The Diplomatic Times Review

Obama and Clinton Can Work Together

The Christian Science Monitor's Washington, D.C.-based Diplomatic Correspondent, Howard LaFranchi, makes a pertinent observation in a November 30, 2008, analysis of President-Elect Barack Obama's selection of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be introduced in Chicago on December 1, 2008, as his Secretary of State:

Few foreign-policy experts and policy makers question Clinton’s fitness for the job [of U.S. Secretary of State]. They point to the stamina and intellectual capacity she demonstrated over a grueling presidential campaign, plus her years of experience dealing with foreign leaders and addressing international issues as first lady.

But where question marks do arise is over how Mr. Obama and Clinton will overcome the foreign-policy differences that arose over the course of a long, heated primary campaign. Those differences – sometimes sharp – ranged from the decision to go to war in Iraq to the wisdom of speaking to America’s enemies without preconditions.

Clinton’s doubts about Obama’s preparedness to take on the job of commander in chief were captured in the so-called 3 a.m. ad, in which a grave male voice asked who Americans wanted to answer the White House telephone while their children and the nation slept.

During the Democratic Primary, voters emphatically let it be known who they wanted to answer the phone when they selected Mr. Obama over Ms. Clinton. Democrats, some Republicans and Independents ratified it on November 4, 2008, when they selected Mr. Obama over Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, to become the 44th president of the United States.

Besides, Ms. Clinton obviously thinks she can work with and for Mr. Obama. Otherwise, why would she take the job? She knows it's his foreign policy vision, not hers, that must and will prevail.

Technorati Tags: President-Elect Barack Obama,Hillary Rodham Clinton,U.S. Secretary of State,The Christian Science Monitor,Howard LaFranchi

AP: Muslims World-Wide Condemn Mumbai Attacks

"Muslims around the world, from the Middle East to communities in Britain and Austria, on Sunday [November 30, 2008]condemned the Mumbai shooting rampage by suspected Islamic militants as senseless terrorism, but also found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion," The Associated Press (AP) reports in a dispatch datelined Ramallah, West Bank, in Palestine. See "Muslims condemn Mumbai attacks, worry about image."

According to the AP, "Intellectuals and community leaders called for greater efforts to combat religious fanaticism."

I agree that attacks on civilians should be widely condemned.

Technorati Tags: Mumbai Attacks,Muslims and Mumbai Attacks

Why Pakistan Offered to Help India With Mumbai Attack investigation

The International News of Pakistan reported November 30, 2008, that "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s not much publicized telephone call to [Pakistani] President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday evening [November 27, 2008]  is understood to have led to the government’s hasty announcement on Friday [November 28, 2008] to send the head of  the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) [Ahmad Shuja Pasha] to New Delhi to help in the probe into the Mumbai terrorist attacks for which the Indian government pointedly blamed Pakistan."

According to correspondent Qudssia Akhlaque, Ms. Rice’s "call to the president within 24 hours of the Mumbai massacre was prompted by the top Indian leadership’s clear signal to the U.S. President George W. Bush of evidence linking it to Pakistan, according to credible sources."

The News said, "The Americas Division at the [Pakistani] Foreign Office had no clue about the content of the conversation the two leaders had, indicating that the call was directly channeled through Pakistan’s embassy in Washington, more specifically Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani. Neither the Foreign Office nor the US Embassy in Islamabad issued any statement after the call."

If you want to read more, please see "Rice call prompted hasty decision to send DG ISI."

Technorati Tags: Condoleeza Rice,Asif Ali Zardari,Pakistan,India,Mumbai Attacks

The Times: Police in Mumbai Were Told to Expect Attack

The Times Online's Dean Nelson, reporting from Mumbai, India, writes in a November 30, 2008, post headlined "Indians claim terrorists took orders from Pakistan", that:

Police chiefs in Mumbai confirmed they had been aware as long ago as January that the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning a terrorist spectacular.

The information came from Fahim Ansari, a captured operative for the group, who revealed under interrogation that he had carried out reconnaissance visits to the Taj and Oberoi hotels.

CCTV footage revealed that Ansari had visited the Oberoi. Both hotels said they had received warnings as recently as August about an attack and had stepped up security.

The Indian authorities intercepted a telephone call made from the Arabian Sea less than two weeks ago in which a terrorist suspect was heard saying “we’re coming to Mumbai.

Meanwhile, according to the BBC, "Pakistan has expressed concern about rising tensions with India following allegations that gunmen who attacked Mumbai this week had Pakistani links." See "Indian allegations alarm Pakistan."

Hopefully, despite the horror of the attacks, the two sides will resort to diplomacy rather than guns and more finger pointing.

Technorati Tags: India,Pakistani Blogs,Mumbai Attacks

Taking a Chance With Hillary at Foggy Bottom

The columnist Lexington, writing in the Economist, made the following observation on November 27, 2008, about President-Elect Barack Obama's choice of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next U.S. Secretary of State:

The next president will face daunting foreign-policy tasks as well as a mother-in-law of a recession. America’s global brand has been tarnished. The battle with radical Islam has been turned into a partisan issue. The machinery of policymaking has been wrenched out of shape, particularly at the State Department. Sending a big beast like Ms. Clinton over to the State Department is undoubtedly risky. But sending a small beast to do such a big job might be riskier still.

Ms. Clinton was Mr. Obama's main rival during the hard-fought Democratic Party presidential primary season, a battle that left a bitter taste in both the Clinton and Obama Camps. Yet, she and former President Bill Clinton campaigned for Mr. Obama in the closing weeks of the campaign against Republican contender John McCain. Do you let her go home empty handed? I think not.  Besides, I think they will get along fine if they don't let outside forces turn them against each other.

Secondly, if Ms. Clinton doesn't like working for Mr. Obama she can always quit. If Mr. Obama doesn't like the job she's doing he can always fire her. There will be a few I told you it wouldn't last statements, but so what? 

As for Bill Clinton, he owes Ms. Clinton too much to muck things up for her by interfering in the running of her office, or making deals abroad that could embarrass her. That is if he can control himself. 

Mr. Obama is expected to formally name Ms. Clinton Secretary of State the week of December 1, 2008. 

If you want to read Lexington's full commentary, please see "The Obama-Clinton soap opera is set to run for another few years. 

Technorati Tags: President-Elect Barack Obama,Hillary Rodham Clinton,U.S. Secretary of State

India's Security, Intelligence Forces Come Under Scrutiny Over Mumbai

India's newspapers have produced many articles on the November 26-29, 2008, assault on Mumbai, India, that gripped the world. Some have managed to informs readers without being sensational. Yet, they were quite vivid in their description of how security services responded to attacks on south Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, the Oberoi-Trident Complex, the Nariman House in the Colaba section of the city, and other landmarks.

The operation to rescue hostages, kill or capture the attackers and gain control of commandeered facilities is known as "Operation Black Tornado."  According to The Times of India, "The war on terror in Mumbai ended on Saturday, November 29, 2008, when security forces "eliminated three terrorists in [the] Taj hotel after 60 hours of intense battle with the band of ultras who struck the country's financial capital killing 195 people.( Watch )" Also see The Hindu's November 29, 2008, article headlined  "Endgame in Mumbai, death toll could be 200."

The attacks were launched on November 26, 2008, from the sea, purportedly a group calling itself Deccan Mujahidden. See "Who are the Deccan Mujahidden?" Some observer think Laskar e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based group, was behind the attacks. See "Three Lashkar fidayeen captured." A November 29, 2008, article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn says "Clues nudge India to look beyond Pakistan." According to The International News, a Pakistani newspaper, "Pakistan offers support to India in fighting ‘common enemy.’

Some of the attackers reportedly are Britons of Pakistani origin. See "Too early to say attackers are Britons, says Brown."

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign minister, told a press conference in Islamabad on November 29, 2008, that Pakistan will punish any Pakistan-based group involved in the Mumbai attacks.

"Any entity or group involved in the ghastly act, the Pakistani government will proceed against it," he said, according to Agence France Presse (AFP).

Regardless of who is the behind the attack, the main questions are: How did the attackers pull it off? See "Mumbai locals helped us, terrorist tells cops."

Why was Indian intelligence, the Navy and Coast Guard derelict in their duty, if they were?  For an analysis, see The Economic Times of India's "Failure of Indian intelligence: The buck stops nowhere." Also see "

World’s media see intelligence failures in Mumbai attacks."

Indian Officials Notified in March 2007 of Possible Attacks on Mumbai From the Sea

The Times of India reported November 29, 2008, that police officials in Jammu and Kashmir, India, said that "the first reported case of infiltration" of India "through the sea route" took place "over 20 months ago and senior police officials had "sounded more than adequate alarm about the potential of this spiralling into a bigger challenge". See "J&K police had warned of holes in coastal security." According to The Times, officials who asked to remain anonymous said captured fighters

Abdul Majeed of Nawabshah and Mohammad Jameel of Mansera had reportedly revealed to the interrogators that they had infiltrated into Indian territory in groups of eight from Karachi through the sea route." They claimed they had paid "huge amounts to coastguards to reach Mumbai after a private boat they were sailing in was intercepted by the guards in Indian waters. The official said: "The militants told us that they were sent from Karachi as a group of eight militants in a private boat by LeT's [Lashkar-e-Taiba]'launching commander'. It took them three days to reach Mumbai. Their ship was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard when it went out of order for sometime. However, the terrorist managed to cross the security net by paying a huge bribe.

The bigger challenge took place November 26, 2008, when men came ashore in Mumbai, India, and hit 10 prominent places, according to The Times. As of this post, at least 195 people, including 22 foreigners died during the assault. See "Battle ends in Mumbai, death toll rises to 195.

Technorati Tags: India,Mumbai Attack,Laiska at-Taiba

Mr. Obama's African-American Appointees

Keith Boykin, editor of The Daily Voice, takes a look at U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama's African-American appointed to serve in his administration. The CNBC contributor and a Black Entertainment Television [BET] political commentator describes them in a November 26, 2008, post headlined "Obama's black appointments." More such appointments are expected.

Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Boykin is a graduate of Harvard law School. He is also a former White House aide to President Bill Clinton," according to Wikipedia.

Technorati Tags: Keith Boykin,The Daily Voice,CNBC,BET,Barack Obama

Rand Official: Mumbai Attack 'Is Not India's 9/11'

While some observers contend the dastardly attacks on hotels and other facilities in the Indian city of Mumbai, the financial capital of India,  might be the work of Pakistan's Laiskar al-Taibar or Osama bin Laden's Pakistan-based al-Qaeda, Christine Fair, described by The New York Times as "senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation," thinks the problem is homegrown. According to The Times, Ms. Fair "was careful to say that the identity of the terrorists could not yet be known. But she pointed to India’s domestic problems, and long tensions between Hindus, who make up about 80 percent of India’s population of 1.13 billion, and Muslims, who make up 13.4 percent." The Times quotes her as saying:

There are a lot of very, very angry Muslims in India. The economic disparities are startling and India has been very slow to publicly embrace its rising Muslim problem. You cannot put lipstick on this pig. This is a major domestic political challenge for India. The Times further quotes her as saying:“The public political face of India says, ‘Our Muslims have not been radicalized. But the Indian intelligence apparatus knows that’s not true. India’s Muslim communities are being sucked into the global landscape of Islamist jihad.

Ms. Fair said, “Indians will have a strong incentive to link this to Al Qaeda. But this is a domestic issue. This is not India’s 9/11.” If you want to read more of The Times report, please see "Sophisticated Attacks, but by Whom?"

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria, a Mumbai native, discussed the attacks, purportedly by an unknown called the Deccan Mujahidden, in an interview with Newsweek.com managing editor Tom Watson. The discussion centers around "the political and social landscape in which they occurred." See "The Mayhem in Mumbai." According to Mr. Zakaria:

One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last ten years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted. There's enough alienation out there that there are locals who can be drawn in to plots. That tends to be a pattern, from Madrid to Casablanca to Bali—some hard-core jihadis who indoctrinate alienated locals they can seduce.

He also said, "What's also new and different about this was that it involved suicide attackers. There have been planted bombs in the past. But this is a different level than we've seen in India."

Technorati Tags: Mumbai,India,Pakistan,al-Qaida,Fareed Zakaria,Christine Fair

Susan Rice Would Be a Good Choice for U.S. Envoy to the U.N.

On November 24, 2008, news out of Washington, D.C. suggested that President-Elect Barack Obama will chose Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in President Bill Clinton's Administration, to represent the United States at United Nations. If given the job, she will replace Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, who also served as President George W. Bush's Ambassador to Afghanistan and Ambassador to Iraq.

I think Dr. Rice, who served on Mr. Clinton's National Security Council and was a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama during his presidential campaign, is a good choice. Unlike former Bush Administration U.N. Envoy, John Bolton,  Ms. Rice is unlikely to view the U.N. as the enemy or an organization to be bent to the will of the U.S.

If you want to know more about her views, please see Spencer Ackerman's November 14, 2008, article in The Washington Independent headlined "A Window Into Obama’s Foreign Policy."

Technorati Tags: Dr. Susan E.Rice,U.S. Envoy to the U.N.,President-Elect Barack Obama