US Ambassador presents US foreign policy in Galway

galway | anti-war / imperialism | news report Friday November 16, 2007 02:55 by doug - GAAW Ga;wau

Talk at NUIG

United States Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas C. Foley, gave a talk defending US foreign policy to a public meeting of the NUIG Law Society Wednesday evening. His thesis was that US foreign policy had not changed during the Bush years, but remained based on promotion of democracy and human rights world-wide, opposition to terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and stabilizing unstable regions around the world.

He explained that the European population had strongly moved from support to opposition of US policy because the Bush Administration's policy was no longer the Eurocentric policy that the US had maintained since World War I, not because of any basic disagreement with the goals of that policy. He reminded the audience that the US was the largest foreign aid donor.

He found it remarkable that the world public supported the US war on Afghanistan after 9/11, but opposed the war on Iraq, which was waged, not only for the same reasons, but also because it was a nation which (the US mistaken thought) had nuclear weapons and threatened its neighbors.

He was pleased that the governments of France and Germany, which has so objected to US foreign policy five years ago had now changed position and come around to support it, but regretted that their publics remained opposed. Ambassador Foley showed no awareness that praising governments for opposing the popular will was inconsistent with his earlier support of "democracy".

Although he was explaining the basis for US foreign policy the phrases "national interest" and "US interests" did not cross his lips. US foreign policy was presented purely as intended to improve the lot of the people of the world.

The almost-packed house politely sat through twenty minutes of a presentation that many later described as "insulting", "arrogant", and "unbelievable", before launching into a bruising question-and-answer period, with all but the closing question hostile. In many cases the questions received sustained applause while the answers received none.

Ambassador Foley, a businessman who was awarded a position to privatize Iraq's industry early in the occupation and then the ambassadorship to Ireland after raising over $100,000 for George Bush's 2000 campaign, struggled to answer numerous critiques of US foreign policy. He admitted not knowing about US trade policy with Africa, and dismissed some events presented as background to questions as occurring before he started representing US policy (which he has done for less than five years).

The audience was unable to supress its reaction to some of the ambassador's responses to questions: that rendition flights are legal, that the US respects international law, that everyone believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, that the US doesn't torture, ..., and had to be reminded time and again not to verbally respond during what the moderator described as a debate (between the audience and Amb. Foley).

Among the issues brought up were the following:
* Renditions -- The ambassador first mentioned Bertie Ahern's claim that rendition flights did not go through Ireland, but when it was pointed out that the charge was that flights on their way to or from renditions passed through Ireland, he ended up denying that also -- despite recorded evidence to the contrary.
* US military flights through Shannon -- In response to a question objecting to the US military using Shannon to support US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan as violating Ireland's neutrality, Foley replied that later UN resolutions authorizing the continued occupation of Iraq made such flights legal under international law.
* One questioner reported talking to a US Sergeant in Shannon Airport who was returning from an extended (year and a half) tour in Iraq who said that the war was being waged for oil. The Ambassador replied that there is no reason to expect that US troops know why they are fighting a war.
* US harboring a terrorist (Luis Posada Carriles) who bombed a Cuban airliner killing 72 people -- this part of a question was ignored.
* Cuba -- Foley said that the US embargo on Cuba would be reviewed by the US government when it felt it appropriate.
* Abu Ghraib -- Foley claimed that the abuse shown in the released photographs were not US policy.
* Assassinations of foreign leaders -- Foley claimed that the US doesn't do this, that it is against the law, and that a president that did so would go to jail. He would not admit that the US has engaged in assassinations and assassination attempts in the past. He remarked, "Castro is still alive", ignoring the numerous US-sponsored assassination attempts on him. He did not explain how a president, who is the Attorney General's boss and who if all else fails could pardon himself, could be sent to jail.
* Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq -- Foley did not recognize that the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force against Afghanistan gave the US attack there a legitimacy that its war on Iraq lacked due the Security Council's refusal to pass a similar authorizing resolution.
* War on Iran -- There is strong evidence that the US has been preparing for a military strike on Iran: extra aircraft carriers being sent to the region, additional marines being sent to ships in the Persian Gulf who are not being stationed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, a propaganda campaign against Iran mirroring that against Iraq in 2002-2003, and leaks of war plans. Foley avoided answering a question as to whether the US is actually planning such an attack, given this background, responding with a question about whether Iran should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons.
* Iran's nuclear program -- Iran has the right under the non-proliferation treaty to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or production of highly enriched uranium (which could be used for nuclear weapons). As long as enrichment plants are under IAEA inspections they would be unable to secretly produce highly enriched uranium. Confronted with this information, the ambassador replied again with his own question -- whether the asker would oppose Iran producing nuclear weapons. In the back-and-forth he avoided even renewing his claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, much less provided evidence for such a claim.

In defense of his claim of US Eurocentrism, Ambassador Foley explained Clinton's war on Yugoslavia over Kosovo, as in support of the million Kosovars who fled Yugoslav forces, neither recognizing that they did not flee until the US bombing attacks started, nor that people were fleeing the bombs as well as the federal troops.

People picked up their bags outside the doors to the lecture hall on the way out where they had been left in a pile "for security's sake".