Norm Coleman should heed lessons from Burma

President George Bush addressed the situation in Myanmar ( aka Burma ) at the United Nations link : “Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. The regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners -- including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.
The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable. This morning, I'm announcing a series of steps to help bring peaceful change to Burma. The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We'll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. ”

The lessons are woefully apparent yet President Bush is still trying the same approach.

Following the August 1988 massacre of demonstrators, President George H. W. Bush suspended all arms sales and foreign assistance, except humanitarian aid, to Burma. In September, 1996 President Clinton barred U.S. assistance to Burma except for relief aid and anti-narcotic purposes and calling for a moratorium on new American private investment . link

Sanctions were the message.

Bush was right -- “Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma" -- and some did try to force compliance … for example, Halliburton shareholders advanced an initiative after the Halliburton was involved in a 1997 Yadana pipeline project (NOTE : Halliburton’s CEO in 1997 was current US Vice-President Richard Cheney).
Halliburton’s response : “While the Board shares the Proponent's concern about human rights abuses in countries such as Myanmar, Halliburton has not engaged in, or condoned, such conduct. Thus, the requested report will serve only to increase administrative burdens and costs. Halliburton's Code of Business Conduct requires all employees and agents to practice honesty and integrity in every aspect of their dealings with other Halliburton employees, customers, suppliers and the public and to treat those persons with dignity and respect. As a company that operates in over 100 countries around the world, our customers, partners, suppliers and employees represent virtually every race or national origin and an associated multitude of religions, cultures, customs, political philosophies and languages.
We must, and do, respect this diversity and realize that neither the United States nor we can impose its values on the world. It is not our purpose to remake the world in the image of any particular political, moral or religious philosophy with which we are comfortable.
Rather, we hope to help improve the quality of life wherever we do business by serving as a developer of natural resources and infrastructures.
Regarding allegations of violations of human rights by the government of Myanmar, we believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies. Where the United States government has mandated that United States companies refrain from commerce, we comply, often to the advantage of our international competitors. History has shown that single country, let alone corporate boycotts and sanctions, are ineffective, often injuring the economic interests of the boycotting entity.
We do not always agree with the policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, however, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for Halliburton to establish its own country-by-country foreign policy. ”
Note : Emphasis added.

There’s the problem with sanctions … they don’t work. Halliburton’s response is similar to China which views the problems in Burma as “internal”. How can the US expect other countries to levy sanctions when US companies will not ?

While sanctions restricting foreign aid and investment may economically weaken a country, the reigning regime may retain, and even increase, its brute power. Dictators strengthen their control over reformers as contact with the outside world is restricted. Education and society advancements are restricted. The US is blamed for meddling and all difficulties that the people face. The only jobs are military jobs. The ruling power find “friendly partners” who will continue to provide what it wants ( Senator Coleman’s investigation of the Iraq Oil industry is an illustration).
The regime does not suffer … just the people.

This is not a rant on Cheney and Halliburton … but instead that sanctions don’t work. And that is why I address this commentary to Senator Coleman.

Senator Coleman sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. The committee has oversight over the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, USAID, and other agencies that implement international treaties, as well as legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy. That is the most important committee that Coleman is assigned.

Coleman has advocated sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Laos, North Korea, and Syria … just to name a few.

As Baron de Montesquieu wrote in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”

It’s time for Senator Coleman to realize that sanctions do not work.
Nineteen years of US sanctions against Burma has not changed the regime.
Engaged diplomacy and trade is America’s best foreign policy.
Adhereing to his idealogy of sanctions actually hurts Minnesota businesses.

The Obligatory Summer Respite for Norm Coleman

Ah, after all those long, grueling months of hard work, don’t you look forward to a little R&R time. For most of us, we look forward to time with the spouse, maybe taking the kids to a Twins game or the Zoo … and of course a round of golf with the buddies. Alas, we also must schedule in the Obligatory Trip to visit the in-laws. No disrespect for those wonderful members of my spouse’s family, but the thought of 500 miles on the road to spend a couple of days hearing the same old stories, is a haunting déjà vu experience that I don’t want to do again … but it’s a must do.

Poor Norm Coleman … he must feel the same way.
After months of traveling on Endangered Republican Fundraising Tour (potentially 30 joint fundraising events around the country for the four most vulnerable senators of 2008: Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire) link , Norm needs a little R&R time, too.

But alas, he must first make hit the Minnesota State Fair for the radio interview circuit as his first Obligatory event.
Oh, sure some of the people are “Minnesota Nice”, but then there are always those callers that want to talk about Iraq, the bridge collapse and the floods.
Well, voters, Norm isn’t just going to “talk” about Iraq … he’s “going” to Iraq.

I believe that is another Obligatory Tour Event.

As The New York Times describes these trips are commonplace. A typical trip begins when Senators and Representatives ” boarded a military jet at Andrews Air Force Base. Three flights and a Black Hawk helicopter ride later, they were lunching on asparagus soup and lobster tortellini at the home of Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker in Baghdad.[Snip] Then There is the helicopter ride out of the Green Zone to an open-air market, maybe in Anbar Province, a staple of Congressional tours now that local tribal leaders are cooperating with Americans in the fight against the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. A meeting with sheiks, a local mayor, or perhaps the Kurdish deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, whose name some cannot seem to remember … [Snip] and the all-important photographs with hometown soldiers to show constituents at election time. Just another day in Baghdad in August, high season for Congressional travel to Iraq.

The impression from Coleman’s comments on the radio, it seems he is just going to reinforce his beliefs.

But does he need to go to get his beliefs reinforced ?
After Gil Gutknecht visited Iraq, his assessment was that a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise. How did Gutknecht come to this assessment … no doubt from visiting Iraq … but also from a private meeting with returning National Guard members in the First District. Gutknecht never discussed what was privately said but Coleman should read the August 19, 2007 Op-Ed by seven soldiers who are just finishing their fifteen month tour. And, Coleman should follow Gutknecht’s lead and have a “private” meeting with members of the Minnesota National Guard who have returned in the past few weeks.

The trip could have some value if he also visited other countries in the region.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with his own stated commitment to ”the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace”, a visit to Syria and Lebanon is a must. Both countries are critical to achieving peace. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Mailiki visited Syria last week to ask Syria to crack down on border crossings by alleged insurgents and Iraq is trying to reopen an oil pipeline that was bombed by U.S. fighters in the 2003 invasion that would connect the two countries economically. While the visit to Lebanon would be to pressure the government to stop allowing the training Shiite fighters from Iraq in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics.

Senator Coleman, if you are going on Obligatory Tours at least visit with people who can really tell you "the other side of the story."

Is Cheney dictating Norm Coleman’s inaction ?

On Rush Limbaugh’s April 5 radio program, Dick Cheney was interviewed :
THE VICE PRESIDENT: “I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it”
Earlier in the interview, Cheney stated : “Obviously, she's the Speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations” [snip] “In this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashir Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interest of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He, obviously, is heavily involved right now in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government of Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior, he should not be rewarded with visits by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ”

So “bad behavior” must be a Cheney code word to tell others not to go to Syria. But since Cheney was not there, he does not know what message Speaker Pelosi conveyed.

Even the editorial page of The Washington Post blasted Pelosi, but what doesn’t get the same attention is a letter in response from Congressman Tom Lantos who was on the trip with her. Describing the meetings of April 3rd, he wrote : “As a part of that delegation and a participant in its every meeting, I would like to set the record straight. [Snip] the Speaker told Assad that Syria must end its support for terrorists, including Hamas and
Hezbollah, if it wants peace talks with Israel. [Snip] She delivered tough messages to Assad regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and the Hariri assassination tribunal. As the Speaker said during her visit, she supports the Administration's policy goals in Syria [Snip] … constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Damascus. The Administration's approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Five Republican congressmen have visited Assad this week. Based on the traffic to Syria, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats share the Speaker's misgivings about the White House's ineffectiveness in the region. ”

My reaction to Pelosi’s trip is that it should have been recognized as America demonstrating its diversity and commitment to promote Israel-Syria peace and discouraging Syria from support terrorist organizations. Think about it – a Holocaust survivor (Lantos), a Muslim (Keith Ellison,) and three Democratic and one Republican Congressmen are lead by a woman to address the most critical issue of modern times. Congress has a responsibility in foreign affairs … after all, the House is budgeting $35.3 billion for the International Affairs.

In my blog entry of of January 23,2007, I encouraged Norm Coleman to follow the path of Senators Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and visit Syria first hand. They visited Syria this past December and Specter after meeting with Bashar Assad, stated "Assad stated an interest in negotiating with Israel to try to bring a peaceful settlement to the Syrian-Israeli dispute under the U.N. doctrine of land-for-peace. "



Why wasn’t Norm Coleman there ? Well, would going to Syria interfere with his ability to attend a $100 per person fund raiser offered by Ventura County California on his behalf on April 5th ?

It’s too bad that we have a Senator that is too addicted to soliciting monies for a re-election campaign, then pursuing a dialogue with the other countries. Funny how in his “Bringing People Together to get things done” campaign for US Senate in 2002, he stressed the need to “put aside partisan politics and listen to the average person.” Well, he doesn’t have to listen to me, but how about the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group ?

The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that investing in international programs today will help reduce the costs of having to engage military for humanitarian or other reasons in troubled regions in the future.

The Iraq Study Group encourages high level diplomacy stating "In diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests."


Cheney’s statements and the media’s proliferation only help to discourage Coleman from doing his job as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Coleman needs to realize that Bush is a lame duck and there will be a new administration in place after the 2008 elections.

It’s time to shake the shackles of Cheney and go to Syria.

Biden schools Coleman but will the student learn ?

Elections have consequences but can provide opportunities even for those that are not involved.

Case in point, last November’s elections saw the defeat of incumbent Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee and George Allen who had served on the Foreign Relations Committee. With the new Congress, the composition of the committees, and sub-committees, has changed. Now with the realignment in the committee, Coleman has been named the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs. This Subcommitte is the big one as illustrated by Coleman’s comments : “I intend to use this Subcommittee to bolster the full Committee’s oversight of our Iraq policy. I also want to focus attention on the destabilizing effect of Iran and its nuclear program and support for terrorism. Additionally, I will use this position to continue to articulate my strong support for our allies as well as the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.”

During Coleman’s first four years on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Bush Administration dominated foreign affairs as the Republican leadership allowed Bush to operate with minimal oversight.

Now, Joe Biden has started hearings that have featured an array of experienced and knowledgeable experts on international relations. The participants so far have ranged from military generals to former Secretaries of State. Although the impetuous may be Iraq, the general assessment is that is a regional problem.

For example, Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) in his testimony stated : “Any new strategy that does realistically promise to achieve regional stability at a cost we can prudently bear, and does not regain the confidence and support of our allies, is doomed to failure. To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski in his testimony encouraged the United States and the Iraqi leadership to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, stating “It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.”

But most insightful were comments came from the Iraq Study Group Co-Chairmen, James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton. It was reported that Baker stated that the single biggest failing of the Bush’s current foreign policy strategy is a failure to deal with Syria and draw that country away from Iran.
“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Mr. Hamilton. And he added, “We don’t have the time to wait.” Secretary Baker said, “At the president’s approval, I spoke directly with the Foreign Minister of Syria.” Baker told a silent and stunned committee room, “I think we can get Syria back. I think Syria is ready to embrace a new direction.”

With all these experts focusing the attention on diplomacy, it’s time for the student to take a road trip to Syria. Coleman’s view of Iraq changed after his visit … and it’s time for him to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

ABC’s Good Morning program visited with President al-Assad yesterday.
The Syrian leader insisted that “we can stop the violence." Al-Assad felt that Syria could help because "we have a good relation with all the parties, including the ones participating in this government, and the one that opposed this process.” He added that the US has "to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys. (If) you cannot start the fire and put it out if you start it, it will burn you." "This chaos in Iraq will spill over into Syria and other countries."

The Senate’s obsessive focus on Iraq resolutions has fogged them from pursuing actions that will resolve the crisis. I’m optimistic that Biden will lead an effort to improve relations with other countries in the region. It is in Coleman’s duty to actively participate in actions and not just in press releases.

Senators Coleman & Hagel debate Iraq Resolution

Watching the debate in the Foreign Relations Committee over Senate Concurrent Resolution # 2 (essentially stating that it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq), I had to wonder what was discussed between the two Republican Senators seated next to each other. Both came from their home states to Minnesota and now find themselves in the US Senate. No doubt, their backgrounds and life experiences – and even their time in Minnesota – had to shape their viewpoints.

The sound bite that made the evening news, was Chuck Hagel imploring his fellow Senators to take a stand :
“This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam.
Yes, sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?
If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.
This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do? I don’t think so. When I hear, on both sides of this argument, impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are.”

Selling shoes may be something that Chuck Hagel knows about … as well as Vietnam. As I recall during his student days at Brown Institute in Minneapolis, he worked selling men’s clothes. After graduating Brown, Hagel returned to Lincoln, Nebraska to work for a radio station only to find out that Uncle Sam wanted him. He faced the draft, applying for a college deferment, or enlistment. He volunteered knowing that Vietnam was where he would most likely end up. Going over as a private, he returned as a squad leader with two Purple Hearts for battle wounds.

No doubt those experiences shaped Hagel’s viewpoints of America’s role in Foreign Relations.

Sitting next to Senator Hagel was Norm Coleman. The days of Vietnam were a little different for Senator Coleman as documented by City Pages which published photos of a “long-haired radical protesting the draft at Hofstra University” in 1970.


Those that served in battle seem to have a different vantage point than those that have not. Bush and Cheney have been criticized for where they spent their time during the Vietnam conflict. Meanwhile, John Abizaid, George Casey, and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker have made no secret of their strong reservations about sending large numbers of additional troops.

But this battle for Hagel did not start yesterday. Anyone who watched the Sunday talk shows before the liberation began will remember the concerns of Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, and Hagel. In their mind, there was never a doubt of America’s ability to depose Saddam Hussein, but the concern was also about the exit strategy. How many troops? What would be the mission? How long would we be there? What would be the costs? These are the same questions that all Americans are asking today.

Previously Coleman stated that he opposes the troop escalation in Baghdad (but would allow more troops in other areas.) After the State of the Union Address, Coleman said he was swayed by the President’s plea. His vote against the SR 2
was wrong. In the weeks to come, a resolution will be passed – maybe not Biden’s, maybe Warner’s – but a message will be sent to the President. Coleman will eventually fall in line, but in his first test in battle, he failed to heed the wisdom of a seasoned veteran.

Some may see the Senate Resolution as a rebuke of Bush’s decision to escalate the military action, but it has other important recommendations. Reading the resolution it encourages other nations in the Middle East to work toward peace and a reconciliation process for Iraq.

Engaging other countries is the crux of the solution. This week, Henry Kissinger writes :
“Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq's neighbors and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.
Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:
(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.
(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order.”

Coleman has just been named the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. In his press release discussing Iraq, he states “the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.” I hope that Coleman heeds the Kissinger’s advise including a personal visit to Syria. This is not the time for partisan politics – mindless attacking or supporting the President – it’s a time for Congress to be involved in Foreign Relations.