Obama Administration

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington next week, the Obama administration will be challenged to reassure India, and the Washington foreign-policy community, that the relationship is keeping up the momentum established during the Bush years.

The visit comes at a time when the Obama administration is making overtures to China and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Indians are worried their rank on the White House priority list is falling. While U.S.-India relations are generally strong, in what is often seen as the zero-sum struggle for White House attention, New Delhi simply can't compete with Beijing and is increasingly worried about what that means for power politics in Asia.

"From the Indian point of view, they are very unhappy with Obama," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, "Indians are really bent out of shape by what they see as a shift of American policy from India to China in Asia. This is complicated by America's dependence on Pakistan."

Administration critics saw Obama's joint statement with Hu Jintao in Beijing as an implicit downgrading of the U.S.-India relationship. The statement said the "two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."

"If China and America work together on South Asian issues, such as peace between India and Pakistan, then China is the great power while India is simply another South Asian country that needs help from others to solve its problems," wrote former Pentagon official Dan Blumenthal, "With the joint statement, Obama officially accorded India junior status in Asia."

Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security, said that while "the relationship with India is clearly coming second," progress in the U.S.-China relationship indirectly benefits India.

"If the United States and China can't figure out a way to manage their strategic competition, then India and all of us lose," said Cronin. "They need to give the administration more space to try to put the U.S.-China relationship on the most positive trajectory possible."

Nevertheless, the Obama-Singh summit will stand in stark contrast to Singh's 2005 tête-à-tête with George W. Bush, when the two countries embarked on a "strategic partnership" that has taken the relationship far and paved the way for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement.

"Bush already capitalized on what you could from that relationship," said Cronin. "They picked already the low-hanging fruit."

The trip is likely to result in agreements to move forward on second-tier issues, such as an educational agreement, some new military sales to the Indians, or shared information on homeland security. But on big issues like Iran, moving forward with nonproliferation, and coming to terms on climate change, India hands expect little movement.

Underlying the dynamic is a sense that the Obama administration has yet to really commit to a real plan for advancing the U.S.-India relationship. A State Department review is ongoing.

One issue is that there is no real powerful driver for India policy within the administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is well versed on India, but too busy to address it day-to-day. That work has fallen to Under Secretary of State William Burns, but he too has a broad portfolio. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake is the highest identifiable official with a constant, determined focus on the relationship. Even at the National Security Council, India doesn't have a strong advocate yet.

India lobbied against having Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as its lead interlocutor, leaving the relationship without a specific manager.

Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is hoping the Obama administration will take the opportunity to announce its support for India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"Although it would have no short-term practical consequence, it would provide the benefits in ‘atmospherics' sought from Prime Minister Singh's visit," he wrote.

That's not likely, according to most observers, but many argue that Obama must make some show of commitment to actually advancing the relationship, not just maintaining it.

"Obama needs to show that we are trying to institutionalize what is the growing strategic relationship with India," said Cronin. "He can't have the prime minister go back to New Dehli without having a sense that we know where we are going together."

Cohen pointed out that the White House might also be frustrated that India hasn't come through in the one area that could really benefit U.S. interests right now: reducing tensions with Pakistan so that Pakistan can divert its attention and resources toward cracking down on terrorism and militancy.

"Where is their contribution to what's going in Afghanistan and what are they doing with respect to Pakistan that might make our problem there easier?" asked Cohen of the Pakistanis. "What have they done for Americans lately?"

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama's trip to China gave Chinese citizens a window into the views and vision of the new American leader, but it also gave the world a window into the censorship and information control still practiced every day by the Chinese Communist Party.

Obama's town-hall meeting with handpicked Shanghai students, during which he praised the free flow of information and citizens' right to open government, was not broadcast outside of Shanghai.

And Obama's interview with China's Southern Weekend newspaper, which has a reputation for pushing the boundaries and the buttons of the government censors, disappeared from both hard copies and electronic versions of the paper.

On Thursday, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was established by Congress in 2000 to independently evaluate China, came out with a new report that lays out exactly how the Chinese government thinks and acts on Internet censorship and media control through its secretive but powerful "Propaganda Department."

The commission is recommending that Congress look into any agreement with American Internet companies that might give personal information to the Chinese government. The commission is also recommending that Congress investigate whether Chinese Internet censorship violates its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization.

"The propaganda system of the People's Republic of China (PRC) exercises control of information as a form of state power. It does not limit itself simply to monitoring and censoring news but instead has developed into ‘a sprawling bureaucratic establishment, extending into virtually every medium concerned with the dissemination of information,'" the report states.

The Communist leadership sends policy directives down through the Propaganda Department, which then lords over all sorts of entities, including newspapers, radio outlets, TV and film companies, and even artist and musicians' associations. Personnel appointments at all sorts of cultural and academic institutions have to be vetted through the Propaganda Department, which works hard to conceal its role.

 "The Propaganda Department is both a highly influential and highly secretive body: it is not listed on any official diagrams of the Chinese party-state structure, its street address and phone numbers are classified as state secrets, and there is no sign outside the Propaganda Department's main office complex in Beijing."

Meanwhile, the Chinese government operates what the report calls the most extensive and sophisticated Internet control system in the world. A filtering system called the "Golden Shield Project" uses technologies sold to the China by U.S. firms such as Cisco to keep out anti-government information. An estimated 30,000 internet monitors scour the Chinese Web to find violations and a loose network of independent Internet users get paid small amounts for posting content favorable to the PRC in what's known as the "Fifty Cent Party."

Media, educational, and cultural professionals in China also self-censor under fear of fines, demotion, termination, and imprisonment, the USCC reported. Foreign journalists are not outside the reach of such threats and intimidation.

Although the technologies have advanced, the Chinese government's drive to drown out outside voices is not new, said the commission's vice chairman, Larry Wortzel.

Wortzel was an official escort to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright and then First Lady Hillary Clinton to a 1995 women's conference in Beijing. "When Albright began her speech, seven provincial Chinese women's bands began playing music that sounded like cats being castrated inside a garbage can and the microphones failed," he remembered. "These are just the sorts of roadblocks that are institutionalized when you deal with the Chinese."

"The reality is, it is still an authoritarian government that still maintains tight access to information, as tight control as they are able to maintain," said commission chairwoman Carolyn Bartholomew.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday he would not support any troop increase to Afghanistan and predicted a troop increase announcement would meet a cold reception on Capitol Hill.

"We ought not to add troops to Afghanistan, I even question staying there, unless it is indispensible to our fight against al-Qaeda," said Specter on a conference call. "Staying in Afghanistan really requires a reliable ally in the government, which we do not have in [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai."

He said he could be persuaded to devote resources to fighting al Qaeda, but remains "unconvinced" that adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan was the answer.

The administration should offer an exit strategy with clearly defined goals and milestones, though not necessarily a timeline, Specter said. He denied that his position was meant to counter his 2010 primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak, D-PA, who has called for a "measured increase."

"If they talk about 40,000 troops, as the generals there want, I think [the reception in Congress] will be pretty cold," he said, pointing the oft-repeated estimate that each added troop would cost American $1 million per year.

Specter predicted senators would line up behind the idea of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, who has repeatedly called for faster increases in the Afghan security forces before more U.S. combat troops are added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged those concerns today in his press conference.

"Clearly, a very important part of the strategy in Afghanistan has to be the increase in the size of the Afghan national security forces and their training, and partnering with us," Gates said. "And central to the strategy is the ability to transfer responsibility for security, as soon as conditions warrant, to the Afghans themselves."

The Washington "power couple" is a familiar model: officials are often hitched to journalists, staffers to academics, lawmakers with lobbyists, and on and on. It's a natural phenomenon in such a small and social town filled with so many policy professionals.

But in what is much less common, a husband-and-wife team is set to represent the United States as ambassadors in adjoining European countries. Mary Bruce Warlick is set to be confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to Serbia and her husband James Warlick is on his way to represent America as ambassador to Bulgaria.

"This is actually the first time ever in the history of our diplomatic corps where we're having hearings for a husband-and-wife team at the same time," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, said at the couple's confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

"They can meet up at the border," noted a congressional staffer with a smile.

Mary Warlick was most recently the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasian policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Prior to that, she was the acting deputy assistant secretary for European and NATO policy.

James Warlick was principal deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of International Organizations, and, prior to that, director of the Office of European Security and Political Affairs in State's Bureau of Eurasian and European Affairs.

The Warlicks aren't the only husband-and-wife team to find new homes in the administration. In fact, it turns out that these sorts of "Obamarriages" are surprisingly common.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Campbell is married to Treasury under secretary nominee Lael Brainard. His former CNAS partner Michèle Flournoy, the new under secretary of defense for policy, attended the confirmation hearing for her husband, W. Scott Gould, on his way to becoming deputy secretary for veterans affairs.

The National Security Council's Samantha Power has a short walk if she wants to have lunch with her husband, White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein. And White House Communications Director Anita Dunn shares a commute (although not for long) with her husband Robert Bauer, the next White House counsel.

And there are many more: Shere Abbott and James Steinberg, Sarah Feinberg and Dan Pfeiffer, Antony Blinken and Evan Ryan, Tom Donilon and Cathy Russell, just to name a few. 

The State Department and Congress don't see eye to eye on how to move forward with foreign-aid reform, but at least one Senator is firmly siding with Foggy Bottom: Jim Webb.

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Kerry-Lugar foreign aid reform on Monday, Webb spoke against the bill. He sent a follow-up letter, obtained by The Cable, to Chairman John Kerry Wednesday to document his objections. Among them, Webb thinks the bill would add unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy not focused on the problem at hand.

"I believe that the problems in foreign assistance effectiveness are largely those of poor leadership and supervision, to be solved by the streamlining of executive branch responsibilities rather than the creation of yet another layer of infrastructure," Webb wrote.

Webb was talking about the bill's proposal to create a Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance, or CORE, that would have oversight powers over all government foreign-assistance programs, a key component according to committee staffers.

He also referenced a letter sent Monday to Kerry by Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, which called said the council "may be contrary to the underpinnings of the [Quadrennial Diplomacy and Defense Review]," which State is currently working on but won't be finishing until sometime next year.

Lew said that he wants Congress to give State the "flexibility" to work out foreign-assistance management issues in the QDDR, which he is running with Policy Planning Chief Anne Marie Slaughter, and in the White House's Presidential Study Directive, which is run by National Security Advisor Jim Jones and the National Economic Council's Larry Summers. The QDDR is managed day to day by Karen Hanrahan and the PSD is managed by Gayle Smith.

Lew also pointed to the recent nomination of Rajiv Shah to be administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and asked Kerry to give Shah time to review the current structures before new ones are created. Shah met with Kerry Thursday morning, according to committee staff, and Dec. 1 is being considered for his nomination hearing although nothing has been formally scheduled.

In the end, committee staffers say that the Kerry-Lugar bill is a marker to let Congress weigh in on foreign assistance and there are no immediate plans to try to advance the bill any further. But if the administration's reviews don't have strong accountability measures, congressional ideas such as the CORE could get increasing traction, despite the objections of Webb and Lew.

In yet another sign that the administration and Capitol Hill aren't exactly seeing eye to eye these days, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will mark up the Kerry-Lugar foreign aid reform bill Tuesday, moving the ball forward despite the State Department's desire that Congress hold off until administration reviews are finished.

The Kerry-Lugar bill, one of several foreign-aid reform bills in play, is seen as a strong but relatively modest attempt to increase the power and stature of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It would, among other things, restore USAID's policy-planning staff and create new oversight and accountability mechanisms to watch over foreign-assistance programs government-wide.

But the State Department leadership has been asking Kerry to slow-walk the bill, not wanting the legislation to preempt State's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), led by Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and Policy Planning chief Anne Marie Slaughter, and to a lesser degree the National Security Council's President Study Directive (PSD) on foreign assistance, led by Gayle Smith.

Apparently, Lew asked Kerry specifically not to mark up the bill. Kerry may have been inclined to go along with Lew's request, but was approached by Lugar, who threatened to pull his support for the bill if Kerry didn't move it through the process. Kerry sided with Lugar and scheduled the markup.

"At the end of the day, the State Department tried to convince Kerry not to markup this legislation. Kerry was somewhat sympathetic but he was going to lose Lugar," said one development expert close to the discussions. "It's important for Kerry to maintain his arm-link with Lugar, so he pushed back."

A committee staffer confirmed the substance of the account, and explained that the committee simply didn't want to wait until the reviews were completed. The PSD is expected perhaps in January but the QDDR won't be completed until summer or fall of 2010 (State has promised to release an interim report at some point).

"What's clear is that [State] wants to wait until the QDDR is done, so in the meantime, is Congress supposed to just remain silent?" the committee staffer asked. "You just can't wait that long to start reforming aid."

Although the long-awaited nomination of Rajiv Shah to be USAID administrator didn't factor into the committee's decision to move the bill (committee staff say the timing was purely based on logistics), they do view his still-undecided role as a barometer of how much Congress will need to weigh in.

If Shah is not given the authority and power within the administration that the bill envisions, or if the reviews don't give USAID the authority the Senate is seeking, Kerry and Lugar could then move the bill further along, over State's objections.

"If they come out with recommendations that don't include a policy mechanism or evaluations, then there would be added momentum to bring this bill to the floor," the staffer said.

The committee plans to markup this bill, then move to confirm Shah, probably in early December.

"We're not looking to take this thing and put into law tomorrow. But we are trying to lay out in an explicit way that this is what we think reform looks like," a different committee staffer said. "State doesn't always see it that way," he added, referring to State's pushback against the bill internally.

Meanwhile, overall confusion over where the administration reviews are going is creating a lot of uncertainty and unease both in Congress and in the development community. State Department officials talk about "elevating" USAID but also talk about "integrating" it into the State Department, words that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

The Kerry-Lugar idea of restoring USAID's policy-planning staff, which was removed by the Bush administration, is one that lawmakers and development advocates see as crucial.

"An agency without a policy and strategic planning capacity is without true independence," said Noam Unger, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "We have an aid system that is weakened by fragmentation and our engagement of foreign countries suffers because of policy incoherence."

Slaughter, in a speech Monday at the Center for American Progress, repeated the cryptic mantra that has the whole development world scratching their heads.

"The overall aim of the QDDR is to integrate and elevate development and diplomacy across the spectrum of the American foreign policy," she said.

"You still need to integrate the power of development professionals, the ideas and the expertise, with the political clout and strategy and reach of diplomacy. That seems to me to be the perfect example of integrated power ...  and that is what Secretary Clinton would like to see as one of her legacies."

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Obama has nominated Erin Conaton, the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, to be the number two official at the Air Force.

If confirmed, Conaton would have a premier role in shepherding the Air Force through an extremely tumultuous time. As undersecretary, she would have a leading role in guiding the Air Force's interactions with Congress and would be involved in several of the major acquisitions issues the service is currently embroiled in.

"Erin is a good person who will be assuming a very tough position," said one Air Force insider, "Her connections to [Chairman Ike] Skelton will really help the Air Force, but she is taking on a heck of a challenge considering all the problems facing the service."

The Air Force has been on the losing side of some high profile inter-government battles as of late. They lost their bid to continue production of the F-22 fighter jet (although their official position was that they agreed with Obama's decision to end production of the plane).

The Air Force is also currently involved in budget negotiations with the Office of the Secretary of Defense over the fiscal 2011 program. Their F-35 fighter program, the largest system in their portfolio, could face cuts in light of over overall pressures and Defense Secretary Robert Gates' push to rebalance priorities toward more irregular and non-conventional capabilities.

The $100 billion Air Force program to replace its fleet of aerial refueling tankers is also in a state of somewhat limbo after two failed attempts to award the contract. The Air Force is also still pushing to get a new bomber and several other items that will be tough sells in this constrained budget environment.

No confirmation hearing has yet been scheduled.

As the announcement of the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy review gets closer and closer, more details are coming out about who inside the room when the discussions are held and who has the president's ear.

The White House still maintains that there is no set date for the roll out of the new policy, although White House officials have acknowledged that the announcement is unlikely to be before the President's trip to Asia later this week. The White House team returns Thursday Nov., 19, and a typical Washington public relations move would be to hold the rollout on a Friday.

There is some doubt that the rollout could be logistically accomplished in one day, what with the need to consult allies, interested parties, lawmakers, and then set up press conferences and briefings. The White House staff would be exhausted after flying around the world for a week, the argument goes, making a rollout on Friday, Nov. 20 unlikely.

"We don't have a rollout date set, because the President has yet to make the decision," said Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

But multiple sources have indicated that Thanksgiving is a tentative deadline for the rollout, meaning that the last day the announcement would come out is Wednesday, Nov. 25.

A rollout the day before Thanksgiving would be sure to roil the Washington policy crowd, whose proportionally large contingent of Northeast-born members would then have to fight the gruesome traffic up the notorious Interstate 95 on the worst traffic day of the year to make it home to their extended families.

A Nov. 25 rollout could also invite speculation that the administration was trying to downplay the news, because as anyone who has been in Washington the day before Thanksgiving can attest to, the town is eerily empty on that day each year.

Regardless, with increasing consultations with allies and interested parties alike, the administration seems just about ready to come to a decision. There are multiple reports that Obama is planning to give Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal most, if not all of the 40,000 troops he identified as a "medium-risk option."

Spencer Ackerman reveals that McChrystal had two very close allies inside the White House discussions the whole time, Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command  (JSOC) at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward, the deputy commander of Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

"Both men have deep ties to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the war. They are said to favor large infusions of U.S. troops to Afghanistan for performing counterinsurgency operations in select population centers, but they also advocate marshalling forces to pursue terrorists across Afghanistan's rugged, mountainous terrain," Ackerman reports.