Hillary Clinton’s Internat’l Realism
By Paul Kendall

Sen. Hillary Clinton has now offered her vision of U.S. foreign policy in the current edition of "Foreign Affairs." It’s a perspective that is both transparently political and refreshingly candid, both a good stump speech and a bold re-assessment of global politics.

After a slow beginning of Bush-bashing and detailing the high costs of the Iraq war, the senator presents a philosophy of American strength and leadership that is hard to classify among the traditional foreign policy schools of thought. It is a non-ideological perspective stressing flexibility in the use of all the tools of statecraft: military power, diplomacy, multilateralism, international law, development assistance, and unilateralism.

In dealing with anti-Americanism, terrorism, and the diverse regional sources of unrest, for instance, she argues both for greater U.S. military and economic strength and for the need to demonstrate democracy’s ability to deliver material benefits to those seeking economic opportunity, education, and human rights. More specifically, in fighting terrorism, she would re-direct our armed forces toward Afghanistan and the Pakistani border, expand the use of special operations forces, and strengthen international alliances, intelligence, and judicial systems.

While gradually withdrawing our troops from Iraq, she would keep some there to separate the Kurds from Turkey; retain a military presence in the Gulf region to prevent a wider conflict; and pursue an international relief effort to assist the millions of Iraqi refugees displaced by the war.

With respect to the growing power of Cchina, a re-emergent Russia, and the emerging regional leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa, she clearly sees the significant military and economic challenges that they pose to our national interests. But instead of a chest-thumping, "go-get ‘em"-type response, she argues for a policy of focused engagement, stressing those points of common interest that hold the promise of greater global security and economic growth.

She would also pursue a parallel policy of strengthening other international alliances by making more room for the regional powers in such international forums as the United Nations and the G-8, by supporting the African Union, and by creating a Northeast Asian security regime with China and Japan.

To combat nuclear proliferation, Mrs. Clinton would seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a reduction in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a stronger Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, and the creation of an international nuclear–fuel bank. And finally, to restore economic opportunity as the centerpiece of our foreign assistance programs, she would seek congressional approval for an Education for All Act, appropriating $10 billion to train teachers and to build schools in the developing world.

There is no clear ideological bias in this group of proposals. Liberals, realists, conservatives, progressives, and internationalists will all have trouble welcoming her into their ranks. Instead of embracing any ideology, her knowledge of the issues and her grasp of the complexities of world events distance her from the traditional school of thought, without rejecting any of them. Hers is a heterogeneous perspective that this column calls International Realism.

It is an approach to foreign relations that seeks to advance our national interests by recognizing that in today’s multi–polar world, United States economic opportunity and the U.S. national security are directly linked to global opportunity and global security, neither of which can be achieved by our unilateral actions. It is an approach that admits the necessity of our having a strong national economy and a strong military but, wherever possible, pursues its objectives through international institutions and multilateral alliances.

There is no wishy-washy centrism or rudderless short-term pragmatism here. Nor is there a sense of pessimism or of defeatism about America’s future. Instead, Sen. Clinton demonstrates principled toughness without saber-rattling, and optimism without soft-headed idealism.

On the other hand, there are many issues that the senator does not discuss. Nowhere does she treat such central questions as America’s trade policy, the need for domestic fiscal discipline, the role and limits of the military’s mission, immigration reform, domestic surveillance, or the definition of terrorism. Nor does she chart a clear course through the thicket of Middle Eastern politics with Israel, the Arab States, and Iran.

Any of these issues could prove to be the Achilles heel of her broader efforts to restore America’s strength and leadership. Their omission, however, probably reflects more of a shrewd political calculus than any unintentional oversight. They are divisive issues among liberal-leaning Democrats and conservative-leaning Independents, votes from all of whom she will need in the general election.

As the presumptive Democratic front-runner, Sen. Clinton is therefore staking out both a challenging foreign policy vision and avoiding many details that could cost her votes from either the left or the right. It remains to be seen if she has correctly assessed the broader public’s willingness to embrace a different relationship with the world without knowing some of the essential details of how she would do it.

____________