http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3943005
Bush declines to meet with border officials
Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Bush snubs border sheriffs President refuses to meet coalition as lawmakers prepare hearings
Sara A. Carter Staff Writer
President Bush has refused to meet with border law enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.
In fact, some Republican members of Congress, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.
Members of the House subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.
"The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport," Poe said. "We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States."
Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition -- a group that includes all 26 border county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.
"The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them," Poe said. "We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them."
In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.
Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.
"The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs," said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. "Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time."
White House spokesman David Almacy did not directly respond to the sheriffs' comments Thursday evening, but spoke of the president's efforts to support all law enforcement agencies.
"President Bush is committed to ensuring that our nation's borders are secure," Almacy said. "This month, 6,000 National Guard members were deployed to assist the Border Patrol and other inter-agency partners. The president has also increased federal funding that will give state and local authorities the specialized training needed to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants."
Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.
"It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border security issues," Glancey said. "He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on, and walk in our shoes for a few minutes."
The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Alan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.
Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.
"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said. "We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq, and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction."
Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.
"The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror yet he can't find the time to meet with law enforcement leaders responsible for border security," Ramirez said. "It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border."
- Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-8552.
Full Version: Daily News, Articles, and Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Daily National and International News > National News Archive
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....&src=rss&rpc=22
Canada finds bird flu case, plans further testing
Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:55 PM ET
By Louise Egan and Marcy Nicholson
OTTAWA/WINNIPEG (Reuters) - Canada has detected a case of H5 avian flu in the eastern province of Prince Edward Island and plans further testing over the weekend to determine whether it is the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain, government officials announced on Friday.
A gosling in a small backyard poultry flock in the western end of the tiny province contracted the disease but there is a low risk of human illness from the outbreak, officials said.
The last Canadian outbreak occurred in November 2005 on the other side of the country, in British Columbia, and involved low-pathogenic H5N2 strain. In that case no birds actually showed signs of illness but 60,000 ducks and geese were culled nonetheless.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said there is no evidence that the latest bird flu case is the high-pathogen H5N1 strain that has spread to 48 countries so far since its resurgence in 2003.
If it is, it would be the first case in the Americas. The H5N1 strain has killed 129 people in nine countries since 2003, mostly in Asia.
"Just because the virus was there does not mean that's what killed the geese," said CFIA veterinarian Jim Clark.
"Ducks and geese are natural reservoirs for avian influenza viruses. The viruses exist quite nicely in their intestinal tract and cause absolutely no illness or death in the birds. That would be the situation in this case," he said.
A sample from the non-commercial flock of about 35 ducks, geese and chickens was brought to the Atlantic Veterinary College for testing after four goslings became sick on June 4, Clark said. The geese were not imported and there were no known links to Asia.
The CFIA has culled the entire backyard flock and is monitoring a 3 km (2 mile) zone around the property.
Prince Edward Island has only seven commercial chicken farms -- compared with over one thousand in top producer province Ontario -- and there are none within a 10 km (6 mile) radius of the affected farm, industry group Chicken Farmers of Canada said.
"We are alert but not alarmed, at this period in time," said Lisa Bishop-Spencer, a spokeswoman for the group. "We're going to wait for the results before we really react ... the fact that other birds appeared healthy is a very good sign in our eyes."
Not all H5 viruses are highly pathogenic and not all will cause severe disease in poultry.
Prince Edward Island's health officer, Dr. Lamont Sweet, told Reuters that the results of further bird flu tests were expected next week.
He downplayed any risk of transmission to humans but issued a warning nonetheless.
"People need to continue washing their hands carefully after handling poultry," Sweet said.
Canada, which has had numerous low pathogenic outbreaks, reported a case of H5N9 bird flu in 1966, which was highly pathogenic, and a case of high pathogenic H7N3 in 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Canada finds bird flu case, plans further testing
Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:55 PM ET
By Louise Egan and Marcy Nicholson
OTTAWA/WINNIPEG (Reuters) - Canada has detected a case of H5 avian flu in the eastern province of Prince Edward Island and plans further testing over the weekend to determine whether it is the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain, government officials announced on Friday.
A gosling in a small backyard poultry flock in the western end of the tiny province contracted the disease but there is a low risk of human illness from the outbreak, officials said.
The last Canadian outbreak occurred in November 2005 on the other side of the country, in British Columbia, and involved low-pathogenic H5N2 strain. In that case no birds actually showed signs of illness but 60,000 ducks and geese were culled nonetheless.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said there is no evidence that the latest bird flu case is the high-pathogen H5N1 strain that has spread to 48 countries so far since its resurgence in 2003.
If it is, it would be the first case in the Americas. The H5N1 strain has killed 129 people in nine countries since 2003, mostly in Asia.
"Just because the virus was there does not mean that's what killed the geese," said CFIA veterinarian Jim Clark.
"Ducks and geese are natural reservoirs for avian influenza viruses. The viruses exist quite nicely in their intestinal tract and cause absolutely no illness or death in the birds. That would be the situation in this case," he said.
A sample from the non-commercial flock of about 35 ducks, geese and chickens was brought to the Atlantic Veterinary College for testing after four goslings became sick on June 4, Clark said. The geese were not imported and there were no known links to Asia.
The CFIA has culled the entire backyard flock and is monitoring a 3 km (2 mile) zone around the property.
Prince Edward Island has only seven commercial chicken farms -- compared with over one thousand in top producer province Ontario -- and there are none within a 10 km (6 mile) radius of the affected farm, industry group Chicken Farmers of Canada said.
"We are alert but not alarmed, at this period in time," said Lisa Bishop-Spencer, a spokeswoman for the group. "We're going to wait for the results before we really react ... the fact that other birds appeared healthy is a very good sign in our eyes."
Not all H5 viruses are highly pathogenic and not all will cause severe disease in poultry.
Prince Edward Island's health officer, Dr. Lamont Sweet, told Reuters that the results of further bird flu tests were expected next week.
He downplayed any risk of transmission to humans but issued a warning nonetheless.
"People need to continue washing their hands carefully after handling poultry," Sweet said.
Canada, which has had numerous low pathogenic outbreaks, reported a case of H5N9 bird flu in 1966, which was highly pathogenic, and a case of high pathogenic H7N3 in 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/16/D8I9KJA80.html
Lawyers: Threats Used Against Marines
Jun 16 8:14 PM US/Eastern
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO
Pentagon investigators threatened the death penalty and used other coercive techniques to obtain statements from some of the seven Marines and a Navy corpsman jailed for the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian, two defense lawyers say.
Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Marine Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials spoke to her client three times after he was taken into custody May 12. Jodka was questioned for up to eight hours at a time and was not offered water or toilet breaks, Siegel said.
"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning _ a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled _ and was threatened with the death penalty.
Jeremiah Sullivan III, the attorney representing the unidentified Navy medic, said his client was treated similarly.
Marine Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Camp Pendleton, where the troops are being held. Officials there declined to comment.
Gary D. Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge advocate who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center, said investigators were within their rights to threaten a suspect with the death penalty since it is the maximum sentence for premeditated murder.
If statements are to be used in a trial, a military judge must first decide that they were given voluntarily, Solis said. If the defense can argue this was not the case then the statements could be ruled inadmissible.
"To be questioned for eight hours does not necessarily make it an inadmissible statement," Solis said. "But you have to look at the circumstances that surrounded those eight hours."
The Pentagon began investigating shortly after an Iraqi man was killed on April 26 in Hamdania, west of Baghdad. Military officials have said little publicly about the man's death, but a senior Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the investigation said evidence so far indicates troops entered the town in search of an insurgent and, failing to find him, grabbed an unarmed man from his home and shot him.
After the killing, the troops planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene to make it appear the man was trying to plant an explosive device, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The Pentagon originally said the incident occurred in Hamandiyah but officials later acknowledged they had misidentified the town and that the incident happened in Hamdania.
The troops being held at Camp Pendleton served with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and are members of the battalion's Kilo Company. The highest-ranking among them is a staff sergeant.
More than two weeks ago, Sullivan said he expected murder and kidnapping charges would be brought soon, and a Pentagon official confirmed charges were imminent. But none has been filed and the delay has not been explained.
According to Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, charges must be filed within 120 days of servicemembers being taken into custody. Gibson put that date at May 24, which would mean charges might not be filed until September.
Siegel and Sullivan said they do not know what exactly the troops told their interrogators, and they complained that the Pentagon has not shared information about the investigation. They declined to say what they have been told about the killing.
Until Thursday the Marines and Navy corpsman were held at a maximum level of security at Camp Pendleton and were shackled whenever they left their cells. Their security level now has been reclassified to a lower level and they are allowed one hour's recreation daily without shackles, Camp Pendleton spokesman Lt. Lawton King said.
Solis said even if the Marines are charged and convicted of murder it's highly unlikely they would actually be executed. The president must approve such a penalty and that hasn't happened in nearly 200 years, he said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Lawyers: Threats Used Against Marines
Jun 16 8:14 PM US/Eastern
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO
Pentagon investigators threatened the death penalty and used other coercive techniques to obtain statements from some of the seven Marines and a Navy corpsman jailed for the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian, two defense lawyers say.
Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Marine Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials spoke to her client three times after he was taken into custody May 12. Jodka was questioned for up to eight hours at a time and was not offered water or toilet breaks, Siegel said.
"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning _ a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled _ and was threatened with the death penalty.
Jeremiah Sullivan III, the attorney representing the unidentified Navy medic, said his client was treated similarly.
Marine Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Camp Pendleton, where the troops are being held. Officials there declined to comment.
Gary D. Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge advocate who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center, said investigators were within their rights to threaten a suspect with the death penalty since it is the maximum sentence for premeditated murder.
If statements are to be used in a trial, a military judge must first decide that they were given voluntarily, Solis said. If the defense can argue this was not the case then the statements could be ruled inadmissible.
"To be questioned for eight hours does not necessarily make it an inadmissible statement," Solis said. "But you have to look at the circumstances that surrounded those eight hours."
The Pentagon began investigating shortly after an Iraqi man was killed on April 26 in Hamdania, west of Baghdad. Military officials have said little publicly about the man's death, but a senior Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the investigation said evidence so far indicates troops entered the town in search of an insurgent and, failing to find him, grabbed an unarmed man from his home and shot him.
After the killing, the troops planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene to make it appear the man was trying to plant an explosive device, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The Pentagon originally said the incident occurred in Hamandiyah but officials later acknowledged they had misidentified the town and that the incident happened in Hamdania.
The troops being held at Camp Pendleton served with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and are members of the battalion's Kilo Company. The highest-ranking among them is a staff sergeant.
More than two weeks ago, Sullivan said he expected murder and kidnapping charges would be brought soon, and a Pentagon official confirmed charges were imminent. But none has been filed and the delay has not been explained.
According to Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, charges must be filed within 120 days of servicemembers being taken into custody. Gibson put that date at May 24, which would mean charges might not be filed until September.
Siegel and Sullivan said they do not know what exactly the troops told their interrogators, and they complained that the Pentagon has not shared information about the investigation. They declined to say what they have been told about the killing.
Until Thursday the Marines and Navy corpsman were held at a maximum level of security at Camp Pendleton and were shackled whenever they left their cells. Their security level now has been reclassified to a lower level and they are allowed one hour's recreation daily without shackles, Camp Pendleton spokesman Lt. Lawton King said.
Solis said even if the Marines are charged and convicted of murder it's highly unlikely they would actually be executed. The president must approve such a penalty and that hasn't happened in nearly 200 years, he said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....&src=rss&rpc=22
Senate packed with senior-citizen senators
Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:57 AM ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate, dubbed "the world's most exclusive club," is also one of the most elderly, with more than a third of its 100 members at or well past 65 with no plans to leave anytime soon.
While most elderly Americans are retiring, senior senators still wield considerable power, tackling tough issues from war to taxes, some more effectively than others.
"Some of these old people are probably wonderfully wise and some of them, maybe, should have retired a long time ago," said Stephen Hess, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution.
A recent survey of experts declared six of the oldest senators as among the chamber's 10 "best," while three of the oldest were among the five "worst."
Senior senators walk -- some shuffle -- the marble halls of power, packing political muscle and legislative know-how as well as a few joint replacements and hearing aids.
The Senate historian says the average age for a senator is 60.3 years, the oldest ever and up six years from 1985. Thirty-seven are at least 65, 19 of whom are in their 70s. Five are in their 80.
The word Senate derives from the Latin senex, meaning old man. The Senate, or council of elders, was a powerful body in ancient Rome.
At 88, Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia is the oldest U.S. senator. He walks with two canes yet remains one of the most respected voices in Congress.
"If I could live another 100 years, I'd like to continue in the Senate," said Byrd, running for an unprecedented ninth six-year term.
First elected in 1958, Byrd became the longest-serving senator this month, passing South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, who retired in 2003 at 100, which made him the oldest senator in the 217-year history of the clubby chamber.
Thurmond, while a powerhouse much of his career, seldom joined Senate debates in his final years and used a wheelchair and relied heavily on aides. He died soon after retiring.
'SOME STAYED TOO LONG'
"History documents that some stayed too long," said Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, still vigorous at 79. "I don't want to be remembered that way."
"I wake up every morning delighted to be on this side of the grass," Warner added.
Dr. Jan Busby-Whitehead, chief of geriatric medicine at the University of North Carolina and a member of the American Geriatrics Society, noted Americans overall were living and working longer.
Those who stay on the job can provide experience and maturity but are also more prone to memory loss and other illnesses.
"The criteria for employment shouldn't be age, but ability. Not everyone ages the same way," Busby-Whitehead said.
In the Senate, old age cuts across party lines and perceived effectiveness.
Time magazine had experts rate senators in its April 24 edition and included six senior citizens among its "10 best senators": Democrats Edward Kennedy, 74, of Massachusetts and Carl Levin, 71, of Michigan, along with Republicans Arlen Specter, 76, of Pennsylvania, Richard Lugar, 74, of Indiana, John McCain, 69, of Arizona, and Thad Cochran, 68, of Mississippi.
Among Time's "five worst" were two older Republicans, Conrad Burns, 71, of Montana and Jim Bunning, 74, of Kentucky, and Democrat Daniel Akaka, 81, of Hawaii.
Why do so many stay in the Senate so late in life?
James Thurber of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington said reasons varied with each senator.
"In most cases, it's because they have a safe seat and public service ethic," Thurber said. "A cynical view would be they can't do anything else or find it uncomfortable to leave the stage."
In the past decade, nearly 90 percent of senators who ran for re-election won. They are paid $165,200 a year and enjoy generous health and retirement benefits.
Last year, Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, now 73, said he was stepping down. "It was not my ambition to stay there until they carried me out."
But 10 of the 29 senators running for re-election this year are at least 70. Life expectancy for someone that age is about 14 years.
"There's a lot to do," said Kennedy, the dean of Senate liberals, first elected in 1962.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Senate packed with senior-citizen senators
Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:57 AM ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate, dubbed "the world's most exclusive club," is also one of the most elderly, with more than a third of its 100 members at or well past 65 with no plans to leave anytime soon.
While most elderly Americans are retiring, senior senators still wield considerable power, tackling tough issues from war to taxes, some more effectively than others.
"Some of these old people are probably wonderfully wise and some of them, maybe, should have retired a long time ago," said Stephen Hess, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution.
A recent survey of experts declared six of the oldest senators as among the chamber's 10 "best," while three of the oldest were among the five "worst."
Senior senators walk -- some shuffle -- the marble halls of power, packing political muscle and legislative know-how as well as a few joint replacements and hearing aids.
The Senate historian says the average age for a senator is 60.3 years, the oldest ever and up six years from 1985. Thirty-seven are at least 65, 19 of whom are in their 70s. Five are in their 80.
The word Senate derives from the Latin senex, meaning old man. The Senate, or council of elders, was a powerful body in ancient Rome.
At 88, Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia is the oldest U.S. senator. He walks with two canes yet remains one of the most respected voices in Congress.
"If I could live another 100 years, I'd like to continue in the Senate," said Byrd, running for an unprecedented ninth six-year term.
First elected in 1958, Byrd became the longest-serving senator this month, passing South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, who retired in 2003 at 100, which made him the oldest senator in the 217-year history of the clubby chamber.
Thurmond, while a powerhouse much of his career, seldom joined Senate debates in his final years and used a wheelchair and relied heavily on aides. He died soon after retiring.
'SOME STAYED TOO LONG'
"History documents that some stayed too long," said Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, still vigorous at 79. "I don't want to be remembered that way."
"I wake up every morning delighted to be on this side of the grass," Warner added.
Dr. Jan Busby-Whitehead, chief of geriatric medicine at the University of North Carolina and a member of the American Geriatrics Society, noted Americans overall were living and working longer.
Those who stay on the job can provide experience and maturity but are also more prone to memory loss and other illnesses.
"The criteria for employment shouldn't be age, but ability. Not everyone ages the same way," Busby-Whitehead said.
In the Senate, old age cuts across party lines and perceived effectiveness.
Time magazine had experts rate senators in its April 24 edition and included six senior citizens among its "10 best senators": Democrats Edward Kennedy, 74, of Massachusetts and Carl Levin, 71, of Michigan, along with Republicans Arlen Specter, 76, of Pennsylvania, Richard Lugar, 74, of Indiana, John McCain, 69, of Arizona, and Thad Cochran, 68, of Mississippi.
Among Time's "five worst" were two older Republicans, Conrad Burns, 71, of Montana and Jim Bunning, 74, of Kentucky, and Democrat Daniel Akaka, 81, of Hawaii.
Why do so many stay in the Senate so late in life?
James Thurber of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington said reasons varied with each senator.
"In most cases, it's because they have a safe seat and public service ethic," Thurber said. "A cynical view would be they can't do anything else or find it uncomfortable to leave the stage."
In the past decade, nearly 90 percent of senators who ran for re-election won. They are paid $165,200 a year and enjoy generous health and retirement benefits.
Last year, Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, now 73, said he was stepping down. "It was not my ambition to stay there until they carried me out."
But 10 of the 29 senators running for re-election this year are at least 70. Life expectancy for someone that age is about 14 years.
"There's a lot to do," said Kennedy, the dean of Senate liberals, first elected in 1962.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060616_5431.html
Masri Now Leads Iraq Al Qaeda, Coalition Officials Say
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, June 16, 2006 – The new lead terrorist in Iraq is a founding member of al Qaeda in Iraq and had a close relationship with the now-killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, coalition officials said.
Officials revealed yesterday that Abu Ayyub al-Masri succeeded Zarqawi following the Jordanian terrorist's elimination June 7 in a precision-bomb attack on his safe house in Iraq. They said Masri fully bought into Zarqawi's bloody tactics that have left thousands of innocent men, women and children across Iraq dead or maimed.
Al-Masri - which means "the Egyptian" - is another foreign fighter who trained in Afghanistan like Zarqawi, coalition officials said. No one knows his real name.
The terrorist is said to be about 38 years old and got his beginning in Egypt, where he joined the Islamic Brotherhood. He fled from Egypt and moved to Afghanistan, where he trained in explosives at the al-Faruq Al Qaeda camp. There he met Zarqawi, officials said.
After the fall of the Taliban, Masri escaped to Iraq and set up with the Jordanian-born Zarqawi. The Egyptian specialized in vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. He helped establish the Baghdad cell of Al Qaeda in early 2003, officials said.
Later he worked the "rat line" down the Euphrates River Valley supplying suicide bombers via Syria. Officials said he probably directed that operation from Fallujah.
Following Zarqawi's death, Masri issued a statement on a terrorist web site that threatened massive retaliation against Iraqi and coalition targets. Officials believe the terrorist is in the vicinity of Baghdad.
Coalition officials said the death of Zarqawi and subsequent operations have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq operations. However, they expect Masri to continue the same tactics that Zarqawi followed. They also said it is a mistake to concentrate on one individual, and said many other terrorist leaders are in their sites.
Masri Now Leads Iraq Al Qaeda, Coalition Officials Say
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, June 16, 2006 – The new lead terrorist in Iraq is a founding member of al Qaeda in Iraq and had a close relationship with the now-killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, coalition officials said.
Officials revealed yesterday that Abu Ayyub al-Masri succeeded Zarqawi following the Jordanian terrorist's elimination June 7 in a precision-bomb attack on his safe house in Iraq. They said Masri fully bought into Zarqawi's bloody tactics that have left thousands of innocent men, women and children across Iraq dead or maimed.
Al-Masri - which means "the Egyptian" - is another foreign fighter who trained in Afghanistan like Zarqawi, coalition officials said. No one knows his real name.
The terrorist is said to be about 38 years old and got his beginning in Egypt, where he joined the Islamic Brotherhood. He fled from Egypt and moved to Afghanistan, where he trained in explosives at the al-Faruq Al Qaeda camp. There he met Zarqawi, officials said.
After the fall of the Taliban, Masri escaped to Iraq and set up with the Jordanian-born Zarqawi. The Egyptian specialized in vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. He helped establish the Baghdad cell of Al Qaeda in early 2003, officials said.
Later he worked the "rat line" down the Euphrates River Valley supplying suicide bombers via Syria. Officials said he probably directed that operation from Fallujah.
Following Zarqawi's death, Masri issued a statement on a terrorist web site that threatened massive retaliation against Iraqi and coalition targets. Officials believe the terrorist is in the vicinity of Baghdad.
Coalition officials said the death of Zarqawi and subsequent operations have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq operations. However, they expect Masri to continue the same tactics that Zarqawi followed. They also said it is a mistake to concentrate on one individual, and said many other terrorist leaders are in their sites.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060616_5432.html
Window of Opportunity Opens for Iraqi People, Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, June 16, 2006 – The next seven months are absolutely crucial to how Iraq will turn out, said a senior coalition official this week.
Army Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, the deputy chief of staff for strategic effects, said during an interview June 13 that there is a window of opportunity right now to ensure Iraq will remain whole and become prosperous.
All players -- the new Iraqi government, U.S. officials and international partners -- agree that with the new government there is a bright opportunity.
"Everything we've done for the last three years has brought us to the present chance," Caldwell said. "We now have a prime minister with his Cabinet in place. We have a window (or opportunity) of five months - maybe seven at the most to effect change. If the people of Iraq don't see a difference in that time, we are going to be extremely challenged come December."
Caldwell said the Iraqi people indicate they are willing to allow the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the benefit of doubt, and they are willing to do the hard work of establishing a new Iraq. "They are willing to accept high civilian casualty rates, long gas lines and accept three to eight hours of electricity per day, but they won't be by December," Caldwell said.
Everyone understands that now is the time to push. The prime minister began June 14 with Operation Together Forward - an Iraqi-led security effort in greater Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers and police have increased the number of checkpoints and traffic-control points in the city. They are in the lead in conducting cordon-and-knock operations and searching for arms caches. Iraqi newspaper accounts give the operation favorable reviews.
Coalition leaders also understand the need to push. He said all is aimed at improving the lives of Iraqi citizens. "If there is ever a need to push it is in the next five to seven months, and then we need to let it evolve after that," Caldwell said.
He said the feeling is the same throughout the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. Embassy here. the new government will have the resources it needs to effect change, he said. The government and coalition will work to bring down the civilian casualty rates and improve basic services like electricity, water and sewage.
"If the government can do that I think they will win the support of the people and all Iraqis will have a much brighter future than they ever imagined," Caldwell said.
Nothing is easy in Iraq, and once one problem is solved, three others take its place, the general said. The coalition will work with the Iraqi government to help them think through the process of demobilizing, disarming and reintegrating militia groups.
He said the Iraqis have many good ideas in this area and coalition officials will work to make the ideas real programs. "It is not enough to take arms from a militiaman -- you have to give him a job so he can support his family without resorting to violence," he said.
He said international organizations may be the best option to help the Iraqis with the demobilization process. All of this won't happen overnight, he said.
Getting police into the neighborhoods will also go along way to resolving the security picture in the country. There are systemic problems right now. The police in the field are not getting paid.
The pay problems do not help the effort to develop a professional police force. "The hardest thing is to help the Iraqis develop a professionalism in that police force to where corruption isn't an accepted part of their modus operandi and they are able to rise above corruption," he said. "To do that, you have to make sure they get paid on time and that the pay system is equitable across the country between the army and the police and within the police itself.
"I can't imagine what would happen if the police force in one of our big cities just didn't get paid one month and they were told, 'Don't worry, we'll pay you next month.' And then the next month comes, and they're still not paid."
Yet the Iraqi police face this and they still show up, he said. Creating a central banking system will help this. Now the paymasters come to Baghdad, pick up the money, and go back to the provinces with cash.
Many coalition military officials say the coalition should pay the police rather than wait for the Iraqis to develop a system. Others in the governance side say that approach is short-sighted.
"There's that friction," Caldwell said. "The U.S. military has this 'can-do, let's make it happen now' type attitude. We need to deal with the immediate issue.
"On the U.S. governance side there is more the idea of 'let them learn how to do it.' (The Iraqis) may stumble and fall, they may have some challenges, but over time if we force them to do it themselves, they will learn how to do it."
The disconnect is caused by the fact that the military lives with the Iraqis. "They see the day-to-day need for the people to be paid," he said. "They empathize with them and feel the pain of a young Iraqi police officer who is married and has kids at home, who doesn't have money to buy food."
Caldwell said the Iraqi government is aware of the problem and will work with the coalition to solve it.
Other projects in the works with the Iraqis essentially will dismantle the old Saddam Hussein philosophy of absolute control and replace it with the idea of free enterprise and outside investment, he said. Again, this will take time and concerted work by the Iraqi government and coalition advisers.
"Iraq could become a country that is united, prosperous and a model to this region of what is possible when you let people develop their full potential," Caldwell said. "It would stabilize this very volatile region."
Window of Opportunity Opens for Iraqi People, Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, June 16, 2006 – The next seven months are absolutely crucial to how Iraq will turn out, said a senior coalition official this week.
Army Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, the deputy chief of staff for strategic effects, said during an interview June 13 that there is a window of opportunity right now to ensure Iraq will remain whole and become prosperous.
All players -- the new Iraqi government, U.S. officials and international partners -- agree that with the new government there is a bright opportunity.
"Everything we've done for the last three years has brought us to the present chance," Caldwell said. "We now have a prime minister with his Cabinet in place. We have a window (or opportunity) of five months - maybe seven at the most to effect change. If the people of Iraq don't see a difference in that time, we are going to be extremely challenged come December."
Caldwell said the Iraqi people indicate they are willing to allow the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the benefit of doubt, and they are willing to do the hard work of establishing a new Iraq. "They are willing to accept high civilian casualty rates, long gas lines and accept three to eight hours of electricity per day, but they won't be by December," Caldwell said.
Everyone understands that now is the time to push. The prime minister began June 14 with Operation Together Forward - an Iraqi-led security effort in greater Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers and police have increased the number of checkpoints and traffic-control points in the city. They are in the lead in conducting cordon-and-knock operations and searching for arms caches. Iraqi newspaper accounts give the operation favorable reviews.
Coalition leaders also understand the need to push. He said all is aimed at improving the lives of Iraqi citizens. "If there is ever a need to push it is in the next five to seven months, and then we need to let it evolve after that," Caldwell said.
He said the feeling is the same throughout the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. Embassy here. the new government will have the resources it needs to effect change, he said. The government and coalition will work to bring down the civilian casualty rates and improve basic services like electricity, water and sewage.
"If the government can do that I think they will win the support of the people and all Iraqis will have a much brighter future than they ever imagined," Caldwell said.
Nothing is easy in Iraq, and once one problem is solved, three others take its place, the general said. The coalition will work with the Iraqi government to help them think through the process of demobilizing, disarming and reintegrating militia groups.
He said the Iraqis have many good ideas in this area and coalition officials will work to make the ideas real programs. "It is not enough to take arms from a militiaman -- you have to give him a job so he can support his family without resorting to violence," he said.
He said international organizations may be the best option to help the Iraqis with the demobilization process. All of this won't happen overnight, he said.
Getting police into the neighborhoods will also go along way to resolving the security picture in the country. There are systemic problems right now. The police in the field are not getting paid.
The pay problems do not help the effort to develop a professional police force. "The hardest thing is to help the Iraqis develop a professionalism in that police force to where corruption isn't an accepted part of their modus operandi and they are able to rise above corruption," he said. "To do that, you have to make sure they get paid on time and that the pay system is equitable across the country between the army and the police and within the police itself.
"I can't imagine what would happen if the police force in one of our big cities just didn't get paid one month and they were told, 'Don't worry, we'll pay you next month.' And then the next month comes, and they're still not paid."
Yet the Iraqi police face this and they still show up, he said. Creating a central banking system will help this. Now the paymasters come to Baghdad, pick up the money, and go back to the provinces with cash.
Many coalition military officials say the coalition should pay the police rather than wait for the Iraqis to develop a system. Others in the governance side say that approach is short-sighted.
"There's that friction," Caldwell said. "The U.S. military has this 'can-do, let's make it happen now' type attitude. We need to deal with the immediate issue.
"On the U.S. governance side there is more the idea of 'let them learn how to do it.' (The Iraqis) may stumble and fall, they may have some challenges, but over time if we force them to do it themselves, they will learn how to do it."
The disconnect is caused by the fact that the military lives with the Iraqis. "They see the day-to-day need for the people to be paid," he said. "They empathize with them and feel the pain of a young Iraqi police officer who is married and has kids at home, who doesn't have money to buy food."
Caldwell said the Iraqi government is aware of the problem and will work with the coalition to solve it.
Other projects in the works with the Iraqis essentially will dismantle the old Saddam Hussein philosophy of absolute control and replace it with the idea of free enterprise and outside investment, he said. Again, this will take time and concerted work by the Iraqi government and coalition advisers.
"Iraq could become a country that is united, prosperous and a model to this region of what is possible when you let people develop their full potential," Caldwell said. "It would stabilize this very volatile region."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060616_5442.html
Coalition Forces Battle Extremists in Afghanistan
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 16, 2006 – Coalition forces defeated a large group of extremists in western Uruzgan province today in conjunction with Operation Mountain Thrust in southern Afghanistan, officials reported today.
Coalition forces engaged the enemy in a compound killing an estimated 40 insurgents while they were meeting at a known enemy camp within the Khod Valley, Shaheed Hasas district.
There were no injuries to civilians observed during the operation.
"Coalition forces tracked the development of this meeting until there were more than 50 extremists gathered before attacking the compound," said Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick, Combined Joint Task Force 76 spokesman. "The compound was severely damaged, and we anticipate most of those present were killed."
The Taliban extremists included members of an improvised explosive device cell, financiers and area leaders responsible for launching numerous attacks against Afghan civilians and the Afghan National Army to undermine the Afghan government's ability to provide security and services in Uruzgan.
"Coalition forces have delivered a quick and severe blow to the enemy today," Fitzpatrick said. "With our Afghan allies, we will continue offensive operations in known enemy safe havens to disrupt or destroy these insurgent groups and restore safety and security to the region."
In other Mountain Thrust action today, Afghan National Army and coalition forces conducted a raid on a known Taliban compound northeast of Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan province.
Elements of the 3rd Kandak, 1st Brigade, 205th ANA Corps, and coalition members raided a compound within the Baluchi Village killing five Taliban insurgents.
There were no civilians or ANA members injured during the successful raid. One U.S. member was wounded and taken to a nearby treatment facility and is listed in stable condition.
A search of the compound resulted in the discovery of about 8 pounds of opium. Coalition forces do not have a direct role in counternarcotics, but are authorized to seize illegal drugs and detain traffickers to be turned over to Afghan authorities. The narcotics' seizure was a byproduct of the raid on a known insurgent compound.
The compound had been used as a meeting place and sanctuary for Taliban insurgents to plan and conduct operations against local Afghans, government officials, and coalition forces.
"We will continue to aggressively hunt down Taliban leaders and insurgents who are attempting to escalate violence and instill fear," Fitzpatrick said. "Afghan and coalition forces strive to bring peace, freedom, and economic development to Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents only seek to terrorize, kill and oppress Afghans."
Coalition Forces Battle Extremists in Afghanistan
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 16, 2006 – Coalition forces defeated a large group of extremists in western Uruzgan province today in conjunction with Operation Mountain Thrust in southern Afghanistan, officials reported today.
Coalition forces engaged the enemy in a compound killing an estimated 40 insurgents while they were meeting at a known enemy camp within the Khod Valley, Shaheed Hasas district.
There were no injuries to civilians observed during the operation.
"Coalition forces tracked the development of this meeting until there were more than 50 extremists gathered before attacking the compound," said Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick, Combined Joint Task Force 76 spokesman. "The compound was severely damaged, and we anticipate most of those present were killed."
The Taliban extremists included members of an improvised explosive device cell, financiers and area leaders responsible for launching numerous attacks against Afghan civilians and the Afghan National Army to undermine the Afghan government's ability to provide security and services in Uruzgan.
"Coalition forces have delivered a quick and severe blow to the enemy today," Fitzpatrick said. "With our Afghan allies, we will continue offensive operations in known enemy safe havens to disrupt or destroy these insurgent groups and restore safety and security to the region."
In other Mountain Thrust action today, Afghan National Army and coalition forces conducted a raid on a known Taliban compound northeast of Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan province.
Elements of the 3rd Kandak, 1st Brigade, 205th ANA Corps, and coalition members raided a compound within the Baluchi Village killing five Taliban insurgents.
There were no civilians or ANA members injured during the successful raid. One U.S. member was wounded and taken to a nearby treatment facility and is listed in stable condition.
A search of the compound resulted in the discovery of about 8 pounds of opium. Coalition forces do not have a direct role in counternarcotics, but are authorized to seize illegal drugs and detain traffickers to be turned over to Afghan authorities. The narcotics' seizure was a byproduct of the raid on a known insurgent compound.
The compound had been used as a meeting place and sanctuary for Taliban insurgents to plan and conduct operations against local Afghans, government officials, and coalition forces.
"We will continue to aggressively hunt down Taliban leaders and insurgents who are attempting to escalate violence and instill fear," Fitzpatrick said. "Afghan and coalition forces strive to bring peace, freedom, and economic development to Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents only seek to terrorize, kill and oppress Afghans."
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/0...9964743280.html
Hicks should have faced military hearing: McCain
Date: June 17 2006
Michael Gawenda Herald Correspondent in Washington
THE Australian prisoner David Hicks should have faced a military commission at Guantanamo Bay after he was charged despite challenges in the US courts to the hearings, says John McCain, who successfully pushed for legislation in Congress to outlaw torture and the inhumane treatment of prisoners held by US forces anywhere in the world.
Senator McCain, the leading contender for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008, told the Herald that he had pushed for the legislation, despite strenuous objections from the Bush Administration, because America's reputation was being damaged and because the US "stood for certain values that had to be upheld despite the fact that those values are not shared by our enemies".
"The problem with Guantanamo is that nothing has happened," he said. "These people, including David Hicks, have to either be brought to trial or released. They can't be held indefinitely.
"The whole process has been stalled while court decisions on whether the military commissions meet US legal standards are pending.
"I would have proceeded with the military commissions anyway, even while the court decisions were pending. I do not support jury trials in the US for these people. But they can't just be held without hearings."
Senator McCain, who will be the guest speaker at a State Department dinner for US and Australian delegates attending the annual three-day American-Australian Leadership Dialogue in Washington beginning on Monday, spoke to the Herald before it was revealed that three Guantanamo prisoners had committed suicide last Saturday.
The dialogue, which brings together American and Australian business leaders, senior government officials and media representatives, is expected to discuss, among other issues, US-Australian relations, the threat from avian influenza, and the security challenges facing Australia and America in Australia's region.
In a wide-ranging interview, Senator McCain, by far the Republican Party's most popular potential candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination, expressed concern over the future of the Great Barrier Reef and praised Australia's intervention in the Solomon Islands and East Timor which, he said, had averted "possible genocides".
Australia had an important role helping avert "tensions" that could arise between the US and China, he said, including "sometimes clearing up misunderstandings".
Senator McCain has visited Australia many times, most recently in January to inspect the Barrier Reef. He said he understood Australia's relationship with China was different than America's relationship with the "emerging superpower".
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
Hicks should have faced military hearing: McCain
Date: June 17 2006
Michael Gawenda Herald Correspondent in Washington
THE Australian prisoner David Hicks should have faced a military commission at Guantanamo Bay after he was charged despite challenges in the US courts to the hearings, says John McCain, who successfully pushed for legislation in Congress to outlaw torture and the inhumane treatment of prisoners held by US forces anywhere in the world.
Senator McCain, the leading contender for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008, told the Herald that he had pushed for the legislation, despite strenuous objections from the Bush Administration, because America's reputation was being damaged and because the US "stood for certain values that had to be upheld despite the fact that those values are not shared by our enemies".
"The problem with Guantanamo is that nothing has happened," he said. "These people, including David Hicks, have to either be brought to trial or released. They can't be held indefinitely.
"The whole process has been stalled while court decisions on whether the military commissions meet US legal standards are pending.
"I would have proceeded with the military commissions anyway, even while the court decisions were pending. I do not support jury trials in the US for these people. But they can't just be held without hearings."
Senator McCain, who will be the guest speaker at a State Department dinner for US and Australian delegates attending the annual three-day American-Australian Leadership Dialogue in Washington beginning on Monday, spoke to the Herald before it was revealed that three Guantanamo prisoners had committed suicide last Saturday.
The dialogue, which brings together American and Australian business leaders, senior government officials and media representatives, is expected to discuss, among other issues, US-Australian relations, the threat from avian influenza, and the security challenges facing Australia and America in Australia's region.
In a wide-ranging interview, Senator McCain, by far the Republican Party's most popular potential candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination, expressed concern over the future of the Great Barrier Reef and praised Australia's intervention in the Solomon Islands and East Timor which, he said, had averted "possible genocides".
Australia had an important role helping avert "tensions" that could arise between the US and China, he said, including "sometimes clearing up misunderstandings".
Senator McCain has visited Australia many times, most recently in January to inspect the Barrier Reef. He said he understood Australia's relationship with China was different than America's relationship with the "emerging superpower".
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/0...9964736792.html
Flight of the green hawk
Date: June 17 2006
Many Republicans see John McCain more as a "pinko" than as their best chance to win the next US presidential race, writes Michael Gawenda.
JOHN McCain is worried about the Great Barrier Reef. In his office in the US Senate, the Republican Party's best chance of holding on to the presidency in 2008 says one of the great wonders of the world is under threat.
"I'm concerned that people aren't concerned enough about its future," he says. "If people could just see it and experience its wonders, they would be deeply troubled, just as I am. Pollution and other environmental degradation, and of course global warming, are such threats to the whole planet. We have to act now."
Given the Bush Administration not only refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol but continues to question whether global warming exists and is not just a theory cooked up by radical environmentalists to wreck the US economy, McCain's position on the issue has not endeared him to many Republicans.
No matter, he says. People are coming around, even in the Administration. The momentum for change is building, with leading conservative evangelicals starting to say that God expects human beings to look after the world he created.
McCain's concern for the Barrier Reef is not just theoretical. He has visited Australia half a dozen times, the last in January when he spent a week in Cairns and on the reef before heading to Sydney for a meeting with the Prime Minister, John Howard.
"It was good of him to break into his vacation to see me," he says. "We talked about many things, including global warming and the threats to the Barrier Reef. He knows I do not support the US or the Australian position on global warming."
McCain, who will speak at a State Department dinner during the three-day American-Australian Leadership Dialogue meeting in Washington from Monday, has a long association with Australia. His father had fond memories of his time in Perth during World War II as a submarine commander.
McCain junior visited Gallipoli several years ago to pay respects to the Australians and New Zealanders who fought there.
"I was fascinated to see that so many Australians were there, young and old, to mark that battle," he says. "I think they come because, like me, they are humbled by the enormity of what happened there, of the sacrifice. To see so many young people there was inspiring."
McCain says that given Australia's dark beginnings and its convict past - he has read Robert Hughes's The Fatal Shore - Australia has turned out "just great".
"The people of Australia are outgoing and friendly and optimistic, in my experience," he says. "You would understand if there was a dark nature about the people, but there really isn't."
He is proud of the role Australia plays in the South Pacific, where, according to McCain, it is the only country really in a position to stop what could be a series of genocides in several small island states.
"Australia isn't imperialist. It doesn't want to control these countries," McCain says.
His father became an admiral in the US Navy after his service, like his father. With that sort of family history, John McCain inevitably ended up in the navy and during the Vietnam War flew fighter jets off the US aircraft carrier the Oriskany.
He was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam in 1967 and spent five years as a prisoner of war in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton" prison, where he was regularly tortured. As a result, he is still unable to lift his arms above his head.
It was that experience which in part drove McCain to sponsor legislation in the US Senate, despite fierce opposition from the Bush Administration, to ban the torture of any prisoners held by the US and to spell out that all prisoners held anywhere in the world by US forces had to be treated humanely.
"Whatever the enemy does, no matter how much the enemy does, no matter how brutal they are, our forces have to adhere to values that define what and who we are," he says. "There were confused signals from senior officials about what is and what is not acceptable treatment of prisoners." The legislation was passed with bipartisan support and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, was said to be furious with McCain. It was not the first time senior Republicans had had cause to wish McCain would just go away.
That's highly unlikely. On this warm Washington afternoon McCain is in his shirtsleeves, sitting in his office beside a big, old, wooden desk that once belonged to his hero, Barry Goldwater, the Arizona senator who lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential election, but who was and remains a hero for the small-government wing of the
Republican Party.
He points to the desk and says Goldwater was a giant in a Senate that had so many distinguished senators, iconic politicians who served the American people before they served their political parties.
"Whatever you thought of him, Goldwater was a substantial figure and he respected his political opponents, indeed was friends with many of them," he says. "That doesn't happen much any more. We have a divided country. We have a whole lot of mismanagement bordering on corruption. People are fearful and disillusioned with their political representatives."
It is this disillusionment with politicians - including George Bush - that has made this Republican Party maverick, this straight-talking veteran conservative, who remains politically unpredictable on a range of issues, perhaps the most popular politician in America. Opinion polls show him far ahead of any other possible Republican candidate for 2008 and an easy winner against Hillary Clinton if she gains the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
This is despite the fact that McCain will be 72 in 2008, even older than another one of his political heroes, Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he ran for president in 1980.
But while he may be popular among the people, many observers believe he won't make it through the Republican Party primaries. McCain remains a hate figure to many conservatives, not only for his stand on global warming, but because of his support for campaign finance reform, his refusal to support an anti-gay marriage amendment to the US constitution, for his sponsorship, with the dreaded liberal Ted Kennedy, of an immigration bill that offers the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US "a path to citizenship" and for his fierce criticism of his fellow congressional Republicans for failing to control government spending.
And yet in many ways McCain is a mainstream conservative. He was, and remains, a hawk on Iraq and Iran - he supports the recent administration move to join negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, but insists that the military option "has to be on the table" - he is anti-abortion, and he believes in small government and urges cuts to government spending programs. He campaigned with Bush this year for social security privatisation.
But he has that special - and rare - knack of appealing to swinging voters and moderate Republicans and Democrats because of his reputation as a straight shooter and because he sounds like a politician capable of uniting a deeply divided country.
"We live in uncertain times", he says. "People are worried about the future. They feel insecure. Lay on top of that the unpopular war in Iraq and no wonder people feel bad, distrust politicians.
"We have to find ways of uniting the country. I have come to believe that I have to be frank with the American people, stand up for what I believe, even when it's unpopular."
Even as he describes the war in Iraq as unpopular, even as he gets stuck into the Bush Administration for the terrible mistakes that have been made in Iraq, McCain remains convinced that the war was necessary, even if Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and that the US must not withdraw before Iraq is ready to take care of its security.
"Look, Saddam Hussein had acquired and used weapons of mass destruction," he says. "There's no doubt in my mind that, had he stayed in power, he would have acquired them. The sanctions weren't holding. They were eroding and there was the huge scandal of the corruption under the oil-for-food program.
"In a relatively short period of time, he would have been free of sanctions and free to acquire WMD. Am I angry about the intelligence failures? Of course."
McCain is scathing in his criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of the period after the invasion and says that for his mistakes and mismanagement, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should have either quit or have been fired.
"Three months after the invasion, I went to Iraq," he says. "I was told by generals and privates and colonels and British officers in Basra that we didn't have enough troops. When I saw that we were allowing the looting to go on unhindered, when I heard we had decided to dissolve the Iraqi army, I knew we were going to have problems," McCain says. "I went back to Washington and told Rumsfeld that he had to send more troops immediately or the insurgency would just grow and we would be in real trouble. He refused to listen. Instead, we had hopelessly optimistic claims from the Administration which meant Americans weren't prepared for the hard grind we face now.
"All this has made our task there that much harder. Iraq has diverted our attention from other parts of the world, including South-East Asia and our own hemisphere. It has cost us an enormous amount of American blood and treasure.
"But the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. We have to see this through, even if it is two steps forward and one step back. I think President Bush now knows how hard it's going to be. He is more realistic about the challenges."
McCain does not support closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, though he is concerned there have been no hearings for any of the 450 or so inmates and that only a few, including the Australian David Hicks, have been charged with any offences.
"Charge them or release them," he says. "Those charged deserve a hearing - and I don't mean a jury trial by their peers. I would proceed with the military commissions even while they were under challenge in the courts. I understand that some Australians are concerned that Hicks has been held for more than four years without a hearing."
John McCain says he has not decided whether he'll run for the Republican Party presidential nomination, though virtually every observer in Washington reckons he's a certainty to run, indeed, given his relentless travel across the country, that his campaign is under way.
"No, no," he says. "I'm interested, no doubt about that. I failed in 2000 and I supported the President in 2004. But 2008, he won't be running. I'll let you know after the mid-term elections in November what I'm going to do."
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
[ SMH | Text-only index]
Flight of the green hawk
Date: June 17 2006
Many Republicans see John McCain more as a "pinko" than as their best chance to win the next US presidential race, writes Michael Gawenda.
JOHN McCain is worried about the Great Barrier Reef. In his office in the US Senate, the Republican Party's best chance of holding on to the presidency in 2008 says one of the great wonders of the world is under threat.
"I'm concerned that people aren't concerned enough about its future," he says. "If people could just see it and experience its wonders, they would be deeply troubled, just as I am. Pollution and other environmental degradation, and of course global warming, are such threats to the whole planet. We have to act now."
Given the Bush Administration not only refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol but continues to question whether global warming exists and is not just a theory cooked up by radical environmentalists to wreck the US economy, McCain's position on the issue has not endeared him to many Republicans.
No matter, he says. People are coming around, even in the Administration. The momentum for change is building, with leading conservative evangelicals starting to say that God expects human beings to look after the world he created.
McCain's concern for the Barrier Reef is not just theoretical. He has visited Australia half a dozen times, the last in January when he spent a week in Cairns and on the reef before heading to Sydney for a meeting with the Prime Minister, John Howard.
"It was good of him to break into his vacation to see me," he says. "We talked about many things, including global warming and the threats to the Barrier Reef. He knows I do not support the US or the Australian position on global warming."
McCain, who will speak at a State Department dinner during the three-day American-Australian Leadership Dialogue meeting in Washington from Monday, has a long association with Australia. His father had fond memories of his time in Perth during World War II as a submarine commander.
McCain junior visited Gallipoli several years ago to pay respects to the Australians and New Zealanders who fought there.
"I was fascinated to see that so many Australians were there, young and old, to mark that battle," he says. "I think they come because, like me, they are humbled by the enormity of what happened there, of the sacrifice. To see so many young people there was inspiring."
McCain says that given Australia's dark beginnings and its convict past - he has read Robert Hughes's The Fatal Shore - Australia has turned out "just great".
"The people of Australia are outgoing and friendly and optimistic, in my experience," he says. "You would understand if there was a dark nature about the people, but there really isn't."
He is proud of the role Australia plays in the South Pacific, where, according to McCain, it is the only country really in a position to stop what could be a series of genocides in several small island states.
"Australia isn't imperialist. It doesn't want to control these countries," McCain says.
His father became an admiral in the US Navy after his service, like his father. With that sort of family history, John McCain inevitably ended up in the navy and during the Vietnam War flew fighter jets off the US aircraft carrier the Oriskany.
He was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam in 1967 and spent five years as a prisoner of war in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton" prison, where he was regularly tortured. As a result, he is still unable to lift his arms above his head.
It was that experience which in part drove McCain to sponsor legislation in the US Senate, despite fierce opposition from the Bush Administration, to ban the torture of any prisoners held by the US and to spell out that all prisoners held anywhere in the world by US forces had to be treated humanely.
"Whatever the enemy does, no matter how much the enemy does, no matter how brutal they are, our forces have to adhere to values that define what and who we are," he says. "There were confused signals from senior officials about what is and what is not acceptable treatment of prisoners." The legislation was passed with bipartisan support and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, was said to be furious with McCain. It was not the first time senior Republicans had had cause to wish McCain would just go away.
That's highly unlikely. On this warm Washington afternoon McCain is in his shirtsleeves, sitting in his office beside a big, old, wooden desk that once belonged to his hero, Barry Goldwater, the Arizona senator who lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential election, but who was and remains a hero for the small-government wing of the
Republican Party.
He points to the desk and says Goldwater was a giant in a Senate that had so many distinguished senators, iconic politicians who served the American people before they served their political parties.
"Whatever you thought of him, Goldwater was a substantial figure and he respected his political opponents, indeed was friends with many of them," he says. "That doesn't happen much any more. We have a divided country. We have a whole lot of mismanagement bordering on corruption. People are fearful and disillusioned with their political representatives."
It is this disillusionment with politicians - including George Bush - that has made this Republican Party maverick, this straight-talking veteran conservative, who remains politically unpredictable on a range of issues, perhaps the most popular politician in America. Opinion polls show him far ahead of any other possible Republican candidate for 2008 and an easy winner against Hillary Clinton if she gains the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
This is despite the fact that McCain will be 72 in 2008, even older than another one of his political heroes, Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he ran for president in 1980.
But while he may be popular among the people, many observers believe he won't make it through the Republican Party primaries. McCain remains a hate figure to many conservatives, not only for his stand on global warming, but because of his support for campaign finance reform, his refusal to support an anti-gay marriage amendment to the US constitution, for his sponsorship, with the dreaded liberal Ted Kennedy, of an immigration bill that offers the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US "a path to citizenship" and for his fierce criticism of his fellow congressional Republicans for failing to control government spending.
And yet in many ways McCain is a mainstream conservative. He was, and remains, a hawk on Iraq and Iran - he supports the recent administration move to join negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, but insists that the military option "has to be on the table" - he is anti-abortion, and he believes in small government and urges cuts to government spending programs. He campaigned with Bush this year for social security privatisation.
But he has that special - and rare - knack of appealing to swinging voters and moderate Republicans and Democrats because of his reputation as a straight shooter and because he sounds like a politician capable of uniting a deeply divided country.
"We live in uncertain times", he says. "People are worried about the future. They feel insecure. Lay on top of that the unpopular war in Iraq and no wonder people feel bad, distrust politicians.
"We have to find ways of uniting the country. I have come to believe that I have to be frank with the American people, stand up for what I believe, even when it's unpopular."
Even as he describes the war in Iraq as unpopular, even as he gets stuck into the Bush Administration for the terrible mistakes that have been made in Iraq, McCain remains convinced that the war was necessary, even if Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and that the US must not withdraw before Iraq is ready to take care of its security.
"Look, Saddam Hussein had acquired and used weapons of mass destruction," he says. "There's no doubt in my mind that, had he stayed in power, he would have acquired them. The sanctions weren't holding. They were eroding and there was the huge scandal of the corruption under the oil-for-food program.
"In a relatively short period of time, he would have been free of sanctions and free to acquire WMD. Am I angry about the intelligence failures? Of course."
McCain is scathing in his criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of the period after the invasion and says that for his mistakes and mismanagement, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should have either quit or have been fired.
"Three months after the invasion, I went to Iraq," he says. "I was told by generals and privates and colonels and British officers in Basra that we didn't have enough troops. When I saw that we were allowing the looting to go on unhindered, when I heard we had decided to dissolve the Iraqi army, I knew we were going to have problems," McCain says. "I went back to Washington and told Rumsfeld that he had to send more troops immediately or the insurgency would just grow and we would be in real trouble. He refused to listen. Instead, we had hopelessly optimistic claims from the Administration which meant Americans weren't prepared for the hard grind we face now.
"All this has made our task there that much harder. Iraq has diverted our attention from other parts of the world, including South-East Asia and our own hemisphere. It has cost us an enormous amount of American blood and treasure.
"But the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. We have to see this through, even if it is two steps forward and one step back. I think President Bush now knows how hard it's going to be. He is more realistic about the challenges."
McCain does not support closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, though he is concerned there have been no hearings for any of the 450 or so inmates and that only a few, including the Australian David Hicks, have been charged with any offences.
"Charge them or release them," he says. "Those charged deserve a hearing - and I don't mean a jury trial by their peers. I would proceed with the military commissions even while they were under challenge in the courts. I understand that some Australians are concerned that Hicks has been held for more than four years without a hearing."
John McCain says he has not decided whether he'll run for the Republican Party presidential nomination, though virtually every observer in Washington reckons he's a certainty to run, indeed, given his relentless travel across the country, that his campaign is under way.
"No, no," he says. "I'm interested, no doubt about that. I failed in 2000 and I supported the President in 2004. But 2008, he won't be running. I'll let you know after the mid-term elections in November what I'm going to do."
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
[ SMH | Text-only index]
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/0...9964736789.html
Brother, where art thou?
Date: June 17 2006
Security work in Iraq is a booming industry, but it's costing Fiji its young men, writes Joel Gibson.
LIKE thousands of Fijian men before him, Vilisoni Gauna graduated from high school to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. He served 14 years in several stints in the navy and army, farming taro, ginger and cassava in between, before Iraq and the greenback beckoned in 2004.
When a company called Homeland Security began recruiting in Fiji for the London-based ArmorGroup Ltd, one of the world's largest security firms, Gauna was prime fodder. He was trained, idle and unattached, and the money being offered to protect a Bechtel Corporation power plant in Iraq amounted to more than a Fijian cabinet minister's salary.
Gauna left Fiji in October 2004. Sources in Iraq said Bechtel paid ArmorGroup $US7000 ($9489) a week per guard, of which Gauna received $US1500, until his contract expired last month. It was then, say family members, that he signed another contract with ArmorGroup to do high-risk supply convoy work for the same money.
On June 8, while escorting a convoy on the 10-hour gauntlet-run from Basra in the south to northern Iraq, Gauna, 43, was killed by a roadside bomb 300 kilometres north of Baghdad. Two other Fijians, Penaia Kanatabatu Vakaotia, 32, and Mikaele Banidawa, 45, died in the same attack, as did an Australian, Wayne Schulz, 34.
Last Saturday, Gauna's mother, Apikali, received the news that thousands of Fijian families dread daily. Her eldest was dead. It was less than 24 hours since she had buried her father.
"Vilisoni was a happy man," said his sister, Senitiki, smiling at pictures of him horsing around in an Iraqi pool, or strumming a guitar. "He was always joking and telling stories."
His family will receive interim payments and compensation according to the terms of Gauna's contract, said ArmorGroup's spokesman in Fiji, Savenaca Damuni, this week. But neither Damuni nor the family nor Fiji's Ministry of Labour has a copy of the most recent agreement, making it illegal under Fijian law and impossible to scrutinise.
Contacted by the Herald, ArmorGroup's chief executive, Jerry Hoffman, said it was company policy not to discuss Gauna's contract. He did not know why it had not been registered with the Fijian Government.
Fijians were sought after by ArmorGroup, Hoffman said, "because they're well-trained in the skills we require for working in high-risk environments". They were often paid less than other nationals because their roles involved less responsibility, he said, not because of their country of origin.
The Iraq industry is booming in Fiji. An estimated 1000 Fijians, mostly former soldiers and policemen, are working as private security guards in Iraq and Kuwait, while 100 soldiers are leaving Fiji's military forces each year.
At more than $F300 million ($232 million) a year, about 7 per cent of gross domestic product, remittances from foreign workers are Fiji's second-highest source of foreign exchange dollars and climbing. More than $F15 million comes back annually from Iraq.
In January last year, the Labour minister in the previous government described the Iraq industry as "a good thing" and a Band-Aid for high unemployment.
But this latest triple death - there was an almost identical tragedy on April 30 - has taken Fiji's toll to 11 men in two months and forced a government backflip on the lucrative Middle East work.
"Iraq is a different situation altogether. It is too risky," the Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, told Fijian radio this week. Responding to critics' claims of exploitation and predictions of a fatherless generation, Qarase urged Fijians in Iraq to return and develop their homeland instead.
He was later rebuked by a self-described spokesman for overseas contractors, who told the Fiji Times they had neither the capital nor the government assistance to farm their homeland.
Gauna's sister, Senitiki, agrees the risks are too high. "It's because of the money. If they work in Fiji they just can't get that much."
The Government has acknowledged it can't stop the exodus, and family members said it had to do more to protect its valuable human exports by registering recruiting agents, for example, and analysing all contracts for crucial equipment, insurance and training provisions. There has been talk of opening a Kuwait embassy for that purpose, but no progress to date.
Gauna, a bachelor, was saving to buy a house when he returned for a planned marriage next year, his family said. Most of his dead compatriots, however, have left children and wives. Banidawa, who died with Gauna, left a wife and four children, according to the Fiji Sun.
On April 18, a mother of six, Makareta Taka, lost her brother to a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq, then her husband two weeks later to a roadside bomb.
In May last year, Fiji had its own version of the Private Jake Kovco fiasco. As a mother of five, Ledua Atalifo, was preparing a funeral for her husband, Jim, she learnt via media reports that his body had been switched with that of an American soldier. Like Gauna, Jim had signed a new contract while in Iraq.
When recruiting began in Fiji in 2003, three years after Fijian soldiers returned from a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, "there was a willing pool of recruits in the South Pacific", says a recent report by Melbourne's Nautilus Institute on the privatisation of Fiji's military.
It concludes: "The boom in recruiting for Iraq and Kuwait has raised many issues for the Government of Fiji: the unregulated role of private recruitment contractors, the social impacts on family life, and the capacity of government to support workers with pay disputes or post-deployment health problems."
Fiji's new Labour Minister, Krishna Datt, was overseas this week.
Gauna's body was returned to Fiji yesterday. The funeral is scheduled for Tuesday.
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
Brother, where art thou?
Date: June 17 2006
Security work in Iraq is a booming industry, but it's costing Fiji its young men, writes Joel Gibson.
LIKE thousands of Fijian men before him, Vilisoni Gauna graduated from high school to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. He served 14 years in several stints in the navy and army, farming taro, ginger and cassava in between, before Iraq and the greenback beckoned in 2004.
When a company called Homeland Security began recruiting in Fiji for the London-based ArmorGroup Ltd, one of the world's largest security firms, Gauna was prime fodder. He was trained, idle and unattached, and the money being offered to protect a Bechtel Corporation power plant in Iraq amounted to more than a Fijian cabinet minister's salary.
Gauna left Fiji in October 2004. Sources in Iraq said Bechtel paid ArmorGroup $US7000 ($9489) a week per guard, of which Gauna received $US1500, until his contract expired last month. It was then, say family members, that he signed another contract with ArmorGroup to do high-risk supply convoy work for the same money.
On June 8, while escorting a convoy on the 10-hour gauntlet-run from Basra in the south to northern Iraq, Gauna, 43, was killed by a roadside bomb 300 kilometres north of Baghdad. Two other Fijians, Penaia Kanatabatu Vakaotia, 32, and Mikaele Banidawa, 45, died in the same attack, as did an Australian, Wayne Schulz, 34.
Last Saturday, Gauna's mother, Apikali, received the news that thousands of Fijian families dread daily. Her eldest was dead. It was less than 24 hours since she had buried her father.
"Vilisoni was a happy man," said his sister, Senitiki, smiling at pictures of him horsing around in an Iraqi pool, or strumming a guitar. "He was always joking and telling stories."
His family will receive interim payments and compensation according to the terms of Gauna's contract, said ArmorGroup's spokesman in Fiji, Savenaca Damuni, this week. But neither Damuni nor the family nor Fiji's Ministry of Labour has a copy of the most recent agreement, making it illegal under Fijian law and impossible to scrutinise.
Contacted by the Herald, ArmorGroup's chief executive, Jerry Hoffman, said it was company policy not to discuss Gauna's contract. He did not know why it had not been registered with the Fijian Government.
Fijians were sought after by ArmorGroup, Hoffman said, "because they're well-trained in the skills we require for working in high-risk environments". They were often paid less than other nationals because their roles involved less responsibility, he said, not because of their country of origin.
The Iraq industry is booming in Fiji. An estimated 1000 Fijians, mostly former soldiers and policemen, are working as private security guards in Iraq and Kuwait, while 100 soldiers are leaving Fiji's military forces each year.
At more than $F300 million ($232 million) a year, about 7 per cent of gross domestic product, remittances from foreign workers are Fiji's second-highest source of foreign exchange dollars and climbing. More than $F15 million comes back annually from Iraq.
In January last year, the Labour minister in the previous government described the Iraq industry as "a good thing" and a Band-Aid for high unemployment.
But this latest triple death - there was an almost identical tragedy on April 30 - has taken Fiji's toll to 11 men in two months and forced a government backflip on the lucrative Middle East work.
"Iraq is a different situation altogether. It is too risky," the Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, told Fijian radio this week. Responding to critics' claims of exploitation and predictions of a fatherless generation, Qarase urged Fijians in Iraq to return and develop their homeland instead.
He was later rebuked by a self-described spokesman for overseas contractors, who told the Fiji Times they had neither the capital nor the government assistance to farm their homeland.
Gauna's sister, Senitiki, agrees the risks are too high. "It's because of the money. If they work in Fiji they just can't get that much."
The Government has acknowledged it can't stop the exodus, and family members said it had to do more to protect its valuable human exports by registering recruiting agents, for example, and analysing all contracts for crucial equipment, insurance and training provisions. There has been talk of opening a Kuwait embassy for that purpose, but no progress to date.
Gauna, a bachelor, was saving to buy a house when he returned for a planned marriage next year, his family said. Most of his dead compatriots, however, have left children and wives. Banidawa, who died with Gauna, left a wife and four children, according to the Fiji Sun.
On April 18, a mother of six, Makareta Taka, lost her brother to a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq, then her husband two weeks later to a roadside bomb.
In May last year, Fiji had its own version of the Private Jake Kovco fiasco. As a mother of five, Ledua Atalifo, was preparing a funeral for her husband, Jim, she learnt via media reports that his body had been switched with that of an American soldier. Like Gauna, Jim had signed a new contract while in Iraq.
When recruiting began in Fiji in 2003, three years after Fijian soldiers returned from a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, "there was a willing pool of recruits in the South Pacific", says a recent report by Melbourne's Nautilus Institute on the privatisation of Fiji's military.
It concludes: "The boom in recruiting for Iraq and Kuwait has raised many issues for the Government of Fiji: the unregulated role of private recruitment contractors, the social impacts on family life, and the capacity of government to support workers with pay disputes or post-deployment health problems."
Fiji's new Labour Minister, Krishna Datt, was overseas this week.
Gauna's body was returned to Fiji yesterday. The funeral is scheduled for Tuesday.
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faes...html?mode=print
The Tipping Points
By Daniel Yankelovich
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: A new survey of U.S. public opinion on foreign policy shows that the war in Iraq and terrorism are not the only problems on Americans' minds. Public concern over the United States' dependence on foreign oil may soon force policymakers to change course. And religious Americans are rethinking their support for many of Bush's policies, which has brought them closer in line with the rest of the public.
DANIEL YANKELOVICH is Chair and Co-founder of the organizations Public Agenda, DYG, and Viewpoint Learning.
FROM BAD TO WORSE
Terrorism and the war in Iraq are not the only sources of the American public's anxiety about U.S. foreign policy. Americans are also concerned about their country's dependence on foreign energy supplies, U.S. jobs moving overseas, Washington's seeming inability to stop illegal immigration, and a wide range of other issues. The public's support for promoting democracy abroad has also seriously eroded.
These are a few of the highlights from the second in a continuing series of surveys monitoring Americans' confidence in U.S. foreign policy conducted by the nonprofit research organization Public Agenda (with support from the Ford Foundation), of which I am chair. The first survey, conducted in June of last year, found that only the war in Iraq had reached the "tipping point" -- the moment at which a large portion of the public begins to demand that the government address its concerns. According to this follow-on survey, conducted among a representative sample of 1,000 American adults in mid-January 2006, a second issue has reached that status. The U.S. public has grown impatient with U.S. dependence on foreign countries for oil, and its impatience could soon translate into a powerful demand that Washington change its policies.
Overall, the public's confidence in U.S. foreign policy has drifted downward since the first survey. On no issue did the government's policy receive an improved rating from the public in January's survey, and on a few the ratings changed for the worse. The public has become less confident in Washington's ability to achieve its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, hunt down terrorists, protect U.S. borders, and safeguard U.S. jobs. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they think that U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track (compared to 37 percent who think the opposite), and 51 percent said they are disappointed by the country's relations with other countries (compared to 42 percent who are proud of them).
As for the goal of spreading democracy to other countries, only 20 percent of respondents identified it as "very important" -- the lowest support noted for any goal asked about in the survey. Even among Republicans, only three out of ten favored pursuing it strongly. In fact, most of the erosion in confidence in the policy of spreading democracy abroad has occurred among Republicans, especially the more religious wing of the party. People who frequently attend religious services have been among the most ardent supporters of the government's policies, but one of the recent survey's most striking findings is that although these people continue to maintain a high level of trust in the president and his administration, their support for the government's Iraq policy and for the policy of exporting democracy has cooled.
WHAT MATTERS, AND WHY
A question always hovers in the background whenever public attitudes on foreign policy are reported: What influence do shifts in such attitudes have on the actual day-to-day conduct of foreign policy? Unlike for domestic policy, where it is clear that public opinion is always relevant, for foreign policy it is often difficult to understand whether changes in public opinion lead to changes on the ground.
The reason for this murkiness is that the public grants the president and Congress far more authority for decision-making on foreign policy than on domestic affairs. Americans assume that the president and his advisers have special information about international relations to which they are not privy. Some Americans may also lack confidence in their ability to judge the wisdom of particular foreign policies. All of this translates into a good deal of leeway for policymakers. Still, the public puts limits on this freedom and sometimes takes it away abruptly. Under certain conditions, public opinion can have a decisive influence. The trick is understanding what those conditions are.
In mid-2005, we found that in addition to the war in Iraq, three other issues were moving toward the tipping point, where public opinion would become strong enough to influence policy. These issues were the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, illegal immigration, and the United States' deteriorating relations with the Muslim world. Based on the January survey, concern over outsourcing and illegal immigration has grown a bit more intense, and the worry about the growing hatred of the United States in Muslim countries has modestly receded. On the other hand, U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, which was not an urgent issue in mid-2005, has leapt to the forefront of the public's consciousness.
In studies that track attitudes, there are always more views that do not change than views that do. This survey is no exception. It is a striking -- and encouraging -- illustration of the public's thoughtfulness and consistency. Respondents still awarded the government high marks (an A or a
on its performance in achieving foreign policy goals such as helping other nations when natural disasters strike and making sure the United States has a strong and well-supplied military. Respondents continued to believe that the government deserves intermediate ratings on its efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and help improve the lives of people in the developing world. And respondents still gave the government failing grades on issues such as stopping the importation of illegal drugs. This context of overall stability makes any changes in opinion that the survey did find all the more striking and significant.
The war in Iraq, already at the tipping point in mid-2005, remains the primary foreign policy issue on which public pressure continues to mount. Although illegal immigration and outsourcing moved closer to the tipping point in the January 2006 poll, neither has actually reached it. In contrast, the public's concern over U.S. relations with the Muslim world moved slightly away from the tipping point. And the issue of energy dependence, which had ranked far down the list, leapfrogged ahead to move into tipping-point territory.
No change is more striking than that relating to the public's opinion of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Americans have grown much more worried that problems abroad may affect the price of oil. The proportion of those who said they "worry a lot" about this occurring has increased from 42 percent to 55 percent. Nearly nine out of ten Americans asked were worried about the problem -- putting oil dependence at the top of our 18-issue "worry scale." Virtually all Americans surveyed (90 percent) said they see the United States' lack of energy independence as jeopardizing the country's security, 88 percent said they believe that problems abroad could endanger the United States' supply of oil and so raise prices for U.S. consumers, and 85 percent said they believe that the U.S. government would be capable of doing something about the problem if it tried. This last belief may be the reason that only 20 percent of those surveyed gave the government an A or a B on this issue; three-quarters assigned the government's performance a C, a D, or an F.
The oil-dependency issue now meets all the criteria for having reached the tipping point: an overwhelming majority expresses concern about the issue, the intensity of the public's unease has reached significant levels, and the public believes the government is capable of addressing the issue far more effectively than it has until now. Should the price of gasoline drop over the coming months, this issue may temporarily lose some of its political weight. But with supplies of oil tight and geopolitical tensions high, public pressure is likely to grow.
The only other issue that has reached the tipping point is the war in Iraq. It continues to be the foreign policy issue foremost in the public's mind, and respondents consistently deem the war (along with the threat of terrorism) to be the most important problem facing the United States in its dealings with the rest of the world. Concern about mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq is particularly widespread -- 82 percent of respondents to the June 2005 survey said they cared deeply about the issue; in January 2006, 83 percent said they did. Although the level and intensity of concern about Iraq has remained fairly stable, the public's appraisal of how well the United States is meeting its objectives there has eroded slightly. Last summer, 39 percent of respondents gave the government high marks on this issue; 33 percent did in January. The erosion, moreover, comes almost entirely from Republicans: 61 percent gave the government an A or a B on Iraq in the first survey, but only 53 percent did in the second. Confidence in U.S. policy on Iraq is also down significantly among those who regularly attend religious services, who also show rising levels of concern about casualties.
One reason for the downward trend is skepticism about how truthful Washington has been about the reasons for invading Iraq. Fifty percent of respondents said they feel that they were misled -- the highest level of mistrust measured in the survey. Another source of skepticism may be more troublesome for the government: only 22 percent of Americans surveyed said they feel that their government has the ability to create a democracy in Iraq.
WHAT'S ON DECK
Three other issues are approaching the tipping point but have not yet reached it: the outsourcing of jobs, illegal immigration, and U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and especially Muslim countries.
An impressive 87 percent of respondents expressed some degree of concern about outsourcing, 52 percent said they "worry a lot" about it, and 81 percent of respondents gave the government poor grades (a C, a D, or an F) on its handling of the issue. Thus, outsourcing now meets two of the three criteria for reaching the tipping point. But it falls short on the third criterion, the ability of the government to take effective action on the issue. Most Americans surveyed (74 percent) felt that it was unlikely that U.S. companies would keep jobs in the country when labor is cheaper elsewhere. And 52 percent of respondents believed it was unrealistic to think that the government could do anything to stop corporations from sending jobs abroad. On the other hand, a large plurality (44 percent) said they believe the U.S. government could do a lot to prevent jobs from moving overseas if it really tried. Should this plurality become a majority -- which we suspect will happen during 2006 -- outsourcing will have reached the tipping point.
Concern about illegal immigration has also grown. Two out of five Americans surveyed (41 percent) said they "worry a lot" about this issue, and half (50 percent) said they believe that tighter controls on immigration would greatly enhance U.S. security. Almost half (48 percent) also said they believe the government could do a lot to slow illegal immigration, and respondents gave Washington even lower grades on protecting U.S. borders in the most recent survey than they did in mid-2005.
Interestingly, the public's feelings on a third issue have moved in the opposite direction. This issue is the intangible but important question of U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and specifically with Muslim countries. During the period between the two surveys, the U.S. public grew marginally less worried about anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and elsewhere. The number of respondents who said they "worry a lot" about growing hatred of the United States in the Muslim world decreased from 40 percent to 34 percent, and the share of those who were deeply concerned about losing the trust of people in other countries declined from 40 percent to 29 percent, one of the larger changes in the survey. The reasons for these changes are not self-evident. The sense of shame about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, so strong in 2005, seems to have receded with the passage of time.
Only about a third of Americans surveyed (35 percent) said they think the U.S. government could do a lot to establish good relations with moderate Muslims -- but almost two-thirds (64 percent) nevertheless gave the government poor marks because of its failure to do so. We expect opinions on this issue to be volatile in the future. Nearly a third of respondents said they "worry a lot" about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world (31 percent) and the possibility that U.S. actions in the Middle East have aided the recruitment of terrorists (33 percent). Almost half (45 percent) said they believe that Islam encourages violence, and survey respondents estimated that about half or more of all Muslims in the world are anti-American. But a clear majority (56 percent) continued to have confidence that improved communications with the Muslim world would reduce hatred of the United States.
Americans may also be getting used to the once-shocking notion that they are not well loved abroad. A majority of respondents (65 percent) have realized that the rest of the world sees the United States in a negative light. When Americans are asked to describe the image of the United States in other countries, the results show a great deal of ambivalence and confusion. Even though a majority said they believe the United States is seen negatively, large majorities ascribed positive elements to the country's image abroad. Four out of five respondents said they think the United States is seen as "a free and democratic country" (81 percent) and "a country of opportunity for everyone" (80 percent). Nearly as many said they believe the United States is seen as generous to other countries (72 percent) and as a strong leader (69 percent). But equal numbers said the United States is seen as "arrogant" (74 percent), "pampered and spoiled" (73 percent), "a bully" (63 percent), and a "country to be feared" (63 percent).
UNITY AND DIVISION
The U.S. public holds a strikingly clear view of what Washington's foreign policy priorities should be. The goals the public highlights range widely. Those that receive the most public support are helping other nations when they are struck by natural disasters (71 percent), cooperating with other countries on problems such as the environment and disease control (70 percent), and supporting UN peacekeeping (69 percent). A surprisingly high level of support shows up for goals that represent the United States' humanitarian (as distinct from its political) ideals, such as improving the treatment of women in other countries (57 percent), helping people in poor countries get an education (51 percent), and helping countries move out of poverty (40 percent). Receiving less support are goals such as encouraging U.S. businesses to invest in poor countries (22 percent). And receiving the least support is "actively creating democracies in other countries" (20 percent).
Not surprisingly, there are partisan differences over what the United States' goals should be. The largest gap between Republicans and Democrats relates to "initiating military force only when we have the support of our allies." Almost two-thirds of Democrats surveyed (64 percent) endorsed this multilateralist principle, in contrast to slightly more than a third of Republicans (36 percent). There are no significant differences between Republicans and Democrats on humanitarian ideals. The parties do differ, however, on the desirability of promoting democracy in other countries (30 percent of Republicans surveyed supported this goal, compared to only 16 percent of Democrats). But even a majority of Republicans have little stomach for this priority of the Bush administration.
This last point merits some elaboration. A majority of the U.S. public supports the ideal of spreading democracy (53 percent of respondents said they believe that "when more countries become democratic there will be less conflict"), but Americans are skeptical that an activist U.S. policy can contribute much to this outcome. A majority of those surveyed (58 percent) said they feel that "democracy is something that countries only come to on their own." As such skepticism grows, support for trying to create democracies abroad declines. In the 2005 survey, 50 percent of respondents thought that the United States was doing well at that task; in the more recent survey, the number fell to 46 percent, and only 22 percent said they believe that Washington can do a lot to build a democratic Iraq.
The 2005 survey described the huge gap that divided Republicans and Democrats on most aspects of foreign policy. The most recent survey found that partisan differences remain pronounced. The gap between the parties is at its widest with regard to how the United States is doing in its foreign policy and how much the Bush administration can be trusted. The most striking difference is in the expression of pride in the nation's foreign policy, with a whopping 58-point spread between the percentage of Republicans and the percentage of Democrats who believe that there is "plenty to be proud of" in U.S. dealings with the world. Essentially, Republicans think the country is doing well in foreign policy, whereas Democrats think it is failing miserably.
But digging into the numbers reveals that although Republicans generally endorse the country's current foreign policy, they share with Democrats a critical appraisal on a number of specific issues. Both groups are reluctant to give an A or a B to the government for its efforts to stop illegal immigration, achieve energy independence, block drugs from entering the country, limit the extent of foreign debt, or negotiate beneficial trade agreements.
BACK TO THE FOLD?
The first survey showed a remarkable parallel between the views of Republican respondents and the views of those respondents who said they frequently attend religious services. (By "religious services," we mean services of any kind -- in churches, synagogues, mosques, or elsewhere.) The second survey showed reduced enthusiasm for some of the administration's policies among devoted service attendees, especially regarding the war in Iraq. In fact, most of the erosion in confidence in the government's foreign policy in the seven months between the two surveys came from this source. Although there are still striking differences between the views of Americans who do not attend religious services frequently and the views of those who do, the gap has started to narrow, suggesting reduced polarization on the basis of religion.
In the first survey, a minority of frequent attendees at religious services (45 percent) expressed serious worry about casualties in Iraq, compared to 56 percent of the total sample. Now that number has increased to 52 percent, closer to the proportion of the population as a whole, which has remained at 56 percent. Although people who frequently attend religious services are still the respondents most supportive of U.S. policy in Iraq, fewer of them (41 percent of those surveyed) gave a high grade to the government on meeting U.S. objectives there than did seven months earlier (46 percent). In the first survey, 32 percent of those who frequently attend religious services said they worried a lot that the war in Iraq was taking up too much money and attention; in January, 40 percent did. Almost half of those surveyed in June 2005 (48 percent) said they believed that the United States could help other countries become democracies; in January, that number had dropped to 37 percent, in line with the 36 percent of the general population. And in the more recent surveys only 46 percent agreed that the United States was "generally doing the right thing" in its relations with the rest of the world, down from 52 percent in the earlier survey.
These are not big changes, but they follow a consistent pattern, suggesting that the most actively religious Americans are starting to react more like the rest of the public. This conclusion is supported by the results of the broad overview question asking whether U.S. foreign policy is going in the right or the wrong direction: 57 percent of those who frequently attend religious services said the latter in January, matching the 58 percent of the rest of the population who said this. Still, despite the mounting reservations of actively religious Americans about some policies, a majority (54 percent) continue to trust the government to tell them the truth about the country's relations with others, in contrast to the 37 percent of respondents who do not frequently attend religious services.
A recent survey of public opinion in Arab countries, conducted in late 2005 by Zogby International and University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami, showed results that are dismaying from the United States' point of view, with large majorities believing that the war with Iraq will make Iraqis worse off and the region less peaceful, breed more terrorism, and worsen the prospects for settling the Arab-Israeli dispute. Comparably large majorities said they consider U.S. foreign policies to be driven not by a desire to spread democracy, but by oil, a quest to dominate the Middle East, the goal of protecting Israel, or a desire to weaken the Muslim world.
Nevertheless, one ray of light shines through. Asked what the primary motivation for Bush's Middle East policy is, only 13 percent of those Arabs surveyed in the Zogby/Telhami poll cited "the need to spread ... Christian religious convictions"; most (61 percent) chose instead "the pursuit of [the United States'] national interest." Why does this offer grounds for hope? Because our most recent survey showed that the religious divide over U.S. foreign policy seems to be narrowing, and the Zogby/Telhami survey revealed a similar finding: that the Arab world sees secular, rather than religious, motivations as crucial to U.S. foreign policy. However difficult differences rooted in interests might be to solve, and however long it might take to solve them, clashes rooted in identity and religion are even more problematic and take far longer to surmount.
The Tipping Points
By Daniel Yankelovich
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: A new survey of U.S. public opinion on foreign policy shows that the war in Iraq and terrorism are not the only problems on Americans' minds. Public concern over the United States' dependence on foreign oil may soon force policymakers to change course. And religious Americans are rethinking their support for many of Bush's policies, which has brought them closer in line with the rest of the public.
DANIEL YANKELOVICH is Chair and Co-founder of the organizations Public Agenda, DYG, and Viewpoint Learning.
FROM BAD TO WORSE
Terrorism and the war in Iraq are not the only sources of the American public's anxiety about U.S. foreign policy. Americans are also concerned about their country's dependence on foreign energy supplies, U.S. jobs moving overseas, Washington's seeming inability to stop illegal immigration, and a wide range of other issues. The public's support for promoting democracy abroad has also seriously eroded.
These are a few of the highlights from the second in a continuing series of surveys monitoring Americans' confidence in U.S. foreign policy conducted by the nonprofit research organization Public Agenda (with support from the Ford Foundation), of which I am chair. The first survey, conducted in June of last year, found that only the war in Iraq had reached the "tipping point" -- the moment at which a large portion of the public begins to demand that the government address its concerns. According to this follow-on survey, conducted among a representative sample of 1,000 American adults in mid-January 2006, a second issue has reached that status. The U.S. public has grown impatient with U.S. dependence on foreign countries for oil, and its impatience could soon translate into a powerful demand that Washington change its policies.
Overall, the public's confidence in U.S. foreign policy has drifted downward since the first survey. On no issue did the government's policy receive an improved rating from the public in January's survey, and on a few the ratings changed for the worse. The public has become less confident in Washington's ability to achieve its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, hunt down terrorists, protect U.S. borders, and safeguard U.S. jobs. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they think that U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track (compared to 37 percent who think the opposite), and 51 percent said they are disappointed by the country's relations with other countries (compared to 42 percent who are proud of them).
As for the goal of spreading democracy to other countries, only 20 percent of respondents identified it as "very important" -- the lowest support noted for any goal asked about in the survey. Even among Republicans, only three out of ten favored pursuing it strongly. In fact, most of the erosion in confidence in the policy of spreading democracy abroad has occurred among Republicans, especially the more religious wing of the party. People who frequently attend religious services have been among the most ardent supporters of the government's policies, but one of the recent survey's most striking findings is that although these people continue to maintain a high level of trust in the president and his administration, their support for the government's Iraq policy and for the policy of exporting democracy has cooled.
WHAT MATTERS, AND WHY
A question always hovers in the background whenever public attitudes on foreign policy are reported: What influence do shifts in such attitudes have on the actual day-to-day conduct of foreign policy? Unlike for domestic policy, where it is clear that public opinion is always relevant, for foreign policy it is often difficult to understand whether changes in public opinion lead to changes on the ground.
The reason for this murkiness is that the public grants the president and Congress far more authority for decision-making on foreign policy than on domestic affairs. Americans assume that the president and his advisers have special information about international relations to which they are not privy. Some Americans may also lack confidence in their ability to judge the wisdom of particular foreign policies. All of this translates into a good deal of leeway for policymakers. Still, the public puts limits on this freedom and sometimes takes it away abruptly. Under certain conditions, public opinion can have a decisive influence. The trick is understanding what those conditions are.
In mid-2005, we found that in addition to the war in Iraq, three other issues were moving toward the tipping point, where public opinion would become strong enough to influence policy. These issues were the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, illegal immigration, and the United States' deteriorating relations with the Muslim world. Based on the January survey, concern over outsourcing and illegal immigration has grown a bit more intense, and the worry about the growing hatred of the United States in Muslim countries has modestly receded. On the other hand, U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, which was not an urgent issue in mid-2005, has leapt to the forefront of the public's consciousness.
In studies that track attitudes, there are always more views that do not change than views that do. This survey is no exception. It is a striking -- and encouraging -- illustration of the public's thoughtfulness and consistency. Respondents still awarded the government high marks (an A or a
on its performance in achieving foreign policy goals such as helping other nations when natural disasters strike and making sure the United States has a strong and well-supplied military. Respondents continued to believe that the government deserves intermediate ratings on its efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and help improve the lives of people in the developing world. And respondents still gave the government failing grades on issues such as stopping the importation of illegal drugs. This context of overall stability makes any changes in opinion that the survey did find all the more striking and significant. The war in Iraq, already at the tipping point in mid-2005, remains the primary foreign policy issue on which public pressure continues to mount. Although illegal immigration and outsourcing moved closer to the tipping point in the January 2006 poll, neither has actually reached it. In contrast, the public's concern over U.S. relations with the Muslim world moved slightly away from the tipping point. And the issue of energy dependence, which had ranked far down the list, leapfrogged ahead to move into tipping-point territory.
No change is more striking than that relating to the public's opinion of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Americans have grown much more worried that problems abroad may affect the price of oil. The proportion of those who said they "worry a lot" about this occurring has increased from 42 percent to 55 percent. Nearly nine out of ten Americans asked were worried about the problem -- putting oil dependence at the top of our 18-issue "worry scale." Virtually all Americans surveyed (90 percent) said they see the United States' lack of energy independence as jeopardizing the country's security, 88 percent said they believe that problems abroad could endanger the United States' supply of oil and so raise prices for U.S. consumers, and 85 percent said they believe that the U.S. government would be capable of doing something about the problem if it tried. This last belief may be the reason that only 20 percent of those surveyed gave the government an A or a B on this issue; three-quarters assigned the government's performance a C, a D, or an F.
The oil-dependency issue now meets all the criteria for having reached the tipping point: an overwhelming majority expresses concern about the issue, the intensity of the public's unease has reached significant levels, and the public believes the government is capable of addressing the issue far more effectively than it has until now. Should the price of gasoline drop over the coming months, this issue may temporarily lose some of its political weight. But with supplies of oil tight and geopolitical tensions high, public pressure is likely to grow.
The only other issue that has reached the tipping point is the war in Iraq. It continues to be the foreign policy issue foremost in the public's mind, and respondents consistently deem the war (along with the threat of terrorism) to be the most important problem facing the United States in its dealings with the rest of the world. Concern about mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq is particularly widespread -- 82 percent of respondents to the June 2005 survey said they cared deeply about the issue; in January 2006, 83 percent said they did. Although the level and intensity of concern about Iraq has remained fairly stable, the public's appraisal of how well the United States is meeting its objectives there has eroded slightly. Last summer, 39 percent of respondents gave the government high marks on this issue; 33 percent did in January. The erosion, moreover, comes almost entirely from Republicans: 61 percent gave the government an A or a B on Iraq in the first survey, but only 53 percent did in the second. Confidence in U.S. policy on Iraq is also down significantly among those who regularly attend religious services, who also show rising levels of concern about casualties.
One reason for the downward trend is skepticism about how truthful Washington has been about the reasons for invading Iraq. Fifty percent of respondents said they feel that they were misled -- the highest level of mistrust measured in the survey. Another source of skepticism may be more troublesome for the government: only 22 percent of Americans surveyed said they feel that their government has the ability to create a democracy in Iraq.
WHAT'S ON DECK
Three other issues are approaching the tipping point but have not yet reached it: the outsourcing of jobs, illegal immigration, and U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and especially Muslim countries.
An impressive 87 percent of respondents expressed some degree of concern about outsourcing, 52 percent said they "worry a lot" about it, and 81 percent of respondents gave the government poor grades (a C, a D, or an F) on its handling of the issue. Thus, outsourcing now meets two of the three criteria for reaching the tipping point. But it falls short on the third criterion, the ability of the government to take effective action on the issue. Most Americans surveyed (74 percent) felt that it was unlikely that U.S. companies would keep jobs in the country when labor is cheaper elsewhere. And 52 percent of respondents believed it was unrealistic to think that the government could do anything to stop corporations from sending jobs abroad. On the other hand, a large plurality (44 percent) said they believe the U.S. government could do a lot to prevent jobs from moving overseas if it really tried. Should this plurality become a majority -- which we suspect will happen during 2006 -- outsourcing will have reached the tipping point.
Concern about illegal immigration has also grown. Two out of five Americans surveyed (41 percent) said they "worry a lot" about this issue, and half (50 percent) said they believe that tighter controls on immigration would greatly enhance U.S. security. Almost half (48 percent) also said they believe the government could do a lot to slow illegal immigration, and respondents gave Washington even lower grades on protecting U.S. borders in the most recent survey than they did in mid-2005.
Interestingly, the public's feelings on a third issue have moved in the opposite direction. This issue is the intangible but important question of U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and specifically with Muslim countries. During the period between the two surveys, the U.S. public grew marginally less worried about anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and elsewhere. The number of respondents who said they "worry a lot" about growing hatred of the United States in the Muslim world decreased from 40 percent to 34 percent, and the share of those who were deeply concerned about losing the trust of people in other countries declined from 40 percent to 29 percent, one of the larger changes in the survey. The reasons for these changes are not self-evident. The sense of shame about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, so strong in 2005, seems to have receded with the passage of time.
Only about a third of Americans surveyed (35 percent) said they think the U.S. government could do a lot to establish good relations with moderate Muslims -- but almost two-thirds (64 percent) nevertheless gave the government poor marks because of its failure to do so. We expect opinions on this issue to be volatile in the future. Nearly a third of respondents said they "worry a lot" about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world (31 percent) and the possibility that U.S. actions in the Middle East have aided the recruitment of terrorists (33 percent). Almost half (45 percent) said they believe that Islam encourages violence, and survey respondents estimated that about half or more of all Muslims in the world are anti-American. But a clear majority (56 percent) continued to have confidence that improved communications with the Muslim world would reduce hatred of the United States.
Americans may also be getting used to the once-shocking notion that they are not well loved abroad. A majority of respondents (65 percent) have realized that the rest of the world sees the United States in a negative light. When Americans are asked to describe the image of the United States in other countries, the results show a great deal of ambivalence and confusion. Even though a majority said they believe the United States is seen negatively, large majorities ascribed positive elements to the country's image abroad. Four out of five respondents said they think the United States is seen as "a free and democratic country" (81 percent) and "a country of opportunity for everyone" (80 percent). Nearly as many said they believe the United States is seen as generous to other countries (72 percent) and as a strong leader (69 percent). But equal numbers said the United States is seen as "arrogant" (74 percent), "pampered and spoiled" (73 percent), "a bully" (63 percent), and a "country to be feared" (63 percent).
UNITY AND DIVISION
The U.S. public holds a strikingly clear view of what Washington's foreign policy priorities should be. The goals the public highlights range widely. Those that receive the most public support are helping other nations when they are struck by natural disasters (71 percent), cooperating with other countries on problems such as the environment and disease control (70 percent), and supporting UN peacekeeping (69 percent). A surprisingly high level of support shows up for goals that represent the United States' humanitarian (as distinct from its political) ideals, such as improving the treatment of women in other countries (57 percent), helping people in poor countries get an education (51 percent), and helping countries move out of poverty (40 percent). Receiving less support are goals such as encouraging U.S. businesses to invest in poor countries (22 percent). And receiving the least support is "actively creating democracies in other countries" (20 percent).
Not surprisingly, there are partisan differences over what the United States' goals should be. The largest gap between Republicans and Democrats relates to "initiating military force only when we have the support of our allies." Almost two-thirds of Democrats surveyed (64 percent) endorsed this multilateralist principle, in contrast to slightly more than a third of Republicans (36 percent). There are no significant differences between Republicans and Democrats on humanitarian ideals. The parties do differ, however, on the desirability of promoting democracy in other countries (30 percent of Republicans surveyed supported this goal, compared to only 16 percent of Democrats). But even a majority of Republicans have little stomach for this priority of the Bush administration.
This last point merits some elaboration. A majority of the U.S. public supports the ideal of spreading democracy (53 percent of respondents said they believe that "when more countries become democratic there will be less conflict"), but Americans are skeptical that an activist U.S. policy can contribute much to this outcome. A majority of those surveyed (58 percent) said they feel that "democracy is something that countries only come to on their own." As such skepticism grows, support for trying to create democracies abroad declines. In the 2005 survey, 50 percent of respondents thought that the United States was doing well at that task; in the more recent survey, the number fell to 46 percent, and only 22 percent said they believe that Washington can do a lot to build a democratic Iraq.
The 2005 survey described the huge gap that divided Republicans and Democrats on most aspects of foreign policy. The most recent survey found that partisan differences remain pronounced. The gap between the parties is at its widest with regard to how the United States is doing in its foreign policy and how much the Bush administration can be trusted. The most striking difference is in the expression of pride in the nation's foreign policy, with a whopping 58-point spread between the percentage of Republicans and the percentage of Democrats who believe that there is "plenty to be proud of" in U.S. dealings with the world. Essentially, Republicans think the country is doing well in foreign policy, whereas Democrats think it is failing miserably.
But digging into the numbers reveals that although Republicans generally endorse the country's current foreign policy, they share with Democrats a critical appraisal on a number of specific issues. Both groups are reluctant to give an A or a B to the government for its efforts to stop illegal immigration, achieve energy independence, block drugs from entering the country, limit the extent of foreign debt, or negotiate beneficial trade agreements.
BACK TO THE FOLD?
The first survey showed a remarkable parallel between the views of Republican respondents and the views of those respondents who said they frequently attend religious services. (By "religious services," we mean services of any kind -- in churches, synagogues, mosques, or elsewhere.) The second survey showed reduced enthusiasm for some of the administration's policies among devoted service attendees, especially regarding the war in Iraq. In fact, most of the erosion in confidence in the government's foreign policy in the seven months between the two surveys came from this source. Although there are still striking differences between the views of Americans who do not attend religious services frequently and the views of those who do, the gap has started to narrow, suggesting reduced polarization on the basis of religion.
In the first survey, a minority of frequent attendees at religious services (45 percent) expressed serious worry about casualties in Iraq, compared to 56 percent of the total sample. Now that number has increased to 52 percent, closer to the proportion of the population as a whole, which has remained at 56 percent. Although people who frequently attend religious services are still the respondents most supportive of U.S. policy in Iraq, fewer of them (41 percent of those surveyed) gave a high grade to the government on meeting U.S. objectives there than did seven months earlier (46 percent). In the first survey, 32 percent of those who frequently attend religious services said they worried a lot that the war in Iraq was taking up too much money and attention; in January, 40 percent did. Almost half of those surveyed in June 2005 (48 percent) said they believed that the United States could help other countries become democracies; in January, that number had dropped to 37 percent, in line with the 36 percent of the general population. And in the more recent surveys only 46 percent agreed that the United States was "generally doing the right thing" in its relations with the rest of the world, down from 52 percent in the earlier survey.
These are not big changes, but they follow a consistent pattern, suggesting that the most actively religious Americans are starting to react more like the rest of the public. This conclusion is supported by the results of the broad overview question asking whether U.S. foreign policy is going in the right or the wrong direction: 57 percent of those who frequently attend religious services said the latter in January, matching the 58 percent of the rest of the population who said this. Still, despite the mounting reservations of actively religious Americans about some policies, a majority (54 percent) continue to trust the government to tell them the truth about the country's relations with others, in contrast to the 37 percent of respondents who do not frequently attend religious services.
A recent survey of public opinion in Arab countries, conducted in late 2005 by Zogby International and University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami, showed results that are dismaying from the United States' point of view, with large majorities believing that the war with Iraq will make Iraqis worse off and the region less peaceful, breed more terrorism, and worsen the prospects for settling the Arab-Israeli dispute. Comparably large majorities said they consider U.S. foreign policies to be driven not by a desire to spread democracy, but by oil, a quest to dominate the Middle East, the goal of protecting Israel, or a desire to weaken the Muslim world.
Nevertheless, one ray of light shines through. Asked what the primary motivation for Bush's Middle East policy is, only 13 percent of those Arabs surveyed in the Zogby/Telhami poll cited "the need to spread ... Christian religious convictions"; most (61 percent) chose instead "the pursuit of [the United States'] national interest." Why does this offer grounds for hope? Because our most recent survey showed that the religious divide over U.S. foreign policy seems to be narrowing, and the Zogby/Telhami survey revealed a similar finding: that the Arab world sees secular, rather than religious, motivations as crucial to U.S. foreign policy. However difficult differences rooted in interests might be to solve, and however long it might take to solve them, clashes rooted in identity and religion are even more problematic and take far longer to surmount.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/200.../16-962658.html
Situation in Somalia Very Dynamic, Frazer Warns
Somalia Contact Group urges "unrestricted access" for humanitarian relief
By Charles W. Corey
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington – Citing a "very dynamic" situation in Somali, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer says there is a critically important need for dialogue and the international community has "been engaged" to address the issue.
Briefing reporters June 16 at the State Department, Frazer said, "We have to reserve judgment about … the ultimate intent of the Islamic Courts Union [ICU]," which recently claimed to have taken control of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, following weeks of fighting.
Continuing, Frazer noted that at a June 15 inaugural meeting in New York of the Somalia Contact Group, the United States stressed, "It's critically important for the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFI) [Somalia's nominal government] and the chairman of the ICU to begin a dialogue to … decide for themselves what role the ICU would play."
Frazer described the TFI the only form of government that can be found in Somalia, which she called a "failed state."
Initial indications, she said, were that the ICU was not interested in taking over the government or even being in government. But she called the situation there "dynamic, [and] fluid."
Somalia has lacked an effective central government since early 1991, when largely clan-based tribal leaders overthrew President Mohamed Siad Barre, a Marxist dictator who seized control in a 1969 military coup. An interim government formed with United Nations support has not been able to enter Mogadishu, and instead has been stuck in Baidoa, about 240 kilometers away.
SOMALIA CONTACT GROUP
The United States joined with other interested states and international organizations in convening the Somalia Contact Group "to coordinate our common efforts and support positive developments in Somalia," according to a June 15 communiqué released by the group.
The communiqué from the group -- which met in New York -- said the situation in Somalia represents a "range of challenges" related to the humanitarian and socio-economic conditions, governance, human rights, security and terrorism factors there.
The goal of the Somalia Contact Group is "to encourage positive political developments and engagement with actors inside Somalia," according to its communiqué.
The Contact Group said it "will seek to address the humanitarian issues of the Somali people, establish effective governance and stability and address the international community's concern regarding terrorism. There is an urgent need for increased humanitarian assistance and improved protection of the civilian population."
The document also called on "all parties to give unrestricted access for relief agencies to vulnerable communities."
Members of the Contact Group include the European Union, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other interested parties such as the United Nations, the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the League of Arab States will be invited to participate as observers, according to the communiqué.
Briefing reporters June 14, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States is ready to work with all parties to promote peace and the re-establishment of effective governance in Somalia.
"We are committed to working with our local and international partners to assist in addressing our common concerns regarding terrorism, alleviating the growing humanitarian emergency in Somalia and helping the people of Somalia regain political and economic stability," McCormack said.
TERRORISM CONCERNS
Additionally, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Henry Crumpton, and Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, briefed lawmakers June 13 on the latest developments in Somalia.
At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Redd cautioned the committee not to make premature conclusions with regard to developments in Somalia. "I would not jump to the conclusion … that al-Qaida now owns Somalia, by any stretch of the imagination," he told the lawmakers. (See related article.)
Redd was referring to recent developments in which local tribal leaders were driven out of Mogadishu by Islamists believed to be harboring al-Qaida operatives.
"Somalia is clearly one of the key areas … which we worry about and is an ungoverned state," he added. "The bottom-line objective," he said, "is to deny that [Somalia] as an effective safe haven for al-Qaida or for terrorism in general."
Crumpton told the lawmakers that in addition to working to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in Somalia, the United States also is seeking to "work with a very weak, nascent, transitional government to see if they can gain traction." The United States also is seeking to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to the Somali people, he said. In 2006, the United States has provided more than $80 million in humanitarian assistance to Somalia, primarily in the form of food and health-related assistance.
Crumpton classified Somalia as a "fractured political entity" with competing, conflicting tribal leadership.
"A lot depends on the Somali people themselves," he said. "Probably the most immediate challenge [is] to see if this fledgling government can establish some degree of legitimacy and some power. And right now they have very little."
Situation in Somalia Very Dynamic, Frazer Warns
Somalia Contact Group urges "unrestricted access" for humanitarian relief
By Charles W. Corey
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington – Citing a "very dynamic" situation in Somali, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer says there is a critically important need for dialogue and the international community has "been engaged" to address the issue.
Briefing reporters June 16 at the State Department, Frazer said, "We have to reserve judgment about … the ultimate intent of the Islamic Courts Union [ICU]," which recently claimed to have taken control of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, following weeks of fighting.
Continuing, Frazer noted that at a June 15 inaugural meeting in New York of the Somalia Contact Group, the United States stressed, "It's critically important for the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFI) [Somalia's nominal government] and the chairman of the ICU to begin a dialogue to … decide for themselves what role the ICU would play."
Frazer described the TFI the only form of government that can be found in Somalia, which she called a "failed state."
Initial indications, she said, were that the ICU was not interested in taking over the government or even being in government. But she called the situation there "dynamic, [and] fluid."
Somalia has lacked an effective central government since early 1991, when largely clan-based tribal leaders overthrew President Mohamed Siad Barre, a Marxist dictator who seized control in a 1969 military coup. An interim government formed with United Nations support has not been able to enter Mogadishu, and instead has been stuck in Baidoa, about 240 kilometers away.
SOMALIA CONTACT GROUP
The United States joined with other interested states and international organizations in convening the Somalia Contact Group "to coordinate our common efforts and support positive developments in Somalia," according to a June 15 communiqué released by the group.
The communiqué from the group -- which met in New York -- said the situation in Somalia represents a "range of challenges" related to the humanitarian and socio-economic conditions, governance, human rights, security and terrorism factors there.
The goal of the Somalia Contact Group is "to encourage positive political developments and engagement with actors inside Somalia," according to its communiqué.
The Contact Group said it "will seek to address the humanitarian issues of the Somali people, establish effective governance and stability and address the international community's concern regarding terrorism. There is an urgent need for increased humanitarian assistance and improved protection of the civilian population."
The document also called on "all parties to give unrestricted access for relief agencies to vulnerable communities."
Members of the Contact Group include the European Union, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other interested parties such as the United Nations, the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the League of Arab States will be invited to participate as observers, according to the communiqué.
Briefing reporters June 14, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States is ready to work with all parties to promote peace and the re-establishment of effective governance in Somalia.
"We are committed to working with our local and international partners to assist in addressing our common concerns regarding terrorism, alleviating the growing humanitarian emergency in Somalia and helping the people of Somalia regain political and economic stability," McCormack said.
TERRORISM CONCERNS
Additionally, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Henry Crumpton, and Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, briefed lawmakers June 13 on the latest developments in Somalia.
At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Redd cautioned the committee not to make premature conclusions with regard to developments in Somalia. "I would not jump to the conclusion … that al-Qaida now owns Somalia, by any stretch of the imagination," he told the lawmakers. (See related article.)
Redd was referring to recent developments in which local tribal leaders were driven out of Mogadishu by Islamists believed to be harboring al-Qaida operatives.
"Somalia is clearly one of the key areas … which we worry about and is an ungoverned state," he added. "The bottom-line objective," he said, "is to deny that [Somalia] as an effective safe haven for al-Qaida or for terrorism in general."
Crumpton told the lawmakers that in addition to working to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in Somalia, the United States also is seeking to "work with a very weak, nascent, transitional government to see if they can gain traction." The United States also is seeking to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to the Somali people, he said. In 2006, the United States has provided more than $80 million in humanitarian assistance to Somalia, primarily in the form of food and health-related assistance.
Crumpton classified Somalia as a "fractured political entity" with competing, conflicting tribal leadership.
"A lot depends on the Somali people themselves," he said. "Probably the most immediate challenge [is] to see if this fledgling government can establish some degree of legitimacy and some power. And right now they have very little."
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Jun/10-992945.html
U.S. Health Secretary Urges Central America To Plan for Pandemic
Leavitt, in Panama, outlines hemispheric partnership in disease prevention
Michael Leavitt, center, with Panamanian Health Minister Camilo Alleyne and Nicaraguan Health Minister Margarita Gurdian, in Panama City, Panama, June 8, 2006. (©AP/WWP)
By Charlene Porter
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington -- U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt urged regional cooperation and partnership in preparing for a human influenza pandemic when he spoke to Central American health ministers June 8.
At the meeting in Panama City, Panama, Leavitt outlined initiatives already launched to step up the region’s capability to fight infectious disease, anticipating that the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus that already has stricken much of the world soon will arrive in the Western Hemisphere.
In late 2003, the H5N1 influenza virus began appearing among birds in Southeast Asia, and since has spread to more than 50 nations, infecting wild birds, backyard poultry and commercial poultry flocks. More than 200 million birds have died or been destroyed to prevent further spread of the virus.
In 10 nations, humans also have been infected by this deadly flu, usually after close contact with ailing birds. The World Health Organization has confirmed deaths of 128 people due to H5N1, more than half of those known to have contracted the disease.
International health officials warn that the virus might mutate to become contagious among humans, a development which could set off a global influenza pandemic among humans.
Migratory birds are one means by which the virus can be transported from country to country, so officials in the Americas are bracing for the arrival of the disease.
As Leavitt has traveled the United States and the world in recent months, urging pandemic preparedness, he has presented his audiences with historical facts about the effects of past pandemics, and the prospect of such episodes in the future.
“It is estimated that, in all of Latin America, about 766,000 people died during the Great Pandemic of 1918,” said Leavitt. “It was especially virulent in rural areas of Central and South America, and it touched many nations deeply.”
U.S. health officials have a long-standing working relationship with Panama’s Gorgas Memorial Institute as part of the network of worldwide disease surveillance. That relationship expanded in April, Leavitt said, when he signed an agreement with Gorgas and Panamanian health officials to step up joint activities.
“United States health experts are working with their counterparts in Panama to enhance: surveillance capacity, laboratory testing, diagnosis, treatment and epidemiological investigations,” Leavitt said.
Other joint U.S.-Central American health initiatives noted by Leavitt include:
• The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute has a more than 75-year history of research in the region, with special knowledge of migratory bird patterns;
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has launched a new program with the government of Panama to prevent the spread of disease in the poultry industry; and
• The U.S. Agency for International Development is working closely with the Pan American Health Organization on improving avian influenza preparedness. (See fact sheet.)
The United States has pledged more than $360 million in international assistance to help other nations improve their capabilities to detect, contain and control infectious disease in animal and human populations. (See related article.)
The full text of Leavitt’s remarks as prepared for delivery is available on the Web site of the Department of Health and Human Services.
For additional information on the disease and efforts to combat it, see Bird Flu (Avian Influenza).
U.S. Health Secretary Urges Central America To Plan for Pandemic
Leavitt, in Panama, outlines hemispheric partnership in disease prevention
Michael Leavitt, center, with Panamanian Health Minister Camilo Alleyne and Nicaraguan Health Minister Margarita Gurdian, in Panama City, Panama, June 8, 2006. (©AP/WWP)
By Charlene Porter
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington -- U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt urged regional cooperation and partnership in preparing for a human influenza pandemic when he spoke to Central American health ministers June 8.
At the meeting in Panama City, Panama, Leavitt outlined initiatives already launched to step up the region’s capability to fight infectious disease, anticipating that the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus that already has stricken much of the world soon will arrive in the Western Hemisphere.
In late 2003, the H5N1 influenza virus began appearing among birds in Southeast Asia, and since has spread to more than 50 nations, infecting wild birds, backyard poultry and commercial poultry flocks. More than 200 million birds have died or been destroyed to prevent further spread of the virus.
In 10 nations, humans also have been infected by this deadly flu, usually after close contact with ailing birds. The World Health Organization has confirmed deaths of 128 people due to H5N1, more than half of those known to have contracted the disease.
International health officials warn that the virus might mutate to become contagious among humans, a development which could set off a global influenza pandemic among humans.
Migratory birds are one means by which the virus can be transported from country to country, so officials in the Americas are bracing for the arrival of the disease.
As Leavitt has traveled the United States and the world in recent months, urging pandemic preparedness, he has presented his audiences with historical facts about the effects of past pandemics, and the prospect of such episodes in the future.
“It is estimated that, in all of Latin America, about 766,000 people died during the Great Pandemic of 1918,” said Leavitt. “It was especially virulent in rural areas of Central and South America, and it touched many nations deeply.”
U.S. health officials have a long-standing working relationship with Panama’s Gorgas Memorial Institute as part of the network of worldwide disease surveillance. That relationship expanded in April, Leavitt said, when he signed an agreement with Gorgas and Panamanian health officials to step up joint activities.
“United States health experts are working with their counterparts in Panama to enhance: surveillance capacity, laboratory testing, diagnosis, treatment and epidemiological investigations,” Leavitt said.
Other joint U.S.-Central American health initiatives noted by Leavitt include:
• The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute has a more than 75-year history of research in the region, with special knowledge of migratory bird patterns;
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has launched a new program with the government of Panama to prevent the spread of disease in the poultry industry; and
• The U.S. Agency for International Development is working closely with the Pan American Health Organization on improving avian influenza preparedness. (See fact sheet.)
The United States has pledged more than $360 million in international assistance to help other nations improve their capabilities to detect, contain and control infectious disease in animal and human populations. (See related article.)
The full text of Leavitt’s remarks as prepared for delivery is available on the Web site of the Department of Health and Human Services.
For additional information on the disease and efforts to combat it, see Bird Flu (Avian Influenza).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Agency: Cities not prepared for disasters
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press WriterFri Jun 16, 6:32 PM ET
New Orleans is still woefully unprepared for catastrophes 10 months after Hurricane Katrina, and the two cities attacked on 9/11 don't meet all guidelines for responding to major disasters, a federal security analysis concluded Friday.
Ten states were rated in a Homeland Security Department scorecard as having sufficient disaster response plans. But the analysis found the vast majority of America's states, cities and territories still are far from ready for terror attacks, huge natural disasters or other wide-reaching emergencies.
"Frankly, we just have not in this country put the premium on our level of catastrophe planning that is necessary to be ready for those wide-scale events," Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman told reporters.
City and state plans for emergencies like localized fires, floods and tornadoes "are good, they're robust," Foresman said. But plans for catastrophes "are not going to support us as they should."
President Bush ordered the review of emergency response plans in a visit to New Orleans last Sept. 15, weeks after Katrina ravaged the city. It is based on a complicated scorecard for each of the 50 states, 75 major cities and six U.S. territories that rates plans for evacuations, medical care, sheltering of victims, public alerts and other emergency priorities.
The tepid ratings gave fodder to state and local officials who have hammered Homeland Security for cutting their emergency response funding. And the ratings may oversimplify security gaps that can't be measured in a one-size-fits-all formula.
"You really have to look at each state individually and how they're prepared for the emergencies that their experts anticipate," said Jeff Welsh, spokesman for Maryland's emergency management agency. "It's a snapshot of the country as a whole, and to have an honest, realistic assessment of a single state you have to look at that single state."
Foresman said the results highlight disparate and disconnected emergency plans in the absence of national preparedness standards. "This is not something that is a grand surprise — it has simply put documented numbers on what we intuitively knew in the post-9/11 era," he said.
Bright spots in the analysis were 10 states with response plans that Homeland Security deemed "sufficient" — the highest rating. Those states are: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont. It also found that 18 hurricane-prone states, from Maine to Texas, appeared to be better prepared for disasters than the rest of the country.
Florida, accustomed to being whipped with hurricane winds, was the only state assessed as ready in all nine categories of catastrophe planning. But state emergency manager Craig Fugate said he wasn't that interested in the rankings.
"All this is nice, but the bottom line is we have to continue to strive to get better," Fugate said. "Is it going to change anything that we're doing? No."
By comparison, Louisiana's plans were deemed "insufficient" as the state continues to grapple with devastation from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Similarly, New Orleans' plan received the lowest ranking possible, with only 4 percent of preparedness measures meeting federal standards first outlined in this scorecard.
New Orleans emergency preparedness director Chief Joseph Matthews said the city has been working with Homeland Security to develop "a sound evacuation plan." The city learned "real-time lessons as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and we are working hard to put those into practice," Matthews said in a statement.
In New York and Washington, al-Qaida's targets on Sept. 11, 2001, the analysis found lukewarm results.
The majority of the preparations for both cities were described as only partially sufficient by the department. Those ratings came two weeks after top New York and Washington officials complained bitterly that Homeland Security cut their federal aid for emergency responders this year.
"If we ever needed proof of the hypocrisy of the Department of Homeland Security, we just got it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "Today they say that New York, despite the efforts of the mayor and the city, is still not adequately prepared for disasters including terrorism, and yet they dramatically shortchanged our funding. They are not even reading their own reports."
Foresman said there was no connection between the emergency plan analysis and the department's grants. But he noted that while Homeland Security has sent $18 billion to spur state and local preparedness since 9/11, "very little of it has gone to planning, training and exercise."
The scorecard was compiled by teams of former state and local emergency response directors over six months.
___
On the Net:
Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
Agency: Cities not prepared for disasters
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press WriterFri Jun 16, 6:32 PM ET
New Orleans is still woefully unprepared for catastrophes 10 months after Hurricane Katrina, and the two cities attacked on 9/11 don't meet all guidelines for responding to major disasters, a federal security analysis concluded Friday.
Ten states were rated in a Homeland Security Department scorecard as having sufficient disaster response plans. But the analysis found the vast majority of America's states, cities and territories still are far from ready for terror attacks, huge natural disasters or other wide-reaching emergencies.
"Frankly, we just have not in this country put the premium on our level of catastrophe planning that is necessary to be ready for those wide-scale events," Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman told reporters.
City and state plans for emergencies like localized fires, floods and tornadoes "are good, they're robust," Foresman said. But plans for catastrophes "are not going to support us as they should."
President Bush ordered the review of emergency response plans in a visit to New Orleans last Sept. 15, weeks after Katrina ravaged the city. It is based on a complicated scorecard for each of the 50 states, 75 major cities and six U.S. territories that rates plans for evacuations, medical care, sheltering of victims, public alerts and other emergency priorities.
The tepid ratings gave fodder to state and local officials who have hammered Homeland Security for cutting their emergency response funding. And the ratings may oversimplify security gaps that can't be measured in a one-size-fits-all formula.
"You really have to look at each state individually and how they're prepared for the emergencies that their experts anticipate," said Jeff Welsh, spokesman for Maryland's emergency management agency. "It's a snapshot of the country as a whole, and to have an honest, realistic assessment of a single state you have to look at that single state."
Foresman said the results highlight disparate and disconnected emergency plans in the absence of national preparedness standards. "This is not something that is a grand surprise — it has simply put documented numbers on what we intuitively knew in the post-9/11 era," he said.
Bright spots in the analysis were 10 states with response plans that Homeland Security deemed "sufficient" — the highest rating. Those states are: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont. It also found that 18 hurricane-prone states, from Maine to Texas, appeared to be better prepared for disasters than the rest of the country.
Florida, accustomed to being whipped with hurricane winds, was the only state assessed as ready in all nine categories of catastrophe planning. But state emergency manager Craig Fugate said he wasn't that interested in the rankings.
"All this is nice, but the bottom line is we have to continue to strive to get better," Fugate said. "Is it going to change anything that we're doing? No."
By comparison, Louisiana's plans were deemed "insufficient" as the state continues to grapple with devastation from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Similarly, New Orleans' plan received the lowest ranking possible, with only 4 percent of preparedness measures meeting federal standards first outlined in this scorecard.
New Orleans emergency preparedness director Chief Joseph Matthews said the city has been working with Homeland Security to develop "a sound evacuation plan." The city learned "real-time lessons as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and we are working hard to put those into practice," Matthews said in a statement.
In New York and Washington, al-Qaida's targets on Sept. 11, 2001, the analysis found lukewarm results.
The majority of the preparations for both cities were described as only partially sufficient by the department. Those ratings came two weeks after top New York and Washington officials complained bitterly that Homeland Security cut their federal aid for emergency responders this year.
"If we ever needed proof of the hypocrisy of the Department of Homeland Security, we just got it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "Today they say that New York, despite the efforts of the mayor and the city, is still not adequately prepared for disasters including terrorism, and yet they dramatically shortchanged our funding. They are not even reading their own reports."
Foresman said there was no connection between the emergency plan analysis and the department's grants. But he noted that while Homeland Security has sent $18 billion to spur state and local preparedness since 9/11, "very little of it has gone to planning, training and exercise."
The scorecard was compiled by teams of former state and local emergency response directors over six months.
___
On the Net:
Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...deal_gives.html
Land Deal Gives Hastert 300% Profit
June 16, 2006 11:00 AM
Rhonda Schwartz Reports:
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) realized an estimated $2 million dollar profit last year on an Illinois land deal that included acreage near a future interstate highway Hastert pushed to build.
The land was sold just five months after Hastert inserted a $207 million appropriation bill for the Prairie Parkway highway during a closed-door Congressional budget conference.
The deal, representing a 300 per cent return on investment, was reported in Hastert's financial disclosure form filed this week, although the role of a secret trust set up by Hastert to sell the land was not disclosed.
A spokesman for Hastert, Ron Bonjean, confirmed the details, which were first reported by Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, an on-line political watchdog group. The Speaker's spokesman said land in the Plano, Illinois area is "booming," and the future highway had no impact on the price.
Hastert and partners sold the land to developers who plan a large residential sub-division about five miles from the new highway.
Local citizens fighting the highway project were outraged to learn of the Hastert deal. "I think he clearly has his own personal interest and not the public's by buying and selling land to developers for personal profit, when it has a negative long-range effect on the community," said Jan Strasma, head of community group Citizens Against the Sprawlway.
Hastert's spokesman said that Hastert had been a proponent of the highway for 20 years, and there was nothing improper in the deal.
According to Hastert's disclosure form and county property records, a 69-acre parcel was put into a trust, Little Rock Trust #225, on May 2, 2005.
Two months later, in July 2005, Hastert pushed the highway appropriation bill through a conference committee.
On Aug. 6, 2005 President Bush appeared with Hastert at a ceremony in Illinois to celebrate the new highway's funding.
On Dec. 7, 2005 the trust sold the parcel of land to the developers.
The spokesman said, for tax reasons, Hastert used part of his $2 million profit to buy a 275-acre farm in Wisconsin that Hastert intends to use as a future retirement home.
Land Deal Gives Hastert 300% Profit
June 16, 2006 11:00 AM
Rhonda Schwartz Reports:
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) realized an estimated $2 million dollar profit last year on an Illinois land deal that included acreage near a future interstate highway Hastert pushed to build.
The land was sold just five months after Hastert inserted a $207 million appropriation bill for the Prairie Parkway highway during a closed-door Congressional budget conference.
The deal, representing a 300 per cent return on investment, was reported in Hastert's financial disclosure form filed this week, although the role of a secret trust set up by Hastert to sell the land was not disclosed.
A spokesman for Hastert, Ron Bonjean, confirmed the details, which were first reported by Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, an on-line political watchdog group. The Speaker's spokesman said land in the Plano, Illinois area is "booming," and the future highway had no impact on the price.
Hastert and partners sold the land to developers who plan a large residential sub-division about five miles from the new highway.
Local citizens fighting the highway project were outraged to learn of the Hastert deal. "I think he clearly has his own personal interest and not the public's by buying and selling land to developers for personal profit, when it has a negative long-range effect on the community," said Jan Strasma, head of community group Citizens Against the Sprawlway.
Hastert's spokesman said that Hastert had been a proponent of the highway for 20 years, and there was nothing improper in the deal.
According to Hastert's disclosure form and county property records, a 69-acre parcel was put into a trust, Little Rock Trust #225, on May 2, 2005.
Two months later, in July 2005, Hastert pushed the highway appropriation bill through a conference committee.
On Aug. 6, 2005 President Bush appeared with Hastert at a ceremony in Illinois to celebrate the new highway's funding.
On Dec. 7, 2005 the trust sold the parcel of land to the developers.
The spokesman said, for tax reasons, Hastert used part of his $2 million profit to buy a 275-acre farm in Wisconsin that Hastert intends to use as a future retirement home.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....ORTH-SHIELD.xml
Fledgling US missile shield largely unproven
Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:32 PM ET
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reports that North Korea is preparing to test fire a long-range missile have drawn renewed scrutiny of U.S. efforts to build a reliable system to intercept such missiles, which is still not fully working.
Washington has built up a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down a North Korean warhead, but tests of the system have had mixed results.
The Pentagon's testing office said in January it may offer only "some" protection, despite about $10 billion a year in development spending under President George W. Bush.
In eight intercept tests of the ground-based missile defense system, the interceptor has hit a mock incoming warhead five times. Testing was suspended after interceptors failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005 -- failures blamed on quality-control issues.
"When and if the missile-defense system is in an operational status, it has a capability against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack," said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
Bush told the military in 2002 to field an initial missile-defense capability by the end of 2004.
It was to be a very limited version of a far more comprehensive space-based missile defense shield -- nicknamed Star Wars -- proposed by the late President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
NORTH KOREA MISSILE TESTS
The test failures and technical challenges have delayed plans to declare it operational, although commanders say it has a rudimentary capability against a limited missile attack.
The system could be put on alert quickly if U.S. leaders determined there was a sudden threat, defense officials say.
U.S. officials have said North Korea is preparing to test-fire a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile with an estimated range of 3,500 to 4,300 kms (2,175 to 2,670 miles) as early as this weekend, based on monitored launch-area activity.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack warned North Korea on Friday against conducting a "provocative" test and said "we will take necessary preparatory steps to track any potential activities and to protect ourselves."
U.S. spending on missile defenses soared after Pyongyang surprised U.S. intelligence by firing a multi-stage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and into the Pacific on August 31, 1998.
The United States has installed nine interceptors in Alaska and two in California. In addition, U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers with long-range tracking and surveillance capability ply the Sea of Japan.
Boeing Co. is the prime contractor for the system's ground-based leg. Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon Co. and Orbital Sciences Corp. have big related contracts.
Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who oversees missile defense as head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said in a published interview last month he was including ship-based interceptors and the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) anti-missile batteries in the overall system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Fledgling US missile shield largely unproven
Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:32 PM ET
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reports that North Korea is preparing to test fire a long-range missile have drawn renewed scrutiny of U.S. efforts to build a reliable system to intercept such missiles, which is still not fully working.
Washington has built up a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down a North Korean warhead, but tests of the system have had mixed results.
The Pentagon's testing office said in January it may offer only "some" protection, despite about $10 billion a year in development spending under President George W. Bush.
In eight intercept tests of the ground-based missile defense system, the interceptor has hit a mock incoming warhead five times. Testing was suspended after interceptors failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005 -- failures blamed on quality-control issues.
"When and if the missile-defense system is in an operational status, it has a capability against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack," said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
Bush told the military in 2002 to field an initial missile-defense capability by the end of 2004.
It was to be a very limited version of a far more comprehensive space-based missile defense shield -- nicknamed Star Wars -- proposed by the late President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
NORTH KOREA MISSILE TESTS
The test failures and technical challenges have delayed plans to declare it operational, although commanders say it has a rudimentary capability against a limited missile attack.
The system could be put on alert quickly if U.S. leaders determined there was a sudden threat, defense officials say.
U.S. officials have said North Korea is preparing to test-fire a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile with an estimated range of 3,500 to 4,300 kms (2,175 to 2,670 miles) as early as this weekend, based on monitored launch-area activity.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack warned North Korea on Friday against conducting a "provocative" test and said "we will take necessary preparatory steps to track any potential activities and to protect ourselves."
U.S. spending on missile defenses soared after Pyongyang surprised U.S. intelligence by firing a multi-stage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and into the Pacific on August 31, 1998.
The United States has installed nine interceptors in Alaska and two in California. In addition, U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers with long-range tracking and surveillance capability ply the Sea of Japan.
Boeing Co. is the prime contractor for the system's ground-based leg. Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon Co. and Orbital Sciences Corp. have big related contracts.
Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who oversees missile defense as head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said in a published interview last month he was including ship-based interceptors and the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) anti-missile batteries in the overall system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....UCLEAR-IRAN.xml
Rice says US has heard positive statements from Iran
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has heard some positive statements from Tehran over an offer from major powers aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.
Rice, speaking to reporters after talks with Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, added that the United States is still expecting a clear answer on the proposal, and hopes Iran will take what she called the right path.
"Certainly we have heard some positive statements from the Iranians," she said in the most optimistic public U.S. assessment to date.
Earlier on Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed a proposal by world powers to defuse a standoff over Tehran's nuclear activity as a positive step but gave no sign when an answer would come.
Ahmadinejad, markedly more upbeat about the proposal on a trip abroad than he has been at home, said Iran was examining the offer of incentives for Tehran to stop enriching uranium, a process that could eventually yield atomic bombs.
He also warned Iran would not be concerned by possible sanctions if it rejects the June 6 offer.
U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman called "encouraging" the Iranian president's comments.
Ahmadinejad did not say when Tehran would officially respond to the package offered by six major powers under which Iran would get trade and technology benefits if it halts uranium enrichment work.
The offer from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia was delivered to Tehran earlier this month.
The West is worried Iran is pursing the uranium program to eventually build an atomic bomb, even though Tehran insists it is seeking nuclear power only to boost electricity supplies.
If Iran rejects the package, the United States is expected to push hard for sanctions against Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, at the U.N. Security Council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Rice says US has heard positive statements from Iran
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has heard some positive statements from Tehran over an offer from major powers aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.
Rice, speaking to reporters after talks with Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, added that the United States is still expecting a clear answer on the proposal, and hopes Iran will take what she called the right path.
"Certainly we have heard some positive statements from the Iranians," she said in the most optimistic public U.S. assessment to date.
Earlier on Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed a proposal by world powers to defuse a standoff over Tehran's nuclear activity as a positive step but gave no sign when an answer would come.
Ahmadinejad, markedly more upbeat about the proposal on a trip abroad than he has been at home, said Iran was examining the offer of incentives for Tehran to stop enriching uranium, a process that could eventually yield atomic bombs.
He also warned Iran would not be concerned by possible sanctions if it rejects the June 6 offer.
U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman called "encouraging" the Iranian president's comments.
Ahmadinejad did not say when Tehran would officially respond to the package offered by six major powers under which Iran would get trade and technology benefits if it halts uranium enrichment work.
The offer from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia was delivered to Tehran earlier this month.
The West is worried Iran is pursing the uranium program to eventually build an atomic bomb, even though Tehran insists it is seeking nuclear power only to boost electricity supplies.
If Iran rejects the package, the United States is expected to push hard for sanctions against Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, at the U.N. Security Council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...ticle%2FPrinter
Syria interested in buying Iranian arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria has expressed interest in purchasing weapons from Iran, including scud and anti-aircraft missiles, rocket launchers, Russian T-27 tanks, and even fighter planes. Meanwhile, Syrian Defense Minister Gen. Hassan Turkemani signed a mutual cooperation deal on Thursday with his Iranian counterpart General Mustafa Muhammad Najar.
"The two countries' armed forces must be prepared to face the common enemy that has been working to undermine stability and cause regional tension," Turkemani said.
Among his visits in the Islamic Republic, he met with the Iranian chief of staff and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and toured a local aircraft factory.
Syrian sources told the London-based Al Hayat that the understandings were of a strictly defensive nature. They indicated that both countries have been targeted recently [by Western powers].
After a meeting between the two senior officials, the Iranian Defense Ministry issued a statement saying that Teheran was interested in strengthening cooperation against "American and Israeli threats." It also noted that the two countries should struggle to bring peace and stability in the region and disarm it from weapons of mass destruction.
For several months, Iran has been denying that it was developing nuclear weapons, claiming that its nuclear program was solely for peaceful purposes, however Najar said on Thursday that his country would "use nuclear defense as a potential" if "threatened by any power."
Syria interested in buying Iranian arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria has expressed interest in purchasing weapons from Iran, including scud and anti-aircraft missiles, rocket launchers, Russian T-27 tanks, and even fighter planes. Meanwhile, Syrian Defense Minister Gen. Hassan Turkemani signed a mutual cooperation deal on Thursday with his Iranian counterpart General Mustafa Muhammad Najar.
"The two countries' armed forces must be prepared to face the common enemy that has been working to undermine stability and cause regional tension," Turkemani said.
Among his visits in the Islamic Republic, he met with the Iranian chief of staff and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and toured a local aircraft factory.
Syrian sources told the London-based Al Hayat that the understandings were of a strictly defensive nature. They indicated that both countries have been targeted recently [by Western powers].
After a meeting between the two senior officials, the Iranian Defense Ministry issued a statement saying that Teheran was interested in strengthening cooperation against "American and Israeli threats." It also noted that the two countries should struggle to bring peace and stability in the region and disarm it from weapons of mass destruction.
For several months, Iran has been denying that it was developing nuclear weapons, claiming that its nuclear program was solely for peaceful purposes, however Najar said on Thursday that his country would "use nuclear defense as a potential" if "threatened by any power."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/1...acy_in_iran.php
Buying Democracy In Iran
William Fisher
June 16, 2006
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the administration of President John F. Kennedy.
If Iran should decide to come to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, it will be doing so as the U.S. steps up its “soft power” efforts to “democratize” the country. But questions remain about the content and effectiveness of such programs, the impact they will have on negotiations, and the Bush administration’s commitment to a pro-democracy agenda that many experts see as nothing more than a euphemism for regime change.
Condoleezza Rice has asked Congress for $75 million to implement an ambitious three-pronged strategy for Iran. It centers on expanding independent radio and television, with some $50 million allocated to establishing round-the-clock, Farsi-language television in tandem with current foreign nonstop radio broadcasts. Concurrently, the U.S. would fund pro-democracy groups, dissident political parties, labor unions and human rights organizations. The final step would be boosting cultural and education fellowships and exchanges to help Iranian students and scholars to enroll in U.S. universities.
But even assuming the best of intentions, the U.S. government cannot “empower civil society”—without landing the recipients in jail. Human rights advocate Shirin Ebadi—the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace Prize—was asked in a “PBS NewsHour” interview whether the Bush administration’s $75 million program would be useful to her and those who are engaged democracy-building from inside Iranian society.
“No, I don't think that it benefits me or people like me, because whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having been paid by the United States,” Ebadi said.
The potential of soft-power initiatives must be measured against the backdrop of what many in Iran (and elsewhere) see as the hypocrisies and contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. America’s credibility as the world's champion of human rights has been diminished by policies such as the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, excessive secrecy and blind favoritism of Israel. And— as evidenced by its dealings with countries like Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia—the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to abandon its democracy agenda in favor of recruiting partners for the "global war on terror" and cultivating cozy relationships with energy-rich countries, even if they are ruled by dictators.
Another obstacle is that the State Department is tooling up for a renaissance of “public diplomacy” from a baseline of almost zero in Iran. After
Buying Democracy In Iran
William Fisher
June 16, 2006
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the administration of President John F. Kennedy.
If Iran should decide to come to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, it will be doing so as the U.S. steps up its “soft power” efforts to “democratize” the country. But questions remain about the content and effectiveness of such programs, the impact they will have on negotiations, and the Bush administration’s commitment to a pro-democracy agenda that many experts see as nothing more than a euphemism for regime change.
Condoleezza Rice has asked Congress for $75 million to implement an ambitious three-pronged strategy for Iran. It centers on expanding independent radio and television, with some $50 million allocated to establishing round-the-clock, Farsi-language television in tandem with current foreign nonstop radio broadcasts. Concurrently, the U.S. would fund pro-democracy groups, dissident political parties, labor unions and human rights organizations. The final step would be boosting cultural and education fellowships and exchanges to help Iranian students and scholars to enroll in U.S. universities.
But even assuming the best of intentions, the U.S. government cannot “empower civil society”—without landing the recipients in jail. Human rights advocate Shirin Ebadi—the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace Prize—was asked in a “PBS NewsHour” interview whether the Bush administration’s $75 million program would be useful to her and those who are engaged democracy-building from inside Iranian society.
“No, I don't think that it benefits me or people like me, because whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having been paid by the United States,” Ebadi said.
The potential of soft-power initiatives must be measured against the backdrop of what many in Iran (and elsewhere) see as the hypocrisies and contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. America’s credibility as the world's champion of human rights has been diminished by policies such as the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, excessive secrecy and blind favoritism of Israel. And— as evidenced by its dealings with countries like Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia—the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to abandon its democracy agenda in favor of recruiting partners for the "global war on terror" and cultivating cozy relationships with energy-rich countries, even if they are ruled by dictators.
Another obstacle is that the State Department is tooling up for a renaissance of “public diplomacy” from a baseline of almost zero in Iran. After