Clinton’s approach may make world a more dangerous place

HILLARY CLINTON sees America as a force for good in the world, but behind that world view lies the politics of interventionism, bullish diplomacy and military coercion. The question is, does that type of US foreign policy serve the interests of the developing South? And the answer is likely a resounding no.

That said, another Clinton presidency would be far preferable than the abyss that Donald Trump would lead the world into. Our only hope is that a Trump presidency never comes to pass.

With Clinton’s impressive gains on Super Tuesday this week, it looks increasingly likely that she will face off against Trump in November for the presidency, but then again, weeks are a lifetime in politics.

What concerns the rest of the world is what type of foreign policy Clinton would pursue. Her policy positions as secretary of state give definitive clues to what her stand would be on most international issues, but perhaps more important is her mindset when it comes to how to deal with threats and intractable issues globally.

What is particularly illustrative is that Vice-President Joe Biden has characterised her as an interventionist who believes “we have to do something when bad people do bad things”.

As her colleagues have noted, it is less about the humanitarian impulse to prevent injustice abroad than it is about the belief that only coercion works with refractory nations and leaders.

Hillary Clinton’s thinking was coloured by episodes in her husband Bill’s presidency in the 1990s, where a lack of military intervention in Rwanda in 1994 resulted in a failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide, whereas aggressive Nato military intervention in Bosnia in 1995 produced what she perceived as “success”, with the signing of the Dayton peace accords later that year.

It is telling that one of Clinton’s current foreign policy advisers in her campaign is former secretary of state from the 1990s Madeleine Albright.

Her attitude towards global politics was further shaped by her role on the Senate armed services committee from 2003 to 2009, where she treated military officers with great deference and tended to take her cues from Robert Gates, who went on to become defence secretary. It was during this period that she developed the view that there was a need to take coercive measures in the face of threats.

As secretary of state, where President Barack Obama wanted to diminish the size of America’s military footprint, Clinton wanted to flex America’s military muscles as part of her faith in America’s global leadership. Her famous line was, “The US can, must and will lead”.

This world view has underpinned most of her foreign policy positions, and compelled her to push for greater US military interventionism under Obama, without much thought for what would come the day after, let alone the decade after. Perhaps this has been her greatest failing, and there is little evidence to suggest she has learnt the lessons from the descent of Iraq, Libya and Syria into utter chaos.

Obama was not initially keen to intervene militarily in Libya, but as Defence Secretary Robert Gates later said it was Clinton’s support for the bombing campaign in Libya that was critical in persuading Obama to join other allies. Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy called Clinton “tough and bullish on intervening in Libya – the perfect ally.”

The US military intervention in Libya resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe of a different kind, which now poses a major security threat to the region. For Obama, Libya underscored his doubts about the ability of US power to shape outcomes in other countries.

The same cannot be said of Clinton. Even in Syria, as secretary of state, Clinton believed in using force as a tool of diplomacy, and advocated arming the opposition rebels, only to find that Syria has spun out of control. The proliferation of extremist armed groups now poses an even greater threat to the region and to Europe.

On Afghanistan, Clinton had stood with the generals, again an advocate of military force as she believed “the Taliban would never negotiate if they think they are winning militarily”. She was averse to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan too hastily, but she also overestimated the capacity of the US to make Afghanistan politically or militarily self-sustaining.

Clinton’s foreign policy posture has changed very little since her campaign against Obama for president in 2007. During the presidential debate in July 2007, both candidates were asked if they would meet the leaders of Iran and North Korea without preconditions. Obama said he would, and Clinton said she would not. Clinton had called Obama’s answer irresponsible and naive.

Clinton has proved herself to be a very different kind of democrat to Obama, where rivalry is to be managed, not transcended. The shortcoming of this attitude is that it may, in fact, make the world a more dangerous place.