TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | China

Obama on the World Stage

By on 01 April 2009
Photobucket

Tea with the Queen of England, getting ready for tomorrow’s one-day G-20 meeting, amidst protesters, and meetings with President Putin, and dialogue with China on economic development. A lot going on in the world, as President Obama has the most important trip of his presidency so far.

I’ll be out this afternoon, so consider this an April Fool free for all. Speaking of April Fool’s day, could the Republicans have chosen a more appropriate day to announce their tax cuts for the rich budget? Joke’s on them.

And guess what? Newt Gingrich is in again. Grand Old Party of the Past with another yesteryear message. Seems Newt is doing a preemptive political strike against Mrs. Palin. It’s priceless, because if you have to say she’s not the leader, maybe you’re actually worried she is. From The Hill:

“I think that she is going to be a significant player,” said Gingrich during an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation”. “But she’s going to be one of 20 or 30 significant players. She’s not going to be the de facto leader.”

Let the infighting continue.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Word About the Blog

By on 20 March 2009
Photobucket

Now that I’m finally settled in D.C., I’d like to talk about what’s going on around here, which actually started after the primaries last year. Big changes, good changes, with more to come. There has been a change in the community, too, and that’s not over either.

First, I made a risky decision to focus on foreign policy, one of my passions, in addition to the usual fare of political analysis, my main gig. It was a jolt for some, especially after the primary season, because the wonky side of foreign policy isn’t as easily digested as the sport of campaign politics. But it’s a choice I made taking me further down a road I’ve been traveling through serious study for a very long time, long before I made it a central focus of my writing around here, though I do mix it up. This will continue and broaden, which won’t be for everyone, but it’s following my bliss, so there you have it.

Secondly, the community has shifted from last year in a dramatic way. We all know why, but considering Clinton is Secretary of State, it’s all good in my opinion. The newcomers are terrific, as was the big community we had going last year, as are the people who have been following me for over a decade.

However, some are struggling and want to rekindle the community of last year, bemoaning the tight group that finds consensus here in the comments at times. It’s intimidating for people who aren’t part of the die hard Obama chorus, which has naturally broadened since Barack Obama became president. So let me make something clear. This is a site for all opinions and political stripes, though I don’t have any patience for commenters who claim Dick Cheney is a hero, because it doesn’t foster serious debate, but is meant to bait people. That said, dissenters are welcome. In fact, I encourage you. We need more of it around here.

The one thing that is really odd is the lack of courage to engage the cliques that rise up inside the comment section, which cause it to be a bit insular. I’m getting emails about how hard it is to comment because of it. Buck up. Take a deep breath and engage. Disagree. Debate. Have a rhetorical rumble. Name calling is just that, so jump in and fight back. I can’t do this for you.

I’ve been writing on the web since 1996, so I’ve been through a lot of site incarnations. This move is a big one and it’s quite an adventure. I value everyone who stops by here every day, believe me. I learn from your debate when you choose to mix it up. I’d like to see more of it.

Also, I hope to bring the podcast back soon, though it will be different too. One thing it isn’t is the blog. Radio is entertainment; that is if you want to stay or get back on the air, though in this economy that is the biggest long shot of all. I don’t care, because I love doing radio, so I’ll do it however I can. But it’s a whole different thing than the blog, except for when I’m interviewing people on foreign policy, which I did a lot when my show was streamed live. No date, but we’ll get it going in the not too distant future.

So, to sum it up, yes, the blog has changed. It’s not for everyone, but I’m writing about what I find important. The rest will take care of itself.

Moving on… I’ll be out for a while today, so enjoy your Friday. And thanks for making this one of your stops. It means the world to me. My work is not a whim. It’s not just this blog or radio. It’s a passion I’ve had for many years to study, learn and then change my little part of the universe while exploring ideas that matter. Sharing it with those who are interested, one reader, one listener at a time.

Oh, and Happy Nowruz! President Obama has a message (available with Persian caption) for the Iranians. I second it. But I did get a chuckle imagining George W. Bush trying to do something like it, though the very effort will drive the wingnuts mad. Expect another crying fit from Glenn Beck.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

Busy China

By on 17 March 2009

Photobucket

James Fallows presents one view of China in the Atlantic that ties into what’s going on right now.

Idle factories, moored container ships, widespread bankruptcies, massive migration back to the hinterlands, strangely clean air—the signs of depression are everywhere in China. Because it makes so many of the goods the world isn’t buying now, China stands to be worse hit than the rest of the world —just as America was during the Depression, when it was the world’s sweatshop. But like America then, China will use tough times to design innovative products that will get it the high profits and the high-value jobs Americans kept to themselves for decades. And that is very bad news for the United States, unless it uses tough times to reinvent itself, too. [...]

Segue to the Washington Post

…On Saturday, Iran announced that it had signed a $3.2 billion agreement with a Chinese consortium to develop an area beneath the Persian Gulf seabed that is believed to hold about 8 percent of the world’s reserves of natural gas.

Even as global financial flows have slowed sharply overall, China has dramatically stepped up its outbound investment. In 2008, its overseas mergers and acquisitions were worth $52.1 billion — a record, according to the research firm Dealogic. In January and February of this year, Chinese companies invested $16.3 billion abroad, meaning that if the pace holds, the total for 2009 could be nearly double last year’s.

Worldwide, the value of mergers and acquisitions transactions so far this year has dropped 35 percent to $384 billion. By comparison, the United States had $186.2 billion in outbound mergers and acquisitions in 2008 and Japan had $74.3 billion.

China’s state-run media outlets are calling the acquisition spree an opportunity that comes once in a hundred years, and analysts are drawing parallels to 1980s Japan.

“That China started investing or acquiring some overseas mineral resources companies with relatively low prices during the global economic crisis is quite a normal practice. Japan did the same thing in its prime development period, too,” said Xu Xiangchun, consulting director for Mysteel.com, a market research and analysis firm.

It’s not just Chinese corporations that are taking advantage of the economic crisis to help others while helping themselves.

The Chinese government also has come to the rescue of ailing countries, such as Jamaica and Pakistan, that it wants as allies, extending generous loans. Even Chinese consumers are taking their money abroad. In a shopping trip last month organized by an online real estate brokerage, a group of 50 individual investors from China traveled to New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco to purchase homes at prices that have crashed since the subprime crisis. [...]

China’s very busy. Remains to be seen what President Obama’s response will be.

“… the path embarked on by China is one of peaceful development…” – Wen Jiabao

“To be honest, we are a little bit worried,” Wen said, speaking at the closing press conference of China’s annual legislative session. “We have loaned huge amounts of money to the United States, so of course, we have to be concerned. . . . We hope the United States honors its word and ensures the safety of Chinese assets.” – LA Times

Political editorial art, by Paul Szep, used by permission.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Tibet and 9/11, a Twofer Against Freeman

By on 10 March 2009

–updated–

50 year anniversay Tibetan uprising

The Washington Times gets at Chas Freeman today by way of the 50th anniversary of the Tibet uprising, which led to the Dali Lami fleeing into exile (he was 23 at the time). –Photo by REUTERS–

However, like all who are on the warpath against Freeman, it doesn’t take them long to pivot to 9/11, the favorite axis point for the swiftboaters.

[...] Freeman is employing a classic “blame America” formula, saying the Chinese repression in Tibet is caused by the fact that concerned humanitarians in the West have drawn attention to it. He took a similar line in assessing the cause of the 9/11 attacks, as he stated in 2005: “What 9/11 showed is that if we bomb people, they bomb back.” …

Again, if there is found to be any improprieties in Mr. Freeman’s financial dealings that’s a relevant issue. But we should all wait until the vetting is complete before running this man out of the foreign policy arena.

Additionally, conservatives shouldn’t try to kid us, because there is a thread that runs through all the critiques of Mr. Freeman that has little or nothing to do with the financial aspects being looked into, as they are thrown into the mix as an aside so that Freeman’s critics can get to the 9/11 nugget, which Republicans have been using for political, much to their embarrassment, since 9/12.

The other fundamental problem with the collective conservative cacophony targeting Mr. Freeman is that this neocon swiftboating corp obviously doesn’t understand what realist means in foreign policy terms. Perhaps they should read carefully about this vein of national security theory, including Charles Pena, someone who has posted on this blog, and who I have heard speak. Just one aspect is its stark view of the world, as some see it, including myself at times, seen through the eyes of seasoned experts who believe that if U.S. interests are not primarily served then there is no reason whatsoever for any intervention or, as some would put it, interference. (Some conveniently become cafeteria realists on the Afghanistan front, saying that country doesn’t have any strategic relevance to the U.S., forgetting that any potential failed state next to Pakistan is most certainly a strategic importance to us. How we save Pakistan without investing in Afghanistan no one ever explains.) Of course, this explanation is only the top of the realist strategy, which can be drilled down to find many sobering tenets of a philosophy that is at its core as I see it, cut and dried and unemotional. That it’s also usually delivered in blunt fashion rarely settles easily with the politically charged and special interest driven foreign policy so often representative of American national security strategy, especially during the Bush-Cheney years.

You may not agree with Mr. Freeman every time, but his unvarnished analysis is something we should want to get to President Obama, because he is a realist rarity. To reiterate, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman reports to DNI Dennis Blair, though he may accompany his boss to give briefings to the President. That Freeman will be shaping analysis is why neocons are worried, because he really is the embodiment of change.

Besides, it’s not like Mr. Freeman will be making the final decision on any foreign policy issue. The guy doing that is named Barack.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Swiftboating Chas Freeman, The Ongoing Saga

By on 09 March 2009

So far, there hasn’t been much out of the Obama administration, though Blair’s office did offer this response:

Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair — who picked Freeman — says “Director Blair selected Ambassador Freeman because he thought he would be the best person for the job. He is a distinguished public servant with a wealth of expertise in defense, diplomacy and intelligence — all skills that are necessary to producing first rate assessments.”

If only the swiftboaters after Chas Freeman’s hide read Roger Cohen.

The other bonus is going after President Obama on a key Middle East issue, which began with Hillary Clinton landing in Sharm El-Sheikh, announcing $1 billion worth of aid to Gaza. The whiff of honest broker has Republicans in an uproar, with Chas Freeman seen as the perfect conduit.

Now Republicans are upping the price for the President’s pick for National Intelligence Council chairman, via Ben Smith, who has the full letter being sent by Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee, first reported by Greg Sargent. The neocons are taking their swiftboating to the next level. Here’s the threat:

… At a time when the analytic community is continuing to struggle with reforming itself and when U.S. leaders, from the President to Members of Congress, have called for a depoliticization of intelligence, we believe this appointment sends the wrong message. The NIC, as the highest intelligence entity providing top level analysis, must represent the clearest level of analytic expertise, an expertise the rest of the government and the public must be assured is free from policy bias. Given our concerns about Mr. Freeman’s lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity, we intend to devote even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership.

Former Bush Republicans talking about intelligent “oversight” should be accompanied with a tape of the greatest intel blunders of the Bush-Cheney years.

Stunning evaluation to talking about Mr. Freeman’s “lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity.” You can’t read minds, but astute political analysis has to come down on the side of deducing that the Republicans are worried that Israel will get the strong end of the stick from Chas Freeman.

Jeffrey Goldberg moves away from 9/11, thankfully, to accuse Mr. Freeman of “clientitis.”

What I’m suggesting is that Freeman suffers from clientitis, which is a disease sometimes seen in former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia (among other places).

What do you call people who have the alternate affliction regarding Israel? Or does this only play one way?

As for China, James Fallows has the consensus on Freeman, which is good.

What we’re seeing is a full court press by the swiftboaters, some normally astute individuals, who have lost their collective wits over the appointment of Chas Freeman, someone who has a distinct ability to see and say what many people pushing for equilibrium have thought for a very long time. That is that America’s one-sided view of the Middle East, which usually weighs in on Israel’s side, which is fine when she is right, but counterproductive for everyone when she is not, needs a counterbalance from someone who isn’t afraid of taking an opposing position to the standard line that Israel can do no wrong. Some would call it courage, which is in short supply when tough analysis is needed.

It all rides on the inspector general report. After all, Chas Freeman doesn’t require Senate confirmation so President Obama doesn’t need Republican approval, or any input from the unhinged neocon crowd.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Five Chinese Vessels Harass US Ship in International Waters

By on 09 March 2009
Photobucket

According to AP reporting, Chinese ships, five according to the DoD, “shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close” to the USNS Intrepid (pictured here). The U.S. government intends to deliver a protest to the military attache in Beijing on Monday, but has already protested to the Foreign Ministry in China, and the Chinese embassy.

From the Defense Department:

The incident began as the ships surrounded the Impeccable and two craft closed to within 50 feet, Whitman said. The Chinese ships included a Chinese navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries patrol vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers.

Crewmen aboard the Impeccable used fire hoses to spray one of the vessels as a protective measure. The Chinese crewmembers disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet.

The Chinese vessels dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in the Impeccable’s path, and two of the ships stopped directly in the U.S. vessel’s path, forcing it to stop.

Whitman said the Chinese used poles in an attempt to snag the Impeccable’s towed acoustic array sonars. Impeccable’s master used bridge-to-bridge radio circuits to inform the Chinese ships in a friendly manner that it was leaving the area and requested a safe path to navigate.

“These are dangerous close maneuvers that these vessels engaged in,” Whitman said.

It’s not the first time the Chinese have got aggressive in international waters:

The incident Sunday followed a series of provocatives manuevers by Chinese ships and planes aimed at two U.S. Navy surveiilance ships:

- March 7: A PRC intelligence collection ship made a bridge to bridge call to the USNS Impeccable, calling their operations illegal and telling them to leave the area or “suffer the consequences”
- March 5: a Chinese frigate approached the USNS Impeccable, crossing its bow within about 100 yards; about 2 hours later, a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducted 11 fly-bys at a low altitude (about 600 yards)
- March 4: a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high intensity spotlight to harass an ocean surveillance ship, the USNS Victorious, shining it on the ship and at the crew (the ship was operating about 125 nautical miles off the coast of China); the ship then crossed the Victorious’ bow in darkness without warning; finally, a Chinese Y-12 surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys at a low altitude (about 400 feet).

Robert Gibbs was asked about the incident in today’s press briefing and had a prepared response ready:

Q: Mr. Gibbs, two questions. First, Chinese vessels have been harassing U.S. ships with increasing aggressiveness. I know that the Chinese defense attaché went to the Pentagon, or is at the Pentagon right now, to review a complaint, but is the President taking any other action regarding the Chinese government, to tell them to stop doing this?

MR. GIBBS: I know that our embassy in both Beijing and here protested the actions of the Chinese ships that have been reported. Our ships obviously operate fairly regularly in international waters where these incidents took place. We’re going to continue to operate in those international waters, and we expect the Chinese to observe international law around them.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Political Playground

By on 05 March 2009

–updated–

Photobucket

Rep. John Beohner offers today’s neck deep irony alert. This coming from a boot licking Bush Republican:

[...] Something is wrong when the discourse in Washington is more focused on a political sideshow than, say, the fact that Congress is attempting to terminate a school choice program that serves thousands of needy children in the District of Columbia, or the impact of a presidential budget that raises taxes on millions of Americans during a recession. When it comes to jobs, the budget, children’s health care and other issues, House Republicans have offered what we believe are better solutions to the problems facing middle-class families and small businesses. We will continue to do so in the coming months and hope that White House political operatives abandon their cynical “change the subject” strategy by joining us.

I’ve been up before dawn (helping direct the final unloading of our moving truck), but even I can smell the dead political stench of the rubber stamping Bush Congress wafting up from Boehner’s words today. It takes a lot of nerve for a Bush Republican to talk about the budget, but especially children’s health care. All that’s missing is the war in Iraq and we’d have full tilt alarms going off.

Moving to another subject, I have to confess a little disappointment. I agree with David Ignatius on the budget. I just don’t understand why President Obama isn’t threatening to take a veto pen to the pork fest masquerading as a “budget.” Teddy would have been the perfect guide, especially since so much of what the President’s done so far emulates F.D.R. It would have been a perfect political and message balance. It would have also sent a message of economic independence to a Congress that has been drunk on credit card euphoria for way too long. I’m not saying some of the so called “pork” isn’t necessary, but considering the price tag of health care, Teddy’s caution would have been a better guide. But it would have taken confrontation, which Barack Obama abhors.

But my favorite story today is the Obama girls’ new swing set (pictured above, via HuffPost). Who couldn’t use a little fun right now? Way to go, President Dad. Now how about providing the nation with one? Something not made in China or financed on credit through same.

UPDATE: Dear cynics, President Dad did a great thing by buying his daughters that swing set. It’s amazing that anyone thought I was being critical (see comments – and to emailers). As for buying us something that isn’t from China, the truth is that America buys on credit from the Chinese and our goods come from that country. That President Dad made a statement by not doing so was not lost, but that doesn’t mean the pork in the budget won’t come compliments more loans from the Chinese.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

For Secretary Clinton, Transparency and Candor Brings Criticism

By on 23 February 2009
Hillary's World

Secretary Clinton’s first overseas tour has gotten a lot of attention and deservedly so. In catching up with Clinton, because of being on the road moving from west coast to east, one of my favorite moments was when Clinton made a refueling stop that took some in the traveling press by surprise.

We made a standard refueling stop here, between Beijing and Alaska, but to the reporters’ surprise, hundreds of military personnel and their families had gathered here for a campaign-style event in one of the airport hangers. No one on the secretary’s team had told us this was planned.

[...] The message on the 20,000-mile trip, Clinton said, is “that United States is ready and eager to lead. We can’t solve all the problems ourselves. But the world can’t solve their problems without us.” Then Clinton plunged into crowd, shaking hands and posing for pictures. She had transformed a standard refueling stop into another opportunity for the selling of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

In China, Clinton made it clear that our two nations are inextricably linked: “Our economies are so intertwined… The Chinese know that in order to start exporting again to its biggest market . . . the United States has to take some drastic measures with the stimulus package. We have to incur more debt. The Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. “We are truly going to rise or fall together. …”

Subtle hint that reminds everyone America’s pocketbooks rev China’s engines.

But not everyone is happy about Clinton’s candor or her efforts to undo the Bush-Cheney double standard when it comes to reality, human rights and telling it like it is. You know, instead of talking in vapid streams of political gibberish that amount to a campaign with no intent to back it up, because “war on terror” policies make a mockery of diplomatic efforts. Of course I’m talking about the criticism coming Clinton’s way from human rights activists and others who have taken exception to her statements focusing on economic realities, instead of China’s appalling history of subverting human rights:

“But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.” – Secretary Clinton

Amnesty International USA quickly reacted, saying they are “shocked and extremely disappointed” by Clinton’s remarks.

“The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues,” he said.

“But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China,” he said.

Students for a Free Tibet said Clinton’s remarks sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time.

“The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda,” said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group.

This is just stupid and easy to say when you only have to think about one thing in a vacuum of reality.

As for Clinton’s dialogue, think Nixon going to China. Only he could do it back when. Only Clinton could do it and talk economics in the face of what we all know to be true.

First lady Hillary Clinton put herself on the map in China back in the 1990s in a speech that has become famous, the foundation of her foreign policy philosophy on human rights. Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t need nor deserve a lecture from the activist peanut gallery on China’s human rights or her commitment to calling them on it when the time is right.

But Clinton’s candor is drawing “mixed reviews,” according to the Post, though Craig Nelson’s comment not surprisingly is the one that nails the issue squarely.

“I think she clearly feels it’s necessary to induce realism and perspective to expectations and performance, and to tell the Chinese that Obama knows that we all need to work together, so she is determined not to let less centrally vital issues handicap that,” said Chris Nelson, who writes an influential newsletter on Asian policy.

That Clinton would state she knows what Beijing would say when approached about human rights in that country or in dealing with Tibet, especially as we come upon the 50th anniversary of the Tibet uprising, is realistic talk from a person who knows what she’s talking about.

“I think that to worry about something which is so self-evident is an impediment to clear thinking,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her. “And I don’t think it should be viewed as particularly extraordinary that someone in my position would say what’s obvious.”

No one, certainly not Secretary Clinton, is ignoring the human rights reality in China, a subject on which she’s made herself clear.

Anyone refusing to juxtapose our economic entanglements with China as being anything but central today misses that unless President Obama sets a firm foundation from the start with China, doing anything on human rights will be impossible.

Righteous activism oblivious to economic survival is rendered toothless, revealing myopia from having only one thing on your plate at a time.

Secretary Clinton has no such luxury.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Monday Morning Java Jolt: Clinton Heads to Asia

By on 16 February 2009

japan_clinton_asia_xkan104UPDATE: Clinton arrives in Japan.

Wake up and smell the coffee readers. Taylor is hitting the road for her cross country journey this morning and my goal is to keep you all informed while she’s on the road. Having just made a cross country road trip and move myself just about 4 months ago, I hope Taylor’s is as much fun and trouble-free as mine was.

As Taylor mentioned here yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Asia this week and her trip should give us plenty to talk about. Clinton is traveling to Asia where she will “seek to develop a strong coordinated response to the global financial crisis between the U.S. and Asia’s economic powers during her four-nation regional tour.”

Mrs. Clinton cited, in particular, China’s “robust stimulus plan” as the type of action the Obama administration is hoping to see from Asian nations in an effort to reenergize the global financial system.

“I will be discussing with [Asian countries] the approaches that they’ll be taking” to stimulate their economies “and seeking greater cooperation,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters aboard en route to Alaska from Washington. “The Chinese have a very robust stimulus plan…They are taking internal steps.”

Mrs. Clinton arrives in Tokyo Monday evening and will then travel to Indonesia, South Korea and China.

Clinton will be meeting with “religious readers, university students, and business leaders across the region” and she has “described her trip as primarily a listening tour to learn more about how Washington can develop partnerships to combat key economic, security or environmental issues.” Clinton said that “the information she gathers will feed into the Obama administration’s review of its Asia policy.”

“We have a very broad agenda to deal with when it comes to China,” Mrs. Clinton said. “This first trip will be intended to find a path forward.”

Mrs. Clinton said she’s raise human rights issues in China when she takes part in a town hall meeting in Beijing.

The timing of Clinton’s trip is impeccable given the news that Japan’s economy is tanking again, at the “fatest pace” since the 1970′s:

The sharp downturn is exposing the vulnerability of Japan’s export-driven economic recovery. The dismal figures also place Japan firmly among the worst-hit in the global crisis, dwarfing economic declines in the United States and Europe.

And speaking of the timing of Clinton’s trip to Asia, as Clinton was in flight to Tokyo, there was news that “North Korea was threatening to fire a missile.”

“The North Koreans have already agreed to dismantling,” she said. “We expect them to fulfill the obligations that they entered into.”

The secretary has warned North Korea “to avoid any provocative action and unhelpful rhetoric.”

Clinton said her trip will demonstrate a new U.S. commitment to work with Asian leaders on “problems that no one nation, including ours, can deal with alone.”

Clinton also promised to meet with families of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and ’80s.

She said, “We do want to press the North Koreans to be more forthcoming with information.”

Needless to say there should be plenty to talk about as we start of the week with a jolt of java and what appears to be the beginning of an interesting week for Secretary Clinton in Asia.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Into the Night and on to Dawn’s Early Light

By on 15 February 2009

Road music. There’s so much, starting with jazz first, Miles Davis, but on long road trips you simply have to have great rock. But then it always comes back to jazz, especially the instrumentals.

Secretary Clinton is in Asia, so there should be some great stuff coming from State while I’m on the road. You can follow what’s going on, as well as see terrific videos. Don’t hesitate to put Hillary items “In the News” for all to see. It’s her first big trip overseas.

The week begins knowing that President Obama prevailed to get his stimulus passed, which he will sign into law this week. It was ugly, but no president has gotten this type of major legislation passed so quickly. Of course, there’s two sides to that coin. For the sake of the country and the watching world, let’s hope it works.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

China’s Jintao and King Abdullah

By on 12 February 2009
china meets saudi arabia

Now that’s a foreign policy picture worth a thousand words. Marc Lynch framed it as signs of the “coming” new Middle East.

China’s President Hu Jintao meeting with King Abdullah. Oil’s the game.

Travelling with a large entourage of Chinese officials and executives, Hu was greeted at Riyadh airport by Saudi King Abdullah for a three-day visit which underscores the growing importance of the relationship between the world’s biggest oil exporter and its most populous country.

“Saudi Arabia is the biggest oil exporter to China. We value the role it plays and look forward to strengthening cooperation in this field,” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said earlier. [...]

But the meeting didn’t raise a blip on the national media meter. So I thought I’d at least mention it here.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Clinton to China

By on 05 February 2009

Hillary's World
This seems so fitting for her, especially for anyone who remembers her speech when she was first lady. It was a speech that shook the world, all because Hillary Clinton dared to say “women’s rights are human rights.”

Climate is to be a top priority on Secretary Clinton’s first trip, with Japan being the first stop on her Asia trip where economic turmoil will be on the agenda.

From Andrew Revkin of the NY Times on China’s energy focus that includes tackling emissions and greenhouse gases:

As I wrote the other day, it looks like countries are going to remain focused on addressing real-time problems related to energy security (most notably high oil prices) for the time being, even as evidence builds that global warming could fuel turmoil, particularly in already-troubled places like sub-Saharan Africa, in the long run. I ran a panel at a meeting on China, energy, and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday, and in the preceding session, Zhou Dadi, one of the leading figures shaping China’s energy and climate policies said energy security will remain China’s top priority for a long while to come. He restated the longstanding mantra from China on climate, saying the responsibility for blunting emissions curves for greenhouse gases will remain with industrialized powers for a long time to come.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

Clinton to East Asia, Zbig & Scowcroft to Iran?

By on 05 February 2009

This is a long travel day for me, so I put together some links, including some emailed to me, that involve foreign policy, as well as the economy. While I’m traveling over the next days, Pamela from DemocraticDaily will be on board to help out. Please welcome her, though some of you no doubt remember her from her previous guest posting. I’ll be writing too, but I won’t have a regular schedule.

Secretary Clinton’s schedule for the day is here and includes a working dinner on East Asia, which is said to be her first trip abroad.

David Ignatius picks Obama’s Iran “a Team”:

This willingness to embrace new ideas was especially clear when Brzezinski and Scowcroft talked about Iran. Both believed that the Bush administration’s policy of isolating Iran — and trying to dictate terms for negotiations about its nuclear program — had been a mistake. Scowcroft argued that the United States had approached Iran “emotionally,” while Brzezinski said the administration had followed “a self-defeating policy that simply perpetuates the existing difficulty.”

Steve Clemons has an interesting read on “The Economicization of US Foreign Policy.”

Up front on the economic scene is a column in the WSJ. The title alone gets it included today: The GOP Has a Dumb Mortgage Idea.

Few philosophers have done more good than Locke and Montesquieu, whose advocacy of divided government inspired America’s Founders. Our history, and the less happy past of nations without checks and balances, suggests the wisdom of John Adams’s statement: “a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” Today, the Senate Republicans bear the heavy burden of providing the primary check on one-party rule in America.

For that reason, it is particularly disappointing to see Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell embrace “providing government-backed, 4% fixed mortgages to any credit-worthy borrower” as his alternative to the Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi stimulus package. Our nation needs Mr. McConnell’s leadership, but this idea is bad economics and not a real alternative to the vision of America offered by Democrats. It also stands at odds with all that is good in Republicanism.

China could raise wages to stimulate demand:

Asians must either make less stuff and spend more time cutting each other’s hair, or they must buy more themselves. Either way, households will have to increase spending. But things have been going in the wrong direction. Assumptions about the region’s swelling middle class notwithstanding, consumption as a proportion of a fast-rising GDP has been falling – and swiftly at that.

Brad Setser writes for the Council on Foreign Relations regarding China and trade.

Macroman reports that there is a bit of optimism in the air about China right now. Loan growth was strong in January. Steel prices have picked up a bit. The latest Chinese purchasing managers survey wasn’t as bad as the last one. The fall in the pace of contraction in activity has generated hope that China’s economy will rebound later in the year. China’s stimulus will help, as will the fact that China’s state banks are liquid and have clear instructions to lend …

Everyone looks at China through their own lens. My lens is the trade data. And there I still don’t find much basis for optimism.

“Boo Hoo from the Boardroom” is one of my favorites today:

As it turns out, there’s a performance clause in class resentment. To fail and still walk away with a killing is a break in the social contract simply because it doesn’t work that way in real life for most people.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

On Hillary at State

By on 21 November 2008
“On track” for Secretary of State.

With Clinton at State, reports saying she’s accepted, which I frankly never doubted, the choice of Gen. Jim Jones for national security advisor adds more strength, but one that will likely cause caterwauling. The pieces of the national security puzzle are fitting slowly into place revealing that President-elect Obama is not only shoring up perceptions, but also triangulating to strengthen his ability to walk in and make the final push on any national security issue easier. I’m getting more confident about our foreign policy by the day. Others, not so much. But what many do not understand is that in order to change the workings, Obama will still be going through the same old channels, some ancient, that don’t move swiftly, by utilizing people who can grease the path for Obama’s brand new way of dealing and negotiating on national security. By building a team of trusted and known names that show a picture of stability beside the new guy, Obama is free to be as bold as he wants. He’s in no way compromising on his own vision. He’s got cover, if you will, as well as schooled hands, like Jones (former Marine Corps commandant and supreme commander of NATO, with a Joe Biden lean on foreign policy, by his own admission), whose presence sends multiple signals, to watch his back. Obama knows how smart this is to build into his national security team in a world that moves slower than we’d all like, even if others do not.

Spencer Ackerman writes today that “Some foreign-policy experts in the Obama orbit are expressing frustration.” Spencer’s account talks a lot about people’s “fears.” No doubt they have them, but it’s hilarious that so called “foreign-policy experts,” the people to whom Spencer is speaking, don’t get what Obama seems obviously to be doing.

Here’s another thing that’s got some people worried about Secretary of State Hillary… says another blogger associated with a Clinton hating org. It’s all about whether HRC will “muddle what is arguably Obama’s overarching foreign policy ambition.” Oh, and because “the dynamic bears watching” they’re on the case. I’m so relieved.

Of course, it’s all about the people with whom President-elect Obama’s potential Madame Secretary might surround herself.

But the real frustration underlying all the hand wringing? Iraq. After all these years, regardless of HRC’s innumerable statements on that war in the shadow of the vote, “some foreign-policy experts” can’t get over HRC’s stance on the Iraq war, circa 2002. Never mind Biden was for the war, as was John Kerry, their statements of change regarding their votes accepted, while HRC’s is not. It’s remarkable how stuck in the past “some people” are on matters of national security where Clinton is concerned, especially “some foreign-policy experts in the Obama orbit.”

HRC, circa July 2007:


“We cannot effectively address any of these challenges if we continue our military engagement in Iraq. As long as we stay there, our military strength will continue to erode. Our standing in the world will continue to decline. Our enemies in the region will continue to exploit our failures. Our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Our support for Afghan democracy, our conflict with the Taliban, and our hunt for al Qaeda will continue to be compromised. And our brave men and women will continue
to lose their lives and suffer grievous wounds.”

[...] “This will be a first step towards restoring Americans moral and strategic leadership in the world– one that draws on the strength of our alliances and the power of our diplomacy, and uses military force as a last — not a first — resort. …. ..” – Hillary Clinton

Anyone not fully aware of Clinton’s complete transformation on Iraq is not paying attention and even more worth watching that HRC herself.

The other issue is the outright disrespect, lack of confidence and complete disregard for President-elect Obama’s force and power as president. After getting Obama elected, now he’s being questioned for not knowing what he’s doing in the one area that made more people gravitate to him than any experience he did
or did not have. His intuitive judgment, as well as his ability to see forward, but also surround himself with the absolute best, while plotting how relationships will play out in his head. The man is not exactly an idiot, so I wish his own most ardent fans would quit reacting to his decisions like he is.

Obama’s likely got many dreams for his foreign policy, one likely being progress in the Middle East. There is no one with stronger credentials than the senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. Coupled with Barack Hussein Obama, where his middle name works, the two are a formidable team, in perception alone.

Additionally, Obama’s anti war credentials, along with his strong stance on diplomacy first, made “some foreign-policy” experts in the traditional realm of U.S. national security nervous. Clinton, known as “hawkish,” presents not only a perfect balance to the perceived impression of the 21st century new tract foreign policy ideas of Obama, but allows a Nixon in China moment for him (as I’ve written before) in the Middle East. With HRC representing him, Obama’s reach out to Palestinians could provide a path to breakthrough we haven’t seen since WJC was in office. Same goes for Iran. Clinton’s “hawk” to Obama’s new approach combines a balanced signal, with HRC’s tough language and approach complimented by Obama’s equally tough, but wholly new persona as someone who was anti war on Iraq from the jump.

President-elect Obama and the potential of Clinton as Madame Secretary offers the widest ranging strengths and game plans we’ve seen on foreign policy in decades, with Jones adding more depth, especially on the NATO side as Obama plans to focus on Afghanistan. Hillary has shown she’s a team player, beyond question, and knows first hand through watching her husband how the secretary of state and the president
must work together and that only one person sets policy. That will be President Obama. The good news for him is while she obviously respects him, she is not afraid to give her opinions and good advice, including on world leaders whom she has met or knows personally, though they certainly know her, as she’s beloved around the world.

But what HRC at State offers to the oppressed women of the world is a human rights issue that could catapult President Obama into shining light that will once and for all put in the global glare the abuse,
oppression and horrors women around the world face everyday. It’s the stuff of which presidential legacies
are made, people freed, and countries stabilized.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Clinton Foundation, and HRC as SoS

By on 17 November 2008

They’re getting nervous now. The Hillary haters are frantic, going back, digging up links about WJC from a year ago, wondering how in the world she could possibly go to State since her former president husband has a foundation that aids the world. It pops up that maybe they could use Hillary’s president husband as the last impediment to getting what she deserves on the world stage. However, it’s not just about vetting. It’s about conflict of interest if Hillary is chosen from secretary of state. That work being quite different from WJC’s foundation, which cannot be linked. It’s about crafting a way to get it done transparently, while separating their roles.

Republicans, respect them or not, are talking about the possibility more sanely than certain males, those so called “leading” progressives.


The possibility of Mrs. Clinton’s nomination generated positive response on Sunday, even from across the aisle. “She is a lady of great intelligence, demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding appointment,” former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger told a forum in New Delhi, according to news services.

This is the point where I get emails on Clinton being the anti-Christ. Additionally, many wanting HRC to stay in the Senate. Some worried this is another close, but not quite moment, wherein Hillary falls short because of judgments beyond her own merits to do the job.

The Senate offers little for HRC at this point, other than serving New Yorkers. That’s great for them, but wastes a talent the United States needs at one of the most precarious moments in world history, not only on diplomatic and foreign policy terms, but economic as well. There is simply no other candidate being considered that can juggle the financial end of the global challenges we face. Whether you’re a fan of Tom Friedman of not, he raised this yesterday on “Meet
the Press.”


MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, Tom, I think that’s important. Obviously, having a woman secretary of state would be important. But I’d step back and say what are the unique conditions right now that actually should affect the actual job qualifications of the next secretary of state? And for me, I’d want a bankruptcy specialist because I think the next secretary of state’s biggest job is going to be managing weakness, not, not strength. Managing the weakness of Russia, managing the weakness of China. I might go back to George Bush Sr., Brent Scowcroft. “Hey, guys, what was it like to manage the collapse of the Soviet Union?” Because I think the biggest problem in the next couple years, given this financial crisis, is going to be managing the weakness of some of the big players in the world, not their strength.

The weaknesses of the leading countries due to the global financial crisis is another reason HRC is a fit for State.

That’s why certain males are having their own little fit, concocting their own little blogger swiftboating of the woman who could take over State. Rahm’s presence as chief of staff was blow enough. But HRC as SOS, it’s their biggest power horror since the primaries. Hillary working for Obama in a way that they hadn’t imagined.

Like it or not, and they don’t, the Hillary haters want to banish all things Clinton from the Democratic Party. Good thing the President-elect is smart enough to know what is needed and who can deliver. No one knows if this will work out so Hillary can indeed take a position she deserves, but that the mere thought is causing such consternation, once again revealing the derangement of some progressive males out there, makes the waiting worth it, no matter the outcome.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Welcomes with Warnings

By on 16 November 2008



“I always think of the apocryphal statement attributed to the chancellor of the exchequer in the United Kingdom in 1927: ‘We are running out of money, so we must begin to think,’ ” Clapper said. “I think we are going to be in another era like that.”

I doubt this comes as a shock to President-elect Obama or his team. That doesn’t make it any less chilling.


Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world’s most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the
Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said. …

Covered in the same piece is the number one challenge, as far as I’m concerned:


As bad as economic conditions are in the United States and Europe, where outright recessions are expected next year, they are worse in developing countries such as Pakistan, a state that was already struggling with violent insurgencies and widespread poverty. Some analysts warn that a prolonged economic crisis could trigger a period of widespread unrest that could strengthen the hand of extremists and threaten Pakistan’s democratically elected government — with potentially grave consequences for the region and perhaps the planet.

[...]U.S. officials are following developments with particular concern because of Pakistan’s critical role in the campaign against terrorism, as well as the country’s arsenal of dozens of nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda has appealed directly to Pakistanis to overthrow their government, and its Taliban allies have launched multiple suicide bombings, some aimed at economic targets such as the posh Marriott hotel in Islamabad, hit in September. …

Moving on to the military, Spencer Ackerman has a piece up that I heartily suggest you read today. It’s Sunday, so it’s a good day for this stuff. One particular portion made me jump up and say “I second.” Remembering back to WJC taking office, his gays in the military debacle infuriated me on multiple levels. One Pentagon speaking frankly off the record encapsulated my feelings precisely:


… Defense Dept. officials today still believe Clinton’s early capitulation set a troublesome precedent. “If Clinton had simply ordered the military to lift the ban on gays in the military “as Truman did with racial
integration against near universal opposition,” said one Pentagon official who requested anonymity, he would have been much better off in dealing with the military for the rest of his administration. There would have been a big fuss, but they would have respected him more.”

The lesson for Obama, this official continued, is “not to get rolled or railroaded by the top brass, as Clinton and his civilian team were by Colin Powell,” who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
“Obama and his team need to be respectful and solicitous of senior military advice, but leave no doubt about who is in charge.” …

One thing Bush and the Republicans do, championed by their wingnut radio barkers, is to not only defer decisions to the military, instead of just guidance and expertise, but to also hide behind the military to completely neuter the commander in chief, who is intended to be civilian by design. It provides cover for the
inept, like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, while implying that anyone who doesn’t carry out military suggestions as being tantamount to traitorous. While the Bush-Cheney crew expanded executive powers into places that eviscerated the Constitution, they simultaneously made the president’s commander in chief role second to the military. Obama needs to make clear the buck truly stops with him, which includes that he will listen intently to our military generals and Joint Chiefs, but in the end his strategic decisions are made over the globe, with diplomacy and other matters factors military advisors need not always consider.


Indeed, the differences between Obama and Petraeus or Odierno on Iraq might turn out to be healthy for civilian-military relations. Judging from how the July meeting with Petraeus in Baghdad went, “Obama should be in good shape,” said the Pentagon official. “It will be a refreshing change from recent years, when civilian political leaders have shirked off tough questions about — and responsibility for — their war policies by claiming, in effect, that they’re just taking directions from the commanders on the ground, in effect, hiding behind the skirts of the military.”

Something else that should give everyone comfort is that Rand Beers is handling the homeland security transition. As regulars know, I’ve interviewed Beers, also once having a partnership with NSN on interviews in the past. Check out Democracy Arsenal.

A bit about Hillary for State, with Kerry and Richardson also in the running, both no doubt qualified. As for Bill Richardson, I’m not a fan. That was the case long before the past election season nonsense. I also wonder how he reconciles this stuff with the Obama questionnaire. Richardson certainly doesn’t offer prowess on the women’s rights as human right’s issue. Clinton does.


[...] Less well known is the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the pioneers of the principle that eomen’s rights are human rights and that women’s status in the world is one of the critical international issues. This feminist principle challenged the once prevailing notion that women’s inequality was just women’s issue, not something universal. Under that conception of the problem, particular local and national customs — genital mutilation, the burning of widows, forced marriage of youth, etc. — denying women’s rights were allowed to stand unchallenged.

The change occurred at the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing China. The official Platform of Action enshrined the principle of women’s rights as human rights. The victory was a large one, and thousands of women internationally contributed to making it happen. Nevertheless, Clinton’s speech
at the conference has been widely credited as being instrumental in the movement.
(Text
and audio here.) …

Hillary Clinton: A 21st Century Choice for Secretary of State

There are many women in the Democratic Party who are still bruised after the primary and how they feel Clinton was treated inside the party itself. I stand outside this group. Clinton at State might heal the remaining wounds, though that’s certainly not a reason to nominate her. That Hillary has the stature to do the job is not in question, as well as the foundational knowledge and skills. She’s known and beloved around the world as well. That she’s a team player has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Meanwhile, people are once again raising questions about Bill.

In Iraq… Iraq’s Cabinet to vote on security pact with US. Yeah, how’s it goin’ over there?


A series of bombings Saturday pointed to the fragility of security gains in the past year. The violence also was likely to strengthen the argument of the pact’s proponents, including the interior and defense ministers, that there is still a need for U.S. forces.

In Tal Afar, a suicide car bombing struck a commercial district, killing nine Iraqis and wounding 40, according to the U.S. military. Iraqi police and hospital officials said seven people were killed and up to 32 were wounded. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.

In Baghdad, a bomb in a parked car exploded near the National Theater in the mainly Shiite district of Karradah, killing at least five and wounding 23…

Read full story · Comments are closed

Beyond Obama, As The World Turns

By on 09 November 2008

–updated–



Putin is stirring open conversation, helped along by his man Medvedev:


[...] Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations,
said the notion of Mr. Putin’s return had been discussed openly, with
some theorizing that Mr. Putin had wanted to stay on without amending the
Constitution himself. If Mr. Medvedev makes the change, “it is more
clean, because it’s another president proposing this, not himself,”
Mr. Rahr said.

But let’s get some things straight first. The colossal screw up on Georgia,
the crashing Russian market, and the plummet of oil prices makes Putin’s dreams
of returning to create an empire a bit iffy. That Medvedev started out of the
gate with the missile bluster isn’t helpful to Russia’s status either.

Obama’s office responded with a “no commitment” but, leaving, as they say in traditional security language, “all options on the table.”


“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it,” Denis McDonough, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, said in a statement released to reporters. “His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”

Note to President-elect Obama: To keep Putin in check begin a green revolution
of job creation and energy independence. Nothing could be more important to
our national security and that crazy Central Asian area that’s going to cause
you so much trouble very soon.

Is
Putin Poised for a Comeback? offers more analysis, including that the
Russian people like Putin: Thanks to a carefully honed PR image and a suffocated
media and opposition, Mr Putin is by far and away Russia’s most popular politician.
He is credited with bringing stability to the country after the chaos of the
Yeltsin years in the 1990s.

Something else I’ve obviously been giving thought are the national security appointments. Laura Rozen wrote about it recently. Obama’s security team?



James Steinberg, the highly regarded former Clinton-era deputy national security advisor, is being considered for national security advisor. Long time Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, Clinton’s former assistant secretary of state for Africa, is being considered for deputy national security advisor, as well as for US ambassador to the UN. Top NSC appointment announcements could come as early as today, and other White House appointments would be announced after that.

For top jobs at State, the short list is said to include Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb, ret.), Richard Lugar (R-IN) (all moderate colleagues of Obama and VP-elect Joseph Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations committee), former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), former Clinton era Balkans envoy Richard Holbrooke, and retired Marine Corps General and Mid East envoy James L. Jones, who is likely to get a top job in the administration elsewhere if not at State. Deputy Secretary of State could go to Greg Craig, a former counselor to President Clinton.

Also take a look at Jane Harman, who’s likely to get appointed somewhere.

But getting back to Steinberg, Rozen evidently saw the same tape, which showed Obama with Steinberg as he went into his first intel briefing after winning the election. As she says, if you’re going for your first intel confab, it would be advantageous to have your national security advisor with you. Though at this point I’m not taking bets on any particular appointment, but Steinberg is someone to eye. Interesting reading from him:


[...]The new approach must have the following key “design” characteristics, which reflect the character of the threat we confront.

1. The handling of information must be decentralized, modeled on a network approach (just as our adversaries have modeled their actions on a network approach).
2. Our strategy must focus on prevention. Although apprehension and conviction of wrong-doers may in some cases contribute to prevention, a prevention mind-set must dominate.
3. The line between “domestic” and “foreign” threats is increasingly difficult to sustain, and our approach must avoid rigid structures and procedures based on this distinction.
4. The range of actors necessary to this task inevitably will extend beyond what can be contained in any single department or organization.
5. The network must reflect the fact that most of the key actors are not in the federal government, but in state and local government, and in the private sector.
6. Because the problem of terrorism is transnational, our approach must integrate the need for wide-scale international cooperation.
7. Since the effort to combat terrorism is a long-term problem and is designed to protect our way of life and our values, as well as our security, the policies and actions undertaken must have the support of the American people.

On the Afghanistan front, Zbigniew Brzezinski signaled a bit of a shift on Afghanistan on Friday on “Morning Joe.”


“I think a limited additional deployment of forces may be necessary. There may be some parts of Afghanistan in which the military presence from the outside has to be beefed up. So I have no objections to some limited further military deployments. What I do feel strongly about is that the problem has to be viewed as a political problem rather than as a military problem and the only way to deal with it as a political problem is to engage the various Talibans, not just Taliban, because that’s to some extent is a fiction. But the various Talibans that exist in different parts of Afghanistan in a dialogue pointing essentially to local arrangements, whereby the local Taliban would commit itself to eliminate or expel any Al Qaeda presence in that region. … In return for which NATO would be prepared to disengage from that region, because ultimately Afghanistan has to solve its own problems, and it’s a country with a real sense of identity, but also xenophobia.”

This is a shift from what Zbig has previously stated, which to me signals that it’s possible some sort of dialogue has been engaged to explain Obama’s broader thoughts in order to bring Brzezinski on board. Pure speculation on my part, but not impossible given Zbig’s prior statements on expanding troop presence in Afghanistan, and also because Obama’s gone to him before.

On the Israeli front, see Rahm Emanuel. Message received?

As for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Juan Cole writes something I wish would catch on, but I say that often in regards to Professor Cole:


If the only real reason Iran is accused of supporting international terrorism is its arming of Hizbullah in south Lebanon, that is a pretty problematic charge. The recent agreement among political parties in Lebanon recognized Hizbullah as a kind of Lebanese national guard charged with defending the Lebanese south against Israeli aggression. …

As for that interesting letter from President Ahmadinejad, Obama responded:


“I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately,” he said, leaving open the question about whether he will reply. President Bush chose not to respond to a rambling 18-page letter he received from Ahmadinejad in 2006, but during the campaign Obama indicated he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders.

“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable,” Obama said yesterday. “And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”

If you’re looking for bombast or bluster from Obama, please adjust your windshield appropriately. Slow and steady she goes, we can only hope.

Indonesia executes Bali bombers.

U.S. halts Columbian aid, because of continuing scandals.

In the Congo, things continue to worsen.

Spain’s in at the G-20 thanks to France’s Sarkozy.

No doubt by the time you finish reading this there will be more developing. Tenuous times, especially for an incoming president at the beginning of the post Bush era.

UPDATE: This broke later this morning, after this post: China Announces $586 Billion Stimulus Plan:


China on Sunday announced a massive $586 billion stimulus package aimed at boosting domestic spending over the next two years in its most aggressive response so far to the spreading global financial crisis.

[...] “The leadership here is still reluctant to move aggressively, lest it be accused of not attending to matters here and simply following the lead of more powerful countries,” a Beijing-based political analyst, Russell Leigh Moses, said last week. “Beijing wants to look responsible internationally, but it is also terrified of seeming weak domestically.” …

Read full story · Comments are closed

Only Bush Can Go to China

By on 06 August 2008


Author’s Note: I lived and worked in Shanghai, China for five years before returning to the United States two weeks ago. With the Beijing Olympics set to begin, and the eyes of the world focused on the Middle Kingdom, my posts over the next few weeks will focus on current issues in China—international politics, culture, human rights, and more.

In May 2007, President Hu Jintao invited President Bush to attend the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. This spring, in the heat of the primary election, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and, eventually, Senator Obama called on the president to decline the invitation to protest the human rights situation and the recent Beijing crackdown in Tibet. Several human rights groups also issued calls for a boycott of the opening ceremonies, but ultimately, George Bush accepted the invention.

If the United States wants to maintain any influence in China, President Bush made the right decision. Declining the invitation may have earned President Bush the affection of human rights advocates, but it would have done nothing to help the Chinese people. Outside pressure is not going to change the human rights situation. Beijing is well that its trading partners are not willing to take any measures that put their own economies at risk. Change must come from within.

The Chinese people know that human rights is a problem in China. They are aware that the government censors the internet—and many are able to get around it. They know that the Communist Party and the government it controls are corrupt. They also know that the media are controlled by the government. An empty gesture from the United States won’t inform the people of something they already know, nor will it encourage them to rise up and demand change from the government. What it will do is deeply insult the Chinese people, who are deeply suspicious of the west.

Long before the economic reforms that brought China and the West closer together, China suffered what is known in China as the Century of Humiliation. Western countries, beginning with the British smuggling opium in the 1830′s and 1840′s, and later Japan, used their superior militaries and advanced technology to force unfair treaties on Beijing. A series of Qing emperors were forced to open ports to foreign traders, create special economic zones for foreign powers, and open their borders to western missionaries and businessmen, who were given extraterritoriality, the right to live under the laws of their own country, rather than the laws of China. Sovereignty was not fully restored until the Communists won their civil war over the Nationalists (who fled to Taiwan) in 1949 and did what centuries of emperors could not—unify the country. The chaos of that period may have long ago ended, but the memories and the bitterness remain.

Since the early 1980′s, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. A private sector has emerged and now accounts for 70% of GDP. At the height of central planning, as recently as 30 years ago, Chinese people were not even allowed to choose their own jobs. They were assigned by Beijing. So from the perspective of the majority of the Chinese people, Beijing—and the Communist Party—have done a good job running the country. The horrors of the Cultural Revolution are blamed on Chairman Mao and a group of advisers known as the “Gang of Four”.

Our support for independence in Tibet and Taiwan and criticism of China’s human rights record is seen—even by educated, middle class Chinese—as attempts to again weaken China (by dividing her) and undermine the sovereignty of the government. It’s not lost on the Chinese people that the western powers continue to support the “renegade” government in Taiwan, even allowing the Republic of China to hold China’s seat on the UN Security Council until 1971. A coalition of developing countries friendly to Beijing forced the transfer of China’s seat to the People’s Republic of China.

This spring, when western governments criticized the military crackdown on protests in Tibet, government censors loosened restrictions on internet access. Access to BBC News was restored so the Chinese people could see the criticism of the government’s crackdown and get angry at the western media. Access to Youtube was briefly disrupted until the government realized that pro-Beijing users could post videos of Tibetans attacking Han Chinese residents of Lhasa and their businesses.

The result? The Chinese people I talked to—including my Australian-educated, multi-lingual Taiwanese boyfriend—said the western media was biased. The criticism of Beijing’s crackdown only intensified the nationalism of the Han Chinese and their support for the governments efforts to suppress the revolt by the Tibetan “terrorists.” Patriotic Chinese organized boycotts and held protests outside Carrefour supermarkets throughout China after it was learned that a minority shareholder of the French supermarket chain had donated money to a pro-Tibetan independence group.

Had President Bush declined the invitation, it would have been seen as an enormous insult, an attempt to embarrass the Chinese people, for whom the Olympics are a source of national pride. Boycotts of American imports and antipathy toward the thousands of Americans living and working in China may have followed and the relationship between China and America would forever have been tarnished. By attending the opening ceremonies, President Bush has given President Hu Jintao and the Chinese people face. In Asian culture, giving and saving face is central to preserving and enhancing relationships.

In the long run, the decision to honor the Chinese people during their moment under the sun will reap more benefits than cheap political theatrics.

Read full story · Comments are closed