Ever since she joined Barack Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State, insiders across the political spectrum have weighed in about Hillary Clinton’s intentions in taking the job. Was she coming on board to overshadow the new president? Was she going to try to use the position to increase her political clout and make another run at the White House in 2016, or potentially 2012 if Obama failed? Or was she going into the job in order to provide a valuable supplement to the Obama team in the foreign arena?
Hillary’s trip of Asia had made clear that it may be too early to answer those questions. What is apparent is that the Obama administration will use the State Department to communicate a different message of how America is going to treat its allies and its enemies. Hillary’s trip, which spanned four countries, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and China, also communicated stances the administration had on the issues of global climate change, global economic recovery, and human rights.
This topic brief will break down Hillary Clinton’s trip abroad by giving some background on what was accomplished during the tour, criticisms of the tour, and some ramifications it will have for future American policymaking.
Background
Hillary’s trip to Asia departed from the previous areas where Secretaries of State have traveled as she chose the Asia-Pacific region instead of other favorite spots such as Europe and the Middle East. This gives an indication that the Asia-Pacific region will play a major role in the Obama administration, although international policymakers might think America might be better served if Obama focused more energy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially since Benjamin Netanyahu has been pegged to create the next Israeli government, one that may not be receptive to many of Obama’s peace initiatives.
The Asia-Pacific region will most certainly be volatile during the Obama administration and presents as many challenges and potential successes. On the problem front, you have North Korea who has shown a willingness to continue to test launch missiles that could eventually be loaded with nuclear material and who has shown an inconsistent hand in negotiations with its neighbors, especially South Korea and Japan. Also, the Obama administration, like the Clinton and Bush administration’s before it, will have to confront the rise of China and ponder how it can make China come to the negotiating table over controlling its greenhouse gas emissions and making the Yuan less undervalued against the American dollar. On the positive side, Obama has the potential to reshape the way America handles Myanmar’s generals and change a situation where isolation and sanctions have not produced the results America wants. Additionally, the Obama administration can try to improve China’s human rights record, although here it will face many challenges, especially over Tibet, and make Indonesia a closer ally of the United States, a move which would greatly aid in the war on terrorism.
Clinton’s trip began in Japan and is currently in South Korea as of the writing of this briefing. Thus far, she has sounded off about China’s economy, North Korea’s nuclear intentions, and how America needs a new policy for Myanmar.
Concerning China, Clinton has argued that the Chinese government needs to keep buying American debt. This came in response to rumors that the Chinese government was contemplating whether it wanted to continue to buy U.S. Treasury bonds and thus continue to extend a line of credit to the American government. Clinton has argued that it is in the best interest of the Chinese to continue to buy American debt because if they stop doing so it will limit the ability of the U.S. government to stimulate the economy. Considering that the American consumer is purchases a great deal of Chinese products, and that American demand is vital to keep China’s economy from continuing its declining growth trend, Clinton’s argument definitely holds water. However, rough roads may be ahead in the future because as The New York Times on February 22nd argues, Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have not yet agreed on who will handle China policy, which was given mostly to the Treasury Department under President Bush. This conflict will make a difference over how much the Obama administration intends to push China towards re-evaluating the yuan.
On North Korea, Clinton has used parts of the trip to say that North Korea having a nuclear weapons program is unacceptable, but that negotiations are the preferred step that the Obama administration wants to take. Clinton has indicated that President Bush unfairly walked away from the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea that was negotiated under the Clinton administration and that has caused some of the problems we have now in the Asian region. Clinton has also urged North Korea not to test launch a long range ballistic missile and that North Korea must engage its neighbors to emerge from isolation, as its two-year-old tantrums are getting old with its negotiating partners.
Myanmar is also a place where the Obama administration has refocused some of its efforts. An area that did not receive much attention during the Bush administration, Myanmar’s situation grows bleaker year after year as the country’s military junta continues to abuse its people, stifle the emergence of true democracy, and mismanage the country’s economy. Myanmar has been able to stay afloat thanks to oil and gas investments made by China, and with this support has been able to block major international action against its regime. America’s policy has been one of sanctions and isolation, but Clinton has said that America is looking at any new options that can get Myanmar’s generals to focus the country back on a democratic path. This may include working with Myanmar’s supporters, albeit dwindling, in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and seeing if any constructive dialogue there can make a major difference in the country’s politics.
Criticisms
While Clinton is abroad, there are still some critics at home that do not like what she is doing or how she is conducting America’s policy. The first reason is that they dislike the Obama team’s use of the term “smart power” to denote its foreign policy. Critics, such as former UN ambassador John Bolton, argue that this term is partisan and implies that the former administration used “dumb power” as its foreign policy strategy. While extempers might not like much of President Bush’s policies, it is obvious that not all of them were dumb. For example, Bush’s foreign policy in Africa was one of the better one’s of any recent president and the surge strategy has thus far worked in stabilizing Iraq, leading some to believe that Obama has been given a major gift there.
Second, there has been some criticism by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, that Clinton is not putting enough attention on human rights issues. While Clinton says that she is ready to negotiate with China over Tibet and to inform them of how the U.S. does favor less abuses of the Tibetan people, China is ready to counter with why the U.S. still gives support to Taiwan. Also, it has become clear from some of Clinton’s earlier talks that the U.S. wants to put greenhouse gas emissions and economic problems ahead of these concerns, prompting some to argue that the U.S. is sacrificing what is its long-term interest with short-term concerns that China will most likely refuse to meet (such as capping greenhouse gases and being more willing to negotiate over the yuan).
Finally, over North Korea there has been some criticism that the trip has done little to assuage world concerns over the potential of North Korea’s nuclear program to destabilize the region. Early words from Clinton indicate that the Obama administration does not want a North Korea with nuclear weapons, but does not eliminate the possibility of a North Korea with a peaceful nuclear program, which is as close to an oxymoron in foreign policy jargon as you can get. Also, critics allege that while Clinton shares in the plight of Japanese families who have loved ones abducted by North Korea, she is not learning that you cannot trust the regime, something she feeds into by alleging that the Bush administration failed to follow through with the 1994 Agreed Framework, despite the fact that North Korea was violating that framework to build a nuclear program and lied about it to the international community.
Ramifications
The first ramification for American foreign policy of this Asia tour is that it shows a new type of starpower in the State Department. On her tour so far, Clinton has been quizzed by crowds as much about her parenting skills and how she fell in love with her husband as sound policy choices. The Obama administration, already known for its flash and celebrity, seems to be translating more of this abroad, prompting some concerns that this will create too much of a campaign-like atmosphere into the foreign domain, where issues need to be solved with real solutions and hard words, not mere slogans. It as if to some degree that the 2008 election has not yet ended.
The second ramification is that Clinton has a new operating staff for what she does at the State Department, and that we are back on “Clinton time.” This means that arrivals and meetings start late, in contrast to Clinton’s predecessors, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice who began their meetings on time. Powell and Rice also had military or foreign policy analysts to guide them, while Clinton has used staffers from her White House and Senate days. This relaxed atmosphere could complicate American foreign policy or make it better. On one hand, it could make it great for the Obama team as foreign policy becomes more relaxed and the international community is more willing to work with the U.S. because it appears more genuine and more willing to listen to nation’s problems. On the other hand, it could be bad because a series of blunders such as Clinton’s off the cuff remarks, although she does not make them as often as Vice-President Joe Biden, that do not follow a traditional foreign policy script could damage some of Obama’s perception in the international community.
Finally, the final ramification of the ongoing Asia trip is that the Obama administration will have a far different way of reaching out to the world than the administration who came before it. With talk of greenhouse gas emissions as a serious international issue, talk of potentially engaging North Korea bilaterally, of trying a more regional solution to get Myanmar’s generals to embrace democracy, and talk of reaching out to Iran, the administration is putting its own mark on foreign policy, one that the world will have to adjust to, and quickly, as the Obama administration rolls along.