America in the World

George W Bush says 'waterboarding' of terrorist suspects saved London from attacks

Many people in the world call it torture but George W Bush and the CIA insist on calling "waterboarding" a form of enhanced interrogation. The former US president believes that waterboarding is not torture because it causes no physical damage and is always conducted in the presence of medical personnel. Barack Obama has disowned the procedure, earning a rebuke from Dick Cheney.

President Bush has been silent since leaving the White House but has just published his memoirs, Decision Points, and in interviews to promote the book, the 43rd US President has defended waterboarding:

"In an interview with The Times, the former US President offered a vigorous defence of the coercive interrogation technique: “Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives.” He denied that waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture. Asked if he authorised the use of waterboarding to get information from the captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was unequivocal: “Damn right!” In his new book he writes: “Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.”"

Many British people will be sympathetic with the President's arguments. A YouGov poll, conducted over the weekend, found that 50% supported Britain’s security services using information passed to them by other countries that might have been obtained by torture. That compares with 31% who think it should not be used.

Other highlights from the Times interview:

• Tony Blair is compared to Winston Churchill.
• America will remain the main superpower because of China's internal problems.
• “There were things we got wrong in Iraq, but that cause is eternally right.”

Read more here, behind The Times' paywall.

The Guardian has much more including on his programme for tackling AIDS in the developing world, a programme he describes as "a medical version of the Marshall Plan".

VIDEO FROM NBC ON THE MEMOIRS:
 

Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Libya attack US record on human rights at UN

Representatives of the US State Department have just appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to answer questions from, among others, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

If it wasn't serious the hypocrisy would be funny:

""Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.”

Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.”

North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.”

Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”"

More here.

The UN has a gift for inappropriate appointments. North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime's totalitarian nature.

A $30m investment could provide citizens of repressive regimes free access to the internet

An interesting editorial in yesterday's Washington Post argues that a $30m investment could mean that fifty million extra people in repressive regimes could have access to Twitter. Apparently the US State Department has the money within its budgets for this very purpose but has not yet disbursed it.

The Global Internet Freedom Consortium and similar groups have developed the capacity to give citizens of China, Burma, Iran, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes free access to internet services like Twitter. The Consortium declares its mission with these powerful words:

Writing in June, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times described the power of these "censorship-evasion technologies".

The world's policeman is disarming

A year ago Barack Obama was elected American President. At first it looked like there might be a great deal of continuity in foreign policy but, over time, the differences have become very apparent.

George W Bush was not himself consistent in foreign policy. As I've written before, he pursued something resembling neoconservatism in Iraq and then realpolitik in Pakistan, multilateralism in Iran and traditional appeasement towards Saudi Arabia. These strategic approaches - particularly in Iraq - were not always pursued competently. Nonetheless, when Obama beat McCain, one of the big messages taken by the world was that the 'war party' (the Republicans) had lost to the 'peace party' (the Democrats).

Since the victory of 'the peace party' anti-Americanism has gone into reverse in most parts of the world. The decline of anti-Americanism has not, however, translated into tangible benefits for America. Europe has not given more troops to the Afghan campaign. Russia has not signed up to sanctions against Iran. Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber, ignoring Hillary Clinton's objections. And, less seriously, the IOC did not give Chicago the Olympics despite Obama's best efforts.

A year since Obama was elected it is possible to see a consistent pattern in his foreign policy. Individual decisions may be justifiable but, added up, they send a message that the world's policeman has largely disarmed:

On Afghanistan, the President has delayed and delayed deciding what to do in response to a report submitted to him by his own commander-on-the-ground, General Stanley McChrystal. Sources in the British government are worried that the "dithering" is now hurting the mission. The people of Afghanistan will not co-operate with NATO troops so long as they think the commitment is weak but will tie their fortunes to "the strong horse" of anti-western militants.

On Iraq, Obama accelerated George W Bush's more gradual troop withdrawal.

On Iran, Obama hesitated to support the peoples' protests against the widely-questioned re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Within the last week he hesitated again to back pro-democracy protestors in Tehran. A decision condemned inside the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

The White House cancelled George W Bush's missile defend shield for the Czech Republic and Poland in the hope that Moscow would help force Tehran to end its nuclear programme. The concession was made to Russia but to no effect.

Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai Lama for fear of offending Beijing.

Rather than isolating the government of Sudan for its genocidal abuses in Darfur, the Obama administration has proposed a mix of “incentives and pressure” in future relations.  Even the New York Times gasped: "We have difficulty accepting the idea of any outreach to President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for directing the genocide in Darfur."

The biggest sign of disarmanent has been in the new respect for the United Nations. The UN is a great talking shop with a terrible track record of confronting evil regimes or threats to security.

Obama has apologised for America on many occasions - particularly to the Muslim world.

The Wall Street Journal's overall view is that America has been more keen to truck with America's enemies than its friends:

"His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez." 

Is the world more dangerous today than a year ago? Not noticeably but there is a real danger that under Obama's disarming watch the forces that grew during the equally disarming Clinton years will grow again. The final word to Mayor of London, Boris Johnson:

"It was one of the very greatest American presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, who said the duty of America abroad was to "speak softly but carry a big stick". George Bush forgot the "speak softly" bit. But Obama needs to remember the vital importance of continuing to carry a big stick. That is because the job of America is still pretty much what it was when Fleming wrote Goldfinger in 1959 - to take on the bad guys in a way that no other country is able or willing to do."

Tim Montgomerie

Obama highlights seven key changes in American foreign policy since Bush left White House

In a major speech to the United Nations yesterday Barack Obama set out the ways in which American foreign policy had already changed since he became President:

1. Closing Guantanomo: "On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law."
2. Withdrawing from Iraq: 'We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory."
3. Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal: "I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."
4. A new effort at Middle East Peace: "I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected."
5. Global leadership against climate change: "To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy.  We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards.  We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations."
6. Action against the global recession: "We worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink."
7. A new respect for the United Nations: "We have paid our bills.  We have joined the Human Rights Council.  (Applause.)  We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.  And we address our priorities here, in this institution  -- for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today."

Read the full speech here.

President Obama gave the speech on the day when the New York Times reported that the White House was reconsidering its strategy in Afghanistan. Vice President Joe Biden disagrees with US generals on the ground that more troops are needed. "Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban," the New York Times suggested, "American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics."

It is not clear if the consideration of alternatives represents a real change of heart since Obama promised an Iraq-style troops surge or is a necessary exercise to reassure Democrats that all alternative options have been explored.

Obama sets up new unit to interrogate high value terrorist detainees

The interrogation techniques used during the Bush years became a major new source of anti-Americanism.  The Bush administration approved techniques such as waterboarding (a simulation is pictured) and sleep deprivation (defended recently by Dick Cheney) but we are also now learning that other unauthorised techniques were used.  These included threatening to kill a detainee's children and revving a power drill near next to the head of a hooded detainee.  The Obama administration is now investigating whether CIA operatives who used unauthorised detainees should be prosecuted. 

Present Obama has said that there need be no conflict between American safety and American ideals and has set up a new unit to ensure ethical and scientific interrogation of suspects who could help provide information about America's enemies.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group will be headquartered at the FBI but will include expert operatives from other parts of the security establishment.

The Washington Post reports:

"Members of the new interrogation unit will have the authority to travel around the world to talk to suspects and will be trained to handle certain high-interest people, such as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Linguists and cultural and interrogation specialists will be assigned to the group and will have "some division of responsibility" regarding types of detainees, a senior administration official said. Most of the group's members will work there full time, although they will have part-time support from the FBI. Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. That could affect whether some material can be used in a U.S. court of law. The main purpose of the new unit, however, is to glean intelligence, especially about potential terrorist attacks, the officials said."

> Background on the HVDIG from the State Department.

Obama and Cheney clash over human rights and national security

In the debate about the closure of Guantanamo Bay perhaps the most interesting contribution was made by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Mr Gates, who was appointed by George W Bush and retained by Barack Obama, said that the Guantanamo detention facility was one of the best prisons in the world but its name was too potent a cause for America's enemies and critics:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yesterday, in clashing speeches President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney set out competing visions on national security and human rights. The table below has Obama's words in blue and Cheney's in red (click on the graphic to enlarge):

Taken from the Washington Wire.

Despite the rhetorical differences between Obama and Cheney the Wall Street Journal suggests that recent administration decisions owe much to Bush era doctrines:

"Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration, which he accused of making "decisions based upon fear rather than foresight," Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor's support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition. For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy."

In contrast David Brooks in the New York Times writes that the Cheney policy ended her Bush:

"The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats... By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period. They didn’t win every fight, and they were prodded by court decisions and public outrage, but the gradual evolution of policy was clear."

Obama u-turns on prisoner abuse photographs and military trials

As candidate Barack Obama was pledged to release photographs of abuse of prisoners by the military and to end the mililtary commissions that George W Bush established to try the inmates of Guantanamo Bay.

In recent days President Obama has reversed both of those positions.

He has decided that the release of abuse photographs will only risk inflaming opinion towards America and towards US forces in particular.  He has also reluctantly decided that military commissions - with reform - are the only effective way of trying prisoners who were captured in theatres of war.

Rich Lowry of National Review welcomes the White House's double shift:

"To the extent Guantanamo Bay has stoked terrorist recruitment, it probably has more to do with the photos of the facility from its earliest days — with captives bound, in orange jumpsuits — than anything that happened there. The most infamous photo from Abu Ghraib — of a man with a black hood over his head, his arms outstretched — has negatively branded the War on Terror for millions, no matter how sincerely we hope to protect Muslims from the depredations of the vile murderers in their midst. Obama isn’t going to subject us to another self-inflicted disaster in the information war. At least not yet. If he wants to keep the photos permanently under wraps — and show he’s truly willing to buck the loudest faction in his own coalition — he can’t rely on the courts, where he’s now appealing the decision to release them. He’ll have to issue an executive order exempting the photos from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Obama accelerates his 'America has changed' message

Last week was a big week for President Obama's mission to show that US foreign policy will be very different under his administration.  On climate change, 'torture', Cuba and relations with other American states he communicated his change agenda.  The BBC communicated all four shifts:

On climate change... "The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the move following a review of the scientific evidence. The decision marks a major change from the Bush presidency, when the EPA argued it could not regulate CO2 because the gas was not a pollutant."

Publication of 'torture' memos... "The US has published four secret memos detailing legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme. Critics of the programme say the methods used amounted to torture. President Barack Obama has also issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employees will be prosecuted for their role in the interrogation programme."

Friendlier relations with other American states... "President Barack Obama has said the US seeks an "equal partnership" with all the nations of the Americas. Mr Obama said in particular that he wanted a thaw in relations between the US and Cuba, having earlier shaken hands with one of the US's harshest critics, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez."

A easing of restrictions on Cuba... "US President Barack Obama has approved measures that will allow Cuban Americans to travel more freely to Cuba, his spokesman has said. Cuban-Americans will also be allowed to send more money to relatives in Cuba. The move, announced by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, comes after Mr Obama last month signed a spending bill easing some economic sanctions on Cuba."

Writing in the Financial Times Clive Crook attempted to define an Obama foreign policy doctrine.  He identified a key ingredient as personal warmth:

"Mr Obama’s willingness to start anew, ask what works, offer respect to governments that crave it (even if they may not deserve it) and patiently seek progress where he may is refreshing.

One aspect of this pragmatism is the president’s desire to build alliances and cool old enmities, and work towards US aims through co-operation rather than confrontation. The trouble is, most US presidents – including Mr Obama’s predecessor – felt the same way until the world beat it out of them. Foreign policy doctrine is put to the test only when co-operation in pursuit of mutual interests fails to achieve results, and the hard choices that Mr Obama insists he is willing to make actually present themselves.

Though it is much too soon to write off Mr Obama’s friendly overtures, you could hardly describe them so far as a notable success. He travelled to Europe this month and received ovations at every step; presidents and prime ministers jostled like giddy teenagers to be photographed with him. Yet he went away with nothing: no co-ordinated fiscal stimulus; no meaningful commitments of new military support in Afghanistan. Judged by the outcome, could his predecessor have done much worse?

The world agreed that North Korea’s missile test should be opposed; the US even hinted it might shoot the rocket down. The launch went ahead without repercussions. The US and its allies could not agree on a response.

The world believes that Iran should be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, but the allies drag their feet over sanctions."

Read the rest of Crook's piece here.

Joe Biden points to continuation of Bush's missile defence policy and new spirit of partnership in US foreign policy

In the first major foreign policy speech of the Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden has addressed the annual Munich Security Conference:

Promising a new spirit of cooperation and a new tone, pasted below are key extracts of Mr Biden's remarks:

The five top challenges facing our young century:

1. "The spread of mass destruction weapons and dangerous diseases;
2. A growing gap between rich and poor;
3. Ethnic animosities and failed states;
4. A rapidly warming planet and uncertain supplies of energy, food, water;
5. The challenge to freedom and security from radical fundamentalism."

America will compromise its ideals in delivering security

"America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those we bring to justice. And we will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Tough choices lie ahead. As we seek a lasting framework for our common struggle against extremism, we will have to work cooperatively with nations around the world – and we will need your help. For example, we will be asking others to take responsibility for some of those now at Guantanamo. Our security is shared. So, too, is our responsibility to defend it."

Iran can come out of the cold if it gives up its nuclear programme

"We are willing to talk to Iran, and to offer a very clear choice: continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon your illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

America will defeat Islamic extremists as it offers friendship to the Muslim world

"In the Muslim world, a small number of violent extremists are beyond the call of reason. We will defeat them. But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds share the values we hold dear. We will reach them. President Obama has made clear that we will seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It was not by accident that he gave his very first interview as President to Al-Arabiya.

[Earlier this week Hillary Clinton announced that her first foreign trip would be to a Muslim nation; Indonesia].

President Bush's missile defence programme will continue

"We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective."

America will support a stronger defence role for the EU

"We also support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership and deeper cooperation with countries outside the Alliance who share our common goals and principles."

We do not recognise a Russian 'sphere of influence'

"The United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

> Full speech here.