Hillary Clinton's Doctrine: Innovation, Not Bluster
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton envisions a future shaped by pragmatism, collaboration and shared values
John Moore / Getty Images
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to participants of the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City, Sept. 24, 2012.
Rising above the clamor and broadsides of the U.S. election campaign, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a glimpse of her and the Obama Administrations vision for the future of American foreign policy. Her Monday keynote speech (dubbed Designing Diplomacy for the 21st Century) at the Clinton Global Initiatives annual meeting in New York, hosted by her husband President Bill Clinton, dwelled on how the U.S. intends to reshape its commitment to global development in the face of a rapidly changing world. We have to think fast and innovatively and be willing to change ourselves, warned Clinton. Her message was a world away from the bluster of those in the U.S. who still hunger for a militarist, muscular stance on the global stage.
And it was a message Clintons audience seemed very keen to hear. As my colleague Bryan Walsh adroitly wrote yesterday, CGIs annual meeting is the apotheosis of philanthrocapitalism. More sharply focused than the World Economic Forums vast conclave in Davos, Switzerland, the meeting brings out luminaries in the private sector who are already committed to tackling an array of development challenges. Madeleine Albright, Pres. Clintons former Secretary of State and moderator of a panel dubbed Champions of Action, summed up the proceedings with a somewhat ungainly metaphor: rather than a forum for telling people which way the wind is blowing, says Albright, we enlist the help of others to change the direction of the wind.
For Secretary Clinton, the U.S.s top diplomat, the end goal for the State Departments development and aid programs ought to beputting ourselves out of business. By shifting from aid to investment, from throwing money at governments to targeting projects with the private sector, from dictating terms to encouraging reforms, the U.S. can with greater agility and precision affect how development plays out in poorer countries worldwide. As it is, aid from the West is a far smaller proportion of the capital flowing into the coffers of developing nations now than half a century ago. I look forward to the day when our development assistance is no longer necessary, said Clinton. We are working with partner countries to strengthen their political will for reform and provide technical assistance on issues like taxes. That last point drew murmurs of audience approval that Clinton seized upon, insisting collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country is essential for countless nations. There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries, said Clinton, alluding, cheekily, to the status quo in the U.S.
In keeping with CGIs (and the Obama administrations) liberal internationalism, Clintons speech made clear moral gestures, appealing to the importance of universal valu! es. At ro! ot, says Clinton, is a shared commitment to freedom, democracy, opportunity and dignity, which she hailed the great cause of the 21st century.
Theres little unfamiliar about that sentiment, but it came at a rocky moment for U.S. foreign policy. The shadow of recent events hung over the ballroomnamely the unrest and violence of the past two weeks in the Middle East and North Africa, triggered in part by an obscure, controversial anti-Muslim video made in the U.S. If stung, both by the supposed anger of the Arab street and by opponents in Washington who have branded the Administration weak, the Secretary of State remained resolute, defending her belief in the importance of the Arab Springs revolutions. The people of the Arab world did not set out to trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of the mob, said Clinton, who went on to applaud last Fridays popular uprising in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where tens of thousands marched against the extremist militia that was behind an assault on the U.S. consulate there and the death of American ambassador Chris Stevens. Dignity does not come from avenging insults, but advancing our common humanity, she concluded.
Few would dispute that. Yet implicit in Clintons address was a sticky tension: the champion of American diplomacy was facing up to the dawning reality that, in the decades to come, the U.S.s ability to impose itself on global affairs will shrink. Clintons trumpeted platitudesWe are standing up for democracies that unlock peoples potential and against extremists who seek to exploit peoples frustrationbelied the fact that her good intentions are still not welcomed or trusted by many overseas. Writing in the New York Times today, Indian commentator Pankaj Mishra discussed the inevita! ble retre! at of the U.S. from the Middle East, a region that has long bristled at American diplomatic and military interventions.
It is not just extremist Salafis who think Americans always have malevolent intentions: the Egyptian anti-Islamist demonstrators who pelted Hillary Rodham Clintons motorcade in Alexandria with rotten eggs in July were convinced that America was making shady deals with the Muslim Brotherhood. And few people in the Muslim world have missed the Israeli prime ministers blatant manipulation of American politics for the sake of a pre-emptive assault on Iran.
With emerging powers flexing their muscle on the international stage, the scope for assertive American action is narrowing everywhere. Clinton seemed intuitively aware of this, painting a picture of American diplomacy that engages a range of diverse partners, from governments to the private sector to fledgling civil societies. She said the principle of development was as vital a tenet in U.S. national security as defense. American power, in this vision, is diffuse, subtleit cares more for collaboration than confrontation, it wields no big stick. Thats a note that sounds just right in a forum of international do-gooders. How it plays out in an election year is another matter altogether.