Off the internet...MSN...Slate....
A Tale of Two Lobbyists
What's wrong with Obama's order barring lobbyists from his administration?
By Jacob Weisberg
Updated Saturday, April 18, 2009, at 7:24 AM ET
On his first full day in office, Barack Obama issued an executive order designed to restrain lobbyists. The new rules say that if you were a registered lobbyist in the past two years, you can't work for the administration on any issue you touched or even for an agency that handles such an issue. After you leave government, you can't lobby the administration at all. The only way around this ban is with a waiver from the White House budget director that says you're essential to economic policy or national security.
The instinct behind this decree is a sound one. The mercenary culture of Washington flourished under Republican rule, with the Jack Abramoff scandal and Tom DeLay's K Street Project, which treated lobbying rents as spoils to be doled out by the party in power. Obama knows it's going to take some strong garlic to ward off the vampires on his side of the aisle and restore a sense of integrity in government. Unfortunately, his intended reform is driving stakes through the hearts of innocent bystanders only. The problem isn't that his rules are too strict. It's that they miss the crucial distinction between the kind of lobbying that's good for democracy and the kind that perverts it.
An example of the kind of lobbying Obama ought to decry came to light last week when the New York Times revealed that Tony Podesta and Jamie Gorelick, two Democratic fixers, had signed on to help save Sallie Mae from extinction. Sallie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise that insures college loans made by private banks. Like Fannie and Freddie, her inbred cousins in the housing business, Sallie embodies the principle of privatizing gains and socializing losses. Obama has sensibly proposed eliminating it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, having the feds make these loans directly would save $94 billion over the next decade, providing funds for millions more students to go to college.
For Sallie Mae, a useless and wasteful middleman fighting to preserve its vig, Tony Podesta has an understandable appeal. He is one of Washington's top Democratic fundraisers. His wife, Heather Podesta, is a former aide to Bill Bradley and a well-connected lobbyist in her own right. They like to entertain politicians at their home, filled with ghastly contemporary art, and recently made news by donating the original of Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama poster to the National Portrait Gallery. But Tony Podesta's biggest advantage is being the brother and former partner of John Podesta, who was Bill Clinton's final chief of staff and who headed Obama's presidential transition. It is hard not to see their respective silhouettes as expressions of their career choices. John, who has focused on advancing liberal causes by founding a think tank called the Center for American Progress, is kinetic and wiry. Tony, who partnered with disgraced Republican Robert Livingston to represent tobacco interests, defense contractors, and oil companies (as well as Slate's parent company, the Washington Post), looks like, well, a fat lobbyist.
As an illustration of the good kind of lobbying, consider Tom Malinowski, who worked as a speechwriter at the State Department and National Security Council during the Clinton administration. Since leaving government, Malinowski—who declined to comment for this story—has been Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, where he has spoken up for political prisoners abroad and against the Bush administration's policies on torture and detention. As reported on Foreign Policy's blog "The Cable," Malinowski was a top candidate to head the State Department's Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau and remains a possible candidate for various other foreign policy posts. But because he was registered as a lobbyist, he can't be hired without a waiver. After drawing fire for granting one to Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, who worked for the defense contractor Raytheon, officials have been reluctant to grant any more of these.
There is every imaginable ethical difference between Podesta's work and Malinowski's. Podesta represents nasty clients, like the human-rights-abusing government of Egypt; Malinowski advocates only for causes he views as virtuous, like the victims of Egyptian oppression. Podesta greases the skids for his clients with maximum legal campaign contributions; Malinowski tries to convince legislators of the merits of his case without donating money. Podesta's firm grossed $19 million last year and has been signing up new clients at a ferocious clip since the Democratic victory in November; Malinowski earns a nonprofit sector salary. Podesta undermines democratic principle by selling his influence on the market. Malinowski enhances democracy through legitimate advocacy.
As a matter of law, however, it is probably impossible to distinguish between what these two men do. Both are exercising the same First Amendment right to petition the government. Both have a legal obligation to register under disclosure laws. The rule that bars the one Obama doesn't want to hire prevents him from hiring the one he does. In addition to denying the president the service of any number of desirable nominees, the rules are undermining disclosure laws, because if registration is a bar to government employment, both kinds of lobbyists will avoid registering. Allowing a few arbitrary exceptions to this kind of bad policy only makes the unfairness worse.
The president could deal with the problem much more effectively through explanation and symbolism. Instead of tying his own hand with counterproductive rules, he could instruct his staff to avoid dealing with hired-gun lobbyists, which would discourage interest groups from hiring them. He could explain in public the difference between influence-peddlers and committed advocates, reminding the country that he was one of the latter, when he lobbied for public-housing residents in Chicago. Best of all, he could say people like Tom Malinowski are welcome in his White House and that people like Tony Podesta aren't.
By Jacob Weisberg
......................................................................................
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
DGB Editorial: It is about time someone started to do something about these Somalian pirates. They are not going to stop pirating these vessels unless or until there are significant negative consequences to those who do it? Who is standing up to the plate? Who is going to do anything about these Somalian pirates? At least this article indicates a start. Much more is needed.
Is there a NATO jail anywhere in the world? What happens to violators of international law? Obviously the Somalian pirates and North Korea are two entirely different cases. However, the dynamics are the same. Some bands of people/countries (The Somalian Pirates, The Taliban, North Korea...) are going to keep pushing The United Nations and/or NATO, transgressing international law at their leisure and whim, unless or until they are faced with, and confronted by, a more powerful international police force and/or army that is capable of destroying and/or at least imprisioning them.
It seems obvious to me that there is a growing need for a stronger, more powerful, more intimidating international governing body of politics, law, and soldiers/police force that is better than anything we have in existence right now. This concept goes right back to Thomas Hobbes philosophy. Diplomcacy and democracy must be essential features of this international governing body. But when push comes to shove, there has to be a very real powerful international army to 'outmuscle' the capabilities of any one democratically transgressing nation, or band of pirates, or international group of extremist-terrorists -- religious and/or political.
-- dgb, April 5th, 2009.
........................................................................
From the internet, Yahoo News...
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
2 hours, 27 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Warding off suspected pirates and coming to the aid of a boatload of fleeing Somali refugees is all in a day's work for the crew of HMCS Winnipeg in the Gulf of Aden.
In the past 24 hours the Canadian warship has sent its Sea King helicopter after several skiffs that were shadowing a commercial vessel, using a large red "Stop" sign to tell the speedboat crews to get lost.
Commander Craig Baines says the suspected pirates did just that when they saw the sign, written in Somali, hanging out to chopper's door - along with the aircraft's machine-gun.
The Pacific Opal vessel had earlier radioed for help.
Baines adds that today the Winnipeg saw more action when it spotted a boatload of Somalis, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.
He says they had been at sea for two days and were hungry and thirsty, so crew from the Winnipeg were able to get supplies to them.
The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.
With a crew of approximately 240 officers and non-commissioned members, the warship has been at sea since early February, and won't return to Victoria until August.
Is there a NATO jail anywhere in the world? What happens to violators of international law? Obviously the Somalian pirates and North Korea are two entirely different cases. However, the dynamics are the same. Some bands of people/countries (The Somalian Pirates, The Taliban, North Korea...) are going to keep pushing The United Nations and/or NATO, transgressing international law at their leisure and whim, unless or until they are faced with, and confronted by, a more powerful international police force and/or army that is capable of destroying and/or at least imprisioning them.
It seems obvious to me that there is a growing need for a stronger, more powerful, more intimidating international governing body of politics, law, and soldiers/police force that is better than anything we have in existence right now. This concept goes right back to Thomas Hobbes philosophy. Diplomcacy and democracy must be essential features of this international governing body. But when push comes to shove, there has to be a very real powerful international army to 'outmuscle' the capabilities of any one democratically transgressing nation, or band of pirates, or international group of extremist-terrorists -- religious and/or political.
-- dgb, April 5th, 2009.
........................................................................
From the internet, Yahoo News...
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
2 hours, 27 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Warding off suspected pirates and coming to the aid of a boatload of fleeing Somali refugees is all in a day's work for the crew of HMCS Winnipeg in the Gulf of Aden.
In the past 24 hours the Canadian warship has sent its Sea King helicopter after several skiffs that were shadowing a commercial vessel, using a large red "Stop" sign to tell the speedboat crews to get lost.
Commander Craig Baines says the suspected pirates did just that when they saw the sign, written in Somali, hanging out to chopper's door - along with the aircraft's machine-gun.
The Pacific Opal vessel had earlier radioed for help.
Baines adds that today the Winnipeg saw more action when it spotted a boatload of Somalis, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.
He says they had been at sea for two days and were hungry and thirsty, so crew from the Winnipeg were able to get supplies to them.
The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.
With a crew of approximately 240 officers and non-commissioned members, the warship has been at sea since early February, and won't return to Victoria until August.
N.Korea launches rocket, U.N. to hold emergency meeting
From the internet...yahoo news....
N.Korea launches rocket, U.N. to hold emergency meeting
1 hour, 2 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By Jack Kim and Louis Charbonneau
SEOUL/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - North Korea fired a long-range rocket on Sunday, provoking international outrage and prompting the U.N. Security Council to call an emergency meeting.
The reclusive communist state, which has tested a nuclear device and is in stalled six-party talks about ending its nuclear program, said a satellite was launched into orbit and was circling the Earth transmitting revolutionary songs.
The U.S. military and South Korea said it had failed to enter orbit.
"With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations," U.S. President Barack Obama said.
The 15-nation Security Council was due to hold an emergency closed-door meeting from 3 p.m. EDT but China and Russia have made clear they will use their veto power to block any resolution imposing new sanctions on Pyongyang.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on North Korea to return to the nuclear talks with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
Analysts say the launch was effectively a test of a ballistic missile designed to carry a warhead as far as the U.S. state of Alaska. North Korea can use the same rocket -- the Taepodong-2 -- to launch satellites and test missiles.
It was the first big challenge for Obama in dealing with North Korea, whose efforts to build a nuclear arsenal have long plagued ties with Washington.
Addressing a crowd in Prague during a European tour, Obama committed himself to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal and said Washington would seek to engage all nuclear weapons states in arms reduction efforts.
Obama remained committed to talks to "denuclearize" North Korea, the White House said.
South Korea branded the launch a "reckless" act, Japan said it was "extremely regrettable" and the European Union condemned Pyongyang's step. NATO called it "highly provocative."
"There is only one response possible: the union of the international community must punish a regime that doesn't respect any international rules," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.
China, the nearest North Korea has to a major ally, and Russia called on all sides for calm and restraint.
FLURRY OF CALLS
Analysts said the rocket launch may bolster North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's authority after a suspected stroke last August raised doubts about his grip on power.
Security Council diplomats said there was a flurry of phone calls and meetings before the afternoon meeting as the U.S., Japanese and allied delegations consulted on a strategy to persuade Russia and China that strong condemnation of North Korea's behavior and tough action were needed.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the launch "merits an appropriately strong" U.N. response.
The United States, Japan and South Korea see the launch as a violation of a Security Council resolution passed in 2006 after Pyongyang's nuclear test and other missile tests. That resolution, number 1718, demands North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program."
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi called officials in the United States, Russia, Japan and South Korea to discuss the launch, the Foreign Ministry said.
"All sides ought to look at the big picture (and) avoid taking actions which may exacerbate the situation further," a Chinese statement said.
Using similar language, Russia's foreign minister called on the international community to demonstrate a "balanced approach and caution" during the Security Council discussions.
'NEGOTIATING HAND STRENGTHENED'
Washington, Seoul and Tokyo had said before the launch that in reality it would be a test of the Taepodong-2, which is designed to fly an estimated 6,700 km (4,200 miles).
The U.S. Northern Command said stage one of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan and the other stages, along with the payload, landed in the Pacific Ocean. No debris fell on Japan.
South Korea earlier said the rocket appeared to be carrying a satellite but Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee later told parliament it failed to orbit, Kyodo news agency reported.
Japan said it stopped monitoring the rocket after it had passed 2,100 km (1,305 miles) east of Tokyo.
In the only previous test flight of the Taepodong-2, in July 2006, the rocket blew apart 40 seconds after launch.
Sunday's launch wins North Korea the attention it has sought as Obama's new administration deals with the financial crisis and two wars, and it could bolster Kim's hand in using military threats to win concessions from global powers.
"North Korea is likely to judge that its negotiating position has been strengthened now that it has both the nuclear and missile cards," said Shunji Hiraiwa of Shizuoka Prefectural University in Japan.
The U.S. arms control coordinator, Gary Samore, said the launch meant missile defense would stay a priority.
Obama told Polish leaders in Prague the United States would continue research and development of its missile shield. Washington plans to station rockets in Poland meant to shoot down ballistic missiles -- a move that has annoyed Russia.
Stephen Bosworth, U.S. special envoy for North Korea, said before the launch he hoped to bring Pyongyang back to the talks that stalled in December. Pyongyang has threatened to quit the talks if the United Nations punishes it over the launch.
While the six-party negotiations were central to efforts to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program, Bosworth said, Washington was ready for direct contact with Pyongyang.
Park Jong-kyu, an economist at the Korea Institute of Finance in Seoul, said the impact on financial markets when they reopen on Monday would most likely be short-lived or negligible.
(Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz and Kim Yeon-hee in Seoul, Linda Sieg and Rodney Joyce in Tokyo, Caren Bohan and Matt Spetalnick in Prague and Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations, Editing by John O'Callaghan)
N.Korea launches rocket, U.N. to hold emergency meeting
1 hour, 2 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By Jack Kim and Louis Charbonneau
SEOUL/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - North Korea fired a long-range rocket on Sunday, provoking international outrage and prompting the U.N. Security Council to call an emergency meeting.
The reclusive communist state, which has tested a nuclear device and is in stalled six-party talks about ending its nuclear program, said a satellite was launched into orbit and was circling the Earth transmitting revolutionary songs.
The U.S. military and South Korea said it had failed to enter orbit.
"With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations," U.S. President Barack Obama said.
The 15-nation Security Council was due to hold an emergency closed-door meeting from 3 p.m. EDT but China and Russia have made clear they will use their veto power to block any resolution imposing new sanctions on Pyongyang.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on North Korea to return to the nuclear talks with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
Analysts say the launch was effectively a test of a ballistic missile designed to carry a warhead as far as the U.S. state of Alaska. North Korea can use the same rocket -- the Taepodong-2 -- to launch satellites and test missiles.
It was the first big challenge for Obama in dealing with North Korea, whose efforts to build a nuclear arsenal have long plagued ties with Washington.
Addressing a crowd in Prague during a European tour, Obama committed himself to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal and said Washington would seek to engage all nuclear weapons states in arms reduction efforts.
Obama remained committed to talks to "denuclearize" North Korea, the White House said.
South Korea branded the launch a "reckless" act, Japan said it was "extremely regrettable" and the European Union condemned Pyongyang's step. NATO called it "highly provocative."
"There is only one response possible: the union of the international community must punish a regime that doesn't respect any international rules," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.
China, the nearest North Korea has to a major ally, and Russia called on all sides for calm and restraint.
FLURRY OF CALLS
Analysts said the rocket launch may bolster North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's authority after a suspected stroke last August raised doubts about his grip on power.
Security Council diplomats said there was a flurry of phone calls and meetings before the afternoon meeting as the U.S., Japanese and allied delegations consulted on a strategy to persuade Russia and China that strong condemnation of North Korea's behavior and tough action were needed.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the launch "merits an appropriately strong" U.N. response.
The United States, Japan and South Korea see the launch as a violation of a Security Council resolution passed in 2006 after Pyongyang's nuclear test and other missile tests. That resolution, number 1718, demands North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program."
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi called officials in the United States, Russia, Japan and South Korea to discuss the launch, the Foreign Ministry said.
"All sides ought to look at the big picture (and) avoid taking actions which may exacerbate the situation further," a Chinese statement said.
Using similar language, Russia's foreign minister called on the international community to demonstrate a "balanced approach and caution" during the Security Council discussions.
'NEGOTIATING HAND STRENGTHENED'
Washington, Seoul and Tokyo had said before the launch that in reality it would be a test of the Taepodong-2, which is designed to fly an estimated 6,700 km (4,200 miles).
The U.S. Northern Command said stage one of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan and the other stages, along with the payload, landed in the Pacific Ocean. No debris fell on Japan.
South Korea earlier said the rocket appeared to be carrying a satellite but Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee later told parliament it failed to orbit, Kyodo news agency reported.
Japan said it stopped monitoring the rocket after it had passed 2,100 km (1,305 miles) east of Tokyo.
In the only previous test flight of the Taepodong-2, in July 2006, the rocket blew apart 40 seconds after launch.
Sunday's launch wins North Korea the attention it has sought as Obama's new administration deals with the financial crisis and two wars, and it could bolster Kim's hand in using military threats to win concessions from global powers.
"North Korea is likely to judge that its negotiating position has been strengthened now that it has both the nuclear and missile cards," said Shunji Hiraiwa of Shizuoka Prefectural University in Japan.
The U.S. arms control coordinator, Gary Samore, said the launch meant missile defense would stay a priority.
Obama told Polish leaders in Prague the United States would continue research and development of its missile shield. Washington plans to station rockets in Poland meant to shoot down ballistic missiles -- a move that has annoyed Russia.
Stephen Bosworth, U.S. special envoy for North Korea, said before the launch he hoped to bring Pyongyang back to the talks that stalled in December. Pyongyang has threatened to quit the talks if the United Nations punishes it over the launch.
While the six-party negotiations were central to efforts to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program, Bosworth said, Washington was ready for direct contact with Pyongyang.
Park Jong-kyu, an economist at the Korea Institute of Finance in Seoul, said the impact on financial markets when they reopen on Monday would most likely be short-lived or negligible.
(Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz and Kim Yeon-hee in Seoul, Linda Sieg and Rodney Joyce in Tokyo, Caren Bohan and Matt Spetalnick in Prague and Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations, Editing by John O'Callaghan)
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Canada: PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
From the internet...Yahoo news...
PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
April 1st, 2009, 6:15pm.
39 minutes ago
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Angry Canadian politicians say the country hasn't sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan so that men there could be permitted to rape their wives.
There's growing outrage over legislation that would restrict the rights of Afghanistan's minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to refuse sex to their husbands or even leave the house without permission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he's deeply troubled by a move which flies in the face of what the international community wants to accomplish in Afghanistan.
"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," he told a Canadian media outlet in London, where he's attending the G20 summit.
"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country. . .
"It's a significant change we want to see from the bad, old days of the Taliban."
Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Several members of Harper's cabinet voiced similar outrage, as did opposition politicians and one military family.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.
"That's unacceptable - period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."
The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over an international conference in Europe on Afghanistan's future.
Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country's elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men.
But it remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai's office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have been made public by Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.
There are even differences of opinion about whether the law is in effect; the Canadian government says it understands the law is not yet finalized.
Confusion over the legislation is so widespread that even Afghan diplomats appeared sideswiped by the news. Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, said he's unclear on its basic details and is working to get information from Kabul.
Canadian officials have contacted Karzai's office and demanded more details.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly upbraided Karzai over the proposed law during this week's 80-country Afghanistan summit in The Hague.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he's outraged by the legislation and Canada must make it clear to Karzai that it's unacceptable.
International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said she was in "disbelief" when she first heard about the legislation. She noted that the equality of the sexes is a key Canadian objective in Afghanistan.
"We've invested a lot, we've put a lot of energy and resources into that," Oda said.
"It's very problematic. It's of great concern, and it is going to be a difficulty for Canada - because of our investment and our commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and equality. . . the steps we're taking, the investment we're making, and the work we're doing."
The father of a dead soldier also expressed anger. But he said Canada must continue working to modernize the country.
"My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai's government bring in a law like that, that's insulting," said Jim Davis of Nova Scotia, whose son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006.
"The law is offensive but what is the alternative? We just have to continue on with our effort and hope that we can make some improvements. . . The country has a long way in the last six years so hopefully we can just continue on our efforts and see some more improvements."
PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
April 1st, 2009, 6:15pm.
39 minutes ago
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Angry Canadian politicians say the country hasn't sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan so that men there could be permitted to rape their wives.
There's growing outrage over legislation that would restrict the rights of Afghanistan's minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to refuse sex to their husbands or even leave the house without permission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he's deeply troubled by a move which flies in the face of what the international community wants to accomplish in Afghanistan.
"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," he told a Canadian media outlet in London, where he's attending the G20 summit.
"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country. . .
"It's a significant change we want to see from the bad, old days of the Taliban."
Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Several members of Harper's cabinet voiced similar outrage, as did opposition politicians and one military family.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.
"That's unacceptable - period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."
The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over an international conference in Europe on Afghanistan's future.
Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country's elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men.
But it remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai's office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have been made public by Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.
There are even differences of opinion about whether the law is in effect; the Canadian government says it understands the law is not yet finalized.
Confusion over the legislation is so widespread that even Afghan diplomats appeared sideswiped by the news. Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, said he's unclear on its basic details and is working to get information from Kabul.
Canadian officials have contacted Karzai's office and demanded more details.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly upbraided Karzai over the proposed law during this week's 80-country Afghanistan summit in The Hague.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he's outraged by the legislation and Canada must make it clear to Karzai that it's unacceptable.
International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said she was in "disbelief" when she first heard about the legislation. She noted that the equality of the sexes is a key Canadian objective in Afghanistan.
"We've invested a lot, we've put a lot of energy and resources into that," Oda said.
"It's very problematic. It's of great concern, and it is going to be a difficulty for Canada - because of our investment and our commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and equality. . . the steps we're taking, the investment we're making, and the work we're doing."
The father of a dead soldier also expressed anger. But he said Canada must continue working to modernize the country.
"My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai's government bring in a law like that, that's insulting," said Jim Davis of Nova Scotia, whose son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006.
"The law is offensive but what is the alternative? We just have to continue on with our effort and hope that we can make some improvements. . . The country has a long way in the last six years so hopefully we can just continue on our efforts and see some more improvements."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
