Hillary reassures India: Relationship is a priority.

A few days ago I wondered aloud if the Obama Administration was tilting in favor of China at the expense of our relationship with India. 

There were indications, some said, that the U.S. had designs on the world stage in which India would play a secondary role. I ended my comments by suggesting the Hillary’s trip to India would answer the question: was the U.S. dumping India for Beijing?  The trip has answered the question — at least partially.

In response to a reporter’s question during a joint appearance with her Indian counterpart, Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna, Madam Secretary reassured India that our two countries have a special bond because we are both democracies. At the same time, she emphasized that U.S. foreign policy is global in nature. We have vital interests and issues to discuss with both China and Pakistan (another historical Indian rival). 

While India seems profoundly snippy about any hint of American “meddling” in their affairs — carbon emissions and nuclear exports being two especially sensitive areas — the question posed to Hillary suggests a continuing, underlying sense of national inferiority and insecurity.

Here’s an excerpt from yesterday’s appearance –

QUESTION: Yeah. First up, I wanted to ask you, ma’am, that as far as Bush Administration was concerned and now the new Obama Administration is concerned, we have seen that there is a sense of feeling that this new Administration is more concerned and inclined toward deepening the relationship with Pakistan and – China and Pakistan. What are your comments on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, my comments – if I don’t choke – are that we have demonstrated very clearly the significance and importance of our relationship with India. We entered into this relationship to broaden and deepen it as partners already on the world stage. And what we have outlined today will be a significant expansion of our bilateral relationship. We also have a very important set of issues that we are pursuing with Pakistan, with China, and with many other countries around the world.

But I don’t think you can understate the significance of our relationship as two democracies. We understand the difficulties of decision making in democracies. And we respect the vibrancy of each other’s democracy. That is a much stronger base for a relationship than any other in the world, because it is democracies that are able to expand an understanding of common interests and show mutual respect, and that is what is at the core of our broadening relationship between us.

So yes, of course, we have relations with other countries. The United States is called upon to act globally every single hour of every single day. But as the invitation to Prime Minister Singh’s first state visit in the Obama Administration demonstrates, we are very committed to this relationship.

Deja vu: Far right calls health care reform “socialism.”

In a move right out of the vast right-wing conspiracy playbook, today Michael Steele, the usually incoherent chairman of the Republican National Committee, found his voice at the National Press Club and called health care reform a “reckless experiment.”

When asked if he thought the plan now in Congress was “socialism,” he said “yes.”

Of course, the real news behind this story is that the Phil Gramm – Bob Dole tag-team from 1994 used precisely the same tactics — with a major assist from the health care lobby — to kill Hillary Clinton’s efforts to reform a dysfunctional health care system.

During the high — or low point — of the Clinton effort, the White House faxed me a transcript of remarks that Hillary made to reporters about the partisan attacks on her reform campaign. Please note that the focus of the attacks back then, as now, was to scare Americans into believing that reform meant socialism.

Here’s the question and Hillary’s reply:

Reporter: Mrs. Clinton, you said earlier that the debate has heightened public understanding of the health care issues. But as we approach the elections the rhetoric is getting increasingly more partisan. Do you think that helps public understanding or just adds to some of the confusion?

Hillary: I think that’s a fair question because it has, in the last couple of weeks, gotten increasingly partisan and it’s brought out all the old bromides. I see some of these signs that look like they’ve been around since Social Security, about socialism. And I don’t think that’s particularly beneficial for the substantive debate. But actually, it may be helpful in sharpening the differences, because when someone gets on TV as a member of the Congress and says health care reform which is meant to guarantee you private insurance is socialism, I think it’s fair then to ask, well, you must be against Social Security and Medicare, right? Oh, no, that’s different.

So I think that, in effect, the partisan rhetoric which is now filling the airwaves and the halls of Congress may help politically because it’s so far-fetched. And I think that once that becomes clear to people, then we can go back to hammering out the substance of what needs to be done.

What worked back then has a fair chance of killing health care reform once again.  As members of the GOP cabal have said, if they can kill the current Senate and House bills before the summer recess, they have a good chance of dumping reform altogether.

As also was true 15 years ago, the idea of a GOP “plan” for health care reform is nothing but a Trojan Horse. If you could wear it on your dick, it would have some usefulness. The truth, though, is that the GOP plan means the status quo, no change, and the lingering disgrace of nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.

Other bloggers, including Think Progress and Patricia Murphy writing for Politics Daily,  have commented on the non-existent GOP strategy to reform health care.

For the curious, here’s an excerpt from Steele’s speech today.

Hillary gives Iran a pass on election crackdown.

While “deploring” the violence against the Iranian people following the contested re-election last month of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered Iran an olive branch yesterday during her long-awaited policy address yesterday at the Council of Foreign Relations.

She told the Council –

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

From the Iranian perspective, it is unlikely that this limited-time offer from the Obama Administration will be taken seriously.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad responded today by saying Iran would “strike its enemies in the face,” and again rejected pressure from the international community to  curb Iran’s “right” to develop nuclear power.

The question is, will the Clinton-Obama policy of turning the other cheek only make Israel, an Old Testament nation-state, more likely to take action on its own?

You can read the full text of Hillary’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations here.