Steve,
I've only recently found your site. You're a treasure. Thank you.

I love the bit about the piece of paper. Good on you for persisting, even if it led nowhere.

I'm just glad to hear Elaine Chao was wearing pants.

As usual, great blog entry Steve.

Very interesting. What will Powell have to say? Can he say anything to force, or at least incite Congress to act?
If only Bush could follow the examole of Hu and get interested in the income gap among US citizens it would be a pleasant change and an innovation.
There is a lot of energy grabbing going on. That seems to be what makes our world go around.

Steve, was good to see you last night. There were a bunch of cards at our table, which included Reuters' Carol Giacamo. Without discussing it, we both wrote questions on Iran, trying to get Hu to say if he would continue to block a sanctions debate at the UN, and if it worried him any that this tactic risked creating in Bush's mind the "necessity" of military action since "diplomacy had failed". Needless to say, MC Carla Hills was too busy being obsequious to ask that one. I will be writing on this tonite in my Report. The headline: "Boo Hu...the sound of one hand clapping". Guess I'd better go write it before I forget! Chris Nelson

Great note Chris -- wish you would have shared one of those cards with me. I actually went to four tables to try and find cards. The staff looked at me blankly when I asked for a card -- so I just wrote it on a note pad paper -- out of my little Hitachi annual calendar -- and then that was what got sent up -- and through one of Hu's handlers was given to him rather than Carla. Of course, I'd never have gotten my question read -- and it was more fun that Hu got and stuffed my query away. But I am irritated that you got a card and I didn't.

steve

I don't know a whole lot about the Chinese political system, so who has more power in China, Wen or Hu?

Great job the question Steve!

That was the driest, funniest piece of diplomatic satire I've read in a long time. You have a knack.

On a more serious note, I can't imagine what that third way you alluded to that Powell might suggest as an alternative to war or appeasement with Iran. Seems that both options are impossible, and anything else this Administration might do between now and November 2008 is bound to be lose-lose. It's a stalemate -- when in doubt, best wait.

Thanks for sharing the amusing account. - Mark

"Impressive to watch Powell in action".

I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but your description of this dinner reminded me again of the vast gulf between the people who live in DC and the rest of the country.

Powell made it possible for Bush to lie and lead us into a war that has killed or maimed 20,000+ Americans, a war that is the single biggest foreign policy disaster in American history.

The repercussions of the Iraq war will make Vietnam look like nothing.

Powell is no hero, and he deserves all the disdain coming his way. A real hero would have resigned during the run-up to the invasion. There's a chance such a move would've stopped the war.

Regular Americans with family and friends fighting in Iraq could give 2 shits about what Elaine Chao was wearing. Instead, they want to know why their kids are dying in a war based on lies.

Listen, polite society and being nice to people at cool dinner parties goes out the window when your kids are being killed.

Sweet Jaysus! Steve, um, do you need a moist towelette? I mean, fer chrissakes, the way you carry on about Mr. Wonderful and Mr. Principled--you know, the great civilian/military leader Colon Powell, who did NOT stop ANY of the nefarious wartime planning!! My God! man, get a hold of your Beltway self. You're acting like a smitten school girl.

Honor Larry Wilkerson. Full stop.

What a hoot, Steve. How Kubrickian.

Perhaps Hu didn't see the need to break, forebodingly, into 'unambiguous' English over Taiwan because his generals are wearing big smiles these days.

After all, the Chinese went shopping in Russia of late and bought a bevy of these.. they come with little critters attached to them called Moskit that carry massive warheads, fly at up to Mach 3 and are practically lethal to Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. By the way, Iran is 'rumored' to have those too - lined up along the Strait of Hormuz.. (Gulp.)

Read Mark Gaffney's piece from Oct. 2004 for the gory details.

strategies that lie between appeasement of and war with Iran

Such a lazy, dishonest, appalling way to frame the choices on Iran policy that I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt: It was a long post and you had a lot to cover, so you didn't choose your words well.

The administration is intending regime change in Iran. Their Iran policy has nothing to do with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons (except as a politically useful way to stampede the public and other politicians to war).

As you well know, there is no crisis other than what the administration is whipping up. The effective policy is direct negotiations with Iran. But this administration defines that as 'appeasement'.

And, going by your framing above, you'll have characterized as appeasement anything short of what Colin Powell recommends in some future op-ed. Way to box yourself in! Hope you'll understand if the rest of us don't step in there with you.

An alternative view of Steve's 'between appeasement and war' description is that it's completely vacuous. No one on the U.S. scene is advocating any approach to Iran that could honestly be charaterized as appeasement, so any policy at all short of war should fit.

Perhaps the phrasing is an effort to give Colin Powell as much leeway as possible for that hypothetical op-ed.

Isn't it marvelous how a man can look you straight in the eye, deliver a speech full of lies that will send tens of thousands of people to their death, and still retain access to any public platform he desires and an expectation of being taken seriously?

Yes, all it takes to hold on to your 'wise man' cred in Washington, DC is to stay to the left of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Accountability? That's for the little people.

China's undervalued yuan may have been the undiscussed hot button topic but remember: as the Chinese yuan is 40% undervalued so the American dollar is 40% overvalued.
Once Euros not greenbacks become petro dollars the whole deck of cards collapses with China owning a fair chunk of US bonds. The issue with Iran is also that very threat. America needs control of the oil to keep its currency artificially pegged.

Stewart Brinton...Vanc,B.C., Canada

Er, check out this pair of Aussie papers on 'Asia's Advanced Precision Guided Munitions'...

Powell is the consumate gentleman always. He modestly bathes in his vast glory and carries himself well as the disaster that is American foreign policy unfolds. Oh he might not have wanted the Iraq invasion at all or carried out in the way it was but he took his loss, really his humiliation, like a true gentleman.

What is Powell's net worth now? Certainly in the ten digits, and growing. The rewards of being a gentleman are great.

If by chance tens of thousands of babies live forshortened miserable lives due to radiation in Iran or Pakistan we can rest assured that Powell will be so sorry that he lost some bureaucratic battles while Secretary of State but that's the way it goes for gentleman. What more can they do?

Steve,
I thought that Lawrence Wilkerson was reflecting Powell's views when he spoke out some months ago. If not, was there a rupture between them? Wilkerson wasn't criticizing Powell at all, as I remember it.

Jeezuz, Steve- stop hanging around these insider events and get out here among the people, and you might find a lot less reverence for Powell. He has failed his country miserably-- what he knows about the lies and manuevering that got us into Iraq could fill 3 books, and he can't muster up the courage to speak out against this nefarious administration?

He ought to be hanging his head in shame, not schmoozing at fancy dinners and pretending to be somebody.

Oy....

Trying to remember the interview I heard in the past week in which the fellow being interviewed said that a memo Powell circulated to each Senator regarding McCain's torture admendment was a direct cause for the heavily weighted approval in the Senate. He may not be sitting on his hands.

What strikes me, (as it has many times in reading Steve's blog), is how the titilation of rubbing elbows with these people seems to take Steve's eye off the ball. I concede that the questions posed by Steve were important, and I surely would have like to have seen them answered. But, like previous posters have pointed out, Steve's apparent adoration and respect for Powell seems completely detached from reality. Powell is responsible for hoodwinking moderates of BOTH sides of the aisle into supporting what is proving to be the most damaging foreign policy CON JOB in the history of the United States. As far as I am concerned Powell is no better than the rest of the treasonous lying bastards that launched this criminal enterprise currently unfolding in Iraq. Tonight, people are DYING as a direct result of the DISHONEST and PURPOSELY MISLEADING statements of Colin Powell. For that he must be held accountable, NOT adored or revered.

I have already seen "Powell in action", on TV, LYING to the United Nations, and to the American people, about why we were committing to an action that has cost tens of thousands of lives, maimed many more, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has virtually DESTROYED our credibility and our moral standing in the world community.

China has a big, big, big, big problem. And that problem is its dictators love the situation just as it is with no freedom and no democracy. And from what I hear, religious freedoms are not respected in China, either, along with our entire bill of rights.
Another big problem they have is they keep aborting and killing baby girls and have a "one child." Right away, that tells me their society - this massive economic powerhouse - is severely screwed up.
I am beginning to come to the view that this China thing is over-hyped. They are due for some very rocky roads ahead and my only "solution" is for its leadership to get on the democracy and freedom bandwagon. It may be a pipe dream; but that is what needs to happen for their prosperity.

I would like to see Powell address the Bush practice of making threats to use nuclear weapons on a pre-emptive basis, something that it totally beyond the pale. There must be huge discontent with this in Washington, but will anyone speak up?

Ah, that gentlemanly Colin Powell. The Keitel or Jodl (take your pick) of the Bush War Crime Syndicate. I wonder what ever became of those guys.

Steve,
quick response to 2 key grafs (quoted below).

That modesty of Powell's is a really rare and widely respected trait, one that I and many others admire. It's a normal and normalizing quality.

What we badly need, as you point out, is a "hard-headed roster of options ... regarding Iran. We need ...effective strategies."

InSTEAD of keeping Bush under seige: engaging via such options may provide W an out. If he is/were inclined to look for an out or partners, that is.

Powell's modesty is the root of popular dissatisfaction with him. Folks respect that normalizing demeanor, and look for effective options from him. Expecting some common sense.

Absent that, they wonder where he's coming from, and where he stands.

I'm curious as to what options Powell would/will lay out.

Esp. whether they'll be realistic, or adhere to conventional wisdom to preserve insider cred; acknowledge Iran's diplomatic overtures, or straddle the fence by appealing to what Bush wants to hear.

Will Bush even be open to hearing what Powell has to say, when he marginalized him in the first place? Given that, it'll be interesting to see what tack Powell chooses. Also because a fair amount of that dynamic is public knowledge...

But again, Powell was the highlight of the evening because he handled himself so modestly. While many outside the Beltway may be unimpressed with the dinner, the attendees, and dislike Powell as someone who has not gone as far as the Brent Scowcrofts and Lawrence Wilkersons of the world to resolve some of the major questions about the Bush administration's national security and war decisions -- I have to say that it was impressive to watch Powell in action.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next thirty days or so Colin Powell comes out with an op-ed, done in a sort of Scowcroftian way, that does not blast the Bush team for its past mistakes -- but rather gives a hard-headed roster of options and potential consequences regarding Iran. We need more voices articulating potentially effective strategies that lie between appeasement of and war with Iran. I think Powell sees such a public comment as his duty -- so be on the watch for such a piece.

China's energy grab?

China currently purches oil on the open market, so I don't see how they're grabbing anything. Is China, in persuing oil development, doing anything that Western companies and governments do not do?

And Asia consumes 23 million barrels of oil a day, whereas the US consumes 20 million. Who is grabbing what? Considering that economic development is fueled by energy consumption, should they just stagnate? 2 billion people in the world live without access to electricity, should they remain in the dark because we don't want to drive our SUVs?

And how is China's energy needs China's? That is, the majority of their oil/coal consumption is used to fuel their industry, which is geared towards export. That would be in contrast to the US, where 60% of our oil consumption is eaten up by single driver cars. 76% of Americans own cars, wheras only 2% of Chinese do. A good deal of "China's" energy needs go to fuel Wallmart, and other US companies that source their production in China for various economic reasons.

If the Chinese followed the US's energy consumption patterns that would, indeed, present a problem. I see that more as an argument for reforming our own overconsumption, rather than keeping the Global South down. But I guess that is an untouchable topic in the US...

Not to be too critical, but you are generally very level headed, and your remarks about China's energy consumption are very simplistic.

Some good posts above!

tucker's bow tie wrote:
Perhaps Hu didn't see the need to break, forebodingly, into 'unambiguous' English over Taiwan because his generals are wearing big smiles these days.

After all, the Chinese went shopping in Russia of late and bought a bevy of these..

So, essentially, Bush's Iraq War shoved Russia and China right into each other's embrace, and now they're making arms deals.

Having been at odds for so many years, even those claiming to advocate Realpolitik would assert that policies driving China and Russia into an alliance, rather than keeping them at odds -- "wouldn't be prudent." [thx DCarvey]

As tucker's points out, those purchases negate our Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Nell points out the use of the word "appeasement."

But is this appropriate, or even accurate?

It suggests acquiescence to an aggressive and dangerous nation, one prone to preemptively invade other countries.

Yet, Iran has not preemptively invaded anyone. Nor will they.

Nor has Iran been making demands for concessions from the U.S. or others.

So "appeasement" is just a proxy for something else.

First it functions to erase Iran's diplomatic overtures to the U.S., and preserve the false notion that there's a crisis and that Iran is intransigent. -- see Kevin Drum at
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php

But most important, It is a proxy for ignoring cost-benefit calculation, a real Realpolitik, and for irresponsiby ignoring those U.S. citizens who would like a foreign policy based the Realpolitik of the American Revolution.

America was founded on the understanding that a People have the right to rule themselves -- and that interference with that principle from elsewhere -- be it by the British Crown or anyone else, will result in great costs and serious consequences.

Later that same millenia, we find America ignoring that principle, to its substantive, political, and moral detriment. We ovethrew Mossadegh in 1953. And now we put forth the baseless notion that we can tell a sovereign nation that they have no right to defend themselves with the only weapon (nukes), capable of warding off a comprehensive bombing campaign, full-scale invasion, and perhaps even the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

In no way, shape, or form may this be referred to as "hyperventilating." It's merely how Iran likely views the current situation, and quite correctly, I might add.

After all, they're facing a saber-rattling adversary who in point of fact did preemptively invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses, and on false information.

So if the sovereign nation of Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, then by any defensible understanding of the rationale for the meaning, establishment, and existence of America, by all means let them do it.

The national security of America will be greatly enhanced if they do. Cost-benefit analysis would indicate as much. Consider the costs of invasion relative to the benefits & profits of actually selling Iran military nuclear technology. It's Nixon goes to China -- not heresy. Hell, Bush could rescue his presidency that way. And proliferation cannot be stopped -- it's a fool's game to try.

A foreign policy that adheres to American law, Constitutional provisions, and character would serve our national security much more effectively than the covert ops of the 20th century and the neocon delusions of the 21st.

It benefits by reaping the lessons fo the political genius of our founding fathers. They knew the incalculable costs of meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nation -- and made the Crown pay for it. Now King George V repeats the mistakes of King George III. America derives its moral stature from this keystone understanding of political-military Realpolitik.

The violation, of course, is equally and more importantly internal: had Bush only insisted on a formal Declaration of War, instead of the false, easy route of an Irresolution -- had he only been honest about his reasons for going after Iraq -- there would be no internal breach, no social and political rupture of the social contract to repair. No legacy down the drain, no country in shambles.

Steve,
Some very worthwhile and interesting posts recently.

Worthwhile info Iran's diplomatic overtures at:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php

Given that info, "appeasement = Orwellian."

Keep up the good work. Some thoughtful exchanges always make it worth my time!

Thanks Steve for this insightful 'fly on the wall' posting! Good Stuff!

Ok, an acknowledgment:

Slow waking up, and sidetracked by the very interesting Powell & Iran dynamics.

Went back to finish reading...
.... and wanted to say --

Thanks for the anecdotes re the fake "Q & A sessions," both Hu's and Bush's! These are serious issues, so thanks for the "We live in a time..." graf (of yr prev post).

The small acts make a difference, and are always worth doing. I laughed out loud when I got to this:

So, I went to find a staff member of one of the organizations sponsoring to get my question added to the pile. I kept finding security guards and American and Chinese Secret Service guys (and they were all guys) who looked like they wanted me to shut up and sit down with my unanswered question, but I persevered. I eventually found some organizational staffers who looked shocked that anyone had actually written a question down.

Essentially you ran into American AND Chinese Secret Service who BOTH toed the Party line. Hmm. That shock you noted -- I've always found when you reach some staffer not accustomed to basic, normal requests, that they often comply just because they don't know they have an alternative. Whether coddled or just not expecting such persistence, or questions outside the setup -- that guy took the question right to where it wasn't supposed to go!

And because of your persistence in the face all the rigid Q & A protocol, your question went straight to Hu, instead of Carla Hills!

Worthwhile, if only because it might have made everybody involved pause to think a bit, maybe it made em think about their role in the setup.

Who knows? Hu mighta made something of it in the privacy of his own thinking and evolution as a leader. And you got a story out of it.

Steve...your information and insights have gotten better and better lately.

I do agree with some who think you show a bit too much hero worship at times, but then I consider you have to maintain access to "those people" in order to bring us these gems.

However Powell doesn't meet the standards with me. I tried to belived he stayed in this adm to limit their damage, then I tried to believe he remained silent in order to maintain his own access to adm information for patriotic purposes....but his continued silence just confirms what some of his military detractors have always said about him...that his highest cause is looking out for number one.

The Happy Warrior he ain't..

Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name,
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven’s applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is he
Whom every Man in arms should wish to be.

Someone ought to have asked Hu to tell people about Torture of dissidents with Chinese characteristics.

The Republican Party and the Chinese Communist Party want both countries to resemble one another in that One party has government rule but with capitalism.

The Republican Party wants to cut back on democracy here and have one party rule and the communist chinese want to increase capitalism.

As for the sing song sounds of the chinese leaders. It appears to sound like these leaders make the sounds of a pinball machine.

Some of them talk in high pitch and go bing bing bong bing bing bong bong bing bong

Your comments about Hu are WAY off the mark, which make them all the more surprising coming from such a thoughtful and intelligent person, and one who is so familiar with Asian culture. The fact that Hu didn't hold an unscripted press conference could say more about his personality or conservative political style than anything else. That doesn't make him a bad leader!!!!

Regarding the Western media's attention recently on Google and Yahoo, it's MUCH more significant that over 100 million Chinese internet users have access to more information over the web than they have ever had before, than to place a disproportionate and thus distorting emphasis on a handful of people that run afoul of the system. The same distortion is true of the Chinese media of the past, which would report disproportionately on homeless in America for example, painting an unfair picture of our society. The Western Media, that hypes Google's decision to abide by China's internet laws in order to be a part of the revolution that the internet is bringing to China (the big picture), is now doing the same thing but in reverse.

p.s. I am reading your blog from Beijing.

Michael -- Thanks for your note. I hope you are right and that my general direction is wrong. I'm not anti-Hu, but I have to admit to being stunned by nine references to democracy in his speech -- and the fact that the ability of the state to observe, monitor and punish citizens who are engaged in digital communications is absolutely Orwellian, and the antithesis of democracy. That Orwellian trend happens to be taking place both in China, where it is too often excused -- and America, where it is outrageous what is happening, and more need to beat the trend back.

I won't be an apologist for leadership that tries to evade scrutiny.

But one note about the "note cards". It turns out that some tables had them -- but none of the tables I went to. I have talked with some people were able to submit questions -- but they felt that the selected questions were pre-scripted and sterile -- and that the general uncertainty about what to do with question cards was accurate.

I just wanted to put in the record that some people in the 1,000 person room got their cards picked up and put in a pile -- though my question went into Hu Jintao's pocket.

Steve Clemons

Geez Steve,

You sound so smitten to be at a gala event with the likes of Colin Powell! Rather than asking to have your photo taken with him (and thus treating him like some kind of star), you should have capitalized on this rare moment. Instead, you sound like an infatuated schoolboy ready to suck up.

Glad you find it so important to let everyone know what gala events you attend. Frightfully boring, actually. I used to like your blog, but I've read too many of these types of posts. Adios! Thanks for showing me how trivial it looks when you write so fawningly about yourself and trivial brushes with power.

Why should you or I or anyone care what Colin Powell might, or might not, write in a month. He squandered his credibility by shilling for Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz/Bush on weekend talk shows and, most of all, by that agonizing UN performance. I was in China and saw it live. It was so obvious that the UNSC listened politely to what the gentleman Powell had to say, and didn't believe a word of it. As an American it was embarassing to watch that.

After that, what is anything Powell has to say worth? He'll clearly say what he's told to say.

I'm glad that you enjoy your gig as groupie to the political stars. Do give the regards of all Americans to those fine and honorable patriots such as Colin Powell and Alex Haig. Now I think I'm going to be sick.