanish-language section of the Voice of America.
The summary of the 18-page GAO report noted that in 2010 the House and Senate appropriations committees ordered the BBG to submit a "strategic plan" for broadcasting to Cuba, including audiences, costs per listener, broadcasting methods and other measurements. But the plan the broadcasting board submitted in August "lacked key information," the GAO added. "Of the six requirements in the directive, we found BBG’s strategic plan fully addressed one and partially addressed the remaining five."
The BBG plan argued that it could not estimate its current audience on the island because Cubans live under a dictatorship and often fear admitting that they listen to foreign broadcasts, according to the GAO report.
But GAO noted that from 2003 to 2008, the broadcasting board nevertheless conducted telephone surveys of Cuban households to estimate audience size.
Those surveys indicated that less than 2 percent of Cuban adults in households with land telephone lines acknowledged that they listened to or watched Radio/TV Martí on a weekly basis, the GAO report added.
The BBG argued that the 2008 survey showed a steep drop in the reach of all foreign broadcasters among Cuba audiences compared to previous years, which raised concerns about the validity of the results of that survey.
"As a result, since 2008, BBG has not conducted telephone surveys of Cubans to estimate the audience size of Radio and TV Marti," the GAO report noted.
[…]
–
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