<
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/19/everything_you_need_to_kno
w_about_susan_rice> Everything You Need to Know About Susan Rice
The lowdown on America's maybe-next secretary of state.
BY COLUM LYNCH | NOVEMBER 20, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/susanrice.jpg
President Barack Obama buoyed Susan Rice's hopes for becoming the next U.S.
secretary of state last week, putting her Republican critics -- including
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
-- on notice that he will not be deterred by their "outrageous" threats to
block her nomination over controversial comments she gave on the Sunday
morning talk shows following the Benghazi attack. "When they go after the
U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then
they've got a problem with me."
But Rice's potential nomination has set off a frenzy of commentary on her
qualifications for the job, and not only from Republicans. Rice got some
sharp jabs from more liberal commentators, including Slate's
<
http://slate.me/ZN0SrA> Fred Kaplan and the Washington Post's
<
http://wapo.st/T2lffl> Dana Milbank, who argued that Rice should be denied
the top diplomatic assignment, not because of Benghazi, but because of her
generally undiplomatic personality. Even a Russian foreign ministry official
anonymously weighed in, telling the Russian daily <
http://bit.ly/RJwYjy>
Kommersant that Rice, who once expressed disgust at Moscow's protection of
the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, is "too ambitious and aggressive" and
that her appointment would make "it more difficult for Moscow to work with
Washington."
Riling the Russians would hardly constitute grounds for blocking Rice's
confirmation, particularly from the likes of McCain, who denounced Russia as
a bully during its 2008 war with Georgia. Democrats have rallied to Rice's
defense, with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) <
http://bit.ly/QODzN>
accusing Republicans of engaging in character assassination, while a group
of House Democrats <
http://usat.ly/T7WdOQ> contended that Rice is the
target of racist and sexist campaign.
Even a prominent Republican commentator, Robert Kagan, said it's time for
Republicans to move on. "The idea that Rice should be disqualified because
of
<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-us-ambassa
dor-to-un-takes-center-stage-in-debate-over-syria-violence/2012/09/23/b2d5fa
de-05a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html> statements she made on television
in the days after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,
Libya, strikes me as unfair," Kagan <
http://wapo.st/XPnW9N> wrote in the
Washington Post. "I haven't seen persuasive evidence to support the theory
that Rice's statements were part of a cover-up to hide a terrorist attack.
The fact that Rice was working from information provided by the CIA would
seem to undercut such a theory."
Lost in the debate about Benghazi is the fact that Rice's Sunday morning
briefing provided little insight into what Rice has actually done during her
four years as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in her previous stint
as senior national security aide in President Bill Clinton's White House, or
as his assistant secretary of state for African affairs. So, here are the
eight things you need to know about Susan Rice in case she becomes America's
next top diplomat.
Why Benghazi hasn't stuck
The most damning lapse in the Obama administration's handling of the
September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi appears to be the
State Department's failure to respond to repeated requests from the ground
for increased security. By all accounts, Rice does not bear personal
responsibility for those decisions, which look particularly ill-considered
following the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other
Americans. But Republicans have nonetheless questioned her fitness to serve
as the top U.S. diplomat on the grounds that she intentionally spun the
American public in a series of Sunday morning interviews, saying that the
attack was likely a spontaneous response to the broadcast of an Internet
video portraying the Prophet Mohamed in a negative light.
McCain has pointed to the fact that the head of the Libyan National Assembly
informed CBS News that the attack was "pre-planned" in the same program that
Rice contended it was likely a spontaneous reaction to the film. Rice's
account -- which subsequently unraveled -- fit the administration's election
narrative that it had trounced al Qaeda. Indeed, President Obama boasted in
his address to the U.N. General Assembly that he had brought al Qaeda to its
knees. "Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more," the
president said in his speech at U.N. headquarters this September.
My Washington Post colleague Glenn Kessler, who writes The Fact Checker
column, initially gave Rice two <
http://wapo.st/103xP29> pinocchios for her
briefings, but then provided a more sympathetic <
http://wapo.st/RJBP4g>
take on her performance in response to the attack from McCain, whom he noted
had defended Condoleezza Rice from allegations that she had cooked the
intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It may very well be
determined that Rice spun her presentation to emphasize the supposedly
spontaneous nature of the attack, and downplayed a possible role for al
Qaeda.-- though she was careful enough to leave open all possibilities in
her remarks. But there is
<
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/05/rice_on_benghazi_blame_t
he_intelligence_community> no evidence that she lied, and the administration
has leaked a contemporaneous intelligence talking note that is consistent
with her televised remarks. So, unless evidence emerges that demonstrates
she had good reason to question the accuracy of those talking notes the
Republican attack on Rice will come across as unfairly partisan. But in the
end, this may have more to do with the politics and procedures governing
Senate confirmation hearings than the merits.
Rice, the interventionist
Rice's reputation as a proponent of humanitarian intervention stems from a
2006 <
http://wapo.st/T0V6NJ> op-ed she wrote with former U.S. national
security advisor, Anthony Lake, and the late Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), which
called for air strikes against Sudanese airfields, aircraft, and other
military assets, to compel Sudan to allow international peacekeepers into
Darfur.
In Libya, Rice emerged as a principal proponent of the NATO-led air-campaign
that toppled Muammar al-Qaddafi's government. But don't bet on Rice pressing
for a U.S. invasion of Syria if she is appointed secretary of state. She has
proven less activist in government than she was in her days as the
opposition. So far, Rice has shown little inclination to confront Sudan with
military threats for its human rights abuses in the more recent killing
fields of Abyei, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile.
As U.N. ambassador she has argued against U.S. military involvement in
Syria, which possesses a far more powerful military, including the region's
most sophisticated anti-aircraft systems and chemical weapons. "If anybody
thought that I was going to be a bomb thrower or a wild-eyed advocate of
military intervention, they don't know me," Rice told me in September.
"There is no one-size-fits-all."
Travels with Susan
For those in the State Department press corps, pack your bags and your
hiking boots -- because Rice likes to travel, and she tends to cram a lot of
side trips on her voyages. In an October 2010 trip to Sudan, Rice led the
council and the press corps on visits to hospitals, a police training
station, and even a fistula treatment center. Following that visit, Russia's
U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, reportedly complained that Rice "drags us
on all these ridiculous adventures, including this "gynecological clinic
that has nothing to do with the United Nations," according to a fellow
traveler.
But don't expect to be invited to the fun stuff. When Rice and her colleague
met up with movie star and Darfur activist George Clooney, the press corps
were not invited.
"We reporters never saw him," Louis Charbonneau, Reuters U.N. bureau chief
wrote in a blog post. "The journalists covering the Security Council's
African trip were barred from the party that Clooney, council diplomats and
U.N. officials attended. According to several of those present, Clooney and
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, had a long huddle to
discuss the problems of Sudan, including the referendum and the 7-year-old
conflict in Sudan's remote western Darfur region. Of course Sudan was not
the only interesting thing about the evening -- one U.N. official boasted of
having seven pictures of her and Clooney on her digital camera."
Curses like a sailor
Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA), Rice's key rival for America's top diplomatic
post, looks and bears himself like a mid-20th century movie star version of
a U.S. secretary of state: he's tall, patrician, courtly, and white. Rice is
none of those things, but she stands a chance of further changing the
nation's view of what an American secretary of state looks and sounds like
in the 21st century.
Rice, who had privileged upbringing in Washington, appears comfortable in
the role of a superpower envoy, forcing her will on Americans less powerful
friends and enemies. But she can also do gracious and charming, heading out
first to the dance floor at a U.N. press ball.
Her default in the Security Council, though, is sharp-elbowed. Rice's
colleagues have described here variously as the "bulldozer" and the
"headmistress," a dominating personality who can exhibit great forcefulness
in making her case while frequently rubbing people the wrong way with her
impatience for diplomatic niceties. One Security Council ambassador, who
said he was taken aback by Rice's full-throated brawls in the Security
Council with Russia's U.N. envoy Churkin, said "her favorite word is
bullshit."
Rice has hardly blushed at her portrayal. In a video-skit at the 2010 U.N.
Correspondents Association ball, Rice blurted the F-word (bleeped out by the
censors) four times as she sought to rally the membership to drive a horde
of bed bugs out of U.N. headquarters. As I
<
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/17/ban_ki_moon_steven_colb
ert_and_arnold_scwarzenegger_walk_into_a_bar> wrote at the time, "Rice
cursed with such conviction that it made you wonder what she sounds like
behind closed doors."
Israel defender
The Republicans have portrayed Rice as insufficiently supportive of Israel
at the United Nations. This charge falls a bit flat when you consider the
lengths to which Rice has gone to shield Israel from prosecution for war
crimes for its conduct in the 2008-2009 war against Hamas. A Wikileaks
<
http://bit.ly/QiRmuW> cable details how Rice brow-beat the U.N. Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon into rejecting a proposal by his own envoy, Ian Martin,
to open a wide-ranging investigation into crimes against humanity by both
sides in the conflict.
Her action in defense of Israel has subjected her to intensive criticism
from human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, who maintain that
she has placed America's relationship with Israel over its commitment to
hold nations accountable for possible crimes. It's too early to say how Rice
will respond to the current crisis in Gaza, but she has done little in the
Security Council so far to pressure Israel to back down from its military
operations in the Gaza Strip in response to constant flurry of rocket
attacks on Israeli soil. In a closed door Security Council meeting on
Monday, Nov. 19, Rice told her counterparts that the United States was not
prepared to engage for now in negotiations on a statement, introduced by
Morocco on behalf of the Arab League, that called for an immediate halt to
"all military activities" in Gaza, according to council diplomats. Rice said
that the United States was concerned that the council's action could
undercut regional mediation efforts aimed at securing a ceasefire.
Iran sanctions
Republicans have tried to paint Rice as weak on Iran. The argument put
forward is that, in four years, she has produced only one sanctions
resolution on Iran, and that she has been too cozy with China and Russia to
compel them to accept a new round.
It's true that China and Russia have blocked a new resolution. It's true
that the Obama administration has secured the adoption of fewer resolutions
than the Bush administration, and that they have not succeeded in stopping
Iran's nuclear drive. But the measures have inflicted considerable pain on
the Iranian regime, which has seen its shipping industry struggle and its
currency free fall. The Republicans could claim that the most effective
elements of the Obama administration's sanctions policy -- the interdiction
of Iranian vessels at sea and the financial measures -- were inherited by
the Republicans. But then they would have to admit that they were
succeeding.
Human rights questions
Republican efforts to question Rice's national security credentials have
gained little public traction, in part because her positions on key issues
like Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East are not dramatically different
from theirs. But Rice has faced sharp criticism from human rights advocates,
who feel that she is inconsistent in her commitment to universal values.
"She tends to be strongest when the human rights violations involved are
committed by U.S. adversaries," Kenneth Roth, the executive director of
Human Rights Watch, recently told me. "But she is less strong when
violations are committed by U.S. friends, like Rwanda or Israel, or by
governments more in the middle, like Sri Lanka."
Sri Lanka has never featured prominently in discussions on foreign policy in
Washington. But the final phase of the countries decades-long civil war,
which ended in May 2009, resulted in the largest case of mass atrocities
under President Obama's watch. An internal U.N. review of the crisis blasted
the U.N. Secretariat for failing to fulfill its obligation to protect
civilians. But the report also cites the failure of the U.N. Security
Council -- where Rice represented the United States -- to act decisively to
stop the violence, which resulted in the slaughter of 40,000 to 70,000
civilians, mostly at the hands of the Sri Lankan government. (At the time, I
wrote <
http://wapo.st/S330XG> this about Rice's response.)
When the government launched its final offensive this year against the
country's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), it was Mexico and Austria
that first raised the alarm in the Security Council. France and Britain sent
their foreign ministers to the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, to press the
government to show restraint. The United States supported those efforts to
draw attention to the crisis in the Security Council, efforts which China
and Russia opposed. Eventually, the United States backed a compromise that
allowed for discussion on the Sri Lankan conflict in the U.N. basement.
"The U.S. government remained relatively silent on the Sri Lankan crisis,
especially in the early stages of the fighting," said Fabienne Hara, vice
president for multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group. Its
response to Sri Lanka "did not seem to match the commitment to preventing
mass human rights abuses stated during the presidential campaign," she said.
Rice challenged that assessment, saying "my perception is that we spoke out
very forcefully." She said that the United States had a strong ambassador on
the ground in Sri Lanka conveying American concerns, and that the assistant
secretary of state for refugees traveled there to conduct an assessment
mission. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rice said, had been personally
focused on the issue. "I think that is an instance where our stand was
clear, consistent and principled," she said.
The M23 problem
The Republicans have Benghazi. Human rights advocates have the M23. A former
U.S. assistant secretary of state under the Clinton administration, Rice has
long-standing and close relations with many African leaders, notably
President Paul Kagame, the Rwandan general who led the armed insurgency that
ended the genocide in 1994.
Kagame's government has been a friend of Washington since, but it's also
been the target of U.N. investigations claiming it carried out mass reprisal
killings in Rwanda and neighboring Eastern Congo. An independent panel, set
up by the Security Council to monitor violations of a U.N. arms embargo in
eastern Congo, concluded in a damning report this summer that the Rwanda
military is sponsoring an armed mutiny, by a group calling itself M23, that
is seeking to seize control of a huge swath of eastern Congo. In response to
a major offensive outside Goma by the M23, which has now acquired
night-vision equipment and mortars, Rice issued a series of tweets this
afternoon saying she is "appalled" by the resumption of M23's military
campaign. She proposed additional sanctions against the group's commanders,
and expressed support for Congo's "efforts to repel the M23's offensive."
But behind closed doors, Rice's team sought to remove language implicating
Rwanda -- which has been accused by a U.N. panel of sponsoring the M23 -- in
the operation, according to council diplomats.
"In my view she is too close the regime in Kigali," Congo's ambassador to
France, Atoki Ileka, told Turtle Bay in September. "To be quite frank, I got
the impression that they did all they could to protect Rwanda. And we came
out publicly the pressure was there so they had to let it go. If we hadn't
gone public I think the report would never have been made public." In an
<
http://wapo.st/UvyadU> interview I conducted for the Washington Post in
September, Rice said "it's not true" that she tried to block the report. She
said that she merely asked for its release to be delayed to provide Rwanda a
fair chance to respond and that she has forcefully criticized Rwanda for its
alleged interference in Congo.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Tue Nov 20 2012 - 22:44:35 EST
