The Obama administration reacted cautiously to today's International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear weapons program and declined to say how exactly how they would respond. But across Washington, suggestions for tightening the noose on the Iranian regime were abundant.

"I'm definitely going to tell you we need time to study it," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters on Tuesday following the release of the IAEA report, which alleges that Iran had until 2003 an intricate and extensive program to design and build a nuclear warhead to fit atop a Shabaab-3 missile. The report also stated that Iran worked on components for such a warhead, prepared for nuclear tests, and maintained aspects of the program well past 2003 -- activities that may still be ongoing today.

"I think you know the process here: that after a report like this comes out, we also have a scheduled meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors coming up on November 18th, so Iran will be an agenda item at that meeting. So we will take the time between now and then to study this," Nuland said.

In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday afternoon, two senior administration officials predicted that the Obama administration would increase sanctions on Iran in light of the report but declined to offer any specifics on what they might be.

That explanation wasn't well received by lawmakers in both parties on Tuesday, who offered plenty of specific ideas on how to ramp up pressure on Tehran and have no intention of waiting for the administration to "study" the IAEA's findings.

The Cable spoke on Tuesday with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about the report.

"It's of enormous concern to everybody and a lot of conversations are taking place right now about how to respond," Kerry told The Cable. "It clearly means we have to ratchet up on Iran, probably tougher sanctions and other things."

Kerry declined to endorse one big idea floating around town, namely to take actions that would collapse the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and ruin the country's currency, bringing the Iranian economy to its knees.

"There are a lot of options, you want to pick them carefully and you want to be thoughtful about what's going to be effective," Kerry said.

Kirk, who co-authored a letter in August with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling for collapsing the CBI, and which was signed by 92 senators, tweeted today that the White House's reaction to the report Tuesday constituted "national security malpractice."

Kirk met with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley on Monday night to give him the "hard sell" on the idea of collapsing the CBI, he told The Cable. Kirk said that the concept under consideration is to give friendly countries that are dependent on Iranian oil -- such as Japan, South Korea, and Turkey -- a time window to shift their purchases from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

Kirk and Schumer are planning to introduce a bill soon that would be a Senate companion to an amendment by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) to require the president to determine within 30 days the CBI's role in Iran's illicit activities. If the president determines that the CBI is complicit, the bill would require the administration to cut off any foreign banks doing business with the CBI from participating in the U.S. financial system.

The main risk in collapsing the CBI is that it could bring down the Iranian oil industry along with it, risking a cascading effect on world energy markets that would exacerbate the global economic crisis.

McCain told The Cable today that it's a risk he is willing to take. "Libya is cranking up their oil exports. There's always risk, but there's a greater risk when you know that they're about to become nuclear weaponized," he said.

"The first thing we should do is talk to the Russians and the Chinese and tell them to get with it and pass the increased sanctions through the U.N.," McCain said, adding that the Obama has leverage against Russian and China if it chooses to use it. "Russia wants in the WTO, China wants a lot of things. There should be consequences for their failure to act."

Graham agreed that the negative impact of collapsing the CBI was a necessary cost of ramping up pressure on Iran.

"We've got make a decision: What's the biggest threat to the world, a nuclear-armed Iran or sanctions that would hurt us and the people of Iran?" Graham told The Cable. "You've got two choices, the policy of containment or the policy of preemption. I'm in the preemption camp. I don't think containment works. The only way to stop this is to prevent this and that means changing behavior."

Graham said existing sanctions don't seem to be working, which means that the sanctions regime has to be fundamentally changed. "If that doesn't work, the other option is military force." But Graham cautioned that if there were to be a military strike on Iran, it would have to include a massive assault on Iran's counterattacking capabilities.

"You'd have to destroy their air force, sink their navy, and deal with their long-range missile threat. So you'd have to go in big," he said. "If you attack Iran you open Pandora's box. If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you empty Pandora's box. So these are not good choices."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said in a statement that the threat of military force must be credible and he called for Congress to pass a new Iran sanctions bill, one that the administration previously said was unnecessary.

The House and Senate have each unveiled a version of the bill that would tighten existing sanctions, compel the administration to enforce penalties already on the books, and levy a host of new restrictions against members of Iran's regime and companies that aid Iran's energy, banking, and arms sectors. The bills are a follow-up to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act (CISADA) that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed in July 2010.

Former Treasury Department official Matthew Levitt, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Cable that there's no consensus yet inside the administration or around the world that collapsing the CBI would be possible without doing severe damage to the world economy.

But Levitt offered several things the administration can do immediately to ramp up pressure on Iran, including pressuring countries to scale back Iranian diplomatic presence in their capitals, restricting the travel of Iranian officials around the world, and setting up a multilateral customs body to enforce sanctions against Iran, modeled after what was done in wake of the Kosovo crisis.

"The administration is not being creative enough with the tools they have," Levitt said. In the coming days, he predicted, "You are going to see scrambling as to what can be done."

The Obama administration is scrambling right now to find a way around the fact that existing U.S. law could force the United States to stop participating in the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO if the Palestinians are given member state status, setting a precedent that could repeat itself in a host of other U.N. organizations.

The administration is contending with a 1994 law (P.L. 103-236, Title IV), which would bar U.S. contributions "to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood."

Another law (P.L. 101-246, Title IV), from 1990, states that, "No funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or any other act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states."

The Palestinians cleared a hurdle this week when the UNESCO executive board approved their bid to join the organization, sending the matter to a vote by UNESCO's 193-nation General Conference. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized UNESCO on Wednesday for taking up the issue.

"I think that that is a very odd procedure indeed and would urge the governing body of UNESCO to think again before proceeding with that vote," Clinton told reporters in the Dominican Republic.

She acknowledged the "strong legislative prohibition that prevents the United States from funding organizations that jump the gun, so to speak, in recognizing entities before they are fully ready for such recognition."

The U.S. has not yet paid their bills on UNESCO for 2011, about $80 million, which is 22 percent of UNESCO's budget. If the law is triggered and the U.S. does not pay in 2012, the U.S. would lose its vote in the organization. Plus, UNESCO officials have told the U.S. that if U.S. funds are not expected over the next two years, they may have to initiate massive layoffs beginning in January to account for the shortfall in funds.

Palestinian membership in UNESCO would also grant them immediate membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). The U.S. would have to stop contributing to WIPO but America is not a member of UNIDO.

We're told that the State Department is currently having their attorneys draft a legal opinion on how U.S. laws would affect U.S. participations in U.N. bodies that grant the Palestinians member state status. Their ruling will have ramifications not only for UNESCO, but for all other U.N. specialized agencies that the PLO is expected to submit their application to, such as the IAEA, WTO, WHO, World Bank, and others.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday that the administration was "still working" on what the legislative triggers regarding funding would mean. But a State Department official said that the administration has not been able to find a way around the law.

"We have a suicide vest padlocked around our torso and the Palestinians have the remote control," the State Department official said. "They get to decide whether they blow us up or not. It's 100 percent up to them."

Meanwhile, Congress is ratcheting up its own involvement on the issue. Later today, 10 House appropriators will call on UNESCO not to move forward with consideration of Palestinian membership, in a letter to UNESCO Executive Director Irina Bokova obtained by The Cable.

"We... respectfully request that you do everything in your power to ensure that the Palestine Liberation Organization's application to become a Member State does not come before the UNESCO General Conference," states the letter, prepared by the office of Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ). "Any recognition of Palestine as a Member State would not only jeopardize the hope for a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, but would endanger the United States' contribution to UNESCO."

Signatories of the letter include the heads of the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee, Kay Granger (R-TX) and Nita Lowey (D-NY), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Steve Austria (R-IL), Charles Dent (R-PA), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

One senior Republican staffer pointed out the irony that it was President George W. Bush who brought the United States back into UNESCO, and now the United States might be forced to leave the organization by Obama -- a president who came to office promising to reverse what he argued was Bush's tendency to ignore the international community.

"Remember, we joined UNESCO in part because we needed them to help de-radicalize textbooks particularly in the Muslim world after 9/11 and as a platform to counter expanding anti-American attitudes in academia," the staffer said "And now, by de-funding UNESCO, we lose all the leverage we had gained."

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is calling for the United States to cut off its contributions to the United Nations, but only a few years ago, he helped lead an effort calling for reforms at the United Nations that recommended increased U.S. funding for several of its programs.

Gingrich, in a Wednesday op-ed entitled, "Suspend U.N. Funding Now!" criticized the United Nations for entertaining an expected resolution that would grant statehood recognition to the Palestinian territories. He said that the United States should suspend all of its contributions to the United Nations if the resolution is allowed to proceed.

"We should be willing to say that if the U.N. is going to circumvent negotiations and declare the territory of one of its own members an independent state, we aren't going to pay for it. We can keep our $7.6 billion a year," Gingrich wrote. "We don't need to fund a corrupt institution to beat up on our allies."

More broadly, Gingrich criticized the Obama administration's commitment to working within U.N. institutions, calling it "clearly a corrupt organization."

"The administration's commitment to ‘multilateralism' at the U.N. is nothing more than appeasement," he wrote.

But back in 2005, Gingrich was singing a different tune. He co-chaired a task force on how to improve the United Nations with former Senate majority leader and recently departed Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell, and issued a report written with the help of the United States Institute of Peace.

"The American people want an effective United Nations that can fulfill the goals of its Charter in building a safer, freer, and more prosperous world," Gingrich and Mitchell wrote in a joint statement at the top of the report. "What was most striking was the extent to which we were able to find common ground, including on our most important finding, which was ‘the firm belief that an effective United Nations is in America's interests.'"

The task force featured a bipartisan set of foreign policy leaders, including Anne-Marie Slaughter, Thomas Pickering, Danielle Pletka, Wesley Clark, and James Woolsey.

The report did include a great deal of criticism of the United Nations, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and its ineffectiveness in protecting victims of genocide around the world. But Gingrich and Mitchell saw the answer to these problems as increasing funding for U.N. institutions, not withholding U.S. contributions from the United Nations.

They called for more staffing and funding for peacekeeping operations, more funding for the international mission in Darfur, a doubling of the budget for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and more funding for the World Health Organization.

As Mark Goldberg pointed out today on the U.N. Dispatch blog, the  $7.6 billion the United States contributes to the U.N. largely goes to support exactly those programs that Gingrich once saw as important enough to warrant budget increases. Moreover, U.N. supporters argue that withholding contributions gives the United States less influence over U.N. actions, not more.

"If the USA stopped paying its U.N. dues, it would be stripped of its voting rights at the U.N. Presumably, that would it much harder to defend Israel at the Security Council and General Assembly," Goldberg wrote.  "I can't help think that the Gingrich of 2004 would be appalled at the reasoning of 2011 Gingrich."

The House Foreign Affairs Committee began its Wednesday markup of the State Department authorization bill by voting to end funding for the Organization of American States (OAS), with Republicans lambasting the organization as an enemy of freedom and democracy.

The one-hour debate over the GOP proposal to cut the entire $48.5 million annual U.S contribution to the OAS is only the beginning of what looks to be a long and contentious debate over the fiscal 2012 State Department and foreign operations authorization bill written by chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Democrats accused the Republicans of isolationism and retreat for their proposal, while the Republicans accused the OAS of being an ally of anti-U.S. regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. The OAS Charter was signed in 1948 at a conference led by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall.

"Let's not continue to fund an organization that's bent on destroying democracy in Latin America," said Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL), the head of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the sponsor of the amendment. "You will support an organization that is destroying the dreams of the people of Latin America."

Other GOP members piled on, accusing the OAS of supporting Fidel Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

"The OAS is an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy to the interests of freedom and security," said Rep. David Rivera (R-FL). He compared U.S. support of the OAS to a scene from the movie Animal House, where a fraternity pledge is being paddled on his rear end and humiliatingly asks for more punishment.

"How much longer will we say to the OAS ‘Please sir, may I have another," Rivera said.

Panel Democrats had a hard time holding back their astonishment and frustration with the GOP for forcing a vote that they argued would signal America's retreat from multilateral engagement around the world.

"I might offer an amendment to pull out of the world, to build a moat around the United States and put a dome over the thing," said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), sarcastically. "This is getting ridiculous."

"Here we are for a lousy $48 million willing to symbolically turn our backs on our own hemisphere... This is folly. it's more than folly, it's dangerous," Ackerman said. "And you've got the votes to do it, that's the frightening thing. But what we should be looking at are opportunities to reach out to the world."

Ranking Democrat Howard Berman (D-CA) pointed out that the United States has a treaty obligation to pay its dues to the OAS, and argued that the body has made a positive contribution to progress toward democracy since the 1960s.

"The OAS is an enemy? We are really living in two different worlds," Berman said.

Rep. Gregody Meeks (D-NY) and Gerald Connolly (D-VA) also gave impassioned defenses of the OAS. Meeks praised its help in supporting elections in Haiti, while Connelly made the point that no international organization is going to support U.S. policy at every turn.

But by and large, the two parties couldn't even agree on whether Cuba was a member of the organization. In fact, the organization lifted its ban on Cuban membership in 2009 but stated that the present Cuban government could only join if it adheres to the group's democratic principles.

The defunding amendment passed 22-20 along party lines.

Berman criticized the process Ros-Lehtinen is using to move the bill and said that its provisions restricting foreign aid and the expected amendments would prevent it from gaining traction in the Senate or becoming law.

"Regrettably, I get the sense that what I already consider to be a bad bill is going to get much worse in this markup and on the floor. That will simply ensure that this is a one-house bill," Berman said in his opening statement.

Specifically, Berman criticized the restrictions that Ros-Lehtinen's bill would place on U.S. assistance to Pakistan, notably the $1.5 billion provided by the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package.

"On Pakistan, you tie all economic assistance to the certification in Kerry-Lugar that applied to security assistance, toughen the certification, and eliminate the waiver," Berman said. "I agree that we need to get tough with Pakistan on security assistance, but I fundamentally disagree with your approach on economic aid."

Ros-Lehtinen said that her bill would put Islamabad on notice "that it is no longer business as usual" when it comes to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.  She promised that the Pakistani government "will be held to account if they continue to refuse to cooperate with our efforts to eliminate the nuclear black market, destroy the remaining elements of Osama Bin Laden's network, and vigorously pursue our counter-terrorism objectives."

"I think the prospect of a cutoff of assistance will get their attention and that the games being played with our security will finally stop," she said.

As U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its participation in the controversial Human Rights Council (HRC) are under attack in the Congress, a top State Department official said on Wednesday that U.S. engagement at the HRC has been effective and benefited Israel.

"U.N. bodies, including the Human Rights Council, have improved as the result of direct U.S. engagement. If we cede ground, if our engagement in the U.N. system is restricted -- these bodies likely would be dominated by our adversaries," said Esther Brimmer, the assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Prior to the U.S. decision to join the HRC in 2009, Israel was singled out for six special sessions intended to single out Israeli actions for condemnation, there were too many unbalanced resolutions focused on Israel, and too little attention paid to the world's worst human rights situations, she said.

But now, Brimmer contended the situation was getting better: "The challenges continue at the Council, but the Council's improvement through U.S. engagement is undeniable."

She highlighted the council's decision on Wednesday to issue a statement calling on the Syrian government to allow access to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and referred to "daily reports of killings, arbitrary detention, and torture of men, women, and children."

Syria dropped its bid for a seat on the council last month under pressure and the council suspended Libya in March, although praised Libya in a report only two months prior to that.

Most of Brimmer's speech focused on what she called "the administration's far reaching efforts to normalize Israel's status in and across the U.N. and the broader multilateral system."

Brimmer also criticized congressional efforts to withhold U.S. funding for the United Nations, an effort led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).

"The United States must maintain the strongest position it can at the U.N., and that means paying its bills on time and in full," she said. "How could we have won tough Security Council sanctions on Iran or North Korea if we were continuing to incur arrears?"

"How would it impact the president's commitment to a shared security with Israel?" Brimmer said. "These are risks we cannot afford to take. The United States cannot afford failed short-term tactics that have long-term implications for our security, and we must be a responsible global leader, and that means paying our bills."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed Asian economic leaders Wednesday morning and pledged U.S. leadership on building a free, transparent, and fair trade community in East and Southeast Asia.

Clinton's remarks were part of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum being held in downtown Washington, which will feature meetings with senior Obama administration officials throughout the week. The United States is hosting the annual APEC conference this November in Hawaii.

Clinton also called for APEC to serve as a more active driver of economic institution building in Asia. "We must decide how we will work together -- what rules we will adopt; what principles we will abide by; what behavior we will encourage and discourage in ourselves and in each other. These are open questions. We are called to answer them as individual economies and as an economic community," Clinton said. "APEC provides a forum for reaching those answers."

She touted increased U.S. involvement in Asian regional organizations, including the Obama administration's decision to join the East Asia Summit, its push to expand the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and an increased dedication of time and resources to U.S. membership in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Senate just confirmed Obama campaign bundler David Carden as America's first-ever full time resident ambassador to ASEAN. Until Carden's arrival, Scot Marcial served as both the State Department's representative at ASEAN and the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.

"Together, these actions by the United States comprise a strategy that we call ‘forward-deployed diplomacy,'" Clinton said. "It reflects our belief that the security and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region is critical to the security and prosperity of the United States and the world. And furthermore, that as a Pacific nation and a Pacific power, the United States has a responsibility to help lead in meeting the challenges and making the most of the opportunities facing us today."

Clinton explained that trade in Asia was key to the administration's effort to increase economic growth, and reiterated that the Obama administration wanted Congress to ratify free trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. She didn't mention Asia's largest economy, China, in her remarks.

The new GOP leadership in the House is promising to aggressively confront the Obama administration on a full range of foreign policy issues. Now, it has reopened the debate over the performance and reform of the United Nations.

"Policy on the United Nations should based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible stewards for the American taxpayer dollars?" read the opening statement by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) at Tuesday's committee briefing on the U.N. "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no."

Ros-Lehtinen, who didn't attend the hearing because she was in Florida tending to her ill mother, criticized several instances of alleged poor performance or corruption at the U.N. in her statement. She railed against the Human Rights Council (HRC), a U.N. organization the Obama administration joined, as "a rogue's gallery dominated by human rights violators who use it to ignore real abuses and instead attack democratic Israel relentlessly."

She promised to introduce legislation that would withhold U.S. contributions to the U.N. until reforms bear fruit. A previous version of her bill would withhold all funding from the HRC and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which distributes aid to Palestinian refugees.

Former chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) largely agreed with Ros-Lehtinen on her assessment of the problems at the U.N., but disagreed with her on the solutions.

"The flaws, shortcomings and outrages of the United Nations, both past and present, are numerous and sometimes flagrant," he said, citing the HRC, the Oil for Food scandal; sexual violence perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers in Africa, and problems at the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). But Berman argued that withholding contributions would only lessen U.S. influence there and hasn't worked in the past.

Berman also contended that, though the U.N. still has significant problems, real progress is being made. He argued that many of the reforms called for in a 2005 high level panel report by Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell have been at least partially realized, including the establishment of a U.N. ethics office and a independent audit advisory committee to look into the OIOS.

"We have a much greater chance of success if we work inside the U.N. with like-minded nations to achieve the goals that I think both sides on this committee and in our Congress share," he said.

The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the U.N.'s annual operating budget, which comes to about $516 million in fiscal 2011. Washington is also responsible for 27 percent of the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget, which comes to about $2.18 billion this year. The appropriations bills put forth by Congress last year fully funded these obligations, but since it was never enacted, the issue could come up as early as March, when Congress will need to pass a new continuing resolution to keep the government operating.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee briefing was dominated by witnesses critical of the U.N., who called for tougher reform pressures from both Congress and the Obama administration. "The U.N. may have five official languages, but the bottom line speaks loudest," said the Heritage Foundation's Brett Schaefer, who called for withholding U.S. contributions.

Claudia Rossett, a journalist-in-residence at the right-leaning Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that the problems of corruption and mismanagement at the United Nations is the result of a lack of commitment to oversight and reform from top officials, including Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

Next to speak at the hearing was Hillel Neuer, the director of an organization called U.N. Watch, which monitors U.N. action on human rights and Israel-related issues. He compared the HRC to "a jury that includes murderers and rapists, or a police force run in large part by suspected murderers and rapists who are determined to stymie investigation of their crimes," and said, "the council's machinery of fact-finding missions exists almost solely to attack Israel."

Neuer also drew attention to statements by the HRC Special Rapporteur  Richard Falk alleging that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job done with the knowledge of the U.S. government, comments Ambassador Susan Rice called "so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position."

Finally, the hearing turned to Peter Yeo, Vice President for Public Policy at the U.N. Foundation, a non-governmental organization that advocates for the U.N., who pointed out that the U.N. is working hand-in-hand with the United States in many of the world's most dangerous hot spots, including Afghanistan, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, Haiti, and also was deeply involved in the latest round of sanctions against Iran.

He also pointed out that polls show most Americans support funding the U.N. and American firms receive U.N contracts greater than the sum total of U.S. taxpayer contributions.

"The U.N. is not a perfect institution, but it serves a near-perfect purpose: to bolster American interests from Africa to the Western Hemisphere and to allow our nation to share the burdens of promoting international peace and stability," he said.

Yeo's arguments were bolstered by Mark Quarterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who said that the U.N. needs support because it feeds millions of starving people across the globe, deploys peacekeepers in countries where the United States is not able or interested in sending manpower, and is able to talk to regimes that Washington can't access.

"U.S. leadership and influence in the U.N. results in part from its status as the largest contributor to the organization. We must not return to the days of withholding funds as some have suggested. Withholding funds hurts the U.N. and doesn't advance U.S. interests," he said.

Several non-governmental organizations praised the State Department's first- ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which was released on Wednesday, while others pointed out what they see as the shortcomings of the document and worried about whether it could ever be implemented.

One huge issue is whether Congress, where power in the House is about to shift from Democratic to Republican hands, will properly fund the initiatives in the QDDR. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke extensively on Wednesday about how she sees the QDDR as a document that can justify funding for diplomacy and development next year, while also rebuilding the capacity of USAID and reforming the way the State Department does business both at home and abroad.

"Through the QDDR, Secretary Clinton and [USAID] Administrator [Rajiv] Shah have demonstrated their commitment to changing the way we do business and increasing the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of our foreign affairs agencies," said outgoing House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA). "I look forward to working with them, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to institutionalize durable reforms that protect national security, advance global prosperity and promote shared values."

The new incoming chairwoman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), didn't have an immediate reaction to the report, but pledged earlier this month to use her perch to reduce funding for both the State Department and foreign operations.

"It's all about implementation," said Gordon Adams, former head of national security budgeting for the Clinton White House. "As the Secretary said, the budget environment is tight. So getting some of this funded is going to be hard, especially when the Republicans are gunning for foreign aid."

Adams, who also teaches at American University and works on budget issues at the Stimson Center, released a scorecard on Wednesday pointing out the successes and shortcomings of the review. For example, it said that the QDDR does a good job of laying out the major goals and challenges facing American diplomatic efforts but fails to "prioritize roles and missions and provide metrics for success."

Similarly, the QDDR succeeds at outlining the need for more budgetary planning and coordination but lacks sufficient detail about the process to link budget decisions to personnel and management changes, Adams' scorecard noted.

Various development organizations praised the report on Wednesday, and pledged to keep a close eye on the changes as the implementation process moves forward.

For example, the ONE Campaign, an organization dedicated to combating extreme poverty, praised the decision to give big development initiatives to USAID.

"ONE applauds the move to focus leadership of the Administration's two signature development initiatives - Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative," said CEO David Lane. "We will now look to USAID to demonstrate its ability to deliver on the admirable and critical outcomes promised by these two initiatives."

Several praised the Clinton team for completing the review, but noted that its success or failure will be determined by actions, not the words on the page.

"I have seen many exhaustive reviews during my time in both Congress and the Cabinet, and while no one may ever remember the acronym, the QDDR will have a tremendous impact in ensuring our civilian programs are more effective and efficient," said U.S. Global Leadership Coalition Chairman Dan Glickman. 

Paul O'Brien, vice president of policy and advocacy campaigns for Oxfam America, noted that while the QDDR clearly puts ambassadors and chiefs of missions at the head of country teams as the so-call "CEOs" of American diplomacy, it doesn't tackle how the inevitable conflicts between short-term foreign policy objectives and longer-term development goals are resolved.

"The QDDR is an important step in reaffirming the efforts to modernize USAID and further elevate it as ‘the world's premier development agency. But the document leaves open the question of how the United States will resolve situations where diplomacy and development will require different approaches and tradeoffs," he said.

David Beckmann and George Ingram, co-chairs of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), called for the reforms in the QDDR to be codified in law through corresponding congressional action.

"These reforms would pay major dividends in terms of lives saved and improved around the world -- and they would make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are getting into the hands of people who need them. But they will only have lasting impact if the Administration and bipartisan Members of Congress work together to develop and pass legislation that establishes them in law," they said in a statement.

Clinton acknowledged most of these concerns in her town hall meeting in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday morning and promised that the QDDR release will be the beginning, not the end, of the reform process.

"I'm determined that this report will not merely gather dust, as did so many before it," she said, adding with a smile, "I'm looking forward to the many challenges of implementation."

On the same day he visited his boyhood home of Indonesia, President Obama nominated David Carden, a securities lawyer and top fundraiser from his presidential campaign, to be the United States' first ever resident ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But to Washington's Asia policy community, Carden is  a complete unknown.

Carden, who chairs the securities litigation and SEC enforcement practice at the law firm Jones Day, partnered with his wife Rebecca Riley to raise at least $500,000 for Obama's campaign. The campaign didn't disclose exact fundraising figures for their biggest bundlers, but Carden and Riley were among Obama's top 35 fundraisers.

Obama's presidential campaign raised at least $76.5 million from "bundling," a means by which supporters who have exceeded their personal contribution limits round up contributions from friends, family, and associates and present them to the campaign in one big bundle.

Carden's selection is another example of the White House's tendency to give diplomatic posts to those who filled its campaign coffers, rather than regional experts or seasoned diplomats. Other examples of the phenomenon include the appointment of investment banker Louis Susman as ambassador to Britain, Pittsburgh Steelers owner Daniel Rooney as ambassador to Ireland, entertainment mogul Charles Rivkin as Ambassador to France, and California lawyer John Roos as ambassador to Japan.

The appointment comes at a crucial time for the Obama administration, which is actively attempting to deepen its engagement with Asian nations. The success or failure of that effort will, in large part, be linked to the performance of America's first envoy to ASEAN who will live in Jakarta and work on this issue full time. ASEAN is also a key avenue through which the U.S. is addressing the rise of China and ASEAN countries are looking to Washington to match the increased pressure and influence being brought to bear on the region by Beijing.

The choice of Carden, who has limited diplomatic or regional expertise, came as a surprise to many in the Asia community that he will now be working with on a daily basis.

"We don't know him," said Ernie Bower, director of the Southeast Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "He doesn't have a lot of experience in Southeast Asia as far as I can tell. I still don't know the rationale for matching him up with this job."

As an international securities litigation attorney, Carden has dealt with cases involving Asian clients, including in Indonesia, Singapore, China. He's also dealt with clients from England, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and many other countries, according to the Jones Day website. He has represented several major financial firms, including Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch. (The latter three no longer exist).

If confirmed by the Senate, Carden would be the second U.S. ambassador to ASEAN, but the first to actually live in the region. Scot Marciel, who did the job from Washington while being dual-hatted as the deputy assistant secretary of state for southeast Asia, is now the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia. The U.S. Embassy in Indonesia, which Marciel heads, will serve as the location for Carden's new staff.

Carden's job will be to work with the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, prepare for big ASEAN meetings and visits, and build up an institutional foundation for U.S. interaction with ASEAN particularly on issues related to business, trade, and investment.

"David Carden has been working and developing investment opportunities in Asia since the early 1990s -- a market that he, like the president, long ago identified as critical to increasing U.S. exports and trade," a White House official told The Cable. "As the first resident ambassador to ASEAN, Mr. Carden will work to implement the president's plan to double exports over the next five years, as well as ASEAN's mission to accelerate economic growth in the region, strengthen ties between the ASEAN nations and the United States, and promote regional peace and stability."

Bower said that Carden's appointment probably signals the end of the notion that the U.S. ambassador to ASEAN might also be named the Special Envoy to Burma, as some, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), have advocated.

"He would really be out of his depth to do both jobs, and you would risk putting ASEAN back in the Burma box again," Bower said, referring to previous American tendencies toward avoiding full engagement with ASEAN because the brutal Burmese regime is a member.

The uncertainty surrounding this new position is exactly why some Asia experts think Carden's selection was a risky choice.

"Given that it's a new position, the very fact that there are no rules for what the U.S. resident ambassador does, I would prefer to have someone with extensive diplomatic experience," said Michael Auslin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Someone with a diplomatic background is more preferable because you're not just dealing with one country you can bone up on, you're dealing with 10 countries."

Not that bringing in a new face is necessarily bad, Auslin noted. For example, Obama's selection of campaign fundraiser John Roos to be U.S. ambassador to Japan at first worried Tokyo, but seems to be working out now.

But the ASEAN post is also unique because there are so many details that have yet to be ironed out regarding how Carden would interact with Marciel, the other nine U.S. ambassadors to ASEAN, the State Department, etc.

"We already have ambassadors to all of these nations, now we are going to have someone on top of that structure. We just don't know how much of this has been thought out," Auslin said.

Carden's Senate confirmation hearing, which has not yet been scheduled, will offer a glimpse into how much he knows about the region he would be moving to, and how much he has thought through his role as America's top envoy to Southeast Asia. But some see his selection as an indication that the White House is not happy with its system of appointing powerful envoys with broad mandates to run specific regions or issues.

"Either they want somebody like Holbrooke to come in and lead or they are just giving out titles and the real policymaking will still be centered back here in Washington," Auslin said. "We just don't know how this is going to work out."

After tonight's election, the division of power inside the Senate is set to shift dramatically -- and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) could see a huge change in its makeup, with an influx of new, young GOP members and the exit of some top committee Democrats.

If Republicans gain seats in the Senate, as is widely expected, several GOP senators  are expected to move off of the Foreign Relations Committee as assignments are reorganized according to new party ratios and new pecking orders of seniority. Several Democratic senators who serve as subcommittee chairmen could also lose their races, further altering the committee's makeup and its agenda.

SFRC is one of the oldest bodies in the Senate, established in 1816 when committees were first invented. As such, it holds an elevated status as what's known as a "Select A" committee, along with Appropriations, Finance, and Armed Services. Each senator can only hold one "Select A" assignment at a time, unless an exemption is granted, as is the case with Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), James Inhofe (R-OK), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), who all concurrently serve on the Armed Services Committee as well as the Foreign Relations Committee.

It's an open secret on Capitol Hill that of the four "Select A" committees, SFRC is typically considered the least desirable. Although the committee has an aggressive agenda of foreign policy-related legislation, it does not hold much payoff in terms of domestic political benefit or fundraising potential. The panel sets authorizations for State and Foreign ops funding, but appropriators actually dole out the money. The committee's other two functions are to confirm nominees and approve the occasional treaty, such as the New START agreement with Russia.

For all these reasons, several GOP members are looking to leave SFRC when their seniority level rises due to the influx of new Republican senators. Those said to be eyeing the exit door include Sens. Johnny Isaacson (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Jim DeMint (R-SC).

"Because the Foreign Relations Committee really doesn't do a lot beyond nominations and the infrequent treaty, Republican members who are junior are going to look to get off that committee and go to other exclusive committees," said one senior GOP senate aides.

Nobody knows for sure who will get to join the committee because the process is so unpredictable and the negotiations are all conducted behind closed doors. But the committee leadership is hoping that the new members come in with the spirit of compromise.

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has operated traditionally in a bipartisan manner, taking national security matters beyond politics. We would expect that to continue," said SFRC spokesman Frederick Jones.

Whether that expectation will be shared by the committee's potential incoming members is an open question. GOP Senate candidates have largely focused on domestic matters during their campaigns, and only Delaware GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell, who is not expected to win, has expressed a desire to join SFRC.

But the conservative, anti-administration tendencies of several potential new GOP senators could make the committee's coming debates on issues like Iran, nuclear proliferation, Israel, and foreign aid a whole lot more animated. Potential new members could include candidates Jim Miller (R-AL), John Raese (R-WV), Carly Fiorina (R-CA), or Sharon Angle (R-NV).

For example, Raese has announced his opposition to the New START treaty,  while potentially departing committee members Corker and Isaacson voted for it. Angle has been mum on foreign policy other than to say that "that we must do whatever necessary to protect America from terrorism."

"A Senator Angle on foreign relations could be fun," said another GOP Senate aide who is hoping for a committee that takes a more active role opposing President Obama's foreign policy agenda.

There may be big changes on the Democratic side of the committee as well. Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE) are retiring, and Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are both facing very tough challenges. Dodd and Feingold are the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the committee, respectively, and their departure could change the committee's agenda significantly. Feingold, for example, has pressed for a flexible timetable to bring troops home from Afghanistan, and has been a critic of some of the administration's nuclear civilian agreements and efforts to loosen international export controls.

Boxer, as chairwoman of the subcommittee on international operations and organizations, human rights, democracy, and global women's issues, has championed such bills as the International Violence Against Women Act, which could come up in committee during the post-election lame duck session or next year. Anti-abortion senators are set to oppose parts of the bill that fund organizations that support choice.

Additionally, if the party ratios in the Senate shift as is widely expected, Democrats will have fewer seats on each committee, and some current SFRC members will be forced to step aside. Will Asia subcommittee chair Jim Webb (D-VA) have to give up his seat and serve on only one exclusive committee? What about Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who is active on nuclear issues? He is said to be eyeing the appropriations seat left vacant by departing Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter.

On Nov. 15, when returning and new senators come to Washington, behind-the-scenes negotiations to resolve these issues will commence. The Senate Democratic and Republican leadership will first negotiate and then agree to ratios for all the committees. The leaders will then work with their caucus members to divide up the spoils.

On the GOP side, that means Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), who leads the formal process, will have the most influence. "This is an example of where McConnell actually has a lot of clout," one GOP aide explained. Seniority is important, but it's not the only consideration that the leadership will take into account -- personalities as well as personal interests will also influence their decision making, as with Webb and his experience dealing with Asia. "It's all done senator to senator," the aide explained.

On the Democratic side, the process could take much longer if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) loses his seat, and a leadership fight breaks out between Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). The process could be delayed even further if there are elections still pending due to recounts or run-off elections in three candidate races such as Florida or Alaska.

All of this spells uncertainty for the makeup of SFRC and the path forward for its agenda under the leadership of Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN).

"At this point, it's still up in the air who will sit on the committee; it's yet to be determined," said SFRC spokesman Jones.

Norm Eisen, President Obama's nominee for ambassador to the Czech Republic, joins the long list of State Department nominees facing opposition in the Senate, and the path forward for his nomination is unclear at best.

Eisen, who left his post as White House ethics czar in August, is being held up by Finance Committee ranking Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IO) over alleged actions and misrepresentations related to the June 2009 removal of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), a position where he oversaw government programs such as AmeriCorps.

Walpin's firing raised controversy due to claims that his investigations into CNCS activities attracted the ire of the Justice Department and others, which allegedly pressured the White House to fire him. Walpin sued the White House for wrongful termination, but his lawsuit was thrown out.

Eisen was a key figure in the controversy and defended the White House's actions. He also made the case to Congress that Walpin was unfit for his position, writing in a letter to senators shortly after the sacking that Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." Walpin called those allegations "absolutely amazing."

Grassley, along with Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), have never dropped the issue of Walpin's firing. In November, Grassley's shop contributed heavily to a joint House-Senate report released last November they say shows not only that Walpin's firing was handled improperly, but also that Eisen misled Congress about the matter.

"Eisen claimed the President's decision to remove Walpin was the result of a thorough review of his performance and fitness to continue serving as Inspector General.  No such evidence exists.  Eisen claimed Walpin's removal was unanimously supported by the CNCS Board.  The investigation shows the White House spoke with only two of nine board members," a release about the report stated.

Shortly after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Eisen's nomination on Sept. 21, sending it to the Senate floor for consideration, Grassley made his opposition known.

"I object to the proceeding to the nomination because of Mr. Eisen's role in the firing of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, CNCS, and his lack of candor about that matter when questioned by congressional investigators," Grassley said in a statement entered into the Congressional record.

Inside the Foreign Relations Committee, Republicans James Risch (R-ID) and John Barrasso (R-WY) voted no. Grassley's office didn't offer any terms under which the administration would be able to move forward the Eisen nomination.

Eisen joins a growing list of ambassadorial nominations that seem to be gathering dust in the Senate. Due to holds, the nominees for ambassador to Turkey (Frank Ricciardone), Syria (Robert Ford), and Azerbaijan (Matthew Bryza) are all awaiting Senate floor action.

For Bryza, his nomination is being held up by two Democrats, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who are seen to be representing the Armenian voting constituencies unhappy with the administration's policy opposing a Congressional resolution condemning the 1915 Armenian genocide.

"It's the policy of this administration to oppose the genocide resolution, as has been the case for past administrations," pointed out one GOP senate staffer who supports the nomination. "It's not his job to make this policy. Putting him in a position to oppose his own administration's policy would get him fired."

The staffer pointed to a 2008 letter to Bryza from then Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian praising the Bryza for being "honest brokers" and "fair mediators" as evidence that Bryza could be effective there. But one of the problems is that the Obama administration isn't pressing the nomination using its top-level political staff.

"They've worked it as best they can through the bureaucracy but it seems to be the political calculus that it's not worth weighing in at higher levels until after the elections," the aide said.

The same lack of pressure is felt by some of the 12 GOP Senate offices that are holding up Ford, a diplomat everyone says is more than qualified for the post. Republicans want the administration to publicly articulate its current view regarding the progress of its Syria policy, but they say they aren't getting any attention on the matter from the administration.

"They've tried nothing. The White House hasn't reached out to anyone or tried to move him at all," one senior GOP staffer said about the Ford nomination.

Ford probably has the best chance of getting through, as opposed to Ricciardone, who is being held up by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) over concerns with Ricciardone's tenure as U.S. ambassador to Egypt.

"It would take [the Obama administration] demonstrating that they have a Syria policy to get Ford through," said the GOP aide. "On Ricciardone, they just have to withdraw him and appoint somebody different."

The Senate adjourned for their pre-election break last week. Normally, if senators are out of town for more than 30 days, nominations would have be resubmitted and go through the committee process all over again. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) avoided that by keeping the Senate in "pro forma" session through the break (knocking the gavel ceremoniously every few days). That tactic has the collateral effect of preventing Obama from installing the nominees as "recess appointments."

Therefore, unless Reid agrees to file for cloture on the nomination and push for 60 Senate votes, the process will stall. Reid isn't likely to take the time to push forward the nominations in the brief lame duck sessions post election, so Eisen, Ford, Ricciardone, and Bryza probable shouldn't pack their bags until at least next year.

Obama administration officials have spoken a great deal about their drive to reinvigorate U.S. participation in international organizations, including the United Nations. But last year, the American presence and influence in several parts of the United Nations actually declined, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found.

"In 2009, the United States was underrepresented, based on formal and informal targets, at all five of the UN organizations GAO reviewed-the Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)," states a new GAO report being released today. "In addition, U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions generally decreased at these UN organizations from 2006 to 2009."

Despite the fact that the United States is assessed to provide 22 percent of the U.N. budget, Americans hold only 10.2 percent of professional positions in the U.N. Secretariat, 8.3 percent in the World Health Organization, and 7.4 percent in the U.N.'s refugee agency.

The report was requested by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and George Voinovich (R-OH), the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.

"I am greatly concerned about the United States' underrepresentation in UN agencies, which is why I asked GAO to conduct a follow-up review.  U.S. citizens working in UN organizations provide valuable expertise while strengthening our global leadership and expanding our country's influence," said Akaka.   "As I have stated in the past, providing more entry level professional opportunities in multilateral institutions is key to building a more secure future.  I urge the State Department to take up GAO's recommendations."

The primary office responsible for managing the U.S. involvement in the United Nations is the Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO), led by Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer. The State Department has been making some efforts since 2006 to increase American representation at the United Nations, but progress has been hampered by a variety of factors, including Americans' lack of proficiency in U.N. languages, lengthy hiring processes, and the feeling by some that there's not much opportunity for professional advancement, the report said.

The GAO wants State to take a closer look at the effectiveness of its methods and to report to Congress in greater detail about U.S. representation. It also recommends that State consider implementing a pilot program to fund Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) at U.N. organizations.

"State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of its current efforts to increase U.S. representation," the report stated. "Despite State's efforts, many Americans employed at the five organizations learned about UN job opportunities through their own networks, not through State."

"This report provides several key points of action for the State Department, and I hope Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and our U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice will consider these recommendations to ensure the United States is fairly represented at U.N. agencies," Voinovich said.

UPDATE: Kurtis Cooper, spokesman for the bureau of international organization affairs, sends along this statement:

"We've seen the GAO report and accept its recommendations. As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States has a vested interest in ensuring that qualified Americans are well-represented within the ranks of the UN and its varied agencies and organizations, and we will continue working diligently toward this goal."

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.

When the results of the international investigation into the sinking of the South Korean ship the Cheonan were released in May, the U.S. State Department was adamant that it believed North Korea was responsible -- and that the country would have to face some actual punishment for killing 46 innocent South Korea sailors.

"I think it is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said May 21 while visiting her Japanese counterpart in Tokyo.

Fast forward to today, when the United Nations released a presidential statement which not only does not specify any consequences for the Kim Jong Il regime, but doesn't even conclude that North Korea was responsible for the attack in the first place.

The statement acknowledges that the South Korean investigation, which included broad international participation, blamed North Korea, and then "takes note of the responses from other relevant parties, including from the DPRK, which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident."

"Therefore, the Security Council condemns the attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan," the statement reads.

The White House's spokesman on such matters, Mike Hammer, issued a statement clearly stating that the Obama administration believes North Korea was responsible and arguing that the U.N. statement "constitutes an endorsement of the findings" of the Joint Investigative Group that issued the report blaming North Korea.  

So the U.S. and the South Koreans believe North Korea was guilty but the U.N. isn't willing to go that far. But what about the next step? Will there be any follow up, any "consequences" for North Korea, as Clinton seemed to promise in May?

"I think right now we're just allowing North Korea to absorb the international community's response to its actions," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday.

North Korea's representative to the U.N., Sin Son Ho, called the statement a "great diplomatic victory."

"That doesn't sound like a lot of absorption," one member of the State Department press corps shot back at Toner.

When asked what comes next, Toner said there were no plans to pursue additional measures, other than enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, and there were no outstanding requests from South Korea for additional measures. "We'll wait and let the statement stand," he said.

So what happened between May and now? According to both South Korean and U.S. officials, the countries pushing for actual penalties were serious about it at first, as is shown in the June 4 letter from South Korea, endorsed by the U.S., which urged the Security Council to "respond in a manner appropriate to the gravity of North Korea's military provocation in order to deter recurrence of any further provocation by North Korea."

But as China, ever the defender of the Hermit Kingdom, stalled on making any definitive statements about the incident, officials in Seoul and Washington began to worry that they might not be able to get any U.N. action whatsoever.

Then, toward the end of June, Beijing became nervous about the mounting international pressure and decided to try to wrap up the U.N. discussions as quickly as possible. They calculated that it was a losing game, so moved to get a statement out quickly with a small concession as a means of getting the whole issue behind them.

"This is less than we expected from the beginning," a South Korean official told The Cable, "But it clearly says the Cheonan was sunk by an attack, cites the five-country international joint-investigation result, and condemns it as a deplorable behavior. Even though it did not clarify it was North Korea's torpedo attack, it theoretically points the finger at North Korea as being responsible."

The South Korean official pointed at Russia and China as being responsible for the weakness of the statement.

"Definitely there has been a tough negotiation, especially to persuade the PRC and Russia, and this is result," the official said, "All the other countries except [China and Russia] strongly supported putting pressure on them."

Korea experts and former officials in Washington are sympathetic to the Obama administration's compromise in terms of the statement, but strongly lament that this administration seems not to be in any rush to do anything to engage North Korea or get back to tackling the problem of its growing nuclear arsenal.

"This is a glass one third full, with an explanation to convince you that it's not two thirds empty," said former North Korea negotiator Jack Pritchard, now president of the Korea Economic Institute. The statement was meant not to identify winners, but to allow everyone to avoid being named losers, he said.

"It's not clear cut and it's unsatisfactory, but it may have been the best that we could do," Pritchard acknowledged. The problem as he sees is it that now the Obama administration is back to the status quo, which means no discernable progress on North Korea nuclear discussions, something referred to as "strategic patience."

Joel Wit, another former negotiator who is now a visiting fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said the time is way past overdue to find some way to get back to talking with North Korea.

"The key issue here is, are we ready to turn this corner and try to return to some sort of negotiation, some sort of dialogue that tries to deal with the problems between us, or do we just continue with strategic patience?" Wit said.

Pritchard warned that because Pyongyang has backed off its promise to move towards denuclearization and the Obama administration can't accept a nuclear North Korea, the only way to move forward would be to get North Korea to change its calculus... and that can only be done with Chinese help.

"It requires at least a perception that the Chinese will abide by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874 and that's not currently the case," said Pritchard. "Strategic patience is an attitude, not a policy."