Measuring Obama and Clinton
05 November 2009 1:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
From the time I started writing this piece this morning to the time it was posted, Time magazine had changed the tone and title from “Hillary’s Moment” to “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record on the Job.” Things shift quickly for team Obama, especially when you’re chief diplomat is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Somewhere between Obama’s foreign policy promise and concrete markers to progress not having yet been achieved, Clinton’s role as Secretary, the actual relevancy of her position, is unfolding. In the digital age, shuttle diplomacy doesn’t mean the same thing as it did in Kissinger’s time. But yet, having a star Secretary backing up a president’s super star status in two of the most troubled spots of the world is a fortuitous break, especially when these regions also happen to be the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. Provided the Secretary is more than just a presidential mouthpiece.
… A visit to a Sufi mosque that had been bombed by Sunni extremists, for example, sent a powerful message to Pakistan’s moderate Islamic majority. “We saw her praying there,” an academic named Shala Aziz told me, “and, for the first time, I’m thinking, The Americans have hearts.” … Press accounts either emphasized the embarrassment of a Secretary of State’s getting pummeled or fixed on Clinton’s undiplomatic bluntness. But they missed the point: her candor, her willingness to listen to and acknowledge criticism, had begun to undermine the prevailing Pakistani image of the U.S. as arrogant and bossy, more interested in having the Pakistani military fight its war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban than in having a true strategic partnership. The contrast was especially sharp after George W. Bush’s eight years of unqualified support for the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf. “In the past, when the Americans came, they would talk to the generals and go home,” said Farahnaz Ispahani, a government spokeswoman and Member of Parliament. “Clinton’s willingness to meet with everyone, hostile or not, has made a big impression — and because she’s Hillary Clinton, with a real history of affinity for this country, it means so much more.” [...] – Hillary’s Moment
This last trip proved that between Obama’s directives and Clinton’s delivery there are fault lines. Nothing made this more evident than the Secretary’s statement over Netanyahu’s “unprecedented” proposal on settlements, which was taken in the Arab world as nothing less than a reversal of Obama’s new Middle East policy of no settlements. Obama’s vision, when met with Clinton’s delivery, just didn’t sound as good as it had appeared in Obama’s head. Then came Clinton’s bluntness over Pakistan’s inability to root out Al Qaeda, with Clinton’s closeness to Pakistan another attribute that few others can tout. It’s not a coincidence that it’s foundation lies in a Pakistani woman that was killed because of what she represented, including the bluntness that presidential hopeful Benazir Bhutto exhibited, especially when it came to her criticism of the Saudis, whom she blamed directly for funding the madrassas that titled Pakistan toward the jihadis.
Earlier in the day, President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, had presented the Secretary with an album of photos from her first visit to Pakistan, in 1995, and a framed photo of Bhutto and her two sons with Clinton and daughter Chelsea. “It did bring tears to my eyes,” Clinton said at the state dinner in her honor at the presidential palace, “because I so admired your wife. She gave her life …” She faltered then, choking up, but quickly pulled herself together, talking about the “reasons why we do what we do — to provide opportunities for all.”
Clinton’s religious piety more appreciated in Pakistan than in her own party. From Joe Klein:
During her three days in Pakistan, she ran a gauntlet of town-hall meetings and media interviews that may have been unprecedented, to use the word of the week, for a U.S. Secretary of State. The trip, planned by Holbrooke and Pakistan specialist Vali Nasr, offered an unusually subtle itinerary for a U.S. diplomatic mission. A visit to a Sufi mosque that had been bombed by Sunni extremists, for example, sent a powerful message to Pakistan’s moderate Islamic majority. “We saw her praying there,” an academic named Shala Aziz told me, “and, for the first time, I’m thinking, The Americans have hearts.”
But the biggest difference between the boss and his chief diplomat is that Clinton simply isn’t very good at pulling her punches, which happens to be Obama’s signature stock and trade. So, as close as their relationship has become, the implementation of policy message hasn’t manifested. Their differences a plus in crafting a wider and broader foreign policy strategy, while also revealing stylistic fissures on leadership qualities that do not match.
The biggest missing piece in the Obama – Clinton foreign policy melding evident in Afghanistan. Where Clinton’s “women’s rights are human rights” is missing in action, which can only mean the boss isn’t sure about sending that message in a place that looks like it’s about to explode. Even as Clinton made clear in the Congo and beyond that this is where we must go in the 21st century. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan where it’s needed to clarify our purpose most, Pres. Obama, who once talked about women’s rights and their importance to the country, isn’t talking about it anymore.
Klein’s piece comes on the heels of yet another piece on Afghan women pleading that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. Michelle Goldberg writing about Afghanistan’s heroic Malalai Joya, named “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” by the BBC, which is saying a lot considering their plight. Joya says: “My message on behalf of my people to [the] great American people is that democracy never comes by barrel of gun, by cluster bomb, by war.”
Agreed, absolutely. But as much as I don’t believe in sending more troops, these pleas still do not address what would happen if we pulled out both our troops and our money. Or do people really believe we’re going to send billions without some measure of force on the ground? Do these individuals think if we leave there won’t be an onslaught of Uzbeks, Indians, Pakistanis, et al. all vying for a piece of Afghanistan? What would the country look like then? How fast would they ask the U.S. for help or blame the country’s collapse on our lack of vision? But more fundamentally, there is actually no way whatsoever we can leave Afghanistan now.
As an aside, I have no idea if the rumor printed in the UK Times about Obama giving Karzai an ultimatum on corruption is true, threatening to pull all U.S. troops out if it’s not stemmed. But certainly Pres. Obama knows that Karzai is by no means the only source of corruption, with private contractors likely an even bigger obstacle, as aid dollars flow from an unmonitored, overflowing spigot. As no one will take the ultimatum remotely seriously, least of all Mr. Karzai, dissipating Obama’s power among watching world leaders who may be corrupt, but aren’t amateurs. Because if you’re going to deliver on an ultimatum you must be prepared to pull the trigger. If you don’t you’re done.
But getting back on point, Clinton’s message about women was prescient in 1995, when she went to China and stood up and spoke out. It’s even more important today, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which reverberates around the world all the way to the Congo.
Pres. Obama is the boss, but at some point he shouldn’t just send Clinton around the world, allowing her to be his foreign policy spokesperson. He should listen to her and actually consider following her lead, especially where women’s human rights and foreign policy converge. But dare I say also in the Middle East, as no one knows the minds of the Israelis more than the former senator from the great state of New York.
If Obama and Clinton, who have yet to figure out how to use their differences as strengths, can work this out, there is no landscape they can’t impact. Lost potential will be the result if they don’t.
