SAUDI ARABIA DEFENDS 200 LASHES ON YOUNG WOMAN WHO WAS GANG-RAPED

Saudi officials have defended the decision of a Saudi court to impose 200 lashes on a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped.

Reports Al Jazeera:

"Saudi Arabia has defended a court decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes, saying she was having an extramarital affair in violation of Islamic laws."The woman in the case is married and has confessed to establishing a relationship in violation of [Islamic] sharia law," the Saudi justice ministry said in a statement."

This punishment is barbaric and medieval. The young woman is the victim of a brutal sex crime, and the Saudis sentence her to 200 lashes for being in a car with a male not a relative.

Yet we have heard nothing from Bush or Rice condemning this injustice. And where is the voice of Laura Bush who is supposed to be the defender of women's rights around the world? All we get from Bush & Co. is silence.

We need to hear more protests from the Democratic presidential contenders. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the rest have already protested this judicial barbarism emanating from the Saudi Kingdom. But they need to redouble their cries of outrage.

If Saudi Arabia allows this sentence or any punishment to be inflicted upon this 19-year-old, the world community should make Saudi Arabia an outcast and pariah.

SEN. BIDEN PROPOSES NEW FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN

Sen. Joe Biden has released his new policy towards Pakistan. What I like about it is that it avoids helping Pakistan militarize, and instead it concentrates on non-military aid to help the people of Pakistan in their everyday needs. It is not a Musharraf policy but a Pakistan policy. It is focused on the people, not merely on its leader.

For purposes of disclosure, I have contributed to Sen. Biden's campaign, as well as to that of Sen. Obama, Dodd and Edwards.

Sen. Biden describes the elements of his plan:

"Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

"First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it's our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

"Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We're now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth. I'd spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't.

"Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

"Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives."

What I like is the emphasis on schools, clinics and roads. Also educational exchanges and high impact projects that change people's lives.

Instead of more Bush/Cheney militarism and threats of bombs and missiles, Biden has come up with an alternative using friendship and diplomacy.

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY NEEDS TO ESCAPE NARCISSISM

I would like to point my readers to The Nation magazine for the current issue (November 19, 2007) devoted to American foreign policy, especially to the article by Anatol Lieven, "Relearning the Art of Diplomacy."

Lieven looks at American "diplomacy" and finds it sophomoric and narcissistic. As if diplomacy meant just dictating your ideas to the other side, and they better accept it or else! Lieven quotes John Edwards in his essay in the September/October Foreign Affairs.

"We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them."

The Lieven gives his stinging observation:

"It is only at a second reading--by someone outside the mainstream US discourse--that the intense narcissism of Edwards' intellectual approach becomes apparent. The talk is all of re-engaging with our history, our hope and optimism and our courage. Once the United States has done so, it is taken for granted that first US allies, and then the rest of the world, will once again admire America as a "moral beacon" and accept America's leadership of the world."

For purposes of full disclosure, I have contributed to the John Edwards campaign, as well as to that of Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

But I must agree with Anatol Lieven that the comments of Edwards are juvenile and egocentric, concerned with only our side. Like some eight year old arguing about which baseball team is better. Has America ever considered that there are other countries in the world who have aspirations and goals that may not coincide exactly with its own? Our diplomacy illustrates Americans' narrow-mindedness and lack of tolerance for the other. This is perfectly illustrated by George Bush who constantly is preaching to other countries on what they should or should not do. The sad conclusion is that the Democratic candidates are hardly any better when it comes to putting away American exceptionalism and engaging in true and open debate even with those countries or entities that publicly criticize the U.S., for example, Iran or even Hamas.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN - DON'T LET BUSH & CHENEY START A WAR AGAINST IRAN

We need every reader and every blogger to join the campaign to prevent Bush and Cheney from starting a war against Iran.

It seems every single day, we hear politicians like Joe Lieberman calling for strikes against Iran. People like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney. Even Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards say that as far as Iran nothing is off the table, implying that they would bomb and attack Iran.

Why does the United States government and its politicians think that Iran is the enemy? Or that we can solve the disagreements with Iran over its nuclear enrichment power plants by raining down bombs and missiles?

The U.S. thus appears to the rest of the world as the most aggressive, the most bellicose, the most militaristic county in the world.

Wars and bombs don't solve anything. Yet people like Bush and Lieberman continue to call for it.

The only way we can stop this madness is for everyone to make it his or her personal campaign to express and publicize in any and every possible that there are a lot of us who will resist this call for war against Iran.