Bush Waives Saudi Trafficking Sanctions

[Secretariat]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/21/national/w184052D94.DTL

"President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

In June, the State Department listed 14 countries as failing to adequately address trafficking problems, subjecting them all to possible sanctions if they did not crack down."

....

"The White House statement offered no explanation of why countries were regarded differently. Jordan also could not provide one.

As many as 800,000 people are bought and sold across national borders annually or lured to other countries with false promises of work or other benefits, according to the State Department. Most are women and children."

See, this is where I find GW hypocritical. He preaches "values" but looks the other way when allies do nothing in the face of "modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers". "800,000".

He is in the Saudi's pocket.

[DJofSD]

Why don't you just come out and say it: Bush is in favor of terrorist, child sex and slavery. It wouldn't be that far from the statements made that he's a racist because of the hurricane's impact to the minorities in NO.

"Me hates Bush. He wants to hurt us, precious."

DJofSD

[Secretariat]

Why don't you just come out and say it: Bush is in favor of terrorist, child sex and slavery. It wouldn't be that far from the statements made that he's a racist because of the hurricane's impact to the minorities in NO.

"Me hates Bush. He wants to hurt us, precious."

DJofSD

See DJ...this is just it. I don't think he is in favor any of those things. I think he views himself as a decent religious man. But when put to the test with the Saudis, his actions show "indifference". T

I'll not be tempted by your racism comment, because it is not what this article is about. It's about his hypocrisy and indifference to human suffering and exploitation.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, here goes my rep around here but IMHO Sec's got a point.

I certainly understand why Bush is doing it - we need any allies we can find in the region. (And there just aren't many that are willing to see things our way even a little.)

However, if we are going to hold up the banner of "right is right" (and I don't mean politically "right" as in republican; I mean right as in "honorable and just")... anyway, if we are going to cling to that, then we need to be consistent about it.

You know, when you look back on our foreign policy over the years we have chosen to look the other way while our friends du jour did some horrible things. And both sides of the aisle have done that at times, so let's don't even pretend that it is just a repub thing.

Good post, Sec.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ljb]

And a very manly action by you Dave, to admit your thoughts inspite of the possible harm to your reputation.

[DJofSD]

OK. let's see if I get this correctly: Bush is wrong about the war in Iraq -- that could have been better in a different way -- no way is war justified. And on the other hand, he cuts the Saudi's a break, now he's not firm enough, or in Dave's opinion, he's inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Bush supporter robot. I don't agree with his handling of a number of domestic issues. But I guess I'm old fashion in the sense I still believe that politics should stop at the border. He's the commander-in-chief and the chief formulator of foreign policy (as much as that wrangles the Congress). He should be trusted to do his job. Or is that what it comes down to, a matter of trust?

DJofSD

[DJofSD]

inspite of the possible harm to your reputation.

Every person has a right to his opinion. And that is a fundamental right in this country. Having an opinion on one or the other side of an issue is not how I judge a person.

And, I do not play the red-square/green-square game.

DJofSD

[twindouble]

Secretariat;
In June, the State Department listed 14 countries as failing to adequately address trafficking problems, subjecting them all to possible sanctions if they did not crack down.


Where in that article does it say Saudi Arabia was included in the list of 14 countries that were trafficking?

[Dave Schwartz]

Now, before you try to add me to the hate Bush group, let's get one thing straight:

Politics in this age are not absolute about much of anything. I am now joining the "hate Bush" crowd. I am joining the "dislike politicians" crowd.

I know I have said this before, but this is one of the biggest problems in this country today... we have a tendancy to be Republicans or Democrats before we are Americans.



IMHO, the leader of this country at any given time (whether he be Rep or Dem does not matter) is forced to make choices which are often perceived as this one is.

In other words, there are no perfect friends (i.e. countries) just as this country is not perfect.

If we only had the true good guys as allies, we would have no allies because there aren't any. And this world without any big boy allies would be even tougher to survive in.

So, no matter which side of the aisle you are from, consider this: We need to do the right thing as Americans! Neither side is doing much of a job for protecting the rank and file of this country.

Again, IMHO, what we need most to change in this country is:

1. Campaign Contributions
The big boys must stop directing the country by proxy. (This is a both-party issue; do not even try to deny it.)

2. Taxation
The current income tax system simply does not work. Too much paper work, too many collection problems and too many loopholes.

3. Welfare
The current welfare system does not work either. Too much "entitlement" and not enough "encouragement."

4. Social Security
We cannot ignore our elders. It is simply wrong.


Okay, get these fixed and then we can waste our time on how bad this administration screwed up FEMA or the previous administration screwed up the job market, or how all administrations in the past 50-60 years have been "friends" with some pretty bad guys.


Just my opinion. Blast away.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, here goes my rep around here but IMHO Sec's got a point.

You're kidding, right? (not about the part about Sec having a point, but about the harm to your rep????) Give me a break....everyone knows the left runs off-topic, not the other way around.

[PaceAdvantage]

And a very manly action by you Dave, to admit your thoughts inspite of the possible harm to your reputation.

You're one crazy dude.

[lsbets]

And a very manly action by you Dave, to admit your thoughts inspite of the possible harm to your reputation.

Actuallu ljb, looking around, the only one with lousy reputation seems to be you. It must not be a political thing, its more than likely just related to your wonderful disposition and personality.

[Secretariat]

Secretariat;
In June, the State Department listed 14 countries as failing to adequately address trafficking problems, subjecting them all to possible sanctions if they did not crack down.


Where in that article does it say Saudi Arabia was included in the list of 14 countries that were trafficking?

The article goes through all 14 countries listed. Count em - 14

Bolivia
Jamaica
Qatar
Sudan
Togo
United Arab Emirates
Cambodia
Venezuela
Saudi Arabia
Ecuador
Kuwait
Myanmar
Cuba
North Korea

[Secretariat]

btw...here's from June of this year when the State Dept. was talking tough.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/03/8_nations_added_to_human_trafficking_list/

From June 3, 2005 , Boston Globe

“The United States accused 14 nations Friday of failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers. The countries include Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism.”

….

The State Department said the 14 countries could be subject to sanctions if they do not crack down.

….

As many as 800,000 people are bought and sold across national borders annually or lured to other countries with false promises of work or other benefits, the State Department said in its annual survey of international human trafficking. Most are women and children.

….

"Trafficking in human beings is nothing less than a modern form of slavery," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The United States has a particular duty to fight this scourge because trafficking in persons is an affront to the principles of human dignity and liberty upon which this nation was founded."

“Saudi Arabia has turned a blind eye to the problem of poor or low-skilled workers brought into the country and exploited or who go there voluntarily but find themselves in "involuntary servitude," the report said.”

“Saudi employers physically and sexually abuse migrants from South Asia, Africa and other places, withhold pay and travel documents or use migrant children as forced beggars, the report said. Some of the migrants work as domestics in the homes of wealthy Saudis.”

"The government of Saudi Arabia does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so," the 2005 Trafficking in Persons report said.”

“The report said the Saudis apparently prosecuted only one employer during the period covered by the report, from March 2004 to March 2005.”

"We have domestic workers being brought in from many countries into domestic servitude, child beggars, a lot of beatings, reports of beatings and rape," said John R. Miller, the special ambassador for human trafficking.”

“The Saudi Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment on the report.”

DJ, you don't see the hypocrisy in "waiving" Saudi Arabia? btw...thanks Dave. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of positions, but you've always tried to keep an open mind and I respect that.

[DJofSD]

DJ, you don't see the hypocrisy in "waiving" Saudi Arabia?

No, I don't. I see some inconsistency. I see where an option was exercised. But does it rise to the level of talking out of both sides of his mouth, no.

Let's review some history. China, as I recall, they've been granted most favored nation trading status despite their many documented human rights abuses. How is that different from Bush's treatment of SA?

DJofSD

[Secretariat]

DJ, you don't see the hypocrisy in "waiving" Saudi Arabia?

No, I don't. I see some inconsistency. I see where an option was exercised. But does it rise to the level of talking out of both sides of his mouth, no.

Let's review some history. China, as I recall, they've been granted most favored nation trading status despite their many documented human rights abuses. How is that different from Bush's treatment of SA?

DJofSD

Exactly. Thanks for making my point with another bit of hypocrisy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I guess I do not blame you for being as slanted as the writer of the article for singling out SA for obvious political reasons; But I will point out that the idea of Bush claiming Sudan is improving is most likely ridiculous!
Of course the USA Govt always slants aid and passes to favor whoever they generally favor and always has historically.
If you want something done about these issues it will take the populace of the USA to make too big a stink about it to be avoided, like issues that turn into constitiutional ammendments or apartheid.

[DJofSD]

Do you ever see anything in shades other than black and white?

DJofSD

[Tom]

Just my opinion - Bush habitually comes donw on sides other than those of people. Bug business, governments, canmgpaign donators, but never people.

You cannot be conditionally right - you are right or you are wrong.
To turn his back on slavery is wrong and there is not justification for it.

BTW....what "war of terror" is he talking about? I was not aware HE was invloved in one anymore, not since he avenged his daddy.

[boxcar]

Exactly. Thanks for making my point with another bit of hypocrisy.

And just which president was the biggest suck-up to China, Sec? Which president prostituted himself with this evil nation more than any before him or since him?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

And just which president was the biggest suck-up to China, Sec? Which president prostituted himself with this evil nation more than any before him or since him?

Boxcar

Since you want to digress from the topic, I'll bite. The answer is Richard Nixon. He began this trade fiasco with China while guys/friends were fighting in Vietnam, with a country that was supplying weapons to our enemy, he opened the doors of trade with them. The single most disgusting action of any President.

I know you want to blame Clinton, the old story, and you know what you're right. I don't condone expansionism in China. I never have, and I don't see it as a rationalization to allow GW to expand it even further.

Now back to the topic of human trafficking and Saudi Arabia and the hypocrisy of values rhetoric.

[boxcar]

Since you want to digress from the topic, I'll bite. The answer is Richard Nixon. He began this trade fiasco with China while guys/friends were fighting in Vietnam, with a country that was supplying weapons to our enemy, he opened the doors of trade with them. The single most disgusting action of any President.

I know you want to blame Clinton, the old story, and you know what you're right. I don't condone expansionism in China. I never have, and I don't see it as a rationalization to allow GW to expand it even further.

Now back to the topic of human trafficking and Saudi Arabia and the hypocrisy of values rhetoric.

Methinks the issue of China and even our relations with other nations, generally, is on topic. You brought up the hyprocrisy of this administration in giving the Saudis a free pass. Fair enough. There's hypocrisy there. But nations (plural -- not just the U.S.) tend to do what is poltically expedient for them. And we know that what is expedient at the moment is almost always not the "right" thing to do -- especially in the long term.

In some ways, though, it's understandable why we favor the Saudis. The U.S. government (not just this adminsistraton) has long thought that cultivating a relationship with the Saudis would be in our best national interest for various reasons. But I am at a loss to understand why and administration would want suck to China -- a nation that is clearly not our friend.

One might argue the Saudis aren't either; however SA has plenty of internal problems and what the Royal Family is trying to do (and not very well sometimes) is appease us and the extemists within their own borders.

We maintain this odd and complex relationship with the Saudis not just because we need their oil, but because the Saudis also need us. We are the deterrent to the extremists in their country. The Royal Family knows that if something were to happen in terms of a coups, for example, we'd be right there to protect them -- and the oil, of course.

But all this isn't the case with China. China is using nearly all its trade revenue to build a tremendous war machine, and is busily and rapidly developing a strong alliance with another dangerous nation -- Russia. About the only thing China might be useful for in the forseeable future (and this is a big "maybe") is to act as a peace negotiator between No. Korea and us. If we were to reach any kind of settlement with No. Korea over its nuclear program, China, I think, would have to play a vital role. China would have to get NK to toe the line.

So, yes, the bottom line: There's lots of hypocrisy in the diplomatic relationships among the nations. Nations often say one thing for public consumption, but privately do someththing else. It has always been like this and it always will. But like you, I don't like it. At the same time, though, we must always be mindful that we live in a very imperfect and fragile world -- a world frought with dangers.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Box,

How could a devout Christian look the other way when humans are being trafficked in a supposed allied country? And how could another Christian defend those actions?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by boxcar
And just which president was the biggest suck-up to China, Sec? Which president prostituted himself with this evil nation more than any before him or since him?

Boxcar



Richard Nixon.

[Tom]

Box,

How could a devout Christian look the other way when humans are being trafficked in a supposed allied country? And how could another Christian defend those actions?

Indefensible.
When do we take the high road?

[DJofSD]

I find it interesting that the faction that wants God and christian based religions removed from the public discoarse now are ascribing moral properties to the actions of the government. Talk about hypocritical.

DJofSD

[chickenhead]

I find it interesting that the faction that wants God and christian based religions removed from the public discoarse now are ascribing moral properties to the actions of the government. Talk about hypocritical.

DJofSD

DJ you're better than this. It is not hypocritical for an agnostic to be anti-slavery, anti-child prostitution. And it is not hypocritical for them to want their gov't to be as well, this is after all still a democracy.

[boxcar]

Box,

How could a devout Christian look the other way when humans are being trafficked in a supposed allied country? And how could another Christian defend those actions?

You know I'm always amazed at how Libs will criticize Christians for looking at complex situations in black and white terms. They will quickly remind someone like myself that there are "shades of gray" to just about everything in life. That Christians just don't appreciate "nuances" to things, etc. But then you, Sec, will turn right around and read this situation with Saudi Arabia in purely black and white terms. Amazing!

I am not putting up a defense for the our State Dept's policy, but am simply stating what the facts of international politics are. It's very often a dirty, nasty business -- but someone has to do it.

But it's not only these things, this "business" is most often conducted away from the public eye. Deals are made behind closed doors. Bargains are struck behind well guarded palaces and government buildings. Secret agreements are reached with just handshakes over even over encrypted phone lines.

What does this all mean? It means that the world populace, generally, knows next to nothing about what goes on behind the scenes. Occassional political leaks notwithstanding (and many of these are staged,also), we know only what our government wants us to know. Therefore, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes with this terrible problem. We don't know if Bush or his State Dept. is applying pressure privately.

And the second issue I wish to raise again is that Saudi Arabia's own government is very fragile The royal family's control over the populace is probably tenuous at best. But what further complicates the Saudi situation is their own oil. Do we want to even imagine what kind of turmoil the world would be subjected to if all that oil and all that wealth were to fall into the hands of terrorists?

What this means is that Bush could very likely be on the horns of an ethical dilemma. If you ever read any war stories, many of them will contain accounts of these kinds of dilemmas -- where the commanding officer, for example, has to choose between sacrificing a "few" good lives in order to save "many". Dilemmas, by definition, usually involve very unpleasant, undesirable choices. Perhaps Bush had to choose between saving the victims of the slave trade (the "few") to saving the world (the "many" from an eventual world war if terrorists were to topple the present Saudi government and inflame the entire Middle East. Perhaps the royal family itself had tough political choices to make, e.g. appease the bad guys in exchange for staying in power.

It's very easy to look into the inside from the outside and form over-simplfiied, and uninformed opinions. Having said all this, however, I'm in perfect agreement with you this slave trade business is rephrehensible. But I doubt that there is an easy, simple solution to it with regards to Saudi Arabia.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Having said all this, however, I'm in perfect agreement with you this slave trade business is rephrehensible. But I doubt that there is an easy, simple solution to it with regards to Saudi Arabia.

Boxcar

It wasn't an easy decision for Lincoln to free the slaves either, but he had the courage of his convictions, despite being a Republican and a Christian. This Republican and Christian President does not have those same qualities of conviction that were present in Lincoln. He chooses to look the other way to slavery, and waives i with Saudi Arabia, and your defense of his reasons as "something behind the scene" are specious.

I'm sure Lincoln could have appeased the South sooner if he had taken slavery off the table.

[JustRalph]

You compare Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation to Bush and the Saudi's? Are you nuts? Lincoln had jurisdiction over the problem. Bush has no jurisdiction over the country of Saudi..........you are pulling a little apples to oranges comparison again........... I sometimes forget how far you will go to make Bush look bad........anything to make your point. No matter how specious (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=specious)

[boxcar]

It wasn't an easy decision for Lincoln to free the slaves either, but he had the courage of his convictions, despite being a Republican and a Christian. This Republican and Christian President does not have those same qualities of conviction that were present in Lincoln. He chooses to look the other way to slavery, and waives i with Saudi Arabia, and your defense of his reasons as "something behind the scene" are specious.

I'm sure Lincoln could have appeased the South sooner if he had taken slavery off the table.

Sec, Sec -- different world, different set of circumstances. The stakes in these kinds of foreign policy politics are a lot bigger than were the national stakes in Lincoln's day. No comparison.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Sec, Sec -- different world, different set of circumstances. The stakes in these kinds of foreign policy politics are a lot bigger than were the national stakes in Lincoln's day. No comparison.

Boxcar

Excuse me? You're saying offending Saudi Arabia over slavery issues is "a lot bigger" regarding national stakes than the South seceding from the Union? Where do you come up with this stuff? Whew!!!

[boxcar]

Excuse me? You're saying offending Saudi Arabia over slavery issues is "a lot bigger" regarding national stakes than the South seceding from the Union? Where do you come up with this stuff? Whew!!!

"Excuse me" is right! Where did I say anyhing about Bush's fear of offending the Saudis? And you're one to ask me, "Where do you come up with this suff?"

Boxcar