John Kerry
Related: About this forumArticle on Sec. Kerry in National Journal
good photo, too (sorry, couldn't seem to post it here-- go to url below)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/john-kerry-a-diplomatic-one-man-band-20131011
Call him the un-Hillary. Unlike his predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry has always relished direct mediation in the world's trouble spotsand the more troubled, the better, aides say. Whereas Clinton, perhaps with an eye to the 2016 presidential race, appeared reluctant to personally take charge of especially hard issues ranging from Mideast peace to a Syrian truce, Kerry has jumped in eagerly. "Every single time a tough problem has fallen into John Kerry's lap, he's gone into it believing that it could be solved, and he of all people could solve it," says a senior administration official. Kerry, the failed 2004 Democratic nominee for president and the son of a career diplomat, is also said to be determined to leave behind his mark as a great secretary of State now that he no longer has political ambitions. . . Is Kerry, only nine months on the job, already proving to be a better secretary of State than Hillary Clinton? To be fair to Clinton, she delegated Afghanistan and Pakistan to Holbrooke, one of America's most able diplomats, and the Middle East to George Mitchell, the former U.S. senator. She also became secretary of State at a rawer time for America, when the key task of the new Obama administration was to restore some luster to a U.S. image badly tarnished by the ongoing Iraq war and the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street. As a result, the administration was then focused on emphasizing the "soft" diplomacy of U.S. image-building, values-promotion and influence over "hard" or coercive diplomacy, in other words personal mediation in conflicts.
But neither did Clinton seem eager to step in when Holbrooke and Mitchell or other special envoys failed to make headway. It's also clear that Kerry's efforts are largely of his own makingespecially in the Mideast, where the White House appears to have somewhat reluctantly let him try, marginalizing previous efforts to "pivot" its interests to Asia. And to a striking degree, Kerry's efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinian together, to negotiate a truce in Syria at a "Geneva II" conference, and to find common ground with Iran on its nuclear program are all pieces of the same puzzle. Iran, for example, will continue to shore up Syria's Assad and Hezbollah as long as it fears military threats from Israel and the United States over its nuclear program. If those threats abate, and some kind of nuclear agreement is signed, it might just be possible for Kerry to also induce Tehran to separate itself from the Assad regime, thereby making a truce in the civil war easier. A similar logic applies to Russia, which has also backed Assad and often seen itself as an adversary to U.S. interests in the region. . .
. . .What's not very clear as yet is how much Kerry is making administration strategy, versus simply carrying it out energetically, as Clinton often did. To a striking degree, new National Security Advisor Susan Rice has taken charge inside the White House, officials say, and Obama himself remains his own No. 1 strategist. But if there are deals to be made and Kerry's the one in the camera shot, he'll get a lot of the credit. And he may yet leave his mark as America's top diplomat.
karynnj
(59,942 posts)I wish there were not the need on the part of reporters to constantly compare Kerry to Clinton. To me, it is clear that Clinton's strength never was in foreign policy and she took the job because there she had no power base in the Senate and was thus not going to lead on healthcare.
I think she did a very good job in those things that are her strength. She did speak out on women's issues and children's issues -- which will be used as a basis of her likely 2016 run. I think they are wrong that 2008 was a harder environment than when Kerry took over. Any Democrat coming in in 2009 was going to immediately benefit from not being Bush - thus Obama's Nobel prize. Though the roots of the current problems are pretty deep- much of the Middle East went into chaos. Nor do they note that Hillary had a part in making Syria the mess it is.
Hillary also had a rather chilly relationship with Lavrov - in spite of her "resetting" - http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/06/idUSN06402140. That Kerry and Lavrov already had a good personal relationship helped when they negotiated first for Geneva 2 and recently for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/15/syria-crisis-kerry-lavrov-idUSL2N0H91BW20130915
As to the last paragraph, I suspect it is the media seeing what the media wants to see. I panicked at the start of the UN when the NYT wrote a Samantha Powers puff piece - that argued her potential greatness in writing the UN resolution. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/world/a-new-us-player-put-on-world-stage-by-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 This then led to many articles suggesting the US was demanding something beyond the Kerry/Lavrov agreement. However, it was Kerry and Lavrov who worked the final deal -- and not surprisingly - it was very much their agreement from Geneva. Neither fact making the NYT article on the resolution passing! ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/security-council-agrees-on-resolution-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all )
To me, it seems that the media wants their favorite characters to be the ones who succeed - at this point Powers and Rice are the more interesting media people. However, it seems clear that Obama put Kerry out as the lead on Syria - on the news, in the Congress, internationally and diplomatically. He also could have sent Biden or Rice to the Asian conferences, he sent Kerry. He also is clearly having Kerry lead on Iran. On Israel/Palestine - Kerry has already surpassed what people thought possible. If there is no 2 state solution, it will be because either Israel or Palestine - or both - think they win with a single state. I was watching MSNBC when Obama spoke to the UN. A woman talking head commented that Obama saying his two biggest foreign policy goals were Iran and Israel - and Kerry is leading both.
It is not likely that either Powers or Rice likely could have negotiated that deal with Russia. Russia made their preference PUBLICLY known that they did not want Rice to be chosen SoS - the only time I ever saw that happen. More important, Obama and Kerry made this an issue of chemical weapons use - not helping the rebels - which is where Powers was. What will be interesting is if Obama backs Kerry in any negotiations with Lavrov on Geneva 2.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Concerning " media wants their favorite characters to be the ones who succeed ", this does not only go for Democrats. It is kind of amusing (or at least it would be if the situation was not tragic) to what point the media wants Paul Ryan to save the day, as if he was some how less conservative than the rest of the GOP leadership (only member of the leadership to speak at the Values Voters meeting: http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/speakers. But they insisted he was the one who got Obama to fold (really? The guy who meets with the birthers?).
Anyway, this is a reasonably good article, which, with all its flaws, which shows Kerry's strengths. And it may be that Rice sets the policies with Obama. After all, Kerry has not been that much in DC these last few months.
BTW, Kerry's negotiation skills could be useful in the existing crisis. After all, the only hostage taking that end well are those with hostage negotiators. They do not give away anything, but they talk. Otherwise, the hostage die, and we are the hostage here.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 12, 2013, 06:58 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes, indeed! . . as in "not in a million years".
Whatever Susan Rice's skills may be in foreign POLICY (I grant that she is knowledgeable and smart), her skills at DIPLOMACY seem to me close to zero. I shudder to think how all these delicate negotiations on a string of volatile and unexpected issues (Syria, Russia, subbing for the president in Asia) would have gone had Rice been SoS instead. White House NSA advisor seems to be a much better place for her than any position that has anything to do with public interpersonal relations.
And SoS does seem to be THE exactly right position for JK. Sec. Kerry is proving himself (in spades!) to be a superb diplomat in the highest and best sense, bringing to his job not only depth of understanding of policy, but also a supple and nuanced understanding of the often delicate cultural and personal context specific to each conflict, skills at mediation and negotiation, and firmness combined with graciousness.
Plus he and Lavrov seem to have a genuinely good working relationship.
Keep up the great work,Sec. Kerry.
FYI, I didn't think that this article was all that complimentary to Clinton. The comparisons mostly seemed to me to highlight Kerry's skills and achievements. But, maybe I didn't read it carefully enough: after this 10 days-and-counting of the Shutdown, I was grateful to read anything that was even remotely positive , so that's what I focused on.