So, just what was really ACCOMPLISHED in this major meeting? Charles Krauthammer whittles it all down in his article, Obama’s Nuclear Strutting And Fretting. Huh – how’s THAT for a soundbite? Think Robert Gibbs is going to co-opt that one? Yeah, me neither.

Anyway, here is what this whole big,”Historic!”, “Unprecedented!” summit boiled down to:

There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.

But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.

The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.

Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.

Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.

So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.

What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.

Oh, WHEW!!!!! Who cares about Pakistan and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as long as we have our Neighbors To The North under control!!! I mean, really – with their hockey sticks and curling stones, there is no TELLING what they might try against us! Way to go, OBAMA!! (Better write down this date – I doubt you’ll see something like that again, unless it is the day after the election in 2012, and Obama gets tossed out!)

Canada. O, Canada – thank you for your willingness to forgo your enriched plutonium. What a feather in Obama’s cap, this summit was. I mean, it’s a start, anyway:

Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the United States.

Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable, friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the United States and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?

The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.

Oh. Um. Well, not such a feather after all, it would seem. Oops. Hey, at least he tried, right? That’s something, anyway. Maybe not:

Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week: a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.

This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.

All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.

At which point the world changes irrevocably: The regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.

A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.

But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “work plan” has been agreed to.

Oh, yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com )

Dang, this is so irritating. This guy is such an egotist – and that is a huge piece to this puzzle. He wanted to notch his belt with another “accomplishment.” Yep, getting Canada to bend to his will was QUITE the coup, eh? Please.

So just what did Obama accomplish at this Big Summit? Changes with China? North Korea? I think this sums it up nicely:

“Whether we like it or not” we’re a military Superpower? Say huh, WHAAAAA? “Whether we like it or NOT?” WTH?? Whatever he meant by that, it was poorly, uh, uh, uh, worded, and further serves to undermine regardless of how he meant it. Doesn’t he know he cannot stray from TOTUS?? Wow. What an unbelievable statement from the President of the United States.

So what did the Summit accomplish? Not Much. At great expense to us, no doubt, hosting all of these world leaders. And, great expense to them to have to come to this “event.” That Obama – he sure does love his get-togethers, doesn’t he? I wonder if his BFFs, Jay-z and Beyonce attended the Nuclear Disarmament Summit, too? Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised. Surely if they are able to be in the Situation Room, attending this kind of Summit is nothing but a party. Woohoo!

What a wasted opportunity. At least we don’t have to lose sleep over Canada…

Yes, yes, that was mighty funny. Finally, someone was saying what so many of us lefties thought.

Then, at the end of this past September, Chavez turned his, um, aromatic rhetoric on Obama, who came out smelling like a rose:

Oh, blech. Anyone smell any hope up in here? Yeah, me neither.

Well, that was then. Now, Chavez’s olfactory senses are being assaulted again, this time by Obama:

See, I told you Obama was like Bush (and not just because of Chavez)! Oh, this is just too, too rich. I bet Obama didn’t see THAT one coming!

Now I have no particular love lost for Chavez, though I do appreciate that his country sent a whole bunch of heating oil up to New England during Bush’s presidency. Regardless how you feel about him, this is funny.

But it isn’t just Chavez who is turning on Obama. It seems many in the World Community are seing the “Citizen of the World” for who he is. The more Obama traipses around talking, taling, talking, the more they get it. Yes, this headline from the Guardian (UK) pretty much says it all, Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints And Fuels Frustration At Copenhagen,US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries.

Oh dear. That doesn’t bode well for Obama from the get-go:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

Nope. Of course he didn’t. He’s too busy pushing this “Health Care” policy that the majority of Americans do not want, apparently to feed his own ego. He sure isn’t going to push them on something for which he cannot claim sole credit. C’mon already!

As for what Obama said in Copenhagen:

The president’s speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries “ought” to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown – in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration’s clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.

“We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say,” Obama said.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.

Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative — no agreement — was far worse.

“We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation,” he said.

“Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”

Well, I guess he chose delay, because there is nothing concrete about the “deal” that came out of all of this. But Obama wasn’t done:

He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world’s biggest emitter and reinforcing America’s hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage – and his special following among African leaders – to try to come to an ambitious deal.

The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.

Responding to Obama’s speech, a British official said: “Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal… but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great.”

I believe he was talking to Obama, don’t you? I love Obama lecturing China, too. That is rich. He might want to be a tad careful before they call in all of their chits. We’d be bumming if that happened.

People abroad are opening their eyes on this “Citizen of the World”:

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.

There’s that Chavez again exposing Obama’s lack of real action. Not to mention an organization we have supported for many, many years now, the World Wildlife Fund. I think the “Friends of the Earth” sum it up nicely: “…he has disappointed the whole world.” Surely now the “whole world” realizes he hoodwinked them, too, with his “lofty” (empty) rhetoric. All talk, no action, just like we have been saying.

Ah, well – I guess they have learned their lesson, too, like some in the States are now. Maybe next time, they, along with those in this country, won’t be taken in by a charlatan. That doesn’t help for the moment, but maybe we will all be wiser next time around (that’s a collective “we,” not us specifically, as I posted recently). Our country depends upon it. And the world just might, too.

Well, it seems like it is finally happening. The world community to which Obama pandered during the campaign is starting to realize what many Americans now know (and some of us always did): He’s not all he’s cracked up to be.

In this article from Spiegel, “Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage,” they seem to finally be clueing in:

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said “thank you, guys,” and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists’ questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public’s expectations had been “too high.”

The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

The “first Pacific president” – please. Could this man possibly have a more inflated sense of himself?? Not to interrupt myself or anything, but check out what Charles Krauthammer had to say about that false claim:

“First Pacific President,” indeed. Please.

Back to the “Emperor Has No Clothes” article:

Lost Some Stature

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Understand this: when the author writes that the “White House did not even stand up for itself…” it means that the White House is not standing up for US, the American people. And Obama doing a press conference when Bush had managed to get out of them – for eight years – shows again how woefully inept and ill-prepared Obama is, even in comparison to Bush.

So, just what did Obama accomplish? Not a whole lot:

Relatively Unsuccessful

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans. A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: “I believe this is democracy!”

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama’s plane was about to land.

Obama’s new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama’s call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. “We thought we had some leverage,” says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. “But that proved to be an illusion.”

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. “We’re searching for an exit strategy,” said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

Gee, you mean that whole experience thing about which Hillary Clinton, then John McCain, spoke actually MEANT something?? Good grief. Show of hands of how many of us tried to tell them: Yep, that’s what I thought.

There is probably one person on the face of the earth who is going to think this is a good comparison, and you’ll know who right now:

‘A Lot Like Jimmy Carter‘

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington’s policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned “consequences” unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began — with threats. “Time is running out,” Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama’s advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. “Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: “This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter.” (Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan)

Given how much water Jimmy Carter has carried for Oama, even disparaging the BEST Democratic candidate to do so, I just wonder how he will feel when he discovers Obama fears being compared to him more than George W. Bush??? You know I used to love Jimmy Carter until he started to trash Hillary Clinton, and called a bunch of us a bunch of racists. But I bet he didn’t see that coming for all the backstabbing he did. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, President Carter. It was only a matter of time.

It was also only a matter of time before the shine started to tarnish. But even more than that, this man is supposed to be working on behalf of our nation. The work he is doing is what many of us knew was going to happen from someone so wet behind the ears, so concerned what people thought of HIM rather than being concerned about what he could do for the people. Not only do we know it, but now the world knows it. Even more than that, they know they can do pretty much as they wish since Obama doesn’t have the chops to stand up to them. Well, that’s just jake, isn’t it?

Is it 2012 yet?

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

Originally published at my blog for The John Batchelor Show.

“… I guarantee you we are safer today, our interests are more secure today than they were any time during the eight years” of the Bush administration.

Just how stupid this is is proved by some terrifying examples below the fold, and makes me deeply concerned that Obama et al. are not sufficiently concerned and proactive:

How in the hell can you claim that, Joe? No one – no one – can predict what might be ’round the bend.

Further, besides our perilous economic circumstances, our military is stretched to the breaking point and Obama feels he can’t even afford to send the number of troops that the military itself is requesting be dispatched to Afghanistan.

A couple weeks ago, everyone was atwitter over the crises in Mexico, filled with fear that drug cartel gangs would invade our country and create murder and mayhem. (Of course, as soon as the media had done their stories, and checked out of the border cities’ Marriotts, that story died and nobody’s worrying about that crisis anymore.)

But the point is that we don’t know what might occur tomorrow, or what crisis might seize and hold the attention of the nation.

We have North Korea firing off a missile with complete freedom and no penalties, proving Obama’s weakness in relying on the United Nations and not taking strong U.S. action.

We have Iran building redundant underground (bunker-bomb-proof) nuclear facilities across its nation so that no attack can end their program to build a nuclear bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, do you think that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other nations might not be far behind? And you’re CLAIMING that we’re “safer today”???

For example, there’s this highly disturbing story from Lou Dobbs’s blog at CNN, under “Issues That Matter“:

Red Storm Rising: Selling Nuclear Material to Iran
The Manhattan district attorney has uncovered a plot by a Chinese national to sell millions of dollars in potential nuclear material to Iran. The Chinese national used a false identity and set up four fake companies to do business with six Iranian shell firms. Several banks in New York were used, unwittingly, to make the deals.

And how about this terrifying doozy?!?!?!

Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies, Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009:

WASHINGTON — Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven’t sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

“The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid,” said a senior intelligence official. “So have the Russians.”

The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn’t target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. “There are intrusions, and they are growing,” the former official said, referring to electrical systems. “There were a lot last year.” … READ ALL of the well-research, highly disturbing Wall Street Journal article and check out the related posts and stories listed at Memeorandum.

Joe, shut the f–k up. And take a look around our own country. This report isn’t good news: “Boom in Gun Sales Fueled by Politics and the Economy.” That’s on your watch, Joe.

While you’re jawing, Joe, here’s the worker working to truly make us safer:

From the State Dept.’s announcement on this important collaboration, given both countries’ number of seaports:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully signed on April 7, 2009, an arrangement for cooperation on nonproliferation assistance. This arrangement supports collaborative work between the United States and New Zealand to secure nuclear and radioactive materials that could be used in a nuclear or radiological weapon and to detect and deter illicit trafficking in these materials by improving monitoring capabilities at priority border crossings, airports, and seaports. …

Also check out DipNotes, the State Department’s blog, with numerous entries about Hillary’s progressive steps around the world.

Oh, readers, here’s the video if you must punish yourself:

Let’s review the objectives and commitments, each followed by questions and/or comments that I have:

1. Address countries providing tax havens.
My question: who will police?

2. Develop a Financial Accounting Stability Board to regulate currently unregulated financial entities, primarily hedge funds.
My questions: how will it be staffed, operated, and judgments adjudicated? (I don’t like FASB as the acronym to be confused with Federal Accounting Standards Board)

3. Develop global policies and outline to address compensation
My questions: who and how will this be implemented? how will it be regulated? will there be punishments for those not participating?

4. Develop a global systemic risk oversight body.
My Question: who and how?

5. Develop a common global approach to address toxic assets within the banks.
My Questions: will this approach be akin to the FASB relaxation of the mark-to-market? How will it be implemented? Will it employ free market principles or manipulate those principles?

6. Utlilize a global growth and recovery stimulus plan of $5 trillion via global central banks.
My Question: will every country and region go along with this?

7. Global central banks will maintain a fiscal expansionary posture.
My Question: what if inflation increases?

8. The IMF and other international agencies will receive $1 trillion. $750 billion directed to the IMF, $250 billion of which will be in the form of Special Drawing Rights. The G-20 will look for these international institutions to strengthen their independence. The G-20 looks for emerging economies and developing countries to get a greater voice in these international institutions.
My Comment: China just won BIG RIGHT HERE!!

9. The G-20 countries will look to kickstart international trade.
My Question/Comment: Congratulations!! How do they plan on doing this in the face of the global protectionist measures and financial protectionism being enacted everywhere?

10. The G-20 will meet in New York City again in September.
My Comment: is this really a very good idea? Can you imagine the rioting that may ensue there? I wonder if body piercing is optional to get involved in the fun?

In summary, the global equity markets are responding positively to these commitments along with the relaxation of the mark-to- market. I am concerned that free market principles have taken a back seat to potentially excessive political and accounting manipulation. That said, the global economy and global banking system will receive significant hard dollars along with significant accounting cover to help itself heal. My personal opinion is world leaders are trying to buy time but will risk real inflation to heal the global recession.

I will say, though, there will certainly not be a dearth of material for Sense on Cents to address as we navigate the economic landscape!!

LD

I have written about the tension in U.S.-Chinese relations over the last few months. The essence of this tension is captured in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and A Question of Honor.

Make no mistake: the timing, tone, and substance of this message so close to the start of the G-20 is another major shot across our bow. The ramifications for a change in this international reserve currency are enormous, both politically and economically. I recommend reading the following article from the Financial Times:

China calls for new reserve currency
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
Published: March 23 2009 12:16
Last updated: March 24 2009 00:06

China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

“The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.

China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.

Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

Mr Zhou said the proposal would require “extraordinary political vision and courage” and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s.

And this more recent speech from the 160th anniversary of Seneca Falls:

Wow. Someone please tell me how is it that Hillary Clinton was depicted as “uninspiring”??? Only by those who had never actually bothered to hear her SPEAK is all I can figure. Yet another one of those memes started by someone to demean her.

Oh, what should have been. Sure would have made Women’s History Month this year something special. Instead, we get to “celebrate” the return of blatant sexism and misogyny in our country after this past election. Woohoo – NOT. Sadly, we still have far, too far to go…

And on a MUCH lighter note, it is time for photos of the PUPPIES! They are one week old today! Here they are:

Their names are, starting from the one on the bottom left, the first born, Lucas; the brown one is Leo; moving clockwise, the brindle is Leila; the one at the very top is Lucky; next is Luna (the last born); under her is Loco, short for Locomotion (he is motoring around all over the place, even though he can’t see where he is going!). In the top photo, Loco is the one with the triangle of white on his neck, with his head on top of Lucas; and in the middle is Lani. Notice a pattern with the names? Since their mother is Lucy, we thought we should give them “L” names! They have doubled their weight in a week, and seem to be doing well. Their mom is taking a few more breaks from them, but continues to be an excellent mother!

And I’m not just talking politics. No, rather that I have slept on the sofa for over a week now to be close to our adopted stray, Lucy’s, whelping bed. As some of you may recall, her delivery was imminent. Only it wasn’t. Sigh. She just got bigger and bigger and bigger as the week went on. I should add, Lucy also got more and more uncomfortable. Whenever she would wake up at night, so would I. I’m a wee bit tired.

So, I woke up this morning, and instead of Lucy hopping up to be fed and to go outside, she has stayed in her whelping bed. Yes, at long last, it seems the day is upon us. Coincidentally, this is also the day we ascribed to our kittens as their birthday (we got them from the SPCA, so it was an educated guess). She seems to be getting ready to birth these babies. Yay! I’ll keep you posted.

In the meantime, if you would like some news that the MSM has kept fairly quiet about, I bring you this Washington Post article, “Obama’s Intelligence Blunder.” While I disagree with the writer’s assertion that Obama’s missteps thus far have been of the, “let’s find something to complain about,” as he said, the rest of the article is mighty interesting.

And to digress, really, I don’t think it is nitpicking to want the head of the IRS to PAY HIS TAXES!!!! Or any other number of people nominated for posts who seem to have never seen any Turbo Tax ads or even any H&R Block commercials! It ain’t rocket science – they’ve made it pretty easy. Or how about Obama’s “Chief Vetter“? His wife, it seems, has failed to pay business taxes. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE??? And how in the world have they gotten away with this kind of behavior? What’s more, why are they operating at the highest levels of our government??? Sheesh. I could go on, but I’ll spare you.

So – back to the article. The big blunder by Obama is this: he has picked a man, Charles (Chas) Freeman to head up the National Intelligence Council. Not only has he expressed serious anti-Israel statements, but let me share with you these comments he made, some in WRITING, I might add. Here we go:

The most extreme manifestation of Freeman’s realist ideology came out in a leaked e-mail he sent to a foreign policy Internet mailing list. Freeman wrote that his only problem with what most of us call “the Tiananmen Square Massacre” was an excess of restraint:

“[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ‘student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.”

The author of the article conclude:

This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence Council job is so technocratic that Freeman’s rigid ideology won’t have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn’t work out very well, did it?

Holy freakin’ cow. Doesn’t that scare the pure-t crap out of you? So, should we, the American people, take advantage of our rights guaranteed under the Constitution for assembly AND to stand up to our government should it stop acting in our interests, just WHAT would Freeman do to us? Sure makes you wonder, doesn’t it? All of these people staging new Tea Parties across the country better beware, especially if they have the audacity (!) to stage a protest in Washington, DC!

Mighty scary indeed. Thank heavens I have little puppies to look forward to today…How about you?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just returned from her first trip abroad. She said she chose to visit Asia because of its rising importance to the United States. China, after all, buys U.S. Treasury bonds. President Obama would have a hard time paying the government’s bills without those purchases.

Mrs. Clinton frequently made the pitch that the bonds were safe, and that Asia needs a healthy American economy, making her, as one commentator said, the nation’s leading “merchant of debt.” But what she did not say was important, too.

She did not complain openly about China’s human rights abuses, even though the State Department issued its annual human rights assessment just after she returned from Asia. The department’s statement said, “The government of China’s human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas.”

Mrs. Clinton must have known what was in the report before she went to Asia, but she remained mum in public, although the State Department said she raised the issue in private meetings with Chinese leaders.

As she explained to reporters on the eve of her visit to China, taking up human rights abuses like the recent jailing of Liu Xiaobo, organizer of a manifesto favoring democratic change known as Charter 08, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.”

China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi purred that China’s relations with the new U.S. government were “off to a good start.”

But as Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch wrote in the magazine Foreign Policy, a “long-standing” theme of U.S. foreign policy has been “support for the brave individuals who are working within China to improve their country’s rights environment.” She noted that the Chinese government suppressed prominent government critics to keep them silent during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. It will be a blow to the morale of democracy activists in China, she wrote, to hear “that the United States now considers them an impediment to progress on other issues.”

That is sad — and unnecessary. China will continue to finance U.S. debt as it has in the past even though the United States speaks up for human rights, so long as U.S. Treasury bonds remain good investments. And no longer.

“I’m very proud that President Obama has made a total U-turn away from the policies of the last eight years,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Ewha University in South Korea.

If that means keeping a closed mouth on human rights abuses, she and the president have regrettably chosen the wrong direction (emphasis mine).

Here’s the thing – Secretary Clinton serves at the pleasure of the president She has to carry out HIS policies, NOT HERS. For the Editors to not even MENTION that this was Obama’s policy until the very end, and vaguely at that, is disingenuous at best. Obama is responsible for putting human rights on the back burner, which is why a number of human rights groups were upset with him. How sad that they continue to participate in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and are unwilling to put the blame where it should lie: squarely on Obama’s shoulders. This is HIS policy, not hers. It is far past time for the media to actually do their job, and stop their coddling of him. His policy, his responsibility. Deal with it.

Along those lines of Obama backtracking on his campaign promises, just in case anyone was under the delusion that his MAJOR flip to support FISA, and not filibuster it, was a fluke (Hahahahaha – sorry – I couldn’t help but laugh at the thought that someone could actually think that, but he – we’ve seen stranger things this past election season), check out this little story by the AP (they don’t like it when others run their stories). I’ll give you a hint Here is the first paragraph in the story:

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Oh, yeah, baby – Obama WANTED that ability, despite its being Un-Constitutional! He wanted all the same power, and more (remember Robert Byrd’s recent letter about Obama’s power-grab), that Bush had. It is time for his minions to get past their “disappointment” (as one of my family members referred to it) that he voted for it, and accept that he SUPPORTS having this ability for himself. Pull your heads out of the sand, and wrap your minds around it already. Obama is not the man you hoped he was. Deal with it.

Oh, and one more little backtrack while I am at it: Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. Seems it is not exactly what people thought it was going to be. Seems it will take a lot longer, and leave a lot more troops in than hoped. Heck, even some of the Democrats in Congress are upset about it, according to THIS article. No immediate withdrawal, and leaving at least 50,000 troops in country. Oh, and sending a whole bunch more folks to Afghanistan. Since people seem to have such short memories, bear in mind that the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for NINE years – NINE. And the Soviet Union ended up having to leave, never accomplishing their objective. Why? Because Afghanistan is a DIFFICULT country in which to wage a war. There are mountains, and caves, and all kinds of little hidey holes there, with some mighty strong factions there.

Now, I will be the first to say that post 9/11, I felt that if we were going to wage war against those responsible, Afghanistan was the place to be since that was where bin Laden was. But it is foolish to gloss over RECENT history and not understand how difficult this situation was going to be. It needed more troops to be sure, and it could have done with some oversight from the Senate.

Oh, wait – the person responsible for holding those subcommittee meetings couldn’t be bothered to actually HOLD any meetings. Yes, Barack Obama was that person. For him to now claim that not enough has been done in Afghanistan would be LAUGHABLE if not so insulting. HE chose not to do his duty as a US Senator, and is now acting like this is his first opportunity EVER to actually do something about it. Pathetic.

Sheesh. It seems Obama is knocking off one campaign promise after another. I wonder which one will be next?

There is little doubt that Germany carries the most weight within the European Union. Germany suffered massive inflation after the Weimar Republic and the fear of hyperinflation is deeply embedded in their culture. Given my experience and interest, I watch developments there fairly closely.

While China Agrees $10 Billion Trade Deal With Germany, Europe may seem to be a relatively small trade agreement on its face, I actually believe there are much greater implications, both real and symbolic, of this trade deal. What are they?

First off, the bulk of these trade agreements are in the auto, electronics, and tech industries. While U.S. companies may not be the world leaders in electronics, I do think we have some automotive and technology companies that may like a piece of this business especially at this time.

The more important signal of this trade agreement is on the political front. While Secretary of State Clinton has embraced China, the messages from President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner have been decidedly mixed. Don’t think for a second that the administration does not see and feel this agreement. I would bet that we see even further overtures made by both China and Russia towards Europe in an attempt to shift the balance of power.

Lastly, in reviewing this agreement please note that the Germans are exporting products and the Chinese are importing!! Secretary Geithner called on the Chinese to increase consumption and imports, but we did not get the trade!

Just a subtle message under the surface as the Prisoner’s Dilemma between the U.S. and China plays out.

Although this trade agreement got no coverage here in the United States, do you think if there were a multi-billion dollar trade agreement between the U.S. and China it may have been front page news?

LD

This is an especially IMPORTANT video, as will be more we’ll post for you from Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN program, a riveting hour. Really! (I stopped working on the blog, and listened! That’s rare!) We’ve differed with Zakaria’s views, but I admire his persistence in bringing world news to Americans, who often ignore international news, despite our gathering closeness. Right? I plead guilty and wish I knew more about the rest of the world. That’s why I make myself watch Zakaria’s program and PBS’s WorldFocus. So I honor Zakaria’s success in bringing this program to CNN. I imagine it wasn’t easy to sell an essentially American news network to devote a Sunday morning hour to world news!

FAREED ZAKARIA: “… Secretary Clinton’s trip to Asia, critiqued by some of the region’s best minds.” (The full transcript is below the fold.)

I’ve also included a fascinating remark that Zakaria used to open his program this morning on CNN in praise of the statements of Secretary Clinton about the besieged people of Burma – and ALL of the countries that we are affecting with our economic sanctions:

FIRST, before what Zakaria said about Hillary’s remarks on Burma and all of the economic sanctions we impose around the world thre are these reports from the BBC News and the New York Times:

New York Times, United States – Feb 18, 2009
“Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Indonesia’s …

TRANSCRIPT 1, Zakaria’s opening remarks that refer to Secretary Clinton’s progressive view on economic sanctions in re Burma:

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.

It’s been a week full of news — the housing bailout, more troops for Afghanistan — and we’ll get to all of it.

But I noticed something I thought was significant. On her trip through Asia, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that our policy of economic sanctions against Burma — Myanmar — has not worked.

The reason I think this is significant is that I’m hoping it is the beginning of a rethinking. There’s a standard U.S. policy toward any regime that we don’t like. There’s not much we can do about it, and we can’t change the regime’s policies. But we decide we can’t just sit there, so we slap sanctions on the country.

Now, look at the effects. In Cuba, 50 years of sanctions have allowed Fidel Castro and his brother to wrap themselves in the mantle of Cuban nationalism and stay in power.

In Iraq, sanctions destroyed the middle class, leaving a civil society composed of criminals and religious zealots.

In Pakistan, which we sanctioned for their nuclear tests in 1990, two generations of army officers were deprived of any contact with the U.S. and grew to be anti-American — and in many cases, pro-Taliban.

In Iran today, sanctions have allowed the regime to claim that they are heroically battling efforts by Washington to strangle the nation and its aspirations.

So, how much more evidence, in the form of misery for the people and power for the dictators, do we need before we conclude that economic sanctions are a feel-good policy that have had only bad effects on the ground?

[...]

Stay with us.

TRANSCRIPT 2, Zakaria’s panel on Secretary Clintons’ trip to Asia:

ZAKARIA: The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has just wrapped up her first foreign tour to East Asia. Significantly, 1961 was the last time that a secretary of state chose that region for a first visit.

Joining me now, three experts on Asia, two of them from Asia, to talk about what that trip accomplished.

From Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.” From New Delhi, Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief of “The Indian Express.” And here in New York, the China scholar Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Kishore, what do you make of the fact that Hillary chose East Asia as her first region?

KISHORE MAHBUBANI, AUTHOR, “THE NEW ASIAN HEMISPHERE”: Well, I think it’s a clear indication, frankly, of how power is shifting to Asia.

And frankly, at a time when you’re facing the greatest financial crisis in several decades, to put Asia on top of the list of priorities is also a clear signal that, if you want to have a solution to this massive financial crisis, you have to work with Asia, because this is where all the reserves are.

Hillary is coming at a time when she is essentially representing — you know, in the past, secretaries of state represented symbols of power. Now, there is the sense that the United States is a wounded animal, a deeply wounded animal coming to some extent to Asia for assistance.

So I think they’re looking for a signal to see, is the United States now ready to deal in a position of equality with the Asian countries and say, can we work together to get out of this mess?

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, the one thing that Indians have worried about the Obama administration is that it is going to be a little — how shall I put it — softer on the war on terror, that it might be a little bit more willing to accommodate itself to certain forces, whether they are, you know, militant — forces of militant Islam. And one of the problems Hillary Clinton will probably face in private conversations in Japan is their concern that both Bush and, now, Obama will be too soft on the North Korean issue.

Is there a fear that the United States is kind of losing its muscle in Asia?

SHEKHAR GUPTA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE INDIAN EXPRESS”: Well, I think there is a fear that the United States may be distracted. They’ve got so many problems back home that they may become more inward-looking.

Because we believe that many of the problems we face in our region, particularly that India faces in terms of terrorism, that the U.S. can’t walk away from them, because they were largely responsible for creating them — the creation of the Taliban, before that the mujahedeen. You know, there is no need to go into the entire history.

So you can’t create all of that, and then walk away. We’ve got a nuclear weapons power sitting next door to us.

On the other hand, many of us here believe that Obama, because there was some expectation that he might be soft on terror, he will in fact go out of his way to show that he has focus in that area. And frankly, what we have seen so far from Richard Holbrooke’s visit in the region suggests that that is true, that he is focused on the terror issue.

But the other big concern in these parts about the Obama administration, which I think is a more real concern, is this whole protectionism. And I think that, to me, is a bigger concern right now.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, let’s pick up on something Shekhar Gupta talked about with regard to protectionism.

We’re all in this crisis together, and yet, all the governments of the world are busy protecting all their banks, their inefficient industries. They’re raising tariffs everywhere.

The U.S. has this “buy America” provision in the fiscal stimulus. But frankly, so do almost all countries in one way or the other.

Is this the end of the kind of world trade system that Asia grew prosperous in?

MAHBUBANI: I completely agree with Shekhar that we should be very deeply, deeply worried about the rise of protectionism and of us backtracking away from the system of the past.

But I think the big difference in Asia is that the Asians have not lost their faith in globalization.

And what’s interesting is that, you know, when you watch — I was listening to your program earlier on, the American economists talking about the American reaction to this crisis. You know, there’s an old expression: never waste a crisis.

And the sense I have is that, if you look at the Chinese, for example, the Chinese government is not wasting this crisis. It is actually using this crisis, using this stimulus plan, to focus on the long-term investment and doing the right things.

And the Chinese, by the way, have become the biggest believers in globalization, because they know that they and India are going to become the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. So there is no intellectual retreat from globalization in the Chinese and Indian elites in the way that you see in Europe or America.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, what do you think the Chinese want from America? What do you think they conveyed to Hillary Clinton privately?

MINXIN PEI, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: First of all, keep your rhetoric down, don’t raise expectations. Second, I think, on the…

ZAKARIA: On issues like?

PEI: … on protectionism, of course, they do want Obama — and, of course, Secretary Clinton — to take their stand and draw a line in the sand, because the initial noises from Congress are not very reassuring.

But I want to say something. Right now, it’s very hard actually to make protectionism work, because of globalization. Half of China’s exports are made by American companies and other multinationals. So, half of Chinese exports to the U.S.

If you want to stop Chinese exports, you are actually penalizing American companies. So, not many congressmen actually get this. Once they look deeper into this, they will find that the task is almost impossible for them.

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, what do you think the Japanese have been pressing? Because there is sometimes talk about how the rise of China means that India and Japan are kind of moving closer together, and the U.S. is encouraging this kind of anti-Chinese — or perhaps not anti- Chinese, but a hedge strategy against China.

Do you think Hillary Clinton’s trip has in some ways as a backdrop this idea?

GUPTA: Well, I don’t think there is any juice in this idea in India. I don’t think there’s any section of Indian society, Indian politics, Indian elites, which wants to join any kind of a bulwark against China.

At the same time, India understands that unless it gets its act together, unless it takes the process of reform forward, it’s going to get left so far behind China. That’s why India is going to be watching both China and America very carefully.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, Shekhar Gupta from India, of New Delhi, and Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kishore, what is being described, in a sense, is an Asia that is, I wouldn’t say optimistic, but seems fairly comfortable, forward- looking, even though this crisis has devastated Asia economies. I mean, the news this week was that Taiwan’s economy shrunk by 8 percent. Singapore is in very bad shape.

Why is this not producing massive social turmoil, pessimism, things like that?

MAHBUBANI: Well, I’m glad that you have confirmed the thesis of my book, that Asia is the most optimistic place in the world. And I think it’s important to emphasize the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives.

This year will be very bad. Singapore will shrink minus 5 percent, Taiwan is shrinking, Japan is shrinking. But, you know, most Asians actually — you know, we had just gone through the Asian financial crisis only about 10, 12 years ago — which was massive, you know.

But we went through it, and came out of it stronger. And the one reason why the Asians are in some ways more relaxed about this crisis, they say, “Hey, we’ve been through this once before. And we’ve actually accumulated the reserves that we needed for this crisis. So we are ready for it.”

And in some ways, this crisis may create wonderful opportunities for the region.

And one of the points I completely agree with Shekhar about is that the Indians no longer see the world as a zero-sum game, that China’s rise is not necessarily bad for India, and nor is India’s rise bad for China. In fact, the region actually wants to see both China and India succeed and be the two new engines of economic growth to drive the region up.

So, frankly, when I talk to people in the region, yes, they’re worried about the next 12 months or so. But they’re absolutely confident that, when this crisis is over, Asia will bounce back faster than any other part of the world.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, a lot of people wonder whether this economic crisis has rattled the Chinese elite, rattled the Communist Party, you know, that they will not actually be that outward-looking, because they’re going to face internal protest, turmoil.

What is your sense of the impact of this economic crisis on the Chinese leadership? PEI: Well, indeed, they have been deeply, deeply rattled. Initially they were not prepared for this. They did not understand the depths and the potential risks of this crisis. And now, I think they’re caught in a downward spiral, because the deceleration of growth in China has exceeded all the worst forecasts.

And now with unemployment looming in China, and then a leadership succession coming up in three to four years, the Communist Party’s leaders are now, of course, much more focused on domestic affairs.

So, this trip may do some very nice door-opening or getting-to- know-you. There are substantive issues I’m not so sure that the Chinese leaders are ready to talk or engage on a really substantive level.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, do you think that the Chinese are in the mood to be very cooperative with the U.S.? Or are they — is there some feeling that they have been swindled by the Americans, that they have made massive investments in America from Treasury bills to private equity firms, all of these investments are doing badly, and there is a sense that maybe they need to turn away from the United States?

MAHBUBANI: I think it’s important to emphasize one thing. You know, when the Chinese look at these things, they always take a long- term perspective and not a short-term perspective. I mean, yes, they may lose some money from U.S. Treasury bills, but there are much larger long-term considerations.

And I was trying to see what I think would be going on in Chinese minds as they receive Hillary Clinton. I see the combination of two or three factors. One, of course, they are very happy that she is coming to send a signal — hey, Asia matters, China matters. And they welcome that.

And the other point that is also critical in Chinese minds is that they realize that we are all in the same boat. We have to get out of this big crisis. And the only way we get out of this is to work together.

And if that’s the attitude of the United States, China will say, yes, we will cooperate with you to fix this.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, finally, Hillary Clinton comes back from Asia. Do you think that this, you know, that her trip will have in some way laid the groundwork for some shift in policy that the Obama people will put in place?

PEI: No, no. This is a symbolic trip, no substance attached to it. Well, if anything that will come out of this trip where China is concerned, I think is climate change, because she brought with her the top person on climate change, Todd Stern.

And if Obama wants to accomplish something in his first term that will be of truly historic proportion, an agreement with China on climate change will be it.

ZAKARIA: And on that note, Minxin Pei, Shekhar Gupta from New Delhi, Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, thank you very much.

WAIT! THERE IS MORE TO COME! STAY TUNED!!!

Later today, stay tuned for more fascinating offerings from Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan.

You will NOT want to miss it, I promise you.

Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada. Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama’s campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government — via the Chicago consulate general — regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.

- Snip -

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

During a candidates’ debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders — Obama and Hillary Clinton — suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren’t renegotiated.

- Snip -

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

“At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA,” it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

“The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were,” said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government — who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp — have reconfirmed their position.

- Snip -

However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal.

“If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss,” Harper said.

My, my – was that really only a year ago? Oh, yes – Obama was saying one thing to people in the Midwest, and apparently, saying something quite the opposite on the down low in Canada.

Lo and behold, it seems the Canadian report was right, at least according to this NY Times article regarding Obama’s recent trip, Nafta Looming Over Obama’s Canada Trip :

As a candidate, Barack Obama courted votes in the Rust Belt by suggesting he might renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact he criticized as not “good for America.”

Now Mr. Obama is about to make his first foreign trip as president to Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner — and he is sounding a strikingly different message.

With Canadians up in arms over “Buy America” provisions in President Obama’s economic recovery package, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning the United States not to back away from its international treaty obligations, Mr. Obama, who will make a day trip to Ottawa on Thursday, is no longer emphasizing the idea of reopening Nafta.

Instead, he and his senior advisers are talking up the booming trade relationship between Canada and the United States — the largest trade partnership in the world, the White House says — and limiting their Nafta message to revamping side agreements on environmental and labor protections.

Well, golly gee. Yet another campaign promise proven to be a lie. Raise your hand if you are surprised! Yeah, I thought not.

The article continues:

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, the president said there were “a lot of sensitivities right now” about renegotiating trade pacts “because of the huge decline in world trade.” As he tries to right the struggling American economy, Mr. Obama pledged to do so in a way that would enhance, rather than suppress, trade between the two nations.

“It’s not in anybody’s interest to see that trade diminish,” he said.

Trade is an issue that has long bedeviled Democrats, and this is especially so for Mr. Obama. Trade has split the party along regional and economic lines, pitting those who see a globalized economy as inevitable and productive against those in economically depressed areas of the nation, like Ohio and Michigan, who see the price of free trade, in lost jobs and declining wages, as simply too high for the American worker to bear.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, fought hard to pass Nafta (sic), and made many in his party uncomfortable — including, eventually, his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who like Mr. Obama talked of reopening the pact when she was running for president.

Interesting.

Ah, yes, Obama continues to renege on campaign promises made, now that he’s actually in the White House. His latest is yet another stand with a Bush Doctrine, Siding with Bush, Obama says Afghan detainees have no U.S. rights. Oh, what a surprise!!! Just like the Extraordinary Rendition and State Secrets part Obama kept – I have been saying this for MONTHS and months – Obama is Bush III. This is why he voted for FISA, too. He wanted all the same “tools” available to him that Bush managed to secure. Here’s the nitty-gritty:

The 600-plus detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment, the Justice Department said today in a two-sentence court filing.

Last summer the Supreme Court gave al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects held at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention. But the Justice Department argues that Bagram is different: it’s in a war zone and the prisoners are the result of continuing military action.

“They’ve now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law,” said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has represented several detainees.

“The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we’d hoped,” said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram. “We all expected better.”

The decision also disappointed Amnesty International, which issued a report calling for judicial review of the detentions.

Uh, yes. Again, groups are “disappointed” – the ACLU, Amnesty International, HRC, and on, and on. All “disappointed” that Obama is not doing what he said he would do.

They SHOULD be disappointed in themselves for believing his lies, for pretending that his “hope and change” message was a substitute for certifiable experience and an actual RECORD on which to base his claims. They’re “disappointed.” Yeah. Join the club. I’m “disappointed” that all of these groups bought this crap in the first place, and stuck us with this guy.

Sigh. Once again, though, there is one bright light, one adult in the room who DOES instill some faith. Oh, and she actually HAS a record on which to base her actions. Oh, yes, Sec. Clinton. She is winding up her first trip abroad as the Secretary of State, and has been doing a fine job of it. Here she is arriving in China:

And while in China, Secretary Clinton has been focusing on a number of issues, particularly Climate Change. Hopefully, this will be an issue on which our two countries can work together successfully (Sec. Clinton did mention Tibet, but for now, the Obama Administration is keeping a low profile on the issue of human rights).

Hmmm – I wonder what will be next on Obama’s list of promises to break? Oh, that could be a whole new party game, come to think of it! We already have the drinking game Jon Stewart proposed (taking a drink whenever Obama pauses while talking), so why not have a “Which Promise Is Going Down The Toilet Next?” game? Hey, it’s one the whole family can play together! What a uniter!! Which one do you think is next?