Ammo Dump

FOREIGN/ IRAQ/
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RA05A3C285D32700A573FE6C5600
[They just don't learn] U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership
WashPost 06/27/04
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Foreign Service

BAGHDAD, June 26 -- U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has issued a raft of edicts revising Iraq's legal code and has appointed at least two dozen Iraqis to government jobs with multi-year terms in an attempt to promote his concepts of governance long after the planned handover of political authority on Wednesday.

Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition. Among the most controversial orders is the enactment of an elections law that gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support.

The effect of other regulations could last much longer. Bremer has ordered that the national security adviser and the national intelligence chief chosen by the interim prime minister he selected, Ayad Allawi, be given five-year terms, imposing Allawi's choices on the elected government that is to take over next year.

Bremer also has appointed Iraqis handpicked by his aides to influential positions in the interim government. He has installed inspectors-general for five-year terms in every ministry. He has formed and filled commissions to regulate communications, public broadcasting and securities markets. He named a public-integrity commissioner who will have the power to refer corrupt government officials for prosecution.

>> Some Iraqi officials condemn Bremer's edicts and appointments as an effort to exert U.S. control over the country after the transfer of political authority. "They have established a system to meddle in our affairs," said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Governing Council, a recently dissolved body that advised Bremer for the past year. "Iraqis should decide many of these issues." <<

Bremer has defended his issuance of many of the orders as necessary to implement democratic reforms and update Iraq's out-of-date legal code. He said he regarded the installation of inspectors-general in ministries, the creation of independent commissions and the changes to Iraqi law as important steps to fight corruption and cronyism, which in turn would help the formation of democratic institutions.

"You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and momentum on their own -- and it's harder to reverse course," Bremer said in a recent interview.

As of June 14, Bremer had issued 97 legal orders, which are defined by the U.S. occupation authority as "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people" that will remain in force even after the transfer of political authority. An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.

It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule. . . .


. . . But perhaps Bremer's most far-reaching and potentially contentious order is the election law, which he signed June 15. The law states that no party can be associated with a militia or get money from one. It also requires the electoral commission to draft a code of conduct barring campaigners from using "hate speech, intimidation, and support for, the practice of and the use of terrorism."

The law, signed last week, is intended to establish the framework and policies that will govern next year's national elections to select a 275-member national assembly. But experts in Arab world elections have questioned how the law will be received by the Iraqi people once its terms are widely known. Some predicted that the rules would be challenged and perhaps ignored by the interim Iraqi government.

>> "I foresee real political conflict about these rules," said Amy Hawthorne, an Arab specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who studies elections.

"The laws came out from behind a curtain while armed conflict is going on," said Hawthorne, who expects people and parties to challenge the laws after July 1 because "they were created under the [occupation] authority and their legal status is a bit murky."

"The notion of [the U.S.] decreeing election law prior to June 30 is unfortunate," said Leslie Campbell, who has worked in Iraq for the National Democratic Institute. <<

Financing elections, difficult in the United States, could be an even greater problem in Iraq where not only the wealthy but also foreign countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and even the United States are openly putting money into political parties and politicians. The Bremer law calls on parties to "strive to the extent possible to achieve full transparency in all financial dealings" and calls on the electoral commission to consider issuing regulations.

Campbell said such a law "may be a lot cleaner than letting the commission have it out with the interim government in a messy way, but it is not good that the electoral commission is not promulgating key parts of the law."

Campbell said it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the provision separating militia members from politics since all the major Iraqi political parties are associated with armed organizations. Although the occupation authority has attempted to demobilize militias, most have not yet disbanded.

>> Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who specializes in Iraq, said the appointed electoral commission's power to eliminate political parties or candidates for not obeying laws would allow it "to disqualify people someone didn't like."

He likened the power of the commission to that of religious mullahs in Iran, who routinely use their authority to remove candidates before an election. "In a way, Mr. Bremer is using a more subtle form than the one used by hard-liners in Iran to control their elections," Cole said. <<

Pincus reported from Washington.
***
Next-------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN/ PROFILE/
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/
[Failed policy] Iran could be winner of war on terrorism -- Country has benefited from U.S. campaigns
PioneerPress 06/26/04
BY SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON, Knight Ridder Foreign Service

TEHRAN, Iran — President Bush freed Afghanistan from the Taliban and toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but in doing so he also may have unshackled an even more dangerous foe: Iran.

Western diplomats and local officials in the Middle East say Iran, widely considered a supporter of international terrorism that is trying to develop nuclear weapons, is emerging as the unintended winner of Bush's war on terrorism.

Iran's rise as a key power broker in the Persian Gulf is an alarming prospect for the United States, which has used political and economic sanctions to contain the Islamic Republic and its radical government for a quarter century — since Iranian radicals seized the American Embassy in Tehran.

"Iran has definitely come to be a major beneficiary" of U.S. policy since Sept. 11, 2001, said Mohammed Hadi Semati, a political scientist from Tehran University currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "With the exception of the current chaos, everything that comes out of the Iraqi operation is good for Iran's national interests."

>> The logic of Iran's ascendance is simple. Iran sat back as the United States launched expensive wars and defeated Iranian enemies on two of its borders, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran's population is predominantly Shiite Muslim, and with Iraq's Shiite majority certain to dominate any new Iraqi government, the two nations will share cultural and religious ties that will likely bringing the formerly warring neighbors closer. <<

Senior U.S. officials in Washington fear that a Shiite uprising in Iraq could trigger unrest in neighboring Kuwait, where Shiites are 30 percent of the population; in Bahrain, which is 70 percent Shiite; and in the oil-rich eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where Shiites are a narrow majority.

Iranians, who succeeded in exporting their Islamic revolution to Shiite parts of Lebanon after Israel invaded that country in 1982, believe they've now played their cards well as America stumbled into a guerrilla war in Iraq.

>> "Two factors have made our position stronger. First is the American attitude, the American behavior. They came to Iraq under the slogan of human rights and democracy, but unfortunately, the Americans could not prove they are sincere in what they are saying," said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. "The second was our behavior in Iraq was very clear … we are not looking for hegemony." <<

There's unmistakable confidence at the highest levels of the Iranian government about its role.

"There are some realities that cannot be changed by any power, especially that Iran is a free country and a very powerful country in the region," said Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, which advises the supreme leader. Rezaei is widely seen as a top presidential contender in next spring's election. >> "Iran's regional role is a fact. And if America had accepted that fact, then Iraq wouldn't have attacked Kuwait and Iran, nor would the Taliban have been successful in Afghanistanand the Twin Towers would be still standing." <<

The protracted war with insurgents in Iraq has also weakened America's standing in the region. Many people across the Middle East have begun to embrace Iran's vision of the United States as a "Great Satan." America's aim of bringing democracy to the region doesn't square with what they see happening. Instead, they're convinced that American policy is aimed at controlling the Middle East's vast oil reserves and subduing both Shiite and Sunni Muslims.The changing political reality worries Washington's Arab allies, who privately complain that the White House ought to engage Iran rather than isolate it. Many say it's the only way to shore up America's influence amid a widespread perception that Bush is waging a war on Islam rather than terror.

"Basically, Iran is a much more serious threat to the region than terrorism," said one Persian Gulf state official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "Terrorism is something everyone is dealing with and taking seriously, whereas we're not dealing with Iranians seriously and we're not dealing with them as a powerful state. We're pushing them into a corner."

Compounding Arab concerns is that Iran, which is Muslim but not Arab, is poised to become the region's second nuclear power after Israel.

"Certainly I wouldn't like to see an American policy that would shift 180 degrees and jump into the arms of the Iranians. But we have to engage with Iran, and we have to be sure Iran should understand they can become a better society and better country and better state without having nuclear power," said Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahayan, the United Arab Emirates information minister.

"Strategically, a winning Iran is better for the region because Iran would feel confident and less threatened and isolated," said Semati. "If it comes out of this U.S. containment, then I think it will feel more confident and compelled to sit down and talk."

Top Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes that their goal is to be a regional team player and not to impose their will on Iraq or any other Middle Eastern country.

"It's not to Iran's advantage to impose on Iraq the way America did," said Rezaei. "After this, the Iraqi people will look to a regional solution with the help of the countries in the region.

"I believe the facts of convergence exceed the facts that separate us" across the region, he added.
***
Next-------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN/ PROFILE/
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RA05B2DB0AA32700A573FF74B1E0
[Failed policy] Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team -- Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A22

The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday.

"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."

The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. The commentary emerges as public doubts about the Iraq invasion and Bush's handling of national security have risen.

The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush should be defeated in November if the United States hopes to rebuild its credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking later in the day to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."

"I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people," Powell added.

"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," he told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"

Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.

The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA.

On a day when the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda on any missions in the United States, the 27 signers accused the Bush administration of a "cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."

The group said it did not coordinate its statement with the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who shares many of its views. One signer, retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, described himself as a Kerry adviser.

McPeak was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, and he joined Veterans for Bush in 2000.

"This administration has gone away from me," McPeak told reporters at the National Press Club, "not vice versa."

The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."

Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."

"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."

Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world.

"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.
***
Next-------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN/ PROFILE/
http://www.startribune.com/stories/709/4832180.html
[Failed policy] 26 Ex-U.S. Diplomats Urge Bush's Ouster
By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
June 16, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.

"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. "Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."

Retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, said the Bush administration anticipated a rosy reception after a military victory in Iraq but "we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. So we see here unfolding before us a total disaster."

Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, said the administration's handling of wider relations with the Islamic world was particularly damaging to U.S. interests in the long run.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, did not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in a statement outlining its views. But one of its members said Sunday "it goes more or less without saying."

The statement suggested Bush's policies had left the United States isolated in the world.

Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted sharply to the allegation, noting that Bush has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in search of support from the international community.

"We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?" he asked.

Powell said the authors of the statement "wish to see President Bush not re-elected. I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people." He commented in an interview with the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television network.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said at least 20 members of the group have been involved in partisan political activities in the past.

"It is not surprising that John Kerry has the support of a group of people who share his belief that the threat of terror is exaggerated," Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "This is a group that shares John Kerry's pre-September 11th world view and supports John Kerry's failed ideas for treating terrorism as a matter mainly for law-enforcement and intelligence."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said people who leave the Foreign Service can say what they want.

"This is a group of people who have taken a stand, made a statement. They are free to do so," he said. "I think this administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he added.

Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan; and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, and Crowe and Turner have endorsed Kerry.

Also included is Jack F. Matlock, who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel and four African countries.

Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements, especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
***
Next-------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN/ PROFILE/
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RA05BC9862732700A573FFC96870
[Failed policy] Group Seeks Change In Security Policy -- Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration
Wash.Post 06/13/04
By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer

Angered by President Bush's conduct of foreign policy and dismayed about America's diminished reputation abroad, more than two dozen former top diplomats and military leaders will release a statement this week calling for a change in U.S. national security policy.

Members of the group -- a mix of Republicans and Democrats -- have served in capitals from Moscow to Tel Aviv and Lima to Kinshasa. The list includes a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former head of U.S. Central Command, a former CIA director and a decorated array of former ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state and defense.

"We all have this extremely strong feeling that this administration has failed in its responsibilities to the nation," H. Allen Holmes, former assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said yesterday. "We have never been so isolated in the world, and feared. It's incredible that the United States should be in that position."

As a group, they are the latest and most prominent collection of former national security figures to complain about the direction of Bush administration foreign policy. They came together at a moment of growing public doubt about Bush's handling of foreign affairs and the war in Iraq.

While their views are largely shared by Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the group avoided including people connected to the Kerry campaign. To gain the maximum impact, organizers said, they also tried not to enlist figures whose anti-administration views are well-advertised.

"Our ethos is that we're professionals. We serve the president, whatever party. It's very unlike the vast majority of people in our group to do this," Holmes said. "If you're working for Kerry, we don't really want you in the group. This is supposed to be independent."

Among the signatories are former ambassadors to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock and Arthur A. Hartman. Also voicing support are former CIA director Adm. Stansfield Turner, former Joint Chiefs chairman William Crowe Jr., former Air Force chief of staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak and former Central Command chief Gen. Joseph P. Hoar.

Others include Phyllis E. Oakley, former chief of the State Department's intelligence operation, as well as former ambassadors Avis Bohlen and Charles Freeman and onetime U.N. ambassador Donald F. McHenry.

The group calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

The one-page statement, which will be released formally Wednesday at a Washington news conference, criticizes the Bush administration for ineffectiveness in its approach to the world. It mentions Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- on which the White House has strongly backed hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- and cites evidence of increasing anti-American attitudes among Muslim young people.

The statement also mentions a range of other issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and U.S. approaches to HIV-AIDS, the environment and the distribution of wealth.

"We've lost a lot of our international partnerships. We've lost a lot of lives. We've lost a lot of money for something that wasn't justified," said Ronald Spiers, former ambassador to Pakistan and Turkey, referring to the Iraq war. "This concept of transplanting democracy is a 'fool's rush in where angels fear to tread' idea."

Spiers added, "The damage we've done to key and valuable alliances is going to take a long time to fix."

Bill Harrop, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Kenya, said he and his co-signers became "extremely disillusioned with the administration." He perceives Bush administration "scorn for multilateral organizations, the United Nations and, to some extent, even NATO." He described a "sense of unilateralism, the haughty style of international affairs."

"I really am essentially a Republican. I voted for George Bush's father, and I voted for George Bush," Harrop said. "But what we got was not the George Bush we voted for.

"There is a feeling that the administration from the very outset took a righteous black-and-white view toward diplomacy," said Harrop, who referred to administration "dissembling" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a "complete failure to prepare for the aftermath" of war.

"It's called the war against terrorism," Harrop asserted, "but in fact it has created terrorism in Iraq. It has made Iraq itself a very dangerous place."

Three State Department workers resigned from the government during the buildup to the Iraq war, saying they could no longer represent official U.S. policy in good conscience. The most senior figure was Mary A. Wright, a decorated and widely traveled diplomat then serving as the number two U.S. official in Mongolia.

"I have served my country for almost 30 years in some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world," Wright wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. "I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of the administration and cannot defend or implement them."

John Brady Kiesling, a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, wrote in his resignation to Powell that the pursuit of war in Iraq was "driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. . . . Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
***
Next-------------------------------------------------------------