Just Foreign Policy News
March 9, 2011
"No-Fly Zone"? Senator Kerry, the UN Charter Is Supreme Law
It’s one thing for Senator McCain to engage in what Defense Secretary Gates called "loose talk" about U.S. military intervention in Libya. It’s far more damaging for Senator Kerry to do it. Of course, Kerry voted yes on the Iraq war in 2002, and in August 2004 said he stood by his vote. Kerry was wrong then and is wrong now; a no-fly zone in Libya, if it is not authorized by the UN Security Council, would violate the UN Charter. The framers of the UN Charter gave this power to the Security Council for a reason: to ensure that military force would only be authorized with broad consent. The Security Council should use its leverage to press for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict that recognizes the interests of all the stakeholders in Libya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-fly-zone-senator-kerry_b_833060.html
Action: Urge President Obama and Members of Congress to oppose a unilateral U.S. military intervention in Libya
Unilateral U.S. military action without UN Security Council authorization would be a grave violation of the UN Charter. As U.S. military officials have pointed out, the imposition of a "no-fly zone" would not be "bloodless": it would be preceded by extensive bombing of Libya’s anti-aircraft facilities. Such bombing would almost certainly cause civilian casualties. As Defense Secretary Gates has said, the last thing the U.S. needs is a war in another Muslim country. Urge the White House and your representatives to oppose a unilateral U.S. military intervention.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/nobombsforlibya
*Action: Lee bill for military withdrawal from Afghanistan
"H.R.780 – To provide that funds for operations of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan shall be obligated and expended only for purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan."
Check to see if your Rep. has co-sponsored; ask them to co-sponsor if they haven’t.
You can view the cosponsors here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00780:@@@P
You can ask your Rep. to co-sponsor here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr780
Al Jazeera video: reports of negotiations in Libya
Interview with rebel leader suggests indirect negotiations may be taking place. The rebel leader says rebels will not pursue domestic charges against Qaddafi if he agrees to leave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7B9C1YwZM4
Derrick Crowe: Pentagon Assertions of "Progress" In Afghanistan Are a Bad Joke
The Pentagon wants you to ignore some inconvenient facts about the failure of the escalation strategy in Afghanistan, as Petraeus prepares to testify.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-crowe/pentagon-assertions-of-pr_b_833582.html
FAIR: How Many Afghan Kids Need to Die to Make the News?
Nine Afghan boys gathering firewood were killed by a March 1 U.S./NATO helicopter attack in Kunar Province. Much of the world thought this was important news. But NPR did not.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4257
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
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Senator Lugar, the ranking Republican on Foreign Relations, issued a statement challenging calls for US military intervention in Libya. Imposing a no-fly zone, requiring extensive bombing of Libyan military facilities, would be an act of war, Lugar notes. The US should not launch military intervention into yet another Muslim country, without thinking long and hard about the consequences and implications, Lugar says. Congress would need to formally declare war, Lugar says.
2) Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Feinstein also noted that a no-fly zone would be an act of war, CQ reports. Feinstein and others said they worry the US could get overextended. "We can’t handle everybody’s problem at one time," Feinstein said, terming the events in Libya "a civil war."
3) Comments by U.S. diplomat Kevin Maher, director of the State Department’s Office of Japan Affairs, reportedly disparaging the people of Okinawa as "lazy" and "masters of extortion," have sparked outrage in Japan, ABC News reports. The Okinawa prefectural assembly and Naha city unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Maher’s statements and demanding a retraction and apology.
4) According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, Reuters reports. The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program, Reuters says.
5) Deadly US helicopter attacks on Afghan civilians have surged, the Wall Street Journal reports. In 2010, coalition helicopters killed 44 Afghan civilians, up from 10 in 2009.
6) The UN documented 2,777 civilian deaths in 2010, which it said marked a 15 percent rise compared with the number killed in fighting the previous year, the Washington Post reports.
7) Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos says Libya’s helicopter forces are its greatest threat, CNN reports. Helicopters would be more difficult to target if the international community set up a no-fly zone, CNN notes. Amos said he had not heard reports about Gadhafi flying mercenaries from other countries into Libya, although he was getting regular briefings.
Afghanistan
8) Many US soldiers express doubts about the prospects of the Afghanistan campaign, the New York Times reports. "You can keep trying all different kinds of tactics," said one American colonel. "We know how to do that. But if the strategic level isn’t working, you do end up wondering: How much does it matter? And how does this end?" The Taliban and the groups it collaborates with remain deeply rooted; the Afghan military and police remain lackluster and given to widespread drug use; the country’s borders remain porous; Karzai’s government, by almost all accounts, remains weak, corrupt and erratically led, and the Pakistani frontier remains a Taliban safe haven, the Times notes.
Israel/Palestine
9) Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted Israel would maintain military presence along the Jordan River under any future arrangement involving the Palestinians, the New York Times reports. Palestinian leaders rejected this, although they have said they could accept the presence of a third party, like a US-led force, on the borders of a Palestinian state.
Iran
10) A senior official said the US believes Iran intends to get to the brink of a nuclear arms capability so it could make them if it wished, Reuters reports. But Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s senior adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, said he does not believe Iran soon plans to attempt a nuclear "breakout." Einhorn said it would make little sense for Iran to make such a choice now, given the current relative inefficiency of its uranium enrichment technology.
UAE
11) UAE intellectuals petitioned for free and democratic elections, Reuters reports. The UAE parliament had its first election in 2006 when about 6,500 people, less than one percent of the 800,000 UAE citizens, elected half of its members. The rest were appointed.
Haiti
12) The two allowed candidates vying for Haiti’s presidency in the March 20 vote both support restoring the Haitian armed forces, AP reports. The Haitian army was disbanded in 1995 by President Aristide, after he had been deposed in a coup and then restored to power. "The Haitian army has basically been an army that’s been used against the Haitian people," said Human Rights Watch counsel Reed Brody. "It was there as an instrument of repression, so it’s hard to see what Haiti gains by bringing back the army."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Lugar Says U.S Cannot Afford a War in Libya
Press Release, Office of Senator Lugar, Tuesday, March 8, 2011
http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=331737&&
Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, released the following statement today:
Protestors and innocent people in Libya are being shot and killed. The tanks of Muammar Qadhafi’s supporters are firing at lightly-armed rebels and government planes are attacking insurgent positions. Understandably, calls are growing for the United States to step in and do something to stop the bloodshed. The most popular option is imposing a no-fly zone, a supposedly low-cost, low-risk course of action.
Imposing a no-fly zone, requiring extensive bombing of Libyan military facilities, would be an act of war, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said. The United States should not, in my view, launch military intervention into yet another Muslim country, without thinking long and hard about the consequences and implications. Given Libya’s strategic importance, owing to its oil and its location, a misstep would be very costly.
Are we prepared, either alone or as part of an alliance, to see such military intervention through to the end? If the no-fly zone doesn’t stop the street-to-street fighting, are we prepared to escalate further, to put boots on the ground? Would that involve taking control of the country? Would we be obligated to stay until democracy is established?
Such tasks would further stress a military already stretched thin by long deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if intervention could be limited to a no-fly zone, this is a complex, expensive military operation involving a large number of assets in the air, at sea, and in space. It would impose significant new costs on a budget already under extraordinary strain.
In other words, a major military action to support anti-Qadhafi forces is a commitment that would require, in my view, a formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States, not just a tactical redeployment of some aircraft.
Moreover, our intervention may well not have the positive effects that supporters assume. There is a plenty of evidence instead that our intervention could create anti-American fervor within the country and the region. It would also allow Qadhafi to portray himself as a hero battling the infidels. Muslims worldwide could be inflamed anew by another U.S. strike against an Islamic country.
This is now a civil war. Intervening in such conflicts is fraught with unknowns and unintended consequences. Who is it we want to help? We really don’t know how the rebels are organized or what their plans are for the governance of the country.
[…] Self-determination has proved fundamental to the success of revolutions such as this, including Egypt and Tunisia. American help often taints those we assist. If the winners of this conflict are seen as shills of America, they will face repudiation by others in a post-Qadhafi Libya.
We also have to consider the impact of American military action on the reform fervor sweeping the rest of the region. It may well strengthen the hand of the autocrats who would accuse the protesters in their country of serving outside interests or attempting to provoke American intervention.
Moreover, we’ve had experience in using the U.S. military on a humanitarian mission in the midst of a civil war-it was to stop warlords, armed with little more than Jeeps and machine guns, from stealing food aid for starving people in Somalia in 1993. It ended in disaster, a score of young Americans lost their lives, and Al Qaeda took inspiration from the perceived American weakness.
Clearly, the United States should do what it can to provide humanitarian assistance of food, shelter and medical care to those affected by the fighting in Libya, and ratchet up sanctions and other diplomatic pressure on the regime. We should work with allies on potential multi-lateral responses.
And we should not hesitate to use military force when it is necessary and our objectives are clear. But given our experience in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, the burden of proof lies on those calling for military intervention to demonstrate that doing so would be in the United States’ national interest.
2) Senators reluctant on military use in Libya
Emily Cadei and John M. Donnelly, CQ, March 9, 2011
http://www.congress.org/news/2011/03/09/senators_reluctant_on_military_use_in_libya
A handful of outspoken senators continue to campaign for the U.S. military to attempt to stem the bloodshed in Libya, but many of their colleagues expressed hesitance Tuesday about committing to any sort of military involvement, including a "no fly" zone.
Many senators on both sides of the aisle indicated in interviews that they are not yet prepared to support the enforcement of a no-fly zone in the violence-wracked country, and are waiting for clear guidance from international institutions, military officers, or both. Their main reservation is that the United States risks over-committing the military, which is still deeply engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"It is an act of war," Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said of a no-fly zone, which would bar the Libyan government from flying aircraft over its own country.
The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, echoed Feinstein, issuing a statement that Congress would need to formally declare war.
[…] Feinstein and others said they worry the United States could get overextended. "I’m of the opinion that we are fighting two wars. . . . And we’ve got an emerging problem in Pakistan. So we can’t handle everybody’s problem at one time," Feinstein said, terming the events unfolding in Libya "a civil war."
"It’s not the question of a dictator imposing his will on another country; it’s between the peoples of this country," she said. "And then what do you do in other countries when you set the precedent of doing this?"
[…] The military’s ambivalence in particular is likely to dampen enthusiasm on Capitol Hill, with a number of members saying they would defer to the Pentagon. "I think it’s something we should be considering, but I think we ought to depend on what the military tells us is possible," Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Tuesday.
And Dan Coats, R-Ind., said he too is waiting to hear more from the Pentagon about what it would take. "I need a lot of information to prove to me that we’re not going to get engaged . . . in a third Middle Eastern conflict," he said.
3) Japanese Furious Over U.S. Diplomat’s ‘Extortion’ Remark
U.S. Diplomat Reportedly Called Okinawans ‘Lazy’ and ‘Masters of Extortion’
U.S. Diplomat Reportedly Called Okinawans ‘Lazy’ and ‘Masters of Extortion’
Akiko Fujita, ABC News, March 9, 2011
http://abcnews.go.com/International/japanese-furious-reported-remarks-us-diplomat/story?id=13091505
Tokyo – Comments by a U.S. diplomat reportedly disparaging the people of Okinawa as "lazy" and "masters of extortion", have sparked outrage in Japan, and complicated already tense discussions surrounding the future of a Marine base on the country’s southern island.
The comments were allegedly made by Kevin Maher, director of the State Department’s Office of Japan Affairs, in an off-the-record lecture given to students at Washington’s American University in December. Student notes obtained by Japanese media say Maher called Okinawans "lazy" and "masters of extortion."
The news first surfaced Monday, and prompted a swift response from Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano. "If these (comments) were to be true, they not only hurt the feelings of the people of Okinawa, but all of Japan," Edano said. "It is intolerable. I am deeply saddened that this has to be reported on the news."
Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa blasted the reported comments as "extremely deplorable," while the Okinawa prefectural assembly and Naha city unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Maher’s statements and demanding a retraction and apology.
According to Kyodo News, which obtained notes taken by students who attended the lecture, Maher’s comments were made during a speech on "Military Bases and Their Impacts on Okinawa."
The written account claims Maher said, "Consensus building is important in Japanese culture. While the Japanese would call this ‘consensus,’ they mean ‘extortion’ and use this culture as a means of extortion."
The comments were an apparent reference to financial subsidies Tokyo pays to Okinawans in exchange for hosting U.S. military bases on the island. Students also noted that Maher called Okinawa residents "too lazy to grow goya," referring to a bitter melon.
[…]
4) Public Prefers Cutting Defense Spending: Reuters/Ipsos Poll
Reuters, March 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/03/09/us/politics/politics-us-usa-budget-poll.html
Washington – A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed.
The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program.
[…]
5) Toll From Helicopter Strikes Climbs
Dion Nissenbaum, Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703662804576188313014877124.html
Kabul – Last week’s errant aerial strike on children cutting firewood underscores an emerging problem for American forces in Afghanistan: Even as U.S.-led forces have reduced the overall number of noncombatants they mistakenly kill or injure, deadly helicopter attacks on civilians have surged.
The March 1 helicopter strike that killed nine boys, ages 8 to 14, sparked anti-American sentiment and elicited apologies from U.S. military officials. It also added to a growing source of civilian casualties: In 2010, coalition helicopters killed 44 Afghan civilians, up from 10 in 2009, according to internal military statistics viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
As a part of a push to reduce civilian casualties and bolster Afghan support, the U.S.-led coalition sought to shift away from fixed-wing aircraft that had been involved in high-profile incidents, including a 2008 strike that hit an Afghan wedding party, killing more than two dozen civilians.
In the 2010 U.S. military surge into Afghanistan, American forces imported scores of Apache and Kiowa helicopters to help hunt insurgents. Such helicopters, military officials said, could help cut down on civilian casualties because pilots could better see their targets.
The emerging problem comes as coalition forces in Afghanistan are reducing the overall number of civilian casualty incidents and the number of civilians injured in the attacks, according to the military figures. But the rise in civilian deaths from helicopters contributes to an increased overall death toll: In all, 202 Afghan civilians were killed in action in 2010, up from 181 in 2009.
[…]
6) U.N. alarmed by surge in civilian casualties in Afghanistan
Ernesto Londono, Washington Post, Wednesday, March 9, 2011; 4:29 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030903985.html
Kabul – A sharp jump in assassinations and a rise in suicide and roadside bombings in Afghanistan last year led to an increase in civilian casualties, the United Nations said Wednesday.
The United Nations documented 2,777 civilian deaths in 2010, which it said marked a 15 percent rise compared with the number killed in fighting the previous year. The grim numbers in the U.N. annual report on civilian casualties come as the traditionally less-violent winter season gives way to spring, the start of the fighting season in Afghanistan.
Seventy-five percent of the deaths, or 2,080, were attributed by the United Nations to the Taliban and other groups seeking to destabilize the U.S.-backed Afghan government. That represented a 28 percent increase from 2009.
Military operations by NATO and Afghan forces resulted in the deaths of 440 civilians, or 16 percent of the total, a 26 percent decrease from those killed in 2009, the United Nations said.
Nine percent of the civilian casualties could not be attributed, the United Nations said.
[…]
7) Libya’s Helicopter Forces Are Greatest Threat, U.S. Marine Chief Says
Jennifer Rizzo, CNN, March 9, 2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/senate.hearing.libya/index.html
Washington – Libya’s helicopter forces are its greatest threat, the head of the Marine Corps said Tuesday. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, asked Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos about Libya’s air capabilities during a committee hearing held to discuss the Navy’s portion of the 2012 Defense budget request. "I think it’s modest," Amos responded. "I think probably their greatest threat are their helicopter-type forces."
Helicopters would be more difficult to target if the international community set up a no-fly zone. Such a zone would typically be enforced by fighter jets whose speed and altitude make it difficult to target helicopters, which move low and slow.
[…] McCain expressed frustration with the lack of answers to some of his questions, including a question on whether Amos had heard reports about Gadhafi flying mercenaries from other countries into Libya. Amos said he had not. "You have been getting regular briefings?" McCain asked Amos. Amos said he had.
Afghanistan
8) Putting Afghan Plan Into Action Proves Difficult
C. J. Chivers, New York Times, March 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/world/asia/09ghazni.html
Alam Khel, Afghanistan – If the American-led fight against the Taliban was once a contest for influence in well-known and conventionally defined areas – the capital and large cities, main roads, the border with Pakistan, and a handful of prominent valleys and towns – today it has become something else.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, the United States military has settled into a campaign for scattered villages and bits of terrain that few people beyond their immediate environs have heard of.
In and near places like this village in Ghazni Province, American units have pushed their counterinsurgency doctrine and rules for waging war into freshly contested areas of rural Afghanistan – even as their senior officers have decided to back out of other remote areas, like the Pech, Korangal and Nuristan valleys, once deemed priorities. In doing so, American infantry units have expanded a military footprint over lightly populated terrain from the Helmand and Arghandab River basins to the borders of the former Soviet Union, where the Taliban had been weak.
Depending on point of view, this shift – which resulted from both the current military leadership’s reconsideration of past commanders’ decisions and the troop buildup ordered by President Obama – is either an operational achievement or grounds for exasperation, even confusion.
[…] Officially, Mr. Obama’s Afghan buildup shows signs of success, demonstrating both American military capabilities and the revival of a campaign that had been neglected for years. But in the rank and file, there has been little triumphalism as the administration’s plan has crested.
With the spring thaw approaching, officers and enlisted troops alike say they anticipate another bloody year. And as so-called surge units complete their tours, to be replaced by fresh battalions, many soldiers, now seasoned with Afghan experience, express doubts about the prospects of the larger campaign.
The United States military has the manpower and, thus far, the money to occupy the ground that its commanders order it to hold. But common questions in the field include these: Now what? How does the Pentagon translate presence into lasting success?
The answers reveal uncertainty. "You can keep trying all different kinds of tactics," said one American colonel outside of this province. "We know how to do that. But if the strategic level isn’t working, you do end up wondering: How much does it matter? And how does this end?"
The strategic vision, roughly, is that American units are trying to diminish the Taliban’s sway over important areas while expanding and coaching Afghan government forces, to which these areas will be turned over in time.
But the colonel, a commander who asked that his name be withheld to protect him from retaliation, referred to "the great disconnect," the gulf between the intense efforts of American small units at the tactical level and larger strategic trends.
The Taliban and the groups it collaborates with remain deeply rooted; the Afghan military and police remain lackluster and given to widespread drug use; the country’s borders remain porous; Kabul Bank, which processes government salaries, is wormy with fraud, and President Hamid Karzai’s government, by almost all accounts, remains weak, corrupt and erratically led.
And the Pakistani frontier remains a Taliban safe haven.
[…] Many American officers, year in and year out, describe a persistent trait visible to anyone who visits almost any line unit for an extended time. Afghan units are supposed to be preparing to take over security. Yet they are often unwilling to set out on independent patrols, beyond trips back and forth between their own positions, or to the bazaar. They remain largely a tag-along force.
And so, firefight by firefight, bomb by bomb, many of the troops whose lives are at risk openly discuss how gains feel tentative, perhaps temporary.
[…]
Israel/Palestine
9) Netanyahu Vows to Keep Jordan River Posts
Isabel Kershner, New York Times, March 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html
Jerusalem – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared definitively on Tuesday that he would maintain an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River under any future arrangement involving the Palestinians, buttressing a known policy with a demonstrative visit to that area of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Mr. Netanyahu said the Israeli military presence east of any future Palestinian state was all the more necessary, given the tumult rocking the Middle East. The visit came as Israeli officials were floating the idea of a peace initiative for an interim arrangement toward a two-state solution, instead of the previously stated goal of a final accord on Palestinian statehood by fall.
The Israeli statements of intent, rejected by the Palestinians, were likely to further stymie any progress between the sides. Peace talks were suspended five months ago.
[…] In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said that Mr. Netanyahu was likely to offer the Palestinians temporary borders for a provisional state before tackling other core issues, like the fate of Palestinian refugees and rival claims to Jerusalem.
Mr. Barak said that Israel might seek extra security assistance from the United States of up to $20 billion, but could not seek pledges of aid without making a "daring" peace offer.
The Palestinians, who want a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, have repeatedly rejected both a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and the idea of a provisional state.
However, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has expressed readiness for the presence of a third party, like an American-led NATO force, on the borders of a Palestinian state.
Mr. Abbas commented over the weekend on the reports of a possible Israeli offer. At a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah, he said, "We know that there was an idea in the past that called for a state with provisional borders, and if this idea is proposed again, we will not accept it."
Iran
10) Iran aims to get to brink of nuclear arms -US aide
Existing sanctions could be enforced more vigorously
Iran unlikely to soon move full speed on atomic weapons
Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, Wed Mar 9, 2011 8:57pm GMT
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN0925238620110309
Washington, March 9 – The United States believes Iran intends to get to the brink of a nuclear arms capability so it could make them if it wished, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday.
However, Robert Einhorn, the U.S. State Department’s senior adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, said, he does not believe Iran soon plans to attempt a nuclear "breakout" – abandoning its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and moving full-speed to toward atomic weapons.
"We believe that at a minimum Iran is moving to the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability," Einhorn, said in response to a question at a Washington think tank, making clear that he was talking about Iran’s intentions rather than its current capabilities.
[…] Speaking to the Arms Control Association think tank, the official said major powers decided after meeting Iranian officials in Istanbul this year that they needed to resume pressuring Tehran to abandon its suspected nuclear ambitions.
He said the United States is not now seeking fresh U.N. security sanctions but said that existing sanctions could be carried out more rigorously and that fresh bilateral steps or those taken by like-minded countries were also possible.
[…] The official said the main determinant of whether Iran may pursue a nuclear "breakout" was a political decision to do so.
Given the current relative inefficiency of its uranium enrichment technology – a process that can produce fissile material for power plants or, if refined much further, for bombs – he said it would make little sense for Iran to make such a choice now.
"That’s provided some confidence that they are not going to break out soon because it would make no sense for them to break out with a machine that produce material so inefficiently," he said. "We don’t see breakout as imminent at this stage."
UAE
11) Emiratis Petition Ruler for Democratic Elections
Reuters, March 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/03/09/world/international-us-uae-petition.html
Dubai – United Arab Emirates intellectuals petitioned their ruler on Wednesday for free and democratic elections, in a sign some Emiratis share growing Arab demands for a greater say in government.
But there was no indication of a move toward street protests in the seven-emirate federation, whose oil wealth and rapid development have boosted the standard of living and have buffered its government from widespread political dissent.
"The (petition) group calls for comprehensive reform of the Federal National Council (FNC), or parliament, including demands for free elections by all citizens in the method of universal suffrage," a statement from the petitioners said.
The 40-member FNC had its first election in 2006 when about 6,500 people, less than one percent of the 800,000 UAE citizens, elected half of its members. The rest were appointed.
[…] Some 160 people signed the petition, many of them academics and former members of the FNC, which acts as an advisory board to the government but lacks legislative or regulatory powers. Organizers are trying to gather more signatures online.
"The group demands reform of legislation governing the work of parliament to include legislative and monitoring authorities and calls for necessary constitutional amendments to ensure this," the petitioners said in the document, sent to President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan and his ruling council.
The UAE, the world’s No. 3 oil exporter, recently tripled the number of electors eligible to vote for the FNC, but those still represent only a small portion of the population.
The pool of electors are selected by the rulers of the seven emirates, and can either run for office themselves or vote for others. The electors choose half the FNC’s members while the remainder are directly appointed by the rulers.
"This is about people’s right to participate in their society," said Ahmed Mansour, a blogger and activist who helped organize the petition, adding that recent reforms gave the FNC no extra powers and simply increased participation to around two percent of Emirati citizens.
"We thought unrest in the region would make them (UAE leaders) reconsider but instead they are moving ahead with this quasi-election mechanism they put together," he said.
[…]
Haiti
12) Would-be soldiers hope for revival of Haitian army
Ben Fox, Associated Press, Wed, Mar. 09, 2011
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/09/2105956/would-be-soldiers-hope-for-revival.html
Their military fatigues faded and their grizzled faces stern, the squad of veterans barks out orders to rows of young men and women who sweat as they run through exercises under the blazing Caribbean sun.
The more than 150 volunteers who have gathered on a hilltop outside the capital are desperate for a chance to serve their country. Many say they are anxious to bring security to Haiti and help end its long series of troubles.
But the would-be recruits don’t really have any place to go: Haiti has no army – or any other military forces for that matter.
The drill leaders and ranks of volunteers who have eagerly assembled here represent nothing more than an informal movement of Haitians eager to re-establish an army – an idea that unnerves Haitians who remember times darkened by military coups, oppression and abuse.
The Haitian army was disbanded in 1995 by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, after he had been deposed in a coup and then restored to power with the help of U.N. forces. The continuing presence of U.N. troops is a sore point for many Haitians.
The two candidates vying for Haiti’s presidency in the March 20 vote both support restoring the armed forces in some form. That’s raised the hopes of many among the ragtag recruits, who run through several hours of drills three times a week without any pay.
[…] Nestor Apolon, the squad’s self-appointed commander, says "thousands and thousands" are waiting to be trained. While there are no weapons visible at the makeshift base in Carrefour, a dusty maze of dirt lanes and concrete shacks, there are reminders of Haiti’s military past.
Apolon, for one, proudly acknowledges he fought with the rebels who ousted Aristide for a second time in 2004. A man guarding the gate wears a key chain adorned with the faces of Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier, the former dictators known as "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc."
Others in the compound served from 1991-94, when the army ruled Haiti and committed some of the worst human rights violations in recent memory. Some contend they’re technically still on duty: They claim Aristide’s 1995 demobilization was unconstitutional.
Together, it’s a tableaux of the pro-military fringe right, a looming presence in Haiti.
"The Haitian army has basically been an army that’s been used against the Haitian people," said Human Rights Watch counsel Reed Brody. "It was there as an instrument of repression, so it’s hard to see what Haiti gains by bringing back the army."
[…]
–
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