Obama Press Conference: Nailing Torture, Trashing the Pakistani Government

Related Post: Pakistan - Who's in Charge?
Video and Transcript: President Obama “Day 100″ Press Conference (29 April)

President Obama offered an excellent presentation in Wednesday night's press conference. He was in command, fluently moving from his opening agenda on swine flu and the economy to questions on foreign policy, the US auto industry, and the financial sector. He even dealt effectively with the puffball question, courtesy of a New York Times correspondent, "What has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?"

Obama said little about foreign policy and security in his initial statement, dealing with the immediate health crisis and the Federal Government's budget, but the third question put him on the spot over torture:

You’ve said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture....Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

I half-expected the President, given the Administration's back-and-forth over the last 10 days on whether to press charges against any Bush officials, to flinch. He didn't. To use baseball language, he knocked the question out of the park.

What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture.... And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

Yes, it was torture. And whether it had any effect is tangential, given the damage done to America's counter-terrorist efforts and its standing in the world.

Obama invoked Winston Churchill --- and who in the US could hate Churchill? --- who "said, 'We don’t torture,' when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat". The President avoided the trap of commenting on which Bushman "sanctioned torture", but he turned the main talking point of Bush defenders, "Torture helped win the War on Terror", against them:

[Banning torture] takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians. And it makes us — it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

I am sceptical that Obama will be closing Guantanamo Bay this year. And I still have concerns --- serious concerns --- about other US detention facilities, such as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan. But, at least on the narrow issue of whether there is any rationale for "torture", the President signed, sealed, and delivered the appropriate response.

In foreign policy, two specific cases arose: Iraq and Pakistan. On the former, Obama easily held the line, despite the continuing bombings and political instability in and beyond Baghdad:

Athough you’ve seen some spectacular bombings in Iraq that are a — a legitimate cause of concern, civilian deaths, incidents of bombings, et cetera, remain very low relative to what was going on last year, for example. And so you haven’t seen the kinds of huge spikes that you were seeing for a time. The political system is holding and functioning in Iraq.

(The questioner, Jeff Mason, let Obama off the hook. The emerging issue is whether the US military will have troops in and just outside Iraqi cities well past the summer deadline for withdrawal.)

Pakistan, however, offered a far more serious exchange, the significance of which has been missed so far by the media. It started with a sensationalist, and thus potentially useless question:

Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban’s hands or, worst case scenario, even al Qaeda’s hands?

The President batted that scenario straight back, "I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure." Then, however, he offered two very clear signals.

First, his Administration is standing behind the Pakistani military and encouraging it to take the lead in the fight against insurgency. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe "primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. We’ve got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation." What's more....

On the military side, you’re starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally. And you’re starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.

Second, while Obama and his advisors are placing their strategic chips on the military, they have little faith in the current Pakistani Government:

I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan....The civilian government there right now is very fragile and don’t seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, health care, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.

Obama's statement was not off-the-cuff. It was the next step, after statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, that Islamabad better get its act together to take on "the Taliban" and "Al Qa'eda" or its politicians can be put to the side.

If Pakistani President Zardari is not convinced, he will do well to consider Obama's concluding challenge:

We will provide them all of the cooperation that we can. We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.

Of course, Obama never said "coup", but as Washington ramps up the fight against insurgents in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, he sent out the message.

Zardari is disposable. The Pakistani military is not.

Reading Mahmoud in Tehran: Ahmadinejad Engages (and Wins) in US Television Interview

Video and Transcript: Iran’s Ahmadinejad on ABC’s This Week (26 April)

ABC News, after its posturing earlier in the week over the Roxana Saberi case, finally broadcast the substance of its interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday.

This time, the signals are significant. Behind the rhetoric, Ahmadinejad made clear: no short-term breakthroughs, primarily because of June's Presidential elections, but the path is being laid for long-term talks. And, in preparation for those talks, Iran is reshaping the issues on the table: the priority is not Tehran's nuclear programme but a meaningful approach --- in which Tehran plays an accepted and significant role --- towards Palestinian statehood.

Even the fact that an interview took place carries weight. The last time that a crew from a major US network visited Iran was last autumn, for NBC's Today Show, and their stay did not include an audience with the President. The granting of the visas to ABC, plus 30 minutes face-time with Ahmadinejad, is an acceptance of engagement.

Which was not to say that the President was going to make the process easy. Responding to ABC's framing of Obama offering "a new relationship", Ahmadinejad gave the assurance, "We are calling for peace and security for all," but then put the burden of symbolic concession on the US:

In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people. Now they say that we have given up that enmity....An administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I’m going to kill you, and today says that I’m not going to kill you?

Ahmadinejad backed this up with the clever reminder that he had made the first step to reconciliation: "I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama [when he was elected President]....I am yet to receive a response."

Doing this, the President could present an Iran biding its time to consider the possible change in US approach. On the proposed direct talks over Iran's nuclear programme, he said, "Planning needs to be made, and some timetables need to be set....Many new issues have been added to the agenda, so to speak, and we are reconsidering our proposed package."

ABC's George Stephanopoulos, turned into a teenager wanting his allowance now, begged, "Why not sit down right now with the U.S. and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?.... Tell me your proposal....I just want to know, when will Iran sit down with the United States and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?", which only reinforced Ahmadinejad's play-it-cool position:

We should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.

This, however, was not just a case of a President stalling or holding the line. Turning around Stephanopoulos' bumbling presentation of the standard charges of Iran's anti-Israel policy and Holocaust denial, Ahmadinejad put forth Tehran's defence of rights and a just solution for Palestine:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why do you insist on questioning the Holocaust even when it’s established as an historical fact, and even when politicians here in Iran worry that that kind of talk isolates Iran?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I’m going to talk about that as well. Don’t be hasty. I have posed two questions over the Holocaust. My first question was, if the Holocaust happened, where did it take place? In Europe. Why should they make amends in Palestine? The Palestinian people had no role to play in the Holocaust. They had no role, for that matter, in the Second World War. Racism happened in Europe, but amends are made in Palestine?

Perhaps more significantly, Ahmadinejad knocked back Stephanopoulos' next attempt clubbing --- Iran will never recognise Israel --- with this response:

AHMADINEJAD: we are asking for the legal rights of the Palestinian people. What we are saying is that the Palestinian people, like other peoples, have the right to determine their own fate....Nobody should interfere. Allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide....

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people.

It will be interesting to see how the President's interview is received within Iran, but my reading is that he successfully balanced the need to hold open the door to US-Iran engagement while putting off any substantive discussions during his bid for re-election. Washington undoubtedly recognises this; the immediate issue is whether it accepts this and holds off on any pressure against Tehran.

Then the interesting part begins. As Ahmadinejad tries to hold office, the US is making its (so far stuttering) move for a Middle Eastern reconfiguration in which Iran looks in from the outside --- that is why the Obama Administration needs a substantive advance on both Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine talks.

Ahmadinejad's most important message, therefore, was: You can't keep us out. And, indeed, if the US makes little progress before July --- whether or not he still is President of Iran --- he might be right.

US-Iran Engagement: Washington to Drop Nuclear Precondition on Talks?

Yesterday's New York Times reported, "The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program."

That fits with our developing analysis that the faction within the Administration which favours an improvement of diplomatic relations with Tehran, linked to co-operation on issues such as Afghanistan, is winning an internal battle. That faction, which includes President Obama, has recognised that there is no hope of getting Iran to drop the nuclear programme and, I suspect, that the programme is devoted primarily to civilian purposes rather than acquisition of the Bomb. Equally important, they have likely concluded that there is no good option to block Iran's nuclear development: the US is unlikely to get strengthened multilateral economic sanctions, and an Israeli military strike --- which still accepted by some within the Administration --- would have serious, possibly disastrous, political consequences.

This does not mean that the internal battle is over. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, showing nerves over the leaked story, denied that it reflected an Administration decision. The dramatic declaration in the "Times" was hedged with the escape clause: the phrase "allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks" also allows for a move back to sanctions --- or a halt to discussions --- if Tehran does not allow inspections that the US considers suitable. And a "senior Administration official" maintained that the Iranians would ultimately have to halt uranium enrichment, “Our goal remains exactly what it has been in the U.N. resolutions: suspension.”

Still, the trend continues to be towards US-Iran negotiation, rather than confrontation. Substantive talks, especially in public, still have to await the Iranian Presidential elections in June. However, Tehran's signals that discussions will be welcomed, and Obama's gradual ascendancy over his own hard-liners, points to another date in this new US-Iran relationship.

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh: The Possibilities of US-Iran Talks

On Friday, Scott Lucas wrote of "Iran's Pride" in the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the country's nuclear program. No surprise to the trained eye here: rallying around the flag is of great importance to any Iranian politician involved in forthcoming elections, and vagueness of Ahmadinejad's announcement was designed to create a media circus around the incumbent President.

Beyond the electoral short-term, the Iranian nuclear program should be compared to a ’slow boat to self-independence’. It is a long and expensive journey, but it will get there in the end.

Yet, beyond that obvious statement, there is a key element forgotten by the international community and sceptics of the Iranian program, one to consider alongside the statement issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ‘It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community.' The view and constant rhetoric of the Iranian government is that Iran IS abiding by such rules, rules set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran became a signatory in 1969.

The key with diplomacy at this level is communication. Iran and the US have failed to seize upon clear opportunities to talk face-to-face on this issue. After 30 years of mistrust since the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranians may ask why their scepticism of Washington should change. Each time Iran has tried to reconcile with the West, for example in negotiations with the European Union 3 of Britain, France, and Germany, the US that has undermined any progress, for example, rejecting the admission of Iran to the World Trade Organization.

Tables have now started to turn, however, with ‘corridor diplomacy’ taking place on issues concerning Iran's border states of Iraq and Afghanistan. The common ground for Tehran and Washington is that Iran can assist with the rebuilding of Iraq, bringing regional security, support the American eradication of the Taliban.

In time, diplomatic corridors become negotiating rooms where bilateral talks can begin. However, this requires time and patience. Instead of looking at this like a business negotiation, where no deal is considered a success until both parties have signed the dotted line, one should consider in diplomacy that the mere fact of US-Iran talks is a victory.

The truth about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons is that if Tehran obtained and used them, it would be the end of the country. If it obtained the weapons and did not use them, it will open the door to either 1) a strike by other countries to cripple Iran's military capability or 2) a ‘horizontal proliferation’ in which all states in the region become nuclear powers, causing a very uncomfortable global security dilemma.

This summer should reveal these truths and the possibilities in US-Iran discussions. Change has occurred in the US with the Obama willingness to extend the hand of diplomacy; now the question is whether Iran will accept it. If President Ahmadinejad remains in office after the elections, that acceptance might not come, in which case the issue will be how long US patience will last. If Ahmadinejad fails, however, it will be a question of how much time it takes for the Iranians to start direct talks.

Iran's Pride: Ahmadinejad Speech on Nuclear Programme

Related Post: Extract from Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

A day after the Obama Administration announced that its officials would join Iran and other countries in direct talks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on National Nuclear Technology Day. Would this stop the American approach before it really started?

No.



Ahmadinejad, speaking from the historic city of Isfahan, highlighted the progress at the Bushehr plant with "the packaging of fuel and making the fuel ready to be put inside the reactor". The second achievement was the testing of two new types of centrifuges with a capacity "several times greater" than Iran's existing equipment.

The statement didn't announce, as some expected, that Bushehr was already operational. Ahmadinejad's reference on new centrifuges was too vague to prompt any shift in current intellligence estimates. Most importantly, there was nothing in the speech to indicate a move in Iran's programme toward military, rather than civilian, uses of nuclear energy.

So US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the new American position was unaltered, ""We do not attribute any particular meaning with respect to the range of issues that we are looking to address with the Iranians from this particular statement." Translation? Those issues, from Afghanistan to Iraq to other Middle Eastern discussions, are too important to be set aside for confrontation over Iran's nuclear plans. Instead, Clinton continued:

It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community, if they abided by a set of obligations and expectations that effect them and by which we believe they are bound -- and we are going continue to insist on that.

So the US-Iran engagement, while not exactly love and bliss, continues.