Hillary clinton

The garbled horror stories just keep on rolling out of Libya. According to the latest reports, Gaddafi’s troops have attacked the rebels in Zawiyah with redoubled violence and force. Aircraft, tanks, bombs, mortars – all have been used against the city and its people, with what one assumes are bloody results. As one resident puts it to Reuters, “Zawiyah as you knew it no longer exists.” It is unclear whether the rebels have now lost control there, but that is a strong possibility. Unsurprising, then, that the West is positioning itself to act. David Cameron, we are told, has been speaking with Barack Obama about the full spread of options

There has been no shortage of depressing news for the Tories lately. But, the other day, Benedict Brogan wrote a lengthy post about William Hague that must have made particularly unpleasant in-flight reading for the Foreign Secretary as he jetted around the South Pacific. It argued that: “In his absence – and even when he is back in Britain – Mr Hague is the subject of a whispering campaign among his colleagues, who say that the spark of ambition has died in his heart, and with it his effectiveness as the front man for the nation’s diplomatic effort. The Foreign Office has got its mojo back, just when Mr Hague

Over the last decade, Wall Street has become an important foreign policy actor in its own right, almost as important as the lobbyists on K-Street and the White House on Pensylvania Avenue. The ebb and flow of capital has been a decisive international force in determining the fate of nations – most recently illustrated in the cases of Greece and Ireland. As an aide to President Clinton once said: in a second life he would like to come back as the bond market. But Wall Street has influenced foreign policy in a deeper way too: by changing the way that successive US administrations see the world. Not by focusing on

Two years into her term, and after carefully avoiding any success-free issues, Hillary Clinton has finally launched herself into the Middle East peace process. According to Roger Cohen in the New York Times, “The heavy lifting is now in Clinton’s hands”. As evidence of Clinton’s new role, Cohen lists a video conference with the Palestinian prime minister, where the US secretary of state announced $150 million in US aid to the Palestinian Authority and said the Obama administration was “deeply disappointed” by recent Israeli behaviour. Mrs Clinton’s foray into the Middle Eastern quagmire  is interesting. It shows that the Obama administration is not going to give up and will, despite

Week two and the US-Israeli spat has calmed. More than a dozen Republican and Democratic Congressmen have pressed the Obama administration to tone down its criticism, following initial outrage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to build 1,600 homes in the disputed East Jerusalem territory – announced during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit. Claims that the US-Israel relationship have sunk to the worst level for 35 years were rejected by Hillary Clinton. And in his first public comments on the controversy, President Obama downplayed criticism of the Israeli government over the illegal settlement expansion plan. But I am with Israel’s ambassador to the US: there is real risk of a lasting rift

The strategic logic behind President Obama’s decision to alter US plans for a missile defence shield based in Eastern Europe was that this would persuade the Russians, who didn’t like the shield, to agree to the US’s push for tougher sanctions on Iran. But it appears that Moscow isn’t going to play ball.   The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared after a meeting with Hillary Clinton yesterday that, “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” So, all that Obama’s concession has done is anger the Czechs and the Poles who weren’t told about the move until the last minute. Iran