Eric Umansky

The U.S.'s Quid Pro Quo in Sudan?

In this  morning's LAT, Ken Silverstein repors that the administration and Sudan are now BFF on the counter-terrorism front:

"They've not only told us who the bad guys were, they've gone out and gotten them for us," a U.S. source familiar with Sudan's cooperation said. "Hell, we can't get the French to do that."

Silverstein spends most of his  ink detailing the relationship, and simply raises the possibility that U.S. might go soft on Darfur as a kind of thank-you note. But Silverstein is missing something: The U.S. has already softened its stance on Darfur.

As Darfur-junkies know, the U.S. recently retreated from its labeling of Darfur as genocide. The labeling was just symbolic to begin with. But rhetoric can equal pressure. So why the ease up? 

Meanwhile, the genocide  rowback seems to be a harbinger of  a more substantive sellout.  The  Prospect reports:

An April 25 letter from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis obtained by the Prospect, the administration signaled its desire to strike the Darfur Accountability Act from the supplemental. Couching its reservations in a suggestion that the act may impede a separate peace accord reached between Khartoum and the rebels in south Sudan, the administration is now leaning on its congressional allies to scuttle the bill. "We are hearing that House Republicans will try to pull it out of conference," a well-placed congressional source told the Prospect.

Here's the Prospect's summary of the Accountability Act, which has already passed the Senate:

Led by Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democrat John Corzine of New Jersey, the act appropriates $90 million in U.S. aid for Darfur and establishes targeted U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime, accelerates assistance to expand the size and mandate of the African Union mission in Darfur, expands the United Nations Mission in Sudan to include the protection of civilians in Darfur, establishes a no-fly zone over Darfur, and calls for a presidential envoy to Sudan.

Not all that radical, right? So why is the administration opposing it?

You can argue that this all worth it:  Ignoring genocide is just the price you might have to pay for fighting terrorism.* I'd welcome that debate.

*Assuming there really is a cause and effect here. It's possible that the administration is going soft on Darfur for other reasons. Or a mix of them. Who knows.

Israel to divide Hebron?

Complete with wall. According to Haaretz, that idea is being tossed around. And it would be a shonda.

(FWIW: I'd be really surprised if it actually happened; seems like a plan for a P.R. nightmare.)

Notes from the socialist paradise

From Cubanet:

HAVANA, April 29 - (Richard Roselló / www.cubanet.org) - Twenty-three Cubans who sought asylum in the Mexican Embassy have received prison sentences ranging from tour to 18 years.

Eighteen of the Cubans penetrated embassy grounds February 27, 2002, in a commandeered bus that smashed through the entrance, four scaled the fence and one walked through the damaged gate.

The sentences were made public by Elizardo Sánchez Santa Cruz,, president of the dissident Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation. He termed the sentences harsh.

The would-be asylum seekers were tried in January, but were only advised recently of the sentences meted out.

Paramilitary forces removed the 23 from the embassy grounds before they were able to formally ask for asylum.

Embassy officials had asked Cuban authorities to allow the 23 to return to their homes and not face trials.

Madrasa Misconceptions

We all--and by that I mean, you, me, and Rummy--at least all agree that madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere provide  fodder for jihadism, right? Well, according to a piece in this month's Foreign Policy (not online that I see), we're all a bit off-base.  The story cites a World Bank -funded study  concluding that madrassas aren't really very popular in Pakistan, less than one percent of students attend them a number that's stayed pretty constant for years.  I knowthat's only kinda interesting (at best).  Here's the part that really caught my eye (excerpt from FP):

In fact, the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, a Pakistani NGO , reported in 2004 that it was the country's public schools that promote hatred. The curriculum for many secular subjects, such as Urdu and social studies, is suffused with extremist Islamic teachings. Under pressure to reform the madrasa system, President Gen. Pervez Musharaf has said he will eventually require every religious school to adopt the public school curriculum. But such a move could make matters worse. "Targeting madrasas directly is missing the point. Improving the quality of [public] schools in Pakistan is the most useful reform," says Tahir Andrabi, author of the World Bank report.

I don't look at this as bigotry

But as pure, pure love...

"I don't look at it as censorship. I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children," - Alabama  State Rep. Gerald Allen on a bill that would ban public school libraries from stocking books by or about gays.

(Hatip Andrew)

Nationalism in Contracting

A WSJ piece about the snails-pace of post-tsunamni reconstruction in Sri Lanka and Indonesia mentions this:

Some projects are getting off the ground: Jakarta has chosen the U.S. government's Agency for International Development as lead financer for an effort to rebuild the critical road link along Aceh's west coast. William Frej, the agency's director for Indonesia, said Monday that USAID plans to spend $240 million on the rebuilding.

The USAID-funded road project -- also being backed by Japan, Britain, the Netherlands and other countries -- is expected to be a boon for U.S. contractors, which will receive preferential treatment from the agency. Mr. Frej, the country director, said he expects a U.S. firm to handle about 90% of the work.

Why do we do that? I mean, I  understand the argument: Our  pay taxes should, to the extent possible,  go to our people. (Shorter version: USA! USA!t.) But isn't that kinda  short-sighted? It reminds me of when we froze out some countries from reconstruction in Iraq.  Shouldn't all these contracts be awarded based on good old criteria like which firm would best fulfill it?

What's more, if the ultimate goal is redevelopment then shouldn't extra points be awarded to local firms or at least firms that employ local labor, that is, help people get back to work?

(NB: Are the  best-practices argument and helping the locales notion at least somewhat in conflict? Eh, I don't really think so... but, er, no time  to dilly dally. Back to TP I go!)

Kristof lift-off

Not sure if I'm going to include it in TP, so I'll at least flag it here. Nick Kristof has a solid  column Tuesday on North Korea (with pleasently few on-the-one-hand-isms!):

Now the administration talks about asking the Security Council for some kind of limited quarantine for North Korea. That won't fly, because China and South Korea won't enforce it.

It's more likely that North Korea will continue to churn out plutonium as well as uranium, and perhaps conduct an underground nuclear test. And administration hawks will again consider a military strike on Yongbyon, even though that would risk another Korean War.

North Korea is the most odious country in the world today. [...]

But Mr. Bush seems frozen in the headlights, unable to take any action at all toward North Korea. American policy now is to hope that Mr. Kim has a heart attack.

Selig Harrison, an American scholar just back from Pyongyang, says North Korean officials told him that in direct negotiations with the U.S., they would be willing to discuss a return to their plutonium freeze. Everything would depend on the details, including verification, but why are we refusing so adamantly even to explore this possibility?

The irony is that Mr. Bush's policies toward North Korea have steadily become more reasonable over time. Perhaps by the time he leaves office, he'll finally be willing to negotiate seriously with the North Koreans.

But by then North Korea will have well over a dozen nuclear weapons, the risks of a terrorist nuclear explosion at Grand Central Terminal will be increased, and our influence in Asia will be in tatters.

G.R.O.S.S.

From the Wash Post:

"We just wanted to be together," says Eleanor Amrhein, with her first-cousin husband Donald Andrews Sr. at home in Altoona, Pa. "We knew what we were going to have to go through."

[...]

Their marriage also cast a light on conflicting state laws surrounding the practice, and on such groups as Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws Through Education (C.U.D.D.L.E.) and http://www.cousincouples.com/, which cite new research to encourage acceptance of such unions.

WTF is, ahem, CUDDLE thinking? I'm not referring to what they support; I'm talking about about that name! What other ones were  on the chalkboard, Society to Prohibit Oppression Of [insert  appropriate word starting with "N"]? Cousins United in Matrimony?

UPDATE: OK, OK, it's true: My paternal grandparents are second cousins.

Let Freedom Reign (Saudi Arabia edition)

Geez, I wonder if--between pleas for more oil pumping--the prez will feel  like he as the leverage (or interest) to bring this up:

HRW Press Release
(Washington D.C., April 24, 2005) - U.S. President George W. Bush
should call on Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah to immediately
release three dissidents imprisoned for more than a year for petitioning
for a constitutional monarchy, Human Rights Watch said today on the
eve of the de facto Saudi ruler's visit.

In March 2004, Saudi authorities arrested 13 people in several cities
for circulating a petition calling for a constitutional monarchy with an
elected parliament, and signaling their intent to form an independent
human rights organization. The government released 10 of them after
compelling them to sign an agreement that they would cease their
public petitioning.   

Three of the men - Matruk al-Falih, Ali al-Domaini, and Abdullah al-
Hamid - refused to sign the statement, and remain in prison facing
charges of "issuing statements" and "using Western terminology" in
calling for reform. Their lead lawyer, 'Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, one
of the 10 released in March, has been detained since early November
for statements he made to the press about the case.

Another bet: What are the chances any of the papers raise this question?

Command Cover-up

Slate buddy Phil Carter is one of the few who's flagged the Army report released, ahem, Friday afternoon that somehow cleared top officers of any responsibility in the prisoner torture/abuse scandal. As Phil points out, the issue isn't whether commanders ordered  the abuse:

In the Army's leadership schools for officers and sergeants, the doctrinal manual preaches quite a different result from the outcome of this investigation. Bottom line: commanders (and NCOs) are responsible for everything their unit(s) do or fail to do, period. A commander, especially a general officer, is not just responsible for those things he/she ordered, but for those things that he/she knew about — or should have known about.

Phil then goes on to quote from the Fay report, which  pegged top officers (but  didn't have any power beyond simple naming-and-shaming):

I find that LTG Sanchez, and his DCG, MG Wojdakowski, failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations.

That's  Sanchez, as in Ricardo Sanchez known for such roles as the  top commander in Iraq. To put in simpler terms, let's turn to USAT from back in August:  "PANEL: TOP OFFICIALS PLAYED ROLE IN ABUSE." That's actually a reference to another report--the independent panel headed by former Defense secretary James Schlesinger-- which didn't limit its finger pointing to commanders Iraq. From USAT

Schlesinger, who was named by Rumsfeld to head the panel, said commanders in Iraq bore responsibility for failing to enforce discipline. The responsibility goes up the chain of command "all the way to Washington," he said at a Pentagon news conference.

"These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place," said Tillie Fowler, a former Republican congresswoman from Florida who was on the commission.

Back to Phil's insight: 

Despite these [the reports']  findings, none of the officers responsible for facilitating these abuses will face criminal charges. Or, put another way, the Army IG has wholly disregarded the record evidence before him to arrive at an arbitrary and capricious decision that the senior Army leaders involved should face no legal consequences for their actions. What kind of message does that send to our junior military leaders? What kind of message does that send to the world?

That strikes me as absolutely right--and important. And call me naive (or strident, or boring), but I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged much elsewhere--certainly not in the papers. This report is just another in a stream; it's the Army's official investigation official investigation. And means Sanchez and others are home free.

So the largest military-based scandal of at least of the year and perhaps  the decade--one that generated reams and reams of coverage--has now been swept under the rug. It's yesterday's news as is the empty promise  to hold officers accountable. Which reminds me:

"We will find the truth; we will fully investigate. The world will see the investigation and justice will be served." - President Bush, May 5, 2004.