John Kerry's comments in Davos this morning

I watched the webcast this morning - what an outstanding panel! I have summed up some of Kerry's comments but the podcast should be available any time soon now here:
http://gaia.world-television.com/wef/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2007/default.aspx?sn=18378


Answering to former President Khatami of Iran about the aspirations of Iran, JK said (I'm paraphrasing): He has never seen a more volatile and dangerous situation in the Middle East that the one we face today. King Abdullah talked about three potential civil wars. Everybody is talking past each other. There is too much talk and not enough following through on the table. Iran, a great country with a long history has great aspirations. America was deeply involved in their history in a ways that creates suspicion and tension. On the other side, Americans saw the Islamic Revolution as threatening and dangerous. Both sides are caught in a cycle of escalations and threats, instead of trying to find a common ground. JK speaks as a Democrat and it is no secret that he has deep, abiding differences with the Bush administration and its approach. America has opened Pandora's Box. He thinks that we have to deal with the reality of sectarianism now. Every Sunni leader he talked to in the region sees a threat in Iran and the Shia Crescent. It's real and needs to be talked about. The USA through its altruistic, but naive approach has empowered the Shia through the ballot box in a way that they could never have empowered themselves through the centuries. He reminds that it's not a contemporary struggle but that it goes back 1500 years to Karbala and the Ali Caliphate. The Muslim divide is real. 10-15 % of Muslim are Sh ia. Sunnis have governed Iraq with strong iron hand and oppressively. The fundamental differences between the Sunni and Shiite interest are not being addressed. And as long as both sides in Iraq believe they can win and the USA in providing a kind of security blanket against the full explosion, they are exploiting this situation. The oil revenue issue has been on the table for three year without an solution. Problems in the constitution about federalism are not resolved. Unless these issues are resolved, American troop input will make no difference. Iraq will not be pacified. The USA is partly responsible and the absence of legitimate diplomacy is a disgrace. Quick fly-ins by the Secretary of State are not diplomacy. He proposes a special envoy, maybe a joint bipartisan special envoy: maybe President Clinton and a Republican of high ability, with the goal to have an new security arrangement for the Middle East and reduce US troop levels as soon as possible. And they have to address the Middle East peace process.

Go, Kerry go! I look forward to seeing the webcast. Maybe it will be on c-span too?

- Adil Abd al-Mahdi, Vice-President of Iraq
- Abdullah Gül, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey
- John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts (Democrat), USA
- Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1997-2005)
- Ahmed Mahmoud Nazif, Prime Minister of Egypt

And if I remember right there was also the head of the Arab League. All people from the Middle East and the only westerner was JK. At one moment the journalist who chaired the panel (David Ignatius from the WP) said to JK that he was in the difficult situation to be the only American on this panel.

Where were all the other senators who are right now in Davos? McCain? No-one wanted to confront the Arab leaders, I guess. JK did an outstanding job in this panel.


Oh, I just saw that the the webcast and the podcast are now online.

That sounds like a really good idea. But Bush won't do it, or he'll tie their hands. But he should do it, regardless what other actions we take.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Bush can't even spell "diplomacy"? Or, maybe he could, but he just can't be bothered.

JK could be that envoy. And I think that Bush just doesn't get the concept of diplomacy. In his world of black and white there is no place for it.

While we are all angry with the Clintons (for good reasons), Kerry suggests Bill for something that places him as a peace maker. Because, it would save lives if it worked, help restore our reputation - and Clinton has the credentials. (though I wish he suggested Carter. I am not as nice a person.)

He talks about another unspoken issue, the struggle within Islam itself. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a new creation; has known a long struggle in Egypt. Hamas is struggling with Fatah right now. No-one is putting an effort in the peace process on the West Bank. John Kerry met Mahmud Abbas the day after he was elected president. Abbas told him that he knows what the world expects from him but that he doesn't have the means to disarm Hamas. That was 2 months after JH lost the presidential election and he really felt the loss in this moment, realizing what a difference we, the West, could be making in empowering the peace process. The Arab world has ignored the Palestinians for a long time. Fact is that with the right frame work for the peace process we could have a Palestinian state tomorrow. But with a group that will not recognize the right of a state to exist it's very difficult to get the process going. There is much to think about it and he wants to get this process going. He is convinced that we could diffuse these tensions, create a different framework, but it needs adults at the table doing something other than always talking war, always talking military solutions and ignoring the real issues in the Middle East.

(I think that was a nice shot at BushCo: "adults at the table". Almost as good as his "smallness of the last six years" *g*)

Question to Khatami and Kerry if it's time for a Middle East version of "Nixon goes to China", that Bush or the next president (and the guy, a European, mentioned HRC by name! JK asked: is that an endorsement?" LOL) should go to Iran.

Khatami says that everybody from the west who wants to come to Iran would be welcome. Kerry cited JFK's "We should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." Jim Baker recently said that you have to talk to people who aren't necessarily your friends. JK thinks that it's dangerous and absurd in the current context of these tensions that the USA is not engaging directly with Syria and Iran. Ahmadinejad made it difficult with his Holocaust denial, but on the other hand when you are locked in such a situation when both sides are too stubborn to engage, someone has to find a way to break that sort of dead-lock. He believes that it's an opportunity for Bush to be the "bigger person". But there is also an opportunity for Iran to do that in simply announcing that they would temporarily stop the Uranium enrichment program. That could be the beginning of a dialog. Given the world's, the UN 's response to the enrichment issues it would be a good thing for Iran to do that. But concerning Iran as a peaceful nuclear power, JK thinks that we could also acknowledge the right of Iran to aspire to it under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Negotiations are the key. In any negotiation every participating party has a bottom line, what the people would except etc. With respect to the Israeli-Palestine peace process we almost got there (exchange of territory). Now it's difficult with Hamas that doesn't respect the state of Israel, but there is always a way to get there with negotiations. It takes some leadership to be serious about creating an entity that can actually negotiate. Problems have to be diffuses in a responsible, statesman-like way. The alternative is that we stay in our prideful, arrogant, locked in positions and you have an implosion of the ME. We have seen this before and it's dangerous.


The last question to Kerry was from a Iranian guy who wanted to know if the economic sanctions against Iran didn't create its own monster and that the election of Ahmadinejad was the result of the West not honoring Khatami. (People applauded when the question was asked.)

Kerry said that he knows what Khatami tried to accomplish and what happened to him. It's close to what he was talking about earlier, the struggle for the soul of Islam itself. An honest discussion has to acknowledge that Osama Bin Laden was not focused initially on the USA, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The tension within this radical islamic movement predated the US involvement in Iraq. There are always truths on both sides. The USA is not engaged intelligently in the development in the region. Kerry himself had proposed a "Greater Middle East Initiative" a few years ago, a Marshall-Plan-type of engagement that would help the transformation into modernity, recognizing the sensitives of each country's transformation, culturally and historically, to move there. He talks about his dad who was a diplomat during the Cold War in Berlin and who said that Americans have an unfortunate habit of seeing the world and other people exclusively through an American lens. Judging their aspirations through that lens.

And here are the final direct quotes from this AP article that Icuna posted earlier:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_go_co/world_forum_kerry

"We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that's what diplomacy is about," he said. "But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories. If we would do that more thoughtfully and effectively, we could really chance the dynamics of the world."

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving towards AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we send a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy."

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much of a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

"We should be less engaged in this NeoCon rhetoric of regime change and more involved in building relationships and living up to our own values so that people can make a different judgment about us."



And one last comment from me: This AP article sees Kerry remarks in Davos through an "American lens" as well. Kerry said so many thoughtful things about the whole Middle East situation and what are they writing about? His critic remarks about America and the Bush admin at the very end. *sigh*

This part wasn't in the podcast so it's appreciated.

It strikes me how right it seems to see Kerry talking to these Middle East leaders. Nice to see an American leader who's a grown-up and able to participate speak out with authority! If not the presidency, Kerry as a key American diplomat is a very good fit. He grew up with this stuff, and it's always been a main interest of his.

on AIDS in Africa - should we be responding that he is not speaking of W per se. The AIDS epidemic started in the early to mid 80s (I think) in the US. I'm not sure when it became a major issue in AFrica, but it was well before W was President. Does anyone know the truth on this?

From the comments on Nancy Stenson (sp?, the SFRC staffer), Kerry and she worked on getting aid when Helms was head of SFRC - which he was untill Jeffords switched to independent in 2001 (soon after Bush was in office). When he says that not enough was done early - he can't mean W, it has to mean Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress (and Clinton has done a huge amount since and I know Clinton went to Africa and wanted more done.)

I looked at the webcast, and unfortunately, it was only a 12 minute edited down version, so we didn't get to hear what everyone said. The stuff Kerry said reported in the AP was not on the video, which is unfortunate, since I wanted to see how it was said, and in what context. If I recall from last year, I think they ended up airing parts of the Summit on C-SPAN but maybe a week or two later. We should be on the lookout if they show the whole thing.

9:30 am was "early" for me this morning; normally I get up later... after hanging out here with you the whole night. LOL

The stuff of the AP article was the second part of Kerry's answer (and I put it in the right order again) to this Iranian guy at the very end of the discussion which lasted more than an hour with the Q&A. The remarks and answers of the other panel members where also very interesting, but unfortunately I wasn't able to take notes on everyone. I concentrated on taking some notes when Kerry spoke because I thought it could be interesting for you guys here. ;-) Well, off to bed now...

I feel very uncomfortable to link to this site because it is a right wing site and the video they have is from Fox. But as you wanted to see how he said these things, go have a look and ignore all the crap around it.

hotair.com/archives/2007/01/27/kerry-rips-bush-in-front-of-former-iranian-president-at-davos/

John Kerry just decided that this president has become so failed, so irrelevant, that he can just work around him.

Like JK decided to go "be" president since the one we have is such a disaster.

That feels exactly right. The presidential 2008 race seems just like random noise now. Sure, it's in part because the remaining candidates seem so much smaller than JK. But also JK is the one who's out there changing the country.
Thanks for saying this. It made my day.

have it and we don't???? This goes beyond presidential elections -- I want to be able to defend the senator as quickly as Fox News attacks him, and I can't. Because I don't have a video or transcript (thank you EuropeGirl for your summary, but we need an official transcript to fight this), I am limited in my defense at this time. I went to the RW site and concentrated on watching Kerry's remarks which were very measured. What they're doing is "Dixie Chicking" him -- saying you're not allowed to criticize America on foreign soil. Well, since the Dixie Chicks still aren't "ready to make nice", I'm not either. I am sick and tired of these fascists!! It is Bush who is a disgrace, and it's about time we call it like it is.

As an aside, I asked my hubby who comes from Germany (and who is probably a Christian Democrat, but mostly not that political) if the U.S. was an international pariah -- he matter of factly answered back, well, of course. Then I asked: worse than Iran? And he answered again, of course.

Let me look up some international polls which will back up what Kerry said.

In December, we went to the wedding of a woman who had been an au pair for us 15 years ago. So, we were with her large extended family. Everyone was amazingly nice. (Our former au pair was shocked that the health insuance situation was worse than it was when it shocked her over a decade ago. I told her the Republicans wouldn't even consider a plan that insured all kids proposed by Senator Kerry.)

A younger relative was speaking about loving American movies and the Americans she had met, but why did we elect an (expletive deleted)? She then covered her mouth and apologized. I told her there was no need to - he was one and I had called him worse things. She then said no one likes him.

And I sometimes have a lot of trouble to explain to people here that it's only the Bush admin and not everybody in the US. But the fact that people here think that the USA is worse than Iran has IMO the following reason. People in Europe expect bad behavior from Iran (or some other Arab, African or Asian countries) and aren't really surprised when it happens. With America it's completely different. Your country has long been a kind of role model for the Western World and our protector during the Cold War. When we Europeans now see America behave in this bad way be are deeply disappointed. A friend who disappoints you hurts you much more than a stranger or a foe. That's the reason we react so emotionally to all the stuff happening in the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

International polls are devastating. Particularly interesting is the world approval ratings of America's handling the Iran nuclear power question:

About 25%

That's pretty bad. International pariah (which Webster says means "outcast")

And approval of Iraq War:

20%

Those are the two most related to the Middle East. We're not respected there or anywhere in the world for that matter. Kerry spoke the truth. As usual.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jan/1326.html

Former Iranian President Khatami and Senator John Kerry meet in Davos

Tehran, Jan 28, IRNA - Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini here Sunday assessed as "ordinary" a meeting held between former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and 2004 US Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry.

Speaking to reporters, he said the meeting, held on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was just one of the numerous meetings among intellectuals and political figures attending the global forum.

"Such meetings have a background," he said.

Asked whether Khatami conferred with government officials, including those of the foreign ministry, in order to project a unified stance on Iran's peaceful nuclear case at Davos, the spokesman said there was "no definite word on whether Khatami's schedule at the summit would bring him to speak about Iran's nuclear case

snip

Iran pondering message received from certain US officials: Hosseini

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said here Sunday that Iran was pondering a message received from certain US officials and politicians.

Hosseini made the disclosure as he addressed reporters at his weekly press conference.

"Studies have not led to specific conclusions. If we arrive at a certain result, we will announce it," he said.

Asked what the message was, he refused to say what it was, saying only that "it will be divulged in due time."

Asked to name the US officials or politicians who sent the message, he replied that their names could not also be announced at this time.





What is up?

and the former president of Iran is pro-democracy. It is possible he has influence inside of Iran that may well help us deter Ahmadinejad. This off to the side meeting may well of been beneficial to our national security interests. Yet, Fox News doesn't' like it and why? Possibly because they want to see us go after Iran.

As for the comment about the US being a national pariah of sorts, well he was being kind to Bush. It is not so much America the world hates as it is Bush and that hatred towards Bush spills over into feeling for America in general.

Kerry is the key senate leader on this.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C29%5Cstory_29-1-2007_pg4_12

‘Iran receives letter from US aimed at resolving crisis’

TEHRAN: Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman said Sunday that Tehran has received a letter from the United States which sought to resolve a dispute between the two countries.

“There has been a message from American officials,” the spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseni, told reporters at a press conference in Tehran

snip

Iranian media this week reported that five US senators, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Democrat, have sent a letter to Tehran. Neither Tehran nor Washington confirmed such a note.

Biden last week sent a letter to US President George W Bush, asking him to explain whether the US administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria without the approval of Congress. Iran and the US have had no diplomatic relations since 1979 when militants seized the US Embassy in Tehran and kept 52 people hostage for 444 days. ap



Then we have more saber rattling by Bush:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1583107,00.html

President Bush said Monday "we will respond firmly" if Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens.

Bush's warning was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the Washington and Tehran. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American forces. "If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and — or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio.


So what is Bush reacting to? This:

Iran's plans in Iraq were outlined by Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi in an interview with The New York Times. He said Iran was prepared to offer Iraqi government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight," the newspaper reported. He said that in the economic area, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.

"We have experience of reconstruction after war," the ambassador said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis." Johndroe said the Bush administration was looking at what the ambassador had to say.




I think Iran is calculating that the Americans will leave at some point, so they want influence in Iraq. What else is going on, I don't know. But, of course, none of this had to happen had Bush ONLY listened to Kerry via the Iraq Study Group. This is very, very scary, and what is truly remarkable is that (perhaps) 5 senators definitely including Biden, and probably Dodd and Kerry, are doing a work around Bush who is pursuing an insane policy. Is this unprecedented?

That would also explain why the RWers went nut on that panel in Davos and what Kerry said. The Bushies really want their war with Iran and would be furious at grownups devising a back-door diplomacy of their own.

Hmmmm, let me read the docs and write more tonight.

Excellent pickup.

Why do I get the aching feeling that I need to stare at this map for a while until something else clicks. Sigh!

I just looked over this thread and I thought I had already put up a thank you for this and I had not. My apologies. This was wonderful work. Thank you so much for this info, it really help when the wingnuts started foaming at the mouth again over nothing.

You rock my dear!

Had I known that they would only put parts of the discussion online, I would have recorded at least an audio file of the whole thing.

It goes without saying that I, personally, am more interested in US - official and unofficial - foreign policy than everything else, and I'm very happy to see JK acting like a real statesman. HE rocks! :loveya: