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.

Honduras: Cafeteria democracy.

A diplomat’s job is toughest when there is no obvious “good guy” to support, and that is clearly the case today in Honduras.

Both the new, de facto government and the deposed regime of President Zelaya have serious issues when it comes to abiding by their own laws and constitution. Both groups seem determined to make Honduras a “cafeteria democracy” in which they get to pick and choose which democratic principles and institutions deem legitimate. Zelaya didn’t like the constitutional limit on his time in power, so he called for an illegal referendum and, when challenged, fired the head of the country’s armed forces, General Romeo Vasquez, who had refused to coordinate Zelaya’s poll. The situation in Honduras went downhill from there.

The new boss — not quite the same as the old boss — is Roberto Micheletti, head of the new government. He and his right-wing accomplices say they deposed Zelaya because he violated the constitution when he ignored the Congress and the Supreme Court. So, cafeteria style, Micheletti and Company ignored Honduras’ law, arrested and flew Zelaya, still in his pajamas, out of the country. 

That’s made the role of the U.S. tougher than the generic coup d’etats we used to see in the good old days, when the bad guys wore black hats and the good guys rode in on white horses. So, Secretary Clinton and the State Department are doing what any sane diplomat would do under the circumstances: they’re picking no one.

In a State Department briefing late yesterday, Secretary Clinton announced the Administration’s support for mediation between deposed President Zelaya and the de facto government in Honduras. In other words, since we can pick no one, we’ll let both bad guys work it out. The mediation will be conducted by President Arias of Costa Rica, an experienced mediator who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work mediating the crisis in El Salvador.

Hillary stressed the importance of having the two conflicted parties talk to each other to resolve the country’s constitutional crisis, and for the U.S. not to try to impose a solution on one group or the other.

“Our goal has been to reach the point where I believe we are now, which is to get the parties talking to each other and not through us or through other third parties. There’s been, as you know, an enormous amount of contact going on across the hemisphere and, literally, around the world. But it has been my view for several days that the most useful role we could play is to convince all that are directly concerned, not only President Zelaya, but also the de facto regime, the OAS, the UN, everyone, that we needed to have a process where the Hondurans themselves sat down and talked to each other. And that is – that’s been my goal, and I believe that we are on the brink of that happening.”

Here is Hillary’s briefing on the decision to support mediation for Honduras:

In a bit of irony, while visiting another cafeteria democracy, Russia, President Obama threw his support behind Zelaya. Nevermind that this position contradicts the one taken by the State Department, it’s the president’s rationale that strikes me and others as ironic given his willingness to challenge the legitimacy of Iran’s newly re-elected president, Ahmadinejad:

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

Anyone still hungry?