International Law

Freeman Bows Out

By Stan

I wrote about Chas Freeman, Obama’s nominee for the U.S. National Intelligence Council, a while back. I never heard of this guy but was impressed by his stellar CV, particularly his China track record. Although he is much more of a realist than I am, I explained that after 8 years of the Bush Administration, having a well-qualified career type like Freeman was a solid pick.

The critics were vocal and eventually prevailed. It would be a waste of time to go through a lot of the reporting on this, but I do commend anyone with an interest on this topic to Jim Fallows, particularly this post.

The criticism focused on three things: Freeman’s ties to Saudi Arabia (he had been an Ambassador there), his support of Beijing, and his views toward Israel. After reading a lot of the reporting on this whole thing, let me just say that all the talk about China and Saudi Arabia was complete bullshit. This was about Israel from the beginning, and to be blunt, this nomination was killed by AIPAC, the pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group.

Getting away from China for a moment, as a Jew, I support the State of Israel and the policies it needs to follow to survive, and I’m probably not as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than a lot of people I know. I also can’t stand the one-sided international criticism of Israel as somehow being the world’s worst human rights offender while ignoring other nations whose track records are much worse. Just look at the history of UN resolutions against Israel, and you’ll get the idea.

All that being said, I would like to note for the record that U.S. Middle East policy has been one sided for the past 30 years and needs to change, to be more balanced. The ridiculously pro-Israel U.S. policy simply makes little sense from a strategic point of view, and the influence of lobbyists in this area is not at all healthy. And don’t tell me that U.S. support of Israel has everything to do with its status as a democracy — the U.S. has never really followed such an ideological global strategy.

It seems quite clear that no U.S. politician or official can say anything critical of Israel or they will feel the wrath of AIPAC. This is shameful, particularly in a sensitive foreign policy area like the Middle East that has world-wide implications. I think Freeman was treated unfairly, and he certainly seems to be pissed off in a big way:

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign. (further remarks here)

I know that this is tough language for a public figure and that some will be taken aback by his bluntness. I’m sure that Senators Schumer and Lieberman will not like this, not to mention all the AIPAC lobbyists that will be trying to get on the cable news networks to push their viewpoint. If all of this did not already feel like a slimy political hit job, take a gander at this tidbit.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).