Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (28 January)

Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (27 January)
Latest Post: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

6 p.m. The Guardian of London: "President Barack Obama's administration is considering sending a letter to Iran aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks." The letter would be in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Obama on 6 November.

2:20 p.m. We've updated this morning's story on the Obama strategy for Afghanistan.

2:02 p.m. Reports that President Obama will visit Canada on 19 February.

2 p.m. The Dennis Ross saga, which has given us nightmares, continues. He still has not been officially named as the State Department envoy on Iranian matters but "United Against Nuclear Iran", the pressure group which includes as members Ross and State's envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, either has outdated info or gives the game away:

United Against Nuclear Iran thanks Ambassadors Holbrooke and Ross for their commitment, service, and leadership and we congratulate them on their recent appointments to the Department of State.

1 p.m. Pick a Number, Any Number. A NATO spokesman claims that less than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in the organisation's military operations in 2008. That compares with an estimate in The New York Times of up to 4000 and by an Afghan human rights group, based on UN numbers, of almost 700.

11:30 a.m. On the Other Hand....Only two hours after we updated on Russia's cancellation of a deployment of missiles on the Polish border, thanks to the Obama Factor, another problem crops up:

NATO countries expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Russia plans to set up bases in Russian-backed breakaway territories in Georgia, a NATO spokesman said.

The specific issue is Russia's announcement on Monday that it intends to build a naval base in Abkhazia, which was part of Georgia but which Russia recognised as "independent" after last August's Russian-Georgian war.

10:35 a.m. It's not all bad news in Afghanistan. The Taliban have praised, "Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Unfortunately, the feel-good moment may be short-lived. The Taliban also insisted that, if the President wants "mutual respect" with Muslim communities, "He must completely withdraw all his forces from the two occupied Islamic countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and to stop defending Israel against Islamic interests in the Middle East and the entire world." And, as for Afghanistan, Obama should not send additional US forces as "the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

9:45 a.m. Score one diplomatic/victory for the Obama Factor.

An official from the Russian General Staff has told the Interfax news agency that Moscow will suspend deployment of missiles on the Polish border: "These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic." The news follows a conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Monday.

There are other US-Russian exchanges to watch. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister has told Iran that Moscow wants to broaden "political, trade, and economic cooperation". For the moment, however, the apparent rapprochement raises the question....

What exactly was the value of the Missile Defence pursued by the Bush Administration so relentlessly over the last eight years?

7:30 a.m. Is this for show for real? Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, contradicting the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday,  say they have no agreement with the Obama Administration allowing US missile strikes on Pakistani territory: ""There is no understanding between Pakistan and the United States on Predator attacks."

Of course, it could be the case that the American arrangement is with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, bypassing the Foreign Ministry. Alternatively, the Pakistani Government is trying to hold to the public line of "independence" while private accepting US operations.

6 a.m. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given a challenging but cautious response to President Obama's suggestion of engagement. Speaking at an election rally in western Iran, Ahmadinejad said:

We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track. When they say "we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change ... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad, clearly picking up on Obama's campaign slogan of "change", added, "[The US] should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

This is a significant rhetorical position that has been taken up by Iranian leaders in the past. Indeed, I suspect US policymakers will immediately think that at the end of the Clinton Administration, they made such an apology, albeit belatedly, for the 1953 US-backed coup. It should also be noted that this is a campaign speech, with Ahmadinejad staking out his foreign-policy position to the Iranian electorate.

This said, Ahmadinejad gave an important signal in a reference to Washington stifling Iran's economic development since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decoded, this may be indicating to Obama: if you want to engage, the US has to make a commitment --- possibly even in advance of negotiations --- to ease existing sanctions on Tehran.

3:50 a.m. Glimpse the Future. Just to highlight our top post this morning on Afghanistan and the problems of the Obama strategy: "American officers distributed $40,000 on Tuesday to relatives of 15 people killed Jan. 19 in a United States raid."

The US military wasn't exactly generous in its apology, holding to the claim that a "militant commander" died along with 14 civilians. While a colonel told villages, "If there was collateral damage, I’m very sorry about that,” a US military lawyers made clear that "he payments were not an admission that innocents had been killed".

3:30 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry highlighting the apparent White House strategy in Afghanistan: ramp up the military effort, leave nation-building to others, and ditch Afghan President Hamid Karzai if necessary.

Morning Update (1:45 a.m. Washington time): It looks the campaign, pursued by some in the Pentagon, to undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay within a year has been checked. The New York Times and CNN began running a "backlash" story yesterday that the Saudi programme for rehabilitation of terrorists was actually very, very good with only nine participants, out of hundreds, returning to their evil ways. The significance? The original spin was that two ex-Gitmo detainees who had rejoined Yemeni terrorist cells may have gone through the Saudi programme.

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying to Congressional committees, gave full support to the closure plan: ""I believe that if we did not have a deadline, we could kick that can down the road endlessly."

The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

Update: In a sign of division in the Obama White House, officials are back-pedaling away from this morning's story. A White House official, dropping the Karzai-must-accept line and the military-only approach, said, "President Barack Obama will press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to extend government control beyond the capital and fight corruption under a new U.S. policy with a "significant non-military component." He added, with respect to the Times article, "There is no purely military solution to the challenge in Afghanistan so there will be a significant non-military component to anything that we seek to undertake." A Pentagon spokesman added, ""That story, to me, seemed to suggest that we had some sort of view on the specific outcome of the election in Afghanistan. I don't believe that to be true."

Regular readers know that our primary concern with the Obama Administration is the foreign-policy priority of a military-first approach to Afghanistan.



Well, the White House spinners have now used The New York Times to set out the plans, and it's worse than we thought. Not only will there be war, but the US Government is prepared to push aside Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he has anything to say about it:

President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Karzai is now seen as a potential impediment to American goals in Afghanistan, the officials said, because corruption has become rampant in his government, contributing to a flourishing drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban.

Among those pressing for Mr. Karzai to do more, the officials said, are Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Indeed, the approach appears to be a replication of General David Petraeus's model for Iraq, "with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government". And, in case you thought Obama was going to at least complement the military strategy with a political and social approach to the turmoil in much of Afghanistan, the White House aides emphasised:

[We will] leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces [can] focus on the fight against insurgents.

Obama advisors appear to be so clueless --- sorry, but that seems to be the appropriate word --- that they are replacing all local considerations with a sweeping portrayal of "us v. Bin Laden" as the central issue: “What we’re trying to do is to focus on the Al Qaeda problem. That has to be our first priority.”

Beyond the military question --- can you really defeat the Taliban and other insurgents head-on, rather than trying to build up a base of support in the villages through development of infrastructure and social programmes? --- Obama may be shattering a fragmented country. The "ditch Karzai" approach may have merit in light of the corruption and inefficiency allegations, but if it effectively sets aside a national government --- which the US threatened but never did in Iraq --- then what hope of a unified long-term campaign against insurgency?

And no amount of extra US soldiers --- 20,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 --- is going to offer a magic answer to that question.

Afghanistan: Obama's Camp Bagram Challenge

The New York Times turns its attention to the US detention facility at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the second lengthy article on the prison in the last three days. There are more than twice detainees there than there are at Guantanamo Bay, and the population has increased six-fold in the last four years:

Military personnel who know Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as tougher and more spartan. The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers. Many are still held communally in big cages. The Bush administration never allowed journalists or human rights advocates inside.

The legal status of the detainees is even murkier than that of counterparts at Guantanamo Bay. Those who are prisoners of war should have been released after the Taliban were removed from power more than seven years ago. Those who are insurgents should have been transferred to Afghan custody. However, because there is still no effective Afghan judicial and security system, the US military won't let the detainees out of Camp Bagram.

Reporter Eric Schmitt notes the upcoming legal challenge: a US judge has given "the Obama administration until Feb. 20 to 'refine' the government’s legal position with respect to four men" challenging their detention under habeas corpus. And he is clear about the forthcoming political decision:

[Obama] must also determine whether to go forward with the construction of a $60 million prison complex at Bagram that, while offering better conditions for the detainees, would also signal a longer-term commitment to the American detention mission.

What Schmitt doesn't say is the obvious. If the US ramps up its military deployment from 30,000 to 60,000 men, Obama won't have any alternative to building Camp Bagram II and keeping the original fully-stocked: there are going to be a lot more "enemy combatants" under US supervision.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (26 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Posts: Obama on Top of the World (25 January)

5 p.m. We're off for some downtime. Back in the morning with overnight updates, including the latest of Obama envoy George Mitchell's first trip to the Middle East.

3:30 p.m. Barack, We Have a Problem. Our news this morning (2:45 a.m. and 6 a.m.) was on the emerging "third country" solution for Guantanamo ex-detainees. The meeting of the 27 European Union foreign ministers, however, has failed to agree a unified approach. The French-led proposal to take up to 60 detainees has been blocked or undermined by Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands.

The cheekiest excuse of all came from British Foreign Minister David Miliban who said that, as Britain had taken back nine of its citizens and three of its permanent residents, it had already made its "significant contribution".



3:15 p.m. Here's a New Crisis for You. Well, not that new, for anyone paying attention, but one that the Obama Administration can't welcome. Islamic insurgents in Somalia have raided the Parliament building in Baidoa and paraded five lawmakers through the streets. The remainder of the Parliamentarians, meeting in the neighbouring country of Djibouti, are effectively stranded. As one said, "We have nowhere to return to."

The insurgents' takeover in Baidoa occurred only hours after Ethiopian troops completed their withdrawal from the country.

2:55 p.m. Sticking to the Script. The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said today that she looked forward to "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran". This follows the line put out on the Obama White House website --- what we're awaiting is a sign of how the Administration will approach Tehran.

1:45 p.m. Further to our report (5:05 a.m.) of the removal of the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) off the European Union's list of terrorist organisations:

Iran has criticised the decision as an "irresponsible move". The European response, anticipated by our readers in the Comments section on this thread, is that European courts left no alternative. The EU's head of foreign policy, Javier Solana, said, "What we are doing today is abiding by the decision of the court. There is nothing we can do about the decision."

The PMOI/MKO's political branch, however, is treating the decision as legal and political vindication and is planning its next activities. Marjam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, called the removal from the terrorist list "a crushing defeat to Europe's policy of appeasement". A spokesman said the group would now seek to have its funds unfrozen, claiming the NCRI had $9 million in France and tens of millions in other European states.

11:30 a.m. The State Department Twitterers are offering updates from the Department press briefing. Good News: unlike the Bushmen, who saw any expression of local independence as a threat to Washington's control, Department spokesman has welcomed the outcome of Bolivia's constitutional referendum.

The Not-so-Good (Technical) News: We excitedly clinked on the link, expecting Wood's briefing or a detailed statement of the new Latin American policy and got...a map of Bolivia.

Bless.

10:30 a.m. Oh, No. Last week we reported, when George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke were named as Obama envoys, that US foreign policy and the world had dodged a bullet because Dennis Ross had unexpectedly not been unveiled as envoy on Iranian matters.

We celebrated too soon. According to the Foreign Policy blog "The Cable", "State Department sources...[say] that former Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross has indeed been tapped as the U.S. envoy to Iran, with the possible title 'ambassador at large'."

If Ross is indeed named, we'll roll out the reasons why this could lead to a disastrous US approach towards Tehran. For now, have a look at Ross' November 2008 opinion piece that insists, despite US intelligence estimates that say otherwise, "Iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons", and suggests tougher sanctions, "Hitting the [Iranian] economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice."

10 a.m. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to name Todd Stern as "climate change envoy" today.

Stern was a staff member in the Bill Clinton White House, coordinating the Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999 before becoming an advisor to the US Treasury. He is now senior partner in a law firm and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, focusing on climate change and environmental issues.

6:45 a.m. Pressure to the Left of Me, Pressure to the Right. Last week it became clear that some in the US military, as well as the US ambassador in Iraq, are digging in their heels on the Obama plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.

Today Obama is getting a nudge from the other side. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, facing provincial elections, is declaring that that the withdrawal "will be accelerated and occur before the date set in the [Status of Forces] agreement" between the US and Iraq. That agreement, passed in December, promises the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011.

6 a.m. Following up our early update (2:45 a.m.) on the "third country" solution for Guantanamo Bay detainees, there is a potentially major meeting in Brussels today. European Union foreign ministers are discussing the proposal to take in the released prisoners. Javier Solana, the EU Secretary-General, suggested, "This is an American problem and they have to solve it but we'll be ready to help if necessary... I think the answer of the EU will be yes."

The number of up to 60 detainees to be accepted by Europe, floated by the French this weekend, may match up to the 50 to 60 "hard cases" identified by the US. These are detainees who face possible human rights abuses if they are returned to home countries.

5:05 a.m. One Man's Terrorist is Another's.....The European Union has taken the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), off a list of banned terrorist groups.

MKO was formed in the 1960s as a "leftist" opposition group against the rule of the Shah of Iran but, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it broke with the new Government. MKO, from bases in France and then Iraq, began a sustained campaign of bombings, sabotage, and assassinations against Iranian targets during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and operations have continued since then.

In 2003, there was a split in the US Government between those who wanted to use the group against Iran and those who wanted to curb its activities. MKO remained in Iraq, although its members were disarmed and guards were posted on its bases. Last week, the Iraqi Government asked MKO members to leave the country "voluntarily".

5 a.m. Two US military aircraft have crashed in northern Iraq, killing four soldiers.

3:45 a.m. In a major victory for President Evo Morales, Bolivia's new constitution has been approved in a referendum with a "Yes" vote of more than 60 percent.

3:30 a.m. Pakistani insurgents blew up a school this morning in the Swat Valley in the northwest of the country, the 183rd destroyed in six months. Cleric Maulana Fazlullah has presented a list, published in local newspapers, of 50 Government officials ordered to appear before him or face death. A bicycle bomb planted near a women's hostel killed five people.

2:45 a.m. It's becoming clear that the Obama strategy for closing Guantanamo Bay rests upon getting third countries to take detainees. Vice President Joe Biden, in the headline interview on the Sunday talk shows, said, "We won't release people inside the United States. They're either going to be tried in courts, in military courts, or sent back to their own country."

There are major legal difficulties with the courts option, since the Bush Administration's chaotic and tortuous handling of detainees means that evidence may have been perverted beyond repair. So it's over to Europe: Portugal last month said it would consider taking some ex-detainees, and Switzerland followed last week. Ireland has said that it would accept some released prisoners, if it was part of a "European" solution. And that in turn points to reports that France is preparing such an initiative for the European Union.

1:45 a.m. Juan Cole, despite an over-sensational headline ("Obama's Vitenam?"), has an excellent overview of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the likely Obama strategy in Salon.

Overnight Update (1 a.m. Washington time): Two days after US missile strikes in Afghanistan killed 22 "militants" and/or civilians, The New York Times highlights an earlier attack that killed between 22 and 32 people, quoting from survivors:

The American military declared the nighttime raid this month a success, saying it killed 32 people, all Taliban insurgents — the fruit of an emphasis on intelligence-driven use of Special Operations forces.

But the two young men who lay wincing in a hospital ward here told a different story a few days later, one backed up by the pro-American provincial governor and a central government delegation. They agreed that 13 civilians had been killed and 9 wounded when American commandos broke down doors and unleashed dogs without warning on Jan. 7 in the hunt for a known insurgent.

It appears that today's headline Obama orders will take on former President George W. Bush and climate change. White House officials indicate that the moves will be domestic, including steps "to raise fuel efficiency standards and grant states authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars".

There is no indication yet that President Obama will launch a post-Kyoto process on climate change, nor of how he will reverse the Bush Administration's isolation from international discussions.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (25 January)

Later Updates: Obama on Top of the World (26 January)
Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (24 January)
Latest Post: Obama Keeps (Illegal?) Surveillance Powers
Latest Post: Post-Inauguration 2009: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

2:55 p.m. Get Ready for a Bumpy Ride. Vice President Joe Biden is preparing the US public not only for a surge in US troop levels in Afghanistan but a rise in dead and wounded. Asked this morning on Face the Nation if he thought there would be an increase in casualties, he replied, "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."

11 a.m. An inadvertent revelation in attempted boosterism by The Sunday Telegraph of London today. The article headlines that 300 British bomb disposal technicians and intelligence staff are going to southern Afghanistan to combat the Taliban's use of improvised explosive devices. The reports adds that this will raise British troop levels to 8600 but it then undermines all the good work: "The size of the force is likely to increase to around 10,000 in the autumn or early next year with the deployment of an additional 1,000 strong battle group into Helmand."



So the total British boost to complement the expected US surge will be 1300 troops, no more. That's out of the more than 4000 UK forces being withdrawn from Iraq by July.

No wonder there's been sniping in the US press about the lack of British commitment to the Afghan effort. And no wonder that "General David Petraeus, the commander of the US's Central Command, is due to visit the UK in the next few weeks", trying to armtwist Prime Minister Gordon Brown into a further British escalation.

10 a.m. Propaganda of the Day. Uzi Mahnaimi, who writes from Tel Aviv for the Sunday Times, trumpets, "An American naval taskforce in the Gulf of Aden has been ordered to hunt for suspicious Iranian arms ships heading for the Red Sea as Tehran seeks to re-equip Hamas."

That's not news --- we posted this days ago --- but then Mahnaimi is not a reporter in any meaningful sense of the day. Instead, he's a channel for Tel Aviv's "information" line, which in this case is ramping up the campaign against Iran.

Thus Mahnaimi states that a US ship intercepted a "former Russian vessel" and held it for two days --- again, not news, as we noted the incident when it occurred earlier this week --- and adds, "According to unconfirmed reports, weapons were found." Very unconfirmed: the former Russian vessel had artillery, which Hamas does not use, and no further arms were found when it was searched in report.

Of course, this doesn't stop Mahnaimi, who tosses in the Israeli suspicion that two Iranian destroyers, sent to help fight piracy off the Somalian coast, are part of a scheme to run weapons to Gaza. And he has more:

Iran plans to ship Fajr rockets with a 50-mile range to Gaza. This would bring Tel Aviv, its international airport and the Dimona nuclear reactor within reach for the first time.

Of course, Iran may be supplying weapons to Hamas but this story is Israeli-inspired misinformation, of value to Tel Aviv's political schemes but worthless for any analysis of the aftermath of the Gaza conflict. (cross-posted from The Latest From Israel-Palestine-Gaza thread)

4:20 a.m. Thousands have marched in Afghanistan on Sunday to protest US airstrikes and civilian deaths.

3:40 a.m. Here's another reason not to close Guantanamo Bay: Bad Paperwork. Since the Bush Administration never had plans for a legal process for the detainees, there was no reason to keep organised files. The Washington Post reports:

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

3:15 a.m. It may be the weekend, but the campaign to limit and possibly undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo continues. We noted on Friday and on Saturday that some in the US military and intelligence communities are feeding "exclusives" to The New York Times about ex-detainees who are rejoining Al Qa'eda.

Today Times reporter Robert Worth, who might as well collect his paycheck from the Pentagon, writes a follow-up: "Two former Guantánamo Bay detainees now appear to have joined Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, which released a video on Friday showing them both and identifying them by their names and Guantánamo detainee numbers." One of the detainees is Said Ali al-Shihri, the featured bad guy in Worth's Friday article.

2:55 a.m. The Daily Telegraph of London has a good article looking at the US detention facility at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan. The prison currently holds 600 detainees, more than twice as many as Guantanamo, and...

Not only are there no plans to close it, but it is in the process of being expanded to hold 1,100 illegal enemy combatants; prisoners who cannot see lawyers, have no trials and never see any evidence there may be against them.

2:50 a.m. We've posted a separate entry on a little-noticed development, in a court case in San Francisco, which indicates the Obama Administration will maintain the Bush executive orders sanctioning wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping at home as well as abroad.



Overnight update (2 a.m. Washington time): Friday's US missile strikes in Pakistan, which killed 22 people, may escalate into a political test for both the Obama Administration and Pakistan Government of Asif Zardari. In comments and a wordy statement, Zardari and the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said --- at least publicly --- Back Off:

With the advent of the new US administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism. We maintain that these strikes are counterproductive and should be discontinued.

Obama has not commented on the strikes, but US officials have been spinning the line that the attacks show his commitment to former President Bush's policy of unilateral American military action in northwest Pakistan.

Elsewhere, some news outlets are paying attention to yesterday's suicide bombing in Somalia, which killed 15 people and illustrated the growing turmoil in the country.