Good Stuff -- but Obama doesn't come off too well
Obama's National Security Speech [Andy McCarthy]
It's been a busy day, and I hope to have more to say about Vice President Cheney's terrific speech at AEI, as well as President Obama's not terrific speech at the National Archives. For now, I share with you my quick appraisal of the president's remarks, which was just posted by the New York Times in its occasional "Room for Debate" series:
President Obama’s speech is the September 10th mindset trying to come to grips with September 11th reality. It is excruciating to watch as the brute facts of life under a jihadist threat, which the president is now accountable for confronting, compel him forever to climb out of holes dug by his high-minded campaign rhetoric — the reversals on military detention, commission trials, prisoner-abuse photos, and the like.
The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.
This was perhaps best exemplified by the president’s attack on the very military commission system he has just revived. The dig that the system only succeeded in convicting three terrorists in seven years conveniently omits the fact that the delay was largely attributed to legal challenges advanced by lawyers who now work in his own administration.
Those challenges, despite consuming years of litigation, failed to derail the commission system, which Congress simply re-authorized, substantially unchanged, after a thin Supreme Court majority erroneously struck it down in the 2006 Hamdan case. The commissions, moreover, are now being delayed several more months simply so Mr. Obama can make some cosmetic tweaks that work no real change in the commission process but will enable him to claim that they are somehow a departure from Bush commissions.
It is also not true, no matter how many times Mr. Obama and his supporters repeat it, that Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation (or “torture” as they call it) are primary drivers of terrorist recruitment. The principal exacerbating factor in recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the undecided to join jihadist movements, and that is what the Bush administration’s approach prevented. And if the president truly insists on “transparency,” he should stop suppressing memoranda that detail the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program. Given his decision to reveal CIA tactics, is it too much to ask that the American people be informed about what intelligence the program yielded?
Another Take on the Obama/Cheney Speeches [Pete Hegseth]
I watched the “dueling speeches” this morning, and finally had a chance to jot down some hasty thoughts.
First, while President Obama proclaimed that he had no interest in re-litigating the problems of the past eight years, that is almost entirely what he did. In fact, as usual, it was difficult to differentiate this presidential address from a candidate Obama stump speech. Nearly every statement he made regarding terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, interrogations, etc. was (and is) consumed by a desire to stand on the rooftop and shout “I’m not George W. Bush!” Obama seems obsessed with refuting the Bush administration and I think this fact prohibits him from making sound decisions regarding the threats we face.
Second, Obama went to great pains to emphasize that Gitmo has created more terrorists than it has detained, has weakened American security, and the interrogation methods use there, and elsewhere, undermined our fight. This entire argument is premised on the belief that indefinite detention for unlawful combatants who ignore the rules of war — and alleged systematic mistreatment of said militants — provides overwhelming propaganda to our enemies and undermines our values (not to mention distressing the latte crowd across the pond).
Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t “torture,” it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11. Yet, somehow, the interrogations we used to get valuable intelligence have "undermined" our safety. President Obama should tell that to the special operators I served with overseas — and who are still serving — who killed and captured truckloads of so-called jihadists on the battlefield with the intelligence from American interrogations. Or tell that to the American’s who were saved through intelligence we gathered that prevented attacks on our homeland.
Finally, my ears perked up when I heard the president tell Congress, “I’m not the only one who swore an oath to defend the Constitution” — implying that Congress should see him as the gold standard in defending our constitutional values. It’s true that all three branches of government have a responsibility to defend the Constitution, but there are millions more Americans — with more important jobs than the Beltway baby-kissers — who swore to defend the Constitution as well. American warriors on the battlefield put partisan allegiance aside and excute their given mission with professionalism and courage.
President Obama should think a bit more about how the actions he takes will have an affect on these “oath-takers.” When it came to the release of photos showing mistreatment, Obama made the right choice and kept them sealed (for now) in order to prevent more violence against our troops. He needs to take the same into account as he decides whether to ship dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo and provide them ever-more legal protections. Actions which could, theoretically, set dangerous terrorists free to fight another day.
The president’s juggling-act stands in stark contrast to former Vice President Cheney’s grown-up speech at AEI. After hearing President Obama literally call the Bush approach “a misguided experiment” and “a mess,” Cheney calmly dispelled the caricature of the big bad Bush sdministration.
His defense of doing what it takes — within the law and under the Constitution — struck me as the kind of gutsy, straightforward, and yet sophisticated approach our country needs from the White House. Cheney underscored the continued threat we face, and the need to support our war-fighters — and intelligence operatives — as they do the dirty work of defending the Constitution. He also emphasized that a) they must have all the tools they need (within the law); b) we can’t afford to start releasing terrorists, thereby putting our troops in more danger; and c) who cares what Europe thinks, American security is at stake here.
My guess is that most American’s will be drawn to President Obama’s souring rhetoric on the topic; but I think that if just the text of the speech was read to your average American without telling them who said it, most would side with the voice of leader, not a politician seeking to placate competing constituencies.
Stray Thought [Jay Nordlinger]
There are, of course, 10,000 things to say about President Obama’s national-security speech today, and I said just a few below. Once you start, it’s kind of hard to stop — sort of like eating potato chips. But let me offer just one more point — a somewhat offbeat one.
Obama said, “The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents.”
I don’t remember a president’s talking this way: about the party affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices. I don’t recall a president’s describing a Court that way. Been following politics for a while. And I’ve never heard an important presidential national-security speech that sounded so much like a campaign speech — even in the midst of an actual campaign.
The longer you look at or ponder the speech, the less merely gassy and more offensive it appears — at least to me.
You want a contrast with Cheney’s? Cheney devoted the end of his speech to hymning the CIA interrogators who used the controversial techniques. He said,
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well.
Obama cited these very interrogations as an abomination, proof that we had lost our way, our moral bearings — had been untrue to ourselves.
Yes, these two speeches were very sharply contrasting — dueling, in that sense (even though Obama covered some of his Bush adoptions in rhetorical fog).
Hey, didn’t I say I had just one more point?
P.S. Obama said that the interrogations made us less safe — much less safe. Cheney said the opposite: that they had made the country much more safe. Big, big difference.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cheney vs. Obama on National Security ... Cheney by TKO
Of course, Cheney's speech was scheduled weeks ago, but given that they happened on the same day, the press made it out as mano v. mano.
Serious commenters cannot help but conclude that Cheney presents a cogent, thoughtful, experienced and well reasoned view; and Obama, well the same obfuscatory babble cloaked in the veneer of trying to sound forceful. In other words, NO CONTEST.
Obama's Speech: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NDdkNTllNmJhZjdhMGYwNjg4ZDVjYjY5NDRiNGI=
Cheney's Speech: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp#more
Cheney vs. Obama: A mismatch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_vs_obama_a_mismatch.asp
Cheney vs. Obama [Mitt Romney]
Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.
His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.
Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That's a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.
Cheney: Adult [Peter Kirsanow]
A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure.
A Few Criticisms . . . [Jay Nordlinger]
. . . of Obama’s national-security speech. Just a few, for now.
1. Obama said the following about what he called America’s “brutal methods” of interrogation: “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.”
In my view, the first part of that statement is arguable — “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle.” But the second part is flat-out false. Qaedists determine how they treat Americans by how Americans treat Qaeda detainees? Ridiculous. There is no reciprocity in the Qaeda playbook or mindset. They simply chainsaw away.
I regard this as an embarrassingly naive comment from the president of the United States. I wonder who fed him the notion — or whether he made it up himself or what.
I remember a tour I had of a detainee camp in Iraq last fall. We give them all sorts of classes: Islamic studies, nutrition, art, blah, blah, blah. There is a class on sewing, too. The instructor showed us “the graduation piece” the detainees make: a stuffed camel. I found myself thinking, somewhat bitterly: Gee, what’s the graduation piece for Americans in a Qaeda camp — if there were such camps, which, to my knowledge, there are not?
2. This is just a general comment: I think Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it. They talk about how Gitmo became a symbol for our enemies, or potential enemies, abroad. I think it became more of a symbol for them — for our Left. Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job. He finds that other options are lousy. But he is stuck with his original language and assertions.
What to do? You can’t admit error; you can’t cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words. You just brazen it out, rhetorically, trusting in a cooperative press, and in favorable world opinion. I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
3. At a certain juncture, Obama said, “I want to be honest: . . .” That is slightly dangerous for a speechmaker: It implies that other parts of the speech — not so much.
4. Twice, Obama spoke of the “mess” at Gitmo, no doubt thinking it would be politically useful. But, when his attorney general went there, he found it a well-run, admirable prison. Which it is, by every conscientious account. So . . .?
5. Obama spoke of “those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building” (the National Archives). Names, please? And does it become presidents to construct strawmen in this way?
I remember something charming that William Safire put in his memoir of the first Nixon administration — a very charming book. He said that, now and then, he felt someone should propose the easy way. Because the president was always saying, “Some have counseled that we take the easy way. But I . . .”
6. Obama named Zaccarias Moussaoui “the 20th 9/11 hijacker.” So it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t the president chortling about that, a couple of weeks ago? All class, all class.
re: The Two Speeches [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
The speeches are characteristic of the two men. The one appropriate to a campaign, the other to the business of government.
Obama vs. Cheney [Dana Perino]
The media seem so desperate for a fight that they’ve failed in almost every case to point out that Vice President Cheney’s AEI speech was scheduled weeks ago. I’m not suggesting the White House needs to check all of the think tanks in town before scheduling a speech, but this notion that the vice president was trying to set up a fight with President Obama on this exact day is nonsense. But it sells papers . . . well, they can hope it sells papers.
The president says that we lost our way in the war on terror. I disagree. We didn’t lose our way — we set up a structure to win.
I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney.
I also saw that the White House floated the idea of defending preemption today. Pause a moment to think about that. But I’m sure the New York Times editorial board will praise it as a tough decision by a fantastic commander-in-chief.
Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion.
Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.
Closing Gitmo [Michael Rubin]
More live-blogging: Obama argues that Gitmo serves as a rallying point for jihadists and al-Qaeda terrorists and that this makes the United States less safe.
Question: How does the president address the fact that al-Qaeda struck and struck persistently before Gitmo?
This suggests that the problem, again, is ideology — and specifically al-Qaeda's ideology — rather than Gitmo. We will be less secure unless we focus on the ideological problem rather than blaming ourselves.
05/21 10:47 AMShare
First Reaction to Obama Speech [Michael Rubin]
A bit of live-blogging. It’s one thing to speak of an extremist ideology, but refusal to name that ideology belies the seriousness with which we should face the threat. And it’s one thing to praise the re-energization of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but this too has become a mockery, as North Korea and Iran show every single day.
The basic issue which Obama is dancing around is whether terrorism is a police issue or a military issue. The difference is stark: If a police issue, in reality, we deal with the threat after the "crime" has occurred. If a military issue, we address preemptively.
The moral contrast argument is a diversion. We are a nation of laws, a nation of law for U.S. citizens and those on U.S. soil. Trying to apply U.S. law or even international law to those to whom they were never meant to apply undercuts security and undercuts the status of law. Ted Lapkin explains well, here. What Obama in effect does is take away any incentive for terrorists to adhere to rule of law.
To me, Obama is unserious if he believes his own drivel:
"our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions"
There's much much more ... this is just a sampling.
Read the speeches at least.
Serious commenters cannot help but conclude that Cheney presents a cogent, thoughtful, experienced and well reasoned view; and Obama, well the same obfuscatory babble cloaked in the veneer of trying to sound forceful. In other words, NO CONTEST.
Obama's Speech: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NDdkNTllNmJhZjdhMGYwNjg4ZDVjYjY5NDRiNGI=
Cheney's Speech: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp#more
Cheney vs. Obama: A mismatch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_vs_obama_a_mismatch.asp
Cheney vs. Obama [Mitt Romney]
Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.
His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.
Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That's a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.
Cheney: Adult [Peter Kirsanow]
A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure.
A Few Criticisms . . . [Jay Nordlinger]
. . . of Obama’s national-security speech. Just a few, for now.
1. Obama said the following about what he called America’s “brutal methods” of interrogation: “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.”
In my view, the first part of that statement is arguable — “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle.” But the second part is flat-out false. Qaedists determine how they treat Americans by how Americans treat Qaeda detainees? Ridiculous. There is no reciprocity in the Qaeda playbook or mindset. They simply chainsaw away.
I regard this as an embarrassingly naive comment from the president of the United States. I wonder who fed him the notion — or whether he made it up himself or what.
I remember a tour I had of a detainee camp in Iraq last fall. We give them all sorts of classes: Islamic studies, nutrition, art, blah, blah, blah. There is a class on sewing, too. The instructor showed us “the graduation piece” the detainees make: a stuffed camel. I found myself thinking, somewhat bitterly: Gee, what’s the graduation piece for Americans in a Qaeda camp — if there were such camps, which, to my knowledge, there are not?
2. This is just a general comment: I think Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it. They talk about how Gitmo became a symbol for our enemies, or potential enemies, abroad. I think it became more of a symbol for them — for our Left. Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job. He finds that other options are lousy. But he is stuck with his original language and assertions.
What to do? You can’t admit error; you can’t cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words. You just brazen it out, rhetorically, trusting in a cooperative press, and in favorable world opinion. I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
3. At a certain juncture, Obama said, “I want to be honest: . . .” That is slightly dangerous for a speechmaker: It implies that other parts of the speech — not so much.
4. Twice, Obama spoke of the “mess” at Gitmo, no doubt thinking it would be politically useful. But, when his attorney general went there, he found it a well-run, admirable prison. Which it is, by every conscientious account. So . . .?
5. Obama spoke of “those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building” (the National Archives). Names, please? And does it become presidents to construct strawmen in this way?
I remember something charming that William Safire put in his memoir of the first Nixon administration — a very charming book. He said that, now and then, he felt someone should propose the easy way. Because the president was always saying, “Some have counseled that we take the easy way. But I . . .”
6. Obama named Zaccarias Moussaoui “the 20th 9/11 hijacker.” So it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t the president chortling about that, a couple of weeks ago? All class, all class.
re: The Two Speeches [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
The speeches are characteristic of the two men. The one appropriate to a campaign, the other to the business of government.
Obama vs. Cheney [Dana Perino]
The media seem so desperate for a fight that they’ve failed in almost every case to point out that Vice President Cheney’s AEI speech was scheduled weeks ago. I’m not suggesting the White House needs to check all of the think tanks in town before scheduling a speech, but this notion that the vice president was trying to set up a fight with President Obama on this exact day is nonsense. But it sells papers . . . well, they can hope it sells papers.
The president says that we lost our way in the war on terror. I disagree. We didn’t lose our way — we set up a structure to win.
I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney.
I also saw that the White House floated the idea of defending preemption today. Pause a moment to think about that. But I’m sure the New York Times editorial board will praise it as a tough decision by a fantastic commander-in-chief.
Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion.
Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.
Closing Gitmo [Michael Rubin]
More live-blogging: Obama argues that Gitmo serves as a rallying point for jihadists and al-Qaeda terrorists and that this makes the United States less safe.
Question: How does the president address the fact that al-Qaeda struck and struck persistently before Gitmo?
This suggests that the problem, again, is ideology — and specifically al-Qaeda's ideology — rather than Gitmo. We will be less secure unless we focus on the ideological problem rather than blaming ourselves.
05/21 10:47 AMShare
First Reaction to Obama Speech [Michael Rubin]
A bit of live-blogging. It’s one thing to speak of an extremist ideology, but refusal to name that ideology belies the seriousness with which we should face the threat. And it’s one thing to praise the re-energization of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but this too has become a mockery, as North Korea and Iran show every single day.
The basic issue which Obama is dancing around is whether terrorism is a police issue or a military issue. The difference is stark: If a police issue, in reality, we deal with the threat after the "crime" has occurred. If a military issue, we address preemptively.
The moral contrast argument is a diversion. We are a nation of laws, a nation of law for U.S. citizens and those on U.S. soil. Trying to apply U.S. law or even international law to those to whom they were never meant to apply undercuts security and undercuts the status of law. Ted Lapkin explains well, here. What Obama in effect does is take away any incentive for terrorists to adhere to rule of law.
To me, Obama is unserious if he believes his own drivel:
"our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions"
There's much much more ... this is just a sampling.
Read the speeches at least.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Obama tramples Creditor Rights to favor Union benefactors
Fund Managers Burned by Obama Now Say They Are Wary (Update1) 2009-05-20
By Caroline Salas
May 20 (Bloomberg) — Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.
Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,”
Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”
Dissident Lenders
Schultze, whose firm had about $247.7 million under management in February, according to a regulatory filing, declined to disclose which company debt he may avoid.
He was among the last holdouts. The dissident lenders to the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker — including OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP, both in New York — caved after Obama blamed hedge fund “speculators” for the bankruptcy of the 83-year-old car company and said he stood with its employees.
At its peak, the group consisted of 30 funds holding more than $1 billion, according to Tom Lauria of White & Case LLP, the investors’ attorney, who is based in Miami and New York.
“Anything that involves a large number of jobs or affects a large number of people, you can expect to see a Chrysler redux,” Jerry del Missier, president of Barclays Capital, said in an interview from his New York office. “One of the consequences here is the so-called speculators, people who provide financing, will think twice about getting involved.”
Barclays Plc, based in London, is the third-biggest U.K.
bank.
‘Rights Were Trashed’
Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized how the government handled Chrysler’s bankruptcy, saying unions were favored at the expense of creditors.
“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch, 73, said in an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”
The struggle between creditors and labor has also reached Hartmarx Corp., the 122-year-old clothing maker in Chicago that made the suit Obama wore to his inauguration. Unions are gaining government support in a fight against Wells Fargo & Co., the bankrupt company’s lender.
More than 30 members of Congress, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank are urging the San Francisco bank not to liquidate the clothier, according to Representative Phil Hare, an Illinois Democrat. The lawmakers are also seeking Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s backing.
Hare said last week that Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. lender, is responsible for Hartmarx’s collapse because it refused to extend credit. Wells Fargo said in a statement the bank wants the suit maker, which defaulted on more than $114 million in loans, to “stay in business.”
Preferential Treatment
General Motors Corp., which accepted $15.4 billion in U.S.
taxpayer aid, is also giving unions preferential treatment over bondholders in its restructuring, even though their claims rank equally. The biggest owners of GM debt include San Mateo, California-based Franklin Resources Inc. and Capital Research & Management Co. of Los Angeles, regulatory filings show.
Detroit-based GM on April 27 asked the investors to swap
$27 billion in debt for a 10 percent stake in the reorganized automaker, while offering a retiree health-care fund $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
“It’s terrible precedent,” said Schultze. “The sad thing is it impacts the manufacturing sector and the companies that have legacy liabilities directly. It will be nearly impossible, or much more expensive, to get secured financing for these type of companies.”
Offer Rejected
Unions spent $52 million to help elect Obama, which includes $5 million from the United Auto Workers, according to OpenSecrets.org, a Washington-based organization that tracks campaign spending. Roger Kerson, a spokesman for the UAW in Detroit, declined to comment.
A committee of GM bondholders rejected the offer and asked Obama’s auto task force on April 30 for 58 percent of the company’s equity. Their proposal hasn’t been adopted and bankruptcy is “probable,” Fritz Henderson, GM’s chief executive officer, said in a Bloomberg Television interview last week.
‘Strong-Arm’
The U.S. bankruptcy code allows for workers to get preference over bondholders, said Richard Hahn, co-chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York law firm, who isn’t involved in the GM negotiations. Section
1114 of the bankruptcy code requires that a debtor “timely pay” all “retiree benefits” unless the bankruptcy court orders otherwise or the authorized representative of the recipients of those benefits agrees to other treatment, he said.
Chrysler lenders might have recovered nothing if the government hadn’t poured billions of dollars into the carmaker, said Gary Hindes, managing director of distressed investments at Deltec Asset Management LLC in New York. The hedge fund firm didn’t buy the company’s debt or GM’s, in part because of the risk the government’s involvement would damp returns, Hindes said.
“If you’re being paid more than what you would be paid in a liquidation, then the contractual obligation has been met,”
said Hindes, whose firm oversees about $526 million, according to a regulatory filing. “It’s still very disturbing to see the government basically strong-arm people into this.”
$4.2 Billion
While debt prices haven’t yet reflected the shunning of unionized companies by investors, steel and automakers and airlines will face higher borrowing costs when they attempt to raise funds, Schultze said.
Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp. employs about 90,000 and
67 percent are represented by unions. AMR had about $4.2 billion in underfunded pension obligations as of year-end, according to Fitch Ratings.
AMR, the parent of American Airlines, is rated Caa2 by Moody’s Investors Service and B- by Standard & Poor’s, four and six levels above default.
Andy Backover, an American spokesman, declined comment.
Airline bonds haven’t fallen since Chrysler’s April 30 bankruptcy. High-yield air transportation debt is up 5.4 percent in May, outperforming the 3.8 percent climb in the average junk bond, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. High Yield Master II index.
Speculative-grade bonds for auto and auto-part makers are up 3.9 percent.
‘Justifiably Concerned’
“Creditors are justifiably concerned” about what precedent the auto bailouts are setting, said Mark Kiesel, global head of corporate bond portfolios at Pimco in Newport Beach, California. Pimco managed $747 billion as of Dec. 31.
“When you get these companies that have legacy costs, that’s something you have to factor in when evaluating credit risk,” Kiesel said. “Any investor is going to price in increasing political risk in considering where to put their money.”
Pimco, manager of the world’s largest bond fund, didn’t have a stake in Chrysler and owns an “infinitesimally small”
amount of GM debt, according to a report by co-chief investment officer Bill Gross on the firm’s Web site.
The government’s “grassroots trend” signals “an increasing uncertainty of cash flows from financial assets” and risk premiums will increase as a result, Gross wrote.
Small-Car Technology
GM’s $3 billion of 8.375 percent bonds due in 2033 have plummeted to 5.5 cents on the dollar from 21 cents at the beginning of the year, according to Trace, the price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt yields 146 percent.
Chrysler began a bankruptcy process last month designed to revive the business. It will focus on small-car technology through a new partnership with Turin-based Fiat SpA, Italy’s biggest automaker. Obama says the plan will save more than 30,000 jobs.
A group of senior secured creditors, the Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders, opposed Obama’s plan. Putting labor ahead of them in line for repayment violated “long-recognized legal and business principles,” the investors said in a statement the day Chrysler filed for protection.
The committee gave up fighting on May 8 “after a great deal of soul-searching and, quite frankly, agony” and concluded that “they just don’t have critical mass to withstand the enormous machinery of the U.S. government,” said White & Case’s Lauria in an interview that day.
“People are starting to think ‘This is a very activist administration, even more than we counted on,’” said Martin Fridson, CEO of money manager Fridson Investment Advisors in New York. “If it comes down to the interest of creditors or labor unions, the administration is going to override what you thought you could do.”
By Caroline Salas
May 20 (Bloomberg) — Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.
Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,”
Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”
Dissident Lenders
Schultze, whose firm had about $247.7 million under management in February, according to a regulatory filing, declined to disclose which company debt he may avoid.
He was among the last holdouts. The dissident lenders to the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker — including OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP, both in New York — caved after Obama blamed hedge fund “speculators” for the bankruptcy of the 83-year-old car company and said he stood with its employees.
At its peak, the group consisted of 30 funds holding more than $1 billion, according to Tom Lauria of White & Case LLP, the investors’ attorney, who is based in Miami and New York.
“Anything that involves a large number of jobs or affects a large number of people, you can expect to see a Chrysler redux,” Jerry del Missier, president of Barclays Capital, said in an interview from his New York office. “One of the consequences here is the so-called speculators, people who provide financing, will think twice about getting involved.”
Barclays Plc, based in London, is the third-biggest U.K.
bank.
‘Rights Were Trashed’
Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized how the government handled Chrysler’s bankruptcy, saying unions were favored at the expense of creditors.
“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch, 73, said in an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”
The struggle between creditors and labor has also reached Hartmarx Corp., the 122-year-old clothing maker in Chicago that made the suit Obama wore to his inauguration. Unions are gaining government support in a fight against Wells Fargo & Co., the bankrupt company’s lender.
More than 30 members of Congress, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank are urging the San Francisco bank not to liquidate the clothier, according to Representative Phil Hare, an Illinois Democrat. The lawmakers are also seeking Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s backing.
Hare said last week that Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. lender, is responsible for Hartmarx’s collapse because it refused to extend credit. Wells Fargo said in a statement the bank wants the suit maker, which defaulted on more than $114 million in loans, to “stay in business.”
Preferential Treatment
General Motors Corp., which accepted $15.4 billion in U.S.
taxpayer aid, is also giving unions preferential treatment over bondholders in its restructuring, even though their claims rank equally. The biggest owners of GM debt include San Mateo, California-based Franklin Resources Inc. and Capital Research & Management Co. of Los Angeles, regulatory filings show.
Detroit-based GM on April 27 asked the investors to swap
$27 billion in debt for a 10 percent stake in the reorganized automaker, while offering a retiree health-care fund $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
“It’s terrible precedent,” said Schultze. “The sad thing is it impacts the manufacturing sector and the companies that have legacy liabilities directly. It will be nearly impossible, or much more expensive, to get secured financing for these type of companies.”
Offer Rejected
Unions spent $52 million to help elect Obama, which includes $5 million from the United Auto Workers, according to OpenSecrets.org, a Washington-based organization that tracks campaign spending. Roger Kerson, a spokesman for the UAW in Detroit, declined to comment.
A committee of GM bondholders rejected the offer and asked Obama’s auto task force on April 30 for 58 percent of the company’s equity. Their proposal hasn’t been adopted and bankruptcy is “probable,” Fritz Henderson, GM’s chief executive officer, said in a Bloomberg Television interview last week.
‘Strong-Arm’
The U.S. bankruptcy code allows for workers to get preference over bondholders, said Richard Hahn, co-chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York law firm, who isn’t involved in the GM negotiations. Section
1114 of the bankruptcy code requires that a debtor “timely pay” all “retiree benefits” unless the bankruptcy court orders otherwise or the authorized representative of the recipients of those benefits agrees to other treatment, he said.
Chrysler lenders might have recovered nothing if the government hadn’t poured billions of dollars into the carmaker, said Gary Hindes, managing director of distressed investments at Deltec Asset Management LLC in New York. The hedge fund firm didn’t buy the company’s debt or GM’s, in part because of the risk the government’s involvement would damp returns, Hindes said.
“If you’re being paid more than what you would be paid in a liquidation, then the contractual obligation has been met,”
said Hindes, whose firm oversees about $526 million, according to a regulatory filing. “It’s still very disturbing to see the government basically strong-arm people into this.”
$4.2 Billion
While debt prices haven’t yet reflected the shunning of unionized companies by investors, steel and automakers and airlines will face higher borrowing costs when they attempt to raise funds, Schultze said.
Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp. employs about 90,000 and
67 percent are represented by unions. AMR had about $4.2 billion in underfunded pension obligations as of year-end, according to Fitch Ratings.
AMR, the parent of American Airlines, is rated Caa2 by Moody’s Investors Service and B- by Standard & Poor’s, four and six levels above default.
Andy Backover, an American spokesman, declined comment.
Airline bonds haven’t fallen since Chrysler’s April 30 bankruptcy. High-yield air transportation debt is up 5.4 percent in May, outperforming the 3.8 percent climb in the average junk bond, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. High Yield Master II index.
Speculative-grade bonds for auto and auto-part makers are up 3.9 percent.
‘Justifiably Concerned’
“Creditors are justifiably concerned” about what precedent the auto bailouts are setting, said Mark Kiesel, global head of corporate bond portfolios at Pimco in Newport Beach, California. Pimco managed $747 billion as of Dec. 31.
“When you get these companies that have legacy costs, that’s something you have to factor in when evaluating credit risk,” Kiesel said. “Any investor is going to price in increasing political risk in considering where to put their money.”
Pimco, manager of the world’s largest bond fund, didn’t have a stake in Chrysler and owns an “infinitesimally small”
amount of GM debt, according to a report by co-chief investment officer Bill Gross on the firm’s Web site.
The government’s “grassroots trend” signals “an increasing uncertainty of cash flows from financial assets” and risk premiums will increase as a result, Gross wrote.
Small-Car Technology
GM’s $3 billion of 8.375 percent bonds due in 2033 have plummeted to 5.5 cents on the dollar from 21 cents at the beginning of the year, according to Trace, the price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt yields 146 percent.
Chrysler began a bankruptcy process last month designed to revive the business. It will focus on small-car technology through a new partnership with Turin-based Fiat SpA, Italy’s biggest automaker. Obama says the plan will save more than 30,000 jobs.
A group of senior secured creditors, the Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders, opposed Obama’s plan. Putting labor ahead of them in line for repayment violated “long-recognized legal and business principles,” the investors said in a statement the day Chrysler filed for protection.
The committee gave up fighting on May 8 “after a great deal of soul-searching and, quite frankly, agony” and concluded that “they just don’t have critical mass to withstand the enormous machinery of the U.S. government,” said White & Case’s Lauria in an interview that day.
“People are starting to think ‘This is a very activist administration, even more than we counted on,’” said Martin Fridson, CEO of money manager Fridson Investment Advisors in New York. “If it comes down to the interest of creditors or labor unions, the administration is going to override what you thought you could do.”
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama & Israel -- more VERY troubling signs
This is definitely not good ....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=
Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.
By Anne Bayefsky
In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.
It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”
This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.
The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”
Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.”
By contrast, Rice told reporters: “We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to convene the Council, and we’re very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council’s behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we’re pleased with the outcome.”
The Obama administration’s total disregard of Israel’s obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international “solution” down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.” In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.
On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council’s Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.
The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:
adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might “require the Council’s attention”;
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.
Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council’s constant anti-Israel barrage.
Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora’s box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=
Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.
By Anne Bayefsky
In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.
It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”
This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.
The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”
Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.”
By contrast, Rice told reporters: “We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to convene the Council, and we’re very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council’s behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we’re pleased with the outcome.”
The Obama administration’s total disregard of Israel’s obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international “solution” down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.” In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.
On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council’s Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.
The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:
adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might “require the Council’s attention”;
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.
Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council’s constant anti-Israel barrage.
Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora’s box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
