The United States is planning to send an ambassador back to Burma as President Barack Obama's administration carefully ramps up its engagement with the Burmese junta in the hope of encouraging greater reform there.

"In Indonesia, I spoke about the flickers of progress that were emerging in Burma. Today, that light burns a bit brighter, as prisoners are reunited with their families and people can see a democratic path forward," Obama said in a Friday statement, following the junta's announcement that it would release 651 of the estimated 2,000 political prisoners in the country. "Much more remains to be done to meet the aspirations of the Burmese people, but the United States is committed to continuing our engagement with the government in Nay Pyi Taw."

"I have directed Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton and my administration to take additional steps to build confidence with the government and people of Burma so that we seize this historic and hopeful opportunity," Obama said.

Clinton became the first secretary of State in over 50 years to visit Burma when she traveled there in December. In her own statement, she said she has seen progress in the country on several fronts, and emphasized that Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi also welcomed the junta's recent steps as a sign of the government's commitment to reform. Clinton also noted the ceasefire announced Thursday between the Junta and the Karen National Union, an opposition ethnic group that has been fighting the regime for decades.

Clinton noted several indications of progress in Burma, including the government's easing of restrictions on media and civil society, engaging Suu Kyi in a substantive dialogue, amending electoral laws to pave the way for her party to participate in the political process, setting a date for the by-elections this year, passing new legislation to protect the right of assembly and the rights of workers, beginning to provide humanitarian access for the United Nations and NGOs to conflict areas, and establishing its own national Human Rights Commission.

"As I said last December, the United States will meet action with action. Based on the steps taken so far, we will now begin," she said. "An American ambassador will help strengthen our efforts to support the historic and promising steps that are now unfolding."

These steps and optimistic rhetoric is being accompanied by a whole slew of high-level U.S. delegations to Burma. The State Department's Special Representative for Burma Derek Mitchell visited this week, as did the State Department's Ambassador at Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Luis CdeBaca. A senior State Department official said that Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Tom Countryman will travel to Burma next week.

There are also a series of congressional visits to Burma in the pipeline. Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) was in Burma this week. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will be there next week. And more lawmakers are planning visits soon after, we're told. Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and John McCain (R-AZ) were the only U.S. lawmakers to visit Burma in the past three years.

The United States had an ambassador in Burma from 1947 until 1990, when career Foreign Service officer Burton Levin left the post but was not replaced. Since 1990, the U.S. mission in Burma has been led by a chargé d'affaires, currently Michael Thurston.

A senior State Department official, speaking with reporters Friday, warned that it might take a while to actually place an ambassador in Burma. The nominee has to be selected, vetted, and then confirmed. Confirmations this year could be difficult due to the GOP fight with Obama over his recess appointment of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray, which Republicans believe is legally suspect.

Two names that were floated in the past for Mitchell's job -- and now therefore may be up for the ambassador's position -- were former NSC Senior Director for Asia Mike Green, now with CSIS and Georgetown, and Human Rights Watch Washington Executive Director Tom Malinowski, a leading writer on Burma. Green is close to Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affair Kurt Campbell, the architect of the administration's Burma policy, as is Mitchell. Malinowski is set to travel to Burma next week.

In October, The Cable reported on the details of the State Department's plan for engaging Burma through "step for step" actions that could lead to a relaxing of international and U.S. sanctions. The conventional wisdom is that the administration would first focus on relaxing those sanctions that don't require going through Congress, such as executive orders against Burmese individuals and restrictions on lending to Burma through international financial institutions.

The State Department official emphasized that Congress would be consulted every step of the way and he singled out Webb for special recognition.

"He has pioneered many of these actions. He was one of the first senators on the ground, pushing for the release of prisoners, asking the United States to engage actively. And the secretary wanted me to underscore his service ... basically as a diplomat in the Senate," the official said.

Campbell clashed with Webb early in the administration because Webb was out ahead of the administration's Burma policy, pushing for more robust engagement. Webb also gave Campbell grief during Campbell's confirmation process, but the two have made up now and, more significantly, their approaches to Burma are now in alignment.

The Burmese government has also signed a ceasefire with ethnic Karen rebels, and is reportedly pursuing deals with other rebel groups. The Cable asked the official if there are signs that the junta has actually halted its violence against ethnic minorities, considering that it has broken ceasefires in the past and reports on the ground point to continued and widespread violations of human rights.

"It's difficult to fully ascertain whether or not there's been a diminution of violence in ethnic areas ... but there still are unacceptable levels of violence in ethnic areas and that continues," the official said.

CNN wanted to know when the U.S. government will stop calling the country "Burma" and start using the junta's preferred name, "Myanmar." The official said the United States would discuss that with stakeholders both inside and outside Burma.

"There are many factors that go into that," the official said. "We adhere to the reference of the country as Burma. The secretary and Aung San Suu Kyi discussed this when they were together and this is an issue that will be addressed in due course."

The Obama administration is cautiously optimistic about the prospect of reengagement with Burma, and the State Department is busily preparing a host of new rewards for the ruling junta if and when their promises of reform ever become a reality.

"We're going to meet their action with action," Derek Mitchell, the new special representative and policy coordinator for Burma, told The New York Times. "If they take steps, we will take steps to demonstrate that we are supportive of the path to reform."

But is Burma actually on the path to reform? The main pieces of evidence that change is afoot are that the new government, led by President Thein Sein, paused construction of a huge dam being built with China, which would have displaced thousands and wrecked the local environment, released 220 prisoners, and promised to release thousands more. But those changes alone aren't going to convince anyone in the administration -- or Congress, for that matter -- that the government is really committed to wholesale reform.

While the Obama administration sees some signs of change in Burma, it has no idea why they are occurring and has communicated that the United States will only ease sanctions after Burmese reforms. Administration officials are also trying their best to be clear eyed about the possibility that the junta is only trying to appease the international community, and has no intention of instituting real, actual change.

The Cable sat down with a senior State Department official to flesh out the administration's new approach to Burma, and gauge whether the Obama team really thinks that the Burmese junta is changing its tune.The official said that State has  actually taken several steps in planning exactly what the United States is prepared to do if and when the junta takes steps to increase democracy and respect for human rights.

"We're far along," said the State Department official. "We're thinking about it very actively and we have some ideas of things we might do if we see the concrete steps."

The administration's strategy is to focus on steps the administration can take without needing to go through Congress, which is always skeptical of the Junta and never eager to loosen sanctions. For example, a ban on Burmese imports was implemented through a legislative maneuver, and would therefore need congressional action to remove. A ban on investment in Burma, however, was made by executive order, so the administration could remove that on its own.

"We would be consulting with Congress on the ideas that we have," the official said. "You can't have a perfect roadmap because there are many different scenarios to their actions and we'll calibrate it accordingly. So that's the art rather than the science to all of this."

Banking sanctions on Burma were authorized through Congress, but the sanctions placed on individual Burmese officials are an executive prerogative, so the administration could remove holds on specific Burmese officials who make positive steps.  

The administration is still grappling with what it can do about removing restrictions on lending to Burma by international financial institutions, a key aspiration of the Burmese government. The New York Times reported that the administration is "considering waiving some restrictions on trade and financial assistance and lifting prohibitions on assistance by global financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund."

We're told that the administration isn't quite there yet. Rather, officials are conducting an assessment of the conditions on the ground as to what would be needed as a precursor to considering waiving restrictions. For close observers of the Burma issue, that's a small but important distinction.

The administration is also being careful not to get ahead of reformers on the ground, specifically Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

The official noted that the administration has already provided some carrots to the Burmese. It invited Burma to be an observer in the Lower Mekong Initiative, which is the U.S. effort to deepen ties with certain Southeast Asian countries. It eased travel restrictions on Burmese officials so that Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin could come to Washington last month and visit the State Department.

There is a short and clear list of things the Obama administration has told junta leaders would constitute action deserving of reciprocal action on the part of the United States. They are to release political prisoners, amend the political party law to allow Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD party to run in the next elections, and stop violence against ethnic minorities in Burma's rural areas.

The official said that, despite a feeling of political change in the urban areas of Burma, government violence against civilians near Burma's borders is actually getting worse. And there is still the unresolved issue of Burma's relationship with North Korea, which may include missile transfers and nuclear weapons cooperation.

"The ceasefires have been violated and there is continued military aggression and credible reports of abuses, including against women and children, that come out, which is typical of the past in Burma," the official said.

And what if the Burmese don't actually reform or even backslide on their progress? Is the administration willing to use the sticks -- including additional sanctions?

"We would look at everything.... It's fair to say we would be looking at that if things reverse," the official said.

Special Representative Mitchell's office, created in this year, is made up of just him and one assistant. He sits inside the offices of the East Asian and Pacific Bureau at State, but he reports directly up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and has responsibility for coordinating the entire interagency policy on Burma.

Burma experts believe the new office is useful, and see Mitchell as the right man for the job. But Burma watchers are also wary that the cautious optimism of the administration doesn't turn into naiveté.

"There's a lot of hype right now about everything is changing in Burma," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "There's always a bureaucratic impulse to believe that positive change is happening in situations where a lot of U.S. diplomatic effort has been expended."

"That's the danger that there's so much positive rhetoric out there that the Burmese will think, aha, we don't actually have to do these things, all we have to do is talk about them," Malinowski said.

The State Department official said the administration was well aware of that risk, and was making sure the Burmese knew that they would have to implement real reforms to renew their relationship with the United States.

"I think [Burmese leaders] recognize that folks are waiting and see what's going to happen. People are restraining themselves from assuming that individual moves are somehow representative of something fundamentally different," the official said.

The other main administration officials involved in U.S. Burma policy are Adam Szubin, director of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, Senior Director Dan Russel and Director Colin Willet in the NSC's Asia team, NSC's Senior Director Samantha Power on human rights, East Asia Pacific Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Joe Yun, and Southeast Asia Office Director Patrick Murphy at State.

Thirteen U.S. senators, all women, are calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take concrete action to address the Burmese junta's use of rape as a weapon of war.

"Given the Burmese regime's unabated use of rape as a weapon of war, we urge you to call on the regime to end this practice and pursue our shared goal of establishing an international Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity," the senators wrote in an Aug. 10 letter, obtained by The Cable.

The signers on the letter were Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Susan Collins (R-ME), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

The senators cited several reports that the Burmese army has been using gang rape in its conflicts with ethnic minorities along its borders recently. For example, the Kachin Women's Association of Thailand  reported that dozens of women have been gang raped since the truce between Burma and the Kachin Independence Army broke down in June, and that Burmese soldiers claim they have "orders to rape women."

The Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN) has also been documenting all known cases of rape during the Burmese government's new offensive against the Shan State Army following the collapse of a 22-year ceasefire.

"Burma Army troops are being given free rein to rape children, the pregnant and the elderly," said SWAN coordinator Hseng Moon in a press release. "We strongly condemn these war crimes."

Since 2003, groups such as Refugees International, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have all detailed atrocities committed by the Burmese army.

In late May, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Tomas Quintana, highlighted the Burmese army's actions, saying, "Systematic militarisation contributes to human rights abuses. These abuses include land confiscation, forced labour, internal displacement, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence."

 The senators also referred in their letter to the June testimony of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who called for the U.N. human rights rapporteur to visit Burma and for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the human rights situation in Burma.

"We must not allow this regime to continue to commit such dire crimes while the people of Burma continue to suffer," the senators wrote.

Add this issue to the list of challenges that new U.S. Special Envoy to Burma Derek Mitchell now faces. Mitchell was confirmed by the Senate last week and is now in charge of coordinating the State Department's new Burma policy, which is meant to mix pressures with engagement of the Burmese regime.

"Overall, the average Burmese citizen lacks fundamental freedoms and civil rights," Mitchell said at his June 29 confirmation hearing. "I am encouraged that the new President of Burma speaks of reform and change, but the pathway to real national reconciliation, unity among its diverse peoples, and sustainable development requires concrete action to protect human rights and to promote representative and responsive governance."

As the nation careens toward a possible debt default, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Asian business leaders not to overreact to the U.S. political crisis, taking some implicit shots at China's economic policies as well.

"The political wrangling in Washington is intense right now. But these kinds of debates have been a constant in our political life throughout the history of our republic. And sometimes, they are messy," Clinton said in Hong Kong on Monday. "But this is how an open and democratic society ultimately comes together to reach the right solutions."

"Through more than a century of growth, the American economy has repeatedly shown its strength, its resilience, and its unrivaled capacity to adapt and reinvent itself," she said. "And it will keep doing so."

Clinton, who was speaking at an event organized by the Macau chambers of commerce and the Asia Society, said that economics is becoming a higher priority in U.S. foreign policy. She pledged to give a major speech on "America's strategic and economic choices" this fall, and argued that the United States' and East Asia's economies are inextricably linked.

"We are a resident power in Asia -- not only a diplomatic or military power, but a resident economic power. And we are here to stay," she said.

In remarks that appeared at times to be directed at China, Clinton then went on to call for fairness and transparency in economic systems.

"Openness, freedom and transparency contribute to the fourth principle we must ensure: fairness. Fairness sustains faith in the system," she said. "That faith is difficult to sustain when companies are forced to trade away their intellectual property just to enter or expand in a foreign market, or when vital supply chains are blocked. These kinds of actions undermine fair competition, which turns many off from competing at all."

The Chinese government, the largest holder of U.S. debt, has been largely silent about the U.S. debt ceiling crisis. But experts warn that the failure of the U.S. government to resolve the issue expeditiously could further undermine confidence in the already weak U.S. dollar and harm the overall image of the U.S. as a competent world leader.

"We've got repeated statements from Chinese officials of sort of, you know, we hate you guys, but we don't have any choice. And we're still buying your debt, because we don't see anywhere else to buy it," said Sebastian Mallaby, senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But, when the reserve currency is unloved by the accumulators of those reserves -- namely, the central banks of countries like China -- you're on thin ice. They're buying the dollar assets, but they don't like it. And so they're looking actively over a sort of long-term horizon to try to find an alternative."

The Heritage Foundation's Derek Scissors wrote today that China has already slowed its purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds, but for the time being, China has few other options but to continue buying U.S. dollars.

"There's the idea that China can just stop buying foreign currency assets. False. The PRC's own balance of payments rules mean they have to keep buying, and they know they have to."

SINGAPORE - Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie came to Singapore to convince the international community that China wanted to play a constructive role in Southeast Asian security cooperation based on self restraint and peaceful coexistence. But his platitudes, happy talk, and denials of China's aggressive military actions failed to win over an audience frustrated with the Chinese military's ongoing agressive actions in the region, according to delegates, experts, and government officials.

Liang, the first ever Chinese Defense Minister to lead China's delegation to the 10^th annual IISS Shangri-La Security Dialogue, gave a 45 minute speech on Sunday outlining the People's Liberation Army's policies on a range of regional issues, including control of the South China Sea, China's military modernation, and regional security cooperation. Liang even took questions from the press, including one set from your humble Cable guy, and was gracious and upbeat in his remarks about China's relationship with its neighbors.

"China hopes to see peace and stability in its neighborhood more than anyone else. We oppose any action that might lead to regional turbulence or compromise mutual trust between neighbors. China follows the policy of 'forging friendship and partnership' with its neighbors," he said. "We are ready to make joint effort with other Asian countries in creating a regional environment of peace, stability, equality, collaboration, trust and mutual benefit by boosting political confidence, seeking common development and facilitating people-to-people exchange."

But Liang repeatedly refused to acknowledge several recent examples of Chinese military aggression in Southeast Asia, leaving the audience of senior military officials and experts from 35 countries disappointed and feeling that Liang's rhetoric did not match the facts on the ground. The Vietnamese and Filipino defense ministers who spoke after him issued sharp rebukes of the Chinese military's behavior and several members of the U.S. delegation left the session disappointed.

Liang was playing along with the script established by Defense Secretary Robert Gates only a day before. The two leaders of the Pacific's two strongest militaries went to great lengths to portray a warming of U.S.-China ties and they avoided at all costs any discussion of contentious bilateral issues.

"Liang's message was to underscore China's determination to stick to the path of peaceful development and willingness to promote security in the region. He did not criticize the United States directly and emphasized the recent positive developments between the U.S. and Chinese militaries," said Bonnie Glaser, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There was no mention of Taiwan at all, whereas last year there was quite a lot of discussion about Taiwan."

China is trying to repair and soften its image in Southeast Asia following the downturn in relations due to China's aggressive stance with regard to key regional issues, such as its 2010 claim that the highly disputed South China Sea was a "core interest," which angered several regional powers who also have claims there.

"It's been a charm offensive. Liang's objective was to avoid offending or frightening anyone, and try to scrub away the stain of the last two years of ‘assertiveness.' They realize it wasn't working for them," one U.S. delegate at the conference told The Cable. 

But China's aggressive actions in the South China Sea and near the disputed Spratly Islands continue to this day, undermining the credibility of Liang's contention that China was interested in purely negotiated solutions.

"I doubt his speech reassured anyone. It certainly didn't put to rest the questions and concerns among its neighbors raised by China's recent behavior," the U.S. delegate said.

In fact, in the session immediately following Liang's remarks, the defense ministers of Vietnam and the Philippines openly criticized China and called for more U.S. security presence in Southeast Asia.

"As always, we expect China to honor the policies they announce to the world and we are hopeful these statements will be translated into realities," said Vietnamese Defense Minister Lt. Gen. Phung Quang Thanh, who complained that last month three Chinese ships cut the cables of a Vietnamese survey ship to prevent Vietnam from exploring disputed areas of the South China Sea.

Philippine's Defense Secretary Voltaire Tuvera Gazmin was even harsher. China stands accused of several intimidating actions against Filipino fishing boats and on islands claimed by the Philippines in the Spratlys.

"These actions unnecessarily create insecurity, not only for the government, but more disturbingly toward the citizens who depend on the maritime environment for their livelihood," Gazmin said, while referencing several specific incidents of Chinese military intimidation in Filipino waters.

In the question and answer period, Liang dodged and weaved, often avoiding direct questions. For example, when asked about the Chinese plan to take over operations of a key port in Pakistan, Liang said he had no idea about it, despite that the Pakistani Defense Minister had already announced it publicly.

"Much of the rhetoric in General Liang's speech hit the expected notes of reassurance to the region," another U.S. delegate said. "But, as several of the questions put before General Liang pointed to, there are also a raft of unanswered questions and anxieties in the region, given the gap between PRC rhetoric and its activities and actions, including when it comes to China's so-called ‘core interests,' the South China Sea, and its military modernization."

SINGAPORE — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie held a 55-minute meeting Friday behind closed doors on the sidelines of the IISS Shangri-La Security Dialogue. Both sides claimed progress in U.S.-China military relations, while largely avoiding contentious issues such as U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and growing competition in Southeast Asia.

Your humble Cable guy was in the room for the first 5 minutes before being ushered out by security, and heard both leaders praise the resumption of military-to-military ties, which began again last May following the People Liberation Army's early 2010 decision to sever ties in response to the United States' $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.

"President Hu and President Obama both believe that our military to military ties are an underdeveloped part of our relationship between the United States and China. In recent months our two countries have made some progress in toward rectifying this imbalance by jointly identifying areas of cooperation," Gates said at the start of the meeting.  "As I leave office at the end of this month, I do so believing that our military relationship is on a more positive trajectory."

"It is critically important to maintain a dialogue in areas where we disagree, so we can have greater clarity about each other's intentions," Gates continued.  "Together we can show the world the benefits that arise when great nations collaborate on matters of shared interest."

Liang struck a similarly positive note, saying that, "since the beginning of this year... the mil-to-mil relations and technical cooperation between the two militaries have made some positive progress."

According to three senior U.S. defense officials who briefed reporters on the rest of the meeting, both military leaders spent the bulk of the time reviewing points of agreement and pledging cooperation on areas of shared strategic interest -- piracy, disaster response, and North Korea -- while avoiding areas of conflict.

"Of course, there were areas of disagreement raised, but they were acknowledged and moved on from," one of the officials who was in the room reported.

For example, when Liang raised the issue of future U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, as Chinese leaders do in every meeting, Gates gave a clear but curt one line response.

"We know each other's points on Taiwan well," Gates told Liang, according to the officials.

And when Liang criticized what he referred to as voices in the United States that China believes are hyping the Chinese military threat, Gates responded that there are anti-U.S. voices in China as well, but that on neither side do the negative voices represent the views of each country's leadership.

"The reality is that some will always oppose this relationship moving forward, but it is our responsibility to keep it moving forward," Gates said.

Gates also stressed that incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will continue the effort to advance U.S.-China military ties. But Gates won't leave the issue totally behind.

"He said he hopes to continue to monitor the forward progress in retirement, with a fishing line in hand," one defense official reported.

Gates also noted in the meeting that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will travel to China in July, a reciprocal visit following PLA Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde's visit to Washington last month.

The cordial U.S.-China exchanges could turn more adversarial as the conference goes on. Gates speaks Saturday and is expected to lay out a range of new ideas for how the United States plans to increase its military involvement in Southeast Asia. The moves are widely seen as a response to growing Chinese assertiveness in the region. Liang speaks Sunday.

The discussion was only one of four bilateral meetings Gates held Friday. He also met with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, Singaporean Permanent Secretary for Defense Chiang Chie Foo, and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak.

The Cable asked the senior defense officials what Kitazawa had to say about Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's bombshell announcement this week that he would resign his post.

"That was not discussed," one official said.

SHANGRI-LA HOTEL, Singapore - The U.S. and China are both striving to portray a warm bilateral relationship as they headline a huge international security conference in Singapore this weekend. Meanwhile, the U.S. side is preparing to unveil parts of its new approach to Southeast Asia, which will include more U.S. military ties to the region as a means of countering growing Chinese influence.

Here at the 10^th annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, the U.S. charm offensive is in full swing, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates previewing his keynote speech by saying that U.S.-China relations are improving and the U.S. welcomes China's rise.

"We are not trying to hold China down. China has been a great power for thousands of years. It is a global power and will be a global power," Gates told reporters on the plane ride to the conference, which begins today and goes through Sunday, with 35 nations participating. The conference is being hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"We're very satisfied with the progress of the relationship," Gates claimed. "My first visit to China in this job was in the fall of 2007. I laid out a fairly ambitious agenda for developing our military-to-military relationship. We've obviously hit snags and obstacles along the way, but I think we're in a pretty good place now, pretty realistic."

This is Gates' fifth appearance at Shangri-La and his final appearance as defense secretary. He steps down July 1 and CIA Director Leon Panetta has been nominated to replace him. Last year he made news by criticizing China's People's Liberation Army and defending U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, but this year he is striking a conciliatory tone and striving to avoid any controversy that could be portrayed as a negative ripple in U.S.-China relations.

For example, Gates was asked on the plane what he thinks about the prospect of selling F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, an idea supported heavily by at least 45 U.S. senators.

"I don't have a view on that at this point," Gates said.

But lying just underneath the veneer of warm words, there are large strategic issues in play and Gates is planning to unveil some, but not all, of the U.S. plans to increase its military relationships and involvement in Southeast Asia, despite growing budget problems back in Washington.

The Obama administration is quietly shifting its strategic focus toward more emphasis on Southeast Asia, due to the recognition that the region's importance is growing in the military, diplomatic, and trade arenas. China made a play for increased power in the region in 2009 and 2010, but was rebuked by skiddish countries wary of China's intentions. The U.S. is responding by assuring these countries that America is in the region for the long haul.

"[T]here has been really extraordinary progress made, particularly in the last couple of years or so with a number of countries in strengthening our military-to-military relationships and our overall relationship -- Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Australia certainly, as well as our traditional allies in Thailand, Japan, and Korea," Gates said. "And I think the general recognition on the part of all the countries over the past several years that their own security environment is evolving and their desire to adjust their own positions accordingly and the need for us to be flexible as we develop our relationships with these countries and the nature of the activities that we have with others, whether it's exercises or training programs or equipment or whatever."

"What I will largely talk about at the conference is the evolution and the changes in these positions and kind of where we are and moving to the future," Gates said, declining to give details of his Saturday keynote address.

Looming over the promise of increased U.S. commitment to Southeast Asia is the fact that the U.S. fiscal situation is horrid and the Pentagon's mammoth budget is under the microscope like never before. But Gates said that was being taken into consideration when making plans to increase U.S. military involvement in the region.

"[I]n a way many of the things that we're doing in Asia in building these relationships are actually pretty cost effective -- training, exercises, rotations of forces and so on are -- and the use of our Navy, our air assets moving from place to place. I think these are all cost effective ways of enhancing our influence, but also letting these countries know that we're a reliable partner and that we can be counted on," he said.

"Everything will be on the table, but I believe that our approach to enhancing our relationships, our presence and our influence in Asia is a very cost effective approach."

Gates is trying to be kind to the Chinese, but when questioned directly he gave a sober assessment of what he sees as their intentions.

"They are clearly working on capabilities that are of concern to us in terms of denial of access, particularly with respect to our aircraft carriers, the development of long-range accurate cruise and ballistic anti-ship missile... my sense of it is that they are -- and in their efforts frankly to build a blue water navy," he said. "I think they are intending to build capabilities that give them considerable freedom of action in Asia and the opportunity to extend their influence."

As the conference begins, all eyes are on Gates and the Chinese delegation, which will be headed for the first time by Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie. Gates and Liang will hold a bilateral meeting today. A joint press statement may be in the works.

The heat is on here at the beautiful Shangri-La luxury hotel. Your humble Cable guy arrived at 1 AM to find a member of the local security service passed out on the curb in front of the lobby, being treated by emergency medical personnel. Hotel staff told us he had suffered cardiac arrest due to heat exhaustion. We are pleased to report he is recovering now at a local hospital.

Follow us here on The Cable for constant updates on the conference throughout the weekend and find more information at IISS's blog Shangri-La Voices. Politico's Mike Allen also scored an interview with Gates on the plane, which can be found here.

The Cable has confirmed that President Barack Obama is set to appoint Derek Mitchell as the first U.S. special envoy to Burma.

Mitchell, a well-respected Asia hand who was a foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign, is currently the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific affairs under Assistant Secretary Gen. Chip Gregson, who will soon be departing himself. Previously, Mitchell worked at the Center for Strategic and International Studies with Kurt Campbell, who is now the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Campbell has been handling the Burma portfolio at the State Department since 2009.

The special envoy position was required by Congress in the 2008 JADE Act, the bill meant to prevent Burmese gem exports to the United States, which was led by the late House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos. President George W. Bush actually did appoint someone for the job, former NSC Senior Director for Asia Mike Green.

But Green saw his nomination languish at the end of the Bush administration. It then met its end in 2009, when then Senate Foreign Relations Asia Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) refused to move it forward pending an unspecified favor from the White House that she did not get. Ironically, Boxer and three other senators wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week to ask her to appoint a new Burma special envoy.

Mitchell and Green coauthored an article on Burma in Foreign Affairs in 2007, where they called on the international community to reinvigorate its interest in the plight of the Burmese people. Green, now a professor at Georgetown University, praised Mitchell's selection in an interview with The Cable.

"He would be excellent in this position," Green said. "Derek has met Aung San Suu Kyi and knows all the regional players, including China and India. He also knows the interagency well and has a balanced and strategic view of the issue."

Another rumored contender for the job was Human Rights Watch Washington Director Tom Malinowski, who also told The Cable that Mitchell is a good choice.

"I think Derek is a great pick for the job. He has a long standing commitment to the issue. He's in the administration. He'll likely be a very effective player. He's broadly respected within the administration and throughout the community," Malinowski said.

But Malinowski also said that the substance of the administration's Burma policy is more important than the identity of the person implementing it. He feels Burma has fallen through the cracks in terms of the administration's focus and attention.

"The Burmese had the misfortune of rising up and braving gunfire for democracy before this administration came to office, and therefore there isn't as much of an urgent or intense effort now to help them," he said. "I hope that Derek's appointment is a sign that's going to change, even if the Burmese people don't once again get themselves shot demonstrating."

The State Department, led by Campbell, did craft a new Burma policy that called for limited engagement with the brutal regime while keeping sanctions in place. Campbell traveled to Burma twice. The other most active public official on Burma, Senate Foreign Relations Asia Subcommittee chair Jim Webb (D-VA) has been there once.

The administration's idea was to feel out Burmese leaders in order to make incremental progress leading up to the November 2010 elections. But those elections were marred by the sort of vote rigging, intimidation, and outright violence that the Burmese junta is known for. The elections were condemned by the international community, including the United States.

The failure of the junta to make any real effort to answer the United States' call for cooperation and dialogue poses a problem for the Obama administration's policy of engagement.

"I would say the administration has been realistic about the nature of the so-called ‘election,'" said Green. "They recognize that the junta is actually consolidating power in many areas, privatizing state assets to fill their own pockets, and marginalizing the handful of ‘Third Wave' candidates that were supposed to be independent voices in the parliament."

An administration official told The Cable that the U.S. government is clear eyed on the junta's behavior but will continue to try to find ways to move forward the policy.

"The U.S. government acknowledged that this was a fundamentally flawed election based on a corrupt constitution, but that doesn't mean that we aren't ready to reengage in dialogue," the official said. "But we will be very clear what our expectations are and we will be extremely tough on both non-proliferation and human rights."

Mitchell, who four independent sources confirmed would be appointed as the special envoy, declined to comment for this story.

Rajiv Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has a message for those in Congress who want to slash development and foreign-aid budgets: Cuts will undermine U.S. national security.

On the heels of a major speech on the coming reforms to America's premier development agency, Shah sat down for an exclusive interview with The Cable to explain his vision for making USAID more responsible and accountable, an effort he said will require increased short-term investment in order to realize long-term savings.

But if Congress follows through on a massive defunding of USAID as the 165-member Republican Study Group recommended yesterday, it would not only put USAID's reforms in jeopardy, but have real and drastic negative implications for American power and the ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to Shah.

"That first and foremost puts our national security in real jeopardy because we are working hand and glove with our military to keep us safe," said Shah, referring to USAID missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, and Central America, and responding directly to congressional calls for cuts in foreign aid and development.

The RSC plan calls for $1.39 billion in annual savings from USAID. The USAID operating budget for fiscal 2010 was approximately $1.65 billion. The RSC spending plan summary was not clear if all the cuts would come from operations or from USAID administered programs. 

"That would have massive negative implications for our fundamental security," said Shah. "And as people start to engage in a discussion of what that would mean for protecting our border, for preventing terrorist safe havens and keeping our country safe from extremists' ideology … and what that would mean for literally taking children that we feed and keep alive through medicines or food and leaving them to starve. I think those are the types of things people will back away from."

The interests between the development community and U.S. national security objectives don't always align, and this tension is at the core of the debate on how to reinvigorate USAID. Short-term foreign-policy objectives sometimes don't match long-term development needs, and U.S. foreign-policy priorities are not made with development foremost in mind.

But Shah's ambitious drive to reform USAID seems to embrace the idea that development investments can be justified due to their linkage with national security. He is preparing to unveil next month USAID's first ever policy on combating violent extremism and executing counterinsurgency. He also plans to focus USAID's efforts on hot spots like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, while transitioning away from other countries that are faring well and downgrading the agency's presence in places like Paris, Rome, and Tokyo.

Shah pointed out that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and ISAF Commander Gen. David Petraeus have all come out in strong support of increasing USAID's capacity to do foreign aid.

"In the military they call us a high-value, low-density partner because we are of high value to the national security mission but there aren't enough of us and we don't have enough capability," he said. "This is actually a much, much, much more efficient investment than sending in our troops, not even counting the tremendous risk to American lives when we have to do that."

For those less concerned with matters of national security, Shah also framed his argument for development aid in terms of increased domestic economic and job opportunities: If we want to export more, we need to help develop new markets that are U.S.-friendly.

"If we are going to be competitive as a country and create jobs at home, we cannot ignore the billions of people who are currently very low income but will in fact form a major new middle-class market in the next two decades," he said.

One of the main criticisms of USAID both on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is that the agency has been reduced over the years to not much more than a contracting outfit, disbursing billions of dollars around the world to organizations that have mixed performance records. In Shah's view, if Congress wants USAID to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, it has to increase the agency's operating budget and allow the agency to monitor contracts in-house.

"It was the Bush administration that helped launch the effort to reinvest in USAID's capabilities and hiring and people, and the reason they did that is they recognized you save a lot more money by being better managers of contracts," Shah said. "We have a choice. We have a critical need to make the smart investments in our own operations … which over time will save hundreds of millions of dollars, as opposed to trying to save a little bit now by cutting our capacity to do oversight and monitoring."

Shah wouldn't comment on the latest and greatest USAID contracting scandal, where the agency suspended contractor AED from receiving any new contracts amid allegations of widespread fraud. But he did say that his office would be personally reviewing large sole-source contracts from now on, requiring independent and public evaluations, and that more corrective actions are in the works.

"I suspect you'll see more instances of effective, proactive oversight that in fact saves American taxpayers significant resources," he said.

The State Department denied a report today that it contacted the online money transfer service PayPal and asked them to cut ties with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, who remains behind bars in the United Kingdom.

"It is not true," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Cable. "We have not been in touch with PayPal."

Osama Bedier, vice president at PayPal, told an audience Wednesday at Paris' tech conference Le Web'10 that PayPal had shut down its business with WikiLeaks, which used the electronic money transfer service to collect donations, at the request of the State Department.

"The State Department told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward. We first comply with regulations around the world making sure that we protect our brand," Bedier reportedly said..

Crowley said that PayPal made the decision based on a publicly available letter sent last week to Assange and his lawyer from State Department counselor Harold Koh, which called the disclosure of 250,000 diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks an "illegal dissemination" of classified documents and said the leaks "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals -- from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

A reporter from the TechCrunch blog confirmed with Bedier after his speech that he was in fact working from the Koh letter that State had sent to WikiLeaks.

Crowley also responded to the remarks of Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, who seemed to alter his country's position on Assange, who is an Australian citizen, "Mr. Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network," said Rudd Tuesday. "The Americans are responsible for that."

"He's correct in that the primary responsibility for the leak existed within the United States government," Crowley said, being careful not to criticize Rudd and create yet one more diplomatic problem.

As for whether the United States will seek to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917 or some other U.S. laws, Crowley said that decision would be made by the Justice Department and the Defense Department. But he was clear about the State Department's position on the matter.

"Certainly, we believe that what Mr. Assange has done in the aftermath of that leak has put the interests of our country and others at risk, and put the lives of people who are reflected in these documents at risk," Crowley said. We haven't changed our view."

Maybe Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been hiding her sense of humor all this time, or maybe she was just feeling relaxed and relieved as her two-week tour of Asia reached its conclusion. But whatever the reason, she loosened up in a Nov. 7 interview with Australian radio hosts Hamish and Andy, pontificating on gravy chips, the Kardashians, Chinese food, and her "Goldilocks theory" of how to deal with foreign governments.

"If you look at American TV as much of the rest of the world does, you would think we all went around wrestling and wearing bikinis," she told the radio hosts, who were asking her about the difficulty of explaining the United States to a world youth culture that gets its information from cable television shows, such as Keeping up with the Kardashians.

Clinton also described how she interacts with foreign governments who aren't living up to their responsibilities to their own people. Too much pressure can be counterproductive, she said, but letting poorly performing governments off the hook is just as bad.

"I've got this Goldilocks theory of foreign relations," she said. "It's not too hot; it's not too cold. You've got to get it just right."

She also described the delicate discussions she often has with husband and former President Bill Clinton over their take-out dinner decisions.

"We practice different models of negotiation around important issues like that," she said. "Because if I were to say to him, as I have on many occasions, ‘What shall we have for dinner tonight?' If he says to me, ‘Oh, I don't care; you choose,' I know that's a really bad answer, because then I'm stuck with the responsibility."

The hosts pointed out that if those dinner negotiations were overheard and taken out of context, they could cause a diplomatic row.

"You want to make sure people don't know that he had half of the conversation, because you've got [a] former president talking to the current secretary of state: ;‘How do you feel about Chinese?'  ‘I don't know. I don't really like Chinese.' That could be catastrophic," one host said.

"That's why we have our rooms swept [for listening devices] every day," Clinton shot back.

Read the whole interview here:

(HT: Diplopundit)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added a new stop to her whirlwind tour of Asia that begins tomorrow, agreeing to travel to China for a meeting with State Counselor Dai Bingguo. Rather than meet in Hanoi, where both U.S. and Chinese delegations will be present for the East Asia Summit, the meeting will take place on Hainan Island -- a location fraught with political meaning for the two countries.

In April 2001, Hainan Island captured the attention of Washington when a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet and crash landed there. The Chinese detained the 24 crew members for 11 days until the Bush administration delivered what became known as the "Letter of the two sorries." Your humble Cable guy was an intern at the House International Relations Committee at the time and remembers well the tension and angst in Washington regarding the Chinese government's behavior during the incident, which constituted President George W. Bush's first real foreign policy crisis.

Fast forward to this week, when Clinton will land on the island (hopefully safely) at Chinese behest, during a less panicked but arguably more complicated juncture in the U.S.-China relationship. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters Tuesday that the meeting is part of the effort to increase high-level interactions at the top of the U.S.-China relationship, though he downplayed the significance of the location.

"I think State Counselor Dai had contemplated a trip to Vietnam, and then for a variety of scheduling purposes, the Chinese side thought it would make more sense for a quick visit to Hainan," he said. "I think it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's in many respects just a convenience for Chinese friends in particular."

But he also acknowledged that there is a lot of work to do on both sides to bring the U.S.-China relationship back to a point where President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao can have a successful meeting in Washington early next year.

"We are seriously engaged in high-level diplomacy to ensure that this trip and the preparations in advance for it go smoothly," Campbell said.

The location of high-level meetings is not insignificant. Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with his Chinese counterpart this month on neutral ground in Hanoi after months of cool military to military relations, which began after the Chinese rejected Gates' offer to visit China. Hanoi is also the location where Clinton laid out the administration's view on the South China Sea dispute in a speech that shocked and upset the Chinese government.

Meanwhile, a lot of reporting in Washington this week has suggested that the Obama administration's new strategy is to build up alliances in Asia while "stiffening its approach toward Beijing." Administration officials tell us that this "stiffening" started as early as last May after the Gates snub and alliance-building has been taking place since the beginning of the administration. But only just now is it showing dividends in public, as was seen during Clinton's last visit to Hanoi, where several other nations stood up to support her remarks.

Campbell explains the balance of the two efforts this way:

"The United States wants very much a strong, productive relationship with China. We're seeking to intensify our dialogue on a range of issues," he said. "We're also working closely with a number of states in the Asian-Pacific region, most prominently to underscore the U.S. strong commitment to remain an active, engaged, diplomatic, political, security and economic player in the Asian-Pacific region going forward at this time."

Campbell also dismissed a Washington Times report that said the administration's China team is divided into two groups: the "kowtow group" that seeks to placate Beijing and the "sad and disappointed" group that is arguing for a tougher tone.

"I think that the discussion of this kind of division is wrong, is incorrect. And myself as a person, I think of myself as quite optimistic, generally," Campbell said.

The Chinese government is secretly reaching out to the Obama administration with the message that they want to improve strained U.S.-China relations ahead of President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington next January.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed Thursday that the Chinese Communist Party leader will make a state visit to Washington to hold a summit with President Obama in January, although no specific date has been set. Hu and Obama met Thursday on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, amid increasing regional angst at what the Obama administration and several East Asian countries see as China's increasingly aggressive and arrogant foreign policy.

Recently, the Chinese have been sending out "Track 2" messages, or informal communiqués, to the United States, indicating that they now want to restart military-to-military relations, which were established in 2009 but cut off by Beijing earlier this year, an administration official told The Cable. In response, the administration is dispatching an interagency team led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer to Beijing next week to meet with Chinese officials.

The Obama administration does not want the military relationship between the two countries to become a bargaining chip that the Chinese can use to voice their displeasure with U.S. policy. Their argument is that military cooperation is in both countries' interests -- not a reward. If China agrees to restart cooperation without any direct incentives, that's a win for the Obama team.

"From our perspective we believe a stable and reliable mil to mil relationship is in the interests of both countries," the official said. "We want something that is continuous through times of friction, with crisis management mechanisms to avoid conflict. The lack of consistent dialogue increases the risks of miscalculation or misunderstanding."

There are several recent actions by the Chinese that have alienated their neighbors. In addition to trying to assert control over the South China Sea, a move that angered Southeast Asian leaders, Beijing also ruined its relationship with South Korea by supporting North Korea after the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan.

This month, China took retaliatory measures against Japan after Tokyo arrested a Chinese boat captain for ramming his ship against Japanese Coast Guard boats near the disputed Senkaku Islands. This is another example of what many see as Beijing overplaying its hand and taking its new international confidence too far.

"This sort of behavior by the Chinese is not exactly winning hearts and minds in the region. You can have a policy difference without engaging in dangerous behavior," the official said.

The Obama administration has made a deliberate and calculated shift in its approach to China over the last few months, deciding to resist more forcefully Chinese efforts to expand their influence and control over regional issues, and to coordinate their China policy more closely with regional allies and partners.

The first public display of this new approach surfaced when Defense Secretary Robert Gates lambasted the Chinese People's Liberation Army for cutting off military to military relations during his trip to Singapore in May.

"The PLA is significantly less interested in this relationship than the political leadership of China," Gates said after being refused permission to visit China as part of that trip.

The second major public display of the Obama administration's new approach was when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shocked the Chinese leadership by announcing that the United States would lead a multilateral effort to resist Chinese claims of ownership of the South China Sea. Several Southeast Asian nations rose up in support of the U.S. action.

"The Obama administration's approach to the South China Sea was a very important and well-crafted response to Chinese assertiveness. Such strength is a vital element of our China strategy, and sends a message to Beijing that the United States will protect its interests," said Abe Denmark, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

China watchers see Beijing's secret outreach to Washington as a realization that they overplayed their hand and are now trying to do some damage control.

"There was that period toward the end of last year and the beginning of this year when the popular thinking in China was that the U.S. had run its course and China had more leverage and so can push their agenda a bit. Now there's a move to tamp down the Chinese sense of triumphalism," said Charles Freeman Jr., who holds the Freeman Chair (no relation) for China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Freeman sees the administration's shift as not really a change in policy so much as a change in attitude.

"[The Obama administration] has less interest in sucking up and showing deference to China, because that didn't work, but there's been no official shift in policy. It's just that they're a little fed up with the arrogance," he said.

Not all China hands are convinced that Beijing is ready to play nice, especially in light of the ongoing spat with Japan, in which Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has committed the United States to support Tokyo. 

"After this latest case with Japan, they haven't learned very much," said Dan Blumenthal, a former Pentagon official who worked on China policy and is now with the American Enterprise Institute. "I don't think there's a realization in China that they've overplayed their hand. They're causing all the countries around the region to fear them and want more involvement by the U.S."

Many analysts see China's aggressiveness as an indication that the PLA is gaining influence inside the Chinese system in the run up to a 2012 leadership transition. The Washington Post reported Friday on the various tensions pulling and pushing policy within the sprawling Beijing bureaucracy.

The one thing the administration, panda huggers, and China hawks can all agree on is that nobody really knows what Chinese intentions are regarding the United States and what exactly this latest outreach will mean.

"Schiffer and others have to go over there and figure out if this is just another attempt at warm and fuzzies or if there's something real there," Freeman said.

President Obama will unveil his administration's new overarching strategy on global development Wednesday in a speech at the United Nations.

"Today, I am announcing our new U.S. Global Development Policy -- the first of its kind by an American administration," Obama will say, according to prepared remarks.  "It's rooted in America's enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being. And it outlines our new approach and the new thinking that will guide our overall development efforts."

The president's speech will place global development in the context of his National Security Strategy released in May, which emphasizes the interconnected relationship of security, economics, trade, and health.

"My national security strategy recognizes development as not only a moral imperative, but a strategic and economic imperative," Obama will say. "We've reengaged with multilateral development institutions. And we're rebuilding the United States Agency for International Development as the world's premier development agency. In short, we're making sure that the United States will be a global leader in international development in the 21^st century."

The White House was busy laying the groundwork in advance of the president's speech, touting the highlights of what it calls the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD). A fact sheet provided to reporters laid out the basic ideas of the U.S. strategy, which includes a focus on sustainable outcomes, placing a premium on economic growth, using technological advances to their maximum advantage, being more selective about where to focus efforts, and holding all projects accountable for results.

The White House will not release the full text of this initiative, which was previously known as the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development (PSD-7).

On some specific items of contention, the White House has decided that USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah will not have a permanent seat on the National Security Council, as many in the development community wanted. However, he will be invited to attend its meetings when issues affecting his work are being discussed.

An executive-level Development Policy Committee will be created to oversee all interagency development policy efforts, as was outlined in a leaked copy of a previous draft of the new policy. There will also be a mandated once-every-four-years review of global development strategy, which will be sent to the president.

Obama announced the new policy during the U.N.'s conference on the Millennium Development Goals. "The real significance here is the fact that the President chose to unveil this at the U.N. and in the context of the MDGs," said Peter Yeo, vice president for public policy at the U.N. Foundation. "[I]t shows how closely the administration wants to work with the U.N. and U.N. agencies in implementing them."

Development community leaders reacted to the new policy with cautious optimism and a hope that implementation would go as planned.

"President Obama has delivered a big victory for the world's poor, our national interests, and the movement to make U.S. foreign assistance more effective," said George Ingram, a former senior official at USAID and current co-chair of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network.  "Now the tough task of implementation begins, and we are ready to work with the Administration to ensure that key reform principles are applied and codified in law, because that is the real way to make this policy one of the President's great legacies."

Deputy National Security Advisor for international economics Michael Froman, in a Friday conference call with reporters, defended the White House's decision not to release the entire PPD. "It's general policy that we can release a detailed summary of it, but as I understand it the policy is not to release the PPD themselves," he said.

Development community leaders were nonetheless disappointed.

"We understand that NSC documents like this aren't normally released in full, but there are pitfalls in this approach," said Greg Adams, director of aid effectiveness at Oxfam America.  "The Administration should make sure that enough gets out to not only provide the American people with a clear rationale for the new approach, but also make sure that our partners around the world understand how we plan to change the way we work with them."

On a Thursday conference call with development community leaders to preview the release, one senior administration official mentioned your humble Cable guy while requesting anonymity and asking the participants to hold the information close.

"I know that with this group it's a little unusual to do calls on background and embargoed... not that I think anybody on this line has ever talked to Josh Rogin," the official said.