DOHA, Qatar - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is kicking off a visit to two key US allies in the Persian Gulf.

Clinton arrived Sunday in Qatar, where she is holding talks with top government leaders and speaking at an international conference called the US-Islamic World Forum.

President Barack Obama addressed the forum by video on Saturday, announcing that he is appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Clinton also is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah and to hold a town hall-style meeting with students at a Saudi women's college.

In both countries Clinton plans to raise the issue of how to contain Iran's nuclear program, which is of great worry among the Gulf Arab states.

By ROBERT BURNS, The Associated Press, February 14, 2010

WASHINGTON - With tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions hitting new levels, the United States is mounting a diplomatic full-court press in the Middle East, sending four top diplomats, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to confer with Arab and Israeli leaders.

The envoys' visits to Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were planned separately in recent weeks, but they now have a common purpose, administration officials said: to reassure Iran's neighbors that the United States will stand firm against Tehran, and to enlist other countries in a global effort to put pressure on the Iranian authorities.

Mrs. Clinton will play a central part in the effort, leaving Saturday for Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where she will meet with the Saudi leader, King Abdullah. Officials said she was expected to press the Saudis to reassure China that Saudi Arabia would offset any disruption in oil shipments that could occur if Beijing were to back new United Nations sanctions against Iran.

China, which has major investments in Iran's oil and gas industry, has been the main holdout in the American-led effort to impose tougher sanctions against Iran through the United Nations Security Council.

In a sign of the importance of the trip, Mrs. Clinton stuck to her plans even after her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the hospital for a heart procedure on Thursday, though she delayed her departure by a day.

"If you're talking about the Middle East writ large," said the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, "Iran has an influence in each compartment. Part of it is the nuclear issue, part of it is Iran's support for extremist groups, part of it is about how Iran is going to relate to the rest of the neighborhood."

The American officials, Mr. Crowley noted, will also discuss other issues, like the Arab-Israeli peace process, building Palestinian institutions on the West Bank, and the administration's long-term effort to reach out to Syria. But in these issues too, Iran casts a long shadow.

Both of Mrs. Clinton's lieutenants, James B. Steinberg and Jacob J. Lew, are headed to the region. Mr. Lew will leave this weekend for Egypt, Israel and Jordan, while Mr. Steinberg travels to Israel the week of Feb. 21 to take part in discussions with Israel that are likely to be dominated by Iran.

The State Department's under secretary for political affairs, William Burns, has perhaps the most challenging itinerary, traveling to Syria, one of Iran's staunchest allies in the region, and to Lebanon, which holds a seat on the Security Council and is likely to resist sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Burns, administration officials said, will also discuss plans to return an American ambassador to Syria after a hiatus of five years. The Bush administration withdrew its envoy in 2005 to protest the assassination of the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. Washington has long suspected Syria of being involved in the attack, a charge it denies.

By reaching out to Syria, analysts said, the United States may loosen the links between Damascus and Tehran, though administration officials caution that progress in this area is likely to be slow.

"I don't think you're going to see a sudden flip of the switch, where they go from Iran's orbit to our orbit," said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. "But the Syrians do need to see we envision a Middle East in which they're playing a constructive role."

In his visit to Israel, Mr. Steinberg will take part in a strategic dialogue intended to touch on counterterrorism and regional security issues. Iran, which Israel regards as an existential threat, is likely to be at the top of the agenda, American officials said.

Iran's announcement that it had begun enriching uranium to 20 percent purity brought expressions of alarm from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who said this week that the United Nations must impose "crippling sanctions, and these sanctions must be applied right now."

Administration officials said they were pleased that, as one official put it, "the Iranians will see so many American officials floating around the region at the same time. They'll definitely take notice."

Still, some analysts said, the cavalcade of diplomats will not ultimately make a difference if the United States fails to develop a credible plan for confronting Iran or muster international support for it.

"The attitude in the Middle East countries is going to be, 'Can we count on the United States?' " said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "If the Obama administration wants to persuade people it can deter Iran, it's going to require continuing high-level attention. It's going to require cold war-level diplomacy."

By Mark Landler, The New York Times, February 12, 2010

Iran and its muscle flexing across the Persian Gulf will be at the heart of Hillary Clinton's visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Washington

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton travels to the Persian Gulf Saturday, the unspoken focus of the trip will be Iran.

In announcing Secretary Clinton's trip, the State Department said only that she would speak Feb. 14 at the US-Islamic World Forum, hosted by the Qatari government and the Brookings Institution's Saban Center. Also, she will meet with Qatar's emir and foreign minister. And in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 15-16, she will meet with King Abdullah bin Abdul al-Saud and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

But Iran and its muscle flexing across the Gulf region will be at the heart of the visit, Middle East experts say - as will US attempts to increase pressure on the Iranian regime over its continuing pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

"Iran will very much be front and center in Secretary Clinton's visit," says James Phillips, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "That's especially true because the Gulf countries, including those she's visiting, are even more nervous than the US about the rise of Iran and its growing power."

Clinton's trip comes as the United States steps up its efforts to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions and to contain Iran's expanding military power in the region.

The US is pursuing a new United Nations Security Council resolution of economic sanctions against Iran, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying earlier this week that the US hopes to see approval of the resolution "within weeks." At the same time, the Obama administration is accelerating a reinforcement of missile defenses in the Persian Gulf, which was initiated under President Bush.

Last month Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command, spoke publicly of the deployment of American antimissile batteries, "two in each of four countries." Although General Petraeus did not provide names, Qatar is known to be one of the countries to have accepted the missiles. Petraeus did say that the US is keeping Aegis cruisers, equipped with antimissile systems capable of intercepting medium-range missiles, on permanent patrol in the Persian Gulf.

Clinton is likely to do some indirect lobbying for the new Security Council resolution through her Arab interlocutors. Of the five Security Council countries with veto power over Council actions, only China remains publicly opposed to passing a new set of sanctions at this time.

When she met with her Chinese counterpart recently, Clinton emphasized what she called the short-term perspective of China's current position, saying that China's reluctance to move forward on sanctions was related to China's close commercial relations with Iran. She called on China to think more in terms of its long-term interests in a stable Middle East.

Following up on that argument, Clinton will be looking to the Arabs to "act as a counterweight [to Iran] on China and help unlock its Security Council vote," Mr. Phillips says.

"The US is hoping to use these discussions with the Arabs as a way to encourage China to look at its long-term economic interests," Phillips adds. "The Arabs could let the Chinese know that it will hurt them economically with the Arab countries in the long run if China clings to this pro-Iran position."

Clinton's Gulf trip was announced even as the US Treasury Department took additional action against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under existing US sanctions. As of Wednesday, the Treasury said, it was designating one IRGC general and four companies as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

The Treasury named Iranian Gen. Rostam Qasemi, commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters, the IRGC's engineering arm, in Wednesday's designation.

"Today's action exposing Khatam al-Anbiya subsidiaries will help firms worldwide avoid business that ultimately benefits the IRGC and its dangerous activities," Stuart Levey, undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said in a statement Wednesday.

The Gulf countries already know firsthand about Iran's "dangerous activities," Phillips of Heritage says, so Clinton shouldn't have to do a hard sell to get the Arabs on board in efforts to curtail Iran.

"Iran already pursues a long list of destabilizing activities in the region," Phillips says, listing Iran's support for extremist groups like Hezbollah, cases of it fomenting unrest among Shiite Muslim minorities in majority Sunni Muslim countries, and "strong suspicions" that Iran masterminded a coup attempt in Bahrain.

"If Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon, it will feel all the more freedom to act with impunity in the region, and things could get all the more dangerous in the Gulf," Phillips says. "The Arabs already know that, but the US is hoping they can help convince China to get on board in deterring Iran."

By Howard LaFranchi, The Christian Science Monitor, February 10, 2010

WASHINGTON - The U.S.-based lawyer for one of 10 American Baptists charged with child kidnapping in Haiti appealed Tuesday for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to personally intervene in the case.

Attorneys for detainee Jim Allen said in a letter to Clinton that they are concerned their client may not have adequate legal representation and has not been able to speak with his wife, Lisa, since being arrested in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake.

They said the case was complicated by the chaotic situation in Haiti and asked Clinton to speak directly to Haitian authorities about letting the families of the detainees talk with them to ensure their well-being.

"Without questioning the the integrity of the individuals involved in the Haitian judidicial system, we think it is clear that the unprecedented situation that exists in Haiti now requires a response beyond what would be expected in the ordinary course," lawyers Reginald Brown and Jennifer O'Connor said in the letter.

"We respectfully ask that you make a personal request to the Haitian authorities to allow Lisa and her lawyers to speak directly to Jim without delay," they wrote. "Similar access should also be provided to the families of the other Americans being held in Haiti."

The State Department said Tuesday that the detainees - who insist they are innocent and were on a humanitarian mission - had been receiving consular visits from U.S. diplomats and that it would be unusual for Clinton or any secretary of state to get personally involved.

"We are doing exactly what we would do with detained Americans anywhere in the world," spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters. He added that access to the detainees should be easily arranged by the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince and Haitian officials.

"As to intervening directly in the case, we are very respectful of the Haitian government and Haitian law," he said. "It would be highly unusual for the secretary of state to intervene in the judicial process of another country."

However, Crowley said U.S. officials had been in touch with Haitian authorities about what might happen if Haitian courts were unable to handle the case.

"We have talked to Haitian officials in general terms about their ability to conduct this procedure," he said. If they want to explore alternative avenues with us, we will be happy to do so." Crowley would not elaborate.

By MATTHEW LEE , The Associated Press, February 9, 2010

President Barack Obama's offer to extend a hand to rogue regimes hasn't been met with reciprocation of unclenching fists, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said.

In an interview aired Sunday morning reflecting on her first year as the nation's top diplomat, Clinton also said that terrorist syndicates posed a greater threat to the U.S. than the actions of any one nation such as Iran.

"We will extend a hand," Obama said in his inaugual address, "if you are willing to unclench your fist." When asked by CNN's Candy Crowley whether Iran had unclenched its fist in the past year, Clinton firmly responded, "No."

When asked if North Korea had done so, Clinton also responded, "No," addding, "Not to the extent we'd like to see them, but engagement has brought us a lot."

Clinton defended the administration's policy of diplomacy based on "mutual respect," not just "hurling insults," as building a foreign policy over the past year that has "created a much more open, receptive atmosphere."

"Because we engaged, the rest of the world has begun to see Iran the way we see it," Clinton said. Because Obama extended a hand, Clinton said, "a neighbor like China knows we'll go the extra mile" and is thus more likely to join onto U.S. efforts to contain the budding nuclear states.

"I would say this has been a very successful year," Clinton said in summing up the diplomatic efforts, noting the pressing of the reset button with Russia.

When pressed about Iran, though, Clinton turned the focus to terrorism. "Most of us believe the greater threats are the transnational, non-state networks" such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates, she said. The greatest threat, Clinton said, is a terror syndicate getting its hands on a weapon of mass destruction.

Because of the Christmas Day bombing attempt on an airliner heading into Detroit, Clinton said, "people have become very focused" on the terror threat, adding that despite the continuing theat from al-Qaeda "you can't be discouraged or fearful about what's happening."

When asked about the assessment of top intelligence officials, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, that an al-Qaeda attempt was imminent within the next three to six months, Clinton said "it's very difficult to make that kind of assessment."

"I don't see [al-Qaeda] as stronger but I see that they are more creative, more flexible, more agile, they evolve," she said, adding that the U.S. had "degraded their ability" in the Afghanistan region.

By Bridget Johnson, The Hill, February 7, 2010

President Obama urged Democrats and Republicans to not question one another's motives and to make an effort to move beyond the cynicism and skepticism that has weighed down the politics of Washington, saying: "Civility is not a sign of weakness."

In an appearance today at the National Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Obama conceded that policy differences would often separate the political parties. But he challenged lawmakers and religious leaders to step beyond their comfort zones and unify on at least some daily challenges, not only when a calamity like the Haiti earthquake strikes.

"Too often that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy," Mr. Obama said. "We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God's voice."

The National Prayer Breakfast, which has been held for the last half-century in Washington, drew criticism by some liberal groups this year because the sponsor of the event, an evangelical Christian network called The Fellowship, is allegedly tied to legislation in Uganda that calls for the imprisonment and execution of homosexuals.

The president, along with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, denounced the proposal in Uganda.

"We may disagree about gay marriage," Mr. Obama said, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it is right here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda."

He added, "Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary, but in doing so, let us be guided by our faith and by prayer."

Mr. Obama spoke openly about how he has been sustained during his first year in office by faith and prayer. He does not frequently attend Sunday church services, but often speaks with a small circle of pastors, who provide spiritual guidance and support.

"While prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm, while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle - and I assure you, I'm praying a lot these days - prayer can also do something else," Mr. Obama said. "It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a sense of civility."

The president also addressed something that he rarely speaks about: his citizenship. Questions were initially raised by conservative groups during his presidential campaign and continue to regularly flare up on talk-radio programs and Tea Party rallies.

"Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith," Mr. Obama said, "or for that matter my citizenship."

The crowd applauded and laughed. The president did not.

Mr. Obama struck similar tones to previous speeches in which he has called for civility, including his appearance last year at the National Prayer Breakfast. He acknowledged that politics has always been messy, saying: "We shouldn't over-romanticize the past."

"But there is a sense that something is different now, that something is broken, that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should," Mr. Obama said. "At times, it seems like we are unable to listen to one another, to have at once a serious and civil debate. This erosion of civility in the public square sows division and cynicism among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion."

Along with Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, a bipartisan array of Washington officials was seated on the dais at the National Prayer Breakfast, including several heads of state, members of the Cabinet and members of Congress.

Mrs. Clinton delivered the keynote address at the prayer breakfast, speaking openly about how her faith has sustained her. But she denounced "religion cloaked in naked power lust, used to justify violence" in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

The solemn morning was interrupted by a few moments of humor, including when Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, stepped to the microphone to offer a prayer. Just as he did, the alarm on his Blackberry went off and was amplified throughout the hotel ballroom.

As he apologized and fumbled to turn it off, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, turned to him and said: "It's time for prayer!"

An earlier version of this post quoted incorrectly from comments by President Obama, who referred to the Tower of Babel, not the "tower of babble."

By Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, February 4, 2010

WASHINGTON - With an inadvertent bit of shorthand, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton set off a buzz in diplomatic circles on Wednesday, and may have offered a glimpse into how the Obama administration hopes to revive the stalled peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Answering a question at a news conference about how the talks might be revived, Mrs. Clinton said, "Of course, we believe that the 1967 borders, with swaps, should be the focus of the negotiations over borders."

Such a concept is not new. For a generation of Middle East peacemakers, Israel's borders before the Arab-Israeli war are the obvious starting point for negotiations over the shape of a Palestinian state.

But Mrs. Clinton's mention of them went farther than the Obama administration's standard script on the Middle East: that the positions of Israel and the Palestinians can be reconciled. Analysts said it could augur a new American emphasis, after a frustrating year in which President Obama failed to jump-start the peace process by pressuring Israel to halt construction of settlements.

In particular, Mrs. Clinton's reference may appeal to the Palestinians, who have long declared that the 1967 borders should be the basis for negotiations. The United States is trying desperately to persuade the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, to return to the bargaining table.

"The reason why this is important is the context," said David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "To have it formulated this way, at this sensitive juncture, gives it a kind of significance."

A spokesman for the State Department, Philip J. Crowley, said that Mrs. Clinton had not been signaling a shift in policy. She has mentioned 1967 borders before - notably in a statement after Israel announced a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank - though always in the context of the Palestinian position. This time, he said, she was merely speaking in shorthand.

"The secretary was reiterating our established policy on borders," Mr. Crowley said. "She was not sending a signal."

Earlier in the same news conference, with the foreign minister of Bahrain, Mrs. Clinton recited the full version of the policy. In addition to referring to the 1967 borders, "with agreed swaps," she mentioned Israel's goal of a "Jewish state with secure and recognized borders."

"Agreed swaps" mainly refers to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, some of which would be legally granted to Israel in return for Israeli territory that would become part of a new Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has resisted entering negotiations on the basis of 1967 borders because it believes that would constrain its room for negotiation. On Thursday, Israeli diplomats said they had taken note of Mrs. Clinton's words but did not want to jump to any conclusions.

"There's an intense effort being made with the administration to resume negotiations, but we're still at a preparatory stage," said Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, has refused to enter negotiations with Israel until it freezes all construction of settlements, including in East Jerusalem, something it has refused to do. Some Palestinians said it was unlikely that Mrs. Clinton's comments, by themselves, would bring him around.

"Abu Mazen seems to be averse even to getting U.S. commitments," said Ziad J. Asali, the president of the American Task Force on Palestione. "It will take commitments that are credible."

In the absence of a breakthrough, the United States is trying to encourage indirect talks between the sides, with its special envoy for the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, serving as intermediary.

By Mark Landler, The New York Times, February 4, 2010

BERLIN - With President Barack Obama's decision to skip a United States-European Union summit meeting next May in Madrid, Europe's egos were badly bruised. Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, and Jose Manuel Barroso, the E.U. Commission president, were angry and embarrassed. They saw Mr. Obama's nonattendance as a snub.

It could signal an emerging shift in the trans-Atlantic relationship, analysts and diplomats believe.

As the United States moves ahead in redefining its role in the post-Cold War era - believing it is high time that Europe took care of its own security - Europe is caught in a quandary. It hankers after a past that relied on U.S. protection, but it wants to break free and become a global player in its own right.

This ambivalence was captured by the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was in Paris last week giving a lecture at the Ecole Militaire. She tried to convince her audience that Mr. Obama was not turning his back on Europe. American troops, said Mrs. Clinton, would remain in Europe.

Nor had the United States weakened its commitment to Eastern Europe by scrapping plans to deploy the controversial antiballistic missile shield there. "The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner," Mrs. Clinton said.

But, as the administration knows, there are many Europes even though the European Union should be speaking with one voice on issues like Afghanistan, the global financial crisis, China and nuclear proliferation. "E.U. leaders say they want a stronger Europe, but they are beholden to their national governments," said Nick Witney, defense expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris and a former high-ranking E.U. official.

The endless squabbles inside the European Union exasperate the United States. But as America's top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton was not provoking a fight. What she appeared to make clear was that the United States needed a strong Europe. "It is critical to our security and our prosperity. And we need European leadership in the 21st century," she said.

But the United States cannot count on any of the three big E.U. countries to take the lead, Mr. Witney said.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain is facing an election campaign. Besides, he has little interest in Europe. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have supported the United States in seeking stronger sanctions against Iran. Apart from that, neither leader has shown great interest in pursuing the further integration of Europe that is crucial for making the bloc more united in defense and security policy.

Mrs. Merkel's center-right coalition government has spent much of the time since elections last September bickering over domestic policy while she herself now shows little interest in foreign policy, or even traveling.

"It is not clear who is speaking for Europe," said Stephen Flanagan, defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The great hope that the naming of Catherine Ashton," the European Union's new foreign policy chief, "would lead to coherence has not turned true," he said.

This lack of leadership has prevented the European Union from agreeing to a security doctrine that would define the bloc's interests but also redefine the trans-Atlantic relationship. When E.U. top diplomats met two years ago to update the bloc's 2003 Security Strategy - a document that focused on the use of soft, nonmilitary power but ignored the role of the United States and NATO - they failed to reach consensus.

Germany, Russia's main ally in the European Union, blocked discussion about Russia, which had invaded Georgia in August 2008. Britain, as a matter of principle, was not interested in Europe having a new security doctrine. Some countries thought that France, then holding the rotating E.U. presidency, was trying to dominate the outcome. The effort was abandoned.

"It was a big shame," said Frederic Bozo, international relations professor at the University of Sorbonne. "It showed the complete lack of leadership by the three big countries. It also showed that the Europeans are in no position to agree on a security strategy without further integration. If there is no further integration, the Europeans will not be able to become a major global player."

Some analysts say that global issues like climate change could be catalysts for European integration. "The E.U. cannot afford to ignore such issues in which the Europeans do have influence," said Thomas Paulsen, executive director of international affairs at the Korber Foundation in Berlin.

Also, Europeans yearn to be taken seriously by big players like the United States, China and Russia. But other E.U. experts said it was time that Brussels, before pursuing unrealistic global ambitions, begin taking a hard look at its own backyard. "There is a lot of unfinished business closer to home, such as Bosnia, Turkey, Cyprus and defense capabilities, to name but a few," Mr. Witney said.

Bosnia, which was ravaged during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, is still unstable despite the billions of euros and military and civilian personnel the European Union has poured into the region. It is still paralyzed by ethnic rivalries, corruption and a dysfunctional political system.

When Carl Bildt, Sweden's foreign minister, tried last year to turn this fractious federation into a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina by closing the Office of the High Representative in Sarajevo, established in 1995 to oversee the political and economic reconstruction, he failed. Bosnian Serbs were recalcitrant. The European Union flinched.

E.U. leaders are also divided over Turkey's eventual accession to the bloc. Mrs. Merkel wants a "privileged partnership" consisting of economic and trade benefits but none of the political and voting rights inside the European Union. Mr. Sarkozy is staunchly against Turkey's membership, while other countries are divided.

"This is a big mistake," said Janis A. Emmanouilidis, security expert at the European Policy Center in Brussels. "The E.U. policy over Turkey is shortsighted. It is stupid. We risk losing a crucial economic, political and above all a strategic partner," he added.

Mr. Witney was more blunt: "The E.U. only needs to see an opportunity to find a way not to take it."

By JUDY DEMPSEY, The New York Times, February 3, 2010

After a decade of such aid, the nation's law enforcement and courts remained corrupt and ineffectual, a 2000 Government Accountability Office report said.

From 2005 to 2007, the USA tried again, paying a contractor nearly $4 million to improve Haiti's judicial system. There was "no measurable improvement," a government audit found.

Those programs were a small part of the river of foreign aid that has flowed into Haiti in recent decades, even as it has descended further into the depths of poverty and dysfunction.

After receiving $8.3 billion in foreign aid since 1969, Haiti is 25% poorer than it was in 1945, according to statistics compiled by Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute. Even before the Jan. 12 earthquake that killed at least 100,000 people, three-quarters of Haiti's 9 million people lived on less than $2 a day, the United Nations says.

World leaders now are talking about a massive effort to rebuild Haiti's shattered infrastructure. Haiti's tourism minister says it could cost $3 billion. The recovery challenge is without modern precedent, says Laurent Dubois, a Haiti expert at Duke University.

There have been equally devastating quakes, Dubois says, but "you have to go really far back to find an earthquake of this magnitude that hit a capital city," in a country already so lacking in decent housing, roads or public utilities, like water and electricity systems.

Helping Haiti involves more than just humanitarian issues, said Robert Fatton Jr., a Haiti scholar at the University of Virginia. If the United States and the international community don't help rebuild Haiti, there could be waves of Haitian refugees trying to reach the USA.

"You have the possibility of an attempted mass migration," Fatton says. "That would be a public relations disaster for any administration in Washington. It would be an embarrassing sight."

There are 535,000 Haitian immigrants in the USA, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based group. From 1980 to 2000, the number of Haitian immigrants quadrupled, the institute says.

Images of Americans helping Haiti also help the USA abroad, President Obama said Tuesday. "It's part of our national security, it's a smart thing to do," he said.

Those planning the rebuilding say a new way of dispensing aid is needed in Haiti. It starts with a clear-eyed view of what has gone wrong, says Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mills visited Haiti routinely before the earthquake, helping to craft a new aid strategy that her boss says now will be the starting point for Haiti reconstruction.

"We didn't have a model that was sustainable," Mills says of previous aid efforts. "A lot of our assistance was channeled through (private aid groups) and contractors. There was no clear strategy for how you might ultimately transfer capacity to the Haitian government and the Haitian people, putting the nation on a more sustainable path."

The plan Mills and others helped write focuses on security, agriculture, electricity and health. Mills says it would be "a comprehensive and integrated approach to achieve long-term stability and economic growth."

Former president Bill Clinton, special United Nations envoy to Haiti, is likely to play a key role in coordinating it, Mills says, though much is still being decided.

Mills acknowledges that "a historic concern about corruption in Haiti" is one reason so little aid has been routed through the Haitian government. "We'll need to be smart about how we invest ... and ensure that appropriate accountability mechanisms are employed," she says, "but we must also be willing to allow the development of Haitian capacity."

Physician Paul Farmer, who founded a network of medical clinics in Haiti and is now deputy U.N. envoy under Clinton, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday that the "aid machinery currently at work in Haiti" costs too much in overhead and relies too much on aid groups and contractors.

"There is an opportunity not only to build Haiti better, but to build a more functional and beneficial aid structure," he says.

A Marshall Plan for Haiti?

The challenges are "almost unimaginable," Mills says.

The United Nations says half the buildings in Port-au-Prince are rubble and 1 million Haitians are homeless, with hurricane season approaching. What little infrastructure there was — ports, roads, bridges, sewer systems, water lines - has been decimated. Key buildings, including the presidential palace, parliament, the justice ministry and the prison, have collapsed.

Haiti will have to start almost from scratch.

"The government ministries - nearly all have been decimated," says Rajiv Shah, who is coordinating the U.S. relief and rebuilding effort as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. "The leadership of so many of the organizations that Haitians look to - many have died and many have suffered tremendous loss of relatives and property. It's extraordinary."

The business sector also has been crippled, Shah says.

"Just one example: 60% of the construction firm capacity in Haiti was destroyed by the earthquake," he says.

"What is needed is a Marshall Plan for Haiti," says Irish billionaire Denis O'Brien, whose company, Digicel, provides mobile service in the country. "For once and for all, we have to lift Haiti off the floor."

Under the Marshall Plan, which also was invoked by Farmer and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, the USA provided about $13 billion in cash, goods and services to Western Europe from 1948 to 1951 - more than $100 billion in today's dollars.

The aid, credited with laying the basis for Europe's prosperity and helped rebuild devastated countries. But unlike Haiti, those nations had literate populations, the rule of law and long traditions of good governance, trade and industry. Most Haitians eke out an existence on a deforested, hurricane-prone stretch of island the size of Maryland. Its economic, education and legal systems barely function.

Founded by former slaves who threw out their French masters in 1804, Haiti suffered years of isolation, and the French government extracted steep reparations that hindered Haiti's economy. U.S. Marines occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, using forced labor to build roads. Dictators ruled it for most of the 20th century. Most recently, after years of political upheaval, U.N. peacekeepers were responsible for security.

Haiti's legacy of slavery, oppression, corruption and coups made it one of the world's hardest development cases, even before the earthquake.

Some international efforts arguably made things worse. Others have been stymied by political instability. Still others were simply ineffectual.

In the name of free trade, the International Monetary Fund encouraged Haiti to lift tariffs on rice in the 1980s. Its local rice production collapsed, and now it imports rice from the United States, enriching U.S. growers subsidized by Congress, says Georgia State political scientist Henry "Chip" Carey.

In the 1990s, President Clinton sent in U.S. troops to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who had been ousted in a military coup. Clinton led a $2.6 billion international aid effort. But in 1999, the United States and other donors cut off aid over allegations of election fraud and corruption. It didn't flow again until 2004, when more U.S. troops were sent in to restore order.

Then there are the white elephants, such as the five German-built windmills that overlook the bay of Port-de-Paix, says American anthropologist Timothy Schwartz, a fluent Creole-speaker who spent eight years living in rural Haiti. The windmills were never hooked up and quickly stripped for parts, he writes in his 2008 book, Travesty in Haiti.

"The problem is not goodwill," he says by e-mail from Haiti. "I don't even think the problem is resources. ... The big problem is the lack of accountability, lack of a mechanism to pressure aid agencies into effective, long-term development."

That's why Haiti's rebuilding should be orchestrated by a single powerful entity, says Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He's calling for a $3 billion reconstruction fund, including $1 billion from the USA, run through a multinational agency with a governing board including Haitians.

British development expert Paul Collier, who consulted with the United Nations over Haiti development before the quake, likewise sees a reconstruction effort costing "in the low billions."

Jobs are key

If the U.S. government gives $1 billion, it would be about one-third of what it is spending on non-military aid to Afghanistan this year. Current U.S. aid to Haiti is about $300 million a year. After the 2004 tsunami killed more than 160,000 in Southeast Asia, the U.S. government pledged nearly $1 billion of the $13.4 billion pledged by countries, businesses and private groups, the United Nations says.

Such a U.S. donation could materialize again, but the Haiti quake comes as the USA is in recession and mired in debt.

The U.S. government has $375 million designated for Haiti, says Tom Gavin of the Office of Management and Budget. Beyond that, he says, "it would be premature" to say how much the USA will give" or where the money would come from.

The earthquake has raised questions that previous planning didn't account for. For example, Haitians are leaving Port-au-Prince in large numbers for the countryside. Should the rebuilding effort encourage that migration, given that much of the capital was a fetid, crowded slum before the earthquake?

Hillary Clinton suggested the answer was yes.

"So many people are leaving Port-au-Prince into the surrounding countryside," she told reporters recently. "People feel safer in the countryside and we want to support them there."

Yet Port-au-Prince is home to key economic infrastructure, such as the main seaport and airport, both of which should be upgraded and expanded, says O'Brien, whose Digicel mobile phone network was quickly up and running after the earthquake.

The effort should focus on restoring "electricity, water, sanitation, bridges, roads," he says.

And it all must be built according to an earthquake-resistant building code, says Timothy Knight, a former USAID disaster assistance manager now with the International Resources Group, a private contractor.

It's crucial for the reconstruction effort to create jobs for Haitians, even if it means a less efficient operation than one run solely by contractors from rich countries, says Brian Atwood, a former USAID administrator and dean of the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

One skeptic is William Easterly, a New York University professor and critic of foreign aid practices. He supports rebuilding Haiti's infrastructure but says aid should focus on fixing specific problems, not on "yet another delusional attempt" by outsiders to fix Haiti.

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY, February 3, 2010

PARIS - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday that it would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an American-led campaign.

Speaking to students at Ecole Militaire, the prestigious French war college, Mrs. Clinton said, "China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have" in the Persian Gulf, "from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply."

With Russia increasingly frustrated by Iran's recalcitrance, China has emerged as perhaps the lone holdout to a new United Nations resolution that would focus sweeping financial and economic sanctions on Iran's leadership, including a possible ban on sales of technology to its energy sector.

Mrs. Clinton - in a flurry of meetings this week in Europe, including one with the Chinese foreign minister - has tried to build momentum for new measures against Iran. Britain, France and Germany back the effort, and Russia, which has often blocked previous efforts, now seems ready to act.

Only China, which imports crude oil from Iran and has large investments in Iran's oil and gas sector, has said it would prefer to continue negotiating with the Iranian government. With a veto in the United Nations Security Council, it could block a move to impose more sanctions.

"We understand that right now, that is something that seems counterproductive to you, sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs," Mrs. Clinton said, referring to the Chinese, in comments after a speech on European security. "But think about the longer-term implications."

American officials have been making this argument privately to the Chinese for weeks, as the United States tries to win them over for new sanctions. But this is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly made the link between China's energy security and the alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In case Beijing missed the urgency of her appeal, Mrs. Clinton remarked that a nuclear-armed Iran would risk setting off an arms race in the Persian Gulf, and that it could provoke a military strike from Israel, which she said would regard a nuclear Iran as an "existential threat."

Tensions between China and the United States have flared recently over a range of issues, most notably Internet freedom and Google's announcement that its systems has been hacked by sources in mainland China. Unprompted, Mrs. Clinton alluded to another source of friction: President Obama's plan to meet with the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing condemns as a subversive.

China, she said, should not allow such irritants to derail its otherwise "positive, comprehensive" relationship with the United States.

Mrs. Clinton was in London and Paris this week for meetings on Afghanistan and Yemen, and for her security speech. But jitters about Iran and its nuclear ambitions have shadowed her at every stop.

In London, Mrs. Clinton brought along specialists on sanctions from the Treasury Department to talk to Chinese officials about technical issues, like how the Iranian government transfers money to banks in Asia to avoid restrictions on its transactions in Western banks.

Mrs. Clinton met Thursday with the Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, who was attending the Afghanistan conference. A senior administration official said Mr. Yang listened to the American arguments but reiterated his government's preference to stick with negotiations.

International patience with Iran has frayed, particularly since Iranian authorities backed out of a deal to ship a significant portion of their lightly enriched uranium to France or Russia to be further enriched for medical purposes.

Frustration with Iran is also mounting on Capitol Hill, where the Senate passed its own sanctions bill on Thursday. Mrs. Clinton said the administration would focus on obtaining a United Nations resolution, though she said the Senate's legislation could end up being "complementary."

As part of the effort to broaden and toughen sanctions, the Obama administration is expected to push to add financial institutions to the blacklist of those helping Iran's nuclear program.

The focus of these sanctions, Mrs. Clinton has said, would be on Iran's leadership, particularly members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Many in the corps also played a role in cracking down on the enduring protests after Iran's disputed presidential election in June.

Mrs. Clinton, who met the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, earlier in the day, said she applauded his "leadership on this issue."

Her address on European security, the main reason for her stop in Paris, was meant to answer recent Russian proposals to revamp security arrangements on the continent, including major arms treaties.

The United States, Mrs. Clinton said, opposed negotiating new security treaties, saying that would be time-consuming and cumbersome. Instead, she said she wanted to strengthen existing institutions.

"The United States and Russia will not always agree," she said. "Our interests will not always overlap. But when we disagree, we will seek constructive ways to discuss and manage our differences."

By Mark Landler, The New York Times, January 29, 2010

In Paris, the U.S. secretary of State tells Beijing to think about the longer-term consequences even though it may seem 'counterproductive' to sanction a country from which it gets key resources.

Reporting from Paris - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday that it faced international pressure and increasing isolation unless it joined other world powers in sanctioning Iran to try to halt Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The admonishment from Clinton came on the same day the Pentagon announced more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, a move certain to infuriate Beijing and add a new complication to the U.S.-Chinese relationship.

Clinton, speaking at a leading French military academy in Paris, said that China and five other leading nations had been united in trying to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment that they fear is aimed at developing nuclear weaponry.

But now that China is balking at joining the others in a new round of United Nations sanctions, Clinton said, "China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the [Persian] Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their own supplies."

She told an audience of military experts and officers at the Ecole Militaire that "we understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs."

But she said Beijing "needs to think about the longer-term implications."

Clinton said an Iranian nuclear bomb would produce an arms race and would convince Israel that it faces an "existential threat. . . . All of that is incredibly dangerous."

U.S. officials believe they have finally persuaded Russia to join with France, Britain, Germany and the United States in a new round of United Nations sanctions. All except Germany are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, leaving China as the remaining holdout. Beijing argues that the other world powers should continue to use diplomacy to nudge the Iranians into cooperation.

U.S. officials have argued in the past that China would not continue to hold out against sanctions if Russia joined the Western powers. But as recently as Thursday, when Clinton met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, China had not relented.

Washington's relations with the Chinese have recently hit a rough patch. After Clinton called China to account for Internet censorship this month, the Chinese Foreign Ministry complained that her speech had harmed U.S.-Chinese relations. On Thursday, in an appearance before reporters, she was conciliatory, saying that there were multiple views on the issue of how fully China was controlling Internet access in the country.

But a new source of likely friction emerged Friday in the announcement by the Pentagon that it had approved the arms sales to Taiwan.

The $6-billion package, which has been expected, does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan has sought. Under the deal as formally announced, Taiwan will buy 60 Black Hawk helicopters, more than 100 Patriot antiaircraft missiles, two mine-hunting ships and other items.

China objects to the sale, and U.S. officials acknowledged that it could result in a suspension of U.S.-China military ties. In Beijing, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei called U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. today to register his government's displeasure.

The sale has been in the works for weeks, and administration officials have argued that China should not be angry, even though it pumps new weaponry into the island, which Beijing views as a renegade province.

"We have to be mature enough . . . to continue to focus on this and do the hard work it requires to continue to engage, even when times get tough," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said this week.

At the same appearance in Paris, Clinton sought to reassure a nervous Europe that the Obama administration remained fully committed to its defense.

Speaking as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reconsiders its core mission, Clinton acknowledged that some Europeans fear that the United States may not believe Europe needs help with its security, while others are worried that the administration "is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded on our list of priorities."

But she insisted that "European security is an anchor of U.S. foreign policy."

The Obama administration is relying heavily on European support on Iran and Afghanistan. But Europeans have seen a variety of what they fear are worrisome signs of wandering attention.

Some Eastern European countries are concerned by the administration's decision to back away from a joint missile defense program, developed during the Bush administration, that was to have been based in central Europe. Other allies, including Ukraine and Georgia, have sought assurances that the United States will stand with them in the face of attempts by Russia to assert a sphere of influence.

On that issue, Clinton said, "We object to any spheres of influence in Europe in which one country seeks to control another's future."

She said that sovereignty and territorial integrity were "the cornerstone of security."

She also made it clear that the United States would not accede to Russian pressure to negotiate a broad new international security treaty to more fully integrate Russia into the European security framework.

Some critics have said that Russia is seeking to reshape treaty agreements to give it more leverage to block NATO decisions.

Clinton also said that the U.S. retained "an unwavering commitment" to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which calls for all members to come fully to the defense of any other.

At the same time, Clinton offered a separate message for the Russians that security should not be a "zero-sum game." With the Cold War over, there is no reason for there to be "divisions between neighbors and partners," she said. "Security in Europe must be indivisible."

Clinton said that the Obama administration had inherited a "deteriorating relationship with Russia," but has made progress on a number of areas, including Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear program and the negotiation of a new version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which officials say is close to completion.

NATO officials are in the middle of a series of meetings designed to reconsider the alliance's central principles before a high-level meeting on the subject in December.

By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2010

LONDON - Afghanistan's president declared Thursday that reaching out to the Taliban's leadership would be a centerpiece of his plan to end the eight-year-old war in his country, setting in motion a risky diplomatic gambit that could aggravate frictions with the United States.

A 65-nation conference here intended to muster money and support for an Afghan war strategy instead exposed divisions between the Afghan government and its allies over the timetable for drawing down foreign forces and whether and how to reconcile with the leaders of the Taliban insurgency.

"We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers," President Hamid Karzai said. In the coming weeks, he said, he will invite Taliban leaders to a tribal assembly to try to persuade them to lay down their weapons and support the government.

Mr. Karzai's proposal went much further than the strategy preferred by many American officials, who favor luring back low- and midlevel Taliban fighters. The Obama administration is in the middle of a spirited debate over the implications of negotiating with top Taliban leaders who sheltered Osama bin Laden and still have ties to Al Qaeda.

American officials pointedly did not talk about "reconciliation" on Thursday, and they were caught off guard by Mr. Karzai's plans for a tribal peace conference. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not endorse Mr. Karzai's strategy, though she voiced sympathy for his ultimate goal.

"You don't make peace with your friends," Mrs. Clinton said after the meeting, which reflected a growing urgency to wind down the West's military involvement. "You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency."

Still, the Afghan government's ambitious plan to lure back the Taliban - foot soldiers and commanders - faces equally probing questions at home. Across Afghan society, there are grave doubts about how the Taliban could be brought into the fold.

Dangling jobs and money before the Taliban could breed resentment among other poor Afghans who have little to show for their loyalty to the government. And it could deepen ethnic divisions with minorities like the Tajiks and Hazaras, who fought the Taliban for 15 years. They may see the rewards as an unfair windfall for the Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban's recruits.

Among former Taliban members who have taken part in previous government reconciliation programs, there is deep skepticism that a new program will be any better than earlier versions, which left them impoverished, jobless and at risk of being attacked by their former comrades.

"Everyone understands that this 'reconciliation' process is just a name because they leave us in the lurch," said Mullah Abdul Majed, a former Taliban commander who laid down his weapons in 2008 only to find himself abandoned by the government he had hoped to join.

Mullah Majed's story illustrates the pitfalls. After laying down their weapons, he and 12 of his fellow fighters were each given about $140 and promised housing. When they returned to their home province, Kandahar, they found no money, no housing, no jobs and no protection from Taliban reprisals.

"The Taliban are warning us that 'If you remain loyal to the government, we will kill you,' " he said. "So we can't go outside the city to work. Last year one of our friends was killed by Taliban, and one was injured."

Mullah Majed and a friend, who also signed up for the previous reconciliation program, are on the verge of returning to the Taliban because they cannot find work to provide for their families, the mullah said.

This time, with the NATO forces backing the plan, it will be easier to ensure that the fighters are not arrested, Afghan officials said. "There has to be proper protection for them," said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the Afghan deputy national security adviser. "There has to be amnesty, a guarantee for them that once they are reconciled, they can have a life like all others."

The London conference was intended to help cure some of those problems. It raised $140 million for a fund intended to ease the reintegration of Taliban fighters. Some $500 million was pledged in all, but it is unclear whether all that money will materialize.

Mrs. Clinton praised Japan for giving $50 million to the fund, but she said the United States had no immediate plans to follow. The Treasury Department would have to approve such financing, because it classifies the Taliban as a terrorist organization.

The Pentagon is authorized to use its funds for that purpose: American military commanders, for example, agreed to steer $1 million in development projects to a large Pashtun tribe in eastern Afghanistan in return for its pledge to back the government and battle the Taliban.

A senior American official said that Taliban members who took part in the peace conference should disavow ties to Al Qaeda, but whether top Taliban leaders can be persuaded to jettison their longtime Qaeda allies remains uncertain. Mr. Karzai laid down no such conditions, and the traditions governing such a meeting, known as a jirga, give him wide latitude about whom to invite.

For their part, the Taliban leaders have rejected talk of an olive branch, saying their fighters will not be influenced by financial inducements and will not join talks until foreign forces leave Afghanistan. American officials said that was evidence of the Taliban's insecurity.

This week, the United Nations removed the names of five Taliban members from its blacklist - a move considered important because it would allow them to travel to take part in negotiations. Mr. Karzai said he wanted to see more names taken off the list.

He also asked for help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whose country has longstanding ties to elements of the Taliban, to help broker negotiations. And he appealed to Pakistan, where many Taliban leaders have sought haven in the rugged region bordering Afghanistan. Iran was invited to the meeting but did not attend.

While the differences over reconciling with the Taliban dominated the meeting, that was not the only divide. Even before it began, Mr. Karzai opened another chasm with his allies, once again raising the prospect of a far more drawn-out foreign troop presence before Afghans would be able to assume full responsibility for their own security.

It could take 5 to 10 years for Afghan forces to take over from the American-led coalition, he told the BBC in an interview, and even longer to end his country's dependence on financial aid to sustain its military.

That is far longer than President Obama's goal to begin drawing down American forces by the summer of 2011. Other Western leaders, too, have been pushing for a tighter timetable. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain noted that targets had been set for the total Afghan Army and police strength to rise above 300,000 by October 2011. Allied commanders have said that could take three years or more.

By Mark Landler and Alissa J. Rubin, The New York Times, January 28, 2010

LONDON -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that he will convene a nationwide meeting of tribal, religious and political leaders in the next few weeks to discuss reintegrating and reconciling with insurgents. Afghan government officials said Taliban members would also be welcome to attend.

U.S. officials, who strongly support reintegration of low-level Taliban fighters but have drawn a bright red line against dealings with insurgents who have not forsworn violence or who have ties to al-Qaeda, appeared unsure of what Karzai had in mind.

Speaking to a one-day meeting of foreign ministers from nearly 70 countries here, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Karzai called on Saudi Arabia, which has offered to serve as a go-between with Taliban leaders, to play a "prominent role" in a process of "peace and reconciliation." He asked "all our neighbors, particularly Pakistan," where top Taliban leaders are based, to support it.

"We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers," Karzai told the gathering, which was convened by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to bolster international resolve and solidify a new strategy for the eight-year-old war.

"We didn't know they were going to do it," a senior Obama administration official said of the apparent breadth of Karzai's invitation. "We're very enthusiastic about reintegration," the official said. "We're not here to discuss reconciliation." That term generally refers to a negotiated settlement between opposing forces. The official said reconciliation did not come up in closed-door meetings Thursday, and it was not mentioned in a final commuique that welcomed Karzai's outreach to "those willing to renounce violence" and "cut ties with al-Qaeda."

The conference covered a wide range of issues, with Karzai pledging to tackle corruption and saying that "the aspirations and demands of the people of Afhganistan today can be summarized in four simple words: Afghan leadership, Afghan ownership." International partners expressed confidence that President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy and increased troop numbers would be decisive on the battlefield and promised to better coordinate development assistance among each other and with the Afghans.

Several governments announced contributions of additional troops to the Afghan effort, including as many as 850 from Germany and 500 from Spain. There were additional pledges to boost support for Afghan police training and civilian personnel.

The communique said Afghanistan's backers would provide "the necessary support to the phased growth and expansion of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police in order to reach 171,600 and 134,000 personnel by October 2011." It endorsed a transition to Afghan security control in selected provinces, to begin "by late 2010/early 2011." Obama has said U.S. combat troops will begin a phased withdrawal, based on ground conditions, in July 2011.

"The biggest deliverable of all" from the gathering, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said at a news conference, was "unity and cohesion in the international effort, and the alignment between" that effort and "a clear Afghan plan" that will be further spelled out at a follow-up conference in Kabul this spring.

But the meeting was dominated by talk about talks with insurgents, which Karzai said was his first priority.

The event followed a flurry of recent reports about negotiations with at least some Taliban factions, including a report by Reuters on Thursday that members of the Taliban's leadership council had met secretly with a U.N. representative on Jan. 8 in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, to discuss laying down their arms.

The Obama administration has emphasized that there is no purely military solution to the Afghanistan war and that it ultimately must be resolved politically. "You don't make peace with your friends," Clinton said at a news conference Thursday. "You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency or . . . marginalizes the remaining insurgents."

Participants in the conference pledged $140 million to a "reintegration fund" to provide jobs and security to reformed insurgents-- a figure that is projected to total as much as $500 million over five years. Clinton said the United States will not contribute to the fund, although the U.S. military has authorized "significant" expenditures for reintegration efforts out of its own funds.

Those funds apparently are exempt from Treasury Department restrictions against any monetary connection with members of groups the United States has designated as terrorist organizations, including the Taliban. A senior State Department official said that an official U.S. contribution to the new fund would require a presidential waiver.

The Afghans themselves seemed unsure Thursday about whether any Afghan would be ruled out of attendance at the proposed meeting, or jirga, and whether participants had to first forswear violence and pledge to abide by Afghan law. U.S. officials said they did; Afghans appeared to leave the matter open.

Karzai said only that his offer applied "especially" to those "who are not part of al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks, who accept the Afghan constitution." But he noted that the United Nations this week dropped five Taliban members from its terrorist blacklist, and he encouraged "more progress in this regard."

Outgoing Afghan foreign minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, representing his government at the news conference with Miliband, said that even "hard-liner, ideology-oriented" Taliban members had to be "encouraged for reconciliation."

U.S. officials noted that the Taliban leadership has issued a number of public statements in recent days denouncing the reintegration program. One official said that U.S. intelligence and military commanders had reported increasingly frequent "reach-outs" from low-level fighters seeking assimilation.

During her two-day stay here, Clinton held separate talks with members of the P5+1 group (permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) on negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Officials reported little progress in a meeting she held with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, whose government has resisted a U.S. push for new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Iran shares a long border with Afghanistan, and its foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was invited to attend the conference. "For some inexplicable reason, he chose not to," Miliband said.

By Karen De Young, The Washington Post, January 29, 2010

LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European leaders urged Nigeria's government on Thursday to adhere to its Constitution as the nation faced a "period of uncertainty" in the absence of its president, who is ill.

That message came as a former military dictator and a former civilian president joined the growing number of prominent Nigerians calling on President Umaru Yar'Adua to cede power to the nation's vice president.

In an open letter, Mrs. Clinton and three European leaders offered their first comments on the growing crisis in Nigeria. Mr. Yar'Adua left Nigeria in late November to receive care at a Saudi hospital without handing power to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, effectively grinding government in this West African country of 150 million to a halt.

"We therefore extend our support to the people of Nigeria during the current period of uncertainty, caused by President Yar'Adua's illness'' the letter read. "We extend our best wishes to the president and his family, and join the Nigerian people in wishing him a full recovery.

"Nigeria has expressed its resolve to adhere to constitutional processes during this difficult time. We commend that determination to address the current situation through appropriate democratic institutions."

Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband; France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner; and the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, also signed the letter.

Mr. Yar'Adua, 58, who has long suffered from kidney ailments, had left the country several times for what his advisers said were medical checkups before going to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 23. He was admitted to a hospital the next day. His physician said he had acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart that can cause a fatal complication.

Since the president left Nigeria, a young Nigerian tried to bring down a trans-Atlantic flight bound for Detroit; a major kidnapping and a pipeline attack occurred in the oil-rich Niger Delta, despite an amnesty program for militants; and religious violence between Christians and Muslims in central Nigeria left more than 300 dead and thousands displaced.

While Nigerian law allows for a smooth transition of power from Mr. Yar'Adua to Mr. Jonathan, the president left without following any of those procedures. Although the federal government says that Mr. Jonathan has nevertheless been acting in Mr. Yar'Adua's place, protestors have warned that the country will remain rudderless until something changes.

On Thursday, a group of former government officials and leaders issued a statement urging Mr. Yar'Adua to formally appoint Mr. Jonathan to act as president. Among those signing the letter was former President Shehu Shagari, who served from 1979 until he was toppled by a coup in 1983, and Gen. Yakubu Gowon, who ruled as a military dictator from 1966 to 1975.

Their calls came after former President Olusegun Obasanjo publicly asked Mr. Yar'Adua to take "the path of honor" and resign if he was unable to serve.

At a meeting Thursday with new ambassadors, Mr. Jonathan said Mr. Yar'Adua would soon return, but he gave no date.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 28, 2010

At a London gathering, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai details a peace initiative aimed at reconciling with the insurgency's top echelon. The U.S. approach is more limited.

Reporting from London - Afghan President Hamid Karzai told world leaders Thursday that he intends to reach out to the top echelons of the Taliban within a few weeks, accelerating a peace initiative that has troubled U.S. and many other Western leaders.

Karzai told officials of nearly 70 countries and of international aid groups at a gathering in London that he is seeking the mediation of Saudi Arabia and the blessing of Pakistan to try to negotiate peace with the leaders of the militant movement that was driven from power a little more than eight years ago.

The initiative is delicate for the Obama administration, which wants peace in Afghanistan but is sensitive to concerns about making peace with an opponent that has killed well over 1,000 Western troops and been blamed for aiding in the 9/11 attacks.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a presentation to the gathering, said the United States supports efforts for "reintegration" -- winning over foot soldiers through incentives. But she pointedly said nothing about "reconciliation" -- peace talks with the insurgent leadership.

Karzai has discussed the possibility of such a peace process before, including in the inaugural address he delivered in November as he took office for a second term. But this forum -- a conference of international officials who have supplied troops and aid to his country-- carried strong symbolic overtones.

Several Karzai associates have said privately that, in the wake of the summer's scandal-tainted presidential election and amid deepening public anger over corruption, the Afghan leader is eager to leave a legacy. Being seen as the architect of a durable peace with the Taliban might be his last, best shot at strengthening his battered country's security, government and economy.

The Afghan leader said he plans to convene a "grand peace jirga," or council, of prominent Afghans in the next few weeks to debate what steps to take, thus lending legitimacy to the peace effort.

"We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers who are not part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks [and] who accept the Afghan Constitution," Karzai said at the conference, whose delegates had gathered to discuss efforts to wind down the war.

Some officials attending the conference said Karzai's idea has begun catching on with leaders of countries involved in the international coalition in Afghanistan, many of whom would like to find a way to reduce or end their involvement.

Even Clinton, during a news conference, registered no public objection to the idea of allowing Taliban leaders to take part in Karzai's planned jirga, as his aides said they expect.

"You don't make peace with your friends," she told reporters.

"You have to be willing to engage with your enemies."

U.S. officials insist that they are not pursuing peace with top militants. But some U.S. officials have privately indicated that they are open to deal-making, at least with insurgent leaders who meet several key conditions: renouncing violence, following the Afghan Constitution and, perhaps most important, agreeing to not help the Al Qaeda extremists whose presence in Afghanistan started the long war.

Karzai in his speech called for creation of a new peacemaking organization, to be called the National Council for Peace, Reconciliation and Reintegration. He said the jirga, a traditional Afghan public meeting, would be convened once the peace body was organized.

The Afghan leader said he hoped King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would "play a prominent role to guide and assist the peace process." And he said the Afghan government would ask all its neighbors, "particularly Pakistan," to support the peace effort.

Karzai previously has sought help from the Saudis, who may be logical intermediaries in part because their government was one of only three to recognize the Taliban regime in the 1990s. Pakistan's support for the idea could be crucial as well, partly because some elements of the Pakistani government have quietly supported and funded the Afghan Taliban for years.

Karzai is seeking other ways to reconcile with the Taliban. He commended the United Nations for taking several Taliban leaders off a list of individuals targeted for financial and travel sanctions because of their association with the group. He said he wanted "to see more progress in this regard."

Still, many U.S. officials and Afghans are doubtful about the overtures. At the moment, many in the Taliban believe they are winning the war and have no reason to reconcile. And the militants widely despise the Karzai government.

A statement from the Taliban leadership, posted on a Taliban website on the eve of the British conference, appeared to throw cold water on the idea of negotiations, asserting that the movement would battle on until it expelled foreign forces from Afghanistan.

But some U.S. officials believe that if it begins to appear that the Taliban is losing ground, the view of its followers could change.

Brian Katulis, a national security specialist at the Center for American Progress, said an escalating international military effort, coupled with the peace effort, could provide "mutually reinforcing dynamics" that lead to a deal.

One obstacle to peace talks is the fear that acceptance of former Taliban fighters would lead to mistreatment of women.

A group of Afghan women appeared Thursday before the international conference, arguing against steps that risk a return to once-prevalent Taliban practices of harsh punishment, including violence against women judged to violate strict interpretations of religious law.

Kai Eide, the outgoing U.N. representative to Afghanistan, said the meeting marked the first time that a peacemaking effort was greeted with "such strong support" among Afghanistan's international backers.

British officials and other sponsors of the meeting hoped it would pressure Karzai to accept more responsibility for Afghanistan's security.

Karzai, who has faced international scorn because of the tainted presidential election, would like to build a legacy as a peacemaker, several of his associates have said.

The gathering received wide attention in Europe and the United States, but it drew little notice in Afghanistan.

Many Afghans were not aware that the London conference was taking place, but television screens flickered in a few downtown shops and restaurants in Kabul, the Afghan capital. Knots of customers gathered to watch Karzai's speech, with some expressing skepticism that the gathering would have much effect.

"Even when the world is paying attention to us, it doesn't help us much," said a waiter named Faziullah, serving up steaming kebabs on a cold winter's day. "These things are decided, and our lives stay the same."

By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2010

PARIS -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called on China Friday to overlook its short-term interest in Iranian oil and consider the long-term implications of a Persian Gulf arms race as it decides whether to support stepped-up international sanctions againstIran.

"As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the results that some had hoped for, and move forward toward the pressure and sanctions track" in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program, Clinton said, "China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supplies."

"It will produce an arms race," she said she had told the Chinese. "Israel will feel an existential threat. All of that is incredibly dangerous."

"We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs," Clinton said. "But think about the long-term implications."

Clinton's statement, made at the end of a speech praising U.S.-European security cooperation at France's Ecole Militaire, the country's war college for senior officers, echoed what Obama administration officials have privately told China -- including in a direct appeal from President Obama to Chinese President Hu Jintao.

But it marks the most direct public description of the U.S. case, made with increasing urgency -- and little apparent effect -- as the administration tries to persuade China to back a new round of sanctions against Iran that it hopes to propose to the U.N. Security Council next month.

The administration has warned that Israel, which has an undeclared nuclear arsenal, may make good on its threat to take military action against Iranian enrichment facilities, and spur Arab Gulf states to proceed with their own weapons programs. Clinton aides reported no breakthrough during a 45-minute meeting she held Thursday with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi outside a daylong international conference on Afghanistan.

Administration officials said Clinton had "made very clear" that Iran's refusal to respond to offers to provide enriched fuel for Iranian research reactors meant that sanctions must proceed. Russia, which has resisted sanctions in the past, has indicated its own patience with the Tehran government is reaching an end.

Officials said they anticipated growing tensions if every nation but China involved in negotiating on Iran decides it's time to move forward on sanctions. In the past, China has often taken its lead from Russia.

The administration has said it would design new sanctions to have the greatest impact on Iranian decision makers, rather than the Iranian people. But measures under discussion include restrictions on sales and support for the Iranian energy sector, including shipments of refined petroleum products and a ban on new energy investment that would effect not only the Iranian people but international investors. U.S. business leaders have said that additional sanctions would hurt the U.S. economy and endanger American competitiveness.

The U.S. Senate, in a voice vote late Thursday, approved legislation that would allow the Obama administration to impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers, targeting companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand the country's oil refining capacity. The administration has been lukewarm toward the legislation and a similar bill that passed the House of Representatives. Differences between the bills must be reconciled before it becomes law.

At a news conference here with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Clinton said that Congress was justifiably concerned both about Iran's nuclear program and its government's "abuse and repression of its own people" but indicated the administration preferred to consolidate an international position before expanding unilateral sanctions. "Countries that feel strongly, like the United States and France," she said, "may wish to do more."

Discussion at the Afghanistan conference, called to bolster international support for the war effort there and Obama's new strategy, focused on Afghan President Hamid Karzai's call for negotiations with the Taliban to end the war.

The administration has said it supports reassimilation of low-level Taliban fighters, and government representatives at the conference agreed to establish a fund to provide jobs and security for the fighters if they agree to lay down their arms. U.S. officials said they were not in favor of discussions with Taliban leaders or any insurgents who had not already stopped fighting and severed any ties with al-Qaeda, although they said it was a decision for the Afghan government.

Asked by reporters Friday morning about reports that the outgoing U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, held exploratory talks last month with leaders of the Quetta shura, the leadership council of the Afghan Taliban based in Pakistan, Clinton indirectly confirmed that the meeting took place. Eide, she said, "wanted to test for himself his own conclusions about the mindset of [Taliban] leaders" as he was leaving Afghanistan.

Administrations have been less then effusive in assessing Eide's performance over the past several years in Afghanistan. Clinton summarized her opinion of Eide by saying that he "did a lot of hard work there in a very difficult situation."

In her Paris speech, Clinton praised French cooperation in Afghanistan and Haiti, and gently but firmly rejected Russians calls to renegotiate the U.S.-European security framework, including NATO and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

"For years, Russia has expressed a sense of insecurity as NATO and the E.U. [European Union] have expanded," Clinton said. "We strongly believe that the enlargement of NATO and the E.U. has increased security, stability, and prosperity across the continent -- and that this, in turn, has increased Russia's security. Furthermore, the right of all countries to enter into alliances of their own choosing has been endorsed by Russia."

Despite repeated Russian insistence that it is entitled to establish its own geographic sphere of security interest in eastern Europe, she said, "NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can meet the requirements of membership."

Russia suspended implementation of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty two years ago in the wake of Western criticism of its 2008 armed conflict with Georgia and the ongoing deployment of Russian troops in separatist Georgian territory. Clinton said the treaty was now in danger of "crumbling" and called for discussions with Russia to revive it.

"Our goal," she said, "should be a modern security framework that takes into account developments in Europe since the original treaty was drafted; limits military deployments; and strengthens the principles of transparency, territorial integrity, non-first use of force, the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops in their territory."

By Karen De Young, The Washington Post, January 29, 2010

PARIS - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday challenged Russia to cooperate with the Obama administration and with NATO to ensure European security against new threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks or natural disasters.

Citing a wide array of differences between Washington and Moscow, Clinton called for Russia's leadership to drop its opposition to a European missile shield and its demands to renegotiate a Cold War-era treaty limiting the deployment of troops and conventional weapons on the continent.

In a speech at France's Ecole Militaire in Paris, she said Europe should not be divided as it has been in the past and that Russian ambitions to maintain a zone of influence in former Soviet satellites, some of which are now NATO members or aspirants, were obsolete.

"We object to any spheres of influence in Europe in which one country seeks to control another's future," she said, referring specifically to Georgia and territorial disputes over its enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which Russia recognizes as independent.

Russia has made several proposals on European security cooperation that some believe are aimed at limiting NATO's influence. But Clinton said security matters are best dealt with through existing frameworks. Negotiating new treaties, as Russia suggested, "can a very long and cumbersome process," she said.

And all European nations should be eligible for NATO membership, she said, rejecting Russian objections to the expansion of the alliance toward its borders.

"We strongly believe that the enlargement of NATO and the EU has increased security, stability, and prosperity across the continent and that this, in turn, has actually increased Russia's security," Clinton said.

Also key to European security and stability is the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which Russia unilaterally suspended two years ago, she said. The treaty governs where and how many troops and conventional weapons can be stationed on European soil.

"This valuable regime is now in danger of crumbling," Clinton said, urging Russia to join in discussions to ensure the treaty is once again the "cornerstone" of conventional arms control.

Clinton said the United States and Russia are close to concluding a new START treaty to reduce the size of Cold War arsenals in both nations. The old treaty expired last year, but both nations say they will abide by it during talks on a new one.

The threat behind the old START treaty - a nuclear war as an option by the governments of two well-armed nations - has changed, Clinton said.

"Now we face increased threats - that nuclear materials will fall into the wrong hands, or that certain states will develop or even use nuclear weapons."

To combat that threat, she reiterated that the U.S. was in favor of a missile shield for Europe, something that Russia has long resisted even after the Obama administration scrapped former President George W. Bush's plans for it.

Clinton renewed offers to cooperate with the Russians on missile defense, saying: "We are serious about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop missile defenses that enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia."

By MATTHEW LEE , The Associated Press, January 29, 2010