Barack obama

It is hard to feel anything but nauseous when reading the Guardian's continuing special report on Guantanamo Bay, which started yesterday. The paper has released hundreds of classified files which were obtained last year by Wikileaks, including detainee assessments prepared between 2002 and 2009 to summarise what the government knew about each detainee — and they do not paint a pretty picture. Some detainees are clearly guilty as sin. But others seem to have been caught in the crosshairs of conflict. One example seems to be Abdul Badr Mannan, who was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to US forces in the belief that he was affiliated with al-Qaeda.

A mute, almost disbelieving response (except on the Markets) has met Standard & Poor’s announcement that the US government’s fiscal profile may become ‘measurably weaker’. The credit rating agency has put a ‘negative outlook’ on the US’s AAA rating; the accompanying report said:    “We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013. If an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.

Ed Balls has long said that America is the right comparison for Britain when it comes to how to deal with the deficit, contrasting the Obama administration’s fiscally loose policies with Osborne’s plan for fiscal tightening. This comparison has always been flawed; the dollar is the world’s reverse currency which gives Washington far more fiscal flexibility than HMG. But, even leaving that aside, the Obama administration is now — albeit under Congressional pressure — about to start cutting.   By 2015, Obama’s plan will have reduced the US deficit by 8 percent of GDP. Osborne’s plan sees Britain reduces its deficit by 8.4 percent by 2015. Indeed, from next year the US will be tightening at a faster annual rate than Britain.

In Washington, a budget shutdown is becoming an increasing possibility. The Republican controlled House of Representatives wants deeper cuts than the White House will accept. This has led a growing bi-partisan group of Senators to try and revive the work of the blue-ribbon commission on Fiscal Reform and Responsibility that produced its report late last year. Interestingly, the commission’s proposals are very similar to George Osborne’s plan. UK Treasury analysis shows that the Osborne plan calls for an average tightening of 1.6 percent a year from 2009-10 to 2015-16  while the commission suggests 1.4 percent a year from 2010 t0 2015. The composition is also similar, both work on roughly three quarters spending cuts and one quarter tax rises.

I understand that agreement in principle has now been reached to pass command of the Libya operation to Nato. The United States has been keen to relinquish control for days now--the Obama administration has no desire for Libya to turn into another American responsibility--but agreement within Nato about the alliance taking over command of the mission could not be reached. This has led to an embarrassing situation where no one appears to want to actually be in charge of the operation. The blockage, up to now, to transferring control to Nato has been Turkey. Ankara is not keen on the whole intervention and is furious about not having been invited by Nicolas Sarkozy to the summit in Paris last weekend.

A statement has just been issued by the sponsors of last night’s Security Council resolution, it reads: “Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable. If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and this Resolution will be enforced through military action.

Philip Zelikow, who served on the 9/11 Commission and in both Bush administrations, has a persuasive piece in today’s FT arguing that a no drive zone on the highway from Tripoli to eastern Libya could be as effective as a no fly zone and easier to implement. He says that it could be enforced from off-shore with the use of precision weapons. Legally, there would be issue with this scheme—as there would be with any intervention in Libya that is not based on a full Security Council resolution  under chapter 7. But there simply will not be enough time now to get full UN authorization before Gaddafi has reasserted full control. The Obama administration, though, seems content to let the clock run down.