According to the Associated Press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped many pretenses and bluntly explained the birds, the bees, and the bombs with respect to the Sino-American relationship:

The U.S. risks falling behind China in the competition for global influence as Beijing woos leaders in the resource-rich Pacific, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

Her unusually strong comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are certain to anger the communist power, especially in light of Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent high-profile visit to Washington, seen as boosting trust and trade between the world's two largest economies....

[S]he told senators, "We are a competition for influence with China. Let's put aside the humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in. Let's just talk straight realpolitik. We are in competition with China."

She noted a "huge energy find" in Papua New Guinea by U.S. company Exxon Mobil Corp., which has begun drilling for natural gas there. Clinton said China was jockeying for influence in the region and seeing how it could "come in behind us and come in under us."....

Clinton also said China had brought all the leaders of small Pacific nations to Beijing and "wined them and dined them."...

Charles Freeman, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the U.S. was "unquestionably" involved in a "soft power competition with China. But this isn't a hard power, Cold War exercise." (emphasis added)

So this is how soft power works!  I can picture the scene......

[Setting:  a small banquet hall.  Violin music is playing in the background.  A sumptuous feast is on a table, as are two large, empty wine glasses.]  

CHINA:  Say, we sure would love to get exclusive drilling rights to your offshore oil discoveries. 

PAPUA NEW GUINEA:  I'm not sure I should even be here.  I mean, we've been in a long relationship with the United States.  So many memories....

CHINA:  Well, where is the United States right now?  I don't see them paying as much attention to you as they should be.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA:  America is a little short on cash now.  Washington keeps saying that it will change, but... I've heard that song too many times before.  The USA keeps saying, "it's not you, it's me." (grimaces)

CHINA:  Say, have you tried the 1960 cheval blanc?  It really is heavenly.  (pours wine)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA:  Oh.  Oh my.  Well, who would be hurt by an exploratory agreement?  (lights dim)

OK, somewhat more seriously, Clinton's comments need to be put into perspective:

Clinton railed against cuts sought by Republican to the U.S. foreign aid program....

America's top diplomat accused China of supporting a dictatorial government in Fiji, where plans to reopen an office of the U.S. Agency for International Development would be shelved under a resolution passed last month by the Republican-led House. That measure proposes sharp cuts to foreign assistance, including a $21 million program to help Pacific islands vulnerable to rising sea levels, as part of efforts to rein in government spending....

She said foreign assistance was important on humanitarian and moral grounds, but also strategically essential for America's global influence.

"I mean, if anybody thinks that our retreating on these issues is somehow going to be irrelevant to the maintenance of our leadership in a world where we are competing with China, where we are competing with Iran, that is a mistaken notion," Clinton said.

Clinton is correct in the short term.  If I was the foreign policy budget czar, I'd be transferring at least $100 billion from DoD to State on the premise that problem prevention is always more cost-effective than problem-solving. 

The "China is going to eat our lunch" meme is a popular one in Washington for domestic reasons -- it's a great argument to motivate policy.  The Obama administration is going to this well an awful lot, however.  My concern is that this rhetorical device doesn't lead to any genuine policy change but does lead to blowback - i.e., it scares the crap out of everyone in DC.  That's the worst of both worlds. 

What do you think?

Watch this space at 1 PM Eastern time today, as I'll be liveblogging Hillary Clinton's speech today to the Council on Foreign Relations. 

3:00 PM:  State Department website back online -- here's a link to the text of the speech.   

2:07 PM:  That's a wrap, people -- State Department website still down, OK speech.  I'll leave the post-game analysis to the commenters. 

2:05 PM:  Haass closes by asking Clinton what her biggest surprise was in her first six months.  Pivots the question by pointing out the difficulties of getting people confirmed.  She ends graciously, faux acknowledging that now she realizes what a pain she must have been as a Senator when she queried Foggy Bottom. 

2:04 PM:  A Boeing guy asks what the State Department will be doing on export promotion and commercial diplomacy.  Clinton finesses the question by saying she takes the economic dimension of foreign policy seriously, arguing that economic components cannot be separated from foreign policy. 

2:00 PM:  Bob Lieber asks a question (he thinks the previous queries have been creampuffs).  If other engagement efforts don't work, can the U.S. live with a nuclear Iran?  Clinton's response:  "I'm not going to negotiate with Iran sitting here."  Basically says that she's not optimistic about direct negotiations with Iran, but argues that outsourcing U.S. diplomacy to the EU-3 really didn't work either. 

1:55 PM:  Good question about the policy dividends received to date from NATO allies on re-engaging allies.  Clinton's answer here was both candid and good -- i.e., this is not going to be easy, fears and anxieties need to be assuaged, we're hoping for more progress in the future.  Then she wandered into agricultural aid in Afganistan and I lost my focus there for a second. 

1:50 PM:  State Department website still down, by the way. 

1:49 PM:  Gets spoon-fed a question that allows her to elaborate on the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, patterned after the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review (more here from Spencer Ackerman). 

1:47 PM:  Point-blank question about whether George Mitchell allowed that the completion of in-construction housing settlements in the occupied territories would be permitted.  Clinton ducks the question faster than Peyton Manning facing the New York Giants pass rush. 

1:42 PM:  Question about India.  Responds by pointing out how strong the bilateral dialogue is, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Sounds a bit more skeptical about engaging India (or a bit less briefed, take your pick). 

1:41 PM:  Glenn Kessler's take on the speech.  Intriguingly, there's nothing about the speech on the front of the New York Times website. 

1:40 PM:  Question about Iran.  Acknowledges that a post-election regime "puts a different complexion" on the government.  Nothing new, however. 

1:35 PM:  First question is on Palestine and Syria, whether she sees progress.  Her words say "maybe", but her tone says no.  Haass asks a good follow-up question on Hamas' role.  Clinton responds with boilerplate -- no change in the U.S. position. 

1:34 PM:  OK, speech over -- let's get to the Q&A which is always more interesting)!

1:31 PM:  Fires a warning shot across Timothy Geithner's bow by saying she wants to upgrade the State Deprtment's role in foreign economic policy.  I don't have a problem with that -- so long as the State Department officials actually know what they're talking about.  Also echoes SecDef Bob Gates' numerous speeches on this topic. 

1:29 PM:  Ah, Clinton clears up the idea of leveraging traditional sources of U.S. power -- she's talking about exemplarism.  Abolishing torture, reducing nuclear weapons, getting serious on global warming, having the U.S. as a shining city on a hill, etc.  She throughs in narco-trafficking into this section, and I'm not entuirely sure how that fits. 

1:25 PM:  Hmm.... State Department's website is now down.  Read into this what you will. 

1:24 PM:  On development, admits that the U.S. has given less as a percentage of GDP compared to other advanced industrialized states.  That sound you hear is the Center for Global Development jumping up for joy. 

1:21 PM:  The Iran section -- Clinton "appalled" by Iranian government action, but thinks not dealing with the Islamic Republic doesn't solve anything.  Acknowledges that the prospects of success have declined in recent weeks.  Still thinks its worth making the genuine offer for direct talks.  Recognizes Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, conditional on complying with the IAEA, but not a right to the military use of nuclear power. 

1:13 PM:  Clinton lists her travel schedule for the rest of the year.  Not-so-subtle message:  "Hey, you people who think I'm doing nothing?  Piss off." 

1:11 PM:  Ah, here's the meat of the speech:  the five pillars of Clinton's "smart power" approach: 

• Re-building alliancess and updating global governance structures;
• Engaging adversaries;
• The promotion of economic development as a "core pillar" of U.S. foreign policy;
• Merging the military and civilian components of power;
• Leveraging key sources of American power

That last one is a bit vague to me, so we'll see how that develops. 

1:10 PM:  So far, with the emphasis newtworks of non-state actors, "partnerships with people," and the emphasis on burnishing global governance structures, I'm seeing Anne-Marie Slaughter's fingerprints all over this sucker. 

1:08 PM:  Repeating a trope of President Obama's, there are some passages here where Clinton talks about how old IR concepts are out of date.  Disdains 19th century great power concerts and 20th century balance of power coalitions.   Replacing a "multipolar" world with a "multi-partner" world.  Meh. 

1:05 PM:  Cute, flip remark comparing U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration to her elbow -- wounded, but getting better.   

1:04 PM:  An unsurprising laundry list of policy goals.  Free ponies are not discussed, which is too bad.   

1:03 PM:  According to Hillary, multi-tasking is a gender-laden term.  Who knew?  Well, besides women, of course. 

1:01 PM:  Talks about how President Obama has stressed "common interests, shared values, and mutual cooperation."  No mention of what happens when there's, you know, a divergence of values. 

12:59 PM:  Clinton immediately pulls what I'll call an Obama -- observing that the very sources of American vulnerability (interdependence, openness, etc.) are also our sources of strength.  It's a neat rhetorical trick. 

12:57 PM:  And we're off -- a few minutes early, no less! 

12:55 PM:  In an unconscious sign of how members of the foreign policy community prioritize things, I find it interesting that CFR president Richard Haass is moderating Clinton's speech, whereas Rogert Altman was the moderator when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to speak. 

11:21 AM:  FP's own Laura Rozen provides an excellent backgrounder to the speech itself. 

The speech matters for the future of U.S. foreign policy and Hillary Clinton's role in it.  I had a conversation with a prominent foreign policy professional who characterized Hillary Clinton as the most "invisible" Secretary of State he's seen to date.  I think this is partly due to her restricted travel during the elbow injury, partly due to her lack of confirmed subordinates, partly due to Barack Obama's genuine interest in foreign affairs, and mostly due to her style. 

If memory serves, when Clinton was elected Senator of New York she put her nose to the grindstone and did nothing flashy for the first six months.  In the process, she won the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.  I suspect something similar has been going on for most of this year. 

This speech is designed to be her coming-out party.  Her friends, staffers and hangers-on have been trying to build some buzz and raise some expectations.  We'll see how this plays out -- live!

My second National Interest column in a week is now online, and evaluates the recent high-profile appointments at the State department.  Let's just say I'm wary: 

There are rumors aplenty of fierce battles within Foggy Bottom between the special envoys and undersecretaries for coveted offices on the seventh floor (where Clinton will be). As Daniel Markey points out, foreign policy for south Asia has been a “toxic mix of turf battles.” Holbrooke is simply another bureaucratic entrepreneur (one opposed by the Indians, by the way). The Obama administration is already having difficulties finding someone who would agree to serve as assistant secretary of state for south Asia. This is because, to put it gently, the transaction costs of dealing with Holbrooke can be high. Similarly, the relationship between Mitchell and Dennis Ross, who has been touted to be a “super-envoy” for the Middle East, remains unclear.

There is one, final, sobering thought. The person who will be directing this great game of diplomatic egos will be Hillary Clinton.

Read the whole thing.  And in the interest of fairness, check out Jacob Heilbrunn's more optimistic take on yesterday's scene at Foggy Bottom.  This is one issue where I sincerely hope that I am wrong and Heilbrunn is right.