The Strange Dementia of Chris Shays, Part II Posted by Shadi Hamid

It appears that Chris Shays is pulling a Lieberman and declaring his independence from all recognized forms of reasoned debate, sanity, and rationality. I didn't think that the beleaguered congressman from Connecticut could do any worse than last week's apology for torture. It appears that I have been proven wrong. I suppose that we may yet be closer to a diagnosis: Chris Shays is slightly deranged. I suspect it might be worse.

Let me also say that I feel bad picking on Shays two weeks in a row, but there comes a point where politicians become so separated from reality, that you really begin to wonder what went wrong and how it went wrong.

Iraq: 1963, 1995 or 2006 Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Going through my emails after a quick business trip, I'm suffering from a bad case of vertigo.  The Washington Times reports rumors of coup-plotting in Iraq that sound straight out of 1963; Joe Biden and Les Gelb have mounted a new push for their Iraq-partition plan, whose substance reminds me of mid-1990s Bosnia but whose presentation is every bit clever 'Net 2006.  What decade are we in again?

Olbermann and Buchanan: Left, Right and Sound Advice Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm travelling this week, so this will be short and eclectic. We're taking our first trip with our nine week old baby to see his New England cousins. (This explains also why I've been so flakey posting lately, my apologies) I was so entranced by 3 a.m. Senate hearings on CSPAN that I couldn't do much else.

First, kudos to Keith Olbermann. He blisters the administration  and their "talk to the hand" treatment of the constitution, the founding fathers, and millions of Americans with the signing of the Military Commissions Act. I've been so upset by this bill that I've started a netflix anarchy list. So far I've re-watched Fight Club, Brazil and V for Vendetta. Suggestions welcome.

I had a good discussion with a sailor last weekend and he told me about a new organization  for members of the active duty military who want to protest the Iraq war. Military professionals have rigid restrictions on their ability to talk publicly about policy, and don't have the same constitutional right to express themselves as civilians do. Yet there are specific ways to speak out. Rights under the U.S. Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and the military's own regulations provide direction for those who want to voice an opinion about what's going on in Iraq. Here is the website of this movement. Here's a link to "Sir! No Sir!" -- a film that documents similar actions during VietNam.

Finally, a network for security progressives-- the National Security Network -- is up and running. It seeks to bridge the divide between the foreign policy experts and politicians in Washington aka "wonks" and local community leaders and the general public.
An affiliated organization provides a communications hub where you can sign up and discuss ideas.

And in recognition of how wacky politics have become, I'm going to end with an entire article on the U.S.-North Korea policy impasse by Pat Buchanan. I can't believe I'm saying this. But it's is pretty sound advice.

Don't Cry for Me Venezuela Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The protracted battle underway between Venezuela and Guatemala over one of the Latin American Regional Group's non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council is a case study in the bedeviling dynamics of the UN General Assembly.   For an account of where the fight stands after 22 rounds of inconclusive voting, read here. 

For Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, there would be no better global platform for provoking the US than a 2-year seat on the Council.  For Washington, having Chavez represent our regional neighbors would be an immediate slap in the face, and a significant long-term nuisance on the array of top priority issues now sitting with the Council, i.e. North Korea, Iran and the Lebanese ceasefire.

So, what can we make of the UN membership's deep divide on this one?

A majority of the UN membership does not want to see Chavez face the US down day in and day out, paralyzing the Council in the process - While they haven't won the required two-thirds majority, the Guatemalans have been ahead of Caracas in every round.  Much as recent events can make it seem like the whole world is out to get us and wants nothing more than to rally around the likes of Chavez, its just not true.   We have many dozens of allies, and like-minded countries who recognize a despot-cum-spoiler like Chavez for what he is and don't want him poisoning UN debates.  Its encouraging to know that even now, most UN members put certain values ahead of sticking it to the US.

Developing world solidarity only goes so far - The strength in numbers developing countries derive at the UN can be a formidable obstacle to Western proposals.  But, as this vote illustrates, there are objectives that trump lockstep third world unity. 

US support is a double edged sword - Some commentators have remarked that Guatemala would already have won outright were it not for the US's vigorous support of their candidacy, and the perception that voting them in would represent an undeserved victory for the Administration.  It's long been true that many US proposals at the UN are dead on arrival if stamped made-in-the-USA.  But for the world's superpower, its tough to effectively advance proposals and positions without leaving our fingerprints all over them.

China will back anything that heightens their influence - Here's what China's UN envoy said to explain why Beijing backs Venezuela: "The United States cannot expect the composition of the Security Council to be 15 members which all have the same position as the United States. . . Multilateralism means countries have different opinions. I think that is not really a bad thing. Accommodating diversity is part of democracy."  Having Chavez on the Council means one more vote on China's side of the debate on Iran, and an even more important role for Beijing as a power-broker in a Council that's bound to deadlock even more often.

John Bolton is no less tone deaf now than when he arrived at the UN - After 22 rounds of voting, here's what Bolton had to say:  "All I can say is, in the year 2000, I spent 31 days in Florida. . .  This has just begun." Oblivious to the detrimental impact of placing the US front-and-center in the anti-Chavez campaign, Bolton annoints himself the Karl Rove of Guatemala's election effort.  I served at the UN in 2000 as Florida unfolded and can remember debates adjourning so that the delegates could race back to their TVs in time to hear the results of recounts of hanging chads in Miami-Dade, and to read about John Bolton's infamous proclamation:  "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." The UN membership was in many ways as traumatized by the process and outcome as were the American people.  Evoking those unsettling days and the threat they posed to democracy is about the worst campaign tactic imaginable. 

Black Coffee Posted by Shadi Hamid

An article of mine on the US policy and the failure of Arab democracy is out today on Qahwa Sada. Qahwa Sada ("Black Coffee") is a new "blog-journal by Middle East experts" edited by Marc Lynch, aka Abu Aardvark. Check out the blog manifesto here. It's a great idea and hopefully it will catch on in the blogosphere. Here's an excerpt from my piece:

Ahead of his time, perhaps, but also behind it, USC economist Timur Kuran wrote in a provocative 1998 essay that “Arab regimes are highly vulnerable to a shock that would stimulate mass dissent. Indeed, even an ostensibly minor rise in open opposition within one Arab country might trigger a revolutionary cascade that then sets off similar cascades in others. Just such a domino process occurred in Eastern Europe less than a decade ago, when people within and outside the region marveled at the collapse of one communist regime after another. The scenario could be repeated in the Arab world”.

The “ostensibly minor rise in open opposition” happened not only in one Arab country, but in many. After 9/11, the Arab state system, long immune to change, experienced several of the “shocks” that Kuran believed would open up new possibilities. For a time, they did. Although we might not like to admit it, the unseating of the region’s most egregious dictator did, in fact, have a profound, if varied, effect on millions of Arabs.

Kuran also noted that “as conditions became more favorable to the expression of opposition, individuals would jump on the bandwagon for change, encouraging additional people to join in” (120). But the democratic openings of 2005, while real, proved unsustainable and easily reversible. Something, in other words, went wrong.  In a recent post on the Abu Aardvark blog, Marc Lynch posed the stickiness of Arab autocracy a “puzzle.” But is it really that puzzling?

Read the whole thing here.

Foreign Policy, Post-Bush Posted by Michael Signer

This is a quick note to let anyone in D.C. know that tomorrow (Thursday) from 12:15 - 1:45 p.m. I'll be appearing at the New America Foundation on a brown bag lunch panel co-sponsored by Democracy:  A Journal of Ideas with Anatol Lieven, Michael Lind, and Will Marshall for a discussion titled, "The Battle after Bush:  Debating the Future of American Foreign Policy."  The panel will be moderated by Kenny Baer, a co-founder of Democracy.  There are unsubstantiated rumors it will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

I'm advised the discussion will touch in part on my article "A City on a Hill" advocating a foreign policy of "American exemplarism," which appeared in the inaugural issue of Democracy.  The article provoked a critique by Lieven in the most recent issue of Democracy, energetically titled, "Reality Check:  The Delusions of Idealist Foreign Policymakers:  A Response to Michael Signer's Exemplarism."  My piece is here.  Lieven's critique is here.

The organizers are asking for RSVP's.  You can RSVP by emailing your name, affiliation, and contact information to communications@newamerica.net.  If you have questions about this event, contact Sarah Brennan at brennan@newamerica.net or 202-986-4901.
The New America Foundation is located at 1630 Connecticut Ave, NW, 7th Floor. 

Where are we on North Korea Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Reading the reports on the UN sanctions resolution, the status of the US's effort to punish and isolate Pyongyang in the aftermath of what's now been confirmed to be an (albeit small scale) nuclear test is murky at best.   Here are some quick observations:

- The Administration is talking a good game about international unity, but actual common ground looks pretty scarce - Barely a day after the UNSC passed its resolution, China and South Korea are backing away from key elements involving border inspections and the withdrawal of support for collaborative economic development projects with Pyongyang.   Earlier last week the US backed off its proposals to provide for recourse to military action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if North Korea continues to flout the Council.  Upshot:  Washington managed to achieve a brief show of unity that barely masked underlying deep divisions.

- US efforts to steamroll opposition to its positions failed - Reading accounts of how the Chinese quickly disavowed any intention to implement the inspections regime called for by the resolution reminded me of my time at the UN.  On several occasions, after fierce negotiations with other delegations over controversial points, we would think we'd scored a big victory when they assented to our proposed language.  Days or weeks later we were flabbergasted holding near worthless pieces of paper when they claimed that the adopted language did not represent a change in their prior position, nor a commitment to do what the paper in question said.   These delegations had concluded that making noises of capitulation that would later be reversed was an easier route than continuing to fight off a US government bent on browbeating them into submission.   In my time I never saw this happen on a matter as visible and high-stakes as the North Korea resolution, but with Bolton in the US chair at the Council, I cannot say I am surprised.

- There seems little reason for Iran to be daunted by the prospect of being the Security Council's next target- The resumed debates over Iran's nuclear program will make even the fractious North Korea debate sound like the strains of Kumbaya.  The economic stakes are higher, and Tehran has skillfully situated itself in the midst of a bloc of anti-US developing countries that will provide some cover (like Venezuela which is battling for its own temporary UNSC seat).  The more the US tries to hold China and others' feet to the fire in implementing the North Korea resolution, the harder it may be to win agreement on a text dealing with Iran.

This is not the first time that developments over North Korea are not what they seem.  But its easy enough to criticize.  What should the Administration be doing differently to get better results in the Council?

- Since its pretty clear Bolton's heavy-handed approach hasn't achieved substantive gains, it would be best not to have him at the forefront of trying to shame China into delivering on its obligations.  How about trying some quiet diplomacy in Beijing so that if the Chinese do come around, they can do so without falling into the trap they are most likely to avoid, i.e. the appearance of submitting to US pressure.

- While we're at it, how about some lip-service to the idea of avoiding war?  Russia and China have repeatedly emphasized a desire to deescalate this conflict.  Some might portray that as a sign of weakness, but since Pyongyang now is indeed nuclear, pure reason dictates that the last thing we want to do is ratchet up tensions. 

It's Official: Congressman Shays Lives in a Parallel Universe Posted by Shadi Hamid

So rarely have I been revolted as I was while watching this disingenuous piece of obsfucastion and denial by purported nice guy Congressman Chris Shays. Here is a man who has explained away and excused the Bush administration's open policy of facilitating torture while, in Orwellian fashion, calling it something else. See his pathetic performance here. Shays and the other torture-justifiers have chosen to turn a blind eye to some of the most egregious abuses of power our country has ever seen. It has destroyed our crediblity, but, more importantly, it has destroyed our moral sense as a nation.  Progressives should forget polls and remember principle, and start attacking the torture apologists on this issue like there's no tomorrow.

Media Matters Posted by Michael Signer

If you don't already, put Media Matters on your bookmark list and RSS feed.  It was started with the help of former right-wing hit-man David Brock and apparently has some Democracy Alliance money.  It's a fascinating and energetic new effort at doing to the right what the right has done to the left for a couple of decades now -- put them on the defensive for media bias.

A couple of highlights from today's posts:

(1)  They note that both ABC and CNN reported on President Bush saying during his press conference yesterday that Bill Clinton's North Korea policy "didn't work" -- but that the reporters failed to report the fact that plutonium production stopped during the Clinton presidency.  Here's their summary:

The AP's Terence Hunt and NBC News' David Gregory both reported President Bush's "veiled swipe" at the Clinton administration's North Korea policy, in which Bush said, "I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work." But neither noted that, following the Clinton administration's signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, that country did not produce any plutonium until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the agreement.

(2)  They observe that network news faithfully carried President Bush's new talking points that he was "open" to change in Iraq -- but failed to note that he has maintained his inflexibility on troop withdrawal, perhaps the most important actual policy to most Americans today.  Here's their summary:

ABC, NBC, and CBS reported that, during a recent press conference, President Bush stated that he is "open" to changing the administration's Iraq war policy, but did not note that, during that same press conference, Bush reiterated his claim that the United States will not "leave before the job is done."

This is a powerfully helpful addition to the media landscape.  We should all pay attention to what they have to say -- particularly in the closing weeks of the current campaign.

One well-placed Murder Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Is the Taliban weapon of choice in the hearts and minds campaign to win Afghanistan. I learned this at a Capitol Hill discussion yesterday with Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter who now runs a humanitarian organization there (check out her new book ). Seems death obeys that law of diminishing returns  you learned in Economics 101: more of something doesn't necessarily produce a better result. With political goals in mind,the Taliban has developed a ghastly set of campaign advertisements: pick off strategic individuals like a night watchman at a public school (leaving names of teachers pinned to his body) an incorruptible police chief, a Red Cross worker. Later in the day, I attended an annual Army Association conference  that is best described as the beauty pageant of the defense industry. (I counted at least three helicopters, half-dozen drones and several ginormous military personnel vehicles inside the DC convention center). After hearing Sarah talk,  though, I couldn't help thinking that the expo symbolized America's dysfunction on national security: the more political and hands-on our tasks, the more  complicated and remote the technology we create to solve problems.

I've had many conversations with people who have spent time in Afghanistan. All agree that today's violent chaos is largely the result of our own missed opportunity. Iraq sucked the oxygen out of our efforts there.   Accountable government to replace the Taliban became an afterthought as early as 2002.   Even this administration's single minded "free market" foreign policy might have done wonders if we'd paid attention. Afghans are fabulous at commerce, after all and parts of the country have un matched agricultural resources.

Today, Afghan citizens are presented with two lousy choices: a Pakistan backed Taliban or a homegrown corrupt government. Both act like organized gangs, one shakes down the newly minted citizens during the a.m. the other during the p.m. Who you choose to side with depends on two questions: