The Nether-World

Diplomacy, Dishmomacy

2007-03-28T08:39:00.000+01:00

It is no great secret that Condoleezza Rice isn't exactly the most successful of diplomats - especially when it comes to trying to solve the torturous Israel/Palestine conflict. Her obvious bias towards Israel means that more often than not she returns empty-handed from her numerous jaunts to the region. Her latest escapade was no exception. The difference this time, however, is that now Condi is being rebuffed not just by the Palestinians, who she can't seem to convince to recognise the state that is continually stealing their land, but also by the Israelis, who don't seem to be able to accept any form of compromise.

An Israeli journalist I spoke to was dismissive as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left Jerusalem this morning.
"Diplomacy, dishmomacy," were his actual words.
This was Ms Rice's seventh visit to the region over the last few months.
A lot of talk, little to show for it, is the accepted wisdom amongst most Israelis and Palestinians.

Hmmm, not a very promising start is it? Worse still, Israel has refused Condi's offer to act as a negotiator between it and the Palestinians in what The Daily Telegraph calls a humiliating snub.

Condoleezza Rice received a humiliating snub from Israel yesterday when it refused her offer to act as negotiator between its government and the Palestinian authorities.
The US secretary of state, who was attempting to start final status talks on the creation of a Palestinian state during a visit to Jerusalem, was forced to postpone a press conference planned on Monday evening after tense talks with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister.

Well if Israel won't trust its best friend to conduct negotiations, it does beg the question: who will it trust? One thing Condoleezza did manage to take away from her visit is a commitment for Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert to meet once a fortnight to discuss security issues which may later lead to discussions about the formation of a Palestinian state. A positive development no doubt, but slim pickings for America which desperately needs a success story in the region to detract attention from its appalling failure in Iraq and to get support for its attack on Iran.

Needless to say, Arab leaders were less than impressed with Condoleezza's appeal to them to 'reach out to Israel'. The idea here is that all the Arab countries recognise Israel and normalise relations with it without Israel being compelled to make any reciprocal moves. If she thought that was going to work then she really must be very naive to assume that Arabs would be so gullible as to fall for that trick. After all, Israel won't even recognise the new unity government in Palestine. America on the other hand, seems at last to be realising that the unity government is at least a promising compromise and, though it won't deal directly with it, is offering some support (to Abbas anyway). Perhaps this is the cause of the tension between Condi and Olmert.

All this diplomacy comes, of course, on the eve of an important summit among Arab leaders in Riyadh. The focus of this summit is to revive the peace plan proposed by the Saudis in 2002 in which all the 22 countries in the Arab League would recognise Israel and normalise relations with it in return for Israel withdrawing back to the borders it had prior to the 1967 war. This would make it possible for the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. When this plan was first proposed, it was immediately rejected by the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The timing of the original proposal was unfortunate as the Palestinian second intifada was raging and suicide bombings were taking place in Israel. Also this was only a year after 9/11 and at the height of the build up to the Iraq war (Saddam Hussein was one of the Arab League members prepared to recognise Israel). Relations between Saudi Arabia and America had soured somewhat and the plan was seen as an attempt to improve things.

"I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them," Abdullah said at the time. "But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people."

The political climate in the region now is just as tense (if not more so) but the dynamics are different. Iran is seen as the big threat now and powerful Sunni states like Saudi Arabia don't wish to see Shia Iranian influence spread into Palestine. Israel and Saudi Arabia share this fear of Iran as does the USA, of course. It was Saudi Arabia which managed to broker the deal between Fatah and Hamas to form a unity government. Perhaps this is a good time to revive this five year-old peace plan. The big question of course is what will Israel's reaction to it be? So far, Ehud Olmert's response hasn't been the outright rejection of his predecessor. He has said there are "positive elements" in it worth pursuing. But this is hardly the ringing endorsement needed to carry the plan forward. This is the sort of language we frequently hear from Ehud Olmert. Israel has reservations about withdrawing from all the illegally captured territory which would obviously mean dismantling the illegal settlements (even Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister has said that the presence of Jewish settlers inside the West Bank city of Hebron has created an "unbearable situation"). It also objects to Arab East Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, the only part of the plan it likes is the recognition of Israel by the Arab states and normalisation of relations. But the problem isn't going away and appeasing Israel's territorial desires hasn't eased the situation at all.

In the absence of any other workable plan, this one might be a reasonable starting point. Saudi Arabia's Prince Saud al-Faisal has made it quite clear that this is the only way for Israel to have peace with its neighbours.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."
[...]
"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.
[...]
"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?
"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Well, quite! Getting Israel to accept this plan will be hard and we can expect that it will do everything it can to avoid making any concessions. In that respect, it is unlikely that the summit will produce anything tangible. But hopefully more people are realising that endlessly appeasing Israel hasn't worked and still isn't working and maybe it might be time to try something new - actually applying pressure to Israel. That can be done quite easily by cutting the the huge aid packages it gets from the USA (something that seems unlikely at the moment considering the power of AIPAC). There should be more than the one lone voice in the Knesset calling for a boycott of Israel. And with news that Israel is supplying tear gas to Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and after by the way British diplomatic staff have been treated by the regime, that position might gain some support, after all Palestinians have to put up with far worse. Olmert's position isn't that strong.

Olmert currently commands what may be the lowest approval rating for any democratic leader in world history: a measly 2%. Mired in corruption scandals and about to face the verdict of a commission of inquiry into the debacle of last summer's war in Lebanon, Olmert finds his premiership stalled and in a ditch. "He needs an initiative and this could be it," says one Israeli government official of the Saudi plan.

The former head of Israeli military intelligence, Shlomo Gazit, wrote an open letter to the Saudi regime in which he suggested bypassing Olmert and appealing over his head to the Israeli people directly.

Follow the path taken by Anwar Sadat of Egypt 30 years ago, Gazit urged: come to Jerusalem and call for immediate negotiations. Public opinion will rally and "no government in Israel will be able to reject that kind of initiative," he wrote.

As Jonathan Freedland says in the article, calling Israel's bluff over its stated desire for peace might just be a good idea.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, US Politics

Another Roundup of Middle East Turmoil

2007-01-15T08:11:00.000Z

Condoleezza Rice's latest trip to the Middle East cannot be described a peace-making mission. The motives for her trip appear to be to drum up support for the destabilisation force Bush is sending to Iraq, and to poison the minds of Arab leaders even more against Iran in preparation for what is looking ever more likely to be another Middle East war. However, some Arab leaders have had the temerity to impose conditions on the USA in exchange for their support. The price is US engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so once again Condoleezza has to pretend that she wants to see a Palestinian state and is able to win meaningful concessions from the Israelis.

"I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement," she said after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

So far she has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan. Today she will meet Ehud Olmert and then go on to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to promote war. It won't escape the attention of these Arab leaders that she has absolutely nothing new to offer. What she will try to gain is unconditional support for more chaos in Iraq and new Chaos in Iran and beyond by telling them that all this is in their interest.

In advance of her visit, the secretary of state said she was not bringing new proposals but would be listening, talking and looking for creative solutions.

At a press conference she had to deny that USA was too distracted by concerns about Iraq and Iran to have effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state... and if there is anything that I can do and that the president can do to finally realise that day, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

The answer to that of course is that the Bush administration is so pro-Israel and controlled by Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC that it cannot possibly be considered as a fair arbiter in any negotiations and is responsible along with Israel for the appalling conditions in which the Palestinians are forced to live. America has had plenty of opportunities to restrain the worst excesses of Israel and has failed to do so every time.

Still, Condi should be able to drum up enough support for Bush's nefarious plans in the region. Iran is disliked and feared by many Arab countries, and by spreading the fear of Iranian influence over Iraq (even though it was America's invasion that created this problem) as well as pretending that sending another 20,000 troops into the quagmire will somehow make the situation more secure for the region she'll probably get enough support to give a veneer of legitimacy to her plans. Bush needs this support because it certainly doesn't exist back home where even the Republicans are in open revolt over the "surge" plans.

Bush has finally been forced to acknowledge that the invasion has made Iraq more unstable, but he still maintains that despite some mistakes he did the right thing.

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”
He added: “I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.” But toppling Saddam was not a mistake. “We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.”

Yes, that's right, he actually thinks Iraqis should be grateful for the murder and mayhem that that has engulfed their country because of the invasion. I don't know which Iraqis he's been talking to but 90 percent of them seem to think they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

Not content with wrecking one country, the Bush administration is now working flat out to try and wreck another. The recent incidents in Northern Iraq (authorised by Bush) where Iranian diplomats have been arrested and a consular office raided have increased tensions between the US and Iran. These diplomatic incidents look like being the first moves in an attempt to provoke a conflict. America is now threatening to "deal with" Iran and Syria over their alleged support of insurgents while Iran is demanding the release of its kidnapped diplomats. The White House is emphatically refusing to rule out an attack on Iran.

The attack could take the form of air strikes or cross-border raids, most likely it will be both. The legality of such action hasn't been discussed; the last time the UN was mentioned vis-à-vis Iran was last month when limited sanctions were imposed. Whether or not the US Congress can prevent its commander in chief make another even more catastrophic foreign policy blunder is unknown, but we have already seen how much respect Bush has for legal processes.

Tags: Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, US Politics, Bush, Condoleezza Rice

More Hypocrisy from Condoleezza Rice

2006-10-04T06:21:00.000+01:00

Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle East to call for end to the Palestinian violence caused by her policy of cutting off aid to the PA. Because of the desperate situation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza, different factions are fighting amongst themselves.

Ten Palestinians have been killed and more than 100 wounded since clashes between the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas began on Sunday in Gaza.
"Innocent Palestinians are caught in this violence," Ms Rice said.
She did not directly blame Hamas, but she said the Hamas government was unable to deliver for the Palestinian people - and could not represent a responsible government to the international community.
Source

To implement a policy of starvation and to allow repeated attacks by Israel and then to casually observe that the government is unable to deliver to the Palestinians is yet another breathtaking act of hypocrisy from the US Secretary of State. She is returning to a intolerable situation that she is partly responsible for causing. Her mission to the Middle East will achieve nothing as she has nothing to offer the Arabs except for more of the same misery. She failed in her objectives in Lebanon and managed to earn the hostility of the Lebanese Prime Minister, one of the very moderates she is supposed to be engaging with.

During the conflict in Lebanon, Israel used the confusion as a cover to further expand illegal settlements in the West Bank. And while the world's attention was focussed on Lebanon Israel was able to slaughter the Palestinians without very much in the way of media coverage let alone international condemnation. So just what does Condoleezza expect to achieve in her mission?

Speaking in Jeddah, Ms Rice urged a halt to fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions in Gaza. But she made plain there would be no let-up in the US-directed boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority which is stoking those tensions. And while paying lip service to a two-state solution, she did not diverge one inch from the administration's line that countering extremism in Iran and Iraq, and among al-Qaida and like-minded jihadists, was Washington's top priority.
Source

In other words this is more of an attempt to bolster support for Israel and to make the USA look like it is trying to do something positive in the Middle East before the November mid-term elections while in reality doing nothing of the sort. The very chaos Condoleezza Rice is speaking out against is exactly the chaos that her close ally Israel wants in order to prevent the possibility of a Palestinian state being created.

Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Palestine, Israel, US Politics

Reality Gap

2006-07-27T23:30:00.000+01:00

Compare and contrast:

MARGARET BECKETT:
And the really important thing about this meeting was that it showed up just how much common ground there is. Everybody understands that we have to be seen, we have to act and we have to be seen to act to deal with the humanitarian problems which are really pressing and where we can really do something genuinely immediately that we all want to see. And this was total common ground. Everybody wants a cessation of the violence, a cessation of hostilities. How do we best get that and how do we get it in days.
Source

Margaret Beckett speaking to Channel 4 after the Rome summit and on the day it was discovered that a British airport was being used as a staging post for US bombs destined for Israel, and the day after US bombs dropped by Israel had destroyed a UN outpost killing four unarmed UN observers.

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor of the Guardian
The conference lasted four hours, an hour-and-a-half longer than expected. Those 90 minutes were taken up with a slanging match, with Condi Rice, the US secretary of state, in one corner with Margaret Beckett and everyone else in the other, over the issue of an immediate ceasefire.
Source

Which statement do you think best reflects the international consensus (or lack of it) on the Middle East crisis?

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Rome Conference, Margaret Beckett

Condoleezza Rice – Putting the cart before the horse

2006-07-27T08:02:00.000+01:00

It has been widely reported that yesterday’s peace summit in Rome was a failure. That’s putting it mildly. The conference was sabotaged by America and Britain who once again scuppered any chance for an immediate ceasefire despite all the other countries and Kofi Annan demanding one.

The conference lasted four hours, an hour-and-a-half longer than expected. Those 90 minutes were taken up with a slanging match, with Condi Rice, the US secretary of state, in one corner with Margaret Beckett and everyone else in the other, over the issue of an immediate ceasefire.
Source

Condi managed to achieve her goal of buying more time for Israel to further devastate Lebanon, yet she was unsuccessful in her attempt to portray herself as the peacemaker. The conference was never likely to succeed because apart from Lebanon few of the affected parties were invited. Israel was represented by America and Britain but Syria, Iran and Hezbollah, the entities we are constantly told are behind all this violence were unrepresented. This was despite both Iran and Syria calling for a ceasefire. Hezbollah too is also calling for a truce and a prisoner exchange.

After wrecking what slim possibility there was of swiftly ending the conflict, Condi, with her characteristic arrogance and hypocrisy, warned Iran and Syria not to “torpedo” the non-existent ceasefire.

DOHA, Qatar (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cautioned Syria and Iran on Wednesday that they faced further isolation if they tried to scupper U.S.-led attempts to get a cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel.

Rice was speaking to reporters flying with her from Rome where U.S., Arab and European ministers agreed to work with the "utmost urgency" to get a cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel but disappointed Beirut and others by not demanding an immediate end to hostilities.

The top U.S. diplomat urged Iran and Syria not to "torpedo" any attempts to stop the fighting between Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and Israeli forces in a two-week conflict that has killed more than 400 people in Lebanon and over 50 in Israel.

[…]

Rice said she was pleased with the outcome of the Rome meeting and strongly rejected suggestions the United States was alone in not seeking an immediate cease-fire.

"It was not all countries calling for an immediate cease-fire and the United States saying 'no, we need to have an urgent and sustainable cease-fire'," said Rice, who declined to name which countries had supported her view.
Source

The attempts by America and Britain to prolong the war may have succeeded but it is these two countries, more than Iran and Syria, who are now isolated on the international stage as world opinion now turns against Israel.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, US Politics

Joined up thinking on Iran from Condoleezza Rice

2006-05-23T03:16:00.000+01:00

Condoleezza Rice April 13 2006

Look, the President isn't going to take any of his options off the table. We are on a diplomatic course. We believe that a concerted, strong diplomatic activity, action, can indeed work, that Iran is not a state that wishes to be isolated. And that if the world community really stays together with a strong, singular message that, in fact, we can get Iran to comply. But the President doesn't take any of his options off the table.
Source

Condoleezza Rice May 23 2006

"Security assurances are not on the table," she told a television news channel. "It's obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we have other issues with Iran.
Source

It would seem that war is only the item on Condoleezza's table.

Tags: Iran, America

Groundhog Day

2006-04-28T10:49:00.000+01:00

Compare and contrast these two statements:

“At the United Nations Security Council it is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a truth threat to world peace, and that is Saddam Hussein.”

George Bush September 19, 2002

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state,"

Condoleezza Rice April 27, 2006

Tags: America, Iran

Errors? What Errors?

2006-04-08T18:43:00.000+01:00

When ~~Condom~~ Condoleezza Rice was in Britain last week, she acknowledged that the US had made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq.

"I know we've made tactical errors - thousands of them, I'm sure".

It now seems that the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, disagrees with Condi’s statement and cannot see any tactical errors that the US has made in Iraq:

"I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest," he told a radio station in Fargo, North Dakota, earlier this week. "The reality in war is this ... The enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics ... If someone says well, that's a tactical mistake, then I guess it's a lack of understanding ... of what warfare is about."

Source

So, Condoleezza Rice doesn’t know what she’s talking about when it comes to war. Neither, it seems, does Donald Rumsfeld.

Tags: America Iraq

Condom Rice?

2006-04-02T08:15:00.000+01:00

Can this be true?

As he introduced his guest, the Foreign Secretary held up a copy of a local newspaper and read out the headline: "Condom….er, Condi Comes to the Centre of the World".

It has become quite apparent that Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice are smitten with each other, but this Freudian slip, if true and not an April Fools joke, is hilarious.

It has now emerged that the happy couple have slipped off to Baghdad, presumably to get some peace and quiet after having to avoid all those noisy protesters.

*UPDATE*

When I wrote this piece, I naturally speculated that this might be an April Fools joke. However, The Telegraph has published an update maintaining that the story is indeed true. To prove it they have an MP3 of that part of Jack Straw's speech where he makes his slip of of the tongue. I have just heard it and sure enough... You can read the update and download the MP3 here.

Tags: Britain Iraq

Thousands of Tactical Errors

2006-04-01T04:17:00.000+01:00

“No one should ever doubt the United States’ commitment to justice and the rule of law” - Condoleezza Rice

US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, admitted that the Bush administration had made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq. "I know we've made tactical errors - thousands of them, I'm sure". She made this admission on her visit to Northern England’s Blackburn and Liverpool, hosted by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. It was probably the most honest statement she has made in recent times as Iraq collapses into chaos.

Condoleezza Rice also told the audience gathered by the British foreign policy think tank Chatham House:

“We do not tolerate, either at home or abroad, engagement in acts of torture. We also have no desire to be the world’s jailer. We want the terrorists that have been captured to stand trial for their crimes,”

Source

She made this statement despite the fact that the USA has been holding hundreds of people without charge or access to proper legal processes since 2001 and against strong evidence to support cases of torture and rendition.

Condoleezza’s visit has been dogged by thousands of protesters who have been objecting to her presence in the country. With no apparent sense of irony she made light of the protests saying "I've seen it in every city I've visited in the United States".

Hmm, and the penny still hasn’t dropped.

On Iran, Ms Rice was as hawkish as ever saying that President Bush "never takes any option off the table", apparently planning to make thousands more tactical errors. In September 2002, Condoleezza Rice, speaking about Iraq’s non-existent WMD said "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Well it looks as if the only mushroom cloud the USA will be experiencing will be one of its own design.

Tags: Britain Iraq

US State Department Hypocrisy

2006-03-09T05:02:00.000Z

In a mind-boggling piece of hypocrisy Condoleezza Rice just announced the release of the 2005 State Department Human Rights Report. The annual report singles out China, North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Belarus as well as criticising Iraqi government for torture and abuse. This is all very good and indeed necessary, but there was very little mention of that other serial abuser of human rights, the United States.

To be fair the report did say that the US's "own journey toward liberty and justice for all has been long and difficult, and it is far from complete". Talk about understatement! No mention of Guantanamo Bay or other “black prisons” or abuse of prisoners by the US in Iraq, no mention of “extraordinary rendition” where kidnapped people are secretly flown by the C.I.A. to be tortured in some of the very countries America is criticising. On Israel “The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas…” . The report then goes on to list some of those “problems” which completely contradict that statement.

Condoleezza’s speech is a hypocritical tour de force:

“Our promotion of human rights and democracy is in keeping with America's most cherished principles and it helps to lay the foundation for lasting peace in the world. How a country treats its own people is a strong indication of how it will behave toward its neighbors. The growing demand for democratic governance reflects a recognition that the best guarantor of human rights is a thriving democracy with transparent, accountable institutions of government, equal rights under the rule of law, a robust civil society, political pluralism and independent media.”

That really sounds like 21st Century America doesn’t it?

“The duty to defend human rights and to help spread democracies' blessings is especially great for the United States and other free nations. That is why we are working with other democracies to develop the institutions that will ensure human rights are respected over the long term. We must help struggling democracies deliver on the high hopes of their citizens for a better life. We must call countries to account when they retreat from their human rights commitments and we must always stand in solidarity with the courageous men and women across the globe who live in fear, yet dream of freedom... We hope that the reports will encourage governments, organizations, the media and publics to address human rights problems.”

The trouble is when the media and the public address America’s human rights problems, they are often ignored, ridiculed, arrested or otherwise silenced.

Extraordinary Denial

2005-12-06T07:27:00.000Z

Condolezza Rice has now arrived in Europe to try and convince every one of America’s moral superiority and its right to abuse European sovereignty (as well as terrorism suspects) under the auspices of the War on Terror, now that it is confirmed that secret American prisons do exist in Europe. At the same time she is denying that America tortures anyone or moves prisoners to countries where they can be tortured despite a lot of evidence to the contrary (this despite Bush resisting Senator John McCain’s proposed ban on torture). We also learn that since the mainstream media belatedly got hold of this story, the CIA has been removing prisoners from these secret prisons and transporting them to locations in North Africa where presumably less awkward questions will be asked.

What will be interesting is how the different European governments deal with this issue. Italy still has arrest warrants out for CIA agents who kidnapped a suspect from its territory. Germany’s new chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed a desire to have better relations with the United States but needs answers to pacify a hostile public. On the other hand, Britain’s government does not want to deal with this problem at all and has done as little as possible to investigate the matter despite holding the presidency of the European Union. A very reluctant Jack Straw was coerced into writing a letter to Condi asking for clarification on “Extraordinary Rendition”. What he produced was the most lame and timid request imaginable which was hardly what other European leaders had in mind.

Another obvious problem for European governments is whether or not they knew about these renditions. If they knew nothing, then they are going to be left looking a bit stupid being unaware of all these flights in and out of their territories. If they did know what was going on then that is going to contradict the feigned ignorance they have displayed up until now.

The questions that need to be answered are:

If the USA is so against torture then why the reluctance to ban it completely?

If the USA is acting “within international laws” why the need to secretly fly prisoners anywhere?

What did European governments know and when did they know it?

Which countries hosted these prisons and what were they promised?

If these prisoners are not being tortured and are being held legally, when can the Red Cross visit them?

What access to lawyers and legal process have the prisoners had?

How does America explain the cases where people have been kidnapped, taken to countries known for their use of torture, been detained, tortured and then released without charge?

What verifiable assurance can we have that this practice will cease?

No doubt there are other questions which need to be asked, but I doubt that we will get satisfactory answers to these ones. What Europe needs to ascertain above all is the extent of the sovereignty of its member states. For Condolezza Rice to just lecture Europeans on their need to do more to combat terrorism is not enough.