Americans want to do business upfront, then maybe they will find time for a bit of pleasure. This is because most are impatient and want the deal done. The priority is to do the work, then relax and get to know the people across the aisle or maybe not.
Knowing the other is more often than not a U.S. mission. Alternatively, most countries spend hours, days, months and sometimes even years getting to know another party before establishing trust, only then can the real work be done and, I might add, that relationship will usually last a lifetime.
In his book, Three Cups of Tea, Greg Mortenson outlines how learning this enabled him to make incredible strides in Pakistan. Apparently our new Secretary of State has learned it as well.
As news stories and blogs analyze Hillary's style as a cross between stern diplomat and cultural inquisitor who is redefining the role of Secretary of State, field experts like myself are wondering why this type of diplomacy took so long!
I, for one, was completely unsure of Hillary in this job. I did not like her campaign's hawkish rhetoric. Quite frankly the world has had enough of Americans shoving self-interested policy down their throats.
I am now tentatively saying that Hillary may actually know what it takes. A firm stance with honesty and relationship building gets you a lot further internationally than the use of any weapon ever did or ever will.
Dare I say Hillary may be at least one member of this Administration who is truly implementing the change in strategy that more than a few foreign policy experts have spent a long time hoping for. Let's see.
Showing posts with label secretary of state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secretary of state. Show all posts
February 23, 2009
November 21, 2008
November 14, 2008
Senator Clinton as Secretary of State?
There are rumors that President-elect Obama is vetting Senator Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Taking Clinton out of the Senate and putting her in this position would be a major loss for New York, and no gain for Obama's foreign policy team.
It is true that Clinton has met many international leaders - mostly during her time as first lady and not in a policy making capacity. She has also traveled abroad as Senator - mostly to Israel voicing her unwavering support. She has tried to boost her foreign policy credentials over the years by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee - mostly to support her candidacy for President. Not one of these examples makes her a diplomat.
Clinton, unlike Obama, is hawkish on national security issues. May I remind you she voted to go to war with Iraq and repeatedly said she thought nothing of using nuclear weapons on Iran.
Making Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track. Further, trying to bring a more balanced civilian component into foreign policy is nothing she has ever purported to support.
So I ask you, will putting her in the top diplomat position encourage a better foreign policy and change? I don't think so. What will she say to the Iranians, "oh that bombing threat was just for constituency consumption"?
If Obama is serious about turning America around, Chuck Hagel would be a much wiser choice. He has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate and, as a Republican, would be the right choice to build the bridge between party lines.
Hagel also understands the importance of leveling our civilian leadership in the foreign policy equation, taking into account international interests and working to improve the status of this country throughout the world. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate and it would serve Obama much better if he left her there.
It is true that Clinton has met many international leaders - mostly during her time as first lady and not in a policy making capacity. She has also traveled abroad as Senator - mostly to Israel voicing her unwavering support. She has tried to boost her foreign policy credentials over the years by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee - mostly to support her candidacy for President. Not one of these examples makes her a diplomat.
Clinton, unlike Obama, is hawkish on national security issues. May I remind you she voted to go to war with Iraq and repeatedly said she thought nothing of using nuclear weapons on Iran.
Making Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track. Further, trying to bring a more balanced civilian component into foreign policy is nothing she has ever purported to support.
So I ask you, will putting her in the top diplomat position encourage a better foreign policy and change? I don't think so. What will she say to the Iranians, "oh that bombing threat was just for constituency consumption"?
If Obama is serious about turning America around, Chuck Hagel would be a much wiser choice. He has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate and, as a Republican, would be the right choice to build the bridge between party lines.
Hagel also understands the importance of leveling our civilian leadership in the foreign policy equation, taking into account international interests and working to improve the status of this country throughout the world. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate and it would serve Obama much better if he left her there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
