Another KOS diarist laid out the case for Freeman, such as it is, here. That diary follows the Dreyfuss article in The Nation and argues:
A couple of weeks ago, Robert Dreyfuss predicted in The Nation that friends of the Israeli far right would attempt to torpedo Barack Obama's pick for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council: Charles (Chas) Freeman.
In the article, and the diary, the argument is essentially that Freeman is opposed by AIPAC and thus ipso facto must be good (and he speaks truth to power!). Let's go below the fold to see what is missing.
First, although Kossacks, with their usual neglect of Asia probably missed it, Freeman's appointment caused quite a stir in China/Taiwan circles as well. This is because of his longstanding connections to the Middle Kingdom.
Freeman is a founder and co-chair of the US China Policy Foundation. One of its board members is Adm Blair, Obama's intelligence chief. Freeman is not "Obama's pick", he's Blair's, according to news reports.
The Foundation is a pro-China organization, an "educational foundation devoted exclusively to broadening awareness of China and US-China relations in the Washington policy community." In other words, as anyone with Capital Hill experience will realize, it's a lobby.
The diarist I cited above quotes Greg Sargent:
* I’ve just obtained a letter from two key members of the House — Dem Steve Israel and GOPer Mark Kirk — demanding that the Inspector General, who’s probing Freeman, deepen his investigation to look at Freeman’s work for a Chinese oil company that did business with countries that have at times been at odds with the U.S.
This presentation makes it seem like Freeman had taken on a contract or two with the firm. Reality bites: "Freeman's work for a Chinese oil company" -- jot that down, "a Chinese oil company" -- turns out to be, according to Rep. Kirk's press release, that he sat on the board of directors of a State-owned oil firm:
At the same time, in a follow-up letter, Kirk and Democratic Representative Steve Israel urged Maguire Thursday to "pay particular attention" during his probe to Freeman's ties to a state-owned Chinese oil giant.
They noted that Freeman served on the board of the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), which has done business with Iran.
"Ambassador Freeman's service on the Board of Directors of a company owned by a foreign government seems to constitute an obvious conflict of interest -- especially given his service to a company owned by the People's Republic of China with significant investment in the Islamic Republic of Iran," they said.
But Freeman resigned from CNOOC's board February 1 and "made it clear to CNOOC from the outset that as a US citizen he could not deal with any Iranian issues, period," said Morigi.
In addition to sitting on the board of a state-owned oil company, Freeman also worked for a law firm that did business in China (as does his son who apparently works for China Alliance, a group of law firms in the China trade (frothing right-wing Investors Business Daily report). This is not just a problem of Freeman, it is a serious problem for US China policy that so many people on both sides of the aisle who advise on, carry out, or oversee US China policy do business with China, as Ken Silverstein noted in an article in Harper's a while back. This is just a variation on the greater Washington problem of lobbyists and businessmen for industries writing legislation and running government agencies associated with the industries they work for. Guess what: it happens in foreign policy too.
What are Freeman's attitudes? This widely circulated quote from one of Freeman's internet discussions appeared in WaPo the other day:
The most extreme manifestation of Freeman's realist ideology came out in a leaked e-mail he sent to a foreign policy Internet mailing list. Freeman wrote that his only problem with what most of us call "the Tiananmen Square Massacre" was an excess of restraint:
"[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .
"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy."
This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence Council job is so technocratic that Freeman's rigid ideology won't have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn't work out very well, did it?
It's time to move past the knee-jerk attitude that if AIPAC is dead set against it, it must be good. The debate over Israel (where I am largely in agreement with Freeman) and its role in US politics obscures a more basic issue: conflict of interest. It is perfectly ok to do business with China or to run a pro-China foundation. But equally legitimate to ask whether a person who does business with the "Taizi Dang" (the princes party, the children of leadership of China) should be named to head up NIC. Surely, in a nation with thousands of foreign policy experts who have devoted their careers to dispassionate analysis and do not do business with the nations they must look at, someone without the apparent conflicts of interest can be found.
Vorkosigan