Last week, following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s speech before Congress, many conservatives blasted Calderon for slamming Arizona’s new immigration law and “meddling” in U.S. politics. “It’s about us. It’s about our citizenry,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I just think that’s a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I’m comfortable with,” stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, “It’s unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries.” However, Calderon isn’t the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized the drastic measures that Arizona is taking to lock out undocumented immigrants:

CENTRAL AMERICA: The Guatemalan Foreign Ministry issued a press release soon after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB-1070 into law, deploring the measure and expressing the government’s “deep concern” for the threat it represents to basic justice. The new government of Honduras also condemned the law. “Honduras considers that the passing of the law is the wrong step and does nothing to resolve the core problems behind of illegal immigration,” said Minister of the Presidency María Antonieta Guillén. Officials in El Salvador urged its citizens to avoid traveling to Arizona, and in Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

SOUTH AMERICA: The Chilean Secretary of OAS, José Miguel Insulza, responded to Nicaragua’s request by expressing “the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country.” Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages “discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of ‘reasonable doubt.’”

EUROPE: After reviewing the law, UN experts based in Geneva, Switzerland stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. “A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts said. Amnesty International, whose headquarters is based in London, agreed, calling the law “cruel and misguided” and in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

AFRICA: South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has been an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration law. “Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population,” wrote Tutu. “A solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution.”

When it comes down to it, Arizonans may not care about what the international community has to say about its controversial new law, but global leaders have every right to care about what might happen to their countrymen and woman who visit, live, or travel through their state. In the end, it’s not meddling, it’s diplomacy with a stick.

On Saturday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared at a right-wing pro-Israeli settler rally in New York’s Central Park, trashing the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel, and rejecting further Israeli “concessions” to the peace process.

“It grieves me to the core,” said Steele, “to have to admit that today the American government has abdicated her traditional solidarity with Israel”:

Today, Israel truly stands alone among governments. Facing existential threats more dangerous and more imminent than ever before. That’s not to say that Israel has been abandoned, however, by the American people. But there is no denying that the current administration and its Congressional collaborators have left Israel to fend for herself.

Watch it:

It would be interesting to hear Steele explain how the Obama administration’s request for — and its Congressional “collaborators’” approval of — an additional $205 million in assistance for Israel for the “Iron Dome” short-range missile defense system squares with his assertion that the U.S. is “leaving Israel to fend for herself.”

Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, despite tensions over Israeli settlements, under the Obama administration the U.S. and Israel “actually have undertaken a broad effort at military and strategic cooperation — including supplying Israel with sophisticated American military equipment — to counter threats from Iran and Hezbollah fighters armed by Syria.”

Accusing the Obama administration of having an “appeasement-first mentality,” Steele went on to insist that “For the sake of Jerusalem, we must not be silent”:

For the sake of Jerusalem, we must no longer allow this or any administration to second-guess the relationship between Israel and America. For the sake of Jerusalem, the world can longer demand that Israel sell out the security of her people, and make every concession in the book just on the off-chance that a Palestinian leadership might show up at the bargaining table willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Steele shouldn’t have to be reminded of this, but pressuring Israel to honor its own past commitments to cease settlement construction does not in any sense qualify as a “concession.” These commitments were made as part of agreements brokered by the United States and its partners, whose credibility is negatively impacted by the refusal of the parties to meet their obligations. This doesn’t seem to bother Steele.

And, just in point of fact, the Palestinians already showed up at the bargaining table willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and did so — back in 1993.

As was noted in a previous post, this rally was sponsored by some of the most hardcore pro-settler organizations in the country, groups that actively support the takeover of Palestinian land by violent Jewish religious extremists. It’s disgraceful that Steele would even appear at such an event in the first place, let alone go and tell transparent, pandering lies about the Obama administration’s policies and encourage the most rejectionist elements in Israeli politics in the interest of getting a few more votes for Republicans.

President Obama’s commencement address at West Point on Saturday contained the broad outlines of his administration’s forthcoming national security strategy, and echoed a number of themes that he’s sounded since the 2008 campaign: American power derived from American economic stability, and the strengthening of international institutions to facilitate a greater sharing of global responsibilities.

On the first, Obama stated that, in order for America to achieve our goals abroad, “we must first recognize that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps we take at home.”

We must educate our children to compete in an age where knowledge is capital, and the marketplace is global. We must develop clean energy that can power new industry and unbound us from foreign oil and preserve our planet. We have to pursue science and research that unlocks wonders as unforeseen to us today as the microchip and the surface of the moon were a century ago.

Simply put, American innovation must be the foundation of American power — because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy. And so that means that the civilians among us, as parents and community leaders, elected officials, business leaders, we have a role to play. We cannot leave it to those in uniform to defend this country — we have to make sure that America is building on its strengths.

On the second, Obama said “As we build these economic sources of our strength, the second thing we must do is build and integrate the capabilities that can advance our interests, and the common interests of human beings around the world.”

America’s armed forces are adapting to changing times, but your efforts have to be complemented. We will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats, from grand capitals to dangerous outposts. We need development experts who can support Afghan agriculture and help Africans build the capacity to feed themselves. We need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with their counterparts to unravel plots that run from the mountains of Pakistan to the streets of our cities. We need law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us here at home. And we need first responders who can act swiftly in the event of earthquakes and storms and disease.

The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone. Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power. And in the past, we’ve always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. We were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through World War II. We stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to endure and ultimately prevail during a Cold War.

One of Osama bin Laden’s stated goals is to provoke the U.S. into taking on overseas commitments it cannot financially sustain — it’s called the “bleed until bankruptcy” strategy. It’s good to see some acknowledgment from the president that the idea that America can be everywhere at once isn’t strength, it’s stupidity.

The speech notably lacked any really explicit digs at the previous administration’s disastrous foreign policy legacy, but Obama did make a pretty clear indication that the unilateralism of the Bush Doctrine was out of step with traditional American foreign policy, noting that while “we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system…America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation–we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don’t.”

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.

Many conservatives seem to believe that even the recognition that global power is shifting to a more diverse array of stakeholders is “embracing decline.” But this shift is a reality. A responsible foreign policy is one that seeks to responsibly maximize American power and influence within that changing global context, to embed it within strengthened international institutions.

Importantly, the president also voiced an American commitment to promoting democracy and the rule of law, saying that a “fundamental part of our strategy is America’s support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding.”

We will promote these values above all by living them — through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it’s hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union. And together with our friends and allies, America will always seek a world that extends these rights. Where an individual is silenced, we aim to be her voice. Where ideas are suppressed, we provide space for open debate. Where democratic institutions take hold, we add a wind at their back. When humanitarian disaster strikes, we extend a hand. Where human dignity is denied, America opposes poverty and is a source of opportunity. That is who we are. That is what we do.

Thus far, the Obama administration has said and done little on the democracy promotion front. So while I’m very glad to see this included in the speech, it will be incumbent on progressives to hold him and his administration to it.

This weekend, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) released a campaign video featuring a singing frog puppet encouraging opponents to read the state’s recently passed immigration law, SB-1070, before forming an opinion about it. The sing-a-long mocks Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano for criticizing SB-1070 without having had a chance to review the whole bill.

Watch it:

Despite the fact that Napolitano and Holder were likely briefed by someone who had read SB-1070 in detail, they probably should’ve read it themselves. However, Wonk Room has read it well enough to know that Brewer’s ad distracts from the fact that a lot of their criticisms of the law are justified.

In past interviews, Napolitano has rightly pointed out that she had vetoed laws nearly identical to SB-1070 when she was governor of Arizona. So, at the very least, she has some basic knowledge about the core provisions contained in SB-1070. Napolitano has also stated that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law. “We have some deep concerns with the law…it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to concentrate on those in the country illegally, those who have committed the most serious crimes,” Napolitano said. Unless Arizona police plan on personally transporting immigrants back across the border without ever contacting ICE to definitively verify that the suspects are illegally present in the U.S., Napolitano doesn’t need to read the law to know that the state will need the federal government’s help in implementing it. The Center for American Progress estimates that it costs $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and finally transported out of the country. Given the high cost of deportation, ICE has a policy of focusing its resources on going after the “worst of the worst.” Yet, SB-1070 does not discriminate between an undocumented gardener and a dangerous drug cartel operative. In practical terms, helping Arizona enforce its new immigration law is beyond the scope of ICE’s limited budget and runs counter to its priorities.

Holder has called SB-1070 “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials. If Holder had read the law, he could’ve pointed to Section 2 of the law which “impermissibly vests” in police officers “unbridled discretion” in establishing “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented. The amended law prohibits racial profiling, but it doesn’t outline the criteria that should be used to establish “reasonable suspicion” that someone is unlawfully present in the U.S. In the words of the president of the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association, David Leopold, “‘reasonable suspicion’ under S.B. 1070 is based on a subjective notion of a person’s status” — which leaves a lot of room for both abuse and error. Also, as part of the amended bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would be required to determine the immigration status if reasonable suspicion is established. One of the bill’s architects, lawyer Kris Kobach, said himself that it essentially means police can use violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion.

Brewer’s video also doesn’t mention the fact that some of SB-1070′s biggest proponents hadn’t read the law before commenting on it either. Think Progress reported last week that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took the liberty to praise SB-1070 as a “good tool” for law enforcement, despite not having “had a chance to look at all the aspects.”