7/24/09

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to India and Southeast Asia this week spotlighted a nation and region on the rise – and showcased the Obama administration’s focus on improving relations and simultaneously tackling the toughest issues, from climate change to North Korea to human rights in Burma. The focal point of the trip was Clinton’s three day visit to India – a country the Administration sees as a potential key strategic ally of the United States. Her trip demonstrated that the Obama administration is capable of forging closer ties, while at the same time addressing contentious issues that the Bush Administration had shied away from, such as climate change. At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference in Thailand, she signed onto a key regional agreement that Surin Pitsuwan, the Secretary-General of ASEAN, described as a “shift of strategy” from the United States. Clinton also used the trip to strengthen the international response to North Korea and offer both carrots and sticks to the authoritarian government of Burma.

On visit to India, Clinton cements ties with a rising power and the world’s largest democracy. “With both poetry and prose, the United States pledged Monday to embark on a new era of deeper relations with India — a partnership of what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to call the world’s largest democracy and its oldest continuously functioning one,” said the New York Times on Monday.  At a joint public appearance with Indian Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna, Clinton pledged a deep commitment “to building a stronger partnership between India and the United States, a partnership based on common interests and shared values and mutual respect,” acknowledging that “India is emerging as a global leader for the 21st century.”  Beyond the rhetorical commitment, the trip resulted in several notable accomplishments.

• Most significantly, the two governments agreed to establish a ‘Strategic Dialogue’ backed by five pillars – strategic cooperation; energy and climate; education and development; economics, trade and agriculture; and science and technology - to be explored by bilateral working groups.  As the New York Times noted, “[t]he United States generally reserves strategic dialogues for major countries like China, so this is a symbolic acknowledgment of India’s rising role in the world.”  

• “Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Krishna also announced an ‘end-use monitoring’ agreement that provides for the export of U.S. weapons and defense technology to India by allowing U.S. authorities to make sure they are used as intended and not sold to other countries,” reported the Wall Street Journal.  

• India announced that American companies would supply two nuclear power facilities; and

• both countries pledged counter-terrorism cooperation, an issue of critical concern given the U.S.’ involvement in nearby Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But Clinton’s agenda went beyond areas of common interest.  It also included one of the more difficult issues affecting U.S – India relations: climate change.  The Obama administration has sought to include India in any international agreement on climate, but reacting to this during Clinton’s visit, India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh said “There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emitters per capita, face to actually reduce emissions."  Century Foundation Senior Fellow Jeffrey Laurenti situated the climate debate in the context of India’s developing economy and suggested that the remark was an attempt to “fend off” domestic opponents of Manmohan Singh’s government.  While Clinton sought to bridge the two positions, stating that “there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably that will lower significantly the carbon footprint of the energy that is produced and consumed to fuel that growth," tough questions will have to be addressed going forward. What this visit demonstrated, though, is that the Obama administration is capable of deepening ties with India at the same time it addresses the most contentious issues between the two countries.  [New York Times, 7/20/09. Secretary Clinton, 7/20/09. WSJ, 7/21/09. Jairam Ramesh, via the Century Foundation, 7/23/09. Jeffrey Laurenti, 7/23/09. Secretary Clinton, 7/19/09]

In visit to Thailand and ASEAN conference, Secretary Clinton signals an American “shift of strategy” toward Southeast Asia. Secretary Clinton demonstrated America’s renewed commitment to Southeast Asia by signing a nonaggression pact with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia of 1976.  Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, the Secretary-General of ASEAN, commented: “This represents in concrete terms, a shift of strategy on the part of the new US administration towards ASEAN.”  Simon Montlake of the Christian Science Monitor explains, “By attending an intergovernmental summit on the Thai island of Phuket this week, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can point to a stronger US commitment to Southeast Asia, a region that felt slighted by her predecessor's spotty attendance record and security-first mind-set. By contrast, Ms. Clinton has proposed a broader range of cooperation with a region of 570 million people. While the US is still driven by security concerns, particularly over North Korea's nuclear program, Clinton's presence in Phuket sends a signal that Southeast Asia matters.”

Accession to this treaty is also of strategic importance.  AP writes, “Signing could also help extend US sway in an area where Asian giants China and India have been forging goodwill by joining a number of regional bodies, diplomats said. China has emerged as a key player at meetings with ASEAN, which views it as a major trading partner and growing global power that should be kept firmly on side.” [Hillary Clinton, Remarks with Thai Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu, 7/21/09. ASEAN Secretariat, 7/22/09. CS Monitor, 7/23/09. AP, 7/21/09]

Clinton took a firm tone on North Korean belligerence and uses the trip to strengthen the international response.  Painstaking work by Clinton and others within the Administration to craft a forceful policy toward North Korea is paying off with what she called a “convergence of views” evidenced most recently in statements by ASEAN and the G-8.  The first manifestation of the Obama administration’s approach came several weeks ago, when it successfully pushed for sanctions at the UN Security Council.  The New York Times deemed the sanctions “tougher than previous versions largely because China and Russia, the closest thing North Korea has to friends, agreed to a mixture of financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development.”  On her trip, Clinton was able to strengthen the international response to North Korea, as the Washington Post explains, “On Wednesday night, she even sent a delegation of U.S. officials to meet with diplomats from Burma, which has strained relations with Washington, to press for compliance with a U.N. Security Council resolution barring exports of North Korean arms and missiles. The resolution was passed this year after North Korea detonated a second nuclear device, and Burma announced Thursday that it would comply with it.” In addition to Secretary Clinton’s outreach to Burma, the Administration has adopted a strong stance against the junta, putting the high profile review of U.S. policy towards Burma “on hold pending the outcome of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's trial that began in May...  hop[ing] that the court will release Suu Kyi, opening up the possibility of dialogue.” Furthermore, in a separate interview with Good Morning America, she likened North Korea’s behavior to that of an unruly child, and reassured Americans that “they don't pose a threat to us.”  [Secretary Clinton, 7/23/09. NY Times, 6/26/09. Secretary Clinton, via Reuters, 7/20/09. Washington Post, 7/24/09. Washington Post, 7/18/09]

What We’re Reading

The trial of Myanmar's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi entered its final phase Friday as her lawyer delivered closing arguments under tight security at Yangon's Insein Prison.                        

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, was so “infuriated” by the still unreleased detainee abuse photos that “he demanded leaders ensure continued training of troops to prevent abuse.”

The main electoral rival to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, is picking up greater support amidst disenchantment over Karzai’s term as President. Meanwhile, Karzai vowed Friday to make foreign troops sign a framework governing how they operate in a bid to limit civilian casualties.

American led forces will end efforts to destroy poppy crops in Afghanistan, and instead will target drug traffickers and attempt to convince Afghan farmers to shift to other crops, possibly even paying them to grow nothing.

Several ministers of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet reportedly walked out of a meeting with him on Wednesday.

Hamas has purportedly suspended its use of rockets and shifted focus to winning support at home and abroad through cultural initiatives and public relations. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel claim that Hezbollah violated a weapons embargo in southern Lebanon.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry lashed out at Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for "vulgar remarks" that they said demonstrated "she is by no means intelligent."

U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday that they believe Osama Bin Laden's son was killed by a Predator missile strike in Pakistan.

Seventeen Mexican teenagers, many accused of working as hit-men for drug gangs, escaped from a juvenile detention center near the U.S. border on Thursday after digging through an outer wall, police said.

Commentary of the Day

The LA Times says that during Mexico’s ongoing battle against the drug cartels that “some drug war troops are accused of human rights abuses, and the U.S. needs to take a stand for justice.”

The Christian Science Monitor examines what might come next in Iran and warns that “Western states should be prepared for what the regime might do next.”

Peter Juul looks at Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a security umbrella in the Middle East an thinks it “is a step toward a more sensible Gulf security policy.”

David Aaronovitch says “opponents of the war in Afghanistan ignore the consequences of withdrawal.”