Hillary Clinton, Sec. of State, and the Mid East
November 16th, 2008News reports are buzzing with speculation that Hillary Clinton has been offered the role of Secretary of State in the upcoming Obama administration, a happening I believe few people had expected. If the speculation turns out to be true, however, Clinton may find ample incentive to take the position, given its historical role as a stepping stone to the presidency. Beside the advantage of a padded-resume, the position would allow her to exercise a large measure of influence on U.S foreign policy and perhaps even leave an indelible mark (for better or worse) on its role in global affairs.
Given the narrow margin of her loss to President-elect Obama during the Democratic primaries and the support she still holds among the public and her party’s top brass, her involvement in an Obama administration seemed to be there for the taking if she so desired. Clinton is currently considered the front-runner for the position on a short-list that includes the familiar faces of Senator John Kerry and Former U.N ambassador Bill Richardson. How would the appointment of Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State affect U.S policy on the Middle East?
Beside running the State Department, the Secretary of State traditionally serves the President as his chief foreign policy advisor. The nature of this role has had exceptions; during the Cold War, depending on the administration, the top foreign policy advisor was sometimes the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor. In recent times it could be argued that the Vice President’s office has played an enlarged role in the formation of foreign policy. The Secretary of State plays a few other roles in foreign affairs, including the handling of negotiations with foreign governments and their representatives, and the marketing of U.S foreign policy to the rest of the world. Given the presence of Vice President Joe Biden (not my favorite policy architecht, but knowledgable nonetheless), and the possible involvement of Samantha Power in the next administration (an academic and a prominent writer, she’s been widely tapped for the position of National Security Advisor), Clinton’s influence on Obama in matters of foreign affairs may be limited. Further influence on Obama may be hampered by their reportedly contentious relationship stemming from the Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton’s selling ability however, given her public stature, could be well suited to the position.
Of what we can derive from her presidential run, Clinton’s foreign policy views are nearly identical to those of Obama. Beside the standard campaign rhetoric on Iraq (both want to see a withdrawal of U.S presence, but both are cautious of how this would proceed) and Afghanistan (the first of the individual Wars on Terror is likely to receive a renewed focus in the coming four years), we have little to glean from either of their foreign policy objectives other than an increased emphasis on multilateralism and probably a more realist approach to exercising American power abroad. Compare their Foreign Affairs articles, for instance, written toward the end of 2007. While they generally reek of the traditional ambiguity of a political stump speech, their essays reflect the democratic line on foreign policy, perhaps only separated by their distinct emphasis’ on themes of experience and judgment that served to anchor their campaign messages. The possible points of contention emerge on discussions of approaching Iran, with Clinton seeming rhetorically less-open to high level negotiations with the Islamic Republic that have been proposed by Obama. While their policy differences on Iran are minute, Clinton’s emphasis during the primaries on setting ‘pre-conditions’ before engaging the Iranians (which is already happening) managed to pull Obama’s conciliatory language toward the center on the issue, dropping suggestions that he would meet with Ahmadinejad (a rather pointless endeavor to propose in the first place, given where real power on Iran’s foreign policy is centered).
Clinton does carry some light baggage with respect to Iran. During an interview with ABC news toward the end of her presidential run, she responded to a question about the possibility of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons with this statement:
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an at tack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Iran protested formally to the U.N, and Iranian members of parliament responded to the provocation with typical indignation and resentment. While protests to the comment are more symbolic than anything else (similar comments have been made by others throughout the past 8 years), reputation is an integral factor in diplomacy and negotiation, and her efforts to engage Iran may receive a sour reception from an already reluctant political establishment in that country.
Any appointee to the position will be responsible for executing an ambitious agenda challenged by a weakened base of resources and power. The familiar obstacles of Israel-Palestine, MidEast political reform, Iraq, Iran, and Syria-Lebanon require a determined yet pragmatic approach to overcome. With all the talk of Senators and former presidential candidates being considered for the job, one cannot help but wish that more established, wonky foreign affairs experts would be short listed to head the U.S state department. A ceremonial appointee (which Clinton and Kerry would largely be) could serve to draw increased attention to their efforts, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate to appoint a person specialized in foreign affairs or diplomacy to head America’s foreign policy bureaucracy? I’m skeptical of the short-list, but almost any appointee will carry out a similar agenda with regard to the Middle East.
Loading ...
Loading...
Very thoughtful analysis Karim.
I’m not sure that a foreign policy professional would be our best bet for Secretary of State. Those guys are so “politically correct” when they talk, that you never really know what they’re trying to say.
This is the type for bold political intitiatives, not diplomatic niceties and empty gestures.
I like Hilary, and think that she would probably make a good Secretary of State. First of all she’s a woman, and that could make all the difference right there and then. Women make more sense when it comes to peace. Secondly, she is very competitve, and she may choose the Middle East to show that she could do what her husband couldn’t. And third, she brings to the table her smarts and determination, at a time when the world is looking for answers, and may be more open to new solutions.
We’ll see, but I think that Obama may be playing his cards very well here.
Hey Nissim,
Thanks for the comment. I’m still not so sure about a Sec. of State Clinton. I can see her in the ceremonial, public relations role that the position entails. However, Obama is a more than capable communicator and salesman, and he should have a significant role in selling policies to the world.
I’m still not convinced of her foreign policy credentials.
The exiting secretary is a woman, and she brought academic credentials to the job that I think Hillary lacks.
I do think that Hillary will be pretty politically correct as well, and any foreign policy toward the Middle East is going to center on fighting terrorism and political reform, the latter of which will be difficult to make progress on in the coming four years (largely because of the last four). So in terms of the Middle East, we may receive quite a bit of focus, but it’ll be in order to clean up the mess rather than initiate bold action. I think the latter will be left to a second term.
I’m just not sure what she brings to the table that other candidates with a more focused foreign policy background would not. Perhaps I’m sounding too skeptical (there will undoubtedly be several experts advising her), but I would have preferred a different direction.
I re-read my comment and wanted to make one more point: while the U.S still can play a constructive role in the region, it’s about time that we saw local contingencies step up and take the lead in the effort of political reform. With elections coming up in several countries over the next few years there are serious opportunities to progress (if ever so slightly) politically as a region. Let’s hope that any future U.S effort is coupled with seriousness on the Middle Eastern front.
Like Obama, Hilary is a pretty good saleswoman as well. My dad and she were both honored by an Israeli University in a ceremony in New York, a year ago or so. They sat next to each other for dinner and talked for some two hours. All you have to know about my dad is that he’s the most right wing person you could possibly imagine. After the dinner, he said to me that he decided to vote for Hilary. I said, “Pop, are you crazy? She’s liberal, and you’re ultra-conservative.” So he just said, “What can I say, she’s one hell of a talker.”
if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or personal career plans, etc.
[...] Mideast Youth – Thinking AheadArticle: Hillary Clinton, Sec. of State, and the Mid EastOriginaly Posted On: 2008-11-16 [...]
Barack Obama’s decision to offer Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons:
First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle. From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in.
Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness. This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency.
Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles–Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad. Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress don’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State.
Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate. For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that she changes her mind and spurns the Secretary of State offer. Her coyness in her reaching decision–making Obama beg, in effect–is already an ominous sign.
hillary clinton is trouble, period. going to war with iran is not a good idea!
Hillary Clinton will turn out to be the best Sec of State this country has ever had. If she were chosen to be VP she would be doing nothing all day long. As Sec of State she has excellent foreign policy credentials; moreso than Richardson and Kerry, two of the biggest phonies in Washington. Hillary is also very much liked and popular in foreign countries. They like her and she’s an excellent talker which is what a Sec State should be. She will be nothing like Albright, who did nothing as Sec of State but brag about her visits to other countries which amounted to zero. Hillary will make all Americans proud of her position and what she will achieve for this country and the world.
Hi Diane,
I disagree. Hillary’s not popular at all where I am, specifically after she said she would “totally obliterate Iran.” Her staunch pro-Israeli agenda makes her unpopular in the Middle East, with the obvious exception of Israel. Someone who so proudly announces war and dismantling another country is something we find threatening and sickeningly disrespectful. Personally I find her to be a complete fake, and think she will fail as Sec. of State. Very fickle. Easily fooled. Not my type of politician.