- NOVEMBER 21, 2009
-
Why Are the United States and Israel at the Top of Human Rights Hit Lists?
We ran the numbers and it's true: the watchdogs have their politics. But that might just be a good thing.
BY JAMES RON, HOWARD RAMOS | NOVEMBER 3, 2009
Human Rights Watch and its rights-watching peers have heard it all. They're quasi-terrorists with an anti-U.S. ax to grind or perhaps stealth fighters for global capitalists. They've been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, and anti-African at one time or another. Since the human rights movement began in the early 1970s, the criticism has grown as fast as the stacks of reports, op-eds, and analysis that the organizations' analysts produce.
Six years ago, we decided it was time to systematically examine the accusations flying from all directions. After subjecting human rights organizations' work to a barrage of statistical tests, we found that everyone was right. Yes, the watchdogs have biases. But they might make those groups more effective at pushing the human rights cause. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, there's no denying it: There's a politics to human rights.
It was bound to happen. Despite the drive for neutrality that watchdogs strive for, they were playing in a political minefield. Just take reporting on Israel, which has been the source of consistent controversy from both sides. The debate turned especially nasty two weeks ago when one of Human Rights Watch's own -- Bob Bernstein, chair of the group's board from 1978 to 1998 -- lambasted his protégé in a New York Times op-ed for dwelling excessively on Israeli abuses. "Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict," he claimed.
Israel is a frequent flyer in this arena since its wars are both consistent and well covered by the global media. But many other countries partake in the human rights blame game. Take Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, criticized by many for its excesses while being revered by others for its socialism. Last year, prominent Latin American scholars castigated Human Rights Watch for contributing to U.S. anti-Chávez propaganda. Three years earlier, it was the United States itself that was upset; the Bush administration accused Amnesty International's report on Guantanamo of being written by "reprehensible" people who "hated America."
In response, the watchdogs say they call 'em as they see 'em, reporting as best they can on the misdeeds of democracies and authoritarians alike. Apologists who cry foul are being defensive and insular, refusing to acknowledge the seamy underside of their favored regimes. Fair point indeed.
To moderate the spat, we began assembling a mass of relevant data, including from every Human Rights Watch report listed in its publications catalog from 1980 to 2000, coupled with all digitally archived Amnesty International press releases from those same years. We also created new data on human rights by reading through the Economist and Newsweek, and we trolled through existing sources for quantitative indicators of government repression, political freedom, economic development, population size, U.S. aid received, and the like.
JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images
James Ron is associate professor at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa.
Howard Ramos is assistant professor of sociology at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Israeli=Nazi or Zionism=Judaism. Such premises are patently fals
The Israeli government agenda is in no way comparable to that of the Nazi party. Let that be quite clear.
Let it also be quite clear that Israel does treat Arabs in Jerusalem similarly to how German Jews were treated in Berlin in 1933. Then, they were not killed or murdered, but they were harassed, humiliated and increasingly oppressed and eventually disenfranchised and dispossessed. The comparison is obvious and we should not shy away from the facts.
But it is odious to say that Israeli= Nazi or that Zionism= Judaism, as it is misleading and completely untrue.
Please do not be afraid to acknowledge, and publicize, that which is being carried out in Jerusalem and the West Bank, in our name!
If only the actions of Iran and its proxies didn't necessitate the occupation of the West Bank. As you certainly know, look what happened when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in the hopes of giving the Palestinians a chance at a state of your own. Without anyone pressing his hand, the most Arab-hating Israeli Premier ever (Sharon) silenced critics, dislodged thousands of his own people, and made the biggest mistake in Israeli history. Hamas is diabolical and dangerous, both to Israelis and Palestinians, but worse to the latter. If it were not for its existence, a peace deal would be exponentially easier to attain. Instead, Hamas tortures its own people just to lob a few rockets into Southern Israel. If it were really simply about an occupation, shouldn't Gaza be booming by now? Oh yeah, last time I checked Ramallah was improving and roadblocks are being removed in droves. What else can Israel realistically be expected to do, in light of Hezbollah ubiquitously gearing up for war, and Hamas's incapacity to reconcile with al-Fatah? Frankly, its inexplicable why seemingly rational people can ignore these objective realities? Side note, Israeli authorities have been quoted in saying that any infrastructure built in disputed settlement blocs would naturally remain if it was decided to be encompassed by a Palestinian state in final-status negotiations. Until then, things simply must remain as is, and everyone competent needs to recognize that, irrespective of how disenchanting the status quo is.
Let me ally your concerns.
First, many other countries in the middle east officially and unofficially support Hamas and Hezbollah, not just Iran. Furthermore, if Iran were to cut off all funding or support tomorrow, those groups would still persist and thrive, because their existence was not mandated by nor dependant upon Iran. In fact, Israel helped start Hamas because they wanted to support them as a counterweight to Fatah. SO, they might start by bombing themselves if that is their rationale for threatening Iran.
Second, the occupation is only necessary to guard the settlements and assist in their expansion.
They are easily replaced by a UN peace keeping force, who will ensure that the settlers and teh IDF never come back, and that the factions in Palestine are kept at bay until a fully realized state and security apparatus can be achieved.
Furthermore, the "improvements" that you site are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the brutality of living under occupation and the constant threat of settler violence and harassment, forced moves, house demolitions, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, generational poverty and statelessness that comprise the palestinians lives under heels of the settlers and their personal army, the occupation.
Second, the occupation is only necessary to guard the settlements and assist in their expansion.
They are easily replaced by a UN peace keeping force, who will ensure that the settlers and teh IDF never come back, and that the factions in Palestine are kept at bay until a fully realized state and security apparatus can be achieved.
Furthermore, the "improvements" that you site are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the brutality of living under occupation and the constant threat of settler violence and harassment, forced moves, house demolitions, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, generational poverty and statelessness that comprise the palestinians lives under heels of the settlers and their personal army, the occupation.
I wont even humor you with regards to your terrible attempt to to rationalize Hamas's existence. Israel may have supported Hamas in its early years, but by the first intifada in 1987, they were suicide bombing the hell outta themselves, and all around making things impossible for Israel to realistically consider dealing at that time. Alas, out of altruism and idealism (and hopes to gain some brownie points with the int'l community), still came Oslo in 1993 where Israel was willing to deal with the same people who formally engaged in reprehensible behavior, and let Hamas strive despite their Charter.
On to my actual point however. You say "the occupation is only necessary to guard the settlements and assist in their expansion."Actually, this is preposterous. Even if you were to say that the entire Israeli establishment wants to keep all of Judea and Samaria, they would still be willing deal if there was ever a partner for peace. Even if Fatah had their things together, they cant reconcile with Hamas if their life depended on it, and if were talking politically, it does. This is just a silly argument with a polluted leftist who has no historical history. Irrespective of the UN bias towards Israel (which is real, but besides the point), they are an ineffectual organization that has shown time and time again how inept and under-resourced they are. Just look at UNIFIL in Lebanon. Bomb goes off in Tyre? Nobody frets. Weapons shipments? Ban Ki-Moon the day before effectively said he has no proof weapons are smuggled between Iran and Syria (YEAH RIGHT!). Admit that you have to be an irrational human being to not recognize how absurd it is to blame a country for not withdrawing from land when everytime they have, the situation on the ground has further and dangerously deteriorated. As I used to say when I was much younger. PUH-LEEESE. Unless your just an anti-Semite, and hey your entitled to your opinion i'm all about freedom of speech, their is no logical way Israel could withdrawal without situations deteriorating for everyone. If the Arab states with all their oil money ACTUALLY wanted a state, the Pal's would have had one 40-50 years ago. You've been brainwashed I guess. That is if you claim to not just be virulently anti-Semitic.
the first two paragraphs of my previous comment was a quote from "A Balanced View". That mindless drivel would never spill out of this mouth.
Frankly I do not know where you you get your information but...
@ ScottGoose "Instead, Hamas tortures its own people just to lob a few rockets into Southern Israel. If it were really simply about an occupation, shouldn't Gaza be booming by now? Oh yeah, last time I checked Ramallah was improving and roadblocks are being removed in droves. What else can Israel realistically be expected to do, in light of Hezbollah ubiquitously gearing up for war, and Hamas's incapacity to reconcile with al-Fatah? Frankly, its inexplicable why seemingly rational people can ignore these objective realities?
It's in error. Try to look at the situation from both sides and read news from both sides.
Al-Fatah gets millions in economic aid, military aid and training from all over the world and especially the US. Al-Fatah and Abbas tried to defer the Goldstone report. How are Hamas and Al-Fatah going to reconcile when one party is a puppet? I would suspend the rights of traitors as well. Gaza is under occupation. Gaza can't even get cement through it's borders. Hezbollah gearing up for war? You meant the fly overs of Israeli territory? Or the previous war caused by Israel? What else can israel be expected to do? Stop building settlements on occupied territory for one. Two might be to stop going to war in occupied territory. I dont know how you can ignore the obvious.
No, not even close to being false
While I can not boast of first hand experiences from Nazi Germany from 1932, from all what I have read it didn't look anything similar to Israeli rules Jerusalem of any time, particularly not of Jerusalem of today.
I work in down town Jerusalem and there are definitely Arabs here and they are not subjected to any overt discrimination and there is very little evidence that it occurs in any organized fashion here, for it is not tolerated (nor it should be). Arabs can be seen in the cafes and in the shops as well as in the shopping centers. In short, you do not know anything of which you write, of least of Jerusalem, and at second glance, neither do you accurately describe Nazi Germany either.
There is a tendency to give people a free pass when comparing historical events to current situations. No one has the time to check or perhaps it is considered impolite to catch some one in his inaccuracies. (though somehow it is fine to point out grammatical mistakes).
It's simple scott,
The US state department reads the geneva convention, and concludes that all Israeli settlements are illegal. Every single nation on earth concurs.
It is hardly my personal idea that the settlements are the core of the problem and must be abandoned.
There is a REASON why the Geneva convention outlaws such things. They constitute basic human rights violations. Furthermore, If Israel were to occupy even a tiny portion of the US and attemot to settle it, they would be relentlessly attacked until every single last settler and settlements were gone. There would be no peace until this was achieved.
They would recieve a similar reception any where else in the world.
Why are the Palestinians held to a different standard, especially when every single other nation on earth, including the US, finds the settlements to be illegal?
Balanced View: Your missing the big picture
Even the Netanyahu government accepts in principal a Palestinian state AFTER final-status negotiations. Until then, the situation in the West Bank is an unfortunate reality until a viable plan is endorsed by both parties. With reconciliation between the Palestinian factions at a seemingly endless impasse and PA negotiators talking about scrapping negotiation's with Israel in general, the status quo has to be retained. Israel has made more than the necessary attempts at providing a workable template for talks, made preliminary steps such as removing hundreds of roadbloacks and disallowing new settlements, and the Palestinians have responded in kind with close to a 3rd intifada and a resignation from Abbas. Where is the incentive to make more good-faith gestures, let alone withdrawing from the West Bank. Frankly, its non-existent and only a blind person could purport otherwise.
That is a patently absurd view, that settlement expansion is some sort of unavoidaboe reality, especiall when, if we are to believe that Israel is in any way serious about peace, a good many of those settlements will be given up.
There is not a single legitimate reason I can think of to allow such madness to continue, except if the current regime in Israel really has no intention of ever giving up the settlements, and in fact (and in current practice) is working feverishly to expand them.
The only solution is for the US to get tough with Israel to make expansion or retention hurt them much worse than peace.
I also note that several on the list are democracies, or at least somewhat democratic nations. Nobody seems to notice when Iran is accused of abuses, people expect it and so in a way condone it. However, when the United States commits abuses it is unexpected and so is considered far worse. I note that several I would have expected from the 90s (Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, DR Congo) surprisingly enough aren't on the list. It can't be that hard for a researcher to get into Sudan, National Geographic writers seem able to do so without more than the average danger.
As for the choice of targets, I'll admit that the groups need the added media support in order to make themselves relevant and noticed, but it reminds me of the 'worst dictators of 20XX) lists that manage to miss some incredibly despicable people because they aren't interesting enough.
You have a point about the fact that if the US commits abuses it is considered somehow worse...however...
The US - we are the shining house on the hill rhetoric - is really also at the heart of this. Just the other day the Obama Administration was investigating Sri Lanka for torture. Oh well, at least we investigated SOMEONE for torture - just not ourselves. So I guess I am saying that there is a large 'pot calling the kettle black' effect on this - and maybe that is a good thing. If the US wants to CLAIM the moral high ground then we ought to actually OCCUPY the moral high ground first, don't you think?
It is also important to note that the 3 largest recipients of foreign aid (these numbers are a few years old, so this might not be true anymore, given the amount of money we pour into Iraq in Afghanistan) were the nations with some of the worst records of human rights - Israel, Egypt and Morocco. Hmmmm, once again Pot...meet kettle.
This is not intended in any way to excuse ANY nation for human rights abuses, but I don't hear Sudan routinely castigating the US for human rights abuses. So where do we get off? I would prefer it if the US actually occupied the moral high ground on this (i.e. - STOP TORTURING PEOPLE) and let me get back to feeling self-righteous. At this point, I just feel dirty.
I don't hear Sudan saying that often to be sure. However I do hear Venezuela and Iran making comments, at least when oil is expensive. I will admit that I prefer to use a somewhat hypocritical policy for the U.S, essentially 'keep and constantly preserve freedoms at home, give up whatever ones you need to abroad'. That doesn't mean that I support torture, simply that I don't support torture because it can be inconvenient and unreliable.
Take-away points for HR abusers
1. The poorer your people are, the more freedom you have to abuse them
2. The more you stifle the media, the more you can get away with abusing HR
3. The less tractable you appear, the less criticism you'll receive
I thought it was funny that that Ron and Ramos tried to make excuses for these results on pragmatic grounds, despite the obvious practical consequence of this bias being the incentivization of the worst behavior of human rights abusers. Maybe instead of pursuing the 'practical' result of getting in the news and providing propaganda for tyrants, they should pursue the 'highminded' goal of actually providing an accurate view of the state of human rights in the world.
These groups have not always made a difference
"But if you believe an advocacy group's highest purpose is to make a difference, you'll support the strategy of focusing on targets of opportunity."
I would argue that in the case of Israel, advocacy groups (and the Israel-obsessed media) have done more harm to their cause than good. They've contributed to an environment of polarization, in which Palestinians claim to be defenseless victims who have never committed any act of wrongdoing, and Israelis claim to be unfairly scrutinized and discriminated against on the international stage. The Israeli response has been to completely ignore the criticisms of advocacy groups (which obviously does not lead to an improvement of human rights), who they have come to perceive as inherently biased (and in some cases, anti-Semitic), with the US government generally supporting this stance.
Such an environment has prevented both sides from trusting one another and created more barriers to peace than have been torn down. If HRW and Amnesty International actually want to see an improvement in human rights in the region (and ultimately, peace), they would be best to focus less on "targets of opportunity" and more on credibility through impartial and balanced assessments.
I suspected as much. It makes sense, you can't really criticize many regimes simply because they are too inaccessible and information does not flow outwards from them, and so, evidence of violations is not displayed. In the case of the palestinians, there is no point in criticizing what they do, as the guerrilla bombing campaign they are conducting against Israel is, by definition, acknowledgment that they are not playing by the rules of international warfare, and could care less...understandable within the context of their situation, to a point, although still unjustifiable.
These human rights groups definitely serve a useful purpose, if only to raise awareness of the issue, whatever the weakness of the process itself.
Bernstein debases the Jewish Ethic of universal moral rights
Bernstein’s claptrap—which only the NYTimes’ “all the opeds that fit to print” policy of pro-Israel propaganda-- sacrifices any legitimacy Human Rights Watch may have enjoyed. He destroys any legitimacy it enjoyed under his past labor and any afterwards for it raised the question of whether the Zionazi lebensraum thesis—as opposed to the Zionist founders’ dream of Israel becoming “a light onto the [Arab] nations”-- enjoys exceptionalist dominance over truth on grounds that Israel is entitled to propagandistic immunity unchallenged by the obviously visible truth of dead civilians shot like fish in a barrel. No one said that Israel is the worst or the best of democracies, holding it to no super standards from which anyone else is exempt. But its democracy is like was that of its past Afrikaner ally, a privilege for a few military commanders and still muzzling press freedom for the "good of state.” A reading of the explanation of Project Daniel in the US Army journal PARAMETERS
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/07spring/beres.htm
leaves no doubt that alleged Israeli self-defense gives it some sacrosanct right to target civilians in Lebanon, Gaza and anywhere it chooses and also to target population centers with its nukes. Likudnik "Zionazi" IS NOT Zionism. It is a term that Zionists outraged with the way some would deem themselves licensed by the Holocaust to impose genocide on others and to impose monologue that deems us all "dumb goyim" with no right to respond lest we be declared anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. HAMAS and Hezbollah enjoy no support from any of us, no matter how legitimate their cause may or may not be, because they resort to targeting the innocent with terror. But for targeting the innocent in order to preserve its "terror" image, Israel deems itself entitled to $10 billion a year in US aid and all the cluster bombs it can manage to dump on crowded civilian quarters, covered by the terror of HAMAS and Hezbollah and claims that "terrorists" hide amongst the people. Meanwhile, Palestinians are herded into Bantustans as Sharon prescribed after his apprenticeship in Afrikaner South Africa. Bernstein you indeed reached new intellectual and moral lows for so denigrating the Jewish Ethic-- applied to all of God’s creature equally that is a pillar of what is best about Western Civilization-- with your hysterical whitewash of the Zionazi lebensraum thesis, a thesis from which East Europe suffered millions dead, including millions of Jews. Most Jews are in the Diaspora citizens, integrated and enriching the moral fiber of their many homelands. Their location evidences that they deem Israel a place to visit and not to live, which is their right, despite Sharon’s admonition that any Jew who by 2020 does not move to Israel will lose his Jewish soul. Already more Israelis emigrate abroad that Diasporics immigrate to Israel. For Israel to survive it must cease the incessant massacre of neighboring civilians at a ratio on 8 to 1 while sophistically, as seems to do Bernstein, placing the Jewish victims in position of excuse for their extermination of Arabs. When a maddened Jew burned down the Reichstag, Hitler used that as an excuse to massacre millions of Jews across Eastern Europe, manually, not yet industrially. Similarly, neocon slander and lies have pushed the minute hand of the American Krystalnacht clock forward. Righteous Jews like J Streeters have pushed it back by even handed appeals for Israel’s integration into its own Semitic family. The Lebanon air war and that against Gaza cannot be distinguished in their fraudulent inhumanity from massacre in the Arab mind as the Holocaust is in Jewish minds. To claim that anything other than thinning the population so settlers could move in is a monstrous fraud akin to Hitler’s self-defense lies. Demanding that we parrot it is to forfeit the unity many of us feel with Israel. How sad that only now Bernstein makes a cesspool of Human Rights Watch for political motive. He laid his life’s work to waste, for it was quite an accomplishment, for mere exceptionalism. Never have I ever heard him so outraged about Human Right Watch’s attack of America's use of firepower against civilians. Rightly so, but why, by God, is Israel above judgment for its crimes against Humanity, crimes delineated in the Goldstone Report, a commission led by a man who is both a Righteous South African and a Jew?
Wow, just a perfect example of inane propaganda
Before I point out how hilariously flawed your argument and approach is, allow me to correct some overt and objectively wrong statements: 1) approx. 3 billion in aid a year not 10 2) Israel never threatened anyone with nukes including during the transitory setbacks in the 1973 war 3) Hamas objectively uses human shields and hides in densely populated civilian centers, as does Hezbollah 4) NO argument that makes so many Nazi and Hitler references holds any water whatsoever, by default. 5) every rational Western nation has disregarded the Goldstone report for the preordained and unsubstantiated non-sense that it is.
I must say: what a great example of pretentious, anti-Semitic revisionist history. This purported "unity you feel for Israel" is clearly a nice touch at the end of your ad hominem argument to give the veneer of legitimacy to your analysis. Frankly, even if you in your heart of hearts actually perceive some "unity with Israel", everything you say makes it meaningless. Even if your argument weren't based on lie after lie, your logic would be flawed. The Goldstone Report is a flawed piece of trite that uses entirely circumstantial witness accounts by Palestinians in the streets in front of witnesses who are all scared of Hamas. While everyone knows that eye-witness counts are far from beyond reproach (even anti-Semites) alone, ones done under the watchful eye of Hamas who has so murdered and tortured so many of their own people for being "collaborators" with Israel. The work is entirely unsubstantiated, flawed, bias, and everything in between.
This is extremely dangerous stuff your saying. Purporting to be a rational person that just coincidentally is obsessed with Nazi references and anything wrong with Israel is more than just a troubling development. Nobody has ever said that the Gaza Operation should not be investigated BY ISRAELI JUDGES. Ever hear of self-determination, pal? Israel has a robust democracy with copious human rights wings and extremely competent Judges. Before Israeli leaders should even consider submitting their country to a body whose judgement is preordained, at least produce a document that is competent.
Scottgoose please stop refering to any criticism of Israel as Anti-Semitic, no-one has posted anything that could be construed as such.
As to whether human rights bodies are biased, aside from the factors of access to information and the like, in cold terms I think that they are. But I would argue that this is merited. As is often voiced the US, Europe and Israel as actors are expected to act to a higher ethical standard than authoritarian regimes. This is a good thing. Though US rhetoric of representing a shining becon for the rest of the world can be grating, it is right to argue it should seek to maintain the moral highground. It is thus benificial that the US and other Liberal democracies be called out where their actions fall short.
As for Israel there is no disputing many of the horific things Palestinian groups have done, and that its position in the middle east continues to call for a level of vigilance that makes upholdng the highest standards difficult. However the actions of some settlers and the intransigence of the Israeli government and the IDF in reigning them in should be called out and criticised.
Hamas is indeed to some extent a creature of Israel's own making, both in its early support as mentioned above, and in the past intransigence shown towards moderate Palestinian groups efforts toward a just and equal peace (for all their failings). It is unsurprising that Hamas' message has found currency given the lack of any evident alternate means towards a settlement fair to Palestinians.
Overall whilst it may seem unfair to hold Israel and the US to higher standards that authoritarian regimes such as Burma, this is a good thing.
Just to be clear, I was only questioning whether "Danielet" was anti-Semitic. I mean, did you see how many Nazi references there were in that one post I was responding to? He turned what could have been a respectful call to human rights was a blatant attempt to give his argument a facade of legitimacy, despite predicating his argument on a biased report. However, I shouldn't have wasted my time humoring the poster with a response.
To your post. I feel human rights should be universally respected, while I also feel that IL itself is maladjusted to deal with asymmetric warfare by non-state actors. With this ammo, so-called defenders of HR like HRW, etc use a lack of resources and contrived arguments derived from inapplicable int'l laws (contextually speaking) to blast democracies. There must be an equilibrium created in which democracies and authoritarian regimes are investigated properly and uniformly. As of now, this is a quixotic pipe-dream.
Therefore, in the time being countries, regardless of their domestic regime, need to be held to the SAME moral standard. Western democracies have their own bodies to investigate misconduct of their own actions, authoritarian regimes do not. As such, these HR bodies should, resources be damned, spend their time investigating the types of war crimes that can be quantified, such as those occurring in a myriad of nation-states in Africa and the Middle East. Now I am not implying that IL should be ignored in the time being, even if it holds zero water vis-a-vie COIN and counter-terrorism. As such, countries should investigate their own. But just because Western countries represent the countries on top of a hill, projecting onto others their qualities, does not mean they need to be held accountable to higher standards in defending their national security. Further, EVEN IF liberal democracies needed to be held to a higher standard (which is silly, because HR is universal, a la the 1948 UDHR), the scrutiny should be uniform. That means Russian incursions into South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgian Territory, and NATO attacks in Afghanistan, etc. Until this is can be done properly, singling out Israel is absolutely politicized and unwarranted. That all being said, if the Goldstone Report had been conducted properly, Israel would have had no choice but to submit themselves to questioning, but it was actually preordained, vitriolic hogwash meant to single out Israel. Enough with the witch hunts. If HR bodies want to be taken seriously, they need to evaluate every circumstance and not just those that make good headlines.
Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?
BY EVGENY MOROZOV
North Africa's escalating soccer war
BY JOSHUA KEATING
How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit
BY WILLIAM MOSS
The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup
BY ROBERT HADDICK
What would George Marshall think of today's generals?
BY THOMAS E. RICKS
What does containing North Korea actually mean?
BY JAMIE FLY
How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit
BY JOSH ROGIN
November/December 2009
-
Feature
-
Feature
-
Opening Gambit
About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
(22)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE