[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, September 29, 2006

[Robert Naiman]

Just Foreign Policy News
September 29, 2006
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/newsroom/index.html

Summary:
U.S.
The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities
that contribute to Iran's ability to acquire chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. Critics questioned the need for unilateral action
when the US was pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged
nuclear program. ''It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a
difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most
sensitive point,'' said Rep. Earl Blumenauer. It also approves
assistance for human rights, pro-democracy and independent
organizations and says the US should not enter into agreements with
governments that are assisting Iran's nuclear program. Some warned
language in the bill supporting democratic change in Iran would only
antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to U.S. regime
change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said Rep. Dennis
Kucinich, ''to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack
them.''

The Senate approved a measure on Thursday on the interrogations and
trials of terrorism suspects. The vote was 65 to 34. The vote showed
Democrats believe Bush's power to wield national security as a
political issue is seriously diminished, the New York Times reports.

The banking consortium Swift breached European privacy rules when it
aided a US antiterrorism program by providing confidential information
about money transfers, Belgium's privacy protection commission
concluded Thursday.

Iran
The EU's foreign policy chief said Thursday that important progress
had been made in talks over resolving Iran's nuclear ambitions and
more talks would be held next week.

Iraq
The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top
Iraq adviser that thousands of additional American troops were
desperately needed to quell the insurgency, according to a new book by
Bob Woodward. Woodward says the Bush administration is concealing the
level of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and the situation there
is growing worse despite White House claims of progress.

While more than 130 have been killed in Iraq since the US invasion,
journalists in Iraq are now also threatened by the law, the New York
Times reports. Roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged
with offending public officials in the past year. Three journalists
are being tried for articles that accused officials of corruption.

In a sweeping new assessment of reconstruction failures in Iraq, a
federal inspector told Congress Thursday that 13 of 14 major projects
built by the American contractor Parsons that were examined by his
agency were substandard.

About three-quarters of Iraqis believe American forces are provoking
more conflict than they are preventing and should be withdrawn within
a year, according to new poll. The poll found a majority support
attacks against American-led forces.

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed consider Iraq to be in a civil war, a
CNN poll said Thursday.

Pakistan
General Musharraf says he is doing his best to stop the infiltration
of Taliban fighters from Pakistan to Afghanistan. But his best has
been strikingly ineffective, considering the powers he wields as a
military dictator, says the New York Times in an editorial.

President Musharraf found himself facing accusations that his
country's intelligence service had indirect ties to Al Qaeda and that
his government committed widespread human rights abuses as an ally of
the US in its effort to curb terrorism, the New York Times reports.

Contents:
U.S.
1) House Approves Iran Freedom Support Act
Associated Press, September 28, 2006, Filed at 9:56 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Iran.html
The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities
that provide goods or services for Iran's weapons programs. The vote
came as U.S diplomats continued to press the U.N. Security Council to
penalize Tehran if it fails to end its uranium enrichment program.
House sponsors of the Iran Freedom Support Act said they had hoped for
Senate action Thursday night. But they said there was resistance from
Senate Democrats to passing it without debate.

The bill, passed by voice vote, sanctions any entity that contributes
to Iran's ability to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
The president has the authority to waive those sanctions, but only
when he can show that it is in the vital national interest. ''It would
be a critical mistake to allow a regime with a track record as bloody
and as dangerous as Iran to obtain nuclear weapons,'' said Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., sponsor of the measure. ''Enough with the
carrots. It's time for the stick.''

Critics questioned the need for unilateral action when the US was
pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged nuclear
program. ''It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult
diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive
point,'' said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. ''The timing for this
legislation could not be worse.'' The measure codifies existing
economic sanctions against Iran and states the president must notify
Congress 15 days before terminating any of those sanctions.

It also approves assistance for human rights, pro-democracy and
independent organizations and states it is the sense of Congress that
the US should not enter into agreements with governments that are
assisting Iran's nuclear program or transferring weapons or missiles
to Iran. ''If we fail to use the economic and diplomatic tools
available to us, the world will face a nightmare that knows no end,''
said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

Others warned language in the bill supporting democratic change in
Iran would only antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to
U.S. regime change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, ''to give assurance to Iran that we are
not going to attack them.''

The House passed a similar Iran sanctions bill last April, but that
measure met opposition from the administration, which said it reduced
the flexibility it needed to reach a diplomatic solution to Iran's
uranium enrichment program and the threat that it was developing
nuclear weapons. That proposal was defeated in the Senate. The revised
version takes out one section that would have cut off aid to
countries, such as Russia, investing in projects in Iran that could be
linked to weapons proliferation.

2) Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees
Kate Zernike, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html
The Senate approved a measure on Thursday on the interrogations and
trials of terrorism suspects, establishing rules to deal with what
Bush has called the most dangerous combatants in a different type of
war. The vote was 65 to 34. It was cast after hours of often
impassioned debate that touched on the Constitution, the horrors of
Sept. 11 and the role of the US in the world. Both parties positioned
themselves for the continuing clash over national security going into
midterm elections. The vote showed Democrats believe Bush's power to
wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.
[Roll Call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259.]

The bill would set up rules for the military commissions that will
allow the government to proceed with the prosecutions of high-level
detainees including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It would make illegal
several broadly defined abuses of detainees, while leaving it to the
president to establish specific permissible interrogation techniques.
It would strip detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their
detentions in court.

Democrats argued the rules were being rushed through for political
gain too close to a major election and they would threaten the
foundations of the American legal system and come back to haunt
lawmakers as one of the greatest mistakes in history. "I believe there
can be no mercy for those who perpetrated the crimes of 9/11," Senator
Clinton said. "But in the process of accomplishing what I believe is
essential for our security, we must hold onto our values and set an
example that we can point to with pride, not shame." 12 Democrats
voted for the bill. Republican Senator Chafee voted against it.

But provisions of the bill came under criticism from Republicans as
well as Democrats, with several crossing lines on amendments that
failed along narrow margins.

Senator Levin, arguing for an amendment to strike a provision to bar
suspects from challenging their detentions in court, said it "is as
legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the
actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically
abusive of detainees." The amendment failed, 51 to 49.

Even some Republicans who voted for the bill said they expected the
Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the provision
barring court detainees' challenges, an outcome that would send the
legislation right back to Congress. "We should have done it right,
because we're going to have to do it again," said Senator Smith, who
voted to strike the provision and yet supported the bill.

The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond
the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens
living legally in the US as well as those in foreign countries and
anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by
the president or secretary of defense. It would strip Guantánamo
detainees of the habeas right to challenge their detention in court,
relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials.
Those trials have looser rules of evidence.

It would allow of evidence seized in this country or abroad without a
search warrant to be admitted in trials. The legislation establishes
several "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
that are felonies under the War Crimes Act, including torture, rape,
murder and any act intended to cause "serious" physical or mental pain
or suffering. The issue was sent to Congress by a Supreme Court
decision that struck down military tribunals the Bush administration
had established. The court ruled that the tribunals violated the
Constitution and international law.

Democrats and human rights groups objected to changes in the
legislation over the weekend, including defining enemy combatants and
setting rules on search warrants. "We should get this right, now, and
we are not doing so by passing this bill," Senator Reid said. "Future
generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error." Human
rights groups called the vote "dangerous" and "disappointing." Critics
feared it left the president a large loophole by allowing him to set
specific interrogation techniques.

Besides the amendments that would have struck the ban on habeas corpus
cases, the others that failed included one that would have established
a sunset on the measure to allow Congress to reconsider it in five
years and one requiring the CIA to submit to Congressional oversight.
Another failed amendment would have required the State Department to
inform other nations of what interrogation techniques it considered
illegal for use on American troops, a move intended to prompt the
administration to say publicly what techniques it considers out of
bounds.

3) Belgians Say Banking Group Broke European Rules in Giving Data to U.S.
Dan Bilefsky, International Herald Tribune, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/europe/29swift.html
The Belgian banking consortium Swift breached European privacy rules
when it aided a US antiterrorism program by providing confidential
information about money transfers, Belgium's privacy protection
commission concluded Thursday. "[Swift] has, for years, secretly and
systematically transferred massive amounts of personal data for
surveillance without effective and clear legal basis and independent
controls in line with Belgian and European law," the report said.
Swift has come under scrutiny for participating in a Bush
administration program that allows analysts from the CIA and officials
from other US agencies to search for possible terrorist financing
activity among the millions of confidential financial transactions it
oversees. The Bush administration has defended the once-secret
program. But critics in Europe argue that it has placed American
security interests ahead of European civil liberties.

Iran
4) European Official Reports Progress in Talks With Iran
Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said Thursday that "some
important progress" had been made in two days of talks over resolving
Iran's nuclear ambitions and that more talks would be held next week.
"We have made some important progress on the elements related to how
the potential negotiations can take place," Solana said after the
talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. Diplomats said reaching
the point of negotiations on the incentives depended on establishing a
timetable for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. "It is now a
question of sequencing," said a European diplomat. "This is about Iran
specifically agreeing to when it will start suspending its uranium
enrichment program."

Despite the optimistic report, President Ahmadinejad said Thursday his
nation would not be deterred from its nuclear ambitions, though he
said Iran was ready for fair negotiations. "We support negotiations
and talks in the framework of law and fair conditions and on the basis
of defending the obvious right of the Iranian nation," he said. But he
said that Iran would not suspend enrichment. "Why are they insisting
that we suspend our atomic work?" he said. "They want to tell the
nations that they were right and Iran wanted to produce nuclear
weapons, and after that they would never let us continue our program."

Iraq
5) Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
David E. Sanger, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29account.html
The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top
Iraq adviser that thousands of additional American troops were
desperately needed to quell the insurgency, according to a new book by
Bob Woodward. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction
and division over the war. The warning is described in "State of
Denial," scheduled for publication Monday. The book says Bush's top
advisers were often at odds, and sometimes barely on speaking terms,
but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from
American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq. As late as
November 2003, Bush is quoted as saying: "I don't want anyone in the
cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don't think we are there yet."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the
nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq - a task that was
initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon - and so
hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, that
Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander
for the Middle East, Gen. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors
in the fall of 2005 that "Rumsfeld doesn't have any credibility
anymore" to make a public case for the American strategy for victory
in Iraq.

6) Woodward: Bush concealing level of Iraq violence
Reuters, Thursday, September 28, 2006; 10:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801963.html

The Bush administration is concealing the level of violence against
U.S. troops in Iraq and the situation there is growing worse despite
White House and Pentagon claims of progress, journalist Bob Woodward
said in advance of his book "State of Denial." Insurgent attacks
against U.S.-led forces in Iraq occurred, on average, every 15
minutes, Woodward said in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview taped for
broadcast on Sunday.

"It's getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a
week. That's more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking
our forces," Woodward said in excerpts of the interview released
Thursday. "The assessment by intelligence experts is that next year,
2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and
you have the Pentagon (saying) 'Oh, no, things are going to get
better,"' Woodward added. Parts of a National Intelligence Estimate
released this week showed an upsurge in Islamic militancy, while a new
U.N. report said the Iraq war was providing al Qaeda with a training
center and fresh recruits.

7) Iraqi Journalists Add Laws to List of Dangers
Paul von Zielbauer, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29media.html
A reporter for Baghdadiya TV was the fourth journalist killed in Iraq
in September alone, out of a total of more than 130 since the 2003
invasion, the vast majority of them Iraqis. But men with guns are not
Iraqi reporters' only threat. Men with gavels are, too. Under a broad
new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or
its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein's penal
code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with
offending public officials in the past year.

Three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being
tried for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local
judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused
of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who
"publicly insults" the government or public officials subject to seven
years in prison. On Sept. 7, police sealed the offices of Al Arabiya,
a satellite news channel, for what the government said was
inflammatory reporting. The Committee to Protect Journalists says at
least three Iraqi journalists have served time in prison for writing
articles deemed criminally offensive. The office of Prime Minister
Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report
on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers
inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down.

8) Congress Is Told of Failures of Rebuilding Work in Iraq
James Glanz, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29contracts.html
In a sweeping new assessment of reconstruction failures in Iraq, a
federal inspector told Congress Thursday that 13 of 14 major projects
built by the American contractor Parsons that were examined by his
agency were substandard, with construction deficiencies and other
serious problems. The final project, a prison near the Iraqi city of
Nasiriya, was terminated for other reasons, said the inspector, Stuart
Bowen, who heads the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction. Delays and cost overruns led to its cancellation.

Whether because the political stakes have risen with the approach of
the November elections, or simply because of the scope of the
problems, Bowen's testimony set off outrage on both sides of the aisle
on a topic - reconstruction failures - that previously was mostly in
the sights of Congressional Democrats. "So when they get the
construction right, something else goes wrong?" said Representative
McHugh, Republican, referring to cost and schedule problems that had
plagued many projects. "Wow - thank you," McHugh said, seemingly
speechless after Bowen answered in the affirmative.

Work by two of the other largest contractors in Iraq - Bechtel and
KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root and a subsidiary of Halliburton -
also came in for severe criticism during the lengthy hearing. The
problems with Iraq reconstruction have become notorious enough that
protesters engulfed Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel
infrastructure division, as he emerged onto the street and tried to
hail a taxi after his testimony before the House Government Reform
Committee. "Eviction notice for Bechtel and its subsidiaries!" a
protester shouted. Democrats and Republicans on the panel posed some
of the most scathing questions yet to executives from Parsons, a
company that has received little but criticism in the last year for
projects including prisons, border forts, clinics and hospitals.

9) Poll Says Most Iraqis Want U.S. Out
Reuters, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29poll.html
About three-quarters of Iraqis believe American forces are provoking
more conflict than they are preventing and should be withdrawn within
a year, according to a poll conducted by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The poll found growing
support for attacks against American-led forces, with a majority of
Iraqis now favoring them.

The poll found 78 percent of Iraqis believe the American military
presence causes more conflict than it prevents, including 97 percent
of Sunnis, 82 percent of Shiites and 41 percent of Kurds. Only Kurds
tended to see the American military presence as a stabilizing force,
with 56 percent agreeing with that statement versus 17 percent of
Shiites and 2 percent of Sunnis. Most Iraqis - 71 percent - said
American soldiers should be withdrawn within a year, but only 37
percent favored an American withdrawal in the next six months. Only
Sunnis wanted American forces out within six months, and only Kurds
favored a longer US presence, as much as two years or more.

The poll also found growing support for attacks on American forces,
with 61 percent of the respondents saying they approved, compared with
47 percent in January. Support for the attacks was strongest among
Sunnis, at 92 percent. But support among Shiites rose to 62 percent in
September from 41 percent in January. Only 16 percent of Kurds favored
attacks on American troops.

10) Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Iraq in civil war
CNN, September 28, 2006, 4:43 p.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/poll.iraq/
Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed consider Iraq to be in a civil
war, a CNN poll said Thursday, and more people view the three major
architects of the U.S.-led operation there unfavorably than favorably.
Asked whether Iraq is "currently engaged in a civil war," 65 percent
of the poll's respondents said "yes," and 29 percent answered "no." By
comparison, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in April found 56
percent of the respondents believed Iraq was in a civil war, while 33
percent disagreed. Half or more of the respondents of the CNN poll
expressed unfavorable views toward President Bush, Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Pakistan
11) When Hamid Met Pervez
Editorial, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/29fri1.html
Their quarrel is no mere war of words. It is about the real war being
waged on Afghan soil by a revitalized Taliban, which recruits fighters
in Pakistan and sends them almost unimpeded across a shared border.
General Musharraf says he is doing his best to stop this infiltration.
But his best has been strikingly ineffective, considering the powers
he wields as a military dictator, accountable only to his fellow
Pakistani generals.

His latest move on the Taliban front was discouraging, to say the very
least. This month he agreed to a cease-fire deal with tribal allies of
the Taliban in North Waziristan, the border region of Pakistan where
Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are thought to be holed
up. The agreement grants such foreign fighters the right to remain so
long as local Taliban forces do not attack Pakistani soldiers and
promise they will not cross into Afghanistan. As part of this
understanding, Pakistani military checkpoints in the area are being
dismantled.

President Karzai is understandably unhappy about this. President Bush
should be too. Those Taliban fighters crossing into Afghanistan are
not just killing Afghans. They are also killing American and NATO
troops in growing numbers. It would be overly simplistic to blame
General Musharraf alone. In its hurry to move on to Iraq, the Bush
administration never committed enough troops to establish the security
needed for redevelopment and democracy to take root. And it has been
too stingy with the kind of long-term development aid required to
consolidate popular support. Karzai has been far too indulgent of
corruption and drug trafficking. And, in the hope of extending his
authority beyond Kabul, he has made damaging deals with brutal
warlords.

12) In Britain, Musharraf Is Questioned on Terror Ties
Alan Cowell, New York Times, September 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/29britain.html
President Musharraf arrived in London Thursday and found himself
facing accusations that his country's intelligence service had
indirect ties to Al Qaeda and that his government committed widespread
human rights abuses as an ally of the US in its effort to curb
terrorism. A report of a leaked document, which said Pakistan's
intelligence service indirectly supported the Taliban, played into the
argument over the growing insurgency in Afghanistan. The document was
said by the BBC to have originated in Britain's Defense Academy, a
research agency sponsored by the Ministry of Defense. Amnesty
International accused Pakistan of abuses, including the torture of
terrorism suspects and the illegal transfer of detainees to the US.

--------
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org

Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming
U.S. foreign policy so that it reflects the values and interests of
the majority of Americans.