UPDATE: Ecclestone now says the race is a no-go due to the opposition of the racing teams. "Of course it's not on," the BBC quotes him saying.

On Friday, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, the governing body for the world of motor sports, announced its decision to return the Bahrain Grand Prix to the island Gulf nation, which has been rocked by unrest, brutal human rights abuses, and a deepening sectarian divide since protests broke out on Feb. 14.

In making its decision, the FIA sent a "fact-finding mission" to Bahrain in late May to determine whether it would be safe to hold the race, which was canceled earlier this year amid the violence. According to Formula 1 chief Bernie Ecclestone, quoted in the Guardian, "The FIA sent people out there to check on the situation, they came back and reported everything is fine."

The report, a copy of which was provided to FP by the New York-based human rights group Avaaz, was signed by FIA Vice President Carlos Gracia, who traveled to Bahrain on May 30 and May 31 along with an assistant, Carlos Abella.

It appears to be a complete whitewash.

According to the report, Gracia and Abella met with several government officials, including Minister of Culture Mai bint Mohammed al-Khalifa, Interior Minister Rashid bin Abdullah al-Khalifa, Public Security Chief Maj. Gen. Tariq bin Dana, Bahrain International Circuit Chairman Zayed R. al-Zayani, and BIC CEO Salman bin Eissa al-Khalifa -- and seem to have accepted their views uncritically.

They also met with Tariq al-Saffar of the pro-grovernment National Institute of Human Rights, who was appointed in 2010 by King Hamad. (Saffar is also managing director of advertising firm Fortune Promoseven, which lists the F1 Grand Prix as a client.)

Gracia and Abella did dine with several unnamed foreign business leaders -- a dinner arranged by their government host -- but met with zero members of the opposition or with independent rights groups, and did not tour Shiite neighborhoods that have reportedly been under siege for weeks, though they did visit a shopping mall.

Nonetheless, they concluded, "Life in Bahrain is completely normal again" -- an observation at odds with copious reporting on the state of fear that has gripped the country since Saudi troops intervened in late March.

Other questionable assertions: "Security is guaranteed" ... "visitor figures have returned to the same level -- and are even increasing -- when compared against figures in previous years" ... "atmosphere of total calm and stability" ... "the presence of military forces was limited to a few, certain, strategic points."

In perhaps their most ludicrous claim, the fact-finders found "NO indication of any problems or reason why Bahrain's F1 Grand Prix should not return to the 2011 Calendar."

No problems?

Human Rights Watch Deputy Director Tom Porteous, in a May 26 letter to FIA chairman Jean Todt, urged the FIA to consider the government's harsh crackdown in making its decision.

"The government's violent suppression of all protests in mid-March, in which some two dozen persons were killed, mostly protesters or bystanders at the hands of security forces, has featured large-scale arbitrary arrests, protracted incommunicado detention, and credible allegations of torture or ill-treatment of persons in custody," Porteous wrote.

That advice seems to have been ignored.

"Formula 1 wanted to be told that everything is fine, and that's the answer they got," said Rutgers University assistant professor Toby Jones, an expert on Bahrain.

The Bahraini regime has presented the return of the Grand Prix as a major victory, a stamp of approval from an international community that has largely condemned the crackdown.

But holding the race may have been a miscalculation, warned Jones, "because it gives the protesters a date to rally around."

The race is now scheduled for October 30, but a change of heart by Ecclestone and growing opposition from racing teams could see it canceled yet again.

President Obama was due to meet Bahrain's crown prince on Tuesday.

DOHA, Qatar — The State Department's top Middle East official, Jeffrey Feltman, said Thursday that he was personally "inspired" by the youth-led revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and that the uprisings roiling the Arab world showed "there's a fundamental shift in the relationship of how people in the region view their rulers."

Feltman, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, was in Qatar on one of several stops in the Persian Gulf, where the United States is seeking to reassure nervous allies even as it urges them to embrace meaningful political reform. He was a speaking at a town-hall meeting hosted by Northwestern University in Qatar and billed as a forum on media and Internet freedom in the Arab world.

His remarks in Doha come at a time of great upheaval in the Middle East, and most dramatically now in Libya, where anti-government protesters have seized huge swaths of the country and are vowing to march on the capital Tripoli to finish the job.

As Muammar al-Qaddafi again took to the airwaves to accuse the protesters of taking drugs and carrying out al Qaeda's agenda -- while forces loyal to the embattled Libyan leader reportedly continued their campaign of terror in and around Tripoli -- Feltman said it was "not clear that Qaddafi is listening to anybody."

"It's appalling what's happening now in Libya. It's really, really appalling," Feltman said with obvious emotion. But, he noted, echoing remarks made by President Barack Obama on Wednesday evening, that the United States had "a responsibility to our own citizens" in Libya that took immediate precedence over "a general obligation to protect Libyan citizens."

Asked whether the United States could do more in Libya to prevent civilian deaths, he said, "I don't have any answers for you right now, what the right approach is."

Read on

The U.S. State Department has just released the full transcript of your humble Cable guy's interview with Secretary Hillary Clinton:

SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you doing?

QUESTION: Excellent, excellent. I was in Doha yesterday and there was a big celebration there, unfortunately at our expense, but --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but (inaudible). I think clearly, the FIFA organization has a plan to expand the sort of global reach of the World Cup. I mean, South Africa never had it, Russia never had it, and obviously Qatar and this region has never had it. It makes sense. I mean, Brazil will have it next. I mean, obviously, we were disappointed because, look, we could do it tomorrow. I mean, we've got the facilities already filled, we don't have to air condition stadiums, and we can do it tomorrow. But it does make a certain logic to kind of expand the global region and give people who love football more than we do - soccer football, not football football --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- a chance to have their moment.

QUESTION: Excellent, excellent. Well, I know your time is short, so let me --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sure.

QUESTION: -- start right in. As you can see, I'm wearing my U.S.-Iran flag pin today, which I --

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) I've never seen one before.

QUESTION: I purchased this at the State Department gift shop. It's made in China. It's okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Love that, Josh.

QUESTION: So we're here and all of the Arab leaders are here and we're two days before the first big engagement with Iran in a long time. So first of all, I'd like to ask you, what is your message at Manama to all of these leaders about Iran? What do you want to say to them about what's about to happen?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I'll be speaking there. Are you coming tonight?

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay. I'll be speaking tonight and I want, very directly, to let Iran understand that we are serious about this engagement. We were serious from the beginning of the Obama Administration. The door remains open. And we hope that the negotiations in Geneva bear some results.

But at the same time, we're realists, and we know that they're probably coming back to the table because sanctions are working. And I don't think they believed that we could ever put together the international coalition we did for sanctions. And from all that we hear from people in this region and beyond, they're worried about the impact. And so they're returning to Geneva and we hope that they're returning, willing to negotiate.

QUESTION: Excellent. So we had a dual track, engagement and pressure. We focused on engagement for about a year, then we were focused on pressure, now we're going back to engagement. How long are we going to focus on engagement again before we start focusing again on pressure? Is it another year? Is that the thinking or what?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't think we can - I don't think we would put timetables on it. I think this is more of a day-by-day assessment. We know where we're headed, and that is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. We know we have the vast majority of the world with us on that.

QUESTION: Sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But I think we'll have to take stock of where we are after Geneva. We'll have to see how the Iranians respond on other things we've engaged with them on, like the two hikers that are still in prison and Mr. Levinson, who --

QUESTION: Sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- also is in Iran, in our opinion. So let's see where it goes.

QUESTION: Okay. So how do we know if it's progressing or not? What is the metric? What - how do --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, for example, the IAEA has concluded that Iran's nuclear program has had some difficulties. So I think that's given us a little bit of a breathing space. I mean, if they're having difficulties, maybe they'll be more responsible. We won't know until we test it. So it's - in negotiation, we know where our goal is, and we had a very clear set of milestones which we reached. Now, we've always wanted to get them back to see whether there was any potential there. And as we go along, we're going to keep the goal in sight, keep the international coalition together, keep the pressure on Iran. The pressure is not lifting because they're coming to the table in Geneva. And then we'll take it step by step.

QUESTION: Understood. And you're not going to see Foreign Minister Mottaki. He's going to be here two days later, so --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think he's here tonight.

QUESTION: He's here tonight. So you're going to see him or you're not going to see him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: If he comes to dinner, I'll probably see him.

QUESTION: So what do you - what's your message to him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he doesn't talk to me.

QUESTION: I see.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I mean --

QUESTION: So, he - you can talk to him through me; so what would you like to say?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hear my speech tonight.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you optimistic that this round of negotiations --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I think that it's like - I know, we got to (inaudible).

QUESTION: Okay. Look for --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I can talk with you, Josh.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sorry.

QUESTION: No problem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: We have to see what attitude they bring. I mean, part of the problem was that they had their own internal debate --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- how to handle all of this.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And it wasn't until recently that they were willing to come back and talk. So you're dealing with a regime that has been badly shaken by the events of June '09, the election, and the decision-making apparatus was kind of knocked off kilter, which meant that trying to get any action step out of them was more difficult than it would have been prior to '09.

QUESTION: That's right, true.

SECRETARY CLINTON: So it's not that - nothing - none of this is a static situation. There are so many moving parts. And we have to watch it all, and we do, trying to evaluate what they're doing, what their decision making is, what the economic pressures are --

QUESTION: Sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- what the international community's opinions are. So all of that moves kind of in a bunch.

QUESTION: I understand. That's so interesting. I'm going to lose you right now, so let me ask you one final question.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I'm told that there is a deal on New START with the Republicans. I'm told that they will bring it up December 13^th. I'm wondering, could I have your comment? Is this a success of your promise to bring it up during the lame duck session? It seems like it's really going to happen.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Josh, it's like a no-hit game, and I can't talk about it because we have made a lot of progress, but it's not done till it's done.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we have been encouraged by the positive response we've received from a number of Republicans. But they're also telling us it depends on what else happens in the session. And I believe that we have enough votes to recognize the national security importance of doing this. But I'm not counting any chickens until they vote. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I understand. Thank you so much.

 

Speaking at an event Monday previewing Sergio, HBO's forthcoming film about the life and tragic death of U.N. diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello, U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke took what appeared to be an unplanned sideswipe at Kai Eide, the former head of the U.N. mission in Kabul.

"A few days ago I was in Kabul with General Petraeus, and we had 300 people gathered in a conference room at the airport to discuss civilian military relations in Afghanistan going forward," Holbrooke said.

"And we had the U.N. representative there with us, Staffan de Mistura, who had come from Iraq ... a very good man, and we're very fortunate to have him. He's a substantial step forward over what preceded him."

"And the issue came up in the meeting of what to do about the elections coming up in Afghanistan. And the issue was: If there's a piece of bad news to give to the government, who will give it? And de Mistura said something that I thought kind of reflected the dilemma that the U.N. [faces]. ... He said, ‘We get paid to get blamed for delivering the bad news on behalf of everyone else.' I think it's a line he's used before."

The world's headline writers had some fun yesterday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's complaint that a meeting of five Arctic powers, held in Canada ahead of a G-8 pre-summit gathering of foreign ministers, wasn't inclusive enough.

Yahoo! Canada: "Icy Clinton leaves Arctic summit, says 'legitimate interests' frozen out"

The Canadian Press: "Icy words for Canada from Clinton at Arctic summit"

Even the Washington Post, whose parent company owns FP, got into the act, saying the meeting of "polar pals" had turned "chilly." Ha, ha.

The Canwest news service called her comments a "bombshell." But what did Clinton actually say?

"Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region," said Clinton, "and I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions."

Brrr! I guess that's what passes for a bombshell in Canada.

Clinton was speaking on behalf of indigenous groups, who complained of being excluded from the meeting, as well as Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Those three countries are represented in the eight-nation Arctic Council, which since its establishment in 1996 (in Ottawa, no less) has been the preferred forum for discussing Arctic issues.

The aim of the meeting, according to State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, was to "focus on long-term trends in the Arctic and pursue discussion of potential cooperation in the area of science, natural resource development, public safety, and extended continental shelves."

It's not clear why Clinton chose to attend a gathering she thought was too exclusive. She later called the meeting "excellent" in an appearance on a Canadian television network.

Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon spent much of his news conference -- which his U.S. counterpart pointedly skipped -- responding to Clinton's comments, explaining that the five countries at the meeting were chosen because they are "coastal" states with significant oil and gas claims in the region. "This meeting was not (designed) to replace or undermine the Arctic Council," he reportedly said. "This forum is not meant to become a permanent institution."

Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store also spoke up for the excluded Nordic states. Er, sort of.  "It's not a good thing that the three who are not here are unhappy about it," he said.

Ellen Tauscher, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, got to do a victory lap today before the State Department press corps after months of grueling, painstaking negotiations with her Russian counterparts over the details of a new arms-control treaty that has become the Obama administration's first signature achievement in foreign policy.

And she made some news, announcing that the administration now expects to release its nuclear posture review in mid-April, around the time of the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit, which is aimed at combating the smuggling and potential use by terrorists of nuclear materials.

On the new arms-control treaty, the successor to the START agreement that expired in December, she said the administration's intention is to "submit the treaty in the late spring and to seek ratification by the end of the year."

That could prove optimistic, given the negative signals key Republican senators are sending as well as the logistical hurdles involved in pushing the treaty through during what's likely to be a heated midterm election season.

Asked about what some see as the new treaty's linkage to missile defense, which some GOP lawmakers have warned would make them unlikely to support the document, Tauscher insisted, "[T]here is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems."

"There is no linkage," she said later, but acknowledged that the Russian and U.S. sides might issue nonbinding "unilateral statements" explaining their respective positions on missile defense.

Some components of the treaty will become public "later this month," Tauscher said, after which wonks and Hill staffers will pour over the text and weigh in with their critiques and questions.

Tauscher also pointed to a major conference in May to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Obama administration has made the centerpiece of its efforts to show that the United States is meeting its international obligations.

"As we head toward the NPT Review Conference in May, the new START treaty demonstrates that the United States and Russia are abiding by the rules of the NPT," Tauscher said. "We’re doing our part to revitalize the Nonproliferation Treaty."

Josh Rogin is on vacation for the next two days, but here's what's going on today:

• Reuters reported Friday on a "behind-the-scenes tug-of-war" between CIA Director Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. The reported rift has some speculating that "Blair may leave by year-end of sooner," according to the article, which seems poorly sourced. Other sources say it's all much ado about nothing.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is headed to Canada today for a meeting of G-8 foreign ministers. A separate meeting focused on the Artic will also be attended by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
• President Obama returns from his surprise trip to Afghanistan today, after which he'll attend a 4 p.m. credentialing ceremony for foreign ambassadors.
• Defense Secretary Robert Gates meets with Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada to discuss the controversy over a U.S. base in Okinawa. Okada will also meet with National Security Advisor James L. Jones and, in Ottawa, with Secretary Clinton.

Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, said Tuesday that the United States is hoping to "put some flesh" on the bones of American efforts to deepen ties between these two former foes.

He outlined a number of steps the two countries might take in the coming year, including closer military-to-military relations, U.S. training of Libyan forces, a new trade agreement, and a human rights dialogue. The goal, he said, was to build a working relationship that can survive the "vicissitudes of politics" -- a thinly veiled reference to the mercurial ways of Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi, whose most recent call for a "jihad" against Switzerland has complicated his country's drive to fully rejoin the international community after years of isolation.

Cretz made the remarks at an invite-only luncheon organized by the Middle East Institute and underwritten by Bechtel and Coca-Cola. Libya's man in Washington, Ali Aujali, also spoke at the event, and the two men had kind words for one another in front of the crowd of 36 people.

The only sharp point of disagreement came when Aujali spun the warm welcome Abdelbaset al-Megrahi --  the man convicted of murdering 270 people during the 1988 bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland -- received in Tripoli last August as little more than a traditional Arab homecoming (a case he's made before).  Cretz countered that it was in fact a "hero's welcome," and reiterated the State Department's displeasure at the move.

Coming on the heels of the first official U.S. trade mission to Libya in nearly four decades, the luncheon would seem to suggest that the drive to fully normalize relations that began in 2004 with Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction is proceeding apace.

Don't get your hopes up, analysts said.

Dana Moss, an expert on U.S.-Libya relations, cautioned that Libya's system of personal rule would make progress a tough slog. Cretz acknowledged as much, saying that Libya lacked "clear institutional structures" that could engage with U.S. diplomats.

A former State Department official complained that the Libyans had generally proven unreliable partners, lurching from initiative to initiative without a clear plan. She pointed to Libya's inability to develop a strategy for purchasing U.S. military hardware -- currently restricted to non-lethal weapons -- as evidence of the country's dysfunction.

"They don't know what they want, and it's not clear who has the authority to make decisions," agreed Moss. "Everyone's sort of covering their own asses," she said, pointing to high turnover among Libyan officials and the pervasive risk of being punished for straying from an often unclear government line.

Much may depend on who wins a brewing power struggle between Qaddafi's sons and would-be heirs, Mutassim and Seif al-Islam. Seif, with his Saville Row suits and London School of Economics degree, is seen as the more pro-Western son, whereas Mutassim leads a hard-line faction that is deeply skeptical of change.

Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said it was critical that Libya's notorious Ministry of the Interior be part of any dialogue on human rights. The Ministry of Justice has been a force for modest change, she said, but needed U.S. support to "try to bring the Ministry of the Interior to heel."

Whitson has been visiting Libya for five years and recently returned from Tripoli, where she says she saw a number of "breakthroughs" in Libya's engagement with human rights issues. "There's definitely volatility" in Libyan politics right now, she said -- a sign that change is at least conceivable after years of stagnation.

Whitson expects the United States to find more cooperation on military matters, as the Libyans are desperate to upgrade their training and equipment. "They lost a war against Chad, for God's sake," she said.

The former State Department official downplayed U.S. companies' interest in investing in Libya, which is flush with oil revenues and is embarking on a massive $130 billion infrastructure build-out. "There's still too much risk," she said.