Israeli doctors in Haiti

Here's a link to the blog of Yael Bar-Tur, an Israeli living in Los Angeles who joined her military unit in Haiti, containing first-person anecdotes about her experiences with the Israeli field hospital.

Among other things, she notes how quickly Arab and European media moved to deny Israel's contribution. As she describes it:

"Every night in Haiti I would go on youtube, click "Israel Haiti" and follow the stories of the reporters who came to visit the hospital. As time went by, these two words brought up horrible and saddening videos, mostly accusing Israel of organ harvesting, trying to steal Haitian children, exploiting Haiti for PR and so on...These where not just coming from your average left wing or right wing psychos, but from respectable papers in Arab countries and Europe."

I used to believe such stories were simply the kind hateful stuff you always find at the political margins of society. But it's going mainstream now. (Thanks to Rachel.)

The dangers of foreign aid

Here are two articles that highlight the difficulties and dangers associated with foreign aid for the two countries of highest current interest, Afghanistan and Haiti.

In Afghanistan, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has ignored its own procedures to throw money at the UN agency in charge of development projects there. Result: maybe $10-20 out of every $100 in aid actually make it to the announced destination; meanwhile, AID and the UN agency are the subjects of numerous reports on malfeasance.

As for Haiti, the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens argues that the worst thing we could do would be to provide more aid for reconstruction, once the humanitarian emergency is past. Haiti has received massive assistance for years, creating a culture of dependency and a corrupt and useless government. Any new aid 'surges' would only perpetuate those problems and make them even worse.

Great Satan and Little Satan

That's what the Islamists call the United States (Great Satan) and Israel (Little Satan), to emphasize in part the similarities between the two. And, indeed, the response to the Haiti earthquake suggests they may have a point: Israel has quickly deployed a sophisticated field hospital there, apparently better than any U.S. capabilities available there. Give me the Satans any day of the week! (Thanks to Shoshana, whom I don't know, but who sent me the link.)

The perils of foreign elections

It's always risky to subordinate U.S. foreign policy decisions to the procedures or outcomes of foreign elections. Two recent cases come to mind: Afghanistan and Honduras.

In Afghanistan, opposition presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah has now bowed out of the November 7 runoff. Since much of the discussion about whether President Obama should increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan has centered around the legitimacy of the Afghan government, this move leaves the U.S. government with both feet firmly planted...in midair.

In Honduras, the United States has brokered a murky compromise to allow former president Manual Zelaya to return home, and to proceed with November 29 elections to choose a new president to go forward. What if, as one Honduran source suggested, Zelaya can't return to Honduras until the Supreme Court rules on the issue - and it doesn't do so until after November 29? It was smart for the U.S. government to negotiate a way around its ridiculous insistence that Zelaya be reinstated, but what a dumb position to be in in the first place.

Hint to the Obama administration: try focusing primarily on U.S. national security interests. In Honduras, there were none of which I'm aware, so we should have kept our distance rather than meddling. In Afghanistan, the government's legitimacy is important, but more important is the overall security situation in the country. Both American and Afghan lives are currently at risk, and protecting them should be the main focus.

Crush Honduras

Yup, there's a serious threat to U.S. national security. You might name Iran, or the war in Afghanistan, or maybe North Korea - but you would be SOOO wrong. It's none of the above.

It's the current regime in Honduras. The United States has been consistently hostile to it; has called publicly for its demise; and has applied all kinds of sanctions, from withdrawing U.S. funds to denying U.S. visas to prominent Hondurans, including all members of the Supreme Court.

Now, the latest: the United States, along with the Organization of American States, will not accept the outcome of presidential elections in November unless former President Manuel Zelaya gets his job back. As Zelaya was thrown out of office since he wanted to be President for Life, this arrangement might seem a bit odd. The OAS, however, says he would only have limited authority.

I'm looking forward to the bestseller that explains how we got into this mess. Particularly since we so proud of not 'meddling' in Iran. I hope it names names!

U.S. isolated on Honduras

The Obama administration is digging itself in ever deeper on policy toward Honduras. It is continuing to punish the Hondurans for not allowing former president Manuel Zelaya to resume his post, while the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States, and the European Union are going back to business as usual. Even Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez appears to have accepted that Zelaya will not be reinstated.

I assume Obama is doing this because (a) he thinks it's the right policy and/or (b) he's feeding one victory to the restive left wing of his party. He certainly isn't doing it because it's in the U.S. interest. (Thanks to Investor's Business Daily.)

Shame on us!

The U.S. government continues to apply strong pressure on the government of Honduras to permit former President Manuel Zelaya to return. The Wall Streeet Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports that U.S. visa services for Hondurans have been suspended indefinitely and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut. And that's just what's in the public domain; what else, she wonders, is going on behind closed doors?

I suspect that many Americans, if they had any idea this was going on, would identify with the Hondurans who are simply trying to defend their democracy - after all, Zelaya wanted to make himself president-for-life just like his mentor and buddy, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Israel and Honduras

Here's a new thought: there are two countries, Israel and Honduras, where Obama has not hesitated to 'meddle' - to tell the governments and people what to do and exactly how to do it. What's interesting is that, in both cases, he has failed to rally any significant support for his positions within those countries.

According to Aluf Benn, editor at large of the Israeli daily Haaretz, there is absolutely no support, even among Prime Minister Netanyahu's opponents, for Obama's position on freezing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nor does Obama appear to enjoy the sympathy of the Israeli public, who think he's a softie who can be easily deceived or bullied by Iran and North Korea, and resent him implying that the establishment of Israel was simply a pay-back for the Holocaust.

As for Honduras, the government and the public appear willing to withstand external pressure, including the suspension of $18 million in U.S. military and development assistance, to keep President Roberto Micheletti in place until elections in November. Former President Manual Zelaya, camped out just over the border in Nicaragua, is reportedly losing steam in his attempt to reinstate himself, despite support from just about everyone, including the United States.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying this is all bad: Israelis are known for their disputatious politics, and we seem to be moving them toward more consensus. Honduras, like many Latin American countries, has struggled over the years to establish a firm constitutional order, and we're definitely getting them united on that topic.

Maybe the State Department should survey the globe, determine where greater internal unity would be in our favor, and start putting pressure on those governments. Certainly it's worth a try!

Shameful, shameful

In his history of the UN, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Dore Gold argues that the UN got off on the wrong foot by refusing to oppose agression against Israel and Kashmir. He then catalogues a series of costly UN failures, from Korea to Rwanda to the oil-for-food scandal. In that context, the vote today in the General Assembly in favor of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya isn't so bad.

And, of course, Zelaya has the full support of President Obama. Why is it bad to meddle in Iranian politics, but not in Honduran politics? According to news reports, U.S. embassy officials were deeply involved in the negotiations preceding the military's decision to send Zelaya into exile. Just what, I wonder, were they doing? Just what is U.S. policy on the substance of this dispute? Do we support elected presidents who seek to violate their constitutions?

Oh yes, of course, how silly of me - why would any news agency be interested in that when it can be covering Michael Jackson instead?

Constitutionality in Honduras

As you may have noticed, the Honduran military just removed President Manuel Zelaya from power and exiled him to Costa Rica. You may also have noticed that the United States and the EU condemned this move.

But did you know that the military removed him in response to a decision by the Honduran supreme court that he was violating the constitution? Here's a summary of the issue by commentator Mary Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal.

Does the new and improved U.S. foreign policy designed to restore our image and our popularity require support for presidents who break the law?

Fidel is right

Fidel Castro appears to have been angered by the conciliatory tone adopted by brother Raul after President Obama suggested improvements in U.S.-Cuban ties. Obama had called for an end to taxation of remittances from relatives living in the United States. In an essay on the Cuban government's website, Fidel rejected that proposal, saying: "Not all Cubans have family members overseas that send remittances," and that Cuba uses the tax revenues on free health care, education and subsidized food to all Cubans.

So why does Obama, who so fervently desires redistribution of wealth, cavil at the Cuban system? Isn't he guilty of 'superficiality, as Fidel charged? (Thanks to CNS News.)

Getting Colombia right

Here's a piece of good news (thanks to Investor's Business Daily): it looks as if momentum is building in the United States to sign the free trade pact with Colombia. Congressional Democrats have blocked the agreement for some time now, arguing - falsely - that the Colombian government did too little to protect trade union leaders from terrorist attacks.

But President Obama promised Colombian President Uribe that he would push for passage; that promise follows several weeks of other positive signs, such as a pro-trade Democratic delegation that visited Colombia. Obama invited Uribe to Washington and said he would visit Colombia himself.

Uribe has done a magnificent job of ridding his country of terrorism and restoring democracy. The United States needs to give him its full support; if we're about to do so, I'm all for it.

French policy toward Colombia

Did you ever wonder what the French were doing when they weren't excoriating President Bush for his dreadful foreign policy disasters? Well, for one thing, making their own blunders.

Even President Nicolas Sarkozy let himself get suckered by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He and the rest of the French foreign policy elite opposed any military initiative to free the hostages held by the FARC, especially Ingrid Betancourt who also has French citizenship. Instead, they supported Chavez' proposals for negotiations. That policy looks rather foolish now that it has become clear that the FARC never intended to release Betancourt and that Chavez had close ties with the FARC.

For more background, read John Rosenthal's interview with Daniel Pecaut, a French expert on Colombia.

Iraq and Colombia

What do Iraq and Colombia have in common? Well, both receive tremendous amounts of military aid from the United States, aid that has been very controversial. And the militaries of both countries have recently proven their ability to plan and execute decisive military operations, whether regaining Basra and its oil wells or killing terrorists in Ecuador and freeing hostages in the Colombian jungle. And both governments have done so with the growing support of their citizenry.

In Iraq and Colombia, the U.S. military has helped with training and support but has provided neither the brains behind the operations nor the brawn needed to accomplish them.

Isn't this outcome that our military assistance is supposed to achieve?