Last week, McCain and Obama traded barbs over the Iraq war. McCain first derided Obama for voting against the war supplemental, then Obama called out McCain for his farcical pronouncement that Baghdad is secure, and McCain finally ended the exchange by smugly correcting the Obama team's spelling of "fla[c]k jacket."

Mitt Romney's campaign just sent out an e-mail comparing his agenda with Barack Obama's. The obvious question is, why? Does Obama really engender greater anger or fear with the Republican base than Hillary Clinton?

This would seem to be a big boost for Obama, who, as far as I can tell, has done nothing in the past two weeks to so suddenly become the Democratic foil of choice.

The easy answer is that Both Romney and Obama published articles in Foreign Affairs this month, but Romney could just have easily compared his article with the policy speeches of others had he wanted to.

And interestingly, most of the excerpts of Obama's article that the Romney campaign highlights in its e-mail aren't particularly controversial, except with a very small part of the Republican base. In fact, what Romney points out in Obama's piece seems moderate, sensible, and, to put it bluntly, not particularly far-reaching.

Needless to say, in the middle of the Democratic primary, the attention from Republicans bodes well for the Obama campaign.

I've copied the e-mail into my full post over at The Washington Note. I do plan to read the articles and reflect on anything I see as notable in either one.

Scott Paul

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry when I read President Bush's remarks on climate change to the Global Leadership Council today. Just days ahead of the G8 summit, surrounded by a media storm of leaked reports about the Bush administration's refusal to accept a proposed global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, President Bush announced this morning that the U.S. would launch its own separate round of talks in search of... wait, you'll never guess... that's right - a global emissions goal.

Confused yet? You should be, because the President's proposal, in my humble opinion, is a clever bit of obfuscation and political theatre, designed to trick us into seeing action where there is none.

Why embrace the goal that's already on the table, which would move international climate negotiations to the next level (a new set of mandatory emissions commitments negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), when you can announce (unilaterally) a new set of talks designed to come up with a similar goal - which just happens to kick the next step of the process (the big C word) that much farther down the road? Why indeed.

Germany's proposal, which has gained broad support from other G8 countries, includes a global climate mitigation goal - preventing the earth's average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Yet, given a golden opportunity to strengthen relationships with key allies, enhance the image of the United States abroad, and (a small side benefit) take a significant step towards saving the planet by mobilizing the international community to prevent climate change, the Bush administration has instead flung mud in the faces of its friends by refusing to seriously consider Germany's proposal. Then, to add insult to injury, the President announces his own independent initiative to come up with a new goal. I wouldn't want to be hanging out in Chancellor Merkel's office today.

The worst part about all this is that the goal Germany's proposing is not arbitrary. It's a threshold beyond which there is scientific consensus that there is a greater than 50% chance of triggering "dangerous" or "uncontrollable" climate change.

To be fair, the President has come a long way in the past year. The words "climate change" have passed his lips, and I applaud the statement he made today about helping developing countries "leapfrog" into a better energy future.

“We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change.”

Today's announcement even recognizes a need to work with other nations to solve the global climate challenge.

“The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.”

All this is great, as far as it goes. But does pre-empting two critical ongoing multilateral process - the G8, and the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Bali later this year - and replacing them with a unilateral initiative designed to search for a goal that already exists really promote international cooperation on climate action?

 

I just got back from the Ronald Reagan Building (or the "New Building at Federal Triangle" as a colleague of mine calls it) where President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush addressed the US Global Leadership Campaign. Both talked about the importance of the international affairs budget--both for what it does to help lift people out of poverty around the world and because it helps the United States by creating economic opportunities and promoting common humanitarian values. President Bush said that the United States had a "special reponsibility to help those who are not as blessed".

The speech comes one week before the couple attends the 33rd G8 Summit in the Baltic resort town of Heiligendamm, Germany. In addition to talking about his administration's record on aid to Africa, PEPFAR, the MCA, the President's Malaria Initiative and debt relief, President Bush took the opportunity to lay out some of the "initiatives" he plans to take to the G8.

• Trade: He said he would press G8 leaders on completing the Doha Round of trade negotiations, saying that "trade will improve lives a lot faster than governmental aid can."
• Africa Financial Sector Initiative: He proposed to establish this initiative to provide technical assistance through OPIC to mobilize $1 billion with the help of the financial sector to provide capital for investment in Africa--more details on this when they emerge.
• Basic Education: President Bush announced an additional $300 million for the Africa Education Initiative and an additional $525 million over the next 5 years for basic education worldwide
• Climate Change and Energy: This was probably the most anticipated part of the speech--see NY times story. As far as I can tell, and my colleague Becca will blog about this later after she has had a chance to delve into the details (and correct me if I'm wrong), President Bush pretty much derailed both the process Angela Merkel has laid out and the post-Kyoto process--this comes after many reports that the administration is blocking the inclusion of meaningful emissions targets in the G8 outcome documents.  Acknowledging that global climate change is occurring--"science had deepened the understanding of climate change", which "the United States takes very seriously" and that the US would continue to fulfill its responsibilities under the Framework Convention on Climate Change to help provide clean energy technologies to help developing countries meet their growing energy needs --President Bush proposed:

  "By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gasses, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China. Each country would establish midterm management targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs...In the course of the next 18 months, our nations will bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation, and alternative fuels and transportation.''

 Overall, as is his administration's MO, each of the announcements made in this speech and all week (from the Darfur speech, to the nomination of Bob Zoellick, to the doubling of AIDS funding through PEPFAR) were unilateral in nature, with little reference to the need to work in coordination with ongoing multilateral efforts.

--Asma Lateef

There’s an interesting piece in today’s Washington Post about Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne efforts to get a motto adopted for his department. The Post has fun with the fact that the draft produced by a Departmental committee ran to 78 words. Kempthorne told them to come up with an alternative, and to keep it to nine words or less. Their response: “Stewardship for America with Integrity and Excellence.”

Now if I wanted to be snarky, I could point out how the Bush Administration has utterly failed to be a steward for the environment, demonstrating neither integrity (just look at the VP’s energy commission) nor excellence. Instead, I want to congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for coming up with something that does a pretty good job of summarizing what his agency should be doing. And I don’t think mottos are a bad thing – “Semper Fidelis” has worked pretty well for the Marines, for example.

Secretary Kempthorne’s efforts also brought to mind the considerable time and effort that many well-meaning activists have put into the campaign for a Department of Peace. I want to emphasize that I applaud these folks’ desire to promote a culture of peace inside the U.S. Government, and recognize that the current Administration’s approach does not inspire confidence in that regard.

So I share their goal, but don’t support the outcome they seek. And to be clear, this is my opinion, not a CGS policy.

I don’t like the idea for two reasons. The first is aesthetic. In 1984, George Orwell’s classic dystopia, the war ministry was known as the Ministry of Peace. That alone makes me hesitant to create any similarly named institution. And giving agencies good names has never been a guarantor of success – just look at the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush.

But my main objection is that we already have a Department of Peace. It’s called the Department of State. That’s what, in the right circumstances, State does – promote peace around the world and serve as a counterweight to the Department of Defense.

We need to strengthen the agency we have, not create a new one. That means giving State the tools and resources to stand up to DoD when necessary. It also means making sure that its internal culture recognizes promoting peace as one of its primary objectives.

A good start would be a motto. And I have the perfect one: “Peace Justice and Freedom in a Democratically Governed World” (which happens to be one of two we use at CGS). Not only does it capture the vision of those working for a Department of Peace, it even meets Secretary Kempthorne’s nine-word limit.

--Charlie Brown

Upon hearing of 11-year-old Jamison Stone's killing a 1,051-pound "Monster Pig" with 8 shots from a .50-caliber revolver at an Alabama hunting preserve, I was struck by some rather obvious questions. For instance, how big are Monster Pig pork chops or bacon strips? And how big would the frying pan have to be in order to properly cook such oversized delicacies? I can only assume it would need to be approximately the same size as Uncle Buck's pancake griddle.

After ruminating on these and many other pressing questions, I sought out one of my more gastronomically knowledgeable colleagues to seek her guidance and wisdom. She graciously, as is her way, suggested that I seek "professional" help while also suggesting an extended vacation. In the mean time, however, she did point me in the direction of the Financial Times newspaper, specifically towards an interesting article about rising pork prices and fears of inflation across China.

Apparently a mysterious disease known as "blue ear" is killing millions of Chinese pigs, thereby, lifting the price of the country's staple meat. I know, you're wondering if China has a "strategic pork reserve" for just such a rainy day. I was shocked to learn that the Chinese do in fact have a "strategic pork reserve" for those difficult times when the pork isn't flowing like honey because of overly descriptive illnesses like blue ear and foot-and-mouth disease. With this new information, two words immediately sprung to my mind for our precocious Monster Pig hunter from Alabama: FLASH & FREEZE. That's right, flash freeze that giant oinker and ship him on over to the People's Republic. There hasn't been a surer thing since Jed Clampett and his hound dog Duke went a' huntin' for some food and up a' the ground came a bubblin' crude - oil that is - BLACK GOLD. Oink's as good as oil to a porkless people!

I wonder...how many barrels of crude oil is a 1,051-pound super-sized swine worth to the increasingly pork-deprived Chinese? Does the "other white meat's" value outweigh Chinese economic interest in an oil-producing country like, let's just say, Sudan? If so, maybe President Bush could solemnly ask young Mr. Stone to sacrifice for his country and forgo his bacon bounty in the name of international security and then trade the prized pig to China, which would in return immediately throw its full support behind global efforts to end the Khartoum government-sponsored atrocities in Darfur. (Obviously, the United States is not responsible for any of the 8 bullets that could be mistakenly ingested after the final oink-for-oil exchange) Drat. Only two problems with my modest monster pig proposal for peace.

First, President Bush would never ask Americans to sacrifice or reduce our consumption habits even in the face of unspeakable horror, loss, or danger. (Remember, in times of trouble, get out and shop.) Second, the United States hasn't even put its Monster-Pig-eclipsing-weight behind a robust diplomatic effort in Darfur, let alone sought to truly build an international coalition willing to bring an end to the immense daily suffering of Darfurians. Sorry, Darfur, it appears we're a few Hogzillas and Monster Pigs short of being able to help you out on this whole genocide thing. Maybe another time.

I'm still working on a plan for a strategic monster pig reserve, so stay tuned. Hey, gimme a break, I'm thinking outside the pen.

--Rich Stazinski

As President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and senior policy advisor until June 2006, Michael Gerson was often referred to as the "conscience of the White House" by a coalition of the adoring. (Such praise is, well, let's just say slightly tarnished based on this coalition's record of combative conservatism.) In today's Washington Post, Gerson, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, doesn't give into "the soft bigotry of low expectations" and whole-heartedly heap praise on the President's latest half-hearted response to the ongoing atrocities in Darfur region of Sudan. Regarding the administration's most recent promise to the people of Darfur, Gerson writes:

Yesterday's welcome announcement by President Bush of stronger American sanctions against Sudan, and new efforts in the Security Council to internationalize those sanctions, is an attempt to break this resistance. Within the administration, most concede these actions by themselves will not be enough. But the effective use of this stick -- banks expelling Sudanese accounts worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- might make the threat of other, heftier sticks more credible in the future.

For a man given to great, often inspirational, flourishes of pen on paper (or strokes of fingers on keyboard as the case may be), Gerson's response is seemingly somewhere between tepid and lukewarm. It lacks the adjectives and, far more importantly, the idealism for which the gifted Gerson is rightfully known. He goes on to state:

The problem with waiting for peace, as one administration official put it to me, is that "the regime only responds to pressure. It has no record of responding to positive moves." So the other option is to set out on a ladder of escalation that will compel acceptance of the U.N. force and the disarmament of the militias. This approach would eventually involve the threat of force by a coalition of the willing -- not invasion and occupation, but a no-fly zone and perhaps a blockade. It would also require a clear message to the regime that menacing the refugees would bring terrible consequences. The more credible this threat of force, the more likely that the regime complies without the use of force.

Given other commitments, the U.S. military has been reluctant to even plan for these contingencies. But this leads to the strangest of situations: The French may now be more willing to act against genocide in Darfur than is the Pentagon.

The choice here is far from obvious. Escalation has risks; if not done in earnest, it is better not to begin at all. America is understandably weary and distracted. But a question hangs over the history of our time: Are we too tired to oppose genocide?

Ignoring the fact that he refers to the disastrous Iraq War (that he supported and promoted) as "other commitments", Gerson does seem to be, although very softly, challenging his former colleagues in the White House, the American public, and those in the global community to rise from our well-earned, Iraq War-induced torpor to oppose the genocidaires of Sudan and form the "armies of compassion" that he once lauded, altough in a different context, in order to bring an end to the Darfur conflict. (I wonder, are these armies of compassion actually compassionate coalitions of the willing?) Ending the genocide is a laudable goal; a goal that we can all, liberals and conservatives alike, support. Let', for the sake of argument, say we agree on the goal.

Now that we agree, how do we go about accomplishing it in an effective and expeditious manner? Should the "weary and distracted" America then share the burden of opposing genocide with the international community? Not just in terms of potential military intervention, but also by supporting the efforts of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and potentially prosecute the worst perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur? And why did the President fail to mention the investigation in yesterday's talk-tough-talk?Or should we, the American public, support the Bush Administration's continued ideological war against the interantionally supported court that could with our tactical support bring peace, justice, and security to war-weary Darfurians? The answer's not made clear by Gerson.

It might be instructive, or at least semi-informative, to take a look at Gerson's August 2006 answer to the Foreign Policy-posed question: How do we reconcile President Bush’s words on intervention for the cause of freedom with the absence of any real progress on Darfur?

I would dispute that there hasn’t been any real progress. There was real progress early in the administration on the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement], which ended one of the most destructive civil wars in history.

But in the shadow of the CPA, you had the developing problems of Darfur. Here’s my frustration with this issue. From a multilateral perspective, the United States has done everything right. We’ve engaged the AU [African Union], we’ve gone to the U.N. Security Council, we’ve engaged [the United Nations’] military planners for the transition from the AU force, and we’ve tried to work with members of the Arab League. And people are still dying.

The problem is that the short-term need is a capable peacekeeping military force with a mandate to protect and—I don’t know a nice way to put it—the ability to punish those who kill and rape civilians. The president has talked about NATO as a way to strengthen the AU force, and eventually the U.N. force, but there’s resistance within NATO. I would love for America to be able to intervene unilaterally, but it’s not possible. We have to rely on the capabilities and willingness of allies to take up some of the responsibility.

From a multilateral perspective, the United States had done everything right? Really? That might come as a bit of a surprise to the international community. And although there's no mention of the ICC, there is a focus on allied unwillingness to share responsibility. But now that the French are more likely to act than the Americans, as Gerson so correctly points out, isn't it time for this man of words to ask for more than words from his President? Apparently Gerson's commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur stops at supporting the ICC or moving beyond rhetoric and holding his former colleagues to the same standards that he once held our allies. Michael Gerson is by all accounts a moral man and brilliant public servant. So why then can't he bring himself to fully supporting a diplomatically robust, internationally engaged, multilateralist U.S. role in the global efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Darfur? Maybe he just couldn't find the words.

--Rich Stazinski

 

Recently I noted that former Senator and TV star Fred Thompson may announce his run for the GOP nomination on an upcoming appearance on the Jay Leno Show, June 12.  Well, it looks like I may be off by about three weeks.

Mike Allen in today’s Politico cites sources close to Mr. Right that he will make it official with an announcement over the Fourth of July holiday weekend.  Allen writes:

Thompson's formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson's first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem of what they consider his folksy, populist appeal.

Allen is right on the mark in noting that the red pickup truck was quite the prop in Thompson's Senate bid, but I just have this thing against red pickups.  It’s not that I have anything against the people who drive them.  It’s much more personal and painful than that. 

You see, it just so happens that over a “Fourth of July holiday weekend” after high school graduation, I was a passenger in a red pickup that met up with a tree at 35 miles per hour.  So, to all those people – and trees -- in New Hampshire and Iowa beware: A red pickup truck is about to navigate your way “as an emblem” of Thompson’s “folksy, populist appeal.”   

Howard Salter

 

As noted earlier by my colleague Howard Salter, President Bush announced new sanctions against the Sudanese government today in response to Sudan's continued support for attacks in Darfur. Today's announcement marked Bush's implementation of the Administration's infamous "Plan B" of action against the Sudanese government.

As of 8:00am this morning, 31 new companies have been added to the Department of Treasury's "Specially Designated Nationals" list, which effectively bans those companies from the U.S. financial system and blocks their financial assets. Bush also implemented targeted individual sanctions against three individuals in Sudan -- two government officials and a rebel leader. These sanctions make any transactions with these companies or individuals a criminal offense, as it is a felony to violate the sanctions. In addition, Bush directed the Secretary of State to help author a new U.N. Security Council Resolution with an expanded arms embargo, new multilateral sanctions, and a possible multilateral no-fly zone.

Don't get me wrong - it was great to finally see our president follow up his rhetoric on Darfur with concrete action. This is the second time in a month that President Bush spoke on Darfur, and both times he expressed his strong commitment to the Darfuri people and to influencing the Government of Sudan to change its behavior. In fact, I was glad to see President Bush naming some multilateral actions the U.S. will take in addition to the new unilateral sanctions:

"At the same time, we will continue to push for U.N. support, including funding for the African Union peacekeepers who remain the only force in Darfur that is protecting the people. We will continue to work for the deployment of a larger hybrid force of AU and U.N. peacekeeping troops. We will continue to support the diplomacy of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. We will continue to insist on the full implementation of the Darfur peace agreement. We will continue to promote a broadly supported and inclusive political settlement that is the only long-term solution to the crisis in Darfur."

But as much as Bush seems to be stepping up his efforts, he still sends a weak and incomplete message. We know from experience that the Government of Sudan will listen and change its behavior only when we follow through on our threats in a multilateral, robust and effective manner. Effectiveness is exactly what is at stake with the President's announcement this morning, and the three steps announced today are not enough. A few more unilateral sanctions will not make Sudan feel pressured nor will they make any difference on the ground; what is needed is strong and coordinated multilateral action. This also includes engaging and supporting the International Criminal Court's investigation in Darfur, something the president failed to mention altogether in this morning's speech.

Although the President's announcement this morning came too little, too late, he now has an opportunity to exert the moral courage necessary to lead the international community in facilitating a truly robust and multilateral effort to end atrocities in Darfur. Now is the time to work with the U.N. Security Council on strong multilateral sanctions that internationalize the unilateral sanctions announced today. Now is the time to coordinate our diplomatic efforts to bring the rebels together and help lead a renewed and inclusive peace process. Now is the time to make China, Russia, and the Arab states our partners in – not obstructers of – peace so that a full hybrid U.N.-AU peacekeeping force deploys in Darfur. And now is a good of a time as any to start engaging the International Criminal Court's investigation in Darfur in a real and concrete way.

Mr. President, thanks for the speech this morning. I appreciated your words and your sentiments - I'm sure the people of Darfur did as well. Now let's work with others to see some action that will make a difference.

Julia Fitzpatrick

Today is the International Day of U.N. Peacekeepers. It’s a good time to remember that those that worked and have sometimes given their lives to promote peace and justice around the world. At the U.N., Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a statement said:

“Today, members of the UN family around the world join together to commemorate our colleagues who gave their lives in the cause of peace last year. In 2006, for the fourth year in a row, more than 100 peacekeepers lost their lives. This brings home to us the risks that our colleagues in peacekeeping undertake on behalf of the international community to provide peace, security and hope to hundreds of millions of people.” 

It’s also a good time to remember that unless Congress acts, the United States will have accrued over $1 billion in peacekeeping arrears. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was supposed to take up legislation last week to address this, but failed to do so.

The United Nations currently operates 18 peacekeeping missions in war-torn countries around the world. The United States voted for each of these missions in the Security Council and has no obligation to contribute troops. The Bush administration's proposed funding cuts for U.N. peacekeeping this year will make it that much more difficult for peacekeeping to succeed. Meanwhile, a bipartisan resolution by Reps. Wynn and Leach, which supports an Emergency Peace Service, would make peacekeeping even more effective.

A few key points to remember:
 
In an interconnected world, all hot spots are in our backyard. We can't afford to ignore failed states or civil conflicts anymore. Helping people caught in war-torn regions isn't just a moral imperative - it's a crucial pillar of our national security strategy.

High success, low cost. An independent report by the RAND Corporation illustrates that the U.N. has by far the most successful peacekeeping force in the world. The U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed that peace operations in Haiti would have cost the U.S. spend eight times as much money as the U.N. has spent.

Keep our Promise, pay our bills. Not funding our part of U.N. peacekeeping makes it harder for current missions to succeed and for new missions to get off the ground.

Let's make it stronger and more effective. It's hard to get peacekeeping missions prepared and off the ground. Establishing a U.N. Emergency Peace Service that could deploy quickly would save countless lives and billions of dollars.

Don Kraus

In case you're wondering why my colleagues and I have taken issue with so many officials who rail against dependence on imports of foreign oil, wonder no more.

The NY Times published a story today on the fight over coal-to-liquid fuels in Congress. Advocates of "energy independence" and "reducing dependence on foreign oil" say ramping up coal-to-liquid production will get us closer to our energy goals.

Edmund Andrews writes in the NYT:

"[The conflict over coal-to-liquid] reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil."

Of the two, slowing global warming is clearly the right policy goal. The ultimate goal should be even more broad and ambitious: shifting the global energy economy to reliance on abundant sources of clean and sustainable energy that are climate-neutral, pro-development, and cannot be used as geopolitical leverage. We're still working on the bumper sticker, I guess.

With sequestration and coal burning technologies being where they are, the climate impacts of coal-to-liquid fuels would be at least as detrimental as those of oil. Plus, subsidizing these fuels in the U.S. would do nothing to address the oil addiction from we're suffering from, which is global. No matter where the U.S. gets its energy, the global energy market - and U.S. energy prices - will continue to ebb and flow with the price of oil.

Calling out politicians who casually mention "reliance on foreign oil" and "energy independence" because they're catchy and politically popular may seem nitpicky to some. But these terms are handcuffing a critically important policy debate.

Scott Paul

While I was camping over the weekend I missed the release by Greenpeace of a leaked U.S. memo to Germany regarding the G8 text on climate change.

In past years, when I've returned from meetings of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) or the Conference of Parties (COP) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, I have done my best to explain how out of step with its allies the U.S. is on climate change and the great lengths U.S. negotiators will go to obstruct international progress on the issue. To my great frustration, I usually feel unable to capture it.

The leaked memo shows illustrates precisely how the U.S. approaches these meetings.

But the G8 is different than the CSD and the COP, for one simple reason: people notice the G8. The G8 guarantees at least two and as many as four days of front-page news coverage. Being isolated diplomatically at the CSD or the COP can go under the radar screen, but not at the G8 Summit.

Angela Merkel and Co. will be under great pressure to cave in to U.S. objections and approve a weak document that the U.S. can agree to. She shouldn't.

That's what Tony Blair did during his presidency of the G8 in 2005, which was focused on poverty and climate change. Blair thought that after his loyalty and message discipline on Iraq that he could exact concessions from President Bush on other issues.

But Bush didn't give an inch. Blair wanted the Gleneagles Summit to be the moment where he reclaimed his status as an equal in the so-called "special relationship." Instead, Gleneagles serves to highlight Blair's seeming acceptance of a lesser role for his country compared to the United States.

There's a lesson to draw from Blair's experience, and Merkel should see it clearly: the Bush Administration does not reward its friends for compromise.

If the U.S. insists on staking out a position that so clearly opposes sound science and the views of its G8 colleagues, Merkel should keep the document strong and force the U.S. to dissociate from the G8 position.

There's nothing to be gained from compromise here, and given the spotlight that will be on the G8 Summit, there is much to be gained from exposing the Bush administration's intransigence.

Scott Paul

The largest, loudest bully pulpit in the world is stationed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Any time a president of the United States steps up to the microphone, the world’s attention turns in order to listen and analyze what he is saying.

Another advantage that allows the president to get his message out is by having his minions strategically leak information to key reporters. Every White House does this, not just this one. A classic example of how this works is on display in this morning’s Washington Post and New York Times .

It is obvious that the White House gave those two newspapers exclusive information as to what President Bush would announce this morning in regards to sanctions against Sudan in response to the on-going atrocities in Darfur.

More later from my colleague Julia Fitzpatrick who will be on a conference call with key White House Officials this afternoon.

Howard Salter

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. He's a West Point graduate, a Vietnam War veteran, and the author of the highly-regarded book, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. (Watch a related Cato Institute-sponsored book discussion or read Chris Preble's book review.) And until May 13, 2007, he was the proud father of a soldier fighting in a war that he himself publicly opposes. Unfortunately since his 27-year-old son and namesake, 1st Lt. Andrew Bacevich Jr., was killed in a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province, he is also now the member of a less-and-less exclusive group of individuals -- grieving American and Iraqi mothers, fathers and siblings who have lost loved ones in the Iraq War.

In yesterday's Washington Post, Bacevich tells the harrowing story of what it means to be a grieving father, a good citizen, and a brave soldier in these difficult days. Bacevich states:

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

I, myself, refuse to accept Bacevich's mea culpa for a war he didn't seek, support, or accept. The failure rests squarely on the shoulders of our elected officials, on both sides of the all-too-political aisle, who refuse to heed the will of the American people and continue to support a failed foreign policy and disastrous war.

Would there be any better way to honor the sacrifice of 1st Lt. Bacevich and America's fallen heroes on this Memorial Day than to end a poorly conceived, disastrously prosecuted war that keeps adding to the ranks of the fallen? Alas, it appears our elected officials are all too willing to let good citizens and proud parents like Andrew Bacevich pay the high price of political cowardice.

--Rich Stazinski

It appears the Bush Administration is getting ready to scrap an extremely effective arms control regime and replace it with something much skinnier. The rationale? From Reuters:

In the post-Cold war era, many provisions of the 1991 START accord, which mandated deep nuclear weapons cuts, "are no longer necessary. We don't believe we're in a place where we need have to have the detailed lists (of weapons) and verification measures," added [Asst. Secretary of State Paula] DeSutter, who handles arms control and verification issues.

Russia wants something binding, like the current START agreement. That seems like the right way to go.

Even if all were well in the U.S.-Russia relationship, going ahead without a binding arms control regime of this kind would still be an ill-advised move. The START agreement has greatly enhanced U.S., Russian, and international security during its lifespan.

Besides, all is not well in the U.S.-Russia relationship. A few years ago, the U.S. had an opportunity to stop the anti-democratic regression in Russia as a powerful friend and respected example. Now, its image tarnished and its influence damaged, the Bush Administration seems content to trade barbs with Russia from afar. The result of this gross negligence? Russia is growing less democratic and more hostile to the U.S. by the day.

It doesn't help that the U.S. is pushing missile defense systems in Europe. Russia withdrew from a key arms control treaty last month for precisely this reason.

Obviously, President Bush is no fan of multilateral treaties (the Law of the Sea is a notable and worthy exception). That's the big problem.

But there are "local considerations," too. The direction of the U.S.-Russia relationship is largely in American hands, and agreeing to a new arms control regime to replace START would be a step in the right direction.

Krishna Guha reports in today's FT that the Brazilian Executive Director at the World Bank, who represents the Philippines, Colombia and five other Latin American and Caribbean states, in addition to Brazil on the Bank's Board, submitted a memo to the Board calling for "an open, democratic and transparent process...based on the merits of a plurality of candidates regardless of nationality." The Board, which meets today to discuss the selection process, should take this proposal very seriously because it may be a good compromise. A key factor will be how open the U.S. will be, all signs are that the U.S. remains steadfast in its prerogative to choose the head of the World Bank.

Despite the resolution of the Wolfowitz crisis, the World Bank is in an increasingly tenuous position. Amongst many NGOs, the outcry over Wolfowitz was more about getting rid of him than about saving the World Bank. Reforming the leadership selection process would be an important first step in building up the Bank's credibility as an institution that aims to reduce poverty in the poorest countries and around the world.

As Raj noted yesterday morning , the International Criminal Court has launched an investigation into complaints of rape, sexual cruelty and other abuses committed in the Central African Republic.

In today’s Washington Post , Nora Boustany reports on the importance of this investigation, especially as it pertains to the issues of rape:

A distinctive feature of this investigation is the high number of sexual assault and cruelty cases, which far outnumber alleged killings. At least 600 people were raped in a five-month period, the court believes.

Boustany also reports the following, which explains why the ICC's investigation was not only needed, but launched:

The government of the Central African Republic referred the case to the court after the country's highest judicial body instituted its own criminal proceedings against deposed president Ange-Felix Patasse and several military commanders in 2004 for alleged acts committed against civilians.

The Cour de Cassation, the country's supreme court, determined that the national judicial system could not handle the complex probe required to prosecute the full scope of crimes committed during the conflict.

Howard Salter

Fred Thompson, former Senator and TV star of “Law and Order”, has scheduled a June 12 appearance on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” Normally, such a booking would not cause this early-to-bed early-to-rise (but I’m not a country boy) to stay up past midnight. But, could this be the moment Mr. Right makes it official and tosses hit hat into the GOP Presidential ring?

Announcing one’s bid for the White House on a late night talk show is nothing new. Senator John McCain used an appearance earlier this year on David Letterman to announce his candidacy…only to decide he didn’t quite hit all the right notes, so he did it again in a speech in late April in New Hampshire.

If Thompson does officially jump into the ring, look for his quote from 2002, as he was about to exit the Senate after eight years, to be used against him in some funny, creative ad work by his GOP or Democratic opponents:

"For me, the George Washington example of serving eight years and riding out of town on a horse and never returning has great appeal.&quo