Clinton: New reality demands different 'global architecture'

Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:53pm

Hillary Clinton, Council on Foreign Relations, July 15, 2009 | KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images 

In her superb foreign-policy speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Secretary Clinton (with her right arm free from a sling) presented an "ambitious agenda" that included the call for a different "global architecture" and announced that the United States was ready for engagement with Iran, though only for a limited window of time.

Hopefully now, all the talk of Clinton in the shadows has been put to rest.

Paraphrasing from my notes:

On global governance: No nation can solve the world's problems on its own. Most countries worry about the same threats. These two facts demand a different global architecture -- an architecture of cooperation. Not only are multilateral institutions important, but so are partnerships with people, including outreach through educational and entrepreneurial programs and connecting through technology.

On the new approach: The "you're with us or against us" approach is "global malpractice."

On Iran's election: Clinton said she was "appalled" by the way in which the Iranian government responded to protesters after June 12's disputed election.

On engaging Iran: Clinton said direct talks were the best way to get through to Iran on nuclear arms. However, she said the opportunity for talks would not remain open indefinitely. (Clinton did not say when that window of opportunity would close, though.)

On foreign aid: In keeping with the idea of "smart power," foreign assistance should be provided in an efficient manner to implement country-driven solutions. Development must focus on women as drivers of economic growth and a key to stability.

On the Taliban: Clinton talked about accepting members of the Taliban who reject al Qaeda and lay down their arms. (Perhaps this came from the lessons learned from de-Baathification in Iraq?)

Perhaps alluding to a "reset" in how the United States does foreign policy, Clinton quoted Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to start the world again."

As a side note, when introducing her, CFR President Richard Haass noted that six other secretaries of state have gone on to become U.S. presidents. Clinton smiled and shook her head at him while the audience laughed.

Two points I'd like to know more about:

•When does the opportunity for dialogue with Iran, which Clinton warned was not "indefinite," close exactly?

•What prompted her to talk of accepting Taliban members who reject al Qaeda and lay down their arms? In the question-and-answer session, she even said it could apply to other organizations.

Photo: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

Preeti Aroon | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Your second question

by Marianna on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 8:00pm

I believe that the recent events in Pakistan have prompted Secretary Clinton to discuss accepting Taliban members who reject al-Qaeda, and to ask that they lay down their arms. Clinton is not the first one to raise this issue publicly. President Obama put forward the same proposal last spring as his cabinet was in the middle of developing a strategy to respond to Taliban's territorial advances on the Afghan-Pakistani border. The pro-Taliban population in Pakistan's north-western provinces have been known to sympathize with al-Qaeda as a fellow ultra-conservative Islamic organization. At the same time, many in Taliban do not go as far as al-Qaeda to demand the creation of an Islamic caliphate. The Obama administration might be hoping to win this 'swinging' portion of the Taliban over to its side by promising economic aid and political stability. And laying down their arms would have to be a first step in this process.

We deny ourslves so much leverage by ignoring the settlements

by A balanced view on Thu, 07/16/2009 - 3:22pm

If we REALLY got tough with the Israelis and forced not only a freeze of settlements but a complete withdrawal of all settlers and the IDF, It would vastly improve our negotiating position on so many other middle eastern fronts.

Instead, we are simply restating what has been stated by the US as its "official" position for decades, while paying no attention to the reality of continuous settlement growth in both size and population. We are accepting the Israelis acceptance of a principle that has been long agreed upon and established (a two state solution) as some sort of breakthrough when in fact we have lost ground on that issue and are losing more every day as the settlements expand and the Israelis continue to go unpunished for their destabilizing, illegal behavior.