[5:35 PM] Thomas Friedman asks what's going to happen to oil prices during war with Iraq. That's something that hasn't been discussed much amidst all the strategic planning that may or may not be taking place over how to oust Saddam Hussein.

Friedman writes

Don't kid yourself: If prices skyrocket because of a war in the Persian Gulf, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria and others will cut back their output and keep prices high to milk the moment for all it's worth.

Really? Isn't OPEC a cartel. And isn't that what cartels do -- fix prices. Are we just supposed to be shocked that cartels control prices on products they monopolize in order to maximize revenue? Some interesting ideas nonetheless.

[3:00 PM] The White House is trying to soothe Brazilian nerves after treasury secretary Paul O’Niell warning that Latin American countries needed to reform themselves so that international aid “does some good and it doesn’t just go out of the country to Swiss bank accounts.” This article goes on to state that “[r]ecent figures showing stable bank deposits also suggested there had been no significant capital flight.”

During the period of July 29-30 the Brazilian real lost 8.4% of its value and is down substantially this year against the U.S. dollar. Why does the U.S. care so much about Brazil and not Argentina? Because the Brazilian economy is much larger and U.S. banks are at greater risk there. Still, not very encouraging from the “put Latin America first in foreign policy” administration.

[2:28 PM] Two Russian media outlets report that a Japanese militant was part of a group of around 100 Muslim fighters who crossed from Georgia into on July 29th. The Japanese man is reportedly a convert to Islam and was among a group of several mercenaries. The Stratfor report reminds that “Muslim militants are not limited to Arabs or South Asians.”

[9:49 PM] Houston, we have an image problem.

Foreign perceptions of the United States see Americans as “arrogant, self-indulgent, hypocritical, inattentive, and unwilling or unable to engage in cross-cultural dialogue.”

These images are not restricted to the Middle East but are pervasive in Europe as well according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. This shouldn’t be surprising to any American who travels abroad, especially to Europe (but apparently that is a very tiny minority of Americans).

The report goes on to make all sorts of recommendations to remedy this situation such as increasing “customized, ‘two-way’ dialogue, as contrasted to conventional one-way 'push-down' mass communication.”

I see part of the root of this problem much simpler (but probably no less easier solved). The U.S. is a nation proud to eschew integrating outside views. Look no further than the president’s most recent trip to Europe, in which he was taken to task for appearing so petulant about his foreign surroundings. Irritable from jet lag (despite being the fitness guru/early-to-bed president) he joked about his fatigue being a sign of age – in the presence of the much older Jacque Chirac – remarked to forced laughter that he’d heard there was good food to be found in France, and poked fun at an American reporter for speaking French to the president of France (President: “The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental...I'm impressed. Que bueno. Now I'm literate in two languages.”)

Image problem? You don’t say.

[4:25 PM] When it comes to Cuba and U.S. policy, it’s never about Florida; it’s about promoting democratic change and better human rights. And it’s typically heresy to draw any parallels to countries that the United States has relations with – let’s just randomly pick…China (forced abortions, no UN family planning funds; you get the idea). We’re all adults and we can all handle the duplicity of this policy even if we don’t agree with it. “No it’s not about Florida.” But let it stop there.

White House hardliners like Karl Rove and Otto Reich (who are against easing travel restrictions for Americans to Cuba) want to make it about human rights. In a Sunday New York Times article, White House spokewoman Claire Buchan says that “[t]he president’s Cuba policy part of his overall foreign policy of promoting freedom and democracy around the world.”

We all know that this isn’t true and from China to Uzbekistan to Saudi Arabia, the administration deals with governments just as repressive if not more so than Cuba. So we have economic and strategic interest at stake. Fine. Can we stop with the political bullshit that this is about human rights? Let’s stick with the wink-wink that it’s not about Florida. But go no further.

Here are excerpts for Human Rights Watch’s annual reports on China and Cuba.

China:

The leadership turned to trusted tools, limiting free expression by arresting academics, closing newspapers and magazines, strictly controlling Internet content, and utilizing a refurbished Strike Hard campaign to circumvent legal safeguards for criminal suspects and alleged separatists, terrorists, and so-called religious extremists. In its campaign to eradicate Falungong, Chinese officials imprisoned thousands of practitioners and used torture and psychological pressure to force recantations. Legal experts continued the work of professionalizing the legal system but authorities in too many cases invoked ‘rule of law’ to justify repressive politics. After the September 11 attacks in the United States, Chinese officials used concern with global terrorism as justification for crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Cuba:

The Cuban government's intolerance of democracy and free expression remained unique in the region. A one-party state, Cuba restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Although dissidents occasionally faced criminal prosecution, the government relied more frequently on short-term detentions, house arrest, travel restrictions, threats, surveillance, politically-motivated dismissals from employment, and other forms of harassment.

Cuba's restrictions on human rights were undergirded by the country's legal and institutional structure. The rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and of the press were strictly limited under Cuban law. By criminalizing enemy propaganda, the spreading of "unauthorized news," and insult to patriotic symbols, the government curbed freedom of speech under the guise of protecting state security. The authorities also imprisoned or ordered the surveillance of individuals who had committed no illegal act, relying upon laws penalizing "dangerousness" (estado peligroso) and allowing for "official warning" (advertencia oficial). The government-controlled courts undermined the right to fair trial by restricting the right to a defense, and frequently failed to observe the few due process rights available to defendants under domestic law.

Let’s just call it a draw and say both countries are repressive. The only difference is one enjoys full diplomatic relations the U.S. and the other, for the better part of four decades is a pariah in our backyard.

[1:53 PM] A point of consternation from the American standpoint is why there are such sympathies among Europeans toward the Palestinians. U.S. officials and pundits alike seemed baffled at how so many Europeans can tolerate Yasir Arafat when he is viewed by the U.S. as the obstacle to peace. Perhaps Europeans see the conflict a little for balanced than it is portrayed in the U.S. media – that is an oppressed people living in an occupied land struggling for existence against Israel.

However, the U.S. media tends to portray the entire conflict as Israel versus Palestinian suicide bombers. There seems to almost be a line of reasoning that if one portrays innocent Palestinian civilians and their plight, the implication is condoning of suicide bombers. I am not a particular aficionado of the game of “Spot Bias in the Media.” But I do notice a relative imbalance of stories about the plight of ordinary Israelis versus the ordinary Palestinians caught up in a region of conflict. My general litmus test is to count the number of times the phrase “suicide bomber” appears in stories which purport to be not about the conflict per se, but about the effects or the lives of ordinary Palestinians. That said, this story in the New York Times about Palestinian-Americans living in the West Bank is very good. Suicide bomber count: 2.

[12:35 PM] In an earlier post, I off-handedly mentioned that the New York Times article on former Argentine president Carlos Menem taking a bribe from Iran was nothing new. It was reported in the Argentine newspaper Pagina/12 months ago. Here is a piece in Forward drawing conclusions about why the Times, which had the information for months, sat on the story. Forward had also (click here and here) previously reported on the case.

[10:32 AM] Correcting an earlier item -- it turns out that the anti-torture convention is flawed.

[9:49 AM] September 11th has forced Americans to confront more acutely issues of race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality (many times bringing out the worst). Misconceptions and ignorance of Islam has been prevalent. As I've written here before, it is disturbing when journalists equate Muslim with Arab with Middle East (and generally with terrorist). And journalists aren't the only guilty ones.

This otherwise interesting Washington Post article about the some of the bizarre briefs filed by Zacarias Moussaoui caught my attention. The author's own analysis of some of Moussaoui's writing is whimsical and speculative and seems to eminate from a lack of understanding of Islam or at least a willingness to buy into a lot of stereoptypical thinking about it. But what actually made me pause for a second was this line:

His pleadings, sometimes filed at a rate of five or six a day, are handwritten. They are not always grammatical and his spellings are frequently phonetic. At times he reverts to spellings -- Americain for American -- that remind the reader that he grew up in France as a French citizen of Moroccan descent.

Some would say it's a minor, irrelavant point, but why do media sources feel they must include "of Moroccan descent" in their description of Moussaoui? Is it some sort of predjudice against Arabs creeping out ("sure he was born in France, but deep down, he's just another one of those Arabs.")? Am I nitpicking? I just can't see how being of Moroccan descent somehow affects the French spelling of American. Is this revealing about the author's feelings or has it just become standard to refer to Moussaoui as being of Moroccan descent? I go with the former.

[4:56 PM] Sometimes the U.S. government makes it extremely difficult to explain U.S. foreign policy to those from other countries. “Inherently flawed” is the buzz phrase for administration types -- as in Kyoto treaty, landmine treaty, ICC, ABM treaty, etc. Today comes word that the U.S. is trying to block a vote on a U.N. plan to enforce a convetion on torture. The “problem” is with allowing independent observers into U.S. prisons would infringe upon states’ rights. Then there’s the whole issue of the “detainees” at Guantanamo. I’m not sure what the problem is there, but U.S. officials are none too happy. But at least we’re not hearing that the convention is “flawed.”

[1:11 PM] Argentine presidential hopeful (and former president) Carlos Menem is really mad about allegations that appeared in the New York Times yesterday that he took a $10 million bribe to cover up Iran's role in the bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Menem told CNN that it was “a gross falsehood; it's a lie. I shall hire a law firm in the United States to initiate a lawsuit for damages and injury, for slander and insults, for defamation. This time, I won't remain silent.” Menem doesn't mention suing the Argentine newspaper Pagina/12 (nor does the Times, the Miami Herald, or CNN) , which reported the same allegations nine and half months ago on September 30th.

[10:35 AM] Iranian President Mohammed Khatami says that the U.S. does not have the right to choose leadership for the Iraqi people. Sure it does and the U.S. is going to choose a leader for the Palestinians as well. Honestly, when will these world leaders stop whining and just allow the U.S. to put who we want where we want. We've got a great track record.

[4:04 PM] “Our government's actions…have special meaning after the tragedy of Sept. 11. They warn that even as we justly defend our land and our people against terrorists, we must avoid the excessive fear and zeal that lead to destructive intervention betraying our most fundamental principles.”

This is Stephen Weissman writing about the CIA’s involvement in the death of Congo’s only democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba (although couldn’t the first combined sentence refer to a number of issues in this country’s past?). Weissman recently obtained classified U.S. government documents showing the CIA’s role in undermining Lumumba and among other actions

“joined Belgium in a plan...to engineer a no-confidence vote in Lumumba's government, which would be followed by union-led demonstrations, the resignations of cabinet ministers (organized by Ndele) and Kasavubu's dismissal of Lumumba.”

[9:59 AM] Here is a very nice op-ed that appeared in the Financial Times. It is critical of the "Bush Doctrine" --which the author says is not truly Wilsonian -- and its selectivity in calling for democratic reform (the Middle East) while ignoring autocratic thugs where U.S. strategic interests are at stake -- "Scepticism about the Bush administration's true commitment to the spread of democracy is strengthened by the tendency of the US right to support ruthless dictatorships when these are seen to serve US interests." More on this later.

[12:18 PM] Representatives from 25 countries are meeting in New York today ahead of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa next month. The meeting is to try and bridge differences and develop negotiating strategies before the summit. Visit the summit's website here.

[11:54 AM] “You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.” So says our president. The Moroccans are apparently with us. They were just trying to establish a surveillance post on that little uninhabited island (large rock) off its coast. But Spain is ready for war. There are no sheep there but apparently there are goats.

[12:22 PM] Say what you want about John Walker Lindh -- and he's brought out the ugly side of American cultural bigotry ("Affluent childhood leads to interest in Islam") aside from his criminal deeds. Some of the inflamed passions thrown about have no logic. Last night the parents of Johnny Spann, were all over the news expressing their dissatisfaction with Lindh's maximun 20-year sentence. On the News with Brian Williams, they blame Lindh for Spann's death

They were carried down to Qala-i-Janghi prison, and there's where he met Mike, and he refused to help Mike at all. He refused to help the United States of America. He wouldn't tell them anything. He never once said, 'Hey, I'm an American. If you all help me, if you all get me out of here, I'm in the wrong place.' He never said that. You know, Mike Spann would have died for him that day if just had told him, 'Look, I'm an American. Help me. Get me out of here.'

Dogde Billingsley, a war photographer who was at the prison uprising, pointed out in a presentation that I saw earlier this year that had Lindh shown any cooperation with Spann, he most certainly would have been killed by the other captives. That may seem obvious, but Billingsley asked a relevant question -- why were the two CIA agents conducting the interrogations out in the open in front of other captives? Even if Lindh had wanted to cooperate -- and given the cirucumstances, he probably did -- the way the interrogations were handled would have made it suicidal for him.

[4:44 PM] The U.N. caves on U.S. peacekeeper immunity from the ICC.

[12:39 PM] Finally, a well-reasoned opinion piece in favor of U.S. cooperation with the ICC. And in the Wall Street Journal no less. Of course it’s subscription only online. Here’s an excerpt:

[T]he Bush administration is threatening to yank U.S. support from this and all peacekeeping operations around the world if U.S. soldiers are not granted immunity from the ICC. The administration fears that, absent such immunity, anti-American judges will haul our soldiers into the dock.

Court supporters argue these worries are unfounded. For an American to be tried, a panel of eminent international judges would have to charge that he or she had carried out genocide, “systematic and widespread” crimes against humanity or war crimes. Only if the U.S. justice system itself then refused to investigate these alleged attacks would the ICC be able to proceed.

Until the court becomes functional and proves itself, neither side will be able to prove its point. But while the Bush administration focuses on the risks posed by the court, it has devoted virtually no time considering the ways the ICC could benefit the U.S. ...

With the permanent International Criminal Court no more than a week old, it is far too early to assume it will become the virulently anti-American institution that administration officials fear. The best way for the U.S. to guard against this is to reserve self-fulfilling judgment and work with the court to supply advice on personnel and procedures.

What one can say with certainty is that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes will abound in the next decade. And the ICC -- because it is permanent and not ad hoc -- can play an indispensable role punishing and incapacitating war criminals and thus deterring future atrocities -- atrocities that typically come back to haunt the U.S.

[9:58 AM] “Wait a minute. Some of my best friends are black.”

From the president’s Wall Street remarks Monday:

Q. Yes, Mr. President, the N.A.A.C.P. is meeting this week in Houston, as you probably know, and there's been some criticism that you've not attended their conventions since the 2000 campaign. How would you respond to that and respond generally to suggestions from some critics that your civil rights record in the administration is not a stellar one?
A. Let's see, there I was sitting around the leader - the table with foreign leaders, looking at Colin Powell and Connie Rice. Yeah.

[8:53 AM] Nicholas Kristoff writes a nice piece titled “Bigotry in Islam -- And Here” in the New York Times today admonishing against anti-Islamic prejudice. He particularly takes to task those who claim Islam is inherently violent and evil like the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and the Rev. Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I have a couple of criticisms though. Kristoff begins the piece writing “The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and has contributed remarkably few great scientists or writers to modern civilization. So it's time to defend Islam.”

The subsequent paragraphs make it clear that he means Arab, Islamic states. This is a common tendency of many American journalists—to equate Arab, Islamic, and Middle Eastern. For that matter, what is the Islamic world? Is India, which has large Muslim population, part of the Islamic world? What about Bangladesh?

Here’s another weak spot. Playing devil’s advocate Kristoff writes “Of the 26 countries torn by conflict in the year 2000, 14 have large Muslim populations.” Now come on. Any graduate student in the social sciences can tell you that correlation doesn’t imply causation.

“In times of stress, even smart and sophisticated people tend to be swept up in prejudice,” Kristoff writes in conclusion. Then he writes that “[h]istory suggests that focusing on the moral deficiencies of other peoples simply underscores our own.” I don’t buy the former assertion that lets individuals off the hook for bigotry because of certain circumstances. The latter sentence gets it right. Bigotry is bigotry under any circumstances and that does indeed reflect moral deficiencies that are not excusable because of “stress.”

[5:09 PM] Here’s another (lame) article presenting the case for U.S. peacekeeper exemption from the ICC. Again though this seems to be written by someone who is intrigued enough by the current situation to weigh in on U.S. (Washington says that a signature would be the first step on a slippery slope) versus European (“Europeans, whose memory of war crimes is deep, anything that codifies the rightful conduct of war is ipso facto desirable”). But the author doesn’t seem intrigued enough to take a close look at the Rome Statute.

“Europeans say the U.S. could protect its interests by signing the treaty while negotiating exemptions…Europeans say safeguards prevent such an eventuality. (The ICC, for example, is meant to take up cases only if national authorities fail to investigate complaints.)” Not only is the ICC meant to take up cases not investigated or prosecuted by the home country of the accused, it is specifically written into the statute establishing the court.

Here’s what the State Department’s fact sheet on the ICC says:

The ICC is required to defer to the national prosecution unless the court finds that the state is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution (Article 17). However, by leaving this decision ultimately to the ICC, the treaty would allow the ICC to review and possibly reject a sovereign state's decisions not to prosecute or a sovereign state's court decisions not to convict in specific cases.

The Bush administration has made it quite clear that it fears frivolous accusations or war crimes from America-haters. But so much of the discussion about this jumps right on the slippery slope without considering some of the absurdity of it. The court is meant to try war crimes. Even if you believe anti-U.S. feelings are going to breed a spate of accusations (which is another point not discussed in the leap to get onto the slippery slope), you really have to believe that the mechanism of the court is so flawed that an incident that would universally not be considered a war crime would spring the court into action against some hapless solider.

That’s a stretch and maybe that’s why so many of the pundits weighing in on it skip over completely any discussion of the actual working of the court. Of course there’s the more likely possibility that they can’t be bothered to read the Rome Statute for themselves.

[10:09 AM] The Arab Human Development Report “warns that Arab societies are being crippled by a lack of political freedom, the repression of women and an isolation from the world of ideas that stifles creativity.” You can read the here.

[11:59 AM] Slate’s daily war on terror roundup, looks at how the New York Times and Washington Post have revised their analyses of why Bush says Arafat must go. Initially the papers reported Bush took that stance and revised his June 24th speech because of “new Israeli intelligence that Arafat had authorized a $20,000 payment to the terrorist Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.” Follow-up articles by the Post and Times, however, see Bush as being swayed by his own moral principles rather than the payment.

Regardless of what chain of events influenced the late changes in the speech, I have a bigger question. Why would the $20,000 payment, which would show Arafat directly financing terrorist be an issue? Remember Ariel Sharon’s May visit to Washington. He brought with him a dossier full of documents linking Arafat to terrorism. The administration seemed to think they were legit. So why would this new revelation of a $20,000 payment suddenly open Bush’s eyes? This is not so much a question suspicious of Bush’s motives, but a question for the Times and Post.