Little Words Equal Big Change?

The central reality of diplomacy is words. Diplomats parse language with an intensity surpassing that possessed by English teachers--or even lawyers. Since Hillary Clinton is both a lawyer and, courtesy of her current job, a diplomat, she must be aware of this foundation truth.

It is for this reason that consternation is running rampant in Whitehall following SecState Clinton's meeting with Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Buenos Aires the other night. Ms Clinton used the Argentinian name for the islands, Las Malvinas, as well as the English term, Falkland Islands.

It is arguable that Ms Clinton employed the dual formulation in order to underscore the neutral role in the current oil exploration driven dispute over who owns the islands. The Obama administration for reasons not yet articulated has adopted the pose of disinterest in the affair even while offering its good offices in facilitating negotiations between the two parties.

The British government had already declined the offer (with appropriate protocol based expressions of gratitude) with Gordon Brown taking the lead. The assorted statements from Whitehall and Downing Street make it abundantly clear that not only does Her Majesty's Government not want American "facilitation," but does not trust the Obama administration in the matter.

Why, you might ask, would the British suddenly be so skeptical of American policy?

The answer comes in one word: Israel.

The manner in which the Obama administration has handled affairs with the government of Israel gives pause, great pause even for thought on the part of any country which has believed for decades that it enjoys a "special relation" with the US. The Obama administration has done much in its treatment of Israel to cause concern on the part of long-standing American allies. The roster of shifts is too lengthy to allow even summary consideration in a single post, but the aggregate amounts to a definite fraying of any "special relation."

The British foreign ministry and government generally has to consider and interpret Ms Clinton's unprecedented use of the term "Las Malvinas" not only in the context provided by the (mis)handling of Israel but also in that provided by the numerous snubs of UK sensibilities executed by the administration and Mr Obama personally during the past year. To the mandarins of British policy the Clinton formulation hints of a shift in American policy. The shift portends nothing good for the UK or for the continuation of the "special relationship" believed to have existed since the days of FDR.

If the Obama administration expects the possible tilt toward Argentina in the current contretemps will purchase any general good will south of the Rio Grande, it is whistling past the graveyard. The turning away from Washington by the LatAm nations epitomized by the agreement to form a new regional association without the US and Canada has been driven by a nearly universal view of US obtuseness and neglect of regional concerns. It has been aided powerfully by a broad sense of American global decline.

Much of the responsibility for the eroding of the US position in Latin America dates from the embrace by both Presidents Clinton and W. Bush of "globalization" and "privatization." The results of this particularly as enforced by the IMF and World Bank have been disastrous at best and catastrophic at worst for most Latin Americans.

At the same time the emergence of a near universal democracy has provided fertile soil for demagogic and "populist" politicians who find many a vote in bashing the Yanquis. The Bolivarian trio has used this reality with great and growing success which alarms other, somewhat less immature governments including those of Brazil and Argentina. This implies the leaders of these states must move out smartly lest they be ground into a mudhole by the louder shouting anti-Americans of the hard left regimes.

In short, truckling to presumed South American interests in the Falklands matter will not purchase the US either stature or influence. It will, however, cause ever greater doubts about the constancy of the US in London--and other capitals.

The worst course of action for a Great Power is that of change. Other powers predicate their policies and positions on what the Great Powers have been and continue to do or, at least, say in diplomatic fora. While this does not imply that a Great Power cannot or should not change policy direction, particularly when the policy has proven itself a failure, it does imply that no change should come suddenly in an apparently impromptu fashion and without consultation with other involved governments.

Presumably Ms Clinton knows this. If she personally is unaware of the consequences of seeming small alterations in diplomatic language she does have the resources of the State Department available to her. Mis-speaking oneself is quite common and acceptable in domestic politics (after all that's why flacks and spin doctors exist,) it is not in international relations.

If Ms Clinton had a momentary lapse of reason, she should be counselled. If her remark presages a shift in policy--the administration should be fired.