Yesterday we charted the way Secretary of State John Kerry’s seemingly off-handed answer to a question about how Syria could deter a US strike morphed into what’s now being referred to as the “Lavrov Proposal“. As far as I can [...]]]> by Jasmin Ramsey

*This post has been updated

Yesterday we charted the way Secretary of State John Kerry’s seemingly off-handed answer to a question about how Syria could deter a US strike morphed into what’s now being referred to as the “Lavrov Proposal“. As far as I can tell, it was Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton who first publicly described the proposal for Syria to turn in its chemical weapons to international monitors as a US-Russian initiative (before she talked about endangered wildlife), rather than Russia seizing upon a US slip of the tongue, which is what it really looked liked. Well, while the proposal was actually first brought up by then-Senator Richard G. Lugar a little over a year ago, more people are now pushing the notion that Kerry’s gaffe wasn’t one at all, including the Secretary of State himself. Kerry provided his description of what went down on Monday during his remarks at the House Armed Services Committee today (emphasis mine):

Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad’s arsenal, and it is the ideal weapon – ideal way to take this weapon away from him.

This is how Kerry “challenged” Bashar al-Assad to hand over his chemical weapons:

Kerry continued that Russia “responded” to his challenge by saying they would come up with a proposal and that President Barack Obama would take a “hard look” at it if it was produced within a limited time. (Interestingly, the President hasn’t ruled it out.) Kerry also argued something we’re hearing over and over again now: this potentially good outcome would not have been possible without a credible threat of US military force.

After Kerry announced this US “challenge” in London during the question/answer period of a press briefing and Russia announced it had a proposal within a few hours, former United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley tweeted why this could be a life preserver for Obama:

#Putin just offered #Obama a lifeboat, a diplomatic solution that allows the postponement of a vote on military action he may well lose.

— Philip J. Crowley (@PJCrowley) September 9, 2013

#Obama gains from the #Russian offer. If #Assad gives up the weapons, problem solved. If not, it strengthens the case for military action.

— Philip J. Crowley (@PJCrowley) September 9, 2013

Today, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller repeated some of Crowley’s arguments while arguing that Kerry did not act as a “careless pawn”:

I’m told by a senior administration official that Kerry’s comment was not as offhanded as it seemed. According to this official, Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, first discussed the idea back in the spring. They returned to it more seriously last week, and Putin and Obama talked about it in at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg. The official said the administration sees the danger that the Russians or the U.N. will make it a delaying tactic, but that “in Kerry’s mind and in the President’s mind, it can be a win-win:” either you disarm Syria of its chemical weapons quickly and verifiably, or by exhausting a credible diplomatic option you win support for tougher measures against the Assad regime.

Of course, that still doesn’t explain why this alleged US challenge was presented only after Kerry was prompted with a question from a CBS reporter and why the State Department initially categorically denied that Kerry had made a proposal. Here’s a reminder of yesterday’s Daily Press Briefing with Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf (emphasis mine):

QUESTION: — did not make this statement until after he found about what the Secretary had said.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. But the Secretary was not making a proposal. The Secretary was making a –

QUESTION: How is that? Go ahead.

MS. HARF: Thank you. The Secretary was making a rhetorical statement and you read the whole quote, which I actually appreciate you doing. Look, he’s not about to do this. That was – that’s what the –

*Update: Al-Monitor also reports that this proposal was in the making before Kerry’s comments on Monday. It still seems like Kerry at least jumped the gun, which is understandable, considering that he’s probably been going on less than 3 hours of sleep. In any case, here’s why all of this could unfortunately be going nowhere.

You’re no doubt aware by now of a proposal by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for Syria to hand over its (still only accidentally acknowledged) chemical weapons to international control, which his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem said Syria “welcomes”. Syrian ally Russia was jumpstarted into action after [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Jasmin Ramsey

You’re no doubt aware by now of a proposal by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for Syria to hand over its (still only accidentally acknowledged) chemical weapons to international control, which his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem said Syria “welcomes”. Syrian ally Russia was jumpstarted into action after Secretary of State John Kerry apparently went off script in London today by floating the proposal (suggested over a year ago by former Senator Richard G. Lugar) and doubting its feasibility in the same sentence after CBS reporter Margaret Brennan asked if there was any way Syria could avert military action:

Sure, if he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community, in the next week, turn it over. All of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that, but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done, obviously.

Novelist Teju Cole has broken all this down for us in Twitter-speak

Kerry: We won’t attack…if you do this impossible thing. Syria: Oh? We’ll do it. Russia: They’ll do it. UN: They’ll do it. Kerry: Shit!

— Teju Cole (@tejucole) September 9, 2013

While it’s too soon to get excited with the proposal’s details still in the making, Kerry’s words have taken on a life of their own  (though some have suggested this was at least somehow related to a behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuver). The State Department and White House seem to have forgotten to talk to each other before issuing statements on all this earlier today. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf called Kerry’s words “hypothetical” and “rhetorical” and said the Russian proposal was considered “highly unlikely”. She also — wait for this — categorically stated that “the Secretary was not making a proposal.” Later the White House said during its daily press briefing that it would take a “hard look” at the Russian proposal, but Press Secretary Jay Carney also repeatedly emphasized that all this would not have occurred without the credible threat of force against President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged actions. He meanwhile urged Congress to vote for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Syria, which the administration has been strongly pushing for, and which Kerry’s words may have now endangered.

Speaking at the White House during a Forum to Combat Wildlife Trafficking immediately after Carney’s appearance, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she had just met with President Obama and seemed to have the most updated speech on the issue:

…if the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control as was suggested by Secretary Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step. But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction.

While many are labelling Kerry’s words a “gaffe”, Clinton strategically tried to frame it as a purposeful move by Kerry, being forced, of course, to include the Russians. Perhaps the White House is hoping everyone will eventually forget Harf’s opposing description.

In any case, here’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting Ben Rhodes with the most recent WH statement:

US will review Russian proposal. We want Syrian CW under intl control. Important that this only proposed bc credible threat of mil action

— Ben Rhodes (@rhodes44) September 9, 2013

It should also be noted that earlier in the day UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said following the Russian announcement that he was “considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed” if it was proven that chemical weapons have been used.

It will be interesting to see how Obama tackles all this during his many scheduled interviews today and during his speech to the nation Tuesday night wherein he will urge for military action against Syria, especially considering how a majority of Americans continue to oppose it, even after the release of those horrific videos of the Syrian victims of the Aug. 21 attack.

This week Mitt Romney raised British eyebrows — and hackles — with several gaffes that undermined the objective of his trip to London: to boost his limited to nonexistent foreign policy credentials.

Romney “must wish he was already on the next stop of his foreign tour, in Jerusalem, where [...]]]> via Lobe Log

This week Mitt Romney raised British eyebrows — and hackles — with several gaffes that undermined the objective of his trip to London: to boost his limited to nonexistent foreign policy credentials.

Romney “must wish he was already on the next stop of his foreign tour, in Jerusalem, where he will undoubtedly be getting better treatment than he has so far on his initial visit to London,”Anshel Pfeffer opined in Haaretz on Thursday as one Romney misstep after another was reported in the British press.

In telling NBC News’ Brian Williams that there had been “disconcerting” omens about the London Olympics such as “stories about the private security firm not having enough people,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee may have been gearing up for his Israel-based stop on his foreign policy muscular mastery tour. While Romney may have been referring to the scandals surrounding G4S, the private security firm accused of failing to live up to its £284 million contract to provide security for the London Olympics, his criticism of British stewardship at the 2012 Olympics will play well to Israelis who have been offended by the Olympic Committee’s reaction to Israeli special requests.

Indeed, Israelis have been angered that the International Olympic Committee once again turned down a decades-old request for a moment of silence during the opening ceremonies in memory of 11 Israeli athletes killed in a terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics in 1972. President Obama endorsed the commemoration of the 40th anniversary  of the massacre (immediately denounced as a “politicizing” ploy by Obama critics on the right) as did Romney a few days days later. According to Friday morning reports from London, the British Zionist Federation organized an off-site and virtual event that attracted 200 attendees to the Israeli Embassy in London and another 20,000 in different venues around the city. There is no media mention yet as to whether Romney was among them.

The revelation last week that Olympic swimmers from Israel were not being provided with special security at their training camp in Corby, a town two hours from London, also provoked outrage in the Israeli press, particularly in light of the bus bombing at the Burgas Airport in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists. The British organizers insisted that the security provided to all Olympic participants was sufficient, and other Israeli athletes said they felt safe in London and the Olympic Village. The alleged security lapse in Corby reportedly was exposed only after a greater level of protection for the Israeli swimmers was in place. Romney’s jab at British security arrangements for the Olympics, to which Prime Minister David Cameron and the British press took exception, will no doubt be taken as another sign of his concern for Israelis.

Romney’s arrival in Israel on Saturday follows a five day get-out-the-Republican-vote drive in Jerusalem in mid-July, launched by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush’s press secretary, and Matt Brooks, RJC’s Executive Director, have been desperately trying to entice the 77% of Jewish Americans who traditionally vote Democrat to join the Romney camp. The nearly 164,000 American Jews and dual nationals who make their homes in Israel tend to be more religious — and more politically conservative — than their non-expat coreligionists in the US, and reportedly vote Republican by a 3 to 1 margin. The RJC estimates that there are 150,000 potential voters in Israel who could swing the 2012 election in Romney’s favor. Romney’s Israel visit is the crown jewel of the RJC campaign, which targets not only the third largest American expatriate community in the world (Canada and Mexico rank first and second, the UK ranks fourth), but Jewish voters in the US, as well as evangelical Christians who harbor doubts about Romney.

Ironically, the RJC’s prospects for success have been enhanced by measures implemented by the Obama administration in 2009 that make it easier for Americans living abroad to vote. While Republican governors are doing everything they can to make voting more complicated and difficult in their own states such as implementing increasingly bureaucratic registration procedures and more stringent voter ID laws, the voting rights of the 6.32 million Americans living abroad are protected by the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Expats, some of whom may never have lived in the US, can quickly and easily register to vote and get an absentee ballot via a secure and user friendly website. The absentee ballot can be printed out, filled in, then scanned and emailed or snail-mailed back to election officials in the last state of residence.

The RJC drive to amass votes for Romney in Israel points to an emerging paradox of which the RJC hopes to take advantage; it is now easier than ever for Americans living abroad to vote in a US election while an increasing number of obstacles confront American voters who live on US soil. In other words, block the vote here, rock the vote there!

While Ed Sanders of the LA Times anticipates that Israelis will take Romney’s visit “in stride” and “with a grain of salt,” the fulsome advance coverage and interviews abroad published thus far in the Israeli press strongly hint that it will fall upon the foreign press corps to provide any critical coverage of Romney’s 36 hours in Israel. It’s not surprising that casino magnate and GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson’s Israel Hayom (Israel Today) — Israel’s largest circulation daily (because it’s free) — has nothing but effusive praise for Romney and undisguised contempt for the US president. Current headlines include “Romney to Israel Today : Israel Deserves Better Treatment than it’s Getting from Obama” and “The Opposite of Obama” by Michael Goldfarb.

Even the writers for the more literary and reputedly “liberal” Haaretz are gaga-eyed and oozing with starstruck praise for the GOP presidential contender for his looks as much as what they surmise are his policies. Ari Shavit gushes:

…he is devoting half an hour of his time to me, removing his jacket and shaking my hand, and giving me a big smile. He says a few words about the surprising heat in England, asks what’s going on in Israel. He radiates old-fashioned American warmth…When I observe the tall, handsome man who is answering my questions so cautiously, I have a feeling that the drama surrounding him is even bigger than he is.

Such praise is rarely rendered in the US press, even by Romney’s biggest fans. But it is not that different from the characterization of Romney in Israel Hayom: “Romney is a soft-spoken man. Up close he looks like a movie star: tall, graying at the temples and tanned. He definitely has the presidential look.” Translation: Romney doesn’t look like that half-schvartza the Democrats are trying to re-elect.

Meanwhile, Haaretz political reporter Barak Ravid, whose ear never tends to be far from the whispers of Netanyahu government insiders, insinuates that President Obama’s signing of United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act a day before Romney’s arrival in Israel is deliberately  intended to upstage his GOP rival and steal his thunder. However, the legislation was passed by Congress just last week. (Had Obama signed the legislation any sooner, the same criticism would have applied. If Obama had for any reason put off signing the legislation until next week, there is no doubt that the Israeli media, and Romney, would have attributed the postponement to the President’s purported hostility toward Israel.)

That Iran must be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon will be the easiest point on which Romney will agree with Netanyahu. Romney has already hinted that he approves of a US strike against Iran ahead of his Israel visit. Nevertheless, political strategists, as Ed Sanders notes, are predicting that Romney will face “challenges and minefields when dealing with the specifics of how he would restart peace talks, prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb and respond to Israeli calls to release imprisoned American spy Jonathan Pollard.” However, in advance interviews with the GOP candidate, Israeli journalists have thus far not been holding Romney’s platitudinous responses to a particularly high standard of scrutiny and specificity on these issues.

Beyond his inability to offer policy prescriptions that differ substantially from the status quo, there are other potential pitfalls that also lay ahead for Romney this weekend due to the awkward scheduling of his Israel trip, which coincides with the Jewish observance of the Ninth Day of Av, a fast day second in importance only to the Jewish Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) for observant Jews. This has necessitated, as many press reports have noted, the rescheduling of what was to have been a Saturday night fundraiser to the Monday morning before Romney’s departure for Poland. With a $50,000 per couple minimum entry fee, only about 20-30 guests are expected, among whom may be Sheldon Adelson himself. Adelson is on the RJC’s Board of Directors.

Interestingly, no one seems to have noticed how scheduling details of the trip might affect Romney’s stated plan to visit the “Western Wall”, or the reception he will receive there if he does. After spending much of the day at the Olympics on Saturday, Romney is scheduled to arrive in Israel that afternoon. Will he offend local sensibilities by showing up at the Western Wall (camera crew in tow) on the Jewish Sabbath? Or will he wait until Sunday, when the Ninth of Av, which actually falls on Saturday this year, will be observed by traditional Jews since fasting and mourning are prohibited on the Sabbath. Over a hundred thousand people customarily squeeze into the Western Wall plaza to lament the Temple’s destruction. Will Romney attempt to join them (camera crew in tow) or request that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remove them? Either way, he is courting the risk of being pelted with stones by frock-coated, black-hatted, ultra-orthodox worshippers. Not exactly the kind of photo op that a presidential candidate could use to woo Jewish voters with.