Where in the world should Hillary go first?

Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:03pm

With George Mitchell already making the rounds in the Middle East, Richard Holbrooke off to South Asia, Barack Obama heading to Canada, and Joe Biden to Munich, where in the world is Hillary Clinton going to go? Rumors abound, but insiders tell Mark Landler at the New York Times that she's off to Asia.

While no final decision has been made — and travel schedules are fickle — Mrs. Clinton is leaning toward a trip that could include Japan and China, according to officials. That would allow her to check in with a staunch ally and take stock of an economic rival. A stop in South Korea would give Mrs. Clinton a taste for one of her looming challenges: North Korea’s nuclear program.

Asia is not an obvious choice: her two most recent predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Gen. Colin L. Powell, started off in Europe and the Middle East [respectively].

It's a long enough flight that, if you're going to go, you might as well see everyone while you're there. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Asia can be called "not an obvious choice" when factoring in the schedules of Clinton's envoys, Obama, Biden, the upcoming G-20 Summit in London, and the importance of Asia to the U.S. economy in the midst of this crisis.

In fact, that Clinton might head to Asia (and specifically to China) so early in her tenure could show that she's poised to reassert State's hegemony over China policy from Treasury. Tim Geithner has already been rebuked by Vice President Joe Biden over Geithner's confirmation hearing comments that the Chinese were manipulating their currency, comments that irritated Beijing. The relationship with China is a deep and complex one and needs a more diplomatic hand than Geithner apparently has and a less friendly-by-default one than Paulson showed. Clinton is probably wise to take an early lead in establishing herself as the go-to person on Asia in this adminstration.

Pool/Getty Images News

Megan Carpentier | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

What's in Canada?

by susan h on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:31pm

Is it just me being paranoid, but didn't Bill Ayers recently try to go to Canada and was not allowed in the country? Yet Obama now is going there and I feel this is not a coincidence. Around the time of the election, Bill Ayers made a trip to Cuba (I found it surprising) and suddenly soon after Obama wanted to open up relations with Cuba. Does any one have any idea what is going on? I am having a big Trust issue where Obama is concerned, still do not trust him, his motives, agendas, and ideologies. Someone once said, There are no coincidences. Or maybe it's just me being paranoid.

Hillary's first trip

by moderatewinger on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 10:57pm

She should go to Europe first. Bush definitely strained the relationships with Europe, and Hillary will have quite a job to repair the damage Bush caused. England, France, Germany and Russia should be on the agenda.

Then she should go to Asia, China especially. The economy there is also faltering very badly. Then Japan and South Korea.

Obama and Hillary should visit Canada first!

by sakel on Sun, 02/01/2009 - 1:54am

Wm. Ayres was turned back from Canada as the immigration authorities deemed him "inadmissible" due to his criminal background. The Canadians simply did their job and they did it well. Mr. Ayres had a criminal conviction and unless he is "rehabilitated" he is not eligible to enter Canada. Obviously, Mr. Obama's visit to Canada follows protocol. After all, Canada and the U.S. are trading partners and share a unique relationship and a 'friendly border' that is the envy of the world. Canadian soldiers have been sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan and often think of their "American cousins" in fond terms--except for the war in Iraq which Canada was wisely against from the start having at the time a progressive Liberal government. Hillary as Secretary of State could do wonders with Canadians' environmentalist agenda and strike up a real diplomatic partnership that would benefit the world's less fortunate countries. Canada has constitutionally-entrenched gender equality rights since l982 and women, prior to the current neocon-type government led by Conservatives, enjoyed legal funding to pursue gender inequality claims in the Courts. And Hillary, of course, as the pioneer of Universal Health Care in the early 90s appreciates that Canadians have had Nationalized universal health care since l965, thanks to the efforts of the New Democratic Party that worked with the minority Liberal Party to achieve this major accomplishment for its citizens. Perhaps if the Pumas became a Third Party, Universal Health Care would be a distinct possibility. I do not yet see the "universal" in Obama's health care proposal! Hope I'm proven wrong.