Tweet Your Questions for Briefing on #SecClinton's Upcoming Visit to China

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
May 14, 2010
Twitter State Department

Update:Briefing Transcript | Questions and Answers:Twitter, Facebook

Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and Ambassador-at-Large for Global Partnership Initiatives Elizabeth Bagley will conduct a briefing today, May 14 at 10:30 a.m. in the Press Briefing Room at the Department of State. U.S. Commissioner General Jose Villarreal will join Ambassador Huntsman and Ambassador Bagley via live digital video conference from Consulate Shanghai, in China. Send your questions to them via Twitter @StateDept.

Secretary Clinton will visit China later this month and visit the 2010 Shanghai Expo and the USA Pavilion. The United States is pleased to be participating in the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which officially opened May 1 and runs through October 31, 2010. It will be the first Expo hosted by China. With an estimated 70 million visitors, it will be the largest Expo (or World's Fair) in history. A total of 242 participants will display at various pavilions at the Expo: 192 countries and 50 international organizations.

The USA Pavilion is a public-private partnership, funded 100% by over 50 sponsors, including, among many others, Chevron, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsico, and Citi. The Shanghai Expo is an unprecedented opportunity to showcase the diversity, spirit of innovation, and commitment to sustainable development of the American people. For more information on the USA Pavilion, click here.

On April 30, 2010 Secretary Clinton attended a reception hosted by the Office for Global Partnership Initiatives to celebrate the opening of the USA Pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. Her remarks are available here.

Comments

Comments

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 14, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(question from the twitter-challenged, and terminally curious)

At what point does China consider the domestic situation in North Korea and the attitude of its leadership to be an unacceptable threat to their national security and take over North Korea to end the problem posed by 'lil Kim and the gang as they starve their people and periodicly threaten nuclear war with the US and S. Korea?

I mean would in a situation that necessitated such action, would they prefer we do it, or would they prefer to do it in partnership with us and S. Korea, or simply all by themselves?

If NK is guilty of sinking the S. Korean warship, would this be grounds for the US gov. to re-list NK as a "state sponsor of terrorism"?

And a final thought, how long are we going to put up with ethical infants anyway?

I'd like to hear what the Chinese President thinks of future possibilities for peace in this regard.

Thanks,

EJ

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
May 14, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

MR. CROWLEY: She’ll be meeting with the minister of labor, social affairs, martyrs and the disabled; the acting minister of health; the director of gender and human rights at the ministry of foreign affairs.

I had no idea that the People's Republic has a minister of martyrs! How cool is that! And how appropriate it is that they have a "director" of gender and human rights.

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
May 14, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Just read the transcript. Not one question from Twitter. Very few questions asked at all, as a matter of fact, and all of those were from the media.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 17, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius in Virginia:

Just read the transcript. (unedited from the recorded transcript - State Dept. briefing of May 13)

MR. CROWLEY: Okay, the Secretary – and I know we’re a little pressed for time – the Secretary will be meeting with some Afghan female ministers this afternoon, underscoring our support for Afghan women. Our goals are to improve the security of women in institutions that serves women, supporting women’s leadership in the public and private sectors, promoting women’s access to formal and informal justice, enforcing existing law and constitutional rights of women, improving women and girls’ access to education and health care, strengthening and expanding economic development opportunity for women, especially in agriculture, and increasing women’s political participation. And I’m sure she will talk to them about reintegration and stress that Afghan women’s rights will not be sacrificed as reintegration efforts move forward and that there is a commitment to have at least 25 percent of the membership of the upcoming peace jirga be women.

QUESTION: How many ministers is that? That she’s meeting with?

MR. CROWLEY: She’ll be meeting with the minister of labor, social affairs, martyrs and the disabled; the acting minister of health; the director of gender and human rights at the ministry of foreign affairs.
---
Kind of hard to mistake the remarks as involving anything other than Afghan/US bilaterals. So how did you perceive "the People's Republic" being the subject in association with them?

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
May 17, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Thank you for correcting me. I must have misread the transcript. Such things happen when you're at work and in a rush.

It does make more sense for Afghanistan to have a minister of martyrs. I think that they're probably going to have many more in the future, on both sides. The minister will be very busy (chuckle).

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 17, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius,

No problem, I figured you simply misread it. But I personally don't think loss of life is something to (chuckle) about.

Ever.

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
May 18, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

I happen to think that having an official minister of martyrs for a government that we support is rather hard to explain, especially when our government complains that the other guy's martyrs are terrorists. I've started to internalize that, I think. Martyr = Terrorist. Now our "ally" has a Ministry of Terrorists. Or martyrs.

My chuckle is therefore a nervous one, not some sort of sadistic glee as you suggest. I find humor in dissonance, and there's a lot of that to be found in this world. Even when people die as a result. If that makes me a no good lousy human being then so be it.

I'm afraid the old saw that life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think is quite applicable to me.

That's my last on this.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 19, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius in Virginia: Well Flavius I guess that all depends on semantics, and personal perceptions. Let me see if this makes any sense to you...A terrorist defines a martyr as one who has given their life in the cause of jihad...or holy war. We don't nessesarily define those who make the ultimate sacrifice for this nation's preservation of freedom and security as "hero's", but they are often honored as such. In other words, one doesn't have to die to become a hero. But you do to become a martyr.

Now the difference between the Afghan Gov.'s definition of the word and the terrorist's is like this..."If a blind child is taught that the sky is brown, how do you convince him it is blue?" (an Afghan friend once asked me this to illustrate the education in madrassa of a "taleb". Simply put, all a blind kid wants is one good eye to see the truth. Now if a kid is taught that it's heroic to strap on a bomb and blow a bunch of innocent civilians to pieces in a market place, how do you convince him that the true definition of being a martyr is giving your life to save others?

So ask yourself if you would run out in front of a bus to save someone and by willing to be 100% certain in getting hit by it yourself in doing so and doing it anyway to save another, you can be comfortable knowing you have what it takes to be a martyr or not. I hope that clarifies your conundrum. Given the bombing in Kabul this morning, I have to tell you that the timing of your (chuckle) stinks, nothing personal. It just does.

.

Latest Stories

Pages