Hydrablog

Dick Cheney and the use of classified information

2009-11-03T22:18:31Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203525.html
Dick Cheney and the use of classified information
By WALTER PINCUS Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [former bush white house] [the 2003 imbroglio that became the Plame case] [veep’s office and staff] [Veep Cheney, his role as veep, his habits, and the NSC process accommodated for him?] [*]
Then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney gave a surprisingly honest description of how top administration officials treat classified information when he was questioned more than five years ago by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, [*]who was then a covert CIA employee.
According to the FBI report on the May 8, 2004, session, released last week, the vice president was asked about testimony by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his chief of staff. Libby

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203525.html
Dick Cheney and the use of classified information
By WALTER PINCUS Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [former bush white house] [the 2003 imbroglio that became the Plame case] [veep’s office and staff] [Veep Cheney, his role as veep, his habits, and the NSC process accommodated for him?] [*]
Then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney gave a surprisingly honest description of how top administration officials treat classified information when he was questioned more than five years ago by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, [*]who was then a covert CIA employee.
According to the FBI report on the May 8, 2004, session, released last week, the vice president was asked about testimony by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his chief of staff. Libby had said Cheney authorized him on July 8, 2003, to disclose classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq to Judith Miller, then a reporter for the New York Times. [*]
Though the vice president said he could not recall any members of his staff, including Libby, being authorized to talk to Miller at that time, he did give his views on speaking to the news media about information in classified intelligence estimates.
"The vice president advised that it is possible to talk about something contained in a classified document without violating the law regarding declassification," [yes, of course, when it suits one’s political interests, then classification is mere inconvenince to be circumvented] [*] according to the FBI report. Cheney said he had made "numerous statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which were based on and, in some cases, tracked his reading of classified information," including a then-classified Iraq NIE. [*] [and we know well how he characterized those NIEs and infor the way he saw things and not necessarily how things were] [*]
He added that he "believed it was justifiable to rely on classified information to shape and inform what one says publicly," and that "this was a perfectly appropriate way to use the NIE." [*] [I don’t disagree] [I just find it interesting how mechanical he is with potentially embarrassing stuff here; of course he doesn’t think it’s potentially embarrassing because he saw it as crucial foreign-policy stakes that had to be won] [*]
What Cheney told Fitzgerald is, frankly, what presidents, national security advisers and senior officials at the Pentagon, State Department and CIA do all the time when they brief journalists on background or in off-the-record sessions: They use classified information to get out their side of a foreign policy story. [exactly] [*] When congressional opponents use classified information supporting a different point of view, those same administration officials quickly describe that as illegal leaking, and damaging to national security.
But Cheney tried to get around that complaint by adding a novel legal defense of his use of classified information. The FBI report said he told Fitzgerald that he "did not violate any relevant laws or rules in making these statements because he did not reveal the confidential sources or methods involved in gathering the classified information." [*]
That is a totally new reading of a variety of statutes that make it a crime to disclose classified or national security information. For Cheney, however, it may have been valid, because President George W. Bush had given him declassification authority. So technically, his public disclosure of classified information automatically removed the classification. [*]
Another highlight in the FBI report is personal.
Fitzgerald's investigation was an outgrowth of a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak. It was written less than a week after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV went public about being sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to see whether that country had contracted to sell uranium to Saddam Hussein. In his column, Novak named Plame, Wilson's wife; described her as "an agency operative"; and added that two senior administration officials had told him that "Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."
In June 2003, a month before Novak's column was published, I was investigating a line in a Nicholas Kristof column in the New York Times. It reported that, at Cheney's request, the CIA had sent a former U.S. ambassador to Niger and that the ex-ambassador reported back that no uranium sale to Iraq had taken place. [*]
My reporting had me calling Cheney's office on June 8, 9 and 10, 2003, about that reference to the vice president. Libby called me on June 11 and told me on background, so I could not identify him by name in a story, that Cheney had not known of the former ambassador's trip and did not request it. Libby made no mention of Wilson's wife, and she played no part in my June 12, 2003, story about Wilson's trip. [*]
Questioned in 2004 by Fitzgerald, Cheney said he could not remember when he was first told that Plame was Wilson's wife, although he thought he learned it from then-CIA Director George J. Tenet in June 2003. Cheney also said he "had no idea" what Libby knew about Plame before Novak's July 14 column. [*]
There has not been enough time to check all of Cheney's statements to Fitzgerald that day, but this one I already knew. A court filing by Fitzgerald released in 2007 reads: "Defendant [Libby] testified before the grand jury that he could have been a source for Walter Pincus's June 12, 2003 article, and that it was during preparation for providing information to Mr. Pincus that the Vice President informed him that former Ambassador Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." [*]© 2009 The Washington Post Company

U.S.S. New York Reaches Manhattan

2009-11-03T22:17:27Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/nyregion/03ship.html
November 3, 2009
U.S.S. New York Reaches Manhattan
By A. G. SULZBERGER [federal govt] [new US Ship, U.S.S. with tradition of italics for name: USS New York City] [new transport ship capable of moving up to 700 Marines and Sailors almost anywhere] [its crew are many New York and NY burrows residents] [stationed on this ship would be incredibly emotional just by virtue of why it was named as such] [bureaucracy] [upcoming commission ceremony] [*]
The U.S.S. New York reached New York City Monday morning, sweeping under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, pausing at the World Trade Center site and pushing along the Upper West Side before circling around, like a contestant in a beauty pageant, to dock in Midtown Manhattan.
It was the end of an inaugural five-day voyage from Norfolk, Va., for the ship’s official commissioning into the Navy fleet on Saturday, as well as an emotional “homecoming” for a

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/nyregion/03ship.html
November 3, 2009
U.S.S. New York Reaches Manhattan
By A. G. SULZBERGER [federal govt] [new US Ship, U.S.S. with tradition of italics for name: USS New York City] [new transport ship capable of moving up to 700 Marines and Sailors almost anywhere] [its crew are many New York and NY burrows residents] [stationed on this ship would be incredibly emotional just by virtue of why it was named as such] [bureaucracy] [upcoming commission ceremony] [*]
The U.S.S. New York reached New York City Monday morning, sweeping under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, pausing at the World Trade Center site and pushing along the Upper West Side before circling around, like a contestant in a beauty pageant, to dock in Midtown Manhattan.
It was the end of an inaugural five-day voyage from Norfolk, Va., for the ship’s official commissioning into the Navy fleet on Saturday, as well as an emotional “homecoming” for a vessel that was named for the state after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has 7.5 tons of steel from the twin towers cast into its bow. [*]
“It’s fantastic to be here,” said Cmdr. Curt Jones, the ship’s captain and a New York native, as he stepped out of the bridge to take in his surroundings. “It really does feel like we’re coming home.”
The sailors and Marines on board began lining along the rails of the ship early, well before 7 a.m., despite the wind and occasional drizzle that left many hopping from foot to foot to stay warm in their dress uniforms. The crew included a large number of New Yorkers who volunteered for the assignment, and they watched with anticipation as the city skyline emerged from a flat, gray dawn.
“I’ve seen this view before,” said Lavar Johnson, 29, a petty officer second class from Yonkers. “It’s just more significant now.”
The ship docked adjacent to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum on Manhattan’s West Side. The sailors and Marines aboard will spend the days leading up to the commissioning ceremony giving public tours of the blocky but technologically sophisticated vessel, and the many pieces of expensive military equipment it contains. Once in service, the ship, an amphibious transport dock, will be used to transport up to seven hundred Marines and combat equipment to conflicts around the globe. [*]
The Navy had raced to do the testing of the ship needed to meet its commissioning date, which is already emblazoned on a plaque inside. Lt. Rick Zabawa of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., who as the deck officer was the “conductor” of the ship’s movements in the hours before it docked, said the arrival in New York represented “the culmination of all this hard work.”
Those aboard were awakened Monday at 4 a.m., earlier than usual, with reveille whistles followed by the crackly sound of Frank Sinatra singing “New York, New York” [*] over the loudspeaker. As the rest of those on board were eating pancakes and eggs in the galley or getting into their dress uniforms, those on the red-lighted bridge of the ship assumed a quiet intensity in anticipation of the final navigation into and up the Hudson River.
About 5 a.m., a small boat sped alongside the warship and Neil Keating, 52, a harbor pilot, clambered up the gray metal exterior to help guide the ship through the busy waters. Mr. Keating, 52, had requested the assignment more than a year ago because his brother, a firefighter, died when the towers collapsed. [wow—that must be intense] [*]
“Today is bittersweet,” said Mr. Keating, who has helped ships travel in the harbor for more than 30 years. “For me, it’s an honor to be on board, but you hate to be on board for the reasons I am here. I think my brother would have been proud of me.”
By 6:30 a.m., the first of the sailors and Marines were making their way to the decks, to stake out good spots for the entry into the harbor. Some were excited about seeing New York for the first time, while others were enjoying the prospect of such a grand arrival to the area where they grew up.
“We’re riding through like the Cadillac of the fleet that we are,” said Sharef Talbert, 30, a petty officer first class from Newark, who has been readying the ship for its arrival since February. “There is no better way to ride into New York.”
As the ship continued up the river, helicopters rattled overhead and the surrounding waters filled with other vessels — police boats, tugs, barges, pleasure craft, and fireboats transformed into floating fountains. Spectators watched from the Circle Line. Rounding Battery Park, Cmdr. Erich B. Schmidt, the executive officer, spoke to the crew through a loudspeaker. “You’ve done a great job getting us here,” he said. “Enjoy it. That’s all.”
The ship came to a stop adjacent to ground zero, where a large crowd of onlookers had gathered along the shoreline, the military men lifted their hands in a long salute, followed by an honorary firing of guns. Some visibly teared up during the brief tribute. [*]
Afterward, the ship continued up the Hudson past the Firemen’s Memorial, at 100th Street, which in the weeks after 9/11 New Yorkers filled with baskets of flowers, loose candles and sorrowful notes, and which to many still evokes the losses of that day. Passers-by stopped to watch the spectacle of the enormous warship heading toward the George Washington Bridge.
When the ship finally eased into to its berth in Midtown at 10 a.m., the front section of bow, where the celebrated section of steel breaks the waves, already revealed the early, unavoidable streaks of rust of a ship at sea. [*]
Nina Bernstein contributed reporting.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Deportation suit against U.S. rejected

2009-11-03T22:16:35Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203637.html
Nation Digest
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
COURTS
Deportation suit against U.S. rejected
[Obama white house] [residuals, …] [federal judiciary] [courts and Canadian who was grabbed as terrorist] [follwup] [*]
A Canadian engineer cannot sue the United States over being mistaken for a terrorist a year after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit voted 7 to 4 to uphold a decision by a lower court judge dismissing a lawsuit by Syrian-born Maher Arar, who was detained as he tried to change planes in New York in 2002. [*]
Arar sued the U.S. government and top Justice Department officials, saying the United States sent him to Syria to be tortured days after he was picked up on a false tip from Canada

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203637.html
Nation Digest
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
COURTS
Deportation suit against U.S. rejected
[Obama white house] [residuals, …] [federal judiciary] [courts and Canadian who was grabbed as terrorist] [follwup] [*]
A Canadian engineer cannot sue the United States over being mistaken for a terrorist a year after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit voted 7 to 4 to uphold a decision by a lower court judge dismissing a lawsuit by Syrian-born Maher Arar, who was detained as he tried to change planes in New York in 2002. [*]
Arar sued the U.S. government and top Justice Department officials, saying the United States sent him to Syria to be tortured days after he was picked up on a false tip from Canada that he had ties to Islamic extremists. The lawsuit said Arar was allowed to see a lawyer only once. [god I remember this one] [*]
Syria has denied he was tortured. The Canadian government agreed to pay him almost $10 million after acknowledging that it had passed bad information to U.S. authorities.
The appeals court said it cannot let Arar sue the U.S. government without Congress enacting legislation that spells out exactly how a case as unusual as his can be brought and what potential remedy exists. Otherwise, the court said, allowing the lawsuit would "offend the separation of powers and inhibit this country's foreign policy."
Maria LaHood, a senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented Arar, said an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
-- Associated Press
Guantanamo detainee will be released: The Obama administration has decided to transfer overseas a Kuwaiti held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and will not appeal a court decision freeing him, the Justice Department said.
-- Reuters
FOOD SAFETY
. . . .
-- Associated Press
Imam enters plea in terror case: An imam accused of lying to FBI agents investigating an alleged bomb plot against New York pleaded not guilty Monday. Ahmad Wais Afzali, 37, was arrested in September as authorities tried to thwart the alleged plot by Najibullah Zazi, a Colorado man they say received training from al-Qaeda. Prosecutors say Afzali, who was an imam in the Queens neighborhood where Zazi once lived, lied in a statement denying he had tipped off Zazi.
Ariz. woman dies after days in coma: A young Iraqi woman whose father allegedly hit her with his car because he thought she had become too Westernized died from her injuries Monday after lying in a coma for nearly two weeks. [*]Noor Faleh Almaleki, 20, had been in a hospital since Oct. 20, when police say her father ran down her and her boyfriend's mother with his Jeep in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria. [*]
California's Bay Bridge reopens: The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is open to traffic again after emergency repairs, ending days of frustration for Northern California commuters. Two rods and a crossbar fell into rush-hour traffic lanes last week.
-- From news services © 2009 The Washington Post Company

Clinton tells Iran to adhere to plan

2009-11-03T22:15:39Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110200945.html
Clinton tells Iran to adhere to plan
Tehran questions uranium swap, talks of buying fuel instead
By Thomas Erdbrink Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [Iran’s WMD] [NSC principals and deputies; bureaucracy] [followup] [state department] [SecState Clinton and the Obama diplomatic team] [secState Clinton talking to Iran via media] [*]
TEHRAN -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday urged Iran to stick to an agreement to ship low-enriched uranium abroad for processing for use in a Tehran research reactor, after a senior official Iranian official said his country wants to instead purchase nuclear fuel.
Clinton said there should be no backing away from the deal with the United States and

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110200945.html
Clinton tells Iran to adhere to plan
Tehran questions uranium swap, talks of buying fuel instead
By Thomas Erdbrink Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [Iran’s WMD] [NSC principals and deputies; bureaucracy] [followup] [state department] [SecState Clinton and the Obama diplomatic team] [secState Clinton talking to Iran via media] [*]
TEHRAN -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday urged Iran to stick to an agreement to ship low-enriched uranium abroad for processing for use in a Tehran research reactor, after a senior official Iranian official said his country wants to instead purchase nuclear fuel.
Clinton said there should be no backing away from the deal with the United States and other countries, which was intended to slow any Iranian efforts at developing uranium for a nuclear bomb. "This is a pivotal moment for Iran," she said while traveling in North Africa. "Acceptance of this proposal would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated." [*]
Her comments came hours after the first Iranian statement on the issue since Iran formally submitted its response on the proposed deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Thursday. The contents of that response have not been made public.
"The key point is guarantee of providing the fuel," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency regarding the deal.
The United States, Russia and France formally announced their acceptance of the draft agreement last month.
In talks in Geneva on Oct. 1, Iran tentatively agreed to the arrangement, under which nearly 80 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile would go to Russia and France to be fashioned into fuel for the research reactor, [[*]which produces isotopes for medical purposes. As part of the deal, the United States would support IAEA efforts to help Iran ensure the safe operation of the reactor, built by the United States in the 1960s.
Soltanieh stressed that Iran wants more assurances that the exported fuel would be enriched to a higher level and returned. "With our past experience with non-trustable elements, in spite of paying for fuel, we didn't get it," Soltanieh said, echoing concerns by leading Iranian politicians, lawmakers and even opposition leaders that Western nations were trying to take Iran's stockpile but not return the altered uranium. [while I don’t tend to feel a lot of sympathy for Iran, he’s actually quite right on this point] [*]
Providing more guarantees for Iran would prove to be an "important and historic opportunity" for the IAEA and world powers to show their good intentions, Soltanieh said.
Soltanieh said Iran's other option would be to buy medium-enriched uranium on the world market, which he said it is officially entitled to do as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He noted that Iran was able to buy a batch of medium-grade uranium from Argentina in 1991 without problems.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung, traveling with Clinton in Marrakesh, Morocco, contributed to this report. © 2009 The Washington Post Company

Obama Warns Karzai to Focus on Tackling Corruption

2009-11-03T22:14:41Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/asia/03afghan.html
November 3, 2009
Obama Warns Karzai to Focus on Tackling Corruption
By HELENE COOPER and JEFF ZELENY [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [gsave] [former Marine, then foreign-service officer with state] [his thinking on the mess that is AfPak and why he’s now resigned?] [frankly, I don’t know what it may indicated—it’s just sort of interesting] [context: this is but one guy; I still have not heard McChrystul’s full justification] [nor have I heard the president articulate what he sees as American’s specific security interests] [President Obama sent direct signal to Karzai (one that I think was badly needed)] [use psci455, 355] [*]
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday admonished President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that he must take on what American officials have said he avoided during his

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/asia/03afghan.html
November 3, 2009
Obama Warns Karzai to Focus on Tackling Corruption
By HELENE COOPER and JEFF ZELENY [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [gsave] [former Marine, then foreign-service officer with state] [his thinking on the mess that is AfPak and why he’s now resigned?] [frankly, I don’t know what it may indicated—it’s just sort of interesting] [context: this is but one guy; I still have not heard McChrystul’s full justification] [nor have I heard the president articulate what he sees as American’s specific security interests] [President Obama sent direct signal to Karzai (one that I think was badly needed)] [use psci455, 355] [*]
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday admonished President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that he must take on what American officials have said he avoided during his first term: the rampant corruption and drug trade that have fueled the resurgence of the Taliban. [*]
As Mr. Karzai was officially declared the winner of the much-disputed presidential election, Mr. Obama placed a congratulatory call in which he asked for a “new chapter” in the legitimacy of the Afghan government.
What he is seeking, Mr. Obama told reporters afterward, is “a sense on the part of President Karzai that, after some difficult years in which there has been some drift, that in fact he’s going to move boldly and forcefully forward and take advantage of the international community’s interest in his country to initiate reforms internally. That has to be one of our highest priorities.” [*]
The administration wants Mr. Karzai and the Afghan government to put into place an anticorruption commission to establish strict accountability for government officials at the national and provincial levels, senior administration officials said Monday. [*] [though they haven’t even provided background attribution???] [*]
In addition, some American officials and their European counterparts would like at least a few arrests of what one administration official called “the more blatantly corrupt” people in the Afghan government. [*] [why? A dog-and-pony show?] [is that what they want to be about?] [*]
Administration officials [first attribution—pretty interesting as 2 nuggets of info provided before this paragraphy] [did they lead to this attribution or?] [*] declined to provide the names of people they wanted to see arrested and acknowledged that such arrests were a long shot. The international community’s wish list of potential defendants includes Mr. Karzai’s brother, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html Ahmed Wali Karzai, a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade; Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is accused of involvement in the killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners of war early in the Afghan conflict; and one of Mr. Karzai’s running mates, Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a former defense minister who is also suspected of drug trafficking.
“A couple of high-profile heads on a platter would be nice,” said one European diplomat involved in Afghanistan. The diplomat, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.
Obama administration officials have been pressing Mr. Karzai to take action against General Dostum and Mr. Fahim for several months. This summer, Mr. Obama even called for an investigation of General Dostum. Mr. Karzai instead allowed the general to return from exile and reinstated him to his government position, while the general endorsed Mr. Karzai and campaigned for him. [*]
The corruption problem has surfaced repeatedly as Mr. Obama has been holding meetings to review his Afghanistan strategy, administration officials said.
“The issue of the government’s competence and legitimacy, and how that fits into our ability to succeed in Afghanistan, has been thoroughly discussed in these meetings,” a senior administration official said. “Because we’re putting American and coalition troops on the line in part to make sure the government stands and has a chance to succeed, there has to be an effort on their part to improve their effectiveness and address corruption.”
Administration officials said that the biggest leverage they had with Mr. Karzai was the number of American troops in Afghanistan, a number that could change as Mr. Obama saw fit. [to put it mildly] [American troops are dying for this regime!] [is the regime worth American blood and treasure?] [**]
White House officials said Monday that the resolution of the election would not affect the timing of their review of military strategy.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the president’s announcement was still weeks away. [*] Mr. Obama is expected to hold at least one more meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and another with his national security advisers. [*]
On Monday Mr. Obama appeared to acknowledge the tough road ahead. Mr. Karzai, Mr. Obama said, “assured me that he understood the importance of this moment.”
“But as I indicated to him,” the president said, “the proof is not going to be in words; it’s going to be in deeds. And we are looking forward to consulting closely with his government in the weeks and months to come, to assure that the Afghan people are actually seeing progress on the ground.”
American and European officials appear to have abandoned any hope that Mr. Karzai’s rival, Abdullah Abdullah, might join in a coalition government.
Mr. Abdullah withdrew Sunday from a runoff that had been scheduled for next Saturday to resolve the uproar over a fraud-plagued first round of voting in August. On Monday, Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission announced there was no need for a runoff now that Mr. Karzai’s only competitor had withdrawn.
In Afghanistan, there had been little popular support for a unity government in which Mr. Abdullah would have a major role. For many Afghans a coalition government brings to mind the chaotic 1990s, when armed strongmen competed for turf in bloody battles that killed many Afghan civilians and destroyed large sections of Kabul.
Afghan political analysts as well as some citizens interviewed in Kabul said the election had undermined Afghans’ faith in democracy and strengthened the leverage of international players.
“This massive fraud has detracted from his authority and prestige,” Hamidullah Tarzi, an Afghan political analyst who served as a minister in two previous governments, said of Mr. Karzai. “Now the policy is not in the hands of Afghanistan. It is in the hands of the West.”
A shopkeeper in central Kabul, Sardar Muhammed, reached much the same conclusion: “It’s up to the world community how much to support Karzai. If they really want to bring change, they could.”
He added, “Karzai alone can’t bring any improvement.”
However, from the international community’s point of view, while Mr. Karzai is weaker in some ways, his very ability to survive is seen by some as a strength. [*] [crucial question: what has changed (apart from obvious increase in corruption) since 2004 when American elites could not say enough nice things about Karzai] [answer: he’s done nothing in all this time accept alienate Afghanis, become more responsive to traditional warlords, …] [*]
“It is too soon to say that he emerges weaker or stronger; both are possibilities,” said Haseeb Humayoon, an analyst at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War.
The pace of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan policy drew sharp criticism on Monday from several Republican leaders in Congress. Additional delays, they said, could endanger troops and erode efforts to battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
“Now that it is clear that President Karzai will remain in office, the White House has no further pretext for delaying the decision on giving General McChrystal the resources he needs to achieve our goals in Afghanistan,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, referring to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan. “There are no more excuses.” [*]
Frederick W. Kagan, a military expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised General McChrystal, said that a decision in mid- or late November to add to American forces meant that most of those troops would not be in Afghanistan until April or May, past the beginning of what is traditionally considered the spring fighting season in the country.
Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting from Washington, and Alissa J. Rubin from Kabul, Afghanistan. [perhaps somebody ought to say something about AIE’s affiliations?] [it’s not as thought Kagan doesn’t have vested interests here] [why do they shill for this guy?] [*]
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Karzai is wild card for U.S. strategy

2009-11-03T22:13:40Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202057.html
Karzai is wild card for U.S. strategy
Reelected leader could undermine Obama's efforts in Afghanistan
By Scott Wilson and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [gsave] [former Marine, then foreign-service officer with state] [his thinking on the mess that is AfPak and why he’s now resigned?] [frankly, I don’t know what it may indicated—it’s just sort of interesting] [context: this is but one guy; I still have not heard McChrystul’s full justification] [nor have I heard the president articulate what he sees as American’s specific security interests] [this was few NSC staffers with JCS locus?] [use psci455, 355] [*]
As the dust settles from Afghanistan's election, President Hamid Karzai's emergence as the victor by default cements the central dilemma facing President Obama as he decides whether to escalate the U.S. involvement in the war there. [*] [nice tease]

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202057.html
Karzai is wild card for U.S. strategy
Reelected leader could undermine Obama's efforts in Afghanistan
By Scott Wilson and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [gsave] [former Marine, then foreign-service officer with state] [his thinking on the mess that is AfPak and why he’s now resigned?] [frankly, I don’t know what it may indicated—it’s just sort of interesting] [context: this is but one guy; I still have not heard McChrystul’s full justification] [nor have I heard the president articulate what he sees as American’s specific security interests] [this was few NSC staffers with JCS locus?] [use psci455, 355] [*]
As the dust settles from Afghanistan's election, President Hamid Karzai's emergence as the victor by default cements the central dilemma facing President Obama as he decides whether to escalate the U.S. involvement in the war there. [*] [nice tease]
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan has proposed a strategy that would require an effective Afghan government to deliver services, support military operations and represent a viable political alternative to the Taliban insurgency. But Karzai's victory leaves in place a mercurial leader who has crossed administration officials in the past and whose record raises doubts about his willingness to take the steps necessary to reform his government. [*]
During weeks of internal deliberations about how to proceed with an increasingly unpopular war, Obama and his senior advisers have waited for the Afghan electorate to determine who will be their next partner in Kabul, even deciding to delay any strategy announcement until after the Nov. 7 runoff [*]vote. Karzai won reelection Monday without a second round after the withdrawal of his chief rival, Abdullah Abdullah, who left the race citing the risk of fraud.
But the decision by Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission to declare Karzai president deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul, the key to any strategy that emerges from the White House review. [as I said in PSCI355 yesterday] [*]
On Monday, Obama called Karzai to congratulate him. "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law," he told reporters at the White House. "But," Obama added, "I emphasized that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter based on improved governance, a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption, joint efforts to accelerate the training of Afghan security forces so that the Afghan people can provide for their own security."
The proposal of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, includes a request for about 44,000 additional U.S. troops to better protect Afghan population centers from the Taliban.
In his stark 66-page assessment of the war, he wrote that the "center of gravity" of the 100,000 international troops under his command "is the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population 'by, with, and through' the Afghan government." [**]
"A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution," McChrystal wrote. "This is their war and, in the end, ISAF's competency will prove less decisive than GIRoA's." The acronyms stand for the International Security Assistance Force he commands and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The White House is evaluating whether to adopt McChrystal's broad counterinsurgency strategy or a more narrow counterterrorism campaign focused on defeating al-Qaeda, whose leaders and foot soldiers operate in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A different U.S. president
Since the flawed Aug. 20 vote, the legitimacy of the Afghan government and Karzai's erratic role leading it has played a central part in the discussions, which are expected to continue in coming days when Obama meets for a second time with his Joint Chiefs of Staff. [*]
Obama's senior civilian advisers, including Vice President Biden, are skeptical that Karzai is serious about fighting corruption in his administration or improving the central government's performance sufficiently to win broad support from the Afghan public. [true enough but I imagine it would be fair to say McChrystul is skeptical] [*]
Biden and other administration officials backing the narrower counterterrorism effort have used Karzai's weakness to argue that Obama should not send additional combat forces to Afghanistan. Their plan would maintain the current troop level in the near term, step up the training of Afghan troops, support Pakistan's government in its fight against the Taliban, and attack al-Qaeda operatives in both [*]countries. [*]
Karzai, an elegant and engaging politician who once charmed Washington with his furry hat and cape, grew accustomed to the chummy interactions he had with President George W. Bush during frequent videoconferences and personal visits.
But 10 days before Obama's inauguration, Biden made it clear to Karzai that his interactions with the new president would be very different, telling him he would probably talk to him only "a couple of times a year." [versus veep Cheney] [*]
Biden and other Obama advisers believe the relationship that Bush developed with Karzai masked the Afghan leader's flaws and made it difficult to demand accountability. [common, recurring them in USFP: presidents and their personal relationships with wolrd leaders complicate USFP accountability] [*]They viewed Karzai as a vacillating leader, and planned to keep him at arm's length until he demonstrated better leadership and addressed the high-level corruption within his government.
Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, also made little secret in diplomatic circles of his desire to see other candidates emerge to challenge Karzai, which stoked anger in Kabul's presidential palace.
At dinner the day after the Aug. 20 vote, Karzai was exulting in the victory he claimed from early poll results. But Holbrooke refused to endorse Karzai's claim and, presidential aides said, spoke harshly to Karzai and said he believed a runoff would be necessary.
The evening started their relationship on a downward path from which it has not recovered. Holbrooke has not been back since, although he said he expects to visit Kabul within the next few weeks. [so, is it fair to say Holbrooke has been in support of the so-called Biden or “counterterrorism” approach???] [as well, where-how does Holbrooke fit into the NSC model in Obama?] [he’s not a statutory NSC principal!] [is he an ad hoc principal?] [probably but there’s the issue of his boss, who is a statutory NSC principal, Ms. Hillary Clinton] [*]
Ensuring legitimacy
Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai agreed to a second round of voting, which he was widely expected to win, letting him continue as the only president Afghanistan has had since the 2001 U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban government. Administration officials said his agreement was important to ensuring the legitimacy of the election process.
But whether Karzai's victory without a final vote undermines his legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghans themselves. The Karzai administration is already seen in Afghanistan as corrupt, and Obama administration officials have sought to identify local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.
A senior U.S. official involved in Afghanistan policy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the administration will pursue a "two-pronged" approach to improving the quality of government.
Karzai, the official said, will be urged to embrace a "compact with the Afghan people" that would make explicit commitments about local governance, corruption and other important issues. The official said senior members of Obama's national security team are weighing whether to tie the deployment of some additional troops and development resources to Karzai's progress on the compact.
At the same time, the official said, the U.S. government would seek to bypass Karzai by working more closely with members of his cabinet and by funneling more money to local governors. Karzai has the power to appoint and fire provincial governors, and administration officials worry that he will use the authority to remove local officials deemed effective by the United States to reward campaign supporters.
"Will he, for instance, fire the governor of Helmand and replace him with one of his cronies?" the official said. "How can we urge him from doing that? Those are the questions that will be getting more attention now." [*]
Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Marrakesh, Morocco, contributed to this report. © 2009 The Washington Post Company

Russia's search for an identity

2009-11-03T22:12:27Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202900.html
Russia's search for an identity
By Masha Lipman Tuesday, November 3, 2009
MOSCOW [oped] [c.f., today’s article on Russia’s culture of alcoholism] [Russian ethos] [use psci350] [use ir text] [*]
On Friday, as Russia recognized its annual commemoration of political prisoners, President Dmitry Medvedev published a videoblog in which he condemned Joseph Stalin's crimes and called on the nation not to forget about past political repression or its victims. Medvedev called Stalin's repression "one of the greatest tragedies in Russian history" and expressed concern that "even today it can be heard that these mass victims were justified by certain higher goals of the state." [*]He said that "no development of a country, none of its successes or ambitions can be reached at the price of human losses and grief." His

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202900.html
Russia's search for an identity
By Masha Lipman Tuesday, November 3, 2009
MOSCOW [oped] [c.f., today’s article on Russia’s culture of alcoholism] [Russian ethos] [use psci350] [use ir text] [*]
On Friday, as Russia recognized its annual commemoration of political prisoners, President Dmitry Medvedev published a videoblog in which he condemned Joseph Stalin's crimes and called on the nation not to forget about past political repression or its victims. Medvedev called Stalin's repression "one of the greatest tragedies in Russian history" and expressed concern that "even today it can be heard that these mass victims were justified by certain higher goals of the state." [*]He said that "no development of a country, none of its successes or ambitions can be reached at the price of human losses and grief." His statement, which led the state-controlled television news, was sharply at odds with official rhetoric of the past decade.
Medvedev's address may have sounded radical, but many here are skeptical that the president's words will actually bring change. The number of alarming signals of Stalin's rehabilitation is growing. And in general over the year and a half of his presidency, Medvedev's often well-intended rhetoric has not been matched with policy. [*]
But it would be wrong to dismiss the speech and conclude instead -- as observers at home and abroad sometimes do -- that Russia has made a definitive turn "back" toward the Soviet Union and an admiration of Stalin. In fact, perceptions of Stalin are conflicted, and this conflict reflects Russia's attempts -- very feeble, so far -- to reinvent itself as a modern nation. [ought to read the Post and LATimes who both in 2006(?) carried columns on embrace of Stalin by many Russians; both pieces were by Mr. Khruschev’s granddaughter] [*]
On the one hand, there is evidence of a warming in attitudes toward Stalin. In one recent example a stanza from the old Soviet anthem was returned to the Kurskaya metro station in Moscow. Those lines "Stalin raised us, he inspired us to loyalty to the people, to the labor and heroic deeds" had been removed in the 1950s as part of Nikita Khrushchev's de-Stalinization campaign; they were brought back this fall when the station's original decor was restored. Another instance is the prosecution, on a far-fetched pretext of privacy violation, of a provincial historian conducting archival research of the fates of ethnic Germans deported and killed on Stalin's orders. In December, Stalin came in third in a TV station's poll of greatest Russian historical figures. Contest organizers are rumored to have tinkered with the results after discovering that the man who masterminded the extermination of millions of his compatriots actually finished first.
Yet the peak of Stalin's terror is also recognized for what it was. In 2007, 72 percent of respondents told the Levada polling agency that the repression of 1937-38 were "political crimes that can't be justified." [*] The day of remembrance of political repression, officially introduced in 1991, is not marked by major national events, but on Thursday, just outside the infamous Lubyanka building, the KGB's headquarters and prison, the names of Stalin's victims were read for 12 straight hours by any who wanted to participate. Other commemorations were staged elsewhere in Russia. [*]
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently met with the widow of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and they discussed how best to teach his work "The Gulag Archipelago" in schools. Two years ago, Putin visited a site of mass executions in the 1930s. The Gulag volumes are available in bookstores, as are a broad range of works about the history of Communist terror and books that take a much more positive view of Stalin. Likewise on television, praise of Stalin and his henchmen appears side by side with series and programs based on works by Solzhenitsyn and other chroniclers of Stalin's repression. [*] [that’s pluralism almost by definition] [*]
The perception of Stalin and his crimes has much more to do with the nature of Russian statehood than with the monstrous actions of the man himself. Russians cling to the image of Stalin as the embodiment of the great state, and he is particularly inseparable from the triumph of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany. [*]The implication is that individuals may have been cowed, and that the ferocious state treated them mercilessly, but the state was the vehicle that inspired Russia's victory in world War II, its greatest achievement of the 20th century. Ruling elites today are no longer ferocious; rather, they are seen as greedy and self-serving, but the model of the omnipotent state and the impotent people is still generally accepted.
For the government, this acceptance of Stalin and the paternalistic state-society pattern may be handy as a way to consolidate power. But some in the decision-making circles do seem to realize that current social, political and economic models are unable to produce growth and development. From Putin and Medvedev down, modernization has become the mantra. But modernization is incompatible with a statehood based on the specter of Stalin and faith in the magic empowerment of the apathetic people by forces of the state. Unless Russia reinvents itself and takes real steps to encourage people's entrepreneurship and creativity, talk of modernization will remain hollow.
Medvedev's speech points in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by changes in policy to carry weight. Moreover, for change to succeed, the president will need to build a constituency that will trust him, share his objectives and work toward their implementation. As long as there is no such constituency in sight, Stalin's name engraved in marble in the Moscow metro will outweigh Medvedev's humane words. [*]
Masha Lipman, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal, writes a monthly column for The Post. © 2009 The Washington Post Company

Freedom of the Press

2009-11-03T22:11:19Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue2.html
November 3, 2009
Editorial
Freedom of the Press
[editorial] [media shield] [Obama white house and …] [obviously the NYTs has vested interest in one] [followup] [*]
The Obama administration and Congress appear to be moving toward agreement on a federal shield law, which would protect reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The bill that is emerging is not perfect, but it would help ensure that Americans get the information they need about the workings of government, business and other institutions that affect their lives.
Senate Democrats and the administration have tentatively agreed on a bill that would, in some cases, allow judges to quash subpoenas asking reporters for information on

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue2.html
November 3, 2009
Editorial
Freedom of the Press
[editorial] [media shield] [Obama white house and …] [obviously the NYTs has vested interest in one] [followup] [*]
The Obama administration and Congress appear to be moving toward agreement on a federal shield law, which would protect reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The bill that is emerging is not perfect, but it would help ensure that Americans get the information they need about the workings of government, business and other institutions that affect their lives.
Senate Democrats and the administration have tentatively agreed on a bill that would, in some cases, allow judges to quash subpoenas asking reporters for information on confidential sources. Parties wanting to force reporters to testify about sources would have to show that the information is essential to their cases. Judges would then balance the desire to reveal a source against the public interest in news gathering.
The level of protection would depend on the kind of case. In civil cases, the burden would be on the party that wants the information to show that the interest in disclosing it clearly outweighs the interest in protecting it. In criminal cases, the test would be tilted more toward disclosure. Reporters would have to answer a subpoena unless they could make a “clear and convincing” case that the public interest in the free flow of information argued against it. [*]
Cases involving classified information would generally work the same way. But a judge would not be able to quash a subpoena if prosecutors could show that the information they wanted would help prevent a terrorist attack or other acts likely to cause significant harm to national security.
It is gratifying that the Obama administration, which had been wavering, agreed to the compromise. Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat of New York, deserves credit for helping get the deal done. Senator Arlen Specter, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, and Patrick Leahy, [*]a Democrat of Vermont, also provided support.
Among the weakest points of the compromise is the standard for criminal cases, which puts too heavy a burden of proof on reporters. It is also unfortunate that the agreement does not protect nonconfidential material, such as information in reporters’ notes that does not make it into a newspaper article. [*]
Over all, however, the bill would be a clear improvement on the status quo. The House has already passed its shield bill. The Senate should pass this compromise bill quickly, and the president should sign it into law.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

President Karzai’s Second Term

2009-11-03T22:10:32Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue1.html
November 3, 2009
Editorial
President Karzai’s Second Term
[editorial] [Mr. Karzai and Mr. Obama] [*]
We regret the decision by Afghanistan’s opposition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, to withdraw from this week’s runoff election for the presidency. After President Hamid Karzai’s supporters tried to steal the first-round vote, Mr. Abdullah had strong reason to mistrust the process. But Afghan voters deserved another chance. And Afghanistan’s government — under assault from the Taliban and its own corruption and incompetence — desperately needed the legitimacy of a cleaner vote. [*]
Now that Mr. Karzai has been re-elected by default, he is going to have to do everything in his power to persuade his people — and the rest of the world — that he is deserving of

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue1.html
November 3, 2009
Editorial
President Karzai’s Second Term
[editorial] [Mr. Karzai and Mr. Obama] [*]
We regret the decision by Afghanistan’s opposition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, to withdraw from this week’s runoff election for the presidency. After President Hamid Karzai’s supporters tried to steal the first-round vote, Mr. Abdullah had strong reason to mistrust the process. But Afghan voters deserved another chance. And Afghanistan’s government — under assault from the Taliban and its own corruption and incompetence — desperately needed the legitimacy of a cleaner vote. [*]
Now that Mr. Karzai has been re-elected by default, he is going to have to do everything in his power to persuade his people — and the rest of the world — that he is deserving of their trust. After the last seven years of mismanagement and corruption, that will be a hard sell. [*]
The Obama administration, which had to twist Mr. Karzai’s arm to get him to agree to a runoff, is going to have to twist even harder to get him to build a viable government. President Obama’s characterization Monday of the Afghan election process as “messy” was, to say the least, an understatement. We hope that he and his aides are talking a lot tougher in private.
To start, Mr. Karzai must appoint a new group of ministers and provincial governors who are committed to rebuilding their country, not enriching themselves. [*](We hope rumors that he plans to fire the competent governor of Helmand Province, Gulab Mangal, are false.) The Interior Ministry, which oversees the corruption-plagued Afghan national police, must be reformed. The agriculture, energy and private development agencies all need better leadership.
The Afghan people need to see their government working to protect them and improve their lives if they are going to risk their lives and resist the Taliban. [I think many would be statisfied if their govt stopped proactively screwing them] [*]
Mr. Karzai must also reach out to members of the opposition, choosing competent technocrats for senior jobs. Mr. Abdullah has ruled out joining a unity government. But the government would be stronger if some of his supporters decided to participate. We hope Mr. Abdullah is committed to playing an active, constructive role in Afghan politics. [are you joking] [like most everyone else in Afghanistan, Mr. Abdullah is interested in what ensures Mr. Abdullah’s interests] [*]
Mr. Karzai must — urgently — break ties with his most unsavory cronies. During the campaign, he allied himself with Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, a notorious warlord whose forces have been accused of killing thousands of Taiban prisoners of war in 2001. Justice demands that General Dostum stand trial for his crimes. [*]
And Mr. Karzai must finally cut his ties with Ahmed Wali Karzai, his brother who, [I means does this sound like Diem or what???] [Vietnam] [I don’t have it just at my fingertips but I remember reading NYTs editorial or column handwringing about Nhu and how Diem had to give him the sack] [**] American officials say, is a big player in the opium trade. Washington must also cut its ties with the younger Mr. Karzai, a member of the Kandahar provincial council and the most powerful figure in an area where the Taliban insurgency is the strongest. The Times reported last week that he has received regular payments from the C.I.A. for the past eight years. That must end.
Getting a credible government in place is essential. But it is only a first step. The list of policy problems that have been ignored or mismanaged is depressingly long. President Karzai needs to work with the Americans to come up with a strategy to try to woo midlevel Taliban leaders in from the cold. The two governments need to quickly develop a plan to accelerate training of the Afghan security forces.
Mr. Karzai and the Obama administration don’t have much time to get this right. The Taliban’s military strength is growing by the day. Americans’ appetite for the Afghan war is evaporating nearly as quickly.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat

2009-11-03T22:09:31Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html
November 3, 2009
Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat
By SINDYA N. BHANOO [Africa] [near equatorial Africa] [Tanzania] [global climate change] global commons] [followup] [Kilimanjaro as barometer of climate change—it’s long been a special exemplar] [*]
The ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania has continued to retreat rapidly, declining 26 percent since 2000, scientists say in a new report.
Yet the authors of the study, to be published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reached no consensus on whether the melting could be attributed mainly to humanity’s role in warming the global climate. [*]

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html
November 3, 2009
Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat
By SINDYA N. BHANOO [Africa] [near equatorial Africa] [Tanzania] [global climate change] global commons] [followup] [Kilimanjaro as barometer of climate change—it’s long been a special exemplar] [*]
The ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania has continued to retreat rapidly, declining 26 percent since 2000, scientists say in a new report.
Yet the authors of the study, to be published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reached no consensus on whether the melting could be attributed mainly to humanity’s role in warming the global climate. [*]
Eighty-five percent of the ice cover that was present in 1912 has vanished, the scientists said. [wow; how often has that much disappeared?] [*]
To measure the recent pace of the retreat, researchers relied on data from aerial photographs taken of Kilimanjaro over time and from stakes and instruments installed on the mountaintop in 2000, said Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and one of the study’s authors.
The photographs measure horizontal shrinkage of the ice, and the stakes indicate the reduction in depth. Both are decreasing at the same rate, Dr. Hardy said.
Researchers studying the mountaintop, including those involved in this study, differ in their conclusions on how much of the melting could result from human activity or other climatological influences. [*]
The lead author of the study, Lonnie G. Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, has concluded that the melting of recent years is unique. [*] [go bucks]
In 2000 he extracted deep cylinders of ice from Kilimanjaro’s glaciers and found that the higher layers were full of elongated bubbles — signs that melting and refreezing had occurred in recent years.
There was no presence of the bubbles in the deeper layers of the cores, Dr. Thompson said.
If his dating of the ice core layers is accurate, surface melting like that seen in recent years has not occurred over the last 11,700 years. [*]
But Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the Institute for Geography of the University of Innsbruck in Austria, said that the ice measured was only a few hundred years old and that it had come and gone over centuries. [*]
What is more, he suggested that the recent melting had more to do with a decline in moisture levels than with a warming atmosphere.
“Our understanding is that it is due to the slow drying out of ice,” Dr. Kaser said. “It’s about moisture fluctuation.”
But Dr. Thompson emphasized that the melting of ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro was paralleled by retreats in ice fields elsewhere in Africa as well as in South America, Indonesia and the Himalayas.
“It’s when you put those together that the evidence becomes very compelling,” he said.
Cabinet to Meet on Mt. Everest [*]
KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) — Nepal’s cabinet will hold a meeting on Mount Everest to highlight the threat from global warming, which is causing glaciers to melt in the Himalayas, an official said Monday.
The cabinet will meet at the Everest base camp this month, just before an international climate change conference in December in Copenhagen, said Deepak Bohara, the forest and soil conservation minister.
Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and other cabinet members will fly by plane to the 17,400-foot camp, the starting point for mountaineers trying to climb the world’s highest mountain.
Last month, the cabinet of Maldives donned scuba gear and held an underwater meeting to highlight the threat of global warming to that nation, the world’s lowest.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

European Union Treaty Clears Its Final Hurdle

2009-11-03T22:08:36Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04europe.html
November 4, 2009
European Union Treaty Clears Its Final Hurdle
By DAN BILEFSKY and STEPHEN CASTLE [Europe] [EU] [European governance] [Lisbon Treaty?] [use psci350] [create executive for foreign policy?] [followup] [*]
PRAGUE — The landmark treaty that would raise the profile of the European Union and streamline decision-making among its member states cleared its last major obstacle on Tuesday, all but ensuring that it will become law.
The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, signed the document hours after the country’s

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04europe.html
November 4, 2009
European Union Treaty Clears Its Final Hurdle
By DAN BILEFSKY and STEPHEN CASTLE [Europe] [EU] [European governance] [Lisbon Treaty?] [use psci350] [create executive for foreign policy?] [followup] [*]
PRAGUE — The landmark treaty that would raise the profile of the European Union and streamline decision-making among its member states cleared its last major obstacle on Tuesday, all but ensuring that it will become law.
The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, signed the document hours after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that the Lisbon Treaty was compatible with the Czech Constitution.
Mr. Klaus, a vociferous critic of the treaty and of the European Union in general, had been the last holdout on treaty, which had to be ratified by all 27 member states to come into effect. He had insisted that he could not endorse the treaty until the court delivered its verdict.
His statement that he had signed the document was brief.
“I had expected the court ruling and I respect it, although I fundamentally disagree with its content and justification,” Mr. Klaus told reporters in Prague, according to Reuters. The treaty’s supporters argue the treaty will raise the bloc’s stature on the international stage, but its detractors counter that it will centralize power in Brussels and create a European superstate. [**]
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, forecast Mr. Klaus’s signing after the Czech court ruling.
“Together with the commitments given by all member states to the Czech government at the European Council last week,” he said in a statement, “I believe that no further unnecessary delays should prevent the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.”
Analysts had been uncertain to the last whether Mr. Klaus was ready to sign. Last week, European leaders agreed to his last-minute demand to opt out from the treaty’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which he had argued could lead to a flood of property claims by Germans expelled from the country after World War II. Mr. Klaus welcomed the agreement and indicated he would not make further demands. [*]
On Wednesday, he will travel to the United States for a four-day trip during which he will meet Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and deliver a speech on climate change.
The Constitutional Court was asked to rule by a group of 17 senators loyal to Mr. Klaus on whether the treaty violated the Czech Republic’s Constitution. The court dismissed a similar complaint last year.
Because of the Czech delays, European leaders were unable to decide at a summit meeting in Brussels last week on whom to appoint as president and foreign affairs chief, new posts established by the treaty. [and lots of grumbling about smaller nation-state members who were said to “shanghai” the union, etc] [*]
Those decisions have been delayed until a special summit meeting, which will be called sometime this month.
Unofficial discussions, which took place last week’s meeting, indicated that the prospect of the presidential job going to Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, had faded. [*]
Several lower-profile figures, including the prime ministers of Belgium and the Netherlands, Herman Van Rompuy and Jan Peter Balkenende, and the former Austrian prime minister, Wolfgang Schüssel, appeared more likely as contenders. [*]
For the foreign policy post, most officials now expect a candidate from the center-left, with the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the former Italian prime minister, Massimo D’Alema, considered to be front-runners.
A French candidate could also emerge, and Prime Minister François Fillon has been mentioned as a possible president.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Karadzic Makes Appearance in Court

2009-11-03T22:07:50Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04karadzic.html
November 4, 2009
Karadzic Makes Appearance in Court
By MARLISE SIMONS and JACK HEALY [Netherlands] [Hague] [various war tribunals] [the Bosnia war crimes tribunals] [Mr. Karadzic, captured in 2008?] [followup] [*]
PARIS —The former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic made his first appearance at his trial on Tuesday to argue that he needed more time to prepare his defense against charges of genocide.
The videocast from the courtroom showed him taking his seat in the dock, dressed in a

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04karadzic.html
November 4, 2009
Karadzic Makes Appearance in Court
By MARLISE SIMONS and JACK HEALY [Netherlands] [Hague] [various war tribunals] [the Bosnia war crimes tribunals] [Mr. Karadzic, captured in 2008?] [followup] [*]
PARIS —The former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic made his first appearance at his trial on Tuesday to argue that he needed more time to prepare his defense against charges of genocide.
The videocast from the courtroom showed him taking his seat in the dock, dressed in a dark suit and saying that he had not been given enough time to pore over the reams of documents and hours of audio testimony from witnesses.
Mr. Karadzic, who is defending himself, suggested he would continue to sit out his trial, which began with prosecutors laying out their case last week. [*]
“I in no way wish to boycott this process,” he said though a translator. But, he added, “I cannot take part in something that has been bad from the start, and where my fundamental rights have been violated.”
The war-crimes tribunal in the Hague is discussing how to proceed if Mr. Karadzic keeps defying the tribunal and saying he is not ready for his trial.
Mr. Karadzic’s stance remains that the timing of his appearance is up to him. “I am continuing to work hard to prepare for my trial and look forward to making my own opening statement as soon as I am in a position to do so,” Mr. Karadzic wrote in a letter to the chief judge, which was released Monday. [*]
Over the first days of the trial, prosecutors have been laying out their case that Mr. Karadzic, who spent 11 years as a fugitive, committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 1992-95 Bosnian war. [as his own lawyer, he needs to hear the prosecution’s case] [so expect him later to say he needs extra time to read the transcripts, etc., in order to prepare his cross examination] [*]
The prosecution plans to begin presenting its evidence against him on Wednesday, with testimony from two witnesses. [*]
But if Mr. Karadzic decides to boycott his trial further, the damage could be profound.
On his side, if court lawyers are assigned to him, he might lose his desired platform to tell his own version of the war years. But the tribunal would also lose much time, because new court-appointed lawyers would require months to prepare. [*]
Peter Robinson, a legal adviser to Mr. Karadzic, said by telephone that he would refuse such an appointment and “would not want to be used as a tool” against Mr. Karadzic’s wishes.
Over what is expected to be 30 months of proceedings in Mr. Karadzic’s case, the prosecutors will focus on linking him to the episodes outlined in the charges.
They argue that Mr. Karadzic was the undisputed Bosnian Serb wartime leader and that he made crucial political decisions and had command over the local government, the police and the military during the war. They say he instigated, ordered, sanctioned or knew of the crimes. [it certainly appeared that way in the West] [but I would suggest that the West’s media coverage was quite biased] [I’m not aplogist for Serbs but even when it was one of the other groups casing problems (in Bosnia or Kosovo, in Croatia and Slovenia, …) the West could not slam the Serbs enough] [*]
The prosecution holds Mr. Karadzic accountable for what it calls four distinct criminal enterprises: the ethnic cleansing campaign in eastern Bosnia, in which hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes; the 44-month siege of Sarajevo during which more than 10,000 were killed; the execution of more than 7,000 men and boys at Srebrenica; and the taking of more than 200 United Nations peacekeepers hostage.
Alan Tieger, who is an American and the lead prosecutor, has cited Mr. Karadzic’s own words, drawn from public speeches, telephone intercepts and video clips, as he prepared his followers for war or urged them to keep on fighting. Mr. Tieger painted a picture not of a civil war that broke out in the heat of confrontations, as is often claimed, but one that was carefully planned, with the backing of the Serbian government, to replace Bosnia’s multiethnic state with a Serbs-only one. [my own view is that Serbia did most of the stuff with which it’s been charged] [it’s just that the others were doing despicable things as well and Serbs took 80-90 of the blame in western media] [*]
One phone tap from 1991, in advance of the war, recorded Mr. Karadzic as saying that there were “20,000 armed Serbs” already around the city of Sarajevo. “It will be a black caldron where 300,000 Muslims will die,” Mr. Karadzic went on, according to Mr. Tieger’s argument in court on Monday. “They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.” [it sort of like the classic. Imagine some resident of Washington. He’s walking downtown. A “foreigner” comes up to the local and asks: which way (can you tell me how to walk to the White House?)?] [now, was he simply asking for directions? Or was he interrogating me on classified White House business?] [answer: from the information it cannot be determined] you need more context] [was Karadzic lamenting their eventual deaths or celbrating?] [*]
In another recorded telephone call, an associate of Mr. Karadzic asked about Europe’s reaction to a coming military campaign, to which Mr. Karadzic replied, according to the prosecutor, “Europe will be told to go [expletive] itself and not to come back until the job is finished.”
“The job,” Mr. Tieger said, started in 1992 as 70,000 Bosnian Serb and Serb volunteers and paramilitary units were recruited and armed. Aided by the military and the police, they swept through dozens of towns and villages, looting, killing and driving tens of thousands of non-Serbs from their homes. Many of the non-Serbs fled; others were locked up in dozens of detention camps, starved, tortured or raped, he said.
“Ethnic cleansing does not appear the consequence of the war, but rather its goal,” Mr. Tieger said.
The panel of four international judges trying the case allowed prosecutors to present their opening statement in the absence of Mr. Karadzic, or a legal representative, because the two-day summary serves as an overview of the prosecution case and does not count as evidence.
Marlise Simons reported from Paris and Jack Healy from New York.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Russia Tries, Once Again, to Rein in Vodka Habit

2009-11-03T22:06:55Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/europe/03alcohol.html
November 3, 2009
Russia Tries, Once Again, to Rein in Vodka Habit
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [Russia’s rather serious problems with alcoholism] [I recall during Gorby’s regin a push to lower rate and increase productivity associated with same] [*]
MYTISHCHI, Russia — It was late on a Monday afternoon at the drunk tank in this Moscow suburb, but it could have been any day, at any hour, at any similar facility across this land. People would come. They always do. Such is Russia’s ruinous penchant for the bottle —

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/europe/03alcohol.html
November 3, 2009
Russia Tries, Once Again, to Rein in Vodka Habit
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [Russia’s rather serious problems with alcoholism] [I recall during Gorby’s regin a push to lower rate and increase productivity associated with same] [*]
MYTISHCHI, Russia — It was late on a Monday afternoon at the drunk tank in this Moscow suburb, but it could have been any day, at any hour, at any similar facility across this land. People would come. They always do. Such is Russia’s ruinous penchant for the bottle — and the challenge facing a new government policy to curb it. [*]
First to be escorted in by police officers was a construction worker named Damir M. Askerkhanov, who said he had been bingeing on vodka and beer — “This is my very own holiday!” — before he was found stumbling about in the cold. At 23, he admitted that he had already been picked up intoxicated twice recently. “Only even drunker,” he said.
Sergey A. Yurovsky, 36, who is studying to be a government clerk, arrived next, mumbling and getting tangled up in his sweater when he was asked to take it off for a brief medical exam. After he was moved to a room to sober up, and dozed off, officers showed up with Larisa V. Lobachyova, 53, whose hair was matted with dirt from a fall.
“It is this way all the time,” said Inspector Igor I. Poludnitsyn, who has supervised the drunk tank for seven years. “It is our national calamity.” [*]
Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has been voicing that sentiment a lot lately, declaring that the government must do something about the country’s status as a world leader in alcohol consumption. [*]
The Kremlin has already vanquished one vice this year, casino gambling, which it all but banned in July. But drinking — vodka in particular — is another thing entirely. It is a mainstay of Russian life, both a beloved social lubricant and a ready means for escaping everyday hardship. [*]
Mr. Medvedev is seeking steeper penalties on the sale of alcohol to minors, as well as a crackdown on beer, which has grown more popular among young people. Beer sales at kiosks would be banned, as would large beer containers. The government may seek more control over the market for vodka, still the most common alcoholic beverage. [*]
His plan, though, follows a long line of failed anti-alcohol campaigns here, going back centuries. The most notable was pressed by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, who in the mid-1980s ordered shelves emptied of vodka and historic vineyards razed. [per my comments in header] [*] Those measures succeeded at first, resulting in a nationwide bout of temperance that even increased life expectancy.
But they also touched off a severe public backlash that damaged the standing of Mr. Gorbachev and the Communist Party, and he eventually relented. [*]
In recent years, as Russia has rebounded and engaged more with the world, alcohol has hindered its development. Foreign companies that operate here are particularly aware of the toll as they grapple with lower productivity. [**]
Russians consume roughly 4.75 gallons of pure alcohol a person annually, more than double the level that the World Health Organization considers a health threat. The consumption figure for the United States is about 2.3 gallons. [*] [twice the US rate]
The country will have difficulty resolving its demographic crisis — its population is predicted to drop nearly 20 percent by 2050 — if it does not confront its alcohol problem. Life expectancy for Russian men is now 60 years, in part because of alcoholism. [health and productivity issues are huge] [*]
Researchers studying mortality in three industrial cities in Siberia in the 1990s found that in several years, alcohol was the cause of more than half of all deaths of people ages 15 to 54, often from accidents, violence or alcohol poisoning, [in Siberia—wow!] [*] according to a report this year in The Lancet, a London-based medical publication.
The Public Chamber, a Kremlin advisory panel, has asserted that roughly 500,000 people die annually in Russia from causes directly related to or aggravated by alcohol.
“No matter what people say about it being too deep-rooted in our culture, about it being practically impossible to fight alcoholism in Russia,” Mr. Medvedev said in August, “we must recognize that other countries, and you know them yourselves, have been successful in their efforts to address this issue.” [*]
Several experts said they doubted that the government would accomplish much unless its plan was drastically strengthened. They said the most important step would be to raise vodka prices significantly through heavier taxation and the closing of unlicensed distilleries. A half liter of vodka now costs as little as $2. [*]
They pointed out that in other countries, like France, people drink heavily, but mostly wine and beer, which are seen as less harmful. The trouble here is hard liquor. [*]
In Mytishchi, with a population of 170,000, Inspector Poludnitsyn said it was clear that more limits were needed. The drunk tank typically receives a dozen or so people a day, and many more on paydays and weekends.
“It is not a fight that can be waged in a single year,” he said. “It has to be waged over time, over decades.”
Drinking has increased sharply since the Soviet Union’s fall in 1991, though heavily intoxicated people have been somewhat less visible on the streets in recent years, in part because the police do a better job of whisking them away. [*]
Dr. Aleksandr V. Nemtsov of the Moscow Psychiatric Research Institute, one of Russia’s leading alcohol experts, said that little would change unless the Kremlin got serious about shutting down unlicensed distillers, which produce half the vodka consumed in the country and usually are protected by corrupt officials. [same distillers would have to be enforced in terms of “sin tax” and probably would only get nominal enforcment] [*]
“The government does not want to deprive poor people of cheap vodka,” Dr. Nemtsov said. “Because it is better for them when people are drunk. You probably know that Catherine the Great said it is easier to rule a drunk public. That is the root of the evil.” [**]
He said it would be foolish to constrain beer sales. Given that people are unlikely to spurn alcohol altogether, the government should prefer that they drink beer, he said.
Viktor F. Zvagelsky, a member of Parliament from the governing party, disagreed, saying that young people who started with beer would move up to vodka.
He said the support of Mr. Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin would help overcome the alcohol industry’s opposition to more restrictions. [*]
Brewers, many owned by foreign conglomerates, have for years blocked attempts in Parliament to apply the same rules to beer as vodka, such as limits on advertising or when and where it can be sold, he said.
“The lobbying by the beer industry has been very strong,” he said.
Outmoded ways of addressing the problem were evident at the drunk tank in Mytishchi. After they sobered up, those who had been brought in were written up: they were told that before being released, they would have to pay a fine.
The amount was 100 rubles, $3.50, just as it has been since Soviet times. [*] [and they got a relatively clean, warm place to sleep and sober up] [*]
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

China: Foreign Ministry Criticizes U.S. for Sending Uighur Detainees to Palau

2009-11-03T22:06:10Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/asia/03briefs-Chinabf.html
November 3, 2009
World Briefing | Asia
China: Foreign Ministry Criticizes U.S. for Sending Uighur Detainees to Palau
By REUTERS [China] [PRC] [Xinjiang unpleasantness] [Obama white house] [recent word that 6 or 8 (?) Uighurs transferred from gitmo to Palau] [China’s largely “obligatory” complaint] [*]
China criticized the United States on Monday for sending six Chinese Uighur detainees from the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the Pacific island nation of Palau. China has demanded that the Uighurs be returned to China, but the United States has refused

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/asia/03briefs-Chinabf.html
November 3, 2009
World Briefing | Asia
China: Foreign Ministry Criticizes U.S. for Sending Uighur Detainees to Palau
By REUTERS [China] [PRC] [Xinjiang unpleasantness] [Obama white house] [recent word that 6 or 8 (?) Uighurs transferred from gitmo to Palau] [China’s largely “obligatory” complaint] [*]
China criticized the United States on Monday for sending six Chinese Uighur detainees from the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the Pacific island nation of Palau. China has demanded that the Uighurs be returned to China, but the United States has refused because it says they would face persecution there. [*]A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu, said that the six belonged to a terrorist group listed by the United Nations, and that the United States had a duty to “abide by U.N. resolutions and fulfill its international antiterror obligations.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Clinton Denies Easing Pressure on Israel

2009-11-03T22:05:20Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/middleeast/03diplo.html
November 3, 2009
Clinton Denies Easing Pressure on Israel
By MARK LANDLER [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Middle East proper] [Levant] [SecState Clinton on Middle East, Northern Africa trip] [followup] [where every sigh is assessed for its significance?] [Arab and Muclim worlds: has the Obama administration backed off on its perceived tough stance on settlements?] [as I have noted, perception that it’s a tough stance misperceives USFP process and continuity] [*]
MARRAKESH, Morocco — Struggling to stem protests from the Arab world, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday reiterated that the Obama administration still wanted Israel to freeze construction of Jewish settlements, even if it regarded Israel’s compromise offer as “unprecedented.”

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/middleeast/03diplo.html
November 3, 2009
Clinton Denies Easing Pressure on Israel
By MARK LANDLER [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Middle East proper] [Levant] [SecState Clinton on Middle East, Northern Africa trip] [followup] [where every sigh is assessed for its significance?] [Arab and Muclim worlds: has the Obama administration backed off on its perceived tough stance on settlements?] [as I have noted, perception that it’s a tough stance misperceives USFP process and continuity] [*]
MARRAKESH, Morocco — Struggling to stem protests from the Arab world, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday reiterated that the Obama administration still wanted Israel to freeze construction of Jewish settlements, even if it regarded Israel’s compromise offer as “unprecedented.”
Arab officials expressed alarm that the United States seemed to be easing pressure on Israel after Mrs. Clinton said in Jerusalem on Saturday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained settlement building was better than anything previous Israeli governments had offered. [goodness, not everything is full of symbolism] [*]
Mrs. Clinton said the administration would not stop pushing Mr. Netanyahu to do more. But she said that in trying to revive a stalled peace process, she wanted to offer Israel encouragement for moving in the right direction, even if that movement fell short of what the United States wanted.
“I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution,” she said here, on the eve of a conference of Arab and Western countries. “I will also push them as I have in public and private to do even more.”
Mrs. Clinton’s statement was intended to clarify her remarks in Jerusalem, which had left some of her aides nonplused because she had not voiced the administration’s official position that settlements are illegitimate. [*] [they made their point and now have moved on; trouble is when a new administration makes its point, stakeholders have become agitated] [*]
Though not a core subject in peace negotiations, Jewish settlements are a charged issue for Israelis and Palestinians because they involve building in areas that both claim as their ancestral lands.
The administration’s handling of settlements has become a new source of tension in the Middle East. The Palestinians are refusing to negotiate with Israel in the absence of a complete freeze, while other Arab leaders are seizing on what they view as a retreat by the United States.
Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, urged the administration not to accept what he called a “slap in the face” by Israel. He said he hoped the Americans would “try hard and in a firmer way.” Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said the United States had to provide “guarantees about issues of settlements.” [just as it’s incredibly irritating when Israel tells the US how the US has been jerked around by Arabs, it’s annoying when Arabs tell the US how the US has been exploited by Israelis] [*]
The inability to win a freeze would undermine the prospects for peace talks, Mr. Moussa told reporters. “I’m really afraid that we’re about to see a failure,” he said.
On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton met in the emirate of Abu Dhabi with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who rejected an Israeli proposal to put a moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, but to allow the completion of about 3,000 additional units and to exclude East Jerusalem from any restrictions.
The Palestinian foreign minister, Riad Malki, said accepting such an offer would undermine the Palestinian Authority when Mr. Abbas had already hurt his standing among Arabs by agreeing to defer consideration of a United Nations report detailing evidence of possible war crimes by both the Israelis and Palestinian militants in Gaza last winter. Mr. Abbas eventually reversed himself, pushing to have the report sent to the Security Council. [frankly, that’s f***ed up] [the US cannot be responsible to figure how Abu Masen or Bibi will be affected by each step before taking step that US sees as in US interests] [*]
Mr. Malki said in an interview that he was surprised by Mrs. Clinton’s comments in Jerusalem. “It was, from our point of view, inconsistent with what we had heard back in Abu Dhabi.”
At her first public appearance in Marrakesh on Monday, Mrs. Clinton read a statement saying that the American position had not changed. “As the president has said on many occasions,” she declared, “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” [I think that was a mistake] [now the other side will scream and it will be perfectly understandable that they do] [is the US going to keep correcting each time one fo the principals screams? It’s the Middle East for god’s sake: nothing would ever be accomplished] [*]
A State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, declined to characterize her earlier remarks as a misstep, but said, “We obviously were very conscious of the reaction in the region to her appearance in Jerusalem.”
While the Obama administration has not changed its policy, its public statements on settlements have evolved considerably. In May, Mrs. Clinton said President Obama wanted to see “a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.”
But at the United Nations in September, Mr. Obama used the word “restrain” in referring to construction, suggesting the administration realized it was unlikely to get a total freeze.
Some Middle East analysts said the Obama administration may have concluded that there was no value in continuing to press Israel about settlements, when the prospects for peace negotiations seemed remote.
“They’re dialing things back a notch until they can think through how and what to do for the next phase,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. [*] [I imagine they are somewhat tired of being browbeaten by opposition inside the US] [sometimes just reading the volume of nuttiness is exhausting (imagine experiencing it?)] [*]
Some administration officials have said they are rethinking a strategy that has produced neither a settlement freeze nor gestures toward Israel by its Arab neighbors, which Mr. Obama has also sought.
Mrs. Clinton unexpectedly put off her return to Washington for a day so she could fly to Cairo on Tuesday to meet the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. American officials said she wanted to meet face to face with a “critical player” to discuss developments in the region. [I doubt it’s anything of substance] [*]
On Monday, Mrs. Clinton met with foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Afterward, she said some ministers seemed unaware of the extent of the Israeli proposal on settlements, which she said “holds the promise of moving a step closer to a two-state solution.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company