Cut Eric Holder some slack. He was in
Paris as the sole representative of the U.S. government in the current crisis, but he had to meet with some senior people. In the meantime a bunch of senior people were marching arm in arm:
Left to right: Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Union President Donald Tusk, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, Jordan’s Queen Rania, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and other guests.
Holder wasn't meeting any of them.
No, Holder was at the children's table near the kitchen, in the Clamato.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
It's not surprising that a mere attorney general wasn't invited to appear with heads of state/government. Our Ambassador attended, which is appropriate. Holder seems to have met with people at his level, including French Interior Minister Cazeneuve.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the President didn't go, or even send the Vice President.
It's not surprising that a "mere" AG didn't go (do you think he was discouraged?), but it's appropriate that a U.S. ambassador attended? I'm not getting it. If the AG was too junior to rub elbows with the other leaders, then the U.S. totally failed to send a representative. If Holder counts as a rep, he should have been there.
ReplyDeleteNo, there's a formality to this of which you may not be aware. Diplomatic ranks were formalized by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and the Ambassador is the proper stand-in for a head of state. The Ambassador is the one who should have gone in the place of our head of state, and who did go.
ReplyDeleteTo ask a head of state to meet with a lower ranking minister is somewhat belittling under these forms. You probably remember the scene in Yes Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister is swayed off his intent to cancel the Trident system because it seems that the President suddenly won't meet with him on his trip to America, but that some humiliating substitute will be provided.
Odd that none of the other major countries found it necessary to send an ambassador when their high-ranking officials needed to stay home and wash their hair. If it is accepted practice technically, it is certainly eccentric. I doubt the message was lost on many.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Tex on this one. While it would have been inappropriate to send the AG to this street shin dig, it was wholly despicable for Obama not to present himself to it, or to send Biden. Especially since Obama had no better reason for choosing to stay away than that he didn't feel like going.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Well, I think we all agree about that point. It would have been appropriate for the President to go, or to have retasked the VP off his India trip. Of course, there's a chance that there's some secret matter going on that they didn't put on their public schedules but which required the POTUS' attention.
ReplyDeleteBut in his absence, appropriate or not, the Ambassador was the right person to send.
That line of thinking strikes me as legalistic, if you'll forgive me for saying so. It's a fine thing in a courtroom; not so great for international crises where symbolic behavior is playing an important part.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to think he didn't have time to worry about symbolic behavior because he was intent on solving the practical problem.
Well, it is legalistic -- it's a formal standard from international law. It's probably understood by a few hundred people in the United States, and a similar number in Europe, whose business is diplomacy or foreign affairs. So yes, its value as a symbol is limited; it's just the way things are supposed to be done.
ReplyDeleteIf you'll forgive my saying so, I'm pleased to see the administration being a little less showily symbolic, and paying more attention to professionalism in foreign affairs. Usually this President shows up and insists the occasion is all about him and his immense symbolic authority. This time he didn't make it all about himself, and our government obeyed diplomatic forms instead of trying to force their way to the center of attention.
I'm often critical of this administration, but I think they got this one right -- if the President and VP were really unavailable for valid reasons we don't know, that is.
Hmm. I'll stand by for evidence of their professionalism in foreign affairs, including this one.
ReplyDeleteHmm. I'll stand by for evidence of their professionalism.
ReplyDeleteThere, fixed that for you.
Roger Simon's view:
ReplyDelete"There had to have been a reason for his non-attendance and the bizarre dissing of this event by his administration. I believe it stems from this: There are two words our president seems constitutionally unable to put together — “Islamic” and “terrorism.” For Obama (and, as a sideshow, the zany Howard Dean), these terms are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron. Appearing in Paris, Obama might be put in the unusual position of having to link them, our complaisant press rarely having the nerve to ask such an impertinent question. Holder, in a television interview from Paris (I think it was CNN — there have been so many), danced around the question, hemming and hawing as if he couldn’t quite make out what was being said or had been asked an embarrassing question about IRS emails."
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/01/11/baracknestpascharlie-why-didnt-obama-go-to-paris/
I'll stand by for evidence of their professionalism in foreign affairs, including this one.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm just satisfied that they left it to the professionals. I don't expect them to suddenly start being professionals.
Mr. Simon's view may be right. On the other hand, it would have given the President an unimpeachable opportunity to march hand in hand with the Palestinian leader. I'm surprised he passed it up.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a job that could be delegated to professionals. Having some hack show up who's an ambassador only because she's good at bundling campaign contributions is not the same thing as honoring an event in the name of our country. It's a fairly calculated slap in the face.
ReplyDelete