Thursday, June 27, 2002

[3:01 PM] The New York Times weighs in today with an editorial urging the Bush administration to “withdraw its dangerous attempt to hold [U.N. peackeeping missions] hostage to its paranoia about the court.” The short piece though doesn't mention the deal the Brits got.

# posted 3:23 PM

Tuesday, June 25, 2002

[5:55 PM] U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court just won't go away--or see reason for that matter. This editorial in Newsday sides with the Bush administration in opposing the ICC. It give the same tired argument -- U.S. peacekeepers will be the subject of politicized accusations and prosecutions. But in making this point the piece continues the misinformation slight of hand that U.S. opponents substantiate. "Under court rules, a country is given the first opportunity to try its own citizens, but if it chooses not to prosecute, the court would take over the case. That would be a violation of national sovereignty and its prerogatives," say the editorial. There's just one problem; that's not what the ICC statute says. The key word here is 'prosecute.' Let's look at what the Rome Statute actually says:

Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

The Newsday editorial obscures the difference between investigate and prosecute and incorrectly asserts that if a state chooses not to prosecute then the ICC will. This is just plain wrong. I can understand if Newsday hasn't read the statute but there's no excuse for the Bush administration's continual obfuscation of this fact.

# posted 6:05 PM

Saturday, June 22, 2002

[11:46 AM] Colombian president-elect Alvaro Uribe wrapped up his visit to the U.S. this week meeting President Bush and promising like every Colombian president does, to stay committed to fighting drug trafficking. When will a Colombian president come to the White House and say "look when you get grip on your country's huge appetite for cocaine, we'll make some real progress" ?

This New York Times story describes some of Uribe's adventures in Washington. The article makes the mistake, which is not easily excused, of calling U.S. aid to Colombia, Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia was developed by the Colombian government as a comprehensive plan to help that country's social woes--not just drug trafficking or insurgency.

Here is the State Department's fact sheet on Plan Colombia. You can read Plan Colombia at the Colombian government's web site.

# posted 11:59 AM

Friday, June 21, 2002

[10:10 AM] The United States rightly received criticism recently when it threatened to refuse to take part in U.N. peacekeeping missions if its troops were not exempted from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. This New York Times story says “Britain and France have made it no secret that they are against any resolution curbing the reach of the new court. They, and all other members of the European Union, have ratified the treaty creating the court.” But according to this story in the Independent, Britain arranged for immunity for its troops before they were deployed in Afghanistan as peacekeepers. The Brits explain that this was because “the force was under overall US command and because of the turbulent situation in Afghanistan.” I’m not sure how that justifies seeking immunity from ICC prosecution. The Independent article quotes a U.S. official as saying “they seem to have the same reservations about international tribunals [as the U.S.].” Britain, however, has at least ratified the ICC.

# posted 10:20 AM

Thursday, June 20, 2002

[10:04 AM] This report from NPR's Morning Edition goes much deeper into U.S. strategy in Colombia than this very weak Newsweek article that I mentioned Monday.

An excellent source for background materials on the Colombian conflict is at the Center for International Policy.

# posted 10:14 AM

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

[1:21 PM] Colombian president-elect Alvaro Uribe was apparently tight-lipped after his meeting with Kofi Annan.

# posted 1:23 PM

Monday, June 17, 2002

[3:56 PM] This Newsweek article tries to deal with the complexities of Colombia’s civil conflict in less than 700 words. It does a miserable job. The hook is supposed to be the really tired and unsophisticated question of “will Colombia become another Vietnam?” Reading the story online, the top headline reads “A ‘Little Vietnam’?” But halfway in the author writes “Most experts dismiss the notion out of hand, and Uribe [president-elect of Colombia] himself has ruled out the deployment of U.S. combat troops for now. Even prominent critics question the likelihood of a full-blown Vietnam-style commitment while continuing to express grave doubts about the current direction of U.S. policy.”

The article tries to build arguments on one side that contend that further U.S. military involvement will go nowhere toward helping Colombia achieve peace. But other than a couple of misleading one-liners there is no nuance as the story unsuccessfully tries to lay out the road ahead.

The most egregious oversight in the article — which in its first paragraph likens president-elect Alvaro Uribe to Ariel Sharon — is why Uribe is in the United States this week. He will meet with Bush administration officials and presumably try to sway congressional opinion toward loosening restrictions on U.S. military aid so that it can be used for counterinsurgency efforts and not just counternarcotics operations. But what is the main purpose of his trip? To talk with Kofi Annan about U.N. mediation in Colombia! The article conveniently leaves that out.

# posted 3:58 PM

[2:03 PM] “Why do they hate us?” “Negative values” contribute to anti-American feelings abroad. An article in Rand Review details research being done by Vladimir Shlapentokh, a professor at Michigan State University to systematically study various countries’ anti-American sentiments. Anti-Americanism provides a nice scapegoat for countries negative value needs according to Shlapentokh. He continues,

“It’s difficult to find another ideology that offers a scapegoat as good as anti-Americanism…Anti-Americanism will play an important role for several decades. The American government should be well aware of these attitudes toward the United States and understand how different these attitudes are in various countries around the world.”

# posted 2:14 PM

[11:37 AM] The World Food Summit: Five Years Later just concluded last Friday with the declaration of the goal of halving the number of the world's hungry by 2015.

Some facts:

* One in five people in the developing world is chronically undernourished.
* Fifty-five percent of the 12 million child deaths each year are related to malnutrition.
* Nearly 30 percent of the world's population suffer from some form of malnutrition.

Read U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman's statement here.

This piece piece argues that “[w]ithout a drastic reorientation of policies, it will be impossible to meet the 2015 goal, and hunger may actually increase.”

# posted 11:57 AM

Friday, June 14, 2002

[4:49 PM] The Dutch are really upset about “The Hague Invasion Act” a.k.a. the American Servicemembers' Protection Act passed by the Senate last Friday. Click here to listen to an NPR story about it.

# posted 4:53 PM

[12:34 PM] The International Crisis Group warns that Zimbabwe is threatening to erupt in political violence if there isn't progress toward new elections soon. The report says

“While Zimbabwe has slipped off the radar for most policy makers and the media, its crisis is deepening. Party-to-party talks between the ruling ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change initially made progress but collapsed in mid-May. Now serious internal fissures threaten to radicalise the MDC. Its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, has begun to speak of switching to mass public protests within weeks if there is no movement toward new elections. All indications are that this would draw a sharp response from the government and set off a cycle of much more serious domestic conflict. Zimbabwe's neighbours and the broader international community must pressure ZANU-PF to end the violence and return to the negotiating table. The objective should be some form of a transitional administration, which reforms the constitution and prepares for new elections.”

ICG is an international organization whose mission is “to anticipate, understand and act to prevent and contain conflict.” I first learned of ICG when I heard its president, Gareth Evans, speak at a conference in The Hague two years ago. One comment that struck me regarding ICG’s mission to anticipate conflict, was an anecdote that Evans related. He had written an op-ed warning of potential violence in a certain region (which he didn’t name). He got an interesting rejection from a “major American newspaper” (which he wouldn’t name). The editor replied that his piece was well written and interesting, but that there wasn’t really anything going on there right now – no blood. Try again when things explode. Fields Report speculates that Evans was referring to Macedonia but has never asked Evans about it. Which newspaper rejected the op-ed? There are too many possibilities.

Note: Evans’ anecdote has been an inspiration for the mission of Fields Report – to write about international issues that fall below the radar screen of the U.S. media or are generally given short shrift.

# posted 1:00 PM

[10:10 AM] The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is reveling in having two analysts featured on Generation X’s favorite “antiestablishment” news source, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. My Proliferation News email update contained the beaming note “In an unprecedented second appearance of a Carnegie expert on Comedy Central, Deputy Director of the Non-Proliferation Project Jon Wolfsthal talks about dirty bombs while Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s ‘The Daily Show’ takes notes.” Actually, the show took the clip from elsewhere and played it during the Headlines portion of the show. You can watch it here.

Live in the Daily Show studio last night (no link from Comedy Central yet) however, was Joseph Cirincione, Director of Carnegie’s Nonproliferation project. What other comedy talk show interviews think tank geeks?

Note: Fields Report is a member of Generation X and admits to watching the Daily Show religiously, but gets his news from other sources as well. Fields Report also admits to working for a think tank where his geek status has not been independently confirmed.

# posted 10:16 AM

Thursday, June 13, 2002

[3:00 PM] Hundreds of thousands of Cubans marched through Havana yesterday to declare socialism “untouchable” and to decry the policies of the Bush administration toward the island nation. Here's an excerpt from Fidel Castro's speech:

“I don’t think that a fascist regime can be established in the United States. Serious mistakes have been made and injustices committed in the framework of its political system --many of them still persist-- but the American people still have a number of institutions and traditions, as well as educational, cultural and ethical values that would hardly allow that to happen. The risk exists in the international arena.

The power and prerogatives of that country’s President are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods.

I do not intend to exaggerate or dramatize. But, the truth is that there’s a growing tendency to question and override the very existence and the role of the United Nations.”

Read the entire short (by Castro standards) speech in English here or in Spanish here.

# posted 3:07 PM

[1:59 PM] Someone get Donald Rumsfeld a cell phone.

# posted 2:01 PM

[12:54 PM] Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act allowing the use of force if a U.S. citizen is held by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The United States has a needless fear that servicemembers serving abroad may become the target of politically motivated charges of war crimes and such. This fear is totally unjustified and the ICC has a provision that is routinely ignored by U.S. opponents that would prevent this from happening. The Rome Statute of the ICC does not allow prosecutions if the country of which the accused is a citizen is already investigating the alleged crime. So if Iran accused a U.S. soldier of killing Iranian civilians living in Afghanistan, presumably the U.S. would investigate the matter. By doing such a simple task, the accused soldier would automatically be exempt from ICC prosecution.

On a related note, Israel has also announced that it will not ratify the ICC. Parroting the U.S. excuse Attorney-General Elyakim Rubinstein said Israel “fear[s] the politicization of the ICC, not because we have anything to hide." This is interesting in light of the event that took place during the IDF’s incursion into Jenin. A U.N. fact finding team was never allowed into the area to investigate Palestinian claims that a massacre took place. Israel’s behavior demonstrates why the ICC has its principle of complimentarity – if a country is unwilling to investigate charges of war crimes, in this case, then the court has jurisdiction. Israel would avoid prosecution by the ICC if it conducted its own investigation into the events at Jenin. Opponents of the ICC in the U.S. and Israel hope that you ignore those little safeguards in your rush to hysteria. Put Cherie Booth Blair in the non-hysterical category.

# posted 12:58 PM

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

[2:32 PM] Is it me or is the story about the three Saudis planning a USS Cole type of attack arrested in Morocco getting very little play? This AP item titled “New al-Qaida Warnings Cited Overseas” mentions: French authorities rounding up five people  suspected of providing assistance to alleged shoe bomber Richard Reid; German officials said they had received intelligence of a possible Al Qaeda plot to shoot down civilian airliners; Indian officials claimed they had evidence of an imminent Al Qaeda attack on financial institutions in Bombay; and of course the Monday announcement of the May arrest of Jose Padilla. But no mention of three suspected Al Qaeda operatives who were planning an attack exactly like a previous Bin Laden-backed attack. I must be missing something.

# posted 2:42 PM

[11:40 AM] The U.S. media is still too concerned about dirty bombs to give much attention to the apprehension of three suspected Al Qaeda members in Morocco. The men are Saudis and were allegedly plotting to bomb ships in the Strait of Gibraltar using a dinghy filled with explosives. The men were arrested in May and the wives of two of the men were arrested yesterday. Is it coincidence that the announcement of the arrests -- which was carried out with the help of several "friendly countries" -- also took one month as did the announcement that the United States had arrested Jose Padilla a.k.a. the "dirty bomber"?

Al Jazeera reports that Saudi, Moroccan, and U.S. intelligence officials will take part in the investigation and that the suspects may be moved either to Guantanamo or Saudi Arabia.

# posted 11:50 AM

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

[10:21 AM] The always informative Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace answered questions about weapons of mass destruction and dirty bombs in an online chat through the Washington Post this morning. Read the transcript here.

# posted 10:23 AM

Monday, June 10, 2002

[9:48 PM] All the big headlines are about dirty bombs. The revelation that New York-born Abdullah al Muhajir a.k.a. Jose Padilla was plotting with Al Qaeda to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States brings up one big question in my mind -- and it has nothing to do with dirty bombs. Again an American citizen with no intelligence training converts to Islam and is able to get close to senior Al Qaeda personnel. Again, why couldn't the CIA do this? The Washington Post reports that Muhajir is married to an Egyptian. But I have not read whether he even speaks Arabic. If he does not, do I even need to write the obvious?

Back in October, a "former intelligence official" commented to the Post that "[i]t would take years for us to penetrate or buy our way into those groups [like Al Qaeda]." Apparently it takes an amateur slightly less time.

# posted 10:14 PM

[12:03 PM] Some interesting items on Colombia today. Colombia is the kidnapping capital of the world, with some 3,000 people taken and held for ransom last year. The Washington Times checks in with an obvious editorial urging the Bush administration to be “be wary of any collaboration between paramilitaries and the Colombian armed forces or government.” And next week, president-elect Alvaro Uribe will meet with Kofi Annan to discuss possible U.N. mediation in Colombia after running a campaign in which he promised to take a hard line with the rebels.

# posted 12:04 PM

Friday, June 07, 2002

[2:54 PM] Did you know that there is already a UN observer force in Kashmir? This BBC story looks at options for a British-American peacekeeping force to monitor the line of control in Kashmir and mentions UNMOGIP (UNITED NATIONS MILITARY OBSERVER GROUP IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN). It has an intimidating force of “44 military observers, supported by 23 international civilian personnel and 41 local civilian staff.”

# posted 3:09 PM

[11:43 AM] This essay in the New Republic suggests that after 9/11, U.S. policy toward Pakistan hasn’t evolved, it has simply returned to where it was during the Cold War. The essay is hard on Musharraf and the Bush administration for ignoring Pakistani “malfeasance.”

Stephen Cohen of Brookings is quoted in the essay saying “[t]he administration doesn't have a plan, just a crisis management policy.” And it’s a poor, slow to react crisis management policy at that. But the article glosses over (as does the administration) the root of the problem – Kashmir. The Bushies like to address the symptoms rather than the root cause, as they are currently doing with the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Sure it’s a difficult, seemingly intractable situation. But that is no excuse for not trying. The essay flippantly suggests that Musharraf is insincere about “the Kashmiri struggle for liberation,” as if he is just a plain and simple thug. To believe that you have to believe that Musharraf and Pakistani militants use Kashmir as an excuse for violence; that if the Kashmir situation did not exist, they would be simply marauders looking for a way to inflict violence on India.

I don’t think the author nor the Bush administration believe that. But as we move farther and farther away from the Cold War dynamic of U.S. foreign policy, we must acknowledge the root cause of so much violence. If the United States can get in bed with Uzbekistan and Pakistan to further its agenda vis-à-vis the war on terrorism, it surely can do so to help resolve long-standing struggles like that over Kashmir or the Palestinian situation.

First however, there has to be a doctrinal shift from simply addressing the symptoms during a crisis like the current one in South Asia, to investing sufficient political capital to solve the actual problem.

# posted 11:47 AM

Thursday, June 06, 2002

[12:48 PM] Afghan commander General Baba Jan complains that the loya jirga process is not Islamic, as he drinks vodka and Pepsi with his guests.

# posted 12:50 PM

[12:37 PM] This March report by the International Crisis Group noted that “the international community - particularly the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France - will need to expand the mandate and scale of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There is widespread desire within Afghanistan to see the peacekeeping force expand its reach beyond simply patrolling Kabul. The failure of major NATO powers to summon the political will to take such a step risks seeing Afghanistan again slide toward factional fighting.”

# posted 12:39 PM

[10:55 AM] Human Rights Watch -- a “nongovernmental organizations hiding behind [a] high-minded name” as Mortimer Zuckerman wrote in U.S. News & World Report recently – has just released a briefing paper titled “Afghanistan: Return of the Warlords.” According to the report

“Afghans are increasingly terrorized by the rule of local and regional military commanders - warlords - who are reasserting their control over large areas of Afghanistan... A mission by Human Rights Watch to southern Afghanistan in late May 2002 uncovered credible evidence of the reemergence of figures associated with the Taliban as well as the extremist Islamist movement led by former Afghan Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in several southern provinces.”


The report blames the United States in part for cooperating with certain local warlords and pointedly criticizes the U.S. and U.N. for not expanding security forces outside of Kabul.
The report says in its conclusion

“[t]he need for expanding peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan is not going to go away. Recent events, and the deteriorating security situation detailed in this report, demand that the members of the U.N. Security Council, and particularly the United States, revisit and reevaluate their refusal to commit resources to expanding security throughout Afghanistan, both in the south and to other areas of Afghanistan.”


The Bush administration may not want to run the risk of peacekeepers getting in the way of the hunt for Taliban forces but it is clear that warlords will only undermine the goverment that comes out of the loya jirga in certain parts of Afghanistan. Additionally it sends a negative message to the international community that the U.S. is fully committed to the war on terrorism, but less than enthusiastic about the future of Afghanistan.

# posted 11:07 AM

Wednesday, June 05, 2002

[11:17 AM] Jon Stewart got the best of a clueless Ashleigh Banfield last night on his show. Stewart was joking that since Brian Williams was set to take over for Tom Brokaw in 2004 that MSNBC would have an anchor opening -- of course hinting that the supremely underqualified Banfield should make her play. Banfield missed that point entirely and thought that he was referring to himself as a possible replacement. The sad thing is that he would be less of a joke than she would.

Roger Ailes of Fox on Banfield "If you turn down the sound, it's like watching Tom Mix movies. It's all about her, performing the news. She's a news actress, and that's terrifying. It's like a theater actor can tell when an actor breaks character: you know when they're not in the moment.''

# posted 11:23 AM

[9:08 AM] The “pre-condition” to negotiation/mediation has become ubiquitous now in the current India-Pakistan crises. It was transferred over from Israel where it was routinely trotted out by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the context “Arafat must do x before we negotiate y.” It is now being employed by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the roadblock to negotiating an end to the Kashmir dispute.

Legitimate issues aside, the “pre-condition” is telling about the party that employs it. It signals that the party is not serious about a negotiated settlement. It is useful to set conditions on how negotiations or mediation will happen. But there is a certain insincerity to condition those talks even happening on events that will be hard to demonstrate have taken place or will be likely to continue because elements are outside the control of the other party.

The same game was played out during the last eight months of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Sharon “conditioned” any talks on Arafat cracking down on Palestinian militants. No matter how duplicitous one might think Arafat is, some of this is going to be out of his control. And has been demonstrated time and time again, it only takes one “rogue” to carry out a suicide bombing and Sharon’s fears and rationale for the “pre-condition” are realized.

Now Prime Minister Vajpayee is employing the same tactic. No negotiation until General Musharraf stops incursions in to Indian-controlled Kashmir. It seems there may be some dispute over whether India has examined intelligence closely enough to determine whether Pakistan had indeed taken steps to stop incursions. This would seem to lend credence to the idea that India is not serious about negotiations and is looking for ways to sabotage them before they begin.

This is not to say that India does not have a right to protect its borders and to put some of that burden on the source of the incursions. But obviously those incursions are related to the dispute that Pakistan is much more eager to resolve through mediation than is India. So entwined in India’s “pre-condition” for negotiation may be the solution to the problem in the first place.

# posted 9:33 AM

Tuesday, June 04, 2002

[5:30 PM] Accoring to Middle East Newsline (subscription required, but this story may pop up on the free section later this week) Israel is supplying India with unmanned air vehicles to help with reconnaissance in the Kashmir region. Israel already exports $900 million a year to India. The item notes that India is on an arms-buying spree spurred by a "new procurement policy by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee...[and] Western countries are curbing efforts to sell weapons to New Dehli. Sweden said it will not allow Bofors to compete against Israel to bid to supply 200 self-propelled 155 mm artillery systems to India."

The question is will more advanced reconnaissance help India feel protect againsts insurgents crossing the line of control and thereby shift tensions in Kashmir?

# posted 5:41 PM

Monday, June 03, 2002

[10:59 AM] Echoing the U.S. diplomacy theme in South Asia is this LA Times op-ed.

# posted 11:01 AM

[10:05 AM] This working paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace presents four essays about U.S. policy in South Asia after 9/11. The essay by Lee Feinstein says there is consensus among "leading specialists and policymakers” that “[t]he most effective nonproliferation measure would be for India and Pakistan, with discrete assistance from Washington, to resolutely devise a process to address the half-century-old dispute over Kashmir.”

He continues: “The key goal for the foreseeable future is to work behind the scenes with both countries to establish that process for addressing the Kashmir dispute. Washington must be prepared to take a more active, if still discrete, role in moving India and Pakistan toward that process. The outlines of what an ultimate Kashmir settlement might look like are less important at this time than establishing a way to get there.”

I think this is point that is missed by the general discussion about the current tensions. The U.S. media especially tend to give a little background to the dispute but then focus almost exclusively on the implications of tensions between India and Pakistan – two nuclear weapons states. We should rightly be concerned about hostilities between two nuclear powers, but a lot of the hysteria tends to reduce both countries to thuggish hotheads with no nuclear doctrines. Even if such hysteria is somewhat warranted, and it is understandable to some degree, once tensions subside the Kashmir issue will still need to be resolved.

Whether some sort of quiet mediation comes out of Washington or Russia, it is essential that this root of the issue be addressed and not simply the “nuclear angle.”

# posted 10:09 AM

Saturday, June 01, 2002

[9:39 AM] I wrote a couple of months ago that it seemed that the current administration prefered to sit on its hands during international crises versus actively engaging diplomatically. There would be simplistic pronouncements from the White House to “stop the violence” to the Israelis and Palestinians and phone calls to Delhi and Islamabad but no real efforts to put high-level administration officials on the ground quickly to help resolve the situations.

With the second go around of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan in recent months, it seems that maybe the White House is really starting to change its strategy. Before I could criticize the administration for not sending to South Asia a higher-level envoy than deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, President Bush announced that Donald Rumsfeld would also visit the region (of course Jack Straw has already gone and returned, but it didn’t seem to ease tensions).

In the opinion piece I wrote, I was also critical of the Bush administration’s handling of North Korea and Colombia. Colombia’s new president takes office in August. Despite his hawkish views toward the conflict there, expressed during the campaign, Colombia’s president-elect has already opened the door to restarting peace negations this time including right-wing paramilitaries. President-elect Uribe has called on the United Nations to help in facilitating the talks. What will be the role of the United States besides pumping more money into Colombia to try to stem the flow of drugs coming out of that country? President Bush promised to focus on Latin America in his foreign policy. So far that has proven a hollow promise even if his is cut slack because of the war on terrorism. Washington should actively engage in efforts to negotiate peace in Colombia. The violent situation there kills thousands of innocent people every year. A negotiated settlement can only help reduce narcotics trafficking – a prime source of guerrilla financing.

In North Korea, after stumbling around for a policy for the majority his time in office and officially declaring an “Axis of Evil,” President Bush is now waiting for a date when North Korea will welcome special envoy Jack Pritchard. This would represent the first substantive talks between the two nations since the Clinton administration. The question is why did it take over a year?

It seems though that slowly but surely, the Bushies are coming around to this diplomacy thing. And that can only be good.

# posted 9:45 AM