Heard Around the Hillary-Sphere: Weekend Edition *updated*

I’ve rounded up some news about our SOS and included a few tidbits which don’t mention her directly but which concern issues she’s involved in.

The U.K. Independent has noticed that Obama would probably kill for Clinton’s approval rating and also noted that she’s being a very effective SOS in her first year:

So Hillary is putting her own imprint on US foreign policy. She constantly emphasises “smart power”, which relies less on military might and more on diplomacy. She has used her celebrity to focus attention on issues such as womens’ rights and the global fight against poverty and hunger. She has launched a four-year review to boost the State Department’s resources and staff, and put policy planning on a longer-term basis. And, contrary to many predictions, her husband, Bill, has not been an embarrassment.

She has worked smoothly with the big-name envoys appointed in key policy areas, including Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan/Pakistan and George Mitchell for the Middle East. When she was first appointed, and took some time out to study her new brief, there was talk of Clinton’s voice being drowned by a clash of other mighty egos. But no longer.

“Hillary and the envoys have shown loyalty, consistency and cohesion, and the structure has worked,” one senior ambassador in Washington noted last week. What hasn’t worked (at least not yet), are the policies, as the overlapping, seemingly intractable crises in Iran, the Middle East and Afghanistan attest. For that reason above all, a firm verdict on her performance must wait.

But Hillary must be doing something right. Polls consistently show her to be the most popular member of the government. She is lucky that her job keeps her away from America’s dysfunctional domestic political system and the deeply unpopular Congress in which she used to serve.

Even so, Obama right now would die for her 65 or 70 per cent approval rating. From there, in today’s febrile political climate, it is but a small step to speculation about a new Hillary bid for the White House in 2012.

The administration’s Sudan policy seems to be a bit chaotic at present, as reported by Foreign Policy’s ‘The Cable’:

A meeting of top U.S. officials on Sudan last week was supposed to yield big recommendations on how to craft the right balance of incentives and pressures toward the Khartoum regime, which stands accused of fomenting genocide in Darfur and stirring instability in its autonomous southern region. Instead, the meeting seems to have left the Obama administration’s Sudan policy in limbo, leading to angst among both Sudan insiders and observers, sources tell The Cable.

The meeting, hosted by the National Security Council and carried out at the deputies level, had been greatly anticipated by Sudan watchers as a watershed moment in their long struggle to turn Darfur into a top-tier policy issue. Expectations were so high that Sudan advocacy groups published an unorthodox ad in the Washington Post before the meeting calling out the deputies — U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s No. 2 Erica Barks-Ruggles, NSC deputy Tom Donilon, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levy, and Michèle Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy — by name.

Several members of the Sudan advocacy community said they were told that the quarterly deputies meetings would be tracking progress and making recommendations on specific “carrots and sticks” to use as leverage in Khartoum.

And they pointed to the October remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said during the press conference announcing the administration’s new Sudan policy: “Assessment of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives will be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.”

[snip]

One big problem, though, was that the briefing paper that was to have all the agencies’ positions clearly spelled out was not prepared in advance, hurting the deputies’ ability to iron out any differences.

According to one person familiar with the meeting, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon scolded NSC Africa Director Michelle Gavin for a lack of preparation in front of all the other participants. A government source characterized Donilon’s comments to Gavin as no different than comments he might make to any staffer at any meeting. Besides, this second source said, it wasn’t Gavin’s responsibility to prepare the document. The source declined to specify exactly who dropped the ball.

The first source also said that Steinberg, upon learning that the prep materials were absent, moved to leave the meeting in protest but was directed to stay by Donilon, which he did…

When the Sudan policy was announced some months ago, I couldn’t help but feel that it seemed rather incomplete. Basic questions about how the policy would be implemented seemed to have no answers and of course, there was talk about a rift among some of the policy-makers (ie. Rice and Gration) with respect to just how much leeway to give the Bashir government. Some in the activist community believe that Gration’s “carrot and stick” approach is really a “carrot and carrot” approach which may embolden Bashir to not live up to his obligations and of course, lets not forget that Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for allegations of crimes against humanity.

Also over at ‘The Cable’, they are already speculating about who might be the next SOS if Obama gets a second term. That seems a tad premature at this point.

The perpetual thorn in my side, China, is acting out again:

China suspended military exchanges with the United States, threatened unprecedented sanctions against American defense companies and warned Saturday that cooperation would suffer after Washington announced $6.4 billion in planned arms sales to Taiwan.

The response to Friday’s U.S. announcement, while not entirely unexpected, was swift and indicated that China plans to put up a greater challenge than usual as it deals with the most sensitive topic in U.S.-China relations.
“This is the strongest reaction we’ve seen so far in recent years,” said Stephanie T. Kleine-Ahlbrandt, northeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group. “China is really looking to see what kind of reaction it’s going to receive from Obama on this.”

China’s Defense Ministry said the arms sales to self-governing Taiwan, which the mainland claims as its own, cause “severe harm” to overall U.S.-China cooperation, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. Vice ministerial-level talks on arms control and strategic security were postponed.

The warning comes as the U.S. seeks Beijing’s help on issues including the global financial crisis and nuclear standoffs in North Korea and Iran. Tensions were already high after recent U.S. comments on Internet freedom and a dispute between Google and China, as well as President Barack Obama’s plan to meet with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama this year.

China’s Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei told U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman that the sales of Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and other weapons to Taiwan would “cause consequences that both sides are unwilling to see,” a ministry statement said.
[snip]

Jin Canrong, a professor of international studies at China’s Renmin University, said the sale would give Beijing a “fair and proper reason” to accelerate weapons testing. China test-fired rockets in recent weeks for an anti-missile defense system in what security experts said was a display of anger at the pending arms sale.
“The U.S. will pay a price for this. Starting now, China will make some substantial retaliation, such as reducing cooperation on the North Korea and Iran nuclear issues and anti-terrorism work,” Jin added.

The latest suspension of military ties should affect planned visits to China by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. A visit to the U.S. by the Chinese military’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde, could also be called off.
…

The arms package announced Friday dodged a thorny issue: The more advanced F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

Methinks China needs a “time out.” While their economic power is substantial, if they truly want to be an international leader in other areas then it’s time they start acting like they are ready to join the adult table and quit whining and carrying on about every damn thing.

Along those same lines, China is also acting a wee bit arrogant:

Now, China is expressing furious anger over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan — threatening unprecedented actions in response, including sanctions on U.S. companies, and hinting darkly of a broader unwillingness to cooperate with American diplomatic priorities (read: North Korea and Iran). Military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and China now seems to be off the table, and deputies-level talks will be suspended.
Truth be told, China hadn’t been and probably wouldn’t be super helpful on Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, but the direction the relationship is taking is worrying. In February, President Obama is supposed to meet with the Dalai Lama, and that is sure to provoke further ire in Beijing.

Obama administration officials had been expecting some blowback from the arms sales, and are downplaying China’s reaction, but I wonder if even they see Beijing as upping the ante. Is this going to be the usual loud, public show of anger, followed by a return to business as usual? Or is China feeling its strength and looking to demonstrate that it can force the mighty United States to change course?
I detect a bit of arrogance in Beijing right now. Most recently, Colum Lynch reports, China sent a third or fourth-tier diplomat to U.N. discussions over Iran’s nuclear program. At the climate talks in Copenhagen in December, not only did China seem to renege on promises it had made earlier, but Premier Wen Jiabao famously snubbed other top world powers by sending his deputy to a high-level meeting (I’m told by one participant that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was especially angry about the slight). This kind of thing may not make headlines, but it shapes other countries’ willingness to make concessions and accomodate China’s interests at the margins.

Secretary Clinton tried to remind China and Russia that internet security was also in their best interest but I doubt China heard her because they were too busy complaining and carrying on about Taiwan, Google, and God knows what else at the time. I give her credit for trying though:

CHINA and Russia need to promote internet security before their own companies become victims of cyberspace attacks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, in the wake of Google’s accusations that email accounts on its site were broken into in China.

”We today have a company that’s a US company making these claims about what happened to them,” Mrs Clinton said during a radio interview in Paris.

”In five or 10 years, it could be a Chinese company or a Russian company or an Indian company.”

Unfortunately, despite Google’s initial strongly worded condemnation of cyber attacks which it alleges were traced back to China, Google’s CEO seems to already be back-tracking and doing what everyone else seems to be doing- appeasing China. I can’t say I am all that surprised because there was something a tad disingenuous about Google’s claims of moral outrage about the whole affair- after all, Google knew damn well who they were doing business and in return for making buckets of money they entered the Chinese market with the agreement they would censor search results. The allegations of course go far beyond censorship given that accounts were hacked and based on the little we know, it sounds suspiciously to be more along the lines of outright cyber-warfare. Again, Google can hardly claim to act surprised- China has a long and distinguished history of not only using cyber-warfare, but getting caught doing it. Last weekend I highlighted an article that summarized some of their more egregious attempts (which were successful btw) using the web to attack the U.S. I was hoping Google would stand their ground but sadly, it appears they won’t:

…Speaking (Friday January 29)  at the World Economic Forum Eric Schmidt is reported to have used the occasion to reassure Beijing of Google’s willingness and desire to remain operating in China, despite the cyber-attacks.  According to a newswire report Schmidt commentating on the controversy stated that: “We just don’t like censorship,” but claimed also that his corporation was positive about generating change from within (how many times must we hear  apologist reasoning excusing China’s odious activities, without any evidence that such collaboration brings any moderation).

Insisting that Google would  “very much like to stay in China.” he went on to say that his corporation would  “very much like the censorship we oppose to improve in China,” . Echoing comments made by Hillary Clinton the Google CEO said he feels his company can  “apply some pressure to make things better for the Chinese people.” Critics may wonder if economic considerations, not human rights, are taxing his mind at present? As Schmidt remarked in the Wall Street Journal:  “We like what China is doing in terms of growth, we just don’t like censorship.”.

I think this will hurt Google in the end in terms of PR. To come out so strongly in the beginning only to retreat in such a weak fashion, just doesn’t look good. After all, it was Google which chose to go public and it was Google that claimed to be so VERY outraged. To hear Schmidt tell it now (at Davos) you’d think it was much ado about nothing. And I don’t get that. I have to admit, as a big fan of Apple, I was glad to hear Steve Jobs put it more succinctly- he reportedly said that Google’s famous company slogan “Don’t Be Evil” was total “bullshit.” Heh.

The WSJ has an interesting article that outlines exactly what is really behind the Google-China spat- it’s about much more than Google but goes way, way back. It’s a good read.

Secretary Clinton unveiled a plan to help promote women’s development and opportunities in Afghanistan late last week:

A U.S. plan to support women’s initiatives in Afghanistan to promote social development was unveiled Friday by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Details of the the Women’s Action Plan for Afghanistan were released at the London Conference on Afghanistan, department officials said in a release Friday.

Clinton said women’s empowerment is inextricably linked to security, economic opportunity, effective governance, and social development in Afghanistan and seeks to a create a country where “women are free from violence and coercion; where girls can go to school; where parents can find jobs and quality health care is more easily accessible.”

State Department officials said the plan includes initiatives focused on women’s security; women’s leadership in the public and private sectors; women’s access to judicial institutions, education, and health services; and women’s ability to take advantage of economic opportunities, especially in the agricultural sector

Secretary Clinton is still trying to get China (and Russia) on board with sanctions against Iran:

China is “very much engaged” in working with the United States to punish Iran for its nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday in London. Clinton’s comments came as the Obama administration prepares to push for new sanctions on Iran at the United Nations.

Clinton spoke with Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi of China and said they had a “constructive” talk, though she declined to specify what the next step forward on Iran would be. President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address Wednesday night that Iran would “face growing consequences” for ignoring international obligations over its nuclear program.

That sounds like diplomatic-speak for “China’s still not playing ball with us on this.”

This situation in Gaza is worsening as the world ignores the expanding settlements and the ridiculously onerous bureaucratic process that Palestinians must go through just to get the most basic supplies or farm their own land. I’m sorry, but more and more the laws are sounding like Apartheid South Africa at the height of its oppression:

Area C doesn’t sound very ominous. A land of stone-sprinkled grey hills and soft green valleys, it’s part of the wreckage of the equally wrecked Oslo Agreement, accounting for 60 per cent of the Israeli-occupied West Bank that was eventually supposed to be handed over to its Palestinian inhabitants.

But look at the statistics and leaf through the pile of demolition orders lying on the table in front of Abed Kasab, head of the village council in Jiftlik, and it all looks like ethnic cleansing via bureaucracy. Perverse might be the word for the paperwork involved. Obscene appear to be the results.

[snip]

Palestinian requests to build houses are either delayed for years or refused; houses built without permission are ruthlessly torn down; corrugated iron roofs have to be camouflaged with plastic sheets in the hope the “Civil Administration” won’t deem them an extra floor – in which case “Ro’i's” lads will be round to rip the lot off the top of the house.

In Area C, there are up to 150,000 Palestinians and 300,000 Jewish colonists living – illegally under international law – in 120 official settlements and 100 “unapproved” settlements or, in the language we must use these days, “illegal outposts”; illegal under Israeli as well as international law, that is – as opposed to the 120 internationally illegal colonies which are legal under Israeli law. Jewish settlers, needless to say, don’t have problems with planning permission.

[snip]

Even the western NGOs working in Area C find their work for Palestinians blocked by the Israelis. This is not just a “hitch” in the “peace process” – whatever that is – but an international scandal. Oxfam, for example, asked the Israelis for a permit to build a 300m2 capacity below-ground reservoir along with 700m of underground 4in pipes for the thousands of Palestinians living around Jiftlik. It was refused. They then gave notice that they intended to construct an above-ground installation of two glass-fibre tanks, an above-ground pipe and booster pump. They were told they would need a permit even though the pipes were above ground – and they were refused a permit. As a last resort, Oxfam is now distributing rooftop water tanks.

I came across an even more outrageous example of this apartheid-by-permit in the village of Zbeidat, where the European Union’s humanitarian aid division installed 18 waste water systems to prevent the hamlet’s vile-smelling sewage running through the gardens and across the main road into the fields. The £80,000 system – a series of 40ft shafts regularly flushed out by sewage trucks – was duly installed because the location lay inside Area B, where no planning permission was required.

Yet now the aid workers have been told by the Israelis that work “must stop” on six of the 18 shafts – a prelude to their demolition, although already they are already built beside the road – because part of the village stands in Area C. Needless to say, no one – neither Palestinians nor Israelis – knows the exact borderline between B and C. Thus around £20,000 of European money has been thrown away by the Israeli “Civil Administration”.

But in one way, this storm of permission and non-permission papers is intended to obscure the terrible reality of Area C. Many Israeli activists as well as western NGOs suspect Israel intends to force the Palestinians here to leave their lands and homes and villages and depart into the wretchedness of Areas B and A. B is jointly controlled by Israeli military and civil authorities and Palestinian police, and A by the witless Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas. Thus would the Palestinians be left to argue over a mere 40 per cent of the occupied West Bank – in itself a tiny fraction of the 22 per cent of Mandated Palestine over which the equally useless Yasser Arafat once hoped to rule. Add to this the designation of 18 per cent of Area C as “closed military areas” by the Israelis and add another 3 per cent preposterously designated as a “nature reserve” – it would be interesting to know what kind of animals roam there – and the result is simple: even without demolition orders, Palestinians cannot build in 70 per cent of Area C.

Along one road, I discovered a series of large concrete blocks erected by the Israeli army in front of Palestinian shacks. “Danger – Firing Area” was printed on each in Hebrew, Arabic and English. “Entrance Forbidden.” What are the Palestinians living here supposed to do? Area C, it should be added, is the richest of the occupied Palestinian lands, with cheese production and animal farms. Many of the 5,000 souls in Jiftlik have been refugees already, their families fled lands to the west of Jerusalem – in present-day Israel – in 1947 and 1948. Their tragedy has not yet ended, of course. What price Palestine?

The article, of course, did not appear in the U.S. news. That the U.S. media ignores this outrage simply because it involves Palestinians, is journalistic malpractice. And let me make something very clear- support for the notion that the average, nonviolent Palestinians should have a right to live as human beings instead of cattle, does NOT mean that one does not support Israel’s right to exist or it’s right to security. For some unfathomable reason, whenever this administration is asked about its total silence with regard to the deplorable conditions the Palestinians are forced to endure- conditions which do little other than breed hatred and resentment of their occupiers- we are treated to ridiculous sound-bites that don’t address the question- instead we are lectured about Israel’s status as a “great ally” and it’s “right to defend itself”- neither of which has been called into question by rational people who support human rights and neither of which answers the question asked.

For an example of this condescending tactic, here is President Obama not answering a very basic question posed to him about Egypt and Israel’s purported human rights abuses. In order to be a mediator of any kind, let alone for Mideast peace, one has to have some measure of objectivity- something which the U.S. has clearly show that it is unable to muster. Imagine if instead of Palestinians we were talking about Northern Ireland- would the U.S. be so willing to ignore a humanitarian crisis of the scope we are seeing in Gaza? I sincerely doubt it.

Now, to end on a lighter note. It appears that Secretary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos may be related. Who knew?

UPDATE: Nicholas Kristof, as always, has an incredibly important, albeit horrifying, update on the situation in eastern Congo. Five million are estimated to be dead and women and girls (and boys) are being raped and mutilated with impunity. Is this not genocide? Is this less important than Iran’s possible desire to maybe one day try to find a way to potentially create nuclear weapons? The international community is outraged about Iran but not about the Congo, where genocide is already taking place?

UPDATE II: Sorry, I have to add another China outrage. I just saw Blake Hounshell tweet a story he just wrote for Foreign Policy about how China demanded that the participants at Davos not discuss the Google-China censorship issue and guess what? THEY COMPLIED. I mean, is it me? The entire world has to bend over backwards and play by China’s crappy rules? So, not only does Google censor for China, but so does Davos. As I noted above, Google’s CEO did raise the issue- he gave a big shout-out to China and waved the white flag of surrender and let them know he wanted Google to stay in China. Now that I see Hounshell’s article, that makes sense- it was a calculated business move on Google’s part to say that at Davos. I now have even less respect for Google now that I know this.

Ok guys, I need a new search engine…

Advertisement