[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Obama's Foreign Policy Speech vs. Obama's Foreign Policy - Phyllis Bennis

[Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss]

 From Phyllis Bennis, "Talking Points", Institute for Policy Studies - 
via the United for Peace and Justice mailing list.    I think it's a 
good article, wide-ranging and timely (though it is many times too long 
to make a flyer...).

==================================

Dear friends,

President Obama's West Point graduation speech outlining his foreign 
policy had some pretty good stuff in it. Leadership doesn't mean only 
military force. Just because you have a big hammer doesn't mean 
everything is a nail. "A world of greater freedom and tolerance is not 
only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe." It all sounded 
great. Just an hour or so later *I discussed the speech on Al-Jazeera.* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=PMrChdMdXb7Q9t20HA4wOg>

It was a pretty great speech that challenged much of the militarization 
of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy---the problem is, like too many great 
speeches before, it has far too little to do with what the Obama 
administration actually does.

No question Ben Rhodes is a terrific speechwriter (though don't get me 
started on what he doesn't know as deputy national security adviser,) 
and Obama knows how to talk the talk.  The problem isn't the speech. The 
problem is the policy.

Obama was right to criticize the isolationism of "self-described 
realists" whose interest in the world starts and ends with what is 
useful for traditionally-defined U.S. interests --- that is, mainly 
military and corporate ones. And he was right to criticize and address 
the "interventionists from the left and right" who believe that 
"America's willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate 
safeguard against chaos" --- essentially, those who want to use force 
even more than he does.

But once again Obama didn't answer his critics --- also from the right 
and left, though most especially from the left --- who are outraged at 
how much he and his administration /are/ using military force, in far 
too many places, against far too many people, far too often, and far out 
of public sight.

The mainstream media was full of post-speech carping about Obama setting 
up a straw man when he accused others of wanting to send ground troops 
to Syria (or Ukraine, or Nigeria, or Thailand.) The real problem is not 
that he's refusing to send ground troops --- it's that he /is/ 
escalating the military conflicts by involving the U.S. military: 
providing weapons, supplies, planes and pilots, training, CIA 
counter-terrorism troops (the CIA now has its own fleet of armed planes, 
special forces in all but name,) and looking for military solutions all 
over the world.

Obama was right to push back against critics who complain that the U.S. 
has lost its global leadership role because it hasn't sent troops 
everywhere the warmongers wanted. He was right when he said that 
leadership doesn't only mean military force. The problem is, though, 
U.S. leadership and credibility have been dramatically weakened because 
of too /much/, not too little military force. The direct U.S. military 
interventions that failed (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,) the U.S. search 
for military solutions even when they claim there are none (Syria,) the 
continuing U.S. reliance on might-makes-right arguments (Guantanamo, the 
drone war,) the U.S. refusal to get out of the way to let other, more 
legitimate global institutions lead (Israel-Palestine) have all weakened 
U.S. global leadership.

Obama's repeated statement that "there is no military solution" in Syria 
is belied by the CIA training rebel forces in Jordan, by U.S. allies 
being allowed to provide U.S.-produced weapons to the rebels, by 
apparently imminent efforts to send U.S. shoulder-fired anti-aircraft 
missiles. If the president believed there is no military solution in 
Syria, then he should stop supporting one side of this brutal civil war; 
call for an immediate ceasefire and immediate international arms embargo 
on all sides; and re-engage with Russia to figure out a diplomatic 
solution. The current progress in negotiations with Iran should lead to 
new engagement with Iran on the Syria crisis as well.

When Obama extols American exceptionalism and says, "What makes us 
exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule 
of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions," he is 
wrong. It is precisely Washington's ability --- and willingness --- "to 
flout international norms and the rule of law" that shows its 
exceptional military and economic power.

What other country could get away with violating sovereignty by using 
drone missiles to kill citizens of other countries --- within those 
countries' borders --- because it claims the target of those drone 
strikes were "bad guys?" What if some /other/ government decided that 
certain Americans in the U.S. were the bad guys and sent missiles to 
kill them? Affirming international norms and the rule of law means 
ending drone strikes and illegal invasions and bombing campaigns, not 
simply claiming they're legal because it's Washington that does it 
instead of Moscow or Beijing.

The president said he would "continue to push to close Gitmo" because 
U.S. values and legal traditions "do not permit the indefinite detention 
of people beyond our borders." The problem is, that "indefinite 
detention" is now precisely what defines the values and legal traditions 
of our country. Like his predecessor, Obama has relied on memos drafted 
by his own lawyers, without oversight by any court, to reinterpret U.S. 
law by simply declaring things like assassination of American citizens 
"legal."  That's the /new/ American legal tradition.

It's great to hear that the president describes his most important 
lesson in foreign affairs being "don't do stupid shit," meaning, don't 
go to war like we did in Iraq. (/The New York Times /primly described 
President Obama's language as a "saltier variation of the phrase 'don't 
do stupid stuff. '") How does he not recognize, even ignoring the 
morality of the issue, that killing over 3,000 people by drone strikes 
in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia --- and antagonizing whole populations of 
restive countries by doing so --- qualifies as "stupid shit?" If 
Congress balks at closing down Guantanamo, it sure sounds pretty stupid 
not to at least begin to show some leadership by freeing those long-term 
prisoners already cleared for release.

It's not completely off-base to say that with Al-Qaeda's leadership 
largely decimated, the U.S. (and many other countries) face danger from 
scattered bands of terrorists across the Middle East, South Asia, and 
parts of Africa. But what is completely wrong is the notion that somehow 
going to war can stop terrorism. For any who doubt it, 13 years of 
responding to the crime of September 11 with a limitless global war has 
unequivocally proved the point: Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and 
it's not possible to conquer terrorism with war. It doesn't work --- it 
hasn't worked in Afghanistan (and won't, with two and a half more years 
of U.S. war) or in Iraq, and it isn't working in Yemen, Pakistan, or 
Somalia either. The U.S. never went to war against "terrorism" --- it 
went to war against the land, people, economy, and environment of the 
countries it invaded. And still, terrorism has thrived.

President Obama reminded the world that, "As the Syrian civil war spills 
across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come 
after us only increases." It might have been more powerful if he 
acknowledged that many of those extremists first gained their 
battle-hardening experience in Iraq --- fighting against the U.S. 
occupation and its Iraqi partners.

If Obama really believed that "respect for human rights is an antidote 
to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror," 
wouldn't he move to do something differently, something like renouncing 
--- without waiting for Congress --- the Authorization for the Use of 
Military Force that followed September 11? Wouldn't he move to do 
something to show respect for human rights and international law, like 
joining the International Criminal Court or working to strengthen, 
instead of undermine, the United Nations?

*The Afghanistan war continues*

Instead we now hear that the U.S. war in Afghanistan will go on for 
another two and a half years. How many more Afghans will die, be 
grievously wounded, be made refugees, by this occupation? How many more 
U.S. troops will come home with grave physical and psychological wounds? 
On the Real News I discussed why keeping *U.S. troops in Afghanistan 
won't solve the problems* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=zdiMFqUQrCCL2o4JHa_MfQ> that country 
faces after almost three decades of war and occupation: If 100,000 U.S. 
troops and 30,000 NATO troops didn't bring peace, stability, democracy, 
development, or any of the other things we promised, keeping 10,000 
troops there won't do it either.

And we should not forget that the special forces troops who remain will 
have only one military job: to kill those the U.S. (based on 
who-knows-what intelligence) identifies as bad guys. That's why we're 
almost certainly going to see access to military bases as part of the 
agreement with Afghanistan --- to keep the drone war going, to kill more 
bad guys. No pretense that "protecting Afghans" is somehow on the U.S. 
agenda, just straight-up counter-terrorism, plus training the Afghan 
military to do the same thing. Not such a great prospect for Afghan 
civilians.

The Afghan elections --- the final round of voting is scheduled very 
soon --- are not likely to have much impact on the war, except that both 
of the leading candidates have indicated their willingness to sign off 
on a Bilateral Security Agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain. We'll 
see whether they can convince their parliament to guarantee full 
immunity for U.S. troops for any war crimes they might commit --- the 
refusal of which was what led to the full troop withdrawal from Iraq. 
Both candidates have also recruited notorious warlords as running mates 
in the interest of winning various ethnic votes. I've been talking about 
that, and what has and hasn't changed in Afghanistan --- you can watch 
*The Real News interview* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=5ruPNpFqzOl7J0LQZWJUiw> or listen to my 
discussion on *FAIR's Counterspin show* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=FkyOYIUtD4JiswWGZAb7SQ>.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a *Washington event where I joined Iraq 
Veterans Against the War* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=W4riyO2LyVg1WxurllxyuQ> and veterans' 
families to call for "the right to heal" --- challenging the Pentagon's 
longstanding habit of sending back to active duty soldiers diagnosed 
with PTSD or other traumatic brain injuries. But they went beyond the 
demand for better health care for veterans --- an issue that remains at 
the top of the political agenda despite the dismissal of Eric Shinseki 
as head of Veteran's Affairs --- to include the call for real 
accountability and support for health care as well as more for the 
victims of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As our great congressional heroine Barbara Lee said last week, in 
response to President Obama's announcement about keeping troops in 
Afghanistan through the end of 2016, "There is no military solution in 
Afghanistan." That's true now, and it will still be true in 2016. This 
just means 30 more months of U.S. war.

*Syria: The war still expands*

Syria's multi-faceted civil war continues to expand, and conditions for 
Syrian civilians continue to deteriorate. In early May, the UN opened a 
new refugee camp for Syrians in Jordan with space for 130,000 people --- 
6,500 arrived just in the first month. When it reaches capacity --- and 
unfortunately, it seems certain that it will --- it will surpass the 
Zaatari camp in Jordan, already the second largest refugee camp in the 
world.

Reports of bombings, sieges, and killings continue. By May 29, the /BBC/ 
reports that almost 3 million people have fled across Syria's borders, 
one of the largest forced migrations since World War II. I talked about 
this humanitarian crisis and Syria's six wars *in the Real News* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=QdDVS7HlkaAAGGhaMZR07g>. And after UN 
and Arab League special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi resigned in mid-May --- in 
frustration with the world's failure to do enough to stop the killing 
--- I discussed *the consequences of this decision for Syria on Al 
Jazeera* <http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=FwIcrHMyq937pO8GqvcCtg>.

*So what do we do about Syria?*

Of course it's not enough to say the U.S. shouldn't send missile strikes 
or arm one side of the civil war: We need a serious campaign to change 
U.S. policy towards Syria. Over the last several weeks, many of the 
leaders of national anti-war and peace and justice organizations have 
been meeting to figure out what our "ask" should be --- what should we 
be demanding of our government? Out of these discussions, I wrote *"5 
Concrete Steps the US Can Take to End the Syria Crisis"* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=EIstdIMb9sl6hYOPu0fMaw> for last week's 
issue of /The Nation/.

Read it, add to it, use it as talking points for meeting with members of 
Congress, as the basis for letters to the editor, or as the beginning of 
new campaigns. We can't allow Syria to slip away from our attention.

*Good news with the bad: Iran and Palestine*

There is some good news, weirdly enough, on a couple of fronts not known 
for good tidings. On Iran, there are serious indications that the talks 
underway between Iran and the U.S. with its allies (known as the P-5 + 
1, for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus 
Germany) are going reasonably well. The fact that we're not hearing a 
lot of debate and opposition in the Congress is actually a good sign.

Following last February's interim agreement, the talks are shaped around 
Iran's nuclear power program on one side and ending sanctions and Iran 
being taken seriously as a regional power on the other. The current 
deadline is July 20, but the interim agreement allows for a six-month 
extension --- and both sides have an interest in making an effort. 
President Obama is desperate for some kind of foreign policy success, 
and a bargain with Iran --- grand or not --- would give a huge boost to 
his claimed commitment to diplomacy over force (even if he still falsely 
claims that only sanctions brought Iran to the table.) President Rouhani 
is under significant public pressure to get U.S. and United Nations 
sanctions lifted, and he still faces political challenges from other 
factions of Iran's powerful ruling circles.

(It must be mentioned, but it's not all good news: the /Washington 
Post/, rarely supportive of diplomacy with Iran, took their usual 
editorial position warning that a deal was unlikely --- but then went 
further, reassuring readers that if a deal were somehow reached there 
would be "a strong check on any concessions made by the Obama 
administration. If Congress or Israel are dissatisfied, they may be able 
to scuttle the deal."  Really? If another country --- Israel is not part 
of the P-5 + 1 --- is "dissatisfied," it might have equal status with 
the U.S. Congress to "scuttle the deal?"  I'm torn between being pleased 
that the /Post/ felt compelled finally to admit that possibility, or 
outraged that as usual they appear to think it's a good thing.)

*In Palestine, the Pope replaces the peace process*

The other good news has to do, first, with the collapse of the 
U.S.-orchestrated "peace process" between Israel and Palestine. After 23 
years of failed diplomacy and nine months of intensive John Kerry-led 
talks with and between Palestinians and Israelis, *the latest "Einstein 
Round"* <http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=ra0ejuPlB0Ss44bxIqnUtw> ended 
unceremoniously. (I've been calling this the "Einstein Round" based on 
the great scientist's definition of crazy: Doing the same thing over and 
over again and expecting a different result.)

The talks ended after Israel reneged on its earlier promise to release 
the last 29 of 104 prisoners, following that up with announcing its 
plans to build hundreds of new illegal settlement apartments. That's all 
business-as-usual for Israeli occupation. The good news included the 
Palestinian response, which was to sign on to 15 human rights and other 
treaties and covenants, bringing Palestine into compliance with a wide 
range of international norms. What a contrast: Israel violates more 
agreements and more international laws, Palestinians respond with 
claiming international law as their own. And the U.S. responds that both 
sides have done unhelpful things. Great.

  But, for a change, there was some good news when the White House and 
State Department made clear their view that, in fact, Israel was 
responsible for the talks' collapse.

Kerry even used the term "apartheid" --- and while he used it only in 
the sense of warning Israel that it could face a future as an apartheid 
state if it didn't manage a two-state solution, rather than recognizing 
Israel today as an apartheid state --- his very mention of the word 
reflected the change in U.S. discourse on the issue. *As CNN reported 
it* <http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=2e6lC1RDZbzvhPCtTn18hw>, "John Kerry 
wasn't the first to use the A-word --- apartheid --- when talking about 
Israel, and he likely won't be the last." Of course his statement led to 
attacks and calls for Kerry's resignation from Israel supporters in the 
U.S. and beyond, but there were no serious political consequences.

Discourse shifts are never enough, though. On the ground things have not 
changed for most Palestinians. Two young boys, 15-year-old Muhammad Abu 
Thahr and 17-year-old Nadim Nuwara, were killed by Israeli soldiers 
firing live ammunition at a protest outside Israel's Ofer Prison in the 
occupied West Bank on May 15, Nakba Day, the day Palestinians 
commemorate their massive dispossession that accompanied the creation of 
the state of Israel in 1948. They were only the latest casualties of the 
occupation.

There is some cause for optimism regarding the Palestinian unity process 
that may result in a new technocratic government of national unity for 
the Palestinian Authority supported by both main factions, Fatah (that 
controls the PA in the West Bank) and Hamas (running the authority in 
Gaza.) It isn't yet a full unity process --- it remains unclear how 
Palestinians living inside Israel and the millions of Palestinian 
refugees scattered in far-flung exile will be included --- but if it 
succeeds it represents a major step forward.

And then, finally, we had the Pope. Pope Francis went to Palestine and 
Israel, and --- as we've seen so many times already in his shifting the 
church's focus to the poor and dispossessed --- here he made clear that 
he was not, as his predecessors have been, interested only in 
strengthening the Vatican's ties to Israel. This time, it was all about 
the visuals --- and that meant the extraordinary photograph of the Pope 
praying and leaning his head against the Apartheid Wall in Bethlehem 
splashed across the front pages of newspapers around the world.

I talked about it *on The Real News* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=4dKuT4o3UYT8EbgA7XuyEw> and *wrote about 
it for FPIF and /The Nation/* 
<http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=-SumG-hTNc2PImgGLKfbWw> last week --- 
and since the Pope went to lay a wreath at his tomb, I got to include my 
favorite quote from Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism. It's 
the one from his letter to the infamous Cecil Rhodes (who conquered much 
of Africa for the British Crown) in which Herzl begs Rhodes to join his 
project for a European Jewish state in Palestine because it is 
"something colonial."
He should know.

*On the road*

Welcome to all my new subscribers/supporters/comrades/friends I met at 
the Sabeel conference in Portland and in Louisville at the 6,000-strong 
Methodist Women's Assembly. I'm heading to Japan this week, to speak at 
a UN conference on Palestine and then to meet with anti-war, 
anti-militarism, and anti-nuclear activists in Tokyo and Hiroshima.

Thanks for all you do, all your commitment, all your passion.

We all have a lot of work to do.

Phyllis

NB -- If you can, please *help support my New Internationalism Project 
here at IPS* <http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=wNopZMzl66c_cUgMkQlupA> --- 
every one-time donation or monthly sustainer pledge is crucial to 
helping my work survive. Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140606/581cdd67/attachment-0001.html>