Now it is the turn of Secretary of State Clinton. The hot wash is far more positive.
The central indication that Ms Clinton has learned a lot over the past year came buried in her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington today. Surprisingly or not, the WaPo picked up her nuanced change in focus in today's remarks compared to those delivered to the same audience a year back.
Last year Ms Clinton delivered herself of what had to be a piece of Obama approved blather regarding the need to alter the global political dynamic from a "multi-polar world" to a "multi-partnered" one. This exercise in the rhetoric of pure balderdash overlooked a couple of ground truths.
The first was simply that the world of a year ago was not "multi-polar" although it was well on the way to becoming one due to the presidential emphasis on "outreach," apology, and self-inflicted diminishment of the US as the primary global actor. It was clear in speech after speech as well as policy after policy that Mr Obama was ideologically committed to decreasing the influence of the US in all areas of world politics while exalting the UN above all others. On Obama's watch there was to be no "American exceptionalism" and, thus, no robust American leadership. He sought to do the impossible--unilaterally resign American Great Power status.
The second ground truth absent from Ms Clinton's declaration of the World According To Barack was the fact that partnership in international affairs is based upon the coincidence of national interest. "Partnership" is a matter of subjectively defined national self-interest and is defined by specific contexts.
The events of the past year have proven that the Obama intent of resigning American Great Power status has been countered effectively by the demands and expectations of other countries. Ms Clinton's statement today demonstrates that she understands this whether or not the Clueless Man In the Oval recognizes it or not.
Equally evident is Ms Clinton having awakened to the fact that partnership is both contextual and based upon coinciding national or strategic interest. Her redefinition also acknowledges that "partnership" arises from American leadership, from a clear understanding on the part of other governments as to the nature and character of both American national interests and what the US intends to do to achieve goals arising from those interests.
While still genuflecting before the totem of no-more-American-unilateralism, it is plain from both the body of Ms Clinton's remarks and the Q&A session that she appreciates the power of implicit unilateralism in gaining and sustaining multilateral consensus on coinciding national interests. The specter of unilateralism in the background has the effect of focusing other governments on the search for effective multilateral means to achieve policy goals which may arise from American national interests but mesh with their own. To this extent the Crazy American Thesis as practiced by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has great effectiveness in assuring future administrations achieve cooperation which might not otherwise be forthcoming.
The secretary employed the gaining of a new round of sanctions from the UN Security Council and the follow on of even tougher moves by the EU as well as the US and other countries as a prime achievement of the Obama administration as well as a paradigm for future actions. Of course, she might have noted with equal or greater justice the use of the UNSC by George H.W. Bush as the key move in generating the unprecedented coalition which fought the Gulf War. (Or to err on the side of historical accuracy the employment of the same venue by George W. Bush in gaining support for his Great Adventure In Regime Change in Iraq.)
Ms Clinton might even have mentioned the simple fact that We the People have never been particularly comfortable with unilateral action, greatly preferring a multilateral approach. As far back as Harry Truman, the US has routinely sought (and often achieved) the presence of the baby blue fig leaf of UN authorization to cover the genitalia of American policy. The use of multilateral diplomacy is not new with the Obama administration or the Clinton stewardship at Foggy Bottom. It is business as usual.
While her speech was notable in the absence of specific policy considerations, Ms Clinton did touch on three key issues slopping over her diplomatic plate. The current direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority topped the list.
Ms Clinton was guardedly optimistic on the course of the talks. She did gloss over both the contextual matters which threaten to sink the ship before it really gets underway and the estranged relationship between agreement on a framework for settlement and the actual implementation. These holes are understandable as no one wants to focus on the downsides before there are any upsides worthy of mention.
The secretary was not any more comprehensive regarding Iran. The sanctions are hurting Iran to be sure, but to what avail? That question was neither directly asked nor even indirectly answered. Perhaps if she had been pushed by one of the foreign policy mavens present, Ms Clinton would have agreed with retired dictator Fidel Castro, who opined there was no chance the mullahs would abandon their search for the bomb.
It was a bit of a surprise that she zeroed in on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. After characterizing the situation as a "time bomb," she did say the US was expanding its diplomatic efforts with both North and South Sudan as well as other African countries. Left unsaid was another unpleasant truth. If the vote does not go the way both parties want--which is a self-evident result--the disenchanted loser will crank up the still-on-hold war.
Of course, raising that highly inconvenient truth would have demanded a then-what-will-we-do?follow up. It's often best, or at least more politic to leave sleeping realities keep on snoring.
To her credit, Ms Clinton did link the American budget deficit to foreign affairs. The real deal is that an overly broke, overly frugal US will be severely handicapped in playing the Game of Nations.
Foreign policy on the cheap can have its upsides. For example the cost factor was key in deciding to wage war in Yemen and Pakistan with a very low footprint, using Special Forces assets for training and supporting locals as well as Predators rather than louder, more expensive manned aircraft. In these wars of the fringes the needs of economy mesh perfectly with diplomatic considerations and the nature of the local human terrain.
Overall however, diplomacy is impaired greatly by the perception globally that the American economy is on the semi-permanent skids and the government's bloated expenditures are funded to large extent by foreign government investors. If nothing else, diplomacy is impaired by a perception that the best days of the American way of economic life are behind us. The appeal of the American economy and the way of life it has supported have been high on the list of "soft power" features.
Reading the atmospherics gives the impression that not only has the Secretary of State moved firmly out of the shadows of Hillary-who? cast by the presumed foreign policy expert of the administration, Joe Biden, but that she has done so with the approval of the president. It may be that the Clueless One in the Oval has finally faced up to the fact that the enemies of the US are not going to roll over because Barack Obama is in the White House or that our allies are encouraged in their relationship because he can talk real pretty.
If true this is to the good of the nation. Ms Clinton has shown both a steep learning curve and an impressive degree of recent maturity. In any event it would seem that the president has enough to do what with blowing the economy, shooting the health care and education systems in the head, maiming American efforts in space and technology, and generally undermining American self-confidence. Leaving foreign relations to someone else is a very good idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment