FDD

Out of Africa (CM)

Ralph Peters writes:

Kenya's sudden nightmare is also the fault of pompous Western theorists and impossibly arrogant diplomats. (Our embassy in Nairobi's botched response to the stolen election alienated both sides in turn.)

The horrific violence in Kenya has its roots in three things: the corruption we overlook, the forms of democracy we demand - and, above all, the tribes that left-wing academics insist are only wicked European inventions.  …

Kenya was long one of the continent's few stable states - yet people there kept on voting along tribal lines. As they do in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria . . . just throw a dart at the map. Impose Western forms of democracy, and majority or plurality tribes win - then view their victories as license to loot. It doesn't even occur to them to share.

The process has played out hundreds of times, in dozens of countries, but we still insist that democracy means "one citizen, one vote" for a central government with Western-style ministries. The model we've enforced around the world assumes that enlightened citizens won't be bound by tribal or religious loyalties.  …

Our type of democracy works in homogeneous countries, such as Sweden or the Netherlands, where campaigns are strictly about issues - or in countries, like our own, that are so diverse no "alpha tribe" can lord it over everybody else.

But democracy as we know it doesn't work in countries where competition for resources persists along tribal or religious lines. …

[O]ur attempts to ride roughshod over fundamental identities to which human beings cling for dear life only resulted in the sort of failures we've witnessed in the post-colonial years - and the problems we faced in Iraq as we brushed aside sheiks in favor of corrupt bureaucrats.

To make democracy work in the developing world, you must adapt it to the pre-existing social structures and traditional loyalties, rather than assuming they'll wither away at the first election. Even Stalin couldn't finish off the Chechens. Afghanistan's Pathans won't vote for Tadjiks, or Sunni Arabs for Sunni Kurds.

The utterly wrong-headed and ultimately deadly insistence that everybody is just like us has led us to prescribe poison: In tribal societies, Western-style presidential or parliamentary systems produce, at best, authoritarian regimes. (As I argued years ago, our question in 2003 shouldn't have been "How do we bring our democracy to Iraq?" but "What would an Iraqi democracy look like?")  …

We vote our individual consciences. In much of the world, that's unthinkable: You vote for your own kind.

Until we see the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be, elections will tear tribal societies apart - as in Kenya today. The problem isn't democracy. It's "one size fits all" democracy.

More here. 

How Do Nations Die? (CM)

Mark Steyn writes:   

Not by war or conquest, but by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it piecemeal. 

More here.   

Who Makes Policy? (CM)

Ever wonder why president’s policies don’t get implemented? Peter Baker in the Washington Post relates an exchange between a government official and a State Department bureaucrat over President Bush’s policy to promote democracy abroad:

The official recalled a conversation with a State Department bureaucrat over a democracy issue.

"It's our policy," the official said.

"What do you mean?" the bureaucrat asked.

"Read the president's speech," the official said.

"Policy is not what the president says in speeches," the bureaucrat replied. "Policy is what emerges from interagency meetings."

More here.

Middle East Memo

On March 19 the Egyptian parliament passed a set of constitutional amendments that were proposed by the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), amidst strong protests from opposition parties which have described the changes as a major blow to Egyptian democracy.

The proposed amendments to 34 articles of the constitution were formally presented to the two houses of parliament by President Mubarak on December 26, 2006. These amendments have incited a heated debate in Egyptian political circles for the past three months, as they are viewed by many as a step that would significantly undermine the reform effort in Egypt.

Click here to continue reading "Egypt: Proposed Constitutional Changes and their Impact on Democracy," the first issue of the Middle East Memo, a new publication of the Center for Liberty in the Middle East. CLIME is a joint project of the European Foundation for Democracy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

International Law

FDD's Mario Loyola argues in today's National Review Online that "international law should be a principal weapon in the conservative arsenal." He writes:

Conservatives must expose the liberal monopoly on “international law” for what it is — a way to turn fashion trends in liberal opinion into commandments for the rest of us. But conservatives must go further: They must aim to establish a powerful presence of conservative scholars within the law faculties themselves. There is room for a conservative philosophy of international law — a philosophy based upon respect for democracy, peace, and the obligation of contract.

But there is a problem among conservatives, too, because their thinking on international relations is dominated by “realists” who tend to take a dim view of international law. This is a mistake. A strong balance-of-power foreign policy, which is vital to maintaining peace in those areas of the world where states still challenge the status quo militarily, cannot be constantly struggling against international law and the diplomatic structures it creates.

"The Bolivarian Revolution" (RWC)

Chavez recently yanked the broadcast license of a large and popular Venezuelan TV station that has been critical of him.

And he has been working overtime to inculcate his “socialist” ideas in schools and universities. A few months ago hundreds of his high-ranking supporters underwent training through classes in socialist thinking and “Marxist Analysis” as part of what he calls the Bolivarian Revolution. 

All of this is tied to Hugo Chavez’ widely government-touted cult of personality. 

It all sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxa, Castro – Chavez, all part of a continuum.

One-Party States Have Failed in the Past (RWC)

Chavez supporters say a strong one-party state would cut down on “excessive bureaucracy” and “reduce corruption.”

Ha. That’s likely!  History says that just the opposite would be true and anyone with experience, for example, in the pathetic one-party states of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, East Germany, Lithuania, Albania, North Vietnam, Estonia and the Soviet Union during the last sixty years, or Cuba and North Korea today, would know what a completely stupid lie that is.

The effect would be exactly the opposite. Bureaucracy would suck the oxygen out of everything, and “corruption” would be “reduced” only to the extent that it would take a new form, to benefit those on top of the newly-created monster bureaucracy.

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (RWC)

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is trying to grab even further political power in Venezuela and turn the country into a single-party state.

The hard-left president is forming a single socialist party from elements of his various supporters and he intends to use it to dominate the country’s politics.

The new entity is called the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and the speed and intensity of his plan to form it has unnerved even some of his most liberal supporters.  You’ll recall that Chavez is strongly admired by Cindy Sheehan and her “Code Pink” and anti-war friends here in the US.

Chavez, in turn, is an admirer of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and wants to emulate the one-party totalitarian system Castro installed more than forty years ago.

A Long Goodbye to Democracy

Hugo Chavez is consolidating his power in Venezuela, according to FDD Fellow Mario Loyola:

For students of the Cuban Revolution, it was an ill omen to hear Hugo Chávez in the final weeks of Venezuela’s presidential campaign proclaiming that “there is no longer room in Venezuela for any project other than the Bolivarian Revolution.” Sure enough, just one month after his reelection victory, Chávez is moving against both opposition parties and opposition press. Venezuela is staring into the abyss of fascism.

The law and terrorist charities (AV)

In this morning's National Review online, I have an article with Howard Anglin, Esq. on a recent judicial decision out of California authored by Judge Audrey Collins that seriously hampers the government's efforts to restrict terrorist financing. Read the article.

To be fair to Judge Collins, her opinion is nothing like the hatchet job performed by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on the NSA’s terrorist-surveillance program earlier this year. Judge Taylor’s opinion was roundly — and rightly — condemned as poorly reasoned and unworthy of the legal craft by lawyers from across the political spectrum. Judge Collins’s decision, by contrast, is neither overtly partisan nor irrational. With one exception it is a workmanlike application of precedent to fact. Unfortunately, that one exception has catastrophic potential.

...

There is, however, a compelling basis for a government ban on any assistance — even self-described humanitarian aid — to terrorists. Because terrorist organizations are not known as models of corporate transparency, there is no way of knowing whether a terrorist entity’s humanitarian arm is funneling money to its militant one. What is more, the fungible nature of money means that donations to the peaceful arm free up money to be spent by the militant arm.

A tribute to Jeane Kirkpatrick (AV)

I was awakened this morning by a call from a friend informing me that Jeane Kirkpatrick had died. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, until fairly recently, was a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where I interned last year, and her office was only a few steps away from my bay on the 11^th floor. She later went on to help found the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Jeane would make a point of stopping for a chat every time she passed my bay at AEI, and we had many fascinating conversations about foreign policy, and I was constantly struck by her powerful mind, on which, mercifully, age was not taking its toll.

Being a somewhat bumptious sort, I would try to tease out her views on the issues facing us today—at the time, it was the floundering Iraq mission—and it was clear that her contributions deserved a more public airing. Fortunately, prior to her death, Jeane had finished writing a new book on foreign policy. Though I have not yet had the pleasure to read it (it will be published shortly), I am told by those whose judgment I trust that it is excellent.

I remember one particular conversation with Jeane during which, and this was the Tory in me speaking, I quizzed her about her role in the Falklands crisis, which had received unfavorable reviews in Margaret Thatcher's memoirs Downing Street Years. Jeane displayed her characteristic graciousness, explaining the basis for her skepticism at being too supportive of Britain's pursuit of its territorial claim, while conceding that hindsight showed her fears were too severe.

Jeane explained that she was worried that an embarrassment of the Argentinean government over the Falklands might lead to its replacement by a communist one. Jeane's thinking flowed from the powerful, and powerfully American traditions of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as her own thesis in Dictatorships and Double Standards, which foreign policy thinkers today, especially those specializing in the Middle East, are I think admonished to read. (A link to the original essay is here, and its book form here).

In vivid detail, Jeane explained that hindsight had vindicated Lady Thatcher's decision, not her own. Yet, in this concession, Jeane's graciousness and honor came through, and I came to see that any sensible policymaker in her place would have had the same fears as her, and would probably have come to the same decision: I, with all my sympathies for the Anglosphere and the old order, certainly would have.

Jeane then spoke to me about the profound ambiguity of foreign policy idealism that animated her Dictatorships and Double Standards thesis, subtly calling attention to a particular weakness in my own foreign policy thinking. I would say that if there is one essay that those who are called neoconservatives should read, it is Dictatorships and Double Standards.

Ultimately, difficult policy decisions cannot be entirely based on ex ante normative ideals, but prudential concerns, animated by history. Fortunately, this underscores the need for powerfully smart, and idealistic, statesmen, of which Jeane Kirkpatrick surely was one. Withal, Jeane's contribution to U.S. foreign policy was very significant, and her death is serious and in many ways sad, but she leaves behind many friends, a goodly number of acolytes, and a very, very significant legacy. May she rest in peace.

Islam and the Sword (KA)

The latest comments made by the Pope Benedict XVI on Islam and its presumed violent past have opened the debate about the use of the “sword” in Islamic history. Before making judgment on how the Islamic Empire was established and how non-Muslims survived under Muslim rule one should take into account the following facts:

First, one should put things in context. In the 7th century A.D.- time in which the Muslim Empire was created- empires were created by the sword. Long before Islam, Alexander, the Romans, the Visigoth and others created their empires through the sword and not through referendum and democratic processes. Long after the establishment of Muslim empires, so called “civilized” nations also used the sword and the gun to create empires in their recent history. The use of the sword in establishing the Muslim Empire was not an exception in history, but a rule in human history that was only recently dismissed.    

Second, the Muslim religion did not only spread as a result of Muslim conquest. In fact, in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia Islam was spread by traders, and Egypt’s Coptic Christians favored and facilitated the entry of the Muslim forces who had better terms on freedom of worship and taxation than the Byzantine ruler who persecuted Egyptians and their native Church.

Last but not least, at the end of several centuries of Muslim rule, the vast majority of the inhabitants of places like the Balkans or the Indian sub-continent were non-Muslim. If Muslim rule was so brutal, how could one explain that after several centuries of Muslim rule the majority of the population was non-Muslim? Needless to add that in Muslim Spain all religions were tolerated in contrast with the Catholic “reconquista” and its Inquisition that brutally rid Spain of its Muslims and Jews- most of whom took refuge in Muslim countries while some had to convert to Catholicism to remain in Spain.

In sum, the statement that the Islamic Empire was spread by the sword might be true – at certain times and in certain places - but it is not the entire truth, and alone, it obfuscates the diversity and complexity of Islam over its fourteen centuries of history, and the thousands of miles of its reach. As does the implication that the use of violence in the name of religion is somehow unique to Islam.

At the same time, if Muslims are hurt by comments that Islam is intolerant, then they should also express it by speaking out against extremist Muslim clerics who spread lies about other religions, particularly Christianity and Judaism, or on occasional cases when extremists try to convert people by force. Each human being is entitled to dignity - and Muslims should extend to Christianity, Judaism and other religions the same respect that we yearn for them to give to Islam.

The fact that so many Muslim extremists today selectively read Islam’s history of conquest to justify the use of the sword, and radicalize disenfranchised Muslim youth, is not an excuse for non-Muslims to make sweeping generalizations of Islam. Non-Muslims should be careful of selective, simplistic readings of history or theology.

FDD Media Roundup

Cliff May's latest Scripps Howard column discusses the mistakes that were made in the planning and execution of the war in Iraq, and offers some practical lessons on what could have been done differently.

Claudia Rosett, writing in the Wall Street Journal, discusses the possibility of UN sanctions against Iran and how effective these might be given the failure of the sanctions regime against Iraq.

J. Peter Pham, writing in Family Security Matters, exposes Iran's connection to Congo (Kinshasa). 

FDD Media Roundup

This week's Notes & Comments are now online. Cliff May comments on how the kidnapping and intimidation of journalists influences media coverage of the Palestinian issue He also reports on support for the war on terrorism in Hollywood, the latest news from the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and the progress of liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Over at TechCentralStation, J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss discuss Europe's Munich moment.

FDD Media Roundup

Cliff May asks whether Americans are up to the challenge of seeing this war through to the end.

Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham highlight the absurdity of the UN ceasefire to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

J. Peter Pham discusses the uncomfortable truth that China is currently building alliances with despots the world over to balance against American power.

Iranian official lies about Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (AV)

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security, recently said:

Article 11 of the NPT states that if we are threatened, we can act in secret. If you want our activity to be transparent, you should not use the Security Council as leverage for your own benefit. If you do so, then according to the NPT, we are required to act in secret, in the face of your threat.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what Article 11 of the NPT actually says is, "This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States."

Oops...

On the precipice of Ragnarök? (AV)

Ross Douthat has a characteristically sharp piece in The Wall Street Journal arguing that the dividing line in foreign policy isn't between left and right, hawk and dove, idealist and realist. Nor, for that matter, is it between neoconservatives, democratic globalists, progressive realists, democratic realists, or anything else so neoteric.

Instead, Ross argues that we are divided by history. Some believe that it is 1919, that Bush is Woodrow Wilson, and that we are tying ourselves to a world we don't understand; other believe it's 1938, our enemy is Hitler-esque, and we have to choose between being Churchill or being Chamberlain; still others think it's 1972, that America is exaggerating the threat it faces, and that we are the source of our own problems; still others believe it's 1942 and that, although we didn't want this fight, we are duty-bound to end it. And so on...

It's an interesting thought experiment. Still, the flaws in Ross' methodology are obvious. History doesn't repeat itself, it only appears to to those unfamiliar with its details. Also, why should we confine ourselves to history from the past century? Why not reach further back into our collective experience - say, to the 30 Years' War, which in many ways is a more relevant historical analogy? Indeed, for more reasons that can be explained in a blog post, Ross' analogies obscure more than they clarify.

Ross directs considerable anger at the so-called 1938ers. Several weeks ago, the 1938 glitterati - everyone from Newt Gingrich to Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly - said we were fighting World War 3. Not to be outdone, Michael Ledeen and Norman Podhoretz claim we are in the middle of World War 4.

Ross may recoil at this, as will others who think the Bush administration is reenacting Wagner's Götterdämmerung. The sad reality, however, is that all we're doing is taking our enemies at their word.

Did Israel violate the ceasefire? (AV)

Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for violating the ceasefire after it launched a raid against an arms shipment to the Bekka Valley. But Annan's position is not - nor can it be - supported by the actual ceasefire resolution, UNSCR 1701 (2006).

Structurally, UNSCR 1701 does two things: first, it forces an immediate and temporary ceasefire based upon the cessation of actual hostilities; second, it calls for an international presence in southern Lebanon to help Lebanon maintain the ceasefire. Right now, we are somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 2. So a resort to force is justified if it derives sanction from the actual text of UNSCR 1701 or a right enshrined in the UN Charter or in international law generally. With this as the standard, there is a case to be made that Israel's commando raid against an arms shipment in the Bekaa Valley is lawful.

Israel is pointing out (correctly) that the resolution bans offensive military operations; this is a truism since a Security Council resolution cannot ban defensive operations. Israel is claiming its actions are justified by the right of self-defense, which is given partial expression in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The key requirement here is that Israel's response be necessary and proportional.

It is certainly proportional, since a commando raid that results in little collateral damage is proportional to the threat posed by an arms shipment to Hezbollah, and the proximate relationship between that shipment and an attack on Israel's territorial integrity. But was it necessary? This is a more difficult question, but there is a strong case to be made that the answer is yes.

Operative Clause 8 of UNSCR 1701 calls upon Israel and Lebanon " to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles." It then goes on to define these principles, the support of which is necessary, by the resolution's own language, for a permanent ceasefire: subclauses 2,3 and 5 list those that I think are most relevant: removing armed personnel, assets and weapons unless those authorized by the government of Lebanon from south of the Litani; the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon; no sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.

Before we reach Stage 2 of the ceasefire, the only parties capable of enforcing the terms of UNSCR 1701 are the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and nothing in the resolution precludes Israel from enforcing its terms, especially if this strengthens Israel's right of self defense. We should note that if the UN Security Council wanted Israel to remain uninvolved in the enforcement of the technical terms of the resolution, it could have done so. For example, when the Security Council authorized a coalition to use force against Iraq to remove it from Kuwait, the resolution was worded such that Israel could not be part of that coalition. Here, in the absence of such wording, Israel is fully justified in enforcing the resolution.

I eagerly await a press release from Kofi Annan criticizing the country that sent that shipment, which assuredly is in violation of UNSCR 1701. It is up to Israel and her allies to rebut the perfidious Kofi Annan when he tries to pin the blame for the collapse of his UN mission on Israel.

NSA program hits speed bump, then drives over it (AV)

There is an excellent editorial on NRO rubbishing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision to strike down the NSA surveillance program.

Judge Taylor's opinion is funny rather than sad, because there is a 0% chance that its rationale will be endorsed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Taylor, surveying the NSA program, found violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Separation of Powers, and two federal statutes. If she looked harder, she may very well have found a violation of Roe v Wade, too.

Senator Specter's bill before Congress to, as it were, normalize the NSA wiretap program, will if it is passed, moot the question of whether the program violates FISA, but leave open the question of whether it violates the Constitution. Suffice it to say, for now, that even fierce critics of the NSA program are unwilling to sign up to Judge Taylor's take on that bold claim.

Judge Taylor's opinion is a damp squib; already, her permanent injunction against the NSA program's continued operation has been stayed, so it will, at least for the time being, continue to yield actionable intelligence.

Baghdad Bob in Beirut (AV)

First Reuters, now the Associated Press...

How is Israel faring in its war against Hezbollah? Pretty badly, if the Associated Press is to be believed:

Sunday's deaths brought to 93 the number of Israelis killed, including 45 soldiers, the 12 reservists and 36 civilians. Israel's attacks on Lebanon have killed at least 591 people, including 509 civilians, 29 Lebanese soldiers and 53 Hezbollah guerrillas.

Israeli has suffered greater casualties than Hezbollah? Right...

Frankly, many of those whom the AP calls Lebanese civilians are in fact Hezbollah members; unless, that is, you believe Nasrallah's press releases that Israel is being slaughtered on the battlefield.

Is international law standing in the way of a ceasefire? (AV)

Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a controversial op/ed in the New York Sun explaining why the latest proposals for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah violate international law. He writes:

The most surprising aspect of international proposals for a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict is their endorsement of Hezbollah's demand that Israel give it territory, known as the Sheba Farms, in exchange for a end to rocket attacks on Israeli cities...What is certain — and yet entirely neglected in the discussion of the issue — is that the proposal violates bedrock norms of international law. Nations cannot enlarge their borders through the use of aggressive force. There are no exceptions to this non-acquisition principle.

Let's leave to one side the wisdom of ceding territory to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah and deal instead with Kontorovich's seductive claim that it violates international law.

It is certainly true that the UN Charter permits no exceptions to the non-acquisitive principle (this is the practical effect of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the Charter). Still, Kontorovich is overstating his case with regard to international law generally - unless, that is, he is laboring under the mistaken view that international law is whatever the United Nations and Kofi Annan say it is. It isn't, mercifully.

The truth is, although there is a general presumption against the acquisition of territory as a result of aggression, this is a neoteric doctrine - emerging as it did in the 20th century. In the past, conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. Of course, during the 20th century we have understandably moved away from this extreme position, but there is no absolute rule of non-acquisition when aggression is involved.

For example, the rule of uti possidetis - the principle that territory vests to the victorious party - has essentially kept the fragile peace in many African conflicts after initial disputes over post-colonial border. The International Court of Justice recognized something approaching this in its deliberations on the land and maritime border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon. Recently, this led to a truce and subsequently an agreement between these two countries. International law is better discerned from the way states act and their reasons for so acting rather than universalist-abstractions in the UN Charter.

In many ways, Kontorovich reveals the poverty of international law as a dispute resolution mechanism. Its boundaries are unclear, far too many people make authoritative statements when nuanced ones would be more appropriate, and by focusing too much on ex ante rules, it does not concern itself with creating lasting peace.

So, to answer the question posed in the title - International law isn't standing in the way of a ceasefire, the UN Charter is.

A Chance to Curb Iran in Lebanon (CM)

Charles Krauthammer writes:

Unlike many of the other terrorist groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States. In 1983 it massacred 241 American servicemen. Except for al-Qaeda, it has killed more Americans than any other terror organization.

More important, it is today the leading edge of an aggressive,nuclear-hungry Iran. Hezbollah is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary. Its mission is to extend the Islamic Revolution's influence into Lebanon and Palestine, destabilize any Arab-Israeli peace, and advance an Islamist Shiite ascendancy, led and controlled by Iran, throughout the Levant.

America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched  monster: Sunni al-Qaeda is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaeda  in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq -- to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances and give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival. ...

The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject  itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has  provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings  to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired.  I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

More here.

Fetishizing ceasefires [AV]

A cacophony of calls for a ceasefire confirms the apotheosis of hope over experience in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.

Any ceasefire must address the factual predicate for the latest hostilities, namely, the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the constant rocket attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon.

Without the disarmament (and disbandment?) of Hezbollah, or some sort of military presence, whether led by the Lebanese government or the international community, along the Lebanon-Israel border, is it realistic to believe that any ceasefire is durable?

Almost certainly not; which is why fetishizing a ceasefire does nothing to address the reason why this war is being fought in the first place.

War crimes through the looking glass [AV]

Peter Bouckaert, the Emergencies Director at Human Rights Watch, claims in the Guardian newspaper that "our investigations have not found evidence to support Israeli allegations that Hizbullah are intentionally endangering Lebanese civilians by systematically fighting from civilian positions."

Really?

I found this image telling.
As well as this video of Hezbollah launching Katyusha rockets from civilian areas.

Also, it's worth pointing out that, by Human Rights Watch's own definition, "Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government." Since Hezbollah is not the same thing as the Lebanese army, any area the group operates out of is by definition a civilian area.

Human Rights Watch, a study in bias [AV]

Human Rights Watch has issues a scathing attack on Israel's conduct in its war with Hezbollah. The tragedy of this report is that, because it is selective, disingenuous and biased, it undermines Human Rights Watch's credibility, and threatens the organization's noble vision of strengthening the international protection of human rights.

The report's executive summary criticizes Israel for its attacks on Lebanese homes. Human Rights Watch calls them "civilian targets." Tragically, this is only half the story, as many of the homes are also used to store missiles. They are, properly understood, dual-use - and are therefore similar to bridges and roads. That does not per se make them lawful targets, but it does mean that in determining whether Israel is committing war crimes by bombing them one needs to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the likelihood that the area as a whole is dual-use. The Human Rights Watch summary gives only a passing treatment to what is, frankly, the heart of the issue.

More problematically, the Human Rights Watch report, at least in its executive summary, does not adequately consider Hezbollah's obligation to to protect civilians from dangers, and that using civilian shields to protect military assets, as Hezbollah does, is itself a war crime. In fact, a previous Human Rights Watch report - one that was far more fair and balanced - does make this point explicitly.

It is truly worrying that from its previous report (which was good) to its current report (which is bad), Human Rights Watch seems to have abandoned the idea that Hezbollah also has obligations to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, and that because it is a non-state party to the conflict, Hezbollah is also bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Required Reading (CM)

Andy McCarthy:

“Israel's war against Hezbollah is a watershed in the war on terror. As long as we understand that it's not just Israel's war.”

His column is here.

Charles Krauthammer:

“The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.”

His column is here.   

Alan Dershowitz:

“While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, ‘have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor.’"

His oped is here.   

Jed Babbin:

“A cease-fire would benefit Hezbollah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hezbollah and the nations that support it--Syria and Iran--as well as the Lebanese who have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a U.N. force would create no security whatever against future attacks.

“The U.N.'s years-long record on the Israel-Lebanon border makes mockery of the term "peacekeeping." … the U.N. presence [in southern Lebanon] serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists. … For the first time, Israel has acted in accordance with what used to be President Bush's theory: that a government that contains, supports or harbors terrorists is responsible for their actions. Israel is now demonstrating that there is a price to be exacted from nations who collaborate with terrorists.”

His op-ed is here.      

Michael Rubin:

"’Lebanon . . . is not willing to be the spearhead of the Arab-Israeli conflict,’ former President Amin Gemayel said. ‘Hezbollah will have to explain itself to the Lebanese,’ Druze leader Walid Jumblatt told Le Figaro. The independent Beirut daily Al-Mustaqbal quoted Lebanese Communications Minister Marwan Hamada saying, ‘Syrian Vice President Faruq al-Shara gives the commands, Hezbollah carries them out, and Lebanon is the hostage. … Ahmed al-Jarallah, editor of Kuwait's Arab Times, condemned both Hezbollah and Hamas in an editorial that same day, writing, ‘Unfortunately we must admit that in such a war the only way to get rid of 'these irregular phenomena' is what Israel is doing.’"

His op-ed is here.

Nexus of hate [AV]

I have two backgrounders up.

The first chronicles the support Syria provides Hezbollah, and why it must bear considerable responsibility for the havoc Hezbollah's occupation of Southern Lebanon has wrought in Lebanon and Israel.

The second explores the deeds and words of Hezbollah's current leader Hassan Nasrallah, explaining how his war isn't just against Israel, nor even against the United States, but against the entire civilized world.

Revolutionary Guards Trapped in Lebanon? [AV]

Michael Ledeen, writing on NRO, points out that "[t]he Lebanese Tourism Ministry’s Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early July: in the first six months of the year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited Lebanon."

That's a lot of Revolutionary Guardsmen "vacationing" in Antelias

Interestingly enough, doesn't the disabling of Lebanon's transportation infrastructure mean that these Iranian agents are now trapped in Southern Lebanon?

Is Iraq the new Philippines? [AV]

History hardly ever repeats itself, it only appears like it does to those unfamiliar with its particulars. Which is why Ross Douthat's comparison of the Iraq war to the occupation of the Philippines is incorrect. Ross writes, at the American Scene:

[S]o far the military conflict that the Iraq War most resembles isn't Vietnam or World War II, but the TR-boosted Spanish-American War - a quick and painless military victory over a second-rate power, driven by a mix of idealism, jingoism, and power politics, that segued into a long and grueling counter-insurgency campaign [in the Philippines].

What gave the Filipino insurgency its popular appeal is notably absent from the Iraqi insurgency. The Filipino insurgents had a degree of popular support based on its claim that Filipinos should govern the Philippines.

The Filipino insurgents had Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipinio native, to lead them. Which Iraqi is a leader in the jihadist insurgency? The Iraqi insurgents were led by, before he was killed, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. And now they are led by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. The most hardcore and violent members of the insurgency are foreign jihadists, with no legitimate claim to pan-Iraqi nationalism.

Meanwhile, the United States armed forces are in Iraq today with the consent of the democratically elected government. Furthermore, the goal of the jihadists isn't a return to Iraqi rule, but a continuation of sectarian violence and terror that would extend beyond any U.S. troop withdrawal.

The differences, in this case, are more important than the superficial similarities in Ross' historical analogy. The Iraq war is many things--a replay of the occupation of the Philippines it most assuredly is not.

Wither, whither, the Bush Doctrine in Egypt? [AV]

How has the march toward democracy been faring in Egypt?

Writing in the Baltimore Sun, Jeffrey Azarva offers a cold, sobering update.

But just nine months after Mr. Mubarak won his fourth term, he ended the Egyptian government's experiment with democracy. When he arrested [opposition politician Ayman] Nour, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Francis J. Ricciardone, declined to comment. Mr. Mubarak saw a green light to accelerate his crackdown.

You can follow day-to-day updates in Egypt at the Egypt Monitor.

One of the better dailies in Egypt is the Arabic-language Al Masry Al Youm, published by Hesham Kasem, whose other hat is president of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.

Joshua Muravchik has recently written about the plight of Ayman Nour in the Wall Street Journal.

Syria Monitor [AV]

This week's Syria Monitor is now available. In it, Tony Badran, a Research Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, provides an update on the latest news affecting Syria's opposition and dissident movements.

This week's Syria Monitor reports on the fallout from the National Salvation Front conference, including reactions from the Secretariat and news of member defections, updates on two writers being targeted by the Syrian regime, as well as news of a resolution to be considered by the European Parliament that would cancel the EU Association Agreement with Syria because of the regime's human rights abuses.

You can sign up here to receive the Syria Monitor, which is sent out every Tuesday. You can track daily developments in Syria at the Syria Monitor blog. Previous Syria Monitors can be viewed here.

This week's Syria Monitor is now available. In it, Tony Badran, a Research Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, provides an update on the latest news affecting Syria's opposition and dissident movements.

This week's Syria Monitor reports on the fallout from the National Salvation Front conference, including reactions from the Secretariat and news of member defections, updates on two writers being targeted by the Syrian regime, as well as news of a resolution to be considered by the European Parliament that would cancel the EU Association Agreement with Syria because of the regime's human rights abuses.

You can sign up here to receive the Syria Monitor, which is sent out every Tuesday. You can track daily developments in Syria at the Syria Monitor blog. Previous Syria Monitors can be viewed here.

Hamas mourns death of Zarqawi [AV]

Underscoring the nexus of hate that unites terrorists worldwide, within hours of the announcement of Zarqawi's death, Hamas issued a statement to Reuters "commend[ing] brother-fighter Abu Musab...who was martyred at the hands of the savage crusade campaign which targets the Arab homeland, starting in Iraq."

Update (06/09): Hamas has denied issuing the statement linked to above but in their denial they praised Zarqawi as a "symbol[] in the face of American occupation."

Reports that Islamists have taken Mogadishu [AV]

Worrying news today from East Africa, as Islamist rebels, many of whom have links with al-Qaeda, have overtaken the capital Mogadishu. The United States has been criticized in the past for waging a proxy war against the Somali Islamists.

A Somalia under the control of al-Qaeda would massively destabilize the region, especially landlocked Ethiopia, as well as acting as a hub for the growing Islamist population in Lamu, Kenya.

U.S. policy, to date, has been to support the creation of a unified government throughout Somalia. An alternative--if riskier--strategy would be for the United States to provide more support to the breakaway statelet of Somaliland in the North, which has a democratically elected government. Peter Pham, a fellow at FDD, has endorsed just such a policy, as the "triumph of realism over wishful thinking."

Responding to the New Yorker on Libya

This New Yorker story on Libya, while accurate in many respects, was soft on Muammar Gaddafi's son, and heir apparent, Saif.

Momahed Eljahmi set the record straight with the following letter to the editor (published in the current edition):

LIBYA's DISSIDENTS

Andrew Solomon accurately depicts Libya as a police state where Colonel Muammar Qaddafi controls all levers of power, but there is little hope that his son, Saif, will actually see through the reforms he purports to champion ("Circle of Fire," May 8th). Saif's self-described human-rights organization is funded by the state, and his human-rights record speaks for itself; his description of terrorism as "tactics" could hardly be termed a renunciation.

More space in Solomon's piece might have been devoted to those Libyan dissidents who are imprisoned or were killed because they advocated for justice and spoke the truth-such as some twelve hundred political prisoners, who were executed in June, 1996, at the Abu Sleem prison, and the journalist Daif al-Ghazal, whose mutilated body was found in Benghazi in June, 2005, and whose death still has not been investigated.

The Syria Monitor

This week's Syria Monitor is now available. In it, Tony Badran, a Research Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, provides an update on the latest news affecting Syria's opposition and dissident movements.

This week's Syria Monitor includes reports on rallies being organized in Paris, London and Beirut to demand the release of Syrian prisoners of conscience; more information on next week's National Salvation Front Conference, which will take place in London; an update on the deteriorating health condition of Anwar al-Bunni, who has been on a hunger strike since being arrested two weeks ago; as well as news on the continuing harassment of signatories of the Beirut-Damascus Declaration.

You can sign up here to receive the Syria Monitor, which is sent out every Tuesday. You can track daily developments in Syria at the Syria Monitor blog. Previous Syria Monitors can be viewed here.

Direct talks, what's the point?

Yesterday's front page story in the Washington Post reporting that U.S. officials have been rejecting Iranian overtures for direct talks with the regime has been followed by reports today that IAEA head Muhammad el-Baradei also supports direct talks.

The United States response has been that direct talks can only happen when Iran has verifiably suspended its uranium enrichment activities. As long as Iran refuses to do this, direct talks with the regime will only give it more time to develop nuclear technology.

It was Rudyard Kipling in his poem Dane-Geld who offered what I believe is the best case against concessions of the sort Iran is asking,

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

Egyptian Turning Point?

The Wall Street Journal editorial page weighs in on the growing unrest against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's "pharaonic" rule:

In the past two weeks, his government has cracked down with a heavy hand on street protestors and refused to free a leading democratic politician held in jail on dubious charges. But the Draconian measures are failing to quell one of the most serious public challenges yet to Mr. Mubarak's 25-year rule. Security forces beat and arrested hundreds of people in Cairo yesterday when they turned out to defend two judges who had criticized the conduct of recent elections.

The rest is here.

FDD's Khairi Abaza covered the struggle for reform in Egypt -- particularly judicial independence and freedom of the press -- last week in this NRO op-ed.

What Despots Hear (BM)

Mohamed Eljahmi, as our regular readers know, is the brother of Fathi Eljahmi, the Libyan democracy activist jailed by Gadhafi for advocating free speech, multiparty elections, the right to dissent -- all the things a dictator fears most. 

Moh is also the clearest and most persuasive voice exposing the Libyan regime's support for terrorism and its human rights abuses -- against its own people and others (e.g. former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, now on trial for crimes against humanity, was tutored by Gadhafi's regime).

He opposes (one of the seemingly few) the Bush administration's decision to renew diplomatic relations with Libya, and he explains why in this op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal.  His conclusion:

The State Department's decision undermines U.S. credibility. Realists say the administration is sending a positive message to the Arab world that it will reward good behavior in the war on terror. What despots hear, though, is that lip-service will obviate the need to reform or respect human rights. Re-establishing relations with Col. Gadhafi is not a victory and it may very well be a defeat unless Washington begins full-court pressure to force political change in Libya.

J. Peter Pham, an FDD Academic Fellow, has also been a harsh critic of Gadhafi.  For more on Gadhafi's close ties to Charles Taylor, read his op-ed in the Providence Journal (free sign up required).

Democracy, Freedom and the Rule of Law

Cliff addressed the Atlas Economic Research Foundation's "International Seminar on Liberal Democracy: Democracy, Freedom and the Rule of Law," and discussed, "The Political Consequences of Liberalism: The Bill of Rights and the Due Process of Law."

Cliff remarks are available here. 

Egyptian Emergency

Senior Fellow Khairi Abaza discusses how Egyptian President Mubarak responds to terror by going after the reformers:

The Mubarak regime needs to understand that it is the lack of political freedom, transparency, and accountability that has helped breed fanatics willing to perpetrate horrific attacks. Currently, Egyptian civil-society activists are engaged in heated battles for meaningful reforms that will help establish an independent judiciary and a free press—essential pillars of any democracy. If the regime continues to deny these changes, it can expect to face increasing radicalism.

Read the rest on NRO.

A Policy for Promoting Liberal Democracy in Egypt (EG)

I am pleased to introduce the second in our White Papers series, "Voices from the Middle East on Democratization and Reform," by Dr. Hala Mustafa, Editor-in-Chief of a Cairo-based quarterly on democracy.  The series continues with an insider's perspective on the struggle to liberalize Egyptian politics.

Dr. Mustafa offers an insider's perspective on the struggle to liberalize Egyptian politics. In this paper, "A Policy for Promoting Liberal Democracy in Egypt," Dr. Mustafa argues that the choice between authoritarianism and Islamism in Egypt is a false one, and that American policy can help pave a third path if it focuses on strengthening liberal democratic ideas and figures in Egypt, and not just the democratic process.

Facing the Death Penalty (BM)

Not Zacarias Moussaoui, but Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi, for his work in support of democracy and free speech -- and for "insulting" Col. Qaddafi:

Libya's most prominent political prisoner, Fathi al-Jahmi, faces a possible death sentence for slandering Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi and talking with a foreign official, who may be a U.S. diplomat, Human Rights Watch said today. ...

Human Rights Watch visited al-Jahmi in May 2005 in a special detention facility in Tripoli. He said then that he faced charges on three counts under articles 166 and 167 of the penal code: trying to overthrow the government; insulting al-Qadhafi; and contacting foreign authorities. The third charge, he said, is due to conversations he had with a U.S. diplomat in Tripoli.

With all the fuss about Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondent's dinner, it's worth remembering that there those who truly have earned the right to have "brave" in front of their names.  Fathi is one of them.

The Human Rights Watch press release on Fathi's case is here.

Read Claudia Rosett's profiles of Fathi Eljahmi are here and here.

Update on Fathi Eljahmi (CM)

Our friend Mohamed Eljami, brother of imprisoned Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi, writes:

I just received word that Fathi Eljahmi was seen yesterday by his son Mohamed.  According to the report I received "Fathi was so nervous and lost much of his weight." The visit took place under the watch of Libyan security and lasted for 15 minutes.  This was the first time Fathi was seen by a member of his family since the first week of June 2005.

The Libyan regime has treated my brother and his family cruelly.  They lost their business, an arsonist tried to burn down their house, and the entire family is under surveillance.  My family is suffering because Fathi spoke for democracy and justice for the victims of Qadhafi.

Fathi is a trailblazer.  He has consistently appealed for help from the U.S. and publicly thanked President Bush, Senator Biden, the American government and the American people.

I fear that my brother's life is at risk and I want the American government to demand independent access to my brother.

Let me take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude for those who have helped and continue to help.  I remain eternally grateful for your goodwill. I have great faith that America will continue to stand by my brother.

My brother did not only speak for human rights and the rule of law in Libya. He was an advocate for the victims of Lockerbie, UTA and the victims of West Africa’s wars.

The following quotes are taken from a letter to Qadhafi.  The letter  was written on May 16, 1992:

"I think your security is tantamount to the security of the Libyan people and there can be no security for you, without the security of the Libyan people.

"As a citizen, who is calling for change in the economic and social policies, for human rights and free expression and for building institutions based state.  I feel disheartened that my aspiration may in the future come through Great States, while we currently hold the decision to re-arrange the Libyan home.

"The unity of the country and the security of its soil are at risk. Its unity can be torn apart and bloodshed if it starts, no one can predict its outcome.  I am ready to take part in the national reconciliation if accepted from all sides"

Another Step Forward for Democracy in the Middle East

Today marks another step forward towards the goal of a democratic Middle East as Kuwaiti women are allowed to vote for first time.  The full story is here.

FDD Welcomes New Fellows Specializing in Egypt and Lebanon/Syria

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has added two new fellows in support of its growing Democracy Programs: Khairi Abaza, an Egyptian specialist and former Wafd Party official, and Tony Badran, a writer and researcher focused on reform movements in Lebanon and Syria.

“Khairi and Tony are experts in their regions, have great insight into the opportunity for reform in the Middle East, and understand the challenges that must be overcome for liberal democracy to advance,” said FDD Senior Vice President Eleana Gordon.  “They will play key roles in FDD's growing efforts to support democratic movements and reformers throughout the greater Middle East.”

Read more about Tony & Khairi here.

The Beeb: Afghans Want Abdul Rahman Executed, and Judge Says Islamic Law Requires Death for Apostates (ACM)

A simply breathtaking article from the BBC on the ongoing Afghan apostasy trial of Abdul Rahman.  I have collapsed some of the paragraphs for space reasons, and the entire story can be read here. 

Here is the Judge's take on Islamic law under the new Constitution for which the United Sta