Raymond Davis and Bad Allies Revisited

Before I comment on the Raymond Davis situation, let me call your attention to a post I wrote over two years ago called, "Bad Allies." Among others, I identified both Egypt and Pakistan as bad U.S. allies, with Pakistan at the head of the list. In light of the recent events in Egypt, here's what I had to say back then.

the Egyptians basically despise the U.S., take our money and weapons, and unlike the Saudis, provide us with nothing. Could we actually count on Egypt in any sort of crisis? Of course not. Egypt is a powder keg with strong radical Islamist elements, kept in check by a vicious dictatorship. Even more than Saudi Arabia, our alliance is with the government only. The people hate us. It could go from ally to enemy overnight, similar to what happened with Iran.

Well, the powder keg went off, now the only question is whether it will produce harmless fireworks or a nasty damaging explosion. As for Pakistan,

It's basically an ally in name only, and has only cooperated somewhat during the war on terror because the Bush administration put extreme pressure on it. Our relationship with Pakistan has prevented us from having closer ties with India, which, aside from being larger and more important, is actually a democratic state and should be a natural U.S. ally.

We now have a situation where Pakistan is holding an American consular employee, Raymond Davis, who apparently killed two men who were trying to rob him. A third man was also struck and killed by a consular vehicle responding to the incident. The LA Times has a brief synopsis of the incident,

At the time of the incident, Davis had been working out of the U.S. consulate in Lahore. He claims he fired in self-defense after the two men, Faizan Haider and Fahim Shamshad, pulled up on a motorcycle and one of them pulled out a gun. Davis fired several shots through his car's windshield, then got out of the car and continued to fire, witnesses said. A police report on the incident states Haider was shot three times in the front of his body and twice in the back. Shamshad also was shot five times, twice in the back. Pakistani police officials have said both Haider and Shamshad belonged to a local robbery gang and had stolen cellphones with them.

Despite the fact that even Pakistani police report that the men were known criminals, the anti-American populace, filled with conspiracy theories involving the CIA, wants vengeance on the evil American enemy. They want Davis tried for murder and executed. The weak Pakistani government is caught between the wishes of its population and its alliance with the U.S., a relationship that includes massive American aid. The Washington Post covers the complicated diplomatic issues in its "Fact Checker" column, and then gutlessly refuses to take a position. But it does offer the following statement.

If the State Department is correct and Davis was identified as a member of the embassy's administrative and technical staff when he arrived in Pakistan -- and he was accepted by Pakistan on that basis -- then he should be covered by the Vienna Convention and receive diplomatic immunity, no matter what his job was or how heinous his crimes. The United States has upheld that standard in the past, letting alleged criminals go free. It also does not matter what agency Davis works for back in the United States

From this U.S. perspective the situation is obvious. Davis has diplomatic immunity and Pakistan must respect it. So far the Obama administration has acted correctly to defend U.S. interests, insisting that Davis be released to U.S. custody and threatening to cut-off aid if he is not. There should be no compromise on this issue.

In my opinion, if news reports are correct, this case is clear. Davis was the subject of an attempted robbery. The robbers picked the wrong person and he responded with deadly force in self-defense. The number of shots fired, and where the criminals were struck is irrelevant. I have to laugh when I see read the ridiculous justification given by Pakistani police for charging Davis with murder. It sounds just like something you'd hear from some pro-criminal liberal in the West.

Police believe the shootings were unjustified because, although both men were armed with loaded guns, their pistols did not contain a bullet in the chamber. Also, both men had been shot in the back. "If the accused really acted in self-defense, he could have fired one or two shots to the lower limbs of the victims, particularly since he is an expert in using weapons,"

Yeah right. So Davis, alone in a foreign country and accosted by multiple armed men is supposed to know whether or not they have rounds chambered. Let's just ignore the rest of the situation entirely, such as the fact that he was driving and the attackers were on motorcycles. Let's pretend that he could selectively pick shot locations in that type of chaotic situation, and ignore the fact that bullets could strike any part of the body. Had Davis been a Pakistani businessman, police would probably have quickly released him after congratulating him on ridding the streets of a couple of criminal gang members. Davis was charged with murder only because he's an American who killed Pakistanis. The U.S. cannot and should not tolerate trumped up charges against any American, let alone someone with diplomatic immunity. That goes double for a country that is receiving massive amounts of both military and humanitarian aid from the U.S.

Sending the Wrong Message on Egypt

After initially remaining silent with regard to the Egyptian situation, the Obama administration decided to send exactly the wrong message. According to MSNBC, the administration will "review its $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt." In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly criticized the Mubarak regime.

"We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters, and we call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain the security forces," ... "We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communication," Clinton said. "These protests underscore that there are deep grievances within Egyptian society, and the Egyptian government needs to understand that violence will not make these grievances go away."

She called for the government to,

"engage immediately" with opposition groups and others to make broad economic, political and social changes.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me to see this level of Carteresque stupidity and diplomatic incompetence from the Obama administration. The last thing we should be doing is trying to undermine an allied regime. We should be reassuring Mubarak of our support, and making nothing more than bland statements of regret for the violence and unrest. Telling Mubarak that he should "engage" with those who want to overthrow his regime is complete idiocy, as is dropping hints that we are going to cut-off support. We are pushing him to do the things that will loosen his grip and cause his government to collapse. It's almost as if the administration wants to see another hostile Islamic republic in the Middle East. They obviously don't, but their foolish statements and attempts to triangulate make the downfall of Mubarak more likely.

Diplomatic Stupidity - Hillary Edition

One of the main benefits of the New START treaty -- possibly the only benefit -- is its effect on maintaining decent relations with Russia. After pushing hard for the treaty, the administration, along with some European allies, turned right around and damaged relations with Russia for no good reason.

If you haven't followed the case, Russia just convicted a major oil tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of theft and money laundering. Critics of the Russian government at home and abroad see it as a politically-motivated prosecution. It may well be. But what does it have to do with the U.S.? For some reason Hillary Clinton issued a statement on Monday "saying the oligarch's conviction raised 'serious questions about selective prosecution - and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations.'" She also said that "the case had a 'negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate.'"Britian and Germany took similar positions. Naturally the Russians were not happy.

a foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow said: "Judgements about some kind of selective application of justice in Russia are without foundation." He added: "We are counting on everyone minding his own business – both at home, and in the international arena."

This case is a prime example of diplomatic stupidity in action. How Russia prosecutes cases against Russians is clearly an internal matter for that country. The Russian spokesman is correct. By interfering in Russia's internal affairs the U.S. gains absolutely nothing. Making a public statement criticizing Russia is entirely counterproductive. Not only does it invite other countries to critique how the U.S. applies its own laws, but it does nothing to help Russians such as Khodorkovsky. By making such a statement, Hillary Clinton has practically guaranteed that Russia will take a hard line in support of its own legal system. The bottom line is that A) it's none of our business, and B) intefering is not in the interests of the U.S. So why interfere?

Israeli Foreign Minister Makes Mistake of Stating the Obvious

One of the last things you want to do when conducting diplomacy is tell the unvarnished truth -- which is one of the reasons that the publication of U.S. State Department secrets was so damaging to U.S. foreign policy. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, recently made the mistake of stating the obvious with regard to Turkey, and caused a rift with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is trying to patch up relations between Israel and Turkey in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara incident. In time-honored diplomatic fashion, Netanyahu is attempting to forge a compromise whereby both sides save face.

Envoys of the two countries held rapprochement talks in Geneva this month. Israeli officials say they broached a deal that would entail them expressing “regret” for the ship violence and paying damages to those bereaved or hurt, in return for a Turkish commitment to indemnify navy personnel against lawsuits.

Basically Israel is offering a non-apology apology in return for the Turks backing off. But here's Lieberman.

“I think the matter of an apology borders on chutzpah or beyond,” Mr. Lieberman told Israeli diplomats in a speech attended international media. “If anything, we are waiting for an apology from the Turkish government, and not the other way around.” ... “If anyone should apologise, it should be the Turkish government to Israel over cooperation with terrorist elements, support for terrorism, support for the IHH, Hamas and (Lebanese) Hezbollah. There will be no (Israeli) apology,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Lieberman is correct. By rights, Turkey should apologize to Israel for assisting an attempt to break its blockade. I wrote basically the same thing when the incident occurred. But I'm not the foreign minister of Israel. Unless Israel wants to increase hostility between the two nations, some sort of compromise would be preferable. Expressing "regret" for violence is not really an apology, since you are regretting that violence occurred at all, not taking responsibility. Getting the Turks to accept such a gesture would actually be a diplomatic victory, cost nothing, and probably benefit Israel overall. Lieberman clearly lacks the diplomatic skill required for his office.

"Dialogue-First" Diplomacy

CBS News has an excellent critique of Obama's foreign policy called, "Dialogue-First Diplomacy Not Working." A better title for Obama's foreign policy would be something like "apologies & appeasement," but the author, Juan Zarate, is a bit nicer than I am. Zarate makes some excellent points, one of them critical.

dialogue is merely a tactic and cannot succeed without leverage.

Unfortunately the Obama administration doesn't seem to understand this, and apparently sees talk as an end in itself. It doesn't matter that there's little to talk about, that we have no leverage, or that the other state has diametrically opposed interests, the president appears to have a mystical belief in the value of talking for the sake of talking. But as Zarate notes,

Blind adherence to the prospects of dialogue without looking for opportunities to create leverage will lead to missed opportunities and a weakened U.S. position at any negotiating table. Events with North Korea and Iran are already making this lesson clear and outpacing the Administration's dialogue-first diplomacy.

The entire article is worth reading.

Defense Secretary Gates on Iran

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke about Iran's nuclear program today. Here are his words:

a military option would only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.

Instead, the U.S. & allies should

convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.

Here's a translation of the actual meaning of those words:

The U.S. isn't willing to carry out the type of military strike that could actually destroy Iran's nuclear program. In case Iran hasn't figured that out yet, we are going to make it crystal clear, thereby removing what little leverage we might have in negotiations based on any Iranian fear of a strike. Instead, we are going to pretend that we can convince Iran not to do something that they really want to do, and that appears from their view, to be in their own best interests. 

Although I am convinced that the Iranians will eventually acquire nuclear weapons, I do not support a military strike to destroy its program -- as I have written here repeatedly. It is simply not worth the costs. But having said that, Gates comments are complete nonsense. First of all, as the secretary is well aware, the U.S. could certainly destroy Iran's nuclear program if it truly wanted to. The U.S. could cripple Iran entirely and obliterate its modern infrastructure. A nuclear program would come to a screeching halt with Iran's electrical grid and power generation stations destroyed, its dams broken, its ports in ruins, its airfields cratered and mined, and so forth.  That's not even considering what we could do if we chose to employ nuclear weapons. It's worth pointing that out, because what the U.S. has the power to do is often confused with what we have the will to do. It's also useful to remember that Iran is nothing more than a third-rate power with grandiose pretensions. Our own humanity and self-restraint is what allows it to exist in a state of semi-hostility with the U.S.

Secondly, why is Gates talking about this at all? What purpose does it serve to tell the Iranians that we "can't" destroy their nuclear program? If we want to negotiate with them, isn't it better to keep them guessing as to our intentions? And having the secretary pretend that we can talk Iran out of its nuclear program is not reassuring. It looks like naivete, or worse, stupidity. The Obama administration needs to dispense with such utopian thinking and start crafting a deterrent policy for when Iran gets nuclear weapons. 

Useless Diplomacy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea today against launching any missiles, according to ABC News. Clinton said that if North Korea follows through on its plans, that would

damage its prospects for improved relations with the United States and the world.

Yeah, I'm sure North Korea is really impressed with that warning. No doubt improved relations with the U.S is high on their list of priorities. Clinton also noted that a missile launch would be "very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." What relationship? While the Secretary of State is making these useless statements, the North Koreans are busy threatening us with "destruction," and claiming that they haven't made

a concession despite threat and blackmail from the U.S. nor will make one in the future"

Why do we insist on pretending that North Korea is anything other than a hostile nation run by a deranged dictator? Diplomatic efforts aimed at North Korea are totally useless, and merely encourage Kim Jong Ill and his cronies to keep doing what they are doing, in the hope that they can extract concessions from U.S. administrations stupid enough to give them something. Anyone who trusts a single word out of North Korea, let alone makes some sort of agreement with them and actually expects it to be honored, is a complete idiot.

North Korea doesn't need to be "engaged" or talked to; it needs to be contained & deterred. Our diplomacy in that regard should be directed at China, with the intention of making it very clear to the Chinese that we expect them to maintain a certain degree of control over their insane client state. As a rational actor, we expect China to prevent the insanity of North Korea from spilling over its borders. As long as they keep Kim Jong Ill on a short leash, there will be no need for U.S. involvement - a win/win for both the U.S. and China. 

The Obama Administration & Iran

Now that Obama has named his foreign policy/national security team, one of the problems they'll have to confront is what to do about Iran & its nuclear program. Obama said during the campaign that he would not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Some of the latest estimates say that Iran already has enough enriched uranium to make at least one warhead. How is the Obama administration going to stop them? Short answer -- they can't and won't.

Iran's nuclear program is too far along to be stopped by any sort of surgical military strikes. The ISIS report of August 7, 2008 details the difficulties of eliminating a gas centrifuge program. A military solution would require massive, sustained action against Iran. With the U.S. winding down its operations in Iraq, still embroiled in Afghanistan, and in the midst of a world-wide recession, there is no way any U.S. administration, let alone Obama's, is going to go to war with Iran. That leaves the diplomatic option.

Despite Democratic propaganda to the contrary, the Bush administration has been talking to Iran, and there has been some international pressure on it to give up its nuclear program. These efforts have been unsuccessful because Iran is dedicated to becoming a nuclear power. From their perspective, obtaining nuclear weapons is a critical project for Iranian security and prestige. There are only two main ways in which diplomacy could possibly force Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. These could be employed separately, or in combination as a carrot/stick approach. The first involves imposing so much pressure, and so many sanctions, that the nuclear program isn't worth the price they have to pay for it. The second rests on creating positive incentives that convince Iran to change its direction. Neither of these approaches has any real chance of success. The first requires unprecedented international cooperation and resolve, and has to include all major powers, such as Russia & China. The second rests on the assumption --a very large one -- that there is anything that we would be willing to offer Iran, that could sway them from their nuclear designs.

So how does the Obama administration handle the situation?  I fear that Obama will attempt to make a deal with Iran, similar to the Clinton approach to North Korea.  I would not be at all surprised to see a U.S. initiative that offers Iran incentives to stop its nuclear program.  This is a terrible idea for one simple reason: the Iranian government cannot be trusted.  Such a deal would almost certainly result in Iran taking whatever we are willing to give them, and secretly continuing its nuclear program.  If I'm wrong, and Obama is somehow able to get the international cooperation necessary to impose truly crippling sanctions on Iran, I'll applaud him. But I think a bad deal is far more likely.