Week in Review Part III: Foreign Affairs

France: The killing of the self-described al-Qaeda operative in Toulouse, Mohammed Merah, a man responsible for the deaths of four Jews, three of whom were children, and three Muslim soldiers, has roiled the French presidential election.

Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen of the National Front, said:

“It is time to wage war on these fundamentalist political religious groups who are killing our children. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism has been underestimated.

“I have been talking about this for months and months, and the political class has rejected [me]. Some are going to have difficulty explaining themselves but I have a clear conscience.”

Well, it’s true. This has been Le Pen’s platform, as I saw firsthand last May Day in Paris. She has regularly attacked immigration and the influence of Islam in French society.

But, just as Americans normally rally around a president in similar situations, it is President Nicolas Sarkozy who, in these first days after the successful manhunt, is benefiting at the polls, suddenly now leading Socialist candidate Francois Hollande by two points in one survey I saw.

It’s the power of the office. Sarkozy had the television cameras trained on him as he met with Jewish and Muslim leaders and led the ceremony for the murdered soldiers.

The whole issue is complicated by the fact the soldiers were Muslim, with France having Europe’s largest Muslim population.

You also have questions as to why French security forces felt the need to end the siege in the manner they did, not knowing Merah was lying in wake in a bathroom in a final attempt to ambush them. Authorities could have extracted more information from the guy.

One positive tone was set during the week in relation to Merah’s claim he killed the Jewish children to avenge Palestinian children killed by Israel. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad replied:

“It is time for these criminals to stop marketing their terrorist acts in the name of Palestine and to stop pretending to stand up for the rights of Palestinian children who only ask for a decent life.”

A heroic statement on Fayyad’s part.

I also have to say that this incident in Toulouse was yet another reason for my adage “wait 24 hours.” I didn’t comment last time on the killing of the three French soldiers because I didn’t have time to collect all the facts, as I would see them, with all manner of theories being put forth initially; think those first hours after Oklahoma City. There were news reports from France the killer had to be a neo-Nazi.

Iran: The new round of discussions between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany and Iran over Iran’s atomic activities are slated for April 13 in Geneva and will not extend beyond July 1, which is when new EU restrictions on purchases of petroleum from Iran are to be implemented. But now we are hearing of all manner of exemptions on the sanctions front being granted various nations (Japan plus ten in the EU), exactly what wasn’t supposed to happen. At least not what the U.S. Congress wanted, it having pushed the Obama administration into the tougher sanctions regime program in the first place.

And Iran is saying the international community must accept its ‘civilian’ program or incur “heavy losses,” as stated by an Iranian lawmaker, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in parliament. This a-hole is advising the P5+1 to avoid a “policy of confrontation” with Iran, while calling on the United Nations Security Council to lift existing sanctions.

And it was last time, 3/17/12, I wrote the following:

“I get a kick out of those who still talk about Iranian President Ahmadinejad as if he is calling the shots. I told you long ago that wasn’t the case; that if we had a choice, Ahmadinejad was a ‘moderate’ compared to (Supreme Leader Ayatollah) Khamenei.

“But Ahmadinejad is officially irrelevant….Khamenei calls the shots.”

So on Wednesday, former Iranian parliamentarian Seyed Mousavi, said that Khamenei had neutralized all but the most extreme voices in the government, as reported by the Jerusalem Post.

“Describing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having lost his role in foreign policymaking, and the reform faction as completely eliminated from the government structure, Mousavi told the Middle East Institute that Khamenei would face few checks on his perspective during fresh negotiations.”

So we know that Khamenei is not about to give up the nuclear program, and that talks are now going to drag out, potentially, through the spring, which is all part of Iran’s four-corners offense, but where does this leave Israel in terms of launching a preemptive strike?

Once again there were all manner of articles with disagreeing opinions on whether U.S. and Israeli intelligence, and leaders, agreed on the status of Iran’s program. Here’s what is clear. While the West, including Germany this week, urges Israeli restraint, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are certainly talking as if a strike is imminent; this spring.

Barak told Israel Radio that the state “cannot afford” to wait, though he said several months can be given to allow sanctions and negotiations to work, because during this period it would become clear “if the Iranians intend or don’t intend to stop their nuclear weapons program.”

But in a meeting with his German counterpart, Barak said, “To accept a nuclear Iran would be inconceivable and unacceptable to the whole world.”

Barak, in yet another forum said, “The world, including the current U.S. administration, understands and accepts that Israel necessarily views the threat differently than they do, and that ultimately, Israel is responsible for taking the decisions related to its future, its security and its destiny….

“(Iran) is steadily approaching maturation and is verging on a ‘zone of immunity’ – a position from which the Iranian regime could complete its program without effective disruption, at its convenience.”

Netanyahu said Sunday, “Iran, whose leader foments terrorism and violence around the globe and calls for our destruction…this regime must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Brett Stephens, on the intelligence debate.

“(The debate) is mostly an irrelevance: Iran’s real nuclear-weapons program is hiding in plain sight. The serious question policy makers must answer isn’t whether Iran will go for a bomb once it is within a half-step of getting one. It’s whether Iran should be allowed to get within that half-step. That is the essence of the debate the Obama administration is now having with Israel. The president has stated flatly that he won’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Good. But Israelis worry that Mr. Obama will allow them to come too close for comfort (or pre-emption). Israel cannot be reassured by the administration’s apparent decision to make its case through a series of media leaks, all calculated to head off a possible Israeli strike….

“It should come as no surprise that an intelligence community meant to provide decision makers with disinterested analysis has, in practice, policy goals and ideological axes of its own. But that doesn’t mean it is any less dangerous. The real lesson of the Iraq WMD debacle wasn’t that the intelligence was ‘overhyped,’ since the CIA is equally notorious for erring in the opposite direction. It was that intelligence products were treated as authoritative guides to decision making. Spooks, like English children, should be seen, not heard. The problem is that the spooks (like the children) want it the other way around.

“How, then, should people think about the Iran state of play? By avoiding the misdirections of ‘intelligence.’ For real intelligence, merely consider that a regime that can take a rock in its right hand to stone a woman to death should not have a nuclear bomb within reach of its left. Even a spook can grasp that.”

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who recently conducted a key interview with President Obama prior to his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington, stated in an op-ed for Bloomberg:

“After interviewing many people with direct knowledge of internal government thinking…I’m highly confident that Netanyahu isn’t bluffing – that he is in fact counting down to the day when he will authorize a strike against a half-dozen or more Iranian nuclear sites.

“One reason I’m now more convinced is that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are working hard to convince other members of the Israeli cabinet that a strike might soon be necessary.”

Syria: This is truly pathetic. The U.N. Security Council endorsed former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anna’s six-point peace plan on Wednesday and U.S. ambassador Susan Rice proclaimed, “Annan’s proposal is the best way to put an end to the violence, facilitate much-needed humanitarian assistance and advance a Syrian-led political transition.”

Susan Rice is one of the all-time lightweights. She is not qualified for this job in any fashion at this particular dangerous time in world history.

And Kofi Annan is a house-sitter. Nothing more. Or as the Washington Post editorialized:

“(There) is virtually no possibility that the new initiative will accomplish any of (the goal’s enunciated by Rice) – as the Obama administration should know by now. Instead, it will likely provide time and cover for the regime of Bashar al-Assad to continue using tanks and artillery to assault Syrian cities and indiscriminately kill civilians. That’s exactly what the regime was doing Thursday - pounding the city of Hama, where at least 20 people have been reported killed in army attacks in the past two days.

“The Annan plan won’t work because, like the Arab League plan before it, it calls for the Assad government to take steps that would lead to its swift collapse – and the regime has no intention of capitulating….

“For Russia and China, the Security Council statement offered a face-saving way out of the embarrassing position of appearing to be unconditionally backing Mr. Assad. It gives Moscow hope of achieving the outcome it hopes for: a U.N.-brokered ‘peace’ that leaves the regime in power. For the Obama administration, Mr. Annan’s mission allows the illusion that its diplomatic strategy is producing results – and that more decisive measures, such as arming the opposition or creating a protected zone inside Syria, are unnecessary.

“What the Annan mission does not offer is ‘the best way to put an end to the violence.’ It is just the opposite: a guarantee that the bloodshed will continue, and probably worsen. The fighting in Syria will end only when Mr. Assad is forced to stop – or he succeeds in killing his way to victory.”

How many times have we heard President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton proclaim, “Ultimately, this dictator will fall”? [Obama’s exact words.] 15? 25? The regime has retaken many of the cities once held by rebels and the rebels are low on ammunition, though the rebels are turning more to guerrilla tactics, including roadside bombs and ambushes.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Hizbullah fighters supposedly have been receiving training in the use of advanced anti-aircraft weapons in Syria and Iran, in recent months, according to the Israeli paper Haaretz. Israeli officials are also increasingly concerned over the potential transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile to Hizbullah. If Israel sees this happening, they will almost be forced to launch a preemptive strike on Lebanon.

One thing I’ve railed about on the Lebanon front is Israel’s constant violations of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 in terms of violating Lebanon’s airspace. This week, its foreign minister, Adnan Mansour, on a trip to Moscow, claimed there were over 9,000 such violations since 2006. Russian media recorded Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying:

“We consider violating this resolution unacceptable, especially as far as respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and airspace is concerned.”

I couldn’t agree more; the first and probably only time I’ll agree with Mr. Lavrov on anything.

[Update on a statement I made last week that I had written Israeli defense contractor Rafael and not received a reply. I did on Monday.]

Afghanistan: U.S. soldier Robert Bales has been charged with 17 counts of murder, according to U.S. officials. If convicted, he deserves the death penalty, though it’s unlikely it would be carried out, which makes the sentence itself a joke.

DeWayne Wickham / USA TODAY

“Even before the identity of the Army staff sergeant believed to have massacred 16 [Ed. later changed to 17] people in an Afghanistan village became known, excuses for his ghoulish acts of terror started popping up in the news media, diminishing the likelihood that justice will prevail….

“[In other such cases, think William Calley who served just 3 ½ years for My Lai], public opinion among war-weary Americans opposed harsh punishment for these mass murderers, who were seen more as victims of unpopular wars – men who were driven over the brink by the bad decision-making of their superiors or of Washington policymakers.

“Such shortsightedness damages more than the American concept of justice. It also does great injury to the democratic ideals we use to justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when an American soldier who commits a crime gets off with little or no punishment, it devalues the lives of their foreign victims and creates tensions that put at risk the lives of other U.S. service members who get targeted for retribution.

“Of course, war can take a heavy emotional and psychological toll on those who are sent into battle. But that’s no excuse for the brutal slaughter Bales is suspected of committing….

“To imply that a U.S. soldier who goes on a killing spree in a foreign land is less culpable because of the pressures of war slanders the incredibly good conduct of the millions of U.S. men and women who have served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The person who massacred the Afghan villagers deserves the contempt of this nation – and the unyielding judgment of its criminal justice system.”

Meanwhile, President Karzai lumped the Taliban and the United States together at a meeting with relatives of the massacre, saying “There are two demons in our country now.”

That’s our boy, who undoubtedly has squirreled $billions in U.S. aid money away in some Swiss bank account, or Abu Dhabi.

A European diplomat recently told the New York Times:

“Never in history has any superpower spent so much money, sent so many troops to a country, and had so little influence over what its president says and does.”

Meanwhile, it’s now been revealed that Afghan security forces have killed 13 members of the NATO-led coalition since the start of the year, but General John Allen, the U.S. soldier leading the operation, told Congress, the “campaign is on track.” Bull. I’m sick of our generals.

And I’m sick of conservative columnists, such as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, continually making excuses for the Afghan effort, as he does this week.

“In the two years since the Afghan surge was announced, U.S. forces have systematically cleared out insurgent strongholds in the Taliban heartland. Afghan forces have grown in numbers and professionalism – showing admirable discipline and restraint after the recent Koran burning incident. About 90 percent of military operations are conducted jointly by Americans and Afghans. During the past 12 weeks, the number of enemy-initiated attacks has been 25 percent lower than a year ago.”

Much of that just isn’t true, from other accounts I’ve read, some of which I’ve posted in this space. On the other hand, of course the Taliban is just waiting us out. If I was a woman there, I’d do everything in my power to get out now.

And note to President Obama. If you are going to stick to your 2014 timetable, as administration officials have been saying since the massacre, and in the face of deaths of Americans at the hands of Afghans, then give an address to the nation. You’re not helping the cause by staying silent.

Pakistan: A parliamentary commission on Tuesday demanded an end to American drone attacks inside the country as a condition for restoring ties with the U.S. It also demanded an apology for deadly airstrikes in November, including one that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, which then led to the closure of supply lines through the country to Afghanistan.

The commission didn’t say the closure of the U.S. and NATO lines should be permanent, rather officials will now look to charge more money for the privilege.

Iraq: Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for a wave of bombings and shootings across the country on Tuesday that claimed the lives of at least 49. Among the attacks were two, double-car bombings in Karbala and Kirkuk, claiming 13 lives each. [First car bomb goes off, the crowd and emergency crews assemble, and then the second goes off…an al-Qaeda trademark.]

Egypt: The White House announced it was resuming funding for Egypt’s military and will bypass Congress in doing so. Recall the aid has normally amounted to $1.5 billion and was suspended during the country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups. Congress had passed a law in December, mandating the administration certify that Egypt is making progress on the democracy front. But Sec. of State Clinton is waiving this restriction. Most egregious is that the Washington Post is reporting the administration will hand over the full amount, rather than withholding a portion for leverage.

What the heck is going on here?! Even Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said: “I am disappointed by this decision.”

North Korea: U.N. nuclear inspectors have been invited for the first time in three years, which was part of the deal with the U.S. that would have the latter sending food aid to the Commies as long as the North agreed to suspend nuclear and long-range missile tests.

But of course then Pyongyang said it would launch a rocket-mounted satellite around April 15 to mark the 100th birthday of Great Leader Kim Il-sung. So the United States would be nuts to send anything, even stale Drake’s cakes, before observing what North Korea does in April. Then again, we’ve seen what the White House is doing with regards to Egypt and military aid.

Editorial / Wall Street Journal

“Apologists for engaging North Korea are busy assuring everyone that the satellite test is no big deal and doesn’t threaten anyone. That’s what they always say. But North Korea has built nuclear bombs as a way to give it greater political leverage, and no one should doubt that it is trying to build a ballistic missile that would threaten Japan and the U.S. as a way to gain even more international clout. A missile launch will assist that effort even if it doesn’t complete it.

“The Obama administration had been doing well with its economic sanctions and diplomatic neglect toward the North, until it fell for one more round of offering alms for good behavior. The only message the North’s dynastic junta will understand is if the West now cuts off the food aid. Even better if the U.S. – or preferably, Japan – blows the missile out of the sky.”

The administration is on record as saying if the North launches the missile, the food deal is off. Even China announced it was concerned over the rocket-launch plans.

Meanwhile, there is a nuclear security summit meeting taking place this week in Seoul, so you can imagine it’s Spy vs. Spy in that megalopolis, as I’ve long written of the thousands of North Korean agents there. Pyongyang warned the summiteers not to insult the North. Any such criticism would be considered a “declaration of war.”

President Obama will don the official bomber jacket in going to the DMZ, I think on Monday, for a photo-op that will then be part of all his campaign videos. If he wants a real sense of the place, he should explore the tunnels.

For its part, the South Korean government wants to be able to extend its ballistic missile range beyond the 300km allowed as part of a 2001 memorandum of understanding with Washington. The Americans are concerned that doing so (even though the North is testing a missile with a range estimated at 3,000km…and appears to be targeting Australia, by last report) would lead to a further arms race on the continent.

Let Seoul do it! Geezuz, this is a no-brainer. We’re worried about China’s reaction?

China: For eight days, since state media announced the dismissal of Bo Xilai from his job of party chief of one of China’s biggest cities, Chongqing, he has not been seen or heard from, nor has the government issued any further statement; this as rumors swirl of a potential coup in Beijing, which would be rather unsettling for those with investments there, mused your editor. It’s disturbing enough the Communist Party is tongue-tied. There never was an explanation just what Bo did wrong, only rumors a family member was being investigated for corruption and Bo was trying to block it.

So we wait to see what happens, what is said, the next few weeks in particular. After all, Premier Wen has called for further reform in China, far from the Maoist agenda Bo and his many supporters espouse.

At stake are seven of nine seats in the Politburo Standing Committee, one of which Bo was in line for, with the other two seats going to incoming president Xi Jinpinq, now vice president, who will succeed Hu Jintao, and Vice Premier Li Keqiang, who will succeed Wen.

[Sunday, March 25, is election day for chief executive for Hong Kong, the special administrative region monitored by Beijing. It’s not a pure democratic vote as 1,200 people, mostly businessmen and political leaders, make the call among three candidates; actually they then pick smaller groups who do. The system isn’t supposed to lead to surprises, since most are known to be loyal to Beijing. But this time the two leading candidates don’t have the cleanest backgrounds.]

Mali: A number of “experts” the past few months have been touting the tremendous opportunities that lie in Africa. I hope you’ve noticed I haven’t been one of them. We’ve only heard the same story for decades…this time it’s different, blah blah blah. All I need to do is look at Nigeria, a total hell-hole where al-Qaeda lookalike Boko Haram is out to slaughter all Christians, to know Africa’s future is shaky, at best. Oh sure, there are always individual opportunities, but look at one country that was supposed to be a role model of democracy, Mali.

Just weeks before he was to step down, President Amadou Toure was ousted in a coup by a bunch of drunken soldiers who looted the presidential palace, arrested ministers and declared they were in charge. Mali was preparing to hold free elections just a month from now as Toure, adhering to the constitution, was not seeking reelection.

But as the New York Times reports, with the downfall of Gaddafi in Libya, Mali was flooded with weapons, bolstering the rebel movement, which led to defeats of Malian forces. The soldiers, in turn, were fed up with a government they said wasn’t arming them sufficiently to beat back the rebels.

As I write, there is no word on Toure’s fate, though coup leaders say he is safe.

Cuba: Pope Benedict XVI arrives on Monday for an historic visit, the first to the island since John Paul II’s 1998 trip. I’m hoping Benedict issues some very strong, pro-democracy statements, though last I read, he is not scheduled to meet with the island’s human-rights advocates, despite many of them earning papal recognition The loyalties of Cuban Cardinal Jame Ortega are being called into question as he controls the pontiff’s schedule. What will Benedict do? Just follow along with the game, or go his own way?