Remembrance

Today is the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust. On November 1, 2005, UN General Assembly Resolution 60/7 officially designated January 27, the date on which Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet army in 1945, as a day of remembrance to be observed worldwide. (Resolution 60/7 was the first resolution presented by Israel ever to be adopted by the UNGA.)

For more on the Holocaust, see the web sites of Yad Vashem and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, along with these posts:

• Auschwitz Sixty Years Later and
• If This Is a Man (on the poem of the same title by Primo Levi).

For those in the area who might be interested, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics at the Pepperdine University School of Law will co-sponsor a conference on Genocide and Religion next month (February 11-13). Details are available here.

Commander in Chief

What does it mean to be "commander in chief" under the United States Constitution? Historian Garry Wills contends that this manifestation of executive power, like most others, has been greatly inflated in recent years due to the increasing militarization of the United States.

Blackwater: The Legal Front

In case you're wondering (as I was) what the latest is on the legal front with respect to the wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater (noted in this post and this one), the answer comes from a story out of Raleigh, North Carolina:

Private security contractor Blackwater USA is seeking $10 million from the attorney representing the estates of four employees killed and mutilated in Iraq, arguing their families breached the security guards' contracts by suing the company for wrongful death.

Blackwater has also asked a federal court to move the dispute into arbitration, having failed so far in its ongoing efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Arbitration is necessary "in order to safeguard both (Blackwater's) own confidential information as well as sensitive information implicating the interest of the United States at war," attorneys for Blackwater Security Consulting, a unit of Moyock-based Blackwater USA, wrote in a petition filed December 20.

Dan Callahan, a California-based attorney representing the families, called the claim "appalling."

"This is a shock-and-awe tactic," Callahan said Friday. Blackwater's attorneys declined to comment.

There's a business model at stake in this litigation--not one that should be encouraged in a democracy.

Blackwater, Again

Jeremy Scahill has an interesting op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times on the significance of Blackwater USA for the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. He makes a number of points that were discussed here last fall (see October 30, November 5, and November 7), but he also notes that the idea for a Civilian Reserve Corps, which President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, was presented (in privatized form) two years ago by Blackwater USA owner Erik Prince.

Scahill writes:

Bush and his political allies are using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster.

Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.

Scahill's new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the Most Powerful Mercenary Firm in the World, is due out at the end of March.

Zap 'Em

The development of non-lethal weapons is a serious matter, but it's hard not to laugh when thinking about where the inspiration for these latest designs might have come from.

First, there's a microwave device that zaps bad guys 500 yards away. It doesn't cook them--that, to state the obvious, would make it a lethal weapon--but it does make them feel hot under the collar. Not angry hot under the collar, but "I feel an overwhelming desire to go jump in the nearest lake" hot under the collar.

Second, there's a spray-on equivalent of the banana peel. The "polymer ice," according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is supposed to "degrade the ability of our adversaries to chase us." It's suitable for use on streets, sidewalks, stairs, and dance floors in any country where plaintiffs' attorneys are in short supply.

Coming soon: automated ear-twisters.

[Via Foreign Policy Passport.]

Senator Hagel on "The Plan"

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. All eleven Democrats on the SFRC were joined by one Republican--Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska--in support of the resolution.

Although Senator Hagel was the only Republican to vote for the resolution, most openly expressed doubts about the President's conduct of the war during the debate.

Senator Hagel, however, took off the gloves. He said, "I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. . . . There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives."

[Via Talking Points Memo.]

US-CAP

Ten American corporations--including Alcoa, Caterpillar, DuPont, General Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric--and four major environmental organizations announced on Monday the formation of the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP). Gee offers more details here. For the new web site of the Climate Action Partnership, go here.

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Bush belatedly recognized the need for action on energy conservation and climate change, but his proposals were extraordinarily modest and avoided altogether some of the most effective regulatory changes that could be adopted.

Enriched Uranium To Go

Two cases of attempted smuggling of enriched uranium in the Republic of Georgia that are reported in tomorrow's New York Times have underscored the difficulty of accounting for--and securing--all the fissile material available in Russia and the former Soviet republics at the end of the Cold War. According to the Times, both in 2003 and in 2006, individuals with ties to Russian middlemen were arrested in Georgia while attempting to sell small quantities of uranium. The 100 grams of uranium seized in the January 2006 case, a sample apparently intended to seal a larger deal, was enriched to almost 90 percent U-235. In larger quantities--six to eight kilograms--U-235 at that level of enrichment could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

As Dan Caldwell and I note in Seeking Security in an Insecure World (p. 70), there is enough fissile material worldwide to produce over 100,000 nuclear bombs. A number of states--India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and Iran--are producing more even now. In the former Soviet Union, fissile material is often inadequately secured. Accounting systems are often in such disarray that the theft of stored fissile material can go unnoticed. Corruption among scientists, military officers, and government officials exacerbates the problem. While the United States has helped Russia to "blend down" large quantities of its highly enriched uranium and to secure even more, the two Georgian cases suggest that much more needs to be done.

The 9/11 Commission gave the government of the United States low marks--a "D," to be exact--in the area of preparation for nuclear terrorism. Given the news out of Georgia, it may be difficult to make the case for a higher grade.

Children in China

Beth Nonte Russell describes some of the effects of China's one-child policy in an op-ed in tomorrow's New York Times. As economist Amartya Sen first noted over a decade ago, one of the effects is a large number--60 million by 2010--of "missing" girls. Russell writes,

And what happened to these girls? According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (a term that takes on a whole new meaning when referring to China), there are about seven million abortions in China per year, 70 percent of which are estimated to be of females. That adds up to around five million per year, or 50 million by the end of the decade; so where are the other 10 million girls? If even 10 percent end up in orphanages . . . well, you do the math.

Although many girls in China end up in orphanages, the U.S. Department of State reports that Americans adopted only 6,493 Chinese children last year, down from 7,906 the year before.

Why aren't there more adoptions? Russell blames new Chinese government policies designed to make adoption difficult.

Under the new Chinese adoption guidelines, the international adoption celebrity Angelina Jolie could not adopt from China (she’s not married, and alas, she and Brad have more than two divorces between them, which is a no-no); nor could the actress Meg Ryan (again, not married). Another person who is not eligible is yours truly. My husband is over 50, so I would have to trade him in, marry again, wait the required five years (another new rule) before beginning the adoption process, and by that time I would be sneaking up on 50 myself.

It is comforting to know that Madonna is still eligible, at least until she turns 50, gets fat (the new regulations call for a body mass index of less than 40), gets divorced or goes broke (anyone with a net worth of under $80,000 is excluded).

Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are predicting "confusion in the social order" as more and more young males face the reality that there are simply not enough women to meet the demand in the marriage market.

More on Malibu's Dictator-in-Residence

This week's issue of LA Weekly, which hits the streets tomorrow, has an excellent story on the purchase of a $35 million estate in Malibu by the son of Equatorial Guinea's dictator. Diana Ljungaeus has dug much more deeply into the story than either Melissa Giaimo or I did back in November. (Ms. Giaimo wrote a very interesting front-page story for Pepperdine's newspaper, The Graphic, and I made some observations in a post titled "Welcome to the Neighborhood.") In addition to providing new details about the purchase and about the Obiang family, Ljungaeus's story discusses the failure of Malibuites, who are ordinarily quick to become involved in important political issues, to express any opinions about the dictator (or, to be more precise, the dictator-in-waiting) living just down the street.

In the interest of full disclosure--and to entice some of you to actually click on the link or pick up a copy of LA Weekly--I should point out that I'm quoted in the story. There's more: A photograph--of me. (Thank you, Diana Ljungaeus and Rena Kosnett.)

Freedom Stagnation

Freedom in the World 2007, the new edition of the annual report by Freedom House, was released today. The press release accompanying the report notes that the survey "found that the percentage of countries designated as Free has remained flat for nearly a decade and suggests that a 'freedom stagnation' may be developing."

Among its more specific findings, the survey indicates that

the number of countries judged by Freedom in the World as Free in 2006 stood at 90, representing 47 percent of the global population. Fifty-eight countries qualified as Partly Free, with 30 percent of the world’s population. The survey finds that 45 countries are Not Free, representing 23 percent of the world’s inhabitants. About one-half of those living in Not Free conditions inhabit one country: China.

Freedom in the World 2007 also states that in 2006 there were 123 electoral democracies in the world, the same number as the year before.

Civil Rights and Human Rights

The Allies' triumph over Fascism in World War II was, in large measure, a victory over claims of racial superiority or inferiority. Oppressed peoples everywhere took note and began to press claims for freedom and equality.

Those who organized the postwar international order paid attention to these claims. The Charter of the United Nations listed among the purposes of the organization fostering international cooperation "in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion" (Art. 1). Racial equality was clearly an idea whose time had come, but America's war against German and Japanese racism was fought not by blacks and whites standing shoulder to shoulder but by black units and white units, separate and unequal even as they fought a war against racism.

Cognizant of the inconsistency between America's support for human rights abroad and its segregationist policies at home, President Truman in 1946 appointed a Committee on Civil Rights to offer a way forward for the United States. A report issued by the Committee in 1948 noted the problems inherent in trying to exert moral leadership in the world while failing to address civil rights problems in the United States:

Our position in the post-war world is so vital to the future that our smallest actions have far-reaching effects. . . . We cannot escape the fact that our civil rights record has been an issue in world politics. The world’s press and radio are full of it. . . . Those with competing philosophies have stressed--and are shamelessly distorting--our shortcomings. . . . They have tried to prove our democracy an empty fraud, and our nation a consistent oppressor of underprivileged people. This may seem ludicrous to Americans, but it is sufficiently important to worry our friends. The United States is not so strong, the final triumph of the democratic ideal is not so inevitable that we can ignore what the world thinks of us or our record.

Truman issued an executive order calling for the integration of the United States military, a small first step. At the United Nations, Eleanor Roosevelt brought the work of the UN Commission on Human Rights to a successful conclusion in the matter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was approved, without dissent, by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The UDHR declared, in Article 2, that "everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

These were small steps, but to those opposed to civil rights they served as a call to arms. In the aftermath of Truman's reliance on the UN Charter rather than a congressional declaration of war as the legal authority for military intervention in Korea, both isolationists and segregationists (two groups with considerable overlapping membership) rallied around the Bricker Amendment, which (in various guises) was intended to prevent the president's treaty-making power from being used to alter the fundamental norms of the American constitutional system, including the nature of the relationship between states and the federal government. In essence, isolationists supported the Bricker Amendment in order to prevent the United States from becoming further involved in multilateral institutions and segregationists supported it in order to prevent international human rights law from advancing the civil rights movement. To block the Bricker Amendment in the Senate, President Eisenhower was forced to end U.S. involvement in negotiations toward an International Bill of Human Rights.

In essence, opposition to civil rights in the Senate had the ancillary effect of ending American leadership of the international human rights movement. To this day, the United States has still not recovered its position of leadership where human rights are concerned.

Addressing the MANPADS Threat

The threat to civil aviation from small shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, or MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems) has long been a source of concern. (I commented on it here in November 2004.) At Los Angeles International Airport today, Northrop Grumman unveiled a defensive system called "Guardian" that critics contend is too expensive to be affordable to the struggling airline industry and wrong-headed in its approach.

The system, mounted on a FedEx MD-10 cargo plane for an eighteen-month trial, employs directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) designed to disable the tracking mechanisms of anti-aircraft missiles. Originally developed for the military, the technology has been adapted by Northrop Grumman for use on commercial airplanes.

In addition to the cost of deploying the system (roughly $11 billion across the industry according to a study conducted by Rand in 2005), critics argue that Guardian represents a deviation from what ought to be the primary focus on surveillance. John Meenan, the executive director of the Air Transport Association, put it this way: "Isn't a surveillance program around airports better? Shouldn't we be doing more to go after the archer rather than trying to catch the arrows?" Meenan noted that there are other threats to commercial aviation such as rocket-propelled grenades that would not be addressed by the Guardian system.

The U.S. military currently uses a system called "Nemesis," based on the same technology as the Guardian system, on a variety of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft.

"Creatively Maladjusted"

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Via SojoMail (from Sojourners).]

Growing a Little Wiser

Take three minutes and listen to this commentary by conservative columnist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News.

[Via Matthew Gross, who provides text (and a broken link).]

On to Iran?

On Wednesday evening shortly after the President's speech, a professor and keen observer of military affairs (sometimes the two are not mutually exclusive) from another university e-mailed to say, "You heard it here first. . . . Watch in coming weeks for 'disrupting networks' in Iran to be (very thin) cover for initiating hostilities against Iran, rather like 'disrupting sanctuaries' was in Cambodia." Now, from today's Boston Globe, there's this:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused yesterday to rule out cross-border US military action against Iran, a day after President Bush pledged in a major speech to "seek out and destroy" Iranian and Syrian networks providing weapons and training to anti-American forces in Iraq.

My colleague is not the only one worried about the Cambodia precedent, according to the Globe story:

Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, compared the idea of pursuing Iranian networks to the secret 1970 expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia.

"Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did," he said. "So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

It's time for the checks and balances in our constitutional system to start working.

Terrorists on Your Desk

Does your 2007 desk calendar have photos of terrorists wanted by the United States Government? If not, you obviously don't have Counterterrorism 2007, a desk calendar published by the National Counterterrorism Center. But, not to worry. You can download the calendar here in this 15 MB .pdf file.

[Via Duck of Minerva.]

A Voice from Guantanamo

The Los Angeles Times today published excerpts of letters from Jumah al-Dossari, who has been imprisoned in Guantanamo since 2002. He describes being subjected to sleep deprivation, loud music, extreme cold, and threats to the life of his daughter.

In one letter, al-Dossari wrote,

If I die, please remember that there was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo whose beliefs, dignity and humanity were abused. Please remember that there are hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo suffering the same misfortune. They have not been charged with any crimes. They have not been accused of taking any action against the United States.

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the arrival of the first detainees at Guantanamo. It is a day that has been marked by protests all over the world.

The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd, which tells the story of the CIA from its origins in the early days of World War II (as the OSS) to the Bay of Pigs invasion, opened while I was in Europe and so I don't know much about the initial critical response. But because Eric Roth, who wrote the screenplay, has been telling me about the film for well over a year, I went to see it as soon as I could after my return to the U.S.

First of all, The Good Shepherd is a very thoughtful--and thought-provoking--film that is well worth seeing. But don't expect to fall in love with any of the characters (even though they are played by a star-studded cast) and don't expect to leave the theater feeling good. The story is one of idealism surrendered and virtue corroded by the burdens of secrecy. It is, in fact, painful to witness Edward Wilson--the main character, played by Matt Damon--try to deal with the tension between the moral demands of his job with the Agency and his personal moral responsibilities.

It is an open question whether the tenuous ethical position that Wilson holds at the end of The Good Shepherd is a consequence of his own failings or an inevitable result of his circumstances, but in either case the outcome is very problematic for those who would like to believe that those who make foreign policy can be successful without selling their souls.

Back in Business

My travel break, running from December 13 to January 1, merged into a second break during which I've been trying to catch up on things left undone during the travel break. It is long past time, though, to return to the blog. So, to those of you who are regular readers, thanks for your patience. Now that I've broken the ice with this post, I expect to have something to say (or at least something to link) almost daily for the foreseeable future.

My travels, for those who might be curious, took me (and my parents and my sons) to Italy, France, Monaco, Andorra, Spain, and Portugal by car. The route took us (more or less) from Milan to Monte Carlo, Avignon, Andorra la Vella, Montserrat, Zaragoza, Bilbao, Santiago de Compostela, Porto, Lisbon, Madrid, Aix-en-Provence, Florence, and back to Milan. We covered over 6,000 kilometers in just over two weeks, but most of the driving was done in relatively short daily stretches of 300 kilometers or so. All in all, it was a great trip.

Incidentally, if you left a comment during my absence, it was held up by design. I've now published most of the comments that I found when I returned and will get to the others soon.