Hillary pledges U.S. support for South Africa’s economic growth.
In a speech yesterday at an International Business Corporation event in Johannesburg, South Africa, Hillary Clinton lauded the economic gains made in South Africa in particular and in the African continent as a whole.
Saying that the U.S. could learn a great deal from South Africa’s “example,” she added:
South Africa, as a member of the G-20 and one of the most important emerging economies of the world, is uniquely positioned to advance its own economic trajectory and to propel economic growth on the African continent as a whole. Looking at the world map today, it isn’t easy to find countries with financial and economic policies that have been as sound as South Africa’s. And I know how difficult that is. But I also recognize that these policies have translated into good credit and low levels of debt, banks that are solvent and well-regulated and largely free of the type of bad loans that led to the bank failures in my country and others that helped to fuel this economic crisis that swept across the globe. Frankly, we could learn a lot from your example.
Hillary also reminded her audience of the importance of spreading democracy and economic equality to African states that are still embroiled in civil unrest:
It is a simple fact that investors are not attracted to states with failed or weak leadership, crime and civil unrest or corruption that taints every transaction and decision. In the political decisions that were made in this country after apartheid, you can see an engaged citizenry that turned out in such huge percentages for the presidential election and the constitution. And therefore, South Africa has both the stature and the experience to bring to the dilemmas facing a lot of other countries.
She reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to engaging South Africa economically and gave her support to a U.S. – South Africa Business Council:
. . . economic ties between the United States and South Africa have a lot of room to grow. One of the promising ideas is a U.S.-South Africa Business Council, or as you might prefer, South Africa-U.S. Business Council. (Laughter.) And we intend to follow up on that. When a delegation comes to the Corporate Council for Africa meeting in Washington next month, we will begin with discussions that will lead, we hope, to the establishment of such a council.
You can read the complete text of Hillary’s comments here.
Is Hillary dumping Delhi for Beijing?
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about to embark on a seven-day trip to India and Thailand, there is some speculation that the Delhi visit is only for show, a trip “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” as one blogger described it.
According to a State Department press release, Hillary “will meet with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and with External Affairs Minister Krishna. The Secretary and Minister Krishna will discuss the structure and elements of an enhanced U.S.-India strategic partnership that will enable us to advance solutions to the defining challenges of our time and to enhance global prosperity and stability in the 21st century. ”
While that sounds impressive enough, not everyone is convinced that the U.S – India “strategic partnership” is more than a U.S. ploy to get non-aligned India to purchase near-obsolete American fighters.
The US-Bharti (India) relationship is on the decline and Delhi knows this. Delhi has been sacrificed on the alter of the Sino-American relationship. Even so both countries will be putting a good face on the short lived friendship. There will be a lot of smiles, and a plenty of photo-ops. There will be huge references to the Nuclear deal and a lot of talking about the sale of stripped down versions of discarded US planes–in essence a lot of fluff and no substance.
According to the Rupee News, evidence that U.S. – India relations are on the decline includes:
1) The US “dumped” India at the G-8 summit by imposing severe restriction on the export of nuclear material to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
2) Hillary’s first trip was to China and did not include a visit to India.
3) The U.S. no longer sees India as a counterweight to China. Many believe that Hillary is the architect of a much closer relationship with Beijing.
4) Although India is still upset about the attack at Mumbai, “the rest of the world has taken a big yawn on the subject.”
5) The US has tripled its aid package to Pakistan, India’s rival in the region.
All this conjecture about “dumping Delhi,” of course, must be seen in the context of Hillary’s long-standing pro-India sentiments. Calling India “Hillary Clinton’s Darling,” think-tank director and blogger Dr. A. Prabaharan believes that no one is better suited to take U.S. – India relations to “the next level.”
In the last 62 years of India-US relations, no US secretary of state had credentials anywhere comparable to Hillary Clinton’s in the matter of promoting the bilateral partnership. As senator, she co-founded and co-chaired the India caucus. She has visited India more than once. She has a constituency among Indian-Americans, most of whom supported, electorally and financially, her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.
According to Dr. Prabaharan, Hillary’s visit will “help build stage III of the relationship, with India as a key partner helping America shape the 21st century. The earlier two stages were, according to her, the Cold War years and the post-Cold War period up to the end of the Bush administration and the India-US nuclear deal. She proposes to build ties on four natural platforms: global security, human development, economic activity and science and technology.”
In a few days we will have a better sense of who is right in this argument: the “dumping Delhi” faction or the “Hillary’s Darling” group.
Stay tuned.
U.S., Britain are Iran’s axis of evil.
Ayatollah Aliv Khamenei
As frustrating as it was for Americans to see protesters in Iran being shoved off the streets and back into their apartments and dorms, to know that this “revolution” would quickly wither under the whip of the Iranian dictatorship, given the history between our two countries, Barack Obama’s restraint — no doubt advised by Hillary Clinton’s State Department — has been the wise thing to do.
To the Iranian leadership and to many Iranians themselves, the United States and its foreign policy ally, Great Britian, are Iran’s “Axis of Evil.” Together we represent a two-headed Satan that has done more than meddle in their affairs — we have literally, cruelly changed the history of the Iranian people.
What the Iranians remember about the past is more important that what we have conveniently forgotten.
As Roland Martin points out in a CNN commentary, what most Americans remember is the Iranian hostage crisis after the fall of Shah Pahlavi in 1979. That event destroyed the Carter presidency and brought to Iran the clerical dictatorship that now rules so ruthlessly.
But the historical events that matter most to Iranians today concern a coup d’etat that was instigated by the British and assisted, at first reluctantly, by the Americans.
In 1953 Iran had a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh. His crime in the eyes of the British who had deep colonial roots in that part of world was to take back from the British control of Iran’s oil fields. The fact that the British never had full legal rights to the oil didn’t matter: oil is oil and legalities and democratic principles be damned! Although the CIA chief in Iran, Mr. Goiran, opposed the coup, he was over-ruled by Kermit Roosevelt and the State Department. The coup took place, Mossadegh was exiled, and the Shah — our dictator — was installed in his place.
Of course, the official “excuse” for the coup wasn’t oil. The British convinced the U.S. to participate in order to better contain Soviet influence in that region. That was an easier sell in the early days of the Cold War. And as The Guardian points out, Britain’s interference in Iranian affairs goes back to the 19th century.
Iran, perhaps correctly, has accused the Twin Satans of having a hand in stirring up post-election violence in that country. Would we be surprised if we had? And let’s not be surprised if the Iranians look at Britain and the U.S. as an Axis of Evil no less dangerous and untrustworthy as the one George Bush identified at the beginning of his presidency.
Should we leave Iran alone? I think our history suggests that we have no other choice.
