by Jim Lobe
I suppose this is something to be welcomed, but David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey — who spent a good part of the George W. Bush administration offering legalistic defenses in the National Review and on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal of the “global war [...]]]>
by Jim Lobe
I suppose this is something to be welcomed, but David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey — who spent a good part of the George W. Bush administration offering legalistic defenses in the National Review and on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal of the “global war on terrorism” in every single aspect, including, of course, the “anticipatory self-defense” by the US in invading Iraq, and who have long accused “the Left,” Palestinians, and other presumed enemies of the United States of waging “lawfare” against Washington’s freedom of action to do anything it likes around the world — yesterday published their latest politico-legal analysis in the Journal in strong support of waging lawfare against Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s entitled, “The Outlaw Vladimir Putin,” and among other things, it calls for Washington and its allies to challenge the legality of Russia’s actions “in every conceivable legal venue, whether domestic or international,” including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the same body that ruled in favor of Nicaragua in the case of the CIA’s mining of its harbors back during the Contra War, and against Israel in the case brought by the Palestine Authority against the “Separation Wall.” The defendants in each case ignored the rulings, although President George H.W. Bush eventually quietly agreed to settle the Nicaragua case for $12 million. Rivkin and Casey worked in the Justice Department for both Ronald Reagan, who was responsible for the mining, and Bush I.
What’s remarkable about the op-ed, aside from their advocacy of lawfare (although they don’t use the term), is their seeming lack of self-consciousness about Washington’s own record over the last 30 years or so. For example,
Now Russia has demonstrated that military force in general, and nuclear weapons in particular, may well remain the only reliable means of protection against hostile actions by larger, more powerful states. … This development is certain to have profoundly destabilizing consequences worldwide.
Or:
Russia’s behavior, and its legal and institutional justifications are dangerously destabilizing the existing international system. What is the likely result? The use of force around the world will be encouraged, and the incentive to acquire nuclear weapons magnified.
Well, all of that is true. But what if we replaced “Russia” in that sentence with “the United States” in reference to its invasion of Iraq? Of course, Rivkin and Casey would argue, as they have in the past, that the Iraq war was entirely justifiable as a case of “anticipatory self-defense,” but frankly even if you accept their argument (which is awfully far-fetched given the lack of any serious, let alone imminent, threat posed by Baghdad in 2003), there’s no doubt that the invasion has had “profoundly destabilizing consequences,” particularly given the fact that Putin himself cited it as an important precedent and an example of Washington’s hypocrisy.
Similarly, the authors take offense at Moscow’s demands that, among other things, Ukraine make Russian the country’s second “official” language, ban certain nationalist political parties, and become neutral and non-allied. They insist that these demands “clearly violate the principle of nonintervention in internal affairs enshrined in the U.N. Charter and customary international law.” Now think of the innumerable times that Washington has demanded certain changes in the domestic and foreign relations of weaker countries as conditions for friendly relations and/or aid. Do Mssrs Rivkin and Casey consider, for example, US demands for the extradition of drug traffickers from Mexico or changes in Uganda’s draconian law against LGBT individuals or other countries to cut oil purchases from Iran to be violations of the principle of nonintervention? I’d be very surprised if they did.
They argue that Moscow should also be held accountable for its alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war which, of course, are precisely the international legal standards that Washington stands accused of abusing by national and international human rights groups in its conduct of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention its use of drones to eliminate targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. Of course, their interpretations of these laws, when applied to US actions, tend to be quite liberal and forgiving despite the not inconsiderable number of innocent men, women, and children who have been killed by US forces in these conflicts. Moscow’s use of troops who have removed their Russian insignia, as well as the failure to promptly repatriate captured Ukrainian troops and equipment from Crimea, however, should be considered “major violations” of the laws of war and treated accordingly despite the fact that Moscow’s takeover of Crimea was conducted relatively peacefully and virtually with no bloodshed.
Now, I don’t mean to be justifying anything Russia has done and agree completely with the authors that the Russian action sets a terrible precedent. But, during their service in government, the United States, among other things, carried out covert wars against Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Angola, invaded Grenada (on the totally phony pretext of protecting US medical students there), and Panama. During the last 12 years, they defended wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and virtually all of the abuses, including “enhanced interrogation techniques,” associated with those. As I said, there’s a certain lack of self-consciousness here, which is rather typical of neoconservatives.
But, by all means, we should take the Russians to the ICJ. That could be a very useful precedent.
Photo: President George W. Bush and former President George H. W. Bush greet Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Bush family house in Kennebunkport, Maine, in July 2007. Credit: AFP/Getty Images/Jim Watson
]]>So it is with Elliott Abrams‘ latest [...]]]>
So it is with Elliott Abrams‘ latest op-ed on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, entitled “Dictators, Democracies and Wikileaks” in which, among other things, he informs us that “dictators and authoritarians don’t tell their people the truths they tell us” and that “their public speeches are meant to manipulate, not to inform.”
“Their approach is striking: Tell the truth to foreigners but not to your own population,” [he goes on].
“So in Yemen, for example, we see President Ali Abdullah Saleh discussing action against al Qaeda and insisting, ‘We’ll continue to say the bombs are ours and not yours.”
This quotation, of course, is taken from the cable describing a meeting between Saleh and Gen. David Petraeus during which one of Saleh’s aides jokes that he had just lied to parliament about U.S. airstrikes against alleged al Qaeda targets in Yemeni territory. Abrams, now Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, goes on to contrast this kind of mendacity on the part of “dictators and authoritarians” with the honesty of democratic governments:
“Cables reporting on U.S.-German, U.S.-French, or U.S.-Canadian consultations are different — those governments say to their parliaments what they say to us.”
So, then, how would Abrams himself judge the Reagan administration — and, specifically, his own performance in it — when he applies this standard to the Iran-Contra affair?
Abrams, of course, was indicted by the special prosecutor for intentionally deceiving [i.e. lying to] Congress about the Reagan administration’s and his personal role in supporting the Nicaraguan Contras in violation of U.S. law. He eventually pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses (including withholding information from Congress) in order to avoid a trial and a possible prison term. As the prosecutor’s report makes clear, Abrams, who was assistant secretary of Inter-American Affairs at the time, lied throughout the hearings, insisting that he had no knowledge of the NSC and CIA programs to support the Contras when, in fact, he was one of the three principal members (with Oliver North and Alan Fiers) of the so-called Restricted Inter-Agency Group (RIG) that oversaw Central America policy during the Contra war and had been explicitly ordered by his boss, Secretary of State George Shultz, to closely monitor North’s activities. In his guilty plea, he also admitted that he withheld from Congress the fact that he had personally solicited $10 million in aid for the Contras from the Sultan of Brunei. In other words, like President Saleh and his jovial aide, Abrams told the Sultan — who would undoubtedly fall into the dictator/authoritarian category that he now pontificates about — what he refused to tell the United States Congress or his “own population.”
Of course, one could go on and on about Abrams’ mendacity during his service under Reagan; first as assistant secretary for international organizations (1981), then as assistant secretary of human rights and humanitarian affairs (1981-85), and finally as assistant secretary for Inter-American Affairs (1985-89). So low was his credibility with senators — on both sides of the aisle — that his biggest fans on the George W. Bush administration (notably Dick Cheney) knew from the outset that he could never be confirmed to any post. So they sent him to the National Security Council — first as Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001-2002); then as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002-2009) and Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy (2005-2009) — where he would never be required to testify before Congress.
One other anomaly struck me about Abrams’ most recent op-ed, aside from his highly questionable assertion — presumably from his old friends in Battalion 316 whose atrocities he helped to cover up in the 1980′s — about the “Honduran people’s unified desire to throw out” ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. I refer to his praise for former U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey’s analysis of Turkey’s new foreign policy as “sharp and well-written.” That seems very strange, indeed, given what Abrams himself has written about the direction Turkey is taking under the AKP government and President Erdogan. Here’s Abrams in the Weekly Standard last June immediately after the flotilla incident:
“[I]t’s obvious that our formerly reliable NATO ally has become a staunch supporter of the radical camp [in the Middle East]. …Turkey’s U.N. Security Council vote against the newest round of sanctions this past week put it in Iran’s camp against Europe, the United States, Russia, and China. That’s quite a realignment for a NATO ally.
“…Turks may tire of Erdogan’s speeches and return a government that seeks a true balance between East and West rather than a headlong dive into alliances with Iran and Syria.”
Now here’s what Jeffrey wrote in his summary of Erdogan’s foreign policy a few months before:
“Does all this mean that [Turkey] is becoming more focused on the Islamist world and its Muslim tradition in its foreign policy? Absolutely. Does it mean that it is ‘abandoning’ or wants to abandon its traditional Western orientation and willingness to cooperate with us? Absolutely not.”
There seems to be a yawning gap between Abrams’ conviction that Turkey has joined the “radical camp” led by Iran and Jeffrey’s “sharp” analysis that such a charge is absolute nonsense.
That’s the thing with many neo-conservatives like Abrams: it’s hard to know when they are deliberately deceptive (call it takiya), when they are engaged in agitprop, or when they are doing serious analysis (of which many of them, including Abrams, are quite capable). It’s kind of like figuring out what “dictators and authoritarians” really mean when they talk to “us.”
]]>