NEWS,12.01.2013

President Obama, Do Not Let Your First Promise Be Your Last Deed

 

As President Barack Obama prepares to be inaugurated for his second term, he re-enters the Oval Office with several challenging tasks in front of him. One of the most challenging, and most important, is his unfulfilled commitment to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Today marks the 11th anniversary of the first detainees being taken to Guantanamo Bay.On one hand, I know in my heart that in the past 11 years, our country has taken major steps forward from the culture of fear that developed immediately following the tragic events of September 11th. Yet, at the same time, I recognize that critical measures still need to be taken before we can honestly say that our country has emerged politically, morally and spiritually from the unlawful post-9/11-era policies. As much as we try to remove the years of U.S.-sponsored torture and indefinite detention from the forefront of our political consciousness, Guantanamo Bay remains a vivid American symbol representing a rejection of the rule of law and a threat to our national security. The stakes in closing Guantanamo are high. It is an international symbol of torture. Faith groups have made it clear that the tenets of their traditions teach them that torture is immoral and absolutely unacceptable under all circumstances. If Guantanamo remains open, it implies that our country has not permanently put torture behind us. The soul of our nation that our children and grandchildren will inherit is at risk. By signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which further complicates the possibility of transferring people out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, President Obama signaled his reluctance to make good on his early assurance that he would close the detention center. It seems as though the president is unwilling to invest the political capital necessary to fulfill one of his earliest promises to the American people. I believe however, that if President Obama used his influence, he could close Guantanamo Bay. All religions teach that human beings in the final analysis are judged by what they actually do. It is the behavior, not the rhetoric, of a nation or individual that is judged. No matter what Obama's intentions are, it is the successful act of closing Guantanamo that would endure. That is why it is so critically important for the president to take action early in his second term in a way which represents the American people and the values we cherish so greatly. The longer he waits -- and the closer he is to being on the way out of the Oval Office -- there will be more validation for holding people indefinitely and using torture. If he does not shutter Guantanamo, Guantanamo will outlast his presidency. And that would be a terrible legacy. Today, 166 detainees remain at Guantanamo, and the likelihood of transferring any of these men out of Guantanamo this year has decreased because of the recent legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama, I urge you: Do not let your first promise be your last deed. Use your executive power to close Guantanamo Bay and once and for all, lead us out of the dark shadow of September 11th and restore our moral standing as a nation that can be a light unto others.

Hagel Nomination: Stakes Are High, But Far From Over

 

In the lead up the President Obama's announcement, there was an intense debate over former Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. At times Hagel's opponents became a touch hysterical indulging in excessively harsh rhetorical attacks. At first, they charged that he was not sufficiently pro-Israel or hawkish enough on Iran. But then, as is often the case, Hagel's opponents began to hyperventilate, upping the ante by claiming that the Senator was anti-Semitic or "obsessively addicted to dialogue" with Islamic extremist movements.Hagel was, to be sure, vigorously defended by stalwarts in the foreign policy establishment. In the end, despite the virulent attacks emanating mainly from the leading lights of the neo-conservative movement and right wing pro-Israel groups, President Obama did, in fact, nominate Chuck Hagel to be his next Secretary of Defense.I know Chuck Hagel. He is a thoughtful and sober advocate of the realist approach to foreign policy. His priority has always been to defend America's interests in the world through diplomacy and, only when absolutely necessary, to commit American forces to combat missions in defense of those interests. By disposition, he has an aversion to ideologically-based reckless behavior. His criticism of the war in Iraq, his opposition to the reckless use of force against Iran, and his critique of Israeli actions that impede peace are well-known. So too was his refusal while in the Senate to participate in AIPAC's frequent "hoop jumping" exercises. He resisted signing, as he termed them, the pro-Israel lobby's "stupid letters."There were moments when I expected the Administration to avoid further conflict by throwing Hagel overboard and moving instead to a "safer" pick for Secretary of Defense. That the president offered a strong endorsement of Hagel and then proceeded with the nomination was a very good sign. But it's not over yet.Republicans see the possibility of further weakening and distracting the president by "roughing up" his nominee and will in all likelihood subject Hagel to tough grilling when he finally appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for confirmation. Their questions will, no doubt, focus on his support for Israel and his attitudes toward Iran. They will try to beat him into submission, forcing him to use the very shopworn language found the AIPAC letters he refused to sign when he served in the Senate. They will want him to demonstrate that he is more committed to Israel and more hawkish on Iran than he has been in the past.While I certainly hope that Hagel won't fold under the pressure, I am bracing myself for a degree of disappointment. And while I believe the president is committed and will fight for his nominee, I am also prepared to acknowledge that Hagel's confirmation is not a sure thing.What is at stake for Republicans is far more than just Israel and Iran. It is the entire neo-conservative enterprise that led the U.S. into two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which they cannot admit were failures) and has them still advocating for more aggressive military engagements in Syria and Iran.A U.S. national security team led by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel will not only be more compatible with President Obama's world view, but will make possible a dramatic departure from the foreign policy that neo-conservatives have promoted and maintained for the past decade. A confirmation of Hagel will open the door to debate allowing the opportunity for realists to put American national security policy on a more sober and less ideological footing.A Hagel confirmation, especially if he is resists embracing language that demonstrates subservience to Israel will also represent a threat to the power of the pro-Israel lobby to use intimidation to dictate Congressional behavior.One thing should be clear, however, and that is if Hagel is confirmed there will not be a radical change in this Administration's approach to Israel or an American acceptance of an Iran with nuclear weapons. Hagel and Kerry, like Obama, are supporters of Israel. The Administration will continue to support that state's defense requirements and, in all likelihood, will not rush headlong into a new Middle East peace initiative since they appear to believe that conditions for that simply do not exist. At the same time, Israel will continue to face the U.S.'s growing displeasure with its occupation and settlement policies. And the Administration will not end its pressure on Iran to be more transparent with its nuclear ambitions and agree with international community's insistence that they forsake advanced enrichment. But the Obama Administration will now be fortified by a team that understands that engagement and not foolish adventurism is the best way to resolve the standoff while insuring that we not be dragged into another potentially devastating Middle East war.At this point, we know what the stakes are, but have no way of knowing how this will play out. Will Hagel fold? Will Obama surrender to pressure and pull his nominee, risking defeat and embarrassment? Or will the Senate defeat Hagel's bid for confirmation? Any of these would be a setback of substantial proportions. On the other hand should Hagel stay the course, making clear his support for Israel while asserting his freedom and independence to criticize Israeli policies when necessary, and should Democrats decide to choose to support their president instead of the lobby and the pressure from the neo-cons, then we might well be on our way to a healthier political environment where realism trumps ideology and where honest political differences can be debated in our government without fear of retribution.

The stakes are high, but the outcome is far from certain.

Twisting Venezuela

 

Realizing Hugo Chavez's cancer may prove terminal, his government desperately buys time through shameless gimmicks blatantly violating Venezuela's constitution. Through whatever means necessary, it is determined to secure another six-year presidential term and beyond. It aims to further consolidate the Bolivarian Revolution's survival, increasingly ingrain it into the social fabric and ensure it becomes irreversible in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Regardless of the magnitude of Mr. Chavez's illness, securing his physical presence in Venezuela, even if temporary, will be strategically critical to Nicolas Maduro, the current vice president and Chavez's anointed heir. In a likely presidential contest against Henrique Capriles, the dynamic opposition leader, Mr. Maduro's electoral chances grow more complicated with El Comandante's absence. Combined with factionalism in Chavismo's upper ranks, a pro-Chavez sympathy vote alone may not guarantee victory. Another free but unfair election would be needed in which the politicized instruments of state power are fully exploited to create an unequal level playing field.To further underscore this manipulation, the indefinite delay of Chavez's constitutionally mandated oath of office has been rubber-stamped by Venezuela's Supreme Court, stacked with Chavista loyalists. Its twisted reasoning simply defies any internationally accepted standards of jurisprudence. Even the Catholic Church has pleaded for compliance with the Constitution. After all, it remains one of the last remaining independent and influential voices in Venezuela.Furthermore, the government continues to use the private sector as scapegoats when its own economic mismanagement is responsible for the consistently deteriorating economy. Troubles include scarcity of basic food supplies and distressed oil production. The government engages in ploys such as sending troops to seize sugar mills in order to distract public attention from its own ineptitude. Venezuela's opposition is engaged in a full-scale media assault against the government's constitutional violations. Henrique Capriles remains the opposition's undisputed leader. Despite defeat in the October presidential contest, his convincing performance was the best of any opposition leader since Chavez assumed power. Furthermore, despite several opposition losses in the gubernatorial elections of December 2012, Capriles prevailed in Venezuela's second largest state. This victory further consolidated his position as opposition leader. His formidable discipline, determination and preparedness serve as critical unifying factors. Should snap presidential elections be called, Capriles can effectively seize the initiative and build upon the momentum of his recent campaigns. Any talk of a weakening opposition in light of the December gubernatorial defeats is simply overblown. Voter turnout in December barely reached 50 percent, whereas participation in the October 7th presidential election was over 80 per cent. Secondly, Chavez's cancer relapse galvanized the sympathy vote, particularly among his grassroots. Thirdly, the government strategically set the date of gubernatorial elections for December 16th. After all, it was just two months after the presidential election which maximizes voter fatigue and one week before the Christmas holiday which further distracts voters. Much of Venezuela's anti-Chavez middle classes tend to mobilize for vacation during this period. Finally, as in all recent Venezuelan elections, overwhelming state control over all instruments of power prevents an electoral level playing field. For now, Venezuela's future remains hostage to the health of a single individual whose ideology contradicts Venezuela's long-term national interest. Even if Chavez disappears and as Chavismo wanes, de-Chavezation will take a long time. It would be best for Venezuela to embark on this journey sooner rather than later.