JK interview on NPR today

[globalvillage]

Audio is up!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103295567

[wisteria]

1. Thanks! n/t

[ProSense]

2. Cool, thanks. n/t

[wisteria]

3. I heard something mentioned in this interview that I was not happy about.

The questioner commented that since Kerry is not associated with the administration directly it has been suggested (I wonder by whom) that if this new agreement fell through, it would not reflect badly on the administration, but on Kerry. Kerry as a scapegoat? I certainly hope not. Humanitarian aid to people in need should not be part of a political game,nor should anyone trying to do some good and come to their aid be made part of a political game. I really hope this is just a nasty rumor.

[karynnj]

5. I don't think they mean as a scapegoat - the worst they could then say is that he tried and failed

There is nothing wrong in trying and failing. What is wrong is not trying, because given the US position in the world, not trying is negligence. That is the shame of Rwanda. Had any US official done anything, whether it worked or not, to stop the genocide, they would still rightly be proud of standing up. (In Kerry's own case, he is clearly proud of his actions in 1971 which had no immediate success.) The second thing is that the US media is not giving Kerry that much coverage on this. If it fails, few will have known that there had even been a possible break through or that he did anything.

I was disappointed in the coverage. Where is Kristoff, who has made Darfur's situation better known? The fact is that if this does lead to both the international aid being resumed 100% and the peace talks resumed, it will be a very major accomplishment on a very tough problem. In addition, it could really change who the US is viewed in Africa. If that happens, it will be because of the hard work of the special envoy, but also the visit from Senator Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry. It is fascinating that Kerry is getting credit in the international papers and media, but not in the US.

I suspect that part of that has to do with the US media's continuing fascination with Hillary Clinton. Many "Democratic" journalists really had thought of her as a future President since 1992. Even though they never give him credit for helping Obama with his endorsement - they are still clearly angry about it. My guess is they see that Kerry was invaluable in January 2008. His calm defenses of Obama coupled with comments like "having been President does not mean you can abuse the truth" were likely part of what caused Bill Clinton to go ballistic, though the comments were stated so elegantly, honestly, and in such a non-vitriolic manner, most people likely didn't see them as that provocative.

Then there is the fact that many in the press build HRC's diplomatic abilities, though I know of NO examples of expertise in brokering deals in the Senate, the White House, or in Arkansas and diminished Kerry's after she was named SoS. They have also had groupie like coverage of her SoS trips, though I have yet to see even one little accomplishment and I have seen gaffes. (It showed a lack of awareness of history to give Russians a joke gift with a red button. It showed appalling lack of knowledge to not know that Russian is written with Cyrillic letters. (The stranger thing is that State Department Russian experts know the anguage and woud have gotten both the word and letters right - did some Clinton aide just use a English/Russian tourist dictionary?) It also showed a lack of cultural knowledge to ask who painted the image at the Mexican cathedral. What I see is a woman laughing too loud, prominently in the picture, but not really the one doing the diplomacy. There is nothing you can point to as a major diplomatic accomplishment where she was front and center.

To get back to Kerry, the connection is that this was a real break through that could be the needed impetus to restart the peace process in Sudan and more immediately restore foreign aid. Kerry graciously and correctly gives part of the credit to the Obama envoy, but his presence and actions made a real difference. It would be naive to think that there will now be a smooth process to making Sudan an acceptable country, but there is no denying that the situation is better than when Kerry landed in Sudan. Reporting that, however, shows that Kerry is a very good diplomat. (Remember Gail Collins calling him one of the 10 Senators highest on the list of people no one would want to, I think, have dinner with. Aside from feeling that this means she should be sentenced to watching at least 100 hours of CSPAN was a strange thing to say of a man who won the Presidential nomination with no help from the media.) Now, had this been HRC and BC who went to Sudan and ended up with the same results, the story would be praise for their diplomatic skills, charisma, and ability to connect with anyone and likely that this was in some ways Bill compensating for Rwanda. There would be no second guessing, concern it could fall through or even questioning if it was real. The best thing here is Kerry explaining, with a real example, how OxfamUS could "partner" with the excluded OxfamUK. What was clear is that Kerry did a lot of work on just that concern.

[wisteria]

6. On HRC we are in total agreement. And, I agree with your assessment of the press and Kerry.

I just like to see the Senator get credit for his hard work, when it is due. It always seems there are some inside the beltway media that are first to find fault and unavailable for praise of any kind where JK is concerned. I want to see this new aid reach 100%effectivness because it is necessary and so important for the people in Sudan. It would also be nice to see Sen. Kerry receive some credit for his efforts although I know that is not his motive in all of this. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out and what the press makes of it.
Thank you, you always are great at putting things into perspective for me.

[karynnj]

7. Thanks for the compliment

I would like to see the Senator get more credit too, but since his return it seems he has been getting some attention.

I think this will get more notice from the people who really care about Sudan and other humanitarian efforts if it begins to lead to a resolution of the problem. The problems in Sudan became a crisis back in 2003, but it only sporadically catches American attention. Kerry was also the first, or among the first pushing to do something to combat AIDS in Africa. Like this, that was something unlikely to ever get him fame, credit or votes. But both show a side of America that we can be proud of. I think it interesting that this year Teresa has accompanied him as often as she has. It really seems like these peace missions are something both strongly believe in. He is getting international coverage on this - google Kerry Sudan and you will get articles from around the world.

I like the blog post that Beachmom posted. This blogger got what he has accomplished --- even if little comes of the tripartite talks - he at least will have gotten the talks to start. Before that, there were no talks. Diplomacy is sometimes quiet.

[karynnj]

4. Really nice interview

His explanation of the "new" organizations makes sense. (In fact, with the Oxfam example, where Oxfam US was not expeled and Oxfam UK was - the idea that they can have a joint venture sounds like a way to get more help in while letting Sudan save face. Though Sudan was despicable in throwing the aid organizations out, this compromise is worth it if it gives food to people who need it.)

The spin that they needed Kerry there because he was not part of the Obama administration in case it falls apart is pretty negative thinking and ignores that he has often been very very good brokering compromises - whether for Cambodian war crimes tribunals or to get MA nurses and a hospital to reach agreement.

The ending comments on having a hearing this week with US veterans from Afghanistan is really interesting. His point that their perspective as the people actually implementing the policy not always being heard is very interesting. (Remembering from Tour of Duty, Kerry and his peers were right about the problems in the mission they were assigned.)

Here is the link to that hearing - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090423a.html


HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Time: 10:15 A.M.
Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Building
Presiding: Senator Kerry


Witnesses:
+Andrew Bacevich
Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Professor of International Relations and History
Boston University
Boston, MA
+Genevieve Chase
Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army Reserve
Recipient of the Purple Heart
American Women Veterans
Alexandria, VA
+Christopher McGurk
Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Recipient of Combat Infantryman’s Badge,
two Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart
New York, NY
+Westley Moore
Captain, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Washington DC
+Rick Reyes
Corporal, U.S. Marines (Ret.)
Los Angeles, CA