Dialog International

Murat Kurnaz on US Public Radio

National Public Radio's call-in program Talk of the Nation had an interview with Murat Kurnaz about his new book Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo. Kurnaz was interviewed by telephone from a studio in Bremen, since he is not permitted to travel to the country that tortured him and held him captive for five years without charges. You can listen to the interview and read an excerpt from his book here.

Kurnaz did a reasonably good job in the interview, although at times he had difficulty with English.  Most of the callers were respectful, and some even apologized for the actions of their government.  But of course there were others who had a different perspective.  One caller stated he "didn't believe one word"  of Murat and his book.  The whole story was fabricated to slam the United States and its struggle against "Islamofascism".  Actually, the caller seemed to imply that Kurnaz was never really at Guantanamo at all!

You can read similar comments on the Talk of the Nation Blog. One commenter - Donna Largent - also rejects Kurnaz's story, and condemns NPR for being a mouthpiece of anti-American propaganda:

We are fighting a heinous war and the enemy is bloodthirsty and does all kinds of gross things like beheading with dull blades. Why is it that almost every time I turn my radio to your shows, you are knocking our wonderful country? If we are so bad, why don't you all at our indicting public radio organization find other places to live? I am tired of hearing you constantly slam the United States.

This is the typical response of the Authoritarian Right in the US when it is confronted with inconvenient facts: attack the patriotism of the messenger and insist that it is nothing but a conspiracy of lies.

UPDATE: In the radio interview and in his book Kurnaz mentions that he personally witnessed the deaths of detainees.  For this he is accused of lying, for the US does not kill prisoners - even if they are only "enemy combatants" and not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions (according to the Bush administration).  I would refer those doubters to this autopsy report by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (pdf)  about an "Iraqi Detainee who died while in US custody" (as written in the report itself).  This detainee - as per the report - was hung by his wrists (like Kurnaz), gagged, and then brutally beaten.  All of his ribs were fractured.

An unfortunate aberration by a few bad apples? There are 108 of such autopsy reports - that we know of so far...

John McCain a Danger for Europe

John McCain has been busy speaking with European leaders to assure them that he will look to rebuild the transatlantic relationships that have been severely damaged in the Bush era.  No more "Old Europe" scorn and sarcasm.  No, McCain has been positively effusive in his praise of our European partners.  Last month he had only glowing compliments for Germany in his interview in Der Spiegel:

McCain: "Germany does play a very influential role around the world, and I value the relationship that we have shared for many, many generations. I believe Germany will continue to play a very influential and important role in the world."

Last week McCain visited London and Paris where he impressed his hosts with his commitment to action on climate change. He promised a new era of mulitlateralism, of commitment to the rule of law: he would shut down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and end the practice of torturing detainees at CIA "Black Sites" in Romania. He even praised NATO's actions in Afghanistan; no bashing the Europeans for avoiding the combat theater in southern Afghanistan.  Sure, there was the minor irritation of the Iraq War - which may continue "for the next 100 years", and which has destabilized the Middle East for many years to come - but reasonable people can disagree about this.  All of this was music to European ears: McCain would be a welcome change.

But not everyone buys this image of a softer, gentler McCain who would nurture America's relations with Europe.  Anatol Lieven, professor at Kings College in London, warned in the Financial Times, that Europe "should fear a McCain Presidency":

"Mr McCain’s promises, during last week’s visit to London, to listen more to America’s European allies, need to be taken with a giant pinch of salt. There is, in fact, no evidence that he would be prepared to alter any important US policy at Europe’s request.

Reflecting the neo-conservative programme of spreading democracy by force, Mr McCain declared in 2000: “I’d institute a policy that I call ‘rogue state rollback’. I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.” Mr McCain advocates attacking Iran if necessary in order to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, and last year was filmed singing “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”."

Indeed, McCain's hatred of Russia and his strong commitment to the eastward expansion of NATO poses a specific risk to Germany.  Yesterday, in a major speech on foreign policy, McCain once again brought up his favorite idea of a League of Democracies, from which he explicitly excludes Russia. In fact, McCain would expel Russia from the Group of 8.  Lieven is concerned that McCain's approach could embroil Europe in a dangerous conflict with Russia:

"Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of “appeasement” of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support."

What we have in John McCain is a neo-conservative in sheep's clothing.  Obviously, Europe cannot influence the election in the US. But it should not welcome a McCain victory in November.

See also Der Spiegelfechter: The Manchurian Candidate

"Obama Would Be Best for Germany"

Over the weekend Der Spiegel published an interview (English, German) with Stephen Szabo of the German Marshall Fund.  Szabo talks about the foreign policy challenges facing the next US president and concludes that a Democrat stand the best chance for improving transatlantic relations between America and Europe. Democrats would shut down Guantanamo, emphasize multilateral relations, and share the Europe's commitment to international law.  On the other hand, a Democratic White House would look to Europe to take the lead on resolving the crisis in Kosova, and would expect increased NATO participation in Afghanistan.  The Afghanistan issue is especially worrisome for Germany, where popular support for Germany's mission there continues to fall.  On the other hand, the Democrat's approach to Iran is much more in accordance with Europe than the militarism of John McCain.

Why even care about American-German bilateral relations?  Szabo responds:

"Germany is important because it is central in the EU and in NATO. That is not the case of either France or Britain. Britain is central to NATO, but not to the EU, while France is central to the EU, but not to NATO. Neither country plays a central role in both organizations."

Which Democratic candidate would have the most positive influence on relations with Germany?  Szabo gives the nod to Barack Obama, in part, because he represents a generational shift:

"Obama was socialized after the Cold War. During the election, there's been all this talk about experience. But experience with what kind of world? Obama is much more in tune with Europeans because many of them also grew up in this post-Cold War period -- including many young top European politicians, like British Foreign Minister David Miliband, for example. That's why the Germans and Europeans would probably get along best with Obama."

I agree with Szabo. But up to now, Obama (as well as Hillary Clinton) remains committed to the current strategy with respect to the war in Afghanistan.  This could be the seed of future discord with Germany - and Europe - when he takes office in 2009.

A Legacy of Torture

Last week President Bush damaged America's reputation - perhaps irreparably - by vetoing legislation to prevent the Central Intelligence Agency from using "waterboarding" and other "coercive interrogation" techniques. These include beatings and sexual abuse, mock executions, withholding of food and water, and menacing by dogs. The law would have forced the CIA to use only army-approved techniques. The move confirmed President Bush's legacy as "the torture president".

Then the US State Department yesterday removed China from the list of worst human rights violators in its  Human Rights Report for 2007. 

Barbara Lochbihler, the head of Amnesty International in Germany, sees a connection in the two events in her commentary in Die Tageszeitung.  You can read my translation of her op/ed piece in Watching America.

Bush Justice in its Last Throes

Will this nightmare never end? As he leaves office, President Bush sticks his thumb in the eye of world by seeking the death penalty for 6 detainees in the Guantanamo prison camp, three of which the US government acknowledged it tortured. The detainees have been held without due process outside all known laws, and will be tried by kangaroo courts that make a mockery of the US legal system. Can anything be more damaging to America's prestige in the world? 

The world sees America in the dock:

"Everything about Guantanamo is an affront to the values the US says it is defending in the War on Terror. The principle of holding hundreds of people there without charge, for years; the fluid rules of the “military commissions” used for the very few who will be tried; the torture that the Administration acknowledges has been practised on these six: all these are an assault on the US Constitution.

To see the most powerful country in the world scrabbling on the edge of a nearby island, with whose leader it is not on speaking terms, for the sole purpose of evading its own laws and principles, is an embarrassment."

Heinrich Wefing in Die Zeit:

Nichts hat den Vereinigten Staaten im Kampf gegen den Terror so sehr geschadet wie der Verrat an ihren eigenen Prinzipien. Dass ausgerechnet die USA das Recht systematisch verbogen, durchlöchert und missbraucht haben, dass Gefangene gefoltert wurden und die rule of law nur noch nach Ermessen des Präsidenten gilt, das ist ein Triumph für die Feinde Amerikas – und ein quälender Schmerz für seine Freunde. (Nothing has damaged the US in its war on terror more than the betrayal of its own principles.  That the US, of all nations, has systematically bent and misused the law, that detainees were tortured and the rule of law was determined at the discretion of the president - that is a triumph for America's enemies, and a very painful ordeal for its friends.)

But it is not entirely correct to say that this represents Bush justice in its last throes. The lawless principles on display here will most likely persist long after Bush leaves office next year.  Just listen to this chilling interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on BBC Radio. Here Scalia mocks Europeans for opposing the death penalty, declares that the US Constitution does not protect a woman's control over her own uterus, and sees nothing wrong with .... torture.  Scalia - like all Supreme Court justices - is appointed for life.

Watching America

Americans are notoriously uninterested in how people in other countries see them.  Which is why many are shocked when they travel abroad and find out first hand that not everyone views America as God's gift to the world.  For those that like to keep abreast of shifting international perceptions of America I recommend the Web site Watching America.  Here you will find English translations of articles in the foreign press that you will not find anywhere else. Check it out.

You can read my translation of an op/ed piece from Neues Deutschland here.

Condi's Greatest Hits

The Center for Public Integrity has created a valuable tool for documenting the lies of the Bush administration with respect to the run-up to the Iraq invasion.  The database War Card contains more than 935 false statements made on 525 separate instances by Bush administration officials following the WTC attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 to the invasion of March 2003.  You can search the database using key words such as "mushroom clouds" or "yellow cake", or search by the name of the individual actually said the false statement.

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

It turns out that the then Secretary of State Colin Powell made the most false statements (244) during the period, closely followed by President Bush (233), including the false statements Bush made in his State of the Union Address in early 2003. Condoleezza Rice comes in a distance 5th, with only 56 false statements. But for my money, Rice was the most effective liar, and her false statements had by far the greatest impact in the media.  It is worthwhile using this database to re-read all of Condoleezza Rice's false statements: they are impressive in their sheer brazenness.  Here is one her more memorable statements, made in an interview with CNN on September 8, 2002:

“We do know that he (Saddam Hussein) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance — into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

No wonder President Bush has promoted Condoleeza Rice as his most trusted aide: the woman has real talent.

America's Servant Leadership

In 1998 the Southern Baptist convention, America's largest evangelical Christian organization, issued a decree that in a Christian marriage  "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."  A full-page ad reiterating this was later published in USA Today and signed by 120 Baptist ministers, including Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

This evangelical view of Christian marriage mirrors how most neoconservatives see the relationship between Europe and the United States: "Europe must submit graciously to the servant leadership of America."

The fact that Europe refuses to play the role of the submissive wife angers many commentators on the right. Joerg Wolf of the Atlantic Review is annoyed at the neo-con commentator Soeren Kern who, in an op/ed piece in the American Thinker,  rails against the Europeans for their "anti-Americanism".  Kern singles out Germany for special criticism:

In Germany, anti-Americanism is an exercise in moral relativism. Germans desperately want their country to be perceived as a "normal" country, and its elites are using anti-Americanism as a political tool to absolve themselves and their parents of the crimes of World War II. They routinely equate the US invasion of Iraq with the Holocaust, for example, as a psychological ruse to make themselves feel better about their sordid past.

First of all, why do Germans need to "absolve" themselves of the crimes of their grandparents?  Do Americans today need to "absolve" themselves of the crime of slavery, or the annihilation of Native American tribes? Second, I have never heard anyone equate the US invasion of Iraq with the Holocaust, much less "routinely" make this equation. Kern is either deliberately lying or is unbelievably stupid. For Kern America has no option but to ignore the objections of the weak, sanctimonious Europeans and forge ahead with the Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war, torture and open-ended dentention of terror suspects outside the rule of law:

This is the dilemma America faces: If it wants to be popular abroad, it will have to pay in terms of reduced security. And if it determines to protect the American way of life from global threats, then it will have to pay in terms of reduced popularity abroad.

The truth is, there is a hunger for American leadership in the world - a hunger even among Europeans. Moisés Naím writes about this Hunger for America in an excellent Washington Post opinion piece:

Of course, the America that the world wants back is not the one that preemptively invades potential enemies, bullies allies or disdains international law. The demand is for an America that rallies other nations prone to sitting on the fence while international crises are boiling out of control; for a superpower that comes up with innovative initiatives to tackle the great challenges of the day, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation and violent Islamist fundamentalism. The demand is for an America that enforces the rules that facilitate international commerce and works effectively to stabilize an accident-prone global economy. Naturally, the world also wants a superpower willing to foot the bill with a largess that no other nation can match.

My hope is that in this election year Americans will also have a Hunger for America - not the America of the Bush Doctrine, but a hunger for an America that leads by example.

 

"The Government It Deserves"

Just when you think things cannot get much worse.

Yesterday Americans woke up to this excellent piece of investigative reporting by the New York Times: CIA Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations.  The tapes purportedly showed American interrogators engaged in the waterboarding of two detainees - a practice which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions and international law. Apparently the White House was aware of the existence of these tapes, although President Bush has "no recollection" of their existence?  Who ordered their destruction?  Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly discusses the content of the destroyed videos:

So here's what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking, (b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d) eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical "confessions" under duress. This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and law enforcement personnel.

This comes at the end of a week where Americans learned:

1. President Bush has been speaking publicly about "World War III" and a "Nuclear Holocaust" instigated by Iran after he had been informed by his own intelligence agencies that Iran had in fact shut down the nuclear weapons program back in 2003. In other words, he was trying to lie the nation into another war based on a non-existent threat, just as he had (successfully) in 2002-2003. 
2. The American government wants to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp indefinitely outside of all known laws.  We now know that many of these "terrorists" were in fact sold for bounty to the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the "evidence" against them is at best circumstantial.  One detainee, having waited fruitlessly in Guantanamo for six years without any charges filed against him, slit his throat with his own finger nail.

Earlier this week I happened to be rereading the the leaflets of the White Rose group and a couple of sentences from the First Leaflet jumped out at me.  The words are attributed to Hans Scholl (pictured above):

"Nichts ist eines Kulturvolkes unwürdiger, als sich ohne Widerstand von einer verantwortungslosen und dunklen Trieben ergebenen Herrscherclique «regieren» zu lassen....Vergeßt nicht, daß ein jedes Volk diejenige Regierung verdient, die es erträgt!"

(Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct...Do not forget that every people deserves the government it is willing to endure!)

Why did these words resonate so powerfully with me?  You can read all of the Leaflets of the White Rose in both German and English here.

European Fallout from NIE Report On Iran

Less than one month ago President Bush warned that a nuclear weapons program in Iran could well lead to "World War III".  Now the 16 US intelligence agencies have reported that Iran ceased its weapons program more than four years ago.  There is ample evidence that the president was aware of this changed assessment as he was ratcheting up his bellicose rhetoric.  The New York Times puts it rather succinctly in its lead editorial this morning:

"After Iraq and Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, it is hard to imagine that this administration could do any more damage to this country’s credibility. Then it does."

One of the results of this new blow to the credibility of the Bush administration is that its rationale for building missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland is now pretty much undermined.  These stations were ostensibly needed to ward off a threat from Iranian nukes.  Now Malte Lehming asks in Der Tagesspiegel:

Und das US-Raketenabwehrsystem, das in Polen und Tschechien stationiert werden soll, aber die Nato entzweit und Russland erbost? Über dessen Zukunft wird wohl bald neu gestritten. (And what of the missile defense system that is supposted to be stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic, but which has divided Nato and angered Russia? There will be renewed argument about the future of these plans.)

Like many of us, Karl Grobe in the Frankfurter Rundschau is asking the question: what did the president know and when did he know it?

If they did know, then Bush's bellicose talk in October about the danger of a third world war was at the very least reckless. This would mean the plans to install missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as quickly as possible were ideologically motivated rather than rationally justifiable - whereby the ideological cocktail had two ingredients besides the professed explanation: the intention of showing the Russians who's boss once and for all, and the desire to split Europe up into the evil old states and the good new ones. Perhaps the references to Teheran were a means to this end. Regardless of whether it was the result of ignorance - which boils down to recklessness - or superior knowledge, the Bush Administration owes some explanations to its European allies - but not along the lines of those given by Bush on Tuesday that his administration is always right.

Bush does "owe some explanations" to Europe, but first he must explain his incomprehensible actions to the American people.