ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “State Department”

Security

Conservatives Offer Support For Obama’s Nominee To Fill U.N. Seat

By Hayes Brown on Jun 5, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Samantha Power speaks after President Obama announces her nomination (Credit: AP)

Samantha Power, the nominee to replace Susan Rice as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, appears to be winning over key voices on the right, raising the possibility of a relatively smooth confirmation.

Unlike with many of President Obama’s recent nominees, including Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and several other nominations throughout the executive branch, Republicans and conservatives seem to be pausing before going on the attack in the case of Power.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be key in having Power make it through his committee. When asked for comment, Corker seemed open to the idea of Power taking over at the U.N. “I don’t know Samantha Power personally, but now that the president has nominated her to the U.N., I look forward to meeting her to understand her views and review her record as the Senate considers her nomination for this important foreign policy position,” Corker said in an emailed statement.

One vote that Power has already won over is that of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), another member of the Foreign Relations Committee. McCain in a statement called Power “well-qualified for this important position and hope the Senate will move forward on her nomination as soon as possible.” McCain had previously led a smear campaign against Ambassador Rice after news that Obama might nominate her as the next Secretary of State. Obama also announced today that Rice will come to the White House to be the next national security adviser, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

Neoconservative pundit Max Boot, liberal groups like the United Nations Foundation, and the Anti-Defamation League have also offered support for Power’s nomination. This could prove key in an institution where dozens of Obama nominees languish for lack of a vote, including several key sub-Cabinet posts.

Other conservatives and members of the Republican Party are, if not as vocal, keeping quiet on Power so far. Sen. James Risch (R-ID) had no comment on the nomination, according to his office. None of the four other Republicans on the committee ThinkProgress reached out to — including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — responded to a request for comment on Power’s nomination. Even the office of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been outspoken against both the interventionist policies Power has often promoted and the United Nations in general, did not put out an immediate statement on Power’s nomination. Likewise, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office declined to make any sort of statement until Power reaches committee.

In introducing Power in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, President Obama called her a “relentless advocate for American interest and values.” Obama also highlighted Power’s role as the lead White House staffer on issues related to the U.N. in her previous role as the National Security Staff’s senior director for multilateral affairs. “She knows the U.N.’s strengths,” Obama said, “She knows its weaknesses. She knows American interests are advanced when we can rally the world to our side. And she knows that we have to stand up for the things that we believe in.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be Power’s boss once she is at Turtle Bay, praised Power’s nomination in a statement, and singled out their shared affinity of the Boston Red Sox. Once Rice moves to the White House, and until Power is confirmed and in place, Deputy Permanent Representative Amb. Rosemary DiCarlo will serve as acting Permanent Representative, including most likely presiding over the U.N. Security Council when the U.S. takes over the rotating presidency in July.

Health

How Monsanto Is Threatening Global Food Diversity With The State Department’s Help

By Aviva Shen on May 15, 2013 at 3:30 pm

After a big win in the Supreme Court on Monday, biotech firm Monsanto Company has more or less solidified its control of the American food supply. Monsanto’s patented genetically modified (GM) seeds comprise roughly 90 percent of the U.S. seed market, driving conventional seeds to near extinction. Now, the company has set its sights on the rest of the world.

A report released Monday from Food and Water Watch details how the State Department has bolstered the biotech industry in its quest to dominate the global seed market. The report found that in 926 diplomatic cables between the State Department and embassies, officials pushed embassies to pressure foreign lawmakers to accept American seeds and intervene in “problematic legislation” banning or restricting GM crops. Even after Monsanto was caught violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and bribing an Indonesian official, U.S. diplomats continued to aggressively promote the company’s interests.

Cables show that embassies in South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Vietnam lobbied against GMO labeling initiatives, while the embassy in Spain asked for “high-level U.S. government intervention” to combat GM opposition at the “urgent request” of Monsanto. Other outposts regularly worked to kill laws meant to give native farmers a fighting chance against the biotech industry’s rapid takeover of the international seed market:

In 2008, the State Department joined Polish livestock and grain interests and the American Soybean Association to defeat a proposed ban on GE livestock feed. The embassy in Poland promoted pro-biotech rules and legislation but recognized that “we need to take care to be seen as protecting choice, not pushing use.” In 2007, the State Department and the USDA worked with Turkish biotech proponents to defeat proposed legislation that threatened over $1 billion in U.S. GE crop exports. In 2005, the USDA launched a lobbying and public relations campaign to successfully derail proposed anti-biotech legislation in Nicaragua. The embassy in Thailand lobbied to lift the ban on biotech papaya field trials in 2006. The embassy in Egypt tried to break “the regulatory logjam” that was stalling the approval of new GE crops. In Europe, the State Department has targeted the EU to weaken the regulatory safeguards that have delayed the approval of GE crops and to force the EU to accept biotech imports.

Though foreign leaders remain suspicious of these biotech corporations, the media has enthusiastically billed GM seeds as the solution to the global food crisis with little basis. An analysis of articles touting this claim found that virtually none of them identified specific technologies or crops that would help, preferring to make general calls for greater agricultural productivity. Meanwhile, the influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development advised that developing nations avoid GM seeds because of their high costs, uncertain yields, and threat to local agriculture. GM seeds, which initially promised greater yields and lower herbicide levels, have actually lowered yields in the U.S. while forcing farmers to apply heavier doses of herbicides to combat “superweeds” that evolved to overcome Monsanto’s gene.

What’s more, several strains of non-GM drought-resistant seeds in India and Africa have actually increased yields and are spreading rapidly. These accomplishments of conventional seed-breeding went largely ignored by the media.

Read more

Security

Former Obama Administration Lawyer Criticizes Opaque Targeted Killing Policy

By Hayes Brown on May 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm

The State Department’s former top lawyer on Tuesday offered an at times scathing critique of the Obama adminsitration’s lack of transparency related to the use of drones and other tools in waging a campaign of targeted killingn against alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

Harold Koh, who served in the role of State Department General Counsel throughout President Obama’s first term, delivered a speech at Oxford University titled “How to End the Forever War?” Given the title, Koh’s talk covered a multitude of legal questions surrounding the U.S. government’s ongoing fight against terrorism. Koh said he believed that the Obama administration had gotten off to a good start in its pursuit of terrorists, pointing to the President’s 2009 Nobel Prize speech and his Executive Orders on transparency.

“But since then, to be candid, this Administration has not done enough to be transparent about legal standards and the decisionmaking process that it has been applying,” Koh said, singling out the drone policy as an example of how the lack of transparency from the White House and other parts of the Executive Branch have alienated the American people:

KOH: It has not been sufficiently transparent to the media, to Congress, and to our allies. Because the Administration has been so opaque, a left-right coalition running from Code Pink to Rand Paul has now spoken out against the drone program, fostering a growing perception that the program is not lawful and necessary, but illegal, unnecessary and out of control.

The Administration must take responsibility for this failure, because its persistent and counterproductive lack of transparency has led to the release of necessary pieces of its public legal defense too little and too late.

Koh made certain not to cast drones themselves as “inherently evil” and to stress that he was not opposed to their use within the laws of war. But he insisted that Obama follow through on his promises and “make public and transparent its legal standards and institutional processes for targeting and drone strikes.” The administration should also, according to Koh, explain why and when Americans can be targeted under the law, clarify how it counts civilian casualties from drone strikes, and release records on those instances where strikes were carried out against a target of questionable value.

Koh isn’t the first former Obama administration official to offer criticism of the targeted killing program. Former Department of Defense counsel Jeh Johnson in March told an audience at Fordham University, “The problem is that the American public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in secrecy. In the absence of an official picture of what our government is doing, and by what authority, many in the public fill the void by envisioning the worst.” Koh also echoed Johnson’s own engagement at Oxford in declaring that the war against Al Qaeda can’t go on forever.

Koh’s statements on the need for more transparancy closely mirror those of CAP Chair John Podesta, as published in a March op-ed. In that piece, Podesta called on President Obama to “[r]elease the legal guidance governing your targeted killing programs, including the justifications for targeting Americans, and take charge of the informed, free and vigorous debate that undoubtedly will follow.”

Climate Progress

Grade Inflation: GOP Still Pushing False Keystone Job Numbers

By Tiffany Germain, Guest Blogger on Apr 18, 2013 at 1:53 pm

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been catapulted back in the spotlight of the House of Representatives this week, with Republicans continuing to waste taxpayer dollars rehashing who has the power to approve the project. Meanwhile, the State Department will be hosting a public hearing in Nebraska today to give residents a chance to comment on the pipeline that will disrupt their local communities.

Earlier this week, both the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the Northern Route Approval Act (H.R.3), which would usurp the State Department’s right to decide on Keystone and allow TransCanada Corp. to build the northern leg without a cross-border permit. Republicans in both hearings regurgitated typical Big Oil talking points, claiming Keystone would create thousands of jobs for American workers while providing a boost in U.S. energy security.

During his opening statement on Tuesday’s Subcommittee hearing, Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said:

At this point we are all familiar with the benefits of this project that would bring more Canadian oil to Midwestern and Gulf Coast refineries. The estimated 20,000 direct and 100,000 indirect jobs alone would likely make it a more successful jobs program than any project in the $800 billion dollar stimulus package or any other job creating effort the president currently has in the works.

In reality, Keystone would create 3,900 temporary jobs and only 35 permanent, while providing “negligible socioeconomic impacts,” according to a report by the State Department. While Republicans may try to blame the administration for the less than ideal jobs numbers, the report was actually written by a private consulting firm with links to the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil, BP and the Koch brothers.

Multiple other GOP members made reference to the supposed boost in national security the pipeline will supply, but the State Department’s report made clear that at least some of the Keystone oil will be refined and then exported in response “to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.” This means Keystone adds nothing to U.S. energy security and that the pipeline is a way for the industry to get access to steeper oil prices in foreign markets.

Once again, analysis has discovered that Big Oil has paid to secure their yea votes on Keystone, with members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who voted to approve H.R.3 having received eight times more in career contributions from the oil and gas industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, members voting to approve the pipeline received $8,686,427 while members voting against received only $1,020,631.

Nebraskans will have a chance to express how they feel about Big Oil buying votes today, with a public hearing held by the State Department beginning at 12pm in Grand Island, Nebraska. The All Risk, No Reward Coalition and other environmental groups have released ads reminding Nebraskans that oil will spill frequently as it is pumped through the U.S. on its way to be exported out of the country.

Tiffany Germain is a Senior Climate/Energy Researcher in the Think Progress War Room.

Climate Progress

SHOCKER: Reuters Debunks State Dept. Claim Of Major U.S. Tar Sands Imports By Rail If Keystone Pipeline Scrapped

By Daniel J. Weiss, Guest Blogger on Apr 18, 2013 at 10:42 am


The State Department’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline permit, released on March 1, concludes that dirty tar sands oil will move to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries by rail if the pipeline is disapproved. Therefore, the State Department asserts, there will be no difference in the amount of carbon pollution emitted from the increased production of tar sands oil regardless of Keystone approval.

An in-depth analysis of this claim by Reuters reporter Patrick Rucker debunks it. Reuters determined that “Oil-by-train may not be a substitute for Keystone pipeline.” If only small amounts of the dirty tar sands oil can move to the Gulf Coast by rail, then approval of Keystone would indeed facilitate a huge increase in tar sands oil production and carbon pollution.

The Canadian government and big oil companies claim that there will be a huge expansion in tar sands oil regardless of whether Keystone is built, so its approval will not lead to an increase in carbon pollution. The SEIS declares on page ES-15:

Based on information and analysis about the North American crude transport infrastructure (particularly the proven ability of rail to transport substantial quantities of crude oil profitably under current market conditions, and to add capacity relatively rapidly) and the global crude oil market, the draft Supplemental EIS concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.

Reuters investigated this assumption, and found it uninformed and unlikely:


Read more

Health

How Hillary Clinton Made Women’s Health A Central Tenet Of U.S. Foreign Policy

By Sy Mukherjee on Jan 30, 2013 at 9:00 am

On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was confirmed as the next Secretary of State by the U.S. Senate. As he steps into his new role, the outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton will leave behind her legacy — particularly when it comes to the emphasis she placed on women’s health care around the world. Clinton made access to quality women’s health care and the development of stronger international health systems a core part of her approach to diplomacy and worldwide development.

Clinton’s efforts are best embodied by the Global Health Initiative (GHI), a little-discussed yet crucial $63 billion U.S. program rolled out in 2010 that aims to “help partner countries through integrated health systems with a renewed focus on maternal and infant health.” Over the last two years, the GHI has assisted poor nations across the globe by helping them create comprehensive plans for reproductive health services, hospitals that lower the rate of infant and maternal mortality, cleaner medical facilities, and reducing HIV transmission rates.

At the Oslo summit, Clinton listed the ways in which the U.S. State Department — under her leadership — had made global women’s health development a priority through programs like USAID and the GHI:

Through our development agency USAID, we are supporting more skilled midwives and cell phone technology to spread health information. We’re involved in the International Alliance for Reproductive, Maternal, and Newborn Health, a five-year effort to improve donor coordination. We are partnering with Norway and others to support innovative interventions that improve outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. And we are working to ensure access to family planning so that women can choose the spacing and size of their families. Reproductive health services can and do save women’s lives, strengthen their overall health, and improve families’ and communities’ well-being.

And of course, women’s health means more than just maternal health and therefore we must look to improve women’s health more generally, because it is an unfortunate reality that women often face great health disparities. And improving women’s health has dividends for entire societies, from driving down child mortality rates to sparking economic growth. [...]

So we are trying to integrate our programs. And under our Global Health Initiative, each of our country teams now assess how they fit within a comprehensive vision and program, based upon a health plan established by the country where we are operating. And we have worked with partners to develop these health plans in more than 40 countries.

Usually, programs that embrace tenets similar to the GHI — such as PEPFAR and USAID — tend to focus on increasing funding, and they have proven to be quite effective. What makes the GHI special is that it implements an actual organized system that communicates across the globe in order to more accurately assess which policies work and which don’t.

Time will tell just how effective the GHI will be in improving women’s health care around the world. But ambitious efforts like it have been a hallmark of Clinton’s four years in office, during which she has also overseen President Obama’s reversal of the “global gag rule” that prevents US-funded international clinics from even discussing abortion with patients. As Kerry steps into her former role, he will have a solid foundation for improving women’s health care all around the world, and a substantial legacy to live up to.

Security

Senate Approves John Kerry As Secretary of State

By Hayes Brown on Jan 29, 2013 at 4:29 pm

The Senate this afternoon overwhelmingly voted in favor of approving John Kerry’s nomination to become Secretary of State, with only three Senators — Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), and James Inhofe (R-OK) — voting against their colleague. Earlier today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved forward Kerry to the full Senate unanimously, reflecting the relative ease that Kerry has had in ascending to Obama’s second term cabinet.

Kerry has spent the last twenty-eight years in the Senate representing Massachusetts, all of them serving on the Foreign Relations committee, the last four as Chairman. The closeness in foreign policy vision that he shares with the Obama administration made Kerry one of the most likely choices to take the reins of State for the next four years. The ties between the two during Kerry’s chairman ship was close enough that former Sen. Gary Hart once called Kerry effectively “the congressional secretary of state.”

Kerry is the first of the President’s nominees to be confirmed following his inaugural. Kerry and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been speaking “almost daily” to prepare him to move into the 7th floor office in Foggy Bottom. Secretary Clinton will be stepping down following her last day on the job, Friday, Feb. 1.

Starting then, Kerry will have a full diplomatic plate, including pending negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, managing a rising China, limiting fallout from the Arab Spring in the Middle East, and advancing international action on climate change. In meeting these challenges, Kerry will find himself working closely with his replacement as Chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Kerry’s pending resignation of his Senate seat will prompt a decision among the people of Massachusetts regarding his successor. Retired Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has made no secret of his desire to be named as interim Senator by Gov. Deval Patrick (D). No matter who temporarily fills the seat, a special election will be held in June, following an April primary. Former Sen. Scott Brown is thought to be the most likely Republican candidate, while Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has received the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and other key Massachusetts Democrats.

Security

John Kerry To Be Nominated As Next Secretary of State

By Guest Blogger on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:57 am


President Obama plans to nominate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State early Friday afternoon, according to a senior White House official. Kerry has been the de-facto nominee since U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name after Republicans attacked her comments about the September 11 attack on a U.S. consulate office in Benghazi, Libya. Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has significant foreign policy experience and believes climate change is the “biggest long term threat” to national security.

– Greg Noth

(Photo: White House)

Security

Benghazi Review Calls For Restoring GOP Budget Cuts

By Hayes Brown on Dec 20, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Among the recommendations of a highly anticipated State Department report on preventing future failures akin to the ones leading up to the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, many share a common thread: restoring GOP cuts to State’s budget.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Deputy Secretaries of State Tom Nides and William Burns laid out the commitment of the Department to implement each of the twenty-four unclassified recommendations put forward by the Accountability Review Board (ARB). One of the most expensive recommendations from the ARB includes restoring full funding for mechanisms put into place after embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1999:

Recalling the recommendations of the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam ARBs, the State Department must work with Congress to restore the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program at its full capacity, adjusted for inflation to approximately $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2015, including an up to ten-year program addressing that
need, prioritized for construction of new facilities in high risk, high threat areas. It should also work with Congress to expand utilization of Overseas Contingency Operations funding to respond to emerging security threats and vulnerabilities and operational requirements in high risk, high threat posts.

In order to carry out that and other recommendations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intends to request an additional $1.3 billion dollars in funding from Congress, transferred from money allocated for Iraq. This increase would provide for the addition of Marine guards to many of the more dangerous posts around the world, along with increasing the number of State Department diplomatic security personnel and security improvements at overseas U.S. missions. The House and Senate are poised to increase funds available to the Marine Corps to deploy many more Marine Embassy Guards around the world, potentially shifting their mission from one of protecting classified to documents to protecting people.

In Thursday’s hearings, Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Robert Menendez (NJ), and Bob Casey (PA) didn’t shy away from recalling the effect Republican gutting of the State Department budget in the past Congress has had on diplomatic security. Boxer pointed out that the Obama administration requested $2.6 billion for the State Department in 2012, which the House of Representatives slashed. While the Senate was able to restore the a large amount of funding requested, State still wound up $200 million short over the last two years.

Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) made clear in his opening and closing statements that an increase in the State Department’s budget was a real necessity in the coming years. Kerry, thought to be Obama’s choice to replace Clinton following her pending resignation, will likely utilize many of the same arguments before Congress in the next term.

Several Republicans have attempted to argue in the past that the funding cuts to the State Department’s budget had a negligible effect on the result in Benghazi. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration in the wake of Benghazi, once proudly declared that he “absolutely” voted for budget cuts to the State Department. The Republicans in the House for Fiscal Year 2013 have already stated that they were willing to put forward $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program, leaving a sizable gap between them and the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration.

(Photo credit: NY Times)

Climate Progress

Obama To Name Climate Hawk John Kerry Secretary Of State

By Joe Romm on Dec 16, 2012 at 11:26 am

In the first serious indication Obama will focus on climate change in his second term, the President will nominate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to be Secretary of State, media outlets report.

Kerry is one of the Senate’s leading climate hawks who has said he believes that climate change is the “biggest long term threat” to national security.

Of course, team Obama is known for effectively muzzling the most ardent of climate hawks. Back in February 2009, for instance, Energy Secretary and Nobelist Steven Chu said “Wake up,” America, “we’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” But one hardly hears such language from him these days. Same goes for science advisor and one-time climate hawk John Holdren.

Kerry, however, seems far less likely to be muzzled. Indeed, in a speech this summer on the Senate floor, he slammed the U.S. political discussion as a “conspiracy of silence … a story of disgraceful denial, back-pedaling, and delay that has brought us perilously close to a climate change catastrophe.” He called it:

… a silence that empowers misinformation and mythology to grow where science and truth should prevail. It is a conspiracy that has not just stalled, but demonized any constructive effort to put America in a position to lead the world on this issue….

Climate change is one of two or three of the most serious threats our country now faces, if not the most serious, and the silence that has enveloped a once robust debate is staggering for its irresponsibility….

I hope and pray colleagues commit to transformative change in our politics. I hope we confront the conspiracy of silence head-on and allow complacence to yield to common sense, and narrow interests to bend to the common good. Future generations are counting on us.

One would certainly expect Kerry to not merely use his position to speak out on the issue but also to push both domestic and international action. He was after all coauthor, with Senators  Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), of broad climate legislation in 2009 and 2010 (that withered like our wheat crop in a Dust Bowl as Obama tended to other matters, like health care).

National Journal reports:

“No senator since Al Gore knows as much about the science and diplomacy of climate change as Kerry,” said David Goldwyn, an international energy consultant who served as Clinton’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs. “He would not only put climate change in the top five issues he raises with every country, but he would probably rethink our entire diplomatic approach to the issue.”

Climate hawks should be enthusiastic supporters of this nomination, which is expected to sail through the U.S. Senate (in part because Republicans want Scott Brown to have another shot at a Massachusetts Senate seat).

I’m not sure Kerry could become Secretary of State fast enough to influence the Keystone XL pipeline decision, but it is hard to believe he would not have raised this issue with the President, since a go-ahead decision would immediately undercut the Administration’s credibility on the climate issue both at home and abroad.

Related Post:

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up