Author: admin

Introducing the “Right to Dry Movement”

In the category of the “completely different,” let’s hang-out for a moment with the burgeoning “right to dry” movement. That’s right, the right to dry — one’s clothes on an outdoor clothes line.
What’s become of our land? Some of my most sublime early childhood memories in the 60’s are of running through backyards of Texas-Eastern company row-homes in Eagle, PA, dodging and twisting through the billowing sheets. Sometimes the lines would get stretched down and became a nasty way to lose a baby tooth. My generation recognizes where the sports phrase, “getting clotheslined” originates.
But do today’s football players have a clue what a clothesline is? Tried recently to buy “clothesline” at your local Lowe’s or Wal-Mart?
What’s become of our supremely efficient air-drying technology?
A key culprit, it seems, originates in the national proliferation of homeowners’ associations. In their collective “wisdom,” they tend overwhelmingly to ban the airing of our clean laundry as too uncivilized, too unsightly. Especially – and ironically – in California. Fer sure dude.
Now, with energy prices reaching new peaks, independent spirits in Vermont (where else?) are leading a counter-culture movement to restore our right to get clotheslined!
Consider the Vermont Clothesline Company, with its stylish lines for hanging your duds. (if you aren’t creative enough to “rig” your own solution.)
And if you’re stuck with an authoritarian homeowners’ group block, help is here in the form of “Project Laundry List.” Curiously, on their home page, PLL lists these six “rational” reasons why the right to dry naturally should be not be abridged.

1. Clothes last longer.
2. Clothes and sheets smell better.
3. Conserve energy. (as electric dryers use 5-10% of residential electricity)
4. Save money.
5. Physical activity which you can do outside.
6. Clothes dryer fires account for about 15,600 structure fires, 15 deaths, and 400 injuries annually.

I think the Project can be more bold! Let’s take a page from the Bush machine and invoke national security!
Those of us able and willing to dry our laundry outside, even sometimes, are saving energy – lots of it. Even better than wildly inefficient ethanol or the distant hope of switchgrass, “hanging out” with your laundry is something many of us can do.
We now have a “new” simple answer to the question of how can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Next time your Association Lords want to tear down your clothesline, wag the red, white & blue in their faces. It’s all about national security.

Bush vs. JAG (w/ help from TJ)

Today’s Boston Globe reported startling dissent at the top ranks of America’s military lawyers toward the Bush Administration’s recent rule-making on CIA interrogations of prisoners. Read the whole report here. The crux of their concern, as delivered to three top US Republican Senators:

“The Judge Advocates General of all branches of the military told the senators that a July 20 executive order establishing rules for the treatment of CIA prisoners appeared to be carefully worded to allow humiliating or degrading interrogation techniques when the interrogators’ objective is to protect national security rather than to satisfy sadistic impulses.“

Here’s how the new get-out-jail-free card works for the CIA interrogators
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions outlaws “cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment….” As the US Supreme Court ruled last year, “in all circumstances,” detained prisoners are “to be treated humanely.”
Never mind vague, lame Bush spokesperson claims to the contrary, the “tortured language” in the President’s executive order fudges the Geneva prohibition’s clarity by adding a critical caveat. According to the military JAG’s,

CIA interrogators may not use “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual.” As an example, it lists “sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation.”

In short, in the view of the US military’s own top lawyers, the “for the purpose” escape clause means an interrogator can be as sadistic, cruel and humiliating as they wish, provided they didn’t do it “for the purpose” of being sadistic, cruel, or humiliating. Put crassly, if you mistreat a prisoner, your best defense is to say you did it for America’s “national security.”
Amazingly, the Army’s top JAG officer, Major General Scott C. Black, felt compelled to send a memo to lower ranking officers and soldiers,

“reminding them that Bush’s executive order applies only to the CIA, not to military interrogations. Black told soldiers they must follow Army regulations, which “make clear that [the Geneva Conventions are] the minimum humane treatment standard” for prisoners.

No doubt General Black is worried about much confusion in the ranks, even among officers. After all, what’s a soldier to think? (especially the ones who for the past several years have gotten their moral compasses from “24” and had Faux News piped in round-the-clock to their mess halls) How is it, they might wonder, that the CIA can “do it” but we can’t? Wink, wink… Besides, as a certain relative of mine would reason, he’s my “duly elected commander-in-chief.”
I hope I can get a copy of General Black’s memo. (If anybody has it, please post.)
Before readers start waving the “liberal” bogey about the Boston Globe, consider that several quotes in today’s report come from an oped published last month in the Washington Post by former Marine Commandant P.X. Kelley and distinguished University of Virginia Law Professor, Robert F. Turner.
These two-tour Vietnam veterans are, shall we say, not easily branded as “liberal.” Bob Turner, a former Reagan Administration player, happens to be a friend from the past (don’t hold that against him); we even shared an office for a year. Turner lately has been carrying a lot of water for President Bush and the imperial Presidency – as it takes so much of Bob’s previous energetic scholarship to its most extreme breaking point. (including defending executive privilege and Presidential signing statements.)
It’s all the more noteworthy then that Kelley & Turner came out squarely opposed to the President’s end-run around the Geneva Accords for the CIA. They write,

“It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in “good faith” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America’s clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.”

(As a recent Jefferson fellow,) I’m especially interested that they twice invoke Thomas Jefferson:
In April of 1793, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wrote to President George Washington that nations were to interpret treaty obligations for themselves but that “the tribunal of our consciences remains, and that also of the opinion of the world.” He added that “as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial and rigorous judges.”
(This is part of Jefferson’s intense policy debate with Alexander Hamilton before the President Washington, regarding whether or not the treaty with France was still in force, amid France’s own revolutionary tumult. Of special note, both Jefferson & Hamilton quoted extensively from international legal texts – Vattel especially – in making their cases. Wonder when the last time anything similar happened in Washington?)
In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: “It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side.” Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.
—————————
I’m overdue to publish an essay on Jefferson and the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (Jefferson had considerable experience with some of the same thorny issues faced today — and at times, he was tempted to err on the side of “harsh retribution”….)
Yet for the moment, here’s one favorite Jefferson quote regarding the treatment of 4,000+ British & Hessian Prisoner’s of War detained here in Charlottesville. (out “Barrack’s Road”) Writing in 1779 to then Governor Patrick Henry, Jefferson is defending expenditures for the care of the detained:

“Treating captive enemies with politeness and generosity” was “for the benefit of mankind to mitigate the horrors of war.”

Jefferson reasoned the experience would be a good example to be seen by what he referred to in the Declaration of Independence as “a Candid World.”
Contrary to the American founders, the Bushists, yet again, have demonstrated they have anything but a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Why Arms Sales to the Persian Gulf will Backfire

Recent Bush Administration plans to sell $20 billion in arms to the Gulf Arab states (while giving $30 billion plus to the Israelis) are being defended primarily within the logic of “balance of power.”
Out the window is Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s “transformational diplomacy” or peace through democracy promotion. We’re back to the old policy of peace through power. One might build an essay quoting Rice against herself.
Writing in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, emeritus University of Virginia Professor R.K. Ramazani points out a singular problem with such massive arms sales and power-balancing for the Persian Gulf region – namely, such policies haven’t worked before and are likely to be counter-productive yet again:

“The Bush administration’s plan to sell $20 billion of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and five other Arab monarchies is likely to backfire and produce less regional security. Far from balancing Sunni Arab states against Shia Iran, such massive arms sales may ignite conflicts that will make the current war in Iraq look like child’s play.”

Before unpacking Ramazani’s argument, consider Anthony Cordesman’s mainstream “realist” defense of such arms sales in a recent New York Times essay. We’ve commented here at justworldnews on the ordinarily respected Tony Cordesman in the past, particularly the commentary he did last summer while embedded with the Israeli military as it pounded Lebanon.
But Cordesman is hardly a cheerleader for the Bush Administration or for the neoconservative vantage point. Yet he felt it necessary to disclose that the beltway thinktank where he works, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, receives considerable financial support from Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US Government – not to mention US military contractors. For one measured critique, see this “Werther” original by an anonymous northern-Virginia defense analyst.
While Cordesman has at times been a blunt, non-ideological critic of Bush Administration’s Iraq mis-steps, his New York Times argument in favor of the arms sales, the “Weapons of Mass Preservation,” boils down to the following points:

1. Critics of such arms sales are not operating in the “real world.” The Persian Gulf remains a critical “vital interest” to the US and the world economy. Oil must be “defended.”
2. We cannot defend oil “without allies,” and Saudi Arabia is the only “meaningful” ally available. (and oh never mind the recent “minor” reports of Saudi salafists showing up as guerrillas in Iraq. As for democracy and all that, allies like the Saudis inevitably are “less than perfect.”)
3. The chief threat then to “our” oil (e.g., to “jobs”) is Iran. (No evidence needed or presented.)
4. Announced arms sales (and gifts) to the region are really nothing new, as, after inflation, Israel may be getting less arms than before.

R.K. Ramazani, by contrast, asks a question Cordesman avoids – namely, does power-balancing in the region actually work? That is, can we demonstrate that it has produced stability and defended American interests?
(Disclosure, I helped condense this essay from a much longer draft, and even then two paragraphs were left out. Indeed, those of us who have known Professor Ramazani might recognize that this essay condenses 54 years of scholarship — and a year’s worth of advanced IR lectures.)
First, the balance of power hasn’t worked in the past; worse, it’s been counter-productive:

“For more than 50 years, the United States has obsessively played one Persian Gulf country against another, selling arms to allies to protect vital interests, primarily crude oil. Yet this balancing game has repeatedly proved counterproductive.
During the Cold War, Dwight Eisenhower sold arms to Iraq to counter Soviet support of Egypt, rendering Iraq vulnerable to an anti-Western revolution in 1958. Richard Nixon gave the Shah a blank check to bolster Iran against “radical” Iraq, but in the process catalyzed Iran’s 1979 revolution. Ronald Reagan then backed “moderate” Iraq against “fundamentalist” Iran, and, in turn, created the aggressive Saddam Hussein war machine that invaded Kuwait.
After ejecting Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, George H.W. Bush sold arms to the Gulf’s smaller Sunni monarchies to counter the power of Shia Iran. Yet the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda. The subsequent destruction of the Taliban and Hussein regimes ironically eliminated Iran’s most bitter enemies, leaving Iran even stronger.”

With each new infusion of massive western arms, the regimes we supposedly are defending against other threats in turn are destabilized from within. For example, people dissatisfied inside Iran with the Shah of Iran’s repression naturally blamed the outside power that provided him with the massive arms that were the means, if not the source, of their misery. Pogo anyone?
Ramazani then offers, for the first time, a different insight on just why “balance of power” concepts that have been favored in the west since the 17th Century have been so difficult to apply to the Persian Gulf:

Continue reading “Why Arms Sales to the Persian Gulf will Backfire”

Mia Farrow: “virtual hostage”

Irony alert
Those familiar with Farzaneh Milani’s path-breaking literary analysis will recognize the phrase “hostage narrative,” a term she has been devloping over many years to apply to that best-selling genre of politically tinged “true stories.” In these “hostage narratives,” women writers who are now “liberated” or “un-veiled” tell the world of their past “cultural captivity” in their native, usually Muslim lands.
In this genre, as Professor Milani documents, the line between “fact” and “fiction” gets lost, as those sympathetic to the “message” focus only on the cause served. It’s a great way to sell books and a shrewd way to “heat up” the political culture to support bombings and invasions to “liberate” the presumed hostages. Thus the sequel:
“Reading Lolita while bombing Tehran.”
(And oh by the way, are women now better off in today’s de facto Islamic Republic(s) of Iraq than they were under Saddam? Where’s columnist Ellen Goodman been on that?)
Veteran actress Mia Farrow now takes the “hostage narrative” to a new, virtual realm, with her over-the-top offer to exchange herself for the “freedom” of a Sudanese “dissident” rebel leader and Darfur advocate, Suleiman Jamous. Depending on the source you read, Jamous is a “virtual prisoner” who cannot leave a UN hospital and/or cannot leave the country for medical treatment.
To Sudan’s President, Ms. Farrow writes,

Mr. Jamous is in need of a medical procedure that cannot be carried out in Kadugli… Mr. Jamous played a crucial role in bringing the SLA to the negotiating table and in seeking reconciliation between its divided rival factions.
I am… offering to take Mr. Jamous’s place, to exchange my freedom for his in the knowledge of his importance to the civilians of Darfur and in the conviction that he will apply his energies toward creating the just and lasting peace that the Sudanese people deserve and hope for.

How curious. Ms. Farrow’s “courageous offer” to become a female hostage in a Muslim land is a recognizable stroke of p.r. brilliance. It’s getting widespread softball media treatment in the US, as anything supporting the long-suffering Sudanese Darfuris is “hip” in the US and must be “a good thing.” And besides, she’s a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, and what’s the harm — particularly if it helps focus the international microscope back on unresolved Sudanese nightmares? (US international broadcasting has been prominently featuring Ms. Farrow’s offer too….)
Ms. Farrow of course knows there isn’t a chance the Sudanese government will take her up on her offer to become a “hostage.” What a p.r. disaster for them that would be!
In her best acting yet, Ms. Farrow professes to the media the sincerity of her wish to be a real hostage. Indeed.
We’ll likely have to settle for Ms. Farrow keeping a journal for enthralled admirers of her “ordeal” as a surreal hostage-in-waiting – a “virtual hostage” on behalf of a “virtual prisoner.”
Oh the drama. I feel another best-seller in the works, no doubt for a worthy cause. (Aren’t they all? Though perhaps in Mia Farrow’s case, the title, “Not Without My Daughter” might be a bit inappropriate…..)
So what’s next? Hundreds, if not thousands, of Darfur activists on college campuses signing up to join Mia as “virtual hostages?” eh? Me & Mia? No doubt that’s too harsh.
I hear Ms. Farrow’s next movie will be a comedy.

Bush vs. Karzai

Sometimes a simple pairing of quotes speaks volumes. Case in point – Presidential comments about Iran by Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai and America’s George Bush.
Yesterday, Karazai appeared on CNN’s Late Edition. Karzai bluntly conceded that “the security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated.” Karzai also affirmed as “exactly true” US General David Rodriguez’ assessment there has been a 50-60% increase in foreign fighters comings into Afghanistan from Pakistan over the past year.
By contrast, Karzai contradicted recent US (and media) contentions that Iran has likewise been a growing source of trouble in Afghanistan:

BLITZER: “The U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, William Wood, suggested in June that Iran is playing a significant role in the security situation in Afghanistan as well. “There is no question,” he said, that weaponry of Iranian types has been entering Afghanistan for some time in amounts that make it hard to imagine that the Iranian government is not aware that this is happening.” Is Iran directly involved in the security situation — the deteriorating
security situation in Afghanistan?
KARZAI: We have had reports of the kind you just mentioned. We are looking into these reports. Iran has been a supporter of Afghanistan, in the peace process that we have and the fight against terror, and the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan. Iran has been a participant in the — both processes. They then have contributed steadily to Afghanistan. We have had very, very good, very, very close relations, thanks in part also to an understanding of the United States in this regard, and an environment of understanding between the two, the Iranian government and the United States government, in Afghanistan. We will continue to have good relations with Iran. We will continue to resolve issues, if there are any, to arise.
BLITZER: Well, is Iran a problem or a solution as far as you are concerned? Are they helping you or hurting?
KARZAI: Well, so far Iran has been a helper and a solution.”

Nothing new in that, really, as Karzai (and former key Bush Administration officials like Flynt Leverett) have long been more positive about Iran’s disposition towards Afghanistan since 9/11. Yet Karzai’s reiteration of a positive view of Iran flatly presents a problem for the Bush Administration as it rolls out the Iran-on-the-march bogey to justify massive new arms sales to the Saudis.
Consider then Bush’s intense response today to a question about Karzai’s comments:

Q “President Karzai said yesterday that he believed Iran was playing a helpful role in Afghanistan. Was he able to convince you in your meetings that that was the case, or do you still have concerns about Iran’s role?…
PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s up to Iran to prove to the world that they’re a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. This is a government that is in defiance of international accord, a government that seems to be willing to thumb its nose at the international community and, at the same time, a government that denies its people a rightful place in the world and denies its people the ability to realize their full potential.
So I believe that it’s in the interests of all of us that we have an Iran that tries to stabilize, not destabilize; an Iran that gives up its weapons ambitions. And therefore, we’re working to that end. The President knows best about what’s taking place in his country, and of course, I’m willing to listen. But from my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian government to show us that they’re a positive force.”

In other words, for the Bush Administration, the Iranians must prove a negative, that they’re not up to “no good” in Afghanistan – never mind what an otherwise close American ally like Karzai has to say on the matter.
While he was at it, Bush threw in a bone for the “regime change” crowd:

“And I must tell you that this current leadership… is a big disappointment to the people of Iran. The people of Iran could be doing a lot better than they are today. “

Another clarion call from the black kettle to the pot…. Such rhetorical bombast helped Iran’s President Ahmadinejad get elected in the first place. But no matter.
Not seriously interested in inconvenient evidence to the contrary, President Bush retreats to the all-too-familiar neocon script on Iran:

“But because of the actions of this government, this country is isolated. And we will continue to work to isolate it, because they’re not a force for good, as far as we can see. They’re a destabilizing influence wherever they are.”

Preach it.

Sam Waterston: Commencent Address for America

Actor Sam Waterston, known to the nation as Jack McCoy on the long running TV series Law & Order, recently delivered one of the best commencement speeches anywhere — at Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson, on July 4th, as part of the annual ceremony for new citizens.
With wit, history, and splendid twists of phrase, Waterston earned what may have been the only standing ovation in 25 years of Monticello Independence Day speeches.
You can read the full text here, or listen to an audio podcast here.

(Technical note: Visitors presently need to click on the “streaming audio” link on the right, as the mp3 version on the “left” mysteriously cuts off 4 sentences from the end…. I’m hoping Monticello may yet place the full 22 minute streaming video of this speech on its web too.)

The entire speech is worth the effort to read/hear/view in full. Savor it. With one of the most recognizable voices in all of America (his past roles include Abraham Lincoln and yes, Thomas Jefferson), “old guy” Waterston breathes new life into the art of citizenship. He alerts citizens, new and old, that citizenship in a democracy requires not mere passive “pursuit of happiness” but “active interference” in how our politicians protect our “lives and liberty.”
Waterston puts “the participation back into ‘participatory democracy’.”
Rejecting the misplaced hope that “America is the all-time greatest self-correcting nation” or that ordinary citizen mistakes will “gum up” the magical functioning of our government, Waterston instead cites Jefferson’s ultimate faith in the people:

“The evils flowing from the duperies of the people [— that is, the ignorant errors of folks like you and me —] are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents [ — that is, the arrogant errors of those who speak and act for us].”

Rather than relying on agents, lobbyists, or any opinion dictator:

“America has been marvelously able to correct its course in the past because the founding idea — of individual freedom expressed through direct representation — has stirred its citizens to participate, and interfere. Information from the people makes the government smarter. Insufficient information from us makes it dumber….
In our country, things are ‘normal’ only when your voices are clearly heard. The old model of our citizenly relation to politics was of a group of people under a tree, taking turns on the stump all day, discussing the issues of the time. The old model was the town meeting where every citizen can have their say. Old citizens like me hope that between you and the Internet the old model will get a new lease on life.”

I especially appreciate Waterston’s rebuke of the God-like status being given to mind-numbing public opinion polls:

“We can’t let ourselves become mere units of statistical analysis. It appears to be so, that if you ask any 1000 Americans their views on anything, you’ll have a pretty good idea what all Americans think. You might almost conclude that individuals didn’t matter at all anymore.

Yet individuals can prove the opposite, that we’re potentially more than the “mere grain of sand in a vast statistical ocean.”

“Men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master,” as Jefferson predicted. But will we, by our silence, indifference, or inaction, give the trust away, cede it to the wealthy, present it to the entrenched, hand it off to the government, entrust it to any process or procedure that excludes our voices? It could happen.”

Waterston then spins his own quote for the ages:

“As graduating citizens, you will know how the government is set up: the justly familiar separation of powers, the well-known system of checks and balances, and the famous three branches of government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.
If these are the branches, what is the tree? Do not think it’s the government.
We are the tree from which the government springs and spreads into its three branches. Every citizen is part of the root system, part of the trunk, no mere twig or leaf. Help our government never to forget it.”

The conclusion then follows for the new citizens at Monticello and for us all:

“So it turns out citizenship isn’t just a great privilege and opportunity, though it is all that, it’s also a job. I’m sorry to be the one to bring you this news, so late in the process. But don’t worry, it’s a great job. Everything that happens within this country politically, and everywhere in the world its influence is felt, falls within its province. It’s a job with a lot of scope. You’ll never be able to complain again about being bored at work. As we multiply our individual voices, we multiply the chances for our country’s success.”

Out of Iraq and Into Iran?

Pressure at long last is mounting across the U.S. political spectrum and heartland for either a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, or a dramatic pull-back from the front-lines. You’d think the neocons and their congressional supplicants and the Christian-Likudist “Amen Chorus” would be chastened, hesitant, or dispirited. To the contrary, they’re launching a full-court press for a major military blitz against Iran.
I’ll just highlight a few major items to illustrate this theme:
From Kevin Clarke, senior editor of the U.S. Catholic Magazine:

“These regular mailings from the Israel Project to “opinion agents” such as yours truly are, in effect, a public relations campaign for war. The monthly missives I receive from this one pro-Israel lobby are a small part of a broader effort to “secure the information stream” and prep Americans for the next exotic stop in the war on terror: sunny Iran. Now to the average shmoe, even contemplating another war while the overtaxed U.S. military machine seems bogged down in Iraq and losing ground in Afghanistan might seem laughably disconnected from reality….
Iraq was supposed to be the demo-sideshow to the real fight to alter the political reality on the ground of the Middle East, an effort that “logically” ends not in Jerusalem or Baghdad but in Tehran. The fact that the build-up stages to this “inevitable” confrontation—taking out Saddam Hussein, removing the Taliban from power, and neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—have not exactly gone according to script has not deterred these determined folks. Now like bourbon-addled, nicotine-fingered Vegas high-rollers on a bad run, these guys are asking America to double-down on the great Islamic Enlightenment project.”

As leading examples, we could of course refer to recent screeds to bomb Iran by Senator Lieberman or by Commentary’s roving (raving?) editor, Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz blindly waves the bloody shirt of 9/11 in the direction of Iran, the center of all “Islamofascism.” (For more on such bombing “logic,” refer again to Helena Cobban’s courageous deconstruction of a similar call by Louis-René Beres.)
We now have tycoon and former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes thumping the tub in the July 23rd issue of the magazine that bears his name. Forbes to Bush: never mind if you screwed-up Iraq, “history” will judge you according to whether or not you take down Iran.

“If President Bush doesn’t stop the mullahs,… his presidency will be judged a failure….The importance of events in Iran overshadows what is happening in Iraq. If President Bush defangs nuclear-obsessed Iran, all his other setbacks and disappointments will fade into insignificance as time passes.”

Forbes proposes supporting Iranian expatriates and minorities and a “capital blockade” of investments going into Iran. If these measures doesn’t bring about “regime change” (which they won’t), then Forbes has in mind a full-scale blockade of Iran. Never mind what that would do to western economies (imagine oil prices tripling overnight), Forbes has bought the lobby line that current Iranian rationing of gasoline (due to ruinous policies of subsidizing petrol and importing 40% of Iran’s needs) render it critically vulnerable to blocking Iran’s imports of gasoline (much of which comes from Kuwait).

Memo to Forbes: check industry sources about Iran having several major domestic refining expansion projects soon to come on line. (By contrast, has a singe new refinery project been even started here in the USA — a key reason for high gas prices here in the “free market?” The MSM here in the west hasn’t touched Bush’s failures to build refineries in the US. But I digress.)

Anticipating perhaps that the non-lethal means he proposes will not work or work before Bush is history, Forbes ends up joining Lieberman, Beres, etc. in calling for the “monumental” move of bombing Iran, to “set the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions back a decade or more.”
Steven Kinzer incisively notes that the groundwork for the most recent campaigns to attack Iran was laid in the strained US efforts pin Iraqi violence on Iran (as amplified by Michael R. Gordon, no less, in above- the-fold “reporting” in the New York Times).
Yet Kinzer also asks, “even if Iran could be found directly responsible for the death of Americans,” would such actions via proxy be “so outrageously provocative” to justify an American assault on Iran? Kinzer contends they would not, and cites examples of the US not attacking China over Korea, or the Soviet Union in Vietnam.
In stark contrast to Forbes’ concern for Bush’s legacy, Kinzer shrewdly concludes:

“Attacking Iran would accomplish at least one thing Bush must be seeking. It will assure that future historians will not remember the invasion of Iraq as his biggest blunder.”

If President Bush really hopes for positive mark on in his foreign policy record, he’d be far better off taking a page out of Nixon and get serious about diplomacy, without preconditions, with today’s equivalent of what China was for Nixon – Iran.

“Whistling in the Dark” (Iran-media spat)

For all of the ongoing press woes in the Islamic Republic of Iran, commentaries in Iranian papers can still be extraordinarily boisterous — too lively at times for Iran’s neighbors.
A loud case in point is an editorial by Hoseyn Shari’atmadari in Iran’s hardline Keyhan newspaper. (The entire editorial is appended in the continuation; translation by the US taxpayer funded OSC service) It seems Keyhan has less interest in defending fellow hardliners under siege at home, than picking a fuss with foreign bogeys.
The Keyhan editorial touched off a firestorm of condemnations from the southern Arab side of the Persian Gulf. No wonder, as in “point ten,” Shari’atmadari provocatively raises the old Iranian claim to Bahrain:

“…Bahrain was once part of Iran’s soil. In the process of an illegal collusion between the doomed shah and the Governments of America and Britain, it was separated from Iran. Today, the most important demand of the people of Bahrain is that this province separated from Iran be returned to its main motherland: Islamic Iran. Obviously, this absolute right of Iran and the people of its separated province cannot and should not be ignored.”

Such exaggerated bluster is about as helpful as President Ahmadinejad’s incendiary comments about the Holocaust, Israel, and map-wiping.
All too predictably, this editorial segment inspired a unified chorus of condemnations from the Bahraini press and elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, with different writers now one-upping each other in demands for the “official” to be removed or contradicted by the Iranian foreign ministry. Some papers are dredging up claims about southwestern Iran having once been Arab controlled.
While Shari’atmadari, as head of the Keyhan Foundation, technically serves at the pleasure of Iran’s Supreme Leader, it should be recognized that Keyhan editorials are anything but an authoritative voice for Iranian foreign policy. (far less than The Weekly Standard in the US is an authoritative voice for neocon elements within the Bush-Cheney Administration)
Of course, Shari’atmadari’s July 10th controversial essay has a context, as he was but one of many Iranian writers reacting to the routine reiteration by the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council on July 5th in support of the claim by the United Arab Emirates to the disputed Islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs.
On July 7th, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Ali Hosseini reiterated Iran’s standard statement that these Islands “are and will remain inseparable and integral parts of Iranian territory” while also complaining (in standard form) that the “repetition of the baseless stance… is surprising give that fact that Iran and the UAE enjoy enhanced contacts and relations.”
Nothing in the official statements about Bahrain, nor any nasty comments about the legitimacy of governments among the Arab Sheikhdoms.
Of course, the modern dispute over the Islands predates the Iranian Revolution and instead is rooted in Britain’s withdrawal of its forces from the Persian Gulf in the early 1970’s. Iran enforced its claims over these 3 islands, while at the same time forgoing its claim to the island of Bahrain. Iranians of most stripes still view the dispute with the UAE in nationalistic terms, and from time to time this or that Iranian hardliner will trot out variations on the theme that the Shah (& his American “bosses”) betrayed Iran in giving up Bahrain.
Not the stuff of diplomacy, to be sure. For those seeking to maintain American domination over the Gulf, this latest media stoking of residual sectarian, ethnic, and territorial tensions will be music to their ears. Divide & conquer.
I expect the “grown-ups” in the foreign policy establishments in Iran and in the neighboring Arab states will work to keep a lid on this sort of heat.
Speaking of which, we’re encouraged by communications efforts between American and Iranian naval commanders in the Persian Gulf, as revealed in an excellent report in the Los Angeles Times. Not quite the top-level hot-line and “deconflict” mechanism that Helena Cobban and Pat Lang have been proposing, but such “professionalism” between commanders in dangerously crowded waters is not what those looking to provoke a war would wish to see.

Continue reading ““Whistling in the Dark” (Iran-media spat)”

Iranian Bikers for peace…?

I’m all for exploring new ways to work for peace, including by demonstrations, marches, marathons, even “honking for peace.” Sure beats marching for war — like when Jerome Corsi (of “Swift boat veterans” infamy) in June 2005 walked from Philly to DC, to drum up support for his “Iran Freedom Foundation” and his demands for the US to get rough towards “Atomic Iran.”
Yet I was pleasantly surprised to learn of a group of 14 Iranian youth who have been “biking for peace” around Europe and America since May 11th. They’ve been in the US since June 16th. I’ve confirmed that these youth are from Iran, and they’re here with considerable backing from assorted Iranian non-governmental organizations – in Iran. While their tour has received limited publicity here in the US; surely both governments had to have been involved with the permissions….?
The peace bikers finished their journey this afternoon at the Washington Cathedral. If they had come through Charlottesville, I might have dusted off the road bike to join them. I like the description of their goals at their “Miles for Peace” web site, beginning with their invocation of Sa’di .
This bike caravan may have been too “fast” for me. According to the “Miles for Peace” web site, on July 8th, they were to “leave Los Angeles, heading for Baltimore.” The next day, July 9th, they were 3,000 miles east in Baltimore. Must be some new pedal or gearing technology. (Now if they could bottle that, they wouldn’t need nuclear energy.)
I hope these peace-bikers encountered no obstacles for visas or from customs, nor from counter-protests along the way. If one scans through the splendid photos for their peace adventure, one could well say these riders were rather brave, if nothing else, for biking close order on California freeways or downtown New York – without helmets.
Yet there may be an even more profound irony at work here. Far more than Iran’s detractors admit, Iranian women have made great educational and professional strides, and certainly compared to certain neighbors to the south. Considerable difficulties remain, and Iranian women’s groups are pushing back against recent set-backs. That said, even though Iranian women can drive and even race cars, they still can’t ride bikes.
As pointed out recently by Farzaneh Milani in a USA Today oped, Iran recently announced production of an “Islamic bicycle.” Milani, a specialist on women’s literature in Iran, is not impressed by the “new technology,” which is said to come “fully equipped with a cabin to conceal parts of a female cyclist’s body.” Milani deems it “less about the bike and more about suppressing women,” a “desperate but ultimately futile attempt.”
But this “Biking for Peace” group didn’t use any of the “Islamic bicycles.” (Indeed, I’ve yet to see or hear of reports in Iran confirming they even exist.)
Consider then the multiple levels of irony at work here: Vibrant and energetic young Iranians are out campaigning for peace in major western cities, on their bicycles – the very bicycles that the Iranian women in the group would be forbidden from riding back home in Iran.
One wonders if these creative peacemakers and their sponsors weren’t sending messages in both directions.

Jefferson & the Reign of Witches

Kudos to the Baltimore Sun for its July 4th editorial. Contrary to the keen imagination of another former “Jefferson Fellow” now at Oxford, I (Scott), as far as I know, had nothing to do with the Sun editorial. :-}
The Baltimore editorial begins with the reference to Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural. (Yes, this is the same Jefferson address I invoked here at jwn last November 2nd, in challenging Senator George Allen’s claim to being a “Jeffersonian”). In the Sun’s version,

In his first presidential inaugural address in 1801, he (Jefferson) ticked off a long list of essential principles of government, featuring highlights of the Bill of Rights, and called preservation of the government “in its whole constitutional vigor” the “anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad.” These principles “should be the creed of our political faith,” he said. “Should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety.”

The editorial credits Jefferson for having been “prophetic” about how the US government has (yet again) committed “a long train of abuses” (as Jefferson once wrote about another George III) against our constitutional liberties, in “moments… of alarm.”
If I had written the editorial, I’d have pointedly noted how for Jefferson, “freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected” were among the principles that:

“form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith.”

Through his long public life, Jefferson had extensive first hand experiences with the challenges of protecting such principles in perceived times of national emergency, including the treatment of prisoners of war. As I noted last November, Jefferson would have been particularly horrified by our present cavalier disregard of habeas corpus protections, given that he:

affirmed that habeas corpus applied to both citizen and alien alike, and.. argued against suspending it even in times of war or rebellion. In a 1788 letter to James Madison, Jefferson warned that the want of habeas corpus “will do evil…” and that suspensions thereof can become “habitual” and the “minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.”

In similar vein, the Sun editorial closes with an all too appropriate warning:

“Public outrage at the discovery of such clandestine abuses has typically resulted in the sort of corrective action Jefferson recommended. Such a process may be under way soon again as Congress and the courts begin to apply some restraints on an administration that as much as or more than any other has considered itself above the law. There’s little time to waste before Americans become so accustomed to their lost liberty that the loss becomes acceptable.“

Harpers Magazine on July 4th featured a related, and also all-too-relevant Jefferson quotation about our present “Reign of Witches.” As Scott Horton notes, Jefferson was writing in 1798 to a friend on his hope that the Federalists had “overplayed their hand” with the Alien & Sedition Acts (an early version of today’s Patriot Act). Yet Jefferson nonetheless was concerned that he could be arrested if his letter was publicized, given how paranoid the country had become then (as now).

“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt… And if we feel their power just sufficiently to hoop us together, it will be the happiest situation in which we can exist. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.”

Helena here has repeatedly expressed her optimism that the tide in Washington has turned…; may the reign of the neocon warlocks soon pass over.