I haven’t always been pleased with the performance of Secretary of State John Kerry. In particular, his efforts to convince Congress to authorize an attack on Syria in response to the 2013 sarin attacks were so inept and risible that it nearly fried my synapses. In the end, the president found a last minute way out of that jam, and I’m aware that Kerry was trying to enact a policy as much as he was trying to create one.
If he got off to an inauspicious start, however, his recent performances have been nothing short of spectacular. The thaw with Cuba and the nuclear deal with Iran involved heavy lifting and cut against the grain of decades of international and domestic suspicion and hostility. And what a difference there is between the outcome of the climate talks in Paris and the 2009 debacle in Copenhagen!
It’s a long way from 2007 in Bali where a delegation led by neoconservative PNAC signatory Paula Dobriansky was “booed and hissed by the representatives of nearly 190 nations” for its bad faith obstructionism.
James Wimberly notes two beneficial side effects of the success of the Paris conference. First, while the death sentence of the oil, coal and natural gas industry has been delayed, it is now in writing. And, second, “the defeat” of the climate science “denialist and delayist ideologues…is on such a total scale that surely the movement will start to unravel.”
There is a lot of credit to go around, especially for French President François Hollande, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and climate change envoy, Laurence Tubiana. But John Kerry needs to get his due.
As the New York Times details, it was the agreement with China that set the stage for Paris, and Kerry was the major force who made the China agreement happen.
China’s views on climate change shifted, as well. The vast expansion of coal-fired power plants that was fueling China’s rapid economic growth was also choking its cities with pollution.
With public anger rising over record levels of toxic smog, Chinese officials began to take steps to curb China’s use of coal.
Paying close attention to that shift was Mr. Kerry, now secretary of state. He saw an opportunity to broker a deal, and to try to pave the way toward a broader agreement in Paris.
Throughout 2014, Mr. Kerry held a series of meetings in Beijing focused on climate change. In October 2014, he invited the top Chinese environment official, Yang Jiechi, to a private lunch at the Legal Seafoods restaurant overlooking Boston Harbor. They spoke for three hours about the changes that had already influenced their pollution politics at home and discussed the possibility of turning that into new policy on the world stage.
The next month, Mr. Obama visited Beijing, where he and President Xi Jinping of China announced that they would move forward jointly on plans to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution.
That announcement broke the deadlock that had stalled climate change negotiations for over 20 years.
The following month in Lima, Peru, negotiators wrote a first draft of what would ultimately become the Paris Agreement. In language modeled on the agreement between the United States and China, the Lima pact required every country to submit its own climate change plan before meeting in Paris.
“The China announcement changed everything,” said Mr. Kerry in an interview. “It changed people’s thinking about this. Without the China announcement, you wouldn’t have 184 nations ready to come to Paris, the homework done, the table set.”
I know that it was a lifelong ambition for John Kerry to serve as Secretary of State. I am happy to see that he knew what to do with the opportunity once he finally got it. In a short time, he’s built a very impressive legacy.
The non American analysts I’be heard are putting most credit for ‘success’ in Paris on the way the French set things up with notable departures from Copenhagen. Credit where its due.
I thought I gave them their due.
I know, I just disagree based on what I’ve heard. But the US did play an important leadership role. No doubt.
That said I am little tickled at the idea the climate liar movement must surely unravel. Thats some wild optimism there.
Disagree with what?
That this has that much to do with Kerry. That is this didnt contribute much to building his legacy.
Running US foreign policy involves lying to the American public. Lies upon lies. The war in Syria, or at least the US’s version of what’s happening there, is a lie. The sarin gas story was a lie. Turkey and the Salafists to the south are supplying the bad guys with weapons and the illegal oil trade is ISIS’s revenue stream.
The coup in Ukraine is a lie.
Three days after the downing of MH17 over Donbass Kerry said on “Meet The Press” that he had definite proof as to exactly where the missile that shot down the airliner came from, and who shot it down. A year and a half later, after the propaganda machine has blamed Russia and the rebels there is still no substantiation of the author of the terrorist act. Why not?
I suspect, like Operation Northwoods, the public aren’t supposed to follow the facts, but accept the Mighty Wurlitzer’s tune and gather around for whoever they’ve reserved today’s five minutes of hate for.
As such not only has my respect for Kerry diminished substantially, but now I wonder if his past heroism in various Congressional investigations over the decades was merely a modified limited hangout.
Various versions. “man of virtue” is one variant.
Paraphrased in Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary
Writing off public officials because of what they say, as happened to Eisenhower over the Francis Gary Powers U-2 downing on the eve of arms talks with Krushchev was less serious than authorizing the continuation of imperialism in Vietnam and removing Mossadegh and Arbenz from power. We will never know until after the histories are written of what Kerry’s role was in the coup in Ukraine, the policy in Libya, the policy in Syria. He is not speaking for himself or acting for himself but for the government of the United States of America. What is striking is that when he is charged with moving in the direction of peace, he doesn’t slow-walk it and fumble it; he gets it done. Nitpicking what he says ignores that that it is the consensus of opinion that the President chooses to follow that determines what the US does and the content of what it says about what it is doing. It is a damn tough job figuring out how to get your views into the mix. A big part of it is success in having the confidence of the President compared to other contenders for the President’s ear. And peace, in the current political environment, does not have a large constituency among the insiders. Just consider the the chest-beating critics in Congress demanding that he say the mantra “radical Islam”.
Most folks in a position like Kerry’s have a calculus of choosing when they have to pay their dues on bone-head consensus decisions and try to figure out how to mitigate the damage in order to have their way with what they consider more important pieces of a strategy.
Obama and Kerry, on Iran, the International Syria Support Group, and COP21 had to figure a way to make the Republican Congress irrelevant. Voluntary action and minimal US involvement are two of the marks of all three policies. Another example of how the Republican concern for party over country hamstrings what is good for the national interest.
What is striking is that when he is charged with moving in the direction of peace, he doesn’t slow-walk it and fumble it; he gets it done.
Palestinians would laugh in your face at that statement.
Has he been charged with getting that done yet? Really? Where is the political pressure equivalent to the sanctions on Iran? I don’t think it is Kerry who is slow-walking that or not facing up to the real issues.
We know he’s not facing up to the real issues re: Palestine. But then we know his boss isn’t either.
Phil, Kerry did for one thing explicitly blame the settlements for the current violence, in October:
Earning himself an attack from war criminal Elliott Abrams, that’s not a totally small thing.
On December 5, Kerry
He’s not slow-walking, and Palestinians aren’t laughing in his face. We all know why there’s no movement, but Kerry and Obama really can’t say it any more directly than that.
I hasten to repeat, HRC will damage America’s future with her foreign policy stance in the Middle East if she becomes President. She must be basing her Likes and Dislikes on the funds received by the Clinton Foundation.
○ Israeli Defense Minister Ya’alon urges U.S. leadership on ISIS and warns of a resurgent Iran
○ Israel’s inertia on the Palestinian conflict has a price: American support
Posted earlier in my diary – Early 2012, U.S. Intelligence Envisioned ISIL as a Strategic Asset.
I believe she knows better, too, but it won’t make any difference. It will be the worst part of voting for her, for me. Sadly, one of the few areas where Sanders is absolutely no better and possibly even worse.
He did start off poorly, but have to acknowledge that a steaming pile of crap was handed off to him. His record may be mixed but that is a significant improvement from at least his three predecessors.
https:/consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution
Next step. Use the pressure to have nuclear power in the mix that decommissions coal to drive a megatons-to-megawatts subsidy of nuclear power by driving nuclear weapons stockpiles to zero. Then nuclear plants can start to be decommissioned.
The sticking points for both oil and nuclear is their high use by the military. A good part of the large country navies operate on nuclear power, which requires fuel creation and processing. The highest consumers of oil on the planet are the world’s militaries.
There are still 13 months left for the administration. A landmark nuclear build-down treaty between the US, Russia, and China that brings warheads of all three down with US remaining #1 by a slight margin (Congress you know) and with nuclear fuel being sent to run power plants as it was in the megatons-to-megawatts program allows decommissioning of coal-fired plants.
John Kerry is quite possibly by the time he ends his term the most acccomplished and well-trained Secretary of State that we have had since Jefferson. It is that accomplishment without the rhetoric of bravado that undid his run for the Presidency (and also probably a lot of people’s spidey sense about John Edwards).
I had the impression that Putin helped Obama erase his red line in Syria when he got Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Or am I giving credit where it’s not due?
Putin helped the Syrian dictator not President Obama.
I suppose the view from Europe might differ. Of course he helped Obama: then the chemical weapons were neutralized. In addition the sarin attack that caused all the posturing was, it seems, a false flag operation, very possibly by Turkey. The British parliaments refection of military operations in Syria also helped Obama. So the British parliament was also helping the Syrian tyrant!
I’m curious, do you think President Obama was bluffing?
I’m curious about the bluff you’re referring to here. If it’s about the red line over chemical weapons, then no. He fully meant to join with the UK in using that as a pretext for launching strikes of some sort against Assad. He chose to back down because of a confluence of factors from losing the UK’s participation to facing a potential rebuke from Congress. Putin provided a way for Obama to save face and he took it.
Where did you get the notion the United States intended to join with the British?
yes. think of the warmongers and Congress
maythirteenth, I don’t think he knew what he was doing himself. Bluff/bluster/intimidation/machismo? Obviously he didn’t first think the whole thing through or lied. He must have already known then that sarin attack was not clearly the work of the Syrian government. If he knew, he can than be faulted for lying, which no president has ever done before. He also has a bunch rabid so-called humanitarians around him, you know, Rice, Power (was HRC still SoS, if not she would have advised the same attitude. Kerry is today in the Kremlin to hear where this is all going. He’s going definitely to get an ear full.
I’m sorry my friend but your logic, perceptions of authority and judgments of character seem both unsound and untethered.
Now say what’s on your mind rather than posting a string of cliches and unexplained judgments. Pompous crap.
This variant on “Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing” is tiresome, though I guess it serves a purpose as smokescreen for Obama actually getting something done in the FP realm. Notice that at home he faces a bunch of warmongers and Obama contrariests – given that, how to take our FP in a direction of diplomacy? I’d say he’s doing pretty well. If you look closely you will observe that Putin and Obama have been in communication about FP issues. Tarheeldem posted a while back the idea that the Ukraine event was precisely designed to undercut this progress. When Kerry said he knew exactly who brought down the airplane, he didn’t say that for the benefit of the general public. whoever posted upthread impatience that he hasn’t told us yet, just give it a little thought.
It is tiring and it seems like they want to President to roll back 60+ years of foreign policy instantly and incremental steps are good enough.
On everything it’s basically the health care debate over and over again. What’s done isn’t enough or if it is enough then why didn’t it get done sooner.
yes, and a little bit of simple mindedness thrown in also – complainers want to complain about Empire instead of actually changing that situation – non hegemonic leadership is the phrase with which an international relations thinker explained it – [ as Obama and Kerry have set out to do] ] and argue for US isolationism.
Putin acted in the Russian national interest not to have jihadis with affiliations with terrorist movements in the Muslim-majority Russian republics and neighboring states be a couple days drive from Russian territory.
Putin acted in traditional Russian strategy of counterbalancing the Ottoman Empire/Turkey with other countries.
Putin continues the Gorbachev strategy of trying to take the US Cold War enemy away from the US. Not having Russia as an enemy seems to drive Americans nuts.
Putin and Lavrov saw an opening for an agreement with Obama and Kerry. A pertinent question for Clinton is would she have advised the President to go forward with this now-successful agreement that reduced the number of chemical weapons nations?
An effort to humanize news coverage by exclusively interpreting what drives foreign policy as personal motives of gamesmanship ignores the heavy institutional interests that drive the decision-makers.
Putin might “help” Obama by actions that reduce US public antipathy to Russia and Putin and even actions that increase the security of Russia by having peaceful relations. Personal empathy and a congenial relationship might tip the balance. But at base it is the national security interests of Russia that drive decisions. It is only in the fantasies of worse-case strategic analysis that either the US or Russia seek world domination. And it is the seduction of a 1904 model of global power by Halford John Mackinder that continues the nonsense of Oceania and Eurasia. One would have thought that Orwell’s satirization of it in 1984 would have ended that simple-minded geographical determinism.
There are other geopolitical models that apply to our currently chaotic post-American Century geopolitics.
And helping Assad has to do not with warm affection for Assad but balancing Turkey, a NATO ally with borders with Russia.
Now that Turkey is obviously acting in such flagrant bad faith is anyone surprised that Russia would want to counter that land, traditional (Ottoman) enemy or not. Any sensible world leader would do that. But not in the US or NATO: Turkey give us your Islamic State and we will give you….what exactly?
it’s not a couple days drive, it’s about 400 miles
Kerry is…and always has been…a front man for the leftiness wing of the Permanent Government/Deep State. He may have some input on tactics, but strategy? Never happen. He takes his orders like the lieutenant he was in what was perhaps our dirtiest war ever, Vietnam.
He’s just a lieutenant in a more powerful force now.
Bet on it.
AG
I’ve been a harsh critic of Kerry’s performance as Sec. of State. He’s been terrible when it comes to the administration’s role in Syria and Yemen. Still, I’ll give credit where its due. He deserves some credit for the nuclear deal with Iran and for our role in reaching an international climate accord.
In 2011 Assad had a choice. He could go with Iran and Iraq and create a Shia pipeline. Or he could have gone with Qatar and run a pipeline into Turkey. He chose the Shia pipeline.
Subsequently, the Sunnis have been financing ISIS et al to destroy Assad.
It’s religious. It’s about money and power. But in order to support the House of Saud and its accomplices the US has to pretend to be against ISIS on the way to destroying Assad. That’s why the US’s actions against ISIS have to be half steps.
You want to stop ISIS? Stop Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar from financing and supplying them. But we’re on that side. That’s why it’s important for the Mighty Wurlitzer to keep Americans confused and scared. If you keep ’em nervous you keep ’em in line.
Plus this is great for warmongers like Hillary to spread their wings.