Disengagement isn’t just the Bush administration’s strategy for the Arab-Israeli conflict. At a recent press roundtable following her visit to Northern Uganda, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer claimed that the U.S. is indeed committed to peace in Northern Uganda:

Question: Ambassador Frazer, you said in London that the Bush Administration was going to insure that the LRA [Lord's Resistance Army] rebellion ends by the end of the year. How do you think that is going to happen?

Frazer: What I was saying is that is our goal – that seems to be a good time frame in which we can focus our actions and that of other international partners and countries to try to end what are clearly the atrocities of the war.

Frazer further enumerated the importance of resolving a conflict that has displaced 1.5 million, abducted 38,000 children, and whose rates of violent death are three times higher than those reported in Iraq following the 2003 invasion:

I think that in terms of assisting the government of Uganda — President Bush has been trying to do that since 2001. I was sent here by Secretary Rice to look into the conditions in northern Uganda, so that I could come back with additional recommendations on how the president and she can assist in bringing this war to an end.

However, the State Department’s Uganda Desk Officer Barbara Yoder has confirmed that the US has no presence at potentially ground-breaking peace talks in Juba between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. Read more

As Congress is marching in lock step to approve the administration’s sweetheart deal that would allow India to rapidly ramp up its nuclear bomb production to about 50 new weapons each year, news comes that Pakistan is racing to match the Indian capability.

The Washington Post reports on new satellite photos that reveal construction of a plutonium production reactor that should enable Pakistan to punch out — surprise — 50 bombs a year.

It is not too late for Congress to stop this developing nuclear arms race in South Asia. All they have to do is approve an amendment that conditions the U.S.-India deal on an Indian agreement not to make any more material for weapons. This was part of the deal originally sought by Bush administration officials, but they caved in to India demands and dropped the idea.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) says, “The Bush Administration conceded on almost every major point in negotiating this agreement with India. Even worse, the Administration essentially ignored the concerns of its own nonproliferation experts, and kept Congress in the dark until after the agreement was concluded.”

He and other legislators are trying to get amendments to the deal that would enable the U.S. to expand cooperation with India without allowing India to go on a nuclear weapons binge. One amendment would require India to halt production of fissile material, the main component needed to make nuclear weapons, in exchange for greater nuclear cooperation with the United States. A second important amendment would prevent India from transferring nuclear enrichment technology to other countries.

The Arms Control Association has more.

- Joseph Cirincione

Last year, Sen. George Voinovich eloquently made the case against the nomination of John Bolton, stating, “I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team.” Voinovich now intends to support Bolton, but his original concerns turned out to be well-founded.

In just over a year at the U.N., Bolton has managed to offend many U.S. friends and allies, demonstrating that he’s an ineffective diplomat:

Greece’s U.N. Ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis: “He is not an easy man to get close to. “¦ Some people have the possibility to build consensus. Others operate in other ways.”

Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Baali, after a disagreement with Bolton: “The U.S. stand that ‘you take it or you leave it is not helping the Security Council, and is not helping the cause of peace in the Middle East.’”

Peru’s U.N. Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero: “He lives in another world, with this belief that he is morally superior and the U.S. is more moral than all the countries around the world. It is a pity.”

Read more

On Friday, the White House released a document entitled “Setting the Record Straight: President Bush’s Foreign Policy is Succeeding.” One section, headlined “Conservatives Stand Behind The President’s Policies,” contains just one example:

On Wednesday, Max Boot Wrote: “Our Best Response Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far – Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job.” (Max Boot, “It’s Time To Let The Israelis Take Off The Gloves,” Los Angeles Times, 7/19/06)

So apparently, urging the Israelis to “take off the gloves” means you are endorsing the administration’s policies in the current conflict. Also, the Boot column that the White House views as an endorsement of their policies also calls on Israel to attack Syria:

Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work.

Tim Russert confronted White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about the release on Meet the Press yesterday. Bolten claimed the Boot column “was sent around as a reflection of some of the conservative columnists’ support for Israel.” In fact, it was sent around explicitly as reflecting support for administration policy. Watch it:

(H/T: Alternet)

Transcript: Read more