An international, interpersonal spat exploded this week at a summit in Chile between monarchs, prime ministers and presidents and may transform into a major political crisis afflicting business and diplomatic relations between Venezuela and Spain. While the current Spanish Prime Minister was defending his predecessor's legitimacy as a democratically-elected representative of the people in the face of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' dehumanizing ad hominem attacks, President Chavez continued to interrupt the Prime Minister as he was speaking. At this point another member of the Spanish delegation, King Juan Carlos of Spain, leaned toward his microphone and urged Chavez to "shut up" and allow his Prime Minister to speak without undue interruption. Unfortunately, the King perhaps did not understand just how personally President Chavez takes things. Had the King known how insulted Chavez would feel by this comment, he no doubt would have rephrased the request for Chavez to essentially stuff a sock in it while the Prime Minister had the floor.
"[The king] disrespected me, and he was laid bare before the world in his arrogance and also his impotence," Mr. Chavez told a news conference on Tuesday, before adding: "We don't want this to become a political crisis."*
This statement reveals not only a sharp contradiction but also a dangerous brand of egotism brandished by President Chavez. The contradiction shows up in Chavez' description of King Juan Carlos as a man who is not only arrogant, a pardonable offense, but who is "impotent." Aside from any sexual insinuations, making fun of the reduced power afforded to a legacy monarch (one who is locked into a primarily secular scheme of government) is nothing less than an attempt to embarrass and demean. Simply put, Chavez opted to trade tit for tat with his statement. That Chavez chose to include such a slur in his lightly-veiled request for a formal apology merely demonstrates a lack of statesmanlike poise and self-control. Furthermore, Chavez damages his own reputation as a national leader by preferring to ruin Spanish-Venezuelan relations in toto, to smash like an angry infant all the economic, emotional and relationship-based commerce that has developed between the two countries for decades rather than accept anything less than a full formal apology (devoid of any Chavez-style embedded insults) from Spain for having rightly scolded him for his extremely rude interruptions during the summit in Chile. It is as if Chavez has adopted the attitude of a fictional soap opera egomaniac and has opted to spurn all reasonable and diplomatic approaches in order to exact the full measure of revenge capable of satisfying his pride, at any and all cost to everyone and everything under his control and influence. Unless Chavez' behavior here is tactically designed to appeal strongly to the heart-strings of a strongly-emotional segment of his political constituency back home, there is no other reasonable explanation capable of defending his conduct as a national leader in this instance.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7094148.stm
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Wrangling over Prisoners in Iraq: Sultan Hashem, "Chemical" Ali and Prisoner Transfer Delays
"Undertaking" seems like a job for an undertaker. If today's Iraqi government has its way, the local undertaker will engage in an undertaking of sorts: the taking under of several prominent leaders of Iraq's former government. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker made a statement this week in response to allegations that the U.S. has actively engaged in negotiations with Sunni leadership to grant a death penalty reprieve to Former Defense Minister under Saddam Hussein, Sultan Hashem Ahmed.* Ambassador Crocker's statement deploys the verb "to undertake" in a way ambiguous enough to admit of some hidden truth. Let's explore further...
Several high-profile former Iraqi government officials have been tried and sentenced to death under legitimate Iraqi laws and procedures.** The prisoners are currently being held under the authority of the Multinational Forces (under the leadership of General Patreus). "But U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker says he has investigated the allegations, and insists that 'there were no U.S. undertakings whatsoever to Sultan Hashem concerning immunities or anything like that.'" (Jim Muir's BBC News article dated Nov. 13, 2007).
As I do when examining these statements, I assume the full truthfulness of Crocker's response. However, it is not difficult to detect its highly restrictive phrasing, crabbed phrasing that seriously narrows the scope of the response. Examine the phrase "undertakings whatsoever to Sultan Hashem...." The key word here is the preposition: it acts only on a single individual. Ambassador Crocker merely stipulates that, to his knowledge, the U.S. has not negotiated directly with the prisoner on the topic of immunization or reprieve from the death penalty. I draw your attention to this narrow meaning precisely because it logically permits the possibility that the U.S. has indeed conducted extensive and intense negotiations with key members of the Sunni leadership group who have lobbied fiercely for immunity or reprieve for Sultan Hashem. Because this matter has ruffled so many feathers and is the topic of intense emotional and political wrangling at present, it is reasonable to conclude that Ambassador Crocker simply does not want to draw any more attention to the issue than the truthfulness of his crabbed response will allow. In narrowing the scope of his statement, the Ambassador has most likely stuck to his guns as a seasoned diplomat, one who understands that the message is often more important the messenger.
* Sultan Hashem Ahmed was one of three key figures responsible for conducting the deplorable Al-Anfal Campaign waged against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq during the late 1980's.
** N.B. Some formal procedural requirements for finalizing a legitimate death sentence were not followed, and an active debate is currently raging over the importance and necessity of these procedures. Some say they are mere formalities while others argue for their importance as structural protections to prevent the abuse of basic human rights.
An interesting side issue is the matter of determining which entity does a better job of protecting prisoner's rights. In Iraq, Abu Grahib reminded the world that U.S. treatment of prisoners is not beyond reproach. Yet Amnesty International is fighting to keep prisoners in Afghanistan in NATO custody due to the increasing number of mistreatment and torture allegations against the local Afghani intelligence service, the NDS.
Several high-profile former Iraqi government officials have been tried and sentenced to death under legitimate Iraqi laws and procedures.** The prisoners are currently being held under the authority of the Multinational Forces (under the leadership of General Patreus). "But U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker says he has investigated the allegations, and insists that 'there were no U.S. undertakings whatsoever to Sultan Hashem concerning immunities or anything like that.'" (Jim Muir's BBC News article dated Nov. 13, 2007).
As I do when examining these statements, I assume the full truthfulness of Crocker's response. However, it is not difficult to detect its highly restrictive phrasing, crabbed phrasing that seriously narrows the scope of the response. Examine the phrase "undertakings whatsoever to Sultan Hashem...." The key word here is the preposition: it acts only on a single individual. Ambassador Crocker merely stipulates that, to his knowledge, the U.S. has not negotiated directly with the prisoner on the topic of immunization or reprieve from the death penalty. I draw your attention to this narrow meaning precisely because it logically permits the possibility that the U.S. has indeed conducted extensive and intense negotiations with key members of the Sunni leadership group who have lobbied fiercely for immunity or reprieve for Sultan Hashem. Because this matter has ruffled so many feathers and is the topic of intense emotional and political wrangling at present, it is reasonable to conclude that Ambassador Crocker simply does not want to draw any more attention to the issue than the truthfulness of his crabbed response will allow. In narrowing the scope of his statement, the Ambassador has most likely stuck to his guns as a seasoned diplomat, one who understands that the message is often more important the messenger.
* Sultan Hashem Ahmed was one of three key figures responsible for conducting the deplorable Al-Anfal Campaign waged against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq during the late 1980's.
** N.B. Some formal procedural requirements for finalizing a legitimate death sentence were not followed, and an active debate is currently raging over the importance and necessity of these procedures. Some say they are mere formalities while others argue for their importance as structural protections to prevent the abuse of basic human rights.
An interesting side issue is the matter of determining which entity does a better job of protecting prisoner's rights. In Iraq, Abu Grahib reminded the world that U.S. treatment of prisoners is not beyond reproach. Yet Amnesty International is fighting to keep prisoners in Afghanistan in NATO custody due to the increasing number of mistreatment and torture allegations against the local Afghani intelligence service, the NDS.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)