U.S. Foreign Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

For the protocol-obsessed Japanese, scheduling a cabinet-level meeting and then canceling it is a rare occurrence. But that's exactly what happened today when the State Department had to withdraw its announcement that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would meet Friday with Japanese Foreign Minister Katusya Okada.

The diplomatic SNAFU is emblematic of the shifting ground underneath the U.S.-Japan alliance. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which took over the government in September, campaigned on a pledge to reform relations with the U.S., but now in power, they are battling internally to determine how far and wide those changes should go. The latest twist certainly won't dampen the view of those who've proclaimed a "crisis" in the U.S. relationship with Japan since the elections; a State Department official told The Cable that Clinton was still holding time in her Friday schedule, just in case Okada is able to make the trip.

Reports out of Japan suggest that Okada wanted to secure a deal on his pet issue, the Futenma air base in Okinawa, ahead of President Obama's trip to Tokyo next week. But Okada is being reined in by Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who doesn't want Okada gallivanting around making policy while the issue is still a matter of intense internal discussion within the Japanese government.

And both sides are trying to recover from a tumultuous couple of weeks in the relationship following the Tokyo visit of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was seen as focusing too much on Futenma, a minor issue for the U.S. but a major emotional hot button for the Japanese.

More broadly, the center of gravity in the U.S.-Japan relationship may be shifting from the Defense Department to the State Department. While Okada might have wanted to focus on Futenma, administration sources said that Clinton's goal was much broader. She wanted to start engaging the new Japanese leadership on a larger set of strategic issues, from Afghanistan to China and everything in between.

The agenda shows the Obama administration's desire to focus less on incremental military issues such as military basing and start bringing the discussion with the new Japanese government around to larger strategic issues. But the Obama administration is unable to advance the conversation due to the ongoing foreign policy fight within the Japanese cabinet.

Hatoyama is refereeing a complex battle between various elements of his party and his cabinet over the direction of Japanese foreign policy, especially with regard to the U.S.-Japan alliance. Okada's interests may lie in making things for Hatoyama as difficult as possible, hence the (maybe) cancelled trip.

Inside the Japan policy infrastructure in Washington, the officials in charge of managing the relationship are taking a two pronged-approach. The first element of their strategy is "wait and see," letting the new DPJ government settle internal disputes and then come to the U.S. side with policy positions, negotiating stances, and the like.

The second part of the approach is "Don't blink," meaning that the U.S. interlocutors are trying to avoid overreacting to what some see as antagonistic or contradictory statements on the alliance coming out of different DPJ leaders. Also, the U.S. managers are determined not to negotiate away any of their positions while the new Japanese government is going through its growing pains.

"We're waiting for them to give us some indication of where they see the path as leading from here," said one senior U.S. official dealing with the U.S.-Japan alliance.

There is also a feeling among Obama administration Japan managers that the reports about the "crisis" in U.S.-Japan relations have been way overblown and that while a number of issues in the alliance are now up for discussion, which is new, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

"You can take any of this stuff and make a story out of it, but none of these issues are unmanageable," the official said, "The U.S. and Japan still rely on each other in a lot of fundamental ways."

The official said that there is a pretty clear path out of the current tense situation, whenever the Japanese are ready to take it. For example, on the issue of the plan for the relocation of the Futenma air base, U.S. officials believe that ultimately there is no real alternative to the current plan. Okada's idea, to combine Futenma with the Kadena air base, is seen as a non-starter inside the Obama administration.

However, there are "sweeteners" that could alleviate some concerns of Okinawa residents and allow Hatoyama and Okada to save face by claiming they got concessions before ultimately accepting the bulk of the current plan as is.

But the talks between the United States and Japan haven't gotten to that stage and probably won't by the time Obama visits Tokyo next week. Obama himself is said to be too far above the issue to negotiate such details and is likely to simply affirm the strength of the alliance, mark its 50^th anniversary, and leave the negotiations for lower officials to resume after the trip.

Traditionally, the Japan relationship inside Washington more heavily managed by the Defense Department as compared to relations with other countries. There are historical and logistical explanations for this phenomenon, but with new administrations on both sides, a change might be in store.

At the National Security Council, the Japan policy is managed by Jeffrey Bader, a former Ambassador and senior State Department official and Daniel Russel, former State Department Japan office director.

At the State Department, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell is in charge of all things Japan, aided by Japan desk chief Kevin Maher. Campbell has been back and forth to Tokyo several times since assuming his post and is scheduled to stop in Tokyo on Thursday on his way home from Burma.

The Japan team at the Pentagon is centered around Assistant Secretary Gen. Chip Gregson, Principal Deputy Derek Mitchell, Deputy Michael Schiffer, and Japan desk officer Suzanne Bassala.

Photo: Pool/Getty Images

The two battling sides in the Honduran crisis have come to an agreement that would allow ousted President Manuel Zelaya to return to office, after a parliamentary vote and with the prior approval of the Supreme Court.

Also included in the deal are terms for a power sharing government, an agreement to respect the results of November 29 elections, and the establishment of a trust commission to weigh in on how the crisis started in the first place.

A U.S. delegation has been in Tagucigalpa since Wednesday, led by Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Craig Kelly, and National Security Council Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs Dan Restrepo.

Zelaya was deposed June 28 by force and replaced with a de facto regime led by Roberto Micheletti. Zelaya snuck back into Honduras last month and has been hiding out in the Brazilian embassy in Tagucigalpa ever since.

Here are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's congratulatory remarks, delivered while traveling in Pakistan:

I'm very pleased to announce that we've had a breakthrough in negotiations in Honduras.

I want to congratulate the people of Honduras as well as President Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti for reaching an historic agreement. I also congratulate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias for the important role he has played in fashioning the San Jose process and the OAS for its role in facilitating the successful round of talks.

As you know, I sent Assistant Secretary Tom Shannon and his deputy Craig Kelly and the White House NSC representative for the Western Hemisphere Dan Ristreppo to Honduras yesterday after speaking with both President Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti last Friday to urge them finally, once and for all to reach an agreement.

I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue.

This is a big step forward for the Inter-American system and its commitment to democracy as embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. I'm very proud that I was part of the process, that the United States was instrumental in the process. But I'm mostly proud of the people of Honduras who have worked very hard to have this matter resolved peacefully.

We're looking forward to the elections that will be held on November 29, and working with the people and government of Honduras to realize the full return of democracy and a better future for the Honduran people.

Lawmakers are actively but secretively trying to get to the bottom of the CIA's relationship with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in light of the stunning New York Times article which cited unnamed sources stating he has been on the CIA's payroll for years while simultaneously facilitating massive drug trade in his region.

CIA Director Leon Panetta met with several Senators on both sides of the aisle Thursday behind closed doors and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, has submitted a formal request for information detailing the Agency's relationship with Karzai the brother.

Following his meeting with Panetta, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, said that he would not disclose what Panetta told him but that on the question of Ahmed Wali Karzai's relationship with the CIA, he had gotten some clarity.

"I think we know [about his relationship with the CIA] but I can't share that with you," Levin said, adding mysteriously, "I don't know that Karzai's brother is on the CIA payroll."

On the issue of whether or not the President's brother is facilitating the drug trade near Kandahar, lawmakers who are in the loop seem more confident and willing to publicly express their concerns.

"According to credible people, the President's brother is involved in various illicit activities," said Armed Services ranking Republican John McCain, R-AZ, "We can't have that."

McCain reiterated his call that Ahmed Wali Karzai should leave the country immediately.

Kerry was the only senior lawmaker to issue a statement expressing his frustration about not being aware of the relationship.

In an interview with The Cable, Kerry said although the CIA relationship with Karzai might not necessarily be nefarious, Congress had a right to know the details.

"If the CIA has a deal, I want to know what the realities are," he said, "I want to examine the relationships and know what the terms are and understand what's the impacts of that might or might not be."

"It may not be something you want to deal with publicly, but we have to be absolutely certain that nothing we are trying to do is being compromised," said Kerry.

The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been notably mum on the subject, presumably working behind the scenes.

Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, refused to comment and a spokesperson for ranking Republican Kit Bond, R-MO, said that Bond would only say the news shouldn't result in any delay in President Obama's decision on how to move forward in Afghanistan.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, the immediate past chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said that he was not aware of the CIA's relationship with Karzai during his tenure but should have been.

"You know what the problem is? We on the committee own no intelligence," he said, "We only get what they choose to give us. That's why we are always fighting."

When North Korea's lead nuclear negotiator Ri Gun (left) makes his tour of the United States next week, all eyes will be on the State Department, which is planning to make the first face-to-face, government-to-government contact with Kim Jong Il's regime in quite a long time.

Ri arrives in New York today and then will be in San Diego early next week to attend what's called the Northeast Asian Cooperation Dialogue. He will then come back to New York later in the week to hold "track two" (nonofficial) meetings organized by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP), a private insiders' policy group that has been key in organizing such meetings in the past.

The State Department issued the visa for Ri but has been extremely cagey about who will be going to meet with him. Spokesman Ian Kelly said today that State Department officials will probably meet with him in both cities, but no final decision has been made on who that would be.

The hands-on favorite among Korea watchers is Sung Kim, who is officially titled the "special envoy for the six-party talks." Those talks have been stalled since North Korea unilaterally withdrew in April. Kim was previously deputy to former lead negotiator Chris Hill, then assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs. He met with Ri in New York last November. Another leading contender is Korea desk chief Kurt Tong.

Conspicuously absent from the discussion over who will meet Ri is Stephen Bosworth, Obama's choice for special representative for North Korea policy. Bosworth has been handling the North Korea issue for State part time, maintaining his other full-time gig as dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

The North Koreans have issued repeated invitations for Bosworth to visit Pyongyang, invitations that have gone completely unanswered. The choice of Bosworth, a sacred cow of the Asia policy community for decades, was seen by many as an effort to smooth out relations over the issue with allies Japan and South Korea, countries to which Bosworth has deep ties.

There is a long tradition of engaging the North Koreans through unofficial channels and by using experts that Pyongyang prefers as proxies, such as University of Georgia professor Han Park or journalist Selig Harrison. NCAFP has been at the center of what's called the "New York channel," which sometimes includes contact with North Korea's delegation at the United Nations. The key figure in NCAFP is professor and author Donald Zagoria.

If and when Kim or another U.S. official meets with Ri, the implication is that they would be setting the stage for a resumption of talks, even though the North Korean and U.S. positions on terms of discussion are still far apart. The Obama administration is insisting that any bilateral talks be in the context of the multilateral process and be based on the previous agreement North Korea signed promising to denuclearize.

The North Koreans, however, want direct talks with the U.S. without promising anything and without including regional powers. Kelly, the State Department spokesman, acknowledged that next week's meetings are essentially that.

"This is really kind of a hybrid," said Kelly, "It's not just track two. It's really a combination."

TEH ENG KOON/AFP/Getty Images

Before John Kerry could wind down from his whirlwind tour of South Asia this week, the U.S. Senate moved to pass new restrictions on aid to Pakistan, the thorny issue that required the senator to go to Islamabad in the first place.

Kerry was there to reassure Pakistanis that the U.S. was not infringing on their sovereignty after the botched rollout of the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package angered many in Islamabad. Conditions on the relatively small proportion of military aid in that bill were not well received, and sparked a harsh reaction from both the Pakistani military and anti-American political elements there.

With that situation largely ameliorated, the Senate may have given Kerry a new headache today. There are several conditions on billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Pakistan found in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill that has just now gone to President Obama's desk for signing.

The conditions include monitoring of goods and services the U.S. is giving to Pakistan and reports by the U.S. administration certifying that the money is being spent in ways that contribute to U.S. interests.

Congressional Quarterly's John Donnelly dug out all the details (subscription only):

One provision affects the $1.6 billion the bill would authorize for a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse other countries, mostly Pakistan, for logistical and military support for counterinsurgency operations. The funds, like those for all the aid programs, are appropriated separately, in this case by the Defense spending measure (HR 3326), which a House-Senate conference is writing.

The Coalition Support Fund has accounted for 70 percent of the $12.3 billion in American military and non-military aid to Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 - money the U.S. government had little insight into or oversight of, according to a February report from the Government Accountability Office.

The defense authorization measure would require that, before any more such money is spent, the secretaries of Defense and State must certify that doing so is in the U.S. national interest and will not adversely affect the region's balance of power - a polite way of saying the money should not be spent on weapons aimed at India.

And in a provision that an aide said reflects congressional discontent with a lack of controls over the reimbursement program, the measure would require the administration to look for a new approach to garnering Pakistan's support for military operations.

Another certification is required before the Pentagon can begin spending any of the $700 million it might receive from requested State Department appropriations in the coming fiscal year for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. That program, begun in fiscal 2009, is meant to train and equip the Pakistani military to fight insurgents and terrorists on its territory.

The defense authorization bill would require that, before those funds start to flow, the Defense secretary must certify to Congress that Pakistan is making "concerted efforts" to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban on the basis that Pakistan sees such initiatives as in its own interest...

Finally, after the bill becomes law, the president would have to report to Congress every 180 days on "progress toward long-term security and stability in Pakistan," including the effectiveness of security assistance to Pakistan in contributing to the goal of defeating al Qaeda. The report would have to include goals, timelines and measures of progress.

If I were Kerry, I wouldn't put away my travel toothbrush just yet...

Washington has been abuzz with stories speculating about the role of special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, the gregarious U.S. diplomat who has been somewhat absent from public appearances recently.

Salacious headlines such as "Holbrooke missing from Afghan talks" and "Where's Dick?" have led off articles citing unnamed sources to speculate that the White House had sought to diminish Holbrooke's usually public persona, especially since the last-minute diplomacy to convince Afghan President Hamid Karzai to allow an election runoff was led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

But in an exclusive interview with The Cable, Holbrooke refuted the reports of his marginalization with a mix of indignation and bewilderment. He's been intimately involved in all the goings-on related to the situation in Afghanistan and his lack of media appearances is due to his hectic and relentless work as part of the administration's ongoing review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, he said.

"I didn't know I was missing in action because I was kind of busy all day," said Holbrooke, denying that the White House had given him any instructions to lay low or stay out of the public eye, as has been alleged.

Holbrooke and his staff have been working late hours every day to feed information to the endless string of White House meetings on Afghanistan. He broke away Wednesday evening to attend a reception at the New America Foundation to celebrate the publication of the latest book by his wife, Kati Marton.

He said he "has no interest" in the press stories discussing his lack of face time with the media, but took exception to one editorial in the New York Times, which wondered aloud about his status.

Holbrooke's absence from Afghanistan during what many see as a crucial time in Afghan politics also spurred rumors and speculation that Holbrooke was not welcome there because of a reported feud with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a feud that Holbrooke has clearly denied.

"The truth is that I go Afghanistan every two months and I was there less than two months ago. When I came back, I knew we were plunging into the biggest imaginable policy debate," Holbrooke said. "So [Secretary of State] Hillary [Clinton] and I mutually felt that my place at this time was to stay here."

Holbrooke said he will travel to Afghanistan and India next month, on the tail end of Clinton's trip to Pakistan, but the exact dates haven't been worked out yet.

"That was always the plan," he said.

His concern is that he isn't sure about the timing of President Obama's decision to rollout the new Af-Pak strategy and he didn't want to be abroad when the announcement is made.

"This is the most intense policy review before a big decision that I've ever been involved in," said Holbrooke. "He's really thinking it through."

There will be a principals meeting on Af-Pak in the White House Thursday and a National Security Council meeting led by Obama within the next few days.

Holbrooke said he had 25 conversations with Kerry throughout the recent election negotiations, including two on Wednesday (although he did not attend Kerry's latest meeting with Obama). Kerry's preplanned presence in the region to deal with the fallout of his Pakistan aid bill was fortuitous, Holbrooke explained, and he fully supported Kerry's representation of the U.S. government in the region this week.

"We encouraged John to get in on this," he said, "I have never seen a better interaction between a member of Congress and an executive branch on a major issue and the stakes yesterday were extraordinarily high."

He rejected the notion that Kerry was supplanting his role as the face of American policy in Afghanistan.

"Only a troublemaking journalist would think of something like that," Holbrooke joked.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images