|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
|
Why Hillary Clinton Has Always Been a Republican In the first of a series of profiles, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair chart the formative years of Hillary Clinton. Watch her as she zigzags from Nixon campaigner and vote-fraud investigator in 1960 to Goldwater Girl and President of Young Republicans at Wellesley to her internship for Gerald Ford and campaigner for Nelson Rockefeller. Witness her reaction to the student protests at Yale and the demonstrations at Grant Park during the Democratic Convention in 1968. Learn how she and Bill vowed to "remake" the Democratic Party--using the Nixon model HRC learned about as a member of the House impeachment staff. And much more! Plus: David Price on anthropologist Andre Gunder Frank, the FBI and the Bureaucratic Exile of a Critical Mind.
|
|
Today's Stories July 14 / 15. 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Ralph
Nader Robert
Fantina Ron
Jacobs Conn
Hallinan Dr.
Susan Rosenthal, MD John
Ross Anthony
DiMaggio Missy
Comley Beattie Dr.
James J. Murtagh, Jr. Kenneth
Rexroth
July 13, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Winslow
T. Wheeler Imran
Khan Todd
Chretien Sam
Husseini Dr.
Herman Mindshaftgap Anthony
Papa D.
K. Wilson David
Michael Green Website
of the Day
July 12, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Robert Jensen Dr. Susan Block Joshua Frank John Chuckman Corporate Crime
Reporter Mike Whitney Nicola Nasser Richard Rhames William S.
Lind Website of the Day
July 11, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Richard
Neville Debra
McNutt John
V. Walsh Scott
Liebertz George
C. Wilson James
McEnteer Philip
Rizk Johnny
Hazard Dave
Lindorff Website
of the Day
July 10, 2007 James
Ridgeway Tariq
Ali Javed
Hussein William
Blum Ralph
Nader Jay
Arena Anthony
DiMaggio Eva
Liddell Jerry
Kroth Alice
Woodward Nikolas
Kozloff Paul
Shannon Website
of the Day
July 9, 2007 Fidel
Castro Diana
Johnstone John
Walsh Uri
Avnery Ramzy
Baroud John
Ripton Stephen
Lendman Bruce
Jackson Michael
Donnelly Doug
Giebel Website
of the Day
Saul
Landau Ismael
Hossein-zadeh Fawzia
Afzal-Khan John
Ross Pat
Williams Rannie
Amiri Farzana
Versey Bart
Gruzalski Paul
Rockwell Reza
Fiyouzat Monica
Benderman Kenneth
Couesbouc Dave
Lindorff Charles
Modiano Missy
Beattie Dal
LaMagna Jean
Gerard Anne
Dachel Ron
Jacobs Poets'
Basement Website
of the Day
Daniel
Ellsberg Gary
Leupp Harvey
Wasserman Omer
Subhani Marjorie
Cohn Christopher
Brauchli David
Michael Green China
Hand Renee
Saucedo Corporate
Crime Reporter Website
of the Day
July 5, 2007 Andy
Worthington Mike
Stark Norman
Solomon Michael
Schwartz Susie
Day Jacob
Hornberger Bill
Hatch Don
Fitz John
Wright Website
of the Day
July 4, 2007 St.
Clair / Frank Vijay
Prashad Carl
G. Estabrook Ron
Jacobs David
R. Dow Claudia
Johnson William
S. Lind Gregory
Afghani Paul
Edwards D.
K. Wilson Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Thomas
Jefferson Cindy
Sheehan Website
of the Day
Bill
Quigley Gary
Leupp Lynda
Brayer Richard
Thieme Helen
Redmond David
Swanson Jacob
Hornberger Ayesha
Ijaz Khan Franklin
Lamb Ray
McGovern Kevin
Zeese Dave
Lindorff Website
of the Day
Andy
Worthington Nina
Serrano Jack
Hirschman Paul
Craig Roberts Bill
Williams Anthony
Papa Sonja
Karkar Louay
Safi Anthony
Gregory Monica
Benderman Website
of the Day
June 30 / July 1, 2007 John
Ross Alan
Farago Peter
Quinn Christopher
Brauchli Robert
Fisk Uri
Avnery Judith
Siers-Poisson Saul
Landau Abbas
Zaidi Ron
Jacobs Ralph
Nader Donald
Worster Mike
Whitney Jacob
Hill Kenneth
Couesbouc Missy
Beattie Mohammad
Kamaali Ramzy
Baroud Leonard
Peltier Phyllis
Pollack Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
June 29, 2007 St.
Clair / Frank Brian
Cloughley Patrick
Cockburn Gilad
Atzmon Dave
Lindorff Jennifer
Matsui / Kevin
Zeese Daniel
Klimek David
Michael Green John
Chuckman Website
of the Day
June 28, 2007 Bill
Quigley Vijay
Prashad Margaret
Kimberley Winslow
T. Wheeler Philip
Rizk D.
K. Wilson Bill
Williams Mahmoud
El-Yousseph Richard
Rhames Paul
Krassner Website
of the Day
Marjorie
Cohn Dr.
Susan Rosenthal, MD Alan
Farago Carla
Blank Matthew
Abraham Sunsara
Taylor Russell
D. Hoffman Robert
Weissman Sen.
Russ Feingold Paul
Buchheit Website
of the Day
June 26, 2007 Jonathan
Cook Ralph
Nader Corporate
Crime Reporter Ron
Jacobs Martha
Rosenberg John
Chuckman Denny
Haldeman Anthony
DiMaggio Stephen
Fleischman William
S. Lind Website
of the Day
Paul
Craig Roberts Jennifer
Loewenstein Bob
Anderson Robert
Pollin Patrick
Cockburn Eva
Liddell Dan
Bacher Larry
Atkins Mark
Brenner James
Rothenberg Website
of the Day June 23 / 24, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Jeff
Taylor Oren
Ben-Dor Gary
Leupp Robert
Fisk David
Rosen Russell
Mokhiber Alison
Weir Robert
Fantina D.
K. Wilson Nicole
Colson Stephen
Soldz, Steven Reisner and Brad Olson Dave
Lindorff Benjamin
Dangl Michael
Dickinson Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
June 22, 2007 Andy
Worthington Sherwood
Ross Eliana
Monteforte Robert
Weissman Richard
Rhames Christopher
Brauchli Ramzy
Baroud Ehud
Krinis, David Shulman and Neve Gordon David
Michael Green Kathryn
Webber Website
of the Day
June 21, 2007 Peter
Linebaugh Natsu
Saito Ron
Jacobs Saree
Makdisi John
Stauber Scott
Liebertz Tom
Clifford Robert
Jensen Michael
J. Smith Jeb
Sprague Website
of the Day
Omar
Barghouti Andy
Worthington Margaret
Kimberley Robert
Weissman Russell
D. Hoffman Rannie
Amiri Stephen
Lendman Dave
Lindorff David
Swanson Anne
Dachel Website
of the Day
June 19, 2007 Ralph
Nader Dr.
Shepherd Bliss Bill
and Kathleen Christison Jeff
Leys Dave
Zirin Chris
Floyd Ben
Terrall Anthony
Papa VIPS Linda Flores Website
of the Day
John
Ross Paul
Craig Roberts Martha
Rosenberg Norman
Solomon Don
Santina Isabella
Kenfield James
Brooks Eva
Liddell Sam
Husseini Akiva
Eldar Website
of the Day
Alexander
Cockburn John
Halle Robert
Fisk Andy
Worthington Uri
Avnery Fred
Gardner Saul
Landau P.
Sainath Missy
Comley Beattie Alan
Gregory Walter
Brasch Website
of the Weekend
June 15, 2007 Alan
Farago Andy
Worthington Michael
Simmons Franklin
Lamb Gary
Leupp John
Ross Website
of the Day
June 14, 2007 Michael
Donnelly
Faisal
Kutty Harry
Browne Charles
Jonkel Steven
Higgs Bruce
Dixon Bruce
K. Gagnon
Website
of the Day June 13, 2007 Glen Ford Marjorie Cohn Bill Christison Charles Jonkel Silvia Cattori Richard Gott Firmin DeBrabander William S. Lind Keith Rosenthal Website of the Day June 12, 2007 Jeffrey St.
Clair Paul Craig
Roberts P. Sainath Ralph Nader Omar Waraich Dave Lindorff Harvey Wasserman Malini Johar
Schueller Ramzy Baroud Website of
the Day
June 11, 2007 Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig
Roberts Uri Avnery Norman Solomon Eva Liddell Rannie Amiri Rachel Voss Christopher
Brauchli D. K. Wilson Website of
the Day
Subscribe Online
|
Bastille
Day Weekend Edition By Order of the President ...Executive Orders and Coercive DiplomacyBy CHINA HAND By Presidential Executive Order, we're living in a state of national emergency.
Betcha didn't know that. And in early 2006, the Bush administration considered issuing an Executive Order commanding the world either to be with us or against us in an effort to destroy North Korea through a financial blockade. Betcha didn't know that either. Executive Orders come in various flavors: In addition to the plain vanilla Executive Order, there are National Security Presidential Directives (issued with the advice of the National Security Council), Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and Presidential Decision Directives. Executive order authority may even be delegated to government departments, it seems. Maybe even to John Bolton. Betcha didn't know that. For the Bush administration, executive orders appear to be the preferred method for making lemonade from the cornucopia of foreign policy lemons it has on its hands. Consider this application of executive order power in a nuclear imbroglio involving North Korea in 2003, demonstrated by this press release from the State Department (released on April Fools' Day! somebody at State's got a sense of humor):
Mmmm...the sweet smell of "confusion". That's bloody chum to a contrarian blogger like myself. Allow me to explain: The most egregious nuclear proliferator on the face of this planet is Pakistan, in the person of A.Q. Khan. Khan's network provided nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Much as President Musharraf would like to claim that Mr. Khan's efforts were after hours and on his own dime, the North Korean transaction involved not the payment of cash to Mr. Khan's private bank account but the delivery of North Korean No Dong missiles and technology to the Pakistan government. Awkward. Makes it look like the Pakistan government was proliferating nuclear weapons technology-the type of activity that, if Kim Jung Il's experience was any guide, would provoke the formation of a worldwide alliance to destabilize and if possibly destroy the culprit's regime, at the very least cut off its supply of cash and cognac, etc. etc. etc. But since Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror, the nature of the transaction-and the character of the crime-were neatly reversed. As the Bush administration saw it, the offense was North Korea's supply of the missiles to Pakistan...and the fact that they got paid for them with nuclear weapons equipment and technology was of secondary importance. Actually, it was no laughing matter. The State Department had to step up and pre-emptively define the transaction as a missile purchase and sanction Khan's laboratories itself. Otherwise, Pakistan would have been vulnerable to much more serious, legislative sanction-a total cutoff of aid under the Solarz Amendment--as a proliferator. So the State Department made a valiant if "confusing" effort to present the sanctions against Khan's laboratory as an ad hoc punishment for the Pakistani government's buying the missiles-because "the end-user of the missile purchase cannot be sanctioned under the Arms Export Controls Act" (according to Nicholas Kralev's report, Pakistan purchases N. Korean missiles, in the March 31, 2003 Washington Times)...and we've got to sanction somebody, after all! So let's just sanction this Pakistani nuclear lab over here. There, that's all better. The primary public executive order governing North Korean sanctions is E.O. 12938 the same one that establishes the state of national emergency, interestingly enough. If I'm reading the order correctly, Treasury and State are delegated to carry this policy out. The Secretary of State makes the determination, and the president decides not to issue a waiver for national interest reasons, State places a sanctions notice in the Federal Register. Kralev's report in the Washington Times stated that the sanction against Pakistan in the North Korean missile/nuke boondoggle was enacted through a "State Department Executive Order" signed by none other than John Bolton. Let us pause a moment to reflect on the appalling vision of John Bolton possessing executive authority to issue sanctions. I have been unable to find another reference to State Department executive orders, which makes me hope the report was simply a misunderstanding-or a typical piece of Boltonian self-aggrandizement propagated by his eager enablers in the press. In passing, I should point out that apparently violence was done not only to logic and common sense, but to the careers of people who tried to do their job and investigate and combat Pakistan's proliferation activities. Australian journalist Luke Ryland makes a persuasive case for analyst Richard Barlow, who claims he was hounded out of government because he insisted on investigating Pakistan's proliferation activities while at the CIA and Department of Defense. Beyond coddling Pakistan, the No Dong boondoggle highlighted another problem with implementing an aggressive strategy against North Korea-North Korea has no business ties with the United States, so any sanctions are strictly symbolic. For this reason, Executive Order 12938, authorizing sanctions against North Korean missile exporter Changwang Sinyong Corporation from doing business with the United States for two years-when it was already doing no business with the United States at all-would not be satisfying to people of the hardline persuasion. The Executive Order's focus is explicitly domestic. The significance of the E.O. is to enable what I would characterize as drive-by sanctions, broad-brush sanctions against terrorists, proliferators "and their support networks" that can be applied unilaterally and immediately by the executive branch against assets in the United States without the legal and judicial frou frou that has been rendered quaint in our ticking time bomb, mushroom-clouded smoking gun, Jack Bauer world. But North Korea doesn't have squat in the United States. There's nothing to sanction here. So Executive Order 12938, even with its intoxicating vision of unilateral executive freedom of action, is pretty much useless. That's a problem. There's another problem. Financially speaking, North Korea doesn't own squat anywhere outside of North Korea. The last North Korean bank overseas, in Vienna, was closed down under US pressure years ago. Anything that North Korea has outside its borders that's worth owning is in a third country bank, in some financial institution that's not owned by North Korea, in the jurisdiction of some country that's got its own laws and foreign policy, isn't under UN sanctions, and-heaven forbid-might not be interested in harassing the Norks as aggressively as we are. What to do? How to extend U.S. reach beyond U.S. borders and U.S. corporations to attack North Korean financial activities and assets in non-Nork corporations in other countries...and do it in a way that the lack of any enabling UN resolution, potential infringement of sovereignty, and violence to the rights and protections afforded to law-abiding corporations by their home governments could be conveniently disregarded? It's clear that in 2005 and 2006 Section 311 of the Patriot Act emerged as a key instrument in Bush administration North Korean policy a la hardliner. Patriot Act Section 311 is a provision originally designed to allow the U.S. government to sanction foreign banks and jurisdictions for deficiencies in their anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and practices overseas by threatening a cutoff of their access to the US banking system. In general, the Treasury Department has been doing the Lord's work on money laundering, primarily targeting the drug dealers who try to park hundreds of billions of illegal revenues in U.S. banks and, when they can't do that, hunt for lax, lazy, and greedy banks overseas. Patriot Act Section 311 gives Treasury a powerful weapon-the ability to deny foreign banks free access to the U.S. banking system if it is worried that terrorists and criminals could exploit their weak controls and indifferent enforcement to gain access to the world financial system and move money with impunity. The unilateral power to cut off uncooperative foreign banks from the U.S. financial system was apparently irresistibly attractive to the hardliners, who, in my view, misappropriated the process to the application of coercive diplomacy against banks and countries willing to do business with North Korea. After the first Patriot Act Section 311 investigation against a North Korea-related target-Banco Delta Asia-was announced in September 2005, officials of the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) criss-crossed the globe serving notice on banks in places like Mongolia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Bulgaria that their current or potential involvement with North Korea made them vulnerable to US designation as banks of potential money laundering concern. However, Patriot Act Section 311 investigations and regulations are meant to hassle banks and regulators. They are not a particularly appropriate tool for pursuing depositors-that's supposed to be a job for local enforcement once the appropriate AML laws and practices are in effect. Forcing foreign banks to cut off ties with a particular depositor in the absence of UN sanctions and local due process is an infringement of sovereignty and legally dicy for the foreign bank and its government. The threat of a Patriot Act Section 311 investigation is a drastic-but not particularly efficient or fair--instrument of coercive diplomacy. To compound these structural problems, judging by the public record, it looks like the anti-Nork dossiers assembled by OTFI were long on assertions, allegations, innuendo, and intimidating chest-thumping...and short on proof. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-North Korea initiative emerged as an impediment to the trust and close cooperation between Treasury and foreign governments that characterizes the global AML effort against criminals and terrorists. So I've always wondered if another, secret Executive Order would be necessary to authorize this awkward, antagonistic, and risky process-one tasking Treasury to disregard the legal, logical, and diplomatic headaches and selectively apply the threat of Patriot Act Section 311 investigations against banks that were doing any business with North Korea. After all, if there wasn't some explicit tasking in an Executive Order, how else can one account for Treasury, a branch of the famed Bush administration unitary executive, openly defying the State Department and stated U.S. policy for four embarrassing months on the repatriation of North Korean funds from Banco Delta Asia? Another reason I wouldn't be surprised by the existence of a secret Executive Order targeting foreign financial ties with North Korea is because apparently we came thisclose to getting it issued publicly. I stumbled across this interesting report in the January 27, 2006 Chosun Ilbo :
An executive order of this sort, coming after the announcement of the Banco Delta Asia Section 311 investigation for deficient money laundering controls in September 2006, would represent a significant escalation. It would be moving beyond regulatory activity initiated ostensibly to protect the US financial system to the overt use of domestic U.S. regulatory power to coerce foreign corporations and governments to modify their activities outside US jurisdiction in order to further US foreign policy goals. Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Perl, who stated that he recalled the interview but the reporter a) didn't speak English very well b) didn't understand the sanctions process c) wanted to get a big story and d) got it all wrong. Hmmm. Despite Mr. Perl's denial, I would have to say that the story sounds credible. Why? Because, for the hardliners, something more was needed. Because direct U.S. sanctions against North Korea weren't coming close to inducing the systemic crisis in Kim Jung Il's regime that would place the hardliners crowing triumphantly on top of the North Korean dunghill. North Korea provides no high value targets for traditional, direct sanctions under U.S. law and Executive Order 12938. And the U.N. had demonstrated no interest in systemic sanctions beyond the targeting of North Korean entities directly involved in Pyongyang's nuclear, WMD, and missile programs. If one assumes that the Bush administration was impatient with global footdragging on the matter of axis of evil charter member North Korea:
That's probably why the Treasury Department went through all sorts of contortions to deny the obvious-that its Office of Terrorism of Financial Intelligence was circling the globe trying to force every tiny bank and half-assed country to cut off its banking ties with Pyongyang with the threat of a Patriot Act Section 311 sanction. Because we were sanctioning our own friends and allies, not the North Koreans. That looks a lot like economic warfare-ironically, against the very countries we were purporting to defend against North Korean efforts to undermine their financial and criminal laws. Considering there was talk of citing North Korean economic warfare-those shaky counterfeiting allegations-as a casus belli, I would guess we wouldn't be keen to announce the doctrine our own doctrine of economic warfare--against third countries--in order to get at North Korea. Unfortunately, I don't think an unpopular campaign of unilateral global covert economic warfare against North Korea worked all that well. China and Russia apparently defied the U.S., Kim Jung Il cobbled together an atomic bomb despite the partial financial blockade, engagement promptly became the order of the day in North Korean affairs, and the BDA investigation became little more than an embarrassing impediment to America's North Asian diplomacy. Of course, the trademark of a genuine Bush administration policy is that when an initiative of dubious effectiveness and legality runs into trouble, the first and easily obeyed impulse is not to backtrack and concede that critics might have a point; it's to double-down with some middle-finger escalation. So, in contrast to the appearance of restored normality in North Korean diplomacy, I'd like to put in my two cents' worth concerning the presidential finding authorizing CIA destabilization campaign against Iran blessed by Elliott Abrams and Steven Hadley and ostentatiously leaked to ABC's The Blotter:
I think the implication of this finding-and its leak-have been misunderstood. When one recalls that the main U.S. initiative against Iran has been to isolate the regime financially through Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence-the same bunch that went after North Korea-and things haven't been going all that great, the indication here is that hardliners feel they need a better way of winning hearts and minds. The effective threat here is, I believe, "manipulation of...international financial transactions" e.g. that some Swiss bank is going to wake up one morning and find that the CIA has hacked into its mainframe and erased a few million dollars from an Iranian account. The Swiss aren't supposed to like it, and the Swiss government isn't going to like it either. But it's supposed to convince them that the risks of handling Iranian money has been upgraded from "reputational" to "operational" and it's better not to handle any Iranian money at all. It would also be a sign that a lot of banks and jurisdictions have not been sufficiently responsive to Bush administration jawboning on Iran backed up by Patriot Act Section 311 threats, and the hardliners want them put on notice through a pointed leak that Elliott Abrams will be rummaging through their mainframes and twisting their testicles as punishment. If our Commander in Chief harbored any moral qualms about extralegal financial sabotage against the financial institutions of our friends and allies, I'm sure the plan's architects whispered that the threat would be sufficient to peal financial institutions away from Tehran ... or maybe just one publicized demonstration of the Death Star would be sufficient to bring the world financial community to heel ... After all, that's how it worked with BDA -- didn't it? Well, it didn't work that way. Despite hardliner claims, it appears the Patriot Act Section 311 campaign against North Korea sputtered to an ignominious conclusion as Pyongyang's nuclear capability and Chinese good offices became the driving forces in North Asian diplomacy. It's an interesting paradox. To the hardliners, as the need to compromise with the U.N., our allies, Congress, international practice, and our laws is stripped away by executive order, they can ascend to the pinnacle of objectivity and make the tough calls with absolute clarity, ruthlessness, and will. But to the rest of us, it looks more like the Bush administration has fallen into an ever-deepening pit of delusion, shielding its deliberations under executive privilege and its actions behind executive orders, not because these policies demand absolute secrecy and freedom of action, but because they are profoundly flawed policies promoted by self-serving and unrealistic bureaucrats ... and we would be a lot better off if these disastrous tactics could be made to wither away under the light of day and the harsh scrutiny of logic, law, and common sense. The lazy reliance on Executive Orders to enable the pursuit of policies that were not just unpopular and illegal but fundamentally flawed may very not only define the Bush administration approach to North Korea diplomacy, but its entire legacy. China Hand edits the very interesting website China Matters.
|
CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy  Click Here to Buy! How the Press Failed The Gang's All Here: Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly...End Times Leaves No Reputation Unstained!  Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal  Click Here to Order!  Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair           The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn   Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont               CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed        Bruce Springsteen On Tour By Dave Marsh                   |
