US announced increased sanctions against North Korea. By now, the result of this kind of policies, in terms of efficiency, remains highly unclear - it was the case for Eastern Europe during communism, for Middle Eastern dictatorships or other rogue states. As it is also unclear what chances for a new beginning as long as the idea of a possible leadership is non-existent.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Turkish-Armenian game, played in Washington D.C.
A new stage in the dispute between Turkey and Armenia, concerning the issue of the genocide, was played this week in Washington D.C., after the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted a nonbinding resolution calling the mass killing of Armenians by the Turkish military, at the beginning of the last century a genocide. Turkey already condemned this move, who is risking to endangered the delicate equilibrium between Ankara and Yerevan, after an aparent opening in the second half of the last year.
The resolution was discussed as well in the Senate, in 2007, but given the need of Turkey's support for the war in Iraq by the then W. Bush administration stopped a further materialization of the decision. Both Barrack Obama and Hillary R. Clinton were supportive of the resolution.
The Turkish-Armenian agreement, signed in Switzerland, October 2009, was not fully supported by Armenian community, benefiting of a powerful and influential profile in Washington D.C..
Today, OSCE's Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh isssued a statement calling the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaidjan to settle the conflict, position welcomed by Turkey.
The reconciliation process between the two countries is still extremely long and impredictable. Serious efforts, in the frame of the so-called Track II Diplomacy were made in the last dozen of years for making a dialogue possible. One of the most important issues established last year was the possibility to let the historians to discuss about such an high identity impact issue as the problem of the genocide. In this way, the politicians and diplomats are able to think about the present and the future. A very hard task, for societies where very often politicans are historians and made history focusing on the past.
The decision of the House do not add nothing to this process and complicate a situation that, in fact, was already volatile. Maybe it is a signal sent to Turkey - as long as, for example, this resolution was permanently on the agenda in the last two years but not voted - who is facing various setbacks in terms of coherent engagement regarding European and international politics.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of the Beginning
George Friedman
Stratfor
August 24
As August draws to a close, so does the first phase of the Obama presidency. The first months of any U.S. presidency are spent filling key positions and learning the levers of foreign and national security policy. There are also the first rounds of visits with foreign leaders and the first tentative forays into foreign policy. The first summer sees the leaders of the Northern Hemisphere take their annual vacations, and barring a crisis or war, little happens in the foreign policy arena. Then September comes and the world gets back in motion, and the first phase of the president’s foreign policy ends. The president is no longer thinking about what sort of foreign policy he will have; he now has a foreign policy that he is carrying out.
We therefore are at a good point to stop and consider not what U.S. President Barack Obama will do in the realm of foreign policy, but what he has done and is doing. As we have mentioned before, the single most remarkable thing about Obama’s foreign policy is how consistent it is with the policies of former President George W. Bush. This is not surprising. Presidents operate in the world of constraints; their options are limited. Still, it is worth pausing to note how little Obama has deviated from the Bush foreign policy.
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, particularly in its early stages, Obama ran against the Iraq war. The centerpiece of his early position was that the war was a mistake, and that he would end it. Obama argued that Bush’s policies — and more important, his style — alienated U.S. allies. He charged Bush with pursuing a unilateral foreign policy, alienating allies by failing to act in concert with them. In doing so, he maintained that the war in Iraq destroyed the international coalition the United States needs to execute any war successfully. Obama further argued that Iraq was a distraction and that the major effort should be in Afghanistan. He added that the United States would need its NATO allies’ support in Afghanistan. He said an Obama administration would reach out to the Europeans, rebuild U.S. ties there and win greater support from them.
Though around 40 countries cooperated with the United States in Iraq, albeit many with only symbolic contributions, the major continental European powers — particularly France and Germany — refused to participate. When Obama spoke of alienating allies, he clearly meant these two countries, as well as smaller European powers that had belonged to the U.S. Cold War coalition but were unwilling to participate in Iraq and were now actively hostile to U.S. policy.
We therefore are at a good point to stop and consider not what U.S. President Barack Obama will do in the realm of foreign policy, but what he has done and is doing. As we have mentioned before, the single most remarkable thing about Obama’s foreign policy is how consistent it is with the policies of former President George W. Bush. This is not surprising. Presidents operate in the world of constraints; their options are limited. Still, it is worth pausing to note how little Obama has deviated from the Bush foreign policy.
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, particularly in its early stages, Obama ran against the Iraq war. The centerpiece of his early position was that the war was a mistake, and that he would end it. Obama argued that Bush’s policies — and more important, his style — alienated U.S. allies. He charged Bush with pursuing a unilateral foreign policy, alienating allies by failing to act in concert with them. In doing so, he maintained that the war in Iraq destroyed the international coalition the United States needs to execute any war successfully. Obama further argued that Iraq was a distraction and that the major effort should be in Afghanistan. He added that the United States would need its NATO allies’ support in Afghanistan. He said an Obama administration would reach out to the Europeans, rebuild U.S. ties there and win greater support from them.
Though around 40 countries cooperated with the United States in Iraq, albeit many with only symbolic contributions, the major continental European powers — particularly France and Germany — refused to participate. When Obama spoke of alienating allies, he clearly meant these two countries, as well as smaller European powers that had belonged to the U.S. Cold War coalition but were unwilling to participate in Iraq and were now actively hostile to U.S. policy.
A European Rebuff
Early in his administration, Obama made two strategic decisions. First, instead of ordering an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he adopted the Bush administration’s policy of a staged withdrawal keyed to political stabilization and the development of Iraqi security forces. While he tweaked the timeline on the withdrawal, the basic strategy remained intact. Indeed, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, to oversee the withdrawal.
Second, he increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had committed itself to Afghanistan from 9/11 onward. But it had remained in a defensive posture in the belief that given the forces available, enemy capabilities and the historic record, that was the best that could be done, especially as the Pentagon was almost immediately reoriented and refocused on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Toward the end, the Bush administration began exploring — under the influence of Gen. David Petraeus, who designed the strategy in Iraq — the possibility of some sort of political accommodation in Afghanistan.
Obama has shifted his strategy in Afghanistan to this extent: He has moved from a purely defensive posture to a mixed posture of selective offense and defense, and has placed more forces into Afghanistan (although the United States still has nowhere near the number of troops the Soviets had when they lost their Afghan war). Therefore, the core structure of Obama’s policy remains the same as Bush’s except for the introduction of limited offensives. In a major shift since Obama took office, the Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance (or at least want to appear more aggressive) toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders. But even so, Obama’s basic strategy remains the same as Bush’s: hold in Afghanistan until the political situation evolves to the point that a political settlement is possible.
Most interesting is how little success Obama has had with the French and the Germans. Bush had given up asking for assistance in Afghanistan, but Obama tried again. He received the same answer Bush did: no. Except for some minor, short-term assistance, the French and Germans were unwilling to commit forces to Obama’s major foreign policy effort, something that stands out.
Given the degree to which the Europeans disliked Bush and were eager to have a president who would revert the U.S.-European relationship to what it once was (at least in their view), one would have thought the French and Germans would be eager to make some substantial gesture rewarding the United States for selecting a pro-European president. Certainly, it was in their interest to strengthen Obama. That they proved unwilling to make that gesture suggests that the French and German relationship with the United States is much less important to Paris and Berlin than it would appear. Obama, a pro-European president, was emphasizing a war France and Germany approved of over a war they disapproved of and asked for their help, but virtually none was forthcoming.
Second, he increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had committed itself to Afghanistan from 9/11 onward. But it had remained in a defensive posture in the belief that given the forces available, enemy capabilities and the historic record, that was the best that could be done, especially as the Pentagon was almost immediately reoriented and refocused on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Toward the end, the Bush administration began exploring — under the influence of Gen. David Petraeus, who designed the strategy in Iraq — the possibility of some sort of political accommodation in Afghanistan.
Obama has shifted his strategy in Afghanistan to this extent: He has moved from a purely defensive posture to a mixed posture of selective offense and defense, and has placed more forces into Afghanistan (although the United States still has nowhere near the number of troops the Soviets had when they lost their Afghan war). Therefore, the core structure of Obama’s policy remains the same as Bush’s except for the introduction of limited offensives. In a major shift since Obama took office, the Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance (or at least want to appear more aggressive) toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders. But even so, Obama’s basic strategy remains the same as Bush’s: hold in Afghanistan until the political situation evolves to the point that a political settlement is possible.
Most interesting is how little success Obama has had with the French and the Germans. Bush had given up asking for assistance in Afghanistan, but Obama tried again. He received the same answer Bush did: no. Except for some minor, short-term assistance, the French and Germans were unwilling to commit forces to Obama’s major foreign policy effort, something that stands out.
Given the degree to which the Europeans disliked Bush and were eager to have a president who would revert the U.S.-European relationship to what it once was (at least in their view), one would have thought the French and Germans would be eager to make some substantial gesture rewarding the United States for selecting a pro-European president. Certainly, it was in their interest to strengthen Obama. That they proved unwilling to make that gesture suggests that the French and German relationship with the United States is much less important to Paris and Berlin than it would appear. Obama, a pro-European president, was emphasizing a war France and Germany approved of over a war they disapproved of and asked for their help, but virtually none was forthcoming.
The Russian Non-Reset
Obama’s desire to reset European relations was matched by his desire to reset U.S.-Russian relations. Ever since the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in late 2004 and early 2005, U.S.-Russian relations had deteriorated dramatically, with Moscow charging Washington with interfering in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics with the aim of weakening Russia. This culminated in the Russo-Georgian war last August. The Obama administration has since suggested a “reset” in relations, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually carrying a box labeled “reset button” to her spring meeting with the Russians.
The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.
The Obama administration was signaling that it intends to continue the Bush administration’s Russia policy. That policy was that Russia had no legitimate right to claim priority in the former Soviet Union, and that the United States had the right to develop bilateral relations with any country and expand NATO as it wished. But the Bush administration saw the Russian leadership as unwilling to follow the basic architecture of relations that had developed after 1991, and as unreasonably redefining what the Americans thought of as a stable and desirable relationship. The Russian response was that an entirely new relationship was needed between the two countries, or the Russians would pursue an independent foreign policy matching U.S. hostility with Russian hostility. Highlighting the continuity in U.S.-Russian relations, plans for the prospective ballistic missile defense installation in Poland, a symbol of antagonistic U.S.-Russian relations, remain unchanged.
The underlying problem is that the Cold War generation of U.S. Russian experts has been supplanted by the post-Cold War generation, now grown to maturity and authority. If the Cold warriors were forged in the 1960s, the post-Cold warriors are forever caught in the 1990s. They believed that the 1990s represented a stable platform from which to reform Russia, and that the grumbling of Russians plunged into poverty and international irrelevancy at that time is simply part of the post-Cold War order. They believe that without economic power, Russia cannot hope to be an important player on the international stage. That Russia has never been an economic power even at the height of its influence but has frequently been a military power doesn’t register. Therefore, they are constantly expecting Russia to revert to its 1990s patterns, and believe that if Moscow doesn’t, it will collapse — which explains U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s interview in The Wall Street Journal where he discussed Russia’s decline in terms of its economic and demographic challenges. Obama’s key advisers come from the Clinton administration, and their view of Russia — like that of the Bush administration — was forged in the 1990s.
The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.
The Obama administration was signaling that it intends to continue the Bush administration’s Russia policy. That policy was that Russia had no legitimate right to claim priority in the former Soviet Union, and that the United States had the right to develop bilateral relations with any country and expand NATO as it wished. But the Bush administration saw the Russian leadership as unwilling to follow the basic architecture of relations that had developed after 1991, and as unreasonably redefining what the Americans thought of as a stable and desirable relationship. The Russian response was that an entirely new relationship was needed between the two countries, or the Russians would pursue an independent foreign policy matching U.S. hostility with Russian hostility. Highlighting the continuity in U.S.-Russian relations, plans for the prospective ballistic missile defense installation in Poland, a symbol of antagonistic U.S.-Russian relations, remain unchanged.
The underlying problem is that the Cold War generation of U.S. Russian experts has been supplanted by the post-Cold War generation, now grown to maturity and authority. If the Cold warriors were forged in the 1960s, the post-Cold warriors are forever caught in the 1990s. They believed that the 1990s represented a stable platform from which to reform Russia, and that the grumbling of Russians plunged into poverty and international irrelevancy at that time is simply part of the post-Cold War order. They believe that without economic power, Russia cannot hope to be an important player on the international stage. That Russia has never been an economic power even at the height of its influence but has frequently been a military power doesn’t register. Therefore, they are constantly expecting Russia to revert to its 1990s patterns, and believe that if Moscow doesn’t, it will collapse — which explains U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s interview in The Wall Street Journal where he discussed Russia’s decline in terms of its economic and demographic challenges. Obama’s key advisers come from the Clinton administration, and their view of Russia — like that of the Bush administration — was forged in the 1990s.
Foreign Policy Continuity Elsewhere
When we look at U.S.-China policy, we see very similar patterns with the Bush administration. The United States under Obama has the same interest in maintaining economic ties and avoiding political complications as the Bush administration did. Indeed, Hillary Clinton explicitly refused to involve herself in human rights issues during her visit to China. Campaign talk of engaging China on human rights issues is gone. Given the interests of both countries, this makes sense, but it is also noteworthy given the ample opportunity to speak to China on this front (and fulfill campaign promises) that has arisen since Obama took office (such as the Uighur riots).
Of great interest, of course, were the three great openings of the early Obama administration, to Cuba, to Iran, and to the Islamic world in general through his Cairo speech. The Cubans and Iranians rebuffed his opening, whereas the net result of the speech to the Islamic world remains unclear. With Iran we see the most important continuity. Obama continues to demand an end to Tehran’s nuclear program, and has promised further sanctions unless Iran agrees to enter into serious talks by late September.
On Israel, the United States has merely shifted the atmospherics. Both the Bush and Obama administrations demanded that the Israelis halt settlements, as have many other administrations. The Israelis have usually responded by agreeing to something small while ignoring the larger issue. The Obama administration seemed ready to make a major issue of this, but instead continued to maintain security collaboration with the Israelis on Iran and Lebanon (and we assume intelligence collaboration). Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not allowed the settlements to get in the way of fundamental strategic interests.
This is not a criticism of Obama. Presidents — all presidents — run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity. Presidents who believe they can govern independent of reality are failures. Obama doesn’t intend to fail.
Of great interest, of course, were the three great openings of the early Obama administration, to Cuba, to Iran, and to the Islamic world in general through his Cairo speech. The Cubans and Iranians rebuffed his opening, whereas the net result of the speech to the Islamic world remains unclear. With Iran we see the most important continuity. Obama continues to demand an end to Tehran’s nuclear program, and has promised further sanctions unless Iran agrees to enter into serious talks by late September.
On Israel, the United States has merely shifted the atmospherics. Both the Bush and Obama administrations demanded that the Israelis halt settlements, as have many other administrations. The Israelis have usually responded by agreeing to something small while ignoring the larger issue. The Obama administration seemed ready to make a major issue of this, but instead continued to maintain security collaboration with the Israelis on Iran and Lebanon (and we assume intelligence collaboration). Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not allowed the settlements to get in the way of fundamental strategic interests.
This is not a criticism of Obama. Presidents — all presidents — run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity. Presidents who believe they can govern independent of reality are failures. Obama doesn’t intend to fail.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Clinton and Africa
for the moment, it looks like a succesful meeting.
Clinton is quite familiar with the African problems and visited the continent several times as a first lady and thereafter. A guarantee she could understand better the emergencies from this region. Because, otherwise, the nice smiles in the front of the camera and the photo opportunities with victims of various human and natural calamities is quite "normal".
What about Sudan? The president, Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, is moving freely and explains himself in interviews in the international media.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Clinton set to meet Congo leader
The US top-diplomat is on a seven nation African tour.
What to do with Eritrea?
The African tour - the schedule.
What to do with Eritrea?
The African tour - the schedule.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Roxana Saberi's release may shift hurdle to rapprochement with White House
An American-born journalist convicted of spying on Iran walked free from jail today after a court commuted her eight-year sentence in a move that may remove a barrier to rapprochement between Tehran and Washington.
Roxana Saberi, 32, was reunited with her parents after more than three months in prison. She had been first accused of working without press credentials before being found guilty of espionage.
Her release came a day after an appeal hearing against last month's conviction, which had been condemned by President Barack Obama and prompted an international clamour for her release.
The appeal judges replaced her original sentence with a two-year suspended term. Her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said that Saberi, who has worked for the BBC and National Public Radio in the US, was also banned from reporting inside Iran for five years.
Iranian officials said she was free to leave the country.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, welcomed the release. "Obviously, we continue to take issue with the charges against her and the verdicts rendered, but we are very heartened that she has been released, and wish her and her family all of the very best," she said.
Saberi's father, Reza Saberi, 68, an Iranian-born academic who emigrated to the US in the 1970s, said he and his Japanese-born wife, Akiko, intended to take their daughter back to the family home in Fargo, North Dakota.
"We will go back as soon as possible. We have to make some arrangements," he said outside Evin prison in Tehran. "She is in very good condition. We are very happy that they gave us such a break."
Saberi's parents had stayed in her flat in the Iranian capital after travelling from the US in an effort to win her release. Her father had vowed to remain in Iran for as long as it took to free his daughter. He appeared overcome with emotion as the journalist, who has lived in Iran for six years, emerged from prison, the Associated Press news agency reported.
Saberi was convicted after prosecutors alleged that she had procured classified information and passed it to the US. She was arrested in January and had originally told her parents in a telephone call that she had been detained after buying a bottle of wine, a crime under the Islamic Republic's laws.
Her father subsequently said that was a false statement given under duress. She was said to have been writing a book about the country at the time of her detention.
After her conviction at a closed hearing, her lawyer argued that he had not been able to mount a full defence. Saberi, who holds US and Iranian citizenship, denied all charges against her and, according to her father, went on hunger strike to protest her innocence. She reportedly resumed eating only last week after being admitted to hospital suffering from the ill effects of her fast. Her incarceration threatened to derail the Obama administration's hopes of forging a new relationship with Iran after 30 years of mutual hostility.
Obama dismissed the accusations against Saberi as baseless and called for her release.
In the face of the outcry, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to the country's judiciary chiefs, saying that she should be given full rights of defence and appeal.
Some Iranian websites yesterday credited Ahmadinejad's intervention with securing Saberi's release, but said Iran had lost out because it had failed in return to win the release of diplomats that the government says are being held by American forces in Iraq.
"How come, after a few angry remarks from Obama and [US secretary of state] Hillary Clinton – expressed after their diplomatic smiles – Roxana Saberi turned from being a spy to a free citizen, while Iranian diplomats are still held in Iraq?" wrote the conservative website Tabnak.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Clinton on surprise visit to Lebanon
AFP
April 26
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday made an unannounced visit to Lebanon where she was to meet with President Michel Sleiman.
The visit was widely publicised on Lebanese television.
Clinton's visit, her first to Lebanon since taking office, comes as the tiny Mediterranean country prepares for June legislative elections that could see the militant group Hezbollah emerge victorious.
Washington is a staunch backer of the national unity government in Lebanon, which is led by a Western-backed prime minister, and has expressed concern at the possibility of Hezbollah and its allies, which are supported by Syria and Iran, winning the June 7 vote.
Lebanon Arrests 3 on Charges of Spying for Israel
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The authorities in Lebanon arrested three men on Saturday on charges of spying for Israel, the latest chapter in a long-running intelligence war between the countries that has led to the arrests of at least nine people here over the past year.
The three men arrested Saturday, two Lebanese and one Palestinian, do not appear to have worked together, said a Lebanese security official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He identified the Lebanese men as Ali Mantash and Robert Kfoury, and the Palestinian as Mohammad Awad.
Lebanon considers Israel, which carried out a major bombing campaign here during the 34-day war with Hezbollah in 2006, an enemy state. If convicted, collaborators could receive the death penalty.
The arrests on Saturday were based on information from Adeeb al-Alam, a retired Lebanese general who was arrested this month and charged with spying for Israel for over at least a decade. Mr. Alam traveled regularly to Europe to meet with Israeli officials, and at their behest he set up a business that brought women to Lebanon to work as maids to help disguise his activities, Lebanese security officials said.
Mr. Alam’s wife and nephew were also arrested and accused of spying with him.
It is not clear how long the three men arrested Saturday were believed to have spied for Israel.
In many cases, Hezbollah has discovered and captured spying suspects before handing them to the authorities in Lebanon. Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group, whose political wing has strong representation in the Parliament and cabinet, is the most powerful military force in Lebanon, and it is also widely thought to have the best intelligence network.
This year, Hezbollah captured Marwan Faqih, a businessman in Nabatiye who is believed to have sold dozens of cars to Hezbollah officials with tracking and listening devices inside them, on behalf of Israeli intelligence. Mr. Faqih was handed over to the authorities in Lebanon and charged with collaborating with Israel.
Last year, Hezbollah captured Ali al-Jarrah, a Lebanese man who was later charged with spying for Israel for 25 years. Lebanese prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Mr. Jarrah.
Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has said repeatedly that the group would retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Imad Mugniyah, a top Hezbollah military commander.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Clinton urges Iraqis to overcome divisions
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Saturday urged Iraqis to overcome their divisions as a spate of suicide bombings revived fears of a renewed sectarian war when U.S. troops withdraw.
Making a brief visit to Baghdad, her first since becoming secretary of state, Clinton sought to reassure Iraqis of U.S. support as Washington prepares to withdraw all its troops by the end of 2011.
The top U.S. diplomat arrived on a military transport plane a day after two female suicide bombers blew themselves up outside a Shi'ite Muslim shrine in Baghdad, killing 60 people in the deadliest single incident in Iraq in more than 10 months.
It was the third major attack in two days, bringing the death toll since Thursday to at least 150 people.
The attacks have fanned fears of a resurgence in violence as the United States prepares to pull its combat troops out of Iraqi cities by the end of June, to end all combat missions in August 2010 and to bring all forces home by the end of 2011.
At a meeting Clinton held with about 150 Iraqis at the U.S. embassy, an Iraqi journalist bluntly said many Iraqis were afraid of what would happen when U.S. troops left, and that people did not trust Iraqi security forces.
"There is nothing more important than to have a united Iraq," Clinton replied. "The more united Iraq is, the more you will trust the security services. The security services have to earn your trust but the people have to demand it."
Rejectionists
The sectarian warfare and insurgency unleashed by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion have receded sharply over the past year, but Iraqi security forces still face huge challenges as they take on policing and military operations from the United States.
A national election scheduled for the end of the year has also heightened apprehension as political parties and armed groups jostle for dominance of the oil-producing nation.
Asked Friday if the latest bloodshed could rekindle sectarian warfare, Clinton replied: "I see no signs of that at this time.
"I think the suicide bombings ... are, in an unfortunately tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," she told reporters in Kuwait before flying to Baghdad Saturday.
In a whirlwind visit, Clinton met Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari and was briefed by Gen. Ray Odierno, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Zebari said he found Clinton's message of continued U.S. support reassuring and said the relationship between the two countries would evolve to one of more normal, economic dealings from one been based on security and military concerns.
"There is no doubt that there are serious security and economic challenges that are facing Iraq. We will continue to rely on ... U.S. commitment and support," he said.
Clinton also made time to meet ordinary Iraqis invited to the massive, heavily fortified U.S. embassy, speaking privately to a group of Iraqi women, some of whom were widowed in the last six years of strife.
In her public meeting there, she answered question after question from Iraqis about what the United States could do to help them with everything from education and agriculture to the empowerment of women and the rights of minorities.
At one point, Clinton said she knew that it would not be easy to knit together Iraqi society.
"I know how hard this will be," she said. "My own country has struggled for many years with all kinds of divisions and yet, as you know, we have just elected an African American president, someone who is leading all Americans, not just one group or another group."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
U.S. to Pledge $40 Million for Afghanistan Elections
The United States will commit $40 million to underwrite the cost of holding elections in Afghanistan this summer, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, as she began selling the Obama administration’s new Afghanistan policy to friends and foes.
“We do not support or oppose any candidate,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters on her way to an international conference on Afghanistan that begins on Tuesday in the Netherlands. “We want to ensure the elections themselves are going to have legitimacy and credibility.”
The American pledge, aimed at closing a $100 million shortfall in the United Nations’ fund-raising for the August elections, is part of what she hopes will be a raft of proposals on a variety of issues, including restoring Afghanistan’s security and stemming its corrosive drug trade, she said.
But the administration will face war-weary allies that are reluctant to commit more troops to Afghanistan as well as suspicious neighbors like Iran, which will attend the conference but has rebuffed President Obama’s recent attempts at dialogue.
Mrs. Clinton said the United States would present a pragmatic strategy built on defeating Al Qaeda rather than trying to transform Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy.
“We’re entering this with a very clear-eyed, realistic view of what is possible,” she said of the new policy, which Mr. Obama announced last Friday and will discuss with NATO allies in Europe later this week.
In a sign of its determination to break from the Bush administration, the Obama administration no longer uses a signature Bush phrase, the “war on terror,” Mrs. Clinton confirmed. “The administration has stopped using the phrase,” she said, “and I think that speaks for itself.”
Mrs. Clinton said she had no plans to meet with the Iranian representative, though she suggested that she would not avoid an informal encounter. Iran has a constructive role, she said, especially in counternarcotics, because heroin made from Afghan poppies fuels a rising drug habit in Iran. The drug flow had become an “internal security” problem for Tehran, she added.
“The fact that they accepted the invitation to come suggests they believe there is a role for them to play,” Mrs. Clinton said.
With the NATO allies generally unwilling to deploy additional combat troops to Afghanistan, the United States is emphasizing economic and development issues. Mrs. Clinton said she would stress the need to help the Afghans improve their governance and jump-start aid projects, which have been bogged down by waste and rampant corruption.
Less than a quarter of the aid pledged to Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008 has been delivered. Forty percent of it has gone back to the donors because of poor coordination with the Afghans.
Underscoring the administration’s promise to scrutinize the use of aid money, Mrs. Clinton brought along Jacob J. Lew, the deputy secretary who oversees the State Department’s budget. Mr. Lew will travel to Afghanistan from the conference.
“We are looking at every single dollar, as to how it’s spent and where it’s going, and trying to track the outcomes,” she said. “There is very little credibility for what was invested; it’s heartbreaking.”
The pledge of $40 million for the election will help pay for the distribution of ballot boxes and the counting of ballots. It is separate from the costs of providing security for the election.
The conference, though led by the United Nations, is largely Mrs. Clinton’s initiative. She pushed for it to be held and for Iran to be included on the list of invited countries. She will be accompanied by Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The regional focus, she said, is a change from how the Bush White House viewed Afghanistan policy. Mr. Obama is to discuss the policy with the leaders of China and Russia at an economic summit meeting in London this week, and later at a NATO meeting in France and Germany.
While American allies have already welcomed the new focus, the United States is not ready to discuss one delicate issue: those suspected of being insurgents held at the American military prison on the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
In a report to be issued this week, the Asia Society calls for the United States to close the Bagram detention center and to turn its prisoners over to the Afghan police. The treatment of those Afghans, the report says, has blackened the image of the United States in Afghanistan.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Hillary Clinton, e-diplomat, embraces new media
Matthew Lee
The Associated Press, The Washington Post
March 23
Her videos aren't quite viral yet and she's not tweeting, but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is embracing new media, using the Web to promote the agency and her role as the nation's top envoy.
In less than three months, Clinton's State Department has embarked on a digital diplomacy drive aimed at spreading the word about American foreign policy and restoring Washington's image. Part of a broader Internet outreach by President Barack Obama's administration, Clinton's Web efforts already have outpaced those of her predecessors.
Since taking over at Foggy Bottom, Clinton's team has built on e-diplomacy innovations developed during George W. Bush's presidency:
_They have revamped the department's Web site (http://www.state.gov) and the Dipnote blog (http://blogs.state.govandhttp://twitter.com/dipnote) with a fresh array of features, graphics and colorful posts.
_Users can track her foreign travel on an interactive map (http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map).
_They can keep up virtually with her every move through Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/statevideo).
_They can pose questions through an "ask-the-secretary" column (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ask/secretary/117297.htm) that recently was revised to "text the secretary." (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ask/secretary/120236.htm)
"New media is critical in this new era of diplomacy, where smart power and expanded dialogues are essential to achieving our foreign policy goals," said Cheryl Mills, Clinton's longtime confidante and chief of staff.
Even for a government Web site, early indications show a surge in interest, according to internal State Department statistics provided to The Associated Press.
Daily views of the Dipnote have doubled from 10,000 a year ago to 20,000 today, with 700 subscribers to its RSS feed, twice as many as in March 2008. The number of followers of the department on Twitter has tripled since Jan. 20, when Obama took office, while the department's Facebook friends have increased by 2 1/2 times in the same period.
"What they are bringing in is more willingness to experiment," said Peter Daou, who was Clinton's Web guru during her 2008 presidential run. "They are starting to push the envelope."
What remains unclear, though, is whether the spike in interest reflects the revamped Web site or the public's fascination with Clinton's latest career shift.
"The personality behind it can't be dismissed," said Daou, who now blogs on human rights and other issues for U.N. Dispatch (http://www.undispatch.com).
Like Obama, Clinton carries a Blackberry, but she is not allowed to use it on the department's secure seventh floor where her office is. Aides say she takes an active role in answering questions from the Web, responding to bloggers and pushing her agency's new media agenda.
"The United States Government is behind nearly everybody, except in certain discrete areas, in terms of technology," she told department employees at a town hall meeting in February. "We are, in my view, wasting time, wasting money, wasting opportunities, because we are not prepared to communicate effectively with what is out there in the business world and the private world."
Clinton was quick to embrace new media at the start of her presidential campaign. She announced her entry into the race in February 2007 on the Web and followed with regular Internet chats and Internet fundraising appeals.
Nonetheless, Clinton was surpassed by the Obama campaign's mastery of the Internet and social networking sites. Obama used the Web to raise record donations and identify and orchestrate an army of volunteers.
Clinton was first lady when the first White House Web site debuted in 1994. It was a bare-bones operation compared with what is available now. Three years later, the State Department went online during Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's tenure.
But it wasn't until 2007, under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, that the department's public affairs shop began exploring new media in earnest. McCormack started the Dipnote blog, which some foreign service veterans predicted would fail, given the private and stuffy nature of diplomacy.
The site endured under Rice. Clinton has retooled Dipnote with a Twitter feed and a broader range of posts from diplomats.
It's more than just window dressing. This past week, diplomats used Twitter to "tweet" down false rumors they feared might lead to a siege on the U.S. Embassy in Madagascar.
On her first two foreign trips, to Asia and then the Middle East and Europe, local bloggers were "embedded" with the traveling press corps, broadening the audience for Clinton's official meetings and public appearances, which often produce more personal than policy questions.
On her question site, Clinton has responded to a varied questions, from "Should the U.S. engage in direct dialogue with Hamas?" to "How did you like meeting the Japanese students?"
By the end of Clinton's trip to the Mideast, her "text the secretary" feature had received nearly 2,000 text messages. On both trips, Clinton also participated in Webcasts. One in Beijing on climate change generated more than 10.2 million page views, more than 50,000 comments and 7,000 questions, according to the statistics.
Clinton's staff say they plan to venture further into the realm of social networking, an animated online world called Second Life, and cell phone technology. The department hopes to follow through on a Bush administration organized project that brought together Facebook, Google, Howcast, YouTube, AT&T, MTV, Columbia Law School, Access360Media and Gen-Next for an Alliance of Youth Movements summit.
It also wants to expand on X-Life, a mobile phone game launched in February that is aimed at helping youth in the Middle East learn English and teaching them about American history, culture and values.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Baghdad envoy nominee faces first Senate hurdle
March 25
Veteran diplomat Christopher Hill, President Barack Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Iraq, is expected to pass the first Senate hurdle to confirmation. But he faces a fight from some Republicans who wonder whether his lack of experience in the Middle East makes him unsuitable.
Hill is to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. The panel's Democratic chairman and its ranking Republican both support Hill's nomination, which is probably headed to the full Senate for a vote.
The crunch probably will come on the floor. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has indicated he may use his prerogative to hold up the nomination once it reaches the floor, although it's not clear that his and other objections would prevail.
Hill is best known for his role in the Bush administration as chief U.S. negotiator in nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea. He has experience in the Balkans but never served in the Middle East; he speaks Polish, Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian.
"I have every confidence that Ambassador Hill is the right person to represent the United States in Baghdad," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the committee chairman, said Tuesday.
"President Obama has chosen one of our very best to help bring lasting peace to Iraq," Kerry added. He predicted that "those of my colleagues who may not yet be familiar with his service to the nation will be as impressed by his skill and dedication as I have been."
Hill's nomination has been in doubt since several Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, declared that Hill lacks Middle East diplomatic credentials. They urged Obama to reconsider the nomination.
Brownback has been the most outspoken Hill opponent. He and Hill have a long-running dispute over how to handle human rights abuses by the North Koreans.
But the political tide appeared to swing back in Hill's favor last week when Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a widely respected voice on foreign policy matters, threw his public support behind the nominee.
The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad is at the center of a complex campaign to nudge the Iraqis toward greater stability as they prepare for national elections in December and U.S. troops begin to depart in large numbers.
Six years after the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq is at a delicate stage of an attempted transition from open warfare to the beginning of political reconciliation and recovery.
Lugar said in a statement prepared for delivery at Wednesday's hearing that Hill's experience in handling the North Korean nuclear issue as a regional matter involving Japan, South Korea, China and Russia could serve him well in Iraq. Lugar said success in Iraq will increasingly depend on diplomatic factors such as efforts to cultivate more regional cooperation with Iraq — including with neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Jordan.
Lugar praised Hill for "outstanding diplomatic and managerial skills" and innovative and meticulous work.
The recently departed U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, was among the State Department's most seasoned and respected Arab specialists. He was ambassador to Pakistan before arriving in Baghdad in March 2007. He also had served in Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon. He was widely credited with creating an unusually effective partnership with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who has since been promoted to chief of U.S. Central Command. Crocker has retired.
See also:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Clinton and Lavrov hail new U.S.-Russia approach
Sue Pleming
Reuters
March 6
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hailed as wonderful his relationship with Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Secretary of State praised a new start in U.S.-Russian ties after their first one-on-one meeting.
They also saw the funny side over a language error when Clinton presented Lavrov with a box containing a red "reset button" as a symbol of better relations, which had sunk to their worst since the Cold War under George W. Bush's presidency.
The button was marked "Peregruzka" and Clinton joked to Lavrov: "We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?"
"You got it wrong," said Lavrov, smiling as they pushed the reset button together before dinner at a Geneva hotel on Friday.
He told Clinton "Peregruzka" meant "overcharge", to which Clinton replied: "We won't let you do that to us."
The meeting did not produce major announcements but U.S. officials said they hoped the positive tone would carry through when President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meet later this month.
Clinton was cautiously upbeat, saying there needed to be trust and more predictability to the relationship.
"It was, Sergei, a good beginning," Clinton said at her first joint news conference with Lavrov, where the two looked relaxed in comparison to often tense public appearances when Clinton's predecessor Condoleezza Rice was in office.
"I hope Hillary will agree with me, I venture to say, we have a wonderful personal relationship," said Lavrov.
In the past few years, the U.S.-Russian relationship had focused more on differences than areas of cooperation, with disputes ranging from a proposed U.S. missile shield to Moscow's invasion of Georgia and human rights concerns.
"Good atmospherics"
A senior U.S. official described "good atmospherics" over the dinner of vegetable soup, grilled fish and chocolate dessert, and said Clinton and Lavrov sought areas where they could work together.
Differences were obvious -- from Kosovo's independence, which Lavrov called illegal, to Georgia and strong concerns over Russia's plans to sell missile technology to Iran.
One result was a decision to launch a plan to renegotiate the START strategic arms treaty, which is aimed at reducing nuclear weapons, by the end of the year.
There were also hints of a compromise brewing on a U.S.-proposed missile defence system in Europe that Washington says is designed to protect Europe and its allies from any threat from Iran.
Moscow wants to see what the United States will do with the previous Bush administration's plans to station systems in NATO allies Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia says this threatens its security.
The senior U.S. official, who declined to be named, said the United States wanted to have serious discussions with Russia on the issue and had made this clear to Lavrov.
"One of the things we looked at is how we might use the assets that each of us have, while working with our European partners," said the official, indicating there might be some new proposals in the offing.
The Obama administration has increasingly pointed out to Russia that if the threat from Iran can be eliminated then the need for the missile shield could diminish.
U.S. officials, some of whom were around when Bush was president, said they noticed a marked change in Lavrov's tone at the Geneva meeting and that he appeared more relaxed.
At one point in the news conference, he joked there was one agreement they had reached and that was over how "resetting" the new relationship should sound in both Russian and English.
See also:
FOX NEWS - Clinton Rewrites History in Front of Puzzled Europeans
Deutsche Welle's blogs - Clinton's Concept of European Democracy
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Top US diplomat in China - mixed reactions
Hillary arrived in China, an occasion for the communist regime to flex its muscles against the dissidents. The rights issue was avoided in the public statemets, the agenda focusing mostly on economic aspects of the bilateral cooperation.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Frenetic Clinton hits Asia running
Matthew Lee
AP
February 20
Dashing through a kaleidoscopic tour of the far East in her first outing as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is back in full campaign mode.
But instead of selling herself as presidential candidate, Clinton is pitching the still-emerging foreign policy of her former rival, President Barack Obama.
While cautiously projecting Obama's careful diplomatic stances in her official meetings with diplomats and foreign leaders, Clinton has unleashed the ebullient public persona she showed in the final giddy stages of her unsuccessful 2008 campaign.
Clinton has appeared unabashedly delighted soaking up affectionate, sometimes gushing reactions that she evoked among foreign officials and onlookers.
At the Jakarta airport in Indonesia, she beamed as she was serenaded by rows of singing, swaying schoolchildren. Later, she visited the headquarters of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, waving and smiling broadly when hundreds of employees chanted "Hee-ler-ry," Hee-ler-ry" as she entered.
The bloc's secretary general, Surin Pitsuwan, appeared smitten and spoke in glowing terms about the former first lady, presenting her with an arrangement of 32 yellow flowers.
The tone of Clinton's diplomatic charm offensive was a significant departure from the traditional approach of some previous secretaries of state, who were on the road a great deal but tended to be more comfortable in private settings than out in public.
Her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, an academic, was far more reserved and less effusive, while Colin Powell, a retired general and President George W. Bush's first secretary of state, was a portrait in stoic, genteel statesmanship.
But midway through her weeklong tour of Asia, it is clear Clinton has brought the urgent showmanship of an election season politician to the patient practice of diplomacy.
She has adopted a grueling public schedule with gusto.
In visits to Japan, Indonesia and South Korea — China is still to come — Clinton has kept busy late until night, seemingly unaffected by jet lag as she crams in official meetings, local media appearances and visits to cultural sites, such as the venerable Meiji shrine in Tokyo.
Some of her appearances have mirrored the countless town halls of her campaign days. But instead of gymnasiums crowded with American voters, Clinton showed up at college auditoriums in Tokyo and South Korea, plying audiences with anecdotes and fielding questions on topics from motherhood to politics.
"Wow, I feel more like an advice columnist than a secretary of state today," she said to loud laughter when asked about the subject of love by one of several thousand students who gathered to hear her speak at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.
"We could be here for hours!" she said in response to the next questioner who asked Clinton to describe her relationship with her daughter Chelsea.
She has waded into crowds despite nervous glances from her security detail, worked rope lines and happily taken time to pose for photos with pretty much anyone who has gotten close enough to ask for one.
And the enthusiastic responses, much like those she got at rallies on the campaign trail, seem to have energized her while the grueling pace has exhausted her traveling staff and local embassy employees, not to mention the reporters accompanying her on the trip.
There have been so many news conferences and interviews that the State Department's efficient team of transcribers has been overwhelmed and unable to produce transcripts of her appearances, sometimes for days.
Yet Clinton is clearly relishing the limelight, and not even natural disasters can stop her.
On her first morning abroad as America's top diplomat, Clinton was jolted awake by one of Japan's frequent minor earthquakes.
"It woke me up. It was like I was in one of those hotel vibrating beds and accidentally dropped in some quarters," she said, recalling the shaking in her 10th floor suite that roused her in Tokyo's pre-dawn hours on Tuesday after the long flight from Washington.
The early wake-up call did not, however, slow her down. That day, Clinton had at least 12 official events, beginning at the Shinto shrine at 8 a.m. and ending with a 9 p.m. post-dinner meeting with Japan's main opposition leader.
In between, she greeted staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, met the Japanese foreign and defense ministers, signed a military agreement, held a news conference, had tea with Empress Michiko, gave interviews to three television networks and several Japanese newspapers, spoke to university students at a town hall meeting and ate dinner with the prime minister.
Arriving in Jakarta the next afternoon after a seven-and-half hour flight, Clinton crammed in what might normally be an entire day's worth of meetings in the remaining daylight and evening. Then, she had dinner with a group of civic leaders.
Early the next morning, she was at it again, appearing on Indonesia's most popular youth television program, an MTV-style show, telling the audience about her surprise when Obama asked her to become secretary of state, opining about her favorite bands and joking about her inability to sing.
See also:
Korea Times - Clinton's warnings for North Korea and Hillary got her Korean name
Hillary Clinton's remarks on the Asia-US relations, February 13
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
8.000 Marines relocate from Okinawa
to Guam.
There are currently about 13,000 Marines stationed on Okinawa, and 23,000 U.S. troops there overall. They are part of about 50,000 U.S. troops deployed in Japan under a post-World War II mutual security pact.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Emerging Obama Foreign Policy
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is making her first official overseas visit, with scheduled stops in Tokyo; Jakarta, Indonesia; Seoul, South Korea; and Beijing. The choice of Asia as her first destination is intended to signal a more global focus for U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, as opposed to the heavy emphasis on the Middle East and South Asia seen in the last years of the Bush administration. It also represents the kickoff of an ambitious travel plan that will see Clinton visiting numerous countries across the globe in a bid to project the image of a more cooperative U.S. administration.
Clinton’s Asian expedition is not the first overseas visit by a key member of the new administration. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where he faced the Russians. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell has finished his first trip to his area of responsibility, and is already planning a return visit to the Middle East. And Richard Holbrooke, special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has visited both South Asian countries in addition to making a “listening” stop in India.
The Emergence of a New Foreign Policy
As with any new U.S. presidency, there will be a period of reshaping policy, of setting priorities, and of balancing internal differences within the Obama administration. The various individuals and visits cataloged above in part reflect the Obama administration’s emerging foreign policy.
A two-pronged Obama foreign policy approach is unfolding. The first prong, relating to the general tenor of foreign relations, involves a modern application of the “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach. The second prong, relating to the distribution of power within the administration, involves a centralization of foreign policy centering on a stronger and expanded National Security Council (NSC) and relies on special envoys for crisis areas, leaving the secretary of state to shape foreign perceptions rather than policy.
The Obama administration faced mixed expectations as it came into office. Perhaps the most far-reaching expectation on the international front was the idea that the Obama administration would somehow be the antithesis of the previous Bush administration. Whereas Bush often was portrayed as a unilateralist “cowboy,” constantly confronting others and never listening to allies (much less competitors), it was thought that Obama somehow would remake America into a nation that withheld its military power and instead confronted international relations via consultations and cooperation. In essence, the Bush administration was seen as aggressive and unwilling to listen, while an Obama administration was expected to be more easily shaped and manipulated.
Anticipation of a weaker administration created a challenge for Obama from the start. While many of his supporters saw him as the anti-Bush, the new president had no intention of shifting America to a second-tier position or making the United States isolationist. Obama’s focus on reducing U.S. forces in Iraq and the discussions during Clinton’s confirmation hearing of reducing the military’s role in reconstruction operations did not reflect an anti-military bias or even new ideas, but something Defense Secretary Robert Gates had advocated for under former U.S. President George W. Bush. A reshaping of the U.S. military will in fact take place over the course of Obama’s term in office. But the decision to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq is not unique to this administration; it is merely a recognition of the reality of the limitations of military resources.
Diplomacy and Military Power
The new administration has applied this decision as the basis of a strategy to refocus the military on its core competencies and rebuild the military’s strength and readiness, using that as the strong and stable framework from which to pursue an apparently more cooperative foreign policy. U.S. diplomatic power needs a strong military, and operations in Iraq have drained U.S. military power — something highlighted by the U.S. inability to act on its policies when the Russians moved in on Georgia.
It is not only U.S. political power that is reinforced by military power, but U.S. economic strength as well. Control of the world’s sea-lanes — and increasingly, control of outer space — is what ensures the security of U.S. economic links abroad. In theory, the United States can thus interdict competitors’ supply lines and economic ties while protecting its own.
Despite globalization and greater economic ties, physical power still remains the strongest backer to diplomacy. Ideology alone will not change the world, much less the actions of so-called rogue states or even pirates along the Somali coast. The first principal of Obama’s foreign policy, then, will be making sure it has big stick to carry, one freed from long-term reconstruction commitments or seemingly intractable situations such as Iraq. Only with an available and effective military can one afford to speak softly without being trod upon.
Rebuilding U.S. military readiness and strength is not going to be easy. Iraq and Afghanistan remain to be taken care of, and there are years of heavy activity and at times declining recruitment to recover from. While there are substantial benefits to a battle-hardened military accustomed to a high deployment tempo, this also has its costs — reset costs will be high. A very real domestic military shake-up looms on the one- to two-year horizon in order to bring the Pentagon back into line with fiscal and procurement realities, coupled with concerns about midlevel officer retention. But the Pentagon’s thinking and strategic guidance already have moved toward cooperative security and toward working more closely with allies and partners to stabilize and manage the global security environment, with an emphasis on requiring foreign participation and burden-sharing.
A Greater Security Role for Allies and a Centralized Foreign Policy
Obama will also work on managing the U.S. image abroad. Opposition to Bush and opposition to the war in Iraq often became synonymous internationally, evolving intentionally or otherwise into broader anti-war and anti-military sentiments. Rebuilding the military’s image internationally will not happen overnight. Part of the process will involve using the sense of change inherent in any new U.S. administration to push allies and others to take on a greater role in global security.
In Asia, for example, Clinton will call on Tokyo and Seoul to step up operations in Afghanistan, particularly in reconstruction and development efforts. But Tokyo and Seoul also will be called on to take a greater role in regional security — Seoul on the Korean Peninsula and Tokyo as a more active military ally overall. The same message will be sent to Europe and elsewhere: If you want a multilateral United States, you will have to take up the slack and participate in multilateral operations. The multilateral mantra will not be one in which the United States does what others say, but rather one in which the United States holds others to the task. In the end, this will reduce U.S. commitments abroad, allowing the military to refocus on its core competencies and rebuild its strength.
A strong military thus forms the foundation of any foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy approach is largely centralized in a bid for a wider approach. Taking China as an example, for the last half-dozen years, U.S. policy on China was based almost entirely on economics. The U.S. Treasury Department took the lead in China relations, while other issues — everything from Chinese military developments to Beijing’s growing presence in Africa and Latin America to human rights — took a back seat. While the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (or something similar) will remain a major pillar of U.S.-China relations under Obama, equally important parallel tracks will focus on military and security issues, nontraditional threats, politics and human rights. This multifaceted approach will require close co operation among numerous departments and divisions to avoid the chaos seen in things like U.S. policy on North Korea.
This coordination will take place in an expanded NSC, one that brings in the economic elements on equal footing with security and political concerns. Combined with the appointment of special envoys for critical regions, this is intended to ensure a more unified and complete approach to foreign policy. This way, Obama retains oversight over policy, while his erstwhile rival Clinton is just one voice at the table. The State Department’s role thus becomes more about image management and development.
Accordingly, Clinton’s foreign travels are less about shaping foreign policy than shaping foreign images of the United States. She is demonstrating the new consultative nature of the administration by going everywhere and listening to everyone. Meanwhile, the hard-hitting foreign policy initiatives go to the special envoys, who can dedicate their time and energy to just one topic. Holbrooke got South Asia, Mitchell got the Middle East, and there are indications that managing overall China strategy will fall to Biden, at least in the near term.
Other special envoys and special representatives might emerge, some technically reporting through the State Department, others to other departments, but all effectively reporting back to the NSC and the president. In theory, this will mitigate the kind of bickering between the State Department and NSC that characterized Bush’s first term (a concern hardly limited to the most recent ex-president). And to keep it busy, the State Department has been tasked with rebuilding the U.S. Agency for International Development or an equivalent program for taking reconstruction and development programs, slowly freeing the military from the reconstruction business.
As Clinton heads to Asia, then, the expectations of Asian allies and China of a newfound American appreciation for the Far East might be a bit misplaced. Certainly, this is the first time in a long while that a secretary of state has visited Asia before Europe. But given the role of the vice president and the special envoys, the visit might not reflect policy priorities so much as a desire to ensure that all regions get visits. Clinton’s agenda in each country might not offer an entirely accurate reading of U.S. policy initiatives for the region, either, as much of the policy is still up for review, and her primary responsibility is to demonstrate a new and more interactive face of American foreign policy.
Clinton’s Asia visit is significant largely because it highlights a piece of the evolving Obama foreign policy — a policy that remains centralized under the president via the NSC, and that uses dedicated special envoys and representatives to focus on key trouble spots (and perhaps to avoid some of the interagency bickering that can limit the agencies’ freedom to maneuver). Most importantly, this policy at its core looks to rebuild the sense and reality of American military strength through disengaging from apparently intractable situations, focusing on core competencies rather than reconstruction or nation-building, and calling on allies to take up the slack in security responsibilities. This is what is shaping the first priority for the Obama administration: withdrawal from Iraq not just to demonstrate a different approach than the last president, but also to ensure that the military is ready for use elsewhere.
Friday, February 13, 2009
South Korea on Alert as Clinton Prepares Trip to Region
| |
Voice of America
South Korean anti-missile defense systems are on alert, bracing for a possible North Korean test of a long-range missile capable of hitting the western United States.
South Korean Prime Minister Han Seung-soo told lawmakers Friday the country is closely monitoring North Korean movements and that it will be ready for any situation.
A South Korean newspaper reported Friday, Pyongyang is assembling the Taepodong-2 missile at a launch site along the North Korea's east coast.
The newspaper quotes sources saying the missile could be test-fired by the end of the month to coincide with the anniversary of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's inauguration.
The rising tensions come as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to visit the region.
She is scheduled to give a major foreign policy address in New York Friday, before arriving in Asia Sunday for her first overseas trip as the top U.S. diplomat.
The tour will take Clinton to Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China and State Department officials say she will discuss North Korea's nuclear program.
Clinton has called North Korea's recent behavior unacceptable.
But U.S. officials say it is in North Korea's power to bring about a positive outcome by keeping its commitments to disable nuclear facilities and verify information about its nuclear activities.
Clinton will be traveling to the region with the chief U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program, Christopher Hill, who has been nominated as the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
The State Department has not confirmed media reports that a former ambassador to South Korea, Stephen Bosworth, will be named as Hill's replacement. Bosworth just returned from a five-day visit to North Korea, where he says officials told him they are willing to talk to the Obama administration.
South Korean anti-missile defense systems are on alert, bracing for a possible North Korean test of a long-range missile capable of hitting the western United States.
South Korean Prime Minister Han Seung-soo told lawmakers Friday the country is closely monitoring North Korean movements and that it will be ready for any situation.
A South Korean newspaper reported Friday, Pyongyang is assembling the Taepodong-2 missile at a launch site along the North Korea's east coast.
The newspaper quotes sources saying the missile could be test-fired by the end of the month to coincide with the anniversary of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's inauguration.
 |
| US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton |
She is scheduled to give a major foreign policy address in New York Friday, before arriving in Asia Sunday for her first overseas trip as the top U.S. diplomat.
The tour will take Clinton to Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China and State Department officials say she will discuss North Korea's nuclear program.
Clinton has called North Korea's recent behavior unacceptable.
But U.S. officials say it is in North Korea's power to bring about a positive outcome by keeping its commitments to disable nuclear facilities and verify information about its nuclear activities.
Clinton will be traveling to the region with the chief U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program, Christopher Hill, who has been nominated as the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
The State Department has not confirmed media reports that a former ambassador to South Korea, Stephen Bosworth, will be named as Hill's replacement. Bosworth just returned from a five-day visit to North Korea, where he says officials told him they are willing to talk to the Obama administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)