Recent Foreign affairs Controversies

In the past week, the new Administration has taken actions in international relations that seem somewhat controversial in light of campaign promises and rhetoric. It must always be remembered that even if a candidate genuinely intends to do as promised during an election, that candidate, when elected, will not have the only say in all events. Sometimes, a candidate’s promises or assertions are undone simply by the wealth of previously unavailable information presented upon achieving office. In other matters, there is at least supposed to be, although Bush II largely ignored it, a legislative process. And, there is always the “big picture” of overriding considerations. With that in mind, I now attempt to address some of these recent Administration moves.

The US military facility housing enemy combatants at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, is operating legally, and is apparently in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Many civil liberties groups have decried its continuing function in light of the President’s promise and actions to close Guantanamo. However, they fail to realize that a no charges or review required holding facility within a combat zone is perfectly legal under US and international law. Guantanamo was not such a facility. I was at first slightly disappointed with the Administration’s announcement of plans to continue Bagram operations, but, in review, I realized that Bagram was one of the few operations initiated under Bush that did not fly in the face of law. However, I think that the current Obama administration needs to take a look and ensure that Bagram is held to the highest standards and prevent the abuses that were commonplace under Bush. Bagram should be considered a Prisoner Of War camp, and, as such, should be administered under all of the guidelines of the Geneva Convention and Hague Protocols.

The continuation of extraordinary rendition is another matter, and a troubling one at that. Again we have secured assurances from our allies in the War on Terror that they will abide by Geneva and international proscriptions on abuse and torture of detainees. Those assurances were not heeded in the last seven years, and I doubt that, lacking rigid US oversight, they will be heeded now. It is my hope that President Obama’s back-pedaling on this matter is the result of access to privileged information to which the general public is not privy. I want to believe that the continuation of this program is the result of perceived true necessity and that the continuation will not be followed with the same absolute disregard for law shown previously. Most American allies practice both ordinary and extraordinary rendition, and it is not a new practice developed because the War on Terror; it is practice with a long history that has simply come to light because of the frequency of its use resulting from the current war. Rendition is practiced by Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Korea, and others; even France has been known to use it.

There are real world situations out there wherein strict adherence to the law is not always the most prudent course available. I hope that recent Obama administration actions will prove this to be the exception rather than the rule. The legacy of American abuses left by the Bush Administration proved imitable for Russia in its unilateral action recently in Georgia. If the US is to lead by example, then the US needs to set an example for ethics and the Rule of Law. It is imperative upon the Obama Administration that the example set for the world be of the highest integrity to better foster the necessary various coalition partnerships as the world unites to face the numerous challenges presenting themselves for resolution.


Recently, the UK denied a former Guantanamo Bay detainee’s lawsuit seeking damages from a company providing air travel in the American extraordinary rendition program. The UK ruling was apparently engineered from an American “national secrets” claim. Claiming national secrets to deny access for a former detainee’s lawsuit in Britain may have legitimacy, but this recent action by the Administration sets a bad precedent. Former detainees who had been denied their rights under the Bush handling of facilities and procedures at Guantanamo Bay should be entitled to some form of reparation. If a person is wrongly incarcerated and treated inhumanely as a consequence, then every ideal worth holding demands compensation for the victim. It has been well established that Guantanamo Bay was used to wrongly incarcerate people, deny them due process, and conceal their abuse at the hands of US and foreign operatives both at Gitmo and at secret and foreign locations across the globe. Citing national secrets to further deny an abused individual’s due process is not in keeping with the moral high ground our new President proclaimed in his campaign.

Human rights organizations widely protested recently the failure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s conference in China to address China’s long and continuing tradition of human rights abuses. This criticism is valid and merited; however, it is, at the moment, futile. The US is not seeking, nor should it, military confrontation with China. The human rights issue is one over which China might be willing to wage war. There are other problems, as Bill Clinton discovered upon taking the Office of the President. The Chinese and American economies are so large and intertwined that the disruption possible that raising the human rights issue might bring would be catastrophic, not only to the Chinese-American economy, but to the world. The policy established by President Clinton was one of détente wherein the cultural/diplomatic exchange between the two countries might, as happened during the ‘70’s with US-USSR, bring a better understanding and respect for the other’s culture. The point of detente is to provide an example and hope that the example helps the each side to embrace, however tentatively, the virtues of the other’s culture. For now, this approach will have to suffice, however distasteful that may be. Additionally, there is the issue of cultural difference at the most fundamental level. Many westerners fail to understand that what they believe to be human rights abuses are not perceived as such by the Chinese. The culture in the West is organized on the concept of the individual as the fundamental element, while, even now, the East still organizes on the concept of the community. Generally, Westerners believe that any abuse of the individual, even for the sake of the larger community is unacceptable, while, in the Orient, the individual is seen as expendable for the sake of the community. Where the West sees abuse, the East frequently sees necessity.

In summation, I believe that the Administration has, for the greater part, done what it can as far as addressing these issues in light of the promises to improve the American standing and role in international affairs. Many of these issues are long-standing in nature while others address abuses under the Bush administration. In any event, they are better moves than might have been expected from a McCain Administration, which, in all likelihood, would have simply retained the admittedly unacceptable status quo.