Search - Menendez

By Trudy Rubin/The Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT If President Obama has any strategy for a decent exit from Afghanistan, he is certainly keeping it a secret. The latest White House effort to jump-start peace talks with the Taliban in Doha, ended in an embarrassing fiasco. Then, last week, the White House once again floated the idea that it would pursue a “zero option” in Afghanistan, meaning Washington would leave no residual force behind after US troops exit in 2014. If this is the new US exit strategy, it is destined to fail. Some say floating the “zero option” is only a tactic to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to be more co-operative with Washington. Others say the leak reflects Obama’s deep desire to wash his hands of the whole Afghan mess, and therefore could actually become American policy. I asked Ryan Crocker, one of America’s premier diplomats and a former ambassador to Afghanistan, what he thought, and his anger was palpable as he responded: “If it’s a tactic, it is mindless; if it is a strategy, it is criminal. “Nothing could encourage the Taliban more. The Pakistanis (who are helping the Taliban) will dig in harder. It will send Karzai in completely the wrong direction. “It invokes memories of the early 1990s,” Crocker added, referring to the time when the United States abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, leaving behind a failed state that became a haven for terrorists. “It’s as if we’re telling the Afghans, ‘We’re tired, we’re going home...’” I agree with Crocker. Yet it’s clear that Americans are fed up with the long and costly war in Afghanistan. Obama hasn’t made the case for a continued troop presence and probably believes there would be little political or strategic cost to a zero option. If so, he is wrong. The importance of a residual military presence (of about 10,000 troops) is more about symbols than numbers. The main function of the troops would be to train and advise Afghans, but they would also symbolise a long-term US commitment to the country’s stability. Toward that end, the United States signed a bilateral strategic partnership accord with Kabul last year, negotiated by Crocker. A zero option would undercut that accord and signal that Washington is ready to abandon its commitments. It would weaken congressional and international pledges to fund Afghan forces and economic development over the next decade. Perhaps this doesn’t matter, you might say. Why should we be helping a corrupt Afghan government that feeds on Western aid? Answer: If that government collapses, the country will plunge into civil war, with all of Afghanistan’s neighbours backing their proxies. Pakistan will support the Taliban, while Iran, Russia, and India will back other factions. Afghanistan would once again become a failed state and potential terrorist haven, as it did in the 1990s. “We have seen this movie before,” said Crocker. Only this time, the movie would have dangerous new actors and far grimmer pyrotechnics than it did two decades ago. The blowback from terrorists within Afghanistan would threaten a highly unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan next door. And Washington would no longer have Afghan bases from which to carry out its favoured antiterrorism policy: dispatching drones. Administration officials insist that the president is still undecided about the zero option. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, James Dobbins, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Obama “is still reviewing a range of options” and “has not made a decision about the size of a US military presence after 2014”. But as the old saying goes, not to decide is to decide. Afghans are already making their decisions based on the belief that Obama wants a zero option. “The lack of clarity on this point has led to too much hedging in the region,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat-New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “Afghans who may otherwise be interested in building a fledgling democracy want to know that they will not be abandoned by the United States, as the Taliban claims they will be.” Afghans smell betrayal in the air. US officials insist they won’t negotiate a deal with the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. Yet, the Taliban, acting as if it were the real Afghan government, insists it wouldn’t talk with the American “puppet” Karzai. No wonder Karzai is furious. In 1971, Henry Kissinger famously scribbled the phrase “We need a decent interval” in the margin of a briefing book that dealt with the withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam. The phrase referred to his efforts to ensure there would be sufficient time between a US troop exit and a likely communist takeover in Saigon - so that the Nixon administration wouldn’t be blamed for the defeat. That “decent interval” spanned two years, between the 1973 Paris peace talks with Hanoi and the 1975 fall of Saigon. Unless Obama commits to, and leads, a more coherent diplomatic strategy - with talks that involve all the regional players, not just Washington and the Taliban - there may be no “decent interval” before Afghanistan collapses. It could happen before the end of his second term.   ♦ Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her by email at [email protected]

HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and HE the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani with CIA chief John Brennan. QNA/Agencies/Washington HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani met the US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano here yesterday. During the meeting, they reviewed scopes of co-operation and other issues of mutual concern. HE the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani and the members of the delegation accompanying the Emir also attended the meeting. The Emir also met US Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew yesterday. They reviewed bilateral relations, particularly in the economic and financial fields. He also held talks with Speaker of the US House of Representative John Boehner,  Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Robert Menendez. On Tuesday evening the Emir met US President Barack Obama. They discussed a range of issues including Syria, Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Afghanistan. Meeting with reporters in the Oval Office, Obama said the two leaders talked about ending the “slaughter” in Syria, while touching upon Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s disregard for his own people and his eventual “removal.” Speaking through an interpreter, the Emir called the Syrian situation “a horrific tragedy” and suggested that Assad’s government “leave power” to staunch the bloodshed. Both leaders said they wanted to see Egypt succeed economically and politically. The Emir said the stability of Egypt was important “to the whole Arab world,” and also key to maintaining peace with Israel. “For Qatar, it’s very important for us to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and to see also a good relationship between Arab countries and Israel once a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement is reached,” said the Emir. Obama said he urged Qatar to provide support for Palestinian Authority President Abbas in his negotiations with Israel.” The president also thanked the Emir for personally helping bring about a dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government. “These are all very difficult issues and neither of us are under any illusions that they will be solved overnight, but what we agree with is that if our two countries are communicating frankly ... and pursuing common strategies that we can be a force for good for the entire region,” Obama said.         BELOW; 1)HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani with US Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew.   2) The Emir with Democratic leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.  

Reuters/Washington John Kerry’s nomination as President Barack Obama’s new secretary of state sailed through the US Senate on Tuesday, as his fellow senators voted overwhelmingly to confirm him to replace Hillary Clinton as the country’s top diplomat. The vote was 94-3 in favour. The two senators from Texas, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, all Republicans, were the only no votes. Kerry, the senior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, voted “present.” Kerry’s confirmation as the first new member of Obama’s second-term national security team had been expected. The Senate agreed to vote five days after his hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That panel, which he has chaired for the past four years, voted unanimously by voice vote earlier on Tuesday to back his nomination. Kerry, 69, a five-term senator and losing presidential candidate in 2004, is expected to be sworn in as secretary of state this week. Clinton’s last day at the State Department is tomorrow. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said before the roll call that a heavy vote for Kerry would send a “strong message” to the rest of the world that he had the firm backing of the entire US. Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the committee, praised Kerry’s testimony. “I thought that Senator Kerry acquitted himself exceptionally well in the hearings that we had last week,” he said on the Senate floor. Obama has named two other nominees for his second-term national security team: former Senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defence and John Brennan, his counterterrorism adviser, as CIA director. But both are expected to face much tougher questioning than Kerry. Hagel’s confirmation hearing is today, and Brennan’s is set for Feb 7. Kerry, beaming, was warmly congratulated by his fellow senators after the vote. As the son of a diplomat and decorated Vietnam War veteran, they said, he has been preparing to be secretary of state all of his life. At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Kerry was visibly moved by applause and praise from his fellow senators. “I’m honoured beyond words,” he said, before making brief remarks about the importance of the committee moving forward on issues like Middle East peace. Kerry, who has been in the Senate since 1985, said he will make a final speech in the chamber on Wednesday. “What a privilege to work with you and now to work with you in a different way. I thank you very, very much,” Kerry said.  

Reuters/Washington Senator John Kerry won the unanimous support of the chamber’s Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to replace Hillary Clinton as President Barack Obama’s new secretary of state. The full Senate was expected to confirm Kerry later yesterday, setting in motion a special election for his Massachusetts Senate seat. The five-term senator and losing presidential candidate in 2004 has broad support from fellow Democrats as well as Republicans in the Senate. He is expected to be sworn in as the top US diplomat later this week. In a signal of the strong support for Kerry, committee members signed a resolution praising Kerry’s work in the Senate before their unanimous voice vote to support his confirmation. “It is a lengthy recitation of an incredible career here in the Senate, some tremendous accomplishments on behalf of the nation and a recognition of how you are going to be an incredible secretary of state,” said Senator Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, who will replace Kerry as committee chairman. A smiling Kerry came into the room shortly after the vote, to enthusiastic applause from the committee. Moved by their support, he said, “I’m honoured beyond words,” before making brief remarks about the importance of the committee going forward on issues like Middle East peace. Kerry, who became a US senator 28 years ago, told the committee he would make a final speech on the Senate floor today. “What a privilege to work with you and now to work with you in a different way. I thank you very, very much,” Kerry said. Transportation chief to step down US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said yesterday he planned to resign, marking the latest departure from President Barack Obama’s Cabinet. “I have let President Obama know that I will not serve a second term as secretary of the US Department of Transportation,” LaHood said. LaHood, a Republican and former Illinois congressman, brought a bipartisan element to the Democratic president’s team. LaHood said he would stay on until his successor is confirmed by the Senate. Obama has been under pressure to bring more women and minorities into his Cabinet.  

Seattle Police Department Sgt. Paul Gracy (left) seizes a missile launcher from Mason Vranish which Vranish had purchased outside a gun buyback programme in Seattle on Saturday. Police said they would determine if the weapon can be legally owned by the public, in which case the weapon would be returned. If possession of the launcher is illegal, police said, Vranish will receive a gun buyback voucher. Reuters/Washington A bipartisan group of US Senators has agreed on an immigration reform plan that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11mn illegal immigrants in the US but only after borders are better secured. The plan, unveiled a day before President Barack Obama is to give a policy speech on immigration in Nevada, tackles the most explosive issue - how to deal with the millions of foreigners living in the US illegally. Under the group’s proposal, undocumented immigrants would be allowed to register with the government, pay a fine, and then be given probationary legal status allowing them to work. Ultimately, they would have to “go to the end of the line” and apply for permanent status, according to the document by eight Senators including Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The White House praised the group’s efforts but warned that Obama would not be satisfied until there was meaningful reform. The president “will continue to urge Congress to act until that is achieved,” a White House spokesman said. Under the plan, no one would be given more permanent legal status until new measures were implemented to stem the flow of immigrants across US borders, a critical concession to conservatives and border state members of congress. The path to citizenship would also be contingent on a new enforcement measure to track the status of immigrants who may have overstayed visas, the document said. The proposal resembles previous immigration bills - including a 2007 measure that died in Congress in part because of disagreement over the timing and balance of border-enforcement measures versus granting citizenship to the millions of undocumented immigrants. But advocates noted that this time, the climate was ripe for immigration reform. “Conservatives, law enforcers and businesses are calling for immigration reform. You did not see that in 2007,” said Ali Noorani, the executive director with the National Immigration Forum advocacy group. Democrats have considered future citizenship for undocumented immigrants a “bottom line” for a bill, as Schumer said on Sunday at a news conference. Republicans, in turn, have tended to stress border security. While the framework released yesterday includes something for all these groups, translating the four-page outline into legislation with a chance of passing is likely to prove challenging, notwithstanding the bi-partisan makeup of the group and support that came early yesterday from US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Rubio’s involvement has helped give the plan credibility among some Republicans. His proposals have attracted support from influential conservatives, including former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly. Last year, Rubio had a hard time getting conservatives on board for allowing “dreamers” to stay here - children of illegals, many of whom have spent most of their lives in the US, are in the country through no fault of their own and attend US schools. Rubio is a Cuban-American who is often mentioned as a presidential contender. He is a favourite of the Tea Party conservative movement.        

Reuters/Washington   The US has aggressively ramped up its use of financial sanctions this year to pressure Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, but a measure that takes effect in February could have the most dramatic impact yet, according to the Treasury Department’s top sanctions official. Starting February 6, US law will prevent Iran from repatriating earnings it gets from its shrinking oil export trade, a powerful sanction that will “lock up” a substantial amount of Tehran’s funds, David Cohen, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the US Treasury Department, said on Thursday. “Iran’s oil revenues will largely be shackled within a given country and only useable to purchase goods from that country,” Cohen said in a speech to the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, a group that has advocated tougher sanctions. A year ago, the US Congress passed a law requiring buyers of Iranian oil to make significant cuts to their oil purchases, or risk being cut off from the US financial system. The new measure, developed by Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, and Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, was part of a second sanctions package passed by Congress in August. Along with a European Union embargo on Iranian oil, the sanctions have cut Iran’s oil exports by more than 50%, costing Iran up to $5bn per month, and led to a plunge in Iran’s currency, the rial, Cohen said. The US and European Union are hoping the economic pressure will force Iran to address international concerns about its nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes. “We are committed to increasing the financial pressure on Iran as long as necessary, and we will continue to look for innovative ways to make the Iranian regime bear the financial costs of its behaviour,” Cohen said. The US has so far granted sanctions waivers to importers for their oil dealings with Iran because the countries have substantially reduced their purchases. Starting in February, a foreign bank handling transactions related to Iranian oil sales must ensure the payments are held in an account within the importing country, and are used only for permissible trade between that country and Iran. If banks transfer Iran’s oil earnings beyond their borders, they will risk losing access to the US banking system, Cohen explained. “Virtually all countries that purchase oil from Iran run a significant trade deficit, meaning the value of their oil imports from Iran is greater than the value of their exports to Iran,” Cohen said. “As a result, this provision should lock up a substantial portion of Iran’s earnings in each of these countries,” he said, noting US officials have been meeting with international buyers to explain the new law. Japan, which counts on Iranian oil but has slashed its purchases in compliance with sanctions laws, has expressed concern about the new provision taking effect in February. The US Senate agreed to a third package of sanctions last week that would add similar restrictions on payments for Iran’s natural gas exports, and makes clear that sales or transfers of precious metals to Iran are not permissible. It is part of a defence bill that may be finalised by the Senate and House of Representatives by the end of the year, after which it would land on President Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law.   Yemen foils jailbreak by Qaeda men Yemeni guards foiled an attempted prison break by 25 Al Qaeda convicts yesterday, some of them considered as high risk, a security official said. “The guards from Aden central prison foiled an escape attempt with the discovery of an 8m long tunnel dug by the 25 detainees,” the official told AFP. “Another 2m and the tunnel would have reached a market near the prison” in the Mansura district of Yemen’s main southern city, he added. The detainees included “some dangerous elements who were to be transferred to Sanaa,” the official said. Aden prison houses many suspected or convicted members of Al Qaeda which has been particularly active in the south and southeast of Yemen. In December last year, 12 Al Qaeda prisoners escaped from the jail, just months after 60 escaped from a prison in the port of Mukalla, killing a guard. In June this year, five Al Qaeda prisoners broke out of a jail in Hodeida on the Red Sea coast.  

By Barak Barfi/Tripoli With the creation of a new government, Libya’s leaders should finally be able to focus on organising the transition from the authoritarian state that they inherited to the more pluralistic one they envisage. But are they really able and willing to achieve that goal? In the United States, the debate on Libya has focused on what steps its government should take next. Senator Robert Menendez argues it “must move quickly to embrace democratic reform,” while international development specialists, such as Manal Omar of the US Institute for Peace, believe that success lies in the cultivation of a vibrant civil society. These views, however, overlook Libya’s unique history, and treat Libya as though it were just another Third World country in need of generic solutions. In fact, remedying the country’s ills requires building strong state institutions. Since Libya achieved independence in 1951, it has been a fractured state. Rulers relied on loyal tribes and narrow cliques to prop up their regimes. Under a monarchy that led the country from 1951-1969, King Idris’s relatives and inner circle ran roughshod over fledgling state institutions. More interested in reigning than in governing, state institutions withered under Idris’s neglect.  These trends were exacerbated after Muammar Gaddafi overthrew the king in 1969. Frustrated with a bureaucracy reluctant to implement his political vision, Gaddafi bypassed traditional institutions and claimed a direct dialogue with the country’s population. The new Libyan leader created an intricate hierarchy of political organisations that were advertised as empowering citizens, but which in reality only reinforced their subservience to his autocratic regime. As Libyans tired of Gaddafi’s revolutionary rhetoric, he decided that a new organisation was needed to stir popular support. In 1977, he established committees that he dubbed the “watchdogs of the revolution.” The committees formed their own courts, assumed sweeping arrest powers, took over the media, and purged officials who resisted Gaddafi’s will. This led to a split between the state’s official institutions and Gaddafi’s shadow revolutionary apparatus. Gaddafi clearly preferred the latter. In 1979, he resigned from his official posts to assume the vague role of “Commander of the Revolution,” explaining that “the revolution must be separated from the authority of the state.” This led to what the scholar Moncef Djaziri described as a division of formal and informal authority. Gaddafi’s strategy stunted the growth of state institutions, because, like Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China, it implied subordinating their development to the needs of an all-embracing vision of transformation. Economic planning reflected his populist policies and foreign adventures, rather than any focus on stability and sustainable growth. Instead of relying on state structures to govern, he leaned on a small coterie of minions and members of his tribe. As a result, state institutions decayed. Beginning in 1986, the Libyan Central Bank ceased publishing the annual statistical reports that economists and specialists need to formulate coherent policies. Frustrated by his population’s political apathy, Gaddafi frequently announced his intention to dissolve all government ministries and transfer their responsibilities to municipalities. Today, Libya’s state institutions exist merely to extract the country’s vast oil wealth and distribute it via subsidies. In a state that embodied the whim of its leader for 42 years, the rule of law does not exist. Explaining why he helped spearhead a 1993 military coup attempt, Air Force officer Mohamed Bashir Salah said, “We have neither a state, nor laws, nor a constitution.” Indeed, even the military, which in many Third World countries is the strongest state institution, was marginalised under Gaddafi. The revolutionary committees’ attacked it for being “a traditional fascist institution.” Gaddafi declared his desire to disband the army on several occasions, and its role was so insignificant that it played almost no part in defending the regime during the eight months of fighting that overthrew him. American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks noted that Libya has “few formal decision-making structures,” and called it an “opaque regime in which lines of authority are deliberately blurred to obscure power structures and mitigate accountability.” Today, Gaddafi’s successors on the National Transitional Council (NTC) are perpetuating the dualistic authority that he created. Politically inexperienced and lacking strong leadership, they have proved unable to impose discipline on the myriad militias that sprang up during the revolution. These rogue units have exacted vengeance on Gaddafi supporters and alienated significant segments of society. If the NTC cannot assert its authority, the council risks the emergence of a movement nostalgic for Gaddafi and the security that his regime provided. Unlike their neighbours in Egypt, Libyans are not clamouring for the elections deemed by many Westerners to be of paramount importance. Instead, they have drawn on a patience rooted in their traditional political apathy. Few political parties have emerged, and there is little popular demand for them. Activists have instead focused on drafting a new constitution that would empower state institutions.  Libyans understand that the NTC needs time to build a new country on the ruins of the one that Gaddafi destroyed. That daunting task begins by developing the state institutions required to respond to Libyans’ needs. * Barak Barfi is a research fellow at the New America Foundation.