In response to a friend, Politicasista, in a different thread, I commented on an interesting article
from last week. I then realized that that article by Elise Labott of CNN was never posted here.
To me it is both a fascinating .. and frustrating .. summary of Kerry's tenure as Secretary. Here is the link. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/politics/john-kerry-legacy/ It is well researched, but written in an almost impressionist way -- bringing up a common wisdom claim - then essentially providing information on something that happened- that if you think about it - demolishes the claim - without overtly noting that. (ie look at the idea that he pushes too hard - note that it is followed by noting that all the other countries saying that without that persistence, there would have been no Iran deal. )
Here, the strangest claim is that he had no broad vision - but from what he did, it is clear there are two very big, very personal visions that he worked on everywhere. The first would be that no SoS has ever had the commitment he does on the environment. He says he has raised this everywhere he has traveled. His accomplishments on that include that he was key on US/China pact, the Paris Accord, the HFC agreement, the agreement on limiting carbon for aviation, the international effort on preserving the huge Ross Sea around Antarctica, and a project in the Mekong Delta, which he is supposed to speak of tomorrow. Add to this his three international annual conferences on the oceans and the need to protect them. Kerry has been said to have gotten Obama's agreement that environment could be his signature issue - just as women's issues were for Clinton. The second issue is the more normal conflict resolution and peace making.
The idea that because he took on every tough problem out there, his legacy is "mixed" because he only succeeded in at least three situations - all of which are more significant gains than ANY secretary of state this century -- and arguably the sum of those three and other successes make him the most successful in my life time - and I was born in 1950!
The Paris Climate Accord, which would not have happened without his efforts, will hopefully be seen in history as when the world started to act. When Kerry came into office, the Obama team considered that climate change gains through international diplomacy were unlikely after Copenhagen was a complete failure. ( Last year this was actually implemented very very quickly, largely due to his efforts - and there were the two other carbon reduction agreements.)
Getting the Iran deal was also considered a long shot -- and Obama consistently gave it no more than a 50/50 chance even after an interim deal was obtained and as Iran abided by it. This agreement almost certainly averted a war with Iran.
Kerry brokered a way for Afghanistan to move beyond a contested election, which while not perfect, is still functioning years later and it kept that country from going completely over the cliff.
These are three big, unlikely to succeed successes.
Now consider, that - other than Jimmy Carter - NO ONE has actually succeeded with Israel/Palestine -- and Israel has become harder to work with itself as their coalition government is far more right wing than any previous government. The mess with Syria was full blown before Kerry became Secretary - and it is true that as hard as he tried, he failed to get everyone to the peace table. However, he did get the UN resolution that will likely be the basis for that peace conference when it happens. He also DID lead in getting over 600 tons of chemical weapons out of that unstable country. Far from being a failure, imagine where those 600 tons could have gone.
If Kerry's legacy is "mixed", what would you call Clinton's, Rice's, Powell's, ..... I content that not one of the past Secretaries who have succeeded George Marshall, who left the State Department in 1949, with his brilliant Marshall plan have a more significant positive legacy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
