POLITICS AUGUST 12, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Today, Barack Obama will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 16 recipients. What should be a joyous affair, however, has been the subject of growing controversy due to the selection of Mary Robinson--a former United Nations official who presided over the notoriously anti-Zionist 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. For this, Obama has earned himself much criticism from the American Jewish community. Though her "failure of leadership" in her UN post is widely known, a source in the Obama White House that Robinson was "not fully vetted." And, in spite of Robinson's history, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to wave the issue away when he said that, "There are statements that obviously, that she has made that the president doesn't agree with, and that's probably true for a number of the people that the president is recognizing for their lifetime contributions." Is it possible that the White House selected Robinson without knowing the extent of her unsavory record?
That's highly unlikely. The process by which the White House awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom is far more rigorous than one might imagine. While the vetting method may vary somewhat between administrations, its rough outlines were provided to me by a former staffer in the George W. Bush White House who was intimately involved in the process.
According to this official, the point-person for the Medal of Freedom is the White House staff secretary, who acts as the "central hub" for all documents that are going in or out of the Oval Office. This individual would put out a notice to the White House staff requesting recommendations for the medal. Once that list was compiled, the staff secretary would send it for review to Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and senior advisor. This official told me that Chief of Staffs Andy Card and Josh Bolten were also "involved" early in the process during their respective tenures.
Once the list was whittled down to a manageable number, White House researchers conducted a thorough check of all available public records--including news clips, public statements, and tax records--to discover if anything in the individuals' history might be objectionable. "Problematic issues" were compiled into a report which was sent to the staff secretary for review. The former Bush administration official explained the thoroughness of the background checks to me thusly: "If we don't figure out all this stuff now, when it becomes public these are things that opponents can hit us on."
The already meticulous process doesn't end there. Next comes the Office of the White House Counsel: the lawyers. They check to make sure that none of the award recipients have violated any laws, and if they have, whether such violations rise to the level of striking their name from the list. Finally, the president reviews the selection with his chief of staff and top advisors.
If this routine sounds like something from a presidential race, that's because it's modeled on a campaign operation. "We were running an internal opposition research operation so we could protect the president and the presidency from embarrassment," my source says. But the background investigations do not only serve the interests of the White House; they are also intended to protect potential awardees as well. Forgoing an award to Robinson, this official says, "Would have saved her a lot of negative [publicity] and attacks and saved [the Obama administration] from headaches and having to deal with it."
If the Medal of Freedom protocol employed by the Obama administration resembles that of its predecessor (and there's little reason to believe that so straightforward a process dating back to the Kennedy administration has changed much), it's reasonable to assume that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Advisor David Axelrod--who also happen to be the two Jewish officials whom defenders of the administration's Middle East policies repeatedly point to as looking out for Israel's interests in the White House--were well aware that Robinson was on the list before it was released, as was the president himself. So either President Obama was not informed of Robinson's record or didn't think it warranted removing her from the list.
In short, it's exceedingly unlikely, given the extent of scrutiny paid to previous medal recipients, that the White House was unaware of concerns that would arise from this choice. Rather, it seems that the Obama administration does not feel that Robinson's antipathy towards Israel should disqualify her from receiving the medal, and that awarding it to her outweighs any potential damage to the administration's relationship with the Jewish and pro-Israel communities. Though it is highly doubtful that this White House will be the first to retract a Medal of Freedom (which I suggested earlier this week), the administration was almost certainly clear-eyed about the consequences of its selection.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
15 comments
Mr. K has an obsession against Ms. Robinson. Of course, anyone can be singled out for saying "politically incorrect" comments, but this reminds me of the English demonizing Irish for centuries; where was the NEW REPUBLIC in the effort for Irish freedom? As for me, Mr. K, to quote the ENGLISH poet, "much ado about nothing"! Cheers!
- Jack Finn
August 12, 2009 at 9:46am
Mary Robinson is openly anti-semitic, and her record demonstrates that she is also actively anti-semitic. These not disputed facts. Obama knew of Robinson's record and yet decided to give her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What does it say about a president who would honor an anti-semite?
- 3MJesus
August 12, 2009 at 12:05pm
After reading this article, I still don't know what politically incorrect comment(s) Mary Robinson made. I'm supposed to take your word for it that it/they were a dealbreaker? I heard Ms. Robinson speak at Berkeley more than 20 years ago when she was President of the Irish Republic and found her awe-inspiring. I've followed her career since then, as well, as I could in mainstream media. I'll need a lot more evidence, in context, before I buy the notion that she doesn't deserve the Medal of Freedom. And I'm not an Israel-hater. I hate unfairness.
- Slivigo
August 12, 2009 at 12:39pm
Good detailed post, and I think the assumption that the selection methodology has not changed much is reasonable. So awarding Robinson will feed the concern drift in this administration to Carterism. As well, dismissing James Kirchik reflexively is a fool's game. I take everything he writes seriously--he is a serious person--regardless of whether I agree with him.
- itzik basman
August 12, 2009 at 1:32pm
Her selection is hardly an oversight or poor vetting. It is a deliberate and intentional selection of pet dog of the NGO world who also happens to be a classic old-fashioned Roman Catholic antisemite which she is able to clothe in tired liberation rhetoric. It is a warning to all Zionists
- Jonathan Rubinstein
August 12, 2009 at 1:36pm
What exactly did she say or do that makes her anti-semitic? This is the second post I've read in which the claim of her anti-semitism was made, but no details given. Put the facts up so that we can judge for ourselves, otherwise shut the hell up.
- O.S
August 12, 2009 at 8:32pm
All evidence suggests that President Obama selected Robinson for her expressed views and actions, not in spite of them. This should come as a no surprise to anyone who studied Obama's record before his election with anything other than utmost naivete. To their credit, 45 or more members of the House of Representatives signed a statement asking the President to withdraw the award of today. Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) added his own strong statement to this protest. The awarding of this medal to Robinson is a particular insult, coming one year after President Bush awarded the same medal posthumously to holocaust survivor and 14 term (Democrat) Congressman Tom Lantos. Lantos described witnessing at Durban the most vicious display of hatred of Jews since the Nazi era. Lantos' widow has rebuked the selection of Robinson. Curiously missing in action on the Robinson award have been Senators Charles Schumer of New York, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and other Senate "friends" of American democracy and Israel. Here attached is a letter sent to Schumer and separately to Feinstein, which received no response. August 7, 2009 The Honorable Charles E. Schumer United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515-0508 Dear Senator Schumer: It is my understanding that President Obama plans to award this country's highest civilian award, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, to Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner of Human Rights in a ceremony at the White House August 12, 2009. Ms Robinson has a long history of tolerating and condoning by her silence anti-semitic statements. Your late colleague US Representative Tom Lantos, a holocaust survivor, and delegate to the Durban 2001 Conference, stated that he was "deeply shocked and saddened" by Robinson's conduct as chair of that Conference. Representative Lantos stated that Durban had disintegrated into "an anti-American and anti-Israeli circus" and that "much of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of Robinson". Ms. Robinson's conduct at Durgan was not an isolated incident. At the preliminary Asian Regional Conference in Teheran in February, 2001 leading up to Durban (from which Israel was excluded with Robinson's acquiescence) Robinson was content to watch without protest as Israel was targeted and demonized, allowing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism to take center stage. During her presidency of the European Union, Robinson allowed millions of euros to pour into the coffers of the Palestinian Authority without account, funds which have now been documented to have financed terror attacks against Israeli civilians. To this, as with so many other situations involving Israel's security, and the perversion of democratic values, she has turned a blind eye. As an American citizen, I find it an extreme embarrassment, outrage, and disgrace that our nation's highest civilian honor is being awarded to an individual with such a record. Could you please advise what your position is on the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Ms. Robinson August 12? Specifically, have you made or do you intend to make a public statement as to your position? I believe history calls upon you to state clearly, in advance of the award ceremony, your unequivocal position on the pending conferring of this award on Ms. Robinson at the White House by the President of the United States. This is an important watershed, and as a voter and an American it would be helpful and insightful to have your strong statement. Thank you. Sincerely, Morris B. Abram, Jr
- Morris Abram, Jr.
August 12, 2009 at 8:53pm
I think people like Kirchick are dangerously misreading the situation. By writing columns like this like this he is inviting an open airing of Israel's current behaviour. I don't think that this will benefit Israel. Israel is demanding that its citizens recognize Israel as Jewish country not only now but in perpetuity. Given the ethnic and religious diversity in Israel this not at all like recognizing America as a Christian nation. It is much more like demanding citizens recognize Israel as Protestant nation or even a white Protestant nation. Having a nation of Israel does not entail them to deviate from the norms we hold dear without criticism. Further Israeli's have become insistent that their claims do not arise from the Holocaust. Setting aside the fact that the world community has done virtually nothing for the vast majority of victims of genocide, why else would approve of forming a European colony in the Middle East. Certainly not the ancestral homeland argument. The Aztecs were driven out the area now comprising the United States much more recently than the Jews. If we accept the ancestral return argument than our immigration debate is solved. I am happy to let every single decedent of the Aztecs return to their ancestral homeland. Are there any more takers? The reality is whatever Zionism once was, Israels policies deviate substantially from those held by Americans. The more we talk about this the less popular Israel is going to be.
- Robert Lee Hotchkis, Jr.
August 12, 2009 at 9:21pm
I am really tired of Jews and their supporters smearing anyone who acts in support of the much-abused Palestinians. You have gone after a long and still-growing list of prominent activists, from Vanessa Redgrave to Jimmy Carter. The only puzzle to me is how such a small group of people can continue to get away with being such a nuisance to so many.
- Yakubu Kasavubu
August 12, 2009 at 10:39pm
Didn't Bush honour Nelson Mendala with a Medal of Freedom in 2002, and if one is critical of Mary Robinson..... "March 30, 2001 To: Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times) From: Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa) Dear Thomas, I know that you and I long for peace in the Middle East, but before you continue to talk about necessary conditions from an Israeli perspective, you need to know what's on my mind. Where to begin? How about 1964. Let me quote my own words during my trial. They are true today as they were then: "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." Today the world, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. In South Africa it has been ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. That mass campaign of defiance and other actions could only culminate in the establishment of democracy. Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001. You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea. Israel was not thinking of a "state" but of "separation". The value of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure. Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated. As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system. The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a "Jewish" state. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children. The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies. Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call." As High Commissioner for Human Rights, one of Robinson's responsibilities was to chair the Durban anti-racism conference. She bears no more responsibility for the inexcusably anti-Semitic or anti-Israel antics that did occur there than does Colin Powell, who led the U.S. walkout. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the Durban outcome document had nothing to do with Israel. While NGOs did produce an unrelated document that was indeed deeply offensive to Israel, the fact is that Robinson refused to even touch this loathsome piece of juvenalia.
- Trav
August 13, 2009 at 6:22am
As a "practicing" Irish Catholic, just because one is concerned with military efforts of one nation or another would-be nation, does NOT make one an anti-Semite. ALSO, just because one is Catholic does not make one an anti-Semite, either. Such generalizations are not worthy of one who is a believer in the Talmud.
- Jack Finn
August 13, 2009 at 9:00am
The Mandela memo you linked and quoted was not written by Nelson Mandela. It was written by Arjan El Fassed, a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada
- jerry
August 13, 2009 at 2:59pm
She might have been vetted by the same people that vetted Sara Palin. At least Robinson is not one breath away from the Presidency.
- Robert Meyer
August 14, 2009 at 12:19am
It's a dangerous thing to put criticism (rightful critiscism, in my opinion) of Israel on the same line as anti-semitism. Being critical of the many unjust and un-human things that are happening in and around Israel DOESN'T make one an anti-semitist. Every thinking person knows that, and still, over and over, that antic rhetoric is being used in regard to people being critical of Israel. Btw, I don't know if Robinson is very critical of Israel. I only know that she led the infamous World Conference against Racism, which ended in a declaration that hardly mentioned Israel, but was so vaguely written that no country would feel the urge to change in-human treatment of people, and hence the WCR doesn't seem to have had any influence, like so many of those symbolic conferences... And of Robinson supposedly being an old-fashioned Roman Catholic: she married a protestant!! Would an old-fashioned catholic do that? I wouldn't think so.
- Renske
August 14, 2009 at 6:52pm
Oc course Trav, the Palestinians are as pure as snow and have no responsibility for their current status. Abba Eban said it best: "The Palestinians have never missed and opportunity to miss an opportunity". So when the Palestinians get serious about coming to terms in some recognizable way instead of passing absurd diktats in Bethlehem the you call me. Otherwise, I suspect the Israelis will continue to do what they have to do to protect themselves, the current U.S. President notwithstanding.
- Martin Gray
August 16, 2009 at 9:27pm