Susan Rice Would Have Been a Bad Secretary of State Anyway
http://www.fpif.org/articles/susan_rice_would_have_been_a_bad_secretary_of_state_anyway
By Stephen Zunes <
http://www.fpif.org/about/columnists#Stephen+Zunes>,
December 17, 2012
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's announcement that she
would withdraw her name from consideration to be the next secretary of
state is a mixed blessing.
On the one hand, it marks yet another example of the Obama administration's
failure to defend its appointees from concerted and misleading Republican
attacks. As with National Intelligence Council chair-designate Chas
Freeman<
http://www.fpif.org/articles/neocons_1_obama_0>,
special environmental advisor Van Jones, and Agriculture Department
official Shirley Sherrod, the fact that the charges against Rice - which
mostly involved her initial comments regarding the September attack on the
U.S. mission in Benghazi - were groundless did not stop the Republicans from
succeeding.
On the other hand, Rice's lack of support for international humanitarian
law and her willingness to state demonstrable falsehoods to defend actions
by the United States and its allies that violate international norms would
have made her a poor choice for secretary of state. It is all too telling
that the mainstream media was so willing to focus on spurious criticisms
from the right while ignoring legitimate criticisms from the left.
One example of Rice's disconnect from reality came up in the lead-up to the
war in Iraq 10 years ago, as independent arms control analysts, scholars,
investigative journalists, and anti-war activists were challenging the Bush
administration's lies about the supposed 'Iraqi threat.' In an apparent
effort to discredit these efforts by those who opposed the rush to war,
Rice rushed to the administration's defense. Even though Iraq had disarmed
itself of its chemical and biological weapons and eliminated its nuclear
program at least eight years earlier, Rice
declared,<
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=885562>"It's
clear that Iraq poses a major threat." And, despite the success of
the UN's disarmament program, she insisted that Iraq's "weapons of mass
destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on."
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before the
United Nations that Iraq had reconstituted its biological and chemical
weapons arsenal, as well as its nuclear weapons program - and had somehow
hidden all this from the hundreds of UN inspectors then in Iraq who were
engaged in unfettered inspections. None of this was true, and Powell's
transparently false claims were immediately challenged by UN officials,
arms control specialists, and much of the press and political leadership in
Europe and elsewhere. (See my article written in response to his testimony: Mr.
Powell, You're No Adlai
Stevenson<
http://www.fpif.org/articles/mr_powell_youre_no_adlai_stevenson>
.)
Rice, however, insisted<
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/28/1165415/-Susan-Rice-Vocally-Supported-the-Iraq-War-and-Every-MidEast-War-Since>that
Powell had "proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and
I don't think many informed people doubted that." In light of such
widespread and public skepticism from knowledgeable sources, Rice's
dismissal of all the well-founded criticism was positively Orwellian: those
who blindly accepted Powell's transparently false claims were
"well-informed," while the UN officials, arms control specialists, and
others knowledgeable of the reality of the situation were presumably
otherwise.
Her openness to another U.S. war in the Middle East became apparent when she
announced <
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=285292>in
September that "there is no daylight" between the United States and
the
right-wing Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been pushing
for a unilateral attack on Iran, regarding Iran's nuclear program.
Rice has also not been averse to supporting autocratic regimes in Africa,
recently suppressing a UN report criticizing the government of Rwanda, a
U.S. ally, for supporting the M-23 rebels in eastern Congo. The rebels, led
by a notorious warlord wanted by the International Criminal Court, have
wreaked havoc in the troubled province of North Kivu. Rice dismissed the
report, saying<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/11/obama-rwanda-sanctions-congo>,
"It's eastern Congo. If it were not the M23 killing people it would be some
other armed groups."
Similarly, this past September Rice delivered a
eulogy<
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/197275.htm>for the
late Meles Zenawi, the authoritarian ruler of Ethiopia, calling him
"brilliant," "uncommonly wise, able to see the big picture and the long
game," and "a true friend to me."
Rice has also objected to UN initiatives challenging racism, successfully
pushing the Obama administration to boycott a five-day conference in Geneva
in 2009 that assessed international progress in fighting racism and
xenophobia since the UN's first conference in Durban, South Africa eight
years earlier. The final document <
http://www.un.org/WCAR/durban.pdf> of
the 2001 conference explicitly recognized “the right to security for all
States in the [Middle East], including Israel, and call[ed] upon all States
to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.” It
called as well for “a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region
in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and
internationally recognized human rights, and security.” However, because it
also expressed concern regarding “the plight of the Palestinian people
under foreign occupation” and recognized their "right to
self-determination,” Rice determined that it was somehow “anti-Israel”
since it “prejudges key
issues<
http://geneva.usmission.gov/2009/04/18/durban-2/>that can only
be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and
Palestinians."
*Defending Israeli colonization and repression*
Indeed, Rice has developed a reputation at the United Nations as one of the
world body’s most outspoken supporters of Israel’s rightist government and
its settlements policy. Former Congressman Robert
Wexler<
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/susan-rice-has-israels-back-84998.html>
, who now heads a right-leaning pro-Israel advocacy group in Washington,
wrote in an op-ed for *Politico* that "Israel has no greater champion in
the current administration than Susan Rice.” Failing to distinguish between
anti-Israel ideologues and legitimate criticism of the right-wing
government’s violations of international law, Rice has dismissed criticism
at the UN of Israeli policies as nothing more than “anti-Israel
crap<
http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/RiceFightingAntiIsraelCrap040709>."
She cast one of only nine negative votes in the 193-member UN General
Assembly to upgrade Palestine’s status to a non-member state. In Rice’s
view, while Israeli statehood and membership in the United Nations is a
given, Palestinian statehood and UN recognition should only be on terms
agreed to by Israel’s hardline government.
Indeed, Rice has made clear her contempt for international law in a series
of statements regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most of the
outstanding issues between Israel and Palestine—such as settlements and the
status of East Jerusalem—are issues of international law, many of which
have been previously addressed by the UN Security Council and other United
Nations bodies. For example, Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank
and East Jerusalem has continued despite these settlements constituting a
clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a landmark advisory
opinion of the International Court of Justice, and four previous UN
Security Council resolutions that passed without objection from previous
administrations.
However, in justifying her veto of an otherwise unanimous resolution in
2011 reiterating the illegality of Israeli colonization of the occupied
West Bank, Rice
insisted<
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm>that
it was "unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues
that divide Israelis and Palestinians."
Ironically, the resolution about which she spoke did not “attempt to
resolve” the conflict. Indeed, it explicitly called for the resumption of
negotiations. What Rice objected to was the resolution’s insistence that
such negotiations be based on international law, which is actually a very
appropriate role for the UN Security Council, but one which Rice somehow
found to be intolerable.
During last month’s conflict between forces of Hamas and Israel, during
which three Israeli civilians and over 100 Palestinian civilians died, Rice
correctly noted <
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/200564.htm> that
there was “no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist
organizations are employing against the people of Israel.” However, she
offered absolutely no criticism for Israel’s far more devastating
bombardment of the heavily populated Gaza Strip, simply saying that
"Israel, like any nation, has the right to defend itself against such
vicious attacks.” She blocked an otherwise unanimous UN Security Council
statement that called for a cease fire, condemned all acts of terrorism and
violence directed toward civilians, and reiterated support for all states
to live in peace and security within their internationally recognized
boundaries.
When a UN investigation of the 2008-2009 Gaza War raised concerns about
possible war crimes by both Israel and Hamas, Rice denounced it because of
its criticism of the actions by the U.S.-armed Israeli Defense Forces. "Our
view is that we need to be focused on the future," she
argued<
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/september/129303.htm>.
The report<
http://connect.usfca.edu/cp/tag.4c683c7d8e8e55d6.render.userLayoutRootNode.uP?uP_root=root&uP_sparam=activeTab&activeTab=u13l1s8&uP_tparam=frm&frm=>’s
findings included the recommendation that both Hamas and the Israeli
government bring to justice those responsible for war crimes during the
three weeks of fighting and, if they failed to do so, the report urged that
the case be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible
prosecution. Rice<
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/17/1007970/rice-serious-concerns-about-goldstone-report>labeled
this call to hold those accountable for war crimes as “basically
unacceptable.” Though Rice had argued just a few months earlier during a UN
debate on Darfur that war crimes charges should never be sacrificed for
political reasons, she
argued<
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/september/129303.htm>that
following the report’s recommendations on Israel-Palestine could
somehow interfere with the “peace process,” which has been stagnant for
years.
Rice’s lack of concern for international humanitarian law has been
particularly evident in her
attacks<
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/10/26/3110391/us-rejects-call-for-boycott-by-un-rapporteur-falk>against
the UN’s special rapporteur for human rights, Richard Falk—an
American Jew and a highly respected international legal scholar and
professor emeritus from Princeton. When Falk recommended that companies
profiting from Israel’s illegal settlements “should be boycotted until they
bring their operations into line with international human rights and
humanitarian law and standards,” Rice denounced his recommendations as
"irresponsible and unacceptable." Falk’s proposals, she argued, would “do
nothing to further a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and indeed poison the environment for peace,” adding, that Falk’s
“continued service in the role of a UN Special Rapporteur is deeply
regrettable.” And, despite his outspoken criticisms of Palestinian
terrorism and his
insistence<
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/04/the-war-on-richard-falk/>that
his mandate should include violations of human rights by Palestinian
governments (which led the Palestinian Authority to call for his
resignation), Rice has labeled Falk “highly biased” against Israel.
In short, having Susan Rice as secretary of state would have been a major
setback to the cause of human rights and international law. The question,
though, is whether President Obama will nominate anyone better.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist and senior analyst, is a
professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University
of San Francisco.
Received on Wed Dec 19 2012 - 21:26:16 EST
