Bob Wright has a piece on the New York Times' Opinionator which should be read in full as he provocatively suggests that we take the earnestness out of the pursuit of a two-state peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.

His view that the parties can't get to a two-state arrangement as long as the most radical factions set the terms and temperature in the region rings true to me -- and thus he thinks that quiet, complacent centrists need to be stirred.

I just got this email from Republican House Whip Eric Cantor:

Do You Have Time for a 30 Minute Strategy Call?

Dear Steven,

Will you join me for a 30 minute strategy call on Thursday, September 30th at 4:30 PM?

My colleague in the GOP Young Guns program, Representative Kevin McCarthy, and I would like to discuss with you how we can work together over the next 35 days to take America back. We will be taking questions and suggestions from you. Click here to join us.

We're looking forward to talking with you.

Regards,
Eric Cantor
House Republican Whip

Notice that there is no request for "$5" -- just a request for participation in a "strategy call."

Maybe the Dems are doing this too -- but I certainly haven't been on those lists. 30 minutes are not enough for the kind of list that the GOP probably sent this too -- but it promotes the notion of connection.

Impressive.

-- Steve Clemons

The New York Times yesterday filed a report on India's efforts to force communications companies that rely on encrypted or hard-to-track communications systems, like Blackberry and Skype, to make their technology accessible or risk being banned from the country. This new step is unsurprising given talk in the UAE last month of forcing compliance with surveillance efforts and the disclosure yesterday of plans in this country to require companies to be able to provide clear text of encrypted communications if so ordered by a court.

It is interesting that for all of concerns put forth in the article of potential consequences of this new rule for India -- such as fear of increased government reach, concerns about inadequate privacy protections, and lack of capacity to actually deal with this information flow -- the author focuses on the impact increased pressure on communications companies could have for India's business interests:

The most inflammatory part of the effort has been India's threat to block encrypted BlackBerry services, widely used by corporations, unless phone companies provide access to the data in a readable format. But Indian officials have also said they will seek greater access to encrypted data sent over popular Internet services like Gmail, Skype and virtual private networks that enable users to bypass traditional telephone links or log in remotely to corporate computer systems.

Critics say such a threat could make foreigners think twice about doing business here. Especially vulnerable could be outsourcing for Western clients, like processing medical records or handling confidential research projects, information that is typically transmitted as encrypted data.

"If there is any risk to that data, those companies will look elsewhere," said Peter Sutherland, a former Canadian ambassador to India who is now a consultant to North American companies doing business there.

S. Ramadorai, vice chairman of India's largest outsourcing company, Tata Consultancy Services, echoed that sentiment in a newspaper column on Wednesday. "Bans and calls for bans aren't a solution," he wrote. "They'll disconnect India from the rest of the world."

India certainly does not want to scare away businesses who rely on encrypted communications in a globally competitive marketplace. Yet what is more worrisome about this entire effort is that it represents another example of governments pursuing more and more information without trying to analyze and where necessary reform how that data is actually used.

While it is attractive (and understandable) for governments concerned with their security situation to want to be able to access different means of communication, the allure of more access to data could allow countries like India to acquire more and more information, making it harder to find what they need to break up plots and prevent attacks. This is in part what has happened in the United States, where we have created a massive intelligence bureaucracy devoted in part to taking in as much information as possible, while sometimes not taking steps to process the information more intelligently or effectively.

In the rush acquire data and improve security, governments must continue to evaluate not just what they need but also how they evaluate what they already have, in order to ensure that new efforts to improve security don't just make an already dangerous situation worse.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Many are lauding President Obama's UN General Assembly speech highlighting America's rededicated, slightly shifting course on which countries to focus development aid on -- and which not. The US Global Leadership Coalition, which is having a mega conference this week on the focus of America's international aid agenda, is loudly applauding President Obama and Hillary Clinton for their efforts.

On top of this, the long awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review should be released by the administration any day now -- and while I too think that it's important to promote America's aid budgets, I think that as things look now, the State Department is being applauded too strongly for not achieving as much as it should have in the QDDR process.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was compelling and showed real vision in this talk at the New America Foundation sponsored by the American Strategy Program and the Palestine Note. It's worth the watch.

Special thanks to James Fallows for standing in for me as chair of the event on short notice - and thanks to Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation Middle East Task Force for managing questions and to Fadi Elsalameen of the Palestine Note for co-hosting this with us.

-- Steve Clemons

The violent clashes currently underway in East Jerusalem, sparked by the shooting of a Palestinian man by a private guard protecting Israeli settlers, have once again demonstrated the volatility and hair-trigger tensions in Jerusalem and in the region that can explode at the slightest provocation. Yet even as riot police are dispersing Palestinians in the Old City, direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis continue, President Obama yesterday at the United Nations called for greater international efforts to create a true Palestinian state, and a poll of Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza found that nearly 60% of respondents oppose attacks against Israel, and 54% believed the new round of talks would be beneficial to them (even though nearly 56% said they did not believe the talks would change the status quo).

The New America Foundation American Strategy Program/Middle East Task Force will host Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm TODAY for a discussion of the state of relations between Israelis and Palestinians, and the difficulties of building a state, its institutions, and its economy while coping with the heavy burdens of occupation and settlements. Registration for this event is CLOSED, but it will stream live right here at TWN.

-- Andrew Lebovich

There are so many layers of geostrategic humor in this clip. Watch -- and just think about it.

Not gonna say more at the moment.

-- Steve Clemons

A giant panda eats a special-made mooncake in Guangzhou, capital of south China's Guangdong Province on Sept. 21, 2010, one day ahead of China's Mid-autumn festival this year. (courtesy of Xinhua; photo credit: Liu Dawei)

While the Mandarins of Washington and Beijing square off over the yuan-dollar exchange rate, China's trade in mooncake vouchers is at its peak today.

Walking around Beijing this week, I have seen evidence that there are indeed mooncakes for sale and gifting everywhere. I've received several bags of mooncakes myself. But as I wrote a short time ago, the currency -- the vouchers -- that one can gift these sugar, butter, bean paste, jelly, and flour treats with seem to far exceed the real number of mooncakes that one would think underlie their value.

Mooncake vouchers may eventually replace the dollar as the global reserve currency. You heard it here first. :-)

On a more serious front, I have been spending a lot of time in China over the last three months -- back and forth between China and a lot of places in the world. I have had my eyes opened about China in surprising ways and am incredibly impressed with the vision that China has for itself and its determination to get there.

There are problems in China -- and concerns about the behavior of a rising state, sort of the Google of Nations today, disrupting some of the polite, more Western norms of the global system.

China expects tough negotiations ahead -- and the rest of the world, particularly the United States, should be prepared for serious arm-wrestling matches with what today is really an adolescent great power with a few thousand years of history in its DNA. America, which is a young country, nonetheless is behaving too much like an octogenerian nation and has to reinvent itself.

I think James Fallows, who just spent three years here, and I are in agreement that America won't get far using China as an excuse for its current malaise -- even though the massive infusion of direct investment from the US into China that has displaced a significant part of the American manufacturing base is a "manifestation of economic lunkheadedness" in the US political and business communities.

America has to take responsibility for its own policy decisions and needs to do the things that rebuild its capacities to innovate, to make things, and to bolster its middle class working families. China is not to blame for maximizing its interests. The U.S. government writ large, in contrast, is guilty of dereliction of duty in how it has managed America's economic portfolio and allowed the financial sector to skim off the work and productivity of the other stakeholders in the economy.

With that thought -- it's a magnificent day weather-wise in Beijing today, the best I've seen yet -- and it should be great for thinking big thoughts and looking at the moon tonight.

Mooncake anyone?

-- Steve Clemons

Before I was able to speak to the themes of the Afghanistan Study Group report of which I was a part at a major foreign policy conference titled the 2010 Global Leadership Forum sponsored by the Royal United Services Institute and the Princeton Project on National Security in London this past week, former UK Ambassador to the United States Sir Christopher Meyer gave a quick outline of the findings and key proposals -- and said "this report tells us exactly what we need to do."

Princeton's G. John Ikenberry praised the report while the Council on Foreign Relations' Stephen Biddle made a principled counter-argument about high national security stakes in Afghanistan and the high consequences if the US and allied efforts at counter-insurgency fail.

I noted at the meeting that Biddle's boss, Richard Haass, had called for an approach to Afghanistan mostly similar to the Afghanistan Study Group -- while my colleagues, Steve Coll and Peter Bergen, were still cautiously on the side of supporting the current COIN strategy, which I am not.

This is the kind of debate that was missing in the build up to the Iraq War -- and it's what is necessary if we are going to be able to "unwind" our position in Afghanistan, as former Senator Chuck Hagel put it.

Also on the UK front, many thanks to Member of Parliament John McDonnell who praised the Afghanistan Study Group report in Parliament (pdf):

HOUSE OF COMMONS -- OFFICIAL REPORT -- PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

MP John McDonnell

Thursday 9 September 2010

"I refer Members to an excellent report produced recently by the Afghanistan Study Group in America. It is entitled "A New Way Forward: Rethinking US Strategy in Afghanistan." The study group includes a range of specialists--ex-military, intelligence experts, regional specialists and people involved in conflict resolution in the past across the world. The report reflects many of the statements that have been made by Members today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

The report includes sober analysis of the need for us to enter direct dialogue with participants in the conflict. As many Members have done today, it analyses the war in Afghanistan, describing it not as a struggle between the Karzai Government and an insurgent Taliban movement allied with international terrorists seeking to overthrow the Government, but as a civil war about power-sharing. The lines of contention are partly ethnic, chiefly but not exclusively between Pashtuns, who dominate the south, and other ethnic groups such as the Tajiks and Uzbeks who are more prevalent in the north. The conflict is partly rural versus urban, and of course partly sectarian. As many Members have said, it is also influenced by surrounding nations with a desire to promote their own interests--Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. As others have emphasised, the conflict is interpreted by many in Afghanistan as having elements of resistance to what is seen as a military occupation."

Just keep this in mind: $100 billion in military expenditures alone in a country with a GDP of $14 billion.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Sherle Schwenninger occasionally prods our team with a provocative "quiz of the day". I thought I'd share this interesting one.

Gang: Which brilliant economist in early 2008 wrote the following?

"Fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly and credibly temporary--with no significant adverse impact on the deficit for more than a year or so after implementation. Otherwise it risks being counterproductive by raising the spectre of enlarged future deficits pushing up longer term interest rates and undermining confidence and longer term growth prospects...

How large should a program be? I depends on what else is done to help the economy...But a $50-$74bn package implemented over two to three quarters would provide about 1 percent of gross domestic product in stimulus over the period of its implementation....This seems large enough to take some burden off monetary policy and yet unlikely, if properly implemented, to risk substantial damage if the economy proves stronger than expected."

The winner of the Quiz of the Day will be announced at 5 PM.

Sherle

Mankiw? Hubbard? Geithner?

No, Larry Summers.

The quote is from Lawrence Summers' Financial Times piece on January 6, 2008, entitled "Why America Must Have A Fiscal Stimulus."

A couple of things jump out at me. First of all, George Soros has often said that if he is right that a "super bubble" burst during the recent financial crisis then the tools and approach deployed by Summers and Geithner -- who approached the problem conventionally -- would fail.

Secondly, the level of stimulus to move the US economy now seems pathetically trivial compared to the low-economic multiplier drain of $100 billion per year spent on Afghanistan.

-- Steve Clemons

The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung has posted a story titled "Obama Envisions No Major Changes in Afghan Strategy."

DeYoung writes:

Despite discouraging news from Afghanistan and growing doubts in Congress and among the American public, the Obama administration has concluded that its war strategy is sound and that a December review, once seen as a pivotal moment, is unlikely to yield any major changes.

This resolve arises amid a flurry of reports from outside experts and former officials who are convinced that the administration's path in Afghanistan is unsustainable and its objectives are unclear. Lawmakers from both parties are insisting that they be given a bigger say in assessing the war's trajectory.

The White House calculus is that the strategy retains enough public and political support to weather any near-term objections. Officials do not expect real pressure for progress and a more precise definition of goals to build until next year, with the approach of a July deadline President Obama has set for decisions on troop withdrawals and the beginning of the 2012 electoral season.

I don't doubt that DeYoung, a top-connected correspondent, had a key White Official convey to her the message that no change was ahead as some in the national security establishment would like to puncture early a growing bubble of criticism of the Afghanistan War, the conduct of it, and the war's objectives.

But similarly well-placed national security officials on the Obama team have told me that "a debate is coming." They believe that the December review of the current strategy will be a serious exercise and that President Obama is not one to just stick to a course if it isn't working. We'll see.

DeYoung herself depicts growing tensions beyond a facade of resolve and current Afghanistan commitments. She writes:

Beneath the administration's outward calm, nerves have been frayed this summer by the slow pace of military operations and paucity of uncontested gains against Taliban forces. Reports of Afghan government corruption have been unrelenting, as has the climb in U.S. casualties. Troop deaths have more than doubled since Obama took office - more than 330 this year by early September - along with the size of the U.S. force.

At a Monday meeting with his senior national security advisers, Obama displayed "particularly acute impatience" at "really astounding" casualty figures that are far higher than what was anticipated at the beginning of the year, the senior official said.

The near-collapse of the country's leading bank and President Hamid Karzai's attempts to stop U.S.-backed prosecutions of allegedly corrupt senior Afghan officials have overshadowed what the administration sees as signs of progress, the official said. Not only have the controversies opened the door to congressional efforts to condition funding, "you can't fit them into a story that explains to the American people why we're on a path to fulfill our goals," the senior official said.

A recent senior White House official recently went out of his/her way to convey to me that President Obama was not the kind of person to allow himself to be cornered by the military into a bad or ineffective course of action. This person said the President was not cowed by the military and the December review would assemble all the key voices for a genuine review.

The person speaking with Karen DeYoung -- and I can guess who it was -- is engaged in posturing and is "negotiating" in advance. I understand that.

But the White House must be very careful of sending the signal that the December review is fake and the cards are stacked in advance. That would be a terrible loss for the country and this government.

There will be an Afghanistan War debate in December, if not inside the White House -- then pounding on the door.

For those wanting to see one corner of this debate -- though there are many more participaints in this debate coming forward every day with their own proposals and critiques -- read the Afghanistan Study Group Report.

-- Steve Clemons

I just want to give early word that the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program and Middle East Task Force along with the Palestine Note will be hosting Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for a talk titled "Building Palestine Under Occupation."

This session will be an open, on the record discussion with Prime Minister Fayyad, touching on the future of a Palestinian state, the challenges of building state institutions under occupation, and the state of Palestinian politics.

We expect that Fayyad's comments will reflect on the high stakes Palestine-Israel negotiations underway now.

The event will definitely be oversubscribed and crowded -- so feel free to watch it live here at The Washington Note or the Palestine Note from 2:00 - 4:00 pm on Thursday, 23 September.

-- Steve Clemons

For those interested in an interesting discussion about America's bleak course, China's rise, and global uncertainties -- with some modest moments of optimism here and there -- please enjoy this video segment from the Summer Davos meeting yesterday in Tianjin, China.

I moderated a session with Chinese Institute on Contemporary International Relations President Cui Liru, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, Japan Liberal Democratic Party Acting Secretary General Taro Kono, Yonsei University political science professor Moon Chung-in, East West Center Director Charles E. Morrison, and US State Department APEC official Kurt Tong.

I will write more about these World Economic Forum meetings -- which were tremendous on many levels, but disturbing when the general take on US prospects are measured -- when I get the first chance.

Now on my way to London to discuss US foreign policy with Princeton's G. John Ikenberry, the LSE's Michael Cox, and others at the Royal United Services Institute. The Afghanistan Study Group report and Obama's foreign policy will be the guts of my talk.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

The big news in Istanbul this week is that Turkish voters approved in a referendum a set of 26 constitutional reforms put forth by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) that fulfills some of the European Union's human rights criteria, while also protecting the party from being closed by the judiciary (as nearly happened in 2008) and providing the executive branch with more power over judicial appointments. The referendum passed with 58% voting in favor.

The result is a big political win for Prime Minister Erdogan's government and constitutes a vote of confidence for the government ahead of next summer's parliamentary elections.

More broadly, the referendum is just another skirmish in the ongoing culture war between the conservative, religious elements of society represented by the AKP and the secular, Kemalist portion of society that is located primarily in Western Turkey and is led by the military, judiciary and the Republican People's Party (CHP).

A few quick thoughts:

-The referendum has been huge news here in Istanbul. Many of Istanbul's biggest streets have been covered in posters that say "Evet" (yes) or "Hayir" (no). Both sides had also set up booths and organized rallies throughout the city, though the pro-government "Evet" crowd clearly had a bigger presence - at least in the densely populated Taksim region where I am staying.

-In a stunning gaffe, opposition leader Kemal Kiliçdaroglu (the most prominent advocate for a "Hayir" result), was ineligible to vote due to a registration error.

-Strangely, nearly everyone in Turkey agrees that the current constitution should be replaced. Even those opposed to the reforms agree that the 1982 constitution, a result of a military coup two years earlier, should be scrapped in favor of a more liberal, inclusive constitution, but the devil is in the details of course and Turkish politics have been too divided for a compromise.

-Most Western leaders - including European Union Enlargement Commissioner Sergio Cantone, President Obama and other European leaders - applauded the result, despite concerns that the process has led to deeper polarization of Turkish politics and that key reforms proposed by the EU were left out.

Finally, TUSIAD's press release on the result is the best piece I have read on this issue and left me sad that its vision seems more like a dream than a reality, at least for now.

The press release appears in full below the fold.

This is a guest note by Ralph Gomory, one of the nation's leading thinkers about technology, innovation, and the productivity health of national economies. Gomory previously served as IBM's Senior Vice President for Science and Technology and subsequently as the immediate past president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This essay first ran on the Huffington Post, and is the second installation of a two-part series.

Our massive trade deficit is destroying significant segments of American industry and eliminating badly needed jobs. This is happening because we are slow to recognize an unpleasant reality: We do not live in a world of textbook free trade. We live in a world where our trading partner China has chosen mercantilism and is using the full powers of its government to advance its industries in ways that destroy ours.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this reality we will become a poor nation.

However we can deal with our trade deficit; we can balance trade. We will describe two ways to do this and there may be more.

This is a guest note by Ralph Gomory, one of the nation's leading thinkers about technology, innovation, and the productivity health of national economies. Gomory previously served as IBM's Senior Vice President for Science and Technology and subsequently as the immediate past president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This essay first ran on the Huffington Post, and is the first installation of a two-part series.

Our nation's continuing massive trade deficits are destroying important sectors of American industry and eliminating desperately needed jobs; yet balancing trade is not even on our government's agenda. This is happening because we are not facing reality, the reality that we are not living in a free trade world but that we are dealing with countries that practice mercantilism.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this reality, we will become a poor nation.

I've been a fan of the American Academy in Berlin for a long time -- and though I've never been there as a fellow (maybe one day), it is a cool retreat for high quality American thinkers to engage European counterparts in salons, policy exercises and the like.

Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke is the former Chairman of the Academy and ran it in ways that provoked creative policy thinking.

For those in Berlin, mark your calendars now for an important, controversial talk to be given by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize winning investigative correspondent Dana Priest, who will be discussing "Top Secret America: The Rise and Role of US Intelligence since 9/11".

The date is 5 October 2010, 7:00 pm, and I am bummed that I can't be there.

-- Steve Clemons

When John Bolton, who now said he is considering a run for the US presidency, was set to testify in July 2006 before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his failed effort to get the Senate to confirm his nomination as US Ambassador to the United Nations, I got an early copy of his "prepared remarks" for the hearing. These remarks were handed to me as I walked in to the meeting.

Then as Bolton walked in, we were hurriedly given an updated set of remarks. I knew something must have changed -- and I went through the material page by page until I realized that what had been struck was a zinger that Bolton had been saying in the press frequently with regard to the Israel-Lebanon War.

What was struck was this line:

This is a guest post by Anya Landau French, who directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

The other day, I participated in a conference call with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman. I was eager to see what he would have to say, ever since the House Agriculture Committee passed legislation to end the Cuba travel ban and ease agriculture trade restrictions back in June. Many Cuba pundits have wondered what Mr. Berman, who has jurisdiction over the travel ban piece of the bill, might do next.

Berman cleared that up in no short order, and candidly expressed his determination to round up the votes he needs to pass the bill, make it available for subsequent floor consideration, embolden the Senate to act, and to provide political cover and encouragement to the Obama administration to use its executive authority to loosen restrictions on travel until the Congress is able to finish the job. This late in the Congressional session, Berman seems to have decided, rightly I think, to use both private and public persuasion to get the votes he needs.

I've long been in Berman's camp when it comes to why the travel ban should end - as he said on the call, "as a matter of principle, this is about Americans' right to travel."

But let's remember why doing travel is important, especially now. At the core of U.S. policy toward Cuba is the linkage established both by law and the declarations of the Obama administration that says, we won't liberalize the embargo unless Cuba reforms its system, such as releasing prisoners. Although Cuba rejects that linkage - as do I, because I think it puts our policy in someone else's hands - the fact is that Cuba did the deal with the Spanish government and the Catholic Church on human rights, it is in the process of releasing all of the 52 remaining dissidents rounded up in March 2003 (27 released so far), and U.S. policy makers should use this moment to incent the Cubans to do more. Actions by Obama and the Congress to open up travel to Cuba would signal back to the Cubans - we see and support what you're doing. Failing to acknowledge the progress being made on the island would further undermine the credibility of the policy.

-- Anya Landau French

For much of the last year, a group of policy experts, scholars and practitioners have been meeting to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, with the hope of of charting a "New Way Forward," for America's longest war.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons and a select group of others have crafted a report (AVAILABLE HERE) of findings and recommendations for U.S. policy in Afghanistan, which will be released in an event TODAY at the New America Foundation, from 12:00 PM - 2:00 pm.

The event will livestream here at TWN, with Steve Clemons moderating an all-star expert discussion featuring the following:

PAUL PILLAR
Director of Graduate Studies, Center for Peace & Security Studies, Georgetown University
Former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia

MATTHEW HOH
Former Afghanistan-based official with Department of State and US Marine Corps
Director, Afghanistan Study Group

STEVE COLL
President, New America Foundation
Author, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
Contributing Editor, The New Yorker

BRIAN KATULIS
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

CHARLES KUPCHAN
Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University
Author, How Enemies Become Friends

DARCY BURNER
Director, American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation

ROBERT PAPE
Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
Director, Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism
Author, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Co-author of the forthcoming, Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It

session chair
STEVE CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Publisher, The Washington Note

If you are in Washington and would like to attend the launch event, please RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This is part of the Jinshanling Great Wall that I traversed a substantial segment (in my book) of on Sunday.

Mao said "You are not a real man; if you haven't climbed the Great Wall."

All I can say is that the women sherpas along the way -- who I didn't ask to carry anything but who trotted along with us no matter whether we wanted their company or cold water or not certainly put all the men to shame.

Heading back to Washington.

This report on Afghanistan is the next big thing. Wednesday -- 12 noon -- watch the streaming live event here at TWN.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama's National Economic Adviser Lawrence Summers has just landed in Beijing along with Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Asia Desk NSC senior director Jeff Bader, and National Security Council Spokesman Michael Hammer. The China Daily reports this morning:

The arrival of two high-ranking US officials in Beijing [it's really four] on Sunday signals the willingness of the two countries to push for more positive development in bilateral ties. . .A timely exchange of views on core issues of mutual concern is conducive to effective cooperation as well as to ironing out differences and hurdles standing in the way of ties between the two big towers. The talks between the US officials and their Chinese hosts are widely expected to address bilateral trade as well as global and regional security.

All good. It's important for US officials to get over to breathe the air, meet the people, and see the furious digging and construction going on all over China. While Summers has been to China, I think [and could be wrong] that this is Tom Donilon's first trip. He needs more than four days -- but he's an intense workaholic, so four is more like ten.

One of the things that I'd be worried about if I were them is that the Chinese are learning the American secret of reserve currency magic in their management of the mooncake market.

Like the U.S. dollar -- which despite the global frustration with American economic policy, over-consumption and under-investment -- Chinese mooncakes, or the idea of them, are in huge demand.

When the season hits, everyone in China -- which is a fifth of the world's population -- wants their slice of the mooncake racket.

Not to eat, mind you, but to give and get and re-gift and re-gift and to pretend to want.

The French have a "French national mooncake" (pictured on bus above) to build on the popularity of the France Pavilion and Moet Hennesy Restaurant at the Shanghai World Expo. The French Pavilion is France's most visited tour attraction in the world -- more than the Louvre and Eiffel Tower. France's mooncake has the three colors of the flag, but their are a couple of Chinese blogger sites warning "not to eat" it. Well, from my discussions, it seems that most mooncakes are more seen than eaten anyway.

Haagen-Dazs has a mooncake -- and Starbucks. And of course, just about every Chinese establishment has some version of a mooncake for purchase, for gifting, for shipping with notes of congratulations for making it to another mooncake season.

But like any currency that takes the place of gold or silver or other commodities that used to underlie the solvency of national legal tender, the mooncake business has generated a currency of vouchers -- where instead of just giving and getting mooncakes, families can give and get "mooncake vouchers." Paper. . .for mooncakes.

The notable phenom, however, is that some Chinese government officials and senior Party leaders have observed that there are many more mooncake vouchers floating around then there are mooncakes connected to them -- and yet the voucher business is thriving, trading is going on. In fact, it's reaching such a frenzy that some are wondering whether or not that many mooncakes even really need to be cooked up.

Production seems unrelated to demand.

Mooncake vouchers are beginning to develop all of the characteristics of a new reserve currency, not yet globalized, but perhaps on its way -- given that mooncakes are big in Southeast Asia and possibly now in France.

There is an illogical trust in mooncake vouchers which seem to defy economic gravity and have great value despite their inflation far beyond the underlying dessert.

Chinese economic Mandarins are reportedly fed up with the dollar even though options out of the dollar are limited. Behind the scenes frustration with being trapped in the US dollar which is still buoyant but unpredictable led to rumors that the Chief of China's central bank was trying to escape the country and defect to Canada. These rumors proved to be untrue -- but many folks in Beijing and elsewhere wondered.

So, perhaps mooncake vouchers are a trial balloon -- part real bubble and part experiment -- in creating an institution with reverse currency power.

Everyone has to buy in to mooncake vouchers even though many folks don't really want the mooncakes themselves -- and for a few decades at least, one can continue to inflate and inflate further the number of vouchers without every having to pay the piper.

Larry Summers and Tom Donilon should be worried that the Chinese are going to make a play sooner than later to challenge the dollar's reserve currency status with their own home grown mooncake vouchers.

(Smile. I'm sure that there are many logical fallacies in what is above -- offered in fun.)

But still, Summers should investigate.

Leaving Beijing today and back in DC on Monday. Hope you enjoyed the fun. And if you didn't -- eat some mooncake.

-- Steve Clemons

This next week on Wednesday, 8 September at the New America Foundation a group of academics, business leaders, journalists, and other policy practitioners -- organized as 'The Afghanistan Study Group' will formally release this new report titled "New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan." The report can be downloaded here.

The Afghanistan Study Group is our effort at a Team B approach to thinking through an alternative policy strategy for Afghanistan given the problems undermining America's current course.

But after reading the following article in the Washington Diplomat by Michael Coleman, it's clear that former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel -- now co-chair with former Senator David Boren of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board -- makes a darn good "Team B" package all on his own, particularly when it comes to no-nonsense thinking about the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Read the entire interview but this is the most potent section on wars which Hagel thinks have been major strategic errors and which, in the case of Afghanistan, he thinks we need to unwind:

"I think we're in a mess in Afghanistan and I think we're in a mess in Iraq," said Hagel, who voted in support of the war in Iraq based on the intelligence assessments and later admitted he regretted his vote. "Our military has been more valiant and done a better job than we could have ever hoped. But we have put the military in an impossible situation."

Hagel flatly rejects the notion -- now conventional wisdom among many Americans -- that the war in Iraq has been a success. "Did you see today's paper?" he asked, holding up a front-page story in the Washington Post that described vast swaths of the country as being plagued by electricity outages.

"Look at the facts: No government, less electricity and people want us out," Hagel pointed out. "Anyway you measure Iraq today I think you're pretty hard pressed to find how people are better off than they were before we invaded. I think history is going to be very harsh in its judgment -- very, very harsh. And I think we're headed for a similar outcome in Afghanistan if we don't do some things differently."

He stands by his assessment, outlined in his 2008 book "America: Our Next Chapter," that the invasion of Iraq is the worst American foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, and one of the five worst in U.S. history.

Hagel said the United States "made a terrible mistake taking our eye of the ball in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq." Now, he argues that the United States is doing in Afghanistan exactly what George W. Bush famously warned against during his 2000 presidential campaign: nation building.

"We are where we are today -- going into our 10th year in Afghanistan, our longest war -- because we did take our eye of the ball," he said. "It's becoming clearer and clearer. We really made some big mistakes during that time. I have never believed you can go into any country and nation build, and unfortunately I think that's what we've gotten ourselves bogged down in.

"You can dance around that issue any way you like, but the fact is that there are billions and billions of dollars we've spent and are still spending, over 100,000 troops, and all the assistance we've got going in there," Hagel continued. "It's nation building. We should not nation build. It will always end in disaster."

He argues that the original aim of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan -- a group that the United States essentially "invented" during the Soviet-Afghan conflict in the 1970s -- has morphed into something more complex. The U.S. is now building roads and schools, working to establish an Afghan government, and trying to negotiate peace among political factions that have been warring for centuries.

"We became completely disoriented from our original focus," Hagel charged. "That problem in Afghanistan isn't going to be solved with 100,000 American troops."

It's no surprise then that the former Senator believes it's time for the United States to aggressively "unwind" in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the kind of thinking that Obama needs to hear more often -- whether it is Team B or in Cabinet meetings or through National Security Council advisers.

It may be time for President Obama to make Chuck Hagel part of Team A.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Managing Director of the Palestine Note, an Internet newspaper about Palestine, Israel and the Middle East. This essay first appeared in Haaretz.

Give Them Something to Lose

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced earlier this week that he will consider Israel fully to blame for the collapse of the negotiations that were scheduled to commence yesterday, should it resume construction in the settlements. That statement could be seen as a reiteration of last week's reports by several news outlets that the PA intended to pull out of the peace talks with Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fails to extend the partial West Bank settlement freeze when it expires on September 26.

Even as they were getting ready to commence with direct talks, the PA and Israel were both preparing for the day when they will pull out of them. The announcements made by Abbas and others in the PA were a response to information they had that, regardless of what Netanyahu may hint about a continuation to the freeze, he will not extend it in the end. Therefore, Abbas is already making it clear to the world why he plans to quit the talks at the end of the month.

Last month, I met with senior PA and Fatah official Mohammed Dahlan at his office in Ramallah. Dahlan told me: "We know that Netanyahu signed a letter to [Likud MK and minister] Benny Begin and others promising them not to extend the settlement freeze." The letter, Dahlan explained, confirmed a secret deal that the premier had made with Begin. Dahlan added that Netanyahu's plan was to reveal the existence of the letter when the nine-month period of the freeze elapses, and say: "'Look, I signed this as an earlier commitment, and before we entered direct talks. I can't back out now, it would be at a huge political cost for me.'"

Dahlan added that when that time comes, the Palestinians' plan is to walk out of the talks.

The fact that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are entering the U.S.-sponsored negotiations in bad faith is not only disturbing, but extremely dangerous. If indeed Netanyahu does not extend the freeze beyond the deadline, rest assured he will have hammered the last nail in the PA's coffin.

Likewise, Israel will be left without a partner for peace or even cooperation in security matters on the Palestinian side.

The failure of direct talks will automatically bolster Hamas and strengthen its standing among the Palestinians. The Islamist organization is already preparing for the moment it can tell the Palestinian public: "We told you so. Talking with the Israelis can only lead to more talks, while they continue to take away our land to build settlements." In fact, Hamas' killing of four Israeli settlers in the southern Hebron Hills on Tuesday, and another, failed attack the following night, show how far it will go to spoil the direct talks, and to make its presence felt.

What is crucial at this point, then, is for the Palestinians and Israelis to find a way to continue the direct talks, and not allow the issue of ongoing settlement construction to be a deal breaker. After all, according to President Abbas, the so-called proximity talks and the insistence on direct talks conditioned on a prior agreement by Israel to freeze construction in the territories, were American ideas, not Palestinian or Israeli ones.

The United States' role as a mediator allows it to offer creative solutions to both sides. To be effective, these solutions must address Abbas' and Netanyahu's concerns at home. Abbas does not want an end to the settlement freeze, while Netanyahu does not want his coalition to collapse on him. Is there a middle ground?

Knowing what we know about how unconvinced both Palestinians and Israelis are about the chances of success in Washington, President Obama might do well to establish a ground rule to the effect that, whatever prior commitments were made by either Netanyahu or Abbas to their own constituencies, these commitments must be set aside throughout the duration of direct talks. This point should be communicated clearly and publicly to Netanyahu and Abbas.

If Netanyahu agrees to this proposal, he can accomplish two goals: He will have appeased the settler movement by not formally extending the settlement freeze. This will allow the premier to play a double game: to show good will to the United States and the international community, while at the same time keeping his Palestinian partner engaged in direct talks.

So long as negotiations continue, Netanyahu will be giving Abbas something very concrete to lose if he chooses to walk away from direct talks. Furthermore, Netanyahu will in this way protect Israel's image internationally and prevent the world from blaming Israel for the failure of the talks.

For the Palestinians, continuing to engage in the talks will be the only way to guarantee that the bulldozers and cement mixers remain idle in the West Bank.

-- Fadi Elsalameen

(Jean-David Levitte and France President Nicolas Sarkozy)

European High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy Baroness Catherine Ashton decided to head to China instead of participating in the Middle East stakeholders dinner hosted by President Obama in the Old Family Dining Room this week.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair covered a lot of national and transnational categories as head of the Quartet -- meaning theoretically that the EU, Russia, and the UN were in the room along with the US, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan.

But two notable stakeholders were absent, and President Obama's team took care to address this by issuing a "readout" of phone conversations between himself and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Saudi King Abdullah.

Here is the readout:

Readout of President Obama's Recent Calls on the Middle East

President Obama called President Sarkozy earlier today to thank him for his support for a comprehensive Middle East peace, and to consult on next steps to encourage further progress in the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The President noted that he had a productive series of meetings yesterday, and said that he believed the two parties were committed to achieving progress. President Sarkozy affirmed his full support for the peace talks and his commitment to working with President Obama and the other leaders to advance the process. Both leaders agreed to remain in close touch on this issue as part of their ongoing cooperation.

Earlier in the week on Tuesday*, August 31, the President called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to discuss the situation in the region, including direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq.

I don't know whether the Saudi King wanted to attend, but through the grapevine have learned that France's political CEO was miffed not to be included. France takes affairs in the Middle East and what is unfolding with Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria -- as well as Iran -- very seriously.

An Obama-Sarkozky phone call on the fringe of this renewed effort is probably not enough, and France needs to be built in more directly. Lady Ashton has other affairs to tend to -- and these make sense -- but when there is a chance of securing a new equilibrium in the Middle East, France on its own merits should be a core partner.

One of the realities of the "messy status quo" that was reachieved by restarting direct peace negotiations is that Hamas remains outside the camp of those consulted. Hamas' power and influence have grown with attempts to isolate it -- and ultimately, Hamas needs to be part of the package.

While there are enormous political impediments to the US managing direct discussions with Hamas -- which only contributes to a sense in the Middle East that America's affections in this mess are one-sided -- the US can "remove the veto" on other nations dealing with Hamas to see how its views and parameters can be heard or potentially moved through some kind of engagement.

In my view, the only modern day Kissinger who is operating in European foreign circles today is French national security adviser to the President Jean-David Levitte, former French Ambassador to the United States.

One senior US State Department official I discussed Levitte with and who took mental stock of the various foreign policy hands in important European positions today saw Jean-David Levitte as the only one who had both a granular understanding of equities at play in the Middle East and a good vision of where things needed to go.

There is a behind the scenes veto on our allies dealing with Hamas, and this needs to be lifted. Levitte is the right one to be working quietly and privately to see if Hamas can be brought into a structure largely consistent with that which could be forged by Netanyahu, Abbas and the others in the rather limited group trying to jump start the Middle East peace process.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo depicts participants in Glenn Beck led march on Washington; November 23, 2009)

I hope that David Frum is right and that the Tea Party movement, which is growing in numbers and ferocity, will hit its limit, experience an Icarus moment, and plunge back into the fringe of American politics where pugnacious, jingoistic, narrow band nationalism has always lurked.

But there is no guarantee of this. A prominent mega-funder of the political left recently told me that he had miscalculated about a number of things in the last election.

One of these was that he thought that electorally smashing the increasingly manic right wing that had hijacked the Republican Party and dislodged the more moderate, straight-talking John McCain in favor of the McCain that empowered and unleashed Sarah Palin would produce a more reasonable GOP.

He told me that "their political loss didn't teach the Republicans anything; they actually got much worse."

And the evidence of what this Democratic Party mega-funder was saying was clear in the truly massive "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial and on the National Mall this past weekend staged by the political crusader and hugely popular talk show host Glenn Beck.

While I think Frum is probably right that this movement, much like the Obama "movement", will eventually crest -- it's not clear that losing political battles chastens the right, at least not yet.

During the presidential primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Obama conjured up a big politically incorrect gaffe, which like many gaffes, had some truth embedded in it.

Obama said:

OBAMA: Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

. . .But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

What Barack Obama described in the campaign is what we are seeing unfold in the country. Guns and religion -- or, in other words, fear and intolerance.

There are surprises and exceptions to this.

Count me as stunned that former GOP chief Ken Mehlman's recent self-outing to Marc Ambinder (though Mike Rogers really did out him before) that he is gay has produced statements from McCain campaign czar that supporting gay marriage is becoming a "conservative issue." Stunning statement.

Mehlman is leading a gay marriage rights fundraiser featuring the landmark lawsuit orchestrated by former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and Democratic political powerhouse David Boies -- and those supporting include Paul Singer, Mary Cheney, Mark Gerson, Steve Schmidt, John Podesta, Steve Elmendorf, William Weld, Christine Todd Whitman and more.

This is the one bit of news that makes me think that there is potentially a constructive undercurrent pulling away from the reality that Obama aptly described in 2008.

But like Chuck Hagel who tried to stand for a kinder, sensible, bigger tent conservatism, Mehlman and his fellow travelers in the GOP may find themselves soon joining Christine Todd Whitman, Lawrence Wilkerson, Susan Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee, Colin Powell, Rita Hauser in the camp of the Republicans exiled or pushed to the fringe of the party they worked hard to build.

Let's hope that the Mehlman trend and not the Glenn Beck frenzy define the future of the GOP.

-- Steve Clemons

This is the roster of who is coming to dinner tonight:

President Obama

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt

King Abdullah of Jordan

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Quartet Representative Tony Blair

According to a pool report written by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, the White House won't be sharing "many, if any details" from tonight's dinner. All we can expect is an official photo.

OK then! I'm hooked.

Holding back is a good way to keep us me interested.

-- Steve Clemons

Angelina Jolie has traveled to Pakistan in her role as a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, donated $100,000 for flood victim relief and issued the public service annoucement above.

I strongly support what she and others like Richard Holbrooke, George Soros, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing in trying to raise the profile of this crisis. But even with Clinton and Holbrooke on board, the U.S. government is still not doing as much as it should in terms of contributing at a systemic level to helping the Pakistanis and Indians turn this nightmare into a strategically significant trust-building event.

David Rothkopf has written a compelling call for bolder initiatives related to the Indus River Valley and how to use this as both a way to provide vital relief and to change the toxic political dynamics in the region.

In particular, Rothkopf anticipating President Obama's coming trip to India writes:

The U.S. and the international community have responded generously in the wake of the Pakistan flood crisis. America's $7.5 billion aid effort* is a step in the right direction. But it is only a tiny fraction of the several tens of billions that are needed to better manage and preserve the water resources in this fragile, vital region. Further, it is clear that money alone will not solve the problem. Existing treaty relationships between India and Pakistan on the use of the water from the Indus are being strained to breaking by dam projects and shifting demand.

Perhaps this is one of those moments where it might be possible to harness the awareness raised by the current disaster and the sensitivities heightened by rising tensions to produce a different kind of response, one that if managed properly could also produce much larger benefits.

Few relationships on the planet are as important or as potentially dangerous as that between India and Pakistan. Further, as we have seen in Afghanistan or in the recent Mumbai terror attacks, it is a relationship with growing ramifications and multiplying risks. Seeking to stabilize it -- daunting a prospect as that seems given its history -- must be a top foreign policy priority for all the world's powers.

Further, for the United States, for whom both countries are increasingly important to a host of our international interests, playing an active role in resolving this distant and growing resource crisis is not only in our direct national interest, it could be a model for helping to address a proliferating set of similar challenges that seem likely in the very near future.

*TWN notes that only $50 million of this five year, $7.5 billion total package of US aid has been authorized for flood relief.

The U.S. response needs to be more pivotal and robust. This crisis will be remembered for generations by Pakistanis -- and the long term positives that could emanate from a robust, humanitarian response combined with an international TVA-like commitment to managing this watershed could neutralize the current high-fear, tense regional dynamic.

Recently when I ran into Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, he mentioned the texting "donate option" to Pakistan flood victims through the UNHCR which Angelina Jolie mentions above, but it is:

Text "SWAT" to 50555 to donate $10 to UNHCR for urgent flood relief in Pakistan

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons