Fed Page   |  Column Archive  |    RSS   |   Daily Politics Q&A

The Chatter Over Sauerbrey

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Al Kamen
Monday, June 20, 2005

The buzz among the refugee aid groups is that Ellen Sauerbrey , former Maryland state legislator, two-time unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate and now ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, is being looked at to be assistant secretary of state for refugee matters.

If so, there is bound to be a battle, largely over abortion rights. Sauerbrey has a fair amount of diplomatic experience in -- and gets substantial kudos for -- being a tireless advocate for human rights and women's rights. About 70 to 80 percent of refugees are women and children.

But she staunchly opposes abortion rights, a view that has had her sparring with other international rights advocates over abortion-related issues. Recently, Sauerbrey insisted that a U.N. declaration supporting women's equality specify that the 1995 Beijing women's conference did not create new human rights, such as the right to abortion. The move was dropped amid widespread opposition.

Sauerbrey also has criticized "activist" nongovernmental organizations -- doubtless including some with which she would have to work -- that likely will gear up to oppose her.

The chatter at Foggy Bottom is that if this appointment happens, it will be after resolution of the Senate battle over U.N. ambassador nominee John R. Bolton .

We Take It That's a Yes

The Bush administration, joining all its predecessors, has deplored the media's use of anonymous sources to criticize administration actions. Reporters themselves would much prefer to have sources on the record, as that always enhances a story's credibility.

Sometimes confirmation of an article based on background sources takes a while. Last week, for example, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G . Lugar (R-Ind.) used a committee hearing to decry leaks involving North Korean matters.

"I am particularly concerned," he said, that U.S. officials "have pressed Russian, Chinese, Japanese and South Korean officials for cooperation in moving North Korea back to the table, [but] their initiatives have been complicated by others who have leaked sensitive information related to administration strategy."

"For example," Lugar said, "on May 7th of this year, a Washington Post article revealed sensitive and confidential details of discussions held between [Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R . ] Hill and Chinese officials in connection with the six-party talks. Chinese officials later protested to United States officials regarding the betrayal of confidence."

So that means the story must have been true?

And Here's Back at You

Speaking of unnamed sources . . . It seems the gratuitous use of them is spreading beyond media circles. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for instance, knowing how shiftless reporters are, has taken to writing news releases about its hearings in the style of news stories.

The dispatches are quite well done and look much like the real thing -- even to the use of anonymous critics.


CONTINUED     1        >


© 2005 The Washington Post Company