John Kerry’s brand of Boston diplomacy pays off

[karynnj]

Source: Boston Globe

Secretary of State John F. Kerry turned to his Chinese counterpart at lunch last month at Legal Sea Foods’ Harborside restaurant and drew attention to the view of Boston Harbor.

The port was once a symbol of pollution, Kerry told China’s chief diplomat, Yang Jiechi. But after persistent government effort, Kerry explained, it was dramatically cleaner.


“This is a small example that shows that these big problems can and must be addressed,” Kerry told Jiechi over squash bisque, Maine cod, and Boston cream pie.

The exchange, related by a senior State Department official with direct knowledge of the Oct. 18 meeting, marked a turning point in the Obama administration’s efforts to get the world’s two biggest polluters to commit to lowering the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.

Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/11/14/secretary-state-john-kerry-brand-boston-diplomacy-pays-off/MMTJZKyos77wBcQWXgdxEL/story.html

---

Very good article explaining one piece of the effort behind Obama's important China agreement. There are many other people who had major roles in creating this agreement - including John Podestra and Todd Stern, who worked with the Chinese. Not to mention, Obama who allowed this be done by his administration.

(Having just read the book "An idea whose time had come" by Todd Purdum on how the 1964 civil rights law came to pass, I was struck by how this could be a story in a future book if this pact actually creates the change that it might possibly have in moving the world towards a new climate change agreement in the future.

[Old Nick]

1. Kerry is Underrated

And Biden is massively underrated!

[karynnj]

2. Agree on both counts

though maybe think Kerry the more underrated, even though he does get more credit than Biden does. I really think that when Obama's term - and his - end, Kerry may be seen to have been one of the best Secretaries of State and the best diplomats that the US has had since Marshall.

He has taken on most of the incredibly difficult problems and - on many - has succeeded far beyond what anyone thought possible - from the Syrian chemical weapons (that otherwise could be at risk of falling into ISIS hands), to the SOFA and the resolution of the Afghanistan election mess, to this, he really has done an amazing job.

[underpants]

10. Let me just throw in that Hillary followed by Kerry has been very good

And the unending stream of incredible issues to deal with is remarkable in history.

[blackcrowflies]

22. Hillary replaced by anyone is good.

[karynnj]

23. John McCain, Lindsey Graham or perhaps Joe Lieberman????

There are many worse choices than Clinton. Not to mention, there are no better choices that Kerry in my opinion.

[Beacool]

35. Bullcrap, but typical of this site.

Therefore, not surprising.

[freshwest]

24. K&R right here. And thanks for the background on this.

[Helen Borg]

17. Perhaps. But didn't he have his chance to shine?

[ffr]

3. Do you think if he was picked to be VP in 2016 people would support the up-ticket candidate?

I doubt he'd run for president again, but I'm hoping he'd be on the short list of VP candidates. He should have been our president in 2004. Him becoming VP could help in shaping a 2017 - 2021 administration.

[underpants]

7. No he said pretty clearly that this was his last government position

He doesn't need the insanity that is in DC anymore.

[karynnj]

11. I would seriously doubt it

First of all, I assume he would want to work on the problems until the term ends. He would have to step down as SoS because that position is not allowed to be involved in politics. Not to mention, at age 71 this December and with Teresa having recovered from serious medical issues, I doubt he would be at all inclined to get back into the political sphere. (Consider if he did the attacks that he and Teresa would face. Note that even as SoS, the more successful he is, the more rw nonsense there is.)

With Hillary as the likely Democratic nominee, I don't think that she would actually allow him - or almost anyone - to have a key role in shaping her administration. I would imagine that his role in any future administration might be as a special diplomatic envoy. (I would actually love it if he instead wrote a book about his foreign policy vision or about his incredible, well lived life.)

[jmowreader]

19. He's been dishonored enough

[Shemp Howard]

4. The Chinese leadership couldn't care less.

Kerry's goal here is, of course, a very admirable one: a less-polluted earth.

But the upper Chinese leadership sees things quite differently. Their goal is a stronger China in every sense of the word: stronger militarily, stronger industrially, etc. Except for public relations and immediate health scares, pollution control is low on their list of priorities.

That doesn't mean Kerry should give up on any of this! But it does mean that Kerry should insist that the Chinese set intermediate pollution goals. Such as: What are you going to do this year to reduce pollution? What about in the next five years?

[karynnj]

8. I think the Chinese do care and the reason is quality of life

With their dense population and the use of coal as their primary fuel, their air is becoming increasingly unbreathable.

Kerry has actually been working with the Chinese climate change people at least since the Bali conference, where he was the only legislator to attend (Markey attended via technology for some sessions.) Once he took over the SFRC he had a hearing specifically on climate change and China - http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/challenges-and-opportunities-for-us-china-cooperation-on-climate-change

[Shemp Howard]

15. I hope you're right! (nt)

[hughee99]

5. I thought this part of the article was really interesting.

Are these two statements from 2 different globe articles really the same thing?

"Under the climate deal, the two countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions by at least a quarter of what they were in 2005 over the next decade. That is about twice the current targets."

"China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, pledged in the far-reaching agreement to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible. It also set a daunting goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 percent of the country’s energy mix by 2030.
Obama announced a target to cut US emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, the first time the president has set a goal beyond the existing 17 percent target by 2020."

The first statement, from this article praising Kerry, sounds like a great deal that Kerry negotiated with the Chinese. The second statement, from another globe story 2 days ago, makes it sound like the US gave significant concessions and, in return, China agreed to stop making their own pollutions problems worse, but not starting right away, STARTING 15 YEARS FROM NOW.

I don't see how the person who wrote THIS article could have possibly read the globe article from 2 days ago.

[JDPriestly]

9. The intention has been stated.

It is a matter of following up and keeping track of the progress made.

Yes. This is a first step. But at least the Chinese leadership is admitting there is a problem. And that admission has been made very publicly.

That is an important first step.

Pollution problems were a factor in some of the regime changes in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. I don't think Americans realize that, but it was.

There was a lot of pollution in Czechoslovakia and Hungary for example, and it was very upsetting for the people who could see it and knew nothing was being done at an official level about it.

The Chinese government cannot afford to have people dying due to industrial pollution. Sooner or later the people will lose confidence in a government that allows that to continue. So this agreement, this public acknowledgement of a problem is very important.

[hughee99]

12. I wasn't really asking that.

do you think the statement accurately characterizes the deal that was actually made?

"Under the climate deal, the two countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions by at least a quarter of what they were in 2005 over the next decade. That is about twice the current targets."

[karynnj]

16. I have not read any details - if they are really available

I think the claim is true for the US. I suspect that things are more complex when speaking of China. China's power usage per capita is a fraction of any developed country and they are increasing that as they become more affluent.

In the past (I am referencing the talks around the Bali conference), the argument was that you can not expect all countries to commit to the same % decrease when some use little energy and others have very high usage. This would prevent any currently poor country from ever improving its standing. (This led to talk of differentiated (I think that was the word) goals for developed and developing countries. )

Instead, what people like Kerry proposed was that they not make the same mistakes that we have - and jump to the clean technologies to expand their energy mix. What they could be referring to is that China will 25% lower than where they would have been projected to be without this agreement. (Note that their goal is to reach their peak usage in 2030 or sooner - meaning they would still be increasing until that point.) Note that they are committing to achieving a certain percent of green technology.

What is important is that it is the first time they committed to ANY goal and they did seem interested in working with the US on this.

There were also several other agreements that improved the US/China relationship and completely changed the perception of "pivot to Asia". This was seen by how flat footed it made the NYT reporter, who was well versed on that, seem when he asked what this meant as the assumption had been that the pivot was to put the US more firmly against China supporting our allies who have had problems with China. Obama's answer was that it was not against China. If this really presages ANY region of the world moving from US vs THEM mentality this is amazing foreign policy - even when disagreements arise.

[hughee99]

20. I'm not saying there aren't some benefits to the deal, but

even if China is reducing their rate of growth by 25 percent, this statement is still misleading. If they want to highlight the benefits of the deal, then they should do that, rather than re-characterizing the deal as something it is not. The fact that the same paper did an article on the actual deal two days earlier leads me to believe this was deliberately misleading.

[JDPriestly]

6. Imagine what the world would be like if Kerry had become president in 2004.

[ColesCountyDem]

18. He might have been, if he'd listened to John Edwards. n/t

[karynnj]

21. Or he might have been had he not given in to everyone pushing Edwards as VP

Edwards was almost as bad as Palin as a VP. He refused to use Kerry's "help is on the way" - using instead the similar "hope is on the way". (It doesn't matter what you think is better - the point is that the campaign need ONE message of this sort and it was Kerry's choice.

In addition, Edwards would promise the Kerry team he would do something -- ie defend Kerry - he instead vainly told the media that the campaign thought he was too valuable to be the attack dog. There are reasons that absolutely NONE of the people on the Kerry 2004 team went to Edwards after Kerry opted not to run.

In addition, I assume you are referring to Edwards' lie that he fought with Kerry on conceding. From people in the room on that night, that is not true. The campaign sent Edwards out that evening saying they were waiting on the vote counting. Kerry conceded the next morning when it was clear there were not sufficient uncounted votes to make up the difference -- and when they were all counted, they still had a hefty gap.

Cam Kerry wrote a summary on Ohio. He spoke of the voter suppression - using things like not having enough voting machines in Democratic strongholds. They managed to stop enough people from voting -- however, you can't count votes never cast.

The same team that told Gore to fight in 2000, told Kerry that there was no way to make a case. The fact is the system does not provide a means to deal qith actions like the voter suppression that happened.

All of these things were written that were said by people who knew what happened. Many things by the people closest to Kerry -- and they are people of integrity.

Edwards, on the other hand, has been exposed for having very little integrity. It should be noted that he NEVER raised this issue when speaking to the mainstream press - just the blogosphere. He also never said what he would have used to make a case. He was just fishing for 2008 support.

[ColesCountyDem]

26. I would consider Elizabeth Edwards (R.I.P.) a credible source, and she said he did.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3134

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/10/434362/-Why-Kerry-was-wrong-in-2004-and-Edwards-was-right#

[karynnj]

27. Elizabeth was lying as well

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Both Edwards were willing to say anything to get him the Presidency. Elizabeth was also trying to hold on to her husband. There were other things that she was willing to lie about - she repeatedly said that John Edwards decided to run for President because he wanted universal healthcare for all -- even before she developed cancer. In fact, in the primary debates of 2004, he blasted Kerry (Dean was already out) because he said his plan was too expensive. Edwards plan covered just kids -- essentially just expanding SCHIP. (Both his 2004 plan and Elizabeth's comments are easily found.) In addition, in her book, Elizabeth went out of her way to attack Teresa, who had never been anything but kind to her.

The strangest case of her lying was that she backed John Edwards story in August 2008 that he did not father the baby. It later became clear that she knew far more about this - and knew he was lying - when he made those statements.

Not to mention the main point - there was NO way to challenge the results. In the time between November and when the electors had to be named before the January vote would allow a recount. However a recount would not find sufficient votes. Proving that there was intentional voter suppression would NOT change the results and it could not be done in the time frame.

Elizabeth was a good person, but certainly not a saint.

[ColesCountyDem]

28. Slandering a dead woman.

Classy.

[karynnj]

29. So, I should allow you to cite something she said as Gospel truth because she died?

Slander implies stating untrue things - what is untrue? Saying a political wife would color the truth for her (his) spouse is not really earth shaking. For a more cynical example, you might remember her contrasting her "staying home" with Jack and Emma Claire to HRC not staying home when Chelsea was young - ignoring SHE worked when Cate and Wade were young - in a sneaky attempt - that she ended up being called on - to allude to Bill's fidelity problem.

Mrs. Edwards, wife of John, who is the candidate, has been over some of this terrain regarding Mrs. Clinton before. Last fall, she told a forum sponsored by Ladies Home Journal that she had some things in common with Mrs. Clinton — they both went to law school and both married lawyers — but that they then made different choices.

“I think my choices have made me happier,” Mrs. Edwards was quoted as saying. “I think I’m more joyful than she is.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/elizabeth-edwards/

As this article mentioned, she did try to walk this back --- after it ignited a fire storm. (This was NOT surprising to anyone who ever read parenting boards and remembered the unnecessary fight between stay at home and career women.) Given that the Clinton's daughter was (and is) a wonderful person who obviously had good parenting, this was seen by many as bringing up the turbulent Clinton marriage. Note also the date. Elizabeth, at that point, knew about Hunter. Yet she was willing to contrast her perfect marriage/family against what she implied was the less happy Clinton version.

Given that example, do you REALLY want to argue that Elizabeth Edwards was unlikely to say something that was not true - that could help her husband?

Her comments on that were COMPLETELY because there were a large number of left leaning Democrats who were angry that Kerry did not contest 2004. That seems STILL to be the case given that it was alluded to here on a thread about work he has just done as SoS.

What is clear about both Edwards is that they were skilled at reinventing who John Edwards was. In 2004, he was near the right most candidate. In 2008, there was no opening on the right given where HRC was -- so suddenly he had a platform more like Kerry 2004 or Dean 2004 then Edwards 2004. His Senate record was similar to that of Evan Bayh. He voted for the bankruptcy bill -- and given that Elizabeth had been a bankruptcy lawyer, he can't say he did not understand how bad that bill was.

Elizabeth was a great advocate - for her husband and later for health care, but she was a very complex person. Her cancer and her death were tragic - especially as she had to face both without the love of her life really there for her.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. You don't know that they were untrue, do you?

Your 'evidence' is hearsay, just like mine. You cannot disprove that that is what she heard.

[karynnj]

32. I do know that when pushed to state what they would have done, they never answered

As to hearsay, I am alluding to many articles from people - like Bob Shrum and other people who were important to the campaign.

It does not even matter "what she heard" that night. She knew by the next day - the same thing the Kerrys knew, there were NOT enough votes there to contest. It is entirely possible that when Edwards was called and told they were conceding he said something like - Oh, no and asked if there were any possible avenue to continue to fight it.

That however would NOT equate to what she in Iowa said it to be -- a desire to refuse to concede. (Not to mention, as some mentioned here, his name was on the ballot, so he had standing himself. You might say that the party would not support him in this - well, they would not have supported a Kerry effort when there was no realistic way to appeal it. )

The Iowa statements were just pandering to the left.

[ColesCountyDem]

33. Wow!

To summarize:

1.) You know better than Elizabeth Edwards herself what she overheard.

2.) You know what she 'knew' the next day.

3.) You know what her motivation was in saying and writing what she said and wrote.

I have my checkbook handy, so do you mind telling me where I can buy super powers like the ones you obviously have?

[karynnj]

34. Not super powers

1) I simply said that she MIGHT have accurately described in her book the words she heard - and noted that the meaning might have been more innocuous. This was stated as CONJECTURE. However, there are people close to Kerry who deny that Edwards made any case to Kerry not to concede. So, at best, you can claim that you believe the Edwards over the Kerry people. I suggest that the fact that the Edwards never ever indicated what the basis for their fight would have been, backs what the Kerry team said.

2) As to what she knew the next day - the Edwards clearly were told by the Democratic election lawyers the same thing that the entire Kerry team was told -- there was no viable case. There were not enough outstanding votes in Ohio to count. (This was later seen to be accurate as there was still a large gap (I think about 16,000) after all the absentee and provisional ballots were counted.) Not to mention, I think her own mind had far bigger, more important things to deal with the next day - as she went for tests at the hospital.

3) I agree that I am speculating as to why she said what she did in Iowa. I also - forced by you - listed other instances where she put out clearly politically motivated comments and that she - in some - was very willing to be revisionist.

The fact still remains that no one has successfully disputed what the Democratic lawyers and later Cam Kerry said was the case back in November 2004 -- there were not enough votes for Kerry cast in Ohio. Even the RFKjr analysis simply proved that Kerry would have won an honest election in Ohio. He ESTIMATED the votes lost to too few machines and other voter suppression tricks. Yes, I remember the caterpillar ballots, where they differed by district and clearly some ended up being tabulated in a different district - either because people used the wrong ballot or because they were switched. The proof it happened were that there were "ghost peaks" of votes to really minor candidates positioned where Kerry was in the next district. However, where a statistician doing a study can and should "correct" obvious errors in the data, this is not what can legally be done after an election. Consider in the well known Palm Beach 2000 case, that it would have very easy - if this were just a study - to know that the ballots for both Buchanan and Gore coming from retirement villages that were actually i almost 100% Jewish were intended to be votes for Gore/Lieberman. However, that is not what the law is.

When this was raised in 2007, it was just one of the desperate pandering attempts to make Edwards the candidate of the left -- and all of this was seen daily on DU.

[merrily]

13. Factoid. A. David Mazzone, the federal judge who ordered the clean up of Boston harbor,

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

is buried on Deer Island, the site of the sewage treatment plant that is responsible for a huge part of the cleanup. I guess it was supposed to be an honor of some kind. The EPA had come at Boston a number of times about the harbor.

Fishermen who had migrated to Boston's North End from Sicily in the early part of the last century used to earn their living fishing Boston harbor and other North End residents used to swim in it Then, it became a dead harbor. As far as I know, it still does not sustain life, but it is considered to have been cleaned up.

Love that dirty water, Oh, Boston you're my home.

[dballance]

14. I think Kerry is a unique person.

If my knowledge of history is correct Secretary Kerry has quite the international background. Something that is important for a Secretary of State.

I think he is great and underrated. He is underrated because international diplomacy requires subtly. Not big blasts on TV and, of course, FOX.

[Cha]

25. Thank you for this karyn.. I had read on the Obama diary that Kerry has been working on the

deal with the Chinese behind the scenes for almost a year.

From October 18, 2014

Kerry seeks to warm summit mood with dinner for China's top diplomat

(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed China's top diplomat, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, to his Boston home on Friday for talks aimed at warming the often strained U.S.-China relationship ahead of a summit between their leaders next month.

Kerry stood outside his imposing townhouse residence in Boston's exclusive Louisburg Square to welcome Yang with smiles and handshakes. After their dinner on Friday night, the two will hold formal talks on Saturday, when Kerry also plans to show Yang some of the sights of his native city.

MOre..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11358013

[karynnj]

31. Thank you for that link

Obama did good naming Kerry as Secretary of State. Obama also deserves a huge amount of credit for using his political capital on this - though it actually may end up being one of the brightest parts of his foreign policy legacy.

[Cha]

36. Yes, Pres Obama chose well when he tapped John Kerry for SOS.. remember all the whining on

DU?


President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, right, shakes hands outside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/11/12/the-presidents-day-28/

Thank you, karyn

[karynnj]

37. Sure do --- some of the loudest whiners even invaded the JK group

and did not understand why they were quickly countered.

[Cha]

38. Kerry was the perfect choice! P.S. I added the caption that belongs under the pic. :)