Clinton's Pragmatism, Smart Power, Multilateralism Welcomed in Muslim World
Hillary Clinton at her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State said in her opening remarks,
' The president-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology, on facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today's world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming facts of our interdependence.
I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The Ancient Roman poet Terence declared that "In every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first." The same truth binds wise women as well. '
That was the lead in the pan-Arab London daily, al-Hayat, which wrote, "Gone was the tone of confrontation and ideological rhetoric that characterized the foreign policy of the United States during the past 8 years."
You know, as much as three-quarters of the American public is just dying to see the end of the Bush administration next week, you can only imagine how much more eager the Arab world is to have a new team in Washington.
The Pakistani press was also obviously delighted to hear that Clinton appreciated the return to power of civilian politicians in Pakistan who would be less beholden than the military dictatorship to old policies of secretly supporting the Taliban.
Clinton's and John Kerry's, emphasis on civilian aid will also be welcome. Opinion polling shows that the Paksitani public wants better relations with the US and is especially interested in civilian development aid rather than all those weapons Bush used to send.
Turkey's Hurriyet noted with obvious relief that although Clinton ruled out direct talks with Hamas, she at least expressed distress over civilian casualties on both sides in the present conflict. The Muslim world has been upset that Israel has killed nearly a thousand and wounded over 3000 Palestinians, about half of them women and children, in the current conflict. Only a handful of Israeli civilians have been killed or wounded during the same time. I don't believe Bush expressed any regret for this toll at all.
/End (not cont'd)

|
15 Comments:
yes, it was encouraging to listen to Hillary's obvious intentions of taking a totally new path. In order to not make waves and assure a sweeping confirmation, she did not directly say she would sit down with Hamas, but I think the undertones of that sentiment were very clear. Just a few more days now.
Many peaple here in middle east think that the American foriegn policy is steady and doesn't change with faces of presedents and ministers. I don't blame them, but I also don't 'totally' agree with them. We can say that it is a good chance for Obama's administration to rectify this idea and show middle eastern people (especially Arabs) that US is not always conspiring against them.
"Diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy"
Is that why you are acting with extreme prejudice by refusing to meet with the democratically elected leaders of one of Israel's concentration camp?
Is that why Obama is regurgitating neocon talking points about fictitious Iranian nukes?
Unless the US's NSS will be changed significantly, Hillary's words are mere cotton to be placed in your ears to muffle the screaming victims of American foreign policy.
I dunno...smart power sounds good after so many years of really dumb power, but will someone please tell me what ultimate goals we're smartening up our power to go after?
'she at least expressed distress over civilian casualties.'
How convenient of her. How sad that it gets raised in importance to the level of 'at least' by you.
A big fan of yours am I but it seems that you are sometimes susceptible to the glimmer of hope. A glimmer that encourages the oasis in the desert mirage.
I do not believe that the glimmer serves you, just as I do not believe the shadow of despair serves you. Let time tell. She said that she 'distresses'. Let action determine the 'at least' of it.
Thanks for work. It is essential to the removal of ignorance.
Steve
Smart Power sounds like an Obama administration version of Compassionate Conservatism. Unless real things happen, it's just a slogan.
Here are some smart things Obama could do to enable Smart Power.
(1) Find a way to prevent Israel from ever using phosphorous in weapons. They use phosphorous bombs to terrorize, burn, and maim Palestinian women and children.
(2) Find a way to prevent Israel from ever using cluster bombs again. They use cluster bombs to maim and kill Lebanese children.
(3) Find a way to hold Israel financially responsible for the costs of their rampages in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel destroys it, then Israel should pay for it.
(4) Find a way to make Israel acknowledge that Jews are neither superior nor inferior to Arabs, but actually the same.
These would be smart moves except for one thing. If Obama tried them Israel would use its power to ruin his presidency and right now we Americans need Obama but we do not need Israel. The smartest thing, then, would be for Obama to find a way to neutralize Israel's influence.
Good grief, whatever is being listened to? Obama is surrounded by foreign policy advisers who are as hawkish as those of Bush. Clinton showed not the least understanding of what the massacre of Palestinians means and showed no willingness to deal with Hamas.
Obama has been preaching a forever war in Afghanistan and will be sending 30,000 more troops there. All the while Iran is being continually threatened.
What is this bizarre love affair with phantoms?
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/champion-of-terrorism-thomas-friedman.html
January 14, 2009
Champion of Terrorism: Thomas Friedman
Here, Thomas Friedman, endorses and champions the Israeli murder of Lebanese civilians in the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon: "It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future." *
* http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
Pof.Cole what do you think of the Iranian nuclear weapon theme coming back up?I thought the last NIE refuted that idea.
Re Smart Power vs Nuclear Olmerta
What happened to the audacity of hoping for honest power?
How can Clinton talk ad nauseum about the POSSIBILITY of future Iranian nuclear developments, with no mention of the fact that Israel has had nuclear missiles for decades, and has them aimed at Iran today?
Every US administration since Carter has silently refused to apply US non-proliferation law to our arms exports to Israel. Even when Israel was in proliferation partnership with the last Apartheid S. African regime of Botha.
Clinton's comments are meant for domestic consumtion so do not draw much meaning from them. You can draw some meanings from President Clinton's policies since they were in unison.
Regardless, the 800# gorilla will slim down a bit now and at least recognize that there is a world beyond the US shore.
If you do not understand the American psyche you do need to at least try read about it. It is not a bad psyche, and can come to care for your position.
Mr. Cole:
I personally found Mrs. Clinton's comment to be exactly what I expected from her, which is to say, a banal and superficial political gesture in front of a committee of her allies trying to appoint her.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is as likely to change US foreign policy in the Middle East - in particular, in Israel-Palestine - as I am to sprout wings right now and fly to Tahiti leaving a trail of pixie dust behind me, glimmering in the moonlight. Mr. Obama has already explicitly declared that there will be no clean break from the past on this area of foreign policy and that those who speculate as to what he might do ought to look at the Bush and Clinton administrations.
And Hillary Rodham Clinton is a self-serving politician of the tackiest sort. She has her post not because of a history of achievement in foreign policy and diplomacy or even any demonstrated skill or awareness of the sophisticated issues and histories entailed, but because her husband is a former President and she has enough connections and wealth via him to successfully challenge Obama in 2012, and to cost him popularity points before then, if she is not given a big prize.
There is no new hope for American leadership.
Sorry I am a skeptic. I just don't feel that Ms. Clinton is the right choice for the job considering statements prior to the US Presidential Election. Remember when she spoke about Iran? When she said that the US would obliterate Iran if she made any advances toward Israel. That kind of attitude is not good for International diplomacy. I still do not believe she is the right choice. I am also disappointed with Mr. Obama in terms of not making a statement about the conflict in Gaza for such a long time. It just seems like both administrations (the bush and obama) have given Israel a carte blanche for operations in Gaza. This is a time for strong diplomacy but not at the price of several hundred civilians.
However, who knows what direction the new administration will take. I know as it gets bloodier in Gaza I am not hearing what needs to be said.
People forget that with a planned yearly deficit of trillion dollars the US will be a dead man walking for at least the next five years. This has far reaching consequences on Middle East politics. It means a politically and militarily weak Israel. Egypt may undergo a regime change and become more Islamic. Saudi Arabia will become isolated and weaker. A strong coalition of Turkey, Syria, Iran and probably Iraq is expected to form and dominate the region. In short everything will change and in this new Middle East the Palestinians may find themselves in a much better position.
Post a Comment
<< Home