EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Holbrooke: Insensitive Choice for a Sensitive Region
Obama's choice for special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arguably the most critical area of U.S. foreign policy, is a man with perhaps the most sordid history of any of the largely disappointing set of foreign policy and national security appointments.
Richard Holbrooke got his start in the Foreign Service during the 1960s, in the notorious pacification programs in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam. This ambitious joint civilian-military effort not only included horrific human rights abuses but also proved to be a notorious failure in curbing the insurgency against the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. This was an inauspicious start in the career of someone Obama hopes to help curb the insurgency against the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan.
In Asia
In the late 1970s, Holbrooke served as assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In this position, he played a major role in formulating the Carter administration's support for Indonesia's occupation of East Timor and the bloody counterinsurgency campaign responsible for up to a quarter-million civilian deaths. Having successfully pushed for a dramatic increase in U.S. military aid to the Suharto dictatorship, he then engaged in a cover-up of the Indonesian atrocities. He testified before Congress in 1979 that the mass starvation wasn't the fault of the scorched-earth campaign by Indonesian forces in the island nation's richest agricultural areas, but simply a legacy of Portuguese colonial neglect. Later, in reference to his friend Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Holbrooke described how "Paul and I have been in frequent touch to make sure that we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests."
In a particularly notorious episode while heading the State Department's East Asia division, Holbrooke convinced Carter to release South Korean troops under U.S. command in order to suppress a pro-democracy uprising in the city of Kwangju. Holbrooke was among the Carter administration officials who reportedly gave the OK to General Chun Doo-hwan, who had recently seized control of the South Korean government in a military coup, to wipe out the pro-democracy rebels. Hundreds were killed.
He also convinced President Jimmy Carter to continue its military and economic support for the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines.
At the UN
Holbrooke, as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1990s, criticized the UN for taking leadership in conflict resolution efforts involving U.S. allies, particularly in the area of human rights. For example, in October 2000 he insisted that a UN Security Council resolution criticizing the excessive use of force by Israeli occupation forces against Palestinian demonstrators revealed an unacceptable bias that put the UN "out of the running" in terms of any contributions to the peace process.
As special representative to Cyprus in 1997, Holbrooke unsuccessfully pushed the European Union to admit Turkey, despite its imprisonment of journalists, its ongoing use of the death penalty, its widespread killing of civilians in the course of its bloody counter-insurgency war in its Kurdish region, and other human rights abuses.
In the Former Yugoslavia
Holbrooke is perhaps best known for his leadership in putting together the 1995 Dayton Accords, which formally ended the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Though widely praised in some circles for his efforts, Holbrooke remains quite controversial for his role. For instance, the agreement allows Bosnian Serbs to hold on to virtually all of the land they had seized and ethnically cleansed in the course of that bloody conflict. Indeed, rather than accept the secular concept of national citizenship that has held sway in Europe for generations, Holbrooke helped impose sectarian divisions that have made the country - unlike most of its gradually liberalizing Balkan neighbors - unstable, fractious, and dominated by illiberal ultra-nationalists.
As with previous U.S. officials regarding their relations with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Panama's Manuel Noriega, Holbrooke epitomizes the failed U.S. policy toward autocratic rulers that swings between the extremes of appeasement and war. For example, during the 1996 pro-democracy uprising in Serbia Holbrooke successfully argued that the Clinton administration should back Milosevic, in recognition of his role in the successful peace deal over Bosnia, and not risk the instability that might result from a victory by Serb democrats. Milosevic initially crushed the movement. In response to increased Serbian oppression in Kosovo just a couple years later, however, Holbrooke became a vociferous advocate of the 1999 U.S.-led bombing campaign, creating a nationalist reaction that set back the reconstituted pro-democracy movement once again. The pro-democracy movement finally succeeded in the nonviolent overthrow of the regime, following Milosevic's attempt to steal the parliamentary elections in October 2000, but the young leaders of that movement remain bitterly angry at Holbrooke to this day.
Scott Ritter, the former chief UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspector who correctly assessed the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and predicted a disastrous outcome for the U.S. invasion, observes that "not only has he demonstrated a lack of comprehension when it comes to the complex reality of Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan), Holbrooke has a history of choosing the military solution over the finesse of diplomacy." Noting how the Dayton Accords were built on the assumption of a major and indefinite NATO military presence, which would obviously be far more problematic in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Europe, Ritter adds: "This does not bode well for the Obama administration."
Ironically, back in 2002-2003, when the United States had temporarily succeeded in marginalizing Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, Holbrooke was a strong supporter of redirecting American military and intelligence assets away from the region in order to invade and occupy Iraq. Obama and others presciently criticized this reallocation of resources at that time as likely to lead to the deterioration of the security situation in the country and the resurgence of these extremist groups.
It's unclear, then, why Obama would choose someone like Holbrooke for such a sensitive post. Indeed, it's unclear as to why - having been elected on part for his anti-war credentials - Obama's foreign policy and national security appointments have consisted primarily of such unreconstructed hawks. Advocates of a more enlightened and rational foreign policy still have a long row to hoe.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
17 Comments so far
Show AllAs independent investigative reporter Allan Nairn has reported, our newly-confirmed Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair also has bloodstained skeletons in his sea chest: "In 1999, in the midst of massacres of East Timor civilians and churches, Admiral Blair gave support to the perpetrators, the armed forces of Indonesia.
Two days after a massacre at Liquica that left flesh hanging from the church walls, Blair contacted the Indonesian commander, offered him US aid, and according to classified US cables, failed to tell him to stop the attacks.
Reassured by the evident support from Blair, then the US Pacific Command chief, the Indonesian commander, General Wiranto, escalated the attacks."
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/22/report_intel_nominee_adm_dennis_blair
Obama and his refried Clintonista-hawk foreign policy team: nice people doing nice things.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yes Servant and it is important to note that Blair twice disobeyed specific orders to criticize and reign in the massacres but in fact did the oppossite.
Holbrooke's appointment is a clear sign that the highest US priority is still to get control of Central Asia, its oil and the outlets to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. This is impossible, or at least much more difficult, without the NATO (US) occupation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has borders with many of the region's oil and gas producing countries and their production must pass through the country. Left to themselves most of these countries would surely hook into the established and growing pipeline network going through Russia and China. It seems that the lives of the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are quite secondary to this modern version of the Great Game which Britain played against Russia. But the signs are that it will end the same ignominious way.
Sioux Rose
JOHN E: Your analysis is well-taken. I'd like to add that Thomas Friedman, I believe, once stated that "There can be no McDonalds without McDonnell-Douglas." The huge military industrial complex feeds off the fuel of war, while at the same time consuming the very fuel it seeks after. It's like a vampire devouring its own blood supply. The tragedy is that these operations are elected when human ingenuity and innovation could have well seen developments along the lines of renewable resource energy instead of bludgeoning other nations into submission while their booty is stolen by U.S. Not only has precious time been wasted, and the U.S. shown itself as the attacker of the world; but enormous karmic debts have been set into motion.
How profoundly diabolical that Obama is proving to be the new face of America, Inc with policies largely unchanged but for a few cosmetic alterations.
I remember having my consciousness raised when Rich M once offered evidence in this forum to the way the Republicans set back the hands of time, engaged in programs designed to steal precious liberties already fought for. And then after a time, a democrat gets in, and returns a few crumbs/programs; but by in large, via this "dance," the entire political machine moves to the right more and more where the "protections" of industry (big business, polluters) trump the remotest consideration for "the greater good" or the well being of citizens.
Ralph Nader is like David standing up to this Goliath, at every point acting as conscience for the absence of one seen on the part of most politicians. After all they foremost rely upon corporate money to sit in their fancy office suites. I tell you my friends, you would not wish for the karma of one of these, nor a Holbrooke, the democratic Kissinger, it would seem, who can so blithely write off the death of thousands on his watch, then go out to lunch, and seek positions of power to once again volunteer for such dastardly deeds. A dead conscience = a dead man.
Laugh if you like, but if those seeking power had their birth charts PUBLICLY analyzed and read, and evidence of moral blackholes were shown to exist, then well-trained astrologers could save this land (and others) phenominal blood and treasure. Consider the alternative? Slick snake oil salesmen groomed by Madison Ave to use the power-buzz words, taught (as is done in law school) to deftly argue either side of an argument, until like chameleons, they can change color the way Fred Astaire could turn on a dime. I am beginning to understand why so many have turned to anti-depressant drugs or alcohol. (Not my bag, but I can see why!)
Excellent post, Sioux Rose . . . as always.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH SON: You are a sweetheart! Thank you kindly.
"It's unclear, then, why Obama would choose someone like Holbrooke for such a sensitive post. Indeed, it's unclear as to why - having been elected on part for his anti-war credentials - Obama's foreign policy and national security appointments have consisted primarily of such unreconstructed hawks."
It is clear... Obama is a confidence man. His job is to perpetuate the American empire while making it more palatable to the masses. He may be the "fresh face" but those around him are old-time imperialists. Sure, he may undo some of the more disgusting Bush policies, but for the most part, it's business as usual in the killing fields of the US empire.
Exactly right. Now another generation of young American voters will turn cynical and bitter about our "democracy & values", as thoudands (millions?) of brown people are slaughtered in Obama's wars. Disgusting. Pathetic that he would put Holbrooke out there. It is like Bush's slap in the world's face when John Bolton was sent to the U.N.
Unclear why???? Its because Obama is a LIAR elected to trick us into the New World Order.
I pity you poor blindmen because you are so wrong. Holbrooke is chosen to soften the region for the coming invasion of Northwestern Pakistan. Listen to what Dan Rather yesterday said on MSMBC: "When the snow is molten in the passes [between Afghanistan and Pakistan] there will be a lot of killing in Northwestern Pakistan". Holbrooke is just the right person to prepare for this invasion and killing.
"When the snow is molten in the passes"
________________________________
Did he really say "molten" instead of "melted"?
I know Dan is given to colorful idioms and idiosyncratic turns of phrase, but he's waxing a trifle too florid here.
· Yr Obd't Servant
This appointment reflects the Tony Blair, George Bush 'war on terror" framework of mind- that absurd little trick of blithely refusing to negotiate with political opposition based on the notion that "they" are terrorists and you are not while all parties go full bore in the application of terror in all its forms.
Things have been going along in this fashion for longer than the mere two terms of the last president, only a handful of people- like Gore Vidal or Jean Baudrillard have ever offered a serious objection to it. The use of it is completely customary. Any direct attempt to overturn it as one of the fundamental presuppositions of contemporary political discourse would be a disaster,resulting a "dethronement" which probably wouldn't even focus directly on the issue itself but occur on some ancillary matter almost entirely unrelated to the case in point.
People who expect Obama to directly and openly attack the "war on terror" per se are being entirely unrealistic. For example, saying you are going to negotiate with Hamas- no matter how important, crucial and ultimately unavoidable that may be to any prospect for peace- is the best way to to arrange things that such negotiations could never take place.
As the situation stands today- in the environment created by the moronic captains of the American news media- the use of secrecy, back-channels and the carefulest and most circumspect arts of diplomacy is the only possible way to go forward.
Which is to say: with a goodly dose of the anguish inherent in the message of hope.
holbrooke will balkanize the region. control through chaos. endless wars.
Zunes is spot on as usual.
Maybe it is a good thing that Holbrooke was not given the Kashmir remit even though it is crucial to freeing up Pakistan to move in a better direction.
Holbrooke is the epitome of what is wrong with the Washington establishment. He urged attack on Afghanistan, and discounted the complexities of an invasion, rather than consider any attempt to obtain Bin Laden and shut down his camps through negotiation, on an overtly racist take on the possibility of negotiating with Muslims--Scott Ritter, Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/richard-holbrooke-is-the_n_160623.html.
He heads a neo-con/AIPAC front group (with Dennis Ross!) called "United Against Nuclear Iran," which has published as fact this group's own paranoid fears, misquoting sources and misleading anyone who has not followed Iran's program closely--see, e.g., www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/6339. He lives in a universe where our own NIE, discounting Iran's alleged "weapon's program" does not exist.
In 2004 he told AIPAC, "The Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States, the stability in the region, and to the state of Israel" and claimed the European Union would "never get their act together."--which suggests that the US may have to take unilateral action. Holbrooke has compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and called Iran "the most pressing problem nation" and "the most dangerous country in the region," claiming Iranian explosives "are killing Americans in Iraq," a claim often made, but never proved by the Bush Administration. The man is unhinged when it comes to Iran, and his judgment is clouded.
He was a vociferous supporter of the invasion of Iraq, even criticizing Bush for being too timid, and was utterly resistant to any intelligence that suggested that Iraq was anything but a "clear and present danger" to the US, just as he is resistant to any such claims with regard to Iran. (Note that Tenet stated, at a speech given in February, 2004 at Georgetown, that the CIA never told Bush that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US--)
Nor was it terribly sensitive of Obama to a appoint a hard line pro-Israel Jew to lead negotiations with Pakistan and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran. It isn't hard to imagine that he might suggest trade-offs in dealing with these states to address his paranoid fears about Iran--Moreover, did we really need to remind the world who really runs our Middle East policy--Israel and its US supporters? Some change.
Here's a question for Obama supporters, Obama "waiters" and others still flush with hope, rather than facts:
What are you doing, now that the Obama's policies have started to mirror those of George W. Bush?
The debate is over. We've been in the streets under Bush. Now, we'll hope to see you in the streets under Obama.
BHO = GWB III. Different face, same policies.
-TIA