foreign policy proxies

In light of Hamid Karzai's agreement to go forward on a run-off election in Afghanistan, I was curious about special envoy Richard Holbrooke's role in this denouement.  Jon Western links to this Nukes & Spooks McClatchy blog post chock-full of some inside dirt: 

Three administration officials, who asked not to be identified by agency, told us that, while Holbrooke is laboring away hard behind the scenes, he's received direct orders from the White House to cool it publicly while Washington desperately tries to unscramble the Afghan electoral mess between President Hamid Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

"This process is so sensitive. He'd love to deal with this. The White House thinks ... it's not the time for him" to be out front, one of the officials said of Holbrooke...

To be fair -- and we do try to be fair here at N&S, we're told that the White House orders are not directed at Holbrooke alone. Everyone involved in Af/Pak policy has been told to keep a lid on it while President Obama deals with the difficult decision of how to keep the situation there from dropping into the abyss and whether to send more American servicemen and women to Afghanistan.

Everyone did keep quiet... except Senator John Kerry.  The Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon and Peter Spiegel explain why: 

According to one Western diplomat, the Afghan president was more comfortable dealing with Sen. Kerry than with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry or the administration's special representative to the region, Richard Holbrooke. Mr. Holbrooke angered Mr. Karzai when he suggested shortly after the Aug. 20 election that a runoff might be needed.

I'm beginning to wonder if Hoobrooke is simply the exemplar of the bad cop in foreign affairs.  For his sake, I hope so.  Otherwise, he's stuck being an envoy to a region in which the Indians won't talk to him, the Afghans won't talk to hi, and the Pakistanis that will talk to him are feckless. 

You'd think I would have something very deep to say about former President Clinton's recent excursion to Pyongyang to secure the release of two U.S. journalists.  Well, I have four reactions, but I'm not sure how deep they are: 

1. Man, the North Koreans love backchannels more than Henry Kissinger.  They love backchannels more than MTV loves stupid reality shows involving washed-up former rockers.  They love backchannels more than Obama loves teachable moments.  They love backchannels more than Ryan O'Neal loves hi--[We get the point--ed.  Right, sorry.] The North Korean government has always used unofficial interlocutors to communicate with the United States when things get tough and they want a way out.  I'm curious what their message was on the nuclear issue.
2. While the DPRK might like private communications, Bill Clinton is no Jimmy Carter.  Carter went on CNN in 1994 to announce the outlines of a nuclear deal with North Korea without fully briefing the Clinton administration.  Clinton clearly remembers that experience.
3. At the end of the day, the two journalists were released without any change in official U.S. policy.  A fake apology from a former U.S. president might be worth something in Pyongyang, but it doesn't really amount to much.
4. My visceral reaction to Clinton and his delegation sitting with Kim Jong Il posing for a formal photograph was one of complete and utter revulsion.  I don't think Clinton apologized, but in many ways this looks worse. 

Foreign policy should be conducted free of emotion, so I'm hoping that this feeling will fade fast.  I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one who had this reaction, however.  I'm therefoe betting that beyond providing fodder for Maureen Dowd during the dog days of August, this little rescue mission is going to complicate nuclear diplomacy with North Korea for a spell.