Does Ireland Need a Referendum to Ratify EU Budget Rules?

There has been some debate following the release of the summit statement by the EU Heads of State on the 9th of December about the need for a referendum in Ireland to adopt the new rules. Minister Lucinda Creighton has been quoted as putting the odds of a referendum at "50-50" (no explanation as to how she got to those precise numbers). Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore stated in parliament last week that a referendum would be held "if needed." Today's Irish Times reports that the government is seeking legal advice on the issue and that it would take several months to arrive at a determination about the need for a referendum. The article also quotes one source stating a "hunch" that a referendum would be required.

I am not persuaded about the legal need for a referendum at this stage. The executive branch possesses exclusive competence to enter into international agreements in many consitutional democracies. Ireland is no different. The primary check on the abuse of this power is through the usual political process. But the Irish Supreme Court in Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1987) ruled that the "powers [to enter into international treaties etc] must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution. It is not within the competence of the Government, or indeed of the Oireachtas, to free themselves from the restraints of the Constitution or to transfer their powers to other bodies unless expressly empowered so to do by the Constitution. They are both creatures of the Constitution and are not empowered to act free from the restraints of the Constitution. To the judicial organ of government alone is given the power conclusively to decide if there has been a breach of constitutional restraints." Justice Walsh - one of the three judges in the majority - wrote further that  "[i]f it is ... desired to qualify, curtail or inhibit the existing sovereign power to formulate and to pursue such foreign policies as from time to time to the Government may seem proper, it is not within the power of the Government itself to do so. The foreign policy organ of the State cannot, within the terms of the Constitution, agree to impose upon itself, the State or upon the people the contemplated restrictions upon freedom of action."

One can argue, with some justification, that the judges in the majority are reaching too far into an area that is within the exclusive competence of the executive branch. Courts are not well placed to second guess executive decisions in the foreign relations area and it is preferable for judges to abstain from judicial review unless constitutional rights are clearly violated.

Still, even with this decision, it is not necessarily the case that a referendum is legally required in order to adopt the new EU rules. The judges in the majority seem to have limited the need for a referendum where there is a clear qualification, curtailment or inhibition of Irish sovereignty. It is perfectly sensible to argue that existing EU rules already occupy the field sought to be covered by the new rules and that there is no new curtailment of sovereignty. Rather, the new rules merely seek to operationalize the existing grant of sovereign power in favor of EU institutions by setting in place verifiable mechanisms with consequent sanctions for breach of treaty commitments. Under this view, a referendum is not necessary as there is no new transfer of sovereignty. In addition, one can argue that sovereignty in this area has also been transferred to the EU/IMF as part of the bailout agreement and nothing new is being done pursuant to the summit.

In conclusion, it is not clear that there is a legal necessity at this stage for a referendum in Ireland. The question will turn on the precise wording of the new treaty and it may be possible to draft it in a way that avoids the need for a referendum.

New Details on Bin Laden Killing: "No One Wanted Detainees"

From a riveting article in The New Yorker on the raid that resulted in Bin Laden's Killing:

A second SEAL stepped into the room and trained the infrared laser of his M4 on bin Laden’s chest. The Al Qaeda chief, who was wearing a tan shalwar kameez and a prayer cap on his head, froze; he was unarmed. “There was never any question of detaining or capturing him—it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,” the special-operations officer told me. (The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.) Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden’s life. The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye. On his radio, he reported, “For God and country—Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.” After a pause, he added, “Geronimo E.K.I.A.”—“enemy killed in action.”

My article in the WSJ on the legality of the killing is here. These new details might raise some questions about whether a surrender option truly existed.

Suit Against British Government for Torture During Colonial Rule in Kenya

In what might prove to be a very significant judgment making new law, the High Court in London has allowed a suit against the British government for torture in Kenya 50 years ago. Via the BBC:

Mr Justice McCombe said the claimants had an "arguable case" and it would be "dishonourable" to block the claims. 

Ministers say London is not responsible for the actions of the colonial administration.

... the British government will have to defend accusations of torture, murder, sexual assault and other alleged abuses at a full damages trial in 2012.
Justice McCombe wrote:  "In my judgment, it may well be thought strange, or perhaps even 'dishonourable', that a legal system which will not in any circumstances admit into its proceedings evidence obtained by torture should yet refuse to entertain a claim against the government in its own jurisdiction for that government's allegedly negligent failure to prevent torture which it had the means to prevent."

It would be interesting to see whether UK courts will allow similar claims in respect of torture in other colonies. I suspect that historians would be able to document abuses in other places like India. However, given the amount of time that has lapsed, there are unlikely to be many surviving victims in a position to bring claims in the UK. Still, this has the potential to take legal responsibility for torture by colonial authorities in a new, welcome direction. It would be even more interesting if the UK courts allow submissions by the governments of former colonies in such actions.

UN Environmental Peacekeeping Force to Combat Climate Change?

Via the Guardian:
A special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.
There has been talk ... of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources.
In an official "Concept Note" ahead of the meeting, Germany said the security council needed to draw up scenarios for dealing with the affects of extreme temperatures and rising seas. How would the UN deal with climate refugees? How would it prevent conflicts in those parts of Africa and Asia which could face food shortages?

We are unlikely to see any green helmets in the foreseeable future. The UN should keep its focus on improving its poor record on plain vanilla conflicts before getting into more difficult and heavily contested policy areas. Doing something more than spouting empty words in Syria, Libya and a host of African nations would be a good start.

Irish Judge Targeted by Hackers for Adverse Judgment against Pirate Bay

Newspaper reports indicate that Justice Charleton faced cyber bullying and intimidation for blocking access to Pirate Bay: "[The gardai] told me that my judgment had not gone down well in places like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, among others. These are places where there is no control at all on the internet, or so I was told," Mr Charleton told the conference.
“I was regarded as a traitor... to freedom of expression on the internet. Threats were made that my life would be ‘wrecked by computer’. The people in question, the cyber-terrorists, were proposing to hack into my computer to get my credit card and other details, order any number of pizzas for my greedy gut and get call girls to turn up to my door and plant child pornography on my work computers.”

The reports do not indicate what action, if any, the Gardai took in response to these attacks. Cyber attacks against state agencies are increasing in number and sophistication, posing growing threats. A recent instance in the US saw 24,000 military files being stolen from a defense contractor in a single attack. The Pentagon recently unveiled a new strategy on cyber attacks. Many have called for a military response when the attacks originate in another state, especially one with hostile intentions. This would pose difficulties for international law puritans but one would expect the law in this area to develop as cyber attacks hit vital targets and require retaliatory action.

I wonder if it is time for Ireland to have some sort of strategy against cyber attacks in the light of this attack on Justice Charleton. Since it is highly unlikely that attacks against Irish state computer systems would involve any defense sensitive information, a law and order based response strategy is probably sufficient.

Zogby Poll: Obama's Approval Ratings Lower than Ahmedinejad's in Arab World

A new Zogby poll of the Arab world has very interesting findings: "President Obama's favorable ratings across the Arab World are 10% or less." Worse than Bush. Ahmedinejad scores higher in every country bar Saudi Arabia. Somewhat surprisingly, Sarkozy scores really highly in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Approval for the killing of bin Laden:

Attitudes toward US:

You can see the poll here.

Strasbourg Court Verdict Could Change Conduct of War by EU States?

In a significant expansion of the EU Convention on Human Rights, the Strasbourg court ruled recently that UK troops had to comply with the convention even though they were engaged in hostilities in Iraq. I haven't read the full judgment yet but this looks like something that could potentially change the conduct of hostilities in non-convention states, at least by EU countries. It might also have implications for anti-piracy operations by EU navies off the coast of Somalia. From the CNN report:
"following the removal from power of the Baath regime and until the accession of the Iraqi Interim Government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government.

"In particular, the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in (southeastern) Iraq," the court said. "In those exceptional circumstances, a jurisdictional link existed between the United Kingdom and individuals killed in the course of security operations carried out by British soldiers during the period May 2003 to June 2004. Since the applicants' relatives were killed in the course of United Kingdom security operations during that period, the United Kingdom was required to carry out an investigation into their deaths."

The court only seems to be requiring an investigation. I assume that if the investigation found that the use of lethal force was justified, it might satisfy convention obligations?

US War Cost Since 9/11: $3.2 Trillion!

This MSNBC article references a Brown University study which found:

• ... the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 225,000.
• Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. The current number of war refugees and displaced persons -- 7,800,000 -- is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Kentucky fleeing their homes.
• ... Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.

UK asks Sri Lanka to investigate War Crimes

The BBC reports that the UK is asking Sri Lanka to conduct an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed by its troops following a new documentary showing such crimes:
Britain's Channel 4 showed what it said was previously unseen footage of what purported to be extrajudicial killings of Tamils by the military.

Sri Lanka's defence ministry dismissed the videos as fabricated, saying they were intended to discredit the army.
The one-hour film, entitled Sri Lanka's Killing Fields, shows what appears to be executions of Tamil men, and video showing the corpses of naked women who appeared to have been sexually assaulted.

One video - which was said to have been taken by the military - shows graphic images of at least three bound prisoners, including one woman, being shot at close range.
In it, a soldier gives instructions to the others about how to kill the men.
"Is there no one with the balls to kill a terrorist?" he is heard saying, before telling his colleagues to aim at the prisoners' heads.

I've written previously on Huffpo about the Sri Lankan issue here and blogged previously here.

Iran Setting Up "National Internet"

No, I did not make this up.

The WSJ reports that Iran is taking steps toward an aggressive new form of censorship: a so-called national Internet that could, in effect, disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world.

The leadership in Iran sees the project as a way to end the fight for control of the Internet, according to observers of Iranian policy inside and outside the country. Iran, already among the most sophisticated nations in online censoring, also promotes its national Internet as a cost-saving measure for consumers and as a way to uphold Islamic moral codes.

Anyone believing recent proposals for benign Internet regulation at the G8 level might want to read the full article.

Was Guantanamo Worth It?

President Obama has received a fair bit of criticism from some of his most fervent supporters for reneging on a campaign promise to close down Guantanamo Bay. Is the new evidence - that vital information leading to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained by coercive interrogation at such detention centres - a strike for Guantanamo Bay? Will our reluctance to sanction such techniques against terrorist suspects abate? I'm not going to regurgitate tired old arguments about liberty and security or offer any easy answers. It is a messy decision whichever way one looks at it.

The AP has some good reporting about the intelligence gathering effort:
Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

Here's the NYT:
Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated.
Still, it was not until August that they tracked him to the compound in Abbottabad, a medium-sized city about an hour’s drive north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.

And more:
... last July, Pakistanis working for the Central Intelligence Agency drove up behind a white Suzuki navigating the bustling streets near Peshawar, Pakistan, and wrote down the car’s license plate.

The man in the car was Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, and over the next month C.I.A. operatives would track him throughout central Pakistan. Ultimately, administration officials said, he led them to a sprawling compound at the end of a long dirt road and surrounded by tall security fences in a wealthy hamlet 35 miles from the Pakistani capital.

On a moonless night eight months later, 79 American commandos in four helicopters descended on the compound, the officials said. Shots rang out. A helicopter stalled and would not take off. Pakistani authorities, kept in the dark by their allies in Washington, scrambled forces as the American commandos rushed to finish their mission and leave before a confrontation. Of the five dead, one was a tall, bearded man with a bloodied face and a bullet in his head. A member of the Navy Seals snapped his picture with a camera and uploaded it to analysts who fed it into a facial recognition program.

Finally, here's the NYT obituary.

Is Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in Danger?

The New York Times has an interesting report about an opinion poll conducted by Pew in Egypt:

... a majority of Egyptians, 54 percent, want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the region’s stability. The finding squares with the overwhelming anecdotal evidence that Egyptians feel Israel has not lived up to its commitments in its treatment of the Palestinians. But more than a third of respondents, 36 percent, favored keeping the treaty, and the poll did not ask the more controversial question of whether Egyptians wanted to sacrifice the three decades of peace they have enjoyed along the border.

Mr. Saleh of the Muslim Brotherhood, however, said he supported maintaining the treaty.

“There is a difference between the people’s feelings toward Israel and their political assessment,” he said “Those who want to maintain the treaty are motivated by Egypt’s interest. It is not because they accept Israel.” 

I analyzed the treaty in in my article in the Buffalo Law Review some years ago. Here's an extract (excluding footnotes):

The agreement was signed in 1979 by President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin under the active encouragement of President Carter in Washington, D.C. The preamble recites that the parties are "convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East ... ."  They agreed to terminate the war between them, and Israel agreed to withdraw its troops and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine, allowing Egypt to exercise sovereign power over the Sinai. The parties agreed to establish their permanent boundary in accordance with an agreed-to map,  [*449]  leaving aside the position of the Gaza Strip. Both sides agreed to respect the inviolability of each other's territorial sovereignty. The parties emphasized the applicability of the UN Charter and other principles of international law and committed to resolve disputes between them in a peaceful manner. Given the familiar accusations of proxy wars, article III, paragraph 2 commits the parties to ensure that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory, or by any forces subject to its control or by any other forces stationed on its territory, against the population, citizens or property of the other Party. Each Party also undertakes to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party, anywhere, and undertakes to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.

Recognizing that distrust can undermine the agreement, the two sides agreed to the stationing of United Nations personnel in agreed-upon areas with the understanding that neither party was to request their withdrawal. Under the agreement, these personnel were  [*450]  not to be removed unless the removal was to be approved by the U.N. Security Council. This provided the delegation element, at least in relation to the high obligation to ensure that there are no acts of military aggression. Given that this was the most important obligation under the agreement, it was perhaps sufficient to provide for delegation with regard to that obligation.

In order to promote trust and facilitate implementation, the agreement also provided for the creation of a joint commission. This commission is to meet at least once every month and is responsible for coordination, problem resolution, assisting the U.N. forces, organizing the demarcation of the international boundary, supervising the handover of installations in the Sinai to Egypt, making arrangements for the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers, organizing the setting up of entry points and their operation, and the discussion of other matters placed before it by the parties.  This joint commission is an example of medium delegation - while it provides for some precise responsibilities, the absence of any teeth means that it cannot be considered an exemplar of high delegation.

A slightly higher example of hard legalization (in its delegation aspect) is the conferment of responsibility upon the United States to conduct aerial surveillance during the withdrawal operations. This immediately provides a neutral verification and enforcement machinery and strengthens the relevant obligations.

The trust issue surfaces again in article VI when the parties are obligated to fulfill their obligations under the treaty in good faith, an extremely important provision given the fact that the principle of good faith comes with a certain circumjacence of legal principles that can be enforced. The parties are also required to abjure from entering into  [*451]  other treaty obligations that may run counter to this agreement.  Article V gave Israeli ships and cargoes destined for Israel the right of unimpeded passage through the Suez Canal in a non-discriminatory manner. These provisions are high on obligation, but are low on precision and delegation.

The protocol attached to the Treaty fleshes out some of the commitments. It provides a time frame of three years from the date of the agreement for Israel to complete the withdrawal of its forces, with interim withdrawal to be completed in nine months.  Recognizing the complexity of  [*452]  the withdrawal process and the potential for miscommunication and possible recriminations, the protocol provides for the creation of a joint commission to supervise and coordinate the withdrawal.  After the completion of the work of the joint commission and its dissolution, "a liaison system is intended to provide an effective method to assess progress in the implementation of obligations ... [and] to prevent situations resulting from errors or misinterpretation on the part of either Party."  [*453]  The protocol also establishes a detailed aerial and naval military regime that divides up the area into zones and delineates allowed activity by both sides to their respective zones. This protocol exhibits high obligation, precision, and delegation, and once again demonstrates the virtues of legalization in the context of high-conflict states where trust is at a premium.

The full article is available here. 


A rational calculation is likely to militate against abrogating the agreement. The Pew poll illustrates the gap between popular perceptions about international agreements and more hard headed assessments of the relevant tradeoffs.

UN Report Confirms Sri Lankan Killings

The BBC has a story about the UN panel's report into the horrific violations of human rights during Sri Lanka's successful demolition of the LTTE: "hospitals, UN centres and ships belonging to international aid group the Red Cross were deliberately shelled by government forces.

It describes prisoners being shot in the head and women raped, while the Tamil Tiger rebels (LTTE) used 330,000 civilians as human shields, and shot those who tried to escape.
The UN experts said there were "credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international rights law was committed both by the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity"."

I wrote about the Sri Lankan government's refusal to acknowledge responsibility in the Huffington Post just over a year ago: There are allegations that the media has been intimidated through killings, torture, disappearances and detentions. Accurate reporting is the casualty. Rajapaksa must realize that this is against his own self-interest and lift restrictions on the media. If the government truly has nothing to hide it can only benefit from sunshine.

Sri Lanka cannot go forward without erasing the taint of illegal killings and disappearances. The government's vociferous denials of wrongdoing have been dented by video and other evidence of troops executing bound captives; a UN expert confirmed that a mobile phone video showing one such killing was genuine after three forensic experts viewed the footage. There is evidence that some of these gross abuses were authorised at the very top: General Fonseka who was Rajapaksa's rival in the presidential elections claimed that execution orders had been issued by the defence secretary, who is the president's brother.
That article is available here.

Despite the new UN report, the government continues in its denials: "The Sri Lankan army is not responsible and [the] Sri Lankan government is not responsible," government spokesman Lakshman Hulugalle told the BBC.

"We never shelled or we never bombed. We never targeted innocent civilians. It's a wrong allegation and we can prove it," he said."

Sri Lanka knows that the UN is no more than a debating society: "Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he could not launch an international investigation into war crimes allegations unless the Sri Lankan government agreed, or member states called for it.

But the BBC's Barbara Plett, in New York, says that the country continues to have strong allies on both the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council."
Unless other international actors like the EU step up to the plate and back up their words with sanctions with bite, we can expect Sri Lanka to get away with denials and lies.

Iran Sanctions

I've argued before about the futility of sanctions against Iran. Such measures rarely work and often prove to be counterproductive. They serve to rally the local population behind the rogue regime, create resentment against those sponsoring sanctions, and provoke retaliation. So retaliatory actions like these detailed by the NYT taken by the Mahmoudenijad regime following the Security Council's decision yesterday to impose sanctions are only to be expected.

It is unlikely that sanctions will stop Iran from going nuclear. What happens then? Are the U.S. and other states prepared to use military force? Aside from the military difficulties in achieving the desired objectives, the political and financial costs of such intervention are likely to be significant. Given the current financial climate and with the U.S. bogged down in Afghanistan, horrible as the prospect is, we just might have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

Article on Operation Moshtarak

Below is an article published by The Huffington Post on Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan. Please feel free to leave comments at this link.

Another Opportunity in Afghanistan

Contrary to popular opinion, Mullah Baradar's capture by the CIA acting in concert with the Pakistanis is not a game-changer. At best, it presents the Taliban with a minor inconvenience. Baradar was the deputy defence minister during Taliban rule in Afghanistan and was quoted as claiming just a few months ago that "in every nook and corner of the country a spirit for jihad is raging." He will be replaced by others unless Afghanistan is fixed.

The Marja offensive launched last week is a new opportunity to learn from past mistakes. Air strikes are the easy part -- we've been here before in other theatres of war, only to find that the bus has been driven into the ditch soon after.

It would be folly to celebrate reports about the Taliban fleeing Marja; they are past masters at this peculiarly Afghan game of cat and mouse. Operation Moshtarak will be a war of attrition.

3 Irishmen Accused of Killing Hamas Leader in Dubai?

This story on Yahoo News would fit right into a spy-thriller novel:
Dubai's police chief said Monday an 11-member hit squad carrying European passports and disguised in wigs, fake beards and tennis clothes was behind the mysterious killing of a Hamas commander in his hotel room last month. Authorities also released photos of the 11.

Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim did not directly implicate Israel, as the Islamic militant group has. But the details he released at a news conference in the Gulf emirate are the most comprehensive accusations by Dubai authorities since the body of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found Jan. 20 in his luxury hotel room near Dubai's international airport.
Tamim said it was possible that "leaders of certain countries gave orders to their intelligence agents to kill" al-Mabhouh, one of the founders of Hamas' military wing.

He showed the news conference airport surveillance video of the alleged assassination team arriving on separate flights to Dubai the day before al-Mabhouh was found dead. The members of the alleged hit-squad checked into separate hotels.

In the surveillance footage, which also included images from the hotel, the one woman among the group of suspects appears to be wearing a wig and at times wears a big hat and sunglasses to blend in as a tourist. Others were also seen on the footage disguised as tourists, wearing tennis clothes and carrying rackets.
The killing itself took just 10 minutes, he said. Several members of the hit squad followed the Hamas man — even riding with him in the same elevator to determine his room number — and then checked into the room across the hall. Four assassins among the group later entered his room in the Al-Bustan Rotana Hotel while he was out, using an electronic device to open the door. There they waited for him to return.

Tamim said they were careful not to disturb anything in the room and somehow left the door locked from the inside to try to hide the fact that they had broken in.
The team then headed for the airport, some of them flying to Europe and others to Asia, he said.
The killing took place about five hours after al-Mabhouh arrived at the hotel and all the 11 suspects were out of the United Arab Emirates within 19 hours of their arrivals, he said.

Police released their photos, names, nationalities and details of their passports, which authorities said were not fake. At least some of the photos released appeared to be passport photographs and the one woman among the group looked as if she might be wearing a blond wig in her photo.

Tamim told reporters the alleged assassination team comprised six British passport holders, three Irish and one each from France and Germany. Hamas has accused Israel's Mossad secret service of carrying out the killing and has pledged to strike back.

Targeted assassinations have always been a part of the shadowy world of foreign relations. I wonder if the heightened scrutiny directed at the actions of national intelligence agencies by the courts and media is creating perverse incentives for killing rather than capturing terrorists. After all, dead men tell no tales, so there are no embarassing details about sleep deprivation, water-boarding etc to deal with.

US 'Disappointed' at UK Court Ruling on Torture

The BBC reports that the White House is "disappointed" at the decision issued yesterday by the Court of Appeal:
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is believed to be "understanding" about the UK government's position after talking with Mr Miliband, the BBC has learned.

But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for President Barack Obama, said: "We're deeply disappointed with the court's judgment because we shared this information in confidence and with certain expectations.

"As we warned, the court's judgment will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship with the UK, and it will have to factor into our decision-making going forward."
Denis Blair, the US Director of National Intelligence, said: "The decision by a United Kingdom court to release classified information provided by the United States is not helpful, and we deeply regret it.

"The United States and the United Kingdom have a long history of close co-operation that relies on mutual respect for the handling of classified information."

Gallup Poll on Global Perceptions about US Leadership

Gallup had an interesting poll recently showing a marked increase in approval for US leadership under President Obama. The poll found that there was a 51% median approval for US leadership under the current administration. This contrasted with 34% median approval under President Bush.

UK Refuses to Pay Ransom to Somali Pirates

The Foreign Office has refused to meet a ransom demand of $7million to free a British couple held hostage by Somali pirates. BBC News quotes a Foreign Office spokesperson:
"Although there is no UK law against third parties paying ransoms, we counsel against them doing so because we believe that making concessions only encourages future kidnaps. This is why the government does not make or facilitate substantive concessions to hostage takers."

More details about the couple:
The Chandlers, of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, were captured while sailing towards Tanzania on 23 October. The latest news of the couple emerged on Sunday. They spoke of their ordeal through a news agency which had been allowed to send a photographer when they were examined by a doctor last week. The Chandlers said they were being badly treated and were in urgent need of help.
The pirates have threatened to kill the couple if their demands for $7m (£4.4m) are not met.

An external agency is campaigning for the government to pay the ransom money:
Nick Davis, chairman of the Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre, which provides anti-piracy advice and training, said the Chandlers' captors were running out of patience. "For the amounts involved, I don't think it's worth trying to bring anyone to justice. We just need to get Paul and Rachel home. "We are the people who know what needs to be done, we can do it, we just need to be allowed to do it."

I've written previously about the need for strong military measures against Somali pirates. The lure of easy money will continue to incentivise more Somalis to commit piratical acts unless something is done fast.

Iran Sanctions?

The NYT editorializes today on some of the themes I raised in my op-ed on Iran in the Irish Times a few weeks ago, but comes to the opposite conclusion and calls for tougher sanctions by the US and the EU:
New United Nations sanctions must be deftly targeted to inflict maximum damage on the levers of repression — especially the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also runs the nuclear program — without imposing additional suffering on the Iranians.
If the Security Council does not act quickly, then the United States and Europe must apply more pressure on their own.They do, however, agree with the point I made on the US Senate bill punishing oil companies doing business with Iran: