Tonight, I received Hillary Clinton's formal statement explaining her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution -- and her assertion that this did not amount to Congressional authorization for actions against Iran.

Clinton stated:

"Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.

"I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

"Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

"I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

"This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

"In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

"Nothing in this resolution changes that."

If all parties were above board, this statement could calm some nerves, but the problem with the current administration is the duplicity and overreach of the Executive Branch. Bush's team concocted the anti-democratic notion of the "unitary executive" and has been disdainful of Congress' constitutionally specified authorities and responsibilities.

This administration has stretched the authorizations Congress has given it in the past -- and assembled rationalizations for action, like abandoning the Geneva Conventions, while Cheney staffers like David Addington stated "[Congress] doesn't have a vote" in what the administration was doing.

So, even if one takes Hillary Clinton's assertion at her word that she was not giving permission for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution to be twisted into Congressional authorization for an Iran War, it doesn't mean that other Senators saw it that way -- and certainly doesn't mean that the administration won't spin the Resolution in that direction.

What is needed from Senator Clinton now is leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without clear advise and consent from Congress -- a Resolution that would move the President's actions into the light instead of the murkiness where the possibility of an Iran action now rests.

That kind of resolution is needed. Some have been kicking around the Congress -- but if Hillary Clinton, right now the front runner to be the next President of the United States -- adopted this effort as her own, many would come to have greater trust in the kinds of rationales she provided in her statement above.

-- Steve Clemons

As all eyes turn to Myanmar with brutal crackdowns by the military junta (including reports of a Japanese reporter murdered and school children being fired upon), international condemnations, speculation of a "saffron revolution," and China caught between a policy of noninterference and brutal crackdown on its borders that could turn into a public relations disaster, there are stories at the micro-political level that deserve to be highlighted for the inspiration they might offer.

First, the role that technology has played in both mobilizing and broadcasting this information to the rest of the world through cell phones and the internet. News reports abound on the process of gathering reports in Myanmar as much as the actual reports of the brutal crackdowns by the military junta. The Democratic Voice of Burma has been praised for its role at the helm of collecting, hosting, and distributing information from the myriad of reports electronically smuggled out of the country. Despite the internet crackdown which The New York Times The Lede is reporting on, information is still apears to be making its way through to blogs like Global Voices and the Cbox aggregator of on-the-ground reports.

Just like the protests against a chemical plant organized by text messages in China a few months ago, this is not the story of technological triumphalism, but rather, of little victories that are applying pressures and compelling governments and international actors to move in certain, sometimes constructive ways.

The second story that needs be told (and I hope gets reported on more) is the bonds of solidarity formed between the monks and local residents. The lead editorial of the Asahi Shimbun reads:

Sharp increases in the prices of gasoline and other items on Aug. 15 sparked the demonstrations. The price hikes caused bus fares and other fees to soar, hitting the pocketbooks of ordinary citizens. Monks who rely on alms stood up in protest on behalf of the citizens. (...)

In Myanmar, it is customary for men to enter the priesthood at least once during their lifetime. As writer Michio Takeyama (1903-1984) described in his novel "Biruma no Tategoto" (The Harp of Burma), Buddhism is the spiritual mainstay of the people. The fact that monks, who distance themselves from mundane affairs, stood up in protest shows just how precarious everyday civilian life has become.

In return, DVB is reporting that local residents of all religions have been defending Bhuddist monks and thwarting attacks on monasteries, which have been targeted by the military:

In Rangoon, troops encountered resistance from local residents as they approached Sasana Alin Yaung, Sanana Wuntha and Min Nanda monasteries in Daw Pon and Tharkayta townships.

At Min Nanda monastery, which backs on to Pazuntaung creek, troops tried to approach from both land and water but retreated when they saw the strength of local resistance.

"There were not only Buddhist people but also Muslims, Christians and Hindus defending the monasteries," said a resident of Tharkayta township.

A similar story has been played out in other townships in Burma, as residents take action to resist government raids on monasteries.

Despite the much ballyhooed cedar, rose, and orange revolutions that turned out to be far more complex power struggles rather than purely democratic revolutions, there appears to be something qualitatively different about what is happening in Myanmar right now -- a much more organic galvanization of the population -- though I think we lack sufficient information to substantiate it. Nevertheless, the accounts above should provide sufficient cause to hope that a new social contract will arise out the battle unfolding in the country.

--Sameer Lalwani

It turns out that John Bolton's recent lobbying against the Law of the Sea represents a major flip-flop.

I've known about this exchange for quite a while, but it doesn't commit Bolton to personal support of the treaty:

BOLTON: The administration has submitted the Law of the Sea Treaty as one of its priorities, and I support that.

SARBANES: Simply because it's an administration position, or does that represent your own view of it?

BOLTON: Well, I haven't personally read the Law of the Sea Treaty. I don't think I've ever read it, to be honest with you.

Of course, administration appointees are required to support administration policy. But I recently came across another exchange, in which Bolton substantially undermines the most common policy-grounded objections to the convention. It goes well beyond the basic level of support that is compulsory for administration officials and indicates that he at some point did read and endorse the Law of the Sea.

Here's what he had to say at his confirmation hearing on April 11, 2005:

LUGAR: [D]o you see any potential entanglement of the United States with the Law of the Sea Treaty and loss of sovereignty to the U.N. or to any other world body?

BOLTON: No, I don't see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect. And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there's no risk of taxation or anything like that.

As I say, my own review and that of the bureaus that report to me was on the importance that our military attached to it.

I will say, perhaps, one related point. A number of people have asked about the relationship of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the Proliferation Security Initiative.

And you know, I don't think that if the Senate were to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty and the president were to make the treaty, that it would have any negative impact whatsoever on PSI.

One of the things the PSI statement of interdiction principle says very clearly is that any actions taken pursuant to PSI would be done in accordance with existing national and international authority.

And of course all of our other core group members of the PSI are states party to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

We would not ask them, obviously, to do anything that would violate their obligations. And so, in effect, we built that into the PSI base as it were.

Confirmation conversion, anyone?

If he keeps up his scorched earth policy and his flip flopping, Bolton's credibility will head into a downward spiral right on time for his upcoming book release.

On a related note -- that is, related to Law of the Sea opponents embarrassing themselves -- the most visible Law of the Sea opponents had scheduled a "telephone press conference" for this morning. I just found out it was canceled for lack of interest.

There's a lesson here for Bolton: when you're consistently inconsistent, or just plain absurd, people stop paying attention to you.

-- Scott Paul

Note: As I wrote earlier, Dick Lugar's opening statement at yesterday's Law of the Sea hearing finally exposed the right-wing hypocrisy on the Law of the Sea and the Iraq war. It's now up on his site. Everyone should read it.

There are many including this writer who have been documenting the internal decision-making divisions inside President Bush's White House.

The response that tends to be offered back is that we are misreading the situation, or that all of President Bush's people are pulling together even if there are serious differences in the debate when policy is being hammered out.

But yesterday, I learned of something that John Bolton did during the first George W. Bush term that reflects the deep hostility between warring factions in the Bush machine.

On a White House orchestrated conference call, a number of officials had been discussing a national security matter. One White House official in the phone conference apparently was supposed to go off the call before then Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control John Bolton came on -- but the White House operator forgot to disconnect him (or her).

When the moderator of the meeting stated that the portion of the call with "X Person" had ended and the discussion with John Bolton would begin, Bolton allegedly said:

I want to tell everyone on this call now, do not trust [that person]."

Well, the person was still listening, in utter shock. The person quickly hung up the call.

This is yet another indication of Bolton's divisive 'with him or against him' tactics in the administration.

When Bill Frist and George Bush kept saying "Bolton is a good man" during his failed UN confirmation process, it really turned the stomachs of many inside the White House.

Now Bolton is lobbying against Bush's Law of the Sea policy. He's been trying to undermine virtually every serious project at the Department of State -- from efforts to redirect Iran, the Six Party talks with North Korea, and the coming November Israel/Palestine Summit.

Bolton is the hardest working person in Washington now trying to undermine global stability, in much the same way he has been trying to undermine his former colleagues who serve the same President he served.

-- Steve Clemons

Some of the leading opponents of the Law of the Sea, ironically, feel very strongly that we should trust the judgments of military personnel on military matters.

Jim Inhofe:

"I don't think it's too much to expect for our leaders in Washington to keep an open mind and get the facts before drawing their conclusions. I, like the other 534 members of Congress, am not a General and do not presume to be. That is why I will yield to the judgement of a competent, objective, military leader in forming my opinion..." - at Captain's Quarters blog, 9/17/2007

Jim DeMint, who is fast establishing himself as the George Allen of the 110th Congress with his instinctive opposition to international institutions and problems keeping facts straight (he suggested at one point in today's Law of the Sea hearing that the U.S. is fulfilling its obligations under Kyoto while others are freeloading):

"Right now, our commander in chief and those he commands are daring greatly and our brave warriors are paying with blood, sweat and tears. Yet, many in Congress prefer to sit in the arena stands and offer scorn rather than support.
...
"Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding resolution that expresses disapproval of the president's plan to reinforce our troops in Iraq.

"Voting for such a resolution is not leadership; it is criticism -- criticism without offering alternative solutions.
...
"Voting to condemn the president's plan is a vote of no confidence in the mission that we have told our troops to carry out. It is also a smack to the face of Gen. David Patraeus..." - in the Politico, 2/6/2007

Apparently, the right wing's faith in military leaders stops at the water's edge. Both Inhofe and DeMint oppose U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea, which the President, civilian military leaders, and commanders say unambiguously will help them fulfill their missions and keep American service members safe.

Dick Lugar put it much more eloquently at today's hearing. Lugar is usually understated and is generally inclined more to seek consensus than provoke confrontation. Today, though, he stood up to his ideological opponents and knocked one out of the park:

"The Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Navy, in time of war, are asking the Senate to give its advice and consent to this treaty. Our uniformed commanders and civilian national security leadership are telling us, unanimously and without qualification, that U.S. accession to the treaty will help them do their job.

"We have charged the U.S. Navy with maintaining sea lanes and defending our nation's interests on the high seas. They do this every day, and even in peacetime these operations carry considerable risk. The Navy is telling us that U.S. membership in the Law of the Sea Convention is a tool that they need to maximize their ability to protect U.S. national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with this task.
...
"Mr. Chairman, the military is not always right. But the overwhelming presumption in the United States Senate has been that if our Armed Forces and our entire National Security apparatus ask us for something to help them achieve a military mission, we do our best to provide them with just that tool within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting."

And finally, the hypocrisy shines through:

"In recent weeks we have heard a great deal of advocacy about the necessity of heeding the advice of our military leaders as they seek to carry out the missions we have given them. Senators rose to declare that General Petraeus, an acknowledged counterinsurgency expert, was better positioned and trained to assess our progress in Iraq than critics in Congress. In the coming debate on Law of the Sea, we should be similarly respectful of the expertise of military commanders. "

(As delivered; hyperlink to statement not yet active)

Hypocrisy has become so commonplace among isolationist conservatives that it doesn't always register, but this time it's too blatant to ignore. Those most vocal about giving the President and the military a blank check to put troops and treasure on the line in Iraq are also dead-set against giving them the tools they need to protect and enable the Armed Forces at sea.

I'll try to get some more updates up on yesterday's hearing. More details on Bolton and his Law of the Sea lobbying on the way, too.

-- Scott Paul

Joe Wilson is off in Nevada campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Joe and I think similarly on many national security issues -- and we have like-minded disdain for what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, John Bolton and others have done to America's global position.

But I hope someone in Nevada will ask Joe Wilson how he squares Hillary's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution yesterday. Hagel and Lugar voted against the resolution. Jim Web did too. But Hillary helped give the White House (which she may very well occupy) implicit authority to trip into war with Iran.

The Joe Wilson I know wouldn't be too pleased with Hillary's vote -- but I imagine he's forgiving the vote on the grounds that if that is what she has to do to get into the White House, do it -- and then change course later.

But we really need to see some evidence that Hillary Clinton is not going to tilt at conflicts and rapidly deploy hard military force the first chance she gets as a way to define her presidency.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm not in a place to judge the veracity of Dan Rather's reporting on Bush's National Guard service, but as usual, Sidney Blumenthal has done an extraordinary job sequencing the bits and pieces of the Rather CBS story and suggests that Rather's $70 million lawsuit against CBS will animate some much needed truth-telling about Bush's slippery story on military service.

Blumenthal writes:

If the court accepts [Rather's] suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well. Then Rather's suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a major news organization's intimidation, complicity and corruption under the Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into the sanctum of any news organization to divulge its inner workings. But intent on vindicating his reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather's suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his "60 Minutes II" piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained -- and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.

Most cases of this sort are usually settled before discovery. But Rather has made plain that he is uninterested in a cash settlement. He has filed his suit precisely to be able to take depositions.

A principled stand to get at the truth is what we need, and if this is what Dan Rather is up to then all the better.

-- Steve Clemons

A lot of folks out there think I'm a sucker for good email notes -- or very effective, personalized fundraising appeals like Hillary Clinton's invitation to all of us (including me) to possibly have lunch with her, after she picked up the groceries and with her husband dropping by to say hello.

But I really liked this note from Chris Dodd -- received just a few moments ago while I'm up covering the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

Senator Dodd writes:

Subject: Real Quick

From: Chris Dodd [Chris_Dodd@chrisdodd.com]

To: Steve Clemons [clemons@newamerica.net]

Hey,

I only have a few seconds on my way back to Washington from last night's debate.

The fundraising quarter is wrapping up and we're just short of hitting our goal. Will you chip in $23 and put us over the top? You can contribute here:

http://www.chrisdodd.com/deadline

I'll be in touch soon.

Chris

I really like Dodd's take on foreign policy and national security issues. He continues to set a high mark in his comments on the Middle East, on Cuba, on Iran, and just a general modern, 21st century approach to thinking about the tough challenges ahead. Listening to Dodd last night reminded me of Chuck Hagel's foreign policy views.

In any case, I may be a sucker for fundraising notes -- but this is another one I liked.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Juan Cole has picked up stories from Reuters and Harpers on a transcript of President Bush's conversation with Spanish President Aznar that confirms that he had no intention of seriously pursuing UN Security Council support and was exceedingly optimistic over the outcomes of Iraq.

But here's the kicker -- the President was offered a deal by the Egyptians but passed on an opportunity to buy Saddam out, have him exiled to Saudi Arabia, and avoid a US occupation that has come at such a high cost.

Cole suggests these are impeachable offenses but I'm less concerned with that angle than as a lesson to current and future leaders who are grappling with a number of present security dilemmas, especially in light of the Senate vote yesterday that pushed us a step closer to conflict with Iran.

The counter-factual account -- what if we had bought Saddam out instead of invading Iraq -- should be pondered and instructive for our dealings with North Korea and Iran, who have at many points indicated their compliance could also be bought with security guarantees and economic incentives. Of course there are risks and a "buy-out" package, which would need to complemented by some credible sticks. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the use of force comes without risks of failure or blowback as we are witnessing now in Iraq.

And the moral repugnance of buying out thugs like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il like as some might invoke has to be balanced against the loss of our troops and global influence as well as expected but unintended consequences (let's call them "known unknowns") that ought to weigh on our moral conscience -- like 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and over five million refugees.

--Sameer Lalwani

Note the correction -- the event will be from 3:00pm-4:30pm

If you are near Dupont Circle on Thursday afternoon, you should drop by the New America Foundation to hear Council on Foreign Relations Vice President and Director of Studies, Dr. Gary Samore, in an event hosted by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative and publisher of Arms Control Wonk. The event "Countering a Nuclear-Armed Iran" will focus on how we might develop new options to counter Iran beyond the choice of acquiescing to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons break out option or using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

Dr. Samore is an expert on nuclear proliferation and arms control specializing in the Middle East and Asia and served at the National Security Council from 1995-2001. He previously served as Vice President of the MacArthur Foundation and Director of Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The event will be from 3:00pm - 4:30pm on the 7th floor of the New America Foundation offices located at 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington DC.

--Sameer Lalwani

(US Defense Secretary Robert Gates with the Egyptian Military, soon to be deploying troops to Darfur)

Arab states have taken numerous hits in the media -- some unwarranted, some deserved -- for not taking a stronger role in condemning the violence in Darfur and arm-twisting the Sudanese government to allow for peacekeepers or peace talks. The US, by contrast, has continued to stand on a soapbox drawing attention to the issue and urging the world to move quickly to stem the violence that has claimed 200,000 lives.

But yesterday witnessed something of a reversal of positions. President Bush spoke at the UN and chastised the UN for its failures to stem the violence in Darfur (despite the breakthrough that will allow a joint UN-AU peacekeeping force) but has not been willing to put up the resources to make this breakthrough a reality as former Senator Tim Wirth stated:

This morning, President Bush admonished the UN to 'live up to its promise to promptly deploy peacekeeping forces to Darfur.' However, the Administration has requested funding for only 20% of its share of the Darfur mission, and is heading towards a debt of more than $1 billion for UN peacekeeping overall. It is impossible for the UN to 'live up to its promise' to deploy peacekeepers to Darfur if nations like the United States fail to pay for the peacekeeping missions that they vote for in the Security Council.

On the same day, Egypt, though by no means the model of human rights, took the significant step of committing 2,500 troops or 10% of the joint force to be deployed in the Darfur region. Deployments of Arab and Muslim troops cannot be understated -- they will be quite valuable to both provide credibility to a western-led mission that is viewed by a large part of the world with suspicion and to dampen the resonance of al Qaeda's twisted call to turn Darfur into another front against the West.

It's a pity when we squander an opportunity on the global stage to lead the world on what we have termed a genocide But at the very least it's good to see Middle East/North African neighbors beginning to warm to the notion of moral responsibility and regional stewardship on this front.

--Sameer Lalwani

The first question former President Clinton posed Afghan President Hamid Karzai was one of investment in Afghanistan. While the two touted the foreign investment starting to enter the country, Clinton suggested that everyone could contribute to average Afghans trying to make a living through Kiva.org -- an online microfinance network like lendingtree.com where people seeking to loan small, interest-free amounts of money match up with entrepreneurs seeking small loans for a six to twelve month period.

Nick Kristof profiled this website (see screen shot) back in March, which drew my attention and led me to make a few loans -- a little less than 6 months later, 44% of the loans have been paid back. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the impressive figures they've posted including $11.6 million in loans within less than 2 years and only a 0.2% default rate (as I recall, this is much lower than even the highly successful Grameen Bank which had something like a 92% repayment rate).

This is not to suggest micro-finance alone will save Afghanistan. After 30 years as one of the poorest countries in the world not to mention a perpetual governance vacuum with dysfunctional or non-existent state, the country needs a massive infusion of development aid to build up everything from infrastructure to state bureaucratic capacity, far more than the pittance of a sum the US has thus far allocated according to New York Times reporting based on Congressional Research Service reports. And it does no favors that our misplaced counter-narcotics policy seeks to eliminate the livelihoods of the 13% of the population and a third of the country's GDP.

But the micro-finance revolution will continue to make waves as it becomes increasingly profitable for mainstream banks and lending institutions and as it reaches a broader set of pooled lenders through unique delivery vehicles like Kiva.org.

--Sameer Lalwani

In the internal White House battles over the Geneva conventions, enemy combatant policies, extraordinary rendition, and torture -- which have been viciously waged between various Bush administration officials against other colleagues in the same White House -- there are a few heroes who fought the "darkness at noon" solutions advocated by Vice President Cheney's team.

I am writing a significant, lengthy piece right now on a bit of this history as I think that a giant, high beam spotlight should blare down on Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, for the particularly insidious role that he has played over the last six years in sabotaging America's norms and ethics as well as system of checks and balances in government.

There are a number of heroes in my book including former Department of Defense and Department of State lawyer Matthew Waxman, who tried to stand up to Addington and his like-minded torture obsessives, and State Department Senior Legal Adviser John Bellinger who has worked vigorously to walk America away from the so-called "war paradigm" and towards a "rule of law" framework again. In fact, Bellinger is an advocate of numerous international law frameworks -- including ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

I hate saying good things about Bellinger because I fear it will get him in trouble with the censors in the White House. But Bellinger is on the right side, and it must be said repeatedly.

I mention this because I just ran across an interesting and thoughtful blog, Dorf on Law that in a review of Jack Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency, Jamison Colburn mischaracterizes Bellinger and tosses him with the likes of Addington. This couldn't be more incorrect.

Colburn writes:

Goldsmith is the Henry Shattuck Professor at Harvard now. He made his academic name cautioning against "universal jurisdiction" and the application of international law in U.S. courts while teaching at Chicago. That was before his stint in the Bush Administration. It took Goldsmith's determination to pull the torture opinions and revise them because apparently there were many in the administration who adamantly opposed him and wanted the cover OLC opinions provide. (David Addington, John Bellinger, and some others are referenced throughout the book for their especially idiotic, chauvinistic, and dangerous views.) (Goldsmith's words, not mine.)

I understand the writer's general critique of the administration and agree with much of what he writes -- but his target should be Addington, not Bellinger. In fact, Goldsmith says nothing at all about Bellinger along the lines that Colburn says.

Goldsmith's only references to John Bellinger are that he strongly opposed David Addington's efforts. On page on 124, Goldsmith writes that Bellinger was one of the people, along with Paul Clement, urging the White House to try and cultivate Congressional support for "War on Terror" policies. Bellinger was shot down in those efforts, and then on page 126, Goldsmith writes:

'They do not have a vote,' was how [Addington] would invariably respond when someone -- usually John Bellinger -- would object to a policy (or lack of one) by invoking allied protestations.

That kind of response is classic Addington -- and is antithetical to everything Bellinger is about.

I share this not to harrass or impugn Jamison Colburn. As I've written a great deal about Bellinger's important work in trying to walk this country back to some kind of legal sanity, while fighting Cheney's team inside the White House, I wanted to make sure that there was a record that Bellinger and Addington are total opposites on the topics that Colburn considers them the same.

-- Steve Clemons

Former President Clinton has opened the 3rd annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) after a stunning procession of world leaders entered the room to music reminiscent of a James Horner sound track.

In his opening remarks and introductions, Clinton called up Florida Republican Governor Charlie Crist to announce an new solar power initiative by Florida Power and Light to reduce the state's carbon footprint and bring its carbon emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020. (Before announcing the initiative, Clinton took a moment to praise Gov. Crist's recent move to reinstate the right to vote for former felons who have served their time and seek to assume the responsibilities of citizenship -- a principled move that probably didn't go over well with the RNC).

Energy and Climate Change will be an important theme of this conference with a number of plenaries exclusively devoted to the discussion of energy and climate change. The most famous and ardent proponent of efforts to seriously tackle climate change--former Vice President Al Gore-- is here to pick up where he left off at the UN's climate summit on Monday and push this agenda in a meaningful way. He's actually featured in the opening plenary along with a number of global figures including Philippines President Gloria Arroyo, World Bank President Bob Zoellick, and Walmart CEO Lee Scott who have all been focusing on the questions of carbon markets and the developing world.

While CGI will try to advance the theme Al Gore has spearheaded, there are some real and disturbing questions that have been posed, which I hope some panelists will consider addressing, namely -- is it too late?

Paul Saunders and Vaughan Turekian have published a provocative article in Foreign Policy, "Why Climate Change Can't Be Stopped." The authors suggest we need to begin hedging our bets and preparing to live in a world with climate change given both the pace of climate change, the history of inaction, and the enormity of the international collective action challenge at a time when global cooperation is treated as passe. They write:

New emissions limits in the United States and other major emitters such as Europe's key economies and Japan may slow the processes driving these events. But the mounting scientific evidence, coupled along with economic and political realities, increasingly suggests that humanity's opportunity to prevent, stop, or reverse the long-term impacts of climate change has slipped away. In fact, while greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of gross domestic product) of both developed and developing economies has decreased significantly over the past decade as a result of greater efficiency measures, overall greenhouse gas emissions have nevertheless continued to rise. That's because as economies grow, they consume more energy and produce more carbon dioxide. And, obviously, each country wants its own economy to grow. ...

Without a technological or economic miracle, it would take a political miracle to reach an international agreement that would mandate the necessary emissions cuts to reverse the momentum behind our evolving global climate system. But once again, realities get in the way. The U.S. Congress is too divided to pass legislation sufficiently tough to make a major difference. And although some hope that regional or state-level cap-and trade systems could sharply reduce U.S. emissions in the absence of federal action, this is also unlikely because states face many of the same problems that challenge national governments. First and foremost, any state that imposes emissions limits that are too tight in comparison with its neighbors' are likely to simply export their emissions without it resulting in a major overall reduction.

The international political environment also makes truly significant emissions cuts very unlikely. In 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, developing countries will emit nearly 20 percent more CO2 emissions than developed countries. Indeed, only in China (and perhaps India) would emissions limits or cuts make more of a difference than in the United States. By one estimate, China has already surpassed America in emissions to become the world's leader and, with sustained high growth rates, will open the gap even further. In fact, if China grows at 8 percent for the next nine years, its economy will double in size--and its greenhouse gas emissions can be expected roughly to double as well. Moreover, as China's economy expands, it is turning increasingly to carbon-laden coal for electricity. And although China's energy intensity (energy consumed per unit of economic output) has decreased by nearly 5 percent per year for the last two decades as a result of greater efficiency, it is still nearly seven times that of the United States, according to the World Bank. At this rate, China's growth trajectory could add the equivalent pollution of another present-day United States to the climate system in a little more than a decade.

Dollar-for-dollar, the most efficient way to cut global greenhouse gas emissions would be, in theory, to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to improve China's energy efficiency. But Congress would never support such an approach. After all, which members of Congress would vote to undercut the competitiveness of U.S. companies, especially in the face of a weak domestic economy, public anger over outsourcing, China's currency value, and the U.S. trade deficit with China? More broadly, how long will voters in Europe and Japan, which have done the most to limit emissions, be prepared to make sacrifices for the global climate if they believe they are alone in doing so?

Recognize they do not propose we give up on the global challenge of climate change mitigation. Rather they want us to start designing complementary strategies to cope with all the contingencies -- a plan B. Despite its bleak outlook, I find this fairly reasonable and persuasive line of argument. I'll be curious to see if someone tries to respond to this argument in the coming days.

By the way, you can stay tuned at TWN for updates and commentary on CGI but you can also watch the live webcast.

--Sameer Lalwani

The Clinton Global Initiative is the largest global telethon for good causes the world has yet witnessed. Unless you are a well connected blogger or "friend of Bill (or Hillary)", the expense to attend is high -- not only financially but in the robustness of the attendee's "commitment" to some project or effort that will improve the lot of mankind.

I'm here in New York now listening to former President Clinton open this year's session. Bill Clinton knows he is a big global player, and I think it is great that he is focusing his celebrity status and ability to be one of the world's best global conveners on fixing various global problems.

Clinton just said that there are three things that unite the people in the room and those watching by webcast:

"First, our common humanity is more important than our interesting differences." "Most conflict," Clinton said, "is usually a result of people thinking that there differences are more important then their common humanity."

"Second, we all accept our shared responsibility for correcting the current challenges in the world -- and passing on a better world to our children."

"Third, the people here think we can do it."

There are 1300 Clinton Global Initiative members here today. Each has paid more than $15,000 just to get in the door -- which is only the beginning of other substantial financial "do good" projects a member must commit to.

So far, there have been more than 600 commitments made at previous CGI meetings -- and now, the Clinton Global Initiative has launched a new site for people not at this meeting to propose and declare their commitments. The site is called MyCommitment.org. Interesting idea actually. Inspirational for those looking to feel connected to a larger network of socially concerned people and groups.

I just met CGI Communications Director Ben Yarrow who said that although they "don't want to be the philanthropy police," folks just can't come in, make commitments, and not fulfill them if they want to be invited back to future CGI meetings. Last year, 17 CGI commitment makers failed to follow through and were dropped from the roles. This year, there were only 5. CGI has standards.

One of the really incredible things about this meeting is that there are 52 former and current heads of state in this meeting -- and about 45 of them just got introduced one by one at this opening plenary session.

Angelina Jolie is here. Hillary Clinton is not (she's preparing for the New Hampshire debates tonight). Former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley just said hello as I walked by -- and then I stumbled into former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, or maybe he stumbled into me.

Of bloggers, I've seen Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Brian Beutler, Blake Hounshell, and Sameer Lalwani here.

Now, we are moving to the first panel -- including World Bank President Robert Zoellick, Philippines President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott, and surprisingly Al Gore (who still doesn't much like the Clintons we hear) -- who Bill Clinton just recognized "as perhaps the world's leading crusader against climate change."

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I've just learned that John Bolton is meeting with conservative senators, urging them to oppose the Law of the Sea. A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the convention is scheduled for Thursday.

This is a wake-up call to progressives, moderates, and old-school conservatives: joining the Law of the Sea is absolutely critical to restoring the American tradition of responsible, multilateral global engagement. If you haven't done it yet, call your senators today.

If any TWN readers are real gluttons for punishment and want to study the Law of the Sea in great, great, great detail, download the 124-page briefing book here. Otherwise, see past posts here and here.

<