Foreign Policy Decisions

Is it blind faith in International Law,or Deep Understanding from 50 years of following events as an international lawyer?

1) Owen Jones, “What atrocity would Israel have to commit for our leaders to break their silence? To avenge 7 October, crimes of all kinds are condoned. But politicians should take note: the British public disagrees,” The Guardian, October 3, 2024 (17:38 bST)

Bsckgrounf

1) “Two Argentina towns face a torrent of harassment. The culprit: Parrots; The thousands of burrowing parrots swooping into Pedro Luro and Hilario Ascasubi in Argentina have resulted in constant power outages and streets blanketed by poop,” Wahington Post, October 3, 2024;

It only slowly dawned on me. But it is clear.

Peggy Noonan is shilling for Donald Trum and tge Republican presidential ticket.

This a sad way for Noonal, a distinguushed columnist with a Republicam background to end her career.

Hilling for a Republican presidential candidate whi is a convicted felon faving numerous additional felony indictments, a man found guilty of sexual battery by a jury in a civil case, a monstrous liar the likes of whom have bot been seen since Adolf Hitler, a misogynist who brags of his sexual abuse, a racist xenophobe who males explicit appeals tomneo-Nazi voters, a vicious liar constantly attacking immigrants, and one of the most despicable men to ever run for the presidency.

He is the lawless leader of an authoritarian movement which has achieved total dominance of the Republican Party and transgormed it into a fascist party which represents one of the greatest threats to American democracy in tge country’s history.

Oh, and the felonies for which he is indicted and will stand trial include conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and numerios specific acts to achieve that objective.

And now Peggy Noonan is shilling for this monstruous candidare, creating a permission structure for other Republicans with “honorable” backgrounds and records to vote for Trump. Many readers of tge Wall Street Journal, including wealthy and powerful business leaders, are reportedly leaning toward supporting Trump.

Peggy Noonan is givingbthem permission, “moral cover” if you will, for dupporting and voting for Trump.

Personally, I am devastated to see Peggy Noonan shilling for Trump.

She was one of the reasons I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, together with the fact that the Journal seemed willing to criticize Joe Biden and his foreign policy when the New York Times and the zwashington Post seemed disinclined to do so.

In the last several years, the Journal has degenerated into a shrill Republican policy rag. It seems like every article shrilly criticizes the Democrats, while the newspaper’s critical guns are rarely aimed at Republicans.

Peggy Noonan’s column was one of the last reasons I kept reading the Journal.

I just canceled my subscription.

Tim Walz’s performance” in the vice-presidential debate tonight (October 1, 2024) revealed how little Democratic advisers understand about what is going on at the subconscious level among voters who may ultimately vote for Trump and the authoritarian movement he leads.

It was a very polite, demure affaire. Walz and the Democrats who prepared him made a number of glaring mistakes.

Walz’s handlers did not prepare him well for the debate.

First, Walz allowed Vance to present the facade of a reasonable politician genuinely interested in solving the problems of the people and the country. Count that as a win for Vance and, more importantly, for Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party he now so completely dominates.

Second, the most glaring defect in his performance was his extremely serious demeanor on be split screen when Vance was speaking. He should have been prepped to display a relaxed demeanor, as fortunately Kamala Harris learned to do and did so well in her debate with Donald Trump.

With all that we’ve learned about political debates on television since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, when Kennedy won on appearance and demeanor among those watching the debate, while Nixon won among radio listeners following the substance of the arguments, the fact that Walz was nor prepped to display an appropriate demeanor when Vance was speaking was, quite frankly, shocking.

Third, Walz didn’t seem to understand that his opponent in the debate was not J.D. Vance but Donald Trump, and that Vance was only useful as a target exemplifying the worst characteristics of Trump. Walz was not there to win a popularity contest with Vance, but rather to take on Trump and onlybsecondarily his unprincipled disciple,J.D. Vance.

Trump has said and done so many outrageous and unforgivable things–not only in this campaign but also in the 2016 campaign, during his presidency, and since he left office in 2021–that Walz was working in an extremely target-rich environment.

Vance for his part, has engaged in despicable lies and immigrant-bashing, such as his lie that illegal Haitian immigrants were stealing pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Both Trump and Vance have doubled down and continued to repeat these inexcusable, hate-filled lies.

Notably, Walz did not even mention the substance of the lies. Walz did not even mention that Trump and Vance had falsely accused Haitian immigrants who were lawfully in the United States of being illegal aliens, and such evil people that they stole and ate their neighbors’ pet cats and dogs. Nor did he mention the violent atmosphere and threats that Trump’s violent rhetoric about the Haitians had produced.

Instead, he assumed that most oeoplevrecalled and understood the substance and context of the events he was describing, Maybe hecwas simply assuming tgat voters throughout the country are like Minnesota voters.

They aren’t.

Third, Walz was way too civil and respectful of Vance. He didn’t need to have resorted to Trump-like rhetoric to press his point. He might have done so in the politest of tones, all the while figuratively driving the dagger into his opponent, and thereby Trump.

Walz might have driven his figurative spear into Trump and Vance on their repeated denials that Trump had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

Fourth, Walz failed to parry Vance’s attacks on Harris for being responsible for what Vance viewed as her grievous policy failures by simply pointing out that shecwas not and had not been the President, and that as Vice-President her job had been to carry out the President’s policies.

Isn’t that exactly what Vance would do if he necame Vice-President, he might have asked.

Walz might have driven this point home by stressing the fact that it would be Vance’s job to execute Trump’s policies, however much he might personally disagree with them. This would have opened the way for strong and repeated attacks on some of Trump’s most egregious policy ideas and positions.

That would mean, would it not, tgat Vance would have to implement Trump’s pro-Russian policies, p which might include cutting off aid to Ukraine and / or pressuring Ukraine to enter a negotiated settlement with Russia which amounted to defeat. To negotiate a deal that involved abandonment of the most basic principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, such as the prohibition against the use of force across international frontiers and the acquisition of territory through military conquest And the enforcement of the laws of war by punishing those responsible for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.

In short, Walz did not understand the opportunity ton treat the debate as if his real opponent were Donald Trump. He failed to call out both Trump and Vance for their outrageous actions and policies. He failed to attack Trump and Vance for their constant spewing like from a firehose of small and monstrous lies.

Walz didn’t seem to know where he was or what his job should be.

It was a great lost opportunity.

In the end, however, Walz’s performance probably didn’t hurt the Harris campaign, as the debate was pretty much a draw. Those voters who were able to follow the arguments, except perhaps for some wealthy businessmen, were probably already going to vote for Harris.

The debate did reveal two things, however.

First, that the Democrats are clueless as to how to conduct a campaign aimed at the emotions of probably the majority of voters whose vote will be decided by subconscious factors that have little to do with the fine rational distinctions made in tbe policy arguments voiced in the debate tonight.

Second, that should Trump win in November, an incumbent Vice-President Vance will be a formidable opponent in the 2028 election. Utterly unprincipled, nimble, and smart, with a barroom-brawler character to match tbat of Trump, Vance would be a hard man to beat.

1) Miriam Jordan, “An Ohio Businessman Faces Death Threats for Praising His Haitian Workers;; The lifelong Republican employs fewer Haitians than others in Springfield, but his life has been upended since Donald J. Trump spread falsehoods about immigrants in his hometown,” New York Times, September 30, 20, 2024;

1) Phillips P. O’Brien, “The Precipice of Failure–US Foreign Policy and Ukraine; The one hope is that Harris is different:” Phillip’s Newsletter (paid): September 24, 2024

2) Isabelle Khurshudyan, Siobhán O’Grady, Michael Birnbaum and Ellen Francis,”Debate over Ukraine weapons restrictions divides allies, administration
; The discussion over weapons restrictions is ongoing in Washington, splitting the Biden administration and Capitol Hill and confounding America’s partners in Europe., awashington Post, September 24, 2024 (3:00 a.m. EDT);

BACKGROUND

See,

1) Kris Maher, Valerie Bauerlein, and Tawnell D. Hobbs, “How the Trump Campaign Ran With Rumors About Pet-Eating Migrants—After Being Told They Weren’t True; Springfield, Ohio, city officials were contacted by Vance’s team and said the claims were baseless. It didn’t matter and now the town is in chaos. Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2024 (12:01 am ET);

2) “Trump falsely claims Haitian migrants are eating pets in Ohio,” CBS News ( You Tube), September 10, 2024;

3) “Vance defends spreading claims that Haitian migrants are eating pets,” MPR. September 15, 2024 (12:54 PM ET_;

Intellectually we know that voters frequently vote on the basis of their emotions. In practice, however, the Democrats never seem to get that fundamental fact, and proceed as if voters decided who to vote for solely on the basis of rational analyses of what is in their self-interest.

The Republicans, and particularly Donald Trump and his campaign, believe the voters are stupid, have no memory, and don’t vote on be basis of what is rationally in their self-interest.
(
That is how we can understand the Republican presidential campaign in general and the repeated charge that illegal (very black) Haitian immigrants are stealing pet dogs and cats an eating them in Springfield, Missouri, in particular.

The Democrats try to counter such obviously mendacious propaganda with rational arguments, missing the point that the real communication is taking place on a different level and in a different channel aimed directly at the emotions of susceptible voters.

The real Republican message, addressed to the subconscious of voters is the following:

1) The nation is being invaded and taken over by illegal aliens, who like these Haitians are very black and are essentially criminal barbarians who steal family pets and eat them;

2) These black and brown immigrants from all over the world are taking over your country, and will replace the white population as the Democrats open the floodgates to massive immigration of these barbarians. These include, as Donald Trump incessantly repeats at his campaign rallies, rapists, murderer and other criminals who are being let out of prison from places like the Congo in Africa in order for them to emigrate to the U.S.; and

3) Only Donald Trump and the Republicans can protect you from these black and brown illegal immigrants and the invading hordes for whom the Democrats are opening the borders in order to bring these barbarians into our (white) country.

Boiled down to its essence, it sounds like this:

1) Black (and brown) barbarian immigrants are taking over the counhry;

In countering such propaganda, Democrats should of course make the rational arguments to rebut such preposterous lies, but without believing such arguments will carry the day.

Muchh more effective would be to add to the rational arguments rebutting Republican lies, or even to give prominence to, arguments and messages aimed ar voters’ emotions. For example, in the present case, Democrats might prepare ads with and urge journalists to include in their reporting interviews with model legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield and with Haitian children.

These interviews should be buttressed by interviews with Springfield city, school, and church officials including in particular those who are white, debunking the Republican lie about “illegal (very black) Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pet dogs and cats in Springfield”.

These interviews might include the following elements:

1) Haitian immigrants showing to the camera documentary proof that they are legally in the country;

2) A succinct but cogent explanation, in the immigrants’ own words, of why they fled and are seeking asylum in the United States;

3) Interviews with Haitian children about their personal experience with violence, hunger, etx. in their home country;

4) Interviews with Haitian children from Springfield holding their pets, talking about what they do with their pets, and talking about how good and safe Springfield is for their oets.

The above rebuttals might be included in two-minute television commercials. or better yet in longer programs (of 15 or 30 minutes) that allow viewers to feel they have gotten to know those interviewed.

The cynical Republican propaganda about Haitian eating stolen cats abd dogs in Springfield offers the Democrats a magnificent opportunity to flip over the rock hiding the cynicism of Republican propaganda and to expose the ugly racism and xenophobia that lie beneath it to the harsh daylight if truth. Such an as or paid program could be used in the Internet and in media markets around the country.

The Democrats need rapid reaction teams which could put up rebuttals such as that suggested above very quickly. Unfortunately, they seem to be extraordinarily slow in rebutting memes such as the illegal Haitians eating dogs and cats fabrication.

It often seems as if any response requires many approvals up the bureaucratic chain of command before any rebuttal is published. By then it is usually too late.

***

On a personal note, as s senior staff attorney at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the lawyer in charge of Haiti at the Commission, I led and coordinated the logistical and staff work during the Commission’s on-site visit to Haiti from August 16 through August 25, 1978.

See,

1) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.46
doc. 66 rev. 1, 13 December 1979 (Original: French);

2) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.,Doc. 358, August 30, 2022 (Original: español).

. The 1922 Report describes recent conditions in Haiti of particular relevance to the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Missouri, who are reported to have legal status to be in the U.S.