U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonstrated exceptional diplomatic skill, political leadership, and vision for the future when she travelled to Morocco Nov. 2-3 to address the 6th annual Forum for the Future meeting of Middle East, North African, and G-8 industrialized nations. She presented a remarkable plan to translate President Barack Obama’s historic New Beginning speech in Cairo into concrete actions that improve relations among nations and bring meaningful change to people’s everyday lives.
Secretary Clinton unveiled a wide range of policy initiatives and appealed for leaders to unite in shaping a future “based on empowering individuals rather than promoting ideologies.” A key to progress, she urged, was “a constructive spirit” to overcome conflicts and recriminations of the past. To that end, Secretary Clinton reiterated US commitment to facilitating an Israeli-Palestinian peace, and also singled out the Western Sahara dispute, reaffirming longstanding US policy that supports autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty as the only realistic solution to end the 34-year-old conflict.
It was a masterful presentation, yet it quickly became clear that old ideologies and recriminations die hard. Even before her departure from Morocco, Secretary Clinton was sharply criticized for restating what has been US policy for three successive Administrations.
The Algerian press charged that she wasn’t speaking for the Administration and questioned her relationship with President Obama. The Algerian-backed rebel group Polisario Front accused Secretary Clinton of misstating US policy on the Sahara and over-praising Morocco for its unarguably impressive record of political reforms, social progress, and economic growth over the last decade.
So much for working in a constructive spirit to overcome past conflicts and recriminations.
Secretary Clinton has proven her mettle before in handling tough critics—and likely will again. The misrepresentations of fact and venomous tone of these attacks do a disservice to her, but the larger casualty is the public debate on the Western Sahara. The erroneous claims also undermine the efforts of UN Special Envoy for the Western Sahara Christopher Ross to resume earnest negotiations, which he has been trying to jump-start for almost a year.
I was U.S. Ambassador in Morocco at the time the present U.S. position on the Western Sahara was adopted, and I can confirm Secretary Clinton has her facts straight because I participated in the review process in late 1998-early 1999 that launched the policy during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Current US policy on Western Sahara is that “autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is the only feasible solution to the Western Sahara dispute” and should be negotiated “within the UN-led framework.”
Secretary Clinton was right on the mark when she said in Morocco, “This is a plan that originated in the Clinton Administration. It was reaffirmed in the Bush Administration and it remains the policy of the United States in the Obama Administration. I don’t want anyone in the region or elsewhere to have any doubt about our policy, which remains the same.”
The US adopted the policy as the only realistic solution to ending the decades-long stalemate over Western Sahara, which continues to be a roadblock to regional cooperation to grow economies in North Africa, address security concerns including terrorism and trafficking, and create a pillar of stability in an unstable part of the world.
Failure to resolve the conflict also perpetuates the suffering of tens of thousands of refugees trapped for more than three decades in desert camps in Algeria, held hostage by Polisario leaders and a failed ideology willing to sacrifice a people’s future to score political points. That’s shameful.
Equally shameful is the Polisario using Mrs. Aminatou Haidar, a human rights activist and acknowledged advocate of the Polisario and Algeria’s separatist goals for Western Sahara, in what amounts to a publicity stunt this past weekend to draw criticism on Morocco and try to embarrass Secretary Clinton and the US. Upon Mrs. Haidar’s return to southern Morocco from the US, she refused to correctly fill out her customs entry form to match her Moroccan passport. She was refused entry, renounced her Moroccan nationality, returned to the Spanish Canary Islands, and is conducting a hunger strike to protest—what?—Morocco’s enforcement of air travel rules that all passengers must follow?
Thirty-four years is enough. It is long past time to stop the posturing and publicity stunts, and get serious about negotiating a realistic compromise solution to finally end the Western Sahara impasse. Let’s follow the wise advice Secretary Clinton offered to regional leaders at the Forum for the Future: “Build a future based on empowering individuals, rather than promoting ideologies.”
Edward M. Gabriel is former US Ambassador to Morocco (1997-2001) and currently advises the Government of Morocco.
If your boat had twelve holes in the bottom, you wouldn’t fix eleven of them, congratulate yourself on a job well done and take it out to sea.
Any loopholes in proposed regulatory reform for the derivatives market work much the same way. In derivatives markets, as in boating, one hole can sink the entire vessel.
That’s why it is so important that Congress respond to the derivatives market meltdown with a thorough, leak-proof, loophole-free regulatory reform bill. Last year, we saw how much damage loopholes can cause. The economic collapse in 2008 stemmed in large part from banks recklessly gambling in the unregulated derivatives market. When the bottom fell out, the banks tapped taxpayer dollars to avert disaster. Now they are using the bailout money to place more bets in a derivatives market that remains unregulated.
Until 2000, as a matter of federal law, all derivatives were required to be traded on regulated central exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, unless specifically exempted by the Commission. The oversight protected the public from the chaos that could result from unscrupulous or reckless trading.
Then in 2000, Congress passed a provision in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that exempts derivatives trade from federal regulation. At the same time, Congress also preempted state gambling regulations, the point being to strip away all regulatory control – federal or state – over derivatives trading.
When federal regulators are stripped of their ability to oversee dangerous derivatives trades, states should not be blocked from protecting their citizens. I have introduced legislation to empower state gambling regulators and attorneys general to examine unregulated derivatives trading and take appropriate action to protect citizens from practices which can harm the foundations of our economy.
But to protect taxpayers from the boom-bust-bailout cycle, we must fight strong Wall Street and corporate lobbying campaigns and pass derivatives reform legislation that contains absolutely no holes.
I applaud Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd for offering strong draft legislation to shed light on the dark derivatives market. It is a constructive beginning of what will likely be an extensive Senate debate – that will also include the Agriculture Committee – over how to strengthen our financial regulatory structure.
Wall Street is spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress to protect its financial interests, which might explain why nothing has been repaired in our financial regulatory system. Knowing that public trust of Wall Street is at a low ebb, the big bankers are enlisting some of their clients – big companies that employ thousands of workers in states and districts – to lobby on their behalf.
The big companies may be arguing against their own interests. The unregulated speculation in derivatives has hurt, not helped, big businesses by siphoning money away from productivity and putting it into what amounts to sophisticated gambling. This is the hole in the bottom of our economic ship that we must repair.
Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals
offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.
Today's question:
Sec. Timothy Geithner is once again under pressure to resign. Will Geithner survive this round of criticism from members of Congress?
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said:
I think he will survive if he becomes more bailout skeptical and I see him moving in that direction. I don't think the whole country holds Geithner responsible for the unemployment rate. He is not the face of the whole economy and the bailout issue is just one where people are more focused on him.
Geithner's tax problems, and general appearance of compromised ineptitude, are a long term bleeding wound for the Obama Administration in terms of image. On the other hand, letting him go before the 2010 elections will be a major event, and turn a slow bleed into a shorter-lived, but more dramatic, problem. I think Geithner's safe as long as healthcare is hanging fire because the Obama Administration won't want any more bad PR than it can help, but if that passes, or clearly fails, he may be at risk.
Secretary Geithner will survive because his bears little culpability for the weak American economy. The forces that pulled the American economy into recession occurred before Secretary Geithner assumed the role of Treasury Secretary. Representative Brady (R-TX) nonsensical suggestion that the Secretary Geithner should resign, “for the sake of our jobs” betrays the conservative appreciation for the limited ability of one person to affect the employment rate of the largest economy in the world. Secretary Geithner’s record and performance as Treasury Secretary are fair game, though unfortunately for his critics, most neutral observations have him performing capably under very difficult circumstances.
There are very important issues about how Geithner handled the bailout of the financial industry both at the New York Fed and in his current role as Treasury Secretary. It would be beneficial to have a full discussion of these issues. Of course, Geithner has to be held accountable for his performance, but it is important that his status be decided based on a clear assessment of the record, not political expediency.
I thought Geithner would be gone the last time everyone wanted his head, but he survived, chiefly because Obama didn't want to unduly upset the markets. For the same reason, Geithner survives this time too.
In his feisty response to several congressmen questioning his performance as Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner indicated quite dramatically that he has no intention of stepping aside. As for being fired, that deed would have to come from Mr. Obama's office - a very unlikley development. Geithner is a well-connected member of the internationalist establishment, even a veteran of a key Federal Reserve post. Like his teammates in the economic section of our government, Lawrence Summers and Paul Volcker, he is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization had a large role in putting Obama into power, a fact that can gauged by his submitting an article to the CFR's Foreign Affairs during the election cycle in 2008. Almost all the other presidential candidates did likewise, each of them saying in effect, "I'm wiling to play ball with you. Please help me win the office." Obama is not likely to buck the CFR.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said:
I believe he will survive.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
Tim Geithner represents the status quo, and, as such, he is doomed. While the left (Paul Krugman) attacks him for not being activist enough, and the neocon-right (David Brooks) praises him for his “prudence,” the economy continues to tank as the bubble is deflated and all attempts by the Federal Reserve to pump the hot air back in the balloon fail. Geithner will survive, because our President, although a man of the left, is temperamentally closer to Brooks than he is to Krugman, and in this case temperament trumps ideology.
Geithner is unpopular because he champions the “too big to fail” ideology that dominates both parties (remember, both Obama and McCain supported the bailout of the banks), If Geithner goes, you can bet that the same policies will be in place.
Geithner or no Geithner, the underlying problem will not go away: Indeed it will metastasize until we are brought to the brink of the abyss: economic meltdown. The cause of this coming catastrophe is bank credit and monetary expansion, profligate government spending, and the very “stimulus” that was supposed to save us.
He will survive but he shouldn’t. At the very beginning Jim Rogers, the legendary commodities guru said bluntly, “He doesn’t know what he is doing.” Time has proved this right. We are almost at the point of no return. A year from now the economy could be in ruins.
Definitely. He has the president's confidence, and Congress is irrelevant on this question. It has no real reason to do anything but complain, its specialty.
By
Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-Md.), Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.)
As members of Congress, our most urgent priority is getting the economy back on track. We remain committed to creating jobs that will put the American people back to work. To that end, this week we introduced the American Manufacturing Efficiency and Retraining Investment Collaboration Act, also known as the AMERICA Works Act (H.R. 4072).
Too often, manufacturing employers find there is a skills gap in the American workforce. We have the most industrious workers in the world, but many lack the necessary skills to succeed in a manufacturing workplace. Every year, we invest billions of dollars in federal funding for workforce development and education programs that produce mixed results. Read more...
When I headed the Navy antiterrorism unit that was created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, it was my mission to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to justice. I am pleased to see that he and his cohorts will now face proper justice in a federal court ("N.Y. trial ordered for 9/11 detainees," Saturday).
I have no greater concern than the national security of the United States. But the men and women I served alongside in the U.S. military weren't fighting just to protect our country; we were fighting for our ideals and values. We understood that our principles are the source of our strength as a nation, not some luxury for gentler times.
The last thing we should ever do is allow these terrorists to cause us to compromise our rule of law. That's why I don't think anything will send a stronger signal of America's strength and resilience than to bring these men to New York to account for their crimes in the most highly regarded justice system in the world. We're not going to do it their way, outside the rule of law. We're going to do it our way. Because we're stronger than they are. We're better.
By
Mike Calhoun, president of The Center for Responsible Lending
Neglect and inaction - that's the only apt description of federal bank regulators' track record over the last decade. Consumer safeguards in the financial services arena are in theory overseen mainly by three agencies, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board. In practice the three have stood virtually idle as abusive, reckless practices infected nearly every facet of financial services, ultimately costing taxpayers trillions of dollars in lost wealth.
Now two months past the anniversary of the costliest financial bailout in U.S. history, we still lack the regulatory overhaul that would bring commonsense oversight to the financial services industry and, in the process, protect consumers, taxpayers and the economy from a repeat of the current fiasco. That's why the Senate needs to quickly pass the Consumer Financial Protection Agency legislation now before it, just as the House did last month. Such an agency would streamline the existing authority now scattered - and largely ignored - among the three agencies.
Last night, we took a huge step forward towards passing health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled details of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the CBO score stating that the bill will reduce the budget deficit by $127 billion dollars over the first 10 years and provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans who are currently uninsured.
Last night, we took a huge step forward towards passing health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled details of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the CBO score stating that the bill will reduce the budget deficit by $127 billion dollars over the first 10 years and provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. Read more...
The nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals
offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere
today.
Today's question:
If Republicans successfully filibuster the Democrats' healthcare reform bill, who loses politically? Will Republicans be labeled obstructions or will Democrats be labeled ineffective?
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) said:
The people lose. They lose politically, they lose economically, they lose socially and most of all, they lose in quality of life and health.
The big loser will be the filibuster itself. Republicans are pushing use of the filibuster to an unseemly extreme, while some Democrats are clearly taking advantage of it to shake down the leadership for pet concerns in exchange for a key votes.
As public perception of Congress sinks, senators may finally wake up to the fact they are demeaning the institution -- we have gone to more filibusters in six months than in the entire 19th century. Any success in killing health care based on the filibuster could be the final straw that breaks the filibuster camel's back. By simple majority rule, the Senate might then redefine the filibuster so that it encourages more deliberation, but does not undercut the accountability that comes with final votes on passage being based on majority rule
Armstrong Williams, Pundits Blog contributer, said:
The healthcare reform bill is one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation to come from the Democratic Party in decades. Thus, its failure—which seems increasingly imminent— will be historic. With moderate Democrats joining Sen. Lieberman in threatening to filibuster the bill, it is hard to see how the Democrats will garner the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.
The major bone of contention is the public option, which would effectively create a government takeover of the health care industry. The Republicans have taken ownership of this issue by stressing how the public option would drive private insurers from the market. For good reason, no one trusts the government to run an industry that is equivalent to one-sixth of American gross domestic product. With little to show for their $787 billion bailout, the electorate is increasingly hesitant to support a bill that could bankrupt the country. In a close legislative battle, people will opt for the status quo. A Republican filibuster will maintain the status quo, and thus seem the most palatable option.
Meanwhile, the administration will look increasingly unable to make progress on any of their legislative agenda. On all fronts, the Democrats are looking incompetent. Americans are no longer so sure about Obama’s ability to repair the economy, heal the rifts that divide this country, or even to accomplish a smattering of his professed political goals. The inevitable failure of the healthcare bill will be just one more signpost in this administration’s winding road of legislative failures.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
A filibuster would undoubtedly make the Republicans out to be the party of "obstructionists," but then again some things need to be obstructed. I think the underlying unpopularity of healthcare "reform" -- do we really need yet another major entitlement program in the midst of a recession? -- will neutralize the "obstructionist" charge.
And of course the Democrats do have a majority, albeit one that may not be sufficient to overcome a filibuster. Most Americans don't understand arcane Senate rules, however, and so voters will be left wonder: How come the Democrats can't seem to get it together?
I think the momentum for the healthcare "reform" bill is largely gone, and the focus is rapidly shifting. People want to know when the jobs will start coming back, and aren't all that concerned with plunging into largely unknown territory with a multi-thousand page heathcare measure.
As
I see it the country will engage in a collective sigh of relief if
Republicans along with nervous nelly Democrats can deep six this bill.
Sentiment has been running heavily against it and the races in New
Jersey and Virginia have put on the fence Dems in an awkward position.
The vote should be close but there are too many controversial
dimensions of this bill for passage.
A.B. Stoddard, associate editor for The Hill, said:
A successful Republican filibuster of health care reform would alter the political fortunes of the Democratic party, not the Republican party. The public is split down the middle in support and opposition to reform, with majorities believing that costs will go up as a result of reform and that quality of care isn't likely to improve. Independents are moving out of the Democratic coalition and are now supporting Republicans out of concerns that the Obama administration has expanded government and deficits to unprecedented and dangerous levels. No matter what the health care reform bill looks like the GOP would claim they had stopped an imminent disaster because the Democrats wanted to go too far and that their bill would have done far more harm than good. Would they succeed in stopping reform Republicans would paint the Democrats as beholden to liberal special interests like pro-choice advocates, incapable of governing and unable to deliver on promises. I think independents will believe them.
If Republicans kill health care reform with a filibuster, the voters will hold them accountable. It’s hardly a matter of personal opinion what will happen next. Polls show that a public option is popular nationwide, including with political independents, and if Republicans are really heartless enough to smother it in the cradle, they’ll face a backlash they’re not prepared for.
If Republicans filibuster the Senate version of the healthcare bill, the biggest winner will be the American people. If the filibuster fails, the biggest winner will be the state-of-mind Marxists who want government to control everything.
As for the political fallout should the filibuster succeed, the Republicans will receive angry responses from people who think it's government's role to take care of everyone. And the Democrats, who are losing support for many other reasons, will lick their wounds while insisting, with customary unfounded name-calling, that un-American right-wing loonies are too powerful. To those who want government healthcare and lots of other government paternalism, I say, "Check out Cuba to see what more than 50 years of such 'care' has accomplished."
That decision is really up to the American voters. Of COURSE the Republicans are obstructionists (every single Republican in the House – save one – has already voted against health care reform. Isn’t that the definition of groupthink?) But the GOP is gambling that they won’t pay a political price for that intransigence. And if they are able to pick off a GOP-leaning Democrat like Joe Lieberman (who really preferred John McCain for president) of COURSE it will make the Democrats seem ineffective. The institutional problem is that rewarding that kind of behavior is like giving in to a child who is having a tantrum. The symbolic threat that Sen. Minority Leader McConnell will hold his breath until he turns blue is laughable unless he wins. Then the joke is on the American voters.
For Republicans to filibuster healthcare reform legislation would be more than short-sighted. It would be suicidal. They are setting themselves up for failure in 2010 and 2012 as the party that opposed Social Security, Medicare, and now, universal healtcare. Thanks to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party has become the Party of No and the Party of Don't Care.
By
Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program
As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act, it is appropriate for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use this law for the agency’s most important and challenging task yet: solving climate change. Decades of success using the act to make America’s communities cleaner and safer can serve as a model of how to tackle climate change.
Public Citizen supports the development of strong, science-based regulations to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other “smokestack” emitters responsible for 70 percent of our nation’s emissions of pollutants that cause climate change. The EPA has emerged as the only arm of the federal government with the credibility to solve climate change, as Congress thus far has produced deeply flawed legislation that provides billions of dollars in financial giveaways to polluters while failing to fix our corporate-controlled energy system, which contributes to unsustainability and pollution.
By
Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers
It turns out a Texas windmill farm developer’s request last month for nearly half a billion in stimulus funds to create 2,000 jobs in China doesn’t rank first on the audacity scale.
Shockingly for American taxpayers, and sadly for the staggering 10.2 percent of Americans who are unemployed, it doesn’t even rank second.
That’s because Washington already has doled out hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to foreign renewable energy firms. Of the $1.05 billion in clean energy grants awarded by D.C., $849 million -- 84 percent -- went to foreign wind companies, according to an analysis by Russ Choma of the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He wrote:
“The cash grants were given for the installation of 1,763 megawatts of capacity – 1,566 installed by foreign companies. Using the Renewable Energy Policy Project’s own numbers, as many as 4,500 manufacturing jobs may have been created overseas.”
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
