Obama’s historic victory on health care. E.J. Dionne comments in the Washington Post on the passage of health care reform:
Yes, we did. Finally, President Obama can use those words. The passage of health-care reform provided the first piece of incontestable evidence that Washington has changed.
Congress is, indeed, capable of carrying through fundamental social reform. No longer will the United States be the outlier among wealthy nations in leaving so many of its citizens without basic health coverage. In approving the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the mid-1960s, Democrats proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances and in the face of significant internal divisions.
To understand how large a victory this is, consider what defeat would have meant. In light of the president’s decision to gamble all of his standing to get this bill passed, its failure would have crippled his presidency. The Democratic Congress would have become a laughing stock, incapable of winning on an issue that has been central to its identity since the days of Harry Truman. (…)
This is also a moment of history, a culmination of the legacies of Truman and Franklin Roosevelt.
The New York Times says, in an editorial, that “Obama put his presidency on the line for an accomplishment of historic proportions”.
Police training in Afghanistan a disaster, says Newsweek:
America has spent more than $6 billion since 2002 in an effort to create an effective Afghan police force, buying weapons, building police academies, and hiring defense contractors to train the recruits—but the program has been a disaster. (…)
More than a year after Barack Obama took office, the president is still discovering how bad things are. At a March 12 briefing on Afghanistan with his senior advisers, he asked whether the police will be ready when America’s scheduled drawdown begins in July 2011, according to a senior official who was in the room. “It’s inconceivable, but in fact for eight years we weren’t training the police,” replied Caldwell, taking part in the meeting via video link from Afghanistan. “We just never trained them before. All we did was give them a uniform.” The president looked stunned. “Eight years,” he said. “And we didn’t train police? It’s mind-boggling.” The room was silent.
Obama’s Mideast policy. The Washington Post has a backgrounder:
Many analysts say indirect talks (between Palestinians and Israel) are a significant step backward. “We are going back 20 years,” said Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who advised Obama during the campaign. “This is really kind of unambitious.” (…)
“Obama came out harder, louder and faster than any of his predecessors on this issue,” said Aaron David Miller, a former peace negotiator through several administrations now at the Wilson Center. “He set the bar very high.”
But Miller also senses the administration is mostly reacting to events, rather than having a clear strategy. “Tough talking points is not a policy,” he said. “A policy is pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians to a breakthrough.”
Elliott Abrams, who handled Israeli issues as deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, said that Clinton’s statement that the fight with Israel was paying off is “a very perverse judgment,” adding: “It has made life harder and has made negotiations harder for the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
He noted that after meeting with Clinton in Moscow, the Quartet — the Middle East monitoring group that also includes Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — on Friday echoed the administration’s use of the word “condemn” when it referenced the housing project in East Jerusalem. “The Quartet only used that word for murders and terrorism,” he said.
Elliott Abrams, who handled Israeli issues as deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, said that Clinton’s statement that the fight with Israel was paying off is “a very perverse judgment,” adding: “It has made life harder and has made negotiations harder for the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
Catherine Ashton: Regional prosperity depends on Palestinian-Israeli peace. In an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, the EU’s foreign policy chief summarizes her Middle East trip:
Throughout the region, from Egypt to Syria, from Lebanon to Jordan, I heard the same message from presidents, prime ministers and a king, and from ordinary people, too — they want their economies to grow, their people to prosper, their children to be educated. To achieve that, we need peace in the Middle East.
We know what needs to be done — proximity talks now, leading quickly to real negotiations. The international community must offer its full backing. We cannot impose peace but we can offer support and incentives to the parties to make the difficult compromises.
The European Union supports U.S. efforts to re-launch negotiations. If we want to succeed, we must re-energize the Quartet as the voice of the international community. Meeting in Moscow on Friday, the Quartet was united and determined to push the process forward and engage with concrete steps like assisting the Palestinian Authority in its state-building efforts.
The Quartet’s statement can be downloaded here. Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy says it is “more aggressive than what the Obama administration and Netanyahu are negotiating behind closed doors”.
EU-Israel meeting canceled. AFP has the story:
The EU and Israel have shelved a ministerial meeting scheduled for next week, though foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman will hold bilateral talks with European counterparts, diplomatic sources said Friday. EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton “has informed representatives of the 27 EU nations that the conditions aren’t there” for a formal EU-Israel meeting, a diplomatic source said.
Ashton spokesman Lutz Guellner said the postponement of the meeting shouldn not be interpreted as “a diplomatic reaction” to Israel’s controversial authorisation of new settlement building in east Jerusalem. The decision not to hold the talks next week was taken jointly following a trip by Ashton to the region so as to avoid duplication, after her talks with Israel this week, Guellner said.
Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Mideast envoy, is in Brussels today to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with EU foreign ministers and with the Parliament’s Development Committee (watch the discussion with MEP’s live at 15.00 here).
EU foreign minister to condemn Iran censorship. The FT reports:
EU foreign ministers are expected to condemn Iran for jamming satellite broadcasts and some websites when they meet on Monday, according to draft conclusions seen by the Financial Times. Concerns have risen in recent months that foreign broadcasters, including Britain’s BBC Persia and Germany’s Deutsche Welle channels, effectively have been blocked from the Islamic republic.
Mixed with long-running concerns about press freedoms in Iran, the dispute is prompting EU diplomats to take a tougher line, including the prospect of punitive measures from some of its 27 members. “The EU calls on the Iranian authorities to stop the jamming of satellite broadcasting and internet censorship and to put an end to this electronic interference immediately. The EU is determined to pursue these issues and to act with a view to put an end to this unacceptable situation,” the statement says.
The charge is seen as being led by Paris and London, and is being championed by Lady Catherine Ashton, the EU’s new foreign affairs supremo. “Iran has clear obligations, and we expect [it] to live up to them,” said Lady Ashton’s spokesman. EU diplomats have also expressed frustration at the “unacceptably high” number of journalists detained in the country.
EU foreign ministers today in Brussels. On the agenda: Middle East, Haiti, Chile, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Moldova and Libya; External Action Service, confirmation of Vygaudas Usackas as head of delegation to Afghanistan. Background note available here (pdf). Press conference Catherine Ashton at 16.00 live here.
EAS proposal “a continuation of French policy by other means”. German member of Parliament Alexander Graf Lambsdorff has criticized Catherine Ashton’s blueprint for the new diplomatic service. The EU Observer reports:
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s proposed structure for the bloc’s new diplomatic service has come under fire for being too French in its style. German liberal MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, part of a group of deputies actively debating the diplomatic service, told press on Friday (19 March) that the proposal is “a continuation of French policy by other means.” (…) He said it accords too much power to the secretary general of the service, on the model of the French foreign ministry, and isolates the military (ESDP) part of the service away from political governance.
“The secretary general will have an absolutely all-powerful post,” Mr Graf Lambsdorff explained, noting that the position will be in charge of all budget and personnel issues as well as overseeing EU missions, be they in Kosovo, Congo or Bosnia. The secretary general – the job is being tipped go to the French ambassador to the US, Pierre Vimont, or the secretary general of the French foreign ministry, Pierre Sellal – will also have unrivalled access to Ms Ashton and will control any communications sent up to her from the service.
The second issue is that the civilian planning, crisis management and EU military staff units will not be in the chain of command that includes EU diplomats in the Political and Security Committee, but will also answer directly to the secretary general. “European defence and security policy is not integrated into normal political co-ordination. According to this proposal, the ESDP section is living a separate life,” the MEP said.
A recent organisational diagram for the crisis management unit (CMPD), seen as a core part of the diplomatic service, would appear to lend weight to this idea: military experts far outnumber civilian capabilities experts, while French officials dominate key positions, including the deputy director general and the head of integrated strategic planning. The military weighting comes despite the fact that 21 of the 27 EU missions in conflict areas have in the past been civilian operations. (…)
Ms Ashton is expected to put forward her formal proposal no later than 30 March, following a final debate by EU foreign ministers on Monday (22 March) and MEPs in the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday.
EU capitals defend Ashton’s powers in diplomatic corps. The EU Observer has the latest developments in the struggle between EU member states and Commission over the EAS: here.
EU representation in international meetings. Richard Gowan comments at the Global Dashboard blog on the mechanism Van Rompuy and Barroso have worked out to streamline their roles.
To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com