|
| > |
| newsupdate |
|
Clinton: Libya showed U.S. leadership to be ‘essential’
On Gaddafi’s defeat as a vindication of Obama administration policy:
“I do think that we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region. And it turned out to have brought about the result that we thought it would in a relatively short period of time. . . .
We live in an incredibly complex world where America’s leadership is essential, where a lot of the things we want to see done in our own national interest in furtherance of our own values are important enough that, if necessary, we would do it unilaterally, but preferably, we want to do it with a coalition of nations that understand the interests and values at stake.”
On the initial reluctance to embrace the no-fly zone:
“It was so unclear in the beginning as to how this would play out. It took some time for me to be convinced that we could put together a credible coalition that would be able to support the opposition and to support strong action in the UN and then the kind of military support that they needed in order to have a chance at succeeding. . . .
There was a lot of questioning within our government about whether we should do anything; if so, what should we do; what kind of role the United States should play. And it was important to do — to lay the groundwork, which meant we had to find out who these people were, look them in the eye, try to figure out how serious they were, how capable they were. We had to test the willingness of the Arab League and Arab countries to go beyond rhetoric to action and support. We had to be sure that the U.N. would pass the kind of resolution that would enable the international community, starting with sanctions and freezing of assets and then moving to the no-fly zone, embargo, civilian protection mission. And all of that took intensive amounts of diplomacy.”
On ensuring Arab support for the mission:
“The turning point in the international assessment was when the Arab League asked for action. And as I said, we had to do a lot to make it clear they totally understood what they were asking for when they asked for a no-fly zone, so that there couldn’t be any recriminations later. So we did a lot of that work, we laid the groundwork. So then when they came in with their Arab League meeting and said yes, we want you to do that, it was really important that they participate. And it turned out that they did. And although Egypt and Tunisia did not participate in any kind of military way, their support on the borders was absolutely essential.”
On concerns about a possible stalemate:
“I really did think if we had the patience to persist, we would see success with the mission. For a couple of weeks there, we were having regular calls of just the top national security officials with our military commanders who were part of the NATO mission in some supportive role, and our understanding of the situation was getting better by the day. The NATO mission, along with our Arab allies, was getting smoother. . . .
When we started, we had no ability to have ground-based assessment teams that could give us the intelligence and the surveillance and the reconnaissance that you usually have. The president had said no boots on the ground. At the beginning, really, there were very few non-Libyan opposition people that were on the ground that could be in any way part of a command-and-control operation. So we have this difficult task in getting going, figuring out where we were.”
On political opposition in the United States:
“We had this problem that many in the Congress were either very supportive and thought we should be doing more than we were doing, and the other end of spectrum totally unsupportive and wanted us out and never there, and ‘end it now.’ . . . I felt like we were not making our case effectively enough, and I thought we had a really good case to make. . .
The argument that I made, both in public to the press and behind closed doors to the Congress, I said when we were attacked on 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 for collective defense. And we have had our allies, our NATO allies, plus a broad coalition of a total of about 48 nations, in Afghanistan with us now for a decade. They come to us and they say this is in our vital national security interests, this is really close to where we live. . . . All of a sudden, we’re going to say, ‘We can’t be bothered, I’m really sorry about that?’ I don’t think that you can have an alliance and be the leader of that alliance for as long as we have and assume that everybody will do what you think is important to do, if you don’t listen and respect what they think is important to do.”
On the applicability of the “Libya model”:
“This particular example will be studied for a long time because it was a real model of what we meant. Now, it took advantage of kind of established institutions like NATO; it sought legitimacy from established institutions like the U.N., the Arab League, et cetera. But it took the United States to kind of put all of the pieces together and then to keep everybody going. Because you’re right; we went through periods of anguish and buyer’s remorse and doubts, and there was all of that. . . .
I think we need to let the lessons settle in, we need to assess where we are and what we accomplished together, what the costs were. But I think part of what we’re finding is that we do have to be more agile and flexible in dealing with a lot of the challenges we face, and we should be unembarrassed about that. We don’t have a one-size-fits-all that we can impose on every situation.”
On the challenges facing the new Libya:
“First and foremost, they have to unify the country. That will be a huge challenge. They have to figure out how to reconcile various political and religious beliefs. They have to unify all of the tribes. They have to deal with the rivalry that has existed forever between the west and the east, between Benghazi and Tripoli. And they’re going to have to be very clear as to what their agenda is and how it will help meet the needs of all the different groups. . . .
They have a very complicated political task ahead of them, and they don’t have a lot of experience in what we consider politics. So we’ve offered all kinds of technical assistance and support going forward, as have many others. But that’s their overwhelming task, and that can be connected to their second overwhelming task, which is to create a government. . . .
These were really thoughtful people. There’s a professional class in Libya that, despite all of the problems, survived. I think there will be some expats who might come back. So we’re going to help them any way we can.”
The Washington Post, October 31, 2011
|
|
U.S. Seeks Aid From Pakistan in Peace Effort
WASHINGTON — Just a month after accusing Pakistan’s spy agency of secretly supporting the Haqqani terrorist network, which has mounted attacks on Americans, the Obama administration is now relying on the same intelligence service to help organize and kick-start reconciliation talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan.
The revamped approach, which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called “Fight, Talk, Build” during a high-level United States delegation’s visit to Kabul and Islamabad this month, combines continued American air and ground strikes against the Haqqani network and the Taliban with an insistence that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency get them to the negotiating table.
But some elements of the ISI see little advantage in forcing those negotiations, because they see the insurgents as perhaps their best bet for maintaining influence in Afghanistan as the United States reduces its presence there.
The strategy is emerging amid an increase in the pace of attacks against Americans in Kabul, including a suicide attack on Saturday that killed as many as 10 Americans and in which the Haqqanis are suspected . It is the latest effort at brokering a deal with militants before the last of 33,000 American “surge” troops prepare to pull out of Afghanistan by September, and comes as early hopes in the White House about having the outlines of a deal in time for a multinational conference Dec. 5 in Bonn, Germany, have been all but abandoned.
But even inside the Obama administration, the new initiative has been met with deep skepticism, in part because the Pakistani government has developed its own strategy, one at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s on several key points. One senior American official summarized the Pakistani position as “Cease-fire, Talk, Wait for the Americans to Leave.”
In short, the United States is in the position of having to rely heavily on the ISI to help broker a deal with the same group of militants that leaders in Washington say the spy agency is financing and supporting.
“The Pakistanis see the contradictions in the American approach,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a former top Obama White House aide on Pakistan and Afghanistan. “The big question for the administration is, What can the Pakistanis actually deliver? Pakistan is holding its cards very closely.”
On Sunday, United States intelligence officials deepened an investigation into what role, if any, the Haqqani network played in the bombing in Kabul on Saturday.
Several current and former American officials say the United States has tried this bomb-them-to-the-bargaining-table approach before. In the 1990s, it helped drive Serbian leaders to peace talks in Dayton, Ohio, but it has resulted in little so far with the Afghan Taliban.
“I don’t think anyone expects Secretary Clinton’s visit to produce reconciliation,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and the author of “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad.” Mr. Riedel, who advocates a policy of containment in Pakistan, added, “The deterioration of U.S.-Pakistan relations is likely to continue.”
Senior Pakistani officials say they are confused by a lack of clarity in the administration’s long-term goals in Afghanistan, and are working with American officials to hammer out specific plans after Mrs. Clinton’s visit. As an incentive, the United States has offered Pakistan a prominent role in reconciliation talks. But American officials have warned that they will take unilateral action if negotiations fail.
Several administration officials said they considered Mrs. Clinton’s trip to Kabul and Islamabad, from Oct. 19 to 21, a success largely because it had happened at all.
In the months after the killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, talks were frozen, American intelligence officers were denied visas, and the administration accused the ISI of turning a blind eye to attacks on Americans launched from the country’s tribal areas.
When Adm. Mike Mullen, just days before his retirement last month as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that the Haqqani network was "a veritable arm" of the Pakistani spy service, President Obama and his aides were outraged, administration officials said — not because they thought Admiral Mullen was wrong, but because his remarks further inflamed the Pakistanis.
Mrs. Clinton’s trip was intended to both re-establish ties and reiterate a strong message. She warned Pakistan that the United States would act on its own if necessary to attack extremist groups that use the country as a haven while they kill Americans.
To emphasize that point, a flurry of C.I.A. drone strikes launched on Oct. 13-14 from Afghanistan killed the third-ranking leader of the Haqqani network, near Miram Shah in North Waziristan, part of Pakistan’s tribal area.
Two other missile volleys killed two senior operatives of Al Qaeda involved in overseas planning, American officials said. On Thursday, American missile strikes killed five members of a faction of the Pakistani Taliban.
But Mrs. Clinton, joined by David H. Petraeus, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not use her meeting to insist, as she and other officials had in the past, that the Pakistan military mount an offensive to root out the Haqqanis and other militants that operate from sanctuaries in North Waziristan.
Instead, the administration says, it is pressing the Pakistanis to provide intelligence on the Haqqanis, arrest some of the group’s operatives and reduce ties to the terrorist group — all steps well short of military action.
In its place, an emerging American strategy aims to attack the Haqqanis on both sides of the border. An eight-day NATO offensive this month involving 11,000 allied troops and 25,000 Afghan security forces in seven provinces in eastern Afghanistan killed or captured more than 200 Haqqani fighters and commanders, allied officials said; the pressure on the Pakistani side is being generated almost entirely by the drone strikes.
“That’s going to really deter their ability to operate probably for some time, maybe into the winter period,” Lt. Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, the second-ranking allied commander in Afghanistan, said Thursday.
Mrs. Clinton also used her meeting, according to officials familiar with it, to reassure the Pakistanis that they would play a central role in any reconciliation talks. “We’re at the point where Pakistanis have told us they’re going to squeeze the Haqqani network,” a senior administration official said. “They’re satisfied they’ve got a way forward on reconciliation. They’ve got a role to play.”
That means rekindling talks with the Haqqanis that started in late August. That first exploratory meeting was held secretly in the United Arab Emirates between a midlevel American diplomat and Ibrahim Haqqani, a brother of the tribal network’s patriarch. Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, brokered the meeting. American and Pakistan officials say little resulted from the session, which came just two weeks before a 20-hour attack on the United States Embassy in Kabul.
On Capitol Hill last week, some lawmakers expressed skepticism about the administration’s approach to the Haqqani network.
“So which is it, Madam Secretary? Crack down or negotiate with the Haqqani network, or a little bit of both?” asked Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“It’s both,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We want to fight, talk and build all at the same time. Part of the reason for that is to test whether these organizations have any willingness to negotiate in good faith.”
By Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, October 30, 2011
|
|
Hillary 2012? Better bet than Obama, some say
Let the Hillary Clinton 2012 chatter begin in earnest. A new poll out by Time magazine showed that the secretary of state would trounce any of the top contenders in the GOP field.
Since leaving the hyper-partisan political world and focusing on international affairs, Clinton has enjoyed across-the-board popularity that was unimaginable just a few years ago.
Matched against leading GOP contender Mitt Romney, Clinton won a head-to-head matchup, 55 to 38 percent. In a faceoff against Rick Perry, she pulled 58 percent of the vote. In a solo race against businessman Herman Cain, she won, 56 to 34 percent. The poll revealed that Obama would eke out a victory against Romney, 46 to 43 percent, and beat Perry and Cain by 12 points apiece
Clinton’s strong showing is likely to make some Democrats wistful for to have the former first lady on the ticker. There has been some idle speculation that swapping Clinton for current Vice President Joe Biden would help Obama’s prospects (not happening).
But Clinton’s new and unlikely role as America’s favorite Democrat likely makes people forget the bitter Obama v. Clinton fight in 2008, and how much she was a lightening rod for the right.
Furthermore, Clinton has repeatedly stated she isn’t running for president, at least not in 2016. And it seems like the more wonky policy world suits her.
In 2011, Clinton came in at number-two on Forbes Magazine’s annual list of 100 most powerful women in the world. The former senator has become the face and force behind robust foreign policy victories; a Time cover story describes the Libyan conflict as "Clinton's war,” and explores her use of “smart power” as America’s role in the world has changed.
When Obama picked Clinton to be his secretary of state, it was widely thought of as a savvy way to sideline his chief rival, consolidate the Democratic Party, and to form a Team of Rivals a la Abraham Lincoln. Meanwhile, Clinton has said she intends to serve only one term, and because of her diplomatic role, won’t be on the stump in 2012. Yet, she will continue to be one of the president’s most important surrogates given her popularity among Democrats and stature.
By Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post, October 28, 2011
|
|
In House testimony, Clinton asks for patience on Afghanistan, Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appealed to skeptical lawmakers for patience and support Thursday as the administration tries to mend a deep rift with Pakistan, encourage negotiations with U.S. enemies and prepare for the promised withdrawal of all American combat forces from Afghanistan by 2014.
“I will be the first to admit that working with our Afghan and Pakistani partners is not always easy,” Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But these relationships are advancing America’s national security interests, and walking away from them would undermine those interests.”
Despite what it sees as significant recent successes against al-Qaeda and refinements in its strategy leading to an eventual end of the Afghanistan conflict, the administration faces growing doubts among the public and in Congress about whether the war is winnable and flagging interest in spending more money and lives on it.
Clinton spoke positively of what she called a “fight, talk and build” strategy, in which intensified military strikes will “squeeze” Pakistan-based militants toward the negotiating table. She said that during a visit last week to Pakistan, she had “detailed and frank conversations” and that a page had been turned after relations deteriorated in the wake of public U.S. accusations of Pakistani support for the militants.
She also described recent U.S. efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s neighbors to support reconciliation efforts and to participate in cooperative regional trade. Clinton will attend a conference of regional governments next week in Istanbul that the administration hopes will result in pledges to bolster Afghanistan’s economy and promises not to support warring proxy forces there.
“This strategy requires resources,” Clinton said in addressing a committee that has approved tight restrictions on the administration’s proposed budget for Pakistan. “I can’t sugarcoat that fact.”
But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seemed unimpressed. “It is hard to be optimistic,” Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said. “All the options on the table appear deeply unappetizing. All run the risk of being ineffectual, counterproductive or both.”
Rep. Howard L. Berman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the administration should “reevaluate” all military assistance to Pakistan — more than $2 billion last year. At the same time, he said, “I continue to have reservations about efforts to reconcile with the Taliban and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups such as the Haqqani network.”
Clinton said that a meeting held by administration officials in the summer with a representative from the Haqqani network “was not a negotiation.” She said that there was “no follow-up meeting” and that the response from the Pakistan-based Afghan group — which U.S. military commanders have said is the most “active” in attacking American forces — “was an attack on our embassy.”
But the administration has said repeatedly that the Afghanistan war will ultimately end with a political agreement among warring Afghan ethnic and political groups. In addition to the August meeting with Ibrahim Haqqani, the brother of the organization’s patriarch, officials have held at least two meetings this year with a representative of the Quetta Shura, the Taliban umbrella group led by Mohammad Omar that is also based in Pakistan. “Negotiations would have to include the Quetta Shura,” Clinton said.
“We want to fight, talk and build — all at the same time,” she said. “Part of the reason for that is to test whether these organizations have any willingness to negotiate in good faith. There’s evidence going both ways.”
Clinton was accompanied on her recent visit to Pakistan by CIA Director David H. Petraeus and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They outlined a new arrangement in which the administration would cease calling for the Pakistanis to begin a military offensive against Haqqani sanctuaries in the tribal region near the Afghanistan border. Instead, they asked Pakistan to help launch targeted strikes against Haqqani leaders and simultaneously assist in bringing them to the negotiating table.
The U.S. outreach last week essentially gave Pakistan the seat at the table that it has long sought. Although the hope is that talks will ultimately be facilitated by an outside negotiator such as the United Nations, initial discussions should include only direct participants in the war — Afghanistan, the Taliban, the United States and Pakistan, said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Thursday to avoid preempting Clinton’s testimony.
Clinton also asked the Pakistanis to issue a public statement calling for the Taliban to begin serious negotiations, the official said.
The Istanbul regional meeting next week will include Iran and other countries in Central and South Asia, with the United States and European nations attending as “supporters.” That meeting will be followed by a much larger gathering Dec. 5 in Bonn, Germany, marking the 10th anniversary of the international conference that began after the overthrow of the Taliban government.
At a summit in Chicago in May, NATO hopes to mark major progress in peace negotiations and transition to Afghan security forces, leading to the withdrawal of international combat troops by the end of 2014.
By Karen DeYoung, The Washington Post, October 28, 2011
|
|
Hillary Clinton and the Limits of Power
Hillary Clinton argues in our cover story this week, that America is not so much in decline as adjusting to a world of increasingly diffuse power, where like-minded networked individuals, non-governmental organizations and other non-traditional global actors may steer events as much as great power capitals. Clinton lays out “smart power” strategies for protecting and advancing U.S. interests in that new non-polar world.
We argue that Clinton is something of an expert at coming up with strategies for maximizing limited power given her life experiences, including being a First Lady with high visibility but little official swat, and a Secretary of State in the administration of her former rival, President Obama, who makes the final call on most major foreign policy and national security decisions with a small group of aides at the White House—and without Clinton.
The story is told largely through the lens of the very limited war in Libya, which is in many ways Clinton’s war, thanks to her efforts lining up the Arab and European coalitions that fought it. We have some good reporting on her trip there last week, as well as on the internal and external challenges she faced in advancing the cause of intervention. We also lay out the ways in which Libya remains dangerously unpredictable, and underscore areas where her new strategies are more talk than action.
Lastly, we polled her against Romney and Perry, and found that she does better, by far, than Obama, leading Romney by 17 points and Perry by 26*. Her closest aides strongly dismiss any 2012 ambitions and say 2016 is very unlikely: she’d be 69 the day of the vote that year. We don’t speculate on the source of her popularity.
One item that came up in research but didn’t fit with the piece. Clinton has been talking about the limits of power from her first moment on the public stage–her rambling, idealistic speech to the graduating class of 1969 at Wellesley. In it, she refers to her favorite passage from T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker” about trying again and again in the face of resistance. It’s not my favorite poem—I like my inter-war humanism without the religious overlay. But it gives a sense of just how long Clinton has been thinking about power and how to leverage it:
…What there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate—but there is no competition—
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
*A national poll conducted for TIME on Oct. 9 and 10 found that if Clinton were the Democratic nominee for President in 2012, she would best Mitt Romney 55% to 38%, Rick Perry 58% to 32% and Herman Cain 56% to 34% among likely voters in a general election. The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters.
By Massimo Calabresi, Time, October 27, 2011
|
|
Are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Trying Out for New Jobs?
Under the definition that a cynic is a premature realist, I nominate myself with the following theory: It’s no accident or coincidence that Joe Biden is acting like such a jerk lately, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is playing the good soldier. They are trying out for new jobs -- each other’s.
Clinton could replace the foot-in-mouth vice president as President Obama’s running mate, and Biden could replace her as secretary of state.
I’m aware that the White House already has shot down the idea, and perhaps honestly so. Since it’s early in the campaign and Obama hasn’t given final approval, there is no deal.
Yet the switch makes such perfect sense that White House handlers likely will be forced to give it serious consideration next year, if they haven’t already. Absent an economic miracle or the gift of a Republican opponent who can’t attract independent voters, Obama looks to be headed for defeat in 2012. His divisive populism isn’t moving the needle, and he’s running out of options and time.
The key fact is that he pulls only one in three independents, and that means he will have trouble winning enough swing states to get a majority of 270 electoral votes. Running up the score in deep-blue states like New York and California won’t matter if he can’t win in places like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All four of those states elected GOP governors last year.
Biden adds nothing to the ticket, and his erratic bluster makes him a liability. Clinton would be a shot in the arm for the campaign among women, and holds appeal to the blue-collar workers in the industrial states Obama needs.
So remember my theory the next time Biden says something stupid -- which will be the next time he opens his mouth. And remember it the next time Clinton goes on TV to enthusiastically praise Obama for “smart leadership,” as she did Sunday.
By Michael Goodwin, New York Post, October 26, 2011
|
|
Hillary Clinton Presses Uzbekistan, Tajikistan on Religious Persecution
This past weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to warn them that their human rights violations were immoral and harmful to the countries’ safety.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov and Tajik President Emomalii Rakhmon are both frequent violators of international standards of human rights – with recent efforts made to increase religious persecution.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are concerned about the spread of religious fundamentalists finding a home in their countries, so they’re stifling the liberties of citizens and radicals alike.
Clinton said that state regulation of faiths “could push legitimate religious expression underground, and that could build up a lot of unrest and discontent,” Reuters wrote.
Both countries have made it a point to restrict not only religious freedoms, but also freedom of speech and press, the right to assembly. Also torture and long unexplained periods of detention are common.
Although the United States has sanctioned the countries since 2004, those sanctions have been recently lifted.
The infringement on human rights is compounded by recent moves by the U.S. government concerning Middle Eastern influence.
Last Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that, “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” according to CNN. Nearly all of our 15,000-troop regiment will be “home for the holidays.”
What this means is that America has far less of an influence in Middle Eastern affairs, especially against the anti-U.S. Iran.
Add that to the fact that both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan share long borders with Afghanistan, another troubled and terrorism-plagued country, and the reason for the Secretary of State’s visit is cast into sharp relief.
Clinton’s motivations for spending her weekend in two war-torn countries are twofold: first, she heads there in the name of human rights, which has been historically the United States’ task as a superpower. Second, she visits to mend relations and establish a dialogue between our nations, possibly even to assemble allies.
To that end, Clinton thanked the two countries for their assistance in the Afghanistan conflict. It’s also her second visit to the countries in the past year.
By Daniel Distant, Christian Post, October 25, 2011 |
|
Hillary Clinton stands firm behind Obama
President Barack Obama marked the end of the Iraq War last week, but he left it to Hillary Rodham Clinton — whose support for the unpopular war in 2003 ultimately helped lift Obama to the White House — to answer tough post-withdrawal questions Sunday.
The Secretary of the State, who voted ‘yes’ on the Iraq invasion in Oct. 2003, appeared on four Sunday morning talk shows to defend the looming American withdrawal as a victory for the Iraqi sovereignty that troops had fought so hard to achieve.
She repeatedly stressed that United States is still committed to buttressing the country’s shaky democracy with a “robust” diplomatic presence, despite pulling out all ground troops by year’s end after negotiations to leave a greater force collapsed over the issue of immunity from prosecution for the remaining soldiers.
“Iraq is a sovereign, independent nation with whom we have very good relations, and we expect to have a continuing strong security relationship with many years to come,” Clinton said on “Fox News Sunday.”
And while she shied away from engaging directly with the criticisms lobbed at Obama by his GOP presidential rivals, her emergence as Obama’s fiercest foreign policy defender continued.
“You can’t, on the one hand, say you’re all for democracy and sovereignty and independence where people get to make their own choices, and on the other hand say that when a choice is made that is foreseen by our own government going back to the Bush administration and validated by the Obama administration and the current government in Iraq, that that somehow is not appropriate,” Clinton said when asked about Mitt Romney’s critique of the withdrawal.
“Because that is what we were there for, to give the Iraqi people the chance to make their own decison.
“What we’ve seen from President Obama over the last two-and-half years and, remarkably, with the events of the last six months is that his kind of smart leadership in a complex world is paying off,” Clinton added. “He was the one who brought [Osama] bin Laden finally down. He was the one who put together a coalition that eventually removed [Muammar] Qadhafi. So I think it’s important that in this very complex, dangerous world that we have someone in the White House who understands America has to lead. But we have to look at every situation and make the right decision.”
Obama took the opportunity Sunday to mark the latest turn of events in Libya: "On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Libya on today’s historic declaration of liberation. After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise."
Being interviewed from Uzbekistan, Clinton even mustered a hearty laugh when ABC’s Christiane Amanpour asked if she was in “Herman Cain’s famously designated ‘Beki-beki-beki-bekistan.’”
“Well, you know, there’s a zero-zero-zero chance I’m going to comment on Republican politics,” Clinton said. “But I am in Uzbekistan.”
And Clinton, an administration hawk who prodded Obama to back Libya’s rebels when they were struggling against Muammar Qadhafi last spring, had a stern warning for Iran to keep from meddling too much in Iraqi affairs.
When David Gregory, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” asked the former New York senator what she thought of Iran’s intention to fill the power vacuum left by the exit of western troops in the southern Iraq, Clinton replied: “I think Iran should look at the region. We may not be leaving military bases in Iraq, but we have bases elsewhere. We have support and training assets elsewhere. We have a NATO ally in Turkey. You know, the United States is very present in the region.”
Pressed on “Fox News Sunday” on whether troops are leaving too early, Clinton noted the basic timetable being followed had been originally laid out by the Bush administration.
“You have a bipartisan commitment to withdraw combat troops, and that was viewed as appropriate given the development of the Iraqi security forces,” Clinton said.
“But we always made clear we were open to discussions with the Iraqis if they wanted some kind of continuing presence and what we’ve agreed to is a support and training mission similar to what we have in countries from Jordan to Colombia. And we will be working with the Iraqis. We will also have a very robust diplomatic presence. And we will fulfill what the requests are that the Iraqis have made to us.”
By Glenn Thrush and Dan Hirschhorn, Politico, October 23, 2011
|
|
Clinton Backs U.N. Probe of Qaddafi's Death
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she supports calls for a U.N. probe into the death of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, whose being shot point-blank in the head has given rise to concerns he was executed last week rather than killed in crossfire.
"Let's have an investigation, I fully support the United Nations investigation and I fully support the Transitional National Council's own call for an investigation," said Clinton, referring to Libya's new leadership, which on Sunday was declaring the country liberated and beginning the process of forming a new government.
Qaddafi was captured wounded, but alive Thursday in his hometown of Sirte. Bloody images of Qaddafi being taunted and beaten by his captors have raised questions about whether he was killed in the fighting between his military and rebel fighters or whether he was taken out during a dispute over who would hold him in custody.
Clinton told "Fox News Sunday" that she supports an investigation "on the merits" and because it will help in a challenging transition process that will lead to reconciliation, which includes reconciliation with former regime supporters who "don't have blood on their hand."
"Such an investigation would be very important for accountability, rule of law and pave the way to the inclusive democratic future that the Libyans tell me they want," she said.
Clinton also said that President Obama has been a "smart" leader in his handling of international upheavals.
"He was the one who put together a coalition that eventually removed Qaddafi, so I think it's important that in this very complex, dangerous world we have somebody in the White House who understands that America has to lead, and leadership is essential, but we have to look at every situation and make the right decision," she said.
Fox News, October 23, 2011
|
|
Clinton chides Central Asians on human rights
TASHKENT, Uzbekistan — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blitzed through the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on Saturday, admonishing the countries’ leaders on human rights while urging closer cooperation on securing their borders with Afghanistan.
Clinton sought to reinforce efforts by both countries to crack down on drug smugglers and insurgents slipping into their territories while also encouraging economic integration along what U.S. officials envision as a “new Silk Road” connecting the former Soviet republics to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Throughout her visit, she repeated familiar themes that were certain to cause discomfort for her hosts, including calls for greater political freedom and full rights for women and religious and ethnic minorities. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have been criticized for corruption and for the repression of opposition groups.
“Countries that make reforms to give their people the opportunities for political and economic participation that they demand and deserve will thrive,” Clinton told a town hall meeting in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital. “Those who do not will fall behind.”
The visits — wrapping up a week of travel that included stops in Malta, Libya, Oman, Afghanistan and Pakistan — provided a public boost to two countries that have aided NATO operations in Afghanistan and figure prominently in U.S. plans to restore stability in the region.
Tajikistan, a country of 7.6 million and the poorest of the Central Asia republics, has grappled with its own Islamist insurgency, and it has worked increasingly with U.S. officials to prevent a spillover of insurgents and drug traffickers from neighboring Afghanistan. Clinton praised Tajik President Imamali Rakhmonov at a news conference for “critical assistance” in helping stabilize the border.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov has given NATO access to air bases as well as to railroads that serve as transit routes for supplies headed to military bases in Afghanistan. Relations between the United States and Uzbekistan have been on an upward track despite U.S. complaints about political repression and human rights abuses.
Karimov Clinton lavishly praised Clinton as she arrived at the white-columned presidential palace in Tashkent for a private meeting. The Uzbek president, who has ruled the country with autocratic authority for more than two decades, expressed his “personal respect, deep respect” for Clinton as the two posed briefly for news photographers.
During their talks, Karimov told Clinton that he intended to take significant strides toward liberalizing the country’s political system, saying he wanted to “leave that as a legacy for his children and grandchildren,” according to a senior State Department official familiar with the conversation. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the diplomatically sensitive exchange, said U.S. officials think that Karimov is sincerely committed to making changes.
“We think there’s quite an important opening,” the official said.
Hours earlier, at the Dushanbe town hall meeting, Clinton was asked bluntly to explain why she would agree to visit a leader with such a dismal record on human rights. Clinton replied that maintaining contact with repressive regimes offers the greatest chance for influencing behavior.
“We do everything possible to make a strong case on behalf of those who cannot get into the door to talk to these leaders,” she said. “I’d rather be having those meetings and pressing for change than to be totally outside.”
By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, October 23, 2011
|
|
| Page : of 3 |
  |
|
|
