Change(s) You Might Have Missed Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Three small -- to us -- but significant signals around the world came to my attention today.  Taken together they paint a picture of a foreign policy establishment in Capitol Hill and the White House that:

• understands that success in a multilateral world means showing genuine responsiveness to others' interests and concerns;
• understands that the world is not zero-sum, and that sometimes power shared is power amplified;
• is not afraid (or, is less afraid) of what Secretary Albright used to refer to as the "UN helicopters swooping low to steal your lawn furniture" crowd.

 1.  It's now possible to adhere to the International Criminal Court and receive US foreign aid, with the removal of the so-called "Nethercutt Amendment" from the foreign operations appropriations section of the Omnibus.  Mark Leon Goldberg explains:  ""In 2004 George Nethercutt (left), a Republican member of congress from Washington State, inserted a provision into the State Department/Foreign Operations appropriations bill stating that countries that cooperate with the International Criminal Court but do not sign so-called bi-lateral immunity agreements with the United States would not be eligible for U.S. foreign assistance funds. So, for example, if an ICC member like Peru declined to enter into one of these bi-lateral immunity agreements with the United States, then Peru would lose money earmarked for, say, efforts to reduce cocoa production and fight drug trafficking."  

2.  Congress's post-Somalia declaration that no funds could be disbursed for UN peacekeeping operations that place US troops under foreign command was rejected by Obama in the Omnibus signing statement today.  No wimpy 'permission-slip' rationale:  "This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority.”

3.  Last, and perhaps least, but perhaps not, the Treasury Department announced regulations that will return family travel to Cuba to the once a year allowed prior to 2004.  That's not an entirely new policy on Cuba, but it's a start -- Steve Clemons calls it a "tippy-toe in the right direction." 

  

The Value of Tehran-ology Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Matt Duss is obviously right when he writes that if you are looking to understand Iranian foreign policy, the most important person to observe is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  And when conservatives try to use some of Ahmadinejad's crazier statements to paint Iran as an existential threat , they are misrepresenting a much more complicated situation.  But I do think Duss underestimates the value of what he calls "Tehran-ology."  You do need to look beyond Khamenei to try and understand how Iran might react, even on foreign policy issues.

First, the Iranian political system is incredibly complex with multiple power centers.  Khamenei might have ultimate say but it's not all about him.  This USIP brief on the structure of the Iranian government gives a pretty good breakdown.  It explains:

While the constitution establishes four branches of government—the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and the office of the Faqih (Supreme Guide)—significant sources of power in the Islamic Republic lie outside the parameters of the constitution. Elections are semi-competitive and elected officials wield some measure of authority, but decision-making is consensual rather than unilateral and informal networks frequently supercede their formal counterparts, contributing to the opacity of the Iranian system.

In other words, the whole system is quite complex and involves multiple actors.  Tehran-ology is the only way to try and understand it.

In fact, there are examples where the President has forced the Supreme Leader's hand, even on issues of foreign policy.  When Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 his version of firebrand populism was very popular with the Iranian public.  In fact, it was so popular that the clerical establishment and Khamenei felt somewhat boxed in and began using more heated rhetoric and publicly adopting some of Ahmadinejad's positions on foreign policy as well as domestic policy.   As his popularity has declined so has his ability to influence Khameini and set the terms of the public discourse in Iran.

In another example, in the late 1990s the threat posed to Khamenei by the very popular reformist president Mohammad Khatami played a role in stifling the possibility of a break through between the United States and Iran.  Khatami's high profile outreach to the United States and the Western World, a policy that was quite popular inside Iran, caused Khamenei to stomp out the possibility of an opening. One of the factors in that decision was that it would be too much of a boon to Khatami's popularity.  A breakthrough would have been more likely, and is still more likely, if a close Khamenei ally is sitting in the presidency so that Khamenei and his allies could take full credit.

So, it's true that Khamenei is the most important player.  But his relationship to the president and the other key power brokers is important and will be a factor in decision making on foreign policy.   And as long as that is the case, Tehran-ology will be necessary.

A Commutation Bush should Seek Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw the shoe heard around the world, has been sentenced to three years in jail.  Whatever feelings one has about the whole shoe throwing incident, this sentence is excessive.  This isn't something that the Obama administration can get involved in.  It could be perceived as the U.S. playing in Iraqi politics and pushing Maliki around.  Or it could be perceived as Obama trying to stick it to Bush. 

Clearly Maliki is angry and embarrassed, which is why al-Zaidi has been so harshly treated.  The only person who can alleviate that concern is George Bush.  Bush should call Maliki and ask him to to commute the sentence. Ultimately, this isn't a government-to-government issue.  This is a personal issue.  The shoe was thrown at Bush and he is probably the only one who can convince Maliki.  If Bush really believes all those wonderful things he said about bringing democracy (including free speech) to the Iraqis, he should do what he can to get al-Zaidi released or at least reducing his sentence. 

NSN Daily Update 3/12/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

After 43 years, France will resume full membership status in NATO.

An Italian court threw out evidence against CIA and Italian intelligence personnel in an extraordinary rendition trial, alleging that prosecutors violated state secrets in presenting the evidence.

The U.S. is still looking for new supply routes for Afghanistan, possibly considering roads through Iran.

Commentary of the Day

Daniel Doron says Middle East peace can begin with economic integration and growth.

Responding to Chas Freeman’s withdrawal, the LA Times says that pro-Israel opinions cannot be the only voices heard in the U.S. government while the Washington Post argues that Freeman’s withdrawal was not about Israel.

Sonni Efron looks at how the financial crisis hurts the world’s poor and hungry above all others.

NSN Daily Update 3/11/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Pakistan bans protests ahead of a major opposition rally.

China’s exports fell 25.7% in February, much more than the predicted 5%.  China’s economic crisis may mean improvements for the environment.  Reverberations from the U.S.-China naval incident continue.

Meeting with NATO leaders, Vice President Joe Biden said the U.S. is undecided as to whom it will support for NATO Secretary-General.  United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon visits Congressional leaders today.

The terrorist watch list hit 1 million names, up 32% since 2007, despite the removal of 33,000 names last year.

Commentary of the Day

Steven Kleinman and Matthew Alexander, former military interrogators, look at detainee policy and say that the best way to get information from detainees is to build a relationship based on trust.

The Financial Times and the New York Times argue that China must engage with the Dalai Lama now and that the continuing Tibet question threatens China’s status as a global power.

The New York Times urges the Obama administration to take a strong stand against protectionism.

Minority Leader Calls for Full Torture Inquiry Posted by Adam Blickstein

No, of course not Republican House leader John Boehner, but rather British Tory chief David Cameron:

David Cameron today called for a full inquiry into British intelligence agencies' alleged involvement in torture amid mounting concern that they may have breached international law.

The Tory leader said that an existing inquiry into the mistreatment of one man, Binyam Mohamed, would not go far enough and insisted on the need for an inquiry led by a judge.

"The attorney general is going to be looking at whether a crime has been committed, quite rightly, but isn't really looking at our moral authority and whether it's been maintained," Cameron told the Commons during prime minister's question time.

As I've said a few times before, more clarity on the extent of America's use of torture might come from overseas than from domestic inquiries here in the U.S. Regardless, it's refreshing to see an opposition party more interested in the rule of law and openly examining past transgressions to prevent future abuses than obfuscation, denial and political opportunism.  But it surely exposes the politics clearly in play when the party in power, Labour, are the ones actually more skeptical of any independent examination of Britain's torture complicity. On both sides of the Atlantic, though, examining to what extent torture was used as a tool against terror suspects should transcend politics. And regardless of the geographical divide, that would be the true conservative approach.

Hand-Wringing over Cuba in the Omnibus Posted by Jake Colvin

Much has been made of three provisions buried in the omnibus appropriations act which pertain to U.S. Cuba policy.

The provisions would authorize travel to Cuba for the purposes of sales and marketing agricultural and medical products to Cuba and would prohibit the enforcement of some changes to Cuba regulations made by the Bush administration via an appropriations strategy known as “de-funding.”  (De-funding provisions are largely symbolic, given that they do not change underlying law.)

These changes to Cuba policy contained in the omnibus appropriations bill are small but important. By including these measures in the bill, Congress can demonstrate a willingness to ease provisions of the embargo on Cuba and a path forward for making future changes.

In between dealing with the banking, mortgage and global financial crises, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner managed to find the time to clarify to Senators Bill Nelson and Bob Menendez in two separate letters the way in which two of the three provisions would be implemented were they to become law. Geithner's response – which has caused Senators Menendez and Nelson to affirm their support for the omnibus bill – has led some to suggest that the Obama administration is somehow limiting the impact of these provisions.

Secretary Geithner’s letters do not indicate that the Obama administration intends to water down the Cuba provisions in the omnibus. His clarifications regarding the travel and cash in advance provisions appear consistent with the intent of Congress. In particular, the omnibus provision regarding marketing and sales of agriculture goods would be an important and very welcome change to current licensing policy, even with the clarifications suggested by Secretary Geithner. 

(The change allows travel by businesspersons for the purposes of "marketing and sale" of agricultural and medical goods under a general license, by which travelers are able to self-determine their eligibility and travel to Cuba without seeking individual authorization.  Current policy requires individuals to apply for approval from the U.S. Department of Treasury under a “specific license.")

Opponents of these provisions have argued that regular order should be followed when considering important foreign policy questions.  While regular order is certainly a valuable principle for Congress to follow when considering important changes to foreign policy, for years congressional leaders circumvented regular order in order to maintain current restrictions on Cuba, removing legislative provisions in conference even when they were passed by both the House and the Senate.

After all is said and done with the omnibus, leaders in the House and Senate ought to take up the calls for regular order and allow for a robust debate on important Cuba-related issues like the resumption of travel by all American citizens to Cuba.  In particular, congressional leaders should allow for votes on these important foreign policy questions, which is a critical component of regular order.  It would also be appropriate for supporters of regular order to throw their support behind complete repeal of the “Section 211” provision of an earlier appropriations bill, a special interest provision which was slipped into the legislation in the dead of night and which violates U.S. trade commitments. 

NSN Daily Update 3/10/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

The Dalai Lama harshly condemned Chinese practices in Tibet on the 50th anniversary of the major Tibetan uprising.

A suicide bomber killed dozens at a reconciliation conference in Iraq.  Another suicide bombing killed at least 10 and wounded a government minister in Sri Lanka.

The Obama administration works on new trade rules, which emphasize environmental and labor concerns.

Commentary of the Day

In the American Prospect, NSN Policy Director Ilan Goldenberg describes the Obama administration’s chess game in the Middle East.

Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama’s principal translator, writes of Tibet’s desire for autonomy, not independence.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, hopes that whatever financial system emerges from the economic crisis pays more attention to human beings than the recent interpretation of capitalism.

Foreign Policy examines how building more weapons is the wrong approach to stimulating the economy.

Obama's Middle East Chess Game Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I have a piece up in the American Prospect looking at the Obama administration's early moves on the Middle East. Basic gist is that as in chess the opening is all about creating as many options as possible.  They've done a very good job of that.  But there is still hard work to come.

Congrats Michael! Posted by The Editors

Everyone at Democracy Arsenal and the National Security Network would like to congratulate DA blogger and NSN Board Member (and bulldog aficionado) Michael Cohen on his recent marriage! Mazel Tov!