America in the World

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.

Obama says world is watching Iranian protestors "with deep admiration"

President Obama has broken from his holiday in Hawaii to respond to the unsuccessful Christmas Day airline bombing but also the situation in Iran.  Key extracts of what he said as released by the US State Department:

“What’s taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country; it’s about the Iranian people, and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves."

“I’m confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice."

"It’s telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.”

“For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days.”

“Each time that has happened, the world has watched with deep admiration for the courage and the conviction of the Iranian people, who are part of Iran’s great and enduring civilization.”

The President called for “the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained.”

***
See video below of peaceful protestors being attacked:

America condemns "violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran"

A National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer has issued the following statement about the violence in Iran:

"We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights. Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States. Governing through fear and violence is never just, and as President Obama said in Oslo - it is telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."

More images of protest here.

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 says he is "inspired" by Iranians' hunger for democracy

The extraordinary protests in Iran are captivating the world.  The best way of following the fast evolving developments is via Twitter (Google report).  Click here to do so.

Responding to the situation President Obama was careful not to be seen to be interfering but said that he was "deeply troubled" by the violence he was watching on TV.  He also said that he was "inspired" by the Iranian people's belief in democracy and freedom.  Describing many of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's views as "odious" he nonetheless said that his administration remained committed to a dialogue with Tehran.

Some American conservatives are furious with this stance.  "He has given the impression," editorialises the National Review, "that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it."  The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband backed Obama's careful statement, however.  He counselled that intervention on behalf of the protestors could be counter-productive:

"The long thesis of the conspiracy of foreign powers against Iran is one that is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination and peddled vociferously by the regime. What is very, very important is that we continue to show respect for the Iranian people - that's what President Obama did yesterday - that we continue to insist that it is for them to choose their government."

If Ahmadinejad holds on to his country's presidency it could make life difficult for Obama.  The BBC's Justin Webb describes "the result of the Iranian election [as] the worst possible outcome for President Obama":

"He could have coped quite cheerfully with an Ahmadinejad loss of course but also with a clean-cut win where he could have expressed respect for the government and moved on. But now it is difficult for him to deal substantively with a regime that seems so illegitimate - result: stasis. And the result of that could be growing pressure for any outreach to Iran to come to an end."

US Defence Secretary suggests military strike on Iran's nuclear capacity would be counter-productive

The LA Times is reporting that US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has told US Marines that any strike against Iran and its emerging nuclear capacities would be counter-productive in all but the short-term.

Secretary Gates warned that a strike against Iran would only "cement [the nation's] determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them."  He said that the only way of avoiding a nuclear Iran would be if "Iranians themselves decide it's too costly."

Israeli President Shimon Peres caused alarm in Washington at the weekend when he warned that Israel would strike Iran if President Obama's offer of dialogue with Tehran failed.  Israel's President also said, however, that "we certainly cannot go it alone, without the US, and we definitely can't go against the US."

It is not clear if Israel's new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, shares Peres' belief that America can veto action.  The headline of a recent Natanyahu interview was: Stop Iran, Or I Will.

Will Iran use Barack Obama's offer of negotiation to buy more time for their nuclear ambitions?

Iran's official broadcasters may have ignored President Obama's message to the nation's people and leaders but many Iranians will have accessed the message (full text here) via unauthorised satellite channels and the internet.

Britain's Times welcomes Barack Obama's offer of friendship but commentators on America's right are unpersuaded.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton noted that Iran - at least up until now - has only used talks to buy time.  Throughout extended talks with the EU it has continued steps towards building a nuclear weapon and has continued its support of worldwide terrorist groups.  In today's Wall Street Journal he writes about Iran's former Deputy Minister of Defense Ali Reza Asghari and his disclosure of Tehran's financing of Syria's nuclear weapons programme.