Obama administration officials are struggling to respond to the recent signing of a law in Afghanistan that critics say gives Shiite men the legal right to rape their wives.

WASHINGTON -- As first lady, senator and then Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton was vocal in her fight for the rights of women in Afghanistan.

But, as President Obama's secretary of state, Clinton now finds herself in the uncomfortable position of watching as the U.S.-backed Afghan president signs a law that critics say gives Shiite men the right to rape their wives.

International criticism pressure forced President Hamid Karzai to say Saturday that the law is under review, and he has spoken to Clinton about it.

The developments come as Obama seeks NATO support in Europe for his plan to ramp up the war against terrorists in Afghanistan. Back at home in Washington, administration officials have struggled this week with how to respond to Karzai's signing of the so-called Shia Family Law without debate in the Afghan parliament. The law's most controversial provisions address sexual intercourse in marriage.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

Such a law runs contrary to the stated goals of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan -- to pursue human rights and to help liberate women from religious oppression. It is a cause that has been championed by previous administrations, and particularly by previous first ladies.

The details of the law surfaced this week, just days after one of those former first ladies, Clinton, told the International Conference on Afghanistan at The Hague, Netherlands: "Women's rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal; they are not an add-on or an afterthought."

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Thursday that officials were "reviewing the legislation." He suggested that its legality might be in question.

"We urge President Karzai to review the law's legal status to correct provisions of the law that ... limit or restrict women's rights," Wood said. He added that "President Karzai is well aware of our views with regard to this legislation."

Karzai said Saturday that "measures will be taken," though it is unclear what changes, if any, he has in mind. He said he hadn't seen "any problems" with the law when he previously studied it.

Afghanistan's constitution, which was passed in 2004, calls for equal rights for all men and women. But the constitution also says that no law can contradict the laws of Islam. And in situations where the constitution lacks provisions, courts are allowed to use Islamic law, which critics say does not allow for equal rights.

Reports suggest Karzai pushed through the law on behalf of powerful fundamentalist Shiite leaders, whose support he needs ahead of his country's August elections. The law will affect only Shiites, estimated by various sources to be between 10 and 30 percent of the population. The law will not affect Afghanistan's Sunni majority.

In a written statement, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband.... The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways."

The law also has drawn fire from women in the Afghan parliament, as well as groups inside and outside Afghanistan, who say it rolls back the gains they made after the U.S. military ousted the Taliban government in 2002.

"All the efforts that were made in the last seven years to enhance women's rights will be undermined," said Afghan lawmaker Fawzia Kufi.

"This law comes as very little surprise to me. It is literally the price we've paid for dealing with fundamentalists," said Sonali Kolhatkar, who co-directs the Afghan Women's Mission in the U.S.

"In order to build a robust civil society in Afghanistan we need to push and pull the Afghans on basic human rights," said Ann Marlowe, an American author who has reported frequently from Afghanistan. She has said Karzai is not "at heart a supporter of women's rights."

Seven years into the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban is clinging to power in swaths of the country and in neighboring Pakistan, and Obama administration officials acknowledge that women are still struggling against violence, illiteracy and poverty. But many believe the U.S. will have to negotiate with Islamist warlords -- or perhaps even the Taliban -- to achieve political or military success.

"The contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way," columnist Marie Cocco wrote for RealClearPolitics.com. "But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime."

David Isby, the Washington-based author of several books on Afghanistan, says it should be no surprise that Shiite fundamentalist leaders want this new law, and that Karzai, seeking re-election, would grant it. He says there was an inherent conflict in trying to impose Western values on the Muslim nation to begin with. As for negotiating with fundamentalists, he said, "If they talked with only people we approve of, you would have six Afghans to work with."

But critics like Marlowe and Kolhatkar aren't buying it. They say there are plenty of progressive Afghans who are unhappy about the shifting tide but never get a seat at the table. They say the Obama administration must be steadfast in its position that Afghanistan needs to honor human rights.

Said Kolhatkar: "Any real power deals done between the U.S. and these forces, neither option really works for women. Women are constantly being subordinated."

"Certainly it is a wonderful thing to champion women's rights," said Kolhatkar, "but put your money where your mouth is."

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, FOX News, April 4, 2009

STRASBOURG, France (AP) - Asserting his voice at NATO, President Barack Obama on Saturday welcomed Albania and Croatia to the alliance and declared to other nations that "the door to membership will remain open."

"It is a measure of our vitality that we are still welcoming new members," Obama said of NATO, which is marking its 60th anniversary at a summit dominated by the war in Afghanistan.

Obama, the one doing the welcoming, is himself new to the table. He is taking part in his first NATO summit and seeking support from allied nations toward the plodding effort in Afghanistan, where the new U.S. president is sending in more troops and civilian help.

As the leaders got down to business, the two NATO summit hosts, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, made it clear they embraced new U.S. leadership. "We are very pleased to work with him," Sarkozy said of Obama. "We trust him."

Meanwhile, outside, police fired tear gas and flash bombs at protesters throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks less than 2 miles from the gathering of world leaders. First lady Michelle Obama and other spouses canceled a visit to a cancer hospital out of concern for security, the French president's office said.

One of NATO'S stickiest political issues is how and where to grow. Germany, France and many other NATO nations fear any more NATO eastward expansion will further damage the alliance's ties to Russia.

Said Obama: "The door to membership will remain open for other countries that meet NATO standards and can make a meaningful contribution to allied security."

Founded in 1949, NATO has added members since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, its Soviet-dominated Cold War foe. In contrast to the alliance's previous eastward expansion, which infuriated Russia, Moscow has not objected to the inclusion of Albania and Croatia in NATO.

Albania and Croatia officially joined NATO this week. Obama praised them for having already deployed troops to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, calling that commitment a sign that both countries will be strong contributors.

"We are proud to have you as allies," Obama said. He also made a pitch for Macedonia and said he looks forward to the day when it will would join the alliance, too. Macedonia's accession to NATO has been stalled over a dispute with Greece.

Earlier, in a move symbolic of NATO's unity, Obama began his Saturday by joining Merkel and other heads of states in walking along a pedestrian bridge that links Germany and France across the Rhine River. The leaders met Sarkozy at the center of the bridge, then crossed together onto the French side in Strasbourg and posed for a group photo.

In the midst of an eight-day trip abroad, Obama says it is a new day in U.S.-European relations. But he is likely to encounter the same old story of allied reluctance to send more troops to Afghanistan.

The European allies may pony up a marginal increase in forces keyed to preparations for Afghanistan's national elections in August, but the Obama administration is pinning its main hopes on getting more civilian contributions - particularly trainers for the Afghan police.

At the summit's opening on Friday, capped by a working dinner in nearby Baden-Baden, Germany, Obama promised to repair damaged relations with Europe, asked for support of his new war strategy in Afghanistan and pledged a U.S. commitment to global elimination of nuclear weapons - in the name of keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists.

The summit's co-hosts, Sarkozy and Merkel, both were quick to offer support for Obama's new Afghan strategy of sending American reinforcements and bolstering the training of Afghan forces. But they would go no farther.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said securing new commitments from allies would neither begin nor end with the NATO meetings, noting that nations need more time to digest Obama's revamped war strategy. Obama's national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, said Obama's new approach to Afghanistan, which calls for widening the approach to include more civilian effort and broadening the focus to include Pakistan, would inspire fresh involvement. "I think there's a new mood," Jones said.

By ROBERT BURNS, The Associated Press, April 4, 2009

President Obama tries out his own description of the 'global war on terrorism.'

SECRETARY OF STATE Hillary Rodham Clinton recently confirmed that the Obama administration has dropped the phrase "global war on terror." She didn't say why. "I think that speaks for itself. Obviously," was her elaboration. That raised a few obvious questions: Does the new administration believe the fight against al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamist groups doesn't amount to war? Is the threat to the U.S. homeland less, in President Obama's estimation, than that perceived by President George W. Bush? And does the United States still expect its NATO military allies to join in this newly unnamed, speaks-for-itself endeavor?

A partial answer came this week in congressional testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Michelle Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, who described a serious and continuing menace from terrorist networks. "In the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region you have continued safe haven for al-Qaeda and other extremists, who we know are actively plotting against American interests, American allies and the American homeland. So this is a matter of vital national interest," said Ms. Flournoy. Said Gen. Petraeus: "All of [the terrorist groups] together represent a threat . . . and, in certain cases, a truly global extremist threat."

But it was Mr. Obama himself who most compellingly stated the administration's position, and in the best of locales -- in front of a European audience yesterday in Strasbourg, France. "I think it's important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now president and George Bush is no longer president, al-Qaeda is still a threat," he said. "It is going to be a very difficult challenge." The president noted that some argue that if the United States changed policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or "were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly these organizations would stop threatening us." He concluded: "That's just not the case."

"We believe that we cannot just win militarily," said Mr. Obama, citing the new development and diplomatic efforts he has launched in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "But there will be a military component to it, and Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone." George W. Bush might have spoken those words, but Mr. Obama, in contrast to how his predecessor might have been received, was greeted with applause by his European audience.

So the threat is "a matter of vital national interest," it is "global," and it requires a military response, with NATO's participation. It seems the "global war on terrorism" will continue -- only without the name. There is some logic to that: Mr. Obama is acutely aware of the damage done by the Bush administration to American prestige in Europe and throughout the Muslim world, and he has spoken much this week of a fresh start. As many have pointed out, the old term was awkward -- "terror" describes a means of war, not an enemy. The challenge for the new administration is to describe that enemy and the campaign against it in ways that convey its urgency to both Americans and foreign audiences -- and that unite rather than polarize. In that respect, Mr. Obama made a good start in Strasbourg.

The Washington Post, April 4, 2009

That's the message President Obama will take to this weekend's NATO summit in France, where the need for the United States' allies to contribute more troops, funds and military training programs in Afghanistan will overshadow celebrations of the security organization's 60th anniversary.

In an interview with USA TODAY on Thursday, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan called on NATO to expand its role there to include training Afghanistan's nascent police force, which has lagged its army in training and effectiveness.

"I think if NATO and other military contributors to this campaign don't put an effort into working with the police the same as we put into working with the (Afghan) army, then I think we're short-sighted in our approach here," U.S. Gen. David McKiernan said in Kabul.

McKiernan described Afghan police as "the critical link" in efforts to beat back a reinvigorated offensive by insurgents from the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Once an area is cleared of insurgents by NATO troops, the police are charged with holding the area, providing security and preventing the militants from returning.

The official mission of NATO - which encompasses the USA and 25 other, mostly European countries - currently does not include police training in Afghanistan. That's because most member countries consider police training to be a function of law enforcement, and therefore outside their military responsibilities, McKiernan said.

Several European countries have long placed tight restrictions on what their troops can do in Afghanistan, limiting them to humanitarian missions rather than combat operations, for example.

U.S. forces have taken the lead in police training, and some other countries also participate outside the official NATO umbrella. Their efforts have not been enough.

As of now, U.S. and allied countries are providing police mentor teams at 55 of Afghanistan's 365 districts, said U.S. Army Col. Stephen Yackley, an official at the U.S. command that oversees the training of Afghan security forces.

McKiernan's request comes as Obama has announced plans to escalate the U.S. commitment by sending 21,000 additional servicemembers before the end of the year. The Taliban, which governed Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion in 2001, has expanded its influence in some areas of the country, aided by militants based across the border in Pakistan.

McKiernan said he is confident the additional U.S. troops would "change the ... security balance in the south," where the Taliban has made gains.

At a briefing Thursday in London, National Security Adviser James Jones said member countries were still "considering" how to provide reinforcements.

"I expect there will be additional troop contributions," Jones said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the renewed emphasis on training Afghan troops and police was part of a "shift of strategy" in the Afghanistan war that Obama announced last month.

Clinton said that among U.S. allies, "there's a great deal of interest ... in participating in this training."

Afghanistan's government is working on several initiatives to reform police, including an electronic payment system that cuts down on graft. The system is designed to eliminate a scam in which officers pocket the salaries of "ghost employees."

U.S. and some NATO combat forces are also teaming up directly with police and army, living and working alongside them.

"As we build (U.S. and NATO) forces up here we need to make sure we have Afghan forces both in the army and the police to partner with," said U.S. Marine Col. Julian Alford, a staff officer.

"If we go into an area and we don't have our Afghan partners with us, then we're just another invading army," Alford said.

By Jim Michaels and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY, April 3, 2009

JERUSALEM (AFP) - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called her Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman and the two agreed to meet "as soon as possible," Lieberman's office said on Thursday.

"The secretary of state and Mr. Lieberman agreed during the telephone conversation to meet as soon as possible," an official with his office told AFP, without saying when the conversation took place.

Since officially taking over the foreign ministry on Wednesday, Lieberman has received invitations for a visit from counterparts in Italy and Spain, he said.

Lieberman also spoke by phone with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

The firebrand Lieberman sparked controversy as soon as he took office, saying Israel was not obligated by the US-backed 2007 agreement to restart peace talks with the Palestinians.

On Thursday he continued to pour oil on the fire, refusing any withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights plateau in exchange for peace with Syria.

AFP, April 2, 2009

LONDON - For Hillary Rodham Clinton, arriving here on Tuesday night from The Hague was a lesson in the difference between being a supremely important person and just a very important one.

Mrs. Clinton's government plane was put into a holding pattern in the skies over Stansted Airport because air traffic had been backed up by Air Force One and other planes carrying world leaders to the economic summit meeting here. Once on the ground, her blue-and-white Boeing 757 taxied past President Obama's much larger 747, parking at a respectful distance.

After jetting around the world for the last two months as the chief emissary of the United States - conferring with presidents, announcing diplomatic overtures and getting rapturous receptions from Indonesia to Turkey - Mrs. Clinton has abruptly become a foot soldier again, in a squad led by her boss.

The secretary of state is not even the president's most important lieutenant at the Group of 20 meeting. That distinction goes to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who is responsible for the economic issues under discussion here and will serve as Mr. Obama's right hand.

Mrs. Clinton spent Wednesday accompanying Mr. Obama to meetings with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China. Six weeks ago, Mr. Hu received Mrs. Clinton in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

The administration's hierarchy was also on vivid display last week, when Mrs. Clinton flew home from Mexico late Thursday, so she could stand wordlessly behind Mr. Obama at the White House as he presented his Afghanistan policy on Friday. She then flew right to Texas to pick up an award from Planned Parenthood.

In The Hague, where Mrs. Clinton attended a conference on Afghanistan, she even took a back seat - in visibility, if not in substance - to one of her subordinates, Richard C. Hoolbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Holbrooke managed to grab a few words during a lunch break with an Iranian diplomat, marking the first face-to-face encounter of the Obama administration with the Iranian regime. It was the headline of the day, and Mrs. Clinton found herself confirming Mr. Holbrooke's coup.

Aides to Mrs. Clinton said she encouraged the meeting, largely because protocol prevented her doing it herself. Iran's representative, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh, is only a deputy foreign minister.

Mr. Holbrooke attributed the rendezvous to geographic happenstance: he was seated at a table next to Mr. Akhondzadeh's and was able to table-hop for a two-minute chat about Persian architecture.

"For her to cross the room to greet him would have been odd," Mr. Holbrooke said Wednesday by telephone from Munich, where he was at a follow-up meeting on Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton will be at Mr. Obama's side for the next few days, as he travels to a NATO summit meeting in France and Germany, and a European Union gathering in Prague. Aides say it is entirely possible she will not utter a word in public during any of Mr. Obama's appearances. She has sent her own plane home, kept only a handful of staff members and now views herself as the No. 1 member of the president's staff, the aides said.

White House officials said Mrs. Clinton's collegial, pragmatic approach has enhanced her influence with Mr. Obama. On her trip to China, for example, she played down human rights concerns, saying she did not want them to interfere with priorities like climate change and the economy.

That cost her with human-rights groups: Amnesty International said it was shocked by what it viewed as her backsliding. But it helped her with the White House. She laid the groundwork for Mr. Obama's meeting with Mr. Hu on Wednesday, these officials said.

At home, Mrs. Clinton has no shortage of access to Mr. Obama. In addition to their regular weekly meeting on Thursday afternoons, aides say, she sees him several times a week at the White House.

When Mrs. Clinton travels, there are always reminders that she is no ordinary secretary of state. On her flight here from The Hague, a large bouquet of Dutch tulips occupied a seat in the press section, which was empty because most members of the traveling press corps had opted to fly home.

A gift of the Dutch foreign minister, they were Hillary Clinton tulips, a variety that was especially cultivated and named for her in 1994, when she was first lady. (Barbara Bush also has her own.)

Mrs. Clinton asked that the flowers be brought to cheer up her hotel room in central London. Mr. Obama has less need of that: he and the first lady, Michelle Obama, are staying at Winfield House, the magnificent residence of the American ambassador to the Court of St. James's.





By Mark Landler, The New York Times, April 1, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, March 31 -- The Obama administration has decided to seek a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Tuesday, reversing a decision by the Bush administration to shun the U.N.'s premier rights body to protest the repressive states among its membership.

The United States announced it would stand as a candidate in elections May 15 to decide three seats on the 47-member council, joining Belgium and Norway on a slate of Western candidates. New Zealand, which had planned to run as well, offered to step aside to allow the United States to run unchallenged.

Clinton and Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the decision was part of a broader push for "a new era of engagement" in U.S. foreign policy.

"Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy," Clinton said in a statement. "With others, we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system to advance the vision of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights."

The decision was criticized by U.S. conservatives, who regard the council as fatally flawed.

"This is like getting on board the Titanic after it's hit the iceberg," said John R. Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations in 2005 and 2006 under President George W. Bush. "It legitimizes something that doesn't deserve legitimacy."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the "decision surrenders the strongest leverage we have to force changes in the council."

But U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and human rights advocates welcomed Clinton's announcement, saying U.S. membership would help blunt the influence of some of the council's most repressive members.

The Obama administration and rights advocates concede that the council has failed to emerge as a powerful champion of human rights and has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Sudan's Darfur region.

The Human Rights Council was established in March 2006 to replace the Human Rights Commission, whose credibility had suffered because of the membership of noted rights abusers, including Zimbabwe and Sudan. The Bush administration refused to join the new council but initially agreed to fund it and be an observer. It later withdrew.

By Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, April 1, 2009

THE HAGUE, March 30 -- The billions of dollars spent in U.S. aid to Afghanistan over the past seven years have been largely wasted, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

"For those of you who have been on the ground in Afghanistan, you have seen with your own eyes that a lot of these aid programs don't work," she said. "There are so many problems with them. There are problems of design, there are problems of staffing, there are problems of implementation, there are problems of accountability. You just go down the line."

Clinton called the amount of money spent without results "heartbreaking."

Speaking to reporters as she flew here to attend a conference to promote the Obama administration's new policy for Afghanistan, Clinton said the ability of the United States to effectively administer aid programs has "very little credibility" among Afghans. Under the new American plan, she said, the United States will limit its aid efforts to areas of expertise while recruiting other countries to take on elements of a coordinated aid effort.

Clinton also acknowledged that administration officials have stopped calling the fight against al-Qaeda "the global war on terror," the preferred phraseology during the Bush era.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase, and I think that speaks for itself, obviously," she said, adding that there had been no formal policy directive to do so. "It's just not being used."

Many Democrats have contended that the "war on terror" label was too broad, potentially enlisting the United States in a war with any militant group; the president's new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy lists as its central aim disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda.

The United Nations-sponsored conference will bring together on Tuesday more than 80 countries and nongovernmental organizations. It is designed to renew support for Afghanistan in advance of presidential elections planned in August but is also seen by U.S. officials as a chance to gain international backing for the administration's approach. Clinton said she planned to announce a $40 million contribution to a U.N. effort to raise more than $200 million to hold the elections.

Since 2006, the U.S. Agency for International Development has spent more than $5 billion in Afghanistan, according to figures on the agency's Web site. Clinton oversees USAID, which has boasted a number of success stories, including building hundreds of schools, distributing 60 million textbooks and vaccinating 90 percent of children against polio. But a report by Oxfam last week charged that much of the U.S. aid in Afghanistan is wasted on consulting costs, subcontractor fees and duplication.

Clinton's blunt comments on past aid programs -- which appeared to also indict the broader international effort -- will probably raise the bar for the administration's aid programs. "We are scrubbing every single civilian program," she said. "This is part of my mission as secretary of state. We are looking at every single dollar as to how it's spent and where it's going and trying to track the outcomes. We want to see real results."

Iran is sending a senior representative to the conference -- expected to be a deputy foreign minister -- but Clinton said she had no plans to meet with him or even address Iran in her prepared remarks to the conference. She said she was looking forward to hearing what Iran believed it could do to assist Afghanistan.

"From our information, they are really concerned about all of the narcotics crossing the border into their country, so this is a matter of their own internal security," Clinton said. "Border security and counternarcotics are a combined issue that have a great deal of importance to them, and I would imagine that's an area where they are willing to work with others."

The United States and Iran worked cooperatively on Afghanistan immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but that cooperation largely ended after President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address.

Obama administration officials have said they hope Afghanistan could once again be an area where the two countries, antagonists for three decades, might begin to find common interests.

By Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, March 31, 2009

THE HAGUE--As the day wore on at the international conference on Afghanistan Tuesday, it was looking pretty grim for the reporters covering Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The high-minded speeches by foreign ministers on helping Afghanistan were not the reason many of the reporters had made the trip. We came mainly because this was the first opportunity for Clinton to cross paths with Iranian officials. The Obama administration has made outreach to Tehran a top priority, and anticipation ran high that something might happen. After all, when Clinton announced the plans for the conference a few weeks ago, the invite to Iran was the top news out of the announcement.

But nothing seemed to be happening. Clinton and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh were seated at the same horse-shaped table, but the table was long and narrow. In fact, the table looked more like a test tube--and Clinton was at one end and Akhundzadeh was on the other side and about 30 seats away. They could barely wave to each other if they had wanted to.

The Dutch put on a rather efficient show, given the few weeks' notice, with perfectly working computer wires and an endless supply of tasty (and free) food for the reporters. But the high hopes for an Iranian-American meeting were fading.

Then super-diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke saved the day. Somehow Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, maneuvered his way into talking with Akhundzadeh. Clinton felt compelled the confirm the encounter, adding that it "did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch."

Clinton herself also dispatched an aide to deliver an unsigned document to the Iranian delegation concerning the fate of three Americans in Iran. Usually, such communications between the two countries are handled through the Swiss government because Iran and the United States do not have diplomatic relations.

Interestingly, Clinton only revealed this development in response to a question at a news conference. She kept her prepared remarks squarely focused on Afghanistan, perhaps knowing full well that virtually every question from reporters would concern Iran.

Clinton's staff declined to provide many details about either the Holbrooke meeting or the document tranfer. They would not say who delivered the aide-memoire to the Iranian delegation, when it was delivered or why a decision was made to approach Iran in this way. They also would not provide any details about Holbrooke's discussion, including how long it lasted.

Akhundzadeh later denied there was ever a meeting with Holbrooke, though that may depend on the definition of "meeting." Clinton herself called it a "brief and cordial exchange."

In any event, the reporters suddenly had a story to justify the travel with Clinton. And if the administration had any doubt about whether news crews are highly interested in its outreach to Iran, those doubts have been put to rest.

Programming note: We're off the plane. Clinton flew Tuesday night to join President Obama in London for his tour of Europe, but the diplomatic reporters stayed behind and are flying home by commercial jet. Once the secretary of state joins the president, the White House correspondents pick up the story--and future posts about their travel will appear on our presidential blog, 44.




By Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, April 1, 2009

On the eve of a conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sees stemming cross-border drug flows as key for Iranian participants.

Although Iran's clerics have been cool to the Obama administration's overture, Tehran plans to send a deputy foreign minister to the meeting.

"The fact that they accepted an invitation suggests that they believe there is a role for them to play" in Afghanistan, Clinton said.

Iran's participation in such events is considered unpredictable. In December, Iranian officials abruptly dropped plans to attend a French-sponsored conference on Afghanistan.

The administration has already taken several steps to signal its interest in reengaging with Iran. Over the weekend, a U.S. diplomat attended a meeting in Moscow of a regional group to which Iran also sent observers. And the administration is likely to lift 30-year-old rules restricting contacts between lower-level U.S. and Iranian officials.

The administration last week unveiled a new strategy for Afghanistan that identifies the defeat of Al Qaeda as Washington's goal but calls for an intensification of the military mission and a boosting of the economy and government.

The conference comes at a time when the insurgency in Afghanistan is strengthening and public support in the West for the mission there is weakening.




By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2009

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - The phrase "global war on terror" is finished, at least as far as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is concerned.

The top U.S. diplomat told reporters Tuesday that the Obama administration has quit using that line to describe the effort to fight terrorism around the world.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," Clinton said.

Clinton spoke as she headed to Europe for a week of diplomatic meetings. The phrase "war on terror" is widely disliked in Europe and elsewhere overseas, where even close U.S. allies suggested it was overly militaristic and perhaps counterproductive.

It is also now associated with a range of Bush administration policies such as harsh interrogation practices that President Barack Obama has pledged to abandon.

Clinton was asked about the phrase as she headed to Europe for a week of diplomatic meetings.

Pundits have noted the absence of the "war on terror" language, but top administration figures have had little to say on the subject before now.

"I haven't heard it used. I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it, it's just not being used," Clinton said.

Then-President George W. Bush used the phrase as a rallying cry after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

By ANNE GEARAN, The Associated Press, March 30, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke some truths the other day that may be difficult for many Americans to hear. Clinton acknowledged that our drug habits and the ready availability of guns in this country are implicated in the escalating drug violence scarring Mexico.

And so they are. Getting out of denial about this could be our first step toward tamping down the narco-terror that threatens to spill over into this country.

Focusing on our own piece in this is not to ignore Mexico's role in the worsening situation. Not at all. The corruptibility of that country's police and bureaucracy contribute enormously to the mindless brutality. In 2009, the term drug war is no longer metaphorical. Innocent lives are being lost on all sides.

Clinton was right to summarize things unflinchingly. "We have accepted that this is a co-responsibility," she said on her visit last week to Mexico. "We see it as a responsibility to help the Mexican government and people defeat an enemy."

Victory will only come if both governments are willing to address root causes. For the Mexicans, that means cleaning up a legal and policing system that is still susceptible to the influence of la mordida, "the bite" taken by public officials in exchange for favors large and small.

On this side of the border, the day is coming when the country must look seriously at ways to rein in the multibillion-dollar market that enriches the drug lords while filling American prisons with inmates. This means reassessing the generation-long national drug war, and should include debate on the merits and pitfalls of legalization of drugs. It must also feature a reasoned discussion on better controlling the flow of automatic weapons across the border.

Surely by now, people in both countries have had enough of finger pointing.

What's the old saying? Be careful: When you point your finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. When it comes to drug traffic, that's achingly true for both Mexico and the United States.

Houston Chronicle, March 29, 2009

Secretary of State Clinton will try to enlist Iran in combating the Afghan narco-trade in the first high-level talks involving the two foes in 30 years, top White House officials said Saturday.

Clinton is set to engage the Iranian delegation Tuesday at a United Nations-sponsored forum on Afghanistan at The Hague - assuming the Iranians show up.

Through Swiss intermediaries, Iran has signaled its intent to attend, but has yet to name a delegate to the Netherlands forum.

Iran faces a growing heroin abuse problem fueled by the opium trafficking out of neighboring Afghanistan, said White House deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough. "We hope [Clinton] has the opportunity to constructively engage this issue," McDonough said. "There's some opportunity to cooperate with Iran on this issue."

The U.S. broke off relations with Iran during the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

By Richard Sisk, New York DAILY NEWS, March 28th 2009