VOTE 60 : Norm Coleman Rejects Role of Dissident

While the House mourns the death of a Human Rights advocate, Norm Coleman is leading the opposition against dissenting at a human rights conference.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble form the bedrock of the American democratic spirit.

Politicians need to embrace these rights even if they are the target of dissidents.

Recently, Barak Obama was confronted by abortion protesters at a campaign rally. While Obama’s supporters wanted to out-shout the protesters, Obama defended Free Speech stating "Let me just say this though. Some people got organized to do that. That's part of the American tradition we are proud of. And that’s hard too, standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."

Barak Obama sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and through CSPAN, citizens have been able to see Committee sessions. Long before Obama had announced his candicacy for President, viewers saw an intelligent, thoughful Senator in action. At the other side of the Committee, viewers also saw Norm Coleman in action … most memorable was Senator Barbara Boxer schooling Coleman in the US Constitution during the John Bolton confirmation hearings during which Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said "I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton" for the United Nations.

Coleman's battles with the United Nations have been well documented and he is at it again.
Now, Coleman is leading a group of Senators (not one Democrat in group) to demand that America not participate in the Durban II Conference - UN World Conference on Racism in 2009. Many of the specifics involved in plans for Durban II remain vague, but the Conference participants include Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, and Russia.

Now the participants’ agenda at the Conference may not yield the results that America wants. Yes, there could be complaints of human rights abuses on Cuban soil … but those complaints could concern Guantanamo Bay. After all the first Durban Conference resulted in Secretary of State Colin Powell stating “You do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism;’ or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world — Israel — for censure and abuse.”

That’s the point. Obama’s words are apropos – “standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."

By not being a disadent at the conference, hateful talk will be unchecked.

But then again, Coleman has been idle when presented with other opportunities. For example, the Republicans have shown no leadership in approving the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is a UN Resolution `to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women; to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises'.
To date, over 180 countries have ratified the agreement.
The United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified CEDAW. By not ratifying, the US is in the company of countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. Senator Klobuchar has indicated her support for passage, but she is not on the Foreign Relations committee which has jurisdiction. Senator Coleman has not responded to my request for action.

It is with sadness, that Coleman leads the Durban II protest while the House mourns the death of Congressman Tom Lantos who was the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee.
Lantos was a strong supporter of Israel and is the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress. As chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, he advocated on behalf of human rights, championing pro-freedom activists in China, Burma, and elsewhere. In 1993, he bitterly complained to the State Department for failure to be a dissident as China sold missiles to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Lantos was one of the key lawmakers who helped establish a dialogue with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, when it became apparent that Gaddafi was preparing to switch sides in the war on terror and support the United States. Lantos had visited Syria and encouraged Speaker Pelosi to visit there also. Lantos wanted to visit Iran. "We talked to the Soviet Union for over half a century, and there is no doubt in my mind that the tremendous amount of interchange had something to do with the collapse of the system."

Lantos was not limited to talking about human rights abuses, in August of 2006, he and five other members of Congress participated in a protest that lead to their arrest. "We have been calling on the civilized world to stand up and to say, 'Enough,' " Lantos said. "The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end."


That’s the key Norm … talking with your adversaries … convincing them to change their ways … not rejecting an opportunity to present an alternative view.
Sanctions don’t work. Engagement works.
There is a role for a dissident.
We can respect a man who can “stand in the midst of people who disagree with you and let your voice be heard."

Senator Coleman could have learned a lot from Congressman Lantos.



NOTE : VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.

VOTE 60 : Minnesota loses out on Clinton and Coleman policy choice

Hillary Clinton and Norm Coleman seem to agree that an embargo is good foreign policy tool even if it is ineffective and Minnesota suffers.


This week’s Fareed Zakaria Newsweek column, declares that “America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country. A policy that was put into place at the height of the cold war, when fears of Soviet missiles and communist penetration were at their peak, has been maintained even though the threat that prompted it has collapsed. What exactly are we afraid this moth-eaten island will do to America today? ”

Barak Obama’s Op-Ed of August 2007 described his position. Zakaria writes “Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough”.

Clinton is battling for a Presidential nomination and may be affected by the desire to garner potential Florida Cuban voters.


Candidates may say something to get elected, but then once elected, their positions may be different.

That appears to be the case for Coleman.

In 2002, when he was campaigning for Senate, Candidate Coleman distinguished himself from Bush’s policy stating “disagree with him [the President] on trade with Cuba.”

Coleman had to react to Governor Jesse Ventura's (as part of the U.S. Food and Agribusiness Exhibition) visit to Cuba. The trade group included St. Charles, Minnesota farmer Ralph Kaehler who was excited about new business opportunties.

Less than a year later, things changed as Kaehler complained "The difficult part, has been for the most part working with our government -- getting visas for Cuban livestock inspectors and veterinarians to come up and inspect the animals, like every other country does. That took forever. It's just fighting the politics side of doing business."

Further, Kaehler says Coleman is helping undermine the success of the Ventura trade mission.


On March 21,2003, Coleman was appointed to the Senate Working Group on Cuba . The mission acknowledged that the sanction policy has been ineffective and places America at an international competitive disadvantage and to address the issue of restricting travel to Cuba.

Cuba is the only country in the world to which the U.S. government forbids its citizens to travel. Republican Senator Michael Enzi has proposed Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2007 . Interestingly, fellow members of the Working Group, (Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dorgan, Hagel and Lincoln are co-sponsors,) but Clinton and Coleman have not. Travel restrictions allow governments to shield their actions from public view … look at how people reacted after visiting to South Africa to see what Apartheid was all about. The best commentary comes from Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who sponsored similar legislation ”If my travel which I think is my human right is going to be restricted, then it seems to me that a Communist government ought to be the one doing the restricting -- not my own government of the United States of America.”

Yet another bill Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007 also has widespread bi-partisan support from the Working Group (Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dorgan, Lincoln and Roberts are co-sponsors), but Clinton and Coleman are not.


So how did Coleman go so far astray?

Could it from Coleman’s battle with the United Nations and his allegiance to John Bolton ?

For 16 years the United Nations has passed a resolution condemning the US embargo, most recently in October, 2007 by a vote of 184-4 (the US, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau against while the UK, Australia, Canada, etc denounced the US.)

On May 6, 2002 , Bolton alleged that Cuba had a biological weapons program and his confirmation hearing was highlighted by accusations that he tried to shape intelligence conclusions and punish intelligence professionals who worked on Cuba .

Coleman believes Bolton "was the best" of Bush's U.N. ambassadors

And what is the business opportunity cost for America ?

Cuban agricultural imports that America missed is $663 million in 2006Dollars based on US International Trade Commission analysis. It is not unreasonable to project that Minnesota’s ag-business could benefit $100 million directly and additional downstream dollars for other related businesses.

Coleman and Clinton are wrong. It’s time for the Cuba embargo to end.

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.

IRAN SANCTIONS : The Coalition of the Only

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Iran President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad and reached a number of agreements involving economic and political affairs.

Of the significant items are listed in the Putin/Ahmadinezhad agreement include :
--- development of oil and gas fields in Iran, including the Southern Pars gas field, and creating in Iran industrial facilities to produce, store and export natural gas.
--- interest in continuing cooperation in the energy sector, including the modernization of thermal and hydro-electric power plants built with Russia's help and the construction of new ones, including the Tabas coal thermal power plant in Iran.
--- the construction and launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable and in full compliance with the requirements of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
--- a contract to supply Iran with five Tu-204-100 aircraft
--- confirming their readiness to expand cooperation with the aim of building a fairer and more democratic world order which would ensure global and regional security and create favourable conditions for stable development. It was stressed that such a world order should be based on collective principles and the supremacy of international law with the United Nations Organization playing a central coordinating role, while any international and regional conflict and crises should be settled in strict compliance with the UN Charter and norms of international law.

On Thursday, October 24, the Bush Administration announced new sanctions (while it needs to be noted that existing sanctions have not worked. )

The Russian / Iran agreement shows why sanctions have not – and will not - work.

If Bush really wanted sanctions that would work, it would not be America announcing the sanctions but instead, it would be in concert with other countries and business enterprises. If the French oil company, Total SA, or the French automaker Renault, or Shell/Royal Dutch, or a consortium of international businesses announced their disapproval of Iran that would mean something.
Why haven’t the Bush Administration pushed “our friends” harder ? It’s all about business.
But this is nothing new. The Clinton Administration failed in its trade sanctions efforts despite a 1996 US law which mandated action against any foreign company that prop up Iranian Government by investing more than $40 million there.

And Russia is not alone in willingness to work with Iran.
Look at recent actions by the two countries that America has combat troops engaged in the Global War on Terror – Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Thursday, October 18th, the New York Times reported that Iran would build and an electric power-generating plant in Sadr City and “also agreed to provide cheap electricity from its own grid to southern Iraq, and to build a large power plant essentially free of charge in an area between the two southern Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.”
On Saturday, October 20th, Afghanistan hosted the Council of Ministers (COM) of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) meeting at which Afghan President Hamid Karzai emphasized the friendly ties between Iran and Afghanistan (it should be noted that Iran provides financial aid to the Afghanistan government.)

Turkey, UAE and even India have lucrative business interests in Iran.
How ironic it is that Bush announced on July 18,2005 a civil nuclear agreement with India - although it never signed the Non-proliferation Treaty and even developed nuclear weapons. Now, India is facing internal questions regarding supporting America as one of its leading political party is demanding that India not comply with America’s sanctions.

In short, cooperation will be largely symbolic and circumvented by companies and countries.

It’s time America reject politicians that advocate pseudo-punishment of sanctions.
They don’t work and don’t address the real issue.

With Iran, the real issue is nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. We can debate whether Iran’s words are true, but why not – to quote Ronald Reagan – “trust but verify”. Nuclear power is not nuclear weapons. To obtain nuclear weapons, fissile material is needed. Controlling fissile material is essentially the proliferation question. Sadly, the US stands virtually alone in objecting to control of this material. While the world voted overwhelmingly to control fissile material, the US blocked a UN resolution that would have created a verifying body. The vote was 147 to 1 (the USA) with two abstentions. Hence, it is not surprising, that as noted above, that Putin and Ahmadinezhad are pushing for UN involvement.

If they can accept a verification procedure, isn't that a good first step ?

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.