Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Earlier in the day, Obama will meet separately and privately with Biden and Clinton. Interesting omission in light of questions about how much the increase will cost: Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

“As President Peres always reminds us, being serious about peace means taking risks for peace,” Ms. Rice said. “Being serious about peace means understanding that tomorrow need not look like yesterday.”

Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations (via videoconference)

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

CIA Director Leon Panetta

Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

As reports of political violence in Iran intensified after Friday’s fiercely disputed election, the Obama administration insisted that it would not interfere with the struggle for power between regime-backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the thousands of demonstrators who contend the election was stolen. Administration officials, on and off the record, said that President Obama would offer support for human rights in Iran generally and would not back away from his diplomatic outreach to the longtime U.S. adversary, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the election.

The stance began to attract criticism on Sunday, with some politicians arguing that the United States needed to come out firmly on the side of protesters who have been victimized by regime-backed violence and had their communications with the outside world restricted. But the administration’s position has the support of Iranian human rights groups, which fear the clerical regime will exploit any perception of U.S. interference to slander the opposition as American puppets — a caustic charge in a nation with a deep memory of U.S. interference in its politics.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Since the Iranian government certified the election returns on Saturday, in which Ahmadinejad was said to have won 62 percent of the vote to opposition figure Mir Hossein Moussavi’s 30 percent, the Obama administration released two public statements, neither of which expressed judgment nor condemnation of an election widely believed to have been rigged. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs praised the “vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians” and pledged that the administration would monitor “reports of irregularities.” On NBC’s “Meet The Press” the next day, Vice President Joe Biden went further, saying there was “some real doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s alleged victory, but added that the international community needed to conduct “analysis” before reaching any conclusions.

A senior Obama administration official who did not want to be identified or quoted explained that the president was deeply conscious of appearing not to favor any side in the election. Officials had ruled out calling for a recount or a revote out of a concern for undermining the Iranian opposition. The official said it was important to have a policy toward Iran that advanced the administration’s desire for liberalization and human rights in Iran, not one that merely vented American outrage at Ahmadinejad.

If and when Obama speaks about the violence in Iran over the coming days, the official predicted, he will emphasize the need for respecting human rights in Iran and for Iranians to reach their own solution. Potential multilateral efforts at calling attention to electoral improprieties and the resulting violence were said to be on the radar of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. No administration official mentioned recognizing the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s proclaimed victory at this point as a policy option under consideration, in keeping with Biden’s call for further “analysis” about the true election result, despite the fact that the European Union’s presidency, currently held by the Czech Republic, recognized Ahmadinejad as the victor despite noting “irregularities” in the vote.

But in no case will the administration back away from its long-expressed desire to directly engage Iran diplomatically. “Talks with Iran are not a reward for good behavior,” Biden said. The senior administration official noted that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the election, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — who, in an unusual move, endorsed the election outcome immediately, instead of waiting the customary three days for the vote to become clear — sets foreign policy for Iran, not the president. At the same time, the official said, the administration would not have endless patience for unreciprocated outreach.

That position began to come under criticism on Sunday. The post-election violence “certainly makes such a dialogue much more difficult,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on CNN, “but frankly I’ve always been skeptical of any kind of dialogue with the hardline leaders of Iran.” Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), issued a statement urging Obama and others to “speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran right now and unambiguously express their solidarity with the brave Iranians who went to the polls in the hope of change and who are now looking to the outside world for strength and support.”

But some Iranian human rights activists backed Obama’s cautious approach. “I think it’s wise for the U.S. government to keep its distance,” said Hadi Ghaemi, a New York-based spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, which wants the international community not to legitimize the Iranian regime’s claim that Ahmadinejad won the election. While the Obama administration ought to express support for the Iranian opposition’s safety and for human rights in Iran as the regime clamps down on dissent, any expression of political support for the protesters would only “instigate the cry that the reformers are somehow driven and directed by the United States, whether under [former President George W. Bush] or under Obama, and there’s no reason to give that unfounded allegation” any chance to spread.

Trita Parsi, the founder of the National Iranian American Council who has played a leading role in the American press over the weekend in denouncing Ahmadinejad and defending the protesters, said that Obama was taking care not to subvert the Iranian opposition. “The framing that Ahmadinejad is presenting is one in which essentially the whole [opposition] is a Western media conspiracy,” he said. “If the administration is saying things or doing things before Moussavi and the opposition figures out what the plan is, then that’s a real problem, because then it seems like it’s between Ahmadinejad and the west and not Ahmadinejad and the opposition. So the administration is doing exactly the right thing. They’re not rushing in and they’re not playing favorites. They might prefer the democratic process to be respected, but that’s different than [supporting a] specific faction.”

Parsi took issue with Lieberman’s statement and those of others who have urged the United States to back the opposition. “They’re saying ‘Support Moussavi.’ Well, did you talk to Moussavi to learn if this is helpful? A lot of people seem to have the propensity of knowing what the Iranian people want or what specific people want but [don't] contact them. And in past it’s been detrimental” to Iranian opposition figures, Parsi said. If such American politicians have “not learned from that, it’s sad.”

Ghaemi said that a proper response from the international community ought to come from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who he said ought to denounce the theft of the election and the resulting regime-instigated violence. “We should not have the U.S. lead,” he said.

That approach might garner support from the Arab world. Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow with the American Task Force on Palestine, said that the Arab states of the Middle East were “largely disappointed by these announced results,” since antipathy to Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric runs high in the region and Iran’s Arab neighbors do not relish the prospect of an Iranian regime reckless enough to steal an election. But he said that much like the rest of the world, Arab capitols ought not to interfere with the process. “A perception of external pressure on internal Iranian affairs is bound to be counterproductive and strengthen the hand of the religious far-right,” Ibish said. “Defensive nationalist sentiment has been a hallmark of Ahmadinejad’s appeal to Iranians, as it usually is with demagogues around the world.”

This weekend has seen the worst sustained internal political violence in Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The regime has managed to shut down most forms of communication with the outside world, including most e-mail access, SMS and Facebook. Yet as of Sunday night Iranians are still managing to access Twitter, and the accounts they tweet detail an opposition using the symbols of the 1979 revolution against the regime that governs in its name. An opposition Twitter account called StopAhmadi reported, “sadatabad, tehran. violent street battles between Basij [pro-regime paramilitary forces] and people. cars on fire.” Another Iranian Twitter user, PersianKiwi, announced, “4am and people still on streets and rooftops shouting ‘death to the dictator’.” Change_for_iran, a self-described student, described a skirmish with pro-regime forces: “bastards just attacked us for no reason, I lost count of how much tear gas they launched at us!”

But however much sympathetic Americans might wish the Obama administration to express more forthright support for the embattled protesters, analysts believe that doing so would ultimately set back their struggle. It was important, Parsi said, for any non-Iranian organization wishing to show solidarity with the opposition to ensure that “anything they do is two steps behind the opposition and not two steps ahead.” The current struggle, he said, is “not a battle in the slightest to be fought by any in the international community or any entity. Iranians have tremendous pride in doing this themselves.”

As part of our commitment to the principle of universality of human rights, the United States commits to working with our international partners in the spirit of openness, consultation, and respect and reaffirms that expressions of concern about the human rights situation in any country, our own included, are appropriate matters for international discussion. [...]

The United States commits to continuing to promote freedom of religion for  individuals of all beliefs, particularly members of minority and vulnerable religious groups, through dedicated outreach, advocacy, training and programmatic efforts. [...]

The United States is committed to meeting its UN treaty obligations and participating in a meaningful dialogue with treaty body members.

Only the first excerpt comes close to indicating anything about torture, and that’s really really really a Mr.-Fantastic-caliber stretch, so whatever. In any case, I look forward to reading about how Obama’s just sold out American sovereignty and how he’s just put us on par with Libya and Sudan and such and how the freedom of religion pledge is a clever way to reveal his hatred of Israel.

As we’ve written here recently, the Obama administration has come out strongly in support of needle exchange programs — a break from previous administrations that’s been welcomed by health care and human rights advocates the world over — but has also opposed “harm reduction.” The broader harm-reduction category includes clean syringe exchanges but also more controversial programs like safe injection facilities and heroin prescription programs, which some European countries have adopted in recent years with promising results.

The controversy caught the eyes of some powerful House Democrats, who wondered why the United States would choose to oppose the harm reduction provision supported by some of its closest allies, particularly since the U.N. declaration is a non-binding document.

In a Jan. 28 letter to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations., Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), wrote, “We find it hard to understand how the U.S. delegation could object to language which would not obligate any country to adopt particular policies with which it disagrees.”

A State Department spokesperson said this month that the department has provided the lawmakers with a written response to their concerns, but as the U.N. document is set to be finalized this week without the harm reduction language, the offices of Waxman, Lee and Serrano have suddenly clammed up. Repeated calls and emails to the offices of Lee and Serrano have been met with silence, while Waxman spokeswoman Karen Lightfoot said only that the congressman is still reviewing the White House response.

Allan Clear, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, an advocacy group, is in Vienna watching the deliberations. He’s also writing an occasional column for The Huffington Post. The first one, which went up this morning, claims the U.S. opposition to harm reduction is “extremely short sighted and problematic.”

It puts the US in the position of sitting in judgment of successful programs being run by many countries globally; it also ignores the very successful use of harm reduction in the United States to stem the tide of overdose deaths, low threshold drug treatment and Hepatitis C treatment and care in major centers including New York City. Worst of all, it negates the sound science behind interventions like safer injection spaces or heroin prescription programs.

Clear also explains some of the politics behind the U.S. position:

Whereas the new Obama Administration is making steps to move in a more progressive human rights based direction, the groundwork for the drafting of the Political Declaration has taken place with State Department employees who took their direction from the previous administration and haven’t yet been presented with a new agenda.

For the silence from Congress, there is no similar explanation.

Flickr: Nick Atkins Photography

Bush-era envoys to the United Nations are trying to block global efforts to promote HIV/AIDS-prevention programs such as needle exchanges, according to health and human rights advocates who supplied documents of the negotiations. The envoys’ opposition runs directly counter to the stated position of President Obama, who supports lifting a ban on clean-syringe programs that’s existed in the United States for 20 years.

The saga unfolds as the members of the United Nations are busy drafting a non-binding declaration of global drug-policy goals for the next decade. Although a number of countries — many in the European Union — are pushing hard to include language promoting “harm reduction measures,” including syringe-exchange programs shown to prevent needle-born illness, the U.S. representatives have already lobbied that provision out, according to health and human rights groups familiar with the negotiations.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The U.S. opposition is consistent with current federal policy, which prevents federal funding for needle exchange programs. But it remains curious because Obama supports a repeal of that ban.

The White House Website outlines Obama’s position directly, proclaiming that the president “supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”

The episode has attracted the attention of some congressional Democrats. In a Jan. 28 letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) cite “an apparent disconnect in U.S. policy” as it pertains to efforts to promote needle exchange to fight HIV/AIDS.

“We understand that the U.S. delegation in Vienna has been actively blocking the efforts of some of our closest allies — including the European Union — to incorporate in the declaration reference to harm reduction measures, such as needle exchange,” the Democrats wrote. They’re urging that the delegation “should immediately be given new instructions from the highest levels of the new Administration.”

In an op-ed published this week, Allan Clear, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, an advocacy group, provided one explanation why the U.S. ban has extended to the UN declaration despite Obama’s opposition to it.

“Our current U.S. delegation is primarily made up of State Department bureaucrats soldiering in the war on drugs,” Clear wrote. “They promote policies that have had dramatic negative consequences (intended and unintended) on the lives of drug users, their families and their communities but very little impact on reducing drug supply, consumption or cultivation.”

In a Jan. 1 letter to Obama, a group of 65 health groups and human rights advocates echoed that description. “The negotiators for the outgoing US administration,” the groups wrote, “are defending positions that will inhibit essential public health interventions in the many parts of the world where HIV epidemics are driven by drug injection.”

There’s not much time for the Obama team to act. The official U.N. meeting to finalize the draft — dubbed the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on drugs — will take place on March 12 and 13.

The State Department did not return calls for comment.

The U.S. ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs went into effect in 1988 and has been renewed each year since then as part of the appropriations process. Supporters of the ban argue that needle exchanges encourage drug use, and therefore Washington has no business funding them. Many opponents also reject the thought that taxpayers should subsidize the habits of drug users. After all, they argue, criminals should be imprisoned, not treated with government gifts.

But health and human rights groups reject those claims, arguing that if the government can’t prevent the use of drugs, it should at least take steps to ensure that the process is safe.

Many members of the medical community support needle-exchange programs. In 1998, Donna Shalala, health secretary under the Clinton administration, commissioned a report finding that such programs help prevent needle-born diseases while doing little to encourage drug use.

At the time, The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Harold Varmus, then-director of the National Institutes of Health and an author of the study, saying that, “An exhaustive review of the science indicates that needle exchange programs can be an effective component of the global effort to end the AIDS epidemic. Recent findings have strengthened the scientific evidence that needle exchange programs do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.”

No matter. Despite the report, the Clinton White House continued to deny federal funding for the syringe program, in effect extending the ban.

It seems poised to be extended overseas. A Jan. 15 draft version of the U.N. declaration includes language to “develop, review and strengthen” drug-treatment programs to include “harm reduction measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use and dependence.” The U.S. representatives — along with those from Russia, Japan and Colombia — insisted the language be removed, according to John Walsh, senior associate for drug policy at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human-rights group.

Countries in support of harm reduction then moved the clause into a footnote. That, too, was rejected by the United States, Walsh said.

Supporters of the provision are wondering why the language — which is non-binding — remains so controversial. “We find it hard to understand how the U.S. delegation could object to language which would not obligate any country to adopt particular policies with which it disagrees,” the House Democrats wrote in their letter to Rice.

Even if the language is nonbinding, Walsh said, including it is an important way to signal that there’s no stigma attached to those programs.

“By excluding [the language],” Walsh said, “it says that the conventions don’t permit it. It castigates it. It makes it seem that there’s something wrong with doing it.”

Waxman, Lee and Serrano have already reintroduced legislation this year to eliminate the U.S. ban on needle exchange programs. With Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling larger majorities in both congressional chambers, advocates are hopeful for success in 2009.

“This year, we have reason to think it might get somewhere,” Walsh said.

Whether the same will be true on the global stage is yet to be seen.

That raises a question: why doesn’t — as best I can tell — Gration have a job in the administration?

Now, maybe he will. But building on something that both Laura and I have reported, it’s somewhat bizarre that of the campaign’s foreign policy inner circle, only U.N. Ambassador-designate Susan Rice has a senior position. Richard Danzig isn’t going to be deputy defense secretary. We’re still waiting to hear about Gration, Ben Rhodes, Denis McDonough and Samantha Power, all of whom were instrumental to designing the Obama campaign’s foreign policy positions. Obama, from what I understand, is still close with all of them, but it’s still unclear where, if anywhere, they’ll find themselves during in the administration.

(For all the Obama-Kremlinologists out there, let me be really, really clear that I am just musing on this on my own behalf, not channelling any of the aforementioned individuals’ thinking. So please no speculation to the contrary.)

Update: Thanks to alert commenter RecordChecker, it appears that Gration will be NASA Administrator. So that’s one down! Apologies for missing this.

The term “smart power” was coined by Harvard’s Joe Nye and Richard Armitage, President George W. Bush’s former deputy secretary of state. Read their work and ask yourself if it means more than a blandishment not to rely just on military force, which is an uncontroversial position.

Rice’s inadvertent expression in this picture says it all. Needless to say, there is no State Dept. post for “African-American Affairs” — it’s just that Rice is African-American. Rice served as the former assistant secretary for African affairs.  I’m just going to go out on a limb and guess that a white person designed this graphic.