Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We're Watching

Top Story of the Day: Hillary or Nicolas?

Nope, it's not Senator Clinton, who may or may not be the next Secretary of State.

Nor is it the Global Financial Summit --- yet. Although President Bush welcomed the guests last night, the serious talkin' doesn't start until today. And even then, given the relatively low profile the US will have --- the Bush Administration is almost paralysed, and the Obama folks have chosen to stay in the background --- it will be up to the Europeans to make the running.

No, the surprise headline for this morning is the rocket that French President Nicolas Sarkozy sent to Washington. Or, rather, the US missiles that he is trying to hand back to President Bush.

In talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Sarkozy "joined Russia in condemning the Pentagon's plans to install missile defence bases in central Europe yesterday and backed President Dmitri Medvedev's previously ignored calls for a new pan-European security pact".

The New York Times spectacularly misses the significance, somehow deciding that it lies in "Russia Backs Off on Europe Missile Threat". Russia's feint at putting missiles on its western borders was a political manoeuvre, and to the extent that it has brought Sarkozy away from (or reinforced his existing opposition to) US missile defence, it's worked.

The French President's statement isn't a detachment of Europe from the US. His proposal is that the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, to which both Russia and the US belong, discuss the security pact next summer.

It is, however, a distancing of France from not only missile defence but the US-preferred attempt to expand NATO's reach. That is going to prompt an immediate tangle between France and governments such as Czechoslovakia, which are still clinging to the US missile defence plan, but I suspect Sarkozy is looking to Germany for backing. And I think --- with a smile --- that will put a marker down for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

All in all, the timing of Sarkozy's announcement should add a bit of political spice to the financial talks in the US today.

Under-noticed Story of the Day: Food rather than Rockets

The sad ritual is again being played out on the Israel-Gaza border. The Israelis have made tank raids across the border, and Palestianian groups have lobbed rockets into southern Israel. The Israelis send out their Government spokesmen and, as few US and British media outlets will speak to a Hamas representative, the narrative of Tel Aviv standing firm against Hamas-backed terror gets another paragraph.

The far-from-insignificant story behind the story is the effects of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. On Wednesday, Juan Cole highlighted a UN report that it is running out of food to distribute in the besieged area. The Washington Post in cautious terms --- "residents are warning of a humanitarian crisis because Israel has sealed the territory's borders" --- has now picked up on this, but it is The Independent of London that highlights the impact:

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

Speculation of the Day: Obama and Gitmo

William Glaberson in the New York Times pens the analysis that Barack Obama's "pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers". Significantly, however, this is no comment from the Obama camp.

Adam Cohen in the NewYork Times has a more substantial development. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in my opinion one of the most honourable men in Congress, is not going to let President Obama rest in indecision on issues such as Camp X-Ray, surveillance, and other civil rights issues:

Mr. Feingold has been compiling a list of areas for the next president to focus on, which he intends to present to Mr. Obama. It includes amending the Patriot Act, giving detainees greater legal protections and banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. He wants to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying. And he wants to roll back the Bush administration's dedication to classifying government documents.

Negotiation of the Week: Talks with the Taliban?

As violence escalates in Afghanistan, The Independent of London reported on Thursday: "The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, will today brief Gordon Brown on talks being held with the Taliban with the aim of ending the conflict in his country."

This is a continuing development. Karzai and the Pakistani Government are now pressing the option of discussions with the "moderate" Taliban. Western governments are not necessarily averse to the idea, with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying it should be considered. However, with the Bush Administration in a no-win position --- it gets no credit if talks eventually succeed under an Obama-led effort and it takes the rap if the discussions collapse before 20 January --- this story will be carried forward by folks outside the US.

Obama, Chavez, and a New Relationship? The Strange Case of the Houston Consulate

The Stonecipher Report picks up on a flap over the Venezuelan Consulate in Houston, Texas, and draws an interesting conclusion:

The reasons for this failed relationship [between Bush's USA and Chavez's Venezuela] are far too many and too complex to get into here, but the point is, it has become the equivalent of a couple of parents who absolutely hate each other, but who also deeply love their children (which, in this case, is millions of barrels of oil) - so they fight through every brutal day and stay together no matter what - for the children's sake.

Just as in a failed marriage, a lot of the arguing gets ridiculous, and both sides look for almost every opportunity possible to take jabs at the other. Since Venezuela refuses to go to counseling and the Bush Administration just clamps its hands over its ears and yells "la, la, la, la, la...I can't hear you!" every time Venezuela wants to sit down and talk, things are never going to get any better.

On Monday, the United States took one of those ridiculous jabs and it appeared that we would be subject to another week of petty bickering when the U.S. State Department "invited" some Venezuelan diplomats that worked at the Houston consulate, to leave the country.

The Venezuelan consulate in Houston happens to be a very important one. After all, Houston is the home of Big Oil, so a lot of Venezuela's business with the U.S. is conducted there.

Apparently, important office doesn't equal comfortable office. The Venezuelans working there wanted a new one. So they made a request to the U.S. State Department that would authorize them to lease a new space for their offices.

Sounds reasonable.

But the Venezuelans didn't wait to hear back from the State Department. They found a new home, paid the rent and moved in before they ever heard back from State.

This led to some expected bickering, which then led to the decision that came down on Monday, to "invite" those Venezuelans to leave.

Of course, the next step for Chavez would be to go out and give an angry, rousing speech against the donkey to the north - Something that would really rile up his base and help him score some political points at home. After all, a big election is coming up on Nov. 23 in Venezuela. It isn't a presidential election, but many of his allies are up for re-election and polls are showing many of them need a boost of some sort.

So, the US waited for an angry Hugo Chavez to belligerently respond.

Sure enough, Tuesday morning, Washington got its response - Chavez fired the Houston consul for violating the rules on opening new offices and told them to come home.

Huh?

Are you serious Hugo? What's wrong with you?

Where is all the name calling? Where is the threat to have OPEC make major cuts in production? Where did the anger go?

What the hell is any different now than it was last week?

What's gotten into you Mr. Chavez? This doesn't make any sense!

Wait.

Oh yeeeaaahhh...I remember now!

We just elected that Obama guy! That guy who said he would sit down and talk with you and work to find a common ground that's good for both America and Venezuela, a deal that's good for both of us.

....Isn't it amazing what even the threat of a little diplomacy will do? After eight years of screaming and yelling across the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, along with promises not to talk from the Bush Administration, the mere possibility that the new American President might be willing to sit down and talk has caused Hugo Chavez to suddenly cease his saber-rattling.

While this is good news, pretending that U.S.-Venezuelan relations can easily be repaired at this point would be foolish. There are plenty of difficult issues that still need to be hashed out, but at least we have an opportunity to work together rather than against each other, something we have not had for the past eight years.

In the end, both sides have an interest in making this relationship work, and maybe this period of goodwill will only last for a few months, but for now it's here and it's real - one of the first tangible signs that Barack Obama has, in fact, brought real change to America.

Niggles about Obama: Jonathan Freedland's "Liberal" Intervention

Hours after our internal debate at Enduring America about the policies of an Obama Administration, we read this provocative opinion piece from Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian of London:

Liberals and anti-war types should not declare the new president a kindred spirit too hastily. As Obama himself said in the now famous 2002 speech denouncing the Iraq adventure: "I am not opposed to all wars.

It takes Freedland quite a while to get to his point, as he negotiates the euphoria over the Obama victory ("What I saw in Grant Park, Chicago, last week felt more akin to South Africa in 1994 or Berlin in 1989 than a normal response to a regular election."), but when he does, it's a stinger:

Obama is no dove. He is just a much smarter hawk, his eye more sharply focused.

I guess I could chalk up the point that Freedland's assessment supports my cautious assessment, but it's cold comfort. Indeed, the columnist's own reasoning is even more troubling than the President-elect he is supposedly critiquing:

1. Freedland reachs for that damaging, derogatory label to slap on anyone who might question the military option as the first option in US foreign policy: "peacenik".

2. Freedland notes, "Having placed al-Qaida back in the centre of America's gunsights, the new president aims to defeat it, taking the fight to al-Qaida's enablers in Afghanistan and Pakistan." But he pays no attention to the possible effects and complications of a policy which consists of "thousands more [troops] to fight the Taliban" and expansion of "the theatre of operations against al-Qaida... beyond the Afghan borders to include the tribal areas of western Pakistan".

3. Most provocatively, Freedland sees new hope for a delayed fight.

Imagine if John McCain had toured European capitals, trying to assemble a coalition for strikes against Iran. He'd have barely got a hearing....

But if Obama were to make the case, explaining that he had seen through the nonsense of Iraqi WMD but that the Iranian threat was real, he would surely earn a very different response. In that sense if no other, armed international action against Iran might be more achievable under an Obama presidency than it would have been otherwise.

So, even though American intelligence has concluded that Iran suspended its research and development of nuclear weapons programmes in 2003, even though one path to resolution of the political difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to lie with co-operation with Tehran, even though the war of only five years ago might give caution to any thoughts of a sequel next door, Freedland is ready to march into battle.

Twenty-four hours ago, a student in Dublin also recalled Obama's victory speech in Chicago: "I realised this would be one of the greatest moments of my life." And, when I confessed that I was caught between hope and caution, she replied, "Let me just hold on to hope for the next two months."

She is so right. Hers is an unconditional hope, tied to no thoughts of a new American venture which might be "liberally" acceptable. In contrast the words of Freedland, after his sanctification of a "hard" American liberalism offering more conflict, are cheap and hollow:

In every sphere, Obama marks a break from the recent past....For now, at least, we are entitled to that sigh of relief - and even the odd yelp of joy.

Niggles About Obama: Canuckistan Responds

Canuckistan responds to my earlier post on Senator Patrick Leahy's speech:

Aren't you being a little tough on Patrick Leahy? Is it surprising that he would be reluctant to speak for the Obama Administration before it has constituted itself and taken office, especially since he is not part of that administration and the last thing he would want to be is the cause of newspaper headlines back in the US?

The Guantanamo comment does seem surprising given the constant stream of news stories about plans underway to shut it down, a position that John McCain also advocated. That may be caution on the part of Leahy, but it may also reflect the realization that it will not be such an easy matter to shut down the camp because of what to do with the inmates. What happens to Khaled Sheikh Mohammad? Does he go on trial in a regular court and, if so, what do you do with the evidence obtained through waterboarding and the long time he spent in custody without charge? And what do you do with those are innocent but whose countries won't take them back (or the countries that will take them back but will torture them on return)?

The Bush Administration has left a counter-terrorist toxic waste dump for its successors to clean up.

An Obama Presidency: The Niggles Begin

As I was on the move, I wrote this before reading today's papers. The Times of London is claiming, based on information from "aides", that "Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office."

With a couple of colleagues from Clinton Institute, listened to a speech by Senator Patrick Leahy at University College Dublin.

Leahy, a skillful speaker, gave a short set-piece presentation about the excitement and hope of the Obama victory, includoing the possibility of rebuilding US image abroad.

Not much detail, however, so I thought I would press in question-and-answer. "Given the Bush Administration's vast expansion of executive power, for example, on torture, detention, surveillance, and the use of signing statements, how soon could we expect Obama and the Democratic-led Congress to roll back those powers?"

That's when the warning flags came out. Leahy was forceful enough in saying that the US Government had forgotten the basic maxim, "Follow the laws", so American image as promoter of freedom had been tarnished. And it should be noted that Leahy, as chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, has given Bush Administration a rough ride over its re-interpretation of laws and power, especially in the case of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But he wouldn't grasp the nettle on the question. He merely said, "I hope some of these executive powers will be rolled back; if not, there will be pressure." That pressure was undefined, and the rest of the answer was a stall on whether Obama and Congress revoke powers on torture, detention, surveillance, and military operations.

And there were more disturbing omissions and deflections. In response to another question, Leahy said, "We're going to need a bipartisan coalition to close [the US detention facility] at Guantanamo".

Ummm, no, you don't. Just as President Bush could open authorise detention with an executive order, so President Obama could stop revoke it with a signature. The issue has nothing to do with Congressional authority.

Translation? I think Leahy is still worried that the Democrats will look "soft" on national security if they challenge --- at least without assured support from some Republicans --- the Bush Administration's grab of executive power.

That impression is reinforced by Leahy's (non)-answer to another excellent question: "Given the Bush Administration's effective institutionalisation of power and Government infra-structure, for example, through the extension of military authority, bases, and planning, could the Obama Presidency do much to push this back?" Leahy spoke for several minutes in reply, but I could not find a single word of substance to jot down.