During a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on September 8th, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in which she reasserted some classic topics about the American commitment in the world, claiming for a “ lasting American leadership for the decades to come ”.
“ America can, must, and will lead in this new century ” she said in the most explicit way, emphasizing a renewed American interventionism in international relations. With such a speech, Clinton aimed at reasserting first the ability of her country, even in a period of economic turmoil, to take initiatives on a global scale. Then, Hillary Clinton emphasized what she called “ a new American moment ”: according to her, the American global leadership is more essential than ever in today’s world. In other words, it is time for the United States to seize the opportunity given by the current needs of a deeper American commitment: the world would be counting on the United States, as showed after the floods in Pakistan or currently during the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authority.
Has Hillary Clinton become neoconservative on foreign policy issues? Not really. She remains far from George W. Bush’s views and practices between 2000 and 2008, by refusing unilateralism. In other words, Hillary Clinton has redefined the American leadership as the American ability to mobilize partners and allies with shared diplomatic initiatives ; thus “ American leadership ” in Clinton’s mouth doesn’t mean the right to go alone and dismiss the international law, but means that the US would work more closely with the United Nations and International Institutions. She also said “ we must often lead in new ways ”, referring to the expression of “ smart power ”, instead of “ hard or soft power ” she used and made famous for two years.
Instead of Neoconservatives, Clinton’s speech clearly reminds her predecessor Madeleine Albright’s views during Bill Clinton’s second term as President, when she was talking about the United States as the “ indispensable nation ”. According to Stewart M. Patrick , Senior Fellow in the CFR, Hillary Clinton has “ offered her own vision of US global leadership, adapted to an era of more constrained US power ”, a vision fully different from the Neoconservative one, founded on “ unchallenged US primacy and freedom of action ”.
Instead of Neoconservatives, Clinton’s speech clearly reminds her predecessor Madeleine Albright’s views during Bill Clinton’s second term as President, when she was talking about the United States as the “ indispensable nation ”. According to Stewart M. Patrick , Senior Fellow in the CFR, Hillary Clinton has “ offered her own vision of US global leadership, adapted to an era of more constrained US power ”, a vision fully different from the Neoconservative one, founded on “ unchallenged US primacy and freedom of action ”.
However, the difference is blatant between this speech and the one she gave last year in the same think tank . In 2009, the Secretary of State insisted on multilateralism, partnerships. These topics are always part of the speech, but they have been moved to the background, leaving the place on the foreground for a single American leadership.
That is why, according to the analyst from the CFR, Clinton appeared so enthusiastic on NATO, describing “ the most successful alliance in the world ”, and eluding the obviously different views between America and many European countries on the Organization. That is why she avoided the tricky issue between the United States and its fellow partners: the enlargement of the United Nations Security Council . It is not certain that the America Clinton depicts would be ready to support Brazil, India, or other emerging power as permanent members in the Security Council.
That is why, according to the analyst from the CFR, Clinton appeared so enthusiastic on NATO, describing “ the most successful alliance in the world ”, and eluding the obviously different views between America and many European countries on the Organization. That is why she avoided the tricky issue between the United States and its fellow partners: the enlargement of the United Nations Security Council . It is not certain that the America Clinton depicts would be ready to support Brazil, India, or other emerging power as permanent members in the Security Council.
The so-called “renewed American leadership” Hillary Clinton described appears more reluctant than ever to integrate new powers in international institutions. Especially, Clinton’s speech seems to dismiss any large reform of global governance . Is this model really adapted to the 21st century?
According to the columnists from the New York Times, this speech was meant to address voters for the next mid-term elections in November which will probably turn at the advantage of the Republican Party. Indeed, the Obama administration is currently looking for the diplomatic success it needs . When you look at Obama’s foreign policy priorities such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and the Middle East, the assessment may be harsh. Tehran has also nuclear ambitions for building a regional leadership clearly threatening Israel’s security. Despite the announcements, the American military will remain involved for a large part in Iraq. North Korea poisoned the US-China relationship this summer. Afghanistan remains “ the Graveyard of the empires ”. And everyone can notice the lack of progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In these conditions, Obama is more and more compared to Jimmy Carter and his several failures on foreign policy issues - so the Obama administration had to send a strong message to the American People on this topic. Not sure The Dear allies and partners of the U.S. would appreciate it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment